R. H. Charles: A Biography (The Bible and the Humanities) 9780192869289, 0192869280

Citation preview

R. H. Charles: A Biography

THE BIBLE AND THE HUMANITIES General Editors

HINDY NAJMAN ELIZABETH SOLOPOVA KIRK WETTERS This series consists of scholarly monographs that re-integrate Biblical Studies into the Humanities by encouraging channels of communication from Biblical Studies into other Humanistic disciplines, and by bringing current theoretical developments to bear on biblical texts and traditions.

R. H. Charles A Biography JAMES C. VANDERKAM

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © James C. VanderKam 2023 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2023 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2022947944 ISBN 978–0–19–286928–9 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192869289.001.0001 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

Table of Contents Preface

ix

Why Write a Biography of R. H. Charles?: Charles in Context

1

PART 1. THE EARLY YEARS (1855–1890) Family Early Education Trinity College, Dublin Ecclesiastical Service A Year in Germany

13 15 16 21 30

P A R T 2 . T H E OX F O R D YE A R S ( 1 8 9 0– 1 9 1 3 ) Introduction

37

The University of Oxford British Biblical Scholarship in the Late Nineteenth Century

37 40

Chapter 1. The Book of Enoch Contents of the Book of Enoch The Context for Charles’s 1893 Volume on Enoch The Book Reviews The Context for Charles’s 1906 Volume on Enoch The Book Reviews Legacy The Context for Charles’s 1912 Volume on Enoch The Book Reviews Legacy

Chapter 2. The Book of Jubilees The Contents of the Book of Jubilees The Context for Charles’s 1893–95 Translation and 1895 Volume The Book Reviews The Context for Charles’s 1902 Volume on Jubilees

46 46 47 50 65 69 74 77 78 79 80 86 88

91 93 93 106 112 116

vi    The Book Reviews Legacy

Chapter 3. 2 (Slavonic) Enoch The Contents of Slavonic Enoch The Context for Charles’s Volume on the Slavonic Enoch The Book Reviews Legacy Additional Note

Chapter 4. 2 (Syriac Apocalypse of ) Baruch The Contents of 2 Baruch The Context for Charles’s Volume on 2 Baruch The Book Reviews Legacy

Chapter 5. The Assumption of Moses The Contents of the Assumption of Moses The Context for Charles’s Volume on the Assumption of Moses The Book Reviews Legacy

Chapter 6. Recognition and Syntheses 1898–1899 Appointments and Recognitions Syntheses The Context for Charles’s 1899 Book on Eschatology The Book Reviews

Chapter 7. The Ascension of Isaiah The Contents of the Ascension of Isaiah The Context for Charles’s Volume on the Ascension of Isaiah The Book Reviews Legacy

Chapter 8. More Honors and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 1901–1908 Appointments and Honors The Contents of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs The Context for Charles’s Articles and Volumes on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs The 1899 Article

117 128 130

131 131 132 133 140 147 149

151 152 153 153 164 166

168 168 169 169 184 185

189 189 192 201 202 218

221 221 222 225 232 234

238 239 246 247 251

   The 1902 Article The 1904–05 Article The 1907 Article The Books Reviews Legacy Charles’s 1908 Article

Chapter 9. The Last Oxford Years 1909–1913 and The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament Appointments and Lectures Publications Fragments of a Zadokite Work (1912) The Contents of the Fragments of a Zadokite Work The Context for Charles’s Volume on the Fragments of a Zadokite Work The Book Reviews Legacy The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament The Context for Charles’s Volumes on the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha The Book Reviews Legacy

Chapter 10. The Book of Daniel The Context for Charles’s 1913 Volume on Daniel The Book Review Charles’s 1929 Volume on Daniel Reviews Legacy Postscript

vii 251 255 257 260 278 285 287

290 290 292 303 303 304 306 314 315 318 319 322 328 331

334 334 335 339 340 355 358 359

PART 3. THE WESTMINSTER YEARS (1913–1931) Chapter 1. Return to Priestly Service Appointment as Canon Westminster Abbey and Its Canons Charles’s Early Days as Canon Charles’s Volumes of Sermons Theological Perspective Charles’s Sermons Sermon Traits Sermon Themes Westminster Activities

365 365 367 369 372 377 382 382 387 395

viii

  

Chapter 2. The Topical Books Books Regarding Divorce The Context for Charles’s Volumes on Divorce The 1921 Book Reviews The 1927 Book The Gambling Book

Chapter 3. The Book of Revelation The 1913 Book The 1920 Book Reviews The 1922 Book Legacy

Chapter 4. Scholarly Work 1914–1915 The 1914 Book Reviews A 1915 Introduction

Chapter 5. The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu The Content of the Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu The Context for the 1916 Volume The Book Reviews Legacy

Chapter 6. The Ten Commandments

402 402 402 406 416 423 429

435 436 452 467 472 481

483 483 496 498

500 500 503 506 510 512

514

The Book Reviews

514 533

Chapter 7. The End of His Days

536

Health Issues Death Disposition of Papers and Payment of Royalties Donations to Ripon Hall

Bibliographies Bibliography of the Works of R. H. Charles Bibliography of Works Cited Index

536 538 540 543

547 553 571

Preface In the early 1970s when I began studying the Jewish literature composed from approximately 200 .. to 70 ..,¹ it was obvious that Robert Henry Charles (he always gave his name as R. H. Charles) was an extremely important scholar in the field. For many years the primary resource for annotated English translations of texts from that ancient time was the two-volume collection that he edited and to which he was the primary contributor, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (1913). The opening paragraph of his Preface speaks about the role and timing of the publication (iii): For students both of the Old and New Testaments the value of the nonCanonical Jewish literature from 200 .. to .. 100 is practically recognized on every side alike by Jewish and Christian scholars. But hitherto no attempt has been made to issue an edition of this literature as a whole in English. Indeed, such an undertaking would have been all but impossible at an earlier date, seeing that critical editions of some of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha have not been published till within the last few years.

Perhaps modesty prevented him from adding that he was the one who had researched and prepared many of those more recently available editions so that, in large part, it was because of him that the time for a work such as The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament had arrived. The prominence of this man as a scholar of early Jewish literature and the fact that he had edited the texts of and had written major commentaries on the two books that had most strongly attracted my attention—1 Enoch and Jubilees—sparked a wish to learn more about him and his work. Over the years I have had many opportunities to use both the two-volume collection and Charles’s separate editions and translations of pseudepigraphic works along with the thematic books he wrote about these ancient writings. I read what little information I could find regarding his life and even wrote a short entry about him in John H. Hayes, editor, Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation ¹ In expressing ancient dates, I have chosen for the sake of convenience to follow Charles’s practice of using .. and .. rather than BCE and CE as in much academic writing today.

x



(2 volumes; Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1999) 1.176. The evidence I collected indicated that he was a different person than the one I had imagined and that his life had taken an unexpected course for such a renowned scholar. As it turns out, he was not only an energetic student of Jewish antiquity but also a churchman of considerable standing who used his pulpit to preach the scriptures and address contemporary issues. Recently I read what Robert A. Caro, the well-known author of the massive biography The Years of Lyndon Johnson (four volumes and counting), wrote about being overwhelmed by his task when first walking into the Lyndon Johnson Library in Austin, Texas. There he found four floors filled with boxes, some 40,000 of them, each containing on average 800 pages, totaling about 32,000,000 in all.² When I started to research and write this biography of Charles, I had a vastly different experience. There were his many books and articles, but it seemed that little else was known about his life. I began to fear that what F. C. Burkitt wrote in his obituary of Charles was accurate: “The external life of a scholar can usually be told in a few sentences, and it is true of the Venerable Archdeacon Charles, though, indeed, he saw many kinds of life in his time, and had many interests.”³ Through much exploring and wide reading, however, I have been able to find out considerably more about him than one will find elsewhere. Naturally, the articles about him in the standard biographical reference works and the obituaries commemorating his life provided helpful information, but other sources such as The Times of London, the Oxford University Gazette, and archival records at several places such as Oxford University Press, the University of Oxford, Merton College Oxford, Ripon College Cuddesdon, the British Academy, the National Library of Scotland, and Trinity College, Dublin have added much detail to the biography of this innovative, influential scholar. Far more abundant than the surviving information about his life is his literary legacy. I have read through, studied, and summarized what he wrote and have tried to incorporate the information as smoothly as possible into a chronological framework so that the book is really something of an intellectual biography. It was through his immense contributions to the study of Jewish apocalypses and eschatology that he became so influential both during and after his life. As a result, in the biography his work on texts such as 1 Enoch and Jubilees receives more space than the details of his life.

² Caro, Working: Researching, Interviewing, Writing (New York: Alfred Knopf, 2019). ³ “Robert Henry Charles 1855–1931,” Proceedings of the British Academy 17 (1931) 437.



xi

My interests have dictated to some extent where the focus of the biography lies. Charles wrote two kinds of publications: (1) technical works (editions, translations, commentaries, overviews, thematic studies, and dictionary or encyclopedia articles) and (2) ecclesiastical works (collections of sermons, comments on social issues). The first type embraces the scholarship for which he is justly famous, and which is, admittedly, of greater interest to me. The second, however learned, is of a different sort and of less permanent value—and I doubt that is my opinion alone. I must confess, however, that I warmed to it as the study progressed. Yet, the first kind of publication receives the bulk of attention, although the second is not at all neglected. In dealing with his editions, translations, and commentaries, I have attempted to do four things. 1. summarize each text and locate Charles’s work in the history of scholarship on it 2. summarize his book 3. survey the reviews his book elicited 4. assess how his conclusions have fared since his time. It would have been more difficult to go through the same steps for his overviews or thematic studies, so for them I have summarized his work and searched for reviews. For the ecclesiastical publications, I provide overviews and indicate, if possible, the context in the life of the Church of England in which he wrote them. Another decision should be explained. In several cases Charles wrote two or more studies of the same ancient work. Take 1 Enoch for example. He published his first translation of and commentary on the book in 1893, a critical edition of the text in 1906, and a new translation and commentary in 1912. One option for treating these contributions was to take up each at the appropriate chronological point in his life, but upon reflection I rejected this procedure because it would have presented difficulties that were worth avoiding. A chronological treatment would, it seemed, have involved too much repetition and cross-referencing. In the end, I decided to cover his work on 1 Enoch in the context of the time when he was first writing on it. So, the section about Charles’s work on 1 Enoch is located in the part of the book that treats the year 1893 (Part 2, Chapter 1). I think this approach is better than the chronological one, although in every case his publications in any particular year are also noted, if only by name, at the appropriate places.

xii



Studying Charles has been immensely rewarding for me, but it has also been valuable to learn much more about the time and setting in which he worked. He did his research when critical biblical scholarship was still at a fairly early stage in Great Britain. In those circumstances, he worked alongside quite a number of experts whose names have lived on and with whom he interacted in various ways (e.g., Samuel Rolles Driver, Thomas Kelly Cheyne). Charles is a sterling example, one might say, of the level scholarship had reached and also of what in hindsight appears to have been a typical but inflated optimism about the results that higher criticism could achieve. I am grateful for the assistance I received from several institutions and individuals in using archival material (the abbreviations in parentheses are the ones used in references to these documents). 1. Oxford University Press (OUP): The file with papers relating to some of Charles’s publications, including his handwritten letters, is used by permission of the Secretary to the Delegates of Oxford University Press. I thank the Archivist, Dr. Martin Maw for his assistance. 2. Oxford University Archives (OUA): I am grateful to Faye McLeod, Keeper of the University Archives, for permission to use records from the Minute Book of the Faculty of Arts—Oriental Languages and the records regarding the DLitt degree awarded to Charles in 1907, and to Anna Petre for her assistance in making the materials available. 3. Merton College Oxford: Information from the College Register (MCR 1.5A) is used by permission of the Warden and Fellows of Merton College Oxford. My thanks are due to Julian Reid, Archivist, and Verity Parkinson, Resource Services and Support Librarian, for their assistance in making it available. 4. Ripon College Cuddesdon (Ripon): The photographs of Charles and one of the chairs that he made and on which he carved inscriptions along with the handwritten letters of Charles and Mrs. Charles to H. D. A. Major are used by permission of Humphrey Southern, Principal. I also thank Jacquie Gunn, Librarian/Archivist, for all of her work in locating these materials. 5. National Library of Scotland (NLS): I purchased a PDF of the file containing the correspondence between T. & T. Clark and Charles which extends from 1923 to 1931 and, in the same file, a few other documents also relating to Charles’s publications with Clark. The Clark letters (from Sir John Clark from 1923 to early 1924, and his son Sir Thomas Clark from 1924–31) are typed, those of Charles are



xiii

handwritten. I thank Sally Harrower, former Manuscript Curator, and Kirsty McHugh, Curator, for their assistance, and for the help rendered by Claire Weatherhead of Bloomsbury in the search for the owners of the file. 6. The British Academy: I have received permission, courtesy of British Academy Archives, to use the Minute Books 1, 3–5 of the Council of the British Academy and to print their photograph of Charles. I thank Karen Syrett, former Archivist, and Sharon Messenger, Archivist, for their assistance in making the materials available. Two graduate students, who demonstrated finely honed research skills, have been extraordinarily helpful in tracking down materials: Elizabeth Stell in Oxford and Kaitlynn Merckling in Edinburgh. I am most grateful to both of them. It would have been a bonus if these materials could have been supplemented by eyewitness accounts from Charles’s acquaintances, but the passage of years has rendered this impossible. When I first began collecting materials on Charles, Professor John R. Bartlett of Trinity College Dublin was kind enough to ask H. F. D. Sparks (1908–1996) to record his memories of Charles for me. Sparks did so in a letter sent via Bartlett and dated April 3, 1989. As he acknowledged, he did not know Charles but had heard him preach in Westminster and later dealt with Charles’s gift of books to Ripon Hall. Sparks, whose letter is cited several times in the biography, is the only person I have found who recalled having some contact with Charles. Let me say thank you once more to my wife Mary who read through the entire manuscript and made typically astute comments about it. I am also grateful to our daughter-in-law Susan VanderKam for generous assistance with tech questions and with her camera. It has been a pleasure to have this book accepted into the series The Bible and the Humanities by the editors, Hindy Najman, Elizabeth Solopova, and Kirk Wetters. Finally, my deep gratitude goes to Thomas Perridge, Jo Spillane, and Sandy Cooke of Oxford University Press for their skillful guidance through the publishing process, and to the staff at Straive, Balasubramanian Shanmugasundaram, Vaishnavi Anantha Subramanyam, Nivedha Vinayagamurthy, and Lesley Harris, for their careful and efficient work in producing the book.

Why Write a Biography of R. H. Charles? Charles in Context R. H. Charles: A Biography surveys the life and work of a scholar who pioneered a new field of study within the humanities. His name is very familiar to experts who work with the literature in that field, now called Early Judaism (roughly 200 .. to 100 ..), but it may not be as well known to others, perhaps not even to some whose scholarship focuses on the Bible. Charles deserves to be known to all who examine the biblical world, whether professionally or more informally, because he not only brought early Jewish apocalyptic texts to people’s attention but also applied what he learned from them to the study of biblical apocalypses and the history of Jewish thought. He worked at a time of fundamental importance in the evolution of biblical scholarship, practiced the new ways of interpretation that were being developed in his time, and engaged in the debates then current in church and state. Charles (1855–1931) is most widely known as the editor of a two-volume work, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament.¹ The first large volume contains the books in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles that Protestants call the Apocrypha. These books, such as 1–2 Maccabees and the Wisdom of Ben Sira, were fairly familiar in 1913, but the volume offered learned treatments of them in light of the latest textual information. The second volume, Pseudepigrapha, furnished expert introductions to and heavily footnoted translations of the books of Enoch, Jubilees, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and others. This innovative tome, through which generations of readers became acquainted with early Jewish literature outside of the Bible, contained far more contributions by Charles than by any other scholar, contributions that were somewhat abbreviated forms of his earlier publications on these texts. He was the obvious choice to edit the collection since he was the supreme expert for this extra-biblical literature in the Englishspeaking world. The second volume of The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha ¹ Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913.

R. H. Charles: A Biography. James C. VanderKam, Oxford University Press. © James C. VanderKam 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192869289.003.0001

2

     . . : 

of the Old Testament has been superseded in more recent times, but from 1913 when it was published until the 1980s it was the place to begin (and continue) study of such books. Charles’s scholarly career spanned some forty years, from 1890 to 1931. Those decades were momentous for changes in approaches to the Bible and for archaeological discoveries relevant to it. Knowing something about the setting for Charles’s remarkable scholarly career is vital for appreciating what he accomplished. The following paragraphs provide a very brief sketch of that background, especially as it took shape in Germany and Great Britain. The sketch focuses on changes in biblical scholarship that are the most relevant for understanding Charles’s work.

Developments in Scholarship on the Bible Traditionally in Western Christianity, the Bible had served as a sourcebook for doctrines, as a timeless treasury for the church’s teachings about God, the world, humans, and their relationship with the deity.² There were exceptions, of course, but the concerns of preaching and dogma were valued more highly than other uses to which the Bible might be put. And the Bible, in the form of the Latin Vulgate, was read under the guidance of the creeds and other authoritative statements of the church. It was generally assumed that books in it were written by the people whose names were associated with them and that the stories about ancient Israel and the life of Jesus accurately described what happened. Accordingly, Genesis told how the world began, Moses wrote the Pentateuch (Genesis–Deuteronomy),³ the Old Testament history books described what took place, Jesus performed the miracles attributed to him, and the Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in him. Centuries before the time of Charles a few learned individuals in Europe brought about a sea change in the focus and forms of scholarship. The Renaissance was characterized by renewed study of ancient Greek and Latin

² Richard Marsden (“Introduction,” in The New Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 2 From 600–1450, ed. Richard Marsden and E. Ann Matter [Cambridge Histories; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012] 2, cf. 10–11) writes that in the monasteries “the Bible was still a bibliotheca [library], to be experienced as a whole, an ineffable synthesis of its many parts.” Changes were to come about in the cathedral schools and in the universities that were arising in the latter centuries of the period covered in the volume Marsden and Matter edited. ³ In a traditional chronology, Moses lived in the 1400s .. (see 1 Kings 6:1).

     . . : 

3

literature and by a greater awareness of the distance separating the present from the ancient world.⁴ One of those learned individuals was Petrarch (1304–74). The historian James Turner characterizes the effects of his work on subsequent humanists as threefold: “(1) policing the purity of contemporary writing (i.e., how closely it mirrored an idealized ancient usage); (2) finding, editing, and appraising ancient texts; and (3) pursuing historical and antiquarian research.”⁵ An early example of applying philological work to a text came from Lorenzo Valla (1407–57) who demonstrated, by studying the language of the document, that the Donation of Constantine was not authentic.⁶ The tools of these early humanists (especially Turner’s numbers 2 and 3) were, in a more developed form, the ones that later served biblical scholars and helped them address the Bible in a new fashion. Moreover, the Protestant reformers, with their tenet of sola Scriptura, directed increased attention to the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible, moving to a stage in the transmission of the text that antedated the Vulgate. Emphasizing ancient languages, manuscripts, and texts, and studying the books of the Bible in their historical contexts had, as might be expected, major repercussions for scholarship on the Bible. Closer to the time of Charles, there were more distinctive advances in biblical studies, primarily in Germany. True, a number of independent thinkers in earlier times had detected big problems in the traditional way of reading the Bible. Baruch/Benedict Spinoza (1632–77) and Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) are famous examples. Spinoza thought that much of the books Genesis–2 Kings were post-exilic in date (after 539 ..), at which time they had been written down, possibly by Ezra.⁷ Hobbes pointed out in Leviathan, part III, ch. 33 that Moses could hardly have written about himself words like “no one knows his burial place to this day” (Deuteronomy 34:6). He added that, lest one think this was the only passage in the Pentateuch that Moses did not write or that he received it through prophecy, there were other passages (e.g., Genesis 12:6 and Numbers 21:14) that indicated a time of composition after Moses. He was not able to say when the Pentateuch was written but thought that Moses was author of only part of it. Other books, too, were written later than the lifetimes of those individuals after whom they are named (e.g., Joshua).⁸ ⁴ James Turner, Philology: The Forgotten Origins of the Modern Humanities (The William G. Brown Memorial Series in Higher Education; Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014) 34–8. ⁵ Philology, 34. ⁶ Philology, 36. ⁷ For a short summary of his scriptural scholarship, see E. M. Curley, “Spinoza, Benedict (or Baruch) de,” in John H. Hayes, editor, Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (2 vols.; Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1999) 2.498–9. ⁸ For his comments about the Bible, see John Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century: England and Germany (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1985) 148–9.

4

     . . : 

At the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century, a number of experts were analyzing the biblical text in novel ways and, in part, for different reasons than had been the case before. As they read the scriptural texts in their original languages and examined how they were worded in the oldest and best manuscript copies, they drew new conclusions from them. For instance, the deity of the Old Testament is called Elohim (God) and Yahweh (rendered L in English Bibles), and in some stories that are told twice Elohim figures in one form of it and Yahweh in the other. The narrative of the flood in Genesis 6–9 is the parade example: in it two fully parallel stories, each employing one of the divine names, are intertwined. Among the other parallel units distinguished by their use of Elohim and Yahweh are what appeared to be two creation accounts—Genesis 1 with creation by God in six days followed by a seventh day of rest, and Genesis 2 with creation by the L, partially in a different order and without mention of days. Eventually, as the matter was scrutinized more closely, scholars determined that sources lay behind the Pentateuch—ones identified by which divine name was used as well as by other criteria—that were combined to form the first five books of the Bible. In addition, the book of Deuteronomy was written in a distinctive style, not like that of the other parts. Although these sources were for a time regarded as works used by Moses in writing the initial books of the Bible,⁹ clues in them entailed that they were written and combined later than the lifetime of Moses, that is, Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch. A characteristic of the new way of doing biblical scholarship was examining the text historically, that is, interpreting the different parts of the Bible in the ancient settings in which each writer worked and by which each was influenced. Some experts concluded that the Bible describes developments in religious concepts and practices, from earlier, more primitive kinds to later, more advanced ones. It was not a timeless book setting forth one unchanging system of doctrine. Rather, it should be viewed as a history of God’s revelation, not a revelation per se. The New Testament, too, underwent a different kind of reading. The gospels, for example, came to be seen, not as eyewitness reports of actual events, but as literary works written decades after the time of Jesus and crafted

⁹ An example often mentioned in surveys is Jean Astruc (1684–1766), the title of whose 1753 book Conjectures sur les mémoires originaux don’t il paroît que Moyse se servit pour composer le livre de Genèse (Brussels: Fricx) reveals that he retained Moses as the author of Genesis, although he used “mémoires” in writing it.

     . . : 

5

according to the distinctive viewpoints of the writers, who were not the apostles after whom they were named. The synoptic gospels, with Mark being the earliest and Matthew and Luke using it as well as a shared source called Q (German Quelle = source), received a large amount of attention.¹⁰ It is not so clear that they ever fully succeeded, but critical scholars were moving closer to reading the Bible as one might read any other ancient literary work, say a treatise of Aristotle or a dialogue of Plato. In other words, the same historical, literary, linguistic, and comparative tests could be applied to it as to other literature, without the encumbrances of theological assumptions and ecclesiastical authority. Treating the Bible exactly like other books would have been difficult in the pervasively Christian context of European scholarship, but the aim was there. The differences between the historical-critical and earlier approaches to the Bible were huge.

Developments in Germany The work of a number of German experts could be adduced, but it will serve the present purposes to mention just one. Wilhelm M. L. de Wette (1780–1849) was a scholar who, building on the work of predecessors, developed a comprehensive theory about the Pentateuch in his two-volume Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament (1806–1807). John Rogerson says of de Wette’s Beiträge that it is the first work of Old Testament scholarship to use the critical method in order to present a view of the history of Israelite religion that is radically at variance with the view implied in the Old Testament itself. According to the Old Testament, Moses gave to the Israelites a fully-fledged legal system, sacrificial cult, and priesthood. According to de Wette, Moses did nothing of the sort. It is difficult, according to de Wette, to know in detail what Moses gave to the people; what is certain is that the developed legal, sacrificial and ¹⁰ For a succinct overview, see John Hayes, “Biblical Interpretation, History of,” in The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2006) 1.455–61. A controversial publication was David Friedrich Strauss’ Das Leben Jesu kritisch bearbeitet (2 vols.; Tübingen: C. F. Osiander, 1835–36). Strauss denied the possibility of miracles and showed how, given the surviving evidence, one could not write a biography of Jesus (see D. Lange, “Strauss, David Friedrich,” in Hayes, editor, Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, 2.507–8). For a survey of later nineteenth century developments in Great Britain, see William Baird, “The Establishment of Historical Criticism in Great Britain,” in his History of New Testament Research, vol. 2 From Jonathan Edwards to Rudolf Bultmann (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2003) 54–84 (the chapter is mostly about the Cambridge trio of F. J. A. Hort, J. B. Lightfoot, and B. F. Westcott).

6

     . . :  hierarchic systems are much later than the time of Moses, and that the ascription of these mature systems to Moses is anachronistic, . . . .¹¹

The part of the Pentateuch that describes these systems most fully was the Priestly source which is found in much of the latter half of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. De Wette maintained that 1–2 Chronicles, in which these systems are depicted as present from the time of King David on, were not reliable accounts of Israel’s past, as they were usually understood to be. The priestly systems are absent from the older history books 1 Samuel–2 Kings and are projections from after the exile (ca. 587–39 ..) onto the earlier period. De Wette thought there was no evidence for the kinds of religious systems described in the Pentateuch until the time of King Josiah of Judah (reigned 640–609 ..).¹² As study of the Old Testament progressed, scholars came to the conclusion that, far from being the earliest, as experts had thought, the Priestly source was in fact the latest. The evidence indicated that it was post-exilic in date, that is, later than 539 .. The scholar who defended the thesis most forcefully, thoroughly, and clearly was Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918) whose major works, which built on the research of predecessors, were published in the 1870s–1890s,¹³ thus overlapping with the time when Charles began his work. As Wellhausen argued, the literature from the pre-exilic period of Israel’s national history betrays no evidence of the law as expressed in the Priestly source: “As for the literature which has come down to us from the period of the Kings, it would puzzle the very best intentions to beat up so many as two or three unambiguous allusions to the Law, and these cannot be held to prove anything when one considers, by way of contrast, what Homer was to the Greeks.”¹⁴ He compared what the earliest legal material, Deuteronomy, and the Priestly source said about various topics such as sacrifice, festivals, and the clergy and showed that in each case the Priestly source was the latest. For

¹¹ Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century, 29. Turner (Philology, 211) comments about the work of de Wette’s predecessors: But none of these eighteenth-century philologists questioned the basic historical accuracy of the Bible narrative. Like earlier readers, they assumed the Old Testament to relate the history of ancient Hebrews pretty much as events had unfolded. . . . A philologist might need to decipher the mythology encoding this history; but the facts were there, much as the Iliad draped with gods and goddesses a real Trojan War. ¹² Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century, 30–4. ¹³ See Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century, 257–89. ¹⁴ Cited from Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (trans. John Sutherland Black and Allan Menzies; Edinburgh: A. & C. Black, 1885; repr. Meridian Books; Cleveland, OH: World, 1957) 5. Wellhausen’s book was first published in 1878.

     . . : 

7

decades after Wellhausen’s work critical scholars affirmed that four sources, two narrative ones (J and E, letters for the divine names [Yahweh = Jahweh in German, and Elohim (God)] used in them), Deuteronomy (D), and the Priestly source (P)—in that order (JEDP)—were the components from which the Pentateuch was formed. I have highlighted the growing scholarly conviction of how relatively late the Priestly source of the Pentateuch was because determining its date was more than a case of arcane squabbling, although it did produce a lot of squabbling with more conservative folk in Germany. It was significant because it remapped the history of Israelite religion and entailed that the prominence of the law, with its priesthood, Levites, and sacrificial cult, was a very late development, not a structure present from the beginning.¹⁵ Indeed, experts often compared this system unfavorably with the more spontaneous forms of religion found in earlier times and also among the prophets who ministered before the law became dominant. The kind of Judaism that focused on the law was considered to be a devolution from earlier forms, a heavily legalistic and ritualistic system. The thesis of a late law and priestly, ritual system also fed into the anti-Semitism that was a very present factor in the nineteenth century. The literature of the Rabbis, which centered on this law and the tradition of how to read it, came to be viewed as encoding a petrified religion lacking the spontaneity of earlier times and the righteous fervor of the prophets. In Protestant eyes, moreover, the system of post-exilic and Rabbinic Judaism seemed all too reminiscent of the Roman Catholic Church with its priestly hierarchy, ritual, and tradition. As we will see, all of this has significance for understanding the views of the Bible and of ancient Judaism held by Charles and many of his contemporaries.

Other Factors It was not only study of the text itself that brought about a revolution in reading the Scriptures. Another spur to altering the traditional approach was a spate of discoveries made during archaeological excavations in the nineteenth century. Once the cuneiform script was deciphered in midcentury, vast numbers of tablets unearthed in various Mesopotamian sites were published. Famous ones that impinged on the Bible included the Epic ¹⁵ The first sentence in Wellhausen’s Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel asks “ . . . whether the law is the starting-point for the history of ancient Israel, or not rather for that of Judaism” (p. 1).

8

     . . : 

of Gilgamesh, whose eleventh tablet contained a flood story that closely resembled the one(s) in the Bible. The text was demonstrably so ancient that, no matter who wrote Genesis, Moses or later writers, the version of the story in Gilgamesh was older than the biblical parallel and raised challenging questions about it. The results that were being produced by the physical sciences likewise exercised influence on biblical scholarship. The most famous were, naturally, those published by Charles Darwin in On the Origin of Species in 1859. His theses about evolutionary adaptation through natural selection cast doubts on the uniqueness of the human race. It seems as if Darwin’s work, while important and well known, was not as immediately significant for scriptural study as the conclusions reached by geologists about the immense ages that preceded the appearance of humans and how long humans had existed.¹⁶ Such hypotheses directly challenged the chronology that had been derived from the Bible.

Developments in Great Britain Early in the 1800s, some British experts took notice of biblical scholarship in Germany but generally frowned upon it. It is helpful to distinguish two kinds of criticism practiced by modern scholars of the Bible: (1) lower criticism, i.e., comparing manuscript copies of texts and trying to determine the best readings in them, or purely grammatical analyses, and (2) higher criticism, the processes of drawing literary and historical conclusions from the texts. The results of lower criticism were embraced in Great Britain, but the conclusions of higher criticism, were not. As Turner puts it (referring to the first half of the 1800s): For the next half century, Anglophone attitudes toward German biblical criticism careened between admiration and alarm. As a rule, the most competent British and American scholars devoured German philological expertise but choked on any serious revision of inherited biblical orthodoxy. In Eichhorn’s terms, they loved German textual (“lower”) criticism and loathed higher criticism.¹⁷

¹⁶ Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century, 252–3. ¹⁷ Philology, 214. Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752–1827), professor at Göttingen, introduced the term “higher criticism” into the field of biblical studies (211).

     . . : 

9

As time went by, the picture changed. In the latter half of the nineteenth century, more British scholars were adopting at least some of the conclusions reached by the German higher critics. The advance came, however, at a price. The scholars of the Bible in England, Scotland, and Ireland were in almost all cases members of the clergy who had taken vows of ordination to uphold the teachings of their churches. When clergy embraced higher critical theories that challenged such teachings, the authorities pushed back, and large parts of the public did as well. Two prominent examples were John William Colenso (1814–79) and William Robertson Smith (1846–94).¹⁸ Colenso was Bishop of Natal when he wrote The Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua critically examined (it eventually included seven large parts published from 1862–79). With mathematical precision he showed, among many other conclusions, the absurdities to which some biblical numbers led, such as the 600,000 men twenty-years-of-age and above who are supposed to have left Egypt (Exodus 12:37–8; see also 38:26; Numbers 1:46). He was later ousted from his bishopric by South African church authorities. Smith, who had spent time in Germany and was personally acquainted with some of the German critics, believed that reading the Bible in the way of modern criticism was vitally important for maintaining an evangelical faith. He adopted the system of four sources in the Pentateuch, with the Priestly source being the latest. His most famous book was The Old Testament in the Jewish Church (New York, NY: D. Appleton, 1881; 2nd ed. 1892). He was removed from his position in the Free Church College in Aberdeen in 1881 after a lengthy ecclesiastical trial.

Charles’s Scholarship Charles was educated in this environment when a critical approach to the Bible was possibly dangerous but gradually gaining acceptance, if done with prudence. His academic training took place in Ireland, most importantly at Trinity College, Dublin where there were excellent biblical scholars who could teach him contemporary methods of reading the Scriptures (see below Part 1). In his writings it is evident that he accepted the results of higher criticism for ¹⁸ For Colenso, see Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century, esp. 220–37. For Smith, see Rogerson, The Bible and Criticism in Victorian Britain: Profiles of F.D. Maurice and William Robertson Smith (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 201; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995) 56–179. The controversy that greeted another publication, Essays and Reviews, in 1860 is treated below in Part 2, Introduction.

10      . . :  the Bible and used its methods both on canonical and non-canonical texts. He searched for manuscripts of ancient works and pored over their every word, emended readings in texts, identified sources for and interpolations in them, sought their historical background, and tried to determine their most ancient form. Like so many of his fellow scholars, he was an Anglican priest and thus owed his allegiance to the church and its doctrines. A feature that made Charles stand out from his contemporaries was that he focused the critical tools of biblical scholarship on Jewish texts that were not scriptural, at least they were present in no European Bible. One of the major achievements of biblical criticism, as we have seen, was to date the Priestly source of the Pentateuch to the post-exilic period. A result was that for Protestant scholars, whose Bibles lacked the books of the Apocrypha, the period between the Old and New Testaments, which was already regarded as of little import, came to have even less appeal. It now turned out to be the time when the most detailed Jewish legal material, only recently written, took on normative status. The negative attitude toward such a system in Protestant circles hardly enhanced interest in the “intertestamental” centuries. Thus, the whole period and the Jewish literature written during it attracted little attention, as it was not considered useful for understanding the Bible, especially the New Testament. Charles strongly disagreed. Although he wrote commentaries on the two apocalypses in the Christian Bible, Daniel and Revelation, most of his work was devoted to extra-biblical Jewish apocalypses. He insisted that they were essential for understanding the New Testament. His efforts, encouraged by discoveries of works believed to have been lost, created a new field in biblical scholarship in the English-speaking world, while his influence became international in scope. Charles was the exception for his time but only to a certain extent. Although he worked in excruciating detail with early Jewish literature, he shared the prejudices about Judaism that were prevalent at his time. Charles admired the apocalyptic writings of Jewish authors, but he decried what he considered the legalism that developed in the period and gave rise to Rabbinic literature. Law was acceptable, indeed even valuable, as long as it was coupled, as it was at first, with the more prophetic current, that is, with apocalyptic thinking. Yet, even in this respect, Charles remained a supersessionist. The better side of Judaism, which came to expression in the apocalypses, flowed, on his view, into Christianity where such thinking reached its finest expression. The legal side, detached from apocalypticism, became Rabbinic Judaism which he considered sterile, using a term like “puerilities” for Mishnaic and Talmudic

     . . : 

11

discussions. We will meet this prejudice, not to mention his anti-Catholic bias, on a number of occasions in the chapters that follow. Charles, then, while sharing the scholarly methods and prejudices of his time, innovated by engaging in a lifetime of research into Jewish apocalyptic texts. He demonstrated their importance in and for themselves and for reading the New Testament; in the course of doing so, he made many of the products of that research available to a larger audience. With the work of Charles one can truly say that Jewish apocalyptic literature entered the field of biblical studies in the English-speaking world. And with his publications a new field arose that today has become perhaps the most lively in the wide world of scriptural scholarship.

PART 1

THE E ARLY YEARS (1855 – 1890) Robert Henry Charles was born on August 6, 1855 in Cookstown, County Tyrone, Ireland.

Family Charles was the fifth of seven sons (there were no daughters) in the family of Annie Elizabeth (nee Allen) and David Hughes Charles, a prominent medical doctor. County Tyrone is located in the north of Ireland, and the Charles family were Anglican. “The Charles family had been long settled in Tyrone, seated at Moor Lodge in that county, and took their part in the desperate struggles and sacrifices by which the Ulster Protestants held their own against tremendous odds in the seventeenth century.”¹ The family into which he was born was no ordinary one. His father was an important physician, while his mother too was a resourceful individual. D’Arcy² writes about her that she was “ . . . a woman of strong character, deep religious convictions, and sound judgment. Her influence over her large family of strongwilled sons was one of the most potent forces which directed them in the ways which ultimately led them to lives of noble usefulness.” Two of Robert’s brothers became well known. The oldest of the seven was John James Charles (1845–1912). He followed in his father’s footsteps by going into the medical profession. After studies at various schools, including work abroad in Paris, Bonn, and Berlin, he became a lecturer and demonstrator in Anatomy at Queen’s College, Belfast, and, beginning in 1875, was professor of anatomy and physiology at Queen’s College, Cork. “He published

¹ C. F. D’Arcy, “A Brief Memoir,” in Charles, Courage, Truth, Purity (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1931) xiii. ² D’Arcy, “A Brief Memoir,” xiii.

14    ( – ) a good deal on physiological and anatomical subjects, especially on oxygen and other gases of the body, including gaseous products of digestion.”³ The brother who became especially famous was the sixth of the seven in the family, Richard Havelock Charles (1858–1934). He too followed his father by entering the medical profession. He studied at Queen’s College, Cork and took his MD degree from the Royal University of Ireland in 1881. He scored most impressively on the examinations for the Indian Medical Service (IMS), thus paving the way for him to work in the place where he was to spend much of his career. He too studied in several cities overseas (Paris, Vienna, Berlin). During his many years in India, he served in sundry capacities—as the physician in charge of the field hospital for a boundary commission in Afghanistan (1884–86), professor of anatomy and comparative anatomy in Lahore (1886–94), and eventually professor of anatomy in the medical college and surgeon in the College Hospital, Calcutta (1894–1906). Late in this period he became directly associated with British royalty. In 1905–06 he accompanied the prince (the future George VI) and Princess of Wales as they toured India. In the years that followed he received a series of honors. Although he retired from the Indian Medical Service in 1908, he was with King George VI and Queen Mary in 1911–12 when they again traveled through India. For many years (1910–28) he was sergeant-surgeon to the king and became a baronet in 1928. In addition, he reached the rank of major general in the British Indian army. This son of the Charles family also tried his hand at writing. “He published on anatomy—especially of Indian races—in the British Medical Journal and elsewhere, and compiled biographies of IMS officers. He eventually became dean of the London School of Tropical Medicine and was president of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine; he was also a fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, and of the Royal Zoological Society.”⁴ The family was, thus, well represented in the medical profession (two other brothers also became physicians),⁵ and several of its sons had extensive international experience. Robert chose a different profession than most of his brothers, although he had considered medicine in his youth.⁶ Like them, he became very prominent in his field and spent considerable stretches of time outside the British Isles. ³ “Charles, John James,” Dictionary of Irish Biography, edited by J. I. McGuire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009); electronic edition (last accessed 1-26-2022). ⁴ “Charles, Sir [Richard] Havelock,” Dictionary of Irish Biography (last accessed 1-26-2022). ⁵ One of the two, T. Cranstoun Charles, became a lecturer in physiology, St. Thomas Hospital, London. In 1925 R. H. Charles would perform the wedding ceremony for his only daughter Eileen, by which time this brother was deceased. See Part 3, Chapter 1. ⁶ D’Arcy, “A Brief Memoir,” xv.



15

Early Education Young Robert’s education began at a private school near where the family lived, but after a time he requested a transfer to the Belfast Academy because of its superior educational offerings. It was at the Belfast Academy that he began studying the classical languages (under an instructor he admired, a Mr. Mayben) and Latin prose composition (under another admired instructor, a Mr. Maxwell). He also discovered that, contrary to his experience to this point, he enjoyed mathematics. D’Arcy⁷ quotes from Charles’s own account: I must under no circumstances omit to mention one of the three or four greatest teachers whom I have known. His name was McNeill and he subsequently became head of Campbell College, Belfast. . . . In my earlier school days I simply abhorred arithmetic. Such being my unhappy experience, I cannot express the delight I felt when, under Mr. McNeill’s guidance, unrivalled in my opinion, I found that I was enthralled by his method of teaching mathematics.

As a result of his own ability and of the fine pedagogy on offer at the school, Charles was a candidate for scholarships in classics and mathematics. He finished in second place in the former and just missed out on the latter. After the Belfast Academy, Charles attended Queen’s College, Belfast where he studied from 1874–80 and to which he won a scholarship. The college was one of three institutions with the name “Queen’s College” set up in Ireland to encourage higher education among Catholics and Presbyterians. The one in Belfast had opened its doors in 1849. Charles entered the school in 1874 and earned two degrees from it—a BA (first-class honors in classics) in 1877 and an MA (first-class honors in classics) in 1880. With a focus on classics, Charles obviously performed extremely well because he won a number of prizes (also a first in economics) and took a First-Class Gold Medal in 1877. His comments about the professor of Greek, Charles MacDouall, will perhaps not surprise those who are familiar with his later publications: He was a grammarian of the first rank. His insight into and teaching on the minutest Greek particles and phrases I have never known rivalled. The bulk of my fellow students were probably bored by MacDouall’s seeming ⁷ D’Arcy, “A Brief Memoir,” xiv. D’Arcy never identifies the place where Charles recorded this and other autobiographical information, although it must have been accessible to him at the time when he wrote “A Brief Memoir” in 1931.

16    ( – ) subtleties. But I have not forgotten to the present day much that I learned at his feet. I have known only one other scholar whom I would place beside this now forgotten Greek linguist as an authority on questions of grammar and linguistic subtlety, and that scholar is Driver in his Studies on the Hebrew Tenses.⁸

Charles was becoming well versed in Latin and Greek and felt he was getting first-rate instruction in them.⁹ Archbishop D’Arcy reports that while Charles was at Queen’s College, he underwent a spiritual crisis that affected the course of his life. In his description of it, he quotes Charles’s own account. It would seem that a deep sense of inward imperfection and need overwhelmed him. Then it was that, under the influence of his mother and also of the Rev. F. Crawford, Rector of the Parish, whose help he acknowledged with gratitude, he resolved to face his trouble with prayer and study. “Some weeks passed,” he wrote, “when on one Sunday afternoon while I was thus engaged, I suddenly heard as it were a voice bidding me arise and walk. The words were not these, nor were they articulate, but their effect was instantaneous. I became a stronger man in every way, spiritual, moral, and mental. It was after this great change in my life that I resolved to take Holy Orders.”¹⁰

It would seem from this account that Charles had a revelatory experience worthy of the ones claimed by the ancient seers he would later study and not unlike the one that transformed St. Augustine’s life.

Trinity College, Dublin The place where his new resolve took concrete form was the most ancient and prestigious institution of higher learning in Ireland, Trinity College, Dublin. ⁸ D’Arcy, “A Brief Memoir,” xv. Driver is Samuel Rolles Driver (1846–1914) whose book A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew first appeared in 1874 and who later (1907) was one of the three editors (with Francis Brown and Charles Briggs) of the famous A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Driver and Charles knew each other when both were in Oxford. ⁹ Charles, in December 1922, forty-two years after graduating from Queen’s, made a donation to the school—“a small collection of papers and photographic material . . . consisting mainly of photographs (positive and negative) of original Aramaic, Greek and Ethiopic biblical manuscripts dating from the 10th to the 15th centuries” (Archive description, accessed 9-29-2017). Charles received an honorary DD from the school in 1923. For the gift and the degree, see Part 3 Chapter 1. ¹⁰ D’Arcy, “A Brief Memoir,” xvi.



17

The school traced its origins to the late sixteenth century when Queen Elizabeth, responding to a request made in November 1591, authorized establishing the school which was to be called “the College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity near Dublin founded by Queen Elizabeth.”¹¹ It was incorporated on March 3, 1592. Perhaps the greatest of its early scholars was James Ussher (1581–1656), Archbishop of Armagh (thus the primate of the Church of Ireland) and author of the famous The Annals of the World.¹² He had been a student at Trinity and was associated with it in various capacities throughout much of his life.¹³ As the queen had directed, one of the aims of the new college was to offer “education, training and instruction of youths and students in the Arts and Faculties, so that they might be the better assisted in the study of the liberal arts, and in the cultivation of virtue and religion.”¹⁴ There was theological instruction from early on, with Ussher himself perhaps being the first to offer it. The school played a part in training students preparing for ecclesiastical orders in the Church of Ireland—a member of the Anglican communion¹⁵— but at first it had no special unit for theological instruction. Events in the late eighteenth century led to the establishment of a divinity school. “In 1790 the Irish bishops decided to admit to orders only such candidates as had graduated in arts and attended one year’s theological lectures. . . .”¹⁶ Hence a suitable place for educating the candidates was needed. Several decades were to pass, however, before a divinity school came into being. In 1833 the Divinity School course was reconstructed under Dr. Lloyd, Provost, and Dr. C. R. Elrington, Regius Professor, on the lines which, with subsequent modifications and improvements, remain to the present day [written in 1941]. A two-years’ course was established, Archbishop King’s Lecturer,¹⁷ with his Assistants, to conduct the first year, and the Regius ¹¹ Constantia Maxwell, A History of Trinity College Dublin 1591–1892 (Dublin: The University Press, Trinity College, 1946) 5. ¹² It was published in 1658, two years after his death. The work traced a chronology from the creation to the year 70 .. ¹³ Maxwell, A History of Trinity College Dublin 1591–1892, 53–7. ¹⁴ Maxwell, A History of Trinity College Dublin 1591–1892, 5. ¹⁵ The Church of Ireland was the established church until 1871, although the far larger part of the population of Ireland was Catholic. Despite its minority status, as the established church it was long supported by a tithe from the entire population. The last vestiges of the tithe ended with disestablishment in 1871. ¹⁶ Maxwell, A History of Trinity College Dublin 1591–1892, 201. ¹⁷ The position was named after William King, Archbishop of Dublin, who established the lectureship in 1718 when he gave the college funds “to found a Divinity Lecture ‘for the better instruction of such Bachelors of Arts as intended to enter Holy Orders’ ” (J. E. L. Oulton, “The Study of Divinity in Trinity College, Dublin, Since the Foundation,” Hermathena 58 [1941] 13). The position was

18    ( – ) Professor, with his Assistants, the second year. A general examination was to be held at the end of each year, which all students must pass.¹⁸

The changes along with tighter standards greatly improved the program so that the Divinity School came to acquire a very strong reputation. Not long after, it entered “upon the greatest period of its existence, both as regards the personnel of its Staff and the number of students who sought to be trained in it.”¹⁹ The names of faculty members that Oulton mentioned for the latter part of the nineteenth century, the time he called the golden age of the school, were George Salmon, John Gwynn, and John Henry Bernard. Salmon (1819–1904), who had served as Donegal Lecturer in Mathematics, was also a divinity lecturer before becoming Regius Professor of Divinity (1866–88). He published in the area of New Testament studies and on wider theological subjects as well. He became the Provost of Trinity College in 1888 and held the post until his death in 1904.²⁰ John Gwynn (1827–1917) was for years the Archbishop King’s Lecturer before becoming Regius Professor of Divinity after Salmon (1888–1907). He was a scholar of Syriac who discovered and edited a Syriac edition of Revelation that he argued was from the translation of the New Testament made for Philoxenus in the early sixth century.²¹ John Henry Bernard (1860–1927), who became a fellow in 1884, Archbishop King’s Lecturer in 1888, and Provost in 1919, was the author of commentaries on several New Testament books, including the Gospel of John.²² He was younger than Charles and thus probably not a factor in his education. In 1880, during the heady days of Salmon and Gwynn, Charles enrolled at Trinity College, Dublin in the status of Scholar—a high honor indeed. He was officially a student at the school from 1880 to 1887 during which time he earned two degrees. His first degree (undergraduate) was a BA that he took in winter 1881 (Senior Moderator Classics; Junior Moderator Ethics and Logic),

strengthened and improved in 1833 when, rather than being a one-year appointment for a senior fellow with very low pay, it became a post for a junior fellow who would retain it over the years until he became a senior fellow (Hermathena 58 [1941], 16–17). It was refigured as a professorship in 1906. ¹⁸ Oulton, “The Study of Divinity in Trinity College, Dublin, Since the Foundation,” 16. ¹⁹ Oulton, “The Study of Divinity in Trinity College, Dublin, Since the Foundation,” 19. ²⁰ Charles dedicated his 1902 book on Jubilees to Salmon. In his 1929 collection of sermons, The Resurrection of Man and Other Sermons, v–vi, he referred to Salmon’s “unanswerable” book The Infallibility of the Church: a course of lectures delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Dublin (London: J. Murray, 1890). ²¹ The Apocalypse of St John in a Syriac Version Hitherto Unknown (Dublin: Dublin University Press, 1897). Charles used this edition in his A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John (2 vols.; ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1921), e.g., vol. 1. clxxix. ²² Maxwell, A History of Trinity College Dublin 1591–1892, 202, 204, 215–18; Oulton, “The Study of Divinity in Trinity College, Dublin, Since the Foundation,” 19–21.



19

and the second was an M.A. conferred on him in the summer of 1887— although he had finished his studies in residence in 1883.²³ By the time that he arrived in Dublin, the Anglican institution was allowing Catholics to attend and earn degrees.²⁴ Once again Charles distinguished himself by his scholarly accomplishments. He took a biblical Greek prize and the Elrington Theology Prize²⁵ in 1882, and the Ryan Prize as well as a Theological Exhibition (that is, a scholarship) in 1883.²⁶ He also excelled in leadership of the students who elected him the auditor of the Theological Society.²⁷ The auditor’s duties were to arrange the debates and summarize the discussions that took place during the meetings of the group. D’Arcy, who met him when they were both students at the Divinity School, says that by this time Charles had developed some nonorthodox views about certain subjects—not essentials of the faith but matters that he thought had been developed by the Medieval church. An area in which he harbored concerns had to do with aspects of the future life, and regarding it he had adopted a viewpoint under the influence of the book Eternal Hope, a collection of sermons published in 1878 by Frederic William Farrar, a canon of Westminster (Farrar was accused by some of holding a universalist position but energetically denied it). Charles was open about his controversial ideas when he was being considered for the auditorship but was still elected unanimously. D’Arcy recounted how he first became acquainted with Charles at Trinity College, Dublin and how impressed he was by him: It was about this time [when Charles became auditor] that the acquaintance between Robert Charles and the writer of this memoir began. The latter,

²³ He would also receive a DD from Trinity College, Dublin in 1898. ²⁴ Before the Relief Act of 1793 there had been nothing to prevent Roman Catholics from entering College. There are no entries as to religion in the Admission Registers before 18th March, 1794. Nevertheless, the position of Catholics at the school was challenging. As students under the Statutes they could not, however, take degrees without taking certain oaths which were obnoxious to them. In 1793 religious observances for Roman Catholics were dispensed with; certain disabilities remained, but these were gradually removed. Scholarships were thrown open in 1854, and in 1873 by Henry Fawcett’s Act . . . all tests in Trinity College were abolished. (Maxwell, A History of Trinity College Dublin 1591–1892, 128–9, n.) ²⁵ The Elrington Theological Prize was established by friends of Thomas Elrington, Provost 1811–20, to honor his memory (Oulton, “The Study of Divinity in Trinity College, Dublin, Since the Foundation,” 14). ²⁶ See Joseph Foster, Oxford Men and Their Colleges (Oxford and London: James Porter & Co., 1893) col. 111 (under “Matriculations, 1880–1892”); Who Was Who, vol. 3: Who Was Who 1929–1940 (2nd ed.; London: Adam & Charles Black, 1967) 241. ²⁷ The Theological Society had been founded in 1830.

20    ( – ) having become a scholar of the House, had the privilege of sitting at “Commons” among men many of whom were older and more developed than himself. Among these was Charles [he was about three and one-half years older than D’Arcy] with whom, up to this time, he had no association. One night the talk turned on matters of fundamental moment, and, as often among the young, a tone of flippant and somewhat skeptical comment could be detected. Suddenly Charles said a few words, quite simple and with no tincture of superiority, but revealing a depth of conviction and sincerity which made instant appeal to head and heart. Next evening an opportunity came, and the writer found himself sitting beside the man whose words had touched him. It was the beginning of a friendship which endured.²⁸

D’Arcy wrote about the same period at the college in his autobiography entitled The Adventures of a Bishop: Among the men who were my contemporaries there was quite a considerable number who had unusual powers of scholarship and thought. Some were friends or acquaintances more or less intimate; others, though not so closely associated, were more or less influential in forming the intellectual atmosphere. I remember especially Robert Henry Charles, who became famous in later years as the explorer of a new region of study, the Apocalyptic Literature [he then listed nine other high achievers].²⁹

Once he had completed his brilliant studies in Dublin in 1883 (he was not actually to receive his M.A. until the Summer of 1887), Charles and two friends spent an extended period of time in Germany and Switzerland. The fact that such a holiday was possible suggests that Charles could count on significant financial support, presumably from his family. The purpose of the trip was to enjoy a vacation after their studies, but Charles also made use of the opportunity to improve his knowledge of the German language which he had previously been able to read but not speak. The time spent abroad proved to be more significant than an on-site opportunity to learn a language. While in Heidelberg he met a young lady named Mary Lilias Bence-Jones (from Lisselan, County Cork).³⁰ The two would marry a few years later (for more about her see below). ²⁸ D’Arcy, “A Brief Memoir,” xvii–xviii. ²⁹ D’Arcy, The Adventures of a Bishop: A Phase of Irish Life: A Personal and Historical Narrative (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1934) 73. ³⁰ I have not found an explanation for why she was in Heidelberg at this time.



21

Ecclesiastical Service After the European holiday, Charles entered the profession for which his education had prepared him. The veteran Bishop of London, John Jackson (he served there from 1869–85), ordained him in 1883 as a deacon for a curacy in the parish of St. Mark’s, Whitechapel. He remained in this post for around two years (1883–85). D’Arcy writes that Charles purposely went to work in the Whitechapel district of London because of “a strong desire to get into the thick of the struggle against adverse forces.”³¹ Whitechapel, part of London’s East End, was a poverty-stricken, over-populated area, a place into which immigrants crowded, and where crime was rampant (the Whitechapel Murders in the later 1880s may have had a connection with Jack the Ripper). There Charles went as a deacon and seems to have thrived. D’Arcy quotes him regarding the place (the passage comes after Charles noted how others described the challenging district and the misfortunes that too often befell them in it): My experience was different. I visited every Christian house in a district of 5,000, which contained many Jews. Everywhere I met with kindness, although my visits were sometimes as late as eleven o’clock at night. As Junior Curate a Bible Class of girls was committed to my charge. There were forty of them, of whom six formed a Committee. Nearly all of the forty were of the salt of the earth, which speaks well for residents in Whitechapel.³²

It is a nice picture—the future editor and translator of Semitic and Greek texts teaching a Bible class for girls in an impoverished parish and finding it a positive experience. Charles became a priest in the Church of England in 1884 while at St. Mark’s. At the time when he was a candidate for priestly ordination it again became clear that his hold on orthodoxy was shaky in places. As D’Arcy tells the story, the practice in those days was that, as supporting documentation, a candidate for the priesthood would submit two sermons from his time as a deacon. The same Bishop Jackson who had ordained him a deacon the previous year took exception to one of the sermons that dealt with the atonement. After Jackson and Charles discussed the matter, it was referred ³¹ D’Arcy, “A Brief Memoir,” xviii. D’Arcy reports that he made the choice to go to Whitechapel despite the fact that “inducements were held out to him to take up work in the West End” (“A Brief Memoir,” xviii). ³² D’Arcy, “A Brief Memoir,” xix.

22    ( – ) to another church official, the Suffragan³³ Bishop of Bedford (East End of London) William Walsham How (1823–97; suffragan from 1879–88), for adjudication. Bishop How approved of the sermon and apparently thought so highly of Charles that he wanted him to work with his publishers. Bishop Jackson, who was How’s superior, graciously accepted the verdict and Charles became a priest. It turns out that Charles was quite fortunate that How held the position he did because he and Jackson had a special arrangement. Owen Chadwick wrote about him: In 1879 Walsham How became suffragan to Bishop Jackson of London, though all his experience lay in the country. He was not a good preacher, and so tiny in stature that vergers³⁴ needed to provide a platform inside the pulpit to enable the congregation to see him. Everything else about him was delectable, and his books were read in thousands as aids to devotion or the parish worker. He was afterwards said to be worth a hundred curates, as he pulled together the work of the church in East London. Walsham How set the office of suffragan bishop in the national consciousness, as pastor and leader in his own right. But Jackson allowed him to be the effective diocesan of that part of London, and never interfered. When the stronger Temple succeeded Jackson, and could not countenance the same arrangements, Walsham How soon accepted the new see of Wakefield (1888).³⁵

Perhaps if Charles had been a candidate for the priesthood just a few years later, after the remarkable How left East London, things would not have gone so well for him. D’Arcy wrote that the controversial “sermon and the discussion that arose out of it led to further study which formed the basis of a volume, Forgiveness and other Sermons, published in 1887”³⁶—the earliest book listing Charles as the author. The description D’Arcy provides of Charles’s views on the atonement offers insight into his theological stance at the time—one he maintained throughout his long career—and D’Arcy’s hesitations about it. As he put it, in Charles’s book

³³ A suffragan bishop is an assistant to a bishop. The need for them was felt especially in the 1860s and 1870s as the workload of bishops grew (Chadwick, The Victorian Church, Part II [2nd ed.; An Ecclesiastical History of England V; London: Adam & Charles Black, 1970] 344–5). ³⁴ Some of the duties of vergers are those of a custodian. ³⁵ Owen Chadwick, The Victorian Church, Part II, 345–6. How was the author of a number of hymns, including “For All the Saints.” ³⁶ D’Arcy, “A Brief Memoir,” xix.



23

was shaped a doctrine of forgiveness as “restoration to communion with God.” According to this view, God’s forgiveness is free to the true penitent, and requires no penalties, material or otherwise, thus forsaking definitely the doctrine of substitution, or the view that “Christ died in man’s place, bearing, in a sense, all man’s sins, and that man accordingly enters into a new and perfect relation to God, as a sinless being.” This book to its writer’s surprise was well received. To many thoughtful minds it may, however, seem that the view set forth in it can hardly be said to solve all the problems involved in a question so great and so profound as that of Atonement.³⁷

We will return to Charles’s book and his thoughts regarding forgiveness shortly. However positive Charles was about work in Whitechapel, it proved to be draining for him so that after two years a move was in order. His next curacy was in St. Philip’s, Kensington (also in London), where he remained for one year (1885–86). During his tenure there he and Mary Lilias Bence-Jones, the lady he had met in Heidelberg some three years earlier, were married (1886). Mary, who proved to be such a central influence and helper in Charles’s life,³⁸ came from a well-to-do family then living in Ireland. Her father, William Bence-Jones (the “Bence” part of the hyphenated name came from her mother Matilda’s family name—Bence Bence), was born in 1812, grew up in England and was a graduate of Oxford (B.A. 1834, M.A. 1836). After his schooling, he became involved with a 2,000-acre plot of land in Lisselan, County Cork, Ireland that his grandfather had purchased around the year 1800. In the decades following the acquisition, the land had been left in the care of an agent who supposedly supervised the tenant farmers. After charges of impropriety were leveled against the agent, William, who was practicing law at the time, was asked to look into the matter (1838). When he did so, he found the situation appalling—there was poor management of the property, where the tenants were using primitive farming methods. In response he instituted strict reforms in agricultural techniques and in collecting rent from the tenants (some had to be expelled). He himself took up residence on the land in Lisselan in 1843 and successfully practiced the kind of farming that he wanted the tenants to imitate. Between 1855 and 1865 he purchased another 2,000 acres of land in the encumbered estates court. Bence-Jones was the author of ³⁷ D’Arcy, “A Brief Memoir,” xix–xx. ³⁸ Henry Major wrote after Charles’s death that his “life was enriched by many friendships: what he gained by his marriage to one who entered into all his interests, intellectual, social, and spiritual, may not be written” (“Robert Henry Charles,” The Modern Churchman 46 [1956] 226).

24    ( – ) several publications, including The Life’s Work in Ireland of a Landlord Who Tried to Do His Duty (London: MacMillan & Co., 1880). It contains a number of chapters dealing with farming techniques (e.g., the importance of using manure), relations with tenants (the need for adhering to the terms of contracts), and the fruits of his experience in agriculture—all very much from a landlord’s point of view. In 1881 he moved to London where he died the next year. Mary Lilias was not the only child in the family (she had brothers), but she clearly came from wealth.³⁹ Charles’s study and preaching while at St. Philips, Kensington led to publication of the first book of which he was the author. It was noted above that his understanding of the atonement and related subjects had proved controversial in 1884 when he was being considered for ordination to the priesthood, although his candidacy was eventually successful. The situation caused the young priest to plunge into a prolonged study of the doctrine of the atonement; the fruits of that research came to expression in Forgiveness and Other Sermons, by the Rev. R. H. Charles, M.A. (London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co., 1887). In the one-page “Preface,” Charles noted that the sermons included in the book “were preached in St. Philips, Kensington, 1885–86,”⁴⁰ his second parish, and were being published “in compliance with the wishes of many friends” (v), although he did not say who they were (presumably Bishop How was among them). Charles acknowledged his indebtedness to a number of theologians and pulpiteers, among whom were Brooke Foss Westcott, Frederick Denison Maurice, John Henry Newman, Phillips Brooks, Horace Bushnell, and William Ellery Channing. He also listed four books he had used, along with sermons by some of the authors. Much later in his life Charles referred to a “nearly two years’ study of the Doctrine of Atonement” in which he had engaged in this very early stage of his career and before the book appeared.⁴¹ It seems exceptional that the sermons of a young priest would be considered publishable, but the style and content reveal the considerable abilities of the author as well as a certain earnestness in his approach to his audience. The sermons of the talented young priest are meticulously argued, conveniently arranged, well phrased, and always on topic.

³⁹ The sketch above is based on the entry for William Bence-Jones in the Dictionary of Irish Biography and on perusing The Life’s Work in Ireland of a Landlord Who Tried to Do His Duty. ⁴⁰ He dated the “Preface” November, 1886 and gave his address as 39, Upper Kennington Lane, S. E., since by that time he had moved to his third London parish. ⁴¹ The statement appears in his 1923 collection of sermons, The Adventure into the Unknown, 201. The occasion for it was the fact that he largely reproduced his sermons about forgiveness from the 1887 volume in the 1923 book—something he openly admitted to the readers.



25

It is instructive to read Charles’s thoughts at this early stage in his career. They show that he had studied the issues carefully, had read fairly widely, and had come to some definite conclusions which he continued to defend to the end of his life. The 173-page book contains twelve sermons, most of which he organized under larger rubrics. The first five take up various aspects of the subject that gave the book its title—forgiveness, 6–7 are on the kingdom of heaven, 8–9 on faith, 10–11 on the freedom of truth, with the twelfth, on Christian humility and aspiration, being the only stand-alone message. The sermons regarding forgiveness, especially the first, take up the subject that had earlier led to difficulty with Bishop Jackson. Presumably Charles had, while still a deacon, written a sermon that, perhaps in somewhat revised form, was delivered at St. Philips, Kensington and eventually found its way into the book. He regularly, in the various sets of sermons, summarized what he had covered in the previous message (or messages) before launching into the next topic.⁴² Sermons 1–4 give a good idea of Charles’s theological positions. The first on forgiveness⁴³ takes Matthew 18:35 as its text: “So likewise shall My heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.” Here Charles set forth his understanding of what God accomplished through Christ in saving human beings. A central point for him was that, while a sin may be forgiven, its negative effects continue to exact a toll; in other words, the punishment is not erased. Examples he cited were “falsehood with the penalty of distrust, dishonesty with the loss of character, intemperance with disease of body and the reprobation of men” (6–7). Charles was unhappy with the doctrine of satisfaction as it was commonly understood in the Church. If a sin, once committed, could not be altered and continued to have negative effects, Christ’s satisfaction did not take the penalty away. What it did accomplish was the destruction of sin itself.⁴⁴ So Christ’s satisfaction does not mean that the totally innocent Savior took on himself the penalty of human sin. “God forgives, though he remits not the penalty of transgressions” (5). The following words encapsulate his thinking: There is only one way of escaping the doom of the sinful soul. If sin be expelled from the soul, the death which issues solely from it is prevented.

⁴² In some of the sermons he mentions the time of day in which the service took place—whether the morning (e.g., pages 19, 50, 89, 111, 145) or the evening (e.g., 1, 34). ⁴³ None of the five has a distinctive title; each one is called “Forgiveness” followed by a roman numeral. The scriptural passages in the summary of the book are quoted according to the version Charles used, the Authorized (King James) Version. ⁴⁴ Neither here nor elsewhere did he explain in any detail exactly what destroying sin means.

26    ( – ) This is the only salvation for men—salvation from sin itself, not from its consequences, either here or hereafter. (10)

He thought the doctrine of satisfaction—pardon of sin through the expiatory sacrifice of Christ on the cross which appeased an angry God—had been worked out by “men versed in Roman law” and was prevalent in the “Scotch Church of to-day, and elsewhere” (14). God’s forgiveness—the fundamental message of divine revelation—restores people to communion with him, and this in turn leads them to repentance for acts against God and others and greater efforts to live in his service. The second sermon on forgiveness uses as its text the same passage from the Gospel of Matthew. This time he centered his attention on human forgiveness and on the teaching that God’s forgiveness of a person is commensurate or goes together with one’s forgiveness of others. Human and divine forgiveness are of the same kind, although they differ in degree. Human forgiveness means restoring another to association with all that is holiest in a person, as God’s forgiveness restores one to communion with him. Charles spoke very directly about human failure to forgive and said that if one does not forgive, neither is that person forgiven by God: “The unforgiving is ever the unforgiven” (25). All true believers in Christ, not a succession of pontiffs, possess the priestly power to absolve from sins. Hereby we are enabled to understand the significance of the words of absolution declared by our Church to the repentant—“I absolve thee from all thy sins.” These words may be used by every faithful follower of the Son of Man, but are authoritatively pronounced by the minister as the representative of the Church, as representative of all that is best and holiest and godlike in our humanity. And restoration to this communion, the Communion of the Saints, is likewise restoration to communion with God. (31)

In “Forgiveness. III,” for which Charles listed five scriptural passages as texts, he set out “to trace with all brevity the three great periods of God’s dealing with mankind, and to show how the problem of forgiveness has been affected in each” (34). They are “(1) the Period of Moral Insensibility; (2) the Period of Law; (3) the Period of Grace” (34). Discussion of the three was a prelude to addressing the apparently conflicting commands in Matthew 5:39 (“Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also”) and in Luke 17:3 (“If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him”). Forgiveness was different in the three periods listed above, as in each of them



27

sin was understood differently. The period of moral insensibility (e.g., the situation of contemporary heathenism, the ancient Canaanites, and the Greeks of Homeric times) was amoral, not immoral. Sin offered a personal affront to someone else, and its result could be eliminated through penalty or payment. There was no real consciousness of sin and thus no real forgiveness. In the second period there is knowledge of the law and obedience or disobedience to it divides the good from the bad. In this stage one identifies with the person sinned against and entertains hatred for the person who sinned against him. Under such circumstances, forgiveness is impossible, although this stage prepares one for something better. In the period of grace there is “not only sympathy for the injured, but also sympathy for the injurer” (41). The law teaches that a human being is deeply in need, and God in mercy addresses that need. “And from the restored communion of the child with his divine Father there follows a progressive deliverance from sin, the child growing to be more like and like unto the Father in whom he now essays consciously to live and move” (41). With these distinctions in mind, Charles addressed the conflicting instructions in the two gospel passages. They apply to different situations. The command to turn the other cheek deals with how one should react to an “offending heathen” (42), while the order to rebuke relates to a fellow believer. The former (the heathen) had no consciousness of doing something wrong, while the latter (the brother, a category that included Jews, as the earliest Christian leaders were Jewish) did and should be treated accordingly. Jesus himself embodied these principles in dealing with others. At his trial he rebuked the high priest—an offending brother—while Pilate, a heathen, he “exonerated . . . from the chief guilt in His condemnation” (45). St. Paul taught the same about dealing with the heathen and with fellow believers. Believers were to tolerate mistreatment and not seek revenge in pagan courts. The fourth sermon on forgiveness takes up the subject of how the scriptural injunctions about forgiveness should function in the present time, now that the West has benefitted from the continuous approximation of the outer forms of social life to the Christian spirit, from the leavening of society with Christian ideas, and the more or less imperfect reconciliation of Church and State. The Christian can no longer hold aloof from his share in promoting social reform and maintaining social order, and to this end action in the case of wrong is imperative, where by wrong we mean deliberate insult or injury; but such action must in all cases be taken, not from personal motives, but for the sake of the offender and the brotherhood. (54–5)

28    ( – ) There is a place for righteous indignation, not a passive bearing of all wrongs; and forgiveness is to be offered to the contrite. Charles spoke firmly against censoriousness and ill-will towards others. Even partially correct attempts at forgiving can be instructive and show how much more is needed.⁴⁵ Some of the other messages in this early volume also offer sentiments that Charles would repeat at later times. For example, in the first sermon about the kingdom of God, he wrote: “Then, as in all subsequent times, two methods were taught with the view of bringing this golden age about: the one method was external, that of the world; the other internal, that of Christ” (77). The former, which he understood to refer to attempts to change the environment in which people live, he dismissed as inadequate: “Individual franchise, land nationalization, free trading between all countries, universal enlightenment, and every advance in social or economic reform, rather of real or fancied worth, will not one whit destroy the power of evil, unless with the establishment of these there be a concurrent purification of the heart of man by the Spirit of Christ” (80). He charged churches with adhering to the environmental approach when they confused the spreading of their opinions with extending God’s earthly kingdom. For him, being a member of the kingdom “is not constituted by mere accuracy of theological belief, but by faithfulness of life” (81). There is unity in the church through Christ, not through a fixed creed or ritual. The first of the two messages about faith allowed him to return to the issue of forgiveness. At this time Charles recognized the historical character of Christ’s death and resurrection—his thoughts about the nature of the latter would change—but emphasized their deeper spiritual significance. The spiritual import, then, of our Lord’s death and resurrection, lay in their being present experiences of our spiritual life. We have to die with our Lord to sin; “our old man is crucified with Him;” we rise with Him to life; and thus we share in our Lord’s death and resurrection; we re-enact the eternal sacrifice. (101)

One ought not to focus only on the outward aspects of Christ’s work but also on their inner spirit. Here he again addressed issues with the doctrine of satisfaction and the atonement: “Forgiveness, then, and reconciliation, are not external blessings obtained for us by a crucified and risen Christ, but states

⁴⁵ His fifth sermon on forgiveness treats the problem of the unforgivable sin.



29

into which man is brought by union with Him—states which are gradually won through the life of faith” [103]). Finally, in the two messages regarding “The Freedom of Truth,” Charles articulated some other ideas that remained with him. He asked on what evidence one received God’s truth, on the evidence of authority or on its own. The Latin church adopted the former stance under the influence of Augustine’s teaching about divine transcendence and human depravity, while the Eastern churches emphasized God’s immanence. As for the former, if humans could not on their own grasp the truth, they had to receive it on the basis of external authority—a view that “prepared the way for the Papacy, wherein it was claimed this authority resided” (136–7). That was acceptable for more barbaric times but not for ages when people used their reason. Charles found Augustine’s teachings to be terribly wrong; they resulted in “utter unbelief in the immanence of God, in the divineness of man’s nature, and so in the reality of the Incarnation” (137). Charles traced John Henry Newman’s views to this tradition: “It is on this principle that we explain the perversion of John Henry Newman; for not to his faith, but to his profound unbelief in man’s capacity for truth, was due his submission to the Roman See” (138). Against such recourse to external authority, Charles declared: “The spirit of man being the self-revelation of God, can accept truth on no evidence save its own” (140). The church teaches her tradition to the young by authority, but the mature she tries to persuade: “She argues, exhorts, teaches, but her teaching only avails when it brings home conviction to the heart and reason of her people” (141). He perceived some fault in this respect in his own Church of England and its appeals to authority.⁴⁶ From St. Philip’s, Charles, now married, moved to St. Mark’s, Kennington (another London district) where he remained from 1886–89. Under different sorts of trying circumstances than at Whitechapel, he proved to be a strong leader who consistently applied rules, without regard to the social standing of the parishioners involved. D’Arcy relates two stories that illustrate how Charles handled his pastoral duties at the place to which the Rector of St. Mark’s, Kennington, Bishop Henry Montgomery (he served there from 1879 until 1889), had invited him:

⁴⁶ The final sermon, “Christian Humility and Aspiration,” is accompanied by a couple of footnotes that contain citations of Greek texts, including two passages from Aristotle’s Ethics. Charles did not neglect to read the Classical languages while immersed in pastoral work.

30    ( – ) The work here was of a very difficult and exacting kind. The new curate was given a free hand in the unconsecrated Church in Montford Place. He began with a congregation of one man and twenty women and children. In addition to the regular services, there were two Sunday Schools. The elder boys, varying in age from sixteen to nineteen, were utterly undisciplined. They knocked down women in the street, stoned their teachers, and committed even worse offences. Strong measures were necessary. Notice was given that unruly boys would, in future, be dismissed, and not re-admitted until after three months and an apology. This brought things to a climax. Two sons of a leading parishioner behaved very badly and were dismissed. Their father was furious. But Charles was immovable. He refused to break the rule. Shortly after he had to call on the parents of another boy who had been dismissed. Expecting a rebuff, he was astonished at receiving a hearty welcome from the mother of this boy. “Mr. Charles,” she said, “we have all been waiting to see if you would dismiss the great man’s son as you have done the others: my son will go back to school next Sunday and make an apology.” The winning of this struggle brought him a welcome in nearly every house in the district.⁴⁷

The other story shows an energetic Charles tackling another sort of difficulty. Some of the more thoughtful men of the district told him of atheistic teaching in Kennington Park. Charles immediately formed a class and gave a course of instructions on historical criticism. The Bible, he showed them, was a record of the Divine education of men, from primitive conditions to its highest level in the New Testament. At the end of the course the members of the class were able to challenge the leading atheists to a debate, which was refused.⁴⁸

He was clearly a forceful man who did not shrink from challenges, addressing them head on, no matter the cost. His definition of the Bible as a record of the divine education of people would become an oft-repeated theme for him.

A Year in Germany Charles’s labors as a deacon and priest in challenging parishes from 1883 to 1889 took a physical toll. As it turned out, this was not to be the last time that ⁴⁷ D’Arcy, “A Brief Memoir,” xx–xxi.

⁴⁸ D’Arcy, “A Brief Memoir,” xxi.



31

health issues troubled him. The remedy chosen by him and his spouse was another extended stay—one year—in Germany (1889–90), a year that was to mark a major turning point in his life. It seems unlikely that Charles had earned enough money as a deacon or priest to tide them over for so long a time away from his work. There must have been other support for them, presumably from their families. In Germany, the Charleses first settled in the city of Weimar in Thuringia. Away from parish work, he regained his health and strength so that he could devote his energies to studying the Jewish literature written before and when Christianity came on the scene. There is reason for thinking that Charles had been studying the texts at an earlier time. In the Preface to his 1899 book A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, in Judaism, and in Christianity, he wrote: “The present work is the result of studies begun over twelve years ago, and pursued unremittingly for the past ten” (p. v). He wrote those words in September, 1899 (see p. viii), so his studies of Jewish eschatology began in 1887 when he was still serving as a parish priest in London.⁴⁹ He had become convinced that the religious ideas maturing during the “intertestamental” period were an important but underdeveloped area of research.⁵⁰ But he, in approaching the period and the texts surviving from it, had an underdeveloped set of academic tools. He was of course well versed in Greek and Latin, but at this juncture in his career he had only the Hebrew he had learned in Divinity School and, apparently, knowledge of no other Semitic language. Charles, therefore, embarked on a course of self-instruction to prepare himself for scholarship on the Jewish texts from pre-New Testament times, especially the book now known as 1 Enoch. D’Arcy reports about this period of intense personal study: As a result, he soon recognized the overwhelming importance of the Book of Enoch for his purpose. This led him to Dillmann’s German edition of Enoch, which he studied thoroughly. And the more he studied the more convinced he became of the importance of Enoch as furnishing a guide to Jewish thought from 200 to 60 .. Visiting other Universities he made acquaintances among some notable German Scholars, one of whom was Zahn.⁵¹ ⁴⁹ See also D’Arcy, “A Brief Memoir,” xxi. ⁵⁰ Henry Major wrote about this time and decision that, when many held what he considered repugnant views about the last things, Charles selected as his life’s work a study of Jewish and Christian eschatology and that his motive was not academic but “was primarily the promotion of moral and religious truth” (“Robert Henry Charles,” The Modern Churchman 46 [1956] 221). ⁵¹ D’Arcy, “A Brief Memoir,” xxi–xxii. Theodor Zahn (1838–1933) was a professor at Leipzig when Charles was in Germany.

32    ( – ) It would be good to know more about Charles’s work at the time and how it was possible, that he, an unknown Anglican priest from the British Isles, managed to gain access to “notable German Scholars,” in an age when German academe was so hierarchical. After a few months in Weimar, the Charleses moved to Dresden in Saxony from which place he would make visits to Leipzig where he was able to find the books he needed for his studies. His research centered on apocalyptic literature, and he read German translations of the relevant texts and the comments of scholars on them. It seems that he considered what he found quite disappointing. But, as his studies advanced, he became dissatisfied with German editions of Apocalyptic writings, and finally recognized the necessity of studying directly the texts on which they were based. He found that no two editors agreed on any single text as to date, unity or composition, or as regards real contribution to the development of Jewish thought in Apocalyptic. After further study the reason became obvious. Hardly more than two scholars had published editions of more than one text in this literature. In fact no scholar had a grip of this literature as a whole.⁵²

While one may question the last claim that D’Arcy attributes to Charles, it is worth highlighting that this must have been the time when Charles (1) set his agenda to become acquainted firsthand and in minute detail with all the literature in question and (2) turned in earnest to a study of the languages he would need for the work and would use so impressively in his later scholarship. It certainly looks as if he had no plans to return to parish work. Charles could not devote all the time he and his wife stayed in Dresden to study of ancient languages and texts because the realities of life intruded. While in Dresden both Mary and he fell victim to the flu epidemic then sweeping through Europe from Russia—not just once as “both were prostrated by successive attacks.”⁵³ Once they had recovered, Charles returned to his research. But, rather than making trips to Leipzig, the Charleses moved there so that he could take advantage of the bookselling trade in the city and acquire the volumes he needed for his work. All of this sounds costly and once more raises the question of who was paying for their support and his growing library.

⁵² D’Arcy, “A Brief Memoir,” xxii. ⁵³ D’Arcy, “A Brief Memoir,” xxii. The 1889–90 flu pandemic killed more than one million people.



33

Germany was the ideal place for Charles to pursue the subjects that interested him. Research on second temple texts and history had attracted more attention from its scholars than it did elsewhere in the academic world, just as German biblical scholarship then outstripped that of other countries. One of the major forces in study of the Jewish literature written between 200 . . and 100 .. was Christian Friedrich August Dillmann (1823–94), the noted scholar of the Old Testament who had published and translated the Ethiopic texts of Enoch and Jubilees. Dillmann, whose name will recur frequently in the subsequent chapters of this Biography, had studied under no less an authority than Heinrich Ewald (1803–75)⁵⁴ at Tübingen and, after completing his work with him, spent a couple of years visiting other universities and also examining and cataloging Ethiopic manuscripts housed in the Bodleian Library and the British Museum. His publications were most impressive and ground-breaking: an edition of Ethiopic Enoch in 1851 and his translation of and commentary on it in 1853 (the year he began publishing an edition of the Ethiopic Bible); the first European translation of Ethiopic Jubilees in 1850–51 and an edition of the Ethiopic text in 1859. Moreover, Dillmann published his Grammatik der äthiopischen Sprache in 1857 and his exhaustive and truly amazing Lexicon Linguae Aethiopicae in 1865 (it runs to 1,434 columns). When Charles was in Germany Dillmann occupied a professorial chair at the University of Berlin which he had held since 1869. He was clearly the leader in the field in the country with the most advanced scholarship.⁵⁵ D’Arcy implies that Charles actually met Dillmann: “ . . . a visit to Berlin extended the circle of learned friends. Most important of all these was Dillmann, the Doyen of the Semitic school, whose works had proved so essential, and whose Ethiopic Version of Enoch, together with his Ethiopic grammar and Lexicon, Charles had studied with minute care.”⁵⁶ So Charles was engaging in very serious study of the classical Ethiopic language in which Enoch and other Jewish works happened to be preserved, and he was learning it with the tools created by Dillmann. It is possible to trace the influence, one might almost say, the shadow of Dillmann over Charles’s work for years to come as he tried to improve on and outdo the pioneering efforts of his illustrious predecessor. We will see how that happened when we examine his first publications of Jewish texts.

⁵⁴ Among his many books, his seven-volume Geschichte des Volkes Israel (Göttingen: Dieterische Buchhandlung, 1852–64) was the best known. ⁵⁵ For the information on Dillmann, see Rudolf Smend, “Dillmann, Christian Friedrich August (1823–94),” in John H. Hayes, editor, Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (2 vols.; Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1999) 1.300–1. ⁵⁶ D’Arcy, “A Brief Memoir,” xxii.

34    ( – ) Charles’ intense, self-directed course in second temple Jewish literature and the languages in which it survived proved to be remarkably productive. As a result, when the year in Germany came to an end, he was ready to begin the most extraordinary period of publishing in the history of scholarship on Early Judaism. Part 2 of the present book is devoted to that period when the Charleses resided in Oxford.

PART 2

THE O XFORD Y EARS (1890 – 1913)

Introduction When the Charleses returned from Germany in 1890, they decided to live in Oxford, where they remained for the next twenty-three years. On January 27, 1891, not long after arriving in the ancient city, Charles, aged thirty-five, matriculated from Exeter College and on January 29, 1891 incorporated there as a Master of Arts from Trinity College, Dublin,¹ that is, he joined the college which recognized his M.A. degree from Trinity College, Dublin as if it were earned at Oxford. Incorporating did not, however, mean that he had a salaried position in Exeter.² Without income from the post, he and Mary must have had support from elsewhere. The Oxford period would prove to be astonishingly productive, as during it Charles published almost all of his great textual works on ancient Jewish compositions and the earliest of his efforts to synthesize their teachings. In this introductory section we will first take a brief look at the University of Oxford as it was in the late nineteenth century and, second, glance equally briefly at the state of British biblical scholarship at the time.

The University of Oxford Oxford in 1891 was an institution lurching through a lengthy process of change. It had been “The Anglican University,”³ from the time when Henry VIII broke with Rome in 1534 and on through 1845, when John Henry ¹ Foster, Oxford Men and Their Colleges, col. 111, provides the date of January 27. The Exeter College, Published Register gives the date as “21 Mch 1891.” In the University Archives, the card register of those who matriculated between 1891 and 1932 gives both dates. ² Henry D. A. Major, who, as we will see in Part 3, became an important figure in Charles’s life, was admitted to Exeter in 1903 and remained there until 1905. He apparently became a student of Charles’s and greatly appreciated his lectures (Clive Pearson, Alan Davidson, and Peter Lineham, Scholarship and Fierce Sincerity: Henry D. A. Major The Face of Anglican Modernism [Auckland: Polygraphia, 2006] 33, 139). We, therefore, have evidence of Charles’s lecturing in this period. Major recalled that at his first meeting with him, Charles said: “To be but one and to be on the side of God, is to be in the majority” (“Robert Henry Charles,” The Modern Churchman 46 [1956] 226). ³ This is the title L. W. B. Brockliss gives to the period in his The University of Oxford: A History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016) 131–329. All the information about the university in the following paragraphs comes from this book.

R. H. Charles: A Biography. James C. VanderKam, Oxford University Press. © James C. VanderKam 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192869289.003.0002

38    ( – ) Newman left the university and became a Catholic. During that stretch of more than three hundred years, the sons of the well-to-do “went up” to Oxford where they resided in colleges in which tutors (mostly) offered them instruction in the arts curriculum. Oxford could then and for decades after hardly be termed a research university, as dons published little, probably no more than their lectures—and that at the end of their teaching careers. In this respect, they were little different from their peers in other European universities. Despite changes in society and the state, . . . Oxford remained locked in a past age through its tenacious defence of the Anglican monopoly and its adamantine commitment to tradition. Oxford in 1845 was still an Anglican seminary; undergraduates had to be Anglicans and fellows celibate and mostly in orders. It was also a world where custom rather than merit determined advancement . . .⁴

Change came about gradually and in good part, though not exclusively, from external pressures. An outside campaign to reform the university and bring it into the modern age eventuated in several royal commissions that identified areas requiring improvement. The traditional position at Oxford had been that the purpose of undergraduate education was not to transmit practical knowledge but to form character, and, to that end, studying classics, not science or anything modern, was deemed essential. Commissions in 1850, 1872, and 1877 (another was to come in 1919) looked into the situation at Oxford and Cambridge and called for far-reaching modifications. As a result, writes Brockliss:⁵ Within half a century, they had ceased to be clerical institutions whose primary function was to provide the next generation of Anglican clergy and landowners’ elder sons with an education in either classics or mathematics. Both universities remained residential and collegiate and the tutorial system flourished rather than withered. But, by the mid-1880s, college fellowships had been thrown open, the rules governing ordination and celibacy greatly eroded, and the universities opened to all faiths and none.

Thus, in the latter part of the nineteenth century, it became possible for males from a somewhat wider social spectrum to enter the university, and at the end of the 1870s women’s halls were established, although women could not take ⁴ Brockliss, The University of Oxford, 328.

⁵ The University of Oxford, 339.



39

degrees until 1920.⁶ Throughout the decades of reform, Oxford remained largely an undergraduate institution. In view of the highly technical work Charles was to do in Oxford, it is interesting to read about the state of research at the university when he arrived. Brockliss reports, after mentioning the rise of the research doctorate in Germany in the nineteenth century:⁷ In this regard, Oxford could not but seem deficient. Although many of its professors and readers, and some of the tutors, in 1900 were actively engaged in research, and a number, particularly scientists, had spent time in Germany, there was nothing akin to an official research culture and very few postgraduate students. Before the First World War, Oxford did offer a number of taught postgraduate degrees and diplomas, most notably in medicine, which had remained, as in earlier centuries, a “higher” discipline, while new degrees with a research focus had been established in 1895 and 1900. But there was, as yet, no Oxford research doctorate, and none would be introduced until 1917.

Though the university was moving slowly toward a research program, it remained a widely held view that a system based on the continual interaction between teacher and pupil⁸ was judged far more effective in developing an undergraduate’s mental faculties than formal lectures, whatever the course of study. Residence of three to four years in a quasi-monastic community was also deemed to play a vital role in turning giddy youth into purposeful young men. The college was viewed as a large family where undergraduates from different schools, backgrounds, and confessions lived cheek by jowl and purportedly learnt to tolerate, respect, and cooperate with others, above all through playing intercollegiate sport.⁹

There was suspicion about specialization, and in an age of imperialism Oxford was expected to do its part. The “most enthusiastic imperialists” thought that Oxford’s role was to provide the empire with right-minded administrators, men who would treat Indians and Africans with courtesy and understand that risking life and limb in the service of the poor and deprived of the world ⁶ The University of Oxford, 372–4, 389–90. ⁷ The University of Oxford, 387–8. ⁸ That is, the tutorial system. ⁹ The University of Oxford, 400.

40    ( – ) was the noblest of careers. An Oxford education, especially in classics, would give such men the tools to do this. Morally armed with Greek philosophy and with some sense of the problems of empire from reading Thucydides, they were suitably prepared for the adventure.¹⁰

So, when the Charleses decided to live in Oxford, it was perhaps not the most obvious place for doing the kind of scholarship upon which he was embarking. Nevertheless, it did offer an impressive community of scholars in various fields akin to Charles’s areas of interest, and it had the resources of the Bodleian Library, with the British Museum not far away. Oxford became the base for his astonishing outpouring of publications from 1891 to 1913. We will soon turn to his earliest research there but should first survey developments in the biblical disciplines in the years leading up to Charles’s arrival in Oxford.

British Biblical Scholarship in the Late Nineteenth Century A few words about the state of biblical studies when Charles began his work with ancient Jewish literature will allow us to locate his scholarship in its contemporary setting. He was, as we have seen, a priest in the Church of England. That church which, like others in the nineteenth century, was being confronted with new information about the earth and innovative approaches to the Scriptures, had for some time been attempting to cope with their implications. Technical biblical studies in late nineteenth century Britain should be seen in an ecclesiastical context because most of the scholars engaged in scriptural research were, like Charles, clergymen whose vows of ordination made them answerable to church authorities. Historical study of the Bible and breakthroughs in other areas were motivating change in the Victorian era. The historian Owen Chadwick has written: Three forces were driving Christianity to restate doctrine: natural science, biblical criticism, moral feeling. Natural science shattered assumptions about Genesis and about miracles. Criticism questioned whether all history in the Bible was true. Moral feeling found the love of God hard to reconcile with hellfire or scapegoat-atonement.¹¹

¹⁰ Brockliss, The University of Oxford, 403. ¹¹ Chadwick, The Victorian Church, Part I (2nd ed.; An Ecclesiastical History of England V; London: Adam & Charles Black, 1970) 551.



41

Doubts about a recent creation, Noah’s flood, Balaam’s verbal ass, Jonah’s big fish, and other Old Testament stories were raised. And the New Testament did not escape similar scrutiny. The natural sciences, represented by geology and most famously by Charles Darwin and his theory of natural selection, were perceived by some informed people in the church to be opposed to Christian teachings and the plain sense of the biblical text. Others, both academics and educated lay folk, saw little or no conflict between them and gave up the practice of reading some scriptural stories as history. The decades before Charles inaugurated his scholarly quest were decisive in some ways for ecclesiastical acceptance—or toleration—of results achieved by natural scientists. According to Chadwick, “ . . . the reception of the view, among more educated Christians, that evolution and Christian doctrine were compatible, can be dated to the twenty-five years from 1860 to 1885.”¹² He identified the 1884 Bampton Lectures delivered by Frederick Temple as a telling event. Temple, who was the Bishop of Exeter and years later (1896) would become Archbishop of Canterbury, spoke under the general title “The Relations between Religion and Science” and simply “assumed evolution as an axiom” (24). His stance showed that by 1884 it was permissible for a high-ranking clergyman to embrace such views and keep his job. Biblical criticism developed more gradually and moderately in England than in Germany. The atmosphere in Britain regarding biblical studies may be gauged by two publications: Essays and Reviews in 1860, at the beginning of the twenty-five-year period identified by Chadwick (for acceptance of evolution), and Lux Mundi in 1889, just after its end. Essays and Reviews: the collection of seven essays was edited by H. B. Wilson who was one of the contributors. He and five of the other six authors were clergy, including Frederick Temple (mentioned just above) who submitted a sermon as his paper. The essays covered a variety of topics. The one by Benjamin Jowett of Oxford, a classicist, dealt with biblical interpretation and advocated the idea that the Bible should be interpreted like any other book—an approach that, in his opinion, would show it was unique. Chadwick says that “certain leading ideas appear in several of the writers” (76) in Essays and Reviews, namely:

¹² The Victorian Church, Part II (2nd ed.; An Ecclesiastical History of England V; London: Adam & Charles Black, 1970) 24. The page references in the following paragraphs are for this volume. The survey leans heavily upon Chadwick’s classic account.

42    ( – ) (1) A gap had opened between the church’s doctrine and “the real beliefs of educated men” (76). The writers felt it was time to address the issue and no longer to conceal or ignore it. (2) “All truth is of God,” (77) so no one should fear responsible investigations because of religious concerns. (3) One should “not tie the truth of Christianity to the maintenance of the exact truth of a detailed record of events” (77). “Parable, myth, legend, poetry give religious truth, even if the event which the parable describes did not happen” (77). (4) One was not to “prove the truth of revelation by the traditional method of citing miracles and prophecy” (77). The truth of revelation was manifested by its moral impact. An observation made by Wilson—that the sixth of the Thirty-Nine Articles¹³ offered no definition for the term “inspiration” in connection with the Bible— caught the attention of critics and led to trouble for him. Publication of the seven essays unleashed vigorous public debate, with some applauding the efforts of the writers and others calling for removal of the clergy from their posts for contradicting church teachings that they had vowed to uphold. For various reasons, the ones who bore the weight of condemnation were the editor Wilson and Rowland Williams, both of whom were officially prosecuted and suspended from their ecclesiastical positions for one year. The judgment was rendered by Stephen Lushington, the Dean of Arches (the judge in the provincial ecclesiastical court of the Archbishop of Canterbury).¹⁴ But the suspensions handed down were on narrow grounds—only on points defended by Wilson and Williams that could be shown to be in violation of explicit statements in official church documents. Assertions that they made regarding matters not treated by the ecclesiastical formularies were allowed to stand, and in this limit some saw a victory for biblical scholarship. For although the dean of arches condemned both Wilson and Williams on momentous points, the traditional mind of churchmen was startled by the liberties (or errors) which Lushington sanctioned. A clergyman might freely deny the genuineness of any book of the Bible if he did not deny the divine authority; might deny that any prophecy in the Old Testament was Messianic; might interpret all historical narratives as parable, poetry or legend. (81) ¹³ The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, part of the Book of Common Prayer, provides authoritative expression of doctrine and practice in the Church of England. ¹⁴ “Dean of Arches,” Wikipedia, accessed 4-29-2019. Lushington held the position from 1858–67.



43

Wilson and Williams were eventually cleared of the charges against them. The book did indeed arouse much controversy, but Temple personified a measure of official acceptance when, not long after (1869) he was appointed Bishop of Exeter (and, as we have seen, Archbishop of Canterbury in 1896). These events, while important, did not mean that the newer forms of biblical criticism had carried the day. There were some celebrated cases in which writers who questioned the historicity of parts of the Old Testament and traditional ascriptions of authorship for some of its books suffered for their boldness, as we have seen in the cases of John William Colenso (1814–83), Bishop of Natal, and William Robertson Smith (1846–94) of the Aberdeen Free Church College in Scotland. But at least educated opinion in the latter half of the nineteenth century seems to have grown increasingly comfortable in identifying some Old Testament stories as legends or as belonging to other non-historical genres. In the decades that followed, issues raised by biblical scholars continued to be debated. The cause of the newer criticism was bolstered by the presence of experts who were respected both as academics and as orthodox churchmen. Among these were S. R. Driver, William Sanday, and Charles Gore—with all of whom Charles would come into contact. Gore was especially important in the second of the publications we are examining, although in later years he would hardly be a friend of the higher critics. Lux Mundi: some believed that informed people should not avoid speaking publicly about biblically related issues that had proved controversial, so another publication was planned to pave the way toward wider acceptance. Charles Gore, from the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church of England, served as the editor and as a contributor to Lux Mundi, a collection of 11 essays (ten of the authors were from Oxford) meant to explore challenging issues of the time. All of the writers were regarded as pious individuals, and they wrote their essays in a reverent way. Nevertheless, the volume generated strong protests from some quarters. The essay which gave most offence was Gore’s own essay on “The Holy Spirit and Inspiration.” It simply declared that inspiration is compatible with the opinion that Jonah and David are rather dramatic narrators than history. He used the term myth. A myth is not a falsehood. It is an apprehension of faith by a child or a primitive people, a faith not yet distinguished into the constituent elements of poetry and history and philosophy. And if Christ was ignorant of the authorship of David or the Psalms, that is because he became man and shared the condition of human life. (101)

44    ( – ) Gore thus touched on two sensitive points—the character of some Old Testament material and the nature of Jesus Christ himself. One of the more conservative arguments against such positions had been the either/or that H. P. Liddon articulated in his 1866 Bampton Lectures entitled “The Divinity of Our Lord.” Among other conclusions, he tried to show that since Jesus believed Moses to be the author of the Pentateuch, or David to have written Psalm 110, or Jonah to have lived in the whale, therefore anyone who did not believe these three facts would convict his Lord of error and therefore could not be a loyal Christian. (75)

Liddon renewed his argument after the appearance of Lux Mundi. Gore, some maintained, had raised doubts about Jesus’ divinity. In addition, “the general nature of the Old Testament was in question; whether it could be accepted that prophecy did not predict; whether inspiration could be maintained if the Bible was admitted to contain legend and pseudonymous books” (102). While the debate raged, Gore was supported by scholars like Driver and Sanday, and he aided his cause by offering helpful clarifications of his views. Not long afterwards he was named a canon of Westminster (1897) and a few years later Bishop of Worcester. Naturally, debate did not cease but continued in the different churches and in the varied schools of thought within the Church of England. Gore’s ecclesiastical elevation gave evidence, however, that the authorities considered his views compatible with high position in the Church. He would in fact go on to enjoy a long career as a conservative bishop, including serving as the bishop of Oxford. The Lux Mundi debate occurred at the end of the 1880s and into the 1890s, just when Charles was beginning his publishing career. From early on he proved to be an enthusiastic advocate of the higher critical approach to the Scriptures. His work with pseudepigraphic compositions was, in a sense, less subject to controversy than that of experts who commented on canonical texts, but his publications impinged on books in the Bible and the teachings of the Church. In the late 1890s, as we will see, Charles became associated with the Modern Churchmen, a group within the Church of England that adopted some rather startling positions on issues such as the bodily resurrection and substitutionary atonement of Christ. But, before dealing with that facet of his career, we should turn to his earliest research and writing on Jewish texts. The chapters that follow center on Charles’s books and take them up in their chronological order. In each case, as explained in the Preface, I summarize the content of the ancient text (e.g., Enoch or Jubilees) under



45

consideration and set his work within the history of scholarship on that particular text, describe his contributions, summarize reviews of his book, and say something about the influence of his book to the present day. The first ancient Jewish composition on which he published was the Book of Enoch, to which we now turn.

Chapter 1 The Book of Enoch Charles began publishing on the Book of Enoch almost as soon as he settled in Oxford. We have seen that he had come to regard it as fundamental for understanding the religious thought of pre-Christian Judaism. He must have worked intensively with the book and the languages in which it survived in order, not long after taking up residence in Oxford, to begin producing impressive studies of it. His first monograph on Enoch—a translation and commentary—was finished in 1892 and published in 1893. The book, with its successor in 1912, was to alter the way in which experts viewed the ancient text for years to come. In all he would publish three books on Enoch and several articles, as well as summaries of its teachings in his thematic works. His studies on Enoch were to constitute the most famous of his contributions to scholarship on early Jewish literature.

Contents of the Book of Enoch It is not easy to describe the contents of the Book of Enoch, or 1 Enoch, as it has come to be known, because it is a complex, 108-chapter work, one not unified from beginning to end by a single developing storyline or theme. Scholars today, following largely in Charles’s footsteps, speak of it as consisting of five booklets: 1. Chapters 1–36 The Book of the Watchers: the composition opens with a section about the future judgment of the wicked and reward of the righteous before it describes marriages between angels and women (an early interpretation of Genesis 6:1–4) and their terrible consequences, including the flood. Enoch first appears in ch. 12 where he is in the company of angels. The angels who had sinned with women asked him to plead for divine leniency on their behalf. After a journey to the heavenly palace/temple of God where his intercession proved unsuccessful, he traveled through the cosmos under the guidance of good angels.¹ ¹ A number of early expositors thought that “Enoch walked with God” (Genesis 5:22, 24) meant that he spent time with angels.

R. H. Charles: A Biography. James C. VanderKam, Oxford University Press. © James C. VanderKam 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192869289.003.0003

   

47

2. Chapters 37–71 The Parables/Similitudes of Enoch: the chapters include three “parables” that Enoch saw. In these visionary experiences, he observed the ways of wicked oppressors and the lot of righteous sufferers, with their exalted leader called usually the Chosen One or Son of Man, but also the reversal of fates the two groups will experience at the end. Enoch is identified as the son of man in the last chapter. 3. Chapters 72–82 The Astronomical Book: in a travelogue, the angel Uriel reveals to Enoch the details of the lunar (354 days) and solar (364 days) years and the 12 gates, six on the east and six on the west, through which the sun and moon pass each day. He also saw prominent geographical features of the earth. At the end of his tour, he was returned to his family to instruct his sons before his final removal from them. 4. Chapters 83–90 The Book of Dreams: a young Enoch received two dream visions, the first of which predicts and describes the destruction brought on by the flood (chs. 83–84). The second, called the Animal Apocalypse (chs. 85–90), recounts the highlights and lowlights of history, from creation until the judgment and new age. It represents humans under the imagery of various kinds of animals. 5. Chapters 91–107 The Epistle of Enoch:² Enoch gave instructions to his children and those yet to be born, exhorting them to follow the way of virtue and avoid that of evil. Chapters 106–107 are different from 91–105 in that they describe Enoch’s interpretation of miraculous signs accompanying the birth of his great-grandson Noah.

The Context for Charles’s 1893 Volume on Enoch The Book of Enoch is one of those ancient Jewish compositions that scholars knew had once existed but the text of which had long since disappeared from view. At a fairly early time it was translated into Greek and enjoyed a measure of popularity in the first centuries of Christianity. Later, however, it fell from favor in most places, leaving little incentive for making copies and thus preserving it. A series of allusions to and citations of it could be found in Greek³ and Latin sources; the most extensive set of them was lodged in the ² Chapter 108 seems to be an independent unit and even identifies itself as such (108:1 “Another book which Enoch wrote . . .”). One unit within the Epistle of Enoch is the Apocalypse of Weeks in chs. 93 and 91 (in that order in the Ethiopic version). ³ The most famous citation is the one in Jude 14–15 where the writer quotes 1 Enoch 1:9 and says that Enoch “prophesied” these words.

48    ( – ) Chronography of the Byzantine historian George (the) Syncellus (written ca. 800 ). Apart from such references and citations, the text was unknown to Western experts until the late eighteenth century. Few Westerners knew that from the Greek version of the Book of Enoch a translation was made into the classical language of Ethiopia (Ge‘ez) where it was held in high regard by the Abyssinian Church. It was from this country that the book became known to Western experts when in 1773 complete copies of the Book of Enoch first arrived in Europe. James Bruce (1730–94), a Scottish explorer, acquired a number of manuscripts during his years in Ethiopia (1769–73),⁴ including three or four⁵ copies of a Book of Enoch inscribed in Ge‘ez. Bruce disposed of the copies in this way: 1. one to the Bodleian Library; 2. one to King Louis XV in Paris (it was a specially made copy of number 3 below); it was soon placed in the Bibliothèque royale (now the Bibliothèque nationale); 3. one to himself (after his death it too went to the Bodleian); 4. one to the Antonelli Library in Italy. As a result of his efforts, copies of the entire 108-chapter book were known to exist—that is, European experts now were aware of them—and were accessible after centuries of being unavailable to anyone outside of Ethiopia. The first English translation of one of Bruce’s copies was made decades later by Richard Laurence (1760–1838)⁶ in Mas: hafa Henok Nabiy: The Book of :
⁴ Edward Ullendorff (“James Bruce of Kinnaird,” The Scottish Historical Review 32 [1953] 133) wrote: Perhaps the most important aspect of Bruce’s travels was the collection of Ethiopic manuscripts which he brought back with him from Abyssinia. They opened up entirely new vistas for the study of Ethiopian languages and placed this branch of Oriental scholarship on a more secure basis. It is not known how many MSS. reached Europe through his endeavours, but the present writer is aware of at least twenty-seven, all of which are exquisite examples of Ethiopian manuscript art. Ullendorff added on the same page that “the bulk of Bruce’s precious MSS. was purchased by the Bodleian Library, which now possesses twenty-five of his volumes . . . .” ⁵ So, Gabriele Boccaccini, “James Bruce’s ‘Fourth’ Manuscript: Solving the Mystery of the Provenance of the Roman Enoch Manuscript (Vat. Et. 71),” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 27 (2018) 237–63. According to Boccaccini, Bruce left the fourth copy in Italy after meeting with Pope Clement XIV. For reports about the manuscript to which Boccaccini refers, see also Ted Erho and Loren Stuckenbruck, “A Manuscript History of Ethiopic Enoch,” Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 23 (2013) 93–4. ⁶ In 1814 Laurence became the Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford where he was also canon of Christ Church. In 1822 he received appointment as Archbishop of Cashel in Ireland. By the time he translated Enoch he had already published works on the Ethiopic texts of the Ascension of Isaiah and 4 Ezra. He expended some effort in the “Preliminary Dissertation” that introduces his translation of

   

49

Enoch the Prophet, An apocryphal production, supposed to have been lost for ages; but discovered at the close of the last century in Abyssinia now first translated from an Ethiopic MS. in the Bodleian Library (Oxford: J. H. Parker, 1821). Laurence wrote that any excitement there may have been when it first became known that there were manuscripts of the Book of Enoch . . . seems to have long since subsided; as the copy deposited in the Bodleian Library has quietly slept there undisturbed to the present day. At length however I have ventured to break in upon its repose; and to employ myself in the subsequent translation of it. I have certainly spared neither time nor trouble in rendering it correct; but as the Bodleian Statutes, wisely in my judgment, preclude the use of books out of the library, I have been under the necessity of translating the work in it. (vi–vii)

Seventeen years later Laurence issued an edition of the Ethiopic text—Libri Enoch prophetae Versio Aethiopica Quae seculi sub fini novissimi ex Abyssinia Britanniam advecta vix tandem litterato orbi intulit (Oxford: J. H. Parker, 1838). It was only a transcription of the one manuscript Bruce had initially given to the Bodleian. Another thirteen years were to pass before a more important and soundly based edition was prepared by August Dillmann. Consulting five manuscripts (one of them was the copy used by Laurence), he edited the text in Liber Henoch aethiopice, ad quinque codicum fidem editus, cum variis lectionibus (Leipzig: Vogel, 1851). He soon followed the edition with a translation and full commentary: Das Buch Henoch übersetzt und erklärt (Leipzig: Vogel, 1853). This was the volume that Charles studied so carefully during his stay in Germany in 1889. Enoch to prove that he was the first to render the book into English (vi–viii). Dr. Charles Godfrey Woide (1725–90), a scholar of Coptic who was greatly interested in learning about the Book of Enoch, had traveled to Paris as soon as he heard that Bruce had deposited a copy of it there. According to Bruce, Woide made a complete translation of the text, but Laurence shows that Woide merely transcribed the text and attempted, unsuccessfully, to translate a few passages into Latin. No translation of the complete text could be found in the papers left behind by Woide at his death. According to Mary Clapinson and T. D. Rogers, Summary Catalogue of Post-Medieval Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library Oxford: Acquisitions 1916–1975 (SC 37300–55936), vol. I Catalogue (SC 37300–46393) (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991), item number 38128 consists of a: Transcript by Woide of an Ethiopic Text of Enoch, from a manuscript given to the Bibliothèque Royale, Paris, by James Bruce, with (fols. 3–6, 135–8) an account by Woide, and an English translation in his hand of Bruce’s letter of presentation of the manuscript, read before the Society of Antiquaries, 1774, 143 leaves; bound as 38118. (p. 72) Their Number 38129 reads: “Descriptions and notes relating to the Book of Enoch, including (fols. 11–14) ‘Memoire sur le livre d’Enoch (par Mr. Bruce)’. 40 leaves” (72). There is nothing in these entries about a translation of the Enoch text.

50    ( – ) Before Dillmann’s text and commentary appeared, students of the Book of Enoch had published a sizable amount of scholarship on it. Dillmann adopted a theory about the book that had garnered wider support: a substantial part of it was written by an author apart from several additions (6–16; 91:12–17; 93; and 106–7), some Noah passages (54:7–55:2; 60; 65:1–69:25), and a small number of other insertions.⁷ This was not the only hypothesis about the composition of the book—Heinrich Ewald,⁸ for one, thought it consisted of several independent works eventually combined into the large composition— but it was pretty standard. Put simply, it held that there was an original text containing much of the present contents (die Grundschrift) to which several additions were made. Against this view Charles raised strong objections and defended a different theory.

The Book The Book of Enoch translated from Professor Dillmann’s Ethiopic text emended and revised in accordance with hitherto uncollated Ethiopic MSS and with the Gizeh and other Greek and Latin fragments which are here published in full by R. H. Charles, M.A., Trinity College, Dublin, and Exeter College, Oxford (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1893). Charles opened the Preface by declaring: “It is unnecessary to apologize for the appearance of this book,⁹ as some such work has long been a desideratum to scholars. A knowledge of Enoch is indispensable to New Testament students” (vii). He called attention to four ways in which his book differed from previous studies of Enoch: (1) he based his translation on a superior, newly available manuscript of Enoch in the British Museum; (2) he rejected the Grundschrift theory, positing at least four authors; (3) he treated only briefly the book’s main teachings because he intended to write at greater length about them in a separate volume on Eschatology; and (4) he documented the influence the Book of Enoch exerted on later literature, including the New Testament (vii–ix). We have some information about the genesis of Charles’s 1893 book. Toward the end of the Preface, he wrote: “My best thanks are due to

⁷ Scholars also recognized that the Similitudes or Parables of Enoch, chs. 37–71, differed from the rest of the book. ⁸ “Abhandlung über des äthiopischen Buches Henókh: Entstehung Sinn und Zusammensetzung,” Abhandlungen der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen 6 (Göttingen: Dieterich, 1854) 107–78. ⁹ Similar words figure at the beginning of a number of his subsequent publications.

   

51

Dr. Sanday, to whom I am under manifold obligations, and in connection with whose Seminar this work was primarily undertaken” (ix). At the time William Sanday (1843–1920) was the Dean Ireland Professor of Exegesis of Holy Scripture at Oxford (1883–95). His seminar would later focus on the Synoptic Gospels, but in the early 1890s the subject was different. While Charles did not disclose how his work on Enoch was done “in connection with” Sanday’s seminar, D’Arcy provides more information and reveals one of Charles’s activities during his early years in Oxford. The position of the higher critics was greatly strengthened by the adhesion of Dr. Sanday, a scholar of the widest attainments and of the greatest courage in the expression of his convictions, and of a character which attracted universal respect. His Bampton Lectures of 1893 on Inspiration had much to do with the newer way of regarding the manner in which the Divine and human elements are united in Holy Scripture and in the spiritual education of mankind. Charles imbibed these ideas and they became fundamental principles of all his critical work. He had indeed attended Dr. Sanday’s Seminar for Oxford Dons from 1890–1895 and become an ardent believer in the new methods.¹⁰

Doing his work in connection with Sanday’s seminar meant that from it he received a certain critical orientation to scripturally related subjects. Sanday and his seminar were important to Charles, and it is easy to see why. Sanday’s position apparently did not pay well at the time, so he also accepted an offer from Exeter College, the one where Charles later incorporated, to be the tutor in theology. Possibly their common association with Exeter brought them into contact with each other. In 1895 Sanday became the Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity and remained in the chair until 1919, the year before his death. Sanday was active, as D’Arcy’s words indicate, in making higher criticism of the Bible acceptable in the Church of England. He served as a bridge between the academic and ecclesiastical worlds in which capacity he helped clergy understand the reason why scholars were saying what they were saying and what was and was not acceptable.¹¹ He also encouraged young scholars; his seminar was a significant means for doing so.¹² ¹⁰ D’Arcy, “A Brief Memoir,” xxv. ¹¹ His name appeared in the Introduction to Part 2 (above), where note was taken of his role in making higher criticism more palatable during the 1880s and 1890s. ¹² Information about Sanday is drawn from Alan M.G. Stephenson, “William Sanday,” Modern Churchman new series 9 (1966) 257–72; “William Sanday (theologian),” Wikipedia, accessed 3-22-19. Sanday was among the first group of scholars to become Fellows of the British Academy in 1903 (Charles became one in 1906) and later, like Charles, joined the ranks of the English Modernists.

52    ( – ) At this time Sanday was still engaged in that early stage of his life’s work which he called lower criticism, or the study of texts. It was both a necessary and a fruitful field of study, and in his Inaugural Lecture as Dean Ireland’s Professor of Exegesis in 1883 he had issued a plea on its behalf: “The subject of all others in which youthful workers have a truly golden opportunity is Text. . . . I lay much stress on this particular subject, not because it is first in dignity, but because it is first in necessity, as a number of other subjects are being kept waiting for it, and also because it is a good subject on which to make a beginning.” He himself had concentrated his energies on the recovery of the Western Text, and in this connection had formed his seminar, which included such brilliant young men as Margoliouth, Turner, Winfrid Burrows, R. H. Charles, C. Harris, and A. S Peake.¹³

The seminar brought Charles into the orbit of Sanday and the other participants, and it taught him a discipline that would be fundamental to his work as a critical reader of ancient Jewish texts. At Oxford Charles not only benefitted from the influence of Sanday but also became a friend of Thomas Kelly Cheyne (1841–1915), who at the time was the Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture and canon of Rochester Cathedral. He had studied under Ewald, was a much-published author who was an important if controversial figure in introducing higher criticism into England, and with John Sutherland Black was the editor of the Encyclopaedia Biblica.¹⁴ Charles at some point expressed to Cheyne certain misgivings regarding Dillmann’s commentary on the Book of Enoch, concerns that arose chiefly from the fact that Dillmann had used later, corrupt manuscripts as the basis for his text of the book. Charles had also spotted a few mistakes in Dillmann’s translation. To his astonishment this great scholar urged him to undertake an edition of Enoch for the Oxford Press. It had never come into his mind to enter the arena with Dillmann, who was not only the Doyen of the Semitic school in Berlin University, but also the foremost Ethiopic scholar, whether as compared with scholars of the past or of the present, and also the first authority

¹³ Ronald Jasper, Arthur Cayley Headlam: Life and Letters of a Bishop (London: Faith Press, 1960) 37–8. Jasper was writing about the seminar because the subject of his biography was also one of its members. Headlam and Sanday co-authored A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895). ¹⁴ Twenty-two years later Charles would write a moving yet balanced obituary of his friend Cheyne in Proceedings of the British Academy 7 (1915–16) 545–51.

   

53

on Apocalyptic then living or indeed that had ever lived. But the idea took hold and very soon Charles set to work, and in 1892 sent in his proposal to the Press.¹⁵

Despite Cheyne’s backing, not all went as smoothly as Charles could have hoped. D’Arcy’s account continues: The Delegates of the Press referred the matter to Professors Driver and Margoliouth.¹⁶ The latter rejected the proposal on the ground that Dillmann was a “faultless scholar.” Charles then asked Margoliouth to discuss the question in some detail by allowing him to compare Dillmann’s Ethiopic text and his German translation in a dozen or more passages. The request was granted, and after two hour’s discussion, Professor Margoliouth said that he had changed his mind and would support the proposal to the Press.¹⁷

The scene says much about Charles’s enthusiasm, not to say zeal, and Margoliouth’s openness and grace, not to mention patience. At any rate, Charles thus found a publisher for his first book-length treatment of an ancient text. Charles had already delved deeply into published scholarship on the Book of Enoch, as is evident from his two detailed reviews that appeared in the Jewish Quarterly Review 5 (1893). Under the title “The Recent Translations and the Ethiopic Text of the Book of Enoch. I,” (325–9) he treated the translations by Dillmann, George Henry Schodde, and Lazarus Goldschmidt (who had rendered the book into Hebrew), and in the second part of the essay (“The Ethiopic Text of Enoch. II,” 493–7) he dealt with the editions of Laurence and Dillmann and with the latter’s essay about the Gizeh Greek text (on this, see below). In the review of Dillmann’s work there are a number of examples that probably provided the ammunition Charles used in his discussion with Margoliouth. In the essay he was very deferential to Dillmann¹⁸ yet did not ¹⁵ D’Arcy, “A Brief Memoir,” xxiii. Charles dedicated the 1893 book to Cheyne and Sanday. ¹⁶ Driver is the famous Oxford scholar of the Old Testament, Samuel Rolles Driver, while Margoliouth is David Samuel Margoliouth (1858–1940). At the time he was in the early part of his long tenure as Laudian Professor of Arabic at Oxford (1889–1937). ¹⁷ D’Arcy, “A Brief Memoir,” xxiii–xxiv. ¹⁸ He wrote about Dillmann’s translation: it “is a masterly piece of interpretation, such as might reasonably be expected from the foremost Ethiopic scholar of the age” (326). At the end of the section reviewing Dillmann’s work, Charles commented: “It is thus clear that this translation is by no means a faultless one; yet, despite every defect, it will maintain a unique position in the Enoch literature, and likewise serve as a guide to future translators” (326). He was far less charitable to Schodde (1854–1917), who held a PhD from Leipzig (1876) and taught at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio. He had published the first American translation—The Book of Enoch translated from the Ethiopic, with Introduction and Notes (Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1882). Charles claimed that while Schodde said

54    ( – ) hesitate to point out places where the German scholar, even with the limited manuscript base at his disposal, could have improved his text. Moreover, he listed passages where he made other sorts of errors and noted several cases in which Dillmann, in his Lexicon (published in 1865), had printed readings that were corrections of ones he had given in the critical text of Enoch he issued in 1851. Charles was clearly immersed in the details of scholarship on Enoch and in the minutiae of the Ge‘ez text in which it survived. The 1893 book is fascinating from a number of angles, one of which is the opportunity to witness for the first time what might be called “the Charles approach”—the subjects he treated, the notes he wrote, the way he emended texts—an approach that would be duplicated in his other treatments of ancient compositions. Another is the fact that it shows Charles in mid-stride, as it were, in his labors on the Book of Enoch. As things transpired, an important discovery that could not be ignored came to his attention when his The Book of Enoch was already in press. As a result, the timing of the publication proved awkward and left some inconsistencies in it. This was the situation. While having the complete Ethiopic version of Enoch was a great boon, experts knew that the book had not been composed in that language. They recognized early on that Enoch was almost certainly composed in Hebrew or Aramaic, was later translated into Greek, and from Greek it was rendered into Ethiopic. When Charles was working on his translation of Enoch, the textual witnesses at hand, besides short citations in early Christian texts, were the growing number of Ethiopic copies of the entire text and Greek evidence of a much more limited scope: the citations of Enoch preserved in Syncellus’ Chronography and Codex Vaticanus 1809¹⁹ in which a Greek rendering of 1 Enoch 89:42–9 was copied in the margins. As Charles was working with this material, he did not know that a larger part of a Greek he was translating Dillmann’s edition of the text, at times he was clearly rendering Dillmann’s German translation. After providing examples, he added: In the face of such a list as the above—and it is far from exhaustive—it is hard to congratulate Dr. Schodde, for he has been most reprehensibly careless and inexact; and yet as students of Apocryphal literature we are grateful to him for re-introducing the knowledge of Enoch to the English speaking world. (327) The work by Goldschmidt (1871–1950) is entitled Das Buch Henoch aus dem Aethiopischen in die ursprünglich hebräische Abfassungssprache zurückübersetzt; mit einer Einleitung und Noten versehen (Berlin: Richard Heinrich, 1892). Charles was impressed that a twenty-year-old scholar had produced the translation but regarded it, not as a scientific reproduction of Dillmann’s text (he, too, according to Charles, at times translated Dillmann’s German, not his Ethiopic text), but one made more generally for Jewish readers or others who were interested in the literature (327–9). Goldschmidt studied with Dillmann in Berlin. ¹⁹ It had been published by the librarian at the Vatican, Angelo Mai, in his Novae Patrum Bibliothecae (Roma: Typis Sacri Consilii propaganda christiano nomini, 1844) 2.xi (a photographic plate of the text is on the facing page).

   

55

translation of Enoch had been discovered in the winter of 1886–87. Several years later Ulysses Bouriant published an edition of the Greek manuscript found in a grave in a Coptic cemetery in Akhmim (Panopolis) in Upper Egypt.²⁰ The manuscript includes several Greek texts, among which are 1 Enoch 19:3–21:9 and, immediately after it, 1 Enoch 1:1–32:6a (the other works in the manuscript are parts of the early Christian compositions entitled the Gospel of Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter). Charles read Bouriant’s edition of the text (he, following Bouriant, referred to it as the Gizeh manuscript) and naturally wanted to incorporate the data from it into his book on Enoch that was then being set in type by Oxford University Press. There may not be many reasons to stop the presses for publications of ancient texts, but this one came close. Given the nature of printing at the time, only some of the many modifications Charles wanted were possible to incorporate at this late point. As he put it, “By the permission of the Delegates of the Press I was allowed to make such additional changes as would not interfere materially with the type already set up” (318). The changes he made led to some strange results in the book (see below). In his Preface to The Book of Enoch (dated April, 1893) he included a few statements about the growth in the textual evidence for the ancient composition, of which Bouriant’s manuscript was the latest example. Charles had begun searching for copies of Enoch soon after his return from Germany because within a year he was able to write a short notice, “The Ethiopic Manuscripts of Enoch in the British Museum,” Expository Times 3 (1891) 135. In it he drew attention to the Museum’s copies (how and when he first learned of them he did not say). He reported that there were nine of them and that they made it possible to improve on Dillmann’s text and thus on his and Schodde’s translations of it. He wrote: It is further noteworthy that amongst the nine MSS. in the British Museum, one is far superior to the rest. Whilst the other eight MSS. belong to the eighteenth century, this MS., which I shall designate G, dates from the beginning of the sixteenth century; and whereas the former bear the marks of a recension,—an earlier one apparently than that in which Dillmann’s MSS. belong,—this MS. G preserves many true readings which were lost through this recension.

²⁰ “Fragments grecs du Livre d’Énoch,” Mémoires publiés par les membres de la Mission Archéologique Française au Caire 9 (1892–93) 93–147; for the text see 111–36.

56    ( – ) He then provided a few examples to demonstrate the high value of G. In concluding the short article, he commented on how few copies of the book there were outside the British Museum and added some interesting notes: “The MSS. in the British Museum fell into the hands of the expedition which was sent against King Theodore. Their superiority to all MSS. previously known lowers the scientific value of Dillmann’s text, and renders a new edition a growing desideratum.”²¹ His last statement set up the need for his own work with the text. Also, Montague Rhodes James had allowed him to use and print (see Appendix E, pp. 372–5) a Latin translation of 1 Enoch 106:1–18 that James had found in a British Museum manuscript.²² It too permitted some textual progress, but with the newly published Gizeh Greek text of 1:1–32:6 there was even more opportunity for improvement over Dillmann’s edition. In connection with the Gizeh manuscript, Charles wrote about an oddity in his 1893 book—there were conflicting claims in certain sections of it:

²¹ The reference to the expedition against King Theodore puts in polite terms (“fell into the hands of ”) the fact that in 1868 a British force sent to free European hostages held by King Tewodros II (1855–68), Emperor of Ethiopia, took his fortress of Magdala after a battle and plundered it. Among the items removed from it, auctioned off, and purchased for the British Museum were manuscripts, including most of the ones of Enoch identified by Charles. His copies F and L had been acquired by the British Museum in 1861 and 1862 (see 1893, 2); the others came by right of conquest. ²² In his edition of 1906 (The Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch) Charles admitted a mistake he had made in the 1893 volume regarding the Latin text. He wrote about the location of the Latin Enoch material in the manuscript: “It follows a penitential edict of St. Boniface, while it is preceded by an anonymous tract ‘De vindictis peccatorum’ ” (372). James assessed the 1893 book in The Classical Review 8 (1894) 41–4 (see below for a summary). There he wrote about Charles’s comments regarding the Latin piece: With reference to the Latin fragment which I was so fortunate as to find in a British Museum MS., I have two corrections to make: first, the press mark of the volume is 5. E. xiii. not S. E. xiii.; for this my own handwriting may probably be to blame; next, I hope and believe that I did not say that the fragment ‘follows a penitential edict of S. Boniface and is preceded by’ another document. (43) Charles responded in “The Book of Enoch,” The Academy 45, number 1135 (1894) 127–8. On the point in question, he wrote: Mr. James hopes that he is not answerable for the statement made in reference to his Latin Fragment which he kindly communicated to me—‘that it follows a penitential edict of St. Boniface, &c.’ I am sorry that I cannot relieve him from any responsibility in this matter. From him and from him alone it emanates. (128) In The Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch (1906), after noting that James was not responsible for the nonsensical claim that both of the other works immediately preceded the Latin excerpt from Enoch, Charles went on to explain: When Dr. James rightly disclaimed responsibility in a review of my book, I wrongly maintained, in a rejoinder, his responsibility for the errors in question. I must either have replied without consulting the passage referred to, or else I consulted it but failed to observe the utter absurdity. I did not recognize it till much later. (xvi, n. 2)

   

57

These instances [of change from Dillmann’s edition] are in all about six hundred. It will be remarked that on p. 4 they are said to be three hundred and twenty-two. The explanation of this discrepancy is to be found in the fact that the bulk of this book was already in type when the Gizeh MS. was published by M. [= Monsieur] Bouriant, and that I have allowed the Introduction to remain as it already stood before the publication of this Greek fragment. But as the examination of this fragment speedily made it clear that I had underestimated the value of these new Ethiopic MSS. [the copies from the British Museum], I was obliged to follow their authority in three hundred additional instances against Dillmann’s text. However, as I could introduce only a limited number of these new readings into the Critical Notes already in type, the reader will not unfrequently have to consult Appendix C for the text followed in the Translation in the earlier chapters. (vii–viii)²³

Since he left the General Introduction as it was before he received Bouriant’s publication, he did not change the sentence that says: “As the Greek fragment which has lately been discovered at Cairo²⁴ has not yet been published, I have not been able to avail myself of it” (p. 5).²⁵ Nevertheless, he added in the Preface that the Press had allowed him to print the entire text of the newly found Greek manuscript in Appendix C, pp. 326–70, with the two copies of 1 Enoch 19:3–21:9 arranged in parallel columns. He declared that the form in ²³ Charles tried really hard to change his notes to the translation in order to record the new information and wedge it into the space allowed by what had been typeset. But excise as I would, I could not at times make sufficient room for the fresh material, and so it occasionally happens that a text is followed in the Translation, the justification of which is given, not in the Crit. Notes which are immediately below, but in the Appendix. (318) ²⁴ It was not discovered “at Cairo” but at Akmim, more than 400 kilometers south of Cairo. ²⁵ Some years later he again had to correct a statement that was already set in print. In his book review of 1903, he wrote about Laurence’s 1838 edition of Ethiopic Enoch: Unfortunately I have not been able to see this last publication, but if the transcription is as accurately done as in other Ethiopic texts published by Laurence, then it may be taken as a very good representative of the MS. in question, and by no means deserving of the hostile criticism of Dillmann [who thought it was filled with typographical errors], . . . . Moreover, if Laurence’s edition of the MS. a was so faulty, was it right for Dillmann to trust to Laurence’s work wholly for his knowledge of this MS.? I have recollated the first ten chapters of a in connection with Dillmann’s text, and found no mistakes in chaps. i, ii, iii, iv, ix. In v, viii, and x I have found one each, in vii three, and in vi four. I hope to discover presently to whose account these should be set down. (“The Book of Enoch,” The American Journal of Theology 7 [1903] 689–90) However, in a footnote joined later to these comments he wrote: “I have just examined the Ethiopic text of Laurence above referred to, and find that Dillmann’s censure is more than justified” (690 n.). It is odd that for his 1851 edition Dillmann was able to use Laurence’s text (published in Oxford), while Charles, who was in Oxford for years, had not seen it before 1903.

58    ( – ) which he recorded it “will be found to be free from the serious blemishes of M. Bouriant’s edition” (viii). Charles incorporated into Appendix C of the book, where he printed the new Greek text, many detailed textual notes that compare the Greek and Ethiopic readings in chs. 1:1–32:6. In his introductory words to this section he restated the conclusions about their relations that he had set forth at the end of 1892. The Bouriant publication appeared in October of that year, and in a short notice in The Academy for November 26, 1892²⁶ Charles presented his understanding of the relative merits of the best Ethiopic readings, those of the Akhmim manuscript, and the citations of Enoch by Syncellus. 1. The text of the Gizeh MS. and that of the Syncellus fragments, though often diverging widely, repeatedly agree word for word for many verses together. Hence, they point to a single original translation from the Hebrew as their common ancestor. 2. The Ethiopic version approximates more closely to the text of the Gizeh MS. than to that of the Syncellus fragments; and this is true not only generally, but extends also at times to an agreement in unintelligible readings against a better text in Syncellus. 3. The Ethiopic version agrees occasionally with Syncellus against the Gizeh MS. 4. The Ethiopic preserves, in some instances, a better reading than either of the Greek fragments, and one from which the corruptions in the latter can be explained. Hence the presumption is that the Ethiopic version was made from a text which was the parent of that preserved in the Gizeh MS., and elder brother to that of the Syncellus fragments. A few lines later he added: But the most important service of this discovery is the criterion it provides for determining the value of the various Ethiopic MSS. of Enoch. The application of this test to these MSS. results in the practical condemnation of the MSS. used by Dillmann in his Ethiopic edition of the text, as being representatives of a most faulty and late form of the primitive Ethiopic version. I had already come to this conclusion nearly a year and a half ago;²⁷ and in my ²⁶ “The New Greek Fragment of Enoch,” The Academy 42, number 1071 (1892) 484. ²⁷ This would have been in mid-1891.

   

59

edition of Enoch, the greater part of which is already in type, I have shown that Dillmann’s MSS. present a frequently corrupt text, and that the truer text is to be found in an ancient and hitherto uncollated MS. to which I have had access.

Since his subsequent studies simply confirmed them, he restated these conclusions in Appendix C. His analysis convinced him that the text in the recently discovered Greek manuscript and the one in the Ethiopic translation stemmed from the same Greek forebear. “The Ethiopic version was made from a text which was the ancestor of that preserved in the Greek MS.” (322, where the words are in italics). The Greek and Ethiopic were more closely related to each other than either of them was to the text of the citations in Syncellus’ Chronography (321). The fact that the Akhmim manuscript and the best Ethiopic readings coincided so frequently allowed Charles to propose the additional 300 changes from Dillmann’s text. He did add that Dillmann too had already published his comments about the Greek text from Egypt and realized its importance for improving his earlier edition at many points.²⁸ Charles²⁹ surveyed in the General Introduction to the 1893 volume all the textual evidence now available for establishing the text of the Book of Enoch. He was aware of 17 Ethiopic copies, i.e., 12 more than Dillmann had for his 1851 edition (2). He cited instances in which the ten³⁰ British Museum copies that he used, especially G, offered superior readings to those in Dillmann’s five copies. The fact that their readings also more often coincided with the ones in the Greek texts only confirmed the point. He added a survey of previous ²⁸ He was referring to Dillmann, “Über den neugefundenen griechischen Text des Henoch-Buches,” Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (Berlin: Verlag der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1892 [Erster Halbband, Januar bis Mai]) 1039–54, 1079–92. In the first section of his two-part report, Dillmann described the new manuscript, compared it with overlapping citations of Enoch by other authors (e.g., Jude, Syncellus), and showed how the Greek text could, on the one hand, be improved by comparison with the Ethiopic and how, on the other, the Greek reveals many errors and imprecisions in the Ethiopic. He added a section in which he argued that the new text sufficiently demonstrated that Greek was not the original language of the book, as it preserves transcribed Hebrew or Aramaic words; and he finished with a paragraph noting contributions the new text made to the Greek lexicon and some corrections it required in his own Lexicon Linguae Aethiopicae. In the second part (1079–92) he printed the text from the Gizeh manuscript. In it he entered several kinds of corrections/changes and added accents, punctuation, and chapter and verse notations (taken from his Ethiopic text and translation). ²⁹ Charles concluded his Preface, after words of appreciation to Sanday, Adolf Neubauer (1831–1907), a librarian at the Bodleian and Reader in Rabbinic Hebrew at Oxford, and Margoliouth, by extending thanks “finally and chiefly to my wife, whose constant sympathy and unwearied labour in the verification of references and the formation of indices have materially lightened the burthen of my work” (ix). ³⁰ Charles said there were ten, although he had earlier referred to nine, because his manuscript G contains a second version of Enoch 97:6b–108:10. That version he labeled G¹ and treated it as a separate copy because its text differs at points from the version of this section in manuscript G.

60    ( – ) studies (he called them “Critical Inquiries”), whether they were editions, translations, or commentaries. He explained at the beginning of the “Critical Inquiries” section: I had intended to give a critical history of all the work done on Enoch since 1850 and had collected almost sufficient materials for that purpose, when I found that my space would not permit of such a large addition to the book. I shall therefore content myself with enumerating these inquiries and adding occasional notes. (9)

Charles thought that the Book of Enoch had been written in Hebrew. For this he relied on the arguments furnished by Dillmann and Joseph Halévi. Halévi intended to retrovert the text of Enoch into Hebrew and in an article had adduced a series of examples favoring it as the author’s language.³¹ Dillmann had argued for Hebrew as the original language on the basis of the writer’s accurate geographical knowledge of the area around Jerusalem, his extensive familiarity with the Hebrew Old Testament, use of etymologies that rest on Hebrew explanations, and the Hebrew style everywhere present in the book.³² Charles also believed there was no questioning a Palestinian origin for the work (21–2). Since he considered the Book of Enoch to be an apocalyptic composition, Charles devoted a section of his General Introduction to “The Object of Apocalyptic Literature” (22–4). He explained that the conflict between the promises of God to the righteous, on the one hand, and the actual experiences of faithful people, on the other, was handled by the biblical prophets in a collective sense. That is, when they spoke of a much better future, they meant a future restoration of the nation to possess the earth. But as the claims of the individual grew more powerful, religious thinkers had to cope with this aspect of the theological conflict as well, not only with its corporate side. According to Charles, the apocalyptic writers continued the prophetic proclamation regarding the righteous community but focused on the individual members of that community. As for the destiny of the individual, and here lay the chief interest and service of Apocalyptic, this was finally to be determined according to his works. For ³¹ “Recherches sur la langue de la redaction primitive du livre d’Énoch,” Journal Asiatique (1867) 352–95. I have been able to find no evidence that he ever published a full translation of Enoch into Hebrew. ³² Das Buch Henoch übersetzt und erklärt, li–liii.

   

61

though the righteous individual might perish amid the disorders of the world, his death could not fall out without God’s knowledge, and though cut off here apparently as a sinner, he would not fail to attain through the resurrection the recompense that was his due in the Messianic kingdom or in heaven itself. The conceptions as to this risen life, its duration and character, vary with each writer. (23)

The next section in the General Introduction holds an important place in the history of literary criticism of the Book of Enoch. Here Charles treated “The Different Elements in the Book of Enoch, with their respective Characteristics and Dates” (24–33) and set forth the thesis that the book consists of five originally independent booklets which are themselves “a fragmentary survival of an entire literature that once circulated under his name” (24).³³ He noted that several ancient works (e.g., Jubilees, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs) referred to Enoch’s books and also mentioned ones that are not part of the surviving Book of Enoch. So, in antiquity more books than the ones that have survived went under his name. A view widely accepted by the late nineteenth century was, as we have seen, that there were three elements in the book: 1. The Ground Work in chapters 1–36, 72–104. 2. The Similitudes in chapters 37–71 (Charles thought 71 was an interpolation). 3. Noah and Other Interpolations.³⁴ Charles held that the so-called Grundschrift (the Ground Work) actually included four booklets written by different authors at various times and with disparate teachings. The four with their dates as determined by Charles are: 1. 1–36: the oldest part, finished no later than 170 ..; 2. 83–90: written between 166 and 161 .., making use of 1–36; 3. 91–104 (105–7 are an interpolation and 108 is an addition): written between 134 and 94 or 104 and 94 .. by a Pharisee who denounced Sadducean ideas;

³³ In the Preface (viii–ix) he compared the manner in which certain kinds of books became associated with Enoch to the ways in which various groups of Psalms were connected with David and different kinds of wisdom texts with Solomon. ³⁴ Charles found more interpolations than others had—he listed twenty of them on p. 25.

62    ( – ) 4. 72–8; 82; 79 (79 is misplaced, and 80–1 are an interpolation): there is insufficient information for fixing the date of the section (see below on his 1912 volume where he offers a date range for it). These four units, with the Similitudes in 37–70/71 (written between 94 and 79 or 70 and 64 ..), constitute the Enochic Pentateuch which is preChristian. The editor who put together the entire composition was probably the one responsible for adding the interpolations.³⁵ The originally independent nature of these compositions is evident from their distinctive teachings. The categories of teachings Charles described disclose how he understood the messages in these individual works and, I think, why he believed the book was so important. For him, it seems, they were tracts offering a kind of systematic theology (especially eschatology), however unsystematic their literary forms might be. A major category is their teachings about what Charles called the messianic kingdom. Although the 108-chapter Book of Enoch uses the word messiah sparingly, Charles found teachings about a messianic kingdom—a term he did not define—in the various booklets. Following his chronological ordering of the sections, these are, according to Charles, their views about the messianic kingdom and related phenomena. 1–36: the writer advances little beyond the prophetic teachings regarding a messianic kingdom. It will begin with a resurrection of the righteous and wicked; directly afterward will come the final judgment. The wicked will receive the punishment appropriate to them, but the righteous will “become members of the eternal Messianic kingdom. The scene of the kingdom was to

³⁵ I think Charles was the earliest, unmistakable defender of this fivefold division of the Book of Enoch. The scholar before Charles who has the best claim to being first is Oskar Holtzmann (1859–1934) who wrote two sections about the book in the second volume (it was prepared by Holtzmann) of Bernhard Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel (2 vols.; Berlin: G. Grote’sche, 1887–88). On pp. 416–29 (the other section, 483–90, concerns the Similitudes) he spoke about three parts of Enoch (he did not give chapter numbers, but it is clear enough which ones he meant): 1–36 (consisting of four parts, 1–5, 6–11, 12–16, 17–36); 37–71; and 72–105 (consisting of three parts, 72–82, 83–90, 91–105 [106–7 and 108 are additions]). As one can see from the divisions within the major parts, he separated the units Charles did, but Charles did not find a threefold division in the entire book as Holtzmann had. Incidentally, it seems as if Charles was aware of Holtzmann’s position but had not read him. In 1893 (p. 13) he simply mentioned his contribution to Geschichte des Volkes Israel and gave the wrong date of the volume (1867) and wrong page numbers (201–2). In 1912 (xl–xli) he again listed the publication and wrote a description of Holtzmann’s view, but that description is a translation of what François Martin had said about it in Le livre d’Hénoch (Documents pour l’étude de la Bible, Les apocryphes de l’Ancien Testament; Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1906) lxxi—something Charles acknowledged in a footnote (xli, note 1). This time he got the date and page numbers right.

   

63

be the earth purged from all violence and sin” (26). Yet, after leading long, blessed lives, the righteous themselves will die in peace. 83–90: the author moves beyond the doctrine of 1–36 in that he, with the writer of Daniel, puts forth the idea of an “everlasting blessedness” (27). The military actions of Judas the Maccabee and the “Chasids” in the 160s .. open the last crisis in which the enemies of Israel meet their end. The fallen angels, the shepherds who had misruled (in the Animal Apocalypse, chs. 85–90), and the apostate Jews are then judged and condemned. It seems that after this the righteous Israelites experience a resurrection. They gather in the New Jerusalem where they are joined by “those Gentiles who had hitherto been neutral, but are now converted to the worship of Israel’s God” (27). Next, the messiah makes an appearance. “This is the earliest reference to the Messiah in non-canonical literature. But he has no role to play” (28). The messianic kingdom on earth is eternal as are the citizens who dwell in it. 91–104: here there is a “fusion” of prophetic and apocalyptic ideas. The messianic kingdom, when the righteous control the world, will extend for a time; there is no messiah in this messianic kingdom, but God helps the righteous destroy their wicked oppressors (Charles thought they were Sadducees). At its end the final judgment will take place, followed by “the risen spiritual life of blessedness in a new heaven” (28) lasting forever. The wicked suffer in Sheol eternally. One finds here a more spiritual conception, with the temporal messianic kingdom playing a less central role. 37–70: The righteous sufferers in these chapters do not complain against the Sadducees (as in 91–104) but against the Maccabean rulers. The Similitudes are distinctive in their teaching about the messiah that they, following Daniel, call the son of man, “who, possessing divine prerogatives, should destroy the wicked, and justify the righteous, and vindicate a transformed heaven and earth as their habitation for everlasting” (31). Chapters 72–8, 82, 79 really have no teachings about these topics, while 80–1 (an interpolation) have a moral tone but do not contribute to eschatology. The final unit in the General Introduction offers a comprehensive list of works and passages in Jewish and Christian literature influenced by the Book of Enoch (33–53). Charles included in the section not only citations of and allusions to the book but also passages where the teachings of Enoch, in his opinion, left their mark. He was hardly the first scholar to draw up such lists, and there are instances where one might question whether the Book of Enoch inspired something in another composition, but there is no doubting, as he and others showed, that the book was influential for a time in Jewish and Christian circles.

64    ( – ) The bulk of The Book of Enoch consists of the translation and notes (55–308). Charles furnished a “Special Introduction” for each of the five booklets that he distinguished. In these he described their structure and date and treated their relation to other booklets within the Book of Enoch. Most of the pages in the five sections contain his translation of the text—made from his as yet unpublished revision of Dillmann’s 1851 edition—supported by “critical³⁶ and exegetical notes” that take up much of each page. Despite his many “corrections,” he presented the text as it is, that is in its existing sequence, without removing from the translation parts that he considered interpolations³⁷ or rearranging chapters that he believed were out of order. It would not be accurate to call his notes a running commentary because he did not explain the entire text. Rather, he wrote notes on selected passages and topics. At times these are lengthy, at times passages are simply passed over in silence. This was to be his practice in his other translations as well. The volume includes five appendices: A Additional Bibliography (309–11) B “The Son of Man” (312–17)³⁸ C The Gizeh Greek Fragment (i–xxxii) with Introduction and Notes (318–70) D Additional Notes on xxxvii–cviii (371) E The New Latin Fragment, cvi. 1–18, with Introduction and Notes (372–5) Two indices (passages, names and subjects) occupy 377–91. In closing the survey of the 1893 volume, we should note Charles’s assessment of it in his 1906 edition of the Book of Enoch: In this work I attempted an exhaustive comparison of the Greek and Ethiopic texts, and carried the criticism of the materials several stages beyond previous scholars in this department. An overestimate, however, of the Ethiopic Version led me to make some unjustifiable changes in the Greek text. This error has been set right in the present edition.

³⁶ The critical notes deal with textual issues and are placed between the translation and the exegetical notes. The distinction between the two kinds of notes is not always clear-cut. ³⁷ He marked interpolated passages by putting them between brackets. ³⁸ The contents of this appendix also appeared in Charles’s article “Messianic Doctrine of the Book of Enoch, and its Influence on the New Testament,” Expository Times 4/7 (1893) 301–3. The first four paragraphs of the article (most of the first column on p. 301) summarize three of the four messianic titles in the Parables of Enoch (37–71) that also figure in the New Testament: anointed one, righteous one, chosen one. The remainder of the article treats the fourth title, son of man, and is identical to Appendix B in the book.

   

65

Notwithstanding, the subsequent thirteen years of study have confirmed most of the suggestions made in 1893. (xi)

He would continue to refine his work on the manuscripts in later publications, but his 1893 book was at the time the most impressive publication on the Book of Enoch in English or any other language—one produced in a remarkably short time.

Reviews One of the reviewers of the 1893 volume was Dillmann himself.³⁹ He was the most qualified to evaluate it, given his earlier work on the Book of Enoch and his ongoing labors with the text as evidenced in his 1892 study of the Gizeh manuscript (see above). The Preface to Charles’s book is dated to April 1893; Dillmann’s review appeared in the September 2, 1893 issue of Theologische Literaturzeitung. If the two dates are approximately accurate for the times when the publications appeared, Dillmann must have received a copy very quickly and assessed it at once. He began the review by sketching his own work. He explained that for his 1851 edition of the text there were five–six manuscripts to which he had access. The reference to “six” is surprising because the title of his book mentions only five. He reported that in 1851 he was aware of more copies than the ones he used but was unable to examine one in Rome and, of the two in Paris, he was shown only one (it was the special copy that Bruce had given to Louis XV). The text that he established on the basis of the manuscripts available to him for the 1851 volume was what he termed the “Koine” (i.e., the common or vulgate) version of Enoch that was current in the last several centuries in Ethiopia. He also wrote that for his 1853 translation and commentary the lack of up-to-date reference works required that he engage in extensive research into the Ethiopic copies of biblical texts in his possession in order to understand some words and forms in the Book of Enoch.⁴⁰ In contrast to the circumstances prevailing in the early 1850s, now, some 40 years later, experts had at their disposal at least seventeen copies of the Ethiopic Enoch

³⁹ Theologische Literaturzeitung 18 (1893) 442–6. ⁴⁰ Presumably these labors formed part of the staggering amount of research represented in Dillmann’s Lexicon Linguae Aethiopicae (1865).

66    ( – ) (ten in the British Museum). Moreover, they could now use his grammar and lexicon and also had the Greek text of the first 32 chapters of the book. Dillmann granted that with the new tools numerous improvements could be made to his 1853 translation. He added that he had entered many of the changes in his Lexicon (as Charles had noticed) but others he had not been able to record there. These awaited a possible second edition of Enoch. As it turned out, Dillmann died less than a year after the date of his review—July 4, 1894—so no second edition ever appeared. In the context of the growing interest in matters apocalyptic, Dillmann welcomed Charles’s book and complimented him for the care and insight evident throughout its pages. He was, however, not convinced about everything Charles had to offer. A major objection had to do with Charles’s estimate of the value possessed by manuscript G (with G¹ and M)—Charles’s chief authorities among the British Museum copies. He agreed that it was right to prefer the readings of these older copies to the Koine text, but he rejected Charles’s claim that only these manuscripts preserved older readings. He cited Charles’s statement from p. 325: that the Ethiopic text of Enoch, which was part of the Old Testament in Abyssinia, “was transmitted (from the sixth century) with the greatest care and accuracy through successive copies till the sixteenth century, but after this date the text suffered much from ignorant corrections.” This Dillmann judged to be very much mistaken. In response to Charles’s assertion about the value of his best manuscripts, he noted the existence of at least eight more copies of Enoch beyond the ten in the British Museum. Dillmann said that he had collated four of these eight and found that no fewer than three of them at times preserved older readings—a statement he documented with a reference to his 1882 article in the Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften where there is a preliminary list of examples (see above). When Charles’s book appeared, Dillmann compared the ca. 300 improved readings that Charles took from G (G¹ M) with the readings of the three manuscripts he had just mentioned. He found that there were many excellent readings in these copies that Charles had not used. From this he inferred that one could not establish an older text on the basis of G (G¹ M) alone; the other older manuscripts had also to be consulted. Dillmann noted that all copies were filled with errors and that only in the latter half of the sixteenth century was a scholastic version fashioned in Ethiopia. At that time, native scholars worked on the text and made emendations to it, though not always correctly; moreover, they did not understand many difficult passages. But through their efforts the Koine version developed. He also downplayed the importance of the differences between the texts in the older

   

67

copies and in the Koine version: they usually involved minor matters, and in the most challenging passages the older copies offered no improvement. Regarding Charles’s translation, Dillmann adduced specific instances of mistakes and what he considered dubious emendations. He even charged that in some cases Charles’s comments about his own work betrayed an insufficient understanding of German idiom. He entertained doubts about his attempt to place the Greek citations in Syncellus, the Greek of the Gizeh manuscript, and the Greek text underlying the Ethiopic version in a genealogical relationship and from it to determine original readings. On his view, several versions of Greek Enoch had once been in circulation and the relations between them could no longer be determined. If Charles expected literal renderings of a Greek base in the Ethiopic versions, Dillmann wrote, he was not sufficiently knowledgeable about the ways of Ethiopian Bible translators. Finally, while he had some positive comments to make regarding Charles’s literary analysis of the book, he was skeptical about the presence in the booklets of a logical development in teachings about the future. In the last sentences of the review, he noted that there were 30–40 errors in the printed Ethiopic and that Charles always misspelled the name of Halévi as Hallévi (about twenty times).⁴¹ Montague Rhodes James (1862–1936) of Cambridge University evaluated the book in The Classical Review 8 (1894) 41–4. He began by writing: “Mr. Charles’s work must undoubtedly take its place at once as the authoritative edition of the Book of Enoch for English readers: I see no reason why he should not in future years produce what may be the final edition” (41). He gratefully welcomed the translation, but he repeated Dillmann’s hesitations about Charles’s reliance on three manuscripts as preserving the best text and his claim that the Ethiopic text of the book was very reliably transmitted from the sixth to the sixteenth century. He did think Charles’s coverage of scholarly literature on Enoch was a worthy contribution. After enumerating the positive contributions of the book, James turned to criticisms of his own. He admitted he was not able to deal with the Ethiopic ⁴¹ Charles, not one to take criticism lying down, responded briefly to Dillmann in the short note “The Book of Enoch,” The Academy 45, number 1135 (1894) 127–8. He observed that, in his review, M. R. James (see below) repeated some of Dillmann’s criticisms, and one he mentioned was the spelling of Halévi’s name. Charles wrote that Dillmann and James should have checked the facts because the scholar in question spelled his name differently over the years. At the time when he wrote the publication to which Charles regularly referred, he spelled it Hallévi, just as Charles gave it in the book. He said he would reply more fully to others of Dillmann’s points in the introduction to his edition of Jubilees which he was nearly ready to send to the press (it would be published in 1895). He added that he would also do so in the introduction to his Ethiopic edition of Enoch “which will appear, I hope, next year” (128; the book was published in 1906, twelve years later than the date of this essay).

68    ( – ) text, so he confined himself to introductory issues. One was Charles’s assertion that we have in Enoch only a selection of a larger literature under the patriarch’s name. He doubted that much of the ancient apocalyptic literature had disappeared and that the individual parts of Enoch distinguished by Charles circulated as separate works before being incorporated into the Book of Enoch. Perhaps successive authors wrote them “to occupy their present position” (42). He cited a number of “slips” on Charles’s part but had more serious reservations about the handling of the Gizeh Greek text: “. . . it seems to be quite impracticable to gather from Mr. Charles’s text and apparatus criticus exactly what the text of the MS. is. This is a grave fault” (43).⁴² Although Charles had acknowledged that his bibliography was not exhaustive, James added some titles that he thought Charles should have listed. After a few additional criticisms (e.g., the mixing of textual and exegetical matters in the two kinds of notes), he said about Appendix B ‘The Son of Man’ “I have this quarrel, that I cannot understand it” (43) and doubted Charles had a clear idea of what he was trying to say.⁴³ But he ended as he began with overall thanks to Charles for work well done and with gratitude that he and Morfill were about to publish a book on the Slavonic Enoch (on this, see below, Part 2, Chapter 3).⁴⁴ Charles published two more volumes on the Book of Enoch. We should now address them.

⁴² Charles did not reproduce the text exactly as it is in the manuscript. See p. 325 in the 1893 volume for the ways in which he edited it. ⁴³ In fairness to Charles, it is difficult to grasp why James had a problem with the section. In it Charles summarized the varied uses of the term in the Gospels, traced the origin of Jesus’s usage to the teachings about the son of man in Enoch 37–71, and showed that he combined this supernatural concept with that of Isaiah’s servant of the Lord. It is all quite straightforward. In his 1912 volume (Appendix II, 306–9) Charles largely repeated what he said here. As he wrote: “I will here republish with a few verbal corrections what I wrote in 1892” (306; he had finished this part of the 1893 book in 1892). ⁴⁴ In “The Book of Enoch,” The Academy 45, number 1135 (1894), 127–8 (mentioned above), Charles primarily responded to criticisms in James’ review. He forcefully rejected the suggestion that authors wrote the parts of Enoch for their present positions; a study of the dislocations to which editors subjected the sections, he thought, should disabuse James of this idea. He also claimed to be familiar with the publications that James thought it a mistake to have left out. Charles was aware of them but a quick glance at much of what was published before 1850 convinced him that they had nothing to contribute. “The scientific study of Enoch begins with the sixth decade of this century” (128). Although other reviewers did not have the same difficulty reading appendix B, he promised to write in a way James could understand if his book came out in a second edition. He ended by saying: “For one or two strictures I am grateful to my reviewer, as well as for his otherwise kindly and appreciative criticisms” (128). There were other reviews of the book such as the one by Cheyne (one of the people to whom Charles had dedicated it) that was published in Expository Times 4/11 (1893) 507–9. Cheyne made observations about connections with biblical passages and raised some questions, but admitted he could not handle the Ethiopic text and acknowledged “the reserve imposed upon me by the friendly personal relations” (507) between Charles and himself.

   

69

The Context for Charles’s 1906 Volume on Enoch After 1893, scholarship on the Book of Enoch moved forward at a relatively rapid pace.⁴⁵ The year 1900 saw the appearance of the two-volume work Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck]) under the general editorship of Emil Kautzsch. The second volume (Pseudepigraphen) included Georg Beer’s excellent introduction to and annotated translation of “Das Buch Henoch” (pp. 217–310), in which he profited from using Charles’s translation. Shortly thereafter Johannes Flemming (1859–1914) and Ludwig Radermacher (1867–1952) published Das Buch Henoch: Herausgegeben im Auftrage der Kirchenväter-Commission der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller 5; Leipzig: Hinrichs. 1901). Flemming, an Ethiopicist, translated the entire book into German, while Radermacher, a classicist, edited the Greek text.⁴⁶ The 1901 book by Flemming and Radermacher, although it was a translation, marked another advance in determining the best text of Enoch. Flemming’s section of the Introduction (1–13) furnished a descriptive list of all the Ethiopic copies of which he was aware—now numbering twenty-six.⁴⁷ To designate the copies and to avoid confusion, he retained the designations employed by Dillmann, Charles, and Beer—capital letters in alphabetical order—but because of the growing number of them he extended the list to Zb. Manuscripts A–E were those used by Dillmann, F–O (there is no J) were the British Museum copies available to Charles, and P–Zb were the others.⁴⁸ Flemming established an Ethiopic text on the basis of fourteen manuscripts (he would publish it a year later; see below): Dillmann’s five for whose readings he relied on Dillmann’s edition, two of the British Museum copies (G M), and seven others (P Q T U V W Y). Flemming said that he collated G and M and

⁴⁵ Charles himself contributed the article “Enoch, (Ethiopic) Book of,” in James Hastings, editor, A Dictionary of the Bible (1898) 1.705–8. In it he summarized his conclusions in the 1893 book, to which he referred the reader, and also announced that he intended to issue an edition of the Ethiopic text (706). ⁴⁶ Charles wrote about Radermacher’s handling of the Greek material (he thought he edited it well): But, unless I am greatly mistaken, Dr. Radermacher is not a Semitic scholar. This deficiency in his equipment proved a sore handicap in the task he undertook. How is a purely classical scholar to edit a Greek text which is Greek in vocabulary, but largely Semitic in idiom? (“The Book of Enoch,” The American Journal of Theology 7 [1903] 699; cf. the 1906 edition [xii] and the 1912 volume [xv]) ⁴⁷ Included in his descriptions were indications of which additional compositions (e.g., other biblical books) figured in each manuscript bearing the text of Enoch. ⁴⁸ Some in this last set Dillmann had mentioned in his review of Charles’s 1893 volume.

70    ( – ) found many variants in them not recorded by Charles in his 1893 book, but this was not a reason for criticizing the latter’s work because the readings were more significant for formulating the Ethiopic text itself than for making a translation of it, as Charles had done (6). Flemming, signaling an advance in technology, reported using photographs of several manuscripts in his work. He divided the manuscripts into Group I (GQTU, with M) and Group II (the others), with the former containing older and the latter more recent copies (6). The criterion for dividing the copies into the two categories was their agreement with the Greek readings: Group I agreed with it more frequently than did Group II (8; both Dillmann and Charles had made the same point). He seconded Charles’s thesis that G was the most important Ethiopic manuscript but thought Charles had overestimated its value so that at times he regarded as solid readings ones that were actually scribal errors. Generally, however, he spoke favorably about Charles’s 1893 volume (12), though he found aspects of his statement about G¹ (the second version of 1 Enoch 97:6b– 108:10 in manuscript G) to be inaccurate (8–9 n. 3). In his own pages of the Introduction (13–15), Radermacher described his procedure with the Greek text and charged that Charles used the Ethiopic version too broadly as an aid in establishing the text of Enoch (14). In 1902 Flemming issued Das Buch Henoch: Aethiopischer Text (Texte und Untersuchungen 7.1/22.1; Leipzig: Hinrichs) in which he presented the Ethiopic text from which he had made his translation. In the introductory pages, he explained why the translation appeared before the text on which it was based. He had planned already in 1895, he said, to prepare an edition of Ethiopic Enoch and had spent five weeks in the summer of 1896 in London where he collated manuscripts. He became convinced, however, that he had to use the d’Abbadie manuscripts of Enoch (on them see below) for his edition but did not know where they were housed. He tried to obtain Dillmann’s collations of some of these manuscripts (see the description of Dillmann’s 1892 SPAW article above) but was unsuccessful. The reason was that the second edition of Enoch that Dillmann was preparing during his last years had been entrusted to another scholar to finish (Flemming did not name him). As a result, Flemming concluded he had to abandon the text edition portion of his project. So as not to lose all he had invested in the work, he decided to limit himself to the translation. When a few years later he heard that the other scholar was not after all going to finish Dillmann’s projected second edition, Flemming resumed his textual project, but by then the translation volume was so far along toward publication that it appeared first (pp. V–VI).

   

71

The edition of Flemming was the most valuable contribution to date for establishing the text of the book. Because he had furnished in the 1901 volume most of the information about the manuscripts and the groups into which they fell, in the text volume he offered only a list of the manuscripts, his procedures for choosing between readings, and a list of corrections to the translation. Before and while this work was going on in Germany, Charles was preparing his edition of the Ethiopic text of Enoch.⁴⁹ His 1903 review of Flemming’s edition (and to a lesser extent, of the earlier volume of Flemming and Radermacher)⁵⁰ yields some information about his own work on the textual project. In it he surveyed the textual recovery of the Book of Enoch and, when treating his 1893 volume, pointed out, as he often did, the superior manuscript base for it compared with Dillmann’s text. But regarding his handling of the best manuscript, he granted: “ . . . g⁵¹ I collated throughout, on the whole accurately, but defectively, as I now find, in a relatively small number of passages” (690). He continued: From 1893 I have from time to time been engaged on the further study of the Ethiopic and Greek versions of Enoch. The result of these studies is at present with the printers and will probably be published toward the close of this year by the Oxford Press. These texts would have appeared sooner but for the publication of Dr. Flemming’s Ethiopic text in 1902. As this work gave a nomenclature to the Berlin [= q] and French [perhaps r–w] MSS. differing from that which I used in my Ethiopic text, I was obliged for the sake of my readers to bring my nomenclature into agreement with that of Dr. Flemming, who was first in the field. This was a task of no little difficulty. (690–1)

So, Flemming’s publication caused a delay in completing his text. At the time Charles did not know that his own edition would not be published until 1906, some three years later than he anticipated. The Orders of the Delegates of the Press (ODP, Oxford University Press) allow us to follow to some extent the preparations for publishing his edition of Ethiopic Enoch. The ODP for June 2, 1899, under the category of new ⁴⁹ Recall that he hoped it would be published in 1895 (“The Book of Enoch,” The Academy 45, number 1135 [1894] 128). He wrote nothing there about any arrangements with a publisher. ⁵⁰ “The Book of Enoch,” The American Journal of Theology 7 (1903) 689–703. ⁵¹ Although the practice had been to use capital letters to designate the manuscripts, from this point on Charles employed lower case letters in italic font.

72    ( – ) proposals read, mentions “An Ethiopic Text of the Book of Enoch, by the Rev. Prof. R. H. Charles, for the Anecdota Series.⁵² The consideration of this proposal was deferred.” The same source refers again to the project on February 27, 1903 where the book is said to be in preparation and is referred to the Anecdota Committee. Two weeks later (March 13, 1903) it is again said to be in preparation. By May 22, 1903 it has reached the point of “Ordered for Press and number,” with the number of copies to be printed given as 750. So apparently Charles was accurate in claiming in 1903 that his edition was “with the printers”; he was just a bit optimistic about when the Press would issue it. Charles commended Flemming for his thorough work with the manuscripts and considered his edition “an immeasurable advance on that of Dillmann and a considerable advance on Dillmann’s text as emended in my commentary in 1893” (692). Yet, while Flemming had personally collated three of the manuscripts in his first, older group (g m q), Charles found fault with the results and in the process emphasized how vital it was to photograph manuscripts: It was a fatal error on Dr. Flemming’s part that he did not photograph g m q, or, at all events, revise his collations of them.⁵³ The more a scholar works with MSS., the more distrustful he becomes of his own collations and of those of others. It is not unknown to some students of New Testament Greek MSS. that the successive collations of such scholars as Tischendorf, Scrivener, and Hort have failed to eliminate entirely the erroneous element in the representation of certain MSS. Hence one comes to regard photographic reproductions of the chief MSS. of a book as indispensable in his preparation of its text. The scholar must procure these; if not, he must revise his collations thoroughly, at least one or more times. (691)

Despite Flemming’s “fatal error,” Charles confessed that the German scholar had uncovered some places where Charles followed a poorer reading in his translation. His admission is somewhat backhanded, however: “I willingly admit my shortcomings in these respects. I could myself produce a much ampler catalogue than that adduced by Flemming, as will be manifest when my own text is made public” (692).

