The books of the Apocrypha
Date: 2025-02-21T00:00:00+00:00
Keywords: Bible. Apocrypha -- Introductions

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The books of the Apocrypha

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: The books of the Apocrypha
their origin, teaching and contents

Author: W. O. E. Oesterley

Release date: February 21, 2025 [eBook #75434]
Most recently updated: March 15, 2025

Language: English

Original publication: London: Robert Scott, 1915

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/75434

Credits: Brian Coe, John Campbell and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BOOKS OF THE APOCRYPHA ***

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE

Footnote anchors are denoted by [number], and the footnotes have been placed at the end of the book.

New original cover art included with this eBook is granted to the public domain.

Breves and macrons are accurately represented (ă ĕ ā ē etc). The alef symbol ℵ is used on page 379.

Some minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book. These are indicated by a dashed blue underline.

THE BOOKS OF THE APOCRYPHA
THEIR ORIGIN, TEACHING AND CONTENTS

LIBRARY OF HISTORIC THEOLOGY

Edited by the Rev. Wm. C. PIERCY, M.A.

Each Volume, Demy 8vo, Cloth, Red Burnished Top, 5s. net.

VOLUMES NOW READY.

THE PRESENT RELATIONS OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION.
By the Rev. Professor T. G. Bonney, D.Sc.

ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
By Professor Edouard Naville, D.C.L.

MYSTICISM IN CHRISTIANITY.
By the Rev. W. K. Fleming, M.A., B.D.

RELIGION IN AN AGE OF DOUBT.
By the Rev. C. J. Shebbeare, M.A.

THE CATHOLIC CONCEPTION OF THE CHURCH.
By the Rev W. J. Sparrow Simpson, D.D.

COMMON OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY.
By the Rev. C. L. Drawbridge, M.A.

MARRIAGE IN CHURCH AND STATE.
By the Rev. T. A. Lacey, M.A. (Warden of the London Diocesan Penitentiary).

THE BUILDING UP OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
By the Rev. Canon R. B. Girdlestone, M.A.

CHRISTIANITY AND OTHER FAITHS. An Essay in Comparative Religion
By the Rev. W. St. Clair Tisdall, D.D.

THE CHURCHES IN BRITAIN. Vols. I. and II.
By the Rev. Alfred Plummer, D.D. (formerly Master of University College, Durham).

CHARACTER AND RELIGION.
By the Rev. the Hon. Edward Lyttelton, M.A. (Head Master of Eton College).

MISSIONARY METHODS, ST. PAUL’S OR OURS?
By the Rev. Roland Allen, M.A. (Author of “Missionary Principles”).

THE RULE OF FAITH AND HOPE.
By the Rev. R. L. Ottley, D.D. (Canon of Christ Church, and Regius Professor
of Pastoral Theology in the University of Oxford).

THE RULE OF LIFE AND LOVE.
By the Rev. R. L. Ottley, D.D.

THE RULE OF WORK AND WORSHIP.
By the Rev. R. L. Ottley, D.D.

THE CREEDS: THEIR HISTORY, NATURE AND USE.
By the Rev. Harold Smith, M.A. (Lecturer at the London College of Divinity).

THE CHRISTOLOGY OF ST. PAUL (Hulsean Prize Essay).
By the Rev. S. Nowell Rostron, M.A. (Late Principal of St. John’s Hall, Durham).

The following works are in Preparation:—

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION: ITS PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE.
By the Rev. Prebendary B. Reynolds.

THE CHURCH OUTSIDE THE EMPIRE.
By the Rev. C. R. Davey Biggs, D.D.

THE NATURE OF FAITH AND THE CONDITIONS OF ITS PROSPERITY.
By the Rev. P. N. Waggett, M.A.

THE ETHICS OF TEMPTATION.
By the Ven. E. E. Holmes, M.A.

EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE.
By the Rev. Wm. C. Piercy, M.A.

AUTHORITY AND FREETHOUGHT IN THE MIDDLE AGES.
By the Rev. F. W. Bussell, D.D.

GOD AND MAN, ONE CHRIST.
By the Rev. Charles E. Raven, M.A.

GREEK THOUGHT AND CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.
By the Rev. J. K. Mozley, M.A.

THE GREAT SCHISM BETWEEN THE EAST AND WEST.
By the Rev. F. J. Foakes-Jackson, D.D.

THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL IN OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY.
By the Rev. A. Troelstra, D.D.

Full particulars of this Library may be obtained from the Publisher.

LONDON: ROBERT SCOTT.

THE BOOKS OF THE
APOCRYPHA

THEIR ORIGIN, TEACHING AND
CONTENTS

BY THE REV.

W. O. E. OESTERLEY, D.D.

EXAMINING CHAPLAIN TO THE BISHOP OF LONDON; WARDEN OF THE
“SOCIETY OF THE APOCRYPHA,” LONDON DIOCESE.

LONDON: ROBERT SCOTT

ROXBURGHE HOUSE

PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C.

1915

All Rights Reserved

First Edition, 1914.

Second Impression, 1915.

PREFACE

Signs have not been wanting during the last few years of an increasing interest both in what is called the “Apocrypha” as well as in the body of literature, mainly of an apocalyptic character, which goes under the name of the “Pseudepigrapha.”

Notable among these signs are two of an outstanding character. The founding of the “International Society for the Promoting of the Study of the Apocrypha” was an important event in this connection; the founder, the Rev. Herbert Pentin, is to be sincerely congratulated on the success with which his efforts have been crowned; the support accorded by many of our leading scholars has doubtless been very gratifying to him. Few things have done more to foster interest in the subjects which the Society has at heart than the publication of its quarterly journal, The International Journal of Apocrypha. This magazine makes its appeal to all grades of readers; and if the greater stress is laid upon the popular side, the editor has his good reasons for this, for it is the general reader who does not yet understand that the “Apocrypha” and the “Pseudepigrapha” together form an indispensable link between the Old and New Testaments.

The second outstanding sign was the publication last year by the Oxford University Press of the two sumptuous volumes entitled The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, with introductions and critical and explanatory notes to the several books, edited, in conjunction with many scholars, by R. H. Charles, Litt.D., D.D. This is the most elaborate thing of the kind ever published in any country, and the debt to Canon Charles owed by all lovers of learning is great indeed. The volumes appeal primarily to the scholar, though the general reader will find in them a very great deal which he will be able to appreciate. The drawback, for most people, is their expense, obviously inevitable; it is, therefore, the more to be regretted that the University Press could not see its way to publish the various books in separate, as well as in their collective, form.

Signs such as these are full of promise, and the growing interest which they betoken is very welcome.

The present writer, as one of the Wardens of the afore-mentioned Society, and as one of Canon Charles’ fellow-labourers in the work just referred to, has been emboldened to write the following pages with the object of pressing home the importance of one department of the subject as a whole (though without wholly losing sight of the other), viz., the “Apocrypha,” and, more especially, what is involved by the study of this. The very unfortunate title which has clung to this body of literature since the days of St. Jerome, largely accounts for the attitude of suspicion with which it is often regarded; but when once it is realized that the term “Apocrypha,” as applied to these books, does not correspond to what is nowadays understood by the word “apocryphal,” this attitude of suspicion will disappear.

The study of these books opens up various questions which demand consideration; so much so, that the student soon comes to realize that important as the study of the Apocrypha is, more important still is that which this study involves. The book here presented is intended to illustrate this; with the result that Part I (“Prolegomena”) occupies considerably more space than Part II, which is devoted to the books of the Apocrypha themselves. There is, however, no reason to offer any apology for this, as the Introductory Note to the “Prolegomena” will show.

For the rest, the book, though primarily intended for the intelligent general reader, may in some parts, it is hoped, be of interest to scholars. It was originally intended to be a contribution to “The Library of Historic Theology”; but the writer soon realized that the scope of the subject would necessitate a larger volume than the publishers thought desirable for this Series; they, therefore, decided to publish it separately.

The writer desires to express his sincere thanks to the Rev. Wm. C. Piercy for having read carefully through the book in manuscript as well as in proof, and for having offered many valuable suggestions.

W. O. E. OESTERLEY.

Hatch End, 1914.

CONTENTS

| | PAGE
Introductory | 1
PART I
PROLEGOMENA TO THE APOCRYPHA
CHAPTER I
The Hellenistic Movement | 11
I. | Hellenism in its Secular Aspect | 12
II. | Hellenism in its Religious Aspect | 20
| Summary | 24
CHAPTER II
Hellenistic Influence upon the Jews of Palestine | 27
I. | Hellenism and Judaism | 27
II. | The Essenes | 41
| Summary | 46
CHAPTER III
Hellenistic Influence upon the Jews of the Dispersion | 49
I. | The Dispersion | 49
II. | Hellenistic Influence on Religion | 54
III. | The Septuagint | 58
IV. | Philo of Alexandria | 61
| Summary | 65
CHAPTER IV
Traces of Greek Influence in the Old Testament and in the Apocrypha | 68
I. | References to the Greeks in the Old Testament | 68
II. | Traces of Greek Influence in the Old Testament | 70
III. | Traces of Greek Influence in the Apocrypha | 77
| Ecclesiasticus | 77
| Wisdom: |
| (a) The doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul | 80
| (b) The doctrine of immortality | 83
| (c) The doctrine of the badness of the body | 84
| (d) The creation of the world out of formless matter | 85
| (e) Signs of the influence of Stoic philosophy | 86
| Summary | 87
CHAPTER V
The Apocalyptic Movement | 90
I. | The Beginnings of the Apocalyptic Movement | 90
II. | The Apocalyptists | 95
III. | The Doctrinal Teaching of the Apocalyptic Literature | 101
| (a) Individualism | 102
| (b) Particularism and Universalism | 103
| (c) The doctrine of the Messiah | 105
| (d) The doctrine of the Future Life | 107
| Summary | 111
CHAPTER VI
The Scribes | 113
| (a) The Old Testament data | 113
| (b) The Apocrypha data | 123
| (c) Some further particulars | 126
| Summary | 127
CHAPTER VII
The Pharisees and Sadducees | 130
I. | The Meaning of the Terms “Pharisees” and “Sadducees” | 130
| (a) Pharisees | 130
| (b) Sadducees | 132
II. | The Sources | 135
| (a) Josephus | 135
| (b) Rabbinical sources | 137
| (c) The New Testament | 138
| (d) The Zadokite Fragments | 138
III. | The Doctrines of the Pharisees and Sadducees | 139
| (a) The doctrine of the Law | 139
| (b) The doctrine of God | 144
| (c) The doctrine of the Future Life | 146
| (d) The Sadducæan attitude regarding belief in the existence of angels and spirits | 147
| (e) The doctrine of the Messiah | 148
| (f) The Sadducees and the Jewish Calendar | 150
IV. | Some Subsidiary Considerations | 152
| Summary | 157
CHAPTER VIII
The Origin of the Old Testament Canon | 160
I. | The Hebrew Canon in its Present Form | 162
II. | The Idea of a Canon | 164
III. | The Formation of the Hebrew Canon | 169
IV. | To Whom was the Final Fixing of the Hebrew Canon due? | 174
| Summary | 176
Additional Note. The Conceptions underlying the Idea of Levitical Impurity | 177
CHAPTER IX
Uncanonical Books (I) | 183
I. | The Meaning of the Term Gānaz | 183
II. | The Meaning of the Term Apokryphos | 185
III. | The Connexion between the Terms Gānaz and Apokryphos | 188
IV. | How the Term “Apocrypha” came to be applied to Sacred Books of the Second Rank | 190
V. | The Reading of Uncanonical Books | 192
| Summary | 196
CHAPTER X
Uncanonical Books (II). The Apocalyptic Literature | 198
| Preliminary Remarks | 198
(a) | The Book of Enoch | 201
(b) | The Sibylline Oracles | 208
(c) | The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs | 210
(d) | The Psalms of Solomon | 214
(e) | The Book of Jubilees | 216
(f) | The Assumption of Moses | 218
(g) | The Ascension of Isaiah | 219
(h) | The Book of the Secrets of Enoch | 220
(i) | The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch | 222
(j) | The Apocalypse of Moses (The Life of Adam and Eve) | 222
(k) | The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch | 223
CHAPTER XI
The Wisdom Literature; the Jewish Conception of Wisdom | 224
I. | The Wisdom Literature | 224
II. | The Origin of the Hebrew Conception of Wisdom | 226
III. | The Jewish Conception of Wisdom | 233
| Summary | 247
CHAPTER XII
The Doctrinal Teaching of the Apocrypha | 251
| Preliminary Remarks | 251
(a) | The doctrine of God | 254
(b) | The doctrine of the Law | 260
(c) | The doctrine of Sin | 267
(d) | The doctrine of Grace and Free-will | 278
(e) | The doctrine of the Messiah | 281
(f) | The doctrine of the Future Life | 288
(g) | The doctrine of Angels | 300
(h) | Demonology | 304
| Summary | 305

PART II
INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF THE APOCRYPHA
| | PAGE
Introductory | 319
CHAPTER I
The Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach; or Ecclesiasticus | 321
I. | The Title of the Book | 321
II. | The Author and his Book | 322
III. | The Date of the Book | 327
IV. | The Original Language of the Book; the recently found Hebrew Manuscripts | 329
V. | The Authorized and Revised Versions of Ecclesiasticus | 331
VI. | The “Sadducæan” doctrinal standpoint in Ecclesiasticus | 334
VII. | The Pharisaic Additions to Ecclesiasticus | 340
VIII. | The Value of the Book for the Study of the New Testament | 345
CHAPTER II
The Book of Tobit | 349
I. | The Story of Achikar the Wise | 350
II. | The Relationship between the Book of Tobit and the Story of Achikar the Wise | 353
III. | The Contents of the Book of Tobit | 357
IV. | The Religious Standpoint of the Writer | 360
V. | The Date of the Book, its Integrity and Place of Origin | 365
VI. | The Value of the Book for New Testament Study | 368
CHAPTER III
The Book of Judith | 372
I. | Contents and Character of the Book | 372
II. | Variety of Form of the Judith Story | 379
III. | The Teaching and Purpose of the Book | 381
IV. | The Date of the Book | 382
V. | The Original Language of the Book | 384
CHAPTER IV
The Additions to the Book of Daniel | 385
I. | Preliminary Remarks | 385
II. | The Prayer of Azariah | 386
III. | The Song of the Three Children | 390
IV. | The Story of Susanna | 391
V. | Bel and the Dragon | 394
CHAPTER V
The Additions to the Book of Esther | 398
I. | The Nature and Object of the Additions | 398
II. | Authorship and Date of the Additions | 403
CHAPTER VI
The Prayer of Manasses | 404
I. | The Contents of the Prayer | 404
II. | The Origin of the Prayer | 405
III. | The Date of the Prayer | 409
IV. | The Writer and the Language in which he wrote | 410
CHAPTER VII
The First Book of Maccabees | 411
I. | Title and Authorship of the Book | 411
II. | The Date of the Book | 413
III. | The Original Language and Literary Character of the Book | 414
IV. | The Sources of the Book | 415
V. | The History of the Maccabæan Struggle | 423
| (a) The Conquests of Alexander the Great, and the division of his Empire | 424
| (b) The original cause of the struggle; the leadership of Mattathias | 424
| (c) The leadership of Judas Maccabæus; religious liberty secured | 427
| (d) The leadership of Jonathan; the establishment of the Hasmonæan high-priesthood | 431
| (e) The leadership of Simon | 436
CHAPTER VIII
The Greek Ezra (1 (3) Esdras) | 439
I. | The Title of the Book | 439
II. | Contents of the Book | 440
III. | The “Hebrew Ezra,” the “Greek Ezra,” and 2 Esdras | 442
IV. | The Historicity of the Book | 446
V. | The Purpose of the Book | 450
VI. | The Story of the Three Young Men of Darius’ Bodyguard | 451
VII. | The Date of the Book | 454
CHAPTER IX
The Book of Wisdom (The Wisdom of Solomon) | 455
I. | The Title and Authorship of the Book | 455
II. | The Date of the Book | 459
III. | The Question of Composite Authorship | 464
IV. | The Purposes for which the Book was Written | 469
V. | The Influence of the Book on St. Paul | 474
CHAPTER X
The Second Book of Maccabees | 479
I. | The Origin of the Book | 479
II. | The Contents of the Book | 481
III. | III.Comparison between 1 and 2 Maccabees | 482
IV. | The Historical Value of 2 Maccabees | 485
V. | The Purpose of the Book | 487
VI. | The Integrity of the Book | 490
VII. | The Date and Original Language of the Book | 493
VIII. | The influence of the Book on New Testament Writers | 493
CHAPTER XI
The Book of Baruch, and the Epistle of Jeremiah | 495
I. | Short Account of the Book, and its Contents | 495
II. | Examination of the Component Parts of the Book | 497
| (1) The Book of Confessions (i.-iii. 8) | 497
| (2) A Sage’s words of encouragement (iii. 9-iv. 4) | 503
| (3) A Message of good cheer (iv. 5-v. 9) | 504
| The Epistle of Jeremiah | 506
CHAPTER XII
The Ezra Apocalypse (2 (4) Esdras) | 509
I. | The Title of the Book | 509
II. | Chapters i., ii. | 510
III. | Chapters xv., xvi. | 511
IV. | The Component Parts of Chapters iii.-xiv. | 512
V. | The Vision of the Man Rising from the Sea | 515
VI. | The Eagle Vision | 517
VII. | The Salathiel Apocalypse | 522
VIII. | An Ezra Legend | 528
Indexes—
General | 533
Passages from the Old Testament | 545
Passages from the Apocrypha | 547
Passages from the Pseudepigrapha | 552
Passages from the New Testament | 552
Passages from Rabbinical Literature | 553

Introductory

The book here presented is divided into two parts: the first, which is somewhat longer than the second, deals with preliminary questions; the second is occupied with some account of the nature and contents of the books comprised under the term “Apocrypha.” To those whose studies have not been concerned with early Jewish uncanonical literature it may appear that many of the subjects discussed in Part I are inappropriate, or at any rate unnecessary, because they lead, apparently, far away from the main subject to be dealt with. Students of the Apocrypha will know, however, that a really intelligent and adequate study of this body of ancient literature necessitates research into a number of topics which do not at first sight appear to show a direct connexion with the main subject. Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who have not made a study of the Apocrypha, it may be well to justify at the outset the incursion into the many side-issues dealt with in the “Prolegomena” (Part I) by showing that the consideration of them is really indispensable for a proper understanding of the Apocrypha, its origin, and its raison d’être.

Now one of the first things that must strike any intelligent reader of the books of the Apocrypha is the extraordinary variety of their contents. We have in the First Book of Maccabees genuine historical records of the highest value; in the Second Book of Maccabees, on the other hand, we have a mixture of history and fiction. In the First (or Third) Book of Esdras we get portions of the canonical Scriptures side by side with records from other sources; and, strange to say, the latter are probably in some particulars more trustworthy than the corresponding portions in the former. In The Rest of Esther and the Prayer of Manasses we have additions to books of the canonical Scriptures which are edifying, though largely the work of the imagination; while in the additions to the Book of Daniel, namely, The Song of the Three Holy Children, The History of Susannah, and Bel and the Dragon, we have examples of fiction which are not always edifying. Of an entirely different character is the fascinating story of a brave and patriotic woman, told in the Book of Judith, in which the writer’s power of dramatic narrative is well exhibited. Interesting from other points of view is the homely tale told in the Book of Tobit, with its developed angelology and quaint demonology. But what is in many respects the most important book in the whole collection is that fine example of the Palestinian Wisdom Literature, the Wisdom of Ben-Sira (Ecclesiasticus), which, apart from its subject proper, gives us much interesting information regarding the conditions of Jewish life and manners during a period of which we have otherwise but meagre sources of knowledge. Baruch, again, is valuable as containing a liturgical piece of considerable antiquity. Very important, too, and of great interest, is that striking product of Hellenistic-Jewish wisdom, The Wisdom of Solomon, as it is called; this book offers an illustration of the profound influence which the Greek spirit had upon the Jews of the Dispersion. And, lastly, we have what is in some respects one of the finest books belonging to the Apocalyptic Literature ii. (iv.) Esdras, revealing as it does in a wonderful way the moral and religious speculations of an earnest mind seeking after the truth, and claiming to have received revelations by supernatural means. Scripture, history, legend, fiction, at least one liturgical piece, wisdom, philosophy, apocalypse—truly it is an extraordinary variety of subjects which is here presented.

But further; when one looks more closely one sees that in these books various thought-tendencies and mental attitudes are represented—political, intellectual, doctrinal, religious; so that questions arise, and demand consideration, as to who the men were among whom these thought-tendencies existed, what it was that first gave rise to them, what the relation was between those who belonged to the different schools of thought represented, and other questions of a similar character. The intelligent reader will want to know, on the one hand, what is reflected in these books concerning such questions, and, on the other, what light they themselves shed on the history of thought and religion during the period, extending over about three hundred years, at which they were written.

Of a different character, but very much to the point, is the inquiry into the position held by these books in the sacred literature of the Jews. They are not assigned a place in the canonical Hebrew Scriptures, but they are found in the Greek Old Testament, which was the Bible used by the New Testament writers and by the Early Church. Who excluded them from the canonical list, and on what grounds were they excluded? What was their position before the Canon was formed, and when was the Canon formed? What is meant by the title “Apocrypha,” by whom was the title given, and when?

These are some of the many questions which suggest themselves to the serious student of the Apocrypha; and a moment’s thought will show that adequate answers to them are required if the contents of the Apocrypha, and all that they imply, are to be properly understood.

The purpose of the “Prolegomena” is to try and give answers to these and many other questions which arise as soon as the study of this body of ancient Jewish sacred literature is undertaken.

The first chapter deals with the Hellenistic Movement. Some consideration of the way in which the Greek spirit influenced the world in general, from the third century B.C. onwards, is altogether necessary because there was no department of life in which the effects of this influence were not to be discerned. For our present purpose the way in which Hellenism affected religious thought is, of course, an exceedingly important subject for consideration. Now the Hellenistic Movement synchronized with the entire period during which the “Apocryphal” Literature was produced. It commenced as a result of the conquests of Alexander the Great, and extended well into the times of the Empire; within that period were written the earliest and the latest of the books of the Apocrypha, viz., The Wisdom of Ben-Sira, about B.C. 170, and The Apocalypse of Ezra, about A.D. 100. The Hellenistic Movement was thus, as it were, the intellectual and religious atmosphere of the world during the whole of the period in which the writers of the books of the Apocrypha lived. No apology is needed, therefore, for beginning our study with a brief consideration of the Hellenistic Movement.

Since, like other great movements, this one was a vital process which affected the whole world, the Jews, as just hinted, came under its sway. We have, therefore, devoted two chapters to Hellenistic influence upon the Jews. The extent and effect of this influence upon the Jews of Palestine was not the same as upon the Jews of the Dispersion, so that this part of our subject has to be dealt with under two heads. In discussing the former we touch upon a factor in the discussion which will come before us again and again as we proceed, namely, the Jews as the people of the Law. We referred just now to various schools of thought of which indications are to be seen in the books of the Apocrypha; the most important of these was that which looked upon the Law and its observances as that which should occupy the thoughts and actions of every true Jew, and to which everything else should be subordinated. It was the championship of the Law which checked, and ultimately stamped out, Hellenistic influence upon the Jews of Palestine, though not until that influence had so permeated their minds that some of its elements became incorporated into orthodox Judaism. As will be seen later, these facts help to explain much that is written in the books of the Apocrypha.

But distinct as the marks were which the influence of Hellenism left upon the Jews of Palestine and upon some of their literature, that influence was far less upon them than upon the Jews of the Dispersion. In dealing with this part of our subject a preliminary section is devoted to some account of the Dispersion, special reference being made to Alexandria, the most important centre of the Dispersion. The most notable and far-reaching result of Hellenistic influence here is to be seen in the fact that it was the birthplace of the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament; since it is in this Version of the Scriptures that the books of the Apocrypha were incorporated, it stands to reason that some account of it is necessary. While the Septuagint was the most striking literary product of the Hellenistic Movement in the Dispersion, Philo of Alexandria was its most notable personality; a section devoted to him can, therefore, not be out of place.

It was pointed out above that Hellenistic influence was to be discerned in the sacred literature of the Jews. This is a subject upon which differences of opinion exist, especially in regard to some of the later books of the Old Testament; but it cannot well be ignored in dealing with the books of the Apocrypha, so that in Chapter IV we examine the question of traces of Greek influence in the Old Testament and in the Apocrypha.

Further, we have referred to the fact that in the Apocrypha signs of the existence of various thought-tendencies are to be discerned; the attitude of extreme loyalty to the Law was one of these; another was represented by the Apocalyptic Movement. Quite apart from the fact that we have in The Apocalypse of Ezra a remarkable product of the Apocalyptic Movement, which would of itself be sufficient to demand some account of this movement here, there is the further fact that some insight into the religious movements of a period is indispensable to the true understanding of any body of literature belonging to such period. It is for this reason that we have devoted a chapter to the consideration of the Apocalyptic Movement and to a brief survey of the doctrinal teaching of the Apocalyptic Literature; it will be found to be of real interest if the general results of the doctrinal teaching of this literature be compared with that of the books of the Apocrypha, which is more fully dealt with in the last chapter (XII) of the “Prolegomena.”

The thought-tendencies to which reference has been made, and each of which has been embodied in literary form, have a history behind them, dating at least from the time of Ezra; how these developed in Palestine during the four centuries which preceded the advent of Christ is a difficult and intricate, but none the less fascinating, study, and altogether indispensable alike for the understanding of the Apocrypha and of the New Testament. Scribes of different kinds, Chassidim, Apocalyptists, Pharisees and Sadducees, how did they come into being? What were their different special mental and religious attitudes? What was their relationship to each other? There are intricate problems involved in such questions, and the study of the Apocrypha brings us face to face with them; that sufficiently explains the reason why Chapters V-VII are devoted to the discussion of them.

With Chapters VIII-X we approach an entirely different side of our subject, namely, the question of the Canon and of uncanonical books generally; this is, of course, of fundamental importance for the study of the Apocrypha, so that no explanation is needed for the reason of these three chapters figuring in the “Prolegomena.” The same is also true of Chapter XI, which deals with the Wisdom Literature, for not only have we two remarkable examples of this literature in the Apocrypha, but it is a literature which, while it begins in the Old Testament, is continued in the Apocrypha, so that it must be treated as a whole; the question of canonical or uncanonical books must not be allowed to interfere here.

The last chapter (XII), on the doctrinal teaching of the Apocrypha, requires no further words here other than to say that the study of this subject is very necessary for following out the development of doctrine from the Old Testament to the New.

This, then, is the explanation and justification for the many discussions in the “Prolegomena” which seem at first sight to lead far away from the main subject in hand. These have, it is true, an interest and an application far beyond that of their relation to the Apocrypha, but that, it may safely be assumed, will not be regarded as a drawback, or as a reason for making the discussion of them here unnecessary.

PART I
PROLEGOMENA TO THE
APOCRYPHA

THE BOOKS OF THE APOCRYPHA:
THEIR ORIGIN, TEACHING AND
CONTENTS

CHAPTER I
The Hellenistic Movement

[Literature.—Droysen, Geschichte des Hellenismus (3rd ed., 1877); Schürer, A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, II, i. pp. 1-149 (1890-1891), German ed. II, pp. 1-267 (1901-1909); Usener, Götternamen (1896); Kaerst, Geschichte des hellenistischen Zeitalters (1901, 1909); Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen, III, i. ii. (4th ed., 1903, 1909); Zeller, Outlines of the History of Greek Philosophy (Engl. ed., 1909); Rohde, Psyche (3rd ed., 1903); Edwyn Bevan, Jerusalem under the High-priests (1904); M. Friedländer, Griechische Philosophie im Alten Testament (1904); Gruppe, Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte (1906); Mahaffy, The Silver Age of the Greek World (1906); Krüger, Hellenismus und Judenthum im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (1908); Farnell, Greek Religion (1912); Wendland, Die Hellenistisch-Römische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zu Judentum und Christentum (1912); Edwyn Bevan, Stoics and Sceptics (1913); Farnell’s art. on “Greek Religion” in Hastings’ Dict. of Religion and Ethics.]

To offer in any detail an account of such an immense subject as the Hellenistic Movement would be out of the question here; but no study which has to do with Jewish religion or culture of the three last pre-Christian centuries can be taken in hand without some reference to the Movement which so profoundly affected the world of those times. The object of the present chapter is, therefore, to indicate the main directions in which Hellenistic influence was exercised; so much is essential when it is remembered that the books of the Apocrypha form an integral part of the Greek Old Testament, which is itself one of the most striking products of the Hellenistic Movement in the domain of literature.

A word must be said at the outset regarding the use of the terms Hellenic and Hellenistic. It is not always easy to be strictly logical or consistent in the way in which one employs these; the fundamental difference between the two is this: Hellenic culture refers, of course, to the pure Greek civilization, religion, etc., existing previous to the coming of Alexander the Great; Hellenistic culture refers to this civilization as it appeared after having absorbed numerous elements in the domain both of thought and religion from non-Greek sources after the coming of Alexander the Great. Hellenistic culture exercised a greater and wider influence upon the world than Hellenic, because by absorbing alien elements it was able to become a world-culture. The terms have thus a distinct and clearly defined difference. But inasmuch as Hellenistic culture is based upon and has as its chief characteristic Hellenic culture, it is sometimes convenient to use the terms Hellenism and Hellenic in a wide and inclusive sense; as so used it is equivalent to the term Greek, without restriction to any particular age.

I. Hellenism in its Secular Aspect

By the Hellenistic Movement is meant the process whereby the supremacy of the Greek language and of Greek culture generally became established during the period, roughly speaking, from B.C. 300 to the beginning of the Christian era, that is to say, from the time when Alexander the Great had completed his victorious career[1] to the time when the Roman Empire was rising to pre-eminence and establishing its power, more especially in the east. It was during this period that Hellenism was what may be called an invading force; having once established itself its influence was in evidence long after the period indicated. Dill, in writing on the age of Hadrian and the Antonines, says, for example: “The glory of classic art had almost vanished; and yet, without being able to produce any works of creative genius, the inexhaustible vitality of the Hellenic spirit once more asserted itself. After a long eclipse, the rhetorical culture of Greece vigorously addressed itself in the reign of Hadrian to the conquest of the west. Her teachers and spiritual directors, indeed, had long been in every family of note. Her sophists were now seen haranguing crowds in every town from the Don to the Atlantic.... From the early years of the second century can be traced that great combined movement of the Neo-Pythagorean and Platonist philosophies and the renovated paganism which made a last stand against the conquering Church in the reigns of Julian and Theodosius....”[2]

But the influence of Hellenism did not stop here; various writers have shown that that influence persists even up to modern times,[3] and Bevan states nothing but the literal truth when he says that “what we call the Western spirit in our own day is really Hellenism reincarnate.”[4]

It is well to realize, on the other hand, however, that the roots of the Hellenistic Movement reached back somewhat further than the time of Alexander. We must look to Athens for the real beginnings of the Movement, the further development of which Alexander’s conquests did so much to forward. It was the Attic sea-power which first brought about the conditions under which the idea of a pan-Hellenic culture could take form and ultimately become realized. Though Athens declined with the rise of the Macedonian power, and ceased outwardly to play any conspicuous part in the great drama of the world’s history, yet Attic ideals and conceptions lived on and continued to be the inner motive-power in the propagation of the newer culture. So that the Hellenistic Movement grew and developed from Attic antecedents.

Then, again, although the rise of the Hellenistic Movement is rightly associated more particularly with the name of Alexander, it is but simple justice which compels us to recall the fact that the Macedonian empire, which formed the basis of Alexander’s future world-power, owed its creation to his father, Philip (B.C. 359-336). It was only through strenuous struggles with Thracians, Illyrians and Athenians that Philip finally consolidated his kingdom, and thus made the necessary preparations for his son’s greater work. The decisive battle of Chæronea, in B.C. 338, when Philip defeated the allied forces of Athens and Thebes, may legitimately be pointed to as one of the preliminary determining factors which prepared the way for the Hellenistic Movement.

In the first instance the influence of the newer Hellenism was, of course, exercised by means of the Greek language. But it was a form of Greek which differed in many respects from the older Attic Greek, though based on this; it is now known by the name of Hellenistic Greek. “It was the literary language of the cosmopolitan Hellas, created by the genius of Alexander. The change [i.e., from Attic Greek] had begun indeed before Alexander. Even Xenophon allows himself to make free use of words of provincial origin, and to employ Attic words with a new connotation; and the writings of Aristotle mark the opening of a new era in the history of the Greek language.”[5] The discovery and study of immense numbers of Greek papyri and ostraka (potsherds) has shown the fallacy, universally prevalent a generation ago, of speaking of “Biblical Greek,” i.e., the Greek of the Septuagint and of the New Testament, as though it were a form of Greek peculiar to the Bible, to be separated off from “profane” Greek. The Septuagint and the New Testament were written in a late form of Greek, i.e., Hellenistic Greek which, as we have just seen, came into vogue during the fourth century B.C. and onwards. This late Greek, including the Greek of the Bible is, in the words of Deissmann, “neither good nor bad; it bears the stamp of its age and asserts its own distinctive position in a gradual process of development in the language, which, beginning in the earliest times, has lasted down to the present day. Late Greek has stripped off much that was customary in the earlier period, and it contains germs of future developments destined to be completed in modern Greek. We may, then, speak of a certain peculiarity and uniformity in original ‘Bible’ Greek, but solely as opposed to earlier or later phases of the history of the language, not as opposed to ‘profane’ Greek.”[6]

It was through the conquests of Alexander that the ways were made clear and wide for this later form of the Greek language, this Hellenistic Greek, to find an opening in all directions, and to be employed as a common means of communication in ever-increasing measure. Close upon the soldiers followed the merchants, nor did it take long before colonists came and settled down in the newly conquered territories; and when once colonies of Greek-speaking people were established, teachers soon came and took up their abode in the new settlements. New Greek cities thus arose in which practically only Greek was spoken; with the employment of this language it followed in a natural course that the influence of the Greek spirit, and with it Greek forms of thought and Greek ideals, made itself felt. In this way Alexander’s ambition was attained; for his ideal was not only to conquer lands; he desired also that the hearts and minds of men should be brought under the domination of that Greek culture which was destined to affect the religion, the philosophy, the literature and the art of mankind for all time. Alexander was a worthy pupil of his great teacher, Aristotle.

It is, perhaps, not always sufficiently realized that the Hellenistic Movement coincided to a large extent with an epoch which was in some notable respects one of dissolution. In the domain of learning, for example, the older Greek idea of the possibility of a single mind assimilating the whole content of knowledge had been discarded; for it had come to be seen that the sum of knowledge in its manifold ramifications was far too great to be acquired by any one man, however learned, and that specialists must devote themselves to different departments of learning. Hence arose the grammarian as well as the rhetorician, the historian as well as the mathematician, while the philosopher occupied his special position.[7] The scholar, therefore, who desired to gain some insight into more than one of the various branches of knowledge no longer went, as in earlier days, to one teacher who was supposed to possess encyclopædic learning, but he studied under a grammarian in order to learn grammar, under a rhetorician in order to learn rhetoric, under a philosopher in order to learn philosophy, and so on. This newer system had already forced itself to the front some time before the actual period with which we are dealing; there are clear indications in the methods and teaching of Plato, to say nothing of Aristotle and his pupils, of an increasing tendency of making wider differentiation between the various sciences, and of dividing them up into their various groups. Philosophy stands alone; the exact sciences go each along the line of their own development. What was thus prepared by these great philosophers and their followers was acted upon and greatly developed during the Hellenistic period proper. Nowhere was this more the case than in Alexandria, the city of Alexander’s founding. It was in Alexandria that during the third century B.C. the exact sciences reached the height of their development. All that was acquired through the incentive given later by the study of the exact sciences of antiquity during the Middle Ages through the medium of Arabic translations, and during the Renaissance by means of newly discovered Greek originals of the ancient classics, was in the main due to the achievements wrought during this epoch.[8] That Alexandria should have been, during the Hellenistic period, the centre of this intensive, intellectual activity will be seen to have been a fact of great importance when we come to speak of this city as having been also the centre of the Jewish Dispersion.

Alexandria[9] was, however, but the greatest example of many other new cities founded by Alexander, or through his inspiration, while a far greater number which were already in existence were hellenized through his instrumentality. With regard to these latter a fact of great importance must be noted; one effect of the entry of Hellenistic influence into the civic life of the “barbarians” was that the Greek came to know and understand his fellow-creatures of other nationalities; he saw that those whom he had always been taught to despise as not much better than semi-civilized savages, also had their forms of culture which likewise boasted of a hoary antiquity. The Greeks were, therefore, led to study the methods of thought, the customs and the beliefs of these “barbarians,” with the result that contempt was turned to admiration, and the Greeks came to regard the “barbarians” as brothers. Cynic and Stoic philosophers, “the Rousseaus of Hellenism” as Krüger very happily calls them, spoke of and taught a brotherhood of man, a new and wonderful thing; and a cosmopolitanism, hitherto unheard of, came into being.

But if the mingling together of Greek and “barbarian” was the means of creating a cosmopolitanism, in the best sense, no less characteristic of the Hellenistic period is the fact that the importance of the individual came to be recognized. The Hellenization of “barbarian” cities, referred to just now, meant that these attained to a state of semi-independence; in all cases of this kind the local government of the city was framed on the Greek model; the part which the people took in the political assemblies and in the annual elections had the natural effect of making them feel that they had a real interest and a definite part to play in the administration of affairs. It is easy to understand how the result of this was the emphasizing of the importance of each individual. Where the individual, while claiming and exercising his rights of citizenship, does not lose sight of his responsibilities, an ideal combination is offered. This individualism of the true and genuine type the Greeks gave to the world; it is an example of the sense of proportion which was a peculiarly Hellenic trait. During the Hellenistic period, therefore, individualism came to its own.

Not unconnected with this subject of individualism was the philosophical teaching of the Hellenistic period. The main interest in the philosophical systems of this time centred in ethics; and ethical teaching concerns the individual first and foremost. It was the ethical system of the Stoics[10] to which was primarily due the emphasis laid on the conception of law and duty; virtue is the only good, they taught, vice the only evil; all else is indifferent. Moreover, Hellenistic philosophy set before men the ideal of wisdom; the highest attainment for mortals, so it was taught, was that they should become wise men. It was a noble picture that was depicted, even though the Stoic ideal was unattainable, of the free and independent and self-reliant individual who, through the wisdom that he has acquired, stands towering above his fellows, though not in aloofness, but as a helper. It has been pointed out with justice that it is the stress laid on the importance of the individual which largely accounts for the numerous striking personalities, both men and women, who come before us during the Hellenistic period. The historian Polybius (born about B.C. 204) was the first to recognize the importance of the individual as a factor in the course and development of history. It is during this period especially that great individuals appear as the pivots of history. Now, too, for the first time, biography becomes a science; delineation of character, the motives of individual action, and psychological analysis of the heart and mind are now regarded as indispensable for the proper understanding of men and their doings.[11]

Whether in politics, or science, or philosophy, or literature, or in estimating their fellow-creatures, the Greeks offer a remarkable example of the determination to see men and things in the world around them as they really are; their instinctive critical faculty made them realists. Nothing must be taken for granted, all things must be tested by the light of reason; only so can the reality of things be ascertained. “The critical faculty, the reason—in one light it appears as the sense of proportion; the sense of proportion in politics, ‘common sense,’ balance of judgement; the sense of proportion in behaviour, which distinguishes what is seemly for the occasion and the person concerned; the sense of proportion in art, which eliminates the redundant and keeps each detail in its due subordination to the whole. How prominent this aspect of the critical faculty was with the Greeks their language itself shows; reason and proportion are expressed by a common word. ‘The Hellenes,’ Polybius says, ‘differ mainly in this respect from other men, that they keep to what is due in each case.’”[12]

Important as it is to gain some little insight into Hellenism in its secular aspect so that one may realize to some extent the nature of the influence which it had upon the world, it is still more important for our present purpose to consider it from the religious point of view. To this we must now devote some little attention.

II. Hellenism in its Religious Aspect

It has already been pointed out that the Hellenistic Movement coincided with an epoch which was in many respects one of dissolution; this is distinctly the case in the domain of religion. The history of religion offers numerous examples of the fact that there arrive certain periods in which, for one reason or another, the traditional form of faith ceases to exercise its power over large sections of the people. One of two things then follows: either religion gives place to scepticism, or else the old belief is adapted to the altered spiritual and intellectual conditions which have supervened. Among the Greeks of this period we find both processes at work, though a downright atheistic position is the exception. Indeed, one of the most interesting and significant facts in this connexion is that the philosophy of the Hellenistic period, in spite of its critical attitude towards religious beliefs, very soon developed into theology. That is sufficient to show that, while there was a tendency in certain circles to pour scorn on religion, the Hellenistic period was very far from being one of irreligion.

The attitude of the cultured classes towards the national religion differed, of course, from that of the masses; the critical spirit and biting sarcasm of the philosophers, a great deal of which was wholly justified, had the effect of making it impossible for educated people to accept the old beliefs in the way in which this had been done hitherto. The religious ideas taught by the philosophers were, in the main, altogether subversive of those which tradition had handed down; nevertheless, to the cultured it would have come as a relief to be taught, as was done by the Epicuræans for example, that a man was not godless because he destroyed belief in the popular gods, but that the godless man was he who imputed to the gods the popular conceptions concerning them.[13] Not that the Epicuræans were irreligious; Epicurus[14] did not attack the belief in the gods as such; on the contrary, he believed in them himself, and regarded the universality of this belief as a proof that they actually existed. But he refused to share the general ideas about them in their relation to the world, and taught that their interference in the affairs of men was a thing not to be thought of since nothing could be worse for men than to feel that at every turn they might be hampered in their doings by the gods. That Epicurus strenuously combated the fatalistic theory of the Stoics can be readily understood. What he desired above all things to do was to free men from the fear of the gods; belief in them, he taught, was necessary for the fulness of happiness ultimately to be enjoyed in their presence; but there was nothing in them to be afraid of.

One of the very important things which philosophy did for religion in this age was that it allegorized, and gave a new meaning to, the ancient myths,[15] and thereby made them of practical religious value at a time when the new mental outlook would otherwise have necessitated the discarding altogether of both the substance and form of the traditional beliefs. As it was, the time-honoured myths were not rejected in spite of the awakening to new methods of thought and of ever-increasing enlightenment; this clearer mental atmosphere had the effect of transforming the essence of those myths, while retaining their form. To give detailed examples of the way in which this transformation was carried out cannot be undertaken here, it would carry us too far afield; but reference may be made to Wendland’s work (pp. 115-127) already referred to, and Usener’s Götternamen, where much interesting information can be obtained; references to the original authorities are given in abundance, especially in the last-named book.

But the most striking factor, in the domain of religion, of the Hellenistic Movement is the religious syncretism, which was so profoundly characteristic of this period. Within the wide circle of Hellenized cities and states a variety of nationalities, eastern as well as western, were represented; and just as the inhabitants of these had become united and had learned to live at peace with one another, so did the various and numerous national deities come to be regarded not only with tolerance, but also with favour by men to whom they had hitherto been unknown.

The intermingling of races brought about the intermingling of beliefs. Wonderfully illustrative of this are the religious associations which formed the characteristic type of religion during the Hellenistic period; and it is a striking fact that among the members of these religious associations or guilds not only Greeks, but foreigners, and these to a preponderating degree, belonged.[16] While, undoubtedly, politics had a good deal to do with the furtherance of religious syncretism,[17] its main motive-power was the piety of individuals. With the knowledge of the existence of hitherto unknown gods and goddesses came also the desire to do homage to them; probably there was also the conviction among many that, unless these newly found deities were duly honoured, evil consequences would ensue. The desire to pay fitting honour to a god is shown by the numerous attributive names which were frequently addressed to him by his devotees; and in order to make up for any unconscious omission the suppliant would add: “Or by whatever other title thou desirest to be called.” Altars were also frequently dedicated “to unknown gods,” lest a worshipper should bring down upon himself the wrath of some deities of whose existence he was unaware.[18]

The results of this religious syncretism, which was brought about by the Hellenistic spirit, were far-reaching in their effect; thus, as an example, it is worth mentioning that a type of monotheism was taught; this centred in the cult of Tyche, an all-pervading Fate; and though very inferior to the monotheism of the Jews, it showed, nevertheless, that the religious instinct was becoming more expansive and was asserting itself in a more rational way than had hitherto obtained outside of Judaism. Nor must we forget to add that with the higher conception of the Deity, of which this was a symptom, there arose among the more deeply religiously-minded a longing for fellowship with God, together with the inevitable consequence, a more developed belief in the future life.

The Hellenistic Movement, therefore, considered at its best, and apart altogether from the point of view of pure culture, constituted an immense stride forward in the enlargening and development of religious thought and belief. It is difficult to exaggerate its importance for, and effect upon, religion, and therefore upon all religious literature, during the period which we specially have in view. Of this we shall have more to say in estimating the influence and effect of Hellenism upon the Jews and their religion.

Summary

The roots of the Hellenistic Movement must be sought in the conditions brought about by the rise of the Attic sea-power. The way was thus prepared for the victories of Alexander the Great, with whose name the spread of the Hellenistic Movement is more particularly associated, by his father, Philip; it was through the exertions of the latter that the Macedonian Empire was consolidated.

The influence of Hellenism was, in the first instance, exercised by means of the spread of the Greek language; but it was a form of Greek which differed in many particulars from classical Greek, and is known nowadays by the name of Hellenistic Greek. This is the language in which the Septuagint and the New Testament are written; but it would be a mistake to speak of it as “Biblical Greek,” because it was in no sense used specifically for the Greek of the Bible, but was the ordinary language used in every-day intercourse, and was developed from the older form of Greek. Its wide prevalence is proved by the discovery of great numbers of papyri and ostraka on which this newer form of Greek occurs.

The Hellenistic Movement coincided with an epoch which was, in many respects, one of dissolution, so that its influence began to spread at a time when men’s minds would be likely to welcome its newer and broader outlook upon the world.

The greatest centre of Hellenistic culture was Alexandria; but this was only one, though the most striking, example of the Hellenization that was going on in many other cities. The Hellenization of these cities meant that their civic government was framed upon the Greek model; “barbarians” and Greeks thus found themselves politically upon an equality, and the knowledge of one another brought about in this way resulted in the existence of a cosmopolitanism which was new to the world.

On the other hand, the directly personal part which each individual felt that he had to take as a citizen in the administration of affairs, emphasized his importance, and this was one of the contributing causes which made individualism a characteristic of the Hellenistic period. Individualism was fostered, further, by the philosophical systems of this period which centred in ethics; for ethical teaching concerns the individual first and foremost.

The influence of Hellenism was seen in politics, science, philosophy and literature. The critical faculty of the Greeks made them realists. In their estimate of men and things the Greeks were guided by an innate and strongly marked sense of proportion.

In the domain of religion it is to be noted, first, that Hellenistic philosophy soon developed into theology; the Hellenistic period was, therefore, not one of irreligion. But the critical attitude of the philosophers towards the traditional religion made it impossible, at any rate for the cultured classes, to believe in it as heretofore. It was, however, all to the good that the essence of the ancient myths was transformed while their form was retained. Another and most important fact to be noted is the religious syncretism which was a characteristic of this period; the intermingling of races brought about the intermingling of worship. The Hellenistic Movement was the means of a great development of religious thought; and the resultant effect on the religious literature of the age is difficult to exaggerate.

CHAPTER II
Hellenistic Influence upon the Jews of Palestine

[Literature.—Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, II, pp. 273-310 (1888); this part of the work is done by O. Holtzmann; Toy, Christianity and Judaism, pp. 173-214 (1891); Schürer, II, i. pp. 1-149, German ed. II, pp. 1-267; Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, pp. 1-9 (1900); Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, pp. 448-493 (1903); Hölscher, Palästina in der persischen und hellenistischen Zeit (1903); Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen, III, ii. (1903); Edwyn Bevan, Jerusalem under the High-priests (1904); M. Friedländer, Die religiösen Bewegungen innerhalb des Judentums im Zeitalter Jesu, pp. 1-168 (1905); Krüger, Philo und Josephus als Apologeten des Judenthums (1906); Krüger, Hellenismus und Judenthum im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (1908); Wendland, Die Hellenistisch-Römische Kultur ... pp. 187-211. See also the articles “Hellenism” in the Encyclopædia Biblica, and “Griechenthum” in Hamburger’s Realencycl. für Bibel und Talmud.]

I. Hellenism and Judaism

The influence which Greek thought and culture exercised upon the Jews and the Jewish religion differed both in its extent and intensity upon the Jews of Palestine on the one hand, and upon the Jews of the Dispersion on the other. It will, therefore, be necessary to deal separately with these two parts of the subject, although a great deal of what we shall have to say about Hellenistic influence upon the Jews of Palestine will naturally apply also to the Jews of the Dispersion.

During the two centuries which preceded the appearance of Alexander upon the world’s stage, the Jews as a nation had become more and more the people of the Law. From the time of Ezra onwards this tendency had increased with ever-growing volume. “Ezra had set his heart to seek the Law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgements”[19]; his efforts were crowned with a great measure of success. By this means it was sought to preserve the Jewish religion and Jewish ethics uncontaminated by external influences, whether through contact with foreign peoples,[20] or with those who although they belonged to the Jewish race were not faithful to the ordinances of the Law.[21] This separation was successful at first; but with the rise and rapid spread of Hellenism it became increasingly difficult to maintain, especially as the influence of the Greek spirit was, with the exception of Egypt, nowhere stronger than on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. “Girt about by a Greek population, the Palestinian Jews, in spite of Ezra’s admirable organization, could not entirely resist the assaults of Hellenism. It is probable that not merely the Greek language, but also Greek philosophy, exerted a charm on some of the clearest Jewish intellects. But we are within the bounds of acknowledged fact in asserting that the ardour of Judæan piety, at least in the highest class, greatly cooled in the age subsequent to Ezra’s, and in ascribing this to Greek influences.”[22]

Of far-reaching importance to the Jews of Palestine, though only indirectly, was the battle of Ipsus (B.C. 301); for one of the results of this battle was that among the territories assigned to the house of Ptolemy, according to the settlement agreed upon after the battle, was Palestine (Cœle-Syria); and there followed, for this country at any rate, a period of comparative peace which lasted for about a hundred years.[23] It was, in the main, during this century that the quiet and peaceful process of Hellenization among the Jews went on. The wise policy, as it was upon the whole, of the Ptolemys towards the Jews did much to favour this process. The Jews were placed upon the same footing as the Egyptian subjects; they were permitted absolute freedom in the exercise of their religion and religious customs; in political matters also the Jews found themselves in a position of perfect equality with their fellow-subjects; indeed, so much were they trusted that they not infrequently formed garrisons in the royal fortresses; of the existence, too, of Jewish soldiers in the Ptolemaic armies we have contemporary evidence.[24] Favourable treatment was also accorded to the Jews by Seleucus in the northern parts of Syria; they were, for example, here too granted the privilege of the rights of citizenship. This kindly treatment which the Jews received would naturally have had the effect of inclining them favourably towards their rulers; and this was in itself a not unimportant factor in the new conditions by means of which Greek culture was exercising its influence upon them.

Again, it was the policy of the Egyptian kings to foster free intercourse between their Hellenic and Asiatic subjects; the chief means whereby this was promoted was by planting Greek settlements in Palestine—following herein the example of Alexander[25]—which resulted in the rise of a number of new Greek cities in that country; the Greeks and Macedonians who consequently became settlers there constituted before long a numerous and influential element in the population[26]; in many cases they changed a city which had hitherto been wholly Semitic into one which became predominantly Greek; examples of this are Raphia, Gaza, Ascalon, Azotus, Cæsarea, Ptolemais, and others. Nor was this confined to Western Palestine; many cities in Eastern Palestine as well became centres of Greek influence. Invariably in cases of this kind the local government of the city was framed on the Greek model; this meant the independent organization of large municipal communities which, as Schürer points out, was of “fundamental importance in the political life of Palestine; this was,” he continues, “indeed, no novelty in Palestine, where from of old the large towns of the Philistine and Phœnician coasts had formed centres of political life. The influence of Hellenism marks, however, a turning-point in this respect also. For, on the one hand, it essentially transformed the existing communities, while, on the other, it founded numerous new ones and made the municipal communities in general the basis of the political organization of the country in a far more thorough manner than before. Wherever Hellenism penetrated—especially on the Philistine coasts and the eastern boundaries of Palestine beyond the Jordan—the country districts were grouped around single large towns as their political centres. Each of such communities formed a comparatively independent whole, managing its own internal affairs; its dependence upon the rulers of Syria consisted only in the recognition of their military supremacy, the payment of taxes, and certain other performances. At the head of such a Hellenistically organized community was a democratic senate of several hundred members.”[27] It cannot be doubted that the organization on Greek models of the local government of Jewish cities must have brought a new mental outlook to the Jews. The political assemblies and annual elections in which each individual took his part must have tended to give to the Jew a sense of his personal importance such as he is not likely ever to have experienced before. In the past history of the Jewish State a régime had obtained in which the ordinary individual was regarded as of little or no account; the vast bulk of the people took no part, not even the most humble, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct of affairs; they had no voice even in the smaller world of local matters; they were mere ciphers without anything in the shape of civic responsibility. Individual responsibility had, it is true, been insisted upon in the domain of religion by Ezekiel[28]; but it was a new rôle that the Jew was now called upon to fill in this individual capacity. As a member of a community organized according to Greek ideas he would feel that he had a real part to play and some contribution to offer for the general welfare; he would know that his decision would go towards affecting for good or ill the conditions under which he and his fellows lived. Such a new experience could not fail to generate in the Jew a new sense of personal responsibility, a realization of duty towards others, not only of his own race, and thus develop a wider outlook and a deeper insight into the world of his surroundings.

Another thing which must have appealed strongly to the imagination of an oriental people like the Jews, though it would have affected them in a very different way, was the interest and fascination afforded by the shows and processions associated with the annual Greek festivals. That such sights had an alluring effect, and indeed something more, upon some considerable section of the people is evident, for the first book of Maccabees shows us that the question of the adoption of Greek polytheism was first raised in Judæa by apostate Jews themselves; the passage, to which we shall have to refer again later, is 1 Maccabees i. 11 f.: “In those days [i.e., in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes] came there forth out of Israel transgressors of the Law, and persuaded many, saying, Let us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles that are round about us; for since we parted from them many evils have befallen us. And the saying was good in their eyes. And certain of the people were forward herein, and went to the king, and he gave them licence to do after the ordinances of the Gentiles. And they built a place of exercise (‘gymnasium’) in Jerusalem according to the laws of the Gentiles; and they made themselves uncircumcized, and forsook the holy covenant, and joined themselves to the Gentiles, and sold themselves to do evil.” It is rightly pointed out that in this the promoters “had no doubt an eye to tactics in the way they chose to inaugurate their campaign. A gymnasium would appeal especially to youth; and if the Jewish youth could be won over to pagan practices, then the future was theirs.”[29] The gymnasium was, in truth, one of the most potent means whereby the Greek spirit was fostered, especially among those entering upon manhood. Mr. Edwyn Bevan writes so interestingly on this subject and so much to the point, that we cannot refrain from quoting his words. He says: “The gymnasiums were as much of the essence of a Greek state as the political assemblies; they expressed fundamental tendencies of the Greek mind—its craving for harmonious beauty of form, its delight in the body, its unabashed frankness with regard to everything natural.... The gymnasiums also served other by-ends besides the one of bodily training; they were the social centres in which the life of a Greek youth got those interests which go with companionship, the spur of common ambitions, and esprit de corps. From the days of Alexander and his successors we find as a regular institution in Greek cities guilds of young men, called epheboi, attached to the gymnasiums and organized under state control. A young man might remain in the ranks of the epheboi for a year. He wore a distinctive uniform, some variety of that Greek country dress—the dress worn for hunting, riding, travelling—which consisted of a broad-brimmed hat, chlamys brooched about the shoulders, and high-laced boots.... In state processions the body of epheboi, wearing sometimes even crowns of gold, formed a brilliant cluster in the spectacle.”[30] In a large variety of ways, therefore, in every-day life Hellenism affected and influenced the Jews of Palestine.

This influence was furthered by the powerful high-priestly party, “the sons of Zadok”—not that all the members of this party were necessarily priests—who were the political leaders of the people and at the same time in favour of Greek culture. The active and aggressive championship of Hellenism by this party began with the advent of Antiochus Epiphanes to the Syrian throne in B.C. 175. The high-priest at this time was Onias III; but he was not a supporter of Hellenistic influence among his people; he was, therefore, driven away by his brother Jesus, a thorough-going Hellenist, who changed his Jewish name for the Greek Jason.[31] The second book of Maccabees gives us an account of what happened, which may be accepted as substantially correct; in iv. 7-17, it is said: “But when Seleucus died, and Antiochus, who was called Epiphanes, succeeded to the kingdom, Jason, the brother of Onias, supplanted his brother in the high-priesthood, promising in a petition to the king three hundred and threescore talents of silver, besides eighty talents from another fund; in addition to which he undertook to pay a hundred and fifty more, if he was commissioned to set up a gymnasium and ephebeum, and to register the Jerusalemites as citizens of Antioch.[32] And when the king had given his assent, Jason at once exercised his influence in order to bring over his fellow-countrymen to Greek ways of life ... and seeking to overthrow the lawful modes of life, he introduced new customs forbidden by the Law; he deliberately established a gymnasium under the citadel itself, and made the noblest of the young men wear the petasus.[33] And to such a height did the passion for Greek fashions rise, and the influx of foreign customs, thanks to the surpassing impiety of that godless Jason—no high-priest he!—that the priests were no longer interested in the services of the altar, but despising the sanctuary, and neglecting the sacrifices, they hurried to take part in the unlawful displays held in the palæstra after the quoit-throwing had been announced, thus setting at nought what their fathers honoured, and esteeming the glories of the Greeks above all else.”[34] We have quoted this passage in full as it well illustrates the way in which the high-priestly party, headed by Jason, furthered the Hellenistic Movement in Palestine. Mixed motives probably prompted Jason and his followers in their action; it was certainly to the party’s advantage, not to say necessity, to be on good terms with the ruling powers; on the other hand, it is likely enough that they were convinced of the superiority of Greek culture, and honestly thought that it was for the good of their people that it should be cultivated; but their unnecessarily aggressive methods, coupled with the brutal action of Antiochus in trying to stamp out Judaism altogether, brought an inevitable reaction; and there followed, as a result, the Maccabæan revolt which had the effect of obliterating Hellenism, as far as this was possible, in Palestine.[35] It had, however, become too deeply ingrained to be altogether eradicated; this will be seen as we proceed. But it may be pointed out here that one of the signs of how deep and widespread Hellenistic influence must have been among the Jews of Palestine is to be seen in the large number of hebraized Greek words which, as the Hebrew of the Mishna shows, had become incorporated into the language of the Jews. Schürer has gathered a great many examples of this, for the examination of which recourse must be had to his work[36]; here it must suffice merely to indicate the different departments of life in reference to which these foreign Greek words became current; they include civil government, the army, jurisprudence, public institutions such as heathen games, the theatre, the baths, and public inns, architecture in general, plastic art, music, writing, trade and industry, the coinage system, provisions, clothes, furniture and domestic utensils; in addition to this we find that the formation of many proper names is Greek, and that multitudes, of Greek words were adapted which express ideas on many various subjects. Schürer gives the following summary of the way in which Hellenistic culture affected the every-day life of the Jews of Palestine: “It fashioned in a peculiar manner the organization of the state, legislation, the administration of justice, public arrangements, art and science, trade and industry, and the customs of daily life down to fashions and ornaments, and thus impressed upon every department of life, wherever its influence reached, the stamp of the Greek mind.”[37]

From what has been said it is evident that Hellenistic influence upon the Jews of Palestine was very marked, for although it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to trace step by step the progress of this influence from its inception, we are able to see plainly enough how profoundly it must have affected the Jews. The question, however, arises as to whether the religious beliefs of the Jews were influenced by Hellenism. That a large number of Jews prior to the Maccabæan struggle gave up their traditional belief in their pursuit after everything that was Greek is clear from the evidence of the books of the Maccabees; but the point is rather as to whether Judaism as a faith was in any way permanently affected by the Hellenistic spirit. Restricting ourselves at present to Palestinian Judaism we may say without hesitation that its fundamental tenets remained untouched; but as regards various beliefs which, in process of time, became part and parcel of Judaism, it was different; it cannot be denied that these, of which mention will be made presently, do witness to the action of extraneous influences, permanent in their effect, of which Hellenism was one. “In no period,” says Wellhausen, “was Judaism so fruitful as in this. It was, like Islam, of complex appearance, full of antinomies, receptive like all that is living, unsystematic, only to be understood in its historical setting. It was only practical religion which was ruled by a pedantic spirit and by strict discipline; in the domain of belief and religious conception a curious freedom was permitted, although certain fundamental doctrines were rigorously shielded.”[38] The difficulty of estimating to what extent Jewish religious thought and practice were affected by outside influences is very considerable; not less difficult is it to determine what outside influence had affected a given belief or custom. We are dealing specifically with Hellenistic influences, but these could be, and were, exercised both directly and indirectly. It must be remembered that the conditions under which the Jews lived during the period with which we are dealing, viz., in the midst of surrounding nations which had all, more or less, come under Hellenistic influences, and among whom the development of culture and religion had been, and was, proceeding apace—it must be remembered that these conditions were one of the consequences of the Hellenistic Movement.[39] Further, the question must always be borne in mind as to whether some eastern trait which was absorbed by Judaism had not first been assimilated by Hellenism with its strongly syncretistic tendency, and then taken up by Judaism through this Greek channel. Even in the cases in which eastern elements were directly taken up into Judaism, must we not see in such Jewish syncretism at any rate the indirect result of Hellenistic influence? This readiness to accept what other religions had to offer was of the essence of the Hellenistic spirit. As illustrating this latter point we may mention the subjects of Jewish angelology and demonology; it may be regarded as certain that the later Jewish idea of angels, the names of which the Jews themselves describe as originating in Babylonia, the opposition between good and bad angels, the latter being subject to a personal head, the dualism between the realms of light and darkness, in a word, the whole belief in the existence of good and evil spirits, was due to the influence of Parseeism. In the domain of eschatology extraneous influences were very marked, though it is not easy always to decide the quarter from which these came. As Bertholet says: “Jewish eschatology has become the very meeting-place of foreign elements. It is especially the merit of Prof. Bousset, who in general has dealt most successfully with our problem, to have shown clearly that the expectation of a transcendent æon which, inaugurated by a universal judgement of the world, replaces the æon of this present world, differs so widely from the expectation of a Messianic future which essentially concerns Israel alone and, on the whole, will only be enacted on the stage of this present earth, that they cannot have sprung from the same root. And here, considering the ideas about periods of the world, resurrection, general judgement, universal conflagration, a new world, and everlasting life, we have first to take into account influences from Parseeism, mixed with Babylonian elements, only incidentally Greek ideas....”[40] Bousset, however, believes that in the domain of Jewish eschatology Greek influence predominated over that of the east, though he fully recognizes the influence of the latter.[41] Regarding the Jewish belief of the immortality of the soul, there can be no doubt that for this the Jews were indebted mainly to Hellenism, though the development of this into the doctrine of the resurrection of the body is Jewish. That the new material thus absorbed became integral and permanent elements of Judaism is to be seen by their presence in Rabbinical literature.

But the influence of Hellenistic or other extra-Judaic thought on the religion of the Jews cannot be restricted to those points of doctrine on which, as in the case of the ones just enumerated, that influence was direct. All religious doctrines are so inter-related that the development or modification of one can scarcely fail to affect others in one way or another; and this is, above all, true regarding the doctrine of God. We shall see later that among the Jews of the Dispersion the doctrine of God was directly affected by Greek philosophical thought; in the case of the orthodox Judaism of Palestine this was not so; but there is reason for believing that indirectly the doctrine of God was, even in Palestinian Judaism, affected by both Greek and oriental thought. The developed angelology which became a characteristic of orthodox Judaism had its share in moulding that conception of divine transcendence which was one aspect of the Jewish doctrine of God; the teaching concerning those semi-divine, superhuman beings who act as God’s intermediaries, and are His agents in carrying out the divine will on earth,[42] is one which is not unconnected with the developed angelology of later Judaism; one has only to think of the place and activity assigned to Michael to realize that this is so.

What has been said is also true of the doctrine of the resurrection for which Judaism was indebted to Hellenism; here it will suffice to put the question: How could the doctrine of God not be affected by belief in immortality? The question will be sufficiently answered by comparing the Old Testament doctrine of Sheol with the doctrine of the resurrection.

Further signs of Greek influence are to be discerned in some of the books of the Old Testament and of the Apocrypha; and the Apocalyptic Movement must be specially considered. But special chapters will be devoted to these.

In conclusion, it is necessary to make a brief reference to the type of Hellenism which grew up in Syria, for this, too, is a matter of some importance. Attention has already been drawn to the syncretism which was a characteristic of the Hellenistic period; one of the results of this was the absorption of many oriental elements by Hellenism whereby it was affected for the worse; and the Hellenism of the east became a very different thing from the Hellenism of Greece. It was especially in Syria that in course of time a degenerate form of Hellenism prevailed; we have reason to believe, says Bevan, “that it was just in Syria that Hellenism took a baser form. The ascetic element which saved its liberty from rankness tended here more than anywhere else to be forgotten. The games, the shows, the abandonment of a life which ran riot in a gratification of the senses, grosser or more refined, these made up too much of the Hellenism which changed the face of Syria in the last centuries before Christ. ‘The people of these cities,’ a historian wrote, about a hundred years before Christ, ‘are relieved by the fertility of their soil from a laborious struggle for existence. Life is a continuous series of social festivities. Their gymnasiums they use as baths, where they anoint themselves with costly oils and myrrhs. In the grammateia (such is the name they give the public eating-halls) they practically live, filling themselves there for the better part of the day with rich foods and wine; much that they cannot eat they take away home. They feast to the prevailing music of strings. The cities are filled from end to end with the noise of harp-playing.’ Very likely that picture is over-coloured.... The man who wrote it, Posidonius, a man of huge literary industry, and a philosopher of the nobler school, was himself a Syrian Greek; but it cannot be altogether untrue.”[43] Considerably earlier than this, extraneous influences were already affecting the Jews, for Hecatæus of Abdera (B.C. 306-283) bears witness of how many Jews were influenced by foreign ways. He says: “Under the dominations which were established in later times [he has been writing about Mosaic times], namely that of the Persians, and that of the Macedonians who overthrew the Persian rule, the Jews greatly modified their traditional ordinances through their contact with strangers.”[44]

Oriental and Hellenistic influences were thus both at work in influencing the Jews of Palestine in many directions; the fusion of these two influences took place, and the result was that a debased form of Hellenism was produced. On the one hand, then, Hellenism, with the many good qualities which were inherent in it, brought a beneficial influence to bear upon the Jews of Palestine; but, on the other hand, its effect, for the reason given, was evil; so that when the great reaction against Hellenism took place, it was fostered by ethical as well as religious considerations.

II. The Essenes

[Literature.—Lucius, Der Essenismus in seinem Verhältniss zum Judenthum (1881); Lightfoot, Colossians, pp. 349-419 (1884); M. Friedländer, Zur Enstehungsgeschichte des Christenthums, pp. 98-142 (1894); Schürer, II, ii. pp. 188-218, German ed. II, pp. 651-680; M. Friedländer, Die religiösen Bewegungen ..., pp. 114-168 (1905); the articles “Essenes” in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible and in the Jewish Encycl., by F. C. Conybeare and Kohler respectively.]

The name Essene is in all probability derived from the Aramaic word which is the equivalent of the Hebrew Chassid (“Pious”).[45] The question as to whether any signs of Hellenistic influence are to be discerned in Essenism is one upon which much difference of opinion exists among scholars. A massive literature upon the subject exists. To go into much detail here would be out of the question; we can only refer to a few points which make it difficult to believe that Essenism was uninfluenced by Hellenism.[46]

There are, undoubtedly, a number of facts regarding Essene belief and practice which show how un-Jewish they were in some respects, though, as Josephus says, they were Jews by race.[47] Philo, who is our earliest authority regarding the Essenes, says: “In the first place, these men live in villages, avoiding the towns on account of the sinfulness that reigns in them; for they know that just as disease arises through unwholesome air, so, too, incurable infection to the soul through intercourse.”[48] This withdrawing from the world is elsewhere extolled by Philo when he speaks of it as characteristic of those Greeks and barbarians who have dedicated their lives to the search for wisdom, and “who have turned their backs upon the crowded market-place and public life in order that they may be able to devote themselves to meditation in their solitude.”[49] It is unnecessary to insist upon the fact that withdrawing from the world and seeking solitude was entirely un-Jewish; the Jews were essentially social in their habits of life, their whole legislation assumes this, and their history shows it throughout. It is, therefore, not from the Jews that the Essenes acquired this characteristic. There are, on the other hand, ample grounds for believing that among the Greeks and Orientals examples of this were to be found; it is from one or other of these, probably from a Greek pattern borrowed from the east, that the Essenes adopted this.

Again, the Essenes exhibited another very un-Jewish trait in the position they took up on the question of marriage; the evidence of Josephus regarding this is as follows: “They neglect wedlock, but choose out other persons’ children while they are pliable and fit for learning, and esteem them to be their kindred, and form them according to their manner of life.”[50] This was quite against Jewish teaching and practice, though in agreement with Jewish Hellenism, which looked upon asceticism as the most efficacious, and indeed indispensable, means of attaining to the vision of God.[51] The asceticism of the Essenes, both in this and other respects, was an inevitable result of their dualism. According to their teaching, God and the world, which is wholly evil, stand opposed in irreconcilable antagonism; this accounts for their elaborate angelology, for as God cannot have any immediate intercourse with the evil world, angels act as His intermediaries. This part of Essene belief is largely due to Persian influence. Further, Josephus tells us that “the sect of Essenes affirms that fate governs all things, and that nothing befalls men but what is according to its determination.”[52] On this point the Essenes and the Sadducees were at opposite extremes, while the Pharisees occupied a middle position between the two.

Of great importance was the teaching of the Essenes on the resurrection. “The opinion is strongly held among them,” says Josephus, “that bodies are corruptible, and that the matter they are made of is not permanent; but that the souls are immortal, and continue for ever, and that they come out of the most subtle air, and are united to their bodies as to prisons, into which they are drawn by a certain natural enticement; but that when they are set free from the bonds of the flesh, they then, as released from a long bondage, rejoice and mount upward. And their opinion is like that of the Greeks, that good souls have their habitation beyond the ocean, in a region that is neither oppressed with storms of rain or snow, nor with intense heat, but that this place is such as is refreshed by the gentle breathing of a west wind that is perpetually blowing from the ocean; while they allot to bad souls a dark and tempestuous den, full of never-ceasing punishments.”[53] This belief, which Josephus himself regards as due to Greek influence, is directly opposed to the doctrine of the resurrection of the body which was a tenet of orthodox Judaism. Un-Jewish, further, was the fact that the Essenes would never enter the Temple for fear of becoming contaminated with the crowds there; so that they did not offer sacrifices; though, on the other hand, they sent offerings to the Temple.

One last point wherein Essenism was un-Jewish in character was that in some respects it was a mystery-religion; each community had a central house around which the brethren of the Order dwelt; in this house they met for their religious observances; one of these was a common meal; at this meal special holy garments were worn, which were put off again when the wearers returned to work; a priest offered up prayer before and after the meal. Whenever a new candidate sought admission into the Order he had first to pass a three years’ noviciate; then, on being admitted, he underwent a form of baptism, and had to take solemn oaths to obey the rules of the Order and to keep its secrets; he had also to swear to observe secrecy regarding the names of the angels in whom the members of the Order believed. As the Essenes lived entirely for the life to come, they were much occupied in attempting to penetrate the secrets of the future; indeed, they were accredited with the faculty of foretelling the future; Josephus says that they were seldom mistaken in their predictions, and gives three interesting examples of the correctness of the prophecies.[54]

In a number of respects, therefore, the Essenes differed fundamentally in faith and practice from orthodox Judaism; but in their strict monotheism, in their high respect for the Law of Moses, especially in the matter of Sabbath observance, and in their frequent purifications, they were thoroughly Jewish.

While it seems, then, impossible not to recognize in the Essene Movement to some considerable extent the result of Hellenistic influence, it is evident that other extra-Jewish influences, namely, oriental, also had a share in moulding it. Friedländer speaks of Essenism as “a harmonious blending of the Mosaic and Hellenic spirit”[55]; perhaps this does not take sufficient account of the oriental influences whereby Essenism was undoubtedly affected; at the same time it is certain that Hellenism, with its strongly syncretistic tendencies, absorbed oriental elements prior to its more pronounced extension in Palestine, in which case eastern influence would only have been indirect, while that of Hellenism would have been the more immediate.

Summary

The separation of the Jews from the outside world which was brought about through the exertions of Ezra and those who followed him, and which had the effect of preserving the people from extraneous influences, was only successful for a limited period of time. For with the rise and rapid spread of the Hellenistic Movement came the breaking down of all the barriers which had been so laboriously set up; and the Jews, like the rest of the world of those days, came under the sway of this irresistible power, so strongly exercised on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean.

Hellenistic influence upon the Jews was exercised in an intensive manner during the century of comparative peace for their country, which was one of the results of the battle of Ipsus (B.C. 301). The considerate treatment accorded to the Jews by their rulers during this period was calculated to help forward the process of Hellenization. The policy of the Egyptian kings of settling Greeks and Macedonians in Palestine resulted in the rise of many Greek cities there. Both in Western and Eastern Palestine civic life was framed upon the Greek model; a marked individualism among the Jews was one of the results of this.

Hellenistic influence was exercised, further, by means of the annual celebrations of the Greek festivals; the gymnasium and all that this involved became a still greater means for the spreading abroad of this influence.

The fact that the powerful high-priestly party favoured the Hellenistic Movement did much to forward it.

Thus, by the time that Antiochus Epiphanes came to the Syrian throne in B.C. 175 much of what was essentially Hellenistic had become ineradicably rooted in Jewish modes of life and thought, so much so that when the great reaction against Hellenism arose in the shape of the Maccabæan revolt, it was in many directions powerless to effect a return to the Ezra ideal.

One effect of the deep and widespread influence of the Hellenistic Movement is to be seen in the large number of Greek words which, as the Hebrew of the Mishna shows, have been incorporated into the Hebrew language.

As to Greek influence upon the religious belief of the Jews of Palestine, it did not directly affect its fundamental tenets; but in one way or another, in conjunction with other eastern influences, it did affect Judaism as a faith in some respects. Angelology and demonology, which Judaism absorbed from the east, were elements the incorporation of which may so far be regarded as due indirectly to the Hellenistic Movement in that the Greek spirit inculcated, and set the example of syncretism, an example followed by the Jews no less than by other peoples under the sway of Hellenism. In the domain of eschatology both Greek and Eastern influences affected the Jews; which of the two was the more powerful is not easily decided. As regards the belief in the future life of the Jews the signs of Greek influence are plainly discernible.

This influence cannot be restricted, however, to the points mentioned because the inter-relation of doctrinal tenets is such that the development or modification of one dogma affects others; an example of this is the way in which the later angelology and demonology of the Jews affected their doctrine of God.

The chapters on “Traces of Greek Influences in the Old Testament and the Apocrypha” and “The Apocalyptic Movement” should be read in conjunction with the subject of this chapter.

The Essene Movement was the outcome of mainly Hellenistic, but also of Eastern, influences.

CHAPTER III
Hellenistic Influence upon the Jews of the Dispersion

[Literature.—Stade, Op. cit., vol. II (1888); Schürer, II, ii. pp. 219-327, German ed. III, pp. 1-188; Bertholet, Die Stellung dev Israeliten und Juden zu den Fremden (1890); Reinach, Textes d’auteurs Grecs et Romains relatifs au Judaisme (1895); Willrich, Juden und Griechen vor der makkabäischen Erhebung (1895); Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (1900); M. Friedländer, Die religiösen Bewegungen ..., pp. 235-264 (1905); by the same author, Geschichte der jüdischen Apologetik als Vorgeschichte des Christentums (1903); Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (1903); Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity, I, pp. 1-36 (1908); Bertholet, Das religionsgeschichtliche Problem des Spätjudenthums (1909); Oesterley and Box, The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue, pp. 114-120 (1911); Wendland, Op. cit., pp. 192-211; and the following articles, Ramsay, “The Jews in the Græco-Asiatic Cities,” in the Expositor (January, 1902); “Diaspora” in the Jewish Encycl.; “Dispersion” in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible (extra volume) and the Encycl. Bibl.]

I. The Dispersion

A preliminary matter to be dealt with is the Dispersion of the Jews, its origin and extent; after which we can turn our attention to the special characteristics of the Dispersion Jews, and the influence of Hellenism upon them.

The first beginnings of the Dispersion on a large scale are to be seen in the deportation to Assyria of 27,290 of the inhabitants of Samaria by Sargon in B.C. 722. In 2 Kings xvii. 23 it is said: “So Israel was carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto this day” (cp. 2 Kings xvii. 6; xviii. 11). The general reference to this occurrence given in the Old Testament is supplemented by an inscription of Sargon’s in which it is said: “I besieged and captured Samerina (Samaria): 27,290 people dwelling in the midst of it I carried off. Fifty chariots I collected among them, and allowed them to have the rest of their goods.”[56] A further deportation on a larger scale took place when Nebuchadnezzar carried captive to Babylon the bulk of the nation of Judah in B.C. 597; this was supplemented by further deportations in B.C. 586 and 582 (see 2 Kings xxiv. 14-16; xxv. 11, 21; Jer. lii. 15, 28-30). Some five or six thousand exiles returned to Palestine in B.C. 430; but about a century later, in the reign of Artaxerxes III (Ochus),[57] there was another deportation, a number of Jews being transported to Hyrcania, on the Caspian Sea, and Babylonia.[58] The great majority of these exiles and their descendants were content to remain in their new homes, and many settlements of Jews arose in Babylonia, the centre of the Eastern Dispersion; from these centres they emigrated in all directions, and in course of time the chief centre of the Dispersion came to be Egypt, and of these Egyptian settlements Alexandria became the most important. The earliest mention which we have of Jews settling in Egypt is in one of the Aramaic papyri found a few years ago in Elephantiné[59]; these papyri consist of official documents—decrees of the Persian government and public ordinances of the Jewish colony settled there—as well as private papers, such as business letters, account books, records of debt, lists of names and personal correspondence; some literary pieces were also found in the collection. In one of these papyri—a petition addressed by the Jewish soldiery stationed at Elephantiné to the governor of the Jewish colony—it is stated that the forefathers of the petitioners had been settled there and had built a temple to their God Jahu (Jehovah) “since the days of the kings of Egypt.” The reference is, in all probability, to the Jewish mercenaries in the army of Psametik I (B.C. 663-609) of which mention is made in the Letter of Aristeas, 12, 13. It was the successor of Psametik I, Pharoah Necho II, who in B.C. 609 overran Syria and, having subdued Judah, exiled Jehoahaz to Egypt (2 Kings xxiii. 29, 34). Not long after, in B.C. 586, Johanan, the son of Kareah, led a number of Jews, among whom was the prophet Jeremiah, into Egypt (Jer. xlii., xliii.); and, according to Jeremiah xliv. 1, there were Jewish settlements in Migdol, Tahpanes, Noph (i.e. Memphis), as well as in the district of Pathros in Upper Egypt (Isa. xi. 11).

These data show that in comparatively early times there were Jewish settlements in Egypt. But of great interest and importance is the evidence of the Elephantiné papyri, mentioned just now; they witness to the presence of Jews in Egypt during the fifth century B.C.[60] The Jewish colony settled in Syene was a military one; the papyri tell us that the organization was much the same as in other parts of the Persian Empire; there was a governor,[61] with whom were associated the priests, who represented the colony in all dealings with the suzerain power; he sends regular remittances to the central government, and receives instructions in all things concerning the colony from the satrap of the province. Side by side with the civil organization is the military régime; the force is divided into companies called after the names of their officers; the soldiers of the garrison each have a small possession of land; their office is hereditary; when not engaged in war they seem to have led a comfortable and pleasant life concerning which the papyri give a number of details. Though the colony was not a large one, in all probability not amounting to more than a hundred souls, the fact of its existence is not without importance for the study of the Dispersion.[62]

When the Persian Empire was conquered by Alexander the Great, many Jews emigrated from Persia to the west, and settled down in the centres of Greek civilization; nor did it take very long before there was scarcely any part of the civilized world of those days in which Jewish settlements did not exist. “The greatly enlarged channels of commerce, especially by sea-routes, attracted many from the interior to the coasts. The newly-founded Grecian cities, rendered attractive by all the achievements of Greek art and civilization, became favourite resorts. Henceforth, trade relations, the desire to see the world, soon also political considerations and (we may well suppose) a certain conscious or unconscious craving for culture, became operative in promoting the dispersion of the Jews over the civilized world.”[63] About the middle of the second century B.C. the Sybilline Oracles (iii. 271) bear witness to the wide dispersion of the Jews in saying that “every land and every sea is full of thee”; the language is hyperbolic, but testifies, nevertheless, to the ubiquity of the Jews at this time. Somewhat later Strabo (circa B.C. 60-A.D. 20) gives the following evidence: “These Jews are already gotten into all cities, and it is hard to find a place in the habitable earth that has not admitted this tribe of men, and is not possessed by it.”[64]

The most important centre from every point of view, not only of the Egyptian, but of the whole Dispersion, was Alexandria. As we have seen, the nucleus of a Jewish population had existed in Egypt for centuries before the time of Alexander. When Alexandria was founded Jewish settlers were at once attracted to it because equal privileges with all other citizens were accorded them; reference is made to this in later times in an edict of Tiberius in which it is said: “Since I am assured that the Jews of Alexandria, called Alexandrians, have been joint inhabitants in the earliest times with the Alexandrians, and have obtained from their kings equal privileges with them, as is evident from the public records that are in their possession, and the edicts themselves; and that after Alexandria had been subjected to our empire by Augustus, their rights and privileges have been preserved by those presidents who have at divers times been sent thither; and that no dispute had been raised about those rights and privileges.... I will, therefore, that the nation of the Jews be not deprived of their rights and privileges ... but that those rights and privileges which they formerly enjoyed be preserved to them....”[65] In another place Josephus tells us that the Jews of Alexandria had set apart for them “a particular place, that they might live without being polluted [by the Gentiles], and were thereby not so much intermixed with foreigners as before”; this was done by the successors of Alexander.[66] On the other hand, Philo says that the Jews lived in all parts of the city in his day[67]; the earlier exclusiveness of the Jews would naturally be, to some extent, broken down in course of time when living in Gentile surroundings, especially in such a centre as Alexandria, where Jews of wealth and social position lived who would desire to avail themselves of the high culture enjoyed by their Gentile fellow-citizens.

Although Alexandria was by far the most important centre of the Dispersion, not only in Egypt but in the whole civilized world of those days, there were many other smaller settlements of Jews in that country; Philo says that the one million Jews who dwelt in Egypt were to be found in every part of it from Libya to the Ethiopian frontier.[68] Of the many other lands in which Jews were settled we cannot speak here; it must suffice to say that no country was without them.[69]

II. Hellenistic Influence on Religion

It has been pointed out above that among the Greeks themselves the effect of the new spirit due to the Hellenistic Movement was very great upon the men and women of the cultured classes, but that upon the masses it did not exercise much influence. To a large extent this is also true of the Jews of the Dispersion; for greatly as they were influenced by the Greek spirit, the point must be emphasized that this applies, primarily and mainly, to the cultured classes, literati, philosophers and the like. No doubt, indirectly, other classes were to a greater or less extent also affected, but so far as the fundamental doctrines of Judaism were concerned, the bulk of the Jews of the Dispersion were, in the main, true to the traditions of their fathers in spite of their Greek surroundings, and in spite of the fact that in other respects they were entirely under the sway of the Greek spirit. Not only did they pay annually the half-shekel to the Temple authorities in Jerusalem for the maintenance of the sacrificial system, but as a rule circumcision was insisted upon, the sanctity of the Sabbath was observed, and the great festivals were regularly celebrated. Vast numbers made pilgrimages to Jerusalem to keep the three principal feasts, Tabernacles, Passover and Weeks.[70] Even Philo, who in mind and character was far more of a Greek philosopher than a Jewish Rabbi, insists on the need of observing the distinctive marks of Judaism.[71] It is necessary to point this out by way of preface, otherwise from what we have to say further upon the subject the reader might be led to suppose that, at all events, the more cultured among the Jews of the Dispersion, and especially those of Alexandria, lost touch with Judaism altogether; this, no doubt, happened in many cases, but as compared with the many that remained Jews in religion, these were the exceptions. Nevertheless, in the case of great numbers, traditional Judaism became transformed. To begin with, utterly unlike the intolerant attitude of the Palestinian Jews towards the Gentiles, the Jews of the Dispersion looked upon the larger world of their surroundings with interest and sympathy; their religious interests were not so entirely absorbed in their own view of things that they could not see and appreciate the excellence of Greek thought and philosophy; their minds were open to receive and to be influenced by what was good and true, wherever it was to be found. The Dispersion Jew was a Jew at heart, though not according to the Pharisaic standard, and convinced of the pre-eminence of his own faith, but he was none the less ready to render due justice to the opinions and convictions of his Greek neighbours; the interesting evidence regarding this given in the Letter of Aristeas[72] (121, 122) is worth quoting here: “Regarding discussions and explanations of the Law they possessed great aptitude. They struck just the right balance, for they discarded the hard literalness of the letter, and were modest with regard to their own wisdom, and were ready to hold argument, to listen to the opinions of others, and to consider thoroughly every question that might be raised.” This broad-mindedness was one of the results of unfettered contact with the outer world. But a result, as remarkable as it was important, followed; for in comparing his religion with the various beliefs of the Gentiles, the Jew of the Dispersion became convinced, in a way which hitherto had not been possible, that both in faith and practice Judaism was, in so far as its fundamentals were concerned, immeasurably purer and truer, in most respects, though not in all, than anything that the Gentiles could offer. He felt, therefore, that he had something to say and give to the world which concerned all men. Hence arose those missionary efforts, so contrary to the spirit of exclusiveness which characterized traditional Judaism, but which were crowned with a considerable measure of success. Yet a grave and subtle danger lurked here for the Jew of the Dispersion; in his desire to make Judaism as attractive as possible to the Gentiles, he presented it with such modifications that it could no longer be called genuine Judaism. Under the influence of the Hellenistic spirit the rigidity of the Law was smoothed down, and some Jewish beliefs appeared in a somewhat modified form[73]; many converts did not do more than keep the dietary laws and observe the Sabbath; and this was acquiesced in. The reaction of this upon those who thus presented a form of Judaism which was to some extent spurious, cannot well have been without its consequences, since their action must necessarily have affected their own faith in their religion and their ideas upon the importance of their religious rites.[74]

If, as we have seen, syncretism affected Palestinian Judaism we shall expect the same to have been the case with Hellenistic Judaism; this was, indeed, so, and to a much greater extent. Thus, their conception of God was enriched with new ideas from both Platonic and, to a greater degree, from Stoic philosophy, e.g., the doctrine of Divine Immanence, to which we shall refer in dealing with the signs of Greek influence in Jewish religious literature (Chapter V), where we shall see also that the Jewish conceptions of the nature of man was greatly influenced by Greek philosophical teaching. Again, the Dispersion Jews commended their Scriptures to the heathen world by means of interpreting them allegorically; the real sense of Scripture would often be entirely explained away by this method. This, too, shows the influence of the Hellenistic spirit, for this method of interpretation was borrowed from the Stoics who had been in the habit of allegorizing the Greek myths.

Finally, it is worth pointing out that even in Palestine, as indications in some later Old Testament and other books show, there had for generations been a tendency towards mitigating the importance of the sacrificial system; the effect of this is likely to have been proportionately great among the Jews of the Dispersion, who would, moreover, have found difficulties in observing many other precepts of the Law. The result would have been to make them all the more susceptible to the foreign cults and philosophical systems which met them on every side; how great that susceptibility was has been illustrated in an extraordinary manner by the recently found papyri referred to above. No one, as Bertholet has truly remarked, can understand the religion of the Jews—and this applies to the Jews of the Dispersion even more than to those of Palestine—“without a full intelligence of their astonishing faculty of assimilation; this assimilation even going the length of actively supporting heathen cults or, as the recently discovered papyri of Assouan have informed us, of swearing by an Egyptian goddess.”[75]

III. The Septuagint

One of the results of the Hellenistic Movement, the importance of which cannot be exaggerated, was the Græco-Jewish literature to which it gave birth. It is impossible to deal here with the whole mass of that literature,[76] even in the most cursory manner, nor is this necessary for our present purpose.[77] We must restrict ourselves in this section to a brief mention of what Schürer calls “the foundation of all Judæo-Hellenistic culture,” namely, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, which was the special possession of the Jews of the Dispersion.

The name of this Greek Version of the Bible owes its origin to the legend contained in the so-called Letter of Aristeas, in which an account is given of how Ptolemy II (Philadelphus)[78] desired to have a Greek translation of the Hebrew Book of the Law (i.e., the Pentateuch), and sent to Eleazar, the high-priest in Jerusalem, asking him to send competent scholars to Alexandria who would be able to undertake the task of translation. The high-priest, the account continues, readily responded to this request, and despatched seventy-two learned Jews, each of the twelve tribes being represented by six of them. Ptolemy received them with great honour on their arrival in Alexandria, and entertained them hospitably during the whole of their sojourn. The seventy-two went into retirement to the island of Pharos, opposite Alexandria, where they laboured at the translation. This took seventy-two days; the translation was then delivered to the king, who thereupon ordered the books to be placed in the royal library. The translators, after having been presented with rich gifts, returned to Judæa. This is the legend to which the name Septuagint (“Seventy”) owes its origin, a name which has clung to it in spite of its being now generally recognized that the Letter of Aristeas is unhistorical so far as this story is concerned. Who the translators of the Hebrew Bible into Greek were is not known. That the various parts of the Septuagint were not only translated by different authors, but also belong to different ages, is certain. It is quite probable that, so far as the Pentateuch is concerned, the Letter of Aristeas contains a true tradition in ascribing its translation into Greek to about B.C. 280.[79] As to the rest of the books, though the evidence is fragmentary, it may be safely stated that most of them, if not all, were translated before the beginning of the Christian era. Ryle has shown that there is evidence for believing that Philo (about B.C. 20-A.D. 50) utilized all the books of the Greek Old Testament, with the exception of Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs and Daniel.[80]

This great product of Hellenistic influence upon the Jews is seen to be all the more significant when it is realized that in the fifth century B.C. the Aramaic language, as the recently found Elephantiné papyri show, was the language spoken by the Jews of Egypt; and not only was this the ordinarily spoken language, but it was also that in which literary works were written.[81] Yet in the course of not much more than a century this was displaced by Greek; and even in the synagogues Greek was the language used. For some time, no doubt, though apparently not for very long, the Hebrew Scriptures were translated by word of mouth into Aramaic in the synagogues of the Dispersion; but when this language fell into disuse Greek had to be used; and ultimately it was found necessary to have the Scriptures themselves in Greek.[82]

So far as we are here concerned, the great importance of the Greek Old Testament lies in the fact that it has given us the books of the Apocrypha. These will be dealt with separately in Part II, so that it will not be necessary to say anything about them now further than that the general purpose for which they were written was to expand some of the already existing books of the Hebrew Scriptures, or to add to their number. Some, such as the books of the Maccabees, continue the record of the nation’s history; others are expansions of canonical books, such as the Prayer of Manasses, the Additions to Daniel, Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy, and the Rest of Esther; while Ecclesiasticus and the Book of Wisdom are additions to the Wisdom Literature of the Jews.

As regards the importance and far-reaching influence of the Septuagint, we cannot do better than quote the words in which Deissmann has so succinctly, and yet so adequately, expressed this: “Take the Septuagint in your hand, and you have before you the book that was the Bible of the Jews of the Dispersion and of the proselytes from the heathen; the Bible of Philo the philosopher, Paul the Apostle, and the earliest Christian missions; the Bible of the whole Greek-speaking Christian world; the mother of influential daughter-versions; the mother of the Greek New Testament.”[83]

IV. Philo of Alexandria

[Literature.—Siegfried, Philo von Alexandria als Ausleger des Alten Testamentes (1875); O. Holtzmann in Stade’s Geschichte des Volkes Israel, II, pp. 521-551 (1888); Schürer, II, iii. pp. 321-381, German ed., III, pp. 633-716; Krüger, Philo und Josephus als Apologeten des Judentums (1906); Windisch, Die Frömmigkeit Philo’s ..., pp. 4-95 (1909). See also J. H. A. Hart’s series of articles entitled “Philo of Alexandria” in the Jewish Quarterly Review, vols. xvii. xviii. xix., these deal with the writings of Philo; Lauterbach’s article on Philo in the Jewish Encycl., X, pp. 6-18.]

As the Septuagint is, from our present point of view, the most important product of the Hellenistic Movement, so among Græco-Jewish writers is Philo the most remarkable whom this Movement brought forth. No Jew was so immersed in the spirit of Greek wisdom, nor did more to try and harmonize Greek and Hebrew thought.

The large number of his works which have come down to us owe their preservation to the popularity they enjoyed among the early Church Fathers, for by the Jewish leaders Philo was not regarded as orthodox, his works were therefore unacceptable to them; some of the Church writers even went so far as to speak of him as a Christian.

Scarcely anything is known with certainty about his life. He must have been born about B.C. 20 or thereabouts, for he took part in an embassy to Caligula in A.D. 40, when already somewhat advanced in years; he refers to this in his work, De Legatione ad Cajum, § 28[84]; it is also mentioned by Josephus,[85] who speaks of Philo as “a man eminent on all accounts, brother to Alexander the Alabarch, and one not unskilful in philosophy.” This is practically all that is known of him apart from what his works reveal of the man; but they do not contain any biographical details.

Philo was a true Jew; he had an unbounded veneration for the Old Testament Scriptures, and especially for Moses and the Pentateuch; most of his works are concerned with this latter. Not only did he look upon the Hebrew Scriptures as having been verbally inspired, but he also believed this to have been the case with them in their Greek form. His veneration for the Jewish Scriptures, on the one hand, and his love for the philosophy of the Greeks on the other, led him to the conviction that both contained and witnessed to one and the same truth. He believed that the Greek philosophers had used the Old Testament writings, and these he explained on the allegorical system with such freedom that he was able to extract from them any meaning he desired; by this means his own philosophical system became a combination of Greek philosophy and Jewish theology.[86]

Regarding the philosophy of Philo, his conception of God forms naturally the starting-point. Here he holds, on the one hand, that so absolute is the perfection of God, so transcendent is the divine majesty, and therefore so far removed from all that human thought is capable of, that God is simply inconceivable; man can really know no more than that God is; he cannot know what God is. But, on the other hand, since He is perfectly good and all-powerful, since He is the Creator and Upholder of the world, the Final Cause of all that is or ever can be, it follows that there must be a ceaseless activity on His part; the world of His creation must occupy His thought and action. These twofold conceptions of God—the thought of His being outside of and above the world, immeasurably superior to it, and the thought that He is active in the world—are clearly incompatible one with the other. The way in which Philo sought to get over the obvious contradiction here involved, was by assuming the existence of intermediate beings. His teaching on this subject was not new, but it had never before been so thoroughly and systematically treated. These intermediate beings Philo called “powers” (dunameis); they are properties of God, and yet His servants fulfilling His will in the world. All these powers are comprehended in one, namely, the “Logos,” or Word of God; the “Logos” is also spoken of as the wisdom and reason of God, and the means whereby the world was created.[87] But both in respect of the “powers” just mentioned, and of the “Logos” itself, there is uncertainty as to the personality attached to them; this was bound to be the case, for if there was to be even the semblance of a solution of the opposing conceptions concerning God referred to above, Philo had to conceive of the “Logos” as less than a personal being distinct from God, and more than an impersonal divine attribute; and the same applies to the other “powers.” Otherwise it would be inconceivable that God could be personally present and active in the world, while in His nature He was wholly superior to it, and, on account of His transcendent holiness, could not come into immediate and direct contact with it. The “Logos” is, further, according to Philo, the mediator, and the advocate, of men, and the expiator of sins; he speaks of it as the “high-priest”; in such cases it is difficult to get away from the thought of personality attaching to the “Logos.” On the other hand, it is conceived of as distinctly impersonal when described as “the idea of ideas,” and the “archetypal idea.”[88] Most striking of all is the fact that in a number of passages Philo gives the “Logos” the title of “first-born son,” and “only-begotten”; but the significance of such titles depends, of course, upon the passages in which they occur.[89]

In his doctrine of sin Philo teaches that evil is inherent in matter; hence the body, with which the soul is connected, is the source of sin in man. The subjugation of the passions is the one and only way to virtue; but this can only be brought about by means of God’s help, for He is the Author of whatever is good in man. Therefore the highest virtue can only be attained by a close communion with God. Knowledge is excellent; but even the closest attachment to wisdom is less excellent than walking with God, for only so can man receive the fulness of divine illumination. Philo teaches that this divine illumination is accorded to man while in a state of unconsciousness; so that while he lays much stress on the freedom of the will, this highest state to which man can attain is solely attributable to divine grace.

These doctrines of Philo, and we have only referred to the more important, are to a great extent due to Greek influence; Platonism, Pythagoreanism, Stoicism and Cynicism have all contributed to Philo’s philosophical system; but to show this in detail would be out of place here, for it would take us too far afield. We must content ourselves with stating the fact; for detailed proof recourse must be had to those works which treat specifically of Philo and of his teaching.[90]

Summary

In dealing with Hellenistic influence upon the Jews of the Dispersion it was necessary to make some reference first to the Dispersion itself and its extent during the period under consideration. It began as early as the end of the eighth century B.C. with the fall of the northern kingdom, and the deportation to Assyria of many thousands of Israelites which followed. The fall of the southern kingdom was the cause of a further step in the process of dispersion. The communities which consequently came into existence in Babylonia formed centres from which the Jews emigrated in all directions. We have the evidence of the Old Testament that such centres existed in Egypt by the middle of the sixth century B.C., if not earlier. Contemporary documentary evidence, which has recently come to light, shows that a colony of Jews was settled at Elephantiné during the fifth century B.C. After the conquests of Alexander, many Jews emigrated from the east to western centres of Greek civilization, and various writers testify to the ubiquity of the Jews. Alexandria was the most important centre of the Dispersion from every point of view.

The cultured Jews were more influenced by the Hellenistic Movement than the masses; both, however, held in the main to the fundamental tenets of traditional Judaism. Nevertheless, apart from these, and in spite of their observance, traditional Judaism became largely transformed. The tolerant attitude of the Dispersion Jews towards the Gentiles was in marked contrast to that of the Jews of Palestine. Unlike these latter, again, a vigorous missionary propaganda was carried on by the Jews of the Dispersion. There lay here, however, a subtle danger; for the desire to make Judaism attractive to the Gentiles resulted in requiring but scanty observance of its practices from them; this reacted unfavourably upon the Jews themselves. Further, a strongly syncretistic attitude characterized the Jews of the Dispersion; even their conception of God was influenced by the teaching of the Greek philosophers. The allegorization of Scripture was another mark of Hellenistic influence. The recently found Assouan papyri offer a striking example of the astonishing faculty of assimilation possessed by the Jews.

One of the most important products of the Hellenistic Movement was the Septuagint, for which we have to thank the Jews of the Dispersion. The origin of the name of this Greek Version of the Hebrew Scriptures is to be found in a legend contained in the Letter of Aristeas. In all probability the entire books of the Hebrew Canon were translated into Greek by the beginning of the Christian era. The most important point about the Septuagint, so far as we are here concerned, is that it has given us the books of the Apocrypha.

Among Græco-Jewish writers none can compare in importance with Philo of Alexandria. His great aim was to try to harmonize Hebrew and Greek thought. The preservation of the large number of his works is due to their popularity among the early Church Fathers. By the Jewish leaders he was not regarded as orthodox. Scarcely anything is known of the life of Philo excepting what can be gained from his works, and this is little enough.

In the short account given of the philosophy of Philo it is seen that this is permeated with the spirit of the Greek philosophers.

CHAPTER IV
Traces of Greek Influence in the Old Testament and in the Apocrypha

[Literature.—See the books cited in the footnotes.]

I. References to the Greeks in the Old Testament

There are some few passages in the Old Testament which witness to a knowledge of the Greeks on the part of the Jews; these may be briefly alluded to by way of introduction.

The Hebrew form for the land of the Ionians, or Greeks, is Javan; this is mentioned, though without further detail, in Genesis x. 2; 1 Chronicles i. 5, 7. As early as the eighth century B.C. the Greeks pressed forward to the east.[91] Again, in the lamentation for Tyre (Ezek. xxvii. 13) it is said: “Javan, Tubal and Meshech, they were thy traffickers; they traded with the persons of men and vessels of brass for thy merchandise” (cp. also verse 9). This subject is referred to again in Joel iii. (Heb. iv.) 6-8, in a woe pronounced against Tyre and Zidon, and the Philistines: “The children also of Judah and the children of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the sons of the Grecians, that ye might remove them far from their border ...”; these last words, “far from their border,” suggest that the reference is to the Greek colonies in the far west. From the fifth century B.C. onwards Syrian slaves, among whom Jews must be reckoned, were much sought after by the Greeks.[92] In Isaiah xxiv. 14, 15 it is probable that “the songs of praise which the Jews in far countries raise in honour of Jahweh were the result of Alexander the Great’s victorious march through Asia Minor in B.C. 334.”[93] Mention is made of Javan in Isaiah lxvi. 19, it is there reckoned among those nations to whom the glory of Jehovah shall be declared; according to Zechariah ix. 13-15, on the other hand, Judah and Ephraim are to be Jehovah’s instruments for the punishing of the sons of Javan. And, once more, in Daniel viii. 21, x. 20, xi. 2, there are references to the Græco-Macedonian empire. In addition to these there are two or three references to the Greeks in the Septuagint which are not without significance. In Isaiah ix. 12 (11) it is said that Syria from the east and the Hellenes from the west are the destroyers of Israel; in the Hebrew text “Philistines” stands for “Hellenes,” which is doubtless the right reading; but the Septuagint rendering is of interest as showing that, when the translation was made, the real danger for the Jews was the Greek nation. The same belief evidently underlies the Septuagint form of Jeremiah xxvi. (= xlvi. in the Hebrew) 16: “Let us arise and let us return to our people, to our fatherland, from the face of the Hellenic sword”; the Hebrew, which has again the correct reading, has “the oppressing sword” instead of “the Hellenic sword.” The same substitution for the Hebrew word occurs again in the Septuagint of Jeremiah xxvii. (= l. in the Hebrew) 16.

These practically exhaust the actual references to the Greeks in the Old Testament; but traces of Greek influence are probably to be discerned in other directions.

This influence is obvious in those cases, though they are but few in number, in which Greek words are adapted; this occurs only in the Book of Daniel, where a few Greek words for musical instruments appear in an aramaized form, viz., psantērîn, symphōnia, in Daniel iii. 5, and kaithros in iii. 7 (cp. also iii. 10, 15); the form of the word psantērîn is interesting, because “this form alongside of the Greek psaltērion proves the influence of the Macedonian dialect which substituted n for l.”[94]

II. Traces of Greek Influence in the Old Testament

The question as to the existence or otherwise of Hellenistic influence in certain other books of the Old Testament is a difficult one upon which much diversity of opinion exists among scholars.

We turn first to the Psalms. The majority of scholars are agreed that a number of the Psalms belong to the Greek and Maccabæan eras,[95] and if this is so the possibility of Greek influence being discerned in them must be recognized. It is always precarious to base conclusions upon what is assumed to be the political situation depicted in any particular psalm; but considerations of another character may well indicate the age to which a psalm in all probability belongs; for example, that the conditions which form the background of many of the Psalms are those brought about through contact with Hellenism during the period of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid rule is proved by the fact that in a number of them a plaintive cry, or vehement denunciation, is uttered not only on account of the domination of the heathen, but also because within the Jewish community itself a religious cleft has occurred; so that a distinction is made between those of Israel who are faithful to the Law, and those who are renegades and who are, therefore, classed with the Gentiles.[96] When it is realized that there is no period in Jewish history, excepting that just referred to, during which conditions such as these obtained, it will be granted that there is ample justification for assigning the Psalms in question to the Greek period. We agree, therefore, with Friedländer in his belief that the conflict between the god-fearing, pious Israelites, and the godless, with which these Psalms are full, really reflects the attitude of the champions of the old orthodoxy, which was founded by Ezra, towards the rising tide of Hellenism.[97] Hellenistic influence, as reflected in certain of the Psalms, therefore, is only to be seen with certainty in that these witness to a state of affairs within the community of Israel brought about by the spread of the Greek spirit.[98]

In the next place we look at the Proverbs. Here it is the first nine chapters with which we are concerned; there is a general consensus of opinion among modern scholars that these chapters form the latest portion of the book. The marks of Hellenistic influence are briefly as follows: Firstly, individualism; Wisdom cries, for example, in viii. 4:

Unto you, O men, I call,

And my voice is to the sons of men.

Again in ix. 4-6 she cries:

Whoso is simple let him turn in hither;

As for him that is void of understanding, she saith to him,

Come, eat ye of my bread,

And drink of the wine which I have mingled.

Leave off, ye simple ones, and live,

And walk in the way of understanding.

Here, and in other similar passages, it is the individual who is of importance, not the nation, as in earlier days.

Secondly, universalism; Wisdom says (viii. 15, 16):

By me kings reign,

And princes decree justice.

By me rulers rule,

And nobles, even all the judges of the earth.

There is here no restriction to the rulers of the Jewish nation; Wisdom is for all men, and her sway is worldwide for those who will have her:

I love those that love me;

And those that seek me diligently shall find me (viii. 17).

A third mark of Hellenistic influence is the allegorical form which appears in this book, and especially in the first nine chapters[99]; the most striking example of this is the “strange woman” spoken of in chapter ii. and elsewhere:

Which forsaketh the friend of her youth,
And forgetteth the covenant of God;
For her house inclineth unto death,
And her paths unto the dead ... (ii. 17-19).

This “strange woman” is undoubtedly an allegorical person; she is a personification of the new Hellenistic spirit which, on its bad side, encouraged unbridled licence and led away from God[100]; we have seen above that there was a debased form of Hellenism which was especially present in Syria. This interpretation of what was meant by the “strange woman” was that of some of the early Church Fathers.[101] The writer of these chapters is thus, probably unconsciously, influenced by the more excellent traits of the Hellenistic spirit, but is fully alive to its dangers and warns his readers against them.

Lastly, a fourth mark of Hellenistic influence is the hypostatization of Wisdom; the classical passage is viii. 22-36, from which a few verses may be quoted:

The Lord possessed me in the beginning of His way,

Before His works of old.

I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning,

Or ever the earth was....

When He established the heavens, I was there;

When He set a circle upon the face of the deep....

Then I was by Him, as a master workman,

And I was daily His delight....

That such thoughts are due to Greek influence scarcely admits of doubt.[102]

We come next to the book of Job. In reference to this O. Holtzmann says with much force that in this book “we have to do with a religious-philosophical work; and, so far as we know, the Israelites never evinced any inclination for philosophy until they came in contact with Hellenism. Further, we must draw attention to the fact that the book of Job has as its background the form of a novel, which flourished everywhere among the Greeks; and this is one of the clearest signs of the individualistic tendency which predominated at this period.... Moreover, the form of dialogue which is peculiar to this book receives thus a new significance; we have here, without doubt, a Hebrew imitation of the philosophic dialogue of Plato; and here one should recall how Plato meditated upon the causes of human suffering, and how he, too, appreciated the grandeur and beauty of the world.”[103] The author of the book of Job takes up a position of antagonism towards the old orthodoxy, represented by the three friends, as well as towards the new Hellenistic spirit, the ultimate consequence of which must, as he sees, lead to atheism, pure and simple. His position is thus, in this respect, similar to that of the author of Proverbs i.-ix. Friedländer sees in the three friends the “pious ones” of the Psalms.[104] Further, we have in the book of Job a conception of Wisdom somewhat similar to that of Proverbs; in the long passage, xxviii. 12-28, Wisdom is conceived of as God’s co-operator, see especially verses 20-27; but unlike the teaching of Proverbs on the subject, there is not the intimate relationship existing between Wisdom and men; there is only a brief allusion to this in verse 28.

In the book of Ecclesiastes it is held by many scholars that traces of Greek philosophy are to be discerned. Tyler, for example, shows that the passage, iii. 1-8, which gives a catalogue of times and seasons, is an echo of the teaching of the Stoics that men should live according to nature.[105] Again, the thought contained in iii. 18, 19 (“... that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; and man hath no pre-eminence above the beasts; for all is vanity ...”) is certainly in accordance with the Epicurean teaching regarding the mortality of the soul.[106] Barton argues strongly against these views[107]; but cogent as many of his arguments are, they are not convincing in every case; this applies especially to what he says in reference to the passage, iii. 18, 19: “Koheleth’s denial of immortality differs from the Epicurean denial. His is but a passing doubt; it is not dogmatically expressed, and at the end (xii. 7) his doubt has vanished, and he reasserts the older Jewish view (Gen. ii. 7). This older view was not an assertion of immortality, but the primitive conception that the breath comes from God and goes back to Him. The Epicureans, on the other hand, dogmatically argued for the non-immortality of the soul, and possessed well-assured theories about it.”[108] This argument is not very convincing; at any rate, it does not disprove our present point, which is that the traces of Greek influence are to be discerned in this book. Cornill’s sober dictum on the subject generally is, we feel convinced, the right one, when he says: “The question whether Koheleth shows immediate knowledge of and dependence upon Greek philosophy is an open one; but so much appears certain, that such a work could only have been produced by a Jewish mind imbued, or at least influenced, by Hellenism.”[109] St. Jerome, in commenting on the passage, ix. 7-9 (“Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink thy wine with a merry heart ...”), remarks that the writer appears to be reproducing some Epicurean ideas[110]; Cheyne is not surprised at this, for the book is, as he says, “conspicuous by its want of a native Jewish background ... it obviously stands at the close of the great Jewish humanistic movement, and gives an entirely new colour to the traditional humanism by its sceptical tone and its commendations of sensuous pleasure”; and a little further on he says that “it is perfectly possible to hold that there are distinctively Epicurean doctrines in Koheleth. The later history of Jewish thought may well seem to render this opinion probable. How dangerously fascinating Epicureanism must have been when the word ‘Epicuros’ became a synonym in Rabbinic Hebrew for infidel or even atheist.”[111] Cheyne does not, however, believe in any traces of Greek influence, whether Epicurean or Stoic, in the book. “I do not see,” he says, “that we must admit even a vague Greek influence. The inquiring spirit was present in the class of ‘wise men’ even before the Exile, and the circumstances of the later Jews were, from the Exile onwards, well fitted to exercise and develop it. Hellenic teaching was in no way necessary to an ardent but unsystematic thinker like Koheleth.”[112] It is largely a question of the probabilities of the case; for, in discussing the whole question of the presence or otherwise of traces of Hellenistic influence in some of the later books of the Old Testament,[113] we must keep before our minds the fact of the spread of the Hellenistic spirit from the death of Alexander the Great onwards, and the way in which (as we have seen in a previous chapter) it affected the Jews in manifold directions. The important evidence of 1 Maccabees i. 11 is worth recalling here: “In those days came there forth out of Israel transgressors of the Law, and persuaded many, saying, Let us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles that are round about us; for since we parted from them many evils have befallen us.” Two points come out clearly here: there was evidently a strong Hellenistic party among the Jews in Palestine since these transgressors of the Law “came forth out of Israel”; the passage also shows that some time previously relations had existed between these Hellenistic Jews and the Gentiles, as the writer says, “since we parted from them.” The Maccabæan rising was, therefore, the culminating point of a movement that had been going on long before, viz., a conflict between orthodox and Hellenistic Jews, the latter being supported by the ruling powers; or if conflict is too strong a word to use, then let us say, at any rate, opposing tendencies. It is, moreover, highly probable that the action of Antiochus Epiphanes in seeking to stamp out Judaism was largely prompted by his knowledge of the existence of considerable numbers of Jews who were in sympathy with his plan; this seems clear from 1 Maccabees i. 13, where we read further: “And certain of the people were forward herein and went to the king (i.e., Antiochus Epiphanes), and he gave them licence to do after the ordinances of the Gentiles.” If the Jews of Palestine were thus surrounded by Gentiles, and were, as we have already seen to be the case, strongly influenced by the Hellenistic spirit, whether orthodox or not, it would be according to expectation to find marks of this influence in those books of the Old Testament which belong to the Hellenistic period. In the particular case of Ecclesiastes it is granted that analogies between Greek philosophy and its ideas exist[114]; it appears to us, therefore, more probable that these ideas, in view of what has just been said, were due to the influence of Greek thought rather than that they were independently reached.

