Manichaean

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Sat Jul 27 2019, NEWGEN iii A Guide to Early Jewish Texts and Traditions in Christian Transmission Alexander Kulik Editor-in-chief Gabriele Boccaccini, Lorenzo DiTommaso, David Hamidović, Michael E. Stone Associate editors With the assistance of Jason M. Zurawski 1 9780190863074_Book.indb 3 27-Jul-19 9:48:26 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Sat Jul 27 2019, NEWGEN iv 1 Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America. © Oxford University Press 2019 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Kulik, Alexander, editor. Title: A guide to early Jewish texts and traditions in Christian transmission / Alexander Kulik, editor-in-chief ; Gabriele Boccaccini, Lorenzo DiTommaso, David Hamidovic, Michael E. Stone, associate editors; with the assistance of Jason M. Zurawski. Description: New York : Oxford University Press, 2019. | Includes index. Identifiers: LCCN 2019009757 (print) | LCCN 2019980024 (ebook) | ISBN 9780190863074 (hardcover) | ISBN 9780190863104 (online content) | ISBN 9780190863098 (ebook) | ISBN 9780190863081 (pdf ) Subjects: LCSH: Rabbinical literature—History and criticism. | Transmission of texts. | Judaism—Relations—Christianity. | Christianity and other religions—Judaism. | Judaism—History—Post-exilic period, 586 B.C.-210 A.D. | Judaism—History—Talmudic period, 10-425. Classification: LCC BM496.6 .G85 2019 (print) | LCC BM496.6 (ebook) | DDC 296.109—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019009757 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019980024 1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2 Printed by Sheridan Books, Inc., United States of America 9780190863074_Book.indb 4 27-Jul-19 9:48:26 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Sat Jul 27 2019, NEWGEN v Contents Acknowledgments List of Contributors Introduction: The Voice of Jacob Alexander Kulik A. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 9780190863074_Book.indb 5 vii ix 1 Traditions Greek William Adler Latin Robert A. Kraft Ethiopic Pierluigi Piovanelli Slavonic Alexander Kulik Coptic Jacques van der Vliet Syriac Sergey Minov Armenian Michael E. Stone Georgian Jost Gippert Christian Arabic John C. Reeves 7 23 35 49 73 95 139 165 195 27-Jul-19 9:48:26 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Sat Jul 27 2019, NEWGEN vi vi Co n t en ts 10. 11. Irish Martin McNamara Germanic Brian Murdoch B. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 22. 23. 24. The “Old Testament Pseudepigrapha” as Category and Corpus Lorenzo DiTommaso Flavius Josephus Michael Tuval Philo of Alexandria Gregory E. Sterling Armenian Philonic Corpus Abraham Terian Minor Jewish Hellenistic Authors Folker Siegert Early Jewish Liturgical Texts Folker Siegert Qumran Texts David Hamidović Enochic Traditions Gabriele Boccaccini The Jewish Calendar and Jewish Sciences Jonathan Ben-Dov 26. Rabbinic and Post-Rabbinic Jewish Martha Himmelfarb Gnostic Dylan M. Burns Manichaean John C. Reeves Islamic John C. Reeves 281 299 317 331 355 363 383 417 431 449 469 481 Trajectories of Traditions “The Pseudepigrapha Crescent” and a Taxonomy of How Christians Shaped Jewish Traditions and Texts James Hamilton Charlesworth The Reception and Interpretation of “Old Testament” Figures in Literature and Art from Antiquity through the Reformation:Studies, 1983–2018 Lorenzo DiTommaso Indices 9780190863074_Book.indb 6 253 Comparative Perspectives: Alternative Modes of Transmission D. 25. 237 Corpora C. 21. 211 499 517 533 27-Jul-19 9:48:26 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Fri Jul 26 2019, NEWGEN 469 23 Manichaean John C. Reeves Works Discussed 1 Enoch 2 Enoch Jubilees Testament of Adam Baldly stating that Mani and the initial generations of his followers were readers and transmitters of biblically affiliated apocryphal and pseudepigraphical writings will not break any new ground in the study of ancient Jewish and Christian literature. A few church fathers who were familiar with their teachings or writings thoughtfully say as much, and the earliest modern students of Manichaeism already devote some pages of their expositions to discussing this aspect of the religion.1 Thanks to a series of manuscript discoveries beginning in the early twentieth century and continuing up to the present day, we are now in a better position to assess the dimensions of this posited dependence. Significant troves of authentically Manichaean works in Coptic, Middle Iranian (Parthian, Middle Persian, and Sogdian), Old Turkic, and Chinese were recovered from the sands and caves of Egypt and central Asia. Fragmentary papyri in Greek, Latin, and Syriac have added to our scant corpus of primary texts and to the considerably larger fund of descriptive secondary sources 1. See, e.g.., I. de Beausobre, Histoire critique de Manichée et du manichéisme (2 vols.; Amsterdam: J. F. Bernard, 1734–39), 1.428–29. For Beausobre’s groundbreaking importance, see J. Ries, Les études manichéennes: Des controverses de la Réforme aux découvertes du XXe siècle (Louvain-la-Neuve: Centre d’histoire des religions, 1988), 36–42; and G. G. Stroumsa, A New Science: The Discovery of Religion in the Age of Reason (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010), 113–23. 