Satans Refusal to Worship Adam: A Jewish Motif

and Its Reception in Syriac Christian Tradition

Sergey Minov
The sinister figure of Satan, about whom the canonical writings of the
Bible provide so little information, puzzled many generations of Jewish and
Christian theologians and exegetes from antiquity through the middle ages.1
Perhaps the most significant challenge posed by this mythological figure for
the thinkers of the nondualist mainstream in both Judaism and Christianity
was the need to explain why and how Satan, created originally as good, became
quite the oppositea quintessential and paradigmatic enemy of the omnipotent and good deity, and of humanity. A number of different explanations have
been suggested to account for the fall of Satan. Generally speaking, they may
be divided into two major groups: 1) stories in which Satan forfeits his original
quality of goodness because he tries to challenge God himself and usurp his
place in heaven;2 and 2) stories in which he loses his exalted status because of
his enmity towards the primeval humans, Gods creatures.3
The purpose of the present study is to investigate one particular version of
the myth of the fall of Satan, which belongs to the second group. Its distinguishing feature is the combination of the two closely related but nevertheless distinctive submotifs: 1) the veneration of the newly created Adam by the
* I am most grateful to Prof. Menahem Kister for his generous help and insightful comments
on an earlier version of this paper, which helped to improve it significantly. Needless to say,
the responsibility for any shortcomings that remain is mine alone.
1 On the origins of this mythological figure and the earliest stages in its development in
ancient Jewish and Christian traditions, see J. B. Russell, Satan: The Early Christian Tradition
(Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1981); N. Forsyth, The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat
Myth (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987); E. H. Pagels, The Origin of Satan (New
York: Vintage, 1996); H. A. Kelly, Satan: A Biography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2006); A. A. Orlov, Dark Mirrors: Azazel and Satanael in Early Jewish Demonology (Albany,
N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 2011).
2 This explanation often invokes the motif of Satans pride vis--vis God.
3 This explanation often invokes the motif of Satans envy towards Adam. For a concise
presentation of these two positions, see J.-M. Rosenstiehl, La chute de lAnge: Origines et
dveloppement dune lgende; ses attestations dans la littrature copte, in critures et traditions dans la littrature copte: Journe dtudes coptes, Strasbourg 28 mai 1982 (Cahiers de la
Bibliothque copte 1; Louvain: Peeters, 1983), 3760, esp. 3753.

koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 5|doi .63/9789004299139_011

Satan s Refusal to Worship Adam

231

angelic forces; and 2) the refusal of Satan to participate in this act, which results
in his rejection by God. One of the earliest attestations of this interpretation of
Satans demotion comes from the apocryphal composition known as the Life of
Adam and Eve. In the first part of my investigation, I discuss the account of the
fall of Satan as it is presented in the Life. The main thrust of this discussion is
that this interpretation of Satans fall is deeply rooted in the context of ancient
Jewish speculation on the figure of Adam; I argue that this account took its
point of departure from a Jewish tradition about the veneration of Adam by
the angels. This latter tradition is itself attested in such diverse sources as the
Slavonic apocryphon 2 Enoch and some rabbinic texts.
In the second section I offer an overview of the reception history of this
originally Jewish tradition in the Syriac Christian milieu, from its earliest
appearance during late antiquity, in the sixth-century composition known as
the Cave of Treasures, until the early modern period. In the process, I explore
how this tradition was adapted to and functioned within a wide range of literary genres and rhetorical settings. I place particular emphasis on how this tradition became an important topic of the Christian dialogue with Islam, in the
context of the complex cross-cultural exchange that characterized societies of
the medieval Near East. Because this explanation of Satans fall gained canonical status in the Muslim tradition, where it appears already in the Qurn, some
later Syriac-speaking Christians began to perceive it as problematic and tried
to marginalize it; those who continued to use this tradition also mobilized it
for the purpose of polemic against Islam. I connect the diversity among Syriacspeaking Christians in the usage of this account with its popularity as an element of the mythological discourse that was shared by many groups across the
Islamicate world: a world which was shaped by the tradition of the dominant
Muslim majority, but was open to a certain degree to the participation of various religious minorities.
1

The Fall of Satan in the Life of Adam and Eve

One of the earliest attestations of the explanation of Satans fall as a result

of the conflict with Adam comes from the Life of Adam and Eve, a retelling of
the life story of the primeval couple written most probably during the period
100300 CE.4 This work, the original language of which was apparently Greek,

4 For general information on this work, see M. E. Stone, A History of the Literature of Adam and
Eve (SBLEJL 3; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992); and M. de Jonge and J. Tromp, The Life of Adam

232

Minov

is preserved in several recensionsGreek, Latin, Armenian, Georgian, and

Old Slavonic.5
The account of Satans fall that interests us appears in paragraphs 1117 of
the Latin, Armenian, and Georgian versions of the Life.6 There, Satan succeeds
in tricking Eve for a second time by obstructing her efforts to do penance in
the river Tigris. Adam then asks him, in despair, for the reason of his persistent
hostility towards the two humans. In his reply, Satan explains that because of
Adam, he has lost his exalted place in the heavenly hierarchy of angels. Satan
further relates how, when Adam was first formed, animated, and endowed
with the image and likeness of his creator, the archangel Michael brought him
to bow down to God. This act of worship was followed by Gods public recognition that Adam had indeed been created in his image and likeness. Then,
Michael summoned the rest of angels, ordered them to worship Adam,7 and
set the example by bowing down (or prostrating himself) before the first man.
When the archangel ordered Satan to comply the latter refused, on the grounds
that having been created first, he could not worship Adam, who had been created last. The angels under Satans command followed their leader and also
refused to worship Adam. Displeased by this act of disobedience, God expelled
Satan and his angels from the heavens.

and Eve and Related Literature (Guides to the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha 4; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1997).
5 These versions have been conveniently published in synoptic format, together with English
translations, in G. A. Anderson and M. E. Stone, A Synopsis of the Books of Adam and Eve
(2d rev. ed.; SBLEJL 17; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999). There are also recent critical editions of
the Greek and Latin versions of the Life: J. Tromp, The Life of Adam and Eve in Greek: A Critical
Edition (PVTG 6; Leiden: Brill, 2005); and J.-P. Pettorelli, J.-D. Kaestli, A. Frey, and B. Outtier,
Vita latina Adae et Evae: Synopsis vitae Adae et Evae, Latine, Graece, Armeniace et Iberice
(2 vols.; CCSA 1819; Turnhout: Brepols, 2012).
6 For the texts and an English translation, see Anderson and Stone, Synopsis, 1318e. For the
Latin recension, see also Pettorelli et al., Vita latina, 1:300315 (Latin text and French translation); 2:77889 (synopsis of the Latin, Armenian, and Georgian versions). For an alternative
English translation of the Latin version by M. D. Johnson, see OTP 2:26064.
7 The Latin text describes this action using the verb adorare, which undoubtedly renders the
verb of the original Greek prototype of the Life. The verb originally
designated a hand-kissing gesture of devotion towards the gods; later on it came to describe
the act of kneeling or prostrating oneself in obeisance, whether before gods or kings. Thus,
during the period of the Lifes composition, i.e., the Roman Imperial era, both the Greek
and the Latin adorare were used by classical authors to describe obeisance before
earthly rulers as well as the worship of the gods. See B. M. Marti, Proskynesis and Adorare,
Language 12/4 (1936): 27282.

Satan s Refusal to Worship Adam

233

It should be noted here that although the story of Satans fall is not attested
in the existing Greek witnesses of the Life, there are compelling reasons to
think that it formed an integral part of the Greek Vorlage of this composition,
from which the Latin and other versions derive. This has been convincingly
argued by Michael Stone on the basis of evidence provided by the Armenian
and Georgian versions.8
There is continuing debate among students of apocryphal literature as to
whether the Life should be regarded as a Jewish or a Christian work. While
previous scholarship primarily considered the book to be a Jewish composition, more and more scholars during the last decades have begun to challenge
this consensus and to advance the argument that the Life is a Christian text.9
Nevertheless, the question of the Lifes confessional milieu is still sub iudice.
Accordingly, at the moment it seems preferable to follow the cautious assessment of George Nickelsburg, who in a recent survey of the status quaestionis
with regard to this issue concludes that, in the present state of the discussion
the provenance of the versions of the Life of Adam and Eve is uncertain, but
seems to tip in favor of Christian authorship of the Life of Adam and Eve in
the versions in which it is now extant. At the same time, Nickelsburg warns
scholars of the dangers of using the various versions of the Life uncritically,
either as attestations of first-century Jewish religious thought or as certain testimonies to an as yet undefined sector of the second- or third-century church.10
Since Nickelsburgs observation that the presence of Jewish traditions in the
versions of the Life by no means excludes Christian authorship works both
ways,11 I will not address here the general issue of the origins of the Life as a
whole composition. Instead, I will focus on the question of whether the particular tradition concerning the fall of Satan that appears in this work might be
better understood as Jewish or Christian.

8 See M. E. Stone, The Fall of Satan and Adams Penance: Three Notes on The Books of
Adam and Eve, JTS n.s. 44/1 (1993): 14356 (15356).
9 See M. de Jonge, The Christian Origin of the Greek Life of Adam and Eve, in Literature on
Adam and Eve: Collected Essays (ed. G. A. Anderson, M. E. Stone and J. Tromp; SVTP15;
Leiden: Brill, 2000), 34763; R. Nir, The Aromatic Fragrances of Paradise in the Greek
Life of Adam and Eve and the Christian Origin of the Composition, NovT 46/1 (2004):
2045; J. R. C. Cousland, The Latin VitaA Gospel of Adam and Eve? in...And So They
Went Out: The Lives of Adam and Eve as Cultural Transformative Story (ed. D. V. Arbel,
J. R. C. Cousland, and D. Neufeld; London: T&T Clark, 2010), 12142, 15759.
10 G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and
Literary Introduction (2d ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 332.
11 Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature, 332.

234

Minov

For most of the past century, it has been commonly assumed by students of
ancient Judaism that the myth of Satans fall in the Life was Jewish in origin.12
This consensus, however, was not unanimous. Among the first scholars to classify the myth of Satans refusal to worship Adam as Christian were Jewish students of Islam. Thus, Abraham Geiger, in his pioneering work on the Jewish
background of the Qurn, commented in relation to the Qurnic story of the
devils refusal to worship Adam that it bears unmistakable marks of Christian
development, in that Adam is represented in the beginning as the God-man,
worthy of adoration, which the Jews are far from asserting.13
Recently, Jean-Daniel Kaestli has made perhaps the most sustained attempt
to demonstrate the Christian origin of this myth.14 The main arguments presented by Kaestli are: (a) the interpolated and Christian character of the myth
of Satans fall in the long recension of 2 En. 29:45, used by some scholars to
support the theory of the Jewish origin of the story of Satans fall in the Life;
(b) the irrelevance of the story of Satans fall in the medieval midrash, Bereshit
Rabbati,15 for the reconstruction of the earliest stages in the development
of this tradition; (c) the difficulty involved in proving that the notion of the
angelic veneration of Christ in the New Testament, i.e., Heb 1:6, is dependent

12 Cf. L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (trans. H. Szold; 7 vols.; Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society, 19091938), 5:85; C. H. T. Fletcher-Louis, The Worship of Divine
Humanity as Gods Image and the Worship of Jesus, in The Jewish Roots of Christological
Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the
Worship of Jesus (ed. C. C. Newman, J. R. Davila, and G. S. Lewis; JSJSup 63; Leiden: Brill,
1999), 11228 (12728); and most recently, J. Dochhorn, The Motif of the Angels Fall in
Early Judaism, in Angels: The Concept of Celestial BeingsOrigins, Development and
Reception (ed. F. V. Reiterer, T. Nicklas, and K. Schpflin; Deuterocanonical and Cognate
Literature Yearbook 2007; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2007), 47795 (48691).
13 A. Geiger, Judaism and Islam: A Prize Essay (trans. F. M. Young; Madras: M.D.C.S.P.C.K.
Press, 1898), 77. A similar opinion was expressed by another Jewish scholar, Leo Jung, who
in his comprehensive overview of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim speculations concerning the fall of the angels, characterizes this tradition as extra-talmudic and Christian;
see L. Jung, Fallen Angels in Jewish, Christian, and Mohammedan Literature: A Study
in Comparative Folk-Lore, JQR n.s. 15/4 (1925): 467502; 16/1 (1925): 4588; 16/2 (1925):
171205; 16/3 (1926): 287336; the quotation is from 16/1:61.
14 See J.-D. Kaestli, Le mythe de la chute de Satan et la question du milieu dorigine de la Vie
dAdam et ve, in Early Christian Voices in Texts, Traditions and Symbols: Essays in Honor
of Franois Bovon (ed. D. H. Warren, A. G. Brock, and D. W. Pao; Biblical Interpretation
Series 66; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 34154.
15 Where the narrative contours and the general character of the composition suggest
Muslim influence (see further below, n. 129).

