*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 75434 ***
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.
Bold text is denoted by =equal signs=.
Footnote anchors are denoted by [number], and the footnotes have
been placed at the end of the book.
A superscript is denoted by ^x or ^{xx}.
Breves and macrons are accurately represented (ă Ä• Ä Ä“ etc). The
alef symbol ℵ is used on page 379.
The tables in this book are best viewed using a monospace font.
Some minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book.
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 Principlesâ€).
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.â€
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,â€
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
(“Prolegomenaâ€) 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 Theologyâ€; 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 _GÄnaz_ 183
II. The Meaning of the Term _Apokryphos_ 185
III. The Connexion between the Terms _GÄnaz_ 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
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. 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 Boo 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.â€
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.â€
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....â€[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.â€[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.â€[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.â€[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.’â€[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 judgementsâ€[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.â€[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 (CÅ“le-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.â€[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.â€[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.â€[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 Zadokâ€â€”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.â€[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.â€[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.â€[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....â€[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.â€[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.â€[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_ (“Piousâ€).[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.â€[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.â€[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.â€[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.â€[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.â€[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
spiritâ€[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.â€[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.â€[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
theeâ€; 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.â€[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....â€[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 beforeâ€; 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.â€[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_ (“Seventyâ€) 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.â€[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-priestâ€; 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.â€[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-begottenâ€; 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 ...â€;
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.â€[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 swordâ€; 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., _psantÄ“rîn_, _symphÅnia_, 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_.â€[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.â€[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 ...â€) 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.â€[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.â€[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 ...â€), 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 pleasureâ€; 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.â€[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.â€[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 Israelâ€; 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.
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 transgressionâ€;
For that which He hateth made He not.
Say not, “It is He that made me to stumble,â€
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.â€
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.â€[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 “soulâ€; 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 _sÅma_ (body), nor did the Greek
_psychē_ (soul) correspond with the Hebrew _nĕphĕsh_; the Hebrew
word which comes nearest to _psychÄ“_ would be _nÄ•shÄmÄh_ (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 undefiledâ€; 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.â€[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
(_nÄ•shÄmÄh_) of life; and man became a living soul (_nÄ•phÄ•sh_)â€; that
is to say, the _nÄ•shÄmÄh_ (which is equivalent to what we understand
by “soulâ€; there is no real distinction between “soul†and “spiritâ€
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_ 143_b_) 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. 63_c_, 69_c_?â€[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....â€[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 activityâ€; 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.â€[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.â€[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.â€[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.â€[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.â€[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.â€
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.â€[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 Meâ€; in xlviii. 4 it is
said of the Son of Man that “He shall be the Light of the Gentilesâ€
(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.â€
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.â€
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 Himâ€; 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.â€
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,â€
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.
(_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?â€
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.â€
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 bookâ€; 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 Lordâ€; 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 judgementsâ€
(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.â€
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 ...â€;
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 “Piousâ€
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 Sectariesâ€)
(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
Phariseesâ€: 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 “SADDUCEESâ€
(_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 “separatenessâ€
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.â€[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.â€[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
MasÅ«di, confuses the _ZanÄdikah_ 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
_ZanÄdikah_ is a corruption of _ZaddÅ«kim_. 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
ZadÅk_) with a suggestion of ‘righteous’ (_ZaddÄ«kim_).... It may be
mentioned, though perhaps as a mere coincidence, that _ZanÄdikah_ is
used for Sadducees in Arabic translations of the New Testament.â€[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 (_BÄ•ni ZadÅk_) 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.â€
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.â€[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.â€[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?â€[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.â€[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 Godâ€; 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.â€[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,â€
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 90_b_) 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.â€[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 spiritâ€; 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.â€[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.â€[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.â€[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 “Sadducæanâ€
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.â€
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 “Scrollsâ€
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,â€[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 thingsâ€(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 ...â€
(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 fiveâ€); 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 ...â€; and later on, he again speaks of
“the Law, and the Prophets, and the books of our fathersâ€; 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.â€[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,â€
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.â€
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 100_a_) 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.â€
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.â€[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.â€[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.â€[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 handsâ€; that is to say, the Sadducees repudiated the
Pharisaic conception of what constituted the Canon. This phrase,
“to defile the hands,â€[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.â€[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.â€[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,â€
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 “infectionâ€
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.â€[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 “canonicalâ€
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 _GÄnaz_.
