wisdom,” and “the river of knowledge.” The association of esoteric revela-
tion with more discerning readers is reminiscent of Daniel. It is tempting
to see here a distinction between “canonical” and “noncanonical” writings.
However, the force of the passage emphasizes that both groups of writings,
though distinct, are equally revelatory. Indeed, if from4 Ezra12:37-38 one
has the impression that the activity behind4 Ezraitself is “hidden,” in
14:37-48 the writer presents himself as the primary mediator among those
who produced all ninety-four books (without even mentioning Moses). It
was only later, for example, in the fourth centuryc.e., that Epiphanius of
Salamis (De Mensuris et Ponderibus10, Armenian), perhaps influenced by
4 Ezra14, turned the partition of the same number of writings into a clas-
sification of first- and second-rank books in the Septuagint: twenty-two
works of the Old Testament and seventy-two “apocryphal” works. This
ranking, however, says less about4 Ezraitself than about ideas of
canonicity that had developed by Epiphanius’s time. (c) In2 Baruchthe
seer, having been instructed to seal divine commands given to him (20:3-
4), concludes his work by saying, “I folded it, sealed it cautiously, and
bound it to the neck of the eagle. And I let it go and sent it away” (87:1).
The passages just cited from Daniel and4 Ezramake clear that their
intended reception among a more exclusive class of “wise” readers under-
scores their special value rather than having anything to do with any mea-
sure of inferiority later associated with the term “apocrypha” as, for exam-
ple, would later be the case with Rufinus and Jerome. Instead, revelation
for a privileged group would have underscored its particular value. An
analogy for this may be detected in Jesus’ exclusive teaching of parables to
his disciples preserved in the Synoptic Gospels (see Mark 4:10-11; Matt.
13:10-11; Luke 8:9-10).
The self-presentation of Daniel,4 Ezra,and2 Baruchas “hidden”
works shows the degree to which the term “apocrypha” does not describe
the character of those books that would later be collected under this desig-
nation. Indeed, while Daniel came to be understood as “biblical,”4 Ezra
was treated as “deuterocanonical” or “apocryphal,” and2 Baruchwas as-
signed to the “pseudepigrapha.”Recent Use of “Apocrypha” as a Title for Ancient Documents
Whereas the notion of “hiddenness” is part of the literary technique em-
ployed by the authors of Daniel,4 Ezra,and2 Baruch,the term “apocry-187Apocrypha and PseudepigraphaEERDMANS -- Early Judaism (Collins and Harlow) final text
Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:04:01 PM