9780190863074_Book.indb 469 27-Jul-19 9:49:10 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Fri Jul 26 2019, NEWGEN 470 470 John C. R eeves which exist in those classical languages. But perhaps the most important discovery to date has been that of the so-called Cologne Mani Codex, a tiny Greek parchment book which shows traces of having been translated from a Semitic language Vorlage, and which purports to provide an autobiographical account of Mani’s earliest years as a religious teacher and proselytizer.2 As a result of these finds, it seems incumbent to prepare a more structured and systematic discussion of the various ways that Mani and his followers encountered, expropriated, adapted, and reformulated a wide range of Jewish and Christian parascriptural writings for their own communal purposes. Some of the previous treatments of this topic have foundered because of their inability to recognize that Manichaeism is not a Zoroastrian aberration, but is in fact a species of Syro-Mesopotamian Christianity that exhibits a number of doctrinal and behavioral affinities with its regional predecessors and contemporaries. These include groups like those responsible for the Pseudo-Clementine literature or hymns like the Odes of Solomon, groups who aligned themselves with influential “sectarian” teachers, such as Elchasai, Marcion, Bardaiṣan, or Valentinus, and groups who were sympathetic to the notion of revelatory teachings and/or redemptive significance associated with the primeval biblical heroes Adam, Seth, and their immediate progeny or who as a result of such sympathy, inculcated distinctive sexual, dietary, or purity rituals like those practiced by the group termed by the eleventh-century Muslim polymath al-Bīrūnī “the real Ṣābians,”3 a south Mesopotamian baptist community of Palestinian origin that is in all likelihood identical with the gnostic Mandaeans. The oft-alleged Manichaean rejection of the Jewish Bible must be viewed through this wider lens of adaptation, appropriation, and revision. What might appear to be hostility toward the Jewish Bible tout court is in fact a much more nuanced critique of how the “ancestral scriptures” were misunderstood, or in some cases even deliberately distorted, by their present-day custodians.4 The Manichaean reliance upon “Bible” and biblically allied parascriptural texts and traditions is well attested among both authentic Manichaean sources and the literature produced by their opponents, although it remains a remarkably understudied facet of the religion of Manichaeism by modern scholars. Much of the religion’s conceptual structure is arguably tied to particular readings of Jewish (and Christian) scriptural texts,5 and it may even be possible that the name “Mani” (“My vessel”) itself is the product of a wordplay rooted in the language of Acts 9:15, where the risen Jesus designates the apostle Paul as “My chosen vessel.”6 One observes, for example, that a counterversion of the legends 2. L. Koenen and C. Römer, eds., Der Kölner Mani-Kodex: Über das Werden seines Leibes. Kritische Edition aufgrund der von A. Henrichs und L. Koenen besorgten Erstedition (Pap. Col. 14; Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1988). 3. Abu’l-Rayḥān Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Bīrūnī, Kitāb al-āthār al-bāqiya ‘ani’l-qurūn al-khāliya: Chronologie orientalischer Völker von Albêrûnî, ed. C. E. Sachau (Leipzig, 1878; repr., Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1923), 318.12. 4. See, e.g.., J. C. Reeves, “Manichaeans as Ahl al-Kitāb: A Study in Manichaean Scripturalism,” in A. Lange et al., eds., Light against Darkness: Dualism in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and the Contemporary World (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 249–65. 5. By the syntagma “scriptural texts” I intend both “canonical” and “apocryphal” writings. 6. Desmond Durkin-Meisterernst, “Eznik on Manichaeism,” Iran and the Caucasus 16 (2012): 1–3. 9780190863074_Book.indb 470 27-Jul-19 9:49:10 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Fri Jul 26 2019, NEWGEN 471 M a n ich a ea n 471 recounted in Genesis 2–4 about the primeval ancestors of humanity enjoyed a wide distribution among Manichaean communities,7 and a distinctive feature of this counterversion even seems to have impressed a Babylonian Jewish magician involved in the incantation bowl trade of southern Mesopotamia in late antiquity.8 Akin to but by no means identical with the sizeable corpus of Genesis-like texts and testimonies generated by or attributed to different biblically affiliated groups in the Hellenistic, Roman, Sasanian, and Islamicate worlds, it exhibits an impressive number of motifs which align it with Jewish sources in general and with Second Temple era productions in particular.9 For the sake of expediting and systematizing our discussion, I will sketch the Manichaean use of apocryphal and pseudepigraphical sources utilizing three broad rubrics. 1. Historical Expropriation and Adaptation The first rubric might be labeled that of “the historical expropriation and adaptation of older integral literary compositions.” Pride of place must be given here to the so-called Book of Giants, a text ascribed to the authorial hand of Mani himself by most of the internal catalogues and external testimonia that incorporate lists or descriptions of wellknown Manichaean writings. A considerable number of manuscript fragments of or allusions to this work have been recovered by archaeologists and philologists over the past century in a wide assortment of linguistic registers.10 Thanks to the brilliant studies of W. B. Henning11 and J. T. Milik,12 we now know that Mani’s “Book of Giants” is actually rooted in a Jewish Aramaic work forming part of the larger corpus of literature associated with the seventh biblical forefather Enoch produced during the Second Temple period which was recovered from the caves of Qumran. As Milik and subsequent scholars have shown, the textual remnants of Mani’s “book” can shed light on the frequent lacunae in the Dead Sea Scrolls witnesses, whereas the pre-Christian Aramaic fragments are still useful for restoring and ordering the Manichaean witnesses even though a full millennium separates these Jewish and Manichaean versions. Numerous questions surround Mani’s use of this particular writing, questions that would become much more difficult to answer if we were to acquiesce to the sometimes enunciated claims about Mani’s alleged abhorrence for 7. Reeves, “Manichaeans as Ahl al-Kitāb,” esp. 256–64; Reeves, Heralds of That Good Realm: Syro-Mesopotamian Gnosis and Jewish Traditions (NHMS 41; Leiden: Brill, 1996), 79–88; and Reeves, Prolegomena to a History of Islamicate Manichaeism (Sheffield, UK: Equinox, 2011), 194–97. 8. J. C. Reeves, “Manichaica Aramaica? Adam and the Magical Deliverance of Seth,” JAOS 119 (1999): 432–39. 9. See, e.g.., Reeves, Heralds, 100–109. 