{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_75434/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_75434","id":"gutenberg_75434","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/75434","summary":null,"tags":["Bible. Apocrypha -- Introductions","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"TRANSCRIBER\u2019S NOTE\n\n  Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.\n\n  Bold text is denoted by =equal signs=.\n\n  Footnote anchors are denoted by [number], and the footnotes have\n  been placed at the end of the book.\n\n  A superscript is denoted by ^x or ^{xx}.\n\n  Breves and macrons are accurately represented (\u0103 \u0115 \u0101 \u0113 etc). The\n  alef symbol \u2135 is used on page 379.\n\n  The tables in this book are best viewed using a monospace font.\n\n  Some minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book.\n\n\n\n\n                      THE BOOKS OF THE APOCRYPHA\n\n                 THEIR ORIGIN, TEACHING AND CONTENTS\n\n\n\n\n                     LIBRARY OF HISTORIC THEOLOGY\n\n                EDITED BY THE REV. WM. C. PIERCY, M.A.\n\n     _Each Volume, Demy 8vo, Cloth, Red Burnished Top, 5s. net._\n\n\n                          VOLUMES NOW READY.\n\n  THE PRESENT RELATIONS OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION.\n      By the Rev. Professor T. G. BONNEY, D.Sc.\n\n  ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.\n      By Professor EDOUARD NAVILLE, D.C.L.\n\n  MYSTICISM IN CHRISTIANITY.\n      By the Rev. W. K. FLEMING, M.A., B.D.\n\n  RELIGION IN AN AGE OF DOUBT.\n      By the Rev. C. J. SHEBBEARE, M.A.\n\n  THE CATHOLIC CONCEPTION OF THE CHURCH.\n      By the Rev W. J. SPARROW SIMPSON, D.D.\n\n  COMMON OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY.\n      By the Rev. C. L. DRAWBRIDGE, M.A.\n\n  MARRIAGE IN CHURCH AND STATE.\n      By the Rev. T. A. LACEY, M.A. (Warden of the London Diocesan\n      Penitentiary).\n\n  THE BUILDING UP OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.\n      By the Rev. Canon R. B. GIRDLESTONE, M.A.\n\n  CHRISTIANITY AND OTHER FAITHS. An Essay in Comparative Religion\n      By the Rev. W. ST. CLAIR TISDALL, D.D.\n\n  THE CHURCHES IN BRITAIN.         _Vols. I._ and _II._\n      By the Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D. (formerly Master of University\n      College, Durham).\n\n  CHARACTER AND RELIGION.\n      By the Rev. the HON. EDWARD LYTTELTON, M.A. (Head Master of Eton\n      College).\n\n  MISSIONARY METHODS, ST. PAUL\u2019S OR OURS?\n      By the Rev. ROLAND ALLEN, M.A. (Author of \u201cMissionary Principles\u201d).\n\n  THE RULE OF FAITH AND HOPE.\n      By the Rev. R. L. OTTLEY, D.D. (Canon of Christ Church, and Regius\n      Professor of Pastoral Theology in the University of Oxford).\n\n  THE RULE OF LIFE AND LOVE.\n      By the Rev. R. L. OTTLEY, D.D.\n\n  THE RULE OF WORK AND WORSHIP.\n      By the Rev. R. L. OTTLEY, D.D.\n\n  THE CREEDS: THEIR HISTORY, NATURE AND USE.\n      By the Rev. HAROLD SMITH, M.A. (Lecturer at the London College of\n      Divinity).\n\n  THE CHRISTOLOGY OF ST. PAUL (Hulsean Prize Essay).\n      By the Rev. S. NOWELL ROSTRON, M.A. (Late Principal of St. John\u2019s\n      Hall, Durham).\n\n\n_The following works are in Preparation_:\u2014\n\n  RELIGIOUS EDUCATION: ITS PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE.\n      By the Rev. Prebendary B. REYNOLDS.\n\n  THE CHURCH OUTSIDE THE EMPIRE.\n      By the Rev. C. R. DAVEY BIGGS, D.D.\n\n  THE NATURE OF FAITH AND THE CONDITIONS OF ITS PROSPERITY.\n      By the Rev. P. N. WAGGETT, M.A.\n\n  THE ETHICS OF TEMPTATION.\n      By the Ven. E. E. HOLMES, M.A.\n\n  EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE.\n      By the Rev. WM. C. PIERCY, M.A.\n\n  AUTHORITY AND FREETHOUGHT IN THE MIDDLE AGES.\n      By the Rev. F. W. BUSSELL, D.D.\n\n  GOD AND MAN, ONE CHRIST.\n      By the Rev. CHARLES E. RAVEN, M.A.\n\n  GREEK THOUGHT AND CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.\n      By the Rev. J. K. MOZLEY, M.A.\n\n  THE GREAT SCHISM BETWEEN THE EAST AND WEST.\n      By the Rev. F. J. FOAKES-JACKSON, D.D.\n\n  THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL IN OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY.\n      By the Rev. A. TROELSTRA, D.D.\n\n\n Full particulars of this Library may be obtained from the Publisher.\n\n                        LONDON: ROBERT SCOTT.\n\n\n\n\n                           THE BOOKS OF THE\n                              APOCRYPHA\n\n                      THEIR ORIGIN, TEACHING AND\n                               CONTENTS\n\n                             BY THE REV.\n                       W. O. E. OESTERLEY, D.D.\n\n      EXAMINING CHAPLAIN TO THE BISHOP OF LONDON; WARDEN OF THE\n             \u201cSOCIETY OF THE APOCRYPHA,\u201d LONDON DIOCESE.\n\n\n                         LONDON: ROBERT SCOTT\n                           ROXBURGHE HOUSE\n                         PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C.\n                                 1915\n\n                        _All Rights Reserved_\n\n\n\n\n  _First Edition_, 1914.\n\n  _Second Impression_, 1915.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nSigns have not been wanting during the last few years of an\nincreasing interest both in what is called the \u201cApocrypha\u201d as well as\nin the body of literature, mainly of an apocalyptic character, which\ngoes under the name of the \u201cPseudepigrapha.\u201d\n\nNotable among these signs are two of an outstanding character. The\nfounding of the \u201cInternational Society for the Promoting of the Study\nof the Apocrypha\u201d was an important event in this connection; the\nfounder, the Rev. Herbert Pentin, is to be sincerely congratulated\non the success with which his efforts have been crowned; the support\naccorded by many of our leading scholars has doubtless been very\ngratifying to him. Few things have done more to foster interest in\nthe subjects which the Society has at heart than the publication of\nits quarterly journal, _The International Journal of Apocrypha_.\nThis magazine makes its appeal to all grades of readers; and if the\ngreater stress is laid upon the popular side, the editor has his\ngood reasons for this, for it is the general reader who does not yet\nunderstand that the \u201cApocrypha\u201d and the \u201cPseudepigrapha\u201d together\nform an indispensable link between the Old and New Testaments.\n\nThe second outstanding sign was the publication last year by the\nOxford University Press of the two sumptuous volumes entitled _The\nApocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English_, with\nintroductions and critical and explanatory notes to the several\nbooks, edited, in conjunction with many scholars, by R. H. Charles,\nLitt.D., D.D. This is the most elaborate thing of the kind ever\npublished in any country, and the debt to Canon Charles owed by all\nlovers of learning is great indeed. The volumes appeal primarily to\nthe scholar, though the general reader will find in them a very great\ndeal which he will be able to appreciate. The drawback, for most\npeople, is their expense, obviously inevitable; it is, therefore,\nthe more to be regretted that the University Press could not see its\nway to publish the various books in separate, as well as in their\ncollective, form.\n\nSigns such as these are full of promise, and the growing interest\nwhich they betoken is very welcome.\n\nThe present writer, as one of the Wardens of the afore-mentioned\nSociety, and as one of Canon Charles\u2019 fellow-labourers in the work\njust referred to, has been emboldened to write the following pages\nwith the object of pressing home the importance of one department\nof the subject as a whole (though without wholly losing sight of\nthe other), viz., the \u201cApocrypha,\u201d and, more especially, what is\ninvolved by the study of this. The very unfortunate title which\nhas clung to this body of literature since the days of St. Jerome,\nlargely accounts for the attitude of suspicion with which it is often\nregarded; but when once it is realized that the term \u201cApocrypha,\u201d\nas applied to these books, does not correspond to what is nowadays\nunderstood by the word \u201capocryphal,\u201d this attitude of suspicion will\ndisappear.\n\nThe study of these books opens up various questions which demand\nconsideration; so much so, that the student soon comes to realize\nthat important as the study of the Apocrypha is, more important\nstill is that which this study involves. The book here presented\nis intended to illustrate this; with the result that Part I\n(\u201cProlegomena\u201d) occupies considerably more space than Part II,\nwhich is devoted to the books of the Apocrypha themselves. There is,\nhowever, no reason to offer any apology for this, as the Introductory\nNote to the \u201cProlegomena\u201d will show.\n\nFor the rest, the book, though primarily intended for the intelligent\ngeneral reader, may in some parts, it is hoped, be of interest to\nscholars. It was originally intended to be a contribution to \u201cThe\nLibrary of Historic Theology\u201d; but the writer soon realized that\nthe scope of the subject would necessitate a larger volume than\nthe publishers thought desirable for this Series; they, therefore,\ndecided to publish it separately.\n\nThe writer desires to express his sincere thanks to the Rev. Wm. C.\nPiercy for having read carefully through the book in manuscript as\nwell as in proof, and for having offered many valuable suggestions.\n\n                                                   W. O. E. OESTERLEY.\n\nHATCH END, 1914.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n                                                                  PAGE\n  INTRODUCTORY                                                       1\n\n\n  _PART I_\n\n  PROLEGOMENA TO THE APOCRYPHA\n\n\n  CHAPTER I\n\n  THE HELLENISTIC MOVEMENT                                          11\n\n        I.  Hellenism in its Secular Aspect                         12\n\n       II.  Hellenism in its Religious Aspect                       20\n\n            Summary                                                 24\n\n\n  CHAPTER II\n\n  HELLENISTIC INFLUENCE UPON THE JEWS OF PALESTINE                  27\n\n        I.  Hellenism and Judaism                                   27\n\n       II.  The Essenes                                             41\n\n            Summary                                                 46\n\n\n  CHAPTER III\n\n  HELLENISTIC INFLUENCE UPON THE JEWS OF THE DISPERSION             49\n\n        I.  The Dispersion                                          49\n\n       II.  Hellenistic Influence on Religion                       54\n\n      III.  The Septuagint                                          58\n\n       IV.  Philo of Alexandria                                     61\n\n            Summary                                                 65\n\n\n  CHAPTER IV\n\n  TRACES OF GREEK INFLUENCE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND IN\n  THE APOCRYPHA                                                     68\n\n        I.  References to the Greeks in the Old Testament           68\n\n       II.  Traces of Greek Influence in the Old Testament          70\n\n      III.  Traces of Greek Influence in the Apocrypha              77\n\n            Ecclesiasticus                                          77\n\n            Wisdom:\n\n              (_a_) The doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul   80\n\n              (_b_) The doctrine of immortality                     83\n\n              (_c_) The doctrine of the badness of the body         84\n\n              (_d_) The creation of the world out of formless\n                    matter                                          85\n\n              (_e_) Signs of the influence of Stoic philosophy      86\n\n            Summary                                                 87\n\n\n  CHAPTER V\n\n  THE APOCALYPTIC MOVEMENT                                          90\n\n        I.  The Beginnings of the Apocalyptic Movement              90\n\n       II.  The Apocalyptists                                       95\n\n      III.  The Doctrinal Teaching of the Apocalyptic Literature   101\n\n              (_a_) Individualism                                  102\n\n              (_b_) Particularism and Universalism                 103\n\n              (_c_) The doctrine of the Messiah                    105\n\n              (_d_) The doctrine of the Future Life                107\n\n            Summary                                                111\n\n\n  CHAPTER VI\n\n  THE SCRIBES                                                      113\n\n              (_a_) The Old Testament _data_                       113\n\n              (_b_) The Apocrypha _data_                           123\n\n              (_c_) Some further particulars                       126\n\n            Summary                                                127\n\n\n  CHAPTER VII\n\n  THE PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES                                      130\n\n        I.  The Meaning of the Terms \u201cPharisees\u201d and \u201cSadducees\u201d   130\n\n              (_a_) Pharisees                                      130\n\n              (_b_) Sadducees                                      132\n\n       II.  The Sources                                            135\n\n              (_a_) Josephus                                       135\n\n              (_b_) Rabbinical sources                             137\n\n              (_c_) The New Testament                              138\n\n              (_d_) The Zadokite Fragments                         138\n\n      III.  The Doctrines of the Pharisees and Sadducees           139\n\n              (_a_) The doctrine of the Law                        139\n\n              (_b_) The doctrine of God                            144\n\n              (_c_) The doctrine of the Future Life                146\n\n              (_d_) The Sadduc\u00e6an attitude regarding belief in\n                    the existence of angels and spirits            147\n\n              (_e_) The doctrine of the Messiah                    148\n\n              (_f_) The Sadducees and the Jewish Calendar          150\n\n       IV.  Some Subsidiary Considerations                         152\n\n            Summary                                                157\n\n\n  CHAPTER VIII\n\n  THE ORIGIN OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON                            160\n\n        I.  The Hebrew Canon in its Present Form                   162\n\n       II.  The Idea of a Canon                                    164\n\n      III.  The Formation of the Hebrew Canon                      169\n\n       IV.  To Whom was the Final Fixing of the Hebrew Canon due?  174\n\n            Summary                                                176\n\n      Additional Note. The Conceptions underlying the Idea of\n      Levitical Impurity                                           177\n\n\n  CHAPTER IX\n\n  UNCANONICAL BOOKS (I)                                            183\n\n        I.  The Meaning of the Term _G\u0101naz_                        183\n\n       II.  The Meaning of the Term _Apokryphos_                   185\n\n      III.  The Connexion between the Terms _G\u0101naz_ and\n            _Apokryphos_                                           188\n\n       IV.  How the Term \u201cApocrypha\u201d came to be applied to\n            Sacred Books of the Second Rank                        190\n\n        V.  The Reading of Uncanonical Books                       192\n\n            Summary                                                196\n\n\n  CHAPTER X\n\n  UNCANONICAL BOOKS (II). THE APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE               198\n\n                    Preliminary Remarks                            198\n\n              (_a_) The Book of Enoch                              201\n\n              (_b_) The Sibylline Oracles                          208\n\n              (_c_) The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs        210\n\n              (_d_) The Psalms of Solomon                          214\n\n              (_e_) The Book of Jubilees                           216\n\n              (_f_) The Assumption of Moses                        218\n\n              (_g_) The Ascension of Isaiah                        219\n\n              (_h_) The Book of the Secrets of Enoch               220\n\n              (_i_) The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch                222\n\n              (_j_) The Apocalypse of Moses (The Life of Adam\n                    and Eve)                                       222\n\n              (_k_) The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch                 223\n\n\n  CHAPTER XI\n\n  THE WISDOM LITERATURE; THE JEWISH CONCEPTION OF WISDOM           224\n\n        I.  The Wisdom Literature                                  224\n\n       II.  The Origin of the Hebrew Conception of Wisdom          226\n\n      III.  The Jewish Conception of Wisdom                        233\n\n            Summary                                                247\n\n\n  CHAPTER XII\n\n  THE DOCTRINAL TEACHING OF THE APOCRYPHA                          251\n\n                    Preliminary Remarks                            251\n\n              (_a_) The doctrine of God                            254\n\n              (_b_) The doctrine of the Law                        260\n\n              (_c_) The doctrine of Sin                            267\n\n              (_d_) The doctrine of Grace and Free-will            278\n\n              (_e_) The doctrine of the Messiah                    281\n\n              (_f_) The doctrine of the Future Life                288\n\n              (_g_) The doctrine of Angels                         300\n\n              (_h_) Demonology                                     304\n\n            Summary                                                305\n\n\n  _PART II_\n\n  INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF THE APOCRYPHA\n\n  INTRODUCTORY                                                     319\n\n\n  CHAPTER I\n\n  THE WISDOM OF JESUS, THE SON OF SIRACH; OR ECCLESIASTICUS        321\n\n        I.  The Title of the Book                                  321\n\n       II.  The Author and his Book                                322\n\n      III.  The Date of the Book                                   327\n\n       IV.  The Original Language of the Book; the recently found\n            Hebrew Manuscripts                                     329\n\n        V.  The Authorized and Revised Versions of Ecclesiasticus  331\n\n       VI.  The \u201cSadduc\u00e6an\u201d doctrinal standpoint in\n            Ecclesiasticus                                         334\n\n      VII.  The Pharisaic Additions to Ecclesiasticus              340\n\n     VIII.  The Value of the Book for the Study of the New\n            Testament                                              345\n\n\n  CHAPTER II\n\n  THE BOOK OF TOBIT                                                349\n\n        I.  The Story of Achikar the Wise                          350\n\n       II.  The Relationship between the Book of Tobit and the\n            Story of Achikar the Wise                              353\n\n      III.  The Contents of the Book of Tobit                      357\n\n       IV.  The Religious Standpoint of the Writer                 360\n\n        V.  The Date of the Book, its Integrity and Place of\n            Origin                                                 365\n\n       VI.  The Value of the Book for New Testament Study          368\n\n\n  CHAPTER III\n\n  THE BOOK OF JUDITH                                               372\n\n        I.  Contents and Character of the Book                     372\n\n       II.  Variety of Form of the Judith Story                    379\n\n      III.  The Teaching and Purpose of the Book                   381\n\n       IV.  The Date of the Book                                   382\n\n        V.  The Original Language of the Book                      384\n\n\n  CHAPTER IV\n\n  THE ADDITIONS TO THE BOOK OF DANIEL                              385\n\n        I.  Preliminary Remarks                                    385\n\n       II.  The Prayer of Azariah                                  386\n\n      III.  The Song of the Three Children                         390\n\n       IV.  The Story of Susanna                                   391\n\n        V.  Bel and the Dragon                                     394\n\n\n  CHAPTER V\n\n  THE ADDITIONS TO THE BOOK OF ESTHER                              398\n\n        I.  The Nature and Object of the Additions                 398\n\n       II.  Authorship and Date of the Additions                   403\n\n\n  CHAPTER VI\n\n  THE PRAYER OF MANASSES                                           404\n\n        I.  The Contents of the Prayer                             404\n\n       II.  The Origin of the Prayer                               405\n\n      III.  The Date of the Prayer                                 409\n\n       IV.  The Writer and the Language in which he wrote          410\n\n\n  CHAPTER VII\n\n  THE FIRST BOOK OF MACCABEES                                      411\n\n        I.  Title and Authorship of the Book                       411\n\n       II.  The Date of the Book                                   413\n\n      III.  The Original Language and Literary Character of the\n            Book                                                   414\n\n       IV.  The Sources of the Book                                415\n\n        V.  The History of the Maccab\u00e6an Struggle                  423\n\n              (_a_) The Conquests of Alexander the Great, and the\n                    division of his Empire                         424\n\n              (_b_) The original cause of the struggle; the\n                    leadership of Mattathias                       424\n\n              (_c_) The leadership of Judas Maccab\u00e6us; religious\n                    liberty secured                                427\n\n              (_d_) The leadership of Jonathan; the establishment\n                    of the Hasmon\u00e6an high-priesthood               431\n\n              (_e_) The leadership of Simon                        436\n\n\n  CHAPTER VIII\n\n  THE GREEK EZRA (1 (3) Esdras)                                    439\n\n        I.  The Title of the Book                                  439\n\n       II.  Contents of the Book                                   440\n\n      III.  The \u201cHebrew Ezra,\u201d the \u201cGreek Ezra,\u201d and 2 Esdras      442\n\n       IV.  The Historicity of the Book                            446\n\n        V.  The Purpose of the Book                                450\n\n       VI.  The Story of the Three Young Men of Darius\u2019 Bodyguard  451\n\n      VII.  The Date of the Book                                   454\n\n\n  CHAPTER IX\n\n  THE BOOK OF WISDOM (The Wisdom of Solomon)                       455\n\n        I.  The Title and Authorship of the Book                   455\n\n       II.  The Date of the Book                                   459\n\n      III.  The Question of Composite Authorship                   464\n\n       IV.  The Purposes for which the Book was Written            469\n\n        V.  The Influence of the Book on St. Paul                  474\n\n\n  CHAPTER X\n\n  THE SECOND BOOK OF MACCABEES                                     479\n\n        I.  The Origin of the Book                                 479\n\n       II.  The Contents of the Book                               481\n\n      III.  Comparison between 1 and 2 Maccabees                   482\n\n       IV.  The Historical Value of 2 Maccabees                    485\n\n        V.  The Purpose of the Book                                487\n\n       VI.  The Integrity of the Boo                               490\n\n      VII.  The Date and Original Language of the Book             493\n\n     VIII.  The influence of the Book on New Testament Writers     493\n\n\n  CHAPTER XI\n\n  THE BOOK OF BARUCH, AND THE EPISTLE OF JEREMIAH                  495\n\n        I.  Short Account of the Book, and its Contents            495\n\n       II.  Examination of the Component Parts of the Book         497\n\n              (1) The Book of Confessions (i.-iii. 8)              497\n\n              (2) A Sage\u2019s words of encouragement (iii. 9-iv. 4)   503\n\n              (3) A Message of good cheer (iv. 5-v. 9)             504\n\n          The Epistle of Jeremiah                                  506\n\n\n  CHAPTER XII\n\n  THE EZRA APOCALYPSE (2 (4) Esdras)                               509\n\n        I.  The Title of the Book                                  509\n\n       II.  Chapters i., ii.                                       510\n\n      III.  Chapters xv., xvi.                                     511\n\n       IV.  The Component Parts of Chapters iii.-xiv.              512\n\n        V.  The Vision of the Man Rising from the Sea              515\n\n       VI.  The Eagle Vision                                       517\n\n      VII.  The Salathiel Apocalypse                               522\n\n     VIII.  An Ezra Legend                                         528\n\n\n  INDEXES\u2014\n\n      General                                                      533\n\n      Passages from the Old Testament                              545\n\n      Passages from the Apocrypha                                  547\n\n      Passages from the Pseudepigrapha                             552\n\n      Passages from the New Testament                              552\n\n      Passages from Rabbinical Literature                          553\n\n\n\n\nIntroductory\n\n\nThe book here presented is divided into two parts: the first, which\nis somewhat longer than the second, deals with preliminary questions;\nthe second is occupied with some account of the nature and contents\nof the books comprised under the term \u201cApocrypha.\u201d To those whose\nstudies have not been concerned with early Jewish uncanonical\nliterature it may appear that many of the subjects discussed in Part\nI are inappropriate, or at any rate unnecessary, because they lead,\napparently, far away from the main subject to be dealt with. Students\nof the Apocrypha will know, however, that a really intelligent and\nadequate study of this body of ancient literature necessitates\nresearch into a number of topics which do not at first sight appear\nto show a direct connexion with the main subject. Nevertheless, for\nthe benefit of those who have not made a study of the Apocrypha, it\nmay be well to justify at the outset the incursion into the many\nside-issues dealt with in the \u201cProlegomena\u201d (Part I) by showing\nthat the consideration of them is really indispensable for a proper\nunderstanding of the Apocrypha, its origin, and its _raison d\u2019\u00eatre_.\n\nNow one of the first things that must strike any intelligent reader\nof the books of the Apocrypha is the extraordinary variety of their\ncontents. We have in the First Book of Maccabees genuine historical\nrecords of the highest value; in the Second Book of Maccabees, on\nthe other hand, we have a mixture of history and fiction. In the\nFirst (or Third) Book of Esdras we get portions of the canonical\nScriptures side by side with records from other sources; and,\nstrange to say, the latter are probably in some particulars more\ntrustworthy than the corresponding portions in the former. In The\nRest of Esther and the Prayer of Manasses we have additions to books\nof the canonical Scriptures which are edifying, though largely the\nwork of the imagination; while in the additions to the Book of\nDaniel, namely, The Song of the Three Holy Children, The History of\nSusannah, and Bel and the Dragon, we have examples of fiction which\nare not always edifying. Of an entirely different character is the\nfascinating story of a brave and patriotic woman, told in the Book\nof Judith, in which the writer\u2019s power of dramatic narrative is\nwell exhibited. Interesting from other points of view is the homely\ntale told in the Book of Tobit, with its developed angelology and\nquaint demonology. But what is in many respects the most important\nbook in the whole collection is that fine example of the Palestinian\nWisdom Literature, the Wisdom of Ben-Sira (Ecclesiasticus), which,\napart from its subject proper, gives us much interesting information\nregarding the conditions of Jewish life and manners during a period\nof which we have otherwise but meagre sources of knowledge. Baruch,\nagain, is valuable as containing a liturgical piece of considerable\nantiquity. Very important, too, and of great interest, is that\nstriking product of Hellenistic-Jewish wisdom, The Wisdom of Solomon,\nas it is called; this book offers an illustration of the profound\ninfluence which the Greek spirit had upon the Jews of the Dispersion.\nAnd, lastly, we have what is in some respects one of the finest books\nbelonging to the Apocalyptic Literature ii. (iv.) Esdras, revealing\nas it does in a wonderful way the moral and religious speculations\nof an earnest mind seeking after the truth, and claiming to have\nreceived revelations by supernatural means. Scripture, history,\nlegend, fiction, at least one liturgical piece, wisdom, philosophy,\napocalypse\u2014truly it is an extraordinary variety of subjects which is\nhere presented.\n\nBut further; when one looks more closely one sees that in these\nbooks various thought-tendencies and mental attitudes are\nrepresented\u2014political, intellectual, doctrinal, religious; so that\nquestions arise, and demand consideration, as to who the men were\namong whom these thought-tendencies existed, what it was that first\ngave rise to them, what the relation was between those who belonged\nto the different schools of thought represented, and other questions\nof a similar character. The intelligent reader will want to know,\non the one hand, what is reflected in these books concerning such\nquestions, and, on the other, what light they themselves shed on the\nhistory of thought and religion during the period, extending over\nabout three hundred years, at which they were written.\n\nOf a different character, but very much to the point, is the inquiry\ninto the position held by these books in the sacred literature of\nthe Jews. They are not assigned a place in the canonical Hebrew\nScriptures, but they are found in the Greek Old Testament, which was\nthe Bible used by the New Testament writers and by the Early Church.\nWho excluded them from the canonical list, and on what grounds\nwere they excluded? What was their position before the Canon was\nformed, and when was the Canon formed? What is meant by the title\n\u201cApocrypha,\u201d by whom was the title given, and when?\n\nThese are some of the many questions which suggest themselves to the\nserious student of the Apocrypha; and a moment\u2019s thought will show\nthat adequate answers to them are required if the contents of the\nApocrypha, and all that they imply, are to be properly understood.\n\nThe purpose of the \u201cProlegomena\u201d is to try and give answers to these\nand many other questions which arise as soon as the study of this\nbody of ancient Jewish sacred literature is undertaken.\n\nThe first chapter deals with the Hellenistic Movement. Some\nconsideration of the way in which the Greek spirit influenced the\nworld in general, from the third century B.C. onwards, is altogether\nnecessary because there was no department of life in which the\neffects of this influence were not to be discerned. For our present\npurpose the way in which Hellenism affected religious thought is, of\ncourse, an exceedingly important subject for consideration. Now the\nHellenistic Movement synchronized with the entire period during which\nthe \u201cApocryphal\u201d Literature was produced. It commenced as a result\nof the conquests of Alexander the Great, and extended well into the\ntimes of the Empire; within that period were written the earliest\nand the latest of the books of the Apocrypha, viz., The Wisdom of\nBen-Sira, about B.C. 170, and The Apocalypse of Ezra, about A.D. 100.\nThe Hellenistic Movement was thus, as it were, the intellectual and\nreligious atmosphere of the world during the whole of the period in\nwhich the writers of the books of the Apocrypha lived. No apology is\nneeded, therefore, for beginning our study with a brief consideration\nof the Hellenistic Movement.\n\nSince, like other great movements, this one was a vital process\nwhich affected the whole world, the Jews, as just hinted, came under\nits sway. We have, therefore, devoted two chapters to Hellenistic\ninfluence upon the Jews. The extent and effect of this influence\nupon the Jews of Palestine was not the same as upon the Jews of the\nDispersion, so that this part of our subject has to be dealt with\nunder two heads. In discussing the former we touch upon a factor\nin the discussion which will come before us again and again as we\nproceed, namely, the Jews as the people of the Law. We referred\njust now to various schools of thought of which indications are to\nbe seen in the books of the Apocrypha; the most important of these\nwas that which looked upon the Law and its observances as that\nwhich should occupy the thoughts and actions of every true Jew,\nand to which everything else should be subordinated. It was the\nchampionship of the Law which checked, and ultimately stamped out,\nHellenistic influence upon the Jews of Palestine, though not until\nthat influence had so permeated their minds that some of its elements\nbecame incorporated into orthodox Judaism. As will be seen later,\nthese facts help to explain much that is written in the books of the\nApocrypha.\n\nBut distinct as the marks were which the influence of Hellenism\nleft upon the Jews of Palestine and upon some of their literature,\nthat influence was far less upon them than upon the Jews of the\nDispersion. In dealing with this part of our subject a preliminary\nsection is devoted to some account of the Dispersion, special\nreference being made to Alexandria, the most important centre\nof the Dispersion. The most notable and far-reaching result of\nHellenistic influence here is to be seen in the fact that it was the\nbirthplace of the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament; since it is\nin this Version of the Scriptures that the books of the Apocrypha\nwere incorporated, it stands to reason that some account of it is\nnecessary. While the Septuagint was the most striking literary\nproduct of the Hellenistic Movement in the Dispersion, Philo of\nAlexandria was its most notable personality; a section devoted to him\ncan, therefore, not be out of place.\n\nIt was pointed out above that Hellenistic influence was to be\ndiscerned in the sacred literature of the Jews. This is a subject\nupon which differences of opinion exist, especially in regard to\nsome of the later books of the Old Testament; but it cannot well\nbe ignored in dealing with the books of the Apocrypha, so that in\nChapter IV we examine the question of traces of Greek influence in\nthe Old Testament and in the Apocrypha.\n\nFurther, we have referred to the fact that in the Apocrypha signs\nof the existence of various thought-tendencies are to be discerned;\nthe attitude of extreme loyalty to the Law was one of these; another\nwas represented by the Apocalyptic Movement. Quite apart from the\nfact that we have in The Apocalypse of Ezra a remarkable product\nof the Apocalyptic Movement, which would of itself be sufficient\nto demand some account of this movement here, there is the further\nfact that some insight into the religious movements of a period is\nindispensable to the true understanding of any body of literature\nbelonging to such period. It is for this reason that we have devoted\na chapter to the consideration of the Apocalyptic Movement and to a\nbrief survey of the doctrinal teaching of the Apocalyptic Literature;\nit will be found to be of real interest if the general results of the\ndoctrinal teaching of this literature be compared with that of the\nbooks of the Apocrypha, which is more fully dealt with in the last\nchapter (XII) of the \u201cProlegomena.\u201d\n\nThe thought-tendencies to which reference has been made, and each\nof which has been embodied in literary form, have a history behind\nthem, dating at least from the time of Ezra; how these developed in\nPalestine during the four centuries which preceded the advent of\nChrist is a difficult and intricate, but none the less fascinating,\nstudy, and altogether indispensable alike for the understanding\nof the Apocrypha and of the New Testament. Scribes of different\nkinds, _Chassidim_, Apocalyptists, Pharisees and Sadducees, how did\nthey come into being? What were their different special mental and\nreligious attitudes? What was their relationship to each other? There\nare intricate problems involved in such questions, and the study of\nthe Apocrypha brings us face to face with them; that sufficiently\nexplains the reason why Chapters V-VII are devoted to the discussion\nof them.\n\nWith Chapters VIII-X we approach an entirely different side of\nour subject, namely, the question of the Canon and of uncanonical\nbooks generally; this is, of course, of fundamental importance for\nthe study of the Apocrypha, so that no explanation is needed for\nthe reason of these three chapters figuring in the \u201cProlegomena.\u201d\nThe same is also true of Chapter XI, which deals with the Wisdom\nLiterature, for not only have we two remarkable examples of this\nliterature in the Apocrypha, but it is a literature which, while\nit begins in the Old Testament, is continued in the Apocrypha, so\nthat it must be treated as a whole; the question of canonical or\nuncanonical books must not be allowed to interfere here.\n\nThe last chapter (XII), on the doctrinal teaching of the Apocrypha,\nrequires no further words here other than to say that the study of\nthis subject is very necessary for following out the development of\ndoctrine from the Old Testament to the New.\n\nThis, then, is the explanation and justification for the many\ndiscussions in the \u201cProlegomena\u201d which seem at first sight to lead\nfar away from the main subject in hand. These have, it is true, an\ninterest and an application far beyond that of their relation to the\nApocrypha, but that, it may safely be assumed, will not be regarded\nas a drawback, or as a reason for making the discussion of them here\nunnecessary.\n\n\n\n\n                               _PART I_\n\n                          PROLEGOMENA TO THE\n                              APOCRYPHA\n\n\n\n\nTHE BOOKS OF THE APOCRYPHA: THEIR ORIGIN, TEACHING AND CONTENTS\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nThe Hellenistic Movement\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014Droysen, _Geschichte des Hellenismus_ (3rd ed.,\n  1877); Sch\u00fcrer, _A History of the Jewish People in the Time of\n  Jesus Christ_, II, i. pp. 1-149 (1890-1891), German ed. II,\n  pp. 1-267 (1901-1909); Usener, _G\u00f6tternamen_ (1896); Kaerst,\n  _Geschichte des hellenistischen Zeitalters_ (1901, 1909); Zeller,\n  _Die Philosophie der Griechen_, III, i. ii. (4th ed., 1903,\n  1909); Zeller, _Outlines of the History of Greek Philosophy_\n  (Engl. ed., 1909); Rohde, _Psyche_ (3rd ed., 1903); Edwyn Bevan,\n  _Jerusalem under the High-priests_ (1904); M. Friedl\u00e4nder,\n  _Griechische Philosophie im Alten Testament_ (1904); Gruppe,\n  _Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte_ (1906); Mahaffy,\n  _The Silver Age of the Greek World_ (1906); Kr\u00fcger, _Hellenismus\n  und Judenthum im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter_ (1908); Farnell,\n  _Greek Religion_ (1912); Wendland, _Die Hellenistisch-R\u00f6mische\n  Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zu Judentum und Christentum_ (1912);\n  Edwyn Bevan, _Stoics and Sceptics_ (1913); Farnell\u2019s art. on\n  \u201cGreek Religion\u201d in Hastings\u2019 _Dict. of Religion and Ethics_.]\n\n\nTo offer in any detail an account of such an immense subject as the\nHellenistic Movement would be out of the question here; but no study\nwhich has to do with Jewish religion or culture of the three last\npre-Christian centuries can be taken in hand without some reference\nto the Movement which so profoundly affected the world of those\ntimes. The object of the present chapter is, therefore, to indicate\nthe main directions in which Hellenistic influence was exercised;\nso much is essential when it is remembered that the books of the\nApocrypha form an integral part of the Greek Old Testament, which is\nitself one of the most striking products of the Hellenistic Movement\nin the domain of literature.\n\nA word must be said at the outset regarding the use of the terms\n_Hellenic_ and _Hellenistic_. It is not always easy to be strictly\nlogical or consistent in the way in which one employs these; the\nfundamental difference between the two is this: _Hellenic culture_\nrefers, of course, to the pure Greek civilization, religion, etc.,\nexisting previous to the coming of Alexander the Great; _Hellenistic\nculture_ refers to this civilization as it appeared after having\nabsorbed numerous elements in the domain both of thought and religion\nfrom non-Greek sources after the coming of Alexander the Great.\nHellenistic culture exercised a greater and wider influence upon the\nworld than Hellenic, because by absorbing alien elements it was able\nto become a world-culture. The terms have thus a distinct and clearly\ndefined difference. But inasmuch as Hellenistic culture is based upon\nand has as its chief characteristic Hellenic culture, it is sometimes\nconvenient to use the terms Hellenism and Hellenic in a wide and\ninclusive sense; as so used it is equivalent to the term _Greek_,\nwithout restriction to any particular age.\n\n\nI. HELLENISM IN ITS SECULAR ASPECT\n\nBy the Hellenistic Movement is meant the process whereby the\nsupremacy of the Greek language and of Greek culture generally became\nestablished during the period, roughly speaking, from B.C. 300 to\nthe beginning of the Christian era, that is to say, from the time\nwhen Alexander the Great had completed his victorious career[1]\nto the time when the Roman Empire was rising to pre-eminence and\nestablishing its power, more especially in the east. It was during\nthis period that Hellenism was what may be called an invading force;\nhaving once established itself its influence was in evidence long\nafter the period indicated. Dill, in writing on the age of Hadrian\nand the Antonines, says, for example: \u201cThe glory of classic art had\nalmost vanished; and yet, without being able to produce any works of\ncreative genius, the inexhaustible vitality of the Hellenic spirit\nonce more asserted itself. After a long eclipse, the rhetorical\nculture of Greece vigorously addressed itself in the reign of Hadrian\nto the conquest of the west. Her teachers and spiritual directors,\nindeed, had long been in every family of note. Her sophists were now\nseen haranguing crowds in every town from the Don to the Atlantic....\nFrom the early years of the second century can be traced that great\ncombined movement of the Neo-Pythagorean and Platonist philosophies\nand the renovated paganism which made a last stand against the\nconquering Church in the reigns of Julian and Theodosius....\u201d[2]\n\nBut the influence of Hellenism did not stop here; various writers\nhave shown that that influence persists even up to modern times,[3]\nand Bevan states nothing but the literal truth when he says that\n\u201cwhat we call the Western spirit in our own day is really Hellenism\nreincarnate.\u201d[4]\n\nIt is well to realize, on the other hand, however, that the roots\nof the Hellenistic Movement reached back somewhat further than the\ntime of Alexander. We must look to Athens for the real beginnings of\nthe Movement, the further development of which Alexander\u2019s conquests\ndid so much to forward. It was the Attic sea-power which first\nbrought about the conditions under which the idea of a pan-Hellenic\nculture could take form and ultimately become realized. Though Athens\ndeclined with the rise of the Macedonian power, and ceased outwardly\nto play any conspicuous part in the great drama of the world\u2019s\nhistory, yet Attic ideals and conceptions lived on and continued to\nbe the inner motive-power in the propagation of the newer culture.\nSo that the Hellenistic Movement grew and developed from Attic\nantecedents.\n\nThen, again, although the rise of the Hellenistic Movement is\nrightly associated more particularly with the name of Alexander,\nit is but simple justice which compels us to recall the fact that\nthe Macedonian empire, which formed the basis of Alexander\u2019s future\nworld-power, owed its creation to his father, Philip (B.C. 359-336).\nIt was only through strenuous struggles with Thracians, Illyrians and\nAthenians that Philip finally consolidated his kingdom, and thus made\nthe necessary preparations for his son\u2019s greater work. The decisive\nbattle of Ch\u00e6ronea, in B.C. 338, when Philip defeated the allied\nforces of Athens and Thebes, may legitimately be pointed to as one of\nthe preliminary determining factors which prepared the way for the\nHellenistic Movement.\n\nIn the first instance the influence of the newer Hellenism was, of\ncourse, exercised by means of the Greek language. But it was a form\nof Greek which differed in many respects from the older Attic Greek,\nthough based on this; it is now known by the name of Hellenistic\nGreek. \u201cIt was the literary language of the cosmopolitan Hellas,\ncreated by the genius of Alexander. The change [i.e., from Attic\nGreek] had begun indeed before Alexander. Even Xenophon allows\nhimself to make free use of words of provincial origin, and to\nemploy Attic words with a new connotation; and the writings of\nAristotle mark the opening of a new era in the history of the Greek\nlanguage.\u201d[5] The discovery and study of immense numbers of Greek\n_papyri_ and _ostraka_ (potsherds) has shown the fallacy, universally\nprevalent a generation ago, of speaking of \u201cBiblical Greek,\u201d i.e.,\nthe Greek of the Septuagint and of the New Testament, as though it\nwere a form of Greek peculiar to the Bible, to be separated off from\n\u201cprofane\u201d Greek. The Septuagint and the New Testament were written in\na late form of Greek, i.e., Hellenistic Greek which, as we have just\nseen, came into vogue during the fourth century B.C. and onwards.\nThis late Greek, including the Greek of the Bible is, in the words\nof Deissmann, \u201cneither good nor bad; it bears the stamp of its age\nand asserts its own distinctive position in a gradual process of\ndevelopment in the language, which, beginning in the earliest times,\nhas lasted down to the present day. Late Greek has stripped off much\nthat was customary in the earlier period, and it contains germs of\nfuture developments destined to be completed in modern Greek. We\nmay, then, speak of a certain peculiarity and uniformity in original\n\u2018Bible\u2019 Greek, but solely as opposed to earlier or later phases of\nthe history of the language, not as opposed to \u2018profane\u2019 Greek.\u201d[6]\n\nIt was through the conquests of Alexander that the ways were made\nclear and wide for this later form of the Greek language, this\nHellenistic Greek, to find an opening in all directions, and to\nbe employed as a common means of communication in ever-increasing\nmeasure. Close upon the soldiers followed the merchants, nor did\nit take long before colonists came and settled down in the newly\nconquered territories; and when once colonies of Greek-speaking\npeople were established, teachers soon came and took up their\nabode in the new settlements. New Greek cities thus arose in which\npractically only Greek was spoken; with the employment of this\nlanguage it followed in a natural course that the influence of the\nGreek spirit, and with it Greek forms of thought and Greek ideals,\nmade itself felt. In this way Alexander\u2019s ambition was attained;\nfor his ideal was not only to conquer lands; he desired also that\nthe hearts and minds of men should be brought under the domination\nof that Greek culture which was destined to affect the religion,\nthe philosophy, the literature and the art of mankind for all time.\nAlexander was a worthy pupil of his great teacher, Aristotle.\n\nIt is, perhaps, not always sufficiently realized that the Hellenistic\nMovement coincided to a large extent with an epoch which was in some\nnotable respects one of dissolution. In the domain of learning, for\nexample, the older Greek idea of the possibility of a single mind\nassimilating the whole content of knowledge had been discarded; for\nit had come to be seen that the sum of knowledge in its manifold\nramifications was far too great to be acquired by any one man,\nhowever learned, and that specialists must devote themselves to\ndifferent departments of learning. Hence arose the grammarian as\nwell as the rhetorician, the historian as well as the mathematician,\nwhile the philosopher occupied his special position.[7] The scholar,\ntherefore, who desired to gain some insight into more than one of the\nvarious branches of knowledge no longer went, as in earlier days,\nto one teacher who was supposed to possess encyclop\u00e6dic learning,\nbut he studied under a grammarian in order to learn grammar, under\na rhetorician in order to learn rhetoric, under a philosopher in\norder to learn philosophy, and so on. This newer system had already\nforced itself to the front some time before the actual period with\nwhich we are dealing; there are clear indications in the methods\nand teaching of Plato, to say nothing of Aristotle and his pupils,\nof an increasing tendency of making wider differentiation between\nthe various sciences, and of dividing them up into their various\ngroups. Philosophy stands alone; the exact sciences go each along\nthe line of their own development. What was thus prepared by these\ngreat philosophers and their followers was acted upon and greatly\ndeveloped during the Hellenistic period proper. Nowhere was this\nmore the case than in Alexandria, the city of Alexander\u2019s founding.\nIt was in Alexandria that during the third century B.C. the exact\nsciences reached the height of their development. All that was\nacquired through the incentive given later by the study of the exact\nsciences of antiquity during the Middle Ages through the medium of\nArabic translations, and during the _Renaissance_ by means of newly\ndiscovered Greek originals of the ancient classics, was in the main\ndue to the achievements wrought during this epoch.[8] That Alexandria\nshould have been, during the Hellenistic period, the centre of this\nintensive, intellectual activity will be seen to have been a fact of\ngreat importance when we come to speak of this city as having been\nalso the centre of the Jewish Dispersion.\n\nAlexandria[9] was, however, but the greatest example of many other\nnew cities founded by Alexander, or through his inspiration, while a\nfar greater number which were already in existence were hellenized\nthrough his instrumentality. With regard to these latter a fact\nof great importance must be noted; one effect of the entry of\nHellenistic influence into the civic life of the \u201cbarbarians\u201d was\nthat the Greek came to know and understand his fellow-creatures of\nother nationalities; he saw that those whom he had always been taught\nto despise as not much better than semi-civilized savages, also had\ntheir forms of culture which likewise boasted of a hoary antiquity.\nThe Greeks were, therefore, led to study the methods of thought, the\ncustoms and the beliefs of these \u201cbarbarians,\u201d with the result that\ncontempt was turned to admiration, and the Greeks came to regard\nthe \u201cbarbarians\u201d as brothers. Cynic and Stoic philosophers, \u201cthe\nRousseaus of Hellenism\u201d as Kr\u00fcger very happily calls them, spoke of\nand taught a brotherhood of man, a new and wonderful thing; and a\ncosmopolitanism, hitherto unheard of, came into being.\n\nBut if the mingling together of Greek and \u201cbarbarian\u201d was the\nmeans of creating a cosmopolitanism, in the best sense, no less\ncharacteristic of the Hellenistic period is the fact that the\nimportance of the individual came to be recognized. The Hellenization\nof \u201cbarbarian\u201d cities, referred to just now, meant that these\nattained to a state of semi-independence; in all cases of this kind\nthe local government of the city was framed on the Greek model; the\npart which the people took in the political assemblies and in the\nannual elections had the natural effect of making them feel that they\nhad a real interest and a definite part to play in the administration\nof affairs. It is easy to understand how the result of this was\nthe emphasizing of the importance of each individual. Where the\nindividual, while claiming and exercising his rights of citizenship,\ndoes not lose sight of his responsibilities, an ideal combination is\noffered. This individualism of the true and genuine type the Greeks\ngave to the world; it is an example of the sense of proportion which\nwas a peculiarly Hellenic _trait_. During the Hellenistic period,\ntherefore, individualism came to its own.