III. Traces of Greek Influence in the Apocrypha

There are only two books of the Apocrypha which come into consideration here, but they are the two most important.

Ecclesiasticus

First we have the Wisdom of Ben-Sira or Ecclesiasticus.

Ben-Sira was an orthodox Jew; but in spite of this he betrays in his book the influence that Greek culture had upon him, and is thus an interesting example of the way in which the Hellenistic spirit worked upon men unconsciously. He wrote his book with the purpose, among others, of demonstrating the superiority of Jewish over Greek wisdom, so that from this point of view Ecclesiasticus may be regarded as an apologetic work.

The traces of Hellenistic influence in this book are to be found in general conception rather than in definite form; for example, the identification of virtue with knowledge is a distinctly Hellenistic trait, and is treated in this book as axiomatic. No longer are divine and human wisdom looked upon as though opposed the one to the other, as had been the case in days gone by; Ben-Sira teaches, and this is characteristic of the Wisdom literature generally, that wisdom is the one thing of all others which is indispensable to him who would lead a godly life. That there is no opposition between divine and human wisdom was a doctrine for which Ben-Sira was indebted, whether directly or indirectly is not the point, to the influence of Hellenism. In this book the evil of wickedness is represented as lying in the fact that wickedness is folly, and therefore essentially opposed to Wisdom; on the other hand, the Jews as a body were faithful to the Torah, or Law, whose ordinances were binding because it was the revealed will of God; therefore, in order to reconcile this traditional teaching with the newer teaching that Wisdom is man’s main requirement, Wisdom became identified with the Torah: “the fear of the Lord [i.e., the observance of the Torah] is the beginning [i.e., the highest form] of Wisdom.” This is the foundation-stone of the Jewish Wisdom literature; and it formed the reconciling link between Judaism and Hellenism in this domain.[115] This identification is nowhere more evident than in Ecclesiasticus; throughout Ben-Sira inculcates the need of observing the commandments of the Law which is man’s highest wisdom, but the Law is the expression of the divine wisdom; so that he truly says:

If thou desire wisdom keep the commandments,

And the Lord will give her freely unto thee (i. 26).

Further, the existence of the influence of Greek philosophy among some of the cultured Jews of Palestine is reflected in the book in that Ben-Sira controverts the fatalistic philosophy of the Stoics; see, for example, such a passage as the following:

Say not, “From God is my transgression”;
For that which He hateth made He not.
Say not, “It is He that made me to stumble,”

For there is no need of evil men (xv. 11, 12).

The Stoic enumeration of the human senses seems to have been in the mind of one who added these words after xvii. 4: “They [i.e., men] received the use of five powers [i.e., the five senses] of the Lord; but as sixth He also accorded them the gift of understanding (nous), and as a seventh the Word (logos), the interpreter of His powers.”

In one passage Ben-Sira utters words which sound rather like an echo of Epicurean philosophy:

Give not thy soul to sorrow,

And let not thyself become unsteadied with care.

Heart-joy is life for a man,
And human gladness prolongeth days.
Entice thyself, and soothe thine heart,
And banish vexation from thee;
For sorrow hath slain many,
And there is no profit in vexation.
Envy and anger shorten days,
And anxiety maketh old untimely.

The sleep of a cheerful heart is like dainties,

And his food is agreeable unto him

(xxx. 21-25, according to the Hebrew).

In summing up the traces of Greek influence upon Ben-Sira, Prof. Israel Levi says: “The fatalistic philosophers whose opinions he contests were doubtless the Stoics; and the philosophical discussions instituted by him were innovations and probably borrowed. His criticisms of sceptics and would-be freethinkers are further evidences of his knowledge of Hellenism; and some of his views find close analogues in Euripides. Not only does he share characteristic ideas with the Greek tragedians and moralists, but he even has the same taste for certain common topics, such as false friendship, the uncertainty of happiness, and especially the faults of women. The impression of Greek influence is strengthened by the presence of a polish quite foreign to Hebrew literature.”[116] This may or may not be somewhat over-stated, but there can scarcely be any doubt that, although the Judaic elements in the book preponderate to an overwhelming degree, yet Hellenic traits are to be discerned to a certain extent. Prof. Levi sees the results of Greek influence in some other directions in the book; thus he says that “the customs which he (i.e., Ben-Sira) describes are taken from Greek rather than from Hebrew society; thus he mentions banquets accompanied by brilliant conversation,[117] at which musical instruments were heard, and over which presided ‘the master of the feast.’” At the same time it is only right to point out that some scholars deny that there are any signs of Greek influence in the book.

We turn now to the book of Wisdom which, as a product of the Judaism of the Dispersion, is full of the Hellenistic spirit. The best way to deal with this interesting but somewhat intricate subject will be to illustrate by quotations the different Greek philosophical ideas contained in the book, and then to indicate the teaching of the Greek philosophers in each case; in this way the influence of Greek philosophy in the book will be clearly seen.

(a) The doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul.

That this is taken for granted is clear from the words in viii. 19, 20:

Now I was a child good by nature, and a good soul fell to my lot;

Nay, rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled.

And again, in xv. 8, though here pre-existence is not necessarily implied:

... When the soul which was lent him shall again be demanded.

And, once more, in reference to the foolish man who manufactures idols, it is said (xv. 11):

Because he was ignorant of Him that moulded him,

And of Him that inspired into him an active soul,

And breathed into him a vital spirit.

A great deal depends here upon the question of authorship, or at any rate upon the point of view of the writer; for it will be noticed that the first of these quotations comes from part i. of the book, while the last two are from part ii. We will speak of the point of view of the writer without assuming that either one or two writers is in question. There are two points of view represented in these verses; the ordinary Jewish belief is expressed by the words: “Now I was a child good by nature, and a good soul fell to my lot,” as well as by the two other quotations. On the other hand, a point of view influenced by Greek thought appears in the words: “Nay, rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled.” It is well to point out first that according to the ordinary Jewish belief there was no clear conception of any difference between soul and spirit; the Hebrew word for “soul” is nĕphĕsh; but this word does not correspond properly to “soul”; it means a man’s own self, his personality, including his body; what we understand by body and soul is expressed in Hebrew by this word nĕphĕsh, so that when this is translated by “soul” it is apt to cause misunderstanding; the Hebrews had no word corresponding to the Greek sōma (body), nor did the Greek psychē (soul) correspond with the Hebrew nĕphĕsh; the Hebrew word which comes nearest to psychē would be nĕshāmāh (breath), or possibly rūach (spirit).[118] The words, therefore, “Now I was a child good by nature, and a good soul fell to my lot,” mean simply that he was by nature a good child and became also a good man, by God’s mercy is implied. This traditional faith the writer supplements, on account of the insight into Greek philosophy which he had gained, by adding: “Or, rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled”; he means thereby that his soul (in the Greek, not the Hebrew, sense, for he does not include the body) entered into a body undefiled; he thus expresses his belief in the pre-existence of the soul. But an interesting point to be noted here is that the writer, while accepting one Greek doctrine (the pre-existence of the soul) repudiates another in the same breath, for by speaking of a “body undefiled” he seems to be denying the Platonic doctrine of the body being a hindrance (see below). As to Plato’s teaching on the pre-existence of the soul, this has been so well summed up by Zeller that we cannot do better than give it in his words: “The soul of man is in its nature homogeneous with the soul of the universe, from which it springs. Being of a simple and incorporeal nature it is by its power of self-movement the origin of motion in the body; inseparably connected with the idea of life, it has neither end nor beginning. As the souls have descended from a higher world into the earthly body, they return after death, if their lives have been pure and devoted to higher objects, to this higher world, while those who need correction in part undergo punishments in another world, and in part migrate through the bodies of men and animals. In its earlier existence our soul has seen the ideas of which it is reminded by the sight of their sensuous copies.”[119]

The other two passages, xv. 8 and xv. 11, reflect the ancient Hebrew belief as contained in Genesis ii. 7: “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath (nĕshāmāh) of life; and man became a living soul (nĕphĕsh)”; that is to say, the nĕshāmāh (which is equivalent to what we understand by “soul”; there is no real distinction between “soul” and “spirit” in Hebrew belief[120]) is in existence with God before man is created. This belief in pre-existence, though quite different from the Greek doctrine, became elaborated in course of time, and it was taught that in the seventh heaven God kept the souls of those whom He intends to send on earth[121]; the Midrash in which this occurs (Sifre 143b) belongs in its original form to the earlier part of the second century A.D., and since it undoubtedly preserves much ancient material it reflects thought long prior to the time when Wisdom was written. In the passages quoted we have, then, references to the belief in the pre-existence of souls as taught by the Jews on one hand and by the Greeks on the other.

(b) The doctrine of immortality.

We have seen that with regard to the doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul the author of Wisdom expresses both Jewish and Greek belief. The same is the case with the doctrine of immortality; Jewish belief on this subject has already been dealt with in Part I, chap. ix. (f); the influence of Greek thought is to be discerned in such passages as the following:

Court not death in the error of your life;

Neither draw upon yourselves destruction by the works of your hands;

Because God made not death,

Neither delighteth He when the wicked perish (i. 12, 13).

... For righteousness is immortal (i. 15).

The reference here is to spiritual death, the soul’s loss of true life hereafter. Again:

But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God,

And no torment shall touch them (iii. 1).

They that trust on Him shall understand truth,

And the faithful shall abide with Him in love;

Because grace and mercy are to His chosen,

And He will graciously visit His holy ones (iii. 9, cp. xv. 3).

And, once more:

Incorruption bringeth near to God (vi. 19).

Of such passages Menzel says: “Who does not, in reading them, recall the Platonic passage Jambl. ad Phaed. pp. 63c, 69c?”[122] To quote Zeller again in his summing up of Plato’s philosophy: “As the soul in its true nature belongs to the world above the senses, and in that only can find a true and lasting existence, the possession of the good or happiness which forms the final goal of human effort can only be obtained by elevation into that higher world.... The true mission of man, therefore, lies in that escape from this world, which the ‘Theætetus,’ 176A, identifies with assimilation to the divine nature....”[123]

(c) The doctrine of the badness of the body.

In ix. 15, 16, it is said:

For a corruptible body weigheth down the soul,

And the earthly frame lieth heavy on the mind that is full of cares.

And hardly do we divine the things that are on earth,

And the things that are close at hand we find with labour;

But the things that are in the heavens who ever yet traced out?

Practically all commentators are agreed that verse 15 is based on a passage in Plato’s Phaedo (81C), where the hindrance of the body is spoken of; the verbal similarities are too striking for this to be denied. The teaching is, moreover, in agreement with that found elsewhere in the writings of Plato: “The body ... is the grave and prison of the soul, which has received its irrational elements through combination with it, and is the source of all desires and all disturbances of intellectual activity”; thus Zeller sums up Plato’s teaching on the subject.[124]

(d) The creation of the world out of formless matter.

The term “formless matter” is a Platonic one; but this doctrine was taught by the Stoics as well as by Plato, so that we cannot say to which system the author of Wisdom was immediately indebted in writing these words:

For Thine all-powerful hand,

That created the world out of formless matter ... (xi. 17).

In speaking of what Plato meant by the term “matter” Zeller says: “By Plato’s matter we have to understand not a mass filling space, but space itself. He never mentions it as that out of which, but only as that in which, things arise. According to him, bodies are formed when certain portions of space are thrown into the shapes of the four elements. That it is not a corporeal mass out of which, they arise in this manner is clear from the assertion that when they change into one another they are broken up into their smallest plane dimensions in order to be compounded anew out of these. To carry this theory out strictly was difficult; and in another place (Tim. 30A, 52 D, f., 69B) he represents the matter as if the Deity, when engaged in the formation of the elements, had found ‘all that is visible’ already in existence as a chaotic mass moving without rule.”[125]

(e) Signs of the influence of Stoic philosophy.[126]

Most commentators, from Grimm onwards, hold that the idea of the Anima Mundi, or World Soul, of Stoic philosophy is to be discovered in such passages as the following:

... Because the spirit of the Lord filleth the world,

And that which holdeth all things together hath knowledge of every voice (i. 7).

The all-pervading character of Wisdom, described in vii. 22-24, contains a similar thought:

For there is in her a spirit quick of understanding, holy,

Alone in kind, manifold,
Subtil, freely moving,
Clear in utterance, unpolluted,
Distinct, that cannot be harmed;
Loving what is good, keen, unhindered,
Beneficent, loving toward man,
Steadfast, sure, free from care,
All-powerful, all-surveying,
And penetrating through all spirits

That are quick of understanding, pure, subtil.

For Wisdom is more mobile than any motion;

Yea, she pervadeth and penetrateth all things by reason of her pureness

(cp. also vii. 27, viii. 1).

Another Stoic doctrine is that of the metabolism of the elements, “by the help of which the writer of part ii. endeavours to rationalize the miracles of the Exodus.... The metabolism of the elements at the end of part ii.,” says Holmes,[127] “is traced by E. Pfleiderer to Heraclitus, and to him directly, rather than indirectly through the Stoics, on account of the allusion in chapter xix. to three elements only—fire, water, earth—since Heraclitus recognized only three. But it is difficult to see how the author could have brought in the idea of air changing into anything else: water changes into earth in the passage through the Red Sea, and earth becomes water again to overwhelm the Egyptians; fire lost its power and was unable to melt the heavenly food; what need or opportunity was there for adducing the change of air into another element?... It must, no doubt, be admitted that the Book of Wisdom has points of connexion with the system of Heraclitus, who was highly esteemed in Alexandria, but whether directly or indirectly it is impossible to say.” The passage in question is xix. 18-21:

For the elements changed their order one with another....

For creatures of dry land were turned into creatures of waters,

And creatures that swim trode now upon the earth;

Fire kept the mastery of its own power in the midst of water,

And water forgat its quenching nature.

Contrariwise, flames wasted not the flesh of perishable creatures that walked among them;

Neither melted they the ice-like grains of ambrosial food, that were by nature apt to melt.

Lastly, reference may be made to viii. 7, where we find a classification of the four cardinal virtues, which the Stoics copied from Plato:

And if a man loveth righteousness,

The fruits of Wisdom’s labour are virtues,

For she teacheth self-control and understanding, righteousness, and courage;

And there is nothing in life more profitable than these.

Most of the marks of Greek influence in this book have now been mentioned; it is probable enough that we have missed some, but we venture to think that the most important have been dealt with.

Summary

There are not many direct references to the Greeks in the Old Testament; in a few scattered passages Javan, the Hebrew form for the land of the Ionians (i.e. Greeks), is found. Three interesting instances of variation from the Hebrew occur in the Septuagint; the word “Greek” being substituted for “Philistine” in one case, and “Hellenic sword” for “oppressing sword” in two others. These deliberate alterations were made because it was believed by the Greek translator that the real danger for the Jews lay in the spread of the Greek spirit. In the Book of Daniel a few Greek names of musical instruments have been adopted.

Traces of Greek influence are to be discerned in all probability in some of the Psalms, for they witness to a state of affairs brought about by the working of the Greek spirit. In the first nine chapters of Proverbs, too, there are marks of Hellenic influence, e.g. individualism, universalism, the use of allegory and the hypostatization of Wisdom. In the Book of Job the same influence may be discerned in the philosophic cast of the speeches, in its imitation in form of Plato’s dialogues, and in the fact that the background of the book is cast in the form of a novel, which was likewise imitated from the Greeks. As to Ecclesiastes, opinions differ as to whether it exhibits direct borrowing from Stoic and Epicurean thought; but it certainly contains analogies with Greek philosophy.

In the Apocrypha only two books come into consideration, but they are the two most important. Ecclesiasticus was written with the purpose, among others, of demonstrating the superiority of Jewish over Greek wisdom; at the same time, Ben-Sira often shows himself influenced, unconsciously it may be, by the latter, although the Judaic elements in the book preponderate to an overwhelming degree. The Book of Wisdom, a product of the Judaism of the Dispersion, is full of the Hellenic spirit; this comes out very clearly in the treatment of the doctrines of the pre-existence of the soul, of immortality, of the body as evil, and of the creation of the world out of formless matter. Further, most commentators find the influence of Stoic philosophy in the ideas of the Anima Mundi and of the metabolism of the elements, as well as the classification of the four cardinal virtues which the Stoics copied from Plato.

CHAPTER V
The Apocalyptic Movement

[Literature.—Toy, Judaism and Christianity, pp. 372-414 (1891); Schlatter, Israel’s Geschichte von Alexander d. Grossen bis Hadrian (1900); Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, pp. 195-290 (1903); Bousset, Die jüdische Apokalyptik (1903); Volz, Jüdische Eschatologie von Daniel bis Akiba (1903); M. Friedländer, Die rel. Bewegungen ..., pp. 22-77 (1905); Gressmann, Der Ursprung der israelitisch-jüdischen Eschatologie (1905); Oesterley, The Doctrine of the Last Things (1908); Schürer, II, iii. pp. 44-151, German ed. III, pp. 258-407 (1909); Oesterley and Box, The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue, pp. 27-45, 222-254 (1911); Charles, Eschatology, Hebrew, Jewish and Christian (1913); Burkitt, Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (1914); MacCulloch’s article on “Eschatology,” in Hastings’ Encycl. of Religion and Ethics, v. pp. 373-391 (1912).]

I. The Beginnings of the Apocalyptic Movement

The fundamental ideas which ultimately developed into Jewish Apocalyptic go back to a hoary antiquity. Many of these ideas are present in one form or another in the Old Testament; but the different sources, some undoubtedly indigenous, others extraneous, whence these ideas emanated have, in all probability, a much longer history behind them. With the history and development of early Apocalyptic thought we are not here concerned, since our object is only to deal with Jewish Apocalyptic, and this merely in its broad outlines as it appears in what is called the Apocalyptic Movement.

When specifically Jewish Apocalyptic commenced it is not possible to say, for the doctrines and hopes and fears which it taught must have been in men’s minds and have been widely inculcated long before it appeared in the form in which we know it, namely, its literary form. But it is not difficult to indicate the approximate date at which the Apocalyptic literature, known to us, began to come into existence; this was somewhere about the period 200-150 B.C.; from that time it continued to grow during a period of about three centuries. The early beginnings of this literature, therefore, date from a time prior to the Maccabæan struggle. Before the Maccabæan era the two great opposing parties, Sadducæan and Pharisaic, did not exist. It is more than probable, however, as we have seen, that the tendencies which, later, developed and became directly antagonistic were already in being, and that the Maccabæan struggle had the effect of greatly strengthening them. Further, in pre-Maccabæan times, owing to the influence of the Hellenistic Movement, an universalistic spirit prevailed very largely among the Jews; they saw no objection to associating with the Greeks, were glad to learn from them, and welcomed the free and wide atmosphere which was characteristic of Greek thought. The result was that Jewish Apocalyptic, enriched by extraneous ideas and beliefs, flourished among the people; to many it brought light and comfort because it solved problems which had hitherto appeared insoluble; that this life was merely preparatory to a happier and fuller one after death, when the godly would come to their own and the wicked would receive their recompense, such a doctrine laid at rest the doubts and heart-searchings of those who were shocked at seeing the prosperity of the wicked, and who were grieved at the adversity and sorrow of the righteous. Jewish Apocalyptic, therefore, flourished; it appealed to the mass of the people, for it inspired them with hope; it was individualistic, so that each felt that here was a message for him in particular as well as for the nation at large.

We have said that in the pre-Maccabæan era the tendencies which in later years had the effect of calling into existence two antagonistic parties were already present; we have also said that the Jews as a whole were more or less imbued with the Hellenistic spirit; let us explain our meaning a little more fully. Not all the Jews at this period were Hellenistically inclined, though the bulk were, and the influence was more or less upon all; but there was a minority of the nation which had followed in the wake of those who since the time of Ezra and Nehemiah had clung tenaciously to a rigid observance of the Law; not that they were wholly uninfluenced by the Hellenistic spirit, any more than the more thorough-going Hellenistic Jews as a body were really disloyal to the Law. This minority consisted of those who were called the “Pious ones,” or Chassidim[128]; it was connected with the Scribes, for in the important passage, 1 Maccabees vii. 12-14, it is said: “And there were gathered together unto Alcimus and Bacchides a company of scribes, to seek for justice. And the Chassidim were the first among the children of Israel that sought peace of them....” It was the Chassidim who in post-Maccabæan times developed into the distinct party of the Pharisees, the party of rigid orthodoxy, legalistic, exclusive, and narrow. Opposed, then, to the ideas of this minority were those who were led by the governing classes and the family of the High-Priest; men who were the friends of Hellenistic culture, and who were not legalistic in the sense that the Chassidim were. These represented what in post-Maccabæan times became the Sadducæan party. It cannot, however, be too strongly insisted upon that, as already pointed out, in pre-Maccabæan times there was neither a Sadducæan nor a Pharisaic party. The great mass of the people, including many among the Chassidim, in these pre-Maccabæan times, was not ranged definitely on either one side or the other of those who represented the two tendencies just referred to; their main religious interest was Apocalyptic. We feel convinced that the evidence concerning the various religious thought-tendencies in pre-Maccabæan times, taken as a whole, supports M. Friedländer’s contention that “the great mass of the people, the multitudes (Am-haarez) remained before and after [i.e. of the Maccabæan struggle] under the spell of the Hellenistic spirit; and, as in the case of the ruling parties, they, too, had, also in post-Maccabæan times, their teachers and their ‘Pious’ ones. These teachers were the Chassidim and the creators of the apocalyptic literature.”[129] These Apocalyptists, therefore, had this in common with the Pharisees that both were descended from the ‘Pious ones,’ or Chassidim; only, as Friedländer puts it, “whereas the Pharisees were the bodily descendants of the pre-Maccabæan ‘Pious ones,’ the Apocalyptists were their spiritual descendants; the former transformed the faithfulness to the Law of their forefathers into legal burdens, the latter clung loyally to the simple belief of those self-same forefathers, a belief which was not blurred by intricate learning and a superabundant ‘oral tradition’; theirs was a piety, on the contrary, which was born of the spirit of the times and, therefore, such as was characteristic of the common folk.”[130]

It will, no doubt, strike some as incongruous that the Pharisees, with their circumscribed anti-Hellenistic views, and the Apocalyptists, with their enlarged purview and pre-Hellenistic ideas, should be said to have possessed a common ancestry; but there are two facts which are of themselves sufficient to show the probability of this having been the case: belief in a future life among the Jews was largely due to Greek thought; it was one of the main themes of apocalyptic teaching; but it was also one of the most prominent tenets of the Pharisees, who developed it from the Platonic doctrine of the immortality of the soul to a definite belief in the resurrection of the body. That two schools of thought, differing in some vital respects, should nevertheless be in agreement in differing from the normal teaching of the Old Testament on such a special and peculiarly important subject as that of the future life, certainly points to an originally identical parentage. We have laid stress on the fact that in pre-Maccabæan times the Jewish nation, as a whole, was more or less influenced by the Hellenistic spirit; one section of the people would be influenced in this way, another in that. Thus, as an example, the Chassidim were influenced by the Hellenistic teaching on the future life; but the ruling classes were not, they clung to the old traditional teaching as contained in the Old Testament. Or again, among the Chassidim were many who were influenced by the freer and more tolerant atmosphere of the Greek spirit, agreeing in this with the ruling classes, but differing from those with whom they were in some other respects in agreement. So that when, later, clearly defined parties came into existence, they would not necessarily differ on all points; and Pharisees and Apocalyptists agreed as a whole upon the subject of a belief in the future life, though, as we shall see, various opinions on certain points concerning the future life were held by the Apocalyptists.

In another respect we may see an inner probability of the Pharisees and Apocalyptists having a common ancestry. The Chassidim, as their name implied, were intensely religiously-minded; the zeal for the Law of some was one way in which their eager yearning to do something for God could find vent; the steadfast gaze upon the world to come of others was the expression of a longing to be nearer God. Personal religion was the origin, the foundation and the summit of Chassidism. Now when we turn to later times we are able to see that same intense religious feeling in the Pharisees and in the Apocalyptists; the expression of that feeling has, it is true, become exaggerated in each case; but whether it is the somewhat rank overgrowth of legalism of the one, or the lurid and often overdrawn pictures of the eschatological drama of the other, beneath each is to be discerned real piety. Pharisees and Apocalyptists differed in many respects, but they were alike in their zeal for God which they inherited from their common ancestry.

We are to see, therefore, the beginnings of the Jewish Apocalyptic Movement in the teaching and literary activity of devout Chassidim, or better, Apocalyptists, who laboured in the earlier part of the second century B.C., and probably earlier.

Our purpose is now first of all to consider a little the mental attitude of the Apocalyptists in general, their guiding principles, their chief aims as teachers, and their personal characteristics. Then we shall examine briefly the more outstanding doctrines of the Apocalyptic Literature.

II. The Apocalyptists

It will be well to draw attention at the outset to a feature in the teaching of the Apocalyptists which is at first very disconcerting, namely, their inconsistency of thought and the variableness to be found in the presentation of some of their doctrines which not infrequently involves them in contradictions. The reason of this is not to be sought simply in the fact that in the Apocalypses the hand of more than one author is to be discerned; but chiefly because the minds of individual Apocalyptists were, on the one hand, saturated with the traditional thoughts and ideas of the Old Testament, and, on the other, were eagerly absorbing the newer conceptions which the spirit of the age had brought into being. This occasioned a continual conflict of thought in their minds; there was a constant endeavour to harmonize the old and the new; and in consequence there often resulted a compromise which was illogical and contradictory.

This inconsistency of teaching is, therefore, not other than might be expected under the circumstances; nor did it really affect the great rôle that the Apocalyptists played as the true prophets of the people; in this they followed in some important particulars the prophets of old, for if not in the same sense as these the expression of the national conscience, the Apocalyptists spoke to the hearts of the people in the name of God. If, upon the whole, their words were addressed more to individual men than to the nation as a single whole, it was a welcome sign that the individual was coming to his own. The Apocalyptists came with a message of comfort and hope to the God-fearing, bidding them be of good cheer; for though the world was cruel and dark, though they were the victims of oppression and tyranny, though their lot here was a hard one and they were languishing in adversity, yet this world and all the fashion of it was passing away; soon, very soon, the bright future would dawn, the Great Deliverer would come, and sorrow and sighing would pass away:

But with the righteous He will make peace,
And will protect the elect,
And mercy shall be upon them.

And they shall all belong to God,
And they shall be prospered,
And they shall all be blessed.

And He will help them all,

And light shall appear unto them,

And He will make peace with them (1 Enoch i. 8).[131]

The joyous hope that was thus held out must have had a profound effect upon the many pious Israelites who were perplexed by the seeming incongruity of things in a world governed by a righteous and just God. Tempted as they must often have been to lose faith as well as hope, the message now brought to them would have strengthened both. So that the Apocalyptists may be truly described as upholders of the people’s faith. But they came, too, with the thunder of denunciation against the godless who in their abundant prosperity sought only their own pleasure and cared neither for the honour of God nor for the sorrow of the godly; for such a future, near approaching, of fearfulness and terror was predicted by the Apocalyptists:

And when sin and unrighteousness and blasphemy

And violence in all kinds of deeds increase,

And apostasy and transgression and uncleanness increase,

A great chastisement shall come from heaven upon all these,

And the holy Lord will come forth with wrath and chastisement

To execute judgement upon the earth.

In those days violence shall be cut off from its roots,

And the roots of unrighteousness together with deceit,

And they shall be destroyed from under heaven (1 Enoch xcii. 7, 8).

The main concern of the Apocalyptists was thus with the future, with the world to come, wherein all the inequalities and incongruities of the present world would be put right. But from this it followed that most of what they taught was characterized by a supernatural colouring in which much that was exaggerated and fantastic was mixed up with sublime conceptions and eternal truths. They laid great stress upon the antithesis between this world and the next, between the Olam ha-zeh (this world), and the Olam ha-bâ (the world which is to come). Their view of this world was wholly pessimistic; there was nothing to be hoped from it; indeed, its badness, entire and irretrievable, as contrasted with the glorious world to come wherein no evil might abide, involved the Apocalyptists in teaching which was of the nature of dualism. Again, that which was to come transcended human experience, so that in the great drama of the end the Apocalyptists depict man as standing in passive awe in face of the marvellous and supernatural occurrences which are then to take place; man’s rôle as an active agent ceases; supernatural beings are God’s instruments in fulfilling His will; the scene is laid in Heaven, or in the skies, not on earth. The future is to bring with it a new world-order wherein all things will be different, the old order is to disappear for ever. In all this the dominant note which sounds throughout is that of the supernatural.

At the base of the whole position taken up by the Apocalyptists in their teaching was a doctrine of determinism, which must be briefly alluded to, for the recognition of this is essential to the understanding of the subject. The Apocalyptists started with the absolute conviction that the whole course of the world from beginning to end, both as regards its physical changes, and also in all that concerns the history of nations, their growth and decline, and of individuals, good and bad, the innumerable occurrences of every description and the very moment of their happening—in a word, the entire constitution and course of the world and all that is in it, whether regarded as gē (the physical earth = the Hebrew eretz) or as oikoumenē (the inhabited world = the Hebrew tēbēl), was in every respect predetermined by God before all time. The words in 2 (4) Esdras iv. 36, 37 present a belief common to the Apocalyptists:

For He hath weighed the age in the balance,
And by number hath He numbered the seasons;
Neither will He move nor stir things,
Till the measure appointed be fulfilled.

On these words Box well remarks: “The times and periods of the course of the world’s history have been predetermined by God. The numbers of the years have been exactly fixed. This was a fundamental postulate of the Apocalyptists, who devoted much of their energy to calculations, based upon a close study of prophecy, as to the exact period when history should reach its consummation ... the underlying idea is predestinarian.”[132]

But all these things are secrets; they can only be known to certain God-fearing men who have the faculty, divinely accorded, of peering into the hidden things of God, and who are thus able to reveal them to their fellow-creatures; hence the name given to these seers, viz., “revealers,” or Apocalyptists, because they wrote apocalypses, “revelations.” It was because the Apocalyptists believed so firmly in this power that they possessed of looking into the deep things of God that they claimed to be able to measure the significance of what had happened in the past and of what was happening in the present; more especially they believed that upon the basis of this knowledge they had the power of foreseeing things to come, and the time of their coming, and here above all things those which they regarded as the end of all, to which the whole history of the world had been tending from the beginning.

But with all their mysticism and other-worldliness, with all their eager looking forward to the passing of the present order, the Apocalyptists were not blind to the necessity of religious life in its practical aspect. They were loyal to the Law, though not in the Pharisaic sense, laying stress rather on the spirit of its observance than on carrying it out literally. The frequent reproaches levelled against those who do not observe the ordinances of the Law shows their attitude; for example, in 1 Enoch v. 4 it is said:

But ye—ye have not been steadfast, nor done the commandments of the Lord,

But ye have turned away and have spoken proud and hard words

With your impure mouths against His greatness.

O ye hard-hearted, ye shall find no peace.

And again, in xcix. 2 of the same apocalypse:

Woe to them that pervert the words of uprightness,

And transgress the eternal law (cp. also xcix. 14, Sib. Orac. iii. 276 ff.).

On the other hand, the reward to be accorded to those who are faithful to the Law is often spoken of; this may be illustrated from another book, 2 (4) Esdras, of later date, but in this as in some other points of doctrine the Apocalyptists believed and taught alike whether belonging to an early or a late date; in ix. 7-12 of this book the promise of salvation to those who keep the Law is followed by a prophecy of woe to those who have ignored it: “And every one that shall then be saved, and shall be able to escape on account of his works or his faith by which he hath believed—such shall survive from the perils aforesaid, and shall see My salvation in My land, and within My borders which I have sanctified for Myself eternally. Then shall they be amazed that now have abused My ways; they shall abide in the torments which they have spurned and despised. For all who failed to recognize Me in their lifetime, although I dealt bountifully with them, and all who have defied My Law, while they yet had liberty, and, while place of repentance was still open to them, gave no heed, but scorned it—these must be brought to know after death by torment” (cp. vii. 83, viii. 29). The Law is also spoken of as “the light in which nothing can err” (Syriac Apoc. of Baruch xix. 3), and in the same book (lix. 2) reference is made to “the lamp of the eternal Law.” All such passages, and they could be enormously increased, show that the Apocalyptists had a high veneration for the Law, although they did not accept the Pharisaic interpretation of it.

In one respect, however, it may be gathered, the Apocalyptists were at one with the Pharisees in their method of legal observance, and that was in the matter of ascetic practices; for these are frequently extolled, and are clearly regarded as highly meritorious. In one book it is stated, for example, that among those who are written and inscribed above in heaven are “the spirits of the humble, and of those who have afflicted their bodies” (1 Enoch cviii. 7). Elsewhere it is said: “Let us fast for the space of three days, and on the fourth let us go into a cave which is in the field, and let us die rather than transgress the commands of the Lord of lords, the God of our fathers” (Assumption of Moses ix. 6). In 2 (4) Esdras ascetic practices are often spoken of, see, e.g., vi. 32, vii. 125, ix. 24, and often elsewhere.[133]

Lastly, one other point may be mentioned here, namely the, generally speaking, universalistic attitude of the Apocalyptists; they are not consistent in this, but normally they embrace the Gentiles equally with their own nation in the divine scheme of salvation; the wicked who are excluded are not restricted to the Gentiles, but the Jews equally with them shall suffer torment hereafter according to their deserts. (See on this subject the next section.)

These are, then, briefly the main points which illustrate the personal characteristics and general mental attitude of the Apocalyptists. But this will be further illustrated by glancing at the more important doctrines inculcated in the Apocalyptic Literature; indeed, one cannot properly separate the doctrinal teaching of the apocalypses from the mental standpoint of the writers; but for the sake of convenience, in enumerating their main points of doctrinal teaching, we propose to tabulate these in a separate section.

III. The Doctrinal Teaching of the Apocalyptic Literature

We have already pointed out that consistency of teaching is not to be looked for amongst the Apocalyptists as a whole; it is well to reiterate this here, for in referring to the main points of doctrine as taught in this literature examples of this will come before us. It is not our intention to give an exhaustive account of the doctrinal teaching of the Apocalyptic Literature; our object is to make some brief mention of the more specifically characteristic points of doctrine occurring in this literature.

(a) Individualism.

It is one of the marks of Hellenistic influence when we find that Individualism occupies an important place in the teaching of some of the books of this literature. This is markedly the case in the Book of 1 Enoch, where the importance of the individual is often insisted upon; not the nation as such, but the righteous and elect, the “plant of righteousness” as it is called in x. 16, lxxxiv. 6, shall inherit the eternal reward. Thus it is said in civ. 1: “I swear to you that in heaven the angels remember you for good before the glory of the Great One; and your names are written before the glory of the Great One.”[134] The redemption of the world is to be brought about through the righteous and elect individuals, “the eternal seed-plant.” This is one of the dominating thoughts of this book, and also finds expression in others of this literature; it is one, as Friedländer says, which did not emanate from Pharisaic soil, but was a product of Jewish Hellenism.[135] In accordance with this, individual responsibility is strongly emphasized; a very pointed passage in this connection is 2 (4) Esdras vii. 102-105, where the seer asks the angel: “If I have found favour in thy sight, show me, thy servant, this also: whether in the Day of Judgement the righteous shall be able to intercede for the ungodly, or to entreat the Most High in their behalf—fathers for sons, sons for parents, brothers for brothers, kinsfolk for their nearest, friends for their dearest.” And the reply of the angel is: “The Day of Judgement is decisive, and displays unto all the seal of truth. Even as now a father may not send a son, or a son his father, or a master his slave, or a friend his dearest, that in his stead he may be ill, or sleep, or eat, or be healed, so shall none then pray for another on that Day, neither shall one lay a burden on another, for then every one shall bear his own righteousness or unrighteousness.”[136]

(b) Particularism and Universalism.

Here we have a good example of the inconsistency of teaching already referred to. The traditional belief of the Jewish nation being the peculiar treasure of God asserts itself in spite of the broader outlook inspired by Hellenistic influence. The former attitude is seen, for example, in the Assumption of Moses i. 12, where Moses says to Joshua: “He hath created the world on behalf of His people.” In 2 (4) Esdras, again, we have the following: “But as for the other nations, which are descended from Adam, Thou hast said that they are nothing, and that they are like spittle; and Thou hast likened the abundance of them to a drop falling from a bucket. And now, O Lord, behold, these nations which are reputed as nothing lord it over us and crush us. But we, Thy people, whom Thou hast called Thy first-born, Thy only-begotten, Thy beloved, are given up into their hands. If the world has indeed been created for our sakes why do we not enter into possession of our world?” (vii. 56-59). But though other passages of similar import could be given from most of the books of this literature, the particularistic attitude is not the normal or usual one; far more frequent are those passages which express a wider universalistic view; one or two instances may be given: in 1 Enoch x. 21 it is said that “all the children of men shall become righteous, and all nations shall offer adoration and shall praise Me, and all shall worship Me”; in xlviii. 4 it is said of the Son of Man that “He shall be the Light of the Gentiles” (see also xi. 1, 2, xlix. 1, l. 2-5, xc. 30, xci. 14, Sib. Orac., iii. 702-726, Syr. Apoc. of Baruch xiv. 19, etc.); so, too, in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Levi ii. 11: “And by thee and Judah shall the Lord appear among men, saving every race of men.”

It is interesting to note that in quite a number of passages in several of these apocalyptic books a blending of these two attitudes seems to find expression; thus, in the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Levi xiv. 3, 4, Israel is regarded as superior to all other nations, but the salvation of the latter is awaited, and Israel is to be the means thereof: “My children, be ye pure, as the heaven is purer than the earth; and ye who are the lights of Israel, shall be as the sun and moon. What will the Gentiles do if ye be darkened through transgression? Yea, curses will come upon your race, and the light which was given through the Law to lighten you and every man, ye shall desire to destroy, and teach your commandments contrary to the ordinances of God.” Not essentially different is the thought contained in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch lxvii. 5: “And at that time, after a little interval, Zion will again be builded, and its offerings will again be restored, and the priests will return to their ministry, and also the Gentiles will come to glorify it.” This teaching was not merely theoretical, it expressed what the Apocalyptists, urged on by the influence of the Hellenistic spirit, were actually striving to bring about; they desired to make Judaism a world-religion which could be embraced by all the Gentiles; hence the missionary propaganda which they initiated and carried out, and of which a large part of their literary activity formed the expression. According to them the Jewish Church was to consist of those who were righteous, no matter what their nationality might be; and if one, though he were a Jew, was not godly, he was not regarded as a member of that Church. Outside of Palestine, as well as in many parts within the land, Jew and Gentile were constantly being brought into personal touch with one another, man with man; and many Jews came to learn that the distinction between the “people of God” and the “heathen world” was a wrong one, unfitting in the sight of God, unjust to men. Hence arose the apprehension of the true distinction to be drawn among men, a distinction between the righteous and the ungodly, irrespective altogether of nationality or race; and it is this distinction which finds such abundant expression in the Apocalyptic Literature. This religious conception regarding humanity resulted, in the natural course, in the desire to proclaim the name of the true and one God to all men so that all might have the chance of knowing Him. The Apocalyptists, inspired in large measure by the teaching of some of the greatest prophets, were therefore the great missionaries at this period; and this was the combined result of the universalistic attitude brought about by the influence of the Hellenistic spirit and the fuller apprehension and meaning of the teaching of prophets such as those who wrote the latter half of the Book of Isaiah and the Book of Jonah.

(c) The Doctrine of the Messiah.

We need not go into all the details of Messianic teaching given in this literature; much of it is similar to that found in the Old Testament and in the Apocrypha; it will be sufficient if we point out what is more specifically characteristic. The most important point upon which to lay stress is the transcendental character of the Messiah. In 1 Enoch the Messiah appears as One Who is divine, for He has His place upon the throne of God:

On that day Mine Elect One shall sit upon the Throne of Glory (xlv. 3).

He is Judge and Saviour, and is endowed with all wisdom:

For in those days the Elect One shall arise,

And He shall choose the righteous and holy from among them,

For the day has drawn nigh that they should be saved.[137]

And the Elect One shall in those days sit on My throne,

And His mouth shall pour forth all the secrets of wisdom and counsel;

For the Lord of Spirits hath given them to Him, and hath glorified Him (li. 2, 3).

But as a righteous judge He will condemn the wicked:

And He sat on the throne of His glory,

And the sum of judgement was given unto the Son of Man,

And he caused the sinners to pass away and be destroyed from off the face of the earth,

And those who have led the world astray....

For that Son of Man has appeared,

And has seated himself upon the throne of His glory,

And all evil shall pass away before His face,

And the word of that Son of Man shall go forth,

And be strong before the Lord of Spirits (lxix. 27-29, cp. lxi. 8).[138]

In accordance with this divine character of the Messiah is the teaching of His pre-existence before the world began:

Yea, before the sun and the signs were created,

Before the stars of the heaven were made,

His name was named before the Lord of Spirits (xlviii. 3, cp. verse 6).

This teaching is by no means confined to the Book of Enoch; in the Sibylline Oracles v. 414 ff., for example, it is said in reference to the Messiah that “there hath come from the plains of heaven a Blessed Man with the Sceptre in His hand which God hath committed to His clasp; and He hath won fair dominion over all, and hath restored to all the good the wealth which the former men took.” In the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Judah xxiv. 1 it is said: “No sin shall be found in Him”; and in Levi xviii. 10, 11 are the striking words:

And He shall open the gates of paradise,

And shall remove the threatening sword against Adam,

And He shall give to the saints to eat from the tree of life,

And the spirit of holiness shall be on them.

In 2 (4) Esdras the Messiah is likewise similarly portrayed, though in some passages he appears as purely human (see below, chap. IX. § (e)). In some other apocalypses the Messiah is conceived of as a man pure and simple; but the account given above is the more characteristic of the Apocalyptic Literature taken as a whole.

(d) The doctrine of the Future Life.

Two outstanding doctrines come into consideration here: the doctrine of the immortality of the spirit, and the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. The causes, humanly speaking, whereby one led on to the other, were, firstly, the belief in a final retribution which the existence of a just and righteous God rendered necessary; and, secondly, innate materialistic conceptions which resulted in causing men to impute to the spirit what belongs properly to the body.[139] To dwell for a moment on the first point; the clearest illustration of it is found in the Book of 1 Enoch, where in cii. 6-8 the following words are put into the mouth of sinners:

As we die, so die the righteous,

And what benefit do they reap for their deeds?

Behold, even as we, so do they die in grief and darkness,

And what have they more than we?

From henceforth we are equal.

And what will they receive, and what will they see for ever?

Behold, they too have died,

And henceforth for ever shall they see no light.

This evidently represents what was in effect actually believed and said by many; and the normal teaching of the Old Testament bore out the truth of it. But if it were true how could God’s righteousness and justice be vindicated? So the Apocalyptists taught a doctrine of retribution much in advance of anything to be found in the Old Testament, a doctrine which involved belief in immortality, and here they were indebted to Hellenistic influence, very different from the traditional Sheol-conception. This doctrine is nowhere more clearly set forth than in 1 Enoch ciii. 1-8. The passage is somewhat lengthy, but in view of its importance it will be well to quote it in full:

Now, therefore, I swear to you, the righteous, by the glory of the Great and Honoured and Mighty One in dominion, and by His greatness I swear to you:—

I know a mystery,
And have read the heavenly tablets,
And have seen the holy books,

And have found written therein and inscribed regarding them:

That all goodness and joy and glory are prepared for them,

And written down for the spirits of those who have died in righteousness,

And what manifold good shall be given to you in recompense for your labours,

And that your lot is abundantly beyond the lot of the living.

And the spirits of you who have died in righteousness shall live and rejoice,

And their spirits shall not perish, nor their memorial from before the face of the Great One,

Unto all the generations of the world. Wherefore, no longer fear their contumely.

Woe to you sinners, when ye have died,

If ye die in the wealth of your sins,

And those who are like you, that say regarding you:

“Blessed are the sinners, they have seen all their days;

And now they have died in prosperity and in wealth,

And have not seen tribulation or murder in their life;

And they have died in honour,

And judgement hath not been executed on them during their life.”

Know ye, that their souls shall be made to descend into Sheol,

And they shall be wretched in their great tribulation.

And into darkness and chains, and a burning flame where there is grievous judgement shall your spirits enter;

And the great judgement shall be for all the generations of the world.

Woe to you, for ye shall have no peace.

It will be noticed that in this passage it is only the spirit which is spoken of as living in the world to come, so that nothing more than the immortality of the spirit is taught; a teaching considerably in advance of the normal teaching of the Old Testament, but yet it does not go beyond belief in the immortality of the spirit. On the other hand, the passage contains expressions of a materialistic kind incompatible with purely spiritual conceptions; so that a reflective mind must sooner or later have been led to the fuller doctrine of the resurrection of the body if his teaching was to be logical.

But here another element comes into consideration. Conceptions regarding the Messianic Kingdom varied, and the subject we are discussing was closely connected with those variations; for as long as the Messianic Kingdom was conceived of as existing on this earth the teaching on the life hereafter, i.e. within the Messianic Kingdom, was bound to tend towards a bodily existence then. But when the Kingdom came to be conceived of as existing in the heavens, materialistic ideas receded, and more spiritual ones found expression. There seem, therefore, to have been three stages of conception regarding the state of man’s nature in the future life: first of all a development of the Old Testament Sheol-conception which resulted in the belief of the immortality of the spirit[140]; then with the expectation of the Messianic Kingdom of eternal duration on this earth came the belief in the resurrection of the body; and, lastly, when the Kingdom of Heaven was conceived of as eternal in the Heavens above, it was the resurrection of the spirit that was taught.

Variation of teaching is also found in the Apocalyptic Literature regarding those who are to attain to the future life; sometimes it is taught that all the Israelites, good and bad, shall rise, those to inherit bliss, these to suffer torment; the Gentiles are not considered. At other times only the good Israelites are to rise; while it is also taught, though more rarely, that all mankind shall rise, including therefore the Gentiles; the righteous rise to eternal life, the wicked to eternal torment. An intermediate period of waiting between death and the resurrection is also taught, the wicked being in Hades, the righteous in Paradise. But sometimes there is no mention of an intermediate state, the resurrection following immediately after death.[141]

These, then, constitute the most important doctrines concerning which the Apocalyptic Literature has something specific to teach. The doctrine of God does not differ materially from anything that is taught in the Old Testament and in the Apocrypha, and the same applies to the doctrine of Sin; the doctrine of Wisdom will receive consideration in Chapter IX. The Angelology and Demonology of this Literature certainly show considerable development owing to Persian influence; but these two subjects are not of sufficient importance for present purposes to merit any detailed treatment.

For some account of the books of this literature see Chapter X.

Summary

In discussing the beginnings of the Apocalyptic Movement a consideration of the different thought-tendencies in Palestine prior to the Maccabæan struggle is necessary. The Jewish nation as a whole had come under the influence of the Hellenistic spirit, though not all were Hellenistically inclined. A minority, who clung tenaciously to the rigid observance of the Law, was known as the “Pious ones,” or Chassidim. But these Chassidim were of two types; there were among them those who became the Apocalyptists, and there were also among them those who, later, developed into the party of the Pharisees. Thus both Apocalyptists and Pharisees acknowledged a common descent, i.e. from the Chassidim.

The teaching of the Apocalyptists is on more than one subject inconsistent; this is mainly due to the fact that their minds were, on the one hand, saturated with the traditional thoughts and ideas of the Old Testament, while on the other hand they were eagerly absorbing the newer conceptions bred of the spirit of the age. Nevertheless, the Apocalyptists were the true prophets of the people, to whom they brought a message of comfort and hope by telling of the new world which was soon to come; to the ungodly they addressed words of stern warning. The teaching of the Apocalyptists dealt mainly with the world to come, and most of what they taught was characterized by its supernatural colouring. They held strongly that all things had been predestined by God before all time. In spite of much mysticism and a gaze concentrated on that which was to come, the Apocalyptists were loyal to the Law, though not in the Pharisaic sense, the spirit of its observance being regarded as more important than obedience to the letter. Normally the Apocalyptists were universalists rather than particularists, though in this they were inconsistent.

The main points in the doctrinal teaching of the Apocalyptic Literature are: Individualism, the importance of the individual being strongly emphasized; the inclusion of the Gentiles in the divine plan of salvation; the transcendental character of the Messiah; and the teaching concerning the future life; in this latter inconsistency is found, sometimes the resurrection of the body is taught, at other times only the immortality of the soul; there is also variety of teaching on the subject of those who are to attain to the future life and their lot there.

CHAPTER VI
The Scribes

[Literature.—In addition to the literature given at the head of the next chapter reference may be made to Schürer II, i. pp. 306-379, German ed., II, pp. 363-447; Lightley, Les Scribes, Étude sur leur origine chez les Israélites (1905). Also the articles “Scribes and Pharisees” (Prince) in the Encycl. Bibl., and “Scribes” (Eisenstein) in the Jewish Encycl.]

It is important that we should try, as far as possible, to present the available data concerning the Scribes in their chronological order; that would, of course, be desirable in any case, but it is doubly so when, as here, a clear statement of the development of the scribal class and its activities may be a help in understanding some of the difficult questions which will come before us in dealing with the Sadducees and Pharisees. We shall, therefore, state the evidence chronologically, as far as may be, making our deductions as we proceed.

The Scribes

(a) The Old Testament data.

First as to the use of the term “Scribe” = Sôphēr in Hebrew, and is used in the sense of “secretary” or the like; in 2 Samuel viii. 17, e.g., among David’s officials are reckoned “Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, who were priests; and Seraiah, who was scribe” (cp. 2 Sam. xx. 25; 2 Kings xviii. 18, etc.). As a royal official he had various duties; he acted as treasurer, according to 2 Kings xii. 11, 2 Chronicles xxiv. 11, apparently in some military capacity, according to 2 Kings xxv. 19, Jeremiah lii. 25; in Psalm xlv. 2 a Sôphēr is clearly one who writes (“My tongue is the pen of a ready writer” [Sôphēr]); and, finally, in Esther iii. 12, viii. 9, he occupies the place of the Persian king’s secretary who writes out decrees. With one exception (Ps. xlv. 2), in all these passages the Scribe is spoken of as a royal official; they are, therefore, only important for us here as showing that the ideas of counting and writing are connected with the term Sôphēr; and these are exactly the meanings conveyed by the root.

The three next passages, which give some data regarding the office of the Scribe, have a special importance because they are pre-exilic—

Jeremiah viii. 8, 9: “How do ye say, We are wise, and the Law of the Lord is with us? But, behold, the false pen of the Scribes hath wrought falsely. The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken; lo, they have rejected the word of the Lord; and what manner of wisdom is in them?”

Jeremiah xviii. 18: “Then said they, Come and let us devise devices against Jeremiah; for the Law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet.”

Jeremiah xxxvi.: This chapter is too long to quote in full; it tells us of Baruch, the Scribe, who wrote down Jeremiah’s words “upon a roll of a book”; it also mentions Gemariah, the son of Shaphan, the Scribe, who had his chamber “in the upper court, at the entry of the new gate of the Lord’s house” (verse 10); further, mention is also made of Elishama the Scribe, who had his chamber in the king’s house (verse 12); Elishama was clearly a royal official.

From these passages we gather that Scribes were in existence before the Exile, that they claimed to be wise, and that they regarded themselves as authorities on the Law of the Lord; they are censured by Jeremiah with having “wrought falsely,” and the context points to this as being connected with the “Law of the Lord”; what precisely is referred to is not easy to determine, but the point of importance for us is that the pre-exilic Scribes were occupied with the Law; if they come under the lash of Jeremiah they do not differ in this respect from the wise men, nor yet from the priests and the prophets (see viii. 10). In Jeremiah xxxvi. mention is made of Scribes in influential positions; but in addition to these there is Baruch, who belongs to a different category of Scribe, for he makes copies of what are clearly regarded as sacred writings (see verses 24, 25). From the meagre evidence we possess there is not much to be gathered; but we may perhaps be justified in saying that already in pre-exilic times the term “Scribes” was beginning to be used as a technical term in the limited sense of their being those whose special duty it was to make copies of the Law in the form in which it then existed. But in saying that the term “Scribes” was used in a technical sense already in this pre-exilic period we must very strongly emphasize that this is to be understood in an entirely different sense from that in which it was used as a technical term in post-exilic times. There is a world of difference between the Scribe who is the more or less officially accredited copier of the text of the Law or other Scriptures, and the Scribe who also interprets the Law, teaches it to the people, and in whom is vested the judicial power of enforcing its decrees. In each case “Scribe” may be used as a technical term while connoting two very different things.

Further, from the second of the passages quoted above we see that three distinct classes are mentioned, viz., the priests, the wise men or Chakamim, and the prophets. There can be no doubt that these three were in existence long before Scribes in the technical sense were heard of; with the prophets we are not concerned here, for their activity lay in a different sphere altogether; but we must try and get some clear ideas upon the subject of the relationship between the Scribes and the priests on the one hand, and the Scribes and the Chakamim on the other.

Originally the priests alone were concerned with the Law; but the Law contained, broadly speaking, two elements, the ritual and the moral; the former of these was more especially the concern of the priests; but the latter had a wider interest, and many of the Chakamim as well as the priests occupied themselves with it. When the Scribes arose—it is not possible to say precisely when this was, but it was before the Exile—they did not, as a body, restrict themselves to the study of one or other aspect of the Law, but, according to their bent, some gave more particular attention to the study of the ritual Law, others to the moral Law; so that among the types of scribe there appeared the priest-scribe, such as Ezra, and the wisdom-scribe, such as was Ben-Sira in later times. But the Chakamim, as a class, still remained, no less than the priests, each occupying themselves with their particular study, as they had done before the Scribes came into existence. In course of time, and through Ezra’s influence, the power of the Scribes greatly increased, and they became the most influential leaders among the people; and by the time of the Maccabæan struggle their activities were wholly and exclusively absorbed in the study and teaching of the Law, both ritual and moral, written and oral. But we have anticipated, and must now turn to the evidence of the post-exilic books.

In Ezra vii. the following verses are important: “Ezra ... was a ready scribe in the Law of Moses, which the Lord, the God of Israel, had given” (verse 6). “Ezra had set his heart to seek the Law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgements” (verse 10). “... Ezra the priest, the scribe, even the scribe of the words of the commandments of the Lord, and of His statutes to Israel....” “Ezra the priest, the scribe of the Law of the God of heaven” (verses 11, 12, 21). According to vii. 25, Artaxerxes gives the following instructions to Ezra: “And thou, Ezra, after the wisdom of thy God that is in thine hand, appoint magistrates and judges, which may judge all the people that are beyond the river, all such as know the laws of thy God, and teach ye him that knoweth them not.”

The whole of Nehemiah viii.-x. is important for our present subject; we draw special attention to the following passages: “Ezra the scribe” is asked by the people to bring the book of the Law of Moses in order that it might be read to them; it then continues: “And Ezra the priest brought the Law before the congregation, both men and women, and all that could hear with understanding.... And he read therein before the broad place that was before the water-gate from early morning until mid-day, in the presence of the men and the women, and of those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the Law” (viii. 2, 3). In viii. 7-9, the names of thirteen men are enumerated who, together with the Levites, “caused the people to understand the Law. And they read in the book, in the Law of God, interpreting it; and they gave the sense, and caused (the people) to understand the reading. And Nehemiah, which was the Tirshatha,[142] and Ezra the priest the scribe, and the Levites that taught the people, said unto all the people, This day is holy unto the Lord your God; mourn not, nor weep.” Further, in viii. 13-15, it is said: “And on the second day were gathered together the heads of the fathers’ houses of all the people, the priests and the Levites, unto Ezra the scribe, even to give attention to the words of the Law. And they found written in the Law, how that the Lord had commanded by Moses that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month ...”; then follows the account of how the people were to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles.

These passages show that whatever may have been the scribal activity before the Exile, an altogether new position was assigned to the Law and its observances by the scribe Ezra.[143] The Law now begins to be the central pre-occupation of the Scribes under the guidance of Ezra and Nehemiah, the former of whom is the scribe par excellence. The priests and Levites are associated with the scribe Ezra, and presumably with the scribes in general; but we know from later history that the study of the Law soon became the special concern of the Scribes almost to the exclusion of the priests. Noteworthy is the stress laid on teaching the Law to the people; and a new element of far-reaching importance seems to be adumbrated in Nehemiah viii. 8, where it is said that the teachers of Law “read in the book, in the Law of God, interpreting it; and they gave the sense, and caused (the people) to understand the reading.” It is interesting to note that the Hebrew root for “to interpret” here (p-r-sh) is the same as that from which the word Pharisee comes; we shall draw attention to this again later.

One or two passages of later date must also be noted, for they are not without interest, and shed further light on our subject:

1 Chronicles ii. 55: Among various genealogical enumerations occurs that of “the families of scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, the Sucathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hammath, the father of the house of Rechab.” From this we gather, first, that the scribal office was inherited, and from Jeremiah xxxvi. 10-12 we may assume that this was also the case in pre-exilic times, for both Michaiah, and his father Gemariah, who was the son of Shaphan the scribe, seem to be closely associated with the scribes, and were presumably themselves scribes. Another point to be noted from the passage quoted is that some families of the scribes were connected with the house of Rechab; now the Rechabites were ascetics (see Jer. xxxv. 6-10), and it is possible that when, in later days, the Pharisees made a point of practising asceticism,[144] they were following an early tradition in principle though the actual practices had become different with the changed conditions of life.

2 Chronicles xxxiv. 13: This passage is referred to because it says that some of the Levites were scribes, which again implies association with the priests.

Daniel v. 26-28: Here we have an example of text and interpretation which, so far as the principle is concerned, is according to the scribal method.

We have now to examine some Old Testament evidence of another kind, and as this is calculated to throw light on the subsequent history of the scribal movement and its developments it deserves careful consideration.

From a number of indications to be found in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah it is evident that from the very commencement of the settlement of the exiles in Palestine differences arose between them and the Israelites whom they found there on their return. There seem to have been several causes for these differences; but what largely lay at the bottom of them was the contention of the returned exiles that they alone represented the true Israelites; those who had been left in the land had become mixed with the heathen[145] by living among them and intermarrying with them, and were therefore not regarded as true Israelites. But more than this; it would seem that among the exiles themselves there were some who belonged to the priesthood, but that this was denied by the leaders among the exiles; this is gathered from Ezra ii. 61-63, where the enumeration of some priestly families is given concerning whom it is said: “These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found; therefore were they deemed polluted and put from the priesthood. And the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim.” Among the exiled people, too, were some who “could not show their fathers’ houses and their seed, whether they were of Israel” (Ezra ii. 39). Thus both those who had been living in Palestine, and some of those who returned with the exiles, had a grievance. This was greatly aggravated when Zerubbabel refused the help of any but those whom he considered true Israelites in the building of the temple (Ezra iv. 1-5): “... Then the people of the land weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in building....” (cp. Neh. ii. 19, iv. 1 ff.).

A more far-reaching cause of division was that of marriage with foreigners, especially with Samaritans, who were with justice regarded as heathen by the bulk of the returned exiles; in Ezra ix. 1, 2, we read: “... the princes drew near unto me, saying, The people of Israel, and the priests and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands.... For they have taken of their daughters for themselves and for their sons; so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the peoples of the lands. Yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass” (cp. Neh. xiii. 23, 24). That, as indicated in these last words, it was the aristocracy, i.e. the high-priestly families, who were most forward in contracting foreign alliances and who were in favour of intercourse with non-Jews generally, is shown further by such passages as Nehemiah vi. 17-19: “Moreover, in those days the nobles of Judah sent many letters unto Tobiah, and the letters of Tobiah came unto them. For there were many in Judah sworn unto him, because he was the son-in-law of Shechaniah the son of Arah; and his son Johanan had taken the daughter of Meshullam the son of Berechiah to wife. Also they spake of his good deeds before me and reported my words to him.” And again Nehemiah xiii. 28: “And one of the sons of Joiada, son of Eliashib the high-priest, was son-in-law to Sanballat the Horonite.” Very significant, too, is the long passage Ezra x. 18-44; this contains a list of those who had married strange wives; first are mentioned the sons of the priests, among these a few had put away their wives (verses 18, 19), but the list, as it continues, mentions those priests who did not do so (verses 20-22); then follow the names of Levites, singers, and porters, then of Israelites, who “had taken strange wives; and some of them had wives by whom they had children” (verse 44). The attempts of Ezra and Nehemiah to stop these alliances and to put an end to the intercourse between the Jews and those whom they regarded as heathen were thus not wholly successful; and this is further borne out by several passages which reveal the resistance offered, e.g. Ezra x. 15: “But Jonathan the son of Asahel and Jahaziah the son of Tikvah stood up against this matter; and Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levite helped them.” Again, in Nehemiah vi. 10-14 the influence of Sanballat and Tobiah upon many of those who lived in Jerusalem, and the existence of a party there opposed to Ezra, is plainly indicated; among those belonging to this party there are mentioned Shemaiah, the prophetess Noadiah, “and the rest of the prophets” (cp. also xiii. 4 ff.; Mal. ii. 10-16).

From all these indications it is not difficult to see that the elements for the formation of a distinct party in opposition to the régime of Ezra and Nehemiah were present from the very beginning of the return from the Exile. For some considerable time, no doubt, the influence of Ezra succeeded in suppressing, though not in quenching, the opposition which he met with; but two diverging tendencies became rooted among sections of the people, and in course of time bore fruit in the formation of distinct parties.

The distinguishing notes of these two tendencies can be discerned without difficulty; on the one hand there were, as can be seen from the quotations given above, the members of the aristocracy, i.e., the high-priestly families, who were friendly disposed to those of semi-Israelite and even non-Israelite origin. They were, from the point of view of their adversaries, lax concerning the observance of the Law (see, e.g., Neh. xiii. 15 ff.), though not necessarily antagonistic to it, but only to the Ezra conception of it; they could, for example, show that their foreign marriages were not contrary to the Law, while Ezra’s requirements went beyond the Law. On the other hand, there was Ezra, and his followers, strongly adverse to any intercourse between Jews and non-Jews, and painfully scrupulous regarding the minute observance of the Law (see, e.g., Neh. x. 28 ff.).

Here, therefore, were the tendencies already in existence which, as time went on, continued to develop until they became the crystallized tenets of definitely opposed parties, whose watchwords were Universalism versus Particularism, and whose attitude towards the Law differed in this respect, that the Universalists interpreted it in a limited sense, while the Particularists insisted on a laborious observance of it in all its minute details, which became greatly increased by their methods of interpretation.

The process of the development of these tendencies can be seen in some of the books of the Old Testament; for example, in the Book of Haggai (ii. 10 ff.) we have indications of the importance laid upon minute legal observances by the priests, with whom, as already pointed out, the Scribes were associated; in the Book of Jonah, on the other hand, universalism is throughout the dominant note.

(b) The Apocrypha data.

The classical passage in the books of the Apocrypha concerning our present subject is Ecclesiasticus xxxix. 1-11, where the ideal scribe is described; in the passage which precedes this Ben-Sira insists upon the need of leisure for a scribe if he is to devote himself to the acquisition of true wisdom; he shows that the labourer and the artisan, while indispensable to society, are necessarily too much occupied with their callings to give any time to higher things. Then he continues:

1. Not so he that applieth himself to the fear of God,

And to set his mind upon the Law of the Most High;

Who searcheth out the wisdom of all the ancients,

And is occupied with the prophets of old;

2. Who heedeth the discourses of men of renown,

And entereth into the deep things of parables;

3. Searcheth out the hidden meaning of proverbs,

And is conversant with the dark sayings of parables....

6. If it seem good to God Most High,

He shall be filled with the spirit of understanding.

He himself poureth forth wise sayings in double measure,

And giveth thanks unto the Lord in prayer.

7. He himself directeth counsel and knowledge,

And setteth his mind on their secrets.

8. He himself declareth wise instruction,

And glorieth in the Law of the Lord....

The first thing that must strike us here is that according to Ben-Sira there is no difference between a scribe and a wise man, the two are synonymous (verse 1).[146] The next thing to note is that Ben-Sira recognizes two sources of the scribe’s knowledge, the study of these is what constitutes the scribal activity; the first is described in verse 1, viz., the Law of the Most High, the wisdom of the ancients, and the prophets of old; that is to say, the Pentateuch, the Wisdom books, and the prophetical books.[147] The second is described in verses 2, 3, viz., discourses of men of renown, deep things of parables, hidden meaning of proverbs, and dark sayings of parables; it is difficult to see to what these things can refer unless it is to the discussions, proverbs and aphorisms of the kind which abound in Ben-Sira’s book. That they cannot refer to the oral Law is clear enough from the description itself; for the oral Law cannot be said to have consisted of discourses, hidden meaning of proverbs, or dark sayings of parables. Ben-Sira, though a scribe, has nothing to say about an oral Law, though he must have known of its existence; yet he has a great veneration for the Law, there are abundant indications of that in his book. We have, moreover, seen that there are strong grounds for believing that an oral Law was in existence long before the time of Ben-Sira (circa B.C. 200), and the evidence of somewhat later times points in the same direction. We are, therefore, forced to the conclusion that Ben-Sira represents a type of scribe who venerated the Law as written, but repudiated the oral Law. Further, though Ben-Sira was a good Jew, the Hellenistic influences which are to be found in his book and his generally broader mental outlook make him in some respects the antithesis of Ezra. Ben-Sira thus seems to belong to those, of whom we have made mention above, whose tendency was in an universalistic direction and who could venerate the Law without feeling bound by the inferences which might be drawn from its interpretation.

The evidence of the Prologue to the Greek translation of Ecclesiasticus, some sixty years later, points also to a veneration of the Law, but without making any reference to the oral Law, although it is probable that scribes are in the mind of the writer of the Prologue when he speaks of “readers” and “lovers of learning who must be able to profit them which are without [i.e. the laity, most likely] both by speaking and writing.” The Prologue thus corroborates what we learn from the book itself.

Before coming to 1 Maccabees, which is the next book to give evidence on the subject of the Scribes, a word must be said about the Assidæans, or Chassidim.[148] By these are meant those “Pious” ones, frequently mentioned in some of the later Psalms (e.g., cxlix. 1-9, and elsewhere), who clung tenaciously to the Law, both written and oral, when, in the third century B.C. onwards, many of the Jews were becoming lax owing, largely, to Hellenistic influences. They were animated by a strong antipathy towards everyone who was Hellenistically inclined; they were legalists in the strictest sense of the word, and particularists. Although in existence beforehand, it was only during the Maccabæan struggle that they commenced to play an important rôle in the political life of the nation. The importance of the Chassidim for our present study is that they are identified with one type of the scribes in 1 Maccabees vii. 12, 13, viz.: “And there was gathered together unto Alcimus[149] and Bacchides[150] a company of scribes to seek for justice; and the Chassidim were the first among the children of Israel that sought peace of them [i.e., of Alcimus and Bacchides].” The evidence of this book appears at first sight to be conflicting, for in the passage just cited they appear as the peaceful party, while in ii. 43, 44 they are described as warlike.[151] It is probable, however, that these descriptions both witness to the true facts of the case; for the natural inclination of these students and strict observers of the Law would clearly lie in the direction of peace; but as soon as they realized that the cherished object of their existence was imperilled, fighting became a necessity. It must be remembered that the Chassidim and the Maccabees are in no sense to be identified; they were both champions of the Law, and both the enemies of Hellenistic Jews; but the Maccabees were patriots primarily, while the Chassidim were legalists, and, provided they were left in peace to follow their legal studies and observances, it was of no great moment to them whether their nation was independent or a subject-race.

In the Book of Judith, although the Scribes are never mentioned, many details of what were really the results of their activity are to be found; but as these are spoken of in Part II in the account there given of the Book of Judith (§ iii.), we need not make any further reference to the subject here.

(c) Some further particulars.

One or two other points regarding the Scribes may be briefly mentioned. As exponents of the Law and of the Scriptures generally the Scribes were as a matter of course greatly occupied with the Hebrew text of these; they thus became, quite apart from their other duties, such as making copies of the Scriptures, the guardians of the text of Scripture, and upon them devolved the further duty of the fixing and the preservation of the Biblical text. This very important function marks them out as the beginners of the textual criticism of the Old Testament.

A further practical duty which the study and exposition of the Law brought with it was that of administering it. The Scribe was a lawyer; in the Gospels the two terms are synonymous, for which reason they never occur together. It was as administrators of the Law that the Scribes were represented in the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem; here they sat as judges who assisted in the passing of sentences on those who had broken the Law.[152]

After definite parties had come into existence the Scribes belonged, in the main, to the Pharisaic party; but there was no reason against some of them being members of the Sadducæan party; this is, indeed, implied in such passages as Mark ii. 16; Luke v. 30; Acts xxiii. 9.

That which constituted the difference between the Scribes and the Pharisees was briefly this: the Scribes handed down the traditional, i.e. the oral, Law as well as the written Law, and explained it; the Pharisees carried out in actual practice what was thus prescribed. This, of course, does not mean to say that the Scribes did not also strictly observe the legal enactments; but that their special duties constituted them a class distinct from the Pharisees is clear from the way in which they are differentiated in the New Testament, for there we read of the “Scribes of the Pharisees” (Mark ii. 16; Acts xxiii. 9), and of “the Pharisees and their scribes” (Luke v. 30), showing clearly that the Scribes were distinct from the Pharisees.

The natural sequel to any account of the Scribes is a consideration of the Pharisees; with these, in conjunction with the Sadducees, we shall deal in the next chapter.

Summary

From the Old Testament data we gather that there were Scribes who were occupied with the written Law in pre-exilic times, though they arose long subsequently to the priests, the prophets, and the Chakamim, or wise men; but the pre-exilic scribe was of a very different kind from the scribe of later times. Ezra was not only the first scribe in the later sense of the word, but was also the inaugurator of the scribal system as generally understood.

An important point to notice in the activity of the Scribes in the earliest post-exilic period is that as teachers of the Law they interpreted it to the people.

From the commencement of the return from the Captivity differences arose between the returned exiles and those whom they found in Palestine on their return. These differences reveal the existence of two diverging tendencies among many of the people, the distinguishing notes of which were particularism and rigid legalism on the one hand, and universalism coupled with a less strict interpretation of legal requirements on the other. Ezra and those who followed him were the upholders of the former, the high-priestly party and their followers of the latter tendency. The process of development in either direction can be discerned in some of the later Old Testament books.

In the Apocrypha we learn from Ecclesiasticus that a type of scribe had arisen whose energies were directed towards the acquisition of wisdom which he was concerned to impart to others; this type of scribe, while venerating the Law, sympathized with the universalistic rather than with the particularistic attitude. Belonging to a slightly later time are the Chassidim, or “Pious ones,” who were strict legalists and of a particularistic tendency, though they were not patriots in the sense that the typical Maccabæans were. The Chassidim are spoken of in connexion with the Scribes. We are, therefore, led to the conclusion that before the middle of the second century B.C. two types of scribe were in existence, the wisdom scribe, and the more particularly legal scribe. Concerning these latter, who are to be regarded as the Scribes in the strictly technical sense and who became closely associated with the Pharisaic party, the following further points may be noted: upon them devolved, in addition to other duties, the guardianship of the text of Scripture. They were, further, the administrators of the Law, and were represented in the Sanhedrin, and thus sat as judges and assisted in the passing of sentences on those who had broken the Law.

CHAPTER VII
The Pharisees and Sadducees

[Literature.—Wellhausen, Die Pharisäer und Sadduzäer (1874); Cohen, Les Pharisiens (1877); Baneth, Ursprung der Sadokäer und Boethusäer (1882); Schürer, II, ii. pp. 1-43 (1897), German ed., II, pp. 447-489 (1907); Bertholet, Die Stellung der Israeliten zu den Fremden (1896); Elbogen, Die Religionsanschauungen der Pharisäer ... (1904); M. Friedländer, Die religiösen Bewegungen ..., pp. 22-113 (1905); O. Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, pp. 200-214 (1906); Hölscher, Der Sadduzäismus (1906); Büchler, Der galiläische Am-ha-Ares des zweiten Jahrhunderts (1906); Chwolson, Das letzte Passamahl Christi ... [Appendix] (1908); Hart, Ecclesiasticus ..., pp. 272-320 (1909); Chwolson, Beiträge zur Entwickelungsgeschichte des Judentums, pp. 1-54 (1910); Schechter, Fragments of a Zadokite Work (vol. I of “Documents of Jewish Sectaries”) (1910); Oesterley and Box, The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue, pp. 120-139 (1911); Herford, Pharisaism, its aim and its methods (1912); Leszynsky, Die Sadduzäer (1912); Charles, II, pp. 785-834 (1913); Lauterbach, “The Sadducees and Pharisees”: A Study of their respective attitudes towards the Law; in Studies in Jewish Literature, issued in honour of Prof. Kaufmann Kohler, pp. 176-198 (1913); this essay is a part of a larger work on the Sadducees and Pharisees which the writer has in preparation. See also Büchler’s article on Schechter’s book, mentioned above, in The Jewish Quarterly Review, January, 1913, pp. 429-485.]

I. The Meaning of the Terms “Pharisees” and “Sadducees”

(a) Pharisees.

It is usually held that the name Pharisee is derived from a root (p-r-sh) meaning to “separate,” and that the Pharisees took their name, or received it, in order to emphasize their separation from the common people. This is, on the face of it, difficult to accept when one remembers that the Pharisees were the champions of the oral Law, which was, in the first instance, based upon popular traditional custom. The inappropriateness of this explanation becomes glaring when it is considered that everything we know about the Pharisees shows us that so far from separating themselves from the people this is exactly what they did not do; they arose from the ranks of the people, and unlike the aristocratic Sadducees, were always among the people, as the Gospels show. If it be said that their “separateness” consisted not in keeping apart from the people, but that they were “separate” in the sense of their being so much holier, the reply is that in this case we should not expect their name to be derived from the root p-r-sh, but from what would have been the far more appropriate one q-d-sh, which means “separate” in the sense in which holiness brings this about.[153] But what is further a strong argument against this theory is the fact that it has absolutely no support from the sources. Josephus says, for example, that “while the Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich, and have not the populace as their followers, the Pharisees have the multitude on their side.”[154] That certainly does not look like separation from the ordinary people. Further, Leszynsky has collected some interesting data from the Mishna showing that in Pharisaic literature the term to “separate oneself” is used in a disparaging sense; in Niddah iv. 2, for example, this very term is used in reference to the Sadducees, who are blamed as those who “separate themselves” from the congregation. Again, Hillel gives the command: “Separate not thyself from the congregation” (Aboth ii. 4). So that everything points to the theory which would explain the name Pharisee as “Separatist” as wrong. A more probable explanation is that already hinted at by Josephus, who says in Bell. Jud., II, viii. 14 of the Pharisees that “they are those who seem to explain the laws with accuracy.” Here we may recall the passage, Nehemiah viii. 8, referred to in the preceding chapter, where it is said that the teachers of the Law “read in the book, in the Law of God, interpreting [from the root p-r-sh] it; and they gave the sense, and caused (the people) to understand the reading.” Further, in Rabbinical literature this root, p-r-sh, from which the name Pharisee is derived, is constantly found used in the sense of to “explain,” “expound,” or “interpret,” in reference to Scripture which is explained in the interests of the oral Law. So that, while the root p-r-sh means both to “separate” and to “interpret,” all the evidence goes to show that as used in connection with the name Pharisee it has the sense of to “interpret” or “expound.” The term Pharisees may thus be said to mean “expounders” of the Scriptures in the interests of the oral Law; and this is just what the Pharisees were par excellence. Their close association with the Scribes, as often alluded to in the Gospels, serves still further to support this view.

(b) Sadducees.

When transliterated from its Hebrew form the term “Sadducees” appears as Zaddūkim; it has been held that this is derived from the Hebrew word zaddik, “righteous.”[155] But this derivation is improbable, for no analogy exists for this change of an i into u; but, even apart from this, to explain Zaddūkim as meaning the “righteous ones” has no support from fact; for the Sadducees were never regarded as particularly righteous by others, nor did they ever make such a claim themselves.

An interesting explanation, offered, however, “with great diffidence,” is that given by Cowley. He says: “In modern Persian the word Zindīk is used in the sense of Manichæan, or, in a general sense, for infidel, one who does not believe in the resurrection or in the omnipotence of God. It has been adopted in Arabic with the meaning of infidel, and also in Armenian. Masūdi (tenth century) says that the name arose in the time of Manes to denote his teaching, and explains that it is derived from the Zend, or explanation, of the Avesta. The original Avesta was the truly sacred book, and the person who followed only the commentary was called a Zindīk, as one who rejected the word of God to follow worldly tradition, irreligious. But the term cannot have originated in the time of Manes (third century A.D.), for the Zend ‘commentary,’ whatever view be taken as to its date, was by then already becoming unintelligible. It must be much earlier, and have acquired the general sense of infidel very soon.... Makrīzī (fifteenth century), who borrows largely from Masūdi, confuses the Zanādikah with the Samaritans and Sadducees, and says that they deny the existence of angels, the resurrection, and the prophets after Moses, whence it has been suggested that Zanādikah is a corruption of Zaddūkim. The reverse, may, however, be the case. It is quite possible that the Persian word was used about B.C. 200 in the sense of ‘Zoroastrian,’ and if so, it might be applied by opponents to a party in Judæa who sympathized with foreign ideas, and rejected beliefs which were beginning to be regarded as distinctively Jewish. It would thus have been used at first in a contemptuous sense, and, later, when the original meaning was forgotten, was, in the well-known Jewish manner, transformed in such a way as to bear the interpretation ‘Sons of Zadok’ (Bĕni Zadōk) with a suggestion of ‘righteous’ (Zaddīkim).... It may be mentioned, though perhaps as a mere coincidence, that Zanādikah is used for Sadducees in Arabic translations of the New Testament.”[156] Interesting and most ingenious as this theory is, it does not seem to be a sufficiently natural explanation; moreover, in one important respect the Zindīk presented a marked contrast in principle to the Sadducee; for while the Zindīk was one who followed the Zend, or explanation of the Avesta, the truly sacred book, i.e. “who rejected the word of God to follow worldly tradition,” the Sadducee was just the reverse, for he clung to the word of God, and he rejected the authority of the oral tradition, i.e. the Pharisaic explanations and traditions.[157] And further, as we shall see later, the normal type of Sadducee was not necessarily worldly or irreligious.

A third view, and one which may be regarded as the correct one, is that the term Sadducees (Zaddūkim) takes its origin from the personal name Zadok. The sons of Zadok (Bĕni Zadōk) were the descendants of the high-priest Zadok, whose family had exercised the priestly functions from the time of David (1 Chron. v. 27-41, xv. 11, xvi. 30, 40)[158] right up to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, when their rule came to an end[159]; but the party continued to exist. Most modern scholars accept this explanation, which has, indeed, now been placed beyond doubt by the evidence of the Zadokite Fragments (see further § iii. (e) of this chapter).[160]

So much, then, for the origin of the terms “Pharisees” and “Sadducees.” We turn next to consider the sources whence we derive our knowledge of these two parties and their special tenets.

II. The Sources

(a) Josephus.

That the evidence to be derived from the writings of Josephus regarding the Pharisees and Sadducees is of great value is undeniable; but two facts must be borne in mind which show that this evidence has to be sifted before it can be relied upon. The first is this: Josephus does not write as a Jew with Jewish interests, but as a Greek from a Greek standpoint. A striking illustration of this is that to him the Jewish parties represent Greek schools of philosophy; thus, he compares the Pharisees with the Stoics,[161] the Essenes with the Pythagoræans,[162] and, although he does not directly say so, he evidently thought the Sadducæan point of view on some things closely connected with Epicuræanism.[163] In some ways Josephus was well equipped for giving information about Jewish parties, for he belonged to an aristocratic priestly family, he was related on the maternal side to the high-priest, was brought up as a Pharisee learned in the Law, and later became intimately acquainted with the teaching of the Sadducees and Essenes.[164] But this advantage is to some extent neutralized by his Hellenistic leaning as well as by the fact that war and politics interested him more than questions concerning Jewish religious culture. If his works are to be used with effect it is necessary to bring into the Greek scenery which he presents a Jewish colouring; one has constantly to be asking oneself, as Leszynsky humorously puts it, whether the shining armour of the warrior or the cloak of the philosopher may not, after all, contain a Rabbi.[165]

The second fact which somewhat detracts from the value of Josephus’ evidence is that in all probability that evidence is incomplete; for he says on two occasions in his Antiquities (VIII, v. 9, XVIII, i. 2), when speaking of the Jewish parties, that this subject is dealt with in the Jewish War, book the second; but on turning to this (II, viii. 14) we find a very scanty reference to the Pharisees and Sadducees, more scanty than the passing notices in the Antiquities; while the Essenes, the least important of the three bodies, are treated at considerable length. At the close of the chapter Josephus says: “This is what I had to say about the philosophic sects among the Jews.” One is forced to the conclusion that a considerable section has for some unknown reason been lost,[166] and that therefore the evidence of Josephus on the subject of the Jewish parties is incomplete.

(b) Rabbinical Sources.

The earliest of these is the Mishna, which belongs to the second half of the second century A.D.; somewhat later is the Tosephta,[167] i.e. a collection of “additions” to the Mishna; these additions consist of matter not incorporated in the Mishna, but they are taken from the same mass of floating traditional material of which the Mishna is made up. The three Midrashic works, Sifra (a commentary on Leviticus), Sifre (a commentary on Numbers and Deuteronomy), and Mechilta (a commentary on Exodus), are also valuable sources.[168] Comparatively late as all these sources are—the earliest belongs to a time after the Sadducees and Pharisees had ceased to exist as parties—they are nevertheless of high importance because they all utilize traditional material belonging to earlier times, much of which most likely existed in written form; so that they contain many traditions dating back to the second century B.C.

The evidence contained in these sources consists in the main of records of controversies on various topics between Pharisees and Sadducees. It is in the highest degree improbable that these accounts should be fictitious, for by the time that they were incorporated in the Mishna the Pharisees had long triumphed over the Sadducees; there would, therefore, have been no point in making them up; they are evidently genuine records.[169]

(c) The New Testament.

This source is so familiar that it will be unnecessary to do more than merely mention it.

(d) The Zadokite Fragments.

These are two fragments, discovered a few years ago by Schechter in the Cairo Genizah.[170] They belong respectively to the eleventh and twelfth centuries A.D., and deal with the religious beliefs and practices, as well as with details of the constitution, of a Jewish sect which existed in Damascus during the second century B.C.,[171] before the Maccabæan struggle. This sect possessed, in addition to the Old Testament, other sacred books; it had its special laws interpreting various commandments in Scripture; and it had, moreover, its own calendar. The sect looked upon itself as the remnant to which God had revealed “the hidden things in which all Israel erred.” The members of this sect had a special dislike for the Pharisees, against whom their polemics were directed. In the text of one of the manuscripts the Pharisees are denounced as transgressors of the Covenant; and various other accusations are brought against them, such as polygamy, and a wrong way of observing the dietary laws and the Levitical laws of purity. The Law, it is contended, was only discovered with the rise of Zadok. This antagonism to the Pharisees stamps the sect as representing some form of Sadducæanism, and this is further emphasized by the fact that the Messianic doctrine taught agrees with that of the Sadducees against the Pharisaic teaching on the subject. The fragments raise a number of other questions which cannot be discussed here; the point of chief importance for us lies in the Sadducæan character of their contents.

These, then, are the sources from which we gain our information regarding the specific doctrines of the Sadducees and Pharisees, which we now proceed to consider.[172]

III. The Doctrines of the Pharisees and Sadducees

(a) The Doctrine of the Law.

As the attitude of the Pharisees to the Law is so well known not many words need be devoted to describing it. All the sources agree that they were the champions par excellence not so much of the written Law, but specifically of the oral Law, and that their energies were concentrated on the elaboration and minute observance of the latter. It is the attitude of the Sadducees to the Law with which we shall, therefore, mainly concern ourselves, for some other points of Sadducæan doctrine are closely connected with this.

We may begin by quoting the evidence of Josephus; he says in Antiquities XIII, x. 6: “The Pharisees have delivered to the people from the tradition of the fathers all manner of ordinances not contained in the laws of Moses; for which reason the sect of the Sadducees reject these ordinances; for they affirm that only such laws ought to be observed as are written, while those which are orally delivered from the tradition of the fathers are not binding. And concerning these things great questionings and differences have arisen among them.”[173]

This piece of evidence may be frankly accepted, as far as it goes, not only because in itself it contains nothing intrinsically improbable, but also because it is borne out by the other sources. It shows us what was the fundamental cause of difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees, viz., as to whether anything besides the written Law was binding. What is particularly noticeable here is the fact that the Sadducees, not the Pharisees, were the real champions of the Law as such[174]; the Sadducees were the guardians of the Law in its purity, and desired to keep it free from accretions; the Pharisees were bent on attaching to the Law ordinances of which the Law itself knew nothing, and of making both equally authoritative and binding. But from this a very important thing results: as champions of the Law how can it be said, as is so often said, that the Sadducees, as a party, were worldly and lax as regards religious interests? In one passage, it is true, Josephus speaks of the opponents of the Pharisees as those who offend against the holy laws (Bell. Jud., I, v. 1), but the context shows that by these were meant the laws of the Pharisees, as distinct from the Law which was venerated by the Sadducees quite as much as by the Pharisees.

The Zadokite Fragments corroborate what has been said in so far that in them the Pentateuch, cited under the term Torah, is considered the main authority.

In the Gospels we have no direct evidence concerning the Sadducæan standpoint regarding the Law; but there are many indications regarding that of the Pharisees and their insistence on the oral traditions. These are, however, sufficiently well known not to require detailed mention here. One matter of special interest may be noted in passing, namely, that, so far as questions of the Law are concerned, Christ upholds the Sadducæan standpoint.[175]

The Rabbinical sources on this subject are of the highest importance; a detailed examination of them would require a special volume, but much valuable information has been gathered by Hölscher[176] and, in greater abundance, by Leszynsky.[177] Though the evidence is of a complicated character it fully bears out that of Josephus on this point. The Sadducees stood for the written Law, and this only; the Pharisees insisted upon the binding authority of the tradition of the fathers as well. That is the fundamental difference between them; the developments which either party saw itself compelled to countenance arose logically and irresistibly from this fundamental principle regarding the Law. But these developments were profoundly important. We will put the matter as succinctly as possible. The Sadducees stood for the written Law; but in the nature of things it constantly happened that new cases came up for decision for which the written Law provided no solution or guidance. The Sadducees were thus forced to put forth new ordinances; and in this they followed, nolens volens, the example of the Pharisees[178]; but, true to their fundamental principle, they saw to it that these new ordinances were based upon the written Law, so that they could claim that if changed conditions of life, or whatever other cause, necessitated the putting forth of new legal ordinances, these were at any rate developments of the written Law.[179] With the Pharisees it was different; they had always, in addition to the Law, championed the traditions of the fathers, i.e. the popular customs handed down from time immemorial; these had constantly been added to, whether based upon the written Law or not. From the point of view of loyalty to the Law the Sadducæan position was unassailable, while that of the Pharisees was open to objection. The result was an intensive study of the letter of the Law (i.e. the Pentateuch), both by Pharisees and Sadducees; the former undertook this in order, by a method of interpretation peculiarly Pharisaic, to prove that the oral tradition was based on the written Law. They were forced to this by the more strictly legal attitude of the Sadducees; these latter, too, gave themselves to the minute study of the Pentateuch as never before, because, as the true guardians of the Law, they had to see whether in each individual case the Pharisaic contention was justified that such and such an ordinance of the oral tradition was based upon the written Law.

Thus endless discussions and acrimonious disputes arose between the two parties, which became further embittered by doctrinal disagreements. The Pharisees won the day ultimately, for they were able to show by subtle exegesis that the oral tradition was based upon the written Law. But, and this is the great point, the Sadducæan principle was thus victorious; as a party they went under; but the Pharisees, by adopting the Sadducæan principle that nothing is binding that cannot be shown to be in accordance with the written Law, implicitly acknowledged that the Sadducees had been right all along.

Leszynsky, in his masterly thesis on the subject, concludes the section on the evidence of Rabbinical sources with these words, which admirably sum up the matter: “The Pharisees conquered. True! And when with Rabbi Akiba the Pharisaic art of interpretation reached its zenith, and every letter of the Torah had been fitted into the Pharisaic system—then Sadducæanism came to an end. But they had only conquered by appropriating the principle of the enemy. From the party of tradition arose the party of the Torah as traditionally conceived. Rabbinical Judaism is in truth a synthesis of Pharisaism and Sadducæanism.”[180] See further below, § iv.

(b) The Doctrine of God.

On this subject Josephus (Antiq., XIII, v. 9) tells us that while the Pharisees hold that some things in the world happen by the will of Providence, and that in other cases things lie in the power of men, the Sadducees, on the other hand, altogether deny the existence of Providence as an active force in the world; if, indeed, there is such a thing at all, they say, it does not concern itself with the affairs of men. Everything lies in the hand of men themselves, they alone are the cause if prosperity be their lot, while adversity is simply the result of their own foolishness. Again, in another passage (Bell. Jud., II, viii. 14) he tells us that, in contradistinction to the Pharisees, the Sadducees do not believe in Providence; they deny that God takes any interest in human affairs; good or evil is the lot of men according to their own free choice. This evidence of Josephus cannot be accepted so far as the Sadducees are concerned; we have seen that the written Law, or Pentateuch, was the supreme authority according to Sadducæan teaching; but in the Pentateuch the doctrine of God is such as to make it impossible to believe that what Josephus says really reflects Sadducæan belief here. What is said over and over again in the Pentateuch regarding the divine guidance of men and God’s incessant interposition in the affairs of the world of His creation impels one to affirm that Josephus is wrong in his contention that the Sadducees denied the existence of Providence. It is probable that the partisanship of the Pharisee Josephus has somewhat carried him away, and that he has, perhaps unconsciously, here misrepresented the Sadducæan position. This is the more probable in that, as we shall see presently, positive proof of such misrepresentation in another direction is forthcoming. When we turn to our other sources we find, in the first place, that in the Zadokite fragments the doctrine of God is in accordance with Old Testament teaching, and therefore in opposition to what Josephus says. In the second place, the evidence of the New Testament distinctly implies that the Sadducees did believe in the direct action of Providence in the affairs of men. Thus, we are told that when John the Baptist saw that many Pharisees and Sadducees were coming to his baptism, he said to them: “Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?”[181] If fear from the wrath to come was what induced the Sadducees, as well as the Pharisees, to come and be baptized, the fact proves that they believed in the divine interposition in the affairs of the world. Again, the same is implied in the words: “And the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and tempting Him asked Him to show them a sign from heaven.”[182] And, once more, in the account of the discussion in the Sanhedrin as to what was to be done to St. Peter and the other apostles, who had been put in the public ward by the Sadducees,[183] Gamaliel concludes the discussion with a speech which ends with these words: “And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will be overthrown; but if it is of God, ye will not be able to overthrow them; lest haply ye be found even to be fighting against God”; it is then said: “And to him they agreed.” If there had been any real difference between the Pharisaic and Sadducæan doctrine of God this agreement would not have been recorded. We have an interesting example of what took place in the event of doctrinal disagreement in Acts xxiii. 1-10. We are, therefore, justified in concluding that on this subject the two parties agreed. So that the evidence of the New Testament is also against Josephus. The silence of the Rabbinical sources on this subject is of itself sufficient to prove Josephus wrong, for had there been any difference of belief on such a supremely important subject it is quite inconceivable that the Rabbis would have kept silence.

(c) The Doctrine of the Future Life.

In Bell. Jud., II, viii. 14, Josephus says that the Pharisees taught the incorruptibility of the soul, but that the Sadducees “did not believe in the immortal duration of the soul, and the rewards and punishments in Hades,” their belief being that “the souls die with the bodies.” In one respect here, as Leszynsky has pointed out, we are able to prove that Josephus has coloured his account; for Pharisaic Judaism taught not merely the incorruptibility of the soul, but also a doctrine of the resurrection of the body; but because this latter thought was strange to the Greeks he did not make mention of it. In his later work Josephus corrects himself in so far as to say that the Pharisees believed not only in the incorruptibility of the soul, but also in its continued life hereafter; his words are: “They (the Pharisees) also believe that souls have an immortal vigour in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life; and that the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall have power to revive and live again.”[184] According to these words there was no difference in this respect between the Pharisees and the Essenes; but even here Josephus cannot bring himself to declare the whole truth concerning the real Pharisaic doctrine of the resurrection. “It is probable,” says Leszynsky, “that this error immediately resulted in the rise of another, for since the Essenes had their belief in immortality, and the Pharisees that of the incorruptibility of the soul—or, as in the other account, the continued life of the soul hereafter—there remained nothing for the Sadducees but a denial pure and simple of the future life. He who, like Josephus, puts resurrection and immortality on precisely the same plane, necessarily imputes to him who denies the resurrection the view that the soul is perishable.... But both from the Talmud (Sanhedrin 90b) and from the New Testament (Matt. xxii. 23 ff.; Acts xxiii. 8, cp. iv. 1), we know that the Sadducees denied only the doctrine of the resurrection, for they required proof of this from the Torah which was not forthcoming. But of this un-Greek dogma Josephus would have nothing to say.”[185] The possibility that the Sadducees held the ancient Israelite conception of the existence of the soul in Sheol must, at any rate, be allowed; for we cannot accept the evidence of Josephus here unreservedly. If we had only the New Testament and the Talmud to go upon we should certainly not deny that the Sadducees believed in accordance with the ancient dogma of their race; yet these two sources are assuredly more reliable than Josephus. There is, moreover, nothing in the Zadokite fragments to support the evidence of Josephus.[186] We may, therefore, conclude that the Sadducees believed in the immortality of the soul, but not in any doctrine of the resurrection.

(d) The Sadducæan attitude regarding Belief in the existence of Angels and Spirits.

In Acts xxiii. 8 it is said that “the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit”; this is the only authority which we have on the latter point; it is not referred to either in Josephus’ works or in the Talmud, nor have the Zadokite Fragments anything to say about it. Now since the Sadducees regarded the written Law as their final authority, it would certainly have been strange if they had really denied the existence of angels, for one has but to recall such passages as Genesis xvi. 1 ff., xxviii. 10 ff., Numbers xx. 16, xxii. 22 ff., and others, to realize that the written Law distinctly teaches a doctrine of angels. One has, therefore, to recognize the possibility that what is said on this subject in Acts xxiii. 8 may be due to a mistaken inference derived from the Sadducæan disbelief in the resurrection, namely, that the departed do not become angels or spirits[187]; this does not necessarily deny the existence of angelic beings who have never been in the flesh.[188]

(e) The Doctrine of the Messiah.

One other specifically Sadducæan doctrine must be briefly mentioned, namely that of the Messiah. As against the Pharisees, who taught that the Messiah was to be of the seed of David, and who thus held the old prophetic belief of Isaiah and Jeremiah, the Sadducees, regarding the Pentateuchal Law as the supreme arbiter in all matters, and finding nothing there which spoke of the Messianic ruler as belonging to the house of David, held that Aaron and his seed were the chosen ones from whom the Messiah would ultimately proceed; it was with Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, that God had made an eternal covenant; and, therefore, as Ezekiel (xliv. 15 ff.) had prophesied, the sons of Zadok[189] were to be the rulers of the people, and the Messiah must be of priestly blood (cp. Exod. xix. 6).[190] So that, as Leszynsky points out (p. 94), the very name of the Sadducæan party, i.e. the Zadokites (the descendants of Zadok) also had a place in the strife regarding the Torah versus Tradition.

In the Zadokite Fragments the teaching concerning the Messiah is important; there is frequent reference to a “Teacher” who is called the “Only Teacher,” or the “Only One,” and is identical with “the Lawgiver who interprets the Law.” There is a period intervening before the first appearance of this Teacher, who was the Founder of the Sect, and his second appearance, which is to be at “the end of the days.” Now this Teacher is identified with the Messiah, “the Anointed One from Aaron and Israel, whose advent is expected by the Sect, through whom He made them to know His holy spirit, and in whose rise the Sect saw the fulfilment of the prophecy, there shall come a star out of Jacob. Apparently this Anointed One was rejected by the great bulk of the nation who ‘spoke rebellion’ against Him. What must be especially noted is that the Messiah of the Sect is a priest, a descendant from Aaron and Israel. Of a Messiah descending from Judah there is no mention in our text. Indeed, ‘after the completing of the end ... one shall not join the house of Judah,’ whilst the princes of Judah, the removers of the bound, will be visited by the wrath of God. Among these princes, King David is also included, who is held in slight estimation by the Sect. As a contrast to and substitute for David and his dynasty, the Sect put up Zadok, and his descendants, the sons of Zadok.”[191] There is nothing which so stamps the character of these fragments as just this doctrine of the Messiah.

(f) The Sadducees and the Jewish Calendar.

This is a somewhat intricate subject; but the main point is that the Sadducees held that time must be measured on the basis of a solar year; they thus opposed the Pharisaic mode of reckoning which was on the basis of the lunar year. The Pharisees followed the ancient Hebrew tradition; but the unsatisfactory character of this mode of reckoning time must have been realized in early times; and the Pharisees, in getting over the obvious difficulties by inserting a thirteenth month in the spring whenever necessary, were following the oral Tradition. This was sufficient for the opposition of the Sadducees who sought to reform the Calendar by measuring time on the basis of the solar year. The Sadducees and Pharisees accordingly accused each other of observing feasts at a wrong time,[192] or of wishing to.

Of the ordinary sources only the Rabbinical contain echoes, and these but slight, of the controversy which existed between the Sadducees and Pharisees on this subject[193]; but the Book of Jubilees, the Book of 1 Enoch and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs give indications of it; and in the Zadokite Fragments there are also references to the subject; Schechter says in his introduction: “Another point of supreme importance separating them [i.e. the members of the Zadokite sect] both from Jew as well as Samaritan is the regulation of the calendar. The Sect looks upon itself as the remnant unto which God revealed ‘the hidden things in which all Israel erred: His Holy Sabbaths and His glorious festivals, the testimony of His righteousness and the ways of His truth and the desires of His will which a man shall do and live by them.’ It need hardly be pointed out that this passage is a mere paraphrase of the passage in the Book of Jubilees: ‘And all the children of Israel will forget, and will not find the path of the years, and will forget the new moons, and seasons, and Sabbaths, and they will go wrong as to all the order of the years’ (vi. 34 ff.). The ‘hidden things’ are, in the Book of Jubilees, disclosed to the Sect by a special revelation (vi. 3), but the calendar of this pseudepigraphic work differs in the most important essentials both from that of the Pharisees and from that of the Samaritans” (p. xvi.). In the Book of Jubilees the solar year is accepted.

That this controversy must have been of an acute character is obvious, and at first one may wonder that the ordinary sources do not refer to it. But in the New Testament one would not expect any reference to it; and Josephus is mainly concerned with doctrinal points when speaking about the Sadducees. As to the slight mention of the subject in Rabbinical Literature Leszynsky explains it by saying that “it would almost seem as though the Rabbis wished by their silence to kill this the most dangerous of all questions which menaced Judaism; they did not wish to raise up again the spirit of doubt to quell which had cost them so much trouble.”[194]

On the other hand, we have definite witness to the existence of the quarrel in some of the pseudepigraphic books, as hinted above, and the Zadokite Fragments, as we have just seen, offer strong evidence in regard to it.

There is, of course, a great deal more that might be said on the whole subject of the Pharisees and Sadducees, especially about the Pharisees; but our main purpose has been to set forth the chief differences of doctrine between the two; and we have laid more stress on the Sadducæan position because this has not, as a rule, received the same attention as the Pharisaic.[195]

IV. Some Subsidiary Considerations

It is of importance to recognize that, with one exception, viz. the Zadokite Fragments, the main sources which give us information about the Sadducees come from the hands of adversaries. Josephus was a Pharisee, or at all events he claimed to be; the New Testament writers, for obvious reasons, had little sympathy with the Sadducees; the Rabbis were the spiritual descendants of the bitterest enemies of the Sadducees. But even so, some of the adverse impressions about the Sadducees widely current do not receive much support from the sources. For example, it is often assumed that the Sadducees were lax in regard to the Law, that they were sceptics and irreligious generally; but this is not borne out by the evidence when used with discrimination. Josephus nowhere says that the Sadducees were irreligious or antagonistic to the Law; nor does the New Testament represent them to have been so. Neither do the acrimonious discussions between the Sadducees and Pharisees on legal questions preserved in Rabbinical writings give the impression that the former were indifferent to the Law. No doubt the Pharisees looked upon the Sadducees as irreligious, but not because of their attitude to the Law; to the Pharisees anyone who repudiated the binding character of their conception of the Law would come under condemnation; but we have no right to brand as irreligious those who in their loyalty to the written Law denounced Pharisaic accretions to the same as of subordinate authority. That there were some Sadducees who were worldly and irreligious is likely enough to have been the case; but to characterize the Sadducees as such, as the worldly, irreligious party, is to fall into the same kind of error as those who say that the Pharisees were all hypocrites.

Again, it is of course true that the Sadducees were always on the side of the suzerain power; the high-priestly party in the time of the Seleucidæ, as well as during the Roman dominion, held to the ruling power; but to say that for this reason the Sadducees were wholly occupied with politics, and that they were merely a political party, is an exaggeration. Their position necessitated a certain amount of intercourse with the ruling power; but this did not involve the exclusion of every other occupation, nor must we suppose that all Sadducees were concerned even with a minimum of political business. A Sadducee was not ipso facto a politician, but those who were at the head of affairs, and who were, therefore, necessarily politicians, happened to belong to the Sadducæan party. It was precisely the same thing with the Pharisees at one time, viz., at the beginning of the reign of John Hyrcanus (B.C. 135-104), when they were in close touch with the ruling power (in the person of the high-priest), and were necessarily to some extent occupied with politics[196]; yet nobody would say that at that time the Pharisees as a body were wholly given up to politics.

The Sadducees, to touch upon another point, were, like the sons of Zadok of pre-Maccabæan times, the friends of Hellenistic culture; the Sadducæan party was the party of enlightenment. At first sight this strikes one as incongruous, since the Sadducees were, as against the Pharisees, conservatives in religious belief and practice. They refused, for example, as we have seen, to accept the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, which the Pharisees, being as they claimed the party of religious progress, both welcomed and taught. But the converse is true, too; it is strange that the Pharisees who were the national party, bigoted and narrow in their outlook, should have been ready to accept teaching which was of non-Jewish origin. The same incongruousness is to be seen in the respective attitude of Sadducees and Pharisees towards the Law. As Lauterbach truly says, the former “were conservative and narrow in their views and strongly opposed to changes and innovations. The Pharisees, on the other hand, were the younger party, broader and more liberal in their views, of progressive tendencies and not averse to innovations. Accordingly, we should expect that the Sadducees, whose priestly ancestors and predecessors had always been the official teachers of the people, the custodians of the Law, and presumably also of such tradition as there was, and who themselves were very conservative, the natural advocates of traditional ways and views, would seek to uphold the authority of tradition and the binding character of its Laws. On the other hand, we should expect the Pharisees, being the younger, more progressive and liberal party, which applied new methods of interpretation and developed new theories, to deny the authority of tradition and reject its laws. But, instead, we are led to believe that in their attitude towards the authority of the traditional laws the two parties had changed rôles. For the conservative Sadducees are said to have opposed the authority of tradition and the binding character of its teachings, while the Pharisees, who in many points departed from traditional ways and favoured new views, are represented as the advocates of tradition and of the authority of its laws.”[197] Lauterbach’s explanation of the difficulty that the disputes between the Pharisees and Sadducees were not so much about the contents of tradition, but merely about its authority, no doubt holds good in part, but only in part, for the records of the disputes which have come down to us are much concerned with the contents of tradition.[198] We doubt whether the full explanation of the incongruity is in its essence really other than this: the innate illogic of human nature. Is any party ever logical and true to its tenets for long; above all, a religious party? Would any party be really honest if it were? New conditions alter the outlook; new truths tend to displace old landmarks; and the consequent new ways of thinking will impel honest men sometimes to modify their most cherished beliefs. The conditions brought about through the Maccabæan struggle, and the gradual triumph of some specifically Hellenistic traits, above all of religious syncretism, will account almost wholly for what appears to be the volte face of both Sadducees and Pharisees. While one can well understand that the Sadducees, as represented by their spiritual forbears in pre-Maccabæan times, belonging as they did to the priestly aristocracy, and generally to the more cultured classes, should be friendly inclined towards the mental refinement and enlightenment such as Hellenism offered, there can be no doubt that before the outbreak of the Maccabæan struggle, their over-anxiety in this direction involved them in deplorable disloyalty both to their nation, and to their religious principles. We may grant that many belonging to this school of thought honestly believed that the more fully the people came under the sway of Hellenistic influence the more beneficial it would be for all concerned, yet there is no getting away from the fact that their behaviour as recorded in 1 Maccabees was unpatriotic, and by acquiescing in the abrogation of the Law, or rather in the attempt to abrogate it, they acted clean contrary to their fundamental principles. Indeed, it is so difficult to understand their action that we are perhaps justified in believing that the support accorded to Antiochus Epiphanes in his attempt to stamp out Judaism came only from an extreme section of the Hellenistically inclined party. For when all is said and done, they were Jews, and, as a body, venerated the Law, as such, like other Jews, and worshipped the same God as other Jews; so that with all their partiality for Greek culture they held firmly, as the sources prove, to what was specifically Jewish in spite of internal quarrels, bitter as these proverbially are.

From all that we have learned about the Sadducees and the school of thought which they represent, it must be clear that at one time they constituted a powerful and influential element among the Jews, with definite principles and doctrines which they championed. The question, therefore, suggests itself as to whether any literary remains emanating from their circles have come down to us. It is generally acknowledged that Ecclesiasticus is “Sadducæan” in character, so that the Sadducees and their pre-Maccabæan representatives were evidently not without their scholars and writers; we should, therefore, naturally look for other examples of Sadducæan literary activity. We have become accustomed to be told that any book in which the Law is extolled is necessarily Pharisaic; but in view of what we have seen to be the Sadducæan attitude towards the Law, something more than the upholding of the Law is required in a book in order to establish its Pharisaic authorship; unless it is clear that the Pharisaic conception of the Law is in the mind of the writer, the book could just as well be Sadducæan, so far as this particular point is concerned. But the doctrine concerning the Law is, of course, not the only criterion whereby the character, whether Sadducæan or Pharisaic, of a book is to be judged; when we come to consider the authorship of the uncanonical books, the Pseudepigrapha as well as the Apocrypha, we shall have to take into consideration all the doctrines to which reference has been made above; and it may be that in some cases we shall find that there are reasons for considering a book to be Sadducæan which is usually supposed to be Pharisaic. If this is so, then our sources for the Sadducees may be increased. But since this is a very disputed matter, we have thought it best not to include among the sources given above books which we shall show reasons for regarding as Sadducæan.

Summary

The term “Pharisee” means not “Separatist,” but “Expounder” of the Scriptures in the interests of the oral Law. The term “Sadducees” is derived from the personal name Zadok, who was high-priest in the time of David.

The sources of our knowledge of the Pharisees and Sadducees are: Josephus, Rabbinical writings, the New Testament, and the Zadokite Fragments. The doctrines regarding which the Pharisees and Sadducees differed were: the Law, which the Sadducees regarded as binding only in so far as the written Law was concerned, while the Pharisees claimed the same for the oral Law. The Sadducees came to recognize the need of making new legal ordinances, but only such as were based upon the written Law. The oral tradition of the Pharisees had arisen independently of the written Law; but the Pharisees were ultimately forced to accept the Sadducæan principle, and by subtle exegesis showed that the oral tradition was actually based upon the written Law. Thus, though the Sadducees ceased to exist as a party, their principle won the day.

Secondly, as regards the doctrine of Providence, there is every reason to distrust the evidence of Josephus, who contends that the Sadducees denied the existence of Providence; this is not borne out by the other sources, and is in itself highly improbable.

The real difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees on the subject of the life hereafter was that while the former believed in the resurrection of the body, the latter denied this, and believed only in the immortality of the soul.

Regarding the alleged Sadducæan disbelief in angels and spirits, which is stated in only one of the sources, the New Testament, one must recognize the possibility that what is said on this subject in Acts xxiii. 8 may be due to a mistaken inference derived from the Sadducæan disbelief in the resurrection of the body, namely, that the departed do not become angels or spirits. In view of the Sadducæan belief in the Pentateuch, where angels are often spoken of, it is improbable that they denied the existence of these.

A fundamental difference of belief between Pharisees and Sadducees was that regarding the Messiah; while the Pharisees held that the Messiah was to be of the seed of David, the Sadducees maintained that Aaron and his seed, to which the sons of Zadok belonged, were the chosen ones from whom the Messiah would ultimately proceed. Lastly, differences of opinion existed among the two parties regarding the Calendar; these centred in the fact that while the Sadducees measured time on the basis of the solar year, the Pharisaic method of reckoning was on the basis of the lunar year. The result of this was that each party accused the other of false teaching regarding the time at which the feasts ought to be kept.

Among some subsidiary considerations concerning the Sadducees it was pointed out that to speak of them as sceptics and irreligious, as a body, is to do them an injustice; equally unjust is it to regard them as having been mainly occupied with politics. On the other hand, the exaggerated pro-Hellenic tendencies of those who came to be known as the Sadducæan party after the Maccabæan struggle, involved them in disloyalty to their race and to their religious principles. It is probable that those who were guilty of this constituted only an extreme section of those favourable to Hellenistic influence.

The way in which the Sadducees and Pharisees to some extent changed rôles, so far as their attitude to the Law was concerned, can be explained on natural lines.

The literary remains of the Sadducees are perhaps more than we have been accustomed to suppose; further reference is made to this subject in Chapter X.

