Digital Commons @ George Fox University
Faculty Publications - George Fox Evangelical
Seminary
George Fox Evangelical Seminary
2007
In the Margins of Charlesworth's Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha: Controlled Vocabulary and the
Challenges of Scripture Indices
Steve Delamarter
George Fox University, sdelamar@georgefox.edu
Follow this and additional works at: h<p://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/gfes
Part of the Biblical Studies Commons
;is Article is brought to you for free and open access by the George Fox Evangelical Seminary at Digital Commons @ George Fox University. It has
been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications - George Fox Evangelical Seminary by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ George
Fox University.
Recommended Citation
Previously published in Journal of Religious and ;eological Information, 2007, 7(2), pp. 91-109. h<p://www.tandfonline.com/doi/
abs/10.1300/J112v07n02_07#.VQHLwPzF-So
In the Margins of Charlesworth’s
Old Testament Pseudepigrapha:
Controlled Vocabulary
and the Challenges of Scripture Indices
Steve Delamarter
ABSTRACT. This article details the challenges faced by the author in pro-
ducing a scripture index to Charlesworth’s Old Testament Pseudepigrapha.
After reflections on what one expects from a scripture index, he catalogues
eleven sets of ambiguities surrounding the indexing task for which an-
swers had to be provided. Finally, he provides a few suggestions to assist
future editors whose works need to be indexed.
doi:10.1300/J112v07n02_07
[Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service:
<http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights
reserved.]
KEYWORDS. Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, indexing, scripture index,
cross-reference(s)
INTRODUCTION
Ambiguity is the enemy of controlled vocabulary. Perhaps it is more
apt to say that ambiguity is the primary pest that a controlled vocabulary
seeks to exterminate.
When I set out to produce A Scripture Index to Charlesworth’s Old
Testament Pseudepigrapha
1
(SIOTP), I had no idea of how many levels
of ambiguity would plague my job. Cross-references to scripture in
Steve Delamarter is Professor of Old Testament, George Fox Evangelical Semi
-
nary, Newberg, OR (E-mail: [email protected]).
Journal of Religious & Theological Information, Vol. 7(2) 2005
Available online at http://jrti.haworthpress.com
© 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1300/J112v07n02_07 91
Downloaded by [George Fox University] at 10:24 12 March 2015
Charlesworth’s Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (OTP) are strewn through
-
out the two volumes in footnotes, marginal notations, and introductory
matter to individual texts. Initially, I thought that indexing this material
would be a matter of tedious and scrupulous collating, but little more.
What I discovered was that the task necessitated much more than just col
-
lation; it also involved selection, correction, organization, and a host of
other processes. And these processes, I soon learned, were directly related
to my assumptions about what a scripture index should be and do. The
cross-reference data defined the task, but the definition of the task also
determined how to organize that data and even what data to be treated. I
discovered that I had to stop at every turn and make crucial decisions
about how to proceed.
The index has been completed and published but what remains is to
put down what I learned about the task of making a scripture index. In
this article I shall attempt to map some of those areas in which ambiguity
forced me to make decisions. But it will be helpful first to reflect a bit on
what it is that we expect of a scripture index.
WHAT WE EXPECT FROM A SCRIPTURE INDEX
We expect several things from a scripture index on a work like the
OTP. In the first place we expect it to be accurate; to reflect fairly the
work of the contributors and editors; and that the informed decisions of
the scholars be conveyed to us–the users, without interference, distortion,
or loss of information.
Second, we expect the scripture index to be comprehensive, and that
on several levels. The scholarship involved in producing the edition was
comprehensive. In producing their translations, scholars studied all aspects
of the text–literary, linguistic, historical, etc. They noted connections with
biblical texts in all of these aspects. They registered these connections in
introductions, footnotes and in marginal notations. A scripture index
should reflect both the breadth and depth of their scholarship on the
books. Only in this way will the scholarship of the contributors be avail
-
able to the full spectrum of users who will want to study these works and
their connections to scripture. These days many are interested in gaug
-
ing the use of the Hebrew scriptures by the Pseudepigrapha writers.
They want not only to understand the message of the pseudepigraphal
work, but also how the writers drew on the resources, characters and
themes of the Hebrew scriptures to make their points. The field of com
-
parative Midrash in modern scholarship is driven by this concern. These
92 JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS & THEOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Downloaded by [George Fox University] at 10:24 12 March 2015
scholars seek, among other things, to understand the exegetical tech
-
niques and hermeneutical moves brought to bear on the Hebrew text by
the members of the various believing communities that looked to the
Hebrew Bible to define their identity and ethos. Such users will want a
scripture index to provide them with as many points of access as possi
-
ble to texts in the Pseudepigrapha that draw on materials from the Hebrew
Bible. Likewise, New Testament scholars are interested in knowing how
the thinking of Pseudepigrapha writers–or thinking similar to theirs–has
made its way into the theologies expressed by different New Testament
communities and writers. These interests and concerns argue for a
scripture index that is comprehensive in scope.
On the other hand, a scripture index that has become gigantic in its
proportions may induce users to wish for a degree of conciseness or se-
lectivity. If the index is too extensive, it will take an enormous amount
of time to sift through all of the entries just to find those that are rele-
vant. Information is lost in a mountain of data. One has only to think of
the example of the ubiquitous Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2
which
boasts “nearly 500,000 entries” to understand the problem.
