R.H. Charles on the identity of the Anti-Christ

It isn't well-known that the great scholar R.H. Charles was a Postmillennialist, or at least, was sympathetic to its ideals. For him, the Anti-Christ was alive in his time, during World War I, and could be identified as Kaiser Wilhelm II.

"We shall now return to the most important testimonies of this subject,  i.e.  in Revelation 13 (and) 17. We need not here deal with them in detail, since they are fully discussed already. Here we have the most vigorous and illuminating conception of the Antichrist in all literature, although, as we have seen in our study of these chapters, our author was to a considerable extent indebted to existing sources in their composition. But though the elements of the Antichrist were drawn for the most part from disparate sources, the result is no mere mosaic, no laboured syncretism of conflicting traits, but a marvellous portrait of the great God-opposing power that should hereafter arise, who was to exalt might above right, and attempt, successfully or unsuccessfully for the time, to seize the sovereignty of the world, backed by hosts of intellectual workers, who would uphold his pretensions, justify all his actions, and enforce his political aims by an economic warfare, which menaced with destruction all that did not bow down to his arrogant and godless claims. And though the justness of this forecast is clear to the student who approaches the subject with some insight, and to all students who approach it with the experience of the present world war, we find that as late as 1908, (William) Bousset in his article on the "Antichrist" in Hastings'  Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, writes as follows: "The interest in the (Antichrist) legend ... is now to be found only among the lower classes of the Christian community, among sects, eccentric individuals, and fanatics."


"No great prophecy receives its full and final fulfilment in any single event or series of events. In fact, it may not be fulfilled at all in regard to the object against which it was primarily delivered by the prophet or Seer. But, if it is the expression of a great moral and spiritual truth, it will of a surety be fulfilled at sundry times and in divers manners and in varying degrees of completeness. The present attitude of the Central Powers of Europe on this question of might against right, of Caesarism against religion, of the state against God, is the greatest fulfilment that the Johannine prophecy in Rev 13 has as yet received. Even the very indefiniteness regarding the chief Antichrist  in 13 is  reproduced  in  the  present  upheaval of evil powers. In ch. 13, the Antichrist is conceived as a single individual,  i.e.  the demonic Nero; but, even so, behind him stands the Roman Empire, which is one with him in character and purpose, and is itself the Fourth Kingdom or the Kingdom of the Antichrist— in fact, the Antichrist itself. So in regard to the present war, it is difficult to determine whether the Kaiser or his people can advance the best claims to the title of a modern Antichrist. If he is a present-day representative of the Antichrist, so just as surely is the empire behind him, for it is one in spirit and purpose with its leader—whether regarded from its military side, its intellectual, or its industrial. They are in a degree far transcending that of ancient Rome 'those who are destroying the earth' (Rev. 11:18)."

-- R.H. Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John, Volume II (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1920), pp. 86-87. Emphasis added.

Andrew Brown

APOT: 1 Maccabees

The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (1913), Part 3

1 Maccabees (editor: Rev. W.O.E. Oesterley)

Definitely one of the most important books of the Apocrypha, the text known to us as "First Maccabees" is the major historical source used to reconstruct the Maccabean Revolt (167-160 BCE), in which Jewish nationalist rebels overthrew the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes and ushered in the Hasmonean Dynasty. This brought independence to Judea for the first time since the exile, but it only lasted less than 100 years. When Pompey invaded in 63 BCE, Judea once again became a client state, this time under Roman rule. We all know how that turned out.

It is simply taken for granted by Bible scholars that 1 Maccabees is a history book, and secular historians follow their lead. One would search in vain for any history of Israel covering this period, or of Hellenistic Judaism, that doesn't rely heavily on the testimony of 1 Maccabees. The set of assumptions guiding scholarship on this book include the following:

1. 1 Maccabees was in the Septuagint.
2. 1 Mac was originally written in Hebrew.
3. 1 Mac was written before 63 BCE.
4. 1 Mac used eyewitness testimony.
5. 1 Mac's epistles are probably authentic.
6. 1 Mac was written/translated by a Hellenistic Jew for nationalistic purposes.
7. 1 Mac was used by Josephus as a source, not the other way around.

(* Oesterley, following R.H. Charles and the other editors of APOT, goes so far as asserting which sect the author belonged to, in this case, the Sadducees. Such bold claims have been reigned back in by contemporary scholars.)

The assumptions must be offset by several problematic considerations, though few, if any, scholars actually do. 

1. We do not have a copy of the Septuagint.

2. The earliest copies of 1 Mac exist in fourth century CE Christian Bibles,    Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus. The text was unknown to Hebrew-language Jewish scholars for hundreds of years.

3. No copy of 1 Mac or its theoretical source text was found at Qumran.

4. The earliest copies of 1 Mac are in Greek with some Hebraic idioms; there is no textual evidence it was entirely composed in a Semitic language.

5. There is no reason to believe 1 Mac relies on eyewitness testimony.

6. There is no reason to believe 1 Mac's epistles are authentic.
7. The author awkwardly refers to "The Jews" and "their" customs, etc., like Josephus as well as later Christian writers.
8. The narrative is broken up seven times by unexpected clusters of verses gathered at random (from the Septuagint, not the Tanakh) that have nothing to do with the Maccabean revolt. This is very similar to the way Christian theologians of the first and second century composed texts. 

Rev. Oesterley, of course, cannot be faulted for not considering Qumran evidence that didn't begin surfacing until decades after he wrote. I mention it here because most recent commentators have acted as though nothing has changed since 1913, and the lack of any source text for 1 Mac at Qumran shouldn't cause a ripple to the traditional view. Negative evidence rarely affects Biblical studies, but nevertheless is eagerly seized upon by scholars and pastors when it suits them in other areas. 

What follows is a slightly edited version of Rev. Oesterley's introduction to 1 Maccabees. Like Charles, Oesterley is not concerned with assessing the book objectively and dispassionately; instead, strategies must be developed to establish the book's authenticity and early date to protect it against non-traditional perspectives. This approach is apologetic, not scholarly.

 I've bolded the assertions that are, in my opinion, questionable. We will return to these later, as we examine 1 Mac in greater detail.

                                         "Maccabees," by Wojciech Stattler.

§1. Title

The Greek title takes its origin from the surname applied, in the first instance, to Judas, but later on to all the members of the family and their followers. The title is transliterated by Origen (Eusebius,  Hist. Eccl.  vi. 25. 3), Σαρβηθ Σαβαναι, the  book of the house of the Hasmoneans; but this title is Aramaic, and is not likely to have stood at the head of a book written in Hebrew (see §6); it was, therefore, probably, the title of an Aramaic translation of the original Hebrew. What the actual title of the book in its original form was, is not known.

§2. Contents

The book is a sober and, on the whole, trustworthy account of the Jewish struggle for religious liberty and political independence during the years 175-135 BC, i.e. from the accession of Antiochus Epiphanes to the death of Simon the Maccabee. The narrative is, with few exceptions, written in chronological order, and is concerned almost wholly with military events. The main part of the book deals with the exploits of Judas Maccabaeus, who is regarded as the central figure in the whole struggle. The divisions of the book are clearly marked, and are as follows:

1:1-9. A brief introduction in which reference is made to the conquests of Alexander the Great, and the division of his kingdom. 

1:10-64. The original cause of the Maccabaean struggle.

2:1-70. The beginning of the struggle, under the leadership of Mattathias.

3:1-9:22. The account of the events during the leadership of Judas.  The purification of the Temple and re-dedication of the altar. The acquisition of religious liberty.

9:23-12:53. The leadership of Jonathan; the establishment of the Hasmonaean high-priesthood.

13:1-16:24. The leadership of Simon; political independence secured. A brief reference to the rule of John Hyrcanus.

                                                       Hasmonean coins. 


§3. The Author

There are no direct indications in the book as to who the author was, nor is anything to be gathered elsewhere regarding him; but some points concerning him may be inferred from certain data in his book. It is clear that he was a rigid adherent of orthodox Judaism, and his patriotism is everywhere evident. That he was a native of Palestine is equally clear, for he manifests an intimate, and even minute knowledge, both of the geography and topography of the land. There are grounds for believing that he belonged to the circle of the Sadducees; although a loyal upholder of the Law, his zeal is not characterized by any approach to Pharisaic fanaticism; his sympathy for the Jewish high-priesthood is frequently manifested; his tolerant attitude towards the profaning of the Sabbath (2:41; 9:43 ff.) is very different from that which would have been adopted by a Pharisee; there is not the slightest hint of a belief in the life after death, see 2:52 ff., where a reference to this would have been eminently appropriate, had it been believed in. These reasons go far in justifying the opinion that the author was a Sadducee.

§4. Date of the Book

The passages which throw light on the date of the composition of the book are:

(a)  In reference to the sepulchre which Simon the Maccabee built for his parents and his four brothers at Modin, the writer says in 13:30:  ‘This is the sepulchre which he made at Modin, and it is there unto this day.’ The sepulchre in question was an elaborate one, as is clear from the description given (13:27-29); it consisted of seven pyramids with 'great pillars' around them ; when, therefore, it is spoken of as being in existence 'unto this day', it must have been standing for some considerable time when the author wrote this book. The building of this sepulchre is described as having taken place immediately after the death of Jonathan (13:25), i.e. in 143 B.C., and Simon was murdered in 135 B.C. When the writer, therefore, speaks of the sepulchre standing 'unto this day', we must allow at the least the lapse of about thirty years, probably more, from the time the year 143 B.C. to the time when the writer made this statement. That would make the earliest possible date of the book about 110 B. C.

(b) But in 16:23,24 we have the following: 'And the rest of the acts of John, and of his wars... behold, they are written in the chronicles of his high-priesthood, from the time that he was made high-priest after his father'; the formula here used is very frequent in the O.T., but it is invariably employed in reference to a ruler whose reign has been concluded.  These chronicles, that is to say, took up the narrative at which our author ceased his account; therefore he was writing at a period subsequent to the time at which the chronicles of John's high-priesthood had been compiled. Now John (Hyrcanus) died in 105 B.C., so that even if the records of his doings were being kept from year to year during his rule, they were not finished until the year 105 B.C., and therefore the writer of 1 Macc. did not begin his work until, at the earliest, after this year. 

On the other hand, the book cannot have been written after the year 63 B. C, for it was in the autumn of this year that  Pompey took Jerusalem, and desecrated the Temple by entering into the  Holy of Holies (cp. Josephus, AJ.  XIV.4.2-4, JW I.7.3-6); it is inconceivable that the book would have contained no reference to this, had it been written after this calamity had taken place. Cf. the references to the faithfulness of the Romans as allies (8:1, 12, 7:1, 14:40). Roughly speaking, therefore, the book must have been finished some time between the years 100-70 B. C, nearer the former than the latter date. But this does not mean to say that the writer did not  begin  his work at an earlier period; for, although, the author made use of certain documents (see below), which implies, of course, that he was writing some time subsequent to the events recorded, there are passages which certainly give the impression that he wrote as a contemporary of those who took the leading part in those events; such a passage, e.g. as 14:4-15, in which the details of Simon's reign are described, reads like the account of an eye-witness; it was a period of peace (‘And the land had rest all the days of Simon’), and therefore conducive to literary work.  There seems to be nothing that can be urged against the belief that the writer began his work during the reign of Simon; the looking-up of records, and the compiling of a book which is, upon the face of it, a very careful piece of work, must have taken some time to complete. The conclusion, therefore, is that the gathering of materials began as early as the time of Simon (142-135 B. C), but that the completed work must be dated some time later.  We cannot be far wrong in assigning the work in its final form to somewhere during the last quarter of the second century B.C.

§5. Literary and Religious Characteristics.

Although a translation, the literary style of the book is admirable; the narrative is written in a simple, straightforward manner, with an entire absence of anything artificial; the reader's interest is engaged throughout, both on account of the easy flow in the style of writing, as well as on account of the graphic way in which the details are presented. The author writes as a historian, whose duty it is to record the facts without colouring them with personal observations; he is impartial, but this does not prevent him from sometimes bursting out into a poetical strain. While, as might be expected, there are frequent reminiscences of the language of the Old Testament, the author in no wise imitates this, his writing being marked throughout by his own individual style. On the other hand, there are not infrequent exaggerations, especially in point of numbers; and considerable freedom is observable in the way in which discourses are put into the mouths of important persons; but in these things the author only shows himself to be the child of his age; his substantial accuracy and trustworthiness are not affected thereby.

From the religious standpoint the book is likewise marked by special characteristics; these are to be explained partly by the writer's sober and matter-of-fact way of looking at things, and partly by the somewhat altered religious outlook of the age as compared with earlier times. The most striking, characteristics here are (i) that the direct divine intervention in the nation's affairs is not nearly so prominently expressed as in the books of the Old Testament; and (ii) that God is not mentioned by name in the whole book. The writer is very far from being wanting in religious belief and feeling; his conviction of the existence of an all-seeing Providence who helps those who are worthy comes out strongly in such passages as 2:61, 3:18  ff.,  4:10 ff., 9: 46, 12:15 ; but he evidently has an almost equally strong belief in the truth expressed in the modern proverb, that ‘God helps those who help themselves’. This very sensible religious attitude, which is as far removed from scepticism as it is from fatalism, fully corresponds to the writer's sober impartiality as a historian. But his attitude was, doubtless, also due to the influence of certain tendencies which were beginning to assert themselves. These centred round the Jewish doctrine of God. Just as there was a disinclination, on account of its transcendent holiness, to utter the name of God, and instead, to substitute paraphrases for it, so there arose also a disinclination to ascribe action among men directly to God, because of His inexpressible majesty. One result of this was the further tendency to emphasize and extend the scope of human free-will. These tendencies were only beginning to exert their influence, but they largely explain the religious characteristics of the book.

                                  Judah Maccabee preparing to kick Seleucid ass.