⁵² Charles’s edition of Jubilees (1895) had been published in the same series, Anecdota Oxoniensia. ⁵³ These are not among the copies for which Flemming said he had obtained photographs.

   

73

Flemming’s failure to obtain photographs of the best manuscripts led to serious shortcomings in his text. On the whole, Dr. Flemming’s text is good, as might be expected from so excellent an Ethiopic scholar. But he has not risen to the opportunity. With the materials already accessible, it was possible for a scholar to make a definitive edition, and possibly to go down to posterity on the shoulders of this anonymous immortal [i.e., the compiler of the Book of Enoch]. But a definitive edition postulates an accuracy, a completeness (in respect to the first-class authorities), and a thorough knowledge of the subject-matter; and in all these qualities our editor shows himself defective. (692)

One suspects that Charles, whatever his thoughts regarding Flemming’s work, was also anxious to justify publication of his own edition. He devoted the rest of his review to an evaluation of how Flemming treated chs. 1–32, where there is both Greek and Ethiopic evidence (693–9), and the other chapters, where only the Ethiopic is available in almost all places and where, therefore, there is wider scope for disagreements about the preferred readings (700–2). The sections are pure Charles: there are six categories of shortcomings in Flemming’s text (e.g., “Inaccurate and defective collation of the MSS.”), and for each Charles amassed a seemingly excessive number of examples to make his point. Between these two sections about Flemming’s edition, he interposed comments on the Greek text edited by Radermacher in the 1901 volume, and after the two he added a few reactions to Flemming’s German translation in that same book. In this last section he again made detailed criticisms (e. g., his failure “to acknowledge the felicitous emendations of previous scholars” [703], including Charles, even when he accepted them). He ended the review in what seems a patronizing way after so many pages of fairly harsh criticism: However, faultfinding becomes irksome, and we would gladly conclude by drawing attention to the excellent points made by the editor in lxviii, 12; lxxix, 4; lxxxix, 10; civ, 6, and in expressing the hope that we may meet Dr. Flemming often in this department of research, in which he is fitted to achieve for himself a name, if he will but give himself the leisure for the task. (703)

Whether Flemming found this helpful—or even saw it—we do not know, but there is no record that he (or Radermacher) ever again published on the Book of Enoch.

74    ( – )

The Book The Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch: Edited from Twenty-Three MSS, together with the Fragmentary Greek and Latin Versions by R. H. Charles, M.A., Grinfield Lecturer on the Septuagint, Exeter College, Oxford, D.D. and Late Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, Dublin, Fellow of the British Academy (Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic Series 11; Oxford: Clarendon, 1906).⁵⁴ After years of preparation and a long time at the press (see above on the press’s actions regarding the project), Charles’s edition appeared in 1906.⁵⁵ Since the volume is a text edition, Charles prefixed a shorter Introduction to it than to his translation of 1893. In the latter, the General Introduction ran to fifty-five pages, whereas in the 1906 edition the Introduction occupies only pages ix–xxxiii. The sub-title indicates that he had come across many manuscripts of the book that were not available to Dillmann when he produced his edition from five copies in 1851. He happened also to know of a few more than Flemming did. In the Introduction he mentioned experiencing a flash of insight: “In the course of editing the present work it suddenly dawned upon the editor that much of the text was originally written in verse. This discovery has frequently proved helpful in the criticism of difficult passages” (ix).⁵⁶ Charles now maintained, furthermore, that chs. 1–36 were probably written in Aramaic, while there was good reason for thinking Hebrew was the original language of 37–71, 83–104 (x). That is, Enoch, like Daniel, was a book written in two languages, Hebrew and Aramaic. He described the textual witnesses for the book in each language in which it is attested along with a summary of the studies devoted to the ancient versions. While the Ethiopic version and the readings in the Gizeh Greek manuscript are closely related, he concluded, Syncellus’ Greek citations from Enoch preserve a superior text form (xiii–xvi). The sub-title of the 1906 edition conveys the chief reason for issuing it—the availability of twenty-three manuscripts of the Ethiopic version. He had written in 1893 that there were seventeen copies in Europe (p. 2),⁵⁷ and in

⁵⁴ The titles and appointments listed after his name are treated in the following chapters dealing with the years in which he received them. ⁵⁵ He dedicated the book to his wife. He also thanked his niece, Madeleine La Vie Charles “for much help in making the Index Graecitatis” (iv). ⁵⁶ A comparison of the text layout in his 1893 translation and in the revised form he published in 1912 shows how large an effect this “discovery” had. He would have similar flashes of insight for other books, e.g., Jubilees and Daniel. ⁵⁷ He referred to twenty or more copies in “Enoch, (Ethiopic) Book of,” in James Hastings, editor, A Dictionary of the Bible (1898) 1.705–8.

   

75

1901 and 1902 Flemming had referred to twenty-six. Charles explained in his section about the Ethiopic version (1906, xvii–xxi) that there were actually twenty-nine manuscripts of which he was aware. Though he drew upon only twenty-three for his edition, he partially collated four others as well but saw no reason to include readings from the remaining two (xvii–xviii). Manuscript G (now g) remained his best witness. In fact, the “Ethiopic text has been printed directly from a photograph of the chief MS. g with the necessary corrections from other MSS.; but the orthography of this MS. has been nearly always adhered to, although it very frequently confuses the aspirates and the sibilants” (iii). Charles innovated in a small way in his edition without explaining why he did so: rather than referring to the two categories of manuscripts as Group I and Group II, he designated them by the first two letters of the Greek alphabet, α for the older ones, β for the later ones (xxi). He would employ the new symbols in his translation of 1912 as well. He had photographs of fourteen of the copies, and several libraries and individuals loaned their manuscripts either to him or to the Bodleian for his use (iv). By 1906, it was no longer necessary to travel to museums and other repositories in order to transcribe or check readings in manuscripts; they could be more permanently and easily accessible to an editor sitting in his study (or in the Bodleian). Charles related the following about how he obtained materials for his edition: From Mme. D’Abbadie (r–w) Permission to collate four manuscripts Permission to photograph two others British Museum (f–o) Permission to photograph all ten copies The Paris (z zb?)⁵⁸ and Munich (y) manuscripts were loaned to the Bodleian Library for his use

⁵⁸ Manuscripts p and z are two of the three of which Charles’s knowledge was “indirect” (xvii), as problems developed in his attempts to use them. Of p he wrote: . . . this MS. formerly belonged to Lord Crawford and was lent by him to the editor of the German edition of the Ethiopic text of Enoch which appeared in 1901, but since that date this MS. has passed into the hands of a lady, who refuses to lend it or any other MS. in her possession to the Bodleian Library for the use of English editors. If he intended to be discreet in referring only to “a lady,” he lost his discretion two pages later when, in a list of the manuscripts, he said that p belonged to Mrs. Rylands (xix). Manuscript z, he wrote, “indeed was most kindly lent to the Bodleian Library for my use, but unhappily I was absent part of the time of its sojourn there, and whilst I was present the officials of the Bodleian did not notify me of its arrival” (xvii).

76    ( – ) The Berlin Library loaned its manuscript (q) and gave him permission to photograph it The Vatican gave permission to photograph its one manuscript. (x) Baron von Westenholtz (Hamburg, b¹) and Mr. Garrett (Philadelphia, a¹) loaned their copies for his personal use. The availability of both was arranged through the assistance of Enno Littmann, the German orientalist who had participated in Princeton University expeditions to Ethiopia in the early years of the twentieth century.⁵⁹ While photographs were crucial for Charles’s work, he also referred to travels to examine some of them. He thanked “the Trustees of the Revised Version Surplus Fund for a subvention towards the expenses incurred in my expedition to Abbadia at the foot of the Pyrenees” (iv; cf. xviii). The place in question was the chateau of Antoine Thomson d’Abbadie (1810–97) located in the town of Hendaye. He was, among other pursuits, a traveler in Ethiopia during the late 1830s and 40s. He had managed to gather several hundred manuscripts that were eventually housed in the chateau. To that appealing place Charles journeyed to consult his copies of Enoch.⁶⁰ The trip, whose date he did not specify, must have occurred after Antoine d’Abbadie’s death in 1897, because he thanked Mme. D’Abbadie (who also died before publication of the 1906 volume) for allowing him to collate four and photograph the two additional manuscripts in Abbadia. Charles knew of these copies from d’Abbadie’s Catalogue raisonné (1906, xx). Charles’s edition must have posed a challenge for typesetters. Of the 237 pages in the book, the text appears on 1–226. The critical text in Ethiopic font occupies the upper portion of most pages, while the apparatus of variants beneath it is of course sprinkled liberally with Ethiopic terms. Where there is evidence in Greek or Latin, the full parallel text is printed. In the first thirtytwo chapters of Enoch for which the entire Greek text has survived, sometimes in more than one form, the full text is printed on the page facing the Ethiopic. ⁵⁹ Robert Garrett (1875–1961) was a graduate of Princeton (1897), an Olympic medalist (1896, 1900), banker, and trustee of the university (from 1906). He brought Littmann to Princeton in 1902 to curate and catalog the manuscripts he owned and also funded the Princeton expedition to Abyssinia in 1905–06. Littmann purchased manuscripts there for Garrett. Garrett eventually donated some 11,000 manuscripts with texts in various languages to Princeton. See Ephraim Isaac, “The Princeton Collection of Ethiopic Manuscripts,” The Princeton University Library Chronicle 42, number 1 (1980) 33–52. ⁶⁰ D’Abbadie published Catalogue raisonné de manuscrits éthiopiens appartenant à Antoine d’Abbadie (Paris: Imprimerie Impériale, 1859). In it he described the 234 manuscripts then in his possession. The ones that include the Book of Enoch are #16 (pp. 16–18), #30 (35–7), #35 (42–3), #55 (65–8), #99 (110), and #197 (198). He continued to acquire manuscripts after his return from Ethiopia (see his statement about ##194–234 on p. xi). The manuscripts are listed in the Catalogue in the order of their date of acquisition (xi).

   

77

Where there are two Greek texts (the Gizeh manuscript and Syncellus’ citations), they are given in parallel columns. The shorter Greek text at 89:42–9 and the Latin at 106:1–18 likewise appear alongside the Ethiopic. It is no wonder that Charles expressed thanks “to the officials, and especially to the readers and compositors of the Press for their skilled services in the publication of this text” (iv). There are two sections at the end: Appendix on VI. 7 (a study of the angel names in the verse and in other passages, 227–8); and Greek Index (229–37) that his niece helped prepare.

Reviews One would not expect many reviews of a complicated technical work such as Charles’s edition of Enoch, but there were a few. René Basset (1855–1924), a French orientalist who specialized in Arabic and Berber, reviewed it in Revue de l’histoire des religions 56 (1907) 126–8. He first surveyed the history of editing and translating the Book of Enoch and concluded with rather general remarks about Charles’s book. Of it he said that, while it outstripped its predecessors, one should not consider it definitive because textual discoveries could require modifications on some points. He did think, however, that the edition would for a long time serve as the basis for any study of the Book of Enoch. He judged it to be accurate, as one would expect from an Ethiopicist as learned as Charles, and deemed it an honor to Charles and the series in which it was published. Another general treatment was written by an American, William MussArnolt (1860–1927), an Assyriologist at the University of Chicago and later a librarian at the Boston Public Library. Early in his review in The American Journal of Theology 12 (1908) 660–1, he offered an appreciative comment: That we have now a practically exhaustive edition of the only extant version, the Ethiopic, together with the fragmentary Greek and Latin renderings, we owe to the painstaking labor of Professor Charles, the leading editor of Ethiopic texts and one of the best scholars of the Ethiopic language and literature. (660)

After that the review mostly consists of a summary of the Introduction, section by section. Regarding section 7 (relations between the Ethiopic manuscripts), he wrote: “It is in this section, especially, that Charles shows his complete mastery of the text and subject” (661). He ended his review with

78    ( – ) the same thought Basset expressed: the book was an honor to Charles and to the series Anecdota Oxoniensia.

Legacy It seems appropriate to treat the ongoing importance of Charles’s edition separately from the influence of the two translation volumes (1893 and 1912) which will be examined at the end of this chapter. His 1906 work has proved to be a, if not the, standard text edition even to the present. The comments of Michael Knibb, himself an expert on the text of Enoch, are helpful to cite in this respect. After describing Flemming’s edition, he wrote: Flemming’s collations of BM 485 [ = g], BM 491 [ = m], and Berl [ = q] are, as Charles indicates, not entirely accurate, but, apart from this, Flemming’s text-edition and translation are in many ways the most convenient and helpful of the tools hitherto available for the study of Enoch, since Flemming’s judgement on textual matters was often more sensible than that of Charles. The major difference between the editions of Flemming and Charles is that the latter provides a larger number of textual variants than the former. This increase is partly, but not entirely, the result of the use of manuscripts ignored by, or unknown to, Flemming.⁶¹

Later Knibb added: Charles’s text-edition contains the greatest amount of information hitherto available for the study of the Ethiopic text of Enoch, and certainly from this point of view his edition is superior to that of Flemming. Furthermore, his collations—although there are inevitably misprints in his edition—seem for the most part to be accurate. On the negative side, it should perhaps be pointed out that a fair proportion of the variants which Charles gives are of a purely orthographic character, and it may be questioned whether variants of this type should stand in the apparatus. Again, the overwhelming mass of information provided by Charles and the manner in which it is organized sometimes make the use ⁶¹ The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A new edition in the light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1978) 2.4.

   

79

and interpretation of his evidence difficult. Despite this his text-edition is of considerable importance, and provides a very valuable tool for the study of Enoch. In any case, since Charles there has been neither a new edition of the Ethiopic text of Enoch nor a new translation, and while there have been various studies dealing with particular aspects of the text of this book, as well as various relevant manuscript discoveries, there has been no comprehensive re-examination of the Ethiopic text.⁶²

Knibb issued a work whose sub-title identifies it as a new edition of Ethiopic Enoch, but it is an edition in a different sense than those produced by Dillmann, Flemming, and Charles. That is, he did not establish an eclectic text of the book on the basis of the readings in the manuscripts but used one manuscript as the base, and photos of it serve as the text. Against this one manuscript he collated the readings of many others. So, in Knibb’s publication one will not find a critical text but will encounter a very large amount of textual data accurately recorded. Because of the nature of Knibb’s edition, it is still valid to say that Charles’s was the last critical edition of the Ethiopic text of Enoch to be published (see below for more recent discoveries).

The Context for Charles’s 1912 Volume on Enoch The final entry in Charles’s great trio of works on the Book of Enoch appeared nineteen years after the first and six years after the critical edition. There is really little to add about the context for the publication beyond what has already been said regarding Charles’s previous two books. Just one major study of Enoch appeared from 1906 to 1912—François Martin’s Le livre d’Hénoch of 1906. Martin’s work contains a lengthy introduction (xv–clii) in which he treated the sorts of topics Charles addressed in his introductions but had more to say about the teachings in the booklets (xix–lii) and provided both a description of earlier studies (e.g., in his section on “Le problème littéraire” [lxii–lxxxviii]) and a full bibliography of publications on Enoch (cxli–cli). He largely accepted the divisions Charles had traced in 1893. After considering chs. 1–5 which he viewed as an introduction to the whole book, he dealt with the five principal parts: 6–36, 37–71, 72–82, 83–90, and 91–105, with an appendix on 106–8. Charles summarized Martin’s conclusions and stated:

⁶² The Ethiopic Book of Enoch, 2.5–6.

80    ( – ) “There are many ingenious suggestions in Professor Martin’s Commentary, some of which I have accepted with due recognition” (1912, xlvi).

The Book The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch⁶³ Translated from the editor’s Ethiopic text and edited with the Introduction Notes and Indexes of the first edition wholly recast enlarged and rewritten together with a reprint from the editor’s text of the Greek fragments by R. H. Charles, D. Litt., D.D., Fellow of Merton College, Fellow of the British Academy (Oxford: Clarendon, 1912).⁶⁴ Charles had been planning a new edition of the translation/commentary for some time as we learn from a letter he wrote to R. W. Chapman,⁶⁵ the secretary of Oxford University Press (OUP, March 11, 1908). It mostly concerns his edition of the Greek version of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, but towards the end he told Chapman: “I will call at the Press on my return [from a holiday], and we can then discuss the details of the 2nd ed of Enoch.” Charles opened the Preface by declaring: This is not so much a second edition as a new book. A brief comparison of the first edition [the 1893 volume] and the present work will make this clear even to the cursory reader. Alike in the translation and in the commentary it forms a vast advance on its predecessor. I cannot claim to be satisfied with it even as it stands, and yet twenty additional years spent in Apocalyptic and Biblical studies have not, I would fain hope, been fruitless with regard to the present work. (v)

Further along in the Preface he wrote about what he termed a revolutionary and a non-revolutionary feature of the book. The revolutionary feature, one he had mentioned in his 1906 edition (e.g., ix), was “the editor’s discovery ⁶³ He could refer to it as 1 Enoch because 2 Enoch, as the Slavonic Enoch came to be called, had been published in 1896 by himself and Morfill (see below, Chapter 2). ⁶⁴ Charles dedicated the book to “the Warden and Fellows of Merton College.” He had become a Fellow there in 1910, his first permanent position at Oxford. The warden in 1912 was Thomas Bowman, a mathematician also versed in classics, who held the post from 1904–36. The position of warden was held for life, but Bowman apparently became somewhat of a recluse and finally resigned under pressure from the tutors and others (G. H. Martin and J. R. L. Highfield, A History of Merton College, Oxford [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997] 325–6, 337–8). ⁶⁵ For more on Chapman and the role of the secretary, see Part 2 Chapter 8 below on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.

   

81

of the poetical structure of a considerable portion of the work” (v). Recognizing poetry in numerous passages had major implications for his work of “correcting” the text. By its means the lost original of the text is not infrequently recovered, phrases and clauses recognized as obvious interpolations, and not a few lines restored to their original context, whose claims to a place in the text were hitherto ignored on the ground of the weakness of their textual attestation. (v)

Uncovering what Charles took to be poetic units thus led him to make textual decisions about what did and did not belong and even about the location of lines, at times in defiance of the manuscript testimony. His translation of 1 Enoch 5:6–7 is one example among many. It should be remembered that for the 1912 translation Charles used the Greek text that had become available too late for him to incorporate fully into the 1893 translation; it is longer than the Ethiopic for this passage and accounts for many changes in his 1912 rendition. But Charles’s rearrangement of the lines in 1912 is the striking feature (the lowercase letters indicate the actual order of the lines in the manuscripts for each verse). 1 Enoch 5:6–7 (1893) 6. In those days ye shall give your name for an eternal execration unto all the righteous, and they will evermore execrate you as sinners—you together with (all other) sinners.

1 Enoch 5:6–7 (1912) 6.a. In those days ye shall make your names an eternal execration unto all the righteous b. And by you shall all who curse, curse. c. And all the sinners and godless shall imprecate by you, 7.c. And for you the godless there shall be a curse.

7. But for the elect there will be light and joy and peace, and they will inherit the earth; but upon you, ye ungodly, there will be execration.

6.d. And all the . . . shall rejoice, e. And there shall be forgiveness of sins, f. And every mercy and peace and forbearance: g. There shall be salvation unto them, a goodly light.

82    ( – ) i. And for all of you sinners there shall be no salvation, j. But on you all shall abide a curse. 7.a. But for the elect there shall be light, and grace and peace, b. And they shall inherit the earth. Such drastic recasting of the text required plenty of explanation. Commenting on the two verses, he wrote in 1912: I have been obliged to rearrange the text of these verses, which is certainly in disorder. Thus in v. 6 there are ten lines,⁶⁶ one of which—the eighth (6 h) . . . is a doublet of 7 b. Strangely enough this line is repeated in an impossible place in v. 8. Now when we excise this line we have in vv. 6–7 the following arrangement: a tristich, a tetrastich, a distich, and a tristich. This of course cannot be right. Removing the tetrastich from consideration, 6 d e f g, which is right, we have a tristich, a distich, and a tristich. Now the first tristich deals with the curse that will befall sinners in many forms. A fourth line is wanting that deals with the same subject. There are actually two suitable, either the last line of v. 6 . . . or the last line of v. 7 . . . . But 6 j follows closely on 6 i; hence we have found the missing line of the first stanza in 7 e. Thus we have two complete tetrastichs in v. 6, i.e. 6 a b c, 7 c and 6 d e f g. It is now obvious that the remaining distich in v. 6 belongs to the distich in v. 7, and thus the stanza in v. 7 is completed. (11 n.)

The various features of the text that Charles considered impossible or clearly wrong are ones that did not fit his sense of how the poetry should have worked; hence he made changes without manuscript support. Such radical surgery—reordering that relies to a large extent on what seemed right to a twentieth century European reader working with translations, not the Aramaic text of the verses⁶⁷—remains a stunning feature of Charles’s work (and of many of his contemporaries) that detracts from its otherwise abiding value. ⁶⁶ He was referring to the longer Greek text. ⁶⁷ Verse 6 survives on 4QEna, but just a few letters can be read so that it offers little help in assessing Charles’s reworking of the text (for an analysis of the evidence, see Knibb, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch, 2.66). The Qumran copies of parts of 1 Enoch will be treated at the end of the chapter.

   

83

It should be added that Charles’s “corrections” of readings were certainly not confined to rearranging poetic lines. Another striking emendation, made first in 1912, occurs at 71:14: 71:14 (1893) And he came to me and greeted me with his voice, and said unto me: ‘Thou art the son of man who art born unto righteousness, and righteousness abides over thee and the righteousness of the Head over thee and the righteousness of the Head of Days forsakes thee not.’

71:14 (1912) And he (i.e. the angel) came to me and greeted me with His voice, and said unto me: ‘This is the Son of Man who is born unto righteousness, And righteousness abides over him, And the righteousness of the Head of Days forsakes him not.’⁶⁸

This is an instance in which he altered the content. Charles, like many other readers of Enoch, found it implausible that the son of man, who seems to be someone other than Enoch in the earlier parts of the Similitudes (1 Enoch 37–71)—Enoch frequently sees him in his visions—is now suddenly at the end of the booklet identified as Enoch. That is, he would have been, unawares, looking at himself in the visions. Charles, therefore, rewrote the text rather than taking the safer course of translating the readings present in the Ethiopic copies (the only witnesses for the Similitudes) and confining his suspicions about them to textual notes.⁶⁹ But he had to do more in the context than make the changes he marked with bold font. In 1912 (but not in 1893) he claimed that a passage had been lost just before this verse. So, in his translation, after v. 13, he inserted: “[Lost passage wherein the Son of Man was described as accompanying the Head of Days, and Enoch asked one of the angels (as in 46³) concerning the Son of Man as to who he was.].” Because of his emendations in v. 14 he also had to change the pronouns in v. 16 (four times) from the second person forms in the manuscripts (“your/you” = Enoch) to “his/him” = the son of man (a being other than Enoch). The feature of the 1912 translation that Charles identified as nonrevolutionary was the commentary. He said that it followed the principles set forth in the 1893 volume, ones now widely accepted in the field. “The

⁶⁸ Charles printed the words of the angel as poetry in 1912 but as prose in 1893. ⁶⁹ In 1893 he categorized ch. 71 as an addition to the Similitudes and considered the use of “son of man” in it as differing from occurrences in the earlier chapters (183–4).

84    ( – ) critical advance made in the present volume is not of a revolutionary character, but consists rather in a more detailed application of the principles of criticism pursued in the first edition” (v–vi). In the Preface Charles directed words of exhortation to his fellow biblical scholars. In 1893 he had noted how indispensable knowledge of Enoch was for students of the New Testament. Now he added that it was of the utmost importance for Old Testament scholars as well, especially in their study of prophecy. “To the biblical scholar and to the student of Jewish and Christian theology, 1 Enoch is the most important Jewish work written between 200 .. and 100 ..” (vi). Such comments are what might be expected from an advocate of a new field of study, but Charles then penned a paragraph for Jewish scholars that makes for painful reading today, though it may not have sounded objectionable in his time: I cannot help expressing here my deep regret that Jewish scholars are still so backward in recognizing the value of this literature for their own history. Apocalyptic is the true child of Prophecy, and became its true representative to the Jews from the unhappy moment that the Law won an absolute autocracy in Judaism, and made the utterance of God-sent prophetic men impossible except through the medium of Pseudepigrapha, some of which, like Daniel, gained an entrance despite the Law into the O. T. Canon. It is true that eminent Jewish scholars in America and elsewhere have in part recognized the value of Apocalyptic literature, but, as a whole, Orthodox Judaism still confesses and still champions the one-sided Judaism, which came into being after the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 .., a Judaism lopped in the main of its spiritual and prophetic side and given over all but wholly to a legalistic conception of religion. It is not strange that since that disastrous period Judaism became to a great extent a barren faith, and lost its leadership in the spiritual things of the world. (vi)

Charles devoted almost all his prodigious scholarship to texts from pre-70 .. Judaism. He had little good to say about anything Jewish thereafter or indeed about the role of the law in pre-70  literature. The Introduction to the new volume occupies more than 100 pages (ix–cx), nearly twice the length of its counterpart in the 1893 book. Charles continued to hold that the Jewish apocalyptic writings “almost alone represented the advance of the higher theology in Judaism, which culminated in Christianity” (ix). He did not hesitate to say that some of the writers whose words found their way into the Book of Enoch “belonged to the true succession of the

   

85

prophets” (x). The dominance of the law, regarded as the last word from God, forced these Spirit-led men to resort to pseudepigraphy to gain a hearing (a point he would make in many of his publications). The arrangement of the 1912 work mirrors that of the 1893 volume but offers more material in many places. New sections in the General Introduction treat “The Title” (§2, xii–xiii) and “The Canonicity” (§3, xiii–xiv). Gone are the little section he had called “Emendations” (§4, 5–6) and the one on “The Object of Apocalyptic Literature” (§9, 22–4). In §13 (“Characteristics and Dates of the Different Elements”) he assigned chs. 72–82, the section he could not fix chronologically in 1893, to a time before 110 .. because Jubilees, a book that he thought was written around this time, refers to it (liii).⁷⁰ Other new items in 1912 are §14 “The Poetical Element” (lvi), §15 “Original Languages of Chapters VI–XXXVI—Aramaic; of I–V, XXXVII– CIV—Hebrew” (lvii–lxx), and §17 “The Hebrew Book of Enoch” (lxxix–lxxxi). The format of the book changed somewhat from its predecessor. This time Charles did not distinguish between textual and exegetical notes. There is just one category of notes printed in smaller font beneath the translation; they regularly occupy half or more of the space on a page. He continued his practice of placing a special introductory section before each of the five units in 1 Enoch. He was, naturally, able to incorporate the evidence from the Gizeh Greek text in his translation and notes on 1:1–32:6. The 1912 volume contains two indexes familiar from the 1893 book: I The Gizeh Greek Fragment (i–xxxii) and the Greek Fragments Preserved in Syncellus’ Chronographia (273–305). II The Son of Man; Its Meaning in Jewish Apocalyptic and the New Testament (306–9). Charles still maintained that the “authors of all the sections belong to the Chasids or their successors the Pharisees” (xi), and, as in 1893, this identification allowed him to name the protagonists in the various parts of the Book of Enoch. He spoke about the nature of these authors in the section devoted to Theology (§20; it incorporates a good amount of material that is more scattered in 1893).

⁷⁰ He wrote regarding the annual calendar in 1 Enoch 72–82: “The writer puts forward a year of 364 days, but this he did only through sheer incapacity for appreciating anything better; for he must have been acquainted with the solar year of 3651/4 days” (150). The Qumran discoveries, made after Charles’s death, have provided a different perspective on the Enoch calendar.

86    ( – ) The books or sections of Enoch were written by orthodox Jews, who belonged to the apocalyptic or prophetic side of Judaism, and by Judaism is here meant, not the one-sided legalistic Judaism that passed as the sole and orthodox Judaism after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 .., but the larger and more comprehensive Judaism that preceded it. This larger Judaism embraced both the prophetic and the legalistic elements. No religion can make progress without both elements, and, if progress in spiritual development is to be realized, the prophetic element is absolutely indispensable. Most Jewish writers have ascribed the Book of Enoch and kindred literature to the Essenes. But this is indefensible. (ciii)⁷¹

That the authors of the Enochic booklets were the kind of Pharisees Charles envisioned was not one of his more lasting contributions to the field.

Reviews A few review notices should be mentioned. William Fairweather wrote a highly appreciative one in The American Journal of Theology 17 (1913) 273–4. He thought that everyone who studied such literature was in Charles’s debt for all his books on Enoch. “Not only does he write with competent knowledge and critical acumen, but there is also about his work a business-like air that commends it to the reader. While never diffuse, his treatment conveys at the same time an impression of thoroughness and sufficiency” (273). He hoped that the learned author may still further enhance the peculiar service he has rendered to theological study through his researches in the field of Jewish apocalyptic by bringing together into one full-orbed presentation the scattered rays of light thrown upon the New Testament by the pseudepigrapha as a whole. (274)

He wrote favorably about the translation and introductions and thought the notes

⁷¹ As reasons for denying an Essene ascription he mentioned the ancient reports that the Essenes rejected marriage and animal sacrifices—both of which he seems to have misunderstood.

   

87

give evidence of finished scholarship, wide reading, untiring industry, and sound judgment. It may not be wise to accept without question all the author’s critical emendations of the text, especially where he only ‘feels’ that it is corrupt, but often they are ingenious, and his arguments in support of them weighty and convincing. (274)

Max L. Margolis included the book in his lengthy review article “Recent Biblical Literature,” Jewish Quarterly Review 4 (1913) 249–302 (290–2 deal with it). He spoke highly of Charles’s contributions to the field but pointed out some errors in Hebrew and Aramaic. More importantly, he addressed, from a Jewish perspective, Charles’s claims about a higher theology in the apocalypses that came to fruition in Christianity, while Judaism withered without it. If, as Charles maintains (p. x, e.g.,) the Book of Enoch and similar apocalyptic works represent the “higher theology” which culminated in Christianity, the rejection of that literature by contemporaneous Judaism and the lack of interest therein by “Orthodox” Jewish students cease to be an enigma. There is no reason of course, why a literature which, there is ground for believing, originated in sectarian circles should not excite the interest of all students of history, whether Jews or Christians. But the estimate of the ‘higher theology,” no less than that of its culminating-point Christianity, will naturally differ according as to whether the legalistic Judaism of Mishnah and Talmud is pronounced a ‘barren faith’ or appraised as a great spiritual potency ever upholding the purity of the monotheistic religion against all the attempts within and without to dilute it in the waters of all sorts of syncretistic systems. (291–2)

His is a polite reaction to the sort of degrading comments about Judaism that Jewish scholars endured at the time. A different kind of review of Charles’s work came from the pen of W. O. E. Oesterley in his Introduction to the 1917 republication of Charles’s 1912 translation (see below). Oesterley, for example, disputed Charles’s position that the writers of the Enoch booklets were Pharisees. He agreed that the pre-Maccabean ones came from Hasidim, but the bulk of the book presents some non-Pharisaic positions, e.g., regarding the Messiah, the attitude toward the law (e.g., xvii–xviii). After 1912, two publications of the Book of Enoch were to appear under Charles’s name. Neither represents new research on his part, but both, particularly the first, were to become widely disseminated.

88    ( – ) 1. The “Book of Enoch” in Charles’s 1913 The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (2.163–281).⁷² None of the introductory material he wrote for the two-volume set explains exactly what went into the many pages on the “Book of Enoch,” but it is clearly a somewhat abbreviated version of the material in his 1912 translation and commentary. It is in this form that his work on Enoch was to become widely known and cited. 2. The Book of Enoch, with an Introduction by W.O.E. Oesterley (Translations of Early Documents Series 1 Palestinian Jewish Texts [Pre-Rabbinic]; London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1917). Oesterley (see above for his comments about attributing the various booklets of Enoch to Pharisaic authors) and G. H. Box, the series editor, thanked Canon Charles and the Delegates of the Oxford University Press for permission to reprint the translation from Charles’s 1912 volume. The translation is published without the notes, but with the system of brackets, parentheses, and bold font that indicate, among other functions, the sorts of editorial modifications Charles made. If readers wanted to know why he intervened in the text, they would have to consult the 1912 volume. Several of Charles’s other translations of texts were to be reproduced in the same series.

Legacy Where does Charles’s work with the Book of Enoch stand today? He remains a towering figure in scholarship on the ancient work—the indexes of recent publications reveal how frequently he is referenced in the secondary literature. Textual discoveries that took place after his books on Enoch were written have unavoidably rendered his contributions somewhat dated. Since his time the fourth-century Chester Beatty Michigan Papyrus with a Greek text of 1 Enoch 97:6–107:3 has been published, along with other small pieces of the text in Greek, Syriac, and Coptic. The number of available copies in the Ethiopic language has also grown considerably. The major find, however, has been the fragments of Aramaic manuscripts from Qumran cave 4: 4Q201–2, 204–12 preserve parts of the Book of the Watchers, the Astronomical Book, the Book of Dreams, and the Epistle of Enoch. They range in date from ca. 200 .. to the early first century .. ⁷² The two volumes will be treated below.

   

89

While these finds have paved the way for advances on Charles’s work, the respect in which his contributions are still held emerges from words written about them by more recent translators. In 1985 Mathew Black issued The Book of Enoch or I Enoch: A New English Edition.⁷³ He wrote: it seemed best, instead of attempting to produce an entirely new version, to try to build on Charles’s revised version of 1912; and this I have endeavoured to do. So far from seeming to be taking liberties with the work of a renowned scholar, I feel I am paying tribute to the enduring character of his work. And for kindly allowing me to do so, I am grateful to the Oxford University Press. (VII)

He assessed the ongoing use of Charles’s 1912 volume as evidence of “the success of Charles’s efforts: there were some successful and some unsuccessful guesses, but there were many more textually and philologically sound observations and insights” (VII). George Nickelsburg, author of the Hermeneia commentary on 1 Enoch, included in it a history of scholarship on the book.⁷⁴ After describing earlier work in the nineteenth century, he referred to Charles’s 1893 book as ushering in “a new generation of scholarship” (110). He devoted an entire section of his survey to “Work on 1 Enoch from R. H. Charles to the Discovery of the Qumran Scrolls” (111–14). The generation of Enoch scholarship from 1890 to the beginning of World War I was dominated by Robert Henry Charles, a scholar with a rare and broad combination of intellectual talents and interests: classical and Semitic linguistic skills, a mastery of the newly emerging corpus of ancient Jewish apocalypses, theological interests, historical and literary inclinations, and a critical judgment expressed with candor and fairness. (112)

Nickelsburg did caution about a major methodological concern with Charles’s approach: “Charles’s rational Western mind, with its desire for consistency and its aversion to symbolic narrative, sometimes hindered his understanding of the ancient apocalyptic texts that he was otherwise so well informed and gifted to interpret” (112).

⁷³ Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 7; Leiden: Brill. ⁷⁴ 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2001).

90    ( – ) One final note: according to the indexes in the two volumes of the Hermeneia commentary on the Book of Enoch, Charles is referenced more often than any other scholar, including Dillmann.⁷⁵ The second early Jewish text on which Charles worked, Jubilees—the subject of the following chapter—is a very different kind of book. On it he was also to produce publications that have remained important to this day.

⁷⁵ The second volume is Nickelsburg and VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 37–82 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011).

Chapter 2 The Book of Jubilees Before turning to his work with Jubilees, we should look at some aspects of Charles’s situation in Oxford. While he was researching the Book of Enoch ca. 1890–93, he was working on other projects as well so that in just a few years he produced an amazing amount of technical material. We have seen that he held no official post at Oxford, though he had incorporated at Exeter College in January 1891. Unless he had some position of which there is no record, he may have had a relatively large amount of time on his hands, time he devoted to gaining a comprehensive knowledge of Jewish literature from 200 .. to 100 .. Furthermore, he and his wife Mary had no biological children. In his obituary of Charles, Burkitt wrote: “they had no family of their own, but their home was made bright and cheerful by a number of nieces, whom Dr. and Mrs. Charles brought up as their own children till they married.”¹ So, the responsibilities of family life, while they existed, may have been somewhat limited for him, perhaps freeing up additional time for research. We know of scholars in Oxford who supported his work. “Dr. Cheyne’s friendship and advice were a constant help to Charles, though the latter found himself compelled to part company with his friend on certain important questions.”² Cheyne, as noted earlier, was important in advocating highercritical positions in England and exercised influence on Charles,³ as did Sanday whose seminar Charles attended from 1890–95 and from which he gained a critical perspective on the Scriptures. Thus, both men were important factors in shaping his career and ways of thinking. While Charles had time for his work, there were obstacles beyond his control.

¹ “Robert Henry Charles 1855–1931,” 437. Recall that he thanked his niece Madeleine La Vie Charles for her assistance with the Greek index to his 1906 edition of Enoch. In 1925 he would conduct the marriage ceremony of another niece, Eileen Cranstoun Charles. See Part 3, Chapter 1. ² D’Arcy, “A Brief Memoir,” xxv. Cheyne, no stranger to controversy, suffered from a serious illness and developed bizarre views later in his career—a matter that Charles treated in his obituary of Cheyne (“Thomas Kelly Cheyne 1841–1915,” Proceedings of the British Academy for 1915–16, 545–51). ³ He, as noted in the previous chapter, first suggested to Charles that he publish a volume on Enoch.

R. H. Charles: A Biography. James C. VanderKam, Oxford University Press. © James C. VanderKam 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192869289.003.0004

92    ( – ) Study was, however, interrupted by constant acute headaches, arising probably from the effects of previous illness. A permanent cure most happily resulted from a suggestion made by Mrs. Charles. She recommended some manual activity and fixed upon wood-carving. Friends who visited their house in later years did not realise perhaps that the large and elaborately carved pieces of furniture in their drawing-room had contributed in no small degree to the accomplishment of the life-work of a great scholar.⁴

In referencing “previous illness,” D’Arcy may have meant the results of overwork in his three East London parishes but possibly the effects from bouts with the flu while in Germany. At any rate, wood-carving proved salutary.

1. Chair made and carved by R. H. Charles (courtesy of Ripon College Cuddesdon)

⁴ D’Arcy, “A Brief Memoir,” xxiii. We will return to this topic in speaking about Charles’s last years.

   

93

The second major Jewish pseudepigraph that Charles treated was the Book of Jubilees on which he eventually published two volumes. The dates of his earliest publications on Jubilees suggest that he was seriously engaged with it while he was first writing on the Book of Enoch. In the case of Jubilees, however, he reversed the order of publication he had adopted for Enoch: first he issued a critical text (1895) and then a translation/commentary (1902). For a century the two were standards throughout the scholarly world and continue today to be extremely important.

The Contents of the Book of Jubilees Jubilees presents itself as a revelation that God gave to Moses on Mt. Sinai and that he communicated to the great leader through an Angel of the Presence. The message takes the form of retelling scriptural stories, starting with creation and extending as far as the Israelites’ arrival at Mt. Sinai. Thus, familiar narratives from Genesis 1 to Exodus 24 figure in it, but they are dressed in a new literary garb that conveys the views and interests of the author. Among the novel features is a concerted effort to date events such that the history leading up to Israel’s entry into Canaan lasts fifty jubilee periods of forty-nine years each (hence the name Jubilees). The book holds a certain fascination as the oldest sustained interpretation of the early scriptural narratives.

The Context for Charles’s 1893–95 Translation and 1895 Volume Jubilees, in a number of respects, experienced the same fate as the Book of Enoch. When Charles dealt with it in the early 1890s, the text of the book had been available in Europe fewer than fifty years. In antiquity it had exercised some influence among Jews and Christians—probably not as much as the Book of Enoch—but it had disappeared after its appeal waned. As a result, and again like the Book of Enoch, its existence and some of its contents were known for centuries in the West only through a series of citations and references in Greek and Latin sources. These materials had been collected a couple of times, but the full text was unavailable in Europe until the midnineteenth century. The re-emergence of Jubilees in the West came about in much the same way as for Enoch but not until 1844. In an essay published that year

94    ( – ) Heinrich Ewald⁵ of the University of Tübingen, perhaps the most famous Old Testament scholar of his time, announced the arrival in Tübingen of a number of manuscripts from Ethiopia. A missionary, Johann Ludwig Krapf (1810–81), who was from Derendingen, a town located near Tübingen, and who had graduated from the university with a degree in theology in 1834, was responsible for obtaining them. Krapf, who worked in Ethiopia from 1837–42⁶ amid great difficulties, danger, and personal loss (including the deaths of his wife and daughter), had proved particularly successful in the search for manuscripts. He had gone to the most southerly parts of old Ethiopia, where he visited remote monasteries and gathered a tremendous number of manuscripts. Krapf sent a few of them to Europe in their original form but most in paper copies that he had commissioned Ethiopian scribes to prepare. Use of leather would have made the copying process too expensive, not to mention the difficulties in transporting them, once completed.⁷ Ewald had access to a number of Krapf ’s manuscripts and described them in the article referenced above. The first to which he turned his attention was a copy of a work called kufālē (Divisions) in the Ge‘ez language. One of Krapf ’s Abyssinian scribes had made the copy, so it dated from between 1837 and 1842. Ewald recognized it as an Ethiopic translation of the book known in Greek and Latin sources as Jubilees or the Little Genesis. It, like Enoch, had found a place in the Old Testament in Ethiopia where the scriptural canon was larger than in other churches. Their biblical status ensured that new copies of them continued to be made.⁸ Regarding this work, from whose name alone one could learn little, Ewald wrote: . . . as soon as I examined the manuscript more closely, I found that the name [kufālē] was in fact much abbreviated and could hardly be the original. In the work itself a genitive always follows it, like kufālē mawā‘el, i.e., the division of the days, or the like. After I made myself somewhat more familiar with the rather verbosely written work, I soon convinced myself that it must be the

⁵ “Ueber die Aethiopischen Handschriften zu Tübingen,” Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 5 (1844) 164–201. ⁶ In 1842 he received a doctorate from Tübingen for his work with Ethiopian languages. ⁷ The information about Krapf comes from “Johann Ludwig Krapf,” Wikipedia, last accessed 7-28-2019; and Paul E. Kretzmann, Johann Ludwig Krapf: The Explorer-Missionary of Northeastern Africa (Columbus, OH: The Book Concern, no date). ⁸ Ewald (“Ueber die Aethiopischen Handschriften zu Tübingen,” 177, n. 1) reported that Hiob Ludolf several decades earlier had made mention of a book named kufālē, based on a reference to it in another Ethiopic text called the Book of the Mystery of Heaven and Earth.

   

95

very apocryphon to which the Greeks gave the clearer name τα Ιωβηλαια [ta Iōbēlaia] = the Jubilees, or Λεπτη Γενεσις [Leptē Genesis] = the Little Genesis—a book that to my knowledge was preserved in full in no other place than Ethiopia. Since this work deserves to be known among us little less than the Book of Enoch, I hope to be able to publish a translation of it soon. In the meantime, I content myself with making note of its existence, without allowing myself here to go further into its character. (177–8, my translation)

Ewald added that the manuscript lacked two traits of Ge‘ez texts—the Trinitarian formula at the beginning and “Amen” at the end. From this he concluded that the work it contained was rather old compared to many other Ethiopian books and that it came to Ethiopia from elsewhere. It was certainly fortunate that someone so learned in ancient Jewish and Christian literature as Ewald was the first European reader to see the composition and identify it. Ewald was not privileged to offer the initial translation of Jubilees to the learned world. That honor fell to his student August Dillmann, the scholar we have met in connection with Enoch. Dillmann explained⁹ that Ewald had been prevented from preparing a translation of Krapf ’s copy of Jubilees by other obligations and by his distance from Tübingen. In 1848 Ewald had returned to Göttingen, the school from which he had been dismissed for political reasons in 1837, and thus did not have access to the manuscript housed in the library in Tübingen.¹⁰ Ewald, not wishing to deprive scholars of the work any longer, invited Dillmann to make the translation. Dillmann commented that the one copy of the Ethiopic text made by Krapf ’s scribe was so riddled with errors that it was impossible to present an edition of it. In fact, even translating it was exceedingly difficult. Grammatical and spelling mistakes Dillmann could easily correct. Where there were errors in content, he tried to ascertain the meaning from the context or from the Hebrew version of Genesis; the resulting changes he printed in italics and enclosed in brackets. He left utterly obscure passages untranslated and marked their locations with brackets around a series of periods. He acknowledged that the translation could not claim to convey the exact details of the ancient text,

⁹ “Das Buch der Jubiläen oder die kleine Genesis,” Jahrbücher der Biblischen Wissenschaft 2 (1850) 230–56; 3 (1851) 1–96 (Ewald was editor of the journal). The next two paragraphs above summarize Dillmann’s comments on pp. 230–1. ¹⁰ He had refused “to accept the suspension of the constitution of Hanover” (J. W. Rogerson, “Ewald, Georg Heinrich August [1803–75],” in John H. Hayes, editor, Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation [2 vols.; Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1999] 1.363).

96    ( – ) but it did permit one to recognize its nature and chief points. He added that he was responsible for the division of Jubilees into fifty chapters. He did not subdivide the chapters into verses, something that would prove inconvenient for readers over the next several decades. Dillmann published his introduction to and annotated translation of the only available copy of Ethiopic Jubilees in 1850–51, six to seven years after Ewald had announced its existence (1851 was also the year in which his critical text of Ethiopic Enoch appeared.) Because he was the first to treat the text, Dillmann set the agenda for the discussion of Jubilees for years to come. He faced the pioneer’s task of situating the book in its ancient setting while having very little evidence, other than the book itself, for answering basic questions about it. Dillmann, however, was just the person to take up the challenge and furnished an insightful introduction (72–96). As for the book’s purpose, he highlighted the fact that the writer wished to establish the temporal sequence of the early biblical history, just as the book’s title “the Division of the Days/Times” indicates. For his chronology, the ancient author used jubilee periods of forty-nine (not fifty) years as a basic chronological unit; these he divided into seven “weeks of years,” each of which consisted of seven years. The writer also interpreted difficult passages in the scriptural accounts, aided by Jewish exegetical traditions regarding Genesis and the first part of Exodus. To make the old story fit the needs of the age in which he lived, he subjected the history from the beginning to Moses to a thorough revision, not to suppress it, but in order to expand it.¹¹ Jubilees is related to Genesis and the first part of Exodus, wrote Dillmann, as an expanded targum—an expository rendering of scriptural antiquity for the edification of the writer’s contemporaries (72–6). The next sections of Dillmann’s comments deal with these characteristics. 1. Reckoning of time: the writer, who placed Israel’s entry into the land at the end of 2450 years from creation, was aware that a new jubilee period began at that point—according to Leviticus 25:2, the jubilee and sabbatical year system would take effect when Israel was in Canaan. He built his chronology around this given. The many chronological mistakes in his manuscript (he listed a substantial number on 77–8, n. 2) Dillmann attributed to a translator or transcriber. ¹¹ Dillmann noted that the term λεπτη [leptē] in λεπτη Γενεσις ([leptē Genesis] Little Genesis)—a book that is as long as or longer than Genesis—expresses the idea, not of size, but of “einzelne punkte” (individual points) of Genesis, a sort of compendium (“Das Buch der Jubiläen oder die Kleine Genesis,” 76).

   

97

2. Solving problems in Genesis-Exodus: Dillmann provided a long list of passages illustrating the ways in which the author addressed gaps in the scriptural stories. Examples include furnishing the names of patriarchal wives to show that they came from appropriate families and showing that Jacob actually tithed at Bethel as he had promised (compare Genesis 28:12–22 with 35:1–4). 3. Adding stories to Genesis-Exodus: Dillmann provided another sizable list of examples. Among them are accounts regarding the death of Cain and wars fought by Jacob and his sons. Some of these the writer drew from other sources, some came from his own pen. With his vast knowledge of ancient literature, Dillmann spotted parallels to such stories in a range of other texts. 4. Retrojecting ideas current in the author’s time back into the early history: under this heading, Dillmann drew attention to (a) dogmatic matters such as the teachings about angels and demons; (b) the ancestors as models of piety who were obedient to the laws of Moses; (c) hatred toward Israel’s old enemies such as the Canaanites; (d) the illusion of Israel’s superiority over other peoples. Evil spirits rule the others, while God alone rules Israel whose priests are like the angels of the presence; (e) glorification of the law and religious system of Israel (the Sabbath and the festivals, for which the author gives a historical origin, existed from the beginning, and they, like all of the law, have a heavenly origin). Jubilees pictures a partial revelation of the law to the ancestors and a stream of secret teaching passed along through the generations from the beginning. Books written and read by the ancestors are often mentioned in it. Continuing under the fourth heading, (f) the writer of Jubilees makes the story of Genesis more consistent and thus better (or so he thought): An example is that Abraham, Isaac, and Rebekah interact with their grandchildren—contact that would have been possible according to the chronology of Genesis but that is never mentioned in it. (g) The writer scatters here and there views from his own time regarding the gradual approach of destruction, judgment, and the messianic future. 5. Finally, the writer of Jubilees draws a number of inferences from the text (e.g., a prohibition of public nudity from the story of clothing the first couple), explains the meaning of obscure words, and reads customs and practices of his time into the early history (76–87).

98    ( – ) Dillmann next took up the original language and date of Jubilees. He recognized that the book was thoroughly Jewish but did not think that the author’s ethnic identity settled whether he wrote in Greek or in Aramaic/ Hebrew. After all, in Ethiopia, from which the one copy of Jubilees came, biblical works were translated from Greek models. Moreover, there are many agreements between Jubilees and the Septuagint in wording, names, numbers, and other features (he provided a list of examples, 88, n. 2). Yet, alongside these are agreements with the Hebrew text of Genesis as well as Hebrew/ Aramaic etymologies of names. Hence, if the author wrote in Greek, he must have known Hebrew/Aramaic; or if he wrote in Hebrew/Aramaic, the person who translated Jubilees into Greek would have been responsible for inserting the agreements with the Septuagint. Dillmann, in deciding between the options, considered Jerome’s testimony to be decisive. In one of his letters (#78, to Fabiola) Jerome reported finding Hebrew words in a book that the Jews called Jubilees. He thus indicated that the book was written in Hebrew/ Aramaic and was known to Jewish readers. Dillmann added that the familiar hatred harbored by Hebrew Jews for the Septuagint indicated that the person who translated Jubilees into Greek was the one who introduced Septuagintal readings into Jubilees. He concluded that the book was composed in Aramaic and showed a surprising freedom with regard to the biblical text, just as one finds in the targums (88–90). Determining the date of the book Dillmann found to be more difficult. The earliest references to it were by Epiphanius and Jerome at the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth century .. That period, however, was obviously too late for Jubilees. Dillmann’s evidence for the date of composition was its relation to other books: Jubilees used the Book of Enoch extensively, and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, which contains many of the same stories, shows signs of depending on Jubilees. Dillmann believed the Book of Enoch was written not long after the Parthian invasion of Palestine in 41 ..; therefore, Jubilees could not have been written before that time. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs was written shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 .. As a result, the author probably penned Jubilees in the first century .. (90–4).¹² Dillmann concluded his comments by surveying the uses later writers made of Jubilees, especially Byzantine chroniclers such as Syncellus. He discussed some of the problems in how they employed and identified (or did not

¹² In later publications he was to move the estimated date of composition a little earlier.

   

99

identify) evidence from Jubilees and the fact that at times they confused it with material taken from other sources such as Josephus (94–6). As soon as experts had Dillmann’s translation of Jubilees, they began writing about the book. Just four years later, Adolph Jellinek (1821–93) explored connections between Jubilees and several midrashim. In his Bet haMidrasch (1853–78), third part (issued in 1855), he published the texts of midrashim that offer material closely resembling passages in Jubilees. Jellinek maintained that Jubilees was an Essene work directed against Pharisaic views about the calendar (3.xi). The book’s opposition to these views, Jellinek argued, showed that Jubilees was composed at a time when the Jewish calendar was still flexible (3.xii). Another early contribution came from Bernhard Beer (1801–61) in Das Buch der Jubiläen und sein Verhältniss zu den Midraschim (1856). In the small monograph (80 pages) he dealt with Jellinek’s understanding of Jubilees and offered a comparison of the book with many midrashim. The evidence suggested to him that Jubilees was a sectarian composition (25–56). As it reflects the text of Genesis, Jubilees at times agrees with the Septuagint (against the Masoretic Text) in ways that could not be attributed to a translator, as Dillmann had maintained. Beer cited the extra generation in the patriarchal line after the flood (see Jubilees 8:1–4 for this Kainan), extra, that is, in comparison with the traditional Hebrew text of Genesis (the Masoretic Text; see Genesis 10:24). That extra generation, also found in the Septuagint, allowed the writer of Jubilees to say that Jacob arose after twenty-two generations, just as the Sabbath occurred after the twenty-two works of creation (Jubilees 2:23). It was, therefore, a structural feature of the book and most unlikely to be added by a translator (57–8). He finally determined that Jubilees came from Egypt where Samaritan (and other) influences affected the author (70–1). Zacharias Frankel (1801–75) agreed that Jubilees came from Egypt. He contended that the book was associated with the temple of Onias in Egypt and was written in Greek during the reign of the emperor Caligula (37–41 ..).¹³ One reason for rejecting Palestine as Jubilees’ place of origin was the difficulty scholars such as Beer and Frankel had in positing a nonRabbinic kind of Judaism in the land of Israel where, they assumed, more

¹³ “Das Buch der Jubiläen,” Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 5 (1856) 311–16, 380–400. He too saw that not all agreements with the Septuagint could have come from a translator and also cited the example of the extra generation in the post-flood genealogy.

100    ( – ) orthodox (that is, Pharisaic-Rabbinic) views prevailed and the Masoretic Text was the only form of the Bible. Not long after his translation appeared, Dillmann procured a second copy of Jubilees, an eighteenth-century manuscript, from Antoine d’Abbadie.¹⁴ Using the two copies to which he had access, he issued a critical text of the book in 1859: Mas:hafa Kufālē sive Liber Jubilaeorum.¹⁵ It was Dillmann’s : misfortune that his two manuscripts were among the poorest copies of Jubilees—something he could not have known fully at the time, although he described both as being saturated with errors. He designated the Tübingen copy T and the d’Abbadie manuscript A; the variant readings in the margins of A that came from another copy he labeled E (V–VI). As a result, fifteen years after Ewald had reported the existence of a complete copy of Jubilees, scholars could examine the text itself and not have to rely solely on Dillmann’s German translation of 1850–51.¹⁶ In 1861 Antonio Maria Ceriani (1828–1907), the librarian of the Ambrosian Library in Milan, published substantial sections from a Latin translation of Jubilees in “Fragmenta Parvae Genesis et Assumptionis Mosis ex Veteri Versione Latina,” in his Monumenta sacra et profana, vol. 1, fascicle 1, 15–54 (an introduction is on pp. 9–13; the text of another work, the Assumption of Moses, is on 55–62). He was able to decipher much of the text from the fifth or sixth-century palimpsest despite the fact that the translations of Jubilees and the Assumption of Moses are the underlying text that had been erased when the manuscript was reused. Jubilees occupies the first forty of the manuscript’s forty-eight folios.¹⁷ The Latin translation added considerably to the textual fund available for Jubilees—with many gaps it reproduces Jubilees 13:10–49:22 (altogether a little less than one-third of the full text)—and it was transcribed more than a millennium before Dillmann’s Ethiopic copies. In Monumenta Sacra et Profana, vol. 2, fascicle 1, 9–10 (published in 1863) Ceriani included a Syriac text that provided a list of the names of the patriarchal wives—from Cain’s wife to those of Jacob’s sons—taken from Jubilees. As he noted, he copied it from a manuscript in the British

¹⁴ It is #117 in d’Abbadie, Catalogue raisonné, 132–3. D’Abbadie reports that an Ethiopian Jew (a Falasha) sold it to him. See the preceding chapter for d’Abbadie’s copies of Enoch. ¹⁵ He dedicated the edition to d’Abbadie. ¹⁶ Dillmann raised the possibility of issuing a new translation but never produced one (see Mas:hafa : Kufālē sive Liber Jubilaeorum, X). ¹⁷ Ceriani reported that in its present state almost no two pages of the manuscript were connected; rather, there was a pile of separate pages that were not in order before he arranged them. The Latin translation is inscribed in uncial characters and lacks word divisions.

   

101

Museum, Add. 12154, folio 180. The existence of the Syriac text prompted the question whether Jubilees had also been translated into that ancient tongue. The introductory sentence to the list, which reads “The Names of the Wives of the Patriarchs According to the Book Called Jubilees among the Hebrews,” became part of the evidence favoring Hebrew as the original language of the book. In 1874 Hermann Rönsch (1821–88), a Latinist and expert in the form of the language in the Jubilees translation, published the most detailed study of the book to date: Das Buch der Jubiläen oder die Kleine Genesis. It begins with a chapter on the Latin manuscript itself followed by one regarding the Ethiopic version. In the third chapter he placed his own edition of the Latin translation (with notes) on the left-hand pages, and opposite them he set Dillmann’s Latin translation of Ethiopic Jubilees for the same sections (with notes giving variant readings and other comments). In November 1869 Rönsch had asked Dillmann to prepare the translation and was very grateful that he was willing to do so (6). For ease of comparison, Dillmann made his translation of the Ethiopic version conform as closely as possible to the wording of the Ambrosian manuscript. The two Latin texts occupy pp. 9–95 in the book. Dillmann’s Latin translation was based on a revised form of his 1859 critical text of Ethiopic Jubilees. Rönsch followed the presentation of the parallel Latin texts with a section (95–168) in which he commented on the Ambrosiana translation. In addition to studying the language of the text, Jubilees’ readings that agreed (or disagreed) with those of the Masoretic Text and Septuagint, and the chronological data in it, he devoted other units to topics such as the ancient testimonies to the book and its contents, ancient names for it, and its date of composition. Like Dillmann, he traced it to the first century .. and believed it opposed Christian teachings (see 518–29, where he dates it around 50–60 ..). By the 1870s, then, experts knew the full text of Jubilees through Dillmann’s translation of one manuscript and critical edition based on two. The number of available copies of Jubilees grew more slowly than for the Book of Enoch, and, also unlike the case of Enoch, there were no major finds of Greek texts. Scholars had access to large portions of a Latin translation of the book and the Syriac list of wives’ names from Jubilees. Some citations and allusions in early Christian literature and parallels in midrashic sources supplemented these textual materials. Among the topics that scholars debated were the date of the book and its original language, where the author lived, and his party affiliation. Dillmann continued to work with the evidence in order to refine his text and views. His “Beiträge aus dem Buch der Jubiläen zur Kritik des Pentateuch-Textes,”

102    ( – ) Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 1 (Berlin: Verlag der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1883) 324–40 was based in part on new textual data. He reported that he had collated a British Museum manuscript (Orient. 485) that contained Jubilees (it is the manuscript that also offered the best copy of Enoch).¹⁸ This was the manuscript that would be Charles’s chief witness in his edition of Jubilees. But Dillmann’s purpose in his 1883 essay was not so much to revise his edition of 1859 as to examine what Jubilees divulged about the Hebrew text of the first five books of the Bible. Dillmann compiled a list of eighty-nine readings in which Jubilees and the Masoretic Text agreed but differed in some way from the corresponding ones in the Septuagint. These readings indicated to his satisfaction that the author of Jubilees used a Hebrew text in his rewriting of Genesis-Exodus. Dillmann next drew up a list of cases in which Jubilees agreed with the Septuagint against the Masoretic Text. We should remember that some scholars explained these agreements by positing that the author wrote in Greek. Dillmann accounted for them in three ways. (1) Most of the agreements with the Septuagint came from the Greek (or Latin) translator of Jubilees. (2) A smaller number resulted when the writer adopted exegetical traditions incorporated into the Septuagint, especially for interpreting rare expressions or terms (one cannot always tell whether this was due to the author or translator). And (3) the remaining agreements (a substantial list) originated from a Hebrew text used by the author, one that was not identical with the Masoretic Text of the Pentateuch. The readings in this third category often agree with the Septuagint and/or the Samaritan Pentateuch but harmonize in full with neither. Jubilees is, therefore, a valuable witness to a Hebrew text of the Pentateuch in the first century .. This was the situation when Charles began to work on Jubilees. His first publication on Jubilees was a translation that appeared in four journal installments: “The Book of Jubilees, translated from a text based on two hitherto uncollated Ethiopic MSS.,” Jewish Quarterly Review 5 (1893) 703–8; 6 (1894) 184–217, 710–45; 7 (1895) 297–328. The 1893 unit furnished an introduction to his translation (703–8) where he reviewed the textual witnesses for the book and offered a justification for another rendering of Jubilees. The chief reason was that there was new material not available to

¹⁸ “Beiträge aus dem Buch der Jubiläen,” 324, n. 1 (he labeled it B, just as Charles would).

   

103

Dillmann when he published his German translation (1850–51) and edition (1859), namely, the Latin translation and two additional Ethiopic manuscripts that far exceeded in value the two Dillmann knew: B in the British Museum— Orient. 485—and A in the Bibliothèque nationale in Paris. Charles argued that the two, especially B, allowed many improvements on the text Dillmann had published and even on the revised version that underlay Dillmann’s partial Latin translation in Rönsch’s volume. Charles overstated the case when he claimed that both of his new texts were “hitherto uncollated,” since, as we have seen, Dillmann collated the British Museum copy at least a decade earlier. Charles’s interaction with Dillmann’ work parallels the approach he took with respect to the Book of Enoch. He first asserted that the two newly available copies were not only early Ethiopic manuscripts but also offered “a type of text which transcends immeasurably that of the two MSS. on which Dr. Dillman’s [sic] Ethiopic edition of 1859 is based” (703). While believing he could improve Dillmann’s readings, Charles, the much younger scholar, remained deferential to the master: It is worthy of note in the present connection that this Latin translation of Dr. Dillmann [in Rönsch’s book] is not made from the published Ethiopic text of 1859, but in reality from a revised form of this text, the revision being in the main carried out on the lines suggested by the Latin fragment. This continued advance to a more scientific text is quite in keeping with the method of this great scholar in other departments of work. With a mind biassed only in favour of truth and open to all fresh evidence from whatever quarter derived, he furnishes us with the beau ideal of a scientific scholar. It is therefore incumbent on those who follow in his footsteps to carry on still further the work that he has advanced so far. (704)

Bound by such a duty, Charles reported that he would show the superiority of his two manuscripts to those of Dillmann, even to his revised critical text in Rönsch’s book: We may dispatch in a word the result of this investigation, and state its conclusion briefly, i.e., that the text which is based on Dillmann’s two manuscripts, however much it may be revised or emended with the help of the Latin fragment [from the Ambrosian Library], can, in the presence of the better evidence now accessible, only be regarded as at the best late and corrupt. In the comparison of the Ethiopic MSS., which we shall presently institute, the Latin fragment will serve as a touchstone whereby to

104    ( – ) distinguish the false from the true in the variants presented by the two types of MSS. with which we have now to deal. (704)¹⁹

In this short introduction to his translation, he explained that he wanted to demonstrate two points. The first was to show that “every page we examine of the revised Ethiopic text presupposed by Dillmann’s Latin translation contains many corrupt readings where the demonstrably true reading is preserved by AB, or A, or B in agreement with the Latin version.” The second was that “in not a few cases Dillmann’s text is disfigured by corruptions that admit of easy and at times demonstrably certain emendation” (704, where both are in italics). He filled the next pages with examples, some more convincing than others; but the impression left by his rhetoric is that his translation and the text that it rendered would be far superior to those offered by his great predecessor. The translation itself followed in the three installments in the Jewish Quarterly Review for 1894–95. There are few notes to the translation; the ones present are textual and often involve no more than the word “Emended.” The 1902 translation would include far more ample notes (whether textual or explanatory), much like his 1893 translation of Enoch. Charles was not the first scholar to render Jubilees into English. That distinction fell to George H. Schodde who in 1888 had issued The Book of Jubilees Translated from the Ethiopic. His translation (and short introduction), like that of Charles a few years later, was serialized in a journal before appearing in a book: “The Book of Jubilees translated from the Ethiopic by Professor George H. Schodde, PhD,” Bibliotheca Sacra 42 (1885) 629–45; 43 (1886) 56–72, 356–71, 455–86, 727–45; 44 (1887) 426–57, 602–11. Schodde’s translation of Jubilees, like his 1882 rendering of Enoch, was not to be very influential,²⁰ but he did make a practical contribution to using the text, namely, adding verse numbers. Ge‘ez texts have their own system of punctuation, including marks separating sense units, but they are not uniform from manuscript to manuscript. When Dillmann produced the initial translation of Jubilees, he divided it into fifty chapters, as we have seen. For decades afterward, scholars referred to ¹⁹ Charles hoped to publish the critical text on which he based his translation “in the course of the year,” (704) that is, 1893, but it was not to appear until 1895. He was regularly too optimistic about publication dates. ²⁰ He, like Charles, took a decidedly negative view concerning what Jubilees said about the law. After summarizing the book’s teachings about it, Schodde wrote: This is the leading thought of the whole work, and, in some form or other, is found in nearly every chapter. It is a remarkable example of how willing the Jews in Christ’s day were to employ a most remarkable exegesis in order to make the records of revelation accord with their false view of its legal features. (The Book of Jubilees, xiii = Bibliotheca Sacra 42 [1885] 633)

   

105

passages in the book by the page numbers in his translation or by chapter or both. For his edition of the Latin translation, Rönsch used Dillmann’s chapter numbers and entered numbers within them, but they are line numbers in the Latin manuscript, not verses. Schodde, however, changed the situation. He wrote in the introduction to his translation: “In order to facilitate the study of the book, the translator has not only adopted the division of Dillmann into chapters, but has also divided these again into verses. The lack of this latter feature in Dillmann makes the use of his version very difficult” (The Book of Jubilees, xv = Bibliotheca Sacra 42 [1885] 635). His sensible action, one might think, would have provided the model for others to use, but Schodde’s verse numbers, while they frequently overlap with the divisions that were to become standard, do not match them completely. So, for example, in Jubilees 1 the first fifteen verses are the same as the modern division, but v. 16 includes more. Chapter 1 contains twenty-four verses in Schodde’s version; there are twentynine in the latest editions and translations. No one, so far as I know, claims credit for establishing the verse divisions we use today, but Charles seems to have been responsible for it. In his translation of 1893–95 he numbered all the verses in the book but said nothing about the fact. These are almost the same as the present system. Starting from the beginning of the book, the first chapter to have a different number of verses

2. Pages in Charles’s Copy of H. Rönsch, Das Buch der Jubiläen with his notes and markings (courtesy of Susan VanderKam)

106    ( – ) is Jubilees 4: in Charles’s 1894 rendering it has thirty-two verses, in the current system it has thirty-three (Charles combined what are now separated as vv. 25 and 26 into one verse). By the time his critical edition of Jubilees appeared in 1895 the system now employed was fully in place. As an aside to the topic, I want to mention another bit of evidence. One of the prize volumes in my library is Charles’s personal copy of Rönsch’s Das Buch der Jubiläen. He seems to have read the book with care because he wrote many comments in the margins. One such section is in Rönsch’s (and Dillmann’s) edition of the Latin text. Charles crossed out some of the line numbers in the Latin text and replaced them with verse numbers according to the system he used in his translation (e.g., in chs. 15 and 16). Charles signed his copy of the Rönsch book in 1892, so he must have worked out his verse divisions around that time and inserted them in its pages.

The Book Mas: hafa Kufālē or the Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Book of Jubilees, : Otherwise Known Among the Greeks as Η ΛΕΠΤΗ ΓΕΝΕΣΙΣ, Edited from four manuscripts, And critically revised through a continuous comparison of the Massoretic and Samaritan Texts, and the Greek, Syriac, Vulgate and Ethiopic Versions of the Pentateuch, and further emended and restored in accordance with the Hebrew, Syriac, Greek and Latin Fragments of the Book, which are here published in full by R. H. Charles, M.A., Trinity College, Dublin, and Exeter College, Oxford (Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic Series 8; Oxford: Clarendon, 1895). The edition of Jubilees that Charles mentioned in 1893 and on which he based his translation of 1893–95 appeared in 1895. The exhaustive sub-title gives a good impression of the research he carried out to produce the edition. It involved working with and comparing texts in an assortment of ancient languages and employing all of the material to arrive at what he took to be the best attainable text of Jubilees. Charles dated the Preface to November 1894. Dillmann had died on July 4, 1894, but Charles neither mentioned his passing nor relaxed his criticism of the German scholar’s pioneering work. Almost the first words in the Preface, after he declared the need for a new edition, were: For the latter text [Dillmann’s 1859 edition] students in the past were rightly grateful, and yet grateful with limitations; for unhappily that great scholar

   

107

contented himself in the main with reproducing the one or the other of his MSS., however frequent or obvious their corruptions, and did not in a single instance attempt to grapple with these by means of the abundant materials for criticism collected by Fabricius and Fürst,²¹ or the still more abundant aids to criticism that lay ready to hand in the Hebrew and Samaritan texts, and the various Versions of Genesis and Exodus. Thus his text teems with corruptions that would have yielded to even a cursory study of the critical problem before him. In two later publications,²² it is true, Dillmann sought in some degree to atone for the inadequacy of his former work. (v)

His criticisms continue and become more detailed in the Introduction (see below). Charles also mentioned that research for the edition demonstrated how important Jubilees was as a witness to the Hebrew text [of the Bible] that was current in Palestine in the century immediately preceding the Christian era. For the Hebrew author of this book had before him a text that in scores of passages is at variance with the Massoretic, and in many passages is unquestionably earlier and purer. (v–vi)

He would cite numerous readings documenting the claim in his Introduction, but he failed to note at this point that Dillmann had argued at length for a similar conclusion in his 1883 article. It is also noteworthy that Charles here dated Jubilees to the first century .., though his predecessors had located it in the first century .. He did not supply the reasons, however, why he so dated the book (on the curious sequence of his statements about the date of Jubilees, see below). With the accumulation of textual evidence, however limited, and with the progress of research on it, Charles was able to reach more advanced positions on various topics and often to produce a better text than was possible

²¹ Charles refers to the two scholars who had compiled collections of Greek and Latin citations from and allusions to Jubilees. The first was Johann Albert Fabricius, “Parva Genesis,” in his Codex Pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti (Hamburg and Leipzig: Liebezeit, 1713; 2nd ed., 1722) 849–64; vol. 2 (Hamburg: Felginer, 1723) 120–2. The second, though Charles mentions “Fürst,” was A. Treuenfels who published “Die kleine Genesis ‫ ”בראשית זוטא‬in Fürst’s Literaturblatt des vorderen Orients 1 (1846) 7–12; 2 (1846) 28–32; 4 (1846) 59–64; 5 (1846) 65–71; 6 (1846) 81–6. Charles caught the mistake and corrected it in the Addenda et Corrigenda section on the last (unnumbered) page of the 1895 book where it is the first entry. ²² These were his contribution to Rönsch, Das Buch der Jubiläen and his 1883 article.

108    ( – ) beforehand. The Introduction to his edition of 1895 exemplifies what could then be said about Jubilees, but it also contains distinctive views adopted by him. The first unit in the Introduction (“The Book of Jubilees; Its Value and Original Language,” ix–x) is mostly taken up with arguments for Hebrew as the language of composition, but he prefixed to this material a general statement about the book: The Book of Jubilees, which is really a haggadic commentary on Genesis, is important as being the chief and practically sole monument of legalistic Pharisaism, belonging to the century immediately preceding the Christian era. As we have the other side of Pharisaism—its apocalyptic and mystical side—represented in the Book of Enoch, so here we have its natural complement in the hard and inexorable legalism under whose yoke, according to the author, creation was subject from the beginning, and must be subject for evermore. (ix)

How Charles could think of Jubilees, with its strongly predestinarian character and unusual calendar, as Pharisaic is difficult to understand, both in his time and in light of discoveries that were to come. Apparently a “hard legalism” made it Pharisaic. His view would later absorb heavy criticism from scholars who understood more fully than he the legal stances of groups in second temple Judaism. Following this statement, Charles drew attention to the mounting evidence for Hebrew as the language of the author. He noted Jerome’s statement about Hebrew words he found in the book, the title of the Syriac list of wives’ names, and the several midrashim that included lines from Jubilees. Additionally, he believed he had been successful in solving some textual difficulties in the book by assuming that Hebrew was its original language. Many of the remaining pages in the Introduction review the evidence for the different ancient versions of Jubilees. Charles thought the Syriac text with women’s names “points most probably to a Syriac Version as its source” (x) and found it “not an unreasonable inference from the title of the fragment” (x) that the translation was made from the Hebrew original of Jubilees. In his estimation, the Ethiopic version—itself a translation of a Greek rendering of the Hebrew original—was both a literal and faithful reflection of what the author wrote. For the most part it is free from changes that a translator or scribe could have introduced under the influence of the Ethiopic version of the Bible, although he found a few places where that version left its mark.

   

109

The Latin translation of Jubilees (known from the Ambrosiana’s copy), Charles, thought, was a less reliable witness to the text than the Ethiopic version despite its earlier date. He highlighted its many corruptions and maintained that it contained changes that modified it towards the readings of the Septuagint and Vulgate. Charles’s lower estimate of the Latin contrasted sharply with the view of Rönsch who considered it superior to the Ethiopic. Charles took the opportunity afforded by his comments on the Latin translation to voice his opinion of Rönsch’s Das Buch der Jubiläen: With enormous industry Rönsch accumulated materials from every quarter, and though he made but little critical use of these himself, he has undoubtedly lightened the labours of subsequent scholars. His Latin text is disfigured with many corruptions, which I have been at pains to remove so far as possible; and his work, however learned, is strangely wanting in reasonable order and method. It has no perspective; things good, bad, and indifferent are thrust with equal emphasis on the attention of the weary and indignant student.²³ He has, nevertheless, done much to merit our gratitude, and we may with safety accept his conclusions that this Version was made in Egypt or its neighbourhood by a Palestinian Jew about the middle of the fifth century. (pp. 459–60) (xi)²⁴

He did excuse Rönsch in part because he knew most of Jubilees—the sections not preserved in the Latin palimpsest—only through Dillmann’s translation (apparently Rönsch did not read Ge‘ez). Charles described the four Ethiopic manuscripts of Jubilees and their interrelations (xii–xiv), but he also devoted a section to “Further Materials for the Criticism and Emendation of the Text,” (xiv–xvi). He recognized that Jubilees reflected an independent form of the Hebrew text of Genesis-Exodus, not one that agreed consistently with any of the ancient versions. He then ²³ In his 1902 commentary on Jubilees, Charles was no kinder about the book: “This work attests enormous industry and great learning, but it is deficient in judgment and critical acumen” (xxviii). ²⁴ The pages to which Charles refers are the last ones in a chapter on the language of the Latin translation, its date, and the place where the translator worked. The language suggested to Rönsch that the Latin translation was fairly early, but he deduced the more precise date in the mid-fifth century from two other texts: Jerome’s (early fifth century) way of referring to Jubilees suggested it was not known in Latin at that time, while reference to it as a forbidden book in the Gelasian Decree (very late fifth century) indicated it was known in Rome by then. Egypt as the place of the translation he inferred from its transcriptions of Greek words familiar from the Septuagint, while certain peculiarities in the representation of vowels in some names and the pronunciations they encoded led him to identify the translator as a Palestinian Jew.

110    ( – ) enumerated the early scriptural versions (and other texts that might be relevant in all of the languages in which Jubilees had existed) and how each allowed him to emend the text in some places (he lists these for each version). In addition, he wrote about the process of criticism, using all the materials surveyed earlier, by which he was able to move farther and farther back in the history of the text. For example, by eliminating the cases in which the Ethiopic copies were influenced by the Ethiopic version of Genesis, he was able to arrive at a more pristine stage of the text in Ethiopia. He did likewise for the other languages through which the book passed as it moved from the Hebrew original to the later versions. Charles betrayed here too how the ghost of Dillmann still hovered over him. He devoted the sixth section of the Introduction to “Dillmann’s Ethiopic Text and Its Later Revisions” (xvii–xx). He surveyed his edition of 1859, his contribution to the Rönsch volume, and his 1883 essay. About the edition of 1859 he commented: It will be obvious to the reader that it would be impossible to attain to any satisfactory result in a work based on such materials [the two poor Ethiopic manuscripts accessible to Dillmann]. So far, therefore, many shortcomings in his text are not only excusable but inevitable. But when we proceed from the question of materials to method, we cannot but regard him as most reprehensible. He acted emphatically therein as a scholar in a hurry. Dealing with a text which was explicitly and unmistakably a commentary on Genesis, he has not—save in a single solitary instance—adduced the evidence of the Mass. or Sam. texts, or of the LXX, Syr., or Vulgate Versions in order to remove the blemishes that deface every page of the MSS. on which he worked. Furthermore, the Book of Jubilees, as every student of Fabricius should have known, did not leave itself without many witnesses among the Fathers and Byzantine writers . . . , and yet not a single fragment of these has been placed under contribution for the criticism of the text. (xvii)

After additional negative comments about Dillmann’s efforts, Charles asserted that, while he could have offered a more extensive accounting of errors in the 1859 work, “I do not press these defects in execution, as accuracy is a thing so difficult to attain. It is the wrongness of his method that constitutes ‘the head and front of his offending’” (xviii). It seems not to have occurred to Charles that one of Dillmann’s aims was to make the textual material available to others as expeditiously as possible.

   

111

Charles characterized Dillmann’s two subsequent publications as attempts to “atone” for the defects of his Ethiopic edition (xviii)—a remarkably uncharitable way to describe his predecessor’s strivings for more precise conclusions on the basis of newly available textual materials. Rather than rehearsing the specifics in the Introduction of the 1895 volume, Charles referred the reader to his 1893 Jewish Quarterly Review essay for the damning details. As for Dillmann’s 1883 study, Charles’s words about it are peculiar: “this Article, which I purposely refrained from perusing till my entire text was in print, . . .” (xviii). Why would one scholar purposely not look at another expert’s work until his own book was in print? He could not claim that the article became available too late to be considered in his edition, since it was published more than ten years earlier. It should be added that he actually praised Dillmann’s work evident in the essay. He noted his use of manuscript B and other materials in addition to the copies of the book, and he summarized Dillmann’s evaluation of the readings in Jubilees compared with those in the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint. Charles agreed with his view that many of the passages in which Jubilees sides with the Septuagint against the Masoretic Text are due to the Greek translator of Jubilees. He charged, however, that Dillmann had “a grossly exaggerated view of how many readings were peculiar to the LXX and Jubilees,” (xix), as some came from the Ethiopic version of Genesis-Exodus and others were not unique to Jubilees and the Septuagint. When Dillmann explained some readings in Jubilees as coming from a Hebrew text differing from the Masoretic Text, Charles actually wrote: “In this connection he collates the Samaritan text and frequently the LXX, and makes some emendations in which I am glad to find a confirmation of my own judgment” (xix). He then proceeded to criticize Dillmann even in this category (“he merely touches on the fringe of the subject” [xix]), although he and Charles explained the evidence in the same way. He concluded that in the 1883 article Dillmann made little headway toward improving the text of Jubilees, leaving it pretty much as it was in 1859. Charles devoted the last two sections of the Introduction to the affinities of the text of Genesis-Exodus underlying Jubilees with the readings of the ancient versions and its value in “Criticism of the Massoretic Text of the Pentateuch.” He provided lengthy but admittedly non-exhaustive lists of references (not the actual readings) in which Jubilees agrees with each of the ancient versions of Genesis-Exodus. The 1895 book is an attractive publication as versions of ancient texts go. The Clarendon Press printed the critical Ethiopic text and the Ethiopic words in the notes (1–177) in a far more elegant font than Dillmann’s publisher had

112    ( – ) used decades earlier. The apparatus of variant readings to the Ge‘ez text could be relatively simple because Charles was comparing only four copies of the book. Wherever other versional evidence existed, Charles placed it on the page facing the corresponding passage in the Ethiopic text and supplied it with its own apparatus of notes. Naturally, the Latin text is the major example, since it is, after the Ethiopic, the most extensively preserved version of Jubilees. A word met frequently in Charles’s notes is “Emended” or the like, as he was typically bold in “improving” readings in the manuscripts that, in his opinion, were not correct. Charles’s edition of Ethiopic Jubilees concludes with three helpful appendices. The first (179) offers the initial part of the Hebrew work that he, following Jellinek, called “The Book of Noah.” It is the opening section of the Book of Asaph the Physician where the text closely parallels Jubilees 10:1–14. The second (180–2) furnishes a section of Midrash Way-yissa‘u that parallels the story in Jubilees 37–8 about the war between Jacob and his sons, on one side, and Esau and his sons on the other. The same text relates a tale somewhat similar to the account of the battle of Jacob and his sons against Amorite kings in Jubilees 34:1–9, but Charles did not print that section, perhaps because it is not as closely parallel to Jubilees. The texts in appendices I and II are quoted from Jellinek, Bet Ha-Midrasch, iii.155–6 and 3–5. In the outer margins of both Charles listed the chapters and verses where parallels in Jubilees could be found. In the third appendix (183) he cited Ceriani’s transcription of the Syriac text giving the names of patriarchs’ wives drawn from Jubilees. A list of Addenda and Corrigenda completes the book. A scholar could, thus, find in the 1895 edition all of the material relevant to establishing the text of Jubilees.

Reviews Charles’s critical text of Jubilees elicited reviews from several experts. One was D.S. Margoliouth (Jewish Quarterly Review 7 [1895] 546–8), who, oddly, was one of the three people to whom Charles dedicated the book (the other two were S. R. Driver and Adolf Neubauer). Margoliouth, who was well acquainted with the classical Ethiopic language, began by praising Charles for the beautifully printed volume and the quality of the scholarship in it. He also noted that students of Jubilees “will find it of the greatest convenience to have all the materials for the restoration of this Apocryphon so carefully collected and so methodically arranged” (546).

   

113

He was not so complimentary, however, about some aspects of the edition. His wise words in this regard are worth quoting at length. Most readers will regret the depreciatory tone which Mr. Charles has adopted towards the work of his predecessor Dillmann. This tone is both impolitic and unjust. Impolitic, because there is no name more highly reverenced among Orientalists than Dillmann’s, and most of those who know any Aethiopic owe it to his writings; and, moreover, the world has not yet had a year to lament his loss. Unjust, because more cannot be expected from a book than it professes to give. When a text of real value is to be published for the first time, the most important matter is that it should be done quickly. Dillmann employed for this purpose the MSS. that were at his disposal, which he used with faithfulness and skill. A later editor is without doubt bound to search for an elaborate critical apparatus, which is what Rönsch and, since him, Mr. Charles have done. Yet the new editor will probably be thought by many to have overrated the improvement which he has been able to effect in the text by the use of material which Dillmann either neglected or had no access to. He has introduced not a few better readings, and some quite felicitous emendations; but the difference between the two recensions is not thorough-going. This appears even from the fact that the new text is still an eclectic one—it follows no one source to the exclusion of any other. It is natural that Mr. Charles should overrate the improvement, for the collation of Aethiopic MSS. is ordinarily so fruitless in results, that new readings of consequence are hailed with very peculiar delight. (546–47)

Margoliouth added that, even if the difference between the two editions was far more to Dillmann’s disadvantage than it really is, Mr. Charles should still have given a complete record of Dillmann’s readings in his notes; the absence of this we regard as the most serious defect in his book; and it is probable that those reviewers who have in consequence of it to collate the two texts will take vengeance. (547)

Another issue he raised concerned those cases where the Ethiopic and Latin readings were at variance with each other. He recognized that one should correct the Ethiopic or Latin where the reason for the mistaken reading was transparent. But, “[w]here the cause of the discrepancy is not obvious it should certainly be noted, but to alter one text to suit the other is surely rash” (547).

114    ( – ) Margoliouth pointed out that Charles, like others, thought the Masoretic Text of Genesis could in places be corrected from readings in Jubilees, but he was unimpressed with the results. As he put it, “the ore (to use the language of miners) seems to the present writer very low grade” (548). After discussing an example, he wrote about Charles’s efforts at comparing the readings in Jubilees with those of ancient versions of Genesis: With regard to the rest, while the trouble he has taken in sorting the textual affinities of the book deserves recognition, it may be doubted whether the Jubilees has in any case the authority of a MS. For only those compilations and versions which are painfully literal have any such authority. (548)

The last point is debatable, as events were to show. It seems to have been fashionable at the time to close reviews by saying that one wearies of finding fault or the like, and Margoliouth followed suit. He commended Charles for writing a work which very few scholars, either here or abroad, would have been able to produce, and which is certain to be for a long period the standard work on the subject with which it deals. He will conclude therefore with the hope that unlike most of the Anecdota Oxoniensia, this Anecdoton may prove a source of profit to the Clarendon Press,²⁵ and that its author may find leisure and opportunity to do yet further services in the literature of Abyssinia. (548)

J. Barth published a fairly short but detailed review of the 1895 edition in Deutsche Litteraturzeitung 34 (1895) cols. 1062–3. One of the positive features in the book, he thought, was that Charles, through his text and notes, furnished the evidence that other scholars could use in defense of readings Charles rejected. Barth then offered a series of examples. But he was very complimentary about the volume and the expertise shown by Charles and looked forward to the appearance of his commentary. ²⁵ Margoliouth’s hope was not realized. The Press established four Anecdota series overseen by an Anecdota Committee. Anecdota Oxoniensia, the first paperback series issued by the Press, proved that the Delegates had not forgotten their ancient legacy, and satisfied the purists to whom Bartholomew Price’s [1818–98, secretary of the Delegates of the Press, 1868–85] stubborn commercialism was suspect. The series spluttered defiantly on from 1882 until 1914, and was never formally put to rest. A volume appeared out of the blue in 1929. (Sutcliffe, Oxford University Press, 46)

   

115

F. Prätorius²⁶ (Theologische Literaturzeitung 20 [1895] 613–16) reviewed the edition in a somewhat different way. He not only commented on specific readings but also raised broader questions about it. Prätorius, who like Margoliouth thought Charles was unfair to Dillmann, offered some probing thoughts about what, given the textual materials at hand, the goal of an edition should be. He suggested that an editor should aim to establish the Ethiopic text, as nearly as possible, as it came from the pen of the translator— including all the mistakes of which he was guilty and those present already in the Greek text he was translating. Only inner-Ethiopic corruptions should be removed, and the readings of the manuscripts were to be rejected only when there were strong grounds for doing so. He found that Charles was guilty of departing from the readings in the Ethiopic copies too frequently. In fact, it seemed as if Charles wanted to edit an Ethiopic version of Jubilees improved with the aid of the Latin translation, parallel passages in the Masoretic text, in the Septuagint, and elsewhere. Prätorius also thought that, in those cases where the Ethiopic copies disagreed among themselves, it seemed at times as if Charles preferred the readings of A or B or AB because of a perhaps unconscious aversion to Dillmann’s edition that rested on the other two copies. He then offered criticisms of Charles’s procedure in various textual situations. Naturally, there could be differences of opinion in choosing which option among the Ethiopic manuscripts was the preferred reading. Yet when the Ethiopic copies and the Latin translation agree on a reading, it shows that they have transmitted their Greek base texts accurately. In such instances, again unless there were compelling reasons for doing so, one should not “correct” the reading. He cited as an example a change Charles made in Jubilees 15:26 (Barth too mentioned it). All of his Ethiopic copies and the Latin version word the sentence as “Anyone who is born, the flesh of whose private parts has not been circumcised by [literally: until] the eighth day . . .” Charles replaced “until” with “on” so that it read “on the eighth day,” in agreement with the Septuagint in Genesis 17:14. Prätorius also thought it rash, when the Ethiopic manuscripts agreed among themselves, to change their reading on the basis of the Latin translation. In addition, where the Ethiopic copies agree and the Latin is not available, the Ethiopic reading should not be altered.

²⁶ His name is usually spelled with an umlaut, but in the review it is spelled Praetorius.

116    ( – )

The Context for Charles’s 1902 Volume on Jubilees At the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, Jubilees garnered less attention than the Book of Enoch, but Charles was not the only one studying it. Among the other contributors was Friedrich Bohn who took the opportunity afforded by the fiftieth anniversary of Dillmann’s translation to summarize where studies of Jubilees stood and to make some noteworthy points of his own.²⁷ He commented that, while in the first twentyfive years after the initial translation, a number of studies had appeared, few had followed them in the next quarter century. In fact, he lamented how little Jubilees was known in comparison with Enoch (168). The common position was to date Jubilees in the mid-first century .., but no one had been able to establish the matter conclusively. Bohn disagreed with the accepted dating and argued that the author wrote Jubilees much earlier (170–2). One piece of evidence was the close relationship between it on the one hand and the Wisdom of Ben Sira and Enoch on the other. Also, the writer’s mixture of views that would later be the distinctive property of the different Jewish parties (Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes) pointed, as he saw it, to a time before they were separated from one another. He arrived at a date of composition in the mid-second century .., after the Maccabean Revolt, when the Hasideans, from which group the book came, were still cooperating with the new ruling family. The author’s aim was to effect a religious reform like the Hasmoneans’ political reform. Bohn thought that a study of the names given to people in Jubilees would be a profitable exercise and that the book might prove to be extraordinarily significant for analysis of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament (173–5). He went on to observe that the composition, which is a consistent whole, in a sense sets Enoch, Noah, and Abraham in Moses’ place as receiving revelations of the law; the disclosures at Sinai were merely a renewal and reestablishment of forms of religion revealed long before. The author’s glorification of the patriarchs meant glorification of the people; forebears and people as a unity are closely associated with God and his angels and opposed to the nations and the demons who mislead them (175–8). A monograph that may have been published too late for Bohn to include in his survey was Wilhelm Singer’s Das Buch der Jubiläen oder die Leptogenesis (1898). It offers a learned study by a Jewish scholar who was fully acquainted with Rabbinic literature and who brought his knowledge of it to bear on points ²⁷ “Die Bedeutung des Buches der Jubiläen: Zum 50jährigen Jubiläum der ersten deutschen Übersetzung,” Theologische Studien und Kritiken 73 (1900) 167–84.

   

117

of connection between it and Jubilees. But he used his learning to a curious end. He accepted Dillmann’s dating of the book to the first century of the Common Era and Rönsch’s argument that it contained anti-Christian elements. He sharpened the latter point by claiming that Jubilees, composed by a Jewish Christian, is a blow-by-blow refutation of the Apostle Paul’s teachings about the abrogation of the law. However wrong he was about the context for the author, Singer’s work provides a mass of information that later scholars, including Charles, found very helpful. One additional publication deserves mention. Enno Littmann (1875–1958)²⁸ contributed the section on Jubilees (31–119) in the second volume of Kautzsch’s Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments (1900). In the Introduction he seconded the criticisms raised by Prätorius regarding the procedures in Charles’s edition. As he observed, at times Charles failed to indicate that Dillmann’s two manuscripts supported a reading, preferring to mention only his manuscripts A and/or B as backing it. As a result, Littmann found that for his work he had to consult both the edition of Dillmann and that of Charles (32–3). He also made use of their translations—Charles’s in the form it took in the Jewish Quarterly Review, the only one then available. Littmann thanked Charles for sending him a part of his translation and said that, according to Charles, the translation would be improved in many places in his forthcoming commentary (33–4). Littmann was impressed with the arguments for a Maccabean date of the book about which Bohn had informed him (37).

The Book The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis Translated from the Editor’s Ethiopic Text and Edited, with Introduction, Notes, and Indices by R. H. Charles, D.D., Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, Dublin (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1902).²⁹ Charles’s next major publication on Jubilees appeared seven years after his critical edition. He had, as recounted above, issued a translation of the entire book in a series of articles in the Jewish Quarterly Review for 1894–95 and had announced the eventual publication of a translation and commentary already

²⁸ Littmann was still a doctoral candidate when he translated Jubilees. He later helped Charles obtain manuscripts of Enoch for use in preparing his 1906 edition. ²⁹ Charles, who as the title indicates was teaching at his alma mater at the time, dedicated the book to the Reverend George Salmon. “Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, with an old pupil’s admiration and gratitude.” Charles’s appointment at Trinity College, Dublin will be treated later.

118    ( – ) in his 1895 volume: “An exhaustive treatment of this [the Hebrew text of the Bible used by the author] and other questions connected with the Book of Jubilees will be given in my Commentary on this book, which I hope will appear next year” (vi). He signed the Preface to the 1895 work on November 10, 1894, so at that time he anticipated that the commentary would see the light of day in 1895 (maybe 1896). The seven-year gap between expectation and reality was due not only to his customary over-optimism about such matters but also to a problem he was having with Jubilees. The issue frustrating him can be traced in two sources: Charles’s description and Burkitt’s account in his obituary of Charles. Charles’s account reads: I had hoped to issue this Commentary on the Book of Jubilees quite six years ago, as a sequel to my edition of the Ethiopic and other fragmentary versions of this work; but after writing a large portion of it, I was obliged to abandon the task, as I felt that somehow I had failed to give a satisfactory interpretation of the text, though at the time I could not understand wherein my disability lay. A year or two later when making a special study of the Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs, I came to discover that the source of my failure lay in my acceptance of the traditional view that Jubilees was written in the first century of the Christian era. So long as I wrote from this standpoint, my notes became more and more a labored apologetic for the composition of this work in the first century. The earliest approximation to the right date appeared in my article on the “Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs” in the Encyclopaedia Biblica, i. 241, 1899, where, after giving grounds for the view that the main bulk of that work was written before 100 .., I concluded that we should “regard both works (i.e. the Testaments and Jubilees) as almost contemporary and as emanating from the same school of thought.” This view was advanced in the following year by Bohn and by Bousset³⁰ on various grounds, and it is from this standpoint that the present Commentary is written. The difficulties that beset almost every page of Jubilees vanish for the most part once we understand that it

³⁰ For Bohn’s position, see above. Wilhelm Bousset (1865–1920) presented his case in the last part of his lengthy essay “Neueste Forschungen auf dem Gebiet der religiösen Litteratur des Spätjudentums,” Theologische Rundschau 3 (1900) 369–81 (the other sections of the article are on 287–302, 327–35). Bousset thought the presentation of Jacob’s son Levi and the ways in which various foreign nations were treated in Jubilees reflected Maccabean times. The Pharisaic and anti-pharisaic material in it he understood as evidence the author worked before the relations between the parties were fully formed. Oddly enough, however, he situated the book in the reign of Queen Alexandra (76–67 ..) when those party relations were definitely in place. He appealed to the apocalyptic chapter, Jubilees 23, and maintained that the author wrote in the “golden” age of the Pharisees (374–7).

   

119

was written by a Pharisaic upholder of the Maccabean dynasty, who was also probably a priest. (vii–viii)

So, on his own admission, dating the book more than a century earlier than most did at the time—something he was the first to do—finally allowed him to write the commentary. Burkitt corroborated the story and added some details, including ones about Charles’s character. After noting that Charles had become the authority in his area of study and had succeeded in convincing specialists and even non-specialists of its importance, he continued: He had attracted to himself a band of younger students who accepted for the most part his conclusions, and—it must be confessed—he was not very patient of adverse criticism. While working at a new subject there was a period when his mind was eagerly assimilative of new ideas, new views, new conclusions; then he attained conviction, and from that point it was difficult to move him. Two stories may illustrate what has been said.³¹ In 1902 Charles brought out his translation and commentary on the Book of Jubilees, six [sic] years after he had published his recension of the text. He had begun the commentary when occupied with the text, but as he himself says in his Preface he “felt that somehow he had failed to give a satisfactory interpretation”. He had started with the then traditional idea that the work was written from the point of view of a “Pharisee” about .. I.³² Historical difficulties presented themselves as he proceeded, but he had an ingenious answer to each as it appeared—he always was most ingenious—and six sheets (so he once told me) were actually passed for press and printed off. Yet he could not escape the feeling of effort and opposition. Then a fresh study of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs converted him to the view that the Book of Jubilees was really a century older than the date he had defended. He persuaded his publisher to let him start afresh, and he rewrote his commentary from his new point of view that Jubilees was written when a victorious nephew of Judas Maccabaeus [that is, John Hyrcanus (134–104 ..)] was still on the throne, not yet in conflict with the religious leaders of Judaism. Now, he told me, all was easy; his ingenious argumentation was not needed, all the details fell naturally into their place. Charles’s new date was generally accepted:

³¹ The second story had to do with Charles’s interpretation of 2 Enoch and is treated in connection with that publication (Part 2, Chapter 3). ³² Since Burkitt used a Roman numeral I here, I assume he meant the first century, not the year 1.

120    ( – ) I have often thought of his description of his experiences in writing the two forms of his commentary as illuminatingly typical of the experience of a scholar working, in the one case on a wrong hypothesis, in the other on the right one.³³

Charles’s insight about the date of composition, apparently reached independently by others, became very influential indeed and remains so to the present day. But herein lies a problem. Charles was a very busy man who was producing large, impressive works at a rapid pace and was studying more than one book at a time. But there is something peculiar about his assertion regarding the date of Jubilees. 1. In his 1895 edition of Ethiopic Jubilees he wrote more than once that Jubilees was from the first century before the Christian era (v–vi, ix). Since he had finished the edition by 1894 when he signed the Preface, at this time he believed Jubilees was written in the first century .., not the first century .. 2. As we have just seen, he wrote in his 1902 commentary that he had hoped to issue the volume in 1895 or 1896 as a sequel to his edition and had written much of it when he had to put it aside. And, as seen in the lengthy quotation above, he claimed he was working at this time under the common assumption that Jubilees was written in the first century . . Note too Burkitt’s statement that he was working on the commentary as he was editing the text. 3. In the same quotation, he says that a study of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs a “year or two later” made him change his mind. So, why, if he wrote in 1894 or 1895 that Jubilees was a first century .. composition, was he working, around the same time or even later, under the assumption that it was a first century .. work? Did he confuse the two first centuries (.. and ..) in his 1895 statements?³⁴ 4. He asserted that the “earliest approximation to the right date” (i.e., in the second century ..) came in his article about the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. This too is strange—and on more than one score. The study to which he was referring and which he identified was a part of his

³³ “Robert Henry Charles 1855–1931,” 441–2. ³⁴ It would not have been the only time he did this. See Part 2 Chapter 9 below on his Fragments of a Zadokite Work.

   

121

article “Apocalyptic Literature” that he contributed to the Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. 1, cols. 213–50 (1899). In that essay he wrote detailed surveys of nine apocalypses, including Enoch, Jubilees, and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. As noted above, Charles said that in this article, after “giving grounds for the view that the main bulk of that work [that is, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs] was written before 100 ..,” he drew the conclusion that the Testaments and Jubilees were “almost contemporary.” I have read and re-read his entry on the Testaments in this article and see no place where he gave reasons for thinking that the major part of the Testaments dated from before 100 .. He there agreed with the view that the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs consisted of three parts: a. A Jewish work that, for each of Jacob’s sons, related his life and contained pertinent ethical exhortations; b. interpolations of apocalyptic sections into the Testaments by a Jewish editor (the dates of these different units extend from the second century .. to the first ..); and c. interpolations at a still later time by Christians—a process that lasted a long time (cols. 240–2). Charles dated what he calls the “groundwork,” by which he must mean a. above, to “about the beginning of the Christian era” (col. 241). In other words, he did not argue that the “bulk” of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs was written before 100 .. Further evidence that he had not become aware that Jubilees was a second century .. book in the research for this article may be gleaned from its section about Jubilees. There he wrote that it could not be later than 70 .. (since Jubilees assumes the temple, which was destroyed in that year, was still standing) nor earlier than ca. 60 .. by which time Enoch 1–36, 72–104 were written (as Jubilees refers to these units). He concluded: “Though there is some evidence that would place it nearer the earlier than the later date, we shall leave the date undefined for the present” (col. 232). Moreover, Charles was not the first scholar to argue for a second century .. date (or close to it) for Jubilees, if that is what he meant by speaking of the first approximation to the correct date for the book. Bousett³⁵ mentions several writers who had made brief proposals to this effect, though they did not offer

³⁵ “Neueste Forschungen auf dem Gebiet der religiösen Litteratur des Spätjudentums,” 375. Besides the two scholars named above, he also cited Moses Gaster (“The Hebrew Text of one of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 16 [1894] 33–49) as placing the book in Maccabean times, but I have not been able to find in the article where he says this.

122    ( – ) detailed arguments for their position: Abraham Kuenen³⁶ suggested the book was a century or more older than scholars usually thought; and Kaufmann Kohler³⁷ believed Jubilees and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs should be dated to the time of John Hyrcanus (134–104). So, the whole matter of when Charles thought what about the date of Jubilees is a puzzle, if one goes by what he wrote. The solution may be that Charles confused two of his publications on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. The 1899 piece to which he referred as he explained his frustration in writing about Jubilees is not where he came to the correct date. He did that in a later article, “Testaments of the XII Patriarchs,” in James Hastings, editor, A Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 4 (1902) 721–5. There he did place the Testaments in the second century where Jubilees would also belong, but the date of the article would cast even greater doubt on his claim to have made the first approximation to the correct date. Yet it remains a fact that whenever he decided Jubilees was written in the second pre-Christian century, it finally allowed him to write the commentary. The Introduction to the 1902 work is a gold mine of information about Jubilees, a fine reflection of Charles’s mature thoughts on the book. He arranged it much like the Introduction to his 1893 book on Enoch. The first section, “Short Account of the Book” (xiii–xiv), is not so much a summary of Jubilees’ contents as a statement of Charles’s understanding of the situation and message of the author: The Book of Jubilees was written in Hebrew by a Pharisee between the year of the accession of Hyrcanus to the high-priesthood in 135 and his breach with the Pharisees some years before his death in 105 .. It is the most advanced pre-Christian representative of the midrashic tendency, which had already been at work in the Old Testament Chronicles. As the Chronicler had rewritten the history of Israel and Judah from the basis of the Priests’ Code, so our author re-edited from the pharisaic standpoint of his time the history of events from the creation to the publication, or, according to the author’s view, the republication, of the law on Sinai. In the course of re-editing he incorporated a large body of traditional lore, which the midrashic process had put at his disposal, and also not a few fresh legal enactments, that the exigencies of the past had called forth. His ³⁶ “Der Stammbaum des masoretischen Textes des Alten Testaments,” in his Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur biblischen Wissenschaft (Freiburg: J. C. B. Mohr Paul Siebeck, 1894) 82–124, here 113–14. ³⁷ “The Pre-Talmudic Haggada,” JQR 5 (1893) 399–419, here 402–3.

   

123

work constitutes an enlarged Targum on Genesis and Exodus, in which difficulties in the biblical narrative are solved, gaps supplied, dogmatically offensive elements removed, and the genuine spirit of later Judaism infused into the primitive history of the world. His object was to defend Judaism against the attacks of the Hellenistic spirit that had been in the ascendant one generation earlier and was still powerful, and to prove that the law was of everlasting validity. From our author’s contentions and his embittered attacks on the paganizers and apostates, we may infer that Hellenism had urged that the Levitical ordinances of the law were only of transitory significance, that they had not been observed by the founders of the nation, and that the time had now come for them to be swept away, and for Israel to take its place in the brotherhood of the nations. Our author regarded all such views as fatal to the very existence of Jewish religion and nationality. But it is not as such that he assailed them, but on the ground of their falsehood. The law, he teaches, is of everlasting validity. Though revealed in time it was superior to time. Before it had been made known in sundry portions to the fathers it had been kept in heaven by the angels, and to its observance henceforward there was no limit in time or in eternity. (xiii–xiv)

As he had in most parts of the Book of Enoch, he found teachings about a messianic kingdom in Jubilees: it was to come very soon, be led by a messiah from the tribe of Judah, and gradually develop on earth. With it would come a transformation of nature and an ethical improvement in humans until there arose a new heaven and earth. Charles traced the various titles under which Jubilees was known by ancient writers and surveyed the Ethiopic copies of the book and the editions and translations³⁸ that had appeared. Next came an overview of “Critical Inquiries” in which he offered comments on some earlier publications but simply listed the titles of others. In his review of the ancient versions of Jubilees, he continued to regard the Ethiopic text as very accurate but now considered

³⁸ He was especially complimentary to Littmann for his contribution to Kautzsch, editor, Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments. He says that Littmann had chosen some better readings (from Dillmann’s manuscripts!) than the ones Charles had adopted in 1895 and added: “To Dr. Littmann I owe many corrections of my English translation in the Jewish Quarterly” (xxii). In the “Critical Inquiries” section of his Introduction Charles wrote about Littmann’s short Introduction to his rendering of Jubilees: “We have as good an introduction to our author as was possible from the stage of criticism at the time, and one that is meritorious alike for its learning and judgment” (xxvi). It is peculiar that Charles referred to “the stage of criticism at the time,” since Littmann’s contribution was published just two years before Charles’s volume.

124    ( – ) the Latin translation “almost of equal value with the Ethiopic” (xxviii). Contrary to his earlier view, he found the evidence for a Syriac translation of Jubilees to be “not conclusive” (xxix), since the only documentation for one was the list of patriarchal wives’ names. He provided a series of examples showing that the Ethiopic and Latin versions were translations from Greek Jubilees and that Greek Jubilees in turn had rendered a Hebrew original text. He devoted the tenth section to “Textual Affinities of the Text of the Book of Jubilees” (xxxiii–xxxix), that is, to lists of places where Jubilees, when it reproduces passages from Genesis-Exodus, agrees with one or several ancient versions of the Bible against others. From all the accumulated data he concluded: “our book attests an independent form of the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch,” one “midway between the forms presupposed by the LXX and the Syriac” (xxxviii, where the latter quotation is italicized). It is not surprising, given Charles’s enthusiasm for “correcting” ancient texts, that he also treated “Lacunae, Dittographies, and Dislocations in Our Text” (xxxix–xlii). Charles reported that he had benefitted greatly from discovering “the poetical element” in Jubilees, something he had also unearthed in the Book of Enoch. At a time when scholars were enthusiastically positing sources and multiple authors for texts such as the Pentateuch and Isaiah, to mention only the two best known examples, Charles believed one person had written Jubilees and used earlier writings and traditions in doing so (xliv– xlvii). Texts consulted by the author were a Book of Noah and most of the Book of Enoch. He also employed written legends about various wars of Jacob (attested in later sources as well) and material shared with the contemporary Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Other items in the book, such as the names for many individuals, may also be traditional but there are no other earlier written sources for them. As we saw in the long statement about Jubilees that Charles put at the beginning of his Introduction, he thought that Jubilees was a later example of the same kind of midrashic process that the Chronicler carried out. As that writer rewrote the Books of Samuel and Kings, so the author of Jubilees rewrote Genesis and the first half of Exodus. In section 14 of the Introduction (“Jubilees—A Product of the Midrashic Tendency at work in the Old Testament Chronicler, but represented by its Author as an Esoteric Tradition,” xlvii–li), he spelled out what he meant by the claim. The author of Jubilees rewrote the early scriptural history to “show that the law had been rigorously observed, even by the patriarchs” (xlviii). In addition, and also like the Chronicler, where he found statements in the older text that did not fit his views he changed or omitted them. God had revealed himself from the

   

125

beginning, and the patriarchs had passed that teaching along to their sons (this is the “esoteric tradition”). Another section that catches the eye is the fifteenth, “Object of Jubilees— The Defence and Exposition of Judaism from the Pharisaic Standpoint of the Second Century ..” (li–lvi). The section is replete with examples from the book in which the writer “glorifies the law,” introducing a number of its provisions already into the time of the patriarchs. He presented the ancestors as “models of piety” (li–liv) and magnified Israel; he insisted that the holy people was to be separate from the nations (liv–lv) and denounced those nations, especially Israel’s national enemies (lv–lvi). Charles prefaced this last topic by resorting to harsh words: “With the immeasurable arrogance of Judaism there went necessarily, hand in hand, an immeasurable hatred and contempt of the Gentiles” (lv). The prejudice in that statement is hard to miss, but the entire section about the “object” of Jubilees leaves one wondering what in all this accumulated material Charles found to be indicative of Pharisaic authorship. He never even implied there was a question about it; apparently it was self-evident that “glorifying” the law and the patriarchs and insisting on a strictly separated Israel were uniquely Pharisaic traits. After a unit devoted to the angelology and demonology of Jubilees, Charles turned to the question of when the author composed the book (lviii–lxviii). The section is especially meaningful in light of the debates about the topic that preceded Charles’s publications and also for clarifying what his position on the issue now was (see the discussion above). He realized that there was no direct, internal evidence for when the writer worked; there are only more indirect pointers. One strange feature of the section is that Charles refers to the views of no other scholars; he simply presents his own case. The first step in his argument was to define two points: a date after which it must have been written and one before which it had to have been composed. The upper (earliest) limit was set by the fact that the author wrote when the Maccabeans (Hasmoneans) ruled and not before 135 .. His proof was that in Jubilees 32:1 Levi is called priest of the Most High God, a title employed only by the Hasmonean high priests. John Hyrcanus, whose reign as ruler and high priest Charles dated to 135–105 .., was the first one who certainly used it, while it is not impossible that his father Simon did as well. As for the lower (latest) limit, Charles maintained that the book had to have been written before 96 .. when the Hasmonean high priest-king Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 ..) and the Pharisees were at war. If the author was a Pharisee, he would not have written so positively about the Maccabees after 96. Actually, a falling out between Pharisees and ruler had occurred already late in the reign of John

126    ( – ) Hyrcanus, although the year is not given in the sources. So, the book was written between 135 and 96, or more precisely, between 135 and the year John Hyrcanus and the Pharisees had their dispute. Thus, Charles’s dubious identification of the author as a Pharisee played a pivotal role in his dating argument. After defining the period within which the book was written, Charles adduced seven categories of evidence in support of the conclusion. The first four, he asserted, pointed clearly to 150–100 .. as the time of composition, while the final three documented more generally that the book was preChristian. The four categories in support of a date between 150 and 100 are: First, the book shows traces of a period of persecution now past after which certain laws were enacted. The laws forbidding nudity, the ones requiring proper circumcision at the right time, strict keeping of the Sabbath (e.g., no war on it), and no intermarrying with the nations are explicable as consequences of the policies of the Seleucid king Antiochus IV (175–64 ..) against Judaism. Second, the book comes from when the Maccabean dynasty was in its glory. It contains a promise to Jacob of world dominion (32:18–19), and its several battle accounts (against Esau and his sons, for example) are reflections of Hasmonean triumphs. Third, the apocalypse in ch. 23 traces the history of Hasmonean times. “Our author stands already on the threshold of that happy time” of the messianic kingdom (lxiii). It comes, therefore, from the reign of Simon or of Hyrcanus, the greatest of the Hasmonean rulers. Fourth, since the writer of 1 Enoch 91–104 used Jubilees, its latest possible date of composition is the beginning of the first century .. (lxi–lxiv) The arguments supporting a pre-Christian date more generally are: the textual affinities of the biblical citations in the book, the early forms of the narratives and laws in it (all of which he lists), and several other features—the unusual calendar, use of the divine title God Most High, and the author’s ignorance of the later name “the feast of Pentecost” for the Festival of Weeks. The remaining parts of the Introduction Charles devoted to topics such as the aid offered by Jubilees in dating the various sections of Ethiopic Enoch (and the lost Book of Noah) and the book’s relation to the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. He found that the conclusions he had reached in his 1893 volume on Enoch were confirmed by his study of Jubilees: the author used 1 Enoch 6–16, 23–36, and 72–90, while 91–104 is later than Jubilees and in fact

   

127

used it. He also thought 1 Enoch 1–5 post-dated Jubilees. The writer of Jubilees drew upon the Book of Noah which is older than even the most ancient parts of 1 Enoch (lxviii–lxxii). As for the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, he determined that neither it nor Jubilees was dependent on the other; both, in overlapping sections, drew on common sources. In this context Charles said he hoped “to treat this question exhaustively in my edition of the Testaments” (lxxii), so he was planning such a work already at this time.³⁹ He maintained that the author of Jubilees was probably a priest, citing the major role of Levi and his descendants in the book (lxxiii). As he had for the Book of Enoch in 1893, so in 1902 Charles assembled a large number of places where, as he saw matters, Jubilees left its mark on Jewish, Samaritan, and Christian sources (lxxiii–lxxxiii). The section is certainly valuable, but he cast his net rather broadly in some cases. Thus, he found similar ideas in the Wisdom of Solomon and in 4 Ezra, but in neither case is there any firm reason for thinking Jubilees was a source for these later works. He likewise noted the correspondence in the ages that Jubilees and the Samaritan Chronicle attribute to the prediluvian patriarchs at the births of their first sons, but he failed to mention that the information is also present in the Samaritan Pentateuch. In surveying Christian literature, he divided the information into texts that cite Jubilees or the Little Genesis by name and those that use it but without designating it by title. He added a section in which he traced Jubilees’ influence on the New Testament (lxxxiii–lxxxvi). He was able to point out a number of similarities (e.g., in angelology and demonology), but that these even suggest influence from Jubilees seems unlikely. One remarkable parallel he adduced has to do with 1 Timothy 1:4 (“not to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies”); 4:6 (“Have nothing to do with profane myths and old wives’ tales”); and Titus 3:9 (“genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law”). Regarding these he commented: “The Pauline phrases form a just description of a large portion of Jubilees. The ‘old wives’ fables’ may be an allusion to the large rôle played by women in it” (lxxxv). Statements like these make one suspect that Charles had little appreciation for this very important feature of Jubilees. A short section in which he quickly sketched the views of the writer about eschatological topics closes the Introduction (lxxxvii–lxxxix). Charles thought the author mentioned a messiah in 31:18 (from the line of Judah) and that he believed the messianic kingdom had already begun to appear in his time. He

³⁹ His edition and translation of the Testaments were published in 1908.

128    ( – ) taught an immortality of the soul for the righteous after death, not a bodily resurrection (see 23:31). The English translation with notes occupies pp. 1–261. In the volume, the notes fill much more space than they did in the 1894–95 translation. They more nearly resemble the size of the notes in his 1893 and 1912 books about Enoch. He placed the book’s dates for events in the margins of the translation. Dates are commonly expressed in Jubilees by indicating the jubilee period, the week of years within it, and the year in question, but Charles translated these confusing numbers into a running chronology, beginning with creation and ending with the year of the world 2450. There are two short indexes—of passages (263–5), and of names and subjects (267–75).

Reviews One of those who reviewed Charles’s commentary on Jubilees was Emil Schürer (1844–1910),⁴⁰ who had founded the journal Theologische Literaturzeitung in 1876, had become Professor of New Testament at Göttingen in 1895, and was best known for his multi-volume Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (= History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ). Among other topics, Schürer took up the date of Jubilees. He agreed that it reflected Hasmonean circumstances and was pre-Herodian (the harsh treatment of Edom in Jubilees indicated as much [Herod was an Edomite]), but he did not think one could be so precise as Charles was in dating the book because the latest possible date, other than the time of Herod in general (37–4 ..), could not be determined. For example, Charles might have been right that the Pharisaic author would not have praised the priests so extravagantly at a time when the Hasmoneans had turned against the Pharisees, but this feature would fit the time of Alexandra (76–67 ..) as well as that of her son Hyrcanus because she restored the Pharisees to prominence. Schürer noted that the agreement of Jubilees with the Septuagint more than with the readings of the Masoretic Text, its calendar, and its earlier positions on various points favored a time before the first century .., but still within the limits he had established. He considered the apocalyptic section 23:12–31 the most important passage for determining the date. It speaks of the beginning of the Maccabean movement against the apostates, but it is not possible to state how far the history extended because ⁴⁰ Theologische Literaturzeitung 28 (1903) cols. 675–9.

   

129

the text is unclear. Hence one should rest content with a date between the time of John Hyrcanus (134–104) and the rise of Herod (37 ..). Another review was by Stanley Arthur Cook of the University of Cambridge in The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland for 1903, 205–8. One of the features in Charles’s book that caught the reviewer’s attention was what he said about the text of Genesis-Exodus underlying Jubilees. Cook greatly appreciated Charles’s collection of materials but thought that closer investigation was needed. It was not adequate to say that Jubilees agreed in a reading with, for example, the Septuagint in places where the best manuscripts of the Septuagint differ in their readings. The reviewer’s concluding paragraph is worth citing: The Translation and Commentary as a whole, and the excellent Introduction that precedes it, are far in advance of previous editions, and are marked by that clearness and scholarship which one is accustomed to look for, and to find, in Dr. Charles’ works. His notes throughout are extremely helpful and clear; some of them, as that on the later history of the myth in Gen. vi, 1–4, are veritable monographs. This class of literature, the study of which he has made so pre-eminently his own, has too long been neglected, and his series of commentaries on books which rank second to the canonical writings of the Old and New Testament are indispensable to everyone who is interested in early Christian and Jewish literature. (208)

The 1902 translation and commentary formed Charles’s last major contribution to study of Jubilees. As with the Book of Enoch, an abbreviated version of his 1902 publication appeared in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 2.1–82.⁴¹ In 1917 just the translation was published in The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis translated from the Ethiopic Text by R. H. Charles, D. Litt., D.D., Canon of Westminster; Fellow of Merton College; Fellow of the British Academy, with an Introduction by G. H. Box, M.A., Lecturer in Rabbinical Hebrew, King’s College, London; Hon. Canon of St. Albans (Translation of Early Documents Series 1; London/New York: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge). In his introduction (e.g., p. viii), Box took strong issue with Charles’s claim that the author was a Pharisee and showed that positions the writer expressed were often fundamentally opposed to those of the group (stressing that the 364-day calendar was not Pharisaic). ⁴¹ In this publication Charles narrowed the time limits between which the book was written to 109 and 105 .. (2.6).

130    ( – ) He believed one of the Hasidim (the pious) was a more likely candidate for authorship.

Legacy Since I have worked more closely with Jubilees than any other text on which Charles published, perhaps I can give my own assessment of how his work has weathered the years. As with Enoch, subsequent discoveries of texts have unavoidably rendered his work outdated in some respects. The most important of these discoveries are the fourteen fragmentary copies from Qumran, all in Hebrew. But Charles did the most important scholarship on Jubilees before the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, and his critical edition and commentary remain fundamental to anyone who wishes to work seriously with Jubilees. The earliest of the Qumran copies may come from ca. 125–100 .., approximately the time when Charles dated Jubilees, and thus it is likely that Jubilees was written earlier than he thought. In some instances, the readings on the Hebrew fragments show that Charles’s textual explanations were incorrect. Many more copies of Ethiopic Jubilees are now available as are a series of citations in Syriac and some additional quotations in Catena manuscripts of the Greek Bible. I published a critical edition of Jubilees in 1989, the first edition since Charles’s work of 1895. In 1989 twenty-seven Ethiopic manuscripts were identified and available, and today many more are known to exist. It is surprising that someone as well informed as Charles could maintain that Jubilees was written by a Pharisee, and already in his time experts were reacting against the inference. Box’s negative verdict was noted above. In 1930 the great scholar of rabbinic literature, Hanoch Albeck, devoted a short monograph to the legal material in Jubilees and showed in detail that the author was not a Pharisee but a member of a sect that did not adopt the Pharisaic tradition.⁴² So Charles missed the specific historical context in which Jubilees arose, but he worked so carefully with the text—at times incorrectly—and offered so much material for interpreting it that it is immensely profitable still today to turn to his books for studying Jubilees. I do. The next composition on which Charles worked, 2 Enoch, proved to be a surprise. Unlike Enoch and Jubilees, it was a composition of which he had heard only a short time before. ⁴² Das Buch der Jubiläen und die Halacha (Sieben und vierziger Bericht der Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums in Berlin; Berlin-Schöneberg: Druck von Siegfried Scholem, 1930).

Chapter 3 2 (Slavonic) Enoch During the mid-1890s, the Charleses continued to live in Oxford while he held no official position at the university. Whatever their financial circumstances may have been, he remained exceedingly active in research and publication. Charles, with two major publications to his credit by the end of 1895 (on Enoch and Jubilees)—ones that must have required an enormous amount of work—might have stopped for a moment to catch his breath, but there was no slowing his pace. In 1896 two more editions of Jewish texts came off the press. One of the books he was writing that year and that was published in 1896 was a commentary on 2 Enoch,¹ sometimes called Slavonic Enoch because of the language in which it was preserved or the Book of the Secrets of Enoch, its title in some textual witnesses.

The Contents of Slavonic Enoch Francis I. Andersen, who many years later also translated Slavonic Enoch into English, outlined its seventy-three chapters (at least there are seventy-three in his translation; see below) into two main parts, each of which has sub-divisions. 1. Life of Enoch a. Enoch’s Journey Through Seven (or Ten) Heavens (chs. 1–21) b. Enoch’s Interview with the Lord (22–35) c. Enoch’s Return to Earth (36–8) d. Enoch Instructs His Children (39–63) e. Enoch’s Final Call and Last Words (64–6) f. Second Translation of Enoch to Heaven (67–8) 2. Subsequent Events² a. Ministry of Methusalom (69:1–70:16) b. Ministry of Nir (70:17–26) ¹ The book received the title “2 Enoch” simply to distinguish it from 1 (Ethiopic) Enoch. ² For the way in which Charles viewed these units, see below.

R. H. Charles: A Biography. James C. VanderKam, Oxford University Press. © James C. VanderKam 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192869289.003.0005

132    ( – ) c. Birth of Melkisedek (71) d. Translation of Melkisedek (72) e. The Flood (73).³ It employs material known from 1 Enoch—e.g., the story about angels who sinned with women and teachings about astronomy—but is not a version or revision of it, nor is it necessarily the case that the writer of 2 Enoch used 1 Enoch itself as a source. The shared features may have come to the writer of 2 Enoch through other channels.

The Context for Charles’s Volume on the Slavonic Enoch The books of Enoch and Jubilees were, as seen above, relatively recent arrivals in Europe when Charles began his study of them. Slavonic or 2 Enoch was of even more recent re-discovery, at least in the English-speaking world, since it was not until 1892 that Charles first heard of it. He wrote that, while working on his Enoch commentary of 1893, he came across an article that mentioned a Slavonic Enoch work. The essay was by Eugen Kozak, “Bibliographische Uebersicht der biblisch-apokryphen Literatur bei den Slaven,” Jahrbücher für die Protestantische Theologie 18 (1892) 127–58. The fourth entry in Kozak’s survey was “Liber Enochi” (pp. 132–3) about which he wrote: “The content agrees in general with the familiar Ethiopic version of this book” (my translation). Kozak then referred the reader to Gfrörer’s 1840 publication on Ethiopic Enoch⁴ and to Dillmann’s 1853 commentary. When he saw the article, wrote Charles, I at once applied to Mr. Morfill for help, and in the course of a few weeks we had before us printed copies of two of the MSS. in question.⁵ It did not take much study to discover that Kozak’s statement was absolutely devoid of foundation. The Book of the Secrets of Enoch was, as it soon transpired, a new pseudepigraph, and not in any sense a version of the older and well-known Book of Enoch. (The Book of the Secrets of Enoch, xi; cf. viii) ³ Andersen, “Enoch, Second Book of,” Anchor Bible Dictionary 2.517. His translation is “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of ) Enoch,” in James Charlesworth, editor, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1.91–221. ⁴ The reference is to August Friedrich Gfrörer (1803–61), who in his book Prophetae veteres pseudepigraphi, partim ex abyssinico vel hebraico sermonibus latine versi (Stuttgart: Krabbe, 1840) included three sections regarding the Book of Enoch, two taken from Richard Laurence: “Enochi Liber, ex Aethiopico sermone anglice versus a Rich. Laurentio, jam latinitate donatus,” 169–266; “Fragmenta Libri Enoch, quae apud patres occurrunt, a Fabricio et Hoffmanno collecta,” 267–75; and “Richardi Laurentii dissertatio de libro Enochi, latine versa,” 276–302. ⁵ Charles’s wording may indicate that they received transcriptions, not photographs, of the manuscripts.

 (  ) 

133

Charles could have concluded that the Slavonic text had little or nothing to do with his current project (Ethiopic Enoch) and ignored it,⁶ but he did the opposite. He studied the composition of which he had just become aware and regarded it as a continuation of his work with Enoch traditions. In the process, he made a lasting contribution to the analysis of the text he could read only in translation. The passage of time had relieved him of the need to point out the superiority of his edition over Dillmann’s, since the latter had not published on 2 Enoch before his death in 1894. 2 Enoch, like 1 Enoch and Jubilees, was a work known and used in another culture for centuries before scholars in the West became aware of it. Not only had it been read there, but Russian experts had been publishing about it since 1842.⁷

The Book The Book of the Secrets of Enoch Translated from the Slavonic by W. R. Morfill, M.A., Reader in Russian and the Other Slavonic Languages and Edited with Introduction, Notes and Indices by R. H. Charles, M.A., Trinity College, Dublin and Exeter College, Oxford (Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1896). The volume is not an edition of the text; rather it is, like his 1893 work on Enoch, a translation fortified by an introduction and notes of explanation. The title page indicates that Charles needed help in handling 2 Enoch because it existed only in Slavonic copies,⁸ and he did not read Slavonic. The person who translated the text into English was William Richard Morfill (1834–1909), an Oxford acquaintance.⁹ Charles himself contributed the Preface, Introduction, notes, and indices. The Introduction that Charles composed for the commentary on 2 Enoch is different from the ones in his earlier volumes because there were no certain ⁶ He had noted the “discovery” already in his 1893 The Book of Enoch, 1: “Only recently two Slavonic MSS., which belong to this literature [of Enoch], but are quite independent of the present book, have been printed in Russia.” On p. 190 he referred to Slavonic Enoch’s year of 365¼ days and on p. 357 to the δρακοντων [drakontōn] in 1 Enoch 20:7 in connection with the occurrence of the term chalkydri in 2 Enoch (on this topic, see below). ⁷ See Christfried Böttrich, Das slavische Henochbuch (Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit V/7; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1996) 786, for references. ⁸ Slavonic is the language used in Orthodox churches in Eastern Europe. ⁹ Charles was understandably very grateful to Morfill: I must express my gratitude to Mr. Morfill for his great kindness in undertaking the translation of the Slavonic texts, and for his unfailing courtesy and unwearying energy in the prosecution of the task. It is to him that I am indebted for the account of the Slavonic MSS. in §2. (viii)

134    ( – ) references to it in ancient literature and no detailed publications on it from scholars in the West. Thus, all questions about it awaited their first answers— at least in English. Being a pioneer was a risky endeavor, as Charles himself recognized. It will be generally understood that great difficulties beset such an undertaking, and particularly in the case of a book of whose existence there had never been even a surmise in the world of scholarship, and to which there was not a single unmistakable allusion in all ancient literature. The editor in such a case has to pursue untraveled ways, and if, in his efforts to discover the literary environment, the religious views, the date, and language of his author, he has fallen once and again into errors of perception or judgement, he can therein but throw himself on the indulgence of his critics. (viii)

Charles tried to make a case in the Introduction that the work was old and, in many ways, similar in value to Ethiopic Enoch. Briefly stated, his thesis was that “[t]he Slavonic Enoch in its present form was written somewhere about the beginning of the Christian era. Its author or final editor was a Hellenistic Jew, and the place of its composition was Egypt” (xii). Because of the book’s nature and the lack of external information about it, these positions were not easy to establish, but Charles made a typically energetic effort. As we will see, he maintained that 2 Enoch was indeed quoted and/or alluded to a number of times in Jewish and early Christian literature, including the New Testament. A problem impacting all questions regarding 2 Enoch was the state in which the text survived. Morfill reported that the Slavonic copies known to him fell into two classes—the ones with the complete text (two manuscripts) and ones with “a shortened and incomplete redaction of the text” (three manuscripts). None of the five antedated the sixteenth century. Morfill added that he had direct knowledge of just two of the five existing copies: the one he labeled A (= P in current listings, offering the longer text) and the other B (= N, attesting the shorter text). He was aware of readings in the other manuscripts through the text prepared by Prof. Sokolov [M.I. Sokolov of the University of Moscow], which is based on all the above MSS. Unfortunately, however, this text has not fully discriminated these sources. Accordingly, to avoid misconceptions, this text, which is designated as Sok, is to be understood as representing all authorities other than A and B. (xiii–xiv)

 (  ) 

135

Morfill intended only to make a useful text available to his friend Charles and therefore left out discussions of linguistic matters. According to Charles, Morfill actually prepared three literal translations—of A, B, and Sokolov’s text. Of these Charles decided to follow A as his principal text and to use the others as needed (xiv–xv). He considered B to be a “résumé” of A (it is approximately half its length) but also believed that A contained interpolations. Some of these he removed from the text and placed in notes and others he left in the text but enclosed in brackets. His decision to present in full only the longer text entailed that the reader would not be able to see the shorter recension nearly as clearly—a defect that later translators were to rectify. Charles marshaled data to show that the author had written the work in Greek. The evidence he cited was the statement in 30:13 that the name Adam derived from the terms for the four directions. The four letters of Adam are the first letters of the four directions in Greek—a wordplay that does not work in Semitic languages.¹⁰ In addition, the writer follows the readings of the Septuagint when he references scriptural material and in a number of cases uses the wording of the Wisdom of Ben Sira and Wisdom of Solomon, texts found in Greek manuscripts of the Bible. Yet, Charles also hypothesized that some sections were composed in Hebrew (xvi).¹¹ He found Egypt to be the most likely place of composition—probably in Alexandria—and adduced in support the “speculations” the book shared with Philo and other Hellenistic writers, its failure to reproduce any of the Old Testament’s messianic teachings, and its syncretistic account of creation. To these he added an interesting argument: “The Phoenixes and Chalkydries, xii¹²— monstrous serpents with the heads of crocodiles—are natural products of the Egyptian imagination” (xvii). A remarkable section in the Introduction is the fifth, “Relation of the Book to Jewish and Christian Literature” (xvii–xxiv). One reason it is remarkable is the range of literature that Charles included in his survey of possible instances of literary influence from 2 Enoch or at least evidence for its existence. Another noteworthy feature is how unconvincing are most of the examples he amassed. Recall that a few pages earlier he had written that “. . . there was ¹⁰ The words are: anatolē (East), dusis (West), arktos (North), and mesēmbria (South) (xvi, 41 n. to v. 13 where Charles lists other sources for the wordplay). ¹¹ He drew the conclusion from his thesis that the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, a work Charles believed was written in Hebrew, derived material from 2 Enoch. Hence, those passages in 2 Enoch that were used in the Testaments were written in Hebrew (see xxiii–xxiv). Also, since the Testaments dated to about the beginning of the first century A.D., the Hebrew portions of 2 Enoch are pre-Christian. ¹² “xii” refers to ch. 12 in Slavonic Enoch where these creatures are mentioned.

136    ( – ) not a single unmistakable allusion in all ancient literature” (viii, cited above) to the newly available book. He seems to have forgot the statement when searching for allusions to and even quotations from it because he made rather strong claims about some of them. He examined the literature in reverse of chronological order, working from later texts (Byzantine chronographers) to earlier ones. For example, he referred to two passages in the Book of Adam and Eve (written in fifth century ..) that he regarded as “quotations in sense more than in words” (xviii) from 2 Enoch. 2 Enoch 29:4–5 reads in Morfill’s translation: One of these in the ranks of the Archangels, having turned away with the rank below him, entertained an impossible idea, that he should make his throne higher than the clouds over the earth, and should be equal in rank to My power. And I hurled him from the heights with his angels. And he was flying in the air continually, above the abyss.

The parallel that Charles suggested was The Life of Adam and Eve 15:3–16:1 (Latin) where Satan is recounting to Adam a conversation he had had with the angel Michael: “If he [God] grows angry with me, I will place my seat above the stars of heaven and I will be like the Most High.” Then the Lord God grew angry with me and sent me forth with my angels from our glory. On account of you [Adam] we were expelled from our dwelling into this world and cast out upon the earth.¹³

There is a resemblance in content, as Charles noted, but the motif is more widespread than in just 2 Enoch and the Adam and Eve text and thus hardly evidence that the latter used 2 Enoch. Among his fourth-century examples, he located several cases of 2 Enoch’s influence in the Apocalypse of Paul. One is the passage in which a revealing angel sets Paul in Paradise where he sees a tree on which the Spirit of God rested (paragraph 45).¹⁴ Charles wrote about the passage: “ . . . beyond the possibility of question a Christian adaptation of the Slavonic Enoch viii.3: ¹³ The translation is from G. A. Anderson and M. E. Stone, editors, A Synopsis of the Books of Adam and Eve (2nd rev. ed.; Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature 17; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999) 17E. ¹⁴ For the text, see J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation based on M. R. James (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993) 640.

 (  ) 

137

‘And in the midst (of Paradise is) the tree of life, in that place on which God rests, when He comes into Paradise’” (xix). It seems overly enthusiastic to term this as evidence “beyond the possibility of question” for use of 2 Enoch here in the Apocalypse of Paul, although there are commonalities. The earliest reflections of 2 Enoch Charles found in the New Testament; the connection was a key plank in his argument that 2 Enoch was written in the first century .. He introduced his suggested parallels with a cautionary note: “In the New Testament the similarity of thought and diction is sufficiently large to establish a close connexion, if not a literary dependence” (xxi). Among his examples are exhortations in the Sermon on the Mount such as Matthew 5:34, 35, 37 about swearing: “Do not swear at all, either by heaven . . . or by the earth . . . or by Jerusalem, . . . Let your word be ‘Yes, Yes’ or ‘No, No’ [NRSV].” With this he compared 2 Enoch 49:1: “For I swear to you my children, but I will not swear by a single oath, neither by heaven, nor by earth, nor by any other creature which God made. God said: ‘There is no swearing in me, nor injustice, but truth. If there is no truth in men, let them swear by a word, yea, yea, or nay, nay’” (Morfill’s translation). There is no denying the similarity, but the issue is how to explain it. Charles, for whatever reason, appears to have assumed that when parallels exist, 2 Enoch must be earlier and thus the source for the other text. Perhaps an eagerness to demonstrate the early date and great significance of the book led him to omit mentioning the possibility that 2 Enoch borrowed from the New Testament or that both drew on more widespread traditions. Or so it seems from the Introduction because in the commentary, in his note to 2 Enoch 49:1, he cited parallels from Philo and referred to this as “a Jewish commonplace” (65). If it is so well attested, it is hasty to claim that Matthew took the statement about swearing from 2 Enoch. The same might be said about the Epistle of Barnabas 18:1 which teaches that there are two ways, the one of light, the other of darkness. These words, wrote Charles, “are derived from our text, xxx.15, ‘I showed him the two ways, the light and the darkness.’ Though the Two Ways are often described in early literature . . . , only in Barnabas are they described in the same terms as in our text” (xx). Charles did not live to see the Dead Sea Scrolls, but their extensive use of the light/darkness contrast in this kind of context shows how precarious such arguments are. The section regarding the literary influence of 2 Enoch provided the information needed by Charles to date the book (xxv–xxvi). He believed that the single author of 2 Enoch used the Wisdom of Ben Sira, Wisdom of Solomon, and the latest form of 1 Enoch. This relationship gave him a lower limit of 30 .. to .. 1 for the composition of 2 Enoch. It was not written later than

138    ( – ) 70 .. because it assumed that the temple was still standing (59:2 is his proof text, although it speaks fairly generally about sacrifices), and it was known and used by some New Testament and other early writers (like Barnabas). “We may, therefore, with reasonable certainty assign the composition of our text to the period 1–50 ..” (xxvi). Charles surveyed the book’s teachings about creation, anthropology, and ethics in a brief section (xxvii–xxix), but he devoted much more space to “The Value of the Book in elucidating contemporary and subsequent Religious Thought” (xxix–xlvii). Strangely, almost all of the unit (xxx–xlvii) deals with the idea of seven heavens. After swiftly mentioning five other concepts in 2 Enoch (e.g., death caused by sin, the millennium), he traced teachings about seven heavens (or at least multiple heavens) through Babylonian, Old Testament, Greek, Jewish, and Christian literature, concluding with the Qur’an (“Some form of the Slavonic Enoch seems to have been in Mohammed’s hands,” xlvii).¹⁵ He never states exactly why this topic deserved such extensive treatment compared to the others and does not expend much effort relating the contents of the many texts he covered to the doctrine as represented in 2 Enoch. In addition, he failed to report here that some manuscripts of the longer recension speak of ten heavens (see Charles’s notes on p. 27 where he dismissed the end of ch. 21 and the beginning of 22, verses mentioning the additional heavens, as interpolations; cf. Andersen’s n. on 22:1). A problematic feature of the Charles-Morfill publication of Slavonic Enoch is its treatment of the end of the text. Morfill’s translation concludes with 2 Enoch 68:7 where his manuscript P with the longer version ended; it is a verse that certainly sounds as if it is bringing the text to a close. After Enoch was taken to heaven and his son Methusalem (Methuselah) and others offered sacrifice, it reports: All the people came and the elders of the people; all the host of them to the festivity, and brought their gifts to the sons of Enoch, and made a great festivity, rejoicing and being merry for three days; praising God who had given such a sign by means of Enoch, who had found favour with Him. And

¹⁵ The previous year Charles had published this section in a two-part article with the very title that heads it in the book, “The Seven Heavens. An Early Jewish and Christian Belief,” Expository Times 7 (1895) 57–61, 115–18. The section in the book and the article agree word for word, but at the end of the article he wrote: “The Slavonic Enoch seems to have been in Mohammed’s hands” (118). In the form of the sentence in the book cited above, he altered the line by opening it with “Some form of the Slavonic Enoch. . . .” He also added a footnote at this point in the book that is not in the article.

 (  ) 

139

that they should hand it down to their son’s sons, from generation to generation, for ever. Amen.

Charles left the remainder of the page (84) blank and after it placed an appendix (85–93) in which he furnished additional textual material, about which he wrote: The following fragment of the Melchizedekian literature was found by Professor Sokolov in the chief MS. on which he has based his text. In this MS. it is given as an organic factor of the Slavonic Enoch. This is done by omitting all the words in A lxviii.7, after “merry for three days,” and then as we see below immediately proceeding “And on the third day,” &. No hint of this large addition is found in A or B, but Sokolov writes that it appears in several MSS. to which he had access. The reader will observe that in many passages it implies the Slavonic Enoch. (85)

Charles assigned separate chapter and verse numbers to the units that he regarded as supplementary, not authentic parts of 2 Enoch, despite the testimony of several manuscripts. The first lines of the section describe the appointment of Enoch’s son Methuselah to be priest after a divine appearance to him (Charles’s ch. I), while in the next part he experiences a second encounter with God who orders him to appoint his grandson Nir, Noah’s brother, as priest and predicts the coming of the flood. Methuselah obeys and soon breathes his last (II:1–17). Nir then serves as priest for many prosperous years, but the good times eventually devolve into a period of wickedness (II:18–26). The third chapter recounts the mysterious pregnancy of Nir’s wife Sopanima in her old age, Nir’s anger at seeing her condition, her death, and the birth from her corpse of the remarkably mature and verbal Melchizedek. Nir and Noah consecrate him a priest, and the Lord promises great things for his priesthood and for a future Melchizedek. In ch. IV Michael, at God’s command, takes the child Melchizedek to Eden to survive the flood there and Nir dies. In the fifth and final chapter Noah prepares for the flood which the deity then unleashes. Charles suggested that what he called “the Melchizedek myth” was written by “an early Christian heretic” (p. 85) who appended it to the Jewish text.¹⁶

¹⁶ His evidence for attributing these chapters to a Christian heretic consisted of a few vague allusions in III:34 and IV:8. Charles also summarized his findings about Slavonic Enoch in his article “Enoch, Book of the Secrets of,” in James Hastings, editor, A Dictionary of the Bible (1898) 1.708–11.

140    ( – )

Reviews The volume produced by Morfill and Charles elicited several reviews. One was by Gottlieb Nathaniel Bonwetsch (1848–1925), a scholar in Germany who was born in Russia. Bonwetsch, too, had come across the article by Kozak announcing the existence of a Slavonic book of Enoch and, like Charles, had resisted his claim that the Slavonic work was essentially the same as 1 (Ethiopic) Enoch. Initially Bonwetsch supposed that it was a free reworking of parts of 1 Enoch but later realized such was not the case. He published his own translation of both the long and short forms of the text in Das slavische Henochbuch at the end of 1896. He reported in the Introduction that his own translation of Slavonic Enoch into German was almost completed when he heard that the Morfill-Charles project was about to appear. When the English-language edition became available, he revised his translation, believing that two independently prepared renderings into western languages would be beneficial to those who did not know Slavonic (3). In the remainder of the introductory section, he described the manuscript evidence known to him (he was aware of and used more copies than Morfill) and outlined some of Charles’s conclusions with which he largely agreed (4–8). He also noted that for the chapter and verse numbers he adopted the ones used by Charles (8). In Theologische Literaturzeitung 21 (1896) cols. 153–6, Bonwetsch offered a favorable assessment of The Book of the Secrets of Enoch and, as in his own book, agreed with many of the points Charles had made (e.g., about the date of 2 Enoch). He too thought the Slavonic Enoch was Jewish and lacked any specifically Christian features. Although he did not accept all the passages Charles thought were influenced by 2 Enoch (e.g., the one in Matthew 5:35–7 about not swearing), he did think he was right about a number of them. With Charles, he believed the book was written in Greek and that the Slavonic texts contained interpolations (such as the reference in 2 Enoch 16:5 to the cycle of 532 years). Bonwetsch praised Morfill’s translation, but he did offer some corrections. He also regretted that, as a consequence of Morfill’s stated purpose—making a useful English version available for Charles, therefore omitting philological discussions—it was often not possible to see why he had preferred one reading over another. In Theologische Literaturzeitung 21 (1896) 347–50 Emil Schürer reviewed Bonwetsch’s book and in the process also offered comments on the MorfillCharles volume. He commended Bonwetsch for making translations of both the long and short versions available. His German rendering of the long version appeared on the top of the pages and the shorter one on the bottom,

 (  ) 

141

so the reader could see both in their complete form. In Morfill-Charles, as we have observed, a translation of the long version alone appeared, and information about the readings in the short recension was consigned to the notes. Schürer agreed that the work was mostly Jewish, but he thought one should reckon with a Christian revision at some point. He did have difficulty accepting the idea that the apocalyptic passages in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs identified by Charles actually betrayed influence from 2 Enoch (from the parts originally written in Hebrew) and devoted a considerable amount of space to making the point. The following year saw an unusual response to the appearance of The Book of the Secrets of Enoch. Montague Rhodes James, who had allowed Charles to use a Latin fragment of 1 Enoch and who had reviewed his 1893 book, noticed that the 1896 volume contained a translation of the longer recension alone. James thought that the shorter one deserved more attention than it had received and wrote in the Preface to a volume he was editing: When the edition of the Slavonic Enoch by Mr Charles and Mr Morfill appeared, it struck Professor Robinson¹⁷ (and myself) that the text which Mr Charles styles B presented such remarkable features that it would be well worth while to print it separately. I wrote to Mr Charles, and he very kindly gave his sanction to my doing this, and sent me Mr Morfill’s translation. The latter gentleman offered, most generously, to revise his work, and did so.¹⁸

At that point, however, James learned that Bonwetsch had issued a translation of both the long and short recensions. As a result, he reluctantly gave up the idea of including the shorter recension of Slavonic Enoch in Apocrypha Anecdota II. As we saw earlier, one indication that made Charles think 2 Enoch was written in Egypt was “the Phoenixes and Chalkydries” in ch. 12 (p. xvii). Morfill translated 12:1–2 as: And I looked and saw other flying creatures, their names phoenixes and chalkydri wonderful and strange in appearance, with the feet and tails of lions, and the heads of crocodiles; their appearance was of a purple colour, like the rainbow; their size nine hundred measures. Their wings were like ¹⁷ He was referring to Joseph Armitage Robinson (1858–1933), the general editor of the series Texts and Studies: Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature in which James’ volume later appeared. ¹⁸ Aprocrypha Anecdota II (Texts and Studies: Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature, vol. V, number 1; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1897) v–vi.

142    ( – ) those of angels, each with twelve, and they attend the chariot of the sun, and go with him, bringing heat and dew as they are ordered by God.

In his extended note to the passage, Charles cited many ancient references to the phoenix before turning to the more mysterious chalkydri. He thought the word was a transliteration of Χαλκυδραι, [Chalkudrai] which he took to mean “brazen hydras, or serpents” (13, n.). He related this information to 1 Enoch 20:7 which refers to “serpents” (called drakontōn in the Greek text) and “cherubim.” From this he concluded that chalkydri were seraphim (for a flying seraph, see Isaiah 14:29; 30:6). These he identified with the seraphim in Isaiah 6:3 where they sing, as 2 Enoch 15:1 says the phoenixes and chalkydri do. I mention this sample of Charles’s exegesis because it was a subject addressed by Burkitt in his obituary of Charles. There it is the second of two stories he told to illustrate the way Charles went about his work—specifically, how he did not change his mind once he had settled on a view (for the first story, see Part 2, Chapter 2). According to Burkitt: Charles’ edition came out in 1896. In the following year M. R. James published a miscellaneous work called Apocrypha Anecdota II. In the Introduction to this collection (which included the famous Gnostic Hymn of Jesus in the Acts of John) the present Provost of Eton discusses the nature of a “Chalkadry”, i.e. the crocodile-headed companion of the sun according to Slavonic Enoch, illustrating his remarks by certain late Byzantine documents. Among other things he points out that “every bird” in Slavonic Enoch xv.1 must be a rendering of παν ορνεον, i.e. “every cock”, and that the following verse gives the words of the song which the cocks are supposed to sing before sunrise. It was a neat piece of exposition, but it was ignored by Charles, and in his 1913 collection of Pseudepigrapha (p. 437) no notice of it whatever is taken.¹⁹ This was particularly unfortunate, as what underlay Dr. James’s criticism was a totally different theory as to the origin and nature of this so-called Jewish work.²⁰ The

¹⁹ Actually, Charles did mention something of the sort. In a note to 2 Enoch 15:1 he wrote regarding the expression “every bird”: “We should expect ‘all these winged creatures,’ i.e. the Phoenixes and Chalkidri. Or are we to take it that the early song of birds at sunrise is here referred to? but this is unlikely” (The Book of the Secrets of Enoch, 17). In the 1913 volume a note to the passage reads: “A parenthetic reference to the songs of birds at sunrise” (437). ²⁰ Perhaps Burkitt knew more about James’ views than James articulated in Apocrypha Anecdota II, but there, in his Introduction to what he called The Apocalypse of Baruch (= 4 Baruch), James wrote in detail about similarities between it and Slavonic Enoch. When he commented on the Chalkydri and referred to 2 Enoch 12 and 15 (lxiii–lxvi), he cited a text from the thirteenth century that mentions

 (  ) 

143

sequel was that Mrs. Maunder, for many years an “observer” at Greenwich, pronounced that the astronomy of Slavonic Enoch was not Alexandrian but Byzantine, and the point was very forcibly demonstrated by Dr. J. K. Fotheringham in the Journal of Theological Studies (xxiii, pp. 49–56). In other words, ‘Slavonic Enoch’ is not Jewish, but a Christian work of the seventh century ..²¹

Burkitt’s report suggests that Charles’s whole approach to 2 Enoch had been wrong and that he had failed to change his stance after solid contrary evidence had emerged. Burkitt was alluding to a dispute that broke out regarding Charles’s dating and identification of the text as Jewish. After his work on 2 Enoch had become more familiar through the form it took in the second volume of his Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (1913; on this work, see below, Part 2, Chapter 9), some experts on early calendars took strong exception to his handling of the material in 2 Enoch 13–16. The opposition came from an unexpected quarter. In the passage from the obituary of Charles cited above, Burkitt referred to Mrs. Maunder of Greenwich who argued that the astronomy of 2 Enoch was Byzantine, not Alexandrian. He had in mind A. S. D. Maunder, the author of “The Date and Place of Writing of the Slavonic Book of Enoch,” The Observatory 41 (1918) 309–16. She had trouble believing that a Greek work, which had been as widely influential over many centuries as Charles held, could have survived to the present in no Greek copy and yet was somehow available for translation into Slavonic in the twelfth century or later. But the focus of her criticism was astronomy, as one might expect from the nature of the journal in which it was published. Maunder maintained that the calendrical elements in Slavonic Enoch were Roman (e.g., the Julian calendar), not Egyptian. Moreover, they were ones employed for the Christian computation of the date of Easter. Examples she cited, both from 2 Enoch 16:5, were the lunar epacts (first attested by this name in the third century ..) and the grand cycle of 532 years (first attested in 457 .., possibly a few decades earlier). Charles was quite aware of the cycle, the date of its attestation, and its Easter usage, but he had bracketed the sentence in which it occurs in 2 Enoch as an interpolation (19). Maunder took the reference to be part of the text and a firm indicator that 2 Enoch was much χαλεδρις [chaledris] which he believed might be the same term. He said nothing about dating 2 Enoch to a time as late as Burkitt implies. In fact, at a subsequent point (lxxi) he stated that 4 Baruch, which he dated to the second century .., used 2 Enoch. ²¹ “Robert Henry Charles 1855–1931,” 442–4.

144    ( – ) later in date than Charles allowed. After a foray into Slavic literature and theology, she concluded that 2 Enoch was a Bogomil²² work, part of a literature that she termed a “Bogomil historiated Bible” (316). It dated from between the twelfth and fifteenth centuries, at least a thousand years later than Charles put it. Maunder’s intriguing essay might have escaped the eyes of Charles and others in the field were it not for J. K. Fotheringham—also mentioned by Burkitt. He wrote a short piece—“The Date and Place of Writing of the Slavonic Enoch,” Journal of Theological Studies 20 (1919) 252—to call attention to Maunder’s “brilliant little paper” (since “[t]heological students do not often read astronomical journals”). He seems to have enjoyed summarizing her essay: After a little merriment at the flimsy evidence on which Dr Charles has assigned this work to an Egyptian Jew of the first century of our era, and the difficulty of supposing that a Greek work so widely current as Dr Charles imagines, though it survived to be translated into Bulgarian between the twelfth and fifteenth centuries, should have disappeared altogether in its Greek form, Mrs Maunder goes on to examine the astronomy of this work. She has no difficulty in shewing that, while it ignores the Jewish calendar, it regards as of divine origin the Julian calendar and the Christian Easter calendar, including lunar epacts which we first meet in the third century .. and the 532 years cycle which is not found elsewhere till the fifth century.

He also noted that “Dr Charles had supposed that the reference to the 532 years cycle was one of a number of late interpolations. Mrs Maunder holds that it is easier to believe in a later author.” With a remark about her classifying it as Bogomil, he signed off. Charles responded to Maunder and Fotheringham (he referred to them as “Mrs Maunder and her disciple” [163]) in “The Date and Place of Writing of the Slavonic Enoch,” Journal of Theological Studies 22 (1921) 161–3, and he was not amused. He wrote that Mrs. Maunder had sent him “a reprint of this article. I was unable to accept the premisses or her conclusions, and I did not keep the article. I will, therefore, simply reply to the arguments which Mr Fotheringham reproduces from it” (161). Calling Charles’s arguments for the dating of 2 Enoch “flimsy” he deemed “lacking in courtesy” (162)

²² The Bogomils were a medieval dualist sect in the Balkans.

 (  ) 

145

and found it difficult to believe Fotheringham had actually reckoned with the evidence he furnished in both the 1896 and 1913 volumes. “The main conclusions as to date and authorship arrived at in these works have, so far as I am aware, been accepted by all Jewish and Christian scholars of every rank—with the exception of Mrs Maunder and Mr Fotheringham” (162). He dismissed the claim that the disappearance of such a work in Greek was problematic: “A scholar acquainted with this department of learning would experience no such difficulty” (162). He also rejected the charge that the notion of lunar epacts was unknown before the third century of this era, arguing that it is present already in the second-century .. astronomical chapters of 1 Enoch (though it was not known by this term before the third century ..).²³ As for the argument that the 532-year cycle mentioned in 2 Enoch 16:5 suggested a post-fifth-century date, he reiterated that the entire passage was an interpolation, as it has nothing to do with the context or with anything else in 2 Enoch (here he put his words in italics). The fact that the Slavonic Enoch attributes all of creation to God shows it could not have been written by a dualistic Bogomil who denied the goodness of creation. Charles ended his short rejoinder with sharp words about astronomers. For some reason or other astronomers are very much at fault in the field of apocalyptic. Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest of them all, makes a poor figure in his attempt to interpret the Apocalypse. Dupuis and many others who approach it from the astronomical standpoint are much worse. But for wild extravagance in interpretation the Russian astronomer, Professor Morosow, whose work, published in 1907, was translated into German in 1912, bears the palm. Morosow claims that he has established that the Apocalypse was written in .. 395 (the actual day and hour being given) and that its author was John Chrysostom! Mrs Maunder seems to me to be in the same class with the Russian scholar.

The dispute had by this time lapsed into name-calling and might better have ended there, with Charles not really answering the arguments about calendar issues with any new or convincing evidence. Fotheringham, nevertheless, had more to say when he returned to the topic in “The Easter Calendar and the Slavonic Enoch,” Journal of Theological Studies 23 (1921) 49–56 (the essay noted by Burkitt). He obviously did not ²³ “Epact” designates the difference between solar and lunar years. The term is used in 2 Enoch 16:5 (an interpolation, according to Charles).

146    ( – ) accept Charles’s contention that the 532-year cycle was added to an existing Jewish text. In the essay he went through every calendrical statement in 2 Enoch 13–16 and documented how late the evidence for some of them was. “It will be clear from this résumé that they not merely give termini a quo, of which the latest falls in the seventh century, but that they all form part of the Easter computus as developed in that century” (54). If one were to ask why Easter is not named in the book, Fotheringham suggested that it would have been considered by the author to be anachronistic for Enoch. I have found no further response by Charles, but it must be said that he really did not refute the claims that calendar data in Slavonic Enoch imply it is much later in date. Charles’s name is attached to one later publication of 2 Enoch—in the second volume of his The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (425–69). In the introduction to the translation of 2 Enoch Charles included an abbreviated and slightly modified version of the 1896 material. One sentence he altered was the first: rather than distinguishing the two books of Enoch as Ethiopic and Slavonic Enoch, he found it convenient to label them 1 and 2 Enoch (425). Another change was to refer to Morfill as “the late Professor Morfill” (he died in 1909). Charles did add a paragraph about the possible influence of 2 Enoch on Jewish literature, especially on the text he called the Hebrew Book of Enoch (sometimes designated 3 Enoch; 425; cf. also 428–9). The short statement about the two versions of 2 Enoch and the available manuscripts has the name of N. Forbes attached to it; he also explained the system of chapter and verse numbers he used—that of Morfill and Charles. Nowhere in the unit on 2 Enoch does Charles explain the role of Forbes; the only place where one learns about him is in the list of “Contributors to Volume II” (vi) where he is said to be “F, N, M.A., Reader in Russian and the other Slavonic Languages: 2 Enoch (translation).” That is, he held the very position at Oxford that Morfill had occupied. In 1896 Charles had printed Morfill’s rendering of the long version, although there he indicated that his colleague had also translated the short version, parts of which appeared in the textual notes. In the 1913 volume English renderings of both recensions of 2 Enoch are printed in full and in parallel columns. It is obvious that Forbes modified Morfill’s translation of A, and he furnished the entire text of B. A noteworthy feature of the translation is that the section Charles had consigned to an appendix in his 1896 edition is not reproduced at all. The translation ends at 68:7. In a note to 68:5–7 (469), Charles referred to the appendix in the 1896 volume but reproduced nothing of the text.

 (  ) 

147

Legacy Since Charles stood nearer the beginning of critical study on 2 Enoch than in the case of the other works he treated, it is especially appropriate to ask how his path-breaking conclusions have fared over time. There are several publications that provide good resources for what experts have been saying more recently about 2 Enoch: the introduction to and annotated translation of both recensions by F. I. Andersen in J. Charlesworth, editor, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 2.91–221; the commentary by Christfried Böttrich, Das slavische Henochbuch; and the collection of essays in Andrei Orlov and Gabriele Boccaccini, editors; Jason Zurawski, associate editor, New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavonic Only (2012). It turns out, unsurprisingly, that some of Charles’s hypotheses have lived on, while others have not. First, regarding the complex of issues having to do with the text, Charles, as we have seen, preferred the longer recension and considered the shorter one to be an abbreviation of it. In addition, he regarded the sections about Methuselah, Nir, Melchizedek, and the flood to be an addition tacked on by a Christian at the end of the original Jewish book. Since his time, there have been several developments in connection with the text. One is that there are now known to be more copies of the book in Slavonic. Grant Macaskill lists nine complete manuscripts, three of the long recension, three of the short recension, and three of what he calls the very short recension. Besides these, there are a number of copies containing parts of the text.²⁴ As Macaskill’s terms indicate, experts often speak not of just two recensions but of three, four, or more in the Slavonic copies. An intriguing development has been the discovery of what are claimed to be fragments of the text in Coptic and coming from a manuscript dating from around the eighth-tenth centuries ..²⁵ If the identification and dating are correct, the four fragments would push back the manuscript evidence for 2 Enoch several centuries earlier than the most ancient Slavonic witnesses (they are from the fourteenth century). The three Coptic fragments (the fourth is too small to permit placement), as Hagen has interpreted them, agree significantly with the short recension of the Slavonic Enoch, thus possibly

²⁴ “2 Enoch: Manuscripts. Recensions, and Original Language,” in Orlov and Boccaccini, New Perspectives on 2 Enoch, 84–7. As he notes, “None of the texts is autonomous; all are part of collections . . . ” (84). ²⁵ Joost L. Hagen, “No Longer ‘Slavonic’ Only: 2 Enoch Attested in Coptic from Nubia,” in Orlov and Boccaccini, New Perspectives on 2 Enoch, 7–34. Hagen promises an official publication of the material in his dissertation, but it has not yet appeared.

148    ( – ) adding support to the thesis that it rather than the long one is the earlier version. The matter of which version is earlier, however, continues to be debated.²⁶ As for Charles’s contention that the “extra” material at the end of some of the Slavonic manuscripts is not original, the experts now regard most of it as part of the book.²⁷ Second, Charles dated 2 Enoch to the years 1–50 .. (with the outer limits being ca. 30 ..–70 ..; The Book of the Secrets of Enoch, xxv–xxvi; The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 2.429). We saw above that several writers who were contemporary with Charles preferred a much later date, but Bonwetsch, Sokolov, and others agreed with his conclusion. That seems to be the case at present as well, although there is recognition that identifying its time of origin is challenging. Charles pointed to the sources used by the writer as an indication that it could not have been written before ca. 30 .. and to its references to sacrifice as demonstrating that it antedated 70 .. when the temple was destroyed and the sacrificial system ceased. He also thought that it influenced late first-century .. writings such as several books in the New Testament and the Epistle of Barnabas and thus must have preceded them. Importance continues to be attached to the references to sacrifice in 2 Enoch, but it is acknowledged that they need not imply the existence of the Jerusalem temple.²⁸ It appears that Charles’s claims about the use of 2 Enoch by many early writers are deemed to be overstated.²⁹ The first century .. is still, nevertheless, the date of choice for the book. It is not clear to me, however, that contemporary scholars have handled the arguments of Maunder and Fotheringham regarding the late date at which some of the calendar features in the book are attested. Charles was convinced, for example

²⁶ While a number of scholars have agreed with Charles that the long recension is the primary one (e.g., Böttrich, Das slavische Henochbuch, 788–90; “The ‘Book of the Secrets of Enoch’ [2 En]: Between Jewish Origin and Christian Transmission,” in Orlov and Boccaccini, New Perspectives on 2 Enoch, 41–9), several writers in New Perspectives on 2 Enoch consider the short recension to be closer to the original (e.g., Liudmila Navtanovich, “The Provenance of 2 Enoch: A Philological Perspective,” 71–6; Macaskill, “2 Enoch: Manuscripts, Recensions, and Original Language,” 87–91). The differences between the two recensions involve matters of content as well as length, and scholars who have dealt with the issue acknowledge that at least in some places each of the recensions probably contains original material. ²⁷ Several copies of the short recension extend the text through 72:10 and one partial text includes the rest of 72 and 73:1, but just one copy (of the long recension) includes 73:1–9. ²⁸ Böttrich considers the sacrificial references a strong argument for a pre-70 .. date in Das slavische Henochbuch, 812–13, but less so in “The ‘Book of the Secrets of Enoch’ (2 En): Between Jewish Origin and Christian Transmission,” in Orlov and Boccaccini, New Perspectives on 2 Enoch, 55. He arrives at a date before the destruction of the temple through analysis of a calendrical feature—what he takes to be the 17th of the month Tammuz as a joyful festival, a date later associated with mourning about temple destruction (Das slavische Henochbuch, 813; “The ‘Book of the Secrets of Enoch’,” 55–7). ²⁹ See Böttrich’s shorter, more defensible list in Das slavische Henochbuch, 801–2.

