Apocalypse of Abraham - Date of Composition

Date of Composition

The relative age of these works can be determined by comparing the legend of Abraham as contained in the Apocalypse with those in the Talmud and in the Book of Jubilees. The legend of the raven in Jubilees (11:18) and the account of the conversion of Abraham in his boyhood are still unknown to the Apocalypse, while the legend of the fire of the Chaldees is found there still in its incipient stage. The mockery of the idol Barisat is more extended in the Midrash than in the Apocalypse; also the condemnation of Terah as an idolater, as related in the Apocalypse, discloses the older Haggadah (Genesis Rashi 39:7), whereas the Book of Jubilees presents the later one (compare Genesis Rashi 30:4, 39:7, where Terah is treated quite mildly). As the Book of Jubilees can not have been written later than 70 (it treats the Temple as still existing, and is unaware of its destruction in 70AD), it can be dated prior to this.

The Apocalypse of Abraham narrates the Destruction of the Temple so it was written after 70 AD. It is most probably distinct from the Αποκαλυψις Αβρααμ used by the gnostic Sethites according Epiphanius, while this book was possibly known to the author of the Clementine Recognitions i. 32-33, a text that narrates legends known in the 2nd century AD. For this reason, and in comparison with other apocalyptic texts, the text is usually considered to be written before the half of the 2nd century AD. Within the usually accepted range of 70-150 AD, the date of 79-81 AD has been speculated.

Like all the apocalyptic literature preserved only in Slavonic, there is the problem of possible textual alterations made by the Bogomils, who were interested in this kind of literature, which contains some traces of the Dualistic principle typical of their beliefs. However the dualistic principle was also a feature of Gnosticism, which was contemporaneous with the original writing of this text. The main suspected Bogomils' interpolations are 20:5.7, 22:5, 9:7, 23:4-10: as suggested by Rubinkiewicz, but disputed by Sacchi. Scholars suspect that some other interpolations are present: including the whole of chapter 7, and some additions, difficultly determinable in extension, in 29:3-13.