Excerpts from Ralph J. Brannan II, The Use of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in the Writings of the Apostolic Fathers” (1984)

  

Many other passages are introduced by formulae (e.g., 1 Clement 13:1, "for the Holy Spirit says;" 1 Clement 14:4; 46:2; 50:4, "For it is written;" or 1 Clement 23:3, "Let the Scripture be far from us in which he says") which introduce quotations from unknown sources. In some of these instances it seems that the quotations are really combinations of known passages which have been joined together in a "testimony book" style, and do not necessarily have their origin in apocryphal or pseudepigraphical passages. Other passages seem unique, however, having their origin in no known source. (Ralph J. Brabban II, “The Use of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in the Writings of the Apostolic Fathers” [PhD Dissertation; Baylor University, August 1984], 352)

 

 

This dissertation confirms three things which, until now, have merely been assumed by many scholars. First, a substantial number of the books of the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha were known and used by the early Church. Second, these sources were used in the same way that canonical sources were used. Finally, as demonstrated by usage, these books of the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha were considered scripture in the earliest post-New Testament orthodox Church. (Ralph J. Brabban II, “The Use of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in the Writings of the Apostolic Fathers” [PhD Dissertation; Baylor University, August 1984], 380)

 

I have a copy of the dissertation as a PDF in my possession. For those who wish for a copy, send a donation via either Paypal or Venmo and include your email address.

Ralph J. Brabban II on the Use of Esther and Judith in 1 Clement

  

A third possible quotation might also be added, but it is not as secure or obvious as the previous references. In 1 Clement 59:4 the author may have borrowed from Judith 9:11. In this passage Clement petitioned God to help many groups of people. Clement's list is somewhat similar to the passage in Judith which lists some of the qualities of God. Since both passages have topical agreement, it seems possible (if not probable) that Clement had the Judith passage— along with other passages— in mind in this paraphrastic recitation. As with the other quotations Clement used no introductory phrase with this passage.

 

In addition to the quotations, Judith and Esther were specifically mentioned as examples of those who received blessings from God. First Clement 55:4f. mentions the "blessed Judith" and that Holofernes was killed "by the hand of a woman." This clearly reflects Judith 13:15b and 16:5(6). As no direct quotation was intended, no introduction of a quotation was given. There can be no doubt, however, that the intended reference was to the apocryphal story of Judith.

 

The following reference in 1 Clement 55:6 gave Esther as an example of one who received blessings from God. Although Esther is part of the Old Testament canon, the reference in 1 Clement tends to imply that the author of Clement knew of Esther from the expanded (apocryphal) version. The canonical (Protestant) version of Esther is not an overtly religious book; neither God nor religious practices are mentioned. The additions to Esther, on the other hand, "make frequent reference to God, emphasize his choice of Abraham and Israel, and give prominence to prayer."' Since Clement knew of Esther as "perfect in faith," one who "fasted," and sought "the all-Seeing Master of the Ages," it seems likely that he knew Esther in the apocryphal form.

 

Esther and Judith seem to have been appealed to as examples of women of the faith. They were mentioned as authorities, and there is no indication that their authority was any less than other great heroes of the Old Testament. (Ralph J. Brabban II, “The Use of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha in the Writings of the Apostolic Fathers” [PhD Dissertation; Baylor University, August 1984], 349-51)

 

W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison on Matthew 12:18-21

  

Mt 12:18–21 has supplied ammunition for those contending that our evangelist drew upon a collection of testimonia. The following points have been made. (i) The quotation contains several Matthean hapax legomena. (ii) Papyrus Rylands Greek 460 is a Christian testimony collection which includes Isa 42:3–4 (folio 1, recto). (iii) Isa 42:1–4 was probably a messianic text in first-century Judaism (as it is in the targum). (iv) It is alleged that there is only one point of contact with the Matthean context—Jesus’ silence (cf. Strecker, Weg, p. 69). Lindars even goes so far as to assert that ‘the text owes nothing to its present context’ (Apologetic, p. 145, n. 1). (v) It is possible to imagine Isa 42:1ff. being used in the pre-Matthean tradition in connexion with the resurrection, the baptism, Jesus’ gentleness, and the Gentile mission (so Lindars, Apologetic, pp. 144–52).

