Is a Literal Reading of the Bible a Relatively New Gimmick?

Although early Christian historians had departed significantly from the standards of historical method that were laid down by Thucydides and Polybius, for example choosing to ignore criticism of sources (Thucydides) or to try and remain as objective as possible (Polybius), they did recognise that some of the biblical narratives were allegorical.Allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament was promoted by Philo Judaeus, but the main drive behind this method of interpretation was Origen who lived from 186-255.The following text is from Frank Conybeare’s A History of New Testament Criticism, Watts, London 1910. According to Origen: Whenever we meet with such useless, nay impossible, incidents and precepts as these, we must discard a literal interpretation and consider of what moral interpretation they are capable of what moral interpretation they are capable, with what higher and mysterious meaning they are fraught, what deeper truths they were intended symbolically and in allegory to shadow forth. The divine wisdom has of set purpose contrived these little traps and stumbling blocks in order to cry halt to our slavish historical understanding of the text, by inserting in its midst sundry things that are impossible and unsuitable. The Holy Spirit so waylays us in order that we may be driven by passages which, taken in the prima facie sense cannot be true or useful, to search for the ulterior truth, and seek in the Scriptures which we believe to be inspired by God a meaning worthy of him. (pp14-15).Some examples from Origen: Who will be found idiot enough to believe that God planted trees in Paradise like any husbandman; that he set up in it visible and palpable tree-trunks, labelled the one ‘Tree of Life’ and the other ‘Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil’ both bearing real fruit that might be masticated with corporeal teeth; that he went and walked about that garden; that Adam hid under a tree; that Cain fled from the face of God? How can it be literally true, how an historical fact, that from a single mountain top with fleshy eyes all the realms of Persia, of Scythia, and of India could be seen adjacent and at once. Such is the text of Luke 10:4, in which Jesus when he sent forth the Twelve Apostles bade them ‘Salute no man on the way.’ None but silly people believe that our Saviour delivered such a precept to the Apostles. And how, particularly in a land where winter bristles with icicles and is bitter with frosts, could anyone be asked to do with only two tunics and no shoes? And then that other command that a man who is smitten on the right cheek shall also turn the left to the smiter, ho can it be true, seeing that anyone who smites another with his right hand must necessarily smite his left cheek and not his right? And another of the things to be classed among the impossible is the prescription found in the Gospel, that if thy right eye offend thee it shall be plucked out. For even if we take this to apply to our bodily eyes, how is it to be considered consistent, whereas we use both eyes to see, to saddle one eye only with the guilt of the stumbling block, and why the right eye rather than the left? (Examples from Conybeare 10-11)Obviously to criticise the Hebrew creation stories in the same way that Hecataeus criticised Greek mythology would be wicked and sinful, but if the content of an ‘inspired’ report was outrageous or appeared too incredible to take at face value, some hidden or inner meaning was looked for.Because scripture could not be criticised in the same way that the Greek myths were, allegory and symbolism replaced integrity and critical analysis as the foundations of historical research. So it seems that as early as the beginning of the third century CE, it was recognised that the Bible did not contain an accurate history in the sense of using reliable sources. It was recognised that the Bible was inspired by God but the Old Testament was not to be taken at face value.What I would like answers to is when did all this change, or were there always groups of Christians who took the Bible literally? Can anyone point out some sources that I could read that would allow me to construct a continuous thread that would support a literal reading of the Bible (Old and New Testament) from as early a time as possible up to the present day, or is this face value reading of the Bible a relatively new idea?What I would like to say is (this is very rough I know) group A took Bible at face value from 225 CE until 655 CE, group B from 355 EC to 797, group C from 543 -1254 If there is one identifiable group from say the 3rd century until the present day, are there also significant groups who have appeared and then disappeared.Inerrantists please note that this thread is not about whether the Bible contains errors or not.Brian.PS, I am fairly well-covered from Philo to the present day in regard to allegorical interpretation of the Bible.

Hi WT, Yes, the conclusion I am arriving at is that this literal reading of the Bible has reached new heights in the 20th and 21st century. I am going to argue that this literal reading of the Bible is more of a gimmick than a teaching. I am also persuaded that this modern day literal reading of the Bible is mainly an American phenomenon, and thankfully these literalists are in the minority. This certainly makes more sense that taking the Bible at face value, however, it then emphasises the faith that people have in their own interpretation of the text, or whoever’s interpretation they adhere to. I personally think that if a person has interpreted the Bible to the best of their ability and they are following Jesus’ teachings and believe in your heart that He is your Lord and Saviour, then not accepting that people once lived for nearly a thousand years, or rejecting a worldwide flood will not have any bearing on your salvation. I would not agree to Martin Luther being part of your list.Here are a few paragraphs from the paper I am writing, if you disagree with any of it could you perhaps outline the reasons why, this would allow me to rewrite a few things. The Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century, which in many ways represents merely a radical and religious application of Renaissance principles and aims, made some significant contributions that were ultimately of great importance in the study of Hebrew historiography.

​

First of all, the reformers placed the Bible at the centre of theological activity. Sola Scriptura was the significant teaching of the Reformation. In stressing the Bible as the rule and norm of faith, the reformers put emphasis on a literal interpretation of the scriptures, Luther wrote that:

​

The Holy Spirit is the plainest writer and speaker in heaven and earth, and therefore His words cannot have more than one, and that the very simplest, sense, which we call the literal, ordinary, natural sense.

​

All heresies and error in Scripture have not arisen out of the simple words of Scripture. . . . All error arises out of paying no regard to the plain words and, by fabricated inferences and figures of speech, concocting arbitrary interpretations in one's own brain. (Kummel, pp 20-23)

​

This emphasis upon a literal reading of the scriptures, which had earlier been stressed in Judaism over against a Christocentric reading of the Old Testament, did not produce any immediate critical-historical approach to the Bible. The idea of the divine inspiration of scripture or the Bible as the word of God actually stopped the reformers from having any really critical approach to the biblical texts, but Luther did relegate Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation to an appendix in his New Testament translation. However, this was primarily for theological reasons and not for reasons of historical reliability (Kummel, 24-26).

​

A second contribution of the Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation can be seen in the fact that the history of the church became a dominant issue in the struggles within the church in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Historical accuracy was a powerful weapon used by both sides. Protestants argued that the teachings of Jesus and the faith of the primitive church had become distorted by the hierarchy of the church, and the Catholics sought to prove that the church at the time was the true successor of primitive Christianity and that the church was basically unchanged.