 (  ) 

149

that the reference to a cycle of 532 years in 16:5 was interpolated, but is that the case or is it a way of dismissing contrary evidence? Third, Charles thought a Jewish author wrote 2 Enoch in Egypt in Greek. All three points are widely accepted today (although there may be Christian additions/interpolations), but another possibility has been raised regarding the original language—that the (lost) Greek version was a translation of a Hebrew original.³⁰ The grounds for even considering a Hebrew original are the forms of some names and the presence of Hebrew expressions. It seems to be the case, nevertheless, that this is rated as only a possibility, one that would require significantly more evidence to demonstrate. In the final analysis, it is evident that Charles (with Morfill’s help) undertook a daunting task in The Book of the Secrets of Enoch and that in it, though there are exaggerations and missteps, he made a significant and lasting contribution to the scholarly clarification of 2 Enoch. His work still stands as a monument in study of 2 Enoch, just as it does for 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and other early works.

Additional Note The archival files of Oxford University Press contain records of negotiations with Charles toward a publication by another press. The information appears in several of the Orders of the Delegates of the Press. A notice dated October 21, 1898 reads: A renewed application was read from the Reverend R. H. Charles for permission to reprint his translations of the “Book of Enoch” in Ethiopic, and the “Secrets of Enoch” in Slavonic. The secretary was instructed to confer again with Mr. Charles and to bring up proposals for an arrangement between the Delegates and Mr. Charles and his publishers, on the basis of the payment of a royalty, at the next meeting of the Board.

The same source, in a notice dated one week later (October 28), reads: . . . the application was read from the Rev. R. H. Charles for permission to incorporate in a forthcoming work the translations of the “Book of Enoch”,

³⁰ See, e.g., the comments of Andersen, “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in Charlesworth, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1.94; Navtanovich, “The Provenance of 2 Enoch: A Philological Perspective,” 77.

150    ( – ) and of the “Secrets of Enoch”. It was resolved that the permission be granted to him on payment of a royalty £5 on each edition of 1000 copies.

The subject arose again on November 18. A letter was read from the Rev. R. H. Charles as to the royalties to be paid for the right of making use of the translation of Enoch published by the Clarendon Press, and it was resolved that the royalties originally asked by the Delegates be reduced to one pound (£1) for each edition of 500 copies. (See DOB, 1898, Oct. 28, ch. 11.)

Finally, a notice for December 2, 1898 reads: A letter (dated Nov. 26) was read from the Rev. Prof. Charles assenting to the revised proposal of the Delegates with regard to the premium payable on the reprint by him of the translations of “Enoch.” (See DOB, 1898, Nov. 18, ch. 8*.)

It appears that the records pick up the matter in progress, as the first notice refers to a renewed application from Charles. At any rate in late 1898 he was trying to arrange a reprint of both translations that was to be published by a press other than Oxford University Press. I have found no information identifying the other press. At this time Charles was dealing with T. & T. Clark for his articles on 1 and 2 Enoch among others in Hasting’s A Dictionary of the Bible, but he was in more direct contact with Adam and Charles Black who published his The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (1896) and The Assumption of Moses (1897) and over the following years would publish others of his books. Possibly Charles was trying to make arrangements with them for a reprint of the two translations. I have, however, wondered whether Charles was having some thoughts that would eventually lead to the second volume of The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, although the Clarendon Press was the one that published it in 1913. The correspondence with the delegates in 1898 seems rather early for negotiations for reissuing his translations in the Translations of Early Documents (the first appeared in 1917), a series that did not include a translation of 2 Enoch. 2 Enoch was only one of the Jewish books on which Charles published in 1896. The second was a more familiar apocalypse that assumed a rather different shape than the ones on which he had worked. We should now examine his edition of 2 Baruch.

Chapter 4 2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch In 1896 a second volume by Charles appeared in print—a translation of and commentary on a work that he entitled The Apocalypse of Baruch (often called 2 Baruch). In his work on 1 Enoch and Jubilees he had demonstrated his impressive knowledge of several ancient languages—Hebrew (and Aramaic), Greek, Latin, and especially Ethiopic, with bits and pieces of Syriac thrown into the mix. For Slavonic Enoch he relied on Morfill to translate the text because he did not read Slavonic, and, uncharacteristically, seems not to have put in the time to learn it sufficiently for the task. Since the Apocalypse of Baruch survived only in Syriac copies, Charles had to put his knowledge of the language to a stern test. Syriac seems to have been a language that, like Ethiopic, he taught himself. Several ancient authors adopted Baruch as their protagonist. He is identified in the Book of Jeremiah as the prophet’s scribe, the one who copied his words in a scroll and, when Jeremiah was not permitted to enter the temple complex, read them to a national assembly at the sanctuary (Jeremiah 36:4–10). When King Jehoiakim later burned that scroll, Jeremiah dictated another to Baruch who rewrote the words that he had recorded in the first scroll and others like them (36:27–32). He was eventually charged by a group of Judeans with inciting Jeremiah against them so that they would fall to the Babylonians (43:1–3). These people compelled Baruch and Jeremiah to flee with them to Egypt (vv. 4–7). Something of Baruch’s importance can be gleaned from another passage in Jeremiah. At the time when he wrote down Jeremiah’s words, Baruch had become discouraged, but Jeremiah quoted a message from the Lord to him: I am going to break down what I have built, and pluck up what I have planted—that is, the whole land. And you, do you seek great things for yourself? Do not seek them; for I am going to bring disaster upon all flesh, says the Lord, but I will give you your life as a prize of war in every place to which you may go. (45:4–5 [NRSV])¹ ¹ Charles used these words as the text for sermons xiv–xvi, xviii in his The Resurrection of Man and Other Sermons Preached in Westminster Abbey (1929).

R. H. Charles: A Biography. James C. VanderKam, Oxford University Press. © James C. VanderKam 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192869289.003.0006

152    ( – ) Baruch, a close associate of Jeremiah and transmitter of his words, an eyewitness of Jerusalem’s destruction by the Babylonians, and one whose life God spared was selected by later writers as the bearer of moral and apocalyptic messages. The Apocalypse of Baruch that Charles edited and explained is one of those compositions.² It contains revelations given to Baruch, supposedly disclosed to him in the sixth century .. when Jerusalem and the temple fell to the Chaldeans, but actually addressing a crisis more than six centuries later when Jerusalem and the temple again suffered destruction, this time at the hands of the Romans. The author, using the voice of Baruch—whether speaking alone, in discussions with God, or instructing his contemporaries—explores searching questions that the loss of Jerusalem and the temple raised, such as the reason(s) for the catastrophe and the future awaiting the nation.

The Contents of 2 Baruch The outline of the book is not obvious, but one way of understanding it is to distinguish seven major parts, in each of which the same topics recur: 1–9 Destruction of Jerusalem 10–20 Instructions for Baruch, his lament, and discussions with God 21–34 Prayer of Baruch, discussion with God, the twelve parts of time, and Baruch’s speech to the people 35–47 Vision of a vine and its interpretation by God 48–52 Prayer of Baruch and ensuing discussion with God 53–77 Vision of a cloud filled with dark and bright waters and the angel Remiel’s interpretation 78–86 Baruch’s letter to the nine and one-half tribes in Assyrian exile 87 which is attested in just one manuscript (see below), concludes the book³ ² There are also Baruch (1 Baruch) in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles, 3 Baruch, which is a Greek apocalypse, and 4 Baruch or Paralipomena of Jeremiah, a Greek text with clear Christian elements, whatever may have been its origin. Both of the latter two may date from the second century .. ³ After surveying suggestions about the arrangement of 2 Baruch, Tom W. Willett (Eschatology in the Theodicies of 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra [Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 4; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989] 80–95) proposed a seven-part structure with two major units: the first contains an Introductory dialogue, 1–5; Vision 1, 6–9; Lamentations, 10–12; Dialogue 2, 13:1–21:1, and the second includes Dialogue 3, 21:2–34 (there is just one verse in ch. 34); Vision 2, 35–47; Vision 3, 48–77. He does not include the Epistle (78–86) or ch. 87 in the structure. The major break between chs. 21 and 22 found in the analysis of the structure is the major break for the argument also. In the first half, God convinces Baruch of the justness of his actions in bringing destruction upon Jerusalem, and in the second half Baruch convinces the people of the justness of God’s actions. In the first half the justice of God occupies most

 (    ) 

153

Some of the sections are more clearly demarcated than others. Examples are the visions with interpretations in chs. 35–47 and 53–77 (or 53–76) and the Epistle in 78–86.

The Context for Charles’s Volume on 2 Baruch The history of scholarship on 2 Baruch was brief before Charles produced his commentary. The text had disappeared from the West some 1,200 years earlier, and were it not for a single copy it would have been lost completely. It survived on a sixth-century manuscript that Ceriani had found in the Ambrosian Library in Milan (B. 21 Inf., folios 257a–67b). As Charles reported, “Of this MS. Ceriani published a Latin translation in 1866,⁴ the Syriac text in 1871,⁵ and the photo-lithographic facsimile in 1883” (xv).⁶ Prior to Charles’s publication, Ceriani’s 1866 Latin translation of the Apocalypse of Baruch was the only one. Quite a number of scholars over the next decades published their thoughts about it on the basis of the material that Ceriani had made available (surveyed in the fourth part of Charles’s Introduction). The common theory among them was that the Syriac version had been translated from a Greek text and that Greek was the author’s language, although a writer or two had broached the idea of a Hebrew original. It was generally thought to be the work of one person, while a few believed it was an amalgam of originally independent units.⁷

The Book The Apocalypse of Baruch translated from the Syriac, chapters I.–LXXVII. from the sixth cent. MS. in the Ambrosian Library of Milan and chapters of the discussion but in the second half the guilt of the people occupies center stage. Baruch’s concern about the continuation of the Jewish nation in the first half is answered in the second half with the promise of resurrection. Baruch’s concern about judgment upon the nations in the first half is answered by the historical overviews in the second half emphasizing the certainty of judgment. (96) ⁴ Monumenta sacra et profana, vol. 1, fascicle 2, i–iv, 73–98. ⁵ Monumenta sacra et profana, vol. 5, fascicle 2, 113–80. ⁶ Translatio Syra Pescitto Veteris Testamenti ex codice Ambrosiano sec. fere VI, photolithographice edita (Milan: A. della Croce and J. B. Pogliani, 1876–83) folios 257a–67b. ⁷ Examples of scholars who defended the latter thesis are Richard Kabisch, “Die Quellen der Apokalypse Baruchs,” Jahrbücher für Protestantische Theologie 18 (1892) 66–107; and Eugène de Faye, Les apocalypses juives: Essai de critique littéraire et théologique (Paris: Fischbacher, 1892) 25–8, 76–95, 97–103, 192–204. Both publications appeared while Charles was working on his book (see below).

154    ( – ) LXXVIII.–LXXXVII.—The Epistle of Baruch from a new and critical text based on ten mss. and published herewith; edited, with introduction, notes, and indices by R. H. Charles, M.A., Trinity College, Dublin, and Exeter College, Oxford (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1896).⁸ The Preface sketches the basic points in Charles’s understanding of the book. He considered it to be a composite text whose parts dated from between the years 50 and 90 .. “Its authors were orthodox Jews, and it is a good representative of the Judaism against which the Pauline dialectic was directed” (vii).⁹ He spotted in the book some anti-Christian elements that, he believed, led to its eventual abandonment or rejection by Christians. The Apocalypse of Baruch has had a strange history. Written by Pharisaic Jews¹⁰ as an apology for Judaism, and in part an implicit polemic against Christianity, it gained nevertheless a larger circulation amongst Christians than amongst Jews, and owed its very preservation to the scholarly cares of the Church it assailed. (ix)

He thought that 4 Ezra, a similar apocalypse written at approximately the same time, had undergone some Christian influence and thus proved more lastingly popular in the church than the Apocalypse of Baruch (viii–ix). Charles billed his work on the Syriac text as an editio princeps. There was just one manuscript available for the first seventy-seven chapters of the book (Ceriani’s manuscript, represented by the letter c), while chs. 78–86 (the Epistle of Baruch) survived in c (with ch. 87) and nine other copies.¹¹ Charles reported that he had collated eight of the ten copies (ix). More information about the wording of the text could be gleaned from 3 Baruch, a Greek text that borrowed from 2 Baruch. Charles seems to have been the first to state definitely that the Apocalypse of Baruch, though extant only in the Syriac language, was not written in that language or in Greek but in Hebrew. He found that only by positing a Hebrew base could he offer convincing ways to explain certain features in the text and correct corruptions that had found their way into it (x).

⁸ He dedicated the volume “To My Wife.” ⁹ His low opinion of Jewish literature after 70 .. comes to expression in the Preface. “In the Apocalypse we have almost the last noble utterance of Judaism before it plunged into the dark and oppressive years that followed the destruction of Jerusalem” (vii). ¹⁰ As with 1 Enoch and Jubilees, Charles consistently related apocalypses to Pharisees. ¹¹ Survival of the Letter in more copies than chs. 1–77 resulted from its inclusion in Syriac Bibles as a separate unit without 1–77.

 (    ) 

155

In the Preface Charles also spoke about his own experience in working with the Apocalypse of Baruch. The interpretation of this book has been the severest task as yet undertaken by the editor. Insuperable difficulties confronted on every side, till at last he awoke to the fact that these were due to the plurality of authorship. When once this fact was recognised and the various sources determined, the task of interpretation was materially lightened, and the value of the work for New Testament and Jewish scholars became every day more manifest. As my studies in this direction began in 1891, my conclusions are, save in a few cases, the result of long study and slowly matured conviction. (x)

Charles here confessed that a fundamental insight about the book dawned on him after he had pondered it for some time, much as flashes of insight advanced his work on 1 Enoch and Jubilees.¹² Another noteworthy point in the statement is that he had been working on the Apocalypse of Baruch since at least 1891. It confirms, as we might have expected, that Charles worked simultaneously on more than one project. He was studying the Baruch apocalypse while preparing his volumes on 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and 2 Enoch. There are a couple of additional details in the Preface worthy of note. For one, he referred to a possible edition of 4 Ezra. He never produced the edition, but he apparently intended to do so.¹³ He thanked several people for the help they extended to him. Among them was Adolf Neubauer who assisted him with Talmudic issues and to whom Charles had expressed gratitude before.¹⁴ Another was Buchanan Gray (1865–1922)¹⁵ to whom Charles was grateful “for his revision of my proofs of the Hebrew original of Baruch.” As this statement implies, Charles had retroverted the entire book into Hebrew, his candidate for its original language. It is understandable that something so lengthy and uncertain as a Hebrew retroversion of an eighty-seven-chapter Syriac translation of a lost Greek intermediary text was not included in the 1896 edition. It did, however, underlie his comments about the text. Charles dated his Preface

¹² For 1 Enoch the flash of insight was that much of the book was written in poetry, and for Jubilees it was dating the book about a century earlier than was customary. ¹³ He wrote, after mentioning the more pronounced non-Jewish character of 4 Ezra: “To this subject I may return in an edition of the former work” (xi). His comparison of 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra shows how carefully he had studied both books. ¹⁴ In The Book of Enoch he thanked Neubauer, Reader in Rabbinic Hebrew at Oxford, “whom I have consulted with advantage in season and out of season” (ix). ¹⁵ He would later write the International Critical Commentary on Numbers (1903) and on Isaiah 1–27 (1912), among many distinguished works.

156    ( – ) to September 1896, thus perhaps favoring the inference that the book appeared after his translation of 2 Enoch of that same year (its Preface is undated). In his Introduction, Charles took up the expected topics—ones familiar from his earlier books. His overall theory about how the Apocalypse of Baruch had evolved and the fields of study for which it was important he described as follows. The book was put together about the close of the [first] century, from at least five or six independent writings. These writings belong to various dates between 50 and 90 .., and are thus contemporaneous with the chief New Testament writings. It is this fact which constitutes the chief value of the work. We have here contemporaneous records of the Jewish doctrines and beliefs, and of the arguments which prevailed in Judaism in the latter half of the first century, and with which its leaders sought to uphold its declining faith and confront the attacks of a growing and aggressive Christianity. (xvi)

His opinion about post-70 .. Judaism is hard to miss in his assessment of the contrasting fates of Judaism and Christianity at the time and his understanding of the Jewish work’s primary significance. Regarding the apocalypse itself, he hypothesized a process in which an editor assembled originally independent texts into one work. He had argued for a similar melding of separate units into 1 Enoch, but, as we will see, he thought the several sources were stitched together in the Apocalypse of Baruch in a way far different from what happened in 1 Enoch. The second section of the Introduction surveys additional ancient works that circulated under the name of Baruch (see above). In his opinion, none of the other books matched the importance of the Apocalypse of Baruch for students of Judaism and Christianity (xvi–xxii). The third section (xxii–xxx) describes the manuscript evidence for the apocalypse. As noted above, Ceriani had identified and published the only manuscript that contained all eighty-seven chapters ( = c); he had also published three copies (their sigla are a, b, d) of the Epistle of Baruch (chs. 78–86). Ceriani had not attempted to create a critical text of the Epistle; rather, in his Monumenta sacra et profana vol. 5, fascicle 2 (pp. 113–80) he had placed the variant readings of a, b, and d beneath the text of c. In other words, he contented himself with presenting the evidence. Charles found six more copies of the Epistle in the Bodleian Library and the British Museum (e–k, there is no j). He realized that, in order to establish a critical text of the entire apocalypse (i.e., a critically improved version of c), it would be essential to

 (    ) 

157

compare the readings in the ten copies of the Epistle (of which c is one) and use the information gleaned from the comparison to appreciate more fully the nature of manuscript c (e.g., its characteristic mistakes) in those places (chs. 1–77, 87) where it is the only witness to the text. The remainder of the section is vintage Charles. It is crammed full of references to readings, to the families among the manuscripts, and to the relations of individual copies to one another. His detailed textual work allowed him to draw up a stemma of the witnesses. He identified two types of text—the one in c, and the one represented by the nine other copies of the Epistle (among which there are sub-groups). He found that the latter text type was more often the superior one—an unfortunate state of affairs since c was the only copy for 1–77 and 87. He thought the (Syriac) ancestor lying behind the two text types dated from no later than the fourth century. Sections five and six contain Charles’s case that the Syriac was translated from Greek and that the Greek was translated from a Hebrew original. It is no surprise that scholars universally regarded the Syriac as a translation from Greek because manuscript c states at the beginning: “Translated from the Greek into Syriac” (Charles was not sure whether the line came from the Syriac translator or a later scribe and bracketed it, p. 1). Whoever placed the words over the text, the phrase is demonstrably true because, for example, mistakes in the Syriac text could be explained on this assumption, Greek syntactical constructions were reflected in it, and it included transliterations of Greek words. The section containing the evidence for a Hebrew original constitutes one of Charles’s contributions to study of 2 Baruch. He noted the unanimity with which scholars concluded that Greek was the language in which the author composed the apocalypse. To this strong and unanimous tradition of the learned world I bowed without hesitation at the outset of my studies, but with an awakening distrust and an ever-growing reluctance during the subsequent years in which the present Translation and Notes were completed. In fact, the feeling grew steadily stronger that only a Hebrew original could account for many of the phenomena of the text. And yet my gathering certainty on this head did not lead to action till the MSS. of the Translation and Notes were partially in type. I then felt that I could no longer stay my hand, and with the kind permission of my publishers I have been enabled to introduce the necessary changes into the Translation and Notes. (xliv–xlv)¹⁶ ¹⁶ As we have seen with 1 Enoch and Jubilees, Charles had experience in asking publishers for changes when part of his work had already been set in type.

158    ( – ) His arguments for a Hebrew original were that (1) when the text quotes from the Old Testament it almost always agrees with the Masoretic Text against the Septuagint, (2) it contains translated forms of Hebrew idioms (such as use of infinitives absolute with finite verbs), (3) unintelligible features in the text can be explained by retroverting them into Hebrew, (4) there are Hebrew wordplays, and (5) a few passages from the Apocalypse of Baruch are preserved in Rabbinic writings (xlv–liii). Charles, as noted earlier, discovered that the problems he encountered in trying to explain the text became much easier to solve once he realized that 2 Baruch was a composite work. The evidence for the thesis and for the differing messages and dates of the various units he assembled in section seven of the Introduction (liii–lxv). He detected six sources that an editor combined to create the book, some written before the disaster of 70 .., some after. Charles did not think the sources were differentiated by mere subtle nuances or emphases: “the more thoroughly we study it, the more conscious we become of the impassable gulf which sunders the world-views which underlie the different parts” (liii). In general, he found two types: some of the sources (they are messianic apocalypses), to which he gave the siglum A, presented a more optimistic view about Israel and the future, while the others that he labeled B spoke more pessimistically—in differing degrees (on B¹ see below)—about such topics. The details of his source division are these. A¹ A² A³ B¹ B² B³

27:1–30:1 36–40 53–74 1–9; 43:1–44:7; 45:1–46:6; 77–82; 84; 86–87¹⁷ 9–12 (?); 13–25; 30:2–35:5; 41–2; 44:8–15; 47–52; 75–6; 83 85

The following sentences set forth his understanding of how the sources differed from one another. A¹, A², A³, B¹, agree in teaching the advent of the Messianic kingdom, but this doctrine is absolutely relinquished in B², B³. Thus, A¹, A², A³, B¹, agree in presenting an optimistic view of Israel’s future on earth, and in inculcating the hope of a Messianic kingdom; whereas in B²,

¹⁷ Charles regarded B¹ as a short, original apocalypse of Baruch (lv).

 (    ) 

159

B³, such expectations are absolutely abandoned, and the hopes of the righteous are directed to the immediate advent of the final judgment and to the spiritual world alone. But at this point a difference between A¹, A², A³, and B¹ emerges. The former look for a Messiah and a Messianic kingdom, but the latter for a Messianic kingdom without a Messiah. (lv)

As he read the evidence, the A sections presupposed that Jerusalem was still standing and therefore were written before 70 ..; but the city had already suffered destruction according to the B units that were thus composed after the tragic events (lv). He went on to explain the different teachings of each source and how not only the A and B sections disagreed but the three components in A and the three in B distinguished themselves from one another. He did find evidence for yet another source: he employed the letter S to designate 10:6–12:4 that, Charles thought, could be a Sadducean writing unless it belonged to B² (lx). Also, he used the letter E to designate contributions by the final editor of the work (e.g., for ch. 26 which is not included in the listing above). The groundwork of the text was mainly B¹ and B² to which the A sections, which are not organic components of the book, were added (lvi, lxi). Charles had some harsh words for how the editor combined the sources. His B² in particular posed problems. Charles charged that the editor of 2 Baruch, in using it, “mutilated and transposed in every imaginable way” (lxi) what lay before him. Trying and failing to clarify these parts of the text led Charles to discover what was, on his view, the true explanation for how the book evolved, with chs. 13–25 in particular illustrating the problems. He referred to the perverse ingenuity of a redactor, by which the original text was dislocated and transposed, the original development of thought arrested and inverted, questions frequently recorded after their specific answers had already been given in full, and passages torn from their original setting in Baruch’s address to the people and inserted in Baruch’s prayers to God, where they are bereft of all conceivable meaning. (lxii)

The editor did not stop abusing the source at ch. 25 but continued his mischief elsewhere. It will not escape notice that Charles assumed, in these statements, that he was able to identify once-independent sources and their original internal sequence. Moreover, he did not raise very seriously the question why, if his theory were correct, an editor would treat a source text so badly.

160    ( – ) A closer look at the reasons for his assessment of chs. 13–25 is instructive. In a note Charles wrote: The text of these chapters is inexplicable as it stands. The difficulties are due not to corruption, though that undoubtedly exists, but to a recasting of the original text by the final editor. In this process many passages were torn from their original contexts and placed in settings which are quite unsuitable. Some of the incongruities thus produced are as follows: (1) The words “those prosperous cities” are represented as speaking in xiii.4 without a single note of introduction. (2) In the next verse the words, “thou and those like thee who have seen,” are similarly unexplained, and are in fact inexplicable in their present context; for though Baruch was to be preserved till the consummation of the times, his contemporaries were not, and hence they could not see the future retribution of the Gentiles. If, however, xxiv.2 originally preceded xiii.3b–5, the words “thou and those like thee who have seen,” would be perfectly intelligible. (3) Again the retribution of the Gentiles referred to in xiii.4, 5 has not been mentioned before, though the text presupposes some such mention. It is intelligible if xxv, or xxiv.4 precedes where Baruch asks what will befal [sic] the enemies of Israel. (4) In xiv.1 Baruch replies that God has shown him “the method of the times,” whereas in xx.6 this appears not to have been yet done, and it seems that a revelation of “the method of the times” is still to come. (5) In xxiv.4 Baruch asks what retribution awaits the enemies of Israel, and when the judgment will be? In xxv. we find the answer to the latter question, whereas the answer to the former is already given in xiii.4–12. (6) I can discern no adequate explanation of the “therefore” with which xx.1 begins in its present context. If xx. were read immediately after xiii. the text would at once become clear. On these and other grounds we must attempt to restore the original order of the chapters before they were broken up and rearranged, mutilated, and interpolated by the final editor. Owing to the paucity of materials the attempt to restore the original order can only be partially successful. This order was probably xiii.1–3a; xx.; xxiv.2–4; xiii.3b–12; xxv., xiv.–xix; xxi–xxiv.1; xxx.2. (20)

He then set forth how, in his opinion, the rearrangement made sense of the unit. Each of the incongruities Charles found in this stretch of text is open to debate. But, more importantly, all of his points proceed from the assumption that the writer would, of course, have presented everything in the order that seemed right to Charles as he worked in Oxford nearly 1800 years after the

 (    ) 

161

author/editor composed 2 Baruch in Israel. The textual surgery made Charles’s task of interpretation easier, presumably because it produced what he expected. But that he actually believed he had recovered the original sequence of a source after an editor had mangled it boggles the mind. He might rather have wondered whether what he expected from an ancient seer was mistaken and where he was missing what that anguished individual was doing. Here it may be useful to recall that Charles’s way of reading Jewish apocalyptic language was a concern already in his time. T. W. Manson wrote in the article on him in the Dictionary of National Biography 1931–1940: Of Charles’s work on the Apocalyptic literature, on which his fame chiefly rests, two things fall to be said. He was a man of powerful intellect and unflagging industry who, by years of concentrated study, made himself master of the language of the Apocalypses. His knowledge was vast in extent and accurate in detail; and his commentaries are a wonderful storehouse of exact information. Yet there was a sense in which the language of Apocalyptic remained a foreign language to him. He could never be completely at home in the world of the Apocalyptists. And this made it impossible for him to achieve that perfect understanding which demands sympathy as well as knowledge.¹⁸

In his obituary of Charles, F. C, Burkitt wrote something similar. He cited a few lines in which Charles explained what he took to be inconsistencies in some Jewish eschatological statements and added: These are very characteristic sentences, and exhibit very well Dr. Charles’s habit of mind. If he came to have any respect for an ancient author he was unwilling to believe that such a person could have entertained conceptions which to Charles’s trained and logical western mind were ‘mutually exclusive’, and his favorite explanation was to postulate interpolations and a multiplicity of sources, each of which may be supposed to have been written from a single and consistent point of view.

He then included The Apocalypse of Baruch among “examples of the efforts made by him to apply strict logic to works whose writers were governed rather by hope and enthusiasm than by reason and consistency.”¹⁹ As we will see, ¹⁸ “Charles, Robert Henry (1855–1931),” 170. ¹⁹ Both quotations are from Burkitt, “Robert Henry Charles 1855–1931,” 443.

162    ( – ) Charles’s theory about sources, their sundry messages, and how a final editor treated them has not carried the day. His lengthy analysis led Charles to the conclusion that 2 Baruch as compiled by the editor was known to the writer of the Rest of the Words of Baruch (3 Baruch), which could be dated to 130–40 .. and that the Hebrew original would have appeared a decade or more before this (lxv). Charles again innovated in the eighth part of the Introduction. There he argued that Baruch’s letter to the Judean exiles (that is, the two and one-half tribes), which is mentioned in 2 Baruch 77 but never reproduced, actually does exist but not in 2 Baruch. In 2 Baruch 77:12 Baruch’s countrymen urge him: “write also to our brethren in Babylon an epistle of doctrine and a scroll of good tidings, that thou mayest confirm them also before thou dost depart from us” (Charles’s translation). The addressees would be the Judeans already in Babylon, but Baruch offers to do more in v. 17 (see also v. 19): “Nevertheless, as ye said unto me, I will write also unto your brethren in Babylon, and I will send by means of men, and I will write in like manner to the nine tribes and a half, and send by means of a bird.” The letter in 78–86 is directed to the nine and one-half tribes (see 78:1; for posting it by a bird [an eagle], see ch. 87), but Baruch’s missive to the two and one-half tribes in Babylon is not found in 2 Baruch. This is the lost letter that Charles had in mind, and he maintained that it was preserved in Baruch 3:9–4:29 (with the introduction in 1:1–3; p. lxxvii) because the description of the letter in 2 Bar 77:12 (“an epistle of doctrine and a scroll of good tidings”) matches the content of these sections. An important question in connection with the Apocalypse of Baruch is its relation to 4 Ezra, another apocalyptic reaction to the events of 70 .. that it so closely parallels. Charles, some of whose contemporaries thought the two had been written by the same person, examined the topic in the ninth part of the Introduction (lxviii–lxxvi). His answer about their inter-relations is complex because he thought that both documents were composite. As a result, he compared the views expressed in the eight sections of 2 Baruch with the six parts of 4 Ezra and found that in some cases units of the former were earlier, in others segments of the latter were. He did, however, establish that the two works could not have come from one author, since 2 Baruch is a purely Jewish composition while 4 Ezra approximates some Christian teachings. The final section of the Introduction treats the relation of 2 Baruch to the New Testament. Charles realized that not all of the many items shared by the two demonstrated literary dependence on the part of one; they could possibly be traced back to common sources. In a few instances, however, he maintained

 (    ) 

163

that 2 Baruch was dependent on the New Testament “or some lost source” (lxxviii). An example is the following: 1 Corinthians 15:35 (NRSV) But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?”

2 Baruch 49:2 (Charles) In what shape will those live who live in Thy day? or how will the splendour of those who (are) after that time continue?

Both texts are talking about the same subject about which they raise natural questions. But there is insufficient reason to posit dependence of either upon the other or even on a lost source. In his translation of the Baruch apocalypse, Charles marked in the margins, at the beginning of each of the sections he distinguished, to which of his sources it belonged. He attached his usual copious notes to elements in the text, although he again did not offer a running commentary. Charles’s work on the Apocalypse of Baruch was also incorporated into the 1913 collection that he edited, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 2.470–526, in an abbreviated, updated form. There he was able to report that two small sections of the Greek text were found in 1897 among the Oxyrhynchus Papyri: 12:1–13:2 on the verso and 13:11–14:3 on the recto of a fourth-fifth century .. fragment.²⁰ Discovery of the fragment buttressed the report in manuscript c that the Syriac was a translation from Greek. In their publication of the fragment, Grenfell and Hunt made this point but commented: though whether the Greek text is itself derived from Hebrew is disputed. Prof. Charles, who has published the latest and fullest edition of that Apocalypse, is strongly in favour of a Hebrew original, but his reasons are not very convincing, and the present fragment illustrates the precarious character of arguments based on retranslations into a supposed original through a version which is itself not extant. (3–4)

They observed that the Greek fragment whose text was hardly error free provided an opportunity to test the quality of the Syriac translation in a small portion of the book.

²⁰ The fragment was published by Bernard Pine Grenfell and Arthur Surridge Hunt, editors, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part III (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1903) 3–7 (with plate I). They transcribed the verso on pp. 4–5 and the recto on p. 5.

164    ( – ) The impression created by a comparison of the two versions is that the Syriac translator was much less accurate than, for instance, the Ethiopic translator of the Ascension of Isaiah. In one passage (ll. 6–8) he has expanded the three verbs of the Greek into six by adding a synonym in each case. In another he seems to have misapprehended the meaning of the Greek, and to have introduced an idea which is quite inappropriate to the context (cf. n. on ll. 25–7). (4)

They acknowledged in their notes the help Charles had afforded them and also wrote: “The references at the side of the text and the translation of the Syriac are taken from the edition of Prof. Charles, whom we have to thank for several suggestions in the reconstruction of the fragment” (4).²¹ In the 1913 volume Charles printed the text of the Greek fragment at the appropriate points in his translation of the Syriac (487–90). He arranged the material in three parallel columns: his translation of the Syriac, his translation of the Greek, and the Greek text itself.²² Charles’s translation (with the 1913 improvements) also found its way into Translations of Early Documents Series 1, Palestinian Jewish Texts (prerabbinic) (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1917), with an introduction by W. O. E. Oesterley. Oesterley doubted the theory of separate sources and favored the idea that an author compiled it (x–xii). He also believed Charles had proved that Hebrew was the original language of the apocalypse (xiii).

Reviews The appearance of the first English-language edition of 2 Baruch evoked a number of reviews and reactions. F. Schulthess of Göttingen, writing in Theologische Literaturzeitung 22 (1897) cols. 238–41, regarded the confidence with which Charles defended a Hebrew original for the apocalypse astonishing and refuted point by point the arguments Charles marshaled in support, ²¹ Charles contributed the entry, “Baruch, Apocalypse of,” in James Hastings, editor, A Dictionary of the Bible, vol. I (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898) 249–51. In it he argued that the Syriac was a translation from Greek (he apparently did not yet know about discovery of the Greek fragment) and Greek from a Hebrew original, summarized the book, briefly distinguished the sources in it (all written by Pharisees), and described its relation to 4 Ezra. He directed the reader to his book for more detail on the sources issue. ²² His translation was also taken up in 1984 into Sparks, editor, The Apocryphal Old Testament and modified by L. H. Brockington (835–95).

 (    ) 

165

finding nothing definitive in them. While admitting that he had cleaned up some corruptions in the Syriac text, Schulthess spotted mistakes in the translation and enumerated them in detail. Interestingly, however, he did agree that some Hebraisms were recognizable in the Syriac version and thought that maybe a more systematic investigation would turn up others, despite the difficulty of deciding in many cases whether they did in fact reflect Hebrew features. An extensive, entertaining review in English came from J. Rendell Harris, “Mr. Charles’ Apocalypse of Baruch,” The Expositor 5 (1897) 255–65. He admired much about Charles’s work and even wrote that this was the first time there had appeared in England a piece of critical investigation of which one could say with perfect confidence that it was “made in Germany”; for there is nothing except the title page to the contrary, and it displays all the methods of modern criticism, which for all practical purposes is Teutonic criticism, to the best advantage. (255)

He added that it was “the best example that English literature has ever had of the modern analysis of ancient books” (256). One of the issues that concerned Harris, though, was Charles’s thesis about multiple sources/authors: we confess to have been startled at the number of authors that he has brought to light; they are not single spies, but Apocalyptic battalions of Pharisees, Sadducees, and Zealots. They are like the “never-ending line” of Wordsworth’s daffodils, only they are not a jocund company . . . . (258)

He raised some specific doubts about the source division (262–3, where he refers to a family likeness between several of the units Charles distinguished), but he emphasized the importance of 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra: “They belong to the environment if not to the antecedents of the New Testament; they reproduce for us the literary and intellectual air which was breathed by apostolic and subapostolic men, though perhaps the atmosphere is sometimes surcharged with sulphur” (259). He was open to the possibility that both apocalypses were composed in Hebrew and wondered whether the similarities between them could be explained adequately as arising from a basis in shared sources (260–2). Harris considered the notes of commentary that Charles attached to his translation to be “a mine of information on Judaeo-Christian matters,” citing as an example his comments on the image of Manasseh in 2 Baruch 64

166    ( – ) (264; see The Apocalypse of Baruch, 106–7). His final verdict on the book reads: “whether Mr. Charles succeeds in establishing all his positions or not, he has certainly written a very valuable work, for which the students of Apocalyptic literature will give him their hearty thanks” (265). A few years after publication of The Apocalypse of Baruch, Victor Ryssel, who provided the translation of “Die syrische Baruchapokalypse” in the second volume of Kautzsch’s Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments, assessed Charles’s work in his introduction to the text. One of the issues he discussed was source division. He noted that for a time scholars had considered the Apocalypse of Baruch a unity, but in 1892 the picture had changed. That was the year in which Kabisch and de Faye (referenced above) published their theories that the apocalypse was compiled by an editor who inserted a number of sources into his basic text (he reproduced the details of their and Charles’s theories in a chart on p. 408). As a counter to such approaches, Ryssel adduced the views of C. Clemen (“Die Zusammensetzung des Buches Henoch, der Apokalypse des Baruch and des vierten Buches Esra,” Theologische Studien und Kritiken 71 [1898] 211–46, especially 227–37) who maintained that the inconsistencies should be attributed to ambiguities in sources employed (not incorporated) by the authors (409). Ryssel thought Charles’s suggestion about the presence of Baruch’s lost letter to the two and one-half tribes in the Book of Baruch had much to commend it (410). He had some difficulties with the notion that the author wrote the apocalypse in Hebrew but seemed finally to accept it (410–11). On p. 411 he repeated almost verbatim Charles’s claim that the apocalypse conveyed the kind of Judaism against which the Pauline dialectic was directed. Ryssel criticized Charles’s translation of the Syriac text. He charged that he had not maintained the necessary independence from Ceriani’s Latin translation and thus uncritically adopted the most glaring errors in it. Other translation errors he attributed to Charles’s misunderstanding the sense of the text and how sentences held together. In each case he offered a number of examples. He also thought Charles had made some unfortunate emendations (412).

Legacy There is little doubt that in connection with the Apocalypse of Baruch, as with the other Jewish works he examined, Charles made a fundamental, lasting

 (    ) 

167

contribution. There is more textual evidence available today,²³ especially for the Epistle of Baruch (chs. 78–86),²⁴ but whether it should be considered an integral part of the apocalypse, as Charles thought, is debated. In addition, the question whether the original language was Hebrew continues to arouse discussion. His theory about the six (or more) originally independent works incorporated by an editor into 2 Baruch is widely rejected or at least considered far less certain than Charles maintained.²⁵ No one doubts that the writer drew upon traditional materials in composing the apocalypse, but that it consists largely of previously independent documents whose world views were separated from one another by an “impassable gulf ” (liii) seems most unlikely. There are indicators of a sevenfold structure marked by four places where Baruch is said to fast for seven days (9:1–2; 12:5; 21:1; 47:1–2) and three when he speaks to the people (31:1–34:1; 44:1–46:7; 77:1–26). Throughout the entire work there is a progression from the dire situation at the beginning to the comfort offered in the visions later in the book. The contradictions that Charles and others spotted in it, especially in regard to the temple and messianic expectations, are not so obviously contradictory and are amenable to other readings.²⁶ Not long after the two books he published in 1896, Charles issued another groundbreaking study of a text, this time a work attributed to Moses. The intriguing issues it posed are the subject of Chapter 5.

²³ Besides the Greek fragment noted above, there is an Arabic version of chs. 3–77 (a folio is missing at the beginning) that was located in the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai, but it seems not to be a translation of the Syriac text known from manuscript c (see P. S. van Konigsveld, “An Arabic Manuscript of the Apocalypse of Baruch,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 6 [1975] 205–7). Whether the absence of the Epistle from the Arabic version is significant is not yet clear. There are a few pieces of 2 Baruch that were reproduced in Jacobite lectionaries (44:9–15 [in two lectionaries]; 72:1–73:2 [in three lectionaries]). See, for example, S. Dedering, editor, Apocalypse of Baruch, 4 Esdras (The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshit:ta Version IV/3; Leiden: Brill, 1973) iii–iv; A. F. J. Klijn, “2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch,” in Charlesworth, editor, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1.615–16. ²⁴ There are now thirty-eight known copies of the Epistle in Syriac. ²⁵ See the analyses in Pierre Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch, introduction, traduction du Syriaque et commentaire (Sources chrétiennes 144–5; Paris: Le Cerf, 1969), 1.353–80 and 1.57–95 (he, like others, recognizes that a single writer used sources and that he was an author, not a compiler of previously existing, independent works). Regarding a possible Hebrew original, Klijn (“2 [Apocalypse of] Baruch,” 616) simply echoes Charles’s arguments. ²⁶ See the survey in John Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (The Biblical Resource Series; 2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998) 213–16.

Chapter 5 The Assumption of Moses Charles’s almost unbelievable pace of producing major works on ancient Jewish texts continued into 1897. By this time, he had already published his book on Enoch, his edition of Ethiopic Jubilees, and his commentaries on 2 (Slavonic) Enoch and 2 (Syriac) Baruch. Every one of them reveals a huge amount of reading and research, not to mention hunting for manuscripts. What he accomplished is truly astounding, and he did it largely on his own as there were no others in Great Britain doing this sort of work at the time. He was a man of tremendous energy and directed it toward making available noncanonical Jewish works that were important for understanding both the Old and New Testaments.¹

The Contents of the Assumption of Moses It is understandable that Moses was selected by later Jewish writers as the bearer of divine messages. The great lawgiver had been in intimate communion with God throughout the forty years Israel was in the wilderness, right to the end of his life. The setting adopted by the writer of the Assumption of Moses is that of a testament—a conversation between the elderly Moses and his successor Joshua—that builds upon Deuteronomy 31–4. As he addresses the future leader just before his own death, Moses offers an apocalyptic forecast of Israel’s history, from its time in the land to the exiles of the ten and the two tribes, the return to the land, and the subsequent tragic history. But at the end, says Moses, God will exalt the people of Israel who will rejoice over the fate of their enemies (chs. 1–10). Joshua then objects that he will not be able to lead the nation whose enemies will exploit the absence of Moses, but Moses assures him that God is in control and calls upon Joshua and the people to be faithful to the commandments (11–12).

¹ Burkitt (“Robert Henry Charles 1855–1931,” 437–8) wrote: “It was characteristic of Dr. Charles that he was always entirely absorbed in the piece of work upon which he was engaged. This singleness of aim gave force and vigour to his writing and, as a characteristic, was known to all his friends.”

R. H. Charles: A Biography. James C. VanderKam, Oxford University Press. © James C. VanderKam 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192869289.003.0007

   

169

The Context for Charles’s Volume on the Assumption of Moses In The Assumption of Moses Charles edited, translated, and annotated a work that had first come to the attention of Western scholars in 1861. The Assumption (or Testament),² though mentioned in several ancient sources, had, like the other compositions on which Charles had worked, disappeared from Western view far in the past. The situation changed when Ceriani published a Latin text preserved in the manuscript that also contained the remains of Latin Jubilees—that is, a manuscript bearing two Mosaic texts. He offered a transcription of it along with the Latin Jubilees sections in his Monumenta sacra et profana, vol. 1, fascicle 1 (1861); the Assumption of Moses is on pp. 55–62, and the Jubilees material is on pages 15–54 (there are notes to both texts on 62–4). Jubilees occupies the first forty folios of the palimpsest, and the text of the Assumption of Moses appears on the next eight. The first lines of the latter text are missing, elsewhere various letters, words, and passages are illegible, and at the end it breaks off in midsentence. Hence, only part of the composition has survived. When Charles wrote his volume on the Assumption of Moses, he was, because of his work with the Jubilees section, very familiar with the manuscript in question. Ceriani did not attempt to “correct” the text of the Assumption of Moses but only to present what he could read on the manuscript (he did spell out its abbreviations). In the decade after his publication several treatments of the Assumption of Moses appeared, including four editions of the text (for these, see below). One of the issues discussed in the examinations of the text was the original language—was it Greek or a Semitic tongue? Most scholars dated the book to the first century .., although some numbers in the text proved difficult to interpret, while vaguely described persons were challenging to identify.³ Most who wrote about the Assumption of Moses believed the author composed it in Palestine.

The Book The Assumption of Moses, translated from the Latin sixth century MS., the unemended text of which is published herewith, together with the text in its ² The distinction between and significance of the titles “the Assumption of Moses” and “the Testament of Moses,” will be examined later in the chapter. ³ See Johannes Tromp, The Assumption of Moses: A Critical Edition with Commentary (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 10; Leiden: Brill, 1993) 94–6, for a brief summary of the disputed passages.

170    ( – ) restored and critically emended form, edited with introduction, notes, and indices by R. H. Charles, M.A. Trinity College, Dublin, and Exeter College, Oxford. (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1897).⁴ In the Preface, Charles, as was his custom, first expressed his general understanding of the book, but in this instance he spent more time distinguishing his views from those of other scholars. The opening words state his thesis: Written in Hebrew shortly after the beginning of the Christian era, this book was designed by its author to protest against the growing secularisation of the Pharisaic party through its fusion with political ideals and popular Messianic beliefs. Its author, a Pharisaic Quietist, sought herein to recall his party to the old paths, which they were fast forsaking, of simple unobtrusive obedience to the Law. He glorifies, accordingly, the old ideals which had been cherished and pursued by the Chasid and Early Pharisaic party, but which the Pharisaism of the first century .. had begun to disown in favour of a more active rôle in the life of the nation. (vii)

The writer’s efforts proved futile, as the Pharisaic movement eventually contributed to the revolt and thus to the destruction of 66–70 .. Charles declared that the Assumption of Moses was especially interesting because “it was written during the early life of our Lord, or possibly contemporaneously with His public ministry” (viii). The bias in how he evaluated the worth of an ancient Jewish text is transparent, but perhaps he was just trying to arouse interest in the book. He added that the writers of Jude and Acts knew the composition, and other New Testament authors very likely did as well. Charles used pp. viii–x in the Preface to distinguish his edition from previous ones in two respects. The first centered around the text itself. He reported that he was providing “a fuller and more critical treatment of the Latin text, and of the Greek and Semitic background which it presupposes” (viii). He referred to four earlier treatments of the Latin text, in only one of which did the editors recognize its Semitic origins. But even that one—the text of Schmidt-Merx (they thought it had been written in Aramaic; see below)— “is often brilliant indeed, but oftener arbitrary, alike in its emendations and restorations” (viii). Charles, himself a fine Latinist,⁵ examined the particular ⁴ Charles dedicated the book to his parents. ⁵ D’Arcy, “A Brief Memoir,” xiv (quoting Charles regarding his study of Latin under a Mr. Maxwell at the Belfast Academy): “It was customary for Mr. Maxwell to hand us an historical work—not a difficult one—and require us to translate it at sight into Latin, and this practice I sought to pursue in later years.”

   

171

kind of Latin in which the text survived, compared it with similar linguistic features in a fifth-century Latin manuscript of the gospels (k = Codex Bobiensis), and consulted the writings of authorities such as Hermann Rönsch (mentioned above in connection with Charles’s work on Jubilees). The idiosyncrasies of the text have likewise been carefully summarised, and its derivation from the Greek exhibited on grounds in many respects new. At the next stage of the investigation I have been obliged to part company with all scholars but Rosenthal⁶ in my advocacy of a Hebrew original.⁷ That the book was derived from a Semitic original, it is no longer possible to doubt. (ix)

He maintained that there were no cases favoring the thesis of an Aramaic base text and some that “are explicable only on that of a Hebrew original” (ix). The second feature separating his edition from others concerned its exegesis. Most experts had treated only select problems or themes, while those who had actually commented on the entire book had been parsimonious with their notes. “This exegetic meagreness of past scholarship on the subject has made the task of the present editor more arduous than might have been expected. It has, however, been beneficial in necessitating a first-hand study of all the questions involved in the text. As a result of this study, I have been obliged to differ from all preceding scholars on the interpretation of several of the most important facts and chapters in the book. With what success I must leave to others to determine” (x). Charles ended the Preface by thanking his friend Dr. Cheyne “for his revision of my proofs of a Hebrew original” (x). Thus, he had, as he did for 2 Baruch, retroverted the book into Hebrew (again, as with 2 Baruch, the retroversion was not printed in his edition). Another he thanked was

⁶ Ferdinand Rosenthal was the author of Vier apokryphische Bücher aus der Zeit und Schule r. Akiba’s: Assumptio Mosis, das Vierte Buch Esra, die Apokalypse Baruch, das Buch Tobi (Leipzig: Schulze, 1885). As the title implies, Rosenthal dated all four texts to the period between the first (66–70 ..) and second (132–35 ..) revolts against Rome (Rabbi Akiba died around the end of the second revolt). He treated the Assumption of Moses on pp. 13–38, dating it to just after the destruction of 70 .. It was written, he believed, by an author from among the general Jewish populace who had suffered so much from the war and whose leaders had abandoned them, fleeing to Jamnia. The writer composed the work in the Aramaizing Hebrew used by his community in Palestine. ⁷ This was a strange claim to make, since Heinrich Ewald had written thirty-five years earlier that the original was certainly in Hebrew (see his review of Ceriani, Monumenta sacra et profana 1/1 in Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, vol. 1 for 1862, 6). It is true that only a few years later Ewald wrote favorably about Aramaic as the author’s language. See his review in the same journal for 1867, of Joseph Langen, Das Judenthum in Palästina zur Zeit Christi, and of Hilgenfeld, Novum Testamentum extra canonem, especially 110–18 (the entire review is on pp. 100–18). For Hilgenfeld’s volume, see below.

172    ( – ) Dr. Sutherland Black⁸ who had gone through the proofs of the book and offered many corrections. His Introduction to the commentary starts with a “Short Account of the Book.” In it he immediately raised a central issue in study of the text he was translating. Charles entitled his edition The Assumption of Moses but did not think that was the ancient name of the text with which he was dealing. The Assumption of Moses was, in all probability, a composite work, and consisted of two originally distinct books, of which the first was really the Testament of Moses, and the second the Assumption. The former was written in Hebrew, between 7 and 29 .., and possibly also the latter. A Greek version of the entire work appeared in the first century .. (xiii)

In other words, Charles believed that the text he was publishing was a work called “the Testament of Moses” and that another unit incorporated into a composite book with it had circulated in antiquity under the title “the Assumption of Moses.” The Greek version of the combined work was translated into Latin by the fifth century. The text published by Charles was, then, only a part of what was once a larger composition and should be entitled “the Testament of Moses.” A Quietist Pharisee had written it to oppose “the growing Zelotic spirit of the party” (xiv). Charles and other scholars used the title “The Assumption of Moses” only because Ceriani had so named the text he found (see below). In the second part of the Introduction he enumerated other Moses books in Jewish, Christian, and Gnostic literature. He admitted that they supplied “little or no help to the explanation of the present book” (xiv), but summarized them anyway (he had done the same when he listed Baruch books in The Apocalypse of Baruch). A more useful third part deals with the previous editions of the Latin text. The first, really only a transcription, was, of course, by Ceriani—a publication that Charles considered very accurate. After the Ceriani volume became available, A. Hilgenfeld⁹ had done “the finest textual work that has been produced on this book” (xviii), though his achievements were reduced in ⁸ John Sutherland Black (1846–1923) was for many years (1878–89) an assistant editor for the ninth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and later (1894–1903) a joint editor of the Encyclopaedia Biblica. ⁹ Adolf Hilgenfeld (1823–1907) had presented and treated the text for the first time in his Novum Testamentum extra canonem receptum, part 1: Clementis Romani Epistulae edidit, commentario critico et adnotationibus instruxit; Mosis Assumptionis quae supersunt nunc primum edita et illustrata (Leipzig: Weigel, 1866) 93–115. Hilgenfeld was responsible for dividing the book into twelve chapters.

   

173

value by his erroneous assumption that Greek was its original language. Hilgenfeld later published a retroversion of the book into Greek, “on the whole with admirable success” (xix).¹⁰ Charles was less charitable in assessing the work of Gustav Volkmar.¹¹ He acknowledged some contributions from him but “his work is disfigured by many errors, and at times by gross ignorance” (xix). The edition of Moriz Schmidt and Adalbert Merx¹² that he had mentioned in the Preface received more attention. The two had begun working with the text as soon as they received news of its existence. In their painstaking labors, they retroverted the Latin into Greek and eventually into Hebrew and Aramaic. They preferred Aramaic over Hebrew as the original language of the Essene author because of the word order and the way in which participles were used. Yet, though they correctly perceived that the language of composition was Semitic, not Greek, and made valuable suggestions for emending and restoring the Latin text, their proposals, thought Charles, were “at times . . . wholly beside the mark and unreasonable” (xx). The final predecessor who had edited the text was Otto F. Fritzsche¹³ who benefitted from the work of Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, and Schmidt-Merx and also made contributions of his own. Charles’s verdict on his results was: “It is a saner text than that of Schmidt-Merx, but not half so brilliant” (xxi). Fritzsche had placed the readings of the Milan manuscript on the left-hand page and on the facing page had given his emended version of it, fortified with extensive notes. Charles imitated his manner of presentation in his volume on the Assumption of Moses. The fourth section of the Introduction contains Charles’s assessment of the previous “Critical Inquiries” (xxi–xxviii). Here he leaves out of consideration those whose editions he had reviewed in the previous section, apart from Hilgenfeld who had, in addition to editing the text, formulated a theory about the situation of the book. Charles considered his exegetical work

¹⁰ The publications that included his Greek retroversion with notes and “sachliche Erklärung” were “Die Psalmen Salomo’s und die Himmelfahrt des Moses, griechisch hergestellt und erklärt,” Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie 11 (1868) 273–309, 356 (Hilgenfeld was the founder of the journal); and the volume he edited, Messias Judaeorum: libris eorum paulo ante et paulo post Christum natum conscriptis illustratus (Leipzig: Fues, 1869) 435–68. See also his “Volkmar und Pseudo-Moses,” Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie 10 (1867) 217–23 (a rather sharply worded review!). ¹¹ Mose Prophetie und Himmelfahrt, eine Quelle für das Neue Testament, zum erstenmale deutsch herasgegeben im Zusammenhang der Apokrypha und der Christologie überhaupt (Leipzig: Fues, 1867). ¹² They published their results in “Die Assumptio Mosis mit Einleitung und erklärenden Anmerkungen,” Archiv für wissenschaftliche Erforschung des Alten Testaments 1 (1868) 111–52 (Merx edited the journal). ¹³ Fritzsche published his edition as the last selection in his Libri apocryphi Veteris Testamenti graece, recensit et cum commentario critico edidit Otto Fridolinus Fritzsche (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1871) 700–30. He divided Hilgenfeld’s chapters into verses.

174    ( – ) weak in comparison with his textual accomplishments (xxii). The writers Charles surveyed usually dated the work to some point in the first century .., although there were a few exceptions, and several attributed it to a Zealot author. Those who thought the original language was Semitic favored Aramaic over Hebrew. The lengthy fifth section of the Introduction, “The Latin Version of the Assumption: Its Linguistic Character and Critical Worth” (xxviii–xxxvi), offers the in-depth study of the Latin translation that Charles had promised in the Preface (viii–ix). He maintained that the text in the sixth-century Ambrosian manuscript was only a copy of the Latin translation, not the original; its “style and orthography,” however, dated the translation itself to the fifth century (xxx). To these introductory remarks he added two sections. The first deals with its linguistic character, under which rubric he treated paleography and orthography as well as syntax. The second examines its “Critical Worth.” He found the version to be very literal and generally to be “extremely trustworthy” (xxxiv). He then went on, however, to point out its defects—omissions, interpolations, dittographies, transpositions, corruptions, and mistakes caused by carelessness. He presents in the sixth section his reasons for thinking the Latin version is a translation from Greek (xxxvi–xxxviii). The point was not controversial, since the other commentators agreed. As Charles put it, “Of the derivation of our Latin text from the Greek there can be no question” (xxxvi). Nevertheless, he listed and documented five by now quite familiar categories of evidence that proved the matter: some Greek words are transliterated in the Latin text, Greek forms and idioms appear, in places a retranslation into Greek uncovers the text the Latin translator misunderstood, the sources of some “incoherencies” emerge (xxxviii), and fragments of the Greek version are found in the works of authors who used the Assumption of Moses. The seventh part of the Introduction takes up the more debatable claim that Hebrew was the author’s language (xxxviii–xlv). Charles swiftly dismissed the arguments of those who thought Greek was the language of origin (he deemed the obstacles Hilgenfeld saw to affirming a Semitic original as “mainly the offspring of his own imagination” [xxxix]). But, since many experts agreed the Assumption of Moses was written in a Semitic language, the problem was deciding between Aramaic and Hebrew. Charles thought that most of the passages that Schmidt-Merx believed favored Aramaic could as easily be explained from Hebrew, and he offered detailed explanations for why their strongest examples were unconvincing. On the positive side, he gave five rather predictable reasons for settling on Hebrew as the author’s language:

   

175

Hebrew idioms can be found in the Latin text (e.g., implebuntur manus [“hands will be filled”], a literal translation of the Hebrew expression for ordaining [10:2]),¹⁴ some of which cannot be explained in Aramaic; “[s]yntactical idioms probably survive” (xlii); at times one must translate the Hebrew underlying the Latin, not the Latin itself; retranslation into Hebrew allows one to discover the source of corruptions and the presence of wordplays. The issue mentioned above—the correct name for the text in the Milan manuscript—is the subject of the eighth part of the Introduction. Ancient lists of apocryphal books refer to a Testament of Moses and an Assumption of Moses. All scholars who had worked on Ceriani’s text imitated him by calling it “The Assumption of Moses,” a name Ceriani adopted on the basis of an ancient reference. Gelasius of Cyzicus, who compiled a Collection of the Acts of the Council of Nicea,¹⁵ cited 1:14 and named as its source “the Assumption of Moses [αναληψεως μωυσεως (analēpseōs mōuseōs)]” (below is my translation of Gelasius’ text as Charles quotes it): Gelasius

Charles’s translation of 1:14 (Moses is speaking to Joshua)

When the prophet Moses was about to depart this life, as has been written in the book of the Assumption of Moses, he summoned Joshua the son of Nun and said to him: “God . . . He prepared me before the foundation foresaw me before the foundation of the world, that I should be the of the world to be the mediator mediator of His covenant. of his covenant.” Although Gelasius claimed the information derived from a book named the Assumption of Moses, Ceriani’s text said nothing about Moses’ being taken to heaven at the end of his earthly life. The conclusion of the text is missing from the Milan manuscript, but, as Charles indicated, several sentences in the existing parts suggest that Moses would die in a normal way.

¹⁴ The plural form, however, is unexpected if a Hebrew text with this meaning is here reflected; see Tromp, The Assumption of Moses, 230. ¹⁵ According to F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone, editors, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997) 658, he was active around 475 .. “He wrote a ‘Syntagma’, or collection of the Acta of the Nicene Council (325), to refute the Monophysite claim that their faith was identical with that professed by the Nicene Fathers.”

176    ( – ) In light of this situation, Charles made four points. First, the text published by Ceriani is a testament, a final statement from Moses to his successor Joshua. Second, in the preserved text it is anticipated that Moses will die an ordinary death, for which it uses a common biblical expression: (Moses is speaking to Joshua): “And now I declare unto thee that the time of the years of my life is fulfilled and I am passing away to sleep with my fathers even in the presence of all the people” (1:15). In 3:13 the people say: “Behold these things have befallen us after his death . . . ,” and in 10:14 Moses again predicts he is going to sleep with his fathers. Third, the ending missing from Ceriani’s manuscript survived in another text—a catena¹⁶ on the Pentateuch. “At the time when Moses was about to die a luminous cloud surrounded the place of the sepulcher and blinded the eyes of the bystanders. Therefore nobody could see either the dying lawgiver or the place where his body was buried.”¹⁷ It says nothing about an assumption into God’s presence. Rather, its description of Moses’ end seems to follow Deuteronomy 34:5–6 in that he simply dies; the only unusual feature is that no one knew where he was buried. Fourth, a series of ancient writers, including early ones such as the author of the New Testament Epistle of Jude and Clement of Rome, quoted from a book whose primary concern was the assumption of Moses. “This we take to have been the original Assumption of Moses” (xlvii), but it was not the text that Ceriani had published. Among the theories that scholars had formulated to account for the confusing evidence, Charles found himself most in agreement with that of Emil Schürer. He proposed that the two names, the Testament of Moses and the Assumption of Moses, “were the titles of two separate divisions of one and the same work, the first of which has been preserved, whereas the quotations in the Fathers almost all belong to the second” (cited on xlvi).¹⁸ Charles nuanced Schürer’s theory by positing that the two were not separate divisions of the same work but “two originally independent works subsequently put together and edited into one” (xlvi). Why should one think there were two independent Mosaic compositions that later found their way into one book? There was Gelasius’ reference to a

¹⁶ Catenae are manuscripts with explanatory comments placed in the margins opposite the scriptural passage(s) they interpret. ¹⁷ Quoted from James Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible As It Was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998) 862. ¹⁸ Charles cited from Schürer’s A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (2 vols.; Edinburgh: Clark, 1885–90) vol. 2, part 3, 73–83 (quotation on 82).

   

177

passage (1:14) now present in the testamentary section (Ceriani’s text) yet attributed to a work he called “the Assumption of Moses,” but there was more. In 10:12 Moses says: “For from my death—(my) assumption—until His advent there will be CCL times.” The noteworthy feature here is the presence in one sentence of both key terms—death and assumption—a sentence in the Testament text where Moses expects to die in the normal way. Charles theorized that “ . . . the word ‘assumption’ can best be explained as an insertion of the editor in order to adapt the text of the Testament to the main subject of the second work which he incorporates, i.e. the Assumption” (xlix). A second category of support for his thesis of a combined work comes from external sources. One was Palaea Historica (ninth century ..) in which, in successive lines, the writer adduces material drawn from both the Testament and the Assumption. Concerning the death of Moses: Moses said to Joshua son of Nun, “Let us go up on the mountain.” After they ascended, Moses saw the land of promise and told him, “Go down to the people and report to them that Moses has died.” Joshua went down to the people, and Moses reached the end of his life. Sammael attempted to bring down his body to the people so that they might deify him. But Michael, the captain of the Lord’s host, on the command of God came to get the body and remove it. Sammael opposed him, and they fought. So the captain of the host became incensed and rebuked him, saying, “The Lord rebukes you, Devil.” In this way, the adversary was defeated and took flight. The archangel Michael removed the body of Moses to a place ordered by Christ our God, [and no one saw Moses’ tomb].¹⁹

While Palaea Historica is a later text, Josephus at the end of the first century (Antiquities 4.326) seems to know of both opinions about Moses’ final state: “And, while he bade farewell to Eleazar and Joshua and was yet communing with them, a cloud of a sudden descended upon him and he disappeared in a ravine. But he has written of himself in the sacred books that he died, for fear lest they should venture to say that by reason of his surpassing virtue he had gone back to the Deity.”²⁰ And Jude may also reflect knowledge of both (see

¹⁹ The translation is by William Adler, “Palaea Historica (‘The Old Testament History’),” in Richard Bauckham, James R. Davila, and Alexander Panayotov, editors, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Non-Canonical Scriptures (vol. 1; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013) 647. ²⁰ The translation is by H. St. J. Thackeray, Josephus IV Jewish Antiquities, Books I–IV (Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge: Harvard University Press/London: Heinemann, 1930) 633.

178    ( – ) below). If so, the editorial process of combining the two had occurred as early as the first century. As we saw, Charles categorized the author as a Pharisaic Quietist. He defended the identification through a process of elimination. The author was not a Sadducee because he hoped for a future kingdom that God would establish, one in which the righteous would enjoy a blessed existence. He was not a Zealot (despite what a number of scholars had proposed) because he was silent about the Maccabean revolt and thus did not approve of their (or others’) resort to arms. It is God, not people, who will bring about the future kingdom. And finally, he was not an Essene because of his nationalism and his interest in the temple and sacrifice.²¹ That left only the Pharisees, and, as the author advocated the old tradition of “quietude and resignation” (liv), he could be characterized as a Pharisaic Quietist. The date of the book (at least as we have it) was the next topic treated by Charles (lv–lviii). He quickly dismissed the suggestion of two scholars that it was a second-century composition,²² since according to the author the temple would remain in its place until the messianic kingdom, and it was still standing when he wrote. If the temple had been destroyed by that time, the writer would certainly have mentioned it. Hence, he wrote before 70 .. The great majority of experts placed the book in the first century but at different points in it. Charles located it between 7 and 30 .. The writer indicates that Herod was dead, and the war of Varus had taken place (both happened in 4 ..); therefore, he could not have composed the book before 3 .. Specific dates that frame the possible time when he penned the book arise from two passages. In 6:7 the author wrote (6:6 mentions the thirty-four-year rule of Herod): “And he will beget children, who succeeding him will rule for shorter periods.” Herod’s son Archelaus did indeed rule a shorter time (ten years, 4 ..–6 ..) than his father, but Herod’s sons Philip and Antipas, in their respective kingdoms, enjoyed longer reigns than his. Charles, like others, drew an interesting conclusion from the verse: “Hence the book must have been written before these princes had reigned for thirty-four years, i.e. before 30 ..” (lvii). The words in 7:1 “And when this is done the times will be ended” entail that the writer had reached his own time; and the reference in the same

²¹ His reasons for rejecting Essene authorship seem quaint after the Qumran discoveries but were convincing to most at his time. They rest on a certain way of reading statements in Josephus’ description of the Essenes. ²² They were Volkmar (see above) and M. Colani, “L’Assomption des Moïse,” Revue de Théologie 6 (1868) 65–94. Both thought that chs. 8–9 dealt with Hadrian’s persecutions and placed the text at the end of his reign. Hadrian was the Roman emperor in the years 117–38.

   

179

verse to “four hours,”²³ some of which would already have passed, should be speaking about the time immediately after Archelaus was deposed (6 ..). Hence, 7 .. is the earliest possible date of composition (lvii–lviii, 23). After many pages devoted to introductory issues, Charles addressed the author’s views about four central topics (lviii–lxi). The first was Moses himself, whom the writer considered to be a mediator (even after his ordinary death), one prepared before the foundation of the earth. Second, regarding Israel, he kept all twelve tribes in view, despite their separation and their different places of exile. Third, the messianic or theocratic kingdom would be established by God; the book has no place for a messiah. Charles suggested that the rise within the Pharisaic party of the notion that the messiah would be a man of war influenced the author not to include one. Fourth, far from teaching that human righteousness gained merit with God, he declared that even the greatest Israelite, Moses, believed it was through no virtue of his own that God called him to his ministry. The final unit in the Introduction is “New Testament and Later Writers acquainted with the Assumption” (lxii–lxv). Here Charles focused on New Testament passages and for later ones referred the reader to pp. 107–10 where he collected Patristic and other citations. The Epistle of Jude provides the clearest evidence for the book, that is, the composite work containing the Testament and the Assumption. Jude 9 clearly drew on the latter: “But when the archangel Michael contended with the devil and disputed about the body of Moses, he did not dare to bring a condemnation of slander against him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!’” There were several other expressions in Jude that made Charles think the writer had passages from the Testament section in mind. Jude 16 says: “These are grumblers and malcontents; they indulge their own lusts; they are bombastic in speech, flattering people to their own advantage” (NRSV). With these he compared descriptions from 5:5; 7:7, 9: complainers (7:7); “though their hands and their minds touch unclean things, yet their mouth will speak great things”; and 5:5 “many in those times will respect the persons of the rich and receive gifts”. There are also parallel terms for “mockers” and “the wicked.” It is not easy to see why Charles found such general charges and terms to be evidence for influence from the Moses text, but he added: “Now, lest the full force of these parallels should escape us, we should observe that the accounts in both books are actually or nominally prophetic” (lxii–lxiii). ²³ Exactly what is meant by these “hours” is very unclear, and in the commentary Charles did not offer an explanation.

180    ( – ) He found parallels with passages in 2 Peter but thought those with Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 were “remarkable.” The one he considered “most remarkable” is in Stephen’s summary of Israelite history: Acts 7:36 He led them out, having performed wonders and signs in Egypt, at the Red Sea, and in the wilderness for forty years.

Assumption of Moses 3:11 . . . who suffered many things in Egypt and in the Red Sea and in the wilderness during forty years.

About these passages Charles commented: “The likeness is too close to be accidental. We must either assume that Acts vii.36 is derived from our text, or that III.11 b of our text is interpolated. The evidence of Apoc. Bar. lxxxiv.3 is against the latter supposition: likewise also the word ‘suffered’” (lxiii–lxiv).²⁴ His comment about “suffered” is on target, but it should have led him to question whether there was a connection between Acts and the Assumption, as both convey familiar information about Moses but do so differently. Charles also thought that a passage from the Gospel of Matthew might derive from the Assumption of Moses: Matthew 24:29 . . . the sun will be darkened,

Assumption of Moses 10:5 And the horns of the sun will be broken and he will be turned into darkness; and the moon will not give its light; And the moon will not give her light, and be turned wholly into blood. the stars will fall from heaven, And the circle of the stars will be disturbed. and the powers of heaven will be shaken. To his credit, he recognized the two could have come from a common source. As the lines about the luminaries echo passages in the prophets, they do not justify thinking Matthew’s words came from the Moses text.

²⁴ Exactly how 2 Bar 84:3 contributes to the question I do not see. In Charles’s translation it reads: “And other things also he used to say unto you when ye the twelve tribes were together in the wilderness.” The context in ch. 84 is reminiscent of parts of the Moses text (in v. 2 he called heaven and earth to witness; disobedience to the law will lead to exile, keeping it to security; in vv. 4–5 the people disobeyed and what Moses predicted took place), but Charles’s point is unclear. There is nothing in the passage that the writer could not have derived from the Pentateuch.

   

181

Charles, concluded, nevertheless, that the book “was known to the writers of the Epistle of Jude and of Acts vii, and most probably to the writers of 2 Peter and Matt. xxiv.29 . . . ” (lxv). An important question regarding the Assumption of Moses has to do with the original location of chs. 8–9. Charles mentioned the issue in section 9 of the Introduction, but rather than discussing it there, referred the reader to his notes on pp. 28–30. He insisted that “The interpretation of these two chapters will remain an impossibility so long as scholars attempt to deal with them in their present position” (li). He believed they had been dislocated from where the author put them to their current home between chs. 7 and 10. The two chapters describe a “second visitation” (8:1; cf. 9:2) that will include severe physical and religious persecution and during which time a man from the tribe of Levi named Taxo and his seven sons will go to a cave to die rather than transgress the Lord’s commands. Their unjust deaths would then unleash divine vengeance on their foes. Charles’s predecessors had interpreted chs. 8–9 in two ways: a few thought they described persecutions of the Jews in the aftermath of the Bar Kokhba revolt (say, 136–8 ..) late in the reign of the Emperor Hadrian; but most understood them as predicting the final woes before the arrival of the theocratic kingdom. Charles considered both views “impossible” (he used the word several times on pp 28–30 in dealing with various positions). For him, the first view could not be correct because the book was written in the first century, while the second misconstrued the chapters as dealing with the final woes. These, wrote Charles, could hardly be described as a “second visitation” (the first was under King Nebuchadnezzar). The two chapters were rather to be read as recounting the persecution under Antiochus IV in 167–4 .. They accurately describe those times under the guise of predicting them. If chs. 8–9 speak of the Antiochan persecution, a serious problem arises: they would be out of chronological order with what precedes them. The earlier chapters in the book, as Charles read them, do not refer at all to the persecutions ordered by Antiochus, not even profaning the temple which would certainly have been mentioned. In addition, there is a gap in the book’s historical coverage between chs. 5 and 6: ch. 5 traces history to the time of the high priests Jason (175–72 ..) and Menelaus (172–62 ..) who served during the reign of Antiochus, while ch. 6 begins with the Maccabean princes, starting with Jonathan (152–42 ..), and continues to the time of Herod and his sons. In other words, there is no reference to the persecution or to the defilement of the temple, events that occurred after those of ch. 5 and before those of ch. 6. So Charles proposed that the original location of chs. 8–9 was

182    ( – ) between chs. 5 and 6. This would give a chronological sequence and supply the missing treatment of the persecution in the 160s .. Charles thought the final editor was responsible for displacing the two chapters (pp. 28–30), but he neglected to say why a writer committed such a chronological blunder. Charles’s translation and often lengthy interpretive notes for the twelvechapter book occupy pp. 1–51 of The Assumption of Moses—the shortest text he had treated to date. He supplemented the Introduction and translation/ commentary with a unit he entitled “Assumptionis Moysi Fragmenta: The Latin Version of the Assumption of Moses Critically Revised and Emended together with the Unemended Latin Text of the Sixth Century MS. in the Milan Library” (53–101). He placed his revised version of the Latin on the lefthand page and a transcription of the Milan text on the right-hand page. He supported his own version of the Latin text with copious notes. The final and shortest part of the book Charles called “Original Assumption of Moses” (103–10). In these pages he attempted to reconstruct from ancient testimonies the structure and in places the wording of the part of the composite work not extant on the Milan manuscript—the Assumption of Moses. He first presented what he, on the basis of the ancient witnesses, took to be the order of the material in the Assumption section: 1. 2. 3. 4.

The angel Michael is commissioned to bury Moses Satan opposes his burial²⁵ Michael charges Satan with making the serpent tempt the first couple The assumption occurs in the presence of Joshua and Caleb. “A twofold presentation of Moses appears: one is Moses ‘living in the spirit,’ which is carried up to heaven; the other is the dead body of Moses, which is buried in the recesses of the mountains” (106).

Charles then gave the Greek for each of these elements as derived from the ancient sources that preserved them. The last pages offer the citations themselves. Among the most important and early are (besides Jude 9 cited above): Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–ca. 215), Stromateis 6.15: . . . Jesus [=Joshua] the son of Nave saw Moses, when taken up [to heaven], double,—one Moses with the angels, and one on the mountains, honoured

²⁵ Satan contended that, since he was lord of matter, the body should be given to him. Michael countered that God, the true Lord of matter, rebukes him. Satan then charged that Moses was guilty of murder.

   

183

with burial in their ravines. And Jesus saw this spectacle below, being elevated by the Spirit, along also with Caleb.²⁶

Origen (ca. 184–ca. 253) We must now see how, according to the scriptures, the opposing powers and the devil himself are engaged in a struggle with the human race, provoking and inciting men to sin. First, a serpent is described in Genesis as having seduced Eve; and in regard to this serpent, in the Ascension of Moses, a book which the Apostle Jude mentions in his epistle, Michael the archangel when disputing with the devil about the body of Moses says that the serpent was inspired by the devil and so became the cause of the transgression of Adam and Eve.²⁷ (On First Principles, Book 3, ch. 2.1) in a certain small book (which, to be sure, is absent from the canon), an image of this mystery is described; it is said that two Moseses were visible: one alive in the spirit, and the other dead in the body.²⁸ (Origen, Homily on Joshua 2.1)

The notion that the devil accused Moses of being a murderer since he had killed the Egyptian is found in catenae to Jude. An example is a comment to Jude 10 (picking up on the word “blasphemy” or “slander” in v. 9): “Moses having died on the Mount, Michael is sent to transfer the body to heaven. The devil subsequently slandered Moses, and accused him of being a murderer, because he had slain the Egyptian. But the Angel did not bear his slander, but said to the devil: ‘May God rebuke you!’”²⁹ Passages of these sorts allowed Charles to reconstruct the lost Assumption of Moses. As with his previous editions, Charles’s publication on the Assumption of Moses became part of his The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (2.407–24). This version, like the others, is an abbreviated and

²⁶ The translation is from Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors, Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire) (Ante-Nicene Fathers 2; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994 [original 1885]) 511. ²⁷ The passage is quoted from G.W. Butterworth, Origen On First Principles (New York: Harper & Row, 1966) 211. ²⁸ Cited from Tromp, The Assumption of Moses, 284. ²⁹ From Tromp, The Assumption of Moses, 276–7.

184    ( – ) otherwise slightly modified form of the material in the book, with no notable changes of interpretation.³⁰

Reviews The reviewer of the book in Theologische Literaturzeitung 22 (1897) 507–9 again was Emil Schürer. His comments, typically learned and detailed, also give an impression of the reputation Charles had established by this time. Schürer opened by noting that the interest in apocryphal studies in England was now almost greater than in Germany. One of the most energetic students in the field was Charles who was making contributions almost every year. In the course of surveying the Introduction, he drew attention to the way in which Charles accepted but nuanced his own view that the Testament of Moses and the Assumption of Moses were names of the two parts of the original book. He commented that one would need a powerful magnifying glass to find any appreciable difference between their two theories. He also thought that the author did not always take a Pharisaic viewpoint, since in the final prediction he sounds like a Zealot. He considered it unfortunate that Charles had made no fresh examination of the Milan manuscript itself, as that was essential for the kind of work he was doing. He found some of his emendations excellent but others arbitrary—something, he said, one would expect from Charles, judging by his previous publications. He wanted to reflect further on Charles’s proposal about the location of chs. 8–9 but felt that simply transposing them between 5 and 6 did not solve the problem. He made two points about the commentary. First, he objected to Charles’s treatment of 6:1 where he emended the text. It reads “priests of the Most High God,” but Charles emended the expression to “high priests of God” on the grounds that the Maccabees did not claim the title in the text, nor was it used for the other Jewish high priests (see pp. 20–1). Schürer cited a number of passages where the title was attributed to the Hasmoneans.³¹ The second point concerned the mysterious name Taxo in ³⁰ His rendering did not become part of the 1917 Translations of Early Documents, series I (PreRabbinic) published in London by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, as many of his other translations were. The Assumption of Moses in this series was introduced, translated, and explained by William John Ferrar, vicar of East Finchley. His introduction largely repeats Charles’s positions, but, as he wrote on p. 18, he based his translation of the Latin text on Clemens’ edition in the series Kleine Texte (1904 [see below]). Ferrar’s work was bound together into one small volume with Charles’s translation of 2 Baruch (with Oesterley’s introduction), with no explanation why Charles’s translation of the Assumption of Moses was not used. ³¹ Charles’s 1913 translation (2.418) reads: “priests of the Most High God,” supported by a note showing that the Hasmoneans did employ the title. He did not, however, thank Schürer for the correction.

   

185

ch. 9. Charles maintained on the basis of a Samaritan text which in part drew on the Assumption of Moses that an original ‫( תקסא‬taqsō’ = Taxo) was corrupt for ‫( הקנא‬haq-qannā’ = the zealous; see p. 36). Schürer believed his proposal was better than many others.³² Another reaction to Charles’s positions came from Carl Clemens who introduced and translated the Assumption of Moses in the second volume of Kautzsch, Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments (“Die Himmelfahrt Moses,” 311–31).³³ He frequently agreed with conclusions Charles had reached (e.g., “assumption” in 10:12 is an editorial insertion signaling the combination of the book’s two parts [312, 328 n. e]), but he was more cautious in some ways. One point on which he disagreed was the supposed dislocation of chs. 8–9. Clemens thought they actually related to the future, not to the persecution of Antiochus, though they derived some literary coloring from the terrible times of the Seleucid king. With Charles, he believed the author was a Pharisaic quietist (and rigorist), but he found the arguments for a Hebrew original, as well as those for an Aramaic base, to be unconvincing. Rather, one could be certain only that the Latin was translated from Greek. Whether Greek was the author’s language he did not know. Clemens also cautioned that editors should not emend the Latin text, however unclassical its language, but should repair only scribal errors.³⁴

Legacy All in all, Charles produced a valuable volume regarding the Moses text and advanced theses that in part differed from the views of others: (1) the text published by Ceriani was a Testament of Moses, composed in Hebrew in the first third of the first century .. and subsequently translated into Greek and from Greek into Latin; (2) it was once an independent work that an editor conjoined with another Moses book, the Assumption of Moses, to form a single composition. The Testament or Assumption of Moses is for modern scholars an important Jewish apocalyptic text from the late second temple period. Unlike the case for some other works in this category, there have been no new manuscript ³² On this point too Charles changed his mind by 1913 when he, following Burkitt, took the name to be gematria for Eleazar (2.421). ³³ He later edited Die Himmelfahrt des Mose (Kleine Texte für theologische Vorlesungen und Übungen 10; Bonn: A. Marcus and E. Weber, 1904)—the edition that Ferrar (mentioned just above) used for his translation. ³⁴ Ceriani (Monumenta Sacra et Profana 1/1.12) and Schmidt-Merx (“Die Assumptio Mosis,” 113) had made the same point.

186    ( – ) discoveries so that, at present, the manuscript from the Ambrosian Library remains the only copy. Charles’s book is still a standard resource in study of the text, although a few of his positions (to say nothing of his emendations) have failed to convince later experts. One is his understanding of 10:12 as containing a hint about the editorial blending of a Testament of Moses with an Assumption of Moses, and another is his view regarding the dislocation of chs. 8–9. As for 10:12 and the editorial history of the book, Johannes Tromp evaluates the situation quite differently than Charles: Receptio [assumption] is often taken to be a redactional gloss on mors [death], added after the supposed amalgamation of the Testament and the Assumption of Moses . . . The argument is that the Testament of Moses originally contained no assumption of Moses, and ended, in accordance with the genre of the testament, with Moses’ death and burial. Mors would then be the word used in the Testament. The Assumption of Moses, however, would originally have been a different document and would have replaced the original conclusion to the Testament. The redactor who wove both works together would accordingly have found it necessary to redefine mors in 10:12 as receptio, “assumption”. But there is no need to assume such redactional activity. For receptio does not necessarily mean “assumption into heaven”. There are indeed instances in which recipi means something like “to be taken (sc. to heaven)”, but one can as well “be taken (sc. to [the realm of] death)”, a translation which recommends itself in the present context. The simple translation must be: “For there will be 250 times from my death, my being taken away, until his (sc. God’s) arrival”.³⁵

Chapters 8–9 and their place in the text have continued to arouse interest. It was noted above that Clemens thought the two chapters referred to the last evil days, with their depiction partly influenced by the difficulties during the time of Antiochus. These chapters do seem to reflect aspects of the persecution in the 160s and the early response to it. Why would the writer use such heavily Antiochan/Maccabean coloring to depict the post-Herodian period? Jacob Licht³⁶ noted that ch. 9, with its description of Taxo, his seven sons, and their resolve to die an unjust death to provoke divine vengeance on their enemies, is tightly related to ch. 10 in which that vengeance follows (e.g., 10:2). ³⁵ Tromp, The Assumption of Moses, 239 (see also 101). ³⁶ “Taxo and the Apocalyptic Doctrine of Vengeance,” Journal of Jewish Studies 12 (1961) 95–103 (the lengthy quotation below is from pages 102–3). A number of scholars had earlier spotted the connections between chs. 8–10.

   

187

Moreover, Taxo’s speech refers to the persecution in ch. 8 as the reason for what he does. Hence, chs. 8–10 belong together, and 8–9 cannot simply be removed as Charles suggested. Licht, with hesitation, offered a hypothesis: Let us assume that the Assumption of Moses as it has come down to us is not a wholly original work but rather an adaptation, made in post-Herodian times, of an earlier one. The first version will have been written at the beginning of the Hasmonaean revolt, slightly earlier than the apocalyptic parts of Daniel. It contained a review of history up to the times of Jason and Menelaus (chapter v), described the persecution under Antiochus IV (ch. viii) and suggested that the deeds of the Hasidean Martyrs had the eschatological significance of provoking divine vengeance (Taxo, ch. ix). An adapter, who lived in post-Herodian times, rewrote the book so as to make its message suitable to his own generation. Since he did not sympathize with the Hasmonaeans he saw no sense in a description of their wars, but mentioned briefly the late and “wicked” Hasmonaean rulers (beginning of ch. vi). He added a long description of Herod’s rule and thus brought the work up to date (ch. vi). In accordance with the general apocalyptic scheme he also added a description of the wicked of the last—i.e. his own—generation (ch. vii). Chapters viii and ix thus acquired a new, metahistorical, meaning. In other words, chapters vi and vii may be regarded as interpolations.

On this approach, chs. 8–9 are not the problem; 6 and 7 are. George Nickelsburg³⁷ further developed Licht’s views. He traced a literary pattern deriving from the last chapters of Deuteronomy and present in other Jewish literature of the time: Pattern Sin Punishment Repentance Salvation

Assumption of Moses38 chs. 2 and 5 3:1–4 and 8 3:5–4:4 and 9 4:5–9 and 10

Deuteronomy 28:15 28:16–68 30:2 30:3–10.

³⁷ Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity (expanded ed.; Harvard Theological Studies 56; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006) 43–4, n. 89 (I have modified the order of the columns in his chart). ³⁸ As the references in this column show, the pattern, according to Nickelsburg, recurs in the first and second parts of the book.

188    ( – ) Charles’s scheme upsets the pattern and should thus be rejected. Nickelsburg’s solution is to regard ch. 6 as an interpolation. A composition written during the persecutions of Antiochus was updated after the Herodian period by inserting ch. 6. He is less certain about ch. 7 and merely suggests that it was a description of Hellenizers and was located between chs. 5 and 8.³⁹ So, scholars continue to posit that a chapter or two at first did not figure where they do in the text of the Milan manuscript, just as Charles proposed; they disagree about which the offending units are.⁴⁰ Tromp, however, has defended the unity of the work along the lines indicated by Clemens.⁴¹ Thus, the literary integrity of the text Ceriani published continues to be debated. A helpful way of ending the treatment of Charles’s The Assumption of Moses is to cite what Johannes Tromp says about his contributions. In his survey of the history of research on the composition, he entitles the second chapter “Towards Consensus: The Editions of R. H. Charles (1897, 1913) and C. Clemens (1900, 1904).” He noted that the two scholars had “summarized all previous discussion and put forward opinions and arguments that gained almost general approval for a long period.” Of Charles’s book he writes: Charles’s work has been of great importance and far-reaching influence. It is not always as critical as it intends to be, and at times it is somewhat hasty and careless. His edition of As. Mos. is marred by drastic emendations, frequently based on the Hebrew original Charles presupposed.⁴²

Charles’s passion for emending ancient texts was criticized already in his time, and the criticism continues to the present. With the Assumption of Moses, Charles’s impressive pace of producing editions and translations of ancient works slowed for a time. In the next few years he turned his attention to different kinds of publications as his fame grew.

³⁹ In his Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction (2nd edition; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), Nickelsburg treats the work in two places: The Testament of Moses in ch. 3 (“Reform—Repression—Revolt,” i.e., the Hasmonean revolt, pp. 74–7) and Testament of Moses—Revised in ch. 7 (“The Romans and the House of Herod,” 247–8). Here too he regards Testament of Moses 6–7 as consisting of later units inserted into an older work from the 160s .. “The net result of this interpolation is the transformation of the description of Antiochus’s time into a kind of ‘eschatological tableau’ that recapitulated the earlier events that transpired during the terrible times of the 160s. The repetition of such events would usher in the end time” (248). ⁴⁰ See the overview in Norbert Johannes Hofmann, Die Assumptio Mosis: Studien zur Rezeption massgültiger Überlieferung (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 67; Leiden: Brill, 2000) 21–6. ⁴¹ The Assumption of Moses, 120–3 (with a detailed argument against Nickelsburg’s hypothesis). ⁴² All quotations in this paragraph are from Tromp, The Assumption of Moses, 99.

Chapter 6 Recognition and Syntheses 1898–1899 With publication of The Assumption of Moses in 1897, the flow of books from Charles paused temporarily. The next edition of an ancient text was not to appear until 1900 and the next volume of any kind not until 1899. These years, however, were hardly spent in idleness. It is a period when we see wider recognition of Charles’s accomplishments and his first efforts at synthesizing the teachings of the books he studied.

Appointments and Recognitions From 1891–97, as we have observed, Charles seems to have held no official, paid position in Oxford, and there is no evidence that he, an Anglican priest, exercised any ministerial function. The situation changed in 1898 when he was appointed Professor of Biblical Greek at his alma mater, Trinity College, Dublin. He held the post until 1906. I have found no specific information about his duties, but they obviously called for spending some time in Dublin in order to offer language instruction. It did not, however, induce the Charleses to move their permanent home from Oxford. Evidence for this comes from the prefaces of books Charles published before, during, and after this period. At the end of the Preface to his 1896 The Apocalypse of Baruch (iv) he gave his residential address as 17 Bradmore Road, Oxford. He listed the same address in subsequent books until a new Oxford address, 24 Bardwell Road, appears for the first time in the Preface to his 1908 commentary on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (ix; he dated the Preface to Oct. 2, 1907). Thus, while holding the position in Dublin, the Charleses retained their residence in Oxford.¹ In addition to serving as Professor of Biblical Greek, Charles received a DD degree from Dublin in 1898. This was the first in a series of degrees that would ¹ In a postscript to a letter to the secretary of Oxford University Press (OUP, October 23, 1902), Charles mentioned that he was leaving the next day for Dublin where he would remain for the Michaelmas term and where his address would be Trinity College. Presumably he would be there to carry out his duties as Professor of Biblical Greek.

R. H. Charles: A Biography. James C. VanderKam, Oxford University Press. © James C. VanderKam 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192869289.003.0008

190    ( – ) be conferred on him in recognition of his distinguished scholarship,² and the initials for the degree appear after his name on the title page of his subsequent books. Additional recognition came in the form of a lectureship. Charles was appointed to deliver the Hibbert Lectures for 1898 in Oxford. The Hibbert Trust, originally called The Anti-Trinitarian Fund, was set up in 1847 by Robert Hibbert (1769–1849), a West Indian merchant and a Unitarian. He had instructed the trustees, all of whom were supposed to be heterodox, that when his widow, Elizabeth Jane, died (she passed away in 1853) they should apply the income from the Trust “in such manner as they deem most conducive to the spread of Christianity in its most simple and intelligible form, and to the unfettered exercise of the right of private judgement in matters of religion.” The trustees set up the lectureship and later established the Hibbert Journal which began publication in 1902.³ The first of the lecturers was Max Müller in 1878, and among those in subsequent years were well known scholars such as Ernst Renan (1880), Abraham Kuenen (1882), Archibald Sayce (1887), Edwin Hatch (1888), and Claude Montefiore (1892).⁴ The Oxford University Gazette announced in its issue for January 20, 1899, with the heading Hibbert Lectures: The Rev. R. H. Charles, D.D., Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, Dublin, will deliver in Manchester College, three public lectures on “The Doctrine of the Last Things, in Israel and Judah,” on Thursday, January 26; Monday, January 30; and Thursday, February 2, at 5 . (p. 240; see also p. 266)

Charles thus devoted the lectures, delivered in early 1899, to a subject that would be central to the syntheses he was preparing (see below). Appointment to the Hibbert Lectureship was no trifling matter (for the Jowett Lectures see below). One other facet of Charles’s life that likely belongs in this period is becoming a member of the Churchmen’s Union. This association of “Modernists” had officially begun in 1898 and included among its tenets

² Both the academic appointment and the degree are mentioned in the obituaries and other notices about Charles’s life. For the degree, see also Kenneth Claude Bailey, A History of Trinity College Dublin 1892–1945 (Dublin: University Press, 1947), 233, where he lists Charles as among “the eminent divines of the period” (229). ³ “Robert Hibbert (Anti-Trinitarian),” Wikipedia, last accessed 1-31-2022. ⁴ “Hibbert Lectures,” Wikipedia, last accessed 7-31-2019.

   ( – )

191

To give all the support in their power to those who are honestly and loyally endeavouring to vindicate the truths of Christianity by the light of scholarship and research, while paying due regard to continuity, to work for such changes in the formularies and practices of the Church of England as from time to time are made necessary by the needs and knowledge of the day.⁵

When writing about the year 1900, Alan Stephenson recorded that “several well known persons were now members—like . . . Dr R. H. Charles, the authority on apocalyptic.”⁶ More will be said later about the significance of his membership in the group and of Ripon Hall that was associated with it. Others recognized Charles’s expertise by calling upon him to write dictionary and encyclopedia articles. The first of these was a short piece, “Ethiopic Version,” in James Hastings, editor, A Dictionary of the Bible, vol. I (1898) 791–93. The Dictionary was a monumental accomplishment, published in four large volumes (ca. 900 pages per volume, each containing two columns of small print) from 1898 to 1904, with a fifth supplementary volume also in 1904. Charles had displayed his knowledge of Ge’ez, the classical language of Ethiopia, in his translation of the Book of Enoch and in his translation and edition of the Book of Jubilees. Especially in connection with Jubilees it was important for him to make use of the Ethiopic Bible. His experience with the Ethiopic language and biblical version made him an ideal candidate to write the article. The subject drew Charles once more into a domain where Dillmann was the master. The article falls into six parts and demonstrates his knowledge of the scholarly literature on the topic. The Ethiopic Old Testament consists of forty-six books: those of the Septuagint less the books of Maccabees, with others such as Enoch and Jubilees, although there is disagreement between the lists on which books to include. The New Testament has thirty-five books— the familiar twenty-seven with Sinodos, a church order divided into eight books. In the section about the manuscripts of the Ethiopic version, Charles referred to the published catalogs listing the manuscripts present in libraries and other collections. He then dealt with the printed editions, praising Dillmann for his publications of apocryphal books but pointing out how his ⁵ Alan M. G. Stephenson, The Rise and Decline of English Modernism (The Hulsean Lectures 1979–80; London: SPCK, 1984) 62. Among the objects of the Union as stated at its opening meeting in 1898 was a similar declaration: “To unite Churchmen who consider that dogma is capable of reinterpretation and restatement in accordance with the clearer perception of truth attained by discovery and research” (57). ⁶ Stephenson, The Rise and Decline of English Modernism, 63. Another of the five “well known persons” he listed was the Egyptologist Dr. E. A. Wallis Budge.

192    ( – ) own 1893 translation of Enoch corrected Dillmann at many points (Charles gave the wrong date—1894—for his edition of Jubilees). Under the rubric “Source of the Text,” he sketched Dillmann’s original view that the Ethiopic Old Testament translation was made from a Greek text and that it was later corrected on the basis of the Hexapla, and his subsequent theory of three stages: an original translation, a later form revised and completed from a Greek text, and a still later revision on the basis of a Hebrew text. Charles thought there was reason for retaining Dillmann’s earlier view, yet suggested that agreements between the Ethiopic Old Testament and the Hebrew text could be explained by positing that the original Ethiopic translation had been based not only on a Greek but also on a Hebrew text. Dillmann’s theory about two stages in the development of the New Testament text, like any theory about the Old Testament translation, he wrote, had to await the production of critical editions before they could be evaluated properly. He added that the Ethiopic texts of the Old and New Testaments had text-critical value and maintained that the translation was made before the seventh century.

Syntheses While Charles’s labors from 1891–97 centered on translating and editing ancient Jewish compositions, his introductions and notes to the texts required that he deal with wider issues of content, meaning, and significance. Synthesizing the fruits of such reflection was to become a large part of his work over the following years when he wrote several studies of early Jewish thought, especially in the area of eschatology. This hardly meant that he had stopped preparing editions. More were to follow, and in fact some of his first survey articles include announcements of those forthcoming editions. An early instance of systematizing the teachings of the texts came in his lengthy (cols. 213–50) entry “Apocalyptic Literature” in the first volume of the Encyclopaedia Biblica (published in 1899). The essay, consisting of ninetyeight sections, surveys nine texts that Charles considered the corpus of apocalyptic works for the period with which he was dealing: the Apocalypse of Baruch, Ethiopic Book of Enoch, Slavonic Book of Enoch, Ascension of Isaiah, Book of Jubilees, Assumption of Moses, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Psalms of Solomon, and the Sibylline Oracles. By the time the article appeared he had published translations/commentaries on four of them (Baruch, 1–2 Enoch, Assumption of Moses) and a translation as well as a text edition of another (Jubilees). His approach in the dictionary entry was to treat each work

   ( – )

193

separately and to cover a standard set of topics as he did so. The sections examining texts on which he had already published naturally echoed his results—even the wording—from the earlier studies but with minor updates, e.g., in bibliographical references. Curiously, Charles did not disclose in the article how he defined the category “Apocalyptic Literature,” nor did he distinguish works that were fully (or largely) apocalyptic (e.g., the Apocalypse of Baruch) from those that were only partially apocalyptic (e.g., Jubilees). The Book of Daniel was not included in the essay, presumably because the Encyclopaedia Biblica contained a separate article on it. Before taking up the individual texts, Charles addressed some topics germane to the apocalypses in general. His second paragraph, entitled “Problem,” explains in words closely related to remarks in his 1893 commentary on Enoch⁷ his view of the circumstances that gave rise to the writing of apocalypses. The object of apocalyptic literature in general was to solve the difficulties connected with a belief in God’s righteousness and the suffering condition of his servants on earth. The righteousness of God postulated the temporal prosperity of the righteous, and this postulate was accepted and enforced by the Law. But while the continuous exposition of the Law in the post-exilic period confirmed the people in their monotheistic faith and intensified their hostility to heathenism, their expectations of material well-being, which likewise the Law had fostered, were repeatedly falsified, and a grave contradiction thus emerged between the old prophetic ideals and the actual experience of the nation, between the promises of God and the bondage and persecution which the people had daily to endure at the hands of their pagan oppressors. The difficulties arising from this conflict between promise and experience might be shortly resolved into two, which deal respectively with the position (1) of the righteous as a community, and (2) of the righteous man as an individual. (213)

He went on to note that the prophets had been concerned primarily with Israel’s restoration/resurrection as a nation. As time passed the claims of the individual demanded greater attention. Thus, in order to justify the righteousness of God, there was postulated not only the resurrection of the righteous nation but also the resurrection of the righteous individual. Apocalyptic literature, therefore, strove to show that, in ⁷ The comparable lines can be found in The Book of Enoch, 22–3.

194    ( – ) respect alike of the nation and of the individual, the righteousness of God would be fully vindicated; and, in order to justify its contention, it sketched in outline the history of the world and of mankind, the origin of evil and its course, and the final consummation of all things; and thus, in fact, it presented a Semitic philosophy of religion . . . The righteous as a nation should yet possess the earth either in an eternal or in a temporary Messianic kingdom, and the destiny of the righteous individual should finally be determined according to his works. For, though he might perish untimely amid the world’s disorders, he would not fail to attain through the resurrection the recompense that was his due in the Messianic kingdom, or in heaven itself. The conceptions as to the duration and character of the risen life vary with each writer. (213–14)

He did acknowledge that besides the messianic kingdom the writings he was treating dealt with the law (examples are the Apocalypse of Baruch and Jubilees), and all of them, thought Charles, were expressions of different sides of Pharisaism. Charles saw a distinction between prophecy and apocalyptic in that prophecy relies on the spoken but apocalyptic on the written word. The prophet mostly spoke to his own time and its concerns. The apocalyptic writer, on the other hand, almost wholly despairs of the present; his main interests are supramundane. He entertains no hope of arousing his contemporaries to faith and duty by direct and personal appeals. His pessimism and want of faith in the present thus naturally lead him to pseudonymous authorship, and so he approaches his countrymen with a writing which purports to be the work of some great figure in their history, such as Enoch, Moses, Daniel, or Baruch. The standpoint thus assumed is as skillfully preserved as the historical knowledge and conditions of the pseudonymous author admit, and the future of Israel is ‘foretold’ in a form enigmatical indeed but generally intelligible. All precision ceases, however, when we come to the real author’s own time. . . . (214–15)

Charles sounded another characteristic note in the fourth section where he opposed “the gross misperception” of several Jewish scholars who held that apocalyptic literature had no value for the history of the Jewish religion. To such statements it is sufficient to answer that from 200 .. to 70 .. the religious and political ideals that really shaped the history of Judaism found their expression in this literature. It is not in the discussions and logomachies

   ( – )

195

of the Rabbinical schools that we are to look for the influences and aims that called forth some of the noblest patriotism and self-sacrifice the world has ever witnessed, and educated the nation for the destinies that waited it in the first century of our era, but in the apocalyptic and pseudepigraphic books which, beginning with Daniel, had a large share in preparing the most religious and ardent minds of Galilee and Judaea either to pass over into Christianity, or else to hurl themselves in fruitless efforts against the invincible might of Rome, and thereby all but annihilate their country and name. (215)

He did grant that “the work of the scribes and the exposition of the schools had opened the way for this new religious and literary development” (215). But, for Charles, in this essay and in his earlier books, the true heirs of the prophets were the apocalyptic seers, not the legal scholars, and he made no effort to hide on which side his sympathies lay. The survey of the nine compositions follows the introductory paragraphs. Each of the sections deals with the sorts of issues that Charles discussed in his editions. Along with paragraphs in normal font, there are ones in smaller print (really small!) in each section; in some of them he summarized a book’s contents and in others he offered extra detail regarding the view of another scholar (or scholars) or of himself. For the first three apocalypses—2 Baruch, 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch—he furnished summaries of what he wrote in his books about them. The first one on which he had not published a volume is the fourth, the Ascension of Isaiah (on which he would issue a book in 1900; see below, Part 2, Chapter 7). He viewed the work, written in Greek but preserved fully only in Ethiopic, as a composite of two or three originally independent texts, with some parts of Jewish and some of Christian authorship. The compositions were conjoined and the full book written by the late first century .. In dealing with the Ascension of Isaiah, Charles made reference to his forthcoming book in which, he said, he would treat, besides the Ethiopic text, a Greek “recast” of it, as well as the Latin and the Slavonic versions. His short section about the Ascension of Isaiah in the encyclopedia article summarizes the contents of the work but does not offer a sketch of its teachings. After a unit on the Book of Jubilees (reflecting, naturally, what he had written in his 1895 edition),⁸ Charles took up the Assumption of Moses on

⁸ As in 1895 (p. ix), he here dates the book to “the century immediately preceding the Christian era” (230), although his article “Eschatology” published in vol. 2 of the Encyclopaedia Biblica (1901) includes Jubilees among the Jewish writings of the first century .. (see below).

196    ( – ) which he had most recently published (1897). The seventh text he addressed, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, was a new one for him and one on which he would later prepare a text edition and a translation/commentary. He detailed the names under which the work and its individual components circulated in antiquity and, in an exceedingly brief summary of its contents, indicated that each of the twelve units consisted of three parts: (1) the patriarch recounts his life to his children, stressing the virtues or vices that characterized it; (2) exhorts his children to imitate the virtues or avoid the vices mentioned; and (3) predicts the sins of his descendants, the captivity they will bring about, and their defections from the tribes of Levi and Judah. The predictions, wrote Charles, were generally of Jewish authorship but some were Christian (see col. 238). Charles accepted in part the position maintained by some scholars—that the work consisted of a Jewish base text (he dated it to the early first century ..) supplemented by a series of interpolations. He specifically adopted the version of the interpolation theory advocated by Friedrich Schnapp,⁹ i.e., there were Jewish and Christian interpolations. Charles nuanced that view by hypothesizing that the Christian interpolations came from several individuals (from the late first until the third or even fourth century), not just one (238–9). Against most critics who considered the Testaments a Christian work and thought it had been composed in Greek, he argued that it was written in Hebrew and supplied detailed reasons for the conclusions (the sorts of arguments he used for determining that Hebrew was the original language of other texts). The Jewish interpolations had also been written in Hebrew. Some of the Jewish interpolations which are apocalyptic in character dated from the second century .. down to 30 ..¹⁰ Because of the book’s complicated course of development, he thought it not useful to present its views on “Christology.” In his discussion of the language issue, Charles referred to his forthcoming edition of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (col. 239)—a work that appeared nine years later. The remaining units in the article also examine compositions on which Charles had not yet published. The eighth of the nine is the Psalms of

⁹ He was the author of Die Testamente der Zwölf Patriarchen (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1884) and provided the translation of the Testaments in E. Kautzsch, editor, Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments, 2.458–506. See the chapter about Charles’s publications on the Testaments (Part 2, Chapter 8). ¹⁰ This is the place that Charles referenced in his 1902 The Book of Jubilees, where he claimed that in it he had first approximated the correct date for Jubilees by relating it to the Testaments, the bulk of which came from the late second century .. The only bits of text he dates to the second century are some of the Jewish interpolations, the date of whose composition seems, on his view, to have long antedated the Testaments.

   ( – )

197

Solomon, a collection of poems which he believed were of Pharisaic authorship and written in Hebrew in the mid-first century .. Psalms 1–16 were from one writer, Psalms 17–18 from another. One pointer to multiple authorship is the messiah, son of David, in Psalms 17 and 18 who fails to appear in Psalms 1–16. He will expel the nations and the wicked, purify Jerusalem, and bring about the return of the exiles, but he is only a man whose days are limited. The final text studied by Charles is the Sibylline Oracles. They stem from a Hellenistic Jewish background and were meant to address non-Jews in a form familiar to them—the inspired oracles of the Sibyl. They “ . . . offered to the missionary spirit of Hellenistic Judaism a form of literature which would readily admit the disguised expression of its highest beliefs, and at the same time procure for them a hearing in Gentile circles” (246). The disparate oracles in the collection were in part Jewish but in greater measure Christian. Charles understood most of the third oracle and its opening section to be the oldest parts: the former came from the second century .., and the latter was meant to be an introduction to it. Charles wrote briefly about books 4–8 as well, but recognized that very much about them remained hypothetical. Another of his essays in the multi-volume Encyclopaedia Biblica was entitled “Eschatology.”¹¹ Though it was in the second volume (cols. 1335–92) and thus did not appear in print until 1901, Charles indicated in the Preface to his 1899 A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life that the essay was significant for the book: Finally, I wish to express my thanks to Messrs A. & C. Black, the publishers of the Encyclopaedia Biblica, and to its editors, Drs Cheyne and Black, for permitting me to use my article on Eschatology in that work as a basis of the present work. (vii)

The entry is more massive than the one on “Apocalyptic Literature” and even has its own index. ¹¹ He had also composed the entry “Eschatology of the Apocryphal and Apocalyptic Literature,” in James Hastings, editor, A Dictionary of the Bible, vol. I (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898) 741–9. In it he treated the texts by century (second century .. to the first century ..), just as in the above article (see sections 51–81 in it). After listing the works in chronological order, he wrote about “Some of the Conceptions which gave birth to and controlled the Evolution of Later Jewish Eschatology” (view of God, the individual, messianic expectations). He surveyed each text for its eschatological teachings and ended with a section called “Systematic Exposition of Jewish Eschatology (.. 200–.. 100),” treating in particular the teachings about the last woes, the messiah, the messianic kingdom, the return from the dispersion, resurrection, and judgment. He added a couple of small-print paragraphs listing secondary literature and indicated he hoped “to edit, towards the close of next year (1899), a critical work on Jewish Eschatology from the earliest OT times to .. 100” (749). The book in question is reviewed below.

198    ( – ) Charles organized the 104 sections of the “Eschatology” article under three major headings: A. Hebrew Old Testament Writers (1–50) B. Apocryphal and Apocalyptic Writers (51–81) C. New Testament Writers (82–103; section 104 is a bibliography). Each of these titles stands over several sub-headings which are further differentiated. In the first unit, “Hebrew Old Testament Writers” he treated the topic under two sub-headings: The Individual (1–33), and the Nation (34–48), with the last two units (49–50) offering a synthesis. The lengthy section about the individual contains much detail about “Antique elements” that to a large extent Israel shared with other Semitic peoples and that “advancing thought” tried to expel. “Early Yahwism had no distinctive eschatology regarding the problem of the individual; it concerned itself only with the nation. The individual, accordingly, was left to his hereditary beliefs” (1335–6). Ancestor worship, involving sacrifices to the dead, was a significant feature of this early stage of religion, and it accounts for the emphasis on the family—household gods, sons to provide ancestor worship, levirate marriage (for continuation of the family), and the like. Charles examined beliefs about the dead, Sheol, soul, body, and spirit as examples of these “antique elements.” The rise of individualism, however, paved the way for “a higher doctrine of the future life” (1343). Here he treated the oft-cited words from the prophecies of Jeremiah (31:29–30) and Ezekiel (see ch. 18) regarding individual, not collective, responsibility for actions—an approach also taught and applied in Psalms and Proverbs. He traced objections raised by Ecclesiastes and Job against the idea that rewards match deeds. Charles thought that there were “gleans” of belief in a future life in Job in which the soul, not the body, lives on (e.g., 19:25–9). Similarly, Psalms 49 and 73 give more definite expression to the notion of immortality. He concluded, however, that never in Palestinian Judaism down to the Christian era did the doctrine of a merely individual immortality appeal to any but a few isolated thinkers. The faithful looked forward to a blessed future only as members of a holy people, as citizens of a righteous kingdom that should embrace their brethren. (1347)

He next turned to the beliefs about the future of the nation articulated primarily in the prophetic literature. As he saw it, “the eschatology of the

   ( – )

199

nation centres in the future national blessedness introduced by the day of Yahwè” (1348). Charles distinguished popular, nationalistic conceptions of the day of the Lord from those of the prophets. Pre-exilic prophets such as Amos saw it as a time when Israel in particular (and the nations) would be punished as God intervenes to defend the righteousness. Eventually the notion of a righteous remnant from Israel arose; they alone would experience the new time, after worldwide destruction on the day of the Lord. They would return to their land where they would live in a messianic kingdom (around the time of the exile we find the first references to a messianic leader), while the nations would suffer annihilation. There were, however, more universalistic conceptions in which the nations too will come to the truth (in 2 Isaiah, for example). Charles also drew attention to two passages that speak about a resurrection— Isaiah 26:1–19 and Daniel 12—with the former depicting a resurrection of the righteous and the latter of some among the righteous and wicked, both groups of whom would receive the appropriate reward. Charles concluded that the Old Testament has an eschatology that to a large extent takes its character from the conception of Yahwè. As long as his jurisdiction was conceived as limited to this life, there could be no such eschatology with reference to the individual. When at last, however, Israel reached real monotheism, the way was prepared for the moralisation of the future no less than of the present. The exile contributed to this development by making possible a truer conception of the individual. The individual, not the nation, became the religious unit. Step by step through the slow processes of the religious life, the religious thinkers of Israel were led to a moral conception of the future life and to the certainty of their share therein. These beliefs were reached, not through deductions of reason, as in Greece, but through spiritual crises deep as the human personality and wide as human life. (1355–6)

The second part of “Eschatology” deals with apocryphal and apocalyptic literature (he defined the period of their composition as 200 .. to 100 .., divided into three segments of one century each). Charles began by apologizing for not using the large amount of comparative evidence from other cultures—something he regarded as necessary—because doing so would exceed the bounds of an encyclopedia article. His procedure was to list the Jewish texts for each of the centuries and to summarize their views, century by century, regarding soul and spirit, judgment, places for the departed, resurrection, messianic kingdom, and the gentiles. There was little development in

200    ( – ) some of these categories (e.g., soul and spirit), while in others there was, e.g., in the increasingly dominant role of a messiah in the messianic kingdom. The section regarding New Testament writers (82–103) opens with general comments. Charles noted that earlier eschatological ideas are “subordinated to the central force of the Christian movement” and that “the teaching of Christ and of Christianity at last furnished a synthesis of the eschatologies of the race and the individual” (col. 1372). Because the New Testament writers received much traditional material, they could not be expected “to be free from inherited conceptions of a mechanical and highly unethical character [e.g., Hades, eternal damnation]” (1372); moreover, some writers assimilated Jesus’s basic teachings more fully than others. Charles devoted most units in the section to a survey of the New Testament books in an order meant to highlight progress in eschatology (83–101), but the last two he reserved for the development of “special conceptions.” In connection with the Synoptic Gospels, the differing understandings of Christ’s return—whether it would be soon or farther off—and the teaching of a resurrection of the righteous alone receive much of his attention. When dealing with the Revelation of John, which retains many “survivals of traditional Judaism” (1376), he treated the same topics under the particular form they take in this apocalypse. Naturally, the letters of Paul merited extensive attention. Charles thought that his letters showed an evolution: Paul started largely from Jewish ideas but transformed everything “under the influence of great fundamental Christian conceptions” (1381). Charles traced four stages, as he followed the chronological sequence of the epistles. In them Paul moved toward more consistent views about subjects such as the timing of the resurrection of the individual believer and the nature of Christ’s kingdom. The two units that focus on “special conceptions” (102–3) cover the same topics that Charles took up in connection with the apocryphal and apocalyptic writers. Only with regard to the category “soul and spirit” did he make any extended comments: he found that Paul, unlike the Old Testament authors and the other New Testament writers, works with a trichotomy—body, soul, and spirit. The weighty article on “Eschatology” demonstrates that Charles possessed in-depth knowledge not only of early Jewish texts but also of the Old and New Testaments and scholarship on them. Charles’s next book came off the press in the year 1899. It was the first volume from the Oxford years that was not a translation/commentary or edition of an ancient text. In it he gave the fullest expression to date of how he thought ideas developed in early Jewish and Christian works.

   ( – )

201

The Context for Charles’s 1899 Book on Eschatology As noted above, Charles received permission from the publisher and editors of the Encyclopaedia Biblica to use his article “Eschatology” as the foundation for the book. The book in turn first took shape as the text for the Jowett Lectures that Charles gave in 1898–99. Appointment to the position reflects the considerable standing Charles had achieved in Oxford by this time and furnished, we may hope, some income for him. The Jowett Lectureship, which Charles was the first to hold, was instituted in memory of the famous Oxford scholar, administrator, and reformer Benjamin Jowett (1817–93). Jowett became the Regius Professor of Classics in 1855 and published translations of Plato, Aristotle, and Thucydides. He also became an enthusiastic practitioner of the higher-critical approach to the Scriptures, so that his ideas in the areas of theology and biblical studies— e.g., the Scriptures were to be examined by the same criteria as other literary texts—made him a controversial figure. Plato and Christ tended to merge into one in his thought. But he was also a Christian rationalist who became notorious for his historical and sceptical approach to the Scriptures through his contribution to the infamous Essays and Reviews of 1860.¹² The last thing he wanted an Oxford education to do was to release doctrinal bigots on the world.¹³

Among the reforms he supported was ending the religious, that is, Anglican test as a requirement for obtaining degrees. Jowett was a strong advocate of the tutorial system (he himself was a tutor for nearly thirty years) and was famous for being dedicated to his students. He thus opposed increased spending for research—something that would have changed the character of an Oxford education. He was the master of Balliol College from 1870 to 1893 and vicechancellor of the university in the years 1882–86.

¹² To it he contributed a long paper entitled “On the Interpretation of Scripture” (330–433). On p. 377 he wrote: Interpret the Scripture like any other book. There are many respects in which Scripture is unlike any other book; these will appear in the results of such an interpretation. The first step is to know the meaning, and this can only be done in the same careful and impartial way that we ascertain the meaning of Sophocles or of Plato. The volume, as we saw in the Introduction to Part 2, spawned strong reactions, whether positive or negative. ¹³ Brockliss, The University of Oxford, 398.

202    ( – )

The Book A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, in Judaism, and in Christianity; or, Hebrew, Jewish, and Christian Eschatology from Pre-Prophetic Times till the Close of the New Testament Canon, being the Jowett Lectures for 1898–99, by R. H. Charles, DD, Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, Dublin (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1899). Since A Critical History contains the text of his Jowett Lectures, Charles must have given an extended series of them.¹⁴ The work runs to 417 pages although the print is easy on the eyes, and a liberal supply of marginal notes squeezes the lines in the body of the text. In the Preface, he explained the order in which he had approached the material: “After a severe and prolonged examination of the Apocalyptic and Apocryphal literature of Judaism, I proceeded to carry my investigations backward into the Old Testament and forward into the New, and in both cases, I hope, with fresh and fruitful results” (v). He followed this statement with a confession of inadequacy: “I am painfully aware, however, of the unsatisfactory treatment of some of the books of the New Testament, such as the Apocalypse,¹⁵ and of the need of a deeper and fuller treatment of the Messianic hope of the Nation in the Old Testament” (v). Charles insisted that one had to study material not only in its textual but also in its historical context, that is, its place in the history or development of religious thinking. “As in nature, so in religion, God reveals himself in the course of slow evolution” (vii).¹⁶ As we will see, he believed that divine revelation did not stop with the New Testament but continued to the present.

¹⁴ The Times of London for October 8, 1898 (35,642, p. 5) announced that Charles would deliver the first Jowett Lecture at the Passmore Edwards Settlement at 5:15 on October 25 (see also the issue for October 22 [35,654, p. 14]). On January 31, 1899 (35,740, p. 6) the newspaper reported: Professor R. H. Charles will deliver his second lecture on “The Doctrine of a Future Life in the New Testament” at the Passmore Edwards Settlement to-day at 5 15. Having dealt in his first lecture with the teaching of the Synoptic Gospels, the lecturer will proceed in the two next lectures to deal with the subject as it is presented in the Apocalypse, the Gospel of St. John, and the Epistles. The concluding lecture on February 7 will deal with the teaching of St. Paul. The lectures mentioned in The Times are ones on New Testament books, possibly only a selection of his lectures. ¹⁵ In 1920 he would atone for the perceived deficiency with his two-volume commentary on Revelation. ¹⁶ Charles included a curious note in his Preface: “A learned book on the same subject as the present work has recently been published by Principal Salmond. Since, however, our method and treatment have taken different lines, I have refrained throughout from referring to the work of this well-known scholar” (vii). The publication was by Stewart Dingwall Fordyce Salmond (1838–1905) of the University of Aberdeen, The Christian Doctrine of Immortality (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895).

   ( – )

203

The book follows the same outline as the “Eschatology” article, but it does not arrange the material in three units; rather it spreads the contents over eleven chapters. One might infer that the eleven reflect the number of lectures he gave, but that seems unlikely since the chapters are disproportionate in length. So, for example, ch. 3 has seventy pages, while ch. 4 has nine. The first four chapters cover the Old Testament material, the next four the apocryphal and apocalyptic texts, and the final three the New Testament. The text in the book is more expansive than the encyclopedia article but hews closely to it otherwise. Charles supplied some new evidence, and further expanded the article by quoting scriptural passages only referenced in the former, by presenting in standard font size paragraphs in small print in the encyclopedia, and by adding and enlarging footnotes. The book retains a hint of the original oral setting as well. On the very first page Charles referred to “these lectures”; elsewhere, however, he spoke of “the following chapters” (e.g., p. 4). He entitled the first chapter “Eschatology of the Individual in the Old Testament Prior to the Origin of the Belief in Immortality” (pp. 1–50). The introductory paragraphs are new compared to the encyclopedia article and set up the project for the Old Testament section. He stated that “we can impart some degree of coherence and intelligibleness to the subject by considering the development of the conception of God in Israel. On this conception hinges ultimately every other conception of the nation” (2). He illustrated his point with an example: How comes it that in the second century .. the conception of the afterworld is mainly moral and retributive, whereas from the fourth century back to Moses’ time it is non-moral, being in fact a piece of pure Semitic heathenism.¹⁷ This change of conception is mainly due to monotheism, which, partially apprehended by the great prophets of the eighth century, and more fully by those of the sixth, was at last carried to its logical results. No part of the Universe created by God, religious men felt and religious men reasoned, could be withdrawn from His influence. Hence in due course the rejection of the heathen Semitic view of Sheol for one that was moral and retributive. Till, however, monotheism was the accepted belief of the nation, this transformation of Sheol was impossible. (2–3)

God revealed himself to Israel over time, ever considering the people’s capacity to comprehend what he told them. ¹⁷ The sentence is clearly a question, but in the book a period follows it.

204    ( – ) The chapter falls into two major parts: I. Preprophetic Yahwism (= from Moses to the eighth century), and II. Monotheistic Period of Yahwism (that is, prophetic Yahwism), with the latter topic containing three subheadings: Eschatology of the Individual, Eschatology of the Nation, Synthesis of these two Eschatologies in the fourth century. Charles considered Moses the founder of Yahwism, yet even he had to appeal to the people’s previous beliefs to convince them. Once Yahweh became the God of the nation, the religion and history of the people were inseparably connected. . . . the unfailing inspirations of the former so influenced the march of the latter that Israel’s spiritual development is absolutely unique in the world: for despite frequent halts and retrogressions, its advance was steadily from strength to strength and truth unto truth, till at last it was consummated in the final revelation of the personality of the Christ. (8)

Yahweh was the war God of Israel and went with them into battle; but he was also the God of justice and purity. Early Israel acknowledged that the gods of the nations existed, and certain of their unethical traits were attributed to Israel’s God (e.g., irrational outbursts of anger, identification with the concerns of the nation). Yet, “[w]hile the heathen gods always remained on the same moral level as their worshipers, it was otherwise in Israel. To serve Yahwè aright involved spiritual effort and personal sacrifice, and consequently led to growth in righteousness” (15). He concluded that “the essential superiority of Yahwism to the neighboring Semitic religions lay not in its moral code, in which indeed it was unquestionably superior, but in the righteous character of Yahwè which was progressively revealed to His servants” (15–16). As for the monotheistic period, the eighth- and seventh-century prophets taught that Israel’s relation with God was ethical—he chose them to achieve his good purposes, and these he could accomplish without them, should the need arise. With religion and nation separated, destruction of the nation would not entail the end of the religion but rather a turn to the individual as the “religious unit” (17)—something that Charles thought prepared for Christianity. It also led him to make one of his familiar negative comments about post-70 .. Judaism. He argued that Jeremiah’s conception of monotheism saw the one God as shaping the destinies of Israel and the nations, while that of Ezekiel was a doctrine for Israel but not for the nations who had no share in its benefits. “Such a false conception of Yahwè’s relation to the nations in due time reacted on Judaistic monotheism, and explains in large measure its subsequent barrenness” (17).

   ( – )

205

This is the point where Charles introduced material from the beginning of the encyclopedia article. In speaking about the eschatology of the individual he inserted, at times verbatim, the sections about ancestor worship (including the subjects of Sheol, soul and body—paralleling the contents through section 21 in the article). The second chapter (51–80; see sections 22–37 in “Eschatology”) bears the title “Eschatology of the Individual—Rise of the Doctrine of an Individual Immortality.” Following the custom in lecture series, Charles first summarized the preceding address before moving on to the new subject. He also spoke about eliminating the “false life in Sheol” from Israelite religion and introducing something innovative: as it destroyed the false view, Yahwism was steadily developing in the individual the consciousness of new life and a new worth through immediate communion with God. Now it is from the consciousness of this new life, and not from the moribund existence in Sheol, that the doctrine of a blessed future—whether of the soul only immediately after death, or of the soul and body through a resurrection at some later date—was developed in Israel. (53)

He noted that there were four “heralds and preludings” of a doctrine of a blessed future life, two of which did not prove productive for Jewish developments—the creation of humanity in God’s image and the tree of life (54–5). The two more influential ones were the translations of Enoch and Elijah and belief in the power of the Lord to bring the soul back from Sheol (56). After these preliminaries, Charles inserted an expanded form of the relevant material from the article, especially regarding individual responsibility in Jeremiah and Ezekiel (with Psalms and Proverbs) and the resulting personal relation between the Lord and the individual, not the nation. Questions about that view occupied the writers of Job and Ecclesiastes. The idea of individual immortality arises in Job and becomes more distinct in Psalms 49 and 73. It is an idea that would be replaced by one regarding a resurrection to life in a messianic kingdom. The material in the second chapter led naturally to the topic of the third, “The Eschatology of the Nation and the Synthesis of the Two Eschatologies in the Doctrine of the Resurrection. Doctrine of the Soul and the Future Life among the Greeks” (81–151). Here he takes up, as in the article but in fuller form¹⁸ and

¹⁸ A prominent case is his treatment of resurrection in Isaiah 26 and Daniel 12.

206    ( – ) with some modifications in order, the varying concepts of the day of the Lord.¹⁹ A summary statement here lacks an exact parallel in the article: Thus, when the doctrine of the blessed immortality of the faithful is connected with that of the coming Messianic kingdom, the separate eschatologies of the individual and of the nation issue finally in their synthesis: the righteous individual, no less than the righteous nation, will participate in the Messianic kingdom for the righteous dead of Israel will rise to share therein. (125, italics in the original)

The last section of the chapter (“Doctrine of the Soul and Future Life among the Greeks,” 137–51) is new relative to the article. In fact, in the encyclopedia article Charles referred the readers to the book for the information (1356, n. 1). He concluded that while some Greek thinkers accepted the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, “an immeasurable gulf ” divides even Plato’s view from Jewish and Christian teaching (150). The brief fourth chapter (152–61) contains a “Summary of Old Testament Teaching on Individual Conceptions.” It begins with words drawn from section 51 (a review) in the article; to them he added a positive note. The eternal life, the life in God, cannot admit of death as its goal, and to the apprehension of this truth Israel’s saints rose through first realising that life to be the one supreme fact of the present, before the necessities of their spiritual experience forced them to postulate its continuance in the future. Thus in fact they reasoned: he that hath God hath eternal life. (153)

The remainder of the chapter is given over to summaries of Old Testament teachings about soul and spirit, judgment, heaven, Sheol, Gehenna, the pit, resurrection, the messianic kingdom, and gentiles. Chapters 5 through 8 cover the eschatologies in the apocryphal and apocalyptic literature, with ch. 5 taking up the works from the second century .., ch. 6 those from the first century .., and chs. 7 and 8 those from the first century .. Chapter 5 (162–99; see “Eschatology,” sections 57–63)²⁰ opens with two books, Ecclesiasticus and Tobit, which showed no signs of development in

¹⁹ In “Eschatology,” 1348 (section 35), when writing about the popular conception of the day of the Lord, Charles said that it was not ethical but “national.” In the book, the text reads that it was not ethical but “natural” (85; in both cases the italics are in the originals). Presumably the word in the book is a misprint. ²⁰ In “Eschatology,” Charles had included section 52 in which he wrote about the necessity of using comparative data in studying religious ideas but omitted because it would have become too long. He supplied a footnote (col. 1356, n. 1) referring to the book where such subjects are addressed. Other than

   ( – )

207

eschatology.²¹ From them, as in the article, he moved to the writings of the Hasids or Asidaeans (who were forerunners of the Pharisees), a group on whose history he supplied additional information. In the book he added some positive comments about them: To this comparatively small body of men was entrusted for some decades the defence, confirmation, and development of the religious truths that were to save the world. How nobly and with what prodigal self-sacrifice they proved themselves worthy guardians of this sacred trust is told for all time in the Enoch and Maccabean literature, and set forth in pregnant strength and simplicity in the New Testament book of the Hebrews (xi. 35–9), which describes them as those “of whom the world was not worthy.”²² Through their agency the spiritual aspirations of the Old Testament few became in the course of a century the unshakeable convictions of Palestinian Judaism. (168)

Also new in the book is a section distinguishing “apocalyptic” from prophecy, out of which “apocalyptic” arose. Charles highlighted the role played by the problem of unfulfilled predictions and the centrality of Ezekiel in the move from prophecy to “apocalyptic.” In Ezekiel, the word of God is written, and the role of the prophet becomes mechanical. And as the personal element disappears in the conception of the prophetic calling, so it tends to disappear in the prophetic view of history, and the future comes to be conceived, not as the organic result of the present under divine guidance, but as mechanically determined from the beginning in the counsels of God, and as arranged under certain artificial categories of time. (170)

A major non-fulfilled prophecy was the arrival of the messianic kingdom; Jeremiah, who predicted it would come in seventy years, provides a good example. When those years passed and no kingdom emerged, the problem was solved in two early apocalypses, Daniel and the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90), by reinterpreting the number “70 (years).” Charles added the extra section about Greek views regarding the immortality of the soul and a briefer unit (pp. 134–6) on Mazdean religion, his treatments of the comparative material are found only in footnotes in the book. ²¹ In the article he said that Ecclesiasticus is “purely conservative” (1356). In the book he wrote that it is “uncompromisingly tory” (162)—perhaps a light touch to entertain the audience for the lecture. ²² These words from Hebrews 11:38 served as the text for three sermons on John Wycliffe that Charles would preach at Westminster and publish in his The Resurrection of Man (1929).

208    ( – ) to this discussion material paralleling what he had written in “Apocalyptic Literature” (214–15). The apocalyptic writer despairs of the present, hides behind a pseudonym, entertains a wider view of history, and has a deterministic understanding of it. Such preliminary comments introduced the survey of the texts from the second century .. As in the article, he first listed the texts (in the book he removed Judith) and treated them under the heading “General Eschatological Development in the Second Century ..” But rather than placing the title “The theodicies of the several writers” over his discussion of the individual works, as in the article, he considered them under the rubric “Eschatological Systems of the various Writers of the Second Century ..” In both publications he ended the unit with a study of “Special Conceptions.” The survey of texts proceeds in the order of the article and is distinguished from it mostly by the more expansive treatment of the topics. This is particularly the case for 1 Enoch 1–36: it is simply mentioned in the article (with a reference to section 27 of “Apocalyptic Literature”), while in the book it receives treatment that draws from material in “Apocalyptic Literature” and from his The Book of Enoch. Here he quotes 1 Enoch 22:1–13, with its description of the abodes of four classes of spirits/souls of the dead, two for different kinds of righteous folk and two for different sorts of evil ones (184–6; Charles said the chapter describes Sheol). He wrote: From this view of Sheol the chief heathen features have disappeared. We have thus here a vast advance on the conception of Daniel. Instead of being a region where existence was at its lowest possible ebb, and the presence of moral distinctions was inconceivable, it has now become a place where there is a vigorous conscious existence, where ethical considerations are paramount, and the soul’s lot is determined on moral grounds, and on moral grounds alone. (187)

But there was no room for moral progress or regress in this Sheol; one’s fate was determined at death. “Hence, at its best, Sheol thus conceived is only a place of petrified moralities and suspended graces” (187). Three of the kinds of souls in 1 Enoch 22 will experience a resurrection: the evil not punished during their lives will be raised for their ultimate punishment,²³ and the two righteous kinds will rise with bodies and enjoy life in the earthly messianic kingdom. ²³ The other class of evil souls are those who suffered punishment during their lives. They apparently remain in this place forever. There are two classes of righteous ones, though they are not clearly defined; perhaps they are those martyred on earth and those who were not (cf. Charles, The Book of Enoch [1893], 94–5).

   ( – )

209

Coverage of the second century closes with surveys of 1 Enoch 83–90, especially the Animal Apocalypse in chs. 85–90, and the oldest apocalyptic sections of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. The unit regarding “Special Conceptions” explains the same concepts as the article did and in the same order. The sixth chapter takes up the works from the first century .. (200–241, article, sections 64–70). They are the same as in the article, with the exception of Judith which Charles moved from the second to the first century. His summary of the general eschatological development in this century closely reflects what he wrote in the article. When he turned to the systems in the individual texts, however, he made changes. The article offered few comments about 1 Enoch 91–104 (section 65), but the book treats it on pp. 203–12. One new topic in it is retribution, specifically the relation between wealth and righteousness. While Ezekiel taught that a person could appeal to wealth as proof of his righteousness, the writer of 1 Enoch 91–104 believed that wealth deludes its possessors into such thoughts. He found in the booklet a debate with Sadducees regarding the fates of the wicked and righteous, and he quoted several sections from it. He ended the account with some words of warm appreciation for 1 Enoch 91–104: We cannot part from this book without confessing how nobly it maintains the cause of goodness in the face of triumphant evil, how unhesitatingly it concedes that this world gives its best to the unrighteous and the sinner, and that godliness can find no stay or encouragement therein. Yet though the lot of the latter is thus one of contumely and rebuke and shame, they are not for one moment to regret their high calling, but to be steadfast and hopeful; for the day of their glorification is at hand. (212)

The section on 1 Enoch 37–71 expands on its remarkable picture of a messianic figure, while in the few lines devoted to 1 Maccabees (little more than in the article) he noted that, since the author was a Sadducee, it lacked an eschatology. Charles divided his study of the first century .. works into two parts, examining those dating between 1 and 60 in ch. 7 (242–68), and those from between 60 and 100 in ch. 8 (269–305). Nevertheless, he listed all of them at the beginning of ch. 7 (Jubilees is still among them).²⁴ ²⁴ On p. 245 he dated Jubilees “before 10 ..” He gave it no specific first-century date in the article (section 72).

210    ( – ) In ch. 7 the unit regarding “General Eschatological Development of the First Century ..” closely parallels the section in “Eschatology” (section 71). Those on Jubilees and the Assumption of Moses are likewise much like the ones in the article, except that Charles had space in the book to quote lengthy passages. Before he turned to the Hellenistic texts, however, he added an introductory section where he listed and explained the “chief fundamental doctrines of Alexandrian Judaism, as distinct from Palestinean [sic]” (252): 1. “The eternity of matter, and its essentially evil nature” 2. “the doctrine of the soul’s preexistence is taught, not, however, as it appears in the Platonic philosophy, but in such a way as to be consistent with monotheism” 3. “Souls enter immediately after death on their final award, whether of blessedness or torment.” (252–3) Charles placed the books in a different order than he had in the article. In the book he put the Wisdom of Solomon before Philo and Slavonic Enoch, whereas in the article it follows them. The treatments of the books are, however, much the same but with quoted passages rather than allusions to them. The eighth chapter is devoted to the remaining first-century works. In writing about the Apocalypse of Baruch, Charles used content and language from his own book and in this way, besides quoting texts, expanded the shorter section in the article (78). However, between his accounts of its A sections (the apocalypses) and its B units, Charles inserted his verdict on the ethical picture of the messianic kingdom in the former: But, on the other hand, and this criticism applies to all Jewish representations of the Messianic kingdom, but particularly to the later, there is no adequate account given of the cause of the spiritual transformation. This transformation is brought about catastrophically and in the main mechanically. By the eternal fiat of the Almighty, sin is banished at once and forever from the hearts of the members of the Messianic kingdom. This catastrophic change is in itself at variance with all the spiritual experience of mankind. Godlike character cannot come from without as an external gift, nor can it be won in a moment, but can only be the slow result of the spiritual travail of the human heart in communion with the divine. (276–7)

   ( – )

211

He carried on in this homiletic tone for another paragraph in which he criticized other aspects of the view of the kingdom. Banishing all but a few people from it is the thought of men whose notions of perfection were mechanical, and whose chief aspiration was not the salvation of mankind at large but that of a few individuals, whose future comfort and blessedness could only be secured through the local separation of the good and the evil. But a goodness which can only maintain itself through local separation from evil cannot be called divine. (277)

The chapter includes shorter considerations of the Book of Baruch and of the writings of Josephus. The former barely found a place in the article where the reader is referred to the encyclopedia article on the Apocrypha and note is taken of one passage in it (1368, section 78). As it has very little of an eschatological nature, it merits one short paragraph in the book. Josephus too receives scant attention, as in the article. The remaining pages in the eighth chapter provide “Development of Special Conceptions” in all the books treated in both chs. 7 and 8. Here he nearly repeated what he had written in “Eschatology,” with some minor changes of phrasing and a little extra material regarding resurrection. Charles added a bibliography for chs. 5–8 (p. 305). He noted that the “bulk of the preceding four chapters is mainly based on various books edited by the present writer and referred to in the text” (305). He then supplied a list of titles by other authors that the reader could consult; he also included his articles entitled “Eschatology” in Hasting’s Dictionary 1.741–9²⁵ and in the Encyclopaedia Biblica. The final three chapters take up the New Testament teachings on eschatology. The ninth (“General Introduction—the Synoptic Gospels”) offers an enlarged form of the introductory section in the article (1372–3, section 82). As he had argued in both the article and the earlier parts of the book, the synthesis of national and individual eschatologies was broken up in the last centuries .. in favor of the individual. By the Founder of Christianity, however, the synthesis of the two hopes was established in a universal form finally and forever. The true Messianic kingdom begins on earth, and will be consummated in heaven; it is not temporary, but eternal; it is not limited to one people, but embraces the ²⁵ The article is entitled “Eschatology of the Apocryphal and Apocalyptic Literature.”

212    ( – ) righteous of all nations and of all times. It forms a divine society in which the position and significance of each member is determined by his endowments, and his blessedness conditioned by the blessedness of the whole. (308–9)

He reiterated at greater length that the New Testament preserves survivals of unworthy elements from Old Testament thinking. They should not be accepted by the church because they are inconsistent with “the Christian fundamental doctrines of God and Christ” (309). In the pages devoted to eschatology in the Synoptic gospels (306–44), Charles had more to say about the kingdom of God, both present and future, than the few sentences in the article. At first Jesus believed the kingdom would come during his earthly life, but as acceptance of him turned to rejection he realized it would have to be introduced by God himself or his own return. The next three topics he treated (second coming, judgment, resurrection) were the three he discussed in the article. He fleshed out the two pictures, in the one case of a kingdom coming suddenly, without warning, and, in the other, of its arrival amid great signs (a little textual surgery on Mark 13—excision of fifteen verses—took care of the conflict of views in the chapter). Charles held that the apocalypse in Mark 13 was originally a Jewish work, written in 67–68 .., after which it was adapted by a Christian writer. Christ himself taught that his return would be unexpected. Charles, as he had in the article, took pains to explain that there was really no error (or at least it was inconsequential) in Jesus’s thinking the consummation would come in his time and in the future. “But the error is not material. It is in reality inseparable from all true prophecy. For the latter, so far as relates to fulfilment, is always conditioned by the course of human development” (331). In this the prediction differed from apocalyptic in which all such things are fixed from the beginning. Chapter 10 (345–78) centers on eschatology in the remaining New Testament books (with a few exceptions) other than Paul’s letters. Charles opened with a defense of the order in which he was treating them—neither in canonical nor in chronological sequence. His aim was to show the process of transforming the Jewish heritage of beliefs. The Revelation of John is the most “Judaistic” and is thus handled first. Of the book he wrote: “It is admittedly a conglomerate of ill-according elements. The ripest products of Christian thought and experience lie side by side with the most unadulterated Judaism” (347; for example, the teaching about the millennium in Revelation 20 does not to belong to “the sphere of Christian doctrine” ([350]). The four topics he examined are the same as the four in the article, with each elaborated to a greater or lesser degree. He again studied Jude and 2 Peter together but in

   ( – )

213

reverse of their sequence in the article. James, Hebrews, and the Johannine texts follow, just as in the article. For James and Hebrews he largely reproduced the text from “Eschatology,” while for the Johannine literature he covered the three topics of the encyclopedia article (in discussing the resurrection, he inserted an examination of John 5:28–9 which he thought had to be excised as contrary to the teachings elsewhere in the fourth gospel [370–1]). The paragraphs regarding Petrine eschatology are likewise largely a reworking of the parallel sections in the article. The final chapter contains a study of Paul’s eschatology and a “Special Conceptions” section for the entire New Testament. Once more the epistles are arranged to show a development of the apostle’s thought in four stages, as he moved from his Jewish heritage to a fuller Christian conception. It is difficult to find much that Charles changed from his article in these sections, apart from a little reordering and re-phrasing. The same may be said about the “Special Conceptions” units; they echo the article apart from a few points such as addition of a short section comparing Paul’s and Philo’s psychologies (414–15). At the end (417) Charles added a bibliography for the New Testament and included his “Eschatology” essay at the end of the list. A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, in Judaism, and in Christianity; or, Hebrew, Jewish, and Christian Eschatology from PreProphetic Times till the Close of the New Testament Canon, being the Jowett Lectures for 1898–99, by R. H. Charles, D.D., D. Litt., Speaker’s Lecturer in Biblical Studies, Fellow of Merton College, Oxford, Fellow of the British Academy; second edition, revised and enlarged (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1913). Charles dated the “Preface to Second Edition” to January, 1913, thus strongly suggesting the book preceded another major publication of that year, his The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. There is no need to provide a full survey of the second edition, since in it the reader encounters largely the same text and rubrics as in the first. Even the marginal notes are virtually unchanged. Charles wrote in the “Preface to Second Edition” that he had expanded the original by sixty pages (viii). The additional material consists mostly of enlarging a few sections of the 1899 book on the basis of the scholarship he had published in the intervening years, especially his 1902 translation and commentary on Jubilees, the 1906 text of and 1912 commentary on 1 Enoch, his two 1908 volumes on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, his 1912 Fragments of a Zadokite Work, and The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament of 1913 (he referred to it [e.g., 302 n. 1]), though it must have been published a few months after this

214    ( – ) second edition. Naturally, he updated the bibliographies and some of the notes with reference to these as well as to articles he had composed after 1899.²⁶ Whenever in the second edition he quoted from Jubilees or 1 Enoch, he of course used the more recent form of his translations. Often the changes from the first to the second edition were made such that the page layout of the original was maintained. Presumably, in this way the publisher could reuse plates from 1899 with minimal alterations. One minor change made several times was to insert the word “Appendix” before the sections entitled “Development of Special Conceptions” (in chs. V, VI, VIII, and X).²⁷ This was a better way to indicate that the units were somewhat unlike the others. Another alteration was changing the designations of a few ancient works; for example, the Book of Enoch is now 1 Enoch, and the Apocalypse of Baruch is 2 Baruch. In “Preface to Second Edition” Charles summarized the relation between the 1899 and 1913 versions in this way: In this Edition many slips and inaccuracies of the first edition have been corrected. The sections dealing with some of the authorities have been wholly rewritten, the significance and data of which were unknown on the issue of the first edition. But these changes and additions, which amount to sixty pages, have not affected the main conclusions arrived at in the first edition and the lines of eschatological development traced therein. (viii)

Among the additions and changes in the second edition are these: 1. In ch. V (The Eschatology of Apocryphal and Apocalyptic Literature during the Second Century ..), the first edition (indicated below by 1. followed by page number[s]) briefly discussed the origins of apocalyptic in prophecy and also pointed out the essential ways in which the two differed (1.168–75). Charles placed in this location in the new edition a section called “Prophecy and Apocalyptic.” The result was that eight pages in the 1899 volume grew to twelve (173–84) in the second edition. About this material he wrote: ²⁶ Charles was open about his use of earlier materials. For example, at 164 n. 1 he mentioned use of an article in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, and at the beginning of his bibliography for ch. VIII he wrote: “The bulk of the preceding four chapters is mainly based on various books edited by the present writer and referred to in the text” (361). ²⁷ The words “—An Appendix to the Preceding Chapters” were placed after the title of the very short chapter IV (compare 152 in the 1899 edition with 157 in the 1913 volume), perhaps also to call attention to the difference between it and the other chapters.

   ( – )

215

The most important addition in the present work is that which contains the hitherto unpublished results of the author as to the nature of Apocalyptic, its relation to Prophecy, and the causes which on the one hand forced the Jewish seers to issue their visions under the cloak of pseudonymity, once and for all after-time, and which on the other hand led the Christian seers to fling aside this disguise and come forward in their own persons with the disclosures entrusted to them by God. (viii)

Here Charles explained first how prophecy and apocalyptic were “essentially at one” (2.174) and then how they diverged. As for agreements, he listed (1) the channels through which prophets and apocalyptists were able to discern and express God’s will (visions and trances, an elevated form of spiritual experience in which the soul is in direct contact with the deity and which is described in symbolic language, allegory) and (2) the fact that each had an eschatology. Those eschatologies, however, differ. The eschatology of the prophets dealt only with the destinies of Israel, as a nation, and the destinies of the Gentile nations, but it had no message of light or comfort for the individual beyond the grave. For all men ultimately, whether of Israel or of the Gentiles, Sheol, the unblessed abode of shades, was the final and everlasting habitation. (2.178)

He considered this view “heathen” and declared that all advances on it were attributable to apocalyptic. There were four such advances: the doctrine of a blessed future life, the doctrine of a new heaven and a new earth, the doctrine of a catastrophic end of this world, and the development in apocalyptic of a Semitic philosophy of religion dealing with the past, present and future. 2. Somewhat farther along, Charles expanded two pages (1.173–4) to seventeen (189–205) in the new version. After his discussion of unfulfilled prophecy (1.173) and in place of a unit arguing that “Prophecy still believes that this world is God’s world, and that in this world His goodness and truth will yet be justified” (1.173–4, where the sentence is italicized), he inserted a section that takes up several topics. He first attended to the manner in which the apocalyptists studied the story of creation and turned it into an eschatological expectation (e.g., the days of creation prefigure the duration of world history). The next section makes the point that apocalyptic is “essentially ethical” (2.191). In a

216    ( – ) third he argued that there were two forms of pre-Christian Pharisaism— the apocalyptic and the legalistic—with the former being the predecessor of Christianity and the latter of Talmudic Judaism. In both types the law was central, though as they developed they diverged and became antagonistic. Finally, he explained why apocalyptic, unlike prophecy, was usually pseudonymous (due to the influence of the law and closure of the prophetic canon). At this juncture, he returned to the text of the original edition. 3. 1.176, which lists the “authorities” for the second century .., underwent two changes in the second edition. He added Jubilees to the list, since he had argued in his 1902 volume that it dated from the late second century, whereas in the first edition he included it among the first century .. witnesses (1.243). The second change is that in the first edition, after the title “Test. xii Patriarchs,” he had added “—Some of its apocalyptic sections.” In the new edition he referred simply to “Test. xii Patriarchs” (2.207), because he had concluded that the original form of the work was written in the late second century .. 4. The unit devoted to the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs in ch. V (1.193–4) became much longer (2.224–34) in light of his research for his two books of 1908. In addition, because he now considered Jubilees a second century composition, he included a section on it in this chapter (2.235–40). It differs from the unit he devoted to it in a later chapter (VII) in 1.245–9 in that it describes the second-century context to which the writer responded by defending the law against the eroding effects of Hellenism on Jewish practices such as circumcision and Sabbath. The changes arising from inclusion of the Testaments and Jubilees here, especially the latter, can be seen in his use of them in the paragraphs on Resurrection (1.198; 2.244–5), Messianic Kingdom, and Messiah (1.198–9; 2.244–6).²⁸ 5. To the list of authorities for the first century .. (for the second edition he defined this “century” as extending from 104–1 ..) in ch. VI, Charles added the Fragments of a Zadokite Work. He was unaware of its existence in 1899, since it had not yet been published. He inserted references to it in the various units of the chapter, while pp. 278–87 (taken verbatim from his edition of the work) deal specifically with it.

²⁸ Although he removed the Jubilees section from ch. VII—on texts from the first century ..—and transferred it two chapters earlier in the 1913 edition, in a few spots he forgot to delete references to it in units devoted to the development of ideas in the first century .. (e.g., 2.299, 300).

   ( – )

217

6. In ch. VII he enlarged the section about the Wisdom of Solomon (1.254–8; 2.306–12) by dealing with its treatment of broad principles, its contradictory statements, and its position regarding Jews and Gentiles. Perhaps the publisher was no longer able to make the change when Charles noted a problem regarding Wisdom, but in the 1913 volume, as in the 1899 edition, Charles listed it among the authorities for the first century .. In a note to it in the list he wrote: “This book should have been included in the first century .. literature” (2.298). He left the section about it in ch. VII, though it should have been in the preceding one.²⁹ 7. Also in ch. VII, he added a lengthy footnote about 4 Ezra. He thought the reader might like to know how it compared with 2 Baruch and explained the situation in n. 1 (compare 1.283 and 2.337–8). In the same context, he supplied an extra note (2.338–9) about Box’s commentary on 4 Ezra and his division of the sources in it. So, the section on 4 Ezra is longer in the second edition because of these two footnotes, but the text itself is the same as in the first edition. 8. In ch. X (the second of the chapters on the New Testament books) he offered some extra introductory material about the Revelation of John (e.g., why it was not pseudonymous) and noted that he hoped to publish in the next year the fruit of his long-term work on the Apocalypse (2.403–5).³⁰ The 1899 version has an Index of Names and Subjects, while the 1913 edition has an Index of Subjects only. In 1913 Charles anticipated that readers would expect him to react to Albert Schweitzer’s views on eschatology. His Von Reimarus zu Wrede: Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (1906) had appeared in English as The Quest of the Historical Jesus, translated by W. Montgomery (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1910) and had aroused strong feelings. In the preface to the second edition of 1913, Charles was utterly dismissive of the famous scholar: “Since Schweitzer’s Eschatological studies show no knowledge of original documents and hardly any of first-hand works on the documents, and since

²⁹ He may have been influenced by Samuel Holmes’s dating of the Wisdom of Solomon to 50–30 .. for the first part (chs. 1–10) and 30 ..–10 .. for the second (11–19) in Charles’s The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 1.520–1. ³⁰ His Studies in the Apocalypse also appeared in 1913, but his commentary on Revelation was not to be published until 1920, and his Schweich Lectures on the Apocalypse followed two years later.

218    ( – ) further they make no fresh contribution to the subject, no notice is taken of him in this edition” (viii).³¹

Reviews The first edition of A Critical History elicited a number of reviews. The unnamed author in the Athenaeum number 3779, March 31, 1900, p. 392 (a triple-column page) appreciated the appearance of the book. The theme chosen is one of the most difficult and intricate in the whole range of theological science, but the clearness of treatment and lightness of touch which characterize the book throughout enable the reader to pass pleasantly through the various stages of a long and exhaustive investigation. The title page is probably the most cumbrous part of the whole book.

The reviewer entertained some doubts about the way in which Charles traced the history of individual and national eschatology in the Old Testament, but in the apocryphal and apocalyptic literature Charles was in an area where “his mastery over their strange and varied contents is acknowledged by all.” But here too there was room for criticism: “It appears to us that Dr. Charles might with great advantage have dealt more fully with the marked differences between the Pharisaic and Sadducean schools of thought in this part of the book.” The writer closed his review by noting that the whole subject might be approached in a different manner and from other points of view. Yet he added that Charles had supplied what he intended to give: “a scholarly and connected attempt to deal with the historical development of eschatological doctrine from the earliest Biblical times down to the close of the New Testament canon.” In The New World: A Quarterly Review of Religion, Ethics and Theology 9, 35 (September 1900) 593–5, C. H. Toy of Harvard University offered an evaluation. After some descriptive remarks and a note acknowledging that Charles was “a recognized authority” in Jewish apocalyptic literature, he observed: “A special merit of the work lies in its full treatment of the Apocrypha and its exhibition of the organic connection between the New Testament and the immediately preceding literature” (593). He took exception to some of what Charles said about the ‫( נפש‬nephesh) in the Old Testament ³¹ For more on Charles’s reactions to Schweitzer, see the section on his address to the 1910 Church Conference in Part 2 Chapter 9.

   ( – )

219

and declared that in it the soul is not said to die. He also opposed the inferences Charles drew from Psalms 49 and 73: But apart from the fact that the Hebrew text is here corrupt and the rendering of the Revised Version highly improbable if not impossible, the view that Heaven is the abode of the pious dead is found nowhere else in the Old Testament, and is hardly possible for any pre-Maccabean period. (593–4)

He was very positive about the later sections of the book. “It is unnecessary to say that his presentation of the eschatology of the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphic books is full and distinct, and the same is true of his treatment of the New Testament” (594). At the end of his review Toy stated: “The present notice leaves unmentioned a great number of special points of interest. No such collection of the facts of Biblical eschatology is to be found elsewhere. The book should be in the hands of all students of the subject” (595). Milton S. Terry reviewed A Critical History in the American Journal of Theology (4 (1900) 819–21). He opened by writing that “The author of this volume has a well-earned reputation in the field of pseudepigraphic literature, and any new contribution to religious thought coming from his pen is sure to command the attention of scholars” (819). He gave an overview of the contents and, like the other reviewers, found chs. V–VIII on the noncanonical texts to be especially noteworthy. They “constitute perhaps the most valuable portion of the whole. The author here appropriates largely from his own previous works, but furnishes a comprehensive outline of the subject not easily obtained elsewhere” (820). He found the chapters on the New Testament “less satisfactory,” but the treatment of Paul’s eschatology was “comprehensively and admirably presented” (820). Terry at the end offered a general assessment. There is large room for differences of opinion in the details of a work so comprehensive as this. The dates assigned to the different books and sections of books are in not a few cases open to question. In many instances we think the author draws inferences and conclusions which are not fairly warranted by the sources referred to. The analysis of certain parts of the New Testament, and the removal of important texts out of their connection, will be regarded by many as arbitrary and fanciful. But the work as a whole is one of the most important and valuable extant contributions to the subject of eschatology. (820–1)

220    ( – ) As the nineteenth century ended, Charles could look back on a most successful decade of publication in Oxford. The beginning of the twentieth century saw the arrival of his next edition of an early text, the Ascension of Isaiah, which presented new kinds of problems for the experienced editor to solve.

Chapter 7 The Ascension of Isaiah We have seen that Charles’s publications in 1898 and 1899 consisted of dictionary or encyclopedia articles, some very large in scope, and his A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life, the published form of his Jowett Lectures. In the years that followed he continued as Professor of Biblical Greek in Dublin (until 1906) and resumed his work of editing ancient texts. It was also in this period that he was first named to the post of Select Preacher, Dublin (1900); he held the same position in 1902 and 1903.¹ To be a select preacher was to have one’s name on a list of approved Anglican clergy who could be called upon to preach in a university church or chapel if, for some reason, a fellow was unable to occupy the pulpit at the service. The appointment is the most concrete evidence that Charles functioned as a priest during his Oxford period. After a three-year hiatus, Charles returned to textual publication when he issued his study of the Ascension of Isaiah.

The Contents of the Ascension of Isaiah The Ascension of Isaiah differs from the works that Charles had analyzed to date—in its existing form, it is Christian, although it contains Jewish elements. Even on first glance one can see that it consists of two distinct parts: chs. 1–5 depict a time in the twenty-sixth year of King Hezekiah of Judah when the monarch summoned his son Manasseh and the prophet Isaiah who was accompanied by his son Josab. Isaiah predicted that Manasseh would do evil and torture him to death. All of this would eventually take place, with Beliar (= Belial, a Satan-like figure) misleading Manasseh into all sorts of crimes. Following the interview with the king, Isaiah withdrew to Bethlehem and later to a mountain in the desert where other prophets came to him (2:7–11). After two years their hideout was betrayed by the false prophet Belchira. He charged ¹ Merton College Register 1900–1964, With Notices of Some Older Surviving Members (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1964) 76.

R. H. Charles: A Biography. James C. VanderKam, Oxford University Press. © James C. VanderKam 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192869289.003.0009

222    (–) Isaiah with opposing Moses: Moses said that no one could look at God and survive (Exodus 33:20, and Ascension of Isaiah 2:12; 3:1–10), but Isaiah reported that he had seen God (Isaiah 6:1) and lived to tell about it. King Manasseh had Isaiah executed by cutting him in half with a wooden saw (5:1, 6, 11, 13, 14; cf. 11:41),² but before he died the prophet told the other prophets with him to go to the region of Tyre and Sidon (5:13). A unit in this first section, 3:13–4:22, contains a prediction of the coming of Christ, his life, and the times after his resurrection. It is presented as the contents of a vision Isaiah received in the king’s twentieth regnal year (cf. 1:6) and as the reason why Beliar, who incited Manasseh against Isaiah, was so angry with the prophet. Chapters 6–11 tell of another visit by Isaiah and Josab to Hezekiah six years before the one in chs. 1–5, in the king’s twentieth regnal year. When they heard Isaiah would have an audience with the king, forty prophets and sons of prophets came to greet him, to hear his words, and to have him place his hands on them so that they would be able to prophesy in his presence (6:3–5). The bulk of the unit describes a vision of Isaiah—one he told to the prophets who believed he had been raised above the earth—in which he was led by an angel through the firmament and the seven heavens and learned about the descent of the Son (the Beloved One) through them to the earth, his birth and life, and his return to the seventh heaven. The book concludes: “Here endeth the vision of Isaiah the prophet with his ascension” (Charles’s translation).

The Context for Charles’s Volume on the Ascension of Isaiah As he had done in others of his editions, Charles opened the Preface by declaring that “[a] new edition of the Ascension has long been needed” (vii). In this case, as for 1 Enoch and Jubilees, Dillmann had preceded him with an edition that Charles found useful but wanting: That of Dillmann was in its time a most helpful and meritorious work, though his commentary is too brief, and his Ethiopic text less good than it

² The motif of cutting Isaiah in half with a wooden saw may have arisen from misunderstanding a Hebrew expression: “a saw of wood” was interpreted to mean “a saw (made out) of wood” rather than the correct “a saw for cutting wood.” It is attested more widely and came to have a Christian application: “From the second century on, the motif became a common one in works by Christian authors . . . these authors found in Isaiah, slain by means of wood, a figure of Christ who died on the wood of the cross” (Claudio Moreschini and Enrico Norelli, editors, Early Christian Greek and Latin Literature: A Literary History, vol. 1: From Paul to the Age of Constantine [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005] 93).

   

223

might have been, owing to his somewhat faulty collation of the MSS. and his failure to use for critical purposes the Latin versions at his disposal. (vii)³

Dillmann’s edition had appeared in 1877 as Ascensio Isaiae Aethiopice et Latine, cum prolegomenis, adnotationibus criticis et exegeticis, additis versionum latinarum reliquiis. The first to publish it had been Richard Laurence, Ascensio Isaiae vatis, opusculum pseudepigraphum, multis abhinc seculis, ut videtur, deperditum, nunc autem apud Aethiopas compertum, et cum versione Latina anglicaque publici iuris factum (1819). Laurence, also the first editor of Ethiopic Enoch, presented the text of one Ethiopic manuscript and, as the title indicates, translated it into Latin and English. The manuscript evidence had grown by the end of the nineteenth century so that Charles was able to base his edition on more witnesses than his predecessors, Laurence and Dillmann, had at their disposal. The textual evidence for the Ascension of Isaiah is fairly plentiful and quite varied. It is yet another of those early works that are mentioned in ancient sources but that over time fell out of circulation in the West. Like the books of Enoch and Jubilees, it was eventually translated into Ge’ez, the ancient language of Ethiopia, where it was copied on manuscripts that included scriptural works—often directly after the Book of Isaiah—although it is not named in lists of biblical books. Laurence apparently purchased a copy of it in London and later published it.⁴ When Dillmann and Charles prepared their editions, they used three copies of the Ethiopic version (designated a, b, c), the first of which was in the Bodleian Library in Oxford (Aeth. D. 13, Laurence’s manuscript) and b and c in the British Museum (Or. 501, 503).⁵ Manuscripts a and b date from the fifteenth century, while c was made in the eighteenth century. Manuscript a is the best among them (xv–xvi).⁶ Ge’ez, however, was not the original language of the Ascension of Isaiah, and several witnesses of earlier versions had become available. The two Latin ³ See also p. xv where he says that Dillmann’s collation of the Ethiopic copies was “defective and inaccurate.” ⁴ Th. Petraeus in 1660 had announced the existence of an Ethiopic composition on the life of Isaiah entitled “The Ascension of the Prophet Isaiah.” The copy he saw seems to be the one that came into Laurence’s hands over a century and a half later. Dillmann wrote about this in Ascensio Isaiae, vi–vi n. 10. For a summary, see Pierluigi Piovanelli, “Un nouveau témoin éthiopien de l’Ascension d’Isaie et de la Vie de Jeremie (Paris, BN Abb. 195),” Henoch 12 (1990) 349. ⁵ The two were among the manuscripts obtained by the expedition against the emperor Theodore in 1868 and deposited in the museum. ⁶ Charles believed that Dillmann had collated manuscript a and made some mistakes in doing so (xvi–xvii), but, as Schürer pointed out in his review of Charles’s volume (Theologische Literaturzeitung 26 [1901] 169), Dillmann had used Laurence’s publication of a. Thus, any mistaken representations of its readings were attributable to Laurence, not to Dillmann.

224    (–) versions of the text were labelled L¹ and L², neither of which contains the complete Ascension of Isaiah. L¹, which was published by A. Mai in 1828,⁷ contains only 2:14–3:13 and 7:1–19. Charles found Mai’s transcription to be “somewhat inaccurate and defective, but these shortcomings are now set right in the texts presented on pp. 87–92 and 102–8. For the corrections in question I am indebted to the assistant Librarian in the Vatican, Father Mercati, whose kind services were secured for me by Mr. C. H. Turner of Magdalen College” (xviii–xix).⁸ L², which had been made available already in 1522 by Antonius de Fantis,⁹ includes only chs. 6–11. Charles was unable to access the 1522 publication, so he took the text of L² from Dillmann’s edition (xviii). The Greek evidence was limited but valuable. When Charles was writing his book, B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt were publishing a papyrus fragment containing text from the Ascension of Isaiah 2:4–4:4 (the copy likely contained the first part of the composition in the pages missing from the beginning) and dating from the fifth or sixth century (see below). Besides the text it supplied, it proved important in determining the relative worth of the other versions. There is another Greek witness, but it is of an indirect kind. Just over twenty years before the appearance of Charles’s edition, Oscar von Gebhardt¹⁰ had published a work that Charles called the Greek Legend. It is not a Greek version of the Ascension of Isaiah but a composition whose author used a Greek text of the Ascension and incorporated it into his own work. The Legend gives a shorter version of the material in Ascension of Isaiah 1, after which it places a revised form of chs. 6–11 followed by content from chs. 2–5. Its reordering of the text relieves the chronological disorder found in the Ethiopic version (see below). Enough material from the Ascension was used in the Greek Legend that one could draw inferences from the latter about the Ascension’s content and at times even about its wording. ⁷ Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio e Vaticani Codicibus, vol. 3, part 2 (Rome: Typis Vaticanis, 1828) 238–9. ⁸ In his Preface (viii) Charles thanked Mercati (“for a new and more accurate collation of the Vatican Latin fragment”) and Turner. Giovanni Mercati (1866–1957) had recently (1898) begun working as a librarian at the Vatican (he was to become Prefect of the Vatican Library in 1919; “Giovanni Mercati,” Wikipedia, last accessed 8-1-2019). Turner is Cuthbert Hamilton Turner (1860–1930) of Oxford who in the previous year (1899) had begun publishing his multi-fascicle Ecclesiae Occidentalis Monumenta Iuris Antiquissima (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1899–1939)—a collection of early documents of canon law. Work on the project involved use of materials at the Vatican, and this was presumably the way in which Turner had come into contact with Mercati. ⁹ Opera nuper in lucem providentia (Venice: J. de Dinslaken, 1522) folios 155v–160r. The whereabouts of the manuscript is unknown. The text had, however, been made available by J. C. L. Gieseler, “Vetus translatio Latina Visionis Isaiae,” Programma quo Academiae Georgiae Augustae prorector et senatus sacra Pentecostalia anni MDCCCXXXII pie concelbranda indixerunt (Göttingen, 1832). ¹⁰ “Die Ascensio Isaiae als Heiligenlegende. Aus Cod. Gr. 1534 der Nationalbibliothek zu Paris,” Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Theologie 21 (1878) 330–53.