 

Despite these five points, we strongly suspect that Mt 12:18–21 gives us Matthew’s own original work (so also Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium 1, p. 453). Not only is the textual form not attested elsewhere, but it seems to us that the quotation is, from beginning to end, adapted to its present context (cf. Barth, in TIM, pp. 125–8). We would counter the claim of Lindars and others with these observations. (i) ὁ ἀγαπητός κ.τ.λ. shows assimilation to Mt 3:17 and 17:5. (ii) ‘I shall put my Spirit on him’ not only recalls the baptism but links up nicely with the following pericope, where the theme is Jesus and the Spirit (12:22–37; see Cope, pp. 35–40). (iii) The double mention of the Gentiles (12:18d, 21) harmonizes with a major Matthean interest. (iv) The translation in 12:19 of yiṣ˓aq by ἐρίσει is best explained by 12:15: Jesus did not choose to wrangle or quarrel with the Pharisees. (v) In 12:19 the rendering of the adverbial baḥûṣ by ἐν ταῖς πλατείαις (rather than, say, ἔξω) makes sense in the light of 12:16: Jesus was not heard ‘in the streets’. He asked people not to make him known. (vi) For yôṣî˒ in Isa 42:1 the LXX has ἐξοίσει. Matthew’s ἀπαγγελεῖ, though perfectly proper, is less natural and is due to his concern for preaching (cf. 8:33; 11:4; 28:8, 10). There may also be a link with 12:38–42, which concerns preaching to the Gentiles (to the men of Nineveh and the queen of the South; see Cope, pp. 40–4, and note the use of κρίσις in 12:41 and 42). (W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 3 vols. [International Critical Commentary; London: T&T Clark International, 2004], 2:323-34)

 

Panayiotis Papageorgiou (EO) on the Difference between Augustine's and John Chrysostom's Interpretation of Romans 5:12

The following comes from:

 

Panayiotis Papageorgiou, “Chrysostom and Augustine on the Sin of Adam and its Consequences: A Study of Chrysostom’s ‘Homily 10, On Romans’ and Augustine’s Interpretation of it in Contra Julianum,” August 23, 1991, pp. 14-16:

 

 

The most interesting thing about Augustine's chapter 27 of his Contra Julianum is that there he quotes extensively from Chrysostom's Homily 10 on Romans, thus indicating that he must have had the entire homily in front of him, but misses the important passages, [62] where Chrysostom actually addresses directly the question of ‘propagation’ of the sin of Adam and the inheritance of his guilt by posterity. The passages I am referring to are two. The first one is:

 

But what does he mean when he says: ‘Inasmuch as all have sinned?’ After Adam fell into sin, even those who had not eaten of the tree all became mortal because of him. [63]

 

Here Chrysostom explicitly states that he understands St. Paul's ‘’Εφ ω παντες ημαρτον;’ to mean that ‘all became mortal’ because of Adam's fall. Chrysostom correctly understands ‘’Εφ ω’ to mean ‘in that’ and not ‘in whom’ (in quo), which the Latin translation of the Vulgate would imply. [64] Augustine skips right over this text and explanation. [65]

 

The second passage occurs, at a later point, where Chrysostom raises the question about, “Paul's saying that through the disobedience of the one many became sinners.” [66] and points to the two possible interpretations of it. The first one, which does not seem unlikely, he says, is that because of Adam's sin and his change to a mortal state, all who came from him would be the same, i.e. mortal. St. Paul gives us ample proof that such a thing is possible, he explains. [67] The second possible interpretation, which Chrysostom sees, coincides with the position which Augustine holds: That because of Adam's disobedience another one might become a sinner, i.e., that another person may have the sin or guilt of Adam's transgression. Chrysostom finds this notion illogical and unjust, since this other person has not become a sinner by his own will or action (οικοθεν), and rejects it. [68]

 

 

Notes for the Above:

 

 

[62] It is possible that he just misunderstood those passages which were in conflict with his theology and so ignored them in his line of argumentation, but it is also equally possible, that he deliberately chose to ignore them knowing that they were in conflict with his positions and thinking that Chrysostom was the one in error. Augustine probably felt that he was thus protecting Chrysostom's memory.

 

[63] Homily 10, I, 2, On Romans, P.G. 60, 474: “.Τι δε εστιν, ‘Εφ ω παντες ημαρτον;” ‘Εκεινου πεσοντος, και οι μη φαγοντες απο του ξυλου γεγονασιν εξ εκεινου παντες θηντοι.”

 

