The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha:
Volume 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments;
Volume 2: Expansions of the "Old Testament" and Legends, Wisdom
and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes,
Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works,
edited by James H. Charlesworth.
Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983 and 1985.
Pp. l + 995, (l) + 1006, $35 each.
The Apocryphal Old Testament,
edited by H. F. D. Sparks.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984. Pp. xxii + 990, $44.50.
[[Originally reviewed in Religious Studies Review 14.2 (April 1988)
113-117 (some additional material included below, taken from earlier
drafts of the RSR review, thus often repetitive); a separate review
of the Charlesworth volumes from JBL 106 (1987) 736-739 is also
appended below.]]
These volumes (OTP 1-2, AOT) have been reviewed, individually
or in combinations, in part or in whole, in various publications
by various scholars with various insights, commedations and
complaints (e.g. Bauckham, Brock, Kraft 1987, Nickelsburg 1988,
and Stone's companion review to this one). There is general
consensus that the diverse reading publics, whether specialists
or generalists or somewhere inbetween, have profited from the
appearance of these works, whatever the shortcomings. Since the
following review often will be bluntly critical in its
evaluations, let me emphasize at the outset that I can and do
appreciate the enormous amount of useful effort, especially on
the part of the respective editors, that has gone into producing
these anthologies, and I readily admit that we are better off
with them than we would be without them. Serious students and
scholars who deal with early forms of "Judaism" and the heritages
they left will need to consult these volumes regularly,
especially the set edited by Charlesworth. I would buy these
books, at least at the original prices (Oxford has now seriously
overpriced the Sparks volume, for which I originally paid under
$20 when it first appeared). This is a strong, if not
unqualified, recommendation!
Nevertheless, these works have serious shortcomings to which
users should be alerted. Since ultimately the editors,
Charlesworth and Sparks, rightly or wrongly bear the
responsibility for such failings as well as receive the praise
for the successes, this review will concentrate on the overtly
"editorial contributions" in the respective materials. Much could
and should also be said about the individual contributions (see,
e.g., Brock), but that will not be the focus here. Serving as
general editor to such corpora can be a frustrating, time
consuming and largely thankless task. One is not well advised to
jump into it lightly. It requires a special combination of
personal and professional traits and talents to do it
successfully. Few people would have accepted the assignment faced
by Charlesworth or by Sparks, and doubtless each person
confronted with such a task would have done things slightly
differently.
From the outset, there are obvious significant differences
between Charlesworth and Sparks as editors as well as between the
circumstances that gave birth to the respective editions, and
these differences color the final products. When Charlesworth was
offered this assignment by the publisher in 1972, he was an
energetic junior faculty member (PhD 1967) who was actively
pursuing dissertation related research on the Odes of Solomon and
related topics and was serving as secretary to the steering
committee of the recently founded (1969) SBL Pseudepigrapha
Group. He had already published a couple of articles, and his
new edition of the Syriac Odes (1973) was about to go to press.
He knew that the Sparks edition was (as we then thought!) nearly
ready for publication after about fifteen years of preparation,
and that the Pseudepigrapha Group steering committee thought it
premature to try to produce a more sophisticated anthology of
such writings, before considerably more textual and editorial
activity on individual works had been undertaken. Nevertheless,
he succumbed to the wooing of the press and rashly contracted on
his own to edit an anthology of translations by specialists, and
to write all the introductions himself. When these arrangements
were announced, there was a flood of reactions from other
members of the Pseudepigrapha Group, including the strong
recommendation that Charlesworth not attempt to author all the
introductions. He took this advice, with the result that in OTP,
the introductions are mostly written by the respective
translators and/or their redactors.
Sparks, on the other hand, was already professor of biblical
interpretation (since 1952) at Oxford when in the late 1950s he
became involved in what seemed to be a fairly straightforward
inhouse proposal by the Oxford Press to update the translations
found in R. H. Charles' Pseudepigrapha volume (Oxford, 1913),
perhaps adjusting the contents somewhat, and to provide brief
new introductions (with bibliographies) to produce a saleable
companion volume to the perennially useful New Testament
Apocrypha edited by M. R. James (Oxford, 1924; supplemented ed.
1955). Sparks was not at that time, nor did he become, a
publishing technical scholar in Jewish pseudepigraphical matters
(his publication activities have tended to focus on the New
Testament, especially the Gospels, and on textcritical matters,
especially Latin), but he was already an experienced editor with
appropriate knowledge of the materials to be edited and
appropriate stature for coordinating the team of
revisors/translators that was appointed.
The overall character of the respective resulting editions
reflect these circumstances. Under Sparks' direction, OTA turns
out to be a very convenient, relatively "solid," "safe" and
"standard" Oxford edition. It doesn't take many chances (e.g.
"the extant fragments of the apocryphal Ezekiel ... were thought
too insubstantial to merit inclusion" xv), and is selfconscious
about its connections to its predecessors (e.g. "I can only hope
that the result [of modernizing the translations] will not be
judged too aggressivley modern" xi; "In practice the differences
in content between our volume and Charles's second volume are
nothing like so great as the above remarks might suggest. ...
