In this essay, the version found in The Cave of Treasures (CT) of the
expulsion from Eden and the story of Cain and Abel is analyzed. A peculiar
combination of two exegetical motifs, discerned in this Syriac composition, is
outlined: the canceling of the immediate effects of Adam’s fall and the
introduction of the salvific swearing by Abel’s blood. While suggestions
concerning possible points of contact with other—both Jewish and Christian—
exegetical trends are raised, the peculiarities and the polemical overtones of
the CT stance are duly emphasized. It is suggested that these peculiarities
should be taken into consideration in the discussion on CT’s provenance.
Kinbote: What we term Original Sin can never grow obsolete.
Shade: I know nothing about that. In fact when I was small I
thought it meant Cain killing Abel.
V. Nabokov, Pale Fire
I
In late antiquity the story of Cain and Abel drew the attention of both
Jewish and Christian writers. Motifs and themes attested in Greek and
Syriac texts have recently been studied in detail by J. B. Glenthoj,1 whose
work has provided very useful data for further comparative study. On the
1. J. B. Glenthoj, Cain and Abel in Syriac and Greek Writers (4th–6th centuries)
(Louvain: Peeters, 1997).
252 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES
Syriac side we have, in addition to a number of relevant fragments in
biblical commentaries and homilies (e.g., by Ephrem and by Jacob of
Serugh), also a Syriac Life of Abel published by Sebastian Brock2 and a
(later) composition published by A. Levene.3
This study deals with The Cave of Treasures (CT), another original
Syriac work that addresses the story of Cain and Abel. CT retells the
history of salvation—from the days of the Creation and Adam’s fall, all
the way to Jesus’ death, resurrection, and the Pentecost. There seems to be
a scholarly consensus that CT was originally composed in Syriac; the text
has been presented by Ri as extant in two recensions, West-Syriac and
East-Syriac (R. Oc. and R. Or., respectively).4 The fourth century has
often been seen as a time of compilation of an earlier version of the text;
Ri in his new edition of CT proposes the first half of the third century. In
any case it is quite probable that much earlier traditions also found their
way into CT. A later (final?) redaction in the beginning of the sixth
century by an East-Syrian scholar is usually assumed.5
CT addresses the story of Cain and Abel and its repercussions at
considerable length; in fact, that story is one of the central themes of the
composition’s first part. This study discusses a number of unique features
attested in CT’s presentation of the theme. It demonstrates that the CT
version is characterized by a peculiar combination of two trends: on the
one hand, it plays down the negative effects of Adam’s sin and the expulsion
from Paradise; on the other hand, it presents the ritual swearing by
Abel’s innocent blood as a self-sufficient salvific act. These peculiar motifs
are backed in CT by references to certain oddities in the biblical text itself.
CT seems to be aware of both the exegetical problems posed by the
biblical source and a range of existing exegetical solutions. The unique
trends attested in CT are outlined vis-à-vis relevant traditions in both
Christian and Jewish exegesis of late antiquity, and the question of possible
points of contact and influence is discussed. Finally, this analysis
attempts to promote a better appreciation of the polemical stance of the
cult-oriented community that CT supposedly addresses.
2. Brock suggested a late fifth- or early sixth-century date for its composition. See
S. P. Brock, “A Syriac Life of Abel,” Mus 87 (1974): 467–92.
3. A. Levene, The Early Syrian Fathers on Genesis (London: Taylor’s Foreign Press,
1951).
4. Su-Min Ri, ed., La Caverne des Tresors: Les deux recensions Syriaces, CSCO
(Louvain: Peeters, 1987).
5. For a recent discussion of the status quaestionis and new suggestions see C.
Leonhard, “Observations on the Date of the Syriac Cave of Treasures” (Journal for
the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series, forthcoming).
RUZER/CAVE OF TREASURES 253
II
As pointed out by Philip R. Davies,6 the biblical account of Cain’s crime
and punishment might itself have functioned as a reiteration of sorts both
of Adam’s original sin and of his expulsion from Paradise. No wonder
then that, according to some early Jewish traditions, the primordial disaster
to the human race had to do not so much with the expulsion from
Paradise but with Cain’s crime (or, alternatively, his hideous nature).7
Traditions of this kind were further developed in a number of Gnostic
sources from late antiquity.8 However, the motif is found neither in Jubilees,
a book on which CT is clearly dependent, nor in the Testament of
Adam, another pseudepigraphic composition that seems also to be literarily
linked with CT.9 This motif is also absent from the Greek Life of Adam
and Eve.
On the other hand, another, related emphasis—namely, that on expelled
Adam’s proximity to Paradise—is strongly present in the Life of
Adam and Eve. This motif is also attested—in different modifications—in
the Syrian tradition. The Syriac tradition adopted the notion according to
which Paradise was situated on the top of the highest mountain,10 and,
beginning with Ephrem, if not earlier, attempts were made to somehow
alleviate the shock of the expulsion from Paradise by having Adam dwell
even after the expulsion in the vicinity of Paradise. Ephrem in his Hymns
on Paradise, however, is not consistent. On the one hand, he speaks of
casting Adam out “in the region of wild beasts . . . in the wilderness,” and
then of Adam’s returning—after he repents—“to his former abode and
kingship” (Hymns 13.6).11 On the other hand, Ephrem suggests that
6. “Sons of Cain,” in A Word in Season: The William McKane Volume, ed. J. D.
Martin and P. R. Davies, JSOT Supplement Series 42 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1986), 35–56.
7. E.g., attested in Philo (Questions on Genesis 60; On the Posterity and Exile of
Cain 2–4) and Targums (e.g., Tg. Ps.-J. to Gen 6.4).
8. See B. A. Pearson, “Cain and Cainites,” in idem, Gnosticism, Judaism, and
Egyptian Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 95–107, esp. 103.
9. S.-M. Ri, “Le Testament d’Adam et la Caverne de Tresors,” in V Symposium
Syriacum, 1988, Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, 29–31 août 1988, ed. René
Lavenant, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 236 (Rome: Pontificum Institum Studiorum
Orientalium, 1990), 111–22.
10. For discussion of the cosmic mountain theme in relation to descriptions of
Paradise see G. Anderson, “The Cosmic Mountain: Eden and Its Early Interpreters in
Syriac Christianity,” in Genesis 1–3 in the History of Exegesis: Intrigue in the
Garden, ed. G. A. Robbins (Lewiston: E. Mellen Press, 1988), 187–223.