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 _gÄnaz_, “to hide,†and the
Greek word _apokryphos_, “hidden,†and the relationship of these
terms to one another. The word _Apocrypha_ means “hidden thingsâ€; 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 _gÄnaz_; this means originally “to
store up,†but it also has the meaning “to store up in secret,†and
thus “to hide.â€[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.â€[237] The latter part
of this statement is undoubtedly true; but Hölscher has shown
conclusively that to say that _gÄnaz_ 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 _gÄnaz_ in reference to
uncanonical books.†He shows further that when the Rabbis use _gÄnaz_
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 _gÄnaz_ 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 _gÄnaz_ 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†(_gÄnaz_)
and forbid are always such the contents of which were regarded as
thoroughly objectionable, viz., heretical.[239] It follows also that
_gÄnaz_ 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 _gÄnaz_ 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_ (“hiddenâ€), 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.â€[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.â€[244] According to Suidas,
Therecydes of Syros learned his wisdom from “the secret books of the
PhÅ“nicians.â€[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 daysâ€; 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
“apocryphalâ€; 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 _gÄnaz_ 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 _GÄnaz_ AND _Apokryphos_
We have seen that _gÄnaz_ 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 “hiddenâ€
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, _gÄnaz_ being applied to bad books,
_apokryphos_ to good ones. But here another factor comes in. From
the root _gÄnaz_ 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 _gÄnaz_ 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.’â€[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.â€[254] This, therefore, suggests a
distinct connection between the ideas conveyed by the terms _gÄnaz_
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
_gÄnaz_; 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.â€[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 _gÄnaz_ 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; _gÄnaz_, 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 “apocryphaâ€
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 booksâ€[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,â€
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.â€[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.â€[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 Genealogiesâ€; what
the precise contents of this work were is not known, as only one
quotation occurs in the Talmud, in the tractate Jebamoth 49_b_. Rabbi
Jochanan ben Nuri, a contemporary of Rabbi Akiba, possessed, we are
told, a “Megillath SammÄnim†(“The roll of powdersâ€), 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 SethÄrim†(“The roll of
hidden thingsâ€), 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.â€[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 “booksâ€; 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 _gÄnaz_ and the Greek word _apokryphos_ must be
properly understood if the subject of canonical and uncanonical books
is to be discussed. Originally, _gÄnaz_ 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 _gÄnaz_ 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 _gÄnaz_; 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 “Pseudepigraphaâ€; 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_.â€[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. }
xciii. } } The oldest pre-Maccabæan
xci. 12-17 } “The Apocalypse of Weeks†} portions.
vi.-xi. } }
liv. 7-lv. 2 } }
lx. } Fragments of the “Book } Pre-Maccabæan at the
lxv.-lxix. 25 } of Noahâ€[279] } latest.
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 Similitudesâ€) 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.â€
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?â€[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 Similitudesâ€) 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.â€[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.â€[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.â€[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 viewâ€; 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 (?)).â€[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.â€[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 “Testamentsâ€
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.â€
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 avengingâ€
(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.â€[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 Mosesâ€[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 hornâ€; the
year of Jubilee thus means literally “the year of ram’s hornâ€; 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 anotherâ€
(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 Mosesâ€
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 Mosesâ€; 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 beliefsâ€; 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
soulâ€). 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.â€[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.â€[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.â€[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 _mÄshÄl_; 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 _mÄshÄl_ 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’â€; 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.â€[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.â€
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 togetherâ€; 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 whirlwindâ€; 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.â€
The simplest form of proverb was thus the earliest type of “Wisdomâ€
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!â€
Then said the trees to the fig-tree: “Come thou, be king over us.â€
And the fig-tree said to them:
“Should I give up my sweetness and my good fruit,
And go and wave over the trees!â€
Then said the trees to the vine: “Come thou, be king over us.â€
And the vine said unto them:
“Should I give up my wine that cheereth gods and men,
And go and wave over the trees!â€
Then said all the trees to the thorn-bush: “Come thou, be king
over us.â€
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!â€
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 _mÄshÄl_, 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.â€
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.â€[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.â€
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, _ChakÄmîm_) 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 menâ€
are spoken of as a class; thus Jeremiah witnesses to the fact that
already in his day the _Chakam_ (“wise manâ€) 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. “headâ€), has also the sense of
“beginningâ€; 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.â€
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.’â€[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 workmanâ€), 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 madeâ€[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 ...â€; 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.).â€[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.â€[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?â€
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....â€
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 “Wordâ€
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.â€[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
“nailsâ€] 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 _mÄshÄl_, 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,
_mÄshÄl_ 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 menâ€
(_ChakÄmîm_) 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 Wisdomâ€; 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,’â€[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. 26^_a_:
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
Heavenâ€; 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.â€[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).â€[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 Apocalypseâ€
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 everâ€; 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,â€
For that which He hateth made He not.
