91

A PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE TO REHOBOAM

Scott Carroll
Gordon College Grapevine Road, Wenham, MA 0194, USA

Contained within the corpus of Solomonial is a Jewish astrological handbook entitled the Epistle to Rehoboam (EpReh) or Concerning Hygromancy. This obscure pseudepigraphon is part of a Jewish folkloric tradition that expanded tales about Solomons wisdom, power and wealth.2 In EpReh, Solomon advises his son Rehoboam about the astrological techniques necessary for the procurement of power, wealth and sexual gratification. The Solomonic manual unveils a revolving hierarchy of planetary gods and spirits that determine the course of events on any given day. After outlining the governing forces the epistle discloses how to gain influence over these powers through prayer and magic. Although the sub-title of EpReh is Concerning Hygromancy, the ancient divinatory rite of hydromancy is not discussed in the tract. Hydromancy was a divinatory technique through which practitioners conscripted the services of demons.3 The magician stirred water until a demon appeared on the waters surface. The demon was then forced to work for the magician.4 Perhaps the art of hydromancy, much like Solomons seal or even his talismanic bottle, was used as an explanation for how Solomon was able to control demons for his service. There is only an informal connection between EpReh and the magical technique of hydromancy, with both promising to control adversarial powers. There is an intriguing amulet that reinforces, however, the connection between the tradition of Solomon the Hydromancer (as reflected in the sub-title of EpReh) and the divinatory technique itself This evidence may support a popular early tradition linking Solomon with the divinatory rite. The amulet depicts Solomon

92

performing hydromancy. Solomon stands over a pot that he is stirring with a lance, dressed in the regalia of a magician (a hat and a long robe). The caduceus of Mercury is in front of Solomon and he is surrounded by various magical characters, including what appear to be symbols for the sun and stars.5 Several of the magical characters are identical to the magical insignia decorating one of the recensions of EpReh. The Solomonic amulet, in general, underscores the antiquity of the theme of EpReh and, in particular, the tradition that Solomon controlled spirits and perhaps even planetary powers by
divination.
Textual Tradition
extant recensions of EpReh date from the fifteenth to the seventeenth century. It appears that these recensions represent three different textual traditions, hereafter referred to as A, B, and C. While the textual traditions have many obvious similarities, they also have numerous variations. Two of the recensions bear such striking parallels with each other that they can be cautiously classified in the same textual tradition, hereafter referred to as EpReh-A. The first recension is contained in the Codex Harleianus 556, Brit. Mus. Ff. 18-39, 41-43 and 50. This account is both the longest and the oldest copy of the various recensions of EpReh, dating from the fifteenth century. The text, unfortunately, is fragmentary. The first portion (Ff. 18-39) is flanked by various recensions of the Testament of Solomon. Parts of the Codex Harleianus and all of EpReh-A have been edited and published by Delatte in Anecdota Athenaensia.6 A second recension of the textual tradition EpReh-A is the Codex Parisircorum Gr. 2419 Ff. 218-19. This tract shares a common organization and a similar content with the Codex Harleianus 556. The Codex Par isinorum dates from the sixteenth or seventeenth century and is a condensed version of EpReh-A. The text is complete but obviously abbreviated when compared with the Codex Harleianus. The Codex Parisinorum 7 has also been edited and published in Anecdota Athenensia.7 The second textual tradition hereafter referred to as EpReh-B, apparently is attested in only one recension: the Codex Taurinensis C;r. VII, lSFf. 75-6, dating from the fifteenth or sixteenth century. While the text is fragmentary, what exists varies enough from the other recensions to represent a different textual tradition. An edited

The five

93

version of EpReh-B, as contained in the Codex Taurinensis, has been published in the Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum IV and the entire Codex Taurinensis has also been published.8 The third textual tadition, hereafter referred to as EpReh-C, is attested in the final two recensions of the epistle. The first of these recensions is in the Codex Monacenses Gr. 70 Ff. 240-54, dating from the sixteenth century. Aside from some minor lacunae, this recension is completely intact. The Codex Monacensis has been edited by Heeg in the Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum VIILIL9 The second recension is a complete, but abbreviated, version of the textual tradition EpReh-C. This tract also dates from the sixteenth century, is found in the Codex Athous, Dionys. Mon. 282, and has also been edited and published by Delatte in Anecdota Atheniensia.lo It is futile to attempt to discern which textual tradition of EpReh is the closest to the original. EpReh-C (and specifically Heegs edition of the Codex Moraacensis Gr. 70 Ff 240-54) is preferable to EpReh-A and EpReh-B, because it is less fragmentary.

