Download the full version of the ebook at ebookfinal.

com

Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity The

Book of Jubilees Society for New Testament Studies
Monograph Series 1st Edition James M. Scott

https://ebookfinal.com/download/geography-in-early-judaism-
and-christianity-the-book-of-jubilees-society-for-new-
testament-studies-monograph-series-1st-edition-james-m-
scott/

OR CLICK BUTTON

DOWNLOAD EBOOK

Download more ebook instantly today at https://ebookfinal.com

Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) available
Download now and explore formats that suit you...

Jesus and the Pharisees Society for New Testament Studies

Monograph Series 28 1st Edition John Bowker

https://ebookfinal.com/download/jesus-and-the-pharisees-society-for-
new-testament-studies-monograph-series-28-1st-edition-john-bowker/

ebookfinal.com

Belly and Body in the Pauline Epistles Society for New

Testament Studies Monograph Series 1st Edition Karl Olav
Sandnes
https://ebookfinal.com/download/belly-and-body-in-the-pauline-
epistles-society-for-new-testament-studies-monograph-series-1st-
edition-karl-olav-sandnes/
ebookfinal.com

Christ s Resurrection in Early Christianity and the Making

of the New Testament 1st Edition Markus Vinzent

https://ebookfinal.com/download/christ-s-resurrection-in-early-
christianity-and-the-making-of-the-new-testament-1st-edition-markus-
vinzent/
ebookfinal.com

Building on the Ruins of the Temple Apologetics and

Polemics in Early Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism 1st
Edition Adam Gregerman
https://ebookfinal.com/download/building-on-the-ruins-of-the-temple-
apologetics-and-polemics-in-early-christianity-and-rabbinic-
judaism-1st-edition-adam-gregerman/
ebookfinal.com
Global Tourism Cultural Heritage and Economic Encounters
Society for Economic Anthropology Monograph Series 1st
Edition Sarah M. Lyon (Editor)
https://ebookfinal.com/download/global-tourism-cultural-heritage-and-
economic-encounters-society-for-economic-anthropology-monograph-
series-1st-edition-sarah-m-lyon-editor/
ebookfinal.com

Gender and Christianity in Medieval Europe New

Perspectives The Middle Ages Series Lisa M. Bitel

https://ebookfinal.com/download/gender-and-christianity-in-medieval-
europe-new-perspectives-the-middle-ages-series-lisa-m-bitel/

ebookfinal.com

Beginnings of Christianity An Introduction to the New

Testament Howard Clark Kee

https://ebookfinal.com/download/beginnings-of-christianity-an-
introduction-to-the-new-testament-howard-clark-kee/

ebookfinal.com

Modes of Comparison Theory and Practice The Comparative

Studies in Society and History Book Series Aram A.
Yengoyan
https://ebookfinal.com/download/modes-of-comparison-theory-and-
practice-the-comparative-studies-in-society-and-history-book-series-
aram-a-yengoyan/
ebookfinal.com

Israel s God and Rebecca s Children Christology and

Community in Early Judaism and Christianity David B. Capes

https://ebookfinal.com/download/israel-s-god-and-rebecca-s-children-
christology-and-community-in-early-judaism-and-christianity-david-b-
capes/
ebookfinal.com
Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity focuses on a partic-
ular Old Testament pseudepigraphon – the Book of Jubilees, which
is presented as a revelation that Moses received at Mount Sinai,
although it actually consists of a rewriting and interpretation of the
biblical narrative from Genesis 1 to Exodus 16. The study traces the
appropriation of the Book of Jubilees in early Christian sources from
the New Testament to Hippolytus and beyond, and more specifically
focuses on the reception of Jubilees 8–9, an expansion of the so-
called Table of Nations in Genesis 10 (1 Chronicles 1).
The book takes an interdisciplinary approach based on detailed
analysis of primary sources, much of which is seldom considered by
New Testament scholars, and explores the neglected topic of ancient
geographical conceptions. By studying geographical aspects of the
work, James M. Scott is able to relate Jubilees to both Old and New
Testament traditions, bringing important new insights into several
Christian texts.

J A M E S M . S C O T T is Professor of Religious Studies at Trinity

Western University, British Columbia. He is author of Adoption as
Sons of God (1992), Paul and the Nations (1995), and 2 Corinthians
(1998), and is editor of Exile: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian
Conceptions (1997), and Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and
Christian Conceptions (2001).
SOCIETY FOR NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES
MONOGRAPH SERIES
General editor: Richard Bauckham

113
GEOGRAPHY IN EARLY JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY
Geography in Early Judaism
and Christianity
The Book of Jubilees
JAMES M. SCOTT
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo

Cambridge University Press

The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK

Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York

www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521808125

© James M. Scott 2002

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception

and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without
the written permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 2002

Reprinted 2003
This digitally printed first paperback version 2005

A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication data

Scott, James M.
Geography in early Judaism and Christianity : the book of Jubilees / by James M. Scott.
p. cm. – (Society of New Testament Studies monograph series ; 113)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0 521 80812 X hardback
1. Book of Jubilees VIII–IX – Geography. 2. Bible. O. T. Genesis X – Geography.
3. Geography, Ancient. 4. Geography, Ancient – Maps. 5. Book of Jubilees
VIII–IX – Criticism, interpretation, etc. – History – To 1500. 6. Christian literature,
Early – History and criticism. I. Title. II. Monograph series (Society for New
Testament Studies) ; 113.
BS1830.J8 S45 2001
229´.911 – dc21 2001035282

ISBN-13 978-0-521-80812-5 hardback

ISBN-10 0-521-80812-X hardback

ISBN-13 978-0-521-02068-8 paperback

ISBN-10 0-521-02068-9 paperback
 CONTEN T S

Preface page viii

Introduction 1

1 The Mappamundi of Queen Kypros 5

2 Jubilees 8–9 23

3 Luke-Acts 44

4 Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions 1.27–71 97

5 Theophilus of Antioch 126

6 Hippolytus of Rome 135

7 Medieval Mappaemundi 159

Conclusion 171

Notes 177
Bibliography 259
Index of ancient literature 305
Index of modern authors 329

vii
 PREFA C E

The present study represents the fruit of my Sabbatical research in 1996–

97, during which I had the very pleasant opportunity of working both in
the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies and in the Evangelisch-
theologisches Seminar of the University of Tübingen. This research
would have been impossible without fellowships from the OCHJS and
the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung and a research grant from the So-
cial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. My sincere
thanks go to these institutions for their generous support.
I also owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to many individuals for
their help and encouragement along the way. The following scholars
deserve special mention in this regard: William Adler, Peter Barber,
Richard Bauckham, Dean Béchard, Peder Borgen, Benjamin Braude,
Katherine Clarke, Catherine Delano Smith, Evelyn Edson, Jörg Frey,
Martin Hengel, Chris Howgego, F. Stanley Jones, Nikos Kokkinos, Fergus
Millar, Matthew Morgenstern, Stanley Porter, Ferdinand Rohrhirsch,
Peter Stuhlmacher, James C. VanderKam, John Williams, and David A.
Woodward.
I would like to express my thanks to the staff at Cambridge University
Press for facilitating the publication of this book, and to Susanne Staryk
and Nathan Van Seters for checking the manuscript and preparing the
indexes.
Finally, I would like to express my love and appreciation for my wife
Gail and our two children, Kathryn and Elizabeth, whose flexibility and
spirit of adventure made this Sabbatical year not only possible but also
thoroughly enjoyable. As in the past, Gail has labored with me during
every phase of the research, writing, and publication of this volume.
I could not have done it without her, nor would I have wanted to.

viii
 INTROD U C T I O N

This book seeks to trace the appropriation of a particular “Old Testament

pseudepigraphon”1 – the Book of Jubilees2 – in early Christian sources
from the New Testament (NT) to Hippolytus (and beyond). More specif-
ically, our study focuses on the reception of Jubilees 8–9, an expansion
on the so-called Table of Nations in Genesis 10 (1 Chronicles 1). There
are three primary motivations for undertaking such a study at this par-
ticular time. First, my previous work on the Table of Nations tradition
has led me to the conclusion that Jubilees 8–9 had a powerful influence
on geographical conceptions found not only in Second-Temple Jewish
sources but also in early Christian writings.3 In order further to articulate
and substantiate this thesis, the present study delves more thoroughly
than before into some of the important primary source material. For in-
stance, our study gives greater scope to a Hellenistic epigram that opens
up the possibility of Jewish cartographic activity in the Second-Temple
period (Chapter 1). The study also augments my previous work by re-
considering the relationship of Jubilees 8–9 both to the lost “Book of
Noah” and to other writings of the Second-Temple period (Chapter 2).
The study greatly expands our earlier discussion on the geography of
Luke-Acts (Chapter 3) and penetrates more deeply into early Christian
literature outside the NT (Chapters 4–6). Finally, the study ventures a
foray into the medieval mappaemundi as possibly our earliest extant car-
tographic remains of the Jubilees 8–9 tradition (Chapter 7). First and
foremost, therefore, the present study is motivated by the desire to offer
further evidence of the influence of the Jubilees 8–9 tradition.
Second, our study is motivated by the need to base the investigation of
the NT on a firmer historical foundation. NT scholars have often been neg-
ligent in investigating historical geography, let alone ancient geographical
conceptions. William Ramsay decries “the general lack of interest taken
by scholars in mere geographical matters – which are commonly regarded
as beneath the dignity of true scholarship . . .”4 Moreover, as Philip S.
Alexander observes, “It has long been understood that our images of the

1
2 Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity

world can be extraordinarily revealing about our mentality, yet this insight
has taken some time to make any real impact on the study of the ancient
world. Ancient historians have been quite happy to investigate man’s re-
lationship to time (e.g. through a study of his concept of history), but
reluctant to investigate his orientation towards and organisation of space,
as revealed, for example, in his ideas about the geographical world.”5
Clearly, the historical investigation of the NT must have its proper
boundaries in time and space, its beginning, its aim, and its localities.
It presupposes some sort of basic chronology and geography.6 To this
end, our study contributes particularly to the geographical framework of
the NT. Unfortunately, NT scholars often simply assume geographical
knowledge of the past, thus regarding a thoroughgoing geographical in-
vestigation as practically superfluous.7 Indeed, most attempts to write
the history of early Christianity use the benefit of modern hindsight and
global perspective to trace the larger patterns and developments. They
describe the developments, as it were, from the “outside.” The danger of
such an approach is that it reads back later perspectives into the earlier
material, and thereby fails to respect the inevitably more limited horizons
of the ancient writers themselves.8 A classic example of this can be seen
in the standard maps of “The Journeys of Paul the Apostle,” included in
most Bible atlases or appended to many modern Bibles. Such maps have
become so familiar that we hardly stop to consider that the image of the
world portrayed on them looks strangely modern in orientation, outline,
and scale.9 Thus, we unwittingly read back into the biblical text our im-
age of the world, an image that itself is the product of a centuries-long
development.10 The present book attempts the more difficult task of de-
scribing the process from the “inside.” How did the Jerusalem apostles,
for example, imagine the world of their day? What conception(s) of world
geography informed early Christians as they carried their message from
place to place throughout the oikoumene? Such questions have scarcely
been asked and yet require answers. As P. M. Fraser aptly observes, “full
understanding of the outlook of any individual in antiquity – or indeed
any period before the modern era – depends to a considerable extent on
our ability to assess his geographical horizon.”11
To answer such questions is no easy matter, given the paucity of the
extant evidence. There is no ancient map to which we may facilely appeal,
and other relevant sources are few and far between. We must carefully
sift through a great quantity of exotic materials to extract even a few
clues that may help us, and some of these are subtle. To complicate
matters even further, our investigation must be interdisciplinary by its
very nature, incorporating the insights and methods of such disparate
 Introduction 3

disciplines as Jewish Studies, classical philology, ancient and medieval

cartography, ancient history, and patristics. At the risk of becoming mere
dilettantes, we must have the courage to pass over the boundaries of our
too narrowly specialized field and so become much more familiar with
allied disciplines. Only in this way can we avoid what Martin Hengel has
rightly called a science of surmises and a merry-go-round of hypotheses
which has so long characterized NT Studies.12 Admittedly, more thorough
acquaintance with the ancient sources will not solve all of the problems
that currently bedevil our discipline and even threaten its demise,13 but
it will hopefully provide a firmer historical basis on which to build in
various directions.
Third, the present study is motivated by the desire to provide a case
study of the reception of the so-called “OT pseudepigrapha” in the early
Christian literature.14 The pseudepigrapha are a rather amorphous collec-
tion of writings that have been preserved to the modern period primarily
by Christian efforts but are attributed to or closely identified with var-
ious heroes of the pre-Christian Jewish tradition. For instance, before
their discovery as part of the Qumran scrolls, important Jewish works
like 1 Enoch and Jubilees were known only in the versions transmitted in
Christian communities. Hence, Robert A. Kraft may well be right when
he insists that the pseudepigrapha should first be studied as witnesses
to Christian interest and activities before they are mined for informa-
tion about pre-rabbinic Judaism.15 By the same token, Christian material
cannot always be illuminated by Second-Temple sources without first
placing those sources in a trajectory of Jewish development. The point is,
however, that the NT’s exegesis of the OT may be seen within a contin-
uum of Jewish biblical interpretation that begins already in the OT itself,
continues through the Greco-Roman period, and extends all the way to
Jewish and Christian literatures of the Middle Ages.
The pseudepigrapha are no strangers to Christian tradition, and the
pervasiveness of their influence on the NT and early Christian literature
should be reckoned as highly probable, even if direct citations are
comparatively rare. The most famous example, of course, is the citation
of 1 Enoch 1:9 in Jude 14–15 as a prophecy coming from the seventh
patriarch from Adam; however, several other Christian writers called a
book of Enoch “scripture” (e.g.,
γραΣE in Barn. 16:5).16 There was
a remarkable continuity of exegetical tradition from the Second-Temple
period through the first few centuries of the early Christian period, and
the line between “Jewish” and “Christian” is frequently either blurred
or non-existent.17 Thus, a tradition that is found in Jubilees (e.g., the
testing of Abraham through the offering of Isaac [Jub. 17:16–18]) is
4 Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity

recycled in Augustine, De civ. D. 16.32. Similarly, a Qumran pseude-

pigraphon (4QPs.-Ezekiel) is apparently cited in 1 Clem. 50:4.18 The
Book of Jubilees itself is called “divine scripture” (θ⑀Aα γραΣE) in the
’Eκλ γ Iστ ριν, which is preserved in a thirteenth-century copy.19
On the other hand, in the recently discovered papyri at Tura near Cairo,
a commentary on Job by Didymus the Blind (ca. 310–98 CE) was found
that refers to a story in Jubilees (17:16) with the proviso, “if one wants to
recognize the Book of the Covenant (⑀ τ ΣAλ ν παραδ⑀ασθαι  τ ν
Aλ ν τς διαθEκης).”20 Hermann Rönsch adduces numerous exam-
ples of the use of Jubilees in ancient and medieval Christian literature.21
Along with 1 Enoch, the Book of Jubilees is among the very earliest and
most extensive of the Jewish pseudepigrapha from the Second-Temple
period. Since the discovery of the Ethiopic version by Western scholars in
the nineteenth century, Jubilees has sustained intense scholarly interest as
a document of central relevance for the understanding of ancient Judaism,
not least as a prime example of the so-called “Rewritten Bible.”22 This
interest has only increased since the official publication in 1994 of the
entirety of the Jubilees manuscripts from Qumran cave 4.23 With this
improved textual basis for studying the book, a research symposium on
Jubilees was organized in Leipzig in 1996, and its proceedings have
recently been published.24 Curiously, however, the scripture index to the
volume contains only five references to the NT, none of which relates to
the possible influence of Jubilees on the NT. Likewise, the 27th edition
of the Nestle-Aland edition of the Greek NT records only three allusions
to Jubilees in the whole NT, all of them in Romans.25 Since Jubilees
obviously had a strong influence on Second-Temple Jewish sources and on
later Christian literature,26 being on par with scripture in some quarters,27
we may suspect that this pseudepigraphon – “the Little Genesis,”28 as it
was sometimes called – also influenced the NT. As we shall see, the
traces of the Jubilees 8–9 geographical tradition found in early Christian
literature may be useful in detecting its influence on the NT as well.
The influence of Jubilees need not have been constant over time,29 but it
sustained a remarkable legacy over a considerable period.
 1
THE MA P P A M U N D I O F Q U E E N K Y P R O S

Introduction
A most interesting and enigmatic cartographic text has apparently es-
caped the notice of historians of cartography – an epigram of Philip of
Thessalonica, who wrote in Rome during the reigns of Tiberius (14–37
CE) and Gaius (37–41 CE).1 This epideictic epigram (Anth. Pal. 9.778)
praises an artistically woven tapestry that was sent as a gift from a queen
to an unnamed, reigning Caesar, presumably one of the aforementioned
Roman emperors. The tapestry itself is said to display the inhabited world
and the surrounding Ocean. We are evidently dealing here with a world
“map” done in either wool or linen,2 making it perhaps one of the earli-
est recorded mappaemundi in the literal sense of the term (i.e., “cloth of
the world”).3 It should be noted here that the image of weaving is used
extensively in connection with weaving narratives, so literary and visual
productions, in which the world may be described, are neatly linked.4
Philip’s tantalizingly brief poem prompts several questions. Who was
the queen who made the tapestry and sent it as a gift? What picture of
the world are we to imagine on the tapestry? What is the cartographic
source(s) for the “map”?5 In seeking to answer these questions, how-
ever provisionally, the present chapter opens our discussion of Jewish
geographical conceptions with a cameo of the subject at hand. This will
provide us not only with a fitting example of the kind of evidence that is
available for our work, but also with a salient reminder of the difficulties
inherent in the task.

Philip’s Epigram (Anth. Pal. 9.778)

We begin our investigation with the text of Philip’s epigram:6
Γααν τ ν Σ⑀ρ⑀καρπ
 ν σην ⑀␨ωκ⑀
 π⑀ρA␹θων
κ⑀ανς µ⑀γ!λωι KαAσαρι π⑀ιθ µ⑀νην

κα" γλαυκEν µ⑀ θ!λασσαν $πηκρι%σατ [K&πρ ς]

5
6 Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity

κ⑀ρκAσιν 'στ πBν ις π!ντ( $π µααµ⑀νη .

KαAσαρι δ( ⑀)⑀Aνωι ␹!ρις *λθ µ⑀ν, +ν γ,ρ $ν!σσης
δρα Σ⑀ρ⑀ιν
 τ, θ⑀ ς κα" πρ"ν -Σ⑀ιλBµ⑀να.
Modelling all with shuttle labouring on the loom, [Kypros] made
me, a perfect copy of the harvest-bearing earth, all that the land-
encircling ocean girdles, obedient to great Caesar, and the gray
sea too. We have come as a grateful return for Caesar’s hospi-
tality; it was a queen’s duty, to bring gifts so long due to the
gods.
Here, we read of a woman’s skillful handiwork at the loom. Philip’s
description suggests that the resulting tapestry was a genuine work of
art, for the participle $π µααµ⑀νη  comes from a verb ($π µ!σσω)
which in the middle voice is used in the sense of “model” as a sculptor
(cf. LSJ, s.v., 209). Moreover, the participle is construed with a main verb
($πακριB µαι) which is likewise used of sculpturing, this time in the
sense of “make exact.”7 Hence, the tapestry is described not only as a work
of art but also as an exact replica of the world that it sought to portray.8
Allowing for some exaggeration and poetic license, we may nevertheless
conclude that the tapestry must have been quite impressive to behold.9
We will return to Philip’s description of the tapestry after attempting to
identify the “queen” who made it and the “Caesar” for whom she made it.