There is an essential core common to both volumes" xv-xvi). Its
format is consistent: After the relatively compact editor's
Preface and other front matter, the 25 selected "apocryphal"
texts are presented in the chronological order of the "biblical"
figures/events with which they are associated, from Jubilees
(creation) and the Enoch literature through to the Ezra-Sedrach
cycle. The individual introductions by Sparks are usually about
4-6 pages in length (1 Enoch is 11 pages, Testament of Jacob is 1
page) and deal almost exclusively with questions of title,
attestation, and textual witnesses/transmission. Then comes a
solid and relatively extensive, if "select," bibliography of
editions, translations and "general" treatments, also by Sparks.
(On balance, the Sparks bibliographies appear to be more helpful
than those in Charlesworth.) The translations of the various
texts were prepared by a team of collaborators, sometimes simply
updating the material in Charles (e.g. Assumption of Moses,
Ascension of Isaiah) but usually preparing entirely new
translations (e.g. Knibb on 1 Enoch, Turner on Testament of
Abraham, DeJonge on the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs, Brock
on Psalms of Solomon), and contain frequent footnotes limited to
textual/translational issues. At the end are indices of
scriptural references, ancient and modern authors/works, and
subjects/topics. Thus Sparks has produced a competent and very
useful handbook in a style that does indeed fall somewhere
inbetween Charles and M. R. James (whose Lost Apocrypha of the
Old Testament [1920] is reflected in the rationale for choosing
documents as well as for organizing them in a biblical-
biographical chronology). But it lacks the excitement and
stimulation that might have been generated by a more expert and
more adventurous approach in the introductory treatments
(compare, e.g., Brock's brief comments on the books covered by
OTP 1 for a sample of such stimulation from one of Sparks' team
of translators).
Under Charlesworth's editorial hand, OTP is a much more
complex and varied compilation -- it is at the same time bolder
and brasher, more energetic, less balanced, less sure of itself,
more vulnerable, and in the long run, more exciting and
rewarding. Surely some of this is the result of the editor's own
rather rash enthusiasms, but much of it is also due to the
relatively younger expert collaborators he coopted to prepare the
introductions and translations in OTP. Here we often find
ourselves on the cutting edges (and ragged edges!) of research
into these materials, with the problems -- and rewards --
generated by such a situation. The advice that Charlesworth not
attempt by himself to write all the introductions clearly has
paid off, in general. What is sacrificed in homogeneity of style
and approach is atoned for amply in these other ways. Not that
every contribution to OTP is a gem; indeed, there are some major
disappointments. But taken as a whole, the quality pieces
predominate, or at least are worth the price of the whole
collection. That Charlesworth deserves to be criticized for
various editorial failures (see below) cannot obliterate the fact
that despite these failures, the volumes are overall a success.
And they provide a basis for scholarly progress in the study of
these literatures that may be more difficult to establish from
the Sparks edition.
The editorial structure of the Charlesworth edition is
complex. As general editor functioning with a board of advisors
(R. E. Brown, W. D. Davies, W. Harrelson, B. M. Metzger, R. E.
Murphy, J. Strugnell), Charlesworth contributes an "Editor's
Preface" (xv-xvii), an "Introduction for the General Reader"
(xxi-xxxiv), and brief introductions to each of the six
subsections (apocalyptic, testaments, "OT expansions,"
wisdom/philosophy, prayers/psalms/odes, and fragments of lost
works). In addition, there are three prefaces by other writers,
and a general introduction to the supplementary fragments of lost
works, by John Strugnell. Such a plethora of introductory
treatments is not in itself necessarily distracting, since it may
be helpful to have certain divergent types of general information
located separately. Unfortunately, in these volumes the diversity
of treatments and locations makes it difficult to get an
accurate, comprehensive picture of the editorial context of this
collection. Some of the matters in the "Editor's Preface" would
fit the general introduction better (e.g. outline of assigned
topics for the individual book introductions, general
organization of the collection, approach to translation style);
questions of definition, inclusion, and exception that are raised
in the introductions to subsections would have been more valuable
(also) in the general introduction (e.g. when is an
"apocalypse," or a "testament," not an apocalypse/testament?)
Because of its more homogenous nature, the Sparks volume suffers
less from this sort of distraction. The single "Preface" tells
about the evolution of the volume, describes the approach it
adopts, and defends its selectivity in content.
How do the editions compare with respect to definition of the
subject area and choice of texts for inclusion? For Sparks, the
rationale for choosing what works to include involves "whether
or not a particular item is attributed to (or is primarily
concerned with the history or activities of) an Old Testament
character (or characters)." Nevertheless, "to have included
everything which satisfies this criterion would have been
impossible. In making our choices we have been guided principally
by a desire to produce a collection as representative as possible
of the various types of literature within the field -- i.e.
History (and Legend), Testament, Apocalypse, Psalms, etc." (xv).
But nowhere in the volume is there any significant discussion of
why these specific "representatives" have been chosen or of what
constitutes, or differentiates, one "type" from another. Sparks
does note that the "Testament" of Abraham does not have the
trappings of "normal" testaments (see also 734), and thus might
be better titled "The Narrative of the Death of Abraham" (395-
96), and he observes that the "Apocalypse of Sedrach" "is not an
apocalypse as the term 'apocalypse' is usually understood"
(953), but otherwise makes little attempt to take note of such
matters. He isn't really interested in discussions of types, as
much as in discussing titles.