\n\nNot unconnected with this subject of individualism was the\nphilosophical teaching of the Hellenistic period. The main interest\nin the philosophical systems of this time centred in ethics; and\nethical teaching concerns the individual first and foremost. It was\nthe ethical system of the Stoics[10] to which was primarily due\nthe emphasis laid on the conception of law and duty; virtue is the\nonly good, they taught, vice the only evil; all else is indifferent.\nMoreover, Hellenistic philosophy set before men the ideal of wisdom;\nthe highest attainment for mortals, so it was taught, was that they\nshould become wise men. It was a noble picture that was depicted,\neven though the Stoic ideal was unattainable, of the free and\nindependent and self-reliant individual who, through the wisdom that\nhe has acquired, stands towering above his fellows, though not in\naloofness, but as a helper. It has been pointed out with justice\nthat it is the stress laid on the importance of the individual which\nlargely accounts for the numerous striking personalities, both men\nand women, who come before us during the Hellenistic period. The\nhistorian Polybius (born about B.C. 204) was the first to recognize\nthe importance of the individual as a factor in the course and\ndevelopment of history. It is during this period especially that\ngreat individuals appear as the pivots of history. Now, too, for the\nfirst time, biography becomes a science; delineation of character,\nthe motives of individual action, and psychological analysis of the\nheart and mind are now regarded as indispensable for the proper\nunderstanding of men and their doings.[11]\n\nWhether in politics, or science, or philosophy, or literature, or\nin estimating their fellow-creatures, the Greeks offer a remarkable\nexample of the determination to see men and things in the world\naround them as they really are; their instinctive critical faculty\nmade them _realists_. Nothing must be taken for granted, all things\nmust be tested by the light of reason; only so can the reality\nof things be ascertained. \u201cThe critical faculty, the reason\u2014in\none light it appears as the _sense of proportion_; the sense of\nproportion in politics, \u2018common sense,\u2019 balance of judgement; the\nsense of proportion in behaviour, which distinguishes what is seemly\nfor the occasion and the person concerned; the sense of proportion in\nart, which eliminates the redundant and keeps each detail in its due\nsubordination to the whole. How prominent this aspect of the critical\nfaculty was with the Greeks their language itself shows; _reason_ and\n_proportion_ are expressed by a common word. \u2018The Hellenes,\u2019 Polybius\nsays, \u2018differ mainly in this respect from other men, that they keep\nto _what is due_ in each case.\u2019\u201d[12]\n\nImportant as it is to gain some little insight into Hellenism in its\nsecular aspect so that one may realize to some extent the nature of\nthe influence which it had upon the world, it is still more important\nfor our present purpose to consider it from the religious point of\nview. To this we must now devote some little attention.\n\n\nII. HELLENISM IN ITS RELIGIOUS ASPECT\n\nIt has already been pointed out that the Hellenistic Movement\ncoincided with an epoch which was in many respects one of\ndissolution; this is distinctly the case in the domain of religion.\nThe history of religion offers numerous examples of the fact that\nthere arrive certain periods in which, for one reason or another,\nthe traditional form of faith ceases to exercise its power over\nlarge sections of the people. One of two things then follows: either\nreligion gives place to scepticism, or else the old belief is adapted\nto the altered spiritual and intellectual conditions which have\nsupervened. Among the Greeks of this period we find both processes at\nwork, though a downright atheistic position is the exception. Indeed,\none of the most interesting and significant facts in this connexion\nis that the philosophy of the Hellenistic period, in spite of its\ncritical attitude towards religious beliefs, very soon developed into\ntheology. That is sufficient to show that, while there was a tendency\nin certain circles to pour scorn on religion, the Hellenistic period\nwas very far from being one of irreligion.\n\nThe attitude of the cultured classes towards the national religion\ndiffered, of course, from that of the masses; the critical spirit and\nbiting sarcasm of the philosophers, a great deal of which was wholly\njustified, had the effect of making it impossible for educated people\nto accept the old beliefs in the way in which this had been done\nhitherto. The religious ideas taught by the philosophers were, in the\nmain, altogether subversive of those which tradition had handed down;\nnevertheless, to the cultured it would have come as a relief to be\ntaught, as was done by the Epicur\u00e6ans for example, that a man was not\ngodless because he destroyed belief in the popular gods, but that the\ngodless man was he who imputed to the gods the popular conceptions\nconcerning them.[13] Not that the Epicur\u00e6ans were irreligious;\nEpicurus[14] did not attack the belief in the gods as such; on the\ncontrary, he believed in them himself, and regarded the universality\nof this belief as a proof that they actually existed. But he refused\nto share the general ideas about them in their relation to the world,\nand taught that their interference in the affairs of men was a thing\nnot to be thought of since nothing could be worse for men than to\nfeel that at every turn they might be hampered in their doings by the\ngods. That Epicurus strenuously combated the fatalistic theory of the\nStoics can be readily understood. What he desired above all things\nto do was to free men from the fear of the gods; belief in them, he\ntaught, was necessary for the fulness of happiness ultimately to be\nenjoyed in their presence; but there was nothing in them to be afraid\nof.\n\nOne of the very important things which philosophy did for religion\nin this age was that it allegorized, and gave a new meaning to, the\nancient myths,[15] and thereby made them of practical religious\nvalue at a time when the new mental outlook would otherwise have\nnecessitated the discarding altogether of both the substance and\nform of the traditional beliefs. As it was, the time-honoured myths\nwere not rejected in spite of the awakening to new methods of\nthought and of ever-increasing enlightenment; this clearer mental\natmosphere had the effect of transforming the essence of those myths,\nwhile retaining their form. To give detailed examples of the way\nin which this transformation was carried out cannot be undertaken\nhere, it would carry us too far afield; but reference may be made\nto Wendland\u2019s work (pp. 115-127) already referred to, and Usener\u2019s\n_G\u00f6tternamen_, where much interesting information can be obtained;\nreferences to the original authorities are given in abundance,\nespecially in the last-named book.\n\nBut the most striking factor, in the domain of religion, of the\nHellenistic Movement is the _religious syncretism_, which was so\nprofoundly characteristic of this period. Within the wide circle of\nHellenized cities and states a variety of nationalities, eastern as\nwell as western, were represented; and just as the inhabitants of\nthese had become united and had learned to live at peace with one\nanother, so did the various and numerous national deities come to be\nregarded not only with tolerance, but also with favour by men to whom\nthey had hitherto been unknown.\n\nThe intermingling of races brought about the intermingling of\nbeliefs. Wonderfully illustrative of this are the religious\nassociations which formed the characteristic type of religion\nduring the Hellenistic period; and it is a striking fact that\namong the members of these religious associations or guilds not\nonly Greeks, but foreigners, and these to a preponderating degree,\nbelonged.[16] While, undoubtedly, politics had a good deal to do with\nthe furtherance of religious syncretism,[17] its main motive-power\nwas the piety of individuals. With the knowledge of the existence\nof hitherto unknown gods and goddesses came also the desire to do\nhomage to them; probably there was also the conviction among many\nthat, unless these newly found deities were duly honoured, evil\nconsequences would ensue. The desire to pay fitting honour to a god\nis shown by the numerous attributive names which were frequently\naddressed to him by his devotees; and in order to make up for any\nunconscious omission the suppliant would add: \u201cOr by whatever other\ntitle thou desirest to be called.\u201d Altars were also frequently\ndedicated \u201cto unknown gods,\u201d lest a worshipper should bring down\nupon himself the wrath of some deities of whose existence he was\nunaware.[18]\n\nThe results of this religious syncretism, which was brought about\nby the Hellenistic spirit, were far-reaching in their effect; thus,\nas an example, it is worth mentioning that a type of monotheism\nwas taught; this centred in the cult of Tyche, an all-pervading\nFate; and though very inferior to the monotheism of the Jews, it\nshowed, nevertheless, that the religious instinct was becoming more\nexpansive and was asserting itself in a more rational way than had\nhitherto obtained outside of Judaism. Nor must we forget to add that\nwith the higher conception of the Deity, of which this was a symptom,\nthere arose among the more deeply religiously-minded a longing for\nfellowship with God, together with the inevitable consequence, a more\ndeveloped belief in the future life.\n\nThe Hellenistic Movement, therefore, considered at its best, and\napart altogether from the point of view of pure culture, constituted\nan immense stride forward in the enlargening and development of\nreligious thought and belief. It is difficult to exaggerate its\nimportance for, and effect upon, religion, and therefore upon all\nreligious literature, during the period which we specially have in\nview. Of this we shall have more to say in estimating the influence\nand effect of Hellenism upon the Jews and their religion.\n\n\nSUMMARY\n\nThe roots of the Hellenistic Movement must be sought in the\nconditions brought about by the rise of the Attic sea-power. The\nway was thus prepared for the victories of Alexander the Great,\nwith whose name the spread of the Hellenistic Movement is more\nparticularly associated, by his father, Philip; it was through the\nexertions of the latter that the Macedonian Empire was consolidated.\n\nThe influence of Hellenism was, in the first instance, exercised by\nmeans of the spread of the Greek language; but it was a form of Greek\nwhich differed in many particulars from classical Greek, and is known\nnowadays by the name of Hellenistic Greek. This is the language in\nwhich the Septuagint and the New Testament are written; but it would\nbe a mistake to speak of it as \u201cBiblical Greek,\u201d because it was in\nno sense used specifically for the Greek of the Bible, but was the\nordinary language used in every-day intercourse, and was developed\nfrom the older form of Greek. Its wide prevalence is proved by the\ndiscovery of great numbers of _papyri_ and _ostraka_ on which this\nnewer form of Greek occurs.\n\nThe Hellenistic Movement coincided with an epoch which was, in many\nrespects, one of dissolution, so that its influence began to spread\nat a time when men\u2019s minds would be likely to welcome its newer and\nbroader outlook upon the world.\n\nThe greatest centre of Hellenistic culture was Alexandria; but this\nwas only one, though the most striking, example of the Hellenization\nthat was going on in many other cities. The Hellenization of these\ncities meant that their civic government was framed upon the Greek\nmodel; \u201cbarbarians\u201d and Greeks thus found themselves politically upon\nan equality, and the knowledge of one another brought about in this\nway resulted in the existence of a cosmopolitanism which was new to\nthe world.\n\nOn the other hand, the directly personal part which each individual\nfelt that he had to take as a citizen in the administration of\naffairs, emphasized his importance, and this was one of the\ncontributing causes which made individualism a characteristic of\nthe Hellenistic period. Individualism was fostered, further, by the\nphilosophical systems of this period which centred in ethics; for\nethical teaching concerns the individual first and foremost.\n\nThe influence of Hellenism was seen in politics, science, philosophy\nand literature. The critical faculty of the Greeks made them\nrealists. In their estimate of men and things the Greeks were guided\nby an innate and strongly marked sense of proportion.\n\nIn the domain of religion it is to be noted, first, that Hellenistic\nphilosophy soon developed into theology; the Hellenistic period was,\ntherefore, not one of irreligion. But the critical attitude of the\nphilosophers towards the traditional religion made it impossible, at\nany rate for the cultured classes, to believe in it as heretofore.\nIt was, however, all to the good that the essence of the ancient\nmyths was transformed while their form was retained. Another and\nmost important fact to be noted is the religious syncretism which\nwas a characteristic of this period; the intermingling of races\nbrought about the intermingling of worship. The Hellenistic Movement\nwas the means of a great development of religious thought; and the\nresultant effect on the religious literature of the age is difficult\nto exaggerate.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nHellenistic Influence upon the Jews of Palestine\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014Stade, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, II, pp.\n  273-310 (1888); this part of the work is done by O. Holtzmann;\n  Toy, _Christianity and Judaism_, pp. 173-214 (1891); Sch\u00fcrer,\n  II, i. pp. 1-149, German ed. II, pp. 1-267; Swete, _Introduction\n  to the Old Testament in Greek_, pp. 1-9 (1900); Bousset, _Die\n  Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter_, pp.\n  448-493 (1903); H\u00f6lscher, _Pal\u00e4stina in der persischen und\n  hellenistischen Zeit_ (1903); Zeller, _Die Philosophie der\n  Griechen_, III, ii. (1903); Edwyn Bevan, _Jerusalem under the\n  High-priests_ (1904); M. Friedl\u00e4nder, _Die religi\u00f6sen Bewegungen\n  innerhalb des Judentums im Zeitalter Jesu_, pp. 1-168 (1905);\n  Kr\u00fcger, _Philo und Josephus als Apologeten des Judenthums_\n  (1906); Kr\u00fcger, _Hellenismus und Judenthum im neutestamentlichen\n  Zeitalter_ (1908); Wendland, _Die Hellenistisch-R\u00f6mische\n  Kultur_ ... pp. 187-211. See also the articles \u201cHellenism\u201d in\n  the _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, and \u201cGriechenthum\u201d in Hamburger\u2019s\n  _Realencycl. f\u00fcr Bibel und Talmud_.]\n\n\nI. HELLENISM AND JUDAISM\n\nThe influence which Greek thought and culture exercised upon the Jews\nand the Jewish religion differed both in its extent and intensity\nupon the Jews of Palestine on the one hand, and upon the Jews of the\nDispersion on the other. It will, therefore, be necessary to deal\nseparately with these two parts of the subject, although a great\ndeal of what we shall have to say about Hellenistic influence upon\nthe Jews of Palestine will naturally apply also to the Jews of the\nDispersion.\n\nDuring the two centuries which preceded the appearance of Alexander\nupon the world\u2019s stage, the Jews as a nation had become more and\nmore the people of the Law. From the time of Ezra onwards this\ntendency had increased with ever-growing volume. \u201cEzra had set his\nheart to seek the Law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach in\nIsrael statutes and judgements\u201d[19]; his efforts were crowned with\na great measure of success. By this means it was sought to preserve\nthe Jewish religion and Jewish ethics uncontaminated by external\ninfluences, whether through contact with foreign peoples,[20] or\nwith those who although they belonged to the Jewish race were not\nfaithful to the ordinances of the Law.[21] This separation was\nsuccessful at first; but with the rise and rapid spread of Hellenism\nit became increasingly difficult to maintain, especially as the\ninfluence of the Greek spirit was, with the exception of Egypt,\nnowhere stronger than on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean.\n\u201cGirt about by a Greek population, the Palestinian Jews, in spite of\nEzra\u2019s admirable organization, could not entirely resist the assaults\nof Hellenism. It is probable that not merely the Greek language,\nbut also Greek philosophy, exerted a charm on some of the clearest\nJewish intellects. But we are within the bounds of acknowledged\nfact in asserting that the ardour of Jud\u00e6an piety, at least in the\nhighest class, greatly cooled in the age subsequent to Ezra\u2019s, and in\nascribing this to Greek influences.\u201d[22]\n\nOf far-reaching importance to the Jews of Palestine, though only\nindirectly, was the battle of Ipsus (B.C. 301); for one of the\nresults of this battle was that among the territories assigned to\nthe house of Ptolemy, according to the settlement agreed upon\nafter the battle, was Palestine (C\u0153le-Syria); and there followed,\nfor this country at any rate, a period of comparative peace which\nlasted for about a hundred years.[23] It was, in the main, during\nthis century that the quiet and peaceful process of Hellenization\namong the Jews went on. The wise policy, as it was upon the\nwhole, of the Ptolemys towards the Jews did much to favour this\nprocess. The Jews were placed upon the same footing as the Egyptian\nsubjects; they were permitted absolute freedom in the exercise of\ntheir religion and religious customs; in political matters also\nthe Jews found themselves in a position of perfect equality with\ntheir fellow-subjects; indeed, so much were they trusted that they\nnot infrequently formed garrisons in the royal fortresses; of the\nexistence, too, of Jewish soldiers in the Ptolemaic armies we have\ncontemporary evidence.[24] Favourable treatment was also accorded to\nthe Jews by Seleucus in the northern parts of Syria; they were, for\nexample, here too granted the privilege of the rights of citizenship.\nThis kindly treatment which the Jews received would naturally have\nhad the effect of inclining them favourably towards their rulers; and\nthis was in itself a not unimportant factor in the new conditions by\nmeans of which Greek culture was exercising its influence upon them.\n\nAgain, it was the policy of the Egyptian kings to foster free\nintercourse between their Hellenic and Asiatic subjects; the chief\nmeans whereby this was promoted was by planting Greek settlements\nin Palestine\u2014following herein the example of Alexander[25]\u2014which\nresulted in the rise of a number of new Greek cities in that country;\nthe Greeks and Macedonians who consequently became settlers there\nconstituted before long a numerous and influential element in\nthe population[26]; in many cases they changed a city which had\nhitherto been wholly Semitic into one which became predominantly\nGreek; examples of this are Raphia, Gaza, Ascalon, Azotus, C\u00e6sarea,\nPtolemais, and others. Nor was this confined to Western Palestine;\nmany cities in Eastern Palestine as well became centres of Greek\ninfluence. Invariably in cases of this kind the local government of\nthe city was framed on the Greek model; this meant the independent\norganization of large municipal communities which, as Sch\u00fcrer\npoints out, was of \u201cfundamental importance in the political life\nof Palestine; this was,\u201d he continues, \u201cindeed, no novelty in\nPalestine, where from of old the large towns of the Philistine and\nPh\u0153nician coasts had formed centres of political life. The influence\nof Hellenism marks, however, a turning-point in this respect also.\nFor, on the one hand, it essentially transformed the existing\ncommunities, while, on the other, it founded numerous new ones and\nmade the municipal communities in general _the basis of the political\norganization of the country_ in a far more thorough manner than\nbefore. Wherever Hellenism penetrated\u2014especially on the Philistine\ncoasts and the eastern boundaries of Palestine beyond the Jordan\u2014the\ncountry districts were grouped around single large towns as their\npolitical centres. Each of such communities formed a comparatively\nindependent whole, managing its own internal affairs; its dependence\nupon the rulers of Syria consisted only in the recognition of\ntheir military supremacy, the payment of taxes, and certain other\nperformances. At the head of such a Hellenistically organized\ncommunity was a democratic senate of several hundred members.\u201d[27]\nIt cannot be doubted that the organization on Greek models of the\nlocal government of Jewish cities must have brought a new mental\noutlook to the Jews. The political assemblies and annual elections\nin which each individual took his part must have tended to give to\nthe Jew a sense of his personal importance such as he is not likely\never to have experienced before. In the past history of the Jewish\nState a _r\u00e9gime_ had obtained in which the ordinary individual was\nregarded as of little or no account; the vast bulk of the people took\nno part, not even the most humble, either directly or indirectly, in\nthe conduct of affairs; they had no voice even in the smaller world\nof local matters; they were mere ciphers without anything in the\nshape of civic responsibility. Individual responsibility had, it is\ntrue, been insisted upon in the domain of religion by Ezekiel[28];\nbut it was a new _r\u00f4le_ that the Jew was now called upon to fill\nin this individual capacity. As a member of a community organized\naccording to Greek ideas he would feel that he had a real part to\nplay and some contribution to offer for the general welfare; he\nwould know that his decision would go towards affecting for good\nor ill the conditions under which he and his fellows lived. Such a\nnew experience could not fail to generate in the Jew a new sense of\npersonal responsibility, a realization of duty towards others, not\nonly of his own race, and thus develop a wider outlook and a deeper\ninsight into the world of his surroundings.\n\nAnother thing which must have appealed strongly to the imagination\nof an oriental people like the Jews, though it would have affected\nthem in a very different way, was the interest and fascination\nafforded by the shows and processions associated with the annual\nGreek festivals. That such sights had an alluring effect, and indeed\nsomething more, upon some considerable section of the people is\nevident, for the first book of Maccabees shows us that the question\nof the adoption of Greek polytheism was first raised in Jud\u00e6a by\napostate Jews themselves; the passage, to which we shall have to\nrefer again later, is 1 Maccabees i. 11 f.: \u201cIn those days [i.e.,\nin the days of Antiochus Epiphanes] came there forth out of Israel\ntransgressors of the Law, and persuaded many, saying, Let us go and\nmake a covenant with the Gentiles that are round about us; for since\nwe parted from them many evils have befallen us. And the saying\nwas good in their eyes. And certain of the people were forward\nherein, and went to the king, and he gave them licence to do after\nthe ordinances of the Gentiles. And they built a place of exercise\n(\u2018gymnasium\u2019) in Jerusalem according to the laws of the Gentiles; and\nthey made themselves uncircumcized, and forsook the holy covenant,\nand joined themselves to the Gentiles, and sold themselves to do\nevil.\u201d It is rightly pointed out that in this the promoters \u201chad no\ndoubt an eye to tactics in the way they chose to inaugurate their\ncampaign. A gymnasium would appeal especially to youth; and if the\nJewish youth could be won over to pagan practices, then the future\nwas theirs.\u201d[29] The gymnasium was, in truth, one of the most potent\nmeans whereby the Greek spirit was fostered, especially among those\nentering upon manhood. Mr. Edwyn Bevan writes so interestingly on\nthis subject and so much to the point, that we cannot refrain from\nquoting his words. He says: \u201cThe gymnasiums were as much of the\nessence of a Greek state as the political assemblies; they expressed\nfundamental tendencies of the Greek mind\u2014its craving for harmonious\nbeauty of form, its delight in the body, its unabashed frankness with\nregard to everything natural.... The gymnasiums also served other\nby-ends besides the one of bodily training; they were the social\ncentres in which the life of a Greek youth got those interests which\ngo with companionship, the spur of common ambitions, and _esprit de\ncorps_. From the days of Alexander and his successors we find as\na regular institution in Greek cities guilds of young men, called\n_epheboi_, attached to the gymnasiums and organized under state\ncontrol. A young man might remain in the ranks of the _epheboi_ for\na year. He wore a distinctive uniform, some variety of that Greek\ncountry dress\u2014the dress worn for hunting, riding, travelling\u2014which\nconsisted of a broad-brimmed hat, _chlamys_ brooched about the\nshoulders, and high-laced boots.... In state processions the body of\n_epheboi_, wearing sometimes even crowns of gold, formed a brilliant\ncluster in the spectacle.\u201d[30] In a large variety of ways, therefore,\nin every-day life Hellenism affected and influenced the Jews of\nPalestine.\n\nThis influence was furthered by the powerful high-priestly party,\n\u201cthe sons of Zadok\u201d\u2014not that all the members of this party were\nnecessarily priests\u2014who were the political leaders of the people\nand at the same time in favour of Greek culture. The active and\naggressive championship of Hellenism by this party began with the\nadvent of Antiochus Epiphanes to the Syrian throne in B.C. 175. The\nhigh-priest at this time was Onias III; but he was not a supporter\nof Hellenistic influence among his people; he was, therefore, driven\naway by his brother Jesus, a thorough-going Hellenist, who changed\nhis Jewish name for the Greek Jason.[31] The second book of Maccabees\ngives us an account of what happened, which may be accepted as\nsubstantially correct; in iv. 7-17, it is said: \u201cBut when Seleucus\ndied, and Antiochus, who was called Epiphanes, succeeded to the\nkingdom, Jason, the brother of Onias, supplanted his brother in the\nhigh-priesthood, promising in a petition to the king three hundred\nand threescore talents of silver, besides eighty talents from another\nfund; in addition to which he undertook to pay a hundred and fifty\nmore, if he was commissioned to set up a gymnasium and ephebeum,\nand to register the Jerusalemites as citizens of Antioch.[32] And\nwhen the king had given his assent, Jason at once exercised his\ninfluence in order to bring over his fellow-countrymen to Greek\nways of life ... and seeking to overthrow the lawful modes of life,\nhe introduced new customs forbidden by the Law; he deliberately\nestablished a gymnasium under the citadel itself, and made the\nnoblest of the young men wear the petasus.[33] And to such a height\ndid the passion for Greek fashions rise, and the influx of foreign\ncustoms, thanks to the surpassing impiety of that godless Jason\u2014no\nhigh-priest he!\u2014that the priests were no longer interested in the\nservices of the altar, but despising the sanctuary, and neglecting\nthe sacrifices, they hurried to take part in the unlawful displays\nheld in the _pal\u00e6stra_ after the quoit-throwing had been announced,\nthus setting at nought what their fathers honoured, and esteeming\nthe glories of the Greeks above all else.\u201d[34] We have quoted\nthis passage in full as it well illustrates the way in which the\nhigh-priestly party, headed by Jason, furthered the Hellenistic\nMovement in Palestine. Mixed motives probably prompted Jason and his\nfollowers in their action; it was certainly to the party\u2019s advantage,\nnot to say necessity, to be on good terms with the ruling powers;\non the other hand, it is likely enough that they were convinced of\nthe superiority of Greek culture, and honestly thought that it was\nfor the good of their people that it should be cultivated; but their\nunnecessarily aggressive methods, coupled with the brutal action\nof Antiochus in trying to stamp out Judaism altogether, brought an\ninevitable reaction; and there followed, as a result, the Maccab\u00e6an\nrevolt which had the effect of obliterating Hellenism, as far as\nthis was possible, in Palestine.[35] It had, however, become too\ndeeply ingrained to be altogether eradicated; this will be seen as\nwe proceed. But it may be pointed out here that one of the signs of\nhow deep and widespread Hellenistic influence must have been among\nthe Jews of Palestine is to be seen in the large number of hebraized\nGreek words which, as the Hebrew of the Mishna shows, had become\nincorporated into the language of the Jews. Sch\u00fcrer has gathered a\ngreat many examples of this, for the examination of which recourse\nmust be had to his work[36]; here it must suffice merely to indicate\nthe different departments of life in reference to which these\nforeign Greek words became current; they include civil government,\nthe army, jurisprudence, public institutions such as heathen games,\nthe theatre, the baths, and public inns, architecture in general,\nplastic art, music, writing, trade and industry, the coinage system,\nprovisions, clothes, furniture and domestic utensils; in addition to\nthis we find that the formation of many proper names is Greek, and\nthat multitudes, of Greek words were adapted which express ideas on\nmany various subjects. Sch\u00fcrer gives the following summary of the way\nin which Hellenistic culture affected the every-day life of the Jews\nof Palestine: \u201cIt fashioned in a peculiar manner the organization\nof the state, legislation, the administration of justice, public\narrangements, art and science, trade and industry, and the customs of\ndaily life down to fashions and ornaments, and thus impressed upon\nevery department of life, wherever its influence reached, the stamp\nof the Greek mind.\u201d[37]\n\nFrom what has been said it is evident that Hellenistic influence\nupon the Jews of Palestine was very marked, for although it is\ndifficult, perhaps impossible, to trace step by step the progress\nof this influence from its inception, we are able to see plainly\nenough how profoundly it must have affected the Jews. The question,\nhowever, arises as to whether the religious beliefs of the Jews were\ninfluenced by Hellenism. That a large number of Jews prior to the\nMaccab\u00e6an struggle gave up their traditional belief in their pursuit\nafter everything that was Greek is clear from the evidence of the\nbooks of the Maccabees; but the point is rather as to whether Judaism\nas a faith was in any way permanently affected by the Hellenistic\nspirit. Restricting ourselves at present to Palestinian Judaism we\nmay say without hesitation that its fundamental tenets remained\nuntouched; but as regards various beliefs which, in process of\ntime, became part and parcel of Judaism, it was different; it cannot\nbe denied that these, of which mention will be made presently, do\nwitness to the action of extraneous influences, permanent in their\neffect, of which Hellenism was one. \u201cIn no period,\u201d says Wellhausen,\n\u201cwas Judaism so fruitful as in this. It was, like Islam, of complex\nappearance, full of antinomies, receptive like all that is living,\nunsystematic, only to be understood in its historical setting. It was\nonly practical religion which was ruled by a pedantic spirit and by\nstrict discipline; in the domain of belief and religious conception a\ncurious freedom was permitted, although certain fundamental doctrines\nwere rigorously shielded.\u201d[38] The difficulty of estimating to\nwhat extent Jewish religious thought and practice were affected by\noutside influences is very considerable; not less difficult is it to\ndetermine _what_ outside influence had affected a given belief or\ncustom. We are dealing specifically with Hellenistic influences, but\nthese could be, and were, exercised both directly and indirectly. It\nmust be remembered that the conditions under which the Jews lived\nduring the period with which we are dealing, viz., in the midst\nof surrounding nations which had all, more or less, come under\nHellenistic influences, and among whom the development of culture and\nreligion had been, and was, proceeding apace\u2014it must be remembered\nthat these conditions were one of the consequences of the Hellenistic\nMovement.[39] Further, the question must always be borne in mind as\nto whether some eastern _trait_ which was absorbed by Judaism had not\nfirst been assimilated by Hellenism with its strongly syncretistic\ntendency, and then taken up by Judaism through this Greek channel.\nEven in the cases in which eastern elements were directly taken up\ninto Judaism, must we not see in such Jewish syncretism at any\nrate the indirect result of Hellenistic influence? This readiness\nto accept what other religions had to offer was of the essence of\nthe Hellenistic spirit. As illustrating this latter point we may\nmention the subjects of Jewish angelology and demonology; it may be\nregarded as certain that the later Jewish idea of angels, the names\nof which the Jews themselves describe as originating in Babylonia,\nthe opposition between good and bad angels, the latter being subject\nto a personal head, the dualism between the realms of light and\ndarkness, in a word, the whole belief in the existence of good and\nevil spirits, was due to the influence of Parseeism. In the domain\nof eschatology extraneous influences were very marked, though it\nis not easy always to decide the quarter from which these came. As\nBertholet says: \u201cJewish eschatology has become the very meeting-place\nof foreign elements. It is especially the merit of Prof. Bousset,\nwho in general has dealt most successfully with our problem, to have\nshown clearly that the expectation of a transcendent \u00e6on which,\ninaugurated by a universal judgement of the world, replaces the \u00e6on\nof this present world, differs so widely from the expectation of a\nMessianic future which essentially concerns Israel alone and, on the\nwhole, will only be enacted on the stage of this present earth, that\nthey cannot have sprung from the same root. And here, considering the\nideas about periods of the world, resurrection, general judgement,\nuniversal conflagration, a new world, and everlasting life, we\nhave first to take into account influences from Parseeism, mixed\nwith Babylonian elements, only incidentally Greek ideas....\u201d[40]\nBousset, however, believes that in the domain of Jewish eschatology\nGreek influence predominated over that of the east, though he fully\nrecognizes the influence of the latter.[41] Regarding the Jewish\nbelief of the immortality of the soul, there can be no doubt that\nfor this the Jews were indebted mainly to Hellenism, though the\ndevelopment of this into the doctrine of the resurrection of the\nbody is Jewish. That the new material thus absorbed became integral\nand permanent elements of Judaism is to be seen by their presence in\nRabbinical literature.\n\nBut the influence of Hellenistic or other extra-Judaic thought on\nthe religion of the Jews cannot be restricted to those points of\ndoctrine on which, as in the case of the ones just enumerated, that\ninfluence was direct. All religious doctrines are so inter-related\nthat the development or modification of one can scarcely fail to\naffect others in one way or another; and this is, above all, true\nregarding the doctrine of God. We shall see later that among the\nJews of the Dispersion the doctrine of God was directly affected by\nGreek philosophical thought; in the case of the orthodox Judaism of\nPalestine this was not so; but there is reason for believing that\n_indirectly_ the doctrine of God was, even in Palestinian Judaism,\naffected by both Greek and oriental thought. The developed angelology\nwhich became a characteristic of orthodox Judaism had its share\nin moulding that conception of divine transcendence which was one\naspect of the Jewish doctrine of God; the teaching concerning those\nsemi-divine, superhuman beings who act as God\u2019s intermediaries, and\nare His agents in carrying out the divine will on earth,[42] is one\nwhich is not unconnected with the developed angelology of later\nJudaism; one has only to think of the place and activity assigned to\nMichael to realize that this is so.\n\nWhat has been said is also true of the doctrine of the resurrection\nfor which Judaism was indebted to Hellenism; here it will suffice to\nput the question: How could the doctrine of God _not_ be affected by\nbelief in immortality? The question will be sufficiently answered by\ncomparing the Old Testament doctrine of Sheol with the doctrine of\nthe resurrection.\n\nFurther signs of Greek influence are to be discerned in some of the\nbooks of the Old Testament and of the Apocrypha; and the Apocalyptic\nMovement must be specially considered. But special chapters will be\ndevoted to these.\n\nIn conclusion, it is necessary to make a brief reference to the type\nof Hellenism which grew up in Syria, for this, too, is a matter of\nsome importance. Attention has already been drawn to the syncretism\nwhich was a characteristic of the Hellenistic period; one of the\nresults of this was the absorption of many oriental elements by\nHellenism whereby it was affected for the worse; and the Hellenism of\nthe east became a very different thing from the Hellenism of Greece.\nIt was especially in Syria that in course of time a degenerate form\nof Hellenism prevailed; we have reason to believe, says Bevan, \u201cthat\nit was just in Syria that Hellenism took a baser form. The ascetic\nelement which saved its liberty from rankness tended here more than\nanywhere else to be forgotten. The games, the shows, the abandonment\nof a life which ran riot in a gratification of the senses, grosser\nor more refined, these made up too much of the Hellenism which\nchanged the face of Syria in the last centuries before Christ. \u2018The\npeople of these cities,\u2019 a historian wrote, about a hundred years\nbefore Christ, \u2018are relieved by the fertility of their soil from a\nlaborious struggle for existence. Life is a continuous series of\nsocial festivities. Their gymnasiums they use as baths, where they\nanoint themselves with costly oils and myrrhs. In the _grammateia_\n(such is the name they give the public eating-halls) they practically\nlive, filling themselves there for the better part of the day with\nrich foods and wine; much that they cannot eat they take away home.\nThey feast to the prevailing music of strings. The cities are filled\nfrom end to end with the noise of harp-playing.\u2019 Very likely that\npicture is over-coloured.... The man who wrote it, Posidonius, a man\nof huge literary industry, and a philosopher of the nobler school,\nwas himself a Syrian Greek; but it cannot be altogether untrue.\u201d[43]\nConsiderably earlier than this, extraneous influences were already\naffecting the Jews, for Hecat\u00e6us of Abdera (B.C. 306-283) bears\nwitness of how many Jews were influenced by foreign ways. He says:\n\u201cUnder the dominations which were established in later times [he has\nbeen writing about Mosaic times], namely that of the Persians, and\nthat of the Macedonians who overthrew the Persian rule, the Jews\ngreatly modified their traditional ordinances through their contact\nwith strangers.\u201d[44]\n\nOriental and Hellenistic influences were thus both at work in\ninfluencing the Jews of Palestine in many directions; the fusion of\nthese two influences took place, and the result was that a debased\nform of Hellenism was produced. On the one hand, then, Hellenism,\nwith the many good qualities which were inherent in it, brought a\nbeneficial influence to bear upon the Jews of Palestine; but, on the\nother hand, its effect, for the reason given, was evil; so that when\nthe great reaction against Hellenism took place, it was fostered by\nethical as well as religious considerations.\n\n\nII. THE ESSENES\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014Lucius, _Der Essenismus in seinem Verh\u00e4ltniss zum\n  Judenthum_ (1881); Lightfoot, _Colossians_, pp. 349-419 (1884);\n  M. Friedl\u00e4nder, _Zur Enstehungsgeschichte des Christenthums_, pp.\n  98-142 (1894); Sch\u00fcrer, II, ii. pp. 188-218, German ed. II, pp.\n  651-680; M. Friedl\u00e4nder, _Die religi\u00f6sen Bewegungen_ ..., pp.\n  114-168 (1905); the articles \u201cEssenes\u201d in Hastings\u2019 _Dict. of\n  the Bible_ and in the _Jewish Encycl._, by F. C. Conybeare and\n  Kohler respectively.]\n\nThe name Essene is in all probability derived from the Aramaic word\nwhich is the equivalent of the Hebrew _Chassid_ (\u201cPious\u201d).[45] The\nquestion as to whether any signs of Hellenistic influence are to be\ndiscerned in Essenism is one upon which much difference of opinion\nexists among scholars. A massive literature upon the subject exists.\nTo go into much detail here would be out of the question; we can\nonly refer to a few points which make it difficult to believe that\nEssenism was uninfluenced by Hellenism.[46]\n\nThere are, undoubtedly, a number of facts regarding Essene belief and\npractice which show how un-Jewish they were in some respects, though,\nas Josephus says, they were Jews by race.[47] Philo, who is our\nearliest authority regarding the Essenes, says: \u201cIn the first place,\nthese men live in villages, avoiding the towns on account of the\nsinfulness that reigns in them; for they know that just as disease\narises through unwholesome air, so, too, incurable infection to the\nsoul through intercourse.\u201d[48] This withdrawing from the world is\nelsewhere extolled by Philo when he speaks of it as characteristic\nof those Greeks and barbarians who have dedicated their lives to the\nsearch for wisdom, and \u201cwho have turned their backs upon the crowded\nmarket-place and public life in order that they may be able to devote\nthemselves to meditation in their solitude.\u201d[49] It is unnecessary\nto insist upon the fact that withdrawing from the world and seeking\nsolitude was entirely un-Jewish; the Jews were essentially social\nin their habits of life, their whole legislation assumes this, and\ntheir history shows it throughout. It is, therefore, not from the\nJews that the Essenes acquired this characteristic. There are, on the\nother hand, ample grounds for believing that among the Greeks and\nOrientals examples of this were to be found; it is from one or other\nof these, probably from a Greek pattern borrowed from the east, that\nthe Essenes adopted this.\n\nAgain, the Essenes exhibited another very un-Jewish _trait_ in the\nposition they took up on the question of marriage; the evidence of\nJosephus regarding this is as follows: \u201cThey neglect wedlock, but\nchoose out other persons\u2019 children while they are pliable and fit\nfor learning, and esteem them to be their kindred, and form them\naccording to their manner of life.\u201d[50] This was quite against Jewish\nteaching and practice, though in agreement with Jewish Hellenism,\nwhich looked upon asceticism as the most efficacious, and indeed\nindispensable, means of attaining to the vision of God.[51] The\nasceticism of the Essenes, both in this and other respects, was an\ninevitable result of their dualism. According to their teaching, God\nand the world, which is wholly evil, stand opposed in irreconcilable\nantagonism; this accounts for their elaborate angelology, for as God\ncannot have any immediate intercourse with the evil world, angels\nact as His intermediaries. This part of Essene belief is largely\ndue to Persian influence. Further, Josephus tells us that \u201cthe sect\nof Essenes affirms that fate governs all things, and that nothing\nbefalls men but what is according to its determination.\u201d[52] On this\npoint the Essenes and the Sadducees were at opposite extremes, while\nthe Pharisees occupied a middle position between the two.\n\nOf great importance was the teaching of the Essenes on the\nresurrection. \u201cThe opinion is strongly held among them,\u201d says\nJosephus, \u201cthat bodies are corruptible, and that the matter they\nare made of is not permanent; but that the souls are immortal, and\ncontinue for ever, and that they come out of the most subtle air,\nand are united to their bodies as to prisons, into which they are\ndrawn by a certain natural enticement; but that when they are set\nfree from the bonds of the flesh, they then, as released from a long\nbondage, rejoice and mount upward. And their opinion is like that of\nthe Greeks, that good souls have their habitation beyond the ocean,\nin a region that is neither oppressed with storms of rain or snow,\nnor with intense heat, but that this place is such as is refreshed by\nthe gentle breathing of a west wind that is perpetually blowing from\nthe ocean; while they allot to bad souls a dark and tempestuous den,\nfull of never-ceasing punishments.\u201d[53] This belief, which Josephus\nhimself regards as due to Greek influence, is directly opposed to\nthe doctrine of the resurrection of the body which was a tenet of\northodox Judaism. Un-Jewish, further, was the fact that the Essenes\nwould never enter the Temple for fear of becoming contaminated with\nthe crowds there; so that they did not offer sacrifices; though, on\nthe other hand, they sent offerings to the Temple.\n\nOne last point wherein Essenism was un-Jewish in character was\nthat in some respects it was a mystery-religion; each community\nhad a central house around which the brethren of the Order dwelt;\nin this house they met for their religious observances; one of\nthese was a common meal; at this meal special holy garments were\nworn, which were put off again when the wearers returned to work;\na priest offered up prayer before and after the meal. Whenever a\nnew candidate sought admission into the Order he had first to pass\na three years\u2019 noviciate; then, on being admitted, he underwent a\nform of baptism, and had to take solemn oaths to obey the rules of\nthe Order and to keep its secrets; he had also to swear to observe\nsecrecy regarding the names of the angels in whom the members of the\nOrder believed. As the Essenes lived entirely for the life to come,\nthey were much occupied in attempting to penetrate the secrets of the\nfuture; indeed, they were accredited with the faculty of foretelling\nthe future; Josephus says that they were seldom mistaken in their\npredictions, and gives three interesting examples of the correctness\nof the prophecies.[54]\n\nIn a number of respects, therefore, the Essenes differed\nfundamentally in faith and practice from orthodox Judaism; but in\ntheir strict monotheism, in their high respect for the Law of Moses,\nespecially in the matter of Sabbath observance, and in their frequent\npurifications, they were thoroughly Jewish.\n\nWhile it seems, then, impossible not to recognize in the Essene\nMovement to some considerable extent the result of Hellenistic\ninfluence, it is evident that other extra-Jewish influences, namely,\noriental, also had a share in moulding it. Friedl\u00e4nder speaks of\nEssenism as \u201ca harmonious blending of the Mosaic and Hellenic\nspirit\u201d[55]; perhaps this does not take sufficient account of the\noriental influences whereby Essenism was undoubtedly affected;\nat the same time it is certain that Hellenism, with its strongly\nsyncretistic tendencies, absorbed oriental elements prior to its more\npronounced extension in Palestine, in which case eastern influence\nwould only have been indirect, while that of Hellenism would have\nbeen the more immediate.\n\n\nSUMMARY\n\nThe separation of the Jews from the outside world which was brought\nabout through the exertions of Ezra and those who followed him,\nand which had the effect of preserving the people from extraneous\ninfluences, was only successful for a limited period of time. For\nwith the rise and rapid spread of the Hellenistic Movement came the\nbreaking down of all the barriers which had been so laboriously set\nup; and the Jews, like the rest of the world of those days, came\nunder the sway of this irresistible power, so strongly exercised on\nthe eastern shores of the Mediterranean.\n\nHellenistic influence upon the Jews was exercised in an intensive\nmanner during the century of comparative peace for their country,\nwhich was one of the results of the battle of Ipsus (B.C. 301).\nThe considerate treatment accorded to the Jews by their rulers\nduring this period was calculated to help forward the process of\nHellenization. The policy of the Egyptian kings of settling Greeks\nand Macedonians in Palestine resulted in the rise of many Greek\ncities there. Both in Western and Eastern Palestine civic life was\nframed upon the Greek model; a marked individualism among the Jews\nwas one of the results of this.\n\nHellenistic influence was exercised, further, by means of the annual\ncelebrations of the Greek festivals; the gymnasium and all that this\ninvolved became a still greater means for the spreading abroad of\nthis influence.\n\nThe fact that the powerful high-priestly party favoured the\nHellenistic Movement did much to forward it.\n\nThus, by the time that Antiochus Epiphanes came to the Syrian throne\nin B.C. 175 much of what was essentially Hellenistic had become\nineradicably rooted in Jewish modes of life and thought, so much so\nthat when the great reaction against Hellenism arose in the shape of\nthe Maccab\u00e6an revolt, it was in many directions powerless to effect a\nreturn to the Ezra ideal.\n\nOne effect of the deep and widespread influence of the Hellenistic\nMovement is to be seen in the large number of Greek words which,\nas the Hebrew of the Mishna shows, have been incorporated into the\nHebrew language.\n\nAs to Greek influence upon the _religious belief_ of the Jews of\nPalestine, it did not directly affect its fundamental tenets; but in\none way or another, in conjunction with other eastern influences,\nit did affect Judaism as a faith in some respects. Angelology and\ndemonology, which Judaism absorbed from the east, were elements the\nincorporation of which may so far be regarded as due _indirectly_ to\nthe Hellenistic Movement in that the Greek spirit inculcated, and\nset the example of syncretism, an example followed by the Jews no\nless than by other peoples under the sway of Hellenism. In the domain\nof eschatology both Greek and Eastern influences affected the Jews;\nwhich of the two was the more powerful is not easily decided. As\nregards the belief in the future life of the Jews the signs of Greek\ninfluence are plainly discernible.\n\nThis influence cannot be restricted, however, to the points mentioned\nbecause the inter-relation of doctrinal tenets is such that the\ndevelopment or modification of one dogma affects others; an example\nof this is the way in which the later angelology and demonology of\nthe Jews affected their doctrine of God.\n\nThe chapters on \u201cTraces of Greek Influences in the Old Testament\nand the Apocrypha\u201d and \u201cThe Apocalyptic Movement\u201d should be read in\nconjunction with the subject of this chapter.\n\nThe Essene Movement was the outcome of mainly Hellenistic, but also\nof Eastern, influences.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nHellenistic Influence upon the Jews of the Dispersion\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014Stade, _Op. cit._, vol. II (1888); Sch\u00fcrer, II, ii.\n  pp. 219-327, German ed. III, pp. 1-188; Bertholet, _Die Stellung\n  dev Israeliten und Juden zu den Fremden_ (1890); Reinach,\n  _Textes d\u2019auteurs Grecs et Romains relatifs au Judaisme_ (1895);\n  Willrich, _Juden und Griechen vor der makkab\u00e4ischen Erhebung_\n  (1895); Swete, _Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek_\n  (1900); M. Friedl\u00e4nder, _Die religi\u00f6sen Bewegungen_ ..., pp.\n  235-264 (1905); by the same author, _Geschichte der j\u00fcdischen\n  Apologetik als Vorgeschichte des Christentums_ (1903); Bousset,\n  _Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter_\n  (1903); Harnack, _The Mission and Expansion of Christianity_, I,\n  pp. 1-36 (1908); Bertholet, _Das religionsgeschichtliche Problem\n  des Sp\u00e4tjudenthums_ (1909); Oesterley and Box, _The Religion and\n  Worship of the Synagogue_, pp. 114-120 (1911); Wendland, _Op.