The identification of the queen and the reigning Caesar

It is difficult to ascertain who the maker and giver of this artistic tapestry
may have been. We know that the artist must have been a woman, for
in line 5 she is called an .νασσα (“queen, lady”). Furthermore, the
name of the queen is undoubtedly to be found in K!ρπ ς, which is
the reading preserved in line 3 of the manuscript. While the masculine
K!ρπ ς is not usually a name for a woman, the text clearly presupposes
that the name belongs to a woman, as seen by the feminine participle
$π µααµ⑀νη,  which takes its gender from the assumed subject of the
main clause. Very likely, therefore, K!ρπ ς is a corruption for another
name. The identification of this person is indeed the linchpin for the
interpretation of the entire epigram.
As a solution to this problem, Conrad Cichorius made the ingenious
suggestion that K!ρπ ς should be emended to the orthographically sim-
ilar name K&πρ ς, and that this Kypros should be identified as the grand-
daughter of Herod the Great and the wife of Agrippa I, another grandchild
of Herod.10 Kypros, too, seems to be a relatively uncommon name for a
 The mappamundi of Queen Kypros 7

woman, which may perhaps explain why the textual corruption happened
in the first place.11 Indeed, we may note that apparently the only women
of royal lineage who are known to have had this name belonged to the
Herodian dynasty.12
Interpreting the emended name as a reference to Kypros, the wife of
Agrippa I, is consistent with the description of the woman in Philip’s
epigram. First, the term .νασσα applies to a “queen” or a “lady” of a
royal household.13 Used mostly in poetry rather than in prose (cf. LSJ,
s.v., 121), .νασσα is not one of the most common terms for the queen of a
Roman client kingdom.14 Nevertheless, it is used apparently of Cleopatra
Selene (Anth. Pal. 9.752.3), the daughter of Antony and Cleopatra VII
whom Augustus married to King Juba II of Mauretania (ca. 20 BCE).15
Hence, the reference to Kypros as an .νασσα may signal that she belongs
to one of the client kingdoms that stand in a vassal relationship with
Rome.16 Upon his accession to the throne in 37 CE, Emperor Gaius
declared Agrippa “king” (ασιλ⑀&ς) of the former tetrarchies of Philip
and Lysanias (JW 2.181; Ant. 18.237),17 thus making Kypros a “queen”
of a Roman client kingdom.18
Second, the poem seems to suggest that the queen in question has some
kind of rapport with the reigning “Caesar.”19 Again, this fits Kypros,
whose husband enjoyed a close, personal relationship with Emperor
Gaius.20 Like other sons of client kings, Agrippa had lived in Rome from
childhood under patronage of the imperial family (Josephus, Ant. 18.143).
He had, in fact, been brought up with Gaius (§191). When Emperor
Tiberius later accepted Agrippa into his own inner circle, Agrippa deep-
ened his relationship with Gaius and tried to impress him with extravagant
spending (Josephus, JW 2.178; Ant. 18.166–7). Agrippa went so far in
currying favor with Gaius that he expressed the hope that Gaius would
soon replace Tiberius as emperor, a remark which provoked Tiberius and
landed Agrippa in prison (JW 2.179–80; Ant. 18.168–9, 186–92). After
Tiberius’ death, Gaius released Agrippa from prison and appointed him
king as a reward for his loyalty. If Agrippa’s wife is the one described in
Philip’s epigram, then her gift pays tribute to the Roman emperor as an
expression of the long-standing, personal relationship between Agrippa
and Caesar.21
Third, Philip’s epigram implies that the queen in question was polit-
ically involved for the sake of her husband. Again, this fits Kypros.22
As Josephus tells us, Agrippa had a particularly intelligent wife, who
often intervened on behalf of her husband.23 For example, when Agrippa
was destitute and at the point of suicide, Kypros’ intercession won for
Agrippa the help of his sister’s husband, Antipas (Ant. 18.147–9). On
8 Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity

another occasion, when he was again in dire financial straits, Agrippa

begged Alexander the alabarch to loan him a large sum of money, but
Alexander refused. Only when Kypros intervened did Alexander relent,
“because he marveled at her love for her husband and all her other good
qualities” (Ant. 18.159). If Agrippa’s wife is the one described in Philip’s
epigram, then her gift to Caesar provides yet another example of how she
intervened with a political benefactor on behalf of her husband. It could be
argued that weaving was the ideal for Jewish women of high repute who
enhanced their husbands’ political standing.24 The epigram does not state
the occasion for the gift to Caesar. If the queen is Kypros, then Josephus
records an episode during the reign of Agrippa, probably in the summer
of 39 CE,25 which may have been the occasion for Kypros’ gift. Herod
Antipas was urged by his wife Herodias, Agrippa’s sister, to go to Italy to
petition Gaius for the status of king, to equal his brother-in-law (Josephus,
Ant. 18.240–54). But Agrippa, when he learned of their plan and of the
lavish gifts that they were bringing to Gaius, made his own preparations.
“And when he heard that they had set sail,” Josephus writes, “he himself
also dispatched Fortunatus, one of his freedmen, to Rome, charged with
presents for the emperor and letters against Herod . . .” (§ 247).26 Perhaps
Kypros’ artistic tapestry was among the presents that were delivered to
Gaius on this occasion. Certainty is, of course, impossible.
Nikos Kokkinos suggests another possible occasion for the queen’s
gift.27 If, as he believes, Agrippa I and Kypros accompanied Gaius to
the western extremes of the Empire in 39/40 CE,28 then Kypros may
have wanted to commemorate this grand expedition with the production
of a mappamundi. Kokkinos surmises that the tapestry must have been
prepared in Rome, for Agrippa’s return to Palestine occurred only in the
autumn of 41. Therefore, Roman influences, such as the famous “map”
of M. Vipsanius Agrippa, may be relevant here (see further below). We
may wonder, however, whether the emperor’s invitation to accompany the
expedition was prompted by the gift, or rather the gift by the expedition.
Moreover, the commonly accepted date for publication of the Garland of
Philip (40 CE) seems to point toward the earlier date for the gift and the
epigram, although the date of publication is disputed and may have been
during the reign of Nero (see above).

The imago mundi of the tapestry

As befitting an epigram, Philip’s description is quite laconic, mentioning
only the two most basic components of the world map depicted on the
tapestry – land and sea. Nevertheless, by carefully examining the poem
 The mappamundi of Queen Kypros 9

line by line, we may be able to make some reasonable deductions about

the nature of the image.
In line 1, Philip refers to the “harvest-bearing earth” (γααν
Σ⑀ρ⑀καρπ
 ν). Although an Orphic hymn addresses the “goddess Gaia”
(Γαα θ⑀!) as, among other things, “harvest-bearing” (Σ⑀ρ⑀καρπ⑀), 29

we need not conclude from this that Philip also uses γαα as a proper
noun. For the very next clause in line 1 – “as much as the land-encircling
Ocean girdles” (σην ⑀␨ωκ⑀ π⑀ρA␹θων κ⑀ανBς) – modifies γαα,
thus showing that γαα is meant primarily in the geographical sense
of “earth.” On the other hand, the whole concept may reflect Homeric
mythology, for in the Iliad (14.200; cf. 301) Hera is made to say: “For
I shall see the bounds of the fertile Earth, and Ocean, progenitor of the
gods” (⑀/µι γ,ρ -ψ µ⑀νη  π λυΣBρ υ π⑀Aρατα γαAης ’Ωκ⑀ανBν
τ⑀ θ⑀ν γ⑀ν⑀σιν).
 30
Strabo, who defends the Homeric picture of the
known world as substantially true, also refers to this passage in the Iliad
(Geog. 1.1.7), showing that this conception persisted even to the first
century BCE.
Philip describes Kypros’ mappamundi in terms that would have been
readily understandable in both Greco-Roman and Jewish cultures.31 The
Homeric notion of Earth as an island landmass encircled by Ocean re-
tained an astonishingly persistent hold.32 Homer conceived of Ocean
as a great river that compasses the earth’s disk, returning into itself
(Il. 18.399; Od. 20.65).33 Ocean is represented as wrought on the cir-
cular rim of Achilles’ shield (Il. 18.607–8),34 which provides a fitting
parallel to Kypros’ artistic production.35 Anaximander (610–540 BCE)
is reportedly the first to have mapped such a conception.36 Already in
the fifth century BCE, Herodotus (4.36; cf. 2:23) scoffed at this concep-
tion: “I laugh to see how many have now drawn maps of the world, not
one of them showing the matter reasonably; for they draw the world as
round as if fashioned by compasses, encircled by the river of Ocean . . .”37
Nevertheless, this image of the world never really died out. In fact, it expe-
rienced a renaissance in the first century BCE precisely because it so well
suited Roman imperial ideology and aspiration. Thus, Cicero (Somn. 20)
describes the inhabited world which the Romans dominate as a “small is-
land,” oblong in shape and surrounded by Ocean.38 Strabo (Geog. 2.5.17)
states that the “inhabited world” ( κ υµ⑀νη) is “surrounded by water”
(π⑀ρAρρυτ ς), a view that he explicitly attributes to Homer as the
first geographer correctly to describe the earth as surrounded by Ocean
(1.1.3–10).39 Ovid (43 BCE –17 CE) regards Delphi as the center of the
earth (Met. 10.167–8), and holds the Homeric concept of the earth as
a disk surrounded by Ocean (Met. 2.5–7). An epigram of Antipater of
10 Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity

Thessalonica (Anth. Pal. 9.297), which was probably addressed to Gaius

Caesar when sent by Augustus to the East in 1 BCE, describes the Roman
Empire as “bounded on all sides by Ocean” (κ⑀αν π⑀ριτ⑀ρµ  να
π!ντ θ⑀ν). Writing in 43/44 CE, Pomponius Mela (De chorographia
1.3–8) likewise describes the earth in his pioneering Latin geography as
encircled by Ocean.40 Obviously, the Ocean as a definer of the Roman
Empire was a crucial feature of the Roman mental map.41 In light of all
the other strong Homeric echoes in our epigram, it seems clear that Philip
describes Kypros’ tapestry map in terms of the Homeric geographic tradi-
tion that had recently been reinstated for use in Roman imperial ideology.
The Old Testament (OT) contains a similar conception of the world,
whose closest Near Eastern parallel is the famous Babylonian world map
from Sippar, dating to the late eighth or seventh century BCE.42 This cele-
brated, little map (ca. 90 mm in diameter), which is unique among ancient
Mesopotamian maps, shows the world as a circular disk surrounded by
Ocean (marratu). A hole at the center of the map is evidently the result
of the compass used to carve the concentric circles; it does not seem to
represent a city or other landmark conceived of as the center or navel
of the world. Circles are used to indicate cities or countries, but none
of them is at the center of the disk. Eight outlying regions, triangular in
shape and radiating out from the outer edge of the world, are the home of
strange or legendary beings. At the top the scribe has written, “Where the
sun is not seen,” to indicate the north. The accompanying text, apparently
describing these regions, mentions Utnapishtim (the well-known hero of
the flood story in the Gilgamesh Epic), Sargon of Akkad (the famous
third-millennium king who was remembered as the conqueror of the en-
tire world), and the “four quandrants” of the earth’s surface. Evidently,
we are dealing here with a map that is concerned to show the worldwide
extent of the Babylonian Empire.43
According to Job 26:10, God “has described a circle on the face of
the waters, at the boundary between light and darkness.” This could be
interpreted as meaning that the disk-shaped world is bounded by water all
around. According to Gen. 1:9–10, describing the third day of creation,
“God said, ‘Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one
place, and let the dry land appear.’ And it was so. God called the dry
land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas.”
4 Ezra, a late first-century pseudepigraphon, goes beyond Gen. 1:9–10
by adding that the ratio of earth-to-sea was six-to-one: “On the third day
you commanded the waters to be gathered together in the seventh part
of the earth; six parts you dried up and kept so that some of them might
be planted and cultivated and be of service for you” (4 Ezra 6:42).44
 The mappamundi of Queen Kypros 11

This suggests perhaps that the earth is composed predominantly of a

landmass surrounded by a relatively thin strip of water.45 According to the
Exagoge of Ezekiel the Tragedian, who wrote probably during the second
century BCE in Alexandria, Moses dreamed of ascending a throne on Mt.
Sinai, from which he beheld “the entire circular earth” (γν .πασαν
⑀γκυκλ ν, line 77), i.e., “the whole earth or inhabited world” (γν λην
τ( κ υµ⑀νην,  line 87).46 Rabbinic literature makes similar statements
about Alexander the Great.47
In line 2, Philip further describes the whole earth as “obedient to
great Caesar” (µ⑀γ!λωι KαAσαρι π⑀ιθ µ⑀νην).  To underscore the
emperor’s claim to universal sovereignty, the text adds, as we have seen,
that the whole earth, “as much as the land-encircling Ocean girdles,” is
subject to Caesar. At this point, Philip is simply reflecting the grandiose
Roman imperial ideology of his day, which held that the Roman Empire
was coextensive with the inhabited world.48 According to Plutarch (Caes.
58.6–7), Julius Caesar “planned and prepared to make an expedition
against the Parthians; and after subduing these and marching around the
Euxine by way of Hyrcania, the Caspian Sea, and the Caucasus, to invade
Scythia; and after overrunning the countries bordering on Germany and
Germany itself, to come back by way of Gaul to Italy, and so to com-
plete the circuit of his empire, which would then be bounded on all sides
by Ocean” (κα" συν!ψαι τν κ&κλ ν τ 2τ ν τς
γ⑀µ νAας τ
παντα␹Bθ⑀ν ’Ωκ⑀αν π⑀ρι ρισθ⑀Aσης).49 This plan failed to mate-
rialize. In the Preamble of his Res Gestae, however, Augustus, the first
emperor of the Roman Empire, announces that he has attained dominion
over the whole orbis terrarum (“circle of the world”).50 During the early
Empire, the fiction of the emperor’s ruling the whole world was perpet-
uated in the imperial ruler cult. Thus, an altar inscription from Narbo
dated to 11 CE honors Augustus, referring to the “day on which he re-
ceived imperium over the orbis terrarum . . .” 51 Likewise, Gaius Caligula
was expected to become “ruler of the inhabited world” (
γ⑀µ3ν τς
κ υµ⑀νης)
 when he acceded to the throne (Josephus, Ant. 18.187).52
Philo (Legat. 8) reports that after the death of Tiberius, Gaius succeeded to
“the sovereignty of the whole earth and the sea” (τ ν
γ⑀µ νAαν π!σης
γς κα" θαλ!σσης).
In line 3, Philip refers to the “gray sea” (γλαυκ θ!λασσα). Since he
has already mentioned Ocean that encircles the earth (lines 1–2), a ref-
erence to the “gray sea” might suggest a different body of water. On the
other hand, the idea that the earth is surrounded by the Mare Oceanum, as
graphically portrayed in the maps of Macrobius and of Isidore of Seville,
allows us perhaps to equate the “gray sea” with the surrounding Ocean.
12 Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity

Like other terms in Philip’s epigram, γλαυκ θ!λασσα has Homeric

roots (Il. 16.34), although it is also found in the Jewish Sibylline Oracles
(1.11; 2.198; 7.5). In Hesiod (Theog. 440), “gray stormy” (γλαυκ
δυσπ⑀µΣ⑀λ
 ς) is used as a general epithet of the sea. The adjective
γλαυκBς (“gray”), the color of the sea, is often applied to water deities.
For example, Glaucus Pontius or Thalassius is a sea-god with prophetic
powers (e.g., Euripides, Or. 362–5; Aristotle frg. 490), located, at least
since Aeschylus’ Glaucus Pontius, in the vicinity of the Euboean strait.
Like many sea-gods, he is regarded as an old man (Virgil, Aen. 5.823).
Job 41:24 (32) uses “gray hair” ( ) in a figurative reference to the sea.
We have not found evidence that “gray sea” refers to a specific body of
water like the Mediterranean, which, in any case, was often conceived of
as an arm of the surrounding Ocean.
In sum, the terms that Philip uses to describe the map apply from
Homeric times to a conception of the earth as a large disk-shaped landmass
surrounded by a relatively thin strip of Ocean. The size of the image cannot
be ascertained from Philip’s description. Perhaps investigation into the
nature and size of artistic tapestries in the ancient world would provide a
basis for comparison.53 The fact that Kypros’ tapestry was singled out for
special praise in an epigram may imply that it was of monumental size.54

The source(s) of the imago mundi

Our investigation of the possible source(s) of the image of the world
on the tapestry is hampered by the fact that the only description of it is
extremely brief and comes from a Hellenistic court poet in Rome who
is clearly writing from a Roman imperial perspective. Nevertheless, in
view of the paucity of material evidence that survived from the ancient
world, we cannot afford to overlook any shred of literary evidence. From
what we have seen so far, the source(s) of Kypros’ mappamundi could be
either Roman or Jewish. We shall consider each of these possibilities in
turn, without forgetting that both of these potential sources had undergone
strong Hellenistic influence.

A possible Roman source

A Roman source for Kypros’ map is particularly attractive, for it might
explain why Caesar (Gaius) was so flattered by the tapestry. As we have
seen, Philip writes that the tapestry displayed the whole earth “obedient
to great Caesar,”55 which conveys the universal sovereignty of the Roman
 The mappamundi of Queen Kypros 13

emperor. Thus, there may be a direct connection between Kypros’ map

and the famous world “map” of M. Vipsanius Agrippa (64/3–12 BCE),
which was erected in the Porticus Vipsania in Rome after his death and was
meant, like the aforementioned Preamble of the Res Gestae, to proclaim
that Augustus ruled the whole inhabited world. The great and success-
ful wars of conquest initiated by Augustus and M. Vipsanius Agrippa
became one of the key sources of legitimacy and prestige of the newly
founded Roman Empire.56 In the years up to his death, Agrippa acted as
almost coregent of the Empire. Therefore, a public memorial to Augustus’
right-hand man was most appropriate, and Augustus himself saw to the
completion of the project (Pliny, HN 3.17).
If, as seems likely, Kypros had lived in Rome,57 then she may have seen
the Agrippa “map,” which became her inspiration at the loom.58 Perhaps
she would have taken special note of this “map” not only because her
husband had been named after the famous M. Vipsanius Agrippa,59 but
also because the latter had been a close personal friend of Herod the Great
and benevolent toward the Jews.60 A Jewish community in Rome was even
named after him (CIJ 365, 425, 503), although the reason is not clear.
More importantly, however, M. Agrippa was Gaius’ grandfather through
his mother, Agrippina the elder. In honor of his grandfather, Gaius issued
a vast coinage of asses with Agrippa obverse, which performed a major
role of circulation outside Italy.61 According to Philo (Legat. 294–7),
Agrippa I appealed specifically to the example of M. Agrippa as Gaius’
maternal grandfather, in order to dissuade the emperor from violating the
sanctity of the Jerusalem Temple.62 Hence, if Kypros was looking for a
way to impress Gaius, she could not have done better than to model her
tapestry after the memorial of M. Agrippa.63 Indeed, when Philip extols
the tapestry as an exact copy of the earth and sea, he may well be referring
to the fact that Kypros imitated the Agrippa “map,” which would have
been regarded as the ultimate standard of world cartography in that day.64
Just as M. Agrippa had been Herod the Great’s model for the architectural
and cultural responsibilities of a dynast,65 so now Herod Agrippa’s wife
may have followed that model in order to ingratiate her husband with the
emperor. If, as Kokkinos suggests, the tapestry commemorated Gaius’
grand expedition to the western limits of the known world, which Kypros
and her husband may have accompanied (see above), then the gift of a
world map would have been all the more appropriate.66
There is great doubt, however, whether the work set up in Agrippa’s
memory was really a “map” at all. Certainly, the map, if there ever was
one, did not survive from antiquity. Based on the literary evidence, schol-
ars have generally assumed that a map is being described.67 However,
14 Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity

Kai Brodersen has recently called this whole assumption into question,
arguing instead that the monument set up in the Porticus Vipsania was
nothing more than a list of landmarks and the distances between them.68
Brodersen begins by discussing the many vastly different reconstructions
of the alleged map.69
It was a mosaic, a mural, a bronze engraving, or a marble carving.
It was round, oval, or rectangular.
It was 9 × 18 m, 24 × 12 m, or 75 × 4.5 m.
It was oriented on the east, the south, or the north.
Brodersen’s critique makes it abundantly clear that, whether or not there
was a map, we have very little concrete idea what Agrippa’s monument
actually looked like.70
Brodersen goes on to argue that the three pieces of literary evidence that
are usually adduced to show that Agrippa’s monument was a map fail to
substantiate the case.71 According to Brodersen, neither of the passages in
Pliny’s Natural History stands up to closer scrutiny. In HN 3.17, the elder
Pliny (23/24–79 CE) expresses astonishment at Agrippa’s measurements
for the southern Spanish province of Baetica: “Who would believe that
Agrippa, who was very careful and took great pains over this work, should,
when he was going to set up the world to be looked at by the citizens of
Rome (cum orbem terrarum urbi spectandum propositurus esset), have
made this mistake, and together with him the deified Augustus? For it was
Augustus, who, when Agrippa’s sister had begun building the portico, car-
ried it out from the intention and notes (commentarii) of M. Agrippa.”72
Brodersen contends that the expression orbem terrarum urbi spectandum
refers not to a map but to a text, as Pliny’s usage of spectare elsewhere
shows.73 The second text is HN 6.139, where Pliny writes that the Porticus
Vipsania has Charax by the sea (et maritimum etiam Vipsania porticus
habet). This passage has been thought to reveal a direct reference to the
map on the portico wall in Rome rather than to the commentary, because
on a relatively small-scale world map Charax – an unimportant town of
Arabia – may have looked closer to the Persian Gulf than it really was.
Brodersen points out, however, that Pliny’s geographical commentary
sometimes uses coastal cities as endpoints for measurements (e.g., Chal-
cedon, Byzantium, Panticapeum, Pelusium, and Arsinoe).74 The third
piece of literary evidence for the Agrippa map is found in Strabo, who
repeatedly refers to “the chorographer” (4 ␹ωρBγραΣ ς), and once to a
“choreographic tablet” (␹ωρ γραΣικς πAνα). While these are some-
times taken as references to Agrippa and his map, Brodersen points
out that Strabo could not have seen a map in the Porticus Vipsania,
 The mappamundi of Queen Kypros 15

for the portico had not been completed by 7 BCE (cf. Dio Cassius
55.8.3–4), which is the year when Strabo’s Geography was supposedly
completed.75 Thus, Brodersen completely dismisses the literary evidence
for Agrippa’s map.
Brodersen’s case against the existence of an Agrippa world map must
be seen in light of broader trends in the current discussion of the history of
cartography. A debate is presently taking place among historians, geog-
raphers and cartographers over ancient conceptions of geography and the
use of maps in antiquity. Two schools of thought have shaped discussion
of this subject. Some scholars assume that ancient map use must be simi-
lar to our own, although limited by technology, and that any investigation
of ancient geography should concentrate on ancient cartography.76 On the
other hand, a growing number of scholars contend that map consciousness
and map use are almost totally absent in the ancient world.77 “As pointed
out by Fergus Millar, what we know about ancient map-making indicates
that the Romans did not have a sufficiently clear or accurate notion of
topographical realities to allow them to conceive of the overall military sit-
uation in global strategic terms.”78 Even more poignantly, R. J. A. Talbert
remarks: “Up till then [i.e., the seventeenth century!], what we would
consider accurate planning of long-term conquest could hardly have been
feasible, while any army (or navy) operating away from ‘home’ (however
you need to define that) must have been, to our way of thinking, ‘lost.’”79
So far neither side of the debate appears even to have seen Philip’s
epigram, let alone consider its possible significance for the discussion.80
If, as we have discussed, the queen of a Roman client kingdom could have
produced a work of art in the form of a world map, that would seem to in-
dicate more “map consciousness” than is often admitted.81 Moreover, as
we have seen, there is a possibility that Kypros’ map may have been a re-
production of the famous Agrippa map, which she had seen in Rome. The
symbolic significance of such a gift is readily apparent: the queen would
be saying in essence that Gaius had achieved the domination of the in-
habited world and thereby succeeded to the Empire of Divus Augustus.82
Indeed, this corresponds to the meaning that Philip’s epigram attaches to
the tapestry. Just as Agrippa’s map of the tributary world had been made
to honor Augustus and his universal reign,83 so also Kypros’ map was
produced to honor Gaius and given to him in tribute. The very fact that the
map was woven would have further underscored imperial values, for, ac-
cording to Suetonius (Aug. 64.2), Caesar Augustus had his daughter Julia
(the wife of M. Agrippa) and his granddaughters (including Agrippina,
the mother of Gaius Caligula) taught the art of spinning and weaving.84
Suetonius (Aug. 73) also claims that Augustus wore only clothing woven
16 Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity

by the women of his family.85 Furthermore, Plato’s Politicus (279b–311c)

had long since made weaving a fitting analogy for the role of the consum-
mate ruler. Seen in this light, Kypros’ tapestry becomes a metaphor for
Caesar’s statecraft in weaving together every disparate aspect of Rome’s
world empire into a united and orderly whole under his imperium.86
We may perhaps suppose that the Agrippa map was disk-shaped. Sev-
eral lines of evidence can confirm this. First, we may consider numismatic
evidence from the early Principate. A simple form of world “map” oc-
curs regularly on Roman imperial coinage, in which the globe is portrayed
as dominated by either Victory or the emperor. Many specimens of this
coin type were minted during the reigns of Augustus87 and Gaius.88 Ad-
mittedly, however, the authenticity of a unique gold medallion, whose
inscription dates it to the reign of Augustus, remains disputed: the ob-
verse reportedly contains the image of Augustus with the inscription
AUGUSTO DIVI FILIO COS XI TR P II IMP VIII; the reverse contains
three circles representing the tripartite world with the entry EUR ASI
AFR.89 David Woodward regards the medallion as the beginning of the
Roman tradition of representing the earth as a sphere on coins,90 whereas
Brodersen rejects it as a modern forgery, because the date of Augustus’
TR P II (i.e., his second tribunicia potestas = 26 June 22 to 25 June 21
BCE) conflicts with the imprint by the III VIR (i.e., tresviri monetales),
which began after 20 BCE.91 However, the chronology of the monetary
collegia is not as certain as Brodersen seems to suggest. According to the
numismatist, C. H. V. Sutherland, only one of the monetary collegia ac-
tive under Augustus is specifically dated (i.e., that of L. Mescinius Rufus,
L. Vinicius, and C. Antistius Vetus in 16 BCE), the rest of the chronol-
ogy being largely a matter of conjecture.92 Nevertheless, the medallion in
question is almost certainly a relatively modern confection, for it is quite
out of place in Francesco Gnecchi’s catalogue of gold medallions.93
In any case, the numismatic evidence demonstrates that an image of
the world in the shape of a circle (or sphere) was used during the reign of
Augustus and the rest of the early Principate to portray Roman domination
of the world. In particular, the reverse of a coin of Faustus Cornelius Sulla
(ca. 56 BCE) contains a globus surrounded by four wreaths: the large,
jeweled wreath at the top represents Pompey’s golden crown, whereas
the plainer wreaths represent the three continents over which Pompey
triumphed.94
Second, the medieval mappaemundi may confirm that the Agrippa map
was a disk-shaped landmass encircled by a relatively thin strip of Ocean.
For on the basis of statements by a number of ancient and medieval
writers, the Agrippa map is generally believed to be the prototype for a
 The mappamundi of Queen Kypros 17

succession of later world maps such as the thirteenth-century Hereford

mappamundi.95 These medieval world maps are also disk-shaped and en-
circled by Ocean. The main difference is that they depict Christ, rather
than Caesar, as the one who dominates the world.96 Like many medieval
mappaemundi, the Agrippa map may have had a center. Although the me-
dieval mappaemundi never put Rome in the center, we would expect the
Agrippa map to have done so. Similarly, Strabo (Geog. 17.3.24) conceptu-
alized the Roman Empire and the entire world as spreading in concentric
circles around Rome: Italy, the regions around Italy in a circle (κ&κλ5ω),
and the three continents (Europe, Libya, Asia).97 Arrian’s Anabasis begins
with a description of the lands under control of the Romans, proceeding in
a counterclockwise direction: beginning at the Pillars of Hercules, the ac-
count circumnavigates the Mediterranean eastward across North Africa,
northward up the coast of Syria-Palestine, and across Asia Minor and
Europe, and back to the Pillars of Hercules (Prooem. 1–3).

A possible Jewish source

A Jewish source for Kypros’ world map is also possible, especially since
Kypros is a Jewess who had intimate contact with Judea.98 By the first
century CE, Jews throughout the eastern Mediterranean had undergone
Hellenization to one degree or another;99 hence, it is not always pos-
sible to distinguish sharply a Jewish source from other contemporary
influences.100 Some Jews in Palestine read Homer,101 and, as Jubilees
8–9 (second-century BCE) demonstrates, even the most rigorous of
Jewish groups in Palestine were influenced by Hellenistic conceptions
of world geography.102 It is not surprising, then, to find that the mosaic
floor in the third- or fourth-century CE synagogue of Hammath-Tiberias
portrays Helios in the center of a zodiac circle, riding a quadriga and
holding a globus containing a crossband.103 The quadriga, the zodiac cir-
cle, and the globus are Greco-Roman motifs commonly associated with
Helios.104 Obviously, the synagogue appropriated these elements from
the culture at large and adapted them to its own uniquely Jewish cult.105
Therefore, acknowledging that Kypros was Jewish hardly settles the issue
of cartographic sources for her tapestry.
Nevertheless, at least three pieces of evidence allow us to consider a
possible Jewish source for Kypros’ world map. First, Kypros’ weaving
activity itself may provide an important clue to the source of the image
on her tapestry. Spinning and weaving was an art practiced already in
ancient Israel. According to Exodus, the construction of the tabernacle
involved considerable spinning and weaving, including many textiles with
18 Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity

images of cherubim worked into them (e.g., Exod. 26:1, 31). Women
did some of the spinning for the tabernacle and the priestly vestment.
Exod. 35:25 states that “All the skillful women spun with their hands, and
brought what they had spun in blue and purple and crimson yarns and
fine linen . . .” Josephus (Ant. 3.107; cf. JW 5.213) rephrases this text to
read that “Women themselves vied with one another in providing priestly
vestments . . .” implying that the women not only did the spinning, but
the weaving as well. Of particular interest for our purposes is Josephus’
description in Ant. 3.183–4 of the cosmological symbolism woven into
the fabrics used in the tabernacle and the high priest’s vestment:106
The tapestries woven of four materials denote the natural ele-
ments: thus the fine linen appears to typify the earth, because
from it springs up the flax, and the purple the sea, since it is
incarnadined with the blood of fish; the air must be indicated by
the blue, and the crimson will be the symbol of fire. (184) The
high-priest’s tunic likewise signifies the earth, being of linen,
and its blue the arch of heaven, while it recalls the lightnings by
its pomegranates, the thunder by the sound of its bells.
Since this description of the tabernacle and the high priestly vestment goes
beyond Scripture, Josephus, himself a native of Jerusalem and a priest
(JW 1.3), presumably reflects here an actual knowledge of the Temple cult
in his own day which he has interjected into the biblical account.107 In
any case, it is significant that Josephus shows familiarity with tapestries
and other woven goods bearing cosmological symbolism.108
The Wisdom of Solomon contains similar comments about the
high priest’s vestment, which may corroborate Josephus’ description.
According to Wisd. 18:24 (alluding to Exodus 28), Aaron’s high-priestly
vesture was endowed with symbolic and cosmic significance: “For on
his long robe the whole world was depicted . . .” ( ⑀π"( γ,ρ π δEρ υς
⑀( νδ&µατ ς +ν λ ς 4 κBσµ ς).109 Again, this may reflect actual knowl-
edge of the Temple cult in the writer’s own day (in this case, probably
the first century BCE). If so, we can only speculate what the image of
the world may have looked like, although the collection of the Temple
tax from the worldwide Diaspora would suggest that priestly circles
in Jerusalem possessed an actual map of the world. This possibility is
strengthened by several observations. (1) A priestly source forms the ba-
sic framework of the Table of Nations in Genesis 10.110 As we shall see
in the next chapter, Genesis 10 is more than a genealogical list; it reflects
an imago mundi that comes to expression in subsequent centuries. (2)
M. Sheq. 3:1, 4 describes how the Temple tax was disbursed for Temple
 The mappamundi of Queen Kypros 19

expenditures in three separate drawings, according to the geographical

area from which the tax had been collected, proceeding in concentric
circles around Jerusalem: the first drawing was made before Passover, on
the shekels from the Land of Israel; the second was made before Pente-
cost, on the offering from the neighboring countries; and the third was
made before the Feast of Tabernacles, on the money from Babylonia,
Media, and the distant lands. Hence, there is enough evidence from Judea
during the Second-Temple period of hand-woven textiles containing cos-
mological symbols and perhaps actual images of the world worked into
them that Kypros could have gained the inspiration for her tapestry di-
rectly from the Jerusalem Temple.111 Given the fact that foreign envoys
often brought the Roman emperor gifts displaying the exotic nature of
their country (e.g., Strabo, Geog. 15.1.73), we might expect Kypros’ gift
to display distinctively Jewish characteristics, at least in part.
Second, archaeological evidence may provide a clue to the source of
the image on the Kypros map. For example, in light of the Babylonian
world map, it is tempting to compare a somewhat similar artifact found at
Qumran:112 a shallow bowl measuring 145 mm in diameter, with a hole
in the center, four concentric furrows progressively further away from it,
and three pairs of concentric circles in the flat spaces between the furrows.
Each pair of circles is joined by a series of short lines that fill the interstitial
space and radiate toward the center of the disk. It is estimated that there
were approximately 60 of these lines between the inner pair of rings, 72
between the middle ones,113 and 90 between the outer ones. In addition,
the artifact contains several striking orientation marks: a circle around
one of the short lines in the first pair of concentric circles and a notch on
the outer rim of the disk. The artifact has been tentatively identified as a
kind of sundial or “astronomical measuring instrument,” for which there
is no known parallel.114 This hypothesis requires several assumptions,
including (1) the original existence of a vertical post (gnomon) in the
center hole that served the function of casting a shadow so that the user
could determine the season and the hour of the day,115 and (2) the purpose
of the shallow bowl was to hold water as a means of controlling the vertical
position of the gnomon.116
If, on the other hand, the artifact is seen as a sort of schematic world
map, then the center may represent the Jerusalem Temple, which the
Qumran community undoubtedly considered the “navel of the world”
(cf. Jub. 8:12, 19);117 the first furrow may separate the walled city of
Jerusalem from the rest of Israel; the second furrow may separate Israel
from the nations round about, symbolized by the series of 72 lines;118
and the outermost band or furrow may represent Ocean.119 The notion of
20 Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity

concentric circles around Jerusalem and the Temple is well documented

in Jewish literature of the period (cf. 1 Chronicles 1–9;120 the Temple
Scroll;121 m. Kelim 1:6–9;122 and m. Sheq. 3:1, 4;123 Midr. Tan huma, .
Qedoshim 10 124 ). For the overall conception, it is interesting to compare
qiblah world maps, and especially the qiblah chart prepared in 570/1562
by Mahmud al-Khatib al-Rumi, showing 72 sectors about the Ka‘ba in
the center.125 Another qibla diagram dating to 958/1551 depicts the Ka‘ba
in the center of a thirty-two-division windrose, the outside perimeter of
which is lined with the names of the lands of the world in groups of
three.126 Perhaps most important for comparison with our bowl from
Qumran is a shallow, ceramic qiblah-bowl from Damascus dating to ca.
1516–20, which could have been filled with water and would have had
a floating magnetic needle to establish the cardinal directions.127 The
outside perimeter of this bowl with concentric circles also contains 72
marks, corresponding to the 72-sector scheme of sacred geography in
early Islamic tradition.128
The Temple and Jerusalem contain many elements that point to a strong
geographical orientation. For instance, the huge and highly ornamented
“molten sea” or “bronze sea” that reportedly stood in the courtyard of
Solomon’s temple. According to 1 Kgs. 7:23–6 (cf. 2 Chr. 4:2–5) this
“sea” was supported on four sets of bronze oxen, with three oxen in each
set. Each set of oxen faced a direction of the compass, with their hindquar-
ters facing inward and supporting the basin. Similarly, according to both
the OT (Ezek. 48:30–5) and a Qumran manuscript (4Q554 1 i:12–ii:9),
the gates in outer walls of eschatological Jerusalem will be arranged in
four sets of three, corresponding to the cardinal points, and named after
the twelve tribes of Israel.129 The same Qumran scroll (4Q554 1 i:3–6)
describes the new Jerusalem as containing a broad main street running
east–west and a somewhat narrower main street running north–south.130
As to the molten sea’s symbolic function, Carol Meyers suggests:131

One of the features of ANE temples was their utilization of artis-

tic and architectural elements relating to the idea of the temple
as the cosmic center of the world. The great deep, or cosmic
waters, is one aspect of the array of cosmic attributes of such a
holy spot. The temple of Marduk at Babylon, for example, had
an artificial sea (ta-am-tu) in its precincts; and some Babylonian
temples had an apsû-sea, a large basin. Such features symbolize
the idea of the ordering of the universe by the conquest of chaos;
or they represent the presence of the ‘waters of life’ at the holy
center. Ancient Israel shared in this notion of watery chaos being
 The mappamundi of Queen Kypros 21

subdued by Yahweh and of the temple being built on the cosmic

waters. The great ‘molten sea’ near the temple’s entrance would
have signified Yahweh’s power and presence.

Subsequent Jewish interpretation underscores the universal significance

of the molten sea.132 As Josephus (Ant. 3.180–7) explains, every object in
the Temple is intended to imitate and represent the universe in some way.
We see, then, that the Kypros map would have had numerous possible
sources in the material culture of Jerusalem and the Second Temple.
Third, a letter from Agrippa I to Emperor Gaius may provide a clue to
the source of the image on the Kypros map. According to Philo’s vindic-
tive treatise, Embassy to Gaius (§§276–329), Agrippa wrote the letter to
Gaius when the latter ordered a colossal statue of himself to be introduced
into the Jerusalem Temple. If, as many scholars suspect, Philo himself
composed the letter,133 then its value for the present discussion is negligi-
ble. If, on the other hand, Philo’s version reflects the substance of an actual
letter to Gaius, then it may be relevant, for in his response to the enormity
of Gaius’ order, Agrippa includes a geographic survey of the worldwide
Jewish Diaspora, which had gone out from Jerusalem to form colonies
in the mainlands, the islands, and the countries beyond the Euphrates
(Legat. 281–3). The conception of the world presupposed here is distinc-
tively Jewish, as seen particularly by the centrality of Jerusalem in it. By
stating that colonies went out from Jerusalem (“the metropolis”) to form
colonies in the rest of the inhabited world, Jerusalem is thereby indirectly
compared to Delphi, which, in Greco-Roman thought, was often consid-
ered the omphalos of the world.134 Agrippa’s wife Kypros may have been
imbued with such an imago mundi when she set to work on the tapestry.

Conclusion
Enough has been said to give some impression of the diversity and rich-
ness of the evidence that is potentially available for any attempt to un-
derstand ancient Jewish geographical conceptions. By its very nature, the
evidence is tantalizingly sketchy and highly evocative. As so often, if
we try to generalize too confidently when confronted with the intermin-
gling of languages, cultures, and forms of religious belief and practice
that influence Jewish conceptions, the evidence will not quite fall into
the patterns we would like. This is indeed partly because, when and if
literary or documentary evidence from the period is particularly explicit,
it in itself may constitute an observer’s interpretation, not a report which
can be taken at face value.
22 Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity

It is precisely for these reasons that the epigram of Philip of Thessa-

lonica is of such significance for our quest. Although our only glimpse
of Kypros’ tapestry is through the eyes of a Hellenistic court poet, whose
description is too terse and enigmatic to support unequivocal conclusions,
we are nevertheless ineluctably drawn to consider the scant evidence left
to us by the ravages of time and to attempt an interpretation. The context is
one where Jews and Romans interface on the basis of their respective cul-
tural heritages, part of which is Hellenistic and shared and part of which
is not. The result is not merely the coexistence of multivalent perspectives
but the possible amalgamation of geographical conceptions. Unequivocal
conclusions are hardly possible when the conceptions we are trying to
describe are themselves equivocal. What seems virtually certain is that
we have evidence for cartographic activity and geographical speculation
among Jews during the first century. This is not at all surprising when we
consider how fundamentally geography informs and shapes the historical
imagination of Judaism, with its persistent contrast between the Land of
Israel and other lands.135
The Kypros map provides a convenient point of departure for further
consideration of Jewish geographical conceptions. In Chapters 2–6, we
shall examine the Jewish geographical tradition that probably most in-
fluenced Jewish and Christian geographical conceptions. In Chapter 7,
we shall return to the Kypros map to explore the possible relevance of
our investigation for understanding the medieval mappaemundi. With the
discussion of Chapters 2–6 in view, it is almost inevitable that speculation
should lead one to consider a possible connection between the Kypros
map and the mappaemundi.
 2
JUBILE E S 8 – 9

Introduction
Any description of Jewish geographical conceptions must deal with the
Table of Nations in Genesis 10 and the influential tradition to which it
gave rise.1 For Genesis 10, along with a few other biblical data,2 provided
the main source of information for latter Jewish and Christian attempts to
describe world geography and ethnography. As we shall see in Chapter 7,
the Genesis 10 tradition arguably had a major influence on the medieval
mappaemundi.
There is a certain irony in this Table of Nations tradition. For, although
Genesis 10 presents the reader with a static view of the world and its in-
habitants after the flood, the Genesis 10 tradition itself underwent numer-
ous changes in the course of its centuries-long transmission. As Elias
Bikerman observes in his justly famous article, “Origines Gentium”
(1952):3

The Bible taught the unity of mankind. We are all sons of

Adam, and the chosen people is only a secondary branch on the
common stem. This meek idea made pre-history static for the
Hebrews. . . . The Jews could mechanically transfer an old name
to some new people. First the Macedonians, then the Romans
received the name of Kittim, which originally referred to the
inhabitants of Citium (Cyprus). Such identification is purely
nominal.

