Summary of Galatians 2

 This is the second of two week 6 discussion questions from my Spring 2022 course Understanding the Bible as a Progressive Christian through Pathways Theological Education.

Summarize the story Paul tells in Galatians 2 with attention to the issues raised by Osiek concerning women and foreigners.

Galatians 2 starts out with Paul in the middle of recounting his background and credentials in becoming an apostle. Paul reports that 14 years after he was last in Jerusalem (and about 17 or 18 years after his conversion based on information in 1), he had a revelation that he needed to go to Jerusalem to consult with the apostles there. He was accompanied by Barnabas and Titus (who was a Greek gentile). In Jerusalem he met with the apostles to share what he was preaching to the Gentiles and make sure he wasn't leaving anything important out. He specifically says he wasn't looking for approval because that comes from God. The Jerusalem leaders did not feel the need to add anything except that he "remember the poor" (collect donations for the central Jerusalem church), something he claims was always his goal. He gives the fact that he was not asked to circumcise Titus as proof that the Jerusalem leaders agreed with him that it was unnecessary for gentile Christians to convert to Judaism or follow Jewish law. (Circumcision is both part of converting for men and required for Jews in the law and  Paul uses circumcision as a symbol of both converting and following all the rules of the law.) It was agreed that he would focus on preaching to the gentiles and both the 3 of them and Paul's mission to the gentiles was treated as equal in value to the preexisting apostles to the Jews and the mission of sharing the good news among the Jews. This wasn't uncontroversial among the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem and some of them tried to force Paul to make the gentile believers follow the Law out of obligation, not out of God's will or in accordance to anything in the truth Paul was preaching, but he did not give in to the social pressure.

Despite this being settled, and Cephas following this advice, Cephas gave in to public pressure and started again promoting the need to follow the law, convincing others to go along with him, and Paul called him out for hypocrisy and shares his teaching on this with his readers: Whether born a Jew or Gentile, it is impossible to become righteous just by following the Law, it requires Christ. The most important thing is to live for God and follow Christ. If we try to do that via the law, we break the law. If we ignore the grace of God and try to follow the law, Christ died for nothing.

Galatians Genre and Setting

This is the first of two week 6 discussion questions from my Spring 2022 course Understanding the Bible as a Progressive Christian through Pathways Theological Education.

Identify the genre and Sitz im Leben (literally, “setting in life”; the many contexts that shape a work, e.g., geography, historical era, purpose, et.c.) of Galatians.

Galatians is a pastoral epistle. That is to say, a letter specifically written for the purpose of meeting the needs of a set of Christians in following their faith in their day to day life. It was written by Paul to the members of churches he had originally founded but was now getting (bad) advice from other sources.  Like many of Paul's churches, these churches were predominantly made up of gentiles who had started following Christ. We know from 2:1 that it occurs after his meeting with the apostles in Jerusalem which is occurred around 49 CE, likely late 40's to early 50's CE. These churches were likely in the Roman province of Galatia. Although we don't know specifically were these churches were, we do know from Acts that in Galatia, Paul completed missionary work in Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra and Derbe. The purpose of the letter was to correct errors in the church members' Christian walk based on advice they received from later missionaries who were encouraging them to be more Jewish - convert to Judaism (including circumcision) and generally follow the Torah, or law.  At this point in early Christian history, the movement was trying to determine whether or not it was a part of Judaism or separate and if separate to what extent. 

Historical Setting of Ruth

This is the second of two week 5 discussion questions from my Spring 2022 course Understanding the Bible as a Progressive Christian through Pathways Theological Education.

Describe the historical setting of the Book of Ruth. Discuss the possible scenarios that hypothesize an early date (~1000-600 BCE) or to a late date (after 500 BCE) for its composition.

The Book of Ruth is set in Bethlehem in Judea during a good harvest season after a time of extended famine.

The text itself starts "During the days when Judges ruled" (Ruth 1:1a CEB), this sets an earliest possible date of sometime after Saul's reign. However, it ends with a genealogy that leads to David, which sets David's reign as the earliest possible date. (I think you can argue that's a later addition, but a couple generations is still in the early window.)

The language used is often representative of the earlier window. However, it contains some grammar and idioms representative of later Biblical Hebrew. The author may have attempted to use archaic language as a stylistic element but did so imperfectly, resulting in some then contemporary usage mixed in. Eskenazi argues for intentional archicisms by pointing out that the older language mainly occurs in the dialog of the older generation (Naomi, Boaz). Fentress-Williams mentions another explanation, the story could have circulated orally during the earlier period and been written down later.