Say not, “It is He that made me to stumble,â€
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 Yetzerâ€; 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 sinâ€],
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. “Satanâ€],
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 “adversaryâ€â€”whether
“Satan†in the sense of the Devil, or an adversary in a more general
signification—the words which follow (“He curseth his own soulâ€)
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 “Satanâ€; 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 itâ€; 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 oneâ€; 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 kingsâ€; 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 heartâ€). “It is noteworthy,â€
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 tendencyâ€]; 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.â€
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.â€[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.â€[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 Woesâ€) 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. 4_a_: “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 ...â€; 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 17-23^{_ab_}, 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.â€[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
quenchedâ€). 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,â€
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.â€[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 everlastingâ€
(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 vesselâ€
(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 ...â€; 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 ...â€; 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 ...â€; 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 themâ€
(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 Apocalypseâ€; 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 wisdomâ€:
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 Israelâ€; the prayer is heard, and “a rider appeared at
their head, in white apparel, brandishing weapons of goldâ€; 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 Apocalypseâ€;
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 }
Additions to Daniel (excepting } Maccabæan, about the middle of
the Prayer of Azarias which } the second century B.C.
is pre-Maccabæan) }
Rest of Esther }
Prayer of Manasses }
1 Maccabees } Post-Maccabæan, _circa_ B.C. 110.
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. } Incorporates some earlier
of Jeremiah. } End of first material.
2 (4) Esdras } century A.D. 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 Sirachâ€; in the Syriac Version it is: “Wisdom of Bar Sira.â€[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.â€[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-Siraâ€; 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 scribeâ€
(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 bedsâ€;
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.â€[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.â€[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.â€[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.â€[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 “Sadducæanâ€[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.â€[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.â€[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 “Sadduceesâ€
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.â€
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 100_b_) 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.â€[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 vi. 14. For if ye forgive men
the injury done to thee. their trespasses, your heavenly
And then, when thou prayest, Father will also forgive you.
thy sins will be forgiven.
St. Luke.
xlviii. 10. [Speaking of Elijah] i. 17. And he shall go before his
... To turn the heart of face in the spirit and power
fathers unto the children. 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 xii. 19, 20 ... And I will say
have found rest, to my soul, Soul, thou hast
And now will I enjoy my much goods laid up for
goods,— many years; take thine ease,
He knoweth not what lot eat, drink and be merry.
shall befall; But God said unto him,
He shall leave them to others, Thou foolish one, this
and die. 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, i. 5. But if any of you lacketh
keep the commandments, Wisdom, let him ask of God,
And the Lord will give her Who giveth to all liberally
freely unto thee. and upbraideth not; and it
shall be given unto him.
xv. 11-13. Say not, From God i. 13, 14. Let no man say when
is my trangression, he is tempted, I am tempted
For that which He hateth of God; for God cannot be
made He not. tempted with evil, and
Say not, It is He that made He Himself tempteth no
me to stumble. man; but each man is
For there is no need of evil tempted, when he is drawn
men. away by his own lust, and
Evil and abomination doth enticed.
the Lord hate,
And He doth not let it come
nigh to them that fear Him.
v. 11. Be swift to hear, i. 19. But let every man be
But with patience make reply. swift to hear, slow to speak,
slow to wrath.
vii. 35, 36. Forget not to visit i. 27. Pure religion and undefiled
the sick, before God and Father
For thou wilt be loved for that. is this, to visit the fatherless
In all thy doings remember and widows in their
thy last end, affliction, and to keep himself
Then wilt thou never do unspotted from the
corruptly. 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.â€
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.â€
* * * * *
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).â€
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 My son, lift not up thy eyes
child, (to refrain) from all and look upon a woman that
whoredom (iv. 12). is bedizened and painted; and
do not lust after her in thy
heart (ii. 5).
