Tuesday, February 27, 2018

Book Giveaway

I'm not giving anything away, but the good folks at the ETC Blog are offering a free copy of the book I recently published with John Meade. Head over to their site for the details!

Sunday, December 17, 2017

Hays on the Fourth Gospel on the Law on the Death of Jesus

This is maybe my favorite passage from the fourth chapter (on the Fourth Gospel) in Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels (Baylor, 2016).
All of this suggests that there is vivid dramatic irony in the Fourth Gospel's trial scene before the Roman governor, when Pilate says to the Jewish authorities, "Take him and judge him according to your own law" (John 18:31). It has been the consistent testimony of John's story that if they did indeed judge Jesus rightly according to their own law, they would find his testimony to be the truth. And so when they later say to Pilate, "We have a law, and according to that law, he ought to die" (19:7), this is merely one more piece of evidence showing that they have both misjudged Jesus and misinterpreted the very law that actually bears witness to him. And yet, on another reading, might we consider whether this is one more case of exquisitely complex irony? Just as Caiaphas unwittingly prophesies truly that "it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed" (11:49–52), so also the Jewish leaders before Pilate unwittingly speak the truth: Jesus' death is indeed necessary "according to the law," in the sense that the law prefigures itas John has told us from the beginning of the story. (p. 300)
According to the note (430n44), Hoskyns (p. 523) and Keener (2.1125) also propose this "double meaning in John's statement." 

Tuesday, December 12, 2017

Cyril Loukaris on the Biblical Canon: Bibliography

The Greek Orthodox Church has never made an official pronouncement on the biblical canon in a council that they consider ecumenical. Actually, they regard as ecumenical only seven councils, the last one being Nicaea II in 787.  So, anyway, the biblical canon is a little more open in the Greek Orthodox world than it is in the Western world generally, that is, among Roman Catholics and Protestants. Specifically, with regard to the status of what are sometimes called the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, the Greek Orthodox allow for some disagreement. They pretty much all regard these books as important, but some theologians regard these books as sharing the same status as the other books of the Old Testament, while other theologians grant the deuterocanonical books a slightly lower status, suitable for reading and edification, suitable for the liturgy, but not suitable for establishing doctrine. The recent book by Pentiuc explains this aspect of Orthodox thinking.

Whereas in the West the big century for debates about the deuterocanonical books was the sixteenth century, in the East it was the seventeenth century, and the debates mostly centered around Cyril Loukaris, the Patriarch of Constantinople from 1621 until his assassination in 1638. Cyril appreciated certain emphases of the Protestant Reformers, particularly the Calvinists. In 1629, a Calvinist confession of faith appeared in Latin under the name of Cyril, followed two years later by a Greek translation. Cyril never admitted authoring this confession, but he never denied it either. At any rate, it created much controversy in the Orthodox world, even eliciting several councils for the purpose of condemning the confession (Constantinople 1638; Constantinople 1642; Jerusalem 1672).

The confession consists of 18 articles and 4 questions, and the 3rd question concerns the biblical canon. For the Old Testament, the confession admits only 22 canonical books, thus denying canonical status to the deuterocanonical books. Whereas this issue did not come up in the condemnations of this confession at the Councils of Constantinople in 1638 and 1642, it did come up at the Council of Jerusalem in 1672 in the confession of faith, adopted at the council, written by Dositheos, the Patriarch of Jerusalem and the convener of the council. Dositheos ascribed full canonicity to the deuterocanonical books.

These resources can be hard to track down, and the secondary literature does not always provide exact citations, sometimes even omitting the names of books discussed while merely summarizing the opinions of the figures mentioned. So, here I want to collect some resources in hopes that this post might prove helpful to those interested in this subject.

The Latin confession of 1629, attributed to Cryil Loukaris, is available here, but it does not contain the four questions at the end. They are available in Greek and Latin in the text published in the mid-nineteenth century by Kimmel, here. The question about the biblical canon (question 3) appears on pp. 42–43.