10. Perhaps even in Syriac, if one accepts this attribution given to the newly published Berlin papyrus fragments by their editors. See N. A. Pedersen and J. Møller Larsen, Manichaean Texts in Syriac: First Editions, New Editions, and Studies (CFM, Series Syriaca 1; Turnhout: Brepols, 2013). 11. W. B. Henning, “The Book of the Giants,” BSOAS 11 (1943–1946): 52–74. 12. J. T. Milik, “Problèmes de la littérature hénochique à la lumière des fragments araméennes de Qumran,” HTR 64 (1971): 333–78, esp. 366–72; Milik, “Turfan et Qumran: Livre des Géants juif et manichéen,” in G. Jeremias et al., eds., Tradition und Glaube: Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 117–27, and Milik, The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976), 298–339. 9780190863074_Book.indb 471 27-Jul-19 9:49:10 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Fri Jul 26 2019, NEWGEN 472 472 John C. R eeves “Jewish” scriptures. What were the circumstances which led to Mani’s encounter with this obscure text? How were its contents transmitted to (presumably) southern Mesopotamia or locales farther east,13 and in what language(s) were they written or recited? Why did Mani choose to embrace this work as an appropriate vehicle for the impartation of his dualist religious teachings? Were there other older writings or oral constellations of preChristian Palestinian provenance to which Mani was also privy? The arresting fact that the only pre-Manichaean survivals of this “Book of Giants” to be discovered to date occur among the Dead Sea Scrolls, a literary deposit which is surrounded by its own host of problems and unanswered questions, makes this unexpected yet indisputable textual nexus even more intriguing and worthy of detailed examination. Well-known examples of the wholesale appropriation of apocryphal and pseudepigraphical sources by Mani and/or Manichaeans include “novelistic accounts, filled in their turn with visions, voyages, and dramas, that the Aramaean Christians had built up around their favorite apostles: the apocryphal Acts of John, Peter, Paul, Andrew, and Thomas.”14 Credit for the compilation of one or more of these apocryphal works is sometimes given to one Leucius Charinus, dubbed by the Decretum Gelasianum “a disciple of the Devil,” and accused by a medieval author posing as Jerome of being “a disciple of Mani.”15 A recently published papyrus fragment from the fourth-century Manichaean community at Kellis (Ismant el-Kharab) in Egypt—P. Kell. Gr. 97—contains portions of a text which “contains a concentration of allusions” to the contents of Acts of John 84, 85, 106, and 109.16 Manichaeism was also a repository for eastern non-canonical gospel traditions, including those belonging to the second-century harmony known as the Diatessaron and the infamous Gospel of Thomas, the latter of which was sometimes branded a Manichaean forgery by its ancient and medieval foes. While “biblical” in its broadest connotative sense, these formally “Christian” compositions do not really fit our present purposes, other than to underscore the healthy appetite of Manichaeism for the biblically infused works 13. Apart from the fictional accounts of his brief westward foray in the tendentious Acta Archelai and its satellite works, Mani himself never breached the borders of the Roman Empire. 14. Quoted from M. Tardieu, Manichaeism, trans. M. B. DeBevoise (Urbana/Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2008), 31. See, e.g., P. Nagel, “Die apokryphen Apostelakten des 2. und 3. Jahrhunderts in der manichäischen Literatur: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach den christlichen Elementen in Manichäismus,” in K.-W. Tröger, ed., Gnosis und Neues Testament: Studien aus Religionswissenschaft und Theologie (Gütersloh: Mohn, 1973), 149–82; and J.D. Kaestli, “L’utilisation des actes apocryphes des apôtres dans le manichéisme,” in M. Krause, ed., Gnosis and Gnosticism: Papers Read at the Seventh International Conference on Patristic Studies (Oxford, September 8th–13th 1975) (NHS 8; Leiden: Brill, 1977), 107–16. 15. M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924), xx–xxi and 71; and K. Schäferdiek, “The Manichaean Collection of Apocryphal Acts ascribed to Leucius Charinus,” in R. McL. Wilson, trans. and ed., New Testament Apocrypha, rev. ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 2.87–100. The most comprehensive treatment is that of R. A. Lipsius, Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden: Ein Beitrag zur altchristlichen Literaturgeschichte (2 vols. in 3; Braunschweig: C. A. Schwetschke und Sohn, 1883–87), 1.44–117. 16. I. Gardner, ed., Kellis Literary Texts, vol. 2 (Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph 15; Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2007), 94–110, quotation from 104. The relationship of this papyrus text to the Acts of John was first noticed by G. Jenkins, “Papyrus 1 From Kellis: A Greek Text with Affinities to the Acts of John,” in J. N. Bremmer, ed., The Apocryphal Acts of John (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1995), 197–216. 9780190863074_Book.indb 472 27-Jul-19 9:49:10 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Fri Jul 26 2019, NEWGEN 473 M a n ich a ea n 473 circulating among a variety of Christian communities during the first three centuries of the Common Era. Another work that may belong in this discussion is one that is referenced in the fourth-century Coptic Manichaean treatise known as the Kephalaia, a prominent collection of early Manichaean discourses.17 Therein a group of Mani’s disciples are depicted questioning their teacher (i.e., Mani) about a passage “wr[itten in] the prayer of Sethel, the first-born son of [Ad]am. As he says: ‘You are glorious, you fourteen great [ae]ons of [lig]ht.’ Tell us, our master, what are the [f ]ourteen grea[t a]eons of light?”18 In response to their query, Mani goes on to interpret this particular quotation using theologoumena drawn from his distinctive cosmogonic teachings. Several things are of interest in this putative citation. The cognomen “Sethel,” which was probably formed by appending the popular Semitic “angelic” suffix -(i)el to the Hebrew proper name Seth (Gen 4:25), is one that is especially favored by Syro-Mesopotamian “gnostic” groups like the Manichaeans and the Mandaeans. It presumably reinforces the quasi-divine status of its referent as one who was created “in the image and likeness of God” (Gen 5:3).19 This particular biblical character of course plays a very important role in a number of biblically affiliated religious communities in the Near East during late antiquity and even the Middle Ages, where he is variously described as either the carnal or spiritual ancestor of the successive generations of the “righteous ones” (which is incidentally the Semitic language self-designation for the Manichaeans), as an important link in the chain of revelatory knowledge bequeathed to humanity, and as the human avatar of a heavenly entity devoted to rescuing the lost souls who, according to some anthropogenic teachings, are trapped in the material world.20 His epithet as Adam’s “firstborn son” highlights Seth’s standing among these communities as the sole legitimate offspring of the Protoplast, thereby tainting the biblical Cain and Abel as the genealogical products of an illicit demonic or archonic coupling with the human matriarch, an assertion of quintessential alterity that can be traced as far back as their divergent colors in the so-called “Animal Apocalypse” of what eventually becomes 1 Enoch (see 1 En. 85.3–8). It is not necessarily the case that Mani was directly influenced by this Enochic tale; after all, the hint of a suspect parentage for the biblical Cain is widespread and is arguably just beneath the surface of the “canonized” reading of Gen 4:1. But given Mani’s demonstrable fondness for the figure of Enoch and his reputed role as a visionary prophet and author, it does raise some suggestive questions about the breadth of his knowledge with regard to indubitably Second Temple period Jewish works. Finally, the supposed reference in the “Prayer of Sethel” to the 17. Manichäische Handschriften der Staatlichen Museen, Berlin, Band I: Kephalaia, 1. Hälfte, ed. H. J. Polotsky and A. Böhlig (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1934–1940); Manichäische Handschriften der Staatlichen Museen, Berlin, 2. Hälfte (Lfg. 11/12), ed. A. Böhlig (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1966); and I. Gardner, The Kephalaia of the Teacher (NHMS 37; Leiden: Brill, 1995). 18. Keph. 42.28-32; translation is that of Gardner, Kephalaia, 48. 19. Note the extended discussion in Reeves, Heralds, 112–17. 20. See, e.g., J. C. Reeves, “Seth,” in J. J. Collins and D. C. Harlow, eds., The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 1221–22. 9780190863074_Book.indb 473 27-Jul-19 9:49:10 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Fri Jul 26 2019, NEWGEN 47 474 John C. R eeves “fourteen great aeons of Light” finds its closest analogue in an enigmatic passage quoted by the third-century church father Hippolytus from a so-called “Gospel of Thomas” used by a “gnostic” Christian sect known as the Naassenes, where Jesus is represented as saying: “The one who seeks after me will find me in children from the seventh year onward; for it is there that I reveal myself, hidden away in the fourteenth aeon.”21 With regard to the second clause of this pronouncement, no equivalent passage occurs in the extant Coptic or Greek recensions of this apocryphal gospel. One wonders whether the recently discovered Greek “Prayer of Seth” that is fragmentarily preserved on the lower section of a single papyrus leaf (P. Berol. 17207) had any connection with the “Prayer of Sethel” that was apparently esteemed by nascent Manichaeism.22 The aforementioned Cologne Mani Codex features an impressive sequence of what are formally introduced as citations from written works ascribed respectively to Adam, Sethel, Enosh, Shem, Enoch, Paul, and finally Mani himself, identified as the “True Paraclete” (CMC 63.16–23). These citations are united thematically by their insistence that authentic revelatory knowledge only comes from figures who experienced a heavenly ascent and who furthermore accurately recorded it in writing for the benefit of future generations. A similar emphasis upon these specific qualifications pervades the ideological substructure of Manichaeism. Mani’s own authority as a “true prophet” or “apostle of the Light-Nous” is grounded in his meetings with his supernal “twin,” at least one of which involved a tour of the heavenly realm, and in his diligent registration of the truths which he learned in his own writings. The deliberate positioning of Mani at the climactic final point in its seven-member chain of “most blessed apostles, saviors, evangelists, and true prophets” (CMC 62.10–14) underscores the smooth compatibility of the third-century Babylonian teacher’s teachings with those of his biblically affiliated predecessors, accentuating the claim found in some later Islamicate sources that Mani claimed to being “the seal of the prophets”; i.e., the final messenger from God who confirms the veracity of his spiritual forebears and marks the dawning of the eschatological age. The rhetorical power of this kind of argument is undeniable. But a serious problem lurks beneath its seeming structural integrity. That is why the first five “apocalypses” of Adam, Sethel, Enosh, Shem, and Enoch are perhaps better considered under a second classificatory rubric; namely, that of “the forgery by Manichaean teachers and scribal circles of falsely ascribed writings.”23 21. Hippol., Refutatio 5.7.20; see P. Wendland, ed., Hippolytus Werke, dritter Band: Refutatio omnium haeresium (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1916), 83.10–16. For this correlation, see H. H. Schaeder, “[Rez. von Carl Schmidt und H. J. Polotsky, Ein Mani-Fund aus Ägypten],” Gnomon 9 (1933): 337–62 at 353 n. 2. Further suggestive uses of the number “fourteen” are catalogued by A. Böhlig, “Jüdisches und Iranisches in der Adamapokalypse des Codex V von Nag Hammadi,” in his Mysterion und Wahrheit: Gesammelte Beiträge zur spätantiken Religionsgeschichte (Leiden: Brill, 1968), 149–61; and G. Stroumsa, Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology (NHS 24; Leiden: Brill, 1984), 94 n. 51. It is unclear why Böhlig would use the label “mandäische” to modify the “Prayer of Sethel” quoted in the Kephalaia (152 n. 3), since to my knowledge there is no such pseudepigraphon in Mandaean literature. 