Center for Advanced Judaic Studies, University of Pennsylvania

5HYLHZ)DODVKD5HOLJLRQ$QFLHQW-XGDLVPRU(YROYLQJ(WKLRSLDQ7UDGLWLRQ"
$XWKRUV6WHYHQ.DSODQ
6RXUFH7KH-HZLVK4XDUWHUO\5HYLHZ1HZ6HULHV9RO1R-XOSS
3XEOLVKHGE\University of Pennsylvania Press
6WDEOH85/http://www.jstor.org/stable/1454417 .
$FFHVVHG

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upenn. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Pennsylvania Press and Center for Advanced Judaic Studies, University of Pennsylvania are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Jewish Quarterly Review.

http://www.jstor.org
THEJEWISH LXXIX,No. 1 (July,1988)49-65
REVIEW,
QUARTERLY

"FALASHA" RELIGION: ANCIENT JUDAISM OR

EVOLVING ETHIOPIAN TRADITION?
A REVIEW ARTICLE*

STEVEN KAPLAN, HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM

This article considers recent research on the religion of the Beta

Israel (Falasha), and in particular Kay Kaufman Shelemay's Music,
Ritual, and Falasha History. Most scholars have, on the basis of an
artificially static and ahistorical picture of the Beta Israel religion,
depicted it as a form of ancient Judaism. In contrast, Shelemay
contends that the Beta Israel's religious tradition developed around
the fourteenth or fifteenth century and draws heavily on Christian
Ethiopian sources. While generally favorable to her views, this article
attempts to demonstrate that the development of Beta Israel religion
was a more gradual process than she claims and continued into even
later periods. Evidence to support this theory is drawn from oral
traditions and Beta Israel literature.

"And if a religion is not developing,

is it a religion at all"?
-Mary Douglas'

The much publicized airlift of thousands of Beta Israel (Fa-

lasha)2 to Israel has fueled a renewed interest in this fascinating
people. No less than half a dozen books have appeared on the
dramatic story of "Operation Moses," and a recently published

* The research on which this article is based was carried out under the
auspices
of the Ben Zvi Institute for the Study of Jewish Communities of the East and the
Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace. It forms part
of a research project in cooperation with Dr. Shalva Well, which is supported by
the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture.
Mary Douglas, "A Ritual in Time," Times Literary Supplement, August 14,
1987, p. 870.
2 Although best known to their neighbors and the outside world as "Falasha"
(wanderers, landless, emigrants), the Jews of Ethiopia referred to themselves as
"Beta Esra'el" ("the house of Israel"). Today many reject the term "Falasha" as
pejorative, and accordingly I have used the term Beta Israel throughout this
article.
50 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

bibliography listed almost 1,500 items on the Jews of Ethiopia.3

As is to be expected, most of the writings produced as a result of
this most recent "discovery" of the Beta Israel have been popular
in character and contribute little to a genuine understanding of
their history and culture. Fortunately, scholarly researchers also
have begun to turn their attention the Beta Israel, at times with
gratifying results.
Kay Kaufman Shelemay's Music Ritual and Falasha History4
is the first full length scholarly study of the Beta Israel to appear
in almost thirty years.5 As such, this book would be of consider-
able value even if it only updated our knowledge by integrating
what is already known about the Beta Israel with recent develop-
ments in Jewish and particularly Ethiopian studies. The book,
however, contributes in an original fashion on several fronts.
First, in two lengthy appendices (pp. 231-312, 313-44) Shelemay
offers a large collection of Beta Israel liturgical texts in Ge'ez
(transcribed in English letters), in English translation, and with
(western) musical notation. The publication of these texts is a
major contribution to our knowledge of Beta Israel liturgy. In
particular the fact that Shelemay's material is based on oral
performance rather than on manuscript tradition adds an im-
portant dynamic element to what has hitherto been treated in a
static noncontextual manner.6 In this respect it should also be
noted that it may well prove impossible ever to duplicate the
fieldwork which Shelemay undertook among the Beta Israel of
Ethiopia in 1973. Conditions in Ethiopia today do not augur well
for such work, and in Israel, while opportunities for recording
Beta Israel informants are numerous, the chances of obtaining
authentic religious traditions decline daily in the face of a massive

3 Steven Kaplan and Shoshana Ben-Dor, eds., Ethiopian Jewry: An Annotated

Bibliography (Jerusalem, 1988). The bibliography lists 1,461 items, but at least
fifty more have appeared since it went to press.
4
Ethiopian Series Monograph, No. 17 (East Lansing, Michigan, 1986).
5 Since Wolf Leslau's Coutumes et croyances des Falachas (Juifs d'Abyssinie)
(Paris, 1957).
6 Cf. Joseph Halevy, Prieres des Falasha (Paris, 1877); idem. "Nouvelles prieres

des Falachas," Revue Semitique 19 (1911): 96-104, 215-18, 344-64; A. Z. Aescoly,

Recueil de textes falachas (Paris, 1951), pp. 152-71; Wolf Leslau, Falasha An-
thology (New Haven, 1951), pp. 112-40.
 "FALASHA" RELIGION-KAPLAN 51