Alms delivereth from death, As for me, my righteousness
and suffereth not to come into (= alms) has saved me (viii. 2).
darkness (iv. 10).
Pour out thy bread and thy My son, pour out thy wine
wine[380] on the tomb of the on the graves of the righteous,
righteous, and give not to rather than drink it with evil
sinners (iv. 17). men (ii. 10).
Ask counsel of every man My son, associate with the
that is wise, and despise not wise man, and thou wilt become
any counsel that is profitable wise like him (ii. 12).
(iv. 18).
It is good to keep close the If thou hast heard a word let
secret of a king, but to confess it die in thy heart, and reveal
and reveal the works of God it to no man; lest it become a
(xii. 7). 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. 1-7_a_). 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. 7_b_-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 darknessâ€; 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 ...â€; 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 meâ€
(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 angelsâ€; 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 demonâ€
(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.â€[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
...â€; 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.â€[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.â€
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 ...â€; 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 manâ€; 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 nakedâ€; 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....â€
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. 12_a_
and 1 Thessalonians iv. 3, and in Tobit iv. 15_b_ 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,â€
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.â€
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 ...â€; 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.â€[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.â€[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.â€[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.â€[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).â€
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,â€[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.â€[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.â€[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-negoâ€; 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
Childrenâ€; 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.â€
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 sayingâ€; 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 Omerâ€[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 62_a_,
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 Elâ€) 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 33-39_a_, 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 39_b_) but the Lord God remembered Daniel....â€
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,â€
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 preyâ€;
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 fidelityâ€) 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,â€
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 Godâ€; 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 mannerâ€; 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.â€[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.â€
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.â€[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.â€[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.â€[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.â€[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 bandsâ€; 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.â€[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 Theeâ€; 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 dreadâ€; 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 Hasmonæansâ€; 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.â€[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 themselvesâ€; 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.â€[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.â€[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....â€
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 placesâ€; 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.â€
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 affairsâ€
(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,â€
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_ (“Dedicationâ€) 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 Sionâ€; 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 affairsâ€; 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 Tyreâ€[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 _Septuagint_ _Vulgate_ _English _English
Bible_ Bible_ Apocrypha_
Ezra[457] } { 1 Esdras Ezra
Nehemiah[457] } 2 Esdras, { 2 Esdras Nehemiah 2 Esdras
} or Esdras B. { i. ii.[458]
{ 1 Esdras, or Esdras }
{ A, together with 2 }
{ Chronicles xxxv., }
Ezra { xxxvi. and most of } 3 Esdras Ezra 1 Esdras
{ Nehemiah viii. (the }
{ “Greek Ezraâ€). }
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 Ezraâ€
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 Ezraâ€
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,â€[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 Ezraâ€) 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.â€[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.