Satan s Refusal to Worship Adam

235

on the account of the veneration of Adam by angels in the Life.16 In Kaestlis

opinion, the myth of Satans fall in the Life originated as a result of Christian
interpretation of Wis 2:2324 (through envy of the devil death came into the
world), in light of Rom 5:12 (sin entered the world through one man, and
death through sin).17
While Kaestlis critique of some of the arguments for a Jewish origin of
the Lifes account is legitimate, it is not sufficient in and of itself to prove the
Christian origin of this tradition. Moreover, his suggestion that the Christian
reading of Wis 2:24 through the lens of Rom 5:12 lies at the basis of the tradition
is too sketchy. Even more important, it misses the point of the narrative, since
according to the Life, Satan is driven not so much by the feeling of envy as by
that of pride, which finds expression in his claim that he is superior to Adam.
Kaestlis hypothesis also does not adequately explain the connection between
Satans demotion and the angelic veneration of Adam.
In fact, there are several considerations which render the theory of the
Jewish origin of this tradition preferable to the theory of a Christian origin.
One of the most important concerns the antiquity of the motif of angelic subjugation to deified humans in Jewish sources. We have been able to trace the
prehistory of this motif because of the evidence provided by 2 Enoch. Chapters
2122 of this work relate the story of Enochs ascent to heaven, during which
the patriarch joins the angelic ranks.18 There is a particular episode of this narrative, found in 2 En. 22:67, that echoes features of the story of Satan in the
Life. In both recensions of 2 En. 22:6, it is said that God has brought Enoch to
heaven in order to test his angelic retinue.19 Furthermore, according to both
recensions of 2 En. 22:7, the angels pass this test successfully by acknowledging the patriarchs new exalted status and performing an act of obeisance.20
Michael Stone was the first to notice a basic similarity between this story and
16 In which case the latter would predate the former.
17 Kaestli, Le mythe de la chute, 35354.
18 For the Slavonic text, see A. Vaillant, Le Livre des secrets dHnoch: Texte slave et traduction franaise (Textes publis par lInstitut dtudes slaves 4; Paris: Institut dtudes
slaves, 1952), 2226; or the more recent edition by G. Macaskill, The Slavonic Texts of
2 Enoch (Studia Judaeoslavica 6; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 96103. For an English translation by
F. I. Andersen, see OTP 1:13439.
19 According to the long recension: and the Lord said to his servants, while testing them
( ); contrast the short recension: and the Lord tested
his servants, while speaking to them ( y y ); ed. Macaskill,
Slavonic Texts, 100101.
20 While the long recension states explicitly that the target of the angelic obeisance was God
himselfand the glorious ones worshipped the Lord ( )the

236

Minov

that of Satans fall in the Life.21 As he points out, the fact that these two apocryphal narratives share this motif of Gods test of the angels obedience through
the elevation of a human being leads to the conclusion that the author of
2 Enoch 2122 knew a story of the rebellion of Satan that strongly resembled
that which is found in chapters 1117 of the primary Adam book.22
These insights of Stone have been adopted and further developed by Gary
Anderson, who arrives at a similar conclusion: One cannot imagine that the
tradition in the Enoch materials was created independently from the tradition
found in the Vita.23 Moreover, as has rightly been pointed out by Anderson,
the story of Satans fall in the Life is based on the biblical doctrine of election.24
In fact, it might be regarded as an attempt to make sense of the figure of Satan,
underdeveloped in Scripture, by looking at this figure through the lenses of the
motif of election and elevation of the beloved son. In Andersons opinion, the
motif of election allows us to anchor this narrative in Jewish tradition.
Stones hypothesis of a close connection between 2 En. 22:67 and Life 1117
has recently been supported by Andrei Orlov as well. Orlov considers the former composition to be engaging in intertextual polemics with the Adamic
traditions attested in the latter.25 In addition, Orlov has convincingly argued
that the Adamic tradition underlying 2 En. 22:67 is not an interpolation, but
belongs to the original core of the Slavonic apocalypse.26 According to Orlov,
the tradition of angelic veneration [of Adam] is interwoven into the original
fabric of 2 Enochs text. This may be seen in such passages of the long recension as 7:34, where during the patriarchs ascent through the second heaven,
the fallen angels that are imprisoned there bow down to him and implore
him to intercede on their behalf before God; and 18:3, where these same angels
are identified as companions of Satanael.27
The presence in 2 Enoch of the motif of God testing the angels by elevating
a human being provides us with strong testimony in favor of the antiquity of
short recension is more ambiguousand the glorious ones worshipped (
); ed. Macaskill, Slavonic Texts, 100101.
21 See Stone, The Fall of Satan, 14448.
22 Stone, The Fall of Satan, 148.
23 G. A. Anderson, The Exaltation of Adam and the Fall of Satan, Journal of Jewish Thought
and Philosophy 6 (1997): 10534 (125).
24 Anderson, Exaltation of Adam, 13334.
25 A. A. Orlov, The EnochMetatron Tradition (TSAJ 107; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005),
21922.
26 Orlov, EnochMetatron, 221.
27 Orlov, EnochMetatron, 221. For the texts, see Macaskill, Slavonic Texts, 5455, 86 [Slav.
text]; Andersen, OTP 1:114, 130 [Engl. trans.].

Satan s Refusal to Worship Adam

237

the Adam-related version of the motif found in the Life. According to Orlov, the
tradition of the angelic veneration of Adam must have been in circulation by
the first century ce, when it was appropriated into the Enochic text.28 Such an
early dating for this motif appears quite plausible, especially in light of recent
developments in research on 2 Enoch that locate this apocryphal composition
firmly within the context of Second Temple Judaism.29
Furthermore, some scholars argue that the motif of the angelic worship of
Adam stands behind the christological description in the first chapter of the
Epistle to the Hebrews (1:36), which depicts the exalted status of Christ as the
firstborn () of God, whom all Gods angels worship.30
One also discovers this motif reverberating through the corpus of Jewish
writings from late antiquity. Thus, several rabbinic works explore the connection between the biblical notion of Adam as the image of God and the motif
of his worship by the angels. One of the earliest examples of this kind is found
in Genesis Rabbah, a fifth-century midrashic collection of Palestinian provenance. In the section dealing with Gen 1:2627, this work transmits a midrashic
tradition, attributed to R. Hoshaya: When God created Adam in his image, the
ministering angels erred in him ( ) and wanted to honor him by exclaiming Holy! ( ;)i.e., by acclaiming him using the first word of the angelic
prayer before God given in Isa 6:3. Only Gods direct intervention, by putting
Adam to sleep in order to demonstrate his mortal nature, prevents the angels
from compromising themselves in the eyes of their Creator, who ought to have
been the sole object of their worship and adoration. To illustrate this explanation, the compiler of the midrash supplements it with a parable about a king
who rode in a chariot, together with his governor. The kings subjects wanted to
hail him by exclaiming Sovereign! (, from Lat. Domine), but became confused as to which of the two riders they should address. To dispel their doubts,
the king pushed the governor out of the chariot, thereby demonstrating his
own superiority.31
28 Orlov, EnochMetatron, 219 n. 32.
29 See New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavonic Only (ed. A. A. Orlov and G.Boccaccini;
Studia Judaeoslavica 4; Leiden: Brill, 2012), especially the contributions by C. Bttrich,
A. A. Orlov, and D. Stkl Ben-Ezra.
30 See on this J. Dochhorn, Die Christologie in Hebr 1,12,9 und die Weltherrschaft Adams
in Vit Ad 1117, in Biblical Figures in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (ed.
H. Lichtenberger and U. Mittmann-Richert; Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature
Yearbook 2008; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 281302.
31 Gen. Rab. 8:10; ed. J. Theodor and C. Albeck, Midrash Bereschit Rabba: Critical Edition with
Notes and Commentary (3 vols.; 2d rev. ed.; Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1965), 1:6364. For an
English translation, see H. Freedman, Midrash Rabbah: Genesis (2 vols.; London: Soncino,

238

Minov

This midrashic passage establishes an intertextual connection between Gen

1:2627, Gen 2:21, and Isa 2:22 (which is quoted at the conclusion), bringing
them together on the basis of the extracanonical motif of the angelic veneration of the newly created Adam. Remarkably, however, the midrash employs
this motif in a manner rather different from both the Life and 2 Enoch. In a
striking contrast to these apocryphal works, the rabbinic text completely
reverses the religious significance of the veneration of Adam, presenting the
angels attempt to worship the first man as an example of misdirected and illegitimate religious activity, incompatible with the worship of God alone.
An additional rabbinic example of an inversion of the motif of angelic veneration of Adam is found in the relatively late midrash, Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer.32
Chapter 11 of this composition relates that when all the creatures ()
saw the glorious appearance of the newly created Adam, who was adorned
with the Divine Image () , they became afraid of him,
thinking that he was their Creator (), and they came to do obeisance to
him () .33 In distinction from Genesis Rabbah, here it is Adam himself who deflects the creatures from the crime of lse-majest and directs them
to the worship of their true creator.
Another rabbinic variation on the theme of the angelic veneration of Adam
comes from the fragments of the midrash TanumaYelamdenu, published by
Ephraim Urbach. According to this midrash, the first reaction of the angels
when they saw the new appearance ( ) and gigantic proportions of
Adam, was to do obeisance to him () . It is only the intervention
of the archangel Michael, who quotes Isa 2:22, that prevents them from committing this mistake.34
There can be little doubt that these rabbinic stories stand in a close relation to the tradition of the angelic worship of Adam. It is a more difficult task,
however, to establish with precision what motivated the rabbinic inversion
1939), 1:61. This parable is also attested, although without attribution to R.Hoshaya, in
Eccl. Rab. 6:9.
32 
On the question of earlier apocryphal material in this midrash, see A. UrowitzFreudenstein, Pseudepigraphic Support of Pseudepigraphical Sources: The Case of Pirqe
de Rabbi Eliezer, in Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha
(ed. J. C. Reeves; SBLEJL 6; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), 3553.
33 
Ed. D. Brner-Klein, Pirke de-Rabbi Elieser: Nach der Edition Venedig 1544 unter
Bercksichtigung der Edition Warschau 1852 (SJ 26; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 11315. For
an English translation, see G. Friedlander, Pir de Rabbi Eliezer: The Chapters of Rabbi
Eliezer the Great (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trbner, 1916), 7980.
34 E. E. Urbach, Fragments of TanumaYelamdenu, Kobez al Yad 6/1 [16] (1966): 154
(2425) (in Hebrew).

Satan s Refusal to Worship Adam

239

of this motif. Students of rabbinic literature have suggested that the peculiar
treatment of this theme in Genesis Rabbah and Pirqe de-Rabbi Eliezer exhibits
distinctively polemical overtones; a number of attempts have been made to
reconstruct the possible adversary against whom this polemic was aimed.
One of the first scholars to make this point was Alexander Altmann, who
argued that the motif of the adoration of Adam by the angels was not originally Jewish, but developed in Gnostic circles, against which the rabbis waged
a polemic by inverting this heterodox mythologumenon.35 Although Altmanns
intuitions about the polemical tendency behind the censure of the motif in
these rabbinic works do certainly deserve scholarly attention, his attempt to
connect the motif itself with Gnosticism can hardly be accepted as plausible,
especially in light of what we now know about this late ancient form of religiosity and its mythology, half a century after the discovery of the Nag Hammadi
library.36
Another solution to the problem of the polemical context of these
midrashim has been offered recently by Peter Schfer.37 In his analysis of several passages in the rabbinic corpus that deal with the figure of Adam, including those aimed against the angelic veneration of the first man, Schfer comes
to the conclusion that the rabbinic polemic against Adam as a supernatural
and (semi)divine being is aimed at possible christological interpretations of
the Adam myth.38 This hypothesis deserves to be taken seriously in light of a
growing awareness, among students of rabbinic Judaism, of Christianity as an
important constitutive factor in development of the new form of Jewish identity promulgated by the rabbis.39
35 See A. Altmann, The Gnostic Background of the Rabbinic Adam Legends, JQR n.s. 35/4
(1945): 37191 (37987).
36 For general surveys of Gnosticism, see M. A. Williams, Rethinking Gnosticism: An
Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1996); K. L. King, What is Gnosticism? (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003);
R. van den Broek, Gnostic Religion in Antiquity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2013).
37 See P. Schfer, The Jewish Jesus: How Judaism and Christianity Shaped Each Other
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012), 20313.
38 Schfer, Jewish Jesus, 212.
39 
See, for example, D. Boyarin, Border Lines: The Partition of JudaeoChristianity
(Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, 2004); I. J. Yuval, Two Nations in Your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians in
Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages (trans. B. Harshav and J. Chipman; Berkeley: University
of California Press, 2006); M. R. Niehoff, Creatio ex Nihilo Theology in Genesis Rabbah in
Light of Christian Exegesis, HTR 99/1 (2006): 3764; D. Milson, Art and Architecture of

240

Minov

While not denying the general plausibility of Schfers hypothesis, I would

like nevertheless to modify it along more minimalistic lines, present implicitly already in Schfers own analysis of the motif of the angelic veneration of
Adam in rabbinic sources. In his discussion of the genesis of this motif, Schfer
draws attention to the concept of the divine WordLogos developed by Philo
of Alexandria.40 At one point, Philo introduces the Logos as Gods Firstborn,
the Word, who holds the eldership among the angels; their ruler, as it were.41
This description of the Logos is followed by a list of his names, which includes
among others the Man after His image ( ).42 In addition,
Philo characterizes the Logos as the eldest-born image of God (
).43
As has been pointed out by Schfer, this portrayal of the Logos is rooted
in Philos conception of the two distinct Adams represented in the book
of Genesis; i.e., the (heavenly) Adam of Gen 1:27 and the (earthly) Adam of
Gen 2:7.44 Whereas the latter stands for humanity, the former represents (for
Philo) the hypostasized divine Word. One can see from the passages quoted
above that the notion of the angelic veneration of Adam might be developed
very easily within the framework of Philos conception of the Logos; who, on
the one hand, is identified with the biblical figure of Adam, and, on the other,
is said to be superior to the angels. According to Schfer, an elevated image of
the LogosAdam, similar to that of Philo, had a deep impact on the development of New Testament christology, which is reflected in such passages as 1 Cor
15:4549 and Col 1:1518; it later became a target for the rabbinic midrashim
discussed above.
However, the midrashic inversion of the angelic veneration motif could also
legitimately be interpreted as reflecting a more general rabbinic tendency to
marginalize the wide range of mediatorial figures, including the Logos, Enoch,
Melchizedek, Metatron, Moses, and some others, who figure prominently in

the Synagogue in Late Antique Palestine: In the Shadow of the Church (AJEC 65; Leiden:
Brill, 2007); M. Bar-Asher Siegal, Early Christian Monastic Literature and the Babylonian
Talmud (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013).
40 See Schfer, Jewish Jesus, 2079.
41 De conf. ling. 146: , , ,
; text and translation from F. H. Colson and G. H. Whitaker, Philo,
with an English Translation (10 vols.; LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 19291962), 4:8889.
42 De conf. ling. 146; Colson and Whitaker, Philo, 4:9091.
43 De conf. ling. 147; Colson and Whitaker, Philo, 4:9091.
44 See Schfer, Jewish Jesus, 2079.