[64] See Joseph Freundorfer, Erbsünde und Erbtod Apostel Paulus: Eine religionsgeschichtliche und exegetiche Untersuchung über Römerbrief 5:12-21, Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, (Münster i.W. : Aschendorffschen Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1927) pp. 132-134. According to Freundorfer (and Kelly, p. 354) the Latin translation available to Ambrosiaster Rom 5:12 read "... so death spread to all men in whom (in quo) all sinned." Ambrosiaster was most probably the first one to understand the in quo of Rom 5:12 as a relative conjunction with its antecedent Adam. In Phil. 3:12, however, in quo is a causal conjunction translated as because or inasmuch as or as in that and need not have caused misunderstanding of the original meaning. Hence Romans 5:12 would read: "Through one man (or 'because of one man') sin entered into the world, and through sin death; and thus death came upon all men, in that all sinned." Julian of Eclanum objected to the term ‘in quo.’ He proposed ‘quia’ (because) as a more accurate translation of ‘εφ’ ω.’ See also Elaine Pagels, Adam, Eve and the Serpent, (New York: Random House, 1988) p. 109, 143; For more on the term ‘εφ’ ω,’ see D. Weaver, "From Paul to Augustine"; G. Bonner, "Augustine on Romans 5:12", in Studia Evangelica 2 (1968): 242-247; S. Lyonnet, "Le Péché Originel et l'Exégèse de Rom. 5:12-14," in Recherches de Science Religieuse 44, I (1956): 63-84; also by Lyonnet, "Le Sens de εφ’ ω en Rom. 5:12 et l' Exégèse des Pères Grecs," in Biblica 36 (1955): 427-456; A. d'Alès, "Julien d' Eclane, Exégète," in Recherches de Science Religieuse 6 (1916): 311-324.

 

[65] M. Wiles in The Making of Christian Doctrine, p. 56, thinks, that Rom. 5:12 is only secondary support for Augustine's doctrinal belief, and not its true foundation. It seems, however, that for Augustine, the phrase in Rom. 5:12,“in quo omnes peccauerunt” was official biblical confirmation of his theory of seminal identity. See also M. Wiles, footnote 1 on the same page, for other opinions on this issue.

 

[66] Homily 10, On Romans, P.G. 60,477: “Το λεγειν δια της παρακοης του ενος αμαρτωολους γενεσθαι πολλους.”

 

[67] Ibid.

 

[68] Ibid.

 

Jione Havea and Monica Jyotsna Melanchthon on Joshua 9 and the Deception of the Gibeonites

  

First Peoples

 

The Gibeonites are among the First Peoples of Canaan, but they are not on the same page with the other First Nations. In response to the invasion by Joshua and the Israelites, whose interests are favored in the narrative, the kings of the lands west of the Jordan gather as one to fight against the invaders (Josh. 9:1–2). The Gibeonites, on the other hand, resort to trickery (9:4). They choose not to be in solidarity with their native neighbors. It is therefore naïve, in the first instance, to assume homogeneity among First Peoples (this applies to Second and Third Peoples also), something we tend to do when we call them “aboriginal” or “indigenous” because those two labels imply sameness (from a common origin).

 

First Peoples tricking one another is not foreign to the book of Joshua, which opens with Rahab tricking her king and his men (Josh. 2). “She betrays her people, slipping out of the city with her own family as Israelite warriors set about their work of butchering the men, women, and children among whom Rahab has lived” (Sharp 2012, 146). In the eyes of the narrative, there is nothing problematic with First Peoples tricking one another. This trickery shows that they are divided, and in the process (a narrative trick!) brushes over the division among invading Israelites. Israel does not become diverse and divided with the accommodation of non-Israelites. Israel is divided before that, as is evident in the grumbles of the people against Moses (Exod. 16) and disagreement with the spies (Num. 13).

 

The Gibeonites approach Joshua together with the “men of Israel” (9:6). The men of Israel are not convinced (9:7), and they question the Gibeonites. Instead of responding to the men of Israel, the Gibeonites direct their response to Joshua (9:8–13). This suggests that the Gibeonites have more respect for Joshua. But before Joshua states his decision on the Gibeonites’ explanation, the men of Israel jump in to declare their approval (9:14). They do not ask for Joshua’s opinion, nor do they consult Yhwh. Joshua comes at the end to make a treaty that the men of Israel have already decided. The disconnection between Joshua and the men of Israel shows their division, and the Gibeonites expose this through their continuing to address Joshua even though the men of Israel are the ones raising doubts. It is unfair to expect First Peoples to be passive, homogenous, and welcoming, as when we call them “natives.” First Peoples are diverse and dynamic, and they have the will to resist, to side-step, to manipulate, and to differ from one another. This is true of the Gibeonites in Joshua 9 as well as of the Hivvites in the town of Shechem (cf. Gen. 34), which is not conquered by Joshua and Israel but which nevertheless provides the location for Joshua’s institution of a covenant for Israel (Josh. 24; Dor and De-Malach 2013, 59).

 

There is no indication in the narrative of any communication between the Gibeonites and their First People neighbors, but we assume that the Gibeonites would have known that the other nations were gathering as one. In oral cultures, information can easily flow across cultural and linguistic borders. The fluidity of (information in) oral cultures is the grease in the wheels of trickery.