Hence, although the Table of Nations long remained the undisputed stan-
dard of world geography and ethnography, it nevertheless underwent a
process of shaping, translation, and development to meet changing his-
torical circumstances.4 This can be seen already in the OT itself, where
Genesis 10 is re-edited in 1 Chronicles 1. There were many subsequent
versions and revisions of the table, including Jubilees 8–9, Genesis
Apocryphon 12–17, Josephus’ Antiquities 1.122–47, and Pseudo-Philo’s

23
24 Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity

Biblical Antiquities 4(–5). For purposes of the present study, we shall

focus on the use of Genesis 10 in Jubilees 8–9. For, as we shall argue, it is
primarily through this text that the Genesis 10 tradition is later received
in Christian circles and from there is passed on to the Middle Ages. We
begin by examining Genesis 10 itself.

The Table of Nations in Genesis 10

Form and structure of the Hebrew version

Situated between the genealogical notice of Noah’s death (Gen. 9:28–9)
and the Tower of Babel story (Gen. 11:1–9), the Table of Nations in
Genesis 10 is presented as a genealogy ( , “generations”) of the
sons of Noah to whom children were born after the flood. The use
of the term links Genesis 10 with the larger genealogical struc-
ture of the Priestly work (Gen. 2:4b; 5:1; 6:9; 11:10, 27; 25:12, 19;
36:1, 4, 9; 37:2; Num. 3:1).5 Together with the story of the Tower
of Babel, Genesis 10 marks the end of the primeval history (Genesis
1–11) and the transition to the patriarchal history (Genesis 12–50),
which is set against the background of a world filled with nations. Thus,
when God promises Abram that “in you all the families of the earth
will be blessed” (Gen. 12:3), this refers back to the Table of Nations,
where the descendants of Noah are separated “by their families” (see
below).
Structurally, the table proceeds from Japheth (10:2–5), to Ham
(vv. 6–20), and then to Shem (vv. 21–31), although the sons’ names
appear in the reverse order (Shem–Ham–Japheth) in the opening verse
(v. 1). Thus, being the most important son of Noah, Shem both begins
and ends the list.6 Each of the three sections concludes with a formulaic,
summary statement:

Japheth (v. 5): “From these the coastland peoples spread. These
are the descendants of Japheth in their lands, with their own
language, by their families, in their nations.”

Ham (v. 20): “These are the descendants of Ham, by their fam-
ilies, their languages, their lands, and their nations.”

Shem (v. 31): “These are the descendants of Shem, by their

families, their languages, their lands, and their nations.”
 Jubilees 8–9 25

Finally, the whole genealogy in Genesis 10 concludes with an all-

encompassing summary statement (v. 32) which employs some of
the same vocabulary found in the preceding summary statements for
each section: “These are the families of Noah’s sons, according to their
genealogies, in their nations; and from these the nations spread ab-
road on the earth after the flood” (
).
Table 1 provides an overview of the list as a whole, according to the
sequence of the 70 names in Genesis 10.7 The number 70 emerges, of
course, only if we omit from the count the three sons of Noah themselves
and Nimrod, whose inclusion in the list seems non-genealogical (cf. Gen.
10:8–12).8 In any case, the idea of the 70 (or 72) nations is traditional.9

The Septuagint version

The list is substantially the same in the Septuagint, except for a few
changes, some of them quite significant.10 First, the Septuagint lists
E␭␫␴␣ as Japheth’s fifth son, thus giving him a total of eight sons, in-
stead of seven as in the Hebrew text. Nevertheless, the Septuagint also lists
E␭␫␴␣ as the first son of Javan, just as in the MT. Second, whereas the
MT has Shelah as the son of Arpachshad in the genealogy of Shem,
the Septuagint has K␣␫␯␣␯ as the son of Arpachshad and the father
Shelah. The Book of Jubilees gives considerable scope to Kainan son
of Arpachshad (cf. Jub. 8:1–4), and this will be a matter of some impor-
tance to us in the next chapter. Third, the name K␣␫␯␣␯ appears again at
the end of the list of Shem’s sons. Fourth, Obal, Joktan’s eighth son in
the MT, is not present in the list of Shem’s sons.

Geography
Genesis 10 includes within the genealogy several pieces of geographical
information. The first geographical detail is found, as we have seen, in
the summaries at the end of each of the three sections and also at the
end of the whole chapter. These summaries reflect a consciousness of
“their lands” that will be highly influential in the subsequent tradition.
Because the exact boundaries of these ethnic territories are not specified,
they invited geographical speculation and allowed revision in the course
of time.
The second geographical detail occurs in Gen. 10:18–19, where the
actual borders of one specific ethnic territory are mentioned: “Afterward
the families of the Canaanites spread abroad. And the territory of the
Canaanites extended from Sidon, in the direction of Gerar, as far as Gaza,
26 Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity

Table 1. The Table of Nations according to the sequence of the “70”

names in Genesis 10

Ashkenaz (8)
Gomer (1) Riphath (9)
Togarmah (10)
Magog (2)
Madai (3)
Elishah (11)
Japheth Javan (4) Tarshish (12)
Kittim (13)
Dodanim (14)11
Tubal (5)
Meshech (6)
Tiras (7)
Seba (19)
Havilah (20)
Cush (15) Sabtah (21)
Raamah (22) Sheba (24)
Sabteca (23) Dedan (25)
Nimrod
Ludim (26)
Anamim (27)
Egypt (16) Lehabim (28)
Naphtuhim (29)
Ham Pathrusim (30)
Casluhim (31) Philistines (33)
Caphtorim (32)
Put (17)
Sidon (34)
Heth (35)
Jebusites (36)
Amorites (37)
Canaan (18) Girgashites (38)
Hivites (39)
Arkites (40)
Sinites (41)
Arvadites (42)
Zemarites (43) Almodad (58)
Hamathites (44) Sheleph (59)
Hazarmaveth (60)
Elam (45) Jerah (61)
Asshur (46) Hadoram (62)
Arpachshad (47) Shelah (54) Eber (55) Peleg (56) Uzal (63)
Shem Joktan (57) Diklah (64)
Lud (48) Obal (65)
Uz (50) Abimael (66)
Aram (49) Hul (51) Sheba (67)
Gether (52) Ophir (68)
Mash (53) Havilah (69)
Jobab (70)
 Jubilees 8–9 27

and in the direction of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Seboiim, as far

as Lasha.”12 As we shall see, the legitimacy of the Cannanites’ territory
was a contentious issue in later Jewish thinking.
The third geographical detail is found in Gen. 10:25, which states that
Peleg ( ) was so called “because in his days the earth was divided
( ) . . .” The passive voice of the verb (niphal) leaves open how the
earth was divided and by whom (God or Noah?). Subsequent tradition
will seek to clarify these points, whether by adducing a parallel passage
of scripture (cf. Deut. 32:8) or by expanding the Genesis story.
Finally, Gen. 10:30 gives the borders for Joktan and his sons: “The
territory in which they lived extended from Mesha in the direction of
Sephar, the hill country of the east.” As mentioned above, the Table
of Nations describes more degrees of Shem’s descendants than for any
of the other sons of Noah. It is, in fact, Joktan and his sons who make
the list of Shem’s descendants so exceptional in this regard, and as if that
were not enough, their territory is also described. However, this is not the
line through which the Israelites will eventually come; that distinction is
reserved for Joktan’s brother Peleg.

Jubilees’ revision of Genesis 10

Introduction to the Book of Jubilees

The Book of Jubilees is a thorough rewriting13 of Genesis 1 to approx-
imately Exodus 20 that dates to the mid-second century BCE (ca. 170–
150 BCE).14 As the fifteen or sixteen manuscripts of Jubilees found
at Qumran (caves 1, 2, 3, 4, and 11) now verify, the Book of Jubilees
was originally written in Hebrew15 and was closely connected with the
Qumran community.16 In the course of time, the book was translated from
Hebrew into Greek, and from Greek into Latin, Ethiopic, and perhaps also
Syriac.17 Some textual evidence survives from each of these languages,
although the only complete text of Jubilees now extant is the Ethiopic
version, which appeared relatively late in the book’s textual transmis-
sion. Insofar as a comparison can be made on the basis of the Jubilees
manuscripts at Qumran, the Ethiopic text has been judged a remarkably
reliable translation.18
Taken as a whole, Jubilees purports to be the account of a divine
revelation that was revealed to Moses on Mt. Sinai. According to Jub.
1:26–9, an angel of the divine presence read the revelations from heav-
enly tablets to Moses who in turn wrote them down by dictation.19 In the
process, Moses is told about everything “from the beginning of creation
28 Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity

till my sanctuary has been built among them for all eternity” (Jub. 1:27).
The revelation, which, as we have mentioned, is essentially a rewriting of
the first one and a half books of the Torah, is structured by a chronology
which divides time into units of forty-nine years (= jubilees), each of
which consists of seven “weeks of years.”
None of the manuscripts of Jubilees found at Qumran contains mate-
rial from Jub. 8:11–9:15;20 therefore, we are reliant on the Ethiopic ver-
sion for our investigation, which in turn is a translation of the lost Greek
version.21 We may wonder, of course, whether Jubilees 8–9 represents
a later insertion into the Greek or Ethiopic texts,22 but the Genesis
Apocryphon (1QapGen. 16–17) contains a very similar description of
the distribution of the earth among the sons of Noah.23 Hence, although it
is still debated whether Jubilees is dependent on the Genesis Apocryphon
or vice versa,24 or whether both are dependent on a common source,25
there can be little doubt that the original Hebrew version of Jubilees con-
tained chapters 8–9. Moreover, these chapters form an integral part of the
argument within its present context in Jubilees.26

Translation of Jubilees 8:11–9:1527

1 The Book of Noah

(8:11) When he [sc. Noah] summoned his children, they came to
him – they and their children. He divided the earth into the lots
that his three sons would occupy. They reached out their hand
and took the book from the bosom of their father.

2 The contents of the Book of Noah

Shem’s lot. (12) In the book there emerged as Shem’s lot the cen-
ter of the earth which he would occupy as an inheritance for him
and for his children throughout the history of eternity: from the
middle of the mountain range of Rafa, from the source of the wa-
ter from the Tina River. His share goes toward the west through
the middle of this river. One then goes until one reaches the water
of the deeps from which this river emerges. This river emerges
and pours its waters into the Me’at Sea. This river goes as far
as the Great Sea. Everything to the north belongs to Japheth,
while everything to the south belongs to Shem. (13) It goes until
it reaches Karas. This is in the bosom of the branch that faces
Jubilees 8–9 29

southward. (14) His share goes toward the Great Sea and goes
straight until it reaches to the west of the branch that faces south-
ward, for this is the sea whose name is the Branch of the Egyptian
Sea. (15) It turns from there southward toward the mouth of the
Great Sea on the shore of the waters. It goes toward the west of
Afra and goes until it reaches the water of the Gihon River and
to the south of the Gihon’s waters along the banks of this river.
(16) It goes eastward until it reaches the Garden of Eden, toward
the south side of it – on the south side and from the east of the
entire land of Eden and of all the east. It turns to the east and
comes until it reaches to the east of the mountain range named
Rafa. Then it goes down toward the bank of the Tina River’s
mouth.
(17) This share emerged by lot for Shem and his children to
occupy it forever, throughout his generation until eternity. (18)
Noah was very happy that this share had emerged for Shem and
his children. He recalled everything that he had said in prophecy
with his mouth, for he had said: ‘May the Lord, the God of Shem,
be blessed, and may the Lord live in the places where Shem re-
sides’ [Gen. 9:27]. He knew that the Garden of Eden is the holy
of holies and is the residence of the Lord; (that) Mt. Sinai is in
the middle of the desert; and (that) Mt. Zion is in the middle of
the navel of the earth. The three of them – the one facing the
other – were created as holy (places). (20) He blessed the God of
gods, who had placed the word of the Lord in his mouth, and (he
blessed) the Lord forever. (21) He knew that a blessed and excel-
lent share had come about for Shem and his children throughout
the history of eternity: all the land of Eden, all the land of the
Erythrean Sea, all the land of the east, India, (that which is) in
Erythrea and its mountains, all the land of Bashan, all the land
of Lebanon, the islands of Caphtor, the entire mountain range of
Sanir and Amana, the mountain range of Asshur which is in the
north, all the land of Elam, Asshur, Babylon, Susan, and Madai;
all the mountains of Ararat, all the area on the other side of the sea
which is on the other side of the mountain range of Asshur toward
the north – a blessed and spacious land. Everything in it is very
beautiful.

Ham’s lot. (22) For Ham there emerged a second share toward
the other side of the Gihon – toward the south – on the right side
30 Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity

of the garden. It goes southward and goes to all the fiery moun-
tains. It goes westward toward the Atel Sea; it goes westward
until it reaches the Mauk Sea, everything that descends into
which is destroyed. (23) It comes to the north to the boundary of
Gadir and comes to the shore of the sea waters, to the waters of
the Great Sea, until it reaches the Gihon River. The Gihon River
goes until it reaches the right side of the Garden of Eden.
(24) This is the land that emerged for Ham as a share that he
should occupy for himself and his children forever throughout
their generations until eternity.

Japheth’s lot. (25) For Japheth there emerged a third share on

the other side of the Tina River toward the north of the mouth
of its waters. It goes toward the northeast, (toward) the whole
area of Gog and all that is east of them. (26) It goes due north
and goes toward the mountains of Qelt, to the north and toward
the Mauq Sea. It comes to the east of Gadir as far as the edge
of the sea waters. (27) It goes until it reaches the west of Fara.
Then it goes back toward Aferag and goes eastward toward
the water of the Me’at Sea. (28) It goes to the edge of the Tina
River toward the northeast until it reaches the bank of its waters
toward the mountain range of Rafa. It goes around the north.
(29) This is the land that emerged for Japheth and his children
as his hereditary share that he would occupy for himself and his
children throughout their generations forever; five large islands
and a large land in the north. (30) However, it is cold while the
land of Ham is hot. Now Shem’s land is neither hot nor cold
but it is a mixture of cold and heat.

3 The subdivision of the lots among Noah’s grandsons

Ham’s lot. (9:1) Ham divided (his share) among his sons. There
emerged a first share for Cush to the east; to the west of him
(one) for Egypt; to the west of him (one) for Put; to the west of
him (one) for Canaan; and to the west of him was the sea.

Shem’s lot. (2) Shem, too, divided (his share) among his sons.
There emerged a first share for Elam and his children to the east
of the Tigris River until it reaches the east of the entire land
of India, in Erythrea on its borders, the waters of the Dedan,
 Jubilees 8–9 31

all the mountains of Mebri and Ela, all the land of Susan, and
everything on the border of Farnak as far as the Erythrean Sea
and the Tina River. (3) For Asshur there emerged as the sec-
ond share the whole land of Asshur, Nineveh, Shinar, and Sak
as far as the vicinity of India, (where) the Wadafa River rises.
(4) For Arpachshad there emerged as a third share all the land
of the Chaldean region to the east of the Euphrates which is
close to the Erythrean Sea; all the waters of the desert as far
as the vicinity of the branch of the Sea which faces Egypt; the
entire land of Lebanon, Sanir, and Amana as far as the vicin-
ity of the Euphrates. (5) There emerged for Aram as the fourth
share the entire land of Mesopotamia between the Tigris and
Euphrates to the north of the Chaldeans as far as the vicinity of
the mountain range of Asshur and the land of Arara. (6) For Lud
there emerged as the fifth share the mountain range of Asshur
and all that belongs to it until it reaches the Great Sea and reaches
to the east of his brother Asshur.

Japheth’s lot. (7) Japheth, too, divided the land among his sons
as an inheritance. (8) There emerged for Gomer a first share
eastward from the north side as far as the Tina River. North
of him there emerged (as a share) for Magog all the central
parts of the north until it reaches the Me’at Sea. (9) For Madai
there emerged a share for him to occupy on the west of his two
brothers as far as the islands and the shores of the islands. (10)
For Javan there emerged as the fourth share every island and the
islands that are in the direction of Lud’s border. (11) For Tubal
there emerged as the fifth share the middle of the branch which
reaches the border of Lud’s share as far as the second branch,
and the other side of the second branch into the third branch.
(12) For Meshech there emerged a sixth share, namely all the
(region on the) other side of the third branch until it reaches to
the east of Gadir. (13) For Tiras there emerged as the seventh
share the four large islands within the sea which reach Ham’s
share. The islands of Kamaturi emerged by lot for Arpachshad’s
children as his inheritance.

4 The oath against trespassing

(14) In this way Noah’s sons divided (the earth) for their sons
in front of their father Noah. He made (them) swear by oath to
32 Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity

curse each and every one who wanted to occupy the share that
did not emerge by his lot. (15) All of them said: “So be it!”
So be it for them and their children until eternity during their
generations until the day of judgment on which the Lord God
will punish them with the sword and fire because of all the evil
impurity of their errors by which they have filled the earth with
wickedness, impurity, fornication, and sin.

Overview of Jubilees 8–9

Jub. 8:11–9:15 consists of two interrelated parts that are based on Genesis
10 but go well beyond the biblical text.28 In the first part (Jub. 8:11–30),
Noah divides the earth by lot among his three sons – Shem, Ham, and
Japheth. This is the same order as they are at first listed in Gen. 10:1,
that is, the order of their priority (and primogeniture).29 In the second
part (Jub. 9:1–15), Noah’s sons, still in the presence of their father, sub-
divide their portions among their own sons, according to the order Ham,
Shem, and Japheth, that is, from south to north. As a result the whole
world is covered twice, first by the three major lines of demarcation and
then by the smaller subdivisions. Whereas the original Table of Nations
in Genesis 10 contains merely a list of Noah’s descendants in which
his grandsons appear directly after listing of each son (see Table 1),
Jubilees 8–9 contains separate sections for the sons and the grandsons
and provides explicit geographical boundaries between them. The proce-
dure in Jubilees is thus more akin to the famous geographic work of
Dionysius Periegetes of Alexandria, Π⑀ριEγησις τς κ υµ⑀νης
(“Geographical Description of the Inhabited World”), written during the
reign of Hadrian (117–38 CE), which first outlines the world by conti-
nents (Africa/Libya, Europe, Asia [line 9]) and then subdivides the con-
tinents by tracing lines according to major geographical landmarks and
noting the nations along the way (lines 170–1165).30 Jubilees 8–9 and
Dionysius’ work also have many other points in common.31 It may be that
Jubilees is adapting the periegesis tradition of geographical description,
in which, for example, Hecataeus of Miletus and Strabo of Amaseia are
also located.32
The first section of the Jubilees account begins in 8:11 by setting the
scene: “When he [sc. Noah] summoned his children, they came to him –
they and their children. He divided the earth into the lots that his three
sons would occupy. They reached out their hands and took the book from
the bosom of their father Noah.” This mention of a “book” of Noah is
important, for the whole rest of chapters 8–9 goes on to describe the lots
 Jubilees 8–9 33

contained in that book.33 Thus, beginning with Shem, we read: “In the
book there emerged as Shem’s lot the center of the earth . . .” (Jub. 8:12).
Unlike the “book” of Noah to which 1QapGen. 5.29 refers,34 the “book”
in Jub. 8:11, 12 does not record Noah’s autobiography, but rather a title
deed drawn up by Noah for distributing land among his sons which is
analogous to the distribution of the promised land among the twelve
tribes.35 As often in Jubilees, Noah is portrayed here as a Moses-like
figure.36
From this “book” of Noah, it becomes clear that Shem receives the most
favorable portion in the temperate “center of the earth” (8:12–21), with
Mt. Zion “in the middle of the navel of the earth” (v. 19); Ham receives the
hot southern portion (vv. 22–4); and Japheth receives the cold northern
portion (vv. 25–30). This division follows the Greek geographical model
of κλAµατα or “zones of the world,” ranging from torrid to arctic, with
the temperate climate in between.37 According to Strabo (Geog. 2.3.1),
Posidonius (ca. 135–51 BCE) also represented zones by “ethnic distinc-
tions” (τας ⑀θνικας
( διαΣ ρας): “the Ethiopic zone,” “the Scythian-
Celtic zone,” and “the intermediate zone” (τ ν $ν, µ⑀σ ν).38
Shem’s strategic allotment in the temperate center of the earth may
have been understood in geopolitical terms. For within a few lines,
Vitruvius (early Augustan period) relocates the center of the world from
Greece (De arch. 6.1.6), where it was earlier set by the Greeks, to Rome
(6.1.10), where it serves once again as a justification for rule: “And so
by its policy, it curbs the courage of the Northern barbarians, by its
strength the imaginative South. Thus the Divine Mind has allotted to
the Roman State an excellent and temperate region to rule the world.”39
Strabo (Geog. 6.4.1) has a similar conception of Rome: “. . . being in
the middle ( ⑀ν ( µ⑀σω
5 ) . . . and through its superiority in courage and
size . . . it is naturally suited to hegemony (πρς
γ⑀µ νAαν ⑀)Συς
⑀␹⑀ι).”40 Likewise, the Book of Jubilees clearly expects the descendants
of Shem to rule the world from their privileged position in the center
of the earth.41 Thus, in Jub. 22:11–14, Abraham (sic!) blesses Jacob
with the words:

May my son Jacob and all his sons be blessed to the most
high Lord throughout all ages. May the Lord give you righteous
descendants, and may he sanctify some of your sons in the midst
of all the earth. May the nations serve you, and may all the na-
tions bow down before your descendants. (12) Be strong before
people and continue to exercise power among all of Seth’s de-
scendants. Then your ways and the ways of your sons will be
34 Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity

proper so that they may be a holy people. (13) May the most
high God give you all the blessings with which he blessed me
and with which he blessed Noah and Adam. May they come to
rest on the sacred head of your descendants throughout each and
every generation forever. (14) May he purify you from all filthy
pollution so that you may be pardoned for all the guilt of your
sins of ignorance. May he strengthen you and bless you; may
you possess the entire earth.

