biblicalia

[Please forgive my lack of posting. I shall attempt to get back to regular posting. I found that I lost some dear friends in 2023 (when I first went ‘radio silent’) and now have lost both parents just late last year. I have been out of sorts, but I am adapting. Please bear with me.]

I keep a lot of notes, both handwritten and in my Notes app on my Apple devices. I was just cleaning up my Notes app—I had scattered grocery lists, several To Do lists, and lots of duplicaation—and found a note that was much longer than I typically commit to Notes. I present it here in full, just as I found it.

❧

On earliest Christianity

At what point do patristic writers move from expressing beliefs in Jesus as Davidic Messiah endowed with rulership of creation as [supposed] firstborn/scion in the line of Adam and David? They used ‘Lord’ thus is the sense of ‘our King’ or ‘Your Majesty’, rather than ‘the Lord God’ (thanks, Septuagint!). That is, when does his being described as God take over? I’m leaning toward sometime in the later second century, and that our NT texts were adapted towards that later position sometime then. What traces remain in the NT of that earlier conception? James and Jude seem unaltered. Perhaps even Revelation: the heavenly Jesus stands not as God but as the transcendant Son of David, King of all creation. Essentially, there is no way a Pharisee-adjacent potential rabbi and claimant to the Davidic throne in the first century would have been accepted as a divine or semi-divine figure amongst the various groups who are depicted to have received him, even, or especially, the populace. But, developing that further into a particular ‘Son of God’ not in the Davidic sense but in a Greco-Roman paganistic sense (one who is actually somehow begotten by God, rather than acknowledged as the legitimate Davidic King) is a later stage, and what we have ended up with: another syncretistic Eastern religion adapted to the needs/desires of Greco-Romans, like that of Mithras, Serapis, and Isis. Joseph, as a descendant of David, must have been his biological father in order to be Scion of David legitimated by thunder and lightning [lightning because there was thunder, but also found in Diatessaron and required as the origin for light-related terminology in Holy Saturday hymnography: all assigned for the ancient baptism ceremony that was scheduled that night for catechumens—heavenly approval (see the Qumran Brontology for such beliefs being contemporary)—as Mary was apparently of a priestly family.

I found that such questions are generally gently yet firmly dismissed even in academic settings—at least in my graduate school experience which likely should have been at Hebrew University—due to the Christian confessional membership of academics. This was not a problem at Berkeley for my undergraduate studies, with the program being led by Milgrom, but also with a ‘no religion department’ perspective at that state institution and by the preference of the scholars there—a very refreshing approach and an academically honest approach. It remains a given in scholarship that the NT is largely a compilation of 1st century CE documents, with a few occasionally-claimed outliers: 1Pt–2Pt and Jude (due to presumed later concepts expressed and reliance, one way or the other) and sometimes Acts (as Mason suggests reliance on Josephus). These professors are Christian believers as well as believers in the nineteenth century German-based ‘higher criticism’ rooted in antisemitism. Ugh. Whatever.

In any case, a new approach is—or should be—always welcome. How about returning to how the transitional stage of earliest Christianity approached interpreting the biblical texts? These were Jews, not Chrisitans, and their acceptance of Jesus as Christ was not as a new god—however attenuated—but as the Scion of David, rightful heir to the throne of Judea, Israel, the entire world, and all creation beyond. They would ‘search the writings’ for information hinting at or more explicitly describing the Davidic king. Now, as I believe a first edition of Hebrew writings, a sort of Ur-Bible, was written as a Davidic Dynastic Apology, or Succession Justification, or somesuch (it needs a snappier descriptor) leading from creation, through the former prophets, ending early in 1 Kings with the crowning of Solomon and how well things were in the Land, with everyone praising him for wealth and wisdom. Later ages added to that material, expanding it immensely. Isaiah contributes some moving commentary on hopes for the Davidic dynasty just when it seemed about to go extinct, when Hezekiah was ill and had not yet produced an heir. Haggai and Zechariah are quite clear on their opinions on a Davidic scion in the person of Zerubbabel. Later, with the focus on Law—much of it later additions to the core document—that Davidic focus was lost. The Persians would brook no claimants, and Zerubbabel was likely eliminated by them, either by demotion, transfer, or execution, leaving his descendants as mere citizens; they bore an interesting genealogy but no power. In the later Persian and into the Hellenistic period, the priest rose in power, leading ultimately to the Hasmonean priestly dynasty, and then the converted Jew Herod’s Herodian dynasty. Neither of those would brook any Davidic claims at the expense of their own power. With the death of Herod and the mess of Antipas, the Romans stepped in to administer Herod’s kingdom, dividing it into various smaller administrative regions suited to the ethnic makeup of the populace. Josephus reports how the Romans dealt with Davidic pretenders, included a much-altered description of the death of Jesus in their midst. As in the case of the Bar Kokhba rebellion, there may have been a Davidic element involved in the First Revolt (and Second/Diaspora?—need more info on that one), leading to the end of the Jerusalem Temple. As Josephus gains status by telling Vespasian that he is the prophesied ruler of the world, this may imply that one or more of the rebel leaders had considered themselves the same, namely the Davidic Scion. Was there a Messianic inspiration in the Second/Diaspora?—need more info on that one. After that the proto-Rabbinic Jews turned altogether from Davidic Scion (=’Messiah’, the ‘anointed successor’) expectations. Christians took it and ran with it, turning the King into God, likely in the second century. Certainly the NT Gospels as they are would have scandalized any auditors in the first generation of Christians, as would many of the Epistles.