\n  cit._, pp. 192-211; and the following articles, Ramsay, \u201cThe Jews\n  in the Gr\u00e6co-Asiatic Cities,\u201d in the _Expositor_ (January, 1902);\n  \u201cDiaspora\u201d in the _Jewish Encycl._; \u201cDispersion\u201d in Hastings\u2019\n  _Dict. of the Bible_ (extra volume) and the _Encycl. Bibl._]\n\n\nI. THE DISPERSION\n\nA preliminary matter to be dealt with is the Dispersion of the Jews,\nits origin and extent; after which we can turn our attention to the\nspecial characteristics of the Dispersion Jews, and the influence of\nHellenism upon them.\n\nThe first beginnings of the Dispersion on a large scale are to be\nseen in the deportation to Assyria of 27,290 of the inhabitants of\nSamaria by Sargon in B.C. 722. In 2 Kings xvii. 23 it is said:\n\u201cSo Israel was carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto\nthis day\u201d (cp. 2 Kings xvii. 6; xviii. 11). The general reference\nto this occurrence given in the Old Testament is supplemented by\nan inscription of Sargon\u2019s in which it is said: \u201cI besieged and\ncaptured Samerina (Samaria): 27,290 people dwelling in the midst of\nit I carried off. Fifty chariots I collected among them, and allowed\nthem to have the rest of their goods.\u201d[56] A further deportation\non a larger scale took place when Nebuchadnezzar carried captive\nto Babylon the bulk of the nation of Judah in B.C. 597; this was\nsupplemented by further deportations in B.C. 586 and 582 (see 2\nKings xxiv. 14-16; xxv. 11, 21; Jer. lii. 15, 28-30). Some five or\nsix thousand exiles returned to Palestine in B.C. 430; but about a\ncentury later, in the reign of Artaxerxes III (Ochus),[57] there was\nanother deportation, a number of Jews being transported to Hyrcania,\non the Caspian Sea, and Babylonia.[58] The great majority of these\nexiles and their descendants were content to remain in their new\nhomes, and many settlements of Jews arose in Babylonia, the centre\nof the Eastern Dispersion; from these centres they emigrated in all\ndirections, and in course of time the chief centre of the Dispersion\ncame to be Egypt, and of these Egyptian settlements Alexandria\nbecame the most important. The earliest mention which we have of\nJews settling in Egypt is in one of the Aramaic _papyri_ found a few\nyears ago in Elephantin\u00e9[59]; these _papyri_ consist of official\ndocuments\u2014decrees of the Persian government and public ordinances\nof the Jewish colony settled there\u2014as well as private papers, such\nas business letters, account books, records of debt, lists of names\nand personal correspondence; some literary pieces were also found\nin the collection. In one of these _papyri_\u2014a petition addressed by\nthe Jewish soldiery stationed at Elephantin\u00e9 to the governor of the\nJewish colony\u2014it is stated that the forefathers of the petitioners\nhad been settled there and had built a temple to their God Jahu\n(Jehovah) \u201csince the days of the kings of Egypt.\u201d The reference\nis, in all probability, to the Jewish mercenaries in the army of\nPsametik I (B.C. 663-609) of which mention is made in the _Letter of\nAristeas_, 12, 13. It was the successor of Psametik I, Pharoah Necho\nII, who in B.C. 609 overran Syria and, having subdued Judah, exiled\nJehoahaz to Egypt (2 Kings xxiii. 29, 34). Not long after, in B.C.\n586, Johanan, the son of Kareah, led a number of Jews, among whom was\nthe prophet Jeremiah, into Egypt (Jer. xlii., xliii.); and, according\nto Jeremiah xliv. 1, there were Jewish settlements in Migdol,\nTahpanes, Noph (i.e. Memphis), as well as in the district of Pathros\nin Upper Egypt (Isa. xi. 11).\n\nThese _data_ show that in comparatively early times there were\nJewish settlements in Egypt. But of great interest and importance is\nthe evidence of the Elephantin\u00e9 _papyri_, mentioned just now; they\nwitness to the presence of Jews in Egypt during the fifth century\nB.C.[60] The Jewish colony settled in Syene was a military one;\nthe _papyri_ tell us that the organization was much the same as in\nother parts of the Persian Empire; there was a governor,[61] with\nwhom were associated the priests, who represented the colony in\nall dealings with the suzerain power; he sends regular remittances\nto the central government, and receives instructions in all things\nconcerning the colony from the satrap of the province. Side by side\nwith the civil organization is the military _r\u00e9gime_; the force is\ndivided into companies called after the names of their officers; the\nsoldiers of the garrison each have a small possession of land; their\noffice is hereditary; when not engaged in war they seem to have led\na comfortable and pleasant life concerning which the _papyri_ give\na number of details. Though the colony was not a large one, in all\nprobability not amounting to more than a hundred souls, the fact\nof its existence is not without importance for the study of the\nDispersion.[62]\n\nWhen the Persian Empire was conquered by Alexander the Great, many\nJews emigrated from Persia to the west, and settled down in the\ncentres of Greek civilization; nor did it take very long before there\nwas scarcely any part of the civilized world of those days in which\nJewish settlements did not exist. \u201cThe greatly enlarged channels of\ncommerce, especially by sea-routes, attracted many from the interior\nto the coasts. The newly-founded Grecian cities, rendered attractive\nby all the achievements of Greek art and civilization, became\nfavourite resorts. Henceforth, trade relations, the desire to see the\nworld, soon also political considerations and (we may well suppose)\na certain conscious or unconscious craving for culture, became\noperative in promoting the dispersion of the Jews over the civilized\nworld.\u201d[63] About the middle of the second century B.C. the\n_Sybilline Oracles_ (iii. 271) bear witness to the wide dispersion\nof the Jews in saying that \u201cevery land and every sea is full of\nthee\u201d; the language is hyperbolic, but testifies, nevertheless, to\nthe ubiquity of the Jews at this time. Somewhat later Strabo (_circa_\nB.C. 60-A.D. 20) gives the following evidence: \u201cThese Jews are\nalready gotten into all cities, and it is hard to find a place in the\nhabitable earth that has not admitted this tribe of men, and is not\npossessed by it.\u201d[64]\n\nThe most important centre from every point of view, not only of the\nEgyptian, but of the whole Dispersion, was Alexandria. As we have\nseen, the nucleus of a Jewish population had existed in Egypt for\ncenturies before the time of Alexander. When Alexandria was founded\nJewish settlers were at once attracted to it because equal privileges\nwith all other citizens were accorded them; reference is made to this\nin later times in an edict of Tiberius in which it is said: \u201cSince I\nam assured that the Jews of Alexandria, called _Alexandrians_, have\nbeen joint inhabitants in the earliest times with the Alexandrians,\nand have obtained from their kings equal privileges with them, as is\nevident from the public records that are in their possession, and\nthe edicts themselves; and that after Alexandria had been subjected\nto our empire by Augustus, their rights and privileges have been\npreserved by those presidents who have at divers times been sent\nthither; and that no dispute had been raised about those rights\nand privileges.... I will, therefore, that the nation of the Jews\nbe not deprived of their rights and privileges ... but that those\nrights and privileges which they formerly enjoyed be preserved to\nthem....\u201d[65] In another place Josephus tells us that the Jews of\nAlexandria had set apart for them \u201ca particular place, that they\nmight live without being polluted [by the Gentiles], and were thereby\nnot so much intermixed with foreigners as before\u201d; this was done\nby the successors of Alexander.[66] On the other hand, Philo says\nthat the Jews lived in all parts of the city in his day[67]; the\nearlier exclusiveness of the Jews would naturally be, to some extent,\nbroken down in course of time when living in Gentile surroundings,\nespecially in such a centre as Alexandria, where Jews of wealth and\nsocial position lived who would desire to avail themselves of the\nhigh culture enjoyed by their Gentile fellow-citizens.\n\nAlthough Alexandria was by far the most important centre of the\nDispersion, not only in Egypt but in the whole civilized world of\nthose days, there were many other smaller settlements of Jews in that\ncountry; Philo says that the one million Jews who dwelt in Egypt\nwere to be found in every part of it from Libya to the Ethiopian\nfrontier.[68] Of the many other lands in which Jews were settled we\ncannot speak here; it must suffice to say that no country was without\nthem.[69]\n\n\nII. HELLENISTIC INFLUENCE ON RELIGION\n\nIt has been pointed out above that among the Greeks themselves the\neffect of the new spirit due to the Hellenistic Movement was very\ngreat upon the men and women of the cultured classes, but that upon\nthe masses it did not exercise much influence. To a large extent this\nis also true of the Jews of the Dispersion; for greatly as they\nwere influenced by the Greek spirit, the point must be emphasized\nthat this applies, primarily and mainly, to the cultured classes,\n_literati_, philosophers and the like. No doubt, indirectly, other\nclasses were to a greater or less extent also affected, but so far\nas the fundamental doctrines of Judaism were concerned, the bulk of\nthe Jews of the Dispersion were, in the main, true to the traditions\nof their fathers in spite of their Greek surroundings, and in spite\nof the fact that in other respects they were entirely under the sway\nof the Greek spirit. Not only did they pay annually the half-shekel\nto the Temple authorities in Jerusalem for the maintenance of the\nsacrificial system, but as a rule circumcision was insisted upon, the\nsanctity of the Sabbath was observed, and the great festivals were\nregularly celebrated. Vast numbers made pilgrimages to Jerusalem to\nkeep the three principal feasts, Tabernacles, Passover and Weeks.[70]\nEven Philo, who in mind and character was far more of a Greek\nphilosopher than a Jewish Rabbi, insists on the need of observing the\ndistinctive marks of Judaism.[71] It is necessary to point this out\nby way of preface, otherwise from what we have to say further upon\nthe subject the reader might be led to suppose that, at all events,\nthe more cultured among the Jews of the Dispersion, and especially\nthose of Alexandria, lost touch with Judaism altogether; this, no\ndoubt, happened in many cases, but as compared with the many that\nremained Jews in religion, these were the exceptions. Nevertheless,\nin the case of great numbers, traditional Judaism became transformed.\nTo begin with, utterly unlike the intolerant attitude of the\nPalestinian Jews towards the Gentiles, the Jews of the Dispersion\nlooked upon the larger world of their surroundings with interest and\nsympathy; their religious interests were not so entirely absorbed\nin their own view of things that they could not see and appreciate\nthe excellence of Greek thought and philosophy; their minds were\nopen to receive and to be influenced by what was good and true,\nwherever it was to be found. The Dispersion Jew was a Jew at heart,\nthough not according to the Pharisaic standard, and convinced of\nthe pre-eminence of his own faith, but he was none the less ready\nto render due justice to the opinions and convictions of his Greek\nneighbours; the interesting evidence regarding this given in the\n_Letter of Aristeas_[72] (121, 122) is worth quoting here: \u201cRegarding\ndiscussions and explanations of the Law they possessed great\naptitude. They struck just the right balance, for they discarded\nthe hard literalness of the letter, and were modest with regard to\ntheir own wisdom, and were ready to hold argument, to listen to the\nopinions of others, and to consider thoroughly every question that\nmight be raised.\u201d This broad-mindedness was one of the results of\nunfettered contact with the outer world. But a result, as remarkable\nas it was important, followed; for in comparing his religion with the\nvarious beliefs of the Gentiles, the Jew of the Dispersion became\nconvinced, in a way which hitherto had not been possible, that both\nin faith and practice Judaism was, in so far as its fundamentals were\nconcerned, immeasurably purer and truer, in most respects, though\nnot in all, than anything that the Gentiles could offer. He felt,\ntherefore, that he had something to say and give to the world which\nconcerned all men. Hence arose those missionary efforts, so contrary\nto the spirit of exclusiveness which characterized traditional\nJudaism, but which were crowned with a considerable measure of\nsuccess. Yet a grave and subtle danger lurked here for the Jew of the\nDispersion; in his desire to make Judaism as attractive as possible\nto the Gentiles, he presented it with such modifications that it\ncould no longer be called genuine Judaism. Under the influence of\nthe Hellenistic spirit the rigidity of the Law was smoothed down,\nand some Jewish beliefs appeared in a somewhat modified form[73];\nmany converts did not do more than keep the dietary laws and observe\nthe Sabbath; and this was acquiesced in. The reaction of this upon\nthose who thus presented a form of Judaism which was to some extent\nspurious, cannot well have been without its consequences, since\ntheir action must necessarily have affected their own faith in their\nreligion and their ideas upon the importance of their religious\nrites.[74]\n\nIf, as we have seen, syncretism affected Palestinian Judaism we shall\nexpect the same to have been the case with Hellenistic Judaism; this\nwas, indeed, so, and to a much greater extent. Thus, their conception\nof God was enriched with new ideas from both Platonic and, to a\ngreater degree, from Stoic philosophy, e.g., the doctrine of Divine\nImmanence, to which we shall refer in dealing with the signs of\nGreek influence in Jewish religious literature (Chapter V), where\nwe shall see also that the Jewish conceptions of the nature of man\nwas greatly influenced by Greek philosophical teaching. Again, the\nDispersion Jews commended their Scriptures to the heathen world by\nmeans of interpreting them allegorically; the real sense of Scripture\nwould often be entirely explained away by this method. This, too,\nshows the influence of the Hellenistic spirit, for this method of\ninterpretation was borrowed from the Stoics who had been in the habit\nof allegorizing the Greek myths.\n\nFinally, it is worth pointing out that even in Palestine, as\nindications in some later Old Testament and other books show, there\nhad for generations been a tendency towards mitigating the importance\nof the sacrificial system; the effect of this is likely to have\nbeen proportionately great among the Jews of the Dispersion, who\nwould, moreover, have found difficulties in observing many other\nprecepts of the Law. The result would have been to make them all\nthe more susceptible to the foreign cults and philosophical systems\nwhich met them on every side; how great that susceptibility was has\nbeen illustrated in an extraordinary manner by the recently found\n_papyri_ referred to above. No one, as Bertholet has truly remarked,\ncan understand the religion of the Jews\u2014and this applies to the Jews\nof the Dispersion even more than to those of Palestine\u2014\u201cwithout a\nfull intelligence of their astonishing faculty of assimilation; this\nassimilation even going the length of actively supporting heathen\ncults or, as the recently discovered _papyri_ of Assouan have\ninformed us, of swearing by an Egyptian goddess.\u201d[75]\n\n\nIII. THE SEPTUAGINT\n\nOne of the results of the Hellenistic Movement, the importance of\nwhich cannot be exaggerated, was the Gr\u00e6co-Jewish literature to which\nit gave birth. It is impossible to deal here with the whole mass of\nthat literature,[76] even in the most cursory manner, nor is this\nnecessary for our present purpose.[77] We must restrict ourselves in\nthis section to a brief mention of what Sch\u00fcrer calls \u201cthe foundation\nof all Jud\u00e6o-Hellenistic culture,\u201d namely, the Greek translation of\nthe Hebrew Scriptures, which was the special possession of the Jews\nof the Dispersion.\n\nThe name of this Greek Version of the Bible owes its origin to the\nlegend contained in the so-called _Letter of Aristeas_, in which\nan account is given of how Ptolemy II (Philadelphus)[78] desired\nto have a Greek translation of the Hebrew Book of the Law (i.e.,\nthe Pentateuch), and sent to Eleazar, the high-priest in Jerusalem,\nasking him to send competent scholars to Alexandria who would be\nable to undertake the task of translation. The high-priest, the\naccount continues, readily responded to this request, and despatched\nseventy-two learned Jews, each of the twelve tribes being represented\nby six of them. Ptolemy received them with great honour on their\narrival in Alexandria, and entertained them hospitably during the\nwhole of their sojourn. The seventy-two went into retirement to the\nisland of Pharos, opposite Alexandria, where they laboured at the\ntranslation. This took seventy-two days; the translation was then\ndelivered to the king, who thereupon ordered the books to be placed\nin the royal library. The translators, after having been presented\nwith rich gifts, returned to Jud\u00e6a. This is the legend to which the\nname _Septuagint_ (\u201cSeventy\u201d) owes its origin, a name which has clung\nto it in spite of its being now generally recognized that the _Letter\nof Aristeas_ is unhistorical so far as this story is concerned. Who\nthe translators of the Hebrew Bible into Greek were is not known.\nThat the various parts of the Septuagint were not only translated by\ndifferent authors, but also belong to different ages, is certain.\nIt is quite probable that, so far as the Pentateuch is concerned,\nthe _Letter of Aristeas_ contains a true tradition in ascribing\nits translation into Greek to about B.C. 280.[79] As to the rest\nof the books, though the evidence is fragmentary, it may be safely\nstated that most of them, if not all, were translated before the\nbeginning of the Christian era. Ryle has shown that there is evidence\nfor believing that Philo (about B.C. 20-A.D. 50) utilized all the\nbooks of the Greek Old Testament, with the exception of Esther,\nEcclesiastes, Song of Songs and Daniel.[80]\n\nThis great product of Hellenistic influence upon the Jews is seen to\nbe all the more significant when it is realized that in the fifth\ncentury B.C. the Aramaic language, as the recently found Elephantin\u00e9\n_papyri_ show, was the language spoken by the Jews of Egypt; and not\nonly was this the ordinarily spoken language, but it was also that\nin which literary works were written.[81] Yet in the course of not\nmuch more than a century this was displaced by Greek; and even in\nthe synagogues Greek was the language used. For some time, no doubt,\nthough apparently not for very long, the Hebrew Scriptures were\ntranslated by word of mouth into Aramaic in the synagogues of the\nDispersion; but when this language fell into disuse Greek had to be\nused; and ultimately it was found necessary to have the Scriptures\nthemselves in Greek.[82]\n\nSo far as we are here concerned, the great importance of the Greek\nOld Testament lies in the fact that it has given us the books of the\nApocrypha. These will be dealt with separately in Part II, so that\nit will not be necessary to say anything about them now further than\nthat the general purpose for which they were written was to expand\nsome of the already existing books of the Hebrew Scriptures, or\nto add to their number. Some, such as the books of the Maccabees,\ncontinue the record of the nation\u2019s history; others are expansions\nof canonical books, such as the Prayer of Manasses, the Additions to\nDaniel, Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy, and the Rest of Esther;\nwhile Ecclesiasticus and the Book of Wisdom are additions to the\nWisdom Literature of the Jews.\n\nAs regards the importance and far-reaching influence of the\nSeptuagint, we cannot do better than quote the words in which\nDeissmann has so succinctly, and yet so adequately, expressed this:\n\u201cTake the Septuagint in your hand, and you have before you the\nbook that was the Bible of the Jews of the Dispersion and of the\nproselytes from the heathen; the Bible of Philo the philosopher,\nPaul the Apostle, and the earliest Christian missions; the Bible of\nthe whole Greek-speaking Christian world; the mother of influential\ndaughter-versions; the mother of the Greek New Testament.\u201d[83]\n\n\nIV. PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014Siegfried, _Philo von Alexandria als Ausleger des\n  Alten Testamentes_ (1875); O. Holtzmann in Stade\u2019s _Geschichte\n  des Volkes Israel_, II, pp. 521-551 (1888); Sch\u00fcrer, II, iii.\n  pp. 321-381, German ed., III, pp. 633-716; Kr\u00fcger, _Philo und\n  Josephus als Apologeten des Judentums_ (1906); Windisch, _Die\n  Fr\u00f6mmigkeit Philo\u2019s_ ..., pp. 4-95 (1909). See also J. H. A.\n  Hart\u2019s series of articles entitled \u201cPhilo of Alexandria\u201d in the\n  _Jewish Quarterly Review_, vols. xvii. xviii. xix., these deal\n  with the writings of Philo; Lauterbach\u2019s article on Philo in the\n  _Jewish Encycl._, X, pp. 6-18.]\n\nAs the Septuagint is, from our present point of view, the most\nimportant product of the Hellenistic Movement, so among Gr\u00e6co-Jewish\nwriters is Philo the most remarkable whom this Movement brought\nforth. No Jew was so immersed in the spirit of Greek wisdom, nor did\nmore to try and harmonize Greek and Hebrew thought.\n\nThe large number of his works which have come down to us owe their\npreservation to the popularity they enjoyed among the early Church\nFathers, for by the Jewish leaders Philo was not regarded as\northodox, his works were therefore unacceptable to them; some of the\nChurch writers even went so far as to speak of him as a Christian.\n\nScarcely anything is known with certainty about his life. He must\nhave been born about B.C. 20 or thereabouts, for he took part in an\nembassy to Caligula in A.D. 40, when already somewhat advanced in\nyears; he refers to this in his work, _De Legatione ad Cajum_, \u00a7\n28[84]; it is also mentioned by Josephus,[85] who speaks of Philo as\n\u201ca man eminent on all accounts, brother to Alexander the Alabarch,\nand one not unskilful in philosophy.\u201d This is practically all that is\nknown of him apart from what his works reveal of the man; but they do\nnot contain any biographical details.\n\nPhilo was a true Jew; he had an unbounded veneration for the Old\nTestament Scriptures, and especially for Moses and the Pentateuch;\nmost of his works are concerned with this latter. Not only did he\nlook upon the Hebrew Scriptures as having been verbally inspired, but\nhe also believed this to have been the case with them in their Greek\nform. His veneration for the Jewish Scriptures, on the one hand,\nand his love for the philosophy of the Greeks on the other, led him\nto the conviction that both contained and witnessed to one and the\nsame truth. He believed that the Greek philosophers had used the Old\nTestament writings, and these he explained on the allegorical system\nwith such freedom that he was able to extract from them any meaning\nhe desired; by this means his own philosophical system became a\ncombination of Greek philosophy and Jewish theology.[86]\n\nRegarding the philosophy of Philo, his conception of God forms\nnaturally the starting-point. Here he holds, on the one hand, that\nso absolute is the perfection of God, so transcendent is the divine\nmajesty, and therefore so far removed from all that human thought is\ncapable of, that God is simply inconceivable; man can really know\nno more than that God is; he cannot know _what_ God is. But, on the\nother hand, since He is perfectly good and all-powerful, since He is\nthe Creator and Upholder of the world, the Final Cause of all that is\nor ever can be, it follows that there must be a ceaseless activity\non His part; the world of His creation must occupy His thought and\naction. These twofold conceptions of God\u2014the thought of His being\noutside of and above the world, immeasurably superior to it, and\nthe thought that He is active in the world\u2014are clearly incompatible\none with the other. The way in which Philo sought to get over the\nobvious contradiction here involved, was by assuming the existence of\nintermediate beings. His teaching on this subject was not new, but\nit had never before been so thoroughly and systematically treated.\nThese intermediate beings Philo called \u201cpowers\u201d (_dunameis_); they\nare properties of God, and yet His servants fulfilling His will\nin the world. All these powers are comprehended in one, namely,\nthe \u201cLogos,\u201d or Word of God; the \u201cLogos\u201d is also spoken of as the\nwisdom and reason of God, and the means whereby the world was\ncreated.[87] But both in respect of the \u201cpowers\u201d just mentioned, and\nof the \u201cLogos\u201d itself, there is uncertainty as to the personality\nattached to them; this was bound to be the case, for if there was\nto be even the semblance of a solution of the opposing conceptions\nconcerning God referred to above, Philo had to conceive of the\n\u201cLogos\u201d as less than a personal being distinct from God, and more\nthan an impersonal divine attribute; and the same applies to the\nother \u201cpowers.\u201d Otherwise it would be inconceivable that God could\nbe personally present and active in the world, while in His nature\nHe was wholly superior to it, and, on account of His transcendent\nholiness, could not come into immediate and direct contact with it.\nThe \u201cLogos\u201d is, further, according to Philo, the mediator, and the\nadvocate, of men, and the expiator of sins; he speaks of it as the\n\u201chigh-priest\u201d; in such cases it is difficult to get away from the\nthought of personality attaching to the \u201cLogos.\u201d On the other hand,\nit is conceived of as distinctly impersonal when described as \u201cthe\nidea of ideas,\u201d and the \u201carchetypal idea.\u201d[88] Most striking of all\nis the fact that in a number of passages Philo gives the \u201cLogos\u201d the\ntitle of \u201cfirst-born son,\u201d and \u201conly-begotten\u201d; but the significance\nof such titles depends, of course, upon the passages in which they\noccur.[89]\n\nIn his doctrine of sin Philo teaches that evil is inherent in matter;\nhence the body, with which the soul is connected, is the source of\nsin in man. The subjugation of the passions is the one and only way\nto virtue; but this can only be brought about by means of God\u2019s\nhelp, for He is the Author of whatever is good in man. Therefore the\nhighest virtue can only be attained by a close communion with God.\nKnowledge is excellent; but even the closest attachment to wisdom\nis less excellent than walking with God, for only so can man receive\nthe fulness of divine illumination. Philo teaches that this divine\nillumination is accorded to man while in a state of unconsciousness;\nso that while he lays much stress on the freedom of the will, this\nhighest state to which man can attain is solely attributable to\ndivine grace.\n\nThese doctrines of Philo, and we have only referred to the more\nimportant, are to a great extent due to Greek influence; Platonism,\nPythagoreanism, Stoicism and Cynicism have all contributed to Philo\u2019s\nphilosophical system; but to show this in detail would be out of\nplace here, for it would take us too far afield. We must content\nourselves with stating the fact; for detailed proof recourse must\nbe had to those works which treat specifically of Philo and of his\nteaching.[90]\n\n\nSUMMARY\n\nIn dealing with Hellenistic influence upon the Jews of the Dispersion\nit was necessary to make some reference first to the Dispersion\nitself and its extent during the period under consideration. It began\nas early as the end of the eighth century B.C. with the fall of the\nnorthern kingdom, and the deportation to Assyria of many thousands of\nIsraelites which followed. The fall of the southern kingdom was the\ncause of a further step in the process of dispersion. The communities\nwhich consequently came into existence in Babylonia formed centres\nfrom which the Jews emigrated in all directions. We have the evidence\nof the Old Testament that such centres existed in Egypt by the middle\nof the sixth century B.C., if not earlier. Contemporary documentary\nevidence, which has recently come to light, shows that a colony of\nJews was settled at Elephantin\u00e9 during the fifth century B.C. After\nthe conquests of Alexander, many Jews emigrated from the east to\nwestern centres of Greek civilization, and various writers testify\nto the ubiquity of the Jews. Alexandria was the most important centre\nof the Dispersion from every point of view.\n\nThe cultured Jews were more influenced by the Hellenistic Movement\nthan the masses; both, however, held in the main to the fundamental\ntenets of traditional Judaism. Nevertheless, apart from these, and\nin spite of their observance, traditional Judaism became largely\ntransformed. The tolerant attitude of the Dispersion Jews towards the\nGentiles was in marked contrast to that of the Jews of Palestine.\nUnlike these latter, again, a vigorous missionary propaganda was\ncarried on by the Jews of the Dispersion. There lay here, however,\na subtle danger; for the desire to make Judaism attractive to the\nGentiles resulted in requiring but scanty observance of its practices\nfrom them; this reacted unfavourably upon the Jews themselves.\nFurther, a strongly syncretistic attitude characterized the Jews of\nthe Dispersion; even their conception of God was influenced by the\nteaching of the Greek philosophers. The allegorization of Scripture\nwas another mark of Hellenistic influence. The recently found Assouan\n_papyri_ offer a striking example of the astonishing faculty of\nassimilation possessed by the Jews.\n\nOne of the most important products of the Hellenistic Movement\nwas the Septuagint, for which we have to thank the Jews of the\nDispersion. The origin of the name of this Greek Version of the\nHebrew Scriptures is to be found in a legend contained in the _Letter\nof Aristeas_. In all probability the entire books of the Hebrew Canon\nwere translated into Greek by the beginning of the Christian era.\nThe most important point about the Septuagint, so far as we are here\nconcerned, is that it has given us the books of the Apocrypha.\n\nAmong Gr\u00e6co-Jewish writers none can compare in importance with Philo\nof Alexandria. His great aim was to try to harmonize Hebrew and\nGreek thought. The preservation of the large number of his works is\ndue to their popularity among the early Church Fathers. By the Jewish\nleaders he was not regarded as orthodox. Scarcely anything is known\nof the life of Philo excepting what can be gained from his works, and\nthis is little enough.\n\nIn the short account given of the philosophy of Philo it is seen that\nthis is permeated with the spirit of the Greek philosophers.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nTraces of Greek Influence in the Old Testament and in the Apocrypha\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014See the books cited in the footnotes.]\n\n\nI. REFERENCES TO THE GREEKS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT\n\nThere are some few passages in the Old Testament which witness to a\nknowledge of the Greeks on the part of the Jews; these may be briefly\nalluded to by way of introduction.\n\nThe Hebrew form for the land of the Ionians, or Greeks, is _Javan_;\nthis is mentioned, though without further detail, in Genesis x. 2; 1\nChronicles i. 5, 7. As early as the eighth century B.C. the Greeks\npressed forward to the east.[91] Again, in the lamentation for Tyre\n(Ezek. xxvii. 13) it is said: \u201cJavan, Tubal and Meshech, they were\nthy traffickers; they traded with the persons of men and vessels\nof brass for thy merchandise\u201d (cp. also verse 9). This subject is\nreferred to again in Joel iii. (Heb. iv.) 6-8, in a woe pronounced\nagainst Tyre and Zidon, and the Philistines: \u201cThe children also of\nJudah and the children of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the sons of\nthe Grecians, that ye might remove them far from their border ...\u201d;\nthese last words, \u201cfar from their border,\u201d suggest that the reference\nis to the Greek colonies in the far west. From the fifth century\nB.C. onwards Syrian slaves, among whom Jews must be reckoned, were\nmuch sought after by the Greeks.[92] In Isaiah xxiv. 14, 15 it is\nprobable that \u201cthe songs of praise which the Jews in far countries\nraise in honour of Jahweh were the result of Alexander the Great\u2019s\nvictorious march through Asia Minor in B.C. 334.\u201d[93] Mention is\nmade of Javan in Isaiah lxvi. 19, it is there reckoned among those\nnations to whom the glory of Jehovah shall be declared; according to\nZechariah ix. 13-15, on the other hand, Judah and Ephraim are to be\nJehovah\u2019s instruments for the punishing of the sons of Javan. And,\nonce more, in Daniel viii. 21, x. 20, xi. 2, there are references\nto the Gr\u00e6co-Macedonian empire. In addition to these there are two\nor three references to the Greeks in the Septuagint which are not\nwithout significance. In Isaiah ix. 12 (11) it is said that Syria\nfrom the east and the Hellenes from the west are the destroyers of\nIsrael; in the Hebrew text \u201cPhilistines\u201d stands for \u201cHellenes,\u201d which\nis doubtless the right reading; but the Septuagint rendering is of\ninterest as showing that, when the translation was made, the real\ndanger for the Jews was the Greek nation. The same belief evidently\nunderlies the Septuagint form of Jeremiah xxvi. (= xlvi. in the\nHebrew) 16: \u201cLet us arise and let us return to our people, to our\nfatherland, from the face of the Hellenic sword\u201d; the Hebrew, which\nhas again the correct reading, has \u201cthe oppressing sword\u201d instead\nof \u201cthe Hellenic sword.\u201d The same substitution for the Hebrew word\noccurs again in the Septuagint of Jeremiah xxvii. (= l. in the\nHebrew) 16.\n\nThese practically exhaust the actual references to the Greeks in\nthe Old Testament; but traces of Greek influence are probably to be\ndiscerned in other directions.\n\nThis influence is obvious in those cases, though they are but few\nin number, in which Greek words are adapted; this occurs only in\nthe Book of Daniel, where a few Greek words for musical instruments\nappear in an aramaized form, viz., _psant\u0113r\u00een_, _symph\u014dnia_, in\nDaniel iii. 5, and _kaithros_ in iii. 7 (cp. also iii. 10, 15); the\nform of the word _psant\u0113r\u00een_ is interesting, because \u201cthis form\nalongside of the Greek _psalt\u0113rion_ proves the influence of the\nMacedonian dialect which substituted _n_ for _l_.\u201d[94]\n\n\nII. TRACES OF GREEK INFLUENCE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT\n\nThe question as to the existence or otherwise of Hellenistic\ninfluence in certain other books of the Old Testament is a difficult\none upon which much diversity of opinion exists among scholars.\n\nWe turn first to the Psalms. The majority of scholars are agreed\nthat a number of the Psalms belong to the Greek and Maccab\u00e6an\neras,[95] and if this is so the possibility of Greek influence\nbeing discerned in them must be recognized. It is always precarious\nto base conclusions upon what is assumed to be the political\nsituation depicted in any particular psalm; but considerations of\nanother character may well indicate the _age_ to which a psalm in\nall probability belongs; for example, that the conditions which\nform the background of many of the Psalms are those brought about\nthrough contact with Hellenism during the period of the Ptolemaic\nand Seleucid rule is proved by the fact that in a number of them\na plaintive cry, or vehement denunciation, is uttered not only on\naccount of the domination of the heathen, but also because within\nthe Jewish community itself a religious cleft has occurred; so that\na distinction is made between those of Israel who are faithful to\nthe Law, and those who are renegades and who are, therefore, classed\nwith the Gentiles.[96] When it is realized that there is no period\nin Jewish history, excepting that just referred to, during which\nconditions such as these obtained, it will be granted that there is\nample justification for assigning the Psalms in question to the Greek\nperiod. We agree, therefore, with Friedl\u00e4nder in his belief that the\nconflict between the god-fearing, pious Israelites, and the godless,\nwith which these Psalms are full, really reflects the attitude of\nthe champions of the old orthodoxy, which was founded by Ezra,\ntowards the rising tide of Hellenism.[97] Hellenistic influence, as\nreflected in certain of the Psalms, therefore, is only to be seen\nwith certainty in that these witness to a state of affairs within\nthe community of Israel brought about by the spread of the Greek\nspirit.[98]\n\nIn the next place we look at the Proverbs. Here it is the first nine\nchapters with which we are concerned; there is a general consensus\nof opinion among modern scholars that these chapters form the latest\nportion of the book. The marks of Hellenistic influence are briefly\nas follows: Firstly, _individualism_; Wisdom cries, for example, in\nviii. 4:\n\n      Unto you, O men, I call,\n      And my voice is to the sons of men.\n\nAgain in ix. 4-6 she cries:\n\n      Whoso is simple let him turn in hither;\n        As for him that is void of understanding, she saith to him,\n      Come, eat ye of my bread,\n        And drink of the wine which I have mingled.\n      Leave off, ye simple ones, and live,\n        And walk in the way of understanding.\n\nHere, and in other similar passages, it is the individual who is of\nimportance, not the nation, as in earlier days.\n\nSecondly, _universalism_; Wisdom says (viii. 15, 16):\n\n      By me kings reign,\n        And princes decree justice.\n      By me rulers rule,\n        And nobles, even all the judges of the earth.\n\nThere is here no restriction to the rulers of the Jewish nation;\nWisdom is for all men, and her sway is worldwide for those who will\nhave her:\n\n      I love those that love me;\n      And those that seek me diligently shall find me (viii. 17).\n\nA third mark of Hellenistic influence is the _allegorical form_ which\nappears in this book, and especially in the first nine chapters[99];\nthe most striking example of this is the \u201cstrange woman\u201d spoken of in\nchapter ii. and elsewhere:\n\n      Which forsaketh the friend of her youth,\n        And forgetteth the covenant of God;\n      For her house inclineth unto death,\n        And her paths unto the dead ... (ii. 17-19).\n\nThis \u201cstrange woman\u201d is undoubtedly an allegorical person; she is a\npersonification of the new Hellenistic spirit which, on its bad side,\nencouraged unbridled licence and led away from God[100]; we have seen\nabove that there was a debased form of Hellenism which was especially\npresent in Syria. This interpretation of what was meant by the\n\u201cstrange woman\u201d was that of some of the early Church Fathers.[101]\nThe writer of these chapters is thus, probably unconsciously,\ninfluenced by the more excellent _traits_ of the Hellenistic spirit,\nbut is fully alive to its dangers and warns his readers against them.\n\nLastly, a fourth mark of Hellenistic influence is the\n_hypostatization of Wisdom_; the classical passage is viii. 22-36,\nfrom which a few verses may be quoted:\n\n      The Lord possessed me in the beginning of His way,\n        Before His works of old.\n      I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning,\n        Or ever the earth was....\n\n      When He established the heavens, I was there;\n        When He set a circle upon the face of the deep....\n      Then I was by Him, as a master workman,\n        And I was daily His delight....\n\nThat such thoughts are due to Greek influence scarcely admits of\ndoubt.[102]\n\nWe come next to the book of Job. In reference to this O. Holtzmann\nsays with much force that in this book \u201cwe have to do with a\nreligious-philosophical work; and, so far as we know, the Israelites\nnever evinced any inclination for philosophy until they came in\ncontact with Hellenism. Further, we must draw attention to the fact\nthat the book of Job has as its background the form of a novel,\nwhich flourished everywhere among the Greeks; and this is one of the\nclearest signs of the individualistic tendency which predominated at\nthis period.... Moreover, the form of dialogue which is peculiar to\nthis book receives thus a new significance; we have here, without\ndoubt, a Hebrew imitation of the philosophic dialogue of Plato; and\nhere one should recall how Plato meditated upon the causes of human\nsuffering, and how he, too, appreciated the grandeur and beauty of\nthe world.\u201d[103] The author of the book of Job takes up a position\nof antagonism towards the old orthodoxy, represented by the three\nfriends, as well as towards the new Hellenistic spirit, the ultimate\nconsequence of which must, as he sees, lead to atheism, pure and\nsimple. His position is thus, in this respect, similar to that of\nthe author of Proverbs i.-ix. Friedl\u00e4nder sees in the three friends\nthe \u201cpious ones\u201d of the Psalms.[104] Further, we have in the book\nof Job a conception of Wisdom somewhat similar to that of Proverbs;\nin the long passage, xxviii. 12-28, Wisdom is conceived of as God\u2019s\nco-operator, see especially verses 20-27; but unlike the teaching\nof Proverbs on the subject, there is not the intimate relationship\nexisting between Wisdom and men; there is only a brief allusion to\nthis in verse 28.\n\nIn the book of Ecclesiastes it is held by many scholars that traces\nof Greek philosophy are to be discerned. Tyler, for example, shows\nthat the passage, iii. 1-8, which gives a catalogue of times and\nseasons, is an echo of the teaching of the Stoics that men should\nlive according to nature.[105] Again, the thought contained in iii.\n18, 19 (\u201c... that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts;\neven one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other;\nyea, they have all one breath; and man hath no pre-eminence above the\nbeasts; for all is vanity ...\u201d) is certainly in accordance with the\nEpicurean teaching regarding the mortality of the soul.[106] Barton\nargues strongly against these views[107]; but cogent as many of his\narguments are, they are not convincing in every case; this applies\nespecially to what he says in reference to the passage, iii. 18, 19:\n\u201cKoheleth\u2019s denial of immortality differs from the Epicurean denial.\nHis is but a passing doubt; it is not dogmatically expressed, and\nat the end (xii. 7) his doubt has vanished, and he reasserts the\nolder Jewish view (Gen. ii. 7). This older view was not an assertion\nof immortality, but the primitive conception that the breath comes\nfrom God and goes back to Him. The Epicureans, on the other hand,\ndogmatically argued for the non-immortality of the soul, and\npossessed well-assured theories about it.\u201d[108] This argument is not\nvery convincing; at any rate, it does not disprove our present point,\nwhich is that the _traces of Greek influence_ are to be discerned in\nthis book. Cornill\u2019s sober _dictum_ on the subject generally is, we\nfeel convinced, the right one, when he says: \u201cThe question whether\n_Koheleth_ shows immediate knowledge of and dependence upon Greek\nphilosophy is an open one; but so much appears certain, that such a\nwork could only have been produced by a Jewish mind imbued, or at\nleast influenced, by Hellenism.\u201d[109] St. Jerome, in commenting on\nthe passage, ix. 7-9 (\u201cGo thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink\nthy wine with a merry heart ...\u201d), remarks that the writer appears\nto be reproducing some Epicurean ideas[110]; Cheyne is not surprised\nat this, for the book is, as he says, \u201cconspicuous by its want of a\nnative Jewish background ... it obviously stands at the close of the\ngreat Jewish humanistic movement, and gives an entirely new colour to\nthe traditional humanism by its sceptical tone and its commendations\nof sensuous pleasure\u201d; and a little further on he says that \u201cit is\nperfectly possible to hold that there are distinctively Epicurean\ndoctrines in _Koheleth_. The later history of Jewish thought may well\nseem to render this opinion probable. How dangerously fascinating\nEpicureanism must have been when the word \u2018Epicuros\u2019 became a\nsynonym in Rabbinic Hebrew for infidel or even atheist.\u201d[111] Cheyne\ndoes not, however, believe in any traces of Greek influence, whether\nEpicurean or Stoic, in the book. \u201cI do not see,\u201d he says, \u201cthat we\n_must_ admit even a vague Greek influence. The inquiring spirit was\npresent in the class of \u2018wise men\u2019 even before the Exile, and the\ncircumstances of the later Jews were, from the Exile onwards, well\nfitted to exercise and develop it. Hellenic teaching was in no way\nnecessary to an ardent but unsystematic thinker like Koheleth.\u201d[112]\nIt is largely a question of the probabilities of the case; for, in\ndiscussing the whole question of the presence or otherwise of traces\nof Hellenistic influence in some of the later books of the Old\nTestament,[113] we must keep before our minds the fact of the spread\nof the Hellenistic spirit from the death of Alexander the Great\nonwards, and the way in which (as we have seen in a previous chapter)\nit affected the Jews in manifold directions. The important evidence\nof 1 Maccabees i. 11 is worth recalling here: \u201cIn those days came\nthere forth out of Israel transgressors of the Law, and persuaded\nmany, saying, Let us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles that\nare round about us; for since we parted from them many evils have\nbefallen us.\u201d Two points come out clearly here: there was evidently\na strong Hellenistic party among the Jews in Palestine since these\ntransgressors of the Law \u201ccame forth out of Israel\u201d; the passage\nalso shows that some time previously relations had existed between\nthese Hellenistic Jews and the Gentiles, as the writer says, \u201csince\nwe parted from them.\u201d The Maccab\u00e6an rising was, therefore, the\nculminating point of a movement that had been going on long before,\nviz., a conflict between orthodox and Hellenistic Jews, the latter\nbeing supported by the ruling powers; or if conflict is too strong\na word to use, then let us say, at any rate, opposing tendencies. It\nis, moreover, highly probable that the action of Antiochus Epiphanes\nin seeking to stamp out Judaism was largely prompted by his knowledge\nof the existence of considerable numbers of Jews who were in sympathy\nwith his plan; this seems clear from 1 Maccabees i. 13, where we read\nfurther: \u201cAnd certain of the people were forward herein and went to\nthe king (i.e., Antiochus Epiphanes), and he gave them licence to do\nafter the ordinances of the Gentiles.\u201d If the Jews of Palestine were\nthus surrounded by Gentiles, and were, as we have already seen to\nbe the case, strongly influenced by the Hellenistic spirit, whether\northodox or not, it would be according to expectation to find marks\nof this influence in those books of the Old Testament which belong\nto the Hellenistic period. In the particular case of Ecclesiastes\nit is granted that analogies between Greek philosophy and its ideas\nexist[114]; it appears to us, therefore, more probable that these\nideas, in view of what has just been said, were due to the influence\nof Greek thought rather than that they were independently reached.\n\n\nIII. TRACES OF GREEK INFLUENCE IN THE APOCRYPHA\n\nThere are only two books of the Apocrypha which come into\nconsideration here, but they are the two most important.\n\nFirst we have the Wisdom of Ben-Sira or Ecclesiasticus.\n\nBen-Sira was an orthodox Jew; but in spite of this he betrays in his\nbook the influence that Greek culture had upon him, and is thus an\ninteresting example of the way in which the Hellenistic spirit worked\nupon men unconsciously. He wrote his book with the purpose, among\nothers, of demonstrating the superiority of Jewish over Greek wisdom,\nso that from this point of view Ecclesiasticus may be regarded as an\napologetic work.\n\nThe traces of Hellenistic influence in this book are to be found in\ngeneral conception rather than in definite form; for example, the\nidentification of virtue with knowledge is a distinctly Hellenistic\n_trait_, and is treated in this book as axiomatic. No longer are\ndivine and human wisdom looked upon as though opposed the one to\nthe other, as had been the case in days gone by; Ben-Sira teaches,\nand this is characteristic of the Wisdom literature generally,\nthat wisdom is the one thing of all others which is indispensable\nto him who would lead a godly life. That there is no opposition\nbetween divine and human wisdom was a doctrine for which Ben-Sira\nwas indebted, whether directly or indirectly is not the point, to\nthe influence of Hellenism. In this book the evil of wickedness\nis represented as lying in the fact that wickedness is folly, and\ntherefore essentially opposed to Wisdom; on the other hand, the Jews\nas a body were faithful to the Torah, or Law, whose ordinances were\nbinding because it was the revealed will of God; therefore, in order\nto reconcile this traditional teaching with the newer teaching that\nWisdom is man\u2019s main requirement, Wisdom became identified with the\nTorah: \u201cthe fear of the Lord [i.e., the observance of the Torah]\nis the beginning [i.e., the highest form] of Wisdom.\u201d This is the\nfoundation-stone of the Jewish Wisdom literature; and it formed the\nreconciling link between Judaism and Hellenism in this domain.[115]\nThis identification is nowhere more evident than in Ecclesiasticus;\nthroughout Ben-Sira inculcates the need of observing the commandments\nof the Law which is man\u2019s highest wisdom, but the Law is the\nexpression of the divine wisdom; so that he truly says:\n\n      If thou desire wisdom keep the commandments,\n      And the Lord will give her freely unto thee (i. 26).\n\nFurther, the existence of the influence of Greek philosophy among\nsome of the cultured Jews of Palestine is reflected in the book in\nthat Ben-Sira controverts the fatalistic philosophy of the Stoics;\nsee, for example, such a passage as the following:\n\n      Say not, \u201cFrom God is my transgression\u201d;\n        For that which He hateth made He not.\n      Say not, \u201cIt is He that made me to stumble,\u201d\n        For there is no need of evil men (xv. 11, 12).\n\nThe Stoic enumeration of the human senses seems to have been in\nthe mind of one who added these words after xvii. 4: \u201cThey [i.e.,\nmen] received the use of five powers [i.e., the five senses] of the\nLord; but as sixth He also accorded them the gift of understanding\n(_nous_), and as a seventh the Word (_logos_), the interpreter of His\npowers.\u201d\n\nIn one passage Ben-Sira utters words which sound rather like an echo\nof Epicurean philosophy:\n\n      Give not thy soul to sorrow,\n        And let not thyself become unsteadied with care.\n      Heart-joy is life for a man,\n        And human gladness prolongeth days.\n      Entice thyself, and soothe thine heart,\n        And banish vexation from thee;\n      For sorrow hath slain many,\n        And there is no profit in vexation.\n      Envy and anger shorten days,\n        And anxiety maketh old untimely.\n      The sleep of a cheerful heart is like dainties,\n        And his food is agreeable unto him\n                  (xxx. 21-25, according to the Hebrew).\n\nIn summing up the traces of Greek influence upon Ben-Sira, Prof.\nIsrael Levi says: \u201cThe fatalistic philosophers whose opinions he\ncontests were doubtless the Stoics; and the philosophical discussions\ninstituted by him were innovations and probably borrowed. His\ncriticisms of sceptics and would-be freethinkers are further\nevidences of his knowledge of Hellenism; and some of his views find\nclose analogues in Euripides. Not only does he share characteristic\nideas with the Greek tragedians and moralists, but he even has the\nsame taste for certain common topics, such as false friendship, the\nuncertainty of happiness, and especially the faults of women. The\nimpression of Greek influence is strengthened by the presence of a\npolish quite foreign to Hebrew literature.\u201d[116] This may or may\nnot be somewhat over-stated, but there can scarcely be any doubt\nthat, although the Judaic elements in the book preponderate to an\noverwhelming degree, yet Hellenic traits are to be discerned to a\ncertain extent. Prof. Levi sees the results of Greek influence in\nsome other directions in the book; thus he says that \u201cthe customs\nwhich he (i.e., Ben-Sira) describes are taken from Greek rather\nthan from Hebrew society; thus he mentions banquets accompanied by\nbrilliant conversation,[117] at which musical instruments were heard,\nand over which presided \u2018the master of the feast.