Conciseness and selectivity carry a price. In the first place someone has
to sort through the data and make a series of judgment calls as to which data
are “the most relevant.” But this leaves the user at the mercy of the one
making the judgment calls. The criteria for judging “most relevant” may be
left unstated or, even worse, the process may have eliminated many or most
of the cross-references in which that user was interested.
To avoid these problems we are back to where we started, offering the
full data set to the user. But if we hope to provide a way for the user to
identify quickly the relevance of the material for themselves, then the
data have to be offered to the user in some sort of processed state. One
way to do this would be with a tagging system that accompanies the data.
The tags represent a first level of processing of the data. This is done by
employing a set of tags which are at least elaborate enough to make it pos
-
sible for the user to identify easily the general nature of the data– whether
literary, linguistic, historical, etc.–without having to sort through for them
-
selves all the possible connections between the two texts.
Unfortunately, scholarship seems to lack any set of standards for defin
-
ing even a modestly elaborate system of tagging cross-references. Unless
the cross-reference is embedded in a footnote that specifies the sort of con
-
nection being indicated, users are left to decide the nature of the connec
-
tion for themselves. The inadequacy in this situation is obvious. The user
is left to re-discover the point of connection between the two texts when
the contributing scholar has already indicated the fact of the connection.
Steve Delamarter 93
Downloaded by [George Fox University] at 10:24 12 March 2015
Unless required to do otherwise, scholars will pursue their work ac
-
cording to their own interests and specialization. One may be quite
interested in form-critical matters, another in matters historical. Yet
another may be interested in the influence of the Hebrew Bible on the
Pseudepigrapha but not in the influence of the Pseudepigrapha on the
New Testament and vice versa. As long as scholar X’s list of references
are kept separate from scholar Y’s list, one will be able to guess the sort
of information likely to be found. But when these scholars’ references
are collated, that entire layer of information is lost to the user, buried
and mixed in with a mountain of other data. The indexing process has, at
this point, failed both the scholar and the reader. This problem–the colla
-
tion of very different sorts of references without any system of tagging–
constitutes a serious lack in indices related to biblical studies.
Inevitably, scripture indices end up being the result of a series of
trade-offs between comprehensiveness on the one hand, and relevance,
precision and conciseness on the other. Many scripture indices tend to-
ward one extreme or the other. The overly comprehensive index lumps
all sorts of connections together, and the user often has a hard time sort-
ing out the aspect of the text being signaled by any particular entry. The
overly selective index has suffered a culling process in which much of
potential interest has been thrown out.
This leads to what is probably the central problem with scripture indi-
ces, a problem that has to do, first and foremost, not with the index or with
the work being indexed, but with users of a scripture index themselves.
When readers approach a work via a scripture index, their relationship to
the text is different than when they are reading the text through. Readers
approaching a text via a scripture index may not know anything at all
about the text they are entering–nothing about manuscript history, recen
-
sions, scholarship, similarity to other works, etc. They enter the text with
-
out introduction or context. They simply plunge into the middle of it. If
they want either introduction or context, they have to “back up,” as it
were, and get a “running start” on the text they have discovered via the
scripture index. Sometimes, just finding the text or footnote referred to in
the scripture index presupposes some knowledge of the book, such as the
fact that a text exists in multiple recensions (as with The Questions of
Ezra or 3 Baruch), or exists only in fragments extant in works of others
(as is the case, for instance, with all of the texts published in the “Supple
-
ment” in volume 2, pp. 775-920). When it comes to helping this sort of
reader, the less that is presumed about their prior knowledge of the text,
the better–even something as basic as the fact that The Questions of Ezra,
for instance, only purports to be written by the biblical Ezra. Readers who
94 JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS & THEOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Downloaded by [George Fox University] at 10:24 12 March 2015
read the table of contents will probably pick this up; but the one who en
-
ters only via the scripture index will miss this point completely unless
there is some indication in the scripture index that will lead them to this
conclusion.
CONFRONTING LEVELS OF AMBIGUITY
With this brief introduction to the challenges inherent in the task of
producing an index from the combined work of multiple authors, let us
move to a discussion of the levels of ambiguity involved in the process.
In what follows I shall list and discuss the various questions that arose
during the task and give some idea of how I chose to address them.
Whose Writings Should Be Indexed?
The present work calls itself a “scripture” index. Thus, by definition, the
index excludes references to Old Testament Apocrypha, Philo, Josephus,
Classical and Hellenistic Greek literature, and much of the early rab-
binic literature although the contributors to OTP included an abundance
of cross-references to these writings. Including these cross-references
in the index would have easily doubled its size. But whose “scriptures”
do we index? The short answer is “those of Protestant Christianity.” In
limiting the index in this way, we hope that many of the needs of the
Jewish community and Roman and Orthodox Christian communities have
been filled at the same time.
3
But we realize that they are not totally met
by the current work.
Which of the Sets of Cross-References Do We Index?