​

Historians on both sides turned once again to the intensive study and use of documents to argue their stances. In some examples this study of documents was even more intense than many humanist historians. As a result of this use of historiography as a support for a particular viewpoint, ecclesiastical history in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries displayed a greater sophistication, a more thorough analysis of sources, and a more historiographic complexity than secular history. These discussions showed that history could be used to verify and support a scholar’s hypothesis about a religious dispute, the sense of history was still in its early stages but the understanding of the historical past was to improve over the next century or so. Do you know of any groups throughout history that taught a literal reading of the Bible?Cheers.Brian.

Hi CA,I am at work right now so do not have my notes with me.What I am arguing is that the Christian Fathers had to allegorise the Old Testament because there are no explicit references to Jesus in the OT. Also, most first century Xians were expecting a quick return by Jesus, so when he failed to reappear then some Fathers believed that there were hidden meanings in the OT text.Essentially, there was no initial tension between people who took the OT literally and those who saw the OT solely as being prophecies about the life and history of Jesus.However, with the rise of the rationalists and the deists, and their modification of historical methodology, caused tension between the literalists and those who allegorised the OT. The OT had to be allegorised because the text does not literally point to Jesus.Brian.

Hi CA,Hope you had an enjoyable weekend.Re the unsubstantiated/generalisation in my post, the quote was from Kummel’s book and I had posted it in response to WT presentation of Luther as having an allegorical approach to the Bible. It was the only text that I had on floppy at work that contradicted WT’s information about Luther, the reference to judeo/christcentric was not intended to be part of the refutation of WT’s mentioning of Luther as having an allegorical approach to the Bible.The paper itself is not a theology paper, it is for a history section of an e-journal that will be issued in December, so I have quite a bit of time left to complete it.I do appreciate you pointing this out because if I use this material in the final draft I will obviously have to look into how Kummel comes to this conclusion. I may not even use this material at all, the intent of the post was mainly for the Luther quote that was in Kummel’s book.The paper itself (if you are interested) is going to be along the lines of ‘A History of the Writing of History’ and is looking how different approaches to the writing of history have developed over the last 2600 years or so.Essentially, I begin with Hecataeus and why he is credited with being the first historian to adopt a critical approach to writing history. Then moving on to Herodotus, Thucydides, and Polybius before outlining why the early Christian historians placed emphasis more on faith than reason in their approach to history writing, the sacred and the profane history if you like. The consequence of this approach by the Christian historians was to place the majority of the Greek works into the category of paganism, and hence inferior to the Old Testament in which they saw prophecies of Jesus birth and life.Then after establishing the allegorical approach from people such as Philo and Origen, which I am researching at the moment, I would then move on to the post-renaissance approach to history writing.The reason that I was going to mention Luther was that I feel his literal approach to the Bible caused conflict with the catholic church and both camps began to use historical sources to try and counter the other groups’ claims to the ‘Truth’. I believe, and I know I have a lot of work to do in this area, that this looking back at earlier sources in a more critical way led to the acceptance in society in general of a more critical approach to history writing, and not only in relation to church history.I also think that the post-renaissance period and the rise of the humanist and rationalist movements allowed scholars to be as critical towards the Bible as they were towards any other ancient text and thus the entire face of historical enquiry changed.The paper is still embryonic and I may decide not to use Luther as an example, I am not sure yet. But if I do then I thank you again for pointing out the reference, I really do appreciate your input.The intent of this thread was to see if I could establish a continuous thread of this literal approach to the Bible, and I seem to have drawn a blank before Luther. Do you know of any groups before Luther that took the Bible literally?Cheers.Brian.

Hi CA,Yes I see what you mean, I should have been clearer the quote in message 3 The shaded text is all taken from Kummel, however, he is being quoted in Israel's past in present research : essays on ancient Israelite historiography / edited by V. Philips Long. I do not have the exact reference details here at work but I will be at home in a few hours and will post the actual details then.It was a fairly long time ago that I scanned this page into an OCR package, and perhaps I should have only quoted the reference to Luther.But I should have perhaps been clearer that the text under question is not my own conclusion, I haven't really reached as far as Luther yet. If the Kummel book is in the Uni library I can get a hold of it tomorrow and see how he arrives at this conclusion.Sorry to have been confusing, but I really only homed in on the Luther quote.Speak later.Brian.

Hi CA,I finally managed to track down the quote.The book I used was Israel’s Past in Present Research: Essays on Ancient Israelite Historiography edited by V. Philips Long. Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake 1999. The reference is from the essay by John H Hayes, The History of the Study of Israelite and Judaean History: From the Renaissance to the Present As I said, I scanned the text into an OCR package. Hayes’ text is in bold, his quote from Kummel is in italics, I have only paraphrased a few words in my notes. Below is Hayes’ text as it appears in the book.(page numbers inserted by me)From page 14: In addition to an emphasis on the literal reading of scripture, the reformers argued that scripture is its own interpreter. Luther declared: (page 13) The Holy Spirit is the plainest writer and speaker in heaven and earth, and therefore His words cannot have more than one, and that the very simplest, sense, which we call the literal, ordinary, natural sense.

​

All heresies and error in Scripture have not arisen out of the simple words of Scripture. . . . All error arises out of paying no regard to the plain words and, by fabricated inferences and figures of speech, concocting arbitrary interpretations in one's own brain. (page 14) (For the above texts, see Kummel 1972-73: 20-23.) This emphasis upon a literal reading of the scriptures, which had earlier been stressed in Judaism over against a christocentric reading of the Old Testament, did not immediately produce any critical-historical approach to the Bible. Even Luther retained a prophetic-christocentric attitude towards the Old Testament. The idea of the divine inspiration of scripture or the Bible as the word of God halted the reformers short of any really critical approach, although Luther relegated Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation to an appendix in his New Testament translation primarily because of theological reasons which he buttressed with an appeal to the dispute over these documents in the early church (see Kummel 1972-73: 24-26). The Kummel book is The New Testament: The History of the investigation of its Problems SCM Press, London 1972/3.I checked my library catalogue and the Kummel book is on the shelf, if you want me to I can get it tomorrow and post the pages that are referenced by Hayes, it is no problem to do this if you are interested in how Hayes/Kummel come to this conclusion.Brian.