Ruth is sometimes called the first short story and Alter reports that the later period was marked by "the veritable explosion of new narrative genres," which would make a new literary form more likely. However, we don't have to consider Ruth to be a short story, it has a lot of elements in common with folk tales, a type of story often referred to as "timeless." 

Ruth could be viewed as apologia for King David's mixed ethnic background, a task that would only have been necessary during the early period, because by the later period he was uniformly revered. This is in line with Rabbinic sources that attribute Ruth, along with Judges and Samuel to the prophet Samuel, possibly in response to a controversy about David's qualifications for kingship. (Eskenazi) At the same time, it's possible that his mixed background was a possibly open, but unspoken secret during his lifetime. (Fentress-Williams) On the other hand, Ruth could be a response to the post-exilic passages in Ezra where foreign wives and mixed children were to be sent away, offering a defense of such family members.

This is by no means an exhaustive discussion of the evidence regarding dating this book, but I feel like other scenarios either depend on one of the above  or reflect the same issues in a slightly different form.

Alter, Robert. The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary: The Writings. W. W. Norton & Company, 2019.

Eskenazi, Tamara Cohn, and Tikva Simone Frymer-Kensky, editors. Ruth רות: the traditional Hebrew text with the new JPS translation. 1st ed, Jewish Publication Society, 2011.

Fentress-Williams, Judy. Ruth. Abingdon Press, 2012.

The Temple in Kings versus Chronicles

This is the first of two week 5 discussion questions from my Spring 2022 course Understanding the Bible as a Progressive Christian through Pathways Theological Education.

Outline the major differences between the story of the building of the Jerusalem Temple as told in 1 Kings and 1-2 Chronicles. Infer the reasons for those differences based on your reading of Guenther.

There were 3 major differences between these two stories that immediately stood out to me. 

 Chronicles contains more of a focus on David's role in planning and conceiving the temple, while Kings moves the focus to Solomon carrying out the plan. Both include Solomon's words of blessing and prayer at the temple dedication, although Chronicles includes more detail.

 God appears in dramatic and miraculous ways in the Chronicles account, both during the dedication ("a cloud filled the Lord’s temple. The priests were unable to carry out their duties on account of the cloud because the Lord’s glory filled God’s temple" (2 Chronicles 5:13b-14 NRSV, this is also 1 Kings 8:10-11) and "As soon as Solomon finished praying, fire came down from heaven and consumed the entirely burned offering and the sacrifices, while the Lord’s glory filled the temple. 2 The priests were unable to enter the Lord’s temple because the Lord’s glory had filled the Lord’s temple. " (2 Chronicles 7:1-2)) and later in a detailed vision to Solomon while dreaming. (A short summary of a similar vision appears at a different point in Kings.) 

Another difference that made an impression on me was who did the manual labor. Both versions report that conscripted workers were used. However, in Kings they appear to have been chosen equitably from the entire population. In Chronicles, they were mostly or only immigrants depending on how you interpret the description. While this seems minor, I think there is an important difference between "we labored with our own hands to create this, each taking on their fair share" and "we forced others to make this for us, at little real sacrifice on our part." I think you could argue that working on a community project such as the temple could be a path to respect from and inclusion in the greater community, but we don't see any evidence of that happening.

A more obvious, but in my opinion likely minor difference is that Kings includes more detail about the amazing craftsmanship of the items in the temple and attributes the work to specific craftspeople, while Chronicles attributes the making to Solomon, while at the same time being clear that it was made at his direction. (As an aside, I think this is an important possibility to remember when we see authorship of Biblical texts attributed to David and Solomon, like the temple fittings they may have been commissioned.) I think both authors were trying to give an accurate picture of both the scope of work involved and help their readers form a mental portrait of the glory, beauty and craftsmanship of the temple and that the differences have more to do with the authors' respective writing styles than any intended difference in message.

Gunther posits that the reason for the differences between these two accounts is that they are "historical interpretations" by two different authors, with two different viewpoints and goals. He believes that Kings is part of a longer story (Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings) by a single author, the Deuteronomist. "The Deuteronomist traces the story of the people under the terms of the Sinaitic covenant, emphasizing Israel’s obligation to observe all the commandments, to reverence the LORD alone and to worship him only at the central, authorized shrine." Before going on to Gunther's view of the author of Chronicles, I want to point out that the inherent respect for a "central, authorized shrine" would be higher for one that was built by the community and thus belonged to "all of us." This may explain why the Deuteronomist described the conscription process as random and egalitarian.