Authorship, Provenance and Date There are several indications of varying force that seem to indicate a Jewish authorship of EpReh. The pseudepigraphical style of the epistle was popular among the Jews from circa 200 BCE to 200 CE.11 Under the guise of an Old Testament pseudonym Solomon, the author attempted to write instruction in astro-religion to his son Rehoboam, this is not to say that pseudepigraphy was an exclusively Jewish phenomenon. In the minds of some Christians, however, the Solomonic claim to the title Son of David coupled with his magical powers posed a threat to the Messianic claim of Christ. Several Christians in late antiquity wrote anti-Solomonic polemical works to combat what appeared to be the Jewish apologetic use of Solomonic lore. 12 Christians wanting to retain Solomons magical powers without jeopardizing their own Christian beliefs converted the Jewish king and canonized him as St Sisinnius or St George. Because - of the Christian opposition to Solomonic pseudepigraphy, I would suggest (with caution) that the work is more likely to be a Jewish product. A Jewish authorship is also indicated by the nomenclature used by the author and by the Semitic and Old Testament names found in the tract. Throughout the epistle Friday is referred to as the Day of

94

and Saturday is called the Sabbath. The epistle also contains lists of angels and demons for the days of the week and most of the angels listed, and at least one demon, have names with typical Semitic endings. Included in the list of names are the seven archangels and angelic beings named Ezekiel, Samuel, Joel, and Samson, providing further evidence of a Jewish authorship of the

Preparation

tract.

The names for the Hebrew God and for Christ are not registered in the epistles lists of spiritual forces. 13 Arguments from silence are always risky, but in some instances silence poses eloquent questions. By the mid-first century CE, some Jewish exorcists were using the name of Jesus to expel demons.&dquo; By the medieval period, Jewish magicians commonly invoked the name of Jesus in their spells and, conversely, his name was often included in lists of evil powers.ls Exorcists and magicians used a variety of Jewish and Christian names perceived to be powerful regardless of whether the use of these names together appeared to be incongruous or not. The noticeable omission of any Christian name in EpReh may suggest an

early date of authorship. Despite the polytheistic implications of EpReh, there is a sense throughout the epistle that the author maintained an allegiance to a supreme power who orchestrates and controls the astrological forces.
This henotheistic undercurrent is evident in several passages, but can be seen most explicitly in a series of prayers invoking a supreme power to control the planetary gods and spirits. Each prayer attributes characteristics normally associated with the planetary god to the one to whom the prayer is addressed, perhaps by implication, Yahweh. Seven prayers beseeched God for power to control the seven planetary gods: Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, the Sun, Venus, Mercury, and the Moon.16 The pious prayers begin on a majestic note yet illustrate the syncretism of Jewish monotheism and Greco-Roman astroreligion. For example the prayer for control over the Sun reads:
and Lord of lords, the One who existed before possessor of everlasting power, inconceivable illumination and limitless light, the only rich provider and supplier of mercy, visit us by granting favor and kindness that we might be able to subjugate the passing planet the Sun and possess his power O

King of kings

creation,

(translation mine).