§6. Original Language

In his Prologus Galeatus, Jerome distinctly states that Hebrew was the language in which the book was written: ‘Machabaeorum primum librum hebraicum repperi’ (cp. also the title given by Origen, see §1 above). The question arises, nevertheless, as to whether Hebrew proper or Palestinian Aramaic is meant; two considerations, however, make it almost certain that it was Hebrew. In the first place, the writer clearly takes as his pattern the ancient inspired Scriptures, so that the obvious presumption is that he would have written in the holy tongue. And, secondly, there are many indications in the book itself that it was translated from Hebrew rather than from Aramaic, many of these will be found in the commentary; in some cases, mistakes in translation are most easily and naturally accounted for on the supposition that they were translated from Hebrew, e.g. 1:28: this presupposes an original [Hebrew letters] which was translated 'against' instead of 'because of'; it can mean either of these, according to the context; other examples are found in 9:24, 14:38, see notes in commentary. There are, furthermore, many examples of Hebrew idiomatic phrases translated literally into Greek. There can, therefore, be no reasonable doubt that the book was originally written in Hebrew. But it seems clear that this original Hebrew text was little used, and disappeared altogether at a very early period; the reasons which lead to this supposition are firstly that not even does Josephus show any signs of having used it, and secondly, as Torrey points out: ‘There is no evidence of correction from the Hebrew, either in the Greek, or in any other of the versions  ...  on the contrary, our Greek version is plainly seen to be the result of a single translation from a Hebrew manuscript which was not free from faults.’

§7.  The Sources of the Book.

One of the chief sources of information utilized by the writer of 1 Macc. seems to have been the accounts given to him by eye-witnesses of many of the events recorded; one is led to this conviction by considering the wonderfully graphic descriptions of certain episodes (cp., e. g., 4:1-24, 6:28-54, 7:26-50, 9:1-22, 32-53, 10:59-66, &c.), the sober presentation of the facts, and the frequent mention of details obviously given for no other reason than that they actually occurred. That the writer had also written sources to draw from is to be presumed from such passages as 9:22 : 'And the rest of the acts of Judas, and his wars, and the valiant deeds which he did, and his greatness, they are not written,' the implication being that in part these acts had been written (cp. 11:37, 14:18, 27, 48, 49), and 16: 23, 24: ‘And the rest of the acts of John . . . behold, they are written in the chronicles of his high-priesthood. . . .’

Besides these sources, there are a certain number of documents which have been incorporated in the book : the genuineness, or otherwise, of these requires some more detailed consideration. They all into three groups; but for reasons which will become apparent the documents belonging to each group respectively cannot in every case be kept separate.

1. Letters of Jewish Origin
2. Letters from the Suzerain power (Syrian kings) to Jewish leaders
3. Letters from the rulers of foreign kingdoms

1. Letters of Jewish origin. 

(a) The letter from the Jews in Gilead asking Judas to send them help because they were being attacked by the Gentiles (v. 10-13). This purports to contain the very words which were written; but it is probably merely a summary of what the author of the book had derived from some well-informed source; that it represents, however, in brief, the contents of some written document, and 
was not simply a verbal message, may be assumed, as it stands in contrast to what is said to have been a verbal message in v. 15. 

(b) The letter from Jonathan to the Spartans (12:6-18). Concerning this it must be said that the artificial way in which it has been pressed into the text is sufficient to arouse suspicion. In 12:1 we are told of an embassy being sent to Rome; the narrative is broken by v. 1 which refers to a letter which was sent to the Spartans, and 'to other places'; in v. 3, which comes naturally after v. 1, 
the thread of the narrative is taken up again. Then in v. 5, where one might reasonably have expected further details about the embassy to Rome, it goes on to say : 'And this is the copy of the letter which Jonathan wrote to the Spartans.' The copy of this letter then follows; but the main subject with which the chapter began, obviously a more important one, is left without further 
mention. On considering the letter itself, it must strike one that it is not easy to understand what the purpose of it was. In v. 10 the purpose is stated to be the renewing of brotherhood and friendship ; but in the same breath, as it were, it is said that the Jews needed none of these things, 'having for our encouragement the holy books which are in our hands.' Then, again, in v. 13, after reference 
has been made to the afflictions which the Jews had endured, the letter continues (vv. 14, 15): 'We were not mindful, therefore, to be troublesome unto you . . . for we have the help which is from heaven to help us. . . .' Thus, in the same letter, brotherhood and friendship are desired, on the one hand, while on the other it is said that this is not required. The object of the letter is, therefore, not apparent; nor can it be said that it reads like a genuine document. That a relationship of some kind existed between the Jews and the Spartans need not be doubted; the letter probably reflects the fact of this relationship, which the writer of this book, or more probably a later editor, desired to place on record, while not wishing to make it appear that his people had any need to depend upon foreign help in struggling with their enemies. In connexion with this letter the following one must be considered.

(c) The letter from Areios, king of the Spartans, to Onias the high-priest (12:20-23). This owes its presence here to the fact that in the letter just dealt with Jonathan cites the existence of former friendship between the Jews and the Spartans as a reason for renewing the same (12:7-9); it is added as an appendix to Jonathan's letter. The original of this document must have been written 
about 150 to 200 years earlier than that in which it is incorporated. It is only of indirect importance in the present connexion as it does not bear on the history of the Maccabaean struggle. But the fact of a letter written so long before this period being quoted here shows with what care such documents were preserved, and thus tends to inspire confidence in the general historicity of our book, since it is clear that the writer (or, as in this case, probably a later editor) had recourse to the national archives for information ; for even if, as some commentators rightly believe, this letter was added by a later editor, it is equally true that he depended on ancient documents for his additions. 

(d) In 14:27-47 we have a source of an entirely different character. This passage contains a panegyric on Simon, together with a resume of his prosperous reign. It is stated to have been engraved on tables of brass, and to have been set up in a conspicuous place within the precincts of the sanctuary; copies of it are also said to have been deposited in the treasury (cp. vv. 27, 48, 49). On comparing the details of Simon's reign given in this section with those in chaps. 11-13, however, it will be found that there are several chronological discrepancies. The course of the history, as given in the book itself, is acknowledged on all hands to be, on the whole, of a thoroughly trustworthy character; but if the passage in question be really the copy of an official document, as it purports to be, the accuracy of other portions of the book is, to some extent, impugned. It is difficult to suppose that one and the same author would write the historical account of Simon's reign in chaps. 11-13, and then in the very next chapter give a resume of what had preceded differing from it in a number of particulars. The suggested explanation of the difficulty is as follows: The original writer of the 
book gave in chaps, 11-13 a substantially correct account of the period of history in question, but was inaccurate in the sequence of events; a later editor added a copy of the document under consideration, to which the original author of the book, for some reason or other, did not have access or perhaps he gathered his materials from different eye-witnesses of the events recorded, and therefore saw no purpose in utilizing this document. The later editor was not concerned with the discrepancy between the written history and the copy of the document which he added, because he saw that, in the main, they were in agreement. If this solution be the correct one it will follow that for the historical period in question we have two independent accounts as far as the main history is concerned. 

2. Letters from the Suzerain powers (Syrian kings) to Jewish leaders. 

(a) The letter from Alexander Balas to Jonathan (10:18-20). There can scarcely be two opinions regarding this document; it is not a copy of the letter, but merely its purport which our author has woven into his narrative, much after the same manner in which he incorporates the general sense of the various speeches he records. It is far too short and abrupt to be the actual letter of one 
who was seeking the help and alliance of the Jewish leader, and for whose friendship this aspirant to the Syrian throne was bidding. The author of our book, moreover, adds some words of his own in the middle of the letter, a thing he is scarcely likely to have done had he been quoting the actual words of the letter itself. On the other hand, there is not the slightest reason to doubt that a genuine document has been made use of here. 

(b) The letter from Demetrius I to the nation of the Jews (10:25-45). This was written for the purpose of out-bidding Alexander Balas in promises of favour, remitting of taxes, and conferring of privileges, &c., on the Jews in return for their support in his struggle to retain his throne. While it must be admitted that the letter is based upon an original document -- all the probabilities go to support this -- there are two reasons for questioning the accuracy of the details. The promises and concessions made to the Jews are of such an exaggerated character that, had they really been made, they would have defeated their object by arousing suspicions among the Jews regarding the writer's sincerity; this, indeed, was actually the case (see v. 46), but the reason of Jonathan's incredulity is not the character of the promises, but the fact that Demetrius had before done 'great evil in Israel,' and 'had afflicted them very sore'; that does not tally with the contents of the letter as given. If one compares the sober contents of another letter from Demetrius on the same subject, not actually quoted, but incorporated in the narrative (10:3-6), the document under consideration must strike one as untrustworthy as regards details. Then, in the second place, a number of the things actually promised in the letter correspond so exactly with the highest aspirations of the Jews at this time, that they suggest rather the expression of Jewish ideals than actual promises; such are, the promise that Jerusalem is to be 'holy and free' (v. 31), a thing which would have been impossible for the Syrian king to grant if he was to have any real hold upon this part of his kingdom, a Syrian garrison in Jerusalem being essential to his overlordship; the promise to permit the full observance of all the ancient feasts and holy-days, together with 'immunity and release' for all Jews during these periods, as well as during three days before and after each (vv. 34, 35); this would have meant an end to the hellenization of Jewry which the Syrian kings had always regarded as indispensable if the Jews were to be their genuine subjects; the promise that the Jews were to have their own laws (v. 37), a thing which would have meant an imperium in imperio, a dangerous state of affairs from the Syrian point of view; and finally, the promise to remit a large amount of taxation, and to give princely gifts to the sanctuary (vv. 39 ff.) ; this would have meant considerable loss to the royal coffers at a time when there was the highest need of increasing monetary supplies. For these reasons, the letter we are considering must be regarded as ungenuine so far as most of its details are concerned. 

(c) The letter from Demetrius II to Jonathan, enclosing one to Lasthenes (11:30-37). Most of what has been said regarding (b) applies to this document as well. It represents an original letter, the contents of which were utilized by the author of 1 Macc., and elaborated in accordance with his ideas of things. 

(d) The letter from Antiochus VI to Jonathan (11:57). This is clearly a succinct summing-up of the contents of the original letter; its extreme shortness and the absence of salutation show that, although written in the first person, it does not profess to do more than to give the general sense of the original. 

(e) The letter from Demetrius II to Simon (xiii. 36-40). This letter, in which the Syrian king acknowledges receipt of certain presents from the Jewish high-priest, and confirms earlier privileges, is stamped with the mark of genuineness; it reads like an original, and is doubtless a copy of this. 

(f) The letter from Antiochus VII to Simon (xv. 2-9). To some extent what was said in reference to (b) and (c) applies also to this letter; it is probably not a verbatim copy of the original, but represents in part the contents of this; on the other hand, there are elements in it which are the expression of ardent desires rather than the actual facts of the case. 

3. Letters from the rulers of foreign kingdoms.

(a) The document containing the treaty of alliance between the Romans and the Jews (13:23-32). In vv. 24 ff. it is stated, as one of the articles of the treaty, that if the Romans are attacked, the Jews must not lender the enemy any help, whether of 'food, arms, money, or ships' (v. 26); this mention of ships is held by several commentators to be a proof that this document belongs to a later date 
than the time of Judas, when the Jews were not in possession of any ships, and that therefore the whole section is a later interpolation. But it is quite possible that the foresight of the Romans sufficiently explains this mention of ships; they might, indeed, very naturally have assumed the possession of ships by the Jews, as they must have been aware of the long stretch of coast-land which 
belonged to Palestine. It was, as a matter of fact, not long after the time of Judas that the Jews acquired a harbour: 'And amid all his glory he (i. e. Simon) took Joppa for a haven, and made it an entrance for the isles of the sea ' (14:5), cp. also 13:29. There seems no sufficient reason to doubt that the author of 1 Macc. made use here of the actual document in question, though it may be that he gives only its general contents, and not a verbatim copy. 

(d) The letter from the Spartans to Simon (14:20-22). We are confronted here with the same difficulty which occurs in the letter from Jonathan to the Spartans (12:6-18, see i. (b) above). The section opens (v. 16) with the words : 'And it was heard at Rome that Jonathan was dead, and even unto Sparta, and they were exceedingly sorry;' it then goes on to say that the Romans wrote to 
Simon (who had succeeded his brother) on tables of brass to renew 'the friendship and the confederacy' (v. 18) ; but then, instead of giving a copy of this letter, as might reasonably have been expected, it goes on to say: 'And this is a copy of the letter which the Spartans sent.' In this letter it is stated that the two Jewish ambassadors who were the bearers of it were Numenius, the son of 
Antiochus, and Antipater, the son of Jason. But then the narrative (in v. 24) goes on : 'After this Simon sent Numenius to Rome with a great shield of gold of a thousand pound weight, in order to confirm the confederacy with them.' On the previous occasion on which mention is made of a rapprochment between the Jews and the Romans on the one hand, and the Spartans on the other, the same two ambassadors were sent, first to the Romans and then to the Spartans, on the same journey (see 12:16, 17); on the present occasion it is to be presumed, for the text implies it, that this was also done ; but if so, how is one to account for the fact that in the letter to the Spartans these ambassadors are said to be the bearers of it, while immediately after (v. 24) it is said that Numenius started on his journey? Then there is this further difficulty; is it likely, as stated in the text, that on the death of Jonathan the Romans would have taken the initiative in renewing the treaty with the Jews? This seems to be directly contradicted by v. 24. It seems probable that vv. 17-23 are 
an interpolation added later; this would also e.xplain the otherwise unaccountable words 'and even unto Sparta' in v. 16, which was presumably put in because of the interpolation; the text of this verse, as it stands, cannot fail to strike one as suspicious: (Greek text reproduced here). The contents of the letter read like an official document; the probability seems to be that use has been made of some genuine record which, as already remarked, was interpolated at a later period. 