Getting to the author of Chronicles, Gunther believes "the Chronicler is concerned to demonstrate the continuity of God’s redemptive activity from creation to the time of the restoration following the Babylonian exile."  This continuity of activity explains why God's activities in Chronicles are more obvious and dramatic than in Kings. The Chronicler holds up David as the ideal king and ruler and is equally complementary of his son and heir Solomon. (Gunther also mentions that the Chronicler is more concerned with kings being right with God (or not) at the end of their life and values repentance, it would be hard to hold David as an ideal without doing so.) Valuing David so highly explains why the Chronicler's story of the temple starts with David making the plans and handing them over to Solomon. This combined with his strong approval for Solomon explains why he speaks of Solomon as the doer of tasks that Solomon merely commissioned - if Solomon "made the pilar" (or whatever) when actually he commissioned it; David "made the temple" by setting his son up to build it. This may also explain his pointing out the fact that immigrants did the manual labor - if it wasn't "us", it was Solomon and by extension David. If it was "us" (randomly chosen people of Israel), then "we" deserve some of the glory. 

In both cases, the contents of Solomon's speeches and letters, the reply from the King of Tyre (particularly in Chronicles), and God's word in the vision are used to further the viewpoints of the authors. This doesn't necessarily make either source more or less accurate, these are at best summaries of what was said and naturally, what is important to the summarizer is going to make a summary. God's vision to Solomon is particularly illustrative of this. In Kings, the description of the vision is very short and basically a summary of the Deuteronomist's viewpoint. "The Lord’s word came to Solomon, Regarding this temple that you are building: If you follow my laws, enact my regulations, and keep all my commands faithfully, then I will fulfill for you my promise that I made to your father David. I will live among the Israelites. I won’t abandon my people Israel."(1 Kings 6:11-13 NRSV) However, the Chronicler ends the story of the temple with a much more detailed dream vision.  It is the end of this vision that I want to highlight, 2 Chronicles 7 19-22 NRSV:

But if any of you ever turn away from and abandon the regulations and commands that I have given you, and go to serve other gods and worship them,  then I will uproot you from my land that I gave you, and I will reject this temple that I made holy for my name. I will make it a joke, insulted by everyone.  Everyone who passes by this temple—so lofty now—will be shocked and will wonder, Why has the Lord done such a thing to this land and temple? The answer will come, Because they abandoned the Lord, the God of their ancestors, who brought them out of Egypt. They embraced other gods, worshipping and serving them. This is why God brought all this disaster on them.

Remember that the Chronicler is writing after the temple has been destroyed and trying to show that God is still actively working for the audience's redemption. By setting a reason why God would allow the temple to be destroyed in the story of the temple's creation, the Chronicler is able to set up even the destruction of the temple as God being present.

Finally, I want to say that I find it interesting that Christians have issues with "inconsistencies" between the histories in Kings versus Chronicles (and I have seen this myself), when we have 4 Gospels with similar parallels and differences that we usually manage to ignore.

Guenther, Allen R. “Kings and Chronicles: Interpreting Historical Interpretation.”  Direction Journal, vol. 11, no. 2, Apr. 1982, pp. 4–15, https://directionjournal.org/11/2/kings-and-chronicles-interpreting.html.

Dark and Lovely

This is the second of two week 3 discussion questions from my Spring 2022 course Understanding the Bible as a Progressive Christian through Pathways Theological Education.

Describe how the different translations of Song of Solomon render 1:5-6. Infer what the best translation might be given the time at which the poem was written and its geographical location/setting. Discuss how such translation differences could both influence social perceptions about women of color and be influenced by social perceptions about women of color.

 These two verses describe the coloring, in particular, of the woman in Song of Solomon. All of them refer to her as dark, but with different amounts of emphasis. There are essentially two references to her complexion, verse 5 refers to how she looks / her natural coloring (which could be hair, skin coloring or a combination of both) and verse 6a refers the fact that her skin shows signs of working in the sun. Robert Alter in his notes on these verses points out that this would mark her as a peasant, not an elegant (presumably richer) urban girl like the daughters of Jerusalem. This is a class marker that still exists in modern times - women are encouraged to wear sunscreen, makeup and otherwise take care of our face, hands and arms to disguise the fact that we work and "protect" us from the aging effects of the sun and wind, rather than acknowledging them as signs of being a hard worker or just the reality of life. (Alternatively sun and wind damage can be painful, but it's still just reality for a lot of people.) I think the CEB gives the translation that best reflects the meaning of these verses in modern times:

Dark am I, and lovely, daughters of Jerusalem—
        like the black tents of the Kedar nomads,
        like the curtains of Solomon’s palace.
Don’t stare at me because I’m darkened
        by the sun’s gaze.