CHAPTER VIII
The Origin of the Old Testament Canon of Scripture

[Literature.—S. Davidson, The Canon of the Bible (1877); Riehm, Einleitung in das Alte Testament (1887-1890); Buhl, Kanon und Text des Alten Testamentes (1891); Wildeboer, Die Entstehung des alt-testamentlichen Kanons (1891); Ryle, The Canon of the Old Testament (1892); Robertson Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, Lecture VI (1895); Briggs, General Introduction to the Study of Holy Scripture (1899); Duhm, Die Entstehung des Alten Testamentes (1899); Hölscher, Apokryph und Kanonisch, pp. 1-41 (1905). The articles “Kanon des Alten Testamentes,” by Strack in the Realencykl. für Protestantische Theologie und Kirche; and “Bible Canon,” by Blau and Schmidt in the Jewish Encycl.]

We have, in the preceding chapters, considered the mental and spiritual movements in Palestine, and have sought to show in how large a measure these were affected by Hellenistic influence, and how, on the other hand, resistance to this influence called into existence a counter-movement which ultimately carried all before it. The Hellenistic Movement with its profound influence upon the Jews of Palestine, and its still profounder and more far-reaching influence upon the Jews of the Dispersion; the Apocalyptic Movement, largely indigenous, but also greatly influenced by the Hellenistic spirit; the Legalistic Movement, initiated by Ezra and furthered by Scribal activity; the opposing tendencies which resulted, viz., Particularism on the one hand, and Universalism on the other, tendencies which remained such, and did not crystallize into parties until after the Maccabæan struggle, so that both Scribes and Apocalyptists could follow their individual bent, whether in the direction of legal observance or of the pursuit of wisdom or of eschatological study, without coming into conflict with each other; the Maccabæan struggle which was the culmination of the deeply-rooted tendencies just referred to, and which resulted in the formation of two bitterly opposed parties, the Pharisees and the Sadducees, each with their fundamental principles essentially irreconcilable, each living and vigorous, each illogical, each offering the curious paradox of triumphing in defeat—these and various other matters have all been dealt with in the preceding chapter, with the object of presenting a picture of the intellectual and religious surroundings from which, and owing to which, the large body of literature emanated with which we shall now have to concern ourselves. A not inconsiderable portion of this literature was ultimately incorporated into what came to be known as the Old Testament Canon; a large portion which was studied and favourably looked upon even by rigorously orthodox religious leaders among the Jews was excluded from the Hebrew Canon, though admitted into the Greek Bible of the Jews of the Dispersion; a further and still larger portion of this literature was excluded, not only from the Hebrew Canon of the Palestinian Jews, but also from the Greek Bible of the Dispersion Jews.

Now to understand, first of all, how it came about that a distinct line of demarcation was drawn between what we now know as the canonical books, and those of the Apocrypha, it will be necessary to consider briefly the idea of a Canon in the Jewish Church, the approximate date at which this idea arose, and the date at which the Canon was finally closed. It will be important to touch also upon the question as to whom the formation of the Canon was specially due, as well as the reason for which some books were admitted into the Canon,[199] and others excluded. This will be our task in the present chapter. The further questions concerning the two other bodies of literature referred to just now will occupy us in subsequent chapters.

We must first offer a few remarks upon the subject of the Hebrew Canon as we now have it in the Hebrew Bible.

I. The Hebrew Canon in its Present Form

The Hebrew Bible contains twenty-four books[200]; the following table will show the divisions and sub-divisions into which these books were placed by the Jewish Church:[201]

i. The Law, or Torah, i.e. the five books of Moses, called by the Jews the “five-fifths of the Law.”

ii. The Prophets, or Nebiim; this has two sub-divisions:

(a) The “Former Prophets,” or Nebiim rishônim, i.e. the books of Joshua, Judges, 1, 2 Samuel, 1, 2 Kings.

(b) The “Latter Prophets,” or Nebiim acharônim; i.e. the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve Minor Prophets, which are reckoned as one book.

iii. The Writings, or Kethubim; this has three sub-divisions:

(a) Psalms, Proverbs, Job.

(b) Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther; these are technically known as the five “Scrolls,” or Megillôth.

(c) Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, 1, 2 Chronicles.

Regarding the first of these divisions, it may be pointed out that the Jews regard the Law, or Torah, as by far the most important part of their Scriptures, in comparison with which the other two divisions occupy quite a subordinate position; indeed, the “Prophets” and the “Writings” are sometimes spoken of as mere “Tradition” (Kabbalah), in contrast with the Law. As to the second division, it should be noted that the Jews in early days regarded the two books of Samuel[202] as one book, and the same applies to the two books of Kings. The terms “Former” and “Latter” Prophets do not refer to their respective dates of composition, but must be taken to indicate the order of the books in the canonical collection.[203] In the third division we see, in the first place, that the order of the books in each of the sub-divisions differs from that of the English Bible; secondly, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are treated as one book, and this is also the case with 1, 2 Chronicles. The five “Scrolls” occupy an important and somewhat special position among the Jews, for they are assigned, for reading, to particular feast-days and one fast-day, viz. Passover (Pesach), Weeks (Shebuôth), the fast of the “ninth of Ab,”[204] Tabernacles (Succôth), and Lots (Purim), respectively.

Thus, the first division has five books, the second has eight, and the third has eleven, making twenty-four in all.

These books, then, constitute the Hebrew Canon in its final form, the authoritative Scriptures to which no book may be added, and from which no book may be taken away. We have now to inquire as to when, by whom, and why these books were singled out from among the mass of Jewish literature to occupy this honoured position.

II. The Idea of a Canon

In seeking to answer the question as to when the Hebrew Canon assumed its present, final, form, it is well to begin by emphasizing the need of distinguishing between a collection of books, all valued more or less, and the formation of a Canon. It is not only comprehensible, but altogether natural to find that, given the existence of a large literature, a certain number of books belonging to it should be more highly valued and honoured than others contained in that literature; it does not, however, therefore necessarily follow that such more highly honoured books alone are acceptable and widely used, or that they are regarded as so holy that not a letter of them may be altered, while all other books belonging to that literature are regarded as of inferior value and of no authority.

Applying this to the sacred literature of the Jews as it existed and grew, roughly speaking, during the last two pre-Christian centuries, we must begin by leaving out the Pentateuch from our present consideration; we are justified in doing this, because these books, as containing the written Law, occupied a position so unique from the Jewish point of view that (from the time that they became books) they never came under the category of ordinary books (see, however, below, p. 168). Setting the Pentateuch aside, therefore, we affirm that during the period indicated a large sacred literature was in existence, and that a certain number of books belonging to it were more highly honoured and valued than others; but that the former did not differ in kind but only in the degree of value attaching both to them and to other books. In other words, the idea of a Canon assumes the existence of a number of books from which are selected those which are to become canonical. Unless this were so we should have to assume that all the books now regarded as canonical were so regarded on their first appearance. Our first task in seeking to substantiate our contention, then, is to give evidence that at one period the books which were subsequently admitted into the Canon were distinguished, probably, in degree, but not in kind, from other books, which were never admitted into the Canon.

In Ecclesiasticus xliv.-l. Ben-Sira writes a panegyric on the famous men of old; among these he mentions Moses, to whom the Lord “gave commandments face to face, even the Law of life and knowledge” (xlv. 5); Joshua, the “successor of Moses in prophecies” (xlvi. 1); the Judges, not individually by name, but collectively (xlvi. 11, 12); Samuel, “a Nazarite of Jehovah in the prophetical office” (xlvi. 13)[205]; the Kings, of whom he says, “Except David and Hezekiah and Josiah, all committed trespass” (xlix. 4); Isaiah, who “by a spirit of might saw the last things”(xlviii. 24, in the Hebrew); Jeremiah, who “was sanctified in the womb to be a prophet” (xlix. 6); Ezekiel, “who saw a vision” (xlix. 8, according to the Hebrew); and the Twelve Prophets (xlix. 10), these are mentioned collectively, so that the writings bearing their names had already been collected into a single book by B.C. 200 or thereabouts. In addition to these there is a possible reference to the Psalms, though this is not necessarily the case; the words are: “In every work of his, David gave thanks to God Most High with words of glory; with his whole heart he loved his Maker, and sang praise every day continually. He set music of stringed instruments before the altar, and arranged the sound of song to the harp. He glorified the feast-days ...” (xlvii. 8-10, according to the Hebrew). While the possibility of the Psalms being here referred to is not denied, one might reasonably look for something more definite; the reference could equally well, perhaps more probably, be to the rendering of the Temple music; it is, at any rate, worth noting that the chief part of the panegyric on David is taken up with an account of his heroic acts, (see xlvii. 2-7). Ben-Sira is more definite in his reference to the Proverbs and Canticles, though even here this is not necessarily the case, especially in regard to the latter, for the reference to songs may be merely taken from 1 Kings iv. 32 (“And his songs were a thousand and five”); when speaking of Solomon he says: “With thy songs, and proverbs, and parables, and thine interpretations thou didst cause astonishment to the peoples” (xlvii. 17, according to the Hebrew). Job is also mentioned in the Hebrew, but not in the Greek text; this omission in the latter can, however, be accounted for, as the translator either misread or misunderstood the Hebrew. But the reference to Job does not seem to imply knowledge of the existence of the Book of Job; the words are: “And also he (i.e. Ezekiel) made mention of Job (the prophet),[206] who maintained all the ways of righteousness” (xlix. 9); here we have clearly a reference to Ezekiel xiv. 20, where Job is mentioned as a typically righteous man. Nehemiah is mentioned by name, and a comparison with Ecclesiasticus xlvii. 9 (already quoted above), with 1 Chronicles xvi. 4, 5 implies a knowledge of the books of Chronicles. But Ben-Sira makes no mention of Ezra (there are perhaps special reasons for this), Daniel, or Esther.

The first point to be noticed in this list is that no place of honour is assigned to any one collection of books such as the Hebrew Canon was divided into in later days; the Law, the Prophets, and some of the “Writings” are all treated as belonging to the same category. But more: Ben-Sira, in giving a résumé of the history of Israel as contained in these books, and in enumerating the nation’s worthies, clearly does not consider that they alone are authoritative, or that the list of the nation’s worthies, as contained in them, is exhausted; for he goes on with the history of his nation during his own time, and continues the list of worthies with the mention of Simon, the son of Onias, to whom he devotes far more space than to any of the earlier ones (see l. 1 ff.). Then, again, while Ben-Sira is familiar with almost all the books of the Old Testament, he does not regard them as what we understand by canonical, i.e. in the sense of being separated off from all other books; for if that had been the case, he could not have spoken words such as those which occur, e.g. in xxiv. 33, whereby he places himself in a direct line with the prophets:

I will yet pour out doctrine as prophecy,
And leave it unto eternal generations
(see also verses 30-32, 34);

nor would he have taken upon himself, as Hölscher has pointedly remarked, to assume the tone and style of the ancient prophets, as he often does (see, e.g., xlvii. 20, l. 29), if the “unbridgable cleft of canonicity” had stood between him and the prophets.[207] The list, therefore, such as it is, does not imply the existence of a Canon.

The same must be said of the evidence of Ben-Sira’s grandson, who translated his grandfather’s work into Greek (about B.C. 132). He says in his Prologue: “Whereas many and great things have been delivered unto us by the Law and the Prophets, and by others that have followed in their steps ...”; and later on, he again speaks of “the Law, and the Prophets, and the books of our fathers”; and “the Law, and the prophecies, and the rest of the books.” The loose way in which the writer speaks of the third category of books, and the fact that he does not apply to them the technical name of Kethubim (“Writings” = Hagiographa) is clear evidence that what we now understand by the “Hebrew Canon” was not yet in existence. We may go even further and say that the Pentateuch, the prophetical books and some others occupied a position of special honour among many other books belonging to Hebrew literature,[208] but that not even the Law and the Prophets can have been regarded as “canonical” in the later sense of the word, otherwise they would not have been mentioned along with books which admittedly were not “canonical.”[209] This is further borne out by the following words, which occur in the Prologue: “My grandfather Jesus, having given himself much to the reading of the Law, and the Prophets, and the other books of our fathers, and having gained familiarity therein, was drawn on also himself to write somewhat pertaining to instruction and wisdom, in order that those who love learning, and are addicted to these things, might make progress much more by living according to the Law.” It is obvious from these words that Ben-Sira’s grandson looked upon his grandfather as one of those who had “followed after” the writers of the Law and the Prophets, and that he regarded his grandfather’s book as having a legitimate place among the “books of the fathers.” But, this being so, it cannot be said that the Hebrew Scriptures, or any part of them, were regarded as canonical in the ordinary sense of the word. If the Law, the Prophets and other books are treated as a special body of literature to which a new book can be said to belong, in the natural and matter of course way in which Ben-Sira’s grandson does that, it is clear that he, at all events, did not regard this special body of literature as so sacrosanct that nothing could be added to it. Therefore, according to this evidence, there was no “Canon of Scripture,” as we understand it, as late as about B.C. 132. It follows, then, further that such books as Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, and others, were not regarded as “apocryphal,” but came under the same category of other edifying books, some of which were, later, made canonical.

But if, as we have seen, there was at this time no such thing as a Canon of Scripture, in the sense of an officially recognized and authoritative list of books definitely separated off from all others, there is no sort of doubt that a certain number of books were looked upon as pre-eminent, and enjoyed greater favour than others. It is in this fact that we may recognize the existence of the idea of a Canon, as distinct from a finally settled and authoritative list of canonical books.

III. The Formation of the Hebrew Canon

But while we have thus an approximate date for the existence of the idea of a Canon, i.e. the idea that some books are holier, and therefore more authoritative than others, we have yet to ask ourselves at what date the definite close of the Canon took place, i.e. when the Hebrew Canon, as we now know it, assumed its final form undisputed.

We have evidence that at the beginning of the Christian era the Hebrew Canon was not yet closed, for at that time the canonicity of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs was disputed. The influential school of Shammai held that these books were uncanonical, while the school of Hillel acknowledged their canonicity. Thus, in the Mishna (Jadaim iii. 5) it is said: “All the holy writings defile the hands.[210] The Song of Songs defiles the hands, but regarding Koheleth (Ecclesiastes) there is a difference of opinion. Rabbi Jose says, Koheleth does not defile the hands, but regarding the Song of Songs there is a difference of opinion. Rabbi Simeon says, As to Koheleth, the house of Shammai esteems it lightly, but the house of Hillel esteems it highly.” So, too, in another Mishnic tractate, Eduyoth v. 3, it is said: “Koheleth does not defile the hands according to the house of Shammai, but the house of Hillel says that it does defile the hands.”

At a still later date the canonicity of the Book of Esther was disputed. Early in the second century of our era two Rabbis, as recorded in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 100a) regarded it as of inferior value to the rest of the biblical books.[211] But the opposition to this book is not to be taken seriously, since its canonicity was only disputed by individual teachers. In the case of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs it is different, for the canonicity of these was denied by a whole school of authoritative teachers.

It will, therefore, be seen that as late as the beginning of the Christian era the Hebrew Canon had not been closed, since there was still the possibility of new books being added to it, as indeed happened later when the disputed books, just mentioned, were definitely included in the Canon. So that the close of the Canon did not take place until some considerable time after the idea of a Canon had arisen.

From the evidence of the Mishna we turn to an important passage in Josephus. Writing at about the end of the first century A.D., Josephus, in his treatise against Apion (i. 8), after saying that the prophets alone were inspired by God to write down the earliest events as well as those of their own times, continues: “We have not myriads of books disagreeing with, and antagonistic to, one another, but two and twenty only,[212] which contain the record of all time (past), and are rightly believed in.[213] And of these, five belong to Moses; they contain the laws and the tradition from man’s origin to his death for a period of nearly three thousand years. From the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets who came after Moses wrote down the things that were done during their time in thirteen books. The remaining four contain hymns to God and precepts for men’s conduct of life. But from Artaxerxes to our times all events have, it is true, been written down; but these later books are not thought to be worthy of the same credit, because the exact succession of prophets was wanting.”

According to Josephus, therefore, the canonicity of a book depended upon whether it had been written within a clearly defined period, and that period was from Moses to the death of Artaxerxes, i.e., the prophetical period. The artificiality of this test is shown by the fact that, in the words of Ryle, “the mention of this particular limit seems to be made expressly with reference to the Book of Esther, in which alone the Artaxerxes of Josephus (the Ahasuerus of the Hebrew book of Esther) figures.”[214] But in pointing to this test of canonicity, Josephus is not expressing a theory of his own, for a similar view was held by the Rabbis. They, too, maintained that no book was canonical unless it had been written within a fixed period, the prophetical period; for them this period was from Moses to Ezra.[215] Josephus thus witnesses to the principle, authoritative and fully accepted by the end of the first century A.D., on the basis of which the Hebrew Canon was formed. But the theory on which this principle was based was contrary to fact, for on this view “there never was or could be any discussion as to the number and limits of the canonical collection, which had from first to last an official character. Each new book was written by a man of acknowledged authority, and was added to the collection precisely as a new page would be added to the royal annals of an eastern kingdom. It is plain that this view is not in accordance with facts.... Josephus’ account of the Canon is a theory, and a theory inconsistent with the fact that we find no complete formal catalogue of Scriptures in earlier writers like the son of Sirach, who, in enumerating the literary worthies of his nation, had every motive to give a complete list, if he had been in a position to do so; inconsistent also with the fact that questions as to the canonicity of certain books were still undecided within the lifetime of Josephus himself.”[216] But wrong and contrary to fact as this theory was, upon it nevertheless was founded the Hebrew Canon as we have it at the present day. For various reasons,[217] the Rabbis had determined to exclude certain books from the Canon of the Old Testament,[218] and their will held the day not only in their own times, but also reasserted itself, all unconscious of this though their descendants may be, in later times in certain parts of the Christian world.

The formation of the Hebrew Canon was thus virtually a fait accompli by about A.D. 100, the official imprimatur being in all probability given at what is called the Council of Jabneh (Jamnia). That this was a council in the ordinary sense of the word may well be doubted; but there is sufficient evidence to show that Jabneh was a seat of Jewish scholarship even before the destruction of the Temple. After this event the Sanhedrin removed to Jabneh and was presided over by Jochanan ben Zakkai, the greatest of the Jewish scribes during the period immediately succeeding the fall of Jerusalem; he was followed by Gamaliel II. It must be fairly obvious that any discussions as to the canonicity of books among the Jewish religious leaders must have taken place in Jabneh where the Sanhedrin was, and where the greatest Jewish scholars would be assembled. That such discussions did take place is amply witnessed to by passages in the Mishna. So that although it cannot be actually proved that the final and authoritative formation of the Hebrew Canon took place at “the council of Jabneh,” it is reasonably certain from the evidence we have that the discussions on the canonicity of certain books held by the Sanhedrin assembled at Jabneh resulted in what came to be regarded as the formal and official fixing of the Canon.[219] How far, in the gradual settlement of the question, the Rabbis acted on their own initiative, and in how far they were merely registering and crystallizing the popular verdict articulated by usage is difficult to say. To maintain that the latter alone was decisive makes it hard to understand why such books as Ecclesiasticus, Judith and Tobit, to mention a few of the “apocryphal” books only, were excluded; on the other hand, we cannot believe that popular usage counted for nothing. Most probably the whole question was one of compromise in which by degrees Rabbinical logic, based upon their theory alluded to above, forced popular usage to give way to the official position which became finally and irrevocably fixed by the Sanhedrin at Jabneh.

It is true that long after the council of Jabneh, the canonicity of Ezekiel, Jonah, Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes and Esther, was at different times called in question[220]; but this only reflects the opinions of individuals, and cannot be said to have in any way modified the practical consensus of Jewish teachers that the final word had been spoken at Jabneh.

IV. To Whom was the Final Fixing of the Hebrew Canon due?

The question as to whom, pre-eminently, the final fixing of the Hebrew Canon was due is not without interest; and although we have no definite proof regarding the matter, all the probabilities point in the same direction.

It would seem that at the time of Josephus the Pharisees specially occupied themselves with the subject. It was Josephus, as we have seen, who is the earliest witness that we have as to the existence of a finally fixed Canon; now Josephus, as has been pointed out in an earlier chapter, tells us in his autobiography that after having made trial of the three sects of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes in turn, so that by becoming acquainted with each he might choose the best, he finally lived “according to the rule of life of the sect of the Pharisees.”[221] This was in his nineteenth year; so that from early manhood onwards he was a Pharisee. The fact does not necessarily prove anything; but the presumption is that he must have got his ideas about the Canon from the circle of the Pharisees. We have already seen that Josephus’ theory regarding what constituted the claim for admission into the Canon was identical with that of the Rabbis; but by his time the leading Rabbis were Pharisees.

In the next place, we are told in the Mishna (Jadaim iv. 6) that the Sadducees made fun of the Pharisees for teaching that the Holy Scriptures “defiled the hands,” while the books of Homer did not “defile the hands”; that is to say, the Sadducees repudiated the Pharisaic conception of what constituted the Canon. This phrase, “to defile the hands,”[222] was the Pharisaic way of expressing canonicity; it implied that the holiness of the sacred object produced by contact with it a state of Levitical impurity (cp. Lev. vi. 24-28, Hag. ii. 11-13; and see further the interesting remarks by Robertson Smith in The Religion of the Semites [2nd ed.], pp. 161, 466 ff.)[223] “The fact that defilement only of the hands is attributed to the sacred writings demands more attention than it has hitherto received. Interpreted in positive terms this can mean only that contact with them involves a ceremonial washing of the hands, especially as the ruling in the matter occurs in that Mishna treatise (Jadaim) which relates to, and is named from, such hand-washings. The expression would be an unnatural one if it implied a command that the hands should be washed before touching. The Pharisees attributed to the sacred writings a sanctity of such a sort that whosoever touched them was not allowed to touch aught else until he had undergone the same ritual ablution as if he had touched something unclean.”[224]

The record of this difference of opinion between the Pharisees and Sadducees on this subject throws an interesting light upon the Pharisaic position regarding the Canon, and suggests that the final fixing of this lay with this party.

It is also worth recording that prior to Josephus the attribution of the term “holy” to the Scriptures occurs only once, viz., in 2 Maccabees viii. 23,[225] a book which emanated from Pharisaic circles[226]; and in the New Testament this occurs only in the writings of St. Paul,[227] who was brought up as a Pharisee. It is, therefore, probable that the final fixing of the Canon was due to the Pharisees.

Summary

To understand how it came about that a distinct line of demarcation was drawn between canonical and apocryphal books, a preliminary consideration is necessary, viz. how the idea of a Canon arose. We are faced with the fact that before the beginning of the Christian era there was a large body of literature in existence some books of which were held in higher honour than the rest, though they did not differ in kind, but only in their degree of sacredness, from these books. It was from this fact that the idea of a Canon arose; that is to say, the idea of a Canon assumes the existence of a number of books from which are selected those which finally become canonical. Between this and the fixing of a Canon there is clearly a great difference. To show that a distinction has to be made between the idea of a Canon and the fixing of the Canon, one has to prove that at one period the books which were subsequently admitted into the Canon were, as we have said, distinguished in degree but not in kind from the mass of sacred literature.

The evidence of Ben-Sira, and of his grandson, is to the effect that no fixed Canon of Scripture, as we understand it, existed at about B.C. 100, and yet we know that at that time a large mass of literature was in existence of which certain books were held in high honour. The assumption is, therefore, justified that such books as Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees and others came under the same category as many other books, some of which were later included in the Canon, and the possibility existed of such books as those just mentioned being also included in the Canon.

The definite formation of the Hebrew Canon is another question; concerning this, we have the evidence of the Mishna that it was not completed at the beginning of the Christian era. On the other hand, the evidence of Josephus shows that the final fixing of the Canon had taken place before the end of the first century A.D.

The theory of Josephus, which was also that of the Rabbis, as to what constituted the claim to canonicity, was that a book must have been written within the “prophetical period,” i.e. from Moses to Ezra. This theory was not in accordance with facts, but it held the field nevertheless, and the Hebrew Canon was formed in accordance with it. The final official imprimatur was in all likelihood given by the Jewish religious leaders at Jabneh.

The final fixing of the Hebrew Canon was in all probability the work of the Pharisaic party.

Additional Note

The Conceptions underlying the Idea of Levitical Impurity.

Although not strictly belonging to the present inquiry, it may not be out of place to say a few words as to why contact with a holy object such as a roll of the Scriptures should be conceived of as bringing about a state of Levitical impurity. Some of the explanations which have been offered might be convincing if this particular form of the way in which Levitical impurity was brought about stood alone. But the fact is that other things involved a similar state of impurity, and one cannot restrict oneself to the explanation of one of these while leaving the rest out of consideration, because, as will be seen in studying the subject, identical conceptions lie ultimately at the base of all. How, for example, is one to account for the fact that both the touching of a holy thing like a scroll of the Law, as well as the touching of an unclean thing like a leper or a dead body (to mention no others),[228] was held to bring about a similar state of Levitical impurity and to require an ablution? That reverence for the dead could have had nothing to do with this is proved by the fact that a state of impurity was brought about not only by contact with a dead person, but equally so by contact with a dead animal.

When one studies the laws of uncleanness in the Book of Leviticus and compares them with many customs prevalent among uncultured races,[229] one soon realizes the truth of Robertson Smith’s words that “the irrationality of laws of uncleanness, from the standpoint of spiritual religion, or even of the higher heathenism, is so manifest, that they must necessarily be looked on as having survived from an earlier form of faith and of society. And this being so, I do not see how any historical student can refuse to class them with savage taboos.”[230] Such survivals are to be seen in the laws of uncleanness in the Book of Leviticus, not that there was any idea of this when the writer of that book embodied in it those popular traditional rules and customs which had been in vogue for millenniums, any more than there was when the Pharisees decided that certain books should henceforth be regarded as so holy that the mere touch of them brought about Levitical impurity; they merely adopted the outward expression of an antique conception, the essential significance of which had been forgotten for untold ages.

In primitive religions it was regarded as most dangerous to touch certain things and persons because they were conceived of as belonging to, or as being under the protection of, or indwelt by, spirits; it would be dangerous to touch these because the spirit’s anger would be aroused thereby, and evil consequences would ensue; they were, therefore, “taboo.” But in the dire event of any of these things or persons being touched by a man, the supernatural essence attaching to them was communicated; they were “contagious,” and therefore the unhappy victim who came into contact with them became “infected.” The result was one of two things: either the man died,[231] or for some (to the savage) incomprehensible reason no evil consequences ensued. In the latter case, since by contact the supernatural and dangerous essence adhered to the man, it was necessary that some means should be found whereby this “infection” should be obliterated, otherwise the “infected” person would be a danger to the community and would himself continue in the unfortunate position of being debarred from intercourse with his fellows. Various means were devised whereby this infection, conceived of as something tangible, could be got rid of. Among these there was the obvious one of washing it away with water.

But the tabooed things and persons referred to were of very diverse character; some, such as a carcase, we should certainly consider polluted or unclean; others, such as the priestly vestments, we should call holy; but each was regarded as “infectious,” in the sense used above, even in the Old Testament.[232] This is but an echo of ideas which obtained among the forbears of the Israelites in distant bygone ages; it may be illustrated by the condition of thought, in this respect, among men of low culture at the present day. Frazer, in dealing with the subject of “holy” persons[233] (and the principle of what he says applies likewise to “holy” things), says, that so far as the savage is concerned, “the conceptions of holiness and pollution are not yet differentiated in his mind. To him the common feature of all these persons is that they are dangerous and in danger, and the danger in which they stand and to which they expose others is what we should call spiritual or ghostly.... To seclude these persons from the rest of the world so that the dreaded spiritual danger shall neither reach them, nor spread from them, is the object of the taboos which they have to observe. These taboos act, so to say, as electrical insulators to preserve the spiritual force with which these persons are charged from suffering or inflicting harm by contact with the outer world.”[234] To man in a low state of culture, then, the distinction between the conceptions of what we speak of as holiness and uncleanness does not exist; but as soon as a higher form of religion comes into being that distinction begins to be discerned, especially as with any form of religion higher than that which obtains in the animistic stage the conception of a god begins to assert itself. Thus, to utilize (quite hypothetically) the instances given above, in the lower stage a carcase would be regarded as “holy,” i.e. something to be avoided, because it was thought of as possessed by malignant spirits; a medicine man’s belongings would be regarded as “holy,” i.e. something to be avoided, just because they were the medicine man’s; both are uncanny things, inspiring mysterious fear; both impart “infection” and are therefore dangerous. This it is which, to the mind of the savage, puts both in the same category. With the rise of a higher religion the carcase would come to be regarded as “unclean,” while a priest’s vestments (corresponding for the purposes of our present argument to the medicine man’s utensils) would come to be regarded as “holy” in a higher sense. But, and this is the important point, both would still be avoided; the former because the touch of it involved pollution, and thus unfitted a man for the worship of his god; the latter for reasons of reverence due to his god. But in both cases the result of the old idea of “infection” still clung, so that contact with either necessitated a cleansing process of some kind. The persistence of the ritual, though the purpose of it has been forgotten, is a fairly common phenomenon even among the most highly cultured peoples; only, since among these a “reason why” is insisted upon sooner or later, plausible explanations, though far removed from the origin of things, are usually forthcoming.[235]

That is how the special case before us is to be explained. The idea of a Canon presupposes a wide literature from which the “canonical” books are to be marked off; a working theory having been formulated, the Canon is constructed in accordance with it; the Canon having been constructed, some means of enforcing its recognition must be devised. To the Rabbis of two thousand years ago, the quite obvious means would be the adaptation of a principle which had been in vogue in the whole domain of things religious from time immemorial. “Sacredness” was imputed to the chosen books; and contact with anything sacred necessitated ablutions. The ancient technical term was still employed, so that any book declared to be “sacred” (and, of course, the “sanctity” would be communicated to the material upon which it was written) was said to “defile,” in this case the hands; and therefore anyone who touched such a book was “defiled” thereby. Theoretically he had to perform an ablution after having done so, but only theoretically, for as a matter of fact no washing of hands (more strictly, pouring of water upon the hands) has ever been required for removing the “defilement” communicated through touching the scroll of a canonical book, nor is it required at the present day.

CHAPTER IX
Uncanonical Books (I)

[Literature.—Kautzsch, Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des alten Testamentes, vol. I, pp. xi.-xxiii. (1900); Moore, in the Jewish Encyclopædia, II, 1-6 (1902); Hölscher, Op. cit., pp. 42-65. See also the literature referred to in the footnotes.]

I. The Meaning of the Term Gānaz.

For reasons which will appear sufficiently obvious as we proceed, it is necessary, in speaking about uncanonical books, to say something about the meaning of the Hebrew word gānaz, “to hide,” and the Greek word apokryphos, “hidden,” and the relationship of these terms to one another. The word Apocrypha means “hidden things”; but in what sense and for what purpose is, or was, this term applied to those books which we call the books of the Apocrypha? That is one of the main points to be dealt with in the following discussion.

First as to the Hebrew word gānaz; this means originally “to store up,” but it also has the meaning “to store up in secret,” and thus “to hide.”[236] In the technical sense in which it is used in the present connection, i.e. in reference to books, it means “to withdraw from use.” But, it may be pointed out in passing, the word was not used in this sense prior to the fixing of the Hebrew Canon; it referred to the withholding of secret wisdom from all excepting the initiated. The question as to how the word is used in the Talmud is of the first importance, but a difficult one; it is said, on the one hand, that as applied to books, “it is used only of books which are, after all, included in the Jewish Canon, never of the kind of literature to which the Church Fathers give the name ‘Apocrypha’... the only exception is a reference to Sirach.”[237] The latter part of this statement is undoubtedly true; but Hölscher has shown conclusively that to say that gānaz is only used in reference to books which are included in the Jewish Canon is not in accordance with the facts. “This view,” he says, “directly contradicts the sources, which in a number of cases use gānaz in reference to uncanonical books.” He shows further that when the Rabbis use gānaz in reference to the canonical books it is a question of something of which they themselves disapprove; for example, they speak of canonical books which in time past certain people had desired to “hide,” i.e. to declare uncanonical; but they mention this in order to record their disapproval; not the Rabbis but certain unnamed individuals apply the term gānaz to canonical books. The Talmudic view is that canonical books may not be “hidden,” for this is only done in the case of books which are really offensive.[238] In the only other instances in which the word is used in reference to canonical books, it is not to the books as such, but only to particular copies of them, and this for certain specific reasons; for example, if a roll had become moth-eaten or damaged in other ways, or if part of the text had been rubbed out through use; in such cases the copy in question was “hidden,” i.e. withdrawn from public use, because there was something objectionable about it. So that in the Talmud gānaz implies, as Hölscher says, “drastic action,” the total withdrawal from public use, and therefore it cannot have been used in reference to the canonical books, for in that case it would have implied their excision from the Canon, a “naturally impossible thought for the Rabbis.” The books which the Rabbis “hide” (gānaz) and forbid are always such the contents of which were regarded as thoroughly objectionable, viz., heretical.[239] It follows also that gānaz would never have been applied to the books of our Apocrypha, or at all events to the more important of them, for not only were they regarded as containing edifying and orthodox teaching, but it is well known that the reading of them was permitted.[240] So that when the word gānaz is used in the Talmud in reference to books it means that the books in question are such as must be withdrawn from use because they contain heretical teaching[241]; for this reason the word would be inapplicable if applied to the books of the Hebrew Canon or to the books of our Apocrypha.[242]

II. The Meaning of the Term Apokryphos

We turn next to the Greek word apokryphos (“hidden”), from which our word Apocrypha comes. The term, in its technical sense, is neither specifically Jewish nor Christian originally, but “is derived from the practice common among sects, religious or philosophic, of embodying their special tenets or formulæ in books withheld from public use, and communicated to an inner circle of believers.”[243] Examples of such books can be given; a magical papyrus preserved in Leyden has the title “The holy and secret (apokryphos) Book of Moses, called the eighth or the holy.”[244] According to Suidas, Therecydes of Syros learned his wisdom from “the secret books of the Phœnicians.”[245] Clement of Alexandria (Strom., i. 15, 69) speaks of an Agnostic sect, the followers of Prodicus, who gloried in the possession of secret books of Zoroaster.[246] Irenaeus (I, xx. 1) mentions an early Christian sect called the Markosians who had their secret books, and Hippolytus (Refut., vii. 20) says the same of the Basilidians.[247] Moreover, we have references to the same kind of thing in books which have come down to us; it is said in Daniel xii. 4, “But thou, O Daniel, shut up (lit. ‘hide’) the words, and seal the book, ...” and in xii. 9, “Go thy way, Daniel, for the words are shut (lit. ‘hidden’) and sealed till the time of the end.” In the Ethiopic Book of Enoch (cviii. 1)[248] reference is made to a book which was written for the elect: “Another book which Enoch wrote for his son Methuselah and for those who will come after him and will keep the Law in the last days”; the same seems to be implied in the Slavonic Book of Enoch (lxviii. 2),[249] where it is said: “He wrote down the descriptions of all the creation which the Lord had made, and he wrote three hundred and sixty-six books, and gave them to his sons.” Still more pointed is the passage in 2 (4) Esdras xii. 36-38[250]: “Thou alone hast been found worthy to learn this mystery of the Most High; therefore write all these things which thou hast seen in a book, and put them in a secret place; and thou shalt teach them to the wise of the people, whose hearts thou knowest are able to comprehend and keep these mysteries.” But perhaps the most striking passage of all is 2 (4) Esdras xiv. 44-47: “So in forty days were written ninety-four books. And it came to pass when the forty days were fulfilled, that the Most High spake unto me, saying: The twenty-four books which thou hast written publish, that the worthy and unworthy may read therein; but the seventy last thou shalt keep, to deliver them to the wise among thy people; for in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the stream of knowledge.” The “twenty-four books” are the canonical ones which were read in the synagogue and therefore known to all, but the “seventy last” are the secret ones which are reserved only for the initiated.

From these passages it will, therefore, be seen that originally the term “apocryphal,” as applied to books, was used in a good sense; such books were held to contain deep and mysterious truths which might only be communicated to the initiated, and were therefore hidden from the outside world; this applies both to Gentile and to Jewish usage. It will also have been noticed, from the passages quoted, that there is a twofold idea contained in the term “apocryphal”; it means, on the one hand, hidden teaching which the book contains, and on the other, that the book itself is hidden.[251] Neither in the passages quoted, nor anywhere else, is the word “apocryphal” ever applied to the books of our Apocrypha; this is true right up to the fourth century A.D.

Before pursuing further the history of the word “apocryphal,” and how it came to be applied to sacred books of the second rank, we must briefly consider the not unimportant question of the connection between the Hebrew gānaz and the Greek apokryphos. It is better to do so at this point before we deal with apokryphos in the later sense in which it was used.

III. The Connection between the Terms Gānaz AND Apokryphos

We have seen that gānaz is only used, properly speaking, of objectionable books, i.e. those which were regarded as heretical, and therefore “hidden,” or “withdrawn.” We have also seen that apokryphos is used in a good sense of books which contain “hidden” teaching, and must therefore be “hidden” from the unworthy. This would seem to imply that there could have been no connection between the two terms since they refer respectively to books the character of which is diametrically opposed, gānaz being applied to bad books, apokryphos to good ones. But here another factor comes in. From the root gānaz comes the word Genizah; this name was applied to a small chamber, adjoining the ancient synagogues, in which were kept hidden away those rolls of the Scriptures which after continued use at the synagogue services began to show signs of wear and tear. It was a laudable custom among the Jews that whatsoever was used in the service of God should be of the best; so that when a roll of the Scriptures had been in use for a certain number of years and had become tarnished or torn, they did not consider it fit to be used in divine service. On the other hand, the roll contained Holy Scripture, and had also been sanctified by service; it was, therefore, unfitting that it should be thrown away. For this reason it was placed in the Genizah, and thus hidden away from profane hands.[252] Here, then, we have another reason for which books were “hidden,” though it applies in the main to canonical books (see below); at the same time it must be remembered that the technical term gānaz is not used in reference to books in this connection. But then we have this further important fact; it was not only damaged copies of the Scriptures which were placed in the Genizah; as Prof. Schechter says: “Another class of works consigned to the Genizah were what we may call disgraced books, books which once pretended to the rank of Scriptures, but were found by the authorities to be wanting in the qualification of being dictated by the Holy Spirit. They were ‘hidden.’”[253] The Genizah, therefore, as it has been well put, served “the twofold purpose of preserving good things from harm, and bad things from harming.”[254] This, therefore, suggests a distinct connection between the ideas conveyed by the terms gānaz and apokryphos. Such connection is, moreover, confirmed by the witness of Origen, (d. 254 A.D.), who, together with Africanus, his contemporary, was the first to apply the term “apocryphal” to books used by the Church; Origen expressly says that he borrowed his terminology from the Jews[255]; and, as Hölscher has shown, his use of apokryphos entirely corresponds with the Rabbinical use of gānaz; both use these terms in reference, not to the canonical books, nor to the books of our Apocrypha, but to the books known as “Pseudepigrapha.”[256] These latter books were condemned by the Rabbis after the Canon had been fixed (though this had not always been the case) because they were looked upon as harmful; but in the early Church they were freely used. But though gānaz and apokryphos are thus shown to express similar ideas, as technical terms they are obviously not to be thought of as meaning the same thing. Originally they did in all probability connote similar ideas, viz., the hiding of secret wisdom from all but those who were fit to receive it; but that was before the Canon was fixed and when the line of demarcation between different categories of books was not so rigid. Both terms originated independently; apokryphos continued, anyhow up to the time of Origen, to be applied in reference to books which contained hidden wisdom; gānaz, on the other hand, while being originally used in the same way as apokryphos, came to be used in quite a different way; it always meant “to hide,” but while originally it referred to the hiding of what was good,[257] it was finally used in reference to what was bad. The term did not change, but its meaning did.

IV. How the Term “Apocrypha” came to be Applied to Sacred Books of the Second Rank

But we must return to the question as to why the term Apocrypha was applied to the books which we include under that title. As we have seen, “apocryphal” was first applied to books which contained hidden wisdom; then it was used by Origen in reference to pseudepigraphic books. In the fourth century the attempt was first made (in the Greek Church) to distinguish between canonical books and those which were read for edification; the latter referred to the books of our Apocrypha, but the term apocryphal was still applied only to pseudepigraphic books. The example of the Greek Church was followed by the Latin Church headed by St. Jerome (d. A.D. 420) who made a distinction between the “libri canonici” and the “libri ecclesiastici,” meaning by the latter term the books of the Apocrypha. It was not arbitrariness which prompted St. Jerome to do this; the Latin Church was in the fourth century inundated with a flood of religious writings hitherto unknown outside the Greek Church; these now appeared in Latin translations. Their appearance in the West created a great sensation, the more so as they bore in their titles names which were greatly honoured.[258] They were not all good for the faithful to read, yet only too frequently there was no sufficiently learned churchman at hand to give guidance. In St. Jerome’s time, therefore, there was a mass of literature in circulation which was used without discrimination; so that it needed someone of learning and authority to guide and direct. To this fact was no doubt largely due St. Jerome’s activity in this matter, and he commenced by making a clear distinction between the canonical books and those of the second rank to which he now gave the name of apocryphal.[259] But stress must be laid upon the fact that he used the word “apocryphal” in a new sense. Hitherto, as we have seen, this word was applied to the Pseudepigrapha and to other extra-canonical books; St. Jerome was the first to use it in reference to the books which are now included in the Apocrypha, i.e. in the sense in which it is now used. This new use of the term did not at once become general; St. Augustine (d. A.D. 430), for example, uses “apocrypha” in the old sense in his De Civitate Dei, xv. 23; but by degrees St. Jerome’s nomenclature was adopted throughout the West, and this has continued to the present time. Thus it has come about that we call the sacred books of the second rank the Apocrypha, though there is not, nor ever has been, anything “hidden” about them or their teaching.

V. The Reading of Uncanonical Books

We shall deal in detail with the books of the Apocrypha in Part II, and some account of the Pseudepigrapha will be given in the next chapter; here we purpose to say something about the early use of uncanonical “books,” apart from the two categories just mentioned, during the period with which we are mainly concerned, i.e. roughly B.C. 200-A.D. 100.

As we have already seen, the idea of a Canon presupposes the existence of a number of books from which those to be included in the Canon are selected. So that before the formation of the Canon a variety of books was in existence among the Jews, the reading of which was not forbidden. This continued until after the Canon had been finally fixed, though it was not long before all uncanonical books, with the exception of some of those which belong to our Apocrypha,[260] were forbidden. Rabbi Akiba, for example, who lived towards the end of the first century A.D. and during the first half of the second, reckoned among such as had no portion in the world to come those who read “outside books”[261]; these were called Sepharim hachizônim, the latter word being equivalent to the Greek οἱ ἔξω, which is used in the New Testament of persons “that are without,” i.e. outside the company of the faithful.[262] In Jewish writings the Sepharim hachizônim are synonymous with Sifre hamînîm, “the books of the heretics.”[263] The Rabbis regarded such books with the greatest horror; it is said of Rabbi Tarphon, a contemporary of Rabbi Akiba, that he burned every book belonging to the Minim which he could get hold of; he went so far as to say that if a man was being pursued by a murderer or a serpent it would be better to take refuge in the house of an idolater than in that of a heretic.[264] We deal with the subject of these books in the next chapter. It is often asked what data we have for believing in the existence of the wide prevalence of “books” in these early ages; as the question is not without importance in the present connection it will not be out of place to indicate some of the data. We may refer first to Ecclesiastes xii. 11, 12: “The words of the wise are as goads, and as driven nails are the members of collections; they are given by one shepherd. And besides these, my son, be warned. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh.” What the preacher here means is that the words of the wise stimulate the reader to good thoughts; the words “members of collections” refer to wise words which have been embodied in collections of sayings; all these come from God, the one Shepherd. A warning is then given as to the reading of other literature; “the editor would deter his pupils from unorthodox or heathen literature by the thought of the weariness of study.”[265] The passage shows that there must have been a quantity of unorthodox literature available. “Books” of another character were Aramaic Targums which were certainly much in use in pre-Christian times[266] as well as later; these are often referred to in the Talmud.[267] It is said in one of the Midrashic[268] works that when the Israelites were in Egypt they possessed rolls in the reading of which they delighted every Sabbath; the statement is, of course, merely pictorial, but it implies the spread of literature—though, to be sure, at a much later time than that referred to. Among “books” mentioned by name are the following[269]: “Megillath Taanith,” which enumerates and discusses fast-days which should not be observed as fasts because joyful events occurred on them in days gone by; this probably belongs to the first century of our era. Of about the same date is “The roll of Genealogies”; what the precise contents of this work were is not known, as only one quotation occurs in the Talmud, in the tractate Jebamoth 49b. Rabbi Jochanan ben Nuri, a contemporary of Rabbi Akiba, possessed, we are told, a “Megillath Sammānim” (“The roll of powders”), in which is given a list of spices used for making incense; this, it is said, was an heirloom belonging to the “house of Abtinas.” Rabbi Chijja (third century A.D.) had a “book” called “Megillath Sethārim” (“The roll of hidden things”), in this he wrote down precepts and the like which, it is said, did not receive general approval. Besides these Strack gives references to a large number of Haggadic[270] and Halakic[271] “books” which need not be enumerated here.

But the most striking proof of the existence of “books” in more or less general use is afforded by the recently found[272] Aramaic papyri of Elephantiné (belonging to the fifth century B.C.). We have already referred to these,[273] and shall have to speak in some detail about one of these papyri in dealing with the Book of Tobit; but, so far as we are now concerned, the main fact is worth recording that centuries before the beginning of the Christian era numbers of Aramaic papyri were to be found in private houses; the contents of these papyri varied from household accounts and memoranda to such a story as “The history of the wise Achikar.”[273]

These various “books” which have been briefly referred to—and they represent but a small number of the available data—are sufficient evidence to show that there was a considerable amount of literary material for use among those who desired it. The question may be asked whether in these early days there were so many people able to read as to make the wide distribution of literature likely; it may be replied that probably there was a larger percentage of men among the Jews able to read and write than among any other nation during the period of which we are speaking. But, as a matter of fact, the actual number, whether small or great, of those able to read was not the important point; for where one read and expounded, there were a number who would listen, and thus be influenced by the contents of a “book.” We have an interesting example of this in Ecclesiasticus l. 29, where, according to the Hebrew text, Ben-Sira speaks of those who attended his Yeshibah, i.e. lecture-room or academy; there can be little doubt that Ben-Sira’s book (Ecclesiasticus) formed part of the instruction there given.[274] But as Ben-Sira speaks of the Yeshibah as a well known institution we may be sure that others existed.

In one way or another, then, men became acquainted with and were influenced by the contents and teaching of “books”; and when a distinction had come to be made between “books” which were permitted and “books” which were forbidden, a strict vigilance was kept by the religious authorities in order to suppress unorthodox “books.” Among these unorthodox “books” there was one class which was regarded as very dangerous, and therefore strictly forbidden, viz. those which dealt with the subject of Apocalypse; to these some attention must next be devoted.

Summary

The Hebrew root gānaz and the Greek word apokryphos must be properly understood if the subject of canonical and uncanonical books is to be discussed. Originally, gānaz meant “to store up,” and then “to store up in secret,” thus “to hide,” and especially to hide secret wisdom from the masses; later, it came to have the technical sense, in reference to books, of “withdrawing from use.” The Talmudic use of the term is important; when there used in reference to books it means that such books, on account of their heretical teaching, must be withdrawn from public use; the word is never, in the Talmud, used of canonical books themselves nor of the books of our Apocrypha.

The Greek word apokryphos had in its origin, as a technical term, a meaning somewhat similar to gānaz in its early, though not in its later, connotation; it was used of books containing secret teaching only to be communicated to the initiated. Apokryphos was, therefore, used first in a good sense; the “hidden” character of “apocryphal” books consisted in their being hidden from the outside world for which they were too good. But in its later usage apokryphos also corresponded to the later usage of gānaz; both were used in reference to uncanonical books; but these books were not merely uncanonical, they were also heretical, namely those which we now include under the term “Pseudepigrapha”; neither term was originally used of the books of our Apocrypha.

It was not until the fourth century A.D., and in the Greek Church first, that a distinction began to be made between canonical books and books which, though not canonical, were nevertheless to be read for edification, i.e. the books of our Apocrypha. But even then the term “apocryphal” continued to be used only in reference to heretical books, and not to those of our Apocrypha.

The fundamental change in the use of the term apocryphal was brought about by St. Jerome; owing to the influx, during the fourth century, of a number of religious writings from the Eastern Church, many of which it was thought better to withhold from the faithful, St. Jerome drew a sharper distinction than had obtained hitherto in the West between the canonical and other writings; he now applied the term “apocryphal” to the books of our present Apocrypha, and though this new connotation of the term did not at once become general, it was by degrees adopted and has continued ever since.

There were many uncanonical books, in addition to the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, the reading of which was not forbidden prior to the formation of the Canon; but later, all books outside the Canon, with the exception of some belonging to our Apocrypha, were forbidden; they were called books “that are without.” Many data regarding the existence of books, apart from Scriptural ones, among the Jews in pre-Christian times are available; from these it is evident that there must have been much literary activity. As these books were varied in character and did not by any means necessarily always contain orthodox teaching, the fact of their existence illustrates the need of the discrimination which the Jewish religious authorities saw fit to exercise.

CHAPTER X
Uncanonical Books (II). The Apocalyptic Literature

[Literature.—See the headings to the various sections.]

Preliminary Remarks

Uncanonical books of a sacred character came to be divided by the Jewish religious authorities into two categories, though the exact dividing line varied according to the opinions of different teachers. These two categories consisted, on the one hand, of books which contained orthodox teaching, but which, for one reason or another, were not admitted into the Canon; roughly speaking, under this category were included the books of our Apocrypha. The other category consisted of what were regarded as heretical books. The former, though they did not “defile the hands,” were permitted to be read. The latter came to be regarded with horror, and the reading of them was strictly forbidden; they were called Sepharim hachizônim, “Outside Books,” to which reference has been made in the preceding chapter; when precisely this term came to be applied to them we cannot say, but it is evident that the feeling in regard to them expressed by the term was in existence before B.C. 100.

Now among the “Outside Books” were those which were called Ha-Gilyônim. There is some difference of opinion among scholars as to the meaning of this term and as to what kind of books it refers; Hölscher has, however, as it appears to us, shown conclusively that by it was meant “The Apocalypses,” and that it refers to what we now know as the Apocalyptic Literature.[275] There is no doubt that the whole of this literature was rejected, ultimately, by the Palestinian Jewish authorities, the Pharisees.[276] Strongly as the Pharisees had been influenced by some of the teaching contained in this literature, they had from their point of view sufficient reason to discountenance the books as a whole. The pronounced other-worldly character of them was in marked contrast to the strictly practical and narrow purview of scholastic Pharisaism. The scant insistence on the need of legal observance, in the Pharisaic sense, which to the Pharisees was the basis of all religion, was a natural cause of antagonism; and this antagonism inevitably widened as time went on, for there was a danger that the popularity of the apocalyptic books would relegate the older religious literature to the background; indeed, we have definite proof that in some circles the apocalyptic literature was held in higher esteem than the canonical twenty-four; thus in 2 (4) Ezra xiv. 45-47 it is said: “And it came to pass when the forty days were fulfilled, that the Most High spoke unto me saying, The twenty-four books that thou hast written publish, that the worthy and unworthy may read them; but the seventy last [i.e. the apocalyptic books] thou shalt keep, to deliver them to the wise among thy people. For in them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the stream of knowledge.” There was possibly a further cause of hostility to some of these books, viz. their original authorship, which in some cases was Sadducæan; in such cases, although worked over by Pharisaic editorship the Sadducæan trail could not be altogether obliterated; hence their condemnation. Highly improbable as this sounds at first, it will be seen, when we come to consider these books in brief detail, that in some cases the contention is not altogether unjustified.

It is doubtless due to this Pharisaic hostility that almost all the Hebrew or Aramaic originals of these books have disappeared and that these writings are preserved only in translations. There can, moreover, be little doubt that this hostility was further nourished on account of the use of apocalyptic books in the early Christian Church.

Another preliminary remark about this literature is necessary. All the known books belonging to it have false names in their titles, for which reason they are called the Pseudepigrapha. How are we to account for this apparent fraud on the part of writers who were clearly devout and earnest men? This strange procedure, as it appears to us nowadays, may to a large extent be explained if we remember that “the apocalyptic writers almost certainly drew their material from popular tradition. Many of the ideas which receive various embodiment in this literature were derived doubtlessly from the common stock of the popular consciousness; their ascription to or association with the great heroic figures of antiquity, like Enoch, Abraham, Isaiah, or the twelve Patriarchs, may also be a feature from the popular consciousness. The men who reduced the various elements to writing, or utilized them for enforcing religious views or lessons may, on this view, be acquitted from any charge of fraud or dishonesty; they implicitly trusted the popular tradition so far as to believe that the ideas to which they were giving expression really did go back to the heroic figures of old. Their estimate, moreover, of the function and importance of authorship probably differed fundamentally from that of the moderns; it was far less self-conscious, and was the natural outcome of a literary modesty which was naïve.”[277]

It is likely enough that one way whereby the popular traditions came into being was owing to Haggadic homiletics, i.e. the explanation of Scripture teaching by narrative or parable; passages of Scripture would be explained and illustrated by means of imaginary narratives which were, of course, not intended to be other than explanatory; then, as these were repeated and handed on, they tended in process of time to be regarded as accounts of events which actually did happen, and which had been handed down by tradition. If this supposition be correct, it would in some sense be analogous to the somewhat similar process which happened in the domain of Halakah, i.e. that which is concerned with the legal and ritual elements in Scripture.

A brief examination of these apocalyptic books is demanded here inasmuch as in the early Church—and in all probability in the pre-Christian Jewish Church at one time—the distinct line of demarcation between them and those of the Apocrypha was not drawn in the way that it was in later times. It is also worth noting that such books as the Book of Enoch, and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs have, as Charles has shown,[278] exercised more influence upon the writers of the New Testament than any of the books of the Apocrypha.

In giving now some short account of the more important books belonging to this body of literature, we shall take them, as far as possible, in chronological order; but, as is to be expected, one cannot always be certain as to the date of a book, so that we cannot claim to be sure that a strictly chronological order is being followed.

(a) The Book of Enoch

[Literature.—Schürer, II, iii. pp. 54-73; German ed., III, pp. 268-290; Swete, The Old Testament in Greek, III, pp. 789-809 (1899); Beer, in Kautzsch, II, pp. 217-310 (1900); Volz, Jüdische Eschatologie, pp. 12-21 (1903); Martin, Le Livre d’Hénoch (1906); Charles, The Book of Enoch (1912); Leszynsky, Die Sadduzäer, pp. 253-266 (1912); Charles, in The Apocr. and Pseud. of the Old Testament, II, pp. 163-281 (1913); Charles, Eschatology; Hebrew, Jewish, and Christian (1913); Burkitt, Jewish and Christian Apocalypses pp. 17-34 (1914). The articles on “Apocalyptic Literature” in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible, the Encycl. Bibl., and the Jewish Encycl. It has not been thought necessary to enumerate the editions of the various published original texts as these are given in Schürer, Kautzsch, and Charles. This applies to all the apocalypses to which we shall refer.]

According to Charles the various elements of which the book in its present form is made up belong to different dates. The following table will show the dates of the different parts of the book; Charles believes that these are probably correct, without committing himself to the certainty of this in each case:

Chaps.
xii.-xxxvi. | | | } | The oldest pre-Maccabæan portions.
xciii. | } | “The Apocalypse of Weeks” | }
xci. 12-17 | } | }
vi.-xi. | } | Fragments of the “Book of Noah”[279] | } | Pre-Maccabæan at the latest.
liv. 7-lv. 2 | } | }
lx. | } | }
lxv.-lxix. 25 | } | }
cvi. cvii. | } | }

lxxxiii.-xc. | “The Dream Visions,”   B.C., 165-161.
lxxii.-lxxxii. | “The Book of the Heavenly Luminaries.” Before B.C. 110.
xxxvii.-lxxi. | “The Parables,” or “Similitudes” | } | B.C. 105-64.
xci. 1-11, 18, 19-civ. | }
i.-v. | The latest portion, but pre-Christian.

Chapter cv., which consists only of two verses, cannot be dated; while cviii. is, according to Charles, an appendix to the entire work.

While these dates may be regarded as approximately correct, it should be pointed out that there is not a complete consensus of opinion among scholars on the subject. Schürer, for example, holds that the entire book, with the exception of chapters xxxvii.-lxxi., was written during the period B.C. 130-100, these other chapters being not earlier than the time of Herod the Great. Beer thinks that the “Dream Visions” belong to the time of John Hyrcanus (B.C. 135-105), and he includes under the pre-Maccabæan portions only xci. 12-17, xcii., xciii. 1-14; but he agrees with Charles in thinking that the book as a whole belongs to a period prior to B.C. 64. Dalman maintains that it cannot be proved that the important section xxxvii.-lxxi. (“The Similitudes”) is “the product of the pre-Christian period,” though he fully recognizes its Jewish character.[280]

As to the question of authorship; since the book is made up of sections belonging to various dates, it is obvious that unity of authorship is not to be looked for. But if there is not unity, there is, so Charles maintains, uniformity of authorship; for, according to him, all the sections were written by Chassidim, or by their successors, the Pharisees. An entirely different view of authorship has, however, recently been put forth with much skill by Leszynsky.[281] While frankly recognizing the composite character of the book, he holds that the original portions of it (according to him these are: i.-xxxvi., lxxii.-lxxxii., lxxxiii.-xc., xciii. xci. 12-17) to have emanated from Sadducæan circles, and that the special object of the book in its original form was that of bringing about the reform of the calendar.[282] He points first of all to the ascription of the book to Enoch as supporting his contention; Enoch lived 365 years, i.e. his years correspond to the number of days in the solar year, which, as we have seen, was one of the fundamental differences between the Sadducees and Pharisees, these latter reckoning time by the lunar year. Further, Enoch ascended into the heavens and would therefore be just the one to know all about the heavenly luminaries; he was thus the most appropriate author of a book which was to deal with astronomical questions. “The Sadducæan character of the original work,” says Leszynsky, “is seen most clearly in the discussion regarding the calendar; chapter lxxii.-lxxxii. are rightly called the Book of Astronomy[283]: ‘the book of the courses of the luminaries of the heaven, the relations of each, according to their classes, their dominion and their seasons, according to their names and places of origin, and according to their months ... with regard to all the years of the world and unto eternity, till the new creation is accomplished which endureth till eternity’ (lxxii. 1). That sounds almost as though the author of the Book of Jubilees had written it. That it is not a merely scientific interest which impels the writer to give expression to his astronomical theories may be seen from the words at the conclusion of the section: ‘Blessed are all the righteous, blessed are all those who walk in the way of righteousness, and sin not as the sinners in the reckoning of all their days, in which the sun traverses the heaven, entering into and departing from the portals for thirty days ...’ (lxxxii. 4-7). Herein one can discern quite clearly the tendency of the writer. He desires the adoption of the solar year, while his contemporaries wrongly followed a different reckoning and therefore celebrated the feasts at the wrong time. The ‘sinners who sin in the reckoning of the year’ are the Pharisees; and the righteous ones who are blessed, the Zaddîkim,[284] who walk upon the paths of righteousness (Zedek), as the name was made to imply, were the Sadducees.” Leszynsky works out his argument in much detail, the study of the whole of which is necessary to grasp the full force of his contention. The other portions of the book he does not hold to be Sadducæan. In the concluding portion he sees a bitter polemic by a Pharisee against the Sadducees (see especially cii. 6 ff.). Regarding the important section called the “Similitudes” (xxxvii.-lxxi.) Leszynsky has nothing definite to suggest other than that it is not Christian, still less Jewish. He says: “We know too little about the sects which existed about the time of the beginning of Christianity to be able to say to what circle the author of this writing belonged.”

The contentions of Charles and Leszynsky are thus diametrically opposed. To the present writer the great difficulty in accepting either as it stands lies in the fact that, broadly speaking, the Apocalyptic Literature, of which the Book of Enoch is the most striking example we possess, was acceptable to neither Pharisees nor Sadducees. No doubt Charles is right in assigning the earlier portions of the book (i.e. the pre-Maccabæan) to the Chassidim; but we have sought, in an earlier chapter,[285] to show that Friedländer is justified in maintaining that the Chassidim were the forbears of both Apocalyptists and Pharisees, two branches of the parent stock which diverged widely in spite of some fundamental points of family likeness. The Book of Enoch, therefore, may, in its pre-Maccabæan portions, well be ascribed to the Chassidim; but it is not on that account necessary to ascribe all the later portions to the Pharisees; three points especially militating against this: the Messianic doctrine, the, generally speaking, universalistic spirit, and the attitude to the Law not being the Pharisaic one.[286] The Apocalyptists, on the other hand, were also the descendants of the Chassidim; and no sufficient reason exists for not ascribing the bulk of the later portions of our book to them. Regarding Leszynsky’s view, while we feel that that part of it is justified which ascribes to the Sadducees the “Book of Astronomy” (lxxii.-lxxxii.) and possibly certain other portions, there is a grave difficulty in regarding such parts as i.-xxxvi. and xciii., xci. 12-17, in which the apocalyptic element is prominent, as of Sadducæan origin, for nothing that we know of the Sadducees leads us to suppose that they cultivated apocalyptic studies. What we feel to be of extreme importance in assigning authorship to Jewish books belonging to the last two pre-Christian centuries is the fact well expressed by Friedländer: “... But who would maintain that these two parties, i.e. the Pharisees and Sadducees, constituted in reality the Jewish people at this period, however much they may have been pushed into the foreground of historical events? The Pharisees and Sadducees, no less than the Essenes, who were far removed from the sphere of politics, were only sects of the Jews. The Pharisees formed, even on Josephus’ showing (Antiq., XVII, ii. 4), only a fraction of the people, and did not number much more than six thousand all told; they were thus not much more numerous than the Essenes with their four thousand (Philo, Quod omn. prob., II, 457; Josephus, Antiq., XVIII, i. 5). And if it be willingly granted that the Pharisees had many adherents among the people, yet this was very far from being the People itself.... And where remain then the great masses of the ‘people of the land,’ the really deciding factor, who were neither Pharisæan nor Sadducæan, but among whom the Jewish spirit-of-the-people (Volksgeist), developed under favourable conditions during the memorable days of the Ptolemys, was not yet wholly extinguished and still possessed sufficient power to protect itself against the yoke which Pharisaism sought to put upon the people?”[287]

It is not necessary to assume that all the literature produced by the Jews during these centuries emanated either from Pharisaic or Sadducæan circles. There are other alternatives; and in the present case it seems most probable that the bulk of this book was written by apocalyptists who belonged neither to Pharisaic nor yet to Sadducæan circles.

The Book of Enoch was originally written partly in Aramaic (vi.-xxxvi., lxxxiii.-xc., according to Charles) and partly in Hebrew (the rest of the book). No portion of the book in its original form has come down to us; the Ethiopic version is the only complete one extant, it was translated from the Greek version of which only fragments remain.[288] The Latin version, which was also made from the Greek, is not extant with the exception of i. 9, cvi. 1-18. That the book is Palestinian is generally acknowledged; its original language of itself points to this.

The Book of Enoch is in many respects the most important of all the apocalypses, since it is without a rival for the history of doctrinal development during the last two pre-Christian centuries. The teaching of the book is sometimes contradictory, which is not to be wondered at in view of its composite authorship; for example, in lxix. 11 it is said that man was originally created without sin, “like the angels,” but that death came through sin and destroyed him; but elsewhere the entering in of sin from the first is traced to the spiritual world. The doctrines of angels and demons appear in a developed form in this book. The teaching concerning the Kingdom is likewise contradictory; vi.-xxxvi. are full of materialistic ideas, whereas xci.-civ. are marked by conceptions which are entirely spiritual. So, too, with regard to the Messiah; at one time He is represented as without having any special rôle to fill, at another He appears as the “Righteous One,” or as the “Elect One,” “The Son of Man,” and “The Christ” or “Anointed One.” Regarding the Last Things, the teaching about the Judgement varies according as to whether the Messianic Kingdom is conceived of as an eternal earthly kingdom, in which case the final Judgement precedes it, or as only a temporary earthly kingdom, when the Judgement takes place at its close; in xxxvii.-lxxi. (“The Similitudes”) it is taught that the Messianic Kingdom is eternal and embraces heaven and earth, here it is initiated by the final Judgement. The punishment of the wicked takes place in Sheol, part of which is a place of fire, and equivalent to the later Gehenna conception; another part of Sheol is described as an intermediate resting-place of the righteous. In the oldest portions of the book both soul and body, a physical body, rise and abide eternally in the earthly Messianic Kingdom; in “The Similitudes” it is a spiritual body which rises to a spiritual kingdom; while in the latest section of the book it is taught that only the spirit rises, and only the righteous attain to the resurrection.

Most of the New Testament writers have been influenced by the book in thought and diction. “It is quoted as a genuine production of Enoch by St. Jude (verses 14, 15), and as Scripture by St. Barnabas. The authors of the Book of Jubilees, the Apocalypse of Baruch, and 4 Ezra laid it under contribution. With the earlier Fathers and Apologists it had all the weight of a canonical book.”[289]

(b) The Sibylline Oracles

[Literature.—Schürer, II, iii. pp. 270-292, German ed., III, pp. 555-592; Blass, in Kautzsch, II, pp. 177-217; Lanchester, in Charles, II, pp. 368-406; M. S. Terry has published this book in blank verse (New York, undated). See also an article on this book in the Edinburgh Review, July, 1877, pp. 31-67.]

This work consisted originally of fourteen books, twelve of which have survived; but we are here concerned only with the Proœmium and books iii.-v., the remainder belonging to later times. The Proœmium and books iii.-v. belong, like the rest of the work, to different dates, but the bulk of the Proœmium and book iii. belong to about the middle of the second century B.C., books iv. and v. to the latter half of the first century A.D. These portions are all Jewish in the main, though interspersed with Christian elements.

Of authorship little can be said; the main portion of the Proœmium and book iii. were probably written by a Jew of Alexandria, parts of book iv. by a Palestinian Jew, and the bulk of book v. also by a Jew of Alexandria. The Oracles were, of course, all written in Greek, and they were put forth in the interests of Jewish propaganda, of which mention has already been made above. They were written in the form of the ancient heathen oracles, in Greek hexameters. The sibyl of heathen antiquity was a prophetess inspired by the gods who prophesied about the fate of cities and kingdoms, and gave counsel in times of stress and difficulty; she dwelt, like a nymph, beside streams or in grottoes. “Written records of supposed Sibylline oracles,” says Schürer, “were here and there in circulation; but such remains of them as have come down to us through occasional quotations in authors such as Plutarch, Pausanias and others are brief and scanty, and furnish no distinct notion of them. In Asia Minor and Greece these pieces circulated only in private possession, without being publicly supervised or officially used; but their credit and influence must not be on that account lightly estimated.”[290] Book iii., which is of most importance in the present connection, is full of apocalyptic elements; it tells of the fate of the successive kingdoms which are to bear rule over the Jews, and of the judgements of God upon both Jews and Gentiles; the coming of the Messianic king is prophesied, and the victory over his adversaries described; an account of the prosperity and blessedness of the Messianic Kingdom follows, to which is added a recital of the signs which shall herald the end of all things:

When swords upon the star-lit heavens
Appear at even and at morn,
Then will the whirlwind come from heaven
Upon the earth; the sun above
At mid-day e’en will cease to shine,
The moon instead will give her light,
And come again upon the earth.
One sign will be that drops of blood
Will flow down from the very rocks;
And in the clouds shall ye behold
A conflict fought ’twixt warriors fierce,
Likewise a chase upon wild beasts,—
All seemingly in hazy mist.
Then shall the Lord Who dwells in heaven

Bring all things to their final end (iii. 798-806).

In book iv., as well as in book v., the apocalyptic element is absent, with the one exception that in the latter there is a prophecy of woe upon the idolatrous Gentiles, and of blessing upon Israel (v. 260-285). The superiority of Judaism over the heathen religions is, as one would expect in propagandist literature of this kind, again and again insisted upon.

(c) The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

[Literature.—Sinker, Testamenta xii. Patriarcharum ... (1869); Ante-Nicene Christian Library, xxii. pp. 13-79 (1871); Schürer, II, iii., pp. 114-124; German ed., III, pp. 339-356; Schnapp, in Kautzsch, II, pp. 458-506; Charles, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (1908), also in The Apocr. and Pseudepigr. of the Old Testament, II, pp. 282-367; Leszynsky, Die Sadduzäer, pp. 237-252 (1921). Burkitt, Jewish and Christian Apocalypses, pp. 34 ff. (1914). Two articles in The Jewish Quarterly Review, V, pp. 375-398, by Conybeare, “On the Jewish Authorship of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” and pp. 400-406 by Kohler on “The Pre-Talmudic Haggada” (1893).]

Professor Charles says in reference to the authorship of this book: “I have with some hesitation come to the conclusion that the groundwork is the work of a single writer of the Pharisaic school. He is an upholder of the Law and the Temple sacrifices; he believes in the Messianic Kingdom and the resurrection of the body to a new life therein. He is, however, a Pharisee of the early type—that is a Chasid.... The groundwork, which consists of about eleven-twelfths of the Testaments, after the removal of the Jewish and Christian additions, presents, it must be confessed, a want of coherence at times, and the parts dealing with the duty of submission to Levi, or to Levi and Judah jointly, come in occasionally very abruptly. Notwithstanding, the present editor adheres to the idea of the unity of the book; for the two phenomena referred to—the strictly Chasid element in the book, and its loyal acceptance of the Maccabæan dynasty—were exactly characteristic of the period to which our author belongs, and to none other before or after. Furthermore, both these parts of the book are alike universalistic in tone.”[291]

We have seen above what the attitude of the Sadducees was towards the written Law; so that a book wherein loyalty to the Law and to the Temple sacrifices is upheld does not necessarily point to Pharisaic authorship unless it can be shown that by the Law is meant not merely the Pentateuch, but also the Pharisaic conception of the Law; and of this there are no indications in the book. The Sadducees believed, moreover, in a Messianic Kingdom; but the Messiah, according to them, was to be of priestly, not of Davidic, descent; so that belief in the Messianic Kingdom does not necessarily imply Pharisaic authorship of the book in which it occurs unless the specifically Pharisaic conception of the Messiah is put forth; but this also is not the case in the book before us. Charles says: “In the original work the Messiah is to be descended from Levi, and not from Judah—in other words, he is to be first of all a priest, and then a prophet and king. There are many passages expressing this view”; these are enumerated; he then continues: “We have here the attestation of a most remarkable revolution in the Jewish expectations of the Messiah. For some thirty or forty years the hopes of a Messiah from Judah was abandoned in favour of a Messiah from Levi. But with the breach of Hyrcanus with the Pharisees this hope was abandoned, and so we find that in the first century additions, the hope of a Messiah from Judah reappears (T. Jud., xxiv. 5, 6; T. Naph., iv. 5 (?)).”[292] An easier and more natural explanation, however, is forthcoming if, as we believe, the groundwork of this book is of Sadducæan authorship. The loyal acceptance of the reigning dynasty is by no means necessarily a proof of Pharisaic authorship, for the Pharisees broke entirely with John Hyrcanus before the end of his reign (B.C. 104), while the Sadducees were loyal to him in consequence.[293] The references to the resurrection of the body would be fatal to Sadducæan authorship if it could be proved that these are not later interpolations. That a Pharisee has worked over the book is abundantly evident. We conclude, therefore, that as in the groundwork of the book the distinctive marks of Pharisaism are wanting, and that as what marks there are, are those of a Sadducæan character, the book in its original form was written by a Sadducee for the purpose of making peace with the Pharisees; for the peaceable tone of many parts of the book is one of its characteristics; the virtue of unity among the descendants of the Patriarchs is again and again insisted on. Traits of a specifically Sadducæan character are well brought out by Leszynsky.[294] On the other hand, nothing could be more un-Pharisaic than the spirit of the book so well described by Charles: “A true son of the larger-hearted Old Testament prophets he proclaims the salvation of the Gentiles. The promised time has come. The kingdom is already established, and all the Gentiles will be saved through Israel. In the Judgement the conduct of the best heathen will form the norm according to which Israel will be judged.”[295]

The earliest form of the book as now in existence is Greek; but this is a translation from a Hebrew original. This is proved by the presence of numberless Hebrew constructions and expressions throughout the book. In its original form each of the “Testaments” seems to have been modelled on the same pattern; in each case the patriarch first gives an account of his life; this is based on the Old Testament, but embellished with many new details. In each autobiography the patriarch candidly confesses the sins of which he has been guilty, though in some instances he is able to boast of his virtues. In the next place, the patriarch offers in each case an exhortation to his descendants; this is based on the preceding autobiographical sketch; warnings are uttered against falling into the sins of which the narrator himself has been guilty; in the case of his life having been a virtuous one it is held out as an example for his descendants to follow. A third element in each of the Testaments is a prediction regarding the future of the tribe in question.

There are a number of later Christian interpolations and additions in the book; but, generally speaking, these are of so obvious a character that they may be discerned at once; a good example is found in the Testament of Simeon vi. 7, where these words are added: “Because God hath taken a body and eaten with men, and saved men.” Or, again, in the Testament of Levi xiv. 2, the original text runs: “For our father Israel is pure from the transgressions of the chief priests,” then the following Christian addition is made: “Who shall lay their hands upon the Saviour of the world.” Similar additions, as well as interpolations, occur throughout the book.

But the great importance of this book lies in its ethical teaching, wherein it often reveals a spirit thoroughly akin to that of the Gospels; it will be best to illustrate this by giving two of the most notable examples. In the Testament of Gad vi. 3-7 it is said: “Love ye, therefore, one another from the heart; and if a man sin against thee, cast forth the poison of hate and speak peaceably to him, and in thy soul hold not guile; and if he confess and repent, forgive him. But if he deny it, do not get into a passion with him, lest catching the poison from thee he take to swearing and so thou sin doubly.... But if he be shameless, and perisheth in his wrong-doing, even so forgive him from the heart, and leave to God the avenging” (with this compare Matt. xviii. 15, Luke xvii. 3). The command to love God and one’s neighbour finds expression in the Testament of Gad v. 3: “Love the Lord through all your life, and one another with a true heart” (cp. Matt. xxii. 37-39). These and many other examples of a similar character are all the more striking when it is seen how close the linguistic parallels are (amounting frequently to verbal identity) between the Greek text of our book and that of the Gospels. While these and similar passages read like genuine parts of the original work the possibility that they may be Christian is not excluded.

The “Testaments” can scarcely be reckoned as belonging to the Apocalyptic Literature proper, but there are apocalyptic elements in the testaments of Levi and of Naphthali.

(d) The Psalms of Solomon

[Literature.—Ryle and James, The Psalms of Solomon (1891); Kittel, in Kautzsch, II, pp. 127-148; Schürer, II, iii. pp. 17-23, German ed., III, pp. 205-212; Viteau, Les Psaumes de Salomon (1911); Rendel Harris, The Odes and Psalms of Solomon (1911); Leszynsky, Op. cit., pp. 274-279; Buchanan Gray in Charles, II, pp. 631-652. See also Charles’ art. in the Encycl. Bibl., i. 241-245.]

Although the eighteen psalms comprised in this book are not apocalyptic in character, a brief mention of them here is not out of place, for they offer us a true picture of the Pharisaic standpoint, and are therefore useful for purposes of comparison when seeking to decide the Pharisaic authorship, or otherwise, of other books.

These psalms were originally written in Hebrew during the middle of the first century B.C.; concerning these two points there is a general consensus of opinion. Whether the hand of one or more writers is to be discerned is an open question. The mental background of these Psalms is one of sorrow occasioned by the capture of Jerusalem by Pompey and his desecration of the Temple. But this event is represented as the just punishment of God, for instead of a Davidic king the Hasmonæans were rulers, and they had assumed the high-priestly office although they were not of high-priestly descent. The ruling house was supported by the Sadducees; it is this which causes the sorrow of the writer, or writers, to be mixed with bitter resentment. These Psalms thus give us a picture of the Pharisees and Sadducees, but from the Pharisaic point of view; so that neither the portraiture of Pharisaic piety nor yet that of Sadducæan wickedness must be taken au pied de la lettre. The general point of view of the book has been well summed up by Buchanan Gray thus: “It is the Pharisaic piety that breathes through the Psalms; it is their opposition to the worldly, non-Davidic monarchy, and to the illegitimate high-priesthood of the ruling Hasmonæan king, Aristobulus, that finds expression here; the Messianic hope (especially xvii. 23 ff.), the firm belief in a future life which characterizes them later, and renders them naturally political quietists and indifferent to political schemes, are already conspicuous here. And, again, the later attitude of the Pharisees in the matter of free-will as described by Josephus (Bell. Jud., II, viii. 14)—these ascribe all to fate and to God, and yet allow that to act as is right, or the contrary, is principally in the power of men: although fate does co-operate in every action—is almost exactly paralleled by two passages in the Psalms, v. 4, ix. 6.”[296]

(e) The Book of Jubilees

[Literature.—Schürer, II, iii. pp. 134-141, German ed., III, pp. 371-384; Littmann, in Kautzsch, II, pp. 31-119; Charles, The Book of Jubilees (1902); Leszynsky, Op. cit., pp. 179-236; Charles, in The Apocr. and Pseudep. of the O.T., II, pp. 1-82.]

Although this book is also known as “The Apocalypse of Moses”[297] (Syncellus), it is not an apocalyptic work in the proper sense of the word. It purports, however, to have been given through angels to Moses on Mount Sinai, and can, therefore, in a certain sense be described as an apocalypse; but it scarcely touches upon the themes which form the main content of the apocalyptic works proper. It is also called the “Little Genesis,” as it follows the narrative as given in the Book of Genesis and Exodus i.-xii., but this is divided into fixed periods of time, or “Jubilees,” hence its name; for this word is directly derived from the Hebrew term Jobel which, according to most modern scholars, means “ram” or “ram’s horn”; the year of Jubilee thus means literally “the year of ram’s horn”; the fiftieth year was so called because it was proclaimed by the blowing of rams’ horns (see Lev. xxv.). “As the author seeks to reproduce the history of primitive times in the spirit of his own day, he deals with the biblical text in a very free fashion. Many things that did not happen to interest him, or that he considered objectionable, were either omitted or altered, while others were still further amplified by the addition of numerous particulars of one kind or another” (Schürer, Op. cit., II, iii. p. 136).

It is impossible to fix the exact date of the book with any certainty, but that it belongs at the latest to the second half of the first century B.C. may be unhesitatingly stated. That it was written by a Palestinian Pharisee is the opinion of most scholars; it is true that it is strongly legalistic in character, so much so that the Messianic Kingdom is conceived of as the outcome of a gradual process which is bound up with the study of the Law. The writer, moreover, greatly extols the Sabbath, Circumcision, the dietary laws, the laws of purification, etc.; its strongly marked spirit of exclusiveness is also said to betray its Pharisaic origin. But with the exception of the last point there is nothing in all this which forbids us to believe in Sadducæan authorship (see above, Chapter IV, § ii. (b)). Leszynsky seems to us to have proved his contention that the author was a Sadducee, who ascribed Mosaic authorship to the book for the purpose of obtaining the needful authority for Sadducæan views concerning the Law. The details of his argument would take us too far afield; he discusses the question with much learning on pp. 181-234 of his book.

That the book was originally written in Hebrew admits of no doubt; no part of this has come down to us, however. The Greek version, made from the Hebrew, exists only in fragments found in the writings of some ancient authors. The Ethiopic version, which was made from the Greek, exists almost in its entirety; of the Latin version, also made from the Greek, about one-fourth is extant. The importance of the book, in the words of Charles, lies in the fact that it is “not only indispensable to students of the New Testament, and of the history of the Pharisaic movement: it is likewise of first-class importance as a witness to the readings of the Hebrew text of Genesis about the beginning of the Christian era” (Encycl. Bibl., I, 230). As we incline, however, to the belief in its Sadducæan authorship, we regard it as important for the history of the antagonism between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and their respective teaching, rather than merely for the history of the Pharisaic movement.

(f) The Assumption of Moses

[Literature.—Schürer, II, iii. pp. 73-83, German ed., III, pp. 294-305; Clemen, in Kautzsch, II, pp. 311-331; Charles, The Assumption of Moses (1897), and in The Apocr. and Pseudep. of the O.T., II, pp. 407-424; Leszynsky, Op. cit., pp. 267-273.]

The numerous references in early Christian literature to apocryphal books of Moses makes it clear that several well-known books of the kind must once have been in existence. The different titles of these books which are mentioned are a little confusing; we have just seen that the “Apocalypse of Moses” was one of the names given to the Book of Jubilees; we shall see below (§ j) that an “Apocalypse of Moses” is more or less parallel with the “Life of Adam and Eve.” Mention is made of a “Book of secret words of Moses” and of the “Assumption of Moses” in the commentary of Gelasius Cyzicenus on the acts of the council of Nicæa; Origen (De princip., III, ii. 1) speaks of the book called the “Ascension of Moses,” and Didymus, in writing on the epistle of Jude, refers to the “Assumption of Moses”; and more than once the “Testament of Moses” is mentioned. It is probable that these two latter are both included in the book we are considering, but that they were originally distinct and of different authorship. The book as a whole was written at the very beginning of the first century A.D.; this is the opinion of most authorities, based upon fairly clear indications in the book itself (see Charles in the Encycl. Bibl., I, 235). The author, according to Charles, “was a Pharisee, and a Pharisee who was the antithesis of the Zealot exactly in those respects in which Pharisaism differed from Zealotism. His book was designed as a protection against the growing secularization of the Pharisaic party through its adoption of political ideals and popular Messianic beliefs”; elsewhere Charles says[298]: “He was a Pharisee of a fast-disappearing type, recalling in all respects the Chasid of the early Maccabæan times, and upholding the old traditions of quietude and resignation.” Leszynsky, on the other hand, is inclined to believe that the author was a Sadducee; his arguments, however, are not convincing.[299]

The book contains what purports to be a prediction of the future history of Israel which had been revealed to Moses, and which he in turn reveals to Joshua. It is, therefore, as a whole not an apocalyptic book in the technical sense, though part of it does distinctly come under this designation; this is clear from Chapter x., which is written in poetry, and in the familiar apocalyptic strain; it tells of the coming of divine rule upon earth, when sorrow shall be taken away, and wrath shall come upon the enemies of God; the signs of the end are graphically described.

The book was originally written in Hebrew, though some scholars contend for an Aramaic original. Only part of the book has so far been recovered and this is in Latin, which was, however, made from a Greek translation of the original.

(g) The Ascension of Isaiah

[Literature.—Schürer, II, iii. pp. 141-146, German ed., pp. 386-393; Beer, in Kautzsch, II, pp. 119-127; Charles, The Ascension of Isaiah (1900); Charles, The Martyrdom of Isaiah, in The Apocr. and Pseudep. of the O.T., II, pp. 155-162. Burkitt, Jewish and Christian Apocalypses, pp. 45 ff.]

In ancient ecclesiastical writings mention is made of three apocryphal books about Isaiah, viz. the “Ascension of Isaiah,” the “Martyrdom of Isaiah,” and the “Vision of Isaiah.” It is possible that the “Ascension” is only another name for the “Vision,” for in Chapter x., which belongs to the “Vision” portion, an account is given of Isaiah ascending to the seventh heaven. But, in any case, two writings are incorporated in the book. Moreover, there are many additions made by a Christian editor. These various elements belong to different dates; the earliest is the “Martyrdom,” which comprises ii. i-iii. 12, v. 2-14; this is of Jewish authorship, and belongs to the first half of the first century A.D.; the final words of this portion have a special interest inasmuch as the reference to the sawing asunder of Isaiah there mentioned points to this being the authority for the statement in Hebrews xi. 37. The words are as follows: “But Isaiah neither cried aloud nor wept whilst he was being sawn asunder, for his mouth spoke with the Holy Ghost until he had been sawn asunder.” Next in date is a short apocalypse (iii. 13-v. 1); this gives a résumé of the early history of the Christian Church, and foretells the last judgement; this is by a Christian author, and belongs to about the middle of the first century A.D., or a little later. Lastly, there is the “Vision” (vi.-xi.), which is likewise Christian, and belongs to the end of the first century A.D. The first chapter is probably an addition by a Christian editor, the date of which cannot be fixed. The whole of this material has come down to us in an Ethiopic version; this was made from the original Greek, only fragments of which have survived; a Latin version which was made from the Greek existed at one time, but here again only fragments have come down to us.

(h) The Book of the Secrets of Enoch

[Literature.—Schürer, German ed., III, pp. 290-294; Morfill and Charles, The Book of the Secrets of Enoch (1896); Forbes and Charles, in The Apocr. and Pseudep. of the O.T., II, pp. 425-469.]

This Apocalypse, called also the “Slavonic Enoch” on account of the language in which it has survived, has nothing to do with the “Ethiopic Book of Enoch” already dealt with, excepting that it sometimes reproduces the phraseology and conceptions of the latter. Some sections, the exact extent of which it is impossible to define (Charles), have a Hebrew background and were originally written in this language; these are, at latest, pre-Christian; but the main part of the book was written in Greek, and belongs to about the middle of the first century A.D., at any rate to some period prior to the year A.D. 70, for in lix. 2 the sacrificial system is referred to which presupposes the existence of the Temple (“For a man offers clean animals and makes his sacrifice that he may preserve his soul. And if he offer as a sacrifice from clean beasts and birds, he preserves his soul”). There are numberless indications in the book to prove that the author was a Jew, but of the Hellenistic type, for in questions affecting the origin of the earth, sin, death, etc., he adopts Platonic, Egyptian and Zend elements into his system (Charles) in a way which would have been impossible to a Palestinian Jew; he is, however, so far orthodox in that he upholds the sacrificial system, as we have seen, and believes in the Law and in the life eternal. It is interesting to note that the writer frequently quotes passages from Ecclesiasticus in its Greek form, and was also evidently conversant with the Book of Wisdom.

There is one point of especial interest in this book to which a brief reference may be made. We meet here for the first time with the Jewish conception of the Millennium; the rationale of its origin is thus given by Charles: “The account in Genesis of the first week of creation came in pre-Christian times to be regarded not only as a history of the past, but as a forecast of the future history of the world so created. Thus as the world was created in six days, so its history was to be accomplished in 6,000 years; for 1,000 years are with God as one day (cp. Ps. xc. 4; 2 Peter iii. 8), and as God rested on the seventh day, so at the close of the 6,000 years there would be a rest of 1,000 years, i.e. the millennium.” It is also worth adding that the doctrine of the seven heavens is treated in this book with a fulness and clearness not found elsewhere; for an illuminating discussion on the subject see Morfill and Charles’ edition of the book, pp. xxx.-xlvii.

(i) The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch

[Literature.—Schürer, II, iii. pp. 83-93, German, ed., III, pp. 305-315; Ryssel, in Kautzsch, II, pp. 404-446; Charles, The Apocalypse of Baruch (1896); and in The Apocr. and Pseudep. of the O.T., II, pp. 470-526.]

This Baruch apocalypse is called the Syriac one because this is the language in which it has come down to us; it is to be distinguished from the “Greek Apocalypse of Baruch” § (k), which is an entirely different work. In its present form it is composite in character, but all its component parts may be assigned to the period A.D. 50-100. To disentangle the various elements contained in the book from one another is a very difficult task; we follow Dr. Charles in giving the following details. The authors are all Pharisees; some lived before, and some after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70; the portions written before this date consist of an Apocalypse (xxvii.-xxx. 1), and two Visions (xxxvi.-xl. and liii.-lxxiv,); these chapters are important for the Messianic teaching contained in them. The portions written after the year A.D. 70 include the rest of the book, with the exception of a few chapters added by a final editor. The present Syriac book is a translation from a Greek version of the original Hebrew.

This apocalypse is one of the most important books we possess for the study of Judaism at the beginning of the Christian era; all the vital doctrines come in for consideration—the doctrine of God, of the Law, of the Messiah, Original Sin and Free-will, Works and Justification, Forgiveness, and the Resurrection.

(j) The Apocalypse of Moses

[Literature.—Schürer, Op. cit., II, iii. pp. 146, 147, German ed., III, pp. 294-305; Fuchs in Kautzsch, pp. 506-528; F. C. Conybeare in the Jewish Quarterly Review, vii., pp. 216 ff. (1895); Charles, in the Apocr. and Pseud. of the O.T., II, pp. 407-424.]

This Jewish work, belonging possibly to the end of the first century A.D., consists of forty-three chapters, most of which have their parallel in the fifty-one chapters of the Life of Adam and Eve. The original language of both was Hebrew; the latter exists now only in a Latin form, while the Apocalypse is extant in Greek and Armenian. How the book came to have the name of Moses in the title is difficult to say; he is not mentioned in the book, which is strictly a legendary life of Adam and Eve. For the study of the doctrine of sin the book has some value, but the apocalyptic elements are very sparse; the life hereafter and the resurrection are, however, referred to.

(k) The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch

This book does not come within our period as it was written, probably, at the end of the second century A.D.; it is only mentioned here for the purpose of pointing out again that it is to be distinguished from the “Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch” dealt with above.

This chapter does not lend itself to a Summary as in the case of the others.

CHAPTER XI
The Wisdom Literature; the Jewish Conception of Wisdom

[Literature.—Cheyne, Job and Solomon, or The Wisdom of the Old Testament (1887); Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. pp. 292-309 (1888); Driver, An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, pp. 337-449 (1891); Toy, Judaism and Christianity, pp. 52-76 (1891); Cornill, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, pp. 216-279 (1896); Toy, The Book of Proverbs (1899); Friedländer, Griechische Philosophie in Alten Testament (1904); Briggs, The Book of Psalms (1906); Barton, The Book of Ecclesiastes (1908); Meinhold, Die Weisheit Israels in Spruch, Sage und Dichtung (1908); Gregg, The Wisdom of Solomon (1909); Oesterley, The Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus (1912); Oesterley and Box, The Wisdom of Ben-Sira, and Holmes, The Wisdom of Solomon, in Charles’ “Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament” (1913); Goodrick, The Book of Wisdom (1913).]

I. The Wisdom Literature

The Wisdom Literature of the Jews which has come down to us comprises both canonical and uncanonical books[300]; but the distinction may be ignored, for all the books which belong to this Literature, though each has its particular characteristics, are clearly members of one family; they are all alike in possessing one outstanding and typical mark of differentiation from the rest of the Old Testament books, viz., in them religion has become philosophy. It was not, of course, philosophy in the Greek, any more than in the modern, sense of the word; “the wise men of Israel never approached their inquiries without theological presuppositions; they had no desire to investigate final causes; they started from a fundamental axiom, ‘In the beginning was God ...’; this postulate indicates the character of their studies, which were not so much speculative as practical: their desire was not so much to understand the works of God, as to acquaint themselves with their harmonies, beauties, and adaptations, and all this with the final object of knowing and doing the will of God.”[301] But while the fundamental Jewish monotheistic belief is taken for granted throughout the Wisdom Literature, the latter has other characteristics which are not wholly in accord with traditional Judaism. That the various writers differ in their teaching from each other, and that the same writer is not always consistent in his teaching, is not a cause for surprise; these men had entered upon new ways of thinking, and were grappling with new subjects of thought; it was natural that their speculations should sometimes be only tentative; they had, moreover, come into contact with new influences which would have affected one more than another. It must also be remembered that some of the books belonging to this literature, notably Proverbs and Job, are of composite authorship, and that possibly the component parts belong to different periods; so that what may sometimes appear contradictory in one writing in reality represents some development of thought belonging to a later writer. But however this may be, we certainly find in the Wisdom Literature positions taken up which show to some extent a departure from traditional Judaism. The wise men present a very interesting combination in that they are at once universalistic and conservative. We find in the Wisdom Literature but little stress laid on national institutions and laws, such, for example, as the sacrificial system; it is recognized, it is true, but rather because it is thought right to keep up the old customs than that there is any intrinsic value or permanent necessity in the system. In like manner the Messianic expectations receive very scanty recognition. The attitude of the sages towards the Gentiles is generally friendly; they recognized the higher culture, in many respects, of these nations, and were therefore willing to learn from them; not infrequently we find, for example, that the God of the Jews is declared to be the God of all men. But the most striking characteristic, which is quite un-Jewish, is the conception of the God-like Sophia, which is conceived of as a creative divine power existing before the creation of the world; “this hypostatization of Wisdom,” says Friedländer, “is here a downright sacrilege; it betrays the violent entry of an alien spirit into the domain of Judaism, and even the fine way in which the essence of the divine Wisdom is described cannot for a moment blind us to the act of violence perpetrated by the forcible intrusion of Greek conceptions into the atmosphere of the old Hebrew idea of Wisdom.”[302] But as we deal in section III of this chapter with the conception of Wisdom as portrayed in all the books of the Wisdom Literature, it will not be necessary to say anything on this subject here.

II. The Origin of the Hebrew Conception of Wisdom

There is a great difference between the conception of Wisdom which is presented in the literature of Israel prior to the captivity and that which meets us in the Wisdom Literature proper; yet there is no sort of doubt that the latter represents the full growth of a plant whose seed can be clearly seen in the early writings of the Old Testament. This is, however, only part of the truth; for while it is true to say that the religious-intellectual spirit to which the Wisdom Literature of the Jews owed its existence was of indigenous growth, it is no less true to say that the elements which contributed to the production of that Literature were not exclusively Jewish. We shall try to show presently that Babylonian influence was, in part, at work in helping the sages of Israel both before the captivity, as well as in post-exilic times, to frame their ideas on Wisdom as these appear in the Wisdom Literature, while still later the influence of the Greek spirit is to be clearly discerned. But our first task must be to seek the first beginnings of Wisdom in the earlier books of the Old Testament.

When precisely ideas about Wisdom began to manifest themselves in Israel it would be impossible to say, but the germs from which, centuries after, the Wisdom Literature grew were already in existence during the early days of the Monarchy, for the tradition of Solomon’s wisdom is undoubtedly based upon fact. In 1 Kings iv. 30-34 (verses 10-14 in the Hebrew) it is said: “And Solomon’s wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east, and all the wisdom of Egypt. For he was wiser than all men.... And he spake three thousand proverbs; and his songs were a thousand and five. And he spake of trees.... And there came of all peoples to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all the kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom.”[303] Even allowing for some exaggeration, which is so natural to an oriental writer, there can be little doubt that this passage is based upon actual fact, though what is meant by Wisdom in this and similar passages was very different from what would now be understood by that term, as we shall see. But Solomon was not the first example of a “wise man” in Israel. The earliest form of Wisdom is represented by what the Hebrews called a māshāl; this is usually translated by “proverb,” but it has, in addition to this, a much wider signification, for it is used of a prophetic figurative discourse, such as those uttered by Balaam; in later times it was also used to describe a parable and an allegory; in this sense it occurs in Ezekiel. In its earlier simple sense a māshāl meant a “proverb,” not necessarily of a religious, or even ethical, content; it expressed some general truth brought home to men by the observance of the ordinary experiences of life. One of the very simplest of these found in the Old Testament is: “Out of the wicked cometh forth wickedness” (1 Sam. xxiv. 13); this is said to be “a proverb of the ancients,” which shows that it must have long been in use among the Israelites. In 2 Samuel xx. 18 another proverb, which seems likewise to have been long current among the people, is preserved: “They were wont to speak in old time, saying, ‘They shall surely ask counsel at Abel’”; this was uttered by a “wise woman.” With deeper observation and reflection more subtle thoughts came to be expressed in this form. “The Israelites, like all other peoples, must have reflected more or less, from the moment when they attained a settled civilization, on general questions of life. The lowest form of such reflection appears in popular proverbs and fables, which express, usually in a one-sided and superficial way, the result of the ordinary common-sense experience and observation.”[304] As a general rule, however, the few examples of proverbs which we find in the earlier books of the Old Testament reflect a relatively somewhat advanced type, and what is especially interesting about them is that they appear not infrequently to have been made on the spur of the moment; this is the case with the proverb in 1 Samuel x. 12: “Is Saul among the prophets?” which is said to have “become a proverb.” Another saying the form and rhythm of which marks it out as a proverb is: “The blind and the lame shall not come into the house” (2 Sam. v. 8, R.V. marg.); the fact that this is prefaced by the words, “Wherefore they say,” also points to its having been a popular proverb. These, and similar proverbs, though originally composed in reference to some particular occurrence, became applicable in course of time in a more general way. The proverb, for example, “Is Saul among the prophets?” might be described as the converse of the modern proverb: “Birds of a feather flock together”; or, again, the proverb: “They shall surely ask counsel at Abel,” may well have become a popular way of expressing the truth that if you want guidance you must seek it at the right quarter. A later and more advanced type of proverb is uttered by the prophet Hosea (viii. 7): “They sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind”; another is quoted in Jeremiah xxxi. 29 and Ezekiel xviii. 2 in the words: “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.”

The simplest form of proverb was thus the earliest type of “Wisdom” among the Israelites, as it was among other peoples. But the content of a proverb easily lent itself, in the minds of the more reflective, to expansion, and thus by degrees were formed fables and parables whereby truths were illustrated and brought home to the minds of men. One of the earliest fables—the exact application of which in its present context is not quite easy to determine—is preserved in Judges ix. 8-15:

Once upon a time the trees went forth to anoint over them a king;

And they said to the olive: “Rule thou over us.” And the olive said to them:

“Should I give up my fatness wherewith they honour gods and men,

And go and wave over the trees!”

Then said the trees to the fig-tree: “Come thou, be king over us.”

And the fig-tree said to them:

“Should I give up my sweetness and my good fruit,

And go and wave over the trees!”

Then said the trees to the vine: “Come thou, be king over us.”

And the vine said unto them:

“Should I give up my wine that cheereth gods and men,

And go and wave over the trees!”

Then said all the trees to the thorn-bush: “Come thou, be king over us.”

And the thorn-bush said to the trees:

“If truly ye anoint me as king over you,

Then come, trust to my shadow; but if not, then may fire come forth from the thorn-bush,

And devour the cedars of Lebanon!”

We have attempted to translate this in the poetical form of the original Hebrew; it will be seen that the thought-structure is very simple, so that the ideas conveyed would be easily apprehended by the common people to which the fable was addressed. Another fable, the only other one preserved in the Old Testament, occurs in 2 Kings xiv. 9: “The bramble that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon, saying, ‘Give thy daughter to my son to wife’; and there passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon and trod down the bramble.” But it is in the early Old Testament parables that the highest form of “Wisdom” in pre-exilic Israel is reached. As in the case of fables, only two parables are preserved; they differ from fables in two important particulars: in that only men are represented as taking part and speaking, and that the content of a parable, so far as we are able to judge from the specimens preserved, is religious; this is a large step forward in approximation to the later Jewish conception of Wisdom. The earliest Old Testament parable occurs in 2 Samuel xii. 1-4, Nathan’s parable of the ewe-lamb; it is sufficiently well known, and need not be quoted. The other is Isaiah’s parable of the vineyard in Isaiah v. 1-4, which is written in poetry, while the former is in prose. We may add here one other form of Wisdom, found mainly in Ezekiel, namely the allegory; this is also called a māshāl, but this word is here used in an extended sense, for the allegory, though a parable in form, presents a symbolical picture the meaning of which is not, like the parable, easily grasped, but demands some thought before it can be properly understood; it is therefore sometimes called a “riddle.” It differs in another respect from the parable, for symbols take the place of persons; but, like the parable, the Old Testament allegory has a religious signification. Among the most striking allegories are: the allegory of the great eagles (Ezek. xvii. 3-8), the allegory of the caldron (Ezek. xxiv. 3-5), and the allegory of the valley full of dry bones (Ezek. xxxvii. 1-10); but there are a considerable number of others.

The examples of “Wisdom” which have so far been given form an important element in the antecedents of the Wisdom literature; but that this element was not exclusively Israelite is implied in the Old Testament itself, for in a passage already quoted (1 Kings iv. 30, [verse 10 in Hebrew]) it is said: “And Solomon’s wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east, and all the wisdom of Egypt.” As in so many other respects, so, too, in the domain of Wisdom, Babylon and Egypt evidently exercised considerable influence over the Israelites[305]; and if this was so in pre-exilic times, much more will it have been the case—at any rate as far as Babylon was concerned—when a large portion, especially of the cultured classes, of the nation was brought into immediate contact with Babylonian thought during the exile. The following may be given as an example of the way in which the Babylonian conception of Wisdom influenced the Jews. According to the Babylonian cosmology, Wisdom dwelt in the depths of the sea with Ea, the creative deity. Apsu, “the deep,” is called “the house of Wisdom” because out of it came forth the Wisdom of Ea, and the word of Ea; one of the epithets applied to the god Ea is “lord of Wisdom.”[306] This conception of the “deep” being the home of Wisdom is reflected in the Wisdom Literature of the Jews; in Psalms xxxvi. 6 it is said:

Thy judgements are a great deep,

the original is more forcible, for literally it runs:

Thy judgements are Tehom Rabbah,

which is the ancient proper name for the ocean. So, too, in Ecclesiasticus xxiv. 5, Wisdom says:

Alone I compassed the circuit of heaven,

And in the depth of the abyss I walked.[307]

Moreover, the fundamental conception of Wisdom in the Wisdom Literature (of which we shall speak presently) is its inseparable connection with God; the deeper insight of the Jewish sages saw some truth in the Babylonian conception of the origin of Wisdom, that it dwelt in the depth of the sea with the “Lord of Wisdom,” i.e. was in close touch with the creative deity, so they adopted the conception and placed it in a truer perspective.[308] What Kohler[309] says in a somewhat different connection is applicable here: “As soon as monotheism was firmly established as a result of the labours of the prophets, the wisdom of the east could be consulted by Israel’s sages, and questions concerning the origin of all things could be answered, in both poetry and prose, far more intelligently than had been possible for the ancient Babylonians.”

The origin of Wisdom is thus to be sought partly in Israel itself, and partly in certain ideas which were adopted from extraneous sources. But the way in which the Jewish sages of post-exilic times developed both the indigenous as well as the foreign elements is extremely instructive; to this we must now devote some attention.

III. The Jewish Conception of Wisdom

Our chief concern is the conception of Wisdom as portrayed in the Wisdom Literature; but it will be well to say just a word as to how Wisdom was conceived of in the earlier literature, if only to show the immense development of thought on the subject which took place after the Exile. Wisdom (in Hebrew, Chokmah), and wise men (in Hebrew, Chakāmîm) are fairly frequently mentioned in the Pentateuch, and in the prophetical as well as in the historical books; the words connote in general skill in doing anything, whether in reference to artisans, or goldsmiths, or sailors, or mourning women, or of the shrewdness of the astrologer or the magician. In a higher sense it is used of wisdom in the administration of affairs; in a few instances, as in Hosea xiv. 10, a man is called wise who is far-seeing in religious things (cp. also Deut. iv. 6, Isa. xi. 2). That the prophets rarely refer to the subject of Wisdom is natural enough; it was not their function; they were called forth to rebuke and exhort in the words and after the manner of preachers; they appealed rather to the heart, to the emotions, to the conscience, than to the intellect. Sometimes, it is true, we find that “wise men” are spoken of as a class; thus Jeremiah witnesses to the fact that already in his day the Chakam (“wise man”) occupied a recognized position side by side with the priest and the prophet: “For the law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet” (Jer. xviii. 18).

Turning now to consider the various conceptions of Wisdom as portrayed in the Wisdom Literature, we may begin with the well-known words: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom.” This saying was to the Jewish sages probably the most important of any that was uttered on the subject; it occurs in Job xxviii. 28 in the form: “Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom.” In its more familiar form it appears in Psalms cxi. 6, Proverbs i. 7, ix. 10 (cp. xv. 33), Ecclesiasticus i. 14 (cp. i. 15, 20, 27), and the sense of the words occurs very often besides. But it is worth pointing out that the meaning of the phrase is not that the fear of the Lord is the commencement of Wisdom, but rather the “end” of it; it is true that the Hebrew word used, rôsh (lit. “head”), has also the sense of “beginning”; but here it is “zenith” that is meant; the highest and most perfect form of Wisdom is the fear of the Lord; so that one might quite correctly render: “The fear of the Lord is the end of Wisdom.”

In the Wisdom Literature generally Wisdom is never used in the sense of pure knowledge; in its earliest meaning it connoted the faculty of distinguishing between what was useful or beneficent, and what was harmful; later, more ethically, between what was good and what was bad. In the Wisdom Literature there is always at bottom a religious content in Wisdom; that is to say, it is a divinely bestowed gift the possession of which makes man in some measure like God. To be able to distinguish truly between good and evil is the means whereby man is enabled to stand in close relationship with God. But since the faculty to distinguish between good and evil is a divine endowment, every form of Wisdom comes from God, so that although the knowledge and fear of the Lord is the highest type of Wisdom, there are less exalted forms of it which are also regarded as part of the one great gift of God; that is to say, what is called worldly wisdom does not differ in kind, but only in degree from the higher form. In Proverbs and Ecclesiasticus, which belong closely together, and which are the chief exponents of this worldly wisdom, moral precepts form the main topics; and though widely different from divine Wisdom, both emanate from the same source, and are ultimately to be traced back to the Giver of all good things.

But the particular conception of Wisdom which is of far-reaching importance is that of personification which is attributed to it in the Wisdom Literature. As a general rule Wisdom is spoken of as something abstract; but in some very striking passages it is personified. Before proceeding to illustrate this it is necessary to utter a note of warning against exaggeration in two opposite directions; on the one hand, we are not justified in reading into the words which speak of the personification of Wisdom a meaning which they were not intended to bear; still less, on the other hand, are we justified in explaining away altogether the meaning which those words were intended to bear. When, nowadays, we speak of things, whether abstract or concrete, as personalities the words are used metaphorically without the remotest intention of really imputing personality to the things described; but we must guard against the danger of assuming that our modern way of envisaging things can be paralleled by that of two thousand years ago; the mode of expression may not have greatly changed, but the way of conceiving is totally different. When, among the Jewish sages of old, Wisdom was personified, it was conceived of, according to a modern writer on the subject, as a “projection out of the Divine mind, as something more than an attribute, but as something less than a hypostasis; ‘a little more than kin, and less than kind.’”[310] This is true as far as it goes; but the words of the Jewish sages, as we shall see, lead one to believe that in their conception of Wisdom they went even further than this; one may go so far as to say that Wisdom was thought of as an intermediate being between God and the world, a personality existing alongside of God, but separate from Him. This is more or less parallel to some other personifications, or quasi-personifications, of certain attributes proper to God which appear in early post-Christian Jewish writings; these occupy an intermediate position between personalities and abstract beings. While, on the one hand, they are represented as being so closely connected with God as to appear as parts of Him, or attributes, they are, on the other hand, so often spoken of as undertaking individual action that they must be regarded in a real sense as separate from Him.[311]

The special importance of this conception of the hypostasis of Wisdom lies not only in the fact that it forms the link between the Palestinian and Hellenistic development of Judaism, but also that it represents the contribution made by the Wisdom Literature to the Christology of the Old Testament, and has, moreover, greatly influenced Christian theology.[312]

What has been said must now be illustrated from the books of the Wisdom Literature.

In the earlier portions of Proverbs, Wisdom is always an abstract thing; the only passage in which one might conceivably discern a tendency to something different would be xxii. 24:

Wisdom is before the face of him that hath understanding;

but it is doubtful whether this means more than that when a man has sought Wisdom and has found it, Wisdom may be said to be “before his face,” i.e., it is the man who has understanding before whose face (mental vision) Wisdom appears, because he has sought her. It is in what is pretty generally regarded as the latest portion of the book (viz. i.-ix., belonging to the third century B.C. circa) that a real personification of Wisdom is found; the whole of chapter viii. is a speech uttered by Wisdom; much of it is undoubtedly figurative, but the section viii. 22-31 evidently represents something more than figurative language; it is too long to give in full, but a few of the verses must be given in order to illustrate what has been said:

The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way,

Before his works of old.

I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning,

Or ever the earth was.

When there were no depths, I was brought forth;

When there were no fountains abounding with water....

When he established the heavens I was there;

When he set a circle upon the face of the deep;

When he made firm the skies above;
When the fountains of the deep became strong;
When he gave to the sea its bound,

That the waters should not transgress his commandment;

When he marked out the foundations of the earth;

Then was I by him, as a master workman....

With the thought of Wisdom being utilized by God in creating the world (“Then was I by him, as a master workman”), one must compare the thought of God having created the world by means of His Word; this thought is already adumbrated in such a passage as Psalms xxxiii. 6: “By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made”[313]; these words were, at any rate, interpreted in later times to mean that the whole of the Creation, as described in Genesis i., was accomplished by means of the Word of God, “Word,” or Memra, having become, in the meantime, a quasi-personality like Wisdom. This development may be seen at work in the Wisdom Literature; for example, in Ecclesiasticus xlii. 15 it is said: “By the Word of God (are) His works,” i.e. were His works created; the context shows that it is the works of the Creation which are referred to. In Wisdom iv. 1 we have the same thought: “O God of my fathers, and Lord of mercy, Who hast made all things by Thy Word, and by Thy wisdom didst form man ...”; and, much later, in 2 (4) Esdras vi. 38, it is said again: “Thy Word was (i.e. made) a perfect work,” where the reference is to the first day of Creation. We are here irresistibly led to think of the opening words of the fourth Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that hath been made” (John i. 1-3). It is very striking to notice here how Christian truth was adumbrated in pre-Christian times.

In the Book of Job, as everywhere in the Wisdom Literature, Wisdom is of divine origin, e.g. xi. 5, 6:

But oh that God would speak,

And open His lips against thee;

And that He would show thee the secrets of Wisdom,

For sound wisdom is manifold (cp. xv. 8).

As a general rule the wisdom spoken of in this book is that of experience; but in one striking passage there is a definite personification of Wisdom, viz. xxviii. 12-28; it begins with the question: “Where shall Wisdom be found?” And after its priceless value has been described, the writer continues (verses 23 ff.):

God understandeth the way thereof,
And He knoweth the place thereof ...
When He made a decree for the rain,
And a way for the lightning of the thunder:
Then did He see it, and declare it;

He established it, yea, and searched it out....

But in this book where problems of great perplexity are treated, there is less scope than in the other Wisdom books for dealing specifically with Wisdom.

In Ecclesiastes (B.C. 200) Wisdom, as one would naturally expect, is always something abstract; but in this book, with its terribly pessimistic tone, we come across a phenomenon which is found nowhere else in the Wisdom literature; the Preacher’s pessimism is seen to affect even his estimate of Wisdom; what, for example, could be more dismal than this?

And I applied my heart to seek and to search out by wisdom concerning all that is done under heaven; it is a sore travail that God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised therewith.... I communed with mine own heart, saying, Lo, I have gotten me great wisdom above all that were before me in Jerusalem; yea, my heart hath had great experience of wisdom and knowledge. And I applied my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly; I perceived that this also was a striving after wind. For in much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth grief (i. 13-18).

This forlorn writer, furthermore, seems sometimes to approach the subject in an entirely perverse spirit; he says later:

I saw that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth darkness. The wise man’s eyes are in his head, and the fool walketh in darkness; and yet I perceived that one event happeneth to them all. Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the fool, so will it happen even to me; and why was I then more wise? Then I said in my heart, that this also was vanity. For of the wise man, even as of the fool, there is no remembrance for ever; seeing that in the days to come all will have been already forgotten. And how doth the wise man die even as the fool (ii. 13-16).