   

225

There is a Slavonic translation of the Ascension of Isaiah, or rather of Ascension of Isaiah 6–11 alone. Charles, who did not read Slavonic, apparently requested a translation of the Slavonic text from an expert in such languages, N. Bonwetsch (see below). The latter rendered the Slavonic into Latin for him; this allowed him to compare it with the two existing Latin witnesses and thus to locate the Slavonic version in the textual history of the Ascension of Isaiah.

The Book The Ascension of Isaiah translated from the Ethiopic Version, which, together with the new Greek fragment, the Latin Versions and the Latin translation of the Slavonic, is here published in full, edited with introduction, notes, and indices by R. H. Charles, D.D., Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, Dublin (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1900). Charles dedicated the volume to three experts whom we have met before in connection with his work. The first is Bonwetsch, the German scholar who produced a translation of 2 Enoch in the same year Charles/Morfill did (1896) and who reviewed Charles’s volume. The other two are Grenfell and Hunt who had earlier published a Greek fragment of the Apocalypse of Baruch. All three of these scholars made contributions to the present book. As we have seen, Bonwetsch prepared for Charles a Latin translation of the Slavonic version of the Ascension of Isaiah, while Grenfell and Hunt made available to him the proofs of their edition of the Greek text.¹¹ After listing their names on the dedication page, Charles wrote about them: “to whom I am so much indebted in the present work.” A topic treated by Charles in his Introduction was the relationships between the sundry textual witnesses. The Ethiopic manuscripts supply the fullest and apparently the only complete version of the Ascension of Isaiah, but the fragmentary remains of the other versions, with the readings of the Greek Legend, furnish earlier bits of text and data that allow one to locate the

¹¹ The Ascension of Isaiah and Other Theological Fragments: The Amherst Papyri, being an Account of the Greek Papyri in the Collection of the Right Hon. Lord Amherst of Hackney, F.S.A., at Didlington Hall, Norfolk (London: H. Frowde, 1900) 1.1.1–22. William Tyssen-Amherst (1835–1909) was a baron and member of parliament who was a noted collector of books and manuscripts. The fragment of the Ascension of Isaiah was found in his large Egyptian collection for which he had constructed a museum at his country estate called Didlington Hall (“William Tyssen-Amherst, First Baron Amherst of Hackney,” Wikipedia, last accessed 8-2-2019).

226    (–) Ethiopic version in the textual development of the book. In order to determine the relations between the witnesses and their rightful slots in the stemma of textual transmission, Charles selected as a test case the first half of ch. 7 because it is preserved in Ethiopic and in both Latin copies—the only place where this happens: Ethiopic (= E) 7:1–37 (= the entire chapter) L¹ 7:1–19 L² 7:1–29, 31–4, 36–7. A comparison of the readings in the three revealed close agreement between L¹ and E against L². “Even within this limited portion of the text it becomes clear that L¹ and E on the one side, and L² on the other, are not directly derived from one and the same Greek text, but only indirectly through the medium of two distinct recensions of it, G¹ and G², which in nine-tenths of their matter presuppose a common parent G” (xix). Charles was able to fortify his inference when he received Bonwetsch’s Latin translation of the Slavonic version. L² and the Slavonic often agree in their readings, whether in what appear to be additions to or omissions from the text, against the combined witness of L¹ and E. Charles then extended the comparison of readings beyond the limits of ch. 7 to the remaining parts of chs. 6–11 for which L¹ is not extant. In those sections the same pattern generally prevails, with L² and Slavonic combining against the Ethiopic readings, whether in omissions or additions. He argued that these differences did not develop during the history of transmitting the text in Ethiopia and adduced material from the Greek Legend to support his contention. The Greek Legend “was based on the same form of text that is preserved in E and L¹. It does not, indeed, make a continuous use of our text, but yet uses it sufficiently to show beyond possibility of doubt that its writer had before him, not G² but G¹” (xx). So, the witnesses in chs. 6–11 show the following alignments as translations/ reflections of the two hypothetical Greek forms of the text: G¹ L¹ E Greek Legend G² L² Slavonic. The two Greek recensions, he believed, were usually faithful renderings of a shared ancestor text for which he used, as we saw, the siglum G. Charles maintained that the differences between the hypothetical G¹ and the even more hypothetical G were the work of the person who put the entire composition called the Ascension of Isaiah together. The points that separate G² from

   

227

G are, however, “due to the editor of this independent edition of vi–xi” (xxi). The other Latin piece from the Vatican Library that contains only 2:14–3:13 proved to be of the same textual type as L¹ in ch. 7, as it aligns frequently with the Ethiopic readings. Once he had charted the relationships between the Ethiopic, Latin, and Slavonic texts (with the Greek Legend) for chs. 6–11 and determined that two recensions of the Greek version underlay them, Charles devoted the seventh section of the Introduction to arguing that “The Fuller Text of G¹ as a Rule is Derived from G” (xxi–xxiv). Exceptions exist, but in significant additions the text of L¹ E is more likely to represent G than the shorter text in L² S (he noted 10:25–8 and 11:27–30). The passage on which he concentrated, however, was 11:2–22 in which the stories about the conception and birth of Jesus and his earthly life until the ascension are recounted and in which it is said more than once that people did not recognize who he was. L² lacks almost the entire passage (it retains only a part of v. 19). Charles thought the unit was present in G¹ because E preserves it and the Greek Legend in part attests it. Not only did it figure in G¹, but it existed in G, since the content of 11:2–22 agrees with the larger context, “for from x. 8 to xi. 19 the concealment of the real nature of Christ is the underlying thought of the entire passage” (xxii). The abbreviated version of 11:2–22 found in L² S lacks elements that the context leads one to expect. Hence, in this passage and in the other two he noted, the L² S version (= G²) had abridged G, with G¹ faithfully representing the parent text. The next two sections introduce the Slavonic version and the Greek Legend. The tenth section Charles devoted to the new Greek fragment edited by Grenfell and Hunt. It preserves the text of 2:4–4:4 and therefore was primarily helpful for establishing the text of the first part of the Ascension of Isaiah (chs. 1–5). The fifth-sixth century piece, the first direct evidence for a Greek version, was a valuable addition to the pool of witnesses, but its readings do not align neatly with the two Greek recensions Charles had posited for chs. 6–11. “Now even a cursory examination shows that L¹, notwithstanding the very imperfect form in which it exists, is more nearly related to E than to the Greek fragment which we shall call G²” (xxx). His siglum for the Greek fragment leads one to think that he considered it a representative of the same sort of text in chs. 1–5 as the one he also labelled G² for chs. 6–11. That, nevertheless, was not exactly the conclusion he drew: we must explain, I think, the differences between E L¹ and the Greek fragment as due to the errors and variations incidental to the process of transmission, whereas the differences between E L¹ and S L² in vi. –xi. are due to a deliberate

228    (–) recension. Thus all the differences between E L¹ and the Greek fragment arose subsequently to the formation of the complete work of the Ascension, whereas the substantial differences between E L¹ and S L² were the result of deliberation, and had practically attained finality on the publication of these distinct recensions. (xxxi)

His conclusion presupposes his theory, explained below, about the Ascension of Isaiah as consisting of originally independent units. Charles distinguished three components in the Ascension of Isaiah, each of which had a Greek parent text that developed into two recensions already during its transmission in the Greek language (see xxxiii, xl–xliii). Vision of Isaiah Martyrdom of Isaiah Testament of Hezekiah

6:1–11:40 1:1, 2a, 6b–13a; 2:1–8, 10–3:12; 5:1b–14¹² 3:13b–4:18.¹³

In the three cases the sigla G¹ and G² have their own meaning, referring to that particular building block of the composite Ascension of Isaiah. In connection with the Vision of Isaiah (6–11), G² refers to the recension reflected in L² S, while in the Martyrdom and the Testament of Hezekiah G² refers to the text preserved in the Greek fragment. All students of the Ascension of Isaiah, other than Laurence, discerned in it the hand of more than one writer. The most common division was into two: chs, 1–5 and 6–11 (xxxvi). While some regarded 1–5 as being Jewish in origin, they also recognized that there was Christian material in it (they could hardly miss it). As Charles put the matter, 2:1–3:12 “has been forcibly sundered from 5:1b–14 by a piece of writing alien to it, iii. 13–iv. 22” (xxxviii). But he found other problems in the finished book. For one, its chronology is confusing. Testament of Hezekiah (3:13b–4:18) 15th year of Hezekiah (1:4) Vision of Isaiah (6:1–11:40) 20th year of Hezekiah (1:6; 6:1) Most of ch. 1 26th year of Hezekiah (1:1)¹⁴ Manasseh kills Isaiah (2:1–3:12; 5:1b–14) at least four years later. (xxxix) ¹² The passages missing from the verses listed for the Vision of Isaiah and the Martyrdom of Isaiah, apart from 3:13b–4:18, were contributions of the editor. ¹³ He assigned the name “Testament of Hezekiah” to the section because the Byzantine historian Cedrenus wrote that material in 4:12, 14 (and vv. 15–18) came from a work with this title. It is not known, however, whether Cedrenus applied the title to 3:13b–4:18 alone rather than, say, to all of chs. 1–5. ¹⁴ The Coptic version, which was published long after Charles’s edition and which will be treated below, reads “15th” and the Greek Legend “25th.” The date in the Ethiopic version (26th) is problematic, but these other two readings raise their own chronological issues. See André Caquot, “Bref commentaire du Martyre d’Isaie,” Semitica 22 (1973) 67–8.

   

229

Charles doubted a single author would have fashioned a sequence so disturbed. “On the other hand, if he was dealing with existing materials which did not admit of disintegration (such as vi.–xi., and in a less degree iii. 13b–iv. 18) and easy incorporation into his work, the present disorder of the work becomes more intelligible” (xxxix). He realized that the Vision of Isaiah (chs. 6–11), an originally independent composition, shared many points with the Testament of Hezekiah (3:13b– 4:18)—so many that they could have come from the same writer (possibly two closely related ones). Yet, the Testament of Hezekiah, a Christian work, was based on a Jewish text, since Hebrew or Aramaic idioms surface in it. In the final analysis he favored the thesis that one editor made use of three independent units: Martyrdom of Isaiah Jewish, first century .. (reflected in Hebrews 11:37)¹⁵ Testament of Hezekiah Christian, between 88 and 100 ..¹⁶ Vision of Isaiah Christian, end of the first century .. (xliv–xlv). These the editor expanded or abbreviated according to his goals, and to them he added a few redactional touches (xliii). He worked perhaps in the early third or possibly in the late second century .. (xlv). The final two sections of the Introduction contain Charles’s analysis of themes in the Ascension of Isaiah. He summarized a few of them in §16 (entitled “Value of the ‘Ascension’ for the History of Outlying Religious Thought”): the seven heavens, rise of Docetism, view of the Trinity, use of the phrase “one like a son of man,” and the resurrection (xlix–li). The much longer §17 offers an extended discussion of “The Antichrist, Beliar, and Neronic Myths, and their Subsequent Fusion” (li–lxxiii). This complex of topics he considered “the most difficult question in Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic literature” (li). He divided his treatment into three parts. The first furnishes a study of the independent development of the three myths before they were joined. “Antichrist” he took to mean someone of human origin who fundamentally opposes God. The first one so identified was

¹⁵ Charles used §15 of the Introduction to explore other references to the fate of Isaiah. For example, he cited, besides passages such as Hebrews 11:37 and early Christian sources (e.g., Justin Martyr), a Talmudic text (Yabamot 49b) according to which Isaiah was swallowed by a cedar tree that was then sawed in two. He ventured further afield in exploring at greater length Persian sources for similar stories of execution (xlvii–xlix). ¹⁶ See lxxi–lxxii for the evidence that led him to these dates. The former he determined from the nature of the Nero myth reflected in it, the latter from 4:13 which refers to believers who had seen Christ (by 100 .. there would have been no eyewitnesses of the earthly Jesus remaining; see 30–1). Whether 4:13 deals with people who had seen Jesus on earth is debatable.

230    (–) Antiochus IV (Daniel 11:36–8, though the term is not used), followed by Pompey (in the Psalms of Solomon) and the ruler of the fourth empire (Rome) in 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra. The Johannine epistles are the first literary works to use the term; in them it is a designation for false teachers. The Beliar myth involves a superhuman being. The term first appears in Jubilees as a name for a satan or the Satan. Charles understood what he regarded as the Beliar passage in the Ascension of Isaiah (7:9) to be a Jewish form of the Babylonian myth about a dragon who attacked heaven.¹⁷ Beliar works his wicked purposes through evil spirits. Charles concluded that by the beginning in the first century .., Beliar was thought to be a “Satanic spirit” (lvii). As for the Nero myth, Charles recounted the ancient belief that the emperor had not really died in 68 .. and would soon come back from the East to avenge himself upon his enemies in Rome. As evidence he cited passages from the Sibylline Oracles and the New Testament (Revelation 17), in addition to Roman sources. The second part of his presentation deals with an initial combination of the antichrist and Beliar myths, followed by their fusion with the Nero myth. He argued that the first combination of units occurred before 60 .. The antichrist came to be considered a “God-opposing man armed with miraculous powers” in Christianity before 50 .. and a “purely Satanic power” earlier than 70 .. (lxi, where both descriptions are italicized). 2 Thessalonians, which he thought was genuinely Pauline, contains the evidence for their amalgamation in ch. 2. By combining in one being—the man of lawlessness—both antichrist and Beliar traits, 2 Thessalonians humanizes Beliar. For Beliarantichrist as a “purely Satanic power” he appealed to Revelation 11:7. The combined myth was eventually joined with the one about the reappearance of Nero, this time in the form of his return to life. The evidence for it Charles found in Revelation 13 and 17. The final part of the long section he labelled “Fusion of the Antichrist, Beliar, and Neronic myths in various degrees and forms” (lxvii– lxxiii). He distinguished three versions that differed in the way Nero was conceived (as alive, as dead [this is the form it takes in Ascension of Isaiah 4:2–4], as restored to life). Charles at an earlier point in the book had justified taking up so many pages to pursue this topic (viii):

¹⁷ He translated the verse: “And we ascended to the firmament, I and he [i.e., Isaiah and his angelic guide], and there I saw Sammael and his hosts, and there was great fighting therein and the angels of Satan were envying one another.” Sammael is the name of a satanic figure in parts of the book. In a note on pp. 7–8 Charles detailed the similarities (and differences) between Beliar and Sammael.

   

231

Since the account it furnishes of the Antichrist is in some respects unique, I have brought the Introduction to a close with a Critical Essay on the Antichrist, Beliar, and Neronic myths as they appear in Jewish and Christian literature between 200 .. and 120 ..

The unit does, nevertheless, seem somewhat excessive, like the long section about the idea of seven heavens in his Introduction to 2 Enoch. Also, his analysis rests on some remarkably precise dates for texts that are difficult to assign to specific times. The annotated translation of the Ascension of Isaiah occupies pp. 1–82. In the translation Charles used a complex set of symbols to mark passages as: appearing only in certain witnesses, added by the editor, supplied to fill omissions in the Greek papyrus, emendations, corrupt readings, or interpolations. The reader must consult the list on p. lxxiv and do so often to become familiar with the symbols, not all of which are clearly distinguishable from others. He could have eased the reader’s burden (and his own) by recording such information in the notes to the text rather than marring the translation with them (see below). In the margins of the translation he indicated to which of the book’s components a passage belonged, including the additions made by the final editor. Typically for Charles, the explanatory notes which support his textual decisions and explain the content often fill more of a page than the translation. One of the new features of the edition compared with his earlier ones, apart from Jubilees and the Assumption of Moses, is that in it Charles reproduced all the early textual evidence. On pp. 83–139 he printed the extant versions of the book, each in its own script, with the exception of the Slavonic for which he gave Bonwetsch’s Latin rendering. Where more than one version survives, he placed them in parallel columns. The result is that on many pages there are two or three such columns, in some cases even four (e.g., ch. 7). Beneath the evidence of the versions, Charles added textual notes in which he gave variant readings (for the Ethiopic), evaluations (such as whether a reading was corrupt), emendations, and more. It seems that with the information supplied in these notes he could have dispensed with the symbols that disfigure his translation. At any rate, the student of the Ascension of Isaiah has in Charles’s edition the full textual evidence then available as well as an Introduction and annotated translation. While he strongly emphasized textual issues, he did not ignore questions of meaning and significance. Already in the Preface (viii) he wrote: The Testament of Hezekiah and the Vision of Isaiah (especially the former)

232    (–) cast an illuminating, though at times lurid, light on certain outlying provinces of Christian belief and conduct towards the close of the first century. It bewails the fewness of the prophets, the prevalence of heresies, the sad declension in Christian character. It touches incidentally on the fact that there were Church Guilds, whose sole object was to keep believers in a state of readiness for the Advent of Christ, but expecting withal to experience first the dreaded coming of the Antichrist.

In the Introduction (xii) he added concerning the Testament of Hezekiah: Its descriptions of the worldliness and lawlessness which prevailed among the elders and pastors, i.e. the bishops and priests, of the widespread covetousness and vainglory as well as of the growing heresies among Christians generally, agree with similar accounts in 2 Peter, 2 Timothy, and Clement of Rome (ad Cor. iii, xxiii). This work, moreover, is the first and oldest document that testifies to the martyrdom of St. Peter at Rome.¹⁸

The last pages of the book offer additional helpful information. He wrote an Appendix called “The Use of the Names ‘The Beloved,’ ‘Beliar,’ and ‘Sammael,’ in the Various Constituents of the ‘Ascension’” (140). On pp. 141–8 he gave the full text of the related parts of the Greek Legend, with a few textual notes. In the margins he inserted references to the passages in the Ascension of Isaiah reflected in the text. Finally, he provided indices of passages in ancient texts and of names and subjects (149–55).

Reviews The edition by Charles elicited several reviews, ones showing that he was by this time widely recognized as a leading authority in the field. Stanley Arthur Cook of the University of Cambridge reviewed The Ascension of Isaiah in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1901) 165–9. About Charles he wrote “whose valuable series of early apocalyptical and apocryphal writings is so well known” (165). Of the present volume he said that “now, for the first time, all the existing materials are collected, edited, and arranged in a critical form that

¹⁸ The relevant passage is 4:3. The preceding lines refer to Beliar’s appearing as a man, “a lawless king, the slayer of his mother” (v. 2) who will persecute “the planting” of the twelve apostles. Verse 3 then adds in Charles’s translation: “Of the Twelve one will be delivered into his hands.”

   

233

leaves nothing to be desired” (165). Cook found Charles’s study of the antichrist, Beliar, and Nero myths to be “an important chapter” (166) occasioned by the “absolutely unique” (166) portrayal of the antichrist in the Testament of Hezekiah. He added: “It need scarcely be said that Dr. Charles’s edition will be indispensable to all future workers in the field of apocalyptic research, who, we doubt not, will agree with his general results” (167). To such positives Cook added criticisms of particular editorial decisions and explanations given by Charles, even thinking that he had been too cautious in some instances. He spent the last part of the review (167–9) dealing with specific readings and offered some fairly speculative suggestions about them. Another early reviewer was Emil Schürer in Theologische Literaturzeitung 26 (1901) 169–71. He too expressed appreciation for Charles’s numerous contributions to the field of Jewish-Christian apocrypha (169). After summarizing the book, Schürer voiced concern that Charles was too dependent on Grenfell and Hunt for some changes he made in the Greek text. He also noted the close agreement between the literary conclusions of Dillmann and Charles and found only two significant differences between them: (1) Dillmann judged all of ch. 1 to be an addition, whereas Charles assigned only selected verses to the editor; and (2) Dillmann believed the unit 11:2–22 was an addition, while Charles viewed it as original and demanded by the context. On both issues Schürer thought Dillmann’s theory more likely to be correct (170). He commended Charles’s study of the three myths (antichrist, Beliar, Nero) to the attention of experts. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, the two-volume work that Charles edited in 1913, contains a very abridged form of his earlier book. In the Pseudepigrapha volume the reader finds a text entitled “The Martyrdom of Isaiah” (pp. 155–62), that is, only one of the three components that he distinguished in the Ascension of Isaiah. The appearance of just this portion of the complete text makes sense because it alone meets the criteria for inclusion in the volume—non-canonical Jewish works for the period 200 .. to 100 .. (see 2.iv). A short introduction stands before his translation of 1:1–3:12; 5:1–14 (minus editorial insertions). In the Introduction he reproduced material from the 1900 book, with some changes such as a more explicit statement that the author of the Martyrdom of Isaiah wrote in Hebrew (158). By including only the Martyrdom in his collection of Pseudepigrapha, Charles was imitating the example in Kautzsch, Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testament (1900), the German predecessor of The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. The Pseudepigraphen volume contains Georg Beer’s “Das Martyrium Jesajae” (119–27). Beer supplied even less than

234    (–) Charles did in 1913: he introduced and translated only Ascension of Isaiah 2:1–3:12; 5:2–14, that is, closely reflecting Dillmann’s conclusions about the material to be attributed to the Martyrdom. Charles’s translation was reprinted in Translations of Early Documents Series 1, Palestinian Jewish Texts (pre-rabbinic) (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1917) where it was bound together with Box’s translation of the Apocalypse of Abraham.

Legacy Since 1900 much has been published on the Ascension of Isaiah, but Charles’s work is still considered fundamental, however much scholars disagree with some of his conclusions. On the textual front, the available evidence has grown but not dramatically. A noteworthy development was publication of Coptic fragments of the Ascension of Isaiah. There are remnants of two manuscripts. One, in an early Akhmimic dialect and possibly dating from the fourth century, contains bits and pieces of almost all the chapters (1:1–5; 3:25–28; 5:7–8; 6:7–11; 7:10–15, 28–32; 8:16–17; 9:9–11, 28–30; 10:9–11, 27; 11:14–16, 35–7).¹⁹ The other fragmentary copy is in the Sahidic dialect (late fourth century) and preserves 3:6–9, 9–12; 11:24–32, 35–40.²⁰ The two Coptic versions, which offer material from both of the major parts of the Ascension of Isaiah, suggest that by the late fourth century they had been combined. The number of the accessible copies of the Ethiopic version has grown to twelve.²¹ More recently there has been a change in understanding the entire work. As we have seen, Charles and others thought the Ascension of Isaiah was a

¹⁹ L. Th. Lefort, “Fragments d’apocryphes en copte akhmîmique,” Le Muséon 52 (1939) 7–10, with plate II (for four of the fragments); P. Lacau, “Fragments de l’Ascension d’Isaie en copte,” Le Muséon 59 (1946) 453–67 (for all the fragments). ²⁰ L. Th. Lefort, “Coptica Louvaniensia (Suite),” Le Muséon 51 (1938) 24–30, with plate IVa. He noted that, while the Coptic text is poorly preserved, it is important since it is the oldest witness and, as it seemed to him, the one nearest to the original text in the parts that survived. ²¹ Ted Erho, “New Ethiopic Witnesses to Some Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 76 (2013) 95–7. The most recent edition of the Ethiopic version is that of Lorenzo Perrone (with facing translation by Enrico Norelli) in Ascensio Isaïae: Textus (Corpus Christianorum, Series Apocryphorum 7; Turnhout: Brepols, 1995) 1–129. He was able to use nine copies in establishing the text. The same volume includes fresh editions and translations of the remaining textual material as well: Norelli for the Greek (Amherst) papyrus, Paulo Bettiolo for the Coptic, Claudio Leonardi for the Latin, Alda Giambelluca Kossova for the Slavonic (Old Bulgarian; there are now seven copies), and Norelli for the Greek Legend (two copies). The editors have not attempted to establish an “original” text; rather, they present the editions separately. A companion volume by Norelli (Ascensio Isaïae: Commentarius [Corpus Christianorum, Series Apocryphorum 8; Turnhout: Brepols, 1995]) offers, as the title indicates, an interpretation of the book.

   

235

composite book. This continued to be the accepted position for some time. According to J. M. T. Barton, who edited and introduced a revised form of Charles’s translation for The Apocryphal Old Testament, the “generally agreed solution” was that originally independent units were joined by an editor, with the final stage reached by the mid-fourth century.²² The next year Michael Knibb defended a source division like that of Charles in his contribution to The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. His introduction to and translation of what is entitled “Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah” appear, not in the first volume which is devoted to apocalyptic literature and testaments, but in the second which includes “Expansions of the ‘Old Testament’ and Legends.”²³ Knibb divided the book into the same three divisions that Charles isolated, along with editorial contributions. Also, like Charles, he considered 3:13–4:22 and chs. 6–11 to be Christian works, while the Martyrdom is Jewish. Knibb did not dismiss outright the possibility that the entire composition is an authorial unity but thought there were adequate reasons for not accepting the conclusion. One argument for the independent existence of chs. 6–11 is that we actually have this work in L² and the Slavonic version (a point others had made), and a second is that these chapters have their own title “The Vision of Isaiah.” Moreover, 3:13–4:22 “forms a very harsh break in the narrative between 3:12 and 5:1.”²⁴ He did question whether 3:13–4:22 is the Testament of Hezekiah to which Cedrenus refers—it is placed in the mouth of Isaiah, not Hezekiah. Knibb also entertained the idea that the historian referred to all of chs. 1–5 by that name and believes that the editor compiled the finished work in the third or fourth century. For his translation, he used five Ethiopic copies, the fifth of which contains only parts of chs. 1–2. Despite the views of Barton and Knibb, there is a greater emphasis today on the unity of the Ascension of Isaiah. Earlier scholars, who maintained that the person responsible for the eleven-chapter composition was an editor who conjoined previously existing sources and adjusted them to their new settings, recognized that the editor tried to impose a measure of uniformity on the sources by means of redactional touches. An example is 1:2b–6a which

²² “The Ascension of Isaiah,” in H. F. D. Sparks, editor, The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984) 780–1. ²³ “Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah,” in James Charlesworth, editor, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1983, 1985) 2.143–76. C. Detlef G. Müller (“The Ascension of Isaiah,” in Wilhelm Schneemelcher, editor, New Testament Apocrypha, vol. II: Writings Related to the Apostles, Apocalypses and Related Subjects [revised ed.; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1992] 604–5) speaks of a compiler of documents who interpolated Christian material into them, although, at least in the English translation, the word “author” is also used for him. ²⁴ “Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah,” 147.

236    (–) prepares for both 3:13b–4:22 and chs. 6–11 and in this way connects them with the martyrdom story. But in more recent times a number of experts have called the person to whom we owe the Ascension of Isaiah an author who worked with and arranged traditional materials in his book.²⁵ The tendency is to date the complete work to the second century. Robert Hall, for one, has pointed to two sources rewritten by the author—a Martyrdom of Isaiah and a Vision of Isaiah;²⁶ this author also composed 3:13–31, which stands before a document he quoted, and ch. 6 which introduces the Vision.²⁷ He explains the placement of the vision at the end of the text where it is out of chronological order as a way of emphasizing its importance. . . . the author’s goal from the beginning is to win a hearing for this Vision from a reluctant audience. The martyrdom tale systematically breaks down prejudice against the author’s favorite doctrine and his or her prophetic school. By reminding the readers that Isaiah took heavenly trips to see God, the author removes one objection to the Vision. By depicting an embattled prophetic school in a positive light and by attributing to Beliar opposition to that school, the author softens objections to a school like his or her own.²⁸

²⁵ Some earlier scholars opposed the sources/editor theories. Francis Crawford Burkitt (Jewish and Christian Apocalypses [The Schweich Lectures; London: For the British Academy H. Milford, Oxford University Press, 1914] 45) put the matter well (one suspects he had Charles in mind): I sometimes fancy that the spirit of Beliar must be dwelling in some of my friends when they use the wooden saw to dissect the Ascension of Isaiah. Notwithstanding their efforts it continues to speak with a Christian voice, just as Isaiah did. I shall venture here to treat it as a unity, and as the work of a Christian throughout. Of course, I do not mean to deny that some details in the fanciful story of Isaiah’s martyrdom may have been ultimately derived from Jewish sources. But that is a very different thing from regarding the narrative portions of the Ascension of Isaiah as a Jewish document which can be detached from the rest of the work and represented as an independent whole. On the contrary, I regard it as an integral part of the Ascension, . . . . Burkitt, who dated the work to the early second century, thought the unevenness present in it arose, not from independent sources, but from the author’s attempt to do two things: in good apocalyptic fashion focusing on the importance of the end, but also, in good Christian fashion, emphasizing the importance of the incarnation. He made an exception for 11:2–22 that he regarded as either interpolated in the Ethiopic version or else as having an appearance very different from the one it had in the original (noting the much shorter reading in L² and Slavonic; pp. 46–7). ²⁶ For Hall, the contention that the earlier, independent existence of the Vision of Isaiah (chs. 6–11) is documented by L² and Slavonic which contain only these chapters is not convincing. These two witnesses may offer merely an excerpt from the complete text (Hall, “Isaiah, Ascension of,” in John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow, editors, The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010] 773). ²⁷ Hall, “The Ascension of Isaiah: Community Situation, Date, and Place in Early Christianity,” Journal of Biblical Literature 109 (1990) 289–92. ²⁸ “The Ascension of Isaiah,” 299.

   

237

Hall’s comments exemplify the interest that researchers are showing in the Christian prophetic school that they see reflected in the presentation of Isaiah and the prophets around him in the Ascension of Isaiah. Jonathan Knight, who also speaks of an author for the Ascension of Isaiah, has noted how Christian prophecy seems to have been downplayed by the second century, after it had been considered an important medium for teaching in the New Testament period.²⁹ As the institutional church took shape, there was less room for such a claim to inspired authority. The author of the Ascension of Isaiah identified himself as a member of a marginalized prophetic community. Knight also thinks that a dedicated person like this was likely to fail the test of loyalty mentioned in Pliny’s correspondence with the Emperor Trajan;³⁰ the anti-Roman material in chs. 4–5 may be explained in this context. The author wrote to assure his audience that, despite the difficulties of the present, the kingdom of the Beloved would soon materialize and that he had already defeated Beliar.³¹ The emphases in modern scholarship on the Ascension of Isaiah are different than they were in 1900, but it would be highly unusual today to find a serious study of the composition that lacks reference to Charles’s work, so lasting has his influence proved to be even for a Christian text. In the years that followed publication of the Ascension of Isaiah, Charles, who became a member of the British Academy, turned his attention increasingly to one of the compositions on which he wrote the most—the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. The culmination of that period was the publication of two hefty volumes on the Testaments, as we shall see in Chapter 8.

²⁹ The Ascension of Isaiah (Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995) 9–10, 26, 31–8. ³⁰ Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Bithynia in Pontus from 111–13 .., mentioned in a letter means by which people could prove they were not Christians (e.g., praying to the Roman gods, cursing Christ), while the Emperor Trajan (98–117) replied that if people denied they were Christians they could demonstrate the point by worshiping the gods. ³¹ Knight, The Ascension of Isaiah, 26, 37, 42–3.

Chapter 8 More Honors and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 1901–1908 By 1900 Charles had published six translations with commentaries, one critical edition, a thematic volume, and several substantial articles. All of this in itself—and within just a decade—would have constituted a highly successful scholarly career, but much more was to come. Charles continued to be an exceptionally productive scholar in the years that followed, and he received more public recognition for his accomplishments. It remained the case, nevertheless, that in the period under consideration in this chapter he held no permanent position at the University of Oxford. We have examined several of Charles’s publications dating from 1901–08 in connection with books that he had written in the 1890s. One is the lengthy 1901 entry “Eschatology” in Cheyne and Black, editors, Encyclopaedia Biblica 2.1335–90. Another is The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis in 1902. His growing list of articles included the “The Book of Enoch,” The American Journal of Theology 7 (1903) 689–703 that offered an in-depth review of the books by Flemming and Rademacher. Around this time (1902–03) he contributed the article “Apocalyptic and Apocryphal Literature” to the tenth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica 25.486–500, and his text edition of Ethiopic Enoch appeared in 1906.¹ The text on which he focused a great deal of energy throughout the period is the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Besides incorporating its teachings in his dictionary/encyclopedia pieces and in A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life, he published a series of articles dealing specifically with the Testaments in the early years of the new century. He wrote the entry “Testaments of the XII Patriarchs” for Hastings, editor, A Dictionary of the Bible, 4.721–5 (1902) and an essay by the same name in the Hibbert Journal 3 (1904–05) 558–73. A few years later he teamed with A. E. Cowley in writing “An Early Source of the Testaments of the Patriarchs,” Jewish Quarterly ¹ In view of all he had accomplished to this point, it is astonishing to learn that he, as he put it, lost two years to influenza between 1889 and 1903 (NLS, June 1, 1926).

R. H. Charles: A Biography. James C. VanderKam, Oxford University Press. © James C. VanderKam 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192869289.003.0010

 —— 

239

Review 19 (1907) 566–83. Charles capped off his work on the Testaments with a translation/commentary and a text volume, both of which appeared in 1908. These publications are the central subject of this chapter.

Appointments and Honors Before turning to Charles’s work with the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, we should record the forms of recognition that came to him. In 1905 he was appointed the “Grinfield Lecturer on the LXX. Version of the Hebrew Scriptures” and held the position until 1911.² The lectureship had been set up by Edward William Grinfield (1785–1864) who in 1859 endowed it with a sum of £1,000 (later he added a further £500). According to the arrangements for it, the Hebdomadal Council of the University of Oxford elected the lecturer who served for a two-year term, but he was not to be considered a university professor or reader. The lecturer, who was supposed to be in Holy Orders and hold at least an M.A. degree, was paid, so Charles had some income from the post.³ Something of the prestige attaching to the Grinfield Lectureship can be gleaned from the names of others who held it, e.g., Edwin Hatch (1882–84), Alfred Edersheim (1886–90), Henry Adeney Redpath (1901–05), and later H. St. J. Thackeray (1920). The appointee was to deliver three lectures per academic year, and as the terms of a few predecessors and of Charles show, the appointment could be renewed beyond two years.⁴ The June 20, 1905 issue of the Oxford University Gazette (p. 680) reported: “At a meeting of the Hebdomadal Council holden on Monday, June 19, the Rev. R H. C, M.A., Exeter College, was elected Grinfield Lecturer on the Septuagint.” The Gazette regularly announced the titles and dates for the Grinfield Lectures, so we have a record of the ones that Charles gave. They were distributed over the Michaelmas, Hilary, and Easter and Trinity terms and hence were called “terminal” lectures. Each of them was delivered at 2:15 pm at Charles’s college, Exeter.

² The Oxford University Gazette printed several announcements in successive editions to the effect that the Hebdomadal Council would elect the next Grinfield Lecturer on June 19, 1905 (May 30, 1905, vol. 35, p. 610; June 6, 1905, vol. 35, p. 637; and June 14, 1905, vol. 35, p. 663). The announcement included the line: “Candidates for the appointment are requested to make known their wishes to the Vice-Chancellor on or before Saturday, June 17.” ³ His predecessor as Grinfield Lecturer, H. A. Redpath, was paid £72 s. 0 d. 8 for the preceding year, according to the Abstracts of Receipts and Payments in vol. 35 of the Gazette. ⁴ For information about the position, see The Oxford Ten-Year Book: A Register of University Honours and Distinctions Completed to the End of the Year 1870 (Oxford: James Parker, 1872) 132.

240    ( – ) December 8, 1905: Linguistic Problems of the Book of Daniel (Gazette of October 13, 1905, p. 20) March 7, 1906: Linguistic Problems of the Book of Daniel (January 19, 1906, 255) April 24, 1906: The Greek Versions of the Book of Daniel (April 20, 1906, 469) November 7, 1906: The Book of Daniel, I–II, 4, Greek Versions (June 12, 1906, 710; cf. October 12, 1906, 18) February 5, 1907: Daniel II.4–VII: The Aramaic Section and the Versions (January 18, 1907, 267) May 28, 1907: Book of Daniel, Chapters III, IV (April 26, 1907, 507). At this point, Charles’s two-year term ended. The lectureship was again advertised in the Gazette (e.g., May 22, 1907, 628), and on June 17, 1907 the Hebdomadal Council re-elected him to another term (Gazette, June 18, 1907). The lectures continued the series he delivered in his first term. November 5, 1907: Daniel IV and V (October 29, 1907, 117) January 21, 1908: Daniel V–VI: The Massoretic Text and the Greek Versions (January 17, 1908, 273) May 26, 1908: The Aramaic Text and the Greek Versions of Daniel VI (April 24, 1908, 519) November 3, 1908: The Aramaic Text and the Greek Versions of Daniel VII (June 16, 1908, 793) January 19, 1909: The Hebrew Text and the Greek Versions of Daniel VIII (January 15, 1909, 291) April 27, 1909: The Hebrew Text and the Greek Versions of Daniel IX (April 23, 1909, 535). Here his second term ended, but again the Hebdomadal Council re-elected him (Gazette, May 25, 1909, 667). The lectures in his third term were: October 26, 1909: The Hebrew Text and the Greek Versions of Daniel X (June 15, 1909, 800) February 1, 1910: Hebrew Text and Greek Versions of Daniel ix.24–7; xi.1–9 (January 14, 1910, 275) May 10, 1910: The Hebrew Text and Greek Versions of Daniel xi.10–25 (April 22, 1910, 525)

 —— 

241

November 1, 1910: The Hebrew Text and the Greek Versions of the Book of Daniel xi.18–33 (June 14, 1910, 794) February 7, 1911: The Hebrew Text and Greek Versions of Daniel xi.35–xii.1 (December 6, 1910, 290) May 2, 1911: The Hebrew Text and Greek Versions of Daniel xii.2–13 (April 27, 1911, 645). In 1906 Charles became a Fellow of the British Academy. When he joined the illustrious group of academics, the Academy was in its infancy. Its origins can be traced to the end of 1901, with a royal charter coming in 1902. It was formed as a British association of scholars in the humanities and social sciences resembling counterparts in Europe, an association that promoted work in the fields of its members and could represent Britain at international scholarly gatherings. According to Minute Book 1 (1901–08) of the Council of the British Academy, the chair of section II (Philology, Including History of Literature)⁵ communicated to the Council that four individuals proposed by the section at its meeting of February 21, 1906 be elected Fellows of the Academy, including “Mr. Charles” (p. 101). We know which Fellows nominated Charles, as the nomination form bears the names of T. K. Cheyne, S. R. Driver, and W. Sanday (dated Jan. 26, 1906). At its meeting of May 23 that year, the Council listed Charles’s name among those proposed for election at the Annual General Meeting (p. 118). The Fellows at the Annual General Meeting held on June 28, 1906 elected “Dr. Charles” as a Fellow (p. 123). The president, at the General Meeting held on October 31, 1906, welcomed “the Rev. Dr. Charles” and the other new Fellows (p. 125). Charles’s name first appears as a Fellow in vol. 2 of the Proceedings of the British Academy for the years 1905–06, with a note that he was elected in 1906. He remained a member until the end of his life, and, as was his right, always listed “Fellow of the British Academy” with his academic degrees on the title pages of his books. The Minute Books of the Council allow one to trace some of Charles’s activities as a Fellow of the Academy. At the July 4, 1907 Council meeting, the president drew “attention to the lack of promises of Papers to be read before the Academy, and made suggestions for urging Fellows of the Academy, and particularly newly elected Fellows, to contribute papers” (Minute Book 1, p. 150). ⁵ At the time the Fellows of the British Academy were divided into four sections defined by areas of study. Each section was allowed to propose to the Council the names of people who might be elected Fellows that year. The roster of sections was changed in 1920. In the new arrangement, Charles was a member of III. Biblical Criticism and Archaeology (Minute Book 4, p. 8). In 1922 he was added to IV. Oriental Studies (p. 147).

242    ( – )

3. Charles, ca. 1906 (courtesy of British Academy Archives)

The Council Minutes for July 25, 1907 record: “It was reported that promises of Papers to be read before the British Academy had been received from Dr. Charles” and five others (p. 151). It was to be some time, however, before he presented one—not until 1915. Minute Book 2 (1908–12) has gone missing, but Minute Book 3 (1912–19) refers to Charles a number of times. At the May 27, 1914 meeting he was among the nominees for election to the Council (p. 51). The Fellows then voted him in at the Annual General Meeting held on July 10, 1914 (p. 52). Thus, in Proceedings 6 (1913–14) he is listed as a member of the Council. He attended his first Council meeting on October 28, 1914 (p. 55), at which “he expressed his willingness to read a paper on March 10th, next, on ‘An attempt to reconstruct the Source or Sources used by John in Rev. xvii 1–10, xviii’” (p. 56).⁶ He served as a member of the Council from 1914–17 and again from 1925–30. During his first term on the Council, he contributed to the life of the Academy in several capacities. ⁶ For the paper, under a different title, see Part 3 Chapter 3.

 —— 

243

1. He was added to sectional committee I (History, Including Archaeology) in addition to his membership in section II (Minute Book 3, May 5, 1915, p. 71).⁷ 2. He served on several committees appointed by the Council: (a) one dealing with issues relating to electing Honorary Fellows and with some questions having to do with Fellows (January 26, 1914, Minute Book 3, pp. 86–7). The committee brought its report to the Council on May 16 (p. 90). (b) He was appointed as a member of a committee to watch the question of alterations in the educational system so far as they affected the respective claims of the Humanities & Natural Sciences, & that it is to be suggested to the committee that they might communicate with the Royal Society on the subject, the committee to have power to take such action as they may think desirable. (July 4, 1916, pp. 94–5)

(c) At the same meeting he was appointed to a committee to examine “plans for a practical scheme for the transliteration into English of words & names belonging to (a) Russian & other Slavonic languages, & (b) the languages of the Near East” (95). (d) On October 25, 1916 he became a member of a committee considering a proposal by Sir George Walter Prothero, a Fellow, to increase the number of Fellows from one hundred to two hundred (97–8). The Council sent the proposal to a general meeting for consideration (100–1), and it was eventually accepted (March 28, 1917, pp. 107, 108, 110). (e) On December 21, 1916 Charles along with others was made a member of a committee “to consider the question of Occasional Social gatherings of the Fellows & to report to the Council” (104–5). 3. Charles and Professor W. P. Ker “were appointed additional persons to sign cheques” (January 31, 1917, 106). Charles’s first term on the Council ended in 1917, but the minutes of the June 5, 1918 meeting of the Council include among nominees for election to the Council “the Dean of Westminster [Ryle] (or failing him Canon Charles)” (161). The minutes for July 4, 1918, however, note that all the nominees to Council were willing to serve (162), so Charles was not elected for a second consecutive term. ⁷ Minute Book 3, p. 71, which noted his membership in a second section, states: “At the same time it was agreed that the Council should at some time consider the question of procedure to be followed for assigning Fellows to more than one Sectional Committee.”

244    ( – ) His second term as a member of the Council began in 1925. Minute Book 5 (1924–29) reports for the meeting on October 28, 1925, after noting the death of Bishop Ryle, that “Archdeacon Charles⁸ was appointed member of the Council in place of Bishop Ryle” (32). The report about the July 1, 1925 meeting of the Council includes the notice: “It was resolved on recommendation of Section III to award medal for Biblical Studies to the Venerable Archdeacon Charles, Fellow of the Academy” (p. 28). The Times of London for Thursday, July 9, 1925 (44009), p. 17 reported: “The first British Academy Medal for Biblical Studies, given to the Academy by Professor Burkitt,⁹ was awarded to Archdeacon Charles, in recognition of the many services rendered by him to the text and elucidation of both Canonical and Uncanonical Scriptures” (the award had been established in 1923 and later would be called the Burkitt Medal for Biblical Studies; see Part 3 Chapter 1). At the Council meeting on February 23, 1927 Charles was named to a committee charged with handling the celebration to mark the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Academy’s incorporation. The members were given “executive powers,” with permission to spend what they thought appropriate for the occasion (p. 56). While Charles had been serving on the Council in place of a deceased member since 1925, he was elected in his own right to another term at the May 25, 1927 meeting (p. 59). During this term he was appointment to the Schweich Committee of the Academy (January 25, 1928, p. 73). At the same meeting (he was not present for it) he was appointed to a committee whose task was to handle details regarding rooms in the new quarters for the Academy (the July 28, 1927 minutes referred to the Civil Service Commission Building, Burlington Gardens, made available by the government, p. 63; see the minutes for the meeting of May 30, p. 96).¹⁰ The last meeting for which his presence is noted in the minutes of the Council was held on May 22, 1929 (p. 109). According to D’Arcy, Charles became a force in the Academy. In that august and exclusive company he was soon recognized as a power. He threw himself into the administration of its affairs with zealous interest. As a member of the Council, and as, for a considerable time, Chairman of the

⁸ The secretary actually wrote “Ryle” but crossed it out and placed “Charles” above the deleted name. ⁹ That is, F. C. Burkitt, a Fellow of the British Academy who himself would be awarded the medal in 1926 and would write an obituary of Charles in 1931. ¹⁰ The minutes for the May 30, 1928 meeting refer to a subcommittee on rooms that was handling the details in connection with the twenty-fifth anniversary celebration, including the luncheon.

 —— 

245

Sectional committee dealing with Biblical criticism and Archaeology, and also a member of the Committee on Oriental Studies, he was in the thick of its activities.¹¹

The obituary of Charles in The Times of London noted about his time as a Fellow that he “continued to take an eager, not to say a sometimes stormy, part in its proceedings” (The Times for Monday, February 2, 1931 [45736], p. 14) (“Archdeacon Charles: A Great Apocalyptic Scholar”). The line is tantalizing but nothing more is said about his storminess. In 1907 Charles received a D. Litt. degree (Litterarum doctor = Doctor of Letters) from Oxford. The university in which he held only a temporary lectureship thus honored him for his scholarly contributions. The process of receiving the degree can be followed in the minute book of the Faculty of Arts—Oriental Languages preserved in the Oxford University Archives (FA 4/14/1/1’ pp. 164–7). On March 11, 1907 Charles applied for the degree, on May 13 two judges were appointed, D. S. Margoliouth and Archibald Sayce, and on June 3 the judges submitted their report (FA 4/1/.2/1’ p. 138), concluding that Charles should be given the certificate of the board because of the evidence he submitted: his 1902 book on Jubilees and his 1906 edition of Ethiopic Enoch (“original contributions to the advancement of learning”). The Ancient House of Congregation conferred the degree on him on June 20, 1907 (Oxford University Gazette, June 25, 1907, p. 780).¹² It is surprisingly easy to find information about the public occasion for conferring D. Litt.s in 1907 because that year Mark Twain received one as well. The New York Times for June 27, 1907 reported about the ceremony held the day before in the Sheldonian Theatre. Some thirty men, with Twain and Charles, received the degree, including General William Booth and Rudyard Kipling. However, the great ovation was reserved for Mark Twain, who was the lion of the occasion. Everyone rose when he was escorted up the aisle and he was applauded for a quarter of an hour. When Dr. Ingram Bywater, Regius Professor of Greek, presented the American humorist to the convocation, the students started a fire of chaff about his books and their heroes, mixed with frequent questions, such as “Where is your white suit?” Mark Twain ¹¹ “A Brief Memoir,” xxxii–xxxiii. D’Arcy himself later became a Fellow. ¹² The certificate is preserved in the Oxford University Archives (UR 3.4.5) and is, oddly, dated June 30, 1907. It also mentions the two books he submitted as evidence and adds that they qualified him to “supplicate” for the degree.

246    ( – ) said afterward that he wanted to reply, but was determined to observe the etiquette, which demands that recipients of degrees be silent.

Charles was not the star attraction, but he was definitely a worthy recipient of the degree. He listed it as well on the title pages of his books published after 1907. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs ranks, with 1 Enoch and perhaps Jubilees, as the ancient Jewish¹³ text to which Charles devoted the most sustained attention. As we have seen, he wrote a number of essays about it and published two major volumes, one providing a translation and commentary and the other offering a critical text.

The Contents of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs consists of the deathbed addresses that Jacob’s sons delivered to their children. It is often suggested that the twelve units were written in imitation of Jacob’s final “blessing” of his sons in Genesis 49. There he refers to a trait or traits of each one or an incident in which a son was involved and tells all of them “what will happen to you in days to come [literally: at the end of days]” (Genesis 49:1). Once Jacob had finished speaking the “blessings,” he gave instructions for burial with his ancestors in Hebron and then breathed his last (Genesis 49:29–33). The units for the sons in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs do not appear in the same order as in Genesis 49 or in the accounts of their births in Genesis 29–30, with 35:16–21. Rather, the order is according to the mothers: first the six sons of Leah, then the two sons of Rachel’s maid Bilhah, the two of Leah’s maid Zilpah, and finally Rachel’s two sons. Each of the twelve units contains, to one degree or another, three elements: 1. An autobiographical account; some of the stories are found in Genesis (e.g., Reuben’s sin with his father Jacob’s wife Bilhah [Genesis 35:22]), some are not (e.g., two wars led by Judah). 2. Exhortations to the children to imitate or avoid the behavior of their father. 3. Predictions about what will happen to the children and their offspring. At the close of the testament, the patriarch gives orders that he be interred in Hebron, dies, and is buried. The Testaments of Levi, Judah, and Joseph are ¹³ Whether “Jewish” is the proper way to describe the Testaments is an issue that is treated below.

 —— 

247

the longest; these three sons are frequently mentioned in the other testaments as well. Joseph is a model of wisdom and self-control, while Judah and Levi are to be the leaders of the entire clan. From their progeny will come kings and priests who will rule the nation springing from the twelve. The text of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs survives in a number of Greek manuscripts; from Greek it was translated into Armenian and Slavonic. Although so much of the Testaments is Jewish in nature, there are in it some statements that are undoubtedly Christian. Accounting for these features has stimulated much debate among the experts.

The Context for Charles’s Articles and Volumes on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs The Testaments endured a fate that in some respects resembles that of other texts Charles edited, while in others it differed. Once the author/editor had penned the work, it left marks on other ancient compositions and was mentioned in early sources, but later it fell out of circulation. Unlike Enoch and Jubilees, it did not find its way into Europe via Ethiopia, but apparently had always been available although it attracted little or no notice. The first evidence for it in Western Europe came from Robert Grosseteste (ca. 1175–1253), the Bishop of Lincoln in England, who translated a Greek copy of it into Latin. The way in which he obtained the manuscript is a story worth repeating. Charles wrote about it in his first article on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. In it he cited from the earliest source of information for Grosseteste’s translation, the Historia Anglorum by the chronicler Matthew Paris (or Matthew of Paris) that he issued in the 1250s. At this time Robert, Bishop of Lincoln, . . . accurately translated the Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs from Greek into Latin. These had been for a long time unknown and hidden through the jealousy of the Jews on account of the prophecies of the Saviour contained in them. The Greeks, . . . who were the first to come to a knowledge of this document, translated it from Hebrew into Greek, and have kept it to themselves till our times. And neither in the time of the blessed Jerome, nor of any other holy interpreter, could the Christians gain an acquaintance with it, owing to the malice of the ancient Jews (4.232; cited in Charles, “The Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs.” Hibbert Journal 3 [1904–05] 559)

248    ( – ) Charles also summarized a passage from Matthew Paris regarding Grosseteste’s translation and recounted its early fate: In the fifth volume of this work the chronicler recurs to this subject, and informs us how the Bishop of Lincoln got knowledge of this work through John de Basingstokes, who, while studying at Athens, had lighted on the Greek MS., and induced the Bishop to procure a copy of this work from Greece. From this MS., which is at present in the library of the University of Cambridge, a Latin translation was made by the aforesaid Bishop, with the help of a Greek named Nicolaus, of the Abbey of St. Albans. This translation gained an immediate and widespread popularity, and from it, in course of time, translations were made into most of the languages of Europe. (559)

Henk J. de Jonge has investigated the episode in greater detail.¹⁴ As he explains, John de Basingstoke was an English student who had learned to read Greek and who traveled extensively in pursuit of his scholarly interests. Eventually he reached Athens, where he spotted the manuscript in the library of the Archbishop of Athens, Michael Choniates. Michael (ca. 1140–1220) served as Archbishop (Metropolitan) of Athens from ca. 1175 until 1204 when crusaders captured the city, an event that eventually caused him to flee to the island of Ceos. He was a noted collector (and copier) of manuscripts, and it is apparently among the ones in his possession that John de Basingstoke, at some time before 1204, saw the copy of the Testaments. Since the manuscript in question dates from the tenth century, it had a history before Michael acquired it, but nothing is known about its earlier days. Several decades after seeing the manuscript, John reported the information to Grosseteste who also knew Greek and who by this time occupied the episcopal office (hence the report came no earlier than 1235, the year Grosseteste became Bishop of Lincoln). Grosseteste sent a delegation to Athens to find and purchase the manuscript, and they succeeded in their mission—wherever the manuscript itself may have been at the time (Choniates had died years earlier). They brought it to England where Grosseteste, assisted by a Greek cleric named Nicolaus, translated it into Latin in 1242.¹⁵

¹⁴ “La bibliothèque de Michel Choniatès et la tradition occidentale des Testaments des XII Patriarches,” in M. de Jonge, editor, Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Text and Interpretation (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 3; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 97–106. ¹⁵ The manuscript (Cambridge University Library, Ff. i.24, folios 203a–262b) is designated b in editions of the Greek text. In its margins, it contains notes that Grosseteste himself supposedly wrote, but if they are his it is curious that they do not figure in the part of the manuscript with the text of the

 —— 

249

Why were Basingstoke and the bishop so interested in making the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs available to literate people in Western Europe? According to Matthew Paris, the translation was meant to strengthen the Christian faith and cause confusion to the Jews. There has been some debate about whether Grosseteste also hoped to convert Jews, but it seems more likely that his intent was apologetic—to show that the Jews were wrong to reject the Savior predicted by their own ancestors.¹⁶ His confidence in the authenticity of the Testaments—that it contains the actual words of Jacob’s sons, though the book was not part of Scripture—was to be shared for the next several centuries. Since the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs became available in Western Europe at a relatively early time, it had experienced a long history of study before Charles trained his critical eyes on it. Matthew Paris had reported that the book contained prophecies of the Savior and that the Jews had therefore suppressed it. He also said that Greeks had translated it from Hebrew. These two topics—the nature of the messianic prophecies and whether Hebrew was the original language—became central points of debate. One early treatment of the Testaments following its introduction into Western Europe came from the Oxford scholar Johannes Ernestus Grabius (Grabe, 1666–1711), the author of Spicilegium SS. Patrum (1698, second edition, 1714).¹⁷ He argued with some hesitation that the Testaments was indeed a Jewish work written in Hebrew but that, far from including prophecies of Christ, its predictive passages were Christian interpolations into the Jewish composition. He observed that patristic references to the book placed it with other pre-Christian Jewish works and that, while some of its messianic expressions were Jewish (e.g., T. Reuben 6:12 where the messiah seems to be pictured as a warrior), others were added to the Jewish work by a Christian. He was able to adduce Rabbinic passages that parallel a number of the messianic statements in the Testaments, thus showing that they certainly could be Jewish. The view that had stood since the thirteenth century—that the Testaments was a Jewish work prophesying the coming of Christ—was Testaments. Grosseteste’s translation and the parts excerpted from it by Vincent de Beauvais, perhaps in 1253, both proved very popular and were frequently copied and translated (de Jonge, “La bibliothèque de Michel Choniatès,” 195). ¹⁶ Marinus de Jonge, “Robert Grosseteste and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” Journal of Theological Studies 42 (1991) 115–25. ¹⁷ Grabe wrote Spicilegium SS. Patrum in three volumes (Oxoniae: e Theatro Sheldoniano). Charles referred to the posthumous 1714 edition. In the first volume Grabe, besides treating problems connected with the Testaments and many other subjects, published the Greek text (using manuscript b but including the variants of a, a copy in the Bodleian Library) and Grosseteste’s Latin rendering. Hence, his was the first publication of the Greek text.

250    ( – ) altered in a major way by Grabe: it was a Jewish work, but certain of the prophecies it now contains were spliced into it by a Christian. Some decades after Grabe’s work, Heinrich Corrodi (1752–93) wrote in opposition to his conclusions.¹⁸ He argued that if the presence of Jewish elements in a text entailed that it was Jewish, a composition like the New Testament Revelation of John would have to be considered Jewish. He believed the Testaments was a Jewish Christian writing and that the notion of a warrior messiah does not constitute contrary evidence because it is found in the Book of Revelation as well. More importantly, neither Grabe nor Corrodi thought it furnished authentic predictions about Jesus Christ. For the next century or so, Corrodi’s thesis that the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs was an early Christian work¹⁹ stood as the dominant position. There was disagreement about the identity of the Christian group to which the author belonged (Jewish Christian, Gentile Christian), but the text was understood to be an intriguing expression of what some early Christians believed, including a patripassianistic Christology. In his history of research on the Testaments, H. Dixon Slingerland summed up the period as “1820–1883: Is the Testaments a Jewish-Christian or a Gentile-Christian Document?”.²⁰ These appear to have been the only options. A reversal back toward Grabe’s view resulted from the work of Friedrich Schnapp who devoted a short (88 pages) book²¹ to the evolution of the Testaments. A survey of recent views on the problem—with the many proposals about the sort of Christian who had written it—led him to posit that uncertainties arose because scholars assumed the text was a unity when it was not. With Grabe, he believed a Jewish text had grown through interpolations and demonstrated his position, first by studying the Testament of Levi and then the other relevant material. He established internal criteria for detecting interpolations and concluded that the base work focused on the lives of the patriarchs and their moral advice. To this text Jewish apocalyptic lines were added (they were not part of the original as Grabe thought) and Christian interpolations were placed in those additions. Schnapp’s arguments proved so influential that they led to a fundamental change in the scholarly consensus.²²

¹⁸ Kritische Geschichte des Chiliasmus (Frankfort/Leipzig [no publisher given], 1781). ¹⁹ It was usually dated to the late first or more likely to the second century .. ²⁰ The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical History of Research (Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 21; Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1977) 8–18. Slingerland’s book has been very helpful in preparing my survey of scholarship undertaken before Charles. ²¹ Die Testamente der Zwölf Patriarchen untersucht (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1884). ²² Schnapp also contributed the section on the Testaments in Kautzsch, editor, Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments, 2.458–506.

 —— 

251

This was the state of affairs when Charles started to study the Testaments (for Frederick Conybeare’s essays on the Armenian version, see below).

The 1899 Article His first published statement about the Testaments appeared in cols. 237–41 of his “Apocalyptic Literature” (cols. 213–50) in Cheyne and Black, editors, Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. 1 (1899). There he briefly described its contents and explained that the original Jewish work, composed around the beginning of the Christian era, was later enlarged by Jewish interpolations and subsequently by several Christian additions. He also surveyed the ancient names for and attestations of the book, the history of scholarship on it, and the manuscript evidence for it.

The 1902 Article Charles’s second treatment was published three years later in another reference work: “Testaments of the XII Patriarchs,” in Hastings, editor, A Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 4 (New York: Charles Scribners’ Sons, 1902) 721–5. The entry is in some respects a repetition of what he had written in the 1899 article and in others it advances beyond it. It so happened that in the period between when he finished the one and completed the other new textual material had come to his attention, and scholarship on the Testaments had taken several steps forward. In 1902 Charles continued to maintain that the Testaments was a Jewish work into which first Jewish and then Christian interpolations were made, but by this time he had developed a clearer idea of when the base text was written. 1. The original Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs was composed late in the second century .. It reflects the multiple offices, including that of prophet, held by John Hyrcanus (135–104 ..), and by him alone, and glorifies Maccabean rule. Into this work a Jewish interpolator, working in the mid-first century .. (60–40), inserted anti-Hasmonean sections. (Charles’s dating of the base text to the late second century makes me wonder whether he meant this essay, not the previous one, when he wrote about first discerning the correct date for Jubilees [above, Part 2 Chapter 2].)

252    ( – ) 2. Wilhelm Bousset had recently argued that the Christian interpolations came from a single writer (that is, Schnapp’s view),²³ but Charles insisted, as he had in 1899, that conflicts between the teachings of the various Christian interpolations betrayed the presence of several hands. 3. He was able to elaborate further on some of the ancient versions of the Testaments. In the 1899 article he said nothing about an Aramaic text related to the Testaments, but he had now learned of a discovery that had just recently been announced (see below). He added that the only Syriac fragment of the text, preserving a short passage differing in wording from the other ancient versions, agreed in its readings with the new Aramaic piece. Furthermore, an edition of the Armenian version that he had mentioned as forthcoming in 1899 had appeared; there seemed to be two recensions among the several Armenian manuscripts. Charles, who knew of four Greek copies at the time of the 1899 article, noted that other manuscripts existed but had not yet been published. 4. Charles had more to say in 1902 regarding the teachings of the Testaments. He wrote about its eschatology, its understandings of the three or seven heavens, and its view concerning the reunited twelve tribes of Israel. In the 1902 entry, Charles referred to the contributions of Frederick C. Conybeare who had written several studies on the Armenian version of the Testaments.²⁴ In “On the Jewish Authorship of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” Jewish Quarterly Review 5 (1893) 375–98,²⁵ Conybeare accepted Grabe’s approach to the text and believed the Armenian translation, made from a Greek text in the fifth or sixth century, provided evidence to back it. He was able to show, by comparing the readings in two Armenian copies ²³ “Die Testamente der XII Patriarchen: I. Die Ausscheidung der christlichen Interpolationen,” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 1 (1900) 141–75. The second part of his article appeared in the same volume: “Die Testamente der XII Patriarchen: II. Composition und Zeit der jüdischen Grundschrift,” 187–209. ²⁴ Charles also wrote appreciatively of the work of Erwin Preuschen, “Die armenische Übersetzung der Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen,” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 1 (1900) 106–40. Preuschen, among other points, showed there were two recensions present among the Armenian manuscripts. ²⁵ Others of his publications were: “A Collation of Sinker’s Texts of the Testaments of Reuben and Simeon with the Old Armenian Version,” Jewish Quarterly Review 8 (1896) 260–8 (using four Armenian manuscripts, he collated them against Sinker’s Greek text [for this, see below] of the two testaments named in the title); and “A Collation of Armenian Texts of the Testaments of (1) Judah; (2) Dan; (3) Joseph; (4) Benjamin,” Jewish Quarterly Review 8 (1896) 471–85 (a continuation of the previous exercise with four other testaments). Both studies provided experts with information about the readings in the Armenian version of which there was, at the time, no published edition.

 —— 

253

with those in the Greek version, that some of the most telltale Christian passages in the Greek were not present in the Armenian text. As he saw the matter, the text reflected in the Armenian version demonstrated that, when the translation was made, the process of Christian interpolation had begun but had not gone as far as it did in the surviving Greek manuscripts. The recently published Aramaic text, to which Charles alluded in the 1902 article, introduced an entirely new element into study of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Two years earlier, Herbert Leonard Pass²⁶ and J. Arendzen had issued a study of one complete manuscript leaf and part of a second containing an Aramaic text whose content was related to passages in the Testament of Levi and perhaps that of Judah.²⁷ The authors wrote about their fragment: “The MS. from which our text is taken is one of the many treasures which are contained in the ‘Taylor-Schechter’ collection of MSS. brought by Prof. Schechter from the Cairo Genizah in 1896, and now in the University Library at Cambridge; we owe it to the kindness of these gentlemen that we are enabled to give this fragment to the public” (651). In a footnote, Pass added that “It was my good fortune to discover the MS. in February last” (651). The Taylor-Schechter collection was named after the Hebraist Charles Taylor, Master of St. John’s College, Cambridge from 1881 to 1908, and Solomon Schechter, Reader in Rabbinics at Cambridge since 1892. With Taylor’s generous support, financial and otherwise, Schechter had traveled to Egypt in 1896–97 to search for the source from which a series of texts (about 100) had been surfacing in Cambridge and Oxford starting in 1891. Schechter had been alerted to the likelihood that they came from Cairo by those intrepid twin sisters Margaret Gibson and Agnes Lewis.²⁸ They had included Cairo in their latest journey to the Near East (in 1896) and had acquired a number of manuscripts and fragments there. Upon their return to Cambridge with their purchases, they invited Schechter to examine some of them, and among them he found a fragment of the Hebrew version of the Wisdom of Ben Sira. Schechter, who at the time was embroiled in a dispute about whether ²⁶ He “was a student of Jews’ College, the Orthodox London seminary, who continued his studies at Cambridge and, having there converted to Christianity, was ordained as an Anglican priest in 1916” (Stefan C. Reif, A Jewish Archive from Old Cairo: The History of Cambridge University’s Genizah Collection [Culture and Civilisation in the Middle East; Richmond, Surrey: Curzon, 2000] 66). At the time of the article, he was a temporary employee of the University Library of Cambridge. He largely dealt with material from the Hebrew Bible and prepared a summary of the biblical contents of the Taylor-Schechter collection (more on this below) as well as apocryphal and pseudepigraphal material, and so on (238). ²⁷ “Fragment of an Aramaic Text of the Testament of Levi,” Jewish Quarterly Review 12 (1900) 651–61. They did not include a photograph of the fragment. ²⁸ In the literature, the Smith sisters are called by their married names, though both marriages lasted only a short time due to the deaths of their husbands.

254    ( – ) Hebrew was the original language of the book, eagerly made the journey to Egypt where he learned of the genizah²⁹ in the Ben Ezra synagogue located in Old Cairo (Fustat). He gained permission from the rabbi and leaders of the congregation to study the thousands of texts in it and to take as many of them as he wished. He would later send some 140,000 items from the genizah to the University Library.³⁰ Among those nearly innumerable scraps, Pass found the Aramaic fragment that he and Arendzen published. In their article the two dated the handwriting on the fragment no later than the eleventh century .. (651). A major issue was how the Aramaic text related to the Testament of Levi known especially from the Greek and Armenian versions. The title of their article, “Fragment of an Aramaic Text of the Testament of Levi,” implies that they thought it preserved part of the Semitic original of the work. Some of their comments indicate the same. For example, they noted that a comparison of the Armenian with the Greek version disclosed that the writer of the Greek handled his material with considerable freedom, both omitting from, adding to, and remoulding the original text. It was therefore to be expected that the Aramaic Text should show some considerable divergence from the Greek, and this will be seen to be the case, although their verbal identity in many places is an almost certain testimony to their common origin. (652)

They placed the Aramaic (from the full leaf) and corresponding Greek text (from Testament of Levi 11–13) side by side to show their relationship. This involved some rearranging of the Greek since the material in the Aramaic was not always in the same order and some passages were lacking. To show how the relevant Greek text actually read they appended its full form to their essay (661). They were unable to find matching Greek text for the words on the small piece of the second leaf but thought it belonged to an autobiographical section, since it seemed to be related to the events at Shechem (Genesis 34) in which Levi played a principal role, while it also bore some resemblance to Testament of Judah 5 (652–3). In addition, they reproduced the text of the one Syriac fragment, a text with which the Aramaic agreed closely (657). ²⁹ A genizah is a storage place for manuscripts no longer in use but which, for various reasons, it was thought improper to destroy. ³⁰ For a detailed account about Taylor, Schechter, and the Cairo Genizah, see Reif, A Jewish Archive from Old Cairo, 47–97. Reif also describes the contributions of Mrs. Gibson and Mrs. Lewis (75–8) and their visit to see Schechter in Cairo (81). There is a fuller picture of their part in the events in Janet Soskice, The Sisters of Sinai: How Two Lady Adventurers Discovered the Hidden Gospels (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2009) 22–37.

 —— 

255

The 1904–05 Article Charles’s next study of the Testaments appeared as “The Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs,” Hibbert Journal 3 (1904–05) 558–73.³¹ He wrote that his aim was “to introduce the reader to a veritable romance in the region of ancient religious literature” (558). After summarizing the three parts of each testament, he briefly sketched the early references to the work and the story about the translation by Grosseteste in 1242 (it was cited above). He noted that its messianic prophecies were for a long time understood, as in the account given by Matthew Paris, to be genuine predictions of Christ. Later, however, they became a reason why students of the Testaments decided it was not a Jewish work but the product of a Jewish Christian author. To illustrate the nature of the material, he cited some of the prophecies in question. He held that these could only have been written by Christians while only a Pharisaic Jew could have written most of the book. To explain how the Jewish and Christian (“a dozen or more clauses,” 560)³² parts of the work came to be included in it, he summarized the main lines in the history of scholarship on the Testaments (see above, especially for Grabe, Corrodi, and Schnapp who returned to Grabe’s hypothesis “but developed it to rather illegitimate extremes” [561]). All the textual evidence, especially that of the Armenian version, led to the conclusion that several Christians had added material to an originally Jewish text. Grabe had maintained that the Testaments was written in Hebrew, but his successors opted for Greek as the language of composition. Two Jewish scholars (Kohler³³ and Gaster³⁴) had recently revived the idea of a Hebrew

³¹ Charles did include a short section on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in his essay “Apocalyptic and Apocryphal Literature” in Encyclopaedia Britannica (10th ed.; edited by Donald Mackenzie Wallace, Arthur T. Hadley, and Hugh Chisholm; Edinburgh/London: Adam & Charles Black, London: ‘The Times’ Printing Company, 1902–3), 25.486–500. The paragraphs about the Testaments (pp. 492–3) cover the earliest references to it, the translation by Grosseteste, the three elements in each testament, a brief history of scholarship, its original language, versions, and date. ³² As we will see, the number of Christian interpolations would grow in Charles’s subsequent analyses. ³³ Kaufman Kohler, “The Pre-Talmudic Haggada,” Jewish Quarterly Review 5 (1893) 399–419. He included the Testaments (400–6) among several texts that he adduced to draw the attention of scholars to midrashim that, he believed, dated from Maccabean times and thus to illuminate the subject of early haggada (that is, story or narrative). Presumably if, as he thought, the Testaments was written during the reign of John Hyrcanus, the author composed it in Hebrew. ³⁴ Moses Gaster, “The Hebrew Text of One of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archeology 16 (1893) 33–49. Gaster argued that the Testaments was thoroughly Hebrew, and that the Greek translator had horribly abused the Hebrew original. He also published a translation of a Hebrew Testament of Naphtali that he took to be the original behind the Greek

256    ( – ) original but had failed to offer compelling evidence. Charles said he had been studying the question for several years and added in a footnote that The present writer hopes within the next twelve months to publish, through the Oxford University Press, a critical edition of the Greek text, with the supplementary evidence of the Armenian and Slavonic versions and of the Hebrew and Aramaic fragments; and also a translation and commentary, through Messrs A. & C. Black. (562; they appeared in 1908)

In the article, he summarized the evidence for a Hebrew original, the most convincing being the obscure passages in the Greek that, upon being retroverted into Hebrew, became clear in meaning (562). He followed this with several examples, some of which involve disagreements between the two groups of Greek manuscripts. The next point he attempted to establish was that “the book was written by a priest who was also a Pharisee; for it emphasises the distinctive doctrines which marked off the Pharisees from the Sadducean party” (564). He highlighted places where the text exalts Levi and his descendants, picturing them as priests and warriors. However, there are other passages (the Jewish interpolations) that speak very negatively of the Maccabean priests, criticizing the members of the dynasty (“the basest of men,” 566) who ruled in the first century .. So, the author of the original text must have written in the second century when the Pharisees still supported the Hasmonean dynasty, not in the first century when they were often at odds with representatives of it. Moreover, Testament of Levi 8:15 ascribes to one of the high priests prophetic gifts along with kingship; this could only have been John Hyrcanus the dates of whose rule Charles gave as 137–105 .. “The discovery of the true date of the Testaments has transformed this work from being a mere literary curiosity of the second century .. into an historical document of first-class importance of the second century ..” (566). According to Charles, the teachings about a priestly messiah were conditioned by or a reflection of the positions held by the Maccabean high priests of the second century (here he quoted Testament of Levi 18). Testament of Naphtali. The two testaments differ in major ways; Gaster blamed all the differences on the challenged Greek translator and others who corrupted the text. He added the novel suggestion that the Testaments was originally a part of Jubilees. On pp. 109–17 of the same journal and volume he published the Hebrew text with notes. A German translation (by Kautzsch) of this Testament of Naphtali was included in Schnapp’s “Die Testamente der 12 Patriarchen,” in Kautzsch, editor, Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments, 2.489–94, where it appears after his rendering of the Greek Testament of Naphtali. Gaster’s thesis that the Hebrew text was the original behind the Greek Testament of Naphtali has not fared well in scholarship on the Testaments, although the composition is frequently mentioned and even translated in publications on it (see below).

 —— 

257

Charles devoted the final pages of the article to three points. As for the first, “the use of the Testaments as a handbook of morals in the Jewish Church” (568), the Talmud seems to refer to the confessions about unchastity uttered by Reuben and Judah in their testaments. It says that a judge should reference these examples when urging a suspected adulteress to confess her sin (Kohler had cited the Talmudic passage, b. Sota 7b and related it to the Testaments). Second, Charles adduced passages where he thought New Testament writers were influenced by the Testaments. He collected a number of verses and expressions from the Pauline Epistles that resemble the wording of lines in the Testaments (e.g., 2 Corinthians 6:14–15 and Testament of Levi 19:1). The author of the Epistle of James could have used the work, and the writers of the Gospels of John and Matthew may have as well. Charles brought the section to a close by listing passages suggesting that “the great doctrine of forgiveness as taught by our Lord was in part the same with and in part a development of that taught in the Test. Gad vi. 3–7” (571). The passage teaches that the offended party was to forgive a person who confessed his sin against him. He compared it with Luke 17:8 and Matthew 18:15. For the meaning of forgiveness in both cases is the highest and noblest known to us—namely, the restoring the offender to communion with us, which he had forfeited through his offence. This is the essence of the doctrine of forgiveness—God’s restoration of us to communion with Him—a communion from which our sin had exiled us. I confess that until I had studied this passage in the Testaments I had regarded our Lord’s teaching in this matter as unique. (572)

His language here is reminiscent of a point that he underscored in several of the messages in his 1887 collection Forgiveness and Other Sermons. More briefly, Charles treated the third topic, the ethical teachings in the Testaments. Here he quoted passages condemning such evils as hatred and envy. He ended the essay by citing the glorification of wisdom in Testament of Levi 13:3–4, 7–8.

The 1907 Article Charles’s name next appeared in connection with the Testaments in 1907 when he co-authored an article with Arthur Ernest Cowley, a Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, and expert in Semitic languages. The essay is

258    ( – ) “An Early Source of the Testaments of the Patriarchs [sic],” Jewish Quarterly Review 19 (1907) 566–83 (with photographs of cols. a and b of the Aramaic manuscript in question). Charles had been grateful for Cowley’s help with some earlier projects³⁵ and was now working with him on a newly available text. Their article built upon the one by Pass and Arendzen, as they acknowledge, although they credit only Pass with the earlier publication. Charles and Cowley offered some additional text from the manuscript to which the Pass/ Arendzen fragment belonged. With Pass’s permission, they reprinted his fragmentary text altered by corrections made by Pass and by Charles/ Cowley. Into it they integrated the remains of several columns that had come to their attention. Charles/Cowley are not very forthcoming in the article about how they happened upon the new Aramaic evidence and who contributed what to the essay. They wrote only: “The remaining part of the Aramaic is contained in a single leaf found some time later among the Geniza fragments in the Bodleian Library, and briefly described in the Catalogue, No. 2835, 27” (566).³⁶ The new Aramaic lines were not the only supplements to the fragment that Pass and Arendzen had published. Charles/Cowley made reference to an unusual text made available by Kirsopp Lake who had photographed a manuscript of the Greek Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs at Mount Athos in Greece. It “proved to contain a long passage not found in any other known MS., but agreeing, where the two overlap, word for word with the Aramaic, and clearly derived from the same source” (566–7). There is more information about the roles of Charles, Cowley, and Lake in Charles’s edition of the Testaments published in 1908. There he wrote about the new Aramaic text (after a reference to Pass’s work): “The Oxford fragment was found some time later by Mr. Cowley among the Geniza fragments in the Bodleian Library, and briefly described in the Catalogue, 2835, 27” (The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, liii). Then, regarding the 1907 article they co-authored, Charles explained: “The deciphering and translation of the Oxford fragment was almost wholly the task of Mr. Cowley, my

³⁵ For example, in the Preface to his 1902 The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis, ix, he thanked Cowley for “his help in verifying references in the Talmud”; and in his 1906 The Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch, he was grateful to him for “revising the reconstructions of the Semitic original in the first thirty chapters” (iv). ³⁶ Texts from the Cairo Genizah reached several European centers, including the Bodleian Library, when travelers returned from Egypt with fragments and even complete manuscripts in their possession. One person who sold fragments to the Bodleian was Rabbi Solomon Aaron Wertheimer from Jerusalem; another was the Assyriologist Archibald Henry Sayce (Reif, A Jewish Archive from Old Cairo, 16, 83).

 —— 

259

part being limited to occasional suggestions and corrections, and attempts at getting behind the Aramaic and Greek fragments to the original presupposed by them” (liii).³⁷ As for the Greek manuscript that Lake had photographed, Charles reported: “The Greek fragment [the extra portion in the copy of the Testaments] was found by me in a tenth century MS. of the Testaments, which Professor Lake photographed for me on Mount Athos” (liii).³⁸ He added that the additional fragment “is interpolated in the midst of a verse in the Testament of Levi, i.e. xviii. 2” (liii). Charles was thus being assisted in his work by two younger scholars, both of whom had Oxford connections. The central contribution of the Charles/Cowley article was to present much more of the manuscript to which Pass and Arendzen had drawn attention. To the Cambridge fragment they could now add several columns and also the Greek unit that agreed with the Aramaic where it existed (they reproduced only those parts of the Greek with Aramaic parallels). They were able to infer the order of the columns preserved in the Cambridge and Oxford fragments and to estimate how much was lacking between the extant pieces. After supplying all of the surviving textual information, they gave a translation of the Aramaic text. The title of the Charles/Cowley article shows that they assessed the Aramaic text (with Greek parallels) differently than Pass and Arendzen. The latter proposed that the Aramaic was part of the original text behind the Greek translation of the Testaments, whereas Charles/Cowley regarded it as “An Early Source of the Testaments of the Patriarchs.” So, for them, the Aramaic work now partially available was consulted by the writer of the Testaments; it was not a text that he authored. They phrased the matter in this way: The common source of these Greek and Aramaic texts is not the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs, but a work based partly on the Testaments and partly on the Book of Jubilees, or else a work from which the authors of these books drew some of their materials. The evidence is decidedly in favour of the latter alternative, and therefore postulates a date not later than 150 .. (567)

³⁷ Cowley (1861–1931) had been working with the genizah material in the Bodleian Library for some time. Soon after Schechter announced the existence of a fragment of ben Sira in Hebrew, Cowley and Adolf Neubauer (1832–1907) published another genizah contribution to the text in The original Hebrew of a portion of Ecclesiasticus (XXXIX.15 to XLIX.11) together with the early versions and an English Translation; followed by the quotations from ben Sira in rabbinical literature (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1897). Cowley had, by the time he and Charles co-authored the article, already produced his translation from German of Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (1898 for the first edition from the Clarendon Press) and would later (1923) issue the widely used Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century .. (also from the Clarendon Press). ³⁸ Kirsopp Lake (1872–1946), who held degrees from Oxford, was very active in visiting libraries in Europe and the Near East as well as the one at Mount Athos and photographing manuscripts in them.

260    ( – ) The next question they addressed concerned the original language of the Aramaic work that was now coming into focus. Oddly enough, they (perhaps this was just Charles’s contribution) did not think the author composed it in Aramaic; rather, the Aramaic was translated from a Hebrew original (just as, on Charles’s view, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs was originally in Hebrew). They (Charles?) cited some examples of what they took to be mistranslations or mis-readings that could be explained by assuming an underlying Hebrew text, but there is some dubious argumentation in the section. An egregious instance concerns a list of twelve trees whose names imply that the author wrote in Aramaic. . . . the list of trees in the Greek corresponding to Bodleian col. c shows several transliterations of Aramaic names of trees. But this argument is not conclusive. For it would not be unnatural to use, even in a Hebrew document, in the second century . the popular Aramaic names of trees, where a large number is given. Moreover in certain cases the Hebrew name may either have been forgotten or have become so unfamiliar as to make it advisable to give the ordinary names which these trees bore even amongst the minority who knew Hebrew. (568)

Since the list of trees figures among priestly instructions—it names the trees whose wood is fit for incinerating sacrifices—it seems unlikely a Hebrew writer would resort to allegedly more popular Aramaic terms for them.

The Books The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs translated from the editor’s Greek text and edited, with introduction, notes, and indices by R. H. Charles, D. Litt., D. D., Grinfield Lecturer on the Septuagint, Oxford, Fellow of the British Academy (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1908). Charles’s years of research into the Testaments and related literature culminated in two volumes that appeared in 1908. The book containing the translation and commentary was published first. Charles dated the Preface to October 2, 1907 and dedicated the book to his wife. In an aside, he commented that the labor on the text had been heavy indeed, but the “joy of discovery” compensated for it. Or, as he put it, “The pleasures of fox-hunting are not to be compared with those of the student in full quest of some truth, some new fact showing itself for the first time within his intellectual horizon. But to return” (vii).

 —— 

261

Charles wrote about the difficulties besetting earlier attempts to solve the many problems raised by the Testaments and the positive contributions made by Schnapp, Conybeare, Kohler, Gaster, and Bousset—“and not a few of the conclusions arrived at by these scholars have been confirmed by my own investigations” (vii). He declared that the “main questions as regards the date, original language, and object of the author, are, I am convinced, now practically settled beyond the range of dispute” (vii). The volume supplied all the textual information (in translation) needed to address other kinds of problems. He clearly thought that the great turning point in scholarship on the Testaments had at last taken place. From the time of Grosseteste to the previous decade, the Testaments was “a sealed book, misunderstood and misdated on every hand. The research of the last few years has, however, as I have just indicated, succeeded in discovering its true date, purpose, and character” (viii). A “Chasid,” that is, an early Pharisee, had written it toward the end of the second century ..³⁹ “on behalf of the high-priesthood of the great Maccabean family, and especially on behalf of the Messianic claims of John Hyrcanus” (viii).⁴⁰ The Testaments made this clear, but the book’s even greater significance was being the sole representative of the loftiest ethical standard ever attained by pre-Christian Judaism, and, as such, attesting the existence of a type of religious thought in pre-Christian Judaism that was the natural preparation for the ethics of the New Testament, and especially of the Sermon on the Mount. (viii; see also xvii)

Charles’s long Introduction covers the expected topics. Once he had sketched the basics about the Testaments and his views concerning it, he turned in the next ten sections to the textual witnesses. He described the Greek copies but left aside for the time being a study of their interrelations so that he could first survey the manuscripts of the other versions. By 1908 he was aware of nine Greek copies of the Testaments (labeled a–i), each of which he described (xviii–xxii). His notes on some of them reveal the role of photography in his work—and how the results of technology at times fell short of expectations. Regarding manuscript b—the one used by Grosseteste in making his Latin translation—he wrote that it formed the text of the only recent

³⁹ On p. xv he dated it between 109 and 106 .. ⁴⁰ Exactly where anyone, Hyrcanus or others, made Messianic claims about him, besides the passages in the Testaments that Charles so interpreted, he did not say.

262    ( – ) edition of the Greek Testaments. Robert Sinker (1838–1913) of Trinity College, Cambridge had prepared Testamenta XII patriarcharum ad fidem codicis Cantabrigiensis edita; accedunt lectiones Cod. Oxoniensis; The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs; An attempt to estimate their historic and dogmatic worth (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell; London: Bell and Daldy, 1869).⁴¹ While he had accurately reproduced the text of manuscript b (he designated it C), he had also collated the readings of manuscript a (the Oxford copy mentioned in the book title) and had apparently not been as careful with it. Nevertheless Charles, on the basis of a report by M. R. James regarding Sinker’s work with b—“Dr. James has tested its accuracy for me, and found it to be above all praise,” xix—used Sinker’s transcription for the readings of this manuscript. Charles regarded his c (Vatican Library, Cod. Graec. 731) as the “most important of all the MSS” (xix).⁴² Although Sinker, in his supplementary volume, had included Guidi’s collation of its readings, Charles arranged to have a photograph of the manuscript made for him in Rome. Manuscript d, another Vatican copy, had been collated by Conybeare, “but I thought it advisable to have the MS. photographed for this edition” (xx). His e was the manuscript Kirsopp Lake had photographed on Mount Athos for him. Here Charles supplied more information about it than he had in the article he wrote with Cowley. It so happens that the manuscript contains not one but three major additions to the Greek text of the Testaments: at Testament of Levi 2:3 a prayer of Levi is inserted; at 18:2 the supplement that matches the Aramaic text finds its place; and at Testament of Asher 7:2 there are “22/3 columns of certain Christian disquisitions on love and the Trinity” (xx). Manuscript f from Paris was one that Sinker had collated in 1887, according to Charles, but had never published the results of his work; Charles had it photographed. ⁴¹ The English part of the title refers to an essay that he inserted before his edition of the text, and which had won the Norissian Prize in 1868. Sinker said of his edition that he rarely evaluated the worth of variants between the two manuscripts; he simply recorded their readings, b in the text and a (O for him) in the notes (vi). Ten years later Sinker published a supplement: Testamenta XII Patriarcharum; Appendix containing a Collation of the Roman and Patmos MSS. and Bibliographical Notes (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell; London: Bell, 1879; the two manuscripts he mentions have the sigla c and g in Charles’s list, see below). Sinker had not actually seen either of the two manuscripts of which he had become aware after 1869 (p. v) but received a collation of the Roman copy from Ignazio Guidi and a transcript of the Patmos manuscript from George Williams, with assistance from the Metropolitan of Chios (Patmos was in his jurisdiction). In his seventy-nine-page supplement, Sinker listed the variants of the two manuscripts and prefaced to these collations his bibliographical notes about each of the versions, including the Armenian (pp. 23–7). He believed that the Testaments was a Christian work written in Greek. Consistent with this view, he translated it into English in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library (edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; Edinburgh: Clark, 1871), vol. XXII, vol. II, 7–79 (this second book under the designation volume XXII includes “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and Fragments of the Second and Third Centuries”). ⁴² In neither of his books on the Testaments did he explain why c was the most important manuscript.

 —— 

263

Manuscript g from Patmos was one of the two Sinker collated in his supplement. The last two Greek copies came from St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai. The first (h), which lacks the end of the text (after Testament of Joseph 15:7), “was copied for Dr. Sinker by Mrs. Gibson in Feb. 1892. This copy, together with photographs of T. Jos. i–xii. 3, xv. 1–7, Dr. Sinker most kindly placed at my disposal” (xxi). Manuscript i was found by Mrs. Gibson as she was trying to locate h on a visit to Sinai in 1906. She was searching for h, with a view to more correct collation, on my behalf. Notwithstanding every effort, she, like the Archbishop of Sinai, who had previously sought for it, failed to find it. Just before leaving Mount Sinai, however, she came across this second MS and photographed the greater part of it for me, i.e. down to T. Ash. vii. 6, when her camera broke down. Unfortunately, the negatives of T. Naph. viii. 2b–ix. 2b; T. Gad i. 9–iv. 1, v. 3b–vi. 2b; T. Ash. i. 7b–ii. 7, iv. 5–vi. 3d, were either lost or proved to be failures. When the photographs of this MS. reached me, the first ninety-six pages of my text had already passed through the press. Accordingly I have added in Appendix VI., in my edition of the Text, a collation of the Testaments of Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Jud. i–xx, where it differs from h, with which it is closely connected. (xxi–xxii)

The following section takes up the Armenian translation, the second most important witness for the Testaments. There was no need for Charles to be able to read Armenian for his previous editions, but familiarity with the language was vital for an editor of the Testaments. In the two 1908 volumes he showed that he was indeed conversant with it. He drew upon the readings of nine manuscripts, the first five of which were the textual base for the only prior edition of the version—one prepared by the Mechitarist fathers.⁴³ Charles had a very low opinion of it since the editors based it on what he considered the poorest manuscript of the second recension (e.g., xxii–xxiii, xxviii). Charles, by one means or another, was able to correct some errors in the collations of these manuscripts. Of the remaining four, he used Conybeare’s collations for two and handled the other two himself. One of the latter pair (Charles’s Af) had been photographed by Conybeare in 1891,

⁴³ H. Sargis Josepheanz in Treasury of Old and New Fathers: I., Non-Canonical Writings of the Old Testament (Venice: Mechitarist Press, 1896) 27–151.

264    ( – ) and Charles used the reproduction and at the same time exhibited his zeal for textual details. Unfortunately the negatives reproduced the pages of the Edschmiadzin MS. on so minute a scale, that it was impossible to print them. Moreover, a few of the columns were out of focus. Notwithstanding, the present editor has been able to decipher five-sixths of the text by holding the negatives between himself and the sunlight and studying the negatives letter by letter and word by word. (xxiii)

He added that he was aware of three additional copies, which he listed, but was not in a position to use. In the following section he described the two recensions of the Armenian version and their relations with the Greek copies (the Armenian generally agrees with the second class of Greek manuscripts; see below). There is some confusion in this section because, to this point, Charles had not explained the division of the Greek manuscripts into two categories (he would do that several sections later) but assumed the reader was familiar with the results and used the abbreviations for the Greek “versions” (his term) and copies that he had not yet introduced. Despite its great textual worth, Charles considered the insight the Armenian version gave into the Christian interpolations to be its real value (xxvii). He said little about it in his previous publications, but there is also a Slavonic version of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. In describing it he again assumed the reader understood his conclusions about and symbols for the Greek manuscripts (the Slavonic was translated from a Greek model). The copies of this version too mostly reflected the second type of Greek text. Morfill, who had helped him with 2 Enoch, contributed a short section on the two recensions of the Slavonic version, their origins, and the surviving copies of them (xxxi–xxxii). Once he had described the Greek manuscripts and the Armenian and Slavonic versions, Charles finally furnished his analysis of the Greek copies, how they interrelated, and the two “versions” they represented. He wrote about version α (manuscripts chi) and version β (the other six copies, among which two text types were distinguishable), finding the former to be superior (there is chart on p. xxxv). Note that in this configuration, manuscript b, the only one that had been used in previous editions, belongs to the inferior version. Charles followed the section with ones in which he listed the previous publications of the Greek text (always manuscript b) and translations of it into English and German before he turned to the relations between the Greek

 —— 

265

copies and the Hebrew text of the book.⁴⁴ However, he did not deem α and β to be recensions of a common Greek ancestor—the Greek translation from the Hebrew—but independent translations of two versions present already on the original Hebrew level of textual transmission. He first adduced the evidence that had led him to posit a Hebrew original behind the Greek (§13 [Hebrew constructions, dittographies, paronomasiae]) and then argued that “α and β derived respectively from two lost Hebrew recensions, Hα and Hβ” (this is the title of §14, p. xlvii). He cited cases in which there are different words in the two Greek versions that can be explained as representing, in the one instance, the correct Hebrew word, and in the other a look-alike Hebrew term with which the correct one was confused. The difference would not be a development on the Greek level but a reflection of variant Hebrew texts. His first example comes from Testament of Benjamin 12:2: Greek α Greek β He died in a beautiful and good sleep. Benjamin died . . . at a good old age. The Greek words for “sleep [υπνω = hupnō]” and “old age [γηρει = gērei]” are not likely to be confused (hence the difference did not evolve on the Greek level), but the two Hebrew words behind them—‫( שינה‬šēnāh) and ‫שיבה‬ (śêbāh)—are. A reasonable explanation for such pairs (he claimed there were more than thirty of them, xlviii, with a reference to §12 in his Text volume) is that Greek translations were made from Hebrew copies representing two recensions. So, the Greek α version was a rendering of Hα and Greek β of Hβ (he placed a stemma for all the versions on p. l), although the latter translator also used the α version in his work (this is how Charles accounted for the strong similarities between the two Greek versions). The section about dating the original Hebrew of the Testaments (§15) repeats the sorts of arguments he had given before in support of a point in the reign of John Hyrcanus, more specifically between 109 and 107 .. The unit (§17)⁴⁵ that he devoted to the questions of the integrity, authorship, and sources offers his thoughts, some of them surprising, about these significant topics.

⁴⁴ In another strange decision about order, Charles inserted “§12 Critical Inquiries” between the sections he devoted to the Greek manuscripts, editions, and translations (§§9–11) and the ones (§§13–14) in which he dealt with the relations between the Greek and Hebrew. ⁴⁵ “§16 Title of the Book” is really short, since there is little variation in the name given the work in the few ancient references to it.

266    ( – ) The groundwork, which consists of about eleven-twelfths of the Testaments, after the removal of the Jewish and Christian additions . . . , presents, it must be confessed, a want of coherence at times, and the parts dealing with the duty of submission to Levi, or to Levi and Judah jointly, come in occasionally very abruptly. Notwithstanding, the present editor adheres to the idea of the unity of the book; for the two phenomena referred to—the strictly Chasid element in the book, and its loyal acceptance of the Maccabean dynasty— were exactly characteristic of the period to which our author belongs, and to none other before or after. Furthermore, both these parts of the book are alike universalistic in tone. On the other hand, much of the unevenness of the book may be due to faulty transmission. (liv–lv)

Naturally, the author of this groundwork drew upon sources (e.g., the Levi text attested by Aramaic and Greek fragments) in composing his book. Charles thought the Greek version was made prior to 50 .. because Paul used it (the apostle was familiar with the α version). Whether Jesus’s words drawn from the Testaments reflect the first Hebrew version or its Greek translation,⁴⁶ he was not sure. Charles had mentioned the presence of Jewish interpolations in his various publications on the Testaments, just as his predecessors had, but in §19 he provided a full list of them (lvii–lix). He found eleven that were added between 70 and 40 .. These were characterized by their anti-Maccabean sentiments (much like the Psalms of Solomon), their claims that a messiah would come from Judah rather than Levi, and their citations from the Book of Enoch. He distinguished a second set of six Jewish additions coming from different dates but not echoing the themes of the first set. The much-debated category of Christian additions is the subject of §20 (lxi–lxv). By this time he had identified thirty-two of them but granted that some identifications were more convincing than others. It will be recalled that a number of them are lacking in the Armenian version. Examples of what Charles considered Christian interpolations in the Greek copies include two lines found in Testament of Levi 4:4 (using the translations in his notes to the passage, p. 37): “All the nations in the tender mercies of His Son,” and “Nevertheless thy sons shall lay hands upon Him and crucify Him.”

⁴⁶ Presumably, it would have been used when Jesus’s words were translated into Greek in the Gospels.

 —— 

267

Sections 21–23 of the Introduction treat three other texts that have some relation with the Testaments. (1) The Testament of Judah tells stories about wars fought by Jacob and his sons against different enemies; parallels occur in the Book of Jubilees and Midrash Way-yissa’u. Charles thought the writers of all three drew on a common source for this material. (2) The Hebrew Testament of Naphtali, which Gaster claimed was the original behind the Greek translation, was not that, but it was in “part based directly or indirectly on the primitive Hebrew text from which the Greek text was translated” (lxvii). Moreover, the Hebrew of Gaster’s text was late, and his Testament of Naphtali did not end like all twelve Testaments do. Finally, (3) the Aramaic text about Levi (with parallels and supplements in the Greek copy from Mount Athos) was a source for the authors of Jubilees and the Testaments. Here Charles maintained the Mount Athos Greek is not part of a translation of the Aramaic; both are translations of a Hebrew original (lxx–lxxiv). The short twenty-fourth section lists the passages in Jewish literature that, according to Charles, were influenced by the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. After dismissing several possibilities such as Jubilees and the Psalms of Solomon, he mentioned five places in the Babylonian Talmud that “are probably to be traced to the Testaments” and four in Targum PseudoJonathan to Genesis (lxxv). The somewhat longer §25 contains those few passages in Patristic literature that betray the influence of the Testaments. Only Origen and Jerome cite it by name, as do some lists specifying that it did not belong to the canon of Scripture. If the impact of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs on Jewish and Patristic literature was slight, one would get the impression from §26 (lxxviii–xcii) that its influence on the New Testament was pervasive. Charles began by adducing lines from Matthew that resemble ones in the Testaments. “The passages in St. Matthew which show the influence of the Testaments are almost exclusively those which give the sayings and discourses of our Lord” (lxxviii). An interesting case is Matthew 22:37–9 where love of God with one’s whole heart, soul, and mind is the great and first command, and love of neighbor as oneself is likened to it. With this Charles compared Testament of Dan 5:3: “Love the Lord through all your life,/And one another with a true heart” (his translation). Anther instances is (translations are from the NRSV and Charles): Matthew 25:35, 36 Testament of Joseph 1:5, 6 . . . for I was hungry and you gave me I was beset with hunger, and the Lord food . . . I was sick and you took care of himself nourished me . . . . I was sick

268    ( – ) me, I was in prison and you visited me.

and the Lord visited me, I was in prison, and my God showed favour unto me.

He cited a strange example from the Book of Acts. In 7:16 Stephen makes a surprising claim regarding Jacob and his sons that “their bodies were brought back to Shechem and laid in the tomb that Abraham had bought for a sum of silver from the sons of Hamor in Shechem.” Although Abraham’s burial place was in the Hebron area according to Genesis 25, Charles thought that the concluding lines in each of the testaments—burying the ancestor in Hebron— were parallels to Acts 7:16: “The statement here in Acts that the bones of the patriarchs were carried up to Shechem is found first in our text” (lxxxiv). He seems to have missed the fact that Hebron and Shechem are different places. Altogether, he included forty-one readings in the Gospels and Acts for which he found parallels in the Testaments. In the Epistles attributed to Paul in the New Testament he located another thirty-six. The first two he treated are especially noteworthy because he called them “direct quotations from the Testaments” (lxxxv). 1 Thessalonians 2:16 Testament of Levi 6:11 . . . for God’s wrath has overtaken them But the wrath of the Lord [variant: at last God] came upon them to the uttermost⁴⁷ Roman 1:32 . . . yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.

Testament of Asher 6:2 . . . for they both do the evil thing and they have pleasure in⁴⁸ them that do it.

He added to the examples of Pauline parallels a list of seventy-two Greek words that are “common to the Testaments and the Pauline Epistles but are not found in the rest of the New Testament” (lxxxix; the list is on lxxxix–xc). He wrapped up the section on New Testament parallels with another fifteen in the letters of James, 1-2 Peter, Jude, and in Revelation. Critics could easily argue, and soon did, that, if the Testaments is a secondcentury .. work, the relation is reversed—the Testaments was influenced by the New Testament books. Yet, even if one agreed that the Testaments was ⁴⁷ The English translations do not reflect the fact that the verbs in the two are forms of the same word, and the Greek expression rendered “at last” and “to the uttermost” is identical in the two texts. ⁴⁸ The translations “applaud” and “have pleasure in” render the same Greek word.

 —— 

269

earlier in date than the writings of the New Testament, the parallels could be dismissed as echoes of common ethical teachings. In the case of the two “direct quotations,” it is difficult to understand why one should conclude that Paul drew such general sentiments from the Testaments. Charles, however, did not raise these issues. His only concession was to admit that some of the examples were not as convincing as others. The twenty-seventh and final section of the Introduction centers on the doctrines set forth in the Testaments. Its title is “Teaching of the Author on Forgiveness, the Two Great Commandments, Universalism, the Messiah, the Resurrection, the Antichrist, and its Influence on the New Testament” (xcii–xcix).⁴⁹ 1. Forgiveness: he contrasted what he took to be the Old Testament view— that one who receives forgiveness from God may still harbor bad feelings about others—with the New Testament theme that God’s forgiveness and one’s pardoning a neighbor go hand in hand. As he had observed in his Hibbert Journal article, there was a strong resemblance, with differences, between Testament of Gad 6:3–7 and Matthew 18:15, 35 and Luke 17:3. The noble way in Testament of Gad 6:3–7 was practiced by the Chasidim, but when Pharisaism turned more to political interests and greater concern with the letter of the law, it soon ceased to offer scope for the further development of such a lofty system of ethics as the Testaments attest, and so the true successors of the early Chasids and their teaching quitted Judaism and found their natural home in the bosom of primitive Christianity. (xciv–xcv)

2. Duty of loving God and one’s neighbor: see the passage adduced above. Here Charles added a unit, not mentioned in the section title, on “Various ethical teachings.” Among those he treated are the kinds of actions forbidden (e.g., hatred, envy) and enjoined (such as temperance) by the patriarchs in the Testaments. 3. Universalism: The original text proclaims salvation for the Gentiles as do the Jewish additions from the first century .. 4. The Messiah: The author presents a messiah from Levi, while the firstcentury supplements anticipate one from Judah. 5. The Resurrection: Both the righteous and wicked will rise; there will be a future kingdom on earth that will last forever. ⁴⁹ In the Table of Contents, the section is entitled “Jewish Theology at the Close of the Second Century .. and its Influence on New Testament Theology.”

270    ( – ) 6. Demonology (it is not included in the section title): The book has an advanced demonology and understanding of Beliar’s roles. 7. The Antichrist: Testament of Dan 5:6, a first-century addition, is the earliest source for a connection between the antichrist and the tribe of Dan. This explains the absence of Dan from the list of the twelve tribes in the Book of Revelation (7:4–8). 8. The Two Ways (also not in the section title): Testament of Asher 1:3–9 is the earliest instance of this phrase. Charles seems to have forgotten to relate most of these topics to the New Testament, despite the claims of the section title. A page explaining brackets and abbreviations separates the Introduction from the translation and commentary (1–218). The notes, as in his previous books, regularly dominate the page. In this volume too they are printed in a very small font, are replete with abbreviations, and are arranged in double columns on each page. In the translations of some of the testaments, Charles set the texts of major witnesses, when they differ in substantial ways, in parallel columns; several examples occur in the Testaments of Levi (pp. 27–36, 53–7) and Judah (pp. 74, 94–7). The notes, which are extraordinarily detailed and extensive and yet set forth with an economy of words, are a gold mine of information for clarification of the text. The book contains two appendices. The first is “Translation of a Late Hebrew Testament of Naphtali, Which Contains Fragments of the Original Testament” (221–7, Charles’s English rendering of Gaster’s Testament of Naphtali, fortified with some textual notes). He indicated in italics which parts of the text preserved bits of the original testament, and in the margins of the translation he gave references to parallels, mostly in the Greek Testament of Naphtali but elsewhere in the Testaments as well. The second appendix offers his “Translation of Aramaic and Greek Fragments of an Original Source of the Testament of Levi and the Book of Jubilees” (228–35). Here too he indicated in the margin of his translation parallels to passages in the Testaments. On pp. 237–47 are two indices (ancient texts, names and subjects); the volume ends with a few corrigenda, also on p. 247. The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, edited from nine MSS together with the Variants of the Armenian and Slavonic Versions and Some Hebrew Fragments,⁵⁰ by R. H. Charles, D. Litt., D. D., Grinfield

⁵⁰ It is strange that he did not refer to any Aramaic fragments in the book title but did mention Hebrew fragments (e.g., of midrashim with parallels to material in the Testaments), none of which he considered texts of the Testaments.

 —— 

271

Lecturer on the Septuagint, Oxford, Fellow of the British Academy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1908). The second book by Charles in 1908 was a companion to the commentary, a volume in which he established a critical Greek text of the Testaments using the evidence from all the ancient versions. The records in the Archives of Oxford University Press permit us to follow some of the planning for publication. Charles wrote on October 23, 1902 (that is, the year of his first independent article devoted to the Testaments) to Charles Cannan, who was secretary of the Press from 1898 to 1917,⁵¹ requesting that he bring to “the Delegates who control the Anecdota Series” his proposal “to prepare for the Anecdota Series the Greek Version of the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs together with the variants (in Greek) of the Armenian and Slavonic Versions of the same work, and to print in parallel columns with the above the Syriac and Aramaic fragments. . . .” He went on to describe the Greek, Armenian, and Slavonic versions and the importance of the Testaments. The Orders of the Delegates of the Press also contain entries having to do with the book. Cannan must have soon presented the proposal of October 23, 1902 to the Delegates because for their November 7, 1902 meeting the minutes record: “Prof. R. H. Charles,- Testaments of the XII Patriarchs On the proposition of Dr. Sanday, seconded by Dr. Magrath [both were Delegates of the Press], resolved to accept this book and to consider next week how it shall be listed.” At the November 14 meeting the decision was confirmed, and on December 12, 1902 the vice-chancellor signed a memorandum of agreement.⁵² Here once again Sanday⁵³ makes a positive appearance in Charles’s life. John Richard Magrath (1839–1930) was at the time the Provost of Queens College (1878–1930). From 1894 to 1920 he served as a Delegate of the Press and from 1894 to 1898 was vice-chancellor.⁵⁴ The records of the Press mention accepting a subsidy from the Hibbert Trustees toward publication of the book and refer to a letter of May 12, 1904 that seems not to be preserved. Charles, however, dealt with the subject on

⁵¹ The secretary to the Delegates was the chief executive of the Oxford University Press and the one who represented the Press to the university (“Oxford University Press,” Wikipedia, accessed 3-30-20). For the life and work of Cannan (1858–1919), see Peter Sutcliffe, The Oxford University Press: An Informal History (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978) 107–89; “Charles Cannan,” Wikipedia (accessed 4-11-20). ⁵² Despite Charles’s request, the book was not published as part of one of the Anecdota series. ⁵³ He had been a Delegate since 1896 (Sutcliffe, Oxford University Press, 115). ⁵⁴ “John Richard Magrath,” Wikipedia, accessed 4-2-2020.

272    ( – ) June 7, 1904. Writing to C. E. Doble,⁵⁵ he said that “I am glad the matter is settled regarding the publication of the Test. XII Patr. I hope to send in a formal application for a subsidy towards the publication from the Hibbert Trustees.” He also requested that his copy of “The Test. XII Patr.” be returned to him. The letter raises some questions. First, what matter was settled regarding publication of the book or rather why was there a matter to settle when the proposal had been accepted by the Press in 1902? The following sentence suggests that a subsidy was needed to cover the costs of printing something so complicated as the edition Charles was preparing. That the Press could refer to the subsidy before Charles had formally applied for it may mean that inquiries and arrangements had already been made. The subsidy from the Hibbert Trustees turned out to be £302 5s 7d. Second, one wonders what Charles meant by asking that his copy of the Testaments be returned to him. What copy would that be? He had entered into the memorandum of agreement that he would submit the “whole matter” by April 1905 (he succeeded in meeting the deadline), though some appendices and the Greek index would have to come later. So, in June of 1904 he would not have had a complete manuscript less a few isolated parts. Perhaps the copy to which he referred was a section of the edition or possibly the translation volume described above. The Press agreed to print 1000 copies, with fifty meant for presents, five hundred for Great Britain, three hundred for export, and 150 for America (apparently considered distinct from “export”). As happened more often, Charles exceeded the allotted number of corrections to the proofs and had to bear the cost for the excess. He was supposed to receive 60 percent of the profit on the book, once the account showed a net profit. The publication date was March 25, 1908. Charles dedicated the volume to four scholars who had helped him and “who have rendered yeoman service towards the recovery and elucidation of this ancient text” (iii). 1. Robert Sinker (Cambridge): As explained above, Sinker had issued the text of manuscript b with a collation of a in 1869, added a supplement with collations of two more manuscripts in 1879, and had been gathering more manuscript information since then. Charles mentioned in his

⁵⁵ Doble was appointed assistant secretary in 1879 and remained at the Press for more than thirty years. Among his duties were “ ‘to exercise a general superintendence over the printing of all Delegates books’, and to correspond with authors” (Sutcliffe, Oxford University Press, 64).

 —— 

273

1902 Encyclopaedia Britannica article “Apocalyptic and Apocryphal Literature” that “This scholar has long promised a new edition from six MSS.” (493). In the Preface to the present volume, he wrote that Sinker, “when I informed him of my intention of editing the text, most generously lent me the collation of h, the first Mt. Sinai MS., which had been made for him by Mrs. Gibson” (vi). Nearly forty years after his initial edition Sinker may have been happy to pass the torch to a younger, most energetic scholar. 2. Frederick C. Conybeare (Oxford): Charles saw in Conybeare’s work the crucial contributions that freed experts from assuming that the Testaments was a Christian text. “By means of the Armenian Version this scholar established the high probability that all the Christian allusions in the Testaments are the interpolations of Christian scribes in an originally Jewish work, and therein confirmed the earlier hypothesis of Grabe and Schnapp” (v). For the text volume, Conybeare made available to Charles his collations of three Armenian manuscripts (v). In his letter to Cannan proposing the volume Charles had said Conybeare was willing to provide him with collations of four Armenian manuscripts if needed. 3. Wilhelm Bousset (Göttingen): Bousset dated the Testaments to the second century .., with additions made in the first. He also used the Greek (preferring other manuscripts to the Cambridge text published by Sinker) and Armenian evidence to demonstrate that Christian supplements in the Testaments are not as extensive as Schnapp had thought, although some are present. Bousset accepted Charles’s argument (in the Encyclopaedia Biblica) that Hebrew was the original language of the book. “The sustained study of the intervening years has turned a good working hypothesis into an indispensable postulate” (vi). Bousset’s and Charles’s views on the Testaments had much in common. 4. William R. Morfill (Oxford): Morfill, who had been so helpful to Charles in translating Slavonic Enoch for him, had also contributed his expertise to study of the Slavonic version of the Testaments. He wrote a small unit in the Introduction to Charles’s translation and commentary (xxxi– xxxii), but he did much more for the textual project: “My warm thanks are specially due to Professor Morfill, who retranslated into Greek for this edition the two recensions of the Slavonic Version” (vi). His work may be seen in Appendices IV and V where his Greek renderings fill pp. 257–94. These generous efforts must have greatly eased the process of comparing the readings in the Greek manuscripts with those in the

274    ( – ) Slavonic copies. In his letter to Mr. Doble (June 7, 1904) Charles had referred to Morfill’s contribution: “Towards the end of the week I hope to send in Morfill’s Greek reproduction of the Slavonic Version (recension B). This is to be printed as an appendix . . . ,” Publication of a volume that involved the repeated use of several foreign scripts (Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, Armenian) and included hundreds of pages that would have been difficult to typeset was an expensive venture. Charles was grateful for a subvention from the Hibbert Trustees to offset the cost of publication (see above)—not the first time the Trust had supported his work.⁵⁶ He also thanked the readers and compositors of the Press for their skilled execution of the task. Among the others to whom he recorded his gratitude were Mrs. Gibson and Mrs. Lewis (“for the endless pains they took in securing for me a photographic reproduction of i, the second Sinai MS.” [vi]); the directors of the Paris and Vatican libraries for allowing photographs of their copies to be made; Kirsopp Lake for the photographs of the Mount Athos manuscript; and Cowley (“for his ever ready help in regard to the Aramaic fragments” [vi]). A Miss Poole received thanks for preparing the Greek index. The fact that it is twenty-five pages in length shows that she too made a sizable contribution to the book. A letter of Charles’s dated March 11, 1908, just two weeks before the publication, provides confirmation of how Charles valued her work. Writing to R. W. Chapman, who had become assistant secretary in 1906,⁵⁷ he included this paragraph: I am very much obliged indeed to the Delegates for the grant of £10 towards the expenses of indexing &c. Now that I think of Miss Poole’s work, I should be glad if the Delegates presented her with a copy of the Testaments; for I believe that it took her six weeks working four hours a day to make the Index. For such work the fee of £5 is not real remuneration. Indeed at the time I told her the fee was merely a nominal one.

⁵⁶ He had delivered the Hibbert Lectures in 1898. ⁵⁷ Sutcliffe, Oxford University Press, 119. Chapman (1881–1960) would become secretary in 1920, after returning from service in the War, and continued in the post until 1942. Sutcliffe covers his career throughout large parts of Oxford University Press, especially from p. 190 on. See also “Robert William Chapman (Scholar),” Wikipedia, accessed 4-11-20. He was an expert on Jane Austen and Samuel Johnson.

 —— 

275

In his first volume on the Testaments, Charles had notified the reader that “Some of the sections in this Introduction will of necessity appear in the Introduction to my Text, which will be published immediately by the University Press” (ix). He wrote something similar in the Preface to the present book (vi), so the very large amount of repetition between the two Introductions—it is extensive and usually verbatim—should come as no surprise. The Introduction to the translation/commentary volume has twenty-seven sections, but the Text volume has just twenty-one. Since in the latter he focused on textual issues, he left out sections about modern translations of the Greek text and the influence of the Testaments on Jewish, Patristic, and New Testament literature. He did add one new unit—§13 Linguistic Character of the Greek Version (xl–xlii). He opened the Introductions to both the first and the second volume with a section entitled “Short Account of the Book,” but the version in the Text volume provides a better statement of his views regarding the Testaments. The Testaments were originally written in Hebrew by a Pharisaic upholder of the Maccabean priest-kings in the closing years of the second century .. In the course of the next century the Hebrew text was interpolated with additions emanating from bitter opponents of the Maccabean dynasty. In the early decades of the Christian era the text was current in two forms, which are denoted by Hα and Hβ in this edition. The former of these was translated not later than .. 50 into Greek, and this translation was used by the scholar who rendered the second Hebrew recension into Greek. The first Greek translation was used by our Lord,⁵⁸ by St. Paul, and other New Testament writers. In the second and following centuries it was interpolated by Christian scribes, and finally condemned indiscriminatingly along with other apocryphs. (ix)

The next sections that introduce the versions and the surviving copies of each are mostly word-for-word reproductions of the corresponding sections in the first volume. Little time separated the two publications, so there were no new manuscript discoveries to describe and include in the analyses of the versions. ⁵⁸ This is a little different than what he wrote in the translation volume. There he commented that if the Greek expression behind “they disfigure their faces” in Matthew 6:16 either in itself represents the actual words in Greek of Christ, or as is more likely, if they are an exact translation of the original Aramaic words of Christ, then it is probable that our Lord used either α in the Greek, or Hα in the Hebrew. (lvii)

276    ( – ) As his views about the stemma of the texts did not change, the charts from the first volume are reprinted in the second. In a few cases, he expanded a section; for these he provided a note to that effect in the first volume (e.g., §11 The Greek Version—a translation from the Hebrew—H; cf. the translation/ commentary, xliii; or §16 Title of the Book; see translation/commentary, liv). In these instances, the section in the Text volume grew through full citation of more examples. Conversely, at times in the Text volume he referred the reader to the commentary for more detail (e.g., §14 on the date of the Hebrew original, xliii). He may have changed his mind about a few minor matters; a possible example is in §17 Jewish Additions to the Text where he left out the paragraph from the first book in which he had maintained that there were clear references to the later Maccabees in some of the Jewish additions (see translation, lviii, text, xlvii). His Introduction also incorporated the sections about Christian additions (here he omitted Testament of Gad 8:2 from the list in the first volume), Midrash Way-yissa’u, the Hebrew Testament of Naphtali, and the Aramaic and Greek fragments of a source text. Two pages of corrigenda (lviii–lix) and one explaining brackets and abbreviations (lx) stand between the Introduction and the critical text. The Greek text and critical apparatus occupy pp. 1–233, and every last page is Charles personified. The Greek that he deemed the best attainable text stands at the top of the page. Various kinds of brackets mark off words and phrases that, for example, are not in the Armenian version or were, in Charles’s opinion, interpolations. The margin alongside the critically established text is also filled with symbols that required an explanation on the page devoted to brackets and abbreviations: T T. The printed Greek text represents α except in a few cases. Where words are printed in thick type the reader is to understand that the text of β differs, and that this is found in the margin. Only the chief variants are thus denoted. (lx)

So, his text differed from those of his predecessors in not being based on manuscript b which belonged to Charles’s β group but on manuscripts chi— the α manuscripts. The major variants in the β group he marked in the margins with this siglum and supplied the reading. There he also indicated which β manuscripts supported the variant, if not all of them did, and whether the Armenian (Aα or Aβ) and/or Slavonic (S¹ or S²) did so. It is no wonder Charles thanked the workers at the University Press for their skillful work in setting such complicated pages. It is also no surprise that he said he would be

 —— 

277

grateful to receive corrections from readers (vi). As in the translation volume, so here he sometimes, when the witnesses attested strongly divergent readings, presented a double or triple text (e.g., much of Testament of Levi 14, a chapter for which he has eighty-four textual notes), placing them in parallel columns and identifying above each the version(s) supporting it.⁵⁹ At the end of the book Charles supplied six appendixes. 1. The Hebrew text of Midrash Way-yissa’u, giving references to the parallels in the margins and, in the text itself, underlining the Hebrew words that are equivalents of Greek words in the Testament of Judah. In an apparatus he supplied the Greek words in question. There are also a few footnotes containing variants in the version of the midrash found in another medieval text, the Chronicles of Jerahmeel. 2. The Hebrew Testament of Naphtali, with an apparatus of variant readings occurring in the different copies. Parallels especially with the Greek Testament of Naphtali he underlined and included the references in the margins. 3. The Aramaic and Greek fragments of the Levi text: For passages where the two are extant, he presented them in parallel columns; where only one survives, there is a single column. He underlined words and phrases agreeing with the Testament of Levi (and Jubilees) and gave the references in the margins. There is an apparatus for both the Aramaic and the Greek texts. At the appropriate point, he placed the text of the Syriac fragment alongside that of the Aramaic (p. 254). 4. Christian Additions Made by the Slavonic Scribe in S¹: Charles assembled here Morfill’s Greek retroversions of seventeen passages that meet the description in the title of the appendix, including the long plus after Testament of Joseph 19:12. 5. Retranslation of the Second Recension (S²) of the Slavonic Version by Professor Morfill (with additions unique to the Slavonic version in brackets; 263–94). 6. Collation of the second Sinaitic MS. i where it diverges from h for the Testaments of Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah i–xx: This is the list that Charles had mentioned in the Preface (xii), where he explained that he received the photographs for these testaments only after pp. 1–96 (the

⁵⁹ At Testament of Naphtali 2:8 he placed in a parallel column a Hebrew text—The Alphabet of Rabbi Akiba—that in some places resembles the verse. He underlined the Hebrew words that correspond with ones in the Greek text.

278    ( – ) pages containing these testaments) of his text had been set in type by the press. Under the circumstances, he was not able to add the readings to his apparatus of variants for those pages and had to consign them to an appendix (295–7).

Reviews Publication of two substantial volumes in 1908 elicited quite a number of responses from fellow scholars. Everyone was amazed at the amount of work Charles put into them and was grateful to him for making so much material available in a convenient form. However, many of his principal conclusions came in for sharp criticism, including his theories about the original language of the book, two Hebrew recensions from which two Greek versions were made, preference for manuscripts chi, especially c, the date of the book, and a related question—whether it really did influence New Testament writers. An especially appreciative review came from William Muss-Arnolt⁶⁰ in The American Journal of Theology 13 (1909) 453–9. He spent most of the pages describing the two books by either quoting or tightly paraphrasing Charles’s words. About Charles he wrote: “The two volumes appearing, thus, almost simultaneously are a new evidence of the great learning and scholarly sagacity of the Grinfield lecturer on the Septuagint in the University of Oxford, the worthy successor of Edwin Hatch and others” (453). Muss-Arnolt noted that a number of points advanced by Charles awaited further discussion and added that if Schürer (see below) was correct that those lines in which the Testaments expressed its loftiest ethical standards, ones that so impressed Charles, were actually Christian additions, “Charles’s whole position becomes untenable” (458). But regarding the critical text and apparatus he wrote: “The whole is a most outstanding result of the happy union of philological acumen and indefatigable industry” (459). He concluded his review with words of gratitude for Charles and his work: . . . we beg leave to join the host of students of both Testaments, the Old and the New, who have now, or will shortly, express their sincere thanks to the editor and translator for this, the most important contribution toward the ⁶⁰ Muss-Arnolt held a Johns Hopkins PhD and compiled A Concise Dictionary of the Assyrian Language (Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, 1905). At the time he reviewed Charles’s books, he was a librarian at the Boston Public Library (“William Muss-Arnolt,” Wikipedia, last accessed 8-6-2019). He had reviewed Charles’s critical edition of Ethiopic Enoch in the previous year in the same journal.

 —— 

279

true reading and interpretation of the text of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and give voice to the hearty appreciation of the spirit which pervades both volumes from beginning to end. (459)

Emil Schürer reviewed the two books in Theologische Literaturzeitung 33 (1908) cols. 505–9 (text) and 509–11 (translation). He too was impressed with how Charles had carried out a very demanding task in a relatively short time. “When one looks at the critical apparatus, he is amazed at the extent of the work here accomplished” (505 [my translation]). He drew attention to the advantages of using photographs of manuscripts in producing editions. Regarding the two versions that Charles distinguished among the Greek copies, he made a point of saying that there was no sharp divide between them (Charles, too, was aware of this) and appreciated the reader-friendly way in which Charles recorded the most important Greek variants in the margins (506–7). Schürer was not so sure the Aramaic Levi was a source for the Testaments and Jubilees. He commended Charles for being a pioneer in supplying in his notes of commentary the basis for explaining the text, though he would have preferred it if he had paid more attention to the narrative sections (509). He thought that Charles had failed to prove the existence of two Hebrew recensions from which two Greek versions were translated. The examples of readings Charles adduced—cases in which Greek variants could be explained by confusion of look-alike Hebrew words—were instances of inner-Greek corruptions. He also doubted that Charles had established Hebrew as the original language of the book, although the earlier one dated it the more likely it became. For Schürer, Charles’s weakest arguments were those he formulated to date the original to the late second century .. A linchpin of his case for seeing John Hyrcanus in the Testaments—Testament of Levi 8:14–15—was a Christian addition. In general, he charged that Charles defined the Christian interpolations too narrowly (510). By so doing he mistakenly identified the highest ethical utterances (e.g., love of God and neighbor) as part of the original Jewish composition when they were in fact Christian supplements (511). At the end he expressed appreciation to the tireless author for the gift of these two volumes (511). Since Charles and Bousset had articulated detailed arguments that the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs was pre-Christian and Charles had drawn up extensive lists of parallels (more than ninety) between the Testaments and the New Testament to show dependence of the latter on the former, New Testament scholars had reason to weigh in on the matter. Alfred

280    ( – ) Plummer, author of many commentaries including one on Luke,⁶¹ contributed an article entitled “The Relations of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs to the Books of the New Testament,” The Expositor 6 (1908) 481–91. He asserted that the number of parallels was even higher than Charles thought (ca. 130–40) and was especially interested in the large number in Matthew, the most popular gospel in the Early Church. The parallels were too numerous to dismiss as accidents; there must be a relation of dependence, but in which direction did it go (481–2)? He wondered why there would be so many parallels with Matthew if, as Charles maintained, Jesus himself had used the Testaments. If he had, one would expect many similarities with it in all four gospels. Plummer posited that the numerous parallels were Christian additions to the Greek Testaments, a work already known to have been Christianized through interpolations (485–6). The Greek Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs was thus influenced by the New Testament, especially by such popular works as Matthew and the letters of Paul. This, he thought, made better sense of the general lack of evidence for the Testaments in Patristic literature. If the Testaments had exercised influence on New Testament authors, one would have expected to find its imprint among the Fathers as well (487–9). Another New Testament expert, F. C. Burkitt, responded in “Dr. Charles’s Edition of the ‘Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs’,” Journal of Theological Studies 10 (1908) 135–41. He began with a few of those familiar “yes-but” lines that populate book reviews: The excellence of a work of learning may be measured by its usefulness to those who cannot accept the special conclusions of the writer. Tried by this severe test, Dr Charles’s edition of the Greek text of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs is a most excellent work. Dr Charles has put a vast quantity of new material into our hands; he has arranged it clearly on the page, and if some of his textual theories appear hazardous, it is our duty to remember that the problems have been to a great extent raised by the new evidence which he has brought towards the elucidation of this most interesting relic of Jewish and early Christian literature. (135–6)

He highlighted two points: (1) the date and language of the Testaments, and (2) the history of its textual transmission (136). For the former he thought ⁶¹ An Exegetical and Critical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Luke (International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh: Clark, 1901).

 —— 

281

Charles made a good case, for the latter not so much. He agreed the Testaments was Jewish and written in Hebrew (“But it is difficult to understand what the insistence upon the future glories of Levi would mean, if the work proceeded originally from a Christian hand,” 136). In a Jewish work magnifying John Hyrcanus, the Christological passages in the Greek and subsequent versions must be Christian supplements (137). He noted that all the versions of Testament of Levi 4:4 read or reflect an unusual expression for crucifixion (του ανασκολοπισαι αυτον [tou anaskolopisai auton])⁶² so that all of them must have a common origin for the term and for the reference to God’s Son also present in the verse. He took up Charles’s thesis about two Hebrew recensions issuing in two Greek translations and wondered how, if this had happened, the Christian addition in Testament of Levi 4:4 found its way into all the texts (137–8). He thought both of what Charles regarded as direct quotations by Paul from the Testaments were Christian additions to the work; Charles had certainly not made a convincing case that Paul used the Testaments (138). About his arguments in support of two Hebrew recensions he wrote: Dr Charles generally tries to explain the origin of all these variations by referring them back to a pair of Hebrew terms which look more or less alike to the Aryan eye, but I very much doubt if palaeographical error be the most frequent cause of the variations. I imagine that the most frequent cause was deliberate alteration. The alteration was sometimes suggested by the look of the original reading, sometimes it was not. And the only reason that our MSS do after all agree so much together is simply that it is much less trouble to copy out a text than to rewrite it. (139)

Burkitt likewise questioned Charles’s adoption of the α manuscripts as his chief authorities. He noted that these copies spoke of “three” heavens in Testament of Levi 2–3, while the β manuscripts read “seven.” This suggested to him that the reading “three” was due to a Christian scribe, since the notion of seven heavens was not accepted by all in the early Church. In fact the impression I have gained from weighing a large number of variations between chi and the other texts, is that chi represents nothing more than an edition of the Testaments made by an editor who did not

⁶² The verb means “to impale.” A variant in manuscript b is αποσκολοπισαι [aposkolopisai], “to remove stumbling blocks.”

282    ( – ) scruple to alter, and alter for the worse, a Greek text which he did not fully understand. (139)

This was an attack on a basic thesis of Charles and was to find an echo in much subsequent scholarship.⁶³ Burkitt took up Charles’s example from Testament of Benjamin 12:1, 2, cited above, in which he explained a Greek variant “sleep/ old age” as arising from a confusion of two similar-looking Hebrew words. Burkitt argued that in the Testaments (e.g., Testament of Zebulon 10:6) the word “sleep” occurs in a similar context. Moreover, the reading fits with the phrasing in the verse and with other notices about the end of the patriarchs’ lives. “In other words, Dr Charles’s hypothesis of rival Hebrew recensions of the Testaments is not really indicated by this series of passages” (140). Burkitt, after dealing with a couple of other issues, concluded on a positive note: It would not be fair to leave the Testaments without once more calling attention to the great debt of gratitude which all students of the quasicanonical writings must feel to Dr Charles. He has introduced to all students, and to English scholars in particular, a whole series of works which go a long way towards making up the background of Bible ideas and Bible phrases. And if all the theories and reconstructions which he brings forward do not carry conviction to some of his readers, we shall do well to remember that it is in very great part due to his unwearied labours that the discussion of these questions has been made possible. (141)

Charles’s work was reviewed in other kinds of journals as well. T. Nicklin evaluated it in The Classical Review 23 (1909) 83–4. He began with appreciative comments but soon turned to criticism. He charged that Charles weakened his presentation by his method: He throws together proofs strong and feeble, and gives the reader no hint that he is conscious of any difference in their cogency. The result is that he

⁶³ A few years later, J. W. Hunkin developed Burkitt’s thesis in “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” Journal of Theological Studies 16 (1914) 80–97. He showed, by comparing their major variants for the Testaments of Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Zebulun, and Gad, that the β family was superior to the α group and thought the Armenian evidence demonstrated that b should be the basis for reconstructing the text (83–9). He judged α to be “little more than a late and free recension of the β text” (89). The Armenian translation was frequently only a free rendering of its base Greek text, an abridgement of it, with Aα often being defective, a corrupt and shortened form of Aβ (94–5). For similar assessments of the textual situation, see below.

 —— 

283

runs a grave danger of having the strength of his case misunderstood and indeed of having judgment given against it because the evidence may not be completely examined. (83)

He then assessed each of Charles’s arguments that the Greek was a translation of a Hebrew original. For the Hebraic constructions and expressions he detected throughout the Greek text, Nicklin pointed out parallels in Greek papyri. Regarding paronomasiae that become evident upon retranslation into Hebrew, he argued that these proved only that the writer knew Hebrew, not that he wrote in it (84). The amount of subjectivity in some of Charles’s claims also came in for condemnation. Among his other complaints, he found Charles’s arguments for two Hebrew recensions from which two Greek translations arose to be unproven. An unsigned review of both books in The Athenaeum (number 4201, May 9, 1908) commends Charles for his great labors in the Text volume but maintains that the poor materials available—the direct and indirect witnesses—make establishing a text most difficult: Dr. Charles has included in his volume all the fragments in Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, and Greek which show connection with the book; but these only add to the confusion. Every page of the text with its apparatus criticus bears witness to the fact that certainty, or even an approximation to certainty, is impossible. Any one who may undertake to edit the book has to select many of his readings according to his own taste and fancy, with the knowledge that the next editor may dispute his decisions. (533)

The reviewer sincerely doubted one could demonstrate Charles’s primary literary conclusions on the basis of the textual evidence: “But how can a book be trustworthy of which the authorship is unknown, the language vague, and the MSS. prepared by inaccurate transcribers, who took the greatest liberties with the manuscripts they were copying?” (533). Among the issues was the original language; for settling the question he thought the data at hand to be inadequate. He suggested the absence of some Christian passages from the Armenian version could be due to deliberate omission by the translator, since they express views considered heretical when the translator worked (533–4).⁶⁴

⁶⁴ Charles seemed unaware that the Armenian omissions could be explained in other ways than as pointers to an earlier form of the text. N. Messel (“Über die textkritisch begründete Ausscheidung vermütlicher christlicher Interpolationen in den Testamenten der zwölf Patriarchen,” Beihefte zur

284    ( – ) In his opinion, Charles offered some good arguments for a Hebrew original, but they were not conclusive. Those for the date of the original, however, were more problematic, being based on just a couple of passages. He examined Testament of Levi 8:11–15 (where prophecy is associated with a new priesthood and the phrase “priest of the Most High God” appears—all, for Charles, pointing to the Maccabean priests and especially John Hyrcanus) and argued that none of the specific indicators Charles found here stands up to scrutiny. He concluded the review by summarizing difficulties with Charles’s claim that the Testaments influenced New Testament writers. All of the textual witnesses in our possession are Christian. “It is far more likely in the circumstances that the passages came from the Christians who had to translate or transcribe the work” (535). There is no indication that Charles was convinced by—or even that he paid attention to—the criticisms. In 1913 he contributed the lengthy section on “The Testaments of the XII Patriarchs” (2.282–367) in his The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, where the composition is classified as an apocalypse. The introductory material is patterned on that in the 1908 translation/commentary volume, and, of course, the translation stems from the same source. In 1913 he was still aware of just nine Greek manuscripts and also listed the same number of Armenian copies as in 1908. The charts representing the relations of the versions and copies are thus unchanged as well. His views about issues such as the date of the book, the two Hebrew versions, and the like, are those of 1908. In the short bibliography, the only updated entry is his article on “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs” in the latest edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (the eleventh, published in 1911), vol. 26, pp. 666–8, in which he advanced his familiar views and several times simply reproduced (between quotation marks) what he had written in 1908. On the pages following his annotated translation in the 1913 volume, he included two appendices: his translation of the Hebrew Testament of Naphtali, and his translation of Aramaic and Greek fragments of the Levi text. It was through the much-used 1913 publication that his theories about the Testaments were to become most widely disseminated. His 1908 translation, virtually unchanged, was republished in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Translations of Early Documents, Series I Palestinian

Zeitschrift für die alttestamenliche Wissenschaft 33 [1918] 355–74) wrote strongly against Bousset’s and Charles’s use of this version. Messel, who doubted the Testaments was at base a Jewish work (e.g., 357), charged that the two scholars overrated the Armenian. Only some of the Christian “interpolations” are missing from the Armenian which also omits many other passages found in the Greek manuscripts. He totaled up the omissions and showed that only a very small percentage of them are of what Bousset and Charles identified as Christian interpolations (see his chart, 373).

 —— 

285

Jewish Texts [Pre-Rabbinic]; London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1917). To save space, the decision was made to give only one translation where Charles had multiple columns reflecting the different witnesses (v).

Legacy In the small world of scholarship on the Testaments and related works—in contrast to several of the reviews—Charles’s positions proved dominant for decades. Slingerland, in his summary of research on the Testaments, describes the period from 1908–51 as “The Charles Consensus.” Also, in connection with the previous period, the one ending in 1908, he commented: “So, then, Charles is at the center. He takes the past to himself and molds from it a way of looking at the Testaments which even now [that is, 1977] prevails and which, until about 1950, rarely was questioned.”⁶⁵ In contemporary studies, the view that the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs was Christian from the beginning has taken on a new life, largely due to the publications of Marinus de Jonge (1925–2016) of Leiden University. His book The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study of their Text, Composition and Origen (Assen: van Gorcum, 1953) offered, in direct opposition to Charles, a defense of the hypothesis that it is a Christian composition written in Greek around the year 200, although the writer used some Jewish sources. He argued against the possibility of identifying Christian interpolations by textual means. For him, the β manuscripts, especially b, were better, while the α group constitutes a reworking of the β version. The Armenian version is related to β but is a short form of it and not appropriate for the use to which Conybeare and Charles put it. De Jonge has been a major contributor to the study of the Testaments since 1953. Besides writing a series of articles, he prepared the first full edition of the text since 1908: The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text (Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece 1 i; Leiden: Brill, 1978)⁶⁶ and with H. W. Hollander authored The Testaments of the

⁶⁵ The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical History of Research, 29. On p. 40 he remarks that Charles had so carried the day that the contributions of earlier scholars were largely forgotten. “His position had obliterated the past; the long period from 1908 to 1950 assumed his work as conclusive, and even the new researches of the past twenty years have not dimmed its prominence.” ⁶⁶ Other contributors were H. W. Hollander, H. J. de Jonge, and Th. Korteweg. De Jonge was able to use five more Greek manuscripts than Charles, in addition to some marginal notes in manuscript d. He rated b the best manuscript of his family I and considered c a poor representative of Family II (xxxiii– xli). De Jonge had earlier published Testamenta XII Patriarcharum, edited according to Cambridge University Library MS Ff 1.24, fol. 203a–262b, with Short Notes (Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti

286    ( – ) Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 8; Leiden Brill, 1985). This latter volume offers a new translation and the most complete commentary since Charles’s first book of 1908. De Jonge has somewhat modified his position over the years. He was responsible for the section “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs” in H. F. D. Sparks, editor, The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984) 505–600. There he maintained that neither thesis—that the Testaments is Jewish or that it is Christian—in its extreme form can be maintained. As he put it: “if the Christian interpolations are held to be numerous in the one case and the basic Jewish material to be extensive in the other, the difference between the two in practice is nothing like so great as might be supposed” (509–10). A factor in more recent study of the Testaments has been publication of Qumran texts that contribute information relevant to some of the testaments, although no copy of any of the testaments has been found. Aramaic Levi Document (1Q21, 4Q213, 213a, 213b, 214, 214a, 214b): The seven additional copies of the text that was known previously from the Cairo Genizah fragments and extra Greek material in the Mt. Athos manuscript of the Testaments demonstrate its antiquity and increase the amount of text available. Naphtali (4Q215): The birth and naming of Bilhah section of the text, in which Naphtali is speaking, parallels material in Testament of Naphtali 1:6–8. Three other texts, Testament of Judah (4Q538), Testament of Joseph (4Q539), 4Q540–1 Apocryphon of Levia-b (all in Aramaic), are very poorly preserved. The stretches of text that have survived indicate an interest in the sorts of settings one finds in the Testaments, with the patriarchs speaking. Little survives from these texts, yet none seems to be a copy of one of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. The theory that the Testaments is a Christian text is by no means the only one defended today, as both options, that the work is Christian but incorporates Jewish traditions or Jewish with Christian additions,⁶⁷ are supported. Graece 1; Leiden: Brill, 1964). It is based on the idea that the β manuscripts are superior and was largely a publication of b, with some use of other material. Michael Stone, with Vered Hillel, published An Editio Minor of the Armenian Version of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Hebrew University Armenian Studies 11; Leuven: Peeters, 2012). He lists sixty-five known manuscripts and used eleven for the edition. The volume contains both a critical Armenian text and an annotated English translation. In addition, it includes the text and translation of an Epitome of the Testaments. ⁶⁷ For two defenses of the thesis that the Testaments was written by a Hellenized Jew and subsequently interpolated, see Jürgen Becker, Untersuchungen zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen (Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 8; Leiden: Brill, 1970), and Howard C. Kee, “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in James Charlesworth, editor, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, 1.775–828 (especially 776–8).

 —— 

287

In the absence of new evidence, it is unlikely there will be a definitive resolution to the debate any time soon. As John Collins wrote in 1984: “Much of the material in the Greek Test. 12 Patr. is compatible with either Jewish or Christian authorship.”⁶⁸ While that seems right, a couple of facts deserve repeating. 1. The text of the Testaments in its present form, with the Greek copies offering the earliest attainable wording, is Christian in the sense that some passages definitely allude to Jesus and events in his life. 2. The text, apart from a small number of passages (see #1), can be read as a Jewish work. 3. The Greek Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs is the most ancient instance of a collection of twelve units associated with the twelve sons born to Jacob and his wives. There are other early texts that center around one or another of the brothers and may even take testamentary form (see the Qumran texts listed above). But there is no evidence these latter works (or others) were gathered into a collection with twelve parts corresponding to the number of the sons. The question raised by Burkitt in his review of Charles is still a good one: If the Testaments was composed by a Christian author, why does is it so positively concerned with Levi and his priesthood. Without more textual finds, it will have to remain a question lacking an answer.

Charles’s 1908 Article This is the place to mention Charles’s article “Man’s Forgiveness of His Neighbour—A Study in Religious Development,” The Expositor 6 (1908) 492–505. A footnote on the first page reports “Delivered before the General Meeting of the Congress of the History of Religions at Oxford on Friday, September 18, 1908” (492). It develops thoughts that Charles had expressed in his Hibbert Journal article, his commentary on the Testaments, and his treatment of the relevant New Testament teachings in several messages published in his 1887 Forgiveness and Other Sermons. He here set forth at ⁶⁸ “Testaments,” in Michael Stone, editor, Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, Section Two: The Literature of the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud, vol. 2; Assen: van Gorcum/Philadelphia Fortress, 1984) 343.

288    ( – ) greater length his reading of the Old Testament instructions regarding God’s forgiveness and ours—though there are some more enlightened passages in the Hebrew Bible, most of the pertinent verses express an eye-for-an-eye mentality or an unforgiving approach to another person. From the two conflicting series of passages on forgiveness we have now dealt with, we see that there was no such thing as a prescribed and unquestioned doctrine of forgiveness in the Old Testament, and that a Jew, however he chose to act towards his personal enemy, could justify his conduct from his sacred writings. It is easy to deduce the natural consequences of such a state of ethical confusion. (497)

He contrasted this with the New Testament teaching about humans forgiving as God forgives them and extending that forgiveness even to strangers (498–9). However, the New Testament approach is not an original contribution of Christianity as one can see from the apocryphal books that had come to light (500). He analyzed passages from the Wisdom of Ben Sira that show development of the better side of Old Testament doctrines about forgiveness (500–2) and then introduced the key passage from the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Testament of Gad 6:3–7 which he quoted. Again he asserted that the passage parallels Jesus’s teachings on the subject, and the strong resemblances in language and thought mean “we must assume our Lord’s acquaintance with them” (503). Though he was largely repeating ideas he had expressed before, he introduced an additional one that does not figure in his other statements about the Testament of Gad 6:3–7. It would be hard to exaggerate the importance of this passage. It proves that in Galilee, the home of the Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs and of other apocalyptic writings, there was a deep spiritual religious life, which having assimilated the highest teaching of the Old Testament on forgiveness, developed and consolidated it into a clear consistent doctrine that could neither be ignored nor misunderstood by spiritually-minded men. This religious development appears to have flourished mainly in Galilee. (504)

He does not explain the basis for his geographical claim, though it clearly had important implications for him. As he wrote, even a Sadducee like the writer of Sirach could not fully escape this Galilean influence. The Pharisees with their legalism, had their “stronghold” in Judah, but it was “from Galilee, the land of the religious mystic and ethical eschatologist, that Christ and eleven of His

 —— 

289

apostles derived their origin and their religious culture. Christ’s twelfth apostle was from Judea” (504–5). In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus lifted this teaching to its highest level. The one who forgives an enemy is forgiven by God and thus shows his kinship with him (505). Though Charles had written much the same about forgiveness in other places, only more briefly, it is strange that he associates the Testaments with Galilee, since he thought a Pharisee wrote it and that the Pharisees had their center in Judah. Charles’s extraordinary volumes on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs marked a high point in his editions of early Jewish texts. His future work would, for the most part, consist of other sorts of publications. The following years that turned out to be his last in Oxford saw him issue several more books, including his best known one, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. We will examine them in Chapter 9.

Chapter 9 The Last Oxford Years 1909–1913 and The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament The five years that concluded Charles stay in Oxford were as productive as any period in his career, as he continued writing prolifically and making other contributions to the study of ancient Judaism.¹ The steady stream of books hardly stopped at the end of the period, though in 1913 his life underwent a major change.

Appointments and Lectures 1. Through most of the years—until 1911—he retained the post of Grinfield Lecturer on the Septuagint that he first occupied in 1905. The stipulations of the Behest were, as we have seen, that there be three lectures per year. 2. In 1910 Charles finally received an official position at the University of Oxford. He became a Fellow of Merton College, one of the oldest in the university. The Oxford University Gazette issued the following announcement on December 6, 1910: “The Rev. R H C, M.A., D.Litt., F.B.A., of Exeter College, Grinfield Lecturer on the Septuagint and Speaker’s Lecturer in Biblical Studies,² has been elected to a Fellowship, tenable for five years, under Statute III. 7 (ii), on the understanding that he prosecutes his researches in Biblical and Apocryphal Literature” (see also the Minutes of the Governing Body of

¹ Charles wrote to Henry Major in 1910 that he had taken on so much that it would take him ten– fifteen years to complete. He also said that his workday was four hours (due to illness?) and that he had hired a young scholar to help him with his research for half of the year (Ripon, December 28, 1910). A few years later he informed Major that his time for the next eight–ten years was already pledged to publishers (Ripon, October 30, 1913). ² See number 5 below.

R. H. Charles: A Biography. James C. VanderKam, Oxford University Press. © James C. VanderKam 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192869289.003.0011

    ( – )

291

Merton College, December 5, 1910). He was to hold the position until 1914.³ 3. On September 27, 1910 he gave an address at the annual Church Congress; it was published in The Official Report of the Church Conference (see below). 4. In 1912 he delivered the Drew Lecture on Immortality. He gave the lecture on October 11, and it was published later that year (see below). 5. He was appointed Speaker’s Lecturer in Biblical Studies at Oxford and occupied the position from 1910 until 1914. The information about the lectures he gave is recorded in the Oxford University Gazette (according to the notice of the lectureship, February 15, 1910, the lecturer received about £100 annually). May 14, 1910: The Hebdomadal Council elected Charles whose proposed topic was “The New Testament Apocalypse treated in the main philologically having regard to its relation to preceding Apocalyptic literature, its diction and style, date, authorship, &c. with a systematic study of the text” (Gazette, May 18, 1910, p. 660). February 14, 1911: Apocalyptic: Its Nature and Scope February 21 and 28, 1911: History of the Interpretation of the New Testament Apocalypse (December 6, 1910, 290; January 19, 1911, 348). May 9, 1911: History of the Interpretation of the Apocalypse from 1730 to 1910. May 16 and 23, 1911: New Testament Apocalypse, chaps. vii–ix (April 27, 1911, 645). February 27, 1912: Critical Exposition of the New Testament Apocalypse: Chapter IV. March 5, 1912: Critical Exposition of the New Testament Apocalypse: Chapter V. March 12, 1912: Critical Exposition of the New Testament Apocalypse: Chapter VI (October 25, 1911, 94; January 18, 1912, 297). May 7, 10, and 14, 1912: New Testament Apocalypse: Chapters VI–VII (April 25, 1912, 587). ³ The Minutes of the Governing Body for October 7, 1913 mention that the Warden read a letter in which Charles resigned his Fellowship as of December 31, 1913. However, he is still listed among the Fellows in 1914, and on March 12, 1914 he was made an honorary member of the Common Room. There is also a record of his attending some meetings of the governing body and donating books to the College Library (e.g., October 31, 1912).

292    ( – ) January 21, 23, 28, 30, February 4, and 6, 1913: New Testament Apocalypse (VIII–XII) (January 9, 1913, 329). His three-year term ended at this point, after eighteen lectures, but he applied for renewal and was re-elected for one year, from October 1913. For the year he proposed to lecture on Revelation xiii–xxii (May 14, 1913, 793). November 4 and 11, 1913: The Thirteenth Chapter of the Book of Revelation November 18, 1913: The Seventeenth Chapter of the Book of Revelation (June 11, 1913, 981; October 22, 1913, 111) January 27, February 10, and 13, 1914: The Apocalypse (Chapters XIV– XVI) (January 15, 1914, 331; February 4, 1914, 433). On March 16, 1914, not long after the end of his extended term, Charles was appointed an elector to the Speaker’s Lectureship in Biblical Studies, filling out the term of S. R. Driver who had passed away (March 19, 1914, Supplement [5] to Number 1424). The Gazette for November 25, 1914, 202, noted that was re-appointed as an Elector.

Publications Address to the Church Congress (September 27, 1910): The Official Report of the Church Congress, Held at Cambridge, on September 27th, 28th, 29th, and 30th, 1910 (edited by the Rev. C. Dunkley; London: George Allen & Sons, 1910) 70–5. The historian Roger B. Lloyd wrote about the phenomenon of the Church Congresses in Great Britain: Although the Congress had never been, and was never to become an official function, yet it had won for itself a recognised place in the life of the Church, and it fulfilled a necessary purpose. Year after year, ecclesiastics and the more leisured laypeople from all over the country met for a week in one or another of the great centres of population. They assembled in their hundreds, they listened to episcopal sermons, they received civic welcomes, they were assured of true sympathy and deep fellowship by nonconformist deputations, they listened to the reading of carefully prepared papers and to the delivery of less well prepared speeches until their heads ached. The Church Congress was certainly not the least exhausting of the events in the Church’s year. Its function was to consider the chief spiritual and social problems of

    ( – )

293

the day, to provide a platform for the most thoughtful and active churchpeople to have their say about them. Most of the leading prophets of the day could be heard in the Congress, and the quality of the papers read frequently reached a very high level.⁴

Since the first Church Congress had met in Cambridge in 1861, the 1910 meeting, also in Cambridge, was the Jubilee gathering. The initial congress fifty years earlier had attracted some 300 people. Since that time, the annual event had moved from city to city in England mostly but also in Wales and Ireland. According to the “List of Church Congresses, with Numbers in Attendance and other Particulars” in the official report of the 1910 assembly,⁵ the size of the gathering grew rapidly so that by the time of the third one 1,918 were present. The attendance for the Jubilee Congress is given as 3,597. The report mentions the “Particulars” that highlighted the special occasion: “No afternoon Sessions, Excursions to places of interest. Brilliant reception on eve of Congress, and social amenities throughout the week, imparted a festival character to the Jubilee Congress” (xii). The Congresses, apart from formal features, consisted of sessions arranged by topic. Those for the 1910 meeting included education, theology, Christian unity, poor law, science, prayer-book, national service, missions, and philosophy. Each such unit would have a presider in the chair as several papers were delivered and a number of responses (the Discussion) followed. Charles, identified as the Rev. R. H. Charles, D.D., Grinfield Lecturer in the University of Oxford, presented a paper in the theology section which met on the evening of Tuesday, September 27. The presider was “The Right Worshipful the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University,” the Rev. Canon A. J. Mason, D.D., and Charles was the third to present a paper, after ones by two church officials. The fourth paper came from Vincent Henry Stanton, D.D., Professor of Divinity at Cambridge and Canon of Ely. Their papers preceded seven rather brief responses (although they do not seem to address any specific paper), one of which was offered by F. C. Burkitt; none of the papers or responses bears a title. The session proved very popular: On account of the large attendance an overflow meeting was held in the small room adjoining the Examination Hall. The Rev. S. A. Donaldson, D.D., ⁴ The Church of England in the Twentieth Century (2 vols.; London: Longmans, 1946), 1.70 (in a chapter entitled “New Testament Criticism and the Doctrinal Crisis”). ⁵ The Official Report of the Church Congress, x–xii. The page numbers in parentheses in the text are from this publication.

294    ( – ) Master of Magdalene, occupied the chair, and the same papers on theology were read as at the preceding meeting, though in a different order. (84)

The theology section had for its subject “The Apocalyptic Element in Our Lord’s Teaching: Its Significance for Christian Faith and Ethics” (60). The topic was most timely due in large part to the work of Albert Schweitzer. He had famously undermined the labors of his predecessors who searched for the historical Jesus, and, in Schweitzer’s opinion, ended up creating one (or, rather, several) in their own image. The destructive side of his work was one thing, but his own contributions were deeply unsettling to people of faith: he envisaged a deluded and thoroughly eschatological Jesus who, after several other attempts misfired, tried to force the coming of the kingdom by bringing, as the suffering Servant of Isaiah, the final tribulation upon himself but failed in the effort. Moreover, Jesus, he thought, had set forth ethical instructions applicable only for the brief interval between the present and the end (the so-called interim ethic), ones so demanding that only a few could actually obey. Schweitzer, among other powerful lines, had written: At that last cry upon the Cross the whole eschatological supersensuous world fell in upon itself in ruins, and there remained as a spiritual reality only that present spiritual world which Jesus by His all-powerful word had called into being within the world which He contemned. That last cry, with its despairing abandonment of the eschatological future, is His real acceptance of the world. The ‘Son of Man’ was buried in the ruins of the falling eschatological world; there remained alive only Jesus ‘the Man.’

The Jesus who remained after Schweitzer’s analysis was hardly the one of traditional Christianity. As he had so eloquently written: He comes to us as One unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lake-side, He came to those men who knew Him not. He speaks to us the same word: “Follow thou me!” and sets us to the tasks which He has to fulfil for our time. He commands. And to those who obey Him, whether they be wise or simple, He will reveal Himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which they shall pass through in His fellowship, and, as an ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience Who He is.

Schweitzer’s Von Reimarus zu Wrede: Eine Geschichte der Leben-JesuForschung (1906), which was translated by W. Montgomery as The Quest of

    ( – )

295

the Historical Jesus,⁶ had aroused much controversy. So, the congress considered the challenge posed by Schweitzer’s book. Lloyd describes the situation: The Congress of 1910 at Cambridge was perhaps the most impressive and valuable of the whole series. What made it so was the contribution made to it by a great Christian scholar, Albert Schweitzer. He was not himself present at the Congress. While it was being held, he was still in his native Alsace, laboriously learning medicine so that he might make his life the more fit to be offered for the healing of diseased and dispirited negroes in the Congo forests. But in absence he so dominated the proceedings at Cambridge that week that ever since the Congress has been nicknamed the Schweitzer Congress.⁷

Charles was widely recognized as the great expert on Jewish apocalyptic literature and eschatology, subjects most pertinent to the topic of the theology session. A couple of the speakers on the program praised his work in their addresses. The first one in the session, the Very Rev. J. H. Bernard, D.D., Dean of S. Patrick’s (a specialist in the Gospel of John), said of Charles’s contributions: “At any rate, the study of the later Jewish literature, for which Dr. Charles has done so much, has made it probable that the language used by Christ was the language of contemporary Apocalyptic” (64). One of the discussants, the Rev. Canon G. Hartford of Liverpool, stated: “Professor Charles has given us a most inspiring view of those strange products of Jewish hopes—the Apocalypses” (83). For his presentation (70–5), Charles began with a paragraph that set up the problem: The world of religious thought is just now divided as to the degree in which the apocalyptic element enters into Christ’s teaching. Of the divergent views propounded on this question, we can consider only the two most prominent at the present juncture. The first of these, which is maintained by the liberal school of theology, is that the apocalyptic element in the teaching of our Lord was non-essential and transitory, and that it ceased to have any meaning as soon as Christianity was firmly founded. The second is that advocated by

⁶ The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede (translated by W. Montgomery [London: Adam and Charles Black, 1910]). The citations above come from a paperback edition published in New York by the Macmillan Company (1961), pp. 285 and 403 respectively. ⁷ The Church of England in the Twentieth Century, 1.70.

296    ( – ) Schweitzer, that Eschatology was the soul and essence of Jesus’ teaching and life, but that it was wholly abandoned by Him on the cross. (70)

His next words would have sounded familiar to readers of his earlier works. He said that he wanted to make clear to the audience the nature of apocalyptic and the lasting contributions it had made, “for most writers who refer to it have inadequate or faulty conceptions of it” (70). As he had before, he distinguished eschatology and apocalyptic, emphasizing the wider scope of the latter as it embraced past, present, and future and showed the working out of God’s plan for the eventual victory of righteousness. Moreover, apocalyptic was “intensely ethical” (71), far outstripping the Old Testament in this regard and preparing for the New. Among the “imperishable elements of the Christian faith” (71) owed to apocalyptic were belief in a blessed future, expectation of a new heaven and earth, and anticipation of a catastrophic end to the present world (71–2). Charles intended these brief comments to disprove the notion that “the apocalyptic element in the Gospels has only a passing significance. We have now, I hope, seen that the apocalyptic element in the Gospels is an essential one” (72). Schweitzer held that both the teaching and life of Jesus were to be understood from a thoroughly eschatological perspective that led to the final tragedy. As he turned to a summary of Schweitzer’s theory, Charles acknowledged that he was “a brilliant young writer” (72). He sketched his views, interspersing some critical comments as he did so (72–4). He ended the overview with: “Such is Schweitzer’s account of our Lord’s life. Its bizarreness is only equaled by its cocksureness. He reminds one of the old Epicurean teachers, who, according to Cicero, spoke with as much assurance as though they had just come down from the council chamber of the gods” (74).⁸ Charles charged that Schweitzer displayed “a halting knowledge of Apocalyptic” (74) and listed several examples. He also challenged Schweitzer’s assertion that “all of Christ’s ⁸ These comments of Charles drew the attention of Lloyd: the Congress’s proceedings in the matter of Schweitzer were conducted at a very high level indeed. The prepared papers contained much that was of permanent value, and the unprepared speeches were worthy both of a Christian and a scholarly assembly. Only once did a speaker slip for a moment into a personal attack on the man whose work, after all, seemed to constitute a deadly threat to the personal faith of every person in the congress hall, whether protestant, Anglo-Catholic, or modernist. This was when Archdeacon Charles [he was not yet Archdeacon, something Lloyd notes a few lines later], at the end of a long paper, qualified his appreciation of “the brilliant young writer,” by adding that [he here quotes the words cited above]. It was the one and the only personal remark made that day; and this one was immediately answered by Professor Burkitt, in a moving and glowing testimony to Schweitzer’s personal holiness. (The Church of England in the Twentieth Century, 1.74)

    ( – )

297

teaching is eschatological and not directly ethical. Now such a statement would not be true of any of the greater Jewish Apocalypses, but when made of the Gospels the statement is grotesque” (74). This led Charles to inveigh against the idea of an interim ethic—an aspect of Schweitzer’s case that other speakers at the session also opposed. For him, Christ taught “the nucleus for a code valid for all time” (75). He also took issue with what Schweitzer had written about the title “Son of Man” in the gospels. Charles held that Jesus had transformed the concept by combining it with the notion of Isaiah’s suffering Servant (75). Charles’s final words to the audience were: Schweitzer’s reconstruction of the teaching and life of our Lord appears to me therefore wrong in most of its positions. This teaching and life cannot be made intelligible by a school which sees nothing but Eschatology in the Gospels any more than it can by a school which rejects the permanent nature of the apocalyptic element in the teaching of our Lord. (75)

Lloyd wrote a short summary of the contributions (“the onslaught made upon Schweitzer’s arguments”) offered by “two great scholars,” Bernard (regarding the interim ethic) and Charles. Of the latter he said: “Archdeacon Charles, moving happily and skillfully in his own chosen field, had no difficulty in convicting Schweitzer of a chronic failure to distinguish between Eschatology and Apocalyptic, and of giving an inadequate meaning to the latter.”⁹ He also summed up something of the feeling present at the close of the proceedings: The Cambridge Church Congress, by its mingled charity, learning, and fairness, had given the impression of having passed a righteous judgement, based upon a cool and competent examination of the evidence, and had done a great service to the whole Church. It had steadied it at a moment of incipient doctrinal panic.¹⁰ To describe Charles’s paper as “long” (it is six pages in the published version) seems odd, unless the published form was only an abstract (nothing in the publication suggests this), and the remark about Schweitzer does not come at its end. Perhaps Lloyd knew more about the occasion than The Official Report implies, but Burkitt, who spoke of the “enthusiasm” Schweitzer showed in the book for “our Lord” (85), is there presented as the fifth of the respondents, so that he does not seem to have “immediately answered” Charles’s comment, although he alludes to some of the issues Charles raised. ⁹ The Church of England in the Twentieth Century, 1.74 (so too the other short quotations in this paragraph). ¹⁰ Ibid., 1.75.

298    ( – ) In this instance we see the scholar-priest Charles making a timely contribution to the life of the Church. Immortality: The Drew Lecture Delivered October 11, 1912 by R. H. Charles, D. Litt., D.D., Speaker’s Lecturer in Biblical Studies, Fellow of Merton College, Oxford, Fellow of the British Academy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912). Another lecture that led to a publication was the Drew Lecture of 1912. Though it consisted of a single lecture, it was nevertheless issued as a separate volume. The small book (thirty-eight pages) has the title Immortality, but on the first page of the text the caption is: “The Rise and Development of the Belief in a Future Life in Judaism and Christianity, being the Drew Lecture on Immortality, 1912.” Thus, the series of which his lecture was a part was called “The Drew Lecture on Immortality,” while the longer caption is the name of Charles’s contribution. At the beginning, Charles told his audience: It was with much pleasure that I accepted the invitation to deliver this year the Drew Lecture on Immortality. The invitation came to me overwhelmed with the pressure of tasks in various stages of incompleteness, but the practical character of the subject overcame my reluctance to add to the freight of an already overladen ship. (4).

The nature of the subject led him to accept the invitation when he was too busy, but he seems to have eased the burden on himself by reproducing, although in greatly abbreviated form, much of what he had already written or was preparing for other outlets, especially the second edition of his A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life which would appear in 1913. He opened the lecture by citing from Ralph Waldo Emerson and Ernst Renan regarding the significance of a belief in an afterlife or immortality. The belief arose in ancient Israel, not through abstract thinking, but out of “the mortal strife of spiritual experience” (5). Charles waxed eloquent about the subject as he attempted to draw the audience to it: For in this progress from the complete absence of such a belief in Israel to a positive and spiritual faith in a blessed future life, all alike can read writ large in the page of history from 800 .. to .. 100 a transcript of their own spiritual struggles as they toil up the steep ascent that leads to the city of God. It is a national Pilgrim’s Progress, which every child of man must repeat in

    ( – )

299

his own spiritual experience, whatever his mental or moral endowments may be, and the goal is as assured to the wayfaring man, though a fool, as it is to the learned and wise. (4)

From these rhetorical heights he swiftly descended to more mundane, welltrodden paths. He distinguished between apocalyptic and eschatology and summarized their similarities and differences. He also drew attention, once again, to the three truths Christianity owed to apocalyptic: a blessed future life, a new heaven and earth, and the present world will end catastrophically (4–6). Once more he traced the history of eschatology from pre-prophetic times onward to the rise of monotheism and eventually to the discovery through practical experience of a blessed future life, not just a national hope for a messianic kingdom on earth (9–11). Until Israel came to recognize the truth about a future life, the difficult and painful problem posed by the suffering of the righteous and the prosperity of the wicked remained unsolved. If there were only this life, how could such circumstances be reconciled with belief in an all-powerful God of justice? Texts such as Deuteronomy held that “the righteousness of the righteous and the wickedness of the wicked must be recompensed in this life” (12, where the words are italicized), but eventually in the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel there arose a greater focus on the individual, not just the nation. Later still, the writers of Ecclesiastes and Job¹¹ (with some psalmists) attacked the idea that there was a just recompense in this life (12–20). When the teaching about a blessed immortality for the righteous was combined with the hope for a messianic kingdom (a national concept), the eschatologies of the individual and of the nation were brought together. The righteous dead too would rise to life in this kingdom, thus preserving the idea of a happy future in company with others of a like character, not simply as individuals (21–2). Charles informed his audience that a few people in Israel were responsible for developing a higher theology in Judaism, advancing beyond concepts in the Old Testament and preparing for Christianity. In the last two centuries .., their ideas could be found in writings such as 1 Enoch, Jubilees, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the Psalms of Solomon. Around 100 .. there occurred a great change in that the idea of an eternal kingdom on earth was abandoned. There arose, too, a more spiritual view of resurrection, with the righteous, at least eventually, rising to life in ¹¹ Charles maintained that in Job and some of the Psalms, unlike in Ecclesiastes, there is a glimmering of hope for an afterlife.