Thank you very much TL, I am at uni tomorrow so I will look up these references thanks.I will reply tomorrow or thursday on what I have found.What you say here is really interesting because, although I am only beginning to research this, it seems to be in line with what I may use as my main line of argument, namely, that the literal approach by Luther actually backfired on the special place that the Bible held in western societies.I am hovering around the idea that the use of a critical approach to the history of the catholic church, by both protestant and catholic historians, rekindled the critical approaches of Hecataeus, Herodotus, Thucydides etc, that had been buried by the early church historians.Of course my line of argument may change if this idea is either unsupportable or contradicted by anything else I uncover.Thanks again for pointing me in a useful direction, I know it may appear sad but I am actually looking forward to a day in the library digging out information on the people you mentioned!CheersBrian.

Hi CA,I looked over the pages referenced by Hayes, and I cannot see where his conclusions come from. Here are the pages anyway, perhaps they will make more sense to you.However, Kummel's book Page 20: Chapter 2: The Period of the Reformation.As we have seen, humanism was unable to call a genuinely historical criticism of the New Testament into being within the framework of the Catholic Church. However, in connection with the theology of the Reformation three fundamental observations were made, though to be sure their revolutionary consequences for New Testament research did not at first become apparent.In the first place we draw attention to the basic recognition of the Reformers that it is not the Church and not the pope who can determine the sense of Holy Scripture, but that Holy Scripture is the only and final source of revelation for Christians; and that consequently Scripture is to be explained by Scripture itself. During the altercation with Cajetan and Eck (1518-19) at the Diet of Augsburg and at the debate at Leipzig Martin Luther, in the course of disputing the authority of the councils, reached the conviction that only Scripture could impart the truth of God. Then, in a form that was to have worldwide historical consequences, he articulated this insight at the end of his address in defense of himself to the Diet of Worms (1521), and repeated it still later in his confession published in 1538 (the so-called Smalcald Articles.)10 The Holy Scriptures must needs be clearer, easier of interpretation, and more certain than any other scriptures, for all teachers prove their statements by them, as by clearer and more stable writings, and wish their own writings to be established and explained by them. But no one can ever prove a dark saying by one that is still darker: therefore, necessity compels us to run to the Bible with all the writings of the doctors, and thence to get our verdict and judgment upon them; for Scripture alone is the true over-lord and master of all writings and doctrines on earth. If not, what are the Scriptures good for? Let us reject them and be satisfied with die human books and teachers.

​

Here I answered:

​

"Since then your serene majesty and your lordships seeks a simple answer, I will give it in this manner, neither horned nor toothed: Unless I am convinced by die testimony of the Scriptures or by dear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they (page 21)have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience.

​

"I cannot do otherwise, here I stand, may God help me, Amen." A deed or word of the Holy Fathers cannot be made an article of faith. Otherwise whatever of food, clothes, houses, etc. they had would have to become an article of faith, as has happened with their relics. It is the Word of God that is to determine an article of faithnothing else, not even an angel. And about the same time (1520) for Huldreich Zwingli the Word of God had become the only vehicleand a vehicle effective in its own rightof the renewal of world and Church.11 Now if we have found that the inward man is as stated, and that it delights in the law of God because it is created in the divine image in order to have fellowship with hint, it follows necessarily that there is no law or word which will give greater delight to the inward man than the Word of God. For according to the saying of Isaiah 28, "the bed is shorter than that die adulterer can stretch himself on it, and die covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it." That is, God is die bridegroom and husband of the soul. He wills that it should remain inviolate, for he cannot allow any oilier to be lovedthat is, to be as highly esteemed and preciousas he is. Nor does he will that the soul should seek comfort anywhere but in him, or allow any other word to minister comfort but his Word. For in the same way it is the husband's will that the wife should cleave only to him, lavishing all her care upon him and seeking no other comfort but that which he can give.

​

When the children of Israel were at their worst, in the days of Sodom and Nineveh, and the whole world in the days of Noah, [God] sent prophets and his Word to them, and those who changed their ways survived, while those who despised his Word were miserably exterminated or imprisoned- In our time do we not see the world in all lands and stations so evil that we shudder at the sight? But, since the Word of God now appears in the midst of all the evil, do we not see dial this is the act of God, who does not will that his creatures, whom he had purchased and paid for with his own blood, should be lost miserably and en masse? In this way the Bible, which had hitherto been tacitly understood as an expression of the teaching of the Church, was suddenly set apart and the religious interest so directed to its proper understanding that biblical exegesis came to occupy the center of attention as the most important task of. all theological activity. And, since the Bible could no longer have its assured meaning imposed on it from without, it had to be explained wholly from within, and even as early as 1519 Luther had given this recognition its classic formulation, viz., that the Bible must be its own interpreter.12 Furthermore, since we believe that the Holy Catholic Church has the same Spirit of faith that it received at its beginning, why should it not be permitted (page 22) today to study the Holy Scripture, either alone or above all else, as the early church was permitted so to do? For early Christians had not read Augustine or Thomas. Or tell me, if you can, what judge can decide the question, whether the statements o the church fathers have contradicted themselves. As a matter of fact, a judgment must be pronounced by making Scripture the judge, something that is impossible if we do not accord primacy to Scripture in all questions that are referred to the church fathers. This means that [Scripture] itself by itself is the most unequivocal, the most accessible [facillima], the most comprehensible authority, itself its own interpreter [sui ipsius interpret], attesting, judging, and illuminating all things, as Psalm 119 [vs. 130] affirms: "The explanation," or to render it more exactly in accordance with the Hebrew, "the opening or the door of thy words gives light and imparts understanding to the simple." Here the Spirit clearly grants illumination and teaches that insight is given only by the Word of God. as by a door or opening, or (to use a current phrase) as the first stage with which one must begin on the way to light and insight. Further: "The beginning and the head of thy words is truth" [Ps. 119:160]. You see that here also truth is imparted only to the "head" of the words of God; that is, if in the first instance you learn the words of God and use them as the point of departure in pronouncing judgment on all words. This insight, fundamental in similar fashion to the thinking of all the Reformers, when consistently pursued, has to lead to a strictly historical exegesis of the Bible, and that particularly so since by Luther it was bound up with a second, no less significant, insight. From the medieval tradition Luther had been familiar with the method by which the early church had found in every biblical text a fourfold scriptural sense (literal, allegorical, moral, anagogicalhaving a spiritual meaning with reference to last things) 13, but as early as 1517 he had completely broken with it. More important, however, is the fact that Luther also more and more abandoned an allegorical explanation of Scripture and emphasized that the Word of God has but one meaning, a simple, unequivocal one, even though occasionally he still resorted to allegorical interpretations for devotional ends. And in the very placing of value on the single, literal sense of the text, Luther stood opposed to the humanistic tradition; this insight was a discovery peculiarly his own; he defended his practice both against his papist opponents and against Erasmus; and at the end of his life he expressly reiterated- the hermeneutical principle.14 The Holy Spirit is the plainest writer and speaker in heaven and earth, and therefore His words cannot have more than one, and that the very simplest, sense, which we call the literal, ordinary, natural, sense. That the things indicated by the simple sense of His simple words should signify something further and different, and therefore one thing should always signify another, is more than a question of words or of language. For the same is true of all other things outside of the Scriptures, since all God's works and creatures are living signs and words of God, as St. Augustine and all (he teachers declare. But we (page 23)are not on that account to say that the Scriptures or the Word of God have more than one meaning.