This same spirit is manifested in the little parable in ix. 13-16:

... There was a little city, and few men within it; and there came a great king against it, and besieged it, and built great bulwarks against it. Now there was found in it a poor wise man, and he by his wisdom delivered the city; yet no man remembered that same poor man. Then said I, Wisdom is better than strength; nevertheless the poor man’s wisdom is despised, and his words are not heard.

We can only say that such an attitude is deplorable; the writer seems to think that unless Wisdom is recognized and the wise man rewarded, it is vanity! That is quite different from the usual attitude of the authors of the Wisdom Literature, who esteem and love Wisdom for its own sake. There are, it is true, a few passages in this book which witness to a better appreciation of Wisdom; for example, in vii. 11, 12 it is said:

Wisdom is as good as an inheritance; yea, more excellent is it for them that see the sun. For Wisdom is a defence, even as money is a defence; but the excellency of knowledge is that Wisdom preserveth the life of him that hath it.

Or again in viii. 1:

A man’s wisdom maketh his face to shine, and the hardness of his face is changed.

So that, in spite of what he says elsewhere, the Preacher has an innate liking for Wisdom; as a recent commentator on the book says, “he admires it, and at times follows it (i. 13, vii. 25, ix. 16); but, on the other hand, he cannot rid himself of the feeling that the wise man toils in vain (ix. 16), that his labour is a fruitless endeavour, and that a child born dead is in reality happier than the wise man (vi. 3-8). It is true that in another mood he declares that it is better to know that one will die than to know nothing (ix. 5); but, on the whole, his verdict is that Wisdom, like all other things mundane, is vanity. The wise man has no real advantage, except that he suffers with his eyes open; in the end he dies like a fool, and goes to the same place (ix. 1 ff.).”[314]

In the Wisdom of Ben-Sira (Ecclesiasticus) all that is taught concerning Wisdom in the earlier books (with the exception of what is peculiar to Ecclesiastes) finds full expression, though Ben-Sira is not a slavish imitator; he has his own ideas, and amplifies the earlier teaching, always making it his own before giving expression to it. The divine origin of Wisdom is shown by teaching that it is a direct emanation from God:

All Wisdom cometh from the Lord

And is with Him for ever (i. 1).

I came forth from the mouth of the Most High,

And as a mist I covered the earth (xxiv. 3).

The existence of Wisdom before the creation of world is definitely stated in the words:

Before them all (i.e. the heavens and the earth) was Wisdom created (i. 4).

He created me from the beginning, before the world (xxiv. 9).

It is especially characteristic of Ben-Sira’s teaching that he identifies the Law with Wisdom; this identification is often taken for granted, while in several passages it is categorically set forth. “Ben-Sira inculcates the truth that the way to lead a wise life is to live according to the divine commandments, and acting accordingly, man makes his human wisdom approximate to the divine, and worldly, practical wisdom, in its many and various forms, is thus of the same kind, only less in degree, as divine wisdom. It is thus easy to see that the identification between the Law and Wisdom was inevitable.”[315] This identification is to be seen in such passages as the following:

For he that feareth the Lord doeth this (i.e. seeketh Wisdom),

And he that taketh hold of the Law findeth her (xv. 1).

He that keepeth the Law controlleth his natural tendency,

And the fear of the Lord is the consummation of Wisdom (xxi. 11).

The most direct assertion, however, of this identity between the Law and Wisdom is found in xxiv. 23, 25:

All these things (i.e. the things concerning Wisdom) are in the book of the covenant of God Most High,

The Law which Moses commanded as an heritage for the assemblies of Jacob,

Which filleth men with Wisdom, like Pison,

And like Tigris in the days of new fruits....

And again in xix. 20:

All Wisdom is the fear of the Lord,

And all Wisdom is the fulfilling of the Law.

Although Wisdom is the free gift of God,

Without measure doth He grant her to them that love Him (i. 26),

yet man is not able to utilize it without earnest effort; he has an irksome discipline to go through which will test his sincerity:

But I will walk with him in disguise,
And at first I will try him with temptations.
Fear and dread will I bring upon him,

And I will torment him with chastisements (iv. 17);

but to the persevering the reward is great; this Ben-Sira expresses in a passage full of poetical beauty:

For at length thou wilt find her rest,

And she shall be turned for thee into gladness.

And her fetters shall become a stay of strength for thee,

And her bands for robes of glory.

An ornament of gold is her yoke,

And her fetters a cord of blue.

Thou shalt array thee with her as with robes of glory,

And crown thee with her as with a crown of beauty (vi. 28-31).

It will have been noticed that in several of the passages just quoted the personification of Wisdom is graphically expressed; there are many others in this book in which this is taught[316]; an interesting one is i. 15, where Wisdom is described in taking up her abode among men:

With faithful men is she, and she hath been established from eternity,

And with their seed shall she continue.

In another passage Wisdom invites men to come and abide with her:

Come unto me, ye that desire me,
And be ye filled with my produce;
For my memorial is sweeter than honey,

And the possession of me than the honey-comb (xxiv. 19, 20).

This thought of Wisdom abiding among men is illustrated in another way; Ben-Sira, in desiring to show the superiority of the wisdom of Israel over that of the Greeks, represents Wisdom as having sought a resting-place among the nations of the world, but found that none were worthy of her; thereupon God commanded her to abide in Israel where she would find a permanent home:

With all these (i.e. every people and nation) I sought a resting-place,

And said: “In whose inheritance shall I lodge?”

Then the Creator of all things gave me commandment,

And He that created me fixed my dwelling-place for me;

And He said: “Let thy dwelling-place be in Jacob,

And in Israel take up thine inheritance....”

And I took root among an honoured people,

In the portion of the Lord and of His inheritance (xxiv. 7-12).

In his teaching concerning the personification of Wisdom Ben-Sira offers something that is of a transitional character; in the main, he bases his teaching on Proverbs, though he shows some advance upon this; but he falls far behind what the Book of Wisdom has to say on the subject. To this we must now devote some attention.

The writer of the Book of Wisdom, like the writers of all the books belonging to this literature, teaches the divine origin of Wisdom; but he has his own way of expressing this truth:

For she is a breath of the power of God,

And a clear effluence of the glory of the Almighty;

Therefore can nothing defiled find entrance into her.

For she is an effulgence from everlasting light,

And an unspotted mirror of the working of God,

And an image of His goodness (vii. 25, 26).

This divine Wisdom is so indispensable to man that he is of no account without it:

For even if a man be perfect among the sons of men,

Yet if the Wisdom that cometh from Thee be not with him, he shall be held in no account (ix. 6).

Another invariable doctrine in the Wisdom books, namely the existence of Wisdom before the world was created, and her part in the Creation, is taught thus:

And with Thee is Wisdom, which knoweth Thy works,

And was present when Thou wast making the world (ix. 9).

For she is initiated into the knowledge of God,

And she chooseth out for Him His works (viii. 4).

Ben-Sira, as we saw, identifies the Law with Wisdom; the Jewish-Hellenistic writer of the Book of Wisdom does not do so, but he teaches an identification between the Holy Spirit of the Lord and Wisdom[317]; this is clear from the following passage:

Because Wisdom will not enter into a soul that deviseth evil,

Nor dwell in a body that is held in pledge by sin;

For a holy spirit of discipline will flee deceit ...

For Wisdom is a spirit that loveth man,

And she will not hold a blasphemer guiltless for his lips ...

Because the spirit of the Lord hath filled the world (i. 4-7).

Still more pointed are the words in ix. 17:

And who ever gained knowledge of Thy counsel, except Thou gavest Wisdom,

And sentest Thy Holy Spirit from on high?

Further, Wisdom is identified with the Word of the Lord; the “Word” is, however, used in the Old Testament sense, not in that of the Philonian Logos. The Word, like Wisdom, takes part in the Creation:

O God of the fathers, and Lord Who keepest Thy mercy,

Who madest all things by Thy Word;

And by Thy Wisdom Thou formedst man.... (ix. 1, 2).

Just as Wisdom sits upon the throne of God:

Give me Wisdom, her that sitteth by Thee on Thy throne (ix. 4),

so, too, the same is said of the Word:

Thine all-powerful Word leaped from heaven out of the royal throne (xviii. 15).

The nature of Wisdom, as portrayed in this book, has been well summed up in the following words: “Wisdom is not an attribute, nor the sum of the attributes, of God: such an explanation would not take account of all the properties postulated of Wisdom, nor would it allow for the completeness of the Divine transcendence. Wisdom, again, is not God in manifestation; she is too distinct from Him to be merely a theoretical aspect of Himself. Lastly, she is not a Being, personal and distinct from God: she emanates from Him, but the emanation has not terminated. No birth-severance has taken place, giving her independent life.”[318]

Finally, it will not be amiss to take a glance, though it be but a very slight one, at the teaching concerning Wisdom which is given in some of the Apocalyptic books of which mention has been made in the preceding chapter. It is true, these books do not belong to the Wisdom Literature, nevertheless some of them contain teaching on the subject of Wisdom which may appropriately find a brief consideration here. We have already seen that in some of the earlier books of the Old Testament materials are to be discerned out of which the Wisdom Literature developed; as there were, therefore, these early seeds out of which the Wisdom Literature grew, so in some of the Apocalyptic books an after-growth may also be discerned. While the full fruit is to be seen in the books with which we have just been concerned, it is well to realize that some fruit is also to be gathered outside of these. It will be sufficient for our purpose if we illustrate what has to be said from three Apocalyptic books, viz. the Book of Enoch, the Similitudes of Enoch and the Secrets of Enoch.

In the oldest portions of the Book of Enoch there is no mention of Wisdom,[319] unless xci. 10 be included among these.[320] This passage runs:

And the righteous shall arise from their sleep,

And Wisdom shall arise and be given unto them.

In the next oldest part, the “Dream Visions,” the thought which has already come before us of Wisdom sitting on the throne of God, finds expression:

Wisdom departs not from the place of Thy throne,

Nor turns away from Thy presence (lxxxiv. 3).

But it is in the “Similitudes” that we find a number of passages dealing with the subject; in fact, all these “Similitudes,” or “Parables,” are declared to be the outcome of the Wisdom which the Lord of Spirits granted to Enoch (see xxxvii. 1-4, and cp. lxxxii. 2, 3). Differing from the teaching of earlier Wisdom books[321] it is here stated that Wisdom could nowhere find a dwelling-place among men, and had therefore to return to heaven (cp. the passage just quoted):

Wisdom found no place where she might dwell;

Then a dwelling-place was assigned her in the heavens.

Wisdom went forth to make her dwelling among the children of men,

But found no dwelling-place;

Wisdom returned to her place,

And took her seat among the angels (xlii. 1, 2; cp. xciv. 5).

It is the Elect One, sitting on the throne of God, Who possesses all the secrets of Wisdom:

And the Elect One shall in those days sit on my Throne,

And his mouth shall pour forth all the secrets of wisdom and counsel:

For the Lord of Spirits hath given them to him, and hath glorified him (li. 3; cp. xlix. 3).

The blessedness of those who accept Wisdom is described in xcix. 10.

In the Book of the Secrets of Enoch there is at least one passage in which Wisdom is personified; it is a very curious one repeating with strange details the thought that Wisdom, as taught in earlier books, took her part in the Creation; the words are put into the mouth of the Creator:

On the sixth day I ordered my Wisdom to make man of seven substances: his flesh from the earth; his blood from the dew; his eyes from the sun; his bones from the stones; his thoughts from the swiftness of the angels, and the clouds; his veins [or “nails”] and hair from the grass of the earth; his spirit from my spirit, and from the wind (xxx. 8).

But in other passages, e.g. xxxiii. 3, xliii. 2, Wisdom is conceived of as purely abstract.

Summary

The Wisdom Literature is preserved in both canonical and uncanonical books; but the distinction is here unimportant, for those belonging to either category are clearly members of the same family; they all possess one characteristic distinguishing them from the rest of the Old Testament, viz. in them religion has become philosophy. Not philosophy in the Greek sense, nor yet in that of the moderns, but still religious philosophy of a distinct type. The fundamental Jewish monotheistic belief is taken for granted throughout. There are, however, other characteristics not altogether in accord with traditional Judaism. The writers of the Wisdom Literature are not always consistent with one another, or even with themselves, and their speculations are often only tentative. This is not surprising, for they were struggling with new ways of thinking and with new subjects of thought; and they were, moreover, coming into contact with new influences.

In the Wisdom Literature certain positions taken up show some variance with tradition; thus, the wise men present a very interesting combination of universalism and conservatism; little stress is laid on national institutions and laws such as the sacrificial system; in like manner the Messianic expectation receives very scant recognition. The attitude towards the Gentiles is generally friendly; their higher culture is recognized, and there is willingness to learn from them. Not infrequently the God of the Jews is declared to be the God of all men. Most striking is the conception, which is quite un-Jewish, of the divine Sophia which is conceived of as a creative power existing before the Creation.

There is a great difference between the conceptions of Wisdom in pre-exilic writings, and those of the Wisdom Literature proper; but without doubt the former contain the seeds whose growth is seen in the latter. Yet while it is true that the religious-intellectual spirit to which the Wisdom Literature owed its existence was an indigenous plant, yet the elements which contributed to its development were not exclusively Jewish. Babylonian influence was at work before, as well as during, the Captivity, and Greek influence is to be discerned later.

It is not possible to say when ideas about Wisdom began to manifest themselves in Israel. The earliest form of Wisdom is presented by what the Hebrews called a māshāl, usually translated “proverb,” but having a wider signification, being used of a prophetic figurative discourse such as was uttered by Balaam, or a parable or allegory of the kind found in the Book of Ezekiel. In its earlier use, however, māshāl did mean a “proverb,” i.e. a sentence expressing some truth, not necessarily religious or ethical, which had been reached by experience or observation.

The Hebrew words for “Wisdom” (Chokmah) and for “wise men” (Chakāmîm) are found fairly frequently in the Pentateuch as well as in the prophetic and historical books; but the usual meaning in these differs from that found in the Wisdom Literature.

Of the several conceptions of Wisdom in the Wisdom Literature the most important is that expressed in the well-known words: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom”; this occurs again and again in varying form, its real meaning being that the fear of the Lord is the end of Wisdom, its highest and most perfect form. In this Literature there is always a religious content in Wisdom; it is never used of pure knowledge. In Proverbs and Ecclesiastes there is much about worldly wisdom, but the faculty of distinguishing between good and evil always comes from God.

The personification of Wisdom found in this Literature is of far-reaching importance. We must neither read into the passages which treat of this a meaning they were not intended to bear, nor must we explain away the meaning that was really intended. When among the Jewish sages of old Wisdom was personified, they thought of a personality existing alongside of God, an intermediate being between God and the world. This is more or less parallel to the personification or quasi-personification of attributes proper to God which is found in early post-Christian Jewish writings. The special importance of this conception of Wisdom lies not only in the fact that it forms the link between the Palestinian and Hellenic development of Judaism, but also that it represents the contribution made by the Wisdom Literature to the Christology of the New Testament, and has, moreover, greatly influenced Christian theology.

In the earlier portions of Proverbs, Wisdom is always presented as something abstract, except perhaps in xvii. 24. A real personification is found in the later parts. In Job it is the wisdom of experience that normally finds expression; but there is a definite personification in xxxviii. 12-28. In Ecclesiastes Wisdom is always something abstract, and, a unique element, the estimate of Wisdom is affected by the Preacher’s pessimism. In Ecclesiasticus all that is taught in the other books about Wisdom finds expression, with the exception of the pessimism of Ecclesiastes; the identification of the Law with Wisdom is a striking characteristic. The Jewish-Hellenistic writer of the Book of Wisdom identifies Wisdom with the holy spirit of the Lord, as well as with the Word (in the Jewish sense), and teaches its divine origin and its existence before the creation of the world (this is common to the Wisdom Literature generally).

A brief glance at the teaching concerning Wisdom in the Apocalyptic Literature shows that there is very little in the earliest parts of the Book of Enoch, but there are a number of passages which touch the subject in the “Similitudes,” some of which have peculiar features. In the Secrets of Enoch Wisdom is represented as taking part in the Creation.

CHAPTER XII
The Doctrinal Teaching of the Apocrypha

Preliminary Remarks

It would be difficult to point to anything which illustrates more clearly the arbitrary way in which the books of the Apocrypha have been separated off from the rest of the Jewish uncanonical religious literature of the period with which we are dealing than the study of the doctrinal teaching of this literature. For in the Apocrypha only part of that teaching is represented; to obtain it in its fulness, so far as the literature of the period is extant, we have to consult such pseudepigraphic works as the Book of Enoch, the Sibylline Oracles, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Book of Jubilees, the Psalms of Solomon, the Assumption of Moses, the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, and the Ascension of Isaiah. But to take all these into consideration here is out of the question, and we have already given a brief outline of the more important doctrines taught in them (Chapter X). There is, however, one compensation in restricting ourselves to the books of the Apocrypha; for the more important of these were recognized by official Judaism as containing good orthodox teaching; so that in dealing with this body of literature alone we are at all events on more or less secure ground as far as orthodox Judaism is concerned, and to get at that as a foundation is useful for the further observance of the development of doctrine. At the same time, it is necessary to bear in mind that while in most respects the books of the Apocrypha afford, speaking generally, a criterion for the period B.C. 200-A.D. 100 as to orthodox Jewish teaching, in some respects they are inadequate, in others even insufficient, so that in such cases recourse must be had to the Apocalyptic Literature, though we cannot here take that Literature into fuller consideration.

Now in dealing with the Judaism of this period we must again emphasize what has already been stated several times, namely the existence of the external influences by which it was affected. The background of the Apocrypha books in the domain of doctrine is not solely the Old Testament, though this is, of course, their chief source of inspiration; but there have also been marked Persian and Greek influences in certain directions; it is essential that this should be recognized. This point has been admirably dealt with by Fairweather, and some of his words are well worth quoting; he rightly says that there have been “two great streams of influence flowing in upon the Jewish theology of this period, an Eastern and a Western, a Persian and a Greek. Of these by far the stronger was the Greek, though the Persian is as distinctly traceable ... the Persian current was that of Zoroastrianism; the Greek cannot be associated with a single name. Out of these two forces, which were new, or newly felt, active upon the native Judaism of Palestine, which was old, was formed that third which we meet within the home of Jewish theology of the period. But there was also a Jewish theology outside of Palestine altogether. Not only did foreign influences flow in upon Judaism, but Judaism, now no longer confined to Palestine, went out to meet them. Thus the hitherto unbroken river of Old Testament ideas and doctrines divided itself at this point into three separate streams. One, the main current, continued to flow on in Palestine; while on the east and west of it ran two other streams—the one through Persian territory, and the other through Greek. The tributaries of Persian and Greek ideas by which these streams respectively were fed necessarily caused their waters to be of a composite character, exceedingly difficult to analyse so as to say definitely, ‘This is Jewish, that is Persian,’ or ‘This is Jewish, that is Greek,’”[322] The main current of which Fairweather speaks represents Palestinian Judaism, while the other two streams powerfully affected the Judaism of the Dispersion; the differences between these two types of Judaism must be taken into consideration, for both types are represented in the books of the Apocrypha. We must also seek, as far as possible, to follow the teaching of the various books in chronological order. Differences of opinion exist, to be sure, regarding the actual dates of these, but there is in almost all cases approximate unanimity as to the centuries to which they belong. In some instances different parts of a book belong to different times; this will be taken into consideration where necessary. When, therefore, quotations are given to illustrate some point of doctrine they will be put, as far as possible, in chronological order; see the table on p. 320.

The doctrines to be dealt with are the following:

(a) The Doctrine of God.
(b) The Doctrine of the Law.
(c) The Doctrine of Sin.
(d) The Doctrine of Grace and Free-will.
(e) The Doctrine of the Messiah.
(f) The Doctrine of the Future Life.
(g) The Doctrine of Angels.
(h) Demonology.

The very important doctrine of Wisdom has already been considered in Chapter VIII.

In dealing with these doctrines we shall only make cursory mention of those points in which the teaching of the Apocrypha is identical with that of the Old Testament, as our main object is to try and show in what respects the books of the Apocrypha exhibit an advance in doctrine upon the Old Testament, or, as in some cases, a retrogression; at the same time the characteristic form in which a book presents any particular doctrine will be noted even in those cases in which there is no essential difference between the Old Testament and the Apocrypha. It will not always be possible to keep the various doctrines entirely separate from each other, as one so often leads into another; so that some little repetition may at times be unavoidable.

(a) The Doctrine of God.

The Old Testament teaching on the Personality of God is, as one would expect, so full, that we must not look for much advance in the books of the Apocrypha on this subject. The Unity of God the Creator of all, His eternity and omnipotence, His activity in nature, His wisdom, holiness, justice, loving-kindness and mercy, His Fatherhood of Israel, and sometimes of all flesh—these doctrines are all amply dealt with in Ecclesiasticus. In the fine passage Ecclesiasticus xlii. 15-xliii. 33, where Ben-Sira gets his inspiration largely from the Psalms, the praise of God is sung as the Lord of Nature; there are one or two points in this passage which, to some extent, witness to an advance upon what the Old Testament teaches; in xlii. 16 it is said:

God’s holy ones have not the power
To recount His wondrous works of might;
Though God hath given strength to His hosts
To endure in the presence of His glory.

These words represent the Hebrew, which was misunderstood by the Greek translator; the meaning of them is that not even the angels[323] can declare God’s mighty works, even though they stand in His presence; they are only able to stand in that presence because they have received special strength for the purpose. What spiritual beings, who thus stand in the very presence of God, are unable to fathom, can still less be understood by men, all they can do is to offer praise to God; so Ben-Sira says later in the same section:

We will sing praises, because we cannot fathom;

For greater is He than all His works.

Terrible is Jehovah exceedingly,

And wonderful are His mighty acts.

Ye that magnify Jehovah, lift up your voice

As much as ye can, for there is still more!

Ye that exalt Him, renew your strength,

And weary not, for ye cannot fathom Him!

Who hath seen Him, that he may tell thereof?

And who shall magnify Him as He is?

The number of things mysterious is greater even than these,

And I have seen but few of His works (xliii. 28-32).

The conception of God which is revealed in these two passages does certainly seem to be a higher one even than is anywhere to be found in the Old Testament. In Tobit much the same general conception is found as in the Old Testament; but one passage may be quoted as showing a universalistic spirit which is found only in some of the most exalted utterances of the prophets; in xiv. 6 it is said that “all the nations which are in the whole earth, all shall turn and fear God truly; and all shall leave their idols, who err after their false error.” Fully in accordance with the belief that Jehovah is the God of all men is the way in which the writer of this book never tires of speaking of Him under various titles expressive of the sincerest praise and faith; no book of the Apocrypha has such a variety of names for God as this one. Another important point is that God hears the prayers of men through angelic mediation. In great contrast to this high conception of God is that found in Judith; for while the power of God to help His chosen ones in face of the most adverse circumstances is strongly insisted upon, the idea that God’s favour is only accorded to those who keep the Law, and that He is only the God of the Jews, which is implied throughout even if not definitely stated, is a very inadequate one and takes us back to some of the least exalted passages of the Old Testament which deal with the doctrine of God. A special note, though in no sense new in itself, is sounded in the Prayer of Manasses, where great stress is laid upon the divine compassion; the opening verses form a beautiful hymn of praise to God. In turning to the secondary text of Ecclesiasticus, which comes next in order, we have in the addition to xxiv. 23 (= 24 in the A.V.) a striking instance of the Pharisaic doctrine of God, both as regards the divine Personality as well as the relationship between Him and His true worshippers:

Faint not, but be strong in the Lord,

And cleave unto Him that He may strengthen you.

Cleave unto Him; the Lord, the Almighty, is the One and only God;

And beside Him there is no Saviour.

The great characteristic, so far as the present subject is concerned, of this secondary text, or Pharisaic recension,[324] of Ecclesiasticus is that of the closeness of God to those who love Him; personal religion, that religious individualism which did so much to foster spiritual worship, finds true expression here; not that the original writer was wanting in deep piety, in spite of what often strikes one as a somewhat worldly spirit, but as compared with the Pharisaic ideal of the beginning of the first century B.C. it is not surprising to find that the book was considered in some respects wanting, and that it seemed to the more ardent religious temperament of the Pharisees as not sufficiently expressive of the close relationship between God and His pious ones. This may be illustrated by one or two examples of the way additions are made to the original text. In i. 12 Ben-Sira says:

The fear of the Lord delighteth the heart,

And giveth gladness, and joy, and length of days;

but the Pharisee deepens the sentiment by adding:

The fear of the Lord is a gift from the Lord,

For it setteth men upon paths of love.

Another example is found in the addition to xvii. 20. Ben-Sira says:

Their iniquities are not hid from Him,

And all their sins are inscribed before the Lord;

to this the Pharisaic glossator adds:

But the Lord, being merciful, knowing also that they are made in His own image,

Spared them, and forsook them not, nor cast them off.

The closeness of God to those who love Him is again brought out in the addition to xvii. 26a:

For He Himself will lead thee out of darkness unto the light of salvation.[325]

There are, of course, other passages of a similar kind. The interest of these lies in the fact that they breathe the same spirit which we find in a number of the later Psalms, and which are believed by many scholars to emanate from the circle of the Chassidim or “Pious ones,” the forerunners of the Pharisees; this spirit reappears in the Psalms of Solomon, which are admittedly the work of a Pharisee, or Pharisees. In 1 Maccabees we find the strange characteristic of the non-mention of the name of God,[326] which never occurs in the original text, though it is sometimes inserted in the Authorized Version; on the other hand, a true faith in the omnipotence of God is at times expressed, e.g. iii. 18: “There is no difference in the sight of Heaven to save by many or by few; for victory in battle standeth not in the multitude of an host, but strength is from Heaven”; and trust in God as the God of Israel Who will help His people against their foes occurs not infrequently, e.g. in iv. 10, 11: “And now let us cry unto Heaven, if He will have mercy upon us, and will remember the covenant of the fathers, and destroy this army before our face to-day, and then will all the Gentiles know that there is One Who redeemeth and saveth Israel.”[327] In all three of the documents which make up the Book of Baruch stress is laid on God’s guidance of Israel’s destiny; in the portion, Baruch iv. 5-v. 9 the special characteristic is that the divine compassion is constantly recalled, for which reason the writer again and again bids his hearers be of “good cheer.” The writer of 2 (4) Esdras fully represents the best of the Old Testament teaching concerning the doctrine of God; he insists on the unity of God, His Creatorship wholly without any mediatorial agency; Israel is the specially elected nation with which God has entered into a covenant relation. The problems with which the seer is presented are insoluble for man, who cannot even comprehend the material things of the world, much less the spiritual secrets of Heaven: “... He said moreover unto me, What belongs to thee, (namely) the things that have intermingled with thy growth, thou art incapable of understanding; how then should thy vessel be able to comprehend the way of the Most High? For the way of the Most High hath been found without measure; how, then, should it be possible for a mortal in a corruptible world to understand the ways of the Incorruptible?” (iv. 10, 11). The writer’s faith in God is specially shown forth by his conviction that in spite of all appearances God’s love is for His people: “Just as thou art unable to do even one of these that have been mentioned, even so art thou powerless to discover my judgement or the goal of the love that I have declared unto My people” (v. 40). With the Book of Wisdom we enter a religious atmosphere which is to a large extent alien to that of Palestine; whether the two parts of this book were written by different authors, or whether they are both from the same author writing at different periods of his life, it is quite clear that the presentation of the doctrine of God in each is entirely different; the first part (i.-xi. 1) is more Greek than Jewish, and “in nothing,” says Holmes, “is this more clearly shown than in the idea of God presented by the two parts respectively. The idea of God in part i. is that of Greek philosophy, a transcendent God Who has no immediate contact with the world. It is true that in the later parts of the Old Testament the writers had largely abandoned the conception of Jahveh as a God Who had direct dealings with mankind.... God gradually became thought of as more and more remote, though even in Daniel the scene where the Ancient of Days sits in judgement on the nations shows that God could be still thought of as having immediate dealings with mankind. In Wisdom, however, in chapters i.-x. we find that the author conceives God to be so remote, that He performs His will by means of an intermediary, whom He sends forth into the world (ix. 10). This intermediary is Wisdom, and possesses all the attributes of Deity. She is omnipotent (vii. 27), omniscient (viii. 8 and ix. 11), and puts these attributes into action; she administers all things well (viii. 1).”[328] In the second half of the book God is again and again spoken of as interfering personally in the affairs of men; a striking example is given in xiv. 1 ff., which speaks of the folly of a navigator who prays for safety to an idol before embarking upon his vessel:

For that vessel the hunger for gain devised,

And an artificer by his wisdom built it;

And Thy providence, O Father, guideth it along,

Because even in the sea Thou gavest a way,

And in the waves a sure path;

Showing that Thou canst save out of every danger....

In other respects also the second part of this book represents the Old Testament doctrine, more especially in its insistence upon the need of right worship, and in the way in which it deals with the mercy and justice of God.

(b) The Doctrine of the Law.

In Ecclesiasticus much stress is laid upon the importance of the Law both from the ethical and ritual point of view, a fact which shows this book to be a valuable link between the Judaism of post-exilic times and Rabbinical Judaism. The first point to note is the nature of the Law as taught by Ben-Sira; it is eternal, and it is divine, for it has been given by God, the Eternal One. The existence of the Law before the beginning of the world is involved by Ben-Sira’s identification of it with Wisdom. This is a conception which, so far as is known, occurs here for the first time; but the way in which this identification seems to be taken for granted shows that it cannot have been wholly new to Ben-Sira’s hearers; in speaking about the search for Wisdom he says, for example, in xv. 1:

For he that feareth the Lord doeth this [i.e. seeketh Wisdom],

And he that taketh hold of the Law findeth her [i.e. Wisdom].

The Law and Wisdom are used again as synonymous terms in xxxiv. (xxxi. in the Greek) 8:

Without deceit shall the Law be fulfilled.

And Wisdom is perfect in a mouth that is faithful.

Perhaps the most striking example of the way in which the two are identified with each other is in xxiv. 23, where Ben-Sira speaks of things concerning Wisdom, saying:

All these things are the book of the covenant of God Most High,

The Law which Moses commanded as an heritage for the assemblies of Jacob.

Equally direct are the words in xix. 20:

All wisdom is the fear of the Lord,

And all wisdom is the fulfilling of the Law.

The “fear of the Lord,” as is often said by Ben-Sira, is both the true observance of the Law, and the “beginning,” or zenith, of Wisdom. The constant insistence upon the need of observing the Law is characteristic of this book; the following passage offers a good example out of many:

He that seeketh out the Law shall gain her,
But the hypocrite shall be snared thereby....
In all thy works guard thyself,
For he that so doeth keepeth the commandment.
He that observeth the Law guardeth himself,

And he that trusteth in Jehovah shall not be brought to shame (xxxii. 15-24).

Ben-Sira urges men not to be ashamed of the Law (xlii. 2), and loves to remind his hearers of how their great ancestors observed it and were enlightened by it, and taught it to others (see xliv. 20, xlv. 5, 17, xlvi. 14); and he also teaches that the fulfilling of the precepts of the Law is to be the chief concern in view of the inevitableness of death:

Remember thy last end, and cease from enmity;

Remember corruption and death, and abide in the commandments (xxviii. 6).

Another point of importance in this connection is Ben-Sira’s teaching on the spirit in which the precepts of the Law should be carried out; in xxxiv. 18, 19 (in the Greek xxxi. 21-23) he says:

The sacrifice of the unrighteous man is a mocking offering,

And unacceptable are the oblations of the godless.

The Most High hath no pleasure in the offerings of the ungodly,

Neither doth He forgive sins for a multitude of sacrifices.

Somewhat different in character, but breathing quite the same spirit, are the following words:

He who washeth after contact with a dead body, and toucheth it again,

What has he gained by his bathing?

So a man fasting for his sins,

And again doing the same,

Who will listen to his prayer?

And what hath he gained by his humiliation (verses 25, 26).

That the Law, according to Ben-Sira, was now meant only for Israel, whatever might originally have been the case, may be gathered from the following, when it is remembered that, as already shown, Wisdom and the Law are identified with each other; Wisdom is represented as speaking thus:

With all these [i.e. every people and nation] I sought a resting-place,

And said: In whose inheritance shall I lodge?

Then the Creator of all things gave me commandment,

And He that created me fixed my dwelling-place for me;

And He said: Let thy dwelling-place be in Jacob,

And in Israel take up thine inheritance....

And I took root among an honoured people,

In the portion of the Lord and of His inheritance (xxiv. 7 f., 12).

We may recall here that according to the teaching of the Rabbis in later centuries the Law was originally intended by God to be a revelation of Himself and of His will to all nations, but that the only nation which accepted it was Israel.

In the Book of Tobit we meet with an earnest zeal for the fulfilments of legal precepts combined with deep devotion. This book is important for the indications it offers of the development of legal observances. Prayer, almsgiving and fasting are strongly advocated (xii. 8), but more especially almsgiving, which is again and again insisted upon, e.g.: “Give alms of thy substance; turn not away thy face from any poor man, and the face of God shall not be turned away from thee. As thy substance is, give alms of it according to thine abundance; if thou have much, according to the abundance thereof give alms; if thou have little, bestow it, and be not afraid to give alms according to that little....” (iv. 6-11). The laws of tithe (i. 7, v. 13), marriage (vi. 12, vii. 13, 14), honouring parents (iv. 3), keeping the feasts (i. 6, ii. 1), purifying oneself (ii. 5), as well as others, are all inculcated. This love for the Law, combined with worship, i.e. prayer, observance of the feasts, and zeal for the honour of God, offers a fine illustration of the truly pious Jew of this period. The observance of the Law appears as a real delight, there is no hint of its being irksome; in this the book is a commentary on the psalmist’s words:

Oh, how I love Thy Law,

It is my meditation all the day (Ps. cxix. 97).

In no book of the Apocrypha is the observance of the Law more strongly advocated than in Judith; while everything depends upon trust in God and obedience to Him, both are shown forth by keeping the Law which He gave; righteousness is only through the Law. As in the majority of the books of the Apocrypha there is no abstract conception concerning the Law, its practical observance only is taught. Thus in viii. 5, 6 it is said of Judith that “she made her a tent upon the roof of her house, and put on sackcloth upon her loins; and the garments of her widowhood were upon her. And she fasted all the days of her widowhood, save the eves of the sabbaths, and the eves of the new moons, and the new moons, and the feasts and joyful days of the house of Israel.” This was all in accordance with traditional practice; seclusion, mortification and fasting all belonged to the rôle of a widow’s mourning; it is, however, a development that the eves of sabbaths, new moons and feasts were observed, as here indicated. A further example of the need of the strict observance of the Law is seen in xi. 12, 13, where the sin of touching forbidden food is spoken of: “Since their (i.e. the Jews’) victuals failed them, and all their water was scant, they took counsel to lay hands upon their cattle, and determined to consume all those things which God charged them by His laws that they should not eat; and they are resolved to spend the firstfruits of the corn, and the tenths of the wine and the oil, which they had sanctified and reserved for the priests that stand before the face of our God in Jerusalem; the which things it is not fitting for any of the people so much as to touch with their hands.” Reference is also made to the sacrificial system and the gifts of the people in xvi. 18, but in the poem in xvi. 2-17 the right spirit in offering is the really important matter:

For all sacrifice is very little for a sweet savour,

And all the fat is very little for a whole burnt-offering to Thee;

But he that feareth the Lord is great continually.

The teaching concerning the Law in this book is thus strongly Pharisaic.

In 1 Maccabees there is reflected the earnest zeal for the Law on the part of the patriots; this has been referred to with quotations above (Chap. II), so that it is not necessary to say anything further here. Much stress is laid upon legal observances in 2 Maccabees; in i. 8, 9 it is told how in Jerusalem the Jews offered sacrifice and meal-offering, lighted the lamps, and set forth the shewbread; and it is enjoined that the feast of Tabernacles be kept in the month Chislev. As in 1 Maccabees apostate Jews are severely rebuked for following those who were unfaithful to the Law (iv. 11-17), the passage concludes with the words: “It is no light matter to act impiously against the laws of God; time will show that.” Another passage which illustrates the intense zeal for the Law is in chapter vii., where the story is told of the martyrdom of seven sons and their mother who “died for His laws” (vii. 9). The whole attitude towards the Law is that of the Pharisaic school of about the first century B.C. onwards; this also applies to 1 (3) Esdras.

In the document, Baruch iii. 9-iv. 4, where the Law and Wisdom are identified, exiled Israel is told that the reason of his punishment is the forsaking of God’s ways, the commandments of life, i.e. the Law:

Hear, O Israel, the commandments of life;

Give ear to understand Wisdom.

How happeneth it, O Israel, that thou art in thine enemies’ land,

That thou art waxen old in a strange country...?

Thou hast forsaken the fountain of Wisdom.

For if thou hadst walked in the way of God,

Thou shouldst have dwelled in peace for ever.

Learn where is Wisdom, where is strength,

Where is understanding; that thou mayest also know

Where is length of days, and life,

Where is the light of the eyes, and peace.

That the Law is meant by Wisdom, strength, and understanding is clear from the words at the end of the piece, iv. 1 ff.:

This is the book of the commandments of God,

And the Law that endureth for ever;

All they that hold it fast are appointed to life,

But such as leave it shall die....

The lasting endurance of the Law which is also taught here frequently finds expression in the Rabbinical literature. That the Law is for Israel alone seems to be implied in the words:

Turn thee, O Jacob, and take hold of it,

Walk towards her shining in the presence of the light thereof;

Give not thy glory to another,

Nor the things that are profitable unto thee to a strange nation.

O Israel, happy are we,

For the things that are pleasing to God are made known unto us (iv. 3, 4).

Of the different portions which make up 2 (4) Esdras the most important in the present connection is the “Salathiel Apocalypse” which forms the bulk of the book (iii.—x.). A good instance of this writer’s attitude towards the Law together with a prophecy of the doom upon Israel for having rejected it by sinning is ix. 31-37; first these words are put into the mouth of God: “For behold, I sow my Law in you, and it shall bring forth fruit in you, and ye shall be glorified in it for ever”; then the writer continues: “But our fathers who received the Law observed it not, and the statutes they did not keep, and yet the fruit of the Law did not perish, nor could it, because it was Thine; but they who received it perished, because they kept not that which had been sown in them.... We who have received the Law, and sinned, must perish, together with our heart, which hath taken it in; the Law, however, perisheth not, but abideth in its glory.” In accordance with later Rabbinical teaching it is said in this book that the Law had originally been given to other nations, by whom it was rejected, while Israel alone accepted it: “And Thy glory went through the four gates of fire, earthquake, wind and cold, to give the Law to Jacob’s seed, and the commandment to the generation of Israel” (iii. 19); on the other hand, in vii. 72 it is said: “Therefore shall the sojourners in the earth suffer torture, because, having understanding, they yet wrought iniquity, and receiving precepts, they yet kept them not, and having obtained the Law they set at nought that which they received.” Both Israel and the Gentiles thus received, or had the chance of receiving, the Law, and both by sinning perished in spite of the Law; the inadequacy of the Law as a redemptive power here shown forth is very striking; the reason why the Law was ineffective was, according to iv. 30, because of “the grain of evil seed which was sown in the heart of Adam from the beginning.” We shall have to return to this when dealing with the doctrine of Sin (see next section). In the other portions of this book, so far as our present subject is concerned, the main stress is laid on veneration for the Law.

We turn now to the Book of Wisdom, representing the Judaism of the Dispersion, and here, as one would expect, there is very little on this subject to be noted. In ii. 12 words are put into the mouth of the ungodly which show that the writer, at any rate, recognizes the Law and its obligations:

But let us lie in wait for the righteous, for he is of disservice to us,

And is opposed to our doings,

And upbraideth us with sins against the Law,

And layeth to our charge sins against our discipline.

In vi. 4 rulers are denounced for not keeping the Law:

Because being officers of his kingdom ye did not judge aright,

Neither kept ye the Law, nor walked after the counsel of God.

As the reference here is to foreign rulers there is an advance in doctrine to be noted, for the Law is held to be obligatory on others as well as on the Jews, and Gentile rulers are regarded as having received their authority from God.

(c) The Doctrine of Sin.

The prevalence of Sin is often spoken of in Ecclesiasticus; Ben-Sira realizes its existence personally when he says in xxii. 27:

O that one would set a watch over my mouth,

And a seal of shrewdness over my lips....

And again in xxiii. 3 ff.:

That mine ignorances be not multiplied,

And that my sins abound not....

Its universal prevalence is witnessed to by the words in viii. 5:

Reproach not a man who repenteth,

Remember that we are all guilty.

Punishment for every sin, Ben-Sira says, will assuredly overtake sinners:

Do not wickedly continue in sin,

For in respect of one sin thou art not without guilt;

i.e. every single sin carries guilt with it, the implication being that it will therefore not go unpunished. Of great interest and importance is the teaching in this book on the origin of Sin; Ben-Sira mentions three theories; one of these he combats, namely that the existence of Sin is due to God; this is the belief, apparently, of certain freethinkers against whom the following words are spoken:

Say not, “From God is my transgression,”
For that which He hateth made He not.
Say not, “It is He that made me to stumble,”
For there is no need of evil men.
Evil and abomination doth the Lord hate,

And He doth not let it come nigh them that fear Him (xv. 11-13).

But since Ben-Sira believed that God was the Creator of everything that exists, he sometimes comes perilously near to uttering the very untruth which he here combats. He says, for example, in xxxvii. 3:

O base nature! Why then wast thou created

To fill the world’s face with deceit?

The words “base nature” are the rendering of the Hebrew which is literally, “evil Yetzer”; the “Yetzer” is the bias or natural inclination which is implanted in every man; there is, therefore, in the words quoted, an implication that this “evil Yetzer” was created by God. The same must be said of another passage, xxxiii. (xxxvi. in the Greek) 13-15:

As the clay is in the power of the potter,
To fashion it according to his good pleasure;
So is man in the power of his Creator,
To make him according to His ordinance.

Over against evil stands good, and against death life;

Likewise over against the godly stands the sinner.

Even thus look upon all the works of God,

Each different, one the opposite of the other.

In this case, indeed, there is something more than an implication, for the words seem to impute the origin of evil directly to God. Yet it can hardly be that Ben-Sira believed this; for in view of what he says in the first passage quoted he regarded this as altogether wrong. The fact is that as soon as he begins to grapple with this subject he involves himself in difficulties; he tries another solution of the problem, but as will be seen, this is no real solution; in XXV. 24 he says:

From a woman did sin originate [lit. “is the beginning of sin”],

And because of her we all must die.

But this only traces the history of Sin in the human race, and does not touch upon its creation; moreover, it has to be remembered that Ben-Sira usually regards Sin as something external to man, something which comes to him from outside (though exceptions to this will be referred to presently); thus in xxi. 2, 3, for example, it is said:

Flee from sin as from the face of a serpent;

For if thou come nigh it, it will bite thee.

Like the teeth of a lion are the teeth thereof,

It slayeth the souls of men.

Like a two-edged sword is all iniquity,

From the stroke thereof is no healing.

If Sin is external to man, as is so often said and implied in this book, it must have existed somewhere before it was appropriated by Eve, and thus originated in the human race.[329] Nevertheless, in connection with what appears to be a third theory, it is possible that Ben-Sira believed Sin to be not external to man. For this third theory we must consider first xxi. 27, 28:

When the fool curseth his adversary [lit. “Satan”],

He curseth his own soul;
The whisperer defileth his own soul,
And is hated whithersoever he sojourneth.

The meaning of this passage is no doubt difficult to determine; but, to begin with, it seems clear that by the words, “The whisperer defileth his own soul,” Ben-Sira meant to express the truth that the evil in man is of his own making; it is also evident that the words are intended to be an illustration of the truth enunciated in the preceding couplet. Whatever is meant by “adversary”—whether “Satan” in the sense of the Devil, or an adversary in a more general signification—the words which follow (“He curseth his own soul”) show that what Ben-Sira intends to teach is that the “adversary” is synonymous with the ungodly man’s own self; i.e. he, and he alone, is responsible for his sins. So that the gist of the passage would seem to be that man is his own “Satan”; in other words, that the origin of Sin is to be sought in man since the initiative lies with him. Another passage which may be quoted in this connection is xvii. 31:

What is brighter than the sun? Yet this faileth;

And how much more man who hath the inclination of flesh and blood!

The text here is uncertain; the Hebrew is not extant and the Versions differ, so that one cannot be sure about its meaning. Dr. Tennant paraphrases the Greek thus: “Even the sun darkens itself—the brightest thing in the world; how much more, then, frail man!” And, in commenting on the words, he says that if Ben-Sira offers any excuse for man’s depravity “it is that of his natural and essential frailty ... but [that he] never [attributes it] to an external cause.” Difficult as the verse is, it is quite possible that what was in Ben-Sira’s mind was that the origin of Sin was to be found in man, for it is extremely doubtful whether he differentiated between Sin as an abstract conception and actual deeds of Sin committed by individuals. The idea that seems to be adumbrated here as to the origin of Sin is, in any case, true from one point of view, for it accords with the facts of experience if human free-will is believed in, and Ben-Sira does believe in this (see next section); for every sin committed originates, so far as any particular sin is concerned, in man, whatever be the origin of the sinful tendency. This can be illustrated by one other quotation:

But the sinner is ensnared through his lips,

And the fool stumbleth through his mouth (xxiii. 8).

Ben-Sira’s teaching concerning the origin of Sin may, then, be summed up thus: He implies, though he hardly goes so far as to make the definite assertion, that the origin of Sin is due to God; yet in one important passage he strongly combats this. He teaches, further, that so far as the human race is concerned the origin of Sin is to be sought in the fall of Eve, but he does not attempt to trace its history further back; this was, however, from his point of view unnecessary if, in accordance with his third theory, sin originates in the individual; nevertheless, he involves himself in a contradiction here in saying that because of Eve’s sin all men must die. In addition to this, however, there is a further inconsistency regarding this third theory, for while teaching that Sin originates in man, he sometimes speaks of it as something external to him. These contradictory thoughts bring into clear relief Ben-Sira’s inability to formulate a consistent and logical doctrine as to the origin of Sin; and in this he but shows himself the forerunner of the Rabbis, from whose writings it can be seen that these later thinkers were involved in precisely the same inconsistencies as soon as they attempted to construct a working theory on the subject.

There is one other point connected with this subject to which brief reference must be made, namely, the means whereby sins are atoned for; the importance here lies in the fact that the teaching of this book concerning atonement for sins is the same as that of the later Rabbinical literature; it is, therefore, a great development upon Old Testament teaching. Ben-Sira follows the teaching of the Old Testament in so far that he believes in the need of the sacrificial system provided that sacrifices are offered in the right spirit; he says, for example, in one place:

Give a meal-offering with a memorial,

And offer a fat sacrifice to the utmost of thy means (xxxviii. 11);

but it depends upon the spirit of him who offers as to whether the sacrifice is acceptable or not:

The sacrifice of the unrighteous man is a mocking offering,

And unacceptable are the oblations of the godless.

The Most High hath no pleasure in the offerings of the ungodly,

Neither doth He forgive sins for a multitude of sacrifices

(xxxiv. 18, 19, in the Greek xxxi. 21-23).

That sacrifices atoned for sins is a fundamental Old Testament doctrine, but the other means of atonement which Ben-Sira mentions show a development; these are as follows; (one quotation in support of each must suffice for illustration). Concerning Almsgiving it is said in iii. 30:

A flaming fire doth water quench,

So doth almsgiving atone for sin.

That Fasting is an atonement is implied in the following:

... So a man fasting for his sins
And doing the same again,—
Who will listen to his prayer,
And what hath he gained by his humiliation?
(xxxiv. 26; in the Greek xxxi. 31).

Another means of atonement is Death; this is seen, or at any rate adumbrated, in the words in xviii. 22:

Delay not to pay thy vow in due time,

And wait not till death to be justified.

This last assumed ever-increasing importance with the growth of the belief in the resurrection; in Ecclesiasticus it is perhaps no more than adumbrated, for where there was as yet no belief in the resurrection nor in punishment for unatoned sins hereafter there was no inducement to formulate a doctrine as to the atoning efficacy of death; the above-quoted passage is, however, worth giving as illustrating a tendency. One other means of atonement must be mentioned because it teaches the truth of mediatorship; this is in xlv. 23:

Moreover Phinehas, the son of Eleazar,

Was glorious in might as a third [i.e. after Moses and Aaron],

In that he was jealous for the God of all,
And stood in the breach for his people,
While his heart prompted him,

And he made atonement for the children of Israel.

What little is found in the Book of Tobit concerning the doctrine of Sin is connected with Demonology, which will be considered in § (h). There is a reference to the atoning efficacy of almsgiving in iv. 10, 11: “... Because alms delivereth from death, and suffereth not to come into darkness. Alms is a good offering in the sight of the Most High for all that give it”; and especially xii. 9, “Almsgiving doth deliver from death, and purgeth away all sin.” There is nothing that calls for particular mention in the Book of Judith; or in the Additions to Daniel, with the exception of one interesting passage in the Prayer of Azariah, verse 12, where it is said: “Cause not thy mercy to depart from us, for the sake of Abraham that is beloved of Thee, and for the sake of Isaac Thy servant, and Israel Thy holy one”; so, too, in the Prayer of Manasses, verse 8, where it is implied that the patriarchs are sinless: “Thou, therefore, O Lord, that art the God of the righteous, hast not appointed repentance unto the righteous, unto Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, which have not sinned against Thee; but thou hast appointed repentance unto me that am a sinner.” This is important, for the same idea finds expression in the later Rabbinical literature, and closely connected with it is the doctrine of the merits of the fathers, i.e. that the good deeds of the patriarchs and other great personalities in the history of Israel serve as an atonement for their descendants. There is probably no book in the Apocrypha in which such deep realization of sin is expressed as in this short one; this is shown in verses 8-13:

For the sins I have sinned are more in number than the sands of the sea,

For my transgressions were multiplied, O Lord;

My transgressions were multiplied,

And I am not worthy to behold and see the height of heaven by reason of the multitude of mine iniquities....

The next book that calls for notice is 2 Maccabees, on account of its strangely particularistic doctrine of retribution for sin; in vi. 12-16 it is said: “Now I beseech the readers of this book not to be discouraged by such calamities,[330] but to reflect that our people were being punished by way of chastening, and not for their destruction. For indeed it is a mark of great kindness when the impious are not let alone for a long time, but punished at once. In the case of other nations, the Sovereign Lord in His forbearance refrains from punishing them till they have filled up their sins to the full, but in our case He has determined otherwise, that His vengeance may not fall on us in after-days when our sins have reached their height....” The teaching of this subject in 1 (3) Esdras and Baruch is that of the Old Testament; but it is worth mentioning that the doctrine of the merits of the fathers referred to above is expressly repudiated in Baruch ii. 19: “For we do not present our supplication before Thee, O Lord our God, for the righteousness of our fathers, and of our kings”; evidently this doctrine must have been held by some, since it receives such a pointed repudiation.

The doctrine of Sin in 2 (4) Esdras is important as it is very fully dealt with; this will require a little more detailed notice, but we can restrict ourselves to the “Salathiel Apocalypse” portion of the book (iii.-x.), as the other parts do not offer anything of importance so far as this subject is concerned. The origin of Sin is traced to Adam, as the following passage (iii. 20-22, 25, 26) will show: “And yet Thou didst not take away from them the evil heart, that Thy Law might bring forth fruit in them. For the first Adam, clothing himself with the evil heart, transgressed, and was overcome; and likewise also all who were born of him. Thus the infirmity became inveterate; the Law indeed was in the heart of the people, but together with the evil germ; so what was good departed, and the evil remained.... And, after this had been done many years, the inhabitants of the city committed sin, in all things doing as Adam and all his generations had done; for they also had clothed themselves with the evil heart.” This teaching occurs more than once; in iv. 30 it is said: “For a grain of evil seed was sown in the heart of Adam from the beginning, and how much fruit of ungodliness hath it produced unto this time, and will yet produce until the threshing-floor come!” And, once more, in vii. 118: “O thou Adam, what hast thou done! For though it was thou who sinned, the fall was not thine alone, but ours also who are thy descendants!” Adam’s fall and sin in man are thus directly connected, but how this connection came about the writer nowhere says. From the passage quoted above, however, it will be seen that the writer of this book recognizes each man’s individual responsibility for his own sins (“they also had clothed themselves with the evil heart”). “It is noteworthy,” says Box,[331] “that the form of the apocalyptist’s conception is specifically Rabbinic. He bases his conclusions on the Yetzer ha-ra‘ [i.e. the “evil tendency”]; there is no suggestion that the introduction of evil into the world was due to external agents or forces. The older mythological view (found in Genesis and in the older apocalyptic literature) that the fall of man was brought about by demonic incitement is tacitly discarded. The corruption of the human race is regarded as due to a development of something inherent in man’s nature (the Yetzer ha-ra‘). Though this doctrine is sometimes combined, in the Rabbinical literature, with the popular view of Satan (Satan works his evil purpose by the instrumentality of the Yetzer ha-ra‘), it probably really represents a theological refinement which was intended to supersede the older crude popular ideas about demonic agency.... Where our apocalyptist differs, and differs fundamentally, from the orthodox doctrine of Judaism, expressed in the Rabbinical literature, is in the emphasis he lays on the ravages of the evil Yetzer upon human nature generally. The enfeeblement of man’s nature is such that practically no one has been able successfully to withstand the Yetzer; the whole race has fallen into corruption. The Rabbis insisted, on the other hand, that human nature is not, by any means, in such a hopeless condition. Man can, by moral effort and assisted by the grace of God, successfully resist the suggestions of the evil impulse.” In this book, therefore, it is taught that Sin is universal among men: “For in truth there is none of the earth-born that has not dealt wickedly, and among those that exist that has not sinned” (viii. 35); and therefore the writer’s sense of sin is very pronounced: “For the evil heart has grown up in us, which has estranged us from God, and brought us into destruction; and has made known unto us the ways of death, and showed us the paths of perdition, and removed us far from life; and that not a few only, but well-nigh all that have been created!” Turning now to the Book of Wisdom, we may note first that the writer believed in an original state of good:

Court not death in the error of your life;

Neither draw upon yourselves destruction by the works of your hands;

Because God made not death,

Neither delighteth He when the living perish.

For He created all things that they might have being,

And the products of the world are healthsome,

And there is no poison of destruction in them ... (i. 12 ff.).

Still more explicit are the words in viii. 19, 20:

Now I was a child good by nature, and a good soul fell to my lot;

Nay rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled.

Without going into the question here of the writer’s belief whether, and in what manner, the soul pre-existed, it is clear enough that he did not believe in the innate sinfulness of human nature. In the second part of the book, however, a somewhat different attitude is taken, for in xii. 10, 11, when speaking about the Canaanites, he says:

But judging them by little and little Thou gavest them a place of repentance,

Though Thou knewest their nature was evil, and their wickedness inborn,

And that their manner of thought would in no wise ever be changed;

For they were a seed accursed from the beginning;

Neither was it through fear of any that Thou didst pass over their sins.

The view here held is quite contrary to that found in the two former quotations which suggest a different authorship for the two parts of the book. This is also borne out by what is said regarding death, as the result of Adam’s sin presumably; for in ii. 23, 24 it is said:

Because God created man for incorruption,

And made him an image of His own proper being.

But by the envy of the devil death entered into the world,

And they that belong to his realm experience it.

Death, which is the result of Sin, was thus not originally intended to come upon the human race. But in the second part of the book there is no hint of this. The first part of the Book of Wisdom is, therefore, quite unique among the books of the Apocrypha on this subject; the second part offers nothing that is new.

(d) The Doctrine of Grace and Free-will.

A true balance is kept in Ecclesiasticus between Grace and Free-will; many passages could be cited to show this, but the few following will suffice. In speaking of the ideal scribe, Ben-Sira says (xxxix. 6):

If it seem good to God Most High,

He [i.e. the scribe] shall be filled with the spirit of understanding;

He himself poureth forth wise sayings in double measure,

And giveth thanks unto the Lord in prayer.

Again, in i. 14 it is said:

To fear the Lord is the beginning [i.e. the essence] of Wisdom,

And with the faithful she was created in the womb.

Equally definite is Ben-Sira’s teaching on Free-will; he says, e.g. in xv. 15-17:

If thou so desirest thou canst keep the commandment,

And it is wisdom to do His good pleasure.

Poured out before thee are fire and water,

Stretch forth thine hand unto that which thou desirest.

Life and death are before man,

That which he desireth shall be given to him.

Both truths are combined in the words:

If thou desire Wisdom keep the commandments,

And the Lord will give her freely unto thee.

The important point about Ben-Sira’s teaching here is the way in which he combines the two apparently opposing truths; he shows that they are not mutually contradictory, but complementary. He thus continues the teaching of the Old Testament concerning the omnipotence of God and the responsibility of man.

In the Book of Tobit similar teaching is found; for example in iv. 5 Tobit says to his son Tobias: “My child, be mindful of the Lord all thy days, and let not thy will be set to transgress His commandments; do acts of righteousness all the days of thy life, and walk not in the ways of unrighteousness.” But that divine grace is needed for this is taught in iv. 19: “Bless the Lord thy God at all times, and ask of Him that thy ways may be made straight, and that all thy paths and counsels may prosper.” In the rest of the books belonging to this century nothing calls for particular note under this heading; but in the secondary text of Ecclesiasticus the same balance of doctrine is found as in the original book; thus, dependence on God and the reception of the gift of love from Him are expressed in the addition to xvii. 17:

Whom [i.e. Israel] He brought up as His first-born

With severity, yet loving them,
Imparting to them the light of love;
And He forsook them not.

Man has, however, his part to play, for in the addition to xx. 31 it is said:

Better is persistent endurance in seeking the Lord,

Than a driver of his own life without a master.

In 1 Maccabees the doctrinal subject under consideration is closely connected with the doctrine of God as presented in this book. We have seen above that direct divine intervention in the nation’s affairs is not nearly as prominently expressed here as in the books of the Old Testament; and it has also been already remarked that God is never mentioned by name in the whole book. The writer is certainly not wanting in earnest belief and faith in God; his conviction of the existence of an all-seeing Providence is clear from many passages; but he also has a strong belief in the truth expressed by the modern proverb that “God helps those who help themselves.” This attitude was largely due to the influence of certain tendencies which were beginning to assert themselves. These centred round the doctrine of God. Just as there was a disinclination, on account of its transcendent holiness, to utter the name of God, and instead to substitute paraphrases for it, so there arose also a disinclination to ascribe action among men directly to God on account of His inexpressible majesty. One result of this was the further tendency to emphasize and extend the scope of human free-will. We find, therefore, in this book that much more emphasis is laid on free-will than on divine grace. In the Additions to Esther it is just the other way about; for here human free-will is scarcely taken into account, while the divine activity among men is throughout insisted upon. But in both this book and 1 Maccabees there can be no doubt that the one-sided emphasis on divine grace and human free-will respectively was prompted by the particular subject-matter of either book.

In the case of 2 Maccabees, though written with a definitely religious object, there is very little to note under the present heading; the frequent stress laid, however, on the fact that the Jews are God’s chosen people, and therefore under His special protection and guidance, is a point to be borne in mind. The next book to be considered is 2 (4) Esdras, and here again it is only the “Salathiel Apocalypse” that claims attention. “The writer’s intense sense of sinfulness, and his conviction of man’s inability to acquire justification by the works of the Law, impel him to throw himself wholly upon the divine compassion; he despairs of a life of absolute obedience to the Law, even by Israel, not to speak of the world. The unconscious and unexpressed cry of the book is for a moral dynamic, which legalism could not supply.”[332] This deeply religious writer must, therefore, perforce have looked to divine grace where human will-power was helpless. As we should expect, in the Book of Wisdom the main stress is laid on free-will, though the other side of the truth is not lost sight of. The former is plainly taught in i. 12-16:

Court not death in the error of your life,

Neither draw upon yourselves destruction by the works of your hands.

But the ungodly by their hands and words called him [i.e. Hades] unto them;

Deeming him a friend they were consumed with love of him,

And they made a covenant with him,

Because they are worthy to be of his portion.

But, on the other hand, the opening words of the book bring out in a very clear manner the indispensable need of divine grace for the right exercise of the will:

Love righteousness, ye that be judges of the earth,

Think ye of the Lord with a good mind,
And in singleness of heart seek ye Him;
For He is found of them that tempt Him not,

And is manifested unto them that do not mistrust Him....

For the holy spirit of discipline will flee deceit,

And will start away from thoughts that are without understanding,

And will be scared away when the unrighteous approacheth (i. 1-5).

(e) The Doctrine of the Messiah.

The didactic character of Ecclesiasticus is sufficient to account for the extreme meagreness of references to the Messiah. In the few cases in which the subject is referred to it is the seed of David to which the Messiah belongs, viz.:

He will not cut off the posterity of His chosen ones,

Nor will He destroy the offspring of them that love Him;

And He will give to Jacob a remnant,

And to the house of David a root from him (xlvii. 22).

And in the eighth verse of the Hymn of Praise which (in the Hebrew only) is inserted after li. 12, occur these words:

Give thanks unto Him that maketh a horn to sprout for the house of David,

For His mercy endureth for ever.

Ben-Sira, therefore, believes in a Messiah who is purely human, according to the usual Jewish doctrine, and who belongs to the house of David; but his belief is otherwise vague. Apart from the nature of the book itself, it must be remembered that the conceptions of a Messiah were largely conditioned by the historical circumstances of any given period; during the time of Ben-Sira these were not of a nature to call forth Messianic hopes, and therefore the teaching regarding the Messiah was indefinite, and receded into the background. In the Book of Tobit the Messiah is never mentioned, but the renovated Jerusalem which the writer speaks of, and the gathering in of the dispersed Israelites as well as of the Gentiles, gives a picture of what corresponds to the Messianic Kingdom:

O Jerusalem, thou holy city! He will chastise thee for the works of thy hands,

And will again have mercy on the sons of the righteous.

Give thanks to the Lord with goodness, and bless the everlasting King,

That thy tabernacle may be builded in thee again with joy,

And that He may make glad in thee all that are captives,

And love in thee all that are miserable and all the generations of eternity.

A bright light shall shine unto all the ends of the earth;

Many nations shall come from afar,

And the inhabitants of the utmost ends of the earth unto Thy holy name ...

(xiii. 7-18; see also xiv. 4-6).

No other books of the Apocrypha offer any teaching on this subject until we come to 1 Maccabees, where there is conceivably in the mind of the writer the thought of the Messiah in iv. 46, “... so they pulled down the altar, and laid down the stones in the mountain of the House, in a convenient place, until a prophet should come and decide as to what should be done concerning them.” The reference here is probably to Deuteronomy xviii. 18, which is not a Messianic passage, though it may have been so interpreted in later times. A somewhat more definite reference to the Messiah is perhaps to be seen in xiv. 41: “And the Jews and the priests were well pleased that Simon should be their leader and high-priest for ever, until a faithful prophet should arise.” The words “for ever” mean that the high-priesthood should continue hereditary in the house of the Hasmonæans, so that if by “a faithful prophet” the Messiah is meant, the writer would imply that the Messiah would be of Hasmonæan lineage. In 2 Maccabees there is no reference to the Messiah, though there is to the Messianic Kingdom, for the gathering together of the scattered Israelites in Jerusalem is an undoubted Messianic trait: “Gather together our dispersion, set at liberty them that are in bondage among the heathen.... Plant Thy people in Thy holy place” (i. 27); and again in ii. 18: “In God have we hope, that He will speedily have mercy upon us, and gather us together from under the wide heaven to the holy place.”[333] In Baruch the Messianic Kingdom, though not the Messiah, is spoken of in iv. and v., where the destruction of Israel’s enemies is referred to:

... But shortly thou shalt see his [i.e. the enemy’s] destruction,

And shalt tread upon their necks (iv. 25, cf. verses 31 ff.).

The ingathering of Israel is also described:

... O Jerusalem, look about thee toward the east,

And behold the joy that cometh unto thee from God,

Lo, thy sons come, whom thou sentest away,

They come gathered together from the east to the west,

Rejoicing in the glory of God ... (iv. 36-v. 9).

The only other book which has teaching on this subject is the important apocalypse 2 (4) Esdras, and here, as one would expect, the teaching is full. The first point to notice is that as this book is of composite authorship the conceptions of the Messiah differ; thus, in the “Salathiel Apocalypse” (iii.-x.) the Messiah is regarded as purely human: “For my son the Messiah shall be revealed, together with those who are with him, and shall rejoice the survivors four hundred years. And it shall be, after these years, that my son the Messiah shall die, and all in whom there is human breath” (vii. 28, 29). On the other hand, in the “Eagle Vision” (xi.-xii. 39) the pre-existence of the Messiah is taught, though he is to spring from the seed of David: “This is the Messiah, whom the Most High hath kept unto the end of the days, who shall spring from the seed of David ...” (xii. 32). The same is taught in the “Vision of the Man from the Sea” (xiii.): “Whereas thou didst see a Man coming up from the heart of the sea—this is he whom the Most High is keeping many ages ...” (xiii. 25, 26). In this vision the Messiah is of a supernatural character. This truth of the Messiah’s pre-existence is likewise implied in the “Ezra Legend” (xiv.): “For thou shalt be taken up from among men, and henceforth thou shalt remain with my son, and with such as are like thee, till the times be ended” (xiv. 9). Only in the “Salathiel Apocalypse” are the signs which are to precede the Messianic Kingdom (i.e. the “Messianic Woes”) mentioned, but they are given in considerable detail: “Concerning the signs, however—Behold the days come when the inhabitants of the earth shall be seized with great panic, and the way of truth shall be hidden, and the land of faith be barren. And iniquity shall be increased above that which thou thyself now seest or that thou hast heard of long ago. And the land that thou seest now to bear rule shall be a pathless waste; and men shall see it forsaken; if the Most High grant thee to live, thou shalt see it after the third period in confusion. Then shall the sun suddenly shine forth by night, and the moon by day; and blood shall trickle from the wood, and the stone utter its voice. The peoples shall be in commotion, the outgoings of the stars shall change. And one whom the dwellers upon earth do not look for shall wield sovereignty, and the birds shall take to general flight, and the sea shall cast forth its fish. And one whom the many do not know shall make his voice heard by night; and all shall hear his voice. And the earth o’er wide regions shall open, and the fire burst forth for a long period. The wild beasts shall desert their haunts, and women bear monsters. Salt waters shall be found in the sweet. Friends shall attack one another suddenly. Then shall intelligence hide itself, and Wisdom withdraw to its chamber—by many shall be sought and not found. And unrighteousness and incontinency shall be multiplied upon the earth. One land shall also ask another and say: Is righteousness—that doeth the right—passed through thee? And it shall answer: No. And it shall be that in that time men shall hope and not obtain, shall labour and not prosper” (v. 1-12).

Regarding the Messianic Kingdom itself it is to be of limited duration, and, according to the “Eagle Vision” Gentiles as well as Jews are to enjoy it: “And so the whole earth, freed from thy violence, shall be refreshed again, and hope for the judgement and mercy of Him that made her” (xi. 46).[334] In the “Vision of the Man from the Sea” the Gentiles are wholly destroyed by the Messiah, and his kingdom is only for his own people (xiii. 8-13).

In the Book of Wisdom there is no doctrine of the Messiah, nor is there, in the Jewish Palestinian sense, a belief in a Messianic Kingdom; what we do find, however, is that Jewish traditional eschatological conceptions are utilized by the author, and that a glorious future is believed to be reserved for the Jews; there are two passages in which this future is portrayed, viz. iii. 8:[335]

They [i.e. the righteous] shall judge nations, and have dominion over peoples;

And the Lord shall reign over them for evermore.

The thought that is apparently in the writer’s mind here is that of such passages as Isaiah ii. 4a: “And He shall judge among the nations, and shall decide concerning many peoples,” and Isaiah xlix. 23: “And kings shall be thy nursing-fathers and queens thy nursing-mothers; they shall bow down to thee with their faces to the earth ...”; these, it is true, refer to an earthly theocracy, whereas the author of Wisdom is speaking of the hereafter, but the adaptation of Scriptural passages is a very natural procedure; he does not define closely the nature of the eternal kingdom which will be set up hereafter, any more than the prophet does in regard to his ideal earthly kingdom. The other passage is v. 15-23:

But the righteous live for ever,
And the Lord is their reward,
And the care for them with the Most High.

Therefore shall they receive a glorious kingdom,

And a diadem of beauty from the Lord’s hand;

Because with His right hand will He cover them,

And with His arm will He shield them.

So far this passage, like the other one, is based upon Old Testament Messianic passages such as Isaiah xl. 10, iv. 5, 6, xxviii. 5, 6, lix. 16, 17, and others[336]; but in verses 17-23ab, where the Most High goes out Himself as a warrior, a different element enters in. It is true, that here, too, the Old Testament conception of Jehovah as a mighty man of war lies at the back of the passage, but there are also other eschatological, or rather apocalyptic, traits which appear. These elements have been utilized by the author of Wisdom, who has sought to spiritualize them:

He shall take His jealousy as complete armour,

And shall make the whole creation His weapons for vengeance on His enemies;

He shall put on righteousness as a breastplate,

And shall take judgement unfeigned as a helmet;

He shall take holiness as an invincible shield,

And shall sharpen stern wrath for a sword;

And the world shall go forth with Him to fight against His insensate foes.

Shafts of lightning shall fly with true aim,

And from the clouds, as from a well-drawn bow, shall they leap to the mark.

And as from an engine of war shall be hurled hailstones full of wrath;

The water of the sea shall rage against them,
And rivers shall sternly overwhelm them;
A mighty blast shall encounter them,
And as a tempest shall it winnow them away.

So shall lawlessness make all the land desolate,

And their evil-doing shall overturn the thrones of princes.

These two last lines are strikingly out of harmony with what has preceded, since they deal with this world; such a sudden change of subject is unnatural, the lines cannot originally have stood here.

There is, thus, no doctrine of a Messiah or a Messianic Kingdom in the ordinary Jewish sense; the kingdom which is described has God as its ruler, it is an eternal kingdom which only the righteous shall possess; the writer does not make clear whether it is to be set up on this earth, or whether it is to be a spiritual kingdom hereafter. From the way in which he spiritualizes it is presumably to be a kingdom in the world to come; against this it cannot be urged that there are materialistic traits which point to a kingdom to be set up on this earth, for the writer has clearly borrowed and incorporated traditional eschatological material without intending to utilize more than its outward form. To interpret otherwise would, in view of the spirit of the rest of this portion of the book, be to misunderstand the author.

(f) The Doctrine of the Future Life.

In Ecclesiasticus the teaching on this subject is substantially that of the normal Old Testament type; one or two quotations will suffice to illustrate this:

For what pleasure hath God in all that perish in Hades,

In place of those who live and give Him praise?

Thanksgiving perisheth from the dead as from one that is not,

But he that liveth and is in health praiseth the Lord (xvii. 27, 28).

The corruption of the body is looked upon as the end of man:

When a man dieth he inheriteth

Worm and maggot, lice and creeping things (x. 11);

though the annihilation of the spirit as well as the body is evidently not contemplated in view of such words as these:

Weep gently for the dead, for he hath found rest (xxii. 11);

and in xxx. 17 death is spoken of as an “eternal rest” (cp. xxxviii. 23, xlvi. 19). This idea of rest for the soul hereafter is “very different from that of death being corruption and the end of all things, which is the more usual one in Ecclesiasticus, and one is perhaps justified in seeing the beginnings of development here, based, it is true, on some Old Testament passages; the conception of the dead resting must involve some sort of a belief beyond the bare existence of the shade hereafter.”[337] It is of particular interest to note that in one or two cases the Greek shows signs of some development of conception regarding the future life where in the Hebrew the normal Old Testament position is maintained; thus in vii. 17 the Hebrew has:

Humble thy pride greatly,

For the expectation of man is worms.

This is rendered in the Greek:

Humble thy soul greatly,

For the punishment of the ungodly man is fire and the worm.

It is clear that the development which is known to have taken place in the doctrine of the future life during the second century B.C. is reflected here. Very noticeable is the fact that a kind of technical sense has become attached to the word “worm,” such as we find in Mark ix. 48 (“... where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched”). In xxi. 9, 10 it is probable that a similar development exists, though in this case it cannot be proved as the Hebrew is unfortunately not extant; but in view of the example just given it is highly probable that the following reading of the Greek likewise represents a developed idea:

Like tow wrapped together is the assembly of the ungodly,

And their end is the flame of fire.

The way of sinners is made smooth without stones,

And at the end thereof is the pit of Hades.

It will be noticed that the parallelism between “the flame of fire,” and “the pit of Hades,” suggests that the latter has developed into Gehenna. Another example is to be found in xlviii. 11, where the reference is to Elijah; only one line of the original couplet is decipherable in the Hebrew, viz.:

Blessed is he that seeth thee and dieth;

i.e. the man who before he died saw Elijah is blessed; the next line is illegible in the Hebrew and corrupt in the Greek; but the point of importance is that the Greek adds this further line:

And we also shall surely live,

the reference being evidently to the life hereafter, since Elijah is the subject of the preceding couplet.

One other passage must be mentioned, not because in itself it points to any development of thought, but because the Old Testament episode (1 Kings xvii. 17-24) to which it refers must sooner or later have suggested the thought of the dead rising; it is also in reference to Elijah (xlviii. 5):

Who didst raise up a dead man from death,

And from Sheol, according to the good pleasure of Jehovah.

The Hebrew and the Greek do not differ materially.

In the Book of Tobit the normal Old Testament doctrine is taught; so, e.g., when Tobit prays: “Command my spirit to be taken from me, that I may be released from off the earth and become earth” (iii. 6); in the same verse Sheol is spoken of as “the everlasting place,” it is a place of “darkness” (iv. 10), and “below the earth” (xiii. 2). In the Book of Judith there is only one reference to the future life, but the passage is an important one as it witnesses to a development of thought similar to that found in the Greek text of Ecclesiasticus vii. 17, xxi. 9, 10, where Hades is a place of punishment; the passage is xvi. 17—Judith speaks as follows:

Woe to the nations that rise up against my race;

The Lord Almighty will take vengeance of them in the day of judgement,

To put fire and worms in their flesh;

And they shall weep and feel their pain for ever.

Here it is clear that the body is conceived of as suffering anguish hereafter. Something similar to this is adumbrated in the Prayer of Manasses, verse 12. It says here:

... Neither, in Thy continual anger against me,

Lay up evil in store for me;
Nor pass Thou sentence against me
When I am in the lowest parts of the earth.

In the Pharisaic recension of Ecclesiasticus we may also note one or two occurrences of development of doctrine; thus after xix. 17 the following words are added:

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of acceptance by Him,

And wisdom will gain love from Him.

The knowledge of the commandments of the Lord is life-giving instruction;

And they who do the things that are pleasing unto Him shall pluck the fruit of the tree of immortality.

Again, reward hereafter for right doing in this life is taught in the addition to xviii. 22:

For the reward of God abideth to eternity.

Two instances of merely verbal additions point in the same direction; in xxi. 10 the second addition in the ordinary Greek text runs:

And at the end thereof is the pit of Hades;

for “the pit of Hades” the Old Latin Version has: “the lowest depth and darkness and punishment.”[338] One other addition, this time of only a single word, witnesses to the belief of the soul, not merely the shade of the departed, existing in Sheol; this is in xlviii. 5, a passage already referred to, where it speaks of Elijah raising a man from death and from Sheol; the secondary Greek text adds “his soul” after “Sheol.” These are, it is true, but slight points, nevertheless they are worth mention as supplementing what has already been said. The next book which contains references to the doctrine of the future life is 2 Maccabees, and here an immense development will be seen to have taken place. We have to note first that Hades is a place of punishment for the wicked, for in vi. 26 Eleazar, in refusing to commit the crime of offering idolatrous sacrifice, says: “Even were I for the moment to evade the punishment of men, I should not escape the hands of the Almighty in life or in death.” For the righteous Hades is only a temporary abode since the resurrection is reserved for them; thus, the second son of the mother whose seven sons are being martyred for their faith before her face, when at the last gasp, says to the king: “Thou cursed miscreant! Thou dost dispatch us from this life, but the King of the world shall raise us up, who have died for His laws, and revive us to life everlasting” (vii. 9); the same truth is taught in verses 23, 29 of the same chapter; but the resurrection is not only that of the spirit, but of the body also; in the account of the martyrdom of the third son it says: “And when he was told to put out his tongue, he did so at once, stretching forth his hands courageously, with the noble words, These I had from heaven; for His name’s sake I count them nought; from Him I hope to get them back again” (vii. 10, 11; see also xiv. 46). It is taught, further, that for the wicked there is no resurrection, thus the fourth son speaks thus to the king: “’Tis meet for those who perish at men’s hands to cherish hope divine that they shall be raised up by God again; but thou—thou shalt have no resurrection to life” (vii. 14, so too in verse 36). The belief in the resurrection is further illustrated by the following passage: “... In this he acted quite rightly and properly, bearing in mind the resurrection—for if he had not expected the fallen to rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead—and having regard to the splendour of the gracious reward which is reserved for those who have fallen asleep in godliness; a holy and pious consideration” (xii. 43-45). It will thus be seen that we have in this book a very advanced doctrine of the future life. In the Book of Baruch two isolated references to the future life occur, and here the teaching is the same as ordinarily found in the Old Testament: “... the dead that are in the grave, whose breath is taken from their bodies, will give unto the Lord neither glory nor righteousness” (ii. 17, cp. iii. 19).

In 2 (4) Esdras there is an extraordinary wealth of material regarding the future life; this is mostly confined to the “Salathiel Apocalypse” portion and the Redactor’s additions—it is therefore to these that we restrict ourselves. For clearness’ sake it will be best to deal with the subject under the three heads: (1) The Resurrection, (2) The Intermediate state, (3) The Judgement; there are some subsidiary points which will be touched upon incidentally.

(1) The doctrine of the Resurrection as taught in the “Salathiel Apocalypse” is not altogether consistent; it is not quite easy to understand how the writer conceived of the resurrection, for it can scarcely have been the resurrection of the body which he thought of since this is regarded as altogether corruptible; thus, in speaking of the future life of those who have kept the ways of the Most High, he says that “they shall be separated from this corruptible vessel” (vii. 88), and in the world to come “they rejoice that they have now escaped what is corruptible, and that they shall inherit that which is to come” (vii. 96); that the body is meant by “what is corruptible” is clear from verse 100, where the seer asks: “Shall time, therefore, be given unto the souls after they are separated from the bodies...?” Later in the book (ix. 36) it is said again: “We who have received the Law and sinned must perish, together with our heart, which has taken it in.” Added to this is the fact that this writer, unlike the Redactor of the book (see below), never speaks of the resurrection of the body, which one would rightly look for had he believed in this; nor is there any mention of the soul being re-united to the body; but he looks upon the body as belonging wholly to this corruptible, material world; he definitely contrasts the spiritual with the material, the two are mutually antagonistic: “How should it be possible for a mortal in a corruptible world to understand the ways of the Incorruptible?” (iv. 11). Whereas in the world to come “corruption is forgotten” (viii. 53). Yet, in spite of what has been said, it would seem that the writer must have pictured to himself a body of some kind in the world to come, for in the Intermediate state (to which we shall refer presently) he must, apparently, have believed in the existence of bodies. The conclusion one is led to is this: the writer believed that the material body became wholly annihilated at death; but that the soul, when released from it, assumed a non-material body in the Intermediate state, and that this body did not undergo any further change at the Judgement; it was non-material (it is difficult to know how else to express it; “spiritual” does not seem the right word to use in view of what is said about the body in the Intermediate state)—it was non-material, and therefore incorruptible, immortal; and for this reason no further change could take place in it at the final Judgement, for it would then be fit for the new world to be created (cp. vii. 75). One is, therefore, led to assume that the resurrection takes place almost immediately after death, i.e. at the end of the seven days of “freedom,” or “rest,” which, according to vii. 101, intervene between the end of this life and the beginning of the Intermediate state, and therefore before the Judgement. As to whether the wicked, as well as the righteous, rise one cannot speak with certainty, the implication seems to be that this is not so, but no definite pronouncement is made on this point; cp. the following words which are put into the mouth of God: “For, indeed, I will not concern myself about the creation of those who have sinned, or their death, judgement, or perdition; but I will rejoice rather over the creation of the righteous, over their pilgrimage also, and their salvation, and their recompense” (viii. 38, 39).

(2) Regarding the Intermediate state, minute details are given, but the main points are these; in vii. 78-87 the lot of the wicked is thus described: “When the decisive decree has gone forth from the Most High that the man should die, as the soul from the body departs, that it may return to Him Who gave it, to adore the glory of the Most High first of all;—if it be one of those that have scorned, and have not kept, the ways of the Most High, and have despised His Law, and that hate those who fear God, such souls shall not enter into habitations, but shall wander about henceforth in torture, ever grieving and sad, in seven ways.” These ways are then described. On the other hand the lot of the righteous is as follows: “Of those, however, who have kept the ways of the Most High this is the order, when they shall be separated from this vessel of mortality.... First of all they shall see with great joy the glory of Him Who receives them; and they shall rest in seven orders ...”; these orders are then described; of the seventh it is said that it “exceeds all the aforesaid; they shall rejoice with boldness, be confident without confusion, be glad without fear; for they are hastening to behold the face of Him Whom in life they served, and from Whom they are destined to receive their reward in glory. This is the order of the souls of the righteous ...” (vii. 88-99). As to the duration of this Intermediate state we are given no details.

(3) At the close of the Intermediate state comes the Judgement; but here again there is some ambiguity, for from vii. 113, 114 we learn that “the Day of Judgement shall be the end of this age and the beginning of the eternal age that is to come, wherein corruption is passed away, weakness is abolished ...”; but this is inconsistent with the idea that corruption passes away with death (vii. 88), i.e. that the Intermediate state is the beginning of the age to come. Does the writer conceive of the new age, the age of incorruption and eternity, as beginning immediately after death, or at the Judgement? If the former, then it agrees with what he, presumably, believes regarding the resurrection which likewise takes place immediately after death; but if the latter, then the Intermediate state is left out of reckoning. In either case the teaching is inconsistent; evidently the writer’s own mind is not clear on the subject. Upon other points there is, however, no want of definiteness; thus, what the righteous and the wicked have respectively experienced in the Intermediate state is only a foretaste of what will be enormously increased at the Judgement, for the righteous their happiness, for the wicked their torment. The writer is very strong in insisting that on the Day of Judgement no intercession of the righteous will avail on behalf of the wicked. The seer asks “whether in the Day of Judgement the righteous shall be able to intercede for the ungodly, or to intreat the Most High in their behalf ...”; and the reply is: “... so shall none then pray for another on that Day, neither shall one lay a burden on another; for then every one shall bear his own righteousness or unrighteousness ...” (vii. 102-115).

In the other parts of this book these subjects are only slightly dealt with; but there is some important teaching in those portions which have probably been added by the Redactor.[339] He believes in a general resurrection (at any rate he makes no distinction between good and bad) of the body, and though he does not specifically mention the Intermediate state he evidently holds the same belief regarding this as the original writer: “The earth shall restore those that sleep in her, and the dust those that are at rest therein; and the chambers shall restore the souls that were committed unto them” (vii. 32). Here there is thus a clear reference to the re-union of soul and body, but the time at which this takes place is at the beginning of a new age which will begin seven days after the close of the Messianic Age. The Redactor, in seeking to combine the eschatology of the individual with that of the nation, presents the course of the final events in a different way, thus: “For, behold, days come—and it shall be when the signs which I have foretold unto thee [i.e. the Messianic Woes] shall come to pass—then shall the city that is now invisible [i.e. the heavenly Jerusalem] appear, and the land which is now concealed [i.e. the heavenly Paradise] be seen. And whosoever is delivered from the predicted evil, the same shall see My wonders. For My Son, the Messiah, shall be revealed, together with those who are with Him, and shall rejoice the survivors four hundred years. And it shall be, after these years, that My Son the Messiah shall die, and all in whom there is human breath. Then shall the world be turned into the primæval silence seven days, like as in the first beginnings, so that no man is left. And it shall be after seven days that the Age which is not yet awake, shall be roused, and that which is corruptible shall perish” (vii. 26-31); then follows the passage about the resurrection quoted above, and it continues (verses 33 ff.): “And the Most High shall be revealed upon the throne of judgement; and then cometh the end.... And recompense shall follow, and the reward be made manifest; deeds of righteousness shall awake, and deeds of iniquity shall not sleep. And then shall the pit of torment appear; and over against it the place of refreshment. The furnace of Gehenna shall be made manifest, and over against it the Paradise of delight. And then the Most High shall say to the nations that have been raised (from the dead): Look now, and consider Whom ye have denied, Whom ye have not served, Whose commandments ye have despised! Look, now, before you: here delight and refreshment, there fire and torments....” Here, then, we have an eschatological scheme quite different from that of the “Salathiel Apocalypse”; the Messianic Age is preceded by the signs, or woes; then the Messiah is revealed and His kingdom lasts four hundred years; at the end of this period all flesh, including the Messiah, dies, and the world is plunged in primæval silence for seven days; then comes the Resurrection, a bodily resurrection, in which all men, Gentile and Jew, ungodly and godly, partake; this is immediately followed by the Judgement which ushers in the New Age.

Turning now to the Book of Wisdom we note that there is no resurrection of body taught here; this follows naturally from the writer’s doctrine of the inherent evil of matter. The only immortality is that of the soul, and this is gained through “kinship unto wisdom”:

When I considered these things in myself,

And took thought in my heart how that in kinship unto wisdom is immortality,

And in her friendship is good delight....

I went about seeking how to take her unto myself (viii. 17, 18);

so that immortality begins on this earth. The Judgement takes place immediately after death; the writer describes fully the lot in the future life reserved respectively for the righteous and the ungodly; in the beautiful and well-known passage (iii. 1-9) the blessedness of the righteous is described in this way:

But the souls of the righteous are in the hands of God,

And no torment shall touch them ...

But they are in peace.

For though in the sight of men they be punished,

Their hope is full of immortality ... (iii. 1-9).

Of the ungodly it is said, on the other hand:

But the ungodly shall be requited even as they reasoned,

They which lightly regarded the righteous man, and revolted from the Lord ...

And void is their hope, and their toils unprofitable,

And useless are their works ... (iii. 10 ff.).

And again in chapter v. the contrast hereafter between the righteous and the unrighteous is told in the following way:

But the righteous shall live for ever,
And the Lord is their reward,
And the care for them with the Most High.

Therefore shall they receive a glorious kingdom,

And a diadem of beauty from the Lord’s hand ... (v. 15 ff.);

but the ungodly, on seeing the blessedness of the righteous, will be greatly troubled:

When they see it they shall be troubled with terrible fear,

And shall be amazed at the marvel of His salvation ...

Bitter remorse takes hold of them as they review their former godless life and see that they have now no further hope:

Because the hope of the ungodly is like chaff carried off by the wind

(see v. 1-14).

But in regard to the Judgement the writer of Wisdom is not consistent, for in iii. 8 it is said:

They [i.e. the righteous] shall judge nations, and have dominion over peoples;

And the Lord shall reign over them for evermore.

On the other hand, in v. 17-23, there is an entirely different eschatological conception:

He [i.e. Jehovah] shall take His jealousy as complete armour,

And shall make the whole creation His weapons of vengeance on His enemies ...;

this is all described with great vividness in the verses which follow. It seems as though the author were acquainted with more than one Jewish eschatological scheme, and utilized them, but without realizing that they were inconsistent with each other. See further above, section (e), on the doctrine of the Messiah. According to this book, then, there is no Intermediate state; if one can speak of a Resurrection at all it is only in reference to the soul; as the soul is immortal both the righteous and the ungodly live hereafter; the righteous in bliss the ungodly in torment of a purely spiritual kind (see iv. 19, v. 2, xvii. 21); it is not said where the scene of the Judgement is. The writer, it will thus be seen, departs widely from Palestinian Jewish belief on this subject, but he is not ignorant of it; though a Jew, his Hellenistic caste of mind makes it impossible for him to accept the Jewish position.

(g) The Doctrine of Angels.

The nature of the contents of Ecclesiasticus is such that one does not look for much reference to angels; nevertheless, in two passages there is a distinct mention of them, viz. xlii. 16 (17):

God’s holy ones have not the power
To recount His wondrous works of might;
Though God hath given strength to His hosts

To endure in the presence of His glory (so the Hebrew).

The meaning of the passage is that even the “holy ones” (i.e. angels, as in Deut. xxxiii. 1. [but see Driver’s Deuteronomy, p. 392], Job v. 1, Ps. lxxxix. 7, and often in the apocalyptic books) are unable to recount God’s marvellous works though, by means of special strength given to them, they stand in His very presence. The other passage is xliii. 26:

Through Him His angel prospereth,

And at His word what He wills is done.

The Hebrew text here is a little uncertain, but that a reference to angels is intended is probable because the whole passage of which this is the concluding verse is based upon Psalm civ. 1 ff., verse 4 of which runs: “Who maketh His angels of the winds, His ministers of the flaming fire.” In the Book of Tobit the angel Raphael[340] plays an important part; in xii. 15 he says of himself: “I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels, which present the prayers of the saints, and go in before the glory of the Holy One” (cp. also verse 12). This angel is sent from God, according to iii. 7, to heal Tobit’s blindness, and to bring about the marriage between Tobit’s son Tobias and Sarah, the daughter of Raguel, by binding Asmodeus the evil spirit (cp. vi. 10-17). He accompanies Tobias on his journey to Media, and thus appears as a guardian angel. The angelic host is referred to in viii. 15: “Blessed art Thou, O God, with all pure and holy blessing; and let Thy saints bless Thee, and all Thy creatures; and let all Thine angels and elect bless Thee for ever.” There is no mention of angels in the Book of Judith; but in the Additions to Daniel there are several references; thus in the “Prayer of Azariah,” verses 26, 27, it is said: “But the angel of the Lord came down into the furnace together with Azariah and his fellows, and he drove the flame of the fire out of the furnace, and made the midst of the furnace as it had been a moist whistling wind, so that the fire touched them not at all, neither hurt nor troubled them.” In “Susanna,” again, the activity of angels is referred to in verses 44, 45 (Septuagint Version), where the angel of the Lord is said to have bestowed “a spirit of discernment” upon Daniel; also in verse 55 (Septuagint Version), where the angel of the Lord is about to “cleave the soul” of one of the criminals brought before Daniel; and, once more, it is an angel who carries out the sentence against the two elders: “Then the angel of the Lord cast fire in the midst of them” (verse 62). In Theodotion’s Version the angel of the Lord is referred to in verses 55, 59, and is spoken of in each case as the avenging angel. Then, again, in “Bel and the Dragon,” verses 34-39, there is the curious story of how the angel of the Lord took up the prophet Habakkuk by the hair and transported him from Judah to Babylon in order that he might give food to Daniel in the lion’s den. In the Prayer of Manasses the angelic host is spoken of in verse 15: “For all the host of heaven doth sing Thy praise.” In the Epistle of Jeremy, verse 7, a guardian angel is spoken of as being with the captives in Babylon. The belief in angels is incidentally referred to in the Additions to Esther (Fourth Addition, xv. 13 in R.V.), where Esther compares the king to an angel of God. A somewhat fantastic representation of the activity of angels is given in three passages in 2 Maccabees; in iii. 24 ff. there is an account of how the attempt of Seleucus and Heliodorus to take the temple at Jerusalem was frustrated; on their reaching the treasury “the Sovereign of spirits and all authority prepared a great apparition, so that all who had presumed to enter were stricken with dismay at the power of God, and fainted with sheer terror. For there appeared to them a horse with a terrible rider, and it was decked in magnificent trappings, and rushing fiercely forward it struck at Heliodorus with its forefeet. And the rider seemed to be armed with a golden panoply. Two youths also appeared before Heliodorus, remarkable for their strength, gloriously handsome, and splendidly arrayed, who stood by him on either side, and scourged him unceasingly, inflicting on him many sore stripes....” Again, in xi. 6-10, God is besought “to send a good angel to save Israel”; the prayer is heard, and “a rider appeared at their head, in white apparel, brandishing weapons of gold”; owing to his help the Israelites win the battle. Lastly, in xv. 11-16 belief in angels seems to be connected with dreams; for Maccabæus recounts the following “reliable dream,” which has the effect of greatly encouraging the people: “Onias, the former high-priest, a good and great man, of stately bearing yet gracious in manner, well-spoken, and trained from childhood in all points of virtue—Onias, with out-stretched hands, invoking blessings on the whole body of the Jews; then another man in the same attitude, conspicuous by his grey hairs and splendour, and invested with marvellous, majestic dignity. This, Onias explained to him, is the lover of the brethren, for he prayeth fervently for the people and the holy city, Jeremiah the prophet of God. And Jeremiah held out his right hand to present Judas with a golden sword, and as he gave it he addressed him thus: Take this holy sword as a gift from God, and with it thou shalt crush the foe.” No other books refer to angels until we come to 2 (4) Esdras.

A greatly developed angelology appears in the “Salathiel Apocalypse”; we must content ourselves here with an outline of this only. At the head of the angelic host stand seven archangels; of these only two are mentioned in this book, viz. Jeremiel, who guards the souls of the righteous in the chambers where they are awaiting the final judgement and resurrection (iv. 33-37)[341]; and Uriel, who is sent to the seer in order to show him the inscrutability of God’s ways (iv. 1-11). Elsewhere angels are referred to as speaking in the name of God, e.g. vii. 130; they are instant in fulfilling God’s commands, whatsoever these may be:

Before Whom heaven’s hosts stand trembling.

And at Thy word change to wind and fire (viii. 21);

and their power is much restricted: “As for me, I am unwise and powerless; how then should I essay to speak of these things of which thou questionest me?” (v. 39). Throughout this apocalypse it is by angelic agency that God communicates with the seer.

In the Book of Wisdom the point of interest is that the place of angels is taken by Wisdom, or by the Word, the development of doctrine having eliminated angelology altogether; thus, in x. 17, 18 it is said of Wisdom that:

She rendered unto holy men a reward of their toils;

She guided them along a marvellous way,

And became unto them a covering in the daytime,

And a light of stars through the night....

Here Wisdom has taken the place of the “angel of God” in Exodus xiv. 19. Again, in xviii. 15, 16 it is said:

Thine all-powerful Word leaped from heaven down from the royal throne,

A stern warrior, into the midst of the doomed land,

Bearing as a sharp sword thine unfeigned commandment,

And standing, filled all things with death;

And while it touched the heaven it trode upon the earth.

Here the Logos has taken the place of the avenging angel, for it is evident that the writer had 1 Chronicles xxi. 15, 16 in his mind: “... And David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of the Lord stand between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand.” This allegorizing is what one would naturally look for in Wisdom.

(h) Demonology.

It is doubtful whether there is any reference to demons in Ecclesiasticus; possibly, however, xxxix. 28-31 contains such a reference.[342] In Tobit iii. 8 mention is made of Asmodeus, “the evil demon,” who slays men; the angel, however, has power to “unbind” him from people (iii. 17, viii. 3), though apparently the most efficacious way of getting rid of him is by burning the liver and heart of a fish on incense which drives the demon away (vi. 17, viii. 3). The only other reference to demons is in Baruch iv. 35, where it is said that they are to inhabit the desolate city “for a great time.” It is worth pointing out, finally, that in the Book of Wisdom, while there is no demonology in the ordinary sense, there is a belief in the devil:

But by the envy of the devil death entered into the world,

And they that belong to his realm experience it (ii. 24).

Regarding the importance for the study of the New Testament of the doctrines which have been considered see the respective sections of the different introductions to the books of the Apocrypha in Part II.

Summary

The books of the Apocrypha contain only part of the doctrinal teaching of the literature from which they have been, quite arbitrarily, distinguished. It is not possible here to consider all the works which must be consulted for a complete study of the period with which we are dealing, but in restricting ourselves to the Apocrypha there is this compensation, that the more important of its books were recognized by official Judaism as containing good orthodox teaching, so that they supply a useful foundation for further study of the development of doctrine. In some cases, however, recourse must be had to the Apocalyptic Literature, for though the books of the Apocrypha afford a general criterion as to orthodox Jewish teaching from 200 B.C. to A.D. 100, they are in some respects inadequate.

It must again be emphasized that the Old Testament is not the sole background of the Apocryphal books in the domain of doctrine: there have been marked Persian and Greek influences in certain directions. The main current of Palestinian Judaism was affected by these, while the Judaism of the Dispersion in its turn was influenced by both Persian and Greek thought, and the effect of all this is traceable in the Apocrypha. The teaching of the various books must also be followed in chronological order; there are differences of opinion as to actual dates, but there is approximate unanimity as to the centuries to which the books, in almost all cases, belong. In some instances different parts of a book belong to different times, as will be seen from the Chronological Table (p. 320). For discussions of the dates, see the Introductions in Part II.

The doctrine of Wisdom was considered in Chapter VIII; here we have to deal with the doctrines of God, of the Law, of Sin, of Grace and Free-will, of the Messiah, of the Future Life, of Angels, and with Demonology; these cannot always be kept separate, as one leads into another. Only cursory mention will be made of those points where the teaching is identical with that of the Old Testament, though even in these cases the characteristic form in which a doctrine is exhibited will be noted, the main object is to show in what respects the books of the Apocrypha show an advance, or it may be a retrogression, in doctrine as compared with the Old Testament.

(a) The Doctrine of God.

Ecclesiasticus treats of the Unity of God, the Creator of all; His eternity and omnipotence, His activity in nature, His wisdom, holiness, justice, loving-kindness, and mercy, His fatherhood of Israel and sometimes of all flesh (see xlii. 15-xliii. 33). Here the inspiration is drawn largely from the Psalms, but in xlii. 16, and xliii. 28-32, Ben-Sira seems to go beyond anything to be found in the Old Testament. No book of the Apocrypha has such a variety of names for God as Tobit, which is also distinguished by a doctrine of angelic mediation and a universalistic spirit which is in marked contrast to Judith. In the Prayer of Manasses great stress is laid on the Divine compassion. In the secondary text of Ecclesiasticus, which is a Pharisaic recension of the work, the great characteristic is that religious individualism which did so much to foster spiritual worship. The heightened expression of the close relationship between God and His pious ones which the more ardent religious temperament of the Pharisees demanded can be illustrated by a comparison of i. 12, and xvii. 20, with the lines which immediately follow in either instance. This spirit reappears in the Psalms of Solomon.

In the original text of 1 Maccabees all mention of the name of God is deliberately avoided; once or twice, as in iii. 18, a true faith in the omnipotence of God is expressed, and not infrequently there is trust in God as the God of Israel Who will help His people against their foes. In all three of the documents which make up Baruch, stress is laid on God’s guidance of Israel’s destiny, and in the portion, iv. 5-v. 9, the Divine compassion is constantly recalled. 2 (4) Esdras represents the best of the Old Testament teaching concerning the doctrine of God: the Unity of God, His Creatorship without any mediatorial agency, Israel as the chosen nation with which God has entered into a covenant relation, are all insisted upon by the writer, whose faith in God, and conviction that His love is for His people, remains, though he is presented with problems which are insoluble for man. In the Book of Wisdom the religious atmosphere is to a large extent alien to that of Palestine: the presentment of the doctrine of God is entirely different in its two parts, whether these are by two different authors or by one writing at different times in his life. The first part (ii.-xi. 1) is more Greek than Jewish, the idea of God is that of Greek philosophy: a transcendent God Who has no immediate contact with the world, but performs His will through an intermediary, who is Wisdom. In the second part God is again and again spoken of as interfering personally in mundane affairs, and in other respects also the Old Testament doctrine is represented, as in the need of right worship, and the mercy and justice of God.

(b) The Doctrine of the Law.

The stress laid in Ecclesiasticus on the importance of the Law, from both ethical and ritual points of view, shows this work to be a valuable link between the Judaism of post-exilic times and Rabbinical Judaism. The Law is eternal and divine, and its pre-existence is implied in its identification with Wisdom. So far as is known this identification occurs here for the first time, but the way it is taken for granted shows that it cannot have been wholly new. The insistence on the need of observing the Law is characteristic of this book, as is the teaching on the spirit in which the precepts are to be carried out. In chapter xxiv. 7 ff. the Law is only for Israel. In Tobit an earnest zeal for the Law is combined with deep devotion. This book indicates a development of legal observances; prayer, almsgiving and fasting are strongly advocated, particularly almsgiving. The laws of tithe, marriage, honour to parents, keeping the feasts, purifications and others are inculcated. This love for the Law, combined with worship, offers a fine illustration of the truly pious Jew at this period. The teaching concerning the Law in Judith is strongly Pharisaic; while everything depends upon trust in God and obedience to Him, both are shown by keeping the Law; only the practical observance is taught; there is no abstract conception. The observance of Sabbaths, new moons and feasts is emphasized. Reference is made to the sacrificial system and the gifts of the people, and in the poem xvi. 2-17 the right spirit in offering is the really important matter. In 1 Maccabees there is reflected the earnest zeal for the Law on the part of the patriots. In 2 Maccabees much stress is laid upon legal observances, and the whole attitude towards the Law is that of the Pharisaic school of about the first century B.C. onwards. This also applies to 1 (3) Esdras.

In the document Baruch iii. 9-iv. 4, where the Law and Wisdom are identified, exiled Israel is told that the reason of his punishment is the forsaking of the commandments of life, i.e. the Law. The Law endures for ever, and is apparently for Israel alone. Of the different portions which make up 2 (4) Esdras the most important in the present connection is the “Salathiel Apocalypse,” which forms the bulk of the book (iii.-x.) Here it is said, in accordance with later Rabbinical teaching, that the Law had originally been given to other nations, by whom it was rejected, while Israel alone had accepted it. In the other portions of the book the main stress is laid on veneration for the Law. In the Book of Wisdom there is very little on the subject to be noted, but the foreign rulers are denounced for not keeping the Law.

(c) The Doctrine of Sin.

In Ecclesiasticus the prevalence of Sin in one and all is often noted, and there is much said about its origin. Here Ben-Sira finds a problem too difficult for him. He implies, though he hardly goes so far as to make the definite assertion, that the origin of sin is due to God (xxxiii. 13-15), but in one important passage he strongly combats this (xv. 11-13). He traces it back to the fall of Eve, but no farther. He speaks sometimes of Sin as originating within man, sometimes as being external to him. Like the later Rabbis, he becomes involved in inconsistencies as soon as he tries to construct a working theory on the subject. In his teaching on the atonement for sins he shows a great advance on the Old Testament, adding almsgiving and fasting as means of atonement, and foreshadowing the idea that Death also may be one. This last idea became of ever-increasing importance with the growth in later Judaism of the belief in the resurrection. There is little that calls for notice in Tobit except a reference to the atoning efficacy of almsgiving; and nothing in Judith, or the Additions to Daniel; but in the Prayer of Manasses we find the thought that the Patriarchs were sinless—an idea developed in the later Rabbinical Literature in connection with the “Treasury of Merit” of the Fathers—and a deeper realization of sin than is to be found in any other book of the Apocrypha. In 2 Maccabees there is a strangely particularistic doctrine of retribution for Sin. The teaching in 1 (3) Esdras and Baruch is that of the Old Testament, but the doctrine as to the merits of the Fathers is expressly repudiated in Baruch. 2 (4) Esdras is important; especially, again, the Salathiel Apocalypse. Here the origin of sin is traced to Adam, though its connection with him is not explained; but Sin is regarded as universal, each man clothing himself with the evil heart. In the Book of Wisdom there is a belief in an original state of good, which is so decidedly contradicted by a later passage (xii. 10, 11) as to emphasize belief in a different authorship for the two parts of the book: on this point, as on the subject of Death, it is the first part that is important for us, the second offers nothing new.

(d) The Doctrine of Grace and Free-will.

A true balance between these two is kept in Ecclesiasticus; they are shown as complementary, not contradictory, thus continuing the teaching of the Old Testament concerning the omnipotence of God and the responsibility of man. Similar teaching is found in Tobit. The rest of the books belonging to this century have nothing that calls for particular notice, but in the secondary text of Ecclesiasticus the same balance is found as in the first. In 1 Maccabees much more emphasis is laid on Free-will than on Grace, owing to a growing disinclination to ascribe action among men directly to God, because of His inexpressible majesty. In the Additions to Esther, on the contrary, there is throughout insistence on the Divine activity, while human free-will is scarcely taken into account; there can be no doubt that the one-sided emphasis in either case was prompted by the particular subject-matter of the book. In 1 Maccabees there is very little to note under the present heading, though stress is frequently laid upon the idea that the Jews are under special protection and guidance. In 2 (4) Esdras it is again only the Salathiel Apocalypse that claims attention; here the writer is driven by his deep sense of sinfulness and his conviction of man’s inability to acquire justification by the works of the Law, to look to Divine Grace where human will-power was helpless. In the Book of Wisdom the main emphasis is on Free-will, though the other side of the truth is not left out of sight.

(e) The Doctrine of the Messiah.

The didactic character of Ecclesiasticus accounts for the meagre reference to this doctrine; there is belief in a Messiah who is to be purely human and of the House of David, but it is vague in the extreme. The conceptions of a Messiah were largely regulated by the historical circumstances of any given period, and during the time of Ben-Sira these were not of a nature to call forth Messianic hopes. In Tobit the Messiah is never mentioned, but the renovated Jerusalem and the ingathering of the dispersed Israelites, and also of the Gentiles, give a picture of what corresponds to the Messianic Kingdom. No other books offer teaching on the subject until we come to 1 Maccabees, where “a prophet” is looked for; in one passage he is to be of Hasmonæan lineage. In 2 Maccabees there is no reference to the Messiah, though there is to the Messianic Kingdom. The only other book is the important apocalypse 2 (4) Esdras, and here the teaching is full, and, as the book is of composite authorship, various. In the Salathiel Apocalypse (iii.-x.), the Messiah is regarded as purely human, and only in this portion are the signs which are to precede the Messianic Kingdom mentioned. In the eagle vision (xi.-xii. 29), and the vision of the man rising from the sea (xiii.), and in the Ezra legend (xiv.), the pre-existence of the Messiah is taught. The Messianic Kingdom itself is to be of limited duration, and, in the eagle vision, Gentiles as well as Jews are to enjoy it, but in the vision of the man from the sea the Gentiles are to be wholly destroyed by the Messiah, and His kingdom is only for His own people. In the Book of Wisdom there is no doctrine of the Messiah, nor is there a belief in a Messianic Kingdom in the Jewish Palestinian sense, but the traditional Jewish eschatological conceptions are utilized by the author and a glorious future is believed to be reserved for the Jews.

(f) The Doctrine of the Future Life.

In Ecclesiasticus the teaching on this subject is substantially of the normal Old Testament type; the corruption of the body is looked upon as the end of man, though the annihilation of the spirit as well is evidently not contemplated.

Once or twice death is spoken of as a rest. The development in this doctrine which is known to have taken place during the second century B.C. is reflected by some additions. It is of particular interest to note that in one or two cases the Greek shows signs of some development of conception where in the Hebrew the normal Old Testament position is maintained. It is very noticeable that a kind of technical sense has become attached to the word “worm,” as in Mark ix. 48. In Tobit the normal Old Testament doctrine is taught. In Judith the only reference is an important one, as it witnesses to a development of the thought of Hades as a place of punishment. There is something similar to this in the Prayer of Manasses. In the Pharisaic recension of Ecclesiasticus words added here and there show a development of thought as to the Future Life. The next book which contains references to this is 2 Maccabees, and here an immense development has taken place; Hades is a place of punishment for the wicked; but only a temporary abode for the righteous, since the Resurrection is reserved for them; and the Resurrection is not only of the spirit, but of the body also. For the wicked there is no resurrection. In Baruch there are two isolated references; and in both the teaching is that ordinarily found in the Old Testament. In 2 (4) Esdras there is an extraordinary wealth of material, mostly confined to the Salathiel Apocalypse. Here the doctrine of the resurrection is not altogether consistent, and the writer’s thought is not quite easy to understand; he seems to have believed that the material body became wholly annihilated at death, but the soul, when released from it, assumed a non-material body in the Intermediate state, and that this, being incorruptible, did not undergo any further change at the Judgement. The Resurrection apparently takes place immediately after death. It is uncertain whether the wicked rise as well as the righteous. Minute details are given as to the lot of the wicked and that of the righteous in the Intermediate state, but none as to the duration of this. At its close comes the Judgement. Here there is the same ambiguity; the writer’s mind is not clear whether the age of incorruption and eternity is to begin immediately after death, or only at the Judgement. But there is no want of definiteness as to the happiness of the righteous and the torment of the wicked; both will be enormously increased at the Judgement, and then no intercession of the righteous for the wicked will avail. In those portions of the book which have probably been added by the Redactor there is some important teaching as to a general resurrection, and a re-union of soul and body, which is to take place at the beginning of a new age seven days after the close of the Messianic Age. This is part of a new eschatological scheme, quite different from that of the Salathiel Apocalypse, and seeking to combine the eschatology of the individual with that of the nation. In the Book of Wisdom there is no resurrection of the body; the only immortality is that of the soul, and it begins on this earth. Judgement takes place immediately after death, and there is no Intermediate state. The bliss of the righteous and the torment of the ungodly are of a purely spiritual kind. It seems as though the author were acquainted with more than one Jewish eschatological scheme, and used them without recognizing their inconsistency. He says nothing as to where the scene of the Judgement will be laid; he is not ignorant of the Palestinian Jewish belief, but, being of an Hellenic cast of mind, he cannot accept it.

(g) The Doctrine of Angels.

In Ecclesiasticus there are but few references; in xlii. 16 the “holy ones” are unable to recount God’s marvellous works, though strength is given them to stand in His presence. In Tobit the angel Raphael plays an important part; he binds Asmodeus, and appears as guardian angel to Tobit on his journey. The angelic host is referred to in viii. 15. There is no mention of angels in Judith, but in the Additions to Daniel the angel of the Lord appears in each of the stories. The angelic host is spoken of in the Prayer of Manasses, and a guardian angel in the Epistle of Jeremy, and there is an incidental reference to angels in the Additions to Esther. A somewhat fantastic representation of the activity of angels is given in 2 Maccabees in the stories of Heliodorus and of the rider leading Israel to battle and of the “reliable dreams” of Maccabæus. No other books refer to angels till we come to 2 (4) Esdras, and here in the Salathiel Apocalypse a greatly developed angelology appears. At the head of the angelic host stand seven archangels, and God communicates with the seer by means of the angels. In the Book of Wisdom the place of these is taken by the Word or by Wisdom, the development of doctrine having here eliminated angelology altogether.

(h) Demonology.

It is doubtful whether there is any reference to demons in Ecclesiasticus; there may be one in xxxix. 18-31. In Tobit there is an evil demon who slays men. The only other reference is in Baruch; but in the Book of Wisdom, though there is no demonology in the ordinary sense, there is a belief in the devil.

PART II
INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF THE APOCRYPHA

Introductory

We come now to deal with the books of the Apocrypha. As far as possible we shall take these in chronological order, though it will be recognized that certitude in this matter is not to be expected. There are different opinions regarding the dates of most of the books, and in some cases the data for coming to a conclusion are too scanty to allow of anything approaching confidence in the correctness of the date assigned. Moreover, as to some of the books, different parts belong to different periods; this can be proved even though one cannot be sure of the exact date of each part. Then there is the further difficulty regarding the question as to whether a particular book, as we now have it, approximates to its original form, and if there is reason to believe that this is not the case, as to the date of the original as well as that of its present form.