We find similar expectations of universal sovereignty for Jacob’s descen-

dants in Jub. 19:21–2 and 32:18–19.42 The fact that all four holy places in
the Book of Jubilees (i.e., the Garden of Eden, Mt. Sinai, Mt. Zion, and the
Mountain of the East) are located in Shem’s territory further underscores
the privileged position of Shem’s territory.43 Since the first three of these
were created as holy places “facing each other” (Jub. 8:19), this creates
two medians that intersect at Zion: an east–west median running through
the Garden of Eden and the Straits of Gibraltar and a north–south median
running through Mt. Zion and Mt. Sinai.44
In Jub. 8:19, the notion of Jerusalem as the omphalos (navel) of the
earth goes back to Ezek. 38:12 (cf. 5:5).45 Although Philip S. Alexander
has recently argued that the earliest clear reference to Jerusalem as om-
phalos occurs in Jubilees 8,46 it is nevertheless probable that the author
of Jubilees (or his source) interpreted Ezek. 38:12 in this way.47 For
the Ezekiel text is set within a passage that looks forward to the de-
feat of hostile, intruding nations and their judgment by fire (Ezek. 38:
1–39:29). As we shall see, this is precisely the emphasis of Jubilees 8–10
(cf. Jub. 9:15). Alexander argues further that Jubilees is a Hasmonean
document that is politically motivated: it contrasts Jerusalem to Delphi,
makes Greek influence in the East illegitimate, and justifies Hasmonean
expansion.48 Just how grandiose those expansionistic dreams could be
during this period becomes apparent when we examine the Qumran War
Rule presently. For the moment, it is important to recognize that Jubilees
regards Jerusalem and the Land as the sacrosanct place of divine favor
and the position from which the world will ultimately be brought under
subjection.
Jubilees describes the geographical extent of the allotted portions and
the natural physical boundaries between them in great detail, following
a circular path in each case: the descriptions of the territories of Shem
and Japheth make a counterclockwise circuit beginning at the source of
the Tina River; and the description of Ham’s territory makes a clockwise
circuit beginning at a place beyond the Gihon River, to the right (south)
 Jubilees 8–9 35

of the Garden of Eden.49 Each description ends with a formula indicating

that the portion allotted to that son became a possession to him and his
descendants “forever” (vv. 17, 24, 29).
The second section of the Jubilees account describes the further sub-
division of the earth among the sons of Ham (9:1), Shem (vv. 2–6), and
Japheth (vv. 7–13). Again, the natural boundaries of the portions are set
out. At the conclusion of the process, Noah compels his sons and grand-
sons in vv. 14–15 to “swear by oath to curse each and every one who
wanted to occupy the share that did not emerge by his lot. All of them
said: ‘So be it!’ So be it for them and their children until eternity during
their generations until the day of judgment on which the Lord God will
punish them with the sword and fire because of all the evil of their errors
by which they have filled the earth with wickedness, impurity, fornica-
tion, and sin.”50 Jubilees 8–10 seeks to establish Israel’s ancestral right to
the promised land,51 a conception that is probably derived from the Song
of Moses. For Deut. 32:8–9 strongly implies that during the original divi-
sion of the world among the nations, God established Israel’s right to the
Land.52 This oath gives Jubilees 8–9 an apocalyptic orientation.53 Here
there seems to be a connection between violation of territorial boundaries
and the future divine judgment by sword and fire.54 In that case, imperia-
listic world conquerors such as the Greco-Macedonians (Seleucids)55 and
later the Romans would be particularly subject to the coming judgment.56
Indeed, Jub. 23:30 claims that the time of peace will arrive when foreign
enemies are finally expelled.

Nachwirkung of the “Book of Noah” in Jewish texts

of the Second-Temple period
It is beyond the scope of the present study to delve too far into the ongoing
debate over the possible existence of a “Book of Noah” in antiquity. The
difficulty is that although we have several references to a “Book of Noah”
in antiquity, most recently in a fragment of the Genesis Apocryphon,57 the
book itself has not survived as an independent writing. This has prompted
some scholars, including Florentino Garcı́a Martı́nez, to attempt to re-
construct the supposed book from various pieces, drawn from different
sources.58 Suffice it to say that there are several problems with such an
attempt. First, the pseudepigraphic “Book of Noah” may never have exi-
sted at all, except as a literary fiction within certain works.59 Second, it
is practically impossible to show that the various pieces from different
sources, divergent as they are in language, form, and content, actually fit
together coherently based on a common “Book of Noah.”60 Third, the
36 Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity

attempt to reconstruct a single “Book of Noah” may be misguided, for

there may have been several different writings attributed to Noah in the an-
cient world that focused on various aspects of the Noah story.61 For exam-
ple, in an addition to the Testament of Levi, Isaac instructs Levi about the
prohibition against eating blood, “for so my father Abraham commanded
me; for so he found [it] in the writing of the book of Noah concerning
the blood ( 7τως γ!ρ µ ι ⑀ν⑀τ⑀Aλατ
( 4 πατEρ µ υ (Aρα!µ,
τι 7τως ⑀8ρ⑀ν ⑀ν ( τ γραΣ τς Aλ υ τ 2 N⑀ π⑀ρ" τ 2
α9µατ ς).”62 Similarly, there may have been “books of Noah” on other
topics.
This possibility deserves further consideration in light of our passage.
For when Jub. 8:11–12 characterizes the contents of chapters 8–9 as stem-
ming from a “book,” this may indicate that the Vorlage of Jubilees 8–9
circulated independently during the Second Temple.63 There is evidence
that another “book” of Noah mentioned in Jubilees (10:1–14) circulated
independently of Jubilees and eventually found its way into the Jewish
magical book, Sefer ha-Razim,64 and the medieval Book of Asaph the
Physician.65 Moreover, the recently published material from the Genesis
Apocryphon (1QapGen. 16–17), which, as we have mentioned, is very
similar to Jubilees 8–9, shows that this material on the division of the earth
among the sons of Noah was being transmitted, modified and adapted.66
We get the same impression from other Jewish texts from the Second-
Temple period.67 Both the Third Sibyl (§§110–61) and the War Rule
(1QM 1–2) retain the aforementioned apocalyptic thrust of the Jubilees
tradition. The War Rule presupposes an apocalyptically oriented Table
of Nations tradition when it describes the plan for the final, eschato-
logical war against all nations in terms of the sons and grandsons of
Noah. Josephus (Ant. 1.122–47) clearly uses the Jubilees tradition for
antiquarian purposes,68 but he modifies the tradition, depriving it of any
apocalyptic significance.69 Looking beyond the Second-Temple period,
the medieval text, Midrash Aggadah, continues to reflect the Jubilees
8–9 tradition. We conclude our survey with the Asatir, a Samaritan text
of uncertain date.

The Third Sibyl

We begin by comparing Jubilees 8–9 and the Third Sibyl, both of which
stem from the second century BCE.70 The Third Sibyl recounts the bib-
lical story of Noah and his three sons in much the same way as Jubilees
does, albeit with a thick overlay of Greek mythology. The Sibyl, herself
a daughter (or daughter-in-law) of Noah (cf. Sib. Or., Prol. 33; 1.288–90;
 Jubilees 8–9 37

3.827), explains that after the Flood, the earth was divided by lot (␬␣␶ ␣`
␬␭
␩␳ o␯), into three territories according to the three sons of Gaia and
Ouranos: Kronos, Titan, and Iapetos (Sib. Or. 3.110–14).71 The Iapetos
of Hesiod (Theog. 18, 134, 507, 746), who is equivalent to the biblical
Japheth,72 facilitates the connection between the Greek myth and the
Table of Nations tradition in Genesis 10.73 Each son reigned over his
own territory and was bound by oath not to violate the others’ portions
(lines 115–16). But after Ouranos died, the sons began to transgress their
oaths by stirring up strife against each other “as to who should have royal
honor and reign over all men” (110–20). At first, diplomacy was able
to bring about an uneasy truce that allowed the eldest son, Kronos, to
rule over all on a provisional and temporary basis (121–31). However,
when Titan discovered that Kronos had deceived him, a war broke out bet-
ween the families (147–53), a war which is described as “the beginning
of war for mortals” (154–5). The subsequent list of nations shows that
the struggle for world empire continued even after all the descendants
of Titan and Kronos had died (156–8). As the text states, “But then as
time pursued its cyclic course, the kingdom of Egypt arose, then that of
the Persians, Medes, and Ethiopians, and Assyrian Babylon, then that of
the Macedonians, of Egypt again, then of Rome” (158–61). The point
of the Third Sibyl is that the oath imposed by the father was broken,
that a struggle for world domination began among the three sons, and
that before setting up his own kingdom (implicitly with Israel74 ), God
will judge all nations by sword and fire (cf. 2, 492–519, 689–90), in-
cluding Magog (cf. 319, 512–13, both passages with Gog [Ezek. 38:1])
and Rome. The parallel to Jubilees 8–9 is obvious, for there too three
sons after the Flood are assigned portions by lot (cf. Jub. 8:11), and the
territories are held inviolable by an oath imposed by their father, which,
if broken, would bring a curse upon the offender and ultimately divine
judgment by sword and fire (cf. Jub. 9:14–15), alluding to Ezek. 38:22.75
Apparently, therefore, the “Book of Noah” preserved in Jubilees 8–9 also
circulated in Alexandria, Egypt, where the Third Sibyl originated and
later the Alexandrian World-Chronicles as well.76

The War Rule

Another text to which we can compare Jubilees 8–9 is the War Rule
(1QM). The first two columns detail the sequence of events during
the forty-year war of the Sons of Light against all the nations of the
world,77 led by the Kittim, that is, the Hellenistic kingdoms in the early
Qumran compositions and later the Romans.78 This war is proleptically
38 Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity

summarized in 1QM 1.1–7, culminating in lines 6–7: “. . . and the

supremacy of the Kittim shall cease, that wickedness be overcome with-
out a remnant. There shall be no survivors of [all Sons of] Darkness.”
Clearly alluding to Dan. 12:1, the passage goes on to describe this war as
the last and greatest tribulation: “It is a time of distress fo[r al]l the people
who are redeemed by God. In all their afflictions none exists that is like
it, hastening to its completion as an eternal redemption. On the day of
their battle against the Kittim, they shall g[o forth for]carnage in battle”
(1.11–13). According to Dan. 12:1 (NRSV), “There shall be a time of an-
guish, such as has never occurred since nations first came into existence.
But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who is found
written in the book.”79 This reference to the beginning of the nations can
be compared to 1QM 10.14–15, which, alluding to Genesis 10–11, refers
to the “confusion of language ( )80 and the separation of peoples
81
( ), the dwelling-place of clans ( )82 (15) and
83
the inheritance of lands .” After thus alluding to the Table
of Nations and the Tower of Babel, cols. 11–12 proceed to list the nations
by name that will be defeated in battle.84 Hence, like Dan. 12:1, the War
Rule juxtaposes the Urzeit and the Endzeit, the beginning of the nations
and their cataclysmic end.
The forty-year war against the nations listed in Genesis 10 is to be
conducted in two phases interrupted by the requisite sabbatical years.85
In the first phase, the entire holy congregation is to participate in a six-
year war against Israel’s neighbors and traditional enemies (Edom, Moab,
Ammon, etc.), the Kittim, and the offenders against the covenant. After
the conclusion of the first phase and a sabbatical year, selected units from
the tribes of Israel are to continue the fight for twenty-nine years, with
four intervening sabbatical years (totaling thirty-three years), against the
remaining nations. 1QM 2.10–14 outlines the plan of attack during this
twenty-nine-year period, listing the nations to be fought according to the
order given in Genesis 10:1. Thus, the first nine years of this last major
offensive is to be fought against the sons of Shem (1QM 2.10–13);86 the
next ten years of the war is to be fought against “all the sons of Ham
according to their clans in their dwelling-places” (2.13–14), where the
phrase “according to their clans”( ) comes from Gen. 10:20; and
the final ten years of the war is to be fought against “all the sons of Japheth
in their dwelling-places” (2.14).87 The War Rule expects that all nations
will fall under divine judgment, and that universal sovereignty will pass
from the Kittim to Israel. Indeed, 1QM 17.7–8 refers to “the dominion of
Israel over all flesh” (cf. also 19.8). Hence, like Jubilees 8–9 and the Third
Sibyl, the War Rule uses the division of the earth among Noah’s sons to
 Jubilees 8–9 39

express the expectation not only of eschatological divine judgment of the

nations by fire and sword but also of universal sovereignty for Israel.

Midrash Aggadah
A final Jewish text that should be considered here goes well beyond the
Second-Temple period. Martha Himmelfarb discusses the use of Jubilees
8–9 (or perhaps rather the work of an excerptor who incorporates the
Jubilees material) in Midrash Aggadah, a writing drawn from the com-
mentary on the Torah of R. Moses the Preacher of Narbonne, who lived
in the eleventh century.88 On Gen. 12:6 (“The Canaanite was then in the
land”), Midrash Aggadah Lek-Leka 13.7 comments:89
For the land of Israel had fallen to the portion of Shem, as it
says, “Melchizedek, king of Salem” (Gen. 14:18). When the
Holy One, blessed be he, divided the world among them, Noah
made his three sons swear that none of them would enter the
territory of another [cf. Jub. 9:14]. But the seven nations passed
through the land of Israel and transgressed the oath [cf. Jub.
10:32]. Therefore the Holy One, blessed be he, commanded,
“You shall utterly destroy them [cf. Jub. 9:15].” At the time that
Abraham passed through they had not yet entered there except
for the Canaanites. Thus the land of the seven nations fell to
Israel, for all the lands of the seven nations had fallen to the
portion of Shem [cf. Jub. 8:12–21; 9:2–6]. Thus it says, “He set
up boundaries for the nations according to the number of the
children of Israel” (Deut. 32:8).
This commentary cites neither Jubilees 8–9 nor the putative “Book of
Noah,” but it does show influence from this tradition. What makes it
different from the later Christian Diamerismos tradition (see Chap. 6) is
the emphasis here on Melchizedek as evidence that the Land had been
allotted to Shem.90

Asatir
Written in Aramaic, this Samaritan book of the “Secrets of Moses” is a
midrash that contains legendary material on biblical themes, ranging from
the time of Adam to the death of Moses, to whom it is ascribed.91 The
formal parallel to Jubilees is obvious, although, unlike Jubilees, the Asatir
covers the whole Pentateuch rather than only Genesis and part of Exodus.
Moreover, unlike Jubilees, the Samaritan text includes an account of how
40 Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity

Adam divided the world among his sons Cain and Abel, which seems
to anticipate the later division of the earth by Noah.92 Most importantly
for our purposes, the Asatir, like Jubilees, contains the story of Noah’s
division of the world among his three sons after the flood. Although the
Samaritan account does not purport to have been recorded in a “Book of
Noah,”93 there are nonetheless many similarities between it and Jubilees
8–9:94

(13) And after sixty-two years, he [sc. Noah] divided the earth
among his sons Shem, Ham and Japheth. (14) And to Shem
he gave three portions and Japheth four and Ham four; [Shem
divided his portion, giving to] Elam, Lud, Aram and Asshur four
portions and Arpachshad one portion. (15) And he gave the Book
of Signs to Arpachshad, and the Book of Astronomy to Elam and
the Book of the Wars to Asshur. And he made them the foremost
of all his sons. (17) And Japhet divided the four portions, among
Gomer, Magog, Maddai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech and Tiras each
one portion. (18) And Ham divided his land into four portions,
Kush one portion and Misraim one portion, Put one portion and
Canaan one portion.
(19) And when Noah had finished the division of the land by the
astronomical calculation of the day, he found that there were still
four thousand three hundred years less seven years to come after
the flood, of the six thousand from the beginning of the creation
and three hundred and seven since the flood. (20) For from the
beginning of the days of creation there shall be 6,000 years. (21)
From the day of creation until the day of the visitation of the
generations (through the flood) were one thousand three hundred
and seven years. (22) And from the day when Noah made the
division among his children, until the day of the visitation of
the generations were four hundred and ninety-three years. (23)
And he divided his kingdom to his three sons in the year three
hundred and twenty. (24) And Noah was on the day when he
divided [the land] among his sons nine hundred and thirty years
old. (25) And he divided the land among his three sons on the
tenth day of the month of Elul.
(26) And then he sent proclamations to his sons that each should
go to his country. (27) And they took leave of him, and Elam and
Asshur went to the north of Ur Kasdim, which is called by them
the place of Bab el Abwab (Gate of Gates), (28) and which is
 Jubilees 8–9 41

on the border of Elam and Asshur. (29) And Gomer and Magog
were from Bab el Abwab and onwards. (30) And Lud and Aram
settled in Great Kutah whose name is Charassan the Black, which
is called Algezirah in Afrikia (Phrygia). (31) And Arpachshad
settled in Ur Kasdim in Brktrs (Bactria?), whose name is Romi.
And Nimrod began to rule over all the children of Ham. (32) And
he built great Babel and they gathered themselves all together
and they went to build it, and Nimrod started to walk as a giant in
the land. (33) And Noah was nine hundred and forty-five years
old when the report of it reached Noah. (34) But Shem his son
was the one whom he had placed on the throne of the kingdom
because he was the firstborn. (35) And Shem sent also to Elam,
Asshur, Lud, Aram, and Arpachshad, and they came and built
Nineveh and Calah, Rehoboth Ir, and Resen, which is the big
town.
(36) And the day drew near for Noah to die, so he sent and called
Shem, Ham and Japheth, and they came to him to Shalem the
Great and built an altar and they brought upon it thank offerings.
(37) And he completed his division and gave to Shem six and
to Japhet six, and he made Shem greater than Japhet [cf. Gen.
9:27?]. (38) And Noah commanded them the keeping of peace
and died.
Several comparisons can be made between this account and Jubilees
8–9.95 First, Asatir describes a similar twofold division of the earth: Noah
first divides the earth among his three sons (4.13; cf. Jub. 8:11–30), and
they, in turn, divide it among their own sons (Asatir 4.14, 17, 18; cf.
Jub. 9:1–13). The allotted territories are described in different terms from
those in Jubilees, but the principle is similar. Second, Asatir emphasizes
that Noah made the Shemites of “the foremost of all his sons” (4.15), that
he placed Shem on the throne of his kingdom because he was the firstborn
(34), and that he made Shem greater than Japheth (37). This corresponds,
in general, to the primacy that is given to Shem in Jubilees 8 (i.e., his
privileged position in the temperate middle of the earth, the holy sites
located within his territory). Third, Asatir records that Noah commanded
his descendants to keep the peace (4.38). This recalls the oath that Noah
required his sons to take so that they would not violate each other’s
territories ( Jub. 9:14). Fourth, Asatir contains a strongly eschatological
perspective. Like Jubilees, which encompasses everything “from the begi-
nning of creation till my sanctuary has been built among them for all
eternity” ( Jub. 1:27), Asatir (4.19–20) reckons with 6,000 years of world
42 Geography in Early Judaism and Christianity

history from the beginning of the days of creation to the end of time.
From this, Noah calculates that there are still “four thousand three hundred
years less seven years to come after the flood . . . ” (19). As we shall see in
Chap. 6, the Jubilees tradition of the division of the earth among the sons
of Noah apparently fueled an imminent apocalyptic expectation in some
early Christian circles. When a date for the end of time is set, apocalyptic
speculation increases as the date seems to be approaching.
Interestingly enough, this discovery of the time remaining before the
end was made “when Noah had finished the division of the land by the
astronomical calculation of the day . . . ” (Asatir 4.19). Although the pre-
cise nature of this astronomical calculation is not spelled out, it should
be noted that descriptions of the heavens and the earth have long been
associated, for a correspondence between them is widely held in antiq-
uity. Asatir may provide evidence for the concept of large-scale mapping
of earth based on astronomical observation. Unfortunately, the uncertain
date of the text makes it difficult further to locate this conception.