As for the reception of this confession, this article by Michaelides (1943) is extremely helpful. About three months after his assassination (27 June 1638), Cyril was anathematized at the Synod of Constantinople convened in 1638 (24 September). The acts of this council have been published in vol. 4.1 of Conciliorum oecumenicorum generaliumque decreta (Brepols, 2016), pp. 231–51. According to the introduction (prepared by Niki Papaïliaki): "The Synod deals with eight subjects, which are the points of disagreement between the Reformed Church and the Catholic Church: the infallibility of the Church, predestination, the mediation of saints, free will, the number of sacraments, transubstantiation, almsgiving, prayers for the dead, and icons" (p. 232).

Four years later another council was held in Constantinople, and it again took up the matter of the confession of Cryil. The acts of this council are published in the same volume, immediately after the acts of the 1638 council. The introduction (prepared by Symeon Paschalidis) says that the 1642 council "produced the present document, which condemned eighteen propositions by Cyril Loukaris and which was sent to the Synod of Iaşi" (p. 255). Of the eighteen propositions condemned, none has to do with the biblical canon.

The next council in the same volume is the more famous Synod of Jerusalem 1672. This council once again took up the matter of Cyril Loukaris' confession, rejecting the confession but denying the authenticity of the attribution to Cyril. Again, the biblical canon was not, at this point, a matter under discussion, but, as mentioned earlier, the council also gave approval to a confession of faith by Dositheos. This confession of faith does take up the issue of the biblical canon. Unfortunately, the collection published by Brepols does not include this confession of faith. The very last line of the introduction (Vassa Kontouma and S. Garnier) says: "Dositheos' profession of faith has also been left out" (p. 278). The very beginning of the confession is printed at p. 319, to inform readers where it came in the acts, after the sixth chapter. The confession of Dositheos can be found in several other editions, referenced in the biblioigraphy (pp. 278–79) of the Brepols edition. One option would be to go to the previous edition of the Jerusalem Council, the edition prepared in the mid-twentieth century by Ioannis Karmiris, which formed the basis for the Brepols edition. Fortunately, this edition is available online here. For the confession of Dosietheos, go to vol. 2, pp. 734–73. The question on the biblical canon appears at pp. 769–70. There is also an English translation in Roberton's work, pp. 155–56.

These Synods of Constantinople/Iaçi 1642 and Jerusalem 1672 approved of a confession of faith by Peter Mogila, which also did not directly address the biblical canon, though it did quote from deuterocanonical literature. The text is also available from Karmiris, vol. 2, pp. 593–686.

Sometimes reviews of this period also mention a confession of faith by Metrophanes Kritopoulos, a friend of Cyril Loukaris, who sent Kritopoulos to Oxford for study. Kritopoulos published his confession in 1625, so before the one attributed to Cyril, and in ch. 7 he restricted the Old Testament canon to the 22 books. This confession of faith can also be accessed in Karmiris, with the comments on the biblical canon coming at pp. 529–30. Interestingly, when Kritopoulos had become Patriarch of Alexandria, he signed the condemnation of Cyril Loukaris issued from the Council of Constantinople 1638. 

Finally, I'll mention Meletios Syrigos, who wrote a work in 1640 against the confession of Cyril. This work was published later in 1690 by Dositheos, in an edition that also includes the confession of faith by Dositheos. This 1690 edition is available online in a very annoying PDF. The bit about the biblical canon appears on pp. 155v–156r. 

Monday, December 4, 2017

Grabe, The History of the Seventy Two Interpreters (Preface)

On a recent trip to Harvard's Houghton Library I was able to take a look at one of the first English translations of the Letter of Aristeas, published in 1715, edited by John Ernest Grabe and translated into English by Thomas Lewis. This volume is apparently not available online (at any rate, my searches have proven fruitless), though several American libraries hold a copy (if WorldCat can be trusted). (Images of some pages may be viewed here.) I took advantage of my trip to Boston for the SBL to take a look at this book, especially its preface.