Charlesworth, on the other hand, attempts to be very conscious
of types and classifications, as has already been noted. His
decision to spread the nets widely and "include all documents
that conceivably belong to the OT Pseudepigrapha" (xxv),
resulting in a collection of 52 writings plus various "fragments
of lost judeo-hellenistic works," make this an extremely
valuable collection, quantitatively. Unfortunately, the
rationales for doing so are muddled, the criteria for
inclusion/exclusion seem extremely arbitrary, and the explanation
of how and why we have these materials at all is almost
completely lacking, leaving the relatively uninformed reader with
a sense that despite the occasional caveats to the contrary,
there must be some sort of cohesion in this miscellany of
materials (see further my JBL review). In contrast, Sparks does
not attempt to make an extensive or organized collection, and
even eschews referring to "the pseudepigrapha" for fear of
implying that there is a sort of "trito-canonical" collection
alongside the canonical and deutero-canonical ( = "the
Apocrypha") works (xvii).
How does Charlesworth's edition fare on such issues of detail,
thrust and tone? There is good news, and there is bad news. That
is the good news, in a nutshell. It is useful and convenient to
have in print and in English such extensive collections of non
canonical and non rabbinic "Jewish" writings from antiquity.
Charlesworth has provided the largest collection, similar in
scope to Riessler's German collection (1928), with sizable
introductions to each work (unlike Riessler, but approaching the
pattern in R. H. Charles' APOT, 1913). Unfortunately, the
overriding concept behind the project is relatively unclear and
the specific contents of Charlesworth's two volumes are very
uneven with reference both to the introductions and to the
translations.
Sparks' collection is less ambitious, being caught between the
two models (both published by Oxford Press) of Charles'
Pseudepigrapha volume for the number and type of writings
selected, and of M. R. James' NT Apocrypha for the brevity of
introductions and the targeted audience. Since Sparks wrote all
the introductions himself, and attempted to "modernize" the
Charleslike translations at a late prepublication stage, his
volume has more homogeneity. Nevertheless, in reacting to
certain aspects of Charles' principles for selecting "Jewish"
"pseudepigrapha" -- and indeed, moving towards James'
biographical organizational principle as evidenced in his Lost
Apocrypha of the OT (1920) -- Sparks has not contributed any
clarity to what these books may or may not represent or how they
can best be used in historically conscious research.
The introductions to the individual books consistently deal with
questions of what textual witnesses exist, when the work was
known and by whom. Sometimes they give a precis of the work. They
almost never attempt to address the questions of literary
form/type or of the historical dynamics that might have produced
such pieces of literature. Despite "modernized" translations,
the overall approach has a stable, but archaic tone.
Fresh directions, misdirections:
Both editions consciously include some "late documents, and
Christian expansions of early Jewish writings" (OTP xv; see AOT
xv). For Charlesworth, this is because they "frequently
preserve edited portions of early Jewish writings" (xv), while
for Sparks it is because it is difficult to draw a clear line
between "Jewish" and "Christian" in the literature he selects
(xv). This approach has definite advantages -- writings need not
be arbitrarily carved apart to isolate only the allegedly
"Jewish" sections (as in APOT, e.g., with Martyrdom/Ascension of
Isaiah, Sibylline Oracles, 2 Enoch), and potentially relevant
materials associated with the name of a specific revered person
can be represented more fully (e.g. Adam, Ezra-Sedrach).
Unfortunately, although Charlesworth states that "the late
documents . . . must not be read as if they were composed by
contemporaries" (i.e. in the 200 bce to 200 ce range; xv and
xxv), and Sparks acknowledges the probability "that Christians
also wrote works with a traditionally Jewish background" (xiv),
the respective editors nowhere provide a general discussion of
how such texts are to be read -- in Charlesworth's introductory
materials, it is only the "Foreword for Jews" (sic!) by the late
Samuel Sandmel that begins to open the door to what should have
been a major section of the general introduction to OTP, namely,
the transmission history (which is largely Christian
transmission!) of the documents in general. That Sparks shows
much more awareness of these problems does not in itself bring
him any closer to a satisfactory presentation of the complex
situation. Neither editor makes significant headway in providing
a map of Christian uses and production of "Jewish" sounding
materials.
Charlesworth's recognition of "the variegated, even
contradictory, nature of the ideas popular in many sectors of
post-exilic Judaism" and of "the rich vitality and diversity of
Judaism during the early centuries" (xxix) accurately reflects
current scholarship and is a valuable introductory note in a
collection of this sort. Unfortunately, the editor neutralizes
these observations on the very same page by disclaiming, without
further explanation, contemporary scholarship's "tendency to
emphasize unduly [sic!] the diversity in Early Judaism. While it
is now recognized that foreign ideas penetrated deep into many
aspects of Jewish thought, and that sometimes it is difficult to
decide whether an early document is essentially Jewish or
Christian, it is, nevertheless, unwise [sic!] to exaggerate the
diversity in Early Judaism. In the first century Judaism was
neither uniformly normative nor chaotically diverse." One wonders
whether some sort of hidden agenda lies behind this rather
ambivalent, even question-begging, presentation. Sparks neglects
to discuss this important issue altogether.