 A number of other translations use "but" or "yet" in place of "and" in the first line, and most start the line with "I am", both taking away from the emphasis on the darkness of the woman's complexion. So, rather than the CEB's emphasis on "Dark" and "Lovely", you get things like "I am black, but comely" (KJV), "I am black and beautiful" (NRSV), "Dark am I, yet lovely" (NIV), "I am very dark, but lovely" (ESV), "I am dark, but comely"(JPS1985) "I am dark but desirable" (Altair). I suspect that given the geographical setting in the Middle East and the beloved identifying her as a goat herder, the woman in question would have been more likely to self identify as dark and lovely and leave the "but", "yet" and despite type thoughts for the class related issue of being darkened by working in the sun. The Hebrew on Sefaria shows the first word of this is "שְׁחוֹרָ֤ה" and even my rusty prayerbook Hebrew can identify that as related to "שָׁחֹר" - black, which further shows the emphasis on her being dark or black. I think that the addition of "black" to "tents of the Kedar nomads" in the CEB is a modern addition as well, to add a piece of knowledge that would have been understood by contemporary readers. (In the notes in his translation, Alter says these tents have been made from black goat hair.) Other translations do not include Black there but I think it is a useful addition for modern readers.

While we were asked to address verses 1:5-6, I don't think this discussion would be complete without pointing out verses 1:8 and 1:15-16 where many translations have the beloved referring to her as "fair." The Merriam-Webster Dictionary has 2 definitions of "fair" that might apply here, definitions 4 "having very little color, coloring, or pigmentation : very light" and 5 "pleasing to the eye or mind especially because of fresh, charming, or flawless quality." Obviously if you pay attention to verses 5 and 6, it's clear that the later definition is the one implied here, however, since the former is a more common use, it is likely to come first to mind and reinforce any thoughts of pale or less pigmented skin as beautiful. I think the translations like the CEB, ESV, and NIV which translate this as "beautiful" do a better job of expressing meaning. (NRSV uses beautiful for 15-16 only.)

I think the de-emphasis on the darkness of this woman in most modern translations is a result of modern western social attitudes and perceptions that privilege whiteness and paleness in beauty, while at the same time, it reinforces those perceptions. This kind of cycle of disdain and invisibility is unfortunately common. The woman's acknowledgement of the lower class distinction of having skin that shows she has been working in the sun shows how intersectional issues often magnify negativity. If I, as a white woman with type 2 hair complain about my hair being tangled, that is interpreted as my being momentarily fed up. If a black woman with type 4 hair does so, it is often interpreted as her having "bad hair", not just "a bad hair day", or an issue with type 4 hair in general. While I am not naive enough to think using a translation like that in the CEB that emphasizes the woman's blackness is a solution, at least it is not increasing the damage.

Translation References:

Ruth 1:5-6 in KJV, NIV, NRSV, CEB and ESV

Ruth 1:8 in KJV, NIV, NRSV, CEB and ESV

Ruth 1:15-16 in KJV, NIV, NRSV, CEB and ESV

Ruth 1 parallel Hebrew / JPS 1983 on Sefaria

Robert Alter's The Hebrew Bible Vol. 3: The Writings, containing his translation of Ruth is not freely available online.

Story of Thomas

This is the second of two week 3 discussion questions from my Spring 2022 course Understanding the Bible as a Progressive Christian through Pathways Theological Education. (The first wasn't really meaningful as is outside of the constraints of the course.)

Summarize what you learned about the story of Thomas as though you are presenting it to a Bible study group before a discussion.

Note: I wrote this as if it were for my church and I'll probably use it for our Bible study, as such I specifically reference the CEB, which we privilege because it is better for our non-native English speaking members and our Bible study materials (Sharing God's Story @ Home, the Narrative Lectionary programs inserts from Spirit and Truth Publishing). My final line is not taken directly from those materials, but is influenced by some of the questions they suggest people think about at home and not necessarily how I would introduce the discussion were we using other materials or none at all. (But I am not unhappy with that direction.) Were I presenting this orally, I would probably not read the direct quotes from D. Mark Davis that are inline below, but keep them handy for discussion if needed.