Conclusion
In sum, we have seen that Jub. 8:11 refers to Jubilees 8–9 as giving the con-
tents of an apocalyptically-oriented “book” purportedly written by Noah.
Certain Jewish texts from the Second-Temple period (the Third Sibyl and
the War Rule) provide evidence that this “book” was in circulation be-
fore the Maccabean crisis, and that it was reused in apocalyptic oracles
against the nations, and particularly against the Kittim. If this hypothesis
is correct, then we must ask what circumstances would have prompted
the writing of such a book, perhaps as early as the third century BCE. We
may suppose that the period of imperialistic expansion under Antiochus
III (ca. 223–187), when Palestine became a political football between two
rival powers in the East, was the occasion of writing.96 The perceived in-
fringement of the Ptolemies and then Seleucids on the inherited land of
Israel may have sparked a strong reaction from a nationalistic author with
an apocalyptic bent.97 We shall see more on this hypothesis in Chap. 6.
Before delving into the further history of this material, a word of caution
must be sounded. At this stage in the research, we are unable to trace
precisely the highly ramified tradition to which the “Book of Noah” and
the Book of Jubilees gave rise in Jewish and Christian circles during the
following millennium. There are at least two complicating factors.
First, the ancient Near East contains other traditions about the de-
scendants of Noah. Josephus writes, for instance, in Ap. 1.130–1: “This
Berossus [fl. 290 BCE], following the most ancient records, has, like
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
kääntäneet askeleensa läheistä metsää kohti, kun läheisyydestä
äkkiä kuuluva kumea karjunta sai heidät nopeasti palaamaan
nuotiolle. Petojen karjuminen eneni yhä ja havaiten tämän
lähenevän vaaran tunkeutuivat hevoset, jotka olivat seisoneet
hajallaan, peljästyneinä yhteen kokoon, nuotion luona olevat
palvelijat panivat enemmän puita tuleen ja vaihtoivat levottomia
silmäyksiä. Äkkiä kuultiin samallainen karjunta loitompaa; ei ollut siis
epäilystäkään, että kaksi tiikeriä läheni juottopaikkaa
sammuttaaksensa janoansa. Don Estevan ensimäisenä katkaisi tuon
tuskallisen hiljaisuuden, joka oli hänen poissa ollessaan syntynyt,
käskien väkensä valmistumaan taisteluun näiden vaarallisten
vastustajain kanssa, joiden karjunta yhä läheni. Itse odotti hän niitä
kaksipiippuinen pyssynsä kädessään ja asettui uhkeana telttansa
ovelle. Kaikki jo odottivat nähdäksensä petojen hehkuvat silmät, kun
äkkiä sakaalin ulvominen yhtyi molempien tiikerien karjuntaan, ja
heti sen jälkeen kuului ihmisääni kuten merimiesten toisiaan
huudellessa, läheisestä metsiköstä: Hoi, siellä nuotion luona! Me
saavumme, älkää olko levottomia, älkääkä ampuko!

Kaikki hämmästyivät tästä odottamattomasta huudahduksesta ja

heidän hämmästyksensä eneni, kun näkivät jättiläisen kokoisen
amerikalaisen metsästäjän, pitkällä ja raskaalla pyssyllä varustettuna
tulevan pensaiden takaa ja lähenevän nuotiota.

— Hitto teidän nuotionne vieköön! sanoi hän kovalla, mutta

hyväntahtoisella äänellä. Jo kahden tunnin ajan olette minulta
pelottanut kaksi pulskimpaa, pilkkuista tiikeriä, mitä milloinkaan on
erämaassa nähty. Toivon että sammutatte tuon nuotionne.

— Miten! huudahtivat palvelijat tämän kuultuansa,

sammuttaisimmeko nuotion?
 — No, ettehän kai peljänne kahta tiikerinpahaista jatkoi
metsästäjä hymyillen.

— Ken te olette? puuttui don Estevan puheeseen.

— Metsästäjä, niinkuin näette.

— Mikä metsästäjä?

— Minä toverini kanssa pyydystelen saukkoja, majavia, susia,

tiikeriä ja intiaaneja, aina miten sattuu. Noin kahden tunnin matkan
päässä tästä tapasimme puman ja kaksi jaguaria, koiraan ja
naaraan, jotka kiistelivät kuolleesta hevosesta.

— Se oli minun hevoseni, lausui Tiburcio.

— Teidän! Nuorukais-raukka, sanoi metsästäjä avomielisen

sydämellisesti. Minua ilahuttaa kuitenkin, että te olette täällä, sillä en
luullut enää tapaavani omistajaa elävien joukosta. Mutta nyt olemme
tappaneet puman ja aina tänne asti olemme seuranneet molempien
tiikerien jälkiä, joita te estitte sammuttamasta janoansa
juottopaikassa. Jotta me voisimme vapauttaa teidät niistä, täytyy
teidän sammuttaa tuli.

— Ja missä toverinne on? kysyi don Estevan. Näiden miesten

kohtaaminen näkyi olevan hänen aikeittensa mukaista.

— Hän on heti täällä, sammuttakaa vain nuotio! Ääni, jolla nämä

sanat lausuttiin, oli niin luottava, että don Estevan päätti noudattaa
metsästäjän pyyntöä. Tämä taasen toisen kerran matki sakaalin
ääntä, jolloin hänen toverinsa saapui. Vaikka tämäkin oli jotenkin
suurikasvuinen, näytti hän kuitenkin kääpiöltä jättiläisenmoisen
toverinsa rinnalla. Kaksinkertainen karjuminen, joka nyt kuului,
saattoi metsästäjät heti käymään työhönsä käsiksi. He katosivat
tuohon pieneen laaksoon, jonka keskellä juottopaikka oli. Siellä
pimeässä asettuivat he asentoon, nojaten selkänsä yhteen ja toisen
polvensa maahan; pyssy oli kädessä ja puukko hampaissa.

Jonkun hetken kuluttua näkivät levottomat matkustajat kaksi

eläintä hehkuvin silmin hiipivän puiden välissä; nämä nähdessään
pelottominkin sydän vavahti. Notkeina kuin metsän köynnöskasvit
näyttivät molemmat eläimet lähestyvän ja silmät olivat kuin neljä
valokohtaa, jotka liikkuivat kuin kiiltomadot, joita tuuli puun oksilla
keinuttelee edestakaisin.

Metsästäjät eivät vielä voineet tätä nähdä; he kuulivat vain julmien

vihollistensa raivoisan sihisemisen, jonka ne päästävät, haistaessaan
ihmisiä olevan lähellä, liikkumattomina kuin kuvapatsaat olivat
metsästäjät ja odottivat itseluottamuksella, jonka taitavuus ja
koeteltu rohkeus yksin tuottavat, taistelua, jossa heidän täytyi joko
voittaa tai kaatua.

4.

VÄIJYTYS.

Ei kauvan viipynyt, ennenkuin tuon pian tapahtuvan kamalan

taistelun katselijat huomasivat, että jaguarit äkkiä pysähtyivät,
niinkuin saalista vainuavat lintukoirat. Karjunta, jonka ne samalla
kertaa päästivät, todisti, että ne olivat huomanneet tähän asti
outojen vihollisten läsnäolon. Hetkeksi jäivät ne ikäänkuin yhteisestä
sopimuksesta seisomaan käännellen ja ojennellen itseänsä; sitten
pieksivät ne kylkiänsä hännällänsä ja karjuen tekivät pitkän
hyppäyksen.

Äkkiä pamahti laukaus, jota seurasi toisen eläimen valitushuuto;

se oli kuolettavasti haavoitettu. Jaguari, jonka tappava luoti oli
kohdannut juuri hyppäyksessä, kääntyi pyörien ilmassa ja putosi
sitten kuoliaana laaksoon; raivoissaan toinen syöksi metsästäjien
kimppuun.

Nyt kuultiin sekaista melua, ihmisääniä ja ulvontaa, ikäänkuin

metsästäjä olisi vihollisensa kanssa kierrellyt maassa, kunnes kuului
toinen laukaus, jota seurasi viimeinen, vähitellen haihtuva ulvonta.
Suuresti pelänneet kuuntelijat eivät uskaltaneet lähestyä, ennenkuin
kanadalaisen jättiläisvartalo tuli esiin pimeästä.

— Kas siinä, sanoi hän lähelle tullessaan, mitä kaksi

kentuckypyssyä ja kelpo veitsi voivat taitavissa käsissä.

Nyt vasta huomasivat leiriläiset maassa makaavat jaguarit, sitten

huomasivat he metsästäjän toverin, jota nimitettiin unikeoksi,
kylmällä vedellä hautovan pitkää veristä naarmua, joka ulottui
toiselta olkapäältä rinnalle ja oli jotenkin syvä.

— Puukko on sentään parempi kuin terävimmät kynnet, sanoi hän

viitaten kuolleeseen petoon, jonka vatsa oli kokonaan halaistu,
samalla kun aivoihin sattunut luoti oli sen tappanut.

— Lieneeköhän tässä lähellä haciendaa, jossa saisi myydä kaksi

kaunista tiikerin taljaa ja yhden puuman nahan? kysyi unikeko.

— On, sanoi eräs palvelija, me olemme juuri matkalla del Venadon

haciendaan, joka on muutaman penikulman päästä tästä; sieltä
saatte, paitsi viittä piasteria kustakin nahasta, lisäksi kymmenen
piasterin palkinnon.

— Mitä siitä arvelet, kanadalainen, menemmekö niin kauvaksi?

— Tietysti! Viisikolmatta piasteria on sievä summa; vähän

levättyämme lähdemme sinne ennen teitä, ellette pian saa pakoon
juosseita hevosianne kiinni.

— Olkaa huoletta, sanoi toinen palvelija, kyllä ne heti kiinni

saamme.

Nuotio sytytettiin uudestaan ja palvelijat alkoivat laittaa illallista.

Don Estevan kutsui pelottomat metsästäjät luoksensa ja istahti
heidän kanssaan vähän matkan päähän nuotiosta. Tiburciokin
kutsuttiin sinne. Hänen istuessaan silmäili don Estevan häntä tarkoin
ja mutisi muutamia epäselviä sanoja. Näytti, ikäänkuin olisi tuo
nuorukainen, josta ei kukaan muuta tiennyt kuin että hän oli
Arellanos-vainajan kasvatti, jonkun yhdennäköisyyden vuoksi
muistuttanut jostain hänen muinoin tuntemastaan henkilöstä. Olipa
sen asian laita kuinka tahansa, nuoren vaqueron näkö ei tehnyt
miellyttävää vaikutusta don Estevaniin, vaikka tämä varoi, ettei sitä
kukaan läsnä-olija huomannut.

Toisellaiset olivat ne tunteet, jotka saman nuorukaisen näkö näytti

herättävän vanhemmassa ja voimakkaammassa metsästäjässä.
Ikäänkuin salaman sokaisemana ummisti hän silmänsä, ja hänen
jäsenensä vavahtivat, kuin olisi hän tahtonut hyökätä nuorukaisen
luokse. Mutta pian saavutti hän entisen tyyneytensä, samalla kuin
hän iloinen hymy huulillaan loi silmänsä Tiburcioon.
 Toisessakin metsästäjässä näytti yhtyminen matkustajain kanssa
herättävän eloon tunteita, sillä hän mutisi itseksensä ja painoi
karvalakkinsa syvemmälle päähän, ikäänkuin olisi hän halunnut
salata kasvonsa joltakulta läsnä-olevalta.

Keskustelu kääntyi molempien metsästäjien ammattiin; he

sanoivat olevansa metsäsissejä ja kotoisin Amerikasta. Don Estevan
koki taivuttaa molempia miehiä yhtymään hänen retkeensä, mutta ei
onnistunut; nuo miehet pitivät enemmän metsien vapaasta elämästä
kuin raha-voitosta, jonka siitä luopuminen tuottaisi.

Ei kauvan viipynyt, ennenkuin kaikki muut paitsi Tiburcio, olivat

nukkuneet. Seikkailut, joissa hän vastikään oli ollut, hänen nykyinen
kurja tilansa, kuin myöskin tuo epäluulo, joka hänessä oli herännyt
Cuchilloa vastaan, pitivät häntä vielä hetkisen hereillä. Hän ajatteli
myöskin, että kultalaaksoa koskeva salaisuus, jonka hänen
kasvatusäitinsä kuolinvuoteellaan oli hänelle kertonut, saattaisi hänet
äärettömän rikkaaksi, mutta hän oli, niin pitkältä kuin muisti,
tottunut kieltäymyksiin, joten tämä voiton toivo ei vaikuttanut
häneen mitenkään kiihottavasti. Ainoastaan yhden asian halusi hän
kernaasti tietää, nimittäin oliko hänen epäluulonsa henkensä
pelastajaa kohtaan oikeutettu, ja olisiko matkueella, josta tämä oli
puhunut ja johon oli vaatinut häntä osaa ottamaan, päämääränään
juuri sama laakso, josta hänen kasvatus-äitinsä oli hänelle puhunut.
Näitä ajatellessaan saavutti hänet kuitenkin hetki, jolloin hänen
silmänsä ummistuivat ja hän vaipui uneen.

Tuskin sarasti päivä idässä, kun matkailijat valmistautuivat

lähtöön, ja Tiburcio jälleen istui Cuchillon kanssa hevosen selässä.
Molemmat metsästäjät olivat jo ennen poistuneet; sitten vasta
nähtiin heidät kun ratsujoukko jätti metsän ja saapui aukealle
kedolle. Pian näkyivät etäältä hacienda del Venadon rakennukset, ja
muutaman tunnin kuluttua oltiin niin lähellä, että voitiin katsella
siellä työskentelevien maamiesten innokasta tointa ja nähdä eri
rakennusten asema.

Nämä olivat kivestä rakennetut kahta tarkoitusta varten, nimittäin

talon rakennuksiksi ja samalla linnoitukseksi seudulla kuljeksivien
intiaanien hyökkäystä vastaan. Niitä ympäröi joka taholla rikkaat
peltomaat, joita haciendaron'in [maanomistajan] päivätyöläiset,
jotka asuivat lähellä olevassa kylässä, viljelivät. Sen ohessa
muodostivat nämä isäntänsä päällikkyyden alaisina hätätilassa täysin
riittävän puolustusväen tuohon pieneen linnaan.

Don Augustin Pena — se oli omistajan nimi — oli paikkakunnan

rikkain mies. Hän ei ollut ainoastaan tuota kaunista kartanoa
ympäröivän maan omistaja, vaan hän myöskin omisti kultakaivoksen,
joka sijaitsi hänen laajojen tiluksiensa läheisyydessä. Hänellä oli
ainoa lapsi, tytär Rosarita, joka oli yhtä rakastettava kuin kauniskin
ja joka kerran oli saava suunnattomat rikkaudet perinnökseen.

Koska tilanhaltia edellä lähetetyn viestin kautta oli saanut tiedon

Estevanin tulosta, olivat haciendan portit avoinna, ja hän itse oli
odottamatonta vierastansa vastaanottamassa. Hän oli tanakka mies
ja hänen ahavoituneet kasvonsa osoittivat niin hyvin maamiehen
avomielisyyttä kuin tuota päättäväisyyttä, joka on alinomaisissa
vaaroissa eläneen miehen tuntomerkkinä. Hän otti kohteliaasti
vastaan don Estevanin, jota hän ei milloinkaan ennen ollut nähnyt, ja
Tiburcioakin kohtaan, joka eräässä ennen sattuneessa tilaisuudessa
oli hänelle ja hänen tyttärelleen tehnyt suurenmoisen palveluksen, oli
hän ystävällinen ja alentuvainen.
 Salissa odotti matkustajia haciendaronin tytär, ja sitten vietiin
heidät toiseen huoneeseen, jossa rikkaasti katettu pöytä heitä odotti.
Samassa tilaisuudessa esitti tilanhaltia don Estevanille uuden
osanottajan hänen yritykseensä, don Diaz'in. Tämä aikoi yhtyä
retkikuntaan. Pedro Diaz oli uskalias seikkailija, jonka nimeä intiaanit
suuresti pelkäsivät. Päivällinen syötiin iloisesti haastellen, ja
keskustelu koski yksinomaan don Estevanin yritystä; päivällisen
loputtua siirtyivät matkustajat heitä varten valmistettuihin huoneisiin.

Pian kuitenkin nähtiin don Estevanin lähtevän kalliisti sisustetusta

huoneestaan ja menevän Cuchillon seurassa puistoon, jonka
varjoisia käytäviä valaisivat nousevan kuun säteet. Hetkisen
äänetönnä kuljettuaan alkoivat he hiljaa ja kuiskien keskustella.
Keskustelun aiheena oli Tiburcio, Marcos Arellanoksen kasvattipoika.
Molemmilla näytti, vaikka vast'ikään olivat tuon nuorukaisen seurasta
tulleet, olevan joku yhteinen syy vihata häntä, ja he tuumivat
keinoja, miten helpoimmin pääsisivät hänestä. Cuchillo, joka epäili
salaisuutensa olevan nuorukaisen tiedossa, oli keksinyt keinon tähän
ja pyysi don Estevania jättämään asian hänen huolekseen. Tämä ei
kuitenkaan vielä itsekään tiennyt, mitä tekisi, ja hän katsoi
soveliaammaksi salata rosvolta syyt, jotka saattoivat hänet
nuorukaista vihaamaan.

Satunnaisesti ohjasi Tiburciokin samaan aikaan, kun hänen

kohtalostaan salaisesti keskusteltiin, askeleensa puistoon, sillä
hänestä tuntui vastenmieliseltä tavata jälleen Cuchillo, jonka hän
otaksui olevan sisällä talossa. Myöskin häntä käski joku selittämätön
tunne karttamaan tuota meksikolaista, joka Cuchillon välityksellä
tahtoi häntä palvelukseensa, ja hän juuri ajatteli olevan itselleen
edullisinta tarjoutua tilanhaltian palvelukseen vaquerona.
 Kun hän näin huolettomana hitaasti kulki pitkin puiston varjoisia
käytäviä, kuuli hän äkisti viehättävän naisäänen laulavan. Hän
kuunteli, eikä tiennyt menisikö vastaiselle suunnalle, josta ääni
kuului, vai jäisikö paikalleen. Tuo lumous ja tuo sisällinen tunne
laulussa saattoivat hänet lähestymään. Pian näki hän valonsäteen
viiniköynnöksien ympäröimästä ikkunasta. Hän lähestyi ja näki
Rosaritan laulavan, kitaralla itseään säestäen. Tiburcio kuunteli
hartaana laulua, joka kaikui tytön huulilta, eikä kuullut pensasten
kahinaa takanaan, eikä hiljaista kuiskinaa.

Hetken kuluttua vaikeni laulaja ja nousi, aukaistakseen akkunan.

Tämän odottamattoman liikkeen vaikutuksesta vetäytyi Tiburcio
vähän etäämmälle pensastoon, ollakseen piilossa häneltä. Samassa
tuokiossa kahisivat lehdet selvemmin hänen takanaan, ja ennenkuin
hän kerkesi taaksensa katsoa, sai hän ankaran töytäyksen selkäänsä,
jolloin hän menetti tasapainonsa ja kaatui. Ennenkuin hän ennätti
nousta ylös, kumartui joku henkilö hänen ylitseen, leveä puukko
kädessä. Kun hyökkääjä nosti kätensä, iskeäkseen uudelleen, toipui
Tiburcio hämmästyksestään ja tempasi tuntemattoman pitkälleen
maahan.

