Paul F. BRADSHAW. Apostolic Tradition. A New Commentary. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2023. Pp. 129. $24.95 pb. ISBN 978-0-8146-6846-7. Reviewed by Linda M. MALONEY, Cameron Park, CA 95682

I heartily agree with endorser Stefanos Alexopolous of CUA that this little book is a “must read.” Seldom has so much insight been packed into such short compass with such literary finesse—as is only to be expected of Paul Bradshaw, the dean of liturgical scholars.

The occasion for the book is the discovery, in 2011, of a new Ethiopic text of the Apostolic Tradition. Previously the book, whose original Greek version has been lost, was known primarily from a Latin translation and was regarded as a version of a lost work by Hippolytus from the third century. This was effectively challenged by Marcel Metzger in the late twentieth century; he saw the received document as a piece of “living literature,” a collection of community rules accumulated over a long period of time from the second to the fourth centuries. That consensus was generally accepted by scholars, though they continued to refer to the whole as the Apostolic Tradition. The newly-discovered Ethiopic text, which closely matches the Latin version and was evidently translated from the same Greek text, has sealed the conclusion. Bradshaw’s signal contribution is to assign the various parts of the document as closely as possible to their time of origin, based on his extensive knowledge of the usage of the churches in the period ranging from the second to the fifth centuries.

Especially obvious movements concern the changing roles of women and of bishops, priests, and deacons as the centralizing organization assumed a hierarchical character. For example: “. . . those elements in the prayer [for the ordination of a bishop, which is preceded only by a Prologue] that attribute a sacerdotal character to the episcopal office must date from no earlier than the third century . . . as such language associated with Christian ministers is unknown before then, while the remainder of the prayer demonstrates parallels with other second-century Christian sources and in some cases even the first century” (p. 20). Let proponents of literal “apostolic succession” chew on that for a while!

Most intriguing to me is Bradshaw’s observation that in the second century the word used for Jesus’ relationship to God (the Father) was not “son” (huios), but “servant” (Greek pais, Latin puer), which could mean child but was commonly used in affectionate reference to a servant or slave. I noted this in my recent commentary on Acts: I find that neither Luke’s gospel nor Acts (which are not necessarily by the same author) uses huios for Jesus, except at Acts 9:20 where it appears on the lips of the newly enlightened Paul. Pais, however, is used five times for Jesus in Acts and once for a male slave; the feminine paidiskē appears for female slaves. Thus Bradshaw marks all addresses to Jesus as “Son” of God in the prayers included in this document as later insertions. Similarly, “Lord” for Jesus, except in direct address, is a later usage—all of which seems to indicate that well into the second century those Christians who maintained Jewish practices or were still interested in appealing to Jews avoided the use of “Lord” for Jesus as well as the language that was later cemented as trinitarian.

Kudos also to Bradshaw for noting corrections to his previous publications on the basis of the new evidence (e.g., Paul F. Bradshaw, Maxwell E. Johnson, and L. Edward Phillips, The Apostolic Tradition: A Commentary. Hermeneia [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002]). For now, at least, this little book is the ultimate word on the subject and should be used as a corrective to previous commentaries, as well as for the sheer pleasure it gives.