Charlesworth wants his volumes to be received in a broadly
ecumenical context, "for the scholar and for the interested non-
specialist," and "without confessional bias" (xv).
Unfortunately, the prefatory materials seem to have just the
opposite effect, with an unenlightening "Foreword for Christians"
(by James T. Cleland, who will be unknown to most readers until
they reach vol. 2, p.632) and Sandmel's valuable "Foreword for
Jews" (I recommend it to non-Jews as well!) following George
MacRae's "Foreword" (for everyone else?); the use, "for
convenience" (xv), of "Old Testament" (why not "Jewish
Bible/Scriptures"?) and of "B.C./A.D." (why not BCE/CE?) only
slightly increases the aggravation. Sparks, on the other hand,
shows no awareness that there is even a potential problem here,
and speaks consistently in clearly Christian confessional tones
of the words of "Our Lord" (xvii) as well as of "Old Testament,"
BC/AD, etc.
Charlesworth emphasizes the dangers of reading back later
attitudes to Jewish biblical "canon" into the period on which his
volumes attempt to focus -- "to call the Pseudepigrapha 'non-
canonical,' or the biblical books 'canonical,' can be
historically inaccurate prior to A.D. 100. . . . It is
potentially misleading to use the terms 'non-canonical,'
'canonical,' 'heresy,' and 'orthodoxy' when describing either
Early Judaism or Early Christianity" (xxiv). Unfortunately, much
of the very organization of the collection, not to mention the
assumption behind various statements both by the editor and by
some individual contributors, is that "OT" precedes
"Pseudepigrapha" and becomes the standard by which to recognize
and with which to compare the forms and contents of the latter:
e.g. "the Pseudepigrapha illustrate the pervasive influence of
the OT books upon Early Judaism" (xxviii), "the traditions in the
OT provided the framework and most of the presuppositions for the
following testaments" (773), "Early Judaism was a religion bound
to and defined by the Book, the Torah. . . . The biblical
narratives were clarified, enriched, expanded, and sometimes
retold from a different perspective" (2.5, introducing the
section called "expansions" of "OT" and legends). This sort of
approach tends to preclude the possibility of recognizing in the
"expansions," etc., materials that may predate, or be independent
of, what came to be the "biblical" tradition. Sparks is even more
guilty of making the assumption of canonical priority, but is at
least more consistent in that he seems unaware that there is a
problem.
Sparks' own interests seem to be quite limited, vis-a-vis
such issues, perhaps in an effort to keep things brief. He does
not usually concern himself with questions of what the internal
evidence from a writing might reveal about its setting, outlook,
audience, reason for preservation, etc. -- the interactions of
form and content, of literary history and social history. His
interests tend to focus on external, textual evidence -- what
references are made to a text, what manuscripts are preserved and
in what languages, what can we determine about its date and
origin and history from this material? He still pursues the "old"
questions so obvious in the approaches of M. R. James, R. H.
Charles and their associates, in which assumptions about
canonical centrality govern the way in which similarity to
canonical content is interpreted -- here we find an echo of the
New Testament, here is an development of an Old Testament theme.
It comes as no surprise to find that one of Sparks' earliest
publications dealt with the Old Testament in the Christian Church
(1944). AOT is permeated with the imprint of unexamined
presuppositions about canonical priority, and with an
overconfidence about our abilities to identify vague quotations
(e.g. his treatment of quotations found in the Epistle of
Barnabas is problematic at almost every point) that is
reminiscent of an earlier style of scholarship that needs to be
reassessed and revised if it is to be convincing or productive
today. Sparks provides much useful "hard" data about the subjects
he treats and his bibliographical listings are extremely
helpful. But the introductions are onesided and tend to neglect
the issues that will prove to be most productive for providing
historical perspective on these sources.
As they stand, these editions will certainly cater usefully
to the recent growth of interest in "early Judaism" (see Kraft-
Nickelsburg) and the survival of Jewish-like literature and
traditions in Christian circles (see Kraft 1975). The new
translations often are based on new textual analyses or
information, and more than occasionally have been prepared by one
of the persons most closely and productively associated with
scholarly research related to that document (e.g. in AOT, Knibb
Turner, Kuhn, DeJonge, Brock, Emerton; in OTP, Alexander,
Collins, Stone, Klijn, Kee, Spittler, Burchard, Harrington,
Robinson, van der Horst, Sanders, Wright, J. Z. Smith, Attridge,
Charlesworth). Sometimes we are provided with the very first
published English translation (e.g. in OTP, Testament of Adam,
Apocalypse of Daniel, History of the Rechabites). Many of the
introductions in OTP are excellent contributions -- some even go
far beyond what might be expected in such a format (e.g. 3 Enoch
introduction). Unfortuantely, some of them are disappointing or
inconsequential. In addition, some opportunities to advance
scholarship in obvious and useful ways are missed, such as the
failure (in OTP) to treat 5 and 6 Ezra as separate works (who
doubts this?), or (in both editions) to move towards clearly
distinguishing the discrete parts of the "1 Enoch" library (e.g.
in OTP, by means of page headings that reflect the major titles
that are inserted into the running text; inexplicably, the Sparks
edition neglects even to insert such subtitles into the text,
despite Sparks' statement that 1 Enoch "is plainly divisible into
five subsidiary 'books'" [173]).