Satan s Refusal to Worship Adam

241

a number of pre- and nonrabbinic Jewish sources.45 A similar explanation

of the rabbinic polemic against the veneration of Adam has been offered by
Jarl Fossum, who suggests that these midrashic passages constitute examples
of inner-Jewish polemical discourse, directed against early Jewish mystical
teaching about divine Glory, the heavenly Man, or against notions showing a
rapprochement, even a confusion, between the heavenly Man and the earthly
Adam.46
As an example of such a Jewish tradition, one may bring forward the
account of the elevation of Enoch found in Sefer Hekhalot, also known as
3 Enochan early Jewish mystical tractate written in Hebrew.47 In chapter 4 of
this work, R. Ishmael asks the angel Metatron, identified also as Enoch, about
the peculiar name, Youth (), that he bears. The answer given to the rabbi
is presented in the form of a narrative about Enochs ascension to the heavens,
during which God made him a prince and a ruler ( ) over the angels;
although the angels themselves initially opposed this decision, they eventually
accepted it, went to meet him, and prostrated themselves before him (
) . And because he, i.e., EnochMetatron, was younger than
the angels, a mere youth among them in days and months and years, they
would call him Youth.48 As has been noted by Anderson, the basic plot of
Enochs elevation in Sefer Hekhalot is almost identical to the narratives under
consideration from the Life and 2 Enoch.49 Without going into a discussion
of the nature of the relationship between this narrative and these other two
45 See on this M. J. H. M. Poorthuis, Enoch and Melchizedek in Judaism and Christianity:
A Study in Intermediaries, in Saints and Role Models in Judaism and Christianity (ed.
J. Schwartz and M. J. H. M. Poorthuis; JCP 7; Leiden: Brill, 2004), 97120; D. Boyarin, The
Parables of Enoch and the Foundation of the Rabbinic Sect: A Hypothesis, in The Words
of a Wise Mans Mouth are Gracious (Qoh 10,12): Festschrift for Gnter Stemberger on the
Occasion of his 65th Birthday (ed. M. Perani; SJ 32; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2005), 5372.
46 J. E. Fossum, The Adorable Adam of the Mystics and the Rebuttals of the Rabbis, in
GeschichteTraditionReflexion: Festschrift fr Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag. Band 1:
Judentum (ed. H. Cancik, H. Lichtenberger and P. Schfer; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996),
52939 (534).
47 For a recent discussion of this composition, see K. Herrmann, Jewish Mysticism in
Byzantium: The Transformation of Merkavah Mysticism in 3 Enoch, in Hekhalot
Literature in Context: Between Byzantium and Babylonia (ed. R. S. Boustan, M. Himmelfarb
and P. Schfer; TSAJ 153; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 85116.
48 Ed. P. Schfer, Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur (TSAJ 2; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981),
57,56; trans. P. S. Alexander, 3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch, OTP 1:223315
(25859). For a discussion of this story, see Anderson, Exaltation of Adam, 12732; Orlov,
EnochMetatron, 13336.
49 Anderson, Exaltation of Adam, 131.

242

Minov

texts, I would only point out that the reaction of the angels toward the elevated
human being in Sefer Hekhalot is exactly of the kind against which the rabbinic
midrashim wage their polemic.
At this point I would like to emphasize, however, that although attempts to
solve the problem of the possible polemical background of these midrashim
are certainly legitimate, the whole question of their genesis and Sitz im Leben is
in need of a more detailed investigation that also takes into consideration the
inner dynamics of rabbinic anthropological thinking, especially regarding the
place occupied by humankind in the universal hierarchy of created beings.50
Having established the antiquity and Jewish origin of the motif of the angelic
veneration of Adam, I also want to note that other narrative elements found in
the Lifes account of Satans fall are attested in ancient Jewish sources as separate motifs. For instance, Menahem Kister has highlighted several elements
common to the account of Satans fall in the Life and the picture of Adam in
Philos On the Creation of the World (7778); among these are the discussion
of the temporal posteriority of Adam and the problematization of the idea
of Adams authority over all creatures versus his status vis--vis the angels.51
Moreover, the first notion is also attested in an early Byzantine Aramaic piyyu
for Passover, published by Sokoloff and Yahalom. The second part of this poem
relates a dramatic dialogue between Moses and the personified figure of the
Red Sea, who refuses to let the people of Israel pass through. Remarkable in
this dialogue is that in order to prove his superiority over Moses, the Sea claims
that he is three days older than Moses himself.52 This claim is based on the
biblical cosmogonic account in the first chapter of Genesis, where the creation of the seas takes place on the third day, and the creation of Adam on the
sixth day. As has been observed by Kister, in its structure this argument very
much resembles Satans claim of superiority in the Life, also based on temporal reasons.53 Finally, in his contribution to this volume, Kister convincingly
demonstrates, relying on the evidence of the Roman philosopher Celsus and
the payyean Yose ben Yose, that in ancient Judaism there existed a tradition
50 See, for instance, M. Kister, Hellenistic Jewish Writers and Palestinian Traditions: Early
and Late, pp. 15078 in this volume, at 15663.
51 See M. Kister, Jewish Aramaic Poems from Byzantine Palestine and Their Setting, Tarbiz
76/12 (20062007): 10584 (15052) (in Hebrew).
52 Ezel Moshe, in M. Sokoloff and Y. Yahalom, eds., Jewish Palestinian Aramaic Poetry from
Late Antiquity (Publications of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Section
of Humanities; Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1999), 84. This
tradition is attested also in such medieval rabbinic works as Midrash Hallel and Midrash
Wayosha; see on this point Kister, Jewish Aramaic Poems, 146.
53 Kister, Jewish Aramaic Poems, 151.

Satan s Refusal to Worship Adam

243

that God had granted to Adam dominion not only over material and mortal
creatures, but over angelic forces as well.54
In light of all these considerations, I see no compelling reason to disagree
with Jan Dochhorn, who has reexamined the story of Satans fall in the Life
in the context of early Jewish tradition, and who has come to the conclusion
that the Lifes account is conceivable as originating in a Jewish milieu.55 As
we have seen, the core element around which the Lifes account crystallized,
i.e., the motif of the angelic veneration of Adam, may be traced back to the
prerabbinic stage in the development of Jewish speculation on the first man.
Regardless of whether the author of the Life himself took the step that converted this originally Jewish motif into the key to the mystery of Satans fall, or
whether he relied upon an already existing Jewish tradition, there is nothing in
this development that compels us to regard it as distinctively Christian.
In my opinion, the only element in the Lifes narrative that might be suspected as Christian is verse 15:3 of the Latin recension, where Satan responds
to Michaels second request to worship Adam by paraphrasing Isa 14:1314.56
Jewish sources from the Second Temple period do not make an explicit connection between Satan and the figure of Helel ben Shachar in this verse; but
early Christian sources take the connection for granted from the end of the
second century on.57 Moreover, this paraphrastic response is absent not only
from the Armenian and Georgian versions, but from several Latin witnesses
of the Life, as well. Taking all these factors into account, it seems justified to
regard this verse as a later Christian addition to the originally Jewish story of
Satans fall in the Life.58
2

The Motif of Satans Fall in Syriac Christian Tradition

As has been noted by scholars, accounts of the fall of Satan similar to that
in the Life are attested across a wide range of Christian literatures from late
54 Kister, Hellenistic Jewish Writers and Palestinian Traditions, 15961.
55 Dochhorn, The Motif of the Angels Fall, 491.
56 See Pettorelli et al., Vita latina, 1:31011; 2:78485.
57 And perhaps earlier; note the singular reference to Satans fall like lightning in Luke
10:18. Cf. Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 5.11.11; 5.17.8; Hippolytus, Antichr. 17, 53; Comm. Dan. 4.12;
Origen, De. princ. 1.5.45; C. Cels. 6.4344; Hom. Num. 12.3. See also Kaestli, Le mythe de
la chute, 344.
58 We find Isa 14:1314 introduced into the story of Satans refusal to worship Adam in such
early Christian apocrypha as the Questions of Bartholomew 4.5355 (see below).

244

Minov

antiquity and the Middle Ages, encompassing writings in Greek, Syriac, Coptic,
Armenian, Slavonic, and several other languages. Due to the limitations of
time and the large amount of material, it is impossible to offer here even a perfunctory overview of this rich corpus.59 In what follows I shall limit myself to
discussing the reception history of this tale among Syriac-speaking Christians.
The reason for this choice is that the Syriac material illustrates well the main
trends in the appropriation and transmission of this Jewish tradition among
Christians more generally.
The earliest unambiguous attestation in the Syriac language of the motif of
Satans refusal to worship Adam comes from the composition known as the
Cave of Treasures. Transmitted under the name of Ephrem the Syrian (fourth
century),60 this work belongs to the category of rewritten Bible: it offers a
retelling of sacred history from the first day of creation until Pentecost, based
on the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, but also drawing on patristic
and apocryphal sources. It was most likely composed not earlier than the first
decades of the sixth century, in the area of northern Mesopotamia that was
under the control of the Sasanian Empire.61 The editor of the Syriac text of
the Cave, Su-Min Ri, has divided all its textual witnesses into two recensions,
the East Syrian and the West Syrian. The story of Satans fall is found in both
recensions without significant differences, and thus should be considered an
integral part of the original composition. In the following analysis, I will rely
upon the British Museum Add. Ms. 25875, of the Eastern recension, which so
far appears to be the best textual witness of the Cave.62
59 For the Coptic sources, see the good overview in Rosenstiehl, La chute de lAnge. For the
Slavonic sources, see A. Kulik and S. Minov, Biblical Pseudepigrapha in Slavonic Traditions
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, [forthcoming]), ch. 1.
60 See the discussion below, pp. 25051, and especially n. 78, on Ephrems potential knowledge of aspects of this tradition.
61 For the Syriac text and French translation, see S.-M. Ri, La Caverne des Trsors: Les deux
recensions syriaques (2 vols.; CSCO 486487; Scriptores Syri 207208; Louvain: Peeters,
1987). For general information, see C. Leonhard, Observations on the Date of the Syriac
Cave of Treasures, in The World of the Aramaeans III: Studies in Language and Literature
in Honour of Paul-Eugne Dion (ed. P. M. M. Daviau, J. W. Wevers, and M. Weigl; JSOTSup
326; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 25593. For a recent reexamination of the
date and milieu of this work, see S. Minov, Syriac Christian Identity in Late Sasanian
Mesopotamia: The Cave of Treasures in Context (Ph.D. diss., The Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, 2013), 2186.
62 I cite the text of this manuscript as it is appears in the critical apparatus of Ris edition.
For a discussion of the textual tradition of the Cave, see Minov, Syriac Christian Identity,
2131.

Satan s Refusal to Worship Adam

245

In the second chapter, the author of the Cave offers a long and vivid description of the creation of Adam. In this narrative he emphasizes that God had
entrusted the first man with authority over all created beings, including angels.
Thus, in Cav. Tr. 2.811, which relates the creation of Adam from the four elements, the author states that this was done in order that through them (i.e.,
the elements) everything which is in the world should be subjugated to him
() . More explicitly, God included
among the elements the heat of fire so that all the fiery beings and the
celestial hosts might be at his (i.e., Adams) service.63 The narrative continues with a description of the glorious appearance of Adam, where the biblical notion of image and likeness is interpreted in terms of almost physical
resemblance (Cav. Tr. 2.1214). After he creates Adam and endows him with the
triple authority of king, priest and prophet, God sets him on his own throne
)
and gives him dominion over all creatures (
(Cav. Tr. 2.1519).64
The right of Adam to rule the world is demonstrated by the ensuing episode,
in which he gives names to animals and other living creatures, so that they will
acknowledge his dominion and worship him. The angelic forces, who hear a
heavenly voice publicly confirming the authority of Adam over everything created by God, worship Adam as well:
And all the wild beasts, and all the cattle, and the birds were gathered
together before Adam. And they passed in front of Adam and he assigned
names to them, and they bowed their heads before him. And everything
in nature worshipped him, and submitted themselves to him. And the
angels and the heavenly hosts heard the voice of God saying to him:
Adam, behold, I have made you king, and priest, and prophet, and lord,
and head, and governor of everything which has been made and created.
And they shall be in subjection to you, and they shall be yours and only
yours. And I have given you authority over everything which I have created. And when the angels heard this heavenly voice they all bowed the
knee and worshipped him.65
: ; ed. Ri, La Caverne des Trsors,

63


1416; trans. E. A. W. Budge, The Book of the Cave of Treasures (London: The Religious
Tract Society, 1927), 52 (here and elsewhere I have slightly modified Budges translation).
64 Ed. Ri, La Caverne des Trsors, 18; trans. Budge, The Book of the Cave, 53.