11. (Intro. and tr.) S. Brock, Saint Ephrem the Syrian, Hymns on Paradise
(Crestwood: St. Vladimir Seminary Press, 1990) (hereafter Hymns on Paradise will
signify the introduction and commentary by Brock while Hymns will signify his
translation of the hymns proper).
254 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES
Adam was settled—by God’s grace—“in the valley below the foothills of
Paradise,” and only later “when mankind even there continued to sin they
were blotted out . . . there [then?] the families of the two brothers had
separated” (Hymns 1.10).12 That “valley below the foothills of Paradise”
becomes in another context a higher ground on the slopes of the mountain.
13 There is a particular reason that the proximity of the repentant
Adam’s dwelling to his original abode in Paradise is so important for
Ephrem. Paradise is seen by the Syrian father as a type of future human
condition; according to Ephrem, sinners “who have done wrong out of
ignorance, once they have been punished and paid their debt” must be
allowed “to dwell in some remote corner of Paradise” (Hymns 1.16).14
III
Even if one bears in mind the existence of these exegetical tendencies, the
stance of The Cave of Treasures on the issue still presents itself as somewhat
extraordinary. First of all, CT does everything to turn the expulsion
of Adam and Eve from Paradise into an orderly and peaceful exodus. Of
course, it has to report Adam’s sorrow about leaving the Garden of Eden,
but it presents God himself as calming the first couple and explaining to
them that in fact not much is going to change:
R. Or.
P‹O oO=q}U wO oR=q }6p・ ˙Ro ˜URq Iqo KP o}I˙ oP
oU}oP ˙‹Pq AKflOA} oOI =6Ar KP oRo oRUO K˙r˙}=Pq
o˙‹rP wO K˙IOA KPr K˙P‹O
(R.Oc.: =6A o‰ KP oRo oRUO K˙rfl}=Pq P‹O Iqo o}I˙ oP
K˙OA} oOI . . .) (CT 5.3–4)15
Do not be saddened, Adam (R.Or.: + because of the verdict that you are to
exit Paradise), I am sending you to your inheritance, and see how merciful
am I towards you: I cursed the land for your sake, but I did not curse you.
12. That horizontal rather than vertical segregation is attested also in Levene, Early
Syrian Fathers, 56. Cf. Josephus (Jewish Antiquities 1.1–2), who distinguishes between
the two expulsions: first God removed Adam and Eve out of the garden into
“another place,” and later Cain—again together with his wife—was cast “out of that
land.”
13. Hymns on Paradise, Introduction, 55–57, note on p. 189. See also Hymn 1.12.
14. See also 10.14–15; 8.11. Elsewhere in the Hymns Ephrem goes even further,
making a claim for Paradise being in proximity to Gehenna, so that the terrible cries
of the wicked mingle with the praise of the good in the Garden of Eden (Hymns 7.29).
I shall return to this motif later.
15. Ri, Caverne des Tresors, 36–39.
RUZER/CAVE OF TREASURES 255
As some scholars see a literary connection between CT and the Testament
of Adam (TA)—a pseudepigraphic composition compiled, probably
originally in Syriac, before the fifth century c.e.16—a comparison is in
place here. In both texts God is said to have comforted Adam in view of
his imminent expulsion from Paradise. Yet the difference is rather telling:
while in TA the words of consolation relate exclusively to a distant future
(“after a space of many years”), to the salvation in Christ, God-incarnate,
who will bring about the deification of Adam himself,17 the consolation in
CT relates to the immediate future—that is, to the continuation of Adam’s
existence outside Paradise. It is also worth noting that, unlike the Testament
of Adam, our text takes care to provide an exegetical link to the
Bible, presenting its version of events as an interpretation of Genesis 3.17
(“cursed is the ground because of you”).
In fact, in CT God provides for Adam a second Paradise; thus the Cave
of Treasures is situated not “in the valley” (where Adam dwelled after the
expulsion—according to, inter alii, Ephrem), but on the top of the holy
mountain in closest proximity of Paradise (CT 5.10). It seems that God
managed to persuade Adam that his loss was not too significant: when
addressing his sons, Adam concentrates exclusively on the future. At this
point in the narrative, extensively used by pseudepigraphic expansions of
the story for emphasizing Adam’s repentance and grief about Paradise
lost,18 CT is completely silent about Adam’s “change of heart.”19 If, in the
emphasis on God’s mercy (grace) in his dealing with Adam, one may see a
continuation of Ephrem’s exegetical thought,20 this basic closeness (indebtedness?)
to Ephrem makes the peculiarity of the CT exegesis even
16. See note 9, above.
17. Testament of Adam 3.2. For an English translation see S. E. Robinson,
“Testament of Adam,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols., ed. J. H.
Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1983), 1:993–95.
18. See, for example, The Life of Adam and Eve 6–9. In some versions of the text
the story begins with the “penitence narrative.” See G. A. Anderson, “The Garments
of Skin in Apocryphal Narrative and Biblical Commentary” (forthcoming).
19. Cf. Syriac Life of Abel 7, where Abel speaks of the tremendous loss his parents
suffered.
20. The motif of God’s grace toward Adam (and of its interaction with God’s
justice) might have been known to Ephrem from, inter alia, midrashic sources, where
its presence was significant. In contradistinction to Ephrem, however, the emphasis in
the midrash is on God’s grace as the decisive factor in the creation of Adam, not in
God’s dealing with him in Paradise and after the Fall. See Gen. Rab. 8. See also A.
Kofsky and S. Ruzer, “Justice, Free Will and Divine Mercy in Ephrem’s Commentary
on Genesis 2–3,” Mus 113 (2000): 315–32.
)
256 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES
more stunning: in our text Adam’s repentance is not mentioned at all!21
Later we will have more than one opportunity to observe that the absence
of the motif of repentance, as well as the fact that Adam’s existence
outside Paradise is presented as completely harmonious and that he is
therefore in no need of salvation, are among the most peculiar features of
CT’s narrative.
