The Apocalypse of Sedrach "is preserved in only one fifteenth-century Greek manuscript, which is located in the Bodleian Library: Cod. Misc. Gr. 56, fols. 92-100." (Charlesworth p. 605) Its ostensible purpose is to define a required period of repentance prior to forgiveness (20 days). Its vehicle is a pseudepigraphon about Shadrach's (Daniel 3) interview with God. To me it really looks like the author fooled the church and/or synagogue into preserving a comic lament (ch. 11). Right now it does this in the context of Christianity, but apparently over a Jewish original. In this project, I intend to point out one passage as being Christian, and to discuss its implications as a Christian document.
As of 1997, Sedrach had been neglected. Dr James R Davila cited S Agourides in 1985, who in turn quoted JH Charlesworth in 1976 (Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research, p. 178) as saying "very little critical work has been published on this pseudepigraph".
Agourides's introduction did not explain how this document influenced Judaism nor Christianity. I am left to conclude that it did not. Interestingly, Davila noted that Sedrach 5 and 12-13, 16 may have influenced Islam (the devil refused to worship Adam in Sura 15:26-43, the number of prayers are debated in the al-Miraj tradition, "Idris" goes to heaven in Sura 19:56-57). Possibly because of this lack of external citation, Agourides was vague about its dating, especially concerning which parts were written when. In fact, 150-500 CE is sheer guesswork.
I apologise that I will disappoint Charlesworth and Agourides in the course of this essay. I am not concerned with those aspects of Sedrach that mark it as an Old Testament Pseudepigraphon. I agree with Davila that it may be more important as a window on the development of Christian theology, although our conclusions will differ.
It is disputed whether the apocalypse is a Jewish document with a Christian overlay, or a Christian document loosely based on 4 Ezra. The translator I used - Agourides - held the former. The latter was championed by Davila.
Agourides listed five reasons for the former. The first reason may be discussed separately: the opening chapter, a sermon in a bombastic, NT-quoting style, is not in the style of the rest of the story. Even Davila allows "there is some case to be made that chapter 1 was composed separately from the rest of ApocSed". We should not think of this as an overlay so much as a guest author's foreword.
The real argument is over Sedrach 2-16. Agourides's other four reasons boil down to contradictions with orthodox Christianity, a lack of expected Christian features, and presence of unexpected Jewish features. In Christian tradition, it is Mary who intercedes with God, not a male figure (c.f. Apocalypse of Mary), and serious sins take longer than twenty days of repentance. Real Christian doctrine barely features in the narrative. As for Judaism, Jerusalem and the Jordan are beloved by God; the soul fills the entire body; the narrative argues God down to twenty days; and so forth.
Against this, Davila wrote:
[T]he one Greek MS in our possession is full of Patristic and Byzantine language. [Agourides's] arguments under Provenance seem at most to show that ApocSed comes from an unusual form of Christianity that had some knowledge of Jewish themes. The whole text is full of allusions to the NT and early Christian ideas, not just the sermon on love in chapter 1.
Davila did not lay out the Christian references that do appear in Sedrach, but Agourides did:
In addition, in the conclusion, "And God took him and placed him in Paradise with all the saints. To whom be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen.", the last sentence is a Christian formula well-known from the Lord's Prayer. The "with all the saints" phrase is likely a Christian addition too; it would have come naturally to the (Christian) editor who concluded the narrative.
John 3:16's famous "only-begotten son" does get sent to retrieve Sedrach's soul in verse 9:1; but then in the next verse the "only" son calls God "our father". Then in 9:5 it is "God" who speaks about how he was sent by "my father" (showing the author's confusion), and in 14:1, somehow Michael appears to intercede for mankind. Agourides concluded "the Christian redactor here has substituted the figure of Christ for the figure of Michael".
The variant on Luke's Prodigal Son is more debatable. It could even be that the Lukan version is the variant. Either way, it belongs with ch. 4-5 in the original story and does not appear to be orthodox Christian.
The characteristic style of the apocalypse ends in 14:3-4, with "tears and ... groaning" (c.f. 12:1). After that, the Christian imagery and references begin in earnest, even to the point of anachronism (since the robber had not been born at the time Sedrach was visiting God: 15:2).
14:5 to 15:5 must be seen as a unit, around the dual themes of the "nations which though having no law yet do the things of the law" (Sedrach 14:5, 15:5) and "my divine spirit entered the nations" (14:5, 15:4). Agoulides noted that the former phrase referred to Paul's letter to the Romans 2:14. Sedrach 14:5's variant, "nations which have no law, yet fulfil the law", may be a backhanded salute to Matthew 5:17 informed by Romans 13:10 ("love is the fulfilment of the Law"). The latter phrase refers to Isaiah 42:1, "I will put my Spirit on him and he will bring justice to the nations," also cited in Matthew 12:18 and 1 Timothy 3:16. In all three, however, the Spirit comes through the beloved servant or Jesus, who then acts to proclaim justice - the spirit does not enter the nations directly. Sedrach is more in line with Luke 24:46-49, "I am going to send you what my Father has promised", "to all nations".
For 14:5-15:5, the way into the congregation is through baptism rather than circumcision (14:5). 14:6's phrase "baptised with my baptism" brings to mind Mark 10:38-39: "can you drink the cup that I drink [also in Matt 20:22] or undergo the baptism I'm baptised in? [not in Matt]", possibly in a recension of Mark more recent than the first edition of Matthew.
The Gospel of Luke did not use any of Mark 10:35-40, but that did not stop the author of Sedrach from citing Luke. His (her?) signature emphasis on metanoia is evident throughout Sedrach 14:5-15:5 (14:6, 15:2). As Agoulides's marginal notes pointed out, Sedrach 15:2's saved robber is unique to Luke (Luke 23:43), which is probably where we must look for Sedrach 14:5's "bosom of Abraham" (Luke 16:22). In addition, where his note to Sedrach 15:1 cites Matt 9:13, "I did not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance" (his italics), the "repentance" really betrays dependence on Luke again (Luke 5:32).
The author of Sedrach 14:5-15:5 lived in a world when Paul's "evangelion" - verbal proclamation of Christ's resurrection - had already been replaced by "evangelia" which people find the Word inside. These evangelia must refer to the written "Gospels" of Luke and Mark, and the author may have been exposed to Matthew through his church. The term "Antichrist" of Sedrach 15:3 derives from 1 John and the ultimate villain from Daniel (and Revelations), but their merging would have been through Christian popular culture as well.
Pace Davila, I have not found Sedrach 2-16 to be "permeated with Christian thought and language". Where Agourides pointed out the Christian elements, they have been obvious glosses (ch. 9, 16:7), a self-contained appendix (14:5-15:5), and a parable that merely looks like a Christian parable (ch. 6). Davila may be right that the bulk of Sedrach 2-14:4 + 16:1-7 (including chapter 6) was written by the Christian author of 14:5-15:5. If so, I would welcome a response.
14:5-15:5 is the largest "Christian" addition to the Apocalypse of Sedrach. It postdates the Gospel as a work of literature and took its cue mainly from Luke and Romans. It appears that an unknown reader of Christian literature chanced upon Sedrach, noticed the apocalypse's theme of divine mercy, and Christianised it according to Luke. I won't be the one to put a date to either the Jewish or the Christian sections.
Any thoughts? e-mail me :^) zimriel@sbcglobal.net
The first version of this project was written 3-4 June. On 7 June I found a contrary argument to Agourides (Davila's - see below) and incorporated it. I apologise for picking on one person, but he was the only Sedrach commentator I could find via AltaVista.