"normalization" of Beta Israel religion.7 Shelemay's texts thus

represent virtually unique cultural documents.
The second contribution of Shelemay's work lies in her presen-
tation of a challenging and controversial thesis concerning the
religious traditions of the Beta Israel. Drawing upon liturgical
and literary sources, as well as the oral traditions of the Beta
Israel themselves, Shelemay concludes that the evidence "per-
suasively points towards Ethiopian Christian monks, probably
those of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, as sources of the
beliefs, traditions, and rituals that survive among the Beta Israel"
(p. 215). Moreover, she notes, contrary to what is generally
assumed, there is little evidence for any direct connection between
Beta Israel religion and any archaic Jewish tradition (ibid.).
Although it is the second of these statements which will un-
doubtedly draw the most attention, Shelemay devotes relatively
little of her book to arguing this point in detail. Since there are
no historically reliable sources concerning the Beta Israel for any
period prior to the fourteenth century, the nature of "proto-
Falasha" faith remains an enigma.8 Moreover, if the changes
which took place in the fourteenth century and after were as
sweeping as Shelemay believes, the possibilities for reconstructing
earlier aspects of their religion are extremely limited. Nevertheless,
for a fuller appreciation of Shelemay's work it would appear

7 The NationalSoundArchives,Israel,andthe CentreNationalde la Recherche

Scientifiquein Francearecurrentlyengagedin a largeprojectto studyBetaIsrael
liturgy.Ironically,their key informantsare qessotch(priests)enrolledin a pro-
gramof rabbinicstudies.
8 Shelemayherself(pp. 11-12) expressesconcernlest her conclusions"beused
to reopenpainfuldiscussionsof BetaIsraelreligiousidentity."In fact considerable
controversydid developaroundan exhibit at the Jewish Museumin New York
for whichShelemayservedas guestcurator.At the riskof belaboringthe obvious
it mustbe statedthat the relativeantiquityof BetaIsraelreligionis of littledirect
bearingon the issue of theirdescent.Theoreticallythe Beta Israelcould be local
convertswho practicean ancientform of Judaism,or directdescendantsof Jews
whose presenttraditionsdevelopedonly relativelyrecently,or a combinationof
both. No attemptwill be madein this articleto discussthe thornyissue of Beta
Israelorigins,but see my article"TheOriginsof the Beta Israel:Five Methodo-
logical Cautions,"Pecamim33 (1987):33-49 [Hebrew].For the continuationof
this controversyin Israel see my "The Beta Israel and the Rabbinate,"Social
Science Information 27 (1988): 357-70.
52 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

useful to consider briefly what is known about earlier Judaism in

Ethiopia and in particular about the manner in which this subject
has been treated in the past.

Ancient Judaism

Although there is no direct evidence for the presence of Jews in

Ethiopia prior to the Middle Ages, few scholars would question
the claim that Jews or Jewish influences must have reached that
country during the first centuries of the Common Era. The over-
whelmingly Hebraic-biblical cast of so much of Ethiopian culture,
both Jewish and Christian, can hardly be explained totally as the
product of imitatio Veteris Testamenti.9 Indeed, several phe-
nomena can only be explained on the basis of a more immediate
form of contact with Jews or Judaism. Of particular significance
are the Jewish-Aramaic loanwords in the Ge'ez (Ethiopic) version
of the Bible. Words such as meswat (alms), tabot (ark), ta'ot
(idol), and 'arb (Friday, i.e., Sabbath eve) are all distinctively
Jewish in either form or content. As H. J. Polotsky has observed,
"none of these words is distinctively Christian in meaning. What
they denote belongs to the Jewish leaven in [Ethiopian] Chris-
tianity."10 To this linguistic evidence must also be added the
textual witness of the Ge'ez versions of several Old Testament
and Apocryphal books. Although almost certainly based primarily
on a Greek text, the works offer numerous examples of reliance
on a Hebrew or Aramaic Vorlage as well.1l While the precise
9
Edward Ullendorff, Ethiopia and the Bible (London, 1968), pp. 15-30, and
Maxime Rodinson, "Sur la question des 'influences juives' en Ethiopie," Journal
of Semitic Studies 9, 1 (1964): 11-19, lay special stress on the significance of such
imitation, but admit that it cannot explain all aspects of Ethiopia's Judaic
molding.
10 "Aramaic, Syriac, and Ge'ez," Journal of Semitic Studies 9 (1964): 10.
Although most scholars appear to accept the claim that these words entered
Ethiopia as the result of Jewish influences prior to the introduction of Christianity,
some do present other interpretations. Cf. Ephraim Isaac, "An Obscure Com-
ponent in Ethiopian Church History," Le Museon 82 (1972): 244: "I, however,
contend that they were brought by Jewish Christians from Syria."
" Edward Ullendorff, "Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek: The Version
Underlying
Ethiopic Translations of the Bible and Intertestamental Literature," in Gary
Rendsburg et al., eds. The Bible World: Essays in Honor of Cyrus H. Gordon
(New York, 1980), pp. 249-57, especially p. 252, n. 18. Idem., "Hebrew Elements
in the Ethiopic Old Testament," Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 9 (1987):
42-50.
 "FALASHA" RELIGION-KAPLAN 53