IV
Having related to God’s consolation to Adam, formulated in general
terms: “Do not be saddened, Adam, I am sending you to your inheritance,
and see how merciful am I towards you,” let us turn now to some
particularities of this inheritance. In Paradise, according to CT, Adam
enjoyed the status of king, prophet, and high priest (4.1). It is clear that
CT borrowed this motif from an existing tradition that most probably
originated in Jewish sources.22 Ephrem also was aware of this “three
crowns” motif. He emphasized the kingly vocation of Adam as fully
developed but claimed that the crowns of priesthood and (prophetic)
knowledge/wisdom were Adam’s only potentially—he would have received
them had he managed to resist the temptation.23 In the meantime,
access to the Holy of Holies was blocked by the Tree of Knowledge.24 The
emphasis this tradition gets in our text is, however, quite different. Unlike
Ephrem, having mentioned the three vocations traditionally assigned to
21. As opposed to such exegetes as Eusebius of Emesa, who would claim that
Adam’s dwelling in the vicinity of Paradise was supposed to evoke his repentance and
put him in a constantly penitential mood. See L. van Rompay, “Memories of Paradise:
The Greek ‘Life of Adam and Eve’ and Early Syriac Tradition,” Aram 5.1–2 (1993):
562 and n. 30 there.
22. See m. Abot 4; Philo, De vita Mosis 2.3, 187, 292. See also D. Flusser, “Jewish
Messianic Beliefs and Their Reflections in Early Christianity,” in Messianism and
Eschatology (Jerusalem: Z. Shazar Press, 1984) (Hebrew), 119–20; Hymns on
Paradise, note to 3.14 (p. 191). As the book of Jubilees (3.27) testifies, the notion of
Adam’s priestly vocation had already taken hold in the 2nd century b.c.e.
23. See Ephrem, Commentary on Genesis 2.23, English translation by E. G.
Matthews, Jr. and J. P. Amar in St. Ephrem the Syrian: Selected Prose Works, ed. K.
McVey, FC 91 (Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 1994); Hymns
on Paradise 12.17.
24. There are a number of studies on Ephrem’s concept of the inner structure of
Paradise as Sanctuary. See I. Ortiz de Urbina, “Le paradis eschatologique d’après
Saint Ephrem,” OCP 21 (1956): 467–72; N. Séd, “Les Hymnes sur le Paradis de Saint
Ephrem et les tradition juives,” Mus 81 (1968): 455–501; T. Kronholm, “The Trees of
Paradise in the Hymns of Ephraem Syrus,” Annual of the Swedish Theological
Institute 11 (1977/78): 48–56; Hymns on Paradise, pp. 52–53.
RUZER/CAVE OF TREASURES 257
Adam, CT immediately forgets about two of them. It never bothers to
explain what kingship and prophecy stand for, instead concentrating
exclusively on Adam’s priestly function. According to CT, the priestly
function was Adam’s ultimate calling in Paradise, paired with the duty of
abstaining from the forbidden fruit:
And as Adam was the priest, the king, and the prophet, God brought him
into Paradise so that he might worship inside the Garden of Eden as a priest
in the Church. And the blessed Moses bears witness to this saying, “to toil
it” (=‰A=AvUR⁄) (Gen 2.15)—meaning by priestly worship in glory, and “to
keep it” (=‰A=}ERA) (ibid.)—meaning the commandment. . . . (CT 4.1)25
According to CT this priestly vocation continues uninterrupted after
the exodus from Paradise. Adam’s first act outside the Garden of Eden—
right before consummating his marriage with Eve—would be to consecrate
the Cave of Treasures, which would serve as the Sanctuary for
Adam and his descendants (5.17–18). As Lucas van Rompay has demonstrated,
traditions claiming that “after his expulsion man stayed for some
time in the neighborhood of Paradise” describe man’s basic emotion as
“longing . . . for the regaining of his former state.” Only later did this
emotion come to be accompanied by a gradually developed awareness
that re-entering Paradise “during this life would not be possible” and that
the hopes should be set “on restoration in the hereafter.”26 The fact that
CT adopts this traditional motif of longing only further highlights the
peculiarity of the text under discussion: it is not Paradise itself any more
but the Cave of Treasures that is the true object of longing. To return to
the blessed Cave, not to leave the Cave for the sake of regaining the
paradisiacal state, is at the core of CT nostalgia. Further on in the text the
loss of the Cave, that “second Paradise,” would be lamented in the same
breath as the loss of the first one. At the time of Adam’s “second expulsion,”
when his body was removed from the Cave, Adam’s descendants
“raised their eyes and fixed them on Paradise and cried and lamented in
sadness saying” (17.8):27
25. The difference from Ephrem’s approach is noteworthy: in his Commentary on
Genesis Ephrem concentrates (the dependence on rabbinical exegesis is clear here) on
the same verbs (=‰r=}‹Rr =‰r=APURq) but avoids mentioning the priestly function:
with him both verbs relate to (different aspects of) observing the commandment not
to eat from the Tree of Knowledge (Com. Gen. 2.7).
26. See van Rompay, “Memories of Paradise,” 565, 567.
27. For the motif of second expulsion see also CT 12.18–20, where God did not
allow the descendants of Adam—after they had mingled with Cain’s tribe—to climb
the Holy Mountain; the stones under their feet “became fire” (an emulation of the
cherubim theme?); and see 13.8, where Yared is said to have been the first to depart
258 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES
Iqo wr・oq o◊=q˜ o˙}UO o◊=q˜ oO=q}U oOP◊・ ◊rU
Farewell to you, holy Paradise, the holy Cave of our father Adam. . . .
To be sure, the marital relations between Adam and Eve are described
as a novelty pertaining to their existence outside Paradise, but CT takes
pains to present the consummation of the protoplasts’ marriage as a holy
union, not as a sign of the pitiful change in their status (5.17–18). In
Ephrem’s Hymns there is a vivid description of the “lower abode of
Paradise,” where voices of praise from above mingle with cries of suffering
from Gehenna—yet another expression of the idea of the proximity of
Paradise.28 In CT this motif is given a very peculiar twist: Adam’s descendants
worshipping in the Cave would be able to join the choir of angels
singing in Paradise. In fact, as far as the worship of God is concerned, they
would become part of the angelic thegma, taking the place of the fallen
angels (7.4):
wrR‰ or‰ r˜PO o=O◊ wO PURq ooeqo◊q oOp˙ r‰ UPAr
wO˙ rr‰ wr‰=˙or AoO=q}U =PrUoe◊・ w=A・◊O wrr‰Rq
oIoPoeO IU o‰PoP wrPP‰Rr wrA・◊Rq…oA=R・r o=P◊・
ooeIoPOq oP˜ rr‰w=UO◊ ˙=oR=Oo P‹O oO=q}U・ w=A・◊Oq
And instead of that order of demons that had fallen down from heaven,
they were going up to praise [God] from the outskirts of Paradise. And they
were dwelling there in peace and calm . . . so that they might praise and
glorify God together with the angels which praise God in Paradise, as they
could verily hear the voices of angels [from where they were put to dwell].