The plan here followed is to take the books in the order of the dates of their original form (as far as this can be ascertained), even though parts of a book belong to a later date, which will, of course, be notified. It will also be wiser to assign a period rather than a fixed date, excepting in the one case, that of Ecclesiasticus, where the date of the original can be fixed to within a decade or so with reasonable certainty. The books belonging to a particular period are put in chronological order within that period. The following table will show this:

Ecclesiasticus, circa B.C. 180. | Pharisaic recension, B.C. 100-50.
Tobit.     Pre-Maccabæan.
Judith | } | Maccabæan, about the middle of the second century B.C.
Additions to Daniel (excepting | }
the Prayer of Azarias which | }
is pre-Maccabæan) | }
Rest of Esther | }
Prayer of Manasses | } | Post-Maccabæan, circa B.C. 110.
1 Maccabees | }
1 (3) Esdras | }
Wisdom. Earliest portion middle of first century B.C., latest portion beginning of first century A.D.
2 Maccabees.   Beginning of first century A.D.

Baruch and the Ep. of Jeremiah.

}

End of first
century A.D.

Incorporates some earlier material.

2 (4) Esdras | } | Chaps. i. ii. xv. xvi. are later.

In quotations from these books the translation of Dr. Charles and his editors[343] has as a rule, but not always, been used. The original texts used are:

Ecclesiasticus: for the Hebrew, Smend’s text (Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, Hebräisch und Deutsch, 1906); for the Greek, Swete’s text (The Old Testament in Greek, 1896), and Hart’s text of Cod. 248 (Ecclesiasticus, pp. 1-71, 1909).

2 (4) Esdras: for the Latin, Bensly and James’ text (The Fourth Book of Ezra, pp. 1-82, 1895).

For the rest of the books, Swete’s text mentioned above.

The Literature given at the head of each chapter does not profess to be more than a selection. Editions of original texts, and text-critical discussions, are not given, as references to these will be found in the Literature cited.

CHAPTER I
The Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach; or Ecclesiasticus

[Literature.—Fritzsche, Die Weisheit Jesus Sirachs erklärt und übersetzt (1859); Edersheim, in Wace, II, pp. 1-239; Ryssel, in Kautzsch, I. pp. 230-475; Schechter, Studies in Judaism (Second Series), pp. 55-101 (1908); Hart, Ecclesiasticus ... (1909); Oesterley, Ecclesiasticus, in “The Cambridge Bible” (1912); Box and Oesterley, in Charles, I, pp. 268-517.]

I. The Title of the Book

“Ecclesiasticus,” the name with which we are most familiar, gives no indication as to the contents of the book; it has, however, been the title whereby the book was known in the Western Church ever since the third century. St. Jerome retained the familiar title in his Latin Version of the Bible, and it has continued in the Church ever since. On account of its manifold instruction in conduct of life it was much used in the early Church, especially in the case of catechumens; the title, therefore, of “Ecclesiasticus” was probably given to it because it was the ecclesiastical or Church book par excellence. What the original title was we do not know; but in most manuscripts of the Greek Version the title given is: “Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach”; in the Syriac Version it is: “Wisdom of Bar Sira.”[344] Both these were translations from the Hebrew, so that we shall not be far wrong in believing that the original title ran: “The Wisdom of Ben-Sira,” or, “The Wisdom of Jesus Ben-Sira.”[345] The Greek translator, in the Prologue to the book, speaks of his grandfather “Jesus” as the author. In the Talmud the book is referred to as: “The Book of Ben-Sira”; the name “Jesus” would have been omitted by the Rabbis for obvious reasons.

II. The Author and his Book

In the Prologue to the Greek Version the writer says that he is about to translate his grandfather’s work; in the Hebrew text the author gives his name, as we have seen; this is also given in the subscription; moreover, in the Talmud the author is given as Ben-Sira. There is, therefore, every reason to believe that the author was Ben-Sira; and this is universally acknowledged. That he wrote the whole of the book does not admit of doubt; unity of authorship is stamped upon the work throughout. Further, that the Greek translation represents substantially the author’s book which his grandson had before him is also practically certain. On the other hand, it may be doubted whether the book represents the final form which the author intended it to have; whether he was interrupted in his work, or whether he died before he was able to sift and arrange his material, a careful study of the book leaves the impression that the author left it in an incomplete state. The main reasons for this belief are three: firstly, in many parts of the book the material seems to be thrown down in a somewhat chaotic state, whereas a little obvious sifting would put things right; for example: in one section (xiv. 20-xvi. 23) the following subjects are dealt with in this order—the blessedness of seeking Wisdom which is only obtainable by those who fear God; human free-will; the curse of ungodly children; God’s righteous anger against the wicked; it is madness to imagine that one can avoid the notice of God and therefore escape judgement because a man is but an atom in a boundless creation. It is clear enough that here we have some subjects which would follow upon one another logically, only the sequence is broken by the intrusion of other subjects which belong to a different milieu. A similar state of affairs occurs in various parts of the book, while in many other parts, on the contrary, we have sections in which there is a perfect sequence of thought. Secondly, the same subject is treated in different parts of the book; but in a well arranged scheme one would naturally expect the different items of teaching on a given subject to be gathered together into a consistent whole; this is often done in the book, so that where we find the contrary the natural supposition is that those parts in which the contrary occurs have not assumed their final shape. Examples of this are: on the curse of ungodly children, xvi. 1-5, xxii. 3-6; on lending and becoming surety, viii. 12, 13, xxix. 1-20; on friendship, vi. 5-17, vii. 18, xii. 8-18, xxii. 19-26, xxxvii. 1-6; concerning the tongue, v. 9-vi. 1, xxiii. 7-15, xxviii. 13-26; on independence, xxix. 21-28, xxxiii. 19-23; and a number of other examples could be given. Thirdly, there is inconsistency of teaching on one or two cardinal points of doctrine; this is especially so in the case of the doctrine of Sin; but as we have already dealt with this in an earlier chapter[346] it will be unnecessary to say anything further here. For these reasons, therefore, we are led to the conclusion that the book in its present form is not that which the author intended it to have finally.

Ben-Sira was not only an orthodox Jew, but he was also a scribe, and a teacher. His grandson tells us in the Prologue that his grandfather had devoted his life to the study of “the Law, the prophets, and the other books of our fathers,” and that his object in doing so was that he might, by teaching, help others to a knowledge of the Law, as well as in carrying out its precepts. Ben-Sira’s own words bear out the truth of this, for he is evidently speaking from personal experience when he says: “Leisure increaseth wisdom to the scribe” (xxxviii. 24); moreover, his very intimate knowledge of the Old Testament is just what one would expect of a scribe; this knowledge is evident on every page of his book, which is saturated with the thoughts of the Old Testament Wisdom Literature, almost the very words of which occur again and again; in the concluding chapters of his book (xliv.-l. 24) he sings the praises of all the great ones of Israel, and shows how he has his Old Testament at his fingers’ ends. Bearing in mind what is said in the Prologue, it is highly probable that Ben-Sira is referring to himself as the true scribe in writing the words in xxxviii. 24-xxxix. 3; here he passes in review various callings in life, and declares that it is not possible for men to acquire wisdom if their time is taken up in earning their livelihood by these means; in describing, then, the manner in which he “who meditates in the Law of the Most High” goes about his work Ben-Sira sets forth the mental activity of the scribe in such a way as to make it certain that he is imparting the secrets of his own practice. He says of such an one that he

Searcheth out the wisdom of all the ancients,
And is occupied with the prophets of old;
He heedeth the discourses of men of renown,

And entereth into the deep things of parables;

He searcheth out the hidden meaning of proverbs,

And is conversant with the dark sayings of parables ... (xxxix. 1-3).

Obviously no true man who had given himself so whole-heartedly to the study and acquisition of holy learning would be content to keep it to himself, and so Ben-Sira gives us clearly to understand that he was a teacher earnestly desirous of imparting to others what he himself had learned of Wisdom; so he cries:

Turn in unto me, ye unlearned,
And lodge in my house of instruction;
How long will ye lack these things?
And how long shall your soul be athirst?
I open my mouth and speak of her,

Acquire Wisdom for yourselves without money ...

Hearken to my teaching, though ye be but few,

And much silver and gold shall ye acquire thereby (li. 23-28).

The similes used by Ben-Sira regarding himself as a successor to teachers of Wisdom who had gone before are interesting as showing that he claimed to be a link, though a humble one, in the great chain of Israel’s inspired writers. He says, for example, in one place:

And as for me, I was as a stream from the river,

And I came forth as a conduit into a garden;
I said: “I will water my garden,
I will abundantly water my garden beds”;
And lo, my stream became a river,
And my river became a sea ...

Yet again will I pour forth doctrine as prophecy,

And leave it for eternal generations.

Look ye (and see) that I have not laboured for myself only,

But for all those that diligently seek her (xxiv. 30-34).

In another passage he says:

I, indeed, came last of all,

As one that gleaneth after the grape-gatherers;

I advanced by the blessing of God,

And filled my wine-press as a grape-gatherer.

Consider that not for myself alone have I laboured,

But for all that seek Wisdom (xxxiii. 16-18).

And once again:

Yet again will I fix my thoughts and make my doctrine to shine forth,

As the full moon on the twelfth day.

Hearken unto me, ye pious ... (xxxix. 12 ff.).

All these passages show that Ben-Sira reckoned himself as following in the line—though the last in the succession—of the wise men such as the writers of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, and that therefore his claim to be a teacher in Israel was justified. While quoting freely from the Old Testament writers, and thereby acknowledging his indebtedness to them, he often expands a quotation, especially from Proverbs, thus making the proverb into a little essay; so that although he does not show great originality of thought, he nevertheless has his own ideas which he sets forth in his own way.

Some further details concerning the author may be gathered from his book; if, as seems reasonable, the words of xxxix. 1-3, quoted above, are taken as referring to the writer himself, then the same must be said of the words which follow in the text, viz.:

Who serveth among great men,

And appeareth before princes;

Who travelleth through the lands of the peoples,

And testeth good and evil among men (xxxix. 4);

from these words we may gather that Ben-Sira had at one time been in the service of some influential person, and that he had spent some time in travel; of that he speaks more than once, for he says in xxxiv. 10-12:

He that is without experience knoweth little,
But the well-versed man hath skill.
In my journeying I have seen much,
And many things have befallen me.
Often was I in danger even unto death,

But was preserved because of these things (i.e. experience and knowledge of the world).

In another passage (li. 13) he refers to the time before he had commenced his travels. The danger of which he speaks in the passage just quoted was owing to the fact that he had been the victim of some slanderous tongue, if one may be guided by his words in li. 1-12, where he thanks God in saying:

Thou didst preserve me from the scourge of a slanderous tongue,

And from the lips of them that turn aside to lies;

Thou wast on my side in the face of those that rose up against me,

Thou didst help me, according to the abundance of Thy mercy,

Out of the snare of them that watch for my stumbling,

And from the hands of those that seek my life ...

The book contains a very large number of moral maxims and wise counsels for help and guidance in the every-day affairs of life; but the earnest piety of the writer which so frequently finds expression shows that his aim was not merely to write a handbook on ethics, but far more to be a spiritual adviser, wisdom in its manifold forms being, according to him, so many illustrations of godliness. Finally, “the mass of information which the book contains regarding Jewish religion, thought, and ethics, during a period for which we do not otherwise possess much knowledge, marks it out as a work of high importance. The writer evidently intended to offer to his people a kind of text-book to which men and women might have recourse for guidance in almost every conceivable circumstance of life. He does this, however, with the primary object of setting in clear light the superior excellence of Judaism over Hellenism. In a sense, therefore, Ecclesiasticus may be regarded as an apologetic work, inasmuch as it aims at combating the rising influence of Greek thought and culture among the Jews.”[347]

III. The Date of the Book

In his Prologue to the Greek translation of the book Ben-Sira’s grandson tells us that “in the eight and thirtieth year under Euergetes the king, having come into Egypt and continued there, I found opportunity for no small instruction. I, therefore, deemed it most necessary myself to devote some zeal and love-labour to (the task of) translating this book; devoting, indeed, much watchful care and skill during the time at my disposal in order that, having completed the book (i.e. its translation), I might publish it for the benefit of those who in the land of their sojourning were desirous to learn, being already prepared in respect of their moral culture to live by the Law.” Those words enable us to fix the date, approximately, of the translation of the book; for there was only one Egyptian king of the name of Euergetes to whom the translator’s words could apply, namely Euergetes II, surnamed Physcon, who reigned altogether fifty-four years; first he was joint-ruler with his elder brother, Philometor (B.C. 170-145), and then he reigned alone (B.C. 145-116).[348] The thirty-eighth year of his reign would be B.C. 132; soon after this date, therefore, the Greek translation was made. Having got this date it is not difficult to fix an approximate date for the original work; it would be about fifty or sixty years earlier. At the end of chapter xlix. and beginning of l., according to the Hebrew of our book, it says:

Great among his brethren, and the glory of his people

Was Simeon, the son of Jochanan, the priest.

This Simeon, the second of the name, was high-priest from B.C. 219-199; Ben-Sira was clearly a contemporary of his (see l. 1 ff.), but the way in which he writes about him suggests that Simeon must have been dead some time when Ben-Sira wrote; we shall, therefore, not be far wrong in assigning the year B.C. 180, or thereabouts, as the date of the composition of the book in its original form. It is, however, certain that the book was in preparation for some years before this; for since, as we have already seen, Ben-Sira had his own house of instruction where he gave lectures to his pupils, we may justly assume that the contents of his book represent the pith of these lectures.

IV. The Original Language of the Book; the recently found Hebrew Manuscripts

Apart from the fact that a large portion (about two-thirds) of our book has in recent years been found in Hebrew, which very often gives the original form, the following considerations made it certain, even before this was found, that the original language was Hebrew: in his Prologue to the book the translator says: “Things originally spoken in Hebrew have not the same force in them when they are translated into another tongue; and not only these, but the Law itself, and the Prophecies, and the rest of the books, have no small difference when they are spoken in their original form.” Although he does not actually say so, it is pretty obvious that Ben-Sira’s grandson implies here that he translated his grandfather’s book from Hebrew. In the second place, in St. Jerome’s time it would appear that Hebrew manuscripts of the book existed in Palestine, for in his preface to the Books of Solomon he says that he found the book of Jesus the son of Sirach in Hebrew. Then, again, in later times Saadiah (A.D. 920) speaks of the existence of copies of the Hebrew text, and he says that the vowel-points were added, which was, as a rule, only done in the case of canonical books.[349] And lastly, in a number of cases the renderings of the Greek necessitate the assumption that they were translated from Hebrew.

But all doubt, where such existed, was set at rest by the discovery (1896-1900) of a number of fragments of the Hebrew text. Those to whom this important find, or rather series of finds, is due are Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Gibson, Cowley and Neubauer, Schechter and Taylor, G. Margoliouth, Levi, Adler, and Gaster. Altogether about thirty leaves were found; they are fragments belonging to four different manuscripts, and they all came from the Genizah of a synagogue in Cairo. As all these manuscripts are written on paper and not on vellum they cannot be earlier than the ninth century A.D., for paper was not introduced until this century[350]; they all belong probably to the end of the tenth or the beginning of the eleventh century.[351]

The question arises as to whether the Hebrew of these manuscripts is not a translation from the Greek or Syriac forms of the text which had been in existence for a number of centuries previously; and, further, it must be asked that even supposing Hebrew to have been the original language of the book, do these fragments present the original Hebrew, or a later form of this? The answer to these questions involves a detailed study of the text in its various forms, and a comparison of these with the Hebrew text; clearly a technical discussion of this kind would be out of place here; we can only give a résumé of the results of such study. “As a general rule a text which is a translation betrays the fact by certain indications which are almost infallible; idiomatic expressions in the original, misunderstandings of words in the original and consequent mistranslation which interfere with the sense of a passage, clumsy diction owing to difficulties in giving a proper rendering of the original; these and other signs of the non-originality of a writing are almost certain to show themselves; but the Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus does not present signs of this kind. Its whole style stamps its language as the original one; the symmetry of the Hebrew, in the main, points in the same direction; moreover, there are a number of instances which could be given which exclude the possibility of translation from either Greek or Syriac; there are also many cases in which the Versions have no equivalent for the Hebrew; and lastly, the Hebrew often contains a text so obviously superior to that of the Versions that its originality cannot be disputed. When we add to this that both the Greek and Syriac frequently exhibit the well-known indications of translation, it may be taken as certain that the Hebrew was the original language in which Ecclesiasticus was written.”[352]

But while it is thus evident that Hebrew was the original language in which our book was written, it does not necessarily follow that the recently found manuscripts contain the original form of the Hebrew; indeed, there have not been wanting scholars who have stoutly denied this, and who maintain that this Hebrew is a translation of a Persian rendering of a Syriac text[353]; or that it is, at any rate in part, a translation from the Greek and Syriac.[354] Here, again, in order to prove our point that, in the main, the Hebrew of the recently found manuscripts does represent the original form, numerous details of a technical character would be required[355] which would be out of place here; it must suffice to say that “the text of the Hebrew, though it is disfigured by scribal errors and corruptions, and—in some places—by the presence of glosses, is yet essentially independent of the Greek and the Syriac; the hypothesis of retranslation breaks down, at best a plausible case for the influence of such a factor can only be made out for an insignificant number of verses, where, however, an alternative—and, on the whole, more probable—explanation is possible.”[356]

V. The Authorized and Revised Versions of Ecclesiasticus

In comparing the Authorized and Revised Versions it will be seen that, apart from differences of rendering, there is this fundamental difference between the two: the Authorized Version contains a large number of verses which are omitted in the Revised Version. These omissions are noted in the Revised Version, for in the margin one constantly comes across the words: “Verse ... is omitted by the best authorities.” The reason of this difference between the two Versions is that for the Revised Version only the great uncials of the fourth century A.D. were used; whereas for the Authorized Version a number of cursive manuscripts belonging to a much later time were used. The procedure of the Revisers is justified on the grounds of textual criticism, for as authorities the great uncial manuscripts of the fourth century are far superior to the cursives of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries; on the other hand, the Authorized Version is not only supported by early patristic authority, but also by that of the Old Latin Version which contains many really ancient elements.[357] There is, of course, a great deal of matter common to the uncial and cursive manuscripts as represented by the Revised and Authorized Versions; but the difference between this common matter and that which is peculiar to the cursives is very marked; the additions, numbering a hundred and fifty lines or more, besides many verbal additions (and it is more than probable that both amounted to many more originally), must have been added for some special reason, and that reason, whatever it was, must have existed at a very early date, for as we shall see, the additions have existed since pre-Christian times.

As to these additions, what is their character, and why were they added? The right answer to these questions was first given by Mr. Hart, who holds that they are “fragments of the Wisdom of a Scribe of the Pharisees, and contain tentative Greek renderings of many of the technical terms and watchwords of the Sect. As Jesus Ben-Sira dealt with the earlier Scriptures, so some unknown disciple dealt with his master’s composition. He received the deposit and added to it.”[358] Mr. Hart works out this theory on pp. 275-320 of his book; following his lead, we have studied the matter independently, and have found that the more it is studied, the more firmly is his theory substantiated. Before coming to deal in some detail with this subject, it will be well to put the question: Why should a Pharisee have felt it incumbent upon him to make these additions? The answer, proof for which will be offered in a moment, is that Ecclesiasticus in its original form represents the “Sadducæan”[359] standpoint, and at the close of the Maccabæan struggle, when Pharisaism appeared as an active movement and the Pharisees became the dominant party in Israel, it was no doubt considered essential that a book like Ecclesiasticus, which was greatly in vogue (for, as far as it went, it was orthodox) should bear on the face of it the marks of Pharisaic orthodoxy, and thus become a vehicle for the propagation of Pharisaism.

We shall now first seek to show that Ecclesiasticus in its original form represented the traditional Sadducæan standpoint, and that the additions reflect the teaching of the Pharisees. We have already dealt with the specific doctrines of these two parties, so that what is now to be said should be read in the light of what has been written in Chapter VII.

VI. The “Sadducæan” Doctrinal Standpoint in Ecclesiasticus

In considering first in what respects Josephus’ account of the teaching of the Sadducees is reflected in Ecclesiasticus it must be borne in mind that the book in its original form was written before the distinctive doctrines of Pharisaism had become formulated, and therefore before anything in the nature of antagonism between Sadducæan and Pharisaic teaching had arisen; “it is not to be supposed that the two parties were from the first sharply divided, still less that they acquired distinctive names. It is historically more probable that the divergence increased gradually, and was intensified, and at last definitely realized in the religious revival of Maccabæan times.”[360] The evidence which Josephus gives is late; in his time the opposition between the two parties had fully developed, and, as so often happens between opposing parties, their respective tenets tended to become exaggerated. Of this there is naturally no sign in Ecclesiasticus. Cowley rightly points out, in speaking of the Sadducees during the period that succeeded the Maccabæan struggle, that “in their political relations they show a sympathy with foreign influences which was strongly reprobated by the nationalistic Pharisees. Thus we find them accused, perhaps justly, of tolerating Greek religious practices, and even of adopting them. This is the less surprising if it be considered that the Judaism which they professed can have had (to use a modern phrase) no religious hold on them. It was rather the machinery by which a certain political system was worked, and when circumstances changed it could be adapted to new conditions.”[361] So that when we speak of the Sadducæan doctrinal standpoint in Ecclesiasticus it will be understood that this is somewhat different from that which was developed more than a century later owing largely to opposition to Pharisaic teaching. Ben-Sira represents traditional Judaism of a high type,[362] and in so far is to be regarded as standing for conservative Sadducæanism; but in many respects, and especially in that which regarded devotional religion, which is such a prominent feature in Ecclesiasticus, Pharisaism was identical with the best that traditional Judaism offered; so that, from this point of view, it may be said that Ben-Sira also represented “Pharisaism,” though to use this term in speaking of the time of Ben-Sira would, of course, be an anachronism.

We shall now take in order the doctrines of the Sadducees, so far as we know them, and see in what ways they are illustrated in our book. The utterly un-Jewish doctrine that God takes no interest in the world of His creation and that He is not concerned in men’s doing or not doing what is evil was certainly not held by the “Sadducees” in pre-Maccabæan times; its adoption must have been due to Greek influence if Josephus is to be relied upon at all here. Ben-Sira’s book is full of very different teaching; indeed, in one striking passage he seems to be combating something similar to the very doctrine with which Josephus credits the Sadducees; in xvi. 17-23 he says:

Say not: “I am hidden from God,

And in the height who will remember me?

I shall not be noticed among so illustrious a people,

And what is my soul among the mass of the spirits of all the children of men?...

In truth, unto me He will not have respect,
And as for my ways, who will mark them?
If I sin, no eye beholdeth it,

Or if I deal untruly in all secrecy, who will know it?

My righteous dealing, who declareth it?

And what hope is there, for the decree is distant.”

They that lack understanding think these things,

And the man of folly thinketh this.

Positive teaching on the close relationship which should normally exist between God and men is given again and again in the book. Ben-Sira’s doctrine of sin is inadequate,[363] it is true; but that is in spite of, not in consequence of, his exalted teaching concerning God.

Regarding the teaching on human free-will Ben-Sira sometimes reflects a thoroughly Sadducæan standpoint; nothing could be more uncompromising, for example, than this:

God created man from the beginning,

And placed him in the hand of his Yetzer.[364]

If thou so desirest, thou canst keep the commandment,

And it is wisdom to do His good pleasure.

Poured out before thee are fire and water,

Stretch forth thine hand unto that which thou desirest.

Life and death are before man,

That which he desireth shall be given him (xv. 14-17).

With this may also be compared xxxvii. 17, 18:

The roots of the heart’s deliberations

Bring forth four branches:

Good and evil, life and death,

But the tongue ruleth over them altogether.

On the other hand, assertions regarding the action of Divine grace are not wanting; perhaps the most pointed of these is that contained in the words of xxxiii. 13-15:

As the clay is in the power of the potter,
To fashion it according to his good pleasure;
So is man in the power of his Creator,
To make him according to His ordinance.

Over against evil stands the good, and against death life;

Likewise over against the godly the sinner.

Even thus look upon all the works of God,

Each different, one the opposite of the other.

On the subject of immortality and resurrection the teaching is entirely that of the Sadducees; a few passages will illustrate this:

When a man dieth he inheriteth

Worm and maggot, lice and creeping things (x. 11).

It is callous counsel which Ben-Sira gives to a mourner, for after telling him to mourn for “a day or two,” and to be moderate in his sorrow because “sadness of heart prostrateth vigour,” he concludes as follows:

And let him no more occupy thy thoughts,

Dismiss the remembrance of him, and remember (thy) end.

Remember him not, for he hath no hope;

Thou canst not profit him, while thou harmest thyself.

Remember his doom, for it is the doom of thyself;

His yesterday, and thine to-day!

When the dead is at rest, let his memory rest;

And be consoled when his soul departeth (xxxviii. 16-23).

The same dreary belief, or rather non-belief, occurs in xli. 3, 4:

Fear not death, it is thy destiny,

Remember that the former and the latter share it with thee.

This is the portion of all flesh from God,

And how canst thou withstand the decree of the Most High!

Be it for a thousand years, for a hundred, or for ten that thou livest,

In Sheol there are no reproaches concerning life (cp. xvii. 27, 28).

There are various other passages to the same effect, while none occur which show the slightest advance on the teaching which these contain.

Regarding the attitude towards the non-Jewish world, Ben-Sira is distinctly tolerant; it was the Maccabæan struggle which hardened the Jews towards the Gentiles; nevertheless, Ben-Sira has no doubt about the superiority of his own race. The attitude which is more in accordance with that of the Sadducees may be seen in the whole passage xviii. 8-14, where he speaks of man generally, and teaches that God’s mercy is extended universally:

The mercy of man is exercised upon his own kin,

But the mercy of God is extended to all flesh,

Reproving, and chastening, and teaching,
bringing them back as a shepherd his flock (verse 13).

The same universalistic spirit is exhibited in xxxvi. 17:

Thou wilt hear the prayer of Thy servants,

According to Thy good favour towards Thy people;

That all the ends of the earth may know

That Thou art the eternal God.

A striking passage containing similar teaching is xxxvi. 1-5:

Save us, O God of all,

And cast Thy fear upon all the nations.

Shake Thy hand against the strange people,

And let them see Thy power.

As Thou hast sanctified Thyself in us before them,

So glorify Thyself in them before us;
That they may know as we also know,
That there is none other God but Thee.

The only passage (in the original form of the book) of a particularistic character is that in which Wisdom is described in having taken up her abode in Israel (xxiv. 6-16), but here it has to be remembered that one of Ben-Sira’s great objects in writing his book was to show the superiority of Israel’s wisdom over that of the Greeks. This, however, is quite different from the later Pharisaic spirit of active hostility to all the Gentile world.

There are a few passages which seem to be uttered against the Oral Law. It is true, the data we possess regarding the beginnings of the formation of the Oral Law are very scanty; but it may be safely asserted that, in its technical sense, this was, to some considerable extent, in existence for at least half a century before Ecclesiasticus was written; it is, therefore, probable that Ben-Sira uttered the following words as a protest against what he considered a dangerous innovation:

He that seeketh out the Law shall gain her,
But the hypocrite shall be snared thereby.
They that fear Jehovah discern His judgement,
And elicit guidance from the darkness.
The man of violence wresteth reproofs,[365]

And forceth the Law to suit his necessity (xxxii. 15-17).

In this connection it is worth noting that although Ben-Sira approves of the laws concerning the sacrificial system “because it is commanded,” he does not regard their literal observance as binding; he teaches the equal efficacy of spiritual sacrifices in a way which would not have received the approval of the Pharisees, at any rate as long as the Temple was standing; thus, in xxxiv. 18-26 he says:

The sacrifice of the unrighteous man is a mocking offering,

And unacceptable are the oblations of the godless.

The Most High hath no pleasure in the offerings of the ungodly,

Neither doth He forgive sins for a multitude of sacrifices....

He who washeth after contact with a dead body and toucheth it again,

What hath he gained by his washing?

So a man fasting for his sins,

And again doing the same,

Who will listen to his prayer?

And what hath he gained by his humiliation?

Then he continues, in xxxv. 1-3, to advocate spiritual sacrifices, though in the verses that follow he urges men not to appear with empty hands in the presence of the Lord; his words in xxxv. 1-3 are as follows—

He that keepeth the Law multiplieth offerings,

He sacrificeth a peace-offering that heedeth the commandments;

He that practiseth kindness offereth fine flour,

And he that doeth mercy sacrificeth a thank-offering....

Another fact which is worth emphasizing is that there is no mention of angels or demons in the book; this is more or less in accordance with Sadducæan theology. Finally, on the general subject of the Sadducæan standpoint of the book, we may quote some important words of Dr. Taylor.[366] He says: “We have no authentic remains of Sadducee literature, but it has been suggested with a certain plausibility that the book Ecclesiasticus approximates to the standpoint of the primitive Caduqin (Sadducees) as regards its theology, its sacerdotalism, and its want of sympathy with the modern Soferim (Scribes). The name of Ezra is significantly omitted from its catalogue of worthies. ‘It remains singular,’ remarks Kuenen, ‘that the man whom a later generation compared, nay, made almost equal, to Moses, is passed over in silence.... Is it not really most natural that a Jesus ben Sirach did not feel sympathy enough for the first of the Scribes to give him a place of honour in the series of Israel’s great men?’” Dr. Taylor mentions also the important fact that in the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 100b) the Books of the Sadducees and the Book of Ben-Sira are placed side by side on the “Index expurgatorius.” All that has been said receives confirmation from the further fact that in the Hebrew text of the Canticle[367] which follows l. 12, these words occur—

Give thanks unto Him that gave the sons of Zadok to be priests,

For His mercy endureth for ever.

Enough has now been said to show that our book in its original form represented the Sadducæan standpoint. We have now to deal with the Pharisaic additions.

VII. The Pharisaic Additions to Ecclesiasticus.

The brief reference to specific Pharisaic doctrines given in chapter VII, § iii. (a) above, will enable us to form an opinion regarding the character of the additions to Ecclesiasticus. That these additions[368] were made by a Pharisee, or Pharisees, has already been asserted; but we must now seek to substantiate the assertion. We cannot do more here than give a few illustrations out of a large number; and in order not to weary the reader we will merely quote the addition in each case without specifying in which manuscripts or Versions it occurs.

In illustration of what has been said about the Pharisaic teaching concerning God and man’s relations to Him the following examples will be found instructive. In xvi. 19 occurs this addition:

The whole world was made, and existeth, by His will.

A stronger assertion of the divine governance of the world is added to xviii. 2:

Who guideth the world in the hollow of His hand,

And all things are obedient unto His will;

For He is the King of all kings, and they are in His power;

He separateth among them the holy things from the common.

An example of the intimate relationship existing between God and men is the addition to xxiii. 27:

To follow after God is great glory,

And length of days it is for thee to be accepted of Him.

And again in the addition to xxiv. 23:

Faint not, but be strong in the Lord,

And cleave unto Him that He may strengthen you.

Cleave unto Him, the Lord, the Almighty;

He is the one and only God, and beside Him there is no Saviour.

Although not explicitly stated it is men of Israel who are meant in these quotations, but sometimes Israel is specially mentioned; so, for example, in the addition to xvii. 17:

Whom [i.e. Israel] He brought up as His first-born

With severity, yet loving them,
Imparting to them the light of love;
And He forsook them not.

This teaching of the Divine governance of the world, involving as it does man’s dependence upon God, is balanced by the doctrine of human free-will; an example of this may be seen in the addition to xx. 31:

Better is persistent endurance (lit. patience) in seeking the Lord,

Than a driver (lit. charioteer) of his own life without a master.

In this couplet the Pharisaic doctrine of man’s free-will is maintained, while the Sadducæan denial of providence is combated.

Turning now to the teaching of the Pharisees concerning the future life, the following addition is found after xix. 17:

... The knowledge of the commandments of the Lord is life-giving instruction,

And they who do the things that are pleasing unto Him shall pluck the fruit of the tree of immortality.

The teaching of reward hereafter for the righteous may be instanced from xviii. 22 and the addition to this verse. The original text runs:

Delay not to pay thy vow in due time,

And wait not till death to be justified.

Death is here regarded as a means of atonement, as in the later Rabbinical literature; but from the Pharisaic point of view these words seemed inadequate, so the following words were added:

For the reward of God abideth to eternity.

It has been stated above that repentance was one of the watchwords of the Pharisees; for the Sadducees, with their cold doctrine of God, repentance could have had but little meaning; not that Ben-Sira did not teach the need of repentance (see xviii. 21; but in xliv. 16 the Greek text is corrupt), but it occupies an extremely modest place in his book, and therefore we shall not be surprised to find that it is insisted upon several times in the additions; thus after the words of the text of xvii. 22:

The righteousness of men is to Him as a signet,

And the mercy of man He preserveth as the apple of an eye,

the following addition is made:

Granting repentance to his sons and daughters.

Again, after xx. 2 this addition occurs:

How good it is when he who is reproved manifesteth repentance,

For thus wilt thou escape wilful sin.

As regards the Pharisaic teaching concerning the Law much stress cannot be laid on the few examples of its mention in the additions, for at the time when these were made[369] it is improbable that the antagonism between Pharisees and Sadducees on this point had fully developed; if it had, we should rightly expect to find it more strongly reflected in the additions; whereas, as a matter of fact, quite a few examples of the mention of the Law (or the commandments) occur in the additions; nevertheless, since the Law played such a very important part in Pharisaic teaching, its mention in the additions would naturally point to the hand of a Pharisee. In the addition which has been put in after xi. 14, the Law is referred to as a divine gift, and therefore (so it is implied) he who observes it by walking uprightly is making use of a Divine gift; on the other hand, to live without the Law is folly and darkness which is characteristic of sinners:

Wisdom and insight and discernment of the Law
Come from the Lord;
Love and upright ways
Come from the Lord;

Folly and darkness have been formed for sinners,

And as for evil-doers, evil abideth with them.[370]

Again, in xxix. 19, after the first clause:

The sinner falleth in his suretyship,

occurs the addition: “Transgressing the commandments of the Lord.”[371]

The reference is to evil men who, as the second line of the verse shows, are ruined because they become surety for evil purposes, i.e. for the sake of usurious practices; the addition was, therefore, made in order to emphasize the fact that this was a transgression of the Law.

Finally, what Josephus says about the asceticism of the Pharisees is illustrated by the addition to xix. 5. The original text here runs:

He that hath pleasure in wickedness shall be brought to destruction;

an ascetic tendency is clearly discernible in the Pharisaic addition which says:

And he that averteth his eye from pleasures crowneth his life.

These examples will suffice, it may be hoped, to substantiate the contention that the numerous later additions which have for the most part been preserved in the cursive manuscripts mentioned above are the work of a Pharisee, or Pharisees.

That these additions are post-Maccabæan goes without saying; but closer indications of date are not forthcoming, so that we cannot do more than say that they belong in all probability to the last century B.C.

VIII. The Value of the Book for the Study of the New Testament

The main value of the books of the Apocrypha for the study of the New Testament—it may be said here once for all—lies in their doctrinal teaching. This we have already dealt with in the last chapter of Part I. But there are some other ways, also useful, though of less importance, whereby these books can be utilized for New Testament study. Some of them, and above all Ecclesiasticus, throw much light on the customs and manner of life of the Jews which helps us in a number of particulars to understand the Gospels better; others, such as Judith, illustrate the intensely national feeling of the Jews which helps to explain much that we read in the Acts, especially St. Paul’s treatment by the Jews; or, again, the early part of Baruch gives us some insight into the long prayers which were in vogue among the Jews; Wisdom shows us, among other things, the Hellenistic spirit whereby not a few Jews, especially those of the Dispersion, were animated; this is important for the understanding of much that we read in the Pauline epistles. Other points will suggest themselves to thoughtful readers of these books. It is not, however, with matters of this kind that we can deal here, for space would not permit of it. What we intend to touch upon briefly in the final section of each of these introductions to the Apocryphal books, when called for, is chiefly (though not exclusively) their use for the study of the New Testament from a literary point of view, the main purpose being to try and show that the writers of the New Testament books had read and studied those of the Apocrypha; not, of course, that these writers were as familiar with them as with the canonical books of the Old Testament, but that they valued them and utilized them, some more than others. This is to be expected from the outset, both because the Old Testament they used contained these books as integral parts of the “Scriptures,” and because the early Church Fathers held them in high estimation; this latter is not likely to have been the case unless that attitude towards these books had been handed down.

There are, firstly, a few examples, among many, of parallel thoughts between Ecclesiasticus and the Gospels which may be pointed out:

Ecclesiasticus. | St. Matthew.
xxviii. 2. Forgive thy neighbour the injury done to thee. And then, when thou prayest, thy sins will be forgiven. | vi. 14. For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
| St. Luke.

xlviii. 10. [Speaking of Elijah] ... To turn the heart of fathers unto the children.

i. 17. And he shall go before his face in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers unto the children.

The verbal identity between the two passages here suggests either direct influence, or else that a current saying (from Mal. iv. 6) has been adopted in each.

xi. 19. What time he saith, I have found rest, And now will I enjoy my goods,— He knoweth not what lot shall befall; He shall leave them to others, and die.

xii. 19, 20 ... And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink and be merry. But God said unto him, Thou foolish one, this night is thy soul required of thee; and the things which thou hast prepared, whose shall they be?

Cp. also Ecclesiasticus xxxi. 3 with the Lucan passage last quoted.

Examples of other small details illustrative of the usefulness of Ecclesiasticus for this purpose are i. 1-20, which offers an interesting commentary on Matthew xi. 19: “Wisdom is justified by her works” (cp. the various reading in Luke vii. 35). The visitation of the sick referred to in Matthew xxv. 39 is illustrated by Ecclesiasticus vii. 35:

Forget not to visit the sick,

For thou wilt be loved for that.

Evidently this was a duty laid upon all good Jews. And, once more, the custom of wagging the head in sign of mockery mentioned in Matthew xxvii. 39 is also referred to in Ecclesiasticus xii. 18. Numbers of similar, small but interesting, points offer themselves to students of the book.

But the most striking fact in this connection is that of the many parallel thoughts and passages between Ecclesiasticus and the Epistle of St. James; these are of such a nature as to justify belief in the direct influence of the former on the latter. A few examples are appended[372]:

Ecclesiasticus. | St. James.

i. 26. If thou desire Wisdom, keep the commandments, And the Lord will give her freely unto thee.

i. 5. But if any of you lacketh Wisdom, let him ask of God, Who giveth to all liberally and upbraideth not; and it shall be given unto him.

xv. 11-13. Say not, From God is my trangression, For that which He hateth made He not. Say not, It is He that made me to stumble. For there is no need of evil men. Evil and abomination doth the Lord hate, And He doth not let it come nigh to them that fear Him.

i. 13, 14. Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, and He Himself tempteth no man; but each man is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust, and enticed.

v. 11. Be swift to hear, But with patience make reply. | i. 19. But let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath.

vii. 35, 36. Forget not to visit the sick, For thou wilt be loved for that. In all thy doings remember thy last end, Then wilt thou never do corruptly.

i. 27. Pure religion and undefiled before God and Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

A large number of other examples could be given; among them the following will be found instructive:

Compare Ecclesiasticus | xiv. 1, xix. 16, xxv. 8 | with James | iii. 2
” ” | v. 13, 14, viii. 3, xxviii. 11 | ”  ” | iii. 5, 6.
” ” | xxviii. 16-18 | ”  ” | iii. 8.
” ” | xxviii. 12 and context | ”  ” | iii. 10.
” ” | iv. 1-6, xxxiv. 22 | ”  ” | v. 4.
” ” | vi. 19 | ”  ” | v. 7.
” ” | iv. 26 | ”  ” | v. 16.
” ” | xlviii. 3 and context | ”  ” | v. 17.

CHAPTER II
The Book of Tobit

[Literature.—Fritzsche, Die Bücher Tobiä und Judith erklärt, in “Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen” (1853); Hoffman, Auszüge aus syrischen Akten persischer Märtyrer, pp. 182 ff. (1880); Fuller, in Wace, 1, pp. 149-240 (1888); Conybeare, Rendel Harris, and Agnes Smith Lewis, The Story of Ahikar from the Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Greek and Slavonic Versions (1898); a second and large edition of this work was issued early in 1914; Löhr, in Kautzsch, II, pp. 135-147; Smend, Alter und Herkunft des Achikarromans und sein Verhältniss zu Aesop (1908); Schürer, II, iii. pp. 37-44, German ed., III, pp. 237-258 (1909); Nau, Histoire et Sagesse d’Ahikar (1909); E. Meyer, Der Papyrusfund von Elephantine, pp. 102-128 (1912); Ungnad, Aramäische Papyrus aus Elephantine, pp. 62-82 (1911); Simpson, in Charles, I, pp. 174-241; Harris, Lewis, and Conybeare, in Charles, II, pp. 715-784 (translations of the Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic and Greek Versions, as well as of the Aramaic fragments from Elephantiné) (1913). See also the articles on “Tobit” in the Encycl. Brit. by Robertson Smith, in the Encycl. Bibl. by Erbt, in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible by Marshall, and in the Jewish Encycl. by Toy.]

Before we come to deal with the Book of Tobit it will be well, for reasons which will become apparent as we proceed, to relate the story of Achikar the Wise. This story must at one time have been very widespread and popular. It has come down to us in several forms which differ largely from each other, but which are, nevertheless, all variations of the same story in their essence. A much mutilated form of the story was found among the recently discovered Aramaic papyri of Elephantiné, which shows that it was current among the Jews at least as early as the fifth century B.C.

The following account is drawn from the various versions, and is only an outline of the main points.

I. The Story of Achikar the Wise

Sennacherib, King of Assyria, had a vizier named Achikar, a wise and erudite scribe. He conducted the affairs of the kingdom wisely and well. When the king died, and Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead, Achikar continued to hold the same office. In course of time Achikar became very rich, and he had many wives, and built many castles; but he had no son. And as he grew old he felt the want of a son more and more. Then he prayed earnestly that he might have a son. In reply to his prayer it was told him that no son should be granted him, but that he must instead adopt Nadin,[373] his nephew. This Achikar did, and educated Nadin carefully, teaching him all manner of wisdom. Now when Achikar felt the weakness of old age coming upon him he besought the king that he would appoint Nadin vizier in his place. This the king consented to do; and Nadin was made vizier. But Nadin did not follow the wise counsels which he had received from Achikar; but scattered his words, as it were, to the wind; and he ill-treated the servants and handmaidens of his uncle, and slew his horses, and harmed his mules. And when Achikar sought to correct the misguided course of his adopted son, Nadin slandered him in the ears of the king, and accused him of traitorous intercourse with the enemies of the kingdom, laying at the same time forged letters before the king in proof of Achikar’s guilt. Then the king showed the letters to Achikar, and sought an explanation; but Achikar was so horrified and taken aback that he could not utter a word.[374] The king, taking this as a sign of guilt, gave command that Achikar should be put to death. But the officer, Nabusemakh, to whom this command was given, had, years ago, been indebted to Achikar for the saving of his life when he had been the victim of a false accusation similar to that now made against Achikar. So Nabusemakh spared Achikar’s life, and hid him secretly in a hiding-place underground. In Achikar’s place a slave was executed who was already under sentence of death. Now when Pharaoh, king of Egypt, heard of the death, as he supposed, of the wise vizier, he rejoiced greatly, and sent a letter of the following import to Esarhaddon:

Pharaoh, king of Egypt, to Esarhaddon,[375] king of Assyria and Nineveh, greeting. I am planning to build a castle between heaven and earth; wherefore seek out and send me from thy kingdom a man who is a skilled architect, that he may give me reply concerning all that I shall ask him. And when thou shalt send me such a man, I will collect and send thee the revenue of Egypt for three years. And if thou send me not a man who shall give me reply concerning all that I ask him, then do thou collect and send me the tribute of Assyria and Nineveh for three years, by the hands of these ambassadors that come to thee.[376]

Then Esarhaddon took counsel with Nadin and all the wise men as to what should be done; and they were in much perplexity, for they found no one among their number sufficiently wise to build a castle betwixt heaven and earth. Thereupon, Nabusemakh came and told the king how that he had spared Achikar’s life. The king, so far from punishing Nabusemakh for having disobeyed the royal command, was only too delighted to hear that Achikar was still alive, and richly rewarded Nabusemakh. Then Achikar was brought, and declared himself ready and able to answer all that the king of Egypt should ask. When Achikar came to the court of the king of Egypt he said he would show the king how to build a castle betwixt heaven and earth. Then he asked that lime and stone and clay and workmen might be held in readiness. When all was prepared Achikar let out of a box which he had brought with him two eagles with ropes tied to their feet; upon each eagle he set a boy; and as the eagles soared upward and remained betwixt heaven and earth, the boys began to shout: “Bring bricks, bring clay, that we may build the king’s castle, for we are standing idle.” But the king found no means of supplying them with bricks and clay up in the air, and had perforce to give up the idea of building a castle betwixt heaven and earth. Thus did Achikar the Wise deliver king Esarhaddon from his embarrassment. Achikar was placed again at the head of the royal household and greatly honoured. On being asked by the king what else he desired, he replied: “Bid them give me my son Nadin, that I may teach him a further lesson; for he has forgotten my former teaching.” Then Achikar caused Nadin to be bound and thrashed; after which he was confined in a dark chamber at the entrance to Achikar’s house; and every time Achikar went in or out he uttered precepts of wisdom for Nadin’s benefit. Finally Nadin “swelled up like a bag and died.”

The moral of the story, with which it concludes, is given thus: “To him that doeth good, what is good shall be recompensed; and to him that doeth evil, what is evil shall be rewarded. And he that diggeth a pit for his neighbour, filleth it with his own stature.”

This story of Achikar the Wise must have enjoyed great popularity in ancient times, for it has come down to us in various forms; and its existence among the Jews, in the fifth century, living at such an out-of-the-way spot as Elephantiné, is eloquent testimony of how widespread the knowledge of the story was. That the various forms differ from each other very much is quite in the natural order of things, for a popular story not only undergoes change when passed from hand to hand, but sometimes it may assume a form almost unrecognizable at first, and only when the essential traits are sought behind the external appearance can the kernel of the original story be recognized. It is, therefore, not surprising that great differences are found in the Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Aramaic, Aethiopic, Hebrew, Slavonic and Greek forms of the story which are still preserved. But in the case of all these, in spite of variations of form and matter, and in spite of the addition of many extraneous details drawn from different sources, the original story lies imbedded and shows itself to have been utilized to a greater or less extent.

Now the particular interest that the story of Achikar the Wise has for the study of the Book of Tobit lies in the fact that the writer of the latter utilized the former in the composition of his book; he assumes, moreover, as we shall see, a knowledge of the story of Achikar the Wise among his readers.

II. The Relationship between the Book of Tobit and the Story of Achikar the Wise.

It should be said at the outset that the best form of the Greek text of the Book of Tobit is that of Codex Sinaiticus; it is this text which has been utilized here.[377]

The first and most obvious point of interest in this connection centres in the person of Achikar. In the Book of Tobit he appears, when first mentioned, quite incidentally, as though he were well known.[378] In i. 21, 22, after the assassination of Sennacherib by his two sons has been referred to, it continues: “And they fled unto the mountains of Ararat, and Sacherdonos [Esarhaddon] his son reigned after him; and he appointed Acheikaros [Achikar], the son of Anael my brother, over all the tribute of his kingdom, and he had authority over all the conduct of affairs. Then Acheikaros put me right [i.e. with the king], and I came down unto Nineveh. For Acheikaros had been the chief cup-bearer, and (keeper) of the signet,[379] and the chief minister, and overseer of the tribute under Sennachereim [Sennacherib], king of Assyria, and Sacherdonos appointed him a second time (to these offices).”

This agrees with what is said about the position of Achikar in the story given above.

In xi. 18 it is said that Achikar and Nadab, his cousin, came to the wedding of Tobias. This sudden mention of Nadab, who has not been referred to before in the book, in connection with Achikar is curious as it stands, and shows clearly enough that the writer of the book must have been familiar with the story of Achikar, and that he assumed the same of his readers. The slight variation in the form of the name (Nadab for Nadin), and his being called the cousin instead of the nephew of Achikar, does not affect the main point.

But the most striking proof that the writer of Tobit utilized the story of Achikar is seen by his reference to it in xiv. 10: “And now do thou, my child, go forth from Nineveh, and abide not here. In the day in which thou buriest thy mother with me, in that self-same day tarry no longer in these parts. For I see that there is much unrighteousness in her [i.e. Nineveh], and much deception is practised in her, and they are not ashamed. Behold, my child, what things Nadab did to Acheikaros who nourished him; was he not brought living into the earth? And God requited his iniquity before his face; and Acheikaros came forth into the light, and Nadab entered into eternal darkness because he sought to slay Acheikaros. In that he [i.e. Acheikaros] showed me mercy he came forth out of the snare of death which Nadab set for him; and Nadab fell into the snare of death, and it destroyed him.” The real kernel of the Achikar story is contained in these words, namely that Achikar brought up an adopted son who betrayed his benefactor by causing him to dwell in darkness underground; but ultimately Achikar is saved and Nadab suffers the fate which he had designed for his benefactor. Thus righteousness triumphs, and Nemesis overtakes the wicked. It is round this story that the wisdom of Achikar is woven; and some of the wise sayings of Achikar are re-echoed in Tobit, which further illustrates the indebtedness of the writer to the Achikar story; a few examples of this may be given:

Book of Tobit. | Story of Achikar (Syriac Version).

Take heed to thyself, my child, (to refrain) from all whoredom (iv. 12).

My son, lift not up thy eyes and look upon a woman that is bedizened and painted; and do not lust after her in thy heart (ii. 5).

Alms delivereth from death, and suffereth not to come into darkness (iv. 10). | As for me, my righteousness (= alms) has saved me (viii. 2).
Pour out thy bread and thy wine[380] on the tomb of the righteous, and give not to sinners (iv. 17). | My son, pour out thy wine on the graves of the righteous, rather than drink it with evil men (ii. 10).[356]
Ask counsel of every man that is wise, and despise not any counsel that is profitable (iv. 18). | My son, associate with the wise man, and thou wilt become wise like him (ii. 12).

It is good to keep close the secret of a king, but to confess and reveal the works of God (xii. 7).

If thou hast heard a word let it die in thy heart, and reveal it to no man; lest it become a hot coal in thy mouth and burn thee, and thou lay a blemish on thy soul, and be angered against God (ii. 2).

There are other minor indications of the writer of Tobit having utilized the Achikar story, such as the unusual double description of the empire, “Assyria and Nineveh,” in the earliest recension of our book[381] (xiv. 4, 15, cp. i. 3), which occurs also in the Achikar story (i. 1); but the data given are sufficient to show that the Achikar story is without doubt one of the sources of the Book of Tobit. The object which the writer had in introducing some of the Achikar story elements into his book was probably that it might be popularized thereby. The Achikar story must have been immensely popular when one remembers the manifold forms in which it has come down to us; and the Book of Tobit, by being in some sort connected with it, would have commended itself to Gentiles, as well as to Jews.

That the author of our book utilized other non-Jewish sources in composing it is very probable. There is, for example, a striking resemblance in one or two particulars between the Book of Tobit and the “Story of the grateful dead man,” an Armenian tale, according to which a wealthy man was once riding through a forest when he came upon some men misusing a corpse; on inquiring the reason for this he is told that the dead man had owed them money; he pays the dead man’s debt, and buries the corpse. He then continues his journey home. Now in the city in which he dwelt there lived a rich man who had an only daughter; she had married five husbands, but in each case the husband had died on the night of the wedding. The hero of the tale resolves, at the instance of an unknown serving-man, to seek this woman in marriage in spite of what has occurred. He succeeds in his desire. But on the night of the wedding there issues forth from the mouth of his bride a serpent which seeks to bite him and thus kill him; but the unknown serving-man, who had been keeping guard, slays the serpent, and thus saves the life of the bridegroom, to whom he then makes himself known as the dead man whose corpse the bridegroom had buried in the forest.[382] The traits common to this story and the Book of Tobit are so marked that it is difficult to believe that there is no connection between the two; that the latter is indebted to the former is probable because of the very widespread existence of the “Story of the grateful dead man” in various forms in Asia and Europe.[383]

Another possible source, but less striking than that just referred to, is “The Tractate of Khons,” which was originally written for the purpose of propagating the cult of the Egyptian god Khons; in it occurs the story of a beautiful princess who was possessed by a demon, but by the help of Khons the demon was expelled and the princess cured.[384]

III. The Contents of the Book of Tobit

In the first part of the book, chapters i.-iii., Tobit relates how he, his wife Anna, and his son Tobias, had been carried away captive to Nineveh in the days of Shalmaneser, king of Assyria; he emphasizes his loyalty to the Law, saying that he and his family had always been careful in keeping the ordinances of the Law both when they lived in their own land as well as in the land of their exile. He mentions specially his ardent zeal in giving alms, and in according decent burial to those of his race who had been murdered and whose dead bodies had been cast out of the walls of the city. Once when he was about to sit down to table at the feast of Pentecost he bade his son go out and seek someone who was in want and bring him in to partake of the feast. Tobias, his son, went forth accordingly; but he soon returned and reported to his father that one of his race had but now been murdered, and that his body lay in the market-place. Tobit went out forthwith, and took up the body from the street and laid it in one of the chambers till sunset, when he intended to bury it. And when the sun was set, he digged a grave and buried the dead body. But as he had touched a dead body he was unclean, and therefore could not re-enter his house, lest by contact he should cause others to be unclean,[385] so he laid down in the courtyard by the side of a wall, and because it was hot he left his face uncovered; but the droppings of some sparrows fell into his eyes, and he became blind. There follows here a short section (ii. 11-14) about Anna, which is quite out of place. The story is taken up again at chapter iii., which tells of Tobit’s sorrow at his affliction, and of his prayer to God that he may die (verses 1-6). Then a new element in the story is introduced. Sarah, the daughter of Raguel of Ecbatana in Media, suffers reproach because she has no child, although she has had seven husbands; each of these husbands had, however, been slain by Asmodæus, “the evil demon,” on the night of his wedding. Sarah, like Tobit, prays in her great affliction that she may die. Tobit and Sarah, though they know nothing of each other, have therefore this in common, that they are both in dire distress. Before proceeding with his story the narrator adds a note for the comfort of his readers to the effect that God had sent Raphael, the angel, to heal them both: “in the case of Tobit to remove the white films from his eyes, that he might see the light of God with his eyes; and in the case of Sarah, the daughter of Raguel, to give her for a wife to Tobias, the son of Tobit, and to unbind Asmodæus the evil demon from her” (iii. 17).

The next section, chapters iv.-xi., which forms the bulk of the book, deals with the journey of Tobias to Media in order to bring back money which Tobit had left in trust with Gabael. The advice which Tobit gives his son preparatory to his starting is contained in iv. 3-21. He also bids his son find a trusty companion who will travel with him; this he does, the companion being none other than the angel Raphael, who had been sent by God for the purpose. Raphael, of course, does not reveal himself to Tobias. Then the departure takes place (v.-vi. 2).

Soon after they started they met with an adventure, for one evening as Tobias was washing in the river a great fish caught him by the foot; but with his companion’s help the fish was caught and brought to land. His companion the angel, who has taken the name of Azarias, bids him keep the gall and the liver and the heart of the fish, for the two latter when burned make a smoke which will drive away demons, while the gall is efficacious for curing white films which may have formed themselves on the eyes of a man. Tobias does as he is bidden (vi. 2-9). On their nearing Ecbatana Raphael tells Tobias that he must marry Sarah the daughter of Raguel as being nearest of kin; but Tobias expresses his fears that he may fall a victim to the same evil demon who had already caused the death of Sarah’s seven husbands. Thereupon Raphael reminds him of the liver and heart of the fish, which Tobias had kept, and he is told to place them upon the ashes of incense at the proper time, when the smell of the smoke will drive the demon away (vi. 10-18). On their arrival at the house of Raguel they are welcomed by their host; Raphael makes all arrangements with regard to the marriage between Tobias and Sarah. At the proper time Tobias burns the liver and heart of the fish with all success; there is rejoicing and feasting in the house of Raguel (vii., viii.). At Tobias’ request Raphael goes to Gabael and fetches the money belonging to Tobit (ix.).

In the meantime Tobias’ parents are beginning to feel anxious about his long delay (x. 1-7a). Tobias and his wife, Sarah, however, return to Nineveh to the great joy of Tobit and Anna. The first act of Tobias on seeing his blind father again is to bring out the gall of the fish and apply it to the latter’s eyes; the beneficial effect is immediate; Tobit regains his sight, and weeps for joy (x. 7b-xi. 8).

The last section of the book (xii.-xiv.) tells of Raphael making himself known to Tobit, and of the wisdom of Raphael, after which is added an account of Raphael’s ascension (xii.); the two last chapters give the prayer of Tobit (xiii.), and his last words (xiv.).

IV. The Religious Standpoint of the Writer

In various important particulars the writer of the Book of Tobit and Ben-Sira occupy the same religious standpoint; in others a certain divergence is to be noticed which points to a development of doctrine. A brief examination of the religious standpoint of the two writers is, therefore, both interesting and instructive.

(a) We will refer first to those points in which the teaching is identical.

With regard to the Temple cultus at Jerusalem it will suffice to quote one passage from each book to show the identity of view; in Tobit i. 6-8 occur these words: “I used to go to Jerusalem with the firstfruits and the firstlings and the tenths of the cattle and the first shearings of the sheep, and give them to the priests, the sons of Aaron, for the altar, and the tenth of the corn and the wine and oil and pomegranates and the rest of the fruits to the sons of Levi, who ministered at Jerusalem ...” (cp. ii. 1-9). Quite in accordance with this are Ben-Sira’s words in vii. 29-31:

Fear God with all thy heart,

And reverence His priests.

With all thy strength love Him that made thee,

And forsake not His ministers.

Glorify God and honour the priest,

And give them their portion as it is commanded thee;

The food of the trespass-offering, and the heave-offering of the hand,

The sacrifices of righteousness, and the offerings of holy things

(xxxv. 1-11, xlv. 14-16).

Both writers lay much stress on other legal ordinances, above all on Prayer and Almsgiving; these do not need illustrating, as they are so often spoken of in either book; but two points, the spirit and the efficacy of almsgiving, are worth special mention: in Tobit iv. 16 it is said: “Let not thine eye be grudging when thou givest alms,” and a similar spirit of whole-heartedness is enjoined in Ecclesiasticus xviii. 15-18:

My son, bring no blemish on thy good deeds,

Nor in giving any gift cause grief through words....

The gift of an envious man consumeth the eyes.

In like manner the efficacy of alms is spoken of by both writers in an identical sense; in Tobit iv. 10 it is said: “Alms delivereth from death, and suffereth not to come into darkness”; and Ben-Sira says:

A flaming fire doth water quench,

So doth almsgiving atone for sin.

Both writers, moreover, use the word as almost synonymous with righteousness. Fasting, strange to say, receives practically no notice in Tobit,[386] though Ben-Sira insists upon its right use (xxxiv. 26). On one other point of legal observance, however, both writers lay similar emphasis; in Tobit ii. 8, 10 Tobit says: “And when the sun was set, I went and digged a grave and buried him.... And the same night I washed myself and came into my courtyard and lay down to sleep ...”; the observance of this legal precept is referred to by Ben-Sira in these words:

He who washeth after (contact with) a dead body, and toucheth it again,

What hath he gained by his bathing? (xxxiv. 25).

The similarity of the religious standpoint of these two writers may be further illustrated by their universalistic attitude and their teaching on the future life. Although, normally, Ben-Sira looks upon Israel as pre-eminently the nation upon which God’s interest is centred he shows a broader outlook in such a passage as xviii. 1-14:

... As a drop of water from the sea, or as a grain of sand,

So are man’s few years in the eternal days.

Therefore is the Lord long-suffering towards them,

And poureth out His mercy upon them....

The mercy of man is exercised upon his own kin,

But the mercy of God is extended to all flesh,

Reproving, and chastening, and teaching,

And bringing them back as a shepherd his flock....

Tobit, in like manner, contemplates all men as coming within the pale of God’s mercy:

I exalt my God, and my soul shall rejoice in the King of heaven;

Of His greatness let all men tell,

And let them give Him thanks in Jerusalem....

A bright light shall shine unto all the ends of the earth;

Many nations shall come from afar,

And the inhabitants of the utmost ends of the earth unto Thy holy name;

With their gifts also in their hands unto the King of heaven

Generations of generations shall utter rejoicing in Thee

And Thy name that is elect unto the generations of eternity

(xiii. 7-11; cp. xiv. 4-6).

The belief of both writers concerning the future life is identical, it follows the normal teaching of the Old Testament; there is, therefore, no belief in the resurrection (see Ecclus. xvii. 27, 28, xxviii. 6, xl. 11, etc., and Tobit iii. 10, iv. 10, xii. 9, xiii. 2); at the same time, one is perhaps justified in seeing the foreshadowing of a developed belief in such words as these: “Lord, command that I be released from this distress, let me go to the everlasting place, and turn not Thy face, O Lord, away from me” (Tobit iii. 6).

(b) A definite doctrinal development is to be discerned in two directions; while in a number of passages the doctrine of God in each book is the same as normally taught in the Old Testament, in Tobit there is a distinct tendency to introduce the idea of an intermediate agency between God and men; this is seen in the activity of the angel Raphael, who is sent to fulfil God’s purposes, e.g. iii. 16, 17: “At the self-same time the prayer of both was heard before the glory of God; and Raphael was sent to heal them both; ...” and in xii. 12-14 Raphael says: “And now, when thou didst pray, and Sarah, I did bring the memorial of your prayer before the glory of the Lord; and when thou didst bury the dead, likewise....” It is also worth noting that instead of speaking of God directly, expressions such as “the glory of God” (as in the two passages just quoted), and the “Name” (iii. 11, viii. 5, xi. 14, xii. 6, xiii. 18) are used; stress is thus laid on the transcendental character of God in a manner which reminds one of the later developments of Judaism regarding this subject. Closely connected with what has just been said is the developed doctrine of angels in the Book of Tobit; in addition to the passages just quoted reference may be made to xi. 14: “Blessed is God, and blessed is His great name, and blessed are all His angels”; and xii. 15: “I am Raphael, one of the seven angels, which stand and enter before the glory of the Lord.” Such ideas show a decided development of belief on the subject of angels as compared with the teaching of Ben-Sira, for in his book there is scarcely any reference to angels, xlii. 16 (and, possibly, xliii. 26) being the only one. It is the same with the subject of demonology, which has no place in the teaching of Ben-Sira, while in Tobit the references to Asmodæus “the evil demon” (iii. 8, 17, cp. vi. 14) and to methods of exorcism (vi. 7-9, 16-18, viii. 2, 3) show that belief in the activity of demons had begun to assume a position of considerable importance in popular superstition.

This comparison between the religious standpoint of the writer of Tobit and that of Ben-Sira shows that there is much affinity between the two, and leads to the conclusion that, in the main, though not in all respects, both belong to the same school of thought. We have seen that Ben-Sira represented the point of view of those who may be regarded as the precursors of what developed into the Sadducæan party after the Maccabæan struggle. The writer of the Book of Tobit approximates to this standpoint upon the whole, though in some respects he inclines to other directions. Loyalty to the Law and belief in Providence, as we have pointed out in another chapter, are not incompatible with the Sadducæan position; the prominent stress laid on almsgiving and its efficacy (iv. 10, xii. 9) does not differ from the teaching of Ben-Sira on the subject. In his universalistic attitude, though like Ben-Sira an ardent Israelite, the writer of Tobit follows in the teaching of the greatest prophets, and in this differs fundamentally from the standpoint of those who, later, developed into the party of the Pharisees. That there is no teaching on the resurrection in passages where one would justly look for it had such a doctrine been held, points in the same direction.

On the other hand, the developed teaching on the transcendental character of God, the angelology and demonology, and the slight indications of the beginning of eschatological teaching, point away from the position indicated. This fact is full of interest as showing that prior to the Maccabæan struggle no hard and fast lines were drawn between different schools of thought, although definite tendencies were distinctly observable. We are inclined to see in the writer of the Book of Tobit a thinker whose natural tendency was to follow in the wake of the old conservative school, but who was not uninfluenced by the rising thought of the Apocalyptists (see xiii. 1-18, xiv. 3-7), and who felt that much of what was taught by the Chassidim was of permanent value. In Chassidism were contained the germs[387] of what before long developed into the Apocalyptic Movement and Pharisaism; as long as these only remained tendencies there was nothing fundamentally antagonistic in either, and in the writer of the Book of Tobit we see this exemplified. This helps us, by the way, to understand why we find later specifically apocalyptic traits in Pharisaic teaching, and specifically Pharisaic traits in Apocalyptic teaching; and this in spite of the pronounced antagonism which in course of time arose between the two. This fact is to be explained not so much on the assumption that one influenced the other, as that both descended from the same ancestor, viz. Chassidism.

V. The Date of the Book, its Integrity, and Place of Origin

From what has just been said we are led to the conclusion that our book belongs to the same period as that of Ecclesiasticus, though perhaps slightly later in that period than the latter book. Its doctrinal standpoint, like that of Ecclesiasticus, is pre-Maccabæan. That there is not the slightest reference to the Maccabæan struggle points in the same direction. Various reasons, some of them rather forced, have been put forward to show that the book is of much later date, others to prove that it is much earlier; but we feel convinced that the surest guide to the date of a Jewish book written between those two great historical landmarks, the time of Ezra and the beginning of the Christian era, is its doctrinal standpoint.[388] This, taken as a whole, can in the case of our book only point to a time previous to the Maccabæan struggle; for, after this, parties antagonistic to each other became definitely formed, and such an attitude as that of the writer of the Book of Tobit was then unthinkable; he must then have been either a Sadducee or a Pharisee or an Apocalyptist (Essenism does not come into consideration here), whereas, in point of fact, he shows a mixture of all three tendencies. The book is not necessarily later than Ecclesiasticus, for although it does in some respects show a development of doctrine it is quite possible for contemporaries to be in substantial agreement and yet for one to hold slightly more advanced views on certain points than another. Our book may thus be assigned to a date not much later than B.C. 175 and not earlier than B.C. 190.

A careful study of the book shows no reason for questioning its integrity; the author has obviously utilized different materials in composing his story, but apart from minor details, his composition has not been added to by other writers.

The place of origin of the book cannot be decided with any certainty; it lies between Palestine and Egypt, though the balance of probability points to the latter. The book was written for the Jews of the Dispersion; this is clear from such words as the following:

Give thanks unto Him before the Gentiles, ye children of Israel,

For He hath scattered you among them,

And there He hath shown you His greatness;

And extol ye Him before all the living (xiii. 3, 4),

and the writer himself says he is in captivity in xiii. 6:

I, in the land of my captivity, give Him thanks.

That this land cannot be either the Far East, Persia, Assyria, Babylonia, or Media, as has been held by different scholars, is shown by Simpson, who says that “such surmises are, at the outset, negatived by the author’s ignorance of Eastern geography and his acceptance of the ordinary standards of Greek and Roman geographies. That the Tigris flowed between Nineveh and Media was an idea common among the Greeks; that Ecbatana was situated in a plain was a constant Western fallacy, and is repeated in Diodorus ii. 13, 6, in a passage dependent on Ctesias.”[389] Another, apparently small, point also suggests Egypt; it is said in vi. 3 that “a great fish leaped up out of the water, and would have swallowed the foot of the young man ...”; no ordinary fish would do this kind of thing, it points rather to a crocodile of the Nile, and this was probably in the writer’s mind; “this conjecture,” in the words of Robertson Smith, “is raised almost to certainty when we read in Kazwini i. 132 that the smell of the smoke of a crocodile’s liver cures epilepsy, and that its dung and gall cure leucoma, which was the cause of Tobit’s blindness. Very similar statements as to the medicinal virtues of the crocodile occur in Greek and Latin writers.”[390]

Further, the sources utilized by the writer of the book suggest Egypt as the place of its origin; “only Egyptian Jews could need an antidote to the Tractate of Khons,” and this seems to have been one main purpose of the book.[391] Finally, if, as seems upon the whole probable, the book was originally written in Greek, a further reason for regarding Egypt as its original home is offered. Some scholars are strong advocates of a Semitic (Hebrew or Aramaic) original, but to give details of the reasons for either contention would involve technicalities which would be inappropriate here. It must suffice to say that the Greek as a whole does not read like a translation, whatever may be the case in isolated instances. If one reads the Greek of Ecclesiasticus, which is admittedly a translation, and compares it with that of the Book of Tobit, the difference is enormous, and forces one to believe that if Tobit was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, its Greek form must be not a translation, but a paraphrase.[392]

It is, however, quite possible that the home of the writer was Palestine, and that for some reason or other he was compelled to spend some considerable time in Egypt. Ben-Sira’s grandson, who was evidently a native of Palestine, came into Egypt and continued there and issued his grandfather’s book in a Greek form while living there. On the supposition that the writer of Tobit was a native of Palestine sojourning in Egypt the Aramaic traits in his book could be explained in a quite natural way.

VI. The Value of the Book for New Testament Study

There are a few passages in the Book of Tobit which, on being compared with similar ones in the Gospels, illustrate the truth that Christ inculcated much of the teaching of Judaism with which His hearers were already familiar, and which therefore had His approval. In iv. 8, 9 we read: “As thy substance is, give alms of it according to thine abundance; if thou have much, according to the abundance therefore give alms; if thou have little, bestow it, and be not afraid to give alms according to that little; for thou layest up a good treasure for thyself against the day of necessity.” The spirit of this teaching is endorsed, but made more spiritual, in the familiar words of Matthew vi. 19-21: “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth ... but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven ... for where thy treasure is, there will thy heart be also.” An even more pointed illustration is seen on comparing Tobit xii. 8-10 with Matthew vi. 1-6; the former runs: “Better is prayer with truth, and alms with righteousness, than riches with unrighteousness; it is better to give alms than to lay up gold ...”; in Matthew vi. 1-6 almsgiving and prayer are likewise placed together, only here again the teaching is fuller and deeper. Again, in Tobit iv. 15 it is said: “What thou thyself hatest, do to no man”; this negative injunction is put positively in Matthew vii. 12: “All things therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them” (cp. Luke vi. 31). Once more, in Tobit iv. 16 the command is given: “Give of thy bread to the hungry, and of thy garments to them that are naked”; this reminds one irresistibly of Matthew xxv. 35, 36: “I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in; naked, and ye clothed me....”

That St. Paul was well acquainted with the Book of Tobit, and was influenced by it, seems to come out clearly in some passages in his epistles; thus the words in 2 Corinthians ix. 9, “Let each man do according as he hath purposed in his heart; not grudgingly or of necessity,” echo what is said in Tobit iv. 7, 16, “As thy substance is ...” (quoted above) and in verse 16: “Let not thine eye be grudging when thou givest alms” (cp. 1 Cor. xvi. 2, 2 Cor. viii. 12). Although the identical injunction is given in Tobit iv. 12a and 1 Thessalonians iv. 3, and in Tobit iv. 15b and Ephesians v. 18, they do not necessarily imply that St. Paul was indebted to this book for them because they are so general in character. On the other hand, the thought in Romans vi. 23, “For the wages of sin is death,” seems to be derived from Tobit xii. 10: “They that commit sin and unrighteousness are enemies to their own life.” In the first epistle to Timothy the influence of our book may also be discerned in a few cases; thus, in vi. 6 the words, “But godliness with contentment is great gain,” are in their essence closely analogous to what is written in Tobit iv. 21: “And fear not, my child, because we have become poor; thou hast much wealth, if thou fear God and avoid every kind of sin, and do the things which are good in the sight of the Lord thy God.” In the same way, the passage already quoted, Tobit iv. 9, “... for thou layest up a good treasure for thyself against the day of necessity,” is spiritualized in 1 Timothy vi. 19: “... laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on the life which is life indeed.” It is also worth mentioning that the expression “King eternal” in 1 Timothy i. 17 occurs also in Tobit xiii. 6.

In a few other passages identity of thought and verbal similarities are of interest: the combination of good works and almsdeeds is found in Tobit i. 3 and Acts ix. 36; in Tobit xii. 12 the words, “I did bring the memorial of your prayer before the glory of the Lord,” reminds one forcibly of Acts x. 4: “Thy prayers and thine alms are gone up for a memorial before God.” The idea of binding the devil occurs both in Tobit viii. 3 and Revelation xx. 2, and the description of the new Jerusalem in Tobit xiii. 16-18 has some distinct points of similarity with the fuller picture given in Revelation xxi. 10-21.

In most of the cases given above the verbal similarity is more striking when read in the original Greek.

CHAPTER III
The Book of Judith

[Literature.—Fritzsche, Die Bücher Tobiä und Judith erklärt, in “Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen” (1853); Ball, in Wace, I, pp. 241-360; Schürer, II, iii. pp. 32-37, German ed., III, pp. 230-237; Löhr, in Kautzsch, I pp. 147-164; Gaster, in the “Proceedings of the Soc. of Biblical Archæology” for 1894, pp. 156-163; Scholz, Kommentar über das Buch Judith und über Bel und Drache (1896); Wünsche, Aus Israel’s Lehrhallen, II, pp. 164-185 (1908); Cowley, in Charles, I, pp. 242-267.]

I. Contents and Character of the Book

The book purports to tell of events which took place in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, “who reigned over the Assyrians in Nineveh.” It tells of how this king in the twelfth year of his reign gathered together many nations to fight with him against the Medes; the collection of this host seems to have taken five years, for it was not until the seventeenth year of his reign that Nebuchadnezzar attacked and conquered Arphaxad, king of the Medes. Now among the peoples whom Nebuchadnezzar had summoned to join him in this war all those of the west had refused to respond, among them being those “that were in Carmel and Gilead, in the higher Galilee and the great plain of Esdraelon, all that were in Samaria and the cities thereof, and beyond Jordan unto Jerusalem” (i. 9); these and many others, therefore, Nebuchadnezzar determined to punish now that he had successfully dealt with the Medes. So he commands Holofernes, the chief captain of his host, to go with an army of 132,000, and take vengeance on these disobedient lands of the west. Then follows the account of Holofernes’ victorious progress until he reaches the plain of Esdraelon; he pitches his camp between Geba and Scythopolis, and rests there for a month in order to “gather together all the baggage of his host” (ii. 21-iii. 10). The Jews are now filled with anxiety, and speedily set about taking measures of defence; above all, they fortify the villages on the mountain-tops. Joakim, the high-priest, takes the lead and commands the people of Bethulia to seize the ascents of the hill-country overlooking the plain of Esdraelon, “because by them was the entrance into Judæa, and it was easy to stop them from approaching, inasmuch as the approach was narrow, with space for two men at the most” (iv. 1-8). The people then give themselves to fasting and prayers, calling upon God to help them in this hour of danger (iv. 9-15). Holofernes, on hearing of the preparations made to resist his advance, is greatly incensed. Then Achior, the leader of the Ammonites who had joined the Assyrian army, warns Holofernes, by pointing to the past history of the Jews, that their God invariably helped these people so long as they remained faithful to Him; so that “if there is no lawlessness in their nation,” Achior concludes, “let my lord now pass by, lest their Lord defend them, and their God be with them, and we shall be a reproach before all the earth.” Holofernes, however, resents this warning, thinking that Achior’s intention is to protect the Jews by thus seeking to dissuade him from further advance. To punish Achior, Holofernes has him bound and taken to the foot of the hill on which the fortress of Bethulia is situated; he is left there in the hopes that he will be killed by the enemy. But the Israelites, on finding him, take him into the city and treat him kindly (v., vi.). Holofernes now makes a demonstration in the valley in the sight of the garrison in Bethulia, his object being to inspire the Jews with dread and despair, and thus induce them to submit; the capture of this mountain fortress was essential for the further advance. But “the children of Esau” realize that it is no easy matter to reduce an almost impregnable fortress like this otherwise than through famine; above all, if the water supply is cut off, the garrison will speedily be forced to give in; “remain in thy camp,” they say to Holofernes, “and keep safe every man of thy host, and let thy servants get possession of the fountain of water which issueth forth from the foot of the mountain; for all the inhabitants of Bethulia have their water thence; and thirst will kill them, and they will give up their city.” Holofernes sees the wisdom of this advice, which is carried out. The result is that the people in Bethulia suffer terrible distress, and are reduced to despair; they come to Ozias, the elder of the city, and call upon him to surrender; Ozias implores them to hold out for another five days, firmly believing that God will have mercy upon them and not forsake them utterly. To this the people consent (vii.).

These first seven chapters, which constitute nearly half the book, form in reality only the introduction to what follows; the heroine of the story has not yet even been mentioned. The writer has brought his narrative to a point where, humanly speaking, nothing can save the ill-fated people of Bethulia; but he leaves the impression upon his hearers that they are to expect something wonderful to happen during the five days of waiting for the end. And, in truth, the story that follows is extraordinarily dramatic; from chapter viii. onwards one is carried along in almost breathless excitement, it is a masterpiece of narrative; though the one thing that perhaps somewhat mars its perfection is the writer’s proneness to be diffuse.

With chapter viii. Judith is introduced; first her genealogy is given, she belongs to the tribe of Simeon; then other details are mentioned. She has been a widow for three years and four months; her husband, Manasses, died of sunstroke; he had left his widow “gold, and silver, and menservants, and maidservants, and cattle, and lands.” Judith is a devout woman, and strict in her religious observances; her great beauty is often insisted upon, and she is also endowed with much wisdom. On her hearing of what had happened, she sends her maid to the elders of the city, Ozias, Chabris, and Charmis, inviting them to her house; they come, and Judith addresses them at some length, the gist of her words being that they have been wrong in promising to deliver up the city in five days, because in doing so they have shown their want of faith in God; moreover, if Bethulia is taken it will mean the utter downfall of the people, and the profanation of the sanctuary. So she urges them to be an example to the people by showing unwavering trust in God. They commend her words, and beg her to pray to God for rain, that the cisterns may be filled and the people obtain refreshment. But Judith replies: “Hear me, and I will do a thing, which shall go down to all generations among the children of our race.” She does not tell them what she is going to do, but only says that God will use her as an instrument of deliverance before the five days are out (viii.). The whole of the next chapter is taken up with Judith’s prayer to God in preparation for what she is about to undertake. Judith now goes with her maid to the camp of Holofernes; everyone is struck with her beauty, and she is well received, Holofernes especially being very gracious to her. She then declares to him the purpose of her coming, which is for nothing less than the betrayal of her people. She skilfully uses the argument which Achior had used, namely that as long as her people are faithful to God it will not be possible to overcome them, but if they do anything to anger Him, then He will forsake them. This, she tells him, is true; but what Achior did not know, that she has come to tell, and it is this: the Israelites are about to do something which will bring down upon them the wrath of God; being in dire straits they are going to eat sanctified food, which is contrary to the Law; they are merely waiting to receive licence to do this from the authorities in Jerusalem, where the same thing has already been done, and as soon as they receive the permission they will transgress the Law; then will be Holofernes’ chance. So Judith says she will go forth each night, and will pray to God Who will tell her as soon as the people have committed their sins; “and I will come and show it also unto thee; and thou shalt go forth with all thy host, and there shall be none of them that shall resist thee. And I will lead thee through the midst of Judæa, until thou comest over against Jerusalem; and I will set thy seat in the midst thereof.” Needless to say that Holofernes is greatly pleased with these words. For three days Judith and her maid remain in the camp within their own quarters; each night they go forth to pray, the guards being instructed to let them pass outside the camp (x.-xii. 9). But on the fourth day Holofernes gives a feast to which he invites Judith; she comes; the feast lasts long, and Holofernes becomes inflamed with wine and casts evil eyes upon Judith. Then all the servants go from the tent. Judith and Holofernes are left alone; but the latter is overcome with wine. Judith approaches the couch whereon he lies; then uttering a hasty prayer for strength, she seizes the warrior’s scimitar and hews his head from his body. She calls her maid, who puts the head of Holofernes into her bag of victuals, and they both pass out of the camp, and return to Bethulia (xii. 10-xiii. 10). There is immense joy in the city when they learn what Judith has done; the head of Holofernes is hung out on the battlements. The Assyrian army, on learning what has happened, are plunged into fear and confusion; the Israelites fall upon them and put them to flight. Judith is richly rewarded, and honoured by all the people (xiii. 11-xv. 13). Then follows Judith’s Song of Praise (xvi. 2-17); and the book closes with a short account of how Judith dedicated to God her share of the spoil of the Assyrian camp, of her prosperity, and finally of her death in Bethulia at a ripe old age (xvi. 18-25).

The first question as to the character of the book that naturally arises is whether, or how far, it is historical. The opening words of the book are in themselves sufficient to show that the writer is not to be looked upon as a historian. He says, “In the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who reigned over the Assyrians in Nineveh ...”; and again in ii. 1 ff. it is narrated how in his eighteenth year he sent Holofernes to undertake the campaign in the west. But further, in iv. 2, 3 it says that the people were exceedingly afraid at the approach of Holofernes, and were troubled for Jerusalem, and for the temple of the Lord their God; “because they were newly come up from the Captivity, and all the people of Judæa were lately gathered together; and the vessels, and the altar, and the house, were sanctified after the profanation.” How utterly unhistorical all this is can be seen at once by referring to 2 Kings xxiv., xxv., and Jeremiah xxxix., xl. Nebuchadnezzar was king of Babylon (Nineveh fell in B.C. 608), and it was in the eighteenth year of his reign (B.C. 586) that Jerusalem was besieged and captured for the second time, the first time being in 597; and so far from the people having newly come up from the Captivity, it was just in this year that a further exportation of Jews took place. The return from the Captivity was, at the earliest, in B.C. 536, the rebuilding of the Temple took place some twenty years later. Then, again, in iv. 6-8 Joakim the high-priest is represented as supreme ruler; but as a matter of fact Gedaliah had been appointed by Nebuchadnezzar as governor over the cities of Judah (2 Kings xxv. 22, Jer. xl. 5).

On the face of it, therefore, the book is not to be regarded as historical. Yet the writer is well acquainted with the Old Testament, and so far as the geography of Palestine is concerned he is thoroughly au fait. We must conclude that he simply chose the historical names and times as the framework in which to place his story in order that he might thereby render it more dramatic; he purposely commits gross historical blunders in order to make it clear to his readers at the outset that the historical period chosen is merely for literary effect; “they are to understand that this is fiction, not history; it did not take place in this or that definite period of Jewish history, but simply ‘once upon a time,’ the real vagueness of the date being transparently disguised in the manner which has become familiar in the folk-tales of other parts of the world.”[393] There is, of course, always the possibility that some historical basis may exist for the actual story of Judith as distinct from its framework, and this is held to be the case by some scholars; Zunz, for example, says: “It is quite possible that in some Palestinian town a popular festival might have been celebrated in memory of the heroic deed of some woman, and that when the real occasion of it had been forgotten and had given place to a legend with manifold embellishment, a story was composed in honour of Judith, presumably before the destruction of the Temple.”[394] The fact that several forms of the story exist supports this idea (see the next section). But the majority of scholars are disposed to regard the book as pure fiction (with a special object in view as we shall see presently), and without any basis of fact.

As a piece of literary work the book must command sincere admiration; the author is a master in the art of story-telling, and the way in which he intertwines the purposes for which the book was written with the narrative itself is very skilfully done. Striking, too, is the dramatic power which the writer exhibits; the reader becomes fascinated as step by step he is drawn nearer and nearer to the climax, wondering what it is going to be; he is impelled to read on in order to see what is really going to happen, for the writer cleverly conceals this right up to the very moment that the climax is reached. Judith’s object in coming to Holofernes seems to be represented at first as the act of a traitress, and something worse; and yet her deep piety convinces the reader that this cannot be; so that he must read on; he cannot stop. Torrey is certainly right in saying that “what gained for the book its high esteem in early times, in both the Jewish and the Christian world, was its intrinsic merit as a story, rather than its religious teaching or its patriotism.”[395]

II. Variety of Form of the Judith Story

Mention must be made of the fact that our book has come down to us in more than one form. We have, firstly, the Greek form preserved in the Septuagint; our Apocrypha follows this, and it is the one of which some account has been given in the preceding section. This Greek form of the story is much longer than the other, to be spoken of presently; but it exists in three recensions, and the differences between these are considerable. Of these three, one is preserved in the principal uncial manuscripts, A, B, and to some extent in ℵ; this, as just said, is the recension adopted in our Apocrypha. The second is found in two cursive manuscripts, numbered 19 and 108; while the third occurs in a cursive numbered 58[396]; it was from a manuscript belonging to the type of text representing this latter that the Old Latin and Syriac Versions were made.[397] It is probable that all these recensions go back to a single archetype.[398] But, in the second place, there exists, in Hebrew, quite a different and much shorter form of the story; this form is preserved in a Hebrew manuscript, found by Gaster,[399] belonging approximately to the year A.D. 1000; its home was, according to Gaster, “somewhere in Babylon,” and he believes that it “must have belonged originally to the old Megillath Taanith,” a Rabbinical tractate belonging to the Haggadic literature. In this shorter form some of the essential features of the story differ from the longer form; thus, Seleucus takes the place of Nebuchadnezzar; Judith appears not as a widow, but as a maiden, the daughter of Ahitob; the scene of the story, moreover, is not placed in Bethulia, but in Jerusalem; and the relations between Judith and her victim are given in somewhat unblushing detail. This form of the story occurs also in the Megillath Taanith (chap, vi.), as we now have it; here there are again some variations, for, according to Zunz, “Judith is represented as the daughter of Jochanan, or of Mattathiah, and as a heroine belonging to the Hasmonæan period.”[400]

The question naturally arises here as to which of these forms most nearly represents the original story. The rather intricate details which would have to be given in order to answer this would be wearisome; we must content ourselves, therefore, with saying that there can be little doubt that the shorter, Hebrew, form must be regarded as coming closest to the original form of the story. In comparing the contents of each form, as given respectively in the Greek MSS. and in the magazine in which Gaster’s manuscript has been published, it will be seen that a variety of indications lead to the conviction that the shorter form is the older.

III. The Teaching and Purpose of the Book

These two subjects go together; for the answer to the one is the answer to the other. The teaching is that of the rigidly orthodox Pharisaic type; observance of the Law is the one thing needful. This is vividly brought out whenever Judith’s piety is extolled; her strictness with regard to the dietary laws is described in xii. 1-9 (see also x. 5, xi. 12-15); when at last she sits down at the banquet of Holofernes it is said: “She took and ate and drank before him what her servant had prepared” (xii. 19). Her fasting and observance of the feast-days is mentioned in viii. 6: “And she fasted all the days of her widowhood, save the eves of the sabbaths, and the sabbaths, and the eves of the new moons, and the new moons, and the feasts and joyful days of the house of Israel” (cp. iv. 13). Ritual ablutions are referred to in x. 3, xii. 7, 9, her devotion to prayer in the whole of chapter ix., and incidentally in viii. 31, xi. 17, xii. 6, xiii. 3, 4, 7, 10. It is strange that there is no reference to almsgiving. Further, zeal for the Temple is shown in iv. 2, 3, iv. 11-15, v. 19, viii. 21, 24, ix. 1, 8, 13, xvi. 20; and the duty of mourning in viii. 5, 6, xvi. 24. The sin of withholding their dues from the priests is emphasized in xi. 13. Pharisaic particularism is to be discerned in viii. 20, ix. 14, xvi. 17; proselytism in xiv. 10; and eternal punishment on the Gentiles in xvi. 17. The worship of the One God of Israel, and the teaching concerning Him, is of course insisted upon throughout.

It will thus be seen that, although much of the teaching is that of traditional Judaism, certain specifically Pharisaic doctrinal points stand out conspicuously; this, it may be said in passing, makes our book important for the study of pre-Christian Judaism.

The main purpose of the book is, therefore, clearly to inculcate and to forward Pharisaic Judaism; and at the time when this book was written (see the next section) this was extremely needful; for although there were some things in the Pharisaic presentation of Judaism which were not conducive to spiritual religion, it cannot be too strongly insisted upon that Pharisaism was the one and only bulwark against heathenism in those days, and the upholder of a true monotheistic faith. It has been truly pointed out by Elbogen[401] that “the Pharisees are usually described as the party of narrow legalistic tendencies, and it is forgotten how strenuously they laboured against the Hellenizing movement for the maintenance of Monotheism; it is forgotten that they built up religious individualism and purely spiritual worship; that it was through them more especially that belief in a future life was deepened; and that they carried on a powerful mission (propaganda).”

Teaching of a different kind in our book, and of subsidiary importance, is that where God’s honour is concerned His people must fight, no matter how great the odds against them may be. A warlike spirit breathes throughout the book; but it is against the enemies of God, the heathen nations, that this spirit is directed; so that it is the need and duty and glory of religious warfare that is inculcated.

IV. The Date of the Book

The historical details given in the book are, as we have seen, wholly unreliable; they cannot, therefore, be of any use in seeking to fix a date. In the absence of other indications there is only one way in which this can be approximately ascertained, and that is by the teaching and contents of the book. But as has already been pointed out, the form in which the story is given in the Apocrypha is not the earliest; so that we must seek to establish dates both for the form that we have here followed, namely, that of the Apocrypha, and for the story as it appeared in its original form. We have shown that the teaching is that of the Pharisaic type; now it is, as has been pointed out in an earlier chapter,[402] from the Maccabæan conflict with surrounding heathenism that Pharisaism emerges as an active movement, and it only becomes quiescent after the annihilation of the Jewish national life in the reign of Hadrian[403]; this gives two outside dates within which the book in either form must have been composed, viz. roughly speaking between B.C. 150-A.D. 135. The book is first quoted in the first epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians,[404] which was written in A.D. 95 or 96; this presupposes the existence of our book for some time previously. But a further consideration is this: the pseudepigraphic book called “The Assumption of Moses,”[405] was written at the beginning of the first century A.D. by a Pharisee whose purpose in writing it was to urge upon the Jews quietude and patience instead of a warlike spirit and national assertion; the writer of this book belonged to the same party as the writer of the Book of Judith in its later form; had both writers lived at the same time it is highly improbable that they would have taken up such entirely opposed attitudes on the question of religious warfare; as there is no period during the first century A.D. the historical conditions of which would suit the warlike spirit of our book, it is obvious that it must have been written before the beginning of the Christian era. Gaster[406] has shown that there is only one period with which all the elements of our book coincide so far as warfare is concerned, and that is the approach of Pompey to Jerusalem in B.C. 63. So that we may safely assign the middle of the first century B.C. as the date for the later form of our book, As regards the earlier form of the book, it is to be noted that it contains no references to ceremonial observances, a fact which proves that it must have been written before Pharisaism had had time to develop; this is of itself sufficient to show that the book in its original form was written before B.C. 100; so that we shall not be far wrong in fixing the date of this about the middle of the second century B.C.

V. The Original Language of the Book

There can be no two opinions as to what the original language of the book was, namely Hebrew; in numerous instances the Greek proves itself to have been translated from Hebrew, the idioms being those of classical Hebrew; so that this was the original language of both the longer and shorter forms. St. Jerome, in the preface to his translation, says that he had the book before him in Aramaic; this cannot, however, have been the original, for neither Origen nor the Jews with whom he was in communication knew either of a Hebrew or an Aramaic form of the book.[407] The Hebrew original was lost altogether in the West, but must have been preserved in some form or other in the East.

CHAPTER IV
The Additions to the Book of Daniel

[Literature.—Brüll, Das apokryphische Susanna-Buch, in “Jahrbücher für jüdische Geschichte und Literatur” (1877); Ball, in Wace, II, pp. 305-360; Schürer, II, iii. pp. 183-188, German ed., III, pp. 452-458; Scholz, Judith und Bel und der Drache (1896); Julius, Die griechischen Daniel-Zusätze und ihre kanonische Geltung (1901); Daubney, The Three Additions to Daniel, (1906); Rothstein, in Kautzsch, I, pp. 172-193; Bennett, Kay, and Witton Davies, in Charles, I, pp. 625-664. The articles by Marshall in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible, and Kamphausen, in the Encycl. Bibl.]

I. Preliminary Remarks

Before dealing with these Additions individually a word may be said about them collectively. None of them occur in the Hebrew Bible and in only one manuscript of the Septuagint proper are they found[408]; but in the great uncials (B, A, Q), which contain Theodotion’s Version of the Septuagint, they all appear as integral parts of the text of Daniel. “In the Greek manuscripts no break or separate title divides these Greek additions from the rest of the text, except that when Daniel is divided into ‘visions,’ the first vision is made to begin at i. 1, Susanna being thus excluded from the number; Bel, on the other hand, is treated as the last of the visions.”[409] What the actual number of Additions originally was is uncertain; they are usually reckoned as three; it is possible, however, that five originally separate pieces were incorporated into the text of the Septuagint, viz. the Story of Susanna, the Prayer of Azariah, a short narrative piece, the Song of the Three Children, and Bel and the Dragon. The second, third and fourth of these are usually regarded as forming one piece; this question we shall consider immediately. Although some of these Additions are quite inappropriate in their present context, they have from very early times been regarded as belonging to the Book of Daniel proper; “from the Fathers it is clear that in the earliest Christian copies of the Septuagint both Susanna and Bel formed part of Daniel, to which they are ascribed by Irenæus and Tertullian, and implicitly by Hippolytus. The remarkable letter of Julius Africanus to Origen which throws doubt on the genuineness of Susanna, calling attention to indications of its Greek origin, form a solitary exception to the general view; even Origen labours to maintain their canonicity.”[410] Clement of Alexandria also apparently regarded Susanna[411] and the Song of the Three Children[412] and Bel[413] as canonical; and a string of other authorities could be cited. A useful collection of references to and quotations from these Additions in early Christian writings is given by Daubney, The Three Additions to Daniel, pp. 76-80, 163-169, 235-239.

II. The Prayer of Azariah

This addition consists of two pieces: a narrative portion, verses 1, 23-27, and the Prayer itself, verses 2-22. Now in the Aramaic of Daniel iii. 23, 24 the text runs: (23) “And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, fell down in the midst of the burning fiery furnace. (24) Then Nebuchadnezzar, the king, was astonished, and rose up in haste....” Any candid reader must see at once that there is something not in order with the text here; the natural sequence of the text would, one might justly expect, give some reason for Nebuchadnezzar’s astonishment before stating the fact. Something has evidently fallen out of the text after verse 23. If we insert after verse 23 of the canonical Daniel the narrative addition found in the Septuagint (Theodotion’s Version) we get the following:

And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, fell down in the midst of the burning fiery furnace. And they walked in the midst of the fire, singing the praise of God, and blessing the Lord. And the king’s servants, that put them in, ceased not to make the furnace hot with naphtha, pitch, tow, and small wood; so that the flame streamed forth above the furnace forty and nine cubits. And it spread and burned those Chaldæans whom it found about the furnace. But the angel of the Lord came down into the furnace together with Azarias and his fellows, and he drove the flame of the fire out of the furnace; and he made the midst of the furnace as it had been a moist whistling wind, so that the fire touched them not at all, neither hurt nor troubled them. Then Nebuchadnezzar, the king, was astonied, and rose up in haste; he spake and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king. He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the gods.

The words printed in italics are from the Septuagint, the rest from the canonical Daniel. There are two things that strike us here: firstly, we get the reason for Nebuchadnezzar’s astonishment; and secondly, we are told how it was that four instead of three men were seen in the furnace. The reference to the fourth person in the furnace, as given in the canonical text, is abrupt; that will be allowed. The whole narrative, as just given, runs smoothly and naturally. We contend, therefore, that this narrative addition of the Septuagint represents—it may not be the exact translation—an original portion of the canonical Daniel. It will be remarked that part of the addition, namely that which refers to the burning of the Chaldæans, is already represented in verse 22 of the canonical Daniel, viz., “the flame of the fire slew those men that took up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego”; but these words do not occur in the one manuscript, mentioned above, of the Septuagint proper which we possess, nor in Theodotion’s Version; they are added in the Alexandrian manuscript, but are evidently a later addition as this manuscript also contains the reference to the Chaldæans as given in the quotation above.

Turning now to the Prayer itself, we notice first that there is nothing in it which connects it with the episode to which it is supposed to belong; the words of verse 2, which introduce the Prayer, viz. “Then Azarias rose up and prayed thus, and opened his mouth in the midst of the fire and said,” are an expansion made in order to give it an appearance of connection with verse 1; probably the words ran originally: “Then Azarias rose up and prayed thus,” or something to this effect. The Azarias here mentioned is not one of the “Three Children”; moreover, if the Prayer had originally been written in reference to them we should expect it to have been put into the mouth of Hananiah (Ananias), i.e. the equivalent of the Aramaic Shadrach, whose name is always placed first.

That the Prayer was composed during the early part of the Maccabæan struggle seems probable for the following reasons: in verse 5 it says, “In all the things that Thou hast brought upon us, and upon the holy city of our fathers, even Jerusalem, Thou hast executed true judgements; for according to truth and justice hast Thou brought all these things upon us because of our sins.” The nation has thus suffered adversity. In verse 9 it says further: “And Thou didst deliver us into the hands of lawless enemies, and most hateful forsakers of God, and to a king unjust and the most wicked in all the world.” These “lawless enemies” who are “most hateful forsakers of God” are the extreme Hellenistic Jews mentioned in 1 Maccabees i. 11-15; and by the “king unjust and the most wicked in all the world” is meant Antiochus Epiphanes (cp. 1 Macc. i. 20-24, 41-64). The sore plight in which the nation found itself is shortly but graphically described in verses 14, 15; “For we, O Master, have been made less than all the nations, and are brought this day in all the world because of our sins. Neither is there at this time prince, or prophet, or leader, or burnt-offering, or sacrifice, or oblation, or incense, or place to offer before Thee and to find mercy.” This certainly describes the state of affairs in Palestine at the beginning of the Maccabæan struggle; the date of the composition would, therefore, be about B.C. 170; and the passages quoted read like the words of one who lived in Palestine. The indications in the Prayer of its having been originally written in Hebrew[414] would point in the same direction.

The conjecture may be hazarded that in its original form it was in no way connected with the Book of Daniel; it was inserted, before the Greek translation was made, because its author happened to have the same name as one of the heroes in the Daniel story; but since some copies of Daniel must have existed which did not contain this addition there was a doubt as to whether it had any right to a place there. The canonical Daniel and the Septuagint represent respectively these two opinions.

With the Prayer should be compared Daniel ix. 4-19 and Baruch i. 15-iii. 8; all three partake of a liturgical character; this becomes abundantly clear if one reads them in connection with certain portions of the modern Jewish Liturgy (“Morning Prayer,” see Singer’s edition, The Authorized Daily Prayer Book, pp. 37 ff.). It is difficult to get away from the conviction that all three of the pieces just mentioned were in some way connected with the ancient Jewish Liturgy; whether extracts from time-honoured prayers, or based upon these, it is of course impossible to say, but they quite distinctly breathe the Jewish liturgical spirit.

III. The Song of the Three Children

This Song is introduced with the words of verse 28: “Then the three, as out of one mouth, praised, and glorified, and blessed God in the furnace saying”; thus the connection with the “Three Children” is brought about. In verse 66, at the conclusion of the Song, another connecting link is brought in:

O Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, bless ye the Lord,

Sing His praise and highly exalt Him for ever.

For He hath rescued us from Hades, and saved us from the power of death,

And delivered us from the midst of the burning fiery furnace, even out of the fire hath He delivered us.

A concluding doxology (verses 67, 68) is added. It is probable that all these three verses form a later addition.

This Song again, apart from the added verses, has nothing in it which would connect it with the “Three Children.” Its tone of exultation is in strong contrast to the despondent tone of the Prayer; this is, however, one indication of the date of its composition, though a negative one, viz., it cannot have been written during the Maccabæan struggle. It cannot, on the other hand, have been written before this struggle as the advanced belief in the future life taught in verse 64 precludes this; that verse runs:

O ye spirits and souls of the righteous, bless ye the Lord,

Sing His praise, and highly exalt Him for ever.

We must, therefore, date it after the Maccabæan struggle, probably soon after, on account of its jubilant tone. Like the Prayer, this Song was written in Hebrew, though the arguments for a Greek original in both cases cannot be lightly dismissed. Why it came to be placed in its present position can be quite naturally accounted for; it was due to the desire to put into the mouth of the Three Children a hymn of blessing and glory to God for their wonderful deliverance. It must have been put into its present place subsequently to the Prayer, but as regards its further history one must hazard a conjecture similar to that mentioned above in reference to the Prayer. It is also highly probable that, like the Prayer, the Song was used in public worship. For the form in which it is composed one should compare two liturgical pieces preserved in the modern Jewish Liturgy, viz. the “Abinu Malkenu” (Our Father, our King)[415] and the “Order of counting the Omer”[416]; both differ wholly in content from that of the Song, but the liturgical form is similar in each case. See also the “Psalm of Thanksgiving” which occurs in Ecclesiasticus li. after verse 12 (only preserved in the Hebrew), and compare with it the “Shemoneh ‘Esreh” in the Jewish Liturgy (Singer, Op. cit., pp. 44 ff.).[417] That the Song, when one remembers its history—and if we are right in believing that it was at one time used in public worship by the Jews—has been incorporated into the English Church Liturgy seems to be only in the fit and natural order of things.

IV. The Story of Susanna

The position of this addition varies in the manuscripts; in some it precedes the first chapter of the canonical Daniel; this is the case in the uncials, while in the one manuscript extant of the Septuagint proper which contains it, it forms chapter xiii. of that book.

The story is briefly as follows: Susanna was the daughter of a Jew dwelling in Babylon, named Joakim; she was beautiful and devout. Among Joakim’s friends were two elders of the people who were judges; these two were frequent visitors at the house of Joakim. They both fell in love with Susanna, unbeknown to each other; but each was detected by the other one morning when they had gone out into the garden where Susanna was wont to bathe. They, therefore, agreed to act together in their wicked design; but on approaching Susanna they were repulsed by her with indignation, and in order to protect themselves they accused her of having been unfaithful to her husband by admitting a young man secretly into the garden. This accusation they bring against her in the public court. As Susanna has no means of proving her innocence she is, according to the Law, condemned to death. On her way to execution the crowd is separated by a young man named Daniel, who maintains that Susanna’s condemnation is due to false witness; and, basing his demand on the Law, insists that there shall be anew trial.[418] At this new trial the young man Daniel examines the two witnesses, and asks each separately under which tree in the garden the crime of which they accuse Susanna took place; one says, under a mastick tree, the other, under a holm tree. This contradiction reveals their falseness, and they are condemned. “So when they had gagged them, they led them out and hurled them into a chasm; then the angel of the Lord cast fire in the midst of them. And thus was innocent blood kept safe on that day” (verse 62a, Septuagint).

The purpose which the writer of this story had in view is reflected in the quotation given above from the Mishna, Sanhedrin vi. 2, where two points are specially emphasized, namely, that a criminal who has been condemned is to have every chance of clearing himself, even up to the very end; and that adequate witness must be forthcoming before an accused man may be condemned. In fact the passage referred to is one of several others which could be given implying that a reform in the administration of justice had at one time taken place among the Jewish authorities. Ball, following Brüll,[419] shows, in the admirable introduction to his commentary on this book, that this reform was instituted at the instance of Simon ben Shetach who lived during the reigns of Alexander Jannæus (B.C. 103-76) and Alexandra[420] (B.C. 76-67); it consisted, firstly, in the institution of a proper examination of witnesses; in the Mishna, Pirqe Aboth i. 9 it is said: “Simon ben Shetach used to say, Examine the witnesses abundantly, and be cautious in thy words, lest they learn from them to give false answers.” But Simon ben Shetach was also, in the words of Ball, “the champion of another reform in connection with the law of testimony. As the brother-in-law of king Alexander Jannæus, he was able, after a long struggle, to secure the triumph of his party, the Pharisees, in the Sanhedrin, and of their principles in the administration of the Law, over their opponents, the Sadducees.... According to Sadducæan principles, they who had falsely accused a man of a capital crime were only put to death if the sentence had already been executed on their victim. The legal aphorism, ‘life for life,’ was construed literally. The Pharisees, on the other hand, relying on Deuteronomy xix. 19,[421] considered the intention of the accusers as equivalent to actual murder. According to them, the maxim ‘life for life’ came into application as soon as, in consequence of the false depositions, sentence had been pronounced, although not yet carried out. The law at the time extraordinarily favoured informations. The witnesses, who were also the accusers, were only examined about the main fact, so that their falsehood could not easily become evident; and even if it did, they got off without punishment, though the accused had actually been executed. This crying evil the Pharisaic party sought to remedy by the introduction of a more rigorous examination of witnesses, and by making the law more severe against false witnesses.” The author’s aim, therefore, in writing this book, was to show, by means of a story, that the administration of justice was in some most important particulars defective, and to put forth the Pharisaic suggested reform as the proper remedy.

The questions of authorship, date, place of writing, and language, are all practically answered by what has been said; it was written by a Pharisee, during the last quarter of the first century B.C., in Jerusalem (or, at any rate, in Palestine); the language was in all probability Hebrew.

The judicial acumen of the “young man” who examined the false witnesses, and upon whom “a spirit of discernment” (verse 45, Septuagint) was bestowed, was probably the reason of the name of Daniel (“My judge is El”) being given to him. Thus would sufficiently explain why it became prefixed, or added, to the Book of Daniel, with which it has otherwise no connection.

V. Bel and the Dragon

This addition follows the preceding one in all the Greek manuscripts by which it is treated as an integral part of the canonical Daniel.

The story tells how Daniel proved to the king (called “Cyrus the Persian” in Theodotion’s Version, but not specified by name in the Septuagint manuscript) that the Babylonian idol Bel was not a living god. The king is convinced that Daniel is mistaken, and as proof thereof points to the food which the god demolishes daily. But Daniel undertakes to show the king that not Bel, but his priests, with their wives and children, are those who daily consume the food which they place before him. Daniel and the king, then, go into the temple and watch the food being set before Bel; thereupon the king’s seal is set upon the entrance to the temple, but not before Daniel has managed to get the ashes of wood strewn all over the floor of the temple. During the night the priests with their families enter the temple, as is their wont, by secret doors and enjoy the food set before Bel. The next morning the king, accompanied by Daniel, enter the temple; the king, seeing the footprints of men, women and children in the ashes on the floor, realizes the fraud of which he has been the victim, and which has now been exposed by the wisdom of Daniel. The image of Bel is destroyed, and his priests put to death.

There follows then the exploit of Daniel with the dragon. Daniel had scoffed at Bel because he had been made of clay and bronze; but this god, as the king says, “liveth, and eateth, and drinketh.” However, Daniel undertakes to kill this living god without sword or staff, and thus prove that he is no god. So he takes pitch, and fat and hair, and makes lumps of them, and puts them into the dragon’s mouth; the dragon eats them and bursts asunder. The king is convinced. But the populace threaten to rise against him unless he delivers unto them the destroyer of their gods. The king gives way; and Daniel, being delivered up, is cast into a den of lions. After remaining in the den for six days, without being touched by the lions, Habakkuk (presumably the prophet of that name is intended) brings him his dinner, having been conveyed by an angel from Palestine to Babylon for this purpose. Finally, Daniel is released by the king, at whose order those who would have brought about his destruction are cast into the den of lions and devoured instead.

The purpose of this addition is obviously to throw ridicule on idolatry; although the story is somewhat puerile it may well reflect forms of idolatry which obtained not only in Babylon in earlier days, but also among the Gentiles at the time when the author lived (about B.C. 100, or a little earlier); that is to say that both images and living animals were worshipped. By the “dragon” is probably meant a serpent[422]; we know that serpents were kept at Greek shrines; for example, in the temple of Aesculapius at Epidaurus,[423] and elsewhere, and were, therefore, probably objects of worship.[424] The writer of this addition may likely enough have had this kind of idolatry in mind when speaking of the “dragon.” That Daniel slaying the “dragon” was intended to be a reference to the myth of Merodach and his conflict with Tiamat seems highly improbable, for the addition is clearly a philippic against idolatry, and there would be no point in referring to this primeval combat. As it is not likely to have been written for Jews, the original language was probably Greek; there is nothing in the composition which indubitably stamps it as having been translated from a Semitic original. We are inclined to regard it as belonging to the same type of literature as the Sibylline Oracles, and written for the purpose of Jewish propaganda; cp. verse 28, “The king has become a Jew,” and verse 41, “And the king cried out and said, Great is the Lord God, and there is no other god beside Him.” The universalistic attitude of the writer, and his silence about the Law, the sacrifices, and the priesthood, also point in the direction indicated.

As the author chooses Babylon as the scene of his story, it is not unnatural that he should make Daniel his hero; this would account for the addition having subsequently been appended to the Book of Daniel.

The verses 33-39a, which introduce the Habakkuk episode, are probably from some legend regarding the prophet of that name; they have been ineptly inserted here; the narrative reads far better without them, viz.: (verse 32) “And Daniel was in the lion’s den six days; (verse 39b) but the Lord God remembered Daniel....”

It would be hazardous to attempt to assign any particular place as the home of this addition, beyond saying that, if we are correct in supposing that the little composition was written for propagandist purposes, it is more likely to have been written somewhere in the Dispersion than in Palestine.

CHAPTER V
The Additions to the Book of Esther

[Literature.—Josephus, Antiq., XI, vi.; Fritzsche, in Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des Alten Testamentes (1851); Schürer, Op. cit., II, iii., pp. 181-183 (1891); Scholz, Kommentar über das Buch Esther mit seinen Zusätzen (1892); Cornill, Op. cit., pp. 261-263 (1896); Jacob, Das Buch Esther bei den lxx., in the “Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft” (1890), pp. 241 ff.; Swete, Op. cit., pp. 257-259 (1900); Ryssel, in Kautzsch, Op. cit., I, pp. 193 ff. (1900); Gregg, in Charles, Op. cit., I. pp. 665-684.]

I. The Nature and Object of the Additions

In the canonical Book of Esther the story is told of how Ahasuerus, king of Persia, dismissed his queen, Vashti, because she refused to obey his commandment to come and show her beauty to his assembled guests at a festival. In her place the king chose Esther, a Jewish maiden belonging to the tribe of Benjamin, to be his queen. Esther was of the Jewish exiles living in Persia, and was under the protection of her cousin Mordecai; but she “had not showed (it to) her people, nor her kindred; for Mordecai had charged her that she should not show it.” In consequence of the position now occupied by his cousin, Mordecai came to court every day in order to watch over her interests. On one occasion he was the means of saving the king, all unconscious, from assassination; this was duly told to the king by Esther. But Mordecai had the misfortune to offend Haman, the king’s chamberlain; in consequence of this Haman represented the Jews to the king as a turbulent and disloyal people. The result was that the king issued a proclamation according to which the Jews were to be plundered and massacred. The day for this Haman fixed by lot (“they cast Pur, that is, the lot, before Haman from day to day,” iii. 7). Esther, persuaded by Mordecai, resolves to save her people. She invites the king and Haman to a banquet. On the night preceding the banquet, the king, being unable to sleep, orders the national records to be brought to him; in reading these he comes across the account of Mordecai’s service in saving the king from assassination; this the king had presumably forgotten, for Mordecai had never been rewarded. In the meantime, Haman, secure of favour, resolves upon the immediate death of Mordecai; he has a gallows made, fifty cubits high, on which he intends to hang Mordecai, and he goes to the king at once to get permission to do so. On entering into the king’s presence, Ahasuerus says to him: “What shall be done to the man whom the king delighteth to honour?” Haman, thinking that the king has him in mind, says that such a man should have royal apparel, and the king’s horse to ride upon, and should ride through the city, attended by one of the great nobles, to receive the people’s homage. Thereupon the king orders Haman to attend upon Mordecai in such a procession; this he has perforce to do. The next day Esther gives her banquet; Ahasuerus and Haman hear for the first time that she is a Jewess. She then asks the king that Haman may be hanged on the gallows he has prepared for Mordecai; her request is granted, and Mordecai becomes the king’s chamberlain in his stead. The king issues another proclamation, at Esther’s request, in which power is granted to the Jews to pillage and slay their enemies. Finally the feast of Purim is instituted “because Haman ... the enemy of all the Jews, had devised against the Jews to destroy them, and had cast Pur, that is, the lot, to consume them, and to destroy them....” (ix. 24-32).