Today we are going to focus on the story of Thomas from chapter 20 in the Gospel of John 

In the Narrative Lectionary, which our church uses, each year focuses on a single gospel, and this year's focus is on John. This is our last reading of the year from John, for the rest of the lectionary year we are mostly going to be studying Acts. Hopefully, at this point, we at least have an understanding of the background of the Gospel of John and if you don't yet have your own sense of how it differs from the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), I highly recommend that you read them if you haven't (or if reading on your own isn't your thing, we'll be covering Matthew next year and you'll be able to see the contrast.) I did want to share a quote about John in general that I think is particularly meaningful to this story. In her introduction to John in The Women's Bible Commentary, Gail R. O'Day says "in John, Salvation is found in and through the flesh, not apart from the flesh." I think it's worth reflecting on how this applies to this story in particular.

This week's reading is John 20:19-31 and while today, we are going to treat verses 19-23 as background information and focus on the story of Thomas in verses 24-31, that's not the only way to look at these verses. In verses 22-23, Jesus gives the apostles the gift of the Holy Spirit and says some important things about the forgiveness of sins. Not to mention that verse 21, where Jesus says "As the Father sent me, so I am sending you", is arguably John's version of Matthew 28:16-20, which you may have heard referred to as The Great Commission (and is the reading for this week next year.) Either of those topics are worthy of study in great depth, not being brushed aside as "just background", so please remember these verses going forward.

In this story, we have the disciples, minus Thomas, in a locked room, afraid and Jesus comes to them. Our CEB points out that they are afraid of "the Jewish Authorities", other translations say just "the Jews" or "the Judeans." Although it's not central to the story of Thomas, I think it's really important to comment on this because this verse and verses like it are often used as excuses for anti-semitism, unsubstantiated claims of Christian persecution, and otherwise separating people into us and them. The apostles are afraid of a specific group of locals in power, who specifically worked to turn Jesus over to the still more powerful  Romans. The apostles themselves are also Jews and have many Jewish supporters (but mainly in other areas of the country), but in every group of oppressed peoples, there are some who are willing to grovel to those in power for illusionary safety or power over others in their group. My Jewish Annotated New Testament points out that this fear is also based on Jesus's comments in John 16:2-3 that there will come a time when they will be persecuted. It's worth pointing out that the apostles don't need to be afraid in this context, the authorities do not bother them at this time, the only person who attempts to get into the room is Jesus himself. And thus, Jesus greeting them with "Peace be with you" is potentially multilayered, ranging from a standard Jewish greeting (Shalom) to his telling them that they do have peace in the moment, that is that this is not the time of oppression to come. Brian Stoffregen even points out that it can be an allusion to a future peaceful messianic age, although he doesn't think that is the primary intention here. Later, the other disciples tell Thomas what happened, he expresses doubts and states what he would need to have happen in order for him to believe - see Jesus and touch his wounds from the crucifiction himself. Then the next week, when Thomas is present, Jesus appears again, reassures the apostles again, and gives Thomas the opportunity to feel the wounds like he said he needs to. This story is often referred to as the story of doubting Thomas, but that's not necessarily a good summary. Thomas isn't the only one with doubts here, by the way. If you notice, despite Jesus reassuring them on the first visit, the disciples continue to meet in a locked room. When Thomas is reassured, he exclaims, "My Lord and my God!", which is more than recognition that it is in fact Jesus. Stoffregen refers to it as a confession and points out that he's using a formula for referring to Emperor Domitian, likely the emperor at the time the Gospel of John was written. Thus this confession has revolutionary implications, the immortal Jesus is the supreme power, not the mortal authorities. Finally,  The Jewish Study Bible points out that it could be an allusion to Psalm 35, which talks about people claiming to have seen things they did not and asking "My God and My Lord" to establish justice.