Especially unfortunate, in the Sparks edition, is the failure
to give the expert translators noted above the opportunity to say
some things by way of introduction to the texts they translate.
What is at stake in this loss can be sampled quite clearly by
reading Brock's detailed review of OTP 1, or Knibb's introduction
to the Martyrdom/Ascension of Isaiah in OTP 2, which moves the
discussion so far beyond the basic matters covered in Sparks'
treatment of the same document. Hopefully, if the Sparks volume
is reissued in the not too distant future, such supplements can
be added to enhance its value -- and hopefully the price can be
dropped to make the volume more affordable for classroom use!
What have we learned from the appearance of these editions?
How has research on these materials been advanced, or retarded?
What issues call for careful clarification or reconsideration?
Certainly any attempt mechanically or unreflectively to segregate
"Jewish" from "Christian" elements and influences must be
abandoned and the criteria by which such judgments are made
must be reassessed. Sparks sees this more clearly than
Charlesworth did, at least at the level of textual transmission
and its implications. But there is much room for further
discussion and research. Furthermore, the special pleading
involved in assuming canonical priority where parallels or
influences are suspected also needs to be avoided if this
literature is to receive a fair hearing. Indeed, perhaps it is
time to demolish the obfuscating traditional and/or theological
structures that make it so difficult to juxtapose, without
prejudicing the results, discussions of such similar documents as
Daniel, the Enochic Dream Visions, 4 Ezra, the Apocalypse of John
and the Ascension of Isaiah (and Shepherd of Hermas?)! Nor should
we shy away from exploring "new" groupings, such as the sort of
"prophetic-hortatory" stream that seems to characterize a work
like 5 Ezra as well as an Amos or Jeremiah -- is it adequate
simply to dismiss non-canonical examples as "derivative"? Moving
beyond overt "canonical" parallels, the "Jewish" heritage(s)
include works that focus on interpreting the external signs
available in nature, whether in a Qumran context (e.g.
"horoscopes," perhaps the Enochic Book of Heavenly Luminaries) or
in medieval (?) calendric speculations (Treatise of Shem,
Revelation of Ezra; see Brock). What comes to be known as
"hagiographa," and similar developments of "martyrology," have
their representatives and echoes in the materials at hand. How
does Jubilees, or Josephus, relate to "chronography" in the later
sense as well as to other early attempts to periodize history?
These and similar questions are easier to conceptualize in
reaction to the editorial issues raised by the volumes under
review.
What, after all, is the point of selective categorization by
type? A "trajectories" approach, whether applied primarily to
material linked with certain ancient figures (as in Sparks) or
also to certain categories of literature (as in Charlesworth), is
best served by examining the largest practical sampling of
eligible material. The opportunities for significant progress in
understanding, at both the micro and the macro levels, are
significantly increased as it becomes easier to examine
apparently similar items more openly and efficiently. Of course,
no one book or multi-volumed edition can do all this in a
convient format.
The new availability, in (mostly) satisfactory translations, of
the sorts of literatures dealt with by Sparks and Charlesworth
hopefully will serve to facilitate such avenues of approach.
Perhaps this is the greatest overall benefit to be derived from
the editorial shortcomings of those editions, that by failing to
establish any clear and convincing rationale for the selection of
documents collected, they help open the doors more widely to
breaking down the remaining barriers that impede a truly new
synthesis.
Organizing and editing an anthology is often a thankless task.
It requires a great deal of time and effort, depends on the work
of others with whom the editor may not completely agree, and
leaves the editor open to various sorts of criticism both of the
whole and of its parts. The larger the number of contributors,
the more potential for problems. The wider the range of coverage,
the more difficult the organizational task. Etc., etc. If an
editor is fortunate and/or very talented, the work can all be
made to fit together with relative "homogeneity" of some sort,
and the plusses will outweigh the minuses. Frequently things do
not work out so neatly.
For his work on the "Duke-Doubleday" Pseudepigrapha anthology,
editor James Charlesworth is to be commended and criticized, in
varying proportions. He bit off a task that was too large for any
one person in his original concept (1972) of doing the entire
work by himself! Wisely, he abandoned that idea and built up a
central committee of advisors to help coordinate the plan that
finally was followed, of assigning various works to various
"experts." Not all of the original assignees saw the task through
to completion, and not all were sufficiently "expert" in their
contributions to insure consistently high quality to the
collection. While the editor can hardly be held responsible for
all the quirks of fate that governed this process, he is not
entriely blameless for how it all finally worked out. The
scholarly "texture" in these two volumes -- especially in volume
1 -- is very uneven, ranging from very very high quality to
relatively embarrasing. This is unfortunate, and the editor must
share the blame as well as the credit. The best news is that,
with all its unevenness, this two volumed work does make a great
deal of interesting and useful material available in convenient
and relatively inexpensive form for a wide variety of uses.