Muutamia minuuttia kiertelivät taistelijat maassa sanaakaan

sanomatta, ja kuului ainoastaan heidän raskas hengityksensä.
Puukko putosi hyökkääjän kädestä, eikä kumpikaan taistelijoista
saanut sitä käsiinsä. Lujalla voimainsa ponnistuksella nousi Tiburcio
äkisti ylös, painoi polveaan Cuchillon rintaa vasten — sillä tuo kavala
vihollinen ei ollut kukaan muu — ja koetti saada puukkoansa
vyöltään.

Äkkiä hyökkäsi esiin toinen henkilö. Se oli don Estevan, joka tähän
asti oli ollut taistelun toimettomana katselijana. Hän näkyi hetkisen
epäröivän, mille puolelle hän kävisi, kun eräs ääni huudahti:

— Pysähtykää, pysähtykää, pyhän neitsyen nimessä! Tuo

nuorukainen on isäni vieras, hänen henkensä on pyhä meidän
kattomme suojassa.

Se oli Rosarita, joka oli kuullut melun, ja riensi erottamaan

taistelijoita.

— Jumalani! huudahti hän, te olette haavoitettu? Don Estevan,

sennor
Cuchillo, vetäytykää takaisin!

Tämä väliintulo ratkaisi asian. Tiburcio päästi Cuchillon, joka mutisi

muutamia käsittämättömiä sanoja, ja sitten don Estevanin kanssa
katosi puiden pimeään varjoon.

Tiburcio jäi yksin Rosaritan kanssa. Hän kiitti tyttöä kohteliain

sanoin siitä avusta, jonka tyttö oli hänelle antanut, mutta tunsi
mielessään, ettei hän enää voinut jäädä haciendaan. Vaikka Rosarita
useita kertoja pyysi häntä jäämään, pysyi hän kuitenkin
päätöksessään heti lähteä talosta ja sanaa sanomatta kumartaen
poistui hän. Tyttö riensi perässä huutaen, että kuolema odotti häntä
talon ulkopuolella, mutta turhaan; hän hyppäsi puistoa ympäröivän
aitauksen yli ja riensi pois. Minne? Sitä ei tuo nuorukais-raukka
tiennyt, mutta sydämessään oli hän vakuutettu, että jumalallinen
sallimus, joka jo kerran niin ihmeellisellä tavalla oli hänen henkensä
säästänyt, nytkin veisi hänet suojelevan katon alle.

Enemmän hän kuitenkin ajatteli kuluneita hetkiä kuin

tulevaisuuttaan. Turhaan koki hän saada selkoa siitä, mikä oli
saattanut Cuchillon, joka vasta oli pelastanut hänen henkensä, niin
salaa hyökkäämään hänen päällensä; tätä miettiessään vakaantui
hänessä yhä enemmän yksi ainoa otaksuminen, se nimittäin, etteivät
hänen epäluulonsa Cuchillon suhteen olleet aiheettomia ja että tämä
sen vuoksi koki saada häntä tieltä pois. Don Estevaninkin läsnä-olo
tuntui hänestä siten selitettävältä, vaikka tämä olikin tahtonut
esiintyä enemmän hänen suojelijanaan kuin vihollisenaan.

Kun Tiburcio näihin synkkiin ajatuksiin vaipuneena meni eteenpäin

tietä tarkastelematta ja poistui yhä enemmän haciendasta, huomasi
hän äkkiä loitolla olevan valon välkkymisen; se pysyi samalla
kohdalla, mistä loistikin. Sen tyyni valo tuntui kutsuvan Tiburciota
lähemmäksi, ja hän ohjasi matkansa sinne, toivoen ehkä löytävänsä
ihmisiä, jotka yöksi soisivat hänelle lepopaikan nuotionsa ääressä ja
olisivat hänelle apuna taistelussa Cuchillon kanssa saamansa haavan
sitomisessa.

5.

MOLEMMAT TIIKERINPYYTÄJÄT.

Onnellinen todellakin oli se tähti, joka tänä yönä loisti tuolle

orvolle nuorukaiselle ja johti hänet paikalle, jossa hän toivoi
nauttivansa turvaa.

Metsän rinteelle, vähän matkan päähän haciendasta, oli nimittäin

asettunut kaksi henkilöä, jotka eivät huolineet talon
vieraanvaraisuudesta. Olemme jo tulleet tuntemaan heidät ja
lisäämme, että siinä olivat molemmat pelottomat metsästäjät, jotka
pitkästä matkasta väsyneinä olivat levähtämässä.
 Kun nämä molemmat usein tulevat huomiomme esineiksi, lienee
sopivaa vielä kerran lähemmin tarkastella heitä.

Toisella heistä, joka oli nimittänyt itseään "metsäsissiksi", oli nuttu,

joka erittäin hyvin sopi metsäelämään ja joka samalla muistutti
intiaanien ja valko-ihoisten pukua. Päässä oli hänellä katkaistun
keilan muotoinen ketunnahka-lakki. Nutun alla oli hänellä
siniraitanen puuvilla-röijy ja hänen vieressään maassa oli
jonkunlainen päällysviitta, villapeitteestä tehty. Hänellä oli
nahkasäärykset, mutta mokkasiinien sijasta oli hänellä jaloissaan
raudoitetut saappaat, niin tukevat, että ne voivat kestää vuosikausia.

Huolellisesti sileäksi raavittu puhvelin sarvi riippui hänen toiselta

olkapäältään. Se oli ruutisarvi; toisella puolen riippuva nahkapussi
sisälsi taasen suuren varaston lyijyluotia. Hänen vieressään oleva
pitkä pyssy ja kirjavaan villavyöhön pistetty metsästyspuukko
täydensi metsästäjän varustuksen. Hänen jättiläismäisestä
vartalostaan tunsi hänet Kanadan ensimäisten siirtolaisten rohkeaksi
jälkeläiseksi, joka kansan rotu siellä käy yhä harvinaisemmaksi.
Hänen hiuksensa alkoivat harmaantua ja tuskin olisi niitä erottanut
lakista, ellei leveä, pyöreä arpi, joka ulottui toiselta ohimolta toiselle,
olisi ollut kummankin rajalla. Tämä arpi osoitti, että vaikka hänellä
vielä olikin hiuksensa tallella, oli hän ollut vaarassa kadottaa ne.

Tämän jättiläisen ahavoituneet kasvot näyttivät olevan pronssista,

kun niitä katseli leimuavan tulen valossa. Muuten kajasti hänen
kasvoiltaan suopeus, mikä hyvin soveltui hänen jäntereittensä
jättiläisvoimiin.

Vaikka hänen toverinsakin oli suurikasvuinen, näytti hän kääpiöltä

tämän jättiläisen rinnalla. Hän oli noin viidenviidettä ikäinen, hänen
mustat silmänsä olivat rohkean ja kiivaan mielen ilmaisijana.
Nähtävästi polveutui hän eteläisemmästä ilmanalasta, sillä hehkuva
aurinko oli hänen kasvonsa ahavoittanut.

Vaikka hän oli puettu melkein samalla tavoin kuin toverinsakin,

osoitti hänen pukunsa hänen pikemmin olevan ratsastajan kuin
jalkamiehen. Hänen rikkinäiset saappaansa kuitenkin todistivat, että
hänen oli usein täytynyt tehdä pitkiäkin jalkamatkoja.

Molemmat metsästäjät olivat heittäyneet sammalille nuotion

ääreen ja katselivat mielihyvällä lampaan reittä, joka oli pistetty
rautatammiseen keppiin hiilille paistumaan, jolloin sen maukas mehu
poristen tipahteli tuleen.

Molemmat miehet kertoilivat toisilleen aikaisempia

elämänvaiheitansa ja nuorempi kertoi toverilleen ne tapaukset, jotka
olemme kertomuksemme alussa maininneet. Todella ei hän ollutkaan
kukaan muu kuin sama mies, jonka olemme tulleet tuntemaan José
unikeon nimellä Elanchovin lahdelmassa. Hänen omatuntonsa oli
käynyt levottomaksi siellä tapahtuneen ilkityön jälkeen, ja kun hän
tahtoi tietää sinä yönä sattuneiden tapausten yhteyden, joihin hän
itsekin oli ollut osallinen, oli hän haastattanut kapteeninsa, joka oli
määrännyt hänet vartioimaan rannikolle, ja syyttänyt häntä
osallisuudesta kreivittären murhaan. Lahjomalla tuomarit onnistui
kapteenin poistaa syytös itsestään ja saada José lähetetyksi
espanjalaiseen alusmaahan, Ceutaan. Monien seikkailujen jälkeen
onnistui miesparan paeta Amerikaan ja täällä kohtasi hän
metsäsissin, joka tuosta entisestä rajavartiasta oli tehnyt kelpo
ampujan ja eleli hänen kanssaan parhaimmassa toveruudessa.

Heidän näin jutellessaan aikaisemmasta elämästään kertoi

kanadalainen, että hän oli ollut merimiehenä ja että samallaiset
kohtalot kuin Josénkin olivat pakottaneet hänet luopumaan
merielämästä. Silloin kuulivat he jonkun lähenevän. Se oli Tiburcio,
joka heti äänestä tunsi kanadalaisen; hän läheni metsästäjiä, anoen
suojaa.

— Te olette tervetullut, sanoi kanadalainen, ojentaen kätensä

lähenevälle, jonka kasvoja hän jo edellisenä iltana oli mieltymyksellä
tarkastellut. José taasen katseli häntä erittäin kummastuneena.

— Oletteko eksynyt ratsastajista, joiden seurassa teidät eilen illalla

näimme? kysyi José Tiburciolta, joka väsyneenä vaipui maahan, ja
ettekö tiedä, että neljännestunnin matkan päässä täältä olisitte
saaneet paremman vastaanoton? Ehkäpä haciendan omistaja on
kieltänyt teiltä yösijan, vai tuletteko sieltä?

— Sieltä minä tulen, vastasi Tiburcio; en voi moittia don

Augustinia puuttuvasta vieraanvaraisuudesta, mutta hänellä on
vieraita, joiden kanssa oman turvallisuuteni vuoksi en voi olla saman
katon alla.

— Miten? kysyi José, onko mitään tapahtunut?

Tiburcio aukaisi viittansa ja näytti oikeata kättänsä; hihan oli

Cuchillon puukko poikki leikannut ja se oli verinen.

— Perhana vieköön! sanoi kanadalainen, te olette ollut tekemisissä

vakavakätisen roiston kanssa. Jokunen tuuma syrjään, ja henkenne
olisi mennyttä! Tyyntykää kuitenkin, jatkoi hän, varovasti irroittaen
haavaan kuivaneet vaatteenpalaset, tämä ei ole vaarallinen, nuori
ystäväni.

Hän kostutti haavaa vedellä ja käski Josén hankkimaan kourallisen

oregamoruohoja. Tämä toi niitä heti, tarkoin täyttäen metsäsissin
käskyn. Hän teki kääreen näistä terveellisistä ruohoista, asetti sen
haavalle ja sitoi sen Tiburcion omalla vyöllä. Sitten kehoitti hän
Tiburciota ottamaan osaa heidän ateriaansa, mutta tämä kiitti ja
ilmaisi haluavansa päästä lepäämään muutamaksi tunniksi. Tämä
mieluisesti suotiin, ja pian vaipui hän raskaaseen uneen.
Kanadalainen katseli häntä jonkun hetken vaiti ollen ja kääntyi sitten
Josén puoleen sanoen:

— Elleivät hänen kasvonsa kokonaan eksytä minua, niin ei meidän

tarvitse katua sitä, että otimme tuon nuorukaisraukan huostaamme.
Kuinkahan vanha hän lienee? jatkoi hän kasvojen ilmaistessa suurta
osanottavaisuutta hänen tätä kysyessään.

— Hän ei ole neljääkolmatta vuotta vanhempi, se on varma, sanoi

entinen rajavartia.

— Niin minäkin luulen, lausui kanadalainen, puhuen enemmän

itsekseen kuin ystävälleen ja surumielinen kajastus saattoi hänen
jyrkät kasvonpiirteensä näyttämään lempeämmiltä; juuri sen ikäinen
hän on, jos hän vielä elää. Näin lausuessaan pääsi huoahdus hänen
leveästä rinnastaan.

— Mitä tarkoitat? keskeytti hänet äkkiä espanjalainen, jonka

sydämessä nämä sanat näkyivät herättävän vastakaiun.

— Mitä kerran on tapahtunut, se on tapahtunut, sen sanon sinulle,

lisäsi metsäsissi, ja jos joku on pois, on parasta unohtaa hänet.
Älkäämme sitä enää ajatelko, yksin olen minä elänyt metsissä, yksin
täytyy minun kuolla.

Tähän päättyi heidän keskustelunsa, ja he alottivat ateriansa.

Sitten lähti José noutamaan haciendan hevosta; tätä ei hän eikä
hänen toverinsa pitänyt rikoksena, näitä eläimiä kun siellä oli kyllin.

Kanadalainen jäi yksin. Taasen katseli hän nukkuvaa Tiburciota,

heitti vieläkin kourallisen kuivia oksia tuleen ja laskeutui myöskin
nukkumaan.

Nyt kuului vain yötuulen suhina noiden puitten latvoissa, joiden

juurella nuo kaksi olentoa lepäsivät aavistamatta, että he
kaksikymmentä vuotta aikaisemmin olivat levänneet toistensa
vieressä valtameren kohinan tuuditellessa heitä uneen, samoin kuin
nyt aarniometsän puiden suhinan.

6.

TIBURCION SALAISUUS.

Tiburcion ja kanadalaisen nauttiessa tyyntä lepoa, vallitsi suuri

levottomuus haciendaan saapuneiden vieraiden keskuudessa. Don
Estevan oli salaisessa neuvottelussa huoneessaan Cuchillon kanssa,
ja käski tämän vielä samana yönä ottamaan valtaansa Tiburcion,
joka, tietäen kultalaakson salaisuuden, saattoi käydä hänelle
vaaralliseksi. Samalla tuntuivat toiset, vieläkin tärkeämmät syyt
pakottavan häntä saamaan nuorukaisen haltuunsa; nämä syyt
selkenevät kertomuksemme aikana. Tarkoin harkittuaan piti don
Estevan asiata niin tärkeänä, että hän päätti vielä samana yönä
asettua seuralaistensa etunenään, ajaaksensa paennutta takaa.
Onnettomuudeksi oli Cuchillo kuunnellut poistuvan askeleita ja
huomannut hänen menevän metsän syrjässä olevaa tulta kohti.
Sieltä hän siis toivoi löytävänsä hänet, ja ehkäpä vastarinnatta
vangitsevansakin. Kun joukko lähti haciendasta, oli Cuchillo jo
hevosellaan mennyt samaan suuntaan.

Saavuttuansa nuotion läheisyyteen sitoi hän hevosensa sumach-

puun runkoon, ja hiipi sitten jaguarin tavoin eteenpäin. Kuu valaisi
metsää, ja jota enemmän Cuchillo läheni metsän puita, sitä
selkeämmin näkyi nuotion tuli. Hän hiipi yhä eteenpäin, kunnes ehti
erään mangoliapuun yhteenkasvaneen juurakon luo. Tähän pysähtyi
hän, ja ilkeä hymy kuvastui hänen kasvoilleen, kun hän katseli
nuotiolle.

José oli juuri palannut saaliineen ja laskeutunut lepäämään,

samalla kun kanadalainen, joka oli herännyt, asettui vartioimaan.
Metsästäjä meni hiljaa nukkuvan Tiburcion luo, kumartui hänen
ylitsensä ja katseli tarkoin hänen kasvojansa. Sitten palasi hän
entiselle paikalleen lausuen:

— Siinä ijässä täytyy hänenkin olla, jos hän vielä on elossa. Mutta
kuka voisi kukoistavassa nuorukaisessa tuntea lapsen, joka
nelivuotisena ryöstettiin minulta?

Epäilevä hymy ilmestyi metsästäjän tätä hiljaa lausuessa hänen

huulillensa, ikäänkuin olisi hän itse käsittänyt tuollaisen otaksumisen
mahdottomuuden.

— Ja kuitenkin, jatkoi hän, olen elänyt kyllin kauan Ja nähnyt

paljon, epäilläkseni salliman kaikkivaltaisuutta. Miksi ei nyt sellainen
ihme tapahtuisi. Eikö se jo ollut ihme, kun löysin valtamereltä lapsen,
joka vilusta ja nälästä kuolemaisillaan lepäsi murhatun äitinsä
rinnoilla? Ken tietää? Jumalan tiet ovat käsittämättömät.
 Metsäsissi lausui tämän itsekseen, mennen uudelleen katsomaan,
eikö hän Tiburcion kasvonpiirteissä keksisi yhtäläisyyttä tuon lapsen
kanssa, jonka hän oli pelastanut ja jota hän isän tavoin oli
rakastanut. Tarpeetonta lienee enää lukijalta salata, ken oli tuo
metsäsissi, sillä hän on varmaan jo itse tuntenut hänet ennen
mainituksi merimieheksi, Rosenholziksi.

Tämä läheni siis vielä kerran Tiburciota, kumartui hänen ylitsensä

ja katseli kauvan hänen kasvojansa. Huomaten näiden olevan
vaaleat ja nuorukaisen tukan tumman, istui hän uudelleen
toiveissaan pettyneen näköisenä ja päätti olla häiritsemättä
nuorukaisen unta.

Hänen näin istuessaan aarniometsän hiljaisuudessa muisteli hän

sitä yötä, jolloin hän — saman Josén, joka nyt oli hänen metsästys-
ja sotatoverinsa, maalitauluna — oli löytänyt taasen kadottamansa
lapsen veneestä, jossa hänen äitinsäkin ruumis oli.

Rosenholz ei kuitenkaan tiennyt, että José unikeko oli sama

rajavartia, jonka kehnon ampumisen hän hyvin muisti, sillä José ei
ollut milloinkaan maininnut tätä tapausta, kun hän halusta olisi
tahtonut elämästänsä poistetuksi sen yön, jolloin hän oli ollut
vartiana lahdelmassa. Sangen kummallista oli kuitenkin, että
molemmat sittemmin olivat sattuneet yhteen, ja jos Rosenholz tällä
hetkellä olisi edes aavistanut, että hänen nykyinen toverinsa oli niin
läheisissä suhteissa siihen tapaukseen, jota hän itse juuri niin
elävästi muisteli, olisi hän varmaan luottamuksella toivonut toistakin,
yhtä kummallista sattumaa. Kuitenkin täytyi hänen vastoin
tahtoansakin hymyillä otaksumisellensa, että nuori, hänen edessään
nukkuva meksikolainen olisi sama Fabian, jota hän kaipasi.
 Rosenholzin ollessa näihin muistelmiin vaipuneena, alkoi yö tuntua
jäätävän kylmältä. Aamu läheni, usva tiheni yhä puunlatvojen
ympärillä ja alkoi kylmänä kasteena pudota maahan. Vielä oli
kuitenkin, huolimatta ajan etenemisestä, aivan hiljaista. Äkkiä
hirnahti hevonen, jonka José oli sitonut puuhun, hypähti syrjään,
kokien katkaista riimunvartta. Varmaankin joku olento, jota ei vielä
voitu nähdä, oli sen peljättänyt.

Tähystellen ja kuunnellen kulki Rosenholz hiljaa eteenpäin. Mutta

kun hän ei nähnyt mitään, mikä olisi hänen epäluuloansa herättänyt,
istui hän uudelleen ja havaitsi Tiburcion heränneen. Tämä katseli
uneksivaisena nuotiota, jonka vieressä hän istui ja kysyi
Rosenholzilta sen kolinan syytä, joka oli hänet herättänyt.

— Ei se mitään ollut, vastasi tämä, vaikka hiljainen ääni, jolla hän

sen lausui, vastusti hänen sanojansa; hevonen kai peljästyi, kun
vainusi jaguarin, joka hiiviskelee sen paikan ympärillä, johon jätimme
sen toverin nahat ja teurastamamme lampaan nahan. Tästä
muistuukin mieleeni, ettei teillä kai ole mitään vastaan, että nautitte
mitä jäljellä on, ja minkä teille säästin.

Kanadalainen ojensi Tiburciolle kaksi kylmää lihanviipaletta, jotka

tämän hyväksi oli pannut erilleen ruohostoon. Tiburciosta maistui
liha mainiolta, ja otettuaan tilkan paloviinaa lämpimiksensä tunsi hän
itsensä aivan uudeksi ihmiseksi.