300    ( – ) heaven. During this time there was constant change and development in ideas, including those of Sheol and Gehenna (23–5). After he had guided the listeners to this point, Charles raised an issue that, he thought, might be troubling them in light of charges made by some thinkers: the ethical concerns raised by the idea of looking to another life for compensating one’s earthly actions. He termed it an objection that is made on many sides to the grounds which led the Old Testament saints to look forward to another life which would readjust the inequalities of the present, and bring character and condition ultimately into harmony. The ethical rightness of these grounds has been impugned. The idea of compensation, as it has been termed, has been brushed aside as an idea only befitting the childhood of religion and not its maturer years, while from the side of science arguments have been advanced from time to time attempting to show the impossibility of a personal immortality. (25–6)

To this Charles offered several responses. First, he granted that one could not prove the object of such a hope on scientific or philosophical grounds but added that no grounds of that sort could be offered to disprove it either. If one could demonstrate it like a Euclidean theorem, it would not be a religious belief. It was a hope won by Israel through experience and must be preserved in that way. Second, regarding the idea that compensation in another world provides a dubious motivation for moral action, he replied: “Crassly conceived, the idea is no doubt open to this criticism. He who does right solely for the hope of future reward or desists from wrongdoing solely from the fear of future punishment is, it is true, merely a prudent Epicurean” (26). Such people are, however, rare, and most have impulses to both right and wrong. For that great majority of individuals, “the idea of requital has a pedagogic value” (27). The thought of requital is primarily meant as “a foe of the evil” (27) until a person learns to select the right option for the right reason. He referred to Schleiermacher’s thesis that an interest in immortality was “a sign of a selfish and therefore irreligious disposition” (27). But he considered the great theologian’s claim that immortality consists of being one with the infinite as a kind of immortality that no one could enjoy except momentarily and imperfectly. Charles spoke of how the need for progressing spiritually leads us to anticipate and to enunciate the true and highest motive of immortality on which every faithful man comes ultimately to act, the motive which has received its briefest and aptest expression in the words of our Lord: “Be ye perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect.” This motive

    ( – )

301

has for its object the absolute transformation of the entire man; but for the achievement of this transformation is needed—not the brief span of a few and evil days—but an immortal’s immemorial years. Immortality alone is commensurate with our task and eternity cannot exhaust the possibilities of the soul’s progress to God. (27–8)

He also dealt with the thesis that a righteous person’s present experience of peace with God is the highest and sufficient good. To this he responded that even the best experiences of the righteous are inadequate and lead one to a hope for immortality, while evil people are hardly punished sufficiently by their problems in this world. In fact, he thought the worst sinners were the least likely to be affected by anything negative that happened to them (28–9). They actually develop an immunity to it. Legal systems do not fully address the wrongs committed. From this it follows that if this world were the be-all and the end-all here, it would in many essential respects be a kind of moral nightmare. Thus the need of another world to redress the inequalities of the present is practically confessed by humanity at large, and this need forms the ground for the expectation that the future life shall have a judicial character that shall transcend and fulfil the broken promises of the present, and shall bring into ultimate harmony man’s character and man’s condition. . . . (29–30)

After this excursus, he returned to the historical survey he was offering. He said that the New Testament transformed ideas from the Jewish past, subordinating them to the new situation created by the coming of Christ. He acknowledged, as he had elsewhere, that Christianity took over some unworthy ideas from Judaism such as Sheol (as a place of no ethical progress) and eternal damnation. The mere presence of such incongruities within the New Testament gives them no claim on the acceptance of the Church. Standing at variance as they do with the Christian fundamental doctrines of God and Christ, they must be condemned as survivals of an earlier and lower stage of religious belief. (32)

About eternal damnation he wrote: The theology of the New Testament with its doctrine of the Fatherhood of God demands a transformation of the Jewish doctrine, and postulates our acceptance either of Conditional Immortality, or, as Origen of old taught, of

302    ( – ) Universalism. So far as the Christian Churches hold fast to the doctrine taken over from Judaism at the Christian era, their eschatology is nearly two thousand years behind their doctrine of God and Christ. We are all ready, I hope, in some fashion to recognize the possibility of a further probation. Some of us may go only so far as to hold probation as a purely speculative question and a matter of grace on the part of God. But there are others amongst us who regard it in quite a different light, and who cannot simply relegate it to the region of God’s uncovenanted mercies, seeing that it affects so deeply the character of God Himself. Nay, they would hold it a dishonour to the God they revere and serve even to admit the possibility that He should visit with a never-ending punishment the errors and shortcomings, nay more, the wilful sins of a few dim and mistaken years of earth, and limit to a handbreadth of time the opportunities and irremediable issues of a neverending eternity. (33–4)

In addition, he opposed the idea that those who have died are assigned to different departments, depending on the levels of their goodness or vice in this world. “The divine education of man is carried on by the mingling of unlike souls here, and there appears to be no ground for the belief or conclusion that it will be otherwise in the world to come” (35). Does the hope for immortality amount to self-delusion? Charles rejected the idea and asserted: “We cannot distrust the intuitions of those whose guidance we have hitherto followed and found divinely good, and in whose spiritual insight we can all share in our best and highest moments” (37). At the close he reverted to the idea that Israel had attained its belief in a blessed immortality through its experience, and it is in this way that one now keeps what they grasped and advances to a fuller life. “Only through personal communion with the Fount of Life is man enabled to rise into the eternal life” (38). One would not expect a thirty-eight-page book to garner much attention, but the work was reviewed. H. R. Mackintosh of Edinburgh contributed a short, positive one in Theologische Literaturzeitung 38 (1913) 605. He wrote: “This brochure is . . . a quite masterly popularization, by an eminent scholar, of the conclusions of modern Biblical research.” He briefly summarized the main points and observed: “In the concluding pages the writer’s positions are more speculative and naturally more disputable, but as a whole the pamphlet is delightful reading.” The American Journal of Theology 17 (1913) 473 ran an unsigned review that merely summarized the contents of Immortality. Beside the appointments and presentations reviewed in the previous pages and in part in connection with them, Charles published several articles and

    ( – )

303

books in the years 1909–13. Some of them we have met in connection with earlier volumes related to them. So, for example, the second edition, or, as Charles thought of it, a new work entitled The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch appeared in 1912 and the second edition of A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life in 1913. We should include here the eighteen articles he contributed to the eleventh edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Some of the articles in question are updated versions of what he had written for the tenth edition,¹² but he also composed pieces on several individual books, on some of which he had published and on some on which he had not.¹³ Among the new ones was an entry on the Book of Revelation, on which he was preparing a commentary. Further new books belonging to the years 1909–13 are three: Fragments of a Zadokite Work (1912), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (1913), and a short commentary on the Book of Daniel (1913). We will survey the first two in this chapter. To avoid making it inordinately long, the commentary on Daniel will be reserved for the next chapter where it will be considered with the second and longer such commentary that Charles published in 1929.

Fragments of a Zadokite Work (1912) Two copies of a previously unknown Hebrew text had only recently become available through an edition by Solomon Schechter.

The Contents of the Fragments of a Zadokite Work The text that Schechter translated begins with an exhortation to those who know righteousness and announces a controversy that God has with all people. The exhortation, which runs from col. 1 through col. 8 (copy A), with a partial parallel in 19 and 20 (copy B), says that Israel’s sin led God to abandon his sanctuary and hand his people over to the sword, until he remembered the covenant with the ancestors and left them a remnant. Three-hundred and ¹² His one article in the tenth edition was entitled “Apocalyptic and Apocryphal Literature”; in the eleventh he covered the subject in two articles: “Apocalyptic Literature” and “Apocryphal Literature.” ¹³ Articles on non-canonical compositions on which he had published extensively are the Book of Enoch, the Ascension of Isaiah, Jubilees, the Assumption of Moses, and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. Articles on books to which he had not devoted previous publications are Baruch, Additions to Daniel, Additions to Esther, 3 and 4 Ezra, Epistle of Jeremiah, Judith, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalms of Solomon, and Testaments of the Three Patriarchs.

304    ( – ) ninety years after handing them to Nebuchadnezzar, he established a new group who recognized their guilt. Twenty years later he raised up a teacher of righteousness for them at a time when Israel was being misled into errors by a scoffer; their sins are described at some length. The writer then turns to those who have entered the covenant, assuring them that God had punished the sinful while leaving a remnant. After urging his audience to do what was right, he surveyed the ways in which past sinners had gone astray, beginning with the pre-flood Watchers and continuing through to the Israelites in the land (the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were righteous exceptions). But God confirmed his covenant with those who were left and revealed hidden things to them. The others were caught in the three nets of Belial (fornication, wealth, and pollution of the sanctuary). At some point penitents in Israel left Judah and went to the land of Damascus where they entered into a new covenant. They eventually returned and settled in the cities of Israel. A legal section occupies cols. 9–16 of copy A. It covers a range of topics including rules regarding the Sabbath and ones regulating the life and leadership of the community.

The Context for Charles’s Volume on the Fragments of a Zadokite Work Fragments of a Zadokite Work—so called because it refers several times to “the sons of Zadok”—had, as noted above, only recently become available when Charles examined it. The manuscripts attesting it were two, labeled A (tenth century, with sixteen columns) and B (twelfth century, with two columns, numbered 19–20). Solomon Schechter (1847–1915), whom we have met in connection with the Aramaic Levi Document (see Part 2 Chapter 8), had identified them among the texts he removed from the Cairo Genizah and shipped to the university library of Cambridge. Schechter published them in Fragments of a Zadokite Work (Documents of Jewish Sectaries I; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910).¹⁴ In the book, he provided

¹⁴ The book appeared some eight years after he had left Cambridge to become president of the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York. He served in the latter position from 1902 until his death in 1915. Schechter had brought with him to New York the manuscripts of the Zadokite Fragments with other Genizah material; he was not to return manuscripts A and B to Cambridge until 1910 when he visited England (Stefan C. Reif, “The Damascus Document from the Cairo Genizah: Its Discovery, Early Study and Historical Significance,” in Reif, Jews, Bible and Prayer: Essays on Jewish Biblical Exegesis and Liturgical Notions [Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 498; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2017] 21–2).

    ( – )

305

an introduction, an annotated translation of both manuscripts (as noted above, they partially overlap),¹⁵ an index of references to ancient works mentioned in his notes, a transcription of the Hebrew texts of both copies, and photographs of the first page¹⁶ in copy A and of the second in copy B. His book also included sections called “Corrections to the Hebrew Text” (for both copies)¹⁷ and “Additions and Corrections to Translation and Notes.”¹⁸ Schechter did not explain why, but he furnished photographs of only two pages, not of the other sixteen (there are no photos of pp. 2–16 of copy A and the first page of copy B). As a result, no one could check the accuracy of his transcription for most of the columns. He did, however, write about the challenges presented by the text in the manuscripts: The risk of giving a translation of such a defective text as the F   Z W unfortunately represent, was great indeed, and I was fully aware of it. This risk I felt not less when writing the Introduction and the Notes to the text, but I preferred to be blamed for my mistakes and be corrected, than be praised for my prudence of non-committal, which policy I do not always think worthy of a student. All I could do was both in the Introduction and in the Notes to call the attention of the reader to the unfortunate condition of our text. In the Notes in particular, I have especially marked many passages as obscure, the meaning of which was unclear to me. The literalness of the translation, to which I kept throughout, will, I believe, make the inherent shortcomings of the original fairly transparent. Words or phrases based on an emendation of the original which was evident to me are marked by asterisks. No student who has had experience in editing texts can

¹⁵ Since the contents of manuscript B parallel copy A from col. 7 line 6 to the end of col. 8, Schechter printed his translation of the two side-by-side. Copy B then ends with some material not paralleled in A. ¹⁶ Schechter referred to the columns as pages. ¹⁷ He explained in the Preface that he did not have an opportunity to read the final proofs of A (by this time he was in New York and thus far removed from Cambridge). He was able, however, to recollate the text and found some new readings that are included in this section. ¹⁸ I have not found a place where, in his edition, Schechter dates the text. Solomon Zeitlin (The Zadokite Fragments: Facsimile of the Manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah Collection in the Possession of the University Library, Cambridge, England [Jewish Quarterly Review Monograph Series 1; Philadelphia: Dropsie College, 1952] 4–5) claimed that he dated it between 196 and 176 .., but he confused Schechter’s dating of when the events recorded in manuscript A col. 1 occurred with his dating of the text. Schechter in fact found Roman elements in the work (Fragments of a Zadokite Work, e.g., xxiii), hence it would not have preceded about the mid-first century .. It also follows from his discussion of the sect behind the text and their debates with the Pharisees that it was composed when these groups existed, that is, in late second temple times. Louis Ginzberg, a friend of Schechter and fellow student of the Zadokite Fragments, thought the sect arose in the time of Alexander Jannaeus (103–76) but that the text was written later and underwent some evolution (An Unknown Jewish Sect [Moreshet Series 1; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1976] 265–73).

306    ( – ) fail to see at once that very little can be taken for certain, and the largest part of the commentary and the conclusions based on it in the Introduction can only be regarded as tentative. (v)

Since the Hebrew composition was previously unknown, Schechter had no information about it other than that it came from the genizah and that the surviving copies were medieval in date. He correctly perceived that the principal opponents in it were Pharisees (e.g., xvi–xviii) and thought the sect to which “the sons of Zadok” belonged was the Dositheans, a Samaritan group somewhat related to the Sadducees and opposed to the Pharisees. He recorded the similarities between the new text and works like Jubilees (e.g., the calendar) and found echoes of its teachings in other places, such as Qaraite literature. Schechter added to his analysis of the Zadokite Fragments, which in his opinion, had to have arisen from a sect “decidedly hostile to the bulk of the Jews as represented by the Pharisees” (xxviii), comments about some current studies of early Jewish texts. In particular, he dealt with recent attributions of pseudepigrapha such as 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs to various sorts of Pharisaic authors (xxvii–xxix)—the position defended by Charles (Schechter refers to him in this general context). About this Schechter wrote: Naturally, all this class of Pseudepigrapha is of supreme importance for the history of Christianity, which undoubtedly was the consummation of all sectarian endeavour preceding it, and must have absorbed all the hostile elements arrayed against official Judaism; but for this very reason it cannot be considered as a factor in the development of Pharisaic Judaism. (xxix)

As he saw the situation, “The only authoritative source for it [Pharisaism] is and will always remain the Talmud, and the ‘great Midrashim,’ in their Hagadic and not less in their Halachic parts” (xxix). For Schechter, the Pharisees represented official Judaism and therefore a text polemicizing against them had to come from a sect.

The Book Fragments of a Zadokite Work, translated from the Cambridge Hebrew Text and edited with introduction, notes and indexes by R. H. Charles, D. Litt., D.D., Fellow of Merton College, Oxford, Fellow of the British Academy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912).

    ( – )

307

In the short book (xvii + forty-two pages, including two indexes), Charles assessed the circumstances behind the Zadokite Fragments much differently than Schechter had. Whereas Schechter, who believed the Pharisees represented official Judaism, insisted it was sectarian and assigned it to an obscure (to us) group, Charles thought the community reflected in it consisted of priests and Levites who broke away from their Sadducean priestly colleagues. Their dissatisfaction arose from a dispute about temple-related issues; when reform attempts failed, they went their own way. For Charles, the text was indeed anti-Pharisaic, but it came from a group centrally situated in Jewish society. They went to Damascus, led by a lawgiver called “the Star.” When they returned to Israel, they settled in the cities and came into conflict with Pharisees. At some point they adopted for themselves the name “the sons of Zadok.” For the deeply religious and ethical dissidents, the prophets were extremely important, unlike the view of them held, so Charles thought, by Pharisees and Sadducees. He considered it possible that eventually some of the Zadokites, who also opposed the oral law, became Christians (vi, referring to Acts 6:7).¹⁹ He concluded that the text itself was written near the end of the first century .., specifically between 18 and 8 .. His precise dating followed from his interpretation of the four messianic references in the text. In three places the Zadokite text uses the phrase “messiah of Aaron and Israel” (12:23–13:1; 14:18–19; 19:10–11) and in one “messiah from Aaron and from Israel” (19:33–20:1). The expressions naturally made experts wonder whether they designated one messiah (from the combined Aaron and Israel) or two (one lay and one priestly). Charles believed that they could best be interpreted as referring to one messiah who would be descended from a priestly line on his mother’s side and a lay line on his father’s side. Such an expectation could only be explained, so far as I am aware, in reference to the two sons of Mariamne and Herod, i.e., Alexander and Aristobulus. Herod was an Israelite . . . while Mariamne combined in her own person all the royal claims of the Maccabean house. Since Alexander and Aristobulus were descended from Aaron on the spindle side, they could not legitimately inherit the priesthood. But the technically non-priestly character of Mariamne’s sons could not stand in the way of the Messianic hopes attached to them by the Zadokite party, since the all but universal expectation of Israel was directed to a Messiah sprung not from Levi but from Judah. But since the Zadokite Party rejected the expectation of a Messiah from Judah they described their expected Messiah as sprung from ¹⁹ Acts 6:7: “a great many of the priests became obedient to the faith” (NRSV).

308    ( – ) Aaron (i.e. from the Maccabees through Mariamne) and from Israel (i.e. from Herod). (xv)²⁰

Since Herod had his young sons executed in 8 .., the book was written between 18 (the year of their return from Rome) and 8 .. Schechter, who thought the one messiah of the sect was a priest, wondered whether “and Israel” indicated that the mother of the messiah would come from a lay family (xiii, n. 6). In his book Charles expressed strong opinions about Schechter’s publication. When objecting to publishing photographs of just two out of eighteen columns, he also unveiled some details about his own book and the reason for the absence of the remaining photographs from Schechter’s edition. In the Preface Charles wrote: The “Fragments of a Zadokite Work” were first published by Dr. Schechter in 1910. This work, which exhibits many instances of fine insight into the text and a vast knowledge of Talmudic literature, did not, owing to various preoccupations, engage my attention till late in 1911. I then undertook a serious study of the book, and this study soon showed me the need of a new text . . . , or at all events a reproduction in facsimile of the MSS., a new English translation, and a new Commentary. I have been unable to edit a new text, as under the conditions of Dr. Schechter’s gift to Cambridge University Library no scholar is allowed access to the MSS. for five years after publication of Dr. Schechter’s text. For permission to make a translation from the Cambridge text, my thanks are due to the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press and to Dr. Schechter. (iii)

So, Charles, like all others, was forced to do his work from Schechter’s transcription of the Hebrew text because of a restriction on access to the manuscripts that Schechter had imposed. Presumably Charles could have waited until the end of the five-year period (1915), but he was unwilling to delay his work.

²⁰ One could conclude from his references to the two sons, Alexander and Aristobulus, that Charles found two messiahs in the text, but on p. v he wrote that the messianic hope centered on just one of them. He gave no indication he was aware of how unconvincing his interpretation sounded. Herod was of Idumean, not Israelite extraction, and if lacking a priestly father disqualified a son from the priesthood it is lame to assert that the Zadokites ignored a basic fact that would have disallowed their view.

    ( – )

309

His Preface also contains a few words about his translation of the Zadokite text. As regards the translation, the student will observe that I have frequently been obliged to give many different renderings of the text from Dr. Schechter—most of which are supported by Lévi and Lagrange²¹—although both my translation and Commentary were completed before I saw their translations. In some instances I have changed my renderings and adopted those of Lévi, and in one or two instances those of Lagrange, while in others I have been obliged to take a fresh direction altogether. The discovery of the parallel structure of a considerable portion of the text, a fact that has escaped scholars hitherto, has been most helpful in the criticism and elucidation of the text. (iii)

Charles added that he also disagreed with Schechter regarding the general interpretation of the Zadokite work. He returned to the missing photographs and Schechter’s edition in the short bibliography at the end of his Introduction: As yet there is only one text, since owing to Dr. Schechter’s arrangement with the University Library, Cambridge, no scholar is to be allowed to see the MSS. for five years after the publication of Dr. Schechter’s edition. Even if Dr. Schechter’s edition were thoroughly satisfactory this extraordinary action on his part could hardly fail to call forth the reprobation of scholars generally. (xvi–xvii)

But his edition was not “thoroughly satisfactory”: “Scholars are indeed grateful to Dr. Schechter for the discovery of these valuable MSS., but they cannot be expected to feel it in such measure for the way in which the text has been edited. It is carelessly done” (xvii). After drawing attention to Schechter’s own sections of corrigenda and giving several other examples from one of the pages of which Schechter had furnished a photograph, he wrote: If Dr. Schechter chooses to edit his text so carelessly that is of course his own concern, but in that case he ought at all events to have published a facsimile ²¹ Israel Lévi, “Un Écrit Sadducéen antérieur à la ruine du Temple,” Revue des Études Juives 61 (1911) 161–205; Marie-Joseph Lagrange, “La secte juive de la nouvelle alliance au pays de Damas,” Revue Biblique 9 (1912) 213–40, 321–60. They too worked without photographs of sixteen of the eighteen columns.

310    ( – ) of the entire MSS.—only a matter of eighteen pages. To publish such a text and then to deny all scholars access to the original MSS. for five years is strange conduct on the part of a seeker after truth. The world of scholars from Lévi, who first expressed the need of a facsimile, to the latest students of the text, look to Dr. Schechter either to remove this unscholarly embargo or himself to publish a facsimile without delay. (xvii)

It turns out that Charles, who was not averse to speaking harshly about other scholars, had had a frustrating experience with Schechter, himself no stranger to scholarly polemics. We learn of the experience from Schechter who a few years later wrote a lengthy essay in response to one of his critics, “Reply to Dr. Büchler’s Review of Schechter’s ‘Jewish Sectaries’,” Jewish Quarterly Review 4 (new series) (1913–14) 449–74.²² At the end of the article, Schechter reminded readers that, as noted in his book, the poor state of the Zadokite fragments ruled out certainty and would engender differences of opinion (see the citation from p. v above). He said he had read most of the reactions to his 1910 edition. “The only exception are [sic] papers appearing serially in periodicals, as I have an inveterate objection to reading scientific matter in instalments” (474). This is the context in which he turned to Charles. Another exception is also Dr. Charles’s translation and commentary of this Fragment. It is one of the books which can wait. But I learned through the papers of his complaint about my refusal to let him have a facsimile of the MS., which meant practically a second edition of the Hebrew text. This was a thing which I had to decline, not only because I was contemplating a second edition of the text, accompanied by full facsimile, which would have given me the opportunity of improving and correcting errors and misprints (which privilege of editing texts correctly was the only reward which I have ever received from my labours in the Genizah for nearly these last eighteen years), but also because I considered the new Canon of Westminster not fitted for such a task.²³ When Dr. Charles cabled to me for permission to make use of ²² He was referring to Adolph Büchler, “Schechter’s ‘Jewish Sectaries’,” Jewish Quarterly Review 3 (new series) (1912–13) 429–85. ²³ In Schechter’s initial typed version of this sentence, he had written: “ . . . Canon of Westminster unfit to edit a Hebrew text altogether.” He crossed these words out and replaced them with the ones cited above. For this information and for that in the next note, see Alex P. Jassen, “The Early Study of Jewish Law in the Damascus Document: Solomon Schechter and Louis Ginzberg in Conversation and Conflict,” in From Scrolls to Traditions: A Festschrift Honoring Lawrence H. Schiffman (edited by Stuart S. Miller, Michael D. Swartz, Steven Fine, Naomi Grunhaus, and Alex P. Jassen; The Brill Reference Library of Judaism 63; Leiden: Brill, 2020) 205 (204–6 for the dispute between Charles and Schechter). I am grateful to Dr. Jassen for sending me both a prepublication and the published form of his

    ( – )

311

my English translation I granted it at once, as I knew he was in need of it, and as far as I understand, it did do him much good.²⁴ From a friend who made a careful study of Dr. Charles’s edition I learn that he derived a great deal of benefit from my notes and Introduction, copying occasionally even my mistakes. However, with this question and many others besides I hope D.V. to deal in a work on the Zadokite Fragments which will contain also a full facsimile of the manuscript. (474)

Schechter, who died in 1915, never produced the anticipated second edition with facsimiles and thus never made the manuscripts or photographs of them available. The photographs of all columns of copies A and B were not published until 1952.²⁵ Schechter’s arrangements, his “embargo” on the manuscripts, do indeed look self-serving, even bizarre. Then, too, he did not explain why he found Charles “not fitted for such a task” as editing the text. Moreover, the way in which he described Charles’s use of his translation (and notes) is embarrassing, almost a charge of plagiarism. He, by his own admission, had not read Charles’s book and simply reported hearsay as if it were fact. At any rate, he supplied no documentation. A comparison of their translations reveals that Charles did not copy Schechter, and in fact he had strong reservations about parts of it. Charles wrote about Schechter’s rendering: The translation of a text for the first time is obviously a piece of pioneer work, and should therefore be treated with all consideration. It betrays, as might be expected, frequent failures to apprehend the meaning of the writer, but on the other hand in many passages Dr. Schechter has shown great insight and his encyclopaedic knowledge of Rabbinic literature has helped to clear up many a difficulty from the outset. (xvii) fascinating essay and for sharing with me, with permission, photographs of Schechter’s draft of his article. The draft is found in the Solomon Schechter Family Collection Series II, The Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary, New York, N.Y., ARC.101 (Box 13, Folder 3) (Jassen, ibid., 205 n. 108). ²⁴ In the initial version Schechter had written after this sentence: But when he arrogated to himself the task of editing Hebrew texts (and such a difficult text), I had to refuse, as I have never received the impression from all that I have ever read of Dr. Charles that his knowledge of Hebrew literature is first-hand, and I consider it only a presumption on his part to put such a request to me. He crossed all of this out, so that it did not appear in the printed edition of the essay (see Jassen, “The Early Study of Jewish Law in the Damascus Document: Solomon Schechter and Louis Ginzburg in Conversation and Conflict,” 205). ²⁵ They appeared in Solomon Zeitlin, The Zadokite Fragments: Facsimile of the Manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah Collection in the Possession of the University Library, Cambridge, England. Zeitlin dated the text to the Middle Ages and thought a Qaraite had written it (e.g., pp. 4–5).

312    ( – ) I suspect that Schechter’s friend who, he said, had made a careful study of Charles’s book was his colleague at the Jewish Theological Seminary, Louis Ginzberg (1873–1953). During the years 1911–14 he wrote in thirteen installments a lengthy piece on the Zadokite Fragments—the sort of serialized study disliked by Schechter and probably intended by him—entitled “Eine unbekannte jüdische Sekte,” all published in Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums.²⁶ A review of the scholarly literature on the Zadokite fragments, which, according to his son, he wrote around the same time, contains several pages devoted to Charles’s work.²⁷ Ginzberg, who, strangely, thought the author of the Zadokite Fragments was a Pharisee,²⁸ found Charles’s results regarding the origin of the party to be “entirely untenable” (307) and listed the anti-Pharisaic points Charles spotted in the text with his own reactions to them. An example is that, according to Charles, the text prohibits divorce while Pharisees permitted it. Ginzberg, with his far superior knowledge of Rabbinic texts, undermined some of Charles’s specific claims, but he also thought Charles brought an anti-Pharisee bias to the text. One piece of evidence he adduced to support the charge was his explanation of 5:7 which reads in Charles’s translation: “And they also pollute the Sanctuary since they separate not according to the Law, and lie with her who sees the blood of her issue” (his 7:8 [p. 12]).²⁹ In a note Charles referred to a nearly identical charge in the Psalms of Solomon (8:13). There, he said, “the Sadducean priests are charged with similarly profaning the altar and temple, . . . But the charge here is brought against the Pharisees” (12). Ginzberg found this to be special pleading: ²⁶ They eventually were assembled in a book entitled Eine unbekannte jüdische Sekte (New York: self-published, 1922), a publication delayed by the circumstances of the World War. It was supposed to be the first part of a larger work that would include a critical text, translation, and other studies. An English translation of the 1922 book with additional material (e.g., a literature review) also by Ginzberg, bears the title An Unknown Jewish Sect. See the Forward by his son Eli, ix–x. ²⁷ The section in An Unknown Jewish Sect regarding Charles’s book is pp. 306–13. ²⁸ Schechter brought Ginzberg to the Jewish Theological Seminary in 1902 as Professor of Talmud. The relations between the two men changed over time, and Ginzberg came to a very different conclusion about the point of view in the Damascus Document than Schechter did. For their relationship, see Jassen, “The Early Study of Jewish Law in the Damascus Document: Solomon Schechter and Louis Ginzberg in Conversation and Conflict,” 178–208; Reif, “The Damascus Document from the Cairo Genizah: Its Discovery, Early Study and Historical Significance,” 10–33, especially 19–24. ²⁹ Charles’s system for referring to passages in the Fragments of a Zadokite Work can be confusing. Schechter in his translation employed two kinds of divisions. “Page 1, 2, 3 etc.” (written in the margin) is his way of designating the columns, and he numbered the lines of each column; he also divided the text into twenty sections designated by Roman numerals, but he did not number the lines in each section separately. Charles abandoned the page = column references and the line numbers in them; he used only Schechter’s twenty sense divisions (marked by Arabic rather than Roman numerals) but numbered the lines in each of them separately. Hence, Charles’s reference to 7:8 is to the eighth line in Schechter’s seventh sense division. Ginzburg used only the column and line numbers.

    ( – )

313

Any unbiased scholar would draw the conclusion: the almost literal similarity between this sectarian passage and the Pharisaic reference in the Psalms of Solomon suggests that the sectarian charge is not brought against the Pharisees but against the Sadducees. Not so Charles; he manages to have the sect level the charge of disregarding a biblical injunction (Lev. 15:19) about purity against the Pharisees, whose very name probably derives from their strict observance and abstinence in matters of purity! (310)

Ginzburg added a number of notes on textual matters. He charged that “wherever he [Charles] deviates from Schechter’s translation, he misunderstands the text” (310). Some of his examples are actually objections to emendations suggested by Charles. In col. 1:19 Charles (= his 1:14) placed his translation between daggers to indicate a problem in the text: “And they chose the best of the neck.” The word for “the neck [‫ הצואר‬has: sawwā’r]” : was probably, he thought, corrupt for “the flock [‫ הצאון‬has: -s: ’ôn],” so that it meant “they chose the best of the flock” for themselves. Ginzburg pointed out that “the best of the neck” comes from Hosea 10:11 and should be retained (310).³⁰ Or, at 20:4–5 (Charles’s 9:32) the text reads ‫‘( אנשי מעות‬anšhê m’wt) which Schechter translated as “men of perversion.” Charles noted that the second word, which he parsed as a singular pual participle, did not agree in number with “men” which it modified and translated (“corrected”) the phrase as “a perverted man.” He commented about Schechter’s translation: “How he can explain this Hebrew construction in ‫ אנשי מעות‬I cannot see” (23). Ginzburg, who found ‫ מעות‬to be “a quite acceptable form” and was able to cite examples where it is used as a substantive, wrote: “How could he, indeed, with all due fairness, expect of a Schechter the most elementary rudiments of Hebrew philology and grammar!” (313).³¹ Charles never did edit the Hebrew texts of the Fragments of a Zadokite Work, as they were temporarily off limits in the University Library, Cambridge. His 1912 book was simply reproduced verbatim (less the little Preface) in the second volume of The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the

³⁰ Charles, Fragments of a Zadokite Work, 4. He also thought the verb might be wrong and that one should read “and they laid waste the best of the flock.” Schechter (Fragments of a Zadokite Work, xxxii, n. 31) too suggested emending the passage by reading, not ‫( הצואר‬has: -s:awwā’r), but ‫( העובר‬hā-‘ôbēr) “the goods that are passing/perishable.” In addition, he missed the allusion to Hosea 10:11. Ginzburg failed to criticize Schechter in his discussion of Charles’s proposal (310) and in his notes to the text (7). ³¹ Schechter, Charles, and Ginzburg may all have been wrong about the reading. The debated form could well be ‫( דעות‬dē’ôt = knowledge), which would make better sense in the context. Charles and Ginzburg should not be faulted for their reading, however, because they were not able to examine the photographs.

314    ( – ) Old Testament (on which see the next section). Not only that, but even the formatting and page layout of the two are exactly same—as if the 1912 edition was printed to be part of the 1913 work. One result was that even an obvious error was repeated. In the 1912 book Charles wrote in the Introduction regarding the date of the text: “The phrase ‘man of lies’ receives its most easy explanation as applied to Herod the Great, who reigned forty-one years” (viii). The line in the text that refers to the “man of lies” says that certain warriors walked with him “about forty years” (Charles’s 9:39; col. 20:15), and for that reason Charles added the note about the length of Herod’s reign. Whatever one might think of identifying Herod as the “man of lies,” Herod did not rule for forty-one years. His reign lasted from 37 to 4 .. Charles in fact changed .. to .. to arrive at his mistaken figure—he does this in the third sentence after the words quoted above. Nevertheless, these sentences in exactly the same wording appear in the 1913 collection (2.788). A difference between the two printings is that the 1912 book has two indices (ancient passages, subjects), while the 1913 publication includes only a subject index for all of the texts in the two volumes. The entries from the second index of the 1912 volume are absorbed into it.

Reviews Since Charles’s little book on the Zadokite Fragments had only a short independent life, it may not have been a prime candidate for reviews. A thoughtful one did appear, however, in The American Journal of Theology 19 (1915) 150–1. The author, Clyde Weber Votaw, a New Testament scholar at the University of Chicago, referred to Schechter’s two manuscripts and offered a more prosaic explanation for the five-year moratorium on viewing them: “the purpose presumably being that his publication of the work might within five years sell sufficiently to pay for the cost of its production” (150–1). After recording Charles’s objection to the stipulation and his assessment of Schechter’s work, Votaw wrote: “As the restriction expires this year, a new edition directly from the MSS may be expected at once from Dr. Charles” (151). He said of Charles’s small book that it was “a preprint from, and is now incorporated in, the great two-volume edition by Charles of the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha” (151). He compared the ways in which Schechter and Charles understood the Hebrew composition, including Charles’s suggestion that the Zadokites may have become Christians. “If Dr. Charles’s hypothesis should prove the true one, we are in possession of important new facts concerning the religious life of the Jewish priests in the period when Christianity was evolving out of first-century Judaism” (151).

    ( – )

315

Another review, this time of “Fragments of a Zadokite Work” in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, came from G. Margoliouth of the British Museum (The International Journal of Apocrypha 37 [1914] 36–7). Margoliouth, who had written elsewhere on Schechter’s text, limited his remarks to criticizing three of Charles’s proposals. The first had to do with whether the sect, after going to Damascus, had returned to Jerusalem. The text does not provide an explicit answer, so Charles had argued from use of the word “sanctuary” in it that it presupposed the second temple was standing and the sect was concerned about those who were polluting it. Margoliouth disagreed and thought the references to the sanctuary pointed to the past. His second concern was Charles’s interpretation of dates. Charles claimed that the 390 years mentioned in the first column, when subtracted from the date when the first temple was destroyed (586 ..), led one to 196 .. for the founding of the sect which consisted of “Chasidim” who were arising around that time. Margoliouth appealed to traditional Jewish calculations of the Persian, Greek, and Roman periods. If these were used, the sect would have come into being between 30 and 4 .. and thus could not be Chasidim. He charged that Charles seemed unaware of these Jewish calculations. He also rejected Charles’s dating of the text between 18 and 8 .., since it was unlikely that the sect would regard as a messiah a son of Herod who, according to Charles, was the man of lies in the text. Margoliouth’s final point had to do with the identity of the teacher of righteousness. Charles did not know who he was but thought the beginning of the text gave some idea about when he was active—in the period of wrath. Margoliouth disputed Charles’s translation of the word ‫( קץ‬qēs) : as “period” and said it meant “end” in the passage in question—the teacher arose at the end of the period of wrath.

Legacy If Charles’s Fragments of a Zadokite Work had not been incorporated into The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, it may well have been forgotten. In contemporary bibliographies, only the form in the two-volume collection is mentioned.³² This is due in part to events that transpired after he wrote it. We saw earlier that photographs of copies A and B were first published in 1952 by Solomon Zeitlin, forty-two years after Schechter’s initial ³² For instance, in the bibliography to 1969 prepared by Joseph A. Fitzmyer for a reprint of Schechter’s book (Documents of Jewish Sectaries, volume I Fragments of a Zadokite Work [New York: KTAV, 1970] 25–34), only the version in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament is listed (p. 25).

316    ( – ) publication. However, his stipulation that the manuscripts themselves were not to be consulted by others was valid for just five years. After that, scholars could examine the originals and apparently have photos made. So, Flemming Frils Hvidberg’s 1928 translation of the text was based on photographs (Menigheden af den nye Pagt i Damascus [Copenhagen: G.E.C. Gad]), and a few years later the same was true for Leonhard Rost’s Die Damaskusschrift (Kleine Texte für Vorlesungen und Übungen 167; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1933). C. Rabin, The Zadokite Documents (Oxford: Clarendon, 1953; second edition, 1958) also used photographs. The bigger development in study of the Zadokite Fragments, one that occurred two decades after Charles’s death and quickly dated all previous scholarship, was discovery of pieces from ten copies of what is now called the Damascus Document in Qumran caves 4, 5, and 6 (4Q266–73, 5Q12, 6Q15). These remains of scrolls have disclosed important information about the text itself, its shape and historical situation, its relation to other Jewish works, and the place of the genizah copies in the transmission of the text. The original editor of the Qumran fragments, J. T. Milik, determined that cols. 15–16 in Schechter’s manuscript A should be placed directly before col. 9. That is, the Qumran fragments attest the order 1–8, 15–16, 9–14 for the columns preserved in the A manuscript. Besides this rearrangement, the evidence of the Qumran copies suggested to Milik the following structure: After page VIII and the conclusion to the historical section (missing in A, preserved in B, page XX, . . . ), but before page XV, we can detect the loss of several pages in the Cairo manuscript A. Numerous fragments from the Cave IV manuscripts belong to this missing section. . . . To sum up, the original order of the work was as follows: Opening columns (4Q, missing in Cairo manuscript), CD.³³ I–VIII (and a text parallel to fin. XIX–XX), missing part (partly preserved in 4Q), XV–XVI, IX–XIV, final columns (4Q: penal code, and liturgy for the feast of the Renewal of the Covenant,..).³⁴

³³ The letters CD stand for Cairo Damascus and refer to Schechter’s manuscripts. ³⁴ Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea (Studies in Biblical Theology 26; London: SCM Press, 1959) 151–2 (from the third of his Additional Notes). Milik’s discoveries about the order and placement of the different parts of the work must have occurred after publication of the French original (Dix ans de découvertes dans le desert de Juda [Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1957]), where nothing is said about this on pp. 34–5 (the pages about the Damascus Document), and before the writing of his Additional Note 3 in the English translation.

    ( – )

317

Milik’s proposals can be summed up as follows (New = Qumran text[s]; Pages = genizah copies): New + Pages 1–8, with 19–20 partially paralleling the end + New + pages 15–16, 9–14, + New. Schechter, who, of course, knew only the genizah copies, anticipated some of these conclusions about the contents and order of the text. He wrote in his Introduction regarding manuscript A: The MS. is possibly defective at the beginning and is certainly so at the end. Pages 13–16 are badly mutilated, both on the edges and at the bottom of the page. The MS. is also torn and obliterated in some other places, by which a few words or letters are affected. Besides the missing pages at the end and at the beginning, there is a lacuna between p. 8 and p. 9, the MS. breaking up at the end of a line, and perhaps in the middle of a sentence. It is impossible to determine how many pages may be missing here. I have also indicated such a lacuna at the end of p. 12, but have subsequently come to the conclusion to consider it as continuous. (ix–x)

He did not explain why he thought material was missing at the beginning, but the bottom of column 16 is torn away or deteriorated. His comment about the end of column 8 is verifiable: in copy A, the last words are “All the men who entered the new covenant in the land of Damascus.” The parallel line in copy B (col. 19:33–4) places “Thus/so” before these words and continues the text for another 36 lines that are not in copy A. There was insufficient evidence available to Schechter to show that the disturbed text in col. 8 (copy A) was part of an even bigger problem in that 15–16 also belonged after it (and after the longer text in copy B). He did, however, notice that the end of p. 14 (dealing with the constitution and organization of the group) lacked a sequel in 15–16 where other sorts of laws receive attention (x).³⁵ The editor of the cave 4 copies of the Damascus Document in the Discoveries in the Judaean Desert series, Joseph Baumgarten, supplied a convenient summary of his conclusion regarding the text in his entry

³⁵ Schechter accounted for the lack of order by hypothesizing that the text as represented in A leaves “the impression that we are dealing with extracts from a larger work, put together, however, in a haphazard way, with little regard to completeness or order” (x). He thought this was the case particularly in the legal section.

318    ( – ) “Damascus Document” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls.³⁶ There he listed the ten copies, their paleographical dates, and their contents. 4Q266 is the oldest and most extensively preserved among them. It was copied in the first half of the first century ..³⁷ and includes material from the original beginning and end of the text, along with many additions to the legal section. Baumgarten divided the full text of the Damascus Document into three parts, the last two of which could be subdivisions of a single legal section: The Admonition: It begins with a teacher calling on the sons of light to separate from sinners (the new introduction) and continues with material in genizah copy A 1–8. The Laws: Baumgarten divided the unit into sixteen sections, the first seven of which are attested only by copies from Qumran, not by copy A from the genizah. Communal Rules: Of the four sections, the last two (Penal Code, Ritual for expulsion of guilty members at the annual covenantal ceremony and conclusion of the document) are attested only in Qumran copies. It seems likely, on the basis of the evidence from Qumran, that the Damascus Document was composed in circumstances quite different from those Charles envisaged. His hypothesis that the group reflected in the work was a priestly one related in some way to the Sadducees, as Schechter too maintained, is closer to the picture emerging from the Dead Sea Scrolls, while Ginzberg’s theory that the work is Pharisaic seems even more implausible than when he propounded it. Charles’s and Schechter’s forced explanations for the messianic references can be shown, in light of passages in the scrolls that speak of two messiahs, to be rather wide of the mark. It is more likely that the text, like other scrolls, reflects a belief that there would be two leaders in the future, one from the family of Aaron and one from Judah.

The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament After Charles had given some twenty years of his life to bringing Jewish apocalyptic literature to the attention of scholars, someone conceived the

³⁶ Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam (2 volumes; Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2000) 166–70. ³⁷ Paleographical analysis has, therefore, made it very likely that Charles’s dating of the work between 18 and 8 B.C. was inaccurate.

    ( – )

319

idea to collect translations of these compositions into a single publication. Charles did not disclose whether the proposal was his or came from the Clarendon Press, but, in whatever way the project originated, he was the obvious choice to serve as its guiding editor.³⁸

The Context for Charles’s Volumes on the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha The great collection that Charles edited was not the first of its kind. The Jewish literature written during what has sometimes been called the Intertestamental Period had attracted less attention from most people, including scholars, than the books of the canonical Scriptures, but a few experts had attempted to gather the surviving texts. One was a scholar from Hamburg, Johann Albert Fabricius (1668–1736) who printed many Greek and Latin texts in his Codex Pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti (1713).³⁹ The massive work contained some 240 sections, with texts arranged by alphabetical order of the names with which they were associated. He printed texts and excerpts of compositions as well as references to them. An example is the Book of Jubilees (his #162, Parva Genesis), for which no complete text was known to him; he included excerpts from the book as well as references to it in the writings of Epiphanius, Jerome, and four Byzantine chronographers (849–65). He assured the reader that he was not publishing the texts said to have been written by patriarchs and prophets because he believed they were authentic (in his Ad Lectorem); as the title of his work indicates, he regarded them as incorrectly attributed to these ancient figures. In this way he differed from those who, for instance, deemed the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (also in Fabricius’s collection) to be genuine statements from Jacob’s sons.⁴⁰ More than a century later, Otto Fridolin Fritzsche published a similar collection of Greek and Latin texts under the title Libri Apocryphi Veteris Testamenti Graece, recensuit et cum commentario critico . . . accedunt libri Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphi selecti (Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus, 1871). He

³⁸ See the Additional Note at the end of Part 2 Chapter 3. ³⁹ The full title is Codex Pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti, Collectus Castigatus, Testimoniisque, Censuris & Animadversionibus illustratus. It was published in Hamburg and Leipzig by Liebezeit. Before editing this collection, he had prepared large compilations of Greek and Latin works and of New Testament apocrypha. Noteworthy is his use of the term Pseudepigraphus for the literature. ⁴⁰ See the analysis of Fabricius’s work and context as well as the ways in which his collection was used by people like William Whiston (1667–1752), the translator of Josephus who regarded some of these compositions as authentic, in Annette Yoshiko Reed, “The Modern Invention of ‘Old Testament Pseudepigrapha’,” Journal of Theological Studies 60 (2009) 414–21.

320    ( – ) composed a lengthy introduction and supplied a set of ancient texts, each supported by a critical apparatus. For the Apocrypha he printed the texts of 1 Esdras, Esther, the Additions to Daniel, the Prayer of Manasseh, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, Tobit, Judith, 1–4 Maccabees, Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach, and Wisdom of Solomon. The pseudepigrapha he selected were the Psalms of Solomon, 4 Esdras, 5 Esdras, the Apocalypse of Baruch, and the remains of the Assumption of Moses. A more accessible publication that appeared much closer in time to Charles’s volumes, and one to which he made reference in his various editions, was written by William John Deane (1823–96), Pseudepigrapha: An Account of Certain Apocryphal Sacred Writings of the Jews and Early Christians (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1891). In it he included studies of the Psalms of Solomon, 1 Enoch, the Assumption of Moses, 2 Baruch, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Jubilees, the Ascension of Isaiah, and the Sibylline Oracles. He wrote that his book “aims at giving a succinct account of these productions for readers who are not familiar with the originals” (v). It consists of lightly revised articles he had written on the individual compositions—articles that reveal impressive knowledge of scholarship on them. It was not his purpose to present the reader with English translations of the books; he limited himself to writing about them. Neither the publications of Fabricius and Fritzsche nor that of Deane offered contemporary translations of the ancient works they included. The former two furnished Greek and Latin texts and were thus meant for a limited audience, while the latter described the compositions. The publication most nearly parallel to Charles’s collection, both in extent of coverage and use of a modern language, was the two-volume work under the general editorship of Emil Friedrich Kautzsch (1841–1910), Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments (Tübingen, Freiburg, and Leipzig: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1900)—an anthology mentioned already a number of times in this biography. The publisher had issued a translation of the Old Testament (Die heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments) some years earlier and wanted to supplement it; Kautzsch’s collection was meant to put the plan into action. In his Preface, he described the difficulties that beset the work—finding scholars who had devoted the requisite years to the languages and texts of the respective books and allowing them sufficient time to carry out their work. Naturally, the pseudepigraphic texts posed the most severe problems in that they were not easily accessible and were preserved in a variety of languages (1.v–vi). Kautzsch’s work originally appeared in fascicles, beginning in 1898 and continuing until 1900; during its gestation period, it apparently grew considerably larger than first envisioned (vi).

    ( – )

321

Kautzsch composed a substantial introduction to the two volumes (1.xi–xxxi). He began with a history of the two principal terms—apocrypha and pseudepigrapha—and their usage (and that of related concepts) from ancient to modern times. He also explained the principle by which the texts in the two volumes were selected for inclusion, since there were many that failed to make the cut. For the volume containing Apocrypha the principle was to incorporate the ones in the Luther Bible or even those printed in popular German editions of the Bible (like the Zurich Bible). The result was a list of thirteen works in four categories: Apocryphal History Books 3 Ezra (= 1 Esdras) 1–3 Maccabees Religious Instructions in Narrative Form Tobit Judith Additions to Canonical Books of the Old Testament The Prayer of Manasseh The Additions to Daniel The Additions to Esther Religious Instructions in Pedagogical Form Baruch The Letter of Jeremiah The Proverbs of Jesus, the Son of Sirach Wisdom of Solomon. For the pseudepigrapha, the decision was made to include only texts of Jewish authorship. Hence, entirely Christian compositions were bypassed, and sections deemed by experts to be Christian and other interpolations in Jewish works were left out or otherwise indicated to be secondary. In addition, texts that had only the remotest connection with the Old Testament were excluded (xv). The books were not categorized by their place of origin (Palestine or the Hellenistic diaspora) but by literary categories. The result for the Pseudepigraphen volume is another collection of thirteen texts: Pseudepigraphic Legends Letter of Aristeas Book of Jubilees Martyrdom of Isaiah (i.e., only parts of the Ascension of Isaiah 1–5, the Jewish material)

322    ( – ) Pseudepigraphic Poetry Psalms of Solomon Pseudepigraphic Instruction The so-called Fourth Book of Maccabees Pseudepigraphic Apocalypses The Sibylline Oracles Book of Enoch Assumption of Moses 4 Ezra (= 2 Esdras) The Apocalypses of Baruch Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch Greek Apocalypse of Baruch The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (with the Hebrew Testament of Naphtali) Life of Adam and Eve. Kautzsch recognized that there was no sharp line separating the texts included in each volume, since some of the apocryphal works are pseudepigraphs (e.g., Baruch), while some of the pseudepigrapha do not falsely claim an ancient worthy as the author (e.g., Martyrdom of Isaiah—Isaiah is not said to be the writer). He surveyed the categories under which the texts were arranged in the two volumes and the individual works listed under each, devoting more space to the apocalypses and their characteristics and voicing some appreciation for what they had to offer. He added a section listing “select literature” regarding the ancient texts—manuscripts, editions, commentaries, and even bibliographical updates that arrived too late to be considered by the authors of the annotated translations. The collection that Kautzsch edited soon became the definitive source in the German-speaking world and beyond for accessing the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal texts.⁴¹

The Book The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English with introductions and critical and explanatory notes to the several books, edited ⁴¹ In a short list of editions of the Apocrypha that Charles appended to his introduction to the first volume of The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, he wrote about Kautzsch’s publication: “This is the best work that has hitherto appeared on this literature as a whole. But many parts of it are already antiquated” (I.x).

    ( – )

323

in conjunction with many scholars by R. H. Charles, D. Litt., D.D., Fellow of Merton College, Oxford, Fellow of the British Academy (2 volumes; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913). The first two nouns of the title serve as the names respectively of the two hefty volumes: Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha. They became Charles’s most famous, enduring, and widely used publication. By the time the volumes appeared and possibly while he was still working on them, Charles was named a canon of Westminster Abbey, meaning that his long stay in Oxford had come to an end. Charles, besides explaining in a Preface the procedures followed by the editors of all the texts—e.g., the ten topics they were expected to address— composed special introductions for each volume. In the introduction to vol. 1, he began, as Kautzsch had, by treating the term apocryphal, although his point was that the origin of the concept Apocryphal Books remained to be determined (vii). He then defined the Apocrypha Proper—those apocryphal works written between 200 .. and 120 ..: “we shall find that the Apocrypha Proper constitutes the excess of the Vulgate over the Hebrew Old Testament, and that this excess is borrowed from the LXX” (1.vii), with a few exceptions. Charles thought the difference between the Protestant canon of the Old Testament and that of the Catholic Church reproduced the one between “the Canon of the Palestinian and the Alexandrian Jews” (viii). For the first volume of his collection, 3 Maccabees, not part of the Apocrypha Proper (it is not in the Vulgate), was added, since it is found in many septuagintal manuscripts. The third section of the Introduction treats “Various meanings of the term ‘apocryphal’.” The first usage he distinguished was the earliest, to refer to works “withheld from public knowledge because they were vehicles of mysterious or esoteric wisdom, which was too sacred or profound to be disclosed to any save the initiated” (viii). A second sense of apocryphal was for works withheld from the public “because their value was confessedly secondary or questionable” (ix); and a third was to designate a writing as false or heretical. This section led to the fourth in which Charles surveyed the changing attitudes to the Apocrypha within the Church. Here too he distinguished three views: 1. Especially the Greek fathers but also Augustine and several early church councils accepted these books as Scripture. 2. Writers like Jerome and Africanus who were familiar with the Hebrew canon of Scripture regarded the books not in the Hebrew Bible to be apocryphal.

324    ( – ) 3. Some believed that, while these books did not enjoy the same status as biblical works, they were valuable for their moral teachings and ought to be read in worship services (they were called “ecclesiastical books”). These views remained viable until the Reformation when the Protestant churches adopted the canon of the Hebrew Bible (with some still regarding the apocryphal books as valuable for reading), while the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent (1545–63) defined the canon of the Old Testament as including the Apocrypha Proper (without 1 and 3 Ezra and the Prayer of Manasseh). Charles brought his Introduction to a close by declaring how important the apocryphal (and pseudepigraphic) books were for understanding religious developments from 200 .. to 100 .. His last sentence reads: If the Canonical and Apocryphal Books are compared in reference to the question of inspiration, no unbiased scholar could have any hesitation in declaring that the inspiration of such a book as Wisdom or the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs is incomparably higher than that of Esther. (x)

The works included in volume 1 are exactly those in Kautzsch’s Apokryphen but in a slightly different arrangement: Historical Books 1 Esdras (= 3 Ezra) 1 Maccabees 2 Maccabees 3 Maccabees Quasi-Historical Books Written with a Moral Purpose Tobit Judith Wisdom Literature Sirach Wisdom of Solomon Additions to and Completions of the Canonical Books 1 Baruch Epistle of Jeremy Prayer of Manasses Additions to Daniel Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Children

    ( – )

325

Susanna Bel and the Dragon Additions to Esther The Apocrypha volume has not had the same impact as its sister publication Pseudepigrapha, since translations of these books were and continue to be widely available in English Bibles, but it incorporates some truly valuable studies. For example, if a reader were interested in comparing 1 Esdras with the corresponding material in 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, the edition by S. A. Cook would be a very convenient place to look, as he printed English translations of the two in parallel columns. The edition of Sirach by G. H. Box and W. O. E. Oesterley is a book in itself, running to nearly 250 large pages (268–517). Charles mentioned in a footnote to his Preface (1.iii, n. 2 = 2.iii, n. 2) that “In the case of Sirach and Tobit the editors have been allowed much beyond the normal number of pages for their critical apparatus, which they have used to good purpose.” The notes to the translations in both are more extensive than the text, with the apparatus in Tobit (edited by D. C. Simpson) being especially prominent. The evidence for the text of Sirach was growing rapidly as the copies of it found in the Cairo Genizah were becoming available, so it is understandable that its editors were allotted more pages for their work. Of the fifteen contributors to Apocrypha, seven were or had been at Oxford, and four had Cambridge connections. The second volume, almost two hundred pages longer than the first (871 to 684), came to define the corpus of pseudepigraphic texts for readers of English—unless they could use more technical studies of individual texts— and nicely showcases the magnitude of Charles’s contribution to the field. In the Preface that appears in both volumes he wrote, not very accurately, that the second one “contains all the remaining [that is, besides the Apocrypha] extant non-Canonical Jewish books written between 200 .. and . 100 with possibly one or two exceptions. The greater part of these books have hitherto been accessible only in expensive editions . . .” (2.iv = 1.iv). There are seventeen texts that met his definition; these appear under six rubrics (the asterisked titles are those also present in Kautzsch’s Pseudepigraphen): Primitive History Rewritten from the Standpoint of the Law *The Book of Jubilees Sacred Legends *The Letter of Aristeas *The Books of Adam and Eve

326    ( – ) *The Martyrdom of Isaiah (that is, the Jewish sections) Apocalypses *1 Enoch *The Testaments of the XII Patriarchs *The Sibylline Oracles *The Assumption of Moses 2 Enoch, or the Book of the Secrets of Enoch *2 Baruch, or the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch *3 Baruch, or the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch *4 Ezra (= 2 Esdras) Psalms *The Psalms of Solomon Ethics and Wisdom Literature *4 Maccabees Pirkē Aboth The Story of Ahiḳar : History The Fragments of a Zadokite Work Besides writing the Introduction, Charles provided seven of the seventeen pseudepigraphic entries (Jubilees, Martyrdom of Isaiah, 1 Enoch, Testaments of the XII Patriarchs, Assumption of Moses, 2 Baruch, Fragments of a Zadokite Work) and co-authored one more (2 Enoch).⁴² All of his contributions are shorter forms of editions he had earlier prepared, with the exception of Fragments of a Zadokite Work (785–834). As we have seen, in the previous year Charles had published a short book, Fragments of a Zadokite Work. It was simply reproduced almost without change in vol. 2 of the 1913 collection. Charles offered a few words in the Preface to explain why he had included the last three items (the only ones, apart from 2 Enoch, not in Kautzsch’s Pseudepigraphen). About Pirkē Aboth⁴³ and the Story of Ahiḳar : ⁴² Since the Clarendon Press had published some of his books, he could re-use material from them without difficulty. In the Preface printed in both volumes (e.g., 1.iv) he thanked A. and C. Black “for permission to reprint the translation and make use of the introduction and notes” in his editions of Jubilees, Martyrdom of Isaiah, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Assumption of Moses, and 2 Baruch. ⁴³ In his Introduction to vol. 2, Charles, who stressed the ethical side of ancient Jewish apocalyptic literature, said about the presence of Pirkē Aboth: “The chief work on Ethics in the Talmud, which is reproduced in the Jewish Book of Common Prayer, i.e., The Sayings of the Fathers, has been translated and added to this volume, in order that the student might have before him the best that Later Judaism produced in the domain of Ethics. It will be obvious even to the most cursory reader that a great gulf divides the Ethics of the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs, and even those of 2 Enoch, from these

    ( – )

327

he wrote: “ . . . it is not necessary to make any apology for their introduction into the present work, although they do not properly fall within the true limits above defined, but they were used, at all events partially, by Jewish readers within this period, nor can they be rightly designated Pseudepigraphs. The Fragments of a Zadokite Work are of an historical character, and are valuable in throwing light on a lost chapter of Jewish religious history. They contain likewise apocalyptic material of an interesting nature” (2.iv = 1.iv). His “nonapology” highlights the difficulty of defining a category so unhelpful and inadequate as “the Pseudepigrapha,” however well-meant and traditional it was (note the titles of the collections surveyed above). Of the fourteen contributors to the second volume (there is some overlap with the editors of vol. 1), seven were or had been connected with Oxford, and two with Cambridge. It is worth noting that a woman made the list—Agnes Smith Lewis, one of the famous twins; she translated the Arabic version of The Story of Ahiḳar. : Charles’s “Introduction to Volume II” (vii–xi) offers some thoughts familiar from his earlier statements about “apocalyptic” and “legalistic” Judaism. He was convinced that these two “sides” of Judaism agreed about the centrality of the law. Even before the Christian era each of these two sides of Pharisaism necessarily tended to lay more and more emphasis on the chief factor in its belief and study to the almost complete exclusion of the other, and thus legalistic Pharisaism in time drove out almost wholly the apocalyptic element as an active factor (though it accepted some of its developments) and became the parent of Talmudic Judaism, whereas apocalyptic Judaism developed more and more the apocalyptic, i.e. prophetic, element, and in the process came to recognize, as in 4 Ezra, the inadequacy of the Law for salvation. From this it follows that the Judaism that survived the destruction of the Temple, being almost wholly bereft of the apocalyptic wing which had passed over into Christianity, was not the same as the Judaism of an earlier date. (2.vii)

excellent but very uninspiring sayings of Jewish sages belonging to the legalistic wing of Judaism. It is quite true that many a fine saying is found in the other tractates of the Talmud and other Rabbinic writings, but the harvest that rewards the diligent reaper is slight in comparison of the toil, and the number of really fine sayings that were uttered before .. 100 is far from great” (2.xi). At the end of his section about the theology of Pirkē Aboth, R. Travers Herford, who edited it for this volume, warned readers that Ferdinand Weber’s System der Altsynagogalen Palästinischen Theologie aus Targum, Midrasch, und Talmud Dargestellt (Leipzig: Dörffling & Franke, 1880) “presents the results of great learning from a standpoint entirely mistaken and by a method fundamentally wrong” (2.690). Weber was a German pastor involved in missions to the Jews. To this Charles saw fit to add in a footnote: “The student, however, should bear in mind that Rabbinic Pharisaism after the destruction of the Temple in 70 .. differs largely from Pharisaism before that date. See the Introduction to this Vol.”

328    ( – ) He maintained, as he frequently did, that after 200 .. apocalypses had to be pseudonymous because the law had become supreme and left no role for prophecy whose legacy survived in apocalyptic. Moreover, around that time the prophetic section of the canon was closed, meaning there could be no more such inspired works. Apocalyptists, to be heard, had to adopt the name of an ancient hero. Like prophecy, apocalyptic was characterized by its ethical element. The teaching of these writers “is a vast advance on that of the O. T., and forms the indispensable link which in this respect connects the O. T. with the N. T.” (2.xi).⁴⁴ There is little doubt about the perspective from which the Jewish texts are presented.

Reviews In light of the considerable influence The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament wielded for decades, it is instructive to see what Charles’s contemporaries thought about it. One early review (unsigned) appeared in The Athenaeum 4471, July 5, 1913, pp. 9–10. The reviewer’s first words were: “It would be difficult to exaggerate the importance of this great and scholarly work” (9). But he quickly offered a criticism that is quite understandable, one involving what he termed “an excrescence in the scope of the collection” (9). The chief offense was Charles’s inclusion of Pirkē Aboth and Ahiḳar, neither of which was at : home in the collection in the reviewer’s opinion. He also had doubts about Fragments of a Zadokite Work but allowed that, if Charles were correct in his assessment of it, it would belong. In some respects, he thought, Charles was guilty of arguing in a circle—his reconstructions rested on his interpretations, and his interpretations were based on his reconstructions. The criticism arose in connection with his claim that Pharisees wrote the various apocalypses. The reviewer noted that, according to many, the laws in Jubilees differed from those in the Mishnah which are supposed to reflect Pharisaic positions. Naturally, this would cast doubt on Pharisaic authorship for Jubilees. After briefly surveying the contributions of the various writers in the two volumes,

⁴⁴ There are two pages of “Addenda et Corrigenda to Volume II” (xii–xiii). They too are almost all from Charles (he signed each of his notes as “G. E”). Most of the section is given over to his remarks about a commentary on 4 Ezra by Box (the editor of 4 Ezra in the Pseudepigrapha volume) and the views he expressed in it about 2 Baruch, regarding which he had adopted the position of Rosenthal. Charles tried to show in detail how wrong Rosenthal was.

    ( – )

329

the reviewer concluded by expressing gratitude to Charles and the others “for these magnificent contributions to the history and literature of religion” (10). John M. Powis Smith of the University of Chicago wrote about the volumes in The Biblical World 43 (1914) 59–61. His evaluation appeared under the rubric Book of the Month, Uncanonical Writings of the Old Testament. He began by highlighting the importance of the apocryphal literature and how much Protestants had lost by rejecting it. He was most complimentary about Charles. The general editor of this work was the man of all men to undertake this task. Dr. Charles has devoted the scholarly energy of his life to the study and interpretation of this kind of literature. He knows the field as few, if any other, scholars do. (60)

About him he added: “The general oversight of the editor is, of itself, a sufficient guaranty of the high quality of the work as a whole and in detail” (61). He realized that the two thick volumes were mostly for scholars but believed there was much in them for the non-specialist as well. He did complain about the high cost of the books ($19.25 for the set) and hoped for a smaller, less-expensive edition. Frank C. Porter of Yale University wrote a lengthy review in the American Journal of Theology 18 (1914) 106–18 (“A Source-Book of Judaism in New Testament Times”). He, like Smith, wrote about the extra-biblical literature and its value, and, to anticipate a point he would make, he surveyed the range of Jewish writing in the period in question. About it he offered three remarks. First, the Pentateuch was important for all Jewish groups; second, the New Testament is the best source for the Judaism of its time; and third, in the first two centuries, relations between Jews and Christians were close, so that at times it is difficult to tell whether a text is Jewish or Christian. Turning to the anthology under review, Porter wrote: “The first and last word of the reviewer of these significant volumes ought to be one of praise and gratitude, and the principal word might well be one of exhortation to ministers and other students of the Bible to get and use this collection” (110). He observed that these ancient texts were the ones to which the student of the New Testament should turn first after the Old Testament to “understand the Judaism out of which Christianity came” (110). He too complimented Charles in strong terms. For twenty years past the student in this field has been in ever-increasing and quite incalculable debt to Dr. Charles—now Canon of Westminster—the

330    ( – ) general editor of these volumes. One can have only sincere and grateful admiration for his untiring industry and amazing productivity in this obscure and difficult region of research. There is an intellectual and spiritual energy behind such labors that is our wonder and despair. (112)

Porter found the Charles volumes to be generally more technical than the ones Kautzsch had overseen and believed the size and textual detail of the Tobit and Sirach entries were not appropriate for this kind of publication. Its price would also set limits to its usefulness. Porter thought there could have been less elaborate treatments of the texts, a procedure that would have allowed inclusion of more compositions. He was perturbed that the preface to each of the two volumes made the claim that vol. 2 included all the remaining non-canonical Jewish books, with two exceptions. He told the reader that a glance at his own survey at the beginning of the review or at Schürer’s history would show the statement was far from true. In addition, the three works included in the Charles collection but not in Kautzsch’s—Pirkē Aboth, Ahiḳar, and Fragments of a Zadokite Work—could have been put in a : third volume on “selections from Hebrew and Aramaic Sources” (114). He found it understandable that Charles would be partial to apocalypses because he had done so much work on them. Also, ethics, which Charles considered so important in the apocalypses, could be found in the various kinds of literature of the time, although in each, including apocalypses, it was mixed with less important material. Porter likewise objected to some of Charles’s favorite theories. He did not think that Enoch was the most important Jewish book written between 200 .. and 100 .. In addition, “The line that reaches from prophecy to Christianity does not run so straight through Daniel and Enoch” (115). The Judaism to which Jesus attached himself was that of John the Baptist who was a prophet, not an apocalyptist. And Jewish apocalypticism did not migrate solely into Christianity but is more widespread in later Jewish texts. Despite his concern about the price of the volumes, Porter returned to his point that Charles should have incorporated more works, both early and late. He thought Charles should have traced the sources for the two kinds of apocalypses, the cosmic and the historical. An ideal source book, Porter ventured, would have had a third volume for Rabbinic material and a fourth for Philo and Josephus. Nevertheless, he noted the depth of religious feeling, the beauty, and the power contained in the books and concluded: “For the texts themselves, in English form, and for the study of their place and meaning, these two volumes must for a long while maintain their place as the standard edition” (118).

    ( – )

331

Legacy The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament continues to be used and cited, but the collection has been superseded by larger anthologies of “Pseudepigrapha,” a term that has proved rather flexible in meaning.⁴⁵ The newer anthologies are fuller than Charles’s second volume, in part because they include texts that, for whatever reason, were absent from his collection, though available, and in part because more texts have surfaced since 1913. Several of these publications in English may be listed here, some of which still bear the impress of Charles’s work. A feature worth noting is how the word “pseudepigrapha” has more recently disappeared from the titles of such collections. James H. Charlesworth, editor, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983, 1985). Included are fifty-two compositions or parts of them, compared with Charles’s seventeen in Pseudepigrapha. The editor’s Introduction for the General Reader (1.xxi–xxxiv) explains the broad sense in which “pseudepigrapha” is used (especially xxiv–xxv) and defines the period covered as 200 .. to 200 .. Two works from Charles’s second volume were left out—Pirkē Aboth and Fragments of a Zadokite Work—because they belong to other collections. H. F. D. Sparks, editor The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984). Sparks notes in the Preface (ix–xviii) that the idea for the collection arose when the stocks of Charles’s two volumes were running low. Were they to be reprinted or in some way replaced? A new set of texts, intended to be a companion to M. R. James, editor, The Apocryphal New Testament, would include, it was anticipated, revisions of translations in Charles’s second volume as well as additional texts. A number of complications arose and led to further reflection on the plan for the new volume. The editor wrote that Our single criterion for inclusion has been whether or not any particular item is attributed to (or is primarily concerned with the history or activities of) an Old Testament character (or characters). And we have tried to include all the more important and interesting items that satisfy this criterion, irrespective of date, and irrespective, too, of whether or not a convincing claim can be put forward on behalf of any one of them for a respectable Jewish pedigree. (xv)

⁴⁵ The Apocrypha, strictly speaking, forms a set group of texts and has, consequently, not grown.

332    ( – ) Of the texts in Charles’s second volume, it was decided to omit the Fragments of a Zadokite Work, Ahiḳar, the Sibylline Oracles, and the Letter of Aristeas. It : was determined, too, that 4 Ezra (2 Esdras) really belonged in the Apocrypha, so it too was left out, as was 4 Maccabees. Added were sixteen texts not in Charles’s Pseudepigrapha, and the approach of Charles (and others) to the texts was modified so that, for example, the Ascension of Isaiah includes all three of the parts Charles found in it, not only the single one he placed in his second volume. Of the twenty-five texts included in The Apocryphal Old Testament, six are identified as revisions of translations in Charles’s second volume (Jubilees, Assumption of Moses, Ascension of Isaiah, Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch—all revisions of Charles’s translations; Life of Adam and Eve, a revision of Wells’s translation, and Greek Apocalypse of Baruch, a revision of Hughes’s translation). Richard Bauckham, James R. Davila, and Alexander Panayotov, editors, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013). The criteria for inclusion are two: first, texts composed before the rise of Islam; and second, texts of any provenance, whether Jewish, Christian, or “indigenous polytheistic” works (xxviii). Most of the thirty-nine texts or units in their collection are not part of other such publications. The editors have cast their net more widely than in the anthologies mentioned above and have avoided using texts that appear in Charlesworth or Spark’s collections. A second volume is planned. An interesting feature of the 2013 publication is the dedication to editors who produced related collections, three centuries (Fabricius, 1713) and one century earlier (Charles, 1913). Louis H. Feldman, James L. Kugel, and Lawrence H. Schiffman, editors, Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture (3 vols.; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2013). The scope of Outside the Bible is wider than for the other anthologies listed here. It includes in its 3000-plus pages examples from the Septuagint, commentaries (including selections from Philo and Josephus), testaments, prayers and psalms, wisdom writings, Philo’s philosophical treatises, stories from biblical and post-biblical times, and sectarian texts from Qumran. The editors write that they have incorporated works “written by Jews in the period between the end of the Babylonian exile (538 ..) and the transmission of the Mishnah (200 ..)” (xv). They have organized them “in a way that highlights their closeness to the Hebrew Bible, . . . ” (xvii).

    ( – )

333

So, Charles’s volumes are now dated but retain their value in the history of scholarship on the texts they contain. After surveying these publications from Charles in the years 1909–13, we will take up in Chapter 10 another of his books from this period. It marked the first time, after writing so much on extra-biblical texts, that he prepared a commentary on an apocalypse in the Bible—the Book of Daniel.

Chapter 10 The Book of Daniel Consideration of Charles’s publications on the Book of Daniel was postponed from Chapter 9 so as not to overload it, though the first of them appeared in 1913. Since Daniel is more familiar than the other texts Charles studied, its contents are not summarized here.

The Context for Charles’s 1913 Volume on Daniel Charles had, to this point, devoted his scholarship to texts outside the canons of the Western churches. That changed in 1913 with the appearance of his commentary on Daniel, the first and shorter of the two he would write on the scriptural book. We should recall, however, that his Grinfield Lectures (1905–11) focused on the textual evidence for the Book of Daniel, so he had been doing serious work on it for some years before 1913. The Book of Daniel places its hero in the days of the Babylonian captivity when Nebuchadnezzar’s forces removed some residents from the land of Judah, in the time of his successor, and in the reigns of the first Persian monarchs. The earliest date in the book is the third year of King Jehoiakim (1:1), ca. 606 .., while the latest would be a little after 539 .. when Cyrus captured Babylon. The traditional way of reading the book was to assume it came from the time indicated by these dates and to believe that the references in Daniel’s visions/dreams to much later occurrences were genuine predictions made centuries before the events occurred. Not everyone agreed about what was predicted in the book, but in Christianity the dominant interpretation was that the Roman Empire (the fourth beast of Daniel 7)¹ and the appearance of Christ were among the forecasts. A notable dissenter was the third century .. Neo-platonic philosopher Porphyry who thought the fourth beast was the Seleucid Empire and that the book referred to the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–64 ..), the monarch who banned the practice of Judaism. ¹ 4 Ezra, a late first century .. Jewish apocalypse, also interprets the fourth beast as the Roman Empire (12:10–16, where it is recognized as different than the explanation given to Daniel).

R. H. Charles: A Biography. James C. VanderKam, Oxford University Press. © James C. VanderKam 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192869289.003.0012

   

335

Moreover, he maintained, it did not predict the reign of Antiochus but was written at that time. The interpretation of the book changed with the rise of modern criticism of the Bible. Although they had predecessors, a number of scholars especially in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries defended a position much like that of Porphyry: the fourth beast is the Greek/Seleucid Empire, and the Book of Daniel in its final form dates to near the end of Antiochus IV’s reign (ca. 165 ..). There were scholars who held fast to a sixth-century date for the book and saw in it genuine prophecies, but many experts in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were convinced it was a second-century composition containing “predictions” after the fact, a more widely attested practice in antiquity.

The Book The Book of Daniel, Introduction, Revised Version with Notes, Index and Map edited by R. H. Charles, D Litt, DD, Fellow of Merton College, Fellow of the British Academy (The New-Century Bible; New York: Henry Frowde, Oxford University Press, American Branch; Edinburgh: T. C. & E. C. Jack, 1913).² There is no preface in the book, hence there was no opportunity for Charles to offer any information about the genesis of the work, but, given his extensive research into Jewish apocalyptic literature, he was an excellent choice to write the commentary. The New-Century Bible series, by design, called for relatively brief introductions to and commentaries on the text of the Revised Version (the reference to “Revised Version” on the title page refers to the Revised Version of the Bible, not to a second edition of the commentary). The Introduction covers pp. ix–xlv, and the biblical text plus commentary (with the Index) fills pp. 3–152. The twelve-part Introduction to the commentary opens with a section on “Historical antecedents of Book of Daniel: its pseudonymous character: originally unilingual, but subsequently bilingual: its various versions” (ix–xiii). Charles swiftly sketched the historical background of the book in the secondcentury Antiochan decrees and the Maccabean response, both occurring in the 160s .. He thought that the Book of Daniel appeared at a time of “mingled hope and despair” (xi) and cited a lengthy passage from the German scholar ² Whenever the publisher recorded this information, Charles had not yet been appointed canon of Westminster, as the title is not listed here.

336    ( – ) Heinrich Ewald describing the marvelous contribution it made in such trying days. Included in that encomium is the sentence: “No dew of heaven could fall with more refreshing coolness on the parched ground, no spark from above alight with a more kindling power on the surface so long heated with a hidden glow” (xi). Charles offered his by now familiar explanation for why post-exilic writers, such as the author of Daniel, had to resort to pseudonymity. He suggested that the author wrote the entire book in Aramaic, with some parts then translated into Hebrew. A quick statement about the earliest translations of Daniel brings the section to a close. The next three sections take up points on which Charles had written before. The second deals with features shared by prophecy and apocalyptic, such as revelations through visions and trances. The third explains at greater length his theory about why apocalyptic was forced to become pseudonymous, and the fourth sets out the ethical character of apocalyptic with several examples. In a footnote (p. xix, 1) he acknowledged that this section was quoted from the second edition of his Eschatology, i.e., A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life, also published in 1913. With section 5 Charles reached a fresh topic, the bilingual character of the Book of Daniel. In the present form of the text, Daniel 1:1–2:4a and chs. 8–12 are in Hebrew, while the intervening material (2:4b–7:28) is in Aramaic. Why, when there was no change of subject, is there a switch from Hebrew to Aramaic at 2:4 and from Aramaic back to Hebrew at 8:1? He summarized various possibilities and also noted the divergence between the two Greek translations of the book—the Septuagint version (= LXX) and the later one by Theodotion (for more on both, see below). Charles adopted the theory that the original text, all of it in Aramaic, was partly—at the beginning and end of the book—translated into Hebrew because for ancient Jewish people a work entirely in Aramaic could not be admitted into the canon of Scripture. Once parts of it were in Hebrew, it became eligible for inclusion in it (xxv–xxvi). He did not explain how he knew about linguistic conditions for a book’s canonicity. The sixth section of the Introduction describes the ancient translations of Daniel. Charles dipped fairly deeply into the complicated issue (xxvi–xxxi), although he noted (xxix) that the limits imposed by the New-Century Bible series precluded a fuller treatment—a constraint to which he appealed several times (e.g., the note to 8:11–13, p. 87). He dealt especially with the set of questions arising from the existence of two Greek versions—the Septuagint (made, he thought, around 145 .. but surviving in just one manuscript) and the translation associated with Theodotion who lived in the latter part of the

   

337

second century .. Particularly puzzling were citations of Daniel that matched the wording in the translation of Theodotion but that appeared in the works of pre-Theodotion writers of Greek, such as New Testament authors (first century ..) or Justin Martyr (mid-second century ..). How was it possible to quote from that translation before it was made? After adducing much of the evidence bearing on the puzzle, Charles concluded that “ . . . there were two pre-Christian Greek versions of the Book of Daniel, one of which was the LXX and the other a revised LXX” (xxix). He thought both rested on a Semitic base text, that is, that there were two Semitic versions of Daniel in circulation. Some experts had thought the Septuagint form of chs. 4–6 was not a translation but a revision. Charles, however, responded that his extensive study led him to believe that it is just in these chapters that the LXX makes its greatest contribution to the reconstruction of the original text, particularly in chapter iv. The bulk of the evidence for this conclusion cannot of course be given here, but some of the grounds are enumerated in the short introduction to chapters iv–vi, p. 37–9. (xxx)

Section 7 bears the title “All Authorities Go Back to a Glossed Text.” Typical of his work on other ancient compositions, Charles thought there were what he called intrusions, glosses, and interpolations in the texts that eventually found their way into the surviving versions of Daniel. Some of these are omitted by one or more of the versions, while others are supported by all of them. He listed some twenty-five passages that he so identified, the largest of which is Daniel’s prayer in 9:4–19 (found in all the texts but regarded by Charles as an addition to the original). After his discussion of the various texts and versions, Charles supplied a genealogical chart tracing their inter-relations (xxxiii). A controversial question regarding the Book of Daniel is its date of composition. Charles noted that for the first eighteen centuries of this era expositors assumed that the book was written around the time in which the stories about Daniel and his friends are set. With the rise of higher criticism in biblical studies, Porphyry’s date for the book started attracting considerable scholarly support. Charles listed among the arguments in favor of the later date of composition the fact that the book is never mentioned before the reign of Antiochus, and the writer’s knowledge of history becomes accurate only for the third and second centuries (xxxiv–xxxvii). He maintained that Daniel was written “before 165 .. and after 167 ..” (xxxvii; also p. 89).

338    ( – ) The tenth section of the Introduction offers the reader a helpful set of chronological lists for the Babylonian, Persian, Seleucid, and Ptolemaic monarchs and for events in Jewish history from the reign of King Jehoiakim of Judah (609–598) to Antiochus Epiphanes (175–64; xxxvii–xli). The information was essential for a reader attempting to follow Charles’s many references to people and events in his Introduction and commentary. The eleventh section advances a few thoughts about the theology of the book. Its eschatology looks to a kingdom on earth and a special future for “those individuals who have in an extraordinary degree helped or hindered the advent of this kingdom” (xli). The rest remain in Sheol. The kingdom would arrive catastrophically, when Antiochus was most cruelly oppressing the holy ones; at that point God would conduct the judgment. All the nations will be subject to the kingdom into which the especially righteous people rise. Charles also drew attention to Daniel’s teaching about the angelic patrons of the nations and the various practices (e.g., prayer toward Jerusalem three times a day) set forth in the book. The last section of the Introduction is a bibliography, largely a list of more recent commentaries, with occasional terse notes of evaluation.³ In the series, the text of the Revised Version appeared at the top of the page, with its marginal notes, usually giving alternate or literal translations, in smaller, italic font beneath it. The commentator’s contributions occupied the lower part of each page. In his commentary, Charles prefaced to his treatment of each chapter a short paragraph about its purpose. In this location he at times addressed critical issues connected with the chapter. Examples may be found before ch. 4 where he explained that it existed in two forms and adduced an ancient parallel to its account of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness; before ch. 5 (Belshazzar’s feast) where he took up its historical difficulties; and before ch. 7 where he discussed the identities of the four world empires in the vision and the meaning of its symbols. A general note introduces chs. 10–12 which form a unit within the larger composition. As for the comments themselves, the scriptural term or passage under discussion (the lemma) is printed in bold font, the explanations in regular print. These lemmas from and comments on the Revised Version appear in smaller type than the scriptural text and are sometimes preceded by short

³ Examples of evaluation, enclosed in parentheses, can be found for two of the commentaries he cited most frequently. Regarding Anthony Ashley Bevan, A Short Commentary on the Book of Daniel for the Use of Students (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1892), he wrote “very original,” and about Samuel Rolles Driver, The Book of Daniel with Introduction and Notes (Cambridge Bible; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1900), he said “very learned” (xlv). For his comments about the two commentaries in a letter to R. W. Chapman of Oxford University Press, see below.

   

339

introductions to larger units of text. The notes, true to the nature of the series, tend to be brief, unless Charles was commenting on a special issue raised by a verse or section—or by something that piqued his interest. Among the matters that receive more extended treatment are: the historical problems raised by the reference to Nebuchadnezzar’s third year in 1:1 (p. 3); reasons for thinking a verse or section was interpolated, e.g., on 1:2 (4) or at 9:3 (96–7); the appearance of the word “Aramaic” immediately before the Aramaic section begins in 2:4 (16–17);⁴ the phrase “in the latter days” in 2:28 (23); the seventy weeks in 9:24 (104–5); and many others. His practice was to represent Semitic words in transliteration, but primarily from ch. 9 on he used Hebrew script more often. It was deemed acceptable in a more popular series to print Greek words and phrases in script. Charles, to no one’s surprise, made frequent reference to extra-canonical Jewish literature in his comments (e.g., in his explanation of “a watcher” in 4:13, p. 43), and also, as was his practice, freely offered corrections and changes to the translations in the Revised Version (see on 2:25, 27, 45; 9:25–7 for a few cases). In addition, he suggested that the Revised Version should have set a number of passages as poetry (cf. 2:20–3, p. 21). While writing this shorter volume, Charles was at work on a larger commentary on Daniel and called attention to it a number of times. Note for instance what he says in the introductory words to ch. 4: “A close study of the texts and versions has forced me to conclude that the older order of the text is preserved in the LXX and not in the Aramaic. The complete evidence for this conclusion will be found in my larger Commentary” (37; see also 26, 32, 34, 39, 52, 76, 105, and so on). These statements—and his Grinfield lectures—leave the distinct impression that by 1913 work on the major commentary was at an advanced stage. As events transpired, however, it did not appear until 1929, sixteen years after its smaller forebear. We do know that in the interval he was working on other projects (e.g., the commentary on Revelation). Also, the World War disrupted the work of publishing as it did so many aspects of life.

Review A brief statement about the commentary appeared in the Journal of Theological Studies 14 (1912–13) in a section entitled “Chronicle: The Old Testament and Related Literature” by S. A. Cook and A. H. McNeile. On ⁴ The passage reads: “The Chaldeans said to the king (in Aramaic), ‘O king, live forever . . . ’ ” (NRSV).

340    ( – ) p. 623, the writer noted that Charles’s commentary brought the New-Century Bible series to completion, a collection of small commentaries that was widely praised. That by Dr. Charles is especially attractive for its introductory sections on Apocalyptic (pp. xiii seqq.) in which he rightly protests against the attempt ‘by advanced liberals’ to differentiate prophecy and apocalyptic (p. xvi).⁵ The familiar problems of Daniel are briefly noticed, but I miss a treatment of Winckler’s view touching the quasi-historical background.⁶

What I found more interesting than the review is what follows in the “Chronicle.” The writer said he was moving on from a series just completed—the New-Century Bible—to one just beginning—the Oxford Church Bible Commentary—and listed individuals whom he called “prospective contributors” to the new series. Among them was Charles who was supposed to write the commentary on Daniel—something he never did.

Charles’s 1929 Volume on Daniel A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, with Introduction, Indexes and a New English Translation, by R. H. Charles, DD (Dublin), D Litt and Hon DD. (Oxford), Hon D Litt. (Belfast), Archdeacon of Westminster, Fellow of the British Academy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929). The last treatment of an ancient text by Charles was his commentary on Daniel that the Clarendon Press issued on July 18, 1929.⁷ The title of the book is surprising. Volumes in the distinguished series The International Critical Commentary (ICC) were entitled A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on [+ the name of a biblical book], and just two years before Charles’s work appeared T. & T. Clark had issued James A. Montgomery’s ICC commentary under the title A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel. Why Charles’s book received the very same title is not explained in the

⁵ It is not clear from the words of the reviewer, but Charles, who carefully differentiated between prophecy and apocalyptic, was here speaking about ethics. The “advanced liberals” were not aware that “apocalyptic” was thoroughly ethical, just as prophecy was. ⁶ Hugo Winckler (1863–1913) and others found in recently published information about Nabonidus the background for the story of Nebuchadnezzar’s absence from Babylon in Daniel 4 (e.g., Altorientalische Forschungen II.2 [Leipzig: Pfeiffer, 1900] 200–1, 213–14). ⁷ The date is given on production sheets from the Archives of the Press.

   

341

volume, but his was not a part of the ICC series (his 1920 commentary on Revelation was). The correspondence between Charles and T. & T. Clark (NLS) includes some exchanges about the ICC commentary on Daniel. Charles wrote to Clark (NLS, February 3,1926): When will the Commentary on Daniel in the International Series be ready? Has the editor given up the task? I hope to have my larger Commentary on Daniel ready towards the end of the year. If yours is ready I shall like to see it before mine sees the light. If yours is in a state of suspended animation or if your editor has failed, might I ask if you would consider the possibility of accepting mine in its place? I think I can promise that it will contain much of the best work I have done.

The publisher (NLS, February 9, 1926) replied that John P. Peters was to write the ICC Daniel but, due to the high cost of producing volumes in the series they had “allowed the matter to remain in a state of suspended animation.” He did not know whether Peters had made any progress on it and said there was no one he would rather see write the commentary than Charles. It happened that Peters, an American scholar and clergyman, had invited Montgomery in the summer of 1918 to write the commentary with him. When Peters died on November 10, 1921, the publishers gave responsibility for it to Montgomery.⁸ The publisher in this instance must have been Charles Scribner’s Sons in New York (the name is listed below that of T. & T. Clark in the ICC volumes) because Clark did not know about this arrangement in early 1926. Clark, a few months later (NLS, June 17, 1926) wrote to Charles that Scribner had asked Montgomery to write the commentary, that he had written it, and that it was to appear in the Autumn of 1926 (it was published in 1927). Thus, the closest Charles came to having his larger Daniel commentary appear in the ICC series was to give it the same title as Montgomery’s Daniel. Charles, reluctantly it seems, turned to Oxford to have his commentary published.⁹ Some lines Charles wrote to Chapman, the secretary, on June 5, 1929 (OUP), show that Charles himself was responsible for the title it received ⁸ Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, vii. ⁹ Charles was grateful that the Press had published texts for him that no private firm could undertake. But he preferred to go with Clark, charging that Oxford printed too slowly and provided no support once a book was published. He added that prospects for a book were better if it was part of a good series (NLS, February 15, 1926).

342    ( – ) and that he rejected a slightly different one that was proposed. So, while knowing about Montgomery’s commentary, he used the same title. The dedication to the volume reads: “This also to my wife without whose help this contribution to the Book of Daniel could never have seen the light.” The Archives of Oxford University Press preserve information relating to the commentary. Documents record that on April 4, 1927 the manuscript had gone down to press, that 1500 copies were to be printed, and that the book would bear a price of 30 shillings. This time too Charles seems to have exceeded the allotted number of corrections. A letter of October 13, 1927 (OUP) shows him in the process of reading and correcting proofs (“slips”) and trying to coordinate the ones for the various parts of the complex publication: Early in the next year Charles expressed continuing concern about receiving the slips expeditiously. The same letter also offers a rare opportunity to learn about health¹⁰ issues with which he was dealing. He wrote to Chapman (OUP, February 14, 1928), asking for greater speed in getting proofs to Charles, since his next “residence”¹¹ at the Abbey would be in April, when he would have to stop work on the commentary for some time. He added: I am at present a semi invalid and have to rest nearly 18 hours a day on my back, as contrary to the Surgeon’s orders I did not, or rather could not, owing to “residences,” take a long rest after my operation last year. I am giving practically all my time to “Daniel”. Can you prevail on Mr. Johnson¹² to furnish me with the remaining “slips”—16 or 18—within the next fortnight, and to revise in page with all possible haste. In the Summer I aim (?) to take a long rest in the sun. That is all I require the Doctors Surgeons say to make me a stronger man than I was before. But in the meantime I trust in your kind offices & those of Mr. Johnson to grant my request—as well for the sake of the Press as for my own. If you do so, I think I could mark for press the entire commentary within nine weeks. A few weeks later and the Introd. could be in your hands.

He added a P.S. “Of the many commentaries I have written I think this is the best.” ¹⁰ “Personal” is written at the top of the letter and underlined twice. ¹¹ A residence was the period of time that a canon of Westminster was responsible for preaching and other duties at the Abbey. ¹² John de Monins Johnson (1882–1956) had been assistant secretary to the Delegates and in 1925 became “Printer to the University at Oxford” (“John de Monins Johnson,” Wikipedia, accessed 4-3-20). He continued in the position until 1946 (Sutcliffe, Oxford University Press, 161, 176, 193).

   

343

The letter makes clear not only Charles’s eagerness to handle the proofreading as swiftly as possible but also the constraints that limited his work. His duties as canon of Westminster during a residency seem to have precluded attention to the book, but his health, never the best, had suffered a setback. He must have had the operation he mentions in 1927. He did not specify its nature, but it required long hours of rest on his back. The circumstances would understandably make him more anxious to finish the Daniel commentary in the near future. If the timetable he proposed in the letter worked out, he would have finished proofreading the commentary around the end of April/beginning of May and the Introduction not long afterward. It is of interest in light of the projected schedule that Chapman scribbled a note related to this letter: “What may I say to him? He may die!” As it turned out, Charles was not quite able to meet his own deadline, as his letter to Chapman on June 6, 1928 (OUP) indicates. In it he said that he could not send him the Introduction in June because of his other duties but that the Translation was nearly finished and would be delivered that month. The work of preparing the commentary extended almost to its date of publication. Charles wrote again on May 14, 1929, just over two months before the book appeared, to A. L. P. Norrington:¹³ I was wrong as to the month for the Vacation Term for Biblical Study in Cambridge.¹⁴ It is Aug 3–17. I enclose a printed list of the books which it is suggested the members should use. Already three applications, at the suggested price 30/ each have been made to me for the book. My reply has been that the Book of Daniel is the absolute property of the Clarendon Press. The Cambridge Univ. Press has published two editions of Daniel—the first by Professor Bevan—a work of very fine scholarship, but as it was published before 1900 it is wholly behind the time, not only on the ground of recent discoveries (i.e., Elephantine Papyri, etc. [?]) but on the graver ground that its editor like Professor Driver, the editor of the second edition, though a master of Semitic knew nothing about Apocalyptic. There is a third edition

¹³ A. L. P. Norrington began as junior assistant secretary in 1925; in 1948 he became the secretary (Sutcliffe, Oxford University Press, 202). ¹⁴ The Vacation Term was inaugurated in 1903 to provide an annual opportunity for those seeking a greater understanding of the Bible and modern scholarship on it (“Summer Biblical Study in Cambridge,” Wikipedia, accessed 4-4-20). It continues to the present day.

344    ( – ) in the I.C.S.¹⁵ by Montgomery (published by T. & T. Clark). It is a learned work but its failings are numerous. I am trusting to you to send me at your earliest convenience the Indexes to be marked for press.

The last line indicates that at this late date the indexes had yet to be approved by him in their final form. But does the earlier part of the letter also suggest that he was scheduled to teach the Book of Daniel in the Vacation term or that Daniel would be included in the content of the course for which his commentary should be available to those attending? That may be why he evaluates commentaries on Daniel from Cambridge University Press, neither of which he considered a sufficient explanation of the scriptural work. He also seems pleased that people have contacted him about purchase of his commentary even before it appeared in print. In the Preface Charles acknowledged that in the commentary, “I have often been obliged to break with the tradition of the elders—alike ancient and modern—and to pursue my path unaccompanied by any of my great predecessors in this field of research” (vii).¹⁶ He added that all predecessors except Montgomery were limited by the lack of an Aramaic grammar that set forth the evolution of the language in which a large portion of Daniel was written. That of course did not stop Charles who made his own study of the Aramaic language in its historical development (see sections 17–21 in the Introduction). Recent discoveries in this area turned the commentary on Daniel into another instance in which changes were needed in Charles’s manuscript after he had submitted chunks of it to the press. Some months after my Commentary had been sent to the Oxford Press, I had the great satisfaction of receiving from Professor Baumgartner an elaborate sketch of this development which confirmed in the main the conclusions at which I had already arrived, and helped to enrich my own treatise. Fortunately for my readers and myself my Introduction was only in part written though a vast accumulation of materials, digested and undigested, was at my disposal for the completion of this task in the briefest form possible. (viii)¹⁷ ¹⁵ Charles did not have the series abbreviation quite right. ¹⁶ He expressed the same sentiment in his commentary on Revelation. ¹⁷ Baumgartner’s sketch is “Das Aramäische im Buche Daniel,” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 4 (1927) 81–133. The year of the essay is the one when Charles’s manuscript of the commentary went to press.

   

345

Charles provided a couple of examples from his study of other Aramaic sources to illustrate how they contributed to dating and understanding the text of Daniel. He acknowledged that he did not have the space to discuss fully the ancient translations of Daniel. He used them, of course, but believed that all of them still awaited critical editions. He did not treat the three Additions to Daniel found in manuscripts of the Septuagint and referred the reader to the first volume of his The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament for them. Also, he had planned to “give a brief historical sketch of the history of the Eastern Empires, so far as our author was concerned with them” (ix), but the space for this was not available. He recognized that great scholars of Semitic languages had edited Daniel but thought none of them possessed the requisite knowledge of apocalypses, other than Daniel, to understand the book. Charles explained as his goal: “In publishing this Commentary my chief claim is, so far as possible, to recover the oldest form of the text, and to interpret that text in conformity with the usages of Jewish Apocalyptic” (x). He noted that the publisher of his 1913 commentary had agreed that he could reproduce in the larger volume “paragraphs or sections contained in the small Commentary” (x, n.1). The second Daniel commentary is another of Charles’s works¹⁸ in which there are discrepancies between the Translation and the text cited in the commentary proper; in such cases the Translation located at the end of the volume contains his latest views as that was the last part set in type (x). He thanked no scholars for assistance in writing the work other than Baumgartner. Rather, he reserved his words of appreciation for people at the Oxford University Press for their unfailing courtesy, patience and skilled service in the publication of a Commentary and Translation, which involved a continuous revision of the entire text, and which has proved to be the most difficult of all my studies in an experience of nearly forty years of research in apocalyptic literature. (x)¹⁹

It sounds as if Charles’s ever-evolving manuscript laid quite a burden on the staff.

¹⁸ The same happened in his commentary on Revelation. ¹⁹ In his 1896 book on 2 (Syriac) Baruch he had written that interpreting it was “the severest task as yet undertaken by the editor” (x).

346    ( – ) The Introduction extends from p. xv to cxxviii and falls into twenty-eight sections, most of which are summarized in an expanded table of contents (xi–xiv). In the first (Short Account of the Book, xv–xxi) he started by sketching the historical background for the appearance of Daniel and reused the lengthy quotation from Ewald that he had cited in the 1913 commentary. He repeated very briefly his standard explanation for why Daniel had to be pseudonymous and again advanced the argument that the complete book was composed in Aramaic. Soon after its completion in the mid-160s, three translators, working between 161 and 153 .., rendered parts of the original into Hebrew: 1:1–2:4a, chs. 8–10 and 12, and ch. 11. The book, however, “suffered much from interpolations and dislocations” (xviii) as well as from careless copyists. The first section of the Introduction ends with a short account of the ancient versions/translations of Daniel, the Masoretic Text,²⁰ and the second-century date for the book. The second section (xxi–xxiii) should sound familiar to readers of Charles’s earlier works because in it he repeats in more detail his explanation for why Jewish apocalyptic became pseudonymous.²¹ From the life of Ezra on, the dominance of the Law drove every other form of religion into the background and allowed no room for genuine prophets. For anyone aspiring to the role, “[t]he tyranny of the Law, and the petrified orthodoxies of his time, compelled him to resort to pseudonymity” (xxiii). Also, once the prophetic canon was closed, it was believed that no book could be considered sacred if it did not go back at least to Ezra’s time. As a result, every Jewish apocalypse written between 200 .. and the thirteenth century .. was pseudonymous (John’s Revelation, of course, was not). Section three (xxiv–xxviii) also will not strike a reader of Charles as breaking new ground. Here he spelled out similarities and differences between apocalyptic and prophecy (with another reference to the second edition of his Eschatology for more on the topic). The two shared certain forms (e.g., visions), but prophetic eschatology focused on the fate of the nation Israel in this world, with no message of comfort for the individual beyond the grave. The apocalypses do speak of a blessed future for the righteous person, at first in a messianic kingdom on earth but by ca. 100 .. of an eternal, spiritual blessedness in a new heaven and new earth (the eschatology of Daniel has not yet reached this stage). Charles referred to unfulfilled prophecy as a factor in ²⁰ Charles imagined that the text endured all sorts of ills in the early years after its completion when this work, composed secretly, necessarily passed quickly from hand to hand (xx). ²¹ He directed the reader to the second edition of his Eschatology, 196–206, for a fuller discussion (xxii).

   

347

the development of apocalyptic thought, but added that prophets spoke in their own person and were concerned with the present as well as what would arise from it. The apocalyptist spoke in the name of an ancient hero and rewrote history as if it had not yet happened, with heavy use of the nonprophetic idea of determinism and regular resort to prediction. Charles devoted the fourth section (xxviii–xxx) to the tenfold structure he saw in Daniel. The book falls naturally into an introduction followed by nine units. The Septuagint, the oldest version, gives dates at the beginning of each section except the fifth (5:1–30; the date is at its end); the other versions, including the Masoretic Text, lack some of these and are thus defective in those places. Section five takes up some issues connected with the bilingual character of the Book of Daniel (xxx–xxxvii). The fact that Daniel is spoken of in the third person in 1–6 and speaks in the first person in 7–12 is only natural, given the character of the material: narratives in 1–6 where there are several actors including Daniel, and visions in 7–12 where Daniel alone figures. The change in person does not betray a difference of authorship for the two sections. Then, too, at the places where there is a switch of languages there is no change of subject matter. How can one account for this feature? Also, the two Greek versions of Daniel—the Septuagint and Theodotion—differ widely from each other. Why? Charles surveyed some of the theories that had been offered to answer these questions. He concluded that the bilingual state of the book was not due to the author; also, different origins did not account for the material in the two languages. The sixth section (xxxvii–xxxix) gives Charles’s solution to these problems: the entire book was written in the Aramaic language, the vernacular of the time, by an author who used but rewrote sources in the narrative chapters. The sections now in Hebrew were translated by three individuals from the Aramaic original. Charles included in the section a smaller-print critique of Gustav Dalman’s hypothesis that the book divides into two (1–6, 7–12).²² Charles thought Dalman’s and others’ separation of the visionary ch. 7 from the narratives in 2:4b–6:28 was an “unintelligible error” (xxxix). He focused, in section seven (xl–xliv), on showing that ch. 7 came from the author of 2:4b– 6:28: the shared vocabulary, verbal prefixes and tenses used, and word order showed that both 2–6 and 7 were written by the same hand. The

²² Dalman (1855–1941) presented his case in Die Worte Jesu (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1898) 11. T. & T. Clark published an English translation of the book in 1902: The Words of Jesus Considered in the Light of Post-Biblical Jewish Writings and the Aramaic Language (see 13–14).

348    ( – ) commonalities in language are all the more remarkable in view of the difference in genre between 2–6 (where the writer reworked sources) and 7 (which contains “an immediate vision of the author,” xliv). According to the eighth section (xliv–xlv), the Aramaic of ch. 7 could date from the second half of the third century .., but the Aramaic of 2:4b–6:28 shows signs of originating no earlier that ca. 200–150 ..²³ Charles drew an inference in section nine (xlv) that seems to stand on rather shaky ground: since ch. 7 is in Aramaic, it stands to reason that 8–12, which also offer visions, were as well. They too were written in the vernacular language by which the author was making an appeal to a wide audience, not only to the few who knew Hebrew. The next three sections take up questions relating to the Hebrew units in Daniel. In the tenth (xlvi–xlviii) he maintained that idiomatic usages separated the style of 1:1–2:4a from that of 8–12, while those in 11 differed from both. Charles thought (section 11, xlvi–xlviii) that a person with a good grasp of history translated ch. 11 into Hebrew, although he was not a very good Hebraist. This person may also have translated ch. 12. Section 12 (xlix–l) contains his arguments for the approximate dates when the three Hebrew translators worked. Charles believed that the two verses, Daniel 1:20–1, were in the wrong place and originally belonged after 2:29a; he used this thesis as a means for dating the translation of the three units into Hebrew. On his view, the Septuagint translation of the book was made ca. 145 ..²⁴ By that time the dislocation of 1:20–1 to their present position had already occurred, since that is where these verses figure in the Septuagint. Moreover, the person who translated 1:1–2:4a into Hebrew also found these verses in the first chapter. So, the Hebrew translator of 1:1–2:4a would have worked before Judas the Maccabee’s death in 161 or during the time of his brother Jonathan about a decade later. All of the Hebrew translating work now present in 1:1–2:4a and in 8–12 was done between 164 (the date of the Aramaic original) and 145, the date of the Septuagint. Charles next (l–lviii) turned to the ancient versions attesting the Book of Daniel. After declaring that the Masoretic Text is often defective, he wrote at greater length about the two Greek versions, especially that of Theodotion, and the likely existence of a Theodotionic text before the time of Theodotion (midsecond century ..). Charles spelled out his opinion of the Masoretic Text in

²³ The differing time periods could be problematic if one thought the same person wrote both sections. ²⁴ He does not explain how he knew this rather early and precise date.

   

349

the fourteenth section (lix–lxviii). It is generally less reliable than the Septuagint and must always be checked against the versions. He provided a lengthy list of cases in which, he believed, the Masoretic Text was inferior where one or several of the versions preserved a preferable reading. The relationships between the many textual witnesses for Daniel Charles represented in a chart (section 15, lviii–lix). The date of the book is the subject of section 16 (lxx–lxxv). There is no evidence in works written before 190 .. for a Book of Daniel, while some compositions written after 145 .. attest it and attestations increase in number with the passage of time. The information from the external witnesses is corroborated by the internal evidence of the book whose writer had an unclear knowledge of earlier events but became more accurate as he neared his own day (especially the years 200–167). Then when he turned to the future he again became vague. References in Daniel itself indicate that the book was written no earlier than 165 .. Sections 17–21 constitute Charles’s treatise on the Aramaic language, and section 22 is related to them. He first compared the Aramaic of the books of Ezra and Daniel, the two bilingual scriptural works (section 17, lxxvi–lxxix). Ezra, on his reading, is considerably older than Daniel though the two have much in common. He argued in section 18 (lxxix–lxxx) that one cannot differentiate Aramaic into Eastern and Western kinds before the first century .., if that early. In addition, one cannot distinguish regional dialects among the texts surviving from ca. 800 .. to about 100 .. Thus the Aramaic language should be treated as a single developing whole. On the basis of its Aramaic alone, one could not determine whether Daniel was written in the East or West. In the nineteenth section (lxxx–lxxxii) he sketched five periods in the development of the Aramaic language from 800 ..–100 .. and listed the sources for each of them. He placed Ezra in period IIIa (near the end of the fourth century) and Daniel in period IV (early second century). The long twentieth section (lxxxii–ciii) presents a highly detailed survey of developments evident in grammatical forms and phrases during the five periods; here he included a number of references to Baumgartner’s essay.²⁵ In section 21 (ciii–cviii) he treated the evidence of word order in the various texts and in 22 (cviii) listed the Aramaisms in the Hebrew sections of Daniel. Section 23 (cix–cxi) consists of chronological tables (of rulers and events) for the convenience of the readers. Only when he reached section 24 (cxii–cxv) ²⁵ The detail of the grammatical sketch may be compared with the one he wrote on the Greek of Revelation in his ICC commentary.

350    ( – ) did Charles take up the book’s theology. He found that the writer anticipated a messianic kingdom of Israel on earth; into it the preeminently righteous would rise, while the wicked of Israel would be assigned to eternal contempt (all others could look forward to Sheol). The advent of that kingdom would be catastrophic when it defeats the nations. The book also presents an increasingly transcendent God who rules through intermediaries, in particular, the angelic guardians of the various nations. The concepts of dualism and determination come to expression in various ways: the opposition of Israel and the nations, the unity of history, each phase of which was another stage in God’s plan, and the attempts to calculate the time of the end. Finally, the book contains condemnations of idolatry along with teachings about food laws, alms, and prayer three times each day. The writer does not, however, reveal a consciousness of sin in his heroes; such a consciousness is present only in an interpolated section, 9:4–20. Charles entitled the twenty-fifth section (cxvi–cxxii) “A Fragment of the pre-Theodotion Version—Dan. 79–28.” In the course of his studies he became convinced (another conclusion that “flashed” upon him) that Justin Martyr (mid-second century ..) in his Dialogue with Trypho 31 quotes “a genuine fragment of the lost pre-Theodotion version” of Daniel 7:9–28. He noted that Justin (and Tertullian, late-second, early third century) offered a form of the text closely aligned with the Septuagint but agreeing in a small number of places with Theodotion. The pre-Christian text reflected here (ca. 50 ..) was one that Theodotion later used in making his version. Other pieces of information led to the conclusion that the pre-Theodotion version was based on a Semitic original, although the translator used the Septuagint where possible. Charles printed the Greek text of Justin for 7:9–28 and indicated in it the agreements with the Septuagint (bold font) and Theodotion (underlined). The final three sections of the Introduction offer different kinds of material. Section 26 (cxxii–cxxiv) has translations of the “Annalistic Tablet of Cyrus” and the Cyrus Cylinder; the twenty-seventh (cxxv–cxxvii) provides a bibliography (preceded by a survey of views in the first eighteen centuries or so of commentary on Daniel); and the twenty-eighth (cxxvii–cxxviii) explains the abbreviations²⁶ and brackets used in the commentary. The remainder of the book places before the reader the commentary itself (1–341) and Charles’s Translation of the Book of Daniel (343–94). This must ²⁶ Various signs were used to mark in the translation passages that Charles, true to his longestablished practice, rejected as corrupt or additions to the original, or altered in some way (e.g., taking a word or words from a version or versions other than the Masoretic Text, “restorations” of lost text, or emendations).

   

351

have been the order in which the Press set the sections because, as Charles explained in the Preface, the Translation, where it differed from the one cited in the commentary, was his latest word. It must not have been possible or feasible to make those changes in the commentary once it was set in print. The commentary on Daniel is a highly detailed and critical work in the Charles mold, and it reflects his practices and interests, ones more widely acceptable in his time. As an illustration of his procedure, we can look at how he handled ch. 1. Before actually explaining the first verse, he supplied eleven short sections (pp. 1–3) of introductory material (with some references to parts of the Introduction for more detail). He started helpfully with a unit on the “Object of this chapter,” but the other ten differ from it. In them he pointed out unhistorical statements in the chapter, how its Hebrew is distinguished from that of chs. 8–12, the late Hebrew elements in the chapter, and dislocations of the text. He also dealt with the date of the Hebrew version, Aramaisms in the Hebrew, lost words and phrases, interpolations, corruptions, and the Hebrew rendering of an Aramaic phrase. Finally, after all this, one reaches the commentary itself. The explanation of Daniel 1:1 (bottom of p. 3 to the top of p. 6) consists mostly of documenting how the date in the verse (the third year of King Jehoiakim) cannot be historically correct, along with shorter discussions of the spelling of Nebuchadnezzar and how the title “king of Babylon” was not appropriate for him at the time. The comment on v. 2 (pp. 6–11) includes a lengthy demonstration of how the wording cannot be correct as it stands in the Masoretic Text and various solutions proposed to fix it (including the one he gave in 1913, which he now found inadequate). The passage reads: “The Lord let King Jehoiakim of Judah fall into his power, as well as some of the vessels of the house of God. These he brought to the land of Shinar, to the house of his god, and placed the vessels in the treasury of his gods. Then the king commanded his palace master Ashpenaz to bring some of the Israelites of the royal family . . .” (NRSV modified). Now, in 1929, he rejected the phrase “the house of his god” in v. 2 as a gloss and supplied what he took to be words missing from the first sentence—ones referring to the taking of Judean captives, whereas the verse now mentions only appropriating temple vessels from Jerusalem. The reference to Judean captives that Charles supplied and that is presupposed by the reference to “the Israelites of the royal family,” was, he suggested, omitted at an early time through repetition of a term before and after it. So, through two substantial changes, Charles arrived at a text that read as he thought it should have read, the words the author meant to write.

352    ( – ) He proceeded through ch. 1 supplying large amounts of information about names, terms, problems in the text, linguistic usages, and the like. He took a different approach to Daniel 1:20–1, the concluding verses of ch. 1. As he had indicated in the Introduction, he thought they were out of place and believed that a more natural spot for them was between 2:48a and b. The verses read in Charles’s translation (where they appear in ch. 2): “And in every matter of wisdom and understanding, concerning which the king inquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and enchanters that were in all his realm. And Daniel continued unto the first year of Cyrus the king” (351). The points he made about these verses were: v. 20, at an early stage, was dislocated from its original position (near the end of Daniel 2),²⁷ and v. 21 “which I have bracketed as an interpolation, was an addition of the Hebrew translator. The Hebrew of that verse is very late and unclassical” (52). He maintained that the two verses are unnatural at the end of ch. 1 where v. 19 had concluded the content: “And the king spake with them; and amongst them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah: therefore stood they before the king” (345). He claimed that v. 20 “is at variance with all that precedes it in chapter 1, and with all that follows it in chapter 2 down to 249a” (52). For example, if, as 1:20 reports, the king found the Jewish young men ten times more capable than his other advisors, why did he not consult them first regarding the interpretation of his dream in ch. 2? Verse 21 also has no connection with its context in ch. 1, and there was no reason for Daniel to be mentioned at this point. One wonders what Charles thought followed from his analysis of historical issues in Daniel 1 (and elsewhere in the book). The problems he mentioned were not discoveries on his part; some of them had been discussed since antiquity. But pointing them out is one thing; explaining them, as a reader might expect from a commentary, is another, and here Charles has little to offer. Did he think, for instance, that the author of Daniel was ignorant or at least not as well informed about history as modern Western scholars? He may have believed that and, if he did, may have been right, but he does not give the impression of having asked whether the historical inconsistencies in the book might serve a literary purpose, such as announcing to the readers that the book was intended to be something other than a historical account. It is not difficult to challenge Charles’s evaluations of 1:20–1 and what they may or may not contribute to their context in ch. 1 and before ch. 2. For one, if the stories in each chapter were originally independent narratives, there would ²⁷ With his familiar confidence, he wrote about 1:20: “We have here restored this verse to its original context” (52).

   

353

be no problem with the two verses fitting poorly before ch. 2. And v. 21 could simply be looking forward to how long Daniel’s career extended (to the time of Cyrus). Charles approached the text as critical scholars of his time did—with firm confidence that a modern European (or American) could uncover the original wording or location of a verse, written by an ancient Jew—and all this entirely apart from manuscript support. The units regarding purpose that he placed at the beginning of his commentary on each section show that Charles was alert to the messages they conveyed. For the first chapter he wrote: “To enforce loyalty to the Law: to set forth the principles of a right education, i.e. obedience to the prescripts of the Law” (1). Those are indeed points made in Daniel 1, with or without his manipulations of the text, but here too he shows that he writes from a definite standpoint: “And yet the emphasis is laid expressly on that element in Judaism which is the least valuable and least essential in true religion—the law of clean and unclean meats” (1). Many examples of Charles’s emendations of the text could be mentioned, but a few will suffice. In Daniel 7:9 God is called “one old of days” or as it is usually rendered in English, an Ancient of Days or “an Ancient One” (NRSV). Charles objected to such a descriptor for God on the grounds that apocalyptic writers always spoke of the deity most respectfully: “we find it impossible to accept this irreverent designation of God as original in its present form. If this be so, it is more than probable that, instead of ‘an ancient of days’ the text originally read ‘one like an ancient of days’” (181–2). In this case, he had the support of the Septuagint, not for 7:9 but for the next instance of the title in 7:13. In other words, the Septuagint in 7:9 has the “irreverent designation of God,” the Septuagint of v. 13 does not. Charles thought that each instance of the title in the Greek translation was preceded by ως (= hōs, like, as), though it is now present in just one of the two places; moreover, in the spot where it occurs (7:13) it could be a mistake for εως (= heōs, until, up to, unto), since the one like a son of man is there approaching the Ancient of Days. Whatever may have been the septuagintal reading in 7:13, v. 9 in it lacks a word for “like.” One could argue that “like” was added in v. 13 of the Septuagint to address the very problem Charles raised; in that case, however, why would the translator do so in only one instance instead of both? But a look at Charles’s translation reveals something unexpected: he changed the text in v. 9, without manuscript support, to “ an ancient of days,” but in v. 13, where he could cite the Septuagint in support of the change from the reading of the Masoretic Text, he rendered as “And he came even unto²⁸ an ancient of days.” ²⁸ Hence, he assumed that εως (heōs) reflected the correct text.

354    ( – ) So, he was inconsistent in his translation which is supposed to contain his final word on the text. Also, to emend the Aramaic text of v. 9 as Charles did and to claim that apocalyptic writers were more reverent in referring to God seems strained. Is the title irreverent? If it is, and this appears unlikely, would “one like an ancient of days” be more reverent? Before turning to reviews of the commentary, we should record what D’Arcy wrote about it. Through his long study of the whole Apocalyptic literature Archdeacon Charles had become the acknowledged Master in this subject. It might seem that, with his Commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John the Divine,²⁹ his labours were ended. But one book of signal importance remained. The Book of Daniel is the great Apocalypse of the canonical Old Testament. Upon this book he brought to bear, as the final effort of his lifework, all his accumulated stores of special learning. His Commentary is indeed a great achievement. It was the writer’s good fortune to spend some time as a visitor in the house of his old friend when this master-piece was approaching completion, and to observe the concentrated attention which the great scholar gave to every detail. While working at his proofs, all his faculties were alert, his mind seemed to gather together the materials for each distinct part of the subjectmatter, drawing freely upon the stores of a life-time, and also taking account of all that was newest in research and discovery. The historical value, for example, of the discoveries at Elephantine interested him especially. But if his attention were suddenly called away to some other subject, no matter how familiar, he would seem to be at a loss. It was as if his mind were called up out of some great depth where everything was in its place and ordered in relationship with all the contents of the vast store-house of specialized knowledge which he had made his own. When the Commentary appeared it was hailed with enthusiastic approval by those whose learning qualified them to form an opinion. Archdeacon Charles himself considered it the best of all his works,³⁰ and also held that in it had come to light many things which he had not realized before.³¹

²⁹ It was published in 1920. ³⁰ Recall the P.S. to Charles’s February 14, 1928 (OUP) letter to Chapman: “Of the many commentaries I have written I think this is the best.” ³¹ D’Arcy, “Brief Memoir,” xxx–xxxi. D’Arcy mentioned in his autobiography that he would visit the Charleses from time to time. He recalled stays in Oxford during the period when he was Select Preacher in Oxford and Cambridge. Of one of his visits, he wrote:

   

355

Despite having been a churchman for many years by 1929 (for this see Part 3), Charles remained a scholar to the end.

Reviews Charles did not live to see the key reviews, but his large commentary was evaluated by major figures. One of them was James A. Montgomery (1866–1949), who taught at the University of Pennsylvania from 1913 to 1948 and was the author of the classic work on Daniel in the International Critical Commentary series (1927) mentioned above. He reviewed Charles’s commentary as one of the five Daniel-related works he canvassed in the Journal of the American Oriental Society 51 (1931) 317–27, a review that appeared late in the year of Charles’s death. Montgomery began with words of praise: All who knew him personally and all who are indebted to his manifold work must rejoice that the distinguished scholar was given the happy lot of rounding out a full programme of labor in the field of Judaistic Apocrypha and Apocalyptic, to which he has contributed more than any other scholar; following his Commentary on the New Testament Apocalypse with what proved to be his last book, the Apocalypse of the Old Testament, he must have felt that he had achieved the crown of his labors. (323–4)

He summarized the contents of the commentary and expressed appreciation for the cross-referencing from the translation at the end of the book to the commentary itself—“an especially useful part of the book as it enables the reader at once to observe the results and reasons of the author’s criticism” (324). The first negative point that Montgomery made was Charles’s rejection of the thesis, defended by Dalman and Montgomery, that ch. 7 is a translation

. . . we stayed with my old college friend Dr. R. H. Charles and Mrs. Charles. Dr. Charles was already famous in the world of learning for his immense researches into the apocalyptic literature, a study in which he was the pioneer, and in which he retained an undisputed preeminence. (The Adventures of a Bishop, 161) He recalled meeting interesting people at their house. The time to which he refers appears to be around 1910. He mentioned seeing Charles at the 1910 Swansea Church Congress: “Especially I recall delightful meetings with two great scholars with whom I was already well acquainted, Drs. Rashdall and Charles” (169).

356    ( – ) from Hebrew into Aramaic. As he noted, Charles listed verbal and stylistic features shared by chs. 2–6 and 7 and believed they pointed to Aramaic as the original language for 7. Montgomery thought they did not touch on the main argument: “Rather, there is to be accentuated the distinction in subject matter, pure romance and pure apocalyptic, as between cc. 1–6 and 7–12, as also the more delicate question of style and diction. Further for Apocalyptic we should expect the last six chapters to be in Hebrew, the Holy Tongue” (324). A second, related point had to do with Charles’s strong statement “there is no rational or conceivable ground for the author’s forsaking the vernacular language of his day and having recourse to Hebrew for the three remaining visions in 8–12” (xlv). Montgomery charged that he here “appears to make a rash statement as to linguistic conditions in Palestine for the age of the book; yet he allows, p. xviii, that a few years after its composition, by 161, or at the latest 153, the present Hebrew translations were made” (325). Why would Hebrew be acceptable then and not just a few years before? A third problem for Montgomery was Charles’s low opinion of the Masoretic Text of Daniel and his strong preference for the readings of the Old Greek translation. He cited several of Charles’s emphatic statements about the matter and gave his own considered judgment. “The present writer in the course of preparation of his Commentary on Daniel came to quite the opposite conviction and reached the conclusion that in the most difficult portions of the text the versions read what we now possess despite their apparent discrepancy” (325). Having recorded their sharp disagreement on the issue, he commented charitably: “Perhaps it is well that two practically contemporaneous commentaries take such opposite extremes, so that the absurdities of either may be revealed and others helped to a more rational mean” (326).³² He thought Charles made selections among the readings of the versions “according to subjective taste” (326). A fourth point had to do with Montgomery’s claim that the Aramaic plural ‫‘( אלהין‬elāhîn, literally, “gods”) can, like the cognate Hebrew form, be used with the meaning “God or rather the abstract Deity” (326). He argued his case by citing a number of examples from various Semitic languages and the Bible. Montgomery concluded his review with gracious words: “These Auseinandersetzungen [= disputes] with Dr Charles’s book were made with more zest if the distinguished author were still in this life, but they may be

³² He mentioned that in his own commentary he had objected to Charles’s thesis as expressed in the shorter 1913 commentary.

   

357

taken as proof of its rich and stimulating value and permanent worth. It is our loss that we may expect nothing more from his illustrious mind” (327). Another weighty review came from Marie-Joseph Lagrange (1855–1938),³³ the founder of the Ecole Biblique in Jerusalem and a scholar whose highercritical views embroiled him in controversy with Vatican authorities. His evaluation, published in Revue Biblique 39 (1930) 276–83, began by noting the great care Charles showed in dealing with the Aramaic and Hebrew text and the versions, especially the Septuagint. He sketched Charles’s thesis about the Aramaic of ch. 7 being like that of 2–6 and about the unity of the entire book. He applauded his understanding of the Hebrew sections as coming from translators, although he did think Charles failed to draw the necessary inference regarding the date of the Aramaic from the fact that the single author based himself upon earlier Aramaic traditions. On his view, the greatest novelty in Charles’s commentary was the textual preference that he gave to the Septuagint, although Charles was aware of its faults. The text of Daniel lying before the translators was, according to Charles, already terribly corrupt, but they contented themselves with reproducing what they found. Hence the Septuagint allows one to see the most ancient form of the text available. The Masoretic Text and Theodotion were revisions made between 145 .. and 400 .. by scholars and thus less reliable reflections of its earlier form. Lagrange thought Charles argued like those New Testament scholars who preferred the text of Codex Bezae to that of Vaticanus: they assumed that the text that is more corrupt is also more ancient. Lagrange objected that a revision was not necessarily made capriciously. On a different note, he found fault with Charles’s application to Daniel of what he took to be an apocalyptic practice—namely, not mentioning names of contemporary peoples. Hence, he could reject the references to Edom, Moab, and Ammon in Daniel 11:41 without manuscript support, yet he inconsistently inserted at 3:1, on the basis of the Septuagint, a reference to the people who inhabited the Earth from India to Ethiopia. He added that Charles was the first to recognize that Daniel, although it has some traits of apocalyptic, expects salvation on the earth—a trait it shares with prophecy. Lagrange mentioned Charles’s idea that by the second century writers with a prophetic message had to adopt pseudepigraphy to gain a hearing and noted that in Catholic theology it was acceptable to think thus about the Wisdom of Solomon. But the case of Daniel was more complicated and not settled by the ³³ As we saw in Chapter 9, Charles used his study of the Fragments of a Zadokite work in preparing his own translation and commentary.

358    ( – ) notion that an author wrote it at one time in 165 .. He thought one would have to devote more attention than Charles did to the amazing information in ch. 5 (information that goes back to the Chaldean period) and that he erred in attributing to the author serious historical errors that should be charged rather to copyists and editors. The first instance he noted was the famous crux of Darius the Mede. Charles, who thought the book presented him as the conqueror of Babylon or at least as the first to reign after the conquest and the predecessor of Cyrus, believed that the person responsible for this historical error (there is no Darius the Mede on record) did so in order to make the prophecies of Isaiah (13:17; 21:2) and Jeremiah (51:11, 28) come true—that the Medes would defeat Babylon. Lagrange found this a strange conclusion regarding an author to whom Charles attributed high moral standards. If the writer did so, however, he would be opposing other scriptural givens, e.g., that Cyrus took Babylon (Isaiah) and that he preceded Darius (Ezra) in order to make a prophecy come to fruition. Daniel, said Lagrange, attributes the conquest to the Medo-Persians as a single kingdom (e.g., in ch. 8). In 5:30 this is also the reading of the Septuagint, while in 6:1 it lacks the epithet “the Mede” for Darius. Lagrange examined two other texts with dates and royal names (6:28 and 9:1) and for them proposed his own solutions (some involving changes in the text) opposed to those of Charles. He thought Charles failed to appreciate properly the content of the cuneiform text, published by Sidney Smith in 1924, in which Nabonidus confers royal authority on his son Belshazzar—a text that verified he was a king as Daniel 5 says. He concluded the review with words of appreciation for Charles’s work—a book rich in textual and literary criticism, as well as in philology and history— and acknowledged that his long labors with the apocalypses had given him an advantage in studying Daniel.³⁴

Legacy It is not easy to assess Charles’s place in the history of commenting on the Book of Daniel. So very much has been written about Daniel since 1929, but at least one can say that contemporary scholars often refer to Charles’s larger ³⁴ Lagrange said that his own essay on the seventy weeks of years in Daniel 9 had already been set in print and corrected when he read Charles’s commentary (276 n. 1) and that the present review would attempt to make up for what was lacking in the article. One form his effort took was to present a French translation of Charles’s English rendering of Daniel 9:24–7 (282–83), accompanied by a few textual notes.

   

359

commentary. It does not seem as if his book enjoys the esteem that Montgomery’s ICC commentary has earned, but there is appreciation for Charles’s careful study of the text. John Collins offered this assessment in 1993: The most important contributions of the last century include Gunkel’s Schöpfung und Chaos, which raised the issue of religio-historical background; R. H. Charles’s commentary, remarkable for its attention to the Greek text; Montgomery’s commentary, which is preeminent for its comprehensiveness and balanced judgment and remains invaluable in its discussions of textual problems; Bentzen’s slight commentary, which posited Canaanite influence in Daniel 7; and Ulrich’s recent publication of the fragments from Qumran.³⁵

Postscript What we may call the afterlife of Charles longer commentary on Daniel can serve as a postscript to this chapter. The Archives of Oxford University Press preserve correspondence relating to it, messages that track its sales and furnish an evaluation of it. The book was published, as noted earlier, on July 18, 1929. A note (typed) from someone at Cuddesdon, whose signed name I have not deciphered, was written on July 25, 1929 (OUP), just a few days after the book emerged from the Press. It includes the line: “I am glad you are cautious about Charles’s book.” The last line is tantalizing: why was Chapman, the secretary, “cautious about Charles’s book”? Was there something wrong with it? Was he worried about sales (the press printed 1,500 copies)? Subsequent letters indicate that, yes indeed, sales were a concern. It appears that Chapman, as secretary, inquired of Rev. Professor David Capell Simpson, DD Oriel College, Oxford,³⁶ about Charles’s book and perhaps about others of his works published by Oxford University Press. Simpson wrote on July 22, 1933 (OUP):

³⁵ Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 123. ³⁶ Simpson (1883–1955) was the Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture from 1925–50 (“David Capell Simpson,” Wikipedia, accessed 3-29-20). His major publications concerned the texts of the Book of Tobit and Pentateuchal Criticism, the latter published by Oxford University Press in 1924.

360    ( – ) Charles’s Book of Daniel is essentially a book for specialists—not merely specialists in the subject matter of the Old Testament but specialists in Hebrew & Aramaic. To a far greater extent than was necessary he introduced the Hebrew-Aramaic characters into every part of the book—consequently any one who is not a Hebrew-Aramaic scholar is just throwing his money away in buying the book—and, as you know, Hebrew-Aramaic scholars are few these days. The volume is essentially for the College Library not for the ordinary theologian’s bookshelves. In addition in the very same year as that in which you published Charles’s Book of Daniel, the editors of the International Critical Commentary produced their Daniel!³⁷ True it’s by an American [!], but he’s a well-known man, and he had the sense so to arrange his commentary that 3/4 of it is intelligible to the non-Hebrew & non-Aramaic scholar—and what is more, he tells the reader about the views of other scholars to a far greater extent, and with far less prejudice, than does Charles. So I am compelled, when asked by a non-Semitic student to advise him as to a commentary on Daniel, to call his attention to the Inter. Nat. Critical rather than to Charles. But the man who has no one to advise him—the average country parson shall we say?—but wants a commentary on Daniel, finds that you publish one by Charles at 30/- and that Charles wrote another one on Daniel in the Century Bible price 3/6, you can guess which he buys! Charles’s Apocrypha, on the other hand, is definitely constructed to suit the requirements (at any rate in the greater part of it) of the general reader rather than the specialist.³⁸ I should think that during the next 20 years the average sales of books such as Charles’s Patriarchs will be below rather than above the average of, say, the last six years.—and Charles’s Enoch, a pioneer work in its day, must

³⁷ Simpson was a little off the mark in claiming the two books appeared in the same year. Montgomery’s commentary was published in 1927, two years before Charles’s book. If Simpson had read Charles’s Daniel commentary with care, he would have noticed that he refers to Montgomery’s work a number of times. ³⁸ Simpson contributed “Tobit” to The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 1.174–241. It is ironic that, as Charles wrote in a footnote to the Preface: “In the case of Sirach and Tobit the editors have been allowed much beyond the normal number of pages for their critical apparatus, which they have used to good purpose” (iii, n. 2). The notes with variant readings in Simpson’s apparatus are filled with words written in Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic scripts and regularly occupy one-half or more of the pages that give the translation of Tobit—all this in a work that Simpson himself considered to be more for the general reader. Could he have been referring to his own contribution with his parenthetical “at any rate in the greater part of it”?

   

361

inevitably become, and that fairly soon, a back-number—referred to by the student in libraries once in a while but not bought.

Apart from saying the obvious about the commentary on Daniel—that it is a very technical work dealing at length with textual issues, one not likely to be a bestseller—Simpson’s only useful criticism is that Charles was not as generous as he should have been in reporting the views of others. His comments about Charles’s books on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and Enoch sound strange in view of how important they remain today. Chapman replied to Simpson on July 24, 1933 (OUP): “Very many thanks for taking such trouble. What you tell me is rather depressing, but never the less helpful.” Problems with sales of Charles’s commentary are quantified in a letter (OUP, June 21, 1937) from Chapman to Godfrey Driver. Charles’s Book of Daniel, after selling about 250 copies in the first 18 months, dropped to an average of 8 copies a year and last year sold no copies. Ought I to suspect that the great editor was failing when he did his last book. He himself certainly thought it was one of his most important. What do you think of its prospects? I have a great many copies and am inclined to think that not more than 100 will really ever be wanted. There is no hurry about this. Perhaps you will tell me when we meet.

Driver, who would later (1954) publish Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century .. with the Press and would perhaps have been a better person to ask about the commentary than Simpson, was being asked for his opinion about continued sales. If 1,500 copies had been printed and only about 275 had been sold, the Press had a lot of extra copies on its hands. The Archives lack a reply from Driver who may have given one orally at the meeting Chapman mentions, but a memo dated May 9, 1952 (OUP) has an underlined heading Charles: Book of Daniel. “Stock now appears to be exhausted, so will you please embulletin as out of print.” Unless the book had proved unexpectedly popular, it may be that only 100 copies were kept in 1937 and that this supply was exhausted by 1952. Yet the Archives do contain a letter from a Dutch scholar, written in 1969, inquiring whether the commentary (with two other Oxford publications) could be considered for reprinting. We have now reached the end of Charles’s time in Oxford. During that time, he became the supreme expert in the early Jewish apocalyptic texts and

362    ( – ) others related to them. He had also attained a university position as Fellow of Merton College and had achieved high stature in British academe as a Fellow of the British Academy and as holder of several distinguish lectureships. His remarkable career as a scholar was to continue after this but in a rather different setting, as will be shown in Part 3.

PART 3

THE WESTMINSTER YEARS (1913–1931)

Chapter 1 Return to Priestly Service The long Oxford stay for Charles (1890–1913) came to a sudden, surprising end in the Summer of 1913 when he became a canon of Westminster. His years in Oxford had been incredibly productive in books, articles, and lectures, and with his appointment as Fellow of Merton College in 1910, he at last had gained an official position in the university. 1913, as we have seen, was probably as fruitful in publications as any year in the Oxford period. So there seemed to be little reason for suspecting he would leave the university when his academic career was going so well. But leave it he did, never to return. In this chapter we will follow the events leading to his appointment as canon and will note the reports about his preaching, the books of sermons he published, the major emphases in his preaching, and some of his ecclesiastical duties.

Appointment as Canon We should recall that Charles was an Anglican priest who had served for six years in challenging London parishes (1883–89), but there is no evidence that he put his priestly credentials to practical use in Oxford. We do know that he was active at least to a degree in the life of the church as shown, for example, by his participation in two church conferences in 1910 (Swansea, mentioned by D’Arcy, and Cambridge, described above). It was not unusual, in fact it was common, in the early twentieth century for an academic to serve in an ecclesiastical office (a “living”),¹ whether in addition to his university post (the two were often connected) or as a replacement for it. So, for instance, Samuel Rolles Driver was both the Regius Professor of Hebrew and a Canon of ¹ In his obituary of Charles, Burkitt wrote about his appointment as canon: “This honour was generally recognized at the time as a tribute to meritorious theological learning, independent of any ecclesiastical party” (“Robert Henry Charles 1855–1931,” 440). Charles was hardly “independent of any ecclesiastical party,” as we will see, but perhaps Burkitt meant “regardless of the ecclesiastical party with which one identified.”

R. H. Charles: A Biography. James C. VanderKam, Oxford University Press. © James C. VanderKam 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192869289.003.0013

366    ( – ) Christ Church, Oxford.² Or Herbert Edward Ryle was for many years a Professor at Cambridge before becoming Bishop of first Exeter and then Winchester and finally Dean at Westminster.³ As nearly as one can tell, however, and as D’Arcy confirms (see below), Charles was not looking for a new position in the Church. D’Arcy wrote about the circumstances of his becoming a canon of Westminster. It was in 1913 that Charles was offered and accepted a Canonry of Westminster. At the time, worn out with his scholarly labours, he was, with Mrs. Charles, taking a holiday in Scotland, when, to his astonishment, a letter from the Prime Minister overtook him, making the offer.⁴ So completely had his mind been given to research that preferment in the Church had not entered his thoughts. He was not aware that there was a vacancy in the Chapter of the Abbey. The offer therefore took him by surprise: it also filled him with doubt. Earlier in his life he had found work in London too severe and had retired from it invalided. It was not until he had consulted his brother, Sir Havelock Charles, a physician of great eminence, that he accepted the Prime Minister’s offer.⁵

It sounds as if Charles was concerned about his health and that his brother, a medical doctor, put his worries to rest. And, it should be said, life as a canon of Westminster would not have placed the demands on him that being a young parish priest had many years before. We can follow Charles’s appointment and installation from notices in The Times of London. The issue for July 14, 1913 (40263), p. 8, has an article “New Canon of Westminster: Appointment of Dr. Charles.” The opening paragraph reads: “The King [George V, ruled 1910–36] has been pleased to approve the appointment of the Rev. R. H. Charles, DD, Speaker’s Lecturer in Biblical Studies, Oxford, to be Canon of Westminster, in succession to the late Canon Barnett.” There follows an account of his education and scholarly accomplishments. The article writer observed that he “has for some years been one of our leading scholars in that apocryphal and apocalyptic literature which has in recent years occupied so large a place in Biblical study.” He went on to note

² “Samuel Rolles Driver,” Wikipedia, accessed January 1, 2019. ³ “Herbert Edward Ryle,” Wikipedia, accessed January 1, 2019. ⁴ Since the monarch appointed canons of Westminster, the letter came via the Prime Minister’s office. See below. The Prime Minister at the time was Herbert Henry Asquith (1852–1928) who held the office from April 5, 1908 until December 5, 1916. ⁵ D’Arcy, “A Brief Memoir,” xxvii.

   

367

that the two volumes The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament had appeared in the last few weeks. His additional words are interesting: Dr. Charles’s appointment to a canonry in Westminster Abbey brings a scholar to London who has won a wide circle of friends both in Dublin and Oxford by his sympathy and readiness to help fellow-students. He will have still further opportunities of contributing from his learning, not only to the instruction of the congregations who attend the Abbey, but to those various centres of theological study in London of whose welcome he is already assured.

The obituary of Charles in The Times of London, reflecting on the nomination as canon, included the note that he was appointed “when it was thought that the Chapter needed strengthening on the side of scholarship” (Monday, February 2, 1931 [45736], p. 14). The Times for Saturday, July 26, 1913 (40274), p. 4, in the section on “Ecclesiastical Intelligence: The New Canon of Westminster,” announced that the installation was scheduled for the “3:00 p.m. service in Westminster Abbey on Thursday, July 31.” The issue for August 1, 1913 (40279), p. 6 reported, also under “Ecclesiastical Intelligence,” about the installment “at Westminster Abbey yesterday of the Rev. R. H. Charles, Speaker’s Lecturer in Biblical Studies, Oxford, as Canon of Westminster, in succession to the late Canon Barnett.” Thus, Charles began his service as canon on July 31, 1913, and the Charleses moved into 4 Little Cloisters, one of the residences belonging to the Abbey.

Westminster Abbey and Its Canons Westminster Abbey, a kind of national church, traces its history back to a Benedictine community in the tenth century and some of its structures to the eleventh. As a result of the ecclesiastical policies of Henry VIII (1509–47), the Abbey changed from a monastic center to a church. Elizabeth I in 1560 established it as the “Collegiate Church of Blessed Peter Westminster,” with one dean and twelve prebendaries (an earlier term for canons). She reserved to herself and her successors the right to appoint the deans and prebendaries.⁶

⁶ Edward Carpenter, editor, A House of Kings: The History of Westminster Abbey (London: John Baker, 1966) 451, for Elizabeth’s Royal Charter of 1560 (in a chapter entitled “The Constitution of the Collegiate Church” [450–64] by W. R. Pullen).

368    ( – ) Due to changes in religious affiliation by British monarchs in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Westminster went through several transformations, but with the restoration of Charles II (1660) the number of prebendaries returned to its prescribed twelve. Among them was John Doughty; as it turned out, Charles was appointed canon in succession to Doughty’s position. Charles’s immediate predecessor in the post was Samuel Barnett, canon since 1906, Canon Steward from 1911, and Sub-Dean designate from 1913. He had died on June 17, 1913, hence creating the opening to which Charles was soon appointed.⁷ Years later, the writer of the obituary of Charles in The Times of London, Monday, February 2, 1931 (45736), p. 14 (“Archdeacon Charles: A Great Apocalyptic Scholar”), noted earlier connections between the two clergymen. He wrote that when Charles was ordained to a curacy in St. Mark’s, White Chapel in 1883, Samuel Barnett had then been for 10 years vicar of the neighbouring parish of St. Jude, and Charles was destined to succeed to Barnett’s stall at Westminster Abbey. They were both Broad Churchmen, but otherwise not sympathetic, for Barnett had visions, and Charles always wanted facts. It would be hard to say which of the two was the better able to propagate the Gospel in Whitechapel. Certainly Charles was too academic in the pulpit, however conscientious he might be in his visiting.

The leading clergy at the Abbey are the Dean and the canons. The Dean has a supervisory role and appoints lower clergy but not the canons. He and the canons (the Chapter) are the governing body of the Abbey; the Dean presides at meetings of the Chapter but lacks a vote. In the years 1913–31, when Charles was affiliated with Westminster, two men served as Dean: Herbert Edward Ryle (1911–25) and Foxley Norris (1925–37). There were five canons when Charles arrived,⁸ and their various duties in conducting services, including preaching, were rotated among them by month. Hence each would have

⁷ Besides being neighbors of Charles in the East End of London, Barnett and his wife Dame Henrietta Barnett were active in social work there in the late 1880s. Barnett was also a select preacher at Oxford 1895–97 (“Samuel Barnett [reformer],” Wikipedia, accessed January 1, 2019), another place where they could have met. According to Adam Fox (“Portraits,” [341–9] in Carpenter, A House of Kings, 349), “Canon Barnett (1906–13) was reproached by his colleagues as a ‘socialist’, but he and his wife, both tireless social workers, would have called themselves Liberals.” ⁸ The Ecclesiastical Commissioners Act of 1840 changed the name of the office from prebendary to canon and reduced the number of them from twelve to six. The Westminster Abbey Act of 1888 lowered the number to five (W. R. Pullen in Carpenter, editor, A House of Kings, 456).

   

369

been responsible for carrying out pastoral responsibilities for two and in some years three months. Canons are ordained clergy who are responsible for attendance and certain duties at the daily Services and for preaching every Sunday during their months of residence. They also attend Chapter meetings which are held twice every month and carry out the additional duties of the four great offices of Sub-Dean, Archdeacon, Treasurer and Steward.⁹

Charles would assume the position of Treasurer in 1916 and the title of Archdeacon in 1919, an office that gave him the right to be called “the Venerable.”

Charles’s Early Days as Canon Since preaching was a significant part of a canon’s role, Charles was swiftly thrust into a situation in which he had not found himself since 1889, the last year in which he had served as a parish priest.¹⁰ And herein lay a problem. He had spent the twenty-four years since 1889 in researching and writing about ancient works like Enoch in excruciating detail. The move from study to pulpit proved difficult for the editor of Jewish apocalypses: . . . soon Canon Charles had to take his first month of ‘residence.’ This included regular preaching in the Abbey during the period. Accustomed to careful and accurate work, he prepared a course of sermons on a series of linked subjects closely related to the themes which had been occupying his mind for so many years. To the composition of these discourses he devoted the most anxious study. Great was his bewilderment when he found that he was gradually emptying the Abbey. The sermons were too difficult. They were addressed, like most of his writings, to the mind of the careful reader and not to the ear of the listener. From 1889 to 1913 his whole attention had been given to the most severe study. His works had been written for the student who would pore with anxious thought over every sentence, and he had become unfitted for a popular audience. Even the Abbey audience found

⁹ W. R. Pullen in Carpenter, editor, A House of Kings, 457. ¹⁰ He had been select preacher in Dublin for a few years, but there is no record of how much preaching it involved.

370    ( – ) it impossible to follow the closely knit sequence of thought and argument. The new Canon however was not dismayed. With characteristic determination he resolved to school himself to meet the new conditions which confronted him.¹¹

D’Arcy went on to divulge more details about the series of sermons that sent the faithful streaming to the exits. Immediately after the sentences just cited, he wrote: And it is very interesting to know that the sermons which had thinned the congregations in the Abbey formed afterwards one of the most valuable and successful of his works. Published in the Home University Library under the title Religious Development between the Old and the New Testaments, they present a most impressive application to the history of Jewish and Christian thought, of the principles which had emerged in the course of his studies in Apocalyptic. No more illuminating book has appeared in this generation. It has had a great circulation, has been reprinted many times, and has been translated into other languages, including Chinese and Japanese.¹²

A look at the contents of Religious Development between the Old and the New Testaments goes far toward explaining why the new canon drove worshipers away.¹³ After an Introduction, the chapter headings are: Prophecy and Apocalyptic The Kingdom of God in Apocalyptic Literature The Messiah in Prophecy and Apocalyptic The Rise and Development in Israel of the Doctrine of a Blessed Future Life Man’s Forgiveness of His Neighbour—A Study in Religious Development Reinterpretation and Comprehension The Literature—The Old Testament Apocrypha The Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament How these topics might have been divided into sermons we do not know, but it seems unlikely that each chapter in the book represents one address, as they are of different lengths—ranging from seventeen to thirty-seven smallish

¹¹ D’Arcy, “A Brief Memoir,” xxvii–xxviii. ¹² “A Brief Memoir,” xxviii. ¹³ The book will be summarized in its own section below (Part 3 Chapter 4). In it, Charles says nothing about the relation between the text and a series of sermons.

   

371

pages. However long they may have been, it is doubtful that someone attending a service at the Abbey and hoping for a spiritual lift from the sermon would have gone away satisfied. The topics, ones on which Charles had been writing for years and which were excellent for a book, likely failed to nourish or even interest occupants of the pews. There is evidence, as D’Arcy suggested, that Charles soon adjusted to his new position. His duties as a preacher he felt to be very important and he took them very seriously. Having realized, from his early experience in the Abbey, the need of adapting his way of expression to the ear as well as to the mind, he succeeded in a remarkable manner in becoming one of the most interesting of preachers. He gave much thought to questions of the day, and grappled, with unfailing courage and independence of mind, with problems of real difficulty. Thoughtful people crowded the Abbey to hear his careful examination of debatable questions and his usually decided conclusions. His clear utterance carried well through the great building, and his voice with its Ulster tone, and a pronunciation which had never lost something of the accent of Co. Tyrone, arrested attention. It must often have been the effect of these discourses to arouse dissent in the minds of some hearers, but none could listen to them without deep attention and respect for the sincerity and intellectual ability of the preacher.¹⁴

On D’Arcy’s view, Charles became “an admirable preacher” (xxx) for the informed audience one might find at the Abbey. Charles’s published volumes of sermons will be sketched below, but first we should examine a few other reactions to his preaching in the Abbey. In his obituary of Charles, Burkitt quoted from a letter written by Canon G. H. Box who had worked with Charles on the two-volume Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament and in other contexts, as we have seen. Box wrote: One remark I should like to make and this has reference to Dr. Charles’s sermons. I had an opportunity of listening to one of these in the Abbey on the afternoon of Sunday, August 23, 1914. He had done me the honour of asking me to preach in the Abbey at the morning service of that day and so I had an opportunity of seeing him in the beautiful surroundings of his home ¹⁴ D’Arcy, “A Brief Memoir,” xxix–xxx.

372    ( – ) in the Little Cloisters. The sermon to which I listened in the afternoon was characteristic: it was a massive disquisition on a point of divinity. Dr. Charles’s sermons were all of this character, thoughtful, scholarly and elaborate. I was struck by the fact that a good congregation was present to listen. A friend of mine told me that he regularly attended to hear these discourses when Dr. Charles was in residence. Doubtless there were many other regular attendants on these occasions, and this suggests that there is room in the metropolis for some centre where a sermon of a university type could be preached by distinguished scholars.¹⁵

Adam Fox wrote about Charles in the context of briefly characterizing some of the better-known canons who served from 1901 to 1960: “R. H. Charles (1913–31) came nearest to the ideal of a scholar; his successors are often reminded that he worked regular hours. In his Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha he certainly produced a bulkier book than any of his colleagues. But he was not only a man of learning. He was a fervent and sometimes a lengthy preacher, and a strong Protestant.”¹⁶ H. F. D. Sparks of Oxford, in a letter to me dated April 9, 1989, wrote about his experience with Charles’s preaching. I never knew Charles personally—in fact I never met him. I once heard him preach one Palm Sunday afternoon in Westminster: the subject was the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, and when he got to the exposition the Pharisee was the Church of Rome and the Publican the Protestant Christian like himself. All very nice and old-fashioned; and I well remember his strong voice and Northern Irish accent echoing through the Abbey with “This degenerate Christianity. . . .”

As we will see, Sparks’s words capture a central feature of Charles’s preaching in Westminster.

Charles’s Volumes of Sermons Charles’s position as canon required that he be in residence, that is, that he have leading responsibilities for the public services of worship in Westminster ¹⁵ “Robert Henry Charles 1855–1931,” 444. ¹⁶ “Portraits,” in Carpenter, editor, A House of Kings, 348–9.

   

373

Abbey, during a few months each year. As a result, he occupied the pulpit fairly frequently from 1913 on. A goodly number of those sermons were published in book form, while some of them appeared in more topical works that he authored. The volumes of his sermons are: 1. Sermons Preached in Westminster Abbey (1917): the information on the title page is: Sermons Preached in Westminster Abbey, by R. H. Charles, D. Litt., DD., Canon of Westminster, Fellow of the British Academy (London: MacMillan, 1917). In the very brief Preface, dated to September of 1917, he reported that the volume contained sermons he had preached since his appointment in 1913. The addresses were mainly practical, he wrote, with each of them being for the most part independent studies—meaning, among other things, that there was some repetition in them. The 245-page volume contains eighteen sermons, none of which bears a title. 2. The Adventure into the Unknown (1923): in the one-paragraph Preface to his second collection of sermons, Charles wrote that the sermons here published “were preached in Westminster Abbey on various occasions during recent years” (v). He chose not to add the dates on which he had delivered them (something he had done in his 1917 volume) on the grounds that, while they often referred to contemporary events, they “set forth the great truths of the Christian Faith in their bearing on the individual and corporate life. Such truths belong not to any special time but to all time” (v). The information on the title page reads: The Adventure into the Unknown and Other Sermons Preached in Westminster Abbey, by R. H. Charles, D. Litt., D.D., Archdeacon of Westminster, Fellow of the British Academy (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 38 George Street, 1923). The volume contains twenty of his sermons, with the title arising from the first one. The publisher included it in the fourth of the several book series with the title “The Scholar as Preacher.” 3. The Resurrection of Man and Other Sermons (1929):¹⁷ like its predecessor The Adventure into the Unknown, it was a part of “The Scholar as

¹⁷ He proposed the book to T. & T. Clark on March 9, 1927 (NLS), mentioning five sermons on resurrection that he intended to preach in the Abbey in June, five on Jeremiah, and a few others, perhaps fourteen or fifteen in all. He also requested that the volume be included in the Scholar as Preacher series. Clark accepted the proposal (NLS, March 9 and April 6, 1927). After this there is no preserved correspondence about it until March 30, 1929 (NLS), as Charles turned his attention to his second book about divorce (see Part 3, Chapter 2).

374    ( – ) Preacher,” this time in the fifth series. The title page reads: The Resurrection of Man and Other Sermons Preached in Westminster Abbey, by The Ven. R. H. Charles, D.D. (Dublin), D. Litt., & Hon. D.D. (Oxford), Hon. LL.D. (Belfast), Archdeacon of Westminster, Fellow of the British Academy (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 38 George Street, 1929). The brief Preface (v–vi), dated to September 1929, contains Charles’s description of the sermons in the volume. He referred to them as “twenty-two Sermons or Studies, which, with the exception of the nineteenth, were preached in Westminster Abbey” (v). The expression “Sermons or Studies”¹⁸ should alert the reader to the nature of the messages that, at least in some cases, drew heavily on his research into eschatology and apocalypses. He noted that the nineteenth sermon, “Messianic Prophecy,” differed from the other twenty-one in that he had delivered it “before the University of Oxford.”¹⁹ As a result, it was “of an academical character” (v). The latter trait, however, did not distinguish it very noticeably from the other units in the book: Of the remaining twenty-one some also are of the same character, but, as they were not preached before a university congregation but before a congregation of intelligent men and women of various professions and callings, it was the aim of the preacher to reproduce them in such language and forms of thought as would be intelligible to the trained judgment of his hearers. The first nine and the nineteenth deal with critical and doctrinal questions, which presuppose not infrequently a knowledge of facts and critical studies, of which the present work can only give an abbreviated account, if so much as that. (v)

He referred “the keen student of such subjects” to “critical studies” like that of Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins²⁰ and to his own works on Jewish eschatology. The reader thus has fair warning that the going might be a bit rough as he worked his way through the messages. Charles declared that he (“the preacher”) “has made truth his chief aim and therewith the spiritual enlightening, comforting, and invigorating of his hearers” (v). He realized that he could not count on acceptance of his teachings “in Tennessee or Rome” (v). ¹⁸ In the Preface to the 1917 volume he had also termed the sermons “studies.” ¹⁹ According to his letter to T. & T. Clark of March 30, 1929 (NLS), the date for the Oxford sermon was January 27, 1929. Here he also says he preached one of the sermons at the University of Glasgow and others at the University of Dublin. ²⁰ Burnett Hillman Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, treating of the manuscript tradition, sources, authorship, & dates (London: MacMillan, 1924).

   

375

Rome was a familiar whipping boy for Charles; “Tennessee” must refer to fundamentalists in the US. For such people he had some familiar-sounding words: To both of these self-constituted authorities and all akin to them in other Churches he would recommend the study of Dr. Salmond’s unanswerable Infallibility of the Church.²¹ The Bible is not a revelation but the history of a Divine Revelation, ever advancing from even pagan beliefs and practices to others of the highest spiritual character. The end of this Revelation awaits fulfilment in later worlds. (v–vi)

He closed the Preface with a denial that any church has received an infallible doctrinal system. Every system is an imperfect human attempt to get at the truth. The Table of Contents extends from page vii to xi because Charles expanded the simple list of sermon titles in two ways. He introduced it by enumerating twenty-two books that the reader might wish to consult in connection with topics discussed in sermons 1–5. At the end of the twenty-two he commented: “This list might be multiplied indefinitely” (vii). For the first five sermons he offered summaries on the next three pages (though he had very little to say about the third one).²² Numbers six through twenty-two²³ are then simply listed along with the texts on which they were based (the text is cited if it is short). Charles, now elderly and suffering physically (see the last chapter), seemed especially anxious that the book appear as soon as possible. He first requested a date in October or at the very latest in February 1930 (NLS, May 13, 1929). As time passed, he wrote a number of times asking when it would be published and mentioned receiving many inquiries about it (NLS, August 1, November 2,²⁴ 5, and 13, December 6, 1929). December 13 seems to have been the date when it became available (NLS, Clark, December 9). ²¹ The book was by his former mentor at Trinity College, Dublin, George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church: a course of lectures delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Dublin (London: J. Murray, 1890). ²² He said about the summaries that they were “given in an unusual fulness” because they had caused the greatest excitement (NLS, September 25, 1929). ²³ Three sermons about John Wycliffe, which he preached in the Abbey in February and March of 1929, seem to have been the last ones added to the collection (NLS, April 25, 27, and May 13 1929). He also considered the sermons in the book to be his best and most original (NLS, May 27, 1929). ²⁴ Charles was eager to have it published by this date because the Modernist Conference was meeting in Birmingham November 26–8, as the best theological scholars in England would be there (NLS, November 2, 1929). A card included in the NLS correspondence indicates that as of June 1, 1931, 793 copies of the book had been sold.

376    ( – ) 4. Courage, Truth, Purity (1931): Charles’s last book, published posthumously, was another collection of twenty-two sermons. The title page reads: Courage, Truth, Purity, By R. H. Charles, D.D., D. Litt., LLD., FBA, Archdeacon of Westminster, With a Brief Memoir of the Author, By The Most Reverend C. F. D’Arcy, D.D., Archbishop of Armagh. The next page identifies the publisher as Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1931.²⁵ Charles’ last book thus contains, besides his own words, a substantial account of his life (pages xiii–xxxv) written by a friend of many years standing. It also, uniquely among his publications, supplies a photograph of him. The Preface, just two short paragraphs in length, provides his general characterization of the sermons as “in some respects studies, but more practical in every respect than those I published in my last collection of sermons in 1929” (v). Here too, however, as in that previous volume, his primary aim was “enforcement of the truth in all its forms in practical life” (v). All of the messages he prepared for delivery at Westminster Abbey, but he had offered some of them in other places as well. He wrote at the beginning of the first sermon that during the present months of his residency at Westminster he wished to deal with “some of the virtues and graces that go to the formation of the Christian character” (1)—a point borne out by the title of the book (its three nouns are the titles of the first three sermons) and by the messages themselves. These are also shorter than his earlier sermons, rarely exceeding ten or eleven pages of rather large print. His more topical writings in which he addressed specific social issues and were sermon-related are: 1. The Teaching of the New Testament on Divorce (1921), a sermon he delivered on June 20, 1920 (footnotes and other material were added in the book). 2. Divorce and the Roman Dogma of Nullity (1927), sermons preached in Westminster Abbey during July of 1927. 3. Gambling & Betting (1924). Charles is remembered today for his work with apocalyptic texts, not for his preaching in Westminster Abbey. Yet, his sermon publications can hardly be ²⁵ Charles, (NLS, January 1, 1931; the original date of December 1, 1930 is scratched out) wrote that he had two other books “in hand” and wondered whether Clark wanted to publish one or both of them. He did not name the books, nor did they discuss them, as Charles died at the end of that month. One of the books was Courage, Truth, Purity which Clark declined to publish after his death (NLS, February 24, 1931).

   

377

neglected because they encapsulate an important aspect of the last eighteen years of his life. Rather than summarizing each of the sermons in the several books, I have decided to highlight themes and emphases in them. The topical books will receive attention in Part 3 Chapter 2. Throughout the years 1913–31 Charles’s duties at Westminster were not so time-consuming as to deny him opportunities for research and academic writing. Recall the comment of Adam Fox quoted above—other canons were reminded that Charles kept regular hours. Much of the time not spent in residence, it seems, was his to use as he saw fit. During the Westminster years he published his commentary on Revelation (with the related books Studies in the Apocalypse and Lectures on the Apocalypse) and the larger one on Daniel, Religious Development between the Old and the New Testaments, the Chronicle of John of Nikiu, and the Decalogue. These, apart from the larger Daniel commentary, which has already been treated, will be considered below in separate chapters at the appropriate chronological points.

Theological Perspective As we have seen, Charles became a member of the Churchmen’s Union²⁶ around 1900. The movement within the Church of England traces its roots to the year 1898, although there were predecessors to it.²⁷ Its members saw themselves as reforming the church in the light of developments in knowledge produced by the various sciences. The stances the Modern Churchmen expressed in their own writings, in addresses to the annual Conferences of Modern Churchmen that began in 1914, and in The Modern Churchman, a periodical not officially associated with the group but clearly related to it, provide a helpful background to Charles’s preaching and show why he found his theological home in the movement. The leading figure in English Modernism for many years was Henry D. A. Major (1871–1961), the long-time editor of The Modern Churchman (1911–56).²⁸ In 1925–26 he delivered the William Belden Noble Lectures at

²⁶ The name was changed to the Modern Churchmen’s Union in 1928. ²⁷ Stephenson, The Rise and Decline of English Modernism, 24–58. ²⁸ Charles seems to have had a long, warm relationship with Major whom he asked to preach several times in the Abbey (Ripon, April 13, 1922; March 7, 1924; September 15, 1929) and whom he consulted about a person to nominate as vicar for a parish (Ripon, March 7, 1924). Mrs. Charles (Ripon, April 4, 1931) quoted her husband as often saying about Major: “there is no one suitable to fill your most valuable place.” The two couples visited each other from time to time (e.g., April 26, 1927). Major felt

378    ( – ) Harvard University; these were published as English Modernism in 1927.²⁹ The lectures provide a clear statement of the beliefs held by the Modern Churchmen and the reasons why they held them. The following paragraphs are distilled from Major’s lectures and express ideas that, as we shall see, also figure in Charles’s sermons. The modernists insisted that the church must use the results produced by modern sciences, and that the church, in addition to its twin emphases on the authority of the Bible and of itself, needed a third emphasis—reason. One should not assume that God had finished revealing his truth in the past; revelation is ongoing and continues in the present. Major spoke about “the authority of the rational, moral, and spiritual consciousness, by which the authority of the Church and the authority of Scripture are brought together into a unity” (44). For the modernist, the church was “Spirit-bearing,” that is, “the Church’s ethical standards are not to be looked for as enshrined in any legal code, but in the living voice of her inspired teachers” (50). It was very important to the modernists to be a part of the church, to do their reforming work from inside. Their aim was to make the “New Truth” effective in it. The modernists’ “working hypothesis is that ultimately the fundamental affirmations of the Christian faith will be found to be not incompatible with the discoveries of modern research” (68). Such discoveries were coming not only from the work of natural scientists; historians and biblical scholars were also producing new information. “Another thing that Christian theology must be willing to accept is all sound literary and historical criticism of its Scriptures, Creeds, Institutions” (74). Neither the Scriptures nor the Creeds, thus, are to be spared the ministrations of modern scholarship. They reflect their times of origin, just as institutions do, and need not offer the final word. After allowing that the synoptic gospels “present us with a picture of Jesus, His character, and deeds, and words, which is in the main historical” (75), Major added: “Modernist Theology is prepared to let historical criticism have full play. We must find our last reserves of strength and inspiration in the

the same way about Charles. As Clive Pearson wrote: “The close bond that Major felt towards Charles is made plain in his published aside to the privilege of becoming ‘from my earliest days in Oxford . . . the attached friend of Archdeacon R. H. Charles of Westminster’ ” (in Pearson, Davidson, and Lineham, Scholarship and Fierce Sincerity, 139, citing from Major’s “A Modernist’s Pilgrimage: Summary of an Address delivered to the Society for the Study of Religions on 17 January, 1946,” Religions 55 [April 1946] 6). ²⁹ H. D. A. Major, English Modernism: Its Origin, Methods, Aims (Cambridge: Harvard University Press/London: Humphrey Milford, 1927). Page references in the text are to this volume. Charles (Ripon, May 5, 1925) congratulated Major on his appointment as Noble Lecturer.

   

379

Spirit of Jesus rather than in the strict historicity of the wonderful Gospel cartoons” (75).³⁰ Christian dogma should thus be updated in light of ongoing research and the guidance of the Spirit. Major recognized that the church needs doctrines. What the Modernist is opposed to is dogma which is false, dogma which is out of date and repels the modern-minded man and woman. The Modernist is also opposed to the exaltation of the ability to profess belief in dogmas into a Christian virtue of high order. (79)

The accent should fall on true religion, not theology, and on conduct, not creed (82). Major distinguished three kinds of dogma. The first and most important type he called spiritual dogma, by which he meant the basics of Christianity that are proved true by experience. These are the axiomatic truths of the Christian life, such as that God is Love, Light, Truth, Spirit; that Jesus is in His character the reflection of the invisible Father—the Very Word of God in human history; that those who accept Jesus as their Lord and Guide receive the Spirit of Jesus, which is a spirit of love, joy, peace, holiness in their lives. (83)

A second and less important kind of dogma is historical, that is, the proof for such teachings is historical in character. Among these Major named Jesus’ birth from a virgin,³¹ his crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection on the third day. “Here Christians are in the hands of the higher critics and historians. What they decide at the bar of historical criticism, that the Christian Church must accept” (85) lest it lose educated members. The third kind of ³⁰ Cartoon can have different meanings. I suspect Major was using it, not in the contemporary sense of a humorous picture or drawing or series of them, but in an older sense of a preparatory drawing that served as a basis for a more final work such as a painting. ³¹ Elsewhere in the book Major distinguished between fact and mode. The incarnation was a fact, but the mode in which it came about is a different matter. While most held that the mode had to be the virgin birth, it is not the only one. Faith in the fact of the Incarnation is of the very essence of Christian Faith. But while the foundation of every Christian Christology is the conviction that there has been a supreme Incarnation of the Divine Nature in the personality of Jesus of Nazareth, there is no single mode of the Incarnation that is so undoubted and authoritative that the Church can demand that the teacher of any other mode must be faced with the alternatives of recantation or deprivation. (165) A few lines later he said of the virgin birth that it was a “mode which historical research and scientific methods of thought are rendering incredible to an increasing number of educated people . . . .”