Readers of OTP will find scripture cross-references in three places:
In introductory articles, footnotes, and marginal notations. First, we are
told in the introductions to each volume (p. xvi in both volumes) that all
contributors were asked to include a section in the introductions to their
respective texts titled “relation to canonical books.” The reader attempt
-
ing to study the relationship of the Pseudepigrapha to canonical books
will find these discussions very illuminating, but they are written in
prose and do not lend themselves as readily to scripture indexing as do the
footnotes and marginal notations. Second, contributors have included
scripture references in the footnotes. Judging by the editor’s note
(“Explanation of Typographical and Reference Systems” on pp. xxxv-
xxxvi of both volumes) and by the finished product, it would seem that
Steve Delamarter 95
Downloaded by [George Fox University] at 10:24 12 March 2015
what sorts and how many references to include in the footnotes was
more or less left to the judgment of the individual contributor. Third,
scripture references are located in the margins. In the “Explanation of
Typographical and Reference Systems,” the editor indicates, “Marginal
references are kept to a minimum and except in rare occasions are lim
-
ited to significant parallels in biblical and apocryphal writings.” I take
this to mean that those cross-references placed in the margins received
special attention that went even beyond that given to cross-references in
the introductions and footnotes (see Appendices A and B).
The published index collates cross-references given in the footnotes
and in the marginal notes, but not those in the introductory articles. As I
shall explain, there is an overlap of about 10% between cross-references
in the footnotes and those in the marginal notes. I decided to include all
of the cross-references in the footnotes except for those that also re-
ceived a marginal cross-reference. This was only the case when the two
cross-references are to the same verse. If the marginal cross-reference
was to another verse than the cross-reference in the footnote, we in-
cluded both. Omitting duplications made the index more concise with-
out losing any information for the user. In practice this means that when
users find a marginal cross-reference, they will also want to glance at
footnotes related to the same text to see if they include any further rele-
vant information.
How Shall We Deal with the At-Times Ambiguous Placement
of Marginal References?
On page xxxvi of both volumes we find this paragraph describing
marginal references:
Care has been taken to assure that each marginal reference begins
on the line to which it refers. However, in some cases this is not
possible because of the length of necessary marginal references. In
these cases, the marginal reference is preceded by a verse reference
(i.e., the letter v plus the number of the verse) so the reader can at
-
tach the marginal references to the correct verses.
4
The editors indicate that each marginal reference begins “on the line to
which it refers” and not “on the first line of the verse to which it refers,”
unless, of course, the cross-reference is intended for the first line of the
verse. Cross-references often are placed in the middle of a verse next to
the line within the verse to which the cross-reference refers. The ambigu
-
ity in this system shows up in those cases where one verse ends and
96 JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS & THEOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Downloaded by [George Fox University] at 10:24 12 March 2015
another verse begins in the same line. New verses are clearly marked with
a dot between verses in the text. What is not clear is whether the marginal
note is referring to the end of the previous verse in that line or to the be
-
ginning of the new verse. Since the system in OTP does not make explicit
which of these two possibilities was the case, we decided that where a
marginal note stands next to a line containing the start of a new verse, the
marginal note should be referenced to the new verse only.
How Shall We Distinguish Between Scripture References
in the Footnotes and Those in the Margins?
The answer to this question was actually rather simple, though the rea-
son for it may not be self-evident. In the index, cross-references taken
from footnotes all indicate the chapter and verse of the Pseudepigraphon
followed by a comma, the abbreviation “ftnt” and the letter of the appro-
priate footnote. This will prove to be a time-saving device for the user
since footnotes in OTP are listed sequentially in the body of the text, but
the sigla used in the footnotes do not identify which verse in the text it is
related to. Had we listed only the Pseudepigraphon chapter and verse and
not the footnote letter in the index, the user would have to look up the verse,
identify which footnote or footnotes it contained (sometimes several) then
inspect each one to see which one contained the cross-reference.
How Shall We Handle What Appear to Be Errors?
Although the OTP is the product of monumental scholarly and editorial
effort, there are a few cases where both the indexer and the user confront
what appear to be errors. These can cause no small amount of confusion
and lost time. We corrected what appeared to be obvious mistakes.
For instance, 3 Enoch 46 contains four verses listed in OTP as 1, 2,
13, and 14. 2 Baruch 24:1 contains a cross-reference to “1 Dan 7:10.”
And Testament of Abraham (recension A) 10:14 contains a reference to
Ezekiel 53:11. Obviously there is no “First Daniel” and Ezekiel has only
48 chapters. In these cases, the reference was entered in the index at a
corrected location but with the incorrect listing followed by “sic.” This
allows the user to track the correct reference but still find the point in the
text where it appears in OTP. One can also find cases where the infor
-
mation in the footnotes does not match that in the margins. For instance,
footnote a to 2 Baruch 27:2 refers to Matthew 24:71 (the chapter has
only 51 verses) while the marginal note refers to Matthew 24:7 (the cor
-
rect reference).
Steve Delamarter 97
Downloaded by [George Fox University] at 10:24 12 March 2015
How Do We Handle the Inconsistency
in the Use of Nomenclature and Sigla?
Perhaps the most vexing issue to contend with for both the would-be
indexer and for the end user is the inconsistent use of the semicolon in
OTP. On page xxxvi in both volumes we are given an explanation of the
punctuation of biblical references.
Chapter and verse are separated by a colon, for example, Ex. 20:7.
A subsequent verse in the same chapter is separated from the preced
-
ing by a comma. Subsequent citations in other biblical or apocry
-
phal writings are separated by semicolons: for example, Ex 20:17,
20; Lev 9:15. Citations which are not preceded by an abbreviation re-
fer to the respective passage in a document being footnoted.