As noted earlier, Ephrem had certain reservations with regard to the
fulfillment of Adam’s priestly vocation even while still in Paradise. In the
Syriac Life of Abel either Adam is considered unworthy of performing his
priestly function after his fall or the phenomenon of priesthood in general
is relegated to the reality “after and outside Paradise,” with Cain and
saddened from the world. For Yared’s place in the fatal Fall in the book of Jubilees (cf.
1 Enoch 6.6) see J. C. VanderKam, “The Angel Story in the Book of Jubilees,” in
Pseudepigraphic Perspectives: The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Light of the
Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. E. G. Chazon and M. Stone (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 151–70, esp.
155. For the blessed state of Adam, Eve, and their descendants while connected with
the Cave see CT 11.12; 13.19, where Enoch is lifted up “to that place of life, dwelling
of bliss which is on the outskirts of Paradise,” (oO=⁄}U =g⁄A・⁄). The Holy
Mountain and the Cave are similarly described in CT 16.6, where the blissful
existence of Adam, Eve, and their descendants is said to have taken place “in the
blessed land on the outskirts of Paradise” (oO=⁄}U =g⁄A・⁄ oflI}・O oy}o).
28. See note 14, above.
RUZER/CAVE OF TREASURES 259
Abel given the appellation “o=rg◊ oRoe‰I” (“first priests”).29 There is no
place for such misgivings in our text: according to CT, Adam’s priestly
vocation was not only fully realized in Paradise30 but continued uninterrupted
after the expulsion and the transition to the Cave of Treasures,
and was passed on in an orderly fashion to Adam’s descendants.
CT claims an uninterrupted chain for the high priestly tradition. This
chain begins not with Melchizedek but with Adam himself, the first
“o}OrI-oR‰I.” Thus, CT cannot accept the tradition, propagated by
the Epistle to the Hebrews (e.g., Heb 6.20), which sees Melchizedek as
the prototype of the true high priesthood. CT can neither accept the
(habitual?) interpretation of the statement that Melchizedek “did not
have either father or mother” (Heb 7.3),31 but somehow has to incorporate
Melchizedek into the chain and, for that end, provides him with a
genealogy (CT 16.22; 20.8). This emphasis on the genealogy of
Melchizedek is not surprising at all as, according to CT, proof of a sound
priestly (and kingly) genealogy is crucial even for the Messiah himself.32
According to CT the high priesthood of ancient times—up to the end of
the Flood—had been centered on (the altar of) Adam’s body and (swearing
by) Abel’s blood33—a point that will be discussed later. These elements
are presented in CT as sufficient for salvation as such and not simply as
types of Christ’s body and blood. Thus, according to the viewpoint presented
in CT, Melchizedek is merely a middle link in the chain. In no way
does he inaugurate the true worship of God; he only renews it after a
period of neglect.34
V
Given that the high priesthood is presented in our text as having a salvific
function, let me summarize a number of important ideas characteristic of
29. For the text see Brock, “Syriac Life,” 472. See also there commentary on p. 486.
30. In contradistinction to the Syriac Life of Abel, in CT Adam is the first priest,
“o=O⁄› ox‰I” (5.27).
31. In CT those who do accept that claim are branded as “o‹r=oe⁄‰ ” (illiterate
simpletons). See CT 30.17.
32. See CT 32.11–16; 33.5–16. For a discussion of Christian traditions concerning
Jesus’ Aharonite descent, see W. Adler, “Exodus 6:23 and the High Priest from the
Tribe of Judah,” JTS n.s. 48 (1997): 24–47.
33. See, for instance, CT 7.11–14,19–20; 9.5–8; 10.8; 13.6–7; 16.14,19–20, et al.
34. For example, CT 28.11. There is even an attempt to play down the importance
of the bread-and-wine offering introduced by Melchizedek, presenting these elements
as nothing but a provision intended to sustain Shem and Melchizedek on their journey
from the vicinity of the Ark to the “middle of the earth.” See CT 22.4.
260 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES
the CT stance on the issue of salvation. According to CT’s overall outline,
Adam’s fall caused both the expulsion from Eden and a simultaneous
outpouring of God’s mercy (grace), so that the grace essentially nullified
the effects of the Fall—all this without even mentioning Adam’s repentance
(or Eve’s, for that matter). To be sure, the motif of future salvation
in Christ as an (additional?) reason for Adam not to be saddened is also
present in CT.35 In due time God will send his Son to bring salvation to
humankind (5.7–9). However, as was already hinted above, in CT the
need for salvation seems to be related not to Adam himself, nor to his
immediate progeny—as far as they continued to dwell, alive or dead, in
the vicinity of the Cave—but to Adam’s later descendants, who would
move to the “cursed land”:
Exit [Paradise] and do not be saddened, as when the times for your dwelling
in the cursed land according to my decree are fulfilled I will send my Son.
Order . . . that after your death they embalm . . . your body and put it in
this Cave where now I put you to dwell. [You will remain here] until your
descendants’ exit from the vicinity of Paradise to that evil land. (5.6–10)
Those people who dwell “in the cursed land” are said to be in need of
salvation. However, those, who worship in the Cave of Treasures and
participate—on par with angels—in the heavenly choir praising the Lord,
and, even outside Paradise proper, continue to be nourished by nothing
apart from its delightful fruits,36 are already saved. As CT states again and
again, they are not prisoners of their own fallen nature but spend their
days in peace and harmony.37 In short, the Adam of CT who is expelled
from Paradise is not yet the Adam of Paul.38
35. Not unlike the Testament of Adam. See the discussion above.
36. “o‚=‚g ogoU.” See CT 7.7. Cf. The Life of Adam and Eve 1–5. See
Anderson, “Garments of Skin.”
37. For example, CT 6.2, 22; 7.1–4.
38. See F. H. Borsch, “Further Reflections on ‘The Son of Man’: The Origins and
Development of the Title,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and
Christianity, ed. J. H. Charlesworth (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 137. Borsch
discusses there a common interest of important strands of the baptizing sectarianism
of the beginning of the common era and of later Gnosticism “in Adamic lore—
associated with a more general conception with a long and varied history, of the first
man as a royal figure.” In other brands of Gnosticism it is Adam’s son Seth who takes
center stage. See, for example, A. F. J. Klijn, Seth in Jewish, Christian and Gnostic
Literature, Supplementum Novum Testamentum 46 (Leiden: Brill, 1977); G. Stroumsa,
Another Seed (Leiden: Brill, 1984); Borsch, “Further Reflections,” 139. Rather
tellingly, in CT it is Adam, not Seth, who remains the key figure—one more indication
that Adam is not seen there as a failure?