​

Now, is this matter of the free will to remain forever uncertain and undecided, as one that cannot be proven or refuted by any simple text, hut only, with fabricated inferences and figures of speech, to be introduced, belabored, and driven hither and yon, like a reed in the wind, by people who are completely at odds with one another?

​

Consequently we may justly maintain that we are not to introduce any extraneous inferences or metaphorical, figurative sayings into any text of Scripture, unless the particulars of the words compel us to do so; unless the mind refuses to accept the simple words, e.g., if the text runs counter to other important passages of Scripture and its natural thrust and meaning, which the alphabetical symbol or the grammar and natural usage, as God created language among men, brings to utterance. For if anyone at all were to have power to depart from the pure, simple words and to make inferences and figures of speech wherever he wished, what else then would Scripture be but a reed that the wind tosses and blows about, or an unstable Proteus and Vertumnus which now would be this and then would be something else. If anyone at all were to have power to do this, no one could reach any certain conclusions about, or prove anything of, any article of faith which could not in this fashion (what I am saying is a tropos or biblical word that is not easy to comprehend) be contested ....
I have paid especial attention to the fact that all heresies and error in Scripture have not arisen out of the simple words of Scripture (although the Sophists have spread the byword throughout the whole world dial the Bible is a heretical book), but that all error arises out of paying no regard to the plain words and, by fabricated inferences and figures of speech, concocting arbitrary interpretations in one's own brain.

​

The Doctor said: When I was young I was learned and, strange to say, before I became a theologian I busied myself with allegory, tropology, and analogy and did all sorts of silly juggler's tricks; if anyone had such a skill today he would consider it an amazing gift. I know that sort of thing is utter nonsense, and now I have given it up. This is the method I now employ, the final and best one: I convey the literal sense of Scripture, for in the literal sense there is life, comfort, strength, learning, and art. Other interpretations, however appealing, are the work of fools. These two observations of Luther's inevitably pointed the way to a scientific approach that would with full seriousness deal with the New Testament in its historical peculiarity. But still more significant than this basic revaluation of the position of the Bible within the whole field of theologya re-evaluation Luther shared with all the Reformerswas Luther's own discovery, which must have been made in course of translating the New Testament at Wartburg and which he articulated in the prefaces to this translation when it was published in September, 1522. From the writings of Eusebius and Jerome, Luther had learned, as had the humanists and Cajetan, that the early church had disputed over the admission of some writings into the canon because there was uncertainty as to their authorship by an "apostle." This questioning, which by itself (page 24)can lead only to a literary judgment about the author and in this way gave occasion for doubting the canonical status of nonapostolic writings, Luther, with a hitherto unknown power of discernment, now sharpened into a tool of theological criticism. He pointed out that the statements of the Epistle to the Hebrews that a second repentance is impossible were incompatible with the demand for repentance in the Gospels and in Paul's letters; he noted that the teaching about justification in the Epistle of James is wholly incompatible with Pauline teaching (an observation he made again at a much later date in a Table Talk); he noted, further, the unquestionable facts that the Epistle of James lacks any real coherence and reflects an essentially Jewish framework of thought; and, on the basis of the prosaic nature of the rest of the New Testament, he criticized the fantastic character of the Revelation to John and the fact that it wholly ignores the central Christian message.15 Hitherto we have had the really certain chief books of the New Testament. But the four following [Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation] had, in ancient times, a different reputation. In the first place, that this Epistle [to the Hebrews] is not St. Paul's, nor any other apostle's is proved by the fact that it says, in chapter 2 [vs. 3], that this doctrine has Come to us and remains among us through those who themselves heard it from the Lord. Thus it is clear that he speaks of the apostles as a disciple to whom this doctrine has come from the apostles, perhaps long after them. For St. Paul, in Galatians 1 [vs. 1], testifies mightily that he has his Gospel from no man, neither through men, but from God Himself.
Again, there is a hard knot to untie in die fact that in chapters 6 [vss. 4-6] and 10 [vs. 26] it flatly denies and forbids sinners repentance after baptism, and in chapter 12 [vs. 17], it says that Esau sought repentance and did not find it. This seems, as it stands, to be against all the Gospels and St Paul's Epistles; and although one might make a gloss on it, the words are so clear that I do not know whether that would be sufficient. My opinion is that it is an epistle of many pieces put together, and it does not deal with any one subject in an orderly way.. ..
Who wrote it is not known, and will not be known for a while; it makes no difference. We should be satisfied with the doctrine that be bases so constantly on the Scriptures, showing a right fine grasp upon the reading of the Scriptures and the proper way to deal with them.
Preface to the Epistles of Saint James and Saint Jude
Though this Epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and hold it a good book, because it sets up no doctrine of men and lays great stress upon God's law. But to state my own opinion about it, though without injury to anyone, I consider that it is not the writing of any apostle. My reasons are as follows.
First: Flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture, it ascribes righteousness to works, and says that Abraham was justified by his works, in that he offered his son Isaac [Jas. 2:21], though St. Paul, on the contrary, teaches, in Romans 4 [vss. 2-3], that Abraham was justified without works, by faith alone, before he offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15 [vs. 6].

​

(page 25) Now although this Epistle might be helped and a gloss be found for this works-righteousness, it cannot be defended against applying to works the saying of Moses of Genesis 15, which speaks only of Abraham's faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul shows in Romans 4. This fault, therefore, leads to the conclusion that it is not the work of any apostle.
Second: Its purpose is to teach Christians, and in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the Resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. [The author] names Christ several times, but he teaches nothing about Him, and only speaks of common faith in God. For it is the duty of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and Resurrection and work of Christ, and thus lay the foundation of faith, as He himself says, in John 15 [vs. 27], "Ye shall bear witness of me." All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach Christ and deal with Him. That is the true test, by which to judge all books, when we see whether they deal with Christ or not, since all the Scriptures show us Christ (Romans 3 [vss. 21 ff.]) and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ (I Corinthians 2 [vs. 2]). What does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even though St. Peter or Paul taught it; again, what preaches Christ would be apostolic, even, though Judas, Annas, Pilate and Herod did it.
But this James does nothing more than impel [the reader] to the law and its works; and he mixes the two up in such disorderly fashion that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took some sayings of the apostles' disciples and threw them thus on paper; or perhaps they were written down by someone else from his preaching. He calls the law a "law of liberty" [1:25], though St. Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death and of sin (Galatians 3 [vss. 23-24]; Romans 7 [vss. 11, 23]).