It has been necessary to give this outline of the contents of the canonical Book of Esther in order to show the point of the additions in the Septuagint; for as found in the English Apocrypha the additions are taken together and treated as one whole; but by being thus separated from their contexts their raison d’être is not seen. In the Septuagint the additions form elaborations of certain passages of the canonical Esther; so that in order to see the object of the additions each must be considered from the point of view of its original position.[425]

(1) The first addition is given in the English Apocrypha as xi. 2-xii. 6; in the Septuagint it precedes chapter i., and takes the form of an introduction to the whole story. It tells of how Mordecai had a dream, which he interpreted as a revelation of the fact that an attempt was going to be made upon the king’s life (see ii. 21-23 in the canonical Esther). He tells the king of the threatened danger; he watches those whom the dream has revealed as the culprits, and overhears them while making their plans; he then denounces them to the king, and the conspirators, having confessed their guilt, are executed. Mordecai is promoted to a place of honour at court.

The object of this addition is, therefore, to show how Mordecai first got advancement at the court of Artaxerxes (Ahasuerus).

(2) The second addition is given in the English Apocrypha as xiii. 1-7, which in the Septuagint comes between verses 13 and 14 of chapter iii. This purports to give verbatim the letter sent by Artaxerxes to the governor of the provinces commanding the massacre of the Jews. In the canonical Esther iii. 13 runs: “And the letters were sent by post unto all the king’s provinces, to destroy, to slay, to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day, even upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, and to take the spoil of them for a prey”; then follows the addition of the Septuagint. In the letter the king tells of how it had been his wish ever since he came to the throne to see his people living in quietude and peacefulness; but that, according to information he has received from Haman, this has not been possible of attainment because of “a certain malignant people, that had laws contrary to all nations, and continually set aside the commandments of kings, so as the uniting of our kingdoms, honourably intended by us, cannot go forward.” The command is then given to exterminate these people in order that the affairs of the kingdom can be settled.

The object of this addition is evidently to emphasize the peril in which the Jews were owing to the machinations of Haman. Another object may also have been to show the high favour which Haman enjoyed (he is spoken of as one “that excelled in wisdom among us, and was approved by his constant goodwill and steadfast fidelity”) in order to place his ignominious downfall in more pronounced relief.

(3) The next addition (xiii. 8-xiv. 19 in the English Apocrypha) comes after iv. 17 of the canonical Esther. It contains a prayer of Mordecai (xiii. 8-17), a prayer of Esther (xiv. 1-19), and one verse (xiii. 18) which says that all Israel also prayed to God; these are prayers for deliverance from the danger hanging over the people of Jehovah in view of the king’s letter. These prayers breathe a spirit of deep devotion and loyalty to God. The object of this addition is obvious; it is that the utter lack of religion in the canonical book[426] should be made good; as is well known, the name of God does not occur a single time in the canonical Esther.

(4) The fourth addition (xv. 1-16 in the English Apocrypha) follows immediately after the preceding one. This is an elaboration of v. 1, 2 of the canonical Esther, which verses are omitted in the Septuagint; it recounts in detail Esther’s appearance before the king for the purpose of inviting him to the banquet as mentioned in v. 3 ff. of the canonical book. The object of this addition is similar to that of the preceding; it is to show that the success of Esther’s interview with the king was due to “the all-seeing God and Saviour,” upon Whom she called before setting forth.

(5) This addition (xvi. 1-24 in the English Apocrypha) comes after viii. 12 of the canonical Esther; it purports to give the contents of the letter of Artaxerxes (see viii. 8 ff. of the canonical Esther) written to revoke the order given in the former one (see (2)). Here the object is twofold; in the first place it is, once more, to give a religious tone to the book; the king speaks of those who try to escape “the evil-hating justice of God”; he says that the Jews are the “children of the most high and most mighty living God, Who hath ordered the kingdom both unto us and to our progenitors in the most excellent manner”; and in other ways he gives due honour to God by what he says. Secondly, another object of the addition seems to be to mitigate the rather bloodthirsty spirit of the canonical Esther.

(6) The last addition (but first in position in the English Apocrypha, x. 4-xi. 1) comes at the end of the book in the Septuagint; x. 4-13 contain the interpretation of the dream given in addition which we have numbered (1). This last addition, too, has the object of giving a more religious tone to the book; “these things are of God,” is the way in which the interpretation of the dream is introduced; and the fact that the name of God is mentioned nine times in as many verses amply illustrates the purpose of the addition. xi. 1 is a note added to the last addition which is intended to explain how the “Letter of Purim” (by which is meant the whole book of Esther with the additions) was brought to Egypt; but, as Swete says: “the historical value of the book is more than doubtful.”[427]

II. Authorship and Date of the Additions

That the author, or, perhaps more probably, the authors of these additions were Hellenistic Jews is sufficiently clear from the whole tone of them; a striking example of detail is that Artaxerxes is made to say that both he and his forefathers had received their kingdom from God. As to the date at which the additions were made there is nothing in the additions themselves which offers any clue; but a book, such as the canonical Esther, in which a wonderful deliverance of the Jews is recorded, would be especially welcome to the people during a time of stress and anxiety; and if, at a time when such a book might well have been eagerly sought after, patriotic Jews should have enhanced its lesson of hope and encouragement by adding explanatory details, such a procedure would have been in the highest degree natural. There is but one period of stress and anxiety that can come into consideration here, and that is the time of the Maccabæan struggle; so we conclude that these additions must have been made during the latter half of the second century B.C.

CHAPTER VI
The Prayer of Manasses

[Literature.—Ball, in Wace, ii. pp. 361-371; Nestle, Septuagintastudien, iii. pp. 6 ff. (1899); Ryssel, in Kautzsch, i. pp. 161-171; Ryle, in Charles, I, pp. 612-624.]

I. The Contents of the Prayer

The Prayer is a beautiful one, finely constructed, full without being drawn out, and breathing throughout deep personal religion. It is certainly one of the best pieces in the Apocrypha.

After the invocation to God Almighty, “the God of our fathers, of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and of their righteous seed,” comes an acknowledgement of His power and glory; all things tremble before His might, and His wrath against sinners is unendurable; yet His mercy is without limit to the repentant: “Thou art the Lord Most High, of great compassion, long-suffering and abundant in mercy, and repentest Thee for evils of men,” i.e. God in His pity relents because of the sufferings of men, even though brought on them by their own sins. God is then called upon to fulfil His promise of forgiveness to His repentant servant. The supplicator confesses his manifold sins, and protests his sense of unworthiness: “I am not worthy to behold and see the height of heaven by reason of the multitude of mine iniquities.” Then after further confession of sin, and pleading with God to put away His anger and to show His mercy in forgiveness, the Prayer concludes with the words: “And I will praise Thee for ever all the days of my life; for all the host of heaven doth sing Thy praise, and Thine is the glory for ever and ever. Amen.”

II. The Origin of the Prayer

In 2 Chronicles xxxiii. 12, 13 it is said that when Manasseh “was in distress he besought the Lord his God, and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers. And he prayed unto Him; and He was entreated of him, and heard his supplication, and brought him again unto Jerusalem unto his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the Lord He was God.” Again, in verses 18, 19 of the same chapter the chronicler says: “Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and his prayer unto his God, and the words of the seers that spake to him in the name of the Lord, the God of Israel, behold, they are written among the acts of the kings of Israel. His prayer also, and how God was entreated of him ... behold, they are written in the history of Hozai.”[428] The “Prayer of Manasses,” it is usually held, purports to be the prayer to which the chronicler refers; Ball, for example, says: “It is evident from the references in 2 Chronicles xxxiii. 18, 19 that a prayer of Manasseh, written in Hebrew, lay before that writer [i.e. the chronicler]; and we may perhaps venture to add that there is nothing in the form or substance of the Prayer before us which can fairly be alleged against the possibility of its having been ultimately derived from that lost Hebrew original.... We incline to think that the Greek is a free translation from some lost Haggadic narrative, which was itself perhaps founded upon the older document from which the chronicler derived his peculiar details of the history of Manasseh.”[429] This is an attractive theory, but there are some objections to it which will appear as we proceed. Ryle offers an entirely different hypothesis as to its origin: “It is easy to understand that the chronicler’s story of Manasseh’s repentance and prayer, and deliverance from captivity must have produced upon the minds of devout Jews a profound impression. The record of his idolatry and of his persecution of the servants of Jehovah had stamped his name with infamy in the annals of Judah. But side by side with his wickedness were commemorated the unusual length of the king’s reign and the quiet peacefulness of his end. The chronicler’s story of the repentance and conversion of Manasseh provided an explanation of a seemingly unintelligible anomaly. Henceforth his name was associated by Jewish tradition not only with the grossest acts of idolatry ever perpetrated by a king of Judah, but also with the most famous instance of Divine forgiveness towards a repentant sinner. What more remarkable example could be found of the long-suffering compassion of the Almighty, and of His readiness to hear and to answer the supplication of a contrite penitent? Nothing would be more natural than for a devout Jew to endeavour to frame in fitting terms the kind of penitential prayer, which, according to the tradition, Manasseh had poured forth when he was in captivity in Babylon. The sentiments embodied in such a form of petition might conceivably be appropriate to those of his countrymen who had fallen into idolatry, and who might yet be reclaimed from the error of their way.”[430]

Here again, one feels the strength of the argument; but we cannot help believing that there are reasons which militate against the acceptation of this hypothesis as a whole.

In the first place, the “Prayer of Manasses” does not belong to the Septuagint proper; it occurs in Cod. A, and in the much later Cod. T which follows the former and is not independent evidence[431]; but in these it is given at the end of the Psalms in a collection of liturgical canticles.[432] As Ryle says: “The preservation of this short disconnected Psalm may thus, with good reason, be ascribed to the accident of its occurrence in the Didascalia[433] and the Apostolical Constitutions.[434] There is no evidence to show that it was ever included in the Septuagint.”[435] If it had been ascribed to Manasseh when first composed we might rightly, on the analogy of the Additions to Esther and to Daniel, expect that it would have been incorporated in the text of Chronicles; that this is not the case suggests, if nothing more, that the name of Manasseh was not originally connected with the Prayer. With the exception of two short sentences there is absolutely nothing in the Prayer which is not appropriate in the mouth of any repentant sinner. These two sentences both occur in verse 10; the first runs: “I am bowed down with many iron bands”; and the second is: “I have set up abominations, and have multiplied detestable things.” These sentences might well refer to Manasseh’s imprisonment and to his idolatrous practices. But regarding the former, it is very questionable whether the words are to be taken literally, as though referring to 2 Chronicles xxxiii. 11, where mention is made of the chains wherewith Manasseh was bound; for the context, in the Prayer, which speaks of transgressions and “the multitude of mine iniquities,” strongly suggests that the “many iron bands” is to be understood metaphorically of the chains of sin. That the words were so understood in early times is proved by the rendering of the Ethiopic Version, quoted by Ball, which reads here: “I have laboured in fetters of iron,” and continues, “that I might get rest from sin for my soul; but by this also I have not gotten rest.” The first of the sentences under consideration, therefore, would be appropriate in the mouth of any contrite sinner, and therefore does not by any means necessarily refer to Manasseh. With regard to the second sentence, “I have set up abominations, and have multiplied detestable things,” the reference may well be to 2 Chronicles xxxiii. 6, where Manasseh’s evil doings are enumerated. But it is not without significance that we have in this passage the one serious variation in the Greek text of the Prayer; for the uncial T reads here in place of, “I have set up abominations, and have multiplied detestable things,” these words: “I have not done Thy will, nor kept Thy commandments.”[436] The variety of reading just at this particular spot suggests the possibility of the text here having been uncertain, and of having perhaps been altered for a particular purpose.[437]

We are inclined to believe that this Prayer was not originally composed in reference to Manasseh, and that the title, together with the words, “I have set up abominations, and have multiplied detestable things,” was added later, and thus made to refer to Manasseh, this having been done under the influence of the numerous legends concerning this king which seem to have been current.[438]

III. The Date of the Prayer

The only indications of date are those to be derived from the teaching contained in the book, and here everything points to post-Maccabæan times. Thus, in verse 8 it is said: “Thou, therefore, O Lord, that art the God of the righteous, hast not appointed repentance unto the righteous, unto Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, which have not sinned against Thee”; this doctrine of the sinlessness of the patriarchs does not, as far as we know, belong to pre-Maccabæan times. In verse 4 are these words: “Who hast shut up the Deep, and sealed it with Thy terrible and glorious Name, Whom all things do dread”; the supernatural efficacy which is here imputed to the Name of God is likewise a late conception. Further, the whole burden of the Prayer, namely, the need of repentance, is a specifically Pharisaic trait, pointing to post-Maccabæan times. And lastly, the conception of the underworld is a development of the older belief, verse 13 runs: “Nor pass Thou sentence against me when I am in the lowest parts of the earth; for Thou, O Lord, art the God of them that repent.” Although there is no hint of the resurrection here, the very fact that God is conceived of as in any way concerned with the souls of the departed is in itself an advance upon the normal teaching of the Old Testament, and points to a comparatively late date. It is, of course, impossible to assign an exact date to the composition; Ryssel believes that, like a number of other apocryphal works, it was composed during the Maccabæan struggle, with the purpose of urging upon the Jews the efficacy of true repentance as a means of delivering them out of their troubles. This is possible; but the teaching points, as we have said, to a post-Maccabæan time. On the other hand, there is no reason for regarding it as post-Christian; the fact that it is never quoted or referred to until it appears verbatim in the Didascalia[439] (first half of the third century A.D.) does not necessarily imply a very late date; its shortness and the character of its contents sufficiently account for its not being mentioned earlier. Some time between B.C. 100-50 seems as likely a date as any.

IV. The Writer and the Language in which he Wrote

There can be no sort of doubt that the writer of this Prayer was a Pharisee, and, moreover, one of the best type; the spirit of true religion breathes through it, and it can only have been written by one who was truly religious. The Judaism which the Prayer reflects is of the Palestinian type, and being a prayer one would expect it to have been originally written in Hebrew, the “holy tongue.” The Greek form in which we now possess this composition does not, it is true, read like a translation excepting here and there (e.g. verse 7, where Charles thinks a “real piece of evidence on behalf of a Semitic original” is to be found), but, as Ball points out, “the writer may have taken pains to soften down the harshness of a baldly literal translation.” Where linguistic indications do not give definite clues, we must be guided by other considerations; the writer being a Jew of the orthodox Palestinian type it is hard to believe that he would have composed a prayer in any language than that in which he had always been accustomed to pray; and set forms of prayer, like the one before us, would have been written in Hebrew, not in Aramaic.

CHAPTER VII
The First Book of Maccabees

[Literature.—Grimm, Das erste Buch der Maccabäer erklärt in “Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des A.T.” (1853); Keil, Commentar über die Bücher der Maccabäer (1875); Bissell, The First Book of Maccabees, in Lange-Schaff’s “Commentary ...” (1880); Schürer, Op. cit., II, iii. pp. 6-13; Fairweather and Black, The First Book of Maccabees, in the Cambridge Bible (1897); Kautzsch, in Op. cit. (1900); Knabenbauer, in Cursus Scripturæ Sacræ (1907); Oesterley, in Charles, Op. cit. (1913).]

I. Title and Authorship of the Book

What the title of this book in its original Hebrew form (see below) was is not known for certain. Origen gives a transliteration of the title (Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., vi. 25, 2) which is equivalent to “The book of the house of the Hasmonæans”; but he transliterates here an Aramaic title which probably stood at the head of an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew; possibly this title represented the Hebrew form. On the other hand, the writer of the book has clearly taken as his pattern the Books of the Kings, so that the supposition is reasonable that he framed his title in accordance with the form of the title of these; in this case the title given in the Septuagint (which is followed in the English Apocrypha) would probably represent the original. The name “Maccabee” was applied in the first instance to Judas (see 1 Macc. ii. 4, 6, etc.), but later to all the members of the family and their followers.

As to the author, or more strictly compiler, of the book, it is clear that he was an ardent patriot, and a rigid adherent of orthodox Judaism; his intimate knowledge of the geography and topography of the Holy Land marks him out as a native of Palestine. His religious standpoint is of particular interest, for he writes at a time (see § II below) when the distinct development of the Sadducees and Pharisees as opposing parties had already taken place; yet, while he is an upholder of Jewish orthodoxy and imbued with an intensely patriotic spirit, he seems, nevertheless, to have belonged to the circle of the Sadducees; “although a loyal upholder of the Law, his zeal is not characterized by any approach to Pharisaic fanaticism; his sympathy for the Jewish high-priesthood is frequently manifested; his tolerant attitude towards the profaning of the Sabbath (see ii. 41, ix. 43 ff.) is very different from that which would have been adopted by a Pharisee; there is not the slightest hint of a belief in the life after death, (see ii. 52 ff., where a reference to this would have been eminently appropriate had it been believed in). These reasons go far in justifying the opinion that the author was a Sadducee.”[440] Further, it is noticeable that the writer has a strong belief in what may be expressed by the modern proverb, that “God helps those who help themselves”; but his insistence on man’s free-will being the decisive factor in human affairs is balanced by his firm belief in the existence of an all-seeing Providence (see, e.g., iii. 18 ff., iv. 10 ff., ix. 46, xii. 15); yet it is strange that God is not once mentioned by name in the whole book. This attitude was doubtless, in part, owing to the influence of certain religious tendencies, centering around the doctrine of God, which were beginning to manifest themselves. “Just as there was a disinclination, on account of its transcendent holiness, to utter the name of God, and instead, to substitute paraphrases for it, so there arose also a disinclination to ascribe action among men directly to God, because of His inexpressible majesty.”[441] It would seem, therefore, that the author represented a type of Jew who was ready to assimilate much of what appealed to him in Pharisaism while holding to the traditional orthodoxy of the Sadducees.

II. The Date of the Book

The First Book of Maccabees must have been written between the dates 135 B.C. and 63 B.C. The events recorded in the book took place between the years 175 B.C. and 135 B.C., so that this latter date is the earliest possible at which it can have been written. On the other hand, Pompey took Jerusalem in the autumn of 63 B.C., and by entering into the Holy of Holies desecrated the Temple[442]; had this happened before our book was written it is inconceivable that no mention should have been made of it; but as no reference is made to it there can be no doubt that it took place after the book was written. We can, however, get nearer than this; it is said in xiii. 30, in reference to the sepulchre which Simon the Maccabee built for his parents and his four brothers at Modin: “This is the sepulchre which he made at Modin, and it is there unto this day.” It is said in xiii. 25 that this sepulchre was built on the death of Jonathan, i.e. in 143 B.C., and the words “unto this day” imply that it had been in existence for some considerable time when the author wrote his book. There are no means of ascertaining how long a time elapsed between the building of the sepulchre and the writing of the book, but if we assume that it was about half a century, this would give as the date of the book some time between 100 B.C. and 90 B.C.; and this is a date to which a further fact points; for in xvi. 23, 24 it is said: “And the rest of the acts of John, and of his wars, and his valiant deeds which he did, and of the building of the walls which he built, and of his doings, behold they are written in the chronicles of his high-priesthood, from the time that he was made high-priest after his father.”[443] Presumably the chronicles here referred to took up the narrative at the point at which the writer of our book ceased, for the Old Testament formula (and it will have been noticed that the phraseology of this passage is based on that of the Old Testament): “And the rest of the acts” etc., is always employed in reference to a ruler whose reign has already come to an end; so that the writer of our book was writing subsequently to the time at which the chronicles of John’s high-priesthood had been compiled. The high-priest John, i.e. John Hyrcanus, died in 105 B.C., and therefore the writer of our book must have begun his work some time after this date, though it is not likely to have been long after this. Our conclusion is that the book in its finished form appeared between 100 B.C. and 90 B.C. But it is probable that the gathering of his materials was begun by the author some considerable time before this; for there are some graphic passages in the book which give the impression that he was an eye-witness of what he describes (see, e.g., xiv. 4-15, in which the details of Simon’s reign are described). It seems not improbable that the writer began to gather materials for his history as early as the reign of Simon. The careful way in which his book is written, and the numerous official documents from which he made extracts, shows that the author must have taken a long time over his work.

III. The Original Language and Literary Character of the Book

That this book was originally written in Hebrew scarcely admits of doubt; we have already pointed out that the writer framed his work on the pattern of the Books of the Kings, a fact which in itself suggests that he wrote in Hebrew. But apart from this there are numberless indications in our present Greek text which stamp it indubitably as a translation from Hebrew; to give examples of this would involve technical details which would be out of place here[444]; it must suffice to say that the Greek again and again has sentences which are literal translations of Hebrew idiomatic phrases. But in spite of this the writer has a distinct individuality of style; the narrative is written in a simple, straightforward manner; it is full of interest, the frequent graphic accounts of events impelling attention throughout. The author writes as a historian, whose duty it is to record the facts without bias; he is impartial, and frankly recognizes and registers the defeat of his own side when necessary. That he sometimes bursts out into poetical strains, and not infrequently exaggerates, especially where numbers are concerned, does not affect the substantial truth and trustworthiness of his narrative.

IV. The Sources of the Book[445]

The possibility of the author of our book having himself been an eye-witness of some of the events he records has already been hinted at; but whether this was so or not, there can be little doubt that he utilized the accounts of some, be they one or more, who had themselves seen what they recounted. What impels one to this conviction are the wonderfully graphic descriptions of some of the episodes recorded; examples of this can be seen in iv. 1-24, vi. 28-54, vii. 26-50, ix. 1-22, 32-53, x. 59-66. The accounts of eye-witnesses may, therefore, be reckoned as one of the sources of the book. That he also had written sources to draw from may be assumed from such passages as ix. 22: “And the rest of the acts of Judas, and his wars, and the valiant deeds which he did, and his greatness, they are not written,” the implication being that some other things relating to him were written (cp. xi. 37, xiv. 18, 27, 48, 49); and xvi. 23, 24, already quoted: “And the rest of the acts of John ... behold, they are written in the chronicles of his high-priesthood....”

In addition to these sources, there are a certain number of documents which have been incorporated into the book. These are for the most part important, and will require a little detailed consideration. There are, in the first place, some letters of Jewish origin, as follows:

(a) A letter from the Jews in Gilead asking Judas to send them help because they were being attacked by the Gentiles (v. 10-13). Although this purports to contain the very words which were written, it is more probably merely a summary of what the author of the book had derived from some well-informed source. That it represents, however, the contents of some written document, and was not simply a verbal message, is evident; for it stands in contrast to what is stated to have been a verbal message in v. 15.

(b) A letter from Jonathan to the Spartans (xii. 6-18). The somewhat artificial way in which this letter has been pressed into the text is sufficient to arouse suspicion. In xii. 1 we are told of an embassy being sent to Rome; the narrative is broken by verse 2, which refers to a letter that had been sent to the Spartans and “to other places”; in verse 3, which comes naturally after verse 1, the thread of the narrative is taken up again. Then in verse 5, where one might reasonably have expected further details concerning the embassy to Rome, it goes on to say: “And this is the copy of the letter which Jonathan wrote to the Spartans.” The copy of this letter then follows; but the main subject with which the chapter began (viz., the embassy to Rome), obviously a more important one, is left without further mention. The simplicity and straightforward flow of the narrative, so characteristic of the book, is lacking here, and the impression of something being out of order is forced upon one. Then as to the letter itself, it is not quite easy to understand what the purpose of it was. In verse 10 the object is said to be the renewing of brotherhood and friendship with the Spartans; but in the same breath, as it were, it is said that the Jews needed none of these things, “having for our encouragement the holy books which are in our hands.” Then again, in verse 13, after reference has been made to the afflictions which the Jews had endured, the letter continues (in verses 14, 15): “We were not mindful, therefore, to be troublesome unto you, and to the rest of our confederates and friends, in these wars; for we have the help which is from heaven to help us, and we have been delivered from our enemies, and our enemies have been brought low.” The letter concludes with the words (verses 17, 18); “We commanded them (i.e. the ambassadors), therefore, to go also unto you, and to salute you, and to deliver you our letters concerning the renewing (of friendship) and our brotherhood. And now ye shall do well if ye give us an answer thereto.” Thus, in one and the same letter, while, on the one hand, friendship and brotherhood are asked for, on the other, it is said that these are not required; and yet, in the concluding words of the letter some anxiety is evinced that a reply should be forthcoming. That a relationship of some kind had existed between the Jews and the Spartans is possible enough. But the ambiguous character of this letter inclines one to doubt its genuineness. Probably it was inserted by a later editor who desired to emphasize the fact that a relationship had existed between his people and the Spartans, while not wishing to make it appear that his people had any need to depend upon foreign help in their struggle against their enemies.

In connection with this letter the following one must be considered.

(c) A letter from Areios, king of the Spartans, to Onias the high-priest (xii. 20-23). This owes its presence here to the fact that in the letter just dealt with Jonathan cites the existence of former friendship between the Jews and the Spartans as a reason for renewing the same (xii. 7-9); it is added as an appendix to Jonathan’s letter. The original of this document must have been written at least a century and a half earlier; the fact of its being quoted here shows with what care such documents were preserved.

(d) In xiv. 27-47 we have a source of an entirely different character. This passage contains a panegyric on Simon, together with a résumé of his prosperous reign. It is stated to have been engraved on tables of brass, and to have been set up in a conspicuous place within the precincts of the sanctuary; copies of it are also said to have been deposited in the treasury (verses 27, 48, 49). On comparing the details of Simon’s reign given in this section with those in chapters xi.-xiii., however, it will be found that there are several chronological discrepancies. The course of the history, as given in the book itself, is acknowledged on all hands to be, on the whole, of a thoroughly trustworthy character; but if the passage in question be really the copy of an original document, which seems very probable, the accuracy of chapters xi.-xiii. is, to some extent, impugned. It is difficult to suppose that one and the same author would write the historical account of Simon’s reign in these chapters, and then in the very next chapter go on to give a résumé of what had preceded differing from it in a number of particulars. The suggested explanation of the difficulty is as follows: The original writer of the book gave in chapters xi.-xiii. a substantially correct account of the period of history in question, but was inaccurate in the sequence of events; a later editor added a copy of the document under consideration, to which the original author of the book, for some reason or other, did not have access. The later editor was not concerned with the discrepancies between the written history and the copy of the document which he added, because he saw that, in the main, they were in agreement. Thus the two accounts of Simon’s reign, differing to some extent, were left side by side.

A second class of documentary sources comprises letters from Syrian kings to the Jewish leaders.

(a) The first is a letter from Alexander Balas (he was not yet king at the time) to Jonathan (x. 18-20). This is not a copy of the letter itself, but merely its purport, which the author of our book has woven into the narrative. It is far too short and abrupt to be the actual letter of one who was seeking the help and alliance of the Jewish leader, and for whose friendship this aspirant to the Syrian throne was bidding. The author of the book, moreover, adds some words of his own in the middle of the letter (verse 20), a thing which he would scarcely have done had he been quoting the actual words of the letter itself. On the other hand, there is not the slightest reason to doubt that use has here been made of a genuine document.

(b) A letter from Demetrius I to the Jewish nation (x. 25-45). This was written for the purpose of out-bidding Alexander Balas in promises of favour and privileges. It is probably based on some original document; but the accuracy of the details is open to question. The promises and concessions are over-stated, and correspond so exactly, in many respects, with the highest aspirations of the Jews at this time that they suggest rather the expression of Jewish ideals than actual promises.

(c) A letter from Demetrius II to Jonathan, enclosing one to Lasthenes (xi. 30-37). What has just been said applies here too. It represents an original letter, the contents of which were utilized by our author, and elaborated by him in accordance with his ideals.

(d) A letter from Antiochus VI to Jonathan (xi. 57). This is clearly a succinct summing-up of the contents of the original letter; its extreme shortness and the absence of salutation show that, although written in the first person, it does not profess to give more than the general sense of the original.

(e) A letter from Demetrius II to Simon (xiii. 36-40). This letter, in which the Syrian king acknowledges receipt of certain presents from the Jewish high-priest, and confirms earlier privileges, is stamped with the mark of genuineness; it reads like an original, and is doubtless a copy of one.

(f) A letter from Antiochus VII to Simon (xv. 2-9). To some extent what has been said in regard to (b) and (c) applies also to this letter. It is probably not a verbatim copy of the original, but represents, at all events in parts, the contents of the original. On the other hand, there are elements in it which are the expression of ardent desires rather than of actual facts.

Lastly, there is a third class of documentary sources which record the relations between the Jews and the rulers of foreign kingdoms.

(a) A treaty of alliance between the Romans and the Jews (viii. 23-32). In verses 24 ff. it is stated, as one of the articles of the treaty, that if the Romans are attacked by an enemy the Jews may not render that enemy any help, whether of “food, arms, money, or ships” (verse 26). This mention of ships is held by some to show that this document belonged to a date later than the time of Judas, in whose time the Jews possessed no ships, and that therefore the whole section is a later interpolation. But it is quite possible that the foresight of the Romans sufficiently explains this mention of ships; or they might have assumed the possession of ships by a nation whose country had a long coast-line. It was not long after the death of Judas that the Jews did acquire a harbour (see xiii. 29, xiv. 5). There seems no sufficient reason to doubt that a genuine document has here been utilized.

(b) A letter from the Spartans to Simon (xiv. 20-22). We are confronted here with a difficulty similar to that which occurs in the letter from Jonathan to the Spartans in xii. 6-18 (see above). The section opens (verse 16) with the words: “And it was heard at Rome that Jonathan was dead, and even unto Sparta, and they were exceedingly sorry.” It then goes on to say that the Romans wrote to Simon, who had succeeded his brother Jonathan, on tables of brass to renew “the friendship and the confederacy” (verse 18); but then, instead of giving a copy of this document, as might reasonably be expected, it goes on to say: “And this is a copy of the letter which the Spartans sent.” In this letter it is stated that the two Jewish ambassadors who were the bearers of it were Numenius, the son of Antiochus, and Antipater, the son of Jason. But then the narrative (verse 24) goes on: “After this Simon sent Numenius to Rome with a great shield of gold of a thousand pound weight, in order to confirm the confederacy with them.” On the previous occasion on which mention is made of a confederacy between the Jews and the Romans, on the one hand, and the Spartans on the other, the same two ambassadors were sent, first to the Romans and then to the Spartans, on the same journey (see xii. 16, 17); on the present occasion it is to be presumed, for the text implies it, that this was again done; but if so, how is one to account for the fact that in the letter to the Spartans these ambassadors are said to be the bearers of it, while, immediately after (verse 24), it is said that Numenius started on his journey? There is also a further difficulty; is it likely, as stated in the text, that on the death of Jonathan the Romans would have taken the initiative in renewing the treaty with the Jews? This seems to be directly contradicted by what is said in verse 24 (quoted above). It would appear that verses 17-23 are an interpolation added later; this would also explain the otherwise unaccountable words, “and even unto Sparta,” in verse 16, which were presumably put in because of the interpolation. The contents of this letter read like an official document, the probability is that use was made of some genuine record which was interpolated at a later period.

(c) A letter from Lucius, the Roman consul, to Ptolemy Euergetes II, king of Egypt (xv. 16-21). This is the copy of a circular letter written in the name of “Lucius the consul,” and brought back from Rome by Numenius. In it the friendship between the Romans and the Jews is proclaimed; copies of it are sent not only to the kings of Egypt and Syria, but also to a number of small independent States. Now Josephus (Antiq., XIV, viii. 5) mentions a letter from the Roman Senate, written in the name of the praetor Lucius Valerius in reply to a message brought by a Jewish embassy. As in the case just referred to, Numenius, the son of Antiochus, is one of the ambassadors (two others accompany him), and he brings a gift of a golden shield; the contents of this letter are similar to those of the letter in our book, and it is likewise sent to a number of petty independent States. But, according to Josephus, this happened in the ninth year of Hyrcanus II, who reigned B.C. 63-40. Now if, as is maintained by some, especially by Willrich,[446] Josephus is right here, the passage we are dealing with must be an interpolation. Mommsen[447] has, indeed, proved that Josephus is recording genuine history in saying that the praetor Lucius Valerius sent a letter to the Jews, with the contents as given, during the reign of Hyrcanus II. This does not, however, constitute an insuperable difficulty, for one of the consuls in B.C. 139 was named Lucius Calpurnius Piso, and the “Consul Lucius,” spoken of in the text (xv. 16) could quite well refer to him. What is more difficult is the fact of the great similarity in the contents between the letter given in our book and of that given by Josephus; Mommsen maintains that they are not identical, which would mitigate the difficulty; but the mention of Numenius, the son of Antiochus, in both letters is a grave difficulty. Probably Willrich is right in regarding the passage as a later interpolation, added because it seemed to be appropriate in a place where Simon’s treaty with Rome was mentioned.[448]

These, then, are the sources from which our book was compiled; they show that the writer of 1 Maccabees had access to a number of official documents in addition to the accounts of events which he received from eye-witnesses. The documentary sources shed a most valuable light on the external policy of the Jews as well as on the important rôle they played in shaping Syrian politics; so that for the history of the Jews of this period our book may well be described as the most valuable source which we possess.

V. The History of the Maccabæan Struggle

The momentous struggle for religious liberty and political independence which is described in our book deals with the period 175-135 B.C., i.e. from the accession of Antiochus Epiphanes to the death of Simon Maccabæus. The divisions of the book are clearly marked, recording respectively the progress of the war under the leadership of Mattathias, Judas, Jonathan, and Simon; and each division has as its central subject the description of an event of supreme importance to the Jews, thus: the first division records the opening of the struggle and its cause; the second tells of how religious liberty was acquired; the third describes the establishment of the Hasmonæan high-priesthood; and the last shows how the way to political independence was secured.[449] The contents of these, together with the short Introduction by which they are prefaced, must now occupy our attention.

(a) The Conquests of Alexander the Great, and the Division of his Empire (i. 1-9)

In pregnant words Alexander’s conquests are thus summed up: “And he waged many wars, and won strongholds, and slew kings, and pressed forward to the ends of the earth, and took spoils from many peoples.” In describing what happened on Alexander’s death-bed the writer says that the kingdom was divided among the dying king’s chief ministers “while he was yet alive,” and that after he was dead “they all assumed the diadem.” This does not agree with the statement made by Justin Martyr, Diodorus Siculus, and Curtius, to the effect that when the dying king was no longer able to speak he handed his signet-ring to the captain of his bodyguard, Perdiccas, whom he thus indicated as his successor. That all the chief ministers assumed the diadem after the king was dead is an inaccurate statement, as only five of Alexander’s generals assumed the title of king, and that not until B.C. 306, seventeen years after his death. Here, as in a number of other cases, the writer of our book shows that his knowledge concerning the affairs of foreign nations is imperfect; but the value of the book as a whole, and the credibility of the narrative in general, is not affected by these inaccuracies; “we see in this only the simple standpoint of the observer who, following his sources, confines his view exclusively to the circle of Jewish affairs” (Schürer).

(b) The Original Cause of the Struggle; the Leadership of Mattathias (i. 10-ii. 70)

As we are clearly shown in this division the original cause of the Maccabæan struggle was of a twofold character; internal and external forces brought it about. A not inconsiderable section of the Jewish people had been captivated by the attractions of Hellenism, and were ready to give up their own faith and practice in exchange for that of the Gentiles; “they joined themselves to the Gentiles, and sold themselves to do evil” (i. 15). When Antiochus Epiphanes had overcome Ptolemy, king of Egypt, he proceeded to deal with the Jews; “he went up against Israel and Jerusalem with a great army; and in his arrogance he entered into the sanctuary” (i. 20, 21); having taken everything in the Temple on which he could lay hands, he returned home. For two years the people were left in peace; then another blow was inflicted on them. Apollonius, a “chief collector of tribute,” was sent by Antiochus to Jerusalem with an army; he pretended that his mission was a peaceful one, and with smooth words imposed upon the people; then suddenly he fell upon the city, and a general sack seems to have taken place. The citadel was occupied by the foreign troops, and the people were reduced to sore straits. All this, however, did not rouse the people to resistance. Then came the edict of uniformity of worship, put forth by Antiochus; to realize how this was intended to affect the Jews it will be well to quote some words from it; the Jews were commanded that “they should practise customs foreign to the traditions of the land, and that they should cease the sacrificing of the whole burnt-offerings, and sacrifices, and drink-offerings in the sanctuary; and that they should profane the sabbaths and feasts, and pollute the sanctuary and those who had been sanctified; that they should, moreover, build high places, and sacred groves, and shrines for idols, and that they should sacrifice swine and other unclean animals; and that they should leave their sons uncircumcized, and make themselves abominable by means of practising everything that was unclean and profane, so that they might forget the Law, and change all the traditional ordinances” (i. 44-49). It was this which was the immediate cause of the Maccabæan revolt. But it may be questioned whether Antiochus would have attempted such a cruel coercion had it not been for the presence of that strong Hellenistic party among the Jews to which reference has already been made. No sooner was the edict promulgated than this Hellenistic party began to carry out its commands; “many in Israel took delight in the king’s form of worship, and they began sacrificing to idols, and profaned the sabbath” (i. 43). The king’s officers went from city to city to enforce the edict; a rigorous search was also made for all copies of the Law, which were burned; horrible cruelties were perpetrated on all who remained faithful to the ancestral religion. Intense indignation took hold of the faithful in Israel; numbers resisted, and suffered death rather than deny their God; but resistance of individuals was of no avail; what was required was a leader around whom the people could gather, and who would direct corporate action. Such a leader soon appeared.

In going from city to city to enforce the decrees of the king’s edict, the royal officers came to Modin, the present El-Medije, east of Lydda; this was the native city of the family of the Maccabees, of whom Mattathias was the head. The officers called on him to set an example of obedience to the royal commands, but he indignantly refused; thereupon an apostate Jew stepped forth with the object of sacrificing according to heathen rites on the altar at Modin; this aroused the righteous wrath of Mattathias to the highest pitch, he rushed upon his faithless fellow-townsman and killed him as he stood by the altar; then, turning upon one of the king’s officers, he slew him too. “Let every one that is zealous for the Law,” he then cried out to his people, “and that would maintain the covenant, come after me!” The standard of revolt was now definitely raised; large numbers of the Jews followed Mattathias into the mountains, among them many of the Chassidim. It was not sufficient for these patriots merely to act on the defensive, but, as the writer of our book says, they “smote sinners in their anger, and lawless men in their wrath.... Mattathias and his friends went round about, and pulled down altars, and they circumcized by force the children that were uncircumcized ... and they pursued after the sons of pride, and the work prospered in their hand” (ii. 44-47).

In the following year (B.C. 167-166) Mattathias died; but his bold step had done its work in consolidating a vigorous and determined body of patriots. He directed that his third son, Judas, should take his place as leader in war, while Simon, the elder brother of Judas, should act as chief counsellor.

(c) The Leadership of Judas Maccabæus; Religious Liberty Secured (iii. 1-ix. 22)

Judas’ capacity as a military leader was very soon vindicated by two signal victories gained over Apollonius, already mentioned, and Seron, the Syrian commander. Judas had taken the initiative in attacking the armies under these two generals in each case; his quickness in appreciating the position of affairs, and his promptitude in action were the cause of these victories, which seem to have had a profound moral effect both on his own people and on others. Even allowing for some very natural exaggeration the following words doubtless reflect the actual facts: “Then began the fear of Judas and of his brethren, and the dread of them fell upon the nations round about them. And his name came near even unto the king; and every nation told of the battles of Judas” (iii. 25, 26).

Antiochus was, of course, greatly incensed when he heard of the defeats of his forces; but being in want of money he found it necessary to go to Persia in order to raise funds charging Lysias, “one of the seed royal,” to undertake to punish the rebels. The first act of Lysias was to raise a force of forty thousand footmen and seven thousand horse, which he despatched under three of his generals, Ptolemy, Nicanor, and Gorgias, to Judæa to subdue Judas. An attempted night surprise by Gorgias with part of the Syrian army failed through the vigilance of Judas; and the following day Judas again took the initiative with great success, the Syrians fleeing in disorder, and losing about three thousand men. The next year Lysias raised a still larger army which he commanded in person; but again the fortune of war went against him, and he suffered a serious defeat.

The Jews were now able to enjoy a short respite, which was utilized for the purpose of rebuilding and re-dedicating the Temple. It was on this occasion that the feast of Chanukkah (“Dedication”) was instituted; it has been regularly observed by orthodox Jews ever since.

But peace did not last long; the Jews were now attacked by some of the smaller peoples who had made common cause with the chief enemy. However, Judas had little difficulty in silencing these, viz., the Edomites, Bæanites, and Ammonites. Scarcely was this accomplished, when Judas received news that many of his people in Gilead were in straits owing to the hostility of the Gentiles; in Galilee also the same thing was happening. He thereupon sent his brother Simon with an adequate force into Galilee, while he himself went over the Jordan. In both theatres of the war success continued to attend the Jewish arms.

In B.C. 163 Antiochus Epiphanes died while yet in Persia; he was succeeded by his son, Antiochus Eupator, who had been nourished up while yet young by Lysias. But the death of Epiphanes brought no rest to the Jews. Judas had, in the meantime, returned to Jerusalem; and he determined now to expel the garrison which had been stationed in the citadel from the beginning of the struggle. He, therefore, besieged the citadel, and further strengthened his own position by fortifying Bethsura; this place occupied an important strategical position on the road between Jerusalem and Hebron; Josephus (Antiq., XIII, v. 6) speaks of it as “the strongest place in all Judæa.” Those who were besieged in the citadel managed to send word to the king, who came, accompanied by Lysias, with a large army to check the designs of Judas. In this he succeeded for the time; Bethsura was starved out, and Jerusalem was taken by means of an act of the basest treachery. This happened in the following manner: when Antiochus Epiphanes was on his death-bed he designated Philip, one of his nearest friends, as regent during the minority of the new king (vi. 14, 15); but the latter had been under the special care of Lysias hitherto; and as Philip was in Persia, while Lysias, with the new king, was in Syria at headquarters, Lysias took the place of adviser and guide to the king. Now while the king was busy fighting against Judas, as just recounted, Philip, determined to assert himself, returned from Persia and “sought to take unto him the government” (vi. 56); he had with him the army which Epiphanes had led into Persia; the position was clearly serious for the king and Lysias; so on the advice of the latter peace was made with Judas, and all that he had been fighting for, i.e. religious liberty, was accorded. Judas, trusting to the good faith of the king and Lysias, came forth, and “the king entered into Mount Sion”; but having thus got possession of the stronghold the king repudiated his oath, and had the place dismantled, though the Jews still retained their hold upon it. Then he went to deal with Philip, whom he found in possession of Antioch, the capital; he fought against Philip, defeated him, and took the city. His triumph was, however, short-lived; for in the following year he was assassinated by command of Demetrius, who now became king. A short digression is necessary here in order to explain the position of Demetrius. When Antiochus III (the Great) died he left two sons, Seleucus IV (Philopator), the elder, who became king, and Antiochus (afterwards Epiphanes), who lived at Rome as a hostage. In order that his brother might be released, Seleucus IV sent his own son, Demetrius, as a hostage to Rome. When Antiochus reached Syria he found that his brother had been murdered, and instead of requiting the kindness that had been shown him by endeavouring to help Demetrius, the lawful heir, to the throne, he usurped the kingdom himself, while Demetrius was left in Rome. When Antiochus Epiphanes died his son, as we have seen, came to the throne, though Demetrius was, of course, still the rightful heir. But Demetrius succeeded in making his escape from Rome, and was thus enabled to come to his own. This was in B.C. 162; he was the first king of this name to reign over Syria, and received the name of Soter[450]; he reigned till B.C. 150.

No sooner was Demetrius seated on the throne than the war against the Jews recommenced. Bacchides, one of the “king’s friends,” and the “ungodly Alcimus,” whom Demetrius had made high-priest, were sent against Judas; but Bacchides soon returned to the king, leaving Alcimus with an army to look after the land. He, however, also returned to the king when he saw that Judas was too strong for him. The king, therefore, sent a new army against the Jews under the command of Nicanor. Once more Judas was victorious, Nicanor fell in the battle and his army was scattered. Then, it is said, “the land of Judah had rest a little while” (vii. 50). If we are to trust the contents of chapter viii. of our book, Judas at this point made an alliance with the Romans (see above, p. 420), in consequence of which they wrote to Demetrius, saying, “Wherefore hast thou made thy yoke heavy upon our friends and confederates the Jews? If, therefore, they plead any more against thee, we will do them justice, and fight thee by sea and land” (viii. 32). This threat did not, however, have any effect, for on Demetrius hearing of the death of Nicanor and the defeat of his forces, he despatched Bacchides and Alcimus a second time against Judas; this time they were too strong for the Jews, who were defeated, and, worst of all, Judas fell. But Jerusalem continued in the possession of the Jews, and the Temple services were celebrated; so that religious liberty had been gained and retained by the devoted courage and perseverance of Judas.

(d) The Leadership of Jonathan; the Establishment of the Hasmonæan High-priesthood (ix. 23-xii. 53)

The first result of the death of Judas was, not unnaturally, to fill the patriots with despair. But this did not last long; and the people came to his brother Jonathan and elected him as their leader.

As soon as Bacchides got to know of this he renewed the attack, but was repulsed by Jonathan. This seems to have been a more crushing defeat, judging by the sequel, than the short account of it (ix. 43-49) would imply; for the Jews were left in peace for two years. At the end of that time another futile attempt was made by Bacchides, and he was glad to make terms of peace with Jonathan. What immense progress had been made by the patriots can be seen by these pregnant words: “And the sword ceased from Israel. And Jonathan dwelt at Michmash. And Jonathan began to judge the people; and he destroyed the ungodly out of Israel” (ix. 73).

The Maccabæan struggle now enters upon a new phase owing to the activity of the rival claimants to the Syrian throne; the Maccabæan power, as it may now be called, comes to occupy the position of the “deciding factor,” and is thus courted first by one and then by the other claiment to the throne.

When it is said, as quoted above, that “the sword ceased from Israel ...” the period of peace was, according to our book, one of about seven years; during the whole of this time the only act of war recorded is the abortive attempt by Bacchides to subdue Jonathan, as told in ix. 58-73. So that it looks as though Demetrius I had given up the struggle against these formidable champions of liberty. But the Jews had not yet gained all they intended to have; their first objective, viz., religious liberty, was already attained, mainly through the efforts of Judas; but they had now learned to realize their own power, and had determined to acquire political independence as well.

In B.C. 153, when Demetrius had ruled for about ten years, a rival to the Syrian throne appeared in the person of one Alexander Balas. This man, a low-born native of Smyrna, gave himself out to be the son of Antiochus Epiphanes; the claim received some support owing to his resemblance to the late usurper, Antiochus Eupator. The cause of Alexander was taken up by Attalus II, king of Pergamum, who supported his claims to the kingdom of Syria against Demetrius. Although, according to Polybius (xxxiii. 14, 6), it was well known that the claims of Alexander were without justification, he was, nevertheless, supported by the Roman Senate, who promised to help him. His success, to which we shall refer presently, was largely due to the fact that Demetrius was hated by his own people on account of his “insolence and difficulty of access,” and because he was “slothful and negligent about public affairs”; so Josephus tells us (Antiq., XIII, ii. 1). Alexander appeared suddenly upon the scene; his first act was to take possession of Ptolemais; in this he had no difficulty, for he was welcomed as king by the inhabitants. As soon as Demetrius heard of this he gathered his forces together; but before going to battle he sought to gain Jonathan for his cause; “let us be beforehand to make peace with them,” he said, “ere he make peace with Alexander against us” (x. 4). The promises of Demetrius were, however, out-bidden by those of Alexander, who wrote to Jonathan as soon as he heard of Demetrius’ action. In his letter Alexander writes: “We have appointed thee this day to be high-priest of thy nation....” This was the first beginning of the establishment of the Hasmonæan[451] high-priesthood, though it was not fully consolidated until some years later (B.C. 141).[452] It was in vain that Demetrius wrote a second letter to Jonathan full of the most extravagant promises[453] (x. 26-45), for Jonathan and the people “gave no credence” to his words; an alliance was, on the other hand, made with Alexander. A battle was then fought between Alexander and Demetrius; but the account of this, as given in x. 48 ff., is incomprehensible, we have to turn to Josephus (Antiq., XIII, ii. 4) to understand what really happened: “And when it was come to a battle, the left wing of Demetrius put those who opposed them to flight, and pursued them a great way, and slew many of them, and spoiled their camp. But the right wing, where Demetrius happened to be, was beaten; and as for all the rest, they ran away. But Demetrius fought courageously, and slew a great many of the enemy; but as he was in pursuit of the rest, his horse carried him into a deep bog, where it was hard to get out, and there it happened, that upon his horse’s falling down, he could not escape being killed; for when his enemies saw what had befallen him, they returned back, and encompassed Demetrius round, and they all threw their darts at him; but he, being now on foot, fought bravely; but at length he received so many wounds that he was not able to bear up any longer, and fell.” The battle seems, thus, to have been indecisive until Demetrius fell, when evidently his followers lost heart. Alexander’s next step was to make a treaty with Ptolemy VI, Philometor, king of Egypt, whose daughter, Cleopatra, he married, the marriage being celebrated with great pomp at Ptolemais; the Egyptian king himself was present. Alexander, further, invited Jonathan to Ptolemais, where he was received with much honour, the friendship and alliance between the two being thus consolidated.

For a few years Alexander was left in peaceful possession of the Syrian throne, but in B.C. 147 the son of Demetrius, Demetrius Nicator, came from Crete, where he had been living in exile since the war between his father and Alexander began, and sought, as the rightful heir, to regain his kingdom. He appointed Apollonius his commander-in-chief. An army having been raised, Apollonius encamped in Jamnia (Jabneh), and tried conclusions first with Jonathan, Alexander’s ally. Jonathan was ably seconded by his brother Simon, and between them they inflicted a severe defeat on Apollonius. Alexander, on hearing this, “honoured Jonathan yet more; and he sent unto him a buckle of gold, as the use is to give to such as are of the kindred of the kings; moreover, he gave him Ekron and all the borders thereof for a possession” (x. 89).

This friendship between Alexander and Jonathan was soon destined to place the latter in a very awkward position, though he managed to extricate himself owing mainly to his having so firmly established his power. This came about in the following way. A treaty was made between Ptolemy VI and Demetrius Nicator, in spite of the former’s alliance with Alexander. Antioch was besieged by Ptolemy, and Alexander escaped to Arabia; but here he was treacherously murdered, while Ptolemy himself died only a few days afterwards. This left all clear for Demetrius, who now became king. As Jonathan had supported the new king’s rival, his position was now of a somewhat awkward character. However, both the king and Jonathan considered it to be of advantage to themselves if they were at peace, so friendship was concluded between them.

But Demetrius II was not to be left in peace long. Alexander had left a son, Antiochus, in Arabia, whose cause was now about to be championed by Tryphon; the latter had been one of the close friends of Alexander. The time was propitious for Tryphon to attempt to gain the kingdom for his late master’s son, for Demetrius had unwisely disbanded the bulk of his troops when he saw that peace was established; in consequence of this they had revolted. In his distress he looked for help to Jonathan; nor did he look in vain; for Jonathan sent him three thousand men to Antioch. With the help of these Demetrius was enabled to re-establish himself. Things might have continued to go well with him, but he foolishly fell out with Jonathan, and had soon to pay the penalty. For Tryphon now made a second attempt; he brought the young Antiochus, still a child, with him, and gathered around him all the troops which Demetrius had disbanded. With these he stormed Antioch, and Demetrius had to flee. The first act of Antiochus (the sixth as he now was) again showed the position which Jonathan had gained; guided, of course, by Tryphon, he sent word to Jonathan, confirming him in the high-priesthood and in the governorship of the governments of Judæa, Ephraim, Lydda, and Ramathaim, and conferring other honours upon him; at the same time setting Simon, Jonathan’s brother, over the district from “the ladder of Tyre”[454] to the Egyptian frontier. The Jewish leaders were not slow to appreciate this politic step on the part of Antiochus; they immediately undertook a victorious campaign against their own enemies as well as against those of the king. Jonathan himself went to Galilee, whither Demetrius had fled, with the purpose of punishing him; Demetrius seems to have succeeded in gathering an army again, and a pitched battle took place. At first it looked as though Jonathan were going to get the worst of it; but ultimately he triumphed, and Demetrius again fled, and, for the present, gave up the struggle in Syria in order to try his fortune against the Parthians; but he was taken prisoner by the Parthians, and remained in captivity for ten years, after which, as we shall see, he again appeared in Syria.

In the meantime Tryphon himself aspired to the Syrian throne; he caused Antiochus VI to be killed, and usurped the kingdom. But fearing Jonathan, Tryphon captured him by treachery and imprisoned him.

(e) The Leadership of Simon (xiii. 1-xvi. 24)

Simon’s first act was to try to avenge his brother; he did, indeed, severely defeat Tryphon and drive him out of the country, but not until Tryphon had murdered Jonathan with his own hand. It was Simon’s conviction that his wisest course would now be to bring about the re-instatement of Demetrius II; he accordingly sent messengers to Demetrius with this intimation, and, of course, received a very favourable reply (xiii. 36-40). The next thing that we hear of Demetrius is that he went into Media to get help to fight against Tryphon, who had by no means given up his hopes of regaining the throne. Demetrius was captured, however, by the king of Persia and Media, and again shut up in prison.[455]

With Demetrius II in prison, and Tryphon driven out of the country, a new aspirant to the throne now appears in the person of Antiochus VII (Sidetes), the brother of Demetrius.

The new king, as had now become customary, first addresses himself to the Jewish leader; having gained his good-will by making many promises, Antiochus enters into the kingdom. Here he finds Tryphon, whom he besieges in Dor; Tryphon managed to escape by ship, and is no more mentioned in our book.[456] Shortly after this Antiochus, believing, presumably, that his position was sufficiently strong, and desiring to show that he could stand alone, repudiated his treaty with Simon, and would not receive him, “but set at nought everything that he had previously covenanted with him; and he was estranged from him” (xv. 27). Then he proceeded to send a force under Cendebæus to attack Judæa, and to worry the Jewish people in various ways. Simon, feeling the weight of age upon him, appointed his two eldest sons, Judas and John, to undertake the further prosecution of the war. They attack Cendebæus and defeat him; Judas was wounded, but John returned to Judæa in peace (xv. 9, 10).

Our book now gives an account of another act of treachery which threatened to annihilate the direct line of the family of the Maccabees. Ptolemy, “the son of Abubus, Simon’s son-in-law, who had been appointed captain over the plain of Jericho,” desired to secure for himself the supreme power, for which purpose it was necessary that Simon and his sons should be got out of the way. The writer of our book recounts in pregnant phrases what happened: “Now Simon was visiting the cities that were in the country, and taking care for the good ordering of them. And he went down to Jericho, he himself and Mattathias and Judas, his sons, in the one hundred and seventy-seventh year [= B.C. 135], in the eleventh month, the same is the month Sebat [= February]. And the son of Abubus received them deceitfully into the little stronghold that is called Dôk, which he had built, and he made them a great banquet; and he hid men there. And when Simon and his sons had drunk freely, Ptolemy and they that were with him rose up, and took their arms, and came upon Simon into the banqueting hall, and slew him and his two sons, and certain of his servants. And he committed thus a great act of treachery, and recompensed evil for good” (xvi. 14-17). John was not with his father at the time, but Ptolemy despatched his creatures to Gazara, where John was staying, to murder him. Fortunately, however, John was warned in time, and “he laid hands on the men that came to destroy him, and slew them” (xvi. 22).

Our book closes with a reference to the acts of John which are written in “the chronicles of his high-priesthood” (xvi. 24).

CHAPTER VIII
The Greek Ezra
(1 (3) Esdras)

[Literature.—Fritzsche, in Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen (1851); Lupton, in Wace, I, pp. 1-69; Sir H. H. Howorth in the Academy (1893), and in the Proceedings of the “Society for Biblical Archæology” (1901-1902); Torrey, Ezra Studies (1910); S. A. Cook, in Charles, I, pp. 1-58. The articles by Thackeray in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible, and by Volz in the Encycl. Bibl.]

I. The Title of the Book

The book now to be considered has, with few exceptions, been treated with scant respect by scholars for many centuries. Jerome, in his Preface to the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, condemned both the Esdras books in our Apocrypha with their “dreams,” and the Church has followed him in relegating them to a very inferior position. It is only during the last decade or so that, owing, in the main, to the labours of Sir Henry Howorth, scholars have come to realize the importance of 1 (3) Esdras, with which we are at present concerned.

The various titles of the Ezra books are apt, thanks largely to Jerome, to cause confusion; it will therefore, be advisable to set forth these different titles in tabular form, which will also explain how they have arisen:

Hebrew Bible

Septuagint

Vulgate

English
Bible

English Apocrypha

Ezra[457] | } | { 1 Esdras | Ezra |
Nehemiah[457] | } 2 Esdras, or Esdras B. | { 2 Esdras | Nehemiah | 2 Esdras i., ii.[458]
Ezra | 1 Esdras, or Esdras A, together with 2 Chronicles xxxv., xxxvi. and most of Nehemiah viii. (the “Greek Ezra”). | 3 Esdras | Ezra | 1 Esdras
| Not extant | 4 Esdras | | 2 Esdras iii.-xiv.
| No equivalent | 5 Esdras | | 2 Esdras xv., xvi.

It will conduce to clearness if we speak of our present book as the “Greek Ezra” and ignore these confusing titles. By the “Hebrew Ezra” is meant, of course, the canonical book of Ezra.

II. Contents of the Book

As will be seen by referring to the table given above, the contents of our book correspond substantially with parts of the canonical Scriptures[459]; but the “Greek Ezra” does not run wholly parallel with the “Hebrew Ezra,” so that in enumerating the contents of the former it will be necessary to record against each section to what passage in the canonical Scriptures it corresponds, whether to some passage in the “Hebrew Ezra,” or in 2 Chronicles, or in Nehemiah.

i. 1-58 (= 2 Chron. xxxv., xxxvi. 1-21): The book begins very abruptly with a long account of Josiah’s celebration of the Passover in Jerusalem (verses 1-24). Then follows the story of Josiah’s death at the battle of Megiddo where he was defeated by the king of Egypt; reference is made to “the book of the histories of the kings of Judæa,” where these things are written (verses 25-33). The rest of the section deals with Josiah’s successors down to the destruction of Jerusalem (verses 34-58).

ii. 1-15 (= 2 Chron. xxxvi. 22, 23 and Ezra i. 1-11): Cyrus the Persian issues a decree permitting the return of the people and the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem; the sacred vessels of the Temple are given back.

ii. 16-30 (= Ezra iv. 7-24): The Samaritans address a letter to Artaxerxes accusing the Jews of the intention to rebel in rebuilding the walls of the city, and warning him of what the result will be if the building is persisted in (verses 16-24). The purpose of the letter is successful, and the building ceases until the second year of Darius (verses 25-30).

iii. 1-v. 3 (no corresponding passage in the canonical Scriptures): The wisdom competition among three young men of Darius’ bodyguard. Zerubbabel proves himself to be wisest and is rewarded by the king (iii. 1-iv. 46); the reward consists in granting Zerubbabel his request that the king would issue a decree permitting the Jews to return to their country and rebuild the walls of Jerusalem and the Temple (iv. 47-57). Zerubbabel’s thanksgiving (iv. 58-63), and the return of the exiles (v. 1-3).

v. 4-6 (no corresponding passage in the canonical Scriptures): These verses contain the fragment of a list of the returned exiles.

v. 7-73 (= Ezra ii. 1-iv. 5, 24 and Neh. vii. 6-73): A list of those who returned from Babylon under Zerubbabel, Joshua and Nehemiah (verses 7-46); the rebuilding of the Temple (verses 47-65); the Samaritans desire to assist in the work, but are refused; in consequence of this they plot against the Jews, and the building is suspended (verses 66-73).

vi. 1-vii. 15 (= Ezra v. 1-vi. 22): The building of the Temple is begun (vi. 1-6); the letter of Sisinnes, the governor of Syria and Phœnicia, to Darius, asking him to signify his approval of the undertaking (vi. 7-22); the favourable reply of Darius (vi. 23-34). The completion of the building of the Temple, and its dedication (vii. 1-9). Celebration of the Feast of Passover (vii. 10-15).

viii. 1-ix. 36 (= Ezra vii. 1-x. 44): With the permission of Artaxerxes, Ezra goes to Jerusalem with “certain of the children of Israel and of the priests and Levites” (viii. 1-7). Copy of the commission written by Artaxerxes to Ezra (viii. 8-24). A list of those who returned with Ezra (viii. 25-60). The return to Jerusalem, and Ezra’s work in combating mixed marriages (viii. 61-ix. 36).

ix. 37-55 (= Neh. vii. 73-viii. 12): The reading of the Law of Moses by Ezra.

It will thus be seen that the whole of our book, with the exception of iii. 1-v. 6, runs parallel with passages from the “Hebrew Ezra” and parts of 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah. But it will be well to consider the relationship between our book and the “Hebrew Ezra,” and also to inquire as to the relationship of 2 Esdras, or Esdras B, to our book.

III. The “Hebrew Ezra,” the “Greek Ezra,” and 2 Esdras

In the table given above it will be seen that the Hebrew Book of Ezra is represented twice in the Septuagint, viz. by 2 Esdras and the “Greek Ezra,” and that both the Greek forms contain more than simply a translation of the “Hebrew Ezra,” since 2 Esdras has the whole of what was once a single Hebrew book (Ezra-Nehemiah), and our “Greek Ezra” has some matter in addition to the translation of Ezra.

Our first point is to see how the “Hebrew Ezra” and the “Greek Ezra” compare. As regards the sequence of events there are only two cases of any considerable divergence, namely, ii. 16-30 (= Ezra iv. 7-24) is out of place, and ix. 37-55 (= Neh. vii. 73-viii. 12) which follows viii. 1-ix. 36 (= Ezra vii. 1-x. 44) varies from the order in the Hebrew Bible. Otherwise the material of the two is the same, with the one exception of iii. 1-v. 3, the story of the wisdom competition between the three young men of Darius’ bodyguard; this is peculiar to our “Greek Ezra,”[460] and, unlike the rest of the book, was originally composed in Greek. The rest of the book is translated from the Hebrew, but the translation is free and paraphrastic. Turning now for a moment to 2 Esdras, the point of chief importance here is that the translation is a very literal one, it follows the Hebrew text minutely and with almost painful accuracy, sometimes giving renderings which are so close as to be rather lacking in sense in their translated form. In his comparison of the two Greek books Thackeray says: “The two translations are of an essentially different character. While the writer of Esdras B (2 Esdras) shows a slavish adherence to the Hebrew, often transliterating his original, and making no pretensions to style, Esdras A (the “Greek Ezra”) is marked by a free style of translation, an elegant and idiomatic Greek, a happy rendering of Hebraisms, and an omission of difficulties, which make it a far more readable book than the other. It was clearly intended for Greek readers unacquainted with Hebrew. The writer was a littérateur in possession of a wide Greek vocabulary.”[461]

The central problem of our book is to ascertain the relationship between it and the canonical Hebrew book, and 2 Esdras. How do the “Greek Ezra” and 2 Esdras stand to one another? How comes it that both are contained in the Septuagint? Do they both go back to the same Hebrew original? These and other questions which suggest themselves in studying the book are by no means easy to answer, and very varying opinions are held by scholars; nor does it appear that any solution offered is clear from objections of some kind. To deal with these theories would be out of the question here, for the discussion of them fills volumes[462]; a few facts may, however, be enumerated which must be taken into consideration in seeking to arrive at a conclusion.

(1) There are strong grounds for believing that the “Greek Ezra” is of earlier date than 2 Esdras; in the Septuagint it precedes the latter; Josephus uses it, and apparently does not know of 2 Esdras; the writer of the “Greek Ezra” utilizes Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah in such a way as to suggest that these three formed one whole, and had not yet been divided up; in 2 Esdras the “Hebrew Ezra” is clearly a separate book. The Hebrew text which underlies the “Greek Ezra” is often a purer, and therefore in all probability an older, one than that represented in 2 Esdras. For these reasons we are justified in regarding the “Greek Ezra” as of earlier date than 2 Esdras.

(2) The “Greek Ezra” and 2 Esdras often agree in small details; and, what is more striking, they not infrequently agree in deviating from the Hebrew. But, on the other hand, there are many passages in which the “Greek Ezra” follows the Hebrew more closely than 2 Esdras. Now, seeing that one of the characteristics of 2 Esdras is that it follows its Hebrew original in a slavish manner, one is led to the conclusion that the Hebrew text underlying the “Greek Ezra” varied considerably from that which is represented in 2 Esdras. But how is one to account for the agreements between the “Greek Ezra” and 2 Esdras, just mentioned? We suggest that something of this kind took place:

That the Hebrew text which underlay those two books respectively was not the same is clear; the “Greek Ezra” represents a text differing in many respects from the Massoretic text, and therefore in all probability an older one in which Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah were all one book; 2 Esdras represents in the main the Massoretic text. A Greek translation was made of the earlier Hebrew text, before, that is to say, the Hebrew text became fixed. This Greek translation was the immediate parent of our “Greek Ezra.” In the meantime the revision of the Hebrew text took place, and a translator translated this into Greek, utilizing at the same time the original Greek translation; this represents 2 Esdras. So that a different Hebrew text lies ultimately at the base of the “Greek Ezra” and of 2 Esdras; nevertheless both have to recognize the parentage of an intermediate Greek translation, which accounts for the elements of agreement between them; while their differences are accounted for because they were translated from different Hebrew texts. The accompanying diagram will illustrate the suggestion made:

| | Original Hebrew | | |
| | | | | |
Original Greek | | Revised Hebrew
“Greek Ezra” | | | |
| | | 2 Esdras |

This suggestion is a combination of those of Ewald[463] and Sir H. H. Howorth.[464] What has been said does not account for all the difficulties; there is, for example, the piece iii. 1-v. 3 to be accounted for; and the historical inaccuracies (see next section) constitute another difficulty. Much can, however, be explained by recognizing, what seems to be an undoubted fact, that a redactor has been at work on our book, but has not finished his work; there seems to have been a special purpose which this redactor had in view (see section V) and he was concerned with this more than with historical accuracy. The difficulties are enhanced by the fact that the abrupt beginning and ending show that the book is incomplete in its present form.

IV. The Historicity of the Book

In discussing the question of the historical character of our book it is obviously necessary to take the “Hebrew Ezra” and Nehemiah into account; and it will help us to some extent in seeking to find our way about the hopelessly intricate historical maze in which we soon become involved if we begin by drawing up a chronological table. We will, however, preface this with the following list of Persian kings; the names which are put in square brackets do not concern us, but they are added for completeness’ sake:

Cyrus, as king of Persia, B.C. 538-529.
[Cambyses, B.C. 529-522.]
Darius I, Hystaspes, B.C. 522-486.
[Xerxes, B.C. 486-465.]
Artaxerxes I, Longimanus, B.C. 465-426.

Now we give a chronological list of events with the references to the canonical Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah; for the corresponding references in the “Greek Ezra” see the table on pp. 440 ff.

Fall of Jerusalem, B.C. 586 (2 Chron. xxxvi. 17-21).

Edict of Cyrus, in his first year, permitting the return of the Jews to Jerusalem under Zerubbabel, B.C. 538 (Ezra i. 1 ff.).

Laying of the foundation-stone of the Temple, B.C. 536 (Ezra iii. 8 ff.).

Building of the Temple interrupted till the second year of Darius, B.C. 520 (Ezra iv. 1-5, 24 [in Ezra iv. 6-23 the reference is to interference with the building of the city walls, not to the Temple; this section has either got out of place, or it is a later insertion]).

Edict of Darius permitting the building of the Temple to be recommenced, B.C. 520 (Ezra vi. 1 ff.).

Completion and dedication of the Temple in the sixth year of Darius, B.C. 516 (Ezra vi. 13 ff.).

Arrival of Ezra in Jerusalem, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes, and his activity there, B.C. 458. (Ezra vii. 1 ff.) [Note the gap of fifty-eight years between this and the previously recorded event.]

Arrival of Nehemiah in Jerusalem in the twenty-first year of Artaxerxes, B.C. 444; permission given to rebuild the city walls (Neh. ii. 1 ff.). [Note the gap of fourteen years between this and the previously recorded event.]

Reading of the Law by Ezra, B.C. 444, late in the year (Neh. vii. 73b, viii. 1 ff.).

On comparing the history of the “Greek Ezra” with that of Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah the two most prominent points to be noted are that, (1) the “Greek Ezra” makes the order of the Persian kings the reverse of what that order actually was, viz., Artaxerxes (ii. 15-25), Darius (iii. 1-v. 6), Cyrus (v. 7-70), while Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah has the right order. It is, however, well to remember that the “Greek Ezra” in ii. 1 ff. begins the list in the right order, namely, with Cyrus. And (2) the “Greek Ezra” takes no account of Nehemiah i. 1-vii. 72, but gives the history as recorded in Ezra vii.-x., Nehemiah vii. 73-viii. 12; so that the “Greek Ezra” does not present the gap of fourteen years found in Ezra-Nehemiah, for it makes the history of Ezra continuous.

As regards the first of these two points, it is evident that the writer of the “Greek Ezra” was not unaware of the fact that the events were in their wrong order, otherwise we should not have found Cyrus mentioned first, as in ii. 1 ff., and Artaxerxes last, as in viii. 1 ff. An important fact in this connection is that Josephus, who follows the “Greek Ezra” and not 2 Esdras with its literal translation of the “Hebrew Ezra,” has “Cambyses” instead of “Artaxerxes,” thus getting the order correct; and, in following the text of the “Greek Ezra,” he has a consistent chronology. But the contents of the passage in question (ii. 16-30) show that the position in which it stands must be wrong because it speaks of the interruption of the building of the Temple before the foundation is begun. So that if Josephus did not himself alter “Artaxerxes” to “Cambyses,” which is very improbable, he must have found it in the source he had before him; in this case a redactor or compiler altered the name, desiring to get the names of the Persian kings in their right order. But if this is so it suggests the fact that in the original translation of the book the chronology was inconsistent, in which case the same must be true of the Hebrew text which the translator had before him. Now when we look at the Hebrew text of Ezra-Nehemiah we find that it, too, contains historical inaccuracies of a serious character, and that there has clearly been a considerable manipulation of the text. What seems, therefore, to be pretty clear is that there were several different Hebrew records of the history of the people since the Return, and that the knowledge of this history was hazy; but that finally an authoritative, revised, Hebrew form was made in which the general uncertainty regarding the historical events is strongly reflected; not only so, but for particular purposes (see next section) certain aspects of the history were emphasized, while others were treated more scantily; the final result being that before any Greek translation was made there were two, at least, Hebrew accounts of the history both characterized by a particular tendency, and both characterized by historical inaccuracies. Our two Greek versions represent these two Hebrew (or Hebrew-Aramaic) forms. But it does not follow that the historicity of either of these was superior to the other; in this matter each has something to contribute. A striking example of the way in which the “Greek Ezra” sometimes shows its superiority is the second point referred to above; in this case the Ezra story is more logical, differing from the canonical account by making Ezra vii.-x. to be immediately followed by Nehemiah vii. 73-viii. 12.

There are many other differences between the “Greek Ezra” and the canonical books, details of which would be out of place here, but the two given illustrate the main point regarding the historicity of our book which we wish to emphasize, namely, that its historical value is, at the lowest estimate, on a level with that of its canonical rival; each has many inaccuracies, but each has something to contribute; to use one without the other in dealing with the history of the period would be a great mistake. “It can no longer be assumed,” Cook rightly points out, “that the Massoretic text necessarily represents a more trustworthy record of the age, and that E (= the “Greek Ezra”) is necessarily arbitrary and methodless. Both share fundamental imperfections. E, therefore, in any case deserves impartial consideration, and its problems involve those of Ezra-Nehemiah. These problems, owing to the absence of decisive and independent evidence, can be handled only provisionally; but enough is clear to permit the conclusion that E represents a text in some respects older than the present Massoretic text, to which, however, some attempt seems to have been made to conform it.... From a comparison of both with Josephus and other sources (notably Daniel) it would further appear that E represents one of the efforts to give an account of a period, the true course of which was confused and forgotten, if not intentionally obscured; different attempts were made to remove difficulties and inconsistencies, and the desire to give greater prominence to the priestly Ezra than to the secular governor Nehemiah is probably responsible for the arrangement of the extant texts.”[465]

V. The Purpose of the Book

It is an open question as to what the special purpose was which the writer of the original Hebrew work had in his mind; one might at first naturally suppose that it was the same as the writer of any other Jewish historical book, namely to give the history of the particular period dealt with. But assuming, as we may justly do, that our Greek translation gives, upon the whole, an equivalent of the Hebrew that lay before it, it is not difficult to discern a special tendency at work in it. In the first place, political history is quite relegated to the background; but great stress is laid upon everything that has to do with worship and ritual, the re-instatement of the sacrificial system and of the priests and their duties, the due support of the priests, the return of the holy vessels of the sanctuary, the celebration of the festivals, and the purification of the congregation. In addition to this, it is the rebuilding of the Temple which is emphasized, while the rebuilding of the city walls takes quite a secondary place. It is pretty evident, therefore, that the object which the writer had in view was not so much that of giving the history of his people during the post-exilic period, but rather to set forth the paramount importance of the worship of the Temple. In the second place, and closely connected with this, is the further purpose of presenting Ezra as the one really important person who figures in Jewish post-exilic history, and with his name was, of course, indissolubly connected the Law, of which he was the great champion. The title of the book, in fact, implies its purpose. All this is in accordance with what we know to have been characteristic of the attitude of the Jewish religious leaders during the late post-exilic period. In the original form of the Hebrew this was in all probability not so to the same extent, but that original was worked over in the interests of the school of thought just referred to; so that the actual form of the Hebrew which lay before the Greek translator was not the original form in which the book was written. The present title was a subsequent addition.

VI. The Story of the Three Young Men of Darius’ Bodyguard

A few words about this section of our book is needed both because, according to some scholars, it is closely connected with the purpose for which our book was written, and also because it is the part which is peculiar to the “Greek Ezra.” It occurs in iii. 1-v. 6,[466] and is briefly as follows:

Three young men of Darius’ bodyguard undertake to enter upon a competition as to which of them shall be able to put forth a “sentence which shall seem wiser” than those of the other two; it seems to be taken for granted that the successful one will be richly rewarded by the king. They, therefore, wrote their sentences and sealed them, and laid them “under the king his pillow.” The king and the three princes of Persia are to be the judges as to which is the wisest of the three sentences, these being: “Wine is the strongest”; “The king is strongest”; “Women are strongest, but above all things Truth beareth away the victory” (iii. 1-12). Then the king, having had these sentences placed before him, calls upon all the state officials to assemble, while he sits in the seat of judgement, so that all may hear the explanations of their sentences which the three young men are invited to give (iii. 13-17). The first seeks to establish the truth of his sentence by showing that its power is uniform over all men; it affects all alike in that it enforces them to forget (iii. 17b-24). The second, by pointing to the unlimited power of the king over his subjects who obey his every command, maintains that the king is the strongest (iv. 1-12). The third, who, it is added in parenthesis, is Zerubbabel, speaks at greater length; he deals first with women, and shows that though the king is great, and wine is strong, yet “Women have borne the king and all the people that bear rule by sea and land. Even of them came they; and they nourished up them that planted the vineyards, from whence the wine cometh.” Man’s succumbing to the fascination of woman, and therefore her superior power, is the theme of the verses that follow (iv. 13-32). The second part of his oration is concerned with truth, and it contains some really fine sentences: “O sirs, are not women strong? (Yet) great is the earth, high is the heaven, swift is the sun in its course, for it compasseth the heavens round about, and fetcheth its course again to its own place in one day—is He not great that maketh these things? Therefore great is truth, and stronger than all things.... Truth abideth, and is strong for ever; she liveth and conquereth for evermore.... Blessed be the God of Truth.” And then all the people shouted and said: “Great is truth, and strong above all things”; in the Latin Version: Magna est veritas, et praevalet (iv. 13-41). Needless to say, the last speaker is the winner, and he receives the king’s reward. But the curious part is that here we suddenly get transported into an entirely different region of thought, for on the king desiring him to make some further request over and above what had been originally settled, he replies: “Remember thy vow, which thou didst vow to build Jerusalem, in the day when thou camest to thy kingdom, and to send away all the vessels that were taken out of Jerusalem.... Thou didst also vow to build up the temple ...” (iv. 42-46). Then the king gives orders that all this is to be carried out (iv. 47-57). The young man (he is not again referred to as Zerubbabel) offers up a prayer of thanksgiving (iv. 58-63); the return of the exiles commences (v. 1-6).

Now, one can scarcely fail to perceive that the whole section, from iv. 41 to the end, does not really belong to the original story of the three young men; or rather, one should say that this story does not belong to the context in which it now stands, or indeed to the historical record at all of which our book is a compilation, for its presence creates great chronological confusion. The words in iv. 13, spoken in reference to the third young man, “this was Zerubbabel,” do not belong there; they were added later to the story, but they are important because they point to the reason why this story was interpolated into the historical compilation. As we have seen, the whole purpose of our book, in the form in which we now have it, was to lay stress on ritual and worship, and to place the person and work of Ezra in the foreground; this reflects the orthodox and legalistic Pharisaic attitude. An attempt to counterbalance this was made by a Hellenistic Jew who inserted the story of the three young men (whether his own composition, or taken from some collection of stories does not affect the point), and added the words “this is Zerubbabel” for the purpose of bringing into prominence this personality, and thereby making Ezra and all which his name connoted not the sole important issue in Jewry. Zerubbabel, it will be remembered, was the great instrument of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah (see Hag. i., ii., Zech. iv.); he represented, therefore, the prophetical ideals expressed, for example, in such words as: “Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts” (Zech. iv. 6), as against the legalism of Ezra and the school that followed him, above all his disciples, the Pharisees, in the post-Maccabæan period.

It need scarcely be added that this story did not belong to the Hebrew even in its latest form; it was in all probability written in Greek by a Hellenistic Jew; yet the possibility of an Aramaic original is not excluded. If it could be proved that Hebrew or Aramaic was the original language of this addition, and that Palestine was its home, the interesting theory might then be put forth that it, together with the inserted words “this is Zerubbabel,” was added by a Sadducee in opposition to Pharisaism; Zerubbabel’s close connection with the high-priest (see Hag. i. 12, 14, ii. 2, 4, and all Zech. iv.) would fully explain the reason of the inserted words. But whichever view be correct the main purpose of the addition would be the same, viz. an attempt to counteract the influence of Pharisaism.

VII. The Date of the Book

Very few words are needed in speaking of the date of our book, or rather, of its compilation. To fix the date of the original documents made use of by the compiler of the Hebrew form is not in question here. If we inquire as to the date of the Hebrew form which lay before the Greek translator it must be replied that this depends upon what that form was; if it contained the marks of what may be called the “Ezra-tendency,” then it must probably be post-Maccabæan, in which case our present Greek translation might fairly be dated not later than the middle of the last century B.C.

But if the Hebrew did not contain these marks—we refer especially to the passage dealt with in the preceding section—and they are due to the Greek translator or a redactor, which we believe more probable, then the Hebrew, even in the form in which it lay before the translator, was pre-Maccabæan, and the Greek form, though post-Maccabæan, might well be dated about B.C. 100. It is to this latter date that we incline; and it is corroborated by considerations of vocabulary, as has been well shown by Dewick.[467]

CHAPTER IX
The Book of Wisdom
(The Wisdom of Solomon)

[Literature.—Grimm, Das Buch der Weisheit erklärt (1860); Montefiore, The Wisdom of Solomon (1887); Farrar, in Wace, I, pp. 403-534; Deane, The Book of Wisdom ... (1881); Menzel, Der griechische Einfluss auf Prediger und Weisheit Salomos, pp. 39-70 (1889); Bois, Essai sur les origines de la philosophie judéo-alexandrine (1890); Schürer, II, iii. pp. 230-237, German ed., pp. 505-512; Siegfried, in Kautzsch, I, pp. 476-507; Linke, Samarien und seine Propheten, pp. 119-144 (1903); Stevenson, Wisdom and Jewish Apocryphal Writings (1903); M. Friedländer, Griechische Philosophie im Alten Testamente, pp. 182-208 (1904); Zeller, Outlines of Greek Philosophy (1909); Gregg, The Wisdom of Solomon (1909); Holmes, in Charles, I, pp. 518-568; Goodrick, The Book of Wisdom (1913). See also the articles by Freudenthal, in “The Jewish Quarterly Review,” III, pp. 722-753 (1891), Siegfried, in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible, and Toy, in the Encycl. Bibl.]

I. The Title and Authorship of the Book

The title “The Wisdom of Solomon” in the English Versions comes from the Greek manuscripts,[468] the three oldest of which have this exact title, while, in one form or another, they all have it. But the Old Latin Version has only “The Book of Wisdom,” without any mention of Solomon; and the Syriac Version, while ascribing it to Solomon, adds, “of which there is a doubt; whether another wise man of the Hebrews wrote it in a prophetic spirit, putting it in the name of Solomon, and it was received.”[469] Although some of the early Latin Fathers believed that the book was the work of Solomon, they formed the exceptions; it is obvious that it cannot have been written by him, as we shall see as we proceed. But it may well be asked why it should have been ascribed to Solomon; the usual and obvious answer that to the Jews Solomon was the wisdom-writer par excellence, and that therefore anyone desiring to commend a book on wisdom would naturally choose this name as a pseudonym in preference to any other, is doubtless correct in a general way; but Plumptre has suggested a stronger reason; believing that the book was written in antagonism to Ecclesiastes,[470] he says: “Let us remember in what light it [i.e. Ecclesiastes] must have presented itself to him [i.e. the writer of Wisdom]. It had not ... the claim which comes from the reverence due to the authority of a remote antiquity or an unquestioned acceptance. He must have known that it had not been received as canonical without serious opposition, that the strictest school of the Pharisees had been against its reception, that it had seemed to them tainted with the heresy of Epicuræanism and Sadduceeism. If it was interpreted then as it has often been interpreted since, it may have seemed to him to sanction a lawless sensuality, to fall in with the thoughts of those who said, ‘let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die,’ and to throw doubt, if not denial, on the soul’s immortality. Was this, he seems to have asked himself, the true ideal of wisdom? Was it not his duty to bring before men another Solomon than that whose experience seemed to end in materialism and pessimism, in the scepticism of an endless doubt? And so he, too, adopts without any hesitation the form of personated authorship.”[471] This puts the matter on a higher plane altogether. That the writer of our book had what he considered to be the erroneous teaching of Ecclesiastes in mind will be clear to any one who reads Wisdom ii. 1-9 in conjunction with the following passages from Ecclesiastes:[472]

Wisdom | ii. 1 | with Ecclesiastes | ii. 23, v. 1.
” | ii. 2 | ” | ” | iii. 19, cp. ix. ii.
” | ii. 3 | ” | ” | xii. 7.
” | ii. 4 | ” | ” | i. 11, ii. 16, ix. 5, ii. 11.
” | ii. 5 | ” | ” | vi. 12, viii. 8.
” | ii. 6 | ” | ” | ii. 24.
” | ii. 7 | ” | ” | ix. 7.
” | ii. 8 | ” | ” | ix. 8.
” | ii. 9 | ” | ” | iii. 22, v. 18, ix. 8.

In Wisdom ii. 1 ff. (“For they said within themselves, reasoning not aright ...”) the writer is describing the tenets of the ungodly; and what he says agrees not only in substance, but often even verbally, with the corresponding passages in Ecclesiastes.

Bearing Plumptre’s words in mind, therefore, and remembering what has been said above[473] regarding the estimate of the function and importance of authorship among Easterns of earlier times, we should not be justified in seeing any fraudulent intention on the part of our author in putting the name of Solomon to the title of his book.

As to the personality of the author[474] but very few data are to be gathered from the book; he must in all probability have been a Jew (cp. xii. 22), but a Hellenistic Jew, yet loyal to the Law[475] (xviii. 4), who lived and wrote in Egypt (see xii. 23 ff., xv. 18, 19, xvi. 1, 9, where reference is made to Egyptian animal-worship); his Jewish feeling is evidenced throughout the book; that he was domiciled in Alexandria is highly probable, for this was the centre of Jewish-Hellenistic culture. As Gregg well points out, the author “makes no effort to disguise his sympathy with Hellenic thought. He is a Euhemerist in his account of the origin of idol-worship (xiv.); he is a Platonist in his sense of the beauty of the world, and in his argument that its beauty points to a supreme First Cause. He draws on Plato for his doctrine of pre-existing matter (xi. 17), of the pre-existence of the soul (viii. 19), and of the body as an obstacle in the path to spiritual knowledge (ix. 15). The teaching of the Stoics suggested to him the penetratingness of Wisdom (vii. 24), and her quickness of understanding (vii. 22). The doctrine of Providence (xiv. 3) and the conception of the four cardinal virtues (viii. 7), were a loan partly from Plato and partly from the Stoics. This combination of knowledge of Egypt and sympathy with Greek studies points plainly to Alexandria; and the inference is strengthened by a comparison of Wisdom with the writings of the Alexandrian Philo. For the affinity between them is so close, that the author has been styled a pre-Philonic Philonist. Like Philo (but in a more uncompromising way), he is a Jew loyal to the national religion; and no centre offered the same opportunities as did Alexandria for a Jew who wished to unite a liberal eclecticism with his traditional faith.”[476] For the influence of Greek philosophy to be discerned in the book see Part I, Chapter IV.

II. The Date of the Book

Among modern scholars controversy regarding the date of our book centres round the question as to whether it belongs to the middle of the last century B.C. or about a hundred years later, though some (e.g. Gregg, Op. cit., p. xi.) would date it as early as “within the last quarter of the second century B.C.” There are three main points to be taken into consideration in seeking to fix an approximate date.

(a) The author quotes from the Septuagint of the Book of Isaiah (ii. 12, cp. Isa. iii. 10, and xv. 10, cp. Isa. xliv. 20), and also from the Book of Job (xii. 12, cp. Job ix. 12, 19); therefore these books must have already existed in their Greek form. Now from the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus it is evident that the prophetical books had been translated into Greek before Sirach’s grandson translated his grandfather’s work, and that therefore these books formed part of the Septuagint before B.C. 132.[477] But as regards the Book of Job, and the Hagiographa generally,[478] we cannot say with any certainty at what precise period they were translated[479]; Swete, after reviewing the evidence, says: “Thus while the testimony of the first century A.D. does not absolutely require us to believe that all the books of the Hebrew canon had been translated and were circulated in a Greek version during the Apostolic age, such a view is not improbable; and it is confirmed by the fact that they are all contained in the canon of the Greek Bible which the Christian Church received from its Jewish predecessors.”[480] The fact, therefore, that the author of Wisdom quotes from the Book of Job in its Greek form makes it reasonably certain that our book was written during the last century B.C.

(b) The next point is as to the historical conditions reflected in the book. Quite recently Goodrick has examined this question with great care, and it is one which needs a brief consideration. Rightly or wrongly, it is often taken for granted that the book was written at a time when the Jews were suffering, or had recently suffered, persecution; such passages as ii. 10-20, vi. 5-9 are supposed to be references to this. What persecution is it, then, to which reference is made? Goodrick believes that the allusion is to a persecution under Caligula (A.D. 37-41). After giving the historical details, he sums up as follows: “A sore persecution has just been endured; a persecution not to the death indeed, but involving grave damage and distress. This persecution, founded in part on gross calumny, had as one of its main features the attempted enforcement of idolatry, and of idolatry in its most insane and revolting form—the worship of a living man. This living man was a prince ruling at a distance, but his commands were enforced by apostate Jews dwelling close at hand, who had surrendered their ancient belief without sincerely adopting any other, and represented no religion except that of Epicureanism, for which they sought to find their text-book in the so-called Solomon’s ‘Preacher.’ This persecution had been carried on through the agency of the dregs of the populace of Alexandria, wherein were represented the superstition of ancient Egypt at its worst, combined with hereditary Greek hatred of the Jews, and wild misrepresentation of their religion and ordinances. Finally, a time of temporary repose must be pictured, in which it was possible to substitute severe rebuke for furious complaint. All these conditions the period from A.D. 41 to 44 presents, and an examination of the Book of Wisdom confirms the belief that it was then written.”[481] In support of this Goodrich refers first to ii. 10-20, where the ungodly say “within themselves, reasoning not aright” (see ii. 1):[482]

10. Let us oppress the righteous poor;
Let us not spare the widow,
Nor reverence the grey hairs of the old man full of years.
11. But let our strength be to us a law of righteousness,
For weakness is condemned as unprofitable.
12. But let us lie in wait for the righteous, for he is useless to us,
And is opposed to our doings,
And upbraideth us for sins against the Law,
And denounceth to us sins against our discipline.
13. For he professeth to have knowledge of God,
And calleth himself the servant of the Lord.
14. He became for us a rebuke to our machinations;
15. He is grievous unto us even to look upon,
Because his life is unlike other men’s,
And his ways are peculiar.
16. As base metal were we accounted by him,
And he abstaineth from our ways as from uncleanness.
He calleth the latter end of the righteous blessed,
And vaunteth that God is his Father.
17. Let us see if his words be true.
Yea, and make trial of what will happen at his going forth.
18. For if the righteous man be God’s son, He will uphold him,
And will deliver him out of the hand of them that rise up against him.
19. With insult and torture let us test him,
That we may know his tolerance,
And judge of his endurance of evil.
20. Let us condemn him to a shameful death,
So shall there be made examination of him from his own words.

Goodrick maintains that we have here the description of the oppression of the righteous man. Of the calumnies which had instigated the persecution, “that which had obtained the widest circulation ... was that of the hatred of the Jews for all mankind except their own nation. It is probably alluded to in ii. 15, and is controverted in xii. 19” (“... the righteous must be a lover of mankind”). Further, he says that the allusion to the deification of living men is plain in xiv. 16, 17:

Then in time, being enforced, the impious custom was kept as a law,

And by the commands of despots graven images were worshipped,

Whom men, not being able to honour in their presence, through dwelling at a distance,

Counterfeiting their features far away,

Made a visible image of the honoured king,

To flatter by their zeal the absent as present (cp. also vi. 2).

Finally, the most striking reference to contemporary matters, says Goodrick, is “that in xix. 5 as to the rights of citizenship”:

But these with feastings

(First) welcoming them that already shared the same rights,

Vexed them with sore labours.

Regarding the question of historical conditions by itself Goodrick’s contention as to the date of our book is weighty; but even so his arguments do not necessarily carry conviction. It is not necessary, as Toy points out, “to suppose that the work was composed in the midst of one of the violently hostile movements. The author, even if he lived in a relatively quiet time, would know enough of the general fortunes of his people to paint his pictures of suffering (ii.-v., xiv.). Nor is his reference to the worship of the statues of kings (xiv. 16-20) chronologically decisive, for divine worship was paid to Ptolemy I, and probably to Antiochus II, as well as to Caligula and other Roman emperors. The author is, in fact, as Grimm remarks, giving a learned account of the origin of idolatry, and it is unnecessary to assume that the deified princes to whom he refers were his contemporaries.”[483] It is also necessary to remember that the command to worship the statue of Caligula meant the setting up of his effigy in the Temple at Jerusalem and in the synagogues of Alexandria; is it likely that our author, loyal and ardent Jew that he was, would use the mild language that he does if it were a question of such a supreme outrage upon Jewish belief and practice?

(c) But there is another point to be taken into consideration in discussing the date of our book, namely, whether or not it is pre-Philonian. Diametrically opposed views are held by scholars; Schürer (Op. cit., II, iii. p. 234) regards it as certain that our book precedes Philo, for “his standpoint is a preliminary step to Philo’s.” This, as he says, would not in itself prove a higher antiquity; “but with the near affinity of the two it is inconceivable that our author would have remained unaffected by Philo if he had succeeded him.” Farrar (Op. cit., p. 421) says that the impression left on his mind is that “the book was composed in the Roman epoch, and by an author who was familiar with the speculations of Philo, but regarded them from a completely independent point of view. The impression that he was to some extent influenced by the views of Philo, and that Philo was not influenced by him, is very strong. If he had preceded Philo, some traces of the powerful style and individuality and phraseology of the Pseudo-Solomon must surely have been observable in the voluminous pages of the Jewish Theosophist.” Goodrick, while agreeing with Farrar that the author of our book regarded the speculations from a completely independent point of view, does not think that there is the slightest reference or allusion in either from either. While it is, so far, true that, as Goodrick says, “we are left to the à priori conjectures of scholars,” there is one important point, emphasized by Gregg, which seems conclusive; Gregg writes (Op. cit., p. xii.): “In spite of the remarkable similarity (in some cases amounting almost to identity) of the language of Philo and that of Wisdom, there is one vital difference which points to a considerably earlier date for the latter. The Logos-idea is the leading feature of Philo’s system, and there is in Wisdom no trace of the Philonian Logos, nor is the Divine Wisdom ever even identified with the Logos. In Philo’s time the Logos-doctrine must have belonged to current Alexandrian thought; had Philo been its originator, he would have asserted it in a more polemical manner. Accordingly, time must be allowed for the development of a doctrine which Philo found ready to hand, and that length of time must have separated the composition of Wisdom from the writings of Philo. The inference is (see Grimm, Intr., p. 34), that Wisdom was composed a considerable time, perhaps a century, before Philo, who was born about B.C. 20, began to write.” This is a strong argument, though it does not seem necessary to date our book as much as a century before the time of Philo. Holmes grants the validity of Gregg’s argument (which is also that of Grimm), though, as he says, “it only means that the book must be earlier than the student-life of Philo, which may be placed from B.C. 5-A.D. 5.... But ignorance of the Alexandrine Logos-doctrine can only affect the date of the first part of the book; the second part may with Bousset (Religion des Judenthums, p. 35) be dated after the beginning of the Empire (say B.C. 30), on account of xiv. 17, where the likeness of an absent ruler is mentioned” (Op. cit., p. 521). All things considered, the most probable date would seem to be the latter half of the last century B.C., the earlier half of the book belonging to the beginning, the later half to the end, of this period.

III. The Question of Composite Authorship

The question of the unity, or otherwise, of the book is a difficult one; the arguments used in support of either position are strong; anyone who reads them all would, we should imagine, hesitate to pronounce a definite opinion unless he had some new argument to present on one side or the other.[484] We shall briefly enumerate the reasons which have led many scholars to believe that the book is of composite authorship. Upon one point all authorities are agreed, whether they accept the unity of the book or not, namely, that it is divided into two distinct parts: ii.-xi. 1, and xi. 2-xix. It is the differences of various kinds between these two parts which have suggested composite authorship; these are as follows:

(a) The conception of God; in part I God’s action is represented in a way quite different from that taught in part II; this will be seen from the few following quotations from each part. In vii. 22-viii. 1 Wisdom is spoken of in such a way as to show that God acts indirectly through it:

... Beneficent, loving toward man,
Steadfast, sure, free from care;
All-powerful, all-surveying,
And penetrating through all spirits

That are quick of understanding; pure, subtil,

For Wisdom is more mobile than any motion;

Yea, she pervadeth and penetrateth all things by reason of her pureness.

For she is a breath of the power of God ...

... For she is an effulgence from everlasting light,

And an unspotted mirror of the working of God,

And an image of His goodness.

And she, though but one, hath power to do all things ...

... But she reacheth from one end of the world to the other with full strength,

And ordereth all things well (cp. also x. 1 ff.).

And again in viii. 6 it is said:

Who more than Wisdom is an artificer of the things that are?

It is clear enough from these passages that the Divine action is represented as being accomplished through the agency of Wisdom. In contrast to this God’s action is represented as direct in part II; for example, in xv. 1 we read:

But Thou, our God, art gracious and true,

Longsuffering, and in mercy ordering all things.

The same truth is taught in xiii. 1:

For by nature all men were foolish, and had no perception of God,

And from the good things to be seen had not power to know Him that is,

Neither by giving honour to the works did they recognize the Artificer.

(b) Another thing which is believed to point to a difference of authorship is that in part I Wisdom plays a most important rôle, whereas in part II it is never mentioned.[485] This is rather striking, especially when taken in conjunction with what has been said in (a), for so many opportunities occur in part II for Wisdom to be mentioned; in a number of passages it might have found a place very naturally. For an author who has such an exalted conception of Wisdom as the writer of part I, it certainly strikes one as strange to find that he suddenly ignores it altogether in part II; whereas if the latter was of different authorship no problem presents itself.

(c) Further, the generally broad outlook of part I stands in striking contrast to the pronounced particularism of the second part. This in itself is, of course, not sufficient to decide the question of authorship in favour of duality any more than the other arguments put forth; but the cumulative effect of all cannot be ignored; and this is emphasized by one more, perhaps the strongest, argument, viz.:

(d) Stylistic and linguistic differences. In part I the style is “relatively simple and direct, with constant regard to the Hebrew principle of parallelism, whilst, in the second part, it is ambitious, grandiloquent, or turgid, complicated and artificial, often without parallelism.”[486] With regard to the linguistic differences Holmes[487] has recently made a careful examination of them, and the results he gives are not to be ignored; they are far too detailed and technical to be dealt with here. But his own conclusion is that the difference in style, presentation and tone, together with those of language and diction, taken together with other problems which present themselves, are such that “there are considerable difficulties in the way of accepting the unity of authorship which have not been met by its upholders. If we could assume that the writer of the second part had studied the first part carefully, and wished to write a supplement to it, both resemblances and differences could be accounted for.”

But the arguments in favour of dual authorship have not been ignored by the champions of unity of authorship; their position has been well summed up by Toy thus: “It may be said that a logical unity [between the two parts] is recognizable in the fact that the two points of attack in the work, apostasy and idolatry, represent the two great enemies of the later devout Judaism, and that a consciousness of unity is shown in ix. 18, which makes the transition from the first part to the second,[488] and has not the appearance of an editorial insertion; that the similarity between i. 1 and vi. 1 suggests that the same speaker is intended throughout; that the non-mention of Wisdom after xi. 1 is due to the fact that the author became so immersed in his historical sketch (which he meant as an indictment of his own contemporaries) that he forgot the philosophical thesis with which he set out; that the change of style is a natural consequence of the change of the subject-matter, the moral and philosophical discussions falling more easily into the form of the Book of Proverbs, the dramatic scenes of the earlier history readily suggesting legendary touches and highly-coloured language; and that there are marked resemblances of tone and style in the two parts—e.g. the rush of thoughts of the second part is paralleled in the description of the wicked (v.) and of Wisdom (vii. 22-viii. 1), and the religiously elevated and dignified tone of the first part appears here and there in the second (cp. i. 13-15, ix. 1-6 with xi. 23-26, xii. 19, xvi. 7).” There is a great deal in what is here said; it cannot be denied that it is very difficult to come to a definite conclusion where the arguments on both sides are so strong. At the same time it is worth remembering that some writers who advocate unity of authorship recognize that their position is not impregnable; Eichhorn, for example, was so struck by the differences between the two parts that although he believed both were written by the same author he nevertheless thought that the second was written in his youth, the former in maturer years. Similarly, in one of the most recent commentaries on the book, that of Goodrick, the author says: “it is possible that a writer who had laid aside his work, dictated in the beginning by irritation at apostasy and persecution, gave it a new colour by adapting it to philosophic ideas which he had only lately assimilated, and, its original interest having passed with the times of persecution which suggested it, should endeavour to obtain a vogue for it by the direct ascription of it to Solomon.”[489] Goodrick is convinced of the unity of authorship, but thinks that the “Solomonic chapters” (vii.-ix.) were added after the rest of the book had been completed.

The possibilities of what the original facts of the case may have been are numerous; upon the whole, while fully recognizing the difficulties which surround the question, we do not feel convinced that the advocates of unity of authorship have established their view beyond possibility of doubt. Dual authorship seems to us the easier and more natural solution, though we are not blind to the fact that the easier way is not always the right one.

IV. The Purposes for which the Book was Written

Whether our book was written by a single author, or whether each of the two parts were of different authorship (see above, § III), is immaterial so far as the aims and objects of the book are concerned; for there is no doubt that it was of Jewish authorship and that is was written for Jews[490]—Egyptian Jews—who were beset by four special dangers, viz. Scepticism, Materialism, Idolatry and Persecution. That the writer of each part was a Jew we have already seen (§ I); that the book was written for Jews is clear enough from the fact that it contains numerous allusions to the past history of Israel which are no more than allusions; it is taken for granted that the readers understand them without further explanation. Moreover, historical characters are again and again spoken of without mentioning their names; it is assumed that the readers will know who is meant since the references are to persons who took a leading part in the past history of Israel. It is, therefore, for the benefit of his own people in Egypt, that the writer warns or encourages or denounces, according to the particular danger combated.

(a) Scepticism.

The old problem of the godly in adversity and the wicked in prosperity was evidently exercising the minds of many Jews in Alexandria to the detriment of both their faith and morals. Since there was no divine justice, and life was short, they advocated making the most of life while they enjoyed it, without considering others. The writer, in ii. 1-20, describes the attitude of the wicked, putting into their mouths the words which express this attitude:

Short and sorrowful is our life,

And there is no remedy when a man cometh to his end,

And none was ever known that returned from Hades.

Because by mere chance were we born,

And hereafter we shall be as though we had never been....

Come, therefore, and let us enjoy the good things that now are;

And let us use creation with all earnestness as youth’s possession.

Let us fill ourselves with costly wine and perfumes ...

Let us oppress the righteous poor,

Let us not spare the widow,

Nor reverence the hairs of the old man grey for length of years....

We were accounted of him as base metal,

And he abstaineth from our ways as from uncleannesses.

The latter end of the righteous he calleth happy;

And he vaunteth that God is his father.

Let us see if his words be true,

And let us try what shall befall in the ending of his life.

For if the righteous man is God’s son He will uphold him,

And He will deliver him out of the hand of his adversaries....

This attitude the writer combats by asserting first that the wicked will not escape punishment:

Therefore no man that uttereth unrighteous things shall be unseen;

Neither shall Justice, when it punisheth, pass him by.

For the counsels of the ungodly shall be searched out,

And the report of his words shall come unto the Lord

For the punishment of his lawless deeds ... (i. 6-11).

But the writer declares, further, that not only in this life shall the wicked be punished, but in the next world as well, while the godly will then be recompensed. He says of the wicked that:

They knew not the mysteries of God,

Neither hoped they for wages of holiness,

Nor did they judge that there is a prize for blameless souls.

Because God created man for incorruption ... (ii. 21-24).

Then follows the well-known passage concerning the blessedness of the righteous:

But the souls of the righteous are in the hands of God ... (iii. 1-9),

and in the verses that follow (iii. 10 ff.) the writer describes the torment of the wicked in the world to come. The true way to prepare in this world for the next is by the acquisition of Wisdom:

For her true beginning is desire of instruction;

And the care for instruction is love of her;

And love of her is observance of her laws;

And to give heed to her laws is the assurance of incorruption;

And incorruption bringeth near to God;

So then the desire of Wisdom promoteth to a kingdom (vi. 17-20).

One purpose, therefore, of the book is to bring the godless sceptics among the Jews to a better frame of mind; and this is done mainly by setting forth the doctrine of immortality, and retribution or reward in the world to come.

(b) Materialism.

Closely connected with the preceding was a second danger, that of Materialism, the combating of which was another purpose that the writer had in view in writing his book. In a passage already referred to, which contains the words put by the writer into the mouth of the ungodly, the existence of this danger is seen from the following words:

Let us fill ourselves with costly wine and perfumes;

And let no flower of spring pass us by.

Let us crown ourselves with rosebuds, before they wither,

Let there be no meadow without traces of our proud revelry.

Everywhere let us leave tokens of our mirth,

Because this is our portion, and our lot is this (ii. 7-9).

For these materialists the writer has the same message as for the sceptics:

The ungodly shall be requited as they reasoned (iii. 10).

They had reasoned that fulness of this life’s enjoyment was their portion and their lot; so it shall be; but they are warned of what is to come hereafter:

They shall come, when their sins are reckoned up, with coward fear;

And their lawless deeds shall convict them to their face (iv. 20; and cp. v. 1-14).

It is by means of the doctrine of immortality that the writer seeks to combat these dangers of scepticism and materialism. The recognition of this truth of a life hereafter is wisdom (see vi. 17-20 quoted above).

(c) Idolatry.

That a further object of the book is to utter a warning against idolatry is obvious from what is said in chapters xiii.-xv.; but whether the writer has in view mainly the Gentiles among whom he was living or the renegades of his own race, is differently answered by commentators. Probably both are in the writer’s mind. At any rate, his polemic against idolatry is very thorough; he regards it as the cause of all kinds of evil:

For the devising of idols was the beginning of fornication,

And the invention of them the corruption of life ...

And all things confusedly are filled with blood and murder, theft and deceit,

Corruption, faithlessness, tumult, perjury.

Disquieting of the good,

Ingratitude for benefits received,

Defiling of souls, confusion of sex.

Disorder in marriage, adultery and wantonness.

For the worship of those unnameable idols

Is the beginning and cause and end of every evil ... (xiv. 12-31).

From the words that follow it would seem that in this passage, at any rate, it is apostate Jews which the writer has in mind:

For their worshippers either make merry unto madness, or prophesy lies,

Or live unrighteously, or lightly forswear themselves;

For, putting their trust in lifeless idols,

They wickedly swear false oaths, and look not to be harmed

But for both sins shall the just doom pursue them,

Because they had evil thoughts of God by giving heed to idols,

And swore unrighteously in deceit, despising holiness ... (xiv. 28-31).

For such a particularist as the writer of the second part of our book the words, “because they had evil thoughts of God” could only refer to apostate Jews, for he would not contemplate the Egyptians with their animal-worship as even thinking of God; the same would apply to the words “despising holiness.”

(d) Persecution.

Lastly, the writer wrote with the purpose of comforting and encouraging his people in face of persecution which they were suffering from the Egyptians; as Gregg rightly points out, the Jews must have been suffering from pressure from without, for “nothing else will account for the intensity of the writer’s hatred of Egypt, which he gratifies as he lingers over the bondage of the Israelites, and labours the contrast between the fortunes of oppressors and oppressed (x. 16 ff., xi. 1 ff., xvi.-xix.). History repeats itself, and he regards the study of history as the best remedy for national depression. If it was in respect of its divinities that Egypt was smitten in the time of Moses, and if idolatry is not only folly but the cause of all social and civic decadence (xiii.-xv.), the suppressed conclusion is that the Egypt which still harries the resident Jews and has not yet repented of its beast-worship, will once again bend before Israel.”[491]

V. The Influence of the Book on St. Paul

There are a large number of passages in the Pauline Epistles in which the influence of our book is to be discerned; to quote all the passages from Wisdom and the corresponding ones in the Epistles would be out of the question here; but a few examples may be given in order to show how necessary the study of this book is for the New Testament student.

In ii. 23, 24 a doctrine of the Fall is touched upon which reflects the Jewish ideas on the subject current at the time:

Because God created man for incorruption,

And made him an image of His own proper being;

But by the envy of the devil death entered into the world,

And they that belong to his realm experience it.

With these words should be compared the two following passages: Romans v. 12, “Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned”; cp. 1 Corinthians xv. 21, 22.

In iii. 8 it is said of the righteous departed that:

They shall judge nations, and have dominion over peoples;

And the Lord shall reign over them for evermore.

This reminds one forcibly of St. Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians vi. 2, 3:

Or know ye not that the saints shall judge the world...? know ye not that we shall judge angels...?

In both these cases it is, of course, possible that the similarity exists solely because in both sets of passages current Jewish ideas find expression; in the following one, however, it is difficult to believe that it did not influence St. Paul when he wrote the well-known words in Ephesians vi. 11-20, beginning: “Put on the whole armour of God”; the passage in Wisdom is v. 17-20:

He shall take His jealousy as complete armour,

And shall make the whole creation His weapons for vengeance upon His enemies:

He shall put on righteousness as a breastplate,

And shall take judgement unfeigned as a helmet;

He shall take holiness as an invincible shield,

And shall sharpen stern wrath as a sword.

It is probable that the writer of this had in mind Isaiah lix. 17: “And He put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon His head; and He put on garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloke”; but while this passage was no doubt the original inspiration of both Wisdom v. 17-20 and Ephesians vi. 11-20, one cannot read these two latter without feeling convinced that St. Paul knew and utilized the Book of Wisdom. On the other hand, regarding the somewhat intricate subject of “the elements of the world,” which is referred to more than once both in Wisdom and by St. Paul, while one would hesitate to assert definitely that the latter was influenced by the former it offers a good illustration of the need of studying St. Paul’s writings in the light of this book. To show what we mean it will suffice to put the respective passages in parallel columns, and the reader will at once see the connection:

Wisdom vii. 17: “For He hath given me unerring knowledge of the things that are, to know the constitution of the world, and the working of the elements.”

Wisdom xix. 18-21: “For the elements changed their order one with another....”

Wisdom xiii. 2, 3: “But whether fire, or wind, or swift air, or circling stars, or raging water, or luminaries of heaven, they thought (all) were gods that rule the world. And if through delight in their beauty they took them to be gods, let them know how much better than these is their Sovereign Lord....”

Colossians ii. 8: “Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the elements of the world, and not after Christ.”

Colossians ii. 20: “If ye died with Christ from the elements of the world, seek the things that are above, where Christ is....”

Galatians iv. 3: “So we also, when we were children, were held in bondage under the elements of the world.”

Galatians iv. 8, 9: “Howbeit at that time, not knowing God, ye were in bondage to them which by nature are no gods; but now that ye have come to know God, or rather to be known of God, how turn ye back again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire to be in bondage over again?” (cp. Heb. v. 12; 2 Pet. iii. 10, 12).

Whatever may be meant here by “the elements of the world,” it is clear that St. Paul is combating a false doctrine regarding belief in elemental spirits; and for the study of this subject recourse to the Book of Wisdom is imperative. An interesting parallel is that between Wisdom ix. 15:

For a corruptible body weigheth down the soul,

And the earthly frame lieth heavy on the mind that is full of cares,

and 2 Corinthians v. 1: “For we know that if the earthly house of our tabernacle be dissolved, we have a building from ...,” and verse 4: “For indeed we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened....”

And once more, in Wisdom xi. 23 it is said:

But Thou hast mercy on all men, because Thou hast power to do all things,

And Thou overlookest the sins of men to the end that they may repent.

We are at once reminded of St. Paul’s words in Romans ii. 4: “Or despisest thou the riches of His goodness and forbearance and long-suffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?” (cp. Rom. xi. 32).

Still more striking is the following:

Wisdom xv. 7: “For a potter, kneading soft earth, laboriously mouldeth each vessel for our service: nay, out of the same clay doth he fashion both the vessels that minister to clean uses, and those of a contrary sort, all in like manner; but what shall be the use of either sort, the craftsman himself is the judge.”

Romans ix. 21-23: “Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to show His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much long-suffering vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction; and that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy...?”