—-

So, anyhow, the earliest approach of those who would later be termed ‘Christians’ was to search through the writings—the ‘Old Testament’ especially, but even those other parabiblical writings known now variously as hagiographa or deuterocanonicals, and apocrypha or pseudepigrapha. Early on, it was taken for granted that the origins of these works were accurately described by their titles and narrative, and so were collected. Different books were more widespread, others less so, leading to the variations in local biblical canons over the centuries.

—-

That early search for meaning may be what led to the seldom-noticed equation of Jesus’ resurrection timing and the Wave Sheaf ritual early in the Pascha octave.

—-

Genesis written to correct various traditional notions of who is the chosen Heir, the Firstborn of Adam, which in the author’s mind and their reality was David, followed by Solomon, son of a wife not a concubine. This explains all the various gymnastics: Ishmael firstborn but of a slave and exiled; Esau/Edom first but Isaac stole the right; Simeon and Levi were violent, so Judah gets it; etc. I’m sure the various nations around Israel had different tales for all of these, as did tribal groups in Israel itself. ALWAYS these were verified in a manner prophetic, suggesting the Sons of the Prophets—one of whom delivered and the rest held to the Davidic promise from Y ‘your dynasty shall never fail’—were involved. Note the nearly ubiquitous depiction of priests as dilatory, most notably Aaron and Eli due to the lengthier accounts accorded them, likely a reaction against their veneration in other circles.

I had, when I was a teenager, a recent printing (at that time) of a little black hardcover volume of the biblical apocrypha of the English tradition, in the Authorised Version text. This small hardcover volume was my first introduction to those interesting books. This little volume was part of a series in the same size published for some time by the Oxford University Press—I recall a page at the end of the book listing a number of other volumes in the series. Belonging apparently to this same series I have a much older undated copy of an abridged Cruden’s Concordance, acquired in 2005: hardcover, leather-bound, with gilt page edges and title on the upper cover, with gilt imitated binding-lines and ‘Oxford’ on the spine, and with a positively minuscule print in the text itself, no doubt due to the nature of the text. My teenage copy of the Apocrypha was obviously a descendant representative of the format represented by this Cruden volume, though it was simply a black board cover (albeit with the same texture and indented outlining on the covers), with no gilding, and with blue page edges. I think this latter edition, my initial teenaged one, was available into at least the 1990s; it seems to be out of print now. As I unfortunately lost my little copy of the Authorised Version of the Apocrypha in a more recent move, and having felt its loss, I thought to buy another. Therefore I recently acquired another copy, far lovelier than my earlier one, a hardcover bound in a beautifully textured black leather, with gilt page edges, and gilt ‘Apocrypha’ and ‘Oxford’ on the spine. This almost certainly belonged to the same series as my earlier Apocrypha and Cruden, if a higher end of it: the binding is better, the paper is better, the text is larger, and the volume itself is slightly larger (15.8 x 10.5 cm, 6 1/4 x 4 1/8 in., as opposed to the size of the Cruden, which I think matches my earlier copy: 13.6 x 9.3 cm, 5 3/8 x 3 3/4 in.). Unfortunately neither the Cruden nor my recently-acquired Apocrypha bear any date. More to the point, both my old copy and new copy include(d) a single-paged preface to the Apocrypha. Upon receipt of my new copy, I became curious as to the origins of this short preface, a mere two paragraphs. I present here my findings.

First, here is the text in my undated volume:

These books form part of the sacred literature of the Alexandrian Jews, and with the exception of the Second Book of Esdras are found interspersed with the Hebrew Scriptures in the ancient copies of the Septuagint or Greek Version of the Old Testament. They are the product of the era subsequent to the Captivity; having their origin partly in Babylonia, partly in Palestine and Egypt and perhaps other countries. Most of them belong to the last three centuries B.C., when prophecy, oracles, and direct revelation had ceased. Some of them form an historical link between the Old and New Testament, others have a linguistic value in connexion with the Hellenistic phraseology of the latter. The narratives of the Apocrypha are partly historical records, and partly allegorical. The religious poetry is to a large extent a paraphrase upon the Poetical and Prophetical Books of the Hebrew Canon. In the paraphrases upon the latter there is often a near approach to New Testament teaching, especially upon God’s care for the heathen world.