(c) The letter from Lucius, the Roman consul, to Ptolemy Euergetes II, king of Egypt (15:16-21). This is the copy of a circular letter written in the name of 

'Lucius the consul', and brought back by Numenius. In it the friendship between the Romans and the Jews is proclaimed; copies of it are sent not only to the kings of Egypt and Syria, but also to a number of small separate States which enjoyed complete independence. Now Josephus (AJ 14.8.5) mentions a letter from the Roman Senate, written in the name of the praetor Lucius Valerius in reply to a message brought by a Jewish embassy; as in the case just referred to, Numenius, the son of Antiochus, is one of the ambassadors, and he brings a gift of a golden shield; the contents of the letter are similar, and it is, 
likewise, sent to a number of independent petty States. But, according to Josephus, this happened in the ninth year of Hyrcanus II, who reigned 63-40 B.C. Now if, as is maintained by some, Josephus is right here, the passage in question is an interpolation, and must have been added shortly before the beginning of the Christian era. Mommsen has proved that Josephus is recording genuine history in saying that the praetor Lucius Valerius sent a letter to the Jews, with the contents as given, during the reign of Hyrcanus II. But this does not constitute an insuperable difficulty, for one of the consuls in 139 B.C. was named Lucius Calpurnius Piso, and the 'Consult Lucius' spoken of in the text (15:16) could quite well refer to him. What is more difficult is the fact of the great similarity in the contents between the letter as given in 1 Macc. and that given in Josephus; Mommsen maintains that they are not identical, which would mitigate the difficulty; but the mention of Numenius, the son of Antiochus, in both documents is more serious; the explanation given by Torrey that Josephus "omitted the portion of 1 Macc. containing the mention of Numenius and the golden shield, but took occasion to introduce this important name, and the most interesting details, at the next opportunity," is not very illuminating. Probably Willrich is right in regarding the passage as a later interpolation, added because it seemed appropriate in a place where Simon's treaty with Rome was mentioned; this conclusion was arrived at independently by the present writer, on the following grounds : Numenius is mentioned in 1 Macc. in connexion with an embassy to Rome in 12:16, in the letter of Jonathan to the Spartans, which, as we have already seen reasons to believe, is a later interpolation; he is also referred to incidentally in a similar connexion in the time of Simon 14:34, cp. 15:15. But a Numenius, in all respects identical, so far as description and name are concerned, is mentioned by Josephus as taking part in an embassy to the Romans, and having presented a shield of gold of a thousand pounds' weight, in the reign of Hyrcanus II; it seems, on the face of it, highly improbable that both references can be correct; cither the episode of the shield in connexion with Numenius took place in the reign of Simon, or in that of Hyrcamis II. The account given by Josephus, and the letter as quoted by him (AJ 14.8.5), appear to be undoubtedly genuine; it follows that 1 Macc. 15:15-24 is due to an interpolator ; there are also independent reasons for regarding this passage as an interpolation, since it breaks the narrative in a very obvious and awkward manner. The interpolator, knowing that negotiations had actually taken place between Simon and the Romans, has transferred an incident describing a Jewish embassy to Rome, which belongs to a later period, to the time of Simon. Josephus, in his edition of 1 Macc. did not read the section 15:15-34 as we have it (see AJ 13.8.3); he does, however, follow 1 Macc. 12:16 ff. (see AJ 8.5.8) in associating Numenius, the son of Antiochus, and Antipater, the son of Jason, with an embassy sent to Rome in the reign of Jonathan; but we have already seen that the whole of this letter in 1 Macc. is a later interpolation; it follows, therefore, that Josephus had this interpolation in his copy of 1 Macc. though the Lucius letter (15:6-24) seems to have been absent from the text he used. 

§8. The Greek Manuscripts. 

The most important of these are the three uncials Cod. Sinaiticus, Cod. Alexandrinus, Cod. Veuetus, the latter belonging to the eighth or ninth century. Cod. Vaticanus does not contain the books of the Maccabees. The text represented in Sinaiticus is, on the whole, better than that represented in Alexandrinus; but all three are undoubtedly the offspring of a single Greek MS. 
Whether, however, it can be said that all our texts, as well as the Versions, come from one Greek MS. (Torrey) is not so certain; for there are isolated readings (small in number, it is true) in some of the cursives which presuppose a better text in the passages in question than that represented in the three uncials; in some cases these readings are supported by one or other of the Versions ...

------

To briefly summarize:

Research on 1 Mac began “as early as the time of Simon (142-135 BC),” i.e. contemporaneous to the period described in the book, and reached its final form between 100 and 70 BC. “The book cannot have been written after 63 BC,” Oesterley insists, “for it was in the autumn of this year that Pompey took Jerusalem, and desecrated the Temple by entering into the Holy of Holies; it is inconceivable that the book would have contained no reference to this had it been written after this calamity had taken place.” [Emphasis mine.]

This is simply begging the question. Most Christian documents are written after the destruction of the temple, yet they do not mention that event. 

We are also told that “one of the chief sources of information utilized by the writer seems to have been the accounts given him by eyewitnesses of many of the events recorded.” How do we know this? Because of the “wonderfully graphic descriptions of certain episodes,” “the sober presentation of the facts,” and “the frequent mention of details obviously given for no other reason than that they actually occurred.”

Question begging, part two. Ancient theologians apparently had no imagination, and simply could not have made these things up. They could not have written hundreds of years after the events described. Homer must have been an eyewitness to the Trojan War. 

Ancient historians and theologians freely invented letters and correspondence (Jesus's letter to King of Edessa, anyone?), but of course this cannot be the case with 1 Mac according to Oesterley, who frequently makes baseless assertions like "there seems no sufficient reason to doubt that the author of 1 Mac made use here of the actual document in question" and "there is not the slightest reason to doubt that a genuine document has been made use of here." 

"I can't think of a reason to doubt it, and I'm an expert, so it must be authentic" still passes for an argument in Biblical studies these days.

I will be examining these supposedly authentic letters in greater detail, but right now one is worth singling out. At 1 Mac15:16-21, the author presents a letter from Lucius, a Roman consul, to Ptolemy Euergetes II, king of Egypt from 145 to 116, brought back by Numenius, son of Antiochus, proclaming the friendship of Romans and Jews. This letter is very similar to the letter found in Josephus from Lucian (a praetor, not consul) in reply to the Jewish embassy; Numenius is one of the ambassadors. But, according to Josephus, this occurred in the ninth year of Hyrcanus II (54 BCE) – 62 years after the reign of Ptolemy Euergetes II. Oesterley recognizes this is a serious problem – after all, he has just stated that it's "inconceivable" that the book was written after 63 BCE, and there's no possible way he could be relying on Josephus. But modern theologians have a "get out of jail free" card called "interpolation." 

 "This passage is an interpolation," Oesterley writes, "and must have been added shortly before the beginning of the Christian era," i.e, in the mid-first century. Why would the interpolater do this? "Because it seemed appropriate in a place where Simon's treaty with Rome was mentioned," Oesterley says. Problem solved.

1 Maccabees, as well as 2-4 Maccabees, will be examined in greater detail in future blog posts.

Date: Between 100 and 70 BCE, though based on contemporaneous eyewitness accounts and authentic second-century epistles. 

Part of Septuagint? Yes.

Christian Interpolations? No. 

Relation to Josephus: Josephus derivative; Josephus is the earliest witness to book.

Andrew Brown

APOT: 1 Esdras

The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (1913), Part 2

1 Esdras (editor: S.A. Cook)

My intention with this series is to briefly review the introductions and overviews of each Biblical book contained in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, hereafter abbreviated to "APOT." For the most part, the focus will be on the scholarly commentary on each book's essence -- authorship, date, etc. Critical examination of the books themselves will follow later. For an idea of my approach to this material, please see my post on R.H. Charles's Introduction. 

"1 Esdras" is the name given to the Greek translations and variations of the Book of Ezra, and thus the primary if not only version known to Christians until Origen's day. It continued to dominate until Jerome decisively rejected it and 2 Esdras in the fourth century. 

Cook says, in his introduction:

"The  first book of the Apocrypha stands in a class by itself in that it is, with the exception of one portion, a somewhat free Greek version of the biblical history from Josiah's Passover to the Reading of the Law by Ezra. It differs, however, in several important particulars both from the corresponding canonical passages and from the more literal Greek translation of them (also preserved in the Septuagint), and an adequate treatment of its text and contents belongs properly to the commentaries and handbooks on Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah.

"1 Esdras ceases abruptly ... hence it is often supposed that (it) is a self-contained work, written and compiled for some specific purpose, e.g. to influence Gentiles in favor of the Jews, or to prepare the way for the building of the temple of Onias at Alexandria, or simply, perhaps, to bring together narratives relating to the temple ...

"The date of the original is bound up with that of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah and must be some time after 333 BC ... all the data suggest that 1 Esdras and Ezra-Nehemiah represent concurrent forms which have influenced each other in the earlier stages of their growth. They are rivals, and neither can be said to be wholly older or more historical than the other ...

"Although our O.T. has lost the story of Zerubbabel and the Praise of Truth, there is no doubt that there is something 'unbiblical' in the orations. In the course of the growth of the O.T., compilers and revisers have not unfrequently obscured or omitted that to which they took exception, and some light is thus often thrown upon other phases of contemporary Palestinian or Jewish thought. While the orations themselves remind us of the old 'Wisdom' literature (Proverbs, Ben Sira, Wisdom), their combination with narrative will recall the interesting story of Ahikar.  1 Esdras remains 'apocryphal' in so far as it was deliberately rejected by Jewish and Christian schools. It had indeed found a place in the Bible of the Greek-speaking Jews, and was familiar to Jews and Christians, either indirectly through Josephus, or directly as a separate work. To the Christians the prominence of Zerubbabel must have been of no little interest. But the value of 1 Esdras does not lie merely in this story. The book (or fragment) furnishes useful evidence for the criticism of the text and contents of the canonical passages, and illustrates methods of compilation and revision, swing of traditions, and play of motives. It clearly indicates the importance of the comparison of related traditions as apart from the ultimate question of the underlying facts, and shows, in conjunction with Josephus, how a relatively straightforward account of history as in Ezra-Nehemiah may be the last stage in the effort to cut the knots formed by imperfect compilation. In its final form, the MT, the result of 'Rabbinical redaction,' is ascribed by Howorth to the School of Jamnia in the time of Rabbi Akiba, and although it is difficult to find decisive arguments in favour of this conjecture—or against it—it is not impossible that the chronicler's history, as it now reads, may be dated about the beginning of the Christian era. It is significant that it is wanting in the Syriac Peshitta. Such a view, it should be observed, no more expresses an opinion on the dates of the component sources or sections than it would were the work in question a composite and much edited portion of Mishnah or Midrash."

Date: Apparently about the first century BCE, though "not impossible" to date from the beginning of the Christian era.

Part of Septuagint? Yes.

Christian Interpolations? No, but "it is surely significant that although the two genealogies of Jesus are hopelessly inconsistent, the two lines of ancestry of 'David's greater Son' converge in the person of Zerubbabel." 

Relation to Josephus: Josephus derivative; uses 1 Esdras instead of canonical Ezra, but is "extremely paraphrastic, and is therefore no safe guide for restoring the original of 1 Esdras." Josephus is the earliest witness to book.

Andrew Brown

Robert A. Kraft's "Exploring the Scripturesque: Jewish Texts and Their Christian Contexts"

Last week, I posted Robert A. Kraft's foundational paper on the Pseudepigrapha, "The Pseudepigrapha in Christianity" (1994). I've since discovered that that paper, and many others, were collected in a 2009 Brill anthology of Kraft's writings entitled Exploring the Scripturesque: Jewish Texts and Their Christian Contexts. A lot of this book can be read online at Google Books. Readers of this blog may prefer the Google Books version, since it's formatted with the footnotes on the same page as the body of the text. Kraft has also updated the footnotes to 2009.

Andrew Brown

"The Pseudepigrapha in Christianity" by Robert A. Kraft

Robert A. Kraft, Berg Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote one of the most important essays in modern religious scholarship in 1976. Entitled "The Pseudepigrapha in Christianity," it was read as a paper at a Duke University colloquium that year, where few people heard it, and printed for the first time in a book entitled Tracing the Threads: Studies in the Vitality of Jewish Pseudepigrapha (edited by John C. Reeves), published by Scholars Press in 1994. James R. Davila has called it a "foundational article for the study of pseudepigrapha," and it certainly signaled a shift toward what I think is the correct perspective, away from the old assumptions that have dogged scholarship since R.H. Charles's day. Scholarship is slowly coming to realize that the assumptions that drove Charles and even scholars as recently as James Charlesworth and the team that worked on the two-volume Old Testament Pseudepigrapha need to be seriously reevaluated and reconsidered. Kraft's keen insight is to simply question authority: hardly a shocking move in most academic studies, but brazenly against the protocol of Biblical studies, where arguments from authority and consensus are considered the norm. 

Should we just mindlessly follow the authorities of the past? Kraft doesn't think so. "There is often a tendency to be overawed by the results achieved by scholarly giants of past generations," he asserts, "without careful reevaluation of their operating procedures and presuppositions. We build on 'the assured results of critical scholarship' without consistently analyzing how those results emerged. And many of us shy away from detailed work with the preserved texts themselves -- I mean the actual manuscripts or facsimiles thereof -- relying instead on whatever printed editions are conveniently available. Thus we and our students are too often unaware of the extremely complicated and often tenuous processes by which suspicions have been turned into hypotheses and hypotheses into 'assured results' which become enshrined as foundation stones for further investigations." (Emphasis mine.)

Kraft's article is full of brilliant insights and questions. I expect to refer to this essay often in future posts.

-- Andrew Brown



THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHA IN CHRISTIANITY

by Robert A. Kraft (University of Pennsylvania)

In autumn of 1975, I was asked to prepare a paper for the

1976 annual meeting of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas

(SNTS) at Duke University on "The Christianity of the

Pseudepigrapha," a topic closely related to my sabbatical project

for l975/76. After struggling with this assignment from a variety

of perspectives, I finally decided to modify the title to

"Christianity and the so-called Jewish Pseudepigrapha," or more

concisely, "The Pseudepigrapha in Christianity." Thus I have

chosen to deal less with precise details within particular

pseudepigrapha, and more with questions of methodology

that arise in the study of these writings. (1)

I must confess at the outset that I am relatively unhappy

about some of the directions that 20th century scholarship has

been traveling in the study of this rather amorphous collection

of writings that have been preserved to the modern period

primarily by Christian efforts but are attributed to or closely

identified with various heroes and heroines of pre-Christian

Jewish tradition. Not that I think many of the conclusions

reached in pseudepigrapha scholarship are necessarily wrong; on

the contrary, I believe that much modern work is of great

scholarly significance and suspect that most of the conclusions

are relatively accurate. By and large, these "pseudepigraphical"

writings ought to be examined for any light they may be able to

throw on the pre-rabbinic Jewish situation. Certainly we need to

use all available help to illuminate that shadowy period!

Nevertheless, I am unhappy about the relatively uncontrolled and

hasty approach pursued by most scholars in sifting these

materials for clues regarding Judaism. I am convinced that there

is also a great deal to learn about Christianity from careful

study of the "pseudepigrapha," and that in most instances it is

premature to distill from these writings information about pre-

rabbinic Judaism before they are thoroughly examined for their

significance as witnesses to Christian interest and

activities. (2)

PROBLEM AREAS

In a nutshell, my discontent centers on the following

areas of study which seem to me to be inadequately pursued in

much current investigation of the pseudepigrapha:

1. Comparative Linguistic Analysis -- Little if any

systematic attention has been given to how the vocabulary and

syntax employed in the preserved manuscripts and forms of a given

pseudepigraphon relate to vocabulary and syntax found in other

writings from approximately the same time in the same language.