The prefatory materials (paged in roman numbers) in each volume
are identical, except for volume-specific contents and lists of
contributors. A general, one page Foreword by the late George
MacRae is followed by another one pager, "Foreword for
Christians," the contents of which seem largely irrelevant if not
embarrassing, but for which some explanation and context is found
in Charlesworth's introduction to the Prayer of Manasseh in vol.
2 p. 632, which refers to the "widely influential sermon on
Manasseh that was delivered periodically by the late James
Cleland, James B. Duke Professor of Preaching and Dean of the
Chapel at Duke University." A somewhat longer "Foreword for Jews"
by the late Samuel Sandmel then follows, with astute comments
contextualizing both the "Pseudepigrapha" texts and their modern
study in relation to Judaism and to Jewish and Christian
scholarship. It is a pity that some form of this fine piece
was not used as the sole "Forward," and that the well-meaning but
ultimately unnecessarily divisive triad of forewords abandoned --
or at least the sectarian titles suppressed! An unfortunate
tone for the volumes is set here.
A brief "Editor's Preface" follows, which must be taken together
with the longer "Introduction for the General Reader" (sic! this
is the ONLY introduction of a general nature for ANY reader!)
in order to obtain the fullest picture of what Charlesworth and
his advisors envision as the scope and approach of these volumes.
Strangely, it is the "preface" that tells about the organization
of the volumes and of the coverage requested from individual
contributors in the introductions to specific works, while the
"introduction" struggles to find criteria for justifying
inclusion in or exclusion from this collection of
"Pseudepigrapha," and generalizes about the importance of the
collected works as a whole.
In his task as editor, Charlesworth rightly attempts to cover a
wide range of materials in these introductory treatments, and to
touch base with various aspects of the collective whole. It is
not difficult to pick quarrels here and there. On the larger
issues, he fails to provide any consistent definition or
rationale for the selection of texts in the collection. This is
admitted, though in a very convoluted manner, in the key
paragraph at the bottom of p. xxv: "...I have had to take a
stance on the definition of 'pseudepigrapha'.... The following
collection ... has evolved from the consensus that the
Pseudepigrapha must be defined broadly so as to include all
documents that conceivably belong to the Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha. The present description of the Pseudepigrapha is
as follows: ...the above comments do not define the term
'pseudepigrapha'; they merely describe the features of this
collection." Thus, apparently, this collection
[...material lost?...] manner;
[...] The good news is that because he is that sort of person, he
gets involved in things that few others would dare to try,
and sometimes the results are, despite the problems, valuable.
add comments on type/print quality?
REFERENCES [synthesize with those from Stone?]
BAUCKHAM, R.
1986 "The Apocalypses in the New Pseudepigrapha," JSOT 26, 97-117.
BROCK, S. P.
1984 Review of OTP 1 in JJS 35, 200-209.
CHARLES, R. H. [see Stone]
1913 APOT. 2 vols. Oxford.
CHARLESWORTH, J. H.
1973 The Odes Of Solomon: the Syriac Texts. Oxford (reprinted
with minor corrections by Scholars Press, 1977)
1981 The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research with a Supplement.
SBL Septuagint and Cognate Studies 7s. Scholars Press. [see Stone]
FABRICIUS [see Stone]
1713 Codex Pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti 1. Leipzig
1723 CPVT 2
JAMES, M. R.
1920 Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament, SPCK
1924 The Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford (supplemented ed. 1955)
KRAFT, R. A.
1975 "The Multiform Jewish Heritage of Early Christianity." Pp. 174-99
in Christianity, Judaism and other Graeco-Roman Cults 3. Leiden.
1987 Review of OTP in JBL 106
KRAFT, R. A. and G. W. E. NICKELSBURG (eds.)
1986 Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters. Fortress/Scholars Press.
NICKLESBURG, G. W. E.
1988 Review of OTP and AOT in CBQ (forthcoming)
RIESSLER, P. [see Stone]
1928 Altjuedisches Schrifttum ausserhalb der Bibel. Heidelberg: Kerle
SCHUeRER (VERMES, etc.) [see Stone]
1986 The History of the Jewish Peiple in the Age of Jesus Christ
(175 BC - AD 135). Vol 3.1 revised by G.Vermes, F.Millar, and
M.Goodman. Edinburgh: T & T Clark
SPARKS, H. F. D.
1944 The Old Testament in the Christian Church, SCMPress
STONE, M. E. [see Stone]
1978 "The Book of Enoch and Judaism in the Third Century BCE,"
CBQ 40, 479-92
1986 "Categorization and Classification of the Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha," Abr Nahrain 24, 167-77
/end of RSR review/
[[Earlier review, from JBL 106 (1987) 736-739]]
The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha:
Volume 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments;
Volume 2: Expansions of the "Old Testament" and Legends, Wisdom
and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes,
Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works,
edited by James H. Charlesworth.
Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983 and 1985.
Pp. l + 995, (l) + 1006, $35 each.
Organizing and editing an anthology can be a thankless task.