As precise as this statement seems, it contains certain ambiguities
which become clear in tabular form:
A few examples will demonstrate the possibility of confusion with
this system. At 2 Baruch 5:2 there is a series of cross-references in the
margins: “Pss 135:13; 48:27; 85:9; 6:4ff.” Since the abbreviation is Pss
(psalms) we expect references to more than one psalm since the stan
-
dard abbreviation to a single Psalm is “Ps.” This assumption is strength
-
ened when we see that 2 Baruch employs the abbreviation “Ps” at 14:10
98 JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS & THEOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Type of Reference Type of Indicator Used in OTP
A single reference:
• to a biblical or apocryphal [or any
other] book
Abbreviation of title, followed by chapter,
colon, verse and no period.
• to another passage in the current
Pseudepigraphon
No title needed: List chapter, colon,
verse and no period.
A subsequent reference to the same point
in the Pseudepigraphon:
•
referring to a text in the same chapter as
the previous citation
Comma separates the reference from
the previous one. The second entry does
not contain a(nother) reference to the title.
• referring to a text in the same book as
the previous citation
but not the same
chapter
Semicolon separates the reference from
the previous. The second entry does not
contain a(nother) reference to the title.
•
referring to a text in another passage in
the current Pseudepigraphon
Semi colon separates the reference from
the previous. The second entry does not
contain a(nother) reference to the title.
The next reference or list of references to
a subsequent point in the Pseudepigraphon
Begins on the next line.
Downloaded by [George Fox University] at 10:24 12 March 2015
and 17:4 and elsewhere when cross-referencing to a single Psalm.
5
So
we start by assuming that the second reference to 48:27 is also to the
book of Psalms. However, Psalm 48 has only 14 verses in the English
(15 in Hebrew). In fact, the second cross-reference is to 2 Baruch.By
way of contrast, at 2 Baruch 6:7 (the very next page in OTP) when we
confront the list of cross-references “Exod 26:31; 29:5; 25:17,” the sec
-
ond reference is, indeed, a reference to the book of Exodus 29:5 and not
to 2 Baruch 29:5.
It is clear that the same system of referencing can be used to indicate
two completely different things: When one encounters a reference fol
-
lowed by semicolon followed by another reference without a title, the
second reference could be to a text in the same biblical or apocryphal
book as the previous reference or it could be to a text in the current
Pseudepigraphon. The correct alternative usually comes clear in one of
two ways. Either you find that a book does not have enough chapters or
a chapter does not contain enough verses or (if the cross-reference fits
more than one text) you find that one passage seems to contain a point of
connection while the other does not. But surely neither the contributors
nor the editors intended this process of second-guessing. The contributors
had one particular cross-reference in mind. The sigla system adopted for
the work should have been precise enough to remove ambiguity. Since it
was not, however, the reader must be aware of these ambiguities.
3 Enoch contains the following cross-references
Steve Delamarter 99
Examples where the second reference
seems to be a reference to another text in
the same book as the first reference
Examples where the second reference
seems to be a reference to another text in
current Pseudepigraphon
3En 1:7 “Dan 8:17f.; 10:9; 10:15” 3En 9:5 “Ezek 1:17; 22:8; 25:2”
3En 2:2 “Job 15:14; 25:4” 3En 19:2 “Ezek 10:3; 6:2; 15:1; 41:2”
3En 6:2 “Job 14:1; 15:14” 3En 44:3 “Mk 9:45; 28:10”
3En 25:5 “Ezek 1:15; 10:12f.” 3En 15B:2 “Gen 7:11; 22:11-16”
3En 44:7 “Isa 42:5; 48:13; Ezek 1:22; Jer
10:12”
3En 45:3 “Gen 10:8; 11:9”
3En 45:5 “Ezek 38:2; 39:6”
3En 48D:8 “Gen 3:22; 1:26”
3En 48D:8 “Job 40:15; 41:4”
Note the variation:
3En 42:2 “Ex. 15:2. 3:14”
Downloaded by [George Fox University] at 10:24 12 March 2015
Since there appears to be no way to distinguish between the two col
-
umns in terms the meaning of the semicolon, the user is forced to check
virtually every occurrence of a second reference to see if it refers to a
text in the same book as the first reference or to another text in the cur
-
rent Pseudepigraphon.
In the Life of Adam and Eve [Apocalypse] 33:1 we have this list of
cross-references: “Acts 7:55; 1:10.” Since the second reference is a
lower number than the first, we might be tempted to think that the refer
-
ence is to LAE 1:10. In fact, though, LAE [Apocalypse] has only three
verses in chapter one; the reference is to Acts 1:10.
Odes of Solomon 7:15 has this list of cross-references: “Mk 1:11; 3:7;
19:2-8; 23:18, 22; 41:13, 15.” In these cases the second and following
references refer to other places in the Odes of Solomon. But at OdesSol
6:18, where the list of references is to “Jn 7:37f.; 4:10, 14,” the second
and third references are to the gospel of John.
There were literally hundreds of such lists of cross-references with
ambiguous second and following references. These ambiguities neces-
sitated judgment calls as to what was being cross-referenced. Because
of the ambiguity of the system, users of both the index and OTP have to
proceed with caution.