380    ( – ) dogma, the scholastic, came from the Greek and Latin Fathers, Medieval thinkers, and Protestant reformers. Among them was the doctrine of a Trinity in Unity and baptismal regeneration. These are better left as open questions and should not be forced upon people on the authority of the past (86). Among other beliefs that Major explained was the Modernist acceptance of an afterlife but not eternal punishment. The latter “conflicts with our belief in the Fatherly love of God: divine discipline we believe in, both here and hereafter, but not in everlasting punishment: it is grotesque, absurd, incredible” (106). In addition, the doctrine of the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, the teaching that he died to satisfy the righteous anger of God against sinful humanity, the modernist rejected. It is people, not the deity, who need changing. Jesus died to redeem people from evil, and God accepts the one who turns to him in penitence. Christ’s sacrifice was vicarious in that the cross is a symbol of obedience to the will of God. The modernist rejected the notion of original sin, even though the Apostle Paul accepted it. The modernists likewise held non-traditional beliefs about eschatology. They did not expect a return of Jesus in a visible way. We look for two things. The coming of the Kingdom of God on earth, even as Jesus taught His disciples to pray, . . . We look also for the life of the world to come, but we shall pass to it, not through our coffin lids, but, as William Blake depicts that passage, from our dying bodies. (113)

Divine judgment is something that is always taking place both for the individual and in society. But though a future life is not incredible, yet its conditions are unimaginable. Hence the descriptions of that life beyond the tomb which are based by Traditional Theology on the eschatological visions of the Apocalyptic seer and the great poem of Bernard of Morlaix,³² have less power to inspire and uplift the Modernist than the lyric notes of our own English poets. (116)

Moreover, modernists did not think one should emphasize future rewards and punishments as the reason for behaving properly in this life. In addition, the infallibility and finality of the Bible were being discarded by educated English folk. The Bible is not infallible but inspired. ³² This twelfth-century writer is also known as Bernard of Cluny. He was the author of a lengthy poem de contemptu mundi, in which, among other topics, there are graphic pictures of hell and heaven.

   

381

The statement that the Bible is the Word of God is being replaced by the statement that it contains the Word of God, not the only one, but the clearest and most authoritative for practical purposes. Modernists recognize that the Bible relates the history of the religious and moral evolution of Israel which culminated in the Gospel of Jesus and the foundation of the Christian Church. (117)

The modernist “urges the Traditionalist to accept the assured results of criticism as to the origin, dates, composition, integrity, historicity, and scientific value of the various books. The test of the moral and spiritual value of the Bible is the test of experience” (118). Revelation, however, is not just a phenomenon of the past but “a present reality” (120); it has not ceased. “Revelation did not stop with the conclusion of the New Testament. It has been, in accordance with Christ’s promise of the gift of the Spirit, continuously operating ever since” (120). God reveals himself in every age, and that revelation is always in harmony with “the moral and spiritual ideals” that Jesus taught. Ongoing revelation “unveils their implications and applications to our expanding experience” (120). The following words of Major sum up much of the modernist program: As Modernists, we are willing to follow whithersoever Reason leads, provided Reason be understood to include not merely intellectual conclusions, but also moral and spiritual judgments; but as Englishmen, we are not willing to part with any of the values which have been entrusted to us. (123)

They saw themselves in continuity with the past but trying to update and reform those aspects of it needing change. An unavoidable topic for modernists was miracles. Denying miracles, wrote Major, was seen by traditionalists as leading to denial of all essentials of the faith. If they go, everything else goes down that metaphorical slippery slope. However, the modernist argued that he could keep the Christian faith without believing miracles occurred. Events that have been interpreted as miracles may not be, as traditionalists claim, contrary to nature or an irruption by God into nature, but events that follow a law of nature about which we have not yet learned (129–30; he cited Augustine who said that miracles were “portents which are not contrary to Nature, but are contrary to what we know of Nature”). It has been thought that miracles have evidential value in proving revelation to be true, but It is generally agreed to-day that miracles can prove nothing beyond themselves, and that when Matthew Arnold wrote sarcastically, ‘to prove to you

382    ( – ) that what I am writing is true, I propose to turn my pen into a pen-wiper,’ he was not writing blasphemous nonsense but justifiable criticism of a view of miracles which is now discredited. (132–22)

Major asserted that “Belief in miracles is a survival from the pre-scientific way of viewing the Universe, and the desire for miracles creates belief not only in miracles, but in what seem, in that stage of knowledge, certainly to be miracles” (134). He referred to statements by Jesus that disparage miracles and those who sought them and noted that the miraculous element increases as one moves chronologically from the earliest gospel, Mark, to the later ones. Jesus would not want a person to have faith in him based on or supported by miracles (135).

Charles’s Sermons Having sketched the theological perspective that Charles shared with his fellow modernists, we should isolate a few traits of his sermons. As we do so, we will encounter familiar modernist ideas.

Sermon Traits First, Charles, strong Protestant that he was, listed a text or texts above almost every sermon he published, but not all of his messages are exegetical in nature, nor did they have to be. At times, he treated the text or part of it closely, but at others it functioned more as a springboard for delivering his views on a subject. The biblical passage in such cases did not really control what he had to say; it merely provided an opening. Take the very first sermon in the 1917 book. He chose as his text John 7:17: “If any man willeth to do His will, he shall know.” The sermon consists of explaining three “instruments” that, according to Charles, were needed in the quest for the true knowledge the verse mentions: thought, feelings, and a good will. These are no doubt important ways for arriving at such knowledge and the verse mentions willing, but it does not talk about thought or feelings. Charles does. Another instance of the non-exegetical approach is the eleventh sermon in the 1923 collection, “Authority in Religion,” with Mark 1:22 as the text: “He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.” Charles spoke about the need to come to intellectual maturity and not to be bound by

   

383

tradition; a person must have a consciousness of the truth and acknowledge its authority. Using the abilities God has given, one should use his private judgment and test it by experience. The same holds for each generation since God reveals the truth progressively. There is no final expression of the truth in this world. The most valid test of beliefs is the results to which they lead. All of this would have been interesting and dear to the heart of English Modernists, but how much does it have to do with Mark 1:22 and Jesus’s authoritative way of teaching? Second, it is evident in the sermon volumes that, as D’Arcy commented, Charles learned to adapt his presentations to the pulpit. He made genuine efforts to apply his messages to the life of the audience, although he would, sometimes at length and in much detail, explain the reasoning behind his practical exhortations. Thus, in a measure he succeeded in redirecting his focus from, say, second-century .. developments in Jewish eschatology to drawing out the implications of scriptural passages for contemporary Christian life. Yet, despite his efforts, the conversion could hardly be judged complete. The fourteenth sermon in the 1917 volume took up Mark 4:2, “He taught them many things in parables.” In it he announced to the audience that this message and the next four would be on the Parable of the Sower (he preferred to call it the Parable of Divers Soils) but that he first needed to explain why Jesus taught in parables. He spoke about the aim of parables in the Old Testament and Apocrypha and the two kinds of parables in the New Testament before considering their purpose. This required that he outline the thesis of the German New Testament scholar Adolph Jülicher that, although Jesus’s intent in the parables was to preach a spiritual truth, the evangelists took them to be esoteric mysteries that Jesus clarified privately to the disciples, not to the crowds. He went on to deal with Isaiah 6:9–10 as it is cited in Mark 4 and a textual issue in connection with it. One wonders whether the “study” inspired people to return for the remaining four messages in the series.³³ Another example can be found in the third sermon in the 1923 volume, “The Blessedness of Humility and Meekness” (26–41). Charles gave Matthew 5:3, 5 as the text for his message, but what about v. 4? He offered the congregants the reasons why he considered it an interpolation between the related statements in vv. 3 and 5 and discussed the readings in various manuscripts. Happily for Charles, excising v. 4 yields the number of seven

³³ In the seventeenth sermon in the 1917 book Charles told the congregation why, in his opinion, the text of Mark 4 contained a mistranslation of a Hebrew/Aramaic idiom.

384    ( – ) Beatitudes that he thought there should have been rather than the eight in Matthew 5. One would think, from reading the first two sermons in the 1929 book that Charles had entirely reverted to his old ways. He admitted in a footnote to the first message that “Some sections of this and the next sermon are taken verbatim from my lecture on Immortality (Oxford University Press, 1912), which in its turn is based on my Critical History of the Doctrine or a Future Life (A. & C. Blackwell, 2nd edition, 1913)” (1). His own summaries of the two sermons³⁴ will give a good impression of their non-homiletic nature. About the first, “The Resurrection of Man, according to the Teaching of the Old Testament: Historical Study of this Development” (1–14, Job 14:14 was the text), he wrote: Prophecy, Apocalyptic, Eschatology. Tribal conception of Yahweh persisting down to 800 .. Sheol—a pagan conception. Rise of ethical monotheism in eighth century, but a definite doctrine of monotheism unknown till about 600. The doctrine of Man’s Resurrection unknown till 300 .. Belief in Sheol conceived as the final abode of the disembodied spirits of all men, seeing that they had received full requital for all their deeds in this world, not doubted till about 400 .. The criticism of this so-called orthodox doctrine originated in the teaching of Jeremiah—that the individual, and not the nation, was the religious unit and as such had direct communion with God. (viii)

Sermon 2 is entitled “The Resurrection of Man, according to the Teaching of Judaism” (15–24) and appeals to the same passage from Job. For the message his summary reads: Orthodox doctrine criticized by Job³⁵ and Sirach. Conviction of a blessed immortality arises. Doctrine of the resurrection results from the synthesis of two distinct hopes—that of the righteous individual and that of the righteous nation, and marks the restoration of the individual and of the nation into communion with God and each other at some indefinite date after death, when the Messianic Kingdom should be established on this earth. Hence this Kingdom was originally conceived materialistically. (viii)

³⁴ He provided the summaries in the table of contents. ³⁵ As in his earlier publications on which he was drawing, he dealt with Ecclesiastes in this context and referred to its author as “the Omar Khayyám of Judaism” (p. 16). He added in a footnote on the same page that the references to judgment in Ecclesiastes were “Pharisaic interpolations of a later date.”

   

385

He seems to have regarded the two sermons as helpful, even necessary background for understanding the kingdom teaching of the New Testament that he treated in the fourth (about Paul) and fifth (about Paul and Jesus) messages.³⁶ Third, some of the subjects on which Charles held strong opinions found their way into his sermons. One of them, at least in the early Westminster years, was his disgust with Germany during the World War and with nations, such as the United States, that remained neutral far too long. In the 1917 collection, sermon nine (preached on April 6, 1917, Good Friday), related to Matthew 27:25, “Then answered all the people, and said: His blood be on us, and on our children.” Charles thought the “laws of Christ” applied not only to individuals but also to nations. His example was American neutrality. He referred to it as “a strong nation, professedly Christian” that was standing on the sidelines while a bully nation, Germany, was trampling weaker ones. He did add that he was very grateful the US had just decided to enter the war and thus “at last abandon this heathen conception of the relations of one nation to another” (108).³⁷ The same sermon also allowed him to vent some of his negative feelings toward post-70 .. Judaism. He asserted that the Matthean text contained the “awful words of imprecation wherewith a whole people proclaimed its apostasy from the kingdom of justice and truth” (107). He found Jewish nationalism and hope for a militant messiah to be causes for their rejection of Christ and eventually for the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 .. “And from century to century in this land and in that burthen of blood seems still to press heavily on them and on their children” (115).

³⁶ In sermon thirteen in the 1929 volume, “The Need of Loving God with the Mind” (150–60), there is a peculiarity in that in his text, Mark 12:28–31 in which Jesus states the two great commandments, Charles bracketed the part that contained a word in his sermon title—“thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, [and with all thy mind], and with all thy strength.” In a footnote to the affected words he explained: Bracketed as an interpolation, being an alternative rendering of the same Hebrew original which is already rendered literally by the phrase, “with all thy heart” (150). He devoted the first several pages of the sermon to explaining the different versions of Jesus’ discussion with the scribe, determining how accurately or inaccurately they translated Deuteronomy 6:4–5, and making the case that heart and mind render the same Hebrew word. Incidentally, he also preached this sermon to the 1922 Conference of Modern Churchmen (The Modern Churchman 12 [1922–3] 410–17, where it bears the title “To Love God with the Mind”). ³⁷ In sermon eleven (1917), on the Parable of the Good Samaritan, he declared that the policy of the neutral nations in the World War, a war of Christ against Antichrist, resembled the attitude of the priest and Levite in the parable, neither of whom proved a neighbor to the man who was beaten and robbed. Here again he acknowledged the recent change in American policy (146 n.). Churches also aroused his ire for their stands during the war. See sermon fourteen in the 1923 volume, 173–86, for condemnation of the Reformed churches in Germany and the Roman Catholic Church: “Truly it was the most pitiable spectacle the world has ever witnessed of moral faithlessness and shameless insincerity” (176).

386    ( – ) Actually, it was not only post-70 .. Judaism that Charles criticized. Sermons nine and ten in the 1923 volume are entitled “Pharisaism” (102–15, 116–31). He granted that the Pharisees started out well (of course, all of his apocalyptists were Pharisees), but the movement soon succumbed to hypocrisy—a disease common to all religions and churches. The Pharisees came to insist upon the tradition of the elders, relying on established dogma rather than a free search for the truth. Charles spoke of the “overwhelming mass of trivialities” (110) in the Talmud (mixed with some good stuff). In the second message he talked of Pharisaism as “a dead and bygone distemper that was indigenous to Palestine” (117) and insisted that habits, the ritual motions of piety, were not the same as true religion. The Pharisees confused outward observance with genuine devotion (again, the problem was not confined to them). A third entity that Charles saw fit to criticize was Catholic teaching, especially claims made for the papacy, and the Roman church’s retention of Medieval practices that should have been discarded long ago. Accepting doctrines or engaging in formal religious acts does not constitute true religion, but, he thought, such opinions were prevalent in the Catholic Church. In October of 1914 he preached two related sermons, in the first of which he asked, “On what evidence are we to receive divine or ultimate truth—on the evidence of authority, or on its own?” (1917, 47).³⁸ In the sermon Charles moved swiftly to a criticism of the papacy and its claims to supreme authority. The question (“On what evidence . . . ?”) seems rhetorical, but it gave him the opportunity of castigating the notion of papal infallibility. He pointed out that in church history there have been two theories regarding the evidence on which one received truth and that they arose from two theologies. One stressed the transcendence of God, the great gulf between him and sinful, depraved humanity; the other emphasized his immanence. Augustine was the culprit who took transcendence to extremes (his excesses were later adopted by Protestants, especially Calvin); he and his followers held that a person’s reason could not determine what was true. Thus, he had to rely on authority. This teaching paved the way for the doctrine of papal infallibility.³⁹

³⁸ The two messages exemplify the first general point above, that his sermons were at times not exegetical. His text for both was John 8:31–2: “If ye abide in My word, then are ye truly My disciples; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Charles took the relation between truth and freedom and ran with it, considerably, it seems, beyond anything the text says. ³⁹ See too sermon fifteen (1923), “Origen” (187–200) where Charles declared that “the Church of Rome, which has always been more or less ignorant and obscurantist” (193), had agreed to deposing

   

387

In the eleventh sermon of the 1923 book, “Temptation of the Lesser Good” (145–60), Charles dealt with the devil’s temptation of Jesus in the wilderness and Jesus’ rejection of popular notions about the Messiah and his rule. He dismissed the idea that control of the world was Satan’s to give. This last temptation, said Charles, is one facing nations and churches. The devil had been successful with Germany prior to and during the recent World War. He also criticized the pope for maintaining a stance of neutrality during it. How, he wondered, could a church stand aside when such monstrous acts were being perpetrated by Germany and Austria? See also 1929, sermon twelve.⁴⁰

Sermon Themes Now that we have reviewed Charles’s theological perspective and several traits of his preaching, we should examine some themes marking the published sermons. Below is a consideration of topics that struck me as I read through the sermons along with a few instances exemplifying them. The list is probably not complete, and another reader might draw up quite a different one. But these caught my eye. First, a recurring theme is how to live a Christian life: Charles, as a canon should, often encouraged listeners to do virtuous acts, like seeking the kingdom of God first and foremost, communing with God without clerical mediation, striving for spiritual goods, praying, and the like. Together with such topics, there are several special emphases in his sermons that concern daily conduct. For one, Charles told the congregants in Westminster not to construct a wall of separation between the sacred and the secular and not to regard the latter as less important. He insisted that all areas of life were subject to the rule of God and the laws of Christ. Believers, all of whom possess a divine calling, should carry out this calling not only through worship but also in their occupations, in their day-to-day lives. He rejected separation from or mere endurance of the “world” and exhorted people to carry out the principles of Christianity in it. Moreover, they were to pursue their calling with whatever Origen, the great scholar of the third century. In the Preface to the 1929 volume, he wrote that “an infallible system of doctrine” has been given to no church, “least of all to a Church which changes its requirements for communion nearly every century” (vi), another shot at Rome. ⁴⁰ This sermon is one of the places where Charles the modernist rejected the doctrine of original sin. The three sermons about John Wycliffe that conclude the 1929 collection offered frequent opportunities for him to celebrate Wycliffe’s opposition to papal demands and to speak in a critical way about the survival of Medieval practices, e.g., prayers to saints, in the modern Catholic Church.

388    ( – ) gifts God gave them, whether they were many or few. They were not to withdraw if they felt their “talent” (as in the Parable of the Talents) was too insignificant to matter. God has use for the contributions of all in his kingdom. A number of times he reminded the audience that living in a Christian way did not deliver people from life’s difficulties; rather, their faith would strengthen them to bear them. Charles illustrated these points in the second sermon in the 1917 book (15–29), where his text is John 4:34: “My meat is to do the will of Him that sent Me.” He applied the passage to people’s divine callings and how they carried them out in their lives, including in their occupations. If a person fulfilled his divinely given assignment, he would receive divine food, food from heaven. Charles distinguished a couple of long-standing views about the relation between the believer and the world. Monasticism regarded the world as something evil from which one should withdraw; and it considered marriage to be negative. He allowed that those who had adopted the monastic way had done some good, but the approach assessed the world wrongly. The second outlook was held by the Puritans who believed that one had, alas, to deal with the world however bad it was. It was a place where one expended spiritual capital rather than augmenting it. A person endured the world by gathering as little contamination from it as possible. Charles also found the Puritan view wanting. He argued that all lawful occupations were sacred, but an individual’s life calling must be rooted in God who ennobles his work. One was not to make a separation between, say, church and the world of labor and business. It was necessary and possible to do God’s will in both. The text from the Gospel of John conveyed two main truths: each person is sent here to do a special task, a form of God’s will, with the means or talent to do it; and when an individual executes that task God gives him heavenly food. He told his audience that their occupations should be a “spiritual Mount Sinai” (26) if effected for divine motives—to do the will of the one who sent them to such work. Sermon number seven in the 1917 book (83–96) took up Mark 10:43–4, “Whosoever would become great among you, shall be your minister; and whosoever would be first among you, shall be servant of all.” He dealt with three ways in which the requirement of service comes to expression in imperfect ways. First, there is the approach that makes a divide between the sacred and the secular, separating religion from daily life and indeed divorcing daily life from morals. He declared that the only place where religion shows itself is precisely in what one does from day to day. A second kind of imperfect fulfillment consists of the deceptions (“unrealities”) that characterize personal and social life. He spoke of going through the motions (e.g., the society smile)

   

389

without the spirit that gives substance to actions. He urged his audience to follow the promptings of God’s Spirit even when they were struggling with conventionalism. A third type was the service that arose from corrupt motives, the attempt to bring glory to oneself rather than to God. A Christian should have a “single-eyed” devotion like Abram as he went to an unknown land when so ordered by God. For the sixth message in the 1923 volume, “The Destiny of Man” (66–78), Charles chose Matthew 25:28, 29 as his text (from the Parable of the Talents). The message of Jesus’ story is that a person “is judged according to the use he makes of the means at his disposal” (66). He thought the parable distinguished what someone received through heredity (the first set of talents given to the servants) and through environment (the talents they subsequently earned). Even individuals with a single talent have an important duty, though they may shirk it because it seems so small. God wants everyone’s contributions. The landlord in the parable represents God, who, as Charles read the text, was most generous in allowing the servants to keep both what they originally had and what they had earned. These he invites to enter the joy of their lord.⁴¹ Another way in which Charles addressed living the Christian life was through sermons on particular virtues to be cultivated. The clearest example is the title of his 1931 book, Courage, Truth, Purity—the three words are the titles of sermons 1–3 respectively. But these were not the only good traits about which he preached. He also centered messages around topics such as humility, greatness, and freedom. The sermons he delivered regarding famous individuals—Origen, Jeremiah, Baruch, and John Wycliffe—held them up as models to be emulated. Humility, a virtue Charles commented on several times, exemplifies his teaching. In the 1923 book the third message bears the title “The Blessedness of Humility and Meekness” (26–41) and has for its text two of the Beatitudes, Matthew 5:3, 5. The poor in Spirit are the humble, those who have an honest estimate of themselves. Humility is highly valued in Christianity, unlike in ancient Greece. Meekness is the outward manifestation of humility, of surrender to God. Where the text says the meek will inherit the earth, Charles cited Mark Twain’s quip that the British must be very meek because of the sizable empire they had acquired. Charles regarded his comment as true,

⁴¹ The examples could be multiplied from the 1931 volume, where, for example, the fifth message (40–50) on 1 John 5:4, “Whosoever is born of God overcometh the world” repeats a number of these points. Sermons four, six, nine, thirteen, and nineteen could also be cited in this regard.

390    ( – ) though he knew it was a joke, since Great Britain had been more obedient to God than any other nation! Second, and issuing in a way from the first, Charles, the modern churchman, had much to say about Christianity and the knowledge that science was producing. We have seen that he ardently embraced higher criticism and practiced it with gusto throughout his career. In sermon number eleven in the 1923 book, “Authority in Religion” (132–44)—treated above in connection with the non-exegetical character of some of his sermons—he maintained that people should use their capabilities, their own judgment, in the quest for truth. Doctrines and creeds were not to be accepted simply because they were passed along in authoritative tradition. Even the Bible itself is the history of developing revelation, not a text communicating one fixed, true system valid for all time (see the citation from the Preface [v–vi] to the 1929 volume above). He noted that Jesus and Paul not only found fault with the leaders and standard beliefs of their day but also with the Old Testament itself. As he put it, “Thus Christ and St. Paul were the greatest higher critics in the whole history of the Christian Church” (142). Or, in the twentieth sermon in the same book, speaking on the topic of “Neutrality” (257–72), he pointed out that Jesus, unlike the religious experts of his time, had a clear sense of what the Old Testament meant regarding matters such as the Sabbath. Charles asserted: “Christ was the first Higher Critic” (259). One’s obligation was to seek the truth and follow it wherever it led. It is the truth that makes one free. Creeds and doctrinal statements of churches merely reflect the limited knowledge of the people who formulated them; they are not unassailable truths fixed eternally. Mere assent to beliefs should not be confused with true religion. These claims were directed against ecclesiastical systems in general, but Charles found the Roman Catholic Church to be particularly guilty of living in the past and opposing modern knowledge with its claims to final authority. For Charles, though he accepted advances in the sciences such as the Darwinian theory of natural selection, the important area was biblical interpretation and the wealth of information becoming available in his time through discoveries of texts and insights of scholars. He believed that with the tools now in hand it was possible to strip away layers of traditional (mis) interpretations and draw ever nearer to the authentic teachings of the text, even to the teachings of Jesus. An excellent and repeated instance of Charles’s approach to dogmas, creeds, and the like is his theory about resurrection and the future life (see the sketch of English modernist views above). It was a topic on which he had written in his academic publications, but it found its way into his sermons as well. The

   

391

title of the 1929 collection, The Resurrection of Man and Other Sermons, identifies it as a prime source for his views on the subject. He articulated a theory about the resurrection and future life that was unusual when compared with traditional Christian doctrine and may well have sounded so in Westminster Abbey. Charles spoke strongly against the idea that resurrection meant resuscitation of the body that had perished. He thought that a person’s spirit lived on past death and made for itself a new body appropriate to its changed environment. That environment could take any number of forms because, he thought, there were many other worlds to which God could assign a person whose earthly body had completed its task. Moreover, he held that the very nature of God requires that we not believe our thoughts and actions in this life determine our eternal destiny. That would be terribly unjust—the deeds of a short time on earth settling one’s lot forever. He was convinced that there would be plenty of opportunity for improvement in the hereafter. Sermon three (1929) is entitled “The Resurrection of Man, according to the Teaching of Judaism and Christianity outside the New Testament” (25–35; no text is listed). In the Table of Contents Charles said about this topic: “The latter often as materialistic and illogical as the former” (viii). Here he described what he considered the grossly physical conception of resurrection in various Jewish texts, including the Talmuds, though a few Jewish writers maintained a more spiritual notion of it. Of course, things were far better in the New Testament, although Jewish conceptions still tainted it in places. The New Testament teaching about God required changes in the earlier ideas of Sheol, resuscitation of the body, and the everlasting punishment of the wicked. Yet in subsequent Christian thought and especially in hymns a physical view of the resurrection prevailed, whereas the true New Testament teaching refers to raising persons, not bodies.⁴² Charles wrote in despair: “This pagan and ⁴² In Appendix I in Major, English Modernism, the author reprinted from the “The Creed of the ReUnited Church.” The Modern Churchman 10 (1921) 558–71 the answers given by nineteen English Modernists to “four questions issued by the World Conference of Faith and Order” (231). Major had invited “twenty-four leading Modernists” to respond to the questions, and Charles was one of the nineteen who replied (181; for Charles’s contribution, see pages 244–5). To the queries whether there should be one creed for a reunited church and, if so, which should it be, Charles answered that having such a creed “is desirable if possible” and that it should perhaps be the Apostles’ Creed reëdited in the light of God’s subsequent revelation in man’s spiritual experience, thought and history, and in science. Of the three paragraphs in this creed, the first can stand as it is. The third requires only the change of “resurrection of the flesh” into ‘resurrection of the dead,’ (as in the Nicene Creed), that is, a resurrection of persons, not of dead bodies. The second paragraph needs several changes, as in the phrases “descended into hell,” “ascended into heaven,” etc. The words “the Virgin” and “the third day” might be left out, or if retained, a footnote added, that belief in the literal truth of these phrases was not binding on Churchmen. (244) At the end of his reply Charles added an N.B.:

392    ( – ) Judaistic doctrine [the resuscitation of the bodies that died] is still accepted by a vast body of Christian people, and even by people of culture that are in other respects sane and judicious” (32). He quoted several hymns that spoke of the resurrection of the body in various ways, concluding: “Surely it is time to banish from our thought and worship these puerilities and absurdities, seeing that even the Reformed school of Judaism⁴³ has already removed them from its prayer books and relegated them to the limbo of outworn illusions” (35). Charles’s summary of sermon four, “The Resurrection of Man, according to St. Paul” (36–46), reads: Personality used in these sermons in the Biblical sense—i.e. the spirit combined with a body, by means of which it expresses itself or receives impressions in this world and in the innumerable worlds of the hereafter.⁴⁴ Relation of the spirit to the present body. Characteristics of the physical body. Resurrection follows immediately on the death of the physical body. The faithful spirit goes home to Christ immediately after death, when it receives a body adapted to its new environment. But St. Paul advances still further. The resurrection takes place at least in part in this life. The resurrection thus becomes synonymous with the spiritual life in Christ. (Col. iii. 1) (ix)

The fifth of the addresses is “The Resurrection of Man according to St. Paul (continued), and likewise according to Our Lord” (47–57).⁴⁵ Charles’s summary of the message is rather long, but below are some ideas and excerpts from it. He thought that death is something a person “lives” through and moves on to a new environment in which the spirit fashions a body suited to the new circumstances in whichever world God places it. He distinguished resuscitation (e.g., Lazarus) from resurrection to eternal life and also explained the difference between material miracles (“unintelligible wonders”) and spiritual If the above changes and excisions are not made, then a note should be appended to the creed, allowing to those who profess it the right of reinterpretation in accordance with the growth of knowledge. This creed could then be the symbol alike of those who took every clause literally and of those who could not do so. (245) He also appended a footnote to his comments about possible changes to the Apostles’ Creed. In it he spoke strongly against the Catholic teaching about the immaculate conception which he termed a “fiction.” Regarding the resurrection of Jesus, he commented that “The Gospel accounts of it possess evidential value, though they contain details that are not trustworthy” (245). ⁴³ “Reformed” rather than “Reform” is the term Charles used. Earlier in this message he had referred to “Modern Reformed Judaism” (28). ⁴⁴ In the sermon itself Charles spoke about the risen, spiritual body as “the creation of the spirit, adapted to any environment—to any of the 1,000,000 worlds—whither God may summon it” (41). ⁴⁵ This is the wording of the title on p. 47; in the Table of Contents it is “The Resurrection of Man, according to St. Paul and Our Lord” (ix).

   

393

ones (Christ was interested in the latter sort that includes the resurrection of the spirit). “Since the transformation of the faithful follows immediately on the death of the physical body, it constitutes also their Good Friday and likewise their Easter Sunday. There is no gap in the spiritual life or personality, least of all in that of our Lord” (ix). As Charles understood Jesus’ debate with the Sadducees, Christ denied the resurrection of the physical body and did essentially the same in speaking with Martha about himself as the resurrection and the life (John 11). As for the experience of Jesus himself, Charles thought: If all the faithful so “live unto God,” then our Lord cannot be conceived as a mutilated personality—even for a moment, when His spirit forsook the material body on the cross. Physical death is a mere episode in the life of the faithful. The resurrection life is a present fact and not a future possibility. Christ had no further relation with His physical body.⁴⁶ The legend of the empty tomb was due to the spiritual incapacities of the Apostles, owing to which they failed to recognize the Risen Christ till the second day after the Crucifixion, though all those two days Christ was present in their midst for those who could recognize Him. The closing chapters of the Gospels are late. (x)

The last lines are so typical of Charles. The empty tomb and the visible presence of the risen Jesus in gospel accounts are ruled out by the critic’s judgment that they are late and do not correlate with what is supposed to be the authentic teaching elsewhere in the New Testament. As the survey of English Modernists’ beliefs showed, Charles’s views regarding resurrection and the sort of body involved were hardly unique to him. The sentiments expressed by Charles and other English Modernists eventually found a wider following as one can see from the work of an official commission of the Church of England. A Doctrinal Commission set up by the church in 1922, partly in response to controversial ideas expressed at the 1921 Girton Conference of Modern Churchmen, included members representing varied theological standpoints within the Church of England. They deliberated difficult questions of doctrine ⁴⁶ Note his words from the sermon: The mere physical body had, as the narratives of the Resurrection show, when tested critically, scientifically, and historically, no essential relation, nor indeed a relation of any kind with the spirit after death. It had served its purpose and was wholly inadequate for His further tasks. (55–6)

394    ( – ) long and hard, finally issuing their report in 1938. In the report the writers commented about some matters on which modernists had established positions, including miracles, the resurrection of Jesus, and the resurrection of Christians. William Temple, the chairman of the Commission, wrote in his Introduction to the report: On the question whether or not events occur which are strictly miraculous, the Commission is divided; but the reluctance of some to admit miraculous events, or the strictly miraculous character of events admitted, is based on the supposition, not that God could not do such works, but that he would not.

Regarding Jesus’s resurrection, the report expressed a view but allowed some flexibility in interpretation: To speak more positively, we are of the opinion that it ought to be affirmed that Jesus was veritably alive and victorious; that He showed Himself alive from the dead, to the disciples; and that the fact of His rising, however explained (and it involves probably an element beyond our explaining), is to be understood to have been an event as real and concrete as the crucifixion itself (which it reversed) and an act of God, wholly unique in human history. The symbol of this fact in the Gospels is the story of the empty tomb. More than one explanation of this has been suggested; but the majority of the Commission are agreed in holding the traditional explanation—viz., that the tomb was empty because the Lord had risen.

About the resurrection body the Commission declared: While, in the judgment of the Commission, we ought to reject quite frankly the literalist belief in a future resurrection of the actual physical frame which is laid in the tomb, it is to be affirmed, none the less, that in the life of the world to come the soul or spirit will still have its appropriate organ of expression and activity, which is one with the body of earthly life in the sense that it bears the same relation to the same spiritual entity.⁴⁷

⁴⁷ The three statements are cited by Stephenson, The Rise and Decline of English Modernism, 156–7.

   

395

Such views about miracles, Jesus’ resurrection, and the resurrection body, thus, were expressed by an official Commission that represented a broad crosssection of the Church of England, from Evangelicals to Anglo-Catholics. The English Modernists were pleased with it, seeing in it a victory for their positions. The report was, however, not officially adopted, as World War II intervened, and afterwards it apparently faded from view.⁴⁸

Westminster Activities We will end this chapter by noting activities in which Charles participated and honors he received between 1913 and his death in 1931, mostly as recorded in The Times of London. Services and events at the Abbey were regularly reported in the newspaper so that Charles’s name appears in it fairly frequently. The following are some examples showing him carrying out his clerical duties.⁴⁹ Preaching: it was the practice of The Times to announce on Saturdays the hours for Sunday services in the major churches and the names of the clergy who would be preaching at them. On Mondays the paper at times offered summaries of sermons delivered the previous day. So, for example, on Saturday, April 30, 1921 (#42708), p. 19, under the heading “Services Tomorrow,” Charles is listed as the preacher for the 3:00 p.m. service in the Abbey (this seems to have been his regularly scheduled time). In the issue for Monday, June 24, 1929 (45237), p. 20, there is a summary of the sermon he preached the previous day under the title “The Resurrection of Man.”⁵⁰ One week later, July 1, 1929 (45243), p. 19, his sermon with the same title but different content was summarized. The two were part of a series Charles preached on the general topic that provided the title for one of his books of sermons. An unsigned review of that book, The Resurrection of Man, was published in The Times for Tuesday, February 18, 1930 (45440), p. 22. Among the reviewer’s comments was the sentence: “Whatever Archdeacon Charles

⁴⁸ Stevenson, The Rise and Decline of English Modernism, 160–1. ⁴⁹ Charles demonstrated his loyalty to the Abbey by contributing £100 to “ ‘The Times’s Appeal” for the “Westminster Abbey Fund.” He did so when, according to the Dean of Westminster, the Abbey fund was almost depleted and a public appeal was made to restore it (Tuesday, July 6, 1920 [42455], p. 14; see also Monday, July 19, 1920 [42466], p. 12). ⁵⁰ The issue of Saturday, June 29, 1929 (45242), p. 8, under the title “The Resurrection,” included a letter by O. Hardman, objecting to Charles’s sermon denying the physical resurrection of Christ. Hardman thought Charles’s position undermined the gospel.

396    ( – ) writes has a character of its own, for he is always outspoken in his views and untrammeled by tradition.” Another sermon from Charles, this one on divorce, elicited a strongly critical letter from Francis Woodlock, S. J. (The Times, Thursday, July 14, 1927 [44633], p. 10), under the title “The Church and Divorce.” In his book of sermons Divorce and the Roman Dogma of Nullity (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 38 George Street, 1927) v, Charles mentioned that he delivered the series of sermons in July of 1927. The strongly anti-Catholic position that he expressed in the sermons and book is reflected in a letter he wrote to the editor of The Times. In it he objected to comments made by a Catholic theologian named Howlett in the context of the national debate about divorce then taking place (see Part 3, Chapter 2 on Charles’s topical books for more detail). Charles’s letter was published in The Times for November 17, 1927 (44741), p. 10: Sir,—Mgr. Howlett may seem to those who are unacquainted with the facts of the controversy regarding marriage and divorce to have dealt effectively with Lord Buckmaster’s statement on the teaching of Scripture on this question. I have not seen Lord Buckmaster’s statement, but I have read Mgr. Howlett’s rejoinder. I cannot here enter into an examination of the arguments of this Roman Catholic divine, and, indeed, this is all the more unnecessary, seeing that a little book of mine on “Divorce and the Roman Doctrine of Nullity” ought to be published within a week or so.⁵¹ In this little book the Biblical arguments are dealt with from the standpoint of pure scholarship and not of ecclesiastical tradition or Church councils, and from this standpoint my conclusions support the statement attributed to Lord Buckmaster. Roman Catholic scholars are bound hand and foot by the decrees of the Council of Trent and the subsequent “infallible” ex cathedra pronouncements of the Papacy. If such scholars come to be acquainted with a truer knowledge of the facts on controversial subjects, they must suppress such knowledge or take the consequences. Hence, as the love of truth for its own sake spreads, the position of such scholars must become increasingly difficult. But Mgr. Howlett is, if we may judge from his letter, not in this dilemma. His uncritical treatment of the controversies between .. 30 and 90 on the subject of divorce in the New Testament proves that he is unacquainted with such controversies within Judaism and Christianity during these decades. ⁵¹ For once Charles was right about an estimated time of publication, since the book came out on December 10, 1927 (see Part 3, Chapter 2 below).

   

397

Westminster Abbey was not the only place where Charles preached. The Times for Saturday, November 6, 1920 (42561), p. 4, under “Services To-morrow,” recorded that he was scheduled to be the preacher at Lincoln’s Inn Chapel.⁵² Or, the paper for Wednesday, August 16, 1922 (43111), p. 9, under the title “Modern Churchmen: Programme of the Oxford Conference,” announced that he would deliver the morning sermon on August 27 at the annual meeting of the group.⁵³ The Times for Wednesday, February 20, 1929 (45132), p. 17 reported in “Ecclesiastical News” that the Lent lectures in the Abbey that day and the next two Wednesdays would be on “John Wycliffe” and given by Archdeacon Charles. The three addresses were to become the last three sermons in his book The Resurrection of Man. Funerals: Charles is listed as a participant in some funerals that took place in the Abbey. An example may be found in The Times of Tuesday, May 31, 1921 (42734), p. 13, under the rubric “Memorial Service.” Charles was one of the three clergymen who conducted the service for Sir Arthur Wilson. Or on March 28, 1923 (43301), p. 15, he was among those who assisted the Dean in the service for Mrs. Troutbeck, the wife of the Rev. John Troutbeck, Precentor⁵⁴ of Westminster. On Wednesday, May 27, 1925 (43972), p. 9, Charles was one of the clergymen at the dedication of the stone memorial tablet placed in the Abbey in memory of Sir Frederick Bridge who had been the organist at the Abbey in the years 1882–1918. The article included a note that Mrs. Charles too was present. Very late in his own life, Charles, with others, conducted the funeral of the Duke of Northumberland (Thursday, August 28, 1930 [45603], p. 13). Weddings: One particularly interesting notice was printed in The Times for Thursday, September 10, 1925 (44063), p. 15. In the “Marriage” column appear the names of the groom Mr. William Harland and the bride Miss Eileen Cranstoun Charles who was the “only daughter of the late Mr. T. Cranstoun Charles, M.D., Lecturer in Physiology, St. Thomas’s Hospital, London, and Mrs. Cranstoun Charles. Archdeacon Charles (uncle of the bride) officiated.” The wedding had taken place on the previous day in King Henry VII’s Chapel, Westminster Abbey. One learns also that the bride was given away by her uncle, Major-General Sir Havelock Charles and that “the ⁵² Charles was also the Warburton Lecturer in Lincoln’s Inn Chapel from 1919–23. His lectures became his book The Decalogue (1923). ⁵³ See above n. 36 for publication of this sermon. ⁵⁴ A precentor is a member of the clergy in larger churches with responsibilities for organizing worship and liturgy.

398    ( – ) small reception for immediate relatives and intimate friends was held by the bride’s aunt, Mrs. Charles, at the Archdeacon’s residence, 4, Little Cloisters, Westminster Abbey.” See also January 30, 1919 (42011), p. 1 for his part in the wedding of a clergyman. Other Services in the Abbey: The Times of Friday, November 12, 1926 (44427), p. 16 disclosed that Charles was present for the annual service at the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior. On September 18, 1924 (see 43,760, p. 7) he officially received delegates from the Fédération Inter-Alliée des Anciens Combattants in the Abbey. At the time a representative, acting on behalf of the group, laid a marble plaque on the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior. The Times of Saturday, June 19, 1926 (44302), p. 10 said that on the previous day Charles had taken part in the service “commemorating the tercentenary of Dr. William Heather.” He was also present at the service marking the “Lister Centenary” (The Times, Thursday, April 7, 1927 [44550], p. 11). Causes: Charles’s name appears in The Times as a supporter of various causes—continuing a practice from his pre-Westminster days. On March 4, 1919 (42039), p. 12, The Times reported about an “Oxford University Election.” A number of people wished to have a representative who was familiar with the university and supported Professor Oman, who was the Conservative and Unionist candidate for the university. Charles is listed as one of the individuals serving on his “London Committee.” A more ecclesiastical cause figures in The Times of August 4, 1919 (42169), p. 12, in an article called “Christian Unity.” More than 130 clergymen, including Charles, signed their names to a “Memorandum to Archbishops.” It concerned unity with other churches that were considered “deficient in order” (that is, they were non-episcopal) yet agreed on essentials of faith with the Church of England. Despite their failure to be led by bishops, their ministries of Word and sacrament were valid and efforts, so the signees urged, should be made toward unity with them. Later that same year (December 9, 1919 [42278], p. 10) Charles’s name appeared under the heading “The Enabling Bill.” There one finds a letter to the prime minister and to the editor of The Times opposing parliament’s final passage of the bill in its current form. “But we desire to protest in the strongest way against the manner in which the constitution of the Church Assembly and the franchises and declarations on which it rests have been withdrawn from Parliamentary discussion by the drafting of the Bill itself.”⁵⁵ Charles was one of sixteen who signed the letter. ⁵⁵ “Enabling Act: United Kingdom,” Wikipedia, accessed 5-7-2019:

   

399

Several years later, Charles joined nine other clergy in defense of a former canon of Westminster, Ernest Barnes (canon 1918–24), who had recently been appointed Bishop of Birmingham. The Times of Thursday, December 18, 1924 (43838), p. 15, carried a letter under the title “Dr. Barnes and His Critics: An Expression of Confidence” (the letter itself is dated to the 16th). To the Editor of The Times. Sir,—The Bishop of Birmingham is sensible and strong enough to estimate at their true value the bitter attacks which have been launched at him by a small section of Churchmen, under the leadership of the Church Times, ever since his appointment to the See was first announced. But it may be some slight consolation to him to know that there is a large and growing number of Churchmen who, without necessarily endorsing all he does or says, have confidence in him and admire his courage in taking a firm stand in defence of the principles of the Church of England. Mr. Rosenthal’s letter published in your issue of November 28 misrepresents the local situation as it is in Birmingham. It is not true, as that letter implies, that the Bishop has forfeited the sympathy of his clergy. A small hostile minority is not entitled to speak for the diocese. The Bishop’s courteous and temperate letter was, in effect, an appeal to loyal Anglo-Catholics in his diocese to keep the reins in their own hands, and not be dragged along by a disloyal section. The grave danger for the Church at the present moment is that its historic character shall be wholly lost because of the action of certain extremists. We wish to assure the Bishop of our sympathy and support.⁵⁶

During the Westminster years Charles continued to win academic honors for his research and publications. Most of these received mention in The Times.

The Act gave the newly established Church Assembly, predecessor of the General Synod, power to prepare and present to Parliament measures which could either be approved or rejected, but not modified by either House. Before being voted on, the proposals were examined by an Ecclesiastical Committee of both Houses which reported on their effects and implications. Once approved in Parliament, the measure became law on receiving the royal assent. ⁵⁶ Charles preached the sermon at the consecration of Barnes as Bishop of Birmingham, a ceremony that took place in Westminster Abbey on September 29, 1924, on the Festival of St. Michael and All Angels. His message, “God’s Commission to the Prophet, and in Some Measure to Everyman,” was published as the twelfth sermon in his 1929 collection The Resurrection of Man, 136–49. Barnes was to become a very controversial figure who echoed a number of the theological views held by Charles and other Modern Churchmen. These he expressed both before and after becoming Bishop of Birmingham.

400    ( – ) Queen’s University, Belfast: In December of 1922 Charles made a donation to his old school from which he had received degrees in 1877 and 1880. “The R. H. Charles Papers” are a “Small collection of papers and photographic material” consisting of photographs (positive and negative) of original Aramaic, Greek and Ethiopic biblical manuscripts dating from the 10th to the 15th centuries. These items were largely used by Charles in the preparation of his scholarly texts on “The Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch” (1906) and “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs” (1908). Annotated editions of these publications are included in the collection as is his “Lectures on the Apocalypse” from 1922. (cited from the website of “Queen’s University Special Collections & Archives”)

In 1923, the same university bestowed on Charles the degree of Doctor of Laws, Honoris Causa.⁵⁷ The British Academy: In 1925 Charles was, as noted in Part 2, Chapter 8, named the first recipient of the British Academy Medal for Biblical Studies. The event made The Times for Thursday, July 9, 1925 (44009), p. 17. University of Oxford: On June 28, 1928 Oxford conferred on Charles the honorary degree of Doctor of Divinity, his second degree from the school (the first came in 1907). The event was reported in The Times of June 29, 1928 (44932), p. 18, under “University News: Honorary D. D.s at Oxford, Cambridge College Awards, Oxford, June 28.” In the citation for Charles the Public Orator, as was the custom, spoke in Latin. In introducing Archdeacon Charles the Orator said that he had made large tracts of Biblical study frugifera et iucunda legentibus [fruitful and enjoyable for readers], and had thrown great light on the Apocalypse. He had disproved the accepted opinion that for some centuries Hebrew poets were silent, had expounded their dreams and prophecies, and had shown how pia et necessaria fraude spem suam dissimulaverunt fore ut aliquando Deus Omnipotens, Antiochos, Pompeios, Caesares, ferre flammisque corriperet [they had concealed, by devout and necessary deceit, their hope that it would come about that someday Almighty God would destroy the Antiochuses, the Pompeys, the Caesars, by steel and by fire]. Dr. Charles, undeterred by ancient prejudice or by the variety of languages and dialects ⁵⁷ D’Arcy, “A Brief Memoir,” xxxii.

   

401

terriloquas illas spem longam incohantium voces, non minus sapienter quam Daniel scripturam illam in regis pariete, interpretatus est, lepore Hiberno rerum talium gravitatem temperans [interpreted the earthly voices of those who generated a long-lived hope, no less wisely than Daniel did the writing on the royal wall—but moderating the seriousness of such great subjects with Irish wit]. Since he had been raised to high dignity in the Church, he had yet continued his studies and omnibus Veritatis Christianae studiosis auctoritatem suam atque eloquentiam commendat [communicates to all those who eagerly study the Christian Truth his authority and eloquence].

Charles also continued to speak on academic subjects. The Times of Monday, May 6, 1929 (45195), p. 19, in the “Court Circular: Arrangements for To-Day,” announced his lecture “The Literary and Historical Character of the Bible: Daniel” which he was to deliver at 6:30 at University College, London. 1929 was the year in which the longer Daniel commentary appeared. Another event related to Charles’s scholarship and service was his selection to membership in a club. The newspaper of February 10, 1915 (40774), p. 11, carried the notice: “The Committee of the Athenaeum Club yesterday elected the following gentlemen under the provisions of rule II. of the club, which empowers the annual election by the Committee of three persons ‘of distinguished eminence in science, literature, the arts, or for public service. . . .’” Charles is listed as the first of the three new members in the club that had existed since 1824. Thus, we have seen that in the years when he was a canon of Westminster, Charles faithfully carried out his preaching duties as well as other liturgical functions. His prominence as academic and priest continued to be recognized through the conferral upon him of degrees and other honors. As we have also noticed, he expressed concern with practical moral issues that were being discussed at the time. These concerns came to expression both in his sermons and in three short books that are the subject of Part 3 Chapter 2.

Chapter 2 The Topical Books Charles used the Westminster pulpit to address issues that were attracting public attention, especially divorce and gambling. He did not limit his interest in practical matters to his sermons; he also published books on them. We have examined in the previous chapter the teachings in his sermons. We should now turn to what he had to say in the topical books.

Books Regarding Divorce Charles wrote two short books about marriage and divorce, both of which had their origin in sermons he delivered at the Abbey. Charles explained in the Preface to his 1921 book that he had delved into the teachings of the New Testament on divorce out of “a natural interest in a living problem of to-day” (v). The subjects he treated in the two books were ones that were being debated in both state and church at the time; thus, he was contributing to a wider discussion. It will be helpful first to situate that discussion.

The Context for Charles’s Volumes on Divorce The traditional position in the Anglican Church and thus in England, despite Henry VIII’s complicated family life, was that marriage was indissoluble. Not only was it understood to be the teaching of Christ in the gospels; it was also thought to be fundamental to the upkeep of the social fabric. A complete ban on divorce meant that individuals were unable legally to escape intolerable marriages, so means were found to skirt the prohibition, but they were options only for those who could pay the high cost of obtaining “Parliamentary divorces.”¹

¹ In order to obtain what became known as a Parliamentary divorce, a party had to secure a divorce a mensa et thoro [meaning something like “from bed and board”] from the

R. H. Charles: A Biography. James C. VanderKam, Oxford University Press. © James C. VanderKam 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192869289.003.0014

  

403

In 1857 Parliament enacted a Divorce Bill that changed the situation somewhat. It echoed the so-called Matthean Exception that reads (Jesus is speaking): “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9, NRSV). A related verse quotes Jesus as declaring: “But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Matthew 5:32, NRSV). That is, a man could divorce his wife only if she were guilty of adultery. “Unchastity” was, consequently, a basis—the only one—for divorce recognized by the 1857 Divorce Bill. Though the gospel passages speak of a man divorcing an adulterous wife, a woman, it was decided, could also divorce her adulterous husband but she had first to show that he was guilty of an additional offence against their marriage. Divorce, thus, was recognized as a legal possibility in 1857 but under circumscribed conditions. As higher criticism of the Bible exercised greater influence in Britain in subsequent decades, the Matthean Exception began to appear in a different light and with rather surprising results. New Testament scholars had shown that Mark, despite occupying second place to Matthew in the New Testament canon, was the most ancient gospel and served as one of the sources for Matthew and Luke. The passage in Mark that is parallel to Matthew 19:9 (Mark has no equivalent for Matthew 5:32) lacks the exception: “He said to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (Mark 10:11–12, NRSV).² If Jesus’s statement according to Mark, the earliest gospel, named no conditions under which divorce was permissible and labeled as an adulterer one who divorced a spouse and remarried, then it raised the question whether the exception of “unchastity” in Matthew was the teaching of Jesus or an addition to it. The answer to the question was a weighty matter for both church and state law in the British system. Charles Gore, a scholar and churchman³ whose name appeared above in the Introduction to Part 2 and will figure later in this chapter, was one expert ecclesiastical courts and to prosecute successfully an action of criminal conversation, which was a husband’s suit for damages against a person accused of committing adultery with the husband’s wife. (Ann Sumner Holmes, The Church of England and Divorce in the Twentieth Century: Legalism and Grace [New York: Routledge, 2017] 6) ² The parallel in Luke quotes Jesus as saying, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery” (16:18, NRSV). ³ He became a canon of Westminster in 1894, bishop of Worcester in 1902, of Birmingham in 1905, and of Oxford in 1911, a position from which he resigned in 1919 (“Charles Gore,” Wikipedia, accessed February 5, 2019). He was conservative ecclesiastically but also in some ways helpful in making higher criticism of the Bible acceptable in Great Britain.

404    ( – ) whose views changed with the progress of scholarship. In his 1896 book The Sermon on the Mount: A Practical Exposition (London: John Murray), he maintained that, according to Jesus, marriages could not be dissolved. Gore also opposed the right of remarriage in the church for a divorced person, whether guilty or innocent of adultery—a stand that was not universally accepted among the Anglican clergy. He did, however, recognize the exception in Matthew and believed that Jesus did not in fact forbid remarriage of an innocent man who divorced his wife for adultery (pp. 68–71).⁴ Yet in the reissue of his book in 1910 (same title and publisher), Gore, agreeing with scholars of the New Testament, concluded that the exception in Matthew was an interpolation, a Jewish-Christian gloss that misrepresented the original saying of Jesus. The formulation in Mark, the earlier gospel, where there are no conditions justifying divorce, should be normative for Church law.⁵ As time passed, women gained additional legal rights, and views of marriage that focused on the happiness of the individual more than social utility gained greater traction. Moreover, people found creative ways to circumvent the law. Such circumstances led to calls for reform. A fundamental issue was whether grounds besides adultery could be recognized as a legal basis for divorce. Parliament appointed a commission to study the matter. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Randall Davidson, used his influence to assure membership on the commission of a churchman and other individuals sympathetic to the established Church’s stand opposing additional grounds for divorce. The Royal Commission sat for fifty-five days during 1910 and heard testimony from 246 witnesses, among them judges, solicitors, barristers, doctors, social workers, and journalists. Testimony based on religious principles constituted merely a portion of the evidence that the Commissioners heard and revealed a wide variety of opinions. Representatives not only from the Church of England but also from the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of ⁴ Gore’s principle for accepting the Matthean form of the saying is interesting: “But it is a law of interpretation that a command with a specific qualification is more precise than a general command without any specific qualification; and that the one where the qualification occurs must interpret the other where this qualification does not occur” (71). ⁵ Gore noted the change in “Preface to the Reissue of 1910,” v–viii. He referred to the exception clause in Matthew as “a serious modification of our Lord’s teaching, due probably to Jewish tradition within the Church” (vii; there he calls it a “gloss”). Gore stated, however, that his own conclusions regarding the Church’s approach to divorce had not changed from 1896 and that he was in 1910 even more strongly against allowing any exception in the existing law of the Church. A reason for this was that the Church recognized the Gospel of Matthew as authoritative, even if it did contain the gloss introduced by Jewish Christians (vii–viii). In his The Question of Divorce (London: John Murray, 1911) he argued that Mark, Luke, and Paul presented Jesus’s authentic teaching about divorce, while Matthew misunderstood it.

  

405

Scotland, the Wesleyan Methodist Conference, the Society of Friends, the Greek Church, and the Presbyterian Churches of England and Wales presented evidence on Christian views. Nonconformists differed from Roman Catholics, of course, but also among themselves. The issue of divorce reform did not unite Nonconformists in the same way as other issues involving religion, such as education and disestablishment . . . Such a diversity of Christian opinion made religious evidence less effective.⁶

Religious or theological problems, it appears, were considered less important by a preponderance of the witnesses, and the minority who believed them highly significant could not agree among themselves. As a result, additional weight was given to factors besides biblical texts and related material in making recommendations for reform. The commission eventually issued both a majority and a minority report, with the latter written by those whom Archbishop Davidson had favored for membership. The majority, thinking that reform would benefit society, “recommended that the grounds for divorce should be extended to include willful desertion for at least three years, cruelty, incurable insanity, habitual drunkenness, and imprisonment under commuted death sentence.”⁷ The minority argued that no principle guided the selection of these four new grounds and insisted that the New Testament should provide the direction for divorce law. The theological witnesses, they maintained, had in fact agreed that Jesus intended to teach the indissolubility of marriages, regardless whether his words on the subject were understood as a law or an ideal. They regarded a lack of discipline as the cause for bad marriages, a personal shortcoming that could be remedied.⁸ No new grounds for divorce should be added to the existing law. Since the commission produced two reports and the minority report received much attention, the government did not propose changes in the divorce law. Efforts toward at least partial reform were made over the next decade, but the deaths of key individuals and the World War intervened. An experienced judge in divorce cases, Lord Buckmaster, introduced a divorce bill in 1920. “The proposal included provisions to establish the same grounds for divorce for both men and women, to make divorce more accessible to the poor, and to restrict the publication of reports of divorce cases.”⁹ To these were ⁶ ⁷ ⁸ ⁹

Holmes, The Church of England and Divorce in the Twentieth Century, 20. Holmes, The Church of England and Divorce in the Twentieth Century, 21. Holmes, The Church of England and Divorce in the Twentieth Century, 21–2. Holmes, The Church of England and Divorce in the Twentieth Century, 29.

406    ( – ) added the new grounds for divorce found in the majority report of the Royal Commission. The bill was eventually passed by the House of Lords but defeated in the House of Commons.¹⁰ After 1920, divorce and related issues continued to be debated. The subject could hardly die away after King Edward VIII abdicated to marry the twicedivorced Wallis Warfield Simpson in 1936. It was not until 1937 that the Matrimonial Causes Act was passed. It added three grounds for legal divorce besides adultery: desertion for three years, cruelty, and incurable insanity. It also provided that a court would not award a divorce during the initial five years of marriage.¹¹ But these last developments take us beyond the lifetime of Charles.

The 1921 Book The Teaching of the New Testament on Divorce, by R. H. Charles, D. Litt., D.D., Archdeacon of Westminster, Fellow of the British Academy (London: Williams & Norgate, 14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, W.C. 2, 1921). Charles reported, typically, that his studies led him to conclude that no interpretation offered to date had done justice to the topic. In the book he described some important insights that pointed the way to the proper understanding of the scriptural directives. One was a passage found in both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds that he happened across; it shed light, he believed, on the contested question and brought order to the relevant information in the gospels. Another was the recognition (“the light came in a flash” [vii]) that there was an interpolation in one of the central New Testament divorce passages, 1 Corinthians 7:11a (pp. vii–viii). He presented the results of his research in a sermon delivered at Westminster Abbey on June 20, 1920.¹² The sermon, fortified with footnotes, constitutes the first chapter of the book. The remaining nine, which are mostly very short, examine pertinent (or so some thought) New Testament passages (II–VII) and Greek words that are important for the subject of divorce (VIII–IX). Chapter X offers his conclusions, ones he also summarized in the Preface (pp. vi–ix). There are three indexes: Subjects and Names, Greek Words, and Passages.

¹⁰ Holmes, The Church of England and Divorce in the Twentieth Century, 29–33. ¹¹ Holmes, The Church of England and Divorce in the Twentieth Century, 48–55. The Church continued to have its own more restrictive laws. ¹² This was two days before Lord Buckmaster’s bill was passed by the House of Lords.

  

407

At the end of the Preface (ix–x) Charles thanked several individuals for assisting him in his study and in preparing the book. The first was a scholar to whom he had expressed appreciation a number of times before, Sutherland Black, well known for his editorial labors with the Encyclopaedia Britannica and Encyclopaedia Biblica. The second was A. E. Cowley, who had likewise assisted Charles on multiple occasions. In 1921 Cowley was the Librarian of the Bodleian, but he had been Talmudic Reader at Oxford and thus could lend his expertise in that field. After naming the Rev. Cyril W. Emmet of Oxford (he had contributed the translation and notes on 3 Maccabees in Charles’s 1913 two-volume collection), he listed the Rev. Dr. George Milligan of the University of Glasgow who with James Hope Moulton was preparing The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other NonLiterary Sources. The final person in this group was the Right Rev. Dr. Temple, Lord Bishop of Manchester.¹³ There may be nothing surprising about the people in the list, but the next group he mentions—two lawyers—indicates that Charles pursued his subject diligently. The final set of men who assisted him were working on lexical projects: Professor Stuart-Jones who was editing the revised version of Liddell and Scott’s Greek Lexicon, Milligan again who was working with many recently found Greek papyri, and the Rev. Darwell Stone who from 1915 until his death in 1941 was editor of a planned Patristic Greek Lexicon (he provided Charles with many of the examples in the eighth chapter that deals with the terms μοιχεια [moicheia] and πορνεια [porneia]). The range of expertise controlled by these people reveals that the sixty-sixyear-old Archdeacon had not lost his scholarly energy in pursuing his studies, although the subject of divorce at times took him off his accustomed paths. Chapter I, the sermon itself, is entitled “Christ’s Teaching on Divorce” (pp. 1–34).¹⁴ It begins by citing the passages underlying the message: Matthew 19:3–9; 5:32; Mark 10:2–12; and Luke 16:18. Charles then described a current opinion about terminating a marriage. It is now being taught in many places that marriage is wholly indissoluble, however flagrant may be the guilt of the husband or wife, and that

¹³ William Temple (1881–1944), after serving as Bishop of Manchester since 1921, became in 1929 the Archbishop of York and in 1942 the Archbishop of Canterbury, a position that had been held by his father Frederick Temple (“William Temple [bishop],” Wikipedia, accessed 2-4-19). While occupying his lofty offices, he played a role in the national debates about divorce law reform. ¹⁴ The printed form of the sermon and the sermon preached at Westminster are apparently identical except for the second last paragraph in the published version (a footnote indicates it was not included in the oral presentation). The extra paragraph has an italicized heading: The Principle thus laid down by Christ applied universally as the Pauline Teaching (32 n. 1). For it, see below.

408    ( – ) consequently, should a man divorce his wife or a wife her husband on the ground of adultery and marry again, such a person is guilty of breaking an unquestionable law of Christ, and excludes himself or herself thereby from the Communion of the faithful. As for these three statements, I hope to prove that they are mere human traditions based on a complete misinterpretation of Christ’s teaching, and without an atom of authority in the Gospels. (2–3)

He was attacking in characteristically strong language a position much like that of Gore and of the minority report of the Royal Commission and seeking to undermine their inferences from Mark’s gospel. Charles organized the message under a series of italicized headings. For his demonstration, he first turned to The Jewish Law. To understand what Matthew, Mark, and John¹⁵ say about divorce, one has to go back to Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy 22:22 stipulates that “If a man is caught lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman as well as the woman.” The second passage, Deuteronomy 24:1, 2, describes a different situation: Suppose a man enters into marriage with a woman, but she does not please him because he finds something objectionable about her, and so he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house; she then leaves his house and goes off to become another man’s wife. (both passages are from the NRSV)

Charles said the first law (Deuteronomy 22:22) “remained on the Jewish statute-book till 30 .., as we find in both the Babylonian (Sanhedrin 41a) and Jerusalem Talmuds (Sanhedrin 18a, 24b). After that date the death penalty was abolished, probably owing to the pressure of Roman authorities. Thus this law was in force during our Lord’s ministry and for one or more years after its close” (5). Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:2 indicates the law was actually applied in the early years of the first century.¹⁶ The next heading is Gospel Recognition of the Jewish Law. The evidence for such recognition, Charles maintained, comes from John 7:53–8:11, the story about the woman caught in adultery. Although it was not an original part of ¹⁵ The one verse he had listed from Luke (16:18) he did not discuss because its meaning can be ascertained from the parallels in Matthew and Mark. For the information from John, see below. ¹⁶ Charles failed to report that the Mishnaic passage talks about the death of a priest’s adulterous daughter, for whom Leviticus 21:9 specifically mandates death by burning. In addition, the Mishnah is vague about when the event took place.

  

409

the fourth gospel, “no great scholar or critic entertains any doubt as to this section being a genuine piece of history” (7).¹⁷ That is, though the best manuscripts show it was not in the earliest text of John, the passage came from the time of Jesus. In it scribes and Pharisees bring to Jesus a woman caught in adultery and refer to the law of Moses according to which such a person was to be stoned to death. Jesus, while not rejecting the law, simply invites any person lacking sin to throw the first stone. So, concluded Charles, he accepted the law even though the penalty in this case was not carried out.¹⁸ From this section Charles turned to the subject of Christ and Judaism. The evidence made it clear to him that Jesus accepted the law calling for the death penalty in a case of adultery (as in Deuteronomy 22:22), an act that obviously dissolved the marriage bond. “Thus the dissolubility of marriage in the case of adultery, and the right of remarriage, are implicitly recognised by our Lord in the section in John” (9–10). Matthew twice agrees about the right of divorce for adultery, but some inferred that Mark forbids it—a claim Charles would handle later in the sermon. Before doing so, he discussed A Jewish Ground of Divorce. He reverted to the law in Deuteronomy 24:1–2 and noted that the “something objectionable” the husband found in his wife did not mean adultery because the penalty for adultery was death, whereas in Deuteronomy 24 the husband sends his wife away, leaving her free to marry another man. There was a dispute among Jewish experts regarding what was included under the category of “something objectionable” (‫‘[ ערות דבר‬ervat dābār]], an “unseemly thing” in the translation Charles used), a dispute that was raging at the time of Jesus. The school of Shammai held that it meant unchastity (Charles called it a “severe interpretation” [11–12] and even “utterly indefensible exegesis” [vii]), whereas the Hillelites took it to mean any reason at all (and the reason did not have to be named on the bill of divorce)—a “lax” (11) understanding also attested by Philo and Josephus. Under the heading Christ and a Test Question, Charles used the views of Shammai and Hillel as background for grasping the teaching in Matthew 19:3 where Jesus was asked whether it was “lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause” (NRSV). The Validity of the Law in Deuteronomy is the title over the ensuing lines. To understand Jesus’s response Charles stated:

¹⁷ Presumably Charles did not list this passage at the head of the sermon because of its dubious canonical status. ¹⁸ His claims about the passage are strange, since it deals with a case in which there was no execution—the woman simply walks away at its end, apparently free. It could be used as evidence that the death penalty for adultery was not practiced at the time or even that Jesus did not accept the law.

410    ( – ) we have next to prove that the principles and rules laid down by our Lord on the question of divorce took no account whatever of divorce on the ground of adultery, but only of divorce on lesser and inadequate grounds. If we study the passages in Matthew and Mark this can hardly fail to become obvious if we do so with an open mind. (14–15)

He thought the relevant passages in these gospels “relate to divorce on inadequate grounds, and in these our Lord teaches that if a man put away his wife on the inadequate grounds advocated by the Pharisees he made his wife an adulteress, and the man who married her became an adulterer” (16). The only basis for divorce was adultery, as John 7:53–8:11 shows.¹⁹ The Passages in Matthew and Mark: his conclusions to this point called forth a closer study of Matthew and Mark, since, according to some, in Mark Jesus teaches that marriage cannot be dissolved. The evidence for the latter position is, as we have seen, that in two places Matthew includes an exception lacking in Mark. Since Mark was regarded as the older gospel, the exception, it was asserted, may have been added by Matthew to Jesus’s original words that lacked them. According to the original words, presumably those of Christ himself, divorce was forbidden without exceptions. Or so the people whose view Charles opposed had inferred. Apparent Contradictions Reconciled: Charles did not think there was a conflict between the teachings in the two gospels. In Mark Jesus is not talking about divorce in the case of adultery but divorce for lesser reasons. When we recognise that Mark’s narrative takes no cognisance of the case of adultery, but only of the other and inadequate grounds advanced for divorce, the chief apparent contradictions between Matthew and Mark cease to exist. What is implicit in Mark is made explicit in Matthew. Both gospels therefore teach that marriage is indissoluble for all offences short of adultery. (21–2)

The Statements of Christ: Charles thought that Jesus’s original words were not subject to misunderstanding at his time when the death penalty for adultery was in force and well known. Later, however, when it was no longer in effect, his words could have been misconstrued as prohibiting divorce under any circumstances. It was in order to avoid this interpretation that Matthew

¹⁹ A short section called Divorce for “Lesser Offences” (16–17) fits here but mostly repeats what he had just written.

  

411

inserted the exception. Interpretive Additions: To buttress his case, Charles had to show that Matthew elsewhere improved Mark by introducing additions to Jesus’s words as given in Mark where the meaning of the text was likely to be misunderstood. In other places in these contexts Matthew offers a better text than Mark. Unwarrantable Changes in Text: When in 10:12 Mark has Jesus refer to a woman divorcing her husband, the saying can hardly be correct because it was an impossibility in Jewish law of the time. The change may have been introduced in Rome where Mark wrote his gospel and where women could divorce their husbands. An “Unhistorical” Question: Also, Mark does not formulate the Pharisees’ question to Jesus in a proper way. He has them asking “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” (10:2). No Pharisee would have asked the question in this way because the law explicitly permitted divorce. In these instances, Matthew preserves a more accurate text. It was manifestly important to Charles to undermine the way in which Mark words the key text as well as to refute the conclusions many drew from it. The Principle thus laid down by Christ applied universally as the Pauline Teaching:²⁰ Jesus spoke about divorce for inadequate reasons and based this on the principle established in Genesis 2:24: “Therefore a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh” (NRSV). While Jesus’s words were limited to the confines of the specific controversy in which he was engaged, Paul offers a universal application of the principle. In 1 Corinthians 6 he related it to Christian marriage and cited the same passage from Genesis. The Right to Divorce: Charles, after a short summary, wrapped up the sermon with a strong conclusion: Thus Christ, by accepting the Jewish law relating to the adulterous wife and confining His own enactments to less grievous offenders, implicitly allows the right of divorce on the ground of adultery, as well as subsequent remarriage on the part of the guiltless person concerned, but forbids divorce on any lesser ground, as well as the remarriage of those divorced on any such lesser ground. Since, therefore, our Lord’s statements on divorce condemned only those who put away their wives on inadequate grounds, and since these statements explicitly in Matthew and implicitly in Mark admit the right of divorce on the ground of adultery, it follows that there is no justification whatever in Christ’s teaching for the attitude assumed by a large body of ecclesiastics who, at the present day, deny the right of divorce in the case of ²⁰ This is the paragraph that was not in the original sermon.

412    ( – ) adultery, and the right of subsequent remarriage to the guiltless person, and, in the case of such remarriage, refuse such persons Communion—in other words, excommunicate them. (33–4)²¹

The next chapters take the form of supporting notes that were associated with the topic of the sermon but not included in it. Chapter II (“Matt. xix. 10–12 not connected with the question of divorce,” 35–8) explains his reasons for thinking that the three verses address a subject other than divorce, in spite of the fact that they directly follow 19:3–9. the passage treated in the sermon. Verses 10–12 read (NRSV), His disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

Charles agreed with the suggestion that Jesus’s saying originally belonged in a different context than its present location; that context contained a declaration about denying oneself for the kingdom of heaven (it would account for the reference to “this statement/teaching” in v. 11, one that does not relate to what Jesus had said about divorce in the preceding verses). The two passages may have been brought together in Matthew because of shared vocabulary. The third chapter (“Romans vii. 1–3 not connected with the question of divorce,” 39–42) serves a similar function. Here Paul is talking about a person being freed from the law by death, and the case of a married woman illustrates the principle—if her husband dies, she is free to marry again without being guilty of adultery. Paul’s words are in fact based on Moses’s law (in other law codes the woman could divorce her husband so that what he says here would not make sense if he meant some other legal system). Charles did not think Paul would have accepted Deuteronomy 24 with its allowance of divorce on lesser grounds than adultery. He concluded:

²¹ In a footnote to the sermon (p. 34; cf. vi–vii) Charles assured the reader that Jesus did not accept the exegesis of Shammai that the “unseemly thing” in Deuteronomy 24:1 refers to unchastity. For that reason, he said, it was wrong to say, as some did, that Jesus adopted the position of Shammai. Jesus based his view on Genesis 2:24.

  

413

since the illustration (Rom. 7:2–3) of his great theme—that the Christian through his fellowship in the death of Christ has died to the law—is based wholly on the Mosaic law of marriage, it has no bearing whatever on the doctrine of Christian marriage. It is an illustration and nothing more. (42)

In this way Charles was able to jettison another New Testament passage that, one could argue, implies that divorce, leaving a husband, was not possible. His fourth chapter (“1 Corinthians vii. 10–15 [R.V.],” 43–71) is considerably more substantial, as it deals with a crucial passage in which Paul discusses marriage and divorce. It was an insight into part of 1 Corinthians 7, Charles commented in the Preface, that provided him with information vital for understanding divorce in the New Testament. He drew a distinction between the meanings of the two verbs Paul used: χωριζεσθαι [chōrizesthai] means “to divorce,” while αφιεναι [aphienai] refers to deserting.²² In vv. 10–11 (NRSV) Paul cites a saying from Jesus: To the married I give this command—not I but the Lord—that the wife should not separate [χωρισθηναι (chōristhēnai)] from her husband (but if she does separate [χωρισθη(chōristhē)], let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

He thought the statement Paul attributed to the Lord came from the sayings source Q;²³ it had not found its way into Matthew and/or Luke but was from this source, nevertheless. Jesus would have directed his teachings to Jews, for whom the law held that a man could divorce his wife but a wife could only desert her husband, not divorce him. From this it follows that 7:11a (the words in parentheses above) could not have been spoken by Jesus to Jews, since no Jewish woman could remarry unless her husband had divorced her. Consequently, the statement in 7:11a that refers to divorce by a wife as the verb indicates (despite the translation “separate” in the NRSV) was not part of the logion from Jesus. In vv. 12–15 Paul himself (“I say—I and not the Lord”) speaks to non-Jews about marriages between believers and unbelievers. Regarding 7:11a, which he rejected as an interpolation into Paul’s letter, Charles commented that these lines are the only ones in the New Testament ²² He realized that, while both could mean “to divorce,” in the context Paul uses them differently. ²³ The abbreviation Q (from the German word Quelle meaning “source”) usually refers to the material shared by Matthew and Luke but not found in Mark. Charles thought more Q material than this had been preserved, and, as we will see, also believed that Mark used Q.

414    ( – ) forbidding remarriage after divorce. Here the verb χωρισθηναι [chōristhēnai] means “divorce” as the next clause indicates—“let her not marry again.” The words that could not have come from Jesus also do not come from Paul in that they treat only of divorce. He was a Jewish scholar who would not have misunderstood Jesus’s words. Charles thought the original form of the saying from Jesus read: “Let the wife not desert her husband, and let not the husband divorce his wife.” This would accord with Jewish law. It is directed against those who divorced their wives for inadequate reasons; unchastity is not under consideration in this context. Paul’s instructions in vv. 12–15 deal with marriages involving one believing and one non-believing spouse. He stipulated that the believing partner should not resort to divorce if the unbelieving spouse was willing to remain married. The situation is different in 1 Corinthians 6:13–17 which contain Paul’s teachings about divorce. Here he enunciates principles rather than simply responding to questions raised by the Corinthians. It is in this context that he deals with conjugal unfaithfulness. Charles maintained that Paul in 6:16b had before him the Q account of Jesus’s controversy with the Pharisees regarding divorce (see Matthew 19:5), just as he drew 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11b from Q. The apostle taught that joining with a prostitute, becoming one body with her, dissolved both the marriage bond and the bond with Christ. In such cases Paul would have allowed divorce. Chapter V takes up “The Logia of Christ on Divorce” (72–6). In it Charles analyzes the verses in the passages he had prefixed to his sermon (Matthew 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11–12; Luke 16:18) and in 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11b. He accepted the common view that Matthew 5:32 and Luke 16:18 (two similar passages) derive from Q; also, as he had argued earlier, the sayings of Jesus in 1 Corinthians 6:16; 7:10–11b, came from the same source. That left Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:11–12. Since the context in Mark is defective and not historically accurate, it is unlikely that the story in Matthew, of which this verse is a part, is based on the second gospel. He thought that both Matthew 19:3–9 and Mark 10:2–12 arose from Q but the two writers drew from the source independently (he provided a list of experts who thought Mark used Q). So, all of the sayings listed at the beginning of the chapter were part of Q. And he believed he had shown earlier that Mark 10:12 could not be authentically from Jesus. Chapter VI, “Whom Does God Join Together?” (77–82), considers Matthew 19:6: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” He divided his answer into six short sections. (1) To whom are these words applicable? He said they apply to the marriage of “every true man and maid

  

415

since the world began” (78), whether marked by a religious service or not. This is what Jesus indicated in referring to Genesis 2:24. (2) The State can divorce only those who through unfaithfulness have already divorced themselves: The couple are the ones who dissolve a marriage through unfaithfulness, with the state or church’s sole role being to legalize what has already taken place. (3) God does not join together all that are joined by the marriage service: Some marriages are made for the wrong reason(s) and thus, despite being performed in a church or other religious setting, are not according to God’s will. (4) Yet marriages which had no divine element in their initiation may in due time become such: despite a defective start, marriages can lead to joy and blessing when spouses faithfully carry out their duties. (5) Persistent unfaithfulness must be punished by divorce; and, in answer to the question (6) Is divorce justifiable for certain grave offences short of unfaithfulness?, he cited the case of “deliberate desertion extending into many years” (82) as an example of an offence warranting the church (and state) to legalize divorce—an idea that, as we have noted, others were favoring. The subject of chapter VII is “Q—the Source of the Synoptic and Pauline Logia on Marriage and Divorce.” (83–90). Regarding the statements of Jesus quoted in 1 Corinthians 6:16; 7:10, 11b, Charles thought they presupposed the sort of setting found in Matthew 19:3–9 (and Mark 10:2–12). However, since when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, the gospels had not been composed, the source for the sayings is probably Q. He thought Paul had Q at his disposal, whether in Aramaic or in a Greek form different from the one used by the gospel writers, as suggested by his different terminology in places. The common conclusion of scholars that Matthew 19:3–9 came from Mark is wrong, since Mark is defective, non-historical, and badly disordered (as in his other uses of Q). In fact, Matthew 5:32; 19:3–9; Luke 16:18 are not based on Mark 10:2–12, but all of these texts come independently from Q, as do the statements in 1 Corinthians. Charles devoted the longer eighth chapter to “The Greek words μοιχεια [moicheia] and πορνεια [porneia]” (91–111). He examined uses of the nouns and their cognates in classical and Jewish Greek; after this he studied πορνεια (porneia] and its cognates in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, the New Testament, and Early Christian literature. On the basis of the data, he showed how this term, which could cover all sorts of sexual sins (the context indicating a specific kind), was often mis-rendered in translations of the New Testament, although he recognized that at times it was difficult to find the proper word. The short ninth chapter takes up “The Verbs Meaning ‘To Divorce’ and ‘To Desert’ in the New Testament” (112–15). This was a topic he had treated in

416    ( – ) connection with 1 Corinthians 7:10–15. To his study of the verbs he added consideration of απολυειν [apoluein]. The final chapter is a “Short Summary of the Conclusions arrived at in the above Investigation” (116–20). Perhaps most important for the debates in the church when Charles published his sermon and supplementary sections was the conclusion that divorce can take place in instances of adultery and that remarriage of the innocent party is permissible. The only New Testament passage forbidding remarriage is an interpolation (1 Corinthians 7:11a). Those who deny the right of divorce and remarriage confuse the essence of marriage . . . with its public recognition by the Church or State. They do not care how often the essential principle of marriage is outraged and destroyed, so long as the outer and lifeless husk of it is preserved. (119–20)

Reviews A book by the scholarly Archdeacon of Westminster on a controversial subject such as divorce was bound to receive attention, and it did. A number of reviews followed, and an entire book (though short) was written in response to it. Shortly after publication of Charles’s little volume an unsigned, highly favorable review appeared in The Spectator for March 26, 1921 (vol. 126). The reviewer began by asserting that “The Archdeacon of Westminster has given us here a study which will make history” (397) in the present context of the national discussion. The reviewer summarized the author’s arguments (something he found difficult to do) and informed readers that scholars now regarded Mark as a secondary, not the primary, Synoptic source (Q was the primary one). He suspected that the logic of Charles’s presentation would lead him to “support all the various reforms of the marriage laws proposed in Lord Buckmaster’s bill” (398) and ended by writing: “We advise all those who are troubled about the teaching of Christianity on divorce to read Dr. Charles’s remarkable book. It is one of those books which, appearing in the midst of an unsettled controversy, are bound to make a great difference” (398). The next issue of The Spectator (April 2, 1921) contained a rejoinder by W. Lockton, identified as connected with the Diocesan Training College, Winchester. He found Charles guilty of special pleading by dismissing Mark as the earlier, more reliable source and criticized him for ignoring Luke’s statement. He was surprised by the earlier reviewer’s suggestion that the

  

417

priority of Mark was no longer embraced in scholarly circles—he alluded to a recent “opinion” denying even the existence of Q. He characterized Charles’s description of the situation regarding divorce at the time of Jesus as confusing and noted that according to Deuteronomy 17:6 the death penalty for adultery could be inflicted only if the suspicious husband could find two witnesses—a circumstance that “must have made the death penalty for this sin little more than occasional” (424). A substantial assessment by C. E. Macartney appeared in Princeton Theological Review 22 (1924) 148–53. In his opinion, Charles made a good case that the dispute with the Pharisees in Mark 10 had to do with divorce for causes other than adultery and that it did not therefore conflict with Matthew 19. But he had more problems with his rejection of some texts as additions to an original—1 Corinthians 7:11a as an interpolation, and Mark 10:12 as an “unwarranted change introduced into the text by Mark.” These assessments show the weakness of Dr. Charles’ method. He rejects Mk. x. 12 entirely and I Cor. vii. 11 in part not because he considers them poorly attested—he does not discuss the textual evidence in their favor—but chiefly because they definitely assert that Jesus discussed a question which a Jew of the first century would have regarded as inadmissible, viz., the possibility of a wife divorcing her husband. But this is a very drastic step. For even had Jesus been merely a man of his country, race, and time, it is certainly conceivable that he might have had something to say about a practice that was recognized by Roman law. (151–2)

Macartney also voiced some theological concerns with Charles’s approach. In effect he said that if Charles could delete passages that did not fit his theory, what was to prevent him from rejecting other verses dealing with divorce. That he should be at such pains to harmonize Matt. v. 32, xix. 3–9 and Mk. x. 2f—a fine bit of constructive reasoning for which many will be very grateful to him—only to treat other passages in the New Testament, passages whose genuineness cannot be seriously questioned on textual grounds, with a ruthlessness which can only mean that the authority of the New Testament means but little to him and that he is ready to cut out any passages however well attested that do not meet his views, is deeply to be regretted. (152)

He charged Charles with being profound but expecting more from his readers than someone other than an expert could offer, so he had not written a general

418    ( – ) guide for those attempting to understand what the New Testament said about divorce. He thought that, by reconciling the gospel passages and Paul, Charles had shown a way to understand Jesus’s teachings—a valuable contribution. In the final analysis Charles offered conclusions that Reformed thinkers had reached long ago: adultery and prolonged desertion are grounds for divorce, with the innocent party being allowed to remarry. Another of Charles’s reviewers was Allen H. Gilbert in Journal of Biblical Literature 40 (1921) 162–5. He started the review by asserting that “A scholarly treatment of this subject has long been a desideratum. Unfortunately, the book before us is not conclusive, though it contains much that is worthy of the high reputation of its author” (162). In general, he regarded a number of Charles’s key points as unconvincing. For example, Charles thought Jesus accepted divorce for adultery; to this Gilbert countered: “But if Jesus accepted the punishment of death for adultery, there is no question of divorce for adultery, and we must not represent him as substituting divorce for death in Matt. 5:32 and 19:3–9” (163). He thought it likely that the exception was interpolated into Matthew by someone familiar with Jewish law. He was not convinced by Charles’s handling of the evidence in the gospels. He did pick up on Charles’s sixth chapter “Whom does God join together?” where Charles wrote that true unions between a man and woman are marriages, even without ceremonies to mark them, and that marriages are not made by God unless the two are together in heart. Such reasoning leads to the conclusion that the words of Jesus apply only to unions contracted in the right spirit, without even such exceptions as the adultery in the heart of Matt. 5:28. This consideration of the minds of the parties rather than of the outward form of the marriage obviously leaves the way open to free divorce, yet without violating the precepts of Jesus as the Archdeacon interprets them. (165)

On his view, either one could forbid any right of divorce or give up a literal reading of Jesus’s words and instead try governing divorce according to contemporary Christian ethics. The book that reacted to Charles’s publication is entitled Divorce in the New Testament: A Reply to Dr. Charles (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; New York: The MacMillan Company, 1921). The authors were G. H. Box and Charles Gore. George Herbert Box (1869–1933) was at Oxford and later moved to King’s College London where he was Lecturer in Rabbinical Hebrew. He was a major contributor to Charles’s Apocrypha and

  

419

Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament as co-author with W. O. E. Oesterley (Cambridge) of the long section on Sirach in the first volume and on 4 Ezra in the second. He was also editor of the Translations of Early Documents series in which abbreviated forms of some of Charles’s translation/commentaries had appeared. Gore (1853–1932), as we have seen, had successively served as bishop of Worcester, Birmingham, and Oxford; in 1919 he retired to London. One small book of his (mentioned earlier in this chapter) was The Question of Divorce in which he had, in opposition to his former view, argued that Mark, Luke, and Paul presented Jesus’s authentic teaching about divorce and that Matthew had misunderstood it with his exception. Gore wrote the introductory chapter in which he described Charles’s book and summarized his arguments. He said of Charles’s first chapter that it was a “revised version of a sermon (which excited considerable attention) preached in Westminster Abbey” (7) and that the main purpose of the book is to support, in part by new and rather astonishing arguments, a very old and familiar position—viz., that in the teaching of Christ marriage is indissoluble save for adultery, which dissolves it and sets the innocent party free to remarry. (7)

Gore referred to his own book on divorce and was amazed at the way in which Charles spoke about contemporary ecclesiastics whom he opposed. After citing Charles on the subject he wrote: “But Dr. Charles loves strong and unqualified language” (9). He sketched out what each chapter in the present book would cover. In speaking about the Jewish law Gore remarked: to give Dr. Charles’s argument its force, what he must prove is not only that the ancient Jewish law of capital punishment was formally unrepealed, but that it was actually enforced. But the obvious assumption of John viii. 1–11 is that the adulterous woman was not going to be stoned. (10)

Box contributed ch. II “The Jewish Law and Practice” (13–34). His aim was to undermine the way in which Charles argued for his position using Jewish law: “This is entirely based on the construction of certain Jewish evidence which, as I hope to show, he has misunderstood and misapplied. At most, in my opinion, it amounts to ingenious special pleading, which will not bear the test of scientific criticism” (13). He presented the evidence from the passages in the gospels and concluded that Mark 10:2–9 is not derived from Q and that Matthew used it in ch. 19. The Q evidence is actually found in the saying in

420    ( – ) Luke 16:18 which completely prohibits divorce and remarriage of the divorced woman. Matthew reshaped it and thus modified the saying of Jesus. Box here gave the standard explanation for the relations between the synoptic gospels and opposed Charles’s unusual view. Box then took up the rabbinic evidence adduced by Charles. As for the disagreement between the houses of Hillel and Shammai on the interpretation of the “unseemly thing” in Deuteronomy 24:2, he maintained that there is no reason to think the Hillelites, with their laxer interpretation, would have excluded adultery from the category “unseemly thing,” so Charles misunderstood their position. At the time of Christ, the Shammaites were dominant in the Sanhedrin, and the law was generally understood as they read it. It was really irrelevant if Charles thought their exegesis of Deuteronomy was wrong; the important thing was that it was so understood at the time. If Charles’s thesis that the death penalty was still officially on the books at the time were to collapse, his whole case would fall. Charles was guilty of misconstruing the law in Deuteronomy 22:22 (death penalty for the person caught in adultery) by overlooking the provision in Deuteronomy 17:6 that the act had to be witnessed—something that probably occurred infrequently.²⁴ In cases of suspected adultery, the provisions of Numbers 5:11–31 (the ordeal by bitter waters) would be applied (again as understood at the time), and that law, even on a strict interpretation, would lead, not to the woman’s execution but to forcible divorce from her husband. So, divorce, not death, for adultery would have been the normal procedure at the time. Box cited the relevant Talmudic passages—something Charles did not do. He had little trouble showing that Charles’s inference about the death penalty being in force at the time of Jesus was mistaken. The Talmudic reference to 40 years before destruction of the temple (70 ..)—the note that proved for Charles that the law was valid until 30 ..—is not in this context a precise number. It is more likely, said Box, that the Roman government had taken from the Jewish authorities the right to execute guilty parties well before the time of Jesus’s ministry. The incident in John 7:53–8:11 probably took place after the woman had been convicted in court (she was caught in the act) and shows that the death penalty was not enforced. She had probably been coerced into divorce. Box also contributed ch. III “Christ’s Positive Teaching” (35–48). He maintained, citing several authorities on the gospels, that Mark’s version was original and was not disfigured as Charles maintained (e.g., by referring to a ²⁴ As noted by W. Lockton in The Spectator for April 2, 1921 (see above).

  

421

woman divorcing her husband). It is interesting to read Box’s description of Charles’s approach: Dr. Charles is fond of correcting the text of his authorities, and sometimes in a very arbitrary manner. It is usually some “ignorant scribe,” who has falsified the record, who is denounced. Here, however, it seems to be the Evangelist himself who has been unfortunate enough to incur Dr. Charles’s wrath. (37)

Box quoted Burkitt’s view that Mark’s reference to a woman divorcing her husband reflected the case of Herodias (something Charles had disputed; see 28 n. 2; 122–3, n. 1).²⁵ The principle that only death breaks the marital bond was accepted by Paul and expressed in the canon law of the Western Church and in the practice of those countries that came under its influence. Divorce for adultery and remarriage of the innocent party are accepted practices in some places and have the sanction of the Jewish Christian Church of Palestine (as reflected in Matthew’s gospel) but represent a lower standard. After further discussing the lofty norms attained in Judaism despite the law permitting divorce, Box affirmed that Christ proclaimed a higher law establishing the nature of marriage and the rule of monogamy. He concluded by charging: “The contention of Dr. Charles that divorce for adultery should not merely be tolerated by Christian people, but positively enjoined as a Christian duty, having the implicit sanction of Christ Himself, can only be characterized as a monstrous perversion” (45–6). He also thought Charles had gone beyond the original argument of the sermon “and is now prepared to open the gates to Divorce, if not ‘for every cause,’ yet very wide indeed!” (46). To the chapter Box added two notes. In the first he held, with the earliest Christian expositors, that the exception in Matthew 5:32 permitted divorce for adultery but forbade remarriage of either husband or wife. In the second he opposed Charles’s inference that Paul would have required divorce in the case of deliberate, unrepentant adultery, since it broke the marriage bond: “It would be difficult to imagine a greater perversion of New Testament teaching . . . ” (48). Chapter IV, “The Evidence of St. Paul and the Gospels,” (49–58) came from Gore. He found Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7 to be perfectly clear—he ²⁵ Herod Antipas married Herodias, the wife of his half-brother Philip who was still alive (Matthew 14:3; Mark 6:17; Josephus, Antiquities 18.110). Her daughter was Salome.

422    ( – ) did not allow divorce and remarriage for those wedded under Christian circumstances. Like Box, he had some strongly critical comments for Charles and complained that this was hardly the first time he had so proceeded. The Archdeacon dismissed 1 Corinthians 7:11a as an interpolation: But this is Dr. Charles’s way. With equal impatience of the evidence he has asserted in his Commentary on the Apocalypse that Revelation xiv. 4 . . . is the interpolation of a “narrow” and “stupid” editor, simply because he disapproves of the exaltation of virginity . . . It is this sort of intolerable arbitrariness which almost makes one despair of the “advanced critics”. (50–1)²⁶

He found Charles’s account of Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 6 to be as unfortunate: it is arbitrary to say that for Paul adultery with a prostitute dissolved the marriage bond. Christ made it a law for the church that marriage was indissoluble and that if separation occurred remarriage was not allowed. This is the case in Paul, Luke, and Mark. Mark preceded and was used by Matthew, and Matthew 19:10–12 makes good sense in its present context if it followed a statement by Jesus absolutely forbidding divorce. The final chapter, also by Gore, treats “Dr. Charles’s Ultimate Position” (59–61). Here he argued that, though Charles’s book mostly supported an old position with new and unconvincing arguments, in ch. VI Charles opened the door to “facilitate divorce widely indeed” (59). He had problems with his claim that “God does not join together all that are joined by the marriage service.” Gore agreed that this was the case but said the crucial factor was whether these were real marriages, carrying obligations. Charles’s position paved the way for allowing divorce on the grounds of desertion and other reasons. He concluded by asserting: The primary question for Christians is, What is the marriage law of the Church obligatory on its members? And it is distressing to find that at the last resort Dr. Charles contemplates the Church sanctioning divorce not only for adultery, but for desertion—that is (as I have said), practically whenever the parties agree to separate permanently—as well as for other causes. (61)

²⁶ Gore’s claim about Revelation 14:4 is not fair to Charles. Charles denied the passage was from the author, not because he disliked exalting virginity, but because it conflicted with the author’s understanding of marriage. See Part 3, Chapter 3.

  

423

The 1927 Book Divorce and the Roman Dogma of Nullity, by R. H. Charles, D.D., D. Litt., L.L.D., Archdeacon of Westminster, Fellow of the British Academy (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 38 George Street, 1927). Six years later Charles returned to the subject of divorce. The new book, like its forebear of 1921, had a homiletic origin, but this time in what Charles called “the Course of Sermons which I preached in Westminster Abbey last July” (v; he was referring to July of 1927) on the subject reproduced in the book title. The context of the national debate differed little from the circumstances in 1920–21, as no major legislation on divorce he been enacted in the meantime, but the Catholic doctrine of nullity gave Charles’s words a somewhat different target. He had written to T. & T. Clark (NLS, July 6, 1927) that he was proposing a short book containing three sermons on divorce and nullity that he was preaching the next three Sundays, and Clark had quickly accepted the proposal (NLS, July 7, 1927). Charles (NLS, August 6),²⁷ after reporting that the sermons had aroused great interest, hoped the book could be published in early October. It was at the bindery by October 27 (NLS, Clark), but on November 17 (NLS) Charles worried that the publication date would fall in the Christmas season when people did not buy serious books. It appeared on December 10, 1927 (NLS, Clark, December 7).²⁸ Charles acknowledged the continuity between the 1927 book and its predecessor but also drew a distinction between them: So far as it deals with Divorce, the present book is necessarily based in a large measure on my earlier study . . . By their [the publishers’] kind permission I have drawn freely on its materials and conclusions. But the present work by no means replaces the first, which provides a fulness of evidence inadmissible in this work. (v)

A reader of the two will see much repetition, since in both Charles dealt with the principal New Testament passages on divorce. But in the later book, he added, he had advanced the argument begun in the former one.

²⁷ In this letter he added that some paragraphs in the manuscript were not in the sermons but that it was mostly identical with them. ²⁸ On December 12 (NLS) Charles wrote that he doubted the book would receive the welcome it might have enjoyed had it been published six weeks earlier (also NLS, January 27, 1928).

424    ( – ) Thus it is shown not only that the narrative in Mark x. 2–12 is untrustworthy, but also that the First Evangelist (Matt. xix. 3–9) deliberately rejected the Marcan record as unhistorical and replaced it by a record of events drawn from Q, that is in harmony with all other contemporary documents of the first century, bearing on the subject, Christian or Jewish. (v–vi)

In addition, in 1927 he stated more firmly that Luke 16:18 independently supports Matthew’s version. Hence, the narrative in Q (which underlies Matthew and Luke) was not intended to “prove the indissolubility of marriage, but to condemn divorce when resorted to on inadequate grounds” (vi)— something that applies directly to the Catholic teaching about nullity. “If Mark x. 2–12 is unhistorical, the only foundation in the Gospels for the dogma of the indissolubility of marriage disappears, and with it the still more erroneous Roman dogma of Nullity” (vii). Charles predicted that the Roman Catholic Church would not accept a conclusion reached through biblical criticism and cited its acceptance of the Trinitarian reading in 1 John 5:7–8, which lacks ancient textual support, as an example of ignoring all the relevant historical evidence. Charles ended the Preface with thanks to two individuals who helped him with the book, only one of whom he named. The unnamed person he described as “a friend who—at once a theologian and a philosopher—has revised my proofs, and made many excellent suggestions” (viii).²⁹ The other was “Mr. W. Reeve Wallace, C.B.E., of the Privy Council Office, to whom I am much beholden on several questions” (viii). Once again Charles’s research took him beyond ancient texts. The text of the book is divided into four chapters that apparently corresponded with his “Course of Sermons,” although we may hope that the faithful in the Abbey were spared the footnotes. The number and varied length of the chapters (32, 25, 12, 25 pages) make one wonder how they related to the three sermons he had mentioned in correspondence with the publisher. The first is entitled “The New Testament Doctrine of Divorce and the Roman Dogma of Nullity” (1–32). Charles arranged it in twelve short sections, each headed by an italicized summary of its contents. The first provides an explanation of why he took up the topic of the book:

²⁹ The “friend” was the Archbishop of Armagh, Charles D’Arcy (see NLS, Charles, August 6, September 12 1927), who urged more moderate language in connection with the Roman controversy.

  

425

A recent controversy on the nullity of certain marriages as propounded by the Roman Church made me examine afresh the conclusions at which I had arrived, and as a result of that fresh study I feel it my duty to deal anew with the questions at issue from the standpoint of our Lord’s teaching. (1)

He then summarized two of the chief conclusions he had reached in the 1921 work: first, a marriage is “dissoluble when there is an absolute breach of its essential conditions” (2), and second, the guiltless partner of the dissolved marriage has a right to remarry with the church’s blessing.³⁰ In the second section he traced the differing views about marriage in various churches to the conflicting stories in Matthew 19:3–9 and Mark 10:2–12. The Reformed and Eastern churches followed Matthew by allowing divorce for unchastity and remarriage of the innocent, while the Roman Church adopted the position in Mark forbidding divorce completely. His third section makes the point he argued in 1921—that the section Matthew 19:10–12 does not belong with 19:3–9, and in the fourth he showed that the question put to Jesus in Matthew is authentic, reflecting the situation at the time, but the one in Mark is not. This is a place where Charles had some surprisingly negative things to say about the passage in Mark: the Pharisaic question “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife (at all)?” is “unhistorical and false; for no sane or self-respecting Pharisee could have put to our Lord a question so at variance with the Mosaic law, a law which every true Jew regarded as the authoritative utterance of God Himself” (10). He then reviewed the debate between the houses of Hillel and Shammai concerning Deuteronomy 24:1–2, while in section five he explained how the question as given in Matthew reflects the debates of the time. The sixth section gives his further reason for finding Mark’s formulation unhistorical—he referred to the statement in 10:12 about a woman divorcing her husband, which was impossible according to Jewish law. In the seventh he dealt with the cases of Salome and Herodias, women who did divorce their husbands (or at least left them) and whose divorces were contrary to Jewish law. Continuing the summary of his earlier arguments, Charles turned in the eighth paragraph to Paul’s citation of a saying of Jesus. The ensuing section includes his argument that Luke 16:18 supports Matthew’s version and that Mark further misrepresents the original story by

³⁰ Charles attached a long footnote (pp. 2–4) to his conclusions. In addition to quoting two extended passages from the 1921 book, he answered some responses to the 1927 series of sermons in their oral form.

426    ( – ) assigning a statement of Jesus to the Pharisees and vice versa³¹ and by his placement of Genesis 2:24 too late in the conversation. The tenth section takes up the one gloss in Matthew (“except for fornication”), and the eleventh declares that Matthew 5:32 shows the discussion had to do with divorce for lesser grounds. Finally, in section twelve Charles offered the argument that, he wrote in the Preface, distinguished his 1927 case from the one in 1921: In the present book it is my aim to show that Matthew deliberately rejected the narrative in Mark as unhistorical. My claim, therefore, is that I am reviving the attempt of the First Evangelist to displace the unhistorical narrative of the Second Evangelist by the true record of that controversy which is given by the First Evangelist. The aim of the Second Evangelist is clearly to prove that, according to the teaching of Christ, marriage is absolutely indissoluble. The aim of the First Evangelist is just as clearly to prove the contrary under certain conditions. (30–1)

Charles thus believed he was assuming the mantle of the person who wrote the Gospel of Matthew. The second chapter is “The New Testament Doctrine of Divorce” (33–57) in nine sections. The first summarizes the initial chapter; to the summary Charles added that the Roman Catholic teaching that a marriage could not be dissolved was “a human fiction founded on an unhistorical basis” (34). The “unhistorical basis” was, of course, the Gospel of Mark. He went on to argue that when “this fiction was linked up with the numerous fantastic impediments which the Mediaeval Church devised to a valid marriage, it gave birth to the extraordinary dogma of nullity which is the peculiar property of the Roman Church, and which in the hands of the Roman Curia has been the source of intolerable moral scandals during the past six hundred years as well as of a large revenue” (34–5). This gave way to a section on the unhistorical character of the story in Mark 10, focusing on identifying who was responsible for “this mutilated and falsified account” (38). Was it Mark or was it Peter whose teachings are supposed to underlie Mark’s gospel? Charles repeated his claim that the reference to a woman divorcing her husband reflected conditions in Rome where the second gospel was written. But that did not explain the significant change in the question of the Pharisees in the story—altering it from the original “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause” to ³¹ In Mark 10:3 Jesus asks the Pharisees what “What did Moses command you”, whereas in Matthew 19:7 the Pharisees ask Jesus “Why then did Moses command us to give. . . .”

  

427

“Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife (at all).” This change altered the whole story and led to misinterpretation of the other passages in the New Testament (Charles referred to Mark’s “new and perverted teaching” [41]). This could not be attributed to Peter who knew Jesus’s teachings very well. “If we assign it to Mark, who had no first-hand knowledge of the life and teaching of our Lord, then Mark, we may reasonably conclude, was unconscious that in the version he gave he had falsified the teaching of Christ” (41). He explained in the fourth section that Matthew, although he used much of Mark, often corrected him. Here he rejected the unhistorical account in Mark 10, replacing it with the narrative he probably found in Q. Charles repeated that in his exegetical work he was only doing what the first Evangelist had done. The Western church, nevertheless, followed Mark’s teaching, while those in the East did not. With the Reformation, non-Catholic scholars (and Erasmus) sensed that the Matthean version was correct, although they did not know the historical and literary reasons for the conclusion. The following section reveals the confidence Charles lodged in the results of modern biblical criticism. The debate in Christianity between two competing views of marriage/divorce could not be settled because both were based on what was confessed to be inspired Scripture. Then came higher criticism to save the day! But, since in these later days the Gospels have been submitted to the most drastic criticism, this impasse no longer exists. By this criticism it is possible to determine which of the two narratives is historical and which is unhistorical, and to state the grounds of this conclusion in such clear terms as will make it possible for every person of ordinary intelligence and intellectual honesty to recognise the true and authentic character of the Matthew narrative and the unhistorical character of the Marcan. (45)

The remaining sections repeat much of what he had earlier written about the historical accuracy of the story in Matthew and how the issue in that story was divorce on lesser grounds, not divorce for adultery. Jesus did not condemn divorce for adultery but divorce for inadequate reasons, and Paul cited this teaching of Jesus. Alas, the Roman Church followed the wrong New Testament passage and eventually articulated its doctrine of nullity. Chapter 3, “Marriage According to the Reformed Churches” (58–69), like the others, bears the marks of the setting in which Charles first presented the material. Since he was preaching a series of sermons, he frequently summarized what he had said previously. The first of the five sections in the chapter

428    ( – ) offers a recap of the previous two chapters, while the second deals with Jesus’s use of Genesis 2:24 to present God’s view of marriage. Unchastity breaks the bond that God had established. However, the Western church adopted Mark’s unhistorical narrative and later made marriage a sacrament (which, as Charles added, need not entail that it is indissoluble). The Council of Trent declared that Christ instituted seven sacraments of which marriage was one, but, Charles maintained, there is no basis for this claim nor is marriage a sacrament (Christ instituted just two sacraments). The Reformed churches do not consider marriage a sacrament but an ordinance made by God himself. Marriage creates a union that only unfaithfulness or some factor rendering the bond impossible to maintain can dissolve. Chapter 4 takes up the subject of “Marriage According to the Roman Church: Its Peculiar Dogma of Nullity” (70–94). Charles thought it was “difficult to evade the conclusion that the action of Rome in relation to marriage is in certain respects often irrational and lawless” (70). The Roman Church had put itself in a difficult position by declaring marriages indissoluble, but it had also “devised a series of artificial, fanciful, and often grotesque impediments to a valid marriage” (72). Hence, it could, after the fact, declare marriages null and void for certain reasons (e.g., because the couple were too closely related by blood, or they were coerced into marriage), unless the church had given a dispensation. There have been inconsistencies, he said, in the rules applicable in different times and places—an odd situation for a church claiming to be infallible. An irrational implication of the dogma of nullity is that if an existing marriage was declared null and void, any children of the couple were still regarded as legitimate. Charles was able to entertain his audience with some wincing applications and implications of the Roman Catholic dogma, ones he characterized as a “breach of the sacrosanct laws of marriage, and the replacing of them by the sophisms of ecclesiastics” (79). The example of Henry VIII, who wished to have his marriage to Catherine declared null but was refused by the church (though it had declared similar royal marriages null in the past), did not show Rome in a favorable light because non-ecclesiastical concerns determined the case. Charles, the Ulster man, saw no redeeming features in the Catholic teaching. The slim volume concludes with an index (95–100). Charles’s 1927 book, which mostly follows and reinforces his conclusions of 1921, raises some questions about how satisfied he should have felt about his thesis regarding the unhistorical, even “perverted” form of the story in Mark 10. He was able for his own reasons to depart in this instance from an accepted scholarly conclusion about the relation between Mark and Matthew and to

  

429

adopt Matthew’s version as more accurately representing the teachings of Jesus about divorce. Yet whatever one thinks of his way of handling the case, it did not remove Mark 10 from the Christian canon of Scripture. It seems, however, that Charles, who held a high position in the Anglican Church, was left with a canon within a canon—a canon that included Matthew 19 but not Mark 10. Furthermore, his basis for accepting one and rejecting the other was his own critical scholarship. This method appears to have been more authoritative for him that the decision of the church in adopting the canon of the New Testament. At any rate, Charles was extremely confident that he was reading Mark and/or the evidence about Jewish laws regarding marriage and divorce in the correct way and did not seem much concerned with the criticisms leveled against his work by reviewers of the 1921 book.

The Gambling Book Gambling & Betting: A Short Study Dealing with their Origin and their Relation to Morality and Religion, by R. H. Charles, D.D., D. Litt., LL.D., Archdeacon of Westminster, Fellow of the British Academy (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 38 George Street, 1924,³² second impression 1925).³³ Charles’s slender volume (88 pages) on gambling was based on a series of sermons he preached at Westminster (so NLS, Charles, August 11 and 20, 1924)³⁴ and is thus convenient to include with his books on divorce. Also like them, it was a contribution to a current debate. In the short Preface Charles used language reminiscent of other prefaces. He began: It is unnecessary to apologise for this little brochure on the great question of Gambling and Betting.³⁵ Two have recently been published on the same ³² He first proposed the volume to Clark on August 11, 1924 (NLS), and Clark announced in a letter of December 18, 1924 (NLS) that it was published. ³³ On May 5, 1925 (NLS) Clark wrote that the 1200 copies of the first impression were nearly gone and that a second impression was needed immediately. There was some debate about printing an apology for a mistake in the first impression (Charles had used a report in The Times that proved incorrect; see Charles’s letters of May 7 and 12, 1925, and Clark’s letter of May 8, 1925 [NLS]). Charles suggested leaving out the apology (which he would send separately to the aggrieved party, with a copy of the book) and thus justifying the term “impression” rather than “edition.” Apparently the second impression also sold well (NLS, Clark, January 30, 1926; he wrote on January 30, 1928 that it was nearly sold out). ³⁴ On August 20, 1924 (NLS) Charles wrote that three-quarters of the material was from the sermons but that he “recast them and treated the subject more fully in its present form.” He added that “my main wish is to enter my protest against this evil.” ³⁵ In the book he used the term gambling but thought it was interchangeable with betting.

430    ( – ) subject by Canon Peter Green³⁶ and the Rev. James Glass,³⁷ and have been welcomed by the Press as admirable for their object. My own was written before I saw either, and proceeds on different lines. On such a subject there must be, of course, many points of agreement. Where such agreement occurs, it is the result of independent judgments; for though I have seen the books I have not drawn upon them either for materials or conclusions. (v)

He acknowledged that he had consulted other writers (he listed four and indicated there were more). “But, whilst I am indebted to these writers, I have found it necessary to take new departures in dealing with the origin and analysis of the various factors that enter into Gambling” (v–vi). He suggested that the morality of gambling began to be questioned some 4000 years ago and that in the last 2500 years its immoral character had increasingly been recognized. The final paragraph of the Preface expresses his understanding of the phenomenon. Gambling, if I interpret it aright, sprang from the desire to stimulate the innate love of the game and the element of adventure inherent in man—in other words, to prolong the period of youth. The love of a game as a game and the love of adventure for its own sake are things right in themselves, but their association with gambling could not but tend to destroy them ultimately. Only in religion can these desires live and thrive and reach their fullest realisation. (vi)

Charles divided the book into eight chapters. The first and shortest one is “Definition of the Term Gambling” (1–2): “Gambling in its simplest terms may be defined as an appeal to chance with two ends in view. The first end is by such an appeal to give expression to man’s inherent love of sport or adventure, the second to determine the ownership of property” (1). Here he added a few speculations about its origins in the love of games, whether for cavemen or their predecessors. In chapter II he treated “The Universality of Gambling: Some Laws Against It in England” (3–11). He swiftly surveyed the surviving evidence from ³⁶ Green’s book was entitled Betting and Gambling (London: Student Christian Movement Press, 1924). When Charles first proposed his own book to Clark, he called it ‘Betting & Gambling’ (NLS, August 11, 1924). Clark suggested switching the two nouns to distinguish it from Green’s book (NLS, September 3, 1924). ³⁷ Gambling and Religion (London: Longmans, Green, 1924).

  

431

antiquity, including ancient Israel,³⁸ and found examples in many places. The final paragraph mentions laws passed in England to curtail gambling; they date from 1661 until 1906, with the last still permitting betting at “racecourses.” Chapter III, “The Ends and Origins of Gambling” (12–22), Charles divided into two sections. The former has the heading “Gambling—an Appeal to Chance with two Ends in View” and repeats his definition of the term (something that happens several times in the book). Against those who claimed the game itself was the heart of the matter, he insisted that the transfer of property was essential, not incidental, to gambling. The latter section turns to the “Origins of Gambling” which he traced to a primitive stage of human development. He thought it represented a replacement or prolonging of legitimate love of the game by adding stakes to it. “Since, then, gambling is essentially an appeal to chance, or the element of the irrational and unknown in life, it follows that gambling belongs intrinsically to the savage or uncivilised type of character” (19). The fourth chapter pits “Gambling versus Skill in Games and Business” (23–30). These few pages fall into five sections. In the first he distinguished his definition of gambling from others that were good as far as they went but lacked his inclusion of peoples’ love of games. The second makes a point that is central to his argument: “Gambling—essentially an Appeal to Chance,” and the third has the heading “Games of Chance distinguished from Games into which Skill or Fraud enters.” Gambling relies on chance whereas games of skill try to minimize it, as do fraudulent practices such as inside information and tips. A section called “Games of Skill transformed into Games of Chance by Means of Handicaps—a Thing most reasonable where no Money is staked on the Game” shows that, whereas some had maintained that gambling involves skill, it actually strives to neutralize skill and to leave things to happenstance. An example was handicaps in golf: when they are applied simply to make the game more pleasant for everyone, they are a good thing, but when money is involved and the varied skills leveled out by handicaps the element of chance is given greater play. The last section is “Herein legitimate Business and Gambling differ: the Former seeks to eliminate Chance, to use Judgment and the rest of Man’s best Powers; the Latter makes its main Appeal to Chance.” In chapter V Charles wrote “Gambling is to be Condemned on the Following Grounds” (31–9). The short chapter includes five sections whose titles convey his reasons for opposing the vice. First, “It is wrong to revert from ³⁸ He mostly wrote about the name Gad which means “luck” and drew inferences from it. He also dealt with the practice of casting lots.

432    ( – ) Moral to immoral Methods in Games or Business,” since they are just as criminal as theft and are based on a repudiation of reason. Second, “Gambling conflicts with the Well-being of Society” by making people callous and pitiless toward others. Third, “Gambling ruins the Personality of Man” with regard to honesty and truth. Fourth, “Gambling leads to Superstition” in that it enslaves people to foolish ideas such as thinking that changing the position of one’s chair will alter one’s luck. Finally, “No single good Effect can be Traced to Gambling” through which people lose needed money. “The whole gambling community constitutes a moral leprosy dangerous alike to the individual and the State” (39). The most substantial chapter in the booklet is VI “Arguments Palliating or actually Justifying Gambling” (40–62). In its four sections he opposed some justifications of gambling, without indicating who the defenders of betting were. The first pro-gambling argument is: “Owing to the mechanical Drudgery and Monotony of most lives Gambling is justifiable as a necessary Relief and Diversion.” Charles agreed that too many people lived and worked under deplorable conditions, but gambling, he maintained, did not improve those conditions; it aggravated them. He also contended that workers had many hours each day when they were not at their dreary jobs and could use those times for higher ends. He also claimed that monotony was a part of any kind of labor and need not be as bad as it is made out to be. Monotony is in part related to the spirit of the worker, and that spirit could be improved in various ways. The second argument in support of gambling claims it “is a legitimate Recreation so long as the Stakes are a Matter of Indifference to the Players, and therefore such as they can afford to lose.” Charles thought stakes were rarely a matter of indifference to the participants; in fact, money is what kindled the excitement of betting. Gambling transforms “a natural and legitimate passion for recreation and adventure into a mean love of gain” (49). Third, “Since Gambling forms an Element in commercial Speculation, there can be no just Objection to its forming an Element in Games and Sport.” To this claim Charles responded that legitimate business speculation attempted to reduce risk or chance as much as possible (chance results from ignorance). This is unavoidable, but an illegitimate sort of business speculation deals not in goods but in prices and introduces unnecessary risks. This sort of speculation is not essential to the life of society. The fourth argument for betting is that “Insurance is in Reality a Form of Gambling. Hence, since few People would call Insurance an immoral Procedure, it is quite unjustifiable, it is contended, to brand Gambling as such.” He countered by insisting that insurers tried to neutralize or eliminate chance, whereas gambling appeals to it and is

  

433

associated with a lack of self-control and intellectual interests. In this context he cited a few comments from Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald in which he spoke out strongly against the practice. Having rebutted the arguments for gambling, Charles turned in the seventh chapter to the positive side: “How Are the Evils of Gambling and Gambling Itself to be Eliminated from Human Life? Moral Action by Itself Ineffective” (63–73). He argued first that “Gambling must be prohibited in Connection with the Churches and Charities, with the State and the Press.” The Roman church with its lotteries was a big offender in this regard, as one could see in the southern provinces of Ireland, but the Church of England was also at times guilty. One should begin with these four institutions and “Positive Measures should be adopted to conquer this Evil.” A first measure is providing decent housing with reasonable rents, a second is to provide opportunities for recreation (public parks, etc.), and a third is to awaken in people through education an awareness of the dangers accompanying the gambling spirit. These measures are valuable, but more is needed. That “more” comes in the final chapter, “The Elimination of the Gambling Spirit by Religion” (74–88). There are eight sections in these fifteen pages. “First of all, the Christian Religion denies there is such a Thing as Chance,” as there is nothing that falls outside God’s care and providence. Second, “In Regard to Property, Christianity emphatically condemns the Transference or Acquisition of Property by an Appeal to Chance.” Such practices are opposed to the ideal of life as ordered by the will of God. Moreover, property belongs to God; humans are merely stewards of it and should use it wisely. Gambling destroys the powers that should be involved in production. Third, “Christianity condemns still more emphatically the Subjection and Perversion of Man’s Spirit of Adventure into an Appeal to Chance.” Rather, Christianity attempts to save a person from it. Fourth, “The Old Testament Prophet recognized the Possibility of the Renewal of Physical Youth by a spiritual though temporary Renewal” (he was referring to Isaiah).³⁹ Fifth, “But with his pagan Conception of the Future Life, the Prophet conceived the spiritual Youthfulness to be merely of temporary Duration,” and saw only Sheol beyond death. In the sixth section Charles continued with thoughts he had expressed in a number of publications: “But the Belief in a blessed endless Life taught in its Fullness by Christianity transformed the Old Testament Prophets’

³⁹ Isaiah 40:30–31 (NRSV): “Even youths will faint and be weary,/and the young will fall exhausted;/ but those who wait for the Lord shall renew their strength,/they shall mount up with wings like eagles,/ they shall run and not be weary,/they shall walk and not faint.”

434    ( – ) Conception. The spiritual Youth begun here is never to suffer Eclipse, but to grow in ever greater Depth and Fullness through the Ages of Eternity.” The final two sections are called “There are two Kinds of Property” (material and spiritual possessions, with the latter open to all) and “Two Kinds of Youth” (the animal and the spiritual). The spiritual kind of youth begins here and now but has a capacity to grow ever younger, to engage in an endless adventure under God’s providence. This gives dignity to the most mundane tasks of life (he referenced the Parable of the Talents). The book concludes with a four-page Index of Names and Subjects. In the first two chapters of Part 3 we have surveyed Charles’s preaching and other liturgical duties at Westminster and have sketched the contents of the three more practical books that he wrote as a canon. The books were not, however, the only publishing Charles did between 1913 and 1931. We will deal with his more specialized works in the next four chapters.

Chapter 3 The Book of Revelation Despite becoming a canon of Westminster in 1913, Charles continued his scholarly pursuits with vigor. In fact, his pace of publication is almost reminiscent of the one he set during the incredibly productive Oxford years. Of his major publications in the Westminster years, the earliest was on the Book of Revelation and more research on the Apocalypse followed. Apart perhaps from 1 Enoch, the New Testament Apocalypse is the text on which Charles published the most—three books and a substantial article. He focused his attention on it at a later time, but understanding John’s Revelation was the ultimate goal of his previous studies. F. C. Burkitt wrote in his obituary of Charles that the greater aim of his work on Jewish apocalyptic literature was a better understanding of Revelation. What is perhaps not so well known is that the great series of editions of Jewish Apocrypha which he edited between 1893, when he brought out his first translation of the Book of Enoch, and 1913, when he published his Commentary on Daniel, were designed as a preparation for his Commentary on the Revelation of St. John, which finally appeared in 1920.¹

D’Arcy wrote that “It was after settling down in the Little Cloisters that Canon Charles devoted himself especially to the Canonical Apocalypse commonly called the Revelation of St. John the Divine.”² He had given some attention to it during the Oxford years—recall that his Speaker’s Lectures were on Revelation³—but analyzed it more extensively when he became a canon of Westminster.

¹ “Robert Henry Charles, 1855–1931,” 438. His duties as canon of Westminster “did not seriously interfere with the preparation of the Commentary on the Apocalypse, to which all his previous labours had been a conscious preparation” (440). ² “A Brief Memoir,” xxviii. ³ Charles also offered a lecture entitled “History of the Interpretation of the New Testament Apocalypse” on November 5, 1908 before the Oxford Society of Historical Theology. The Oxford Society of Historical Theology—‘historical’ was intended to declare that there were to be no dogmatic preconditions—provided a critical but sympathetic audience where

R. H. Charles: A Biography. James C. VanderKam, Oxford University Press. © James C. VanderKam 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192869289.003.0015

436    ( – ) There is no need to survey the history of scholarship on the Book of Revelation before Charles’s contributions because he provided more than one such overview. In this chapter his publications on the Apocalypse of John are treated in chronological order.

The 1913 Book Studies in the Apocalypse, Being Lectures Delivered Before the University of London, by R. H. Charles, D. Litt., D.D., Canon of Westminster, Fellow of Merton College, Oxford, Fellow of the British Academy (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1913).⁴ Studies in the Apocalypse began as a series of lectures. As Charles explained, “The University of London instituted last year [= 1912] two short courses of ‘Lectures in Advanced Theology,’ to be given by a foreign and a home scholar respectively. The present writer was chosen to be the first of the home scholars” (v). He went on to report that he gave four lectures under these auspices in May 1913 and that, for the published version, they “have been slightly expanded, and, with a view to the better arrangement of the material, been divided into five chapters. Their original form as lectures has, notwithstanding some disadvantages, been retained” (v). Charles allowed that “The first two chapters make no claim to originality. They are simply a very short history of the interpretation of the Apocalypse from the earliest times” (v). However, as the greatest advances have been recent, “larger space has of necessity been devoted to this period” (vi). His final words in the Preface are worth quoting for their relatively modest tone: The real contribution of the present work, so far as it is a contribution, is to be found in the last three chapters. In these the author has set forth some of the conclusions which he has arrived at in the course of a prolonged study of the Apocalypse and the literature to which it belongs. That these conclusions

those who are now recognized as important figures in the history of modern theology and Biblical scholarship were able to try out their ideas. (Peter Hinchliff, “Religious Issues, 1870–1914,” in M. G. Brock and M. C. Curthoys, editors, The History of the University of Oxford, vol. 7 Nineteenth-Century Oxford, Part 2 [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000] 102; in n. 24 Charles’s lecture and those of several others are listed) ⁴ He dedicated the book to Bishop Ryle who was then Dean of Westminster. In 1915 T. & T. Clark issued a “second edition” of the book, but in his two-line Preface to it Charles wrote: “The present edition is a reprint of the first. Only one or two corrections are introduced” (vi).

   

437

are in the main valid he is fully convinced, though in detail they may require occasionally drastic revision. Apart from these he holds that much of the Apocalypse must remain a sealed book. (vi)

At the end of the Preface Charles indicated that his home address was now 4 Little Cloisters, Westminster Abbey, his first book to note the change of address. Charles began by setting his studies within the long, complicated history of research on Revelation. Both of the first two chapters (1–49, 50–78) have the title “History of the Interpretation of the Apocalypse,” with the second heading differing from the first only by the addition of “—Concluded.” The first chapter starts with two preliminary points. For one, he explained to the audience, as he often did, why Jewish apocalypses were pseudonymous—due to the dominance of the law—and the Christian Revelation was not (new disclosures from God allowed the prophet to appear under his own name).⁵ The other point was to find “a provisional canon of criticism by means of which we shall be able to recognise the right method or methods of interpretation as they arise in this historical inquiry” (4). He insisted that one could not understand John’s Apocalypse apart from Jewish apocalyptic literature whose writers addressed their contemporaries, not an audience far off in the future. Similarly, John was writing to contemporaries living late in the first century .. Should one apply this contemporary-historical method to Revelation or the eschatological method according to which the whole of it is pointing to the future? For most of the book, he proposed, the contemporary-historical method was the appropriate tool, but there still remains “a certain prophetic or eschatological element in the book” (5). The ancient writer referred to real events and kingdoms, so one should not read the Apocalypse in an allegorical or spiritualizing manner. There is a place, however, for use of additional methods. Charles, in lectures 1 and 2, led the audience through a dizzying array of interpretive methods that had been applied to Revelation since the late second century when substantial interaction with it is first attested. He divided his presentation into eighteen numbered sections, each with an italicized heading, in which he dealt with ten methods, some with subdivisions. It is not difficult to figure out what Charles thought of them and the ways they were applied. An example is the spiritualizing method that found, not real persons and events in

⁵ For a fuller explanation of this point Charles directed the reader to what he called his Eschatology, 173–206. He had in mind the second edition of A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life which, at least in some later formats, was given the title Eschatology.

438    ( – ) the text, but representations of other realities. With this approach, though practiced by someone so learned as Origen, “the meaning assigned to the text became wholly arbitrary, and each man found in it what each man wished to find” (12). Another approach formulated in antiquity was the recapitulation method, the idea that the units of sevens in Revelation (seals, trumpets, bowls) cover the same events although with increasing intensity so that the book is not to be read as a single sequence. As he wrote about its application by Reformed commentators, “Arbitrariness reigns supreme” (31). He also dealt with changing ways of understanding the one-thousand-year reign of Christ in Revelation 20. It became popular, not to take it in a literal sense, but to see it as a symbol for the age of the church, the time between the first and second comings of Christ. In dealing with the Middle Ages, Charles devoted extra space to Joachim of Fiore (twelfth century) who articulated a complex reading of Revelation. Charles wrote: I have dwelt, perhaps, at disproportionate length on Joachim’s and the related schools of interpretation because of their paramount influence in questions of Church and Social Reform. The common people looked to the coming seventh age predicted by Joachim for deliverance from the tyrannies and corruptions of Church and State, and the strongest weapons for assailing such evils were forged by the students of the Apocalypse. The ferment spread with every decade in depth and extent, till at last from the spiritual and intellectual travail of the ages the Reformation came to the birth. (24–5)

Some readers even found anti-papal statements in the Apocalypse; an interpretation that was to become popular with Protestant expositors. The philological method, focusing on the language of the book, arose in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries out of despair at the welter of opinions regarding Revelation. But while useful progress was made, other methods continued to be utilized. Charles was able to entertain the audience with the efforts of Isaac Newton and William Whiston (1667–1752). About the latter— the translator of Josephus—he wrote that he ventured to predict the year on which the Millennium would begin. First he fixed on 1715 and next on 1734 as the year in question; but as he had the misfortune to survive both these dates, a fresh study of his data and no doubt a larger prudence made him relegate this date to 1866—beyond the reach of his own or the next two generations. (39)

   

439

Charles clearly admired the contributions of Hugo Grotius (1583–1645), who, for explaining large parts of the Apocalypse, used the contemporaryhistorical method. He attributed “two new departures” (41) to him. One, in which he was not actually the first, was abandoning the anti-papal reading so popular among Protestants; the second was to recognize that Revelation consisted of several visions written down at different times and places, both before and after 70 .. “In this theory of Grotius we have the beginnings of a new method—that of the Literary-Critical, which is so prominent in our own day and without which several outstanding difficulties of the Apocalypse cannot be solved” (42). The contemporary-historical method was the one Charles favored, and he wrote about it in glowing terms. Against the backdrop of all sorts of fanciful readings that continued to thrive despite the advances of people like Grotius, he said: “But unreason cannot maintain itself indefinitely; at last the Contemporary-Historical Method asserted itself in a thoroughgoing but in a limited and perverse form” (43–6). Here he spoke in nearly apocalyptic terms about the rise of historical criticism in the eighteenth century. Hope at last dawns on the long journey we have taken down the centuries. From this time forward we can reckon, on the whole, on a steady advance towards the solution of the problem. Progress may have occasionally to be made by roundabout ways, wrong paths may for a time be pursued, side issues be mistaken for the problems-in-chief, and criticism thereby be obliged to retrace its steps after apparently spending its energies in vain. But, notwithstanding, possession in part of the promised land has been won, and its entire conquest is only a question of time. (44)

He made clear that some other methods could profitably be applied if one desired edification from Revelation, “but we must remember that in seeking to interpret the Apocalypse we are seeking to discover what the Apocalypse meant to its writer and its earliest readers, who were in touch with him” (56). He concluded that the only methods that made lasting contributions were the contemporary-historical and eschatological (the latter only for parts of the book), with more modest contributions from the philological approach; however, it was also necessary to use all the tools of literary criticism such as redaction and source criticism. “By means of the work of the past century, and particularly of the last fifteen years, the Apocalypse has ceased to be the hopeless riddle that the sanest and greatest scholars of earlier centuries held it to be” (77). Yet, with all the recent progress, “the land is not yet wholly possessed” (77).

440    ( – ) One remaining issue he noted was the question whether the visions in Revelation were the literary records of actual experiences. Charles clearly thought they were. He added an appendix to chapter II “The Critical Analyses of Some of the Chief Students of the Apocalypse Down to Recent Times” (185–90). These pages are filled with details (chapter and verse numbers) of the ways in which Grotius and seven more recent commentators (from the 1880s to 1908) divided the Apocalypse. In the case of Grotius, Charles indicated the passages containing the ten visions he found in the book. For the last seven experts, charts identify the parts that, according to their theories, came from the author’s text and from sources and redactions. Charles had said in the Preface that “for the convenience of the reader, an Appendix has been added, in which the critical analyses of the chief scholars of the Apocalypse are given. To furnish such details in lectures would have been impossible” (vi). At the end of the appendix he said that he had not included the work of three experts (including Julius Wellhausen): “With these scholars I hope to deal in my Commentary next year” (190). The commentary was not to appear until 1920, some seven years later. The third chapter, the point at which Charles’s own contributions come to the fore, is entitled “The Hebraic Style of the Apocalypse” (79–102). If the lectures that underlie the first two chapters were a challenge for Charles’s audience, one can imagine some serious shuffling and anxious looks during this one. He again divided the presentation by several italicized headings, although in this case he did not number them. The abnormal type of the Greek of the Apocalypse has been recently said to be characteristic of the vernacular Greek of the period, and the existence of Hebraisms strictly so called denied. These positions are untenable. The style of the Apocalypse is absolutely unique in all Greek literature, while linguistically it is more Hebraic than the Septuagint. (the subject is treated on pp. 79–83)

The passive construction “has been recently said” was primarily aimed at James Hope Moulton (1863–1917) who had stated the “untenable” positions in his A Grammar of New Testament Greek (vol. 1; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906), pp. 8–9 and based them on the evidence of the vernacular language attested in the many papyri that had been found. Charles, relying, he claimed, on his study of more than 2000 years of Greek literature (81), accounted for the writer’s unusual, indeed unique Greek style, including his misuse of cases,

   

441

by hypothesizing that “while he writes in Greek, he thinks in Hebrew” (82). Charles presented the textual foundations for his theory in the following sections. “Hebraisms in the Greek text of the Apocalypse, to some of which exceptional parallels can be found in vernacular Greek but not to others” (83–8): He offered six classes of evidence in which the writer’s Greek reflects Hebrew usage and concluded after marshalling the data: The evidence so far appears sufficient to prove the Hebraic character of the text. It is true that to most of the individual idioms analogous uses may be found exceptionally in vernacular Greek, but that such an accumulation of exceptions should be brought together within such narrow compass in a literary work must appear incredible to a sound judgment. (87–8)

“Other and still stronger grounds for the Hebraic or Semitic character of the text” (88–96): He pointed out that the author of Revelation did not use the Septuagint but the Hebrew text when quoting the Scriptures. He also seems to have translated some Hebrew documents when incorporating them into his book. His frequent resort to parallelism, strange use of participles, and employment of “pure Hebraisms” show the Hebraic nature of his language. In this section Charles cited several cases in which he thought the Authorized Version (the King James Version) translated more correctly than the Revised Version. “Passages in the Apocalypse that require to be translated into Hebrew in order to be understood” (96–102): This argument, an old one for Charles, he considered the strongest. He adduced several cases in which Greek words that seemed odd in context resulted from mistakes that could be explained when the offending terms were retroverted into Hebrew. In the fourth chapter, “Revelation VII–IX,” (103–41) Charles took up what for him was one of the problematic passages in the book and continued the study in the fifth and final chapter. This chapter too furnishes italicized headings (again not numbered) that provide a clear picture of the contents of each section. Since they are also more numerous than in any of the preceding chapters (only some of them are cited below), very little needs to be added to them by way of explanation. “Chap. vii has been misunderstood from the earliest centuries of the Christian era, and yet contains the key to the right interpretation of some of the immediately following chapters” (103–4). He acknowledged that in the small space afforded by two lectures he would not be able to treat all the

442    ( – ) perplexing issues in Revelation 7–9; his aim was simply to “remove the chief difficulties” in order to grasp what the writer was doing in this part of the book. In the next two sections (104–6), he summarized the contents of Revelation 7, noting especially the two visions in 7:1–8 and 7:9–17 and their two themes: the one having to do with “the safeguarding of the true Israel; the other, the final blessedness of those who are to be martyred in the coming persecution” (105). The particularism evident in the first and the universalism in the second had led a number of critics to posit different authors for the two. “But the relative unity of the chapter is to be maintained, and the two sections of the chapter are to be taken as referring to the same body of Christians, only under different conditions” (106–7). He mentioned a number of recent scholars who held this position and expressed pleasure that his own independent study had put him in such distinguished company. “vii. 9–17 is from the hand of our Apocalyptist” (107–9), since the universalism in the passage comported with the teaching of the author, and the diction of the unit harmonized with his style. “The Apocalypse consists of a whole body of visions experienced at different times and committed apparently on each occasion to writing” (109–10, something Grotius had first proposed). Charles thought some of the visions dated from ca. 67 .., while most of them came from 92–5 .. “vii. 1–8 is derived, so far as the form goes, from our Apocalyptist” (110–11). The form as well as the diction are from the author, but the content—the four winds of destruction and sealing the 144,000—“is borrowed from Jewish sources” (111). “vii. 1–3 from a Jewish source” (111–13): The angels associated with the four destructive winds fail to appear elsewhere in Revelation, thus suggesting to many that they derive from an existing tradition. Charles adduced several pseudepigraphic texts containing similar material. “ . . . the episode in vii. 1–3 is introduced because a new order of plagues is about to ensue, and a pause must be made to secure the faithful against these plagues. In the verses that follow we learn that the faithful are secured by sealing them with the signet of God” (113). “vii. 4–8 derived originally from a Jewish source” (113–14). The verses regarding the sealing of the 144,000 came from such a source. Not only are the tribes named, but Dan is missing, and the name of Judah is first (his prominence is a Christian touch). “We conclude, therefore, that vii. 1–3 and vii. 4–8 go back to Jewish sources, but have been recast by our author and given a new significance” (114).

   

443

“Four irregularities in the list of the Twelve Tribes and their explanation” (114–18): Besides the two he had just mentioned, he added that Manasseh, Joseph’s son, is included as well as Joseph; and the following tribes figure in an unusual order (the tribes are named in 7:4–8). For the last of the irregularities, Charles accepted the suggestion that verses 7–8 should be moved before the final clause in verse 5. If this is done an order of tribes, arranged according to their mothers, results. Manasseh, a grandson of Rachel, replaced Dan in the list because of the tradition that the antichrist would come from the latter’s tribe. “What is the meaning of the Sealing?” (118–32). The question stands over a series of subsections that take up individual aspects of the inquiry. Charles first drew attention to the danger of being misled here by parallels in the Old Testament. Virtually every commentator had concluded that the sealing was to “secure against physical evil, as in the Old Testament⁶ and Judaism” (120). That did not fit its use in the Apocalypse where the sign sealing them was placed on their foreheads after, not before, the eschatological woes have occurred (121–2). One commentator, recognizing this problem, proposed that the sealing was to protect them from spiritual apostasy during the last trial. Charles had accepted this view for a time as he wrote his commentary but eventually rejected it because 9:4 suggested that the sealing was to protect the 144,000 from “demonic agencies” (123). Those agencies were to be active during the reign of the antichrist. Charles then argued that there were traces of this interpretation in the first three Christian centuries. So, the proper interpretation of the sealing was known but was transferred to a new context—to baptism which was understood to seal a person through the sign of the cross as belonging to God and to protect him from demonic forces. He also described the kinds of demonic dangers anticipated for the last days in Jewish sources. Charles turned to the problems of who the 144,000 and the great crowd from every nation and language in Revelation 7 might be. He summarized his answer: “Chap. vii refers not to all Christians, but only to the generation of believers contemporary with the author, first as militant on earth, vii. 1–8, and next as triumphant in heaven, vii. 9–17” (132). He explained in the next two sections that “Those sealed in vii. 4–8 are the spiritual Israel of the Apocalyptist’s own time” (133), while “The great multitude of vii. 9–17 are identical with the 144,000” (136). Since the 144,000 are the spiritual Israel, not the physical one, they come from all nations and languages. The number is ⁶ An example he mentioned was the blood of the lamb on doorposts that protected the Israelites at the first Passover.

444    ( – ) merely symbolic and of no great significance to the author; the sealing was the key element of the tradition he adapted. Although Charles identified the groups in the first and second part of Revelation 7 as the same, he admitted that 7:9–17 “was originally a description of all the blessed after the final judgment” (137). One reason for claiming a different original meaning was that 7:9–17 finds a parallel in 21:1–8 which deals with the whole heavenly company of the blessed after the judgment. In its context in ch. 7, however, it “refers to the martyrs of the great tribulation” (139). He ended the chapter by stating that the white garments (Revelation 7:9, 13–14) are “the spiritual bodies which the martyrs receive before the final judgment” (140), a point he hoped to demonstrate elsewhere. The last chapter is entitled “Summary of Conclusions Already Arrived at in Chapter VII” (142–4; the title is the same in the Table of Contents). This is a strange title for the whole chapter and, though it is not printed that way, looks more like the heading of the first section in which he summarized his conclusions from the previous chapter—something he did on pp. 142–5, at times repeating verbatim his earlier words. The rest of the chapter is a study of Revelation 8–9. He emphasized to the audience the importance of remembering the correct meaning of the sealing in Revelation 7 if they wished to understand 8–9. His italicized headings can again serve as a guide to the argument in the chapter (only some are quoted here). “Chapter viii and its meaning” (145–6): The chapter begins with opening the seventh seal and the silence in heaven for one half hour. There follows a reference to seven angels with seven trumpets. Revelation 7:4–8 had prepared the reader for more plagues, but the first four trumpets and associated “colourless” plagues (8:7–12) seem strange in the context because the demonic beings suggested by 7:4–8 do not begin acting until the fifth trumpet is blown at 9:1. Thus the first four trumpets not only arrest the natural development of the book, but they also introduce an alien element at this stage. Something must be wrong here, and we are thus a priori disposed to doubt the originality of the first four Trumpets. (146) Hence the next section is called “Critical grounds for the rejection of viii. 7–12 as an interpolation” (146). He maintained that the heptadic structure of the trumpets was “secondary,” unlike for the seals and bowls. He formulated five arguments to this effect, such as a conflict between trumpets one and six regarding the state of the grass, and the somewhat non-Johannine diction in the sections on trumpets one through four. “Accordingly, we cannot but regard them as inserted by a later editor of the book, who failed to

   

445

apprehend the meaning of the Sealing, and the movement of the author’s thought”. (151) “Changes in the text introduced by the interpolator of viii. 7–12” (151–2): Revelation 8:2, which mentions the seven angels with the seven trumpets, is an intrusion (they do nothing at all until v. 6). He then gave three further reasons for his assessment of 8:2 (e.g., it separates the silence in v. 1 from its continuation in v. 3 which shows the silence in heaven allowed the prayers of the suffering righteous to be heard).⁷ The original position of 8:2 was probably after 8:5; then came 8:6 followed by 8:13 (from which he now had to remove “the other”). After giving the text according to his reconstruction, he asked two questions about it. First, “Who is the angel in viii. 3? Michael or the angel of peace? Michael probably in the original form of the chapter” (158–9). The identification was suggested by Jewish tradition. “But in the existing form of the text this angel, who cannot be Michael, may be the angel of peace” (159–61). The angel in 8:3 is distinguished from the seven in 8:2 (these Charles took to be the great angels) and thus could not be Michael, who was one of the seven. Second, “Were there two altars in the heavenly temple? Difficulties inherent in such a conception” (161–3). Revelation 8:3 (compare v. 5) says the other angel stood at the altar and later mentions offering the saints’ prayers “on the golden altar that is before the throne” (NRSV). Charles asserted that one need not assume, as most expositors had, that the heavenly temple reproduced all features of the earthly one and devoted the next sections to the ways in which the heavenly temple was depicted in the Testament of Levi which reinterpreted Isaiah 6 (163–8). He argued against the idea that the Apocalypse refers to two altars in the heavenly temple. There is only one, the altar of incense, according to early Christian texts; Jewish texts, too, deal with only one altar (169–72). So, in the Apocalypse, which uses Isaiah’s vision in which there is just one altar, there was a single altar, the altar of incense which was inside the temple. He had to admit in the end that this altar shared some of the characteristics of the altar of burnt offerings (178). Charles brought the last chapter to a close by offering his reconstruction of the interpolated “apocalypse” in 8:7–12. It was composed in verse, with each of the first three trumpets receiving five lines. This entailed, he believed, that the fourth trumpet was treated in the same way. With a generous dose of textual surgery, he produced a text that met his expectations. ⁷ He said that this interpretation of the silence, which first occurred to him when he saw the intrusive nature of 8:2 and realized the secondary character of vv. 7–12, had been lost for 1800 years.

446    ( – ) Studies in the Apocalypse reveals Charles doing work preparatory to writing a full commentary on Revelation. It is, typically, most detailed and technical— more so perhaps than an audience could absorb from a speaker. By this time, he had read the huge bibliography on the Apocalypse that had grown up over the centuries and was most enthusiastic about the progress made recently in explaining the book. Oddly, in chs. 1–2 Charles did not excuse the prenineteenth century expositors on the grounds that they lacked access to the comparative material that had lately become available—in goodly part through Charles’s work. He wrote that Jewish apocalyptic texts were the essential background against which to read the Apocalypse, but most of the people who had proposed explanations of it had never seen a Jewish apocalypse other than parts of Daniel. “An Attempt to Recover the Original Order of the Text of Revelation XX. 4–XXII,” Proceedings of the British Academy 7 (1915–16) 37–55. Charles’s ongoing engagement with Revelation revealed itself two years later in article form. A note situated between the title and the text of the article reports that it was “Read March 10, 1915.” Minute Book 3 (1912–1919) of the Council of the British Academy states regarding the meeting of October 28, 1914, that “Canon Charles expressed his willingness to read a paper on March 10th,” next, on “An attempt to reconstruct the Source or Sources used by John in Rev. xvii 1–10, xviii’” (p. 56). The minutes for the Ordinary Meeting of Wednesday, March 10, 1915 report that “The Rev. Canon Charles, Fellow of the Academy, read a paper on ‘An Attempt to recover the Original Order of the Text of Revelation XX.4–XXII’” (p. 68). The topic had thus changed from the time Charles agreed to deliver the paper. The minutes went on to note that “A discussion followed in which the Rev Professor A. C. Headlam, the Dean of Westminster [= Herbert Edward Ryle], Dr. Gaster, and Dr. Büchler took part. Canon Charles responded” (p. 68). This may be the place to insert a note about another publication of Charles in the same volume of the Proceedings. The Minutes for the November 25, 1914 meeting of the Council say, “It was further resolved to ask Dr. Charles to write the notice of the late Canon Driver” (Minute Book 3, p. 58). S. R. Driver was one of the original Fellows of the Academy and had been a member of the two-person committee (with Margoliouth) chosen to evaluate Charles’s 1893 book on Enoch. The facts that Charles was asked to write the obituary article for him—these were fairly substantial pieces—and that Driver was one of those who had nominated Charles to be a Fellow of the British Academy suggest that they had had a close relationship during the many years they were together in Oxford. Charles did not actually write the notice about Driver

   

447

because another request intervened. “The Rev. Canon Charles expressed his willingness to write the Notice of the late Dr. Cheyne for ‘the Proceedings’, and stated that Dr. Cook would be willing to write the Notice of the late Rev. Canon Driver” (March 10, 1915 meeting of the Council, p. 65). As it turned out, Cook also could not write the notice, so Charles asked Dr. Cowley to do so, which he did (minutes for the Council meeting of November 24, 1915, p. 82). “Thomas Kelly Cheyne 1841–1915,” Proceedings of the British Academy for 1915–16, volume 7, pp. 545–51. Charles wrote a warm tribute in memory of Cheyne. It will be recalled that Cheyne had become a friend of Charles soon after he and Mary moved to Oxford where Cheyne was the Oriel Professor of Interpretation of Holy Scripture as well as Canon of Rochester (1886–1908). About the move by Charles and his wife to Oxford, D’Arcy wrote: “It was a happy choice, for at Oxford there sprang up a warm friendship with that great scholar, Dr. T. K. Cheyne.”⁸ Cheyne had been an early advocate of higher-critical methods in the study of the Old Testament and had suffered some rejection for his stands. But, by the time he met Charles, there was a growing acceptance of the approach, at least in some circles. He was, as noted earlier, the one who first suggested to Charles that he write a book on Enoch. Although they must have had other contacts and associations over the years, Charles certainly had dealings with Cheyne when he wrote several articles for the Encyclopaedia Biblica (4 volumes, 1899–1903) of which Cheyne, with Sutherland Black, was co-editor. Charles, who described himself as “a large contributor” (548) to the Encylopaedia, defended Cheyne against the charge that, as someone had apparently written, the Encyclopaedia was “essentially the work of Canon Cheyne” (quoted on p. 548). He pointed out that Cheyne had indeed done an amazing amount of editing and even writing of articles, but a reader could see that authors of the individual entries frequently took positions at variance with his. Charles considered it the best encyclopedia available, but he did acknowledge the influence in it of “Cheyne’s strange critical prepossession, which, appearing only slightly in the first volume, gathers strength as it advances in the three that follow, and becomes a dominant obsession in all his subsequent writings” (549). That strange “prepossession” which embarrassed friend and foe alike was Cheyne’s belief that the word for Egypt in the Old Testament (mis: raim) was ⁸ “A Brief Memoir,” xxiii.

448    ( – ) often confused with mus: ri, a name for a kingdom in North Arabia. Among the exciting consequences that followed from the thesis was that the Israelites were never in Egypt and therefore there was no Exodus from it. The nation had actually been in the area of Mus: ri. Cheyne applied his idea to the whole Old Testament and published the bizarre results over the final twelve years of his life (1904–15). D’Arcy, who tended to phrase matters in a kindly way, wrote about the relations between Cheyne and Charles: Dr. Cheyne’s friendship and advice were a constant help to Charles, though the latter found himself compelled to part company with his friend on certain important questions. Those who can recall the critical discussions of that time will remember that Dr. Cheyne adopted some views of a striking and revolutionary kind in which he had few followers. Yet he was certainly one of the leading minds of the movement which gave to the Higher Criticism its established position in British scholarship.⁹

Cheyne’s peculiar view, the standpoint from which he wrote his last five books, proved awkward for many, but it was a painfully delicate matter for the writer of an obituary. Charles did not glide past the issue but faced it head on. In fact, he attributed the Misraim/Mu sri : : idea to “an overtaxed and in certain respects fatally injured brain” (549). Nevertheless, he urged that Cheyne, who had suffered physical infirmities through much of his life and severely so in the last years, not be judged by what he had written toward the end. “Oxford has of late years seen some of its greatest sons sink into hopeless and complete mental incapacity and imbecility. But this was not so in Cheyne’s case. His religious and devotional side, his unfailing courage and patience, his kindness and courtesy, his literary interests, his passion for knowledge, his imaginative powers, were unaffected to the last” (550). Cheyne had earlier made large scholarly contributions and had been important in Charles’s career; he acknowledged those merits fully and gratefully in the obituary of his friend. Taking up now the 1915 article, we should recall that in his 1913 book on Revelation Charles had dealt in some detail with a section from the first half of the Apocalypse (chs. 7–9); in the article in the Proceedings he turned to the end of the book and in so doing set forth a significant aspect of his understanding of Revelation—“the greatest of all the Apocalypses ever written” (38). The beginning of the article would have a familiar ring to readers of his earlier ⁹ “A Brief Memoir,” xxv.

   

449

works. Once more he felt the need to present his theory as to why the Jewish apocalypses of the time were pseudonymous while the Revelation of John was not. He next underscored what he considered two significant aspects of the Apocalypse: “ . . . when closely studied from an ample knowledge of the period, it exhibits, except in a few passages, and especially in chap. xviii, a structural unity and a steady development of thought from the first chapter to the close of xx. 3” (38). One expects such structure and consistency, not from prophecy, but from an apocalypse “which is designed to be a philosophy of history and religion from the standpoint of the author” (38)—another familiar thought in Charles’s publications. In light of the above traits in Revelation, “we are all the more astonished that the three closing chapters of the Apocalypse are all but wholly lacking in these characteristics and—so far from advancing steadily to the consummation that all the preceding chapters postulate—exhibit many incoherences and self-contradictory elements” (38). After noting that he had drawn attention to the problem already in 1893,¹⁰ he listed three passages that “make it impossible for us to accept the text as it stands” (39). The three—20:7–10, 11–15, and 21:1–4—figure after the depiction of the millennial kingdom in 20:1–6. They describe the removal of evil with its agents and their followers, destruction of the old heaven and earth, casting of death and Hades into a lake of fire, the final judgment, the arrival of the new heaven and earth, the descent of the New Jerusalem from heaven, and God’s dwelling with humanity. So, the great struggle with evil is completed, and there can no longer be wickedness, suffering, and dying. The “steady development” that one expects—Charles admitted that, to grasp the point, “certain verses and glosses” needed excising and some “disarrangements of the text set right” (39)—and indeed finds in the book has reached its end. Revelation 21:1–4, the last of the three sections, is not, however, the end of the book. With all of the above information in mind, we naturally conclude that our author will not lightly fall into contradiction, even of a minor sort, in the last three chapters. But unhappily this is not our experience as we study them; and at last we stand aghast at the hopeless

¹⁰ He was referring to his The Book of Enoch, 45, in a small-print note on Revelation 21:1, 2 (in the section of the Introduction devoted to the “Influence of Enoch on the New Testament”). There he wrote: We have here a new heaven and a new earth, and a new Jerusalem coming down from heaven: yet in xxii. 14, 15 all classes of sinners are said to be without the gates of the city. But if there were a new earth, this would be impossible. This contradiction may have arisen from combining the divergent Messianic conceptions which appear in Enoch. Cf. xlv. 4, 5; xc. 29.

450    ( – ) mental confusion which dominates the present structure of these chapters, and are compelled to ask if they can possibly come from his hand, and, in case they do, to ask further, if they have been preserved as they left his hand. (39–40)

He then adduced a series of passages that follow Revelation 20:6 and conflict with the situation reached in that verse. What especially exercised him was that in several places at the end of the book—after wickedness has been destroyed, the judgment has taken place, and the new creation is present— evil still exists. He cited 22:15 which claims that “Outside [of the city] are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood” (NRSV). This passage and others such as 22:2 and 21:24–7 could be meaningful only in connection with the millennial kingdom, since the statements presuppose its existence and not the presence of the new heaven and earth with the descent of the New Jerusalem (40–1). Two solutions to the disorder suggested themselves: one was that much of Revelation 20–2 is not from the author but from various other sources; a second held that if the chapters are from the author they are not properly arranged (41). Charles rejected the first solution because it failed to explain the disorder at the end of the book but thought a greater difficulty confronting it was the linguistic unity of chs. 20–2—something the critics had not examined sufficiently. To the conclusion, in fact, that, with the exception of a few verses, chapters xx–xxii are from the same hand to which we owe the bulk of the preceding chapters, a close and prolonged study has slowly but irresistibly brought me. If, then, this is so, we must conclude that the text in xx–xxii is disarranged in an astonishing degree and does not at present stand in the orderly sequence originally designed by our author. (41)

Charles doubted such disorder was accidental. Rather, his study had brought him in early 1914 to the hypothesis that John died either as a martyr or by a natural death, when he had completed i–xx. 3 of his work, and that the materials for its completion, which were for the most part ready in a series of independent documents, were put together by a faithful but unintelligent disciple in the order which he thought right. (42, italicized in the text)

   

451

He produced some data to support his thesis but assured the audience that “the full evidence can be given only in my commentary, by far the greater part of which is already completed” (42). He discussed several texts dealing with the New Jerusalem and a mission to the Gentiles that should have appeared, he believed, directly after the reference to the millennial kingdom (the heavenly Jerusalem was the seat of that realm) and before the final judgment (parallels in Jewish apocalyptic texts supported his reading). Charles hypothesized that there are descriptions of two heavenly cities in the text. The passages regarding the first one assume that the present earth still exists (he found this future Jerusalem in 21:9–22:2, 14–15, 17). It functions as the center of the old earth, and the nations stream to it (the evil ones in 21:26–7 are not allowed to enter it but must remain outside). The other heavenly city is the subject of 21:1–4c; 22:3–5, and it descends after the old heaven and earth have vanished and their new counterparts have arrived. Sin is no more, and suffering and dying have passed away. From the evidence of these passages Charles concluded: “after xx. 3 our author had intended to add a description of the Heavenly Jerusalem that was to come down from heaven to earth and be the habitation of Christ and the martyrs that accompanied Him from heaven in their glorified bodies; and also that this very description has been preserved in certain sections of xxi–xxii” (46, italicized in the text). He thought only scattered fragments of the description of the second heavenly Jerusalem remained toward the end of the book—21:1–4c; 22:3–5, the two passages mentioned above. Most of the remaining pages summarize what he took to be the original order of passages (47–8) and his “Rearranged Translation” (48–55) reflecting this order. As Charles saw the matter, the original sequence presented the millennial kingdom followed by a description of the first heavenly Jerusalem where Christ and the martyrs reign for a thousand years and to which the nations come. Charles added an intriguing note at this point: “Though it is not stated, we must conclude that alike the glorified martyrs and the Heavenly Jerusalem are withdrawn from the earth before the final judgement” (48; see also p. 51). Apparently, not everything, even with his “corrections,” worked out exactly as he expected. He supplied various footnotes to his rendering and explanation of the altered section, alerting the reader to necessary emendations and the like. To illustrate how he had to rearrange the text to bring out its “original” order, this is his emended sequence for much of ch. 22: vv. 6–7, 16, 13, 12, 10, 11 (though he placed brackets around it, marking it as a gloss), 18–19, 8–9, 20–1. The unintelligent disciple of John must have failed profoundly in his attempt to complete his teacher’s book!

452    ( – )

The 1920 Book A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John, with Introduction, Notes, and Indices, also the Greek Text and English Translation, by R. H. Charles, D. Litt., D.D., Archdeacon of Westminster, Fellow of the British Academy (2 volumes; The International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark/New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1920). We have seen that, according to F. C. Burkitt, all of Charles’s earlier work was preparatory to his commentary on Revelation. About it, D’Arcy also provided some information: His aim was to view it afresh in the light of his long studies, and to examine it fully. In carrying out this intention, he spared no pains to get as perfect a text as possible. He visited the Vatican where the Prefect of the Library, who later became Cardinal Ehrle,¹¹ most kindly put all the desired manuscripts at his disposal. He also visited the Laurentian Library at Florence and finally St. Mark’s at Venice. He collated the Uncials afresh from the photographs published by Kenyon and Lake¹² respectively. He had twenty-two Cursives specially photographed, and called to his aid all the valuable versions in Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Ethiopic. The result of all these researches is to be found in his great Commentary in two volumes which was published in 1920.¹³

If Charles made a trip to Rome, Florence, and Venice after moving to the Little Cloisters in 1913, the journey must have taken place that year or the next for Ehrle to have been the prefect who helped him, since it appears that he was not specifically associated with the library after 1914. Charles made reference to his visits to the Vatican, the Laurentian, and the St. Mark’s Libraries on p, xi of his Preface. There, somewhat differently than D’Arcy reported, he mentioned the twenty-two cursives that he used, eleven of which he had personally examined in these libraries and had photographed.

¹¹ Franz Ehrle, S. J. (1845–1934), became the Prefect of the Vatican Library in 1895 and held the post until 1914 (“Franz Ehrle,” Wikipedia, accessed 2-6-18). ¹² Frederic Kenyon, Facsimiles of Biblical Manuscripts in the British Museum (London: Printed by Order of the Trustees, 1900); Codex Alexandrinus in Reduced Photographic Facsimile (London: British Museum, 1915); Kirsopp Lake, Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus: The New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1911). ¹³ “A Brief Memoir,” xxviii.

   

453

The Preface opens with Charles’ account of how the project began. The commentary appeared in the International Critical Commentary series, a series that seeks to bring together all the relevant aids to exegesis—linguistic and textual no less than archaeological, historical, literary and theological—with a level of comprehension and quality of scholarship unmatched by any other series. No attempt has been made to secure a uniform theological or critical appraisal of the biblical text; contributors have been invited for their scholarly distinction, not for their adherence to any one school of thought.¹⁴

The publisher of what was to become one of the great commentary series on the Bible—T. & T. Clark of Edinburgh—approached Charles as far back as 1894 with an invitation to author the commentary on Revelation for the series. By that time, he had written his 1893 volume on Enoch and was preparing his edition of Jubilees (and other projects), so he was a published scholar in the field of apocalyptic literature, but the invitation seems a high honor for someone at such an early stage in his academic career. We have reviewed the many studies that engaged Charles’ attention after 1894, including some on the Book of Revelation. In addition to comments in books dealing with broader subjects, he had contributed the entry “Revelation” to the tenth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1911), the 1913 volume Studies in the Apocalypse, and his 1915 paper on the original order of Revelation 20:4–22:21 (his Lectures on the Apocalypse, published in 1922, contains his 1919 Schweich Lectures which he delivered before the commentary was published). He confessed, however, that his earlier studies (referring especially to the Encyclopaedia Britannica entry) had left him uncomfortable and convinced that “if satisfactory conclusions were to be reached, they could only be reached by working first hand from the foundations” (ix). His new, ¹⁴ From the website of Bloomsbury Publishing, accessed 2-14-2018. Similar formulations appear in some of the ICC volumes. John Skinner, in the Genesis commentary, wrote: “It has been my aim, in accordance with the programme of that series, to supply the fuller treatment of critical, exegetical, literary, and archaeological questions, which the present state of scholarship demands” (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1910] vii). Samuel Rolles Driver, who was one of the editors of the series, authored the first volume to appear in it. In the Preface he wrote: The aim of the present volume (in accordance with the plan of the series, of which it forms part) is to supply the English reader with a Commentary which, so far as the writer’s powers permit it, may be abreast of the best scholarship and knowledge of the day. (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895] xi) Driver added (xiii) that “Homiletical comments . . . are purposely excluded from the plan of the series . . . .”

454    ( – ) intensive studies demonstrated that, although the Apocalypse seemed an unlikely subject on which to say anything new, it was actually “a field of research infinitely richer than any of those to which my earlier studies had been devoted” (ix–x). Two “grounds” had led him to alter his attitude toward Revelation. The first was his analysis of Jewish apocalyptic literature. “The knowledge thereby acquired helped to solve many problems, which could only prove to be hopeless enigmas to scholars unacquainted with this literature” (x). The second was an in-depth study of John’s Greek against the backdrop of the Septuagint and the Greek used by John’s contemporaries, including Jewish Palestinian authors. He thought that the “disintegrated theories” about the composition of Revelation that he had surveyed in the first chapters of his Studies in the Apocalypse usually resulted from scholars’ lack of appreciation for John’s style which remained consistent throughout the book. Their failure to understand John’s Greek had led expositors to deny to him some passages that were obviously from him and to attribute to him some that were as clearly not his words. Charles had written before about the distinctive nature of the Greek language in the Apocalypse—e.g., the writer’s defiance of some grammatical rules—but he underscored even more forcefully in the commentary how important it was to understanding the character of the text. In fact, he wrote an entire grammar of John’s “solecistic” (x) Greek for inclusion in his Introduction (cxvii–clix). As his grasp of John’s style grew, he wrote and rewrote the chapters of the commentary (xi). But gaining a deeper appreciation of the way in which John expressed himself required more. The necessity of mastering John’s style and grammar necessitated further, a first-hand study of the chief MSS and Versions, and in reality the publication of a new text and a new translation. When once convinced of this necessity, I approached Sir John Clark and laid before him the need of such a text and such a translation. After consulting with Dr. Plummer,¹⁵ the General Editor of the Series, Sir John acceded to my request with a courtesy and an enthusiasm I have never yet met with in any publisher. (xi)

¹⁵ Alfred Plummer (1841–1926), whose colleagues as editors of the ICC were S. R. Driver and C. A. Briggs, contributed three volumes to the series. Sir John Clark (1859–1924) headed the Scottish publishing firm that bore his family’s name and issued the ICC series. Several letters exchanged between him and Charles in 1923–24 are preserved in the NLS collection, but not ones relating to the commentary.