Space forbids us to do more than merely refer to other striking resemblances and parallel passages which further illustrate the influence of this book upon St. Paul, the three following subjects would, however, repay careful study: the qualities of Wisdom—with Wisdom vii. 22-viii. 1, ix. 6-17 compare 1 Corinthians ii. 6-16; the doctrine of Predestination—with Wisdom xii., xv. 7 compare Romans ix. 19-23; the question of heathen idolatry—with Wisdom xiii., xiv. compare Romans i. 18-32.

The number of parallels, in the words of Thackeray, “between St. Paul and Wisdom put it beyond doubt that the Apostle had at one time made a close study of the apocryphal book. It was a book which no doubt had a wide circulation at an early time, being the noblest product of the pre-Christian Judaism of Alexandria, and combining in the choicest language the broader views of Hellenism with the narrower national spirit of Judaism: a combination which would make it of special interest to the Apostle who sought to make himself all things to all men that he might by all means gain some. ‘A practical man with the sharp outlook for practical needs, Paul took what was good wherever it offered itself.’ The influence is rather formal than substantial. But in three, not unimportant points, the Apostle’s views on idolatry, on predestination and on eschatology, he has been to some extent affected by the matter, and not only the manner, of the Alexandrian work.”[492]

For the further study of this subject the excellent book of Thackeray’s, just quoted, is invaluable, as is also Grafe’s Das Verhältniss der Paulinischen Schriften zur Sapientia Salomonis (1892); see also Sanday and Headlam’s Romans, passim, and Hausrath, Der Apostel Paulus, p. 23 (1872).

It is probable that the influence of Wisdom is to be discerned in other books of the New Testament; Gregg, Op. cit., pp. liv.-lvi., gives a long list of parallels between the book and St. John’s Gospel; and for parallels with the epistle of St. James, see the same author, pp. lix., lx. and Mayor’s St. James, p. lxxv.

CHAPTER X
The Second Book of Maccabees

[Literature.—Grimm, Exegetisches Handbuch zu 2. Makk. (1853); Rawlinson, in Wace, II, pp. 539-648; Schlatter, Jason von Kyrene (1891); Willrich, Juden und Griechen vor der makkabäischen Erhebung, pp. 76 ff. (1895); Schürer, II, iii. pp. 211-216, German ed., III, pp. 482-489; Kamphausen, in Kautzsch, I, pp. 81-119; Büchler, Die Tobiaden und die Oniaden im 2. Makkabäerbuche, pp. 282-398 (1899); Niese, Kritik der beiden Makkabäerbücher (1900); Moffatt, in Charles, I, pp. 125-154. See also the articles by Westcott in Smith’s Dict. of the Bible (2nd ed.), and Torrey in the Encycl. Bibl.]

I. The Origin of the Book

In chapter ii. 19-32 of our book the writer explains in a preface the origin, contents and purpose of his work. He tells us that an account of all the heroic doings of Judas Maccabæus and his brothers had been drawn up by Jason the Cyrenian in five books. He does not say anything further about this Jason, and seems to take for granted that his readers will know who is meant. Neither Jason nor his work are mentioned elsewhere. However, as the writer says, his book is an epitome of Jason’s larger work: “These things, then, which have been made known by Jason the Cyrenian, we will essay to epitomize in one volume” (ii. 23). The writer says further in his preface (verses 30, 31): “To enter into details, and to indulge in long discussions, and to be curious in particulars, is the part of the original author of the history; but to strive after brevity of expression, and to avoid a laboured fulness in the treatment, must be granted to him who puts the material into a new form.” These words plainly imply that the writer utilized Jason’s history as his sole source, and that he confined himself to an abridgement of what Jason had written. His choice of excerpts was made on the principle that they must be interesting; for, as he says a little earlier in his preface (verses 24, 25): “For having in view the confused mass of the numbers, and the weariness which awaiteth them that would enter into the narratives of the history, by reason of the abundance of the matter, we were careful that they who choose to read may be attracted....” He desires, therefore, to make his epitome popular by its attractiveness.

Judging from the book itself, it is evident that on the whole the writer adheres to his intention of being simply and solely an epitomist; that is to say, the words are as a rule, but not always, copied straight from Jason, though there are certainly cases where these are summarized. The want of unity, and the rather haphazard way in which events are jotted down, fully supports the writer in saying that he is merely an epitomist. At the same time, the writer had, as we shall see later, a special purpose of his own, owing to which there are some exceptions to this general rule.

But since our book relies for its main facts almost solely on Jason’s history, which is thus to a considerable extent reflected in this later work, it is pertinent to inquire whether any indications are to be discerned in it regarding the sources which Jason used in compiling his history. That he cannot have used the First Book of Maccabees will be seen when we discuss the relationship between 1 and 2 Maccabees in a later section. No indication of any other literary sources are given in the book; and since Jason’s history cannot have been written very long after the Maccabæan struggle (probably B.C. 120-100), he must in all likelihood have composed his history from oral sources. “The character of the history of which 2 Maccabees is the abridgement can best be explained by supposing that its author was a contemporary of men who had taken part in the Maccabæan struggle; that he was obliged to depend mainly on oral accounts; that he did not receive his information directly from those who had themselves taken part in these events, but only after it had passed through other hands; and that he was often unequal to the task of criticizing and arranging the material thus obtained.”[493]

It is well to mention here, however, that the epitomizer must in some instances have embellished and enlarged some of the material he used (see below, § III); so that the question has always to be kept in mind whether, and in how far, the epitomizer touched up for his own purposes any given passage.

II. The Contents of the Book

Prefixed to the book are two letters purporting to have been addressed by the Jews of Palestine to their brethren of the Dispersion; but as these have nothing to do with the book itself, and are evidently not part of the original work, they do not concern us at present, and will be dealt with separately (§ VI).

The period of history covered by the book begins shortly before the accession of Antiochus Epiphanes to the throne (B.C. 175), and goes down to the year B.C. 161.

The book opens, as pointed out in the previous section, with a preface by the epitomist in which he explains the method he has adopted in the abridged history that is to follow (ii. 19-32). In iii. 1-39 an account is given of how Heliodorus, the king’s chancellor, was sent to seize the treasure in the Temple, but failed owing to the miraculous appearance of a “terrible rider,” accompanied by two young men, “beautiful in their glory and splendid in their apparel,” by whom Heliodorus was scourged. He returns, discomfited, to the king; but testifies to all men “the works of the most supreme God which he had seen with his own eyes.” In the section which then follows (iii. 40-iv. 50) the writer describes the sordid intrigues on the part of aspirants to the high-priesthood at this time.[494] With chapter v. commences the history of the Maccabæan struggle which began with the profanation of the Temple and the attempt on the part of Antiochus Epiphanes to hellenize the Jews by force; this, together with some account of the persecution which followed, and especially the story of how seven brothers and their mother were martyred, is told in v. i-vii. 42. The rest of the book deals with the details of the Maccabæan struggle: the rising-up of Judas Maccabæus and his first successes (viii. 1-36); an account of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes (ix. 1-29); the recapture of Jerusalem and the dedication of the Temple (x. 1-8); further successes of Judas Maccabæus and especially the capture of Gazara, when the Jews were aided by five men from heaven, splendidly arrayed and sitting on horses with golden bridles (x. 9-38); the defeat of Lysias, and a patched-up peace (xi. 1-38); more fighting, after which Lysias is again forced to make terms of peace (xii. i-xiii. 26); three years’ peace, followed by an attack on the part of Nicanor which results in his defeat and death (xiv. i-xv. 36). The book then closes with a short and somewhat naïve epilogue by the epitomist (xv. 37-39).

III. Comparison between 1 and 2 Maccabees

That the writers of these two books cannot have used the same sources becomes very obvious when one compares together the large portions of each which run parallel.[495] In fact, the first thing that strikes one in comparing the two is the difference in aim of the compilers and the contrast there is in their manner of presentation. The writer of 1 Maccabees is, as we have seen,[496] a sober and reliable historian, mostly accurate, who presents his facts without bias in a businesslike, impartial way, and therefore inspires confidence. The epitomist of 2 Maccabees, on the other hand, has utilized his sources for a different purpose; his aim is not so much to write history as to glorify the Jews, so he chooses episodes which will serve this purpose. Martyrdoms are described, sometimes with painful realism, to show the constancy of the Jews in suffering when they are called upon to do this for their faith. The writer desires, moreover, to inculcate certain religious truths, chief among which is God’s solicitude for His people; so that he loves to dwell upon the marvellous appearances of heavenly messengers sent by God to succour His people at critical moments. How far these accounts are due to Jason and how far to the epitomist is a difficult question; but if, as there is reason to believe, Jason’s work was compiled not long after the events they record, there is little time for that growth of the miraculous which so often accompanies stories when they are repeated and handed down, and which is characteristic of much that is recorded in 2 Maccabees. In this case, a good deal of the embellishment with which our book abounds, in contrast with 1 Maccabees, would have to be put down to the imagination of the epitomist. And there are one or two facts which tend to support this supposition; he says in his prefatory remarks that his intention is only to give an outline of the events he is about to chronicle, “leaving to the historian the exact handling of every particular,” and that he has no intention of “filling in the outlines of our abridgement”; but, as a matter of fact, he does on certain occasions give minute details, and in most cases these are found in passages which illustrate the special aims which he has in view. Again, he confesses that he writes with a view to attracting; it will be no injustice to him to say that his idea of attractiveness consists in recording what is sensational. In both these cases it is, of course, quite possible that the material in all its details comes from Jason—for the epitomist is not afraid of contradicting himself—but when one remembers the aim of the latter the possibility of the other alternative must be conceded, the more so in that the epitomist does, on the face of it, give us his own ideas at times. Here is a good example:

I beseech, therefore, those that read this book, that they be not discouraged at such calamities [he has been describing a peculiarly cruel case of martyrdom], but to reflect that these punishments were not for the destruction but for the chastening of our race. For, indeed, that those who act impiously be not let alone for any length of time, but suffer retribution immediately, is a sign of great kindness. For in the case of the other nations the Sovereign Lord doth with long-suffering forbear, until that He punish them when they have attained to the full measure of their sins. But in our case He hath determined otherwise that His vengeance may not fall on us afterwards when our sins have reached their height. Wherefore He never withdraweth His mercy from us; yet though He chasteneth His own people with calamity, yet doth He not forsake them. Howbeit, let what hath been said be a reminder to ourselves. And after these few words we must come back to our narrative (vi. 12-17).

It should also be remarked that the doctrine of retribution here put forth, and the teaching on prayers for the dead (xii. 43, 45), and on the intercession of the departed saints (xv. 11-16), and the doctrine of the resurrection of the body (vii. 11, 22, 23, xiv. 46), are all doctrines which belong more specifically to a somewhat later time than Jason’s history. For these reasons we are justified in believing that a not inconsiderable amount of matter in our book must be assigned to the epitomist.

But the superiority of 1 Maccabees is equally evident on comparing with it those many passages of 2 Maccabees, forming of course the bulk of this book, in which the same events are recorded in each book. To go in to the details of these would be out of place here, recourse must be had to the commentaries for the study of the subject; but one good example may be referred to; if one compares 1 Maccabees v. 1-68 with the parallel account of the events given in 2 Maccabees x. 14-38, xii. 10-45, one is inevitably led to the conclusion that the orderly narrative of 1 Maccabees contrasted with the confused records of 2 Maccabees stamps the former as the more reliable; and the same applies to a number of other instances. This conviction is strengthened when one comes across obvious mistakes in 2 Maccabees; one example may be given: in 2 Maccabees x. 37 it is said that “they slew Timotheus who was hidden in a cistern,” yet later, in chapter xii., a good deal is recorded about Timotheus’ activity against the Jews. And lastly, the question of the inferiority of 2 Maccabees is placed beyond further doubt[497] by the historical errors of an obvious character found in it. Here again we must refer our readers to the commentaries for details, while merely pointing to a few instances, viz. ix. 5-29; compare v. 22, ix. 29 with what is said in xiii. 23; and cp. xiii. 22 with 1 Maccabees vi. 49, 50 and Josephus, Antiq., XII, ix. 5; xi. 1-15; cp. xiv. 1 ff. with 1 Maccabees vii. 1 ff.

IV. The Historical Value of 2 Maccabees

But in spite of what has been said it is not to be supposed that 2 Maccabees is wholly without historical value. If, as is probably the case, the sources upon which it depends were themselves compiled, in the main, from the accounts of eye-witnesses of the events chronicled, this fact in itself counts for something; for example, the following description is not without interest and certainly reads as though told by one who was present: “But at dawn on the five and twentieth day some young men belonging to the Maccabæan army, burning with indignation because of these blasphemies, stormed the wall like men, and furious with passion hewed down everyone whom they met. Others in the meantime had followed them up by an encircling movement and had set fire to the towers, thus kindling fires and burning the blasphemers alive, while yet others burst open the gates and let in the rest of the band, and thus took possession of the city. And they slew Timotheus who was hidden in a cistern, and his brother Chæreas, and Apollophanes” (x. 35-37). Or, again, the graphic details given of the episode described in xii. 35 must evidently have come originally from one who had witnessed it: “But a certain Dositheus, belonging to the Tubieni,[498] a horseman and vigorous, took hold of Gorgias and, seizing his cloke, dragged him along by main force, intending to take the accursed man alive; but one of the Thracian horsemen bore down upon him and disabled his shoulder, so Gorgias escaped to Marisa.” These and other passages of a similar character containing vivid touches, such as are not likely to have been supplied excepting by eye-witnesses, have a distinct value of their own. A point of importance in this connection is the fact that for some five or six years preceding the accession to the throne of Antiochus Epiphanes 2 Maccabees is the only existing source, see iii. i-iv. 6; this passage contains a number of details, the historical reliability of which there is no reason to doubt. The book also gives a good deal of information supplementary to that of 1 Maccabees for the subsequent period of about ten years (B.C. 176-B.C. 166), cp. 2 Maccabees iv. 7-vii. 41 with 1 Maccabees i. 10-64.

The final period treated of (B.C. 166-161) also supplements 1 Maccabees in many particulars and is not without value.

While upon the whole, therefore, the historical worth of our book is not to be rated very highly, it can be of real use in supplementing what is recorded in 1 Maccabees, though it must be used with caution and discrimination.

V. The Purpose of the Book

In reading our book it very soon becomes evident that it was written with the special purpose of emphasizing some religious truths, and this with the object of upholding orthodox Judaism and worship. The predominating religious bent comes out clearly on reading such a passage as vi. 12-17, already quoted (see also ii. 19, 20, xii. 43-45), and on noticing how everything that has to do with religion is extolled. Thus, the references to the Temple are numerous, as well as those to the altar, e.g., x. 1-3: “And Maccabæus and they that were with him, the Lord leading them on, recovered the temple and the city.... And having cleansed the sanctuary they made another altar of sacrifice ...”; cp. further, ii. 22, iii. 12, v. 15, etc.; again in xiii. 14 the people are exhorted “to contend nobly even unto death for laws, temple, city, country ...”; in like manner are mentioned the sabbaths (vi. 11, viii. 26, xii. 38), the feasts of Tabernacles (x. 6 f.), Pentecost (xii. 31), Dedication (i. 9, 18, ii. 16, x. 5-8), Purim (xv. 36), and the feast in celebration of the death of Nicanor (xv. 36). Regarding this latter feast and the feast of Dedication Torrey says: “Many scholars since Ewald have remarked the prominence given in the plan of the book not only to the feast celebrating the death of Nicanor, with the institution of which the whole history comes to an end, but also to the feast of the re-dedication of the temple, the description of which closes the first half of the book, the passage x. 1-8 apparently being removed for this purpose from its proper place. The account of the institution of the Nicanor feast would have been a most natural point for Jason to bring his book to a close, in any case. This would have been just the kind of ending best suited to his general purpose.... The author’s aim not being that of a historian, there was no need for him to go on and narrate the death of Judas; his purpose was fully accomplished without that. The transposition of x. 1-8, however, is probably to be attributed to the epitomist who saw how the plan of the book could thus be made subservient to his more definite aim, increased significance being thereby given both to the Nicanor feast and to the feast of the Dedication. These were the two Maccabæan feasts, by the observance of which the Jews of the Diaspora could share, as in no other outward way, in the national glory of that struggle.”[499]

This emphasizing of the national unity on the basis of religion and worship was, we may well believe, in the author’s mind as well as in that of the epitomist. His denunciation of those who are unfaithful to the national religion (cp. iv. 13-17, xii. 39-42) only emphasizes this still further.

Another feature in the religious attitude very prominent in this book is the stress laid upon divine interposition; and here it is noticeable that both the direct intervening of God is contemplated as well as the accomplishment of His purposes by intermediary agents. As illustrative of the former we may refer to ix. 5 where it is said in reference to Antiochus Epiphanes that “the All-seeing Lord, the God of Israel, smote him with a fatal and invisible stroke”; again in xii. 28: “But calling upon the Sovereign Who with might breaketh in pieces the strength of His enemies, they got the city into their hands ...”; cp. further x. 1, xi. 13, xii. 11, xiii. 15. On the other hand, there are some striking instances of a belief in intermediate agencies, the most noteworthy being that of the “terrible rider” accompanied by two young men who opposed Heliodorus and prevented him from despoiling the Temple treasury (iii. 22-30); but there are other examples in the book, see x. 29-31, xi. 6-11.

Lastly, brief mention must be made of the advanced teaching on the resurrection which was evidently one of the truths which was coming to be more and more definitely and emphatically taught as a tenet of orthodox Judaism in the second half of the second century B.C.; the important passages on this teaching are worth quoting, for there is no other pre-Christian Jewish book which puts forth the doctrine of the resurrection of the body more definitely. In vii. 9 one of the martyrs addresses his persecutor thus: “Thou miscreant, thou dost send us away out of this present life, but the King of the world shall raise us up, who have died for His laws, unto an eternal renewal of life.” Another martyr, after having had his limbs cut off, is made to say: “From heaven I possess these; but for His law’s sake I count them as nothing, and from Him I hope to receive them back again” (vii. 11). And yet a third martyr says: “It is good for them that die at the hands of men to look for the hopes of God that we shall be raised up again by Him. But thou,” he says to his tormentor, “thou shalt have no resurrection to life” (vii. 14). In xii. 43-45 not only is this doctrine taught, but its truth is substantiated by Judas’ action in offering sacrifices and prayers for the dead:

“And he made a collection, man by man, to the sum of two thousand drachmas of silver; and he sent this to Jerusalem for a sin-offering, acting therein well and honourably, for he was bearing in mind the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that the fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and senseless to pray for the dead. And if in doing this he was looking for the splendour of the gracious reward which is laid up for them that have fallen asleep in godliness, holy and pious was the thought. Wherefore he made a propitiation for them that had died that they might be released from their sin” (cp. xiv. 46).

VI. The Integrity of the Book

There is one portion of our book which neither belonged to Jason’s history nor yet to the epitomist, viz. i.-ii. 18. This comprises two letters which must be considered separately.

The first letter, i. 1-9. This purports to have been written by the Jews of Jerusalem to their brethren throughout Egypt exhorting them to observe the feast of the Dedication. It begins with a greeting and a prayer that God may incline the hearts of the readers to serve Him faithfully and keep His Law. Then follows the date at which the letter was written, i.e. B.C. 143, after which the real object of the letter finds expression; the readers are reminded of the original institution of the feast of Dedication, namely after the Temple had been polluted by Antiochus Epiphanes; “and we offered sacrifice and meal-offering, and we lighted the lamps [this was the central ceremony of the celebration], and we set forth the shewbread”; after which the letter closes with the words: “And now see that ye keep the days of the feast of tabernacles of the month Chislev.” To understand these final words one must read x. 5-8: “Now on the same day that the sanctuary had been profaned by aliens, upon that very day did the cleansing of the sanctuary take place, even on the twenty-fifth day of the same month, which is Chislev. And they kept eight days with gladness in the manner of the feast of tabernacles, remembering how that, not long before, during the feast of tabernacles they had been wandering like wild beasts in mountains and caves. Therefore bearing wands wreathed with leaves, and fair boughs and palms, they offered up hymns of thanksgiving to Him that had prosperously brought to pass the cleansing of His own place. They ordained also with a public order and decree, for all the nation of the Jews, that they should keep these ten[500] days every year.” So that this new feast was observed as something parallel, in its joyfulness, to the feast of Tabernacles (Succôth) which was also an eight-day feast, but observed in the month Tishri (= October).[501]

The interpretation of this letter given above regards the date mentioned in i. 10a as belonging to the second letter[502]; there are objections to this, but it seems the best way of dealing with what is in any case a difficult point.

We see no reason why this letter should not be the fragment of a genuine record, added by the epitomist himself.

The second letter, i. 10-11. 18. The date prefixed to this letter is 188 of the Seleucid era, i.e. B.C. 124. Like the former letter this also purports to have been written by the Jews[503] of Jerusalem to their brethren in Egypt for the purpose of urging them to keep the feast of the Dedication; but it has the special object “of demonstrating at length its historical significance, indicating at the same time in other ways the analogy between the Maccabæan period and the other principal epochs of the nation’s life.”[504] The Antiochus whose death is described in i. 13-17 is not Epiphanes, concerning whose death an entirely different account is given in ix. 1-29,[505] but far more probably, as Torrey has shown, Antiochus VII Sidetes.[506] This, like the first letter, may be regarded as having been prefixed by the epitomist from some genuine record; at any rate, the arguments against this view are not strong enough to exclude the possibility of its being correct. The extraordinary stories which the letter contains undoubtedly constitute a difficulty in regarding it as genuine (i. 20-22, 31-34, ii. 1-12), but it is quite possible to regard these as Midrashic comments on Old Testament texts written for the purpose of showing that the institution of the feast of the Dedication was the logical outcome of Old Testament precedent and teaching. Torrey has rightly pointed out that “one feature of the writer’s demonstration deserves especial notice, namely the extent to which it is based on the conception of the Dedication as a restoration of the sacred fire to the altar and the temple.[507] Evidently at that time this idea had a most prominent place (perhaps the central place) in current Jewish thought regarding the origin and meaning of this feast.”[507] It is perhaps this idea which is reflected in the name of the feast given by Josephus, “the feast of lights,”[508] and by its usual designation in the Talmud, “the Feast of Illumination,” though in the first instance no doubt these names had reference to the lamps lighted on each day of the feast, eight on the first day, and one less on each succeeding day. However this may be, if the stories referred to were originally Midrashic comments there is no reason why they should not have been incorporated in a letter from Jews to Jews.

Both these letters were originally written either in Hebrew or Aramaic; and if, as we do not see sufficient reason to doubt, the epitomist prefixed them to his book, his doing so, considering that they emphasize the need of carrying out a religious ceremony, would have been a natural proceeding on his part when one remembers the leading characteristic of his book as pointed out above.

Although, therefore, these two letters do not belong to the book they may reasonably be regarded as having been prefixed by the epitomist. Whether there are other portions, in the body of the book which the epitomist got from sources other than Jason’s history is a difficult question to which it does not seem possible to give a definite answer.

VII. The Date and Original Language of the Book

There is scarcely anything in the book itself which gives us any indication as to when it was written, the advanced doctrine of the future life (in a non-apocalyptic book) and the tendency to ascribe divine activity among men to intermediate agencies alone suggesting a comparatively late date. On the other hand, it is practically certain that Philo was acquainted with the book, for in his work Quod omnis probus liber (Mangey, ii. 45a) a description is given of the way in which in time past the godly have suffered at the hands of persecutors, which forcibly recalls the words in 2 Maccabees concerning Antiochus Epiphanes.[509] Nothing more specific as to date can, therefore, be given beyond saying that it was probably written shortly before the beginning of the Christian era.

There is nothing in the book which points to its being a translation; it was manifestly written in Greek (with the exception, of course, of the two prefixed letters) as already Jerome saw.[510] “The style is extremely uneven; at times it is elaborately ornate (iii. 15-39, v. 20, vi. 12-16, 23-28, vii., etc.); and again, it is so rude and broken up as to seem more like notes for an epitome than a finished composition (viii. 19-26).”[511] In all probability the book was written in Alexandria.

VIII. The Influence of the Book on New Testament Writers

In only one instance can the influence of our book be seen directly in the New Testament, namely in Hebrews xi. 35 ff., where we read: “Women received their dead by a resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection; and others had trial of mockings and scourgings....” On comparing with this the whole of 2 Maccabees vi., vii. one cannot fail to see that the descriptions there given influenced the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews here; we may quote, for example, vi. 19 where, in speaking of the martyrdom of Eleazar, it is said: “But he, welcoming death with renown rather than life with pollution, advanced of his own accord to the instrument of torture ...” (cp. also verse 28). Again, in vii. 23 the mother of the seven martyred sons says: “Therefore the Creator of the World, Who fashioned the generation[512] of man and devised the generation[512] of all things, in mercy giveth back to you again your spirit and your life”; and in verse 29 she says: “Fear not this butcher, but, proving thyself worthy of thy brethren, accept thy death, that in the mercy of God I may receive thee again with thy brethren” (cp. vii. 1, 7, 9, 14). In Hebrews xi. 38, once more, the words “wandering in deserts and mountains and caves, and in the holes of the earth,” are in part repeated from 2 Maccabees x. 6: “They were wandering in mountains and in caves after the manner of wild beasts.” In all these passages the similarity of the Greek words is in each case very striking.

CHAPTER XI
The Book of Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah

[Literature.—Fritzsche, in Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen (1851); Kneucker, Das Buch Baruch, (1879); Gifford, in Wace, II, pp. 241-286; Schürer, II, iii. pp. 188-195, German ed., III, pp. 460-467; Rothstein, in Kautzsch, I, pp. 213-225; Whitehouse, in Charles, I, pp. 569-595. See also the articles by Marshall, in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible, Bevan, in the Encycl. Bibl., and Toy, in the Jewish Encycl.]

I. Short Account of the Book, and its Contents

This short pseudepigraph is placed in the Septuagint after the Book of Jeremiah, and before Lamentations, owing to which it is quoted sometimes by the Church Fathers as though it were part of that book.[513] In some of the Greek manuscripts the Epistle of Jeremiah follows Baruch without a break; in the Vulgate, and, following it, the English Versions, it is marked as chapter vi. of Baruch. Swete says that “Baruch and the Epistle occur in lists which rigorously exclude the non-canonical books.”[514] We shall consider the Epistle separately. There was a considerable literature which arose and circulated both before and after the beginning of the Christian era[515]; our book belongs to this literature. It purports to have been written by Baruch, the friend of Jeremiah, in Babylon during the Captivity; and after it had been read there “in the hearing of Jechonias the son of Joakim, king of Judah, and in the hearing of all the people” (i. 3, 4), it was sent to Jerusalem to be read there (i. 14); with it was also sent a collection of money to the high-priest Joakim for the purpose of defraying the expenses of sacrifices (i. 6-10); the people in Jerusalem are also asked to pray for Nabuchodonosor, king of Babylon, and for his son, Baltasar, as well as for the exiles (i. 11-13). This forms the introduction to the book. Then follows what purports to be the Book of Baruch itself and this consists of two parts:

i. 15-ii. 12: this, which fully bears out the description given of it in i. 14 as a book of confession, begins with an ascription of righteousness to God, after which follows a confession of sin; the past history of the nation is recalled to show that in spite of God’s mercy the people were disobedient to Him and forsook Him; for this reason they are justly suffering for their sins in that they are in subjection to the nations round about them.

ii. 13-iii. 8: a prayer to God for mercy forms the content of this section; but it falls into three divisions; first, a prayer in the real sense of the word (ii. 13-19); then, an historical survey which is largely based on Old Testament passages, especially from the Books of Daniel, Jeremiah and Deuteronomy (ii. 20-35); and, lastly, another prayer combined with confession (iii. 1-8).

So far the book is written in prose, the remainder is in poetry, and consists of two quite independent pieces:

iii. 9-iv. 4: this is a fragment of the Wisdom Literature type; it tells of the reason why Israel is exiled in the land of their enemies, namely because they have forsaken “the fountain of Wisdom”; the people are, therefore bidden to find out where Wisdom is (iii. 14); the mighty rulers of the earth, the wealthy, the skilled—these have not known where Wisdom is to be found (iii. 15-21), nor has it been attained by those of Canaan or Teman (iii. 22, 23); the giants of old knew not Wisdom, they perished in their foolishness (iii. 24-28); no one has gone up to heaven to fetch her, nor gone over the sea to find her, because they do not know her paths (iii. 29-31); only He that knows all things knows Wisdom, and He Who has found out all the ways of knowledge has given Wisdom to Israel, and this Wisdom is the Law that endures for ever (iii. 32-iv. 1); therefore Israel is exhorted to make use of his possession (iv. 2-4).

iv. 5-v. 9: this piece is strongly reminiscent of the second half of Isaiah; it consists of two parts, the first one being an ode of comfort spoken by Jerusalem, personified as a mother, to her children in captivity (iv. 5-35); the second is an ode of comfort spoken to Jerusalem who is bidden to rejoice, for her children are to be led back to her from their captivity (iv. 36-v. 9).

II. Examination of the Component Parts of the Book

It will thus be seen that the book consists of three independent documents: i.-iii. 8, iii. 9-iv. 4, iv. 5-v. 9; and these three differ very much in content. We must now examine them a little more closely in order to ascertain their nature, purpose, and approximate date.

(1) The Book of Confessions (i-iii. 8).

It is stated in i. 2 that the book was written in the “fifth year”; presumably by this is meant the fifth year after the capture of Jerusalem; but Jerusalem was captured in B.C. 597, and again in B.C. 587 (2 Kings xxiv. 12-16; 2 Kings XXV. 9), so that our book is assigned either to B.C. 592 or B.C. 582. Both these dates are, however, impossible, for two indications in the book show clearly that the writer utilized the Book of Daniel (early in the Maccabæan era). Thus, the mistake made in Daniel v. 13, etc., where Belshazzar is regarded as the son of Nebuchadnezzar,[516] is repeated in our book, i. 11, 12; so far as is known this mistake does not occur elsewhere, the natural presumption, therefore, is that the writer of Baruch got it from Daniel, especially when, in the second place, we find that both the confession and prayer which make up the whole section, are based upon Daniel ix. 7-19, of which it is an elaboration. Further, that the section cannot belong to the Maccabæan era is sufficiently clear from i. 11, 12, where the people are recommended to pray for their oppressor and to acquiesce in his sovereignty over them; such a recommendation on the part of a Jew during the Maccabæan era, when the people were fighting not only for their country and their homes, but for their religion and for the honour of God, is quite unthinkable. The transference to an earlier historical period than that at which a writer lived is a literary device constructed for one of several reasons, whether for dramatic effect, as in the case of the Book of Judith, where likewise the reign of Nebuchadnezzar is chosen; or for reasons of prudence, as probably in the present case; or because a somewhat parallel set of historical conditions is offered; whatever the reason may be, the procedure is not uncommon and need not occasion surprise. In the present case there are strong grounds for believing that the actual period at which this section of our book was written was during the struggle of the Jews against the Roman power during the years, A.D. 66-70; the reasons for this conclusion are briefly these: Nebuchadnezzar and his son were, according to the belief of the writer of our book, the kings under whom the conquered Jews lived; their names might well stand, therefore, for Vespasian and his son Titus. The Jews are bidden to submit to their conquerors (“Thus saith the Lord, Bow your shoulders to serve the king of Babylon, and remain in the land that I gave unto your fathers,” ii. 21); this accords with what we know was the attitude of the Pharisees towards their Roman conquerors, for they did their best to quiet the people and get them to submit to Rome.[517] Again, the sufferings of the Jews during the war with Rome, described by Josephus,[518] seem to be indubitably referred to in ii. 2, where reference is made to “great plagues, such as never happened under the whole heaven, as it came to pass in Jerusalem”; in ii. 3, where it is said that every man ate the flesh of his own son and of his own daughter; and in ii. 24, 25, where it is said that “the bones of our kings, and the bones of our fathers are taken out of their places; and, lo, they are cast out to the heat by day, and to the frost by night; and they died in great miseries by famine, by sword, and by pestilence.” It is also said in i. 2 that Jerusalem was burnt with fire.[519]

An argument against this late date is that in ii. 17 we have a conception of the future life which is the normal Old Testament belief on the subject, viz.: “For the dead that are in the grave, whose breath is taken from their bodies, will give unto the Lord neither glory nor righteousness”; it is difficult to explain how such a conception can have found expression at the date postulated above, unless we suppose that we have in ii. 17-19 an interpolation by one of the Sadducæan party; it is certainly striking that in verse 19 there is a repudiation of the doctrine of the merits of the fathers, which plays so large a part in the later Jewish theology; the verse runs: “For we do not present our supplication before Thee, O Lord our God, for the righteousness of our fathers, and of our kings”; if in these last words there is an implicit reference to David the passage would be the more strikingly Sadducæan. That the book as a whole, however, can be Sadducæan is out of the question; if for no other reason on account of the penitential spirit contained in it which is quite un-Sadducæan; but that an interpolator has added these verses in the interests of his own school of thought is by no means an impossible explanation of the difficulty (but see below).[520]

The period to which reference is intended in the book, namely the war with Rome, being A.D. 66-70, the fifth year after the destruction of Jerusalem, mentioned in i. 2, will give us the precise date of this portion of our book, viz. A.D. 74 or 75.

But while the actual date of this portion of the book may thus be regarded as fixed, it is necessary to point out that there are cogent reasons for believing that the writer has made use of earlier material. The fact is that the whole piece i. 15-iii. 8 reads remarkably like an extract of a liturgical character; it has all the leading notes which we find so elaborated in the modern Jewish Liturgy, a Liturgy the essential elements of which go back to pre-Christian times.[521] Thus, in the passage under consideration the three outstanding notes are: Praise, Confession of sin (disobedience in not observing the divine commandments), and Prayer for forgiveness (i.e. the turning away of God’s wrath). These all represent what have become technical liturgical terms, viz. Berakah (“Praise,” lit. “Blessing”), Widdui (“Confession”), Selichah (“Forgiveness”). When one studies the modern Jewish Liturgy one sees that it is just in its oldest portions that these three elements are so prominent; for example, the daily Morning Prayer has not only its special psalm of Praise for each day, but contains a large number of Berakôth (“Blessings”) which precede this; while in the great Amidah[522] prayer, which forms one of the central parts of the service, the prominent elements are Confession of sin and Prayer for forgiveness. It will be instructive to illustrate this by putting in parallel columns a few quotations from Baruch and the Amidah:

Baruch

To the Lord our God belongeth righteousness (i. 15) ... we have sinned before the Lord, and disobeyed Him, and have not hearkened unto the voice of the Lord our God, to walk in the commandments of the Lord that He hath set before us (ii. 17, 18). ... Let thy wrath turn from us; for we are but a few left among the heathen, where Thou hast scattered us. Hear our prayer, O Lord, and our petition, and deliver us for Thine own sake.... O Lord, look down from Thine holy house, and consider us; incline Thine ear, O Lord, and hear ... (ii. 13-17).

Amidah

Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, and God of our fathers ... the great, mighty and reverend God, the most high God, Who bestowest loving-kindnesses, and possessest all things.... Cause us to return, O our Father, unto Thy Law; draw us near, O our King, unto Thy service, and bring us back in perfect repentance unto Thy presence. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, Who delightest in repentance. Forgive us, O our Father, for we have sinned; pardon us, O our King, for we have transgressed; for Thou dost pardon and forgive. ... Look upon our affliction and plead our cause, and redeem us speedily for Thy name’s sake.... Sound the great horn for our freedom; lift up the ensign to gather our exiles, and gather us from the four corners of the earth.

A detailed consideration of the two shows many more points of contact between them and proves a very close relationship; but this is not the place to go into great detail. Two other points must, however, be touched upon. We suggested above that the passage ii. 17-19 might be an interpolation in the interests of Sadducæan teaching, namely to emphasize the old traditional belief regarding the departed, and to repudiate the doctrine of the merits of the fathers; but the possibility (perhaps even the probability) must be recognized of verse 17 having been original, and having first been altered in accordance with the developed Pharisaic teaching, and then having finally been restored to its original form by a Sadducee. Verse 19, on the other hand, would then have to be regarded as a Pharisaic interpolation altered by the Sadducee, because there would be no point in the repudiation of the doctrine of the merits of the fathers unless the expression of this un-Sadducæan tenet had stood there first; but it is not likely to have stood in the original form of the section because the doctrine is a late one. It is especially interesting and significant that the doctrines contained in these two verses respectively should appear in close proximity in the Amidah; let us place the two in parallel columns again:

Baruch

For the dead that are in the grave, whose breath is taken from their bodies, will give unto the Lord neither glory nor righteousness (ii. 17).

For we do not present our supplication before Thee, O Lord our God, for the righteous- ness of our fathers, and of our kings (ii. 19).

Amidah

Thou, O Lord, art mighty for ever, Thou quickenest the dead, Thou art mighty to save.... Yea, faithful art Thou to quicken the dead. Blessed art Thou O Lord, Who quickenest the dead.

Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God ... Who rememberest the pious deeds of the patriarchs....[523]

The contrast here presented is the more striking on account of the essential similarity of the two pieces in other respects.

The second point which further supports our contention that this section is liturgical in character is that it contains references to the deliverance from Egypt, an invariable element in all forms of the Jewish Liturgy; this occurs three times in the Baruch section; and in the modern Jewish Liturgy it is found, among other places, in the “Benedictions” following the Shema,[524] which immediately precedes the Amidah. “From Jeremiah xxiii. 7 it seems probable that reference to the deliverance from Egypt in the public services goes back to the time of the first Temple.”[525]

From what has been said, therefore, the supposition seems justified that the section i. 15-iii. 8 is an extract from the Temple Liturgy which has been enlarged by interjected clauses and adapted to the special circumstances of the time, viz. A.D. 74 or 75.

(2) A Sage’s Words of Encouragement (iii. 9-iv. 4).

The entirely different style of writing of both this and the concluding piece from that of the one which we have just considered is of itself sufficient to show that there is a difference of authorship. There is no reference to calamity as in the earlier piece; here it is said of the Israelites that they have “waxen old in a strange country” (iii. 10). The contrast between the mental disquietude of i. 15-iii. 8 and the calm of this section is very marked. The assumed condition of the nation, however, is that of the former section, the nation is in the land of exile. The writer is an imitator of the ancient Sage or Wisdom writer; his word of consolation to the people is that they should learn where Wisdom is (iii. 14); but this Wisdom is “the Law that endureth for ever” (iv. 1); he bids his people reserve this for themselves and not impart it to outsiders; “Give not thy glory to another, nor the things that are profitable unto thee to a strange nation” (iv. 3). Finally, a spirit of contentment breathes in the words: “O Israel, happy are we; for the things that are pleasing to God are made known unto us” (iv. 4).

Now, although the indications of date are not very definite here, one or two points of guidance do appear: there is peace, and the people have been settled for a good while in their exile; therefore the section belongs to a period some time after the destruction of Jerusalem. The writer is a student of the Law, and he writes on Wisdom, and rejoices in the knowledge of the things that are pleasing unto God, and exhorts others to do the same. All these things lead one to suggest that the scene is one of those academies in Babylonia, such as that at Nehardea, which received a considerable influx of Jews from Palestine after the great calamity of A.D. 70; in these they studied in peace and reared up students of the Law. This section (iii. 9-iv. 4), therefore, may quite possibly have been written under these conditions at the commencement of the second century A.D. or even later, though it must have been written not later than about A.D. 150 or thereabouts as the book is quoted by Athenagoras and Irenæus.[526]

Both the sections so far considered were probably written in Hebrew, or in the case of the second in Aramaic; Marshall has given good grounds for the latter contention.[527]

(3) A Message of Good Cheer (iv. 5-v. 9).

This section consists of two divisions, but both have the same object in view and both are in all probability by the same author. The object of them is to cheer the Jewish people who are still pictorially represented as being in captivity (iv. 24). The thought and diction of the first division (iv. 5-35) are largely based on those of the Old Testament; Jerusalem is represented as the mother of the nation who tells her children why they are suffering, namely through their own folly; she does not wish to plunge them into despair by reminding them of this, but only to witness to the facts for her children’s good; she has given herself to prayer, and therefore is convinced that a new era will soon dawn for them. The four times reiterated “Be of good cheer” (iv. 5, 21, 27, 30) distinctly shows the purpose of the poem.

The last division (iv. 36-v. 9) is a message of comfort to Jerusalem herself put into the mouth of God; she is bidden to rejoice because her children are about to return “from the east to the west at the word of the Holy One” (iv. 37). The similarity between this piece and the eleventh of the Psalms of Solomon is striking,[528] so much so that it is worth while putting the parallel passages in juxtaposition:

Baruch

O Jerusalem, look about thee toward the east,

And behold the joy that cometh unto thee from God.

Lo, thy sons come, whom thou sentest away,

They come gathered together from the east to the west,

Rejoicing in the glory of God (iv. 36, 37).

Put off, O Jerusalem, the garment of thy mourning and affliction,

And put on the comeliness of the glory that cometh from God for ever.

Cast about thee the robe of the righteousness which cometh from God ... (v. 1, 2).

For God hath appointed that every high mountain,

And the everlasting hills should be made low,

And the valleys filled up, to make plain the ground,

That Israel may go safely in the glory of God.

Moreover the woods and every sweet-smelling tree

Have overshadowed Israel (v. 7, 8).

Psalms of Solomon, xi.

Stand on the height, O Jerusalem, and behold thy children,

From the east to the west, gathered together by the Lord (verse 3).

Put on, O Jerusalem, thy glorious garments;

Make ready thy holy robe ... (verse 8).

High mountains hath He abased into a plain for them;

The hills fled at their entrance.

The woods gave them shelter as they passed by;

Every sweet-smelling tree God caused to spring up for them,

That Israel might pass by in the visitation of the glory of their God (verses 5-7).

The Psalms of Solomon belong, as we have seen,[529] to about the middle of the last century B.C., and on the supposition that the Baruch passage is dependent on the Psalm (Ryle and James),[530] a terminus a quo is given for the date of the former. The indications in the Baruch passage, however, point to a much later date, and we see no reason to regard the date of this piece as different from that of the section iii. 9-iv. 4, the background of each is a peaceful present and a calm future; the beginning of the second century A.D. may be assigned as approximately the date of this section too.

The original language of the whole of iv. 5-v. 9 is recognized by most scholars as having been Greek from the beginning.

The Epistle of Jeremiah

[Literature.—Gifford, in Wace, II, pp. 287-303; Rothstein, in Kautzsch, I, pp. 226-229; Ball, in Charles, I, pp. 596-611.]

In the Vulgate this Epistle appears as the sixth chapter of Baruch; but in the Septuagint it is treated as a separate book and comes after Lamentations with the inscription “Letter of Jeremy,” and a title[531] which runs: “Copy of a letter which Jeremiah sent to those who were about to be led captives by the king of the Babylonians, to give them a message, as it had been commanded him by God.”

It has been thought by some that this letter was suggested by the letter referred to in Jeremiah xxix. 1,[532] which was sent “from Jerusalem unto the residue of the elders of the captivity, and to the priests, and to the prophets, and to all the people, whom Nebuchadnezzar had carried away captive from Jerusalem to Babylon”; but this seems unlikely because the contents of the letter here spoken of are given in verses 4 ff. of the same chapter. The letter before us is a not very skilfully composed polemic against idolatry based to a large extent upon Jeremiah x. 1-16, Psalm cxv. 4-8, and Isaiah xlix. 9-19; it is also reminiscent of such passages as Wisdom xiii. 10-19, xv. 13-17.

That the writer is seeking to check a real danger, namely that of many of the Dispersion Jews falling into idolatry, seems certain from the obvious earnestness with which he writes; and this, indirect as it is, seems to be the only indication of the date of the writing. For if this danger was real it implies that the time was one of peace for the Jews. We know from 2 Maccabees what was the result of seeking to force an alien religion upon them, but from this letter it is clear that the real danger lay in the allurement which the idol-worship had for many of the Jews, and that their choice was free. In times of stress loyalty to their religious beliefs and customs was always characteristic of the Jews, while when peace and quietude and prosperity was enjoyed by them laxity in religious matters arose. The implication, therefore, is that this letter was written at a time when the Jews were in the enjoyment both of religious liberty and peaceful surroundings. Another implication is that this period of quiet had lasted some time; the danger of which the letter bears witness would have taken some time to develop. Then further, there is no reference to the great calamity of A.D. 70, which affected the Dispersion Jews very deeply from a religious point of view, and which would therefore have been referred to, one may presume, had the letter been written some time soon after this catastrophe. The possibility of its having been written some time before this must be allowed; Marshall holds, for example, that it was written during the first century B.C.[533]; and there is no strong argument against this; the present writer prefers to date it along with the two preceding sections of this book, though he fully realizes the force of Cheyne’s words that “it is hardly possible to fix the date exactly, and unsafe even to say that the epistle was written before 2 Maccabees, the supposed reference to it in 2 Maccabees iii. 1 ff. being disputed.”[534]

The Epistle was, according to the opinion of most scholars, written in Greek; Ball, with much ingenuity and learning, seeks to show that it was written in Hebrew; but very ingenious as many of the instances are which he brings forward to show that the Greek is a translation of either the genuine Hebrew or, in other cases, of a corruption in the Hebrew text, they are by no means always convincing; and while it may be said that he has shown the possibility of its having been translated from Hebrew, it can hardly be said that he has demonstrated the probability of this. The Hebraisms it contains may well be no more than what are characteristic of Hellenistic Greek. If it could be proved that the epistle was written in B.C. 306, as Ball holds, we should have to give up the idea of a Greek original; but in this case we should be at a loss to know why it was not included in the Hebrew Canon.

CHAPTER XII
The Ezra Apocalypse
(2 (4) Esdras)

[Literature.—Volkmar, Das Vierte Buch Esra (1863); Drummond, The Jewish Messiah (1877); Lupton, in Wace (1888); Kabisch, Das vierte Buch Esra auf seine Quellen untersucht (1889); Schürer, Op. cit., II, iii. pp. 93-114 (1891) German ed. III. pp. 315-335 (1909); Ball, in The Variorum Apocrypha; Bensly and James, The Fourth Book of Ezra; the Latin Version edited from the MSS., in “Texts and Studies,” III, 2 (1895); Charles, The Apocalypse of Baruch, pp. lxvii.-lxxvi (1896); Gunkel, in Kautzsch, II, pp. 331-401; Violet, Die Esra-Apokalypse (4 Esra) (1910 ...); Box, The Ezra-Apocalypse (1912); Box, in Charles, II, pp. 542-624.]

I. The Title of the Book

As we shall see, chapters i. ii. xv. xvi. did not originally belong to our book and are only found in the Latin Version (the Greek Version is not extant). In the oriental Versions (Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic, Armenian) the book consists of only chapters iii.-xiv. In the later Latin MSS. we often find that: “2 Esdras” = chapters i. ii., “3 Esdras” = 1 Esdras of our Apocrypha, “4 Esdras” = chapters iii.-xiv., and “5 Esdras” = chapters xv. xvi. of our book. The reason, therefore, why the book is often referred to as 2 (4) Esdras is because what in our Apocrypha is designated “2 Esdras” is in the Vulgate entitled “4 Esdras.”[535]

The book is a pseudepigraph,[536] for although the name of Esdras (Ezra) occurs in the title, it is obvious, as will be seen as we proceed, that no part of the book can have been written by him. For the reason of such false ascriptions of authorship, see above, pp. 200 ff.

Since the book consists of three independent writings it will be necessary to consider each separately. We shall deal with the two later additions first.

II. Chapters i. ii.

These chapters, which tell how Ezra received the commission to declare to the Jews their rejection by God, contains a curious mixture of Jewish and Christian teaching; i. 4-27 speaks of the deliverance from Egypt and the wanderings in the wilderness somewhat after the manner of Psalm cvi. A number of other passages suggest a mental atmosphere which is Jewish, notably i. 38-40, where it is said that “a people that come from the east” will have for their leaders the patriarchs and the prophets; the enumeration which follows includes the names of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and those of the twelve minor prophets. In another passage (i. 8) evil is threatened against the Jews because they have been disobedient to the Law. On the other hand, these chapters plainly tell of the rejection of the nation as a whole, e.g. i. 7: “Let them be scattered abroad among the heathen, let their names be blotted out of the earth; for they have despised my covenant”; their heritage is to be given to others who have now become the people of God: “Tell my people that I will give them the kingdom of Jerusalem, which I would have given unto Israel.” This “kingdom of Jerusalem” is the “new Jerusalem,” as is clear from the concluding verses of the whole piece (ii. 42-48): “I, Esdras, saw upon the mount Sion a great multitude, whom I could not number, and they all praised the Lord with songs. And in the midst of them there was a young man of a high stature, taller than all the rest, and upon every one of their heads he set crowns.... Then said I unto the angel: ‘What young man is he that setteth crowns upon them, and giveth them palms in their hands?’ So he answered and said unto me: ‘It is the Son of God, Whom they have confessed in the world.’...” There are, moreover, a number of passages which are obviously based upon words in the Gospels, e.g.: “I gathered you together as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings” (i. 30, cp. Matt, xxiii. 37); “I sent unto you my servants the prophets, whom ye have taken and slain, and torn their bodies in pieces, whose blood I will require [of your hands]” (i. 32, cp. Luke xi. 50, 51); “Ask, and ye shall receive; pray for few days unto you, that they may be shortened; the kingdom is already prepared for you; watch” (ii. 13, cp. Matt. vii. 7, xxiv. 22, xxv. 13, 32).

It seems, therefore, probable, that these chapters were written by a Jewish-Christian, who compiled them from various sources. They are a later addition to the body of the book, though they contain material which is older. It is impossible to say when they were added, but there can be no doubt that they were prefixed before chapters xv. xvi. were added.

III. Chapters xv. xvi.

These chapters form an appendix to the book itself; they consist of denunciations against Egypt (xv. 5-27), Asia and Babylon (xv. 28-xvi. 17); while the remaining section, “The beginning of sorrows” (xvi. 18-78) is a prophecy of terrors and tribulation which are to come upon the world; only the Lord’s elect shall ultimately be delivered. The entire section is written in the style of the Old Testament prophets, interspersed, however, with words and thoughts from the New Testament; e.g.: “... he that occupieth merchandize, (let him be) as he that hath no profit by it; and he that buildeth, as he that shall not dwell therein; he that soweth, as if he should not reap; so also he that pruneth, as he that shall not gather grapes; they that marry, as they that shall get no children; and they that marry not, as the widowed” (xvi. 41-44, cp. 1 Cor. vii. 29-31).

The chapters, therefore, partake to some extent of the character of chapters i. ii., though the denunciation of the Jewish nation is here quite absent. As to their date, Thackeray, following Hilgenfeld (Messias Judæorum, p. 208) says they are placed “about A.D. 268 by most critics; xv. 10-12 refers to the troubles of Alexandria under Gallienus (260-268), when two-thirds of the population were destroyed by a plague following upon a famine (Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., vii. 21, 22). xv. 28-33 refers to the conquests of the Sassanidæ, especially Sapor I (240-273), who overran Syria, but was repulsed by Odenathus and Zenobia, the founders of Palmyra; they, in turn, were defeated by Aurelian. xv. 33 describes the murder of Odenathus at Emesa (266) by his cousin Mæonius. xv. 34 ff. refer to the invasion of Asia Minor by the Goths and Scythians from the north of the Euxine; Gallienus marched against them, but was recalled by the revolt of Aureolus. xv. 46 alludes to the association of Odenathus in the Empire, A.D. 264.”[537]

IV. The Component Parts of Chapters iii.-xiv.

Before we come to consider the contents of the various sections composing our book it will be well to enumerate them, and to discuss shortly the question of their authorship and date.

(a) The Salathiel Apocalypse (iii.-x.); this is divided into four Visions:

First Vision, iii. 1-v. 20.
Second Vision, v. 21-vi. 34.
Third Vision, vi. 35-ix. 25.
Fourth Vision, ix. 26-x. 59.

(b) The Eagle Vision (xi.-xii. 39); the passage xii. 40-51 is not part of the Vision.

(c) The Vision of the Man rising from the Sea (xiii.).

(d) An Ezra Legend (xiv.).

Whether all this matter is to be assigned to one or more authors is a question concerning which a variety of opinions are held by scholars. But on two points there is scarcely room for diversity of view; in the first place, a great deal that occurs in the book is traditional material which has been utilized by the writer; this applies more especially to the eschatological portions; examples will be given when we come to speak about these parts of the book. The sources whence the writer of our book took this traditional material may well have been, in all probability were, written ones; but the excerpts which were made from such writings have been so interwoven with what the writer himself composed that the attempt to indicate precisely how much belongs to a particular source seems to us somewhat precarious. At any rate, that the writer did utilize various sources will not be doubted. Another point upon which there can scarcely be disagreement is that the final form of the work is due to a redactor who has brought the component parts of the book into a more or less connected whole.

Coming now to speak of the date of the book it must be explained that by this is meant the date at which the author wrote it. Since he used traditional material much of the essence of the book goes back to a time long anterior to that of the writer. Again, the book in its present form, having been worked over by a redactor, is obviously of a later date than that in which it left the original writer’s hands. Furthermore, the study of the book makes it evident that the different parts of which it is composed were not all written at the same time. Even if the whole book (apart from i. ii. xv. xvi.) is substantially the work of one author, there is no sort of doubt that he must have written the different parts of it at different times. Bearing these points in mind we turn first to the Salathiel Apocalypse. In iii. 1 it is said that “in the thirtieth year after the ruin of the city” (cp. iii. 29), Salathiel (= Shealtiel) was in Babylon, and “thoughts came up over his heart for he saw the desolation of Sion.” The writer looks back and recalls to his mind the terrible catastrophe which befel his people long ago; it was in the year B.C. 586 that Jerusalem was destroyed and the nation was carried into captivity to Babylon. Thirty years after this Salathiel, living in captivity, contemplated the ruin of the city and the dire distress of his people. The writer chooses this episode and writes in the name of Salathiel, because he sees in it a type of his present experience; now again the city has been ruined, and he, like Salathiel of old, contemplates the desolation of his people. Clearly enough there is but one destruction, after that of B.C. 586, of Jerusalem which can be meant here, namely that of A.D. 70 by Titus. So that when the writer gives the thirtieth year after the ruin of the city as that in which he experienced the visions he is about to describe, the date of this portion of the book must be set down as not later than A.D. 100.

Regarding the date of the Eagle Vision, it is generally agreed to be about A.D. 96; the indications of date in the Vision are fairly clear; we shall point out what these are when dealing with this Vision.

The Vision of the Man rising from the Sea contains more of traditional elements than any other part of the book, so that as for as thought and conceptions are concerned it is probably the oldest portion of the whole book; but as adapted by our author it implies, as we shall see later, an historical situation prior to the destruction of Jerusalem i.e. before, but not long before, A.D. 70. The Ezra Legend in chapter xiv. belongs to the same period as the Salathiel Apocalypse, viz. about A.D. 100.

We shall now proceed to examine the contents and teaching of these Visions, and it will be best to take them in their chronological order.

V. The Vision of the Man rising from the Sea.

This Vision is as follows[538]:

And it came to pass after seven days that I dreamed a dream by night; and, behold, a wind arose from the sea, and it stirred up all the waves thereof. And I looked, and behold [that wind caused to arise up from the heart of the sea as it were the form of a man. And I looked, and behold], that man flew with the clouds of Heaven; and whithersoever he turned his face and looked, everything quaked that was seen by him; and whithersoever the voice from his mouth went, all that heard his voice melted away,[539] like as wax melteth away when it feeleth the fire. And after this I looked, and behold, a multitude of men, without number, from the four winds of Heaven, were gathered together to war against the man who had arisen from the sea. And I looked, and behold, he cut out for himself a great mountain, and did fly upon it. But I sought to see the region of the place out of which the mountain had been cut; but I could not. And after this, I looked, and behold, all those who had gathered together against him to make war upon him, feared greatly; nevertheless they dared to fight. And behold, when he saw the onslaught of the approaching multitude, he neither raised his hand, nor took hold of spear or other warlike weapon; but I only saw how he sent forth from his mouth as it were a fiery stream, and from his lips a flaming breath, and from his tongue he shot forth a storm of sparks; and all these were mixed together, the fiery stream and the flaming breath and the mighty storm.[540] And these fell upon the approaching multitude, ready to fight, and burned them all, so that suddenly nothing was seen of the immense multitude but the dust of ashes and the smell of smoke. And I looked, and was amazed. And after this I saw that man coming down from the mountain and calling unto himself another, a peaceful, multitude. And there drew unto him the faces of many men, some of whom were glad, and some were sorrowful, and some were bound, and some were leading others who were to be offered.

The writer’s interpretation of this Vision with which the rest of the chapter is taken up, is as follows: The man who ascended from the sea and flew with the clouds of Heaven is the Messiah; the innumerable multitude of men who fight against him, and who are annihilated, are the nations of the world; the great mountain which was cut out, and concerning which the seer was in perplexity, is the heavenly Jerusalem which came down from Heaven. The fiery stream, and flaming breath, and storm of sparks represent the fire of the Law whereby the enemies of the Messiah are annihilated. The peaceful multitude which the Messiah called unto himself are the ten tribes gathered out of the lands of the Dispersion. Those who were glad and those who were sorrowful are respectively Jews and Gentiles coming to do homage to the Messiah. Those who were bound were Jews who had been in captivity; while those who were leading others to be offered, were the heathen bringing Jews as an oblation to the Messiah, according to the word of the prophet: “And they shall bring all your brethren out of all the nations to be an oblation to Jehovah” (Isa. lxvi. 20).

Stress must be laid upon the fact that between the Vision itself and the writer’s explanation of it there are some incongruities; this, as Box truly points out (Op. cit., pp. 281 f.), “is a common phenomenon in apocalyptic; the material employed by the apocalyptists is often extremely old, and has been derived by the apocalyptic writer from a tradition which was already ancient when he wrote. The meaning of certain details in the fixed tradition which he uses is not always clear to the apocalyptic writer himself. Hence the lack of adjustment between certain features in the Vision and the interpretation.... Thus, here the rising of the man from the sea is explained (verse 52) as symbolical of the mysterious origin of the Messiah (My Son), and the peaceable multitude as the lost ten tribes. There are also features in the interpretation which have nothing corresponding to them in the Vision itself, viz., the internecine war of the nations before they band themselves together against the Messiah (verses 31 f.), and the mention of the survivors who are found ‘within my holy border,’ and whom the Messiah shall defend (verses 48, 49).... Thus the first point to be noted is that when the Vision first assumed a written form, the real significance of many features in the original Vision was already lost, and was obscured by a more or less artificially adjusted interpretation. In other words, religious thought and outlook had long outgrown those of the fixed tradition. It had become necessary to re-interpret the latter to suit later conditions.” What the Vision and many of its curious details really mean is an intricate, but very interesting, question; we cannot, however, deal with this here, and must direct those who desire further information on the subject to the following works: Gunkel, Chaos und Schöpfung in Urzeit und Endzeit, pp. 64 ff. (1895); Volz, Jüdische Eschatologie, pp. 220 ff. (1903); Gressmann, Der Ursprung der israelitisch-jüdischen Eschatologie, pp. 349 ff.; Oesterley, The Evolution of the Messianic Idea, passim (1908); Box, Op. cit., pp. 282 ff.

VI. The Eagle Vision

This Vision is too long to quote in full, but, put shortly, its contents are as follows: In his vision the seer sees an eagle ascending out of the sea, having twelve wings and three heads. The eagle spreads her wings over all the earth, and the winds of heaven blow upon her. Out of her wings eight smaller wings grow; but her heads remain at rest. The middle head was greater than the others, “yet rested it with them.” Then the eagle flew to reign over the earth, and all the earth was subject unto her. And the seer heard the eagle bid her wings not all to watch at once, but each in turn; “but let the heads be kept until the end.” The voice which the seer heard came not from the heads, but from the midst of the eagle’s body. Then arose on the right side of the eagle one wing which reigned over the earth, and then disappeared; likewise a second wing arose, and reigned for long, then disappeared; but concerning this second wing a voice declared that after it none should reign even half as long. All the wings in turn arose, reigned, and then appeared no more. And now the seer sees the little wings set up, on the right side, in order to reign; some ruled, but disappeared almost at once, others rose up as though to rule, but did not. Nothing remained now on the eagle’s body but the three heads that rested, and six little wings. Two of these latter divided themselves from the rest and remained under the head that was upon the right side, the other four remained where they were. Of these four one assayed to reign, but quickly disappeared, then another vanished even more quickly; before the other two could arise to reign the middle head awoke and united itself to the other two heads which it then devoured. This head then ruled over all the earth with much oppression; but, like the wings, it, too, suddenly disappeared. There remained, however, the two heads, who also reigned over the earth; but presently that on the right side devoured that on the left. “Then,” the seer proceeds, “I heard a voice, which said unto me, Look before thee, and consider the thing that thou seest.” And he sees a lion which comes, roaring, out of a wood, and, speaking with the voice of a man, upbraids the eagle for her cruel oppression, and announces her approaching destruction, saying: “Therefore appear no more, thou eagle, nor thy horrible wings, nor thy evil little wings, nor thy cruel heads, nor thy hurtful talons, nor all thy worthless body; that all the earth may be refreshed, being delivered from thy violence, and may hope for judgement and mercy of him that made her.” While the lion spoke thus with the eagle the last head disappeared; and the two little wings which had detached themselves and had gone over to it, arose and sought to reign, but “their kingdom was small and full of uproar,” and they soon disappeared. “Then the whole body of the eagle was burned, so that the earth was in great fear.”

Thus the Vision; then follows the interpretation. The eagle who arose from the sea, he is told, “is the fourth kingdom which appeared in vision to thy brother Daniel.” In this kingdom twelve kings shall reign; these are represented by the twelve wings. Of these kings the second shall reign longer than any of the others. The eight smaller wings represented eight kings “whose times shall be small, and their years swift”; two of them shall perish when the “middle time” of the kingdom comes, four shall be preserved until the approach of the end, and two shall be kept until the end. The interpretation of the three heads as given to the seer is that in the last days of the kingdom the Most High will raise up three kings, who will renew many things in the kingdom, and bear tyrannous rule. “And whereas thou sawest that the great head appeared no more, it signifieth that one of them shall die upon his bed, and yet with pain. But for the two that remained, the sword shall devour them” (xii. 26, 27). The two wings that detached themselves and went to the head on the right are reserved for the end; for a short time they shall reign after the last head has disappeared, but their reign shall be troublous. The voice proceeding from “the midst of the body” means that “in the midst of the time of that kingdom” there shall arise “no small contentions, and it shall stand in peril of falling; nevertheless it shall not then fall, but shall be restored again to its first estate” (xii. 18). Finally, the lion is the “anointed one,” i.e. the Messiah, Whom the Most High has kept to the end of days.

The Vision represents history veiled in symbolical garb; as in the Vision of the Man rising from the sea, the seer’s interpretation does not always harmonize with the contents of the Vision itself; this is to be accounted for by the fact that a redactor made alterations in order to bring the Vision into agreement with the course of history as viewed from his, chronologically later, standpoint. As to the meaning of the general historical outline of which the Vision treats most scholars are agreed, but they differ as to details. The following table shows, in the main, the bulk of learned opinion (cp. Gunkel, Op. cit., p. 345):

The Eagle = The Roman Empire, the eagle being the military emblem of Rome.

The Sea = The Mediterranean sea; the Roman Empire, “for the Orientals, came up, as a matter of historical fact, from the sea, and it is this fact which is doubtless in the apocalyptist’s thought here” (Box).

The Twelve Wings = Julius Cæsar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vindex, Nymphidius, Piso. The second wing, mentioned in xi. 13-17, “which bare rule a great time,” symbolizes Augustus, who reigned for over fifty years.

The three heads Vespasian, Titus, Domitian; the middle head which is greater than the two others symbolizes Vespasian.

The eight smaller wings = ?

The two little wings (xi. 24) = Mucianus, proconsul of Syria, and Tiberius Alexander, prefect of Egypt, according to Gunkel; but he says that this interpretation is uncertain. These two little wings are said to have remained under the head that was upon the right side; this head symbolizes Domitian.

The two heads that remained (xi. 34, 35) = Domitian and Titus, the latter is said to have been murdered by the former.

That this interpretation is not in all points satisfactory becomes clear as soon as it is studied in detail, and the same applies to other interpretations that have been offered; but recently a new solution has been put forth by Box which merits attention; we will give it in his own words (Op. cit., p. 265):

“It may be assumed that in the original form of the vision[541] the three heads represent the three Flavian emperors; the twelve wings represent the six Julian emperors from Cæsar to Nero, reckoning the wings by pairs. The present writer suggests that the reckoning by pairs in the original vision was intended only to apply to the twelve wings, and had a symbolical significance. The pairs served to emphasize the greater dignity and power of the real emperors as contrasted with the ephemeral rulers symbolized by the little wings. In order to exaggerate the contrast the latter were intended to be reckoned singly. The eight little wings represent, in the original form of the vision, Vindex (March, 68), Nymphidius (a few months later)—these disappeared about the same time as the last of the twelve wings (end of Nero’s reign), as represented in our text (xi. 22). The middle four represent Galba, Otho, Civitis (died June, 69), and Vitellius (died Dec., 69). The two little wings that were to survive the last head probably signify Roman governors or generals who were expected to claim the imperial throne at the last, or possibly the two last members of the Herodian family, Agrippa II and Berenice.... In its original form, then, the vision may date from the closing years of Domitian’s reign (circa 95 A.D.). But if the editor did not incorporate it into his book—our Ezra-Apocalypse—till 120 A.D. or later (some time certainly in the reign of Hadrian), what, it may well be asked, was the significance he himself attached to the vision? He can no longer have identified the three heads with the Flavian emperors, seeing that the reigns of these had already long ended and the predicted deliverance had not yet come.” Box holds that the Redactor identified the three heads with Trajan, Hadrian and Lucius Quietus, the last of these being a favourite of Trajan and regarded as destined for the throne. Further, according to Box’s interpretation, the Redactor put a new meaning on to the “twelve wings,” these being symbolic of the six Julian emperors, Galba, Otho and Vitellius, together with the three Flavian emperors. There is much to be said in favour of this hypothesis, though it will not be denied that some difficulties still remain.[542]

VII. The Salathiel Apocalypse

This portion of our book, of which it forms the bulk, is of a very different character from those already considered. It consists of four Visions. We retain the term “Vision,” as it is that usually adopted, but they are rather Dialogues; the writer addresses God, but is answered by an angel. The questions put by the former are prompted by moral difficulties which trouble him; the answers are intended to solve these difficulties.

The First Vision (iii. 1-v. 19).

Salathiel, “the same is Esdras,” sees the desolation of Sion, and the prosperity of Babylon. This incongruousness between the adversity of God’s chosen people and the prosperity of the godless Gentiles causes perplexity to the mind of the seer, and prompts him “to speak words full of fear to the Most High.” In the thoughts which follow it is noticeable, first of all, that the writer expresses a sense of sin which was deeper than that of the traditional Jewish teaching on the subject. Hitherto the tendency had been to regard transgressions solely from the point of view of isolated acts; but here the conviction is implied that such isolated sinful acts are symptomatic of something far worse than temporary lapses would lead one to suppose; from Adam onwards, it is now taught, the whole human race has been steeped in sin; the existence not merely of sinful men but of sinful humanity—the realization of this fact is what plunges the writer into dark despair. Hence the sorrow and suffering in the world: “For the first Adam, clothing himself with a wicked heart, transgressed and was overcome; and not he only, but all they also who were born of him. Thus disease was made permanent” (iii. 21, 22); there is no hope in this world. Then a further thought comes into the writer’s mind; sin is everywhere prevalent, but how is it that while Israel suffers for sin the Gentiles are in such prosperity? Nay, more, is there any other nation that knows God besides Israel? And yet Israel is not rewarded! Let God, therefore, weigh the sins of each in the balance. All men sin; yet assuredly Israel, if not better, is not worse than the Gentiles; nevertheless, these prosper, but Israel languishes. Then comes God’s answer, given by the angel Uriel; it takes the form of calling upon the seer to do three things:

“Weigh me the weight of fire.”
“Measure me the measure of the wind.”
“Recall me the day that is past.”

But Esdras answers, who among the sons of man could do such things! Then the angel says, if I had asked thee how many dwellings there are in the heart of the sea, or how many springs in the source of the deep, or how many ways above the firmament, or where is the entrance to Hades, or the way to Paradise—with reason thou wouldst have been unable to say; but I have asked thee only concerning things within thine own cognizance, and thou canst give me no answer! Then the angel concludes: “Thine own things, that are grown up with thee, canst thou not know; how then can thy vessel [i.e. the body; containing the soul] comprehend the way of the Most High” (iv. 10, 11). In other words, God’s ways are inscrutable. This does not satisfy Esdras; so the angel proceeds to show him how foolish it is for a mortal man to wish to penetrate into the divine secrets; he would, in any case, be unable to understand them; “he only that dwelleth above the heavens may understand the things that are above the height of the heavens” (iv. 21). To this Esdras protests that it was not in his mind “to be curious of the ways above,” but only concerning such things as he sees daily before him. What he is unable to understand—and here he reverts to his initial difficulty—is why Israel should be afflicted, and in consequence the Law made of none effect. Then he is told that a New Age is about to dawn upon the world, and then all things will be made clear. On Esdras asking when the New Age will come, and whether he will still be on the earth then, the angel answers that he is unable to tell; but he recounts the signs that are to precede the end. These are given in v. 1-12; they are, in the main, the traditional and stereotyped eschatological “signs.” Thus ends the first Vision.

The Second Vision (v. 21-vi. 34).

The subject-matter of this Vision is the same as that of the preceding. Why does Israel suffer at the hand of oppressors? The angel replies by again showing Esdras that the ways of God cannot be comprehended by man, but that in spite of what appears God’s love is for His people. The seer then asks much about the coming of the End, and is told that this will be brought about by God alone.[543] The Vision concludes with a second enumeration of the signs of the End.

The Third Vision (vi. 35-ix. 25).

Once more the problem which was the burden of the two first Visions is reiterated, though put in a somewhat different form: if the world was created for Israel’s sake, and if the world is steeped in sin, why does Israel not enjoy his inheritance, why is the world not subjected to Israel? “If the world hath indeed been created for our sakes, why do we not possess the world for our inheritance? How long shall this endure?” (vi. 59). The angel tells Esdras that this present world is but a narrow and dangerous entrance which leads to the wide world which is to come; it was, indeed, originally created for Israel, but through Adam’s sin it has become a place of sorrow and suffering, and therefore the righteous suffer with the wicked. There follows then (vii. 26-44) a long eschatological description which seems to have fallen out of its place, it breaks the course of the argument here. In the glorious world which is to come, it then continues, only those will be worthy to partake of its joys who have fulfilled the Law; but who has truly done so? Who among mortals, whether Jew or Gentile, has not been guilty of transgressing the divine Law? The angel answers that there are some who are righteous, but they are comparatively few; for them future joy is reserved. The rest of mankind will perish. A long section then deals with the subject of the state of the soul after death and before the last Judgement. The righteous enter into bliss, but the wicked are destined to suffer seven degrees of torment. These descriptions, as Box truly remarks (Op. cit., p. 141), are “psychological in character, and apparently portray the emotional experiences of the soul through which it passes during the entire period of the intermediate state. In its subtle delineation of the soul-life the whole section is remarkable, and by the elevation and refinement of its conceptions affords a striking contrast to similar descriptions in other parts of the apocalyptic literature.”

It is then shown to the seer that there is no escape for sinners, and he bitterly bewails the terrible fate hanging over the mass of humanity. But the angel has no further comfort to give than that there is more joy in heaven over the salvation of the few than sorrow over the loss of the many. Not unnaturally this reply does not satisfy the seer; he cannot think that the divine mercy and love, which are so lavishly displayed in the natural world around, should be so restricted in regard to souls hereafter. The reply to his question suggested by this thought, viz., that this world was made for the many, but the next for few, is so discouraging that he ceases to inquire concerning the human race as a whole, and restricts himself to his own race, the Jewish. But here again he is told that only the righteous, among whom he is reckoned, can enjoy felicity hereafter; he is bidden to refrain from further questionings regarding the fate of the wicked; they have but themselves to thank for their doom.[544] The seer reiterates his former objection; to this a final reply is given: All the sorrow and suffering of this world is due to the sins of men; there was a time, before men were created, when none spoke against God, or disobeyed Him; but now men are evil, and have become “corrupted in their manners” (ix. 19); only a grape from the cluster, therefore, only a plant from the great forest, shall, by God’s mercy, be saved. “Let the multitude perish then, which has been born in vain; and let my grape be saved, and my plant; for with great labour have I made them perfect” (ix. 22).

The Fourth Vision (ix. 26-x. 59).

This Vision begins with a soliloquy concerning the Law which God gave to the fathers, but they did not observe it any more than later generations did; Israel must, therefore, perish; but the Law will abide in glory. In the same way, the earthly Jerusalem must perish, but the heavenly Jerusalem is eternal; upon this latter hope must be fixed, for it is to be the joy of those blessed ones who shall gain a glorious immortality in the world to come. The seer then recounts a vision that he sees of a disconsolate woman who brought up an only son, and he died on his wedding day. While the seer speaks with this woman, he looks, and behold she vanishes, and in her place “there was a city builded, and a place showed itself of large foundations” (x. 27). The woman is the heavenly Jerusalem, her son is the earthly Jerusalem. The heavenly reality is thus manifested to the seer, and he is bidden to go and see “the beauty and greatness of the building.... For thou art blessed above many, and with the Most High art called by name, like as but few” (x. 55-57).

In these Visions, then, it will have been noticed that the problem which figures in some of the later Psalms, and in the Book of Job, as to why the righteous suffer and the wicked are in prosperity, is reiterated; the solution given being that the righteous will come to their own when they attain immortal life hereafter. The writer is deeply pessimistic as far as this world is concerned; the universal prevalence of sin which is ingrained in humanity through the fall of Adam, and through which death, originally unnatural to man, has come into the world, compels him to look upon the ultimate fate of humanity as hopeless. Though an ardent Jew, he sees but little hope even for himself or for his own people; the divine Law itself is of no avail, for it cannot be truly observed; “he despairs of a life of absolute obedience to the Law, even by Israel, not to speak of the world. The unconscious and unexpressed cry of the book is for a moral dynamic, which legalism could not supply.”[545] There is, thus, an essential contradiction running through these Visions; on the one hand, hope in the world to come, on the other, hopelessness here and hereafter because all mankind is irretrievably lost through sin. Nothing could better illustrate those alternating emotions which incessantly stir the human heart: the voice of Conscience, and trust in the Divine Mercy. If our writer’s heart remains dark to the end, it is because his true instinct concerning sin is not balanced by an equally true conception of God. At first sight it appears illogical that, in spite of all that the writer has said, happiness hereafter should be declared to be secured for a righteous remnant, among whom he himself is included; the reason for this is, however, apparently that God’s purpose in creating man for eternal life should not be wholly frustrated.

In his eschatological teaching the writer of these Visions departs from the older doctrines; “he does not look forward to a restoration of the Jewish State, or a rebuilding of Jerusalem; nor to a renewed and purified earth under the conditions of the present world-order. His hopes are fixed on the advent of the new and better world which will follow the collapse of the present world. Consequently he anticipates merely the catastrophic end of the present world-order—his theology does not allow of any intermediate Messianic Age. The new Jerusalem which is to come will be the Heavenly City ... which belongs to the future Age.”[546]

VIII. An Ezra Legend

In chapter xiv. occurs the legend of Ezra re-writing the sacred books. It tells of how Ezra, while sitting under an oak, heard the voice of God “out of a bush,” telling him that he would soon be taken away from men. He is told to set his house in order, to reprove his people, to comfort the lowly, to instruct the wise, and to renounce the life that is corruptible. Ezra expresses his readiness to do as commanded; but he asks who there will be to admonish those who are born after he is gone, for the world is in darkness and God’s Law is burnt.[547] Then Ezra himself proposes that he should re-write the Law “that men may be able to find the path, and that they who would live in the latter days may live” (xiv. 22). He is then commanded to prepare many tablets and to take five men with him who can write swiftly; “and when thou hast done, some things shalt thou publish openly, and some things shalt thou deliver in secret to the wise” (xiv. 26). Ezra does as he is commanded after having asked for the divine spirit to guide him; so that before he commences his work he is given a cup to drink from, full of water, but the colour of it like fire.[548] When he had drunk from this cup his heart poured forth understanding, and wisdom grew in his breast, and his spirit retained its memory. For forty days he dictated, and by the end of this time ninety-four books were written by the five scribes. Then he is commanded by the Most High to publish openly the first twenty-four books that had been written, so that they might be read by the worthy and the unworthy; but the last seventy he is told to keep in order to deliver them to “such as be wise” among his people. This Ezra does. Here the legend ends abruptly.

The twenty-four books refer to the canonical books of the Bible, “the seventy secret books included, we may infer, not only the book of signs and the secret (apocalyptic) tradition associated with the name of Moses, but many other apocalyptic books as well.... Thus, according to the representation of our chapter, Ezra, i.e. the historical Ezra living in Jerusalem in the middle of the fifth century B.C., was the restorer not only of the canonical books of the Old Testament, but also of the large apocalyptic literature, including some apocalyptic books which detailed visions and revelations that had, ostensibly, occurred to himself.... This amounts to a claim that the apocalyptic tradition occupies an essential place in genuine Judaism. It claims for itself the great names of Moses and Ezra, ‘the second Moses.’”[549] Box suggests that the object of the publication of our book, and of associating it with the name of Ezra, was to uphold, or to re-assert, the authority of the apocalyptic literature, and thus gain for it “an officially recognized place within Judaism as part of the oral tradition.” That this was one of the objects for which the book was published seems highly probable when it is remembered that the Jewish religious authorities rejected the apocalyptic literature as a whole[550]; it was to be expected that the apocalyptists should make strenuous efforts to secure the recognition of books which, as they believed, recorded genuine tradition, and which in any case taught much that was edifying.

Like the apocalyptic literature in general, this story of a divine revelation accorded to Ezra to re-write all the sacred books which had been destroyed, enjoyed considerable recognition among the Church Fathers; it was known not only as included in our book, but as an independent tradition. For references to it in patristic writings see Bensly and James, Op. cit., pp. xxxvii. f.

Every reader of the Ezra-Apocalypse must, as he reads, be very soon struck by the many reminiscences of Pauline thought and teaching which it contains. But as the book is later than almost all the books of the New Testament this is not the place to deal with this important and fascinating subject; to those who might wish to pursue the study of the connection between 4 Esdras and Pauline teaching on such doctrines as the Fall and Sin, the Law, Election, Justification and Eschatology, etc., no better English book could be recommended than Thackeray’s The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought (1900).

Indexes

GENERAL INDEX

(Pages printed in thick type indicate passages in which the subject in question is dealt with in detail.)

Aaron, 149, 150
Abinu Malkenu, 391
Abtinas, house of, 194
Abubus, 437
Achikar, 195
— the Wise, story of, 349 ff.
Achior, 373
Adam, 523
— and Eve, Life of, 218, 223
Adaptation of belief, 20
Additions to Daniel, 385-397
— to Esther, 398-403
— —, Authorship of, 403
— —, Date of, 403
Aesculapius, 396
Agrippa II, 521
Ahasuerus, 399
Akiba, Rabbi, 143, 192, 194
Alcimus, 430 f.
Alexander Balas, 419, 432
— Jannæus, 393
— the Great, 12 ff., 16, 17, 30, 33, 52, 69
— —, conquests of, 12 f., 29, 424
— —, division of his empire, 424
— Zabinas, 436
Alexandria, 17, 50, 458, 512
—, centre of Jewish Dispersion, 17
—, the Jews in, 53 f.
Allegorical interpretation of Scripture, 57
Allegorization of ancient myths, 22
Allegorizing of Greek myths, 57
Allegory, 230 f.
— in Proverbs, 72
Almsgiving, 361
—, means of atonement, 272 f.
Altars to unknown gods, 23
Am-haarez, 93
Amidah, 500 ff.
Amyrtæus, 51
Angelology in Apocalyptic Literature, 110
—, Jewish, 38, 39
— of the Essenes, 43 f.
Angels, 102

—, doctrine of, in Additions to Daniel, 301 ff.

—, —, Ecclesiasticus, 300 ff., 340
—, —, 2 (4) Esdras, 303 ff.
—, —, Esther, 302
—, —, Ep. of Jeremiah, 302
—, —, 2 Maccabees, 302 f.
—, —, Prayer of Manasses, 302
—, —, Tobit, 301
—, Sadducæan doctrine of, 147 f.
Anima Mundi, 86

Antiochus Epiphanes, 34, 35, 77, 134, 156, 423, 427, 481 f., 488, 493

— —, death of, 482
— —, his attempt to stamp out Judaism, 425 f.
— Eupator, 428, 432
— Sidetes, 437, 491
— the Great, 430
— VI, 420
— VII, 420
Antonines, The, 13
Apamæa, 437
Apocalypse of Moses, The, 218
Apocalyptic Movement, 40, 90-95, 160
— —, beginnings of the, 90 ff.
— books, authorship of, 199 ff.
— —, Hebrew and Aramaic originals lost, 200
— Jewish, 90 f.
— Literature, 91, 198-223
— —, doctrinal teaching of, 101-110

Apocalyptic Literature, place claimed for in orthodox Judaism, 530

— — rejected by Pharisees, 199

— — teaching on Individualism, 102 f.

— — — Particularism, 103 f.

— — — Universalism, 103 f.

— —, Supernatural colouring of, 97 f.

Apocalyptists, The, 95-112, 161, 205 f., 530

—, —, asceticism of, 101

—, —, claims of, 99

—, —, concerned with the future, 97

—, —, denunciations of, 97

—, —, determinism of, 98 f.

—, —, effects of teaching, 96 f.

—, —, inconsistency of teaching, 95 f.

—, —, loyalty to the Law, 99 f.

—, —, other-worldliness of, 99

—, —, prophets of the people, 96

—, —, religious conceptions regarding humanity, 105

—, —, their message, 96
—, —, universalistic attitude of, 101
—, —, upholders of the people’s faith, 97
Apocrypha books, dates of, 320
Apocrypha, Doctrinal teaching of the, 251-315
—, meaning of, 183
—, traces of Greek influence in, 77-87
Apocryphal and canonical books, 161 ff.
—, use of term, 187
—, — by Origen, 189
—, — Jerome, 191
Apokryphos, meaning of, 185 ff.
Apollonius, 425, 427, 434
Apollophanes, 486
Apostolical Constitutions, 407, 410
Apsu, 231
Arabia, 435
Aramaic papyri, 50 ff., 194 f., 349
— Targums, 193
—, the language of Egyptian Jews, 60
Areios, 418
Aristeas, letter of, 443
Aristotle, 15, 16, 17
Armour of God, The, 474 f.
Artaxerxes, 51, 400, 441 f., 448
Artaxerxes III (Ochus), 50
Ascalon, 30
Ascension of Isaiah, The, 219-220
Asceticism, 344
— of the Essenes, 43
Asmodæus, 358
Assidæans (see Chassidim), 125
Assimilation, faculty of, among the Jews, 58
Associations, religious, 23
Assouan (Syene), 58
Assumption of Moses, The, 218
Atheism, 73
Athens, 14
Athenians, 14
Atonement, death a means of, 342
Attalus II, king of Pergamum, 432
Attic Greek, 14
— ideals, 14
— sea-power, 14
Attitude towards religious beliefs, 21
Augustus, 53, 520
Aurelian, 512
Aureolus, 512

Authorship, function of, in ancient times, 200

Avesta, 133
Azariah, Prayer of, 386 ff.
—, —, when composed, 388 f.
—, —, liturgical character of, 389 f.
Azotus, 30
Babylonia, 38
Babylonian influence, 227, 231 f.
Bacchides, 430 f.
Badness of the Body, doctrine of, 84 f.
— —, Platonic doctrine of, 85
Balas, Alexander, 419, 432
Baptism of the Essenes, 45
Baruch, book of, 495-506

—, —, A Sage’s Words of Encouragement in, 303 f.

—, —, account of, 495 ff.
—, —, Book of Confessions in, 497 ff.
—, —, component parts of, 497 ff.
—, —, contains liturgical material, 502 f.
—, —, contents of, 495 ff.
—, Greek Apocalypse of, 223
—, Syriac Apocalypse of, 222
Bel and the Dragon, 386, 394 ff.
Beliefs, intermingling of, 22
Ben-Sira, 116, 123, 124, 195
—, attitude towards Gentiles, 337 f.
—, autobiographical details, 326 f.
—, his claim to be an inspired writer, 325 f.
—, his house of instruction, 325, 328
—, his views on the sacrificial system, 339
—, his knowledge of the O.T., 324
—, his list of famous men, 165 ff.
Benedictions, 502 f.
Bĕni Zadok, 134, 154
Berakah, 500
Berenice, 521
Bethsura, 429
Bible, Hebrew, contents of, 162 ff.
—, the Greek (see Septuagint), 161
“Biblical” Greek, 15

Biography a science in the Hellenistic period for the first time, 19

Blindness, 367
Book of Jubilees, The, 216-218
— of secret words of Moses, 218
Books, ancient Jewish, 194
—, heretical, 198
—, reading of in ancient times, 195
—, the seventy, 529
—, the twenty-four, 529
Brotherhood of man, 18
Burial of the dead, 358
Cæsarea, 30

Calendar, Jewish, Pharisaic and Sadducæan attitude towards, 150 ff.

Caligula, 460, 464, 520
Cambyses, 448
Canon, Hebrew, 162 ff.
—, Hebrew, formation of, 169-174
—, idea of a, 161-169
—, final fixing of, 173, 174-176
—, meaning of the word, 162
— of Old Testament, origin of, 160 ff.
—, unknown to Ben-Sira, 167
—, — Ben-Sira’s grandson, 168 f.
Canonical and apocryphal books, 161 ff.
Canonicity, Josephus’ theory of, 171 f.
—, Rabbinical theory of, 172
Cardinal virtues, the four, 87, 458
Cendebæus, 437
Chæreas, 486
Chæronea, battle of, 14
Chakamim, 115, 116, 127, 233
Chanukkah, 428
Chassid, 42

Chassidim, 92, 93, 125 f., 203, 205, 257, 365, 427

—, creators of apocalyptic literature, 93

—, the spiritual ancestors of Pharisees and Apocalyptists, 93 ff.

Chijja, Rabbi, 194
Chislev, 490
Chlamys, 33
Chokmah, 233
Civitis, 521
Claudius, 520
Cleopatra, 434
Cœle-Syria, 29
Colonies, Greek-speaking, 15
Common meal of the Essenes, 45
Confession of sins, 500

Connection between gānaz and apokryphos, 188 f.

Cosmology, Babylonian, 231
Cosmopolitanism, 18
Crete, 434
Critical faculty of the Greeks, 20
Crocodile’s liver, 367
Cup of inspiration, The, 529
Cynic philosophers, 18
Cyrus, 440
Daniel, 302
—, Additions to, 385-397
Darius, 12, 51, 441
— II, 51

Darius’ bodyguard, story of the three young men of, 451 ff.

Dead, prayers for the, 489 f.
Death, means of atonement, 272, 342
Dedication, feast of, 428
—, 487, 490, 491 f.
Defile the hands, meaning of, 175 f., 177 ff.
Deified princes, 462 f.
Deities, national, 22
Demetrius I, 419, 429 f.
— II, 419, 433 ff.
— Nicator, 434
Demonology in Apocalyptic Literature, 110
— in Ecclesiasticus, 304
— in Tobit, 304 f.
—, Jewish, 38
Didascalia, 407, 410
Dispersion, The, 17, 49-54
—, Eastern, 50
Divine Immanence, doctrine of, 57
— revelation accorded to Ezra, 530
Doctrine of God in Baruch, 258
— — 2 (4) Esdras, 258
— — 1 Maccabees, 257 f.
— — Wisdom, 259 f.
Doctrines, inter-relation of, 39
Dôk, 438
Domitian, 520
Dor, 437
Dositheus, 486
Dualism of the Essenes, 43
Ea, 231
Eagle Vision, The, 513 f., 517 ff.
Eastern Dispersion, 50
Ecclesiastes, 456 f.
—, canonicity disputed, 170
—, traces of Greek philosophy in, 74 ff.
Ecclesiasticus, an apologetic book, 327
— and the Ep. of St. James, 347 f.
—, author of, 322
—, A.V. and R.V. of, 331 ff.
—, compared with Tobit, 364 f.
—, date of, 327 f.
—, Hebrew manuscripts of, 329 f.
—, original language of, 329 f.
—, Pharisaic recension of, 333, 340 ff.
—, placed on “Index Expurgatorius,” 340

—, present form not intended to be final, 322 f.

—, Prologue to, 168 f., 459
—, Sadducæan standpoint in, 333 ff.
—, title of, 321 f.
—, traces of Greek influence in, 77 ff.
—, unity of authorship, 322
—, universalism in, 338
—, value of, for N.T. study, 345 ff.
Egypt, 12, 28
—, Jewish settlements in, 51
Ekron, 434
El, 394
Eleazar, 59
Election, 531
Elect One, The, 246
Elephantiné, 349, 353
Elephantiné papyri, 50 ff., 194 f.
Elijah, 289 f.
End, signs of the, 524
Enoch, the book of, 201-208
—, —, authorship, 203 f.
—, —, component parts of, 202
—, —, dates of component parts, 202 f.
—, —, original language of, 207
—, —, teaching, 207 f.
—, Book of the Secrets of, 220-222
Epheboi, 33
Ephraim, 435
Epicuræanism, 79, 135, 456, 460
Epicuræan teaching, 21 f.
— — on immortality, 75
— — in Ecclesiastes, 74 f.
Epicuræans not irreligious, 21
Epicuros, 21, 75
Epidaurus, 396
Epilepsy, 367
Epistle of Jeremiah, 506-508
Eschatological signs, 524
Eschatology, Jewish, 38
Esdras, 1 (3), see Greek Ezra
Essene baptism, 45
— communities, 45
—, meaning of, 42
— monotheism, 45
— teaching on the Resurrection, 44
Essenes, The, 41-46
— and the Law of Moses, 45
—, asceticism of, 43
—, dualism of, 43
—, their angelology, 43 f.
—, their purifications, 45
—, their Sabbath observance, 45

Essenism a blending of the Mosaic and Hellenic spirit, 45

— a mystery-religion, 45
—, influence of Hellenism on, 42
—, un-Jewish in many respects, 42 ff.
Esther, 399
—, canonicity disputed, 170
Eternal seed-plant, The, 102

Ethical teaching of the Hellenistical period, 18 f.

Euergetes I, 328
— II, Physcon, 328, 422
Euhemerism, 458
Ezekiel, 31

Ezra, 28, 71, 92, 116, 118, 442, 450, 453, 529

—, divine revelation accorded to, 530
—, not mentioned in Ecclesiasticus, 340
—, opposition to, 121 f.
Ezra Apocalypse, The, 509-531
— —, an Ezra Legend in, 513 f., 528 ff.

— —, contains reminiscences of Pauline thought, 530

— —, chaps. i. ii., 510 f.
— —, chaps. xv. xvi., 511 f.
— —, chaps. iii.-xiv., 512 ff.
— —, recognized by Church Fathers, 530
— —, Vision, first, 522 ff.
— —, — second, 524
— —, — third, 524 ff.
— —, — fourth, 526 f.
— —, title, 509 f.
Fables in ancient Jewish Literature, 230
Faith, traditional form of, 20
Fall, The, 474, 531
Fasting, 272, 361
Fatalism, 79
Fatalistic theory of the Stoics, 21
First Cause, Platonic teaching on, 458

Formless matter, creation of the world out of, 85

— —, Platonic and Stoic teaching concerning, 85 f.

Free-will, 336, 342, 412
Future life, 342, 362
— —, conception of, 499
— —, developed belief in, 24

— —, doctrine of, in Apocalyptic Literature, 107 ff.

— —, — in Baruch, 293

— —, — in Ecclesiasticus, 288 ff., 291 ff.

— —, — in 2 (4) Esdras, 293 ff.

— —, — in Judith, 290 f.

— —, — in 2 Maccabees, 292

— —, — Pharisaic and Sadducæan doctrine of, 146 f.

— —, — in Tobit, 290
— —, — in Wisdom, 298 ff.
Galba, 520
Gallienus, 512
Gamaliel I, 145
— II, 173
Gānaz, meaning of, 183 ff.
Gaza, 30
Gazara, 438, 482
Gehenna, 289
Genealogies, The roll of, 194
Genizah, 188 f.

God, conception of, by the Jews of the Dispersion, 57

—, —, in Wisdom, 465 f.
—, doctrine of, 39, 412
—, —, in Apocrypha, 254-260

—, Pharisaic and Sadducæan doctrine of, 144 ff.

—, Philo’s doctrine of, 63
Gorgias, 428, 486
Goths, 512
Governance of the world, divine, 341

Grace and Free-will, doctrine of, in Ecclesiasticus, 278

— —, 2 (4) Esdras, 280 f.
— —, 1 Maccabees, 279
— —, 2 Maccabees, 280
— —, Tobit, 278 f.
—, divine, 336

Græco-Macedonian empire referred to in Daniel, 69

Grammateia, 40
Granicus, 12
Grateful dead man, story of the, 356 f.
Greek cities, 15
— culture, superiority of, 35
— fashions, 34
— festivals, fascination of, 32
— forms of thought, 15
— ideals, 15
— influence in Apocrypha, traces of, 77 ff.
— — in O.T., traces of, 68 ff.
— — on Jewish eschatology, 38
— — on Judaism, 252 f.
— —, signs of, in O.T. and Apocrypha, 40
— language, 14
— mind, tendencies of, 33
— model of local government, 30, 31
— philosophy, influence of, 28
— settlements in Palestine, 30
— words in Daniel, 70
— words hebraized, 35 f.
Greek Ezra, The, 439-454
— —, and 2 Esdras 444 ff.
— —, chronological table of event in, 446 ff.
— —, The, contents, 440 ff.
— —, date of, 454
— —, historicity of, 446 ff.

— —, its relationship to the Hebrew Ezra, 442 ff.

— —, Massoretic text of, 449 f.
— —, purpose of, 450 f.
— —, title of, 439 f.
Greeks and “barbarians,” 17 f.
—, references to, in O.T., 68-70
—, critical faculty of, 20
—, their ideal of wisdom, 19
—, their realism, 19
—, their sense of proportion, 18, 20
Guilds, religious, 23
Gymnasium, 32 f., 40
Habakkuk, 395
Hades, 289, 292, 523
Hadrian, 13, 521
Haggadic homiletics, 201
— literature, 380
Halakah, 201
Haman, 399
Ha-Gilyônim, 198
Hasmonæan high-priesthood, 423 f., 433
Hasmonæans, The, 411
Hebrew Bible, contents of, 162 ff.
— Canon, The, 162 ff.
— —, formation of, 169-174
Hecatæus of Abdera, 41
Heliodorus, 302, 481 f., 489
Hellas, 14

Hellenic and Hellenistic, difference between, 12

— spirit, 13
— thought in book of Wisdom, 458
Hellenism, debased type in Syria, 40
—, good and bad effects of, 41
—, reaction against, 41
— in its religious aspect, 20-24
—, result of spread of, 28
— in its secular aspect, 12-20
Hellenistic Greek, 14 f.

Hellenistic influence, direct and indirect, 37 f.

— — on Palestinian Jews, 36
— — on religion, 54 ff.
— — reflected in Job, 73 f.
— — — Proverbs, 71 ff.
— — — the Psalms, 71
— — upon the Jews of the Dispersion, 49-67
— — upon the Jews of Palestine, 27-48
— Movement, The, 11-26, 160 f.
— —, effect of, 24
— — a period of dissolution, 16
— party, 426
— period not one of irreligion, 21

— philosophy, development of into theology, 21

— Movement, roots of, 13
— spirit, 92 ff.
Hellenization of cities, 18
Hellenized cities, 22
Heraclides, 430
Heraclitus, 86
Hermes, 34
High-priestly party, 33 f.
Hillel, 132
—, school of, 170
Holofernes, 373, 375 f.
Hypostatization of Wisdom, 73, 226
Hyrcanus, John, 153, 422, 438
Hyrcania, transportation of Jews to, 50
Idolatry, 469, 472 f.
—, polemic against, 507
Idol-worship, 458, 507
Illumination, Feast of, 492
Illyrians, 14
Immanence, divine, doctrine of, 57
Immortality, 337
—, doctrine of in Wisdom, 83 ff.
—, Plato’s doctrine of, 84
— of the spirit, 107
— — soul, 39
Individual piety, 23
Individualism, 18, 31 f.
— in Proverbs, 71 f.
Individualistic tendency in Job, 73
Inspiration, the cup of, 529

Intermediate beings between God and man, 235 f.

— state, 110, 295, 300
Inter-relation of doctrines, 39
Ionians, 68

Ipsus, battle of, its indirect importance for the Jews, 29

Isaiah, book of, 105
Islam, 37
Issus, battle of, 12
Jabneh, Council of, 173 f.
Jamnia (Jabneh), 434
Jason, 34 f.
— the Cyrenian, 479, 484, 488
— —, his history, 480
Javan, 68, 69
Jedoniah, Jewish governor in Syene, 51
Jehoahaz, 51
Jeremiah, 51, 303
—, Epistle of, 506-508
Jerome, 75
Jerusalem, 529
—, earthly and heavenly, 526 f.
Jewish alliance with Rome, 420 f.
— angelology, 38, 39
— Apocalyptic, 90
— books, ancient, 194
— Church, The, 105
— demonology, 38
— eschatology, 38
— Liturgy, 390, 391, 500, 502
— mercenaries, 51
— propaganda, 396 f.
Jews in Syene, 51 ff.

— of the Dispersion, their religious outlook, 55 f.

Job, individualistic tendency in, 73
—, book of, 73, 459
Jobel, 216
Jochanan ben Zakkai, 173
Jochanan, the son of Kareah, 51
John Hyrcanus, 414, 438
Jonah, book of, 105, 123
Jonathan, 416, 418
—, leadership of, 431
Jose, Rabbi, 170
Josephus on the Essenes, 42, 43, 44, 45
— — Jews of Alexandria, 54
— — Pharisees and Sadducees, 135 ff.
Josiah, 440
Jubilees, book of, 151
Judaism, 55
— affected by extraneous influences, 252
— as a religion affected by Hellenism, 36 f.
— of Alexandria, 477
—, orthodox, 487
—, traditional, in the Dispersion, 55
Judas the Maccabee, 411
— —, leadership of, 427 ff.
Judgement, The, 38, 295 ff., 525
—, day of, 103
Judith, author of, 378 f.
—, book of, 372-384
—, contents of, 372 f.
—, character of, 372 f.
—, Hebrew form of, 380
—, in how far historical, 377 f.
—, story, variety of form, 379 f.
Julian, 13
Julius Cæsar, 520
Justice, reform in administration of, 393 f.
Justification, 531
Kabbalah, 163
Khons, tractate of, 357, 367
Knowledge, increase of, 16
—, departments of, 16
Koheleth (see Ecclesiastes)
Ladder of Tyre, 435
Landmarks, Jewish historical, 366
Lasthenes, 419
Law, The, 165, 450, 503, 504, 525
— identified with Wisdom, 241, 244
—, Jews the people of the, 28
— of Moses venerated by the Essenes, 45
—, the oral, 338 f.

—, Pharisaic and Sadducæan doctrine of, 139 ff., 152 f.

—, Pharisaic teaching on in Ecclesiasticus, 343 f.

—, Rabbinical teaching on, the, 262, 265
—, doctrine of, in Baruch, 264 f.
—, doctrine of, in Ecclesiasticus, 260 ff.
—, —, 1 (3) Esdras, 264
—, —, 2 (4) Esdras, 265 f.
—, —, Judith, 263 f.
—, —, 2 Maccabees, 264
—, —, Tobit, 262 f.
—, —, Wisdom, 266 f.
Legalistic Movement, The, 160
Letter of Aristeas, 59
— of Purim, 403
Leucoma, 367
Levitical Impurity, 175, 177-182
Lights, Feast of, 492
Little Genesis, 216
Liturgy, Jewish, 390, 391, 500, 502
Local government of Jewish cities, 31
Logos, 464
—, Philonian, 63 f., 464
Lucius, 422
— Calpurnius Piso, 423
— Quietus, 522
— Valerius, 422
Lydda, 435
Lysias, 428 f., 482
Maccabæan feasts, the two, 488
— revolt, 35
— rising, 76
— struggle, the, 161, 403, 482
— —, causes of, 424 f.
— —, history of, 423 ff.
Maccabees, first book of, 411-438
—, —, authorship, 411 ff.
—, —, date, 413 f.
—, —, historicity, 415
—, —, literary character, 414 f.
—, —, original language, 414 f.
—, —, sources, 415 ff.
—, —, title, 411 ff.
—, second book of, 479-494
—, —, date, 493
—, —, compared with 1 Maccabees, 482 ff.
—, —, contents of, 481 ff.
—, —, historical value of, 485 ff.
—, —, influence of on N.T. writers, 493 f.
—, —, integrity of, 490 ff.
—, —, origin of, 479 ff.
—, —, original language, 493
—, —, purpose of, 487 ff.
Macedonian empire, 14
Mæonius, 512
Makrīzī, 133

Man rising from the Sea, Vision of, 513 f., 515 ff.

Manasses, Prayer of, 404-410
Manes, 133
Marisa, 486
Marriage avoided by the Essenes, 43
Martyrdom of Isaiah, The, 219
Māshāl, 227 f.
Masūdi, 133
Materialism, 469, 471 f.
Mattathias, his zeal for the Law, 426
—, leadership of, 424 ff.
Matter, Platonic idea of, 85
Mediterranean, 28
Megiddo, battle of, 440
Megillath Semanim, 194
Megillath Sethārim, 194
Megillath Taanith, 194, 380
Megillôth, 163 f.
Memphis, 51
Memra, 237
Merits of the fathers, 273 f.
— — —, doctrine of, 499
Merodach, 396
Messiah, 298, 516

Messiah, doctrine of, in Apocalyptic Literature, 105 ff.

—, —, Baruch, 283

—, —, Ecclesiasticus, 281 f.

—, —, 2 (4) Esdras, 283 ff.

—, —, 1 Maccabees, 282 f.

—, —, 2 Maccabees, 283

—, —, Tobit, 282

—, —, Wisdom, 285 ff.

—, Pharisaic and Sadducæan doctrine of, 148 ff.

—, pre-existence of, 106
Messianic Age, 298
— expectations, 226
— future, 38

— Kingdom, teaching of, in Apocalyptic Literature, 109

— Woes, 297
Metabolism of the elements, 86 f.
Michael, 39
Michmash, 431
Middle Ages, 17
Migdol, 51
Millennium, 221
Minim, 192 f.
Mishna, 35

Missionary propaganda among the Jews of the Dispersion, 56 f.

Mixed marriages among Israelites, 120
Modin, 413
Monotheism, 23
— of the Essenes, 45
Mordecai, 398 ff.
Moses, Apocalypse of, 222-223
—, the second = Ezra, 530
Mucianus, 520
Mystery-religion, Essenism a, 45
Myths allegorized, 22
National deities, 22
Nebuchadnezzar, 50
Nehemiah, 92, 450
Neo-Pythagoreans, 42
Neo-Pythagorean philosophy, 13
Nĕphĕsh, 81, 83
Nero, 520
Nĕshāmāh, 82, 83
New Age, The, 524
Nicanor, 428, 430 f., 482
—, celebration of death of, feast, 487
Noph, 51
Numenius, 421 f.
Nymphidius, 520
Odenathus, 512
Olam ha-bâ, 97
Olam ha-zeh, 97
Onias, 303, 418
— III, 34
Oral Law, The, 338 f.
— tradition, 93, 530
Oriental influence on Judaism, 38
— elements absorbed by Hellenism, 40
— influences on the Jews, 41
Orphic Pythagoræan asceticism, 42
Ostraka, 15
Otho, 520
“Outside” books, 198
Ozias, 374 f.
Paganism renovated, 13
Palæstra, 34
Palestine, Eastern, 30
—, political life of, 31
Palmyra, 512
Papyri, 15, 50 ff., 194 f., 349
Paradise, 523
Parseeism, 38
Parthians, 436
Particularism, 103 f., 122, 160
Pathros, 51
Paul, St., influenced by Wisdom, 474 ff.
Pentateuch, translation of, into Greek, 59
Pentecost, Feast of, 487
People of the land, The, 206
Perdiccas, 424
Persecution, 469, 473 f.
Persian influence on Essene belief, 44
— — on Judaism, 252 f.
— kings, list of, 446
Personal religion, 256
— responsibility, sense of, 32

Personalities of striking character during the Hellenistic period, 19

Personification of Wisdom, 235
Pessimism in 2 (4) Esdras, 525 f.
Petasus, 34
Pharisaic recension of Ecclesiasticus, 256 f.
— and Sadducæan parties, 91 ff.
Pharisaism, 456
Pharisee, meaning of term, 130 ff.
Pharisees, 130-159, 203 f., 393, 412, 453 f.
— reject Apocalyptic Literature, 199
— and the Canon, 174 f.
— different from Scribes, 127
—, party of religious progress, 154
— and Sadducees, doctrines of, 139 ff.
—, sources of information concerning, 135 ff.
Pharaoh Necho, II, 51
Pharos, island of, 59
Plato, 17, 73, 458
Platonic philosophy, 13

Philip, the friend of Antiochus Epiphanes, 429

Philip of Macedon, 14
Philo, 61-65, 458, 463 f., 493
—, his account of the Essenes, 42
—, his doctrines due to Greek influence, 65
—, his doctrine of God, 63
— —, the Logos, 63 f.
— —, Sin, 64 f.
— on the Jews of Alexandria, 54
—, philosophy of, 63 ff.
Philometor, 328

Philosophical teaching of the Hellenistic period, 18

Philosophy, 16
Piety of individuals, 23
Pious ones, 93, 257
— — in the Psalms, 71-74
Piso, 520
Politics, 23
Polybius on the Hellenes, 20
— and the importance of the individual, 19
Pompey, 413
Posidonius, 41
Praise, 500
Prayer, 361
— of Manasses, 404-410
— —, date of, 409 f.
— —, origin of, 405 ff.
— —, original language of, 410
— —, writer of, 410
Prayers for the dead, 489

Pre-existence of the soul, Platonic doctrine of, 82

— —, doctrine of, in Wisdom, 80 ff.
Pre-existing matter, doctrine of, 458
Prologue to Ecclesiasticus, 124 f., 459
Proverbs, allegory in, 72
—, individualism in, 71 f.
—, marks of Hellenistic influence in, 71 ff.
—, universalism in, 72
Proverbs in ancient Jewish Literature, 228 f.
Providence, doctrine of, 458
Psalms of Greek and Maccabæan eras, 70 f.
—, Greek influence in some, 70, 71
— of Solomon, 214-216, 505 f.
Psametik I, 51
Pseudepigrapha, The, 189, 191, 200-223
Psychē, 81
Ptolemaic armies, Jewish soldiers in, 29
Ptolemais, 30, 432, 434
Ptolemy, house of, 28 f.
Ptolemy I, 462
Ptolemy II, (Philadelphus), 59
Ptolemy VI, (Philometor), 59, 434
Ptolemy, Antiochus Epiphanes’ general, 428
Pur, 400
Purifications of the Essenes, 45
Purim, Feast of, 487
Pythagoræans, 135
Rabbinical literature, 39
— sources on Pharisees and Sadducees, 137 ff.
Races, intermingling of, 22
Ram’s horn, 216
Ramathaim, 435
Raphael, 301, 359, 360, 363
Raphia, 30
Realism of the Greeks, 19
Reform in administration of justice, 393 f.
Relationship between God and men, 341 f.
Religious associations, 23
— liberty secured by the Maccabees, 431
— syncretism, 22 f.
— —, results of, 23
Renaissance, 17
Repentance, 342 f., 476
Resurrection, 292, 296, 298, 300, 337

—, advanced teaching on, in 2 Maccabees, 489 f.

— of the body, 39, 107
—, doctrine of, 39 f.
—, Essene teaching on, 44
— of the soul, 38
— of the spirit, 110

Retribution, doctrine of, in Apocalyptic Literature, 108

Rome, embassy to, 416
Roman alliance with the Jews, 420 f.
— empire, 13
Ruach, 82
Sabbath, 412, 487
— observance of the Essenes, 45
Sacrificial system, 226, 339
— —, importance of, minimized, 58
Sadducæan and Pharisaic parties, 91 ff.
— literary activity, 156 ff.
Sadducæanism, 456, 500, 501 f.
Sadducee, meaning of term, 132 ff.

Sadducees, 130-159, 203 f., 334, 393, 412, 453 f.

— and politics, 153 f.
—, friends of Hellenistic culture, 154
— and Pharisees, doctrines of, 139 ff.
—, sources of information concerning, 135 ff.
Samaria, 49, 50
—, Macedonian settlers in, 30
Samaritans, The, 120, 441
Sanhedrin, 145
Salathiel Apocalypse, The, 513 f.
Sapor I, 512
Sargon, 49
—, inscription of, 50
Sassanidæ, 512
Scepticism, 20, 469 f.
Sciences, differentiation of, 17
Scribe in Ecclesiasticus, 123 f.
Scribe, the ideal in Ecclesiasticus, 324
Scribes, The, 113-119, 161
— as lawyers, 126 f.
— different from Pharisees, 127
— in existence before the Exile, 114 f.
—, O.T. data concerning, 113 ff.
— and Scripture, 126
—, two types of, 115, 116, 124
Scythians, 512
Secrets of Enoch, Book of the, 220-222
Seleucid era, 491
Seleucidæ, 153
Seleucus, 34
—, his treatment of the Jews, 29
Seleucus IV (Philopator), 430
Selichah, 500
Semi-divine beings, 39
Sense of proportion a Hellenic trait, 18, 20
Separateness, 131
Sepharim hachizônim, 192, 198
Septuagint, The, 11, 15, 58-61
—, far-reaching influence of the, 61
Seven heavens, doctrine of, 221 f.
Seventh heaven, 83
Shammai, school of, 170
Shema, 503
Shemoneh Esreh, 391
Sheol, 40, 290 ff.
Sheol-conception, 109
Sibylline Oracles, The, 208-210
Sifre hamînîm, 192
Simeon, the high-priest, 328
—, Rabbi, 170
Simon ben Shetach, 393
— the son Onias, 167
— the Maccabee, 413, 414, 418, 421
—, leadership of, 436 ff.
—, murder of, 438
Sin, 523, 531
—, atonement for, 271 f.
—, doctrine of, in Baruch, 274
—, —, Ecclesiasticus, 267 ff.
—, —, 1 (3) Esdras, 274
—, —, 2 (4) Esdras, 274 ff.
—, —, 2 Maccabees, 274
—, —, Prayer of Azariah, 273
—, —, Prayer of Manasses, 273 f.
—, —, Tobit, 273
—, —, Wisdom, 276 f.
—, Philo’s doctrine of, 64 f.
Sisinnes, 441
Sôfēr, 113, 114
Soferim, 340
Solomon, 227, 456
—, Psalms of, 505 f.
Sōma, 81
Song of Songs, canonicity disputed, 170
Song of the Three Children, 386, 390 ff.
Sophia, 226
Sophists, 13
Spartans, 416 ff.
Spiritual body, 107
State processions, 33
Stoic enumeration of the human senses, 79
— philosophers, 18
— philosophy in Wisdom, 86 f.
Stoics, 19, 21, 135, 458
—, fatalistic philosophy of, 79
—, teaching of in Ecclesiastes, 74
Strabo on the Jews, 53
Superhuman beings, 39
Susanna, Story of, 386, 391 ff.
Syene, Jewish military colony in, 51
Syncretism, 22 f., 37, 38
— and the Jews of the Dispersion, 57
Syria, 12
Syrian slaves, 69
— throne, claimants to, 431 f.
Tabernacles, Feast of, 487, 491
Taboo, 178 ff.
Tahpanes, 51
Targums, 193
Tarphon, Rabbi, 192
Tehom Rabbah, 232
Teman, 497
Temple, The, 487
— Liturgy, 503
— not entered by the Essenes, 44
—, offerings sent to, by the Essenes, 44
—, profanation of, 482
Tendencies in pre-Maccabæan era, 91 f.
Testament of Moses, 218
Testament of the XII Patriarchs, The, 210-214
Tenak, 162
Thebes, 14
Theodosius, 13
Thracians, 14
Tiamat, 396
Tiberius, 520
—, edict of, regarding the Jews, 53 f.
—, Alexander, 520
Timotheus, 486
Tishri, 491
Titles of books, false, the reason, 200 f.
Titus, 520
Tobit, book of, 349-371
—, compared with Ecclesiasticus, 364 f.
—, contents of, 357 ff.
—, doctrinal development in, 363 ff.
—, date of the book of, 365 f.
—, for whom written, 366
—, integrity of, 366
—, original language of, 367 f.
—, place of origin of, 366

—, relationship to story of Achikar the Wise, 353 ff.