The use of the abbreviation “Eccl.” is another example of inconsis-
tency. It can refer both to canonical Ecclesiastes (Qohelet) and to
deuterocanonical/apocryphal Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) in spite of the fact
that the list of abbreviations in both OTP volumes indicates that “Eccl
(Qoh) = Ecclesiastes” (I:xiv; II:xiv). However, this guideline is not
always observed. In OdesSol 16:13, footnote g, we read this comment:
“Parallels to this concept [that ‘created things run according to their
courses and work their works and they are not able to cease and be idle’]
are abundant; cf. 1En 2:1-5:2; 69:20f.; PssSol 18:12-14; 2Bar48:9; Eccl
16:26-28.” Since the biblical book of Ecclesiastes has only 12 chapters,
we are left wondering if this reference is not to the apocryphal book of
Sirach. Indeed, in Sirach 16:26-28 we read,
When the Lord created his works from the beginning, and, in mak
-
ing them, determined their boundaries, he arranged his works in an
eternal order, and their dominion for all generations. They neither
hunger nor grow weary, and they do not abandon their tasks. They
do not crowd one another, and they never disobey his word.
Clearly, the reference in footnote g is to the apocryphal book of Sirach,
which the list of abbreviations tells us will be indicated with “Sir.”
6
100 JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS & THEOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Downloaded by [George Fox University] at 10:24 12 March 2015
The use of the colon provides an example of inconsistent punctua
-
tion. Chapter and verse in Bible references are usually separated with a
colon. This convention is often used with non-biblical books as well,
but not always. Sometimes a period is used to separate chapter and
verse. In a couple of instances OTP vacillates back and forth between
two systems. For instance, a period is used to separate chapter and verse
in the body of the text of the Sibylline Oracles (i.e., SibOr x.xxx), but in
the page header, the colon is used (i.e., x:xxx). Similarly, at Ascension
of Isaiah (4:3) there is a cross-reference to the Qumran Manual of Disci
-
pline (CD) with the format x:xxx (e.g., 1:7), while the book of Jubilees
refers to CD in the format x.xxx.
Occasionally one will find the comma used in unanticipated ways.
For instance, at Apocalypse of Elijah 1:1 the following list of cross-
references is given: “Ezek 33:1f., 6:1, 12:1, 13:1, 14:2.” According to
the description given for the use of the comma, we would have expected
to see semicolons used in the place of each of these commas. In fact, one
finds this use of the comma frequently in the Apocalypse of Elijah (see
in volume one, pp. 736, 737, 738, 750). Ezekiel the Tragedian, Exagoge:
189 refers to “Ex 12:15, 13:3.” One would have expected a semicolon.
How Shall We Handle the Complexity of the Sigla System?
There seems to be no way around the fact that the sigla used in Pseude-
pigrapha scholarship can be very complicated. The complexity of the
system is due to the need for precision, but it still represents a significant
barrier both to the would-be scripture indexer and to the prospective
user of an index. Simple references in the scripture index become com
-
plex ciphers: e.g.,
Micah 6:2 ApEl 5:25 ftnt v2
Matthew 7:13f. TAb rec. B 8:16 ftnt e
Acts 3:10 3Bar, Introduction 2 (Gk.) ftnt h
1 Corinthians 2:6 SibOr 2.219 ftnt q2
Ephesians 4:26 3En 48A:3 ftnt h
Colossians 1:16 ApZeph A ftnt c
2 Thessalonians 2:8 TSol 1:00 ftnt e
The need for such a complex system is due to several factors. For ex
-
ample, several texts exist in multiple versions or recensions. 3 Baruch is
preserved in two versions, Slavonic and Greek. The TestamentofAbraham
Steve Delamarter 101
Downloaded by [George Fox University] at 10:24 12 March 2015
and the Questions of Ezra likewise exist in two recensions (Greek for the
Testament, Armenian for the Questions) labeled A and B. We might point
to the myriad problems posed by the need to label “fragments.” The OTP
contains a “supplement” in volume two: “Fragments of Lost Judeo-
Hellenistic Works.” Each work in this section is extant only because a
portion of it was preserved in the work of a later writer. For instance, a
Jewish writer from the third or second century BCE named Philo is
quoted a half dozen times in Eusebius’ Praeparatio Evangelica (fourth
century CE). The surviving fragments, thus, have two sources, so to speak:
The work in its original form (which is not extant) and some still existing
source in which a fragment from the earlier work is quoted. This rather
complicated literary history contributes to the various ways of citing a
work. Thus, Philo the Epic Poet’s works are cited, for instance, as
PhEPoet Frags 1-2, without reference to Eusebius’s Praeparatio Evan-
gelica in which they were preserved. Similarly, the five fragments of
Eupolemus’ historical work are referred to as Eup 30:1, that is, without
reference to the works in which they are quoted. On the other hand,
Artipanus’ three fragments are preserved in three chapters in Eusebius’
Praeparatio Evangelica. OTP seems to propose two systems. One of
them cites the fragment with primary reference to the location in Eusebius,
e.g., Art Frag 3(PrEv 9.27.23), that is “Artimus’ Fragment 3, (which is
preserved in Eusebius’ Praeparatio Evangelica book 9, chapter 27, verse
23).” The other system (the one used in the header of each page in OTP)
substitutes Eusebius’ book number with Artipanus’ fragment number and
comes up with a hybrid numbering system, for example, Art Frag
3.27.23, in which “3” stands for “fragment 3” and 27.23 stands for the
chapter and verse in Eusebius work. A similar phenomenon exists with
reference to the Prayer of Joseph, but there the fragments are simply
designated A, B, and C. These examples will suffice to let the user know
that when it comes to works that exist as fragments quoted in the works of
others, the sigla employed to designate the location of the text can take
several forms.
How Shall We Handle Multiple Versification Systems?