circumstances under which Jews or other bearers of such material

might have been involved in the translation of text into Gecez
remain unclear, the presence of such elements is highly suggestive
of an early Jewish element in Ethiopia.
If the existence of this linguistic and literary evidence for early
Jewish influences on Ethiopian culture is not open to dispute, its
precise relevance to the Beta Israel, and more specifically for the
characterization of their religion, is not immediately obvious. All
the elements described above are the common heritage of both
Jews and Christians in Ethiopia, and most scholars would argue
that the Beta Israel inherited them, along with the GeCezversions
of the Bible and Apocrypha, from the Ethiopian Church.12 Accord-
ing to this view the Beta Israel do not represent the original
carriers of Jewish traditions into Ethiopia but rather one of the
groups molded by their influence. However, even if we were to
accept this idea, might not it still be argued that their religion is
primarily an ancient form of Judaism, which they have preserved
for almost two millennia?
Almost without exception scholars of Beta Israel religion ap-
pear to have accepted this suggestion and describe their tradition
as a remnant from the ancient Jewish past. Wolf Leslau in his
classic Falasha Anthology notes: "One thing seems certain: their
form of Judaism is primitive and might date from a time when
the Mishneh and Talmud were not yet compiled.13 Many others
have echoed such views and some, not satisfied to merely posit
the antiquity of Beta Israel tradition, have also sought to identify
the specific form of ancient Judaism which it preserves. The Beta
Israel, we are told, are descendants of the Essenes, of the Jews of
Elephantine, of the Jews of Egypt, etc.4
While the limits of this essay do not permit a detailed evalua-
tion of all the arguments put forward in each of these cases, a
comment on one general methodological point is of relevance.15
Advocates of a link between the Beta Israel and a specific ancient

12
Shelemay,p. 57; Leslau,FalashaAnthology,p. xxxviii.
13
P. xli.
14
For a useful recent survey of the vast literature on this subject see Emanuela
TrevisanSemi,Allo specchiodei Falascia:Ebreiet etnologiduranteil colonialismo
Fascista (Firenze, 1987), pp. 25-40.
15 For a more
general consideration see my article "On the Origins of the Beta
Israel" (above, n. 8).
54 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

Jewish sect almost inevitably rest their case on similarities which

exist between the two communities in one or two aspects of
religious life. Thus, for example, supporters of an Elephantine or
other Egyptian origin of the Beta Israel stress the existence of
sacrifices and priests in both cases.16 Those who connect the Beta
Israel with the Essenes cite the existence of asceticism and ritual
purity laws among both groups.17 At the heart of such an ap-
proach lies the usually unstated assumption that the Beta Israel
religion, as described by European observers in the nineteenth
century, was with minor exceptions identical with whatever form
of ancient Judaism reached Ethiopia. Otherwise the entire exercise
would be rendered meaningless. For example, it can only be
argued that Beta Israel monasticism is a direct continuation of
ancient Jewish asceticism,s1if it is assumed that monasticism is an
ancient feature of Ethiopian Judaism. If on the other hand Beta
Israel monasticism emerged only in the fifteenth century,19it can
scarcely be produced as evidence for an historical link to the
Essenes or the Therapeutae.
The tendency to view the Beta Israel religion in a static and
ahistorical fashion is by no means limited to scholars who advo-
cate a link to a particular ancient sect. Others have demonstrated
a similar conception in their attempts to identify one or another
element in Beta Israel tradition as a survival of ancient practice.
Emanuela Trevisan Semi concludes her recent study of priestly
investiture among the Beta Israel by commenting that "il serait
possible peut-etre d'imaginer que le rite ainsi pratique jusqu'a nos
jours puisse etre un residu d'une tres vieille tradition conservee par
un groupe aux origins aussi anciennes."20 Max Wurmbrand,
clearly troubled by a reference to a thrice-repeated "sign of the

16 David
Kessler, The Falashas (London, 1982), pp. 42-44; Abraham Epstein,
Sefer Eldad ha-Dani (Pressburg, 1891), pp. 184-86.
17 Ephraim Isaac, "The Falasha: Black Jews of Ethiopia" (Dillard University
Scholar Statesman Lecture Series 1974) characterizes the Beta Israel's religion as
"Essenic," but it is not clear whether he intends to posit an historical link. For a
less ambiguous statement see Max Wurmbrand,"Le 'Dersana Sanbat', une homelie
ethiopienne attribuee a Jacques de Saroug," L'Orient Syrien 8 (1963): 368, n. 20.
18
Ibid.
19 See infra.
20
"Le Sriet: Une rite d'investiture sacerdotale chez les Beta Esra'el (Falaschas)",
REJ 46, 1-2 (1987): 113.
 "FALASHA" RELIGION-KAPLAN 55

Lord", i.e., the cross, in the Beta Israel version of The Acts of
Susanna, argues rather tortuously that this is an oblique reference
to an ancient Jewish custom of signing which survived "in such a
stagnant channel of Judaism as the Falasha community."21
It is against the background of such static and ahistorical
depictions of Beta Israel religion that Shelemay's work must be
evaluated. Her main thesis, that Beta Israel religious traditions
are relatively recent in origin, is aimed directly at the type of
quasi-historical speculation cited above. If, as she contends, all
(or at least most)22of the elements of the Beta Israel religion date
from no earlier than the fourteenth or fifteenth century, any
attempt to link their tradition directly to one or another form of
ancient Judaism becomes clearly untenable. What then is the
nature of the evidence for her thesis?