RUZER/CAVE OF TREASURES 261
VI
It may be remarked that this peculiar cancellation of the effects of the Fall
fits the CT’s concept of Adam’s basic nature. Like Ephrem in his Commentary
on Genesis, CT discusses the question of Adam’s nature in
connection with Genesis 1.26–27. Like Ephrem, CT states that the plural
form of “Let us create man in our image and in our likeness” relates to
God’s hypostases39 or (the) Persons of the Holy Trinity. However, here
also the basic closeness to Ephrem highlights even more the CT peculiarities.
First, CT suggests a complementing (an alternative?) interpretation for
the plural form of the verb “q・UR” (let us make), namely, that it relates to
the heavenly host of angels. This exegesis had been current in rabbinic
circles long before Ephrem; among Christians it seems to have had the
reputation of a “Jewish folly.”40 Unlike the Syrian father, who ignores this
exegetical option in his Commentary, CT combines it with the
“hypostatical” interpretation. The adoption of this “angelic host” exegetical
option clearly serves CT’s general outline of the Paradise story,
where—again in contradistinction to Ephrem’s Commentary—angels play
such a crucial role. On the one hand, there are angels in CT who belong to
Satan’s thegma and on account of their envy of Adam do everything to
bring about his fall. On the other hand, there are angels who belong to a
completely different thegma and with whom Adam joins in a heavenly
choir to praise the Lord.
Second, Ephrem interprets the problematic “likeness of image” in a
restricting way. He claims it pertains exclusively to the dominion given to
Adam over the rest of God’s creatures. This dominion-centered interpretation
was known in Ephrem’s time to both Jewish and Christian exegetes,
and according to the Syrian father, it is only in this functional
sense that Adam is “like God.”41 CT, however, interprets the “likeness”
literally: in our text the created Adam is not only lord of the cosmos but
also a man in whom the awesome image of God (Holy Trinity?) is revealed
to the world:
(R.Or.)“Let us make (q・UR) Man (o◊R}・) in our image, as our likeness
(wflrOq K=o wOIz・)”—making known by this [using] of nun instead of
alaph the [inclusion of the] blessed Persons of the Son and the Spirit. And
39. Different modifications of this exegesis had been known to both Jewish and
Christian exegetes long before Ephrem. See, for example, Philo, De opificio mundi 69;
Tatian, Address to the Greeks 7. See also Gen. Rab. 8.
40. See, for example, Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 62.1.
41. See Com. Gen. 1.29.
262 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES
when the angels heard that being said, they became full of awe and told one
another: the great wonder is going to be shown to us today—[we are going
to see] the very image of God our Creator. (CT 2.3–4)
Further on, the western recension is even more specific, describing
Adam’s body as that of the cosmic man, Adam Kadmon of the Jewish
midrash:42
And when the angels saw the image and the glorious sight of Adam, they
trembled (were shocked) because of the beauty of it. They saw the sight of
Adam’s face, which was glowing with glorious light like the face of the sun,
and the light of his eyes was like the rays of the sun, while his body was
like the glorious shining of crystal. (CT 2.13–14)
Again, as opposed to Ephrem’s Commentary, wherein the glory of
Adam comes from the Robe of Glory that covered and hid the (shameful?
threatening?) sight of Adam’s bodily parts,43 in CT the first man’s body is
itself a glorious one (an image of God?). To be sure, the traditional motif
of the Robe is present here as well, but in our text the Robe is described as
a kingly one (“o˙rIIOq omr・I”);44 by no means is it tailored to compensate
for Adam’s being inadequate in his own right.
To sum up: while in Ephrem’s Commentary Adam is presented in all his
human weakness, upon which his eventual fall is predicated,45 in CT we
are dealing with a figure of cosmic proportions.46 Unlike some apocalyptic
and Gnostic or semi-Gnostic schemes, where this cosmic figure undergoes
a fall that is also of cosmic proportions, in CT’s exegesis the basically
glorious nature of the first man somehow remains intact. In contradistinction
to rabbinic traditions, which speak of the cosmic dimensions of the
first man,47 CT does not mention Adam’s body being diminished in size as
the result of his sin. I suggest that this peculiarity complements the trend
42. See b. Hag. 12a; Gen. Rab. 8; Lev. Rab. 14.
43. See Com. Gen. 2.21.
44. Only the crown placed on Adam’s head does CT call “the crown of glory”
(“oflAr・◊fl⁄ oP=PI”) (2.17).
45. Accordingly, God’s mercy/grace was to be unceasingly employed to improve
Adam’s odds of succeeding in his test. Moreover, from Ephrem’s point of view, every
step of the test was especially designed not to be too difficult, not to overwhelm
Adam, but to help him win. This issue is discussed in Kofsky and Ruzer, “Justice, Free
Will, and Divine Mercy.”
46. On the communities putting emphasis on Adamic lore as opposed to those
taking more interest in Enoch and the generation of Genesis 6 see M. E. Stone, “The
Axis of History at Qumran,” in Pseudepigraphic Perspectives (see note 27, above),
133–49.
47. See, for example, b. Hag. 12a; Gen. Rab. 8; Lev. Rab. 14.
RUZER/CAVE OF TREASURES 263
in the CT narrative discussed above—namely, ignoring the immediate
effects of Adam’s fall and a complete lack of interest in Adam’s repentance.
VII
From here on the discussion will focus on the second act of the drama.
The cancellation of the effects of Adam’s fall seems to be logically connected
with presenting, instead, the Cain-Abel affair as the real trigger for
the fatal expulsion—not from Paradise itself but from its vicinity or, more
specifically, according to CT, from the Cave of Treasures. In CT, however,
this second and really fatal expulsion of the sons of Seth occurred not
immediately after Cain’s fratricide (and even not as its immediate result!)
but a number of generations later, after Seth’s sons became involved with
the daughters of Cain. This second expulsion is presented in CT as a
preemptive strike before the Flood.48 Before that the sons of Seth had been
pure and holy—that is why, so claims CT, they were called “sons of God”
(Gen 6.2). Here CT follows an earlier tradition;49 but as we shall see there
is a peculiar twist to the CT’s exegesis: the delay of the expulsion—from
Abel’s murder until the days of Yared—is presented in our text as connected
with, or rather secured by, a ritual swearing by Abel’s innocent
blood performed by the leader of every successive generation.