The preface was apparently written by Lewis rather than by Grabe and translated by Lewis. Primarily two reasons lead me to this view. First, after the Letter of Aristeas there appears "The History of the Angels, and Their Gallantry with the Daughters of Men," and the preface to this document is explicitly the work of Lewis insomuch as he refers to Grabe by name (p. 177). Also, I take it that the "best Authority"mentioned in the last paragraph of our preface as constituting the basis for the presentation of Aristeasis Grabe, and so this third person reference would again indicate that it is Lewis who penned the preface.

I was interested in this preface primarily because it is sometimes cited as an important early articulation of the Alexandrian Canon idea. See, for instance, Albert C. Sundberg, Jr., "The Old Testament: A Christian Canon," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 30 (1968): 143–55, at 144n4, who attributes this view to Lewis.

In a slightly more extensive, but still brief, interaction with this preface, Sundberg says the following:
Grabe had published an edition of the Letter of Aristeas in Greek. Thomas Lewis "made English" this work and published it in 1715. In the preface, presumably prefixed by Lewis, it is asserted that a larger Old Testament collection was used at the Jewish temple at Leontopolis in Egypt, from which it passed by the hands of wandering Jews, into Palestine. Jesus and his apostles, when they cited from the scriptures, made use of this version, and thus it passed into the church. But Lewis' theory is too fantastic to merit serious consideration. (The Old Testament of the Early Church [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964], 19)
In the context of this statement from Sundberg, the implication is that the "larger Old Testament collection" in use among Jews at Leontopolis would have included the deuterocanonical books. In the preface, Lewis does propose that a Greek translation of a large collection of Jewish Scripture was in use at Heliopolis (= Leontopolis), but this collection was "large" in comparison to the Greek translation of the Septuagint, whichas Lewis arguedamounted to the Pentateuch alone. So, Lewis is talking about books of the Hebrew Bible outside the Pentateuch. In fact, Lewis explicitly mentions the Law and the Prophets as contained in this translation. That means that this preface has nothing at all to do with the Alexandrian Canon idea, and the earliest articulation of the view should be attributed to Francis Lee in 1719 (note again this post). 

But you can see for yourself whether I'm misinterpreting Lewis. Here is the complete preface, along with inserted page numbers in brackets. The bit about Heliopolis appears at pp. viii–ix. 

The Preface

The History of Aristeas, concerning the Version of the Septuagint, is of that Antiquity, and so Particular and Faithful in the Account, that I wonder it never appeared in our Language to any Advantage. We have no Record of this Immortal Action, but what we receive from Josephus (who imperfectly transcribed our Author) and [ii] some uncertain Traditions, which afford but a broken Idea of an Enterprize so Glorious, that deserves so well of Religion and the Learned World.

The Author before us was a Jew by Extraction, who resided at the Court of Ptolomaeus Philadelphus King of Egypt. He was a Person of singular Moderation and Wisdom; of great Esteem with the King for his Judgment and Modesty, and admitted into all his Counsels. To Aristeas we owe, not only the Relation, but the Being of the Septuagint. He was the first who advanced the Undertaking; was principally in the Management of the Business, and therefore the best [iii] qualified to deliver the Circumstances of it.

It is past Controversie, I suppose, that the Person who bears the Name of this Treatise, was in the same Character we represent him; though I am sensible it is disputed by the Great Scaliger; who imagines the History of the Interpreters to be later in Time, than wherein we have placed it: But we may as well debate upon the Authority of all Ancient Writings; since Josephus (of the same Nation, and Faithful where Moses is not to be opposed) and Philo the Jew, allow this Relation to be the Genuine produce of Aristeas the Embassador to Jerusalem, and the Favourite in the Egyptian Court.