22. W. Brashear, “Seth-Gebet,” Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 42 (1996): 26–34. 23. Suggested independently by Reeves, Heralds, 17; and D. Frankfurter, “Apocalypses Real and Imagined in the Mani Codex,” Numen 44 (1997): 60–73. For the latest discussion, see J. C. Reeves, “Alleged Jewish Pseudepigrapha Cited in the Cologne Mani Codex: A New Translation and Introduction,” forthcoming, in R. Bauckham et al., eds., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans). 9780190863074_Book.indb 474 27-Jul-19 9:49:10 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Fri Jul 26 2019, NEWGEN 475 M a n ich a ea n 475 2. Forgery While a relatively large number of pseudepigraphic writings circulated under the names of Adam, Seth, and Enoch during late antiquity and the medieval era, neither Enosh (outside of Mandaeism) nor Shem (apart from his assimilation to the enigmatic figure of Melchizedek) accumulate much narrative interest beyond their “biblical” presentations within mainstream Jewish or Christian circles. It is primarily among those groups labeled “gnostic” by ancient interpreters and modern researchers that Enosh and Shem achieve notoriety as authors and as privileged recipients of revelations from heavenly emissaries. A close reading of these first five apocalypses in the Cologne Mani Codex reveals a remarkable uniformity in the way each one is constructed, a circumstance which hints at artificiality rather than authenticity. The fact that none of these purported quotations can be located in the extant pseudepigrapha emanating from their named authors increases the likelihood of their novelty. Although there are some interesting intersections with some of the motifs and themes found in Jewish Hekhalot texts and Mandaean ascent-narratives, there are also a disturbing series of prominent verbal and thematic overlaps with Manichaean literature. I see therefore little reason to alter what I said over twenty years ago about these particular texts: “They are almost certainly not authentic products of those Jewish scribal circles responsible for the manufacture and distribution of biblically inspired pseudepigraphic literature in the eastern Mediterranean world during the Persian, Hellenistic, or Roman eras of Jewish history.”24 Another likely candidate for classification as a possible Manichaean forgery is the so-called “Prophecy of Zardūsht,” a Syriac text that is transmitted in two slightly variant versions as a “Christian” proof-text by Theodore bar Konai and Solomon of Baṣra.25 We also have unmistakable allusions to this same composition in the so-called Arabic Gospel of the Infancy,26 the Syriac gospel commentary of Īshō‘dād of Marw,27 the tenth-century Syriac-Arabic dictionary of Bar Bahlūl,28 and the Arabic version of the so-called “secular history” of Bar Hebraeus.29 In this text, the Iranian prophet Zoroaster (= Zardūsht) is represented as having predicted to his followers the eventual advent of Jesus, the Christian Messiah. He instructs them about the signs heralding his arrival, and commands them to 24. Quoted from Reeves, Heralds, 210. 25. A. Scher, ed., Theodore bar Konai, Liber Scholiorum (CSCO, scrip. syri series II, 65–66; Paris: Carolus Poussielgue, 1910–1912), 2.74–75; and E. A. W. Budge, ed., The Book of the Bee (Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic Series 1.2; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1886), 89–90 (text). 26. H. Sike, Injīl al-ṭufūlīya: Euangelium infantiae, vel liber apocryphus de infantia Servatoris (Utrecht: Franciscum Halmam, Guiljelmum vande Water, 1697), 16–17; and J. K Thilo, ed., Codex apocryphus Novi Testamenti (Leipzig: Frid. Christ. Gvilielmi Vogel, 1832), 70–71. 27. M. Dunlop Gibson, ed., The Commentaries of Isho‘dad of Merv, Bishop of Ḥadatha (c. 850 a.d.) in Syriac and English (HSem 5-7, 10-11; 5 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911–1916), 1.19 and 2.32–33 (text). 28. R. Duval, ed., Lexicon Syriacum auctore Hassano Bar Bahlule (3 vols.; Paris: E reipublicae typographaeo, 1888–1901), 2.1825–26. 29. Bar Hebraeus, Ta’rīkh mukhtaṣar al-duwal (ed. A. Ṣāliḥānī; Beirut: Imprimerie catholique, 1890), 83. There is no parallel for this material in the Syriac version of his “secular history.” 9780190863074_Book.indb 475 27-Jul-19 9:49:10 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Fri Jul 26 2019, NEWGEN 476 476 John C. R eeves send messengers to him bearing gifts in order to “offer worship to him.” Many have viewed this “Prophecy” as an eastern Christian attempt to incorporate and adapt Zoroastrian notions about the eschatological appearance of the Saošyant or World Savior for apologetic or evangelistic purposes. But some of the language and many of the themes present in this work are perhaps better understood within a Manichaean matrix. For example, the repeated statements therein of the essential identity of the speaker (Zoroaster) and the future crucified redeemer ( Jesus/Mani) expresses a fundamental tenet of Manichaean prophetology whereby a single supernal entity—the Apostle of the Light-Nous—periodically returns to the physical plane in different human guises to proclaim a uniform message of salvific knowledge to humankind. I have therefore suggested that this “Prophecy of Zardūsht” was perhaps originally a Manichaean tract which was subsequently taken over and tweaked by eastern Christian scholastics to advance their own propagandistic agenda.30 Another largely unrecognized possibility for a Manichaean pseudepigraphon occurs within the unique anonymous eighth-century Syriac universal history known as the Chronicle of Zūqnīn.31 An integral source which is identified at its outset as a “Revelation of the Magi,”32 and in its colophon as “a narrative about the Magi and their gifts,”33 it is closely related to a number of other textual traditions which display an interest in the transmission