95

If EpReh was written by a Jew, it was probably of Egyptian provenance. The organization of the days of the week, ruled by planetary gods, and the particular order in which these gods were arranged, was an Egyptian innovation. 17 No Near Eastern deities were included in the lists of demons; however, Apios, Sarapidie, Osthridie (Osiridie) and Pharos were Egyptian gods found in the text listed as demons. The use of these deities in particular may indicate that EpReh was written in the Ptolemaic period. A final note favoring an Egyptian provenance of EpReh was the authors use of the descriptive metaphor of the sun and its wings, an ubiquitous Egyptian artistic motif. In a section of the epistle containing magical signs associated with each planetary god, one of the magical symbols for the sun (second row, third symbol from the left in the manuscript) is very similar to Akhenatens iconographic representation of Aton, the Egyptian god associated with the disc of the sun. In both representations, the sun is depicted with outreaching hands.&dquo; If a Jewish authorship is accepted, then Alexandria would have been the most probable Egyptian place of authorship. Alexandria had a large Jewish population through the late Roman period and was renowned as a center for the production of magical works. The origin of EpReh is difficult to date accurately. The document was apparently written in koine Greek and shares a common vocabulary with the New Testament. While the language and grammar are similar to the New Testament, EpReh appears to be free from any direct references to the New Testament. The conspicuous absence of any Christian name or New Testament reference strongly suggests that the author was unacquainted with Christianity. The Alexandrian Jews were the first Egyptian converts to Christianity, which spread rapidly among the Jewish population from the reign of the Emperor Claudius through the second century>19 It is unlikely that a Jew would have written EpReh from Alexandria later than the second century CE without reference or allusion to Christianity. It is certain that EpReh was redacted by a medieval hand, betrayed by the use of some Byzantine words in the text. A medieval redaction is also the best explanation for the reference to Sunday as the Lords Day throughout the text, unless it is an example of Mithraic influence. These factors should by no means undermine the antiquity of EpReh, but rather confirm it. The Byzantine evidence, coupled with the lack of any reference to Christianity, should underscore the care taken by the medieval scribe to maintain the textual tradition.

96 A popular first- and second-century Christian apologetic criticized Jews for worshipping angelic powers. The earliest delineation of this allegation was in Colossians, where, in a passage focussing on Judaism, Paul warned the Christians of Colossae not to be led astray by the worship of angels.2 The criticism was reiterated in the apocryphal treatise entitled the Preaching of Peter, which may have been written as early as the reign of Hadrian.21 The same criticism, that Jews worshipped angelic powers, was included in a revised edition of the Apology of Aristides presented to the Emperor Antoninus. 22 This early church apologetic is a witness to the popularity among some Jews of ideas like those found in EpReh and other pseudepigraphical works and illustrates the antiquity of these

ideas. 23
While a number of early sources refer to the popular circulation of Solomonic tracts in the ancient workd, EpReh was never mentioned specifically by name. Some scholars, however, maintain that the epistle was referred to in the Gnostic tractate entitled On the Origin of the World.24 The OrWrld referred to a Solomonic work (without recording its title) which had a list of forty-nine demons and a description of each demons sphere of influence. If the Gnostic author of the OrWrld had EpReh in mind, then the date of authorship for the OrWrld marks a terminus ad quem for EpRehs date of authorship. The OrWrld must have been written earlier than 400 CE, the approximate date that the Nag Hammadi codices were buried. The epistle contains information thaw clearly indicates an early date of authorship. Assuming a Jewish authorship and an immediate Jewish readership, the many references to warfare may place the documents date between 165 BCE and 135 CE.25 The internal allusions to the political and social structure are also harmonious with a date of authorship during the Roman period, including a reference to a demon named Caesar (see n. 27). Finally, it is known that many Solomonic books were being circulated by the close of the first century CE. Josephus was acquainted with the Solomonic lore of his day and his description of these traditions shows a striking resemblance to the contents of EpReh.26 Based on the evidence above, I would cautiously suggest that the date of authorship for EpReh was no later than the close of the second century CE. If EpReh is of Jewish authorship and dates to the first century CE, then it bears witness to an interesting circumstance.
.

97

During the first century CE, both Judaism and astrology fell under Imperial disfavor in the Roman empire.27 The epistle may afford an example of a Jewish astrological tract written and distributed despite the Imperial ban.
Overview

EpReh contains a plan designed to assure its readers a profitable, successful, and pleasurable life. An overview of the work will demonstrate how these promises might be fulfilled. For the sake of discussion, I have organized the epistle into seven sections (or chapters). The first section of EpReh is an introduction stating the purpose of the epistle. EpReh opens with a dialogue between
Solomon and his son Rehoboam and the discussion focuses on the hierarchy of powers one must contend with in this world and the beneficial magical objects which can be used to coerce these powers
into ones service.