As we all know, languages change over the years and often display

local variations. To what extent is it possible to classify the

Greek of a particular pseudepigraphon as hellenistic Egyptian, or

as early byzantine from Antioch, or perhaps even as early modern?

What post-hellenistic linguistic features recur in various Greek

pseudepigrapha? What is the history of transmission and

translation of these materials into such languages as Latin,

Coptic, Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, Armenian and Old Slavic, to

mention only the most obvious? What can be learned about the most

recent stages of development in a writing by careful attention to

these linguistic matters? (3)

I see this as an avenue for discovering more precisely

who was interested in these materials at what periods. Is

it possible to identify in time and space schools of revisors or

translators?  Insofar as details of linguistic analysis are

difficult to convey satisfactorily in an oral presentation, I

will not elaborate on these matters here. But this approach will

be facilitated considerably by the increase in relevant

linguistic tools such as Lampe's Patristic Greek

Lexicon (4), Gignac's new Grammar of Greek Papyri (5),

the various concordances and lexicons in preparation covering

such materials as Philo, Josephus, and the Greek pseudepigrapha

themselves, not to mention the ambitious computer based Thesaurus

Linguae Graece (TLG) project or the proposed Septuagint

lexicon. (6) Methods such as R. Martin's "syntactical analysis" of

Greek translated from Hebrew or Aramaic also should prove helpful

when adapted for use with the Greek pseudepigrapha. (7) I am less

familiar with the resources available for work in other relevant

eastern Christian languages, but suspect that the situation there

is less encouraging.

2. A second, closely related area of concern is The Role of

the Pseudepigrapha in Christian Thought. -- Why was a

particular writing preserved and transmitted? By whom? For whom?

How was the writing understood and interpreted? With what other

writings was it associated? What can we learn about Christianity

from each document, and especially about non-Latin and non-Greek

Christianity? In what follows, I intend to explore this approach

in greater detail.

3. A third problem area is the Formulation of Satisfactory

Hypotheses Regarding Origins and Transmission of

Pseudepigrapha.-- If a writing has been preserved only by

Christians, as is normally true for the pseudepigrapha, how

strong is the possibility that the writing actually was compiled

in its preserved form(s) by a Christian? To what extent is it

possible that some or all of the supposedly Jewish contents are

actually Christian in origin? What are suitable criteria for

distinguishing "Jewish" from "Christian" elements? Is it possible

that Christians appropriated the document or some of its Jewish

contents from Jews in the medieval/byzantine period? What do we

know of Jewish-Christian contacts after 135 ce? (8) What do we

know of Christian writing and reading habits during the first

millennium of Christian existence? What are acceptable criteria

for the identification of "glosses," "interpolations,"

"redactions" and "recensions," and how do these types of literary

activity differ from each other? (9) Who translated these

materials from one language to another, for what reasons, and

under what conditions? Again, a more detailed look at crucial

aspects of this problem area will follow.

In short, there seems to be a wide spectrum of important

issues on which little attention has been focused and for which

little precise information is presently available -- issues of

primary importance that require close examination before a

suitably careful and consistent use can be made of

"pseudepigrapha" for purposes of reconstructing pre-Christian, or

at least pre-rabbinic Judaism. Recent developments in the study

of Christian and Jewish history and literature offer promising

rewards in this regard. I have already mentioned some of the more

helpful tools for linguistic study. The fantastic increase in the

number of known manuscripts and, through inexpensive mail-order

microfilms, in their accessibility, will hopefully lead to

significant new insights about the literature that is already

well known as well as providing access to hitherto little known

or unknown writings and traditions. (10) Current interest in the

relationships between emerging orthodoxy and its heterodox

competitors in both Christian and Jewish settings (11) also

provides a healthy context for reexamining the various

pseudepigrapha, and the growing awareness among students of

religious history of the possible value of insights and

approaches drawn from anthropological-sociological studies should

not be ignored. (I think especially of studies of so-called

"millennial/millenarian movements" in various times and places,

as this may apply to the production and use of various

apocalyptic writings.) (12)

 CONTEMPORARY USE OF THE TERM "PSEUDEPIGRAPHA"

The term "pseudepigrapha" is not a precise term in

contemporary scholarly usage. It has become useful primarily by

default, and against the theological background of the discussion

of the Old Testament canon among Christians. Especially in the

Byzantine Greek church, the traditional term for the literature

with which we are concerned was "apocrypha" -- as distinct from

"canonical" and "ecclesiastical" literature recommended for use

in Christian churches. But modern protestant scholarship came to

restrict the term "apocrypha," used with reference to Jewish

literature, to those particular writings or portions of writings

accepted as "deutero-canonical" by Roman Catholics (with some

ambiguity regarding Prayer of Manasseh and 4 Ezra/2

Esdras) but not included among the classical Jewish canonical

scriptures. Thus some other term was needed to designate works

attributed to or associated with revered persons of pre-Christian

Jewish tradition that were considered neither canonical nor

"apocryphal" in the limited sense of "OT Apocrypha." The term

"pseudepigrapha" has come to serve this function in relation to

ostensibly Jewish material, although the more traditional sense

of the term "apocrypha" has been retained by most scholars in

dealing with so-called "NT Apocrypha" (not "pseudepigrapha"!).

The exact range of items included as "pseudepigrapha"

also varies considerably. (13) The standard older editions by E.

Kautzsch (l900) and R. H. Charles (1913) agree in employing the

term in a very restricted sense for about a dozen or so writings

including the Letter of Aristeas, 4 Ezra, and the

Psalms of Solomon. Charles even published Pirke

Avot, Ahikar and the Zadokite fragment among the

pseudepigrapha. At the opposite end of the scale, with regards to

inclusiveness, is P. Riessler's German edition of some 61

allegedly "non canonical ancient Jewish writings" (1928) other

than Philo and Josephus. Judging from such contemporary projects

as the Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti graece, edited by

A.-M. Denis and M. de Jonge, or M. Philonenko's Textes et

Etudes series, or the history of H. F. D. Sparks' long awaited

British edition (see its preface!), or J. H. Charlesworth's

ambitious Duke-Doubleday edition, or the work of the Society of

Biblical Literature Pseudepigrapha Group, the inclusive use of

the term now predominates. Although I am not particularly fond of

the term "pseudepigrapha," I also employ it in a radically

inclusive sense to indicate writings attributed to or associated

with persons known primarily from Jewish scriptural tradition,

and a few other similar writings such as the Sibylline

Oracles (as an example of "pagan" prophecy). (14)

MODERN METHODOLOGIES IN STUDYING PSEUDEPIGRAPHA

Not all scholars are methodologically self-conscious.

There is often a tendency to be overawed by the results achieved

by scholarly giants of past generations, without careful

reevaluation of their operating procedures and presuppositions.

We build on "the assured results of critical scholarship" without

consistently analyzing how those results emerged. And many of us

shy away from detailed work with the preserved texts themselves

-- I mean the actual manuscripts or facsimiles thereof -- relying

instead on whatever printed editions are conveniently available.

Thus we and our students are too often unaware of the extremely

complicated and often tenuous processes by which suspicions have

been turned into hypotheses and hypotheses into "assured results"

which become enshrined as foundation stones for further

investigations.

In the modern investigation of "psudepigrapha," the

strong desire to throw light on a relatively obscure period of

Jewish history which was believed to be of great significance for

early Christian studies played an important role. The earliest

pioneers of pseudepigrapha study tended to be understandably

cautious in attributing hitherto unattested works to Jewish

authorship, but were relatively quick to identify newly recovered

writings with titles found in ancient lists. M. R. James is

perhaps a good example of caution in the former regard -- he

seldom attached the unqualified adjective "Jewish" to the

numerous psudepigraphic texts he helped to rescue for scholarly

investigation. Other influential scholars, however, including

some well-versed in Jewish traditions like Louis Ginzberg or

Kaufmann Kohler argued strongly for the Jewish origin of numerous

traditions and sections in the pseudepigrapha.(15) Riessler

represents this latter perspective. It is worth noting how

important the argument from parallel passages was in these

earlier investigations -- M. R. James would list page after page

of alleged verbal reminiscences to NT writings, with the

conclusion that the writing being examined had made use of the NT

and thus was Christian in its present form. In contrast, Ginzberg

would list at length the parallels to known Rabbinic Jewish

traditions and conclude that the basic core of the the writing

was Jewish.

 We have, hopefully, come a long way in our critical

awareness if not in our actual practice from simple

"parallelomania" as Samuel Sandmel has dubbed it.(16) Most of us

no longer assume that virtually any phrase that appears in NT

literature necessarily originated there. We have become more

aware of diversity within pre-Christian Judaism including the

presence there of emphases on faith, on special knowledge, on

imminent eschatological salvation, among other things. Now Qumran

has supplied good examples of even such seemingly Christian ideas

as the divine sonship of God's eschatological agent,

appropriation of God's promised new covenant, eschatological

asceticism, and the religious importance of baptisms and special

meals.(17) We have also become more aware of diversity in early

Christianity -- of a wide range of beliefs and attitudes ranging

from a relatively conservative and cultic Jewish sort of

Christianity to a highly philosophical and/or mystical dualistic

gnostic Christianity.(18)

In the study of the pseudepigrapha, realization of pre-

rabbinic Jewish pluralism has played a much more influential role

than recognition of early Christian pluralism. Perhaps this is

only natural. After all, most Christianity built on a Jewish base

and introduced relatively little that could be called uniquely

Christian, beyond specific references to Jesus of Nazareth and

other personages or events of specifically Christian history, or

the trinitarian God-language that arose in classical Christian

circles and became standardized by the 4th century. For the most

part, Christians appropriated Jewish scriptures and traditions,

Jewish liturgical language, Jewish eschatological hopes, Jewish

ethical ideals, and many Jewish practices. Reflecting such a

setting, most Christian writings contain apparently "Jewish"

elements and aspects, as is obvious to any contemporary NT

student. The problem comes in attempting to place a label on such

materials. At what point do I describe an originally Jewish

ethical tract that has been adopted and perhaps also adapted by

Christians as "Christian" rather than "Jewish"? And if a

Christian author who has been trained to think about religious

life and conduct in ethical terms that derive from Judaism now

writes an ethical treatise based on that author's own views --

not simply copying an older tract -- is the author not writing a

Christian work? -- even though it may have all the

characteristics of a Jewish work?

This methodological problem is perhaps best illustrated

by quoting some actual operating procedures of earlier scholars.

In his 1893 History of Ancient Christian Literature, Adolf

Harnack included a valuable, pioneering section entitled "Jewish

Literature Appropriated, and sometimes Reworked, by

Christians." (19) Harnack argues that Christians sometimes

imitated the style of older Jewish forgeries, thus making it

impossible any longer to distinguish Jewish from Christian

elements. In this connection, Harnack suggests that the

investigator will seldom err if the following rule is observed:

"Whatever is not clearly Christian is Jewish"! (20) L. S. A. Wells

enunciates a similar philosophy in his study of the Adam-Eve

materials in Charles' Pseudepigrapha volume: "The complete

absence of references, direct or indirect, to Christian notions

of Incarnation, Redemption, even of Christian higher moral

teaching, would make it impossible to assign to most of the work

a Christian origin". (21)

Dissenting voices were also heard occasionally, but were

clearly in the minority. I have already alluded to the cautious

approach taken by M. R. James. Similarly, F. C. Burkitt's 1913

Schweich Lectures on Jewish and Christian Apocalypses

provide a good example. Burkitt is explicitly critical of the

tendency to proclaim as "Jewish" virtually any writing that is

not overtly Christian. Regarding Slavonic (or 2nd) Enoch, he

writes, "I do not know that a Christian romance of Enoch need

differ very much from a Jewish romance of Enoch. And ...the whole

question of the channels by which rare and curious literature

found their [sic] way into Slavonic requires fresh and

independent investigation". (22) According to the Harnack-Wells

approach, a pseudepigraphon would be considered Jewish until

proven otherwise; Burkitt would reverse the situation and put the

onus of proof on those claiming Jewish origin.

Although I am emotionally disposed towards a position

like that of Harnack-Wells, it is clear to me that the James-

Burkitt approach is methodologically more defensible. Except in

rare instances where Jewish fragments or clear early patristic

usage renders the Jewish origin or location of a writing

virtually beyond dispute (as with the "OT" deutero-canonical

writings, some form of Ahikar and 1 Enoch, Aristeas), the

preserved pseudepigrapha are known only from relatively late

Christian manuscripts of various sorts. Clearly the

pseudepigrapha, including those of demonstrable Jewish origin,

have had a long association with Christianity and deserve more

than passing attention in that context. Once their setting in

Christianity has been recognized more clearly, it may be possible

to pose more carefully the questions of origin and early

transmission.

ATTITUDES TO THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHA IN PRE-MODERN CHRISTIANITY

On the whole, the pseudepigrapha were viewed as a threat

by leaders of classical Christianity, Greek and Latin, from about

the mid-fourth century through at least the ninth. The gradual

standardization of Christianity that was achieved in the internal

battles against heterodoxy and the external achievement of

official recognition in the Roman worlds (west and east)

exhibited itself in the formation of an exclusive Christian

scriptural canon. Aspects of the problem were recognized already

in the late 2nd century. Irenaeus rails against the Marcosians

for "introducing an innumerable number of apocrypha and of

counterfeit writings which they themselves created to amaze the

foolish who do not understand the true writings" (Against

Heresies 1.20.1=13.1). Perhaps around the same time, or not

too much later, the author of the Muratorian canon rejects

compositions associated with various heterodox groups including

"those who composed a new book of Psalms for Marcion."

To what extent these early testimonies had allegedly

Jewish writings in view is not clear. But the principle of

opposition to unacceptable heterodox writings is quite plain, and

is continued even more explicitly in later authors. According to

Athanasius, who writes from Alexandria at a time when

Christianity had successfully withstood the attempts of emperor

Julian ("the apostate"!) to revive old Roman "paganism" and is

about to be proclaimed as the official religion of the

Roman empire, the "apocryphal" books (that is, our "Jewish"

pseudepigrapha, among others) are a "device of heretics" who

compose them at will and assign them ancient dates to mislead the

simple. Athanasius speaks with disdain of books ascribed to

Enoch, and apocryphal books of Isaiah and Moses. Similar negative

attitudes are found in such other later 4th century authors as

Epiphanius, Cyril of Jerusalem, the compiler of the Apostolic

Constitutions, Rufinus and Jerome, while the prohibition of

pseudepigrapha is buttressed with more extensive lists of titles

in such later sources as the ps-Athanasian Synopsis of

Scriptures (6th c.?), the ps-Gelatian Decree (6th c.?),

the so-called Catalogue of 60 (canonical) Books (6/7th

c.?), the Stichometry of Nicephorus (9th c), and

elsewhere.(23) Among the writings to be avoided are those

associated with the names of Adam, Enoch, Lamech, Abraham and the

Patriarchs, Joseph, Eldad and Modad, Jambres and Mambres, Job,

Moses, David, Solomon, Elijah, Isaiah, Baruch, Sofonia,

Zachariah, Habakkuk, Ezekiel, Daniel, Ezra, the Sibyl, and

various angels. One list even refers to a "book of the giant

named Og who is said by the heretics to have fought with a dragon

after the flood" (ps-Gelatian Decree)!