Oral Tradition

As is to be expected from a scholar whose primary training is

in ethnomusicology, Shelemay rests much of her case on the
evidence of the Beta Israel liturgy. In a series of detailed chapters
(3-6, pp. 71-196) she analyzes the context, structure, texts, and
music of the liturgy. Although much of this material is descriptive
in nature, her underlying theme is rarely far from the surface: the
terminology, texts, and much of the Beta Israel liturgy all indicate
a striking similarity to those of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.23
Similarity is, however, not proof of dependence, nor does it in

21 "A Falasha Variant of the Story of Sussana," Biblica 44, 1 (1963): 45.
22
Personally, I would not go quite as far as Shelemay in ruling out the survival
of some ancient elements among the Beta Israel. The almost total obscurity which
surrounds much of their prehistory (prior to the fourteenth century) precludes
almost any blanket statements. Moreover, a major question remains about the
basis on which material was selected in the fourteenth and fifteenth century. What
was the model of "Israelite" religion which was used and where did it originate?
Some indications of the answers to this question may lie in the numerous Agau
passages preserved in the Beta Israel liturgy, which may represent an earlier
stratum in Beta Israel religion. The task of proving direct Jewish influence is not
an easy one and requires expertise in history, literature, linguistics, and religion.
For a brilliant example of how to go about such an exercise see Roger Cowley,
"Ethiopian Biblical Interpretation: A Study in Exegetical Tradition and Herme-
neutics" (Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge, 1985).
23
Shelemay, pp. 148-54, 173-83, 190.
56 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

this case easily lend itself to chronological calculations. To pro-

vide these points for her argument Shelemay turns to recent work
in Ethiopian history and in particular the oral traditions of the
Beta Israel themselves.
Given the controversial nature of Shelemay's finding, it is
rather surprising to find that some of the most convincing evi-
dence in support of her views comes from the testimony of Beta
Israel qessotch (priests). Nowhere is this clearer than in the case
of Beta Israel monasticism. Despite the above mentioned attempts
by some scholars to depict Beta Israel monasticism as a survival
from the ancient Jewish past, the Beta Israel themselves are
unanimous in dating this major religious institution to the fifteenth
century.24In fact, as Shelemay notes, virtually every major feature
of the Beta Israel religion as known today is attributed to Abba
Sabra, a former Christian monk who is credited with establishing
Beta Israel monasticism, or to one of his disciples.25
Typical of these traditions are those which surround one of the
special festivals of the Beta Israel, Seged. Observed on the twenty-
ninth day of the eighth month, Seged, or as it is also called,
Mehella (supplication), is a day of fasting, pilgrimage, and prayer.26
Although Beta Israel informants readily associated Seged with
Ezra's proclamations against Babylonian wives (Ezra 10:10-12),
several indications point to the holiday as being far more recent
in date. In fact, leading priests from both the Gondar and Tigre
region describe the festival as one of the responses of the Beta

24
Ibid., pp. 79-86; for similar traditions gathered by other scholars see Wolf
Leslau, "Taamrat Emmanuel's Notes on Falasha Monks and Holy Places," in
Salo Wittmayer Baron Jubilee Volume (Jerusalem, 1975), vol. 2, esp. pp. 624-34;
G. Jan Abbink, The Falashas in Ethiopia and Israel (Nijmegen, 1984), pp. 31-32;
Shoshana Ben-Dor, "The Holy Places of Ethiopian Jewry," Pe'amim 22 (1985):
32-52 (Hebrew); and James A. Quirin, "The Beta Israel in Ethiopian History"
(Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota, 1977), pp. 61-63.
25 Ibid., pp. 79-80. These include sacred music, religious literature, laws of

social purity, the liturgical cycle, and the architecture of the prayer house.
26 For a detailed study of the Seged see Shoshana Ben-Dor," Ha-Sigd shel Beta
Israel: Hag Hiddush ha-Berit" (M.A. thesis, Hebrew University, 1985). Although
Ben-Dor disagrees sharply with Shelemay with regard to her characterization of
the Seged and lays far more stress on its covenant-renewal aspect, she concurs in
dating the holiday in the Middle Ages. See especially her recent article, "The Sigd
of Beta Israel: Testimony to a Community in Transition," in M. Ashkenazi and
A. Weingrod, eds., Ethiopian Jews and Israel (New Brunswick, 1987), pp. 140-59.
 "FALASHA" RELIGION-KAPLAN 57