73_b_, 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 Ezraâ€
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 “Artaxerxesâ€
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 Ezraâ€) 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.â€[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 strongestâ€; “The king is strongestâ€; “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. 17_b_-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 thingsâ€; 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,â€
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,â€
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.â€[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.â€[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 ...â€) 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.â€[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.â€[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.â€[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
mankindâ€). 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 citizenshipâ€:
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.â€[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.â€
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.â€[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.â€
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.â€[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.â€
(_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.â€[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 sinnedâ€; 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 Godâ€; 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 clokeâ€; 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 Colossians ii. 8: “Take heed lest
given me unerring knowledge there shall be any one that
of the things that are, to maketh spoil of you through
know the constitution of the his philosophy and vain deceit,
world, and the working of the after the tradition of
elements.†men, after the elements of
the world, and not after Christ.â€
Wisdom xix. 18-21: “For the
elements changed their order Colossians ii. 20: “If ye died with
one with another....†Christ from the elements of the
world, seek the things that are
Wisdom xiii. 2, 3: “But whether above, where Christ is....â€
fire, or wind, or swift air, or
circling stars, or raging water, Galatians iv. 3: “So we also,
or luminaries of heaven, they when we were children, were
thought (all) were gods that held in bondage under the
rule the world. And if elements of the world.â€
through delight in their beauty
they took them to be gods, Galatians iv. 8, 9: “Howbeit at
let them know how much that time, not knowing God,
better than these is their ye were in bondage to them
Sovereign Lord....†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....â€
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, Romans ix. 21-23: “Or hath
kneading soft earth, laboriously not the potter a right over the
mouldeth each vessel for clay, from the same lump to
our service: nay, out of the make one part a vessel unto
same clay doth he fashion both honour, and another unto
the vessels that minister to dishonour? What if God,
clean uses, and those of a willing to show His wrath,
contrary sort, all in like manner; and to make His power known,
but what shall be the endured with much longsuffering
use of either sort, the craftsman vessels of wrath
himself is the judge.†fitted unto destruction; and
that He might make known
the riches of His glory upon
vessels of mercy...?â€
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.â€[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.â€[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,â€
and that he has no intention of “filling in the outlines of our
abridgementâ€; 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 ...â€; 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 ...â€; 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.â€[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 strokeâ€; 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 ...â€; 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 riderâ€
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 shewbreadâ€; 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. 10_a_ 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.â€[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.â€[507] It is perhaps this idea which is
reflected in the name of the feast given by Josephus, “the feast of
lights,â€[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. 45_a_) 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).â€[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
lifeâ€; 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.â€[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 Wisdomâ€;
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 yearâ€;
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 Jerusalemâ€; 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 righteousnessâ€; 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 kingsâ€; 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. “Blessingâ€), _Widdui_ (“Confessionâ€), _Selichah_
(“Forgivenessâ€). 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_ (“Blessingsâ€) 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_ _Amidah_
To the Lord our God belongeth Blessed art Thou, O Lord our
righteousness (i. 15) ... God, and God of our fathers ...
we have sinned before the Lord, the great, mighty and reverend
and disobeyed Him, and have God, the most high God, Who
not hearkened unto the voice of bestowest loving-kindnesses,
the Lord our God, to walk in the and possessest all things....
commandments of the Lord that He Cause us to return, O our Father,
hath set before us (ii. 17, 18). unto Thy Law; draw us near,
... Let thy wrath turn from O our King, unto Thy service,
us; for we are but a few left and bring us back in perfect
among the heathen, where Thou repentance unto Thy presence.
hast scattered us. Hear our Blessed art Thou, O Lord,
prayer, O Lord, and our petition, Who delightest in repentance.
and deliver us for Thine Forgive us, O our Father, for we
own sake.... O Lord, look have sinned; pardon us, O our
down from Thine holy house, and King, for we have transgressed;
consider us; incline Thine ear, for Thou dost pardon and forgive.
O Lord, and hear ... (ii. 13-17). ... 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_ _Amidah_
For the dead that are in the Thou, O Lord, art mighty
grave, whose breath is taken for ever, Thou quickenest the
from their bodies, will give unto dead, Thou art mighty to save....
the Lord neither glory nor Yea, faithful art Thou to
righteousness (ii. 17). quicken the dead. Blessed art
Thou O Lord, Who quickenest
For we do not present our the dead.
supplication before Thee, O
Lord our God, for the righteous- Blessed art Thou, O Lord
ness of our fathers, and of our our God ... Who rememberest
kings (ii. 19). 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.â€[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_ _Psalms of Solomon_, xi.
O Jerusalem, look about thee Stand on the height, O Jerusalem,
toward the east, and behold thy children,
And behold the joy that cometh From the east to the west,
unto thee from God. gathered together by the
Lo, thy sons come, whom thou Lord (verse 3).
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 Put on, O Jerusalem, thy
of thy mourning and glorious garments;
affliction, Make ready thy holy robe ...
And put on the comeliness of the (verse 8).