\u2019\u201d At the same time\nit is only right to point out that some scholars deny that there are\nany signs of Greek influence in the book.\n\nWe turn now to the book of Wisdom which, as a product of the Judaism\nof the Dispersion, is full of the Hellenistic spirit. The best way\nto deal with this interesting but somewhat intricate subject will be\nto illustrate by quotations the different Greek philosophical ideas\ncontained in the book, and then to indicate the teaching of the\nGreek philosophers in each case; in this way the influence of Greek\nphilosophy in the book will be clearly seen.\n\n\n(_a_) _The doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul._\n\nThat this is taken for granted is clear from the words in viii. 19,\n20:\n\n      Now I was a child good by nature, and a good soul fell to my lot;\n        Nay, rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled.\n\nAnd again, in xv. 8, though here pre-existence is not necessarily\nimplied:\n\n      ... When the soul which was lent him shall again be demanded.\n\nAnd, once more, in reference to the foolish man who manufactures\nidols, it is said (xv. 11):\n\n      Because he was ignorant of Him that moulded him,\n        And of Him that inspired into him an active soul,\n      And breathed into him a vital spirit.\n\nA great deal depends here upon the question of authorship, or at any\nrate upon the point of view of the writer; for it will be noticed\nthat the first of these quotations comes from part i. of the book,\nwhile the last two are from part ii. We will speak of the point of\nview of the writer without assuming that either one or two writers\nis in question. There are two points of view represented in these\nverses; the ordinary Jewish belief is expressed by the words: \u201cNow\nI was a child good by nature, and a good soul fell to my lot,\u201d as\nwell as by the two other quotations. On the other hand, a point of\nview influenced by Greek thought appears in the words: \u201cNay, rather,\nbeing good, I came into a body undefiled.\u201d It is well to point out\nfirst that according to the ordinary Jewish belief there was no clear\nconception of any difference between soul and spirit; the Hebrew\nword for \u201csoul\u201d is _n\u0115ph\u0115sh_; but this word does not correspond\nproperly to \u201csoul\u201d; it means a man\u2019s own self, his personality,\nincluding his body; what we understand by body and soul is expressed\nin Hebrew by this word _n\u0115ph\u0115sh_, so that when this is translated\nby \u201csoul\u201d it is apt to cause misunderstanding; the Hebrews had no\nword corresponding to the Greek _s\u014dma_ (body), nor did the Greek\n_psych\u0113_ (soul) correspond with the Hebrew _n\u0115ph\u0115sh_; the Hebrew\nword which comes nearest to _psych\u0113_ would be _n\u0115sh\u0101m\u0101h_ (breath),\nor possibly _r\u016bach_ (spirit).[118] The words, therefore, \u201cNow I\nwas a child good by nature, and a good soul fell to my lot,\u201d mean\nsimply that he was by nature a good child and became also a good\nman, by God\u2019s mercy is implied. This traditional faith the writer\nsupplements, on account of the insight into Greek philosophy which\nhe had gained, by adding: \u201cOr, rather, being good, I came into a\nbody undefiled\u201d; he means thereby that his soul (in the Greek, not\nthe Hebrew, sense, for he does not include the body) entered into a\nbody undefiled; he thus expresses his belief in the pre-existence\nof the soul. But an interesting point to be noted here is that the\nwriter, while accepting one Greek doctrine (the pre-existence of\nthe soul) repudiates another in the same breath, for by speaking of\na \u201cbody undefiled\u201d he seems to be denying the Platonic doctrine of\nthe body being a hindrance (see below). As to Plato\u2019s teaching on\nthe pre-existence of the soul, this has been so well summed up by\nZeller that we cannot do better than give it in his words: \u201cThe soul\nof man is in its nature homogeneous with the soul of the universe,\nfrom which it springs. Being of a simple and incorporeal nature it\nis by its power of self-movement the origin of motion in the body;\ninseparably connected with the idea of life, it has neither end nor\nbeginning. As the souls have descended from a higher world into the\nearthly body, they return after death, if their lives have been pure\nand devoted to higher objects, to this higher world, while those who\nneed correction in part undergo punishments in another world, and in\npart migrate through the bodies of men and animals. In its earlier\nexistence our soul has seen the ideas of which it is reminded by the\nsight of their sensuous copies.\u201d[119]\n\nThe other two passages, xv. 8 and xv. 11, reflect the ancient Hebrew\nbelief as contained in Genesis ii. 7: \u201cAnd the Lord God formed man\nof the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath\n(_n\u0115sh\u0101m\u0101h_) of life; and man became a living soul (_n\u0115ph\u0115sh_)\u201d; that\nis to say, the _n\u0115sh\u0101m\u0101h_ (which is equivalent to what we understand\nby \u201csoul\u201d; there is no real distinction between \u201csoul\u201d and \u201cspirit\u201d\nin Hebrew belief[120]) is in existence with God before man is\ncreated. This belief in pre-existence, though quite different from\nthe Greek doctrine, became elaborated in course of time, and it was\ntaught that in the seventh heaven God kept the souls of those whom\nHe intends to send on earth[121]; the Midrash in which this occurs\n(_Sifre_ 143_b_) belongs in its original form to the earlier part\nof the second century A.D., and since it undoubtedly preserves much\nancient material it reflects thought long prior to the time when\nWisdom was written. In the passages quoted we have, then, references\nto the belief in the pre-existence of souls as taught by the Jews on\none hand and by the Greeks on the other.\n\n\n(_b_) _The doctrine of immortality._\n\nWe have seen that with regard to the doctrine of the pre-existence\nof the soul the author of Wisdom expresses both Jewish and Greek\nbelief. The same is the case with the doctrine of immortality; Jewish\nbelief on this subject has already been dealt with in Part I, chap.\nix. (_f_); the influence of Greek thought is to be discerned in such\npassages as the following:\n\n      Court not death in the error of your life;\n        Neither draw upon yourselves destruction by the works of your\n              hands;\n      Because God made not death,\n        Neither delighteth He when the wicked perish (i. 12, 13).\n\n        ... For righteousness is immortal (i. 15).\n\nThe reference here is to spiritual death, the soul\u2019s loss of true\nlife hereafter. Again:\n\n      But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God,\n        And no torment shall touch them (iii. 1).\n\n      They that trust on Him shall understand truth,\n        And the faithful shall abide with Him in love;\n      Because grace and mercy are to His chosen,\n        And He will graciously visit His holy ones (iii. 9, cp. xv. 3).\n\nAnd, once more:\n\n      Incorruption bringeth near to God (vi. 19).\n\nOf such passages Menzel says: \u201cWho does not, in reading them, recall\nthe Platonic passage _Jambl. ad Phaed._ pp. 63_c_, 69_c_?\u201d[122] To\nquote Zeller again in his summing up of Plato\u2019s philosophy: \u201cAs the\nsoul in its true nature belongs to the world above the senses, and\nin that only can find a true and lasting existence, the possession\nof the good or happiness which forms the final goal of human effort\ncan only be obtained by elevation into that higher world.... The true\nmission of man, therefore, lies in that escape from this world, which\nthe \u2018The\u00e6tetus,\u2019 176A, identifies with assimilation to the divine\nnature....\u201d[123]\n\n\n(_c_) _The doctrine of the badness of the body._\n\nIn ix. 15, 16, it is said:\n\n          For a corruptible body weigheth down the soul,\n        And the earthly frame lieth heavy on the mind that is full of\n              cares.\n      And hardly do we divine the things that are on earth,\n        And the things that are close at hand we find with labour;\n      But the things that are in the heavens who ever yet traced out?\n\nPractically all commentators are agreed that verse 15 is based on a\npassage in Plato\u2019s _Phaedo_ (81C), where the hindrance of the body\nis spoken of; the verbal similarities are too striking for this to\nbe denied. The teaching is, moreover, in agreement with that found\nelsewhere in the writings of Plato: \u201cThe body ... is the grave and\nprison of the soul, which has received its irrational elements\nthrough combination with it, and is the source of all desires and all\ndisturbances of intellectual activity\u201d; thus Zeller sums up Plato\u2019s\nteaching on the subject.[124]\n\n\n(_d_) _The creation of the world out of formless matter._\n\nThe term \u201cformless matter\u201d is a Platonic one; but this doctrine was\ntaught by the Stoics as well as by Plato, so that we cannot say to\nwhich system the author of Wisdom was immediately indebted in writing\nthese words:\n\n      For Thine all-powerful hand,\n        That created the world out of formless matter ... (xi. 17).\n\nIn speaking of what Plato meant by the term \u201cmatter\u201d Zeller says: \u201cBy\nPlato\u2019s matter we have to understand not a mass filling space, but\nspace itself. He never mentions it as that out of which, but only\nas that in which, things arise. According to him, bodies are formed\nwhen certain portions of space are thrown into the shapes of the four\nelements. That it is not a corporeal mass out of which, they arise in\nthis manner is clear from the assertion that when they change into\none another they are broken up into their smallest _plane_ dimensions\nin order to be compounded anew out of these. To carry this theory out\nstrictly was difficult; and in another place (_Tim._ 30A, 52 D, f.,\n69B) he represents the matter as if the Deity, when engaged in the\nformation of the elements, had found \u2018all that is visible\u2019 already in\nexistence as a chaotic mass moving without rule.\u201d[125]\n\n\n(_e_) _Signs of the influence of Stoic philosophy._[126]\n\nMost commentators, from Grimm onwards, hold that the idea of the\n_Anima Mundi_, or World Soul, of Stoic philosophy is to be discovered\nin such passages as the following:\n\n      ... Because the spirit of the Lord filleth the world,\n        And that which holdeth all things together hath knowledge of\n              every voice (i. 7).\n\nThe all-pervading character of Wisdom, described in vii. 22-24,\ncontains a similar thought:\n\n      For there is in her a spirit quick of understanding, holy,\n        Alone in kind, manifold,\n        Subtil, freely moving,\n        Clear in utterance, unpolluted,\n        Distinct, that cannot be harmed;\n        Loving what is good, keen, unhindered,\n        Beneficent, loving toward man,\n        Steadfast, sure, free from care,\n        All-powerful, all-surveying,\n        And penetrating through all spirits\n        That are quick of understanding, pure, subtil.\n      For Wisdom is more mobile than any motion;\n      Yea, she pervadeth and penetrateth all things by reason of her\n            pureness (cp. also vii. 27, viii. 1).\n\nAnother Stoic doctrine is that of the metabolism of the elements, \u201cby\nthe help of which the writer of part ii. endeavours to rationalize\nthe miracles of the Exodus.... The metabolism of the elements at the\nend of part ii.,\u201d says Holmes,[127] \u201cis traced by E. Pfleiderer to\nHeraclitus, and to him directly, rather than indirectly through the\nStoics, on account of the allusion in chapter xix. to three elements\nonly\u2014fire, water, earth\u2014since Heraclitus recognized only three. But\nit is difficult to see how the author could have brought in the idea\nof air changing into anything else: water changes into earth in\nthe passage through the Red Sea, and earth becomes water again to\noverwhelm the Egyptians; fire lost its power and was unable to melt\nthe heavenly food; what need or opportunity was there for adducing\nthe change of air into another element?... It must, no doubt, be\nadmitted that the Book of Wisdom has points of connexion with the\nsystem of Heraclitus, who was highly esteemed in Alexandria, but\nwhether directly or indirectly it is impossible to say.\u201d The passage\nin question is xix. 18-21:\n\n      For the elements changed their order one with another....\n      For creatures of dry land were turned into creatures of waters,\n        And creatures that swim trode now upon the earth;\n      Fire kept the mastery of its own power in the midst of water,\n        And water forgat its quenching nature.\n      Contrariwise, flames wasted not the flesh of perishable creatures\n            that walked among them;\n      Neither melted they the ice-like grains of ambrosial food, that\n            were by nature apt to melt.\n\nLastly, reference may be made to viii. 7, where we find a\nclassification of the four cardinal virtues, which the Stoics copied\nfrom Plato:\n\n      And if a man loveth righteousness,\n        The fruits of Wisdom\u2019s labour are virtues,\n      For she teacheth _self-control_ and _understanding_,\n            _righteousness_, and _courage_;\n      And there is nothing in life more profitable than these.\n\nMost of the marks of Greek influence in this book have now been\nmentioned; it is probable enough that we have missed some, but we\nventure to think that the most important have been dealt with.\n\n\nSUMMARY\n\nThere are not many direct references to the Greeks in the Old\nTestament; in a few scattered passages _Javan_, the Hebrew form for\nthe land of the Ionians (i.e. Greeks), is found. Three interesting\ninstances of variation from the Hebrew occur in the Septuagint;\nthe word \u201cGreek\u201d being substituted for \u201cPhilistine\u201d in one case,\nand \u201cHellenic sword\u201d for \u201coppressing sword\u201d in two others. These\ndeliberate alterations were made because it was believed by the Greek\ntranslator that the real danger for the Jews lay in the spread of\nthe Greek spirit. In the Book of Daniel a few Greek names of musical\ninstruments have been adopted.\n\nTraces of Greek influence are to be discerned in all probability\nin some of the Psalms, for they witness to a state of affairs\nbrought about by the working of the Greek spirit. In the first nine\nchapters of Proverbs, too, there are marks of Hellenic influence,\ne.g. individualism, universalism, the use of allegory and the\nhypostatization of Wisdom. In the Book of Job the same influence\nmay be discerned in the philosophic cast of the speeches, in its\nimitation in form of Plato\u2019s dialogues, and in the fact that the\nbackground of the book is cast in the form of a novel, which was\nlikewise imitated from the Greeks. As to Ecclesiastes, opinions\ndiffer as to whether it exhibits direct borrowing from Stoic and\nEpicurean thought; but it certainly contains analogies with Greek\nphilosophy.\n\nIn the Apocrypha only two books come into consideration, but they are\nthe two most important. Ecclesiasticus was written with the purpose,\namong others, of demonstrating the superiority of Jewish over Greek\nwisdom; at the same time, Ben-Sira often shows himself influenced,\nunconsciously it may be, by the latter, although the Judaic elements\nin the book preponderate to an overwhelming degree. The Book of\nWisdom, a product of the Judaism of the Dispersion, is full of the\nHellenic spirit; this comes out very clearly in the treatment of\nthe doctrines of the pre-existence of the soul, of immortality, of\nthe body as evil, and of the creation of the world out of formless\nmatter. Further, most commentators find the influence of Stoic\nphilosophy in the ideas of the _Anima Mundi_ and of the metabolism\nof the elements, as well as the classification of the four cardinal\nvirtues which the Stoics copied from Plato.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nThe Apocalyptic Movement\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014Toy, _Judaism and Christianity_, pp. 372-414\n  (1891); Schlatter, _Israel\u2019s Geschichte von Alexander d. Grossen\n  bis Hadrian_ (1900); Bousset, _Die Religion des Judentums im\n  neutestamentlichen Zeitalter_, pp. 195-290 (1903); Bousset,\n  _Die j\u00fcdische Apokalyptik_ (1903); Volz, _J\u00fcdische Eschatologie\n  von Daniel bis Akiba_ (1903); M. Friedl\u00e4nder, _Die rel.\n  Bewegungen_ ..., pp. 22-77 (1905); Gressmann, _Der Ursprung\n  der israelitisch-j\u00fcdischen Eschatologie_ (1905); Oesterley,\n  _The Doctrine of the Last Things_ (1908); Sch\u00fcrer, II, iii. pp.\n  44-151, German ed. III, pp. 258-407 (1909); Oesterley and Box,\n  _The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue_, pp. 27-45, 222-254\n  (1911); Charles, _Eschatology, Hebrew, Jewish and Christian_\n  (1913); Burkitt, _Jewish and Christian Apocalypses_ (1914);\n  MacCulloch\u2019s article on \u201cEschatology,\u201d in Hastings\u2019 _Encycl. of\n  Religion and Ethics_, v. pp. 373-391 (1912).]\n\n\nI. THE BEGINNINGS OF THE APOCALYPTIC MOVEMENT\n\nThe fundamental ideas which ultimately developed into Jewish\nApocalyptic go back to a hoary antiquity. Many of these ideas\nare present in one form or another in the Old Testament; but the\ndifferent sources, some undoubtedly indigenous, others extraneous,\nwhence these ideas emanated have, in all probability, a much longer\nhistory behind them. With the history and development of early\nApocalyptic thought we are not here concerned, since our object is\nonly to deal with _Jewish_ Apocalyptic, and this merely in its broad\noutlines as it appears in what is called the Apocalyptic Movement.\n\nWhen specifically Jewish Apocalyptic commenced it is not possible\nto say, for the doctrines and hopes and fears which it taught must\nhave been in men\u2019s minds and have been widely inculcated long before\nit appeared in the form in which we know it, namely, its literary\nform. But it is not difficult to indicate the approximate date\nat which the Apocalyptic literature, known to us, began to come\ninto existence; this was somewhere about the period 200-150 B.C.;\nfrom that time it continued to grow during a period of about three\ncenturies. The early beginnings of this literature, therefore, date\nfrom a time prior to the Maccab\u00e6an struggle. Before the Maccab\u00e6an\nera the two great opposing parties, Sadduc\u00e6an and Pharisaic, did not\nexist. It is more than probable, however, as we have seen, that the\n_tendencies_ which, later, developed and became directly antagonistic\nwere already in being, and that the Maccab\u00e6an struggle had the effect\nof greatly strengthening them. Further, in pre-Maccab\u00e6an times, owing\nto the influence of the Hellenistic Movement, an universalistic\nspirit prevailed very largely among the Jews; they saw no objection\nto associating with the Greeks, were glad to learn from them, and\nwelcomed the free and wide atmosphere which was characteristic of\nGreek thought. The result was that Jewish Apocalyptic, enriched by\nextraneous ideas and beliefs, flourished among the people; to many\nit brought light and comfort because it solved problems which had\nhitherto appeared insoluble; that this life was merely preparatory\nto a happier and fuller one after death, when the godly would come\nto their own and the wicked would receive their recompense, such\na doctrine laid at rest the doubts and heart-searchings of those\nwho were shocked at seeing the prosperity of the wicked, and who\nwere grieved at the adversity and sorrow of the righteous. Jewish\nApocalyptic, therefore, flourished; it appealed to the mass of the\npeople, for it inspired them with hope; it was individualistic, so\nthat each felt that here was a message for him in particular as well\nas for the nation at large.\n\nWe have said that in the pre-Maccab\u00e6an era the tendencies which in\nlater years had the effect of calling into existence two antagonistic\nparties were already present; we have also said that the Jews _as a\nwhole_ were more or less imbued with the Hellenistic spirit; let us\nexplain our meaning a little more fully. Not all the Jews at this\nperiod were Hellenistically inclined, though the bulk were, and the\n_influence_ was more or less upon all; but there was a minority of\nthe nation which had followed in the wake of those who since the time\nof Ezra and Nehemiah had clung tenaciously to a rigid observance of\nthe Law; not that they were wholly uninfluenced by the Hellenistic\nspirit, any more than the more thorough-going Hellenistic Jews as\na body were really disloyal to the Law. This minority consisted of\nthose who were called the \u201cPious ones,\u201d or _Chassidim_[128]; it was\nconnected with the Scribes, for in the important passage, 1 Maccabees\nvii. 12-14, it is said: \u201cAnd there were gathered together unto\nAlcimus and Bacchides a company of scribes, to seek for justice. And\nthe Chassidim were the first among the children of Israel that sought\npeace of them....\u201d It was the _Chassidim_ who in post-Maccab\u00e6an times\ndeveloped into the distinct party of the Pharisees, the party of\nrigid orthodoxy, legalistic, exclusive, and narrow. Opposed, then, to\nthe ideas of this minority were those who were led by the governing\nclasses and the family of the High-Priest; men who were the friends\nof Hellenistic culture, and who were not legalistic in the sense\nthat the _Chassidim_ were. These represented what in post-Maccab\u00e6an\ntimes became the Sadduc\u00e6an party. It cannot, however, be too strongly\ninsisted upon that, as already pointed out, in pre-Maccab\u00e6an times\nthere was neither a Sadduc\u00e6an nor a Pharisaic _party_. The great\nmass of the people, including many among the _Chassidim_, in these\npre-Maccab\u00e6an times, was not ranged definitely on either one side or\nthe other of those who represented the two tendencies just referred\nto; their main religious interest was Apocalyptic. We feel convinced\nthat the evidence concerning the various religious thought-tendencies\nin pre-Maccab\u00e6an times, taken as a whole, supports M. Friedl\u00e4nder\u2019s\ncontention that \u201cthe great mass of the people, the multitudes\n(_Am-haarez_) remained before and after [i.e. of the Maccab\u00e6an\nstruggle] under the spell of the Hellenistic spirit; and, as in the\ncase of the ruling parties, they, too, had, also in post-Maccab\u00e6an\ntimes, their teachers and their \u2018Pious\u2019 ones. These teachers were the\n_Chassidim_ and the creators of the apocalyptic literature.\u201d[129]\nThese Apocalyptists, therefore, had this in common with the Pharisees\nthat both were descended from the \u2018Pious ones,\u2019 or _Chassidim_;\nonly, as Friedl\u00e4nder puts it, \u201cwhereas the Pharisees were the bodily\ndescendants of the pre-Maccab\u00e6an \u2018Pious ones,\u2019 the Apocalyptists were\ntheir spiritual descendants; the former transformed the faithfulness\nto the Law of their forefathers into legal burdens, the latter clung\nloyally to the simple belief of those self-same forefathers, a belief\nwhich was not blurred by intricate learning and a superabundant \u2018oral\ntradition\u2019; theirs was a piety, on the contrary, which was born of\nthe spirit of the times and, therefore, such as was characteristic of\nthe common folk.\u201d[130]\n\nIt will, no doubt, strike some as incongruous that the Pharisees,\nwith their circumscribed anti-Hellenistic views, and the\nApocalyptists, with their enlarged purview and pre-Hellenistic\nideas, should be said to have possessed a common ancestry; but\nthere are two facts which are of themselves sufficient to show the\nprobability of this having been the case: belief in a future life\namong the Jews was largely due to Greek thought; it was one of the\nmain themes of apocalyptic teaching; but it was also one of the most\nprominent tenets of the Pharisees, who developed it from the Platonic\ndoctrine of the immortality of the soul to a definite belief in the\nresurrection of the body. That two schools of thought, differing in\nsome vital respects, should nevertheless be in agreement in differing\nfrom the normal teaching of the Old Testament on such a special and\npeculiarly important subject as that of the future life, certainly\npoints to an originally identical parentage. We have laid stress\non the fact that in pre-Maccab\u00e6an times the Jewish nation, as a\nwhole, was more or less influenced by the Hellenistic spirit; one\nsection of the people would be influenced in this way, another in\nthat. Thus, as an example, the _Chassidim_ were influenced by the\nHellenistic teaching on the future life; but the ruling classes were\nnot, they clung to the old traditional teaching as contained in the\nOld Testament. Or again, among the _Chassidim_ were many who were\ninfluenced by the freer and more tolerant atmosphere of the Greek\nspirit, agreeing in this with the ruling classes, but differing from\nthose with whom they were in some other respects in agreement. So\nthat when, later, clearly defined parties came into existence, they\nwould not necessarily differ on _all_ points; and Pharisees and\nApocalyptists agreed as a whole upon the subject of a belief in the\nfuture life, though, as we shall see, various opinions on certain\npoints concerning the future life were held by the Apocalyptists.\n\nIn another respect we may see an inner probability of the Pharisees\nand Apocalyptists having a common ancestry. The _Chassidim_, as\ntheir name implied, were intensely religiously-minded; the zeal\nfor the Law of some was one way in which their eager yearning to\ndo something for God could find vent; the steadfast gaze upon the\nworld to come of others was the expression of a longing to be nearer\nGod. Personal religion was the origin, the foundation and the\nsummit of _Chassidism_. Now when we turn to later times we are able\nto see that same intense religious feeling in the Pharisees and in\nthe Apocalyptists; the expression of that feeling has, it is true,\nbecome exaggerated in each case; but whether it is the somewhat rank\novergrowth of legalism of the one, or the lurid and often overdrawn\npictures of the eschatological drama of the other, beneath each is\nto be discerned real piety. Pharisees and Apocalyptists differed in\nmany respects, but they were alike in their zeal for God which they\ninherited from their common ancestry.\n\nWe are to see, therefore, the beginnings of the Jewish Apocalyptic\nMovement in the teaching and literary activity of devout _Chassidim_,\nor better, Apocalyptists, who laboured in the earlier part of the\nsecond century B.C., and probably earlier.\n\nOur purpose is now first of all to consider a little the mental\nattitude of the Apocalyptists in general, their guiding principles,\ntheir chief aims as teachers, and their personal characteristics.\nThen we shall examine briefly the more outstanding doctrines of the\nApocalyptic Literature.\n\n\nII. THE APOCALYPTISTS\n\nIt will be well to draw attention at the outset to a feature in the\nteaching of the Apocalyptists which is at first very disconcerting,\nnamely, their inconsistency of thought and the variableness to be\nfound in the presentation of some of their doctrines which not\ninfrequently involves them in contradictions. The reason of this is\nnot to be sought simply in the fact that in the Apocalypses the hand\nof more than one author is to be discerned; but chiefly because the\nminds of individual Apocalyptists were, on the one hand, saturated\nwith the traditional thoughts and ideas of the Old Testament, and, on\nthe other, were eagerly absorbing the newer conceptions which the\nspirit of the age had brought into being. This occasioned a continual\nconflict of thought in their minds; there was a constant endeavour\nto harmonize the old and the new; and in consequence there often\nresulted a compromise which was illogical and contradictory.\n\nThis inconsistency of teaching is, therefore, not other than might\nbe expected under the circumstances; nor did it really affect the\ngreat _r\u00f4le_ that the Apocalyptists played as the _true prophets of\nthe people_; in this they followed in some important particulars the\nprophets of old, for if not in the same sense as these the expression\nof the national conscience, the Apocalyptists spoke to the hearts\nof the people in the name of God. If, upon the whole, their words\nwere addressed more to individual men than to the nation as a single\nwhole, it was a welcome sign that the individual was coming to his\nown. The Apocalyptists came with a message of comfort and hope to\nthe God-fearing, bidding them be of good cheer; for though the world\nwas cruel and dark, though they were the victims of oppression\nand tyranny, though their lot here was a hard one and they were\nlanguishing in adversity, yet this world and all the fashion of it\nwas passing away; soon, very soon, the bright future would dawn, the\nGreat Deliverer would come, and sorrow and sighing would pass away:\n\n      But with the righteous He will make peace,\n      And will protect the elect,\n      And mercy shall be upon them.\n\n      And they shall all belong to God,\n      And they shall be prospered,\n      And they shall all be blessed.\n\n      And He will help them all,\n      And light shall appear unto them,\n      And He will make peace with them (1 Enoch i. 8).[131]\n\nThe joyous hope that was thus held out must have had a profound\neffect upon the many pious Israelites who were perplexed by the\nseeming incongruity of things in a world governed by a righteous\nand just God. Tempted as they must often have been to lose faith\nas well as hope, the message now brought to them would have\nstrengthened both. So that the Apocalyptists may be truly described\nas upholders of the people\u2019s faith. But they came, too, with the\nthunder of denunciation against the godless who in their abundant\nprosperity sought only their own pleasure and cared neither for the\nhonour of God nor for the sorrow of the godly; for such a future,\nnear approaching, of fearfulness and terror was predicted by the\nApocalyptists:\n\n      And when sin and unrighteousness and blasphemy\n      And violence in all kinds of deeds increase,\n      And apostasy and transgression and uncleanness increase,\n\n      A great chastisement shall come from heaven upon all these,\n      And the holy Lord will come forth with wrath and chastisement\n      To execute judgement upon the earth.\n\n      In those days violence shall be cut off from its roots,\n      And the roots of unrighteousness together with deceit,\n      And they shall be destroyed from under heaven\n                                      (1 Enoch xcii. 7, 8).\n\nThe main concern of the Apocalyptists was thus with the future, with\nthe world to come, wherein all the inequalities and incongruities\nof the present world would be put right. But from this it followed\nthat most of what they taught was characterized by a _supernatural\ncolouring_ in which much that was exaggerated and fantastic was mixed\nup with sublime conceptions and eternal truths. They laid great\nstress upon the antithesis between this world and the next, between\nthe _Olam ha-zeh_ (this world), and the _Olam ha-b\u00e2_ (the world\nwhich is to come). Their view of this world was wholly pessimistic;\nthere was nothing to be hoped from it; indeed, its badness, entire\nand irretrievable, as contrasted with the glorious world to come\nwherein no evil might abide, involved the Apocalyptists in teaching\nwhich was of the nature of dualism. Again, that which was to come\ntranscended human experience, so that in the great drama of the end\nthe Apocalyptists depict man as standing in passive awe in face of\nthe marvellous and supernatural occurrences which are then to take\nplace; man\u2019s _r\u00f4le_ as an active agent ceases; supernatural beings\nare God\u2019s instruments in fulfilling His will; the scene is laid in\nHeaven, or in the skies, not on earth. The future is to bring with it\na new world-order wherein all things will be different, the old order\nis to disappear for ever. In all this the dominant note which sounds\nthroughout is that of the _supernatural_.\n\nAt the base of the whole position taken up by the Apocalyptists\nin their teaching was a doctrine of _determinism_, which must be\nbriefly alluded to, for the recognition of this is essential to the\nunderstanding of the subject. The Apocalyptists started with the\nabsolute conviction that the whole course of the world from beginning\nto end, both as regards its physical changes, and also in all that\nconcerns the history of nations, their growth and decline, and of\nindividuals, good and bad, the innumerable occurrences of every\ndescription and the very moment of their happening\u2014in a word, the\nentire constitution and course of the world and all that is in it,\nwhether regarded as _g\u0113_ (the physical earth = the Hebrew _eretz_)\nor as _oikoumen\u0113_ (the inhabited world = the Hebrew _t\u0113b\u0113l_), was in\nevery respect predetermined by God before all time. The words in 2\n(4) Esdras iv. 36, 37 present a belief common to the Apocalyptists:\n\n      For He hath weighed the age in the balance,\n      And by number hath He numbered the seasons;\n      Neither will He move nor stir things,\n      Till the measure appointed be fulfilled.\n\nOn these words Box well remarks: \u201cThe times and periods of the\ncourse of the world\u2019s history have been predetermined by God. The\nnumbers of the years have been exactly fixed. This was a fundamental\npostulate of the Apocalyptists, who devoted much of their energy to\ncalculations, based upon a close study of prophecy, as to the exact\nperiod when history should reach its consummation ... the underlying\nidea is predestinarian.\u201d[132]\n\nBut all these things are secrets; they can only be known to certain\nGod-fearing men who have the faculty, divinely accorded, of peering\ninto the hidden things of God, and who are thus able to reveal them\nto their fellow-creatures; hence the name given to these seers,\nviz., \u201crevealers,\u201d or Apocalyptists, because they wrote apocalypses,\n\u201crevelations.\u201d It was because the Apocalyptists believed so firmly in\nthis power that they possessed of looking into the deep things of God\nthat they claimed to be able to measure the significance of what had\nhappened in the past and of what was happening in the present; more\nespecially they believed that upon the basis of this knowledge they\nhad the power of foreseeing things to come, and the time of their\ncoming, and here above all things those which they regarded as the\nend of all, to which the whole history of the world had been tending\nfrom the beginning.\n\nBut with all their mysticism and other-worldliness, with all their\neager looking forward to the passing of the present order, the\nApocalyptists were not blind to the necessity of religious life in\nits practical aspect. They were _loyal to the Law_, though not in the\nPharisaic sense, laying stress rather on the spirit of its observance\nthan on carrying it out literally. The frequent reproaches levelled\nagainst those who do not observe the ordinances of the Law shows\ntheir attitude; for example, in 1 Enoch v. 4 it is said:\n\n      But ye\u2014ye have not been steadfast, nor done the commandments of\n            the Lord,\n      But ye have turned away and have spoken proud and hard words\n      With your impure mouths against His greatness.\n      O ye hard-hearted, ye shall find no peace.\n\nAnd again, in xcix. 2 of the same apocalypse:\n\n      Woe to them that pervert the words of uprightness,\n      And transgress the eternal law\n                      (cp. also xcix. 14, Sib. Orac. iii. 276 ff.).\n\nOn the other hand, the reward to be accorded to those who are\nfaithful to the Law is often spoken of; this may be illustrated from\nanother book, 2 (4) Esdras, of later date, but in this as in some\nother points of doctrine the Apocalyptists believed and taught alike\nwhether belonging to an early or a late date; in ix. 7-12 of this\nbook the promise of salvation to those who keep the Law is followed\nby a prophecy of woe to those who have ignored it: \u201cAnd every one\nthat shall then be saved, and shall be able to escape on account of\nhis works or his faith by which he hath believed\u2014such shall survive\nfrom the perils aforesaid, and shall see My salvation in My land,\nand within My borders which I have sanctified for Myself eternally.\nThen shall they be amazed that now have abused My ways; they shall\nabide in the torments which they have spurned and despised. For\nall who failed to recognize Me in their lifetime, although I dealt\nbountifully with them, and all who have defied My Law, while they yet\nhad liberty, and, while place of repentance was still open to them,\ngave no heed, but scorned it\u2014these must be brought to know after\ndeath by torment\u201d (cp. vii. 83, viii. 29). The Law is also spoken of\nas \u201cthe light in which nothing can err\u201d (Syriac Apoc. of Baruch xix.\n3), and in the same book (lix. 2) reference is made to \u201cthe lamp of\nthe eternal Law.\u201d All such passages, and they could be enormously\nincreased, show that the Apocalyptists had a high veneration for the\nLaw, although they did not accept the Pharisaic interpretation of it.\n\nIn one respect, however, it may be gathered, the Apocalyptists were\nat one with the Pharisees in their method of legal observance,\nand that was in the matter of _ascetic practices_; for these are\nfrequently extolled, and are clearly regarded as highly meritorious.\nIn one book it is stated, for example, that among those who are\nwritten and inscribed above in heaven are \u201cthe spirits of the humble,\nand of those who have afflicted their bodies\u201d (1 Enoch cviii. 7).\nElsewhere it is said: \u201cLet us fast for the space of three days, and\non the fourth let us go into a cave which is in the field, and let us\ndie rather than transgress the commands of the Lord of lords, the God\nof our fathers\u201d (Assumption of Moses ix. 6). In 2 (4) Esdras ascetic\npractices are often spoken of, see, e.g., vi. 32, vii. 125, ix. 24,\nand often elsewhere.[133]\n\nLastly, one other point may be mentioned here, namely the, generally\nspeaking, _universalistic attitude_ of the Apocalyptists; they are\nnot consistent in this, but normally they embrace the Gentiles\nequally with their own nation in the divine scheme of salvation; the\nwicked who are excluded are not restricted to the Gentiles, but the\nJews equally with them shall suffer torment hereafter according to\ntheir deserts. (See on this subject the next section.)\n\nThese are, then, briefly the main points which illustrate the\npersonal characteristics and general mental attitude of the\nApocalyptists. But this will be further illustrated by glancing\nat the more important doctrines inculcated in the Apocalyptic\nLiterature; indeed, one cannot properly separate the doctrinal\nteaching of the apocalypses from the mental standpoint of the\nwriters; but for the sake of convenience, in enumerating their main\npoints of doctrinal teaching, we propose to tabulate these in a\nseparate section.\n\n\nIII. THE DOCTRINAL TEACHING OF THE APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE\n\nWe have already pointed out that consistency of teaching is not to\nbe looked for amongst the Apocalyptists as a whole; it is well to\nreiterate this here, for in referring to the main points of doctrine\nas taught in this literature examples of this will come before us. It\nis not our intention to give an exhaustive account of the doctrinal\nteaching of the Apocalyptic Literature; our object is to make some\nbrief mention of the more specifically characteristic points of\ndoctrine occurring in this literature.\n\n\n(_a_) _Individualism._\n\nIt is one of the marks of Hellenistic influence when we find that\nIndividualism occupies an important place in the teaching of some\nof the books of this literature. This is markedly the case in the\nBook of 1 Enoch, where the importance of the individual is often\ninsisted upon; not the nation as such, but the righteous and elect,\nthe \u201cplant of righteousness\u201d as it is called in x. 16, lxxxiv. 6,\nshall inherit the eternal reward. Thus it is said in civ. 1: \u201cI swear\nto you that in heaven the angels remember you for good before the\nglory of the Great One; and your names are written before the glory\nof the Great One.\u201d[134] The redemption of the world is to be brought\nabout through the righteous and elect individuals, \u201cthe eternal\nseed-plant.\u201d This is one of the dominating thoughts of this book,\nand also finds expression in others of this literature; it is one,\nas Friedl\u00e4nder says, which did not emanate from Pharisaic soil, but\nwas a product of Jewish Hellenism.[135] In accordance with this,\nindividual responsibility is strongly emphasized; a very pointed\npassage in this connection is 2 (4) Esdras vii. 102-105, where the\nseer asks the angel: \u201cIf I have found favour in thy sight, show me,\nthy servant, this also: whether in the Day of Judgement the righteous\nshall be able to intercede for the ungodly, or to entreat the Most\nHigh in their behalf\u2014fathers for sons, sons for parents, brothers\nfor brothers, kinsfolk for their nearest, friends for their dearest.\u201d\nAnd the reply of the angel is: \u201cThe Day of Judgement is decisive, and\ndisplays unto all the seal of truth. Even as now a father may not\nsend a son, or a son his father, or a master his slave, or a friend\nhis dearest, that in his stead he may be ill, or sleep, or eat, or\nbe healed, so shall none then pray for another on that Day, neither\nshall one lay a burden on another, for then every one shall bear his\nown righteousness or unrighteousness.\u201d[136]\n\n\n(_b_) _Particularism and Universalism._\n\nHere we have a good example of the inconsistency of teaching already\nreferred to. The traditional belief of the Jewish nation being the\npeculiar treasure of God asserts itself in spite of the broader\noutlook inspired by Hellenistic influence. The former attitude is\nseen, for example, in the Assumption of Moses i. 12, where Moses says\nto Joshua: \u201cHe hath created the world on behalf of His people.\u201d In\n2 (4) Esdras, again, we have the following: \u201cBut as for the other\nnations, which are descended from Adam, Thou hast said that they\nare nothing, and that they are like spittle; and Thou hast likened\nthe abundance of them to a drop falling from a bucket. And now, O\nLord, behold, these nations which are reputed as nothing lord it\nover us and crush us. But we, Thy people, whom Thou hast called\nThy first-born, Thy only-begotten, Thy beloved, are given up into\ntheir hands. If the world has indeed been created for our sakes why\ndo we not enter into possession of our world?\u201d (vii. 56-59). But\nthough other passages of similar import could be given from most\nof the books of this literature, the particularistic attitude is\nnot the normal or usual one; far more frequent are those passages\nwhich express a wider universalistic view; one or two instances may\nbe given: in 1 Enoch x. 21 it is said that \u201call the children of\nmen shall become righteous, and all nations shall offer adoration\nand shall praise Me, and all shall worship Me\u201d; in xlviii. 4 it is\nsaid of the Son of Man that \u201cHe shall be the Light of the Gentiles\u201d\n(see also xi. 1, 2, xlix. 1, l. 2-5, xc. 30, xci. 14, Sib. Orac.,\niii. 702-726, Syr. Apoc. of Baruch xiv. 19, etc.); so, too, in the\nTestament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Levi ii. 11: \u201cAnd by thee and\nJudah shall the Lord appear among men, saving every race of men.\u201d\n\nIt is interesting to note that in quite a number of passages in\nseveral of these apocalyptic books a blending of these two attitudes\nseems to find expression; thus, in the Testament of the Twelve\nPatriarchs, Levi xiv. 3, 4, Israel is regarded as superior to all\nother nations, but the salvation of the latter is awaited, and Israel\nis to be the means thereof: \u201cMy children, be ye pure, as the heaven\nis purer than the earth; and ye who are the lights of Israel, shall\nbe as the sun and moon. What will the Gentiles do if ye be darkened\nthrough transgression? Yea, curses will come upon your race, and the\nlight which was given through the Law to lighten you and every man,\nye shall desire to destroy, and teach your commandments contrary to\nthe ordinances of God.\u201d Not essentially different is the thought\ncontained in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch lxvii. 5: \u201cAnd at that\ntime, after a little interval, Zion will again be builded, and its\nofferings will again be restored, and the priests will return to\ntheir ministry, and also the Gentiles will come to glorify it.\u201d\nThis teaching was not merely theoretical, it expressed what the\nApocalyptists, urged on by the influence of the Hellenistic spirit,\nwere actually striving to bring about; they desired to make Judaism a\nworld-religion which could be embraced by all the Gentiles; hence the\nmissionary propaganda which they initiated and carried out, and of\nwhich a large part of their literary activity formed the expression.\nAccording to them the Jewish Church was to consist of those who\nwere righteous, no matter what their nationality might be; and if\none, though he were a Jew, was not godly, he was not regarded as\na member of that Church. Outside of Palestine, as well as in many\nparts within the land, Jew and Gentile were constantly being brought\ninto personal touch with one another, man with man; and many Jews\ncame to learn that the distinction between the \u201cpeople of God\u201d and\nthe \u201cheathen world\u201d was a wrong one, unfitting in the sight of God,\nunjust to men. Hence arose the apprehension of the true distinction\nto be drawn among men, a distinction between the righteous and the\nungodly, irrespective altogether of nationality or race; and it\nis this distinction which finds such abundant expression in the\nApocalyptic Literature. This religious conception regarding humanity\nresulted, in the natural course, in the desire to proclaim the name\nof the true and one God to all men so that all might have the chance\nof knowing Him. The Apocalyptists, inspired in large measure by the\nteaching of some of the greatest prophets, were therefore the great\nmissionaries at this period; and this was the combined result of\nthe universalistic attitude brought about by the influence of the\nHellenistic spirit and the fuller apprehension and meaning of the\nteaching of prophets such as those who wrote the latter half of the\nBook of Isaiah and the Book of Jonah.\n\n\n(_c_) _The Doctrine of the Messiah._\n\nWe need not go into all the details of Messianic teaching given in\nthis literature; much of it is similar to that found in the Old\nTestament and in the Apocrypha; it will be sufficient if we point\nout what is more specifically characteristic. The most important\npoint upon which to lay stress is the transcendental character of the\nMessiah. In 1 Enoch the Messiah appears as One Who is divine, for He\nhas His place upon the throne of God:\n\n      On that day Mine Elect One shall sit upon the Throne of Glory\n                                                    (xlv. 3).\n\nHe is Judge and Saviour, and is endowed with all wisdom:\n\n      For in those days the Elect One shall arise,\n      And He shall choose the righteous and holy from among them,\n      For the day has drawn nigh that they should be saved.[137]\n      And the Elect One shall in those days sit on My throne,\n      And His mouth shall pour forth all the secrets of wisdom and\n            counsel;\n      For the Lord of Spirits hath given them to Him, and hath\n            glorified Him (li. 2, 3).\n\nBut as a righteous judge He will condemn the wicked:\n\n      And He sat on the throne of His glory,\n      And the sum of judgement was given unto the Son of Man,\n      And he caused the sinners to pass away and be destroyed from\n            off the face of the earth,\n      And those who have led the world astray....\n      For that Son of Man has appeared,\n      And has seated himself upon the throne of His glory,\n      And all evil shall pass away before His face,\n      And the word of that Son of Man shall go forth,\n      And be strong before the Lord of Spirits\n                               (lxix. 27-29, cp. lxi. 8).[138]\n\nIn accordance with this divine character of the Messiah is the\nteaching of His pre-existence before the world began:\n\n      Yea, before the sun and the signs were created,\n      Before the stars of the heaven were made,\n      His name was named before the Lord of Spirits\n                                (xlviii. 3, cp. verse 6).\n\nThis teaching is by no means confined to the Book of Enoch; in the\nSibylline Oracles v. 414 ff., for example, it is said in reference to\nthe Messiah that \u201cthere hath come from the plains of heaven a Blessed\nMan with the Sceptre in His hand which God hath committed to His\nclasp; and He hath won fair dominion over all, and hath restored to\nall the good the wealth which the former men took.\u201d In the Testament\nof the Twelve Patriarchs, Judah xxiv. 1 it is said: \u201cNo sin shall be\nfound in Him\u201d; and in Levi xviii. 10, 11 are the striking words:\n\n      And He shall open the gates of paradise,\n      And shall remove the threatening sword against Adam,\n      And He shall give to the saints to eat from the tree of life,\n      And the spirit of holiness shall be on them.\n\nIn 2 (4) Esdras the Messiah is likewise similarly portrayed, though\nin some passages he appears as purely human (see below, chap. IX.\n\u00a7 (_e_)). In some other apocalypses the Messiah is conceived of\nas a man pure and simple; but the account given above is the more\ncharacteristic of the Apocalyptic Literature taken as a whole.\n\n\n(_d_) _The doctrine of the Future Life._\n\nTwo outstanding doctrines come into consideration here: the\ndoctrine of the immortality of the spirit, and the doctrine of the\nresurrection of the body. The causes, humanly speaking, whereby one\nled on to the other, were, firstly, the belief in a final retribution\nwhich the existence of a just and righteous God rendered necessary;\nand, secondly, innate materialistic conceptions which resulted in\ncausing men to impute to the spirit what belongs properly to the\nbody.[139] To dwell for a moment on the first point; the clearest\nillustration of it is found in the Book of 1 Enoch, where in cii. 6-8\nthe following words are put into the mouth of sinners:\n\n      As we die, so die the righteous,\n      And what benefit do they reap for their deeds?\n\n      Behold, even as we, so do they die in grief and darkness,\n      And what have they more than we?\n      From henceforth we are equal.\n\n      And what will they receive, and what will they see for ever?\n      Behold, they too have died,\n      And henceforth for ever shall they see no light.\n\nThis evidently represents what was in effect actually believed and\nsaid by many; and the normal teaching of the Old Testament bore out\nthe truth of it. But if it were true how could God\u2019s righteousness\nand justice be vindicated? So the Apocalyptists taught a doctrine\nof retribution much in advance of anything to be found in the Old\nTestament, a doctrine which involved belief in immortality, and here\nthey were indebted to Hellenistic influence, very different from the\ntraditional Sheol-conception. This doctrine is nowhere more clearly\nset forth than in 1 Enoch ciii. 1-8. The passage is somewhat lengthy,\nbut in view of its importance it will be well to quote it in full:\n\n  Now, therefore, I swear to you, the righteous, by the glory of\n  the Great and Honoured and Mighty One in dominion, and by His\n  greatness I swear to you:\u2014\n\n            I know a mystery,\n            And have read the heavenly tablets,\n            And have seen the holy books,\n            And have found written therein and inscribed regarding\n                  them:\n\n      That all goodness and joy and glory are prepared for them,\n      And written down for the spirits of those who have died in\n            righteousness,\n      And what manifold good shall be given to you in recompense for\n            your labours,\n      And that your lot is abundantly beyond the lot of the living.\n\n      And the spirits of you who have died in righteousness shall\n            live and rejoice,\n      And their spirits shall not perish, nor their memorial from\n            before the face of the Great One,\n      Unto all the generations of the world. Wherefore, no longer fear\n            their contumely.