 Not all the preserved notices are equally negative. In

the 2nd century, Justin Martyr accuses the Jews of excising

certain passages from their scriptures in order to counter their

use by Christians, including a passage attributed to Ezra and a

reference to Isaiah's death by means of a wooden saw

(Dialogue 72, 120) (24) -- in Justin's view, of course, the

excised materials are not "pseudepigrapha" (as they become for

us) but authentic scripture. Justin also refers with favor to

various Greek philosophical authors as to "the Sibyl and

Hystaspes" (Apology 20). Even more striking is the

practice of Clement of Alexandria at the end of the 2nd century,

who shows an extremely wide acquaintance with a great variety of

writings, Jewish, Christian and "pagan," as well as with "Jewish

scriptures" in a strict sense. (25) He is less concerned with what

writings people use than with how they use the writings,

including scripture (Stromateis 6.[15].124.3). Indeed, he

believes that the scriptures are filled with mysteries that can

only properly be understood by the true Christian gnostic whose

life is in accord with the apostolic tradition. And non-

scriptural literature also contains valuable material when

understood properly -- that is, "gnostically." Clement cites

"Paul" as exhorting his readers to "take also the Hellenic books,

read the Sibyl,... and take Hystaspes to read..."

(Stromateis 6.[5].43.1). Elsewhere Clement quotes material

attributed to "Enoch" (Ecl. Proph 2.1), to "the prophecy

of Ham" (Stromateis 6.[6].53.5, indirectly, from Isidore's

Exegetica of the Prophet Parchor), (26) to a non-canonical

revelation by "Sofonia the prophet" (Stromateis

5.[11].77.2), and refers to Moses' "assumption" (Comm. on Jude 9

and Stromateis 1.[23].153.1 -- at least referring to the

event, if not the name of a writing). In none of these passages,

nor in numerous other references to what are now non-canonical

Christian materials does Clement apologize or show discomfort

about his use of such sources.

The situation is recognizably different when we examine

the evidence from Origen, who inherits Clement's openness and

exposure to a wide variety of sources but who also betrays some

revealing reticence in using non-canonical sources. At least in

the later part of his life, when he worked from Caesarea on the

Hexapla, he was in first hand contact with Jewish

informants and traditions. (27) For him, the Jewish scriptural

canon was fairly well defined as is evident from his work on the

Hexapla, his preserved list of canonical books, and his

"exegetical" writings (scholia, homilies, commentaries).

Nevertheless, he does not forsake the sympathetic use of extra-

canonical, presumably Jewish works and traditions, although he

sometimes prefaces such with words like "if anyone accepts such a

writing" -- so with reference to a passage about angels disputing

at Abraham's death (Homily on Luke 35), to a long

quotation from the "Prayer of Joseph" (Commentary on John

2.31/25), to an "Isaiah Apocryphon" about the death of the

prophet (Commentary on Matthew 13.57/23.37). Elsewhere he

also shows knowledge of the book or books of Enoch (Against

Celsus 5.54-55), of Joseph-Aseneth materials (Selections

in Genesis 41.45), of a Book of Jannes and Mambres (Homily

on Matthew23.37(25)/27.9), and of an apocryphon of Elijah or

of Jeremiah (Homily on Matthew 27.9) among other non-

canonical references. Thus Origen stands in personal tension

between a relatively firm, exclusivistic view of scripture that

apparently was present in some of the churches (and/or perhaps in

the Jewish circles) with which he was in contact and the

relatively less restrictive attitudes of his predecessor Clement.

 A couple of decades earlier, in North Africa, Tertullian

had revealed similar reticence in citing the book of Enoch

regarding fallen angels, in full recognition that some Christians

rejected it because it was not included by the Jews in their

scripture (Cult Fem 2-3). Around the middle of the third

century, Origen's pupil Dionysius (bishop of Alexandria c.247-

264) admits to having read "both the compositions

and the traditions of the heretics" despite a warning from

one of the presbyters that he would thereby injure his soul. But,

in a vision, God instructed Dionysius to read everything at hand

so as to be able to test and prove everything -- and thus he was

able to refute heresy all the more powerfully (Ecclesiastical

History 7.77.1-3; cf 7.24).

Even at the end of the 4th century (Filaster of Brescia)

or as late as the 8th century (John of Damascus) we still hear

faint ecclesiastical voices arguing, in the same vein as Clement,

Origen and Dionysius, that enlightened Christians can profit from

any and all available literature. But for the most part, the

orthodox spokesmen of whom we know throughout this period were

violently opposed to the pseudepigrapha, associating such

writings with heterodox groups and even accusing the heretics of

having forged some if not all of this material.

ALLEGED HETERODOX CHRISTIAN TRANSMITTERS OF PSEUDEPIGRAPHA

Some of the orthodox Christian sources attempt to

identify specific heterodox groups which produced, or at least

used allegedly Jewish pseudepigraphical writings. Other heterodox

groups are also described in terms that suggest an openness to

such literature. In the earliest period, apart from amorphous

Jewish Christian outlooks for which wide use of Jewish materials

would be fully expected, we hear of Elkesaites (early 2nd

century) with their special traditions and their "Book of

Elksai." (28) Some decades later Basilides is said to have

had a special Psalm Book, (29) and the 2nd century

Montanist apocalyptic orientation appears to be well

suited to the use of pseudepigraphic apocalyptic writings

(Tertullian argues for accepting Enoch as scripture, perhaps even

before his Montanist alignment). Irenaeus accuses the followers

of Mark the gnostic of using and of forging apocrypha

(Iren Against Heresies 1.20.1=13.1) in the late 2nd

century. About the same time, Lucian of Samosata satirically

describes the temporarily converted Peregrinus as having

authored many books for his Christian associates

(Peregrinus 11). Passing reference is perhaps appropriate

here to the relatively obscure Melchizedekian Christians (30) and

to the reputed Syrian rhapsodist Bar Daisan. (31)

In the 3rd century, Mani consciously selected "the writings, wisdom,

apocalypses, parables and psalms of all the previous religions" for use in his

Manichaean super-religion. (32) His background seems to include close contacts with

Elkesaites and Marcionites, at the very least. Unfortunately, the

extent to which our allegedly Jewish pseudepigrapha might have

been used among Manichaeans is presently unknown. (33) According

to the Coptic text of Athanasius' famous Easter letter of 367,

unspecified apocryphal works also were used by the

Meletian sect, which sometimes was closely identified with

the Arians. A few decades later, Epiphanius names a great many

books allegedly used by heretical groups: the Borborite

gnostics use books in the name of Ialdabaoth and of Seth as

well as an apocalypse of Adam and various books attributed to

Mary and the Apostles (Panarion 26.8.1); other

gnostics use a Gospel of Eve (26.2.6f) and a book of

Noriah, wife of Noah (26.1.3-4); the Sethians write books

in the name of great men such as Seth, or his offspring called

Allogenes, or Abraham (an apocalypse), or Moses (39.5.1); the

Archontics create "apocrypha" with such names as the Small

and Great Symphonia or the Ascent of Isaiah or books in the name

of Seth (40.2.1, 7.4). Also from the late 4th century we hear of

the Priscillians in Spain who used apocryphal-

pseudepigraphical books associated with prophets such as Adam,

Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and others, and who

were accused of Manichaeanism and of magic. (34) Some of their

views seem to have survived among the medieval Cathari (and

Albigenses?).

 RESURGENCE OF INTEREST IN PSEUDEPIGRAPHA IN MAINSTREAM

CHRISTIAN CIRCLES

Very few Greek manuscripts of allegedly Jewish

pseudepigrapha have survived from the period prior to the 9th

century. (35) To what extent this is a reflection of official

orthodox hostility, or even censorship, or is simply due to the

general paucity of materials that have survived from that period

is difficult to determine. In any event, from the 10th century

onward there is a growing flood of Jewish pseudepigraphical

materials in Greek, especially those which deal with the lives

and deaths of ancient righteous persons. (36) From the 14th

century onward, various apocalyptic pseudepigrapha MSS appear in

Greek, including both the popular reward-punishment scenes of the

afterlife (as in Dante's Comedy) (37) and the more cosmic

surveys of the mysteries of past and future history. Again, it

may be simply due to coincidence that the preserved MSS are so

late in date, but at least this information provides a starting

point for further investigation. The main point I wish to make

here is that by the later byzantine period, the orthodox Greek

transcribers readily transmitted and used pseudepigraphical

materials. The primary justification seems to be an avid interest

in martyrology and hagiographic narrative. (38) Greek liturgical

practice provided a framework for this by stipulating specific

dates on which to commemorate the saints and martyrs of the

Christian tradition -- including pre-Christian Jewish notables.

As nearly as I can determine, the Christian Latin

manuscript tradition shows much less sustained interest in the

Jewish pseudepigraphical materials in the late medieval period,

although some noteworthy Latin MSS or fragments dating from the

6th century (Jubilees, [Assumption of] Moses, Ascension of Isaiah)

to the 9th Century (Life of Adam, 4 Ezra) are known.

The situation in eastern Christian circles other than

Greek is more difficult to assess because so little pertinent

scholarly work has been done therein. There are a great many

relevant early Coptic materials, from the 4th century

onward, which seems to indicate that the canon-centered

orientation of Shenouti and his monastically inclined followers

was by no means universal among literate Coptic Egyptian

Christians. (39) There is also a significant amount of relatively

early material in Syriac, (40) notably 2 Baruch and

4 Ezra from a 6th century MS, and the Psalms and

Odes of Solomon from the 10th century. If it is assumed

that most of the pseudepigrapha now preserved in Arabic

were translated from Syriac, the impression that Syriac

Christianity suffered little from the anti-pseudepigrapha

attitudes of the orthodox Greek Christians is fortified. When we

turn to the national churches in which the Armenian (from

the 5th century), Ethiopic (from the 4/5th? century) and

Old Slavic (from the 8th? century) languages were central,

we are flooded with copies of a great variety of pseuepigraphical

texts, dating mostly from the 12th century onward. These riches

lie mostly untapped, and almost no precise information is

available about the conditions under which the pseudepigrapha

were introduced among those Christians. I have little idea of the

extent to which other relatively early Christian literatures and

traditions such as those in Gothic, Georgian, Old Irish, (41)

Nubian, Sogdian, or Anglo-Saxon (42) can contribute additional

materials of relevance to this discussion.

In a nutshell, the situation seems to have been

approximately as follows: From about the 4th century onward,

classical Greek and Latin Christianity

tended to oppose the (public) use of non-canonical religious

literature and to identify it closely with heterodoxy. But as the

threat of "the old heresies" waned, and as hagiographical

traditions became more and more important to orthodoxy, the Greek

churches came to accept and rework certain types of

pseudepigraphical literature in great quantity. It is possible,

as Lebreton once suggested, (43) that orthodox editors actually

purified some apocrypha of their heretical connections and sought

"beneath gnostic accretions some harmless primitive tradition."

It is not clear where the Greeks obtained the

pseudepigraphical writings and traditions. My hunch is that many

were preserved in Greek by monastics whose concern for personal

piety and whose passive disdain for what was felt to be the

tainted herd-mentality of urban organized Christianity led them

to ignore prohibitions of such material. Chronographic and

related "scholarly" interests doubtless played a role as well

(see above, n. 32). Apparently many pseudepigrapha were available

in such languages as Coptic or Syriac even from the 4th to 9th

centuries, and it is not likely that they would have disappeared

extensively in Greek. Nor is it impossible that some traditions

that had disappeared in written Greek form could be

reintroduced from oral sources or from non-Greek

literature. Our knowledge of eremetic outlooks, literary

practices, and contacts with other monastics of various language

groupings is extremely poor, especially for the period from the

5th through the 9th centuries. And our knowledge of general

developments in non-Latin Christianity in that period is not much

better.

What influence did the rise and spread of Islam during

the 7th through the 9th centuries have on this situation? We know

that there were concerted efforts by Muslim leaders and scholars

to translate all sorts of Greek and Syriac materials into Arabic,

especially in the late 8th and early 9th centuries. (44) This

doubtless brought many literate Christians and Jews who knew at

least Syriac and perhaps also Greek into closer contact with each

other. And Muslims were interested in Jewish and Christian

traditions of various sorts, including apocalyptic, as is evident

from Islamic literature.

Furthermore, reports of the discovery of non-canonical

ancient Jewish writings come from this period -- including the

report of a Nestorian Christian leader (Timotheos, ca. 800) whose

informants seem to be in fairly close contact with the Jewish

discoverers. (45) The Jewish Karaite movement (46) develops in the

late 8th century, with adherents who look with favor on Jesus as

a Jewish righteous teacher, and who present an elaborate

angelology to mediate between God and his creation. Karaite

tradition also knows of an influential Jewish messianic movement

in this period, and there are a spate of Jewish would-be messiahs

in succeeding centuries. Whether apocalyptic pseudepigrapha had

any role in these phenomena is unknown to me, but the possibility

deserves mention. The probable connection between the Karaites,

the Cairo geniza materials, and the Dead Sea sectaries (or at

least their cave-deposited literature) should not be overlooked

in this conncection.

Whether any significant "millennarian movements"

developed in eastern Christianity in the same period, and how

they related to Jewish movements would also be worth knowing for

our purposes. The period around the year 1000 seems to have

witnessed a rise in apocalyptic expectations in Christian

circles, (47) but the detailed story remains to be written.

Similarly, the history of contacts between Jews and Christians in

this period, and especially with Christians who spoke Syriac,

Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and perhaps even Old Slavic, also has

yet to be written. I suspect it would be extremely enlightening

for pseudepigrapha studies. Indeed, it probably cannot be written

without careful attention to the topic of "the pseudepigrapha in

Christianity."