Nähdessään tuon kanadalaisen metsästäjän, joka niin huolellisesti

oli sitonut hänen haavansa, ei hän enää pitänyt itseänsä niin
yksinäisenä ja hyljättynä; salaperäinen tunne sanoi hänelle, että hän
tuossa hyväntahtoisessa, suorassa miehessä oli löytänyt lujan
ystävän, joka jättiläisvoimillaan, pelottomuudellaan ja
taitavuudellaan oli kaikkien vihollisten kauhuna. Rosenholzkin hymyili
iloisesti katsellessaan Tiburciota ja tunsi sydämensä kiintyvän
nuorukaiseen.

— Kuulkaa, nuori mies, sanoi hän hetken kuluttua, intiaanit

kysyvät vasta sitten vieraittensa nimeä ja säätyä, kun ovat yhdessä
syöneet. Te olette täällä minun nuotiollani, olette nauttinut ruokaani,
rohkenenko siis nyt kysyä teiltä, ken olette ja mitä tapahtui
haciendassa, kun teidät siellä tuolla tavoin vastaan otettiin?

— Aivan mielelläni, vastasi Tiburcio. Syistä, jotka eivät huvittane

teitä, olin jättänyt majani, mennäkseni del Venadan haciendaan.
Matkalla uupui hevoseni väsymykseen ja janoon, ja sen kuollut
ruumis houkutteli puman ja molemmat jaguarit, jotka te ja toverinne
niin rohkeasti ja taitavasti tapoitte.

— Niin, tuumi kanadalainen, eipä tuo urotyö kerskailua kestä.

Mutta jatkakaa! Mikäpä oli syynä siihen, että hyökkäsivät teidän
ikäisenne nuoren miehen päälle, sillä pidänpä veikkaa, ett'ette ole
paljon yli kahdenkymmenen vuoden?

— Olen neljänkolmatta vuotias, vastasi Tiburcio, mutta jatkanpa

kertomustani. Lähellä oli, ettei minun käynyt samoin kuin
hevosrukkani, ja kun kohtasimme yösijalla juottopaikan ääressä, ei
ollut monta hetkeä kulunut siitä, kun ratsastajat löysivät minut
janoon ja kuumeeseen kuolemaisillani. En voi siis selittää, miksi nuo
ihmiset pelastivat minut, koettaaksensa heti sen jälkeen murhata
minua. Ehkäpä olen kahden heistä tiellä; ehkä epäluulo, joka minulla
on yhtä heistä kohtaan, on liiaksikin todenperäinen ja hän aavistaa
sen ja pitää sen vuoksi parhaimpana saada minut tieltä pois.

Tämän sanottuaan katseli Tiburcio vaiti eteensä ja vaipui syviin

ajatuksiin.
 — Mutta mikä on nimenne? Ettehän ole vielä maininnut nimeänne,
lausui metsäsissi hetken kuluttua selvästi nähtävällä osanotolla.

— Nimeni on Tiburcio Arellanos.

Kanadalainen ei saattanut olla huoahtamatta, kuultuansa tämän

nimen, joka tuhosi hänen unelmansa ja vastoin tahtoansakin vei
hänet todellisuuteen takaisin.

— Ehkäpä jokunen muisto liittyy tähän nimeen? sanoi Tiburcio.

Isäni… tässä pysähtyi hän äkkiä,… Arellanos retkeili usein erämaissa,
jossa saatoitte hänet tavata; hän oli kuuluisin gambucino koko
maassa.

— Ensi kerran kuulen tämän nimen, sanoi Rosenholz, mutta

näkönne muistuttaa minulle kauvan sitten tapahtuneita tapauksia.

Metsästäjä vaikeni; Tiburciokin vaikeni, sillä hän muisteli sitä, mikä

hänelle oli sattunut haciendassa, ja piti itseänsä onnellisena siitä,
että oli kohdannut molemmat metsästäjät. Sen vuoksi päätti hän
avata sydämensä kanadalaiselle.

— Olette sanonut olevanne metsästäjä, ja ellen erehdy, jatkoi

Tiburcio, on se vaarallinen ja vähän tuottava ammatti.

— Se ei ole mikään ammatti, vastasi kanadalainen, se on jalo toimi

ja minulle kutsumukseni. Esi-isänikin ovat olleet metsästäjiä, ja minä
olen lyhyen väliajan jälkeen antautunut tähän toimeen, jonka olen
perintönä saanut. Onnettomuudeksi ei minulla ole poikaa, joka
astuisi jälkiäni, ja kuitenkin voin kerskaamatta lausua, että minussa
kuolee jalo ja rohkea suku.

— Ja minä olen kullankaivaja samoin kuin isänikin, sanoi Tiburcio.

 — Niin, te kuulutte niihin ihmisiin, jotka pitävät huolen siitä, ettei
maan sisässä oleva kulta jää maailmalta salaan.

— Isäni ilmaisi minulle salaisuuden, joka koskee erästä ei aivan

kaukana tästä olevaa paikkaa, jossa on niin runsaasti kultaa, että
minä, jos te ja toverinne tahdotte yhtyä minuun, voin tehdä teidät
rikkaammaksi kuin voitte uneksiakaan.

Malttamattomana odotti Tiburcio kanadalaisen vastausta ja oli

melkein varma hänen myöntymisestään. Suuri oli siis hänen
kummastuksensa, kun kanadalainen sanoi:

— Minulle tekemänne tarjous varmaankin houkuttelisi ihmisen,

jonka sydän on yhteen tai toiseen paikkaan sidottuna. Mutta minulla
ei ole mitään kotimaata. Metsä ja erämaat ovat muuttuneet
kodikseni, enkä muuta haluakaan; mitäpä siis kulta minua
hyödyttäisi? Minulla ei ole ketään, jolle siitä olisi hyötyä. Ei, ei,
nuorimies, kiitän teitä, en huoli siitä, lisäsi hän, pitäen käsiään
kasvojensa edessä, ikäänkuin olisi tahtonut temmata katseensa
tuosta viehättävästä kuvasta, jonka Tiburcio oli esiin loihtinut.

— Eihän tuo liene viimeinen sananne? vastasi Tiburcio. Eipä hevin

työnnetä pois aarretta, jonka saavuttamiseksi tarvitsee vain
kumartua.

— Se on järkähtämätön päätökseni, sieluni ja ruumiini on

omistettu toimelle, jossa minun tulee auttaa toveriani, oivaa
kymmenvuotis-kumppaniani. Näen, nuorimies, loukkaavani teitä
kiellollani, lisäsi kanadalainen nähdessään pilven Tiburcion otsalla.

— Kuulkaa, rehellinen metsästäjä, sanoi Tiburcio, en tahdo kieltää,

että epäämisenne tekee tyhjäksi toiveeni, mutta uskokaa minua,
omasta puolestani en valita näiden aarteiden kadottamista, jotka nyt
toisille jätämme…

— Sen uskon, vastasi Rosenholz, sillä kasvonne eivät ilmaise

voitonhimoa. Mutta en sillä kokonaan kiellä tahtovani olla teille
hyödyksi. Minulla on syytä luulla, että Josékin voipi syyttää yhtä
niistä miehistä, jotka ovat teidän vihollisianne; meillä on siis yhteinen
asia.

Tämän keskustelun aikana tuntui usein lausuttu "aarre"-sana

salaperäisesti vaikuttavan Joséhen; hän kääntyi usein, ikäänkuin ei
olisi ollut samaa mieltä toverinsa kanssa.

— Tuo don Estevan, josta olen kuullut puhuttavan, alkoi

kanadalainen uudelleen, on roteva mies, eikö niin? Eikö hän ole tuon
matkustajajoukon johtaja, jossa vielä eilen näin teidät?

— On, vastasi Tiburcio.

— Sen nimen on hän siis täällä itselleen ottanut, lausui nyt José,
nousten istumaan, ottaaksensa osaa keskusteluun.

— Tunnetteko hänet? kysyi nuorukainen.

— Kyllä tunnen hänet, vastasi José, hän on vanha tuttu, jota

minun täytyy vaatia edesvastuuseen muutamista seikoista ja siinä
syy, miksi löysitte minut näiltä seuduilta. Jos tahdotte tietää
enemmän, kerron sen teille sitten, mutta kaikella on aikansa ja nyt
on lepääminen tärkeintä, ollaksemme valmiina kaikkeen, mitä sattua
voi.

— Seis, José! sanoi kanadalainen hyvänsuovasti. Näyttää, kuin

tahtoisit olla nimesi kaltainen. Kuule minua hetkinen! Tämä
nuorukainen on tehnyt meille tarjouksen, että seuraisimme häntä
etsimään niin runsasta kultasuonta, että tarvitsee vain kumartua
saadaksensa käden täydeltä kultaa.

— No totta vieköön, huudahti José, toivon, että suostuit hänen

tarjoukseensa.

— Päin vastoin, minä hylkäsin sen.

— Teit väärin, Rosenholz; asia sietää parempaa harkitsemista,

mutta siitä puhumme sitten; nyt minulla on muuta tekemistä.

Näin sanoen oikaisi José itsensä uudelleen ja pian kuultiin hänen

kuorsaamisestaan, että hän oli taasen nukkunut.

Tiburciota ilahutti nähdessään, ettei ollut kokonaan pettynyt

toiveissaan ja Rosenholz alotti taasen:

— Näettepä, lausui hän, Joséssa miehen, joka on valmis

taistelemaan tuon don Estevanin kanssa ja siitä voitte arvata, että
minä autan häntä, sillä hänen vihollisensa ovat minunkin. Pidän
itseäni sen vuoksi onnellisena, voidessani auttaa teitä kelpo
pyssylläni, joka ei milloinkaan satu syrjään.

Näin sanoessaan näytti hän tarkoin katselevan pitkän pyssynsä

perää, jossa Tiburcio nyt huomasi koko joukon kummallisia, veitsen
kärjellä kaivettuja merkkejä.

Rosenholz lausui huomaten nuorukaisen kummastuneen katseen:

te varmaan laskette skalppiani.

— Skalppianne? toisti Tiburcio kummastuneena, sillä hän ei

tuntenut metsästäjäin tapoja.
 — Niin, vastasi kanadalainen. Pakanalliset intiaanit laskevat
uhriensa luvun heidän päänahkojensa, skalppiensa mukaan, me
metsäsissit laskemme voitonmerkkimme kristittyjen tavoin. Nuo
uurrokset osoittavat vihollisteni luvun, jotka rehellisellä tavalla olen
sotapolulla tappanut, niinkuin intiaanit sanovat.

— Mutta onhan siinä ainakin parikymmentä sellaista uurrosta,

lausui
Tiburcio.

— Voisitte sanoa neljäkymmentä, ettekä sittenkään vielä olisi

kaikkia laskenut, lausui kanadalainen hymyillen. Nämä yksinkertaiset
ristit tarkoittavat apahia, kaksinkertaiset pavnioita, nuo
kolmenkertaiset sioux-indiaania, nuo tähdet korppia ja tässä, jatkoi
kanadalainen, merkkiä laskien, on litteäpäitä ja mustajalkoja, jotka
ainaiseksi ovat sanoneet jäähyväiset aavikoiden metsästysmaille.
Mihin olisin näiden kaikkien päänahat pannut? Intiaanien
turhamielisyys saa ne pitää.

Hämmästyneenä kuunteli Tiburcio tuon kelpo kanadalaisen

voitonvirttä.

— Niin, jatkoi Rosenholz, olinko väärässä sanoessani, että voitte

luottaa ystävään, joka on yhtä rohkea kuin ken toinen tahansa? Näin
sanoen ojensi hän avomielisesti, mikä vaikutti enemmän kuin hänen
sanansa, kätensä Tiburciolle. Nuorukainen, tajuten epätoivoisen
tilansa, kiitti häntä lämpimästi.

— Salaperäinen aavistus, lausui hän, sanoi minulle että valo, jonka

metsästä näin välkkyvän haciendaan, olisi minulle onnen tähtenä.
 — Siinä ette erehtynyt, sanoi Rosenholz. Mutta suokaa vanhan
miehen tehdä muutamia kysymyksiä, jotka teistä ehkä tuntuvat
tunkeilevilta. Te olette vielä nuori; eikö teillä enää ole isää, jonka
luona saisitte turvaa?

Tämän kysymyksen kuullessaan peitti Tiburcion posket hehkuva

puna, hän oli hetken vaiti ja sanoi sitten:

— Miksi en ilmaisisi teille, että minä kaikin puolin vihollisten

ympäröimänä olen aivan yksin tässä maailmassa eikä minulla ole
isää eikä äitiä.

— Molemmat ovat siis kuolleet? sanoi Rosenholz säälien.

— En ole milloinkaan heitä tuntenut, sanoi nuorukainen hiljaa.

— Sanotte, ettette ole milloinkaan heitä tuntenut! Sanotteko

todella niin? huudahti kanadalainen äkkiä nousten ylös ja valaisten
palavalla kekäleellä Tiburcion kasvoja.

Kovin raskaalta tuntui tämä kekäle jättiläisen kädessä; se vapisi,

kun hän huudahti äänellä, joka saattoi Tiburcionkin vapisemaan:

— Mutta tiedättehän ainakin, missä maassa olette syntynyt?

— Sitä en tiedä, vastasi Tiburcio.

— Fabian! Fabian! sanoi Rosenholz hellällä äänellä, mitä on sinusta

tullut?

— Fabian?… Tuota nimeä en tunne, lausui Tiburcio, jonka

kummastus eneni yhä enemmän, kun kanadalainen häntä
innokkaasti tarkasteli.
 — Oi, Jumalani, sanoi Rosenholz surullisesti itsekseen, kun ei tämä
nimi muistuta hänelle mitään, ei se ole hän. Miksi olenkin niin
houkkiomaisia toiveita pitänyt? Ja kuitenkin ovat hänen kasvonsa
sellaiset, jollaisiksi ne vuosien kuluessa olisivat kehittyneet. Mutta
anteeksi, nuori ystäväni, minä olen narri, järkensä kadottanut
ihminen. Ja kanadalainen heitti palavan kekäleen uudelleen
nuotioon, istui saman puun juurelle, jossa äskenkin oli istunut, ja
käänsi selkänsä nuotiota kohti, niin että hän joutui kokonaan tuon
runsaslehtisen korkkipuun varjoon, jonka runkoon hän nojasi.

Jo valaisivat sinertävät värivivahdukset puiden korkeimpia latvoja;

päivä oli pian koittava, mutta metsän siimeksessä oli vielä aivan
pimeä. Kuultiin kukon laulua lähellä olevasta haciendasta.

Tiburcio mietiskeli metsästäjän sanoja; ne tuntuivat hänestä niin

salaperäisiltä, mutta hänen kysymyksiänsä piti hän hyvänsuopana ja
omaa hyötyä tarkoittamattomana uteliaisuutena. Metsäsissi ei ollut
vielä hänelle ilmaissut etsivänsä kadonnutta kasvattiansa. Tämä olisi
selittänyt kaikki, mutta sitä ei Rosenholz ollut kertonut.

— Ehkäpä, sanoi Tiburcio äänettömyyden katkaisten,

muistelmissani aikoja sitten menneestä ajasta olisi joitakuita, jotka
vielä voisi virkistää, mutta sen voi tehdä yksin Jumala.

— Miten? Ettekö muista mitään varmaan? kysyi kanadalainen

hiljaisella äänellä ja synkällä muodolla, painaen päätänsä alas.

— Ja sentään, jatkoi Tiburcio, on yön hiljaisuudessa, sellaisina

öinä kuin tämäkin, ja niinpä sinäkin yönä, jolloin valvoin hänen
ruumiinsa vieressä, jota pidin äitinäni, epävarma hohde valaissut tätä
hämäryyttä, ja silloin olen luullut muistavani muutamia surullisia
tapauksia; mutta varmaankin ne ovat unelmia.
 Tiburcion tätä sanoessa nosti kanadalainen, joka uudelleen alkoi
toivoa, päänsä, ikäänkuin ankaran myrskyn taivuttama tammi. Hän
viittasi kädellään Tiburciolle, ettei tämä katkaisisi muistelmiansa.

— Minusta tuntuu, sanoi nuorukainen, kuin taasen olisin suuressa

huoneessa, jonka läpi puhaltaa tuulen viima, kylmempi kuin
milloinkaan olen tuntenut; minusta tuntuu kuin kuulisin naisen
nyyhkytystä ja sitten ankaran uhkaavan äänen… eikä sitten muuta.

Nämä sanat sammuttivat taasen kanadalaisen toiveet, sillä

muistanemmehan, että hän tiesi vain Elanchovin tapausten
loppuosan.

— Varmaan ne ovat unelmia, sanoi hän surullisesti, mutta

jatkakaa, jatkakaa. Eikö muuta ole muistoonne jäänyt? Ettekö muista
meren kohinaa? Se on sellaista, jota ei milloinkaan unhoita, kun sen
on kerran kuullut, vaikka nuorenakin.

— Neljä vuotta sitten näin ensi kerran meren Guaymasissa, sanoi

Tiburcio, ja sentään olen sen kai nähnyt lapsena, jos on perää
muutamissa saamissani tiedoissa.

— No, sanoi kanadalainen, eikö mikään muistelma liity siihen?

— Ei, ei mikään.

— Ei mikään, toisti kanadalainen, ikäänkuin kaukainen kaiku, eikö

mikään?

— Ei ainakaan mitään varmaa, ja ne ovat kai, niinkuin sanoitte ja

niinkuin itsekin luulen, pelkkiä unelmia, joita pidän todellisuutena.
 — Epäilemättä, sanoi Rosenholz, katkeruuden tunteella, mitenkäpä
voisikaan lapsi muistaa sellaisia.

— Ja näiden unelmien joukossa, jatkoi Tiburcio, näen nyt karkeat

ja ahavoituneet, mutta lempeät kasvot.

— Mitkä kasvot? kysyi Rosenholz uudelleen, kääntäen kasvonsa

nuotioon päin, joka valaisi niiden jännitettyjä lihaksia, samalla kun
hänen rintansa aaltoili.

— Nämä kasvot, vastasi Tiburcio, olivat miehen, joka rakasti

minua suuresti, sillä, lisäsi hän, taasen muistan tuon miehen.

— Mutta te, sanoi Rosenholz, kovan tuskan kuvastuessa hänen

piirteistään, rakastitteko tekin häntä?

— Kyllä, hän oli minulle niin rakas. Kyynel vieri hitaasti ystävämme
Rosenholzin ruskealle poskelle; hän kääntyi sitä salataksensa ja
taasen ollen varjossa, mutisi hän:

— Niin, hänkin rakasti minua niin hellästi.

Sitten sanoi hän murtuneella äänellä, ikäänkuin sydämensä olisi

ollut pakahtua: Ettekö muista tapausta, jolloin tämä mies erotettiin
teistä? Se oli…

Hän ei voinut enempää. Peittäen kasvonsa karkeisin käsiinsä,

odotti hän vavisten vastausta kysymykseensä. Tuskastuttava,
epätietoinen äänettömyys syntyi.

— Kuulkaa, katkaisi Tiburcio vihdoin äänettömyyden, te näytte

voivan johtaa minua, kuulkaa, mitä muistelen. Eräänä päivänä vuoti
veri virtana ympärilläni, maa vapisi jalkojeni alla, ukkonen tai ehkä
kanuunat jyrisivät hirveästi, minut suljettiin pimeään huoneeseen,
jossa suuresti pelkäsin. Mies, josta kerroin, joka minua rakasti, tuli
luokseni.

— Odottakaa, alkoi hän uudelleen, mies, josta kerroin, tuli

luokseni sanoen: polvistu lapseni ja rukoile äitisi puolesta… Mutta
mitä sitten tapahtui, en enää muista.

Tällä välin näytti kanadalainen, jonka vartalo oli varjoon peitetty,

suonenvedon tapaisesti värähtelevän ja nyyhkytystä kuului. Tiburcio
säpsähti, kun kanadalainen särkyneellä äänellä huudahti:

— Ja rukoile äitisi puolesta, jonka löysin kuolleena vierestäsi.

— Niin, niin, huudahti Tiburcio, hypähtäen ylös, niin hän sanoi.

Mutta ken olette te, joka näytte tietävän, mitä tuona kamalana
hetkenä tapahtui?

Kanadalainen nousi sanaakaan lausumatta, lankesi polvilleen ja

huudahti, sydän iloa kukkurallaan, taasen näyttäen karkeat,
miehekkäät kasvonsa, joille vieri kyyneliä:

— Oi, Jumalani, tiesinhän, että vielä kerran lähettäisit hänet

minulle, kun hän tarvitsi isää. Fabian… Fabian! Minä se olen, minä
olin tuo mies.

Tässä hänet äkkiä keskeytti pyssyn paukaus ja luoti iski maahan

Tiburcion viereen.

Unessaan peljästyneenä hyppäsi José nopeasti ylös.