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 High mountains hath He abased
every high mountain, into a plain for them;
And the everlasting hills should The hills fled at their entrance.
be made low, The woods gave them shelter
And the valleys filled up, to as they passed by;
make plain the ground,
That Israel may go safely in the Every sweet-smelling tree God
glory of God. caused to spring up for them,
Moreover the woods and every That Israel might pass by in
sweet-smelling tree the visitation of the glory
Have overshadowed Israel of their God (verses 5-7).
(v. 7, 8).
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.â€
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 Babylonâ€;
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.â€[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.â€[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 covenantâ€; 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.’...â€
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.â€[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.â€
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.â€
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 swiftâ€; 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 estateâ€
(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.â€
“Measure me the measure of the wind.â€
“Recall me the day that is past.â€
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.â€
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 foundationsâ€
(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.â€[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.â€[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 wiseâ€
(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.’â€[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).
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.
_BÄ•ni 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
CÅ“le-Syria, 29
Colonies, Greek-speaking, 15
Common meal of the Essenes, 45
Confession of sins, 500
Connection between _gÄnaz_ 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
_GÄnaz_, 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
_MÄshÄl_, 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 SethÄrim_, 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
_NÄ•shÄmÄh_, 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.
_SÅma_, 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. 4_a_, 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
“ 26_a_, 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. 1-7_a_, 360
“ 7_b_-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
62_a_, 393
_Bel and the Dragon._
28, 32, 397
33-39_a_, 397
34-39, 302
39_b_, 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
“ 17_b_-24, 451 f.
iv. 1-12, 452
“ 13, 453
“ 13-57, 452 f.
“ 29 ff., 443
“ 58-63, 453
v. 1-6, 453
“ 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
“ 34 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 49_b_, 194
Sanhedrin 11_a_, 173
“ 90_b_, 147
“ 100_a_, 173
“ 100_b_, 340
Shabbath (Talm. Jer.) xvi., 193
Yoma 21_b_, 173
MIDRASH
Sifre 143_b_, 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 CÅ“le-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 cityâ€; 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 “Logosâ€; 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.â€
[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, 390_a_.
[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 (_rÅ«ach_) return to God Who gave it.â€
[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 _nÄ•phÄ•sh_ is used in the sense of _nÄ•shÄmÄh_ 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 slingâ€; 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.â€
[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.â€
[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.â€
[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.â€
[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.â€
[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.â€
[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 “additionsâ€
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.â€
[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.â€
[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 _qÄneh_,
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 “ruleâ€
(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 “canonicalâ€;
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., _T_orah, _N_ebiim, _K_ethubim.
[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 11_a_); therefore (this is the inference) no inspired book
can have been written in post-prophetic times, cp. Yoma 21_b_.
[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 “defiledâ€
the hands the Talmud (Shabbath 14_a_) 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, 2_a_.
[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.â€; 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. 1_a_.
[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, 612_a_.
[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_ (“hereticsâ€) 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.â€
[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 righteousâ€; a play on the word _ZaddÅ«kim_, the “sons
of Zadok,†i.e. “the Sadducees.â€
[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.â€
[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, 537_b_.
[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....â€
[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.â€
[341] In Enoch xx. 8 he is said to be him “whom God set over those
who rise.â€
[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.â€
[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. 13_a_ having
exchanged places with xxxiii. 13_b_-xxxvi. 16_a_; 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 individualâ€; 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.â€
[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.â€
[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. 388_b_.
[394] _Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden_ (2nd ed.), p. 132.
[395] _Op cit._, vii. 388_a_.
[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.â€
[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).â€
[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.â€
[422] “The Greek word translated ‘dragon’ denotes originally a large
serpent. Homer uses _drakÅn_ and _ophis_ interchangeably without
the least apparent difference. Even the _drakÅn_ of Greek mythology
remains essentially a serpentâ€â€”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 unintelligibleâ€
(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 Septuagintâ€; 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....â€
[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.â€
[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.â€
[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.â€
[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.â€
[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.â€
[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 Benedictionsâ€); the name
_Amidah_ (“Standingâ€) 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,â€
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. 766_a_.
[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.â€
[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)’.
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 75434 ***