65 
.

. . .

246

Minov

Immediately following, at the beginning of the next chapter (Cav. Tr. 3.14), the
story of Satans fall is presented. According to this account, Satan is the only
heavenly being who is not content with the exaltation of Adam and resents
Gods decision. Driven by envy, he persuades the angels under his command
not to bow to Adam:
And when the prince of the lower order of angels saw what greatness had
been given to Adam, he became envious of him from that day, and he did
not wish to worship him. And he said to his hosts: You shall not worship
him, and you shall not praise him with the angels. Rather, he ought to
worship me, because I am fire and spirit; and not that I should worship a
thing of dust, which has been fashioned of fine dust. And as the rebel
was nurturing these thoughts, he would not render obedience to God,
and out of his own desire and free will he separated himself from God.
And he and all his company were cast down and felltheir fall from
heaven happened on the sixth day, at the second hour of the day.66
It is noteworthy that in his version of the myth of the fall of Satan, the author
of the Cave combines two different explanations of the protagonists motivation; i.e., one based on envy and one based on pride. Thus, on the one hand
the author points out that the reason for Satans refusal to bow down to Adam
was his envy of Adams exalted status. On the other hand, the explanation that
Satan himself gives to the fellow angels is based on the motif of pride, evoking Satans ontological superiority to Adamsince, as an angel, he is a creature of fire and spirit, he outclasses the first human, who is a mere creature of
dust. By making the latter claim, Satan apparently misses the point made in
Cav.Tr.2.811, according to which the nature of the human being, created from
the four elements, includes fire as well.
To the best of my knowledge, no Syriac composition predating the Cave contains a similar explanation of the fall of Satan. In search of a possible source of


.

. . ; ed. Ri, La
Caverne des Trsors, 1820; trans. Budge, The Book of the Cave, 5354.

66  .

.
.
.

.
.
.

.
;
ed. Ri, La Caverne des Trsors, 2022; trans. Budge, The Book of the Cave, 5557.

Satan s Refusal to Worship Adam

247

inspiration for the author of the Cave, let us turn, first, to the narrative of the
Life. As we compare these two versions of Satans demotion, we will discover
that, although the general plot underlying them is basically the same, there are
several serious differences in the details.
First of all, as has been noted by Gary Anderson, the Cave diverges from
the Life in that the former relegates the whole story of the angels worshipping
Adam, and Satans refusal, to the time when the animals are brought before
Adam (Gen 2:1920), while in the latter the episode is placed immediately after
God animates Adam with his spirit (Gen 2:7).67 In addition, the Life features
the archangel Michael as Gods messenger, who demands that Satan worship
Adam, while in the Cave he is not mentioned at all. Moreover, in distinction
from the Life, the author of the Cave puts great emphasis on the royal status
of the newly created Adam. And, finally, whereas in the Life, Satans argument
against worshipping Adam is based upon his own temporal priority, in the
Caves account, he appeals to the difference between the materials from which
they were each created; i.e., fire and dust, respectively.68
All these observations lead us to the conclusion that these two narratives
of Satans fall are not related to one another through a straightforward process of textual borrowing. This conclusion goes against the suggestion made by
Michael Eldridge that the Cave is dependent upon the actual text of the Life;69
it rather supports the verdict of Marinus de Jonge and Johannes Tromp that
the claim that the Cave of Treasures depends directly on the Life of Adam and
Eve cannot be substantiated.70
A more plausible explanation for the origin of the story of Satans fall in
the Cave would be that the Syriac-speaking author came to know of this
myth through one of its earlier Christian reworkings. There are several other
Christian writings that might predate the Cave, where we find versions of the
story of Satans downfall that includes his refusal to worship Adam. Among
these may be mentioned the Greek Questions of Bartholomew and Apocalypse
67 Anderson, The Exaltation of Adam, 11011.
68 In the formulation of Satans claim that he is created from fire and spirit, the author

of the Cave could be relying upon Ps 104:4 (Peshitta:

.

) . Cf. also the mention of the Watchers of fire and spirit ()

in
Ephrems Hymns on Paradise 6.24; ed. E. Beck, Des heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Hymnen de
Paradiso und contra Julianum (CSCO 17; Scriptores Syri 78; Louvain: Peeters, 1957), 24. See
also Yaakov Kaduris essay in this volume for a discussion of the exegesis of Ps 104:4 and
its influence upon rabbinic and earlier notions concerning the nature of the angels.
69 See M. D. Eldridge, Dying Adam with his Multiethnic Family: Understanding the Greek Life
of Adam and Eve (SVTP 16; Leiden: Brill, 2001), 24.
70 De Jonge and Tromp, Life of Adam and Eve, 87.

248

Minov

of Sedrach, and the Coptic Encomium on Saint Michael the Archangel, ascribed
to Theodosius of Alexandria.71
Of particular interest for us is the version of Satans fall that appears in the
Questions of Bartholomew, a New Testament apocryphon that was produced in
the second or third century. Here, in a scene where Bartholomew engages in
a dialogue with Satan, the latter discloses to the apostle, among other things,
the history of his own fall, relating it to the episode of the veneration of Adam
by the angels:
And he (God) showed him (Adam) reverence for his own sake, because
he was his image. And Michael also worshipped him. And when I (i.e.,
Satan) came from the ends of the world, Michael said to me: Worship
the image of God ( ) which he has made in
his own likeness. But I said: I am fire of fire ( ), I was the first
angel to be formed ( ), and shall I worship
clay and matter ( )? And Michael said to me: Worship, lest
God be angry with you. I answered: God will not be angry with me, but
I will set up my throne over against his throne, and shall be as he is. Then
God was angry with me and cast me down, after he had commanded the
windows of heaven be opened.72
There are several elements that point in the direction of this narrative having
been derived from the Lifes version of Satans fall, such as the role of the archangel Michael in the conflict and the claim by Satan that he had been created
first. At the same time, however, this story also features an element that brings
it close to the version of the Cave; namely, Satans appeal to the hierarchical
difference between himself and Adam in their physical natures. This combination of the two different versions of Satans claim of superiority over Adam
in the Questions strengthens the possibility that the author of the Cave was

71 The latter source is found (with translation) in E. A. W. Budge, Miscellaneous Coptic Texts
in the Dialect of Upper Egypt (Coptic Texts 5; London: British Museum, 1915), 33438, 904
6. In the Apocalypse of Sedrach 5:12, the story of Satans fall appears, but the reason for
his rebellion is not made explicit.
72 Questions of Bartholomew 4:5355; ed. G. N. Bonwetsch, Die apokryphen Fragen des
Bartholomus, Nachrichten von der Kniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu
Gttingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse (1897): 142 (2526); the translation used here
is from New Testament Apocrypha (ed. W. Schneemelcher; trans. R. McL. Wilson; 2 vols.;
rev. ed.; Cambridge: Clarke; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 19911992), 1:549.

Satan s Refusal to Worship Adam

249

dependent for the myth of Satans fall on an intermediary Christian work that
adopted and further reworked the story from the Life.
In a recent discussion of the possible sources behind the account of the fall
of Satan in the Cave, Alexander Toepel draws attention to the description of
Satans conspiracy against Adam found in the works of Narsai, a fifth-century
East Syrian poet;73 Toepel suggests that both Syriac writers relied upon the
same source in their depiction of this event.74 Among the various instances in
which Narsai evokes Satans enmity against humans, the most developed discussions of this theme are found in two mmr, i.e., metrical homilies: On the
Making of Creatures (1.221240); and On the Making of Adam and Eve, and on
the Transgression of the Commandment (4.101125).75 According to the Syriac
poet, envy ( )was the main driving force that caused Satan, who is presented as the chief of the aerial realm () , to plot against the first
man. This envy was caused by the fact that God had endowed Adam with His
own image (), which elevated the human being over the rest of the created world, making him the king upon the earth ( ) and the
lord over all that exists () . The poet states explicitly on more
than one occasion that because of this elevated status, and as a result of his
kinship ( )with both the material and immaterial realms, Adams
dominion extended over the angelic forces as well. Like the rest of Gods creatures, the angels are submitted to the yoke of toiling for him (i.e., Adam) (

). Entrusted with the service for his life (

), they were

stirred up at his service gladly (

) ,
while praising (or carrying) him as a king () . It is
the divine act of elevating this lowly creature, made of this contemptible fine
dust of the earth () , over Satan, who is of
spirit ( )and has other angels under his own command, that fuels Satans
resentment and makes him refuse to submit himself to the authority of love
for Adam () , and to begin to intrigue against
the first man.
One cannot deny that the portrayal of Satans fall in the Cave has several elements in common with the homilies of Narsai. Thus, as has been pointed out
73 See, on Narsai, A. Vbus, History of the School of Nisibis (CSCO 266, Subsidia 26; Louvain:
Secrtariat du CorpusSCO, 1965), 57121; P. Gignoux, Narsa, in Dictionnaire de spiritualit asctique et mystique: doctrine et histoire (Paris: Beauchesne, 1982), 11:3942.
74 A. Toepel, Die Adam- und Seth-Legenden im syrischen Buch der Schatzhhle: Eine quellenkritische Untersuchung (CSCO 618; Subsidia 119; Louvain: Peeters, 2006), 89.
75 Ed. P. Gignoux, Homlies de Narsa sur la cration (PO 34.34; Turnhout: Brepols, 1968),
54041 and 61617 respectively. In his analysis, Toepel relies upon the first account only.

250

Minov

by Toepel, both authors establish a connection between the notion of Satans

envy towards Adam and the motif of the angels subjection to the first man.76
To this, one might add that Satans denigration of Adam as a creature of dust
and his self-aggrandizement as a spiritual being in Narsais homilies come
very close to his explanation for the refusal to bow down to Adam in the Cave.
Nevertheless, it must be stressed that there are also significant differences
between these two accounts of the fall of Satan. Thus, contrary to the author
of the Cave, Narsai draws no connection between Satans rebellion and the episode of the naming of animals. Even more important is that in distinction from
the author of the Cave, Narsai makes no explicit mention of Satans refusal
to commit a ritual act of obeisance before Adam. In Narsais account Satan
resents the general subjection of angels to the human race, presented as an
obligation to perform tasks of an unspecified kind on behalf of Adam. These
considerations, I believe, make less plausible the possibility that the Cave and
Narsai rely upon the same common source in their treatment of this episode.
I would like instead to suggest an alternative explanation for the similarities in the treatment of Satans fall by these two authors. In my opinion, the
portrayal of this event found in the works of Narsai reflects the standard interpretation of this issue that was current in the scholastic milieu of Edessa, to
which this author belonged.77 At the cornerstone of this approach to the fall of
Satan lies the idea that it took place on the sixth day of creation, as a result of
his envy towards the newly created Adam. We find this notion already in the
works of Ephrem the Syrian, the famous fourth-century poet and theologian,
whose legacy had a significant impact on the tradition of biblical exegesis in
the school of Edessa.78 In his Commentary on Genesis (2.32.1), Ephrem notes
76 Toepel, Die Adam- und Seth-Legenden, 90.
77 On the so-called school of Edessa, see H. J. W. Drijvers, The School of Edessa: Greek
Learning and Local Culture, in Centres of Learning: Learning and Location in Pre-Modern
Europe and the Near East (ed. H. J. W. Drijvers and A. A. MacDonald; Brills Studies in
Intellectual History 61; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 4959; A. H. Becker, Fear of God and the
Beginning of Wisdom: The School of Nisibis and the Development of Scholastic Culture in
Late Antique Mesopotamia (Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion; Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006), 6468.
78 It has been suggested by Gary Anderson that already in the fourth century, Ephrem the
Syrian might have been acquainted with a version of the story of Satans fall similar to
that in the Life. See G. A. Anderson, The Fall of Satan in the Thought of St. Ephrem and
John Milton, Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies 3/1 (2000): 327 (1426). Yet, regardless of
whether or not one agrees with Andersons reading of the sources, it should be emphasized that the corpus of Ephrems genuine writings provides no explicit references to this
motif.