\n\n      Woe to you sinners, when ye have died,\n      If ye die in the wealth of your sins,\n      And those who are like you, that say regarding you:\n      \u201cBlessed are the sinners, they have seen all their days;\n\n      And now they have died in prosperity and in wealth,\n      And have not seen tribulation or murder in their life;\n      And they have died in honour,\n      And judgement hath not been executed on them during their life.\u201d\n\n      Know ye, that their souls shall be made to descend into Sheol,\n      And they shall be wretched in their great tribulation.\n      And into darkness and chains, and a burning flame where there is\n            grievous judgement shall your spirits enter;\n      And the great judgement shall be for all the generations of the\n            world.\n      Woe to you, for ye shall have no peace.\n\nIt will be noticed that in this passage it is only the spirit which\nis spoken of as living in the world to come, so that nothing more\nthan the immortality of the spirit is taught; a teaching considerably\nin advance of the normal teaching of the Old Testament, but yet it\ndoes not go beyond belief in the immortality of the spirit. On the\nother hand, the passage contains expressions of a materialistic kind\nincompatible with purely spiritual conceptions; so that a reflective\nmind must sooner or later have been led to the fuller doctrine of the\nresurrection of the body if his teaching was to be logical.\n\nBut here another element comes into consideration. Conceptions\nregarding the Messianic Kingdom varied, and the subject we are\ndiscussing was closely connected with those variations; for as\nlong as the Messianic Kingdom was conceived of as existing on\nthis earth the teaching on the life hereafter, i.e. within the\nMessianic Kingdom, was bound to tend towards a bodily existence\nthen. But when the Kingdom came to be conceived of as existing in\nthe heavens, materialistic ideas receded, and more spiritual ones\nfound expression. There seem, therefore, to have been three stages of\nconception regarding the state of man\u2019s nature in the future life:\nfirst of all a development of the Old Testament Sheol-conception\nwhich resulted in the belief of the immortality of the spirit[140];\nthen with the expectation of the Messianic Kingdom of eternal\nduration on this earth came the belief in the resurrection of the\nbody; and, lastly, when the Kingdom of Heaven was conceived of as\neternal in the Heavens above, it was the resurrection of the spirit\nthat was taught.\n\nVariation of teaching is also found in the Apocalyptic Literature\nregarding those who are to attain to the future life; sometimes\nit is taught that all the Israelites, good and bad, shall rise,\nthose to inherit bliss, these to suffer torment; the Gentiles are\nnot considered. At other times only the good Israelites are to\nrise; while it is also taught, though more rarely, that all mankind\nshall rise, including therefore the Gentiles; the righteous rise to\neternal life, the wicked to eternal torment. An intermediate period\nof waiting between death and the resurrection is also taught, the\nwicked being in Hades, the righteous in Paradise. But sometimes there\nis no mention of an intermediate state, the resurrection following\nimmediately after death.[141]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThese, then, constitute the most important doctrines concerning\nwhich the Apocalyptic Literature has something specific to teach.\nThe doctrine of God does not differ materially from anything that\nis taught in the Old Testament and in the Apocrypha, and the same\napplies to the doctrine of Sin; the doctrine of Wisdom will receive\nconsideration in Chapter IX. The Angelology and Demonology of this\nLiterature certainly show considerable development owing to Persian\ninfluence; but these two subjects are not of sufficient importance\nfor present purposes to merit any detailed treatment.\n\nFor some account of the books of this literature see Chapter X.\n\n\nSUMMARY\n\nIn discussing the beginnings of the Apocalyptic Movement a\nconsideration of the different thought-tendencies in Palestine prior\nto the Maccab\u00e6an struggle is necessary. The Jewish nation as a whole\nhad come under the influence of the Hellenistic spirit, though not\nall were Hellenistically inclined. A minority, who clung tenaciously\nto the rigid observance of the Law, was known as the \u201cPious ones,\u201d\nor _Chassidim_. But these _Chassidim_ were of two types; there\nwere among them those who became the Apocalyptists, and there were\nalso among them those who, later, developed into the party of the\nPharisees. Thus both Apocalyptists and Pharisees acknowledged a\ncommon descent, i.e. from the _Chassidim_.\n\nThe teaching of the Apocalyptists is on more than one subject\ninconsistent; this is mainly due to the fact that their minds were,\non the one hand, saturated with the traditional thoughts and ideas\nof the Old Testament, while on the other hand they were eagerly\nabsorbing the newer conceptions bred of the spirit of the age.\nNevertheless, the Apocalyptists were the true prophets of the people,\nto whom they brought a message of comfort and hope by telling of the\nnew world which was soon to come; to the ungodly they addressed words\nof stern warning. The teaching of the Apocalyptists dealt mainly with\nthe world to come, and most of what they taught was characterized by\nits supernatural colouring. They held strongly that all things had\nbeen predestined by God before all time. In spite of much mysticism\nand a gaze concentrated on that which was to come, the Apocalyptists\nwere loyal to the Law, though not in the Pharisaic sense, the spirit\nof its observance being regarded as more important than obedience to\nthe letter. Normally the Apocalyptists were universalists rather than\nparticularists, though in this they were inconsistent.\n\nThe main points in the doctrinal teaching of the Apocalyptic\nLiterature are: Individualism, the importance of the individual being\nstrongly emphasized; the inclusion of the Gentiles in the divine plan\nof salvation; the transcendental character of the Messiah; and the\nteaching concerning the future life; in this latter inconsistency is\nfound, sometimes the resurrection of the body is taught, at other\ntimes only the immortality of the soul; there is also variety of\nteaching on the subject of those who are to attain to the future life\nand their lot there.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nThe Scribes\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014In addition to the literature given at the head of\n  the next chapter reference may be made to Sch\u00fcrer II, i. pp.\n  306-379, German ed., II, pp. 363-447; Lightley, _Les Scribes,\n  \u00c9tude sur leur origine chez les Isra\u00e9lites_ (1905). Also the\n  articles \u201cScribes and Pharisees\u201d (Prince) in the _Encycl. Bibl._,\n  and \u201cScribes\u201d (Eisenstein) in the _Jewish Encycl._]\n\n\nIt is important that we should try, as far as possible, to present\nthe available _data_ concerning the Scribes in their chronological\norder; that would, of course, be desirable in any case, but it is\ndoubly so when, as here, a clear statement of the development of the\nscribal class and its activities may be a help in understanding some\nof the difficult questions which will come before us in dealing with\nthe Sadducees and Pharisees. We shall, therefore, state the evidence\nchronologically, as far as may be, making our deductions as we\nproceed.\n\n\n(_a_) _The Old Testament data._\n\nFirst as to the use of the term \u201cScribe\u201d = _S\u00f4ph\u0113r_ in Hebrew, and is\nused in the sense of \u201csecretary\u201d or the like; in 2 Samuel viii. 17,\ne.g., among David\u2019s officials are reckoned \u201cZadok the son of Ahitub,\nand Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, who were priests; and Seraiah, who\nwas scribe\u201d (cp. 2 Sam. xx. 25; 2 Kings xviii. 18, etc.). As a royal\nofficial he had various duties; he acted as treasurer, according to\n2 Kings xii. 11, 2 Chronicles xxiv. 11, apparently in some military\ncapacity, according to 2 Kings xxv. 19, Jeremiah lii. 25; in Psalm\nxlv. 2 a _S\u00f4ph\u0113r_ is clearly one who writes (\u201cMy tongue is the pen of\na ready writer\u201d [_S\u00f4ph\u0113r_]); and, finally, in Esther iii. 12, viii.\n9, he occupies the place of the Persian king\u2019s secretary who writes\nout decrees. With one exception (Ps. xlv. 2), in all these passages\nthe Scribe is spoken of as a royal official; they are, therefore,\nonly important for us here as showing that the ideas of counting and\nwriting are connected with the term _S\u00f4ph\u0113r_; and these are exactly\nthe meanings conveyed by the root.\n\nThe three next passages, which give some _data_ regarding the office\nof the Scribe, have a special importance because they are pre-exilic\u2014\n\nJeremiah viii. 8, 9: \u201cHow do ye say, We are wise, and the Law of\nthe Lord is with us? But, behold, the false pen of the Scribes hath\nwrought falsely. The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and\ntaken; lo, they have rejected the word of the Lord; and what manner\nof wisdom is in them?\u201d\n\nJeremiah xviii. 18: \u201cThen said they, Come and let us devise devices\nagainst Jeremiah; for the Law shall not perish from the priest, nor\ncounsel from the wise, nor the word from the prophet.\u201d\n\nJeremiah xxxvi.: This chapter is too long to quote in full; it tells\nus of Baruch, the Scribe, who wrote down Jeremiah\u2019s words \u201cupon a\nroll of a book\u201d; it also mentions Gemariah, the son of Shaphan, the\nScribe, who had his chamber \u201cin the upper court, at the entry of the\nnew gate of the Lord\u2019s house\u201d (verse 10); further, mention is also\nmade of Elishama the Scribe, who had his chamber in the king\u2019s house\n(verse 12); Elishama was clearly a royal official.\n\nFrom these passages we gather that Scribes were in existence before\nthe Exile, that they claimed to be wise, and that they regarded\nthemselves as authorities on the Law of the Lord; they are censured\nby Jeremiah with having \u201cwrought falsely,\u201d and the context points to\nthis as being connected with the \u201cLaw of the Lord\u201d; what precisely\nis referred to is not easy to determine, but the point of importance\nfor us is that the pre-exilic Scribes were occupied with the Law;\nif they come under the lash of Jeremiah they do not differ in this\nrespect from the wise men, nor yet from the priests and the prophets\n(see viii. 10). In Jeremiah xxxvi. mention is made of Scribes in\ninfluential positions; but in addition to these there is Baruch, who\nbelongs to a different category of Scribe, for he makes copies of\nwhat are clearly regarded as sacred writings (see verses 24, 25).\nFrom the meagre evidence we possess there is not much to be gathered;\nbut we may perhaps be justified in saying that already in pre-exilic\ntimes the term \u201cScribes\u201d was beginning to be used as a technical\nterm in the limited sense of their being those whose special duty it\nwas to make copies of the Law in the form in which it then existed.\nBut in saying that the term \u201cScribes\u201d was used in a technical sense\nalready in this pre-exilic period we must very strongly emphasize\nthat this is to be understood in an entirely different sense from\nthat in which it was used as a technical term in post-exilic times.\nThere is a world of difference between the Scribe who is the more or\nless officially accredited copier of the text of the Law or other\nScriptures, and the Scribe who also interprets the Law, teaches it to\nthe people, and in whom is vested the judicial power of enforcing its\ndecrees. In each case \u201cScribe\u201d may be used as a technical term while\nconnoting two very different things.\n\nFurther, from the second of the passages quoted above we see that\nthree distinct classes are mentioned, viz., the priests, the wise men\nor _Chakamim_, and the prophets. There can be no doubt that these\nthree were in existence long before Scribes in the technical sense\nwere heard of; with the prophets we are not concerned here, for\ntheir activity lay in a different sphere altogether; but we must try\nand get some clear ideas upon the subject of the relationship between\nthe Scribes and the priests on the one hand, and the Scribes and the\n_Chakamim_ on the other.\n\nOriginally the priests alone were concerned with the Law; but the Law\ncontained, broadly speaking, two elements, the ritual and the moral;\nthe former of these was more especially the concern of the priests;\nbut the latter had a wider interest, and many of the _Chakamim_ as\nwell as the priests occupied themselves with it. When the Scribes\narose\u2014it is not possible to say precisely when this was, but it was\nbefore the Exile\u2014they did not, as a body, restrict themselves to the\nstudy of one or other aspect of the Law, but, according to their\nbent, some gave more particular attention to the study of the ritual\nLaw, others to the moral Law; so that among the types of scribe there\nappeared the priest-scribe, such as Ezra, and the wisdom-scribe,\nsuch as was Ben-Sira in later times. But the _Chakamim_, as a class,\nstill remained, no less than the priests, each occupying themselves\nwith their particular study, as they had done before the Scribes came\ninto existence. In course of time, and through Ezra\u2019s influence,\nthe power of the Scribes greatly increased, and they became the\nmost influential leaders among the people; and by the time of the\nMaccab\u00e6an struggle their activities were wholly and exclusively\nabsorbed in the study and teaching of the Law, both ritual and moral,\nwritten and oral. But we have anticipated, and must now turn to the\nevidence of the post-exilic books.\n\nIn Ezra vii. the following verses are important: \u201cEzra ... was a\nready scribe in the Law of Moses, which the Lord, the God of Israel,\nhad given\u201d (verse 6). \u201cEzra had set his heart to seek the Law of the\nLord, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgements\u201d\n(verse 10). \u201c... Ezra the priest, the scribe, even the scribe of\nthe words of the commandments of the Lord, and of His statutes to\nIsrael....\u201d \u201cEzra the priest, the scribe of the Law of the God of\nheaven\u201d (verses 11, 12, 21). According to vii. 25, Artaxerxes gives\nthe following instructions to Ezra: \u201cAnd thou, Ezra, after the wisdom\nof thy God that is in thine hand, appoint magistrates and judges,\nwhich may judge all the people that are beyond the river, all such as\nknow the laws of thy God, and teach ye him that knoweth them not.\u201d\n\nThe whole of Nehemiah viii.-x. is important for our present subject;\nwe draw special attention to the following passages: \u201cEzra the\nscribe\u201d is asked by the people to bring the book of the Law of Moses\nin order that it might be read to them; it then continues: \u201cAnd Ezra\nthe priest brought the Law before the congregation, both men and\nwomen, and all that could hear with understanding.... And he read\ntherein before the broad place that was before the water-gate from\nearly morning until mid-day, in the presence of the men and the\nwomen, and of those that could understand; and the ears of all the\npeople were attentive unto the book of the Law\u201d (viii. 2, 3). In\nviii. 7-9, the names of thirteen men are enumerated who, together\nwith the Levites, \u201ccaused the people to understand the Law. And\nthey read in the book, in the Law of God, interpreting it; and they\ngave the sense, and caused (the people) to understand the reading.\nAnd Nehemiah, which was the Tirshatha,[142] and Ezra the priest the\nscribe, and the Levites that taught the people, said unto all the\npeople, This day is holy unto the Lord your God; mourn not, nor\nweep.\u201d Further, in viii. 13-15, it is said: \u201cAnd on the second day\nwere gathered together the heads of the fathers\u2019 houses of all the\npeople, the priests and the Levites, unto Ezra the scribe, even to\ngive attention to the words of the Law. And they found written in the\nLaw, how that the Lord had commanded by Moses that the children of\nIsrael should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month ...\u201d;\nthen follows the account of how the people were to celebrate the\nFeast of Tabernacles.\n\nThese passages show that whatever may have been the scribal activity\nbefore the Exile, an altogether new position was assigned to the Law\nand its observances by the scribe Ezra.[143] The Law now begins to\nbe the central pre-occupation of the Scribes under the guidance of\nEzra and Nehemiah, the former of whom is the scribe _par excellence_.\nThe priests and Levites are associated with the scribe Ezra, and\npresumably with the scribes in general; but we know from later\nhistory that the study of the Law soon became the special concern of\nthe Scribes almost to the exclusion of the priests. Noteworthy is the\nstress laid on teaching the Law to the people; and a new element of\nfar-reaching importance seems to be adumbrated in Nehemiah viii. 8,\nwhere it is said that the teachers of Law \u201cread in the book, in the\nLaw of God, interpreting it; and they gave the sense, and caused (the\npeople) to understand the reading.\u201d It is interesting to note that\nthe Hebrew root for \u201cto interpret\u201d here (_p-r-sh_) is the same as\nthat from which the word Pharisee comes; we shall draw attention to\nthis again later.\n\nOne or two passages of later date must also be noted, for they are\nnot without interest, and shed further light on our subject:\n\n1 Chronicles ii. 55: Among various genealogical enumerations\noccurs that of \u201cthe families of scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the\nTirathites, the Shimeathites, the Sucathites. These are the Kenites\nthat came of Hammath, the father of the house of Rechab.\u201d From this\nwe gather, first, that the scribal office was inherited, and from\nJeremiah xxxvi. 10-12 we may assume that this was also the case in\npre-exilic times, for both Michaiah, and his father Gemariah, who was\nthe son of Shaphan the scribe, seem to be closely associated with\nthe scribes, and were presumably themselves scribes. Another point\nto be noted from the passage quoted is that some families of the\nscribes were connected with the house of Rechab; now the Rechabites\nwere ascetics (see Jer. xxxv. 6-10), and it is possible that when, in\nlater days, the Pharisees made a point of practising asceticism,[144]\nthey were following an early tradition in principle though the actual\npractices had become different with the changed conditions of life.\n\n2 Chronicles xxxiv. 13: This passage is referred to because it\nsays that some of the Levites were scribes, which again implies\nassociation with the priests.\n\nDaniel v. 26-28: Here we have an example of text and interpretation\nwhich, so far as the principle is concerned, is according to the\nscribal method.\n\nWe have now to examine some Old Testament evidence of another kind,\nand as this is calculated to throw light on the subsequent history\nof the scribal movement and its developments it deserves careful\nconsideration.\n\nFrom a number of indications to be found in the Books of Ezra and\nNehemiah it is evident that from the very commencement of the\nsettlement of the exiles in Palestine differences arose between them\nand the Israelites whom they found there on their return. There\nseem to have been several causes for these differences; but what\nlargely lay at the bottom of them was the contention of the returned\nexiles that they alone represented the true Israelites; those who\nhad been left in the land had become mixed with the heathen[145] by\nliving among them and intermarrying with them, and were therefore\nnot regarded as true Israelites. But more than this; it would seem\nthat among the exiles themselves there were some who belonged to the\npriesthood, but that this was denied by the leaders among the exiles;\nthis is gathered from Ezra ii. 61-63, where the enumeration of some\npriestly families is given concerning whom it is said: \u201cThese sought\ntheir register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they\nwere not found; therefore were they deemed polluted and put from\nthe priesthood. And the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should\nnot eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with\nUrim and with Thummim.\u201d Among the exiled people, too, were some who\n\u201ccould not show their fathers\u2019 houses and their seed, whether they\nwere of Israel\u201d (Ezra ii. 39). Thus both those who had been living\nin Palestine, and some of those who returned with the exiles, had\na grievance. This was greatly aggravated when Zerubbabel refused\nthe help of any but those whom he considered true Israelites in the\nbuilding of the temple (Ezra iv. 1-5): \u201c... Then the people of the\nland weakened the hands of the people of Judah, and troubled them in\nbuilding....\u201d (cp. Neh. ii. 19, iv. 1 ff.).\n\nA more far-reaching cause of division was that of marriage with\nforeigners, especially with Samaritans, who were with justice\nregarded as heathen by the bulk of the returned exiles; in Ezra\nix. 1, 2, we read: \u201c... the princes drew near unto me, saying, The\npeople of Israel, and the priests and the Levites, have not separated\nthemselves from the peoples of the lands.... For they have taken\nof their daughters for themselves and for their sons; so that the\nholy seed have mingled themselves with the peoples of the lands.\nYea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this\ntrespass\u201d (cp. Neh. xiii. 23, 24). That, as indicated in these last\nwords, it was the aristocracy, i.e. the high-priestly families, who\nwere most forward in contracting foreign alliances and who were in\nfavour of intercourse with non-Jews generally, is shown further by\nsuch passages as Nehemiah vi. 17-19: \u201cMoreover, in those days the\nnobles of Judah sent many letters unto Tobiah, and the letters of\nTobiah came unto them. For there were many in Judah sworn unto him,\nbecause he was the son-in-law of Shechaniah the son of Arah; and his\nson Johanan had taken the daughter of Meshullam the son of Berechiah\nto wife. Also they spake of his good deeds before me and reported my\nwords to him.\u201d And again Nehemiah xiii. 28: \u201cAnd one of the sons of\nJoiada, son of Eliashib the high-priest, was son-in-law to Sanballat\nthe Horonite.\u201d Very significant, too, is the long passage Ezra x.\n18-44; this contains a list of those who had married strange wives;\nfirst are mentioned the sons of the priests, among these a few had\nput away their wives (verses 18, 19), but the list, as it continues,\nmentions those priests who did not do so (verses 20-22); then follow\nthe names of Levites, singers, and porters, then of Israelites, who\n\u201chad taken strange wives; and some of them had wives by whom they had\nchildren\u201d (verse 44). The attempts of Ezra and Nehemiah to stop these\nalliances and to put an end to the intercourse between the Jews and\nthose whom they regarded as heathen were thus not wholly successful;\nand this is further borne out by several passages which reveal the\nresistance offered, e.g. Ezra x. 15: \u201cBut Jonathan the son of Asahel\nand Jahaziah the son of Tikvah stood up against this matter; and\nMeshullam and Shabbethai the Levite helped them.\u201d Again, in Nehemiah\nvi. 10-14 the influence of Sanballat and Tobiah upon many of those\nwho lived in Jerusalem, and the existence of a party there opposed to\nEzra, is plainly indicated; among those belonging to this party there\nare mentioned Shemaiah, the prophetess Noadiah, \u201cand the rest of the\nprophets\u201d (cp. also xiii. 4 ff.; Mal. ii. 10-16).\n\nFrom all these indications it is not difficult to see that the\nelements for the formation of a distinct party in opposition to the\n_r\u00e9gime_ of Ezra and Nehemiah were present from the very beginning of\nthe return from the Exile. For some considerable time, no doubt, the\ninfluence of Ezra succeeded in suppressing, though not in quenching,\nthe opposition which he met with; but two diverging tendencies became\nrooted among sections of the people, and in course of time bore fruit\nin the formation of distinct parties.\n\nThe distinguishing notes of these two tendencies can be discerned\nwithout difficulty; on the one hand there were, as can be seen\nfrom the quotations given above, the members of the aristocracy,\ni.e., the high-priestly families, who were friendly disposed to\nthose of semi-Israelite and even non-Israelite origin. They were,\nfrom the point of view of their adversaries, lax concerning the\nobservance of the Law (see, e.g., Neh. xiii. 15 ff.), though not\nnecessarily antagonistic to it, but only to the Ezra conception of\nit; they could, for example, show that their foreign marriages were\nnot contrary to the Law, while Ezra\u2019s requirements went beyond the\nLaw. On the other hand, there was Ezra, and his followers, strongly\nadverse to any intercourse between Jews and non-Jews, and painfully\nscrupulous regarding the minute observance of the Law (see, e.g.,\nNeh. x. 28 ff.).\n\nHere, therefore, were the tendencies already in existence which, as\ntime went on, continued to develop until they became the crystallized\ntenets of definitely opposed parties, whose watchwords were\nUniversalism _versus_ Particularism, and whose attitude towards the\nLaw differed in this respect, that the Universalists interpreted it\nin a limited sense, while the Particularists insisted on a laborious\nobservance of it in all its minute details, which became greatly\nincreased by their methods of interpretation.\n\nThe process of the development of these tendencies can be seen in\nsome of the books of the Old Testament; for example, in the Book\nof Haggai (ii. 10 ff.) we have indications of the importance laid\nupon minute legal observances by the priests, with whom, as already\npointed out, the Scribes were associated; in the Book of Jonah, on\nthe other hand, universalism is throughout the dominant note.\n\n\n(_b_) _The Apocrypha data._\n\nThe classical passage in the books of the Apocrypha concerning our\npresent subject is Ecclesiasticus xxxix. 1-11, where the ideal scribe\nis described; in the passage which precedes this Ben-Sira insists\nupon the need of leisure for a scribe if he is to devote himself to\nthe acquisition of true wisdom; he shows that the labourer and the\nartisan, while indispensable to society, are necessarily too much\noccupied with their callings to give any time to higher things. Then\nhe continues:\n\n      1. Not so he that applieth himself to the fear of God,\n           And to set his mind upon the Law of the Most High;\n         Who searcheth out the wisdom of all the ancients,\n           And is occupied with the prophets of old;\n      2. Who heedeth the discourses of men of renown,\n           And entereth into the deep things of parables;\n      3. Searcheth out the hidden meaning of proverbs,\n           And is conversant with the dark sayings of parables....\n      6. If it seem good to God Most High,\n           He shall be filled with the spirit of understanding.\n         He himself poureth forth wise sayings in double measure,\n           And giveth thanks unto the Lord in prayer.\n      7. He himself directeth counsel and knowledge,\n           And setteth his mind on their secrets.\n      8. He himself declareth wise instruction,\n           And glorieth in the Law of the Lord....\n\nThe first thing that must strike us here is that according to\nBen-Sira there is no difference between a scribe and a wise man,\nthe two are synonymous (verse 1).[146] The next thing to note is\nthat Ben-Sira recognizes two sources of the scribe\u2019s knowledge,\nthe study of these is what constitutes the scribal activity; the\nfirst is described in verse 1, viz., the Law of the Most High, the\nwisdom of the ancients, and the prophets of old; that is to say,\nthe Pentateuch, the Wisdom books, and the prophetical books.[147]\nThe second is described in verses 2, 3, viz., discourses of men of\nrenown, deep things of parables, hidden meaning of proverbs, and dark\nsayings of parables; it is difficult to see to what these things can\nrefer unless it is to the discussions, proverbs and aphorisms of the\nkind which abound in Ben-Sira\u2019s book. That they cannot refer to the\noral Law is clear enough from the description itself; for the oral\nLaw cannot be said to have consisted of discourses, hidden meaning\nof proverbs, or dark sayings of parables. Ben-Sira, though a scribe,\nhas nothing to say about an oral Law, though he must have known of\nits existence; yet he has a great veneration for the Law, there are\nabundant indications of that in his book. We have, moreover, seen\nthat there are strong grounds for believing that an oral Law was in\nexistence long before the time of Ben-Sira (_circa_ B.C. 200), and\nthe evidence of somewhat later times points in the same direction. We\nare, therefore, forced to the conclusion that Ben-Sira represents a\ntype of scribe who venerated the Law as written, but repudiated the\noral Law. Further, though Ben-Sira was a good Jew, the Hellenistic\ninfluences which are to be found in his book and his generally\nbroader mental outlook make him in some respects the antithesis of\nEzra. Ben-Sira thus seems to belong to those, of whom we have made\nmention above, whose tendency was in an universalistic direction and\nwho could venerate the Law without feeling bound by the inferences\nwhich might be drawn from its interpretation.\n\nThe evidence of the Prologue to the Greek translation of\nEcclesiasticus, some sixty years later, points also to a veneration\nof the Law, but without making any reference to the oral Law,\nalthough it is probable that scribes are in the mind of the writer of\nthe Prologue when he speaks of \u201creaders\u201d and \u201clovers of learning who\nmust be able to profit them which are without [i.e. the laity, most\nlikely] both by speaking and writing.\u201d The Prologue thus corroborates\nwhat we learn from the book itself.\n\nBefore coming to 1 Maccabees, which is the next book to give evidence\non the subject of the Scribes, a word must be said about the\n_Assid\u00e6ans_, or _Chassidim_.[148] By these are meant those \u201cPious\u201d\nones, frequently mentioned in some of the later Psalms (e.g., cxlix.\n1-9, and elsewhere), who clung tenaciously to the Law, both written\nand oral, when, in the third century B.C. onwards, many of the\nJews were becoming lax owing, largely, to Hellenistic influences.\nThey were animated by a strong antipathy towards everyone who was\nHellenistically inclined; they were legalists in the strictest sense\nof the word, and particularists. Although in existence beforehand, it\nwas only during the Maccab\u00e6an struggle that they commenced to play an\nimportant _r\u00f4le_ in the political life of the nation. The importance\nof the _Chassidim_ for our present study is that they are identified\nwith one type of the scribes in 1 Maccabees vii. 12, 13, viz.: \u201cAnd\nthere was gathered together unto Alcimus[149] and Bacchides[150] a\ncompany of scribes to seek for justice; and the _Chassidim_ were the\nfirst among the children of Israel that sought peace of them [i.e.,\nof Alcimus and Bacchides].\u201d The evidence of this book appears at\nfirst sight to be conflicting, for in the passage just cited they\nappear as the peaceful party, while in ii. 43, 44 they are described\nas warlike.[151] It is probable, however, that these descriptions\nboth witness to the true facts of the case; for the natural\ninclination of these students and strict observers of the Law would\nclearly lie in the direction of peace; but as soon as they realized\nthat the cherished object of their existence was imperilled, fighting\nbecame a necessity. It must be remembered that the _Chassidim_ and\nthe Maccabees are in no sense to be identified; they were both\nchampions of the Law, and both the enemies of Hellenistic Jews; but\nthe Maccabees were patriots primarily, while the _Chassidim_ were\nlegalists, and, provided they were left in peace to follow their\nlegal studies and observances, it was of no great moment to them\nwhether their nation was independent or a subject-race.\n\nIn the Book of Judith, although the Scribes are never mentioned, many\ndetails of what were really the results of their activity are to be\nfound; but as these are spoken of in Part II in the account there\ngiven of the Book of Judith (\u00a7 iii.), we need not make any further\nreference to the subject here.\n\n\n(_c_) _Some further particulars._\n\nOne or two other points regarding the Scribes may be briefly\nmentioned. As exponents of the Law and of the Scriptures generally\nthe Scribes were as a matter of course greatly occupied with the\nHebrew text of these; they thus became, quite apart from their other\nduties, such as making copies of the Scriptures, the guardians of the\ntext of Scripture, and upon them devolved the further duty of the\nfixing and the preservation of the Biblical text. This very important\nfunction marks them out as the beginners of the textual criticism of\nthe Old Testament.\n\nA further practical duty which the study and exposition of the Law\nbrought with it was that of administering it. The Scribe was a\nlawyer; in the Gospels the two terms are synonymous, for which reason\nthey never occur together. It was as administrators of the Law that\nthe Scribes were represented in the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem; here\nthey sat as judges who assisted in the passing of sentences on those\nwho had broken the Law.[152]\n\nAfter definite parties had come into existence the Scribes belonged,\nin the main, to the Pharisaic party; but there was no reason against\nsome of them being members of the Sadduc\u00e6an party; this is, indeed,\nimplied in such passages as Mark ii. 16; Luke v. 30; Acts xxiii. 9.\n\nThat which constituted the difference between the Scribes and the\nPharisees was briefly this: the Scribes handed down the traditional,\ni.e. the oral, Law as well as the written Law, and explained it; the\nPharisees carried out in actual practice what was thus prescribed.\nThis, of course, does not mean to say that the Scribes did not also\nstrictly observe the legal enactments; but that their special duties\nconstituted them a class distinct from the Pharisees is clear from\nthe way in which they are differentiated in the New Testament, for\nthere we read of the \u201cScribes of the Pharisees\u201d (Mark ii. 16; Acts\nxxiii. 9), and of \u201cthe Pharisees and their scribes\u201d (Luke v. 30),\nshowing clearly that the Scribes were distinct from the Pharisees.\n\nThe natural sequel to any account of the Scribes is a consideration\nof the Pharisees; with these, in conjunction with the Sadducees, we\nshall deal in the next chapter.\n\n\nSUMMARY\n\nFrom the Old Testament _data_ we gather that there were Scribes\nwho were occupied with the written Law in pre-exilic times, though\nthey arose long subsequently to the priests, the prophets, and the\n_Chakamim_, or wise men; but the pre-exilic scribe was of a very\ndifferent kind from the scribe of later times. Ezra was not only\nthe first scribe in the later sense of the word, but was also the\ninaugurator of the scribal system as generally understood.\n\nAn important point to notice in the activity of the Scribes in the\nearliest post-exilic period is that as teachers of the Law they\ninterpreted it to the people.\n\nFrom the commencement of the return from the Captivity differences\narose between the returned exiles and those whom they found in\nPalestine on their return. These differences reveal the existence of\ntwo diverging tendencies among many of the people, the distinguishing\nnotes of which were particularism and rigid legalism on the one hand,\nand universalism coupled with a less strict interpretation of legal\nrequirements on the other. Ezra and those who followed him were the\nupholders of the former, the high-priestly party and their followers\nof the latter tendency. The process of development in either\ndirection can be discerned in some of the later Old Testament books.\n\nIn the Apocrypha we learn from Ecclesiasticus that a type of scribe\nhad arisen whose energies were directed towards the acquisition of\nwisdom which he was concerned to impart to others; this type of\nscribe, while venerating the Law, sympathized with the universalistic\nrather than with the particularistic attitude. Belonging to a\nslightly later time are the _Chassidim_, or \u201cPious ones,\u201d who were\nstrict legalists and of a particularistic tendency, though they\nwere not patriots in the sense that the typical Maccab\u00e6ans were.\nThe _Chassidim_ are spoken of in connexion with the Scribes. We\nare, therefore, led to the conclusion that before the middle of\nthe second century B.C. two types of scribe were in existence, the\nwisdom scribe, and the more particularly legal scribe. Concerning\nthese latter, who are to be regarded as the Scribes in the strictly\ntechnical sense and who became closely associated with the Pharisaic\nparty, the following further points may be noted: upon them\ndevolved, in addition to other duties, the guardianship of the text\nof Scripture. They were, further, the administrators of the Law,\nand were represented in the Sanhedrin, and thus sat as judges and\nassisted in the passing of sentences on those who had broken the Law.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nThe Pharisees and Sadducees\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014Wellhausen, _Die Pharis\u00e4er und Sadduz\u00e4er_\n  (1874); Cohen, _Les Pharisiens_ (1877); Baneth, _Ursprung der\n  Sadok\u00e4er und Boethus\u00e4er_ (1882); Sch\u00fcrer, II, ii. pp. 1-43\n  (1897), German ed., II, pp. 447-489 (1907); Bertholet, _Die\n  Stellung der Israeliten zu den Fremden_ (1896); Elbogen, _Die\n  Religionsanschauungen der Pharis\u00e4er_ ... (1904); M. Friedl\u00e4nder,\n  _Die religi\u00f6sen Bewegungen_ ..., pp. 22-113 (1905); O. Holtzmann,\n  _Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte_, pp. 200-214 (1906); H\u00f6lscher,\n  _Der Sadduz\u00e4ismus_ (1906); B\u00fcchler, _Der galil\u00e4ische Am-ha-Ares\n  des zweiten Jahrhunderts_ (1906); Chwolson, _Das letzte Passamahl\n  Christi_ ... [Appendix] (1908); Hart, _Ecclesiasticus_ ..., pp.\n  272-320 (1909); Chwolson, _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Entwickelungsgeschichte\n  des Judentums_, pp. 1-54 (1910); Schechter, _Fragments of a\n  Zadokite Work_ (vol. I of \u201cDocuments of Jewish Sectaries\u201d)\n  (1910); Oesterley and Box, _The Religion and Worship of the\n  Synagogue_, pp. 120-139 (1911); Herford, _Pharisaism, its aim\n  and its methods_ (1912); Leszynsky, _Die Sadduz\u00e4er_ (1912);\n  Charles, II, pp. 785-834 (1913); Lauterbach, \u201cThe Sadducees and\n  Pharisees\u201d: A Study of their respective attitudes towards the\n  Law; in _Studies in Jewish Literature_, issued in honour of Prof.\n  Kaufmann Kohler, pp. 176-198 (1913); this essay is a part of a\n  larger work on the Sadducees and Pharisees which the writer has\n  in preparation. See also B\u00fcchler\u2019s article on Schechter\u2019s book,\n  mentioned above, in _The Jewish Quarterly Review_, January, 1913,\n  pp. 429-485.]\n\n\nI. THE MEANING OF THE TERMS \u201cPHARISEES\u201d AND \u201cSADDUCEES\u201d\n\n\n(_a_) _Pharisees._\n\nIt is usually held that the name Pharisee is derived from a root\n(_p-r-sh_) meaning to \u201cseparate,\u201d and that the Pharisees took their\nname, or received it, in order to emphasize their separation from\nthe common people. This is, on the face of it, difficult to accept\nwhen one remembers that the Pharisees were the champions of the oral\nLaw, which was, in the first instance, based upon popular traditional\ncustom. The inappropriateness of this explanation becomes glaring\nwhen it is considered that everything we know about the Pharisees\nshows us that so far from separating themselves from the people this\nis exactly what they did not do; they arose from the ranks of the\npeople, and unlike the aristocratic Sadducees, were always among the\npeople, as the Gospels show. If it be said that their \u201cseparateness\u201d\nconsisted not in keeping apart from the people, but that they were\n\u201cseparate\u201d in the sense of their being so much holier, the reply\nis that in this case we should not expect their name to be derived\nfrom the root _p-r-sh_, but from what would have been the far more\nappropriate one _q-d-sh_, which means \u201cseparate\u201d in the sense in\nwhich holiness brings this about.[153] But what is further a strong\nargument against this theory is the fact that it has absolutely no\nsupport from the sources. Josephus says, for example, that \u201cwhile\nthe Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich, and have not\nthe populace as their followers, the Pharisees have the multitude\non their side.\u201d[154] That certainly does not look like separation\nfrom the ordinary people. Further, Leszynsky has collected some\ninteresting _data_ from the Mishna showing that in Pharisaic\nliterature the term to \u201cseparate oneself\u201d is used in a disparaging\nsense; in Niddah iv. 2, for example, this very term is used in\nreference to the Sadducees, who are blamed as those who \u201cseparate\nthemselves\u201d from the congregation. Again, Hillel gives the command:\n\u201cSeparate not thyself from the congregation\u201d (Aboth ii. 4). So that\neverything points to the theory which would explain the name Pharisee\nas \u201cSeparatist\u201d as wrong. A more probable explanation is that already\nhinted at by Josephus, who says in _Bell. Jud._, II, viii. 14 of the\nPharisees that \u201cthey are those who seem to explain the laws with\naccuracy.\u201d Here we may recall the passage, Nehemiah viii. 8, referred\nto in the preceding chapter, where it is said that the teachers of\nthe Law \u201cread in the book, in the Law of God, interpreting [from\nthe root _p-r-sh_] it; and they gave the sense, and caused (the\npeople) to understand the reading.\u201d Further, in Rabbinical literature\nthis root, _p-r-sh_, from which the name Pharisee is derived, is\nconstantly found used in the sense of to \u201cexplain,\u201d \u201cexpound,\u201d or\n\u201cinterpret,\u201d in reference to Scripture which is explained in the\ninterests of the oral Law. So that, while the root _p-r-sh_ means\nboth to \u201cseparate\u201d and to \u201cinterpret,\u201d all the evidence goes to show\nthat as used in connection with the name Pharisee it has the sense\nof to \u201cinterpret\u201d or \u201cexpound.\u201d The term Pharisees may thus be said\nto mean \u201cexpounders\u201d of the Scriptures in the interests of the oral\nLaw; and this is just what the Pharisees were _par excellence_.\nTheir close association with the Scribes, as often alluded to in the\nGospels, serves still further to support this view.\n\n\n(_b_) _Sadducees._\n\nWhen transliterated from its Hebrew form the term \u201cSadducees\u201d appears\nas _Zadd\u016bkim_; it has been held that this is derived from the Hebrew\nword _zaddik_, \u201crighteous.\u201d[155] But this derivation is improbable,\nfor no analogy exists for this change of an _i_ into _u_; but, even\napart from this, to explain _Zadd\u016bkim_ as meaning the \u201crighteous\nones\u201d has no support from fact; for the Sadducees were never regarded\nas particularly righteous by others, nor did they ever make such a\nclaim themselves.\n\nAn interesting explanation, offered, however, \u201cwith great\ndiffidence,\u201d is that given by Cowley. He says: \u201cIn modern Persian the\nword _Zind\u012bk_ is used in the sense of Manich\u00e6an, or, in a general\nsense, for infidel, one who does not believe in the resurrection or\nin the omnipotence of God. It has been adopted in Arabic with the\nmeaning of infidel, and also in Armenian. Mas\u016bdi (tenth century) says\nthat the name arose in the time of Manes to denote his teaching, and\nexplains that it is derived from the Zend, or explanation, of the\nAvesta. The original Avesta was the truly sacred book, and the person\nwho followed only the commentary was called a _Zind\u012bk_, as one who\nrejected the word of God to follow worldly tradition, irreligious.\nBut the term cannot have originated in the time of Manes (third\ncentury A.D.), for the Zend \u2018commentary,\u2019 whatever view be taken as\nto its date, was by then already becoming unintelligible. It must\nbe much earlier, and have acquired the general sense of infidel\nvery soon.... Makr\u012bz\u012b (fifteenth century), who borrows largely from\nMas\u016bdi, confuses the _Zan\u0101dikah_ with the Samaritans and Sadducees,\nand says that they deny the existence of angels, the resurrection,\nand the prophets after Moses, whence it has been suggested that\n_Zan\u0101dikah_ is a corruption of _Zadd\u016bkim_. The reverse, may, however,\nbe the case. It is quite possible that the Persian word was used\nabout B.C. 200 in the sense of \u2018Zoroastrian,\u2019 and if so, it might\nbe applied by opponents to a party in Jud\u00e6a who sympathized with\nforeign ideas, and rejected beliefs which were beginning to be\nregarded as distinctively Jewish. It would thus have been used at\nfirst in a contemptuous sense, and, later, when the original meaning\nwas forgotten, was, in the well-known Jewish manner, transformed\nin such a way as to bear the interpretation \u2018Sons of Zadok\u2019 (_B\u0115ni\nZad\u014dk_) with a suggestion of \u2018righteous\u2019 (_Zadd\u012bkim_).... It may be\nmentioned, though perhaps as a mere coincidence, that _Zan\u0101dikah_ is\nused for Sadducees in Arabic translations of the New Testament.\u201d[156]\nInteresting and most ingenious as this theory is, it does not seem\nto be a sufficiently natural explanation; moreover, in one important\nrespect the _Zind\u012bk_ presented a marked contrast in principle to the\nSadducee; for while the _Zind\u012bk_ was one who followed the Zend, or\nexplanation of the Avesta, the truly sacred book, i.e. \u201cwho rejected\nthe word of God to follow worldly tradition,\u201d the Sadducee was just\nthe reverse, for he clung to the word of God, and he rejected the\nauthority of the oral tradition, i.e. the Pharisaic explanations and\ntraditions.[157] And further, as we shall see later, the normal type\nof Sadducee was not necessarily worldly or irreligious.\n\nA third view, and one which may be regarded as the correct one,\nis that the term Sadducees (_Zadd\u016bkim_) takes its origin from the\npersonal name Zadok. The sons of Zadok (_B\u0115ni Zad\u014dk_) were the\ndescendants of the high-priest Zadok, whose family had exercised the\npriestly functions from the time of David (1 Chron. v. 27-41, xv. 11,\nxvi. 30, 40)[158] right up to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, when\ntheir rule came to an end[159]; but the party continued to exist.\nMost modern scholars accept this explanation, which has, indeed, now\nbeen placed beyond doubt by the evidence of the _Zadokite Fragments_\n(see further \u00a7 iii. (_e_) of this chapter).[160]\n\nSo much, then, for the origin of the terms \u201cPharisees\u201d and\n\u201cSadducees.\u201d We turn next to consider the sources whence we derive\nour knowledge of these two parties and their special tenets.\n\n\nII. THE SOURCES\n\n\n(_a_) _Josephus._\n\nThat the evidence to be derived from the writings of Josephus\nregarding the Pharisees and Sadducees is of great value is\nundeniable; but two facts must be borne in mind which show that this\nevidence has to be sifted before it can be relied upon. The first is\nthis: Josephus does not write as a Jew with Jewish interests, but as\na Greek from a Greek standpoint. A striking illustration of this is\nthat to him the Jewish parties represent Greek schools of philosophy;\nthus, he compares the Pharisees with the Stoics,[161] the Essenes\nwith the Pythagor\u00e6ans,[162] and, although he does not directly say\nso, he evidently thought the Sadduc\u00e6an point of view on some things\nclosely connected with Epicur\u00e6anism.[163] In some ways Josephus\nwas well equipped for giving information about Jewish parties, for\nhe belonged to an aristocratic priestly family, he was related on\nthe maternal side to the high-priest, was brought up as a Pharisee\nlearned in the Law, and later became intimately acquainted with the\nteaching of the Sadducees and Essenes.[164] But this advantage is\nto some extent neutralized by his Hellenistic leaning as well as by\nthe fact that war and politics interested him more than questions\nconcerning Jewish religious culture. If his works are to be used\nwith effect it is necessary to bring into the Greek scenery which he\npresents a Jewish colouring; one has constantly to be asking oneself,\nas Leszynsky humorously puts it, whether the shining armour of the\nwarrior or the cloak of the philosopher may not, after all, contain a\nRabbi.[165]\n\nThe second fact which somewhat detracts from the value of Josephus\u2019\nevidence is that in all probability that evidence is incomplete; for\nhe says on two occasions in his _Antiquities_ (VIII, v. 9, XVIII, i.\n2), when speaking of the Jewish parties, that this subject is dealt\nwith in the _Jewish War_, book the second; but on turning to this\n(II, viii. 14) we find a very scanty reference to the Pharisees and\nSadducees, more scanty than the passing notices in the _Antiquities_;\nwhile the Essenes, the least important of the three bodies, are\ntreated at considerable length. At the close of the chapter Josephus\nsays: \u201cThis is what I had to say about the philosophic sects among\nthe Jews.\u201d One is forced to the conclusion that a considerable\nsection has for some unknown reason been lost,[166] and that\ntherefore the evidence of Josephus on the subject of the Jewish\nparties is incomplete.\n\n\n(_b_) _Rabbinical Sources._\n\nThe earliest of these is the Mishna, which belongs to the second half\nof the second century A.D.; somewhat later is the _Tosephta_,[167]\ni.e. a collection of \u201cadditions\u201d to the Mishna; these additions\nconsist of matter not incorporated in the Mishna, but they are taken\nfrom the same mass of floating traditional material of which the\nMishna is made up. The three Midrashic works, _Sifra_ (a commentary\non Leviticus), _Sifre_ (a commentary on Numbers and Deuteronomy), and\n_Mechilta_ (a commentary on Exodus), are also valuable sources.[168]\nComparatively late as all these sources are\u2014the earliest belongs\nto a time after the Sadducees and Pharisees had ceased to exist as\nparties\u2014they are nevertheless of high importance because they all\nutilize traditional material belonging to earlier times, much of\nwhich most likely existed in written form; so that they contain many\ntraditions dating back to the second century B.C.\n\nThe evidence contained in these sources consists in the main of\nrecords of controversies on various topics between Pharisees and\nSadducees. It is in the highest degree improbable that these accounts\nshould be fictitious, for by the time that they were incorporated in\nthe Mishna the Pharisees had long triumphed over the Sadducees; there\nwould, therefore, have been no point in making them up; they are\nevidently genuine records.[169]\n\n\n(_c_) _The New Testament._\n\nThis source is so familiar that it will be unnecessary to do more\nthan merely mention it.\n\n\n(_d_) _The Zadokite Fragments._\n\nThese are two fragments, discovered a few years ago by Schechter in\nthe Cairo _Genizah_.[170] They belong respectively to the eleventh\nand twelfth centuries A.D., and deal with the religious beliefs and\npractices, as well as with details of the constitution, of a Jewish\nsect which existed in Damascus during the second century B.C.,[171]\nbefore the Maccab\u00e6an struggle. This sect possessed, in addition\nto the Old Testament, other sacred books; it had its special laws\ninterpreting various commandments in Scripture; and it had, moreover,\nits own calendar. The sect looked upon itself as the remnant to which\nGod had revealed \u201cthe hidden things in which all Israel erred.\u201d\nThe members of this sect had a special dislike for the Pharisees,\nagainst whom their polemics were directed. In the text of one of\nthe manuscripts the Pharisees are denounced as transgressors of the\nCovenant; and various other accusations are brought against them,\nsuch as polygamy, and a wrong way of observing the dietary laws and\nthe Levitical laws of purity. The Law, it is contended, was only\ndiscovered with the rise of Zadok. This antagonism to the Pharisees\nstamps the sect as representing some form of Sadduc\u00e6anism, and this\nis further emphasized by the fact that the Messianic doctrine taught\nagrees with that of the Sadducees against the Pharisaic teaching on\nthe subject. The fragments raise a number of other questions which\ncannot be discussed here; the point of chief importance for us lies\nin the Sadduc\u00e6an character of their contents.\n\nThese, then, are the sources from which we gain our information\nregarding the specific doctrines of the Sadducees and Pharisees,\nwhich we now proceed to consider.