The book of Joseph and Aseneth is published with two versification
systems. C. Burchard, the contributor, explains the complex publication
history of the book (OTP, vol. 2, p. 200) and whence the two systems
have come. The later system, devised by Philonenko, supplements the
earlier system of Riessler who, Burchard contends, “obviously could not
102 JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS & THEOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Downloaded by [George Fox University] at 10:24 12 March 2015
make up his mind between short verses, as in the Bible, and longer para
-
graphs, as, for example, in Josephus.” Philonenko subdivides Riessler’s
bigger verses into smaller ones, so that all the verses have a fairly consis
-
tent length. Burchard declines to produce another system since he is still
“working with a provisional text.” Philonenko’s work on the book is ap
-
parently significant enough that, in a footnote on page 202, Charlesworth
explains that
Two verse systems are provided . . . Bullets denote the primary
system of verses; marginal parentheses specify Philonenko’s sys
-
tem. The beginning of a verse according to the secondary system is
not indicated if the punctuation points to it unequivocally; when it
is not obvious, the sign ‘has been inserted in the text.
Since footnotes are in abundance throughout the text, I had to decide
which versification system to use to index the cross-references. In this
case it was fairly easy to ignore Philonenko’s parenthetical system. This
decision follows that of the editors of OTP whose versification dots are
based only on Riessler’s system. (In what was apparently a typesetting
oversight, both versification systems are left off of page 214.) The basic
versification (Riessler’s) is simple to reconstruct since the versification
dots are present in the text. However, one suspects that Philonenko sup-
plies chapter 9 with five verses to Riessler’s two.
How Shall We Handle Sigla That Do Not Appear
in the List of Abbreviations?
For instance, in a reference to Theodotian’s version of the book of
Daniel the Greek symbol theta (q) appears in footnote e to 3 Baruch 1:3.
This is a common enough convention to biblical scholars, but the unini
-
tiated will look in vain in the list of abbreviations to find the definition
of the symbol.
How Do We Handle References Linked
to Un-Numbered Portions of the Text?
The versification system in 2 Enoch does not take into account the
chapter headers contained in the longer recension [J]. Consequently the
placement of the letter indicating verse 1 comes after the header. How
-
ever, these headers are footnoted; these footnotes, in turn, contain scrip
-
ture references. I had to decide how to index cross-references in the
Steve Delamarter 103
Downloaded by [George Fox University] at 10:24 12 March 2015
footnotes to these unnumbered text portions. The best option seemed to
be to treat them as though they are part of verse one in each case. Admit
-
tedly, confusion is possible with such a system.
How Do We Give the User an Accurate Picture
of the Unevenness of the Work from Book to Book?
The reader needs to be aware that the footnotes are very uneven from
book to book and reflect little uniformity of system. Some contributors
concentrate on linguistic issues in footnotes and make cross-references
to similar linguistic features in other works–canonical and otherwise.
Others use the footnotes primarily to indicate matters of textual criticism.
Some use footnotes to cite the work of other scholars, while others are
virtually devoid of references to secondary literature in the footnotes.
Readers should also know that there is a great deal of variation
among the contributors when it comes to internal versus external refer-
encing. In the first place, the unevenness of the references should be
clear from the fact that cross-references between books are not recipro-
cal. Theoretically, if there were a point of connection from one text to
another, that same point of connection would exist from the other to the
one. But one should not expect to find that kind of overlap in OTP.No
attempt was made to bring an overall consistency to references. Some
contributors paid special attention to internal cross-references. For in-
stance the function of footnotes in 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, 3 Enoch, and As-
cension of Isaiah is primarily for the purpose of indicating internal
cross-references. But in other books, like Jubilees, there are no internal
cross-references at all.
There is a great deal of variation among the contributors when it
comes to indicating scripture references whether in the footnotes or in
the margins. Some appear to ignore almost completely scripture cross-
references. For instance, the Letter of Aristeas contains no marginal
cross-references to canonical works and only one footnote with a
scripture cross-reference. Joseph and Aseneth contains no marginal
cross-references; all cross-references are contained in footnotes. In the
section of the introduction called “Relation to canonical books” the edi
-
tor of the fragment of Jannes and Jambres tells us:
As indicated at least as early as the Pseudo-Jonathan tradition, the
Jannes and Jambres tale takes its point of departure from the bibli
-
cal account of the contest between Moses and Pharaoh’s court
104 JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS & THEOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Downloaded by [George Fox University] at 10:24 12 March 2015
magicians in the plague narrative of Exodus 7 and 8. Later elabora
-
tion, though not present in our fragmentary text, links these two
magicians to the birth of Moses (Ex 1-2), the crossing of the Red
Sea (Ex 14), the golden calf incident (Ex 32), and the oracles of
Balaam (Num 22-24). Jannes and Jambres are not named in the
biblical story, nor are they ever referred to anywhere else in the
Old Testament.