Satan s Refusal to Worship Adam

251

that until the sixth day Satan was fair () , and that it was on this same
day that he secretly became Satan () .79 Ephrem mentions
Satans envy towards Adam on several occasions in his madr hymns.80
Concerning another idea shared by Narsai and the Cavei.e., that the
angels were subjected to the first man through the necessity of serving himit
appears that this motif was also a part the traditional Edessene exegetical repertoire. An early expression of the subordinated status of angels vis--vis humans
is found in the works of Ephrem, in the second part of the Nisibene Hymns. This
collection contains a series of dramatic dialogues, in which Death and Satan
are the main dramatis personae. In one of these dialogues (Nis.Hym.68.34),
Death is reproached in the following words: Adam was chosen and endowed
with authority, and under his yoke you, Death, and the Evil One, your companion, were made slaves. Death responds to that by boasting, We pride ourselves in that the slaves have become masters; Death and his companion Satan
have trampled upon Adam.81 Slightly further along, in Nis.Hym. 68.7, Adams
authority over all created beings is evoked again: Tremble, O Death, before
man, for even if he himself is a servant, the yoke of his lordship reigns over the
creatures.82
We find this notion made even more explicit in the interpretation of Satans
fall by another representative of the Edessene school, Jacob of Sarug, a prominent West Syrian hymnographer and a younger contemporary of Narsai.83 In
a mmr on the sixth day of creation, Jacob touches briefly upon the subject
79 Ed. R. M. Tonneau, Sancti Ephraem Syri in Genesim et in Exodum commentarii (2 vols.;
CSCO 152153, Scriptores Syri 7172; Louvain: Durbecq, 1955), 1:44; trans. E. G. Mathews
and J. P. Amar, St. Ephrem the Syrian. Selected Prose Works: Commentary on Genesis,
Commentary on Exodus, Homily on Our Lord, Letter to Publius (FC 91; Washington, D.C.:
The Catholic University of America Press, 1994), 121.
80 Cf. Eccl. 48.11.1; Ieiun. App. 1.1.14; Fid. 50.6.2; Nat. 21.15.4. For a discussion of this subject,
see T. Kronholm, Motifs from Genesis 111 in the Genuine Hymns of Ephrem the Syrian, with
Particular Reference to the Influence of Jewish Exegetical Traditions (Uppsala: Almqvist &
Wiksell, 1978), 8992.

81  .

; ed. E. Beck, Des heiligen

Ephraem des Syrers Carmina Nisibena, II (2 vols.; CSCO 240241, Syr. 102103; Louvain:
Secrtariat du CorpusSCO, 1963), 1:108.
; ed. Beck, Des
82 
heiligen Ephraem des Syrers Carmina Nisibena, II, 1:109.
83 See F. Graffin, Jacques de Saroug, in Dictionnaire de spiritualit asctique et mystique:
doctrine et histoire (Paris: Beauchesne, 1982), 8:5660; C. Lange, Jakob von Sarug, 521, in
Syrische Kirchenvter (ed. W. Klein; Urban-Taschenbcher 587; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer,
2004), 21727.

252

Minov

of Satans fall.84 He follows the general lines of the Edessene interpretation

of this event by connecting it with the story of the creation of Adam; he states
that Satans downfall was caused by his envy of the greatness ( )and
honor ( )that were given to Adam. As he develops the subject further,
Jacob adds that a particular reason for Satans resentment against Adam was
that Satan himself had originally been entrusted with the authority over this
tenebrous world ( ;) as a result of Adams superiority (),
Satan was downgraded to a subordinate status, which entailed performance of
the service that he (i.e., Adam) might need () .
Later on, we come across a similar interpretation of Satans fall in the chronicle Ktb d-r mell by Yoannn bar Penky, a seventh-century East Syrian
historiographer.85 The first book of his chronicle deals with the biblical narratives of the creation and fall of Adam and Eve. There, Bar Penky relates that
when Satan, who originally had dominion over the aerial realm, saw Adam
become the heir of all creation, he was overtaken by an irruption of jealousy,
and said to himself: If this is the heir, whom even I have to serve, then I shall
kill him and snatch from him his inheritance.86 A similar explanation of the
origins of Satans animosity towards Adam is found in the so-called Diyarbakir
Commentary. This biblical commentary, which covers the books of Genesis
and Exodus, was composed by an unknown East Syrian exegete sometime
in the eighth century.87 According to this composition, the spiritual beings
receive their respective duty assignments at the same time that Adam receives

84 Ed. P. Bedjan, Homiliae selectae Mar-Jacobi Sarugensis (5 vols.; Leipzig: Harrassowitz,

19051910), 3:12627. For a French translation, see B. M. B. Sony, Hymne sur la cration
de lhomme de lHexamron de Jacques de Saroug, Parole de lOrient 11 (1983): 167200
(19697).
85 See on this writer and his chronicle, P. Bruns, Von Adam und Eva bis Mohammed
Beobachtungen zur syrischen Chronik des Johannes bar Penkaye, OrChr 87 (2003):
4764.

86 

.
. . This part of Johns chronicle has not
yet been published. I quote the text according to the manuscript Mingana Syr. 179, f. 4v.
For a description of this manuscript, see A. Mingana, Catalogue of the Mingana Collection
of Manuscripts now in the Possession of the Trustees of the Woodbrooke Settlement, Selly
Oak, Birmingham (3 vols.; Woodbrooke Catalogues 13; Cambridge: Heffer, 19331939),
1:39596. The translation is my own.
87 For a critical edition of the Syriac text and a comprehensive introduction to this work, see
L. van Rompay, Le commentaire sur GenseExode 9,32 du manuscrit (olim) Diyarbakir 22
(2 vols.; CSCO 483484; Scriptores Syri 205206; Louvain: Peeters, 1986).

Satan s Refusal to Worship Adam

253

the commandment to keep the Garden of Eden (Gen 2:15). Satan, who is one
among them, is entrusted with governing the air. Yet, Satan falls because he
becomes envious of Adam, endowed with the image of God, and is ashamed
that he has to serve him.88
This evidence suggests that at least from the fifth century on there existed
in Syriac-speaking biblical exegesis a well-established tradition of interpreting
the fall of Satan as connected to the creation and elevation of the first man.
Developed most likely in the milieu connected with the city of Edessa, this
tradition also employed the motif of Satans refusal to acknowledge the subordinate status of the angels vis--vis Adam. This subordination, however, was
primarily expressed in terms of the angels general obligation to serve humanity. The author of the Cave was an heir to this tradition, and that explains the
similarity between his narrative and the poems of Narsai. However, he also
developed this tradition one step further, by introducing the apocryphal motif
of Satans refusal to acknowledge the superiority of the first man by participating in an act of obeisance.
As a result of the considerable influence exercised by the Cave of Treasures on
subsequent Syriac tradition, its account of Satans fall became an important
part of the exegetical repertoire of Syriac-speaking Christians generally. Thus,
we find it used by various authors from each of the two main factions into
which Syriac Christianity divided from the sixth century forward: West Syrian,
or Jacobite, Christianity; and East Syrian, or Nestorian, Christianity.
For instance, this version of the story appears in the so-called Chronicle up
to the Year 1234. Composed by an unknown West Syrian author, this chronographic work is universal in its perspective and covers the whole course of
the history of the world, from the creation until the thirteenth century.89 In
the first chapter, the author of the Chronicle presents, among other things, a
detailed account of the story of Adam and Eve. This narrative of the life of the
first couple includes the story of the adoration of Adam by the angels, as well
as Satans refusal to participate and subsequent fall.90 The story of Satan in the

88 

. . ..; ed. van
Rompay, Le commentaire, 1:37.
89 On this work, see D. Weltecke, Les trois grandes chroniques syro-orthodoxes des XIIe
et XIIIe sicles, in Lhistoriographie syriaque (ed. M. Debi; tudes syriaques 6; Paris:
Geuthner, 2009), 10735 (11823).
90 For the Syriac text, see J. B. Chabot, Anonymi auctoris Chronicon ad annum Christi 1234
pertinens (3 vols.; CSCO 81, 82, 109; CSCO Scriptores Syri 36, 37, 56; Paris: Typographeo
Reipublicae, 1916, 1920, 1937), 1:29.

254

Minov

Chronicle closely resembles that in the Cave. Numerous coincidences of wording and style between the two accounts prove beyond doubt that the author
of the Chronicle used the Cave as one of his main literary sources for this part
of his history.
The influence of the Cave on representations of Satans fall in Syriac sources
may be discovered not only in historiographic compositions, but also in works
that belong to other genres, such as liturgical poetry. Thus, we find the story
evoked by Yannn bar Zb, an East Syrian theologian and grammarian
active during the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries.91 Bar Zb makes
explicit use of this tradition in the prologue to his versified commentary on the
liturgy, the Interpretation of the Mysteries, where he offers a concise overview
of the history of Gods providential care for humanity, from the first days of
creation until the coming of Jesus. After a vivid description of the creation of
Adam in the image and likeness of God, the poet relates that God positioned
this creature of his in order to test the reasoning power of the angelic forces.92
Whereas the majority of the angels pass this test successfully by giving due
honor to the divine image, Satan does not. As in the Chronicle of Bar Penky
and the Diyarbakir Commentary, Satan is characterized as the ruler of the air;
he refuses to worship Adam and, as a result, loses his place in heaven:
Like a furnace the Existing One set up him, his creature,
In order to test the power of discernment among the heavenly ones.
The love of the heavenly ones was discovered to be (like) pure gold,
As they honored with love the image of the Hidden Being.
The gold of the chief of the air was discovered to be (like) hateful rust,
As he refused and did not subject himself to the worship.
Like lightning the hater of humanity fell from his rank,
And like a serpent he crawled into the depth of the earth.93
91 See on this writer H. G. B. Teule, Yoannn bar Zob, in ChristianMuslim Relations: A
Bibliographical History, Volume 4 (12001350) (ed. D. R. Thomas and A. Mallett; HCMR 17;
Leiden: Brill, 2012), 36567; N. N. Seleznyov, Yannn ar Zb and his Explanation of
the Mysteries: Critical Text, Russian Translation from Syriac, and Investigation (Moscow:
Russian State University for the Humanities, 2014) [in Russian], 516.
92 Compare the passage from 2 Enoch discussed above (pp. 23536).

93  .

.

.; ed. Seleznyov, Yannn ar
Zb, 3436. I am grateful to Nikolai Seleznyov for bringing this reference to my attention.

Satan s Refusal to Worship Adam

255

The story of the fall of Satan is employed in a context similar to that of Bar
Zb by another East Syrian poet, Joseph of Telkepe, who lived during the seventeenth century and wrote in a Neo-Aramaic dialect of Syriac. In the prologue to one of his poems, On Revealed Truth (1719), where he deals briefly
with the creation of the world, the author touches also upon the matter of the
angelic hierarchy and the story of Adams life. The representation of the conflict between Adam and the demonic forces and the explanation of the reason
for their enmity towards the humans closely resemble the myth of Satans fall
in the Cave:
He created the world with this, His Word
and He called Adam His image.
He ordered that which is on earth
and in the height to greet Adam.
The angels greeted him.
He brought the animals before him
and he gave names to all of them.
But those devils did not assent to Him.
They did not assent and they did not accept His order.
And they fell from their positions because of that.
They hated him and they devised evil against him.
They sought a pretext against him.94
Thus, as we have seen, the story of the fall of Satan is found across multiple
genres of Syriac literature. In the representations we have thus far surveyed,
the details of this tradition remain remarkably stable and faithful to the Caves
recrafting of the earlier tradition. However, as we will see in the next section,
one strand of this transmitted tradition underwent a more radical transformation, under the influence of Islam.

94 . . .

.
.

.
.
. . ;A. Mengozzi, Israel of Alqosh
and Joseph of Telkepe: A Story in a Truthful Language. Religious Poems in Vernacular
Syriac (North Iraq, 17th Century) (2 vols.; CSCO 589590; Scriptores Syri 230231; Louvain:
Peeters, 2002), 1:56 (Syr.), 2:17071 (translation).

256
3

Minov

Fall out of Favor: Transformations of Syriac Christian Traditions

in a Muslim Milieu

It has been demonstrated, on the one hand, that the legend of Satans refusal
to worship Adam appeared in Syriac Christian tradition for the first time during late antiquity and continued to enjoy a certain vogue during the medieval
period, when the prevailing majority of Syriac-speaking Christians lived under
Islamic rule. On the other hand, this period also saw new developments in the
fortunes of this legend: it was marginalized or even completely rejected in certain contexts as a result of the renegotiation of Syriac Christian identity in the
new socio-cultural context of Muslim domination.
The most important factor that conditioned such reversals in the attitude
to this interpretation was the prominent position that it gained in Muslim
tradition. The story of Satans fall as a result of his refusal to worship Adam
was incorporated in the foundational text of the new Abrahamic religion,
the Qurn itself. The sra d presents the following account of the fall of
Ibls (the name generally employed by Muslim authors to identify the Devil of
Judeo-Christian tradition):95
Your Lord said to the angels, I will create a man from clay. When I have
shaped him and breathed from My Spirit into him, bow down before
him. The angels all bowed down together, but not Iblis, who was too
proud. He became a rebel. God said, Iblis, what prevents you from bowing down to the man I have made with My own hands? Are you too high
and mighty? Iblis said, I am better than him: You made me from fire,
and him from clay. Get out of here! You are rejected: My rejection will
follow you till the Day of Judgment!96
A detailed discussion of this and other Qurnic accounts of the conflict
between Ibls and Adam, including the problem of ultimate origin of these
accounts, lies beyond the scope of the present investigation.97 It is impossible,
however, not to notice the basic similarity between the narrative of the Qurn
95 For a recent discussion of its etymology and origins, see J. P. Monferrer-Sala, One More
Time on the Arabized Nominal Form Ibls, Studia Orientalia 112 (2012): 5570.
96 Qurn 38:7178; trans. M. A. Abdel Haleem, The Qurn (Oxford World Classics; Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2004), 293. Cf. also sras 2:3036; 7:1019; 15:2635; 17:6165;
18:50; 20:11617.
97 See E. Beck, Iblis und Mensch, Satan und Adam: Der Werdegang einer koranischen
Erzhlung, Le Muson 89 (1976): 195244.