As to their Canonical Authority, Josephus seems to reject it as a whole, but appears from his use of I Esdras rather than our Canonical Ezra to have accepted the authenticity of at least that work. The early Christians differed in opinion respecting them, but received them as part of the sacred literature of Israel. Several of the books of the Apocrypha were more generally accepted than the disputed books of the New Testament Canon. Melito (cir. 170), referring to the Hebrew Canon, separated them from the authoritative and Divine records; while Origen (cir. 230), following the LXX, included in Daniel (and so among the Canonical Books) the history of Susanna; and speaks ambiguously about the Books of the Maccabees. Jerome, a century later, called them ‘apocryphal’ (hidden, secret, and so of uncertain origin and authority), affirming (when speaking of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus) that ‘the Church doth read them for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine’. In the Western Church they gradually rose in esteem, until the Council of Trent affirmed the canonicity of the greater part; but they are treated by the more critical Roman divines as ‘deuterocanonical’, thus making some distinction between them and the books of the Hebrew Canon.

This precise expression of the material first appears in the 1893 edition of Helps to the Study of the Bible (Oxford University Press, 1893). Yet there was an earler version! The first edition (1876) of Helps to the Study of the Bible was written by the Rev. James Ridgway B. D., Hon. Canon of Christ Church, yet did not include a separate section on the Apocrypha, and thus our two paragraphs are lacking in that edition. Ridgway promptly revised and expanded the edition in 1877 or 1878, which may be the origin of the passage in question, though I haven’t seen a copy of this revised edition. However, it is found in a revised edition of the Helps from 1880, the last accomplished by Ridgway. Here is the original text of the passage:

These books form part of the sacred literature held in high esteem by the Alexandrian Jews, and appended by them to the LXX. translation of the Old Testament. They are for the most part, if not wholly, the product of the era subsequent to the commencement of the Captivity; part having their origin in Babylonia during or after the Captivity, part belonging to the last three centuries B.C., when prophecy, oracles, and direct revelation had ceased. They form the historical link between the Old and New Testament, and have also a linguistic value in connexion with the Hellenistic phraseology of the latter. They differ from the former in the marked absence of prophetic teaching, of Divine revelation, and of religious poetry; while they point (as in the Book of Wisdom) to a spiritual kingdom which shall be eternal. The account there given of the Exodus suggests the existence of traditionary narratives (besides that which is contained in the Pentateuch), from which certain additions found in the New Testament (e.g., in Stephen’s speech) were derived. The LXX. had been formed on a Hebraic mould, so that Hebraisms were sure to manifest themselves; but in the Apocrypha (much of which was originally written in Greek) we find the same Hebraic cast of thought and expression. Thus the Hellenistic phraseology of the New Testament was not a new thing, even when applied to original composition, but had become habitual.

As to their Canonical authority, Josephus seems to reject it. The early Christians differed in opinion respecting them, but received them as part of the sacred literature. Melito, referring to the Hebrew Canon, separated them from the authoritative and Divine records. Jerome called them “apocryphal” (hidden, secret, and so spurious), affirming that “the Church doth read them for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.”

In the Western Church they gradually rose in esteem, until the Council of Trent affirmed the Canonicity of the major part; but they are treated by the more critical Roman divines as “deuterocanonical.”

In another revision to the book in 1884, overseen after the passing of the Rev. Ridgway by the Right Rev. William Stubbs D. D., Bishop of Oxford, the text remains as immediately above. It is only in the 1893 revised edition—a revision prompted by the 1885 publication of the Revised Version of the English Bible—overseen by the Rev. Canon George Frederick Maclear, D. D., Warden of St Augustine’s College, Canterbury, that we find the precise expression of the paragraphs found in my lovely little Apocrypha volume. The Apocrypha section of the book, including the text in view here, was revised for the 1893 edition by the Rev. Canon William Ralph Churton, B. D., Fellow of King’s College, Cambridge, author of The Uncanonical and Apocryphal Scriptures (London: J. Whitaker, 1884) and of commentary notes on the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, and Baruch included in an Old Testament edition (Oxford: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1880). So, the Rev. Ridgway may be considered the author of the text, and the Rev. Canon Churton its reviser.
An interesting thing about the 1893 Helps edition is that some printings include 68 plates presenting images of (then) recently discovered art from various archaeological excavations as well as manuscript pages. This set of plates was then expanded to 124 plates—all available either as included in the Helps volume, or in a separate volume—with commentary on each plate, with the separate volume published as Bible Illustrations: A Series of Plates Illustrating Biblical Versions and Antiquities, being an appendix to Helps to the Study of the Bible (Oxford University Press, 1896). The selection of images and commentary thereon were provided by Sir Edward Maunde Thompson, Principal Librarian of the British Museum, and the renowned Ernest Alfred Thompson Wallis Budge, Keeper of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities, British Museum. The Helps volume was once again edited, being given the label ‘Second Edition’ (though properly speaking it is the Sixth Edition), overseen by the Right Rev. Alfred Walter Frank Blunt, Bishop of Bradford. The 1931 text of the passage in question remains largely as it was in the 1893 edition, with a subtle correction (namely, the dating of Jerome) and several additions:

1. These books form part of the sacred literature of the Alexandrian Jews, and with the exception of the Second Book of Esdras are found interspersed with the Hebrew Scriptures in the ancient copies of the Septuagint, or Greek Version of the Old Testament. They are the product of an era subsequent to the Captivity, having their origin partly in Babylonia, partly in Palestine and Egypt, and perhaps other countries. Most of them belong to the last three centuries B.C., when prophecy, oracles, and direct revelation had ceased. Some of them form an historical link between the Old and New Testament, others have a linguistic value in connexion with the Hellenistic phraseology of the latter: others, again, throw light upon the growth of the Palestinian Canon (Ecclesiasticus, 2 Esdras). The narratives of the Apocrypha are partly historical records, and partly allegorical. The religious poetry is to a large extent a paraphrase upon the poetical and prophetical books of the Hebrew Canon. In the paraphrases upon the latter there is often a near approach to New Testament teaching, especially upon God’s care for the heathen world. Only one purely apocalyptic book (2 Esdras) is included in the Apocrypha.

2. As to their Canonical Authority, Josephus seems to reject it as a whole, but appears from his use of 1 Esdras rather than our canonical Ezra to have accepted the authenticity of at least that work. The early Christians differed in opinion respecting them, but received them as part of the sacred literature of Israel. Several of the books of the Apocrypha were more generally accepted than the disputed books of the New Testament Canon. Melito (c. 170), referring to the Hebrew Canon, separated them from the authoritative and Divine records; while Origen (c. 230), following the LXX, included in Daniel (and so among the canonical books) the history of Susanna; and speaks ambiguously about the Books of the Maccabees. Jerome, a century and a half later, called them ‘apocryphal’ (hidden, secret, and so of uncertain origin and authority), affirming (when speaking of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus) that ‘the Church doth read them for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine’. In the Western Church they gradually rose in esteem, until the Council of Trent affirmed the canonicity of the greater part; but they are treated by the more critical Roman divines as ‘deutero-canonical’, who thus make some distinction between them and the books of the Hebrew Canon.

Another interesting thing is that the volume Helps to the Study of the Bible was initially an appendix to the Oxford Bible for Teachers, first published separately apparently in the second quarter 19th century, though earlier Oxford Bibles had included some “helps”. The earliest mention that I found of these “helps” included in Oxford Bibles was that the Rev. Richard Cumberland, Bishop of Peterborough (1691–1718, vivat 1631–1718) compiled a ‘Tables of Scripture Measures, Weight, and Coins, &c.’ and an ‘Index to the Holy Scriptures’ which was appended to Oxford Bibles in or before 1715—an Oxford Bible that year included his Index and Tables immediately following the book Revelation. So, the tradition of helpful Bibles published by the Oxford University Press has a lengthy history, with its present expression being the continuing editions of the The New Oxford Annotated Bible. The first Oxford Annotated Bible, edited by Herbert G. May and Bruce M. Metzger, appeared with the completion of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible in 1977. The first New Oxford Annotated Bible, edited by Bruce M. Metzger and Roland E. Murphy, with the New Revised Standard Version as the biblical text, was published in 1991, with subsequent editions following in which the annotations and essays have been updated and/or replaced, whether to the better or worse. I think that last phrase may be revealing of my own opinion.

In the end, it was a delight to look into the history of the text found on a single page in a little book. It led to a deeper appreciation of the involvement of my alma mater in Bible publishing.

I should also, I think, like to provide some commentary on this/these introduction(s) to the English Apocrypha, though in another post. There have, after all, been some few developments in the field regarding the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books since 1893 and even 1931, though it must be admitted that the passage of time and the surfeit of learning on the ‘apocrypha’ seems to have resulted in our having more questions than fewer in regards to their precise origins and the development of the various biblical canons existent in the past and present. More on that later.

I have added a page from which those interested in Old Testament parabiblical texts may download a lengthy list (55 pages and an image providing a missing page of volume 2!) of corrections to the two volumes edited by James Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (Doubleday, 1983, 1985). Enjoy!