​

Moreover, in chapter 5, he quotes the sayings of St. Peter, "Love covereth the multitude of sins" (I Peter 4 [vs. 3] ... and of St. Paul (Galatians 5 [vs. 17]), "The Spirit lusteth against hatred [against the flesh]"; and yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod, in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. So it seems that he came long after Sts. Peter and Paul.

​

In a word, he wants to guard against those who relied on faith without works, and is unequal to the task in spirit, thought, and words, and rends the Scriptures and thereby resists Paul and all Scripture, and would accomplish by insisting on the Law what the apostles accomplish by inciting men to love. Therefore, I cannot put him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from putting him where he pleases and estimating him as he pleases; for there are many good sayings in him. [One man alone is no man in worldly things. How, then, should this single individual avail against Paul and all the other Scriptures?]

​

Concerning die Epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy from St. Peter's second epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the aposdes as a disciple coming long after them [vs. 17], and quotes sayings and stories that are found nowhere in the Scriptures. This moved the ancient Fathers to throw this Epistle out of the main body of the Scriptures. Moreover, Jude, the Apostle, did not go to Greek-speaking lands, but to Persia, as it is said, so that he did not write Greek. Therefore, although I praise the book, it is an epistle dial need not be counted among the chief books, which are to lay the foundation of faith.

​

Preface to the Revelation of Saint John

​

About this book of die Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own ideas, and would bind no man to my opinion or judgment: I say (page 26) what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and this makes me hold it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.

​

First and foremost, the Apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in dear, plain words, as do Peter and Paul and Christ in the Gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak of Christ and His deeds without figures and visions but there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so out and out with visions and figures. And so I think of it almost as I do of the Fourth Book of Esdras, and I can in nothing detect that it was provided by the Holy Spirit.

​

Moreover, he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly,more than any other o the sacred books do, though they are much more important,and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will deal likewise with him, etc. [22:18-19]. Again, they are to be blessed who keep what is written therein; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. It is just the same as if we had it not, and there are many far better books for us to keep. Many of the fathers, too, rejected this book of old, though St Jerome, to be sure, praises it highly and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words; though he cannot prove this at all, and his praise is, at many points, too mild.

​

Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit gives him to think. My spirit cannot fit itself into this book. There is one sufficient reason for me not to think highly of it,Christ is not taught or known in it; but to teach Christ is the thing which an apostle above all else is bound, to do, as He says in Acts 1 [vs. 8], "Ye shall be my witnesses." Therefore I stick to the books which give me Christ, clearly and purely.

​

Many sweat hard at reconciling James with Paul, as, indeed, does Philip [Melanchthon] in the Apology, but unsuccessfully. "Faith justifies" stands in flat contradiction to "Faith does not justify." If anyone can harmonize these sayings, I'll put my doctor's cap on him and let him call me a fool. From the beginning, Luther took these judgments so very seriously that, in contrast to the traditional arrangement, he put the four writings he had subjected to theological and historical attack (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) at the end of the New Testament (where they have remained in all editions of the Luther Bible) and did not enumerate them in the table of contents. And though in later editions he deleted or toned down the sharpest judgments on James and Revelation, he never altered this order of these four writings or listed them in his table of all the books of the Old and New Testaments.16 In this way attention was drawn for the first time to the fact that within the New Testament there are material differences between the books of instructiondifferences that cannot be reconciledand as a consequence it became possible to observe the multiplicity of the ways of thinking and the historical genesis of the world of thought of the New Testament. But all this stood in marked tension with the presupposition of the Reformation that Scripture, explained by and of itself, is the sole and unambiguous medium of revelation. Consequently, Luther's personal discover)' was virtually stillborn and was quickly forgotten again.
But even the basic views of Holy Scripture that were common to all...That's the text as it appears on the page of Kummel's book, any spelling or grammar mistakes will be mine of course!I dont see anything to substantiate what Hayes is saying, the only other thing I can think of doing is having a look through some of Hayes' books to see where this idea came from, I can do this on Friday afternoon as I am back at uni then. Yes, perhaps he is referring to Old testament verses that have been interpreted in such a way as to claim that Christ is in the passage as opposed to the literal meaning. Perhaps something like Isaiah 7:14 (I am guessing here) where the 'virgin birth' prophecy is literally referring to a child born very soon after the prophecy was given, as a sign for Ahaz and not what Christianity has twisted it into.I will have a look at some of Hayes' books on Friday and get back to you unless you can make sense of the above.Brian.PS. Percy, if this post is too long I can delete most of it in a day or two after CA has finished with it.

Hi CA,Do you have Israelite and Judaean History Edited by John H Hayes and J Maxwell Miller SCM Press London 1977?The reference in question, which is from an essay in Long's book, is part of the first chapter of the Hayes and Miller book.If you dont have it I can get it from Glasgow Uni library, but not until wednesday, or maybe there is a library near you that has it?Brian.

I don't know yet, I cannot get the book until wednesday. I will have a look and let you know. I only know it is from that book because I had another look at Long's book and it has a footnote that says the essay is from Haye's other book.I will have a look at it on Wednesday and let you know.Brian.