Satan s Refusal to Worship Adam

257

and that of the Cave. In both cases, Satan falls because he refuses to bow down
to the newly created Adam, giving as the reason his ontological superiority
over the human. In addition, the Qurn, like the Cave, connects the incident
of Satans fall with the scriptural account of Adam giving names to creatures
(cf. Qurn 2:3034). In light of these observations, I tend to agree with those
scholars who suggest that the Qurnic story of Iblss fall represents an instance
of the considerable influence exercised by Syriac Christianity upon the formative text of Islam.98
What is of foremost importance for our subject, however, is that the Qurnic
interpretation of the fall of Ibls became standard for the subsequent Muslim
tradition of demonology. It is well attested in a wide range of Arabic historiographic compositions, tafsr commentaries on the Qurn, and collections
of adth, as well as works of other genres.99 The popularity of the Qurnic
legend of Satans fall had a direct bearing on the fortunes of this story among
Christians and other religious minorities in the Islamic world.
The almost canonical status among Muslims of the story of Satans refusal
to worship Adam did not go unnoticed by the Christians who lived under their
rule. One comes upon various examples of the treatment of this tradition
by Syriac Christian intellectuals in the context of Christian polemic against
98 See most recently G. S. Reynolds, Redeeming the Adam of the Qurn, in Arabische Christen: Christen in Arabien (ed. D. Kreikenbom, F.-C. Muth, and J. Thielmann;
Nordostafrikanisch/Westasiatische Studien 6; Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2007), 7183.
For a general discussion of the Syriac background of the Qurn, see I. Shahd, Islam
and Oriens Christianus: Makka 610622 AD, in The Encounter of Eastern Christianity with
Early Islam (ed. E. Grypeou, M. Swanson, and D. R. Thomas; HCMR 5; Leiden: Brill, 2006),
931; S. K. Samir, The Theological Christian Influence on the Qurn: A Reflection, in The
Qurn in its Historical Context (ed. G. S. Reynolds; Routledge Studies in the Qurn; London: Routledge, 2007), 14162; J. Witztum, The Syriac Milieu of the Quran: The Recasting of Biblical Narratives (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 2011). An attempt by Wilson
Bishai (A Possible Coptic Source for a Qurnic Text, JAOS 91/1 [1971]: 12528) to derive
the origins of the Qurnic myth of Satans fall from Coptic Christian sources, such as the
Encomium on Saint Michael the Archangel, attributed to Theodosius of Alexandria, can
hardly be accepted as satisfactory. Bishais attempt fails to do justice to the complicated
problem of the source-criticism of the Qurn because it unjustifiably privileges one narrative element, i.e., the dialogue between God and Satan, over others.
99 For examples, see G. Calasso, Intervento di Ibls nella creazione delluomo: Lambivalente
figura del nemico nelle tradizioni islamiche, Rivista degli Studi Orientali 45/12 (1970):
7190; P. J. Awn, Satans Tragedy and Redemption: Ibls in Sufi Psychology (SHR 44;
Leiden: Brill, 1983), 3340; M. Kister, dam: A Study of Some Legends of Tafsr and ad
Literature, IOS 13 (1993): 11374 (13542); G. Schoeler, Iblis in the Poems of Ab Nuws,
ZDMG 151/1 (2001): 4362 (4446).

258

Minov

Islamwhere it was either perceived as problematic and marginalized; or, on

the contrary, integrated into Christian arguments aimed at subverting claims
made by Muslims.
It should be noted at this point that the earliest example of negative reaction to the story of Satans refusal to worship Adam, in the context of Christian
polemic against Islam, comes from the Greek-speaking milieu and belongs to
Anastasius of Sinai, a seventh-century theologian. In his book of Questions and
Answers (#80), Anastasius tackles the question of why some people say that
Satan fell away because of his not paying homage to Adam, by asserting that
such silly myths belong to the Pagans and Arabs (
); he offers instead an orthodox version of Satans fall,
based on the motif of his pride vis--vis God and supported by the scriptural
authority of Ezekiel 28.100
A relatively early instance of Syrian Christian use of the story of Satans fall
for the purposes of polemic against Islam comes from the works of Timothy I
(727823), one of the most prominent figures in the history of the East Syrian
church.101 He served as the patriarch of the Church of the East during the last
decades of the eighth and first decades of the ninth century, first in SeleuciaCtesiphon and afterwards in Baghdad. Of particular interest for us is one of
his letters, number 34, addressed to the priests and the believers in the cities
of Barah and Huballat, which offers an extensive exposition of the doctrines
of the Christian faith. As has been demonstrated by Thomas Hurst, this letter
together with letters 35, 36, and 40 form a distinct group, dealing primarily
with anti-Muslim polemic, within the patriarchs epistolary legacy.102 The main
100 Ed. M. Richard and J. A. Munitiz, Anastasii Sinaitae Quaestiones et Responsiones (CCSG
59; Turnhout: Brepols, 2006), 131; trans. J. A. Munitiz, Anastasios of Sinai: Questions and
Answers (Corpus Christianorum in Translation 7; Turnhout: Brepols, 2011), 195. For general information on Anastasius and his polemic against Islam, see A. Binggeli, Anastasius
of Sinai, in ChristianMuslim Relations: A Bibliographical History, Volume 1 (600900) (ed.
D. R. Thomas and B. H. Roggema; HCMR 11; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 193202.
101 On this figure, see B. H. Roggema and M. Heimgartner, Timothy I, in Thomas and
Roggema, ChristianMuslim Relations 1, 51531; V. Berti, Vita e studi di Timoteo I, Patriarca
cristiano di Baghdad: Ricerche sullepistolario e sulle fonti contigue (Cahiers de Studia
Iranica 41; Chrtiens en terre dIran 3; Paris: Association pour lavancement des tudes
iraniennes, 2009).
102 See T. R. Hurst, The Syriac Letters of Timothy I (727823): A Study in ChristianMuslim
Controversy (Ph.D. diss., The Catholic University of America, 1986), 3268; idem,
The Epistle-Treatise: An Apologetic Vehicle. Letter 34 of Timothy I, in IV Symposium
Syriacum, 1984: Literary Genres in Syriac Literature (ed. H. J. W. Drijvers et al.; OrChrAn
229; Rome: Pontificium Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1987), 36782.

Satan s Refusal to Worship Adam

259

thrust of letter 34 is to demonstrate the superiority of the Christian doctrine of

Jesus as the Son of God against the Muslim understanding of Jesus as a mere
human.
The Muslim doctrine is based on the expression the servant of God (abd
Allh), found in the Qurn as a self-description of Jesus. To refute this doctrine,
Timothy brings forward a number of arguments, one of which is based on the
story of Satans refusal to worship Adam. In this passage, addressing his rhetorically constructed Muslim interlocutor, Timothy draws a parallel between
the refusal of some angels to worship Adam and the denial by Muslims of
Jesuss divine nature. The connection between the two parts of this analogy is
established through the New Testament notion of Adam as the type of Christ
(cf. Rom 5:14), reformulated by Timothy as the image of the Messiah:
For if there were among the angels those who did not worship Adam,
according to what you say, the one who was the image of the Messiah, as
the divine scripture says, they became resisters, as you say, and they were
condemned. How much more, then, will you be condemned, since you
do not worship God in the clothing of your own body?103
What is remarkable about this piece of anti-Muslim polemic is that Timothy is
trying to subvert the objectionable Muslim doctrine from within. He does that
by exploring the possibility of tension between the Muslim view of Jesus as
merely human and the Qurnic tradition of the fall of Ibls. It is not clear, however, from this relatively short passage, whether the patriarch considered the
Muslim tradition of Iblss fall to be ultimately incompatible with the Christian
doctrine. In fact, from the way he handles this tradition by reinterpreting it
in the context of AdamChrist typology, one may conclude that there was no
inherent obstacle that would prevent Christians from holding to it.
A more or less contemporary example of the polemical handling of the
Qurnic myth of Iblss fall by Christians in Syria is found in the writings of
the famous Arab Christian theologian Theodore Ab Qurrah (ca 750ca. 825),
who served as the Melkite bishop of the city of arrn.104 In chapter 9 of his

103  : :

. :

: .; ed. O. Braun, Timothei

patriarchae I epistulae (2 vols.; CSCO 74, 75; Scriptores Syri 30, 31; Paris Typographeo
Reipublicae, 19141915), 1:201.
104 See on Ab Qurrah, J. C. Lamoreaux, Theodore Ab Qurra, in Thomas and Roggema,
ChristianMuslim Relations 1, 43991.

260

Minov

treatise, On the Veneration of the Holy Icons, written in Arabic at the request of
a certain Yannah (who was an official of the Church of the Image of Christ in
Edessa), Ab Qurrah defends the controversial Christian devotional practice
of prostration (or bowing down) in front of sacred images; his arguments are
aimed at Jews and Muslims, in whose eyes this practice was tantamount to
idolatry.105 Whereas during most of this chapter, the Christian apologete develops his argumentation vis--vis an imaginary Jewish interlocutor, at one point
he also rebuffs supposedly Muslim objections to this practice. Ab Qurrah
wants to argue that the act of prostration (sud) does not necessarily always
implies worship (ibda), which is appropriate to God alone, but might be
legitimately used to express honor (karma) toward sacred objects and
clergy. He thus points out at what he perceives to be an internal contradiction
in the Muslim position: on the one hand, the Muslims mock the Christians for
their practice of making prostration to the icons and to people and maintain
that making the act of prostration is worship; while on the other hand, their
own holy scripture presents God himself as authorizing this same action in the
story about the refusal of Ibls to prostrate himself before Adam.106 In this way,
105 On the complicated question of possible connections between Ab Qurrahs defense
of icons and the contemporary iconoclastic controversy in the Byzantine empire, see
S. H. Griffith, Theodore Ab Qurrahs Arabic Tract on the Christian Practice of Venerating Images, JAOS 105/1 (1985): 5373 (7173).
106 Ed. J. P. Arendzen, Theodori Abu urra de Cultu imaginum libellus e codice arabico nunc
primum editus latine versus illustratus (Bonn: Drobnig, 1897), 17; trans. S. H. Griffith, A
Treatise on the Veneration of the Holy Icons Written in Arabic by Theodore Ab Qurrah,
Bishop of Harrn (c. 755c. 830 AD) (Eastern Christian Texts in Translation 1; Louvain:
Peeters, 1997), 52. Ab Qurrahs distinction between ibda and karma corresponds to
the distinction between , worship, and , veneration, used by such
Greek-speaking defenders of the cult of icons as John of Damascus and Theodore of
Studios. See K. Parry, Depicting the Word: Byzantine Iconophile Thought of the Eighth and
Ninth Centuries (The Medieval Mediterranean 12; Leiden: Brill, 1996); A. Giakalis, Images of
the Divine: The Theology of Icons at the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Studies in the History
of Christian Traditions 122; Leiden: Brill, 2005). On the pertinence of the polemic against
iconoclasm for Christians living under Muslim rule, see S. H. Griffith, Images, Islam, and
Christian Icons: A Moment in the Christian/Muslim Encounter in Early Islamic Times,
in La Syrie de Byzance a lIslam, VIIeVIIIe sicles: Actes du Colloque international, Lyon
Maison de lOrient Mditerranen, ParisInstitut du Monde Arabe, 1115 Septembre 1990
(ed. P. Canivet and J.-P. Rey-Coquais; Publications de lInstitut franais de Damas 137;
Damascus: Institut Franais de Damas, 1992), 12138; idem, Crosses, Icons and the Image
of Christ in Edessa: The Place of Iconophobia in the ChristianMuslim Controversies of
Early Islamic Times, in Transformations of Late Antiquity: Essays for Peter Brown (ed.
P. Rousseau and E. Papoutsakis; Farnham: Ashgate, 2009), 6384.