—, religious standpoint of the writer of, 360 ff.

—, value of for N.T. study, 368 ff.
Tolerance, 22
Torah identified with Wisdom, 78 f.
Trajan, 522
Transcendence, divine, 39
Truth, 452
Tryphon, 435 f.
Tubieni Jews, 486
Tyche, 23
Tyre, Ladder of, 435
Uncanonical books, 183-223
— —, reading of, 192 ff.
Universalism, 122, 161
— in Ecclesiasticus, 338
— in Proverbs, 72
— in Tobit, 362
Unknown gods, 23
Uriel, 523
Vespasian, 520
Vindex, 520

Vision of the Man rising from the Sea, 513 f., 515 ff.

— of Isaiah, The, 219

Visions in 2 (4) Esdras, their teaching, 527 f.

— —, eschatological teaching in, 528
Visitation of the sick, 347
Vitellius, 520
Widdui, 500
Wisdom, 72, 496 f., 504
— abiding among men, 242 f., 246
— in the book of Job, 238
— in the book of Proverbs, 236
— and the Creation, 237 f.
—, conception of in Job, 74
—, divine origin of, 243
— of Ea, 231
— in Ecclesiastes, 238 ff.
— in Ecclesiasticus, 240 ff.
— existent before the Creation, 241, 244
—, fountain of, 496
—, Hebrew conception of, 226 ff.
—, hypostatization of, 226
—, —, in Proverbs, 73
—, ideal of, among Greeks, 19
— identified with the Holy Spirit, 244
— — Law, 241, 244
— — Torah, 78 f.
— — the Word, 244
— as intermediary, 259
— of Israel, superiority of, 338
—, Jewish conception of, 233 ff.
—, Jewish superior to Greek, 243
— Literature, The, 224-250
—, nature of, 245
—, personification of, 235, 242, 246

—, takes the place of angels in book of Wisdom, 304

—, teaching on, in Apocalyptic books, 245 ff.
Wisdom, authorship of, 455 ff.
—, —, composite, 464 ff.
—, book of, 455-478
—, —, date, 459 ff.
—, —, Greek philosophy in, 458
—, —, influence of, on St. Paul, 474 ff.
—, —, personality of author, 457 f.
—, —, purposes of, 469 ff.
—, —, title, 455 f.
—, —, traces of Greek influence in, 80 ff.
—, —, written in opposition,
—, —, to Ecclesiastes, 456 f.
Word, The, 237
Worm, 289
Xenophon, 14
Xerxes, 51
Yeshibah, 195
Yetzer, 336
Yetzer-ha-ra’, 275, 276
Zabinas, Alexander, 436
Zaddūkim, 132 f., 204
Zadok, 134, 135, 148, 149, 150, 340
—, the son of Ahitub, 113
—, sons of, 33

Zadokite Fragments, The, 135, 140, 145, 147, 149, 151, 152

Zealotism, 218
Zend, 133
Zeno, 19, 21
Zenobia, 512
Zerubbabel, 120, 441, 452 f.
Zindīk, 133
Zoroaster, 186
Zoroastrianism, 133, 252

INDEX OF PASSAGES FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT

| PAGE
Genesis |
i., | 237
ii. 7, | 75, 83
x. 2, | 68
xvi. 1 ff., | 148
xxviii. 10, | 148
Exodus |
i.-xii., | 216
xiv. 19, | 304
xix. 6, | 148
“   22, | 180
Numbers |
v. 1-3, | 178
xix. 11-13, 16 ff., | 358
xx. 16, | 148
xxii. 22 ff., | 148
Leviticus |
vi. 24-28, | 175
“   27-30, | 178
xi. 32, | 180
“   32-40, | 178
xiv. 1 ff., | 178
xv. 1 ff., | 178
xvi. 26-28, | 178
xviii. 19, | 178
xxv., | 216
Deuteronomy |
iv. 6, | 233
xviii. 18, | 282
xix. 19, | 393
xxi. 10-14, | 178
xxiii. 18, | 180
xxxiii. 1, | 300
Judges |
ix. 8-15, | 229, 230
1 Samuel |
x. 12, | 228
xxiv. 13, | 228
xxv. 29, | 83
2 Samuel |
v. 8, | 228
viii. 17, | 113
xii. 1-4, | 230
xx. 18, | 228
“   25, | 113
1 Kings |
iv. 30, | 231
“   30-34, | 227
“   32, | 166
x. 1-9, | 227
xvii. 17-24, | 290
2 Kings |
xii. 11, | 113
xiv. 9, | 230
xvii. 6, | 50
“   23, | 50
xviii. 11, | 50
“    18, | 113
xxiii. 29-34, | 51
xxiv., xxv., | 377
xxiv. 12-16, | 497
“    14-16, | 50
xxv. 9, | 497
“   11-21, | 50
“   19, | 114
“   22, | 377
1 Chronicles |
i. 5-7, | 68
ii. 55, | 118
v. 27-41, | 134
vi. 4-15, | 148
“  50-53, | 148
xv. 11, | 134
xvi., | 134
“   4, 5, | 167
xxi. 15, 16, | 304
xxiv. 6, | 148
2 Chronicles |
xiii. 22, | 193
xxiv. 11, | 113
“    17, | 193
xxxiii. 6, | 408
“   11, | 407
“   12, 13, | 405
“   18, 19, | 405, 407
xxxiv. 13, | 119
xxxv., xxxvi. 1-21, | 440
xxxvi. 17-21, | 446
“     22, 23, | 440 f.
Ezra |
i. 1 ff., | 446
“ 1-11, | 440 f.
ii. 1-iv. 5, 24, | 441
“  39, | 120
“  61-63, | 120
iii. 8 ff., | 446
iv. 1-5, 24, | 120, 446 f.
“  6-23, | 446 f.
“  7, | 193
“  7-24, | 441 f.
v. 1-vi. 22, | 441
vi. 1 ff., | 447
“  13 ff., | 447
vii-x., | 449
“   1-x. 44, | 441 f.
“   1 ff., | 447
“   6, | 116, 118
“   10, | 28, 116
vii. 11, 12, 21, | 117
“   25, | 117
ix. 1, 2, | 28, 120
x. 11, 17, | 28
“ 15, | 121
“ 18-44, | 121
Nehemiah |
i. 1-7, 72, | 447
ii. 1 ff., | 447
“  19, | 120
iv. 1 ff., | 120
vi. 10-14, | 121
“ 17, 19, | 121
vii. 6-73, | 441
“  73-viii. 22, | 442, 447, 449
viii.-x., | 117
“   2, 3, | 117
“   7-9, | 117
“   8, | 118, 132
“   13-15, | 117
x. 28 ff., | 122
xiii. 4 ff., | 122
“   15 ff., | 122
“   23, 24, | 121
xiv. 28, | 121
Esther |
ii. 21-23, | 400
iii. 7, | 399
“ 12, | 114
“ 13, | 401
iv. 16, | 402
v. 1, 2, | 402
“ 3 ff., | 402
viii. 8 ff., | 402
“   9, | 114
“   12, | 402
ix. 24-32, | 400
“   31, | 402
Job |
v. 1, | 300
ix. 12-19, | 459
xi. 5, 6, | 238
xv. 8, | 238
“  15, | 254
xxviii. 12-14, | 246
“     12-28, | 74, 238
“     28, | 234
xxxviii. 12-28, | 249
Psalms |
xviii., | 287
xxxiii. 6, 9, | 237
xxxvi. 6, | 232
xlv. 2, | 114
lxxxix. 7, | 300
xc.-cl., | 70
xc. 4, | 221
civ. 1 ff., 4, | 301
cxi. 6, | 234
cxv. 4-8, | 507
cxix. 97, | 263
cxlviii. 5, | 237
cxlix. 1-9, | 125
Proverbs |
i.-ix., | 71, 74
“ 7, | 234
ii. 17-19, | 72
viii. 4, | 71
viii. 15, 16, 17, | 72
“   22-31, | 73, 236, 237
“   26-30, | 232
“   31-36, | 242
ix. 1-6, | 242
“  4-6, | 71
“  10, | 234
xv. 33, | 234
xxii. 24, | 236
Ecclesiastes |
i. 11, | 457
“ 13, | 240
“ 13-18, | 239
ii. 11, | 457
“  13-16, | 239
“  16, | 457
“  23, 24, | 457
iii. 1-8, | 74
“  18, 19, | 74
“  19, 22, | 457
v. 1, 18, | 457
vi. 3-8, | 240
“  12, | 457
vii. 11, 12, | 240
“  25, | 240
viii. 1, | 240
“   8, | 457
ix. 1 ff., 16, | 240
“  2, 7, 8, | 75, 457
“  5, | 240, 457
“  13-16, | 239
xii. 7, | 457
“  11, 12, | 193
“  12, | 168
“  17, | 74
Isaiah |
ii. 4a, | 286
iii. 10, | 459
iv. 5, 6, | 286
v. 1-4, | 230
ix. 12 (Septuagint), | 69
xi. 2, | 233
“  11, | 51
xix. 11-15, | 231
xxiv. 14, 15, | 69
xxviii. 5, 6, | 286
xl. 10, | 286
xliv. 20, | 459
xlix. 9-19, | 507
“   23, | 286
lix. 16, 17, | 286, 475
lxii. 3, | 286
lxvi. 19, | 69
“   20, | 516
Jeremiah |
viii. 9, 10, | 114 f.
x. 1-16, | 507
xviii. 18, | 114, 233
xxvi. 16 (Septuagint), | 69
xxix. 1, 4 ff., | 506 f.
xxxiii. 29, | 229
xxxv. 6-10, | 119
xxxvi., | 114 f.
“   10-12, | 119
xxxix., xl., | 377
xl. 5, | 377
xlii., xliii., | 51
xliv. 1, | 51
l. 35, | 231
li. 57, | 231
lii. 15, 28-30, | 50
“  25, | 114
Ezekiel |
xiv. 20, | 167
xvii. 3-8, | 231
xviii. 2, | 229
xxiv. 3-5, | 231
xxvii. 9, 13, | 68
xxxvi. 1-10, | 231
xlii. 16-19, | 162
xliv. 15 ff., | 148
“   19, | 180
Daniel |
iii. 5, 7, 10-15, | 70
“  23, 24, | 386 f.
v. 13 f., | 497
“ 26-28, | 119
viii. 21, | 69
ix. 4-19, | 389, 498
x. 20, | 69
xi. 2, | 69
xii. 4, 9, | 186
Hosea |
viii. 7, | 229
xiv. 10, | 233
Joel |
iii. (Hebr. iv.) 6-8, | 68
Haggai |
i., ii., | 453
“  12, 14, | 454
ii. 2, 4, | 454
“  10 ff., | 123
“  11-13, | 175
Zechariah |
iv., | 453 f.
“  6, | 453
Malachi |
i. 10-16, | 122
iv. 6, | 346

INDEX OF PASSAGES FROM THE APOCRYPHA

| PAGE
Ecclesiasticus |
i. 1, | 240
“ 1-20, | 346
“ 4, | 241
“ 12, | 256 f., 306
“ 14, | 234, 278
“ 15, | 242
“ 15, 20, 27, | 234
“ 26, 78, | 242, 347
iii. 30, | 272
iv. 1-6, | 348
“  17, | 242
“  26, | 348
v. 9-vi. 1, | 323
“ 11, | 347
“ 13, 14, | 348
vi. 5-17, | 323
“ 19, | 348
“ 28-31, | 242
vii. 17, | 289
“   18, | 323
“   29-31, | 361
“   35, 36, | 347 f.
viii. 3, | 348
“   5, | 267
“   12, 13, | 323
x. 11, | 288, 337
xi. 14, | 343 f.
“  19, | 346
xii. 7, | 82
“   8-18, | 323
“   18, | 347
xiv. 1, | 348
“   14, 20, | 459
“   20-xvi. 23, | 322 f.
xv. 1, | 123, 241, 260
“  11, 12, | 79
“  11-13, | 268, 309, 347
“  14-17, | 336
xvi. 1-5, | 323
“   17-23, | 335 f.
“   19, | 341
xvii. 4, | 79
“   9, | 167
“   17, | 279, 342
“   22, | 343
“   20, | 257, 306
“   26a, | 257
“   27, 28, | 288, 337, 363
“   31, | 270
xviii. 1-14, | 362
“    2, | 341
“    8-14, | 338
“    15-18, | 361
“    21, | 343
“    22, | 272, 291, 342
xix. 5, | 344
“  16, | 348
“  17, | 291, 342
“  20, | 241, 261
xx. 2, | 343
“  31, | 279, 342
xxi. 2, 3, | 269
“  9, 10, | 289
“  10, | 291
“  11, | 241
“  27, 28, | 269
xxii. 3-6, | 323
“   11, | 288
“   19-26, | 323
“   27, | 267
xxiii. 3 ff., | 267
“   7-15, | 323
“   8, | 271
“   27, | 341
xxiv. 3, | 241
“   5, | 232
“   6-16, | 338
“   7 f., | 262
“   7-12, | 242, 308
“   9, | 241
“   12, | 262
“   19, 20, | 242
“   23, | 256, 260, 341
“   23, 25, | 241
“   30-32, | 167
“   30-34, | 325
“   33, 34, | 167
xxv. 24, | 269
“   28, | 348
xxviii. 2, | 346
“     6, | 261, 363
“     10, | 346
“     11, 12, | 348
“     13-26, | 323
“     16-18, | 348
xxix. 1-20, | 323
“   19, | 344
“   21-28, | 323
xxx. 17, | 288
“   21-25, | 79
xxxi. 3, | 346
“   8, | 260
“   21-23, | 261, 272
“   25, 26, | 262
“   31, | 272
xxxii. 3-8, | 80
“   15-17, | 339
“   15-24, | 261
xxxiii. 13-15, | 309, 336 f.
“     16-18, | 325
“     19-23, | 323
xxxiv. 8, | 125
“     10-12, | 326
“     18-26, | 339
“     22, | 348
“     25, 26, | 362
xxxv. 1-3, | 339
“   1-11, | 361
xxxvi. 1-5, | 338
“     13-15, | 268
“     17, | 338
xxxvii. 1-6, | 323
“     3, | 268
“     17, 18, | 336
xxxviii. 11, | 272
“     13, | 288
“     16-23, | 337
“     24-xxxix. 3, | 324
xxxix. 1-3, | 324, 326
“     1-11, | 123
“     4, | 326
“     6, | 278
“     12 ff., | 325
“     18-31, | 315, 304
xl. 11, | 363
xli. 3, 4, | 337
xlii. 2, | 261
“  15, | 237
“  15-xliii., | 254, 306
“  16, | 254, 300, 314, 364
xliii. 26, | 301, 364
“   28-32, | 255
xliv.-l., | 165
“    24, | 324
“    16, | 343
“    20, | 261
xlv. 5, | 165
“  5, 17, | 261
“  14-16, | 361
“  23, | 273
“  23-25, | 149
xlvi. 1, | 165
“    11, 12, 13, | 165
“    14, | 261
“    19, | 288
xlvii. 2-7, 8-10, 17, 20, | 166
“   22, | 281
xlviii. 3, | 348
“     5, | 291
“     11, | 289 f.
“     24, | 165
xlix., | 328
“   4, | 165
“   6, 8, 10, | 166
“   9, | 166, 459
l. 1 ff., | 167, 328
“  29, | 167, 195
li. 1-12, | 326 f.
“  12, | 281, 340, 391
“  13, | 326
“  23-28, | 325
Tobit |
i.-iii., | 357 f.
“   3, | 356, 370
“   3-iii. 6, | 368
“   6, | 263
“   6-8, | 360 f.
“   7, | 263
“   21, 22, | 354
ii. 1, | 263
“  1-9, | 361
“  5, | 263
“  8, | 362
“  11-14, | 358
iii. 1-6, | 290, 358
“  6, | 363
“  7, | 301
“  8, 17, | 304 f., 364
“  10, 11, | 363
“  16, 17, | 301, 305, 359, 363
iv.-xi., | 359
iv. 3, | 263
“  3-21, | 359
“  5, | 278
“  6-11, | 262 f.
“  7, 8, 9, | 369 f.
“  10, | 273, 290, 355, 361, 363 f.
“  12, | 355, 370
“  15, | 369 f.
“  16, | 361, 370
“  17, 18, | 355 f.
“  19, | 271
“  21, | 370
v.-vi. 2, | 359
“   13, | 263
vi. 2-9, | 359
“  3, | 366
“  7-9, 14, 16-18, | 364
“  10-18, | 301, 360
“  12, | 263
“  17, | 305
vii., viii., | 360
vii. 13, 14, | 263
viii. 2, 3, | 364
“  3, | 305, 370
“  5, | 363
“  15, | 301, 314
ix., | 360
x. 1-7a, | 360
“  7b-xi. 8, | 360
xi. 14, | 363
“  18, | 354
xii.-xiv., | 360
“  6, | 363
“  7, | 356
“  8, | 262, 361
“  8-10, | 369
“  9, | 273, 363 f.
“  10, | 370
“  12, | 301, 370
“  12-14, | 363
“  15, | 301, 363
xiii. 1-8, | 365
“   2, | 290, 363
“   3, 4, | 366
“   6, | 366, 370
“   7-11, | 362
“   7-18, | 282
“   16-18, | 370 f.
“   18, | 363
xiv. 3-7, | 365
“  4-6, | 282, 362
“  4, 15, | 356
“  6, | 255
“  10, | 354
Judith |
i. 9, | 372
ii. 1 ff., | 377
“  21-iii. 10, | 373
iv. 1-8, | 373
“  2, 3, | 377, 381
“  6-8, | 377
“  9-15, | 381
“  13, | 381
v., vi., | 373
“   19, | 381
vii., | 374
viii., | 374 f.
“   5, 6, | 263, 381
“   20, 21, 24, | 381
“   31, | 381
ix. 1, 8, 13, 14, | 381
x.-xii. 9, | 376
“    3, 5, | 381
xi. 12, 13, | 263 f.
“  12-15, 17, | 381
xii. 1-9, 19, | 381
xii. 6, 7, 9, | 381
“  10-xiii. 10, | 376
xiii. 3, 4, 7, 10, | 381
“   6, | 162
“   11-xv. 13, | 377
xiv. 10, | 381
xvi. 2-17, | 264, 308, 377
“   17, | 290, 381
“   18-25, | 377
“   18, | 264
“   20, 24, | 381

The Additions to
the Book of Daniel

Pr. of Azar. |
1, 23-27, | 386
2-22, | 386 ff.
5, 9, | 388
12, | 273
14, 15, | 389
26, 27, | 301
Song of Three Children. |
28, | 390
64-68, | 390
Susannah. |
44, 45, | 301 f.
45, | 394
55, 59, 62, | 302
62a, | 393
Bel and the Dragon. |
28, 32, | 397
33-39a, | 397
34-39, | 302
39b, 41, | 397
The Additions to Esther |
x. 4-13, | 402 f.
“  4-xi. 1, | 402 f.
xi. 1, | 403
“  2-xii. 6, | 400
xiii. 1-7, | 400 f.
“   8-17, | 401
“   8-xiv. 19, | 401 f.
“   18, | 401
xv. 1-16, | 402
“  13, | 302
xvi. 1-24, | 402
Prayer of Manasses |
4, 7, 13, | 409
8, | 273, 409
8-13, | 274
10, | 407
12, | 291
15, | 302
1 Maccabees |
i. 1-9, | 424
“ 10-64, | 486
“ 10-ii. 70, | 424 ff.
“ 11 f., | 32, 76
“ 11-15, | 388 f.
“ 13, | 77
“ 15, | 425
“ 20, 21, | 425
“ 20-24, | 398
“ 41-64, | 398
“ 43, | 426
“ 43, 44, | 125
“ 44-49, | 425 f.
ii. 4, 6, | 411
“  41, | 412
“  44-47, | 427
“  52 ff., | 412
“  54, | 149
iii. 1-ix. 22, | 427 ff.
“  18 ff., | 257, 306, 412
“  25, 26, | 427
iv. 1-24, | 415
“  10 ff., | 258, 412
“  46, | 282
v. 1-68, | 485
“ 10-13, | 416
“ 15, | 416
vi. 8-17, | 491
“  14, 15, | 429
“  28-54, | 415
“  49, 50, | 485
“  56, | 429
vii. 1 ff., | 485
“  12, 13, | 125
“  26-50, | 415
“  50, | 430
viii. 23-32, | 420 f.
“   32, | 430 f.
ix. 1-22, | 415
“  22, | 416
“  23-xii. 53, | 431 ff.
“  32-53, | 415
“  43 ff., 46, | 412
“  43-49, | 431
“  54-57, | 134
“  58-73, | 432
“  73, | 431
x. 4, | 433
“ 18-20, | 419
“ 25-45, | 419
“ 26-45, | 433
“ 30-37, | 419 f.
“ 48 ff., | 433
“ 59-66, | 415
“ 89, | 434
xi.-xiii, | 418 f.
“   21, | 35
“   37, | 416
“   57, | 420
xii. 1-5, | 416
“   6-18, | 416, 421
“   7-9, | 418
“   10, 13, | 417
“   14-18, | 417
“   15, | 419
“   20-23, | 418
xiii. 1-xvi. 24, | 436 ff.
“     25, 30, | 413
“     29, | 421
“     36-40, | 420, 436
xiv. 4-15, | 414
“   5, | 421
“   16, | 421, 422
“   17-23, | 422
“   18, 27, 48 f., | 416, 418
“   20-22, | 421
“   24, | 421
“   27-47, | 418
“   30, 35, | 134
“   41 ff., 134, 282 f., | 433
xv. 6-21, | 422 f.
“  9, 10, | 437
“  27, | 437
xvi. 14-17, | 438
“   22, 24, | 438
“   23, 24, | 413, 416
1 (3) Esdras |
i. 1-58, | 440
ii. 1 ff., | 447, 448
“ 1-15, | 440 f.
“ 15-25, | 447, 448
“ 16-30, | 441 f., 448
iii. 1-12, | 451
“   1-v. 6, | 441 ff., 445, 447, 451 ff.
“   13-17, | 451
“   17b-24, | 451 f.
iv. 1-12, | 452
“   13, | 453
“   13-57, | 452 f.
“   29 ff., | 443
“   58-63, | 453
v. 1-6, | 453
v. 4-6, | 441
“ 7-73, | 441, 447
vi. 1-vii. 15, | 441
viii. 1 ff., | 448
“   1-ix. 36, | 441 f.
ix. 37-55, | 442
The Book of Wisdom |
i.-xi. 1, | 259
“   1, | 467
“   1-5, | 281
“   4-7, | 244
“   6-11, | 470
“   7, | 86
“   12 ff., | 84, 277 f.
“   12-16, | 280 f.
“   13-15, | 468
“   15, | 84
ii.-v., | 462
“ -xi., | 465
“  1-9, | 457
“  1-20, | 470
“  7-9, | 471 f.
“  10-20, | 460 ff.
“  12, | 266 f., 459
“  15, | 462
“  21-24, | 471
“  23, 24, | 474, 477
“  24, | 305
iii. 1, 9, | 284
“  1-9, | 285, 298 f., 471
“  8, | 285, 299, 474
“  10 ff., | 299, 471 f.
iv. 1, | 237
“  19, | 300
“  20, | 472
v., | 468
“ 1-14, | 299, 472
“ 2, | 300
“ 15 ff., | 286 f., 299 f.
“ 17-20, | 474 f.
vi. 1, | 467
“  2, | 462
“  4, | 267
“  5-9, | 460
“  17-20, | 471 f.
“  19, | 84
vii.-ix., | 469
“   17, | 475
“   19, 20, | 80
“   22-24, | 86, 458
“   22-viii. 1, | 465, 468, 477
“   25, 26, | 243
“   27, | 86, 259
viii. 1, | 86
“   1, 8, | 259
“   4, | 244
“   6, | 465
“   7, | 87, 458
“   17, 18, | 298
“   19, | 458
“   19, 20, | 277
ix. 1, 2, 4, 17, | 244
“   1-6, | 468
“   6, | 243 f.
“   10, 11, | 259
“   15, | 458, 476
“   15, 16, | 84
x. 1 ff., | 465
“ 7, | 477
“ 16 ff., | 473
“ 17, 18, | 304
xi. 1, | 467
“   1 ff., | 473
“   2-xix., | 465
“   17, | 85, 458
“   23, | 476
“   23-26, | 468
xii., | 477
“   10, 11, | 277, 310
“   12, | 459
“   19, | 462, 468
“   22 ff., | 457 f.
xiii., xiv., | 477
“   -xv., | 472 f.
“   1, | 466
“   2, 3, | 475 f.
“   10-19, | 507
xiv., | 458, 462
“   1 ff., | 259 f.
“   2, | 466
“   3, | 458
“   6-20, | 462
“   7, | 464
“   16, 17, | 462
xv. 1, | 466
“   2, 8, | 81, 83
“   3, | 84
“   7, | 476 f.
“   10, | 459
“   13-17, | 507
“   18, 19, | 458
xvi.-xix., | 473
“    1, 9, | 458
“    7, | 468
xvii. 21, | 300
“   24, | 249
xviii. 4, | 458
“   15, | 244
“   15, 16, | 304
xix. 5, | 462
“  18-21, | 87, 475
2 Maccabees |
i.-ii. 18, | 490 ff.
“   1-9, | 490 ff.
“   8, 9, | 264
“   9, 18, | 487
“   13-17, | 491
“   20-22, | 492
“   27, | 283
“   31-34, | 492
ii. 1-12, | 492
“ 16, | 487
“ 18, | 283
“ 19, 20, | 487
“ 19-32, | 479, 481
“ 22, | 487
“ 24, 25, | 480
“ 30-31, | 479
iii. 1 ff., | 508
“   1-39, | 481
“   1-iv. 6, | 486
“   12, | 487
“   15-39, | 493
“   22-30, | 489
“   24 ff., | 302 f.
“   40-iv. 50, | 482
iv. 7-17, | 34, 35
“  7-vii. 41, | 486
“  13-17, | 264, 488
“  20, | 35
v. 1.-vii. 42, | 482
“     15, | 487
“     20, | 493
“     22, | 485
vi., vii. | 494
“    1-11, | 35
“    11, | 487
“    12-16, | 274, 484, 487, 493
“    19, 28, | 494
“    23-28, | 493
“    26, | 292
vii., | 493
“  1, 7, 9, 14, | 494
“  9, | 264, 292
“  9, 11, 14, | 489
“  10, 11, | 292
“  11, 22, 23, | 484, 487
“  14, | 292
“  23, 29, | 292, 494
“  36, | 292
viii. 1-36, | 482
“   19-26, | 493
“   23, | 176
“   26, | 487
ix. 1-29, | 482, 491
“   5, | 488
“   5-29, | 488
x. 1, | 488
“  1-3, | 487
“  1-8, | 482, 487 f.
“  5-8, | 487, 490 f.
“  6, | 494
“  6 f., | 487
“  9-38, | 482
“  14-38, | 485
“     29-31, | 489
“  35-37, | 486
“  37, | 485
xi. 1-38, | 482
“   6-11, | 303, 489
“   13, | 488
“   35 ff., | 494
xii. 1-xiii. 26, | 482
“     10-45, | 485
“     11, 28, | 488
“     31, 38, | 487
“     35, | 485
“     39-42, | 488
“     43-45, | 292, 484, 487, 489
xiii. 15, | 488
“   22, 23, | 485
xiv. 1 ff., | 485
“   1-xv. 36, | 482
“   6, | 125
“   46, | 292 f., 484, 487, 490
xv. 11-16, | 303, 484, 487
“   36, | 487
“   37-39, | 482

The Book of Baruch

i. 3, 4, | 496
“ -iii. 8, | 497 ff.
“    6-10, | 496
“    11-13, 14, | 496
“    15-ii. 12, | 496
“    15-iii. 8, | 389, 500 ff.
ii. 13-17, | 501
“  13-iii. 8, | 496
“  17, | 293, 502
“  19, | 274, 502
iii. 9-iv. 4, | 264 f., 309, 496 f., 503 f.
“  19, | 293
iv. 1 ff., | 265
“  3, 4, | 265
“  5-v. 9, | 258, 306, 497, 504 ff.
“  25, 31 ff., | 283
“  35, | 305
“  36, 37, | 505
“  36-v. 9, | 283
v. 1, 2, | 505
“ 7, 8, | 505 f.
Ep. of Jer. |
7, | 302

2 (4) Esdras

i., ii., | 509 ff.
iii.-ix., | 275
iii.-x., | 265, 283, 309, 311, 513 ff.
iii.-xiv., | 509
“   1, | 514
“   1-v. 19, | 522 ff.
“   19, | 266
“   20-22, | 275
“   21, 22, | 523
“   25, 26, | 275
“   29, | 514
iv. 1-11, | 303
“  10, 11, | 258, 524
“  11, | 294
“  21, | 524
“  30, | 266, 275
“  33-37, | 303
“  36, 37, | 98
v. 1-12, | 285 f.
“ 21-vi. 34, | 524
“ 39, | 304
“ 40, | 258 f.
vi. 32, | 101
“  35-ix. 25, | 524 ff.
“  38, | 237
“  59, | 525
vii. 21, | 304
“  26-31, | 297
“  26-44, | 525
“  28, 29, | 283 f.
“  32 ff., | 297
“  56-59, | 103
“  72, | 266
“  75, | 294
“  78-87, | 295
“  83, | 100
“  88, | 293, 296
“  88-99, | 295
“  96, | 293
“  100, | 293
“  101, | 294
“  102-105, | 102 f.
“  102-115, | 296
“  113, 114, | 296
“  118, | 275
“  125, | 101
“  130, | 303
viii. 29, | 100
“   35, | 276
“   38, 39, | 295
“   53, | 294
ix. 7-12, | 100
“  19, | 526
“  22, | 526
“  24, | 101
“  26-x. 59, | 526 f.
“  31-37, | 265
“  36, | 293
x. 27, | 527
“ 55-57, | 527
xi.-xii. 39, | 284, 312, 517 ff.
“     13-17, | 520
“     22, 24, | 520
“     34, 35, | 520
“     46, | 258
xii. 18, | 520
“  26, 27, | 519
“  32, | 284
“  34, | 285
“  36-38, | 186
xiii., | 284, 312, 515 ff.
“   8-13, | 285
“   25, 26, | 284
“   31 f., | 517
“   48, 49, | 517
“   52, | 517
xiv., | 284, 312
“   9, | 284
“   22, 26, | 529
“   44-47, | 187, 191
xv., xvi., | 509, 511 f.
“   5-27, | 511
“   10-12, | 512
“   28-33, | 512
“   28-xvi. 17, | 511
“   34 ff., | 512
“   46, | 512
xvi. 18-78, | 511

INDEX OF PASSAGES FROM THE
PSEUDEPIGRAPHA

| PAGE
The Book of Enoch |
i. 8, | 96
v. 4, | 99, 100
i.-xxxvi., | 206
vi.-xxxvi., | 207
x. 16, | 102
x. 21, | 103
xi. 1, 2, | 104
xx. 8, | 303
xxxii. 3, | 245
xxxvii. 1-4, | 246
xxxvii.-lxxi., | 205, 208
xlii. 1, 2, | 246
xlv. 3, | 106
xlviii. 3, 4, | 106
“   4, | 104
“   7, | 106
xlix. 1, | 104
“   3, | 246
l. 2-5, | 104
li. 2, 3, | 106
“  3, | 246
lxi. 8, | 106
lxix. 6, | 269
“   11, | 207
“   27-29, | 106
lxxii.-lxxxii., | 206
“   1, | 204
“   2, 3, | 246
lxxxii. 4-7, | 204
lxxxiv. 3, | 246
“     6, | 102
xc. 30, | 104
xci.-civ., | 207
“   10, | 245
“   14, | 104
xcii. 7, 8, | 97
xciii. 12-17, | 206
xciv. 5, | 246
xcix. 2, | 100
“   10, | 246
“   14, | 100
cii. 6-8, | 107, 205
ciii. 1-8, | 108, 109
civ. 1, | 102
cviii. 1, | 186
“   7, | 101
Sibylline Oracles |
iii. 271, | 53
“   276 ff., | 100
“   702-726, | 104
“   798-806, | 210
v. 260-285, | 210
“ 414 ff., | 106
Test. XII Patr. |
Sim. vi. 7, | 213
Levi ii. 2, | 104
“   viii. 14, | 212
“   xiv. 2, | 213
“     “   3, 4, | 104
“ xviii. 10, 11, | 109
Jud. xxiv. 1, | 106
“     “    5, 6, | 212
Naph. iv. 5, | 212
Gad v. 3, | 214
“   vi. 3-7, | 214
Psalms of Solomon |
v. 4, | 216
ix. 6, | 216
xi. 3, | 505
“   5-7, | 505 f.
“   8, | 505 f.
xvii. 23 ff., | 215
xvii., xviii., | 106
Book of Jubilees |
v. 13 ff., | 103
vi. 3, | 151
“  4 ff., | 151
Assumption of Moses |
i. 12, | 103
“ 16-18, | 187
ix. 6, | 101
x., | 219
Ascension of Isaiah |
ii. 1-iii. 12, | 220
iii. 13-v. 1, | 220
v. 2-14, | 220
vi.-xi., | 220
x., | 219
Secrets of Enoch |
xxx. 8, | 247
xxxiii. 3, | 247
xliii. 2, | 247
lix. 2., | 221
lxviii. 2, | 186
Syr. Apoc. of Baruch |
xiv. 19, | 114
xix. 3, | 100
lix. 2, | 100
lxvii. 5, | 104
lxxxv. 9, | 103
Letter of Aristeas |
12, 13, | 57
121, 122, | 56
4 Maccabees |
xviii. 12, | 149

INDEX OF PASSAGES FROM THE
NEW TESTAMENT

St. Matthew |
iii. 7, | 145
iv. 16, | 369
v. 17-20, | 141
vi. 1-6, | 369
“  14, | 346
“  19-21, | 369
vii. 7, | 511
“  12, | 369
xi. 19, | 346 f.
xv. 1-20, | 141
xvi. 1, | 145
xviii. 15, | 214
xxii. 23 ff., | 147
“   37-39, | 214
xxiii. 4-26, | 121
“     15, | 131
“     37, | 511
xxiv. 22, | 511
xxv. 13, 32, | 511
“   35, 36, | 369
“   39, | 347
xxviii. 39, | 347
St. Mark |
ii. 16, | 127
iv. 2, | 192
vii. 1-23, | 141
ix. 48, | 289, 312
St. Luke |
i. 7, | 346
v. 30, | 127
vi. 31, | 369
vii. 35, | 347
xi. 37-54, | 141
“  50, 51, | 511
xii. 19, 20, | 346
xvii. 3, | 214
St. John |
i. 1-3, | 238
Acts |
iv. 1, | 147
v. 1 ff., | 145
ix. 36, | 370
x. 4, | 370
xii. 15, | 148
xvii. 23, | 23
xix. 9, | 195
xxiii. 1-10, | 145
“    8, | 147, 148, 158
“    9, | 127
Romans |
i. 2, | 176
ii. 4, | 476
v. 12, | 474
vi. 23, | 370
ix. 19-23, | 476 f.
xi. 32, | 476
1 Corinthians |
ii. 6-16, | 477
v. 12, 13, | 192
vi. 2, 3, | 474
xv. 21, 22, | 474
xvi. 2, | 370
“   41-44, | 512
2 Corinthians |
v. 1, 4, | 476
viii. 12, | 370
ix. 9, | 369
Galatians |
iv. 3, | 475
“  8, 9, | 475 f.
vi. 16, | 162
Ephesians |
v. 18, | 370
vi. 11-20, | 474 f.
Colossians |
ii. 8, | 475
“ 20, | 475
iv. 5, | 192
1 Thessalonians |
iv. 3, | 370
“  12, | 192
1 Timothy |
i. 17, | 370
vi. 6, | 370
“  19, | 370
2 Timothy |
iii. 15, | 176
Hebrews |
v. 12, | 476
xi. 37, | 220
“  38, | 494
St. James |
i. 5, | 347
“ 13, 14, | 347
“ 19, | 347
iii. 2, | 348
“  5, 6, | 348
“  8, | 348
“  10, | 348
v. 4, | 348
“ 7, | 348
“ 16, 17, | 348
2 Peter |
iii. 8, | 221
“  10, 12, | 476
St. Jude |
14, 15, | 208
Revelation |
xx. 2, | 370
xxi. 10-21, | 371

INDEX OF PASSAGES FROM
RABBINICAL LITERATURE

Mishnah |
Aboth i. 9, | 393
“    ii. 4, | 132
Eduyoth v. 3, | 170
Jadaim iii. 2, 5, | 175
“    iii. 5, | 170
“    iv. 5, 6, | 175
Niddah iv. 2, | 131
Sanhedrin vi. 2, | 392
“     x. 1, | 192
Talmud |
Jebamoth 49b, | 194
Sanhedrin 11a, | 173
“     90b, | 147
“     100a, | 173
“     100b, | 340

Shabbath
(Talm. Jer.) xvi.,

193

Yoma 21b, | 173
Midrash |
Sifre 143b, | 83

Printed for Robert Scott, Publisher, Paternoster Row, London, E.C., by Butler & Tanner, Frome.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] His first victory was in B.C. 334 on the river Granicus, where he overcame the generals of Darius. In 333 came the decisive victory at Issus, when Darius himself was defeated. In 332 Alexander marched victoriously down the coast of Syria. In 331 he became master of Egypt; and later in the same year he inflicted a crushing defeat again on Darius, taking Babylon and Susa. In 330 he continued his victories in Persia. During the next five years he was occupied in the further east, fighting with invariable success. He died suddenly in 323.

[2] Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, pp. 4 ff.

[3] See, e.g., Wendland, Op. cit., pp. 2-11, and the works of Wilamovitz referred to by him.

[4] The House of Seleucus, I, p. 17.

[5] Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (1st ed.), p. 294.

[6] The Philology of the Greek Bible, p. 61. See also an interesting article by M. F. Jones, “The Language of the New Testament,” in the Church Quarterly Review, October, 1913, pp. 113-133.

[7] Cp. Krüger, Op. cit., p. 9.

[8] Cp. Wendland, Op. cit., p. 54.

[9] The city was founded in B.C. 331.

[10] Zeno, the founder of the Stoic school, was born in B.C. 342, and died in B.C. 270. Cp. Bevan, Stoics and Sceptics, Lecture ii. pp. 47-81.

[11] Cp. Wendland, Op. cit., p. 49.

[12] Bevan, The House of Seleucus, pp. 9, 10.

[13] Cp. Wendland, Op. cit., p. 107.

[14] B.C. 341-270, his lifetime thus coincided almost exactly with that of Zeno.

[15] This had, it is true, to some extent taken place in earlier times as well; but not in the way in which it was done during the Hellenistic period, of which it was characteristic.

[16] Cp. Kaerst, Op. cit., II, i. pp. 279 ff.

[17] See Kaerst, Op. cit., II, i. p. 279; and on the general subject, Rev. G. Friedländer, Hellenism and Christianity, chap. II.

[18] Wendland, Op. cit., p. 128, where references to original authorities will be found. We are reminded of Acts xvii. 23, where St. Paul speaks of an altar which he had seen with the inscription: “To an unknown god.” On the whole subject of altars dedicated to “unknown gods” an immense deal of valuable matter will be found in Norden’s Agnostos Theos, pp. 31-124 (1913).

[19] Ezra vii. 10, x. 11.

[20] See Ezra ix. 1, 2.

[21] Cp. Ezra x. 17.

[22] Cheyne, Job and Solomon, p. 181.

[23] It may be well to recall here the following facts; at the death of Alexander in B.C. 323 his empire was divided thus among his generals: Antigonus obtained the provinces of Greater Phrygia, Lycia, and Pamphylia; Seleucus, Babylonia; Ptolemy, Egypt; Lysimachus, the Hellespont; and Cassander, Macedonia (cp. Josephus, Antiq., XII. i. 1). Incessant wars, however, went on among these rulers. But in B.C. 302 an alliance against Antigonus was made, or rather renewed, by the four other kings; and in the following year, as a result of the battle of Ipsus, the kingdom of Antigonus (he, in common with the other rulers, had assumed the title of king) came to a final end. The victorious allies divided his kingdom among themselves thus: Seleucus got Syria proper; Lysimachus, a large portion of Asia Minor; Cassander, Macedonia and Greece; while to the Egyptian kingdom of Ptolemy was added Cœle-Syria (not, however, without a protest from Seleucus), which remained in the possession of the Ptolemys for a century; it was finally conquered by Antiochus III (the Great), through his victory at Panias (B.C. 198), and it thus reverted to the Syrian kingdom.

[24] Cp. Schechter, Studies in Judaism (Second Series), p. 72.

[25] He had, for example, settled Macedonians in Samaria.

[26] See further, Grote, The History of Greece, X, pp. 208 ff.

[27] Op. cit., II, i. pp. 57-58, German ed. II, p. 95. Cp. also Josephus, Antiq., XIII, xiii. 3, Bell. Jud., II, xxi. 9.

[28] “So long as the Jewish State existed the principle of solidarity remained in force.... But as soon as the nation is dead, when the bonds that unite men in the organism of national life are dissolved, then the idea of individual responsibility comes into immediate operation” (Expositor’s Bible, p. 143; ed. by W. Robertson Nicoll).

[29] Fairweather and Black, The First Book of Maccabees, p. 60 (Cambridge Bible).

[30] Jerusalem under the High-priests, p. 35.

[31] See Josephus, Antiq., XII, v. 1; see also Büchler’s Die Tobiaden und die Oniaden ..., pp. 8 ff.

[32] Josephus, Antiq., XII, iii. 1, says that in Antioch the Jews had privileges equal to those of the Macedonians and Greeks.

[33] A broad-brimmed hat which, as the mark of Hermes, was the badge of the palæstra (wrestling-school).

[34] See also verses 18-20, and vi. 1-11; and cp. 1 Macc. xi. 21.

[35] Though Hellenistic influence asserted itself again at the beginning of the Christian era; it was, in effect, never wholly thrown off.

[36] Op. cit., II, i. pp. 31-47, German ed. II, pp. 59-89; and see also Krauss, Talmudische Archäologie, II, pp. 349 ff.

[37] Op. cit., II, i. p. 30, German ed. II, p. 57.

[38] Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte, pp. 297 f. (1907).

[39] Cp. what was said in the preceding chapter about religious syncretism being a characteristic of the Hellenistic Movement.

[40] Transactions of the International Congress for the History of Religions, I, pp. 276 f. (1908).

[41] Op. cit., pp. 488 f.

[42] For details see Oesterley and Box, The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue, pp. 195-221 (1911).

[43] Jerusalem under the High-priests, pp. 41 f., and see Lecture III in the same writer’s book, Stoics and Sceptics, pp. 85-118.

[44] Quoted by Reinach, Textes d’auteurs grecs et romains relatifs au Judaisme, pp. 20 f. (1895).

[45] See, for other theories regarding the derivation of the name, Lightfoot, Colossians, pp. 349 ff.

[46] Zeller says: “They exhibit so important a relationship to the Neo-Pythagoreans that we can only assume that they arose under the influence of Orphic Pythagorean asceticism, and subsequently, after the formation of a Neo-Pythagorean philosophy, adopted many of its doctrines” (Outlines of Greek Philosophy, p. 317). Wendland (Op. cit., p. 191, note 2) disagrees with this; he believes it improbable as being a hypothesis insufficiently supported by the facts.

[47] Bell. Jud., II, viii. 2.

[48] Quod omn. prob., ii. 457. Josephus (Bell. Jud., II, viii. 4) says, on the other hand, that “they have no one certain city, but many of them dwell in every city”; but even if they did live in cities in the time of Josephus, they kept entirely to themselves, for he says elsewhere of them that “as they live by themselves they minister one to another” (Antiq., XVIII, i. 5).

[49] De septen., ii. 279, quoted by Friedländer, Die rel. Bewegungen, p. 124.

[50] Bell. Jud., II, viii. 2; cp. also Antiq., XVIII, i. 5; Philo, Frag., ii. 632 (quoted by Friedländer, Op. cit., p. 143); Pliny, Hist. Nat., v. 17.

[51] Friedländer, Op. cit., p. 43.

[52] Antiq., XIII, v. 9.

[53] Bell. Jud., II, vii. 11.

[54] Antiq., XIII, xi. 2, XV, x. 5, XVII, xiii. 3.

[55] Die rel. Bewegungen, p. 8.

[56] From a slab-inscription found at Nimroud; see Pinches, The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records of Assyria and Babylonia, p. 363.

[57] He reigned from B.C. 358-338.

[58] Syncellus, i. 486 (ed. Dindorf).

[59] The ancient Jêb, situated at the southern extremity of a small island in the Nile, between two and three miles long, not far below the first cataract and opposite Assouan, the ancient Syene.

[60] These papyri belong to the period B.C. 494-400, i.e., from the twenty-seventh year of the reign of Darius I, through the reigns of Xerxes (485-465), Artaxerxes I (465-424), Darius II (424-405), to the fifth year of Amyrtæus, who threw off the Persian yoke and made Egypt independent.

[61] The Jewish governor under Darius II was, according to the papyri, one Jedoniah.

[62] A detailed account of the excavations at Elephantiné during the years 1906-1908 is given in the Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache, vol. xlix. (1909). The most elaborate work on the subject is Sachau’s Aramäische Papyrus und Ostraka aus einer jüdischen Militärkolonie zu Elephantine (1911). An excellent smaller work is Ed. Meyer’s Der Papyrusfund von Elephantine (1912), which has been translated into English. A valuable text-book for students is Ungnad’s Aramäische Papyrus aus Elephantine (1911).

[63] Guthe, in the Encycl. Bibl., I, 1110.

[64] Quoted in Josephus, Antiq., XIV, vii, 2; cp. 1 Macc. xv. 16-24, from which it can be seen that Jewish settlements existed not only in Egypt, but also in Syria, Asia Minor, along the Mediterranean coast, and elsewhere.

[65] Quoted in Josephus, Antiq., XIX, v. 2.

[66] Bell. Jud., II, xviii. 7.

[67] In Flaccum, § 8 (ed. Mangey, II, p. 525).

[68] In Flaccum, § 6 (ed. Mangey, II, p. 523).

[69] For full details see Schürer, II, ii. pp. 219-327, German ed., III, pp. 1-188.

[70] Cp. Josephus, Bell. Jud., VI, ix. 3.

[71] See further § IV of this chapter.

[72] This document belongs roughly to about the year B.C. 100; though Schürer would place it a century earlier; many modern scholars, however, disagree with him in this.

[73] Cp. Bousset, Die Religion des Judenthums, pp. 405 ff.

[74] When we find that in the first centuries of Christianity even orthodox Rabbis were to be found who held that Baptism without Circumcision sufficed for proselytes we may well ask whether the result of the Hellenistic spirit was not a contributory cause of such a lapse from traditional Judaism.

[75] Transactions of the Third International Congress for the History of Religions, I, p. 277.

[76] It is dealt with in Schürer, II, iii. pp. 156-320; German ed., III, pp. 420-633.

[77] Some account of the Pseudepigrapha, which are partly Palestinian, but mainly Græco-Jewish, is given below, Chap. X.

[78] B.C. 285-246.

[79] Some scholars assign this to the reign of Ptolemy VI (Philometor), B.C. 182-146.

[80] Philo and Holy Scripture, p. 32 (1895); see also Swete, Op. cit., pp. 25 f.

[81] Cp. Meyer, Der Papyrusfund von Elephantiné, p. 19.

[82] For the further history of the Septuagint, and for the labours of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and above all of Origen, Swete’s book, already mentioned, should be consulted.

[83] The Philology of the Greek Bible, p. 8.

[84] Cohn and Wendland’s edition.

[85] Antiq., XVIII, viii. 1 ff.

[86] “The philosophy which Philo expounds is essentially the popular Greek philosophy, a blend of Platonism, Pythagoreanism, and Stoicism, slightly modified by the Hebrew belief in God” (Edwyn Bevan, Stoics and Sceptics, p. 94).

[87] It is of importance for Christian theology to notice that in several passages (see Lightfoot, Colossians and Philemon, p. 216) Philo interprets “the image of God” to mean the “Logos”; so that when, in Gen. i. 27, man is said to have been created in “the image of God,” it means that he was created in the likeness of the “Logos.”

[88] De Migratione Abrahami, § 18, quoted by Lauterbach.

[89] On the whole subject of the relation between the Philonian and the Johannine Logos doctrines see Réville, La doctrine du Logos dans le quatrième évangile et dans les œuvres de Philon (1872); Baldensperger, Der Prolog des Vierten Evangeliums (1898).

[90] For the influence of Philo upon St. Paul see Thackeray, The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, passim (1900).

[91] Cp. Ed. Meyer, Geschichte des Alterthums, I, pp. 490 ff.

[92] Cp. Robertson Smith, in the Encycl. Brit., XIII, p. 705.

[93] Box, The Book of Isaiah, p. 113.

[94] Kamphausen in the Encycl. Bibl., I, 1009.

[95] To give but two examples: Robertson Smith (The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, p. 212), after having examined the subject carefully, says: “We are thus led by a concurrence of arguments to assign the collection of Psalms xc.-cl. and the completion of the whole Psalter to the early years of the Maccabee sovereignty.” Briggs (The Book of Psalms, I, pp. xc., xci.) assigns a large number of the Psalms to the Greek period.

[96] Cp. Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii., p. 215 (1888).

[97] Griechische Philosophie im Alten Testament, pp. 25 f. (1904).

[98] Friedländer, in his book just referred to, sees many other signs of Greek influence in the Psalms (pp. 15-58); it is probable that in some cases he is right; in others this is doubtful.

[99] Cp. O. Holtzmann in Onken’s Allgemeine Geschichte in Einzeldarstellungen, II, p. 295.

[100] Cp. Friedländer, Op. cit., p. 72.

[101] e.g. Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, I., v. 29, quoted by Friedländer, Op. cit., p. 73.

[102] Cp. Stade, Op. cit., II, p. 216; O. Holtzmann, Op. cit., II, p. 297; M. Friedländer, Op. cit., pp. 79 ff.

[103] Op. cit., II, p. 351.

[104] Op. cit., p. 107. Friedländer’s contentions are combated by Krüger, Hellenismus und Judentum im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, pp. 22 ff.

[105] Ecclesiastes, pp. 11 ff; he is followed by Plumptre in his Ecclesiastes; Siegfried, Prediger und Hoheslied, and Haupt, Koheleth; Krüger and Friedländer hold the same view.

[106] See further, Haupt, Op. cit., p. 6.

[107] The Book of Ecclesiastes, pp. 34-43.

[108] Op. cit., p. 38.

[109] Einleitung in das Alte Testament, p. 262 (1896); Friedländer puts it more strongly, see Die rel. Bewegungen ..., p. 1, Griechische Philosophie ..., pp. 131 ff.

[110] Comm. in Eccles., quoted by Cheyne, Job and Solomon, p. 262.

[111] Op cit., p. 262.

[112] Op. cit., p. 271.

[113] Few, we imagine, would date Ecclesiastes earlier than the middle of the third century B.C. at the earliest.

[114] Cheyne, Op. cit., p. 265.

[115] See the present writer’s Ecclesiasticus in the Cambridge Bible, p. xxv.

[116] Jewish Encycl., XI, 390a.

[117] This is an exaggeration; what Ben-Sira says is:

Speak, O elder, for it is thy privilege;

But be discreet in understanding, and hinder not song....

Speak, O young man, if thou art compelled....

Sum up thy speech, say much in little (xxxii. 3-8, in Hebrew).

[118] Cp. Ecclesiastes xii. 7: “... and the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit (rūach) return to God Who gave it.”

[119] Outlines of Greek Philosophy (English translation, 1909), pp. 152 f., where references to Plato’s works are given in support of what is said.

[120] Unless nĕphĕsh is used in the sense of nĕshāmāh in 1 Samuel xxv. 29, where Abigail says to David: “... Yet the soul (nĕphĕsh) of my lord shall be bound in the bundle (or bag) of life with the Lord thy God; and the souls of thine enemies, them shall He sling out, as from the hollow of a sling”; but it is probably a quite different set of ideas which comes into question here. At the same time the idea of God’s solicitude for the souls of His beloved which He takes care of in the “bundle of life,” and which are thus separable from the body even during life, might easily, with the advance of thought on the subject, suggest the pre-existence of the soul.

[121] Cp. Weber, Jüdische Theologie, 2 ed., p. 205.

[122] Menzel, Op. cit., p. 58.

[123] Zeller, Op. cit., p. 155.

[124] Op. cit., p. 155.

[125] Op. cit., p. 147.

[126] Cp. Zeller, Op. cit., pp. 229-255; Wendland, Die Hellenistisch-Römische Kultur ... pp. 110-115.

[127] Op. cit., p. 532.

[128] The same as the Assidæans referred to in 1 Maccabees ii. 42.

[129] Die rel. Bewegungen, p. 22.

[130] Op. cit., p. 23.

[131] The quotations from this book are from Charles’ translation.

[132] The Ezra Apocalypse, pp. 35, 36.

[133] Though this book is late it reflects earlier thought and practice.

[134] Cp. also the verses which follow, and xlviii. 1, lviii. 1-4, etc.

[135] Die rel. Bewegungen ..., p. 25.

[136] The verses which follow deal with the same subject; cp. the Book of Jubilees v. 13 ff., Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch lxxxv. 9.

[137] Cp. xlviii. 7: “For in His name they are saved.”

[138] See also the Psalms of Solomon, xvii., xviii.

[139] The Pauline conception of a “spiritual body” was unknown to the Apocalyptists. The fact that this expression is a contradiction in terms need not trouble us; that is simply due to the impossibility of expressing spiritual truths adequately in human language.

[140] As early as the end of the fourth century B.C. the Jews of Palestine became acquainted with the Platonic doctrine of immortality, though it was some time before this teaching was accepted, cp. Friedländer, Griechische Philosophie ..., p. 12.

[141] Quotations from the Apocalyptic Literature dealing with the subject of this section have been collected in the present writer’s The Doctrine of the Last Things, pp. 72-121.

[142] i.e., “Governor.”

[143] We have no information of what happened during the Exile itself regarding the teaching of the Law; but it is difficult to believe that such a zealous scribe and legalist as Ezra could have been inactive; his knowledge of the Law was not merely the result of his coming to Palestine, cp. Ezra vii. 6: “This Ezra went up from Babylon, and he was a ready scribe in the Law of Moses.”

[144] Cp. Josephus, Antiq., XVIII, i. 3.

[145] See, for details, Ryle, Ezra and Nehemiah, p. xxxv.

[146] This is in accordance with Ben-Sira’s identification of Wisdom with the Law, see xv. 1, xxxiv. 8, etc.

[147] It will be remembered that the Hebrews reckoned the historical books among the Prophets.

[148] Assidæans, also written Hasidæans, is merely the Græcized form of the Hebrew Chassidim; in the Authorized Version the word is rendered “saints.”

[149] Made high-priest by the Syrian king.

[150] One of the Syrian generals.

[151] Cp. 2 Maccabees xiv. 6.

[152] In the original constitution of the Sanhedrin this was probably not the case; for, as first constituted, the priestly aristocracy, i.e., the Sadducæan party, dominated the Sanhedrin. The Sadducees were, however, unable to resist the growing power of what came to be the popular party, and before the New Testament period began both Scribes and Pharisees were fully represented in the Sanhedrin.

[153] It is sometimes said that they were “separatists” in the sense that they desired Israel to be separate from all the world; but this ignores the fact that the Pharisees pursued an active missionary propaganda among the Gentiles, which is witnessed to, e.g., in Matthew xxiii. 15, where Christ says that the Pharisees “compass sea and land to make one proselyte.”

[154] Antiq., XIII, x. 6.

[155] This is the explanation given by some of the Church Fathers, e.g., Epiphanius, Haer. xiv., and Jerome, Comm. in Matth., xii. 23 (Schürer), as well as by some modern scholars.

[156] Encycl. Bibl., iv. 4236. The present writer, in conjunction with Mr. Box, was inclined to accept this interpretation (The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue, p. 134), but further study of the subject has compelled them to revise their former view.

[157] See the words of Josephus, Antiq., XIII, x. 6, quoted below.

[158] Cp. Josephus, Antiq., XI, viii. 7; XII, ii. 5, iv. 1, 10.

[159] Antiochus made Menelaus, who was not of priestly family, high-priest; after him Alkimus filled the office (1 Macc. vii. 5, 9); though a priest he was not of the sons of Zadok (Josephus, Antiq., XII, ix. 7). On the death of Alkimus (1 Macc. ix. 54-57) the Hasmonæan high-priesthood began (1 Macc. xiv. 30, 35, 41 ff.; cp. Josephus, Antiq., XIII, ii. 3).

[160] Two objections have been raised against the view that the term Sadducees (Zaddūkim) takes its origin from the personal name Zadok. One is that the double d in Zaddūkim does not permit of its being derived from Zadok with only one; this objection would be serious were it not that in the Septuagint and in Josephus Zadok is spelled with two d’s. This objection, therefore, falls to the ground. The other is that there is nothing to show that the Sadducees were ever regarded as the sons of Zadok, nor that they themselves made such a claim. This argumentum e silentio, always precarious, is upset by the evidence of the Zadokite Fragments. Hölscher’s contention (Op. cit., pp. 102 ff.) that the term “sons of Zadok” was one of reproach does not appear to us to be necessary.

[161] Vita, § 2, cp. Antiq., XVIII, i. 3.

[162] Antiq., XV, x. 4.

[163] Cp. Antiq., X, xi. 7 (towards the end), XIII, v. 9; Bell. Jud., II, viii. 14, where he speaks of these three as “the philosophic sects among the Jews.”

[164] Vita, § 2.

[165] Op. cit., p. 16.

[166] This was first pointed by Jost, Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte, ii. p. 93, referred to by Leszynsky, p. 25.

[167] Not to be confused with the Tosaphôth, i.e. the “additions” made to Rashi’s Commentary on the Talmud by his disciples, who for this reason are known as the Tosaphists.

[168] Other Rabbinical sources, of less importance, are given by Leszynsky, Op. cit., pp. 36 ff.

[169] See further, Hölscher, Op. cit., pp. 16 ff.; Leszynsky, Op. cit., pp. 36 ff.

[170] The name applied to a room adjoining the synagogue in which were stored disused manuscripts of the books of the Bible which had been used in public worship and had become worn out; heretical Hebrew books were also placed in the Genizah.

[171] Büchler holds that this sect “lived in Damascus in the seventh or eighth century A.D.,” and that the manuscripts contain “a picture artificially drawn to reflect assumed conditions shortly before the destruction of the second Temple.” Interesting and learned as Büchler’s article is, the present writer is not convinced that Schechter’s main contentions have been weakened by it.

[172] Some of the Apocalyptic books may also be regarded as sources of information; but the evidence in these is largely of an indirect character; and as regards authorship differences of opinion exist; so we have thought it best to restrict ourselves to the sources mentioned. In dealing, however, with these Apocalyptic books in Chapter X, we shall have occasion to refer to the evidence which in all likelihood may be adduced from them.

[173] See also Antiq., XVIII, i. 3, 4.

[174] For examples of their fanatical zeal for the Law see Antiq., XIV, iv. 2 f.; the followers of Aristobulus there mentioned were of the Sadducæan party.

[175] See especially Matthew v. 17-20; and against the Pharisees Matthew xv. 1-20, xxiii. 4-26, Mark vii. 1-23, Luke xi. 37-54, etc.

[176] Op. cit., pp. 16-32. Hölscher’s conclusions differ from those of Leszynsky.

[177] Op. cit., pp. 36-141.

[178] Cp. Josephus, Antiq., XVIII, i. 4, where he says in reference to the Sadducees that “when they become magistrates, sometimes against their will and by force they follow the ideas of the Pharisees, for otherwise the people would not put up with them.”

[179] Lauterbach (Op. cit., p. 186 f.) would explain the matter a little differently, though the final result is much the same; he says that the Sadducees “laid down their own decisions and rules in a book called ‘Book of Decrees’ or ‘Decisions’ to guide them in deciding questions to which no answer could be found in the Mosaic Code. They did not deem it right or necessary to invent new rules of hermeneutics, or to develop methods of interpretation to enable them to force their laws and decisions into the meaning of the words of the Torah, so as to pass off their own rules and decisions as part of, or derived from, a Mosaic law, thus making them of equal authority with, and of the same binding character as, the written Law. For, in their opinion, no other laws could ever acquire the authority of the Laws of the Torah.... The Sadducees distinguished strictly between the absolutely binding written laws and their additional laws and decisions. The latter ... were authoritative only as long as they were considered necessary or feasible by the leaders and rulers of the community. For the same reason, they did not consider the decisions and practices instituted by their predecessors, the priests and teachers of former generations, which constituted the traditional laws, of absolute authority like the written Law. Hence their peculiar attitude towards the traditional Law, and their objection to its authority. They did not deny the existence of these old traditional laws, for they themselves were the possessors and transmitters of the same. Nor did they reject them as spurious or as without any authority, for they recognized the right of former priests and teachers to enact such laws. They only refused to consider these traditional laws as of authority absolute and equal with the written Law contained in the Torah.” The result, therefore, so far as their controversy with the Pharisees on this point was concerned, was the same: traditional laws, by whomsoever put forth, whether based on the written Law or not, were not permanently binding nor of equal authority with the written Law; the Pharisees, on the other, since they contended that the oral Law was based upon the written Law, regarded both as of equal authority and permanently binding.

[180] Op. cit., p. 141.

[181] Matthew iii. 7.

[182] Matthew xvi. 1.

[183] Acts v. 1 ff.

[184] Antiq., XVIII, i. 3.

[185] Leszynsky, Op. cit., p. 18.

[186] See further the section on Messianic teaching, below.

[187] Cp. Leszynsky, Op. cit., p. 91. It is also worth mentioning here that in Ecclesiasticus, which certainly represents the Sadducæan standpoint, angels are referred to—see below, Chapter XII, § (g).

[188] With this compare the popular belief as reflected in Acts xii. 15, where it is said in reference to St. Peter, “It is his angel.”

[189] The descent of Zadok is traced from Eleazar, the elder son of Aaron, in 1 Chronicles vi. 4-15, 50-53, xxiv 6.

[190] There is an important passage in Ecclesiasticus (xlv. 23-25, Hebr.) which must be referred to here; in this passage Phinehas is set beside Moses and Aaron as “the third ... and he made atonement for the children of Israel. Therefore for him too, He [i.e. God] established an ordinance, a covenant of peace to maintain the sanctuary; that to him and to his seed should appertain the High-priesthood for ever.” Then reference is made to David and to Aaron; the mention of these here in a chronological list of Israel’s great ones is quite out of place, and therefore there must be some special purpose in referring to them; that purpose is plain enough, for in speaking of David it is said that “the inheritance of the king is his son’s alone,” while in speaking of Aaron it is said that “the inheritance of Aaron belongs to his seed.” A differentiation is thus made between the royal line and the priestly line; and as the royal line had ceased, and only the priestly one continued, and the High-priest (the descendant of the house of Zadok) was both ecclesiastical and political leader, it was from this line that the Messiah would be expected to come. In Ecclesiasticus (see pp. 334 ff.) the Sadducæan standpoint is represented. See also 1 Maccabees ii. 54, “Phinehas our father ... obtained the covenant of an everlasting priesthood” (cp. 4 Macc. xviii. 12).

[191] Schechter, Op. cit., pp. xii.-xiii.

[192] Of course, it is not to be supposed that the Sadducees and Pharisees actually kept the feasts at different periods; the quarrel did not emerge out of the domain of theory; actual difference in usage regarding such matters would have been quite out of the question.

[193] See Leszynsky, Op. cit., pp. 52 ff.

[194] Op. cit., p. 51.

[195] For further details about the Pharisees’ teaching reference may be made, in addition to the literature at the head of this chapter, to Schechter’s Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology (1909) and Montefiore’s article on “Rabbinic Conceptions of Repentance” in the Jewish Quarterly Review, XVI (January, 1904), pp. 209-257.

[196] See Josephus, Antiq., XIII, x. 5, 6; Schürer, Op. cit., I, i. pp. 286-290, German ed., I, pp. 270-273.

[197] Op. cit., p. 177.

[198] For details see Leszynsky, Op. cit., pp. 36 ff.

[199] With the Greek word Kanôn (Canon) compare the Hebrew qāneh, a “reed,” which is also used in the sense of a “measuring rod” (Ezek. xlii. 16-19; cp. Judith xiii. 6, where the Greek word is used for the “rail” of a bed). Originally the word in Greek meant a “carpenter’s rule,” and had nothing to do with the books of Scripture. In its technical sense it is Christian, being thus used for the first time, so far as is known, about the middle of the fourth century A.D.; the fifty-ninth canon of the council of Laodicæa (about A.D. 360) speaks of “canonical books” as opposed to uncanonical. It is a still later usage, so far as our present knowledge goes, which applies the term Canon to the whole collection of biblical books. What the original idea was in using the expression in reference to the books of the Bible is uncertain, but probably it was that of “norm” or “rule” (cp. Gal. vi. 16; 2 Cor. x. 13); just as “canonical action” (1 Ep. of Clement vii. 2) was according to the Christian norm, so books judged by their contents, authorship, and history, were declared to be according to the Christian norm, and therefore “canonical”; cp. the expressions “rule (or canon) of truth,” “rule (or canon) of faith,” used in the early Church. It is probable that the adjective “canonical” preceded the use of the noun “Canon” in its technical sense.

[200] The Jews sometimes refer to the whole body of their canonical Scriptures under the name of Tenak, i.e. TNK, an abbreviation (with vowels inserted in order to make it pronounceable) formed by the initial letters of the names given to the three main divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures, viz., Torah, Nebiim, Kethubim.

[201] In the authoritative lists of the canonical books the order varies somewhat; but the order given above is that of the printed Hebrew Bibles.

[202] In the earliest known Hebrew manuscripts they appear as one book; so, too, 1, 2 Kings.

[203] Cp. Robertson Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church (2nd ed.), p. 149.

[204] Ab is the fifth month in the Jewish Calendar, and corresponds roughly to August; it is called the “Black Fast,” and commemorates the destruction of the first and second temples.

[205] So according to the Hebrew; the Greek is somewhat different.

[206] So according to Smend’s probable conjecture.

[207] Kanonisch und Apokryph, p. 20.

[208] See Ecclesiastes xii. 12.

[209] Ryle, for example, says that the expression by which Ben-Sira’s grandson “designates the third group certainly lacks definiteness. It does not warrant us to maintain that the ‘Writings’ or ‘Kethubim’ were all, in their completed form, known to the writer” (Op. cit., p. 119). And again (p. 121): “These writings, which are so well known to us, were probably only samples, though doubtless the choicest ones, of an abundant literature to which every Jew at the end of the third century B.C. had access.” On the other hand, Ryle believes that by about B.C. 200 there was a definitely recognized Hebrew Canon of Scripture consisting of the Law and the Prophets (Op. cit., p. 113).

[210] This Rabbinical phrase for denoting canonicity is explained below, p. 175.

[211] This book was denied a place in the Canon by Melito of Sardis in the middle of the second century A.D., according to Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., iv. 26.

[212] Josephus reckons Ruth and Lamentations as belonging to Judges and Jeremiah respectively.

[213] The addition here of the words “as divine” does not, in all probability, belong to the original text.

[214] Op. cit., p. 164.

[215] For details see Hölscher, Op. cit., pp. 36 ff.

[216] Op. cit., pp. 165 ff.

[217] See further below, Chapter X.

[218] This was accounted for in later days by saying that when Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi died the Holy Spirit left Israel (Sanhedrin 11a); therefore (this is the inference) no inspired book can have been written in post-prophetic times, cp. Yoma 21b.

[219] For details of the evidence see Schürer II, i. pp. 366 ff. (German ed., II, pp. 432 ff., where the references are supplemented); Cheyne, Job and Solomon, pp. 280 ff.; Hölscher, Op. cit., pp. 32 ff.; Jewish Encycl., vii. 18.

[220] For details see Ryle, Op. cit., pp. 192-202.

[221] Vita, § 2.

[222] Thus Jochanan ben Zakkai (middle of first century A.D.) speaks of books which “defile the hands” (Jadaim iii. 2, 5; iv. 5, 6).

[223] See the Additional Note at the end of this chapter.

[224] Budde, in the Encycl. Bibl., i. 649; see further the Additional Note at the end of this chapter.

[225] Written, probably, about B.C. 50.

[226] Hölscher, Op. cit., p. 6.

[227] Romans i. 2, cp. 2 Timothy iii. 15.

[228] See, among other passages, Leviticus vi. 27-30, xi. 32-40, xiv. 1 ff., XV. 1 ff., 24, xvi. 26, 28, xviii. 19; Numbers v. 1-3; Deuteronomy xxi. 10-14.

[229] Abundant material will be found in Frazer’s The Golden Bough: Taboo and the Perils of the Soul (1911).

[230] The Religion of the Semites, p. 449 (1894); and see Jevons’ Introduction to the History of Religion, pp. 59-95 (1904).

[231] Cases of death are on record; it was, of course, occasioned by fright, but savages would see only the result of the spirit’s anger. Instances of the infringement of custom would naturally be rare.

[232] See Leviticus xi. 32, Ezekiel xliv. 19, and cp. the idea of “holiness” in such passages, among many, as Exodus xix. 22, Deuteronomy xxiii. 18, where the Hebrew root is identical, though to us the ideas in either case are directly opposite.

[233] He is referring to the rules of ceremonial purity observed by divine kings, chiefs, and priests, as well as by homicides, mourners, women in childbed, girls at puberty, etc.

[234] Op. cit., p. 224.

[235] For example, in the case of a canonical book which “defiled” the hands the Talmud (Shabbath 14a) says it was taught that the hands became unclean by contact with the Holy Scriptures in order that they should not be touched by uncovered hands!

[236] Hölscher, Op. cit., p. 60.

[237] Moore, in the Jewish Encycl., II, 2a.

[238] Hölscher mentions, with references, a “book of cures,” a Targum which was forbidden, and heretical books, Op. cit., p. 62.

[239] Hölscher, Op. cit., p. 63.

[240] Ecclesiasticus is often quoted in the Talmud.

[241] Cp., further, Buhl, Kanon und Text des Alten Testaments (Engl. Transl.), p. 26.

[242] See further below.

[243] James, in the Encycl. Biblica, i. 249.

[244] James, Op. cit., says that this book “may be as old as the first century A.D.”; but according to Hölscher and the editors of the papyrus (Leeman and Dieterich) it belongs to the third or fourth century A.D.

[245] Moore, Op. cit., ii. p. 1a.

[246] Hölscher, Op. cit., p. 47.

[247] Ibid.

[248] Charles’ edition.

[249] Charles’ edition.

[250] Box’s edition.

[251] For this idea cp. also the Assumption of Moses i. 16-18 (see below, Chapter X (f)), where Moses is commanded to anoint certain books with cedar oil and hide them in earthenware vessels, these are to be secreted in a spot which had been created from the beginning of the world for this very purpose.

[252] Lest, in course of time, the number of these soiled copies should unduly increase, lest also, in case of persecution arising, they should run the risk of being desecrated, it was thought well that after the lapse of a certain time these rolls should be done away with; they were, therefore, sometimes burned, or thrown down a well, or in some cases placed in the grave of some respected Rabbi; more frequently, however, they were buried in a grave of their own in the cemetery.

[253] Studies in Judaism (Second Series), p. 2.

[254] Jewish Encycl., V, 612a.

[255] For references see Hölscher, Op. cit., pp. 48, 49, see also p. 64.

[256] See below, Chapter X.

[257] See Zunz, Die Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, pp. 165-179 (1892).

[258] Harnack, Privater Gebrauch heiliger Schriften in der alten Kirche, p. 72 (1912).

[259] For the private use in the early Church of biblical as well as other books see Harnack’s book just mentioned.

[260] But even these might only be read “as one reads a letter,” not studied (Hölscher, Op. cit., p. 45).

[261] Sanhedrin x. 1 (Strack’s edition, 1910).

[262] Cp. Mark iv. 11; 1 Cor. v. 12, 13; Col. iv. 5; 1 Thess. iv. 12.

[263] Hölscher, Op. cit., p. 46. The Minim (“heretics”) are very often mentioned in Jewish writings; Herford says that the term “in some cases certainly denotes Christians” (Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, p. 99).

[264] Shabbath c. 16 (Jerusalem Talmud), quoted by Hölscher.

[265] Barton, The Book of Ecclesiastes (The International Critical Commentary), pp. 197-199.

[266] Cp. Ezra iv. 7.

[267] Zunz, Op. cit., p. 9; Strack, Einleitung in den Talmud, p. 14 (1908).

[268] The term “Midrash,” which occurs in the Bible (2 Chron. xiii. 22, xxiv. 17) denotes “exposition” or “exegesis,” especially of an edifying and moralizing character; see further Oesterley and Box, Op. cit., pp. 77-100.

[269] Strack, Op. cit., pp. 13, 14.

[270] “Such topics as astronomy and astrology, medicine and magic, theosophy and mysticism, and similar subjects, falling mostly under the heading of folklore, pass as a rule also under the name of Haggadah” (Schechter).

[271] Under this term is embraced all that belongs to the strictly legal or ritual element in Scripture, or that can be deduced therefrom, including discussions of such points. But, as Schechter says, “the term extends also to the usages, customs, ordinances and decrees for which there is little or no authority in the Scriptures.”

[272] In 1904, 1906-1908.

[273] See above, pp. 50 ff.

[274] This was in Jerusalem; cp., in later days, the “School of Tyrannus” in Ephesus (Acts xix. 9).

[275] Kanonisch und Apokryph, pp. 42-46.

[276] See Friedländer, Die rel. Bewegungen ..., pp. 22-77.

[277] Oesterley and Box, Op. cit., p. 36.

[278] See his editions of these books.

[279] Portions of this book are also found in the Book of Jubilees, vii. 20-39, x. 1-15, cp. xxi. 10.

[280] Die Worte Jesu, p. 199.

[281] Op. cit., pp. 253 ff.

[282] See above, pp. 150 ff.

[283] I.e. “The Book of the Heavenly Luminaries,” as Charles calls it.

[284] I.e. “the righteous”; a play on the word Zaddūkim, the “sons of Zadok,” i.e. “the Sadducees.”

[285] See p. 93.

[286] See also what is said above on the section called “The Book of the Heavenly Luminaries,” or “Book of Astronomy.”

[287] Die rel. Bewegungen ..., pp. 59, 60.

[288] i.-xxxii. 6 and xix. 3-xxi. 9 in a duplicate form were discovered at Akhmîm in 1886-1887; vi.-x. 14, xv. 8-xvi. 1, and viii. 4-ix. 4 in a duplicate form, have been preserved in Syncellus; lxxxix. 42-49 occurs in a Greek Vatican MS. (No. 1809); there are also a few quotations in early Greek ecclesiastical writings.

[289] Charles, The Book of Enoch (2nd ed.), p. ix.

[290] Op. cit., II, iii. 273.

[291] Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, pp. liv. ff.

[292] Op. cit., pp. xcvii. f.

[293] There is, indeed, nothing to prohibit us from dating the book slightly later than Charles does (viz. B.C. 109-107), and assigning it to the reign of Alexander Jannæus, B.C. 103-76. Testament of Levi viii. 14 does not militate against this.

[294] Op. cit., pp. 239 ff.

[295] Op. cit., p. xcvii.

[296] Op. cit., II, p. 630.

[297] But see below, pp. 218, 223.

[298] The Apocryph. and Pseud. of the O.T., II, p. 411.

[299] Op. cit., pp. 268 ff.

[300] Proverbs, Job, some of the later Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom.

[301] Gregg, The Wisdom of Solomon, p. xxx.

[302] Griechische Philosophie ..., p. 13.

[303] Cp. also the account of the meeting between Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, 1 Kings x. 1-9.

[304] Toy, in the Encycl. Bibl., IV, 5322.

[305] See Isaiah xix. 11-15; Jeremiah l. 35, li. 57.

[306] Jeremias, Das alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients, pp. 29, 80.

[307] So the Greek; the Hebrew is not extant, but the Syriac has: “in the roots of Tehom,” so that the Hebrew in all probability read “Tehom.” See further, Proverbs viii. 26-30.

[308] On this see further in the next section.

[309] In the Jewish Encycl., XII, 537b.

[310] Fairweather, The Background of the Gospels, p. 84.

[311] Cp. Oesterley and Box, Op. cit., pp. 195-221.

[312] Fairweather, Op. cit., p. 84.

[313] Cp. also verse 9: “He spake and it was done,” and Psalm cxlviii. 5.

[314] Barton, Ecclesiastes, in the “International Critical Commentary,” p. 37.

[315] Oesterley and Box, The Wisdom of Ben-Sira, in Charles’ “The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament,” I, p. 308.

[316] The idea appears already in Proverbs viii. 31-36, ix. 1-6; but Ben-Sira elaborates it in his own way.

[317] See, on this subject, the very interesting essay on “The Holy Spirit as Wisdom,” by Rees, in the Mansfield College Essays (1909).

[318] Gregg, The Wisdom of Solomon, p. xxxvi.

[319] The tree of wisdom in the Garden is referred to in xxxii. 3.

[320] See above, p. 202.

[321] But cp. Job xxviii. 12-14, though the general conception of Wisdom here differs from that of the later Wisdom books.

[322] Hastings’ D.B., V, p. 275.

[323] Spoken of as “the holy ones,” so too in Job xv. 15; cp. also Prayer of Manasses, verse 15.

[324] See pp. 331 ff; below.

[325] For other examples see the present writer’s section in the Introduction to Sirach in Charles, I, pp. 285 f.

[326] For the reason of this see below, pp. 412 f.

[327] On the substitution of “Heaven” for the name of God, see Oesterley and Box, Op. cit., pp. 186 ff.

[328] Holmes in Charles, I, 527.

[329] Cp. the Book of Enoch lxix. 6, where it is said in reference to the evil angels: “Now the third is Gadreel; he it is who taught the children of man all the blows of death; and he led astray Eve....”

[330] These have been recounted in the preceding verses; the writer is addressing Jews.

[331] The Ezra-Apocalypse, pp. xl. f.

[332] Maldwyn Hughes, The Ethics of Jewish Apocryphal Literature, p. 240.

[333] See further the next section, on the Future Life.

[334] In one passage in this Vision, xii. 34, the Messianic Kingdom appears to be reserved for the children of Israel only; but it is probable that this verse does not belong to the original text.

[335] The whole passage, iii. 1-9, deals with the lot of the righteous hereafter, but the salient words in the present connection are those quoted above.

[336] “Behold, the Lord God will come as a mighty one and His arm shall rule for Him; behold, His reward is with Him, and His recompense before Him” (Isa. xl. 10). “And the Lord will create over the whole habitation of mount Zion, and over her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night; for over all the glory shall be spread a canopy. And there shall be a pavilion for a shadow in the day-time from the heat, and for a refuge and for a covert from storm and from rain” (Isa. iv. 5, 6). “In that day shall the Lord of hosts be for a crown of glory, and for a diadem of beauty, unto the residue of His people, and for a spirit of judgement to him that sitteth in judgement, and for strength to them that turn back the battle at the gate” (Isa. xxviii. 5, 6). It is the thought, not the language, which shows connection between the two; in the Septuagint of Isaiah xxviii. 5, for example, “a diadem of beauty” is differently expressed, but see Isaiah lxii. 3 (Sept.). “And He saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor; therefore His own arm brought salvation unto Him, and His righteousness it upheld Him. And He put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon His head; and He put on garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloke” (Isa. lix. 16, 17). Cp. also parts of Psalm xviii.

[337] See the present writer’s Ecclesiasticus, p. lxxvi.

[338] It is, of course, possible that this is due to a Christian glossator; but there is no doubt that the Old Latin contains many really ancient elements.

[339] We follow Box here (The Ezra Apocalypse, passim), though we are not convinced that all which Box assigns to the Redactor is necessarily from this hand.

[340] The meaning of the name is “God hath healed,” cp. iii. 17, “And Raphael was sent to heal them both.”

[341] In Enoch xx. 8 he is said to be him “whom God set over those who rise.”

[342] See, for details, the present writer’s Ecclesiasticus, in the Cambridge Bible, pp. 263 f.

[343] The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (1913).

[344] The final “ch” was added in Greek to show that the name was indeclinable.

[345] In the Hebrew text the author speaks of himself as: “Simeon, the son of Jeshua (Jesus), the son of Eleazar, the son of Sira.”

[346] See Part I., Chap. xii.

[347] See the present writer’s Ecclesiasticus in the Cambridge Bible, p. xxiv.

[348] Euergetes I reigned for twenty-five years, B.C. 247-222.

[349] Cowley and Neubauer, The Original Hebrew of a portion of Ecclesiasticus, pp. x., xi.

[350] Cp. Maunde Thompson, Handbook of Greek and Latin Palæography, p. 43.

[351] See Gaster in the Jewish Quarterly Review, xii. pp. 688 ff.

[352] Oesterley, Op. cit., pp. xci. f. (See the Literature at the head of the chapter.)

[353] Prof. D. S. Margoliouth, The Origin of the “Original” Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus.

[354] Lévi, in the Jewish Encycl., xi. 393.

[355] See Box and Oesterley, Op. cit., pp. 272-278.

[356] Ibid., p. 277.

[357] In this connection it is important to note the following facts: all the Greek manuscripts, uncial as well as cursives, have a great displacement in the text, xxx. 25-xxxiii. 13a having exchanged places with xxxiii. 13b-xxxvi. 16a; since all the Greek manuscripts have this displacement it is obvious that all ultimately go back to a single parent manuscript; now the Old Latin Version has not got the displacement, and yet it is a translation from the Greek; consequently this version represents a condition of affairs which is older than the oldest Greek manuscripts.

[358] Op. cit., p. 274; he adds in a note that these additions “do not necessarily proceed from the hand of one individual”; we feel convinced that he is right here also.

[359] We use this term as being the most convenient, but strictly speaking it is an anachronism, for, as we have seen above (Chap. vii), the term belongs to post-Maccabæan times; we use it here as representing the pre-Maccabæan tendency which later on developed into Sadducæanism.

[360] Cowley, Op. cit., iv. 4237.

[361] Ibid.

[362] Nothing better illustrates this than Ben-Sira’s copious use of the Psalms and Proverbs.

[363] See above, pp. 267 ff.

[364] I.e. natural tendency, or inclination.

[365] Perhaps the rendering of the Syriac Version is to be preferred here; for “wresteth reproofs” it reads “concealeth instruction.”

[366] In his edition of Pirqe Aboth (2nd ed.), p. 115.

[367] This is only preserved in Hebrew.

[368] The additions are found scattered in the Greek cursives numbered 23, 55, 70, 106, 248 (this is the foremost representative of the group), 253; some were added by a later corrector of Codex Alexandrinus; also in the Syriac and Old Latin Versions (St. Jerome incorporated this in the Vulgate as it stood) and in the Syro-Hexapla; as well as in the quotations from the book in the writings of Clement of Alexandria.

[369] The fact that some of the additions are found in Hebrew points to their having been made at an early date; it is unlikely that a secondary Hebrew text would have been written in post-Christian times.

[370] This addition occurs in the Hebrew text, as well as in the cursives.

[371] The Hebrew of chapter xxix. is not extant; but the addition probably existed in the secondary Hebrew as it occurs in the Syriac Version as well as in the cursives and in the Old Latin Version.

[372] For further details see the commentaries of Mayor, and Knowling, on St. James, and Zahn’s Einleitung, I. p. 87.

[373] This is the form of the name given in the Aramaic fragments.

[374] “And when I saw them, my tongue stammered and my limbs became faint; and I sought for a single word from the words of wisdom, and I found none,” iv. 2 (Rendel Harris’ translation of the Syriac Version).

[375] So according to the Aramaic, the other Versions read “Sennacherib.” The Aramaic text is given in Ungnad’s Aramäische Papyrus aus Elephantine, pp. 62-82 (1911).

[376] According to the Armenian Version (Conybeare), Pharaoh threatens to attack the king of Assyria and to take away his kingdom if he does not fall in with the proposal.

[377] It is given in Swete, The Old Testament in Greek, vol. ii. pp. 815-848 (1896).

[378] In the Aramaic fragment this is not the case, apparently.

[379] In the Achikar story he is called “the Secretary and Great Seal of Sennacherib, king of Assyria and Nineveh” (Syriac Version iii. 8).

[380] Although the Greek omits the words “and thy wine” they occur in the Latin, Aramaic, and Hebrew Versions.

[381] Simpson, in Charles, I, p. 191.

[382] See Schürer, III, p. 241, where further literature is given; the English translation of Schürer does not contain this; it has been added to the last (fourth) German edition.

[383] See further, Simrock, Der gute Gerhard und die dankbaren Todten (1856).

[384] For details see Schneider, Kultur und Denken der Babylonier und Juden, pp. 638 ff. (1910).

[385] Cp. Numbers xix. 11-13, 16 ff.

[386] The reference to fasting in xii. 8, does not belong to the true text.

[387] See above, pp. 92 f.

[388] The idea that the book is historical and therefore belongs to the seventh century B.C. does not merit serious consideration.

[389] Op. cit., I, p. 185.

[390] Encycl. Brit. art., “Tobit.”

[391] See, further, Simpson, Op. cit., I, p. 185.

[392] Origen, Ep. ad Afric., xiii., says that the book was not written in Hebrew; Jerome, Praef. in Vers. libri Tob., says he translated it from the Chaldee (i.e. Aramaic), but this was itself a translation, for while the Greek puts the narrative from i. 3-iii. 6 in the first person and from here onwards continues in the third person, Jerome’s Aramaic (which is in all probability represented by the manuscript edited by Neubauer, The Book of Tobit, A Chaldee text ... 1878) makes the whole narrative run in the third person; but if the original form of the story was written in the third person throughout, it is unthinkable that in a later form the first person would have been substituted in i. 3-iii. 6 alone. On the other hand, it would be quite natural for the original writer to commence his story in the first person and later to fall into the third person, for this latter is the simpler and easier form of narration. The Hebrew Versions are of quite late date, and obviously translations; see Neubauer, Op. cit., and Gaster, Two Unknown Hebrew Versions of the Tobit Legend (1897).

[393] Torrey in the Jewish Encycl., vii. 388b.

[394] Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden (2nd ed.), p. 132.

[395] Op cit., vii. 388a.

[396] These three cursives are all in the Vatican Library at Rome.

[397] Cp. Löhr, Op. cit., p. 147 (see the Literature above).

[398] So according to Scholz, Op. cit., pp. xxiv. f. (see the Literature above).

[399] See the Literature above.

[400] Op. cit., p. 131.

[401] The Religious Views of the Pharisees, p. 2; see also Herford, Pharisaism, its Aim and its Method, pp. 282-335.

[402] See above, p. 91.

[403] Owing to the revolt of Bar-Kokba.

[404] Chapter lv., where he speaks of “Judith the blessed.”

[405] See pp. 218 f. above.

[406] In the Encycl. Biblica, ii. 2645.

[407] Löhr, Op. cit., i. 148.

[408] Viz. Cod. Chisianus (87), a cursive of the ninth century.

[409] Swete, Intr. to the O.T. in Greek, p. 260 (1900).

[410] Swete, Op. cit., p. 260.

[411] Stromateis iv.

[412] Eclogæ Propheticæ, § I.

[413] Strom. i.

[414] Swete says: “The addition to Daniel iii. 23 is clearly Midrashic and probably had a Semitic original,” Op. cit., p. 261.

[415] Singer, Op. cit., pp. 55-57.

[416] Singer, Op. cit., pp. 270-273.

[417] In the present writer’s Ecclesiasticus (Cambridge Bible) a translation of this Psalm is given together with the points of similarity between it and the “Shemoneh ‘Esreh,” pp. 349, 350.

[418] In the Mishna, Sanhedrin vi. 2, it is said: “If some cause for extenuation is brought forward on his (i.e. the condemned) behalf, he is liberated, otherwise he goes out (i.e. of the hall of judgement) to be stoned. Some (accredited) person calls out in front of him (i.e. as he is being led to the place of execution): ‘So and so, the son of so and so, is going forth to be stoned for having committed such and such a sin, and of which such and such are the witnesses; whosoever has anything to bring forward in his favour let him come forth and utter it on behalf of him’ (i.e. the condemned).”

[419] See the works mentioned under the Literature given above.

[420] The Jewish name was Salome.

[421] “Then shall ye do unto him as he thought to do unto his brother.”

[422] “The Greek word translated ‘dragon’ denotes originally a large serpent. Homer uses drakōn and ophis interchangeably without the least apparent difference. Even the drakōn of Greek mythology remains essentially a serpent”—Witton Davies in Charles, I, 653.

[423] Rouse, Greek Votive Offerings, pp. 193 ff.

[424] Both Berosus and Helladius speak of gods worshipped as serpents in Babylon (Witton Davies).

[425] It should be noted that in the canonical Esther the chapters run from i. to x. 3; in the Apocrypha the chapters are numbered as though they came consecutively after those of the canonical Esther, viz. x. 4 to xvi. 24; this unnecessary confusion is due to St. Jerome “who relegated the Greek interpolations to the end of the canonical book; but it has had the effect of making them unintelligible” (Swete, Op. cit., p. 257).

[426] Unless the mention of fasting, in iv. 16, ix. 31, can be included in this.

[427] Op. cit., p. 258.

[428] In the margin of the Revised Version this note occurs: “Or, the seers. So the Septuagint”; this is, no doubt, what should be read.

[429] Op. cit., p. 362.

[430] Op. cit., p. 612.

[431] See Swete, Intro. to the O.T. in Greek, p. 142 (1900).

[432] See Swete, Op. cit., p. 253. The Greek text is given in Swete’s The O.T. in Greek, iii. pp. 824-826.

[433] Where it follows a reference to 2 Chronicles xxxiii. 18.

[434] In ii. 22.

[435] Op. cit., p. 613.

[436] Ryle treats these words as though they stood in the text of Cod. T in addition to “I have set up ...” (which is the case in the Latin Version); but according to Swete’s apparatus criticus they are not an addition, but a substitution.

[437] The text of Cod. A agrees, however, with that of the Apostolical Constitutions.

[438] See Fritzsche; Kurzgefasstes exeget. Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des Alten Testamentes, i. pp. 158 ff.; Ball, Op. cit., pp. 362 ff.

[439] The Didascalia was incorporated into the Apostolical Constitutions of which it forms the first six books; the Apostolical Constitutions belongs to the fourth or fifth century.

[440] Oesterley, Op. cit., I, p. 59.

[441] Oesterley, Op. cit., p. 61.

[442] See Josephus, Antiq., XIV, iv. 2-4; Bell. Jud., I, vii. 3-6.

[443] See further, Schürer, Op. cit. II, iii. pp. 13, 14.

[444] The present writer has given many of these in his commentary referred to above.

[445] This section is taken substantially from the present writer’s commentary in Charles, I, pp. 61-65.

[446] Juden und Griechen vor der makkabäischen Erhebung, pp. 70 ff.

[447] Hermes, ix. pp. 284 ff., cp. Kautzsch, Op. cit., i. p. 30.

[448] Op. cit., p. 72.

[449] Though this did not actually come about until some time after the period dealt with in our book.

[450] “Saviour,” on account of his having delivered the Babylonians from the satrap Heraclides.

[451] The name of the Hasmonæan dynasty comes from that of the ancestor of the house, Asmonæus (Josephus, Antiq., XII, vi. 1; XIV, xvi. 4; XVI, vii. 1), who is said to have been the grandfather of Mattathias.

[452] It is in 1 Maccabees xiv. 41 that we are told of the ratification by the people of the high-priestly and princely dignity in the house of Asmonæus; “And the Jews and the priests were well pleased that Simon should be their leader and high-priest for ever....”

[453] See above, p. 419.

[454] According to Josephus (Bell. Jud., II, x. 2) this was a high hill a hundred stadia north of Ptolemais.

[455] No further mention is made of him in 1 Maccabees; he was murdered three or four years later by the usurper Alexander Zabinas, who gave himself out to be the son of Alexander Balas.

[456] Josephus (Antiq., XIII, vii. 2) says that he “fled from Dora to Apamæa, where he was taken during the siege, and put to death, when he had reigned three years.”

[457] These formed originally one book, as in the Septuagint; their division into two books is probably due to Christian influence.

[458] In the Septuagint there is no equivalent to these two chapters; see on this below, pp. 510 f.

[459] For the exceptions to this, see below.

[460] Volz (Encycl. Bibl., II, 1490) says of this story that “it is an independent piece of narrative that is also found standing by itself in a MS. of the Vulgate (Berger, Hist. de la Vulgate, p. 94 [1893]). To all appearance this piece is itself also a composite production, the praise of truth being an addition. The whole seems to have been originally written in Greek, and shows affinity with the epistle of Aristeas (Ewald, Hist., v. 165); the writer appears to have knowledge of the court history of Persia (iv. 29 ff.). The hero of the story is not originally Zerubbabel.”

[461] Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible, I, 759 f.

[462] They are clearly and succinctly summarized by Thackeray in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible, I, 758-763.

[463] History of Israel, v. pp. 126 ff.

[464] In the Academy for 1893.

[465] Op. cit., p. 2.

[466] Cp. Josephus, Antiq., XI, iii. 2-6.

[467] The International Journal of Apocrypha, April 1913, pp. 33, 34.

[468] That the book was originally written in Greek admits of no doubt.

[469] Quoted by Goodrick, Op. cit., p. 34.

[470] He is followed by Wright, McNeile, and Barton, in their works on Ecclesiastes.

[471] Ecclesiastes, or, The Preacher, pp. 70 f.

[472] Cp. Barton, The Book of Ecclesiastes, pp. 57 f., where the passages are quoted in full in parallel columns.

[473] See pp. 200 f.

[474] For the various untenable theories regarding the identity of the author, see Grimm, pp. 16 ff., Farrar, pp. 410 ff.; the question of composite authorship is dealt with in the next section.

[475] Some scholars hold strongly that the author was an Essene; earlier commentators have argued in favour of the author being a Christian. That the book was written for Jews is probable, apart from other considerations, from the numerous references to the Old Testament and past history of the Jews.

[476] Op. cit., p. xvii.

[477] See above, pp. 165 f.

[478] It must be remembered that in the Hebrew Bible the Book of Job is reckoned among the Hagiographa.

[479] The words in the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus, “and the rest of the books,” are too indefinite for us to assume that the writer meant the Hagiographa as we understand them. In the Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus (xlix. 9), Job is mentioned, but only in reference to Ezekiel xiv. 14, 20, nothing is said of Job as we know him from the book that bears his name.

[480] Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, p. 26 f.

[481] Goodrick, Op. cit., p. 15.

[482] We have adopted some of Goodrick’s renderings in this quotation as being superior to that of the Revised Version; see Swete’s text, The Old Testament in Greek, ii. p. 606 f.

[483] Encycl. Bibl., iv. 5347.

[484] Mr. Gregg (Op. cit., p. xxvii.) says: “Attacks upon the unity of the book have failed, and no serious effort to dispute it has recently been made.” This is really not quite in accordance with the facts; Mr. Gregg has overlooked some not unimportant contributions to the literature on the subject; during the years 1903-1906 quite serious efforts have been made to show that the book is of composite authorship by at least five first-rate scholars.

[485] It is true that Wisdom is mentioned in xiv. 2, but it is used there in quite a different sense from that of the personified semi-divine Wisdom of part I, a fact which, if anything, strengthens the argument in favour of different authorship.

[486] Toy, in Encycl. Bibl., iv. 5338.

[487] Op. cit., i. pp. 522, 523.

[488] It should, however, be pointed out that differences of opinion exist as to where the dividing line between the two parts lies; Toy follows Houbigant here.

[489] Op. cit., p. 77.

[490] It is true that the book opens with an address to rulers; but Gregg is doubtless right in saying that this “would seem to be a purely rhetorical artifice, screening the real purpose of the book ...” (Op. cit., p. xxi.).

[491] Op. cit., pp. xxiii. f.

[492] The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, p. 231 (1900).

[493] Torrey, in the Encycl. Bibl., iii. 2870.

[494] On this obscure episode of pre-Maccabæan Jewish history see Büchler, Die Tobiaden und die Oniaden, pp. 106 ff.

[495] These are very conveniently drawn up in parallel columns by Moffatt, in Charles, I, pp. 126, 127.

[496] See above, p. 415.

[497] There are some few scholars who take a different view, e.g. Niese, less directly in favour of 2 Maccabees are Büchler and Laqueur, more modified in their opinion are Sluys and Wellhausen, see Schürer, German ed., III, p. 484 (not mentioned in the English edition).

[498] The text reads “belonging to Bacenor’s company,” but this can scarcely be right, as in xii. 17-19 Dositheus belongs to the “Jews that are called Tubieni.”

[499] Encycl. Bibl., iii. 2873 f.

[500] This figure should be “eight” according to 1 Maccabees iv. 95.

[501] The month Chislev = approximately December.

[502] Cp. Torrey, Encycl. Bibl., iii. 2875 f.

[503] “The senate and Judas” in verse 10 should be read, with the Syriac Version, “the senate of the Jews.”

[504] Torrey, Op. cit., iii. 2877.

[505] Cp. the far more sober account in 1 Maccabees vi. 8-17.

[506] Op. cit., iii. 2876.

[507] Op. cit., iii. 2877.

[508] Antiq., XII, vii. 7.

[509] Lucius, Der Essenismus, pp. 36 ff.

[510] In his Prologus Galeatus.

[511] Westcott, in Smith’s Dict. of the Bibl., ii. p. 175.

[512] Or “first origin.”

[513] E.g., by Irenæus, Adv. Haeres., v. 35; Clement of Alexandria, Paed., i. 10.

[514] Intr. to the O.T. in Greek, p. 274 (1900).

[515] Cp. Charles, The Apocalypse of Baruch, pp. xvi. f. (1896).

[516] Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidos, the last king of Babylon, who was overthrown by Cyrus.

[517] See the account given by Josephus, Bell. Jud., II, xvii. 3.

[518] See Josephus, Bell. Jud., VI, iii. 4, ix. 2, 3.

[519] See the long account given by Josephus, Bell. Jud., VI, iv. 1-7.

[520] Cp. the Pharisaic additions in Ecclesiasticus.

[521] See Zunz, Die Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, passim (1892).

[522] I.e., the Shemoneh Esreh (“Eighteen Benedictions”); the name Amidah (“Standing”) is given to it because it is said standing.

[523] In the liturgy the order of these two clauses is reversed.

[524] I.e. “‘Hear,’ O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One,” Deuteronomy vi. 4-9; xi. 13-21; Numbers xv. 37-41; in this last the deliverance from Egypt is referred to.

[525] Oesterley and Box, The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue, p. 367 (1911).

[526] According to Cornill, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, p. 274 (1896).

[527] In Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible, i. 253.

[528] This was pointed out long ago by Ryle and James, The Psalms of the Pharisees, pp. lxxii. ff.

[529] See pp. 214 ff.

[530] Op. cit., pp. lxxii.-lxxvii.

[531] In the Revised Version wrongly reckoned as verse 1, which is not done either in the Vulgate or the Septuagint.

[532] xxxvi. 1 in the Septuagint.

[533] In Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible, II, 579.

[534] Encycl. Bibl., ii. 2395.

[535] See further, p. 439 above. In the Vulgate the Prayer of Manasses, 1 (3) Esdras and 2 (4) Esdras are not included among the Apocrypha, but are placed in an Appendix at the end of the whole Bible, i.e. after the Book of Revelation.

[536] That it was originally written in Hebrew does not admit of doubt. See Box, Op. cit., pp. xiii.-xx.

[537] Hastings’ D.B., i. 766a.

[538] The following is translated from the Latin text edited by Bensly (see the Literature above); the words in brackets are wanting in the Latin, and are supplied from the Syriac Version.

[539] So the Syriac, which is required by the context; the Latin reads, “were burned.”

[540] The text is corrupt here; it reads multitudo tempestatio.

[541] Box rightly sees the hand of the Redactor in the form of the Vision as we now have it; he follows Kabisch in holding that the date of the Redactor is A.D. 120, possibly even a little later.

[542] For other interpretations that have been put forth, see Drummond, Op. cit., pp. 99-114.

[543] The passage v. 56-vi. 6 is a polemic against Christian teaching.

[544] At viii. 63 the dialogue is interrupted by a section on the Signs of the End; at ix. 13 it is taken up again.

[545] Maldwyn Hughes, The Ethics of Jewish Apocryphal Literature, p. 240.

[546] Box, Op. cit., p. xlvi.

[547] I.e. during the destruction of the city.

[548] This is the cup of inspiration, “full of the holy spirit, which, clear as water, is like fire” (Box).

[549] Box, Op. cit., p. 305; see also his Introduction, pp. lviii. ff.

[550] See above, pp. 198 ff.

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE

Footnotes [273], [457], [507] and [512] each have two anchors.

Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within the text and consultation of external sources.

Some hyphens in words have been silently removed, some added, when a predominant preference was found in the original book.

Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text, and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained.

Pg ix: added missing page number ‘77’ for Ecclesiasticus.
Pg xiii: ‘(1 [3] Esdras)’ replaced by ‘(1 (3) Esdras)’ (to avoid confusion with footnote numbering).
Pg xiv: ‘(2 [4] Esdras)’ replaced by ‘(2 (4) Esdras)’.
Pg 124: ‘that three are’ replaced by ‘that there are’.
Pg 151: ‘this pseudepipraphic’ replaced by ‘this pseudepigraphic’.
Pg 174: ‘he might chose’ replaced by ‘he might choose’.
Pg 202: removed italic markup from ‘Burkitt’.
Pg 237: ‘should not trangress’ replaced by ‘should not transgress’.
Pg 268: ‘is my trangression’ replaced by ‘is my transgression’.
Pg 289: ‘together in the’ replaced by ‘together is the’.
Pg 293: ‘be sepa this’ replaced by ‘be separated from this’.
Pg 293: ‘the world to me’ replaced by ‘the world to come’.
Pg 386: ‘was astonied, and’ replaced by ‘was astonished, and’.
Pg 412: ‘centreing around’ replaced by ‘centering around’.
Pg 439: ‘(1 [3] Esdras)’ replaced by ‘(1 (3) Esdras)’.
Pg 485: ‘one is unevitably’ replaced by ‘one is inevitably’.
Pg 509: ‘(2 [4] Esdras)’ replaced by ‘(2 (4) Esdras)’.
Pg 515: ‘out of whch’ replaced by ‘out of which’.
Pg 523: ‘above the firmanent’ replaced by ‘above the firmament’.
Pg 535: entry ‘Civitis’ moved up to its proper position.

Footnote [240]: ‘Ecclesiaticus’ replaced by ‘Ecclesiasticus’.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BOOKS OF THE APOCRYPHA ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg

Project Gutenberg is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 41 Watchung Plaza #516, Montclair NJ 07042, USA, +1 (862) 621-9288. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Table of Contents

THE BOOKS OF THE APOCRYPHA THEIR ORIGIN, TEACHING AND CONTENTS

PREFACE
CONTENTS
Introductory

PART I PROLEGOMENA TO THE APOCRYPHA

CHAPTER I The Hellenistic Movement

- I. Hellenism in its Secular Aspect
- II. Hellenism in its Religious Aspect
- Summary

CHAPTER II Hellenistic Influence upon the Jews of Palestine

- I. Hellenism and Judaism
- II. The Essenes
- Summary

CHAPTER III Hellenistic Influence upon the Jews of the Dispersion

- I. The Dispersion
- II. Hellenistic Influence on Religion
- III. The Septuagint
- IV. Philo of Alexandria
- Summary

CHAPTER IV Traces of Greek Influence in the Old Testament and in the Apocrypha

- I. References to the Greeks in the Old Testament

- II. Traces of Greek Influence in the Old Testament

- III. Traces of Greek Influence in the Apocrypha

- Summary

CHAPTER V The Apocalyptic Movement

- I. The Beginnings of the Apocalyptic Movement

- II. The Apocalyptists

- III. The Doctrinal Teaching of the Apocalyptic Literature

- Summary

CHAPTER VI The Scribes

- The Scribes

- Summary

CHAPTER VII The Pharisees and Sadducees

- I. The Meaning of the Terms “Pharisees” and “Sadducees”

- II. The Sources

- III. The Doctrines of the Pharisees and Sadducees

- IV. Some Subsidiary Considerations

- Summary

CHAPTER VIII The Origin of the Old Testament Canon of Scripture

- I. The Hebrew Canon in its Present Form
- II. The Idea of a Canon
- III. The Formation of the Hebrew Canon

- IV. To Whom was the Final Fixing of the Hebrew Canon due?

- Summary

- Additional Note

CHAPTER IX Uncanonical Books (I)

- I. The Meaning of the Term Gānaz.

- II. The Meaning of the Term Apokryphos

- III. The Connection between the Terms Gānaz AND Apokryphos

- IV. How the Term “Apocrypha” came to be Applied to Sacred Books of the Second Rank

- V. The Reading of Uncanonical Books

- Summary

CHAPTER X Uncanonical Books (II). The Apocalyptic Literature

- Preliminary Remarks
- (a) The Book of Enoch
- (b) The Sibylline Oracles
- (c) The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
- (d) The Psalms of Solomon
- (e) The Book of Jubilees
- (f) The Assumption of Moses
- (g) The Ascension of Isaiah
- (h) The Book of the Secrets of Enoch
- (i) The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch
- (j) The Apocalypse of Moses
- (k) The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch

CHAPTER XI The Wisdom Literature; the Jewish Conception of Wisdom

- I. The Wisdom Literature

- II. The Origin of the Hebrew Conception of Wisdom

- III. The Jewish Conception of Wisdom

- Summary

CHAPTER XII The Doctrinal Teaching of the Apocrypha

- Preliminary Remarks

- (a) The Doctrine of God.

- (b) The Doctrine of the Law.

- (c) The Doctrine of Sin.

- (d) The Doctrine of Grace and Free-will.

- (e) The Doctrine of the Messiah.

- (f) The Doctrine of the Future Life.

- (g) The Doctrine of Angels.

- (h) Demonology.

- Summary

PART II INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF THE APOCRYPHA

Introductory

CHAPTER I The Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach; or Ecclesiasticus

- I. The Title of the Book
- II. The Author and his Book
- III. The Date of the Book

- IV. The Original Language of the Book; the recently found Hebrew Manuscripts

- V. The Authorized and Revised Versions of Ecclesiasticus

- VI. The “Sadducæan” Doctrinal Standpoint in Ecclesiasticus

- VII. The Pharisaic Additions to Ecclesiasticus.

- VIII. The Value of the Book for the Study of the New Testament

CHAPTER II The Book of Tobit

- I. The Story of Achikar the Wise

- II. The Relationship between the Book of Tobit and the Story of Achikar the Wise.

- III. The Contents of the Book of Tobit

- IV. The Religious Standpoint of the Writer

- V. The Date of the Book, its Integrity, and Place of Origin

- VI. The Value of the Book for New Testament Study

CHAPTER III The Book of Judith

- I. Contents and Character of the Book
- II. Variety of Form of the Judith Story
- III. The Teaching and Purpose of the Book
- IV. The Date of the Book
- V. The Original Language of the Book

CHAPTER IV The Additions to the Book of Daniel

- I. Preliminary Remarks
- II. The Prayer of Azariah
- III. The Song of the Three Children
- IV. The Story of Susanna
- V. Bel and the Dragon

CHAPTER V The Additions to the Book of Esther

- I. The Nature and Object of the Additions

- II. Authorship and Date of the Additions

CHAPTER VI The Prayer of Manasses

- I. The Contents of the Prayer
- II. The Origin of the Prayer
- III. The Date of the Prayer

- IV. The Writer and the Language in which he Wrote

CHAPTER VII The First Book of Maccabees

- I. Title and Authorship of the Book

- II. The Date of the Book

- III. The Original Language and Literary Character of the Book

- IV. The Sources of the Book[445]

- V. The History of the Maccabæan Struggle

CHAPTER VIII The Greek Ezra (1 (3) Esdras)

- I. The Title of the Book

- II. Contents of the Book

- III. The “Hebrew Ezra,” the “Greek Ezra,” and 2 Esdras

- IV. The Historicity of the Book

- V. The Purpose of the Book

- VI. The Story of the Three Young Men of Darius’ Bodyguard

- VII. The Date of the Book

CHAPTER IX The Book of Wisdom (The Wisdom of Solomon)

- I. The Title and Authorship of the Book
- II. The Date of the Book
- III. The Question of Composite Authorship

- IV. The Purposes for which the Book was Written

- V. The Influence of the Book on St. Paul

CHAPTER X The Second Book of Maccabees

- I. The Origin of the Book
- II. The Contents of the Book
- III. Comparison between 1 and 2 Maccabees
- IV. The Historical Value of 2 Maccabees
- V. The Purpose of the Book
- VI. The Integrity of the Book

- VII. The Date and Original Language of the Book

- VIII. The Influence of the Book on New Testament Writers

CHAPTER XI The Book of Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah

- I. Short Account of the Book, and its Contents

- II. Examination of the Component Parts of the Book

- The Epistle of Jeremiah

CHAPTER XII The Ezra Apocalypse (2 (4) Esdras)

- I. The Title of the Book

- II. Chapters i. ii.

- III. Chapters xv. xvi.

- IV. The Component Parts of Chapters iii.-xiv.

- V. The Vision of the Man rising from the Sea.

- VI. The Eagle Vision
- VII. The Salathiel Apocalypse
- VIII. An Ezra Legend

Indexes

- GENERAL INDEX
- INDEX OF PASSAGES FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT
- INDEX OF PASSAGES FROM THE APOCRYPHA
- INDEX OF PASSAGES FROM THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHA
- INDEX OF PASSAGES FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT

- INDEX OF PASSAGES FROM RABBINICAL LITERATURE

FOOTNOTES:

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG™ LICENSE