of hidden knowledge like the aforementioned “Prophecy of Zardūsht,” the Cave of Treasures cycle of legendry, and the traditions attributed to Pseudo- Chrysostom (the Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum) about the visit of the New Testament Magi to Bethlehem (Matt 2:1–12). Like the “Prophecy of Zardūsht,” this text features some intriguing linguistic and thematic hints of a Syro-Mesoptamian “gnostic” provenance whose full explication remains a desideratum.34 3. Motifs, Themes, and/or Structural Elements A third classificatory rubric for studying the impact of early apocryphal and pseudepigraphical works on Mani and Manichaeism involves the close reading of Manichaean writings in order to detect and compile “the presence of motifs, themes, and/or structural elements which find their (ideally) sole or closest parallels to material that is present in 30. Reeves, Heralds, 127–29; and Reeves, “Reconsidering the ‘Prophecy of Zardūšt’,” in B. G. Wright, ed., A Multiform Heritage: Studies on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Robert A. Kraft (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1999), 167–82. This interpretation has been accepted by Richard Foltz, Religions of Iran: From Prehistory to the Present (London: Oneworld, 2013), 116. 31. J.-B. Chabot, ed., Incerti auctoris Chronicon Pseudo-Dionysianum uulgo dictum (2 vols.; CSCO 91 and 104; Paris: Reipublicae, 1927–33). 32. Ibid., 1.57.1. 33. Ibid., 1.91.2–3. 34. See G. Widengren, Iranisch-semitische Kulturbegegnung in parthischer Zeit (Köln/Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1960), 71–83; Reeves, Heralds, 120–22; and A. Y. Reed, Review of The Revelation of the Magi: The Lost Tale of the Wise Men’s Journey to Bethlehem by Brent Landau, Sino-Platonic Papers 208 (2011): 36–54, esp. 50–51. The translation and analysis of this source by B. Landau, Revelation of the Magi: The Lost Tale of the Wise Men’s Journey to Bethlehem (New York: HarperOne, 2010), is undermined by sensationalist claims and an absence of critical rigor. 9780190863074_Book.indb 476 27-Jul-19 9:49:10 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Fri Jul 26 2019, NEWGEN 47 M a n ich a ea n 477 extant Jewish and/or Christian apocryphal works.” This is admittedly the most problematic category, for it allows for some subjectivity when assessing these sources. For example, did Mani have access to a wider range of Enochic literature than what is textually evidenced by the “Book of Giants”? Henning, Tubach, Reeves, and other scholars have suggested that Mani and nascent Manichaeism were familiar with and constructively adapted actors, motifs, and themes from early Enochic booklets such as the “Book of the Watchers” and the “Astronomical Book” (1 En. 72–82).35 It has also been proposed that Mani may have known and used forms of “later” Enochic works like the “Similitudes” (1 En. 37–71) and what eventually achieved written registration as 2 Enoch.36 If the latter dependencies are cogent, this would be particularly important given the troubling uncertainties surrounding the dating and authorship of these two texts since it would supply them with a firm terminus a quo in the mid-third century. Other likely candidates for Manichaean exploitation include any early Jewish or Christian “scriptural text” which features discussions about divine operations during the creation week, stories about the initial generations of humanity up to and including the universal Deluge, narratives recounting the transmission of knowledge from heavenly entities to favored individuals on earth, and eschatological descriptions or reflections on the end of the present age and its replacement by an uncorrupted order of reality. Mani and the religion he founded had a demonstrable interest in these kinds of teachings. This widens the range of possibilities from which Mani and the initial generations of Manichaean proselytizers might choose. We learn, for example, from Ibn al-Nadīm that one of the chapters in Mani’s largely lost canonical work entitled the Book of Mysteries discussed “the testimony of Adam about Jesus”:37 I would argue this almost certainly signals Mani’s use of a work very similar to the Christian pseudepigraphon known as the Testament of Adam.38 Typological associations of the biblical figures “Adam” and “Jesus” are of course as old as the writings of the Christian apostle Paul during the mid-first century, and Mani had a keen interest in the revelatory activities purportedly exercised by early biblical characters like Adam, Seth, and Enoch. The crucial question is whether a text like the Testament of Adam with its explicit Christological claims would have already been available for Mani to exploit during the mid-third century ce. All of our physical evidence for this specific work dates from a later period, although the ideological scaffolding for the delineation of a cyclical series of “true prophets” may go back to at least the late first century of the Common Era.39 Moreover 35. Henning, “Book of the Giants,” 52–74; J. Tubach, “Spuren des astronomischen Henochbuches bei den Manichäern Mittelasiens,” in P. O. Scholz and R. Stempel, eds., Nubia et Oriens Christianus: Festschrift für C. Detlef G. Müller zum 60. Geburtstag (Köln: J. Dinter, 1987), 73–95; J. C. Reeves, Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony: Studies in the Book of Giants Traditions (Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 1992). 36. J. C. Reeves, “Jewish Pseudepigrapha in Manichaean Literature: The Influence of the Enochic Library,” in Reeves, ed., Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha (SBLEJL 6; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1994), 173–203, esp. 183ff. 37. Ibn al-Nadīm, Kitāb al-Fihrist, ed. Riḍa Tajaddud (Tehran: Maktabat al-Assadī, 1971), 399.20–21; and Reeves, Prolegomena, 107. 38. So too P. Alfaric, Les écritures manichéennes (2 vols.; Paris: E. Nourry, 1918–1919), 2.149–51. 39. See Reeves, Heralds, 7–15. 