Satan s Refusal to Worship Adam

261

the Qurnic account of Satans fall provides Ab Qurrah with the convenient
leverage that allows him to subvert the Muslim criticism of Christian devotion:
If prostration is an act of worship, then without a doubt, according to what
you say, God in that case commanded the angels to worship Adam! Far be it
from God to do that!107 The power of the anti-Muslim argument employed
by the Christian apologete is thus derived from the inner tension between the
prohibition of all prostration except for the worship of God in the Muslim tradition of devotion, and the residual traces of the practice of secular prostration
preserved in the Qurnic myth of Ibls and Adam.108
Over time, we see a more pronounced negative attitude towards the Muslim
myth of Satans fall among Syriac-speaking Christian writers. One such example
comes from the polemical works of Dionysius bar alb, a prominent Western
Syrian theologian and polemicist of the twelfth century.109 In the beginning
of chapter 26 of his apologetic composition, Response to the Arabs, Dionysius
quotes at length a fragment from al-Baqarah, the second sra of the Qurn,
which narrates the story of the worship of Adam by the angels and of Satans
disobedience and fall. In his commentary on this passage, Bar alb seeks to
expose the error of this Muslim tradition:
As soon as God said that the angels should bow down to him [i.e., Adam],
Satan did not bow down, and he did well. How shall a fiery being bow
down to a mortal? And how shall secondary lights bow down to a tertiary
light? Therefore, those who say that the perfect ones and the hermits are
more excellent than the angels are of the mind of Muammad.
It is quite appropriate to wonder at how the words of this book
are arranged so haphazardly, so that from this fact, its error may be
revealed. While scripture says that Eve transgressed the commandment,
Muammad said that Adam transgressed. If Adam was driven out of
107 Ed. Arendzen, Theodori Abu urra de Cultu, 17; trans. Griffith, Treatise on the Veneration,52.
108 On the practice and conceptualization of prostration in Islam, see R. Tottoli, Muslim
Attitudes towards Prostration (sujd): I. Arabs and Prostration at the Beginning of Islam
and in the Qurn, Studia Islamica 88 (1998): 534; idem, Muslim Attitudes towards
Prostration (sujd): II. Prominence and Meaning of Prostration in Muslim Literature, Le
Muson 111/34 (1998): 40526; idem, The Thanksgiving Prostration (sujd al-shukr) in
Muslim Traditions, BSOAS 61/2 (1998): 30913. On polemical aspects of this practice, see
R. Tottoli, Muslim Traditions against Secular Prostration and Inter-Religious Polemic,
Medieval Encounters 5/1 (1999): 99111.
109 See H. G. B. Teule, Dionysius bar Salibi, in ChristianMuslim Relations: A Bibliographical
History, Volume 3 (10501200) (ed. D. R. Thomas and A. Mallett; HCMR 15; Leiden: Brill,
2011), 66570.

262

Minov

Paradise because he transgressed, what penalty did Satan incur, who

rebelled and did not obey his Lord and bow down to Adam?110
One may observe here how Dionysius subverts the Qurnic representation of
the fall of Ibls by pointing out that in fact, the ontological argument put forward by Satan was sound, and that he whose nature was of fire indeed should
not have had to bow down to Adam, who was only a mortal. Another argument
against the Muslim interpretation of Satans fall is based on what is perceived
by Dionysius to be an inner inconsistency between the Qurnic account and
the biblical narrative. Thus, Dionysius wonders why one should blame Satan
for his refusal to worship Adam, if Adam himself disobeyed God by transgressing the commandment.
In an interesting aside, Dionysius castigates as Muslim-minded those among
his coreligionists who consider Christians ascetics and monks to be more
excellent than the angels. This accusation sounds rather unusual in light of
the centuries-old anthropological tradition, influential among Syriac-speaking
Christians, which understood the perfect nature of Adam before the fall to
have been equal to that of the angels. It developed under the influence of the
saying of Jesus, transmitted by the Synoptics (Matt 22:2930; Mark 12:2425;
Luke 20:3436), that the institution of marriage is to be abolished in the new
world following the eschatological consummation, at which time those men
and women who are found worthy of resurrection will become equal to angels
( in Lk 20:36).111 This notion served as the backbone of Syriac ascetic
ideology from the fourth century onward. Reaching the perfect, angel-like state
of prelapsarian and/or eschatological humankind was regarded by many holy

110  . .

.
.

. .

. .
. :
. ; for the text, see
J. P. Amar, ed., Dionysius bar alb. A Response to the Arabs (2 vols.; CSCO 614615;
Scriptores Syri 238239; Louvain: Peeters, 2005), 1:116 (Syr.), 2:1079 (translation).
111 See on this U. Bianchi, The Religio-Historical Relevance of Lk 20:3436, in Studies in
Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions Presented to Gilles Quispel on the Occasion of His 65th
Birthday (ed. R. van den Broek and M. J. Vermaseren; EPRO 91; Leiden: Brill, 1981), 3137;
D. E. Aune, Luke 20:3436: A Gnosticized Logion of Jesus? in GeschichteTradition
Reflexion: Festschrift fr Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag. Band 3: Frhes Christentum
(ed. H. Lichtenberger; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 187202.

Satan s Refusal to Worship Adam

263

men of SyriaMesopotamia as the ultimate goal of their ascetic efforts.112 For

example, already in the discussion of monastic life by Aphrahat (fourth century) one finds a description of an ascetic as one, who assumes the likeness of

the angels (
) .113 Later on, in the metrical Life of Rabban
Bar Idt (an East Syrian monastic leader of the seventh century), composed by
a certain Abraham Zaby, it is related that this holy man had a disciple named
Ywnn, who persevered in the ascetic way of life for twenty-nine years until
he became an angel () .114 The list of similar examples can
be easily continued.115
These examples, however, do not help us much with understanding why,
in his rejection of the notion of ascetics as superior to the angels, Dionysius
evokes Muslim tradition. In order to provide an answer to this question we
shall turn to the tradition of Muslim mysticism. A relevant discussion of angelology in connection with asceticism is found in the tractate Kaf al-Mab
by Al b. Uthmn al-Huwr, an eleventh-century Persian author. In the section that deals with the Sufi order of akms, i.e., the followers of the ninthcentury mystic al-akm al-Tirmidh, this writer devotes a long passage to
defending the opinion that the prophets and such of the saints as are guarded
from sin are superior to the angels, presented as a notion shared by the whole
community of orthodox Moslems and all the Sufi Shaykhs.116 According to
112 For more on this ascetic notion in Syria and beyond, see A. Vbus, History of Asceticism
in the Syrian Orient: A Contribution to the History of Culture in the Near East (3 vols.;
CSCO 184, 197, 500; Subsidia 14, 17, 81; Louvain: Secrtariat du CorpusSCO, 1958, 1960,
1988), 2:298307; S. Frank, : Begriffsanalytische und Begriffsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung zum Engelgleichen Leben im frhen Mnchtum (Beitrge zur Geschichte
des alten Mnchtums und des Benediktinerordens 26; Mnster: Aschendorff, 1964), esp.
14162; M. Aveta, Ad instar angelorum: Per unanalisi storico-religiosa dellantropologia
del Liber graduum, Cristianesimo nella storia 8 (1987): 481500; R. M. M. Tuschling, Angels
and Orthodoxy: A Study in their Development in Syria and Palestine from the Qumran Texts
to Ephrem the Syrian (STAC 40; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 16366; E. Muehlberger,
Ambivalence about the Angelic Life: The Promise and Perils of an Early Christian
Discourse of Asceticism, JECS 16/4 (2008): 44778.
113 Dem. 6.1; see J. Parisot, ed., Aphraatis Sapientis Persae Demonstrationes (Patrologia Syriaca
1.1; Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1894), 248. Cf. also Dem. 6.6, 19; 18.12.
114 Ed. E. A. W. Budge, The Histories of Rabban Hrmzd the Persian and Rabban Bar-Idt
(3 vols.; Luzacs Semitic Text and Translation Series 911; London: Luzac, 1902), 1:148
(Syr.), 2.1:221 (translation).
115 Cf. Ephrem, Hymns on the Nativity 21.15.4; Commentary on the Diatessaron 16.22; Theodoret,
Hist. relig., Prologue 23; John of Dalyatha, Letter 4.35; Barhebraeus, Ethicon 1.6.1, 5.
116 Ed. V. Z ukovskij and M. Abbs, Kaf al-mab li-Abi-l-asan Al Ibn-Umn Ibn-AbiAl al-Huwr al-aznaw. Az ry-i matn-i tah uda-i Wlintn kfsk (2d ed.; Tehran:

264

Minov

al-Huwr, the superiority (tafl) of the prophets over the angels is derived
from the Qurnic stories about the latter worshiping Adam. The superiority
of the saints (awliy) is based on the fact that contrary to the angels, who by
their nature are instinctively obedient to God, humans, who have a natural
propensity to commit sins, can reach the state of being protected (i.e., from
sin) (maf) only as a result of prolonged ascetic struggle, aimed at mortifying their lower soul (nafs), which incites them to all manner of wickedness.117
The genuine writings of al-Tirmidh provide us with a proof that this notion is
not an invention of al-Huwr, but reflects the views of the akm Sufis. Thus,
in his Kitb Ilm al-awliy, al-Tirmidh discusses the divine light that emanates
through the efforts of all beings who praise God, angels as well as humans, and
states that from Gods point of view the lights that come forth from a form of
earth that is found amongst lusts and passion, i.e., from the human Friends
of God (awliy), are superior to those that come from interiors with a lightnature that contain no passion, no lust and no enticement from the Enemy,
i.e., the angels.118
We have seen, thus, that the notion of holy men as superior to the angels
enjoyed popularity at least in one fraction of the Sufi mystical movement. This
observation throws additional light on the accusation of Muslim-mindedness
aimed by Dionysius at those among his coreligionists who regarded Christian
ascetics in a similar fashion.
It should be noted here that the idea of holy men as superior to the angels
in the Sufi tradition of mysticism might itself have originated under Christian
influence. Most of the Christian expressions of the ideology of imitatio angelorum mentioned above envision the ascetic as equal to the angels, and thus
would seemingly be exempt from Dionysiuss cutting accusation. However, it
is possible that at least some Syriac-speaking Christians might have taken this
idea one step further and claimed superiority to the angels as the final goal of
spiritual progress. One may recognize a hint of such a vision of spiritual perfection in the treatise On the Kinds of Prayer, transmitted under the name of
Amr Kabr, 1957), 30711; trans. R. A. Nicholson, The Kashf al-Majub: The Oldest Persian
Treatise on ufiism by Al B. Uthman al-Jullab al-Hujwr (E. J. W. Gibb Memorial Series
17; London: Luzac, 1911), 23941.
117 Ed. Z ukovskij and Abbs, Kaf al-mab, 3089; trans. Nicholson, Kashf al-Majub, 240.
118 Trans. B. Radtke and J. OKane, The Concept of Sainthood in Early Islamic Mysticism: Two
Works by al-akm al-Tirmidh (Curzon Sufi Series; Richmond, Surrey: Curzon, 1996), 228
29. On this aspect of al-Tirmidhs anthropology, see also B. Radtke, Al-akm at-Tirmi:
Ein islamischer Theosoph des 3./9. Jahrhunderts (Islamkundliche Untersuchungen 58;
Freiburg im Breisgau: Schwarz, 1980), 63, 149 n. 179.

Satan s Refusal to Worship Adam

265

Abraham of Nathpar, an East Syrian spiritual writer from the seventh century.119
It is asserted in this work that when an ascetic attains the level of spiritual
prayer, his worship is more perfect than that of the company of Gabriel and
Michael.120
While this subject certainly deserves a more thorough investigation than
can be carried out here, I would like to suggest that it is the notion of the imago
Dei as the unique quality of human beings that might serve as a possible catalyst behind the development of this ascetic idea. In support of this suggestion,
I may adduce the opinion of an otherwise unknown Syriac Christian author
of two mmr on the Hexaemeron, which circulated under the name of Jacob
of Sarug, mentioned above. The content of this work is known to us only partially, from the polemic waged against it in one of the letters by the West Syrian
theologian Jacob of Edessa (ca. 640708). According to the latter, the author of
these homilies claimed that Adam is greater and more excellent than Michael
and Gabriel ( ;) this declaration seems
connected in the writers thought with the fact that the angels lack the image
of God: these rational minds and secondary luminaries are not in the image

of God, their creator (

) .121 Unfortunately, the brief and hostile summary of Jacob of
Edessa does not allow us to establish whether the author of the homilies relied
on the narrative of the creation of Adam in the Cave in his treatment of these
matters.
Bar albs expressly negative attitude toward the Muslim interpretation
of the fall of Satan, seems to have had no particular influence on his great
successor, Barhebraeus, a famous thirteenth-century West-Syrian theologian
and scholar.122 In his monumental theological compendium, the Lamp of the
Sanctuary (7.1.1.1), Barhebraeus discusses, among other things, the topic of
Satans downfall. At some point he refers to the Muslim way of dealing with
119 See on this work G. M. Kessel and K. Pinggra, A Bibliography of Syriac Ascetic and Mystical
Literature (Eastern Christian Studies 11; Leuven: Peeters, 2011), 32.
120 Trans. S. P. Brock, The Syriac Fathers on Prayer and the Spiritual Life (Cistercian Studies
Series 101; Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1987), 192.
121 For the Syriac text and German translation, see R. Schrter, Erster Brief Jacobs von
Edessa an Johannes den Styliten, ZDMG 24 (1870): 261300 (270, 275); for a French translation, see F. Nau, Cinq lettres de Jacques ddesse Jean le Stylite (traduction et analyse), Revue de lOrient chrtien 14 (1909): 42740 (435).
122 See H. Takahashi, Barhebraeus, in The Orthodox Christian World (ed. A. M. Casiday;
Routledge Worlds; London: Routledge, 2012), 27986; H. G. B. Teule, Barhebraeus, in
Thomas and Mallett, ChristianMuslim Relations 4, 588609.