 WORKING BACKWARDS TOWARDS THE ORIGINS

Methodological rigor requires us to work from what is

more or less securely known towards what is unknown or only

suspected. In the study of ostensibly Jewish pseudepigrapha, the

area of what is unknown dominates. Nevertheless, some controls

are available to help chart a path for further investigation. We

do possess copies of certifiably Jewish writings that have been

transmitted over long periods of time by Christian

transcribers. (48) The most obvious examples are the canonical

writings. There is extremely little evidence that Christian

copyists tampered in a tendentious manner with those works. A

couple of problematic passages appear in some manuscripts and/or

versions of Psalms and even more rarely elsewhere. The mysterious

"sexta" version of Hab 3.13 is reported to have rendered the

Hebrew leshua ("to save") as (Greek)dia Iesoun ("through

Joshua/Jesus"), which has been taken as evidence that the

translator was Christian. (49) Allegedly Christian abbreviations

of key terms (e.g. man, heaven, salvation) and key names (esp.

Jesus) appear throughout the manuscripts, but do not affect the

meaning. (50) Occasionally prefixed superscriptions or affixed

subscriptions to particular scriptural writings contain

clearly Christian comments, but these are just as clearly

differentiated by the annotator from the sacred text itself.

Various claims have been made to the effect that Christian

transcribers have sometimes changed an OT text to harmonize with

a variant NT quotation of that text, but such allegations are

extremely difficult to substantiate. On the whole, the evidence

is strong that Christian transcribers were very careful

and faithful to the text when they copied Jewish writings that

they considered canonical. (51) To what extent Christian

transcribers may consciously have eliminated "Christian" sorts of

variants they found in the OT MSS in order to foster scriptural

harmony and sanctity can no longer be determined. (52) It is

certainly not at all impossible that at a very early period in

Christian history, before the issue of scriptural canonization

had become such an obsession, characteristically Christian

changes were introduced into some Jewish scriptural texts, only

to prove an embarrassment at a later date, when the Jewish origin

and orientation of the Christian "Old Testament" text became a

cornerstone of the emerging orthodox faith. But that is

uncontrolled conjecture on my part, given the present state of

the evidence.

On the other hand, there is strong evidence that some

Christian transcribers sometimes did insert tendentious changes

into the (non-canonical) Jewish texts they transmitted. The

Josephus tradition is perhaps the best known example with its

extremely laudatory testimony about Jesus and the various

additions of possibly Christian significance in the Old Slavic

version. (53) I am not aware of any similar problems with Philo

texts (54) or with the most widely accepted "deutero-canonical"

writings. Text critical problems do exist in all these works, but

there is nothing characteristically Christian about the preserved

variants. Perhaps more detailed study of the entire textual

tradition (including versional evidence) would modify this

impression, since modern editors are usually more concerned with

establishing the supposedly original form of the text than with

identifying late and tendentious variants. But for the moment,

the available evidence does not suggest that Christian

transcribers regularly tended to insert characteristically

Christian passages into the Jewish texts they copied.

Occasionally a relatively clear instance appears, either as a

variant in the textual stream or, as with the Josephus passage

about Jesus, as material that seems highly incompatible with its

supposed Jewish origins. Although the apocalypse dubbed "4

Ezra" cannot be classified as "certifiably Jewish" on the

basis of external criteria alone, its textual transmission offers

a good example of what appears to be Christian interpolation in

some witnesses. At 4 Ezra 7.28, where the other extant

versions refer to "messiah" or to "my son the messiah," Latin

manuscripts have "my son Jesus." While it is possible that

an original "Jesus" or "Jesus Christ/Messiah" reference has been

removed by copyists because of its incongruity with the rest of

the document, it is more likely that Christian interest caused

the insertion of the specific name "Jesus." (55)

The evidence is also clear that Christians sometimes

radically revised and reedited texts they transmitted. This can

be seen most clearly with certifiably Christian texts, where no

question arises as to whether the revisions had already taken

place under Jewish auspices. It should be unnecessary to list

examples -- if the synoptic problem or the western text of

Acts do not seem to be immediately relevant, the

three recensions of the letters of Ignatius (56) or the

modification of Didache for incorporation into the

Apostolic Constitutions (57) should suffice to

illustrate the point. In fact we needn't even go that far afield.

The Ascension of Isaiah is a patently Christian

composition in its preserved form, whatever one thinks about its

opening sections which many scholars treat as a separate Jewish

document and call the "Martyrdom of Isaiah." Virtually the

same material as is present in the Ascension of Isaiah

appears in a reshuffled and equally Christian form in a 12th

century Greek text entitled "Prophecy, Apocalypse and

Martyrdom of ... Isaiah." (58)

Similar types of editorial activity are also demonstrable

on the part of Jewish transmitters of Jewish literature. We have

received two rather different forms of the biblical book of

Jeremiah. (59) Ben Sira is preserved in variant Hebrew forms. (60)

My point is that the presence of two or more versions of the same

basic material in Christian hands does not necessarily mean that

the variation originated with the Christians. There are numerous

problems of this sort among the pseudepigrapha. Two radically

different forms of Testament of Abraham have been

preserved. (61) The Adam-Eve literature is found in a

seemingly endless variety. (62) Various recensions of the

Lives of the Prophets exist. (63) There are shorter

and longer forms of Paraleipomena Jeremiou. (64)

"5th Ezra" appears in two significantly different

Latin forms. (65) How do we know who has made the changes and for

what reasons? With regard to writings that have been preserved in

a relatively less complicated state, how do we know we are not

simply victims of circumstance who have inherited only one stage

(the latest?) of a rather lengthy development? By and large, the

desired control evidence is inconclusive. Other lines of

approach, such as careful linguistic analysis in relation to a

wide selection of literature from approximately the same period,

need to be carefully explored.

There is another type of control that would be very

helpful, but strict methodological considerations make it

difficult to isolate. I expect that there were

self-consciously Christian authors who wrote new works that

focused on Jewish persons or traditions and contained no uniquely

Christian passages. (66) Motives for producing this sort of quasi-

Jewish literature would vary from the rather innocent homily on

the heroic life of a Job or a Joseph to what we might call

premeditated forgery for apocalyptic or hagiographical or some

other purposes. But unless we have the testimony of some informed

and reliable witness to what is taking place, we have only the

evidence contained in the writing itself. And if, by definition,

the writing contains no uniquely Christian elements, we will be

at a loss to identify it as of Christian origin!

Of course, we do have witnesses from Christian antiquity

who claim to know that some Christians were forging Jewish

pseudepigrapha. It is a polemical claim made and repeated from

the late second century (67) onward. But as with most polemically

conditioned claims, we do well to take it with a large lump of

salt. The claim is probably accurate to the extent that heterodox

groups made use of Jewish, or apparently Jewish pseudepigrapha.

But the accusation that the heterodox were actually writing or

compiling such works in an original manner can hardly be accepted

at face value from witnesses like Irenaeus, Athanasius and

Epiphanius. We only reach a methodological impasse along this

avenue of inquiry, although I suspect that the polemicists are at

least partly correct!

From my perspective, "the Christianity of the

Pseudepigrapha" is not the hidden ingredient that needs to be

hunted out and exposed in contrast to a supposed native

Jewish pre-Christian setting. On the contrary, when the

evidence is clear that only Christians preserved the material,

the Christianity of it is the given, it is the setting, it is the

starting point for delving more deeply into this literature to

determine what, if anything, may be safely identified as

originally Jewish. And even when the label "originally Jewish"

can be attached to some material in the pseudepigrapha, that does

not automatically mean pre-Christian Jewish, or even pre-rabbinic

Jewish. It might mean post-Jamnian Jewish, rabbinic Jewish or

Karaite Jewish, for example; unless one assumes that neither the

rabbis nor the Karaites ever reshaped traditions to be more

useful for their immediate purposes, it could mean originally

Jewish from Islamic times!

Furthermore, in a Christian setting that is almost

obsessed with multiplying examples of God's righteous athletes

who struggled and conquered their demonic opponents in life and

even in death, the characteristically Christian elements in a

sermon or a narration may be entirely coextensive with possible

Jewish interest. In a Christian setting that is selfconscious of

its Jewish heritage and thrives on visions and revelations, how

can one tell whether the predictions and prescriptions found on

the mouth of Adam or Seth were put there by a Jewish or a

Christian author? We need to examine the literature as it has

been preserved for us, attempt to recreate the conditions under

which it was preserved and transmitted, and then perhaps we will

be in a position to identify the sort of "Jewishness" it might

represent. For the most part, and with significant exceptions

(e.g. at least part of 1 Enoch [68]), this has not been the normal

approach to the pseudepigrapha in recent decades. I believe that

our knowledge of Christian pluralism has suffered from this fact,

and although our awareness of early Jewish pluralism has

profited, this has been at the expense of methodological rigor

and may be paying us an inflated dividend.

 =====

Footnotes

1. This essay has rested uneasily in my files for more than 15

years, waiting for me to find/take time to annotate it! As the

years passed, I considered simply rewriting and updating it. But

now that it has been "dusted off" at long last, I have decided to

leave the text basically as it was delivered in 1976, and to do

all the significant updating in the notes. Otherwise, its

original flavor and (at least to me) excitement will have been

diluted and sometimes simply lost. Much relevant research has

appeared in the intervening years, of which the footnotes attempt

to give some notice. In various particulars, the essay does need

to be rewritten today. But in its general thrust, its challenge

to responsible scholarship still stands. In the footnotes,

OTP refers to The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed.

James H. Charlesworth (2 vols.; Doubleday, 1983-85), and

EJMI to Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters,

ed. by R. A. Kraft and G. W. E. Nickelsburg (Fortress/Scholars

Press, 1986).

2. I am not the first to make such observations or to think them

of foundational importance. Note, for example, Marinus de Jonge's

treatment of The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study

of their Text, Composition, and Origin (Brill, 1953), and the

prize essay contest sponsored with his encouragement by the

Teyler Foundation at Haarlem (The Netherlands) in 1985, on the

subject "An investigation concerning the use and transmission of

originally Jewish writings (and/or writings incorporating much

Jewish traditional material) in Early Christianity," which in

turn made special reference to such discussions as: J. Jervell,

"Ein Interpolator interpretiert. Zu der christlichen Bearbeitung

der Testamente der Zwolf Patriarchen," in C. Burchard, J.

Jervell, and J. Thomas, Studien zu den Testamenten der Zwolf

Patriarchen (BZNW 36; Berlin, 1969) 30-61; or H. W. Hollander

and M. de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A

Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 1985), Introduction, §8-9.

3. It has come to be expected that scholars worry about whether

the original language of any given writing was Hebrew or

Aramaic or Greek or whatever, but few have concerned themselves

with the language(s) in which the text has survived as a

piece of valuable historical information in its own right.

Some earlier authors comment on this type of problem, but do not

exploit it: for example, M. R. James describes the language of

"The Apocalypse of Sedrach" as "neo-Greek" since it "degenerates

not seldom into modern Greek" (Apocrypha Anecdota 1, in

Texts and Studies 2.3 [Cambridge: University Press, 1893]

127-128), but is mostly concerned about parallels in language and

ideas to earlier materials. (S. Agourides, in OTP, 1.606,

also simply notes in passing the "late" linguistic features of

that text.) For the early Greek translations of Jewish

scriptures, H. St J. Thackeray attempted to establish some

linguistic-geographical correlations in his 1920 Schweich

Lectures published as The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A

Study in Origins (London: H.Milford, 1921, 2nd ed 1923), but

not many have pursued that sort of approach further. In more

recent times, see David Satran, "Daniel: Seer, Philosopher, Holy

Man," Ideal Figures in Ancient Judaism: Profiles and

Paradigms (ed. J.J. Collins and G.W.E. Nickelsburg; Chico, CA:

Scholars Press, 1980) 33-48, and his unpublished PhD dissertation

at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Early Jewish and

Christian Interpretation of the Fourth Chapter of the Book of

Daniel (1985).

4. A Patristic Greek Lexicon (ed. G.W.H. Lampe; Oxford:

Clarendon, 1961).

5. F.T. Gignac, A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman

and Byzantine Periods (2 vols.; Milano: Istituto editoriale

cisalpino-La goliardica, 1976-  ).

6. Efforts and products along these lines have multiplied in

recent times, especially with the advent of computer-based texts

and tools. The ability to search and analyze the data

interactively is rapidly coming to replace the static

concordances and linguistic aids of the past, and such "hardcopy"

tools can in any event be produced more easily now with computer

assistance -- as for example, A.-M. Denis, Concordance

grecque des pseudepigraphes d'Ancien Testament (Louvain-la-

Neuve: Universite catholique de Louvain, Institut orientaliste,

1987); also the various publications in "The Computer Bible"

series edited by J. Arthur Baird et al. (published by Biblical

Research Associates, College of Wooster, Ohio). Now that the

magnificent TLG data bank of Greek literature is almost complete

(TLG updated CD-ROM "D" appeared in 1993), along with pioneering

efforts in more detailed analysis (such as the Computer Assisted

Tools for Septuagint Studies [= CATSS] Project, co-directed by

Emanuel Tov [Hebrew University] and myself; see the Packard

Humanities Institute [PHI] CD-ROM 1, 1987, and PHI CD-ROM 5.3,

1992), major advances in comparative linguistic research can be

expected. For some first fruits from the CATSS Project, see A

Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, Part 1: A-I (ed. J.

Lust, E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie; Stuttgart: Deutsche

Bibelgesellschaft, 1992). Josephus and Philo are both available

in the TLG data bank, and can be searched for concording and

other purposes quite easily. Peder Borgen (Trondheim, Norway)

also has created an electronic Philo data bank for the production

of concordances and other tools. On Josephus, see also the more

traditional tool edited by K.H. Rengstorf, A Complete

Concordance to Flavius Josephus (4 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1973-

83) -- I am not sure where the related Josephus lexicon project

now stands, after the death of Horst Moehring (Brown University).

A team of Australian scholars, including John A. L. Lee and

Gregory Horsley, is engaged in the creation of a new Moulton-

Milligan lexicon to the NT, with computer assistance. For other

examples of computer projects and tools, see John Hughes,

Bits, Bytes, & Biblical Studies (Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan, 1987), and more recently The Humanities Computing

Yearbook: 1989-90 (ed. Ian Lancashire; Oxford: Clarendon

Press, 1991).

7. Raymond A. Martin, Syntactical Evidence of Semitic

Sources in Greek Documents (SCS 3; Missoula: Scholars Press,

1974); idem, "Syntax Criticism of the Testament of Abraham,"

Studies on the Testament of Abraham (SCS 6; ed. G.W.E.