The second section is an overview of the planetary gods that control each hour of each day of the week, and the kinds of things that might be procured in any given hour. The planetary gods that rule on the first hour of the day dictate the kind of benefits that are attainable throughout that entire day. For example, because Venus rules the first hour on Friday, the planetary gods that rule successively through each hour of Friday bring blessings and curses in the area of love. The third section is a list of angels and demons corresponding to individual hours of the day for each day of the week. While sections two and three delineate the hierarchy of powers that control any given hour, sections four and five describe how these powers might be harnessed to work on the readers behalf. The fourth section supplies prayers that are designed to coerce the appropriate planetary god and angel (or demon) to work for the suppliant. The prayers are directed to an anonymous power who has authority over the planetary gods.28 The prayers imply that a Supreme Being (Yahweh?) reigns over the hierarchy of powers and ultimately controls the events of life. Furthermore, each of the prayers contrasts the attributes and power of the Supreme God with commonly accepted characteristics of the planetary gods. The Supreme God has all the attributes commonly associated with the planetary gods, but in complete perfection. The fifth section lists

98

magical objects and signs used to coerce the planetary gods to work in the suppliants favor. The only extended textual lacuna is at the end of section five and the beginning of section six.29 The advice contained in sections six and seven turns away from discussions on the hierarchy of powers to an elaboration of plants and their magical (and medicinal) properties.3 Section six discusses the plants identified with the various zodiacal rulers and each plants magical abilities are listed. The seventh section discusses plants identified with the planetary gods along with the magical powers that these plants possess. The practioner harnesses the appropriate forces necessary to accomplish his desires by means of the plants, magical objects, and prayer. EpReh comes to an abrupt end at the conclusion of section seven possibly suggesting that the original tract had a longer ending, no longer extant. This might imply that EpReh was originally written on papyri, pointing to an early date of authorship.
.

l2elation

to

Canonical Literature

EpReh has several noteworthy indirect parallels with Old Testament literature. The epistle is an extension of the Biblical tradition about Solomon and his extraordinary wisdom and power. In particular, EpReh appears to be a direct outgrowth of Solomons teaching in the
book of Ecclesiastes that there is a time for every season.31 The author of the epistle has attempted to conceptualize the passage in Ecclesiastes within an astro-religious framework. The most apparent similarity between EpReh and the New Testament is the use of a common vocabulary. Several sections of the tract are reminiscent of New Testament passages with the most prominent parallels being descriptions of healings and exorcisms.32 Perhaps EpReh contributed to a popular Jewish contention in the time of Jesus that the Messianic Son of David would be a veritable Solomonic wonder-worker.33 The parallels between EpReh and the New Testament appear to be coincidental and not the product of direct quotation or reference.
.

Relation

to

Non-canonical Literature

From the late Hellenistic age through the Medieval period, Solomonic legend gradually expanded into elaborately developed sensationalized claims. EpReh fits in this folkloric continuum, dependent on

99

literature that preceded its writing and influencing works that followed its origination. The Wisdom of Solomon may contain the earliest non-canonical statement of Solomons magical abilities, depositing with the king the knowledge of the talismanic use of roots and power over deomons.34 EpReh is an expansion of the apocryphal traditions included in the Wisdom of Solomon with the twist that the gods and demons of EpReh are often controlled to accomplish unethical and immoral ends. There are also close affinities between EpReh and other non-canonical literature written during the later Roman period. For example, EpReh is similar in areas of demonology with the Testament of Solomon, in areas of magic with the Sefer HaRazim, and in the area of astro-speculation with the Solomonic passage found in the GinzQ.35 One of the most interesting aspects about EpReh is its astrological framework. 31 The evidence for the gradual acceptance of astrology by some of the Jewish people during the late Hellenistic and early Roman period has been carefully delineated elsewhere.3~ The evidence for popularity of Jewish astrological speculation is attested in the Talmud, the Pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Palestinian synagogue mosaics. There are some passages in the Pseudepigrapha which clearly reflect a positive attitude toward astrology, despite several pejorative condemnations of astrology also found in that same body of works. The only extended astrological pseudepigraphon is the Treatise of Shem.38 If correctly dated, EpReh should be added to the corpus of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha and is further evidence of Jewish interest in astrology by the close of the second century CE.