A last thing I want to touch on before we start discussing this story ourselves is some of the subtler meaning of the Greek that gets lost in translation. On the surface, just as Jesus tried to give the fearful apostles the sense of safety they need the first time he visits the locked room, Jesus gives Thomas what he says he needs, a chance to touch Jesus' wounds. However, when Thomas says he would need to actually feel the wounds to believe, D. Mark Davis tells us the word he uses for putting his hand into the wounds implies that his hand basically would fall into the wounds of their own accord while he's going about his business. ["βάλω: AASubj 1s, βάλλω, 1) to throw or let go of a thing without caring where it falls  1a) to scatter, to throw, cast into  1b) to give over to one's care uncertain about the result  1c) of fluids  1c1) to pour, pour into of rivers  1c2) to pour out  2) to put into, insert"] When Jesus appears before Thomas he tells him to feel with a word Davis says implies the movement requires some actual work. ["φέρε: PAImp 2s, φέρω, 1) to carry   1a) to carry some burden   1a1) to bear with one's self   1b) to move by bearing; move or, to be conveyed or borne, with the suggestion of force or speed"] In the Greek, Jesus is telling Thomas that what he wants is there, but he has to do more than the bare minimum, he has to put in some effort. I've seen discussion before over whether or not when Jesus goes on to say "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe" in verse 29 (this by the way is our study materials' suggested memory verse for this week), he is chiding Thomas for not believing without seeing, but perhaps the chide is for not even planning to make an effort to end his doubts. By the way, if you check the service challenge in our study materials for this week, it supports this view, suggesting that we take some sort of action like baking cookies or sending a note, to support our friends and family who may have doubts. Back to the idea of the possibility that Jesus is chiding anyone for not believing, remember it is the other apostles who still feel a need to be in a locked room despite Jesus' reassurance of peace.

So, let's talk about this passage and doubt and trust and how you go from doubt to trust.

The Bible As Received

This is the first of two week 2 discussion questions from my Spring 2022 course Understanding the Bible as a Progressive Christian through Pathways Theological Education and discusses the book How the Bible Came to Be by John Barton.

THE BIBLE AS RECEIVED: List the factors that made the process of finalizing the biblical books in writing a complex one for both the Old and New Testaments. Outline the reasons that some books are in the Apocrypha rather than in the Old Testament canon itself.

One factor that was new to me is the urge to have a set of books written or attributed to Moses. (I think this is a good spot to put the sentence I highlighted about author versus writer/scribe versus editor versus compiler that "The biblical world was not familiar with many of our finer distinctions." (p 34) ) The translation into Greek of the Law (5 books of Moses) and Prophets [which was used to be inclusive of what in Judaism today is referenced as the Prophets (Nevi'im) and the Writings (Ketuvim), but that is actually a later innovation], led to them starting to be presented as a single volume or collection. 

For the New Testament, it seems that over the first 100-200 years after Jesus, Christians came to first esteem, then collect together the 4 gospels as we know them, but it took about another 100 years for the current order to be agreed on - chronologically. Paul's letters (and the pseudo-Pauline letters) were likely collected due to a real or imagined belief that he wanted them shared among churches. (Barton mentions that Colossians 4:16 recommends sharing letters between churches, but also that Colossians may not be a genuine Pauline letter.) They are ordered (albeit imperfectly) by length. The other letters were also placed in length order, with the exception that letters by the same author were placed together. This leaves Acts and Revelations to be handled separately. I find it interesting that there were no collections that placed Acts immediately after Luke, despite it being the second half of the story. 

Some of the factors that Barton lists for why different books came to be seen as scripture include: 

*Citations* Mention of or quoting from the book by other well regarded (scriptural) books is a sign that the book may itself be scriptural.

*Authorship* For Jews, scriptural books are written by (or attributed to) prophets; for Christians, it is apostles and their close connections. It's important to note, though that good or valuable information may have been attributed to qualifying authors as much as actual authors may have qualified books as worth making into scripture.

*Date* Christians valued books believed to be written close to the time of Jesus and because Jews believe prophecy ceased after Ezra and that scripture must be written by prophets, only books believed to have been written before 500 BCE would qualify. (This seems to be why Sirach ended up in the Apocrypha.) Jews also seem to have believed that scripture started with Moses, as books attributed to earlier prophets do exist (and some were mentioned in the New Testament.)

*Relevance and Universality* Books that became scripture in Judaism were seen as universally applicable and relevant by the rabbis. In Christianity,  the test was were they relevant to early Christians and Paul, at least, argued for the relevance of the Hebrew scriptures as instructional and predictive of the current (to him) time. Barton seems to argue that the epistles, in particular, became scriptural because they could be "seen as belonging to all times and all places" (p. 64), but I saw nothing in his text to convince me that they were not universalized because they were considered scripture.

Aside from the above mentioned date issue, a major reason books became part of the apocrypha is that at the time of the translation of the bible from Greek to Latin, the Jews in Israel had decided that the books were not canonical, which brought them into doubt. They also were not as commonly quoted in the New Testament or by early Christian leaders. During the Reformation, in an attempt at making the Old Testament canon match the Hebrew canon, the apocryphal books were removed (or set aside in the case of the Lutherans and Anglicans) but the remaining books were not reordered to match the Jewish canonical order.