Let me first review a number of important exegetical trends from late
antiquity, connected with the story of Abel’s murder. In Genesis 4.10 God
says to Cain the murderer: “What have you done? The voice of your
brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground.” The verse constituted a
problem for early Jewish and Christian exegesis. The midrash sees here
mainly two problematic points: 1) Why does the Hebrew text use the
plural ymd (deme, literally bloods)? and 2) How should one understand the
biblical metaphor of the “crying blood”; that is to say, what does blood’s
48. It is worth noting that the motif of the second expulsion as a preemptive strike
is conspicuously absent from Jubilees and the Testament of Adam, as well as from
Ephrem’s Commentary on Genesis. According to the Syrian father, it was Cain
himself who decided to leave his native land: “because Cain sought to escape from
reproach. . . . Those who would find him were the sons of Seth, who were compelled
to seek revenge for the blood of Abel, their uncle. They cut themselves off from Cain
and did not intermarry with him because of their fear of him; but they did not dare
to kill him because of his sign. After Cain received the punishment and the sign had
been added to it . . . Cain separated himself from his parents and his kin because he
saw that they would not intermarry with him . . . [and went to the land of Nod]
(Com. Gen. 3.10–11).
49. See, for example, Gen. Rab. 26.5; Ephrem, Com. Gen. 6.3. Cf. Jubilees 5.1;
Philo, Questions on Genesis 92.
264 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES
voice represent here? The first question was irrelevant for most Greek and
Syrian authors—in the translations of Genesis they used, the plural form
had long since been turn into singular;50 but in the midrash the plural
form of deme was usually explained as pointing to Abel’s future descendants,
who were, in a sense, murdered together with him. This tradition,
attested in the Targums51 and Mishnah,52 and later incorporated into
Genesis Rabbah, fits an important development in rabbinic thought where
the value of every human life was greatly emphasized.53 A particular
subdevelopment may be discerned here; thus in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan54
the “bloods” represent not Abel’s potential descendants in general but
specifically the just ones among them. This midrashic pattern is also
present in traditions about God’s decision—in spite of reservations expressed
both by the angels and by God himself—to create a man. One
decisive argument in favor of the creation seemed to be that among
Adam’s future descendants there would be some righteous people as
well.55 The motif of murder and the plural form “bloods” have no function
in this last tradition, as here, unlike in the case of Abel, the midrash is
talking about Adam’s actual descendants, those who will eventually be
born.
The second peculiarity—namely, the metaphor of the “blood crying
out”—was explained already in Jubilees as a demand for God’s intervention
and vengeance: “And he killed him in the field, and his blood cried
out from the earth to heaven, making accusation.”56 Philo, with his
emphasis on incorporeal life as the real one, avoids mentioning both
vengeance and Abel’s blood:
(Gen. 4.10) What is the meaning of the words “The voice of thy brother
calls me from the earth”? This is most exemplary, for the Deity hears the
deserving even though they are dead, knowing that they live an incorporeal
life. (QG 70)57
50. LXX: “fvnO a・matow toE edelfoE sou boo prOw me §k t∞w g∞w”; Peshitta: “oP›
oU}o wO =flrv oUp KrAo⁄ ‰O⁄⁄.” See, for example, Ephrem’s Com. Gen. 4.6–
7: “What then would you say, Cain? Should Justice take vengeance for the blood
(sing.!) which cried out or not?”
51. See Tg. Onq. to Gen 4.10.
52. m. Sanh. 5.
53. See, for example, the continuation of the discussion in m. Sanh. 5.
54. See Tg. Ps.-J. and Tg. Neof. to Gen 4.10. See Glenthoj, Cain and Abel, 11.
55. The discussion of different types of Adam’s progeny may be found in Gen. Rab. 8.
56. Jub. 4.2–3. The English translation is by O. S. Wintermute in Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha (see note 17, above), vol. 2.
57. The English translation quoted here is by R. Marcus. See Philo, Supplement I,
Questions and Answers on Genesis, LCL (London: Harvard University Press, 1953),
42. Josephus (Jewish Antiquities 55–57) avoids the issue altogether.
RUZER/CAVE OF TREASURES 265
The motif of vengeance, however, survives in rabbinic midrash, where
it is attributed to a famous second-century sage and expressed in a rather
forceful fashion:
R. Simeon b. Yohai said: It is difficult to say this thing, and the mouth
cannot utter it plainly. Think of two athletes wrestling before the king; had
the king wished, he could have separated them. But he did not so desire,
and one overcame the other and killed him, he [the victim] crying out
[before he died], “Let my cause be pleaded before the king!” Even so, The
voice of thy brother’s blood cries out against Me.58 (Gen. Rab. 22.9)59
Although “the mouth cannot utter it,” the midrash manages to articulate
the almost inconceivable thought: Abel condemns God himself for
not sparing him; and since God did not intervene then, did not prevent
the murder, the pure blood spilled should urge him to wreak the vengeance
speedily. This tendency to see a pure martyr’s death as a “trigger”
for God’s vengeful intervention and speedy visitation of his wrath on the
evil ones was further developed in later Jewish sources.60
VIII
It is illuminating to see how the different submotifs reviewed above are
conflated (and modified in the process) in the logion found in Matthew
and Luke:
Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, “I will send them prophets and
apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,” that the blood of all
the prophets, shed from the foundation of the world, may be required from
this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechari’ah, who
perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it shall be
required from this generation. (Luke 11.49–51, RSV)61
On the one hand, we see that, according to the New Testament, the
pure blood shed is not only Abel’s but also, as in Targums Pseudo-
Jonathan and Neofiti, that of the righteous men of God—here, the prophets
of future generations. On the other hand, these are not the righteous
ones who “died in Abel” but—in line with midrashic expositions on
58. yla (elay, “to Me”) is read here as yl[ (‘alay, “against Me”). Cf. Tanh. Ber. 1.9.
59. The English translation here is by H. Freedman from the Soncino Press edition
of the Midrash Rabbah, 3rd edition (London/New York, 1983).
60. See I. Yuval, “Ha-nakam we-ha-qelala, ha-dam we-ha-alila—me-alilot qedoshim
le-alilat dam” (“Vengeance and Curse: From Sanctification of the Name to Blood
Libel”), Zion 58 (1993): 33–90.
61. Cf. Matt 23.33–35.
266 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES
Adam’s progeny—those who were actually born (sons of Seth) and carried
on Abel’s vocation. The motif of vengeance is central to the Gospel
pericope exactly as it is central to the midrashic exegesis. Moreover, the
blood shed is clearly presented here as a trigger for God’s wreaking
vengeance.