Concluding Remarks
seems to be a Jewish pseudepigraphon originating from Alexandria. EpReh should not be disregarded on the grounds that the work is replete with occultic implications and therefore either part of an inferior ancient genre or a late Medieval magical product. The syncretistic astro-Judaism betrayed in EpReh correlates well with other evidence from this early period. The epistle is significant because of its relationship to both canonical and non-canonical religious literature. EpReh is also noteworthy because of the religious and cultural information that it supplies about Judaism, containing a wealth of fascinating information that should increase our understanding of the religious world of late antiquity.

EpReh

100

NOTES
1. See

J.H. Charlesworth,
Montana: Scholars

The

Pseudepigrapha

and Modern Research

aux

Press, 1976); A.-M. Denis, Introduction pseudépigraphes grècs dAncien Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1970).

(Missoula,

2. For an overview of Solomonic literature see M. Seligsohn, Solomon, Jeswish Encyclopedia, ed. I. Singer (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1909), vol. II, pp. 435-47; Karl Preisendanz, Salomo, Paulys Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft Suppl. 8 (1956), cols. 660-704; Louis Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, 7 Vols. (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1928); George Salzberger, Die Salomosage in der semitischen Literatur (Berlin: M. Schmerson, 1907); C.C. McCown, The Christian Tradition as to the Magical Wisdom of Solomon, Palestine Oriental Society 21 (1922), pp. 1-24; Scott T. Carroll, The ApocAd, Solomonic Legend, and Pre-Christian Gnosticism, VC (forthcoming); D.C. Duling, The Testament of Solomon, in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. J.H. Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1983), Vol. I, pp. 935-87; idem, The Eleazer Miracle and Solomons Magical Wisdom in Flavius Josephuss Antiquitates Judaicae 8.42-49, HTR 78 (1985), pp. 1-25; and the forthcoming monograph by Duling on Solomonia with Scholars Press. 3. See Boehm, Hydromancy, in Pauly-Wissowa, IX, cols. 79-86; A. Bouché-Leclerq, Histoire de la divination dans lantiquité (Paris, 1879), I, pp. 185ff.; A. Caquot and M. Leibovici, La Divination, 2 Vols. (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1968); M. Schab, Les coupes magiques et lhydromancie dans lantiquité orientale, Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 12 (1890), pp. 292-342. The difference between hydromancy and hygromancy (the later is found in the post-script of this text) may have been, as implied by the words themselves, the amount of water to be used.

Migne PL, Augustine De civitate dei 7.35; Hincmarus Remensis ( Lucian The Apology of Apuleius; Ps Callisthenis Vitae Alexandri Magni; Mich. Psellus; Hippolytus Ref. Haer. IV. 35. 5. E.R. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman World (Bollingen Series, 37; New York: Pantheon, 1953-68), fig. 1059. 6. A. Delatte, Anecdota Atheniensia 36 (Paris: E. Champion, 1927),
CXXV, p. 718);
pp. 397-4-45. 7. Ibid., pp. 470-77. 8. Catalogus Codicum

4. See

Astrologorum

Graecorum

(hereafter CCAG),

Codices Italicos (Brussels: Henrici Lamertin, 1903), Vol. IV, pp. 15-16. the full text is in Pasini, Codices Taurinenses CCLXXXIII. 9. Codicum Parisinorum, CCAG VIII.2, ed. J. Heeg (Brussels: Henrici

Lamertin, 1911),

pp. 139-65. 10. Anecdota Athous in Anecdota Atheniensia 51.