HI CA,Finally found the time.Here are what I believe to be the relevant parts os the text eading up to the quote in question:I Maccabees, like II Maccabees, may be classified as contemporary history since its focus of concern is the Maccabaean struggles down to 134 BCE, probably near the book's date of composition. This work is more similar to the narrative style of Kings and Chronicles, that is to biblical historiography, than II Maccabees although the work is in some regards more pro-Hasmonaean than the latter.One further work engendered by the Maccabaean struggles should be noted, namely the book of Daniel. While apocalyptic rather than purely historical in form, the book of Daniel does however reflect a concern widespread in Hellenistic historiography - the concern with universal history which has already been noted in the work of the Samaritan Pseudo-Eupolemus. Daniel utilized the concept of four world monarchies in discussing universal history, a concept widely and earlier employed by Greek and Hellenistic writers as well as later Roman authors (see Trieber and Swain). In Daniel one can discern a tripartite division in the author's treatment of world history (so Koch, 28): (1) the time before the capture of Jerusalem, known from the biblical historical works (more assumed than discussed by the author); (2) the era of the four world empires manifesting a great decline in civilization; and (3) the futuristic eternal kingdom about to dawn. This understanding and schema of history, later adopted and adapted by Christian historians, were to dominate historical treatments of Israelite and Judaean history until the post-Reformation period.Four writers of Jewish history from the Graeco-Roman period deserve attention: Alexander Polyhistor (first century BCE), Nicolaus of Damascus (born about 64 BCE), Justus of Tiberias (first century CE), and Flavius Josephus (about 37-100 CE). Alexander was from Miletus although he wrote in Rome where he had been taken by Lentulus during Sulla's eastern campaign. The latter manumitted and appointed him a pedagogue. Among Alexander's more than twenty-five works, one was entitled Concerning the Jews, fragments of which have been preserved in Eusebius' Praeparatio Evangelica. Much of his writings apparently consisted of compilations. His writing on the Jews probably belongs to the period shortly after Pompey's conquest of the Seleucid Empire and reflects the Roman fascination with and curiosity about things Eastern. In the preserved fragments, Alexander, who was not Jewish, quotes Jewish and pro-Jewish as well as non-Jewish and anti-Jewish authors, seemingly adhering faithfully and indiscriminatingly to his sources. His account of Jewish history began with the pre-patriarchal ancestors and may have extended down to his own day. The order of the events narrated follows the sequence of the biblical books, beginning with Genesis and extending through Kings and Chronicles, which might suggest that he was familiar with the biblical books in translation. His quotations from some rather obscure writers would indicate his utilization of a significant Roman library. An important feature of Alexander's work is its reflection of the extensive chronological synchronization of Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, and biblical history and data. For example, Alexander associated the biblical flood and Noah with Berossus' Babylonian flood story and Xisuthrus. Already in the second and first centuries BCE, numerous attempts had been made to produce a world chronology and an Alexandrian biblical chronological 'school' can perhaps be traced back to the Hellenistic Jewish writer Demetrius who wrote during the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator (221-204 BCE) (Wacholder, 1974, 98-104). The Greek version of the pentateuch certainly reflects the activity of such a chronological school.Nicolaus of Damascus, who had served as tutor to Cleopatra's children and written a biography of Augustus, became a court official and counsellor to Herod the Great some time before 14 BCE, probably as part of the latter's desire to turn Jerusalem into a major literary centre. Among his works were an autobiography and a world history composed in 144 books. Nicolaus' history, written in Jerusalem and under the patronage of Herod, to whose reign about one-fifth of the work was devoted, was a true universal history which integrated Jewish history into the larger context of world history which was traced back to the times of mythical origins. With the exception of Josephus, Jewish and Christian historians seem to have made little use of Nicolaus' work, although extensive portions were available to Photius, the ninth-century anthologist and patriarch of Constantinople.Justus of Tiberias, a contemporary and antagonist of Josephus and like him apparently an unenthusiastic supporter of the revolt against Rome, produced not only a history of the Jewish war but also a chronicle of the Jewish kings extending from Moses to the time of Agrippa II. Justus seems to have made extensive use of Hellenistic universal chronicles, synchronizing the date of the exodus with the assumed contemporary Attic and Egyptian rulers. Justus' extensive chronological synchronization, through the work of Julius Africanus, exercised a significant influence upon Christian biblical chronography.Pride of place among Graeco-Roman Jewish historians must be assigned to Flavius Josephus although this may be as much due to the accident of historical preservation as to the excellence of historical presentation in his works. In the last quarter of the first century BCE, Josephus produced four major writings: Bellum Judaicum, a history of the Jewish war in seven books; Antiquitates Judaicae, a history of the Jewish people from earliest times down to the outbreak of the Jewish-Roman war in 66 BCE in twenty books; Vita, an autobiographical work primarily describing Josephus' role in the war; and Contra Apionem, a treatise on the antiquity of the Jewish people in two books. All of Josephus' works were written for apologetic or polemical purposes, a factor which exercised significant influence and perhaps frequently produced distortions in his presentations. Whether Josephus was a traitor to his own people or a nationalist with loyalties that transcended the passion of Zealotism has been much debated, but that he was a sagacious opportunist has seldom been doubted.In spite of Josephus' argument that 'the industrious writer is not one who merely remodels the scheme and arrangement of another's work, but one who uses fresh materials and makes the framework of the history his own' (War, I 15), much of his historical work relied heavily upon previous authors, a factor sometimes acknowledged, sometimes not (see *Schiirer, 43-63, on his sources). Josephus was consciously aware of his interest, apologetic concerns, and the need to justify his presentations, and he commented briefly on his historic-graphic method. The account of the Jewish war, his finest work, was written to demonstrate that the Jewish revolutionary party was the dominant factor in the Jewish-Roman strife and the cause of the destruction of the temple and to correct previously published non-Jewish versions of the conflict (War, I 1-18). As to the first purpose, Josephus informed his Greek and Roman readers that, in spite of his desire to 'recount faithfully the actions of both combatants' (War, I q), his own reflections and private sentiments held that his country 'owed its ruin to civil strife, and that it was the Jewish tyrants who drew down upon the holy temple the unwilling hands of the Romans' (War, I 10). As to the second purpose, Josephus felt that he had to correct the view that the Romans were 'the conquerors of a puny people' (War, I 8) and to combat ill-informed historians: 'As for the native Greeks, where personal profit or a lawsuit is concerned, their mouths are at once agape and their tongues loosed; but in the matter of history, where veracity and laborious collection of the facts are essential, they are mute, leaving to inferior and ill-informed writers the task of describing the exploits of their rulers. Let us at least hold historical truth in honour, since by the