9780190863074_Book.indb 477 27-Jul-19 9:49:11 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Fri Jul 26 2019, NEWGEN 478 478 John C. R eeves the textual remains of the so-called “Prophecy” section of the Testament of Adam—the locus where Adam is represented as giving a “testimony” about Jesus–exhibit some formal similarities to the “Prophecy of Zardūsht,” a “testimony” which we nominated above as a possible survival of a forgery generated by Manichaeans. Given this generic affinity and their resonances with Manichaean prophetology, we should probably revisit some of the issues raised long ago by Ernest Renan about the “gnostic” character of at least this portion of the voluminous Adamschriften.40 Most other instances of possible dependency however prove stubbornly resistant to definitive resolution. The Manichaean counterversion of the early chapters of the biblical Genesis mentioned at the beginning of this chapter has a number of features or motifs that echo material contained in Second Temple Jewish compositions such as Jubilees or the Qumran Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen).41 For example, according to the Manichaean counter-version of the struggle between Cain and his brother Abel (cf. Gen 4:1–16), Cain kills Abel by striking him with a rock. One might be tempted to say that this choice of murder weapon betrays a reliance on the identical tradition that is found in Jubilees (4.31), but such a pronouncement consciously marginalizes at least one more early or roughly contemporary source (Gen. Rab. 22.8) that makes the same claim. Mani in this case need not be exclusively indebted to the apocryphal source for his adoption of what eventually becomes a fairly widespread tradition.42 While Jubilees is certainly the oldest of the sources to include this motif, and despite the mounting evidence that textual material from this Second Temple work continued to circulate among Jewish, Christian, and Muslim literary circles well into the Middle Ages, we still cannot be absolutely certain that it is precisely Jubilees that Mani is exploiting for this particular nugget of archaic lore. Given the close association of our extant versions of Jubilees with the authorial mediation of Moses, and coupled with Mani’s supposed disparagement of the “false prophets” honored by other biblically allied communities,43 it would be rather surprising for him to accept a “Mosaic” Jubilees in place of an equally “Mosaic” Pentateuch. It remains nevertheless intriguing that Manichaean literature connected with the so-called “Primeval History” of the biblical book of Genesis (Gen 1–11) should exhibit so many affinities with the sorts of traditions found in early Jewish texts like Jubilees and portions of what eventually becomes 1 Enoch. I have suggested this reflects a deliberate decision on Mani’s part to employ what he viewed as more primitive, and hence more 40. E. Renan, “Fragments du livre gnostique intitulé Apocalypse d’Adam, ou Pénitence d’Adam ou Testament d’Adam,” Journal asiatique, 5th ser., 2 (1853): 427–71. 41. See especially Reeves, Heralds, 100–104. 42. The same manner of dispatch for Abel is also found in the Syriac Cave of Treasures (ed. Ri), § 5.29 and in the Armenian apocryphon published by E. Preuschen, “Die apokryphen gnostischen Adamschriften,” in W. Diehl et al., eds., Festgruss Bernhard Stade (Giessen: J. Ricker’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1900), 165–252 at 197. A number of later Jewish and Muslim works also repeat this tale; see Reeves, Heralds, 100 n. 102. 43. For Mani’s explicit disparagement of Moses, see Ephrem Syrus, Hymnen contra haereses (ed. Beck), 51.14.20– 21; Hegemonius, Acta Archelai 12.4 (= Epiph., Panarion 66.31.2–3). A more generic condemnation is found in Ibn al-Nadīm, Fihrist (ed. Tajaddud), 398.16–17 (see Reeves, Prolegomena, 173). 9780190863074_Book.indb 478 27-Jul-19 9:49:11 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Fri Jul 26 2019, NEWGEN 479 M a n ich a ea n 479 authentic, complexes of traditions which may have once appeared in biblical narratives prior to their “final” redaction into the “canonical” versions which would be used by later Samaritan, Jewish, and Christian communities.44 Mani, in other words, may have still had access to the raw materials from which both Jubilees and the “canonical” versions eventually emerged. Manichaean writings are notable for their invective against those privileged forms of the “ancestral scriptures” which subsequent textual communities continue to study and transmit, considering those writings to be hopelessly corrupt. Since the Manichaean echoes of Jewish “biblical” lore are closer to the kinds of things we find in the early chapters of Jubilees and certain components of 1 Enoch, perhaps we should think in terms of the continued availability of isolated textual clusters like those named by modern scholars “pseudo-Jubilees” (para-Jubilees?),45 truncated fragments of allied traditions which may predate the formulation of a “canonical” edition of Jubilees. Perhaps some of the other noncanonical articulations of traditions about creation and the early generations of humankind that we have found in previously unknown exegetical, liturgical, and sapiential treatises like those uncovered at Qumran were carefully archived, studied, and expounded among the Mesopotamian baptizing sect—whose genealogical roots, we must always remember, was western—among whose members Mani spent the formative years of his life. Whatever its ultimate explanation, it remains perfectly clear that nascent Manichaeism was intimately acquainted with an impressive range of the sorts of biblically allied lore that we also encounter in Second Temple era Jewish literature. Selected Bibliography Alfaric, P. Les écritures manichéennes. 2 vols. Paris: E. Nourry, 1918–1919. Beausobre, I. de. Histoire critique de Manichée et du manichéisme. 2 vols. Amsterdam: J. F. Bernard, 1734–1739. Böhlig, A., ed. Manichäische Handschriften der Staatlichen Museen, Berlin. Band I: Kephalaia, 2. Hälfte (Lfg. 11/ 12). Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1966. –––. “Jüdisches und Iranisches in der Adamapokalypse des Codex V von Nag Hammadi.” Mysterion und Wahrheit: Gesammelte Beiträge zur spätantiken Religionsgeschichte, 149–61. Leiden: Brill, 1968. Brashear, W. “Seth-Gebet.” Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 42 (1996): 26–34. Chabot, J.-B., ed. Incerti auctoris Chronicon Pseudo-Dionysianum uulgo dictum. 2 vols. CSCO 91 and 104. Paris: Reipublicae, 1927–1933. Frankfurter, D. “Apocalypses Real and Imagined in the Mani Codex.” Numen 44 (1997): 60–73. Gardner, I. The Kephalaia of the Teacher. NHMS 37. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995. –––, ed. Kellis Literary Texts. Vol. 2. Dakhleh Oasis Project Monograph 15. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2007. Henning, W. B. “The Book of the Giants.” BSOAS 11 (1943–1946): 52–74. Ibn al-Nadīm, Muḥammad b. Isḥāq. Kitāb al-Fihrist. Edited by Riḍa Tajaddud. Tehran: Maktabat al-Assadī, 1971. James, M. R. The Apocryphal New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924. Jenkins, G. “Papyrus 1 From Kellis: A Greek Text with Affinities to the Acts of John.” In J. N. Bremmer, ed., The Apocryphal Acts of John, 197–216. Kampen, The Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1995. Kaestli, J.-D. “L’utilisation des actes apocryphes des apôtres dans le manichéisme.” In M. Krause, ed., Gnosis and Gnosticism: Papers Read at the Seventh International Conference on Patristic Studies (Oxford, September 8th– 13th 1975), 107–16. NHS 8. Leiden: Brill, 1977. 44. Reeves, “Manichaeans as Ahl al-Kitāb,” esp. 256–65. 45. I.e., those fragments from Qumran designated 4Q225–4Q227. 9780190863074_Book.indb 479 27-Jul-19 9:49:11 PM OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – REVISES, Fri Jul 26 2019, NEWGEN 480 480 John C. R eeves Koenen, L., and C. Römer, eds. Der Kölner Mani-Kodex. Über das Werden seines Leibes: Kritische Edition aufgrund der von A. Henrichs und L. Koenen besorgten Erstedition. Pap. Col. 14. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1988. Lipsius, R. A. Die apokryphen Apostelgeschichten und Apostellegenden: Ein Beitrag zur altchristlichen Literaturgeschichte. 2 vols. in 3. Braunschweig: C. A. Schwetschke und Sohn, 1883–1887. Milik, J. T. “Problèmes de la littérature hénochique à la lumière des fragments araméennes de Qumran.” HTR 64 (1971): 333–78. –––. “Turfan et Qumran: Livre des Géants juif et manichéen.” In G. Jeremias et al., eds., Tradition und Glaube: Das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt, 117–27. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971. –––. The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976. Nagel, P. “Die apokryphen Apostelakten des 2. und 3. Jahrhunderts in der manichäischen Literatur: Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach den christlichen Elementen in Manichäismus.” In K.-W. Tröger, ed., Gnosis und Neues Testament: Studien aus Religionswissenschaft und Theologie, 149–82. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1973. Pedersen, N. A., and J. M. Larsen. Manichaean Texts in Syriac: First Editions, New Editions, and Studies. CFM Series Syriaca I. Turnhout: Brepols, 2013. Polotsky, H. J., and A. Böhlig, eds. Manichäische Handschriften der Staatlichen Museen, Berlin. Band I: Kephalaia, 1. Hälfte. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1934–1940. Preuschen, E. “Die apokryphen gnostischen Adamschriften.” In W. Diehl et al., eds., Festgruss Bernhard Stade, 165–252. Giessen: J. Ricker’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1900. Reeves, J. C. Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony: Studies in the Book of Giants Traditions. Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 1992. –––. “Jewish Pseudepigrapha in Manichaean Literature: The Influence of the Enochic Library.” In Reeves, ed., Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha, 173–203. SBLEJL 6. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1994. –––. Heralds of That Good Realm: Syro-Mesopotamian Gnosis and Jewish Traditions. NHMS 41. Leiden: Brill, 1996. –––. “Manichaica Aramaica? Adam and the Magical Deliverance of Seth.” JAOS 119 (1999): 432–39. –––. “Reconsidering the ‘Prophecy of Zardūšt.’” In B. G. Wright, ed., A Multiform Heritage: Studies on Early Judaism and Christianity in Honor of Robert A. Kraft, 167–82. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1999. –––. “Seth.” In J. J. Collins and D. C. Harlow, eds., The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, 1221–22. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010. –––. “Manichaeans as Ahl al-Kitāb: A Study in Manichaean Scripturalism.” In A. Lange et al., eds., Light against Darkness: Dualism in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and the Contemporary World, 249–65. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011. –––. Prolegomena to a History of Islamicate Manichaeism. Sheffield. UK: Equinox, 2011. –––. “Alleged Jewish Pseudepigrapha Cited in the Cologne Mani Codex: A New Translation and Introduction.” Forthcoming in R. Bauckham et al., eds., Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. Renan, E. “Fragments du livre gnostique intitulé Apocalypse d’Adam, ou Pénitence d’Adam ou Testament d’Adam.” Journal asiatique, 5th ser., t.2 (1853): 427–71. Ries, J. Les études manichéennes: Des controverses de la Réforme aux découvertes du XXe siècle. Louvain-laNeuve: Centre d’histoire des religions, 1988. Schäferdiek, K. “The Manichaean Collection of Apocryphal Acts Ascribed to Leucius Charinus.” In W. Schneemelcher and E. Hennecke, eds., New Testament Apocrypha, edited and translated by R. McL. Wilson, 2.87–100. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003. Stroumsa, G. Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology. NHS 24. Leiden: Brill, 1984. Tardieu, M. Manichaeism. Translated by M. B. DeBevoise. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2008. Tubach, J. “Spuren des astronomischen Henochbuches bei den Manichäern Mittelasiens.” In P. O. Scholz and R. Stempel, eds., Nubia et Oriens Christianus: Festschrift für C. Detlef G. Müller zum 60. Geburtstag, 73–95. Köln: J. Dinter, 1987. Widengren, G. Iranisch-semitische Kulturbegegnung in parthischer Zeit. Köln: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1960. 9780190863074_Book.indb 480 27-Jul-19 9:49:11 PM