36, ed. A. Delatte, pp. 649-

101
11. See Charlesworth, The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research, pp. 1725 ; and idem, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha I, pp. xxiv-xxv. 12. McCown, The Christian Tradition as to the Magical Wisdom of

Solomon, pp. 14-16. Another passage which should be added to McGowns citations is the Second Treatise of the Great Seth (CG VII, 2) 63. 13. The Codex Harleianus is more overtly Jewish with references to the patriarchs and other Old Testament persons along with a variety of names for the Hebrew God including Emmanouael, Iaou, Adonai, Eloi, Kurie, Eleim, Theos, and Sabaoth. Some other names of interest in the Codex Harleianus are Pantokrator, Alaelouia and Tetragrammatos.
14. Acts 19.13-14. 15. See J. Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition: A Study in Folk Religion (Philadelphia: the Jewish Publication Society of America, 1939; repr., New York: Atheneum, 1984), pp. 78-103, 200. 16. The gods are listed by their Greek names in the text; however, in order to reflect the astro-religious implications of the text, I have chosen to refer to the gods by their appropriate Roman names. 17. Cf. Cassius Dio 37.18-19: the custom, however, of referring the days to the seven stars called planets was instituted by the Egyptians, but is now found among all mankind, though its adoption has been comparatively recent; at any rate the ancient Greeks never understood it, so far as I am aware. 18. D.B. Redford, Akhenaten: The Heretic King (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981), pp. 76-77, 80-81. 19. Col. 2.18. 20. Birger A. Pearson, Earliest Christianity in Egypt: Some Observations, and A.F.J. Klijn, Jewish Christianity in Egypt, in The Roots of Egyptian Christianity, ed. B. Pearson and J. Goehring (Philadephia: Fortress, 1986),

pp. 133-75.
21. Clement Stromata 6.39-41,43,48,58, and 128. See also A.J. Malherbe, The Apologetic Theology of the Preaching of Peter, Restoration Quarterly 13 (1970), pp. 205-23. 22. Aristides Apologia (Syriac) 14.3. 23. Note the forthcoming dissertation from Hebrew University by Clair Pfann on the Jewish view of angels in the first and second centuries CE. 24. H.-G. Bethge and O.W. Wintermute, trans., On the Origin of the World (II,5 and XIII,2), in The Nag Hammadi Library in English, ed. J.M. Robinson (New York: Harper and Row, 1977), p. 167. The association with EpReh is maintained by J. Doresse, Les livres secrets des gnostiques dÉgypte (Paris: Plon, 1958-9), p. 170; and A. Böhlig and P. Labib, Die koptischgnostische Schrift ohne Titel aus Codex II von Nag Hammadi (Berlin: Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Institut für Orientforschung, 1962), p. 32. The connection between EpReh and OrWrld is rejected by D.C. Duling in Testament of Solomon, in The Old Testament

102
p. 942; and Gerard Mussies Catalogues of Sins and Virtues Personified (NHC II,5), in Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions Presented to Gilles Quispel, ed. R. van den Broek and M.J. Vermaseren (Leiden: Brill, 1981), pp. 317-18 n. 4. 25. This time span begins with the Maccabaean revolt against the Seleucids and closes with the expulsion of the Jews from Jerusalem after Bar Kochbas uprising. 26. See R. Reitzenstein, Poimandres. Studien zur griechisch-ägyptischen und frühchristlichen Literatur (Leipzig: 1904; repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1966), pp. 186-87. Josephus Ant. 8.2.5 relates: Now so great was the prudence and wisdom which God granted Solomon that he surpassed the ancients, and even the Egyptians, who are said to excel all men in understanding, were not only when compared with him, a little inferior but proved to fall far short of the king in sagacity.... and God granted him knowledge of the art used against demons for the benefit and healing of men. He also composed incantations by which illnesses are relieved, and left behind forms of exorcisms with which those possessed by demons drive them out, never to return. And this kind of cure is of very great power among us to this day. 27. R. MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966); P. Boyance, Lastrologie dans le monde romain, Classe des lettres Bulletin 5.61 (Académie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux Arts de Belgique: 1975), pp. 266-85; A. Bouché-Leclerq, Lastrologie grecque (Brussels: Culture et Civilisation, 1899; repr. Scientia Verlag Aalen, 1976), pp. 542-627; W. Knappich, Geschichte der Astrologie (Frankfurt: Vitttorio Klostermann, 1967), pp. 76-119. Perhaps the demon named Kasieroph is to be associated with Caesar. 28. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, II. pp. 233-34. 29. Heeg suggests in CCAG VIII.II, p. 159 n. 7, that the lacuna can be reconstructed with the use of Über Selene und Verwandtes, in Codice Atheniensi N.G. Polites, ed. Roscher p. 176. 30. Theodoret Questiones in III Reg. Quaest. 10 (Migne PG 80, 676) relates the tradition (first suggested in Wis. 7) that Solomon was the father of medicine because of his understanding of the medicinal characteristics of plants, trees, and animal body parts (see also Jerome Quaest. Heb. in libr. II Reg. in Migne PL 23,1365-66). For other tracts that delineate the medicinal and magical powers of plants see De septem herbis planetarum, in CCAG XXII, ed. A.F. Sangin (Brussels: Henrici Lamertin, 1936), pp. 126-35 (and Table 1); and De plantis duodecim signis et septem planetis subiectus, in CCAG VIII.III, ed. P. Boudreaux (Brussels: Henrici Lamertin, 1912),