Nickelsburg; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976) 95-120. See also

Benjamin G. Wright, "A Note on the Statistical Analysis of

Septuagintal Syntax," Journal of Biblical Literature 104

(1985) 111-114.

8. See Marcel Simon, Verus Israel: etude sur les relations

entre chretiens et juifs dans l'empire romain (135-425) (2d

ed.; Paris: E. de Boccard, 1964); English translation, Verus

Israel: A Study of the Relations Between Christians and Jews in

the Roman Empire (135-425) (trans. H. McKeating; New York:

Oxford Univ. Press, 1986); John G. Gager, The Origins of

Anti-Semitism: Attitudes Toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian

Antiquity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985) 113-191. 

Regarding specific Church Fathers, see A.L. Williams, Justin

Martyr: The Dialogue with Trypho (London: SPCK, 1930), esp.

the Introduction; Melito of Sardis, On Pascha and

Fragments (ed. S.G. Hall; Oxford: Clarendon, 1979) and more

recently  I. Angerstorfer, Melito und das Judentum

(Regensburg: Universita at Regensburg, 1986); David P. Efroymson,

 Tertullian's Anti-Judaism and its Role in His Theology

(Ph.D. dissertation, Temple University, 1976); idem, "The

Patristic Connection," Anti-Semitism and the Foundations of

Christianity (ed. Alan Davies; New York: Paulist Press, 1979)

98-117; N.R.M. de Lange, Origen and the Jews (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1976); Robert L. Wilken, Judaism

and the Early Christian Mind: A Study of Cyril of Alexandria's

Exegesis and Theology (New Haven: Yale University Press,

1971); idem, John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and

Reality in the Late 4th Century (Berkeley: University of

California Press, 1983). Similar studies with their focus on

Epiphanius and Jerome would also be illuminating.

9.  For further details, see my article "Reassessing the

'Recensional Problem' in Testament of Abraham," in Studies on

the Testament of Abraham (see n.7 above) 121-37 (also

available as an electronic resource from CCAT.SAS.UPENN.EDU or on

the listserv of the IOUDAIOS Electronic Discussion Group).

10. In addition to various efforts at cataloguing existing

manuscripts (e.g. the project of Marcel Richard at Paris), note

the development of the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center at

Claremont and the Hill Monastic Library Project in Minnesota. 

But in general, the interest in microform seems to have waned

somewhat, or at least is being challenged by the development of

computer technologies capable, among other things, of capturing

(e.g. on CD-ROM) and even transmitting (on the international

electronic networks) digitized images (equivalent to color

photographs), enhancing and otherwise manipulating the images,

and linking images and transcribed text along with other

pertinent items in a "hypertext" electronic environment. A

growing number of older and newer editions and translations of

ancient texts are finding their way into electronic collections

and archives in this new technological world. On electronic

resources and developments in general, see Lancashire,

Yearbook (above n. 6).

11. There have been a number of recent works relating to the

multiplicity of forms of Judaism in the Greco-Roman world. See,

e.g., G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Goodman (eds), Schurer's

The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus

Christ (4 vols. in 3; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973-87); John

J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in

the Hellenistic Diaspora (New York: Crossroad, 1983); S.J.D.

Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (Philadelphia:

Westminster, 1987); E.J. Bickerman, The Jews in the Greek

Age (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988); 

Gabrielle Boccaccini, Middle Judaism: Jewish Thought, 300

B.C.E. to 200 C.E.(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991); L.L. Grabbe,

Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (2 vols.; Minneapolis:

Fortress, 1992); for a more traditional synthesis of the same

evidence, see L.H. Feldman,  Jew and Gentile in the Ancient

World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993). A survey

and analysis of mid 20th century scholarship on Judaism to about

1980 can be found in EJMI. For some recent studies on varieties of 
early Christianity, see the following note.

12. For an application of such insights to early Christianity,

see John G. Gager, Kingdom and Community: The Social World of

Early Christianity (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,

1975), and the literature cited there; idem, Religious Studies

Review 5/3 (1979) 174-80; W. D. Davies, "From Schwietzer to

Scholem: Reflections on Sabbatai Svi," Journal of Biblical

Literature 95 (1976) 529-58; G. Theissen, The Sociology of

Early Palestinian Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978);

idem, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity

(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982); D. J. Harrington, "Sociological

Concepts and the Early Church: A Decade of Research," TS 41

(1980) 181-90; W. A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The

Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University

Press, 1983); R. A. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of

Violence (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987); idem,

Sociology and the Jesus Movement (New York: Crossroad,

1989). On millennarianism, see further below, n.47.

13. The editions and monographs cited in this paragraph are well

known in the field. Recent literature that provides a larger

context for this discussion includes EJMI (above, n.1),

with standard abbreviations and an appendix on editions, G. W. E.

Nickelsburg,  Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the

Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction (Philadelphia:

Fortress, 1981); Jewish Writings of the Second Temple

Period (Compendium rerum iudaicarum ad novum

testamentum; ed. M. E. Stone; Assen and Philadelphia: Van

Gorcum and Fortress, 1984); and the recent anthologies such as

La Bible: e/crits intertestamentaires (ed. A. Dupont-

Sommer and M. Philonenko; Paris: Gallimard, 1987), Charlesworth's

OTP, andThe Apocryphal Old Testament (ed. H. F. D.

Sparks; Oxford: Clarendon, 1984). For a review article on the

last mentioned works, see M. E. Stone and R. A. Kraft,

Religious Studies Review 14/2 (1988) 111-117.

14. After all, the etymological sense of "falsely attributed

authorship" applies equally to some writings included in the

traditional OT and NT canons, and some of the writings usually

discussed under the wider heading of "pseudepigrapha" do not have

the same sort of authorship ascription problem -- e.g. Lives

of the Prophets, 3-4 Maccabees. Furthermore, the newly

discovered materials from the Judean Desert ("Dead Sea Scrolls")

need to be worked into the broader classification scheme somehow.

For a discussion of some of these issues, see Stone and Kraft in

Religious Studies Review 14/2 (1988) 111-117; see also

Kraft's review in Journal of Biblical Literature 106

(1987) 738. Note that Sparks preferred to use the term

"apocryphal" in its general sense in his edition (above, n. 13).

15. Examples may be found in the relevant articles by these

scholars in the Jewish Encyclopedia (13 vols.; ed. I.

Singer; New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls, 1901-1907). E.g.

see L. Ginzberg, "Abraham, Apocalypse of," 1.91-92; "Abraham,

Testament of," 1.93-96; "Adam, Book of," 1.179-80; "Baruch,

Apocalypse of (Greek)," 2.549-51; "Baruch, Apocalypse of

(Syriac)," 2.551-56; K. Kohler, "Job, Testament of," 7.200-202;

"Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs," 12.113-118. See also

Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews (7 vols.; Philadelphia:

Jewish Publication Society, 1909-38).

16. Samuel Sandmel, "Parallelomania," Journal of Biblical

Literature 81(1962) 1-13.

17. The journal Revue de Qumran is devoted to the study of

these materials. For a general update and bibliography, see J.

Murphy-O'Connor, "The Judean Desert," EJMI ch. 5; J. A.

Fitzmeyer, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Major Publications and Tools

for Study (rev. ed.; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990).

18. See, for example, Walter Bauer, Rechtglaubigkeit und

Ketzerei im altesten Christentum (Tubingen: Mohr/Siebeck,

1934); 2nd ed., reprinted and  supplemented by Georg Strecker

(Tubingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1964); English translation,

Orthodoxy and Heresy in Early Christianity (ed. R. A.

Kraft and G. Krodel; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971 [now available

electronically from gopher@upenn.edu on ccat.sas.upenn.edu]).

19. Adolf Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur

bis Eusebius I: die Uberlieferung und der Bestand 2 (Leipzig,

1893; 2nd ed. reprinted Leipzig: Hindrichs, 1958); "Ubersicht

uber die von den Christen angeeignete und zum Theil bearbeitete

judische Litteratur," 845-865.

20. Ibid. 861.

21. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament

2.126-27.

 22. F. C. Burkitt, Jewish and Christian Apocalypses

(London: Milford, 1914) 76.

23. See H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in

Greek (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1902;

supplemented by R. R. Ottley, 1914; reprinted, New York: KTAV,

1968), part 2 chap. 1; also the "new Schurer" (above, n. 11)

3/2.797-98.

24. See further R.A. Kraft, "Christian Transmission of Greek

Jewish Scriptures: A Methodological Probe," Paganisme,

judaisme, christianisme: Influences et affrontements dans le

monde antique: Melanges offerts a Marcel Simon (ed. A. Benoit

et al.; Paris: Boccard, 1978) 207-26.

25. See the index of scriptural citations supplied in the four-

volume Griechische Christliche Schriftsteller edition of

Clement of Alexandria (Griechische Christliche

Schriftsteller 12, 15, 17, 39) begun by O. Stahlin in 1905

(Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs), subsequently revised by Ludwig

Fruchtel (1960) and Ursula Treu (1970-85), and still in process

(the 4th ed. of volume 2 appeared in 1985). 1905-9). 

Unfortunately, the Strasbourg project does not include non-

scriptural citations in its Biblia Patristica: Index des

citations et allusions bibliques dans la litterature

patristique (5 vols.; ed. J. Allenbach; Paris: Editions du

Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1975-  ).

26. See Jean Doresse, The Secret Books of the Egyptian

Gnostics (London, 1960; reprinted, Rochester, VT: Inner

Traditions, 1986) 20.

27. See in general de Lange,Origen and the Jews (n.8

above); R.P.C. Hanson, Allegory and Event: A Study of the

Sources and Significance of Origen's Interpretation of

Scripture (London: SCM Press, 1959).  Studies that focus upon

specific correspondences between the teachings of Origen and the

Sages include E.E. Urbach, "Homiletical Interpretations of the

Sages and the Expositions of Origen on Canticles, and the Jewish-

Christian Disputation," Scripta hierosolymitana 22 (1971)

247-75; R. Kimelman, "Rabbi Yohanan and Origen on the Song of

Songs: A Third-Century Jewish-Christian Disputation," Harvard

Theological Review 73 (1980) 567-95; and D.J. Halperin,

"Origen, Ezekiel's Merkabah, and the Ascension of Moses,"

Church History 50 (1981) 261-75.

28. There is revived interest in the Elkesaites, partly due to

the recent discovery and publication of the Cologne Mani

Codex (see below, n.32).  Consult Origen apud Eusebius,

Ecclesiastical History 6.38; Hippolytus, Refutation

9.13-17; 10.29; Epiphanius, Panarion 19.1-6; 53.1; W.

Brandt, Elchasai: ein Religionsstifter und sein Werk

(Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1912); A.F.J. Klijn and G.J. Reinink,

Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects (Leiden:

Brill, 1973) 54-67; idem, "Elchasai and Mani,"Vigiliae

Christianae 28 (1974) 277-89; G.P. Luttikhuizen, The

Revelation of Elchasai (Tubingen: Mohr, 1985); A. Henrichs and

L. Koenen, "Ein griechischer Mani-Codex (P. Colon. inv. nr.

4780)," Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik 5

(1970) 97-217, esp. pp. 133-60.  For a recent attempt to link the

Elkesaites to Jewish literature and institutions, see J.C.

Reeves, "The Elchasaite Sanhedrin of the Cologne Mani Codex in

Light of Second Temple Jewish Sectarian Sources," Journal of

Jewish Studies 42 (1991) 68-91.

29. For references and discussion, see Bauer, Orthodoxy and

Heresy 170 n.42.

30. Epiphanius, Panarion 55.  Interest in this sect has

been spurred by the discovery and publication of Melchizedek

texts from both Nag Hammadi (Nag Hammadi Codex IX 1) and Qumran

(11QMelch). See A.S. van der Woude, "Melchisedek als himmlische

Erlosergestalt in den neugefundenen eschatologischen Midraschim

aus Qumran Hohle XI,"Oudtestamentische Studien 14 (1965)

354-73; J.T. Milik, "Milki-sedeq et Milki-resa` dans les anciens

ecrits juifs et chretiens," Journal of Jewish Studies 23

(1972) 95-144; F.L. Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition: A

Critical Examination of the Sources to the Fifth Century A.D. and

in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1976); P.J. Kobelski, Melchizedek and Melchiresa`

(Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981); E.

Puech, "Notes sur le manuscrit de XIQ Melkisedeq," Revue de

Qumran 12 (1987) 483-513; B.A. Pearson, "The Figure of

Melchizedek in the First Tractate of the Unpublished Coptic-

Gnostic Codex IX from Nag Hammadi," Proceedings of the XIIth

International Congress of the International Association for the

History of Religion (Leiden: Brill, 1975) 200-208; Nag

Hammadi Codices IX and X (Nag Hammadi Studies 15; ed.

B.A. Pearson; Leiden: Brill, 1981).

31. On a possible connection between Bardaisan and the Odes

of Solomon, see W.R. Newbold, "Bardaisan and the Odes of

Solomon," Journal of Biblical Literature 30 (1911) 161-

204; J. Danielou, The Theology of Jewish Christianity

(trans. John A. Baker, Chicago: Regnery, 1964, from Theologie

du judeo-christianisme; Paris: Desclee, 1958) 30-33; H.J.W.

Drijvers, Bardaisan of Edessa (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1966)

209-12.

32. The quotation is taken from Kephalaia 154; see C.

Schmidt and H.J. Polotsky, "Ein Mani-Fund in Agypten,"

Sitzungsgerichte der preussischen Akademie der

Wissenschaften (1933) 41 (text p.85).  Our knowledge about the

milieu from which Manichaeism sprang has been augmented by the

discovery and publication of the Cologne Mani Codex.  See

A. Henrichs and L. Koenen, "Ein griechischer Mani-Codex (P.

Colon. inv. nr. 4780),"Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und

Epigraphik 5 (1970) 97-217; idem, "...Edition der Seiten 1-

72," Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik 19 (1975)

1-85; idem, " ... Edition der Seiten 72,8-99,9," Zeitschrift

fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik 32 (1978) 87-199; idem, " ...

Edition der Seiten 99,10-120," Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie

und Epigraphik 44 (1981) 201-318; idem, " ... Edition der

Seiten 121-192," Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und

Epigraphik 48 (1982) 1-59; L. Koenen and C. Romer, Der

Kolner Mani-Kodex: Abbildungen und diplomatischer Text (Bonn:

Habelt, 1985); idem, Der Kolner Mani-Kodex: Kritische

Edition (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1988). For an English

translation of the initial portion of the Codex, see Ron Cameron

and Arthur J. Dewey (trans) The Cologne Mani Codex (P.Colon.

inv. nr. 4780) "Concerning the Origin of his Body" (Society of

Biblical Literature Texts and Translations 15: Early Christian

Literature Series 3; Missoula: Scholars, 1979). A recent

comprehensive study that incorporates the new information about

Mani is S.N.C. Lieu, Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire

and Medieval China(2d ed.; Tubingen: Mohr, 1992).