[172]\n\n\nIII. THE DOCTRINES OF THE PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES\n\n\n(_a_) _The Doctrine of the Law._\n\nAs the attitude of the Pharisees to the Law is so well known not many\nwords need be devoted to describing it. All the sources agree that\nthey were the champions _par excellence_ not so much of the written\nLaw, but specifically of the oral Law, and that their energies\nwere concentrated on the elaboration and minute observance of the\nlatter. It is the attitude of the Sadducees to the Law with which we\nshall, therefore, mainly concern ourselves, for some other points of\nSadduc\u00e6an doctrine are closely connected with this.\n\nWe may begin by quoting the evidence of Josephus; he says in\n_Antiquities_ XIII, x. 6: \u201cThe Pharisees have delivered to the\npeople from the tradition of the fathers all manner of ordinances\nnot contained in the laws of Moses; for which reason the sect of\nthe Sadducees reject these ordinances; for they affirm that only\nsuch laws ought to be observed as are written, while those which are\norally delivered from the tradition of the fathers are not binding.\nAnd concerning these things great questionings and differences have\narisen among them.\u201d[173]\n\nThis piece of evidence may be frankly accepted, as far as it goes,\nnot only because in itself it contains nothing intrinsically\nimprobable, but also because it is borne out by the other sources.\nIt shows us what was the fundamental cause of difference between the\nPharisees and Sadducees, viz., as to whether anything besides the\nwritten Law was binding. What is particularly noticeable here is the\nfact that the Sadducees, not the Pharisees, were the real champions\nof the Law as such[174]; the Sadducees were the guardians of the\nLaw in its purity, and desired to keep it free from accretions; the\nPharisees were bent on attaching to the Law ordinances of which the\nLaw itself knew nothing, and of making both equally authoritative\nand binding. But from this a very important thing results: as\nchampions of the Law how can it be said, as is so often said, that\nthe Sadducees, as a party, were worldly and lax as regards religious\ninterests? In one passage, it is true, Josephus speaks of the\nopponents of the Pharisees as those who offend against the holy laws\n(_Bell. Jud._, I, v. 1), but the context shows that by these were\nmeant the laws of the Pharisees, as distinct from the Law which was\nvenerated by the Sadducees quite as much as by the Pharisees.\n\nThe _Zadokite Fragments_ corroborate what has been said in so\nfar that in them the Pentateuch, cited under the term Torah, is\nconsidered the main authority.\n\nIn the Gospels we have no direct evidence concerning the Sadduc\u00e6an\nstandpoint regarding the Law; but there are many indications\nregarding that of the Pharisees and their insistence on the oral\ntraditions. These are, however, sufficiently well known not to\nrequire detailed mention here. One matter of special interest may be\nnoted in passing, namely, that, so far as questions of the Law are\nconcerned, Christ upholds the Sadduc\u00e6an standpoint.[175]\n\nThe Rabbinical sources on this subject are of the highest importance;\na detailed examination of them would require a special volume, but\nmuch valuable information has been gathered by H\u00f6lscher[176] and,\nin greater abundance, by Leszynsky.[177] Though the evidence is of\na complicated character it fully bears out that of Josephus on this\npoint. The Sadducees stood for the written Law, and this only; the\nPharisees insisted upon the binding authority of the tradition of\nthe fathers as well. That is the fundamental difference between\nthem; the developments which either party saw itself compelled to\ncountenance arose logically and irresistibly from this fundamental\nprinciple regarding the Law. But these developments were profoundly\nimportant. We will put the matter as succinctly as possible. The\nSadducees stood for the written Law; but in the nature of things it\nconstantly happened that new cases came up for decision for which\nthe written Law provided no solution or guidance. The Sadducees were\nthus forced to put forth new ordinances; and in this they followed,\n_nolens volens_, the example of the Pharisees[178]; but, true to\ntheir fundamental principle, they saw to it that these new ordinances\nwere based upon the written Law, so that they could claim that if\nchanged conditions of life, or whatever other cause, necessitated\nthe putting forth of new legal ordinances, these were at any rate\ndevelopments of the written Law.[179] With the Pharisees it was\ndifferent; they had always, in addition to the Law, championed the\ntraditions of the fathers, i.e. the popular customs handed down from\ntime immemorial; these had constantly been added to, whether based\nupon the written Law or not. From the point of view of loyalty to\nthe Law the Sadduc\u00e6an position was unassailable, while that of the\nPharisees was open to objection. The result was an intensive study\nof the letter of the Law (i.e. the Pentateuch), both by Pharisees\nand Sadducees; the former undertook this in order, by a method of\ninterpretation peculiarly Pharisaic, to prove that the oral tradition\nwas based on the written Law. They were forced to this by the more\nstrictly legal attitude of the Sadducees; these latter, too, gave\nthemselves to the minute study of the Pentateuch as never before,\nbecause, as the true guardians of the Law, they had to see whether\nin each individual case the Pharisaic contention was justified that\nsuch and such an ordinance of the oral tradition was based upon the\nwritten Law.\n\nThus endless discussions and acrimonious disputes arose between\nthe two parties, which became further embittered by doctrinal\ndisagreements. The Pharisees won the day ultimately, for they were\nable to show by subtle exegesis that the oral tradition was based\nupon the written Law. But, and this is the great point, the Sadduc\u00e6an\nprinciple was thus victorious; as a party they went under; but the\nPharisees, by adopting the Sadduc\u00e6an principle that nothing is\nbinding that cannot be shown to be in accordance with the written\nLaw, implicitly acknowledged that the Sadducees had been right all\nalong.\n\nLeszynsky, in his masterly thesis on the subject, concludes the\nsection on the evidence of Rabbinical sources with these words, which\nadmirably sum up the matter: \u201cThe Pharisees conquered. True! And\nwhen with Rabbi Akiba the Pharisaic art of interpretation reached\nits zenith, and every letter of the Torah had been fitted into the\nPharisaic system\u2014then Sadduc\u00e6anism came to an end. But they had only\nconquered by appropriating the principle of the enemy. From the\nparty of tradition arose the party of the Torah as traditionally\nconceived. Rabbinical Judaism is in truth a synthesis of Pharisaism\nand Sadduc\u00e6anism.\u201d[180] See further below, \u00a7 iv.\n\n\n(_b_) _The Doctrine of God._\n\nOn this subject Josephus (_Antiq._, XIII, v. 9) tells us that while\nthe Pharisees hold that some things in the world happen by the will\nof Providence, and that in other cases things lie in the power of\nmen, the Sadducees, on the other hand, altogether deny the existence\nof Providence as an active force in the world; if, indeed, there is\nsuch a thing at all, they say, it does not concern itself with the\naffairs of men. Everything lies in the hand of men themselves, they\nalone are the cause if prosperity be their lot, while adversity is\nsimply the result of their own foolishness. Again, in another passage\n(_Bell. Jud._, II, viii. 14) he tells us that, in contradistinction\nto the Pharisees, the Sadducees do not believe in Providence; they\ndeny that God takes any interest in human affairs; good or evil is\nthe lot of men according to their own free choice. This evidence of\nJosephus cannot be accepted so far as the Sadducees are concerned;\nwe have seen that the written Law, or Pentateuch, was the supreme\nauthority according to Sadduc\u00e6an teaching; but in the Pentateuch\nthe doctrine of God is such as to make it impossible to believe\nthat what Josephus says really reflects Sadduc\u00e6an belief here. What\nis said over and over again in the Pentateuch regarding the divine\nguidance of men and God\u2019s incessant interposition in the affairs\nof the world of His creation impels one to affirm that Josephus is\nwrong in his contention that the Sadducees denied the existence of\nProvidence. It is probable that the partisanship of the Pharisee\nJosephus has somewhat carried him away, and that he has, perhaps\nunconsciously, here misrepresented the Sadduc\u00e6an position. This is\nthe more probable in that, as we shall see presently, positive proof\nof such misrepresentation in another direction is forthcoming.\nWhen we turn to our other sources we find, in the first place, that\nin the Zadokite fragments the doctrine of God is in accordance\nwith Old Testament teaching, and therefore in opposition to what\nJosephus says. In the second place, the evidence of the New Testament\ndistinctly implies that the Sadducees did believe in the direct\naction of Providence in the affairs of men. Thus, we are told that\nwhen John the Baptist saw that many Pharisees and Sadducees were\ncoming to his baptism, he said to them: \u201cYe offspring of vipers,\nwho warned you to flee from the wrath to come?\u201d[181] If fear from\nthe wrath to come was what induced the Sadducees, as well as the\nPharisees, to come and be baptized, the fact proves that they\nbelieved in the divine interposition in the affairs of the world.\nAgain, the same is implied in the words: \u201cAnd the Pharisees and\nSadducees came, and tempting Him asked Him to show them a sign from\nheaven.\u201d[182] And, once more, in the account of the discussion in\nthe Sanhedrin as to what was to be done to St. Peter and the other\napostles, who had been put in the public ward by the Sadducees,[183]\nGamaliel concludes the discussion with a speech which ends with\nthese words: \u201cAnd now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and\nlet them alone; for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will\nbe overthrown; but if it is of God, ye will not be able to overthrow\nthem; lest haply ye be found even to be fighting against God\u201d; it\nis then said: \u201cAnd to him they agreed.\u201d If there had been any real\ndifference between the Pharisaic and Sadduc\u00e6an doctrine of God this\nagreement would not have been recorded. We have an interesting\nexample of what took place in the event of doctrinal disagreement\nin Acts xxiii. 1-10. We are, therefore, justified in concluding\nthat on this subject the two parties agreed. So that the evidence\nof the New Testament is also against Josephus. The silence of the\nRabbinical sources on this subject is of itself sufficient to prove\nJosephus wrong, for had there been any difference of belief on such a\nsupremely important subject it is quite inconceivable that the Rabbis\nwould have kept silence.\n\n\n(_c_) _The Doctrine of the Future Life._\n\nIn _Bell. Jud._, II, viii. 14, Josephus says that the Pharisees\ntaught the incorruptibility of the soul, but that the Sadducees \u201cdid\nnot believe in the immortal duration of the soul, and the rewards\nand punishments in Hades,\u201d their belief being that \u201cthe souls die\nwith the bodies.\u201d In one respect here, as Leszynsky has pointed out,\nwe are able to prove that Josephus has coloured his account; for\nPharisaic Judaism taught not merely the incorruptibility of the soul,\nbut also a doctrine of the resurrection of the body; but because this\nlatter thought was strange to the Greeks he did not make mention\nof it. In his later work Josephus corrects himself in so far as to\nsay that the Pharisees believed not only in the incorruptibility\nof the soul, but also in its continued life hereafter; his words\nare: \u201cThey (the Pharisees) also believe that souls have an immortal\nvigour in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or\npunishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in\nthis life; and that the latter are to be detained in an everlasting\nprison, but that the former shall have power to revive and live\nagain.\u201d[184] According to these words there was no difference in\nthis respect between the Pharisees and the Essenes; but even here\nJosephus cannot bring himself to declare the whole truth concerning\nthe real Pharisaic doctrine of the resurrection. \u201cIt is probable,\u201d\nsays Leszynsky, \u201cthat this error immediately resulted in the rise\nof another, for since the Essenes had their belief in immortality,\nand the Pharisees that of the incorruptibility of the soul\u2014or, as in\nthe other account, the continued life of the soul hereafter\u2014there\nremained nothing for the Sadducees but a denial pure and simple\nof the future life. He who, like Josephus, puts resurrection and\nimmortality on precisely the same plane, necessarily imputes to him\nwho denies the resurrection the view that the soul is perishable....\nBut both from the Talmud (Sanhedrin 90_b_) and from the New Testament\n(Matt. xxii. 23 ff.; Acts xxiii. 8, cp. iv. 1), we know that the\nSadducees denied only the doctrine of the resurrection, for they\nrequired proof of this from the Torah which was not forthcoming. But\nof this un-Greek dogma Josephus would have nothing to say.\u201d[185] The\npossibility that the Sadducees held the ancient Israelite conception\nof the existence of the soul in Sheol must, at any rate, be allowed;\nfor we cannot accept the evidence of Josephus here unreservedly. If\nwe had only the New Testament and the Talmud to go upon we should\ncertainly not deny that the Sadducees believed in accordance with\nthe ancient dogma of their race; yet these two sources are assuredly\nmore reliable than Josephus. There is, moreover, nothing in the\nZadokite fragments to support the evidence of Josephus.[186] We may,\ntherefore, conclude that the Sadducees believed in the immortality of\nthe soul, but not in any doctrine of the resurrection.\n\n\n(_d_) _The Sadduc\u00e6an attitude regarding Belief in the existence of\nAngels and Spirits._\n\nIn Acts xxiii. 8 it is said that \u201cthe Sadducees say that there is no\nresurrection, neither angel nor spirit\u201d; this is the only authority\nwhich we have on the latter point; it is not referred to either in\nJosephus\u2019 works or in the Talmud, nor have the _Zadokite Fragments_\nanything to say about it. Now since the Sadducees regarded the\nwritten Law as their final authority, it would certainly have been\nstrange if they had really denied the existence of angels, for one\nhas but to recall such passages as Genesis xvi. 1 ff., xxviii. 10\nff., Numbers xx. 16, xxii. 22 ff., and others, to realize that\nthe written Law distinctly teaches a doctrine of angels. One has,\ntherefore, to recognize the possibility that what is said on this\nsubject in Acts xxiii. 8 may be due to a mistaken inference derived\nfrom the Sadduc\u00e6an disbelief in the resurrection, namely, that the\n_departed_ do not become angels or spirits[187]; this does not\nnecessarily deny the existence of angelic beings who have never been\nin the flesh.[188]\n\n\n(_e_) _The Doctrine of the Messiah._\n\nOne other specifically Sadduc\u00e6an doctrine must be briefly mentioned,\nnamely that of the Messiah. As against the Pharisees, who taught that\nthe Messiah was to be of the seed of David, and who thus held the old\nprophetic belief of Isaiah and Jeremiah, the Sadducees, regarding the\nPentateuchal Law as the supreme arbiter in all matters, and finding\nnothing there which spoke of the Messianic ruler as belonging to the\nhouse of David, held that Aaron and his seed were the chosen ones\nfrom whom the Messiah would ultimately proceed; it was with Phinehas,\nthe grandson of Aaron, that God had made an eternal covenant; and,\ntherefore, as Ezekiel (xliv. 15 ff.) had prophesied, the sons of\nZadok[189] were to be the rulers of the people, and the Messiah must\nbe of priestly blood (cp. Exod. xix. 6).[190] So that, as Leszynsky\npoints out (p. 94), the very name of the Sadduc\u00e6an party, i.e. the\nZadokites (the descendants of Zadok) also had a place in the strife\nregarding the Torah _versus_ Tradition.\n\nIn the _Zadokite Fragments_ the teaching concerning the Messiah is\nimportant; there is frequent reference to a \u201cTeacher\u201d who is called\nthe \u201cOnly Teacher,\u201d or the \u201cOnly One,\u201d and is identical with \u201cthe\nLawgiver who interprets the Law.\u201d There is a period intervening\nbefore the first appearance of this Teacher, who was the Founder of\nthe Sect, and his second appearance, which is to be at \u201cthe end of\nthe days.\u201d Now this Teacher is identified with the Messiah, \u201cthe\nAnointed One from Aaron and Israel, whose advent is expected by the\nSect, through whom He made them to know His holy spirit, and in whose\nrise the Sect saw the fulfilment of the prophecy, _there shall come\na star out of Jacob_. Apparently this Anointed One was rejected by\nthe great bulk of the nation who \u2018spoke rebellion\u2019 against Him. What\nmust be especially noted is that the Messiah of the Sect is a priest,\na descendant from Aaron and Israel. Of a Messiah descending from\nJudah there is no mention in our text. Indeed, \u2018after the completing\nof the end ... one shall not join the house of Judah,\u2019 whilst the\nprinces of Judah, the removers of the bound, will be visited by the\nwrath of God. Among these princes, King David is also included,\nwho is held in slight estimation by the Sect. As a contrast to and\nsubstitute for David and his dynasty, the Sect put up Zadok, and\nhis descendants, the sons of Zadok.\u201d[191] There is nothing which so\nstamps the character of these fragments as just this doctrine of the\nMessiah.\n\n\n(_f_) _The Sadducees and the Jewish Calendar._\n\nThis is a somewhat intricate subject; but the main point is that the\nSadducees held that time must be measured on the basis of a solar\nyear; they thus opposed the Pharisaic mode of reckoning which was\non the basis of the lunar year. The Pharisees followed the ancient\nHebrew tradition; but the unsatisfactory character of this mode\nof reckoning time must have been realized in early times; and the\nPharisees, in getting over the obvious difficulties by inserting a\nthirteenth month in the spring whenever necessary, were following\nthe oral Tradition. This was sufficient for the opposition of the\nSadducees who sought to reform the Calendar by measuring time on the\nbasis of the solar year. The Sadducees and Pharisees accordingly\naccused each other of observing feasts at a wrong time,[192] or of\nwishing to.\n\nOf the ordinary sources only the Rabbinical contain echoes, and these\nbut slight, of the controversy which existed between the Sadducees\nand Pharisees on this subject[193]; but the Book of Jubilees, the\nBook of 1 Enoch and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs give\nindications of it; and in the _Zadokite Fragments_ there are also\nreferences to the subject; Schechter says in his introduction:\n\u201cAnother point of supreme importance separating them [i.e. the\nmembers of the Zadokite sect] both from Jew as well as Samaritan\nis the regulation of the calendar. The Sect looks upon itself as\nthe remnant unto which God revealed \u2018the hidden things in which all\nIsrael erred: His Holy Sabbaths and His glorious festivals, the\ntestimony of His righteousness and the ways of His truth and the\ndesires of His will which a man shall do and live by them.\u2019 It need\nhardly be pointed out that this passage is a mere paraphrase of the\npassage in the Book of Jubilees: \u2018And all the children of Israel will\nforget, and will not find the path of the years, and will forget the\nnew moons, and seasons, and Sabbaths, and they will go wrong as to\nall the order of the years\u2019 (vi. 34 ff.). The \u2018hidden things\u2019 are, in\nthe Book of Jubilees, disclosed to the Sect by a special revelation\n(vi. 3), but the calendar of this pseudepigraphic work differs in the\nmost important essentials both from that of the Pharisees and from\nthat of the Samaritans\u201d (p. xvi.). In the Book of Jubilees the solar\nyear is accepted.\n\nThat this controversy must have been of an acute character is\nobvious, and at first one may wonder that the ordinary sources do\nnot refer to it. But in the New Testament one would not expect any\nreference to it; and Josephus is mainly concerned with doctrinal\npoints when speaking about the Sadducees. As to the slight mention\nof the subject in Rabbinical Literature Leszynsky explains it by\nsaying that \u201cit would almost seem as though the Rabbis wished by\ntheir silence to kill this the most dangerous of all questions which\nmenaced Judaism; they did not wish to raise up again the spirit of\ndoubt to quell which had cost them so much trouble.\u201d[194]\n\nOn the other hand, we have definite witness to the existence of the\nquarrel in some of the pseudepigraphic books, as hinted above, and\nthe _Zadokite Fragments_, as we have just seen, offer strong evidence\nin regard to it.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThere is, of course, a great deal more that might be said on the\nwhole subject of the Pharisees and Sadducees, especially about the\nPharisees; but our main purpose has been to set forth the chief\ndifferences of doctrine between the two; and we have laid more stress\non the Sadduc\u00e6an position because this has not, as a rule, received\nthe same attention as the Pharisaic.[195]\n\n\nIV. SOME SUBSIDIARY CONSIDERATIONS\n\nIt is of importance to recognize that, with one exception, viz. the\n_Zadokite Fragments_, the main sources which give us information\nabout the Sadducees come from the hands of adversaries. Josephus was\na Pharisee, or at all events he claimed to be; the New Testament\nwriters, for obvious reasons, had little sympathy with the Sadducees;\nthe Rabbis were the spiritual descendants of the bitterest enemies\nof the Sadducees. But even so, some of the adverse impressions about\nthe Sadducees widely current do not receive much support from the\nsources. For example, it is often assumed that the Sadducees were\nlax in regard to the Law, that they were sceptics and irreligious\ngenerally; but this is not borne out by the evidence when used\nwith discrimination. Josephus nowhere says that the Sadducees\nwere irreligious or antagonistic to the Law; nor does the New\nTestament represent them to have been so. Neither do the acrimonious\ndiscussions between the Sadducees and Pharisees on legal questions\npreserved in Rabbinical writings give the impression that the former\nwere indifferent to the Law. No doubt the Pharisees looked upon the\nSadducees as irreligious, but not because of their attitude to the\nLaw; to the Pharisees anyone who repudiated the binding character\nof their conception of the Law would come under condemnation; but\nwe have no right to brand as irreligious those who in their loyalty\nto the written Law denounced Pharisaic accretions to the same as\nof subordinate authority. That there were some Sadducees who were\nworldly and irreligious is likely enough to have been the case; but\nto characterize the Sadducees as such, as the worldly, irreligious\nparty, is to fall into the same kind of error as those who say that\nthe Pharisees were all hypocrites.\n\nAgain, it is of course true that the Sadducees were always on the\nside of the suzerain power; the high-priestly party in the time\nof the Seleucid\u00e6, as well as during the Roman dominion, held to\nthe ruling power; but to say that for this reason the Sadducees\nwere wholly occupied with politics, and that they were merely a\npolitical party, is an exaggeration. Their position necessitated a\ncertain amount of intercourse with the ruling power; but this did\nnot involve the exclusion of every other occupation, nor must we\nsuppose that all Sadducees were concerned even with a _minimum_ of\npolitical business. A Sadducee was not _ipso facto_ a politician,\nbut those who were at the head of affairs, and who were, therefore,\nnecessarily politicians, happened to belong to the Sadduc\u00e6an party.\nIt was precisely the same thing with the Pharisees at one time, viz.,\nat the beginning of the reign of John Hyrcanus (B.C. 135-104), when\nthey were in close touch with the ruling power (in the person of\nthe high-priest), and were necessarily to some extent occupied with\npolitics[196]; yet nobody would say that at that time the Pharisees\nas a body were wholly given up to politics.\n\nThe Sadducees, to touch upon another point, were, like the sons of\nZadok of pre-Maccab\u00e6an times, the friends of Hellenistic culture;\nthe Sadduc\u00e6an party was the party of enlightenment. At first sight\nthis strikes one as incongruous, since the Sadducees were, as against\nthe Pharisees, conservatives in religious belief and practice. They\nrefused, for example, as we have seen, to accept the doctrine of\nthe resurrection of the body, which the Pharisees, being as they\nclaimed the party of religious progress, both welcomed and taught.\nBut the converse is true, too; it is strange that the Pharisees who\nwere the national party, bigoted and narrow in their outlook, should\nhave been ready to accept teaching which was of non-Jewish origin.\nThe same incongruousness is to be seen in the respective attitude of\nSadducees and Pharisees towards the Law. As Lauterbach truly says,\nthe former \u201cwere conservative and narrow in their views and strongly\nopposed to changes and innovations. The Pharisees, on the other hand,\nwere the younger party, broader and more liberal in their views, of\nprogressive tendencies and not averse to innovations. Accordingly,\nwe should expect that the Sadducees, whose priestly ancestors and\npredecessors had always been the official teachers of the people,\nthe custodians of the Law, and presumably also of such tradition as\nthere was, and who themselves were very conservative, the natural\nadvocates of traditional ways and views, would seek to uphold the\nauthority of tradition and the binding character of its Laws. On\nthe other hand, we should expect the Pharisees, being the younger,\nmore progressive and liberal party, which applied new methods of\ninterpretation and developed new theories, to deny the authority of\ntradition and reject its laws. But, instead, we are led to believe\nthat in their attitude towards the authority of the traditional\nlaws the two parties had changed _r\u00f4les_. For the conservative\nSadducees are said to have opposed the authority of tradition and\nthe binding character of its teachings, while the Pharisees, who in\nmany points departed from traditional ways and favoured new views,\nare represented as the advocates of tradition and of the authority\nof its laws.\u201d[197] Lauterbach\u2019s explanation of the difficulty that\nthe disputes between the Pharisees and Sadducees were not so much\nabout the contents of tradition, but merely about its authority,\nno doubt holds good in part, but only in part, for the records of\nthe disputes which have come down to us are much concerned with the\n_contents_ of tradition.[198] We doubt whether the full explanation\nof the incongruity is in its essence really other than this: the\ninnate illogic of human nature. Is any party ever logical and true to\nits tenets for long; above all, a religious party? Would any party\nbe really honest if it were? New conditions alter the outlook; new\ntruths tend to displace old landmarks; and the consequent new ways\nof thinking will impel honest men sometimes to modify their most\ncherished beliefs. The conditions brought about through the Maccab\u00e6an\nstruggle, and the gradual triumph of some specifically Hellenistic\n_traits_, above all of religious syncretism, will account almost\nwholly for what appears to be the _volte face_ of both Sadducees\nand Pharisees. While one can well understand that the Sadducees,\nas represented by their spiritual forbears in pre-Maccab\u00e6an times,\nbelonging as they did to the priestly aristocracy, and generally\nto the more cultured classes, should be friendly inclined towards\nthe mental refinement and enlightenment such as Hellenism offered,\nthere can be no doubt that before the outbreak of the Maccab\u00e6an\nstruggle, their over-anxiety in this direction involved them in\ndeplorable disloyalty both to their nation, and to their religious\nprinciples. We may grant that many belonging to this school of\nthought honestly believed that the more fully the people came under\nthe sway of Hellenistic influence the more beneficial it would be\nfor all concerned, yet there is no getting away from the fact that\ntheir behaviour as recorded in 1 Maccabees was unpatriotic, and by\nacquiescing in the abrogation of the Law, or rather in the attempt\nto abrogate it, they acted clean contrary to their fundamental\nprinciples. Indeed, it is so difficult to understand their action\nthat we are perhaps justified in believing that the support accorded\nto Antiochus Epiphanes in his attempt to stamp out Judaism came only\nfrom an extreme section of the Hellenistically inclined party. For\nwhen all is said and done, they were Jews, and, as a body, venerated\nthe Law, as such, like other Jews, and worshipped the same God as\nother Jews; so that with all their partiality for Greek culture they\nheld firmly, as the sources prove, to what was specifically Jewish in\nspite of internal quarrels, bitter as these proverbially are.\n\nFrom all that we have learned about the Sadducees and the school\nof thought which they represent, it must be clear that at one time\nthey constituted a powerful and influential element among the Jews,\nwith definite principles and doctrines which they championed. The\nquestion, therefore, suggests itself as to whether any literary\nremains emanating from their circles have come down to us. It\nis generally acknowledged that Ecclesiasticus is \u201cSadduc\u00e6an\u201d\nin character, so that the Sadducees and their pre-Maccab\u00e6an\nrepresentatives were evidently not without their scholars and\nwriters; we should, therefore, naturally look for other examples of\nSadduc\u00e6an literary activity. We have become accustomed to be told\nthat any book in which the Law is extolled is necessarily Pharisaic;\nbut in view of what we have seen to be the Sadduc\u00e6an attitude towards\nthe Law, something more than the upholding of the Law is required in\na book in order to establish its Pharisaic authorship; unless it is\nclear that the _Pharisaic conception_ of the Law is in the mind of\nthe writer, the book could just as well be Sadduc\u00e6an, so far as this\nparticular point is concerned. But the doctrine concerning the Law\nis, of course, not the only criterion whereby the character, whether\nSadduc\u00e6an or Pharisaic, of a book is to be judged; when we come to\nconsider the authorship of the uncanonical books, the Pseudepigrapha\nas well as the Apocrypha, we shall have to take into consideration\nall the doctrines to which reference has been made above; and it\nmay be that in some cases we shall find that there are reasons for\nconsidering a book to be Sadduc\u00e6an which is usually supposed to be\nPharisaic. If this is so, then our sources for the Sadducees may be\nincreased. But since this is a very disputed matter, we have thought\nit best not to include among the sources given above books which we\nshall show reasons for regarding as Sadduc\u00e6an.\n\n\nSUMMARY\n\nThe term \u201cPharisee\u201d means not \u201cSeparatist,\u201d but \u201cExpounder\u201d of the\nScriptures in the interests of the oral Law. The term \u201cSadducees\u201d is\nderived from the personal name Zadok, who was high-priest in the time\nof David.\n\nThe sources of our knowledge of the Pharisees and Sadducees are:\nJosephus, Rabbinical writings, the New Testament, and the _Zadokite\nFragments_. The doctrines regarding which the Pharisees and Sadducees\ndiffered were: the Law, which the Sadducees regarded as binding only\nin so far as the written Law was concerned, while the Pharisees\nclaimed the same for the oral Law. The Sadducees came to recognize\nthe need of making new legal ordinances, but only such as were based\nupon the written Law. The oral tradition of the Pharisees had arisen\nindependently of the written Law; but the Pharisees were ultimately\nforced to accept the Sadduc\u00e6an principle, and by subtle exegesis\nshowed that the oral tradition was actually based upon the written\nLaw. Thus, though the Sadducees ceased to exist as a party, their\nprinciple won the day.\n\nSecondly, as regards the doctrine of Providence, there is every\nreason to distrust the evidence of Josephus, who contends that the\nSadducees denied the existence of Providence; this is not borne out\nby the other sources, and is in itself highly improbable.\n\nThe real difference between the Pharisees and Sadducees on the\nsubject of the life hereafter was that while the former believed in\nthe resurrection of the body, the latter denied this, and believed\nonly in the immortality of the soul.\n\nRegarding the alleged Sadduc\u00e6an disbelief in angels and spirits,\nwhich is stated in only one of the sources, the New Testament, one\nmust recognize the possibility that what is said on this subject in\nActs xxiii. 8 may be due to a mistaken inference derived from the\nSadduc\u00e6an disbelief in the resurrection of the body, namely, that the\n_departed_ do not become angels or spirits. In view of the Sadduc\u00e6an\nbelief in the Pentateuch, where angels are often spoken of, it is\nimprobable that they denied the existence of these.\n\nA fundamental difference of belief between Pharisees and Sadducees\nwas that regarding the Messiah; while the Pharisees held that the\nMessiah was to be of the seed of David, the Sadducees maintained that\nAaron and his seed, to which the sons of Zadok belonged, were the\nchosen ones from whom the Messiah would ultimately proceed. Lastly,\ndifferences of opinion existed among the two parties regarding\nthe Calendar; these centred in the fact that while the Sadducees\nmeasured time on the basis of the solar year, the Pharisaic method\nof reckoning was on the basis of the lunar year. The result of this\nwas that each party accused the other of false teaching regarding the\ntime at which the feasts ought to be kept.\n\nAmong some subsidiary considerations concerning the Sadducees it was\npointed out that to speak of them as sceptics and irreligious, as a\nbody, is to do them an injustice; equally unjust is it to regard them\nas having been mainly occupied with politics. On the other hand, the\nexaggerated pro-Hellenic tendencies of those who came to be known\nas the Sadduc\u00e6an party after the Maccab\u00e6an struggle, involved them\nin disloyalty to their race and to their religious principles. It\nis probable that those who were guilty of this constituted only an\nextreme section of those favourable to Hellenistic influence.\n\nThe way in which the Sadducees and Pharisees to some extent changed\n_r\u00f4les_, so far as their attitude to the Law was concerned, can be\nexplained on natural lines.\n\nThe literary remains of the Sadducees are perhaps more than we have\nbeen accustomed to suppose; further reference is made to this subject\nin Chapter X.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nThe Origin of the Old Testament Canon of Scripture\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014S. Davidson, _The Canon of the Bible_ (1877); Riehm,\n  _Einleitung in das Alte Testament_ (1887-1890); Buhl, _Kanon und\n  Text des Alten Testamentes_ (1891); Wildeboer, _Die Entstehung\n  des alt-testamentlichen Kanons_ (1891); Ryle, _The Canon of the\n  Old Testament_ (1892); Robertson Smith, _The Old Testament in the\n  Jewish Church_, Lecture VI (1895); Briggs, _General Introduction\n  to the Study of Holy Scripture_ (1899); Duhm, _Die Entstehung des\n  Alten Testamentes_ (1899); H\u00f6lscher, _Apokryph und Kanonisch_,\n  pp. 1-41 (1905). The articles \u201cKanon des Alten Testamentes,\u201d by\n  Strack in the _Realencykl. f\u00fcr Protestantische Theologie und\n  Kirche_; and \u201cBible Canon,\u201d by Blau and Schmidt in the _Jewish\n  Encycl._]\n\n\nWe have, in the preceding chapters, considered the mental and\nspiritual movements in Palestine, and have sought to show in how\nlarge a measure these were affected by Hellenistic influence, and\nhow, on the other hand, resistance to this influence called into\nexistence a counter-movement which ultimately carried all before\nit. The Hellenistic Movement with its profound influence upon the\nJews of Palestine, and its still profounder and more far-reaching\ninfluence upon the Jews of the Dispersion; the Apocalyptic Movement,\nlargely indigenous, but also greatly influenced by the Hellenistic\nspirit; the Legalistic Movement, initiated by Ezra and furthered\nby Scribal activity; the opposing tendencies which resulted, viz.,\nParticularism on the one hand, and Universalism on the other,\ntendencies which remained such, and did not crystallize into\nparties until after the Maccab\u00e6an struggle, so that both Scribes\nand Apocalyptists could follow their individual bent, whether in\nthe direction of legal observance or of the pursuit of wisdom or of\neschatological study, without coming into conflict with each other;\nthe Maccab\u00e6an struggle which was the culmination of the deeply-rooted\ntendencies just referred to, and which resulted in the formation\nof two bitterly opposed parties, the Pharisees and the Sadducees,\neach with their fundamental principles essentially irreconcilable,\neach living and vigorous, each illogical, each offering the curious\nparadox of triumphing in defeat\u2014these and various other matters have\nall been dealt with in the preceding chapter, with the object of\npresenting a picture of the intellectual and religious surroundings\nfrom which, and owing to which, the large body of literature\nemanated with which we shall now have to concern ourselves. A not\ninconsiderable portion of this literature was ultimately incorporated\ninto what came to be known as the Old Testament Canon; a large\nportion which was studied and favourably looked upon even by\nrigorously orthodox religious leaders among the Jews was excluded\nfrom the Hebrew Canon, though admitted into the Greek Bible of the\nJews of the Dispersion; a further and still larger portion of this\nliterature was excluded, not only from the Hebrew Canon of the\nPalestinian Jews, but also from the Greek Bible of the Dispersion\nJews.\n\nNow to understand, first of all, how it came about that a distinct\nline of demarcation was drawn between what we now know as the\ncanonical books, and those of the Apocrypha, it will be necessary\nto consider briefly the _idea of a Canon_ in the Jewish Church, the\napproximate date at which this idea arose, and the date at which the\nCanon was finally closed. It will be important to touch also upon the\nquestion as to whom the formation of the Canon was specially due,\nas well as the reason for which some books were admitted into the\nCanon,[199] and others excluded. This will be our task in the present\nchapter. The further questions concerning the two other bodies of\nliterature referred to just now will occupy us in subsequent chapters.\n\nWe must first offer a few remarks upon the subject of the Hebrew\nCanon as we now have it in the Hebrew Bible.\n\n\nI. THE HEBREW CANON IN ITS PRESENT FORM\n\nThe Hebrew Bible contains twenty-four books[200]; the following table\nwill show the divisions and sub-divisions into which these books were\nplaced by the Jewish Church:[201]\n\n  i. The Law, or _Torah_, i.e. the five books of Moses, called by\n  the Jews the \u201cfive-fifths of the Law.\u201d\n\n  ii. The Prophets, or _Nebiim_; this has two sub-divisions:\n\n      (_a_) The \u201cFormer Prophets,\u201d or _Nebiim rish\u00f4nim_, i.e. the\n      books of Joshua, Judges, 1, 2 Samuel, 1, 2 Kings.\n\n      (_b_) The \u201cLatter Prophets,\u201d or _Nebiim achar\u00f4nim_; i.e. the\n      books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve Minor\n      Prophets, which are reckoned as one book.\n\n  iii. The Writings, or _Kethubim_; this has three sub-divisions:\n\n      (_a_) Psalms, Proverbs, Job.\n\n      (_b_) Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes,\n      Esther; these are technically known as the five \u201cScrolls,\u201d or\n      _Megill\u00f4th_.\n\n      (_c_) Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, 1, 2 Chronicles.\n\nRegarding the first of these divisions, it may be pointed out that\nthe Jews regard the Law, or Torah, as by far the most important part\nof their Scriptures, in comparison with which the other two divisions\noccupy quite a subordinate position; indeed, the \u201cProphets\u201d and the\n\u201cWritings\u201d are sometimes spoken of as mere \u201cTradition\u201d (_Kabbalah_),\nin contrast with the Law. As to the second division, it should\nbe noted that the Jews in early days regarded the two books of\nSamuel[202] as one book, and the same applies to the two books of\nKings. The terms \u201cFormer\u201d and \u201cLatter\u201d Prophets do not refer to their\nrespective dates of composition, but must be taken to indicate the\norder of the books in the canonical collection.[203] In the third\ndivision we see, in the first place, that the order of the books in\neach of the sub-divisions differs from that of the English Bible;\nsecondly, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are treated as one book,\nand this is also the case with 1, 2 Chronicles. The five \u201cScrolls\u201d\noccupy an important and somewhat special position among the Jews,\nfor they are assigned, for reading, to particular feast-days and one\nfast-day, viz. Passover (_Pesach_), Weeks (_Shebu\u00f4th_), the fast of\nthe \u201cninth of Ab,\u201d[204] Tabernacles (_Succ\u00f4th_), and Lots (_Purim_),\nrespectively.\n\nThus, the first division has five books, the second has eight, and\nthe third has eleven, making twenty-four in all.\n\nThese books, then, constitute the Hebrew Canon in its final form,\nthe authoritative Scriptures to which no book may be added, and from\nwhich no book may be taken away. We have now to inquire as to when,\nby whom, and why these books were singled out from among the mass of\nJewish literature to occupy this honoured position.\n\n\nII. THE IDEA OF A CANON\n\nIn seeking to answer the question as to when the Hebrew Canon assumed\nits present, final, form, it is well to begin by emphasizing the need\nof distinguishing between a _collection of books_, all valued more or\nless, and the _formation of a Canon_. It is not only comprehensible,\nbut altogether natural to find that, given the existence of a large\nliterature, a certain number of books belonging to it should be more\nhighly valued and honoured than others contained in that literature;\nit does not, however, therefore necessarily follow that such more\nhighly honoured books alone are acceptable and widely used, or\nthat they are regarded as so holy that not a letter of them may be\naltered, while all other books belonging to that literature are\nregarded as of inferior value and of no authority.\n\nApplying this to the sacred literature of the Jews as it existed and\ngrew, roughly speaking, during the last two pre-Christian centuries,\nwe must begin by leaving out the Pentateuch from our present\nconsideration; we are justified in doing this, because these books,\nas containing the written Law, occupied a position so unique from\nthe Jewish point of view that (from the time that they became books)\nthey never came under the category of ordinary books (see, however,\nbelow, p. 168). Setting the Pentateuch aside, therefore, we affirm\nthat during the period indicated a large sacred literature was in\nexistence, and that a certain number of books belonging to it were\nmore highly honoured and valued than others; but that the former did\nnot differ in kind but only in the degree of value attaching both\nto them and to other books. In other words, the _idea of a Canon_\nassumes the existence of a number of books from which are selected\nthose which are to become canonical. Unless this were so we should\nhave to assume that all the books _now_ regarded as canonical were\nso regarded on their first appearance. Our first task in seeking to\nsubstantiate our contention, then, is to give evidence that at one\nperiod the books which were subsequently admitted into the Canon\nwere distinguished, probably, in degree, but not in kind, from other\nbooks, which were never admitted into the Canon.\n\nIn Ecclesiasticus xliv.-l. Ben-Sira writes a panegyric on the famous\nmen of old; among these he mentions Moses, to whom the Lord \u201cgave\ncommandments face to face, even the Law of life and knowledge\u201d (xlv.\n5); Joshua, the \u201csuccessor of Moses in prophecies\u201d (xlvi. 1); the\nJudges, not individually by name, but collectively (xlvi. 11, 12);\nSamuel, \u201ca Nazarite of Jehovah in the prophetical office\u201d (xlvi.\n13)[205]; the Kings, of whom he says, \u201cExcept David and Hezekiah\nand Josiah, all committed trespass\u201d (xlix. 4); Isaiah, who \u201cby a\nspirit of might saw the last things\u201d(xlviii. 24, in the Hebrew);\nJeremiah, who \u201cwas sanctified in the womb to be a prophet\u201d (xlix.\n6); Ezekiel, \u201cwho saw a vision\u201d (xlix. 8, according to the Hebrew);\nand the Twelve Prophets (xlix. 10), these are mentioned collectively,\nso that the writings bearing their names had already been collected\ninto a single book by B.C. 200 or thereabouts. In addition to these\nthere is a possible reference to the Psalms, though this is not\nnecessarily the case; the words are: \u201cIn every work of his, David\ngave thanks to God Most High with words of glory; with his whole\nheart he loved his Maker, and sang praise every day continually. He\nset music of stringed instruments before the altar, and arranged\nthe sound of song to the harp. He glorified the feast-days ...\u201d\n(xlvii. 8-10, according to the Hebrew). While the possibility of the\nPsalms being here referred to is not denied, one might reasonably\nlook for something more definite; the reference could equally well,\nperhaps more probably, be to the rendering of the Temple music; it\nis, at any rate, worth noting that the chief part of the panegyric\non David is taken up with an account of his heroic acts, (see xlvii.\n2-7). Ben-Sira is more definite in his reference to the Proverbs\nand Canticles, though even here this is not necessarily the case,\nespecially in regard to the latter, for the reference to songs may\nbe merely taken from 1 Kings iv. 32 (\u201cAnd his songs were a thousand\nand five\u201d); when speaking of Solomon he says: \u201cWith thy songs, and\nproverbs, and parables, and thine interpretations thou didst cause\nastonishment to the peoples\u201d (xlvii. 17, according to the Hebrew).\nJob is also mentioned in the Hebrew, but not in the Greek text;\nthis omission in the latter can, however, be accounted for, as the\ntranslator either misread or misunderstood the Hebrew. But the\nreference to Job does not seem to imply knowledge of the existence\nof the Book of Job; the words are: \u201cAnd also he (i.e. Ezekiel) made\nmention of Job (the prophet),[206] who maintained all the ways of\nrighteousness\u201d (xlix. 9); here we have clearly a reference to\nEzekiel xiv. 20, where Job is mentioned as a typically righteous man.\nNehemiah is mentioned by name, and a comparison with Ecclesiasticus\nxlvii. 9 (already quoted above), with 1 Chronicles xvi. 4, 5 implies\na knowledge of the books of Chronicles. But Ben-Sira makes no mention\nof Ezra (there are perhaps special reasons for this), Daniel, or\nEsther.\n\nThe first point to be noticed in this list is that no place of honour\nis assigned to any one collection of books such as the Hebrew Canon\nwas divided into in later days; the Law, the Prophets, and some of\nthe \u201cWritings\u201d are all treated as belonging to the same category.\nBut more: Ben-Sira, in giving a _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ of the history of Israel as\ncontained in these books, and in enumerating the nation\u2019s worthies,\nclearly does not consider that they alone are authoritative, or\nthat the list of the nation\u2019s worthies, as contained in them, is\nexhausted; for he goes on with the history of his nation during his\nown time, and continues the list of worthies with the mention of\nSimon, the son of Onias, to whom he devotes far more space than to\nany of the earlier ones (see l. 1 ff.). Then, again, while Ben-Sira\nis familiar with almost all the books of the Old Testament, he does\nnot regard them as what we understand by canonical, i.e. in the sense\nof being separated off from all other books; for if that had been\nthe case, he could not have spoken words such as those which occur,\ne.g. in xxiv. 33, whereby he places himself in a direct line with the\nprophets:\n\n      I will yet pour out doctrine as prophecy,\n      And leave it unto eternal generations\n                       (see also verses 30-32, 34);\n\nnor would he have taken upon himself, as H\u00f6lscher has pointedly\nremarked, to assume the tone and style of the ancient prophets, as he\noften does (see, e.g., xlvii. 20, l. 29), if the \u201cunbridgable cleft\nof canonicity\u201d had stood between him and the prophets.[207] The list,\ntherefore, such as it is, does not imply the existence of a Canon.\n\nThe same must be said of the evidence of Ben-Sira\u2019s grandson, who\ntranslated his grandfather\u2019s work into Greek (about B.C. 132). He\nsays in his Prologue: \u201cWhereas many and great things have been\ndelivered unto us by the Law and the Prophets, and by others that\nhave followed in their steps ...\u201d; and later on, he again speaks of\n\u201cthe Law, and the Prophets, and the books of our fathers\u201d; and \u201cthe\nLaw, and the prophecies, and the rest of the books.\u201d The loose way\nin which the writer speaks of the third category of books, and the\nfact that he does not apply to them the technical name of _Kethubim_\n(\u201cWritings\u201d = _Hagiographa_) is clear evidence that what we now\nunderstand by the \u201cHebrew Canon\u201d was not yet in existence. We may go\neven further and say that the Pentateuch, the prophetical books and\nsome others occupied a position of special honour among many other\nbooks belonging to Hebrew literature,[208] but that not even the Law\nand the Prophets can have been regarded as \u201ccanonical\u201d in the later\nsense of the word, otherwise they would not have been mentioned\nalong with books which admittedly were not \u201ccanonical.\u201d[209] This\nis further borne out by the following words, which occur in the\nPrologue: \u201cMy grandfather Jesus, having given himself much to the\nreading of the Law, and the Prophets, and the other books of our\nfathers, and having gained familiarity therein, _was drawn on also\nhimself to write somewhat pertaining to instruction and wisdom_, in\norder that those who love learning, and are addicted to these things,\nmight make progress much more by living according to the Law.\u201d It is\nobvious from these words that Ben-Sira\u2019s grandson looked upon his\ngrandfather as one of those who had \u201cfollowed after\u201d the writers of\nthe Law and the Prophets, and that he regarded his grandfather\u2019s book\nas having a legitimate place among the \u201cbooks of the fathers.\u201d But,\nthis being so, it cannot be said that the Hebrew Scriptures, or any\npart of them, were regarded as canonical in the ordinary sense of\nthe word. If the Law, the Prophets and other books are treated as a\nspecial body of literature to which a new book can be said to belong,\nin the natural and matter of course way in which Ben-Sira\u2019s grandson\ndoes that, it is clear that he, at all events, did not regard this\nspecial body of literature as so sacrosanct that nothing could be\nadded to it. Therefore, according to this evidence, there was no\n\u201cCanon of Scripture,\u201d as we understand it, as late as about B.C. 132.\nIt follows, then, further that such books as Ecclesiasticus, Tobit,\nJudith, 1 Maccabees, and others, were not regarded as \u201capocryphal,\u201d\nbut came under the same category of other edifying books, some of\nwhich were, later, made canonical.\n\nBut if, as we have seen, there was at this time no such thing as a\nCanon of Scripture, in the sense of an officially recognized and\nauthoritative list of books definitely separated off from all others,\nthere is no sort of doubt that a certain number of books were looked\nupon as pre-eminent, and enjoyed greater favour than others. It is\nin this fact that we may recognize the existence of the _idea of a\nCanon_, as distinct from a finally settled and authoritative list of\ncanonical books.\n\n\nIII. THE FORMATION OF THE HEBREW CANON\n\nBut while we have thus an approximate date for the existence of\nthe _idea of a Canon_, i.e. the idea that some books are holier,\nand therefore more authoritative than others, we have yet to ask\nourselves at what date the definite close of the Canon took place,\ni.e. when the Hebrew Canon, as we now know it, assumed its final form\nundisputed.