[iv] The name of the Septuagint proceeds from the Seventy Two Interpreters, and call'd so for the sake of the Sound: For I cannot believe a Manuscript in the Bodleian Library, which informs us that two of the Elders never arriv'd at Alexandria, but died upon their Journey.

The Learned in all Ages have been various in their Opinions concerning the Version of the Septuagint: St. Jerome assures us, that the Seventy Two Translated only the Five Books of Moses, because our Author, Aristobulus, and Philo say, they only interpreted the Law; which, in the common Acceptation, [v] only signifies the Pentateuch; and if any one takes it to imply all the Books of the Old Testament, they will find Josephus informing us, that the Word Law only imports the Writings of the Jewish Legislator, which is only applicable to Moses. The Thalmudists are of the same mind: Yet Justin, and most of the Ancient Fathers were of Opinion, that the Seventy Translated the whole Bible: But this, in my Judgment, seems to be Physically impossible: For (to use the Words of D'Espieres) we cannot morally suppose, that those immense Volumes of the Holy Scriptures, could be even Transcrib'd in the Space of Seventy Two Days; much less be perfectly Translated out of [vi] the Hebrew into the Greek Language.

We may believe therefore, that the Five Books of Moses, and no more, were Interpreted at Alexandria, and that they were dispos'd of in the Royal Library there. The Version, we cannot doubt, was accurate and exact, according to the Purity of the Hebrew Text; but the Corruptions and Mistakes that are obvious to be discover'd in our common Translation, seem to convince, that our Greek Septuagint is either altogether different from the Interpretation of the Seventy, or very miserably abus'd and deprav'd insomuch that a Learned* Jesuit [vii] declares it to be rather a Labour of Divine Omnipotence, than Human Industry, to recover it to its Primitive Integrity. And his Censure appears to be just; For we are assur'd by History, that the Library of Ptolomaeus Philadelphus was burnt in the time of the Alexandrian War, and the Original Version, 'tis certain, perish'd in the Flames: We are satisfied, that there was another Library erected (which was called the Daughter of the First) by Cleopatra, the last of the Alexandrian Queens, in the Temple of Serapis; to furnish this Library, Herod the King of the Jews at that time sent the Holy Books, in the Hebrew Language, and likewise a Greek Interpretation, [viii] that was made use of by the Greeks in Syria and Palestine, and was to be seen in the time of St. Chrysostom: But by what means that Version, which was in use among the Primitive Fathers of the Church, came to pass upon the World for the Genuine Labour of the Seventy Two Interpreters, it cannot be improper to look into Antiquity and discover.

[*Petrus Possinus]

Before the Fall of the Ptolomaean Library, wherein the Perfect Interpretation was dispos'd, we have an Account from Alexander Polyhistor, that there was a confus'd Interpretation, not only of the Pentateuch, but likewise of the Prophets, in the Hands of the Jews: [ix] The Author of this Version is supposed to be a Jew, who Officiated in the Temple of Heliopolis; which was built by Onias, one of the Generals of Ptolomaeus Philometor, in opposition to the Temple at Jerusalem: And, it is probable, this Version was read in that Temple by some Apostate Priests, who ministered in the Offices, and were very little concern'd about the Justness or Purity of the Translation. From Egypt this corrupt Interpretation was receiv'd by many of those Jews, who were dispers'd among the Greeks, in whose Synagogues, part of the Law, and the Prophets, was read out of those imperfect Books, every Sabbath Day. From these wandering Hebrews, this Version was [x] deliver'd to the Grecians, and from them to the Latins. And our Saviour, and his Apostles, when they had occasion for Citations out of the Old Scriptures, made use of this vitious Interpretation, for this reason, I suppose, because it was commonly admitted, and universally known by all the Jews: Yet this, by the way, is no Argument to prove the Authority of this Version; for it was Prudence in the Apostles not to appeal to any other Interpretation than what was familiarly handled and every Body was intimately acquainted with.