266

Minov

this subject, noticing that this treatment stands close to what had been taught
much earlier by Jacob of Sarug:
On the one hand, the Muslims say that because God told Satan to worship Adam, who had just been created in the image of God, and he refused
and did not yield, he fell together with the whole band of his; on the other
hand, Mar Jacob of Sarug says something similar to this in his Hexaemeron.
However, the venerable Mar Jacob (of Edessa) rejects that homily, as we
have already said above.123
Barhebraeus glosses the fact of harmony between the Christian and Muslim
traditions on the fall of Satan by pointing out that the Syriac mmr transmitted under the name of Jacob of Sarug, where this opinion supposedly appears,
are not authentic and, in fact, contain heterodox teaching. This statement,
however, betrays a certain confusion on Barhebraeuss part, since neither the
genuine Jacobs mmr on the sixth day of creation nor the two mmr on the
Hexaemeron falsely ascribed to him, which were mentioned above, contain
the notion of Satans refusal to worship Adam.124 Even so, what strikes us in
connection with Barhebraeuss handling of the Muslim story of Satans fall is
his basically nonjudgmental attitude towards it. This might be not so surprising, however, when one recalls the great indebtedness of this Syriac polymath
to Muslim traditions of science and philosophy.125

123 

.

.
; ed. M. Albert, Le Candlabre du Sanctuaire de Grgoire Aboulfaradj
dit Barhebrus. Septime base: Des dmons (PO 30:2; Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1961), 28486.
124 In fact, the author of these mmr shares with Jacob the general framework of the
Edessene interpretation of Satans fall; i.e., that it occurred on the sixth day as a result
of Satans envy of Adams greatness. For the Syriac text and German translation, see
Schrter, Erster Brief Jacobs von Edessa, 270, 275; for a French translation, see Nau,
Cinq lettres de Jacques, 436.
125 See on this H. Takahashi, Barhebraeus und seine islamischen Quellen: Tgrat tgrt
(Tractatus tactatuum) und Gazls Maqsid alfalsifa, in Syriaca: Zur Geschichte,
Theologie, Liturgie und Gegenwartslage der syrischen Kirchen, 2. Deutsches SyrologenSymposium (Juli 2000, Wittenberg) (ed. M. Tamcke; Studien zur Orientalischen
Kirchengeschichte 17; Mnster: Lit, 2002), 14775; H. G. B. Teule, The Transmission
of Islamic Culture to the World of Syriac Christianity: Barhebraeus Translation of
Avicennas kitb al-irt wa l-tanbht. First Soundings, in Redefining Christian
Identity: Cultural Interaction in the Middle East since the Rise of Islam (ed. J. J. van Ginkel,
H. L. Murre-van den Berg, and T. M. van Lint; OLA 134; Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 16784;

Satan s Refusal to Worship Adam

267

As these examples show, the story of Satans refusal to worship Adam and
consequent fall could be seen simultaneously in medieval Syriac Christianity
as an authentic part of the tradition and as an element of heterodox teaching
formed under Muslim influence. That same influence made itself felt in a different way in medieval rabbinic tradition.
4

Satans Fall Revisited in Medieval Jewish Tradition

To conclude this overview of the fascinating odyssey of the story of Satans fall
through various confessional traditions, I bring forward several examples that
demonstrate how the interpretation of Satans fall as a result of the refusal to
worship Adam found its way back in to Jewish literary tradition as a result of
contact with the Islamicate milieu. As has been mentioned above, no explicit
indication of this interpretation seems to be found in the corpus of rabbinic
writings from late antiquity. It is only in a few medieval Jewish sources that
one comes across portrayals of Satans fall similar to that of the Life of Adam
and Eve.
One of the earliest attestations of this myth in Jewish literature comes from
Sefer Eldad ha-Dani,126 the author of which appeared during the late-ninth
century in the Jewish community of Kairouan in North Africa. Eldad claimed
descent from the tribe of Dan, now supposedly resident in an (East African)
Jewish kingdom comprised of some of the lost tribes of Israel, in the biblical land of Havilah. The Sefer presents an account of Satans fall: After God
had created Adam, he commanded all the ministering angels to bow down
before his new creation. While most of the angels complied with this order,
Satan refused to worship Adam, under the pretext that he himself had been
created from the radiance of Shekhinah, whereas the human being had been
formed from the dust of the earth. To settle the conflict, God challenged
Satan to participate in a contest whereby he and Adam would demonstrate
idem, The Interaction of Syriac Christianity and the Muslim World in the Period of the
Syriac Renaissance, in Syriac Churches Encountering Islam: Past Experiences and Future
Perspectives (ed. D. W. Winkler; Pro Oriente Studies in the Syriac Tradition 1; Piscataway:
Gorgias, 2010), 11028.
126 On Eldad and his works, see A. Epstein, Eldad ha-Dani: Seine Berichte ber die X Stmme
und deren Ritus in verschiedenen Versionen nach Handschriften und alten Drucken mit
Einleitung und Anmerkungen (Pressburg: Alkalay, 1891) (in Hebrew); M. Schloessinger,
The Ritual of Eldad ha-Dani Reconstructed and Edited from Manuscripts and a Genizah
Fragment (Leipzig: Haupt, 1908).

268

Minov

their wisdom by naming animals; the loser was to worship the winner. As one
might expect, Satan lost the competition after failing to name the animals that
were brought before him, whereas Adam succeeded in this task.127
It is not possible to deal here in detail with the complex literary genealogy
of this variation on Satans refusal to worship Adam. Yet, the fact that Eldad
ha-Dani circulated in communities under Islamic rule, as well as the peculiar
linguistic profile of his Hebrew, which betrays influence of Arabic and Syriac,128
make it a strong possibility that this Jewish author became acquainted with the
myth of Satans refusal worship Adam in the context of a Muslim-dominated
cultural milieu.129
Another example of Jewish acquaintance with the motif of Satans refusal
to worship Adam comes from the literary tradition of a diaspora community
located at the other extremity of the Muslim world, in Iran. The fourteenthcentury Judaeo-Persian poet Shhn-i Shirzi makes use of this motif in his
poetic reworking of the book of Genesis, Bereshit-nmah. After a description
of the superiority of Satan (also referred to as Azazel and Ibls) to the rest of
the angelic forces, the poet offers a vivid description of his negative reaction
to Gods decree: when God commands the angels to venerate Adam, Azazel
refuses to bow before a lump of clay ( ) and refers to his
own nature of pure light () .130 The poet continues with a series of
dialogues between Satan and God, in which the former tries unsuccessfully to
argue with his Creator from the position of a strict monotheism that presumes
no other object of worship besides the Divinity. As a result, God punishes Satan
for his disobedience and curses him till the Day of Resurrection, while granting him the right to tempt Adam and his posterity. As has been demonstrated
by Vera Moreen, Shhns representation of the figure of Satan and his conflict
127 Ed. Epstein, Eldad ha-Dani, 6667.
128 See on this S. Morag, Eldad Haddanis Hebrew and the Problem of His Provenance,
Tarbiz 66/2 (1997): 22346 (in Hebrew). Cf. also L. I. Rabinowitz, Eldad Ha-Dani and
China, JQR n.s. 36/3 (1946): 23138.
129 Through the mediation of Sefer Eldad ha-Dani the myth of Satans fall reached Jewish
intellectual circles of southern Europe. Thus, Bereshit Rabbati, a late midrashic collection associated with R. Moshe ha-Darshan of Narbonne (eleventh century) presents an
account of Satans rebellion against Adam which betrays its dependence on the work of
Eldad ha-Dani. For the Hebrew text, see C. Albeck, Midra Bereit Rabbati ex libro R. Mosis
Haddaran collectus e codice Pragensi cum annotationibus et introductione (Jerusalem:
Mekize Nirdamim, 1940), 2425.
130 Ed. S. akham, Sefer Shar Shahin Torah (4 vols.; Jerusalem: Luntz, 19021905) (in
Hebrew), 1:5a6b; trans. V. B. Moreen, In Queen Esthers Garden: An Anthology of JudeoPersian Literature (Yale Judaica Series 30; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 3233.

Satan s Refusal to Worship Adam

269

with Adam reveals the poets familiarity with the contemporary Sufi interpretation of the figure of Ibls and of the theme of his fall.131
And finally, a very interesting example of Jewish appropriation of this myth
comes from Safavid Persia. It is found in the so-called Morgan Bible, known
also as the Crusader Bible (New York, Pierpont Morgan Library, Ms. M. 638),
a medieval picture Bible that depicts Old Testament scenes.132 Produced in
thirteenth-century France under the patronage of King Louis IX (12261270),
this lavishly executed manuscript was brought by Carmelite missionaries as
a gift to Shah Abbs I (15871629) in the year 1607. Upon receiving the book,
the Safavid monarch commanded that explanatory notes in Persian be added
in the margins. Later on, after the Afghan invasion of Isfahan in 1722, when the
manuscript fell into the hands of a Jewish buyer, a second set of explanatory
glosses was added to it, this time in Judeo-Persian.133
It is the first out of the four pictures on f. 1r that grabs our attention. This
image depicts the separation of light from darkness on the first day of creation,
along with the fall of the angels. In this picture, God (iconographically pictured as Christ triumphant) is surrounded by angelic choirs, while trampling
on Lucifer and the fallen angels below. This image is accompanied by a Persian
gloss on the folios upper left margin that says: This is the theme of the angels
who submitted to God except for the Devil, who did not prostrate himself and
was cursed. Below the Persian gloss the following comment in Judeo-Persian
is added: The story of Satan, who did not make obeisance to Adam (
) . What is remarkable about these explanations is that
whereas the original Christian image has no iconographic references to the
myth of Satans refusal to worship Adam, both the Muslim Persian and Judeo-

131 See V. B. Moreen, A Dialogue between God and Satan in Shhns Bereshit Nmah, in
Irano-Judaica III (ed. S. Shaked and A. Netzer; Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1994), 12741.
132 For a facsimile reproduction of the manuscript, see D. H. Weiss, ed., Die Kreuzritterbibel
= The Morgan Crusader Bible = La Bible des croisades (Lucerne: Faksimile Verlag / New
York: Pierpont Morgan Library, 1998). On the manuscripts arrival in Persia, see M. Shreve
Simpson, The Morgan Bible and the Giving of Religious Gifts between Iran and Europe/
Europe and Iran during the Reign of Shah Abbas I, in Between the Picture and the Word:
Manuscript Studies from the Index of Christian Art (ed. C. Hourihane; University Park:
Penn State University Press, 2005), 14150. I thank Dr. Ruth Clements for drawing my
attention to this evidence.
133 
For English translation and discussion of Persian and Judeo-Persian glosses, see
D. H. Weiss et al., The Morgan Crusader Bible: A Commentary (Lucerne: Faksimile Verlag,
1999). Both the image and the translations of the glosses are available online at http://
www.themorgan.org/collection/crusader-bible/1.

270

Minov

Persian glossators choose to bring the image into the line with the explanation
of Satans fall that was familiar to them, notwithstanding the violation of the
inner-biblical chronology involved in such reinterpretation. These glosses bear
witness to how the thirteenth-century Christian imagery could be assimilated
into Iranian Jewish and non-Jewish culture, when the foreign visual language is
appropriated through the act of misreading, a powerful and common strategy
of intercultural communication.
5 Conclusion
In the course of this investigation it has been argued that the peculiar interpretation of the fall of Satan as a result of his refusal to acknowledge the superiority of the first man by bowing down (or prostrating himself) before him, found
in the Life of Adam and Eve, developed on the basis of an ancient Jewish tradition about the veneration of Adam by the angels. Although this interpretation of the fall of Satan was marginalized in the tradition of rabbinic Judaism,
early Christianity turned out to be particularly receptive to it, and constituted
the primary channel of its transmission during late antiquity. It was through
the mediation of Christians, most likely Syriac-speaking ones, that this myth
became an integral part of the demonological tradition of Islam, where its
popularity reached new peaks.
We have seen that this account of Satans undoing enjoyed a certain popularity among the Christians of Syria and adjunct regions, from the sixth century
onward. It should be emphasized, however, that even among Syriac-speaking
Christians this account did not become the par excellence explanation of
Satans fall. One may propose several reasons for this. First of all, the fact of the
appearance of this tradition in the Cave of Treasures, a work of doubtful pedigree in the eyes of at least some Syriac Christian theologians, might have negatively affected the perceived orthodoxy of this tradition. Second, as I have
demonstrated above, the central place of this myth in the Muslim tradition
could also have rendered it unacceptable to some Syriac-speaking Christians,
especially those concerned with drawing clear boundaries between the two
communities of faith. I have also shown, however, that notwithstanding the
efforts of such polemically driven intellectuals as Dionysius bar alb to suppress this tradition, the myth of Satans refusal to worship Adam retained its
appeal among Syriac-speaking Christians.
Finally, the wide appeal of the account of Satans refusal to worship Adam
is also attested by its reemergence in medieval Jewish sources, as well as by
its appearance in the literary traditions of other religious minorities of the

Satan s Refusal to Worship Adam

271

Dar al-Islam, such as the Mandaeans of Southern Iraq,134 or the Yezidis of

Kurdistan.135 These instances, along with the continuing popularity of this
story among the Syriac-speaking Christians of the Middle Ages, demonstrate
that this story became an integral part of the biblically inspired cultural imaginaire of the Islamicate world, shared by the followers of all three Abrahamic
religions.

134 Cf. Right Ginza 1.88; 2.21; in J. H. Petermann, ed., Thesaurus s. Liber magnus vulgo Liber
Adami appellatus: opus Mandaeorum summi ponderis (2 vols.; Leipzig: Weigel, 1867),
1:13, 34; German translation by M. Lidzbarski, Ginza, der Schatz: oder das Grosse buch der
Mander (Quellen der Religionsgeschichte 4.13; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1925), 16, 34.
135 See I. Joseph, Yezidi Texts, AJSL 25/23 (1909): 11156, 21854 (23536).