Israel to conflicts with the Christian Ethiopian kings in the Middle

Ages.27
The Beta Israel's own description of the manner in which their
key religious institutions originated accords well with external
evidence concerning their development. The period between the
thirteenth and sixteenth centuries, for example, saw the develop-
ment in Ethiopia of several monastic movements, including two
with clear Judaizing tendencies.28 Not only were members of
these movements in contact with the Beta Israel, but they may
also have even directly influenced the emergence of "Jewish"
monasticism.29Certainly the conditions under which monasticism
appeared among the Beta Israel seem remarkably similar to those
which encouraged its spread elsewhere in Ethiopia.30
Similarly, the traditions which testify to a major religious-
ideological transformation among the Beta Israel in the fourteenth
or fifteenth century are strongly supported by the evidence of
Christian Ethiopian texts. Prior to the sixteenth century such
texts refer to a variety of scattered regional groups of Jews
(ayhud) living on the Ethiopian plateau.31Only from the sixteenth
century onward does a relatively unified people known as Falasha
emerge in the literature.32Thus such texts appear to confirm the
thesis that only in the Middle Ages did the Beta Israel develop as
a unified political-religious entity.
On face value, therefore, a strong case exists for accepting
Shelemay's thesis regarding the development of the Beta Israel's
religious traditions. Both their own testimonies and the external
evidence of contemporary sources appear in agreement about the

27
Ibid., p. 141, and cf. G. Jan Abbink, "Seged Celebrations in Ethiopia and
Israel: Continuity and Change of a Falasha Religious Holiday," Anthropos 78
(1983): 796.
28
Steven Kaplan, The Monastic Holy Man and the Christianization of Early
Solomonic Ethiopia (Wiesbaden, 1984), pp. 30-44.
29
Ibid., pp. 39-41, 100-05; Quirin, pp. 61-63; Shelemay, pp. 21-22.
30
Kaplan, Holy Man, pp. 40-41.
31 Steven Kaplan, "Leadership and Communal Organization among the Beta
Israel: An Historical Study," Encyclopedia Judaica Yearbook 1986-87, p. 155. It
should be noted, moreover, that not all the ayhud (Jews) are Beta Israel-the
term was applied also to Christian heretics and rebels.
32
Ibid. On the emergence of the term Falasha in the late fifteenth or early
sixteenth century see my article, "The Falasha and the Stephanite," BSOAS 48, 2
(1985): 279-82.
58 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

dramatic transformations which took place in the fourteenth, and

especially fifteenth, century.33Nevertheless, some caution must be
exercised before her conclusions are accepted in toto. For while
there can be little question regarding the nature of the changes
which took place among the Beta Israel, precisely when they
began to occur and how long they continued remains open to
further investigation.
There are, for example, a number of indications that a signifi-
cant degree of "telescoping" has taken place with the Beta Israel's
own view of their past.34 As a result changes in their religious
practice which may have evolved over many years appear con-
densed into a short period involving a small number of indi-
viduals. Shelemay herself hints at such a possibility when she
writes, "Although the Beta Israel credit Abba Sabra with found-
ing their monastic institution, it is more likely that he organized
an already established [i.e., fourteenth century] tradition" (p. 81).
Similarly, it is difficult to understand how monks in the fourteenth
or fifteenth century can be credited with organizing the Beta
Israel's liturgical cycle (p. 79), if at the same time this cycle is
believed to be based on a work not translated into Ge'ez until the
second part of the sixteenth century (p. 45).35Such inconsistencies
would appear to indicate that while Shelemay is undoubtedly
accurate in her basic thesis concerning the development of Beta
Israel tradition, the time scale she suggests is probably too narrow.
The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries may well have been periods
of dramatic transformation, but the process of crystallization of
Beta Israel traditions lasted many years.36

33 For a consideration of the evidence of Beta Israel literature see below.

34 On the
process of telescoping in oral traditions see Jan Vansina, "Oral
Tradition and its Methodology," in J. Ki-Zerbo, ed., General History of Africa
(Los Angeles, 1981), pp. 157-60.
35 On this
work, Abu Shakir, see infra.
36 Of course even after a distinctive Beta Israel religious system had developed

it must have continued to evolve and change. When Abba Yeshaq, a learned Beta
Israel monk-priest, spoke to Antoine d'Abbadie ("Reponses des Falasha dits Juifs
d'Abyssinie," Archives Israelites 12 [1851-52]), he noted changes in Beta Israel
practice which resulted from political (pp. 235-36), economic (p. 264) and social
(p. 235) pressures. Cf. also Shelemay, pp. 199-200. Although Shelemay stresses
the element of continuity in these testimonies, the dynamic character of the
religion is evident.
 "FALASHA" RELIGION-KAPLAN 59

Literature

Having considered some aspects of the Beta Israel's own testi-

mony concerning the development of their religion, as well as the
evidence of external sources, we now turn our attention to the
information on this subject which can be gleaned from their
religious literature. Shelemay, who perhaps preferred to rest her
case as much as possible on her own highly original research,
gives only passing attention to this aspect of Beta Israel religion
(pp. 57-59), providing a concise and accurate survey of major
research on the subject. In fact, as I shall attempt to demon-
strate below, recent research, including the evidence of some
unpublished manuscripts, provides important additional support
for her thesis. It also raises some interesting questions for future
investigation.
No aspect of Beta Israel culture has been the subject of as
continuous a tradition of serious scholarly attention as their
literary works. Beginning with Halevy in 1902,37a galaxy of im-
portant researchers,including Aescoly,38Leslau,39Conti Rossini,40
Strelcyn,41Ullendorff,42and Wurmbrand,43have investigated this
subject. Although much work remains to be done and in par-
ticular several important collections of unpublished manuscripts
have yet to be studied,44 a number of clear trends have emerged
from the study of this literature to date. In particular it must be