[xi] But yet it cannot be deny'd, that the Greek Edition, corrupt as it was, was very Authentic in the Christian Church, though it varies in Chronology, and the Relation of some Historical Facts, from the Purity of the Hebrew Original: But that which confirm'd it in the Opinion of the Learned, was the Glorious Title of the Seventy Two Interpreters; which it gradually assum'd, as the Copies of the Pure Version grew in disuse, and out of the Hands of the World. this Additional Character gave it a Recommendation; and to fortifie it with Divine Authority, there was invented a Device, That the Seventy two Hebrews were shut up in diffe- [xii] rent Apartments, out of the Communication of each other; and that upon a Comparison of their Translations, there was a perfect Harmony and Agreement between them, to the minutest Words and Circumstances: As if (says a great* Critic in Sacred Writings) to satisfie the Request of Ptolomaeus the King, every Interpreter must have a Manuscript of the Law to himself: Or, as if the High Priest could divine, that the King of Egypt would make such an Experiment, and tempt the Divine Power, without any [xiii] manner of Occasion. I know not who (says St. Jerom) thought of the Fiction of the Seventy Cells at Alexandria, into which the Elders were dispos'd, that they might be separate in their Labours; since Aristeas and Josephus after him, have given us no such Account, but that they compar'd their Works together in one Apartment; I never heard that they Prophesied.

[*Lud. Capellanus]

I confess the contrary Opinion has very great Authority to support it: St. Justin the Martyr, or the Author of the Oration against the Greeks; St. Irenaeus and St. Clement, are very positive on the [xiv] other side: The Words of St. Justin upon the occasion, run thus: These Things, ye Grecians, we relate to you, not as a Fable, or fictitious History, but as Men who have seen the Ruins of those several Apartments in the Tower; we deliver to you what we heard from the Natives, the Inhabitants, who successively receive the Accounts of their Countrey from their Ancestors.

To this I observe that it is no wonder if St. Justin was induc'd by the Inhabitants to give Belief to this Narration, which they affirm'd to flow down to them from their [xv] Fathers; expecially since it consisted so well with the Interest of the Church, for whose Service it was, that the Divine Authority of that Interpretation should be preserv'd, which was to be an Instrument of Conviction and Persuasion to Jews and Gentles. And here Eusebius of Caesarea very justly admires the Divine Providence; alledging, that the Jews would not have suffer'd any Translation after the coming of Christ; or at best would have impos'd a corrupt Version upon the World: But they could not object against This of the Septuagint, as being done by Hebrews (as they believ'd) chosen by their High Priest, and, by Consequence, was [xvi] very just, and of the best Authority.

The Time of the Alexandrian Interpretation has been likewise disputed: The Learned Dr. Stillingfleet acknowledges, that Tradition varies about this Matter but all agree, that it was about the Time of Ptolomaeus Philadelphus, yet are not certain in which Year of his Reign; Scaliger places it in the Thirty Third; but Eusebius and Jerom in the Beginning; which the Doctor thinks most probable, and settles it in the Time wherein Ptolomaeus Philadelphus reign'd with his Father Lagus; and so the difference a- [xvii] mong the Fathers (some of whom place it in Lagus's Time, and others in his Son's Reign) is reconciled; and this Remark appears to be exact, because Demetrius Phalereus, who is mentioned as President of the Royal Library, was banished by Philadelphus, as soon as his Father was dead; which proves, that this Affair was executed before the Death of Ptolomaeus Lagus.

This Account of the Septuagint I have taken from the Judgment of the best Authority, and, perhaps, some Satisfaction may arise from it: But whether the Old [xviii] Testament, or the Writings of Moses only, were Translated by the Seventy Hebrews; whether the Genuine Version be entirely lost, or continued down to us, I observe, upon the whole, that the Common Interpretation is of great Authority in the Christian Church and a Glorious Emolument to Religion: that the Encouragement and Protection of Learning, give a greater Lustre, even to the Character of Kings, than the brightest Circumstance of their Reign; for the Name of Ptolomaeus Philadelphus may expect to flourish, by his Alexandrian Library, and the Interpretation of the Septuagint, when the greatest [xix] Heroes in Story are lost in Revolutions of Time, and their Memories are no more.