33. The Cologne Mani Codex contains five citations from

otherwise unknown pseudepigraphic works attributed to Adam, Seth,

Enosh, Enoch, and Shem.  Albert Henrichs has suggested that

Cologne Mani Codex 7.2-14 reflects dependence upon the

Testament of Abraham; see Henrichs, "Thou Shalt Not Kill a

Tree: Greek, Manichaean and Indian Tales," Bulletin of the

American Society of Papyrologists 16 (1979) 105-106; idem,

"Literary Criticism of the Cologne Mani Codex," The

Rediscovery of Gnosticism: Proceedings of the International Conference

on Gnosticism at Yale, New Haven, CT, March 28-31, 1978 

(2 vols.; ed. B. Layton; Leiden: Brill, 1980-81)

2.729 n.20.  A reliance upon Jewish Enochic literature has been

vigorously advocated by J.C. Reeves, "An Enochic Motif in

Manichaean Tradition," Manichaica Selecta: Studies Presented

to Professor Julien Ries on the Occasion of his Seventieth

Birthday (ed. A. van Tongerloo and S. Giversen; Louvain:

International Association of Manichaean Studies, 1991) 295-98;

idem, Jewish Lore in Manichaean Cosmogony: Studies in the

Book of Giants Traditions (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College

Press, 1992).

34. See H. Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila: The Occult and

the Charismatic in the Early Church (Oxford: Clarendon, 1976).

35. For the evidence, see A.-M. Denis, Introduction aux

pseudepigraphes grecs d'Ancien Testament (Leiden: Brill,

1970); S.P. Brock, "Other Manuscript Discoveries," EJMI

157-73.

36. See especially the materials collected by F. Halkin,

Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca (3 vols.; 3rd ed;

Bruxelles: Socie/te/ Bollandistes, 1957).

37. For the development of such materials, see Martha

Himmelfarb, Tours of Hell: An Apocalyptic Form in Jewish and

Christian Literature (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania

Press, 1983), and now her Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and

Christian Apocalypses (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993).

38. An interest that I have largely overlooked, but that may

have served as a preserver of traditions and "pseudepigrapha

awareness" at a more "scientific-historical" level, is in world

chronography, recently more clearly identified and documented by

William Adler, Time Immemorial: Archaic History and its

Sources in Christian Chronography (Washington: Dumbarton Oaks,

1989), esp. pp. 80-97. In various ways, pseudepigraphic

literatures seem to have been able to serve a wide range of

interests in the "middle ages," including science (especially

astronomological and calendric issues), history, popular piety

(especially with folkloristic tales) and ordinary worship (e.g.

with models of prayer/hymn language). The interrelationship of

such motives among Christian transmitters deserves closer study.

39. See, e.g., Janet Timbie, Dualism and the Concept of

Orthodoxy in the Thought of the Monks of Upper Egypt (Ph.D.

dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1979). For general

background on the development of Christian communities in Egypt,

see Bauer Orthodoxy ch. 2, and more recently, Birger

Pearson and James E. Goehring (eds), The Roots of Egyptian

Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986). 

40. See David Bundy, "Pseudepigrapha in Syriac Literature,"

Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 1991

(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991) 745-65.

40a. On Armenian materials, see especially M. E. Stone and below, n.62.

41. Martin McNamara, The Apocrypha in the Irish Church

(Dublin: Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, 1975); see also

his (ed with M. Herbert) Irish Biblical Apocrypha: Selected

Texts in Translation (Edinburgh: Clark, 1989).

42. See Frederick M. Biggs et al., "Apocrypha," in Sources

of Anglo-Saxon Literary Culture: a Trial Version, ed Biggs, T.

D. Hill and P. E. Szarmach (Binghamton NY: Center for Medieval

and Early Renaissance Studies, State University of New York at

Binghamton, 1990). A good example of the crossfertilization of

some of these developments can be seen in E. Ann Matter, "The

'Revelatio Esdrae' in Latin and English Traditions," Revue

Benedictine 92 (1982) 376-92. Other examples may be found in the

electronic logs of the network discussion groups ANSAX-L and

MEDTEXTL.

43. Jules Lebreton and Jacques Zeiller, The History of the

Early Church (trans Ernest C. Messenger; New York: Collier,

1962 [1944-47 original]) 4.90.

44. The individual preeminently associated with this effort was

the Christian physician Hunayn b. Ishaq (809-874 CE), regarding

whom see G. Strohmaier, "Hunayn b. Ishak al-`Ibadi," EI2 [=

Encyclopaedia of Islam, new ed.] 3.578-81. For a general

discussion, see M. Plessner, "Science: The Natural Sciences and

Medicine," The Legacy of Islam (2d ed.; ed. J. Schacht and

C.E. Bosworth; Oxford: Clarendon: 1974) 425-60, esp. pp. 430ff.

45. O. Braun, "Ein Brief des Katholikos Timotheos I uber

biblische Studien des 9. Jahrhunderts," Oriens christianus

1 (1901) 299-313.  In his letter, Timetheos recounts a report

(received from some Jewish converts to Christianity) of the

recent discovery of a number of biblical and non-biblical

manuscripts in a cave near Jericho.  These manuscripts were

removed to Jerusalem for further study.  For more discussion of

this find and its possible significance for Qumran, see O.

Eissfeldt, "Der gegenwartige Stand der Erforschung der in

Palastina neu gefundenen hebraischen Handschriften,"

Theologische Litteraturzeitung 74 (1949) 597-600; R. de

Vaux, "A propos des manuscrits de la mer Morte," Revue

biblique 57 (1950) 417-29; A. Paul, Ecrits de Qumran et

sectes juives aux premiers siecles de l'islam (Paris: Letouzey

et Ane, 1969) 94-96.

46. For the origin and history of the Karaite schism, see S.W.

Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews (18

vols.; 2d ed.; New York and Philadelphia: Columbia University

Press and the Jewish Publication Society, 1952-83) 5.209-85; L.

Nemoy, et al., "Karaites," EncJud 10.761-85.  Regarding

the possible reliance of the Karaites upon non-canonical sources,

see H. H. Rowley, The Zadokite Fragments and the Dead Sea

Scrolls (Oxford: Blackwell, 1952) 22-29, and Y. Erder and H.

Ben-Shammai, "The Connection of Karaism with the Dead Sea Scrolls

and Related Apocryphal Literature," Cathedra 42 (1987) 53-

86 (Hebrew).  Some have also assessed the complicated problem of

whether traces of the "pseudepigrapha" have survived in the

literature of classical Judaism.  In addition to the references

cited in n.15 above, see H. Albeck, "Agadot im Lichte der

Pseudepigraphen," MGWJ 83 (1939) 162-69; Y. Dan,

"Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in Medieval Hebrew Literature,"

EncJud 3.186-87; idem, Ha-sippur ha-`ivri beyemey ha-

baynayyim (Jerusalem: Keter, 1974) 133-41 (Hebrew); M.

Himmelfarb, "R. Moses the Preacher and the Testaments of the

Twelve Patriarchs," American Jewish Society Review 9

(1984) 55-78.

47. H. Focillon, The Year 1000 (New York: Harper & Row,

1971), but see Bernard McGinn, Visions of the End:

Apocalyptic Traditions in the Middle Ages (New York: Columbia

University Press, 1979) 88, 306 n.1.  For general discussions of

medieval millenarianism, see Norman Cohn, The Pursuit of the

Millennium (3d ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 1970);

P.J. Alexander, Religious and Political History and Thought

in the Byzantine Empire (London: Variorum, 1978); idem,

The Byzantine Apocalyptic Tradition (Berkeley: University

of California Press, 1985).

48. See Kraft, "Transmission" (above, n.24).  Some recent

studies of the Christian transmission of Jewish materials include

David T. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature: A

Survey (CRINT; Assen and Philadelphia: Van Gorcum and

Fortress, 1993); James C. VanderKam, "1 Enoch in Early

Christianity" (CRINT forthcoming).

49. E.g. Swete, Introduction 56.

50. On the treatment of such "nomina sacra" in the manuscript

traditions, see Ludwig Traube, Nomina Sacra: Versuch einer

Geschichte der christlichen Kurzung (Quellen und

Untersuchungen zur lateinischen Philologie des Mittelalters 2;

Munich: Beck, 1907), and A.H.R. Paap, Nomina Sacra in the

Greek Papyri of the First Five Centuries AD: the Sources and some

Deductions (Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava 8; Leiden: Brill,

1959).

51. See Kraft, "Transmission" (above n.24).

52. As claimed by M.R. James for one Latin recension of 5

Ezra; see now also T. Bergren on 5 Ezra (below n.64),

and my own article "Towards Assessing the Latin Text of '5 Ezra'"

in Christians Among Jews and Gentiles: Essays in Honor of

Krister Stendhal on his Sixty-fifth Birthday (ed. G.W.E.

Nickelsburg and G.W. MacRae; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 158-

169.

53. For literature discussing the Testimonium Flavianum

(Antiquities 18.63-64), see Josephus, Jewish

Antiquities, Books XVIII-XIX (Loeb Classical Library;

ed. L.H. Feldman; reprinted, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press, 1981) 419-21; "new Schurer," History 1.428-41;

L.H. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship 1937-1980

(Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1984) 679-703; J.P. Meier, A Marginal

Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (2 vols.; New York:

Doubleday, 1991-  ) 1.56-88; S. Pines, An Arabic Version of

the Testimonium Flavianum and its Implications (Jerusalem:

Israel Academy of Science and Humanities, 1971).  Regarding

Slavonic Josephus, see the references in "new Schurer,"

History 1.60-61; Meier, Marginal Jew 71-72 n.5.

54. See now the careful study by Runia, Philo (above,

n.48). There is an interesting phenomenon in the Philonic textual

tradition in which one family of MSS contains a different text

type for the Jewish Scriptural quotations, but there is nothing

overtly or identifiably "Christian" about the results (despite

the conjecture of Katz to this effect) -- indeed, Barthelemy

argues for a "Jewish" reviser; see Runia 24f for a succinct

survey of the relevant literature and arguments, starting with

Peter Katz, Philo's Bible: the Aberrant Text of Bible

Quotations in some Philonic Writings and its Place in the Textual

History of the Greek Bible (Cambridge: University Press,

1950).

55. Compare the Armenian version at Paraleipomena

Jeremiou 9.14, and see n.63 below.

56. See M.P. Brown, The Authentic Writings of St.

Ignatius (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1963); W.R.

Schoedel, Ignatius of Antioch: A Commentary on the Letters of

Ignatius of Antioch (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 3-7.

57. See R.A. Kraft, Barnabas and the Didache = volume 3

of The Apostolic Fathers: A New Translation and Commentary

(ed. R.M. Grant; New York: Nelson, 1965) 58-59.

58. Ed. O. von Gebhardt, "Die Ascensio Isaiae als

Heiligenlegende," Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche

Theologie 21 (1878) 330-353; see the updated description by M.

A. Knibb in OTP 2.146

59. A long form (represented by MT) and a shorter form (at

Qumran and OG).  For discussion, see E. Tov, "The Literary

History of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of its Textual

History," Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism (ed.

J.H. Tigay; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985)

211-37; and more recently, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew

Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 319-327.

60. See A.A. Di Lella, The Hebrew Text of Sirach: A Text-

Critical and Historical Study (The Hague: Mouton, 1966); P.W.

Skehan and A.A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira: A New

Translation with Notes (AB 39; New York: Doubleday, 1987) 51-

62; Benjamin G. Wright, No Small Difference: Sirach's

Relationship to its Hebrew Parent Text (SCS 26; Atlanta:

Scholars Press, 1989), esp. 1.1.

61. See Kraft article noted above (n.9), and more recently E.P.

Sanders, OTP 1.871-73.

62. See M.D. Johnson, OTP 2.249-51, with reference also

to J.L. Sharpe, Prolegomena to the Establishment of the

Critical Text of the Greek Apocalypse of Moses (Ph.D.

dissertation, Duke University, 1969).  Among related texts

mentioned by Johnson are Apocalypse of Moses, Life of

Adam and Eve, Cave of Treasures, Combat of Adam and

Eve, Testament of Adam, and Apocalypse of Adam

(p. 250). See also D.A. Bertrand, La vie grecque d'Adam et

Eve (Paris: A. Maisonneuve, 1987); W. Lowndes Lipscomb,

The Armenian Apocryphal Adam Literature (University of

Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies 8; Atlanta: Scholars

Press, 1990); M.E. Stone, A History of the Literature of Adam

and Eve (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993).

63. See E. Nestle, Marginalien und Materialien (Tubingen:

J.J. Heckenhauer, 1893) 1-83; T. Schermann, Prophetarum vitae

fabulosae indices apostolorum discipulorumque Domini Dorotheo,

Epiphanio, Hippolyto aliisque vindicate (Leipzig: Teubner,

1907); idem, Propheten-und Apostellegenden nebst

Jungerkatalogen des Dorotheus und verwandter Texte (TU 31.3;

Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1907); C.C. Torrey, The Lives of the

Prophets: Greek Text and Translation (Journal of Biblical

Literature Monograph Series 1; Philadelphia: Society of Biblical

Literature, 1946); D.R.A. Hare, OTP 2.379-84.

64. The situation is summarized by S.E. Robinson, OTP

2.413-14, under the title "4 Baruch" (!). See also R.A. Kraft and

A.-E. Purintun, Paraleipomena Jeremiou (Missoula: Society

of Biblical Literature, 1972).

65. See now Theodore A. Bergren, Fifth Ezra: The Text,

Origin and Early History (SCS 25; Atlanta: Scholars Press,

1990).

66. See also Sparks, Apocryphal Old Testament xiv-xv.

67. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.20.1 (Marcosians);

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.25; Athanasius,

Festal Letter 39; Epiphanius, Panarion 39.5.1

(Sethians); 40.2.1 (Archontics).

68. D.W. Suter, Tradition and Composition in the Parables of

Enoch (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979) 11-33; see also M. de

Jonge on Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs (above n.2). 

Note M.R. James' suggestion (above n.52) that the more "Jewish"

sounding text of 5 Ezra might be due to Christian

editorial excision of overtly "Christian" elements!