Pseudepigrapha, I,

pp. 132-65.
31. Eccl. 3.1-8. 32. See D.C. Duling, Solomon, Exorcism and the Son of David, HTR 68 (1975), pp. 235-52; Loren Fisher, Can this be the Son of David? in Jesus

103
and the Historian. Written in Honor of Ernest Cadman Colwell, ed. F.T. Trotter (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968), pp. 82-98; Klaus Berger, Die königlichen Messiastraditionen des Neuen Testaments, NTS 20 (1973), pp. 1-44; E. Lövestam, David-son-kristologin hos synoptikema, SEÅ 15 (1972), pp. 198-210. 33. Compare with Susan Garrett, The Demise of the Devil (Philadelphia:

Fortress, 1989; forthcoming).

34. Wis.7.7-8a. 35. See D.C. Duling Testament of Solomon, in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, I, pp. 935-87; Michael Morgan, Sefer Ha Razim (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983); M. Lidzbarski, Ginza: Der Schatz oder Das grosse Buch der Mandäer (Göttingen, 1925; repr. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &

Ruprecht, 1978).
36. For later tracts associating Solomon with astrology see the AngloSaxon Solomon and Saturn, listed by Charlesworth, The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research, p. 199; and discussed by M.R. James, The Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament (London: SPCK, 1920), pp. 51-53. Note also the collection of astrology, demonology and magic found in the Key of Solomon. The text has been published by S.L.M. Mathers, Clavicula Solomonis (London, 1888); H. Gollancz, Cavicula Salomonis (London, 1903); and discussed by McCown, The Christian Tradition as the Magical Wisdom of Solomon, p. 8 n.3, p. 18; idem, The Testament of Solomon (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1922), p. 100; Preisendanz, Salomo, col. 696; Denis, Introduction aux pseudépigraphes, pp. 67-69. 37. J.H. Charlesworth, Jewish Astrology in the Talmud, Pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Early Palestinian Synagogues, HTR 70 (1977), pp. 183-200; and idem, Jewish Interests in Astrology during the Hellenistic and Roman Period, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt I. 20.2 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1987), pp. 926-50. See also F. Cumont, Astrology and Religion Among the Greeks and Romans (New York: G. P. Putnams Sons, 1912; repr. New York: Dover, 1960); idem, LÉgypte des astrologues (Brussels, 1937); O. Neugebauer, The Exact Sciences in Antiquity (New York, 1957); Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition, pp. 249-59. 38. J.H. Charlesworth, Die "Schrift des Sem": Einführung, Text und Übersetzung, with J.R. Mueller, Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt II 20.2 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1987), pp. 951-81; idem, Treatise of Shem, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, I, pp.473-86. Note also the forthcoming dissertation from Miami (Ohio) University by Lester Ness on Jewish Astrology in Late Antiquity.