Monday, October 16, 2017

New Book: Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity

In just a couple weeks, those living in the UK (or those who order books thence) can pick up a copy of The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Texts and Analysis, published by Oxford and written by yours truly along with John Meade. It goes on sale in the UK at the beginning of November, whereas we in the USA have to wait until the beginning of next year.

You can see a preview at Google Books, and of course you'll want to check out the Amazon page (US site, or UK site). It's offered for the very reasonable price of $45 or £35. Feel free to pre-order now.

The main attraction of the book--the reason you'll want your own copy--is because John and I have collected all the biblical canon lists from the first four centuries of Christianity, and we present them in the original languages and English translation (in parallel columns) with introductions and extensive notes. So, you've heard so much about the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius, which listed for the first time in history the exact 27 books of the NT that we now accept, and you'd like to read the letter for yourself--our book has it, or the extant portions in Greek, anyway, with an English translation. Read the letter for yourself. We also print the Muratorian Fragment in Latin and English, and the canon list of Eusebius of Caesarea (Greek and English), and the various lists of Origen (in Greek/Latin and English). And, of course, many more: Jerome, Augustine, Gregory of Nazianzus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Pope Innocent I, etc.

Most of these lists include the OT and the NT. We print all relevant portions, typically erring on the side of providing more than enough of the context rather than too little.

We recognize that Jewish canon lists are also important for study of the OT canon. Unfortunately, there aren't a whole lot of early Jewish lists, but there are the lists of Josephus (more of a discussion than a list) and the Talmud (Baba Bathra 14b). Despite the name of the book, with its focus on early Christianity, we do have a chapter in which we present these two Jewish lists, Josephus in Greek and English, the Talmudic list in Hebrew and English.

There is one Syriac list included, and a chapter on biblical manuscripts in Greek, Latin, and Syriac from the first millennium of Christianity. An appendix covers basic information about the books "on the fringe" of the canon (e.g., Esther, Tobit, Laodiceans, Gospel of Thomas, etc.). A substantial introduction (56 pages) surveys the development of the biblical canon, providing a context for study of the canon lists that follow.

We think it will be a book that scholars and students will want to refer to often when dealing with the biblical canon.

Thursday, October 12, 2017

Septuagint and Canon: Hengel, part 5

This is the final post in the Hengel series, covering the final chapter of his The Septuagint as Christian Scripture.

Chapter 5: The Origin of the 'Christian Septuagint' and Its Additional Writings (pp. 105–27)

Hengel begins with a survey of Christian terminology for Scripture, showing that usually they were simply called "Scriptures," occasionally "holy Scriptures," less frequently "Law and Prophets" or similar, sometimes just Prophets (referring to all Jewish Scripture) and sometimes just Law. As for texts actually cited, you've got just a few books that predominate, especially Isaiah, Psalms, Deuteronomy, the rest of the Torah (not so much Numbers) and the Twelve. There are some "strange quotations," the source of which is debated, but the source is certainly not the extra books of the LXX codices.
The question of the origin of the larger canon of the early church, which so occupies us today, was apparently not yet in view. On the basis of the New Testament's use of Scripture, one would actually expect a smaller canon. (p. 111)
And here is the answer to the whole question addressed by this book:
The question of why the Old Testament attained in the church precisely the form present--still not completely uniformly--in the great codices of the fourth and fifth centuries is essentially insoluble. (p. 112)
Hengel finds knowledge of the extra writings quite early. "It also seems noteworthy that traces of the documents with which we are concerned occurred primarily in the West, but are scarcely transmitted in the East until Clement of Alexandria" (p. 116). Very helpfully, Hengel takes these documents one-by-one and traces their early reception in the church, focusing on citations and clear allusions. He had previously pointed out that there's not much in the way of explicit quotations in the first two centuries of Christian literature.