Greeks it is disregarded' (War, I 16).In the War, Josephus' interpretation of the events of his day is presented, in Thucydidean fashion, in three speeches attributed to Agrippa (II 345-401), Josephus himself (V 362-419), and Eleazar, the leader of the Masada rebels (VII 323-36, 341-88) (see Lindner). The central elements in Josephus' interpretations were twofold, (i) As in Polybius, Roman dominance was understood as the work of providence or God. Josephus has Agrippa declare: 'Divine assistance ... is ranged on the side of the Romans, for, without God's aid, so vast an empire could never have been built up' (II 391). Josephus reports that in his speech to the defenders of Jerusalem, he, after surveying the history of Israel's suffering, sought to convince the Jews that 'the Deity has fled from the holy places and taken His stand on the side of those with whom you are now at war' (V 412). Thus, like the prophets of old, Josephus applied a theological rationalization to explain the conditions of history. (2) The decimation of the nation and the trauma of the temple's destruction were interpreted by Josephus as divine recompense (V 413-19). Josephus has Eleazar declare: 'We have been deprived, manifestly by God Himself, of all hope of deliverance', for God was expressing his wrath at the many wrongs which we madly dared to inflict upon our countrymen'. He even has Eleazar interpret the rebels' suicidal death as a form of payment to God: 'The penalty for those crimes let us pay not to our bitterest foes, the Romans, but to God through the act of our own hands' (VII 331-3). W7ith good Deuteronomistic theology, Josephus explained the calamity which befell the Jews as divine punishment for the sins of the people, though as the sins of a minor element in the population.
Josephus' other major historical work, his magnum opus, was entitled Jewish Antiquities or, literally translated, Jewish Archaeologies.Involved in Josephus' presentation of the 'ancient history and political constitution' of the Jews to the Greek-speaking world (Ant. I 5) were two subsidiary influences, one clearly expressed and the second clearly deducible. In the first place, the translation of the pentateuch into Greek in Alexandria, as reported in the letter of Aristeas, and the assumed Graeco-Roman interest in this work on Jewish history led Josephus to hope that a widespread interest in Jewish history in its entirety existed among non-Jews (Ant. I 10-14).The curiosity and encouragement of his patron, Epaphroditus, reinforced his hope. Josephus' model led him to approach the topic in terms of translating the Hebrew records (Ant. I 5) although his work can in no way be classified as a translation and even to designate it a paraphrase is misleading.Secondly, in 7 BCE, Dionysius of Halicarnassus had published in twenty books a work on Roman archaeologies (Antiquitates Romanae), written in Greek, in which he utilized various types of source material in order to demonstrate the great antiquity of Rome in line with the general interest in antiquity reflected in Hellenistic writers who however stressed Babylonian, Greek, Egyptian, or Jewish antiquity rather than Roman. Josephus seems to have adopted consciously the pattern and interest of Dionysius in the general structure of his work in order to demonstrate that Jewish history was able to stand on an equal footing with that of any other culture in terms of both antiquity and intrinsic interest.In the present discussions, only a few general characteristics of Josephus' history can be noted:1 Although Josephus declares that his aim is to set forth 'the precise details of our Scripture records . . . neither adding nor omitting anything' (Ant. I 17), he did deliberately omit some traditions as well as supplement the biblical materials. Some of his conscious omissions were clearly calculated to avoid providing anti-Jewish protagonists with any material that might be used to support the scurrilous claims that the Jews worshipped God in animal form, specifically the ass. One of the prominent concerns in his Contra Apionem is the refutation of this accusation. Noteworthy in this regard is his omission of any reference to the story of the Israelite worship of the golden calf (Ex. 32) in his history. Numerous non-biblical legends, many with parallels in rabbinic and Hellenistic haggadah, were added to his presentation. Among these are the stories of Moses' command of the Egyptian army in expelling the Ethiopians (Ant. II 238-53; a similar but not identical version appears in the second century BCE writings of the Alexandrian Artapanus), the worship of Alexander the Great in the Jerusalem temple and his special favours to the Jews (Ant. XI 329-45; a very popular theme in later rabbinic tradition), and numerous less significant stories.Josephus does not explicitly differentiate between the biblical and the haggadic non-biblical traditions; the two seem to stand on an equal footing in his work.2. In his discussion of Abraham and Moses, Josephus glorifies both characters, but at the same time he stops short of portraying them as immortals. Abraham is depicted as the first monotheist whose mono theism was derived from his speculation on the irregularity of natural and astronomical phenomena and was responsible for his persecution in Mesopotamia and subsequent settlement in Canaan (Ant. I 154-7)- In Egypt, Abraham taught astronomy (already discovered by the antediluvian ancients; Ant. I 69-71) and arithemetic to the ignorant Egyptians, who subsequently passed along this learning to the Greeks (Ant. I 166-8; somewhat similarly Artapanus, see Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, IX 1 8). Josephus presents Moses, whose birth and significance were revealed to Pharaoh and Amram (Ant. II 205-16), as a philosopher, lawgiver, statesman, and military hero (see especially Ant. I 18-26; II 238-53; III 179-87; IV 176-95). Josephus stresses not only Moses' death but Moses' authorship of the account of his death so that none could claim that, like Enoch (Ant. I 84), 'by reason of his surpassing virtue he had gone back to the Deity' (Ant. IV 326; see III 96; and compare Philo De Vita Mosis, II 288-91) and thus been granted special immortality, as seems to have been claimed in certain circles (see Origen, Contra Celsum, I 21).3. Although Josephus declares that ‘some things the lawgiver Moses shrewdly veils in enigmas, others he sets forth in solemn allegory' (Ant. I 24) , his work is surprisingly free of allegorical interpretation, in strong contrast to the work of Philo (see, for example, Philo's De Migratione Abrahami .Josephus however sought to show the correlation between Moses' writing and natural philosophy, for example, in the depiction of the tabernacle and priestly garments as 'an imitation of universal nature' (Ant. Ill 123, 179-87).A further noteworthy characteristic in Josephus' history is his recognition of many of the critical problems and difficulties in the biblical text, a characteristic shared by many of his Jewish contemporary and later rabbinic interpreters of the scriptures. His work demonstrates that the ancients perceived many of the issues which were to occupy scholarly investigations centuries later.Working within a framework which accepted the inspiration and veracity of the scriptures and gave no thought to the possibility of diversity and development in the literary text, Josephus handled these problems through supplementation and harmonization. A few examples will suffice as illustrations. In discussing Cain, for example, Josephus is careful to point out that Adam and Eve had not only sons but daughters as well (Ant. I 52; cf. Jubilees 4.1-8) and that Cain feared that he would be a prey to wild beasts in his wanderings and thus needed a protective marking (Ant. I 59). In the discussion of the tribal allotments in the book of Joshua, one should logically conclude that since the distribution was an ad hoc operation by lot, then equality in tribal territories should be expected. Josephus knew that this had not been the case and this he explained in terms of land valuation and tribal population (Ant. V 76-80). In discussing the capture of Jerusalem, Josephus was aware of the contradictions in Joshua 