   

455

Charles provided a few hints of another kind about the long process of writing the commentary¹⁶ and about disagreement between parts of it. For the order of the text and the readings adopted, and for any critical discussion of the text in the Apparatus Criticus, I am myself wholly responsible. The readings followed in the Commentary do not always agree with those in the Greek Text and in the Translation. Where they disagree, the Text, Translation, and Introduction represent my final conclusions. But these disagreements only affect matters of detail as a rule, and not essential questions of method. The Text represents only a fuller development of the methods applied in the Commentary. (xi)

Charles again had suffered from the limits of contemporary printing possibilities. Parts of the long work must have been set in type and thus were not changeable when Charles reached new textual conclusions. The commentary itself turns out to be the least up-to-date section in the work. There are a number of places where he tells the reader that something in the Introduction replaced or corrected what was found in the commentary (e.g., lvi, lxi, lxii n. *, lxix n. 2, xci, cxx n. 1). Or, as he reported about the text and translation: “The Translation is based on the text. While the text diverges in many passages from that accepted in the Commentary, the Translation diverges from the text practically only in one (ii, 27)” (xiii–xiv). Charles offered, one might say, a personal revelation in writing about the Apparatus Criticus in the commentary. For the constant checking of manuscripts and the minute, technical detail involved in creating the record of variant readings he, now around sixty years of age,¹⁷ needed help: “ . . . since owing to over twenty years spent largely in the collation of MSS and the formation of texts in several languages, I felt my eyes were wholly unequal to this fresh strain” (xi). Rev. Fred Shipley Marsh (1886–1953)¹⁸ came to his assistance. He did a huge amount of work with two of the uncials ¹⁶ The obituary of Charles in The Times of London (Monday, February 2, 1931 [45736], p. 14) spoke about delays in publication of the commentary: “The splendid edition which he planned of ‘The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament,’ in two volumes, was fortunately issued shortly before the War. But his great work on the Book of the Revelation of St. John, which every Apocalyptist hopes to edit, was long held back by the serious rise in the cost of production. All through the War Charles labored at it, with a succession of students to help him.” ¹⁷ The inference about his age arises from the phrase “over twenty years spent” on working with manuscripts in the quotation that follows. If the process started in the early 1890s, he would have been speaking about a time somewhere toward the mid-1910s when he was devoting more time to the commentary on Revelation. Charles turned sixty in 1915. ¹⁸ Marsh was a scholar of Syriac at Cambridge University, where, as Charles noted, he was in 1920 the Dean of Selwyn College. In 1935 he was to become the Lady Margaret’s Professor of Divinity

456    ( – ) (A [Alexandrinus] and ‫[ א‬Sinaiticus]), the twenty-two cursives, and the versions, other than the Ethiopic which Charles himself handled. Marsh had proceeded through the first five chapters, when he was summoned to serve as a chaplain in the World War, an absence that lasted for three years (1916–19). Four others then stepped in to help with various parts of the work on the apparatus of variant readings,¹⁹ and Marsh himself eventually returned to complete his labors. Charles also thanked Rev. George Horner for information about readings in the Sahidic and Bohairic versions, and Grenfell for informing him about papyrus fragments of Revelation. Rev. A. Ll. Davies assisted with the index (xii–xiii). So, Charles had a small team of scholars who worked with him to produce the massive commentary. He assured the reader that, while the others did much textual work for which he was deeply grateful, he had personally checked thousands of their readings for accuracy. Charles called Revelation a “Book of Songs” and waxed lyrical about its many poetic sections, especially those regarding the “martyred Church”: A faith immeasurable, an optimism inexpugnable, a joy inextinguishable press for utterance and take form in anthems of praise and gladness and thanksgiving, as the Seer follows in vision the varying fortunes of the world struggle, till at last he sees evil fully and finally destroyed, righteousness established for evermore, and all the faithful—even the weakest of God’s servants amongst them—enjoying everlasting blessedness in the eternal city of God, bearing His name on their foreheads, and growing more and more into His likeness. (xiv–xv)

D’Arcy referred to conversations he had with Charles as he worked on the commentary. From the many talks which the writer had with him at this time on the subject then engaging his thoughts, it was evident that the book had exerted a great fascination upon his mind. He described it as a “glorification of martyrdom” and as a witness to the unshaken faith of the primitive church. Its central and most characteristic passage he found in the fourth and fifth (“F. S. Marsh,” Wikipedia, accessed 2-7-2018). Another of his contributions to the commentary was a set of three tables mapping the readings of various textual witnesses (see clxiii where Charles acknowledged this; the tables [I–III] are on the next two pages). ¹⁹ One of these four, Professor Robert Malcolm Gwynn (1877–1962), was from Charles’s old school, Trinity College, Dublin where, from 1907–19 he was Lecturer in Divinity. There he also served as chaplain from 1911–19 and from 1916–56 as Professor of Biblical Greek (“Robert Gwynn,” Wikipedia, accessed 2-7-2018), a position Charles had earlier held.

   

457

chapters. There it will be seen that while the threatened company of Christian believers on earth was dreading extermination by the mighty and ruthless power of the Roman Empire, the seer was able to lift his eyes to heaven, behold the vision of the throne of God, hear the great ascriptions proclaiming His omnipotence and glory, and the new song of praise because the Lamb that was slain was revealed as the Lord of human destiny. On earth the blackest outlook, a threatening of death and destruction; in Heaven calm assurance and certainty.²⁰

His commentary, whose publication had been delayed by the World War, was now appearing, Charles believed, at an opportune time, since Revelation had an important message for his contemporaries who had “witnessed the overthrow of the greatest conspiracy of might against right that has occurred in the history of the world” (xv). Although the latest form of human arrogance had been defeated, the Apocalypse taught that warfare against evil would not cease and that both individuals and states must follow the dictates of Christ.²¹ In any case, no matter how many individuals, societies, kingdoms, or races may rebel against such obligations, the warfare against sin and darkness must go on, and go on inexorably, till the kingdom of this world has become the kingdom of God and of His Christ. (xv)

When in May of 1920 he signed the Preface to the hefty commentary that had been his work for nearly twenty-five years, Charles felt strong emotions— ones of “thankfulness and regret” (xvi). He was thankful to have been able to complete the project, despite its shortcomings. His regret was in “breaking with a study which has been at once the toil and the delight of so many years” (xvi). He dedicated the book to his wife, also in moving terms: “To my wife to whom I am immeasurably beholden in this as in my other studies but in this beyond all the rest” (vii).

²⁰ “A Brief Memoir,” xxviii–xxix. ²¹ Charles’s assessment of the Great War and related issues caught the attention of his reviewers (see below), among them Shirley Jackson Case, who wrote: But as an attempt to read objectively the mind of the author and to set forth the content of his book in the light of its immediate purpose and historical environment, they fall far short of the final goal. One doubts whether such a goal could ever be reached by an interpreter who can write that the outcome of the recent world-war is “the greatest fulfillment of the prophecy of the Apocalypse” (p. xv), and that this document “lays down the only true basis for national ethics and international law.” (p. xxii) (Journal of Religion 1 [1921] 437)

458    ( – ) Charles appended a note to his Preface in which he offered advice to the reader. In view of how large and in some ways difficult the two-volume work was, he urged the “serious” and the “ordinary” student to read the English translation first (it is in the second volume). Next the user should read sections 1 (on the author of Revelation and the plan of his book) and 4 (about the editor of Revelation) in the Introduction “and such others as these may suggest to him.” The serious student should then tackle the grammar of John’s Greek that Charles had written (section 13 of the Introduction) so as to be prepared to make maximal use of the commentary proper (xvi). In the first section of the 170-page Introduction (xxi–cxci) Charles offered a short account of the seer and his book and a unit on the plan of Revelation. The section sketches views that he had expressed before and that he would in later pages defend at greater length. Here he reiterated that John, a speaker of Aramaic who knew Hebrew well, was from Galilee²² and later in life moved to Ephesus where he learned Greek imperfectly. The course of his life explains his unique way of writing Greek. The Book of Revelation consists of a prologue (1:1–3), the apocalypse proper that is divided into seven parts, and a short epilogue (parts of chs. 21–22). John wrote the book around 95 .. but used older material, some of it written by himself, dating from the reigns of the emperors Nero (54–68) and Vespasian (69–79). It proceeds in a consistent, orderly manner throughout (with a couple of anticipatory sections in chs. 7, 10–11, and 14), until the end, 20:4–22:21, where “a very unintelligent disciple” (xxii) of John made a mishmash of the materials his master left behind. The second and third parts of the Introduction take up the authorship of the Johannine writings (xxix–l). Charles distinguished the John of Revelation from the John who wrote the Gospel and Epistles of John. The latter was probably John the Elder mentioned in early Christian sources; he may have been part of the circle to which the writer of Revelation belonged and was possibly even his pupil (cf. xxii). Charles went to great lengths to show that the writer of Revelation and the author of the Fourth Gospel, although they were related in some fashion, were different people, judging by their grammar, diction, and vocabulary. He argued in similar detail that the author of the Gospel of John also wrote the Epistles of John. Neither writer, the one of Revelation or the person who penned the Gospel and the Epistles, was the Apostle John. Charles found this distinction between three individuals named John most helpful in clearing up a problem that arose when it was assumed, as it often was, that the Apostle John had written the Apocalypse. The problem was that the book ²² Galilee was the area with which, as Charles had argued before, apocalypses were associated.

   

459

dated from ca. 95, yet an early Christian tradition held that the apostle had been martyred well before this. The John of the Apocalypse was not the Apostle John, and the name was not a pseudonym. Charles referred to him as John the prophet (xxxviii). He discussed the accounts in early writers about various people named John to show that the tradition about the pre-70 .. martyrdom of the Apostle John was not to be discredited. In the fourth section of the Introduction (l–lv) Charles took up what for him was a sad fact—an editor had imposed his folly on the Book of Revelation. He repeated his hypothesis that . . . John died when he had completed 1–20³ of his work, and that the materials for its completion, which were for the most part ready in a series of independent documents, were put together by a faithful but unintelligent disciple in the order which he thought right. Such was the solution of the problem I arrived at five years ago,²³ and all my subsequent study has served to confirm the truth of this hypothesis. (l, italicized in the text)

He listed seventeen passages that he considered interpolations in the text of Revelation and assigned nine of them to the editor. One of them, to record just his first example, occurs in 1:4 where the editor, said Charles, added “and from the seven spirits who are before his throne” in order to make the text Trinitarian (God and Christ are mentioned in 1:1, 2). He studied the style of the editor, who, despite his deficiencies, was a better writer of Greek than the author, and by identifying his special linguistic traits he was able to isolate the passages due to him. According to Charles, they generally manifest his ineptitude and at times contradict the teachings of the author. Dealing with the end of the book, he charged: “Nearly all the incongruities in 204–22 are due to the editor’s incompetence. But in 20¹³ there is something worse. Dishonesty has taken the part of incapacity. The editor has tampered with his master’s text” (lv). In order to make the passage teach a physical resurrection, he changed an original “the treasuries” or “the chambers,” where souls are kept, to “the sea” from which only bodies, not souls, could rise. The resulting text reads: “And the sea gave up the dead that were in it.”²⁴ Charles’s verdict on the editor and

²³ In his essay, “An Attempt to Recover the Original Order of the Text of Revelation xx, 4–xxii,” 42 (see above). The italicized words here are an almost an exact reproduction of what he had there written, also in italics. ²⁴ See Part 3 Chapter 1 for his view that the soul, not the body that perished, lived on. This seems another instance of arriving at an “original” text in harmony with his own thinking.

460    ( – ) his confidence in the powers of modern scholarship to discern his interventions stand out in his conclusion: By this [the anathema in 22:18b–19 on anyone who would change the text²⁵] and other like unwarrantable devices this shallow-brained fanatic and celibate,²⁶ whose dogmatism varies directly with the narrowness of his understanding, has often stood between John and his readers for nearly 2000 years. But such obscurantism cannot outlive the limits assigned to it; the reverent and patient research of the present age is steadily discovering and bringing to light the teaching of this great Christian prophet whose work fitly closes the Canon. (lv)

The following section flows from the preceding one and bears the title “Depravation of the Text through Interpolations, Dislocations, Lacunae, and Dittographs” (lvi–lxi). Charles here elaborated on the interpolations and the criteria he used for detecting them. While the end of Revelation is the place where problems are most prominent, Charles found “some very astonishing dislocations” (lix)—eleven of them—in 1:1—20:3 as well, along with a few lacunae (three in all), and dittographs (four). The next topic in the Introduction is Charles’s analysis of the Greek and Hebrew²⁷ sources on which the author drew in writing his book and their dates (lxii–lxv). He surveyed eight passages, constituting nearly twenty percent of the book, that gave evidence, whether in their diction or their contents,

²⁵ Regarding the curse, Charles commented: “The use of such anathemas by writers of an inferior stamp was quite common as I have shown in vol. ii. 223–4” (lv, n. 2). ²⁶ Charles inferred that the editor was a celibate from 14:3–4 where he wrongly added words to the text. The passage now refers to “the one hundred forty-four thousand who have been redeemed from the earth. It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins,” whereas the author himself had no problems with marriage. The editor’s text would entail, according to Charles, that, neither St. Peter nor any other married apostle nor any woman whatever would be allowed to follow the Lamb on Mt. Zion. But it is chastity not celibacy that is a Christian virtue. To regard marriage as a pollution is impossible in our author who compares the covenant between Christ and the Church to a marriage. . . . (lii). This is the example of Charles’s procedure that Charles Gore cited when criticizing Charles’s first book about divorce (above, Part 3 Chapter 2). ²⁷ He thought John had translated Hebrew sources into Greek. One of them exemplifies how some passages in Charles’s commentary conflict with others. As he pointed out in n. * on p. lxii (cf. also lxiii), he argued in vol. 1, pp. 300–5 that John had translated ch. 12 from a Hebrew source. He had stated his conclusion firmly, noting “the overwhelming agreement in point of idiom and diction of this chapter with the style of our author” (305, where it is in italics). “But subsequent study has obliged me to abandon this view.” He referred to a note on p. clxviii where, as he explained, stylistic considerations indicated that John had not translated a Hebrew source but found it already rendered into Greek and edited it to make it fit into his own book.

   

461

of having arisen from earlier works. Some of these sources he dated before 70 .., some to the 70s .. From this topic Charles moved in section 7 (lxv–lxxxvi) to a study of the books in the Old and New Testaments and in the Pseudepigrapha from which John borrowed—but rarely quoted—in writing the Apocalypse. From the Old Testament, he made use of many books, especially those of the prophets, while from the New Testament he drew upon the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, several of Paul’s letters, 1 Peter, and James. He also employed the Testament of Levi, 1 Enoch, and the Assumption of Moses, possibly 2 Enoch and the Psalms of Solomon. Charles maintained that John translated what he borrowed from the Hebrew Bible, not using any Greek version although he was influenced by them. He cited lists of parallel passages from these three sources; the one for the Old Testament is the longest.²⁸ Section 8 addresses the unity of the Book of Revelation (lxxxvii–xci), a topic that he had broached in earlier studies. When the interpolations of the editor are removed and the dislocations of the text set right . . . , the unity of thought and development in the Apocalypse is immeasurably greater than in any of the great Jewish apocalypses of an earlier or contemporary date. In fact, the order of development is at once logical and chronological save where our author deliberately, as in 79–17 10–11¹³ 141–11. 14. 18–20, breaks with the chronological order and in 79–17 141–11. 14. 18–20 adopts the logical, that he may show the blessed future in store for those that were faithful in the tribulation which are recounted in the text immediately preceding those sections. The dramatic movement of the book is independent of all these sections. (lxxxvii)

Revelation’s consistent diction also pointed to its unity. To be sure, the author used sources and did not succeed in editing out all “incongruities” from them. For example, the earlier circumstances when some of the sources were written are still detectable in the form they take in the book (e.g., the letters to the seven churches were written, in this case by John himself, during the reign of Vespasian [69–79]). Charles concluded from the incomplete revision of the book that the author did not live to rework it as he might have liked. The ninth section (xci–xcvii) tackles the contested issue of when Revelation was written. He turned to the external evidence first, and under this rubric

²⁸ There are four indexes at the end of vol. II, with the third of them (p. 474) being entitled “Passages in our Author based on the O. T., Pseudepigrapha and N. T.” Strangely, however, there is no list on that page, only a reference back to this section in the Introduction.

462    ( – ) dealt with the reasons why some early writers had suggested the reigns of Nero (54–68) or Trajan (98–117) as the time of composition. The ancient sources are nearly unanimous, however, in maintaining that John wrote the Apocalypse during the latter part of the reign of the Domitian (81–96). After citing them, he addressed the internal evidence. Charles’ thesis that the author used sources was a crucial part of his argument. Since the writer did not edit these earlier works fully enough, he left in them traces of their dates. Misled by those traces, some students of Revelation had concluded that the book was written before Domitian’s reign. Some passages (e.g., 17:10–11), however, showed that it came from his time, and the use of Matthew and Luke, with other indicators (e.g., evidence for enforcing the emperor cult), did as well. Charles entitled the tenth section “Circulation and Reception” (xcvii–ciii); in it he traced the earliest references to Revelation and its varying fortunes in the ancient church. He thought there were no “absolutely certain traces” (xcvii) of it in the Apostolic Fathers, although there were some possibilities in texts like the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas. He cited the evidence showing that it was “all but universally accepted” (xcviii) in wide parts of the church in the second century. In that century there were, however, two exceptions: Marcion and the group called the Alogi who attributed the Gospel of John and Revelation to the Gnostic Cerinthus and thus rejected their authority. In the third century Dionysius, the bishop of Alexandria, argued that Revelation was written by a John other than the writer of the Fourth Gospel (and of 1 John). In rejecting apostolic authorship for the Apocalypse, Dionysius in effect undermined its authority. His conclusions were adopted by others and led to doubts about its canonicity. In fact, the book is absent from a number of early canon lists. For centuries there is little evidence for it in the Eastern-Syrian and Armenian Churches. Revelation was accepted as canonical in the Western churches and eventually was in the Eastern churches as well. From this topic Charles turned to the “Object of the Seer and His Methods—Vision and Reflection” (ciii–cix). John’s aim, Charles wrote, was “to proclaim the coming of God’s kingdom on earth, and to assure the Christian Church of the final triumph of goodness, not only in the individual or within its own borders, not only throughout the kingdoms of the world and in their relations one to another, but also throughout the whole universe” (ciii). Conflict between Christ and Rome, a representative of the world’s power, will continue until the complete triumph of the kingdom. Charles called Revelation “the Divine Statute Book of International Law, as well as a manual for the individual Christian” (ciii). The seer used psychical experiences—including dreams, dreams accompanied by “translation of the

   

463

spirit,” and visions—to present his message but also called upon reason or reflection (civ). As he had before, Charles said that the value of “psychical experiences” lay not in their being actual experiences but in their source, in moral considerations, and in their influence. Now prophet and seer alike had dreams, visions, and trances, and these psychical experiences in Israel were distinguished from those of the heathen seers not by their greater reality, for they were in the main equally real in both cases, but by quite a different standard, i.e. by the source from which they sprang, the environment in which they were produced, and the influence they exercised on the will and character. (cvi)

Because a seer generally does not understand his experiences fully and describe them in literal terms, he resorts to symbols. Charles set forth several ways in which the seer nevertheless applied his reasoning to the presentation of the material: through careful arrangement (the consistently developed plan of the book), by creating allegories, by adapting traditional material, and through his conventional employment of the introductory words “I saw,” regardless whether a visual experience lay behind his words. Pages cix–cxvii contain Charles’s survey of “Some Doctrines of Our Author.” The Apocalypse speaks chiefly of what God would do and what the end will be like, but the author taught other themes more incidentally. As for the doctrine of God, it is presented in familiar terms, but it must be completed from the presentation of Christ. Charles distinguished five aspects of the latter: the historical Christ, the exalted Christ, the unique Son of God who is pre-existent and divine, the great high priest, and the Lamb of God. The writer spoke about works but did not mean by them obedience to the law of Moses. They stand for the moral character as a whole, and are not in their essence outward at all though they lead of necessity to outward acts. But, so far as they issue in outward acts, they are regarded by our author simply as the manifestation of the inner life and character. (cxv)

Only the martyrs will share in the first resurrection and reign with Christ for 1000 years. At the end of this kingdom, the nations will rebel and be destroyed, after which the last judgment will occur. The dead will rise for this judgment. The righteous among them will be clothed in spiritual bodies, while the wicked are to be disembodied and eventually destroyed in the lake of fire. Christ will

464    ( – ) conduct the judgment of the living. Charles’s descriptions of doctrines in this section exclude passages that, in his opinion, were not from the author. He chose the thirteenth section of the Introduction as the place to insert “A Short Grammar of the Apocalypse.” It is by far the longest unit in the Introduction, stretching from cxvii to clix, some forty-two pages. In many ways, it reads like a typical grammar. He began with nouns, articles, pronouns, verbs, prepositions, conjunctions and other particles, case, number, and gender. The next parts are, however, conditioned by the special nature of Revelation. In them Charles dealt with its Hebraic style, unique expressions, and “solecisms due to slips on the part of our author” (clii). In addition, he addressed corruptions in the text, constructions in the interpolations that were different from those of the author, and the order and combination of words. Typical of Charles, the grammar is minutely detailed and comprehensive. After the grammar, Charles dealt with the textual witnesses, whether the manuscripts themselves or the ancient versions/translations, and their value for establishing the text. He started with the uncials and used as a means of testing them a few passages where John employed wording typical for him but in violation of proper grammar. Most witnesses correct these; the ones that do not are more likely to preserve the text as John wrote it. The same is true for Hebraisms. These and other criteria confirmed the supreme value of the fifthcentury uncial Alexandrinus (A). The versions come in for consideration in the following paragraphs; they are less consistently helpful as they tend to offer combinations of good and bad readings. Charles devoted a special study to the Armenian, Bohairic, and Ethiopic translations which form a group of their own. Sections on the cursives and “Origen’s so-called text” follow, while a more bibliographical unit on the Latin, Syriac, and Armenian versions comes next. A chart of the whole, complicated textual development occupies p. clxxxi. Section 15 provides an overview of the methods of interpretation Charles used in the commentary (he noted its relation to a section of his Studies in the Apocalypse [see 56–78]). Naturally, here he listed and described only those methods that had withstood the test of time—nine of them in all. Perhaps because of printing constraints, he added a second part to his account of the fourth method (the Philological Method) but had to place it after the ninth one, labeling it 4b The Philological Method in its later form (clxxxvii). The last two sections offer a bibliography divided into various categories and a list of some of the abbreviations used in the commentary (for those that he employed for the texts and versions the reader is referred to the second volume).

   

465

The verse-by-verse commentary follows the long Introduction. It fills pp. 1–371 in vol. 1 (covering Revelation 1:1–14:12–13) and the first 226 pages of vol. 2 (after pp. vii–viii, Errata et Corrigenda for vol. 2). The sequence—Introduction then commentary—appears natural, but there is something peculiar about what comes after the commentary in vol. 2. 227–32:

A list of the seven Greek uncials and 223 cursive manuscripts, taken from the lists prepared by Gregory.²⁹ 233–5: MSS collated for this edition: Versions: Abbreviations. 236–385: Greek Text with Apparatus Criticus. 386–446: English Translation with Critical Notes. Would it not have been logical to place his newly established Greek text on the pages following the Introduction and to put the English translation after or below it? Inserting the English translation before the commentary could have been helpful because in the commentary Charles gave the lemmas in Greek without translating them. The reviewers would draw attention to the unusual arrangement of sections. The reason for the surprising order may again lie in problems with printing the book. We have seen that the commentary itself, which at times disagrees with statements and claims in other components of the two-volume book, is the oldest part of the completed work and that, by Charles’s own testimony, “the Text, Translation, and Introduction represent my final conclusions” (xi). The printer probably started by typesetting the pages of the commentary and used Arabic numerals for them. An Introduction, perhaps the last part of the book to be written, could be placed before the commentary because Roman numerals number its pages. When the publisher allowed Charles to produce his own text and translation of Revelation—apparently a late decision, as there are some conflicts between them, and the commentary already set in type—the only place left for them was on the pages after the commentary so that the pagination would not be disturbed. It does seem strange that a scholar would establish a text and translate it after he had finished his commentary, but that very likely is what happened. The second volume closes with two short sections: 447–51: Four Papyri and Vellum Fragments: These are the ones about which Grenfell had informed Charles. Hunt alone or Hunt and Grenfell had ²⁹ Caspar René Gregory, Die griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1908).

466    ( – ) published them in 1908, 1911, and 1914, well after Charles had begun his work on the commentary. The small fragments dated from the fourth and fifth centuries (the first may even have been copied in the late third century) and were thus very ancient witnesses. Charles concluded that their readings confirmed the superiority of uncial manuscript A. He furnished the text of the fragments and supplied notes on them. 452–7: Additional Notes on three topics: Revelation 13:11b (for a correction of his text and translation of the passage), the Latin Versions, and the Millennial Kingdom. There are four indexes (459–97), one of which (the third) as noted above is merely a reference back to the appropriate pages in the Introduction. The others are of Greek words in Revelation, Hebraisms, and an index to the Introduction, Commentary, and Notes. Charles followed a procedure in the verse-by-verse commentary that matched his interests as expressed in the Introduction. His practice was to write an opening unit for each chapter or section of Revelation. In the places where he had detected special issues, such as the presence of sources or interpolations, he added explanations of the reasons for his conclusion.³⁰ The first two units in Revelation illustrate how he went about the work. Chapter 1: there is a three-part introduction: 1. The Content and Authorship of the Chapter; 2. Diction and Idiom; and 3. Order of Words. He divided the chapter itself into three segments, each with its own title (1:1–3 Superscription; 4–8 Introduction. John’s Greeting to the Seven Churches; 9–20 John’s Call and Commission. His Vision of the Son of Man—Risen and Glorified), and attached an additional note on the words ως (hōs = like) and ομοιος (homoios = similar, like). Chapters 2–3: the unit of the book containing the letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor was one on which Charles had reached conclusions unlike those of other expositors. In this case his introduction consisted of six parts: 1. The Seven Letters—their Authorship, their present and their original meaning; 2. Diction and Idiom; 3. Order of Words and Omission of Copula in relative sentences; 4. The Letters were written by our Author at an earlier date and re-edited by him in the present work with certain additions; 5. Amongst the additions to the original Letters are the endings and in part the beginnings of the Letters in their present form; and 6. Were the Letters originally seven distinct Letters addressed and sent to the Seven Churches (his answer: yes).

³⁰ See his description of these introductory sections in 1.xvi n.

   

467

In ch. 7 where Charles had spotted several problems (additions, misplaced verses, 7:9–17 is “proleptic”), his introductory section included eleven parts (188–203). The problems in the context are, as we have seen, a subject he had addressed in Studies in the Apocalypse, 103–41. The introduction to ch. 12 also has eleven sections (298–314). As with his treatment of ch. 7, some additional material around his commentaries on chs. 17 and 20:4–22:21 will look familiar to readers who had followed Charles’s earlier writings. His additional note on ch. 17 “The Antichrist, Beliar, and Neronic Myths, and their ultimate Fusion in early Christian Literature” (2.76–87) comes from his 2 Enoch; his section regarding 20:4–22:21 (“The Text Incoherent and Self-Contradictory as It Stands,” 2.144–54) draws on his 1915 essay in the Proceedings of the British Academy. Charles, as we have observed repeatedly, was thoroughly confident in the ability of modern scholars to uncover the original state of the text, interpolations, the presence of inadequately reworked sources, and displaced verses. One example of displaced verses can be read in a section that is part of his introduction to ch. 16: “xvi. 5b–7, which belongs to xix., has been restored in this edition to its original position after xix. 4; xvi. 15, which belongs to iii, has been restored after iii. 3a” (2.41).

Reviews Charles’s learned commentary received plenty of attention from reviewers. All of the ones I have read contain strong praise for his industry and thoroughness, but reviewers were skeptical about several of his central conclusions and methods for arriving at them. One was Shirley Jackson Case of the University of Chicago who evaluated it in the Journal of Religion 1 (1921) 433–7. Case thought readers should follow Charles’s advice—to read the English translation first, then the Introduction, and finally the commentary. He drew attention to the somewhat awkward arrangement of the sections, the sizable amount of repetition that resulted from it, and the fact that Charles offered different views in different places. He did not speculate that problems in the process of publication had engendered the shortcomings (as explained above), but he did charge: It is greatly to be regretted that these extensive and valuable studies of the author could not have received a more thoroughgoing revision and unification previous to publication, so that his final opinion regarding the revised text of any particular passage, his complete views on its interpretation, and

468    ( – ) his rendering of the Greek, could have been brought into one context and made more easily accessible. (434)³¹

He noted the strenuous efforts Charles had made to understand John’s unique language but had reservations about his confidence in being able to distinguish what John wrote from any accretion to it: One almost feels that John has been credited with a sort of divine inerrancy, as it were, in the employment of solecisms. Even though Revelation is assumed to contain products of John’s pen covering a period of about fifteen years, during which time presumably he was living in Asia and writing Greek, his linguistic peculiarities are supposed to have remained exactly the same throughout this period. (435)

He was also unconvinced by aspects of Charles’s literary analyses. In the first place, the philological clues are so hypothetical in character that their evidential value is easily overestimated by a zealous protagonist, and one of Charles’s distinctive charms is the zeal with which he works. Nor is differentiation of sources on the basis of variation in thought content always conclusive. Not only is one unprepared to assume that the mind of an ecstatic apocalyptic seer will always operate with logical exactness, but some of the ideas assumed to be distinctive and mutually contradictory in different parts of the book are of doubtful argumentative worth. (435)

Charles thought John first believed the church would survive until the end but later expected a universal martyrdom of Christians; Case found this less than self-evident (436). Was the contrast so obvious in the book? He really did not like Charles’s theory about the unintelligent disciple of John who so miserably finished the book. “This editor straightway becomes a convenient scapegoat upon whom to place the responsibility for all ideas and illogical features in the text that otherwise might, in the opinion of our author, mar the fair name of John” (436). Regarding Charles’s assertion that the editor was downright dishonest in changing the text of Revelation 20:13 so that it now teaches a resurrection of bodies, he countered: “But one wonders whether John would have been as ardent a champion of ‘spiritual’ vs. ‘physical’ resurrection as ³¹ It is ironic that Charles was charged with being a poor editor of his commentary in which he vehemently criticized an editor who, he believed, had so badly disfigured the Apocalypse.

   

469

Charles himself is, and whether, in fact, it is not he rather than the original editor who has sinned against the apocalyptic seer in this matter” (436). The review in Journal of Theological Studies 22 (1921) 384–90³² starts out by acknowledging Charles’s massive contributions to scholarship on apocalyptic literature and by summarizing the contents of the commentary. After doing so, the reviewer wrote: “In spite of the very great care which he has devoted to the study of the grammar of the Apocalypse, I am not convinced that he is justified in setting aside this or that clause as not written by the hand of John. I do not trust the negative results of the examination as I must and do trust the positive: especially in a case like this, where it is admitted that the style is unique” (386). One unpersuasive example he cited (as other reviewers did) was that, according to Charles, John in three cases listed lightnings, voices, and thunderings in that order; as a result, the sequence thunderings, voices, lightings in 8:5 must be from the editor. The viewer also thought Charles’s transposing of lines to their allegedly original places might betray “a very wooden—even a Prussian—view of what the Seer ought to have written” (387). He was no fonder of Charles’s characterizing the first four trumpets (8:7–12) as an addition and suggested the four angels of 7:2 prepared for them. Charles’s drastic rearrangements of 20:4–22:21 suffered from overly stringent requirements of order and consistency. Probably Dr Charles has made as good a case for rearrangement as can be made; but even so he does not avoid all awkwardnesses. “The Seer does not say what became of the (first) Heavenly Jerusalem, but its withdrawal from the earth before the final judgement is presupposed”,³³ and of the second and eternal New Jerusalem very little is said. (388)

He also thought Charles’s idea that John anticipated the martyrdom of all believers at the hand of the antichrist was “very debatable” (388). The reviewer, after granting the enormous labor and the mass of information about apocalyptic literature and Revelation found in Charles’s commentary, continued to point out unconvincing features in it. Among the “defects” he found was “that the editor is too sure that he knows what the Seer ought to have written, and is too ready to rule out anything that runs counter to his view” (389). He objected to Charles’s conclusions regarding the traditions about the Apostle John’s residence in Ephesus and martyrdom before 70 .. ³² The reviewer seems to have been M. R. James. ³³ This is a slightly altered form of what Charles wrote in 2.186–87.

470    ( – ) (389–90). About the former he noted Charles’s failure to deal with the Acts of John—a clear second-century witness to his residence in Ephesus. About the latter he wrote: “In short, whatever may be the truth about the martyrdom, I do not feel that Dr Charles has made belief in it more reasonable” (390). He ended the review with words of appreciation and declared that in no other commentary was there as full an explanation of three central topics—and then listed four: borrowings from scripture and other literature, the ideas and beliefs in the book, its style and diction, and the constitution of the text (390). James Moffatt wrote a pleasant yet critical review in Theology 2 (1921) 96–102. He thought that Charles, with his approach to the composition of Revelation, offered “ . . . a romantic and radical theory of the Apocalypse; for, with the partial exception of Dr. Samuel Davidson in the last century, English editors have left the game of source-criticism largely to Continental and American scholars” (96). Moffatt welcomed the evidence provided by the commentary that there were now a number of settled views about key issues such as the Domitianic date of composition, and he was grateful for the valuable new Greek text of the Apocalypse found in the commentary (96–7). In dealing with Charles’s theory about the author (a third John), Moffatt found it not unreasonable but was skeptical about the claim that he came from Galilee. He pointed out the dearth of evidence for this region as a place from which apocalypses originated and added: “Surely an early Christian did not require to live in Galilee in order to read apocalypses!” (97). Like the other reviewers, Moffatt had difficulties with Charles’s thesis about the work of an unintelligent disciple of John. “This editor was a better Greek scholar than his master, but Dr. Charles allows him hardly another merit” (97). He too found the case for a number of the interpolations Charles had assigned to the editor to be implausible. For example, Charles claimed, as we saw, that he added “and from the seven spirits that are before his throne” in 1:4 in order to make the text sound trinitarian. Moffatt pointed out that this was not a reference to the third person of the Trinity (98). Also, like other reviewers, he was not persuaded by Charles’s rearrangement of the last three chapters whose order the editor had mangled. Moffatt charged that “apocalypses are not to be judged by logic” (100) and cited with approval F. C. Burkitt’s statement: “After all, a logical Apocalypse would most likely be a dull one” (100).³⁴ In general, he distrusted recourse to “a theory which

³⁴ The quotation comes from Burkitt’s Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (The Schweich Lectures 1913; London: Oxford University Press, 1914) 49. Burkitt, who in the context was objecting to those

   

471

repeatedly rests upon the supposed stupidities of a ghostly figure in the background” (100). Moffatt found two large problems with Charles’s approach: “(a) an unduly rigid view of literary style, and (b) an unduly prosaic view of the Seer’s imagination” (101). In the first category, he rejected Charles’s means for denying to John some passages showing slight variations from his normal ways of expressing himself, and in the second he objected, for example, to Charles’s proposal to insert a definite article before “lamb” in 13:11 so that it becomes “the Lamb.”³⁵ He found that to be a serious misreading of the verse. Moffatt ended his review with some warmly complimentary words about “the lavish care which Dr. Charles has spent upon his work, the serious scholarship which has gone to the making of this edition, and the incentive to fresh study which its pages supply. In the best sense of the term it is a contribution of first-rate importance to the subject. The very eagerness with which he makes his points is refreshing” (102). He did feel compelled, however, to object to Charles’s idea that according to the Apocalypse not only individuals but states as well should follow Christian norms.³⁶ “This may sound homiletic, or it may not. I am sure it is not the doctrine of the Apocalypse. To call that flaming latter-day pamphlet ‘the Divine Statute Book of International Law as well as a manual for the guidance of the individual Christian’ is pious, but not to the purpose” (102). An entertaining evaluation of the commentary appeared in Review & Expositor 18 (1921) 346–8. In it W. O. Carver compared Charles’s massively technical effort with Philip Whitwell Wilson’s far more practical The Vision We Forget: A Layman’s Reading of the Book of the Revelation of St. John the Divine (New York and Chicago: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1921), a book that was part of The Forgotten Bible Series to which Wilson had contributed a couple of volumes. Wilson, a journalist, tried to find contemporary applications of the message in the ancient Apocalypse. Carver of course judged his and Charles’s to be thoroughly different works but did think the more popular

modern scholars who applied “too strict a standard of consistency and rationality” (48) to the apocalypses, added: “the impulse which produced the great Apocalypses was not a logical theory, but a passionate conviction, roused to utterance by the events of Jewish history” (49). It is not at all unlikely that he had Charles (and perhaps others) in mind, since in the book he generally rejected Charles’s theories about the composite nature of various apocalypses like the Ascension of Isaiah and the Assumption of Moses. ³⁵ Charles devoted the first of his Additional Notes (2.452) to this passage. ³⁶ About another of Charles’s statements on the war and the teachings of Revelation, he observed: “it reads more like an extract from a Westminster sermon than a sober critical note” (102).

472    ( – ) book had some advantages. He charged that Charles’s work, despite its many virtues, suffered from much subjectivity. Especially does one wonder how it was possible for an “editor” quite so “stupid” as Dr. Charles finds the poor fellow on whom he lays the “confused” arrangement at many places in the Book of Revelation, and yet have so long “got by” with it. If we examine the bungling work of this poor “stupid” fellow as exposed by the diligent scholar we sometimes have to confess sympathy with his stupidity, for his arrangement still seems to have in it so much of reason and fitness that we are willing to believe, even at the risk of exposing our lack of insight, that the first writer might have put it as we find it. (346–7)

For him, Charles’s own fresh translation of Revelation was “disappointingly similar to that of the Revised Version” (347), and he believed that in the commentary “We do, in sooth, almost lose sight of the Vision in the great work of the scholar” (348). He thought one should use both Charles’s and Wilson’s books.

The 1922 Book Lectures on The Apocalypse, by R. H. Charles, D. Litt., D.D., Archdeacon of Westminster, Fellow of the British Academy. The Schweich Lectures 1919. (London: Published for the British Academy By Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press, Amen Corner, E. C., 1922; reprinted 1923). Charles, a member of the British Academy since 1906, was invited to give the 1919 Schweich Lectures of the Academy. The lectureship itself was of fairly recent vintage. In 1907 the Leopold Schweich Trust Fund was set up by Constance Schweich (1869–1951) to honor the memory of her father who had died the previous year. Leopold Schweich, a man of perhaps less than stellar reputation, had acquired some wealth in the international jewelry trade. Constance was the second of his two children with his wife Philippina who had died at a very young age in 1873; Philippina was from the Mond family that would also become benefactors of the Academy. The Schweiches, a Jewish family, seem not to have indicated prior to their gift that they would be a source of funds for the British Academy. There was also no reason to think they were interested in supporting biblical studies and archaeology. A good case can be made that the family’s interest in such subjects arose through the

   

473

influence of Robert Mond, Constance’s nephew, who was much taken by Ancient Near Eastern archaeology and had in 1906 been instrumental in publishing a volume on the Elephantine papyri, Aramaic Papyri Discovered at Assuan.³⁷ Robert Mond knew Israel Gollancz, the first secretary of the Academy, and Constance and Gollancz were friends as well.³⁸ Contacts between Constance Schweich and the Academy through Gollancz had begun the preceding year when she made an offer to set up a fund.³⁹ Some negotiation led to the final form of the agreement which bears the date November 6, 1907. According to the provisions of the Trust Deed, the endowment would be called “The Leopold Schweich Fund” (clause 2).⁴⁰ Moreover, “The trust fund shall be devoted to the furtherance of research in the archaeology art history languages and literature of Ancient Civilization with reference to Biblical Study” (clause 3). The fund, begun with a donation of ten thousand pounds, was to be expended in certain defined ways. “The Council [of the British Academy] on the recommendation of the Committee [appointed by the Council] as hereinafter provided shall procure not less than three public lectures to be delivered in every year dealing with some subject or subjects coming within the scope of the objects stated in Clause 3 hereof and the sum of fifty guineas⁴¹ shall be paid in each year out of the income of the said trust fund to or among the person or persons delivering the lecture or lectures” (clause 5 [a]). The document provided additional instructions regarding the text of the lectures: ³⁷ Edited by A. H. Sayce, with the assistance of A. E. Cowley, and with appendices by W. Spiegelberg and Seymour De Ricci; London: A. Moring Ltd., 1906. Robert Mond contributed a one-page section entitled “Note” which stands at the very beginning of the large-format volume. He wrote: During my excavations at Thebes in the spring of 1904, I was informed that some Hebrew papyri had been found near Assuan, and I at once telegraphed that they should be kept for my inspection. On my arrival at Assuan, I acquired them with the intention of presenting them to the British Museum. He went on to report that Howard Carter, who was at the time Inspector of Antiquities for Upper Egypt, asked him (“this request was virtually a command”) to sell them to the Museum Department at Cairo. Mond did so. In the remainder of the note he thanked the various people who were involved in work on the papyri (they turned out to be in Aramaic) and in producing the volume. ³⁸ The information about Constance Schweich and her family, including Robert Mond, comes from Graham Davies, The Schweich Lectures and Biblical Archaeology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) 1–11. Some of the correspondence between Constance Schweich and Israel Gollancz appears on pp. 13–15. Davies delivered the centenary lecture of the Schweich Lecture series in 2008; his book consists of that lecture and related materials about the series. ³⁹ According to Davies (The Schweich Lectures and Biblical Archaeology, 10), “the key letter offering the gift is at present missing from the Council of the Academy’s minute-book.” ⁴⁰ This and the following citations of the Trust Deed are taken from the text as cited in Davies, The Schweich Lectures and Biblical Archaeology, 30–2. ⁴¹ The term was already outdated by 1907 but was still used in certain fields of endeavor. The value of a guinea was slightly more than one pound.

474    ( – ) As soon as possible after the delivery of each lecture the lecturer shall deliver a written copy thereof to the Council in a form suitable for publication. The lecture and the copyright therein shall be the property of the Academy and the Council shall be the sole judges whether the lecture in whole or in part or any abstract thereof shall be published or not. Incidental expenses connected with any lecture including the expenses of publication and any translation which may be required shall be paid out of the income of the trust fund for the year in which the lecture shall be delivered (clause 5 [b]).⁴²

Other clauses stipulated that the Council could appoint one or more lecturers in a year, though no one was to deliver them in more than three years (clause 8); the lectures were ordinarily to be delivered in London (clause 9); and “the Council shall be free to appoint any person whether man or woman of any nationality and in making their choice the Council shall give equal consideration to all persons of whatsoever school of thought” (clause 14). Since the resulting volumes each contained the text of just a few lectures, they were rather slender in size. The first set of lectures was offered by S. R. Driver in 1908 (published the next year under the title Modern Research as illustrating the Bible). In the interval between 1908 and 1919 the lectures were on the Old Testament or subjects closely related to it. The exception was F. C. Burkitt whose 1913 lectures were published as Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (1914). Charles’s lectures were the first that centered on a New Testament book. The text of his lectures occupies seventy-six pages in their published form. Minute Book 4 of the Council of the British Academy gives some background for the choice of Charles as Schweich lecturer. At the meeting on April 2, 1919 “On the recommendation of the Schweich Committee it was resolved to invite Mr. Edwyn Bevan to deliver the Schweich Lectures in 1919, and failing him Archdeacon Charles, Mr. St. John Thackeray, & Dr. M. R. James, & in the case of the last three for 1919 or 1920” (pp. 181–2). Bevan was unable to accept the invitation, so Charles was next in line. Charles explained in the Preface that he delivered the three papers in February of 1920, although the title page states that he gave the 1919 Schweich Lectures. He offered no indication that he found February 1920 to be an odd time to deliver the 1919 lectures. The Minute Book of the Council

⁴² Another use for the money—the “residue of the income” in a year after meeting the expenses of clauses 5 (a, b)—was, according to clause 5 (c) to support excavations and publication of original research in the areas specified in clause 3.

   

475

clarifies the matter. The April 2 minutes mentioned either 1919 or 1920 as the year for the lectures in the case of the three alternates. The May 28, 1919 minutes state: “ . . . that Archdeacon Charles was willing to deliver the Schweich Course of lectures for the year 1919, provided that the Council would allow his Course to be delivered in February 1920. The Council agreed to Archdeacon Charles’s proposal” (p. 187). Bevan was invited to give the 1920 lectures for 1920.⁴³ After the first sentence of the Preface, Charles had little to say about the lectures he had given. Rather, he wrote about his commentary on Revelation that was also published in 1920, just a few months after he gave the lectures— and some two years before he wrote the Preface to Lectures on the Apocalypse. By this time (1922), as he reported, he had “read all the reviews that have come under my notice—English, French, German, and Dutch. The greater number of these have pronounced favourably on most of the new departures, which I have taken alike in regard to the form of the Greek text, its Hebraistic character, its translation, and its interpretation” (iii). He was pleased that almost all the reviewers recognized the importance of “an exhaustive knowledge of Jewish Apocalyptic, if we are to understand the Christian Apocalypse” (iii). He admitted that the reviewers were less unanimous about his reconstruction of the order of the text. But an examination of the objections that a small minority of my reviewers have advanced to my reconstruction and a renewed study on my own part of the subject as a whole during the last eighteen months have further confirmed me in the conclusion that most if not all of my reconstructions of the order of the text are wholly unaffected by their criticisms. To put the matter as courteously as possible, most of their objections have been due to a very incomplete knowledge alike of the manifold problems of the Apocalypse and of Apocalyptic. (iii)

Charles thought the critics could be excused for their objections because they were confronted with the task of reviewing a book of almost 1100 pages. “It is not strange, therefore, that many of the arguments adduced by me in support of a new departure in textual or literary criticism, in interpretation, or the ⁴³ In fact, Bevan was never to offer the Schweich lectures. Those for 1920 were given by H. St. J. Thackeray, “The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins”; M. R. James, gave them in 1927, “The Apocalypse in Art.” Both of these sets of lectures were published under the same titles, Thackeray’s in 1920 (and 1923) and James’s in 1931.

476    ( – ) reconstruction of the order of the text, escaped their notice, seeing that the various converging lines of argument bearing on individual passages have not always been summarized, nor made accessible even in the index. Hence in some important questions this task has been left to the reader to do for himself ” (iii–iv).⁴⁴ His Schweich Lectures were meant to address the difficulty left by the arrangement of the commentary. “Now in the present lectures, which can of course deal only with the main arguments and must perforce refer the reader for the details to my Commentary, I have summarized my new conclusions on the main problems of the Apocalypse, and in some cases the converging lines of evidence on which they are based” (iv). He ended the Preface by mentioning a criticism leveled by C. F. Burney, one that helped Charles correct an error in his translation; he would deal with it in detail on pp. 32–4 (see below). The “Contents” section on pp. v–viii is unusual. A table of contents for the three lectures, none of which has a title, should be short and simple, but this one lists not only the major subjects treated in each of the lectures but also summarizes them and indicates the pages on which they are found. If one reads through the summaries, it quickly becomes clear that, as Charles had just written, he was covering material he had treated elsewhere, particularly in the commentary. Lecture 1 presents aspects of the historical survey that Charles had supplied in the first two chapters of Studies in the Apocalypse to which he referred in the notes. Some of the wording is taken over from his earlier work, but he reshaped the whole to make it fit a new context rather than lifting entire sections from his earlier publications. An emphasis throughout the survey is the damage to interpretation done by expositors who lacked knowledge of Jewish apocalyptic literature and of the author’s unique grammar and style (e.g., p. 9). After the survey Charles attempted “to show the new steps that exegesis must take if it is to unravel many of the outstanding problems of the Apocalypse” (9). To do so, he first addressed Revelation 20–2, a subject he had tackled several times before. In the remainder of the lecture, he set forth his familiar thesis that an inept disciple ruined the end of the book when he tried unsuccessfully to assemble the materials his departed mentor had left behind. Charles told his audience that two points were clear: chs. 20–2 were

⁴⁴ His evaluations of the reviews do not reflect accurately the ones summarized above. The last sentences cited here are his way of acknowledging the disorder in his commentary to which the reviewers regularly drew attention.

   

477

terribly confused in order, but the style was that of John himself. One could hardly attribute the disorder to John or to his use of sources, so the solution that commended itself was the unfortunate disciple and his misunderstanding of John’s intent. The basic confusion in chs. 20–2 was that John had planned to write about two New Jerusalems, one during the thousand-year reign of Christ on earth with the martyrs, at which time there would be a program for evangelizing the earth and the nations would stream to the city with their gifts. This vision of a New Jerusalem could be paralleled in Jewish apocalyptic texts. The second New Jerusalem would descend from the new heaven to the new earth after the final judgment. John’s disciple blended descriptions of the two cities and thus produced the confusing sequence in the present form of Revelation 20–2, where features unique to one are in some cases attributed to the other. Readers of Charles’s printed lecture can only hope there was a handout that would give the audience a fighting chance to follow his complicated rearrangement of the three chapters. The subject of the second lecture was the evidence for the disciple/editor’s intervention in Revelation 1–19. Charles disclosed that when he wrote the commentary on the first chapters of the book he had “adopted the hypothesis of an editor or of two or more interpolators” (22), but once he had become fully acquainted with the editor’s work in 20–2 he realized the same person was responsible for nearly all the changes in 1–19 as well. “And in every case where this editor has intervened he has done so effectively, for though he has not added more than twenty verses in the first nineteen chapters, confusion and darkness have attended unfailingly on his editorial activities” (22). He then led the audience through a number of examples that would have been familiar to readers of the commentary. Some of them, such as the interpolation of 8:7–12 and the contextual adjustments required to accommodate it to its new setting, are accompanied, in the printed version, by long footnotes supplying what he took to be the original text that the editor disfigured. Through it all the audience was supposed to become convinced of the disciple’s sheer stupidity. Once the regrettable nature of the editor was set before the attendees, Charles turned to the text of the Apocalypse, specifically to its Hebraisms and Greek “solecisms.” He addressed Hebraisms first; failure to recognize them had led to many errors of translation in the long history of studying the Book of Revelation. In dealing with examples, he referred to lectures that he had given at the universities of Dublin, Oxford, and London. He had in mind the addresses that were published as Studies in the Apocalypse (1913) and made reference to the second edition of it that had appeared in 1915 (a

478    ( – ) reprint of the 1913 volume, as mentioned earlier). He noted with pleasure that the great scholar of New Testament Greek, James Hope Moulton, had, on the basis of Charles’s lectures, changed his mind about John’s language. Moulton at first had claimed, as did other experts, that the popular or ordinary language of John’s time could account for what appeared to be unusual features in his Greek. As he had written when describing the first followers of Jesus in Palestine and their bilingualism as evident in the New Testament: But it does not appear that any of them used Greek as we may sometimes find cultured foreigners using English, obviously translating out of their own language as they go along. Even the Greek of the Apocalypse itself does not seem to owe any of its blunders to ‘Hebraism.’ The author’s uncertain use of cases is obvious to the most casual reader . . . We find him perpetually indifferent to concord. But the less educated papyri give us plentiful parallels from a field where Semitism cannot be suspected.⁴⁵

After reading Charles’s arguments regarding the phenomenon, Moulton took a different approach: The Apocalypse, on every ground of language, must be assigned to another author [not the writer of the Gospel of John and 1–3 John], as Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, saw in the third century. The grasp of Greek is much greater than the evangelist’s, in largeness of vocabulary and the free use of out-of-the-way words. But the grammar is defiant of rules, especially in concord of gender and of case. Dr. R. H. Charles has recently shown how many of its [Revelation’s] mannerisms are due to the literal transference of Semitic idioms. It might be the work of a man who had used Greek all his life as a second language and never from choice, who had accordingly enriched his vocabulary without troubling to cure himself of some grammatical faults which persisted easily when affecting categories not present in his own native language—just as the genders of French and German are a constant trouble to an Englishman, speaking a language that is not encumbered with this useless survival.⁴⁶ ⁴⁵ Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol. I Prolegomena (3rd edition; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1908; both the first and second editions appeared in 1906) 8–9. Charles cited part of this passage on p. 30 n. 1. In that note he called Moulton’s book “the most brilliant grammar that has ever appeared on the Greek New Testament.” ⁴⁶ From his short essay “The Language of the New Testament,” in Commentary on the Bible, edited by Arthur S. Peake with the assistance for the New Testament of A. J. Grieve (New York: T. Nelson, 1920) 592 (the article is on pp. 591–3). Charles quoted the sentence containing his name on p. 30 n. 1.

   

479

Charles admired Moulton’s change of mind: “I have always found that the greatest scholars are the earliest to withdraw their mistaken views or acknowledge their errors on the production of evidence, but with second-rate and third-rate scholars my experience has been very different” (30 n. 1). One example of the Apocalypse’s Hebraic character occurs in 1:18 where a participle is followed by a finite verb in a parallel clause. This is also a case that an Oxford acquaintance brought to Charles’s attention as mistakenly rendered in his commentary. In the translation, Charles worded the last clause of v. 17 and v. 18 as: Fear not; I am the first and the last: And he that liveth [= participle ο ζων (ho zōn)], and was dead [= finite verb εγενομην νεκρος (egenomēn nekros]: And, behold, I am alive for evermore; And have the keys of death and Hades (2.388). Charles Fox Burney, then the Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture and the author of The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford also published it in 1922), was most sympathetic to Charles’s thesis regarding the Hebraic nature of the text. But he raised an objection, first in conversation and later in print.⁴⁷ He agreed that the Semitic construction participle + finite verb was present in Revelation but thought Charles should not have included 1:18 (and 20:4) as examples. Regarding 1:18 he declared that Charles’s rendering of the Hebrew that he reconstructed behind the Greek (Burney corrected Charles’s pointing of one word in it)⁴⁸ “would be quite out of the question. The only possible sense we could attach to such a sentence would be, ‘I am he that lived and (subsequently) became dead’” (375). That is, in his original translation Charles had assumed the situation covered by the participle occurred after that indicated by the ensuing finite verb, whereas Burney indicated that the sequence would be the reverse. It does not seem as if this happened very often during Charles’s career, but he accepted Burney’s correction and did so enthusiastically. He wrote that when Burney first made the point to him orally, “I welcomed the correction, and informed him at the same time that his criticism enabled me at last to see the true sense of the passage: i.e. ‘And he that was alive and died’” (32 n. 1; see also Preface, iv). Earlier on the same page of his article Moulton wrote: “Mark and the author of Rev. only used Greek as most Welshmen in Wales use English—a second language more or less imperfectly and unidiomatically acquired for dealings with outsiders.” ⁴⁷ “A Hebraic Construction in the Apocalypse,” Journal of Theological Studies 22 (1921) 371–6. ⁴⁸ Charles’s discussion of the construction and the Hebrew he assumed to lie behind it appears on p. 1.15 of the commentary where he was discussing 1:5.

480    ( – ) However, as we might expect, Charles had some criticisms of Burney who accepted the translation of the passage found in the Revised Version:⁴⁹ “Fear not; I am the first and the last and the Living one: and I was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore.” A lengthy explanation of Charles’s understanding of the text, of mistakes Burney made, being misled by S. R. Driver’s words in his Hebrew Tenses,⁵⁰ and Charles’s defense of his interpretation of Revelation 20:4 make the note extend all the way to p. 35. Interestingly, Charles ended the long digression by saying that he had submitted the note to George Buchanan Gray and Dr. Cowley, and “to its conclusions they both give their suffrages.” At least, since the long note was added to the lecture, the audience for the oral presentation was spared the details. The lecture continued with a shorter section on John’s unusual Greek and a longer one on Charles’s discovery of a larger poetic element in the Apocalypse than had been recognized. He reproduced a number of examples and noted how recognizing their poetic structure allowed one to identify extraneous and even misplaced lines. The third and last lecture in the series started off with an overview of the manuscripts and versions attesting the text of Revelation. He told the audience about test cases for determining the value of the respective witnesses—the ways they handled four of John’s “peculiar idioms.” The ones that preserve the linguistic oddities rather than correcting them are the preferred witnesses. The results he represented through the chart that he had published in the commentary (56; see the commentary, clxxxi). From the witnesses he pivoted to “unities” running throughout the book. One is the belief that “all the faithful must suffer martyrdom” (57); among the others is the presence of seven beatitudes and the seven-part structure of the book. More convincing for unity than any or all of them are, however, the unique grammar and style of the author. A few words about sources preceded a treatment of the date at which the Apocalypse was written. As he had before, Charles granted that the writer used sources from which he had not always removed evidence of their earlier settings, but he maintained with many others that the book itself came from the end of Domitian’s reign. Charles then summed up the primary topics treated in all the lectures to this point (64–5). But he was not finished. He next plunged into some subjects that ⁴⁹ Charles, who thought the particular Hebraic construction participle + finite verb occurred about ten times in Revelation, judged that, in the rendering of them, “The A. V. is right several times: the R. V. is never right at all” (30). ⁵⁰ A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some Other Syntactical Questions (3rd ed.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1892; the first edition was published in 1874).

   

481

were old ones for him: the nature of prophecy as setting forth the mind of God; the name John for the author was not a pseudonym (he noted that he had addressed the reasons why Jewish apocalypses were pseudonymous several times and, in explaining them, used a long quotation from his Daniel commentary and another from his Religious Development), this John was neither the Apostle John nor the author of the Johannine books in the New Testament, John’s career, the books he used, and his purpose. For the last item he borrowed a lengthy quotation from his commentary. Charles opened himself up a bit to his audience regarding his experience in investigating who the John of the Apocalypse was, one that drew him away from other seemingly more important studies. In the end it allowed him to reach at least a partial solution to an old problem. Here I may remark that the researcher never knows where his researches are taking him. Even the most insignificant problem, if honestly and thoroughly studied, may lead him to the solution or a partial solution of the greatest. His experience will frequently be that of Saul when he went forth in quest of his father’s asses; for we read that when he was earnestly engaged in this humble quest, he found a kingdom. (70)

As a small footnote to Charles’s Schweich lectures, the record shows that he was paid £52 s. 10 d. 0, an honorarium that remained standard for some time since it was the equivalent of the fifty guineas mention in the Trust Deed cited above. The statement of accounts reports not only this but also that there were other expenses connected with the lectures: the fee for the room was £5 s. 4 d. 6, the allowance for clerical assistance was £20, the cost of postage regarding the lectures was £4 s. 14 d. 6, and the payment to Messrs Newton for the lantern operator and making slides was £4 s. 11 d. 6 (Minute Book 4, 72).

Legacy As with the Book of Daniel, it is difficult to measure how much Charles’s views about John’s Apocalypse have had an enduring value, since so much has been written about it and for different audiences.⁵¹ Perhaps it will suffice to quote a few statements from my colleague David Aune, author of the three-volume ⁵¹ For an interesting reading of Charles’s evolving views about the Jewish elements in Revelation, see G. R. Beasley-Murray, “How Christian is the Book of Revelation?” in Robert Banks, editor,

482    ( – ) commentary on Revelation in the Word Biblical Commentary series.⁵² He expressed special appreciation for four publications: “I am particularly indebted to the rich and creative commentaries of Wilhelm Bousett [various editions in the late 1800 and early 1900s] and R. H. Charles, and to the very detailed and painstaking textual work of H. C. Hoskier [1929] and Josef Schmid [1955]” (“Author’s Preface,” 1.xii; I have supplied the dates in brackets). Judging by the number of references listed for each of these authors in the index, Charles (referenced many, many times) was cited the most—a few more times than Bousett and far more than the other two. In his Introduction, Aune, when considering “Major Source-Critical Theories,” said of Charles: “While the definitive commentary on Revelation written by R. H. Charles in 1920 is not ‘recent,’ its importance for English scholarship on Revelation is such that a review of his complex source-critical theory is necessary” (1.cxiv). As his words make clear, for those writing major academic commentaries on John’s Apocalypse, Charles has certainly not been forgotten. Having explored what he had to say about the last book in the Christian Bible, we will in the next chapter review another kind of publication—a survey volume—from Charles’s earliest Westminster years.

Reconciliation and Hope. New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L. L. Morris on his 60th Birthday (Carlisle: The Paternoster Press, 1974), 276 (essay, 275–84). I thank Simon Gathercole for the reference. ⁵² Revelation (Word Biblical Commentary 52A–C; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997, 1998, 1998).

Chapter 4 Scholarly Work 1914–1915 After 1913, Charles, in addition to his ecclesiastical duties, continued his longtime work with Jewish apocalyptic texts and the ideas in them. The present chapter will survey one book about the theological developments he saw in the apocalypses and will end with a very minor publication that reveals another side of his academic endeavors.

The 1914 Book Religious Development Between the Old and the New Testaments, by R. H. Charles, M.A., D. Litt., D.D., F.B.A., Canon of Westminster (New York: Henry Holt and Company; London: Williams and Norgate, 1914). Charles’s next book was a summary of the teachings in Early Jewish compositions not unlike his A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life (1899, 1913). In fact, the reader encounters a large amount of material from the second edition of A Critical History in the Introduction and chapters I–IV—and in the same words. I was tempted to consider Religious Development in the chapter that dealt with the two editions of A Critical History because it stands in such intimate relationship with them, but the very close connection between Religious Development and Charles’s Westminster preaching favors placing it here. It will be recalled that the material from this book constituted some of his early Westminster sermons that went over so poorly (see Part 3 Chapter 1). Religious Development appeared in the series “The Home University Library of Modern Knowledge.” According to the information about the series printed after p. 256, it was “made up of absolutely new books¹ by leading authorities.” Areas covered by the many volumes published prior to Religious Development were Literature and Art, Natural Science, Philosophy and Religion, Social Science, General History and Geography, and American History. Of the 102 volumes published by 1914, Charles’s contribution has the “order number” ¹ The description hardly fits Charles’s volume that is so full of recycled material.

R. H. Charles: A Biography. James C. VanderKam, Oxford University Press. © James C. VanderKam 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192869289.003.0016

484    ( – ) eighty-eight. The books were “Cloth bound, good paper, clear type, 256 pages, per volume, bibliographies, indices, also maps or illustrations where needed. Each complete and sold separately. Per volume. 75 cents” (after p. 256). Charles’s book, true to form, has exactly 256 pages in the small format of the series. It includes a short Introduction followed by eight chapters and an Index of Subjects. There is no bibliography, map, or illustration. In the Introduction Charles informed the reader that the traditional idea of a long “period of silence” between the Old Testament, once thought to have reached completion in the fifth century .., and the New Testament had been abandoned by virtually everyone. The period was more like two hundred years, and it was not a time of silence. But recent research has shown that no such period of silence ever existed. In fact, we are now in a position to prove that these two centuries were in many respects centuries of greater spiritual progress than any two that had preceded them in Israel. The materials for such a proof are to be found in a minor degree in the Apocrypha . . . , but mainly in the Pseudepigrapha . . . . (8)

When the law became dominant through the work of Ezra and those who followed him, the only way in which writers could gain a hearing was by attributing their works to ancient heroes—that is, they wrote pseudepigraphs. This literature was written probably for the most part in Galilee, the home of the religious seer and mystic. Not only was the development of a religious but also of an ethical character. In both these respects the way was prepared by this literature for the advent of Christianity, while a study of the New Testament makes it clear that its writers had been brought up in the atmosphere created by these books and were themselves directly acquainted with many of them. (9)

Through writings of this kind, “the hopeless outlook of the faithful individual in the Old Testament was transformed into one of joy” (9), as that person was given the expectation of a happy immortality. The two centuries between the Testaments saw much religious development, mostly of a progressive kind, with everything further transformed in the New Testament. Chapter 1, “Prophecy and Apocalyptic” (12–46) is, as Charles mentioned in a footnote, much dependent on the material in the second edition of his A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life that had been published

  ( – )

485

the year before. He asserted that “In the religious development of Israel, the chief agents in pre-Exilic times were seers and prophets, and, during the Exile and after it, prophets, biblical students and apocalypticists.” (14) Prophets and apocalypticists resembled one another in that both were revealers but differed in the times in which they were prominent, the subjects they addressed, and in the use of pseudonymity by the latter (other than John in Revelation). Unlike the contrast between prophecy and apocalyptic articulated even by scholars, the two were similar in many respects and both of them were thoroughly ethical. To demonstrate the point, he compared the two. As for similarities between prophecy and apocalyptic, he noted: 1. They shared the same channels for seeking or receiving knowledge of God. 2. Each has an eschatology. There were, however, differences between their eschatologies. That of the prophets dealt with Israel as a nation and the other peoples as well, but had no message of comfort and hope for the individual after death. Apocalyptic introduced some important changes into the national eschatology of the prophets. First, belief in a blessed life after death comes from apocalyptic, with its beginnings appearing already in the Old Testament. Its further development and spiritualisation were carried on in the later apocalyptic school. It is a genuine product of Jewish inspiration, and at the beginning of the Christian era was accepted by the entire Jewish nation, with the exception of the larger and radical wing of the Sadducean party. (18–19)

Second, the expectation of a new heaven and earth comes from apocalyptic, not prophecy. The latter spoke of a materialistic and eternal messianic kingdom on earth, while the former (from about 100 .. on) spiritualized the expectation. That is, there would be a kingdom on earth, but it would be temporary, with the ultimate aim of the righteous being heaven. From this idea a certain detachment from the earth and its concerns arose. Whereas in prophecy there was a materialistic emphasis on the community, its safety, and happiness, with apocalyptic the accent shifted to the soul. Third, the notion of a catastrophic end of the earth (something envisaged as a possibility by “science”) comes from apocalyptic. Fourth,

486    ( – ) whereas prophecy incidentally dealt with the past and devoted itself to the present and the future as rising organically out of the past, apocalyptic, though its interests lie chiefly in the future as containing the solution of the problems of the past and present, took within its purview things past, present, and to come. (23)

The apocalypticist attempted to find the true meaning of events and thus formulated “a Semitic philosophy of religion” in which all of history was a unity. When the individual’s hopes for prosperity were falsified by events, prophecy had no answer, since it focused only on the nation. Apocalyptists took up the problem of unfulfilled prophecies, including that of the messianic kingdom. Apocalyptic passages such as Daniel 9 and 1 Enoch 83–90 offer reinterpretations of prophecies about this kingdom, showing that it was soon to arrive. Later apocalypticists had to formulate more reinterpretations. Ethical teaching was another similarity between prophecy and apocalyptic, with apocalyptic representing a great advance on the Old Testament and thus preparing for the New. Charles summarized his discussion of prophecy and apocalyptic, so similar to the one in the earlier publication, with the very same words he used in the second edition of A Critical History, 193. Charles then turned to the two forms of Pharisaism he distinguished— apocalyptic and legalistic—with one issuing into Christianity, the other into “Talmudic Judaism.” He insisted the two were not at heart antagonistic to each other because both had a basis in the law. As an example, he cited the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in which the importance of the law, its eternal validity, comes to expression along with apocalyptic teachings. He said his point was aimed at Jewish scholars who “denied to apocalyptic its place in the faith of pre-Christian orthodox Judaism” (34). As he saw the matter, even before Christianity made apocalyptic anti-legalistic in character, the way for the change was paved in apocalyptic where legalistic Pharisaism nearly drove out the apocalyptic side. So, Judaism before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 .. differed from the kind that survived the catastrophe. Another difference between prophecy and apocalyptic is that the prophets used their own names whereas the apocalypses, other than the Book of Revelation, are pseudonymous (or anonymous). Charles said that neither he in his previous books nor other scholars had found an adequate explanation for the phenomenon but that his study had now uncovered one.² He observed

² He had admitted that large parts of this first chapter were from the second edition of A Critical History, but he should have changed this line because it was no longer true—he had offered this solution in an earlier book (see p. 197 in the 1913 volume).

  ( – )

487

that post-exilic prophecy was written, anonymous, and interested in some topics that would become important in the apocalypses. When the law became dominant and was recognized as the final word of God, one could no longer issue a prophecy in his own name as all messages had to be in accord with the law. Pseudonymity can be explained on the grounds that anything new had to be placed under the name of an ancient man of God. In addition, the prophetic canon of Scripture had been closed by ca. 200 .. After it broke with Christianity, Judaism “dropped and banned” all the apocalypses written before 10 .. (44). Thereupon Legalism became absolute, and determined henceforth the character of Judaism. Apocalyptic, which had exercised a determining influence in many of the great crises of the nation, and had given birth to and shaped the higher theology of Judaism, was driven from its position of secondary authority, and either banished absolutely or relegated wholly into the background. (44)

Charles believed that some prominent scholars had been misled by the abandonment of apocalyptic to conclude that it had played no significant role in Judaism. With the arrival of Christ, things changed. Revelation resumed through living individuals (not ancient heroes) who wrote books under their own names. The revival of prophecy rendered pseudonymity irrelevant. John’s Revelation is thus not pseudonymous. Pseudonymity returned only at a later time with the disappearance of belief in ongoing prophecy. The second chapter (47–64), “The Kingdom of God in Apocalyptic Literature,” treats first the meaning of the phrase “the kingdom of God.” Unlike certain other experts, Charles defined it as “the divine community in which the will of God will be perfectly realised” (48). The term rarely appears in apocalyptic literature, but the idea is assumed. The chapter is mostly a survey of developments in the understanding of eschatology in which the kingdom plays an important role. In prophecy it was to be established on earth. It would be populated by the righteous in Israel, or, in the wider view, by the Gentiles as well. The kingdom would be eternal but not those who lived in it. Developments in eschatological hope took place in apocalyptic literature over the period of ca. 200 .. to 100 .. In the second pre-Christian century, there was a fusion of national and individual eschatologies. The righteous dead would rise to life in the kingdom. In this composite expectation there is virtually no mention of a messiah from the tribe of Judah. In first-century apocalyptic literature, the hope for an eternal kingdom of God on earth was

488    ( – ) almost completely abandoned, as this earth was deemed unfit for it. A messianic kingdom would be temporal, and the resurrection and judgment would occur at its end. The notions of a personal immortality and of a messianic kingdom on this earth were separated. Now the resurrection was mostly regarded as the rising of the spirit, not the body. The Parables of Enoch (1 Enoch 37–70 [71]) are unique for their time in combining personal and national eschatology and in their expectation of a new heaven and a new earth. They also present the first messianic interpretation of Daniel’s son of man. In the first century .., there was a general loss of hope for a messianic kingdom, although 4 Ezra anticipates one that will last four-hundred years. With the disappearance of a national hope came an individualism that included a spiritual immortality, beginning after an intermediate state (in Palestinian Judaism) or immediately after death (in Hellenistic Judaism). Charles entitled the third chapter “The Messiah in Prophecy and Apocalyptic” (64–96). Once more he began with the messianic kingdom. He distinguished a pre-prophetic view from one evident in the eighth century, the one non-monotheistic and strictly confined to Israel, the other (e.g., Jeremiah) monotheistic with inclusion of the nations (though the old view survived even among some of the prophets, e.g., Ezekiel). But the prophets agreed there would be an earthly kingdom over which either God himself or a messiah would rule. Things changed with the rise of individualism in the exile, with the belief that an individual communed directly with God. “The spiritual transformation of Israel, individual by individual, became henceforth an indispensable condition for entrance into the coming kingdom of God” (68).³ He then explained the “three chief notes of the kingdom” (69) in Jeremiah’s school. It was to be within the person, it would be worldwide, and it would find its consummation in the world to come. Charles maintained that these three notes also characterized the kingdom as brought forth by Christ in the New Testament. “We thus see that the kingdom established by Christ corresponds in its deepest aspects to that foreshadowed in the prophetic and apocalyptic

³ While dealing with Ezekiel’s teachings, Charles, seemingly gratuitously, wrote this paragraph: This view of Ezekiel tends at first sight to shock the reader; but he soon comes to condone it, when he reflects that Ezekiel’s heathenism in this respect is as nothing compared with the inexpugnable heathenism of one great branch of the Christian Church which would exclude from the kingdom of God on earth not heathen communities as did Ezekiel, but Churches of Christ no less but rather more Christian than itself; and whereas Ezekiel’s ostracism of the non-Israelite was limited to this life only, the Latin Church would condemn to eternal destruction the members of other Churches of Christ, which are no less fruitful than itself in good works and are immeasurably richer in knowledge and wisdom. (69) This was not the first time he gave vent to his anti-Catholicism.

  ( – )

489

writers. It embodies the permanent elements in the past development and fuses them into one organic whole” (73). Jews, however, could not accept the universalism in this teaching. “Thus the Jews, by refusing to part with the spiritual particularism of the past, unfitted themselves for the reception of the higher revelation of the present, and whilst seeking to exclude the Gentiles from the kingdom of God succeeded only in excluding themselves” (74). He turned next to notions about a messiah, especially in relation to the messianic kingdom. He cautioned the reader against pressing details of Old Testament hope and New Testament fulfillment. “It would be an ignoratio elenchi [ignorance of what is to be refuted, or a failure to address the question] to press the fulfilment of special predictions as proofs of the divine guidance of events, where we regard the whole movement as divine” (74). Although it was natural for Christians to think of the messiah and the messianic kingdom together, Old Testament prophecies and subsequent Jewish literature often refer to a kingdom but not a messiah. That is, “in Jewish prophecy and apocalyptic, the Messiah was no organic factor of the kingdom” (76), although he could be present but only as God’s representative. The characteristics of the messiah Charles considered under the rubrics of ideal king, prophet, and priest. In contrast to commentators and preachers of the past, We do not now suppose that the prophets had definitely before them even the chief events of Christ’s life, as Dr. Sanday points out in his Bampton Lectures (p. 404),⁴ or any distinct conception of that great Personality. What they saw in prophetic vision was the ideal figure of King, or possibly of Prophet, or of Priest, figures suggested by the events of their own days, and projected into the future ever close at hand. Where the Messiah is expected it is all but universally as the ideal King. (77)

Jewish exegetes prior to Christ did not understand the messianic significance of the suffering servant of the Lord in Isaiah (a prophetic figure), but there were clear expectations about a priest. Psalm 110, with its acrostic in vv. 1–4 on the name “Simon” (the Maccabee), combines the offices of king and priest in a messianic sense. Charles dealt with the relevant sources from or for the second century .. (1 Enoch, Jubilees, the Testaments, 1–2 Maccabees) and

⁴ William Sanday, Inspiration: Eight Lectures on the Early History and Origin of Biblical Inspiration, being the Bampton Lectures for 1893 (London: Longmans/New York: Green, 1893). In the citation above, Charles paraphrased Sanday’s words.

490    ( – ) noted that they contained almost no expectation of a messiah from Judah but rather of a priest—surely under the influence of hopes placed in the Maccabean rulers. In the next century, however, “the ablest Maccabeans became Sadducean in the most evil sense of that term” (84) and the hopes for a messianic priest were jettisoned. Yet there still were expectations of a messiah in different forms. One was of a supernatural son of man in 1 Enoch 37–71, and the other was of a king from David’s line (parts of the Testaments, Psalms of Solomon). From these expectations Charles passed over to the New Testament information about Christ, especially as son of man. This he did by adducing the information from 1 Enoch 37–71 and the Isaianic picture of the suffering servant and their transformation in the New Testament son of man. This transformation flowed naturally from the object of Jesus’ coming, the revelation of the Father. The Father could be revealed not through the self-assertion of the Son, but through His self-renunciation and service (Phil. ii. 6). Whilst, therefore, in adopting the title ‘Son of Man’ from 1 Enoch, Jesus made from the outset supernatural claims, yet these supernatural claims were to be vindicated not after the external Judaistic conceptions of 1 Enoch, but in the revelation of the Father in His life, death, and resurrection. Thus in the life of the actual Son of Man the Father was revealed in the Son, and supernatural greatness in universal service. He that was greatest was likewise the servant of all. This transformed conception of the Son of Man is thus permeated throughout by the Isaiah conception of the Servant of Yahweh; but though the Enochic conception is fundamentally transformed, the transcendent claims underlying it are not foregone. (92)

Christ in fact carries out the functions of God in his kingdom. About chapter IV, “The Rise and Development in Israel of the Doctrine of a Blessed Future Life” (96–133), Charles reported in a note: “Some sections of this chapter are repeated verbally from my lecture on Immortality (Clarendon Press, 1912), while it is based as a whole on my Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life (second edition)” (96, n. 1). As in the lecture, he began by stressing how this was a practical, not only an academic matter of historical study and how each person could trace his own struggle in this “national Pilgrim’s Progress” toward the city of God (96–7; Immortality 4). After those fine words, he turned to a definition of “eschatology.” He noted that both prophecy and apocalyptic had one and repeated his understanding of the similarities and differences between prophecy and apocalyptic, including the

  ( – )

491

three great doctrines contributed by apocalyptic. Following this, he reproduced from his earlier studies a history of eschatological development in the Old Testament, Apocrypha, and Pseudepigrapha. Even in works as late as Sirach, Tobit, and 1 Maccabees, the older heathen conception from the Old Testament lived on. A big change came with the Chasidim from whom the Pharisees were to develop: “However corrupt this movement became in later times, it was incomparably noble in its early days. To this comparatively small body of men was entrusted the defence, confirmation, and development of the religious truths that were to save the world” (118). He wrote about abandonment of the hope for an eternal messianic kingdom on an earth that was not fit for it. Among the new forms a hope for a future life took were immediate entry of the risen righteous person into heaven or an eternal messianic kingdom in a new heaven and earth. As time went on, resurrection was conceived as spiritual in nature. He also traced the history of the teachings about Sheol, Gehenna, soul, and spirit. The New Testament takes up earlier ideas but largely transforms them and subordinates them to the purpose of the whole, with Christ assuming “a position undreamt of in the past” (127). In Christian teaching, there is to be no individualism in the kingdom. As he had before, he acknowledged that some older and unworthy ideas, like eternal damnation, survived into the New Testament. He thought such notions were incompatible with its concept of God. Here he again cited from Immortality where he had spoken about matters such as conditional probation. It would be inconsistent for the deity to punish eternally the sins from a few years of life (131–2; see Immortality, 33–4). The fifth chapter bears the title “Man’s Forgiveness of His Neighbour—A Study in Religious Development” (133–58)—exactly the title of the essay he had published in The Expositor in 1908. In fact, the chapter is, though Charles did not report it, nearly a verbatim reproduction of that essay. The slight changes usually take the form of citing a few extra passages to illustrate his points (e.g., on p. 136 he adds Job 31:29–30; it is not present in the article, p. 493; or 141 where additional Psalms passages appear, with the comment that they justify Jesus’s description of traditional teaching in Matthew 5:43) and replacing a word or two with others (the Imprecatory Psalms contain a “malignant venom” on p. 140, whereas in the article it is “a malignant element,” 497). In one place (151–3) he attached a long footnote, not present in the article, meant to refute objections raised by “a Jewish scholar” to his claims about the teaching on forgiveness in the Talmud (according to Charles, it deals with forgiveness only incidentally). Earlier he had omitted a footnote,

492    ( – ) present in the article (497; see 142 in the book), in which he referred to and rejected a different interpretation of Proverbs 24:17,18 suggested by “a distinguished Jewish scholar.” The article and chapter conclude with the importance of Testament of Gad 6:3–7 as containing a teaching on forgiveness “almost as noble as that of the New Testament” (153; “no less noble than that of the New Testament” in the article, 502).⁵ Near the end of the chapter (157; compare the article, 504), Charles inserted a paragraph not present in the article. But the teaching of the Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs was never accepted officially or otherwise by the Pharisees. It was never authoritative save in certain circles of Pharisaic mystics, who must in due time have found a congenial home in the bosom of the rising Christian Church. So little did the Pharisaic legalists—the dominating power in Pharisaism—appreciate this work that they did not think it even worth preserving. For its preservation the world is indebted to the Christian Church.⁶

The sixth chapter, “Reinterpretation and Comprehension” (159–84), is a fresh contribution. Here Charles spoke as a churchman and had some positive things to say about Judaism—even of the legalistic kind—although only until 70 .. He began the chapter as though he were going to repeat what he had written before about the developments in eschatology during the Old Testament and later periods, with the overwhelming place of the law after Ezra and its effects on the emergence of pseudonymity among those who were raising Judaism to higher theological levels. But at this point he said something new— that reinterpretation was necessary to religious development. He showed that, beginning in the Old Testament, older material such as Jeremiah’s seventy-year prophecy was reinterpreted, and the process did not stop there. This reinterpretation of traditional beliefs and symbols was . . . due to the prophetic succession of seers and mystics, which were seldom lacking in Judaism from the Exile onwards. But the task of reinterpretation was not wholly confined to them. The very legalists, who, as true sons of Ezra, had by

⁵ In the article (503) he wrote: “Moreover, so far as we attain this right attitude, we reflect the attitude of God himself to His erring children.” In the book (155) he used the same sentence but inserted “universally” after “God Himself.” ⁶ Later in the book, where he pointed out that Christ and eleven of his disciples came from Galilee (157; article, 504–5), Charles left out the sentence from the article: “Christ’s twelfth apostle was from Judea.”

  ( – )

493

their glorification of the Law as absolute and final made the office of the prophet impossible, came in due course not only to borrow the elements of the higher theology contained in apocalyptic, but also to interpret Old Testament beliefs that belonged to an earlier and lower stage of development in conformity with this higher theology. Indeed it is not possible to see how otherwise continuous spiritual progress could have been maintained in Judaism. And what is true of Judaism is true of all Churches. No Church which makes this right of reinterpretation impossible can continue to be a spiritual leader of mankind. (163–4)

Christianity assumed a much different attitude toward the law than either legalistic or apocalyptic Judaism did, as one can see in the Sermon on the Mount and in the writings of Paul. In the earliest years “Christianity was a divine life—not an intellectual creed nor a system of ritual observance” (168). In later times, however, she moved away from this approach, rejecting the need for ongoing reinterpretation and confusing “a body of intellectual conceptions with religion” (169)⁷ so that progress in this realm could be made only by prophets outside the official church. Charles argued that there should be a national church but one that was not only open to varied interpretations but was also constantly reinterpreting material from the past under the Spirit’s guidance. As examples he referred to the understanding of Genesis 1, various of the ten commandments like keeping the Sabbath, and the imprecatory Psalms. As he put it, “enough has been done to show that the sacred books, which we have taken over from the Jewish Church, need to be reinterpreted in the light of the Christian revelation and the development of the Christian life within the Church” (176). The same approach should be taken with the creeds. Thus, for instance, expressions such as “he descended into hell” or “he ascended to heaven” in the Apostles’ Creed require a different interpretation in view of modern understandings of the universe. “The highest expression of any divine truth at a given time cannot do more that set forth the highest religious consciousness of that time” (176) and requires reinterpretation. “There can be no final expression of divine truth here. In this world we can only see through a glass darkly” (177). He found a model for his approach in pre-70 .. Judaism. Though members of the different groups clashed sharply about important beliefs (Pharisee versus Sadducee, etc.), they worshiped in the same temple. And ⁷ This charge and the message of the next paragraph, as we have seen, found their way a number of times into his Westminster sermons.

494    ( – ) while Jesus and Paul, neither of whom applied tests of beliefs to others around them, often clashed with Jewish opponents, they too worshiped in the Jerusalem sanctuary. Now with the history of such a great Church [i.e., pre-70 . Judaism] in the past before us, are we not encouraged to look forward to the time when the National Church of England will in one respect—namely, its comprehensiveness—resemble the Jewish Church of that period, and become the spiritual mother of all true spiritually-minded Englishmen—all who worship God as revealed by Christ and His disciples? Spiritual unity— not intellectual conformity—would be the essential mark of such a Church. (181)

He believed that the model situation in Judaism—it was “an established Church” (182)—ended when church and state were severed in 70 .. Thereafter, “the liberty of interpretation in a spiritual and progressive sense was suppressed, Judaism lost its comprehensiveness, the legalistic party succeeded in crushing every rival form of religious thought and worship, and so Judaism became in its essentials a mere sect” (182). One needs a Christian church and state together, and that church must embrace a wide diversity of opinions or interpretations. Could not faithful men, who find in Christ the guide and inspiration of their own religious life, however they differ in their conception of His nature and being, agree to worship God, as revealed in Christ, side by side, bound together in the unity of the same Spirit? (183)⁸

Chapter VII bears the title “The Literature—The Old Testament Apocrypha” (184–219). It opens with paragraphs closely related to the contents of his “Introduction to Volume I” in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, including the senses in which “apocrypha” had been used, which books constituted “the Apocrypha Proper,” and the status of the books in the Catholic and Protestant churches. Regarding the Catholic view that they were canonical, he had cited in a footnote (The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 1.x, n. 1) the verdict of Westcott: of the prelates of the Council of ⁸ Henry Major, who greatly admired Religious Development (“It is a wonderful piece of popular exposition by a great scholar, and is worth its weight in gold” [“Robert Henry Charles,” The Modern Churchman 46 (1956) 222]), especially appreciated this sixth chapter where, he thought, Charles’s modernism was most clearly expressed (ibid., 224–6).

  ( – )

495

Trent who made the official statement about these books, “there was not one German, not one scholar distinguished by historical learning, not one who was fitted by special study for the examination of a subject in which the truth could only be determined by the voice of antiquity.”⁹ In the present chapter he rephrased the negative comment as: The weight that scholars in general will attach to this decree cannot but be influenced by the fact, that of the prelates who formed this Council none came from Germany or Switzerland or from any of the northern countries; none knew Hebrew, only a few had some knowledge of Greek, and there were even some whose knowledge of Latin was of a doubtful character. (186)

He offered two ways to classify the books of the Apocrypha: by geographical origin (Palestine or the wider Hellenistic world), each category of which was subdivided by literary type (187–8); and by date of composition (188–9). The remainder of the chapter consists of short introductions to Sirach, Tobit, Judith, Additions to Daniel, 1–3 Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, 1 Esdras, Additions to Esther, the Epistle of Jeremy, the Prayer of Manasses, 1 Baruch, and 4 Maccabees. In each of the introductions, he referred the reader to the appropriate section in the first volume of The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, but in two cases he also mentioned his own work on the text (Prayer of Manasses [215] and 1 Baruch [217]). Though the series in which the book was published appears to have been meant for a wider audience, Charles did not hesitate to use Greek in his accounts of several of the books. The final chapter, the companion to the preceding one, treats “The Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament” (220–52). He began by listing what he considered instances of pseudepigraphy in the Old Testament (220–1) and followed with those (mostly apocalyptic) texts to which the term is normally applied (221–2). These he divided by geography (Palestine, Hellenistic world; in each of these categories he subdivided the books by their literary types [187–8]) and then considered each by the century in which it was composed. Like chapter VII, most of VIII consists of short introductions to the individual works: the Book of Noah (preserved only in the form of quotations, e.g., in 1 Enoch and Jubilees), second-century parts of 1 Enoch, the Jewish parts of the ⁹ Brooke Foss Westcott, The Bible in the Church: A Popular Account of the Collection and Reception of the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Churches (London: MacMillan, 1879) 257.

496    ( – ) Sibylline Oracles, the Letter of Aristeas, Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs, the Book of Jubilees, first century sections of 1 Enoch, Psalms of Solomon, the Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs (first-century additions), Fragments of a Zadokite Work, 2 Enoch, 2 Baruch,¹⁰ and 4 Ezra (he ended the unit and thus the book with a lengthy citation from Box’s analysis of 4 Ezra in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament). Here too in each case he referred the reader to the treatment of the works in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament and/or to his own editions of them.

Reviews I have come across a few review notices about the book, ones that give an idea of the reputation Charles had gained by this time. For instance, in The Biblical World 44 (November 1914) 365 there is an unsigned single paragraph that summarizes its contents and ends with words of appreciation. Dr. Charles is unrivaled in his mastery of the literature of this period, and with this advantage he couples the ability to present his conclusions in a direct and clear style, so that his book not only should command the confidence of the non-specialist for whom it is intended, but also should prove of very great interest to specialist and non-specialist alike. One of the attractive features of the book as a presentation for popular use is the frequency with which advantage is taken of the opportunity to drive an important truth home to the reader’s mind and heart. The chapter on reinterpretation is a splendid case in point. Not often is multum in parvo rendered so inviting as in this booklet.

A similar short notice appeared in Review & Expositor 12 (1915) 268 where A. T. Robertson¹¹ did not summarize the contents but wrote these evaluative words: Dr. Charles has become the acknowledged master in the department of the apocalyptic literature of the Old and the New Testaments. He has here

¹⁰ He added a long footnote (244–6) to the paragraphs on 2 Baruch; the text of the footnote is taken from “Addenda et Corrigenda to Volume II” in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, II.xii–xiii. ¹¹ He taught at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. His A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research appeared in 1914 (“Archibald Thomas Robertson,” Wikipedia, last accessed 08-16-2019).

  ( – )

497

applied his knowledge to the interpretation of the theological development during the so-called Interbiblical Period. He finds it exceedingly fruitful and suggestive. Dr. Charles is a thorough disciple of Wellhausen and is disposed to discredit portions of the Old Testament and to magnify the value of the apocrypha and apocalypses. With this criticism in mind one will have to discount certain of his interpretations of a radical nature, but even so the book has a great deal of value and is very provocative of thought and often luminous in suggestion.

The Church Quarterly Review covered the book in volume 84 (1917) 173–5. It is not clear who wrote the “Short Notices” section in which the review is placed, since it is unsigned. Perhaps the writer was Arthur Cayley Headlam, then at King’s College London and the editor of the journal. Whoever composed the review, it claims that Charles overstated the importance of the second temple Jewish literature—especially the apocalypses—for the New Testament, while the attitude among more traditional scholars in the church was to downplay its significance. The reviewer found the book to be “a useful introduction to his larger works” (173) and added: “He gives a general account of the literature, stating, of course, his own views and opinions very definitely. We think it will be found that a good many of them have to be modified eventually, but this is not an opportunity for general criticism” (173). He thought the most interesting chapter might be the one in which Charles distinguished prophecy and apocalyptic. “We cannot help thinking that perhaps, quite naturally, Dr. Charles is inclined to over-estimate the value of apocalyptic” (174). The reviewer objected that “it was not apocalyptic that taught the Israelites the doctrine of a future life, but the circumstances of their history. It was the great spiritual rising of the Maccabean revolt that made clear the worth and destiny of the individual” (174).¹² About the contents of the apocalyptic and other pseudepigraphic books, he wrote: No doubt the writers of these books discussed to the best of their ability the problems involved as far as they saw, but they did so in a very crude and inadequate manner. The apocalyptic and pseudographical [sic] literature is represented most typically by the book of Enoch, and a comparison of that work with any of the prophetic literature reveals the decadence of later Judaism. (174–5)

¹² Charles did say, of course, that the belief in a blessed future arose out of profound Jewish experience, so the reviewer may not be fair to him at this point.

498    ( – ) As if he had not made his position clear before, he ended the review with what seems a dismissal of Charles’s program: Rightly we look upon Isaiah and Jeremiah and Ezekiel as among the great books of the world. Rightly we look upon Enoch as merely valuable for its position in historical theology. The apocalyptic provided some of the forms of thought in which our Lord enshrined His teaching, and which were adopted by Christianity, but it did not add anything of value to religious ideas. (175)

We should recall (see Part 3 Chapter 1) that, as D’Arcy wrote, the book came to enjoy a wide circulation and was translated into a number of languages.¹³ It made much seemingly esoteric material available to more than an academic audience.

A 1915 Introduction This is the place to mention an exceedingly minor publication by Charles, but a publication with which a story may be connected. In 1915 he supplied an “Introduction” for the published form of a doctoral dissertation. Here is the entire “Introduction.” Some months ago I was asked by the Board of Studies in Theology of the University of London to examine a Thesis written by Mr. Wicks for the London D.D. With this Thesis I was so favorably impressed that in my report to the Board of Studies I advised that Mr. Wicks should be encouraged to publish his Thesis, since it formed a good contribution on the subject he had chosen, and one which I should like to possess in a permanent form. Dr. Wicks has now acted on the advice tendered, and it is the hope of the present writer that his work will meet with all due appreciation.

The dissertation in question was written by Henry J. Wicks and published as The Doctrine of God in the Jewish Apocryphal and Apocalyptic Literature (London: Hunter & Longhurst, 1915). Charles’s “Introduction” is on p. xi. It ¹³ “A Brief Memoir,” xxviii.

  ( – )

499

is not very surprising that Charles was pleased with the dissertation because Wicks followed his theories about the various publications he treated. The point is clear from the latter’s “Introduction to the Literature” (1–26) where he repeatedly accepts Charles’s datings and analyses of the books he studied.¹⁴ I believe that Charles’s association with Wicks’ dissertation is the incident to which G. H. Box refers in the letter he wrote to Burkitt when the latter was preparing his obituary of Charles. Box, said Burkitt, went on to illustrate what he called Dr. Charles’s ‘capacity to forget’. He mentions how he and Dr. Charles were fellow examiners for a Thesis for a London University Doctorate, how helpful and interested Charles had been, how many valuable suggestions he made, including the form of the title— and then, four years later, Box found that Dr. Charles had altogether forgotten about the thesis and its really quite distinguished author! “This,” says Canon Box, “was I believe merely a defect of what was perhaps his supreme quality—his power of complete absorption in the subject upon which he was immediately engaged. This gave an intensity and completeness to his work which were truly remarkable, but the flame consumed as well as illuminated: hence the remarkable and apparently inconsistent divagations.”¹⁵

The anecdote wonderfully captures aspects of Charles’s character, ones that would hardly surprise anyone who has read his books. Religious Development Between the Old and the New Testaments was the last summary of religious ideas that Charles published, but it was not, as we have seen, his last scholarly publication. Besides his work with Revelation and Daniel, he composed during the Westminster period two other books on topics not directly related to Jewish apocalypses. Each of the next two chapters is devoted to one of these less familiar books.

¹⁴ Note also his statement in the Preface: “The author, like all students of this literature, is under deep obligation to those who have edited apocalyptic and other works, especially to Dr. R. H. Charles” (vi). ¹⁵ Burkitt, “Robert Henry Charles 1855–1931,” 444.

Chapter 5 The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu Charles’s ecclesiastical duties, as we have seen, did not so fill his time as to prevent him from pursuing other interests. Yet rather than carrying on his practice of editing, translating, and commenting on ancient Jewish or Christian texts, his next book-length publication after 1914 moved in an unexpected direction—he treated a world chronicle whose last parts dealt with the Muslim conquest of Egypt. As we will see, there is a story behind this digression in his scholarship.

The Content of the Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu Little is known about the life of John, other than that he was the Coptic Bishop of Nikiu, an important city located in the southwestern Nile Delta region. The first modern editor of his Chronicle, Hermann Zotenberg summarized the few reports about him.¹ He played a major role in the Coptic Church in the latter part of the seventh century, during the tenures of the Alexandrian patriarchs John of Samanud, Isaac, and Simeon (ca. 680–701 ..). John was among those who attended John of Samanud on his deathbed (689 ..) and was a leader in electing his successor. After the Arab governor refused to confirm the nomination of a certain George to the post, Isaac went to Alexandria accompanied by John of Nikiu and another bishop (these two ecclesiastics represented the two parts of Egypt). Because he was an expert on monastic discipline and rules, John of Nikiu was appointed the general director or overseer of the monasteries. Around 696 .. he so severely punished a misbehaving monk that the latter died after ten days. Because of this abuse of power, John’s fellow bishops met with him and deprived him of his offices, reducing him to the status of a simple monk (John is said to have protested). According to the prefatory words that precede the summary of the 122 ¹ “Mémoire sur la chronique byzantine de Jean, évêque de Nikiou,” Journal asiatique 10 (1877) 453–5. Much of the information comes from the History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria by Severus Ibn al-Moqaffa.’ At the beginning of his Introduction, Charles also supplied some of these bits of information regarding John (iii).

R. H. Charles: A Biography. James C. VanderKam, Oxford University Press. © James C. VanderKam 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192869289.003.0017

   ,   

501

chapters in the Chronicle (the statement is from a translator), “these accounts were put together in (their) completeness by John the ascetic and Maddabbar, which is by interpretation, administrator, who was bishop of the town of Nakijus in Egypt, which is called Absai” (Charles’s translation).² At the beginning of the Chronicle proper he refers to himself (or a translator does) as “The holy father, John bishop of Nikiu, who put this work together.” The lengthy world chronicle that John composed begins its coverage with Adam and Eve and continues until very near his own time. Prefixed to the Chronicle is a paragraph about the work itself and a summary of the contents of the 122 chapters (apparently from the person responsible for the Arabic translation; 123 was written by the two men who made the Ethiopic translation); these are followed by an introductory statement from John himself. The Chronicle begins with a series of short chapters (1–20 are all very brief), the first of which mentions Adam and Eve. With ch. 21 some of them become longer, and, starting around 50, several prove to be very lengthy indeed. An example is ch. 77 which deals in part with “the Christ-loving emperor Constantine” (77:113). John wrote in the introductory statement to his Chronicle something about himself and his method: For this task, moreover, I am wanting in eloquence beyond all authors and feeble in discourse though with many a testing I have tested the chosen portions. We will begin to compose this work from many ancient books, which deal with the (various) periods and the historical events, which we have witnessed also in the times to which we have come. And I have been honest (in this work) in order to recount and leave a noble memorial to the lovers of virtue in this present life. And we have left this narrative which is written in good order and in an exalted translation.

John, as one would expect of a Coptic bishop, was a Monophysite who, naturally, disapproved of the decision about Christ’s two natures taken more than two centuries earlier at the Council of Chalcedon (451). He also strongly opposed Arianism, hardly considering its defenders Christian. As one reads through the Chronicle, one is rarely left in doubt about which characters are pleasing to John and which are not. ² Charles did not mention the source for information about John, but the title that he gives as Maddabbar (mudabbir, an Arabic term) seems to reflect the statement in the History of the Patriarchs that John was given the direction (tadbîr) of the monasteries, since he was familiar with life in these institutions (see the review by W. E. Crum in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 4 [1917] 209, and, on the term, Zotenberg, “Mémoire sur la chronique byzantine de Jean, évêque de Nikiou,” 455–6).

502    ( – ) As John himself wrote, he based his work on earlier books. In his presentation, he followed the models provided by predecessors such as John Malalas (sixth century) and John of Antioch, and by the Chronicon Pascale (the latter two of the seventh century). Charles, like Zotenberg, made ample reference to these sources in the notes to his translation. The practice of the chronographers that John imitated was to interweave Greek traditions about the gods and famous nations and individuals with scriptural materials and interpretations. For example,³ Seth, son of Adam and Eve, is said, in John of Nikiu’s Chronicle, to have named the planets, the sun, and the moon and to have been the first to write Hebrew (ch. 2; John mentions a number of “firsts”). Cainan, Noah’s great-grandson, was a wise man who composed astrolabes (ch. 4 [Charles thought the word should be “astronomy”]); Chronus, too, was from the line of Noah’s son Shem (6). John dealt with Hermes, Hephaestus, and Dionysus when they were in Egypt (9,10, 13) and even reported that Hermes was the first to speak about the Trinity (15). At ch. 51 he reached the Persian period, the return of the Judean exiles, Cambyses’s conquest of Egypt, and Alexander the Great (for the building of Alexandria and the division of his empire, see 59). King Hezekiah, according to ch. 56, was a contemporary of Romulus and Remus. Chapter 60 relates that the Septuagint was made “by old men in the space of seventy-two days, for there were seventy-two translators, but two died before they had completed the translation.” Chapter 63 deals with Antiochus Epiphanes, 64 with Julius Caesar, 65–6 with King Herod, and 67 includes Cleopatra, Augustus (with his calendrical contributions), and the birth of Jesus (about whom John writes little—just two paragraphs of the seventeen in the chapter). At ch. 69 he reaches Tiberius and the date when Jesus was crucified (nothing else is said about his life). A point of interest in ch. 72 regarding a place that will be important later in the narrative is that the emperor Trajan, according to John, built the great fortress of Babylon in Egypt; the area was so named earlier by Nebuchadnezzar who had conquered Egypt (72:17–18). John mentions persecutions of Christians at the times of different emperors, such as Diocletian whom he treats in ch. 77. This is also the chapter in which he deals with Constantine at considerable length and mentions the Council of Nicea (77:70–2). John continued his Chronicle with many more characters and events from the centuries after Constantine and often noted what happened in Egypt. His work is esteemed today, however, as an especially valuable source of ³ The names and terms in the examples are given according to Charles’s translation which reflects some alterations of the Ethiopic text.

   ,   

503

information about a sequence of events that happened perhaps in his lifetime—the Muslim conquest of Byzantine Egypt (639–45 ..)—including his own town of Nikiu (on May 13, 641; see 118:10). That narrative starts in ch. 111 and continues to the end of the work. Charles, who found Alfred Butler’s Arab Conquest of Egypt to be “simply indispensable” (xii) for the time in question, quoted the Oxford historian’s assessment of the relevant part of the Chronicle: “It is the acquisition of John’s manuscript by the British Abyssinian expedition which has made it possible to write a history of the Arab conquest of Egypt.”⁴ The fuller context of Butler’s statement about the value of John’s Chronicle is worth noting. Where the text is clear and uncorrupted, it is of extreme value: but most unhappily it is almost a complete blank from the accession of Heraclius [= 610 ..] to the arrival of the Arabs before Babylon [= 640 ..]: thus the story of the Persian conquest and the recovery of Egypt has dropped out, and the history of the later stages of the Arab conquest is in such a tumbled and topsy-turvy state that the true order and meaning of the narrative are almost past the power of criticism to reconstitute. Yet certain cardinal facts are established which, though at variance with later Arab tradition, must be regarded as of absolutely unimpeachable authority, and as furnishing a firm and sure basis for the study of this epoch. (ix)

The Context for the 1916 Volume It is believed that John wrote the work in Greek, although it was suggested early in scholarship on the Chronicle that some passages dealing with Egypt could have been composed in Coptic. Whether in Greek alone or Greek and Coptic, no trace of the original has survived. At some point the text was ⁴ The Arab Conquest of Egypt and the Last Thirty Years of Roman Dominion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902) ix. The expedition to which Butler referred was the one against the Emperor Theodore (described above in connection with 1 Enoch), at the end of which the British forces took a number of manuscripts from the royal fortress Magdala; the manuscripts eventually found a place in the British Museum. Elsewhere in The Arab Conquest of Egypt, Butler added further details about the “acquisition”: The English on the capture of Magdala found a large library of Abyssinian books, which they carried off: but before long they abandoned the greater part at some wayside church, because it was too much trouble to transport them. The selection of books for keeping seems to have been made at random: but the value of the books saved is some measure of the loss to the world of learning of the books abandoned. The British Museum MS. of John of Nikiou was among the treasures rescued in this haphazard manner. (426)

504    ( – ) translated into Arabic. There are philological reasons for drawing this conclusion, but we also have supporting evidence in a statement appended to John’s Chronicle by one of the two people who translated it into Ethiopic (ch. 123). In it the Abyssinian scholar identifies the base from which he and a colleague worked: “We have translated this book with great care from Arabic into Ge‘ez, even poor I, the most worthless among men and the vilest amongst the people, and the deacon Gabriel the Egyptian, son of the martyr John Kolobos, by the order of Athanasius commander-in-chief of the army of Ethiopia, and by the order of the queen Mârjâm Sena” (ch. 123:9).⁵ The unnamed translator, who notes the military and royal authority behind the project, even dated when he and Gabriel completed their rendering of the Arabic version—1602 .. (see 123:6–8). As the Arabic version, too, has disappeared, the only surviving form of the text is in the copies of the Ethiopic version created by the anonymous translator and Gabriel.⁶ At Charles’s time there were two accessible copies of the Chronicle in Ge’ez: a seventeenth century manuscript in the Bibliothèque nationale, and an eighteenth century copy in the British Museum (in neither case is the Chronicle the only work recorded on the manuscript [Introduction, v–vi]). Since 1916 the number of such witnesses has grown to four.⁷ The first scholar to edit the text, Hermann Zotenberg (1836–94) of the Bibliothèque nationale, issued a French translation in a series of journal articles from 1877–79⁸ and in book form in 1879 and 1883.⁹ He was the one to propose that the original contained Greek and Coptic sections. ⁵ The queen is named because of her role in effecting the translation; it may be that her royal husband, Sharda : Dengel, is not mentioned because he had died some years earlier (1597). After her husband’s death, she served as co-regent for seven years (Dimitri Toubkis, “Maryam Śәna,” Encyclopaedia Aethiopica volume 3, edited by Siegbert Uhlig [Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2007] 829–30). ⁶ Charles (Introduction, iv–v) referred to a fragment in Sahidic, located in the Berlin Museum. Dr. H. Schäfer, the individual who had found it, thought it was closely related to John of Nikiu’s Chronicle. Charles was appropriately cautious about the identity of the fragment: “Future investigation must determine whether this Sahidic fragment is derived directly from the original work, or translated from one of its versions, or whether it is merely an independent document dealing with the same material as our Chronicle.” The last option seems the preferable one. Butler (The Arab Conquest of Egypt, ix n. 1) wrote: M. Amélineau in his Vie de Patriarche Copte Isaac (p. xxiv. n.) professes to know of an Arabic MS. of John’s Chronicle. In reply to my inquiry asking where this precious document is to be found, he will only say that it is “au fond d’une province de l’Égypte”—a remark which does not illuminate the mystery. No such document has been published to date. ⁷ Stefan Weninger, “John of Nikiu,” Encyclopaedia Aethiopica 3.298. ⁸ “Mémoire sur la chronique byzantine de Jean, évêque de Nikiou,” Journal asiatique 10 (1877) 451–517; 12 (1878) 245–347; 13 (1879) 291–386. He referred (452) to a third copy in the d’Abbadie collection, but he apparently was not able to use it. The d’Abbadie copy is one of the four manuscripts mentioned above. ⁹ La chronique de Jean, évêque de Nikiou: Notice et extraits (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1879); La chronique de Jean, évêque de Nikiou: Texte éthiopien (Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale et autres bibliothèques 24, 1; Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1883) 125–608.

   ,   

505

The publication date for the volume somewhat obscures the time when Charles was working on the translation. In fact, he must have prepared at least a good draft of it many years earlier because the historian Alfred Butler, whose The Arab Conquest of Egypt was published in 1902, thanked Charles for lending him his translation of John of Nikiu (The Arab Conquest of Egypt, xxiii; Butler dated the Preface to September 22, 1902). Thus Charles had begun the work some time before 1902. Butler also wrote that “scholars are awaiting with much interest the appearance of Dr. Charles’ English translation” (ix). The scholars, as it turned out, had to be patient. In his book Butler used Charles’s work when referencing John of Nikiu and in some cases had suggestions for changes. For example, on p. 298 n. 1 he cited Charles’s rendering that the Muslim general ‘Amr “spent twelve years in warring against the Christians in northern Egypt.” Butler argued in the note that, though the text read as Charles translated it, one should change “years” to “months” to make the chronology work. The published form of Charles’s translation reads that ‘Amr “spent twelve months in warring against the Christians of Northern Egypt” (115:1). A footnote at the word “months” acknowledges Butler as the source for the change.¹⁰ What led the great expert on early Jewish apocalypses to translate a historical chronicle written by a Christian bishop centuries later? F. C. Burkitt provided background for the surprising subject. The present writer is partly responsible for a happy delay in the work of the Commentary [on Revelation], by helping to persuade Dr. Charles to bring out an English translation of the Chronicle of John of Nikiu. This work, written originally in Greek, contains a very valuable and nearly contemporary account of the Arab conquest of Egypt, but it survives only in an Ethiopic translation of a lost Arabic translation of the original. It had been published by Zotenberg, but a careful and literal English edition was needed, and Charles had exactly the linguistic knowledge required. His excellent edition of this work (1916) will help to keep his memory alive among Byzantine Historians who care little for Jewish pseudepigrapha.¹¹

So, Charles was not abandoning his former interests and embracing a new area of scholarship. His expert knowledge of the Ethiopic language made him the ¹⁰ Butler referred a number of other times to Charles’s understanding of the text and in some cases compared it favorably to H. Zotenberg’s treatment (The Arab Conquest of Egypt, 171, 224, 313, 315, 535, 539). ¹¹ “Robert Henry Charles 1855–1931,” 440–1.

506    ( – ) ideal candidate to produce an English translation of a work preserved only in Ge’ez, despite the fact that the Chronicle stood far outside his field of research.

The Book The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu, translated from Zotenberg’s Ethiopic Text, by R. H. Charles, D. Litt., D.D., Canon of Westminster, Fellow of the British Academy (Text and Translation Society series 3; London: Williams & Norgate, 1916). One of the topics treated by Charles in the Introduction is the state of the text of the Chronicle as it has come down to us (iii–iv). There clearly are some problems (as Butler pointed out); in fact, large parts of it have disappeared. For one piece of evidence, Charles, following Zotenberg, observed that the summaries of the 122 chapters “prefixed by the Arabic translator, do not always correspond to the chapters they profess to summarize” (iii). This could be a failing that does not impact the text of the Chronicle, but the text itself betrays other flaws. A major one is the sizable gap in coverage noted by Butler—the treatment of the period from 610–40 .. is missing. These years included most of the reign of the Emperor Haraclius (610–41 ..), which was the time of Byzantine struggles with Persia, the Persian occupation of Egypt, and the beginning of the Muslim conquest. This gap occurs between chs. 110 and 111. Naturally, there are issues arising from the fact that a granddaughter version is the only one extant—the transcriptions of names, especially less familiar ones, are often challenging to interpret (see below). Since Zotenberg was the first to edit, translate, and comment on the text, Charles scrutinized his work with his familiar zeal for detail. The fourth section of the Introduction examines Zotenberg’s edition of the Ethiopic text. Since there were only two manuscripts, establishing the text was not overly difficult. For Charles, “Zotenberg’s chief merit lies not in the making of the text, but in the great ingenuity he has shown in deciphering the very corrupt forms under which a considerable number of the proper names are disguised” (vi). He faulted his predecessor for several emendations in which he misconstrued the text or made it inconsistent with its context or with information known from elsewhere (vi–ix). In the fifth section of the Introduction (“Zotenberg’s Translation and Index”) Charles turned his attention to his French rendering of the Ge’ez. His overall verdict was: “The translation is surprisingly faulty” (ix). A general criticism was that Zotenberg often paraphrased rather than translating literally. Over the next couple of pages Charles

   ,   

507

provided examples to document his charge and even listed a number of errors occurring in the Index, which was otherwise “admirable in its fullness” (x; examples are on x–xi). Charles ended the Introduction by describing his own translation. In it he tried to be as literal as possible (unlike Zotenberg) and thus to reflect how rough the text of the Chronicle is. “As respects accuracy, owing to the corruptness of the text, this has not been achieved to the extent I could wish. Subsequent translators will carry forward the identification of corrupt proper names, as well as the further emendation of the text” (xi). He explained the symbols he used in the translation and listed the other Christian chroniclers he had consulted while working on John’s Chronicle. As noted, most of the chapters in the latter part of the Chronicle (111 and following) deal with the Muslim invasion of Egypt and eventual conquest of the entire land in the years 639–45 .., although, due to lost material, the account begins well into the story. After the unification of their forces in the Arab peninsula, Muslim armies had moved into Palestine and Syria and had taken control of those areas. The attack on Roman Egypt followed soon after during the caliphate of ‘Umar (634–44 ..). The leader of the invading forces was ‘Amr ibn ‘al-’As. : He advanced into Egypt from Palestine, took Furmah/ Pelusium after a siege, and not long after arrived in the vicinity of Memphis where the fortress Babylon was located. The Roman troops and their leaders proved largely inept, raising ineffective opposition despite their superior numbers, as the Muslims moved through the country. It was at Babylon that Cyrus, the orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria and civil ruler of Egypt who was notorious for his persecution of the Coptic Monophysites, attempted to sue for peace with ‘Amr and in effect to end the Roman/Byzantine control of Egypt. Cyrus apparently reached a settlement but had to submit its terms to Heraclius for approval. The monarch, thoroughly displeased, rejected it and Cyrus was exiled. The Muslims gained possession of the fortress when the Roman defenders abandoned it; the invaders then began their march toward Alexandria. One of the places they took on the campaign was John’s city of Nikiu. Eventually the Muslim forces reached Alexandria but were in no position to take the city. Around this time (641 ..) Cyrus was reinstated as patriarch, and again he negotiated a truce with ‘Amr to deliver Egypt to him. He went to the Egyptian city of Babylon to the Moslem, seeking by the offer of tribute to procure peace from them and put a stop to war in the land of Egypt. And ‘Amr welcomed his

508    ( – ) arrival, and said unto him: “Thou hast done well to come to us.” And Cyrus answered and said unto him: “God has delivered this land into your hands: let there be no enmity from henceforth between you and Rome: heretofore there has been no persistent strife with you.” (120:17)

Heraclius had died in 641 .., with the imperial throne disputed and shared after his death; hence there was little help or guidance coming from Constantinople. The agreement made by Cyrus and ‘Amr stipulated a set amount of tribute, a Muslim promise not to intervene for eleven months, permission for the Roman troops to leave Alexandria without being replaced by other imperial forces and for the Muslims to take a small number of hostages from among the soldiers and civilians, a cessation of military action by the imperial troops, an agreement by the Muslims neither to take Christian churches nor interfere with Christian concerns, and to allow Jews to remain in Alexandria (120:18–21). Cyrus then returned to Alexandria where he persuaded people to accept the terms (120:22–7). Cyrus also attempted to negotiate the return home of people who had fled from their cities to Alexandria (120:28). At the end of 120:28 John reported that, once the Muslims controlled Egypt, they tripled the taxes. Despite the truce, John of Nikiu assessed the Muslim dominance most negatively and resorted to biblical terms and themes as he did so. When God’s judgement lights upon these Ishmaelites may He do unto them as He did aforetime unto Pharaoh! But it is because of our sins that He has suffered them to deal thus with us. Yet in His longsuffering our God and Saviour Jesus Christ will look upon us and protect us: and we also trust that He will destroy the enemies of the Cross, as saith the book which lies not. (120:33)

As events transpired, the Muslims violated the agreement with Cyrus, and Cyrus himself died soon afterward (642 ..; see 120:36–8, 66–7). About this enemy of the Monophysites, John added some harsh words: “And before he died he wrought the works of the apostates and persecuted the Christians; and for this reason God, the righteous Judge, punished him for the evils he had wrought” (120:68). John’s Chronicle includes much about internal religious strife among the Christians of Egypt (especially between the Monophysite Copts and the Melkites/Chalcedonians) and political conflict, showing that there were deep rifts within the population even during the invasion. ‘Amr soon took Alexandria, and claims John, “the inhabitants received him with

   ,   

509

respect; for they were in great tribulation and affliction” (120:72). After this John reported that every one said: ‘This expulsion (of the Romans) and victory of the Moslem is due to the wickedness of the emperor Heraclius and his persecution of the Orthodox [that is, John’s co-religionists] through the patriarch Cyrus. This was the cause of the ruin of the Romans and the subjugation of Egypt by the Moslem.” (121:2)

John described the harsh rule of the Muslims, but he expressed his confidence that God will put to shame those who grieve us, and He will make His love for man triumph over our sins, and bring to naught the evil purposes of those who afflict us, who would not that the King of Kings and Lord of Lords should reign over them, (even) Jesus Christ our true God. (121:8)

In the last chapter (written by the translators) the explanation for various ills, including the Muslim conquest of Egypt, reads: And all these things fell out because they divided Christ into two natures, whilst some of them made Him (merely) a created being. Also, the Roman emperors lost the imperial crown, and the Ishmaelites and Chauzaeans won the mastery over them, because they did not walk in the orthodox faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, but divided the indivisible. (123:4–5)

The translator(s) here properly caught the significance that John attached to the error of those who opposed the Monophysite understanding of Jesus Christ in bringing about the tragic events that befell Egypt. Burkitt referred to Charles’s “excellent edition” of the Chronicle, although there are indications that he may not have devoted as much energy to this text as he had to the Jewish pseudepigrapha in his earlier publications. He was, of course, working in less familiar terrain, and the series in which the book appeared could explain in part why its pages are not so heavily annotated as, say, those in his translations of 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. He did supply notes, but they are frequently brief references to Zotenberg and at times to ancient chronographers used by John (he often quotes the Greek text of John Malalas). The notes are more abundant for about the first fifty chapters, less so after that. Some pages even lack notes altogether

510    ( – ) (e.g., 74–5, 160–2, 198–9). Charles also did not claim that he himself had examined the two manuscripts of the Chronicle, one of which was in the British Museum—something unimaginable in his preparation for other translations. He seems to have relied on Zotenberg’s edition for the readings—as the title of his book reveals.

Reviews Some experts in areas impacted by the Chronicle of John of Nikiu wrote reviews of Charles’s translation. One was Ernest Walter Brooks, among whose publications was an article on the chronology of the Muslim conquest of Egypt.¹² He treated the book in The English Historical Review 32 (1917) 429–30 where he wrote: A text which has undergone two translations is naturally very corrupt, and while great credit must be given to Zotenberg for the manner in which he performed the difficult task of translating it, it was inevitable that further study should detect many errors and insufficiencies, and it was therefore a matter of great satisfaction to those who are interested in the last days of Byzantine rule in Egypt when the long-expected translation by so accomplished an Ethiopic scholar as Dr. Charles at last appeared. (429)

He was confident it was much better than Zotenberg’s rendering, but one gets the impression from the review that Brooks did not read Ge‘ez because his criticisms focus on how little help Charles’s notes give readers who do not know the language yet would like more information about exactly what a certain Ethiopic term or expression was. He mentioned Zotenberg’s use of “prefect” as the title borne by a number of individuals. Zotenberg did not give a transliteration of the Ethiopic noun he so translated nor did Charles. Brooks’s point was that without such data someone interested in, for example, the administrative structure of Egypt could not use the information from the Chronicle to clarify the issue sufficiently. Charles often cited the Ethiopic text in his notes and gave his emended readings, but he did so in script, not in transliteration. Brooks also found it less than useful when Charles stated in various notes that the text was corrupt without indicating what it read. ¹² “On the chronology of the conquest of Egypt by the Saracens,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 4 (1895) 435–44.

   ,   

511

He drew attention to another practice of Charles that he did not appreciate: “Dr. Charles has a strange system of explaining Egyptian dates by the Gregorian calendar” (430). “As the Gregorian calendar did not come into use till 900 years after John’s time, and the reckoning of events in his time is always given by the Julian calendar, it is hard to see what purpose is served by giving the Gregorian dates” (430). He too concluded that Charles had not examined the manuscripts of the Chronicle, and he charged that, regarding the original language of the work, Charles had done nothing “beyond reproducing Zotenberg’s rather strange supposition of a mixed Greek and Coptic composition” (430). Another early reviewer was the great scholar of Coptic, Walter Ewing Crum who would later publish the six-volume A Coptic Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1929–39). His review, mentioned above, appeared in the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 4 (1917) 207–9. He congratulated the Text and Translation Society for making the volume available “in times not at all propitious to scholarly enterprise” (during the World War). As a general verdict, he commented: That Zotenberg’s translation, though a remarkable achievement, was but preliminary to still closer study of the text, was obvious, seeing what countless obscurities were involved. Charles’s much more exact version clears up many of these and in many important passages brings order out of confusion. He has been generous in acknowledgment of debt to his predecessor, to whose learning and ingenuity we owe it that so large a proportion of the true forms has been recovered from the impossible-looking disguises to which they had been condemned by the ignorance of successive Arabic and Ethiopic transcribers. (207)

The major criticism in Crum’s review is Charles’s acceptance of Zotenberg’s thesis that the original text was in Greek with sections in Coptic where Egyptian matters were under consideration. Yet surely it is, upon the face of it, an unlikely explanation. Can any parallel case of such a bilingual patchwork be adduced? Why should a Coptic ecclesiastic, late in the seventh century, write in Greek, and in an age too wherein Coptic, as a literary idiom, was spread wider throughout Egypt than in most others? I have not observed an instance throughout the book, whether of incidental Greek phrases, words or names, that cannot equally well be accounted for if the Arabic version had been made from Coptic. (207)

512    ( – ) He then proceeded to supply many examples to support his point and added that “these and other Coptic features are by no means confined to sections relating to Egypt” (208). So Crum posited a complete Coptic original of the Chronicle and was able to record more Coptic features than had been noted earlier (he was not impressed with Zotenberg’s knowledge of Coptic [see 208 n. 1], and, while Charles seems to have read the language,¹³ he never gives a Coptic term in his notes). Crum also offered several suggestions for identifying names and other terms. He ended by calling Charles’s index a big improvement on the one by Zotenberg and by listing a couple of small mistakes in the translation. As nearly as I can tell, Charles’s translation remains the only English edition of John of Nikiu’s Chronicle.

Legacy Since the Arab conquest of Egypt is also far removed from my areas of specialization, it is more difficult for me to assess what twenty-first-century experts in the field think of Charles’s 1916 translation. One scholar who has written extensively on these events and on John of Nikiu’s Chronicle is Phil Booth of Oxford. In his essay “The Muslim Conquest of Egypt Reconsidered,”¹⁴ he presents a case, based largely on the Chronicle as the earliest surviving account, that an Arab army entered Egypt from the south and later joined up with ‘Amr’s troops at Babylon. Rather than a single movement, it was a two-pronged invasion. In the course of setting out his detailed argument, Booth makes some comments about Charles’s translation, all of them negative. Though Charles was critical of Zotenberg’s translation, Booth thinks Zotenberg’s is consistently better: Charles’s is “far inferior,” 645 n. 23; Charles “makes nonsense of the passage,” 653, and, following on this, “Preferable (as usual) is Zotenberg,” 653 n. 56. Booth’s evaluation differs from that of Crum, but it may be that, despite his proven ability in reading Ge‘ez, Charles’s less than complete knowledge of

¹³ When discussing the Coptic versions in his commentary on Revelation (see section 14 of the Introduction in vol. 1), Charles may imply that he consulted the surviving evidence himself. ¹⁴ Constructing the Seventh Century, edited by Constantin Zuckerman (Travaux et Mémoires 17; Paris: Association des Amis du Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, 2013) 639–70. I thank my colleague Gabriel Reynolds for putting me in contact with Booth, and to Booth who sent a copy of his article. For Booth’s own annotated translation of the key chapters in the Chronicle, 111–20, see Reading the Middle Ages: Sources from Europe, Byzantium, and the Islamic World, edited by Barbara H. Rosenwein (3rd edition; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018) 69–78.

   ,   

513

events in the seventh century impaired his understanding of the Chronicle’s final chapters. Charles’s foray into the Muslim conquest of Egypt was not to be his only departure from his normal course of research while he was a canon of Westminster. His next book to be treated in the following chapter dealt with a biblical topic, but it was unrelated to the apocalyptic literature which had claimed so much of his attention.

Chapter 6 The Ten Commandments Charles’s next monograph was also unusual for him. In this case he turned to the Ten Commandments and in doing so illustrated his familiar ability to analyze a subject from every angle.

The Book The Decalogue, Being the Warburton Lectures Delivered in Lincoln’s Inn and Westminster Abbey 1919–1923¹ by R. H. Charles, D.D, D. Litt., Archdeacon of Westminster, Fellow of the British Academy (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1923, second edition 1926).² During the years 1919–1923, while he was busy with other projects, Charles delivered the Warburton Lectures. The lectureship by that time had a long history. It was established by William Warburton (1698–1779) who began his professional life in law but soon turned to the church which he served in various capacities. Warburton became a friend of Alexander Pope, whom he defended against a charge of non-orthodoxy. Pope introduced him to some important people, including William Murray, later Lord Mansfield, who obtained for Warburton in 1746 the post of preacher at Lincoln’s Inn in London. Later he became chaplain to the king (1754) and Bishop of Gloucester (1759–79). This high-ranking clergyman established the

¹ While the book was in the proofing stage, Clark asked whether the title was to be simply “The Decalogue” (NLS, July 3, 1923). Charles replied (NLS, July 4, 1923) that he preferred “The Ten Commandments: The Warburton Lectures 1920–23.” Later Clark (NLS, September 24) noticed Charles was now calling the book “The Decalogue” and that he was giving the dates of the lectures as 1919–1923 (Clark disliked how out of date 1919 made a new book sound). Charles (NLS, September 25) indicated that “The Decalogue” was printed at the top of all the even-numbered pages so he decided to go with that title. He added that he gave the first Warburton Lecture in November 1919. ² The Charles-Clark correspondence contains a discussion of whether to call it a second impression or second edition. The first was actually published around March 8, 1924, not in 1923, due to unexpected delays. Later (NLS, January 30, 1926) Clark informed Charles that the first impression of The Decalogue was nearly sold out and that “we must make arrangements for a second impression immediately.” He asked whether there were any corrections to be made. Charles (NLS, February 3, 1926) sent a page of them for “the second edition or impression.”

R. H. Charles: A Biography. James C. VanderKam, Oxford University Press. © James C. VanderKam 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192869289.003.0018

  

515

Warburton Lectureship in 1768; its purpose was “to prove the truth of revealed religion . . . from the completion of the prophecies of the Old and New Testament which relate to the Christian Church, especially to the apostasy of Papal Rome.”³ Lincoln’s Inn, where William Warburton had been a preacher and where Charles delivered the lectures, is an Inn of Court, an institution for training lawyers. This place in London had the facilities to accommodate various functions such as lectures. Charles did not say whether he presented all of his Warburton lectures in both Lincoln’s Inn and Westminster Abbey or presented some in one, some in the other place, but both locales were involved. The short Preface supplies information about the arrangement and contents of the book. Charles explained that he approached the Ten Commandments from three “standpoints—the critical, the historical and the practical” (i). But this did not mean that in each of the lectures he treated all three. Rather, he confined the critical angle to a lengthy Introduction (vii–lxiv) in which he explained that the Decalogue had “existed in various forms—at least five—its earliest dating from the close of the fourteenth century .., and its latest from the close of the third” (i). About the various wordings in which the Ten Commandments survived he wrote: In its earliest and tersest form, in which each Commandment consisted of one brief crisp command (pp. xliv–xlviii), it comes from the great lawgiver, Moses. In the centuries that followed it received various accretions which were on the whole in keeping with the spirit of the original Commandments, save in the case of the Fourth as it its transmitted in Exodus xx. 11. (i)

He pointed the reader to two charts (pp. lv and lxiii) that illustrated the development of the Decalogue.⁴ The material in the Introduction seems not to have been part of the lectures; only when speaking of the second and third standpoints from which he approached the subject did Charles mention “lectures.” Furthermore, the Table of Contents (iv–v) also separates the Introduction from the fifteen lectures that took up each commandment in order (pp. 1–272). The second ³ “Warburton, William,” Encyclopaedia Britannica (1911) 28.318–19 (quotation from 319). ⁴ In one of his letters to Clark about The Decalogue (NLS, July 17, 1923), Charles divulged that his practice was to throw away his own manuscript of the book as soon as the first proofs were corrected. This caused problems when trying to determine whether mistakes were due to problems in Charles’s manuscript or were the fault of the printer (e.g., NLS, Clark, July 21, 1923).

516    ( – ) (against images) and fourth (keeping the Sabbath) required three lectures each, the sixth (against murder) two, and the other seven one each. Perhaps it was thought that the more technical detail of the critical study recorded in the Introduction was inappropriate for oral presentation. Each of the lectures incorporates the second and third standpoints from which Charles studied the Decalogue. Charles wrote regarding the historical angle that in the Lectures I have sought to ascertain the meaning and measure of obedience which were assigned to the Ten Commandments at various stages in the history of Israel and Judah, and particularly in the Second and Fourth. In my study of the Fourth it gradually became clear that a new and Judaistic conception of the Sabbath conflicting with the original one was introduced into Exodus xx. 11 about 500 .. or later, and that this later conception henceforward held the field in Judaism. (ii)

Christianity gave the Ten Commandments a new, spiritual meaning, although issues arose after a few centuries in connection with commands two and four. In the case of the former, the church was guilty of misreading it, for the most part wittingly, because it condemned absolutely the growing practice of image worship within the Church. From the thirteenth century, if not earlier, it jettisoned the Second Commandment bodily from the Decalogue, and published as authoritative a mutilated Decalogue till the time of the Reformers. (iii)

As for the fourth commandment, the church eventually, but this time “unwittingly,” “abandoned the true conception of the Lord’s Day, and substituted in its stead the later conception of the Jewish Sabbath, and clung to this wrong and Judaistic conception to the period of the Reformation” (ii–iii). These statements which echo the sorts of negative comments Charles more often made about non-apocalyptic Judaism and the Catholic Church—and the highly positive contribution of the Reformation—were fully within the spirit of the Warburton Lectures. As for the practical standpoint, Canon Charles professed that for him this was the most important. But deeply as I have been interested in the critical and historical study of the Decalogue, it has been my main aim to reinterpret the Decalogue on the

  

517

spiritual and ethical lines already laid down in the N.T., and to apply its lessons to the crying needs of our own day. (iii)⁵

The Introduction lays the foundation for what Charles would say in the lectures because in it he set out his understanding of the way in which the text of the Ten Commandments evolved and his reasons for positing the developmental process. He undertook a study of the various forms that the Decalogue assumed as it is attested in ancient witnesses. The research demanded detailed analysis of passages and many decisions about text-critical matters as well as a full grasp of the sources found in the Pentateuch in their historical sequence. It surely would have taxed the patience of an audience to hear all of this delivered orally, so we can hope that the Introduction, as suggested above, was not part of the lectures. Charles began examining the early sources with the latest of them, the Nash Papyrus which had first appeared in print in 1902. The four fragments contain much of the text of the commandments followed by the beginning of the Shema‘ (“Hear, [O Israel],” Deuteronomy 6:4). Charles supplied its Hebrew text and attached notes and a translation to it. He adopted the date assigned to it at the time—the first century .. or even the beginning of the second—but he did think the form of the text it documented went back to the third or second century .. (the papyrus is now usually dated to the second century ..). From the form of the Decalogue in the Nash Papyrus, Charles worked backward in time. He used as his basis the versions of the Decalogue in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 as well as the related commands in the Covenant Code (Exodus 21–3) and in Exodus 34. Through careful comparisons he tried to discern additions to earlier wordings of the sentences. The Sabbath commandment with its different formulations of the grounds for rest on the seventh day (see below) was a clear example. After assessing the various texts and their ⁵ Charles thanked the Rev. A. Ll. Davies for preparing the indexes (273–94) of subjects and passages quoted. He had earlier assisted in the same capacity with the commentary on Revelation, for which he had made the second and fourth indexes (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John, xiii; there Charles appreciated his “competent services”). He is mentioned in several of the letters in the Clark-Charles correspondence because he was tardy in completing his work (NLS, Charles, September 7, 1923; cf. September 21, where he suggested the first [Subject] Index could be omitted if it was taking up too much space). Clark (NLS, September 24) said Davies was holding up publication of the book, while on September 25 (NLS) Charles replied the delay was caused by his Archbishop who laid some extra burden on Davies. Clark (NLS, September 28) said he feared the first index, the longest of the three, would have to be omitted since it required too much space. Charles (NLS, September 2) wrote that he must have been mistaken when he suggested the first index could be omitted; he meant the index of names. Clark accepted this (NLS, October 4) so that the published book has only two indexes. Charles (NLS, February 8, 1924) said he paid Davies £5 5s 0d for his work.

518    ( – ) dates, he concluded that before the Pentateuchal sources E and J (two narrative sources designated by an abbreviation of the divine name, Elohim [God] and Yahweh/Jahweh [L] used in each) appeared, “the Decalogue existed, each Commandment consisting of one clause, expressed in a few clear and crisp words, in the tenth century or earlier. But if this is so, then there is no outstanding personality to whom this Decalogue can be ascribed other than Moses” (xlviii, where these words are italicized). The thesis that the commandments could be traced back to Moses elicited certain objections that Charles treated next. For example, the centuries-long non-compliance with the prohibition of images after the time of Moses suggested that no such commandment then existed. Charles insisted that worship of images in ancient Israel did not entail that the law against it had yet to be stated. A related problem was that the eighth-century prophets, who had plenty of opportunity to do so, did not refer to a law against images. Charles agreed with scholars who thought the prophets simply assumed the commandment and regarded idolatry as an abuse of an existing norm. Some consideration of how the various texts of the commandments (or of some of them) lined up chronologically brought the Introduction to a close. The first commandment—“Thou shalt have no other gods before me”⁶— was the subject of the first lecture (pp. 1–13). At the head of the chapter Charles cited the commandment from Exodus 20:3 and below it 2 Corinthians 13:14 (“The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all”) to show development from the one concept of God to the other. At times in the lecture it seems as if Charles did not presuppose a great deal of knowledge on the part of his audience. He explained that the commandment in Exodus 20 was henotheistic, not monotheistic. Using a number of examples from Judges and 1 Samuel, he demonstrated that early Israelites assumed the gods of the nations existed but believed that in the land of Israel one was to worship the Lord (he also explained that the form “Jehovah” was incorrect, and that “Yahweh” should be used). Israel was his land, and there he was honored. Not only was the Lord’s rule limited to Israel, but it was also confined to this life so that the individual had no hope for a blessed future. Sheol was all that lay ahead. The idea of monotheism is attested among the prophets in the eighth century; it also comes to expression in Genesis 1 and in additions to the Exodus 20 version of the fourth commandment. Yet only in the second century .. did some people, through what they learned from experience, arrive at the hope of a ⁶ I cite the commandments as Charles quoted them.

  

519

happy life hereafter on the grounds that the Lord controlled that realm of life as well, that his sovereignty extended throughout this world and the next. Thus, from the eighth century on the first commandment came to be interpreted from a monotheistic point of view, and already in the next century Deuteronomy 6:4–5 expresses the matter clearly: “Here, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord: and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.” Of this statement Charles wrote: “If we Christians fulfil this commandment of the Old Testament, we shall fulfil all that is required of us in the New” (10), which furnishes a still fuller revelation. In the New Testament the fatherhood of God—an idea that is affirmed only for the nation, not the individual, in the Old Testament—is more amply disclosed. There Jesus reveals what God’s fatherhood is really like, and the Holy Spirit has been at work revealing the Father and Son in a special way since Pentecost. Lectures two–four are devoted to the second commandment: “Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any likeness that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them . . . ” (Exodus 20:4–5a). In the first of the lectures (14–35; he called it “our sermon” [15]), Charles started with a few comments about the differing sequence of the commandments in various sources, the varying ways in which groups have numbered them (always retaining the total of ten), and the divisions into which subsequent readers have arranged them. He understood the second commandment as prohibiting worship of God through “images and unfigured symbols” (19). At this point he dealt with the view that the second, fourth, and tenth commandments were additions to an earlier list. A reason for thinking the second commandment, for example, was not original was that there is no evidence for it until Isaiah in the eighth century. Charles countered that the command had been ignored for centuries in Christianity, even though it was in force; why should not the same situation have prevailed in Old Testament history? This is an indication—not the first one in the book—that Charles was really exercised by what he took to be idolatry in the church in the form of adoring images of saints and the like (in fact, it would be the dominant theme in the next two lectures). The prophets strongly attacked idol worship, and by the second century .. all images were forbidden, even ones not meant for worship. As for why it took so long for the second command to be put into practice in Old Testament times (from the age of Moses until that of Isaiah), Charles appealed to the divine method of pedagogy. In the childhood of the race, there was an inadequate conception of God and images were allowed, but

520    ( – ) not afterwards. Thus, when such image worship is practiced in the church it is “gross idolatry” (31). As he made his case, Charles summarized forbidden ways of using images noted in the Old Testament (e.g., kissing them, genuflecting before them) and maintained that these very actions were done in the church. Those who honored images defended the practice, arguing that (1) they represent a god but are not actually thought to be a god; and (2) mental images of God are no better than material ones, and neither kind is adequate to represent him. Generally, Charles thought, the distinction between an image as representing a god and as in fact being a god was not understood by simple people or at least ran the risk of being misunderstood. Also, while neither material nor mental representations of God were adequate, mental images were not as hurtful as the physical kind and, unlike them, could be improved. He found it helpful to distinguish images with form, whether they were material or mental, from conceptions that are purely mental and formless. The prophets condemned the first kind, and the New Testament continued in this vein. The second lecture on the second commandment (36–58; on p. 36 Charles referred to the time as “this morning”) takes up the issue of how far the Christian Church had been faithful to the prophetic teaching about true worship as that teaching reached its culmination in the New Testament. For the first few centuries utilizing statues and likenesses was rejected, but with the conversion of Constantine to Christianity image worship, as Charles called it, began in earnest. With the emperor professing Christianity, many pagans converted (often not sincerely) and brought their bad habits with them. The use of images and the treatment of them only got worse as time progressed, despite some iconoclastic protests. One type of image that troubled Charles a great deal was the crucifix, use of which in worship is not attested before the sixth century. He did not deny that crucifixes could have a good effect, but they were associated, he thought, with devotion based on emotions, such as focusing on the horrors of Christ’s suffering. In three sentences on the subject he expressed some remarkable opinions: The representation of physical anguish, torture and agony is a thing that the Eastern religions, such as Hinduism, delight in. Devotion to such horrors is characteristic of lower types of civilisation. In the West it is characteristic of women more than of men, and amongst men it is a sign of the morbid and less sound and healthy types” (45–6). When the gospel writers speak of the crucifixion, they do not appeal to the readers’ emotions but to their conscience and will.

  

521

Charles then returned to the history of image worship in Christianity. He described various defenders of the practice (e.g., Pope Gregory II, John of Damascus) and the terrible decisions taken at the second Council of Nicea in 787 (the Empress Irene who called the conference together was a wicked person). The standard argument of those who approved the use of images was that the honor paid to the image passed to the one whom the image represented. Charles would have none of it. Romanists, it is true, maintain that, since prostrations and kisses were the customary ways of showing honour to civil and social superiors, the early Christians after Constantine came naturally to treat symbols in the same way, paying to them the honour that was meant really for their prototypes. But to bow to or kiss a friend is an act inherently different from a like act in connection with an image, seeing that, according to the Roman view, it is of the essence of the latter act that it is conceived as passing on automatically to the prototype. The one is a purely social act, the other, according to the presupposition of the image worshippers, a supernatural one. (57)

The third lecture regarding the second commandment (59–88) continued the historical survey regarding images and similar items in the church. While some opposition to them arose from time to time, Rome managed to silence the protests. Some like the Anglicans in the sixteenth century denounced the practice, but the Council of Trent affirmed it in strong terms. Charles had mentioned it before, but here again he argued that apologists for image worship in the church used the very claim made by defenders of the golden calf in the Old Testament and by advocates in early Christianity—it was merely a representation of the Lord. I have now shown at sufficient length that the worshippers of images in the Roman and Eastern Churches employ exactly the same arguments in defence of their idolatry as the heathen worshippers employed of old when confronted by the early Christian Apologists. Surely the Church that is obliged to defend its worship of images with arguments that are common to the idolaters of all ages cannot escape the guilt of idolatry itself. (67)

Charles charged that defenders of the practice betrayed a troubled conscience in adopting several expedients. They realized that the second commandment was a problem for their view and handled it by explaining away the force of the commandment or omitting it altogether. The latter practice started

522    ( – ) in England in the Medieval period and spread. Even Luther left the second commandment out of his catechisms. The vast majority of Roman Catholic catechisms still lacked it at the time Charles was delivering his lectures. Rome cannot plead in her own defence that the second Commandment is given in about one out of ten or one out of twenty of her Catechisms. What she has to do is to justify, not its omission in nine-tenths or nineteentwentieths of her Catechisms, but its omission in any. Such justification she cannot find, seeing that the real ground for the omission is her consciousness that it is due to her image worship—an image worship that is, as we have seen, exactly the same in essence as that of the golden calves in Palestine, or as that of the cultivated heathens in the first four centuries of the Christian era, and is assuredly the same as that condemned by the Old Testament prophets as idolatrous from the eighth century .. onwards; by the writers of the New Testament, and by the Fathers of the first four centuries. (74–5)

Charles was not finished. He next addressed the worship of saints and used what he called Mariolatry as an example. There is no evidence for worship of Mary in the first centuries of the church, but the practice was established by the eighth. He examined archaeological and textual evidence for worship of Jesus’ mother which he termed a “superstition” (78–9). The monuments show its strong presence in the eighth century (not before), while the textual evidence reveals that it began among heretics and grew strong in the fourthfifth centuries. It became ever worse over time until it reached blasphemous levels in, say, some of the writings of St. Bonaventure and in a widely circulated book The Glories of Mary (Charles termed the claims for Mary in these sources “absurdities and profanities” [87]). He disclosed that idolatrous beliefs about Mary had lately been making inroads among Anglican clergy and, needless to say, he disapproved of the development most vehemently. The third commandment, which prohibits taking the Lord’s name in vain, is the subject of lecture five (89–109). Charles understood the phrase “in vain” to mean “falsely” and asserted that the practice of attesting the truth of a statement by appeal to God’s name provided evidence that a society rested on a divine foundation. Yet he believed the commandment covered not only perjury but “every wrong, or idle, or irreverent use of God’s name” (92). Lessons to be learned from the commandment, as seen, for instance, in Jesus’ words (“Let your yea be yea,” and so on) and the Essene practice of

  

523

not resorting to oaths, are two: swearing oaths should be avoided as much as possible; and one was to speak the truth for its own sake. The second lesson led him to consider truth under three headings. The first was “truth of word” under which rubric he first turned to debatable kinds of untruths such as white lies, the “society smile,” and flattery. From that category he moved to ones that were clearly falsehoods—lying in self-defense and lying with covetousness, malice, or hatred. The second heading was “truth of life” by which he meant concealing one’s real opinions and representing something false as true. Finally, the third heading was “truth of thought,” the most difficult category of the three. In this context he considered expediency, blindly accepting authority—including the religious type. So, for instance, blindly acquiescing in papal authority led to illicit use of crucifixes and similar practices. This got Charles back to attacking the Catholic Church. The fruits of unquestioned submission to a so-called infallible authority are to be seen in Spain, Portugal, and, not to speak of other countries, most strikingly of all in the southern provinces of Ireland. Designed by God to disperse the superstition and ignorance, the falsehood and dishonesty, the hatreds and injustices that prevail in these countries, to be, according to the words of our Lord, as lights set on the hills to enlighten all within their range, the Roman Churches in many countries have, nevertheless, through their corruption lost in the main the illuminating power of truth and righteousness and love, and are at the best serving only as night-lights in the darkness of dying civilisations, the guilt of whose destruction lies at their door. (105–6)

The fourth commandment, like the second, called for three lectures. The first of them (110–31) addresses the two versions of the Sabbath command— one in Exodus 20 and its counterpart in Deuteronomy 5. The two present distinct views of the Sabbath whose deep-seated difference Charles thought had not been properly recognized. Put briefly, the older conception in Deuteronomy held that the Sabbath was made for humanity so they could rest from their labors (“in order that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou”), while the later, Priestly notion in Exodus 20 asserted that humanity was made for the Sabbath (“for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth . . . and rested the seventh day”). Especially important for him was the related phrasing in Exodus 31:17 (“for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed”) where the clear implication is that God needed the rest. He found the latter a less than

524    ( – ) noble conception of God and believed the Priestly idea of the Sabbath was that mankind was made to serve it. “From this theological figment of the Priests’ Code . . . sprang the preposterous laws of the Sabbath that are to be found in the Talmud as well as in earlier works” (115–16). Charles thought that suspension of labor and division of time into weeks were contributions of the Hebrews, not of the Babylonians. But from earliest times the Sabbath must also have been associated with some kind or worship. Sadly, as the centuries passed, the Priestly conception of the Sabbath prevailed, engendering restrictive laws that proved a burden to many. The Mishnah’s thirty-nine types of labor and their later elaborations led to absurdities, as one can see in New Testament references to them, but the sages were not entirely to be blamed as they were under the influence of the Priestly notion of the seventh day. Charles closed the lecture by underscoring the truth of Christ’s statement in Mark 2:27: “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” Having now studied the earlier and later conceptions of the Sabbath as they appear in the Old Testament, we are in a position to study the attitude which our Lord adopted to these two conceptions, and to appreciate the transcendent insight wherewith, without any knowledge of modern criticism, He arraigned the inherent falseness of the conception taught in His day, which was really a later conception, and yet recognized the element of truth underlying the Sabbath, which was observed in the earliest ages. (131)

This is a subject taken up in the next lecture. The second lecture on the Sabbath commandment (132–51) has at its head three New Testament passages: Mark 2:27 (Sabbath for man, not man for the Sabbath),⁷ Colossians 2:16–17 (no one is to judge you about a feast day, new moon, or Sabbath), and Romans 14:5 (against assessing one day as different from another). Charles found the approach Jesus took to the Sabbath to be adopted by Paul, both of whom grasped the principle of Christian freedom. One day is no different from another. Marking the Lord’s Day (Sunday) as a time to gather for worship began in the Pauline churches; in them cessation from labor may not have been possible, given the social circumstances of their members. Other early sources also indicate it was a day to assemble for worship, not for rest from ⁷ Charles claimed on pp. 133–4, n. 2 that statements in Rabbinic literature resembling Jesus’ verdict about the Sabbath in Mark 2:27 showed the Rabbinic scholars were familiar with Jesus’ earlier declaration. Conversely, some Jewish writers had concluded that Jesus’ statement coincided with views current among Jewish thinkers.

  

525

work. It was only later that prohibitions of work became more common, and that Sunday became identified with the Jewish Sabbath. In fact, all of the Christian holidays were eventually subjected to Sabbath rules. “This gross misinterpretation of the scope of the fourth Commandment and its misapplication to Sunday and Saints’ Days led to most disastrous results in the Church at large before the Reformation and in the Roman Catholic Church since the Reformation” (147). With the growth in number of saints’ days when work was forbidden, prohibiting work on Sunday became weaker and all sorts of amusements started filling the day for corporate worship. The Reformed Churches did not accept the Sunday = Sabbath equation and thought the fourth commandment was abrogated by the New Testament. Charles approved of that stance but admitted it led to some problems with Sunday observance. The last of the lectures on the fourth commandment (152–72) begins, like the second, with New Testament passages, this time Mark 2:27 and Romans 14:5 (Charles called “our Lord and St. Paul—the two greatest and most convincing Modernists of all history” [152]). He addressed an argument of some contemporaries that, while the Church of England rejected the Sunday = Sabbath equivalence, it retained the “moral element of the Sabbath,” that is, sanctifying one day in seven. In response he compared the traits of the Sabbath and Sunday (153–4): . . . the Sabbath is positively enjoined in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament there is no such injunction as to Sunday: the Sabbath is kept on the seventh day of the week, Sunday on the first: the Sabbath is kept from sunset to sunset, Sunday from midnight to midnight: the Sabbath is kept for one reason, Sunday for an entirely different one: the Sabbath lays the emphasis on rest from ordinary work, Sunday lays the emphasis on worship. The penalty for the violation of the Sabbath according to the later conception of it was death: there was no such penalty connected with Sunday. (155) Those who claimed to retain the moral element arbitrarily selected one trait (one day in seven) from among the various characteristics of the Sabbath, though the New Testament abrogated the fourth commandment. He insisted that for Christ and Paul holiness did not attach to one day more than others. The Christian Sunday derives from the risen Christ’s first appearance to his followers; it is a weekly commemoration of it and replaces the Sabbath as the chief day of worship.

Charles also spoke about the practical value of resting one day in seven; various attempts to do otherwise had failed. The practice provides a means for

526    ( – ) contributing to a person’s mental and moral as well as his spiritual needs. He thought amusements on Sunday should not interfere with the opportunity for worship and should be ones that make moral and spiritual progress possible. Attending professional games he found objectionable (“Such commercialised amusements tend both to degrade the players and to transform the bulk of the spectators into betters and gamblers” [169]), while playing recreational games and visiting museums or picture galleries were better (not perfect) ways to spend the time. The fifth commandment enjoins the honoring of father and mother so that a person’s days may be long. In a relatively short lecture (173–84), he pointed out that the final six commandments have to do with a person’s duty to his neighbor, and the first of them, commandment five, was really the only positive one in the Decalogue (even the fourth commandment was mostly negative). The long life of which the commandment spoke was generally assumed to refer to the life of the nation, although Paul recast it as applying to the individual. He spoke about how different parental authority was from other types and how it was unalterable and irreplaceable. The commandment was in the first instance directed to children but was also meant to arouse parents to appreciate how serious their responsibility is. The role of parent was God’s earliest way of revealing himself. The notion of honor embraces three elements: respect, obedience, and love. As Charles saw the situation, the contemporary and widespread disrespect for parents was related to the Great War when so many fathers were away. In their absence, their children received higher wages for the jobs left open. He thought the Education Bill should help by requiring that students stay in school longer before entering the work force. The duty children owe their parents is not limited by the character of their parents—and vice versa. However wonderful the love of parents for children, the unfailing divine love exceeds it. The sixth commandment—“Thou shalt do no murder”—was the subject of two lectures. The first (185–98) began by describing the practice of revenge for murder by the next of kin. The law against murder, while primitive, introduced limits into this custom and required some sort of judicial system to administer it. He thought that modern nations assume the role that the avenging kinsman played in antiquity and that “it is now the duty, especially of the Christian nations, to establish an international judiciary which will decide between nation and nation, and an international executive which will follow up, if necessary, its awards by force” (187). The Israelite cities of refuge got Charles going again on the Medieval church that abused the practice and allowed all sorts of “miscreants” to take advantage

  

527

of sanctuary in churches. Modern lawmakers, Charles thought, could benefit from the law of Moses and the even older but related Code of Hammurabi. An example was the principle that a person should be held responsible for the consequences of his neglect when it harmed his neighbors. He mentioned cases of poorly made buildings killing occupants (the builder should receive the proper punishment) or merchants selling liquor to individuals who should not have it. In the latter case, the state should administer and limit sales properly, although he was not calling for prohibition. Even plumbers came in for his consideration—the Society of Registered Plumbers had helped encourage responsibility and better-quality work. Failure to hold people responsible for the consequences of their actions was a breach of the sixth commandment. Charles highlighted the reason given in the Old Testament for the prohibition of murder. It was not because of the sanctity of human life—other things were more sacred than physical existence—but because people were made in the image of God. He maintained that capital punishment and warfare were necessary as long as there were “murderous assaults” (197) on individuals and nations.⁸ The second lecture on commandment six (199–211; it too was delivered “This morning,” p. 199) began with Matthew 5:21–2: “if you are angry with a brother . . . , you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother . . . , you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire”. Here Jesus extends the law to include negative feelings against another and thus handles a shortcoming of its Old Testament formulation: Our Lord therefore finds the guilt—not in the outward act, but in the heart of the offender. Many a man might be in spirit a murderer, and yet be perfectly blameless in the eye of the law. There could be murder without the outward act. It is the motive that determines the character of the action. (200)

Charles explained to the audience that from ancient times Jesus’ words had proved difficult to interpret and that only in the last generation was the source of the problem found—there is a dislocation in the text and three words are

⁸ Charles added a reference to his home territory in this context. “That nations are justified in resisting foreign aggression needs no vindication. Nay more, even an individual province within the Empire, such as Ulster, would have been justified in resorting to civil war if this country tried by force to deprive it of its full citizenship in the Empire itself, and to subject it to the yoke of other provinces— larger in numbers indeed than itself, but lower in achievement and character, and alien in race, alien in religion, and alien in ideals” (197).

528    ( – ) missing. In the three sins that Jesus enumerated—anger, calling a brother “raca [Charles’s transcription of ρακα (raka) meaning fool],” and calling him a fool—one would expect, said Charles, a progression in wickedness, but there is none. All three have a similar degree of guilt attached to them but are associated with very different punishments. The original form of Jesus’ statement was (the numbers indicate the order in the existing text; brackets mark the place where words are missing): 1. You shall not murder. 2. Whoever kills is in danger of judgment (before an earthly tribunal) = a traditional Jewish expansion. 3. Anyone angry with his brother is in danger of judgment (from God) = Jesus’ reinterpretation. 4. Whoever says “raca” to his brother is in danger of the council (the Jewish law court). 5. Whoever says “you fool” [] is in danger of hell. So, the anger line and the “raca” line (3 and 4) are switched around. The missing words (at the brackets in 5) are “in his heart” that belong after “whoever says, ‘you fool,’” that is, the person says this to himself. Having sorted out the text to his satisfaction, Charles took up the meaning of anger. There are proper and improper kinds. The objectionable kind is to be avoided, and one way to do that is to pray for the one who has harmed you. Ridding oneself of the personal element in anger is, however, only the first step in repentance. Contrition by the offender is needed in order to restore a right relationship. Charles believed it was wrong to withhold righteous anger, but mere personal resentment should be eliminated. As for Jesus’ second case, that of calling someone a fool, Charles understood it as a reaction to another person that arose out of scorn or resentment. Scorn was hurtful to another; it should be replaced by reverence for what the neighbor is capable of becoming—a child of God. Responding to someone out of censoriousness was also condemned in Jesus’ understanding of the commandment. Hasty judgments about others should be replaced with an attitude of reserve and silence. One should dispense with scorn or censoriousness toward a neighbor; one’s bearing toward him should be expectant and optimistic. The seventh commandment (212–8) received just one lecture. The Old Testament prohibition of adultery and Jesus’ extension of the command to include looking lustfully at a woman are the two texts that preface the lecture.

  

529

Charles explained that the context of this command in the Decalogue showed it was dealing with property: a wife was a man’s property. There is nothing about fornication in the command, although the Old Testament deals with it elsewhere. So far then as the seventh Commandment went, it took account not so much of the sin of impurity as of a sin against property. It was limited therefore to the sin of the married woman and her paramour, whether he was married or unmarried. No account, therefore, is taken of fornication in the Old Testament Decalogue. (213)

The Old Testament view of women, though it gave them a status better than among their neighbors, was not very elevated. Polygamy, concubinage, and the laws for divorce greatly restricted their prospects. Judaism, said Charles, still holds the Oriental view of women, and in the synagogue service men thank God they were not made as women. Christ extended the law so that it became coextensive with all impurity between man and woman. The guilt of fornication is thus placed essentially on the same level as that of adultery. But this is not all: our Lord declares that he that has sinned in thought in either respect has committed a breach of this Commandment. We have here a complete revolution of thought as to the purity binding on both sexes. (21)

The sin of impurity is a constant temptation yet is often ignored or pushed into the background. It is a special difficulty for the young, but if they win the struggle they can win any battle. Charles noted the psychological fact that whatever stirs a person in one aspect of his existence affects the others as well. Appetites are interwoven with “higher springs of action,” (218) or sentiments. Charles doubted that art, science, or philosophy could succeed in restraining the passions, as history showed (e.g., Greece in the age of Pericles, Renaissance Italy, war, religious revivals). What are the remedies for overcoming improper passions? Right religion can provide mastery over them. The centuries preceding the Christian era were filled with unnatural vices, as Paul documented in Romans 1. Christianity prevailed over them in a few centuries: “It first transformed the popular view of these vices and made them abhorrent to the Christian conscience, and then secured the recognition of the Christian view in the legislation of the Empire” (222). To address the modern problem, nation, family, and individual must

530    ( – ) contribute. Society should enact appropriate legislation. The first type Charles mentioned was providing adequate housing for people so that they could live morally (the present Parliament would have enacted such legislation had it not been for the opposition of the Bricklayers’ Trade Union). The liquor traffic should also be regulated. Legislation that reflected advances in the moral opinions of the public had been effective in the past in combatting problems such as unnatural vice, gambling, and liquor. Now it was time to deal legislatively with impurity and prostitution, with obscenities in literature and art, and with raising the age of consent from sixteen to eighteen. The same rules were to apply to men and women. Families must contribute, hence great responsibilities rested upon parents, especially mothers, to protect the young from contamination. Individuals must keep themselves pure and require the same standards in their groups of associates. One must maintain the temple of the body undefiled. The eighth commandment forbids stealing. To it Charles devoted a single lecture (229–45) in which he began by inquiring which property is not to be stolen. He distinguished three kinds. First is “Property considered generally with regard to the community” (229, where it is italicized). Charles discussed property in the sense of work done and wages received for it. Grave inequalities had given rise to various theories for eliminating property. Communist and socialist views, that is, socialist views of the better sort, tried to do justice to the rights shared by all. They have not succeeded because of defects in the human character yet have held up an ideal for all to see. Charles distinguished communists from socialists—unlike the former, the latter, while seeing a role for the state, recognized the value of retaining some private property. Private property offers advantages, as in providing incentives, though there are disadvantages as well. Charles had strong criticisms for the current movements of syndicalism⁹ and guild socialism (“on the main organised roguery” [236]). He thought the state had to take account of the just claims of socialism and that private property should be retained. “What a man’s legitimate earnings should be cannot be left wholly to the economic law of supply and demand. The State should sooner or later determine the living wage in every calling when that is found to be possible” (237). Any group gaining more than its labor deserves is guilty of thievery. Employers must pay fair wages, and employees must offer quality work—unlike what the trade unions were then advocating.

⁹ The term refers to a more radical kind of unionism and is associated with distrust of normal political structures and advocacy of general strikes.

  

531

The second aspect of property relates to the individual. For the individual, theft means “getting what belongs to others without giving the return they were permitted or led to expect” (242). Among the kinds of fraud he treated was the practice of living in England half the year and elsewhere the remaining six months in order to avoid paying income taxes in both places. The third aspect of property was Christ’s conception of it. He taught “a certain fear of material riches” (244). “Christianity does not, as we know, abolish private ownership, but it represents all such property as a trust, as a stewardship, and brings home to its owner a sense of definite responsibility for his rightful use of it” (245). For his one lecture (246–57) on the ninth commandment—“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour”—Charles placed just the text of the commandment over his own words. The commandment in the first instance mandates offering honest testimony in a court of law. But it is broader in scope, forbidding, not lying in general, but “a specific kind of lying—namely, false witness against our neighbour, not only in courts of justice, but in private life and ordinary social intercourse” (247). Not all have to appear in courts, but everyone stands before the tribunal of public opinion. Among the specific violations of the commandment, Charles dealt with slander (something said with malicious intent), calumny (making a false report), defamation (saying maliciously about another what one knows to be untrue), and detraction (encouraging unfavorable inferences about someone, damning with faint praise). These forms of speech and their motivations harm the reputation of another person; to slander is to show one’s kinship with the devil whose name means “slanderer.” One should be careful to form appropriate judgments about others and not attribute their behavior to the worst of motives; one should not circulate negative rumors nor take pleasure in hearing evil about another. That is, one should love a neighbor as oneself, not seek to hurt him. The New Testament recognizes misuse of the tongue to be a severe matter, as passages such as James 3:8 show. The last and fifteenth lecture (258–72)¹⁰ takes up the commandment that prohibits coveting (Charles thought the original form of the tenth commandment read only “Thou shalt not covet,” so he bracketed the various objects of desire mentioned in the rest of the text). The first type he treated was ¹⁰ The footnote on p. 268 indicates that this lecture was “preached in June 15, 1919.” It is puzzling that the lecture on the last commandment, presumably given after the others, was delivered in the first year of the lectureship which ran from 1919–23. However, since Charles said he gave the first of the Warburton Lectures in November of 1919 (NLS, September 25, 1923), he may have preached on this commandment at an earlier time—or he gave the wrong year for it.

532    ( – ) covetousness in the individual. The tenth commandment really adds nothing to what the previous nine require, “nevertheless, since it passes from the letter to the spirit, it has in its short compass more than doubled the claims of the entire Decalogue; for it has brought within its purview the inner as well as the outer life . . .” (259–60). The last command moves in the direction of Jesus’ reinterpretation of the commandments and played an important role in Paul’s life. He was blameless externally with regard to the commandments, but the prohibition of covetousness drove him to a recognition of his sin and eventually to Christ. The command not to covet needs the directive “thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” in order to carry it out. Love for the other is not based on that person’s qualities but on his potential as a child of God. The tenth commandment attacks as well the covetousness of groups within a state. Great progress had been made in England in checking abuses by employers, so Charles turned to the employed. This brought him back to legitimate socialists and to the syndicalists. The former sought the good of all in the nation, but not the latter. They worked for the advantage, not of society in general, but only of certain groups. Their greed and the means they used to satisfy it aroused only contempt in Charles who termed them a “criminal movement” (269). A new spirit, that of Christ, was needed to correct this error, not merely legislation. Finally, the prohibition of covetousness applies to the relations between states. They are not to covet what belongs to others; history is full of God’s judgment on empires that violated the demand. This end cannot be achieved till the nations recognise that they are members of a body so organised, physically and spiritually, that, if one member suffers, all the members must suffer with it, and, if one member rejoices, all the members rejoice with it. Hence no nation can really fulfil its true destiny by advancing its wealth or power or culture at its neighbour’s expense, but only by doing to its neighbours as it would that they should do unto it. (272)

Indexes of subjects (273–86) and passages quoted (287–94) complete the book. The Decalogue is a book that combined Charles’s two worlds—that of scholar and pulpiteer. The Introduction, where he traces the development of the Ten Commandments, and some of the historical material in the lectures show him as the former, while much of the lectures represent him in the latter capacity. As we have seen, he even referred to one of his lectures as “our sermon” (p. 15), and a footnote reports that the last of them was “preached in

  

533

June 15, 1919” (268). In analyzing and applying the commandments, he gave clear voice to his anti-Catholicism. This is no surprise for Charles, and it was a natural sentiment in a lecture series whose statement of purpose included the words “the apostasy of Papal Rome.” His negative feelings about traditional Judaism are also hard to miss and were more widely typical of the time.