\n\nWe have evidence that at the beginning of the Christian era the\nHebrew Canon was not yet closed, for at that time the canonicity of\nEcclesiastes and the Song of Songs was disputed. The influential\nschool of Shammai held that these books were uncanonical, while\nthe school of Hillel acknowledged their canonicity. Thus, in the\nMishna (Jadaim iii. 5) it is said: \u201cAll the holy writings defile\nthe hands.[210] The Song of Songs defiles the hands, but regarding\nKoheleth (Ecclesiastes) there is a difference of opinion. Rabbi Jose\nsays, Koheleth does not defile the hands, but regarding the Song of\nSongs there is a difference of opinion. Rabbi Simeon says, As to\nKoheleth, the house of Shammai esteems it lightly, but the house of\nHillel esteems it highly.\u201d So, too, in another Mishnic tractate,\nEduyoth v. 3, it is said: \u201cKoheleth does not defile the hands\naccording to the house of Shammai, but the house of Hillel says that\nit does defile the hands.\u201d\n\nAt a still later date the canonicity of the Book of Esther was\ndisputed. Early in the second century of our era two Rabbis, as\nrecorded in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 100_a_) regarded it as of inferior\nvalue to the rest of the biblical books.[211] But the opposition to\nthis book is not to be taken seriously, since its canonicity was only\ndisputed by individual teachers. In the case of Ecclesiastes and the\nSong of Songs it is different, for the canonicity of these was denied\nby a whole school of authoritative teachers.\n\nIt will, therefore, be seen that as late as the beginning of the\nChristian era the Hebrew Canon had not been closed, since there was\nstill the possibility of new books being added to it, as indeed\nhappened later when the disputed books, just mentioned, were\ndefinitely included in the Canon. So that the close of the Canon did\nnot take place until some considerable time after the idea of a Canon\nhad arisen.\n\nFrom the evidence of the Mishna we turn to an important passage\nin Josephus. Writing at about the end of the first century A.D.,\nJosephus, in his treatise against Apion (i. 8), after saying that the\nprophets alone were inspired by God to write down the earliest events\nas well as those of their own times, continues: \u201cWe have not myriads\nof books disagreeing with, and antagonistic to, one another, but two\nand twenty only,[212] which contain the record of all time (past),\nand are rightly believed in.[213] And of these, five belong to Moses;\nthey contain the laws and the tradition from man\u2019s origin to his\ndeath for a period of nearly three thousand years. From the death of\nMoses till the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, who reigned after\nXerxes, the prophets who came after Moses wrote down the things that\nwere done during their time in thirteen books. The remaining four\ncontain hymns to God and precepts for men\u2019s conduct of life. But from\nArtaxerxes to our times all events have, it is true, been written\ndown; but these later books are not thought to be worthy of the same\ncredit, because the exact succession of prophets was wanting.\u201d\n\nAccording to Josephus, therefore, the canonicity of a book depended\nupon whether it had been written within a clearly defined period,\nand that period was from Moses to the death of Artaxerxes, i.e., the\nprophetical period. The artificiality of this test is shown by the\nfact that, in the words of Ryle, \u201cthe mention of this particular\nlimit seems to be made expressly with reference to the Book of\nEsther, in which alone the Artaxerxes of Josephus (the Ahasuerus of\nthe Hebrew book of Esther) figures.\u201d[214] But in pointing to this\ntest of canonicity, Josephus is not expressing a theory of his own,\nfor a similar view was held by the Rabbis. They, too, maintained\nthat no book was canonical unless it had been written within a fixed\nperiod, the prophetical period; for them this period was from Moses\nto Ezra.[215] Josephus thus witnesses to the principle, authoritative\nand fully accepted by the end of the first century A.D., on the basis\nof which the Hebrew Canon was formed. But the theory on which this\nprinciple was based was contrary to fact, for on this view \u201cthere\nnever was or could be any discussion as to the number and limits of\nthe canonical collection, which had from first to last an official\ncharacter. Each new book was written by a man of acknowledged\nauthority, and was added to the collection precisely as a new page\nwould be added to the royal annals of an eastern kingdom. It is\nplain that this view is not in accordance with facts.... Josephus\u2019\naccount of the Canon is a theory, and a theory inconsistent with\nthe fact that we find no complete formal catalogue of Scriptures\nin earlier writers like the son of Sirach, who, in enumerating the\nliterary worthies of his nation, had every motive to give a complete\nlist, if he had been in a position to do so; inconsistent also with\nthe fact that questions as to the canonicity of certain books were\nstill undecided within the lifetime of Josephus himself.\u201d[216] But\nwrong and contrary to fact as this theory was, upon it nevertheless\nwas founded the Hebrew Canon as we have it at the present day. For\nvarious reasons,[217] the Rabbis had determined to exclude certain\nbooks from the Canon of the Old Testament,[218] and their will held\nthe day not only in their own times, but also reasserted itself, all\nunconscious of this though their descendants may be, in later times\nin certain parts of the Christian world.\n\nThe formation of the Hebrew Canon was thus virtually a _fait\naccompli_ by about A.D. 100, the official _imprimatur_ being in all\nprobability given at what is called the Council of Jabneh (Jamnia).\nThat this was a council in the ordinary sense of the word may well be\ndoubted; but there is sufficient evidence to show that Jabneh was a\nseat of Jewish scholarship even before the destruction of the Temple.\nAfter this event the Sanhedrin removed to Jabneh and was presided\nover by Jochanan ben Zakkai, the greatest of the Jewish scribes\nduring the period immediately succeeding the fall of Jerusalem; he\nwas followed by Gamaliel II. It must be fairly obvious that any\ndiscussions as to the canonicity of books among the Jewish religious\nleaders must have taken place in Jabneh where the Sanhedrin was, and\nwhere the greatest Jewish scholars would be assembled. That such\ndiscussions did take place is amply witnessed to by passages in the\nMishna. So that although it cannot be actually proved that the final\nand authoritative formation of the Hebrew Canon took place at \u201cthe\ncouncil of Jabneh,\u201d it is reasonably certain from the evidence we\nhave that the discussions on the canonicity of certain books held\nby the Sanhedrin assembled at Jabneh resulted in what came to be\nregarded as the formal and official fixing of the Canon.[219] How\nfar, in the gradual settlement of the question, the Rabbis acted on\ntheir own initiative, and in how far they were merely registering and\ncrystallizing the popular verdict articulated by usage is difficult\nto say. To maintain that the latter alone was decisive makes it hard\nto understand why such books as Ecclesiasticus, Judith and Tobit, to\nmention a few of the \u201capocryphal\u201d books only, were excluded; on the\nother hand, we cannot believe that popular usage counted for nothing.\nMost probably the whole question was one of compromise in which by\ndegrees Rabbinical logic, based upon their theory alluded to above,\nforced popular usage to give way to the official position which\nbecame finally and irrevocably fixed by the Sanhedrin at Jabneh.\n\nIt is true that long after the council of Jabneh, the canonicity of\nEzekiel, Jonah, Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes and Esther, was\nat different times called in question[220]; but this only reflects\nthe opinions of individuals, and cannot be said to have in any way\nmodified the practical consensus of Jewish teachers that the final\nword had been spoken at Jabneh.\n\n\nIV. TO WHOM WAS THE FINAL FIXING OF THE HEBREW CANON DUE?\n\nThe question as to whom, pre-eminently, the final fixing of the\nHebrew Canon was due is not without interest; and although we have no\ndefinite proof regarding the matter, all the probabilities point in\nthe same direction.\n\nIt would seem that at the time of Josephus the Pharisees specially\noccupied themselves with the subject. It was Josephus, as we have\nseen, who is the earliest witness that we have as to the existence\nof a finally fixed Canon; now Josephus, as has been pointed out in\nan earlier chapter, tells us in his autobiography that after having\nmade trial of the three sects of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and\nEssenes in turn, so that by becoming acquainted with each he might\nchoose the best, he finally lived \u201caccording to the rule of life of\nthe sect of the Pharisees.\u201d[221] This was in his nineteenth year; so\nthat from early manhood onwards he was a Pharisee. The fact does not\nnecessarily prove anything; but the presumption is that he must have\ngot his ideas about the Canon from the circle of the Pharisees. We\nhave already seen that Josephus\u2019 theory regarding what constituted\nthe claim for admission into the Canon was identical with that of the\nRabbis; but by his time the leading Rabbis were Pharisees.\n\nIn the next place, we are told in the Mishna (Jadaim iv. 6) that\nthe Sadducees made fun of the Pharisees for teaching that the Holy\nScriptures \u201cdefiled the hands,\u201d while the books of Homer did not\n\u201cdefile the hands\u201d; that is to say, the Sadducees repudiated the\nPharisaic conception of what constituted the Canon. This phrase,\n\u201cto defile the hands,\u201d[222] was the Pharisaic way of expressing\ncanonicity; it implied that the holiness of the sacred object\nproduced by contact with it a state of Levitical impurity (cp. Lev.\nvi. 24-28, Hag. ii. 11-13; and see further the interesting remarks\nby Robertson Smith in _The Religion of the Semites_ [2nd ed.], pp.\n161, 466 ff.)[223] \u201cThe fact that defilement only of _the hands_ is\nattributed to the sacred writings demands more attention than it has\nhitherto received. Interpreted in positive terms this can mean only\nthat _contact with them involves a ceremonial washing of the hands_,\nespecially as the ruling in the matter occurs in that Mishna treatise\n(Jadaim) which relates to, and is named from, such hand-washings. The\nexpression would be an unnatural one if it implied a command that the\nhands should be washed _before_ touching. The Pharisees attributed to\nthe sacred writings a sanctity of such a sort that whosoever touched\nthem was not allowed to touch aught else until he had undergone the\nsame ritual ablution as if he had touched something unclean.\u201d[224]\n\nThe record of this difference of opinion between the Pharisees and\nSadducees on this subject throws an interesting light upon the\nPharisaic position regarding the Canon, and suggests that the final\nfixing of this lay with this party.\n\nIt is also worth recording that prior to Josephus the attribution\nof the term \u201choly\u201d to the Scriptures occurs only once, viz., in\n2 Maccabees viii. 23,[225] a book which emanated from Pharisaic\ncircles[226]; and in the New Testament this occurs only in the\nwritings of St. Paul,[227] who was brought up as a Pharisee. It is,\ntherefore, probable that the final fixing of the Canon was due to the\nPharisees.\n\n\nSUMMARY\n\nTo understand how it came about that a distinct line of demarcation\nwas drawn between canonical and apocryphal books, a preliminary\nconsideration is necessary, viz. how the _idea of a Canon_ arose. We\nare faced with the fact that before the beginning of the Christian\nera there was a large body of literature in existence some books of\nwhich were held in higher honour than the rest, though they did not\ndiffer in kind, but only in their degree of sacredness, from these\nbooks. It was from this fact that the idea of a Canon arose; that\nis to say, the idea of a Canon assumes the existence of a number of\nbooks from which are selected those which finally become canonical.\nBetween this and the fixing of a Canon there is clearly a great\ndifference. To show that a distinction has to be made between the\nidea of a Canon and the fixing of the Canon, one has to prove that at\none period the books which were subsequently admitted into the Canon\nwere, as we have said, distinguished in degree but not in kind from\nthe mass of sacred literature.\n\nThe evidence of Ben-Sira, and of his grandson, is to the effect\nthat no fixed Canon of Scripture, as we understand it, existed at\nabout B.C. 100, and yet we know that at that time a large mass of\nliterature was in existence of which certain books were held in high\nhonour. The assumption is, therefore, justified that such books as\nEcclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees and others came under the\nsame category as many other books, some of which were later included\nin the Canon, and the possibility existed of such books as those just\nmentioned being also included in the Canon.\n\nThe definite formation of the Hebrew Canon is another question;\nconcerning this, we have the evidence of the Mishna that it was not\ncompleted at the beginning of the Christian era. On the other hand,\nthe evidence of Josephus shows that the final fixing of the Canon had\ntaken place before the end of the first century A.D.\n\nThe theory of Josephus, which was also that of the Rabbis, as to what\nconstituted the claim to canonicity, was that a book must have been\nwritten within the \u201cprophetical period,\u201d i.e. from Moses to Ezra.\nThis theory was not in accordance with facts, but it held the field\nnevertheless, and the Hebrew Canon was formed in accordance with it.\nThe final official _imprimatur_ was in all likelihood given by the\nJewish religious leaders at Jabneh.\n\nThe final fixing of the Hebrew Canon was in all probability the work\nof the Pharisaic party.\n\n\nADDITIONAL NOTE\n\n_The Conceptions underlying the Idea of Levitical Impurity._\n\nAlthough not strictly belonging to the present inquiry, it may not be\nout of place to say a few words as to why contact with a holy object\nsuch as a roll of the Scriptures should be conceived of as bringing\nabout a state of Levitical impurity. Some of the explanations which\nhave been offered might be convincing if this particular form of the\nway in which Levitical impurity was brought about stood alone. But\nthe fact is that other things involved a similar state of impurity,\nand one cannot restrict oneself to the explanation of one of these\nwhile leaving the rest out of consideration, because, as will be seen\nin studying the subject, identical conceptions lie ultimately at the\nbase of all. How, for example, is one to account for the fact that\nboth the touching of a holy thing like a scroll of the Law, as well\nas the touching of an unclean thing like a leper or a dead body (to\nmention no others),[228] was held to bring about a similar state of\nLevitical impurity and to require an ablution? That reverence for the\ndead could have had nothing to do with this is proved by the fact\nthat a state of impurity was brought about not only by contact with a\ndead person, but equally so by contact with a dead animal.\n\nWhen one studies the laws of uncleanness in the Book of Leviticus\nand compares them with many customs prevalent among uncultured\nraces,[229] one soon realizes the truth of Robertson Smith\u2019s words\nthat \u201cthe irrationality of laws of uncleanness, from the standpoint\nof spiritual religion, or even of the higher heathenism, is so\nmanifest, that they must necessarily be looked on as having survived\nfrom an earlier form of faith and of society. And this being so,\nI do not see how any historical student can refuse to class them\nwith savage taboos.\u201d[230] Such survivals are to be seen in the\nlaws of uncleanness in the Book of Leviticus, not that there was\nany idea of this when the writer of that book embodied in it those\npopular traditional rules and customs which had been in vogue for\nmillenniums, any more than there was when the Pharisees decided that\ncertain books should henceforth be regarded as so holy that the mere\ntouch of them brought about Levitical impurity; they merely adopted\nthe outward expression of an antique conception, the essential\nsignificance of which had been forgotten for untold ages.\n\nIn primitive religions it was regarded as most dangerous to touch\ncertain things and persons because they were conceived of as\nbelonging to, or as being under the protection of, or indwelt by,\nspirits; it would be dangerous to touch these because the spirit\u2019s\nanger would be aroused thereby, and evil consequences would ensue;\nthey were, therefore, \u201ctaboo.\u201d But in the dire event of any of\nthese things or persons being touched by a man, the supernatural\nessence attaching to them was communicated; they were \u201ccontagious,\u201d\nand therefore the unhappy victim who came into contact with them\nbecame \u201cinfected.\u201d The result was one of two things: either the\nman died,[231] or for some (to the savage) incomprehensible reason\nno evil consequences ensued. In the latter case, since by contact\nthe supernatural and dangerous essence adhered to the man, it was\nnecessary that some means should be found whereby this \u201cinfection\u201d\nshould be obliterated, otherwise the \u201cinfected\u201d person would be a\ndanger to the community and would himself continue in the unfortunate\nposition of being debarred from intercourse with his fellows. Various\nmeans were devised whereby this infection, conceived of as something\ntangible, could be got rid of. Among these there was the obvious one\nof washing it away with water.\n\nBut the tabooed things and persons referred to were of very diverse\ncharacter; some, such as a carcase, we should certainly consider\npolluted or unclean; others, such as the priestly vestments, we\nshould call holy; but each was regarded as \u201cinfectious,\u201d in the sense\nused above, even in the Old Testament.[232] This is but an echo of\nideas which obtained among the forbears of the Israelites in distant\nbygone ages; it may be illustrated by the condition of thought, in\nthis respect, among men of low culture at the present day. Frazer, in\ndealing with the subject of \u201choly\u201d persons[233] (and the principle of\nwhat he says applies likewise to \u201choly\u201d things), says, that so far as\nthe savage is concerned, \u201cthe conceptions of holiness and pollution\nare not yet differentiated in his mind. To him the common feature\nof all these persons is that they are dangerous and in danger, and\nthe danger in which they stand and to which they expose others\nis what we should call spiritual or ghostly.... To seclude these\npersons from the rest of the world so that the dreaded spiritual\ndanger shall neither reach them, nor spread from them, is the object\nof the taboos which they have to observe. These taboos act, so to\nsay, as electrical insulators to preserve the spiritual force with\nwhich these persons are charged from suffering or inflicting harm\nby contact with the outer world.\u201d[234] To man in a low state of\nculture, then, the distinction between the conceptions of what we\nspeak of as holiness and uncleanness does not exist; but as soon as\na higher form of religion comes into being that distinction begins\nto be discerned, especially as with any form of religion higher than\nthat which obtains in the animistic stage the conception of a god\nbegins to assert itself. Thus, to utilize (quite hypothetically)\nthe instances given above, in the lower stage a carcase would be\nregarded as \u201choly,\u201d i.e. something to be avoided, because it was\nthought of as possessed by malignant spirits; a medicine man\u2019s\nbelongings would be regarded as \u201choly,\u201d i.e. something to be avoided,\njust because they were the medicine man\u2019s; both are uncanny things,\ninspiring mysterious fear; both impart \u201cinfection\u201d and are therefore\ndangerous. This it is which, to the mind of the savage, puts both in\nthe same category. With the rise of a higher religion the carcase\nwould come to be regarded as \u201cunclean,\u201d while a priest\u2019s vestments\n(corresponding for the purposes of our present argument to the\nmedicine man\u2019s utensils) would come to be regarded as \u201choly\u201d in a\nhigher sense. But, and this is the important point, both would still\nbe avoided; the former because the touch of it involved pollution,\nand thus unfitted a man for the worship of his god; the latter for\nreasons of reverence due to his god. But in both cases the result of\nthe old idea of \u201cinfection\u201d still clung, so that contact with either\nnecessitated a cleansing process of some kind. The persistence of\nthe ritual, though the purpose of it has been forgotten, is a fairly\ncommon phenomenon even among the most highly cultured peoples; only,\nsince among these a \u201creason why\u201d is insisted upon sooner or later,\nplausible explanations, though far removed from the origin of things,\nare usually forthcoming.[235]\n\nThat is how the special case before us is to be explained. The idea\nof a Canon presupposes a wide literature from which the \u201ccanonical\u201d\nbooks are to be marked off; a working theory having been formulated,\nthe Canon is constructed in accordance with it; the Canon having\nbeen constructed, some means of enforcing its recognition must be\ndevised. To the Rabbis of two thousand years ago, the quite obvious\nmeans would be the adaptation of a principle which had been in\nvogue in the whole domain of things religious from time immemorial.\n\u201cSacredness\u201d was imputed to the chosen books; and contact with\nanything sacred necessitated ablutions. The ancient technical term\nwas still employed, so that any book declared to be \u201csacred\u201d (and,\nof course, the \u201csanctity\u201d would be communicated to the material upon\nwhich it was written) was said to \u201cdefile,\u201d in this case the hands;\nand therefore anyone who touched such a book was \u201cdefiled\u201d thereby.\nTheoretically he had to perform an ablution after having done so, but\nonly theoretically, for as a matter of fact no washing of hands (more\nstrictly, pouring of water upon the hands) has ever been required for\nremoving the \u201cdefilement\u201d communicated through touching the scroll of\na canonical book, nor is it required at the present day.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nUncanonical Books (I)\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014Kautzsch, _Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des\n  alten Testamentes_, vol. I, pp. xi.-xxiii. (1900); Moore, in the\n  _Jewish Encyclop\u00e6dia_, II, 1-6 (1902); H\u00f6lscher, _Op. cit._, pp.\n  42-65. See also the literature referred to in the footnotes.]\n\n\nI. THE MEANING OF THE TERM _G\u0101naz_.\n\nFor reasons which will appear sufficiently obvious as we proceed, it\nis necessary, in speaking about uncanonical books, to say something\nabout the meaning of the Hebrew word _g\u0101naz_, \u201cto hide,\u201d and the\nGreek word _apokryphos_, \u201chidden,\u201d and the relationship of these\nterms to one another. The word _Apocrypha_ means \u201chidden things\u201d; but\nin what sense and for what purpose is, or was, this term applied to\nthose books which we call the books of the Apocrypha? That is one of\nthe main points to be dealt with in the following discussion.\n\nFirst as to the Hebrew word _g\u0101naz_; this means originally \u201cto\nstore up,\u201d but it also has the meaning \u201cto store up in secret,\u201d and\nthus \u201cto hide.\u201d[236] In the technical sense in which it is used in\nthe present connection, i.e. in reference to books, it means \u201cto\nwithdraw from use.\u201d But, it may be pointed out in passing, the word\nwas not used in this sense prior to the fixing of the Hebrew Canon;\nit referred to the withholding of secret wisdom from all excepting\nthe initiated. The question as to how the word is used in the Talmud\nis of the first importance, but a difficult one; it is said, on the\none hand, that as applied to books, \u201cit is used only of books which\nare, after all, included in the Jewish Canon, never of the kind of\nliterature to which the Church Fathers give the name \u2018Apocrypha\u2019...\nthe only exception is a reference to Sirach.\u201d[237] The latter part\nof this statement is undoubtedly true; but H\u00f6lscher has shown\nconclusively that to say that _g\u0101naz_ is only used in reference to\nbooks which are included in the Jewish Canon is not in accordance\nwith the facts. \u201cThis view,\u201d he says, \u201cdirectly contradicts the\nsources, which in a number of cases use _g\u0101naz_ in reference to\nuncanonical books.\u201d He shows further that when the Rabbis use _g\u0101naz_\nin reference to the canonical books it is a question of something\nof which they themselves disapprove; for example, they speak of\ncanonical books which in time past certain people had desired to\n\u201chide,\u201d i.e. to declare uncanonical; but they mention this in order\nto record their disapproval; not the Rabbis but certain unnamed\nindividuals apply the term _g\u0101naz_ to canonical books. The Talmudic\nview is that canonical books may _not_ be \u201chidden,\u201d for this is\nonly done in the case of books which are really offensive.[238] In\nthe only other instances in which the word is used in reference\nto canonical books, it is not to the books as such, but only to\nparticular copies of them, and this for certain specific reasons;\nfor example, if a roll had become moth-eaten or damaged in other\nways, or if part of the text had been rubbed out through use; in such\ncases the copy in question was \u201chidden,\u201d i.e. withdrawn from public\nuse, because there was something objectionable about it. So that in\nthe Talmud _g\u0101naz_ implies, as H\u00f6lscher says, \u201cdrastic action,\u201d the\ntotal withdrawal from public use, and therefore it cannot have been\nused in reference to the canonical books, for in that case it would\nhave implied their excision from the Canon, a \u201cnaturally impossible\nthought for the Rabbis.\u201d The books which the Rabbis \u201chide\u201d (_g\u0101naz_)\nand forbid are always such the contents of which were regarded as\nthoroughly objectionable, viz., heretical.[239] It follows also that\n_g\u0101naz_ would never have been applied to the books of our Apocrypha,\nor at all events to the more important of them, for not only were\nthey regarded as containing edifying and orthodox teaching, but it\nis well known that the reading of them was permitted.[240] So that\nwhen the word _g\u0101naz_ is used in the Talmud in reference to books it\nmeans that the books in question are such as must be withdrawn from\nuse because they contain heretical teaching[241]; for this reason\nthe word would be inapplicable if applied to the books of the Hebrew\nCanon or to the books of our Apocrypha.[242]\n\n\nII. THE MEANING OF THE TERM _Apokryphos_\n\nWe turn next to the Greek word _apokryphos_ (\u201chidden\u201d), from which\nour word Apocrypha comes. The term, in its technical sense, is\nneither specifically Jewish nor Christian originally, but \u201cis derived\nfrom the practice common among sects, religious or philosophic, of\nembodying their special tenets or _formul\u00e6_ in books withheld from\npublic use, and communicated to an inner circle of believers.\u201d[243]\nExamples of such books can be given; a magical _papyrus_ preserved\nin Leyden has the title \u201cThe holy and secret (_apokryphos_) Book\nof Moses, called the eighth or the holy.\u201d[244] According to Suidas,\nTherecydes of Syros learned his wisdom from \u201cthe secret books of the\nPh\u0153nicians.\u201d[245] Clement of Alexandria (Strom., i. 15, 69) speaks\nof an Agnostic sect, the followers of Prodicus, who gloried in the\npossession of secret books of Zoroaster.[246] Irenaeus (I, xx. 1)\nmentions an early Christian sect called the Markosians who had their\nsecret books, and Hippolytus (Refut., vii. 20) says the same of the\nBasilidians.[247] Moreover, we have references to the same kind of\nthing in books which have come down to us; it is said in Daniel xii.\n4, \u201cBut thou, O Daniel, shut up (lit. \u2018hide\u2019) the words, and seal\nthe book, ...\u201d and in xii. 9, \u201cGo thy way, Daniel, for the words are\nshut (lit. \u2018hidden\u2019) and sealed till the time of the end.\u201d In the\nEthiopic Book of Enoch (cviii. 1)[248] reference is made to a book\nwhich was written for the elect: \u201cAnother book which Enoch wrote for\nhis son Methuselah and for those who will come after him and will\nkeep the Law in the last days\u201d; the same seems to be implied in the\nSlavonic Book of Enoch (lxviii. 2),[249] where it is said: \u201cHe wrote\ndown the descriptions of all the creation which the Lord had made,\nand he wrote three hundred and sixty-six books, and gave them to\nhis sons.\u201d Still more pointed is the passage in 2 (4) Esdras xii.\n36-38[250]: \u201cThou alone hast been found worthy to learn this mystery\nof the Most High; therefore write all these things which thou hast\nseen in a book, and put them in a secret place; and thou shalt teach\nthem to the wise of the people, whose hearts thou knowest are able to\ncomprehend and keep these mysteries.\u201d But perhaps the most striking\npassage of all is 2 (4) Esdras xiv. 44-47: \u201cSo in forty days were\nwritten ninety-four books. And it came to pass when the forty days\nwere fulfilled, that the Most High spake unto me, saying: The\ntwenty-four books which thou hast written publish, that the worthy\nand unworthy may read therein; but the seventy last thou shalt keep,\nto deliver them to the wise among thy people; for in them is the\nspring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the stream of\nknowledge.\u201d The \u201ctwenty-four books\u201d are the canonical ones which were\nread in the synagogue and therefore known to all, but the \u201cseventy\nlast\u201d are the secret ones which are reserved only for the initiated.\n\nFrom these passages it will, therefore, be seen that originally the\nterm \u201capocryphal,\u201d as applied to books, was used in a good sense;\nsuch books were held to contain deep and mysterious truths which\nmight only be communicated to the initiated, and were therefore\nhidden from the outside world; this applies both to Gentile and to\nJewish usage. It will also have been noticed, from the passages\nquoted, that there is a twofold idea contained in the term\n\u201capocryphal\u201d; it means, on the one hand, hidden teaching which the\nbook contains, and on the other, that the book itself is hidden.[251]\nNeither in the passages quoted, nor anywhere else, is the word\n\u201capocryphal\u201d ever applied to the books of our Apocrypha; this is true\nright up to the fourth century A.D.\n\nBefore pursuing further the history of the word \u201capocryphal,\u201d and\nhow it came to be applied to sacred books of the second rank, we\nmust briefly consider the not unimportant question of the connection\nbetween the Hebrew _g\u0101naz_ and the Greek _apokryphos_. It is better\nto do so at this point before we deal with _apokryphos_ in the later\nsense in which it was used.\n\n\nIII. THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TERMS _G\u0101naz_ AND _Apokryphos_\n\nWe have seen that _g\u0101naz_ is only used, properly speaking, of\nobjectionable books, i.e. those which were regarded as heretical,\nand therefore \u201chidden,\u201d or \u201cwithdrawn.\u201d We have also seen that\n_apokryphos_ is used in a good sense of books which contain \u201chidden\u201d\nteaching, and must therefore be \u201chidden\u201d from the unworthy. This\nwould seem to imply that there could have been no connection between\nthe two terms since they refer respectively to books the character of\nwhich is diametrically opposed, _g\u0101naz_ being applied to bad books,\n_apokryphos_ to good ones. But here another factor comes in. From\nthe root _g\u0101naz_ comes the word _Genizah_; this name was applied to\na small chamber, adjoining the ancient synagogues, in which were\nkept hidden away those rolls of the Scriptures which after continued\nuse at the synagogue services began to show signs of wear and tear.\nIt was a laudable custom among the Jews that whatsoever was used\nin the service of God should be of the best; so that when a roll\nof the Scriptures had been in use for a certain number of years\nand had become tarnished or torn, they did not consider it fit to\nbe used in divine service. On the other hand, the roll contained\nHoly Scripture, and had also been sanctified by service; it was,\ntherefore, unfitting that it should be thrown away. For this reason\nit was placed in the _Genizah_, and thus hidden away from profane\nhands.[252] Here, then, we have another reason for which books were\n\u201chidden,\u201d though it applies in the main to canonical books (see\nbelow); at the same time it must be remembered that the technical\nterm _g\u0101naz_ is not used in reference to books in this connection.\nBut then we have this further important fact; it was not only damaged\ncopies of the Scriptures which were placed in the _Genizah_; as Prof.\nSchechter says: \u201cAnother class of works consigned to the _Genizah_\nwere what we may call disgraced books, books which once pretended\nto the rank of Scriptures, but were found by the authorities to be\nwanting in the qualification of being dictated by the Holy Spirit.\nThey were \u2018hidden.\u2019\u201d[253] The _Genizah_, therefore, as it has been\nwell put, served \u201cthe twofold purpose of preserving good things from\nharm, and bad things from harming.\u201d[254] This, therefore, suggests a\ndistinct connection between the ideas conveyed by the terms _g\u0101naz_\nand _apokryphos_. Such connection is, moreover, confirmed by the\nwitness of Origen, (d. 254 A.D.), who, together with Africanus,\nhis contemporary, was the first to apply the term \u201capocryphal\u201d to\nbooks used by the Church; Origen expressly says that he borrowed\nhis terminology from the Jews[255]; and, as H\u00f6lscher has shown, his\nuse of _apokryphos_ entirely corresponds with the Rabbinical use of\n_g\u0101naz_; both use these terms in reference, not to the canonical\nbooks, nor to the books of our Apocrypha, but to the books known\nas \u201cPseudepigrapha.\u201d[256] These latter books were condemned by the\nRabbis after the Canon had been fixed (though this had not always\nbeen the case) because they were looked upon as harmful; but in\nthe early Church they were freely used. But though _g\u0101naz_ and\n_apokryphos_ are thus shown to express similar ideas, as technical\nterms they are obviously not to be thought of as meaning the same\nthing. Originally they did in all probability connote similar ideas,\nviz., the hiding of secret wisdom from all but those who were fit\nto receive it; but that was before the Canon was fixed and when the\nline of demarcation between different categories of books was not so\nrigid. Both terms originated independently; _apokryphos_ continued,\nanyhow up to the time of Origen, to be applied in reference to books\nwhich contained hidden wisdom; _g\u0101naz_, on the other hand, while\nbeing originally used in the same way as _apokryphos_, came to be\nused in quite a different way; it always meant \u201cto hide,\u201d but while\noriginally it referred to the hiding of what was good,[257] it was\nfinally used in reference to what was bad. The term did not change,\nbut its meaning did.\n\n\nIV. HOW THE TERM \u201cAPOCRYPHA\u201d CAME TO BE APPLIED TO SACRED BOOKS OF\nTHE SECOND RANK\n\nBut we must return to the question as to why the term Apocrypha was\napplied to the books which we include under that title. As we have\nseen, \u201capocryphal\u201d was first applied to books which contained hidden\nwisdom; then it was used by Origen in reference to pseudepigraphic\nbooks. In the fourth century the attempt was first made (in the\nGreek Church) to distinguish between canonical books and those\nwhich were read for edification; the latter referred to the books\nof our Apocrypha, but the term apocryphal was still applied\nonly to pseudepigraphic books. The example of the Greek Church\nwas followed by the Latin Church headed by St. Jerome (d. A.D.\n420) who made a distinction between the \u201clibri canonici\u201d and the\n\u201clibri ecclesiastici,\u201d meaning by the latter term the books of the\nApocrypha. It was not arbitrariness which prompted St. Jerome to\ndo this; the Latin Church was in the fourth century inundated with\na flood of religious writings hitherto unknown outside the Greek\nChurch; these now appeared in Latin translations. Their appearance\nin the West created a great sensation, the more so as they bore in\ntheir titles names which were greatly honoured.[258] They were not\nall good for the faithful to read, yet only too frequently there\nwas no sufficiently learned churchman at hand to give guidance. In\nSt. Jerome\u2019s time, therefore, there was a mass of literature in\ncirculation which was used without discrimination; so that it needed\nsomeone of learning and authority to guide and direct. To this fact\nwas no doubt largely due St. Jerome\u2019s activity in this matter, and\nhe commenced by making a clear distinction between the canonical\nbooks and those of the second rank to which he now gave the name of\napocryphal.[259] But stress must be laid upon the fact that he used\nthe word \u201capocryphal\u201d in a new sense. Hitherto, as we have seen, this\nword was applied to the Pseudepigrapha and to other extra-canonical\nbooks; St. Jerome was the first to use it in reference to the books\nwhich are now included in the Apocrypha, i.e. in the sense in which\nit is now used. This new use of the term did not at once become\ngeneral; St. Augustine (d. A.D. 430), for example, uses \u201capocrypha\u201d\nin the old sense in his _De Civitate Dei_, xv. 23; but by degrees\nSt. Jerome\u2019s nomenclature was adopted throughout the West, and this\nhas continued to the present time. Thus it has come about that we\ncall the sacred books of the second rank the Apocrypha, though there\nis not, nor ever has been, anything \u201chidden\u201d about them or their\nteaching.\n\n\nV. THE READING OF UNCANONICAL BOOKS\n\nWe shall deal in detail with the books of the Apocrypha in Part II,\nand some account of the Pseudepigrapha will be given in the next\nchapter; here we purpose to say something about the early use of\nuncanonical \u201cbooks,\u201d apart from the two categories just mentioned,\nduring the period with which we are mainly concerned, i.e. roughly\nB.C. 200-A.D. 100.\n\nAs we have already seen, the idea of a Canon presupposes the\nexistence of a number of books from which those to be included in\nthe Canon are selected. So that before the formation of the Canon\na variety of books was in existence among the Jews, the reading of\nwhich was not forbidden. This continued until after the Canon had\nbeen finally fixed, though it was not long before _all_ uncanonical\nbooks, with the exception of some of those which belong to our\nApocrypha,[260] were forbidden. Rabbi Akiba, for example, who lived\ntowards the end of the first century A.D. and during the first half\nof the second, reckoned among such as had no portion in the world to\ncome those who read \u201coutside books\u201d[261]; these were called _Sepharim\nhachiz\u00f4nim_, the latter word being equivalent to the Greek \u03bf\u1f31 \u1f14\u03be\u03c9,\nwhich is used in the New Testament of persons \u201cthat are without,\u201d\ni.e. outside the company of the faithful.[262] In Jewish writings\nthe _Sepharim hachiz\u00f4nim_ are synonymous with _Sifre ham\u00een\u00eem_, \u201cthe\nbooks of the heretics.\u201d[263] The Rabbis regarded such books with the\ngreatest horror; it is said of Rabbi Tarphon, a contemporary of Rabbi\nAkiba, that he burned every book belonging to the _Minim_ which\nhe could get hold of; he went so far as to say that if a man was\nbeing pursued by a murderer or a serpent it would be better to take\nrefuge in the house of an idolater than in that of a heretic.[264]\nWe deal with the subject of these books in the next chapter. It is\noften asked what _data_ we have for believing in the existence of\nthe wide prevalence of \u201cbooks\u201d in these early ages; as the question\nis not without importance in the present connection it will not be\nout of place to indicate some of the _data_. We may refer first to\nEcclesiastes xii. 11, 12: \u201cThe words of the wise are as goads, and as\ndriven nails are the members of collections; they are given by one\nshepherd. And besides these, my son, be warned. Of making many books\nthere is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh.\u201d What\nthe preacher here means is that the words of the wise stimulate the\nreader to good thoughts; the words \u201cmembers of collections\u201d refer\nto wise words which have been embodied in collections of sayings;\nall these come from God, the one Shepherd. A warning is then given\nas to the reading of other literature; \u201cthe editor would deter his\npupils from unorthodox or heathen literature by the thought of the\nweariness of study.\u201d[265] The passage shows that there must have been\na quantity of unorthodox literature available. \u201cBooks\u201d of another\ncharacter were Aramaic Targums which were certainly much in use in\npre-Christian times[266] as well as later; these are often referred\nto in the Talmud.[267] It is said in one of the Midrashic[268] works\nthat when the Israelites were in Egypt they possessed rolls in\nthe reading of which they delighted every Sabbath; the statement\nis, of course, merely pictorial, but it implies the spread of\nliterature\u2014though, to be sure, at a much later time than that\nreferred to. Among \u201cbooks\u201d mentioned by name are the following[269]:\n\u201cMegillath Taanith,\u201d which enumerates and discusses fast-days which\nshould not be observed as fasts because joyful events occurred on\nthem in days gone by; this probably belongs to the first century of\nour era. Of about the same date is \u201cThe roll of Genealogies\u201d; what\nthe precise contents of this work were is not known, as only one\nquotation occurs in the Talmud, in the tractate Jebamoth 49_b_. Rabbi\nJochanan ben Nuri, a contemporary of Rabbi Akiba, possessed, we are\ntold, a \u201cMegillath Samm\u0101nim\u201d (\u201cThe roll of powders\u201d), in which is\ngiven a list of spices used for making incense; this, it is said, was\nan heirloom belonging to the \u201chouse of Abtinas.\u201d Rabbi Chijja (third\ncentury A.D.) had a \u201cbook\u201d called \u201cMegillath Seth\u0101rim\u201d (\u201cThe roll of\nhidden things\u201d), in this he wrote down precepts and the like which,\nit is said, did not receive general approval. Besides these Strack\ngives references to a large number of Haggadic[270] and Halakic[271]\n\u201cbooks\u201d which need not be enumerated here.\n\nBut the most striking proof of the existence of \u201cbooks\u201d in more or\nless general use is afforded by the recently found[272] Aramaic\n_papyri_ of Elephantin\u00e9 (belonging to the fifth century B.C.). We\nhave already referred to these,[273] and shall have to speak in some\ndetail about one of these _papyri_ in dealing with the Book of Tobit;\nbut, so far as we are now concerned, the main fact is worth recording\nthat centuries before the beginning of the Christian era numbers of\nAramaic _papyri_ were to be found in private houses; the contents of\nthese _papyri_ varied from household accounts and _memoranda_ to such\na story as \u201cThe history of the wise Achikar.\u201d[273]\n\nThese various \u201cbooks\u201d which have been briefly referred to\u2014and they\nrepresent but a small number of the available _data_\u2014are sufficient\nevidence to show that there was a considerable amount of literary\nmaterial for use among those who desired it. The question may be\nasked whether in these early days there were so many people able to\nread as to make the wide distribution of literature likely; it may\nbe replied that probably there was a larger percentage of men among\nthe Jews able to read and write than among any other nation during\nthe period of which we are speaking. But, as a matter of fact, the\nactual number, whether small or great, of those able to read was not\nthe important point; for where one read and expounded, there were a\nnumber who would listen, and thus be influenced by the contents of\na \u201cbook.\u201d We have an interesting example of this in Ecclesiasticus\nl. 29, where, according to the Hebrew text, Ben-Sira speaks of those\nwho attended his _Yeshibah_, i.e. lecture-room or academy; there can\nbe little doubt that Ben-Sira\u2019s book (Ecclesiasticus) formed part\nof the instruction there given.[274] But as Ben-Sira speaks of the\n_Yeshibah_ as a well known institution we may be sure that others\nexisted.\n\nIn one way or another, then, men became acquainted with and were\ninfluenced by the contents and teaching of \u201cbooks\u201d; and when a\ndistinction had come to be made between \u201cbooks\u201d which were permitted\nand \u201cbooks\u201d which were forbidden, a strict vigilance was kept by the\nreligious authorities in order to suppress unorthodox \u201cbooks.\u201d Among\nthese unorthodox \u201cbooks\u201d there was one class which was regarded as\nvery dangerous, and therefore strictly forbidden, viz. those which\ndealt with the subject of Apocalypse; to these some attention must\nnext be devoted.\n\n\nSUMMARY\n\nThe Hebrew root _g\u0101naz_ and the Greek word _apokryphos_ must be\nproperly understood if the subject of canonical and uncanonical books\nis to be discussed. Originally, _g\u0101naz_ meant \u201cto store up,\u201d and\nthen \u201cto store up in secret,\u201d thus \u201cto hide,\u201d and especially to hide\nsecret wisdom from the masses; later, it came to have the technical\nsense, in reference to books, of \u201cwithdrawing from use.\u201d The Talmudic\nuse of the term is important; when there used in reference to books\nit means that such books, on account of their heretical teaching,\nmust be withdrawn from public use; the word is never, in the Talmud,\nused of canonical books themselves nor of the books of our Apocrypha.\n\nThe Greek word _apokryphos_ had in its origin, as a technical term,\na meaning somewhat similar to _g\u0101naz_ in its early, though not in\nits later, connotation; it was used of books containing secret\nteaching only to be communicated to the initiated. _Apokryphos_\nwas, therefore, used first in a good sense; the \u201chidden\u201d character\nof \u201capocryphal\u201d books consisted in their being hidden from the\noutside world for which they were too good. But in its later usage\n_apokryphos_ also corresponded to the later usage of _g\u0101naz_; both\nwere used in reference to uncanonical books; but these books were not\nmerely uncanonical, they were also heretical, namely those which\nwe now include under the term \u201cPseudepigrapha\u201d; neither term was\noriginally used of the books of our Apocrypha.\n\nIt was not until the fourth century A.D., and in the Greek Church\nfirst, that a distinction began to be made between canonical books\nand books which, though not canonical, were nevertheless to be read\nfor edification, i.e. the books of our Apocrypha. But even then the\nterm \u201capocryphal\u201d continued to be used only in reference to heretical\nbooks, and not to those of our Apocrypha.\n\nThe fundamental change in the use of the term apocryphal was brought\nabout by St. Jerome; owing to the influx, during the fourth century,\nof a number of religious writings from the Eastern Church, many of\nwhich it was thought better to withhold from the faithful, St. Jerome\ndrew a sharper distinction than had obtained hitherto in the West\nbetween the canonical and other writings; he now applied the term\n\u201capocryphal\u201d to the books of our present Apocrypha, and though this\nnew connotation of the term did not at once become general, it was by\ndegrees adopted and has continued ever since.\n\nThere were many uncanonical books, in addition to the Apocrypha and\nPseudepigrapha, the reading of which was not forbidden prior to the\nformation of the Canon; but later, all books outside the Canon, with\nthe exception of some belonging to our Apocrypha, were forbidden;\nthey were called books \u201cthat are without.\u201d Many _data_ regarding\nthe existence of books, apart from Scriptural ones, among the Jews\nin pre-Christian times are available; from these it is evident that\nthere must have been much literary activity. As these books were\nvaried in character and did not by any means necessarily always\ncontain orthodox teaching, the fact of their existence illustrates\nthe need of the discrimination which the Jewish religious authorities\nsaw fit to exercise.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nUncanonical Books (II). The Apocalyptic Literature\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014See the headings to the various sections.]\n\n\nPRELIMINARY REMARKS\n\nUncanonical books of a sacred character came to be divided by\nthe Jewish religious authorities into two categories, though the\nexact dividing line varied according to the opinions of different\nteachers. These two categories consisted, on the one hand, of books\nwhich contained orthodox teaching, but which, for one reason or\nanother, were not admitted into the Canon; roughly speaking, under\nthis category were included the books of our Apocrypha. The other\ncategory consisted of what were regarded as heretical books. The\nformer, though they did not \u201cdefile the hands,\u201d were permitted to be\nread. The latter came to be regarded with horror, and the reading of\nthem was strictly forbidden; they were called _Sepharim hachiz\u00f4nim_,\n\u201cOutside Books,\u201d to which reference has been made in the preceding\nchapter; when precisely this term came to be applied to them we\ncannot say, but it is evident that the feeling in regard to them\nexpressed by the term was in existence before B.C. 100.\n\nNow among the \u201cOutside Books\u201d were those which were called\n_Ha-Gily\u00f4nim_. There is some difference of opinion among scholars as\nto the meaning of this term and as to what kind of books it refers;\nH\u00f6lscher has, however, as it appears to us, shown conclusively that\nby it was meant \u201cThe Apocalypses,\u201d and that it refers to what we now\nknow as the Apocalyptic Literature.[275] There is no doubt that the\nwhole of this literature was rejected, ultimately, by the Palestinian\nJewish authorities, the Pharisees.[276] Strongly as the Pharisees had\nbeen influenced by some of the teaching contained in this literature,\nthey had from their point of view sufficient reason to discountenance\nthe books as a whole. The pronounced other-worldly character of them\nwas in marked contrast to the strictly practical and narrow purview\nof scholastic Pharisaism. The scant insistence on the need of legal\nobservance, in the Pharisaic sense, which to the Pharisees was the\nbasis of all religion, was a natural cause of antagonism; and this\nantagonism inevitably widened as time went on, for there was a danger\nthat the popularity of the apocalyptic books would relegate the older\nreligious literature to the background; indeed, we have definite\nproof that in some circles the apocalyptic literature was held in\nhigher esteem than the canonical twenty-four; thus in 2 (4) Ezra\nxiv. 45-47 it is said: \u201cAnd it came to pass when the forty days were\nfulfilled, that the Most High spoke unto me saying, The twenty-four\nbooks that thou hast written publish, that the worthy and unworthy\nmay read them; but the seventy last [i.e. the apocalyptic books] thou\nshalt keep, to deliver them to the wise among thy people. For in\nthem is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the\nstream of knowledge.\u201d There was possibly a further cause of hostility\nto some of these books, viz. their _original_ authorship, which in\nsome cases was Sadduc\u00e6an; in such cases, although worked over by\nPharisaic editorship the Sadduc\u00e6an trail could not be altogether\nobliterated; hence their condemnation. Highly improbable as this\nsounds at first, it will be seen, when we come to consider these\nbooks in brief detail, that in some cases the contention is not\naltogether unjustified.\n\nIt is doubtless due to this Pharisaic hostility that almost all the\nHebrew or Aramaic originals of these books have disappeared and\nthat these writings are preserved only in translations. There can,\nmoreover, be little doubt that this hostility was further nourished\non account of the use of apocalyptic books in the early Christian\nChurch.