The motif of vengeance continues to be central in the later Christian—
both Greek and Syriac—exegesis of Genesis 4.10. Thus John Chrysostom
explains Abel’s blood “crying out” as follows: the “voice” of the blood
flies up, ascends to heaven, and there “rushes through the heaven of
heaven” in order to lament the murder and bring accusation (before the
heavenly court).62
The same line is taken up a century later by Jacob of Serugh: “The
blood which was shed provoked the high place against the murderer;
Abel was alive and his blood spoke like thunder among the angels.”63 The
difficulty in giving blood a voice is also fully recognized in the Syriac Life
of Abel: “The sound of your brother’s blood groans out towards me from
the earth. Who is it who has given a voice to the blood, for blood has no
voice, blood has no ability to differentiate, having no intelligence?” (13)
It is worth noting that the word oI› (voice) is used abundantly throughout
the text and by different speakers—e.g., Abel while still alive (20) and
Eve lamenting Abel (21, 23). This fact may point to an alternative (vis-àvis
the call for vengeance) exegetical solution. In any case, the examples
of Jacob of Serugh and the Syriac Life of Abel bear witness to the awareness
of Syriac writers (from the period close to the final redaction of CT)
of the exegetical problem existing in Genesis 4.10: the expression “the
voice of your brother’s blood” calls for an explanation.
The Epistle to the Hebrews is another New Testament text where
Abel’s death features prominently:
By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through
which he received approval as righteous, God bearing witness by accepting
his gifts; he died, but through his faith he is still speaking. (Heb 11.4, RSV)
We see that the Epistle adopts the same exegesis as is attested elsewhere
in pre-Christian Jewish sources64—an exegesis according to which the
expression “[Abel’s] blood cries out” hints at the continuation of per-
62. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis 161. See Glenthoj, Cain and Abel, 172.
63. Jacob of Serugh, Homilies 147–50 on Cain and Abel 26–27, cf. ibid., 20. See
Glenthoj, Cain and Abel, 174. See also S. Brock, “Jewish Traditions in Syriac
Sources” (London: Variorium, 1992, first published in JJS 30 [1979]: 212–32, esp.
226–27).
64. See the discussion on Philo’s position and note 55, above.
RUZER/CAVE OF TREASURES 267
sonal existence after physical death. According to the Epistle, it is Abel’s
faith that allows him to overcome death. The exegesis here, as in Philo,
seems to be centered on spiritual existence as a means to “survive death,”
so, in fact, it has no use for “blood.” Speaking of the first hero of faith in
human history, the Epistle—exactly like Philo in QG65—avoids mentioning
Abel’s blood; it is Abel himself and not his blood that goes on “speaking
out” even after his death.
On the other hand, Abel’s blood does feature prominently in Hebrews
12, where not so much faith, but rather vengeance, the punishment for
apostasy, is the key theme:
For you have not come to what may be touched, a blazing fire, and
darkness, and gloom, and a tempest, and a sound of a trumpet, and a voice
whose words made the hearers entreat that no further messages be spoken
to them. For they could not endure the order that was given . . . . Indeed,
so terrifying was the sight that Moses said, “I tremble with fear.” But you
have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly
Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels . . . and to a judge who is God of all,
and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a
new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more powerfully
(kre›tton laloEnti, RSV: more graciously) than the blood of Abel. See that
you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if they did not escape when
they refused him who warned them on earth, much less shall we escape if
we reject him who warns from heaven. (Heb 12.18–25, RSV)
The fragment contains the strongest possible warning against leaving
the newly acquired faith, and the vengeful character of this admonition is
quite obvious.66 However, another motif is combined with that of vengeance
in Hebrews 12.24: the blood of revenge turns out to be at the same
time the blood of a new covenant that in the context of Hebrews stands
for remission of sins and salvation.
65. See note 57, above.
66. Cf. Heb 12.15–17. There have been a number of different suggestions
regarding the nature of the community to which the admonition was addressed:
Gentile Christians, ex-Essenes, members of Jewish priestly families from Jerusalem
converted to Christianity. See M. Bourke, “The Epistle to the Hebrews: Introduction,”
in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. R. E. Brown, J. A. Fitzmyer, and
R. E. Murphy (Herndon: Geoffrey Chapman Press, 1997), 920–21. Cf. the interpretation
by Cyril of Alexandria discussed by Glenthoj (Cain and Abel, 175). According
to Cyril, while Abel’s blood cried out against Cain, the blood of Christ cries out
against the cruelty and ingratitude of the Jews. This interpretation may be seen as
highly partisan, and it hardly fits the context of Hebrews, although it is certainly true
to the vengeful spirit of the Epistle.
268 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES
IX
It has already been noted that, as opposed to the authors of the midrash
and the New Testament, exegetes who were disconnected from the Hebrew-
speaking milieu were generally not concerned with the plural of
deme (bloods) of the Hebrew text of Genesis 4.10; for in both the Greek
and the Syriac translations the singular form had been substituted for the
plural one.67 On the other hand, we have seen among all exegetes a
recognition of the other peculiarity of Genesis 4.10—namely, the description
of Abel’s blood as having a voice and “speaking out” after being shed
by Cain. We have also seen that the motif of vengeance was central to
most exegeses: the pure blood was supposed to expedite God’s vengeance.
This last motif was partly but not completely mitigated in the Epistle to
the Hebrews. It stands to reason that at least some of the questions raised
by the exegetes and some of the solutions offered by them were known to
the CT’s compiler(s), who had so great an interest in the story of Cain and
Abel. The Epistle to the Hebrews was definitely known to the transmitters
of the CT tradition: our text quotes the Epistle several times; Ephrem’s
writings undoubtedly exercised considerable influence on CT; Jacob of
Serugh as well as the author of the Syriac Life of Abel might have been
contemporaries of the CT’s final redaction; and the compilers/transmitters
of the CT material are generally believed to have had access to
rabbinic traditions of the time.68
Now, with the exegetic expositions reviewed above forming a background
of sorts, the CT treatment of the problem may be better appreciated.
In line with other exegeses, CT finds it necessary to provide an
explanation for Abel’s blood “speaking” after Abel’s death; but in our
text the blood’s “crying out to heaven from earth” represents the solemn
oath instituted by Seth before he died:
qA ˙rAR oPq P=・‰q o=Is ‰Oq・ wrIP oROrO
◊RoP wr˜・◊fl oPr o◊=q˜ oR‰ o}r‹ wO wrIRO
oPr‹˜ w=o˜ oe=R・ ˙rP ˙rARq wrI˙qPoe r˙ wO
67. See note 50, above.
68. See G. Stemberger, “Exegetical Contacts between Christians and Jews in the
Roman Empire,” in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation,
vol. 1, part 1, ed. M. Sæbo (Göttingen: Vandenhöck and Ruprecht, 1996), 585. G.