Not until the New Testament do we again meet any reference to these
two antagonists of Moses. In the often quoted verses 2 Timothy 3:8f.,
the author of the epistle compares false Christian teachers to Jannes
and Jambres. As the latter defied truth when they opposed Moses, so
the former defy truth when they champion a pattern of behavior
contrary to accepted Christian standards. The end result for them
will be the same as that of Jannes and Jambres. Knowledge of the
tradition is assumed, but no information apart from their names is
provided. (OTP, vol. 2, p. 434f)
Unfortunately, there are neither marginal notes nor footnotes in the
OTP edition, undoubtedly because of the very fragmentary nature of the
preserved text. As a consequence, though, there are no scripture refer-
ences to index. The reader interested in pseudepigraphical embellish-
ments on Exodus 7 and 8 will not be helped by the scripture index; they
would have to read the introduction to Jannes and Jambres to be made
aware of the connection. The Questions of Ezra is ostensibly composed
by the biblical Ezra. However, neither the margins nor footnotes in OTP
contain any references to the biblical book of Ezra. In addition, the in-
troduction to this work does not contain the section entitled “relation to
canonical books.” Something similar happens with the Revelation of
Ezra. The OTP contains no scripture references indicating that it is
related to the biblical book of Ezra. In contrast to these, the Testament of
Job is cross-referenced to the biblical book of Job 141 times. 1 Enoch
32 describes a vision of the “tree of wisdom.” The angel Raphael tells
the visitant,
This very thing is the tree of wisdom from which your old father
and aged mother, they who are your precursors, ate and came to
know wisdom; and (consequently) their eyes were opened and
they realized that they were naked and (so) they were expelled
from the garden.
Steve Delamarter 105
Downloaded by [George Fox University] at 10:24 12 March 2015
Clearly this is an allusion to the content of the story in Genesis 3. The
OTP contains no note in the margin or in any of the footnotes that makes
this connection clear. Likewise, the Treatise of Shem is attributed to
Noah’s son, Shem, mentioned 13 times between Genesis 5:32 and 11:11
and again three times in 1 Chronicles chapter 1. Yet the Treatise of
Shem in OTP contains no scripture references in the margins at all and
virtually none in the footnotes. 4 Ezra 5:35f. says: “And I said, ‘Why
not, my lord? Why then was I born? Or why did not my mother’s womb
become my grave, that I might not see the travail of Jacob and the ex
-
haustion of the people of Israel?’” The editor notes the relationship with
two passages in Job.
Let the stars of its dawn be dark; let it hope for light, but have none;
may it not see the eyelids of the morning–10 because it did not shut
the doors of my mother’s womb, and hide trouble from my eyes.
11 “Why did I not die at birth, come forth from the womb and ex-
pire? 12 Why were there knees to receive me, or breasts for me to
suck?” Job 3:9
Why did you bring me forth from the womb? Would that I had died
before any eye had seen me, (19) and were as though I had not
been, carried from the womb to the grave. Job 10:18
However, the editor does not note the relationship with a correspond-
ing passage in Jeremiah.
Let that man be like the cities that the LORD overthrew without
pity; let him hear a cry in the morning and an alarm at noon, (17)
because he did not kill me in the womb; so my mother would have
been my grave, and her womb forever great. (18) Why did I come
forth from the womb to see toil and sorrow, and spend my days in
shame? Jeremiah 20:16
One could make a case that the passage in Jeremiah is a better paral
-
lel since it contains not only the idea of dying in the womb, but also not
having to “See toil and sorrow” which parallels “That I might not see
the travail of Jacob and the exhaustion of the people of Israel.”
Some works in OTP seem to include in marginal notations only
cross-references to works which are cited in them, that is to works coming
chronologically before them (e.g., the Old Testament), and not to works
which cite them, e.g. the New Testament. The margins of the Lives of
the Prophets are conspicuous for very few references to the New Testa
-
ment. An obvious opportunity to include this type of reference would
106 JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS & THEOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Downloaded by [George Fox University] at 10:24 12 March 2015
have been at LivPro 2:8 where the text says, “Through a savior, a child
born of a virgin in a manger.” This text clearly relates to Luke 2:12 in
some way or another, but one finds a note to this effect only in the foot
-
note. There are only a few exceptions to this tendency in Lives of the
Prophets: for example, Mt. 23:35 at LivPro 23:1 and Rev. 12:9, 17 at
LivPro 12:13.
The user must be aware that there is quite a difference from book to
book regarding the overlap between the scripture references in the mar
-
gin and those in the footnotes. I quoted above the editor’s decision to
limit the marginal notations to “Significant parallels in biblical and
apocryphal writings.” However, neither the editor’s general introduc
-
tion nor the contributor’s introductions make clear the relationship
between the references in the footnotes and those in the margins. Some-
times, as in the Life of Adam and Eve, for instance, the latter seem to be
merely a subset of the former; the marginal notes seem to replicate pre-
cisely the cross-references contained in the footnotes.
7
4 Maccabees
contains something approaching parity on this point. Most of the scrip-
ture references in the margins also appear in the footnotes. But in other
books there is virtually no overlap between the two–the margins contain
cross-references not included anywhere in the footnotes–and one is left
to wonder whether significant parallels to biblical and apocryphal writ-
ings are supposed to be limited to marginal notations or whether the
footnotes can contain “significant parallels” as well.
The reader must be aware that similar phenomena are handled differ-
ently from book to book. For instance, the Testament of Abraham is ex-
tant in two recensions. Both are printed, recension B following recension
A, in volume 1 of OTP. Each recension has its own set of footnotes, but
there is little comment in the footnotes about the relationship between the
recensions. 3 Baruch exists in two versions, Slavonic and Greek, but in
this case were published side by side to allow for easy comparison. Both
recensions are footnoted although the footnoting system can be a bit
confusing. The footnotes are numbered consecutively back and forth
between the two recensions in a manner that could be construed at first
glance to suggest that the texts should be read sequentially in the same
manner, verse one in the Slavonic version and then verse one in the
Greek version and so on. Closer examination shows that this is clearly
not the case. The Questions of Ezra is likewise preserved in two recen
-
sions, and, like the Testament of Abraham, these were published sequen
-
tially (the Venice text first, followed by the Menologium text). But in this
case the majority of attention was given to the former recension that re
-
ceived all but one of the 20 footnotes.