37 Teezdza Sanbat
(Commandements du Sabbat), accompagne de six autres
ecrits (Paris, 1902).
38
Recueil.
39
Anthology.
40
"Appunti di storia e letteratura Falascia," Rivista degli studi Orientali 8
(1920): 563-610; "Nuovi appunti sui Giudei d'Abbissinia, Rendiconti della Reale
Accademia dei Lincei, 31 (1922): 221-40.
41 "Sur une priere 'Falacha' publiee par C. Conti-Rossini," Rassegna di Studi

Etiopici 8 (1949): 63-82; "La litt6rature religieuse Falacha (etat de la question),"

Studi e materiali di storia delle religioni 26 (1955): 106-13.
42 "The 'Death of Moses' in the Literature of the Falashas," BSOAS 24 (1961):

419-43.
43 Dersana
Sanbat, Susanna, Mota Aron: The Death of Aaron (Tel Aviv, 1961)
[Hebrew]; The Falasha Ardeet (Tel Aviv, 1964) [Hebrew]; "Remarks on the Text
of the Falasha 'Death of Moses'," BSOAS 25 (1962): 431-37.
44 Most notable
among these is the Faitlovitch Collection at Tel Aviv University.
The Jewish National Library, Hebrew University, also has several manuscripts of
interest. A number of Beta Israel immigrants in Israel possess manuscripts as well.
60 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

stressed that almost without exception scholars have concluded

that the majority of Beta Israel texts neither originated within
that community nor reached the Beta Israel directly through
Jewish channels. Rather the majority of Ethiopian "Jewish"texts
reached the Beta Israel through the mediation of Ethiopian Chris-
tian sources.45
Perhaps the most striking example of this phenomenon is the
best known of all Beta Israel texts, Te'ezdza Sanbat (The Com-
mandments of the Sabbath), long considered the most original of
Beta Israel compositions. Te'ezdza Sanbat is in fact a composite
work which draws from a variety of sources. The first section of
the published editions of this work (which does not appear in all
manuscripts) is dependent on an Arabic (Christian?) source.46
The next section is a skillfully edited and censored version of a
Christian homily on the Sabbath (Dersana Sanbat).47 Accord-
ingly, while Te'ezaza Sanbat as a whole may well be a Beta Israel
composition, and the deep devotion it exhibits towards the Sab-
bath is certainly a Jewish theme,48 the sources it draws upon
include several which are both relatively late and non-Jewish in
origin.
In fact, Te'ezaza Sanbat clearly illustrates the kind of mis-
understanding which can result from a superficial analysis of Beta
Israel religious forms. Both in form and content Te'ezdza Sanbat
appears quite similar to several ancient Jewish works. The mood
it creates and the images it uses are clearly evocative of early
Judaism. Indeed it even incorporates at several points selected
material from the important Second Temple period Book of
Jubilees.49 Nevertheless, an in depth examination reveals that

45
Leslau, Anthology, p. xxxviii; Strelcyn, "La litt6rature."
46
Leslau, pp. 11-16. Both manuscripts of Te'ezaza Sanbat in the Faitlovitch
collection omit this section and begin with Leslau, p. 16, line 3.
47
Leslau, pp. 16-19; Steven Kaplan, "Te'ezaza Sanbat: A Beta Israel Work
Reconsidered," Gilgul (Supplements of Numen, 50), ed. S. Shaked et al. (Leiden,
1987), pp. 107-24. For an earlier evaluation see Wurmbrand, "Dersana Sanbat."
48
On the deep devotion of Ethiopian Christians to the Sabbath see Ernst
Hammerschmidt, Stellung und Bedeutung des Sabbats in Athiopien (Stuttgart,
1963). For liturgical elements similar to Te'ezdza Sanbat see his "Jewish Elements
in the Cult of the Ethiopian Church," Journal of Ethiopian Studies 2 (1965):
1-12, especially 9-11.
49 Leslau, Anthology, pp. 19-21, 32-34.
 "FALASHA" RELIGION-KAPLAN 61

little if any of this seemingly archaic material is likely to have

reached the Beta Israel directly from an ancient Jewish community.
This seemingly paradoxical situation can perhaps be clarified
somewhat by the examination of another important Beta Israel
text. The Testament of Abraham is undoubtedly a work of great
antiquity and quite possibly of Jewish origin. It has at various
times been attributed to the Essenes, the Therapeutae, or the
Jewish community of Alexandria.50 Whatever its precise prove-
nance, the inclusion of this work in the Beta Israel corpus of texts
would appear, at first glance, to be a clear indication of an
ancient Jewish connection. However, scholars have long recog-
nized, even on the basis of a defective manuscript, that the Ge'ez
version of the text is based on a Christian-Arabic rather than a
Greek Vorlage.51Since translation from Arabic to Gecez began
only towards the end of the thirteenth century and was primarily
the result of contact between the Coptic and Ethiopian churches,52
the presence of this text among the Beta Israel is no indication of
a direct link between them and any ancient Jewish source.
Beginning with Conti Rossini scholars, including Aescoly and
Leslau, have dated this text in the fourteenth or fifteenth cen-
tury.53In fact, one unpublished manuscript attributes the transla-
tion to Abuna Salama, an apparent reference to the important
fourteenth century (1348-88) bishop who played a significant role
in the introduction of Arabic texts into the Ethiopian Church.54
We therefore possess a fairly reliable tradition regarding the