15.63; Judges 1.8, 21; and II Samuel 5.1-10 and the need to harmonize such contradictions. Josephus accomplished this task by having two Jerusalems - a lower city captured as noted in Judges 1.8 and an upper city not taken until the time of David (Ant. V 124; VII 61-4). In the stories of David's first association with Saul, the biblical text has David entering Saul's service as a musician and armour bearer (I Sam. 16) whereas the subsequent story of David's combat with Goliath depicts Saul as unaware of David's identity. Josephus harmonizes the traditions by playing down the identity problem, omitting any reference to I Samuel 17.55-8 (perhaps due to his dependence upon the Greek text where these verses do not appear), and by suggesting that David had previously been placed on furlough by Saul (Ant. VI 175). II Samuel 21.19, where Elhanan is said to have killed Goliath, is harmonized with I Samuel 17 by Josephus' omission of the name of Goliath in the former.5. Another notable feature of Josephus' historical treatment is his rationalization of miraculous and extraordinary events. Josephus was somewhat troubled by Old Testament miracles (as was apparently the author of Wisdom of Solomon 19.6-21), or at least wondered about the incredulity of Gentile readers. Josephus dealt with the miraculous by carefully guarding himself and his own opinion and/or by explaining the miraculous through rationalization. When speaking of accounts in which miracle played a significant role, Josephus frequently pointed out that he was merely recounting the story as he 'found it in the sacred books' (see Ant. II 347). At other times, he used a rather set formula suggesting that on these matters 'everyone should decide according to his fancy' or 'everyone is welcome to his own opinion' (see Ant. I 108, II 348 and frequently elsewhere). This tendency to point the reader to his own opinion was already used by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Roman Antiquities, I 48), from whom Josephus may have borrowed it, and was later stated as a rule for historians by Lucian in his third-century CE work, How to Write History: Should any myth come into question, it should be related but not wholly credited: rather it should be left open for readers to conjecture about it as they will, but do you take no risks and incline neither to one opinion nor to the other (60).On several occasions, Josephus offers a rationalistic or naturalistic explanation for the unusual. The great longevity of the antediluvians was due not only to their being 'beloved of God' but also to their use of astronomy and geometry and a diet 'conducive to longevity' (Ant. I 104-8). The Hebrew passage through the sea is paralleled by the retirement of the Pamphylian Sea before Alexander (Ant. II 347f.)-The purification of the bitter waters of Marah was due to the draining off of the contaminated part (Ant. Ill 8). Josephus pointed out that quail were abundant around the Arabian gulf and that manna was still a phenomenon in that region (Ant. Ill 25, 31). Even natural causes are offered as one solution to the plagues which beset the Philistines after their capture of the ark (Ant. VI 9). In explaining the rescue of Jerusalem and the slaughter of 185,000 Assyrians in a single night, Josephus drew upon the story of Herodotus which told of an invasion by mice of the Assyrian military camps (Ant. X 18-22).Josephus, however, was no thoroughgoing rationalist who shied away from references to the miraculous. In his description of the fall of Jerusalem (War, VI 288-300), he refers to numerous miraculous portents which heralded the fall of the holy city. Whether he believed these to be actual occurrences or was merely seeking to 'emphasize for his audience the gravity of the occasion with rhetorical exaggeration is, of course, beyond the realm of solution.6. A final characteristic of Josephus' account of Israelite and Judaean history is his lack of any sense of development in the people's institutions and religion. The orthodox practices, beliefs, and institutions of his day were assumed to have existed from the time of Moses (see the book of Jubilees where the patriarchs are depicted as exemplary practitioners of the Mosaic law). That the whole of Jewish law and the institutional structure of Judaism had been given on Mount Sinai was a firmly anchored concept in later rabbinic Judaism. Josephus certainly operated with a very similar assumption.After Josephus, ancient Judaism produced no historian in any way comparable. Very few Jewish writings from the rabbinic and Talmudic periods can be called historical works. Three perhaps should be noted. The Megillat Taanit ('The Scroll of Fasts') is an Aramaic document probably written near the beginning of the second century CE (see below, ch. X i A vi). Containing a list of thirty-six days on which Jews were not to fast because of the joyous events which occurred on those days, the work provides some narrative material on events during the period of the second temple. However, in no way can it really be designated a real history. The Seder Olam Rabbah ('The Order of the World'), probably from the second century CE, is a chronological work generally ascribed to Rabbi Yose ben Halafta (for the chronological scheme, see Finegan, 123-30). The work established a chronology based on the calculation of dates from the creation of the world (libriath ha'olam or anno mundi). While it is primarily concerned with the dating of biblical events, a final chapter surveys the period from Alexander the Great to the revolt of Bar Kokhba in 132-5 CE. Meyer has summarized the value of this work in the following terms: The author's endeavour to establish a single consistent chronology, reconciling apparent variations in the biblical text, would place his work very much in the rabbinic tradition of seeking to resolve scriptural contradictions which might otherwise create some doubt about the accuracy of the text. Though he confined himself almost entirely to biblical history, mixed chronicle with midrash, and sometimes departed from chronological sequence, the author of Seder Olam did evince a desire to establish a sequential framework for Jewish history. His concern was unusual for that time (14).Pseudo-Philo's Liber antiquitatum biblicarum was apparently produced in the first century CE as a Jewish handbook on biblical history (on the text, see Kisch and Harrington). The work is primarily a midrashic chronicle of biblical history from Adam to David characterized by extensive omissions, modifications, and additions to the biblical texts. Its exact purpose is unknown. Many of its additions have parallels in other Jewish haggadah. The work was translated into Greek and subsequently into Latin, perhaps in the process being turned into a Christian handbook.The sudden cessation of the writing of historical works by the Jews has been explained in various ways. The causes of this phenomenon were probably multiple; among them were the Jewish loss of a national and cultic centre, the sense of a demise of sacred history with the destruction of the temple, the further scattering of the Jews in the diaspora which intensified the dissipation of any concept of continuing political history, the canonization of scripture which presented the Jews with a closed sacred past, the general disillusionment with historical processes attendant upon the failure of two major Jewish revolts against Rome, and the rabbinical orientation towards the law and its application and the rabbinical demands for total purity of life and separation from the world.Jewish historians in the Hellenistic and Graeco-Roman world had borrowed the forms and interests of Hellenistic historiography and ethnography and utilized these for apologetic, propaganda, and polemical purposes. Josephus was a primary example. After the Bar Kokhba war, these purposes seem to have lost their appeal. Jewish apocalyptic, with its special historical concerns, was reduced to only a glowing ember in the Hadrianic fires.Speak soon, I got a whale waiting Brian.PS, If you want the complete chapter, which is about 30 pages, if you drop me an email i can type it up and mail it to you.[This message has been edited by Brian, 02-25-2004]