Sternberger called CT “certainly the richest source for Jewish traditions.” S. Brock
(“Jewish Traditions,” 228) discussed an interesting case of possible connection
between CT and rabbinic exegesis. It is noteworthy that the example he chose was
also connected with the story of Cain and Abel.
RUZER/CAVE OF TREASURES 269
wP ˙=o o˙r・・qPU・ oq=o wr˙=Uq= }=p wrIPI
P=・‰P ‰P‹˜q oOr= wO ‰OU
I put you under oath by the pure blood of Abel that no one of you will
descend from this sacred mountain. Do not allow anyone of your
descendants to go down to the sons of Cain, the murderer, as you all know
what an enmity there is between us and him since the day when he killed
Abel. (7.18)
First, it is worth noting that the description of the relations between the
sons of Seth and the sons of Cain (“what an enmity [o˙r・・qPU・] there is
between us and him”) is reminiscent of the biblical description of the
relations between the humans and the serpent.69 That fits the tendency
already observed in CT—namely, to see Cain’s crime, not Adam’s fall, as
the primordial fatality. It may also be noted that, although in CT the
exegetical problem—the first martyr’s blood having a voice—is not mentioned
explicitly,70 swearing by Abel’s pure blood clearly stands here for
the blood’s “speaking out,” thus providing a solution to the problem. In
comparison to Hebrews, the motif of vengeance is further subdued, the
emphasis here being on the salvific quality of Abel’s blood.71 It comes as
no surprise that, according to CT, this will be true also regarding Jesus’
blood. Swearing by Abel’s blood, however, is presented in our text as
sufficient for the salvation of the sons of Seth; those who dwell—thanks
to swearing by Abel’s blood—on the holy mountain do not need any
further salvation. The subsequent salvation through Christ pertains only
to later generations, who broke the oath.
I have discussed CT’s exegetical exposition on Abel’s blood “crying
out.” But there is yet another element in the CT exegesis: the reenactment
of swearing (“Abel’s blood speaking out”) in every successive generation
of the sons of Seth.72 Thanks to this reenactment the sons of Seth remain
pure and holy, up to the days of Yared, when the men of Seth’s tribe fail to
keep the oath, go down to Cain’s daughters, and are prevented from
returning.73 It is likely that this emphasis on “multiplying” Abel’s blood
69. See Gen 3.15: “I will put enmity (Syr.: oflr・・⁄PU・) . . . between your seed and
her seed.”
70. Unlike in the Syriac Life of Abel—see the discussion above.
71. Thus, the emphasis is put on Abel’s own death and not on his animal offering
being accepted by God. For this other exegetical motif attested also in Syriac
literature, see S. P. Brock, “Fire from Heaven: From Abel’s Sacrifice to the Eucharist.
A Theme in Syriac Christianity,” SP 25 (1993): 229–43.
72. See CT 7.19; 8.13; 9.5, et al.
73. See CT 10.14; 12.18–20. They tried also to resume swearing by Abel’s blood,
but this time in vain.
270 JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES
“crying out” and its connection with the righteous ones of successive
generations points to another exegetical problem, one that is imbedded in
the Hebrew version of Genesis 4.10 with its plural form of deme (“bloods”).
As observed, this exegetical motif is found in neither Greek nor Syriac
Christian expositions during the relevant period. Thus it might bear
witness to a contemporary exegetical contact with rabbinic tradition.
CONCLUSION
The discussion in this paper centered on the CT version of the expulsion
from Eden and the story of Cain and Abel. This version was analyzed visà-
vis other relevant traditions—both Jewish and Christian—that might
have been known to the CT compilers/redactors. It was observed that
CT’s treatment of the issue is characterized, inter alia, by a strong exegetical
trend: both the canceling (or, at least, softening) of the effects of
Adam’s fall and the introduction of the salvific swearing by Abel’s blood
are backed by references to certain peculiarities in the biblical texts. In
most instances CT seems to be aware of both the exegetical problems
posed by the text and a range of existing exegetical solutions. CT adopts
some of those solutions, transforming them to suit its particular needs. I
have suggested that at least one exegetical move performed in our text—
the story of swearing by Abel’s blood by the righteous ones of successive
generations—although it appears in CT with obviously Christian connotations,
may bear witness to an exegetical contact with rabbinic tradition.
When did the supposed contacts with rabbinic tradition occur? What
stage in the development of the CT text do the exegetical trends discussed
in this paper represent? The final redaction or, maybe, earlier phases in
CT’s textual (oral?) history? There are other questions as well, the most
fascinating of them being that of the CT milieu. CT speaks in terms of the
Golden Age of righteous forefathers, who knew the secret of true worship
of God and lived—together with their wives and children—in a blessed
state on the holy mountain. The traditional motif of “second expulsion”
is developed here in a rather peculiar fashion: the life of the dwellers on
the holy mountain is presented as life in Paradise. Their cult also was
perfect, it even included the sacred elements of body (Adam’s) and blood
(Abel’s), which had in themselves (and not only as a prefiguration of
Jesus’ body and blood!) a sufficient salvific force so that the need for
salvation through Christ pertained only to those who eventually left the
mountain. What kind of cult-oriented community does CT address? It
seems to be a community characterized by a peculiar polemical emphasis
RUZER/CAVE OF TREASURES 271
on an independent (alternative?) “non-Christian,” or maybe “pre-
Christian” path to salvation. What kind of polemic is the community
involved in? What kind of polemic are the exegetical trends discussed in
this paper, e.g., CT’s highly idiosyncratic reinterpretation of Hebrews 7.3,
tailored to serve? How are these polemical trends related to the polemical
stance taken by CT elsewhere (e.g., 24.10–11; 45.4–15; 53.21–26) vis-àvis
(in addition to the Jews, those “usual suspects”) Greek- and Latinspeaking
Christianity?
The present study is mainly descriptive in character, but these are the
questions that it should eventually lead us to ask. Any attempt to answer
them would necessitate widening the scope of investigation, addressing
additional exegetical trends attested in CT. It is to be hoped that an effort
of this kind will be made.
Serge Ruzer is Lecturer and Researcher in the Department of
Comparative Religion, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
Mount Scopus, Israel