 

We cannot tell whether the Gibeonites have considered the consequences of their trickery, such as native neighbors feeling that they have been betrayed, but the Gibeonites clearly feel that they can fool the Israelites. The identity of the Gibeonites that the narrative constructs is not simply tied to space (i.e., the fact that they faked their land of origin) or subsequent social status (repeated, and in the process altered, in the two endings of the narrative, 9:18–21; 9:22–27; see Boer 2008, 127–132), but also on account of their courage, wisdom, and rhetorical abilities. They were daring, clever, and convincing. Not bad, we say, for native folks!

 

Perhaps something about the invading Israelite mob causes the Gibeonites to question Israelite intelligence and to see a weakness that might be exploited. The Gibeonites trick the Israelites so that they, the “indigenous Others” (Sharp 2012, 148), become “enemies within” (so Boer, Butler, and Miles). “Gibeon is the supreme example of how the land’s ancient inhabitants adapted themselves to the new situation of Israelite control. Its residents were enslaved and continued to live in Israel for generations; they were even among those who returned from the Babylonian exile (Neh. 7:25)” (Dor and De-Malach 2013, 54). The Gibeonites become “part of the inside Israel group but only as Rest or Other among the Israelites, becoming slaves, not citizens” (Butler 2013, 33). And yet, they survive and infiltrate the social and religious structures of Israel. “At this level, the text may become a postcolonial celebration of the duping of dull colonial forces” (Boer 2008, 130). In the end, this narrative subverts the assumptions of both natural domination and homogenous identity. Who are the Israelites?

 

[T] he Israelites may be no more than Gibeonites … or the Gibeonites may be understood as Israelites; or, their story indicates a secondary narrative concerning the process by which “Israel” itself is gradually constituted in the text. The way the Gibeonites become part of “Israel” is one example of the way various groups constitute the textual construction of “Israel” in the first place, as do Rahab and her family in Joshua 2. (Boer 2008, 131)

 

In our cross-cultural eyes, there is nothing controversial about the mixing of ethnicities and cultural identities. What is controversial is the assumption of purity.

 

The construction of identity is tied up with duty and labor. In the first ending of the narrative, the Gibeonite-Israelites (Gibeonites who have become part of the Israelite community) were to hew wood and draw water for “all the congregation” (9:21), and in the second ending they were also to serve “the altar of Yhwh” (9:27). The “enemies within” have duties to the community and to Yhwh. They enter through trickery, and they become insiders by duty and labor. This privilege, of being accepted and included because of duty and labor, is not available to all peoples. (Jione Havea and Monica Jyotsna Melanchthon, “Culture Tricks in Biblical Narrative,” in The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Narrative, ed Danna Nolan Fewell [New York: Oxford University Press, 2016], 567-69)

 

Holman Bible Handbook on Joshua 9 and the Deception of the Gibeonites

  

9:1–27 Deception of the Gibeonites

 

Moses gave Israel the rules of warfare (Deut 7:1–2; 20:10–18). He required Israel to destroy the nations nearby in Canaan and spare the nations living afar.

The Gibeonites conspired to trick the Israelites into forming a peace treaty by giving the appearance of traveling from a far country. They wore old clothes, carried mended sacks, and had dry, moldy food (9:3–6). They acted as though they knew only of Israel’s early wars under Moses and not their recent victories. They repeatedly flattered Joshua and the elders by referring to themselves as “your servants” (9:7–13). Israel failed by not consulting the Lord before entering the covenant (9:14–15). The people grumbled when they learned that the Gibeonites had deceived them (9:16–21). They probably feared God’s wrath as at Ai because they were prohibited from falsely swearing an oath in the Lord’s name (Lev 19:12).

 

When the Gibeonites confessed their trickery (9:22–25), Joshua punished them by conscripting the Gibeonites and their descendants to serve the tabernacle’s altar (9:26–27). This oath was observed until the days of Saul, when he ruthlessly broke the treaty (2 Sam 21:1–2).

 

Although the Israelites failed God, the fear of the Gibeonites was another assurance that Joshua would succeed among the nations. (Holman Bible Handbook, ed. David S. Dockery [Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 1992], 200)

 

Robert Alter on Joshua 10:13-14 and the Book of Jashar

  

And the sun halted
and the moon stood still
till the nation wreaked vengeance on its foes.

 

It is not written in the Book of Jashar—“And the sun stood still in the middle of the heavens and did not hasten to set for a whole day. And there was nothing like that day before it or after it, in the LORD’s heeding the voice of man, for the LORD did battle for Israel.” (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:38)

 

 

the Book of Jashar. This lost text is also mentioned in 2 Samuel 1:18 as the literary source in which David’s elegy for Saul and Jonathon appears. It is safe to assume that it is a very old book, largely poetic or even epic, in which martial themes are prominent. The name jashar would appear to mean “the upright,” though Shmuel Ahituv, mindful of the practice of calling books by their opening words, interestingly proposes that it could mean “he sang” (revocalizing jashar as jashir). (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:38)