50 For a useful
survey of opinion see E. P. Sanders, "Testament of Abraham,"
in James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Garden City,
New York, 1983): 1:875-76.
51 Leslau, p. 94; Conti Rossini, "Nuovi appunti," p. 228. I have unfortunately
been unable to consult Maurice Gaguine, "The Falasha Version of the Testaments
of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" (Ph.D. diss., University of Manchester, 1965). Its
major findings are summarized in Mathias Delacor, Le Testament d'Abraham
(Leiden 1973), pp. 18-23. It should be noted that the manuscript used by Conti
Rossini, Aescoly, and Leslau in editing the Testament contains many gaps.
Several of the manuscripts consulted by Gaguine preserve a more complete text.
52 Enrico Cerulli, Storia della letteratura
etiopica (Milano, 1961), pp. 31-33,
67-70.
53
Conti Rossini, "Nuovi appunti," p. 228.
54
Delacor, p. 20, citing Gaguine. On Abba Salama see A. van Lantschoot,
"Abba Salama, m6tropolite d'Ethiopie (1348-88) et son role de traducteur," Atti
del Covegno di studi Etiopici (Rome, 1960), pp. 397-401.
62 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

translation of this work into Gecez. Unfortunately, we have no

information as to precisely when the text reached the Beta Israel,
but on its face value the case for a process in the realm of
literature similar to that suggested by Shelemay for the liturgy
and in approximately the same period seems strong.
The Testament of Abraham is only one of a number of Beta
Israel works which reached them through the mediation of an
Arabic text. Both Mota Muse (The Death of Moses) and Mota
Aron (The Death of Aaron) belong to this category,55 and a
similar judgment appears probable with regard to the still unpub-
lished "Homily on Abraham and Sarah in Egypt."56This work,
which even in the Beta Israel manuscripts is attributed to St.
Ephrem of Syria, is found in both Syriac and Arabic versions.57
The latter would appear to be the most likely source for the
Gecez version.
Scholars have generally tended to date Beta Israel texts trans-
lated from Arabic sources in the fourteenth or fifteenth century,
the peak period for such translations.58Shelemay, quite naturally,
quotes such views with approval, since they neatly support her
own conclusions.59 However, with the exception of the Testament
of Abraham, no clear evidence exists for a specific dating for any
of these works. Moreover, as I shall demonstrate below, there
is, as in the case of the oral traditions cited above, at least some
reason to believe that the evolution of Beta Israel literature
extended across a far longer period than has generally been
assumed.

55 Wurmbrand, Mota Aron, p. 15; Leslau, Anthology, p. 106; Ullendorff, "The

Death of Moses," pp. 440-43.
56
In Max Wurmbrand's draft catalogue of the Faitlovitch collection this work
is found in MSS9 and 10. It is also found in a manuscript in the possession of Qes
Adana Takuyo, formerly of Ambober, presently of Jerusalem. For a Christian
manuscript containing this work see Getatchew Haile, A Catalogue of Ethiopian
Manuscripts, microfilmed for the Ethiopian Manuscript Microfilm Library, Addis
Ababa, and for the Hill Monastic Manuscript Library, Collegeville (Collegeville,
Minnesota, 1979): 4:630.
57 I am
deeply indebted to the late Roger Cowley, who in a letter of Feb. 2,
1988, called my attention to these versions, and with typical kindness and gener-
osity shared with me the results of his own studies of the Faitlovitch collection.
58
Leslau, Falasha Anthology, p. 106; Ullendorff, "The Death of Moses,"
p. 442; Quirin, pp. 63-65.
59 P. 58.
 "FALASHA" RELIGION-KAPLAN 63

Abu Shdkir, an important Arabic calendric work was, for

example, translated into Gecez in the second half of the sixteenth
century.60How long after that date it reached the Beta Israel is
unclear. However, even if we assume that this occurred in a
relatively short time, the period in question is at least a full
century later than that posited by Shelemay. Moreover, if, as she
suggests (p. 45), Abu Shdkir is a "source for Jewish elements in
the Beta Israel liturgical cycle," their religion must still have been
open and evolving during the late sixteenth century. Indeed, any
crucial features may only have taken shape at this time.
An even longer time scale than that indicated by Abu Shakir is
suggested by yet another unpublished Beta Israel text. Nagara
Muse (The Conversation of Moses) has generally not been recog-
nized as part of the Beta Israel corpus of literature. It was not
found in any of the manuscripts used to prepare the standard
anthologies of Beta Israel texts, and Aescoly appears to have
been aware of only the Christian Ethiopic version. In fact, three
manuscripts in the Faitlovitch collection and at least one manu-
script in private hands contain this text.61
Nagara Muse purports to be an account of a conversation
between God and Moses on Mt. Sinai. In response to a series of
inquiries God explains the rewards which follow certain types of
good deeds and the.punishments meted out for specific sins. The
text appears to be of Syriac origin and the Ge'ez versions, both
Christian and Jewish, are certainly derived from an Arabic
source.62 Indeed, several manuscripts clearly state that the work