So, why did these writings prevail in the church, "immediately in the West, more slowly and half-heartedly in the East?" (p. 122). Because, as Luther said, they were useful and good to read. That's exactly why Athanasius prescribed some of this literature to catechumens. Hengel makes the interesting suggestion that these books may have "already had an analogous function in the instruction of proselytes in a number of synagogues of the Diaspora. This remains mere speculation, however; it is mentioned by neither Philo nor Josephus" (p. 123).

Hengel proposes that it was the library at Rome that served as the gateway for this literature to enter the wider Christian community.

He concludes with some reflections on the suitability of the OT canon, wondering whether a Christian needs a strictly delimited OT canon, since it finds its fulfillment in the NT.

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Septuagint and Canon: Hengel, part 4

Continuing the current series.

Chapter 4: The Origin of the Jewish LXX (pp. 75–103)

Hengel first stresses the predominance of the Greek Pentateuch in our Jewish sources about the LXX and our Alexandrian Jewish sources generally (pp. 75–80). Then he argues that the translation of the books comprising the LXX always had a close relationship with Palestine, and some were even accomplished in Palestine (pp. 80–83). But it is difficult to know when and where they were translated.
It is fundamental that the documents in their Greek form comprise no unity whatsoever; rather, each must be investigated individually, although they all naturally draw on the great linguistic reservoir of the Greek Pentateuch and are, to a significant degree, linguistically shaped by it. (p. 84)
This comment from Hengel is interesting in light of Joosten's more recent argument for a coherent literary corpus comprising the LXX.
This series of new translations, which created an entirely new literary corpus, was an intellectual accomplishment of the first order. (p. 85)
The main point of this section seems to be that the Greek translation of the documents now in the Hebrew Bible were often quite different from the Hebrew original.

As for the deuterocanonical writings--thewritings not received in the Hebrew canon--Hengel identifies these common elements.

  1. They are all late. Of course, some writings in the Hebrew canon might be late, but they were assumed to be earlier, whereas these deuterocanonical writings were not. "The rejection of the ten or eleven [deuterocanonical] documents, the later 'Christian apocrypha', by the Pharisees and later rabbis, is thus less a question of content than of chronology" (p. 92). 
  2. The intention of these documents is "to edify, educate or entertain" (p. 93). 
  3. They are largely non-apocalyptic, whereas the abundant apocalyptic literature from the same time period is mostly rejected. Hengel discusses the book of Daniel as an exception. 
Hengel again mentions that "the Christian church of the second century held to them [= the deuterocanonical books] so that they were finally accepted in the Christian canon, although with a certain persistent second-class character" (p. 94). I can't think of what evidence Hengel has provided to suggest that the second-century church held to these documents. He has cited Melito's canon list, which does not contain them, and he has mentioned how Justin and other writers of the second century (aside from Clement of Alexandria) ignored them. In a previous post I complained about a similar statement from ch. 2 of Hengel's book.

Finally, Hengel explores the "Diaspora Jewish canon" by looking at three texts: Sirach's prologue, Philo's On Contemplation 25, and Josephus' Against Apion 1.37–43. About Sirach's prologue, Hengel thinks it witnesses a fairly well determined Scriptural collection in Palestine, but suggests only that Alexandrian Judaism needed instruction about the canon. Philo's report tells us nothing definite. Josephus tells us something definite, but probably about Palestinian Judaism more than Diaspora Judaism. At any rate, he clearly does not consider the "extra" writings to be as high valuable as are the writings from Moses to Artaxerxes. It seems that Hengel's main point in this section on the "Diaspora Jewish canon" is to say that we don't know much about the Diaspora Jewish canon.