It requires much time and effort, relies on the contributions of
others whose ideas may vary significantly, and leaves the editor
vulnerable to criticisms both of the whole and of its parts. The
larger the number of contributors, the more potential for
problems. The wider the range of coverage, the more difficult the
organizational task. And so forth. If an editor is fortunate
and/or very talented, the work can all be made to fit together
with relative "homogeneity," and with more plusses than minuses.
The two "OTP" volumes under review contain introductions
(with bibliography) and annotated English translations of more
than 50 (sometimes fragmentary) "pseudepigrapha," and of another
13 or so "fragments of lost Judeo-Hellenistic works" by authors
who largely wrote in their own names. More than 50 individual
scholars contributed to the collection in one way or another.
Most of the individual contributions advance knowledge of their
subject in a significant way, or at least adequately present the
material afresh in a convenient format. These volumes contain
important and interesting material. The responsible student of
"Early Jewish" and "Early Christian" literatures will need to
make frequent reference to them. I do not buy many books, but if
I had not received these for review, I would purchase them from
my own funds. As a collection, they are a convenience that will
not be surpassed in English for many years.
This review will make no attempt to evaluate the various
individual contributions to OTP. Some are excellent, some fall
short of expectations. For detailed comments on each of the
writings covered in volume 1, see the review by Sebastian Brock
in Journal of Jewish Studies 35 (1984) 200-209. Volume 2 is much
more consistently high in the quality of the individual
introductions and translations. The following comments will focus
on the editorial framework of the OTP collection.
For his work on the "Duke-Doubleday" pseudepigrapha
anthology, editor James Charlesworth is to be commended and
criticized, in varying proportions. In his original intent
(1972) to do the entire work by himself, he bit off a task too
large for any one person! Wisely, he abandoned that idea and
built up a central board of advisors (R. E. Brown, W. D.
Davies, W. Harrelson, B. M. Metzger, R. E. Murphy, J. Strugnell)
to help with the new plan of assigning various works to various
"experts." Not all of the assignees completed their tasks, and
not all proved sufficiently "expert" in their contributions.
While the editor cannot be faulted for all the quirks of fate
that governed this process, he is not entriely blameless for the
resulting uneven "texture" in these two volumes, in matters both
small and large. For example, there is not a great deal of
consistency in such ultimately editorial matters as the usually
useful marginal cross references (compare, e.g. the numerous
references to "ApSedr" in the margins of the Greek Apocalypse of
Ezra, while the Apocalypse of Sedrach has not a single marginal
cross reference to the Ezra text, nor are these striking
parallels even mentioned in the introduction to ApSedr!), or in
the inclusion of relevant bibliography (e.g., Wahl's 1977 edition
of three Ezra-related works is mentioned in two of the
introductions, but not in the third; the 1969 monograph by
Harnisch on time and history in 4 Ezra and 2 Baruch appears with
the latter but not the former). The Apocalypse of Abraham has, in
actuality, two introductions with some significantly divergent
details and conclusions drawn from three authors -- see e.g.
nn.15, 17, 24 -- and the third of the authors, H. G. Lunt, is not
listed either in the heading to the section (681) or in the list
of contributors (xviii). Such frustrations are, however, offset
to a large degree by such positive features as the general
clarity and utility of the page headers that include
chapter:verse locators at the upper outside corner of each page
of the translations (although Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs
section neglects to indicate in the header which Testament, and 3
Enoch reads simply "Enoch"!), and the marginal location of verse
numbers throughout the text, which facilitates quick reference.
Volume 2 also has an extensive index of topics and names covering
both volumes.
The prefatory materials (paged in roman numbers) in each
volume are identical, except for volume-specific contents and
lists of contributors. A general, one page "Foreword" by the late
George MacRae is followed by a somewhat irrelevant if not
embarrassing one page "Foreword for Christians" by the late
James Cleland (see vol. 2, p. 632 for closer identification).
Then comes a slightly longer "Foreword for Jews" by the late
Samuel Sandmel, with astute comments contextualizing both the
"pseudepigrapha" texts and their modern study in relation to
Judaism and to Jewish and Christian scholarship. It is a pity
that some form of this fine piece was not used as the sole
"Forward," or even as part of the general introduction, and the
well-meaning but ultimately unnecessarily divisive triad of
forewords abandoned -- or at least the "sectarian" titles
omitted! For many academic users, these titles will set an
unfortunate tone.
A brief "Editor's Preface" follows, which should be read
together with the longer "Introduction for the General Reader"
(i.e. general introduction; nothing else is offered any other
type of reader) to obtain the fullest picture of what
Charlesworth and his advisors envision as the scope and approach
of these volumes. Strangely, it is the "preface" that tells
about the organization of the volumes and of the topics that
individual contributors were asked to consider in their
introductions to specific works (e.g. textual witnesses, original
language, date and provenance, historical and "theological"
importance, relation to other early Jewish and Christian
literature, "cultural importance"), while the "introduction"
struggles to find criteria for justifying inclusion or exclusion
of texts from this collection of "pseudepigrapha," and
generalizes about the importance of the collected works as a
whole. Charlesworth also contributes very brief introductions to
each of the six subsections in the collection: apocalyptic,
testaments, "expanded OT" and legends, wisdom/philosophy,
prayers/psalms/odes, and a supplement on fragments of lost non-
pseudepigraphical works (with an added introduction by John
Strugnell).
