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.