Reviews W. Emery Barnes, a biblical scholar and editor of Syriac texts, reviewed the book in Journal of Theological Studies 25 (1924) 441–2. He noted that the form of the lectures yielded some repetition that could be eliminated in a second edition. He had a keen eye for mistakes and misprints in the book as my favorite example shows: “Some haste in revision of proofs is patent. Giordano Bruno (not ‘Bruno Bauer’) was burnt at Rome (p. 196)” (442). His more substantive criticism had to do with Charles’s interpretation of Matthew 5:21–2 (calling a brother “raca,” and so on). He believed Charles was too confident of his emendations and said: Surely it is at least possible that in ver. 22 b we have the indication of a growing irritation, even though Μωρε [Mōre] is not harsher than Ρακα [Raka]. The man who is angry enough to say Raca to his brother shall be in danger of the Sanhedrin, but the man who is not content with one such rejoinder, but proceeds to inflame the quarrel further with a fresh abusive epithet (Mōré) is in danger even unto the hell of fire. (442)

He ended the review approvingly: “Dr. Charles has written a vigorous and wholesome book, which should help towards clear thinking on moral problems” (442). Paul P. Levertoff, a Jewish scholar who had converted to Christianity, wrote a review in Theology 9 (1924) 347–50. After summarizing the contents of the Introduction, he noted Charles’s intent to treat the meaning of the commands at various historical stages and especially their practical significance for today. In the opinion of the reviewer the thesis of the book has not been made good. Dr. Charles suffers now and then from that disturber of Irish wisdom—a self-conscious fear of being dull, which causes him disastrously to interrupt his discourse just when it is becoming most wise. For, had he devoted his lectures to the critical study of the Decalogue and its place in the religion of

534    ( – ) Israel, and to all the baffling problems that confront the student concerning its origin, and given us a historical sketch of the attempts of scholars—from Kuenen and Ewald down to the present day—at solving them, instead of discussing at such length the Nash Papyrus, which has but little bearing on the main issue, then we might have had a standard work on the Decalogue similar to his Commentary to the Book of Revelation. Dr. Charles, with his reputation as a Biblical scholar, having chosen a subject of great importance and extreme difficulty, disappoints us. To the student the critical part is unsatisfactory; for, with the exception of the detailed discussion of the Nash text, which is very welcome, he finds nothing new, and Dr. Charles’s dogmatic assertions concerning problems upon which expert opinion is divided are most irritating. (347–8)

He went on to criticize other aspects of the book. Regarding most of it as homiletical, he asserted that “as a preacher Dr. Charles is not arresting. His style is garrulous, and the manner in which his fierce attacks on the Roman Church crop up in almost every lecture is reminiscent of Mr. Dick and his Memorial” (348).¹¹ He cited a number of Charles’s statements about the Catholic Church that violated his own description of what the ninth commandment entailed. With his greater knowledge of Rabbinic sources, Levertoff showed that Charles misinterpreted or distorted what various passages in them said (e.g., regarding the view of women in the Talmuds). He thought Charles had missed the opportunity to deal with fundamental theological matters in treating the first commandment. After citing Charles’s explanation that there were two versions of the Ten Commandments in the Bible and that the form Jehovah was not the proper pronunciation of the divine name (it was introduced first in 1520 .., according to Charles), Levertoff asked: Is the book intended for scholars? Then this is all rather a glimpse into the obvious. Is it intended only for those who know nothing of Biblical criticism? Then why have such a critical apparatus in the Introduction without any explanations? The date 1520, by the way, is incorrect and should be 1278. (350)

He brought the review to a close by admitting the book has “interest and value” (350). In a way, he suggested, a comment that Thomas Cheyne had ¹¹ The reference is to a character in Dickens’s David Copperfield. Mr. Dick who is mentally disabled works away on his Memorial that deals with various people. Despite his best efforts, King Charles I keeps popping up in it.

  

535

made about a book by Franz Delitzsch applied to Charles’s volume: “he attempted too much, but that there was more to be learned from Delitzsch when he was wrong that from ten ordinary men when they were right” (350).¹² The Decalogue was, apart from the larger commentary on Daniel (1929), to be the last academic book published by Charles. In it we see not only his exhaustive approach to the subjects on which he wrote but also the strong biases that he entertained. These seem to have remained with him to his last days—a subject to which we will turn in the next Chapter.¹³

¹² I have not included a section on Legacy in this chapter about Charles’s book on the Decalogue because it is difficult to find even a reference to it in contemporary studies of the subject. ¹³ Charles once (NLS, February 3, 1926) mentioned to Clark that for a long time he had been working on a book entitled “Personal Immortality.” It would deal with the subject from philosophical, scientific, ethical, and religious angles and would not be finished until the end of 1927. He wondered whether Clark would be interested in publishing it. Clark responded (NLS, February 9, 1926) that he was very interested in doing so, and Charles wrote (NLS, February 15, 1926) that he would send him particulars about the book later in 1927. Such a book never appeared and is not mentioned again in the correspondence.

Chapter 7 The End of His Days Charles remained an Archdeacon until his last day. According to information in The Times, he continued to carry out his ministry in the Abbey to a point not long before his death. The latest date for a preaching engagement of his that was announced in the newspaper is Sunday, September 28, 1930 (The Times for Saturday, September 27, 1930 [45629], p. 14). The 28th would have been the last Sunday in the month, at which point his residence would have ended until his next turn in the rotation—something that never came.

Health Issues Charles was often ill in his later years. For example, he wrote about chills that affected him much of 1923 (NLS, September 28 and October 6, 1923; February 26, 1924; Ripon, January 27, 1924), but 1927 and 1929 were especially difficult. When corresponding about his larger Daniel commentary, he reported (OUP, October 13, 1927) that he had not been well and explained the matter further in a letter of February 14, 1928 (OUP). There he mentioned surgery he had undergone the previous year and that he was at present a semi-invalid, having to rest on his back for eighteen hours a day. He intended, he said, to take a long rest during the summer. He also referred to two attacks of influenza (NLS, March 19, 1927; cf. October 22, 1927) which may account for Mrs. Charles’s words about his “ailments” early in the year (Ripon, April 26, 1927). The year 1929 brought new challenges. According to reports, Charles suffered a “road accident” at some point in mid-year, and the resulting injuries limited him considerably. T. W. Manson recorded the information in “Charles, Robert Henry (1855–1931),” Dictionary of National Biography 1931–1940, 170: “In the last eighteen months of his life he was gravely handicapped by injuries sustained in a road accident.”¹ Gerald Law, in ¹ The edition of the Dictionary was edited by L. G. Wickham Legg and published in 1949, with the Charles entry on pp. 169–70. Among sources listed for Manson’s article, besides the obituary in The Times and the ones by D’Arcy and Burkitt, is one called “private information.” I do not know where Manson found the information.

R. H. Charles: A Biography. James C. VanderKam, Oxford University Press. © James C. VanderKam 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192869289.003.0019

    

537

“Charles, Robert Henry (1855–1931), Church of England clergyman and biblical scholar” in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (September 23, 2004 online edition of the Dictionary, accessed 5-8-2019), described the incident thus: “In 1929 Charles was involved in a serious road accident, which left him disabled.” The “Sources” section in this edition of the article also refers to “private information (1931)” with no further clarification. According to Linde Lunney, author of “Charles, Robert Henry” in The Dictionary of Irish Biography, “a car accident in 1929 had left him an invalid.” The injuries were not so severe that they kept him from preaching, as seen just above, and from performing other functions at the Abbey, e.g., he was present at a funeral on August 28, 1930 (The Times, 45,603, p. 13). Perhaps it is significant that the last record of his attendance at a meeting of the Council of the British Academy (his second term should have run until 1930) was on May 22, 1929 (Minute Book 5, p. 109)—approximately eighteen months before his death, around the time when the road accident occurred. Some of Charles’s letters add a bit more detail, although they contain no explicit reference to an accident. Charles told Clark on August 1, 1929 (NLS) that he would have more leisure for the next few months than he had enjoyed in fifty years—so he could read proofs! On October 3 (NLS) he wrote: “I am to rest for three months in the hope of recovery. I have seen two specialists.” In a second message on October 3 (NLS), he referred to being ill for three months but believed he had “turned the corner.” Also, he had changed his doctor under orders from a specialist. The issues that were affecting him were then complicated by “a severe but at the outset unrecognized attack of influenza. The influenza is gone but the effects remain” (NLS, October 19, 1929). By November 12 (NLS) he was “mending slowly.” It may not be a coincidence that there is no surviving correspondence with Clark in 1930. Charles did write on January 1, 1931 (NLS),² inquiring about sales of Resurrection, but that is his last letter in the file. One letter in particular shows the Charleses were preparing for the inevitable. He wrote Major on May 18, 1930 (Ripon) about his books and furniture (see below) and said that if he died before his wife “these properties must be taken in charge by Ripon Hall as a gift within 2 or 3 weeks of my decease, or sold for the benefit of our nephews and nieces.” Charles also stated: “We are making our Wills, and matters must be settled in advance, as only a very small part of the furniture could be accommodated in a Flat.” Perhaps he was ² The original date is crossed through and changed from Dec. 1, 1930 to Jan. 1, 1931. The latter date is correct because in it Charles wrote that it has been more than a year since Resurrection was published.

538    ( – ) referring to the fact that, should he die before his wife, she would have had to vacate 4, Little Cloisters. Or were they both planning to move out?

Death The end for Charles came on January 30, 1931, when he died at home. His passing was marked by obituaries in leading newspapers, including the New York Times (February 3, p. 24, under the title: “Archdeacon Charles of Westminster Dies: Noted Ecclesiastical Scholar Had Served at the Abbey for Seventeen Years”), and other places such as Burkitt’s contribution to the Proceedings of the British Academy. The obituary in The Times appeared on Monday, February 2, 1931 (45736), p. 14 (“Archdeacon Charles: A Great Apocalyptic Scholar”), and the same issue in the section “Deaths” (p. 15) contained a brief notice: The funeral service of the Ven. R. H. Charles, D.D., F.B.A, will be held in Westminster Abbey on Wednesday, February 4, at 11:00 a.m. Relatives, friends, and representative bodies will be admitted by the West Cloister door via Dean’s yard on presentation of their visiting cards. All to be seated by 10:45 a.m. The interment will be in the North Cloister of the Abbey.

The newspaper for the next day, Tuesday, February 3, 1931 (45737), p. 18, in the section “Picture Gallery,” has a photograph of him with the caption: “Dr. R. H. Charles, the Archdeacon of Westminster, who has died, aged 75. His reputation as an Apocalyptic scholar was world-wide.” The Times of London obituary began: We regret to announce that the Venerable R. H. Charles, D.D., Archdeacon of Westminster, died on Friday at his residence in Little Cloisters at the age of 75. Dr. Charles was one of the few British theologians and scholars enjoying a really European reputation, and indeed his industry was unwearied, uncertain though his health was.

The obituary offers details about a couple of Charles’s publications (partially cited above in Part 3 Chapter 3). It is the only place where I have found it mentioned that he was elected Treasurer by his fellow canons in 1916. Thus, he held two of the four special positions for canons during his years at Westminster—Treasurer and Archdeacon. The obituary concludes, after a

    

539

4. Tombstone of R. H. and Mary Lilias Charles, Westminster Abbey (courtesy of Justin David Strong)

reference to his marriage, with words about the plans for the service: “The funeral will be at Westminster Abbey on Wednesday at 11 o’clock. It was his wish that there should be no flowers and no mourning.” F. C. Burkitt observed in his obituary: “There was something very lovable about the man as well as the scholar, and in this place it is not inappropriate to remember that Charles’s last act, when during his last illness he was almost too feeble to hold a pen, was to sign a Recommendation Paper for a Fellow of the British Academy whose election took place only after Charles had already passed away” (445). The Recommendation Paper shows how feeble Charles’s handwriting had become in contrast to its earlier strong form. It was the certificate used to nominate Walter Crum as a Fellow and is dated January 13, 1931. He put his very shaky signature in the wrong place on the form; someone then drew a line from it to the correct location. D’Arcy ended his “A Brief Memoir” by writing: On January 30th of this year Robert Henry Charles passed away in his seventy-seventh [sic] year. In spite of much suffering and bodily weakness from time to time throughout his life, he had been able to accomplish, with rare completeness, the task he had set before himself. He had unflagging interest in his work and unfailing determination. It was these great qualities

540    ( – ) that carried him through to the end. And, with a certain elasticity of physical vigour, he combined a mind which retained its power. Strong in spirit, firm in the convictions which he discerned to be central in the Christian Faith, holding that the liberty of prophesying is the right path to the attainment of truth, he must be counted a leader of note in spiritual things, as in learning, among the men of his generation. (xxxv)

His longtime friend Henry Major wrote about his great labors with Jewish and Christian apocalyptic texts: Though this undertaking entailed much painstaking toil, it must not be supposed that it depressed the toiler. He was so interested in his work as hardly to feel fatigue. His research was ever with him, about his path and about his bed: like the loyal student of the Deuteronomic Law, he meditated on it when he sat down and when he rose up, and as he walked by the way. That was the secret of his successful perseverance.³

Disposition of Papers and Payment of Royalties The entry for Charles in the online version of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography records his “Wealth at Death” as £9695 0s. 4d, referencing for the information “resworn probate, 11 March 1931, CGPLA Eng. & Wales” = Calendars of the Grants of Probate and Letters of Administration, a reference work that devoted a volume to such information for each year, beginning in the late 1850s. The information is interesting, as the sum appears to have been significant for 1931, but it pales in comparison with the worth of Mrs. Charles who outlived her husband by almost four years. The Times for Wednesday, January 23, 1935 (46969), p. 15 reported that her funeral had taken place in the Abbey the previous day and that “The ashes were interred in the Cloisters of the Abbey.” About two months later (Tuesday, March 19, 1935 [47016], p. 21), the newspaper contains the entry: “Charles, Mrs. Mary Lilian [sic], of Carlisle Mansions, S.W., widow of Dr. R. H. Charles, Archdeacon of Westminster (net personality £22,957),” with a gross value of £23,078. The totals indicate she possessed money from the wealth of her family.⁴ ³ “Robert Henry Charles,” The Modern Churchman 46 (1956) 223. ⁴ Charles wrote in a letter to Henry Major (Ripon, May 18, 1930): “We have not saved our money, but the money settled on my dear Wife with a few thousands of my own must go to the nephews and nieces, who have very very moderate means.”

    

541

Letters of the Charleses and others disclose details about the disposition of his papers and books. Fred Shipley Marsh, a Fellow and Tutor of Selwyn College, Cambridge who had assisted Charles with his commentary on Revelation, was asked by Mrs. Charles to tend to some of her husband’s papers. Among them was a packet containing a manuscript consisting of twenty-two sermons, entirely ready for press. Mrs. Charles told him that, according to Charles himself, the manuscript was to be published by T. & T. Clark. This led Marsh to conclude that there must have been some negotiation about it, but he could find no letters (NLS, Marsh to Clark, February 20, 1931). Clark responded (NLS, February 24, 1931) that Charles had mentioned working on the volume and wanted to discuss it the next time Sir Thomas was in London (see NLS, Charles, January 1, 1931). The meeting never took place, so Clark did not know Charles had completed the volume, adding that it was too soon after publication of Resurrection to issue another such collection and that the prospects for the volume had changed for the worse with Charles’s death. Marsh responded (NLS, February 25, 1931) that he understood, although in his estimation some of the sermons were better than others of his that Clark had published. He believed Mrs. Charles would be disappointed (as Clark feared) but would be reasonable about it. He did inquire whether Clark would print the new collection if the expenses of publication were guaranteed, although Mrs. Charles would not be able to pay for it. Clark’s answer is not preserved in the file, but Marsh (NLS, March 3, 1931) thanked him for the clear response, adding that, once he put the matter to Mrs. Charles, it would likely end there. As noted in Part 3 Chapter 1, the book of sermons, Courage, Truth, Purity, was published in 1931, not by Clark, but by Basil Blackwell. The arrangements for publication were made by Henry Major who apparently volunteered to pursue the matter. Mrs. Charles was grateful for his offer and said that Charles had been “very much wishing to get them published” (Ripon, March 13, 1931). There she added that they had been written “quite lately. In fact, he intended to preach them next month, when he was to have been in Residence.” She asked Marsh to send to Major the manuscript of the sermons, all of which she had typed (Ripon, March 15, 1931). By April 23 (Ripon) she could write Major: “Please accept Mr. Blackwell’s offer with gratitude” and soon thereafter (Ripon, April 27, 1931) expressed her lack of interest in royalties and her delight that the book might be out in September. By November 25 (Ripon) she had seen reviews of the published volume. Another issue in connection with the posthumous volume was who would write the short biography to be included in it. The idea for asking D’Arcy was Major’s. Mrs. Charles agreed heartily (Ripon, April 23, 1931) “as he has known

542    ( – ) and loved my dear husband even longer than Mr. Cowley has.” Mention of Cowley may imply that she had thought of inviting him to write the biography but “he did not know my dear husband in his early days” (Ripon, April 27, 1931).⁵ She wrote to D’Arcy on April 23 (Ripon, April 27, 1931), and he wrote the biography. The solicitors who represented Mrs. Charles (Gregory, Rawcliffe & Co.) corresponded with T. & T. Clark about his books published by them. One of them, Rawcliffe, requested “a statement of Account” (NLS, February 12, 1931), and Clark sent it on February 24 (NLS). According to the statement, Charles at death was owed in royalties for the preceding year and one-half over £11, less the amount of his book orders, leaving a total of £10 14 s 7 d. The solicitor (NLS, February 25) asked Clark to hold the check until the probate of will had been obtained; once that happened, he asked Clark to remit the amount owed (NLS, April 23, 1931 [the amount was actually £11 0s 4 d, NLS, April 29, 1931]). In the same letter he asked for a valuation of the copyrights on Charles’s books. Clark (NLS, April 27, 1931) calculated them at £10 13 s, and in response Rawcliffe (NLS, April 29) asked whether, if Mrs. Charles wished, Clark would be willing to buy the copyrights and, if so, for how much. Clark (NLS, May 4) offered to pay the calculated amount for all of the copyrights or the appropriate amount on as many as she was willing to sell. On May 12 (NLS) Rawcliffe communicated Mrs. Charles’s agreement to sell all of the copyrights at the stated price “in discharge of all claims for royalties.” Clark then paid her the amount of £10 13 s (NLS, May 14), and Rawcliffe acknowledged receipt of the sum (NLS, May 15, 1931). Charles clearly did not become wealthy through the royalties on his books. Letters from Clark, stretching from 1924–31, mention the amounts owed to him. For his Revelation commentary he earned a one-time payment of 40 s (February 24, 1931). For the other sums paid by Clark, the amounts ranged from £1 12 s 9 d in 1924 (when only one book was involved) to £20 1 s 10 d (NLS, June 17, 1926). Charles repeatedly expressed his desire that he receive no royalties or reduced amounts in order to lower the cost of the books (NLS, March 1, 1924; August 11, 1924; September 6, 1924; February 15, 1926; September 18, 1927; March 30, 1929 [on Resurrection]: “I have modest means but don’t care a farthing about ‘royalties’. I feel I am doing my work in the Abbey”).

⁵ She also mentioned Maurice Crook, a friend from college days, as a possibility. He had written a short notice after Charles’s death, although, as Mrs. Charles pointed out, there were inaccuracies in it (Ripon, April 27, 1931).

    

543

Donations to Ripon Hall Charles donated books and other possessions to Ripon Hall. It made sense for him to do so, since Ripon Hall was closely associated with the English modernism Charles espoused. Ripon Hall did not have a long history before 1931. William Boyd Carpenter (1841–1918), Bishop of Ripon 1884–1911 and later, like Charles, a canon of Westminster,⁶ founded in 1897 or 1898 an institution that initially went by the name Bishop’s Hostel, Ripon. It was a small theological school like others then springing up in various places in England. From the beginning, the bishop wanted a scientific approach to theology taught to candidates in his school. Among the principles he enunciated in his essay “The Education of a Minister of God” were these: “The correct reason for believing in certain doctrines must be ascertained and there must be no resting content with any false or no longer valid position”; and “There must be a willingness to recognize that all new knowledge, of whatever kind, has relevance for theology.”⁷ Charles would have concurred wholeheartedly. In 1900 the school took the name Bishop’s College, Ripon and five years later, after a 1902 merger with a similar but failing institution in Birmingham, became Ripon Clergy College.⁸ In 1906 Henry Major (1871–1961) was appointed vice-principal of the college with which he continued to be associated for the rest of his long life. There he was a dominant figure, becoming principal in 1919. He led the way when Ripon Clergy College moved to Oxford in 1919 after he arranged to purchase St. Stephen’s House. There it took the name Ripon Hall. Around this time Major “added to the Governing Body liberal Churchmen like B. H. Streeter, J. M. Creed, J. F. Bethune-Baker, R. H. Charles and Bishop Barnes.”⁹ Charles thus donated many of his possessions to an institution that stood in the theological current with which he identified and on whose Governing Board he served. He informed Major that there were about 5000 books he wished to donate (Ripon, May 18, 1930), although Mrs. Charles later wrote

⁶ “William Boyd Carpenter,” Wikipedia, accessed 2-23-2019. ⁷ See Stephenson, The Rise and Decline of English Modernism, 79. For the article, see “The Education of a Minister of God,” Hibbert Journal 3 (1904–05) 433–51. ⁸ Stephenson, The Rise and Decline of English Modernism, 83. ⁹ Stephenson, The Rise and Decline of English Modernism, 109. In 1933 Ripon Hall moved to Berkeley House at Boar’s Hill near Oxford, and in 1975 it merged with Cuddesdon College, an Oxford college associated with the Anglo-Catholic tradition of the Church of England. The name for the combined institutions is Ripon College Cuddesdon (“Ripon Hall,” Wikipedia, accessed 2-23-2019).

544    ( – ) about volumes that Major had selected (Ripon, March 15, 1931). H. F. D. Sparks, who was a chaplain of Ripon Hall from 1933–36, wrote to me about the gift: And, most important of all his collection of books. I was not the librarian (but chaplain) at the time, though naturally associated with their reception owing to what they were. Then later, some ten years ago [written in 1989], after being chairman of the Governors for some 12 years, and leader of the Ripon Hall delegation which carried through the merger with Cuddesdon, I was deputed with Peter Baelz, to go through both libraries and throw out what unwanted duplicates there might be. Naturally then we came across Charles’s offering. So far as I know, his books are still at Cuddesdon, though not as a ‘Charles Collection’—which we had never kept them as at Ripon Hall.

Perhaps as a result of this sifting procedure (and others?), while some of Charles’s books remain there, others eventually left the Ripon library. I happen to own two of them: Hermann Rönsch, Das Buch der Jubiläen (referenced especially in Part 2 Chapter 2 above). J. J. Kneucker, Das Buch Baruch. Geschichte und Kritik, Übersetzung und Erklärung auf Grund des wiederherstellten hebräischen Urtexts. Mit einem Anhang über den pseudepigraphischen Baruch (not nearly as heavily marked up as his copy of Rönsch). Both books have pasted on their inside covers a form explaining in Latin that the book belonged to the library of Ripon Hall, Oxford and listing the donor’s name: “Ex Bibliotheca Aulae Hrypensis Oxonii DD Robert Henry Charles.” Early in his career, when Charles was suffering repeated headaches, his wife suggested that he take up a non-academic hobby (see Part 2 Introduction, above). The choice was to do wood-carving, and it proved therapeutic. Over the years he made a number of items of furniture on which he wrote sayings in various languages. Ripon Hall also received these and still has them in storage. About them Sparks wrote: He left us various objects, notably his wood carvings, which he constructed during a period of illness, and consisted of various pieces of furniture, all lettered with quotations in the various languages that he knew, which

    

545

5. Archdeacon Charles in His Westminster Finery, 1927 (courtesy of Ripon College Cuddesdon) adorned the Principal’s study at the Hall. Also a portrait of him that hung in the hall.

Both Charles (Ripon, May 18, 1930) and his wife (Ripon, March 26, 1931) referred to “cozy corners,” chairs on which he had placed the quotations that Sparks mentioned.¹⁰ As for the portrait, their nephew Captain Havelock Charles, oldest son of Charles’s brother Havelock Charles, had it painted by Count Mario Grixoni (Ripon, May 18, 1930). There had been a presentation of it in 1927 (Ripon, April 26, 1927), and the nephew had allowed Mrs. Charles to keep it for a time after his death, although eventually it was to go to Ripon Hall (Ripon, April 23, 1931). The portrait of Charles in his Westminster robe is still at Ripon, see photo. Various aspects of Charles’s legacy thus live on to the present at Ripon College Cuddesdon in Oxford—perhaps a surprising place for those who know only of his work with Jewish apocalypses.

¹⁰ Mrs. Charles (Ripon, June 16, 1931) said she wanted to give Major “a little list of translation of some of the Ethiopic and other Semitic Mottos on the Cozy Corners which he made out for me.”

Bibliography of the Works of R. H. Charles Forgiveness, and Other Sermons (London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co., 1887). “The Ethiopic Manuscripts of Enoch in the British Museum,” in Expository Times 3 (November 1891) 135. “The New Greek Fragment of Enoch,” in The Academy 42, number 1071 (1892) 484. The Book of Enoch translated from Professor Dillmann’s Ethiopic Text emended and revised in accordance with hitherto uncollated MSS, and with the Gizeh and other Greek and Latin Fragments which are here published in full, edited with Introduction, Notes, Appendices, and Indices by R. H. Charles, M.A., Trinity College, Dublin, and Exeter College, Oxford (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1893). “Messianic Doctrine of the Book of Enoch, and its Influence on the New Testament,” Expository Times 4/7 (1893) 301–3. “The Recent Translations and the Ethiopic Text of the Book of Enoch,” in Jewish Quarterly Review 5 (1893) 325–9, 493–7. “The Book of Enoch,” in The Academy 45, number 1135 (1894) 127–8. “The Book of Jubilees, translated from a text based on two hitherto uncollated Ethiopic MSS,” in Jewish Quarterly Review 5 (1893) 703–8; 6 (1894) 184–217, 710–45; 7 (1895) 297–328. Mas: hafa Kufālē or the Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Book of Jubilees, otherwise known : among the Greeks as Η ΛΕΠΤΗ ΓΕΝΕΣΙΣ, edited from four manuscripts, And critically revised through a continuous comparison of the Massoretic and Samaritan Texts, and the Greek, Syriac, Vulgate and Ethiopic Versions of the Pentateuch, and further emended and restored in accordance with the Hebrew, Syriac, Greek and Latin fragments of this Book, which are here published in full by R. H. Charles, M.A., Trinity College, Dublin, and Exeter College, Oxford (Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic Series 8; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1895). “The Seven Heavens. An Early Jewish and Christian Belief,” in Expository Times 7 (1895) 57–61, 115–18. The Book of the Secrets of Enoch, translated from the Slavonic by W. R. Morfill, M.A., Reader in Russian and the Other Slavonic Languages, and edited, with introduction, notes and indices by R. H. Charles, M.A., Trinity College, Dublin, and Exeter College, Oxford (Oxford: Clarendon, 1896). The Apocalypse of Baruch, translated from the Syriac, chapters I.–LXXVII. from the sixth cent. MS. in the Ambrosian Library of Milan and chapters LXXVIII.–LXXXVII.—The Epistle of Baruch from a new and critical text based on ten MSS. and published herewith, edited, with introduction, notes, and indices by R. H. Charles, M.A., Trinity College, Dublin, and Exeter College, Oxford (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1896). The Assumption of Moses translated from the Latin sixth century MS., the unemended text of which is published herewith, together with the text in its restored and critically emended form, edited with introduction, notes, and indices by R. H. Charles, M.A., Trinity College, Dublin, and Exeter College, Oxford (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1897).

548      . .  “Baruch, Apocalypse of,” in James Hastings, editor, A Dictionary of the Bible, volume I (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898) 249–51. “Enoch, (Ethiopic) Book of,” in James Hastings, editor, A Dictionary of the Bible, volume I (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898) 705–8. “Enoch, Book of the Secrets of,” in James Hastings, editor, A Dictionary of the Bible, volume I (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898) 708–11. “Eschatology of the Apocryphal and Apocalyptic Literature,” in James Hastings, editor, A Dictionary of the Bible, volume I (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898) 741–9. “Ethiopic Version,” in James Hastings, editor, A Dictionary of the Bible, volume I (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898) 791–3. “Apocalyptic Literature,” in T. K. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black, editors, Encyclopaedia Biblica, volume I (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1899) columns 213–50. A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, in Judaism, and in Christianity; or, Hebrew, Jewish, and Christian Eschatology from Pre-Prophetic Times till the Close of the New Testament Canon, being the Jowett Lectures for 1898–99, by R. H. Charles, D.D., Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, Dublin (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1899). The Ascension of Isaiah, translated from the Ethiopic Version, which, together with the new Greek fragment, the Latin versions and the Latin translation of the Slavonic, is here published in full, edited with introduction, notes and indices by R. H. Charles, D.D., Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, Dublin (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1900). “Eschatology,” in T. K. Cheyne and J. Sutherland Black, editors, Encyclopaedia Biblica, volume II (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1901) columns 1335–92. The Book of Jubilees or the Little Genesis, translated from the editor’s Ethiopic Text and edited, with introduction, notes and indices by R. H. Charles, D.D., Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, Dublin (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1902). “Testaments of the XII Patriarchs,” in James Hastings, editor, A Dictionary of the Bible, volume 4 (New York: Charles Scribners’ Sons, 1902) 721–5. “Apocalyptic and Apocryphal Literature,” Encyclopaedia Britannica (10th edition; edited by Donald Mackenzie Wallace, Arthur T. Hadley, and Hugh Chisholm; Edinburgh/London: Adam & Charles Black; London: ‘The Times’ Printing Company, 1902–3) 25.486–500. “The Book of Enoch,” in The American Journal of Theology 7 (1903) 689–703. “The Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs,” in Hibbert Journal 3 (1904–5) 558–73. The Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch, edited from twenty-three MSS, together with the Fragmentary Greek and Latin Versions, by R. H. Charles, M.A., Grinfield Lecturer on the Septuagint, Exeter College, Oxford, D.D. and late Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, Dublin, Fellow of the British Academy (Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic Series 11; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1906). (with Arthur Ernest Cowley), “An Early Source of the Testaments of the Patriarchs,” in Jewish Quarterly Review 19 (1907) 566–83. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs translated from the editor’s Greek text and edited, with introduction, notes, and indices by R. H. Charles, D. Litt., D.D., Grinfield Lecturer on the Septuagint, Oxford, Fellow of the British Academy (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1908). The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, edited from nine MSS together with the Variants of the Armenian and Slavonic Versions and Some Hebrew Fragments, by R. H. Charles, D. Litt., D.D., Grinfield Lecturer on the Septuagint, Oxford, Fellow of the British Academy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1908).

     . . 

549

“Man’s Forgiveness of His Neighbour—A Study in Religious Development,” in The Expositor 6 (1908) 492–505. The Official Report of the Church Congress, Held at Cambridge, on September 27th, 28th, 29th, and 30th, 1910 (edited by the Rev. C. Dunkley; London: George Allen & Sons, 1910) 70–5 (Untitled lecture regarding Schweitzer’s views). Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910–11). “Apocalyptic Literature,” 2.169–75 “Apocryphal Literature,” 2.175–83 “Baruch,” 3.453–5 “Daniel, Book of, Additions to Daniel,” 7.807–8 “Enoch, Book of,” 9.650–2 (includes “The Book of the Secrets of Enoch’) “Esther, Book of, Additions to the Book of Esther,” 9.797 “Ezra, Third Book of,” 10.104–6 “Ezra, Fourth Book of,” 10.106–8 “Isaiah, Ascension of,” 14.864–5 “Jeremy, Epistle of,” 15.325 “Jubilees, Book of,” 15.533–4 “Judith, the Book of,” 15.542–3 “Manasses, Prayer of,” 17.541 “Moses, Assumption of,” 18.896–7 “Revelation, Book of,” 23.212–2 “Solomon, the Psalms of,” 25.365–6 “Testaments of the Three Patriarchs,” 26.666 “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” 26.666–8. The Book of Enoch or 1 Enoch, translated from the editor’s Ethiopic Text and edited with the introduction, notes and indexes of the first edition wholly recast enlarged and rewritten, together with a reprint from the editor’s Text of the Greek Fragments, by R. H. Charles, D. Litt., D.D., Fellow of Merton College, Fellow of the British Academy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912). Fragments of a Zadokite Work, translated from the Cambridge Hebrew Text and edited with introduction, notes and indexes by R. H. Charles, D. Litt., D.D., Fellow of Merton College, Oxford, Fellow of the British Academy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912). Immortality: The Drew Lecture Delivered October 11, 1912, by R. H. Charles, Speaker’s Lecturer in Biblical Studies, Fellow of Merton College, Oxford, Fellow of the British Academy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912; the title of the lecture itself is “The Rise and Development of the Belief in a Future Life in Judaism and Christianity, being the Drew Lecture on Immortality, 1912”). A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, in Judaism, and in Christianity; or, Hebrew, Jewish, and Christian Eschatology from Pre-Prophetic Times till the Close of the New Testament Canon, being the Jowett Lectures for 1898–99, by R. H. Charles, D.D., D. Litt., Speaker’s Lecturer in Biblical Studies, Fellow of Merton College, Oxford, Fellow of the British Academy (second edition, revised and enlarged; London: Adam and Charles Black, 1913). The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, with introductions and critical and explanatory notes to the several books, edited in conjunction with many scholars by R. H. Charles, D. Litt., D.D., Fellow of Merton College, Oxford, Fellow of the British Academy (2 volumes; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913).

550      . .  Preface in volume I, iii–iv Introduction to volume I, vii–xi Preface in volume II, iii–iv (= Preface in volume I) Introduction to Volume II, vii–xi Addenda et Corrigenda to Volume II, xii–xiii Editions in volume II “The Book of Jubilees,” 1–82 “The Martyrdom of Isaiah,” 155–62 “1 Enoch,” 163–281 “The Testaments of the XII Patriarchs,” 282–367 “The Assumption of Moses,” 407–24 “2 Enoch, or the Book of the Secrets of Enoch (with Nevill Forbes),” 425–69 “2 Baruch, or the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch,” 470–526 “The Fragments of a Zadokite Work,” 785–834. The Book of Daniel, Introduction, Revised Version with Notes, Index and Map edited by R. H. Charles, D. Litt., D.D., Fellow of Merton College, Fellow of the British Academy (The New-Century Bible; New York: Henry Frowde, Oxford University Press, American Branch; Edinburgh: T. C. & E. C. Jack, [1913]). Studies in the Apocalypse, being lectures delivered before the University of London, by R. H. Charles, Canon of Westminster, Fellow of Merton College, Oxford, Fellow of the British Academy (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1913). Religious Development Between the Old and New Testaments, by R. H. Charles, M.A., D. Litt., D.D., F.B.A., Canon of Westminster (New York: Henry Holt and Company; London: Williams and Norgate, 1914). “An Attempt to Recover the Original Order of the Text of Revelation xx.4—xxii,” Paper read March 10, 1915, Proceedings of the British Academy for 1915–16, 37–55. “Introduction,” in Henry J. Wicks, The Doctrine of God in the Jewish Apocryphal and Apocalyptic Literature (London: Hunter & Longhurst, 1915) xi. “Thomas Kelly Cheyne 1841–1915,” Proceedings of the British Academy for 1915–16, 545–51. The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu, translated from Zotenberg’s Ethiopic Text, by R.H. Charles, D. Litt., D.D., Canon of Westminster, Fellow of the British Academy (Text and Translation Society series 3; London: Williams & Norgate, 1916). Translations of Early Documents Series 1, Palestinian Jewish Texts (pre-rabbinic) (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1917). Five of Charles’ translations were included in the series: The Book of Enoch, by R. H. Charles; with an Introduction by W. O. E Oesterley The Book of Jubilees, or the Little Genesis, translated from the Ethiopic Text by R. H. Charles; with an Introduction by G. H. Box Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, by R. H. Charles; with an Introduction by the Rev. W. O. E. Oesterley The Ascension of Isaiah, translated by R. H. Charles; bound with The Apocalypse of Abraham, edited, with a translation from the Slavonic text and notes by G. H. Box, with the assistance of J. I. Landsman The Apocalypse of Baruch, translated by R. H. Charles; with an Introduction by W. O. E. Oesterley Sermons Preached in Westminster Abbey, by R. H. Charles, D. Litt., D.D., Canon of Westminster, Fellow of the British Academy (London: MacMillan, 1917)

     . . 

551

A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John, by R.H. Charles, D. Litt., D.D., Archdeacon of Westminster, Fellow of the British Academy (2 volumes; International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920) “The Date and Place of Writing of the Slavonic Enoch,” in Journal of Theological Studies 22 (1921) 161–3. The Teaching of the New Testament on Divorce, by R. H. Charles, D. Litt., D.D., Archdeacon of Westminster, Fellow of the British Academy (London: Williams & Norgate, 14 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, W.C. 2, 1921). Charles’s response to the question of whether there should be one creed for a reunited church and, if so, which it should be in “The Creed of the Re-United Church,” Modern Churchman 10 (1921) 567 (article, 558–71; reprinted in Appendix I in Henry D. A. Major, English Modernism: Its Origins, Methods, Aims Cambridge: Harvard University Press/London: Humphrey Milford, 1927), where Charles’s reply is on pages 244–5. Lectures on the Apocalypse by R. H. Charles, D. Litt., D.D., Archdeacon of Westminster, Fellow of the British Academy (Schweich Lectures 1919; London: Oxford University Press, 1922). “To Love God with the Mind,” in The Modern Churchman 12 (1922–23) 410–17 (= sermon 13 in The Resurrection of Man and Other Sermons Preached in Westminster Abbey [see below], 150–60). The Adventure into the Unknown and Other Sermons Preached in Westminster Abbey, by R. H. Charles, D. Litt., D.D., Archdeacon of Westminster, Fellow of the British Academy (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 38 George Street, 1923). “Two Parables: A Study,” in Expository Times 35 (1924) 265–9 (= Sermon 11 in The Resurrection of Man and Other Sermons Preached in Westminster Abbey [below], 124–35). Gambling & Betting: A Short Study Dealing with their Origin and their Relation to Morality and Religion, by R. H. Charles, D.D., D. Litt., LL.D., Archdeacon of Westminster, Fellow of the British Academy (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 38 George Street, first impression 1924, second impression 1925). The Decalogue, Being the Warburton Lectures Delivered in Lincoln’s Inn and Westminster Abbey 1919–1923 by R. H. Charles, D.D., D. Litt., Archdeacon of Westminster, Fellow of the British Academy (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1923; second edition, 1926 [2 more pages]). Divorce and the Roman Dogma of Nullity, by R. H. Charles, D.D., D. Litt., L.L.D., Archdeacon of Westminster, Fellow of the British Academy (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 38 George Street, 1927). A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, with Introduction, Indexes and a New English Translation, by R. H. Charles, D.D. (Dublin), D. Litt. and Hon. D.D. (Oxford), Hon. D. Litt. (Belfast), Archdeacon of Westminster, Fellow of the British Academy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929). The Resurrection of Man and Other Sermons Preached in Westminster Abbey, by The Ven. R. H. Charles, D.D. (Dublin), D. Litt. & Hon. D.D. (Oxford), Hon. LL.D. (Belfast), Archdeacon of Westminster, Fellow of the British Academy (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 38 George Street, 1929). Courage, Truth, Purity, By R. H. Charles, D.D., D. Litt., LLD., FBA, Archdeacon of Westminster, With a Brief Memoir of the Author, By The Most Reverend C. F. D’Arcy, D.D., Archbishop of Armagh (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1931).

Bibliography of Works Cited Adler, William, “Palaea Historica (‘The Old Testament History’),” in Richard Bauckham, James R. Davila, and Alexander Panayotov, editors, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Non-Canonical Scriptures (volume 1; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013) 585–672. Albeck, Hanoch, Das Buch der Jubiläen und die Halacha (Sieben und vierziger Bericht der Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums in Berlin; Berlin-Schöneberg: Druck von Siegfried Scholem, 1930). Andersen, Francis I., “2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) Enoch,” in James Charlesworth, editor, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983, 1985) 1.91–221. Andersen, Francis I., “Enoch, Second Book of,” in D. N. Freedman, editor, The Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1992) 2.516–22. Anderson, Gary A. and Michael E. Stone, editors, A Synopsis of the Books of Adam and Eve (2nd revised edition; Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature 17; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999). Astruc, Jean, Conjectures sur les mémoires originaux don’t il paroît que Moyse se servit pour composer le livre de Genèse (Brussels: Fricx, 1753). Aune, David, Revelation (Word Biblical Commentary 52A–C; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997, 1998, 1998). Bailey, Kenneth Claude, A History of Trinity College Dublin 1892–1945 (Dublin: University Press, 1947). Baird, William, History of New Testament Research, vol. 2 From Jonathan Edwards to Rudolf Bultmann (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003). Barnes, W. Emery, Review of Charles, The Decalogue in Journal of Theological Studies 25 (1924) 441–2. Barth, J., Review of Charles, The Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Book of Jubilees in Deutsche Litteraturzeitung 34 (1895) columns 1062–63. Barton, J. M. T., “The Ascension of Isaiah,” in H. F. D. Sparks, editor, The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984) 775–812. Basset, René, Review of Charles, The Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch in Revue de l’histoire des religions 56 (1907) 126–8. Bauckham, Richard, James R. Davila, and Alexander Panayotov, editors, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Noncanonical Scriptures (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013). Baumgarten, Joseph, “Damascus Document” in Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, edited by Lawrence H. Schiffman and James C. VanderKam (2 volumes; Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2000) 166–70. Baumgartner, Walter, “Das Aramäische im Buche Daniel,” in Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 4 (1927) 81–133. Beasley-Murray, G. R., “How Christian is the Book of Revelation?” in Robert Banks, editor, Reconciliation and Hope. New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L. L. Morris on his 60th Birthday (Carlisle: The Paternoster Press, 1974) 275–84.

554     Becker, Jürgen, Untersuchungen zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen (Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums 8; Leiden: Brill, 1970). Beer, Bernhard, Das Buch der Jubiläen und sein Verhältniss zu den Midraschim: Ein Beitrag zur orientalischen Sagen-und Alterthumskunde (Leipzig: Wolfgang Gerhard, 1856). Beer, Georg, “Das Buch Henoch,” in E. Kautzsch, editor, Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1900) 2.217–310. Beer, Georg, “Das Martyrium Jesajae,” in E. Kautzsch, editor, Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1900) 2.119–27. Bence-Jones, William, The Life’s Work in Ireland of a Landlord Who Tried to Do His Duty (London: MacMillan & Co., 1880). Bevan, Anthony Ashley, A Short Commentary on the Book of Daniel for the Use of Students (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1892). Black, Matthew, The Book of Enoch or I Enoch: A New English Edition (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 7; Leiden: Brill, 1985). Boccaccini, Gabriele, “James Bruce’s ‘Fourth’ Manuscript: Solving the Mystery of the Provenance of the Roman Enoch Manuscript (Vat. Et. 71),” in Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 27 (2018) 237–63. Bogaert, Pierre, Apocalypse de Baruch, introduction, traduction du Syriaque et commentaire (2 volumes; Sources chrétiennes 144–5; Paris: Le Cerf, 1969). Bohn, Friedrich, “Die Bedeutung des Buches der Jubiläen: Zum 50jährigen Jubiläum der ersten deutschen Übersetzung,” in Theologische Studien und Kritiken 73 (1900) 167–84. Bonwetsch, Gottlieb Nathaniel, Das slavische Henochbuch (Abhandlungen der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, philosophisch-historische Klasse, neue Folge, Bund 1, Nummer 3; Berlin: Weidmann, 1896). Bonwetsch, Gottlieb Nathaniel, Review of Charles, The Book of the Secrets of Enoch in Theologische Literaturzeitung 21 (1896) columns 153–6. Booth, Phil, “The Muslim Conquest of Egypt Reconsidered,” in Constructing the Seventh Century, edited by Constantin Zuckerman (Travaux et Mémoires 17; Paris: Association des Amis du Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, 2013) 639–70. Booth, Phil, “Muslim conquests: John of Nikiu, Chronicle (c.690). Original in Ethiopic,” in Reading the Middle Ages: Sources from Europe, Byzantium, and the Islamic World, edited by Barbara H. Rosenwein (3rd edition; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018) 69–78. Böttrich, Christfried, Das slavische Henochbuch (Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistischrömischer Zeit V/7; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1996). Böttrich, Christfried, “The ‘Book of the Secrets of Enoch’ (2 En): Between Jewish Origin and Christian Transmission,” in Orlov, Andrei and Gabriele Boccaccini, editors; Jason Zurawski, associate editor, New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavonic Only (Studia Judaeoslavica 4; Leiden: Brill, 2012) 37–68. Bouriant, Ulysses, “Fragments grecs du Livre d’Énoch,” in Mémoires publiés par les membres de la Mission Archéologique Française au Caire 9 (1892–93) 93–147. Bousset, Wilhelm, “Neueste Forschungen auf dem Gebiet der religiösen Litteratur des Spätjudentums,” in Theologische Rundschau 3 (1900) 287–302, 327–35, 369–81. Bousset, Wilhelm, “Die Testamente der XII Patriarchen: I. Die Ausscheidung der christlichen Interpolationen,” in Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 1 (1900) 141–75. Bousset, Wilhelm, “Die Testamente der XII Patriarchen: II. Composition und Zeit der jüdischen Grundschrift,” in Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 1 (1900) 187–209.

   

555

Box, G. H. and Charles Gore, Divorce in the New Testament: A Reply to Dr. Charles (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; New York: The MacMillan Company, 1921). Brockliss, L. W. B., The University of Oxford: A History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016). Brooks, Ernest Walter, “On the chronology of the conquest of Egypt by the Saracens,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 4 (1895) 435–44. Brooks, Ernest Walter, Review of Charles, The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu in The English Historical Review 32 (1917) 429–30. Brown, Francis, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907). Büchler, Adolph, “Schechter’s ‘Jewish Sectaries’,” Jewish Quarterly Review 3 (new series) (1912–13) 429–85. Burkitt, Francis Crawford, “Dr. Charles’s Edition of the ‘Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs’,” in Journal of Theological Studies 10 (1908) 135–41. Burkitt, Francis Crawford, Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (The Schweich Lectures; London: For the British Academy H. Milford, Oxford University Press, 1914). Burkitt, F. C., “Robert Henry Charles 1855–1931,” in Proceedings of the British Academy 17 (1931) 437–45. Burney, Charles Fox, “A Hebraic Construction in the Apocalypse,” in Journal of Theological Studies 22 (1921) 371–6. Burney, Charles Fox, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1922). Butler, Alfred, The Arab Conquest of Egypt and the Last Thirty Years of Roman Dominion (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902). Butterworth, G. W., Origen On First Principles (New York: Harper & Row, 1966). Caquot, André, “Bref commentaire du Martyre d’Isaie,” in Semitica 22 (1973) 65–93. Carpenter, Edward, editor, A House of Kings: The History of Westminster Abbey (London: John Baker, 1966). Carpenter, William Boyd, “The Education of a Minister of God,” in Hibbert Journal 3 (1904–5) 433–51. Carver, W. O., Review of Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John in Review & Expositor 18 (1921) 346–8. Case, Shirley Jackson, Review of Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John in Journal of Religion 1 (1921) 433–7. Ceriani, Antonio Maria, Monumenta sacra et profana ex codicibus praesentim Bibliothecae Ambrosianae opera collegii doctorum ejusdem 7 vols.; (Milan: Bibliotheca Ambrosiana, 1861–74). Ceriani, Antonio Maria, Translatio Syra Pescitto Veteris Testamenti ex codice Ambrosiano sec. fere VI, photolithographice edita (Milan: A. della Croce and J. B. Pogliani, 1876–83) folios 257a–67b. Chadwick, Owen, The Victorian Church, Part I (2nd edition; An Ecclesiastical History of England V; London: Adam & Charles Black, 1970). Chadwick, Owen, The Victorian Church, Part II (2nd edition; An Ecclesiastical History of England V; London: Adam & Charles Black, 1970). Chapman, Mark D., editor, Ambassadors of Christ: Commemorating 150 Years of Theological Education in Cuddesdon 1854–2004 (Aldershot, Hampshire, England: Ashgate, 2004). Charlesworth, James H., editor, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 volumes; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983, 1985).

556     Cheyne, Thomas Kelly, Review of Charles, The Book of Enoch in Expository Times 4/11 (1893) 507–9. Cheyne Thomas Kelly and J. Sutherland Black, editors, Encyclopaedia Biblica (4 volumes; London: A. & C. Black, 1899–1903). Clapinson, Mary and T. D. Rogers, Summary Catalogue of Post-Medieval Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library Oxford: Acquisitions 1916–1975 (SC 37300–55936), vol. I Catalogue (SC 37300–46393) (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991). Clemen, C., “Die Zusammensetzung des Buches Henoch, der Apokalypse des Baruch and des vierten Buches Esra,” in Theologische Studien und Kritiken 71 (1898) 211–46. Clemens, Carl, “Die Himmelfahrt Moses” in E. Kautzsch, editor, Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments (2 volumes; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1900) 2.311–31. Clemens, Carl, Die Himmelfahrt des Mose (Kleine Texte für theologische Vorlesungen und Übungen 10; Bonn: A. Marcus and E. Weber, 1904). Colani, M., “L’Assomption des Moïse,” in Revue de Théologie 6 (1868) 65–94. Collins, John, “Testaments,” in Michael Stone, editor, Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, Section Two: The Literature of the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and the Talmud, volume 2; Assen: van Gorcum/Philadelphia Fortress, 1984) 325–55. Collins, John, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993). Collins, John, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (The Biblical Resource Series; 2nd edition; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998). Conybeare, Frederick C., “On the Jewish Authorship of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in Jewish Quarterly Review 5 (1893) 375–98. Conybeare, Frederick C., “A Collation of Sinker’s Texts of the Testaments of Reuben and Simeon with the Old Armenian Version,” in Jewish Quarterly Review 8 (1896) 260–8. Conybeare, Frederick C., “A Collation of Armenian Texts of the Testaments of (1) Judah; (2) Dan; (3) Joseph; (4) Benjamin,” in Jewish Quarterly Review 8 (1896) 471–85. Cook, Stanley Arthur, Review of Charles, The Ascension of Isaiah in The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (1901) 165–9. Cook, Stanley Arthur, Review of Charles, The Book of Jubilees in The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (1903) 205–8. Cook, Stanley Arthur and A. H. McNeile, “Chronicle: The Old Testament and Related Literature,” in Journal of Theological Studies 14 (1912–13) 623–5 (review of Charles, Daniel [1913] on p. 625). Corrodi, Heinrich, Kritische Geschichte des Chiliasmus (Frankfort/Leipzig [no publisher given], 1781). Cowley, A. E., translator, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1898). Cowley, A. E., Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923). Cross, F. L. and E. A. Livingstone, editors, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd edition; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997). Crum, Walter Ewing, Review of Charles, The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 4 (1917) 207–9. Crum, Walter Ewing, A Coptic Dictionary (6 volumes; Oxford: Clarendon, 1929–39). Curley, E. M., “Spinoza, Benedict (or Baruch) de,” in John H. Hayes, editor, Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (2 volumes; Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1999) 2.498–9.

   

557

D’Abbadie, Antoine Thomson, Catalogue raisonné de manuscrits éthiopiens appartenant à Antoine d’Abbadie (Paris: Imprimerie Impériale, 1859). Dalman, Gustav, Die Worte Jesu (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1898; English: The Words of Jesus Considered in the Light of Post-Biblical Jewish Writings and the Aramaic Language [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902]). D’Arcy, C. F., “A Brief Memoir,” in R. H. Charles, Courage, Truth, Purity (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1931), xiii–xxxv. D’Arcy, C. F., The Adventures of a Bishop: A Phase of Irish Life: A Personal and Historical Narrative (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1934). Davies, Graham, The Schweich Lectures and Biblical Archaeology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). Deane, William John, Pseudepigrapha: An Account of Certain Apocryphal Sacred Writings of the Jews and Early Christians (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1891). Dedering, S., editor, Apocalypse of Baruch, 4 Esdras (The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta : Version IV/3; Leiden: Brill, 1973). Dillmann, August, “Das Buch der Jubiläen oder die kleine Genesis,” in Jahrbücher der Biblischen Wissenschaft 2 (1850) 230–56; 3 (1851) 1–96. Dillmann, August, Liber Henoch aethiopice, ad quinque codicum fidem editus, cum variis lectionibus (Leipzig: Vogel, 1851). Dillmann, August, Das Buch Henoch übersetzt und erklärt (Leipzig: Vogel, 1853). Dillmann, August, Mas:hafa Kufālē sive Liber Jubilaeorum qui idem a Graecis Η ΛΕΠΤΗ : ΓΕΝΕΣΙΣ inscribitur versione Graeca deperdita nunc nonnisi in Geez lingua conservatus nuper ex Abyssinia in Europam allatus. Aethiopice ad duorum librorum manuscriptorum fidem primum edidit Dr. A. Dillmann (Göttingen: Kaesteneri [also Kiel: C. G. L. von Maack; London: Williams and Norgate], 1859). Dillmann, August, Lexicon Linguae Aethiopicae (Leipzig: T. O. Weigel, 1865). Dillmann, August, Ascensio Isaiae Aethiopice et Latine, cum prolegomenis, adnotationibus criticis et exegeticis, additis versionum latinarum reliquiis (Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1877). Dillmann, August, “Beiträge aus dem Buch der Jubiläen zur Kritik des Pentateuch-Textes,” Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 1 (Berlin: Verlag der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1883) 324–40. Dillmann, August, “Über den neugefundenen griechischen Text des Henoch-Buches,” Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (Berlin: Verlag der Königlichichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1892 [Erster Halbband, Januar bis Mai]) 1039–54, 1079–92. Dillmann, August, Review of Charles, The Book of Enoch in Theologische Literaturzeitung 18 (1893) 442–6. Driver, Samuel Rolles, A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew, And Some Other Syntactical Questions (3rd edition; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1892; 1st edition, 1874). Driver, Samuel Rolles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895). Driver, Samuel Rolles, The Book of Daniel with Introduction and Notes (Cambridge Bible; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1900). Driver, Samuel Rolles, Modern Research as illustrating the Bible (The Schweich Lectures; London: Published for the British Academy by Humphrey Milford, 1922). Dunkley, C., editor, The Official Report of the Church Congress, Held at Cambridge, on September 27th, 28th, 29th, and 30th, 1910 (London: George Allen & Sons, 1910).

558     Elliott, J. K., The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation based on M. R. James (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993). Erho, Ted, “New Ethiopic Witnesses to Some Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,” in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 76 (2013) 75–97. Erho, Ted and Loren Stuckenbruck, “A Manuscript History of Ethiopic Enoch,” in Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 23 (2013) 87–133. Ewald, Heinrich, “Ueber die Aethiopischen Handschriften zu Tübingen,” in Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 5 (1844) 164–201. Ewald, Heinrich, Geschichte des Volkes Israel (7 vols.; Göttingen: Dieterische Buchhandlung, 1852–64). Ewald, Heinrich, “Abhandlung über des äthiopischen Buches Henókh: Entstehung Sinn und Zusammensetzung,” Abhandlungen des Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen 6 (Göttingen: Dieterich, 1854) 107–78. Ewald, Heinrich, Review of Ceriani, Monumenta sacra et profana 1/1 in Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen 1 (1862) 6. Ewald, Heinrch, Review of Joseph Langen, Das Judenthum in Palästina zur Zeit Christi, and of Hilgenfeld, Novum Testamentum extra canonem in Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen 2 (1867) 100–18. Fabricius, Johann Albert, Codex Pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti, Collectus Castigatus, Testimoniisque, Censuris & Animadversionibus illustratus (Hamburg and Leipzig: Liebezeit, 1713; 2nd edition, 1722) 849–64; volume 2 (Hamburg: Felginer, 1723) 120–2. Fairweather, William, Review of Charles, The Book of Enoch [1912] in The American Journal of Theology 17 (1913) 273–4. Fantis, Antonius de, Opera nuper in lucem providentia (Venice: J. de Dinslaken, 1522). Faye, Eugène de, Les apocalypses juives: Essai de critique littéraire et théologique (Paris: Fischbacher, 1892) 25–8, 76–95, 97–103, 192–204. Feldman, Louis H., James L. Kugel, and Lawrence H. Schiffman, editors, Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture (3 volumes; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2013). Fitzmyer, Joseph A, editor, Documents of Jewish Sectaries, volume I Fragments of a Zadokite Work (New York: KTAV, 1970). Flemming, Johannes and Ludwig Radermacher, Das Buch Henoch: Herausgegeben im Auftrage der Kirchenväter-Commission der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller 5; Leipzig: Hinrichs. 1901). Flemming, Johannes, Das Buch Henoch: Aethiopischer Text (Texte und Untersuchungen 7.1/22.1; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1902). Foster, Joseph, Oxford Men and Their Colleges (Oxford and London: James Porter & Co., 1893). Fotheringham, J. K., “The Date and Place of Writing of the Slavonic Enoch,” in Journal of Theological Studies 20 (1919) 252. Fotheringham, J. K., “The Easter Calendar and the Slavonic Enoch,” in Journal of Theological Studies 23 (1921) 49–56. Frankel, Zecharias, “Das Buch der Jubiläen,” in Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 5 (1856) 311–16, 380–400. Fritzsche, Otto F., Libri apocryphi Veteris Testamenti graece, recensit et cum commentario critico edidit Otto Fridolinus Fritzsche accedunt libri Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphi selecti (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1871).

   

559

Gaster, Moses, “The Hebrew Text of one of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 16 (1894) 33–49, 109–17. Gebhardt, Oscar von, “Die Ascensio Isaiae als Heiligenlegende. Aus Cod. Gr. 1534 der Nationalbibliothek zu Paris,” in Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Theologie 21 (1878) 330–53. Gfrörer, August Friedrich, Prophetae veteres pseudepigraphi, partim ex abyssinico vel hebraico sermonibus latine versi (Stuttgart: Krabbe, 1840). Gieseler, J. C. L., “Vetus translatio Latina Visionis Isaiae,” Programma quo Academiae Georgiae Augustae prorector et senatus sacra Pentecostalia anni MDCCCXXXII pie concelbranda indixerunt (Göttingen, 1832). Gilbert, Allen H., Review of Charles, The Teaching of the New Testament on Divorce in Journal of Biblical Literature 40 (1921) 162–5. Ginzberg, Louis, An Unknown Jewish Sect (Moreshet Series 1; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1976); German original: Eine unbekannte jüdische Sekte (New York: self-published, 1922). Gitlbauer, Michael, “Die Ueberreste griechischer Tachygraphie im Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1809. Erster Fascikel,” in Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Classe 28 (1878), Zweite Abteilung, 1–110 with fourteen plates. Goldschmidt, Lazarus, Das Buch Henoch aus dem Aethiopischen in die ursprünglich hebräische Abfassungssprache zurückübersetzt; mit einer Einleitung und Noten versehen (Berlin: Richard Heinrich, 1892). Gore, Charles, The Sermon on the Mount: A Practical Exposition (London: John Murray, 1896; 2nd edition, 1910). Gore, Charles, The Question of Divorce (London: John Murray, 1911). Grabius (Grabe), Ernestus, Spicilegium SS. Patrum (3 volumes; Oxoniae: e Theatro Sheldoniano, 1698; 2nd edition, 1714). Green, Peter, Betting and Gambling (London: Student Christian Movement Press, 1924). Gregory, Caspar René, Die griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1908). Grenfell, Bernard Pine and Arthur Surridge Hunt, The Ascension of Isaiah and Other Theological Fragments: The Amherst Papyri, being an Account of the Greek Papyri in the Collection of the Right Hon. Lord Amherst of Hackney, F.S.A., at Didlington Hall, Norfolk (London: H. Frowde, 1900). Grenfell, Bernard Pine and Arthur Surridge Hunt, editors, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part III (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1903). Gwynn, John, The Apocalypse of St John in a Syriac Version Hitherto Unknown (Dublin: Dublin University Press, 1897). Hagen, Joost L., “No Longer ‘Slavonic’ Only: 2 Enoch Attested in Coptic from Nubia,” in Orlov, Andrei and Gabriele Boccaccini, editors; Jason Zurawski, associate editor, New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavonic Only (Studia Judaeoslavica 4; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 7–34. Halévi, Joseph, “Recherches sur la langue de la redaction primitive du livre d’Énoch,” in Journal Asiatique 9 (1867) 352–95. Hall, Robert, “The Ascension of Isaiah: Community Situation, Date, and Place in Early Christianity,” Journal of Biblical Literature 109 (1990) 289–306. Hall, Robert, “Isaiah, Ascension of,” in John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow, editors, The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010) 772–4. Harris, J. Rendell, “Mr. Charles’ Apocalypse of Baruch,” The Expositor 5 (1897) 255–65.

560     Hastings, James, editor, A Dictionary of the Bible, dealing with the Language, Literature and Contents, including the Biblical Theology (5 volumes; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898–1904). Hayes, John, editor, Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (2 volumes; Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1999). Hayes, John, “Biblical Interpretation, History of,” in The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2006) 1.455–61. Hilgenfeld, Adolf, Novum Testamentum extra canonem receptum, part 1: Clementis Romani Epistulae edidit, commentario critico et adnotationibus instruxit; Mosis Assumptionis quae supersunt nunc primum edita et illustrata (Leipzig: Weigel, 1866). Hilgenfeld, Adolf, “Volkmar und Pseudo-Moses,” in Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie 10 (1867) 217–23. Hilgenfeld, Adolf, “Die Psalmen Salomo’s und die Himmelfahrt des Moses, griechisch hergestellt und erklärt,” in Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie 11 (1868) 273–309, 356. Hilgenfeld, Adolf, editor, Messias Judaeorum: libris eorum paulo ante et paulo post Christum natum conscriptis illustratus (Leipzig: Fues, 1869). Hinchliff, Peter, “Religious Issues, 1870–1914,” in M. G. Brock and M. C. Curthoys, editors, The History of the University of Oxford, vol. 7 Nineteenth-Century Oxford, Part 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000) 97–113. Hofmann, Johannes, Die Assumptio Mosis: Studien zur Rezeption massgültiger Überlieferung (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 67; Leiden: Brill, 2000). Hollander, H. W. and Marinus de Jonge, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 8; Leiden Brill, 1985). Holmes, Ann Sumner, The Church of England and Divorce in the Twentieth Century: Legalism and Grace (New York: Routledge, 2017). Holmes, Samuel, “Wisdom of Solomon,” in R. H. Charles, editor, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 1.518–68. Hunkin, J. W., “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in Journal of Theological Studies 16 (1914) 80–97. Hvidberg, Flemming, Menigheden af den nye Pagt i Damascus (Copenhagen: G.E.C. Gad, 1928). Isaac, Ephraim, “The Princeton Collection of Ethiopic Manuscripts,” in The Princeton University Library Chronicle 42 number 1 (Autumn, 1980) 33–52. James, Montague Rhodes, Review of Charles, The Book of Enoch in The Classical Review 8 (1894) 41–4. James, Montague Rhodes, Apocrypha Anecdota II (Texts and Studies: Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature, volume V, number 1; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1897). James, Montague Rhodes, Review of Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary of the Revelation of St. John in Journal of Theological Studies 22 (1921) 384–90. James, Montague Rhodes, editor, The Apocryphal New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1924). James, Montague Rhodes, The Apocalypse in Art (The Schweich Lectures; London: Published for the British Academy by Humphrey Milford; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1931).

   

561

Jasper, Ronald, Arthur Cayley Headlam: Life and Letters of a Bishop (London: Faith Press, 1960). Jassen, Alex P., “The Early Study of Jewish Law in the Damascus Document: Solomon Schechter and Louis Ginzberg in Conversation and Conflict,” in From Scrolls to Traditions: A Festschrift Honoring Lawrence H. Schiffman (edited by Stuart S. Miller, Michael D. Swartz, Steven Fine, Naomi Grunhaus, and Alex P. Jassen; The Brill Reference Library of Judaism 63; Leiden: Brill, 2020) 164–218. Jellinek, Adolph, Bet ha-Midrasch: Sammlung kleiner Midraschim und vermischter Abhandlungen aus der ältern jüdischen Literatur (6 parts in 2 vols.; Leipzig: C. W. Vollrath, 1853–78). Jonge, Henk de, “La bibliothèque de Michel Choniatès et la tradition occidentale des Testaments des XII Patriarches,” in M. de Jonge, editor, Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Text and Interpretation (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 3; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 97–106. Jonge, Marinus de, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study of their Text, Composition and Origen (Assen: van Gorcum, 1953). Jonge, Marinus de, Testamenta XII Patriarcharum, edited according to Cambridge University Library MS Ff 1.24, fol. 203a–262b, with Short Notes (Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece 1; Leiden: Brill, 1964). Jonge, Marinus de, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text (Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graece 1 i; Leiden: Brill, 1978). Jonge, Marinus de, “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in H. F. D. Sparks, editor, The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984) 505–600. Jonge, Marinus de, “Robert Grosseteste and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in Journal of Theological Studies 42 (1991) 115–25. Josepheanz, H. Sargis, “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in Treasury of Old and New Fathers: I., Non-Canonical Writings of the Old Testament (Venice: Mechitarist Press, 1896) 27–151. Kabisch, Richard, “Die Quellen der Apokalypse Baruchs,” in Jahrbücher für Protestantische Theologie 18 (1892) 66–107. Kautzsch, E., editor, Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments (2 volumes; Tübingen, Freiburg, and Leipzig: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1900). Kee, Howard C., “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in James Charlesworth, editor, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 volumes; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1983, 1985) 1.775–828. Kenyon, Frederic, Facsimiles of Biblical Manuscripts in the British Museum (London: Printed by Order of the Trustees, 1900). Kenyon, Frederic, Codex Alexandrinus in Reduced Photographic Facsimile (London: British Museum, 1915). Klijn, A.F.J., “2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch,” in J. Charlesworth, editor, Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 volumes; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983, 1985) 1.615–52. Knibb, Michael, The Ethiopic Book of Enoch: A new edition in the light of the Aramaic Dead Sea Fragments (2 volumes; Oxford: Clarendon, 1978). Knibb, Michael, “Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah,” in James Charlesworth, editor, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 volumes; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1983, 1985) 2.143–76. Knight, Jonathan, The Ascension of Isaiah (Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995).

562     Kohler, Kaufmann, “The Pre-Talmudic Haggada,” in Jewish Quarterly Review 5 (1893) 399–419. Konigsveld, P. S. van, “An Arabic Manuscript of the Apocalypse of Baruch,” in Journal for the Study of Judaism 6 (1975) 205–7. Kozak, Eugen, “Bibliographische Uebersicht der biblisch-apokryphen Literatur bei den Slaven,” in Jahrbücher für die Protestantische Theologie 18 (1892) 127–58. Kretzmann, Paul E., Johann Ludwig Krapf: The Explorer-Missionary of Northeastern Africa (Columbus, OH: The Book Concern, no date). Kuenen, Abraham, “Der Stammbaum des masoretischen Textes des Alten Testaments,” in his Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur biblischen Wissenschaft (Freiburg: J.C.B. Mohr Paul Siebeck, 1894) 82–124. Kugel, James, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible As It Was at the Start of the Common Era (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998). Lacau, P., “Fragments de l’Ascension d’Isaie en copte,” in Le Muséon 59 (1946) 453–67. Lagrange, Marie-Joseph, “La secte juive de la nouvelle alliance au pays de Damas,” in Revue Biblique 9 (1912) 213–40, 321–60. LaGrange, Marie-Joseph, Review of Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel in Revue Biblique 39 (1930) 276–83. Lake, Kirsopp, Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus: The New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1911). Lange, D., “Strauss, David Friedrich,” in John Hayes, editor, Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (2 volumes; Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1999) 2.507–8. Laurence, Richard, Ascensio Isaiae vatis, opusculum pseudepigraphum, multis abhinc seculis, ut videtur, deperditum, nunc autem apud Aethiopas compertum, et cum versione Latina anglicaque publici iuris factum (Oxford: J. Parker, 1819). Laurence, Richard, Mas: hafa Henok Nabiy: The Book of Enoch the Prophet, An apocryphal : production, supposed to have been lost for ages; but discovered at the close of the last century in Abyssinia now first translated from an Ethiopic MS. in the Bodleian Library (Oxford: J. H. Parker, 1821). Laurence, Richard, Libri Enoch prophetae Versio Aethiopica Quae seculi sub fini novissimi ex Abyssinia Britanniam advecta vix tandem litterato orbi intulit (Oxford: J. H. Parker, 1838). Law, Gerald, “Charles, Robert Henry (1855–1931), Church of England clergyman and biblical scholar” in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (September 23, 2004 online edition of the Dictionary). Lefort, L. Th. “Coptica Louvaniensia (Suite),” in Le Muséon 51 (1938) 24–30, with plate IVa. Lefort, L. Th., “Fragments d’apocryphes en copte akhmîmique,” in Le Muséon 52 (1939) 7–10, with plate II. Levertoff, Paul P., Review of Charles, The Decalogue in Theology 9 (1924) 347–50. Lévi, Israel, “Un Écrit Sadducéen antérieur à la ruine du Temple,” in Revue des Études Juives 61 (1911) 161–205. Licht, Jacob, “Taxo and the Apocalyptic Doctrine of Vengeance,” in Journal of Jewish Studies 12 (1961) 95–103. Littmann, Enno, “Das Buch der Jubiläen,” in E. Kautzsch, editor Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments (2 volumes; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck],1900) 2.31–119. Lloyd, Roger B., The Church of England in the Twentieth Century (2 volumes; London: Longmans, 1946). Lunney, Linde, “Charles, Robert Henry” in The Dictionary of Irish Biography, edited by J. I. McGuire and James Quinn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

   

563

Macartney, C. E., Review of Charles, The Teaching of the New Testament on Divorce in Princeton Theological Review 22 (1924) 148–53. Macaskill, Grant, “2 Enoch: Manuscripts. Recensions, and Original Language,” in Orlov, Andrei and Gabriele Boccaccini, editors; Jason Zurawski, associate editor, New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavonic Only (Studia Judaeoslavica 4; Leiden: Brill, 2012) 83–102. Mackintosh, H. R., Review of Charles, Immortality in Theologische Literaturzeitung 38 (1913) 605. Mai, Angelo, Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio e Vaticani Codicibus, volume 3, part 2 (Rome: Typis Vaticanis, 1828) 238–9. Mai, Angelo, Novae Patrum Bibliothecae (Roma: Typis Sacri Consilii propaganda christiano nomini, 1844). Major, H.D.A., English Modernism: Its Origin, Methods, Aims (Cambridge: Harvard University Press/London: Humphrey Milford, 1927). Major, H. D. A., “A Modernist’s Pilgrimage: Summary of an Address delivered to the Society for the Study of Religions on 17th January, 1946,” in Religions 55 (April 1946) 4–11. Major, H. D. A., “Robert Henry Charles,” in The Modern Churchman 46 (1956) 221–6. Manson, T. W., “Charles, Robert Henry (1855–1931),” in L. G. Wickham Legg and George Smith, editors, Dictionary of National Biography 1931–1940 (London: Oxford University Press, 1949) 169–70. Margoliouth, D. S., Review of Charles, The Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Book of Jubilees in Jewish Quarterly Review 7 (1895) 546–8. Margoliouth, G., Review of Charles, Fragments of a Zadokite Work in The International Journal of Apocrypha 37 (1914) 36–7. Margolis, Max L., “Recent Biblical Literature,” in Jewish Quarterly Review 4 (1913) 249–302 (pp. 290–2 deal with Charles, The Book of Enoch [1912]). Marsden, Richard and E. Ann Matter, editors, The New Cambridge History of the Bible, volume 2 From 600–1450 (Cambridge Histories; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012). Martin, François, Le livre d’Hénoch (Documents pour l’étude de la Bible, Les apocryphes de l’Ancien Testament; Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1906). Martin, G. H. and J. R. L. Highfield, A History of Merton College, Oxford (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997). Maunder, A. S. D., “The Date and Place of Writing of the Slavonic Book of Enoch,” in The Observatory 41 (1918) 309–16. Maxwell, Constantia, A History of Trinity College Dublin 1591–1892 (Dublin: The University Press, Trinity College, 1946). Merton College Register 1900–1964, With Notices of Some Older Surviving Members (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1964). McGuire, J. I., editor, Dictionary of Irish Biography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). Messel, N., “Über die textkritisch begründete Ausscheidung vermütlicher christlicher Interpolationen in den Testamenten der zwölf Patriarchen,” in Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamenliche Wissenschaft 33 (1918) 355–74. Milik, J. T., Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea (Studies in Biblical Theology 26; London: SCM Press, 1959; French original: Dix ans de découvertes dans le desert de Juda [Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1957]). Minute Books of the Council of the British Academy 1, 3–5.

564     Moffatt, James, Review of Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Revelation of St. John in Theology 2 (1921) 96–102. Montgomery, James A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1927). Montgomery, James A., Review of Charles, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (with four other commentaries on Daniel) in Journal of the American Oriental Society 51 (1931) 317–27. Moreschini, Claudio and Enrico Norelli, editors, Early Christian Greek and Latin Literature: A Literary History, volume 1: From Paul to the Age of Constantine (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 2005). Moulton, James Hope, A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Volume I Prolegomena; (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1906; 3rd edition, 1908). Moulton, James Hope, “The Language of the New Testament,” in Commentary on the Bible, edited by Arthur S. Peake with the assistance for the New Testament of A. J. Grieve (New York: T. Nelson, 1920) 591–3. Moulton, James Hope and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1913–30). Müller, C. Detlef G., “The Ascension of Isaiah,” in Wilhelm Schneemelcher, editor, New Testament Apocrypha, volume II: Writings Related to the Apostles, Apocalypses and Related Subjects (revised edition; Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1992) 603–20. Muss-Arnolt, William, A Concise Dictionary of the Assyrian Language (Berlin: Reuther & Reichard, 1905). Muss-Arnolt, William, Review of Charles, The Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch in The American Journal of Theology 12 (1908) 660–1. Muss-Arnolt, William, Review of Charles, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in The American Journal of Theology 13 (1909) 453–9. Navtanovich, Liudmila, “The Provenance of 2 Enoch: A Philological Perspective,” in Orlov, Andrei and Gabriele Boccaccini, editors; Jason Zurawski, associate editor, New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavonic Only (Studia Judaeoslavica 4; Leiden: Brill, 2012) 69–82. Neubauer, Adolf and A. E. Cowley, The original Hebrew of a portion of Ecclesiasticus (XXXIX.15 to XLIX.11) together with the early versions and an English Translation; followed by the quotations from ben Sira in rabbinical literature (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1897). Nickelsburg, George W. E., 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001). Nickelsburg, George W. E., Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction (2nd edition; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005). Nickelsburg, George W. E., Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism and Early Christianity (expanded edition; Harvard Theological Studies 56; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006). Nickelsburg, George W. E. and James C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch 2: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch Chapters 37–82 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011). Nicklin, T., Review of Charles, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in The Classical Review 23 (1909) 83–4. Norelli, Enrico, Ascensio Isaïae: Commentarius (Corpus Christianorum, Series Apocryphorum 8; Turnhout: Brepols, 1995).

   

565

Oesterley, W. O. E., editor, The Book of Enoch, with an Introduction by W. O. E. Oesterley (Translations of Early Documents Series 1 Palestinian Jewish Texts [Pre-Rabbinic]; London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1917 = Charles’ 1912 translation). Orlov, Andrei and Gabriele Boccaccini, editors; Jason Zurawski, associate editor, New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavonic Only (Studia Judaeoslavica 4; Leiden: Brill, 2012). Oulton, J.E.L., “The Study of Divinity in Trinity College, Dublin, Since the Foundation,” in Hermathena 58 (1941) 3-29. Pass, Herbert Leonard and J. Arendzen, “Fragment of an Aramaic Text of the Testament of Levi,” in Jewish Quarterly Review 12 (1900) 651–61. Clive Pearson, Alan Davidson, and Peter Lineham, Scholarship and Fierce Sincerity: Henry D. A. Major The Face of Anglican Modernism (Auckland: Polygraphia, 2006). Perrone, Lorenzo, et al., Ascensio Isaïae: Textus (Corpus Christianorum, Series Apocryphorum 7; Turnhout: Brepols, 1995). Piovanelli, Pierluigi, “Un nouveau témoin éthiopien de l’Ascension d’Isaie et de la Vie de Jeremie (Paris, BN Abb. 195),” Henoch 12 (1990) 347–63. Plummer, Alfred, An Exegetical and Critical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Luke (International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh: Clark, 1901). Plummer, Alfred, “The Relations of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs to the Books of the New Testament,” in The Expositor 6 (1908) 481–91. Porter, Frank C., Review of Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in American Journal of Theology 18 (1914) 106–18. Prätorius, F., Review of Charles, The Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Book of Jubilees in Theologische Literaturzeitung 20 (1895) 613–16. Preuschen, Erwin, “Die armenische Übersetzung der Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen,” in Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 1 (1900) 106–40. Rabin, C., The Zadokite Documents (Oxford: Clarendon, 1953; second edition, 1958). Reed, Annette Yoshiko, “The Modern Invention of ‘Old Testament Pseudepigrapha’,” in Journal of Theological Studies 60 (2009) 403–36. Reif, Stefan C., A Jewish Archive from Old Cairo: The History of Cambridge University’s Genizah Collection (Culture and Civilisation in the Middle East; Richmond, Surrey: Curzon, 2000). Reif, Stefan C., “The Damascus Document from the Cairo Genizah: Its Discovery, Early Study and Historical Significance,” in Reif, Jews, Bible and Prayer: Essays on Jewish Biblical Exegesis and Liturgical Notions (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 498; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2017) 10–33. Roberts, Alexander, and James Donaldson, editors, Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire) (Ante-Nicene Fathers 2; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994 [original 1885]). Robertson, A. T., A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1914). Robertson, A. T., Review of Charles, Religious Development, in Review & Expositor 12 (1915) 268. Rönsch, Hermann, Das Buch der Jubiläen oder die Kleine Genesis unter Beifügung des revidirten Textes der in der Ambrosiana aufgefundenen lateinischen Fragmente sowie einer von Dr. August Dillmann aus zwei äthiopischen Handschriften gefertigten lateinischen Übertragung (Leipzig: Fues [Reiland], 1874). Rogerson, John, Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century: England and Germany (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985).

566     Rogerson, John, The Bible and Criticism in Victorian Britain: Profiles of F.D. Maurice and William Robertson Smith (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 201; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995). Rogerson, John “Ewald, Georg Heinrich August [1803–75],” in John H. Hayes, editor, Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (2 volumes; Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1999) 1.363–4. Rosenthal, Ferdinand, Vier apokryphische Bücher aus der Zeit und Schule r. Akiba’s: Assumptio Mosis, das Vierte Buch Esra, die Apokalypse Baruch, das Buch Tobi (Leipzig: Schulze, 1885). Rost, Leonhard, Die Damaskusschrift (Kleine Texte für Vorlesungen und Übungen 167; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1933). Ryssel, Victor, “Die syrische Baruchapokalypse” in E. Kautzsch, editor, Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments (2 volumes; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1900) 2.404–46. Salmon, George, The Infallibility of the Church: a course of lectures delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Dublin (London: J. Murray, 1890). Salmond, Stewart Dingwall Fordyce, The Christian Doctrine of Immortality (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895). Sanday, William, Inspiration: Eight Lectures on the Early History and Origin of Biblical Inspiration, being the Bampton Lectures for 1893 (London: Longmans/New York: Green, 1893). Sanday, William and Arthur Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895). Sayce, A. H., editor, Aramaic Papyri Discovered at Assuan (London: A. Moring Ltd., 1906). Schechter, Solomon, Fragments of a Zadokite Work (Documents of Jewish Sectaries I; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910). Schechter, Solomon, “Reply to Dr. Büchler’s Review of Schechter’s ‘Jewish Sectaries’,” Jewish Quarterly Review 4 (new series) (1913–14) 449–74. Schmidt, Moriz and Adalbert Merx, “Die Assumptio Mosis mit Einleitung und erklärenden Anmerkungen,” in Archiv für wissenschaftliche Erforschung des Alten Testaments 1 (1868) 111–52. Schnapp, Friedrich, Die Testamente der Zwölf Patriarchen untersucht (Halle: Max Niemeyer, 1884). Schnapp, Friedrich, “Die Testamente der 12 Patriarchen” in E. Kautzsch, editor, Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments (2 volumes; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1900) 2.458–506. Schodde, George Henry, The Book of Enoch translated from the Ethiopic, with Introduction and Notes (Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1882). Schodde, George Henry, “The Book of Jubilees translated from the Ethiopic by Professor George H. Schodde, Ph.D.,” in Bibliotheca Sacra 42 (1885) 629–45; 43 (1886) 56–72, 356–71, 455–86, 727–45; 44 (1887) 426–57, 602–11. Schodde, George Henry, The Book of Jubilees Translated from the Ethiopic by Rev. George H. Schodde, Ph.D. (Oberlin, OH: E. J. Goodrich, 1888). Schulthess, F., Review of Charles The Apocalypse of Baruch in Theologische Literaturzeitung 22 (1897) 238–41. Schürer, Emil, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (2 volumes; Edinburgh: Clark, 1885–90). Schürer, Emil, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (2nd ed.; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1886–90).

   

567

Schürer, Emil, Review of Bonwetsch, Das slavische Henochbuch in Theologische Literaturzeitung 21 (1896) 347–50. Schürer, Emil, Review of Charles, The Assumption of Moses in Theologische Literaturzeitung 22 (1897) 507–9. Schürer, Emil, Review of Charles, The Ascension of Isaiah in Theologische Literaturzeitung 26 (1901) 169–71. Schürer, Emil, Review of Charles, The Book of Jubilees in Theologische Literaturzeitung 28 (1903) 675–79. Schürer, Emil, Review of Charles, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in Theologische Literaturzeitung 33 (1908) 505–9 (Text) and 509–11 (Translation). Schweitzer, Albert, Von Reimarus zu Wrede: Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr Paul Siebeck, 1906; English: The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede, translated by W. Montgomery [London: Adam and Charles Black, 1910]). Singer, Wilhelm, Das Buch der Jubiläen oder die Leptogenesis (Stuhlweissenburg, Hungary: ed. Singer’sche Buchhandlung, 1898). Sinker, Robert, Testamenta XII patriarcharum ad fidem codicis Cantabrigiensis edita; accedunt lectiones Cod. Oxoniensis; The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs; An attempt to estimate their historic and dogmatic worth (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell; London: Bell and Daldy, 1869). Sinker, Robert, “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in Ante-Nicene Christian Library XXII, volume II (edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; Edinburgh: Clark, 1871) 7–79. Sinker, Robert, Testamenta XII Patriarcharum; Appendix containing a Collation of the Roman and Patmos MSS. and Bibliographical Notes (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell; London: Bell, 1879). Skinner, John, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1910). Slingerland, H. Dixon, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical History of Research (Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 21; Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1977). Smend, Rudolf, “Dillmann, Christian Friedrich August (1823–94),” in John H. Hayes, editor, Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (2 volumes; Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1999) 1.300–1. Smith, John M. Powis, Review of Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in The Biblical World 43 (1914) 59–61. Soskice, Janet, The Sisters of Sinai: How Two Lady Adventurers Discovered the Hidden Gospels (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2009). Sparks, H. F. D., editor, The Apocryphal Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984). Stade, Bernhard, Geschichte des Volkes Israel (2 volumes; Berlin: G. Grote’sche, 1887–88; volume 2 was by Oskar Holtzmann; for his sections on the Book of Enoch, see 416–29 and 483–90). Stephenson, Alan M. G., “William Sanday,” in The Modern Churchman new series 9 (1966) 257–72. Stephenson, Alan M. G., The Rise and Decline of English Modernism (The Hulsean Lectures 1979–80; London: SPCK, 1984). Stone, Michael with Vered Hillel, An Editio Minor of the Armenian Version of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Hebrew University Armenian Studies 11; Leuven: Peeters, 2012).

568     Strauss, David Friedrich, Das Leben Jesu kritisch bearbeitet (2 volumes; Tübingen: C. F. Osiander, 1835–36). Streeter, Burnett Hillman, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, treating of the manuscript tradition, sources, authorship, & dates (London: MacMillan, 1924). Sutcliffe, Peter, The Oxford University Press: An Informal History (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978). Swete, Henry Barclay, The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint (3 volumes; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1887–94). Terry, Milton S., Review of Charles, A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, in Judaism, and in Christianity in American Journal of Theology 4 (1900) 819–21. Thackeray, H. St. J., The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins (The Schweich Lectures; London: Published for the British Academy by Humphrey Milford, 1920, 1923). Thackeray, H. St. J. Josephus IV Jewish Antiquities, Books I–IV (Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge: Harvard University Press/London: Heinemann, 1930). The New York Times. The Oxford Ten-Year Book: A Register of University Honours and Distinctions Completed to the End of the Year 1870 (Oxford: James Parker, 1872). The Times of London. Toubkis, Dimitri, “Maryam Śәna,” Encyclopaedia Aethiopica, volume 3, edited by Siegbert Uhlig (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2007) 829–30. Toy, C. H., Review of Charles, A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, in Judaism, and in Christianity in The New World: A Quarterly Review of Religion, Ethics and Theology 9, 35 (September 1900) 593–5. Treuenfels, A., “Die kleine Genesis ‫ בראשית זוטא‬,” Fürst’s Literaturblatt des vorderen Orients 1 (1846) 7–12; 2 (1846) 28–32; 4 (1846) 59–64; 5 (1846) 65–71; 6 (1846) 81–6. Tromp, Johannes, The Assumption of Moses: A Critical Edition with Commentary (Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha 10; Leiden: Brill, 1993). Turner, Cuthbert Hamilton, Ecclesiae Occidentalis Monumenta Iuris Antiquissima (2 volumes in 7; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1899–1939). Turner, James, Philology: The Forgotten Origins of the Modern Humanities (The William G. Brown Memorial Series in Higher Education; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014). Ullendorff, Edward, “James Bruce of Kinnaird,” in The Scottish Historical Review 32 (1953) 128–43. Volkmar, Gustav, Mose Prophetie und Himmelfahrt, eine Quelle für das Neue Testament, zum erstenmale deutsch herasgegeben im Zusammenhang der Apokrypha und der Christologie überhaupt (Leipzig: Fues, 1867). Votaw, Clyde Weber, Review of Charles, Fragments of a Zadokite Work in The American Journal of Theology 19 (1915) 150–1. Weber, Ferdinand, System der Altsynagogalen Palästinischen Theologie aus Targum, Midrasch, und Talmud Dargestellt (Leipzig: Dörffling & Franke, 1880). Wellhausen, Julius, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (translated by John Sutherland Black and Allan Menzies; Edinburgh: A. & C. Black, 1885; reprinted Meridian Books; Cleveland, OH: World, 1957). Weninger, Stefan, “John of Nikiu,” Encyclopaedia Aethiopica volume 3, edited by Siegbert Uhlig (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2007) 298–9. Westcott, Brooke Foss, The Bible in the Church: A Popular Account of the Collection and Reception of the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Churches (London: MacMillan, 1879).

   

569

Wette, Wilhelm M. L. de, Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament (2 volumes; Halle: 1806–1807). Wicks, Henry J., The Doctrine of God in the Jewish Apocryphal and Apocalyptic Literature (London: Hunter & Longhurst, 1915). Willett, Tom W., Eschatology in the Theodicies of 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra (Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Supplement Series 4; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989). Wilson, Philip Whitwell, The Vision We Forget: A Layman’s Reading of the Book of the Revelation of St. John the Divine (New York and Chicago: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1921). Winckler, Hugo, Altorientalische Forschungen II.2 (Leipzig: Pfeiffer, 1900). Who Was Who, volume 3 Who Was Who 1929–1940 “Charles, Ven. Robert Henry” (2nd ed.; London: Adam & Charles Black, 1967) 241–2. Zeitlin, Solomon, The Zadokite Fragments: Facsimile of the Manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah Collection in the Possession of the University Library, Cambridge, England (Jewish Quarterly Review Monograph Series 1; Philadelphia: Dropsie College, 1952). Zotenberg, Hermann, “Mémoire sur la chronique byzantine de Jean, évêque de Nikiou,” Journal asiatique 10 (1877) 451–517; 12 (1878) 245–347; 13 (1879) 291–386. Zotenberg, Hermann, La chronique de Jean, évêque de Nikiou: Notice et extraits (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1879). Zotenberg, Hermann, La chronique de Jean, évêque de Nikiou: Texte éthiopien (Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale et autres bibliothèques 24, 1; Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1883) 125–608. Unsigned Review of Charles, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs in The Athenaeum (number 4201, May 9, 1908) 533–5. Unsigned Review of Charles, Immortality in American Journal of Theology 17 (1913) 473. Unsigned Review of Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English in The Athenaeum 4471, July 5, 1913, 9–10. Unsigned Review of Charles, The Teaching of the New Testament on Divorce in The Spectator for March 26, 1921 (volume 126) 397–8. Unsigned Review of Charles, Religious Development, in The Biblical World 44 (November 1914) 365. Unsigned Review of Charles, Religious Development in Church Quarterly Review 84 (1917) 173–5. “Warburton, William,” Encyclopaedia Britannica (1911) 28.318–19.

Index Note: Illustrations are indicated by an italic ‘f ’ following the page number; ‘n.’ after a page number indicates the footnote number.

Academy Charles, R. H.: “The Book of Enoch” 56n.22, 67n.41, 68n.44 Charles, R. H.: “The New Greek Fragment of Enoch” 58 Adam & Charles Black 150, 197 Adventure into the Unknown, The (by R. H. Charles) 24n.41, 373 Africanus 323 Albeck, Hanoch 130 Ambrosian Library, Milan 100, 103, 153 Assumption of Moses manuscript 173, 175, 182, 184, 185–6, 188 American Journal of Theology Charles, R. H.: “The Book of Enoch” 69n.46, 238 reviews of Charles’s works 77, 86, 219, 278, 302, 314, 329 Andersen, Francis I. 131, 147 Anecdota Oxoniensia 72n.52, 74, 78, 106, 114 anti-Semitism 7 Antonelli Library, Italy 48 Apocalypse of Baruch (2 Baruch) authorship 153 at Bodleian Library 156 at British Museum 156 contents of 152–3 copies/manuscripts 151, 153, 154, 156–7 original language 153 Syriac copies 151 Apocalypse of Baruch (Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, by R. H. Charles) 150, 151, 152, 153–64, 172 3 Baruch and 154, 162 4 Ezra and 162, 165 1917 volume with introduction by Oesterley 164

abbreviated version (The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament) 163 anti-Christian elements 154 authorship/editorship 154, 155, 156, 158–61, 162, 167 Baruch’s letter to Judean exiles 162 as composite work/sources 158–61, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167 context for 153 date of Book 154, 156, 162 Epistle of Baruch 154, 156–7, 167 importance of 156 Introduction 156–7, 162 legacy 166–7 New Testament and 162–3, 165 original language 154, 155, 157–8, 164, 166, 167 Oxyrhynchus Papyri 163–4 Preface 154, 155–6, 189 reviews 164–6 Syriac text 151, 154, 157 apocalypses/apocalyptic literature apocalyptic of the prophets 485 Burkitt, Francis Crawford 470 Charles, R. H. and x, 10, 11, 32, 84, 161, 199, 202, 218, 291, 295, 296, 318, 326n.43, 328, 354, 361, 434, 453, 483, 540 Charles, R. H.: “Apocalyptic and Apocryphal Literature” 238, 273, 303n.12 Charles, R. H.: “Apocalyptic Literature” 121, 192–7, 208, 251 Charles, R. H.: Lectures on the Apocalypse 377 Charles, R. H.: Studies in the Apocalypse 377

572  apocalypses/apocalyptic literature (cont.) eschatology/apocalyptic distinction 296, 299 ethics and 215, 326n.43, 328, 330, 336, 340n.5 German editions of 32 importance of apocalyptic literature 194–5 prophecy/apocalyptic distinction 194, 207, 215, 346–7, 485–7, 490, 497 prophecy/apocalyptic similarities 346, 485, 486, 490 pseudonymity of 346, 437, 449, 481, 485, 486 Apocrypha (1st volume of The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament) 1, 323–5 Apocrypha Proper 323, 494 changing attitudes to Apocrypha within the Church 323–4 Introduction 323–4, 494 works included in 324–5 see also Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, The apocrypha/apocryphal 323 apocryphal literature 199, 202, 233 apocryphal studies 184 Charles, R. H.: “Apocalyptic and Apocryphal Literature” 238, 273, 303n.12 Charles, R. H.: Religious Development 494–5 classification of apocryphal books: geographical origin and date of composition 495 see also Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, The; Kautzsch, Emil: Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, The (by R. H. Charles) ix, 1–2, 213, 303, 318–19, 322–8, 360n.38, 367, 372 Apocalypse of Baruch, abbreviated version 163 Assumption of Moses, The, abbreviated version 183 Book of Enoch: Charles’s 1913 volume 88

Book of Jubilees: Charles’s 1902 abbreviated version 128 context for 319–22 Fragments of a Zadokite Work 313–14, 315, 326, 327, 328 importance of 328 legacy 331–3 “Martyrdom of Isaiah, The” 233, 235 Preface ix, 323, 325 Religious Development and 494, 495, 496 reviews 328–30 Slavonic Enoch (Charles and Morfill’s volume) 143, 146, 148 “Testaments of the XII Patriarchs”: 1913 version 284 see also Apocrypha; Pseudepigrapha Apocryphal Old Testament, The (H. F. D. Sparks, editor) 286 Ascension of Isaiah authorship/editorship 228, 235, 236, 236n.25, 237 at Bodleian Library 223 Bonwetsch’s translation 225, 226, 231 at British Museum 223 chapters 1–5 221–2 chapters 6–11 222 as Christian work 221, 222n.2, 228, 229, 232, 235, 236n.25, 237 Coptic fragments 234 date of 236, 236n.25 Dillmann’s edition 222–3, 224, 233, 234 Ethiopic version 223, 234 Jewish elements 221, 228, 229, 230, 235 Laurence’s edition 223, 228 Mai’s edition 224 manuscripts 223, 234 original language 223–4 Slavonic version 225, 226, 227, 235 Ascension of Isaiah (by R. H. Charles) 195, 221, 225–32 abbreviated version (The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament) 233 Antichrist, Beliar, and Neronic Myths 229–31, 232, 233 Appendix 232 authorship/editorship 228–9 as composite text 228, 234–5 context for 222–5

 dedication of 225 early textual evidence 231 Ethiopic version 224, 225–6 Greek Legend 224, 225, 226, 227, 232 Grenfell and Hunt’s Greek papyrus 224, 227–8, 231, 233 Introduction 225–32 legacy 234–7 Martyrdom of Isaiah 228, 229 Preface 222, 231 relation between sundry textual witnesses 225–8 reviews 223n.6, 232–4 Testament of Hezekiah 228, 229, 231–2, 233, 235 themes in 229 Vision of Isaiah 228, 229, 231–2, 235 Assumption of Moses, The 100 authorship 174 Ceriani’s volume 169, 172, 175–6, 177, 185, 188 contents of 168 date of 169, 174, 178n.22 manuscripts 169, 172, 174, 185 Milan manuscript 173, 175, 182, 184, 185–6, 188 original language 169, 170, 173 provenance 169 Assumption of Moses, The (by R. H. Charles) 150, 169–83, 189 abbreviated version (The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament) 183 Assumption or Testament of Moses 172, 175–7, 184, 185 authorship 170, 172, 178, 185 chapters 8–9 181–2, 185, 186–8 as composite work 172, 177–8, 179, 182, 184, 185, 186 context for 169 date of the Book 170, 178–9 exegesis 171 importance of 170, 185 Introduction 172–9, 181, 182, 184 legacy 185–8 “Original Assumption of Moses” 182–3 original language 170, 171, 172, 174–5, 185, 188 Preface 170–1, 173

573

previous editions of the Latin text 172–4 relation with other texts 180–1 reviews 184–5 Taxo 181, 184–5, 186–7 text 170–1, 174, 179, 182 atheism 30 Athenaeum: reviews of Charles’s works 218, 283, 328 atonement 21–3, 24, 28–9, 40, 44 Augustine, St. 16, 29, 323, 381, 386 Aune, David 481–2 Bampton Lectures 41, 44, 51, 489 Barnes, Ernest 399 Barnes, W. Emery 533 Barnett, Samuel 366, 367, 368 Barth, J. 114, 115 Barton, J. M. T. 235 Baruch 151, 152n.2 Jeremiah and 151–2 see also Apocalypse of Baruch Basingstoke, John de 248, 249 Basset, René 77, 78 Bauckham, Richard, James R. Davila, and Alexander Panayotov (editors): Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: More Non-Canonical Scriptures 332 Baumgarten, Joseph 317–18 Baumgartner, Walter 344, 345, 349 Beer, Bernhard 99 Beer, Georg “Das Buch Henoch” 69 “Das Martyrium Jesajae” 233–4 Bence-Jones, Mary Lilias see Charles, Mary Lilias Bence-Jones, Matilda 23 Bence-Jones, William 23–4 Berlin Library 76 Bernard, John Henry 18, 295, 297 Bernard of Cluny 380 Bible 2 Charles, R. H.: Bible as record of the Divine education of men 30 Ethiopic Bible 33, 191–2 Hebrew Bible 253n.26, 288, 323, 324, 332, 461 infallibility and finality of 380 King James Version 441 Latin Vulgate 2, 3, 109, 110, 323

574  Bible (cont.) Modernists on 380–1 New-Century Bible series 335, 336, 338, 340 Oxford Church Bible Commentary 340 Revised Version 335, 338, 339, 441, 472, 480 Septuagint 191, 332, 336, 502 Septuagint and Book of Jubilees 98, 99, 101, 102, 109, 111, 115, 128, 129 Septuagint and Charles’s Book of Daniel volumes 336, 337, 339, 345, 347, 348, 349, 350, 353, 357 Septuagint and Charles’s Book of Revelation 440, 441, 454 sola Scriptura 3 biblical scholarship 2–5 American scholarship 8 archaeological discoveries and 7–8 Charles, R. H. xii, 1, 9–11, 44, 84, 200 Germany 2, 3, 5–7, 33, 41 Great Britain xii, 2, 8–9, 40–5, 51, 52 higher criticism 8–10, 44, 51, 52, 91, 201, 337, 390, 403, 427, 447 historical context of texts 4 Intertestamental Period 10, 31, 319, 484 Jewish apocalypses 11 lower criticism 8, 52 natural sciences and 8, 40–1 New Testament 4–5, 10 Old Testament 6, 43–4 original languages of texts 3, 4 Pentateuch 2, 3, 4, 6–7 Protestantism 3, 7, 10 Trinity College, Dublin 9 Biblical World 329, 496 Bibliothèque nationale, Paris 48, 103, 504 Black, Mathew: The Book of Enoch or I Enoch: A New English Edition 89 Bodleian Library (Oxford University) 33, 40, 249n.17, 259n.37, 260, 407 Apocalypse of Baruch 156 Ascension of Isaiah 223 Book of Enoch 48, 49, 75 Cairo Genizah 258n.36 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Geniza fragments 258 Bogaert, Pierre 167n.25 Bohn, Friedrich 116, 117, 118

Bonwetsch, Gottlieb Nathaniel 148 Ascension of Isaiah 225, 226, 231 Das slavische Henochbuch 140–1 Book of Daniel Christianity 334 date of 334, 335, 337 Book of Daniel: 1913 Charles’s volume 303, 334, 335–9 authorship/pseudonymity 336 context for 334–5 Daniel’s prayer 337 date of the Book 337 Introduction 335–8 original language 336 review 339–40 Septuagint version 336, 337, 339 Theodotion’s translation 336–7 Book of Daniel: 1929 Charles’s volume 339, 340–55, 377 authorship/pseudonymity 346 Daniel/Ezra comparison 349 date of the Book 346, 348, 349, 356 goal of 345 Introduction 346–50, 352 legacy 358–9 Masoretic Text 346, 347, 348–9, 351, 353, 356, 357 on messianic kingdom 350 original language 346, 347–8, 356 postscript 359–62 Preface 344, 351 problems with sales of 361 publication 340–4, 345, 351, 359 reviews 355–8 Septuagint 345, 347, 348, 349, 350, 353, 357 Theodotion’s translation 347, 348, 350, 357 translation and commentary 350–5 Book of Enoch (1 Enoch) 31 allusions and citations of 47–8 Animal Apocalypse (chs. 85–90) 47, 63, 207, 209 at Bodleian Library 48, 49, 75 at British Museum 50, 55–6, 56n.21, 57, 59, 66, 69, 75, 102 Chapters 1–36: Book of the Watchers 46, 62, 88, 208 Chapters 37–71: Parables/Similitudes of Enoch 47, 50n.7, 61, 62, 63, 83

 Chapters 72–82: Astronomical Book 47, 88 Chapters 83–90: Book of Dreams 47, 63, 88 Chapters 91–107: Epistle of Enoch 47, 88 Charles’s reviews of translations 53–4 Chester Beatty Michigan Papyrus 88 composition of the Book 50 copies/manuscripts 47, 48, 56, 59, 65, 66, 69–70, 71, 74–6, 88 D’Abbadie manuscripts 70 Dillmann’s volumes 31, 33, 49, 52–4, 59, 59n.28, 60, 65, 69, 70, 191–2 Gizeh/Akhmim manuscript 55, 56–7, 58–9, 59n.28, 64, 65, 67, 68, 74, 77 Goldschmidt’s translation 53, 54n.18 Ethiopia 48 Ethiopic/Ge‘ez version 48, 54, 58–9, 64, 65–6, 67, 69–70, 74–5 Grundschrift/Ground Work 50, 61–2 Laurence’s translation 48–9, 53, 223 MS. G 55–6, 59, 66, 69–70 original language 60 Palestinian origin 60 Qumran manuscripts 88 Schodde’s translation 53, 53–4n.18 scholarship on 50, 63, 69 son of man 47, 63, 68, 83, 85, 490 Book of Enoch (2 Enoch) see Slavonic Enoch Book of Enoch (Charles’s volumes) ix, x, xi, 46 1913 volume (The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament) 88 1917 Book of Enoch, with Introduction by W.O.E. Oesterley 88 see also Book of Enoch: 1893 Charles’s volume; Book of Enoch: 1906 Charles’s volume; Book of Enoch: 1912 Charles’s volume Book of Enoch: 1893 Charles’s volume xi, 46, 50–65, 84, 193 apocalyptic literature 60–1 appendices 64, 68 Appendix C 57–9, 64 authorship 61 “Charles approach” 54 Charles’s assessment of 64–5 conflicting claims 56–8

575

context for 47–50 “Critical Inquiries” 60 “Different Elements in the Book of Enoch . . .” 61–2 Dillmann’s review of 65–7 Dillmann’s volume and 52–3, 57, 58–9, 64, 67, 71 Enochic Pentateuch 61–2 General Introduction 57, 59, 60–1, 63, 74 genesis of 50–3 influence by the Book of Enoch 63 James’s review of 67–8 late changes before going to print 55, 57 on messianic kingdom 62–3 mistakes in 56n.22, 64, 66, 67, 68 MS. G 55–6, 59, 66, 71 Nickelsburg on 89 original language 60 Oxford period 46, 52–3 photographs of manuscripts 70, 72–3, 75, 76 Preface 50–1, 55, 57, 59n.29, 61n.33, 65 on resurrection 61, 62, 63 reviews 56n.22, 65–8 sources 50 “Special Introductions” 64 Book of Enoch: 1906 Charles’s volume xi, 74–7, 245 Aramaic as language for some chapters 74 context for 69–73 Ethiopic language 76 Ethiopic Version of the Book of Enoch, The 56n.22, 74 Flemming’s volume and 72, 78 Introduction 74 legacy 78–9 manuscripts 74–6 MS. G 75 original language 74 Oxford University Press: ODP 71–2 poetical structure/verses 74, 81 reviews 77–8 typesetting challenges 76–7 Book of Enoch: 1912 Charles’s volume xi, 46, 68n.43, 80–6, 303 authorship 85–6, 87 comparisons between 1983/1912 volumes 85

576  Book of Enoch: 1912 Charles’s volume (cont.) context for 79–80 emendations 81–3 Essene ascription 86 Introduction 84–5 on Judaism 84, 86, 87 legacy 88–90 manuscripts 81 poetical structure/verses 81–3 Preface 80, 84 reviews 86–8 revolutionary/non-revolutionary features 80–4 Book of Jubilees allusions and citations of 101 authorship 107, 122, 124, 125, 129–30, 328 at British Museum 100–1, 102, 103 contents of 93 copies/manuscripts 94–5, 100, 101, 103, 130 date of 98, 99, 101, 107, 108, 116–17, 119–23, 125–6, 128–9, 130 Dillmann’s volumes 33, 95–9, 100, 101–2, 104, 110–11 divided in fifty chapters 96, 104–5 Essene ascription 99 Ethiopic/Ge‘ez version 94–5, 103, 109, 123–4, 130 Genesis-Exodus and 97, 102, 109, 111, 124, 129 importance of 107, 127 Latin translation of 100, 101, 103, 104, 105, 109, 115, 124 Masoretic Text and 99, 100, 101, 102, 111, 114, 115, 128 names of patriarchal wives 100, 101, 108, 112 original language of 98, 99, 101, 107, 108 provenance 99–100 purpose of 96–7, 116 Septuagint and 98, 99, 101, 102, 109, 111, 115, 128, 129 Syriac text 100–1, 108, 124 verse divisions 105–6 Book of Jubilees (Charles’s volumes) ix, x, 93, 209 1893–95 translation 93, 102–4

1902 abbreviated version (The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament) 128 1917 volume 129–30 authorship 107, 122, 124, 125, 129–30 context for 1893–95 translation and 1895 volume 93–106 Dillmann’s volumes and 103–4, 106–7, 110–11, 113, 115, 117 importance of 92 legacy 130 purpose of 104 verse divisions 105–6 see also Book of Jubilees: Charles’s 1895 volume; Book of Jubilees: Charles’s 1902 volume Book of Jubilees: Charles’s 1895 volume 106–112, 117–18 appendices 112 Introduction 107, 108, 110–11 original language and date of the Book 107, 108, 120 Preface 106, 118, 120 reviews 112–15, 117 Book of Jubilees: Charles’s 1902 volume 93, 104, 117–28, 245 Book of Enoch and 126–7 context for 116–17 date of the Book 119–23, 125–6 eschatological topics 127–8 Introduction 122–7 messianic kingdom 123, 127 original language 122 reviews 128–30 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and 126, 196n.10 Book of Revelation (Revelation of John) 200, 212, 217, 230, 250, 346 Book of Revelation (Charles’s articles and volumes) 435 1911 Article “Revelation” (Encyclopaedia Britannica) 453 1915–16: “An Attempt to Recover the Original Order of the Text of Revelation XX. 4–XXII” (Proceedings of the British Academy) 446, 448–51, 453, 467 editorship of independent documents 450–1

 Jewish apocalypses as pseudonymous 437, 449 legacy 481–2 original order of passages changed by John’s disciple 451, 453, 457, 459, 468–9, 470, 472, 477 Septuagint 440, 441, 454 solecisms 464, 468, 477–8 visions 440, 442, 462–3 Westminster period 435 see also Book of Revelation: Charles’s 1913 volume; Book of Revelation: Charles’s 1920 volume; Book of Revelation: Charles’s 1922 volume Book of Revelation: Charles’s 1913 volume 436–46 contemporary-historical method 439 contribution of 436–7 “disintegrated theories” 454 Grotius, Hugo 439, 440, 441 Joachim of Fiore 438 methodology 437–9, 464 original language 440–1 Preface 437, 440 Revelation VII 441–4, 467 Revelation VIII 444–6 Studies in the Apocalypse 377, 436, 453, 477 Book of Revelation: Charles’s 1920 volume 341, 435, 452–67, 475 Apparatus Criticus 455 assistance from colleagues 455–6 authorship 458–9, 462, 470 as “Book of Songs” 456 date of the Book 458–9, 461–2, 470 distinction from other Johannine writings 458 doctrine 463–4 editor’s style 459–60, 468, 469 grammar 464 Greek and Hebrew sources 460–1 Greek language 454 Introduction 454, 455, 457–64, 465 John’s style 454, 457, 468, 469 “martyred Church” 456–7, 468, 469 methodology 464 Preface 452–4, 457–8 printing and textual inconsistencies 455, 465

577

publication 455n.16, 457 Revelation as ‘Divine Statute Book of International Law . . . ’ 462, 471 reviews 467–72, 475–6 textual witnesses 464 verse-by-verse commentary 465, 466 Book of Revelation: Charles’s 1922 volume 472–81 1st Schweich Lecture 476–7 2nd Schweich Lecture 477–80 3rd Schweich Lecture 480–1 1919 Schweich Lectures 453, 472, 474–81 authorship 481 Burney, Charles Fox 476, 479–80 disciple/editor’s intervention 477 Hebraic nature of the text 479 John’s style 478, 480 Lectures on The Apocalypse 377, 400, 472 Preface 475 textual witnesses 480 Booth, Phil 512 Böttrich, Christfried: Das slavische Henochbuch 147 Bouriant, Ulysses 55, 57–8 Bousset, Wilhelm 118, 121–2, 252, 261, 273, 279, 284n.64 Bowman, Thomas 80n.64 Box, George Herbert 128, 130, 217, 325, 418–19, 496 Apocalypse of Abraham 234 on Charles’s ‘capacity to forget’ 499 on Charles’s sermons 371–2 Divorce in the New Testament: A Reply to Dr. Charles (co-authored) 418, 419–22 British Academy 241 1919 Schweich Lectures (by Charles) 453, 472, 474–81 Academy Medal for Biblical Studies given to Charles 244, 400 Charles, R. H.: “An Attempt to Recover the Original Order of the Text of Revelation XX. 4–XXII” 446, 448–51, 453, 467 Charles, R. H.: “Thomas Kelly Cheyne 1841–1915” 447–8 Charles as member of 237, 241–5, 362, 537 Driver, Samuel Rolles 446–7

578  British Academy (cont.) Proceedings of the British Academy 446–7, 467, 538 Recommendation Paper signed by Charles 538 Schweich Committee 244, 474 Schweich Lectures 473–4 British Museum 33, 40 Apocalypse of Baruch 156 Ascension of Isaiah 223 Book of Enoch 50, 55–6, 56n.21, 57, 59, 66, 69, 75, 102 Book of Jubilees 100–1, 102, 103 Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu 504, 510 Brockliss, L. W. B. 37n.3, 38, 39 Brooks, Ernest Walter 510–11 Brooks, Phillips 24 Bruce, James 48, 49n.6 Buckmaster, Lord 396, 405, 416 Burkitt, Francis Crawford 120, 144, 168n.1, 244, 293, 421, 470 1913 Schweich Lecture 474 on Charles’s Ascension of Isaiah 236n.25 on Charles’s Book of Revelation 435, 452 on Charles’s Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu 505, 509 Jewish and Christian Apocalypses 470 obituary of Charles by x, 91, 118, 119, 142, 143, 161, 365n.1, 371–2, 435, 499, 539 review of Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Charles’s volumes) 281–2, 287 on Slavonic Enoch (Charles and Morfill’s volume) 142–3 Burney, Charles Fox 476, 479–80 Bushnell, Horace 24 Butler, Alfred: Arab Conquest of Egypt 503, 504n.6, 505, 506 Cairo Genizah 258n.36, 286, 325 Bodleian Library 258n.36 Cambridge University Library 253–4, 304 Cambridge University 38 Vacation Term for Biblical Study 343, 344 Cambridge University Library Cairo Genizah 253–4, 304

Cambridge University Press 343, 344 Cannan, Charles 271, 273 Caro, Robert A.: The Years of Lyndon Johnson x Carpenter, William Boyd (Bishop of Ripon) 543 Carver, W. O. 471–2 Case, Shirley Jackson 457n.21, 467–8 Catholic Church “apostasy of Papal Rome” 515, 533 Catholic students at Trinity College, Dublin 19 Charles, R. H: Decalogue, The 521, 522, 523, 525, 534 Charles’s anti-Catholic stance 11, 156, 386, 390, 396, 521, 533, 534 Council of Trent 324, 396, 428, 494–5, 521 gambling 433 marriage: doctrine of nullity 423, 424, 425, 427, 428 papal infallibility 386, 396 priestly hierarchy, ritual, and tradition 7 Roman See 29 Cedrenus 228n.13, 235 Ceriani, Antonio Maria: Monumenta Sacra et Profana 100, 112, 156 Apocalypse of Baruch 153, 154, 156 Assumption of Moses, The 169, 172, 175–6, 177, 185, 188 Latin Jubilees 169 Chadwick, Owen 22, 40–2 Channing, William Ellery 24 Chapman, Robert William 80, 274, 341–2, 343, 359, 361 Charles, Annie Elizabeth (nee Allen, Charles’s mother) 13, 16 Charles, David Hughes (Charles’s father) 13 Charles, John James (Charles’s brother) 13–14 Charles, Mary Lilias (nee Bence-Jones, Charles’s wife) 20, 23, 24, 59n.29, 91, 544, 545 1906 Book of Enoch, dedicated to Mary Lilias 74n.55 1920 Book of Revelation, dedicated to Mary Lilias 457 1929 Book of Daniel, dedicated to Mary Lilias 342

 Apocalypse of Baruch, dedicated to Mary Lilias 154n.8 Courage, Truth, Purity: publication of 541–2 funeral of 540 Germany 31, 32 Oxford 37, 131, 189, 447 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, dedicated to Mary Lilias 260 wealth 540 Westminster Abbey 367, 398, 540 Charles, R. H. (Charles, Robert Henry) x, 1, 14, 242f, 545f anti-Catholic stance 11, 156, 386, 390, 396, 521, 533, 534 birth (1855) 13 donation of papers and photographs to Queen’s College, Belfast 16n.9, 400 family 13–15, 20, 74n.55, 91 Germany 20, 30–4, 49, 92 Italy 452 Judaism, prejudices on 7, 10–11, 84, 125, 154n.9, 204, 385–6, 533 library 16n.9, 32, 400 marriage 20, 23 sources on x, xii–xiii spiritual crisis 16 Switzerland 20 wood-carving (“cozy corners”) 92, 92f, 544–5 Charles, R. H.: a churchman x, 16, 21–30 as Anglican priest 10, 21–2, 40, 365 Bible Class of girls 21 as deacon 21, 25 orthodoxy 21–2 preaching/sermons 21–2, 24–5, 369, 397 St. Mark’s parish, Kennington 29–30 St. Mark’s parish, Whitechapel 21, 23, 368 St. Philip’s curacy, Kensington 23, 24, 25 as Select Preacher, Dublin 221 see also Modern Churchmen’s Union; Westminster Abbey: Charles as canon; Westminster Abbey: sermons by Charles Charles, R. H.: education academic training 9 Belfast Academy 15 early education 15–16

579

Queen’s College, Belfast 15–16, 400 self-instruction for studying pre-New Testament Jewish texts 31, 34 see also Trinity College, Dublin: Charles at Charles, R. H.: health and death D’Arcy on Charles’s death 539–40 death (1931) 395, 538–40 disposition of papers and payment of royalties 540–2 donations to Ripon Hall 537, 543–5 flu epidemic 32, 92 health issues 31, 92, 342, 366, 375, 455, 536–8, 544 influenza 536 obituaries 538 obituary by Burkitt x, 91, 118, 119, 142, 143, 161, 365n.1, 371–2, 435, 499, 539 obituary in The Times (London) 245, 367, 368, 455n.16, 538–9 road accident 536–7 surgery 343, 536 tombstone of R. H. and Mary Lilias Charles, Westminster Abbey 539f Charles, R. H.: lectures 291, 297, 362, 401, 435n.3 1898 Hibbert Lectures 190 1898–99 Jowett Lectures 201, 202, 203 1905–11 Grinfield Lectures 239–41, 290, 334, 339 1910–14 Speaker’s Lecturer in Biblical Studies 291–2 1919 Schweich Lectures (British Academy) 453, 472, 474–81 1919–1923 Warburton Lectures 514–33 Charles, R. H.: scholarship and publications ix, x, 24, 34, 44, 168, 189, 238, 292, 302–3, 453, 535 apocryphal studies 184 appointments, awards, recognitions 15, 16n.9, 19, 189–92, 201, 221, 238, 239, 245, 290, 291–2, 400–1 Athenaeum Club membership 401 biblical scholarship xii, 1, 9–11, 44, 84, 200 British Academy Medal for Biblical Studies 244, 400 dictionary/encyclopedia articles 191–200, 221, 238 Doctor of Divinity 400–1

580  Charles, R. H.: scholarship and publications (cont.) Doctor of Laws, Honoris Causa 400 Doctor of Letters (D. Litt.) 245–6 ecclesiastical works xi extra-biblical Jewish apocalypses 10 languages 15, 16, 31, 32, 34, 46, 151, 344, 544 languages, Ethiopic 33, 191, 505–6 non-scriptural critical tools of biblical scholarship 10 Oxford period 37, 40, 131, 149–50, 200, 220, 290, 365 reputation 184, 201, 218, 219, 232, 354 royalties 542 as scholar ix, xi, xii, 1, 2, 88, 168, 238, 355, 362 syntheses of scholarly research 192–200 technical works xi Westminster period 373, 376, 377, 435, 483, 499 working simultaneously on several projects 155, 213, 238, 278, 453 Charles, Havelock, Captain (Charles’s nephew) 545 Charles, Richard Havelock (Charles’s brother) 14, 366, 397 Charlesworth, James H.: Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (editor) 147, 331 Cheyne, Thomas Kelly xii, 52, 53, 91, 171 Book of Enoch: review of 1893 Charles’s volume 68n.44 Charles, R. H.: “Thomas Kelly Cheyne 1841–1915” 447–8 Cheyne/Charles relations 447–8 Encyclopaedia Biblica (co-editor) 52, 447 Choniates, Michael (Archbishop of Athens) 248 Christianity 10, 204 apocalyptic Pharisaism and 486 Ascension of Isaiah as Christian work 221, 222n.2, 228, 229, 232, 235, 236n.25, 237 Charles, R. H: Decalogue, The 516, 519, 520–1, 525 Charles on Christianity and science 390–1 Charles on virtue and Christian daily life 387–90

Christian prophetic school 237 Council of Chalcedon 501 Council of Nicea 175, 502, 521 eschatology 200 eternal damnation 301 prophetic school 237 Sermon on the Mount 493 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Christian elements 247, 249–50, 251, 255, 266, 273, 275, 276, 277, 279, 280, 281, 285, 286–7 see also Catholic Church; Protestantism Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu Arabic translation 504, 505 at Bibliothèque nationale 504 at British Museum 504, 510 content of 500–3 Ethiopic version 504, 505, 506, 510 importance of 502–3 John, Coptic Bishop of Nikiu 500 manuscripts 504, 506, 510 Monophysites 501, 508, 509 Muslim invasion and conquest of Egypt 500, 503, 506, 507–9, 512 original language 503 sources 502 Zotenberg’s Chronicle 500–1, 504, 505, 506, 510, 511, 512 Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu (by R. H. Charles) 377, 506–10 context for 503–6 Introduction 506–7 legacy 512–13 original language 505, 511 reviews 510–12 text: state of 506, 510 on Zotenberg’s Chronicle 506–7, 509, 510 church and state 1, 27, 403, 438, 494 Church Congress (Great Britain) 1910 meeting 293–7 Charles, R. H.: Address to the Church Congress (The Official Report of the Church Conference) 291, 292, 295–7 Schweitzer, Albert 294–5, 296–7 Churchmen’s Union see Modern Churchmen’s Union Church of England 21, 29, 40 gambling 433

 National Church of England 493–4 Sunday = Sabbath equivalence 525 Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion 42 Church of Ireland 17 Church of Scotland 26 Church Quarterly Review 497–8 Cicero 296 Clark, John, Sir 454, 541 Classical Review 56n.22, 67, 282 Clemen, C. 166 Clemens, Carl 184n.30, 185, 186, 188 Clement of Alexandria 182–3 Codex Vaticanus 1809 54 Colani, M. 178n.22 Colenso, John William 9, 43 Collins, John 287, 359 Conybeare, Frederick C. 252–3, 262, 263, 273, 285 Cook, Stanley Arthur 129, 232–3, 339–40 Corrodi, Heinrich 250 Courage, Truth, Purity (by R. H. Charles) 376, 389, 541 Charles’s biography by D’Arcy 376, 541–2 Cowley, Arthur Ernest 258, 259n.37, 274, 407, 447, 480, 542 “An Early Source of the Testaments of the Patriarchs” (co-authored with Charles) 238–9, 257–60 Cranstoun Charles, Eileen (Charles’s niece) 397–8 Crawford, F., Rev. 16 Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life, A (by R. H. Charles) 202–18, 221, 336 1899 edition 202–13, 217 1913 edition 213–18, 298, 303, 483, 484–5, 486 chapter 1 203–5 chapter 2 205 chapter 3 205–6 chapter 4 206 chapter 5 206–9 chapter 6 209 chapter 7 209–10 chapter 8 210–11 chapter 9 211–12 chapter 10 212–13 chapter 11 213

581

context for 201 “Eschatology” article 201, 203, 205–6, 211, 213 on ethics 204, 208, 210, 215 on immortality 203, 205–6 Index 217 Jowett Lectures 201, 202, 203 on messianic kingdom 205, 206, 207, 208, 210–11, 216 Preface 31, 197, 202 Preface to 2nd Edition 213, 214 relation between 1899 and 1913 versions 214 Religious Development and 483, 484–5, 486, 490 on resurrection 193, 199, 200, 205, 206, 208, 211, 213, 216 reviews 218–20 on Sheol 203, 205, 208, 215 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 196, 209, 216, 238 Crum, Walter Ewing 511–12, 539 D’Abbadie, Antoine Thomson 76, 100 D’Abbadie, Mme. 75, 76 Dalman, Gustav 347, 355–6 D’Arcy, Charles (Archbishop of Armagh) 13, 15, 16, 21, 22–3, 29–30, 31, 33, 51, 53, 92, 170n.5, 244–5, 447 Adventures of a Bishop, The 20 Charles, R. H. and 19–20, 354, 354–5n.31 on Charles as canon Westminster Abbey 366, 369–70, 371, 435 on Charles’s 1929 Book of Daniel volume 354 on Charles’s Book of Revelation 435, 452, 456–7 Charles’s Courage, Truth, Purity: Charles’s biography by D’Arcy 376, 541–2 on Charles’s death 539–40 Charles’s Divorce and the Roman Dogma of Nullity, dedicated to D’Arcy 424n.29 on Charles’s Religious Development 370, 498 on Cheyne/Charles relations 447–8

582  Darwin, Charles 41 On the Origin of Species 8 Davidson, Randall (Archbishop of Canterbury) 404, 405 Davidson, Samuel 470 Davies, A. Ll. 456, 517n.5 Dead Sea Scrolls 130, 137, 318 Book of Enoch: Qumran manuscripts 88 Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls 318 Fragments of a Zadokite Work: Damascus Document in Qumran 316–18 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Qumran texts 286 Deane, William John: Pseudepigrapha 320 Decalogue, The (Ten Commandments, by R. H. Charles) 377, 514–33 1st commandment (monotheism/ henotheism) 518–19 2nd commandment (against images) 515–16, 518, 519–22 3rd commandment (against taking the Lord’s name in vain) 522–3 4th commandment (keeping the Sabbath) 516, 517, 518, 519, 523–6 5th commandment (honoring father and mother) 526 6th commandment (prohibition of murder) 526–8 7th commandment (prohibition of adultery) 528–9 8th commandment (prohibition of stealing) 530–1 9th commandment (prohibition of false testimony) 531 10th commandment (prohibition of covetousness) 519, 531–2 1919–1923 Warburton Lectures 514–33 “apostasy of Papal Rome” 515, 533 Catholic Church 521, 522, 523, 525, 534 Christianity 516, 519, 520–1, 525 critical, historical and practical standpoints 515, 516–17 on crucifixes 520, 523 development of 515, 517, 518–19, 523–4, 532 ethics 517, 530 Introduction 515–16, 517, 532 Mariolatry 522

Moses 515, 518, 527 Nash Papyrus 517, 534 Preface 515 Reformation 516, 525 reviews 533–5 sources 517–18 De Fantis, Antonius 224 De Faye, Eugène 153n.7, 166 De Jonge, Henk 248 De Jonge, Marinus 248n.14, 249n.16, 285–86 Dictionary of the Bible (James Hastings, editor) 150, 191 Charles, R. H.: “Baruch, Apocalypse of ” 164n.21 Charles, R. H.: “Enoch, (Ethiopic) Book of ” 69n.45 Charles, R. H.: “Eschatology of the Apocryphal and Apocalyptic Literature” 197n.11 Charles, R. H.: “Ethiopic Version” 191–2 Charles, R. H.: “Testaments of the XII Patriarchs” 122, 238, 251–4 Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (John H. Hayes, editor) ix–x Dictionary of National Biography 1931–1940 536n.1 Manson, T. W.: “Charles, Robert Henry (1855–1931)” 161, 536 Dillmann, Christian Friedrich August 33, 191 Ascension of Isaiah 222–3, 224, 233, 234 Book of Enoch 31, 33, 49, 52–4, 59, 59n.28, 60, 65, 69, 70, 191–2 Book of Enoch: Charles’s review 53 Book of Enoch: Koine text 65, 66, 67 Book of Enoch: review of 1893 Charles’s volume 65–7 Book of Enoch and 1893 Charles’s volume 52–3, 57, 58–9, 64, 67, 71 Book of Jubilees 33, 95–9, 100, 101–2, 103–4, 106–7, 110–11, 113, 115, 117 Charles, R. H. and 33 death 66, 106 Ethiopic Bible 33, 192 Grammatik der äthiopischen Sprache 33 Lexicon Linguae Aethiopicae 33, 54, 59n.28, 66

 divorce 312, 529 1857 Divorce Bill 403 1910 Royal Commission 404–5, 406, 408 1920 Divorce Bill 405–6, 416 1937 Matrimonial Causes Act 406 Anglican Church on 402 Box, G. H. and Charles Gore: Divorce in the New Testament: A Reply to Dr. Charles 418, 419–22 context for Charles’s volumes on divorce 402–6 death penalty for adultery 408n.16, 409, 410, 417, 418, 420 death as reason for breaking the marital bond 412, 421 divorce law reform 404–5, 407n.13 Gore, Charles on 403–4, 408 marriage as indissoluble 402, 404, 405, 407, 422, 426 Matthean Exception 403, 404 New Testament on 402, 403, 404, 405 Parliamentary divorce 402 Reformation 418, 425, 427–8 right to divorce for adultery 409, 418, 421, 422, 427 right of remarriage 404, 421 see also Divorce and the Roman Dogma of Nullity; Teaching of the New Testament on Divorce, The Divorce and the Roman Dogma of Nullity (by R. H. Charles) 376, 396, 423–9 Catholic doctrine of nullity 423, 424, 425, 427, 428 comparison between 1921 and 1927 books on divorce 423–4, 426 Henry VIII and nullity of marriage to Catherine 428 Jewish law 425 New Testament on divorce 423–4, 425–7 Preface 424 right to divorce 425 right of remarriage 425 see also divorce Doble, C. E. 272, 274 Driver, Godfrey 361 Driver, Samuel Rolles xii, 43, 44, 53, 365–6 1908 Schweich Lecture 474 British Academy 446–7

583

ICC series (co-editor) 453n.14 Studies on the Hebrew Tenses 16, 480 Edersheim, Alfred 239 Edward VIII, King of the United Kingdom 406 Eichhorn, Johann Gottfried 8 Elizabeth I, Queen of England and Ireland 17, 367 Elrington, C. R., Dr. 17 Emerson, Ralph Waldo 298 Emmet, Cyril W. 407 Encyclopaedia Biblica (Cheyne and Sutherland Black, editors) 52, 407, 447 Charles, R. H.: “Apocalyptic Literature” 121, 192–7, 208, 251 Charles, R. H.: “Eschatology” 197–200, 201, 203, 205–6, 211, 213, 238 Charles, R. H.: “Testaments of the XII Patriarchs” 118, 251, 252 Encyclopaedia Britannica 303 Charles, R. H.: “Apocalyptic and Apocryphal Literature” 238, 273, 303n.12 Charles, R. H.: “Revelation” 453 Charles, R. H.: “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs” 284 Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls 318 English Historical Review 510 Erasmus of Rotterdam 427 eschatology Charles, R. H. and x, 31, 161, 296 Charles, R. H.: “Eschatology” 197–200, 201, 203, 205–6, 211, 213, 238 Charles, R. H.: “Eschatology of the Apocryphal and Apocalyptic Literature” 197n.11 Christianity and 200 eschatology/apocalyptic distinction 296, 299 eschatology of the prophets 215, 485 individual eschatologies 218, 487, 488 Modern Churchmen’s Union 380 national eschatologies 218, 485, 487, 488 see also Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life, A Essays and Reviews (H. B. Wilson, editor) 41–3 ethics 288, 294, 296–7, 378, 418, 484

584  ethics (cont.) apocalypses and 215, 326n.43, 328, 330, 336, 340n.5 Charles, R. H.: Critical History 204, 208, 210, 215 Charles, R. H.: Decalogue, The 517, 530 Charles, R. H.: Immortality: 1912 Drew Lecture 300 ethical monotheism 384 ethics as common ground between prophecy and apocalyptic 485, 486 gambling 430, 431–2 Talmud 326n.43 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 257, 261, 269, 278, 279 World War I 457n.21 evolution theory 41 Ewald, Heinrich 33, 50, 52, 171n.7, 336, 346 Book of Jubilees 94–5, 96, 100 Expositor Charles, R. H.: “Man’s Forgiveness of His Neighbour . . . ” 287–9, 491 reviews of Charles’s works 165, 280 Expository Times Charles, R. H.: “The Ethiopic Manuscripts of Enoch in the British Museum” 55 Charles, R. H.: “Messianic Doctrine of the Book of Enoch . . . ” 64n.38 Ezekiel 198, 204, 205, 207, 209, 299, 488, 498 Ezra 3, 346, 484, 492 4 Ezra 127, 154, 217, 488 4 Ezra and Apocalypse of Baruch 162, 165 Charles’s possible edition of 4 Ezra 155 Daniel/Ezra’s Books comparison 349 Fabricius, Johann Albert: Codex Pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti 107, 319, 320, 332 Fairweather, William 86–7 Farrar, Frederic William: Eternal Hope 19 Feldman, Louis H., James L. Kugel, and Lawrence H. Schiffman (editors): Outside the Bible 332 Ferrar, William John 184n.30 Flemming, Johannes Charles’s review of Flemming’s works 71, 72, 73

Das Buch Henoch 69–70, 71 Das Buch Henoch: Aethiopischer Text 70, 78 Forbes, Nevill 146 forgiveness Charles, R. H. on 22–3, 25–7, 28–9 Charles, R. H.: “Man’s Forgiveness of His Neighbour . . . ” 287–8, 491 Charles, R. H.: Religious Development 491–2 Charles, R. H.: Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 269, 288–9 Forgiveness and other Sermons (by R. H. Charles) 22–3, 24–9, 257, 287 “Christian Humility and Aspiration” 29n.46 faith 28–9 Forgiveness. I 25–6 Forgiveness. II 26 Forgiveness. III 26–7 Forgiveness. IV 27–8 “Freedom of Truth” 29 kingdom of God 28 Preface 24 Fotheringham, J. K. 144–6, 148 Fox, Adam 372, 377 Fragments of a Zadokite Work authorship 306, 307, 312, 318 Baumgarten, Joseph 317–18 Charles, R. H.: Critical History 216 contents of 303–4 Damascus Document in Qumran 316–18 date of 305n.18 manuscripts 303–17 Milik, J. T. 316–17 photographs of manuscripts 305, 308, 309, 311, 313, 315, 316 relation with other texts 306 Schechter’s volume 304–6, 308, 310–11, 317, 318 “sons of Zadok” 304, 306, 307 Fragments of a Zadokite Work (by R. H. Charles) 213, 303, 306–14 1913 publication (The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament) 313–14, 315, 326, 327, 328 authorship 307, 318

 context for 304–6 date of the Fragments 307, 308, 314, 315 Introduction 309, 314 legacy 315–18 “messiah of Aaron and Israel” 307–8, 318 Preface 308–9 reviews 312–15 Schechter’s volume and 307, 308–11, 314 Frankel, Zacharias 99–100 Fritzsche, Otto Fridolin: Libri Apocryphi Veteris Testamenti Graece 173, 319–20 Fürst (A. Treuenfels) 107 Gambling & Betting (by R. H. Charles) 376, 429–34 arguments against gambling 431–2, 433 arguments justifying gambling 432–3 Catholic Church 433 Church of England 433 definition of gambling 430, 431 games of skill 431 laws on 430–1 measures against 433 morality of gambling 430, 431–2 origins of gambling 431 Preface 429–30 Garrett, Robert 76 Gaster, Moses 255–6n.34, 261, 267, 446 Gazette (Oxford University) x, 190, 239, 290, 291 Gebhardt, Oscar von 224 Gelasius of Cyzicus 175, 176–7 Germany 39 biblical scholarship 2, 3, 5–7, 33, 41 Charles, R. H. in 20, 30–4, 49, 92 World War I 385, 387 Gfrörer, August Friedrich 132 Gibson, Margaret 253, 263, 273, 274 Gilbert, Allen H. 418 Gilgamesh Epic 7–8 Ginzberg, Louis 305n.18, 312–14, 318 Glass, James 430 God communion with 23, 26, 205, 210, 257, 302, 384 Elohim 4, 7

585

fatherhood of God 301, 519 Jehovah 518, 534 transcendence/immanence 29 Yahweh 4, 7, 204, 518 Goldschmidt, Lazarus 53, 54n.18 Gore, Charles 43, 419, 421–2, 460n.26 on divorce on 403–4, 408 Divorce in the New Testament: A Reply to Dr. Charles (co-authored) 418, 419–22 Lux Mundi (editor) 43–4 Question of Divorce, The 404n.5, 419 Sermon on the Mount: A Practical Exposition 404 Grabius (Grabe), Johannes Ernestus: Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 249–50, 252, 255, 273 Gray, Buchanan 155, 480 Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (1908 Charles’s volume) 270–8 appendices 277 comparison between Charles’s volumes 275–7 dedication of 272–3 Introduction 275–6 Preface 273, 275 publication of 271–2, 274 subvention from Hibbert Trust 271–2, 274 see also Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Charles’s articles and volumes) Green, Peter 430 Grenfell, Bernard Pine and Arthur Surridge Hunt 225 Ascension of Isaiah and Other Theological Fragments: The Amherst Papyri 224, 227–8, 231, 233 Oxyrhynchus Papyri 163–4 Grinfield, Edward William 239 Grinfield Lectureship 239–41, 290, 334, 339 Grixoni, Count Mario 545 Grosseteste, Robert (Bishop of Lincoln) 247–9, 255, 261 Grotius, Hugo 439, 440, 441 Gwynn, John 18 Gwynn, Robert Malcolm 456n.19

586  Hagen, Joost L. 147–8 Halévi, Joseph 60, 67, 67n.41 Hall, Robert 236–7 Harris, J. Rendell 165–6 Hartford, G. 295 Hatch, Edwin 239 Headlam, Arthur Cayley 497 Henry VIII, King of England 37, 367, 402, 428 Herford, R. Travers 327n.43 Hibbert, Robert 190 Hibbert Journal 190 Charles, R. H.: “Testaments of the XII Patriarchs” 238, 247, 255–7, 269, 287 Hibbert Trust 190, 271–2, 274 Hibbert Lectureship 190 Hilgenfeld, Adolf 172–4 Hobbes, Thomas 3 Hollander, H. W. 285–6 Holtzmann, Oskar 62n.35 Home University Library series 370, 483–4 Horner, George 456 Hoskier, H. C. 482 How, William Walsham (Suffragan and Bishop of Bedford) 22 Hunkin, J. W. 282n.63 Hvidberg, Flemming Frils 316 Hyrcanus, John (nephew of Judas Maccabaeus) Book of Jubilees 119, 122, 125–6, 128–9 ICC series (International Critical Commentary) 340–1, 360, 453, 454 immortality 128, 198 Charles, R. H.: Critical History 203, 205–6 Charles, R. H.: Immortality: 1912 Drew Lecture 291, 298–302, 490, 491 Charles, R. H.: “Personal Immortality” 535n.13 eternal damnation 301–2, 380, 491 ethical concerns 300 hope for 301, 302 Judaism and Christianity 301–2 New Testament 301 Jackson, John (Bishop of London) 21–2, 25 James, Montague Rhodes 56, 56n.22 Apocrypha Anecdota II 141, 142

Apocryphal New Testament, The (editor) 331 Book of Enoch: review of 1893 Charles’s volume 67–8 Slavonic Enoch: review of Charles and Morfill’s volume 141–3 Jasper, Ronald 52 Jellinek, Adolph 99, 112 Jeremiah 198, 204, 205, 207, 299, 358, 384, 389, 488, 492, 498 Baruch and 151–2 Letter of Jeremiah 320, 321 Jerome 98, 108, 109n.24, 247, 267, 319, 323 Jesus Charles on 295–6 Christ’s return 200, 212 as first Higher Critic 390 forgiveness 27, 288–9 historical character of 28, 294–5, 379 nature of 44, 509 resurrection of 28, 222, 394, 395 Schweitzer on 294–5, 296–7 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and 275, 280, 288–9 Jewish literature Charles, R. H. and ix–x, 10, 11, 31, 46, 91 Intertestamental Period 10, 31, 319, 484 Jewish scholars 84 see also apocalypses/apocalyptic literature; apocrypha/apocryphal; eschatology; prophecy/prophetic literature Jewish Quarterly Review Book of Enoch: Charles’s reviews of translations 53 Book of Jubilees: Charles’s 1893–95 volume 102, 104, 117 Charles and Cowley: “An Early Source of the Testaments of the Patriarchs” 238–9, 257–60 reviews of Charles’s works 87 Schechter, S.: “Reply to Dr. Büchler’s Review of Schechter’s ‘Jewish Sectaries’ ” 310 Joachim of Fiore 438 Josephus 211, 330, 332 Antiquities 177 Journal of the American Oriental Society 355

 Journal of Biblical Literature 418 Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 511 Journal of Religion 457n.21, 467 Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 129, 232 Journal of Theological Studies 143, 144, 145, 282n.63 reviews of Charles’s works 280, 339–40, 469, 533 Jowett, Benjamin 41, 201 Jowett Lectureship 201, 202 Judaism Alexandrian/Palestinean Judaism distinction 210 apocalyptic/prophetic Judaism 10, 84, 86, 327, 328, 486–7 Ascension of Isaiah: Jewish elements 221, 228, 229, 230, 235 Charles’s prejudices on 7, 10–11, 84, 125, 154n.9, 204, 385–6, 533 Early Judaism 1, 34, 84 Hebrew Bible 253n.26, 288, 323, 324, 332, 461 law/“legalistic” Judaism 7, 84, 86, 327–8, 327n.43, 346, 484, 487, 492–3, 494 monotheism 204, 518–19 Orthodox Judaism 84, 87, 99–100 Palestinian Judaism 198, 207, 488 pre-70 .. Judaism 84, 159, 178, 459, 461, 493–4 priestly, ritual system 7 Rabbinic Judaism 7, 10–11 Rabbinic literature 10, 116, 130, 311, 524n.7 Reformed school of Judaism 392 Talmudic Judaism 216, 327, 486 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Jewish elements 247, 249–50, 251, 255, 266, 273, 285, 286–7 see also Pharisaism Justin Martyr 350 Kabisch, Richard 153n.7, 166 Kautzsch, Emil: Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments (editor) 69, 320–2, 330 Apocrypha: works 321, 324 Beer, Georg: “Das Buch Henoch” 69 Beer, Georg: “Das Martyrium Jesajae” 233–4

587

Clemens, Carl: “Die Himmelfahrt Moses” 185 Introduction 321 Littmann, Enno: Book of Jubilees 117 Preface 320 Pseudepigrapha: works 321–2, 325 Ryssel, Victor: “Die syrische Baruchapokalypse” 166 Kenyon, Frederic 452 kingdom of God Charles, R. H. on 28 Charles, R. H.: Religious Development 487–8 see also messianic kingdom Kneucker, J. J.: Das Buch Baruch 544 Knibb, Michael 78–9, 235 Knight, Jonathan 237 Kohler, Kaufmann 122 Kozak, Eugen 132 Krapf, Johann Ludwig 94, 95 Kuenen, Abraham 122 Lagrange, Marie-Joseph 309, 357–8 Lake, Kirsopp 259n.38, 452 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 258, 259, 262, 274 Laurence, Richard 48n.6, 132n.4 Ascension of Isaiah 223, 228 Libri Enoch prophetae Versio Aethiopica 48–9, 53, 223 Mas:hafa Henok Nabiy: The Book of :
Enoch the Prophet 48–9 Laurentian Library, Florence 452 Law, Gerald 536–7 Leopold Schweich Trust Fund 472–4 Schweich Lectures 453, 472–81 Levertoff, Paul P. 533–5 Lewis, Agnes Smith 253, 274, 327 Licht, Jacob 186–7 Liddon, H. P. 44 Lincoln’s Inn, London 397, 514, 515 Littmann, Enno 76, 117, 123n.38 Lloyd, Dr. 17 Lloyd, Roger B. 292–3, 295, 297 Lockton, W. 416–17 Lunney, Linde 537 Lushington, Stephen (Dean of Arches) 42 Luther, Martin 321, 522 Lux Mundi 41, 43–4

588  Macartney, C. E. 417–18 Macaskill, Grant 147 MacDonald, Ramsay 433 MacDouall, Charles 15–16 Mackintosh, H. R. 302 McNeile, A. H. 339–40 McNeill, Mr. 15 Magrath, John Richard 271 Mai, A. 224 Major, Henry D. A. 23n.38, 31n.50, 290n.1, 494n.8, 540, 541 Exeter College 37n.2 Modern Churchman (editor) 377 Modern Churchmen’s Union 377–82, 391n.42, 543 Ripon Clergy College 543 William Belden Noble Lectures/English Modernism 377–8 Margoliouth, David Samuel 53, 59n.29, 245 Book of Jubilees: review of Charles’s 1895 volume 112–14 Margoliouth, G. 315 Margolis, Max L. 87 Mark Twain 245–6 Marsden, Richard 2n.2 Marsh, Fred Shipley 455–6, 541 Martin, François 62n.35 Le livre d’Hénoch 79–80 Masoretic Text 158 1929 Charles’s Book of Daniel and 346, 347, 348–9, 351, 353, 356, 357 Book of Jubilees and 99, 100, 101, 102, 111, 114, 115, 128 Matthew Paris: Historia Anglorum 247–8, 249, 255 Maunder, A. S. D. 143–5, 148 Maurice, Frederick Denison 24 Maxwell, Constantia 19n.24 Maxwell, Mr. 15, 170n.5 Mayben, Mr. 15 Mercati, Giovanni 224 messianic kingdom Book of Daniel: 1929 Charles’s volume 350 Book of Enoch: 1893 Charles’s volume 62–3 Book of Jubilees: Charles’s 1902 volume 123, 127 Charles, R. H.: “Apocalyptic Literature” 194

Charles, R. H.: Critical History 205, 206, 207, 208, 210–11, 216 Charles, R. H.: “Eschatology” 199 Charles, R. H.: Religious Development 485, 488–9, 491 see also kingdom of God Milik, J. T. 316–17 Milligan, George 407 Modern Churchmen’s Union 44, 377–8, 383, 397, 399n.56 1921 Girton Conference 393–4 1922 Conference 385n.36 1922 Doctrinal Commission 393–5 Charles, R. H. and 51n.12, 190–1, 377, 390, 391n.42, 393, 397, 542 Conferences 377 Major, Henry D. A. 377–82, 391n.42, 543 Modern Churchman (periodical) 377 on resurrection 379, 390, 393–4 Ripon Hall 543 tenets 190–1, 378–82, 393–4 Moffatt, James 470–1 monasticism 388, 500 Mond, Robert 473 Montgomery, Henry (Bishop and Rector of St. Mark’s, Kennington) 29 Montgomery, James A. Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel, A 340, 341, 342, 344, 356–7, 359 review of Charles’s Book of Daniel 355–7 Morfill, William Richard 264, 273–4 Slavonic Enoch (translator) 133, 134–5, 136, 138, 140, 141, 146, 151 Moses as bearer of divine messages 168 Charles, R. H.: Decalogue, The 515, 518, 527 Pentateuch and 2, 3, 4, 44 see also Assumption of Moses, The Moulton, James Hope 407, 440, 478–9 Muss-Arnolt, William 77–8, 278–9 Neubauer, Adolf 59n.29, 155 Newman, John Henry 24, 29, 37–8 Newton, Isaac 145, 438 New World: A Quarterly Review of Religion, Ethics and Theology 218 Nickelsburg, George 89, 187–8

 Nicklin, T. 282–3 Norris, Foxley (Dean of Westminster) 368 Oesterley, W. O. E. 87, 164, 184, 325, 419 1917 Charles’s Apocalypse of Baruch, with Introduction by Oesterley 164 1917 Charles’s Book of Enoch, with Introduction by Oesterley 88 Origen 182–3, 267, 438 Orlov, Andrei and Gabriele Boccaccini: New Perspectives on 2 Enoch (editors) 147, 148 Oulton, J.E.L. 17n.17, 18 Oxford (Charles at) 37, 40, 131, 189, 238, 323, 361–2, 365, 447 1898 Hibbert Lectures 190 1898–99 Jowett Lectures 201, 202, 203 1905–11 Grinfield Lectures 239–41, 290, 334, 339 1910–14 Speaker’s Lecturer in Biblical Studies 291–2 Book of Enoch 46, 52, 91, 131 Book of Jubilees 131 Doctor of Divinity 400–1 Doctor of Letters (D. Litt.) 245–6 end of Oxford period 365 Exeter College 37, 51, 91 Fellow of Merton College 290, 362, 365 lectures 291, 297, 362 Merton College 80n.64 publications 37, 40, 131, 149–50, 200, 220, 290, 365 Sanday’s Seminar 51, 52, 91 Oxford Dictionary of National Biography 540 Oxford University 37–40 “Anglican University” 37–8, 201 imperialism 39–40 research at 39 see also Bodleian Library; Gazette Oxford University Press 271–2, 276 Charles’s 1929 Book of Daniel 340–4, 345, 351, 359 Clarendon Press 111, 150, 319, 340, 343 Orders of the Delegates of the Press 71–2, 149–50, 271, 274 Palaea Historica (translated by William Adler) 177

589

Pass, Herbert Leonard and J. Arendzen 253, 254, 258, 259 Paul, Apostle 27, 117, 127, 380, 390, 493, 525 Apocalypse of Paul 136–7 on divorce 412–13, 421–2, 425, 427 letters of 200, 212, 213, 230, 257, 268, 529 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and 257, 266, 268, 269, 275, 280, 281 Pentateuch biblical scholarship 2, 3, 4, 6–7 Moses and 2, 3, 4, 44 Priestly source 6–7, 9, 10 Peters, John P. 341 Petrarch 3 Pharisaism 306 apocalyptic and legalistic Pharisaism 486 Charles, R. H. on 108, 170, 194, 216, 269, 327, 386, 486, 492 see also Judaism Philo 135, 137, 210, 213, 330, 332, 409 Plato 201, 206 Pliny 237 Plummer, Alfred 280, 454 Poole, Miss 274 Porphyry 334–5, 337 Porter, Frank C. 329–30 Prätorius, F. 115, 117 Princeton Theological Review 417 prophecy/prophetic literature 198–9, 497 Christian prophetic school 237 eschatology of the prophets 215, 485 prophecy/apocalyptic distinction 194, 207, 215, 346–7, 485–7, 490, 497 prophecy/apocalyptic similarities 346, 485, 486, 490 pseudonymity 487 revival of prophecy 487 unfulfilled prophecy and development of apocalyptic thought 346–7 Protestantism 324 biblical scholarship 3, 7, 10 see also Church of England; Church of Ireland; Church of Scotland; Reformation Pseudepigrapha (2nd volume of The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament) 1–2, 150, 323, 325, 330, 331

590  Pseudepigrapha (2nd volume of The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament) (cont.) Introduction 326, 327 works included in 325–7 see also Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, The pseudepigraphs 484 Charles, R. H.: Religious Development 495–6 see also Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, The; Kautzsch, Emil: Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments Radermacher, Ludwig: Das Buch Henoch 69, 70, 71, 73 Redpath, Henry Adeney 239 Reformation 324, 438, 516 Charles, R. H.: Decalogue, The 516, 525 on divorce 418, 425, 427–8 Sunday = Sabbath equation 525 see also Protestantism Religious Development between the Old and the New Testaments (by R. H. Charles) 370–1, 377, 481, 483–96, 499 Apocrypha 494–5 Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, The and 494, 495, 496 Chapter 1 484–7 Chapter 2 487–8 Chapter 3 488–9 Chapter 4 490–1 Chapter 5 491–2 Chapter 6 492–4 Chapter 7 494–5 Chapter 8 495–6 on Christianity 493 contents of 370–1 Critical History and 483, 484–5, 486, 490 on forgiveness 491–2 Immortality and 490, 491 Intertestamental Period 484 Introduction 483, 484 on kingdom of God 487–8 on the messiah 489–90 on messianic kingdom 485, 488–9, 491 Pharisaism: apocalyptic/legalistic 486 pre-70 .. Judaism 493–4

prophecy/apocalyptic comparison 485–7, 490–1, 497 reinterpretation as necessary to religious development 492–4 reviews 496–8 Pseudepigrapha 495–6 Westminster preaching and 483 Renaissance 2–3, 529 Renan, Ernst 298 resurrection 1922 Doctrinal Commission 393–5 bodily resurrection 44, 128, 391, 393, 394–5 Book of Enoch: 1893 Charles’s volume 61, 62, 63 Charles, R. H.: Critical History 193–4, 199, 200, 205, 206, 208, 211, 213, 216 Charles, R. H.: Resurrection of Man and Other Sermons, The 373–5, 384, 391–3, 395–6, 397 Charles, R. H.: Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 269 forgiveness and 28 Jesus’s resurrection 28, 222, 394, 395 Modern Churchmen’s Union 379, 390, 393–4 sermons by Charles on 390–3 Revelation of John see Book of Revelation Review & Expositor 471, 496–7 Ripon Hall (Ripon Clergy College/Ripon College Cuddesdon, Oxford) 543 Charles’s donations to 537, 543–5 Robertson, A. T. 496–7 Robinson, Joseph Armitage 141 Rogerson, John 5–6 Rönsch, Hermann 171 Das Buch der Jubiläen 101, 103, 105, 105f, 106, 109, 117, 544 Rosenthal, Ferdinand 171 Rost, Leonhard 316 Ryle, Herbert Edward (Dean of Westminster) 243, 244, 366, 368, 436n.4, 446 Ryssel, Victor 166 St. Mark’s Library 452 Salmon, George 18, 117n.29 Infallibility of the Church 375

 Salmond, Stewart Dingwall Fordyce 202n.16 Sanday, William 43, 44, 59n.29, 91, 241, 271, 489 biblical higher criticism 51 biblical lower criticism 52 Exeter College 51 Oxford Seminar 51, 52, 91 satisfaction, doctrine of 25–6, 28 Sayce, Archibald 245 Schechter, Solomon 253–4 Fragments of a Zadokite Work 304–6, 308, 310–11, 317, 318 “Reply to Dr. Büchler’s Review of Schechter’s ‘Jewish Sectaries’ ” 310 Schleiermacher, Friedrich 300 Schmid, Josef 482 Schmidt, Moriz and Adalbert Merx: “Die Assumptio Mosis” 170, 173, 174 Schnapp, Friedrich: Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 196, 250, 252, 255, 256, 261, 273 Schodde, George Henry Book of Enoch 53, 53–4n.18 Book of Jubilees 104, 105 Schulthess, F. 164–5 Schürer, Emil 176 reviews of Charles’s works 128, 140–1, 184–5, 223n.6, 233, 278, 279 Schweich family 472–3 Leopold Schweich Trust Fund 472–4 Schweich, Constance 472–3 Schweich, Leopold 472 see also Leopold Schweich Trust Fund Schweitzer, Albert 217–18, 294–5, 296–7 Sheol 63, 198, 300, 301, 338, 350, 384, 391, 433, 491, 518 Charles, R. H.: Critical History 203, 205, 208, 215 Sibylline Oracles 192, 197, 230, 320, 322, 326, 496 Simpson, David Capell 359–61 sin absolution 26 Charles, R. H. on 25–6, 27, 301 original sin 380, 387n.40 satisfaction doctrine and 25–6 Singer, Wilhelm: Das Buch der Jubiläen 116–17

591

Sinker, Robert 262, 263, 272–3 Slavonic Enoch (2 Enoch) 68 Book of Enoch (1 Enoch) and 132 Book of the Secrets of Enoch 131 contents of 131–2 date of 147–8 manuscripts 147–8 Slavonic Enoch (Charles and Morfill’s volume) 133–9 abbreviated version (The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament) 143, 146, 148 additional note 149–50 astronomy and calendars 143–6, 148–9 Book of the Secrets of Enoch 133 context for 132–3 date of Book 134, 137–8, 140, 143–4, 146, 148 Forbes, Nevill 146 Introduction 133, 134 as Jewish text 142–3, 144, 149 legacy 147–9 literary influence of 135–7, 140, 141, 148 manuscripts 134 “Melchizedek myth” 139 Morfill, W. R. (translator) 133, 134–5, 136, 138, 140, 141, 146, 151 original language 135, 140, 149 “Phoenixes and Chalkydries” 135, 141–2 Preface 133 problematic end of the text 138–9 provenance 134, 141–2, 144, 149 reviews 140–6 Slingerland, H. Dixon 250, 285 Smith, John M. Powis 329 Smith, William Robertson 9, 43 socialism 530 Sokolov, M.I. 134, 135, 139, 148 Sparks, H. F. D. xiii, 372, 544–5 The Apocryphal Old Testament (editor) 303, 331–2 Spectator 416–17 Spinoza, Benedict (Baruch) 3 Stephenson, Alan 191 Stone, Darwell 407 Streeter, Burnett Hillman 374 Sutherland Black, John 172 Encyclopaedia Biblica (co-editor) 52, 407, 447

592  Sutherland Black, John (cont.) Encyclopaedia Britannica (coeditor) 407 Syncellus, George: Chronography Book of Enoch and 48, 54, 58, 59, 67, 74 Book of Jubilees and 98 syndicalism 530 Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch see Apocalypse of Baruch T. & T. Clark 340–1, 423, 453, 514n.1, 541 Taylor, Charles 253 Taylor-Schechter collection 253 Teaching of the New Testament on Divorce, The (by R. H. Charles) 376, 402, 406–16 Jewish law 408–9, 411–12, 414, 419–20 New Testament on divorce 406, 407–16 Paul, Apostle 412–14, 415, 418 Preface 406, 407 reviews 416–22, 429 right to divorce 411–12, 416, 418, 422 right of remarriage 412, 413–14, 416, 418 see also divorce Temple, Frederick (Bishop of Exeter and Archbishop of Canterbury) 41, 43 Temple, William (Bishop of Manchester) 394, 407 Ten Commandments see Decalogue, The Terry, Milton S. 219 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs Armenian version 252–3, 273, 285 authorship 250, 286–7 Book of Jubilees and 127 Choniates’s manuscript 248 Christian elements 247, 249–50, 255, 285, 286–7 contents of 246–7, 249 Conybeare, Frederick C. 252–3, 262, 263 Corrodi on 250 date of 121, 122, 268–9, 285 Genesis and 246 Grabe on 249–50, 252, 255, 273 Grosseteste’s translation 247–9, 255, 261 Jewish elements 247, 249–50, 255, 285, 286–7 manuscripts 246, 248, 252, 262–3 nature of messianic prophecies 249 original language 249, 255–6, 285

Pass, Herbert Leonard and J. Arendzen 253, 254, 258, 259 Qumran texts 286 Schnapp, Friedrich on 196, 250, 252, 255, 256, 261, 273 Slavonic Enoch and 141 Slavonic version 264 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Charles’s articles and volumes) 119, 120–1, 122, 192, 196, 238, 246 1899 article (Encyclopaedia Biblica) 118, 251, 252 1902 article (Dictionary of the Bible) 122, 238, 251–4 1902 Charles’s Book of Jubilees and 126, 196n.10 1904–05 article (Hibbert Journal) 238, 247, 255–7, 269, 287 1907 article (Jewish Quarterly Review, co-authored with Cowley) 238–9, 257–60 1908 article (Expositor) 287–9 1908 Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 270–8 1908 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 260–70 1908–51 “The Charles Consensus” 285 1911 article (Encyclopaedia Britannica) 284 1913 version (The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament) 284 Aramaic text 252, 253, 254, 255, 258, 259, 274 authorship 196, 252, 255, 256, 261, 275, 287 Christian elements 251, 266, 273, 275, 276, 277, 279, 280, 281, 287 context for 247–51 in Critical History 196, 209, 216, 238 date of the Book 196, 251, 256, 259, 261, 278, 279, 280–1 on ethics 257, 261, 269, 278, 279 on forgiveness 269, 288–9 Hebrew recensions 265, 278, 279, 281–2, 283 importance of the Book 261, 267 interpolation theory 196, 251, 266, 273, 275, 280

 Jewish elements 251, 266, 273 legacy 285–7, 289 Mount Athos manuscript 258, 259, 262, 267, 274 New Testament and 257, 267–9, 275, 278, 279–80, 284, 288–9 original language 196, 256, 260, 261, 273, 275, 278, 279, 280–1, 283–4 Oxford fragment 258 relation with other texts 257, 266, 267–8, 275, 276, 279 on resurrection 269 reviews 278–85, 287 see also Greek Versions of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs; Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: 1908 Charles’s volume Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: 1908 Charles’s volume 260–70 appendices 270 Introduction 261, 267–70, 275 Preface 260 textual witnesses 261–5 see also Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Charles’s articles and volumes) Thackeray, H. St. J. 239 Theodotion: Book of Daniel (translation) 336–7, 347, 348, 350, 357 Theologische Literaturzeitung: reviews of Charles’s works 65, 115, 128, 140, 164, 184, 223n.6, 233, 279, 302 Theology: reviews of Charles’s works 470, 533 Times (London) x, 202n.14, 244, 540 on Charles as canon of Westminster 366–7, 395–401, 536 obituary of Charles 245, 367, 368, 455n.16, 538–9 Toy, C. H. 218–19 Trinity College, Dublin 17–18 Catholic students at 19 Divinity School 17–18, 31 Trinity College, Dublin: Charles at 9, 16–20, 31 auditor of the Theological Society 19 BA degree 18 DD degree 189

593

M.A. degree 19, 20, 37 Professor of Biblical Greek 189, 221 prizes 19 Tromp, Johannes 186, 188 Turner, Cuthbert Hamilton 224 Turner, James 3, 8 Ullendorff, Edward 48n.4 Ussher, James 17 Valla, Lorenzo 3 Vatican Library 54n.19, 76, 224, 227, 262, 274, 452 Volkmar, Gustav 173, 178n.22 Von Westenholtz, Baron 76 Votaw, Clyde Weber 314 Wallace, W. Reeve 424 Wallis, Duchess of Windsor (Wallis Warfield Simpson) 406 Warburton, William 514–15 Warburton Lectures 514–33 Weber, Ferdinand 327n.43 Wellhausen, Julius 6–7, 440, 497 Westcott, Brooke Foss 24, 494–5 Westminster Abbey 367–8 Barnett, Samuel 366, 367, 368 canons 368–9 Charles, Mary Lilias 367, 398, 540 Deans 368 tombstone of R. H. and Mary Lilias Charles, Westminster Abbey 539f Westminster Abbey: Charles as canon 323, 342, 343, 365 appointment as canon 365–7 as Archdeacon 369, 536, 538 causes supported by Charles 398–9 early days as canon 369–72 funerals 397 preaching 395–6, 483, 536, 537 publication of books 373, 376, 377, 435, 483, 499 theological perspective 377–82 as Treasurer 369, 538 “Venerable, the” 369 weddings 397 Westminster activities 395–401 Westminster Abbey: sermons by Charles 369–77, 382–95

594  Westminster Abbey: sermons by Charles (cont.) 1917 Sermons Preached in Westminster Abbey 373 1921 The Teaching of the New Testament on Divorce 376 1923 Adventure into the Unknown 373 1924 Gambling & Betting 376, 429–34 1927 Divorce and the Roman Dogma of Nullity 376, 396 1929 The Resurrection of Man and Other Sermons 373–5, 384, 391–3, 395–6, 397 1931 Courage, Truth, Purity 376, 389, 541 on Christianity and science 390–1 non-exegetical approach 382 practical exhortations supported by scholarly reasoning 383–5, 402 reactions to 371–2, 395–6 Religious Development 370–1, 377 on resurrection 390–3 themes 370–1, 376, 387–95 traits 382–7 on virtue and Christian daily life 387–90 voicing strong personal opinions 385–7, 396 see also Divorce and the Roman Dogma of Nullity; Gambling & Betting; Religious Development between the Old and the New Testaments; Teaching of the New Testament on Divorce, The

Wette, Wilhelm M. L. de: Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament 5–6 Whiston, William 438 Wicks, Henry J.: The Doctrine of God in the Jewish Apocryphal and Apocalyptic Literature 498–9 Charles’s “Introduction” 498–9 Willett, Tom W. 152–3n.3 Williams, Rowland 42–3 Wilson, H. B.: Essays and Reviews (editor) 41, 42–3 Wilson, Philip Whitwell: The Vision We Forget . . . 471, 472 Woide, Charles Godfrey 49n.6 Woodlock, Francis 396 World War I 339, 405, 456, 511 Charles, R. H. on 385, 387, 457, 457n.21, 471n.36, 526 World War II 395 Yahwism 198, 204, 205 Zahn, Theodor 31 Zeitlin, Solomon 305n.18, 311n.25, 315 Zotenberg, Hermann: Chronicle 500–1, 504, 505, 506–7, 509, 510, 511, 512 Zurawski, Jason: New Perspectives on 2 Enoch: No Longer Slavonic Only (associate editor) 147