Steve Delamarter 107
Downloaded by [George Fox University] at 10:24 12 March 2015
CONCLUSIONS
There is a lesson here for the reader, for the editor and for the indexer.
Clearly, the reader who is aware of these features of the OTP and of
the challenges of indexing will be in the best position to use both works
intelligently. The collected cross-references from the OTP represent a
veritable mine of data from which the informed user can extract an ex
-
traordinary amount of information on a wide variety of topics.
To future editors I would say that the lessons learned in this project
could be of use for the next generation of large-scale works such as the
OTP. There is a lot at stake in having clear editorial protocols. This is the
front line in the war against ambiguity. Clear editorial protocols can also
ensure a minimum loss of information from the scholar to the reader.
Perhaps the greatest lesson that I learned as an indexer was that ambi-
guity could serve a very useful function. Like the canary in the coal-
mine, it provided the first warning that something needed to be done. I
learned that instead of dreading or ignoring ambiguity, I could use it as a
prompt to identify an aspect of the work before me that needed clarifica-
tion. So, in an ironic way, ambiguity can mark the first step on the path-
way toward clarity.
What specifically can be done to improve the usefulness of scripture
indices? It is not the intent of this article to propose a highly polished
system. Nevertheless, we can make a few suggestions.
At some point it seems advisable to devise a cross-reference system
that can tag cross-references by type. The challenge, of course, is to come
up with a set of categories that cover the full range of possible types of
connections that scholars perceive to exist between two texts. Any
scholar worth their salt could come up with dozens of categories, but I
suspect that any system with dozens of categories would defeat the clarity
and usefulness of the system. I suspect that a system with some number of
categories between half a dozen and ten would be ideal. Let me propose a
sample system with just a few categories that I think would be helpful to
those working in biblical studies, for instance.
First among the categories that should be tagged, in my view, would
be quotations (Q) and allusions (A). Beyond these would be categories
that indicate connections between texts that are linguistic (and/or liter
-
ary) in kind (L), historical in kind (H) and ideational in kind (i.e., theo
-
logical, philosophical, ideological, [T]). A few other obvious categories
could be added. And there can always be a category to cover all the re
-
maining categories (O for “other”) or for cross-references that do not
seem to fit into any of the pre-defined categories. I know of no reason
108 JOURNAL OF RELIGIOUS & THEOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Downloaded by [George Fox University] at 10:24 12 March 2015
why it should not be possible for the same cross-reference to be tagged
with more than one category type if necessary.
I see several benefits to such a system. If the scholar suggesting the
cross-reference were the one to tag the type of the cross-reference, this
would immediately solve the first problem of the user or an editor having
to reconstruct the nature of the cross-reference signaled by the scholar.
For the user who is looking for something that fits neatly into one of the
categories, a system with ten tags could cut the user’s time by nine-tenths.
These are just a few ideas to get the conversation started. I hope that
this contribution can serve to sensitize editors of future projects to the
issues involved in indexing their works.
NOTES
1. Sheffield: Academic Press, 2003.
2. John Canne, Puritan publisher and pamphleteer working in Amsterdam in the
1640s, produced “Cannes Marginal Notes and References.” These were published in
several bible editions in the seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries. The work
was revised and expanded by R. A. Torrey (1856-1928) to become the Treasury of
Scripture Knowledge. In its modern, electronic form it is included in various bible soft-
ware programs like BibleWorks and Logos.
3. James Sanders recently provided a good overview of the content differences between
the canons of various believing communities: “ ‘Spinning’ the Bible: How Judaism and
Christianity Shape the Canon Differently.” Bible Review 14 (1998) 22-29, 44-45.
4. We could not verify that the practice of placing “the letter v plus the number of the
verse” was ever actually employed in OTP.
5. But why does the cross-reference at 2 Baruch 16:1 refer to “Pss 90:9-10” and that
at 2 Baruch 14:16 to “Pss 33:6?” There are, in fact, other examples of the occasional
inconsistent use of “Pss” to refer an individual psalm. At 16:1 in the book of 2 Baruch,
for instance, we find the reference “Pss 90:9-10;” but at 2 Baruch 46:3 we find “Ps
119:92-93.” Likewise, Apocalypse of Elijah 1:20 refers to “Pss 24:4.”
6. Further examples can be found in the following: 2 Enoch 24:5, footnote h, refers
to “Eccl 24:7.” This must be Sirach 24:7. Again, 2 Enoch 30:17, footnote r, refers to
“Eccl 25:23;” 2 Enoch 51:1, footnote a, refers to “Eccl 29:10.” These references are to
the book of Sirach. The Testament of Job 33:3, footnote g, refers to “Eccl 23:4.” Again,
TJob 38:1, footnote a, refers to “Eccl 36:7.” Both of these must refer to Sirach.
7. Though occasionally something new is added, following are the few footnotes that
contain Scripture references that are in addition to those in the margins: Vita 6:3, ftnt b;
Vita 14:1, ftnt a; Vita 21:1, ftnt a; Vita 25:3, ftnt a; Vita 36:2, ftnt a; Apoc 12:2, ftnt a.
Steve Delamarter 109
Downloaded by [George Fox University] at 10:24 12 March 2015