60
E. J. Van Donzel, Enbaqom Anqasa Amin (La porte de foi) (Leiden, 1969),
p. 30; Otto Neugebauer, Ethiopic Astronomy and Computus (Vienna, 1979),
pp. 15-16, 21-22.
61
Sefer ha-Falashim (Jerusalem, 1973), p. 115. Beta Israel versions are found
in Faitlovitch MSS8, 10, and 14, as well as Qes Adane's text. See also the list of
works which Abba Yeshaq gave to Antoine d'Abbadie ("Reponses," p. 239).
62 For the Syriac version see Isaac H. Hall, "The Colloquy of Moses on Mount
Sinai," Hebraica 7, 3 (April, 1881): 161-77. For the Ethiopian Christian version
see Lazarus Goldschmidt, Die abessinischen Handschriften der Stadtbibliothek zu
Frankfurt am Main (Berlin 1897), Anhang 3:91-101. I am grateful to Professor
Dr. Eike Haberland for providing me with a photocopy of this material which
was not available in Jerusalem. The Arabic version is not the text published by
Jacques Faitlovitch, "Entretiens confidentials du Seigneur avec Moise," Mota
Muse (Paris, 1906), pp. 36-39.
64 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

was translated from an Arabic source in the middle of the eigh-

teenth century!63
Without for the moment considering the specific merits of this
claim, one point should be carefully noted. Although it has
generally been assumed that works such as Mota Aron and Mota
Muse appeared in Ge'ez as part of the translation activity of the
fourteenth and fifteenth century, both Abu Shdkir and Nagara
Muse indicate that considerably later dates are not implausible.
Indeed, whatever the verdict concerning a particular work, it now
appears quite reasonable to assume that the development of the
Beta Israel canon was not a brief, short-lived process but a
gradual and drawn out one. Once again, the time frame suggested
by Shelemay appears in need of expansion.
Having considered Shelemay's argument and briefly examined
the manner in which the evidence both supports her general
claims and raises questions regarding one or two specifics, let us
now return to the question of the place of her work in the
broader study of the Beta Israel. The primary contribution of
Shelemay's book is that it is the first systematic attempt to
introduce an historical component into the study of the Beta
Israel religion. Not surprisingly Shelemay strongly rejects the
ahistorical depiction of Beta Israel religion as a form of archaic
Judaism. Her argument against this position is based not on a
point by point refutation of its claims but rather on an under-
mining of its theoretical underpinnings. If, as she demonstrates,
the structure of Beta Israel religious leadership, most of their
sacred literature, significant parts of their liturgical cycle, includ-
ing several key holidays, and their liturgy are all relatively late in
origin, how can one possibly assume continuity in religious prac-
tice with regard to other elements. Yet without such an assump-
tion supporters of the position that the Beta Israel religion is a
direct continuation of ancient Judaism are left at best with only
scattered parallels and little evidence of historical continuity.
In support of her thesis Shelemay marshals an impressive array
of literary, liturgical, and oral evidence. She also incorporates the

63
Two of the manuscripts in the Faitlovitch collection (8, 14) date the transla-
tion in the year 7250 after Creation (1757/8 CE), in the reign of the Emperor
Joas (1755-69). Goldschmidt's text dates the translation in the year 7247 after
creation (1754/55) and attributes the translation to Abuna Chrestaddolus.
 "FALASHA" RELIGION-KAPLAN 65

best of recent research on Ethiopian history in general and the

Beta Israel in particular. Her thesis is thus built upon a multi-
disciplinary approach and employs a wide variety of sources and
perspectives. Its strength lies not merely in the fact that it offers
the best explanation to date for the full range of data available,
but also in its balanced incorporation of other independent re-
search. Thus, any major challenge to Shelemay's main thesis can
only be undertaken through a significant reevaluation of much
recent research on the Beta Israel by other scholars as well.
In this essay I have suggested that Shelemay's findings are on
the whole sound and well reasoned. My main reservation is not
that she has gone too far in her rethinking of Beta Israel religious
history but that she has perhaps not gone far enough. The changes
which began among the Beta Israel in the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries do not appear to have run their course quite as quickly as
she suggests. For many decades and even centuries the religion of
the Beta Israel continued to change, develop, and evolve. That
this should appear surprising is only the result of the unrealistic-
ally static view of the Beta Israel religion that has predominated
to date. Shelemay has gone a long way towards correcting this
view. Future scholars will doubtless build on her work. They
would do well to keep in mind Mary Douglas's query cited at the
beginning of this article.