In his task as editor, Charlesworth rightly attempts to
cover a wide range of materials in these introductory
treatments, and to touch base with various aspects of the
collective whole. It is not difficult to pick quarrels here and
there. On the larger issues, he fails to provide any consistent
definition or rationale for the selection of texts in the
collection. This is admitted, though in a very convoluted manner,
in the key paragraph at the bottom of p. xxv: "I have had to take
a stance on the definition of 'pseudepigrapha'. . . . The
following collection . . . has evolved from the consensus
that the Pseudepigrapha must be defined broadly so as to include
all documents that conceivably belong to the Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha. The present description of the Pseudepigrapha is
as follows: [see below] . . . the above comments do not define
the term 'pseudepigrapha'; they merely describe the features of
this collection." Thus, apparently, this collection of Jewish and
Christian materials is largely arbitrary, but many of its
representatives have common features such as attribution "to
ideal figures in Israel's past," and/or the claim to contain a
message from God, and/or a close relationship to OT "ideas and
narratives" (not to mention forms), and/or focus on Jewish
materials dating from 200 bce to 200 ce (xxv). This impression of
arbitrariness is fortified by the very next paragraph, which
explains the exclusion from this collection of "other writings,
although they may have some characteristics of the
Pseudepigrapha" (xxvi). Charlesworth's "stance," then, is
not to operate within the framework of a rationalized
definition, but to choose from a wide miscellany of possible
candidates.
The result is as potentially misleading as it is valuable.
The volumes contain a useful collection of non canonical and
non rabbinic possibly "Jewish" writings from antiquity (similar
to P. Riessler's Altj&u%;disches Schrifttum ausserhalb der
Bibel, 1928), with significant introductions to each (unlike
Riessler, but approaching the pattern in R. H. Charles' APOT,
1913). But it is not a coherent collection, and the novice user
who takes seriously the specificity of the title "THE OT
PSEUDEPIGRAPHA" will be seriously misled. What has been gathered
here is a variety of (1) clearly early Jewish texts such as parts
of the 1 Enoch library, Jubilees, "Aristeas," 3-4 Maccabees,
Psalms of Solomon, and the like; plus some (2) clearly late
Christianized texts such as parts of the Sibylline Oracles,
Apocalypses of Sedrach and Daniel, Ascension of Isaiah, etc.; and
(3) many items that fall inbetween (or, in the case of Ahikar,
fall outside since it is admittedly neither originally Jewish or
Christian, nor post 200 bce). Some other individual works that
might have qualified for inclusion are listed on p. xxvi. Other
writings are excluded because they fit into some other predefined
"collection" such as Dead Sea Scrolls (although "1 Enoch" and
Jubilees are not excluded), Nag Hammadi writings (although
Apocalypse of Adam is included), and the Jewish and Christian
"apocrypha" as represented in the Greek "LXX" tradition (although
3-4 Maccabees, Psalm 151, and Psalms of Solomon are included;
xxvi-xxvii). Obviously such exclusions are equally arbitrary and
illustrate the need to establish a consistent set of criteria
based primarily on internal and external factors before pursuing
such a project as this.
There are other serious problems with the editorial
framework. (1) No attempt, beyond Sandmel's brief foreword, is
made to account for or evaluate the fact that the bulk of these
materials were preserved and transmitted by Christians, despite
the significance of that circumstance for such matters as
defining the collection and contextualizing the "significant
theological conceptions" culled from the collection. (2) Although
Charlesworth argues that it would be anachronistic to apply the
term "non-canonical" to these "pseudepigrapha" in the period
before the Hebrew canon was firmly established (xxiii), he is
less selfconscious of the similarly misleading and recurring
assumption that these writings are to be viewed as "imitating" or
"expanding" or in other ways having necessarily secondary and
derivative status in relation to Jewish scriptures (some of the
"pseudepigrapha" may be older than and/or independent of related
Jewish "canonical" texts!). (3) While Charlesworth recognizes
"the variegated, even contradictory, nature of the ideas popular
in many sectors of post-exilic Judaism," he inexplicably warns
that it is "unwise to exaggerate the diversity in Early Judaism"
and then heaps confusion upon confusion by admitting that the
texts collected in these volumes "certainly demonstrate the rich
vitality and diversity of Judaism during the early centuries"
before begging off from attempting here "to articulate further
what, if anything, seems to unify them" (xxix). The expert reader
will wonder what Charlesworth may be attempting to protect with
such statements; the novice may simply be confused, or worse,
misled into a simplistic attitude to these materials and the
contexts from which they derive.
In sum, the framework within which these materials are
presented is very problematic, and the quality of the various
introductions and translations of specific works varies widely,
although most of them are on the adequate to excellent side. If
it had been my project, I would have done many things
differently. But then, if it had been my project, it might
never have been completed! The good news is that despite some
significant shortcomings both in form and in content, the
materials are now conveniently available. For this, Charlesworth,
his collaborators and the press, are to be thanked sincerely. But
it is not too early to start planning for a second, revised and
improved edition!
Robert A. Kraft
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104
//end of JBL review//