\n\nAnother preliminary remark about this literature is necessary. All\nthe known books belonging to it have false names in their titles,\nfor which reason they are called the _Pseudepigrapha_. How are we\nto account for this apparent fraud on the part of writers who were\nclearly devout and earnest men? This strange procedure, as it appears\nto us nowadays, may to a large extent be explained if we remember\nthat \u201cthe apocalyptic writers almost certainly drew their material\nfrom popular tradition. Many of the ideas which receive various\nembodiment in this literature were derived doubtlessly from the\ncommon stock of the popular consciousness; their ascription to or\nassociation with the great heroic figures of antiquity, like Enoch,\nAbraham, Isaiah, or the twelve Patriarchs, may also be a feature\nfrom the popular consciousness. The men who reduced the various\nelements to writing, or utilized them for enforcing religious views\nor lessons may, on this view, be acquitted from any charge of fraud\nor dishonesty; they implicitly trusted the popular tradition so far\nas to believe that the ideas to which they were giving expression\nreally did go back to the heroic figures of old. Their estimate,\nmoreover, of the function and importance of authorship probably\ndiffered fundamentally from that of the moderns; it was far less\nself-conscious, and was the natural outcome of a literary modesty\nwhich was _na\u00efve_.\u201d[277]\n\nIt is likely enough that one way whereby the popular traditions came\ninto being was owing to Haggadic homiletics, i.e. the explanation of\nScripture teaching by narrative or parable; passages of Scripture\nwould be explained and illustrated by means of imaginary narratives\nwhich were, of course, not intended to be other than explanatory;\nthen, as these were repeated and handed on, they tended in process of\ntime to be regarded as accounts of events which actually did happen,\nand which had been handed down by tradition. If this supposition be\ncorrect, it would in some sense be analogous to the somewhat similar\nprocess which happened in the domain of Halakah, i.e. that which is\nconcerned with the legal and ritual elements in Scripture.\n\nA brief examination of these apocalyptic books is demanded here\ninasmuch as in the early Church\u2014and in all probability in the\npre-Christian Jewish Church at one time\u2014the distinct line of\ndemarcation between them and those of the Apocrypha was not drawn\nin the way that it was in later times. It is also worth noting that\nsuch books as the Book of Enoch, and the Testaments of the Twelve\nPatriarchs have, as Charles has shown,[278] exercised more influence\nupon the writers of the New Testament than any of the books of the\nApocrypha.\n\nIn giving now some short account of the more important books\nbelonging to this body of literature, we shall take them, as far\nas possible, in chronological order; but, as is to be expected,\none cannot always be certain as to the date of a book, so that we\ncannot claim to be sure that a strictly chronological order is being\nfollowed.\n\n\n(_a_) THE BOOK OF ENOCH\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014Sch\u00fcrer, II, iii. pp. 54-73; German ed., III, pp.\n  268-290; Swete, _The Old Testament in Greek_, III, pp. 789-809\n  (1899); Beer, in Kautzsch, II, pp. 217-310 (1900); Volz,\n  _J\u00fcdische Eschatologie_, pp. 12-21 (1903); Martin, _Le Livre\n  d\u2019H\u00e9noch_ (1906); Charles, _The Book of Enoch_ (1912); Leszynsky,\n  _Die Sadduz\u00e4er_, pp. 253-266 (1912); Charles, in _The Apocr. and\n  Pseud. of the Old Testament_, II, pp. 163-281 (1913); Charles,\n  _Eschatology; Hebrew, Jewish, and Christian_ (1913); Burkitt,\n  _Jewish and Christian Apocalypses_ pp. 17-34 (1914). The articles\n  on \u201cApocalyptic Literature\u201d in Hastings\u2019 _Dict. of the Bible_,\n  the _Encycl. Bibl._, and the _Jewish Encycl._ It has not been\n  thought necessary to enumerate the editions of the various\n  published original texts as these are given in Sch\u00fcrer, Kautzsch,\n  and Charles. This applies to all the apocalypses to which we\n  shall refer.]\n\nAccording to Charles the various elements of which the book in its\npresent form is made up belong to different dates. The following\ntable will show the dates of the different parts of the book; Charles\nbelieves that these are probably correct, without committing himself\nto the certainty of this in each case:\n\n  Chaps.\n  xii.-xxxvi.                                 }\n  xciii.        }                             } The oldest pre-Maccab\u00e6an\n  xci. 12-17    }  \u201cThe Apocalypse of Weeks\u201d  }   portions.\n\n  vi.-xi.       }                             }\n  liv. 7-lv. 2  }                             }\n  lx.           }  Fragments of the \u201cBook     } Pre-Maccab\u00e6an at the\n  lxv.-lxix. 25 }    of Noah\u201d[279]            }   latest.\n  cvi. cvii.    }                             }\n\n  lxxxiii.-xc. \u201cThe Dream Visions,\u201d B.C., 165-161.\n  lxxii.-lxxxii. \u201cThe Book of the Heavenly Luminaries.\u201d Before B.C. 110.\n  xxxvii.-lxxi. \u201cThe Parables,\u201d or \u201cSimilitudes\u201d   } B.C. 105-64.\n  xci. 1-11, 18, 19-civ.                           }\n  i.-v.         The latest portion, but pre-Christian.\n\nChapter cv., which consists only of two verses, cannot be dated;\nwhile cviii. is, according to Charles, an appendix to the entire work.\n\nWhile these dates may be regarded as approximately correct, it\nshould be pointed out that there is not a complete consensus of\nopinion among scholars on the subject. Sch\u00fcrer, for example, holds\nthat the entire book, with the exception of chapters xxxvii.-lxxi.,\nwas written during the period B.C. 130-100, these other chapters\nbeing not earlier than the time of Herod the Great. Beer thinks\nthat the \u201cDream Visions\u201d belong to the time of John Hyrcanus (B.C.\n135-105), and he includes under the pre-Maccab\u00e6an portions only\nxci. 12-17, xcii., xciii. 1-14; but he agrees with Charles in\nthinking that the book as a whole belongs to a period prior to B.C.\n64. Dalman maintains that it cannot be proved that the important\nsection xxxvii.-lxxi. (\u201cThe Similitudes\u201d) is \u201cthe product of the\npre-Christian period,\u201d though he fully recognizes its Jewish\ncharacter.[280]\n\nAs to the question of authorship; since the book is made up of\nsections belonging to various dates, it is obvious that unity of\nauthorship is not to be looked for. But if there is not unity,\nthere is, so Charles maintains, uniformity of authorship; for,\naccording to him, all the sections were written by _Chassidim_, or\nby their successors, the Pharisees. An entirely different view of\nauthorship has, however, recently been put forth with much skill by\nLeszynsky.[281] While frankly recognizing the composite character\nof the book, he holds that the original portions of it (according\nto him these are: i.-xxxvi., lxxii.-lxxxii., lxxxiii.-xc., xciii.\nxci. 12-17) to have emanated from Sadduc\u00e6an circles, and that the\nspecial object of the book in its original form was that of bringing\nabout the reform of the calendar.[282] He points first of all to\nthe ascription of the book to Enoch as supporting his contention;\nEnoch lived 365 years, i.e. his years correspond to the number of\ndays in the solar year, which, as we have seen, was one of the\nfundamental differences between the Sadducees and Pharisees, these\nlatter reckoning time by the lunar year. Further, Enoch ascended\ninto the heavens and would therefore be just the one to know all\nabout the heavenly luminaries; he was thus the most appropriate\nauthor of a book which was to deal with astronomical questions.\n\u201cThe Sadduc\u00e6an character of the original work,\u201d says Leszynsky, \u201cis\nseen most clearly in the discussion regarding the calendar; chapter\nlxxii.-lxxxii. are rightly called the Book of Astronomy[283]: \u2018the\nbook of the courses of the luminaries of the heaven, the relations of\neach, according to their classes, their dominion and their seasons,\naccording to their names and places of origin, and according to\ntheir months ... with regard to all the years of the world and unto\neternity, till the new creation is accomplished which endureth\ntill eternity\u2019 (lxxii. 1). That sounds almost as though the author\nof the Book of Jubilees had written it. That it is not a merely\nscientific interest which impels the writer to give expression to his\nastronomical theories may be seen from the words at the conclusion of\nthe section: \u2018Blessed are all the righteous, blessed are all those\nwho walk in the way of righteousness, and sin not as the sinners\nin the reckoning of all their days, in which the sun traverses the\nheaven, entering into and departing from the portals for thirty days\n...\u2019 (lxxxii. 4-7). Herein one can discern quite clearly the tendency\nof the writer. He desires the adoption of the solar year, while his\ncontemporaries wrongly followed a different reckoning and therefore\ncelebrated the feasts at the wrong time. The \u2018sinners who sin in\nthe reckoning of the year\u2019 are the Pharisees; and the righteous\nones who are blessed, the _Zadd\u00eekim_,[284] who walk upon the paths\nof righteousness (_Zedek_), as the name was made to imply, were the\nSadducees.\u201d Leszynsky works out his argument in much detail, the\nstudy of the whole of which is necessary to grasp the full force of\nhis contention. The other portions of the book he does not hold to be\nSadduc\u00e6an. In the concluding portion he sees a bitter polemic by a\nPharisee against the Sadducees (see especially cii. 6 ff.). Regarding\nthe important section called the \u201cSimilitudes\u201d (xxxvii.-lxxi.)\nLeszynsky has nothing definite to suggest other than that it is not\nChristian, still less Jewish. He says: \u201cWe know too little about the\nsects which existed about the time of the beginning of Christianity\nto be able to say to what circle the author of this writing belonged.\u201d\n\nThe contentions of Charles and Leszynsky are thus diametrically\nopposed. To the present writer the great difficulty in accepting\neither as it stands lies in the fact that, broadly speaking, the\nApocalyptic Literature, of which the Book of Enoch is the most\nstriking example we possess, was acceptable to neither Pharisees\nnor Sadducees. No doubt Charles is right in assigning the earlier\nportions of the book (i.e. the pre-Maccab\u00e6an) to the _Chassidim_; but\nwe have sought, in an earlier chapter,[285] to show that Friedl\u00e4nder\nis justified in maintaining that the _Chassidim_ were the forbears of\nboth Apocalyptists and Pharisees, two branches of the parent stock\nwhich diverged widely in spite of some fundamental points of family\nlikeness. The Book of Enoch, therefore, may, in its pre-Maccab\u00e6an\nportions, well be ascribed to the _Chassidim_; but it is not on\nthat account necessary to ascribe all the later portions to the\nPharisees; three points especially militating against this: the\nMessianic doctrine, the, generally speaking, universalistic spirit,\nand the attitude to the Law not being the Pharisaic one.[286] The\nApocalyptists, on the other hand, were also the descendants of the\n_Chassidim_; and no sufficient reason exists for not ascribing the\nbulk of the later portions of our book to them. Regarding Leszynsky\u2019s\nview, while we feel that that part of it is justified which ascribes\nto the Sadducees the \u201cBook of Astronomy\u201d (lxxii.-lxxxii.) and\npossibly certain other portions, there is a grave difficulty in\nregarding such parts as i.-xxxvi. and xciii., xci. 12-17, in which\nthe apocalyptic element is prominent, as of Sadduc\u00e6an origin, for\nnothing that we know of the Sadducees leads us to suppose that\nthey cultivated apocalyptic studies. What we feel to be of extreme\nimportance in assigning authorship to Jewish books belonging to\nthe last two pre-Christian centuries is the fact well expressed by\nFriedl\u00e4nder: \u201c... But who would maintain that these two parties, i.e.\nthe Pharisees and Sadducees, constituted in reality the Jewish people\nat this period, however much they may have been pushed into the\nforeground of historical events? The Pharisees and Sadducees, no less\nthan the Essenes, who were far removed from the sphere of politics,\nwere only sects of the Jews. The Pharisees formed, even on Josephus\u2019\nshowing (_Antiq._, XVII, ii. 4), only a fraction of the people, and\ndid not number much more than six thousand all told; they were thus\nnot much more numerous than the Essenes with their four thousand\n(Philo, _Quod omn. prob._, II, 457; Josephus, _Antiq._, XVIII, i. 5).\nAnd if it be willingly granted that the Pharisees had many adherents\namong the people, yet this was very far from being the People\nitself.... And where remain then the great masses of the \u2018people of\nthe land,\u2019 the really deciding factor, who were neither Pharis\u00e6an\nnor Sadduc\u00e6an, but among whom the Jewish spirit-of-the-people\n(_Volksgeist_), developed under favourable conditions during the\nmemorable days of the Ptolemys, was not yet wholly extinguished and\nstill possessed sufficient power to protect itself against the yoke\nwhich Pharisaism sought to put upon the people?\u201d[287]\n\nIt is not necessary to assume that all the literature produced by\nthe Jews during these centuries emanated either from Pharisaic or\nSadduc\u00e6an circles. There are other alternatives; and in the present\ncase it seems most probable that the bulk of this book was written\nby apocalyptists who belonged neither to Pharisaic nor yet to\nSadduc\u00e6an circles.\n\nThe Book of Enoch was originally written partly in Aramaic\n(vi.-xxxvi., lxxxiii.-xc., according to Charles) and partly in Hebrew\n(the rest of the book). No portion of the book in its original form\nhas come down to us; the Ethiopic version is the only complete one\nextant, it was translated from the Greek version of which only\nfragments remain.[288] The Latin version, which was also made from\nthe Greek, is not extant with the exception of i. 9, cvi. 1-18. That\nthe book is Palestinian is generally acknowledged; its original\nlanguage of itself points to this.\n\nThe Book of Enoch is in many respects the most important of all\nthe apocalypses, since it is without a rival for the history of\ndoctrinal development during the last two pre-Christian centuries.\nThe teaching of the book is sometimes contradictory, which is not\nto be wondered at in view of its composite authorship; for example,\nin lxix. 11 it is said that man was originally created without sin,\n\u201clike the angels,\u201d but that death came through sin and destroyed\nhim; but elsewhere the entering in of sin from the first is traced\nto the spiritual world. The doctrines of angels and demons appear in\na developed form in this book. The teaching concerning the Kingdom\nis likewise contradictory; vi.-xxxvi. are full of materialistic\nideas, whereas xci.-civ. are marked by conceptions which are entirely\nspiritual. So, too, with regard to the Messiah; at one time He is\nrepresented as without having any special _r\u00f4le_ to fill, at another\nHe appears as the \u201cRighteous One,\u201d or as the \u201cElect One,\u201d \u201cThe Son\nof Man,\u201d and \u201cThe Christ\u201d or \u201cAnointed One.\u201d Regarding the Last\nThings, the teaching about the Judgement varies according as to\nwhether the Messianic Kingdom is conceived of as an eternal earthly\nkingdom, in which case the final Judgement precedes it, or as only\na temporary earthly kingdom, when the Judgement takes place at\nits close; in xxxvii.-lxxi. (\u201cThe Similitudes\u201d) it is taught that\nthe Messianic Kingdom is eternal and embraces heaven and earth,\nhere it is initiated by the final Judgement. The punishment of the\nwicked takes place in Sheol, part of which is a place of fire, and\nequivalent to the later Gehenna conception; another part of Sheol\nis described as an intermediate resting-place of the righteous.\nIn the oldest portions of the book both soul and body, a physical\nbody, rise and abide eternally in the earthly Messianic Kingdom; in\n\u201cThe Similitudes\u201d it is a spiritual body which rises to a spiritual\nkingdom; while in the latest section of the book it is taught\nthat only the spirit rises, and only the righteous attain to the\nresurrection.\n\nMost of the New Testament writers have been influenced by the book in\nthought and diction. \u201cIt is quoted as a genuine production of Enoch\nby St. Jude (verses 14, 15), and as Scripture by St. Barnabas. The\nauthors of the Book of Jubilees, the Apocalypse of Baruch, and 4 Ezra\nlaid it under contribution. With the earlier Fathers and Apologists\nit had all the weight of a canonical book.\u201d[289]\n\n\n(_b_) THE SIBYLLINE ORACLES\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014Sch\u00fcrer, II, iii. pp. 270-292, German ed., III, pp.\n  555-592; Blass, in Kautzsch, II, pp. 177-217; Lanchester, in\n  Charles, II, pp. 368-406; M. S. Terry has published this book in\n  blank verse (New York, undated). See also an article on this book\n  in the _Edinburgh Review_, July, 1877, pp. 31-67.]\n\nThis work consisted originally of fourteen books, twelve of which\nhave survived; but we are here concerned only with the Pro\u0153mium and\nbooks iii.-v., the remainder belonging to later times. The Pro\u0153mium\nand books iii.-v. belong, like the rest of the work, to different\ndates, but the bulk of the Pro\u0153mium and book iii. belong to about the\nmiddle of the second century B.C., books iv. and v. to the latter\nhalf of the first century A.D. These portions are all Jewish in the\nmain, though interspersed with Christian elements.\n\nOf authorship little can be said; the main portion of the Pro\u0153mium\nand book iii. were probably written by a Jew of Alexandria, parts of\nbook iv. by a Palestinian Jew, and the bulk of book v. also by a Jew\nof Alexandria. The Oracles were, of course, all written in Greek,\nand they were put forth in the interests of Jewish _propaganda_,\nof which mention has already been made above. They were written in\nthe form of the ancient heathen oracles, in Greek hexameters. The\nsibyl of heathen antiquity was a prophetess inspired by the gods who\nprophesied about the fate of cities and kingdoms, and gave counsel\nin times of stress and difficulty; she dwelt, like a nymph, beside\nstreams or in grottoes. \u201cWritten records of supposed Sibylline\noracles,\u201d says Sch\u00fcrer, \u201cwere here and there in circulation; but such\nremains of them as have come down to us through occasional quotations\nin authors such as Plutarch, Pausanias and others are brief and\nscanty, and furnish no distinct notion of them. In Asia Minor and\nGreece these pieces circulated only in private possession, without\nbeing publicly supervised or officially used; but their credit and\ninfluence must not be on that account lightly estimated.\u201d[290] Book\niii., which is of most importance in the present connection, is full\nof apocalyptic elements; it tells of the fate of the successive\nkingdoms which are to bear rule over the Jews, and of the judgements\nof God upon both Jews and Gentiles; the coming of the Messianic king\nis prophesied, and the victory over his adversaries described; an\naccount of the prosperity and blessedness of the Messianic Kingdom\nfollows, to which is added a recital of the signs which shall herald\nthe end of all things:\n\n      When swords upon the star-lit heavens\n      Appear at even and at morn,\n      Then will the whirlwind come from heaven\n      Upon the earth; the sun above\n      At mid-day e\u2019en will cease to shine,\n      The moon instead will give her light,\n      And come again upon the earth.\n      One sign will be that drops of blood\n      Will flow down from the very rocks;\n      And in the clouds shall ye behold\n      A conflict fought \u2019twixt warriors fierce,\n      Likewise a chase upon wild beasts,\u2014\n      All seemingly in hazy mist.\n      Then shall the Lord Who dwells in heaven\n      Bring all things to their final end (iii. 798-806).\n\nIn book iv., as well as in book v., the apocalyptic element is\nabsent, with the one exception that in the latter there is a prophecy\nof woe upon the idolatrous Gentiles, and of blessing upon Israel (v.\n260-285). The superiority of Judaism over the heathen religions is,\nas one would expect in propagandist literature of this kind, again\nand again insisted upon.\n\n\n(_c_) THE TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014Sinker, _Testamenta xii. Patriarcharum_ ... (1869);\n  _Ante-Nicene Christian Library_, xxii. pp. 13-79 (1871); Sch\u00fcrer,\n  II, iii., pp. 114-124; German ed., III, pp. 339-356; Schnapp, in\n  Kautzsch, II, pp. 458-506; Charles, _The Testaments of the Twelve\n  Patriarchs_ (1908), also in _The Apocr. and Pseudepigr. of the\n  Old Testament_, II, pp. 282-367; Leszynsky, _Die Sadduz\u00e4er_, pp.\n  237-252 (1921). Burkitt, _Jewish and Christian Apocalypses_, pp.\n  34 ff. (1914). Two articles in _The Jewish Quarterly Review_,\n  V, pp. 375-398, by Conybeare, \u201cOn the Jewish Authorship of the\n  Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,\u201d and pp. 400-406 by Kohler\n  on \u201cThe Pre-Talmudic Haggada\u201d (1893).]\n\nProfessor Charles says in reference to the authorship of this\nbook: \u201cI have with some hesitation come to the conclusion that the\ngroundwork is the work of a single writer of the Pharisaic school.\nHe is an upholder of the Law and the Temple sacrifices; he believes\nin the Messianic Kingdom and the resurrection of the body to a new\nlife therein. He is, however, a Pharisee of the early type\u2014that is a\nChasid.... The groundwork, which consists of about eleven-twelfths\nof the Testaments, after the removal of the Jewish and Christian\nadditions, presents, it must be confessed, a want of coherence at\ntimes, and the parts dealing with the duty of submission to Levi,\nor to Levi and Judah jointly, come in occasionally very abruptly.\nNotwithstanding, the present editor adheres to the idea of the unity\nof the book; for the two phenomena referred to\u2014the strictly Chasid\nelement in the book, and its loyal acceptance of the Maccab\u00e6an\ndynasty\u2014were exactly characteristic of the period to which our author\nbelongs, and to none other before or after. Furthermore, both these\nparts of the book are alike universalistic in tone.\u201d[291]\n\nWe have seen above what the attitude of the Sadducees was towards the\nwritten Law; so that a book wherein loyalty to the Law and to the\nTemple sacrifices is upheld does not necessarily point to Pharisaic\nauthorship unless it can be shown that by the Law is meant not merely\nthe Pentateuch, but also the Pharisaic conception of the Law; and of\nthis there are no indications in the book. The Sadducees believed,\nmoreover, in a Messianic Kingdom; but the Messiah, according to\nthem, was to be of priestly, not of Davidic, descent; so that belief\nin the Messianic Kingdom does not necessarily imply Pharisaic\nauthorship of the book in which it occurs unless the specifically\nPharisaic conception of the Messiah is put forth; but this also is\nnot the case in the book before us. Charles says: \u201cIn the original\nwork the Messiah is to be descended from Levi, and not from Judah\u2014in\nother words, he is to be first of all a priest, and then a prophet\nand king. There are many passages expressing this view\u201d; these are\nenumerated; he then continues: \u201cWe have here the attestation of a\nmost remarkable revolution in the Jewish expectations of the Messiah.\nFor some thirty or forty years the hopes of a Messiah from Judah was\nabandoned in favour of a Messiah from Levi. But with the breach of\nHyrcanus with the Pharisees this hope was abandoned, and so we find\nthat in the first century additions, the hope of a Messiah from Judah\nreappears (T. Jud., xxiv. 5, 6; T. Naph., iv. 5 (?)).\u201d[292] An easier\nand more natural explanation, however, is forthcoming if, as we\nbelieve, the groundwork of this book is of Sadduc\u00e6an authorship. The\nloyal acceptance of the reigning dynasty is by no means necessarily\na proof of Pharisaic authorship, for the Pharisees broke entirely\nwith John Hyrcanus before the end of his reign (B.C. 104), while the\nSadducees were loyal to him in consequence.[293] The references to\nthe resurrection of the body would be fatal to Sadduc\u00e6an authorship\nif it could be proved that these are not later interpolations. That a\nPharisee has worked over the book is abundantly evident. We conclude,\ntherefore, that as in the groundwork of the book the distinctive\nmarks of Pharisaism are wanting, and that as what marks there are,\nare those of a Sadduc\u00e6an character, the book in its original form\nwas written by a Sadducee for the purpose of making peace with the\nPharisees; for the peaceable tone of many parts of the book is one of\nits characteristics; the virtue of unity among the descendants of the\nPatriarchs is again and again insisted on. _Traits_ of a specifically\nSadduc\u00e6an character are well brought out by Leszynsky.[294] On the\nother hand, nothing could be more un-Pharisaic than the spirit of the\nbook so well described by Charles: \u201cA true son of the larger-hearted\nOld Testament prophets he proclaims the salvation of the Gentiles.\nThe promised time has come. The kingdom is already established, and\nall the Gentiles will be saved through Israel. In the Judgement the\nconduct of the best heathen will form the norm according to which\nIsrael will be judged.\u201d[295]\n\nThe earliest form of the book as now in existence is Greek; but\nthis is a translation from a Hebrew original. This is proved by\nthe presence of numberless Hebrew constructions and expressions\nthroughout the book. In its original form each of the \u201cTestaments\u201d\nseems to have been modelled on the same pattern; in each case the\npatriarch first gives an account of his life; this is based on\nthe Old Testament, but embellished with many new details. In each\nautobiography the patriarch candidly confesses the sins of which he\nhas been guilty, though in some instances he is able to boast of\nhis virtues. In the next place, the patriarch offers in each case\nan exhortation to his descendants; this is based on the preceding\nautobiographical sketch; warnings are uttered against falling into\nthe sins of which the narrator himself has been guilty; in the\ncase of his life having been a virtuous one it is held out as an\nexample for his descendants to follow. A third element in each of\nthe Testaments is a prediction regarding the future of the tribe in\nquestion.\n\nThere are a number of later Christian interpolations and additions\nin the book; but, generally speaking, these are of so obvious a\ncharacter that they may be discerned at once; a good example is\nfound in the Testament of Simeon vi. 7, where these words are added:\n\u201cBecause God hath taken a body and eaten with men, and saved men.\u201d\nOr, again, in the Testament of Levi xiv. 2, the original text runs:\n\u201cFor our father Israel is pure from the transgressions of the chief\npriests,\u201d then the following Christian addition is made: \u201cWho shall\nlay their hands upon the Saviour of the world.\u201d Similar additions,\nas well as interpolations, occur throughout the book.\n\nBut the great importance of this book lies in its ethical teaching,\nwherein it often reveals a spirit thoroughly akin to that of the\nGospels; it will be best to illustrate this by giving two of the most\nnotable examples. In the Testament of Gad vi. 3-7 it is said: \u201cLove\nye, therefore, one another from the heart; and if a man sin against\nthee, cast forth the poison of hate and speak peaceably to him, and\nin thy soul hold not guile; and if he confess and repent, forgive\nhim. But if he deny it, do not get into a passion with him, lest\ncatching the poison from thee he take to swearing and so thou sin\ndoubly.... But if he be shameless, and perisheth in his wrong-doing,\neven so forgive him from the heart, and leave to God the avenging\u201d\n(with this compare Matt. xviii. 15, Luke xvii. 3). The command to\nlove God and one\u2019s neighbour finds expression in the Testament of Gad\nv. 3: \u201cLove the Lord through all your life, and one another with a\ntrue heart\u201d (cp. Matt. xxii. 37-39). These and many other examples\nof a similar character are all the more striking when it is seen how\nclose the linguistic parallels are (amounting frequently to verbal\nidentity) between the Greek text of our book and that of the Gospels.\nWhile these and similar passages read like genuine parts of the\noriginal work the _possibility_ that they may be Christian is not\nexcluded.\n\nThe \u201cTestaments\u201d can scarcely be reckoned as belonging to the\nApocalyptic Literature proper, but there are apocalyptic elements in\nthe testaments of Levi and of Naphthali.\n\n\n(_d_) THE PSALMS OF SOLOMON\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014Ryle and James, _The Psalms of Solomon_ (1891);\n  Kittel, in Kautzsch, II, pp. 127-148; Sch\u00fcrer, II, iii. pp.\n  17-23, German ed., III, pp. 205-212; Viteau, _Les Psaumes de\n  Salomon_ (1911); Rendel Harris, _The Odes and Psalms of Solomon_\n  (1911); Leszynsky, _Op. cit._, pp. 274-279; Buchanan Gray in\n  Charles, II, pp. 631-652. See also Charles\u2019 art. in the _Encycl.\n  Bibl._, i. 241-245.]\n\nAlthough the eighteen psalms comprised in this book are not\napocalyptic in character, a brief mention of them here is not out of\nplace, for they offer us a true picture of the Pharisaic standpoint,\nand are therefore useful for purposes of comparison when seeking to\ndecide the Pharisaic authorship, or otherwise, of other books.\n\nThese psalms were originally written in Hebrew during the middle\nof the first century B.C.; concerning these two points there is\na general consensus of opinion. Whether the hand of one or more\nwriters is to be discerned is an open question. The mental background\nof these Psalms is one of sorrow occasioned by the capture of\nJerusalem by Pompey and his desecration of the Temple. But this\nevent is represented as the just punishment of God, for instead of\na Davidic king the Hasmon\u00e6ans were rulers, and they had assumed\nthe high-priestly office although they were not of high-priestly\ndescent. The ruling house was supported by the Sadducees; it is\nthis which causes the sorrow of the writer, or writers, to be mixed\nwith bitter resentment. These Psalms thus give us a picture of the\nPharisees and Sadducees, but from the Pharisaic point of view; so\nthat neither the portraiture of Pharisaic piety nor yet that of\nSadduc\u00e6an wickedness must be taken _au pied de la lettre_. The\ngeneral point of view of the book has been well summed up by Buchanan\nGray thus: \u201cIt is the Pharisaic piety that breathes through the\nPsalms; it is their opposition to the worldly, non-Davidic monarchy,\nand to the illegitimate high-priesthood of the ruling Hasmon\u00e6an\nking, Aristobulus, that finds expression here; the Messianic hope\n(especially xvii. 23 ff.), the firm belief in a future life which\ncharacterizes them later, and renders them naturally political\nquietists and indifferent to political schemes, are already\nconspicuous here. And, again, the later attitude of the Pharisees in\nthe matter of free-will as described by Josephus (_Bell. Jud._, II,\nviii. 14)\u2014these ascribe all to fate and to God, and yet allow that\nto act as is right, or the contrary, is principally in the power of\nmen: although fate does co-operate in every action\u2014is almost exactly\nparalleled by two passages in the Psalms, v. 4, ix. 6.\u201d[296]\n\n\n(_e_) THE BOOK OF JUBILEES\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014Sch\u00fcrer, II, iii. pp. 134-141, German ed., III, pp.\n  371-384; Littmann, in Kautzsch, II, pp. 31-119; Charles, _The\n  Book of Jubilees_ (1902); Leszynsky, _Op. cit._, pp. 179-236;\n  Charles, in _The Apocr. and Pseudep. of the O.T._, II, pp. 1-82.]\n\nAlthough this book is also known as \u201cThe Apocalypse of Moses\u201d[297]\n(Syncellus), it is not an apocalyptic work in the proper sense of\nthe word. It purports, however, to have been given through angels\nto Moses on Mount Sinai, and can, therefore, in a certain sense be\ndescribed as an apocalypse; but it scarcely touches upon the themes\nwhich form the main content of the apocalyptic works proper. It is\nalso called the \u201cLittle Genesis,\u201d as it follows the narrative as\ngiven in the Book of Genesis and Exodus i.-xii., but this is divided\ninto fixed periods of time, or \u201cJubilees,\u201d hence its name; for\nthis word is directly derived from the Hebrew term _Jobel_ which,\naccording to most modern scholars, means \u201cram\u201d or \u201cram\u2019s horn\u201d; the\nyear of Jubilee thus means literally \u201cthe year of ram\u2019s horn\u201d; the\nfiftieth year was so called because it was proclaimed by the blowing\nof rams\u2019 horns (see Lev. xxv.). \u201cAs the author seeks to reproduce the\nhistory of primitive times _in the spirit of his own day_, he deals\nwith the biblical text in a very free fashion. Many things that did\nnot happen to interest him, or that he considered objectionable, were\neither omitted or altered, while others were still further amplified\nby the addition of numerous particulars of one kind or another\u201d\n(Sch\u00fcrer, _Op. cit._, II, iii. p. 136).\n\nIt is impossible to fix the exact date of the book with any\ncertainty, but that it belongs at the latest to the second half of\nthe first century B.C. may be unhesitatingly stated. That it was\nwritten by a Palestinian Pharisee is the opinion of most scholars; it\nis true that it is strongly legalistic in character, so much so that\nthe Messianic Kingdom is conceived of as the outcome of a gradual\nprocess which is bound up with the study of the Law. The writer,\nmoreover, greatly extols the Sabbath, Circumcision, the dietary\nlaws, the laws of purification, etc.; its strongly marked spirit of\nexclusiveness is also said to betray its Pharisaic origin. But with\nthe exception of the last point there is nothing in all this which\nforbids us to believe in Sadduc\u00e6an authorship (see above, Chapter IV,\n\u00a7 ii. (_b_)). Leszynsky seems to us to have proved his contention\nthat the author was a Sadducee, who ascribed Mosaic authorship to the\nbook for the purpose of obtaining the needful authority for Sadduc\u00e6an\nviews concerning the Law. The details of his argument would take us\ntoo far afield; he discusses the question with much learning on pp.\n181-234 of his book.\n\nThat the book was originally written in Hebrew admits of no doubt; no\npart of this has come down to us, however. The Greek version, made\nfrom the Hebrew, exists only in fragments found in the writings of\nsome ancient authors. The Ethiopic version, which was made from the\nGreek, exists almost in its entirety; of the Latin version, also made\nfrom the Greek, about one-fourth is extant. The importance of the\nbook, in the words of Charles, lies in the fact that it is \u201cnot only\nindispensable to students of the New Testament, and of the history\nof the Pharisaic movement: it is likewise of first-class importance\nas a witness to the readings of the Hebrew text of Genesis about\nthe beginning of the Christian era\u201d (_Encycl. Bibl._, I, 230). As\nwe incline, however, to the belief in its Sadduc\u00e6an authorship, we\nregard it as important for the history of the antagonism between the\nPharisees and Sadducees, and their respective teaching, rather than\nmerely for the history of the Pharisaic movement.\n\n\n(_f_) THE ASSUMPTION OF MOSES\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014Sch\u00fcrer, II, iii. pp. 73-83, German ed., III, pp.\n  294-305; Clemen, in Kautzsch, II, pp. 311-331; Charles, _The\n  Assumption of Moses_ (1897), and in _The Apocr. and Pseudep. of\n  the O.T._, II, pp. 407-424; Leszynsky, _Op. cit._, pp. 267-273.]\n\nThe numerous references in early Christian literature to apocryphal\nbooks of Moses makes it clear that several well-known books of the\nkind must once have been in existence. The different titles of these\nbooks which are mentioned are a little confusing; we have just seen\nthat the \u201cApocalypse of Moses\u201d was one of the names given to the Book\nof Jubilees; we shall see below (\u00a7 _j_) that an \u201cApocalypse of Moses\u201d\nis more or less parallel with the \u201cLife of Adam and Eve.\u201d Mention is\nmade of a \u201cBook of secret words of Moses\u201d and of the \u201cAssumption of\nMoses\u201d in the commentary of Gelasius Cyzicenus on the acts of the\ncouncil of Nic\u00e6a; Origen (_De princip._, III, ii. 1) speaks of the\nbook called the \u201cAscension of Moses,\u201d and Didymus, in writing on the\nepistle of Jude, refers to the \u201cAssumption of Moses\u201d; and more than\nonce the \u201cTestament of Moses\u201d is mentioned. It is probable that these\ntwo latter are both included in the book we are considering, but that\nthey were originally distinct and of different authorship. The book\nas a whole was written at the very beginning of the first century\nA.D.; this is the opinion of most authorities, based upon fairly\nclear indications in the book itself (see Charles in the _Encycl.\nBibl._, I, 235). The author, according to Charles, \u201cwas a Pharisee,\nand a Pharisee who was the antithesis of the Zealot exactly in those\nrespects in which Pharisaism differed from Zealotism. His book was\ndesigned as a protection against the growing secularization of the\nPharisaic party through its adoption of political ideals and popular\nMessianic beliefs\u201d; elsewhere Charles says[298]: \u201cHe was a Pharisee\nof a fast-disappearing type, recalling in all respects the Chasid\nof the early Maccab\u00e6an times, and upholding the old traditions of\nquietude and resignation.\u201d Leszynsky, on the other hand, is inclined\nto believe that the author was a Sadducee; his arguments, however,\nare not convincing.[299]\n\nThe book contains what purports to be a prediction of the future\nhistory of Israel which had been revealed to Moses, and which he\nin turn reveals to Joshua. It is, therefore, as a whole not an\napocalyptic book in the technical sense, though part of it does\ndistinctly come under this designation; this is clear from Chapter\nx., which is written in poetry, and in the familiar apocalyptic\nstrain; it tells of the coming of divine rule upon earth, when sorrow\nshall be taken away, and wrath shall come upon the enemies of God;\nthe signs of the end are graphically described.\n\nThe book was originally written in Hebrew, though some scholars\ncontend for an Aramaic original. Only part of the book has so far\nbeen recovered and this is in Latin, which was, however, made from a\nGreek translation of the original.\n\n\n(_g_) THE ASCENSION OF ISAIAH\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014Sch\u00fcrer, II, iii. pp. 141-146, German ed., pp.\n  386-393; Beer, in Kautzsch, II, pp. 119-127; Charles, _The\n  Ascension of Isaiah_ (1900); Charles, _The Martyrdom of Isaiah_,\n  in _The Apocr. and Pseudep. of the O.T._, II, pp. 155-162.\n  Burkitt, _Jewish and Christian Apocalypses_, pp. 45 ff.]\n\nIn ancient ecclesiastical writings mention is made of three\napocryphal books about Isaiah, viz. the \u201cAscension of Isaiah,\u201d the\n\u201cMartyrdom of Isaiah,\u201d and the \u201cVision of Isaiah.\u201d It is possible\nthat the \u201cAscension\u201d is only another name for the \u201cVision,\u201d for in\nChapter x., which belongs to the \u201cVision\u201d portion, an account is\ngiven of Isaiah ascending to the seventh heaven. But, in any case,\ntwo writings are incorporated in the book. Moreover, there are many\nadditions made by a Christian editor. These various elements belong\nto different dates; the earliest is the \u201cMartyrdom,\u201d which comprises\nii. i-iii. 12, v. 2-14; this is of Jewish authorship, and belongs\nto the first half of the first century A.D.; the final words of\nthis portion have a special interest inasmuch as the reference to\nthe sawing asunder of Isaiah there mentioned points to this being\nthe authority for the statement in Hebrews xi. 37. The words are\nas follows: \u201cBut Isaiah neither cried aloud nor wept whilst he was\nbeing sawn asunder, for his mouth spoke with the Holy Ghost until\nhe had been sawn asunder.\u201d Next in date is a short apocalypse (iii.\n13-v. 1); this gives a _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ of the early history of the Christian\nChurch, and foretells the last judgement; this is by a Christian\nauthor, and belongs to about the middle of the first century A.D.,\nor a little later. Lastly, there is the \u201cVision\u201d (vi.-xi.), which is\nlikewise Christian, and belongs to the end of the first century A.D.\nThe first chapter is probably an addition by a Christian editor, the\ndate of which cannot be fixed. The whole of this material has come\ndown to us in an Ethiopic version; this was made from the original\nGreek, only fragments of which have survived; a Latin version which\nwas made from the Greek existed at one time, but here again only\nfragments have come down to us.\n\n\n(_h_) THE BOOK OF THE SECRETS OF ENOCH\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014Sch\u00fcrer, German ed., III, pp. 290-294; Morfill\n  and Charles, _The Book of the Secrets of Enoch_ (1896); Forbes\n  and Charles, in _The Apocr. and Pseudep. of the O.T._, II, pp.\n  425-469.]\n\nThis Apocalypse, called also the \u201cSlavonic Enoch\u201d on account of\nthe language in which it has survived, has nothing to do with the\n\u201cEthiopic Book of Enoch\u201d already dealt with, excepting that it\nsometimes reproduces the phraseology and conceptions of the latter.\nSome sections, the exact extent of which it is impossible to define\n(Charles), have a Hebrew background and were originally written in\nthis language; these are, at latest, pre-Christian; but the main part\nof the book was written in Greek, and belongs to about the middle of\nthe first century A.D., at any rate to some period prior to the year\nA.D. 70, for in lix. 2 the sacrificial system is referred to which\npresupposes the existence of the Temple (\u201cFor a man offers clean\nanimals and makes his sacrifice that he may preserve his soul. And if\nhe offer as a sacrifice from clean beasts and birds, he preserves his\nsoul\u201d). There are numberless indications in the book to prove that\nthe author was a Jew, but of the Hellenistic type, for in questions\naffecting the origin of the earth, sin, death, etc., he adopts\nPlatonic, Egyptian and Zend elements into his system (Charles) in a\nway which would have been impossible to a Palestinian Jew; he is,\nhowever, so far orthodox in that he upholds the sacrificial system,\nas we have seen, and believes in the Law and in the life eternal. It\nis interesting to note that the writer frequently quotes passages\nfrom Ecclesiasticus in its Greek form, and was also evidently\nconversant with the Book of Wisdom.\n\nThere is one point of especial interest in this book to which a brief\nreference may be made. We meet here for the first time with the\nJewish conception of the Millennium; the _rationale_ of its origin\nis thus given by Charles: \u201cThe account in Genesis of the first week\nof creation came in pre-Christian times to be regarded not only as\na history of the past, but as a forecast of the future history of\nthe world so created. Thus as the world was created in six days, so\nits history was to be accomplished in 6,000 years; for 1,000 years\nare with God as one day (cp. Ps. xc. 4; 2 Peter iii. 8), and as God\nrested on the seventh day, so at the close of the 6,000 years there\nwould be a rest of 1,000 years, i.e. the millennium.\u201d It is also\nworth adding that the doctrine of the seven heavens is treated in\nthis book with a fulness and clearness not found elsewhere; for\nan illuminating discussion on the subject see Morfill and Charles\u2019\nedition of the book, pp. xxx.-xlvii.\n\n\n(_i_) THE SYRIAC APOCALYPSE OF BARUCH\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014Sch\u00fcrer, II, iii. pp. 83-93, German, ed., III, pp.\n  305-315; Ryssel, in Kautzsch, II, pp. 404-446; Charles, _The\n  Apocalypse of Baruch_ (1896); and in _The Apocr. and Pseudep. of\n  the O.T._, II, pp. 470-526.]\n\nThis Baruch apocalypse is called the Syriac one because this is the\nlanguage in which it has come down to us; it is to be distinguished\nfrom the \u201cGreek Apocalypse of Baruch\u201d \u00a7 (_k_), which is an entirely\ndifferent work. In its present form it is composite in character, but\nall its component parts may be assigned to the period A.D. 50-100.\nTo disentangle the various elements contained in the book from one\nanother is a very difficult task; we follow Dr. Charles in giving the\nfollowing details. The authors are all Pharisees; some lived before,\nand some after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70; the portions\nwritten before this date consist of an Apocalypse (xxvii.-xxx. 1),\nand two Visions (xxxvi.-xl. and liii.-lxxiv,); these chapters are\nimportant for the Messianic teaching contained in them. The portions\nwritten after the year A.D. 70 include the rest of the book, with\nthe exception of a few chapters added by a final editor. The present\nSyriac book is a translation from a Greek version of the original\nHebrew.\n\nThis apocalypse is one of the most important books we possess for the\nstudy of Judaism at the beginning of the Christian era; all the vital\ndoctrines come in for consideration\u2014the doctrine of God, of the Law,\nof the Messiah, Original Sin and Free-will, Works and Justification,\nForgiveness, and the Resurrection.\n\n\n(_j_) THE APOCALYPSE OF MOSES\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014Sch\u00fcrer, _Op. cit._, II, iii. pp. 146, 147, German\n  ed., III, pp. 294-305; Fuchs in Kautzsch, pp. 506-528; F. C.\n  Conybeare in the _Jewish Quarterly Review_, vii., pp. 216 ff.\n  (1895); Charles, in the _Apocr. and Pseud. of the O.T._, II, pp.\n  407-424.]\n\nThis Jewish work, belonging possibly to the end of the first century\nA.D., consists of forty-three chapters, most of which have their\nparallel in the fifty-one chapters of the _Life of Adam and Eve_. The\noriginal language of both was Hebrew; the latter exists now only in a\nLatin form, while the Apocalypse is extant in Greek and Armenian. How\nthe book came to have the name of Moses in the title is difficult to\nsay; he is not mentioned in the book, which is strictly a legendary\nlife of Adam and Eve. For the study of the doctrine of sin the book\nhas some value, but the apocalyptic elements are very sparse; the\nlife hereafter and the resurrection are, however, referred to.\n\n\n(_k_) THE GREEK APOCALYPSE OF BARUCH\n\nThis book does not come within our period as it was written,\nprobably, at the end of the second century A.D.; it is only mentioned\nhere for the purpose of pointing out again that it is to be\ndistinguished from the \u201cSyriac Apocalypse of Baruch\u201d dealt with above.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThis chapter does not lend itself to a Summary as in the case of the\nothers.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\nThe Wisdom Literature; the Jewish Conception of Wisdom\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014Cheyne, _Job and Solomon, or The Wisdom of the Old\n  Testament_ (1887); Stade, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, ii.\n  pp. 292-309 (1888); Driver, _An Introduction to the Literature\n  of the Old Testament_, pp. 337-449 (1891); Toy, _Judaism and\n  Christianity_, pp. 52-76 (1891); Cornill, _Einleitung in das\n  Alte Testament_, pp. 216-279 (1896); Toy, _The Book of Proverbs_\n  (1899); Friedl\u00e4nder, _Griechische Philosophie in Alten Testament_\n  (1904); Briggs, _The Book of Psalms_ (1906); Barton, _The Book\n  of Ecclesiastes_ (1908); Meinhold, _Die Weisheit Israels in\n  Spruch, Sage und Dichtung_ (1908); Gregg, _The Wisdom of Solomon_\n  (1909); Oesterley, _The Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach,\n  or Ecclesiasticus_ (1912); Oesterley and Box, _The Wisdom of\n  Ben-Sira_, and Holmes, _The Wisdom of Solomon_, in Charles\u2019\n  \u201cApocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament\u201d (1913);\n  Goodrick, _The Book of Wisdom_ (1913).]\n\n\nI. THE WISDOM LITERATURE\n\nThe Wisdom Literature of the Jews which has come down to us comprises\nboth canonical and uncanonical books[300]; but the distinction may\nbe ignored, for all the books which belong to this Literature,\nthough each has its particular characteristics, are clearly members\nof one family; they are all alike in possessing one outstanding and\ntypical mark of differentiation from the rest of the Old Testament\nbooks, viz., in them religion has become philosophy. It was not,\nof course, philosophy in the Greek, any more than in the modern,\nsense of the word; \u201cthe wise men of Israel never approached their\ninquiries without theological presuppositions; they had no desire to\ninvestigate final causes; they started from a fundamental axiom, \u2018In\nthe beginning was God ...\u2019; this postulate indicates the character\nof their studies, which were not so much speculative as practical:\ntheir desire was not so much to understand the works of God, as to\nacquaint themselves with their harmonies, beauties, and adaptations,\nand all this with the final object of knowing and doing the will of\nGod.\u201d[301] But while the fundamental Jewish monotheistic belief is\ntaken for granted throughout the Wisdom Literature, the latter has\nother characteristics which are not wholly in accord with traditional\nJudaism. That the various writers differ in their teaching from\neach other, and that the same writer is not always consistent in\nhis teaching, is not a cause for surprise; these men had entered\nupon new ways of thinking, and were grappling with new subjects of\nthought; it was natural that their speculations should sometimes\nbe only tentative; they had, moreover, come into contact with new\ninfluences which would have affected one more than another. It\nmust also be remembered that some of the books belonging to this\nliterature, notably Proverbs and Job, are of composite authorship,\nand that possibly the component parts belong to different periods;\nso that what may sometimes appear contradictory in one writing in\nreality represents some development of thought belonging to a later\nwriter. But however this may be, we certainly find in the Wisdom\nLiterature positions taken up which show to some extent a departure\nfrom traditional Judaism. The wise men present a very interesting\ncombination in that they are at once universalistic and conservative.\nWe find in the Wisdom Literature but little stress laid on national\ninstitutions and laws, such, for example, as the sacrificial system;\nit is recognized, it is true, but rather because it is thought right\nto keep up the old customs than that there is any intrinsic value\nor permanent necessity in the system. In like manner the Messianic\nexpectations receive very scanty recognition. The attitude of the\nsages towards the Gentiles is generally friendly; they recognized\nthe higher culture, in many respects, of these nations, and were\ntherefore willing to learn from them; not infrequently we find, for\nexample, that the God of the Jews is declared to be the God of all\nmen. But the most striking characteristic, which is quite un-Jewish,\nis the conception of the God-like _Sophia_, which is conceived of\nas a creative divine power existing before the creation of the\nworld; \u201cthis hypostatization of Wisdom,\u201d says Friedl\u00e4nder, \u201cis here\na downright sacrilege; it betrays the violent entry of an alien\nspirit into the domain of Judaism, and even the fine way in which\nthe essence of the divine Wisdom is described cannot for a moment\nblind us to the act of violence perpetrated by the forcible intrusion\nof Greek conceptions into the atmosphere of the old Hebrew idea of\nWisdom.\u201d[302] But as we deal in section III of this chapter with the\nconception of Wisdom as portrayed in all the books of the Wisdom\nLiterature, it will not be necessary to say anything on this subject\nhere.\n\n\nII. THE ORIGIN OF THE HEBREW CONCEPTION OF WISDOM\n\nThere is a great difference between the conception of Wisdom which is\npresented in the literature of Israel prior to the captivity and that\nwhich meets us in the Wisdom Literature proper; yet there is no sort\nof doubt that the latter represents the full growth of a plant whose\nseed can be clearly seen in the early writings of the Old Testament.\nThis is, however, only part of the truth; for while it is true to\nsay that the religious-intellectual _spirit_ to which the Wisdom\nLiterature of the Jews owed its existence was of indigenous growth,\nit is no less true to say that the elements which contributed to the\nproduction of that Literature were not exclusively Jewish. We shall\ntry to show presently that Babylonian influence was, in part, at work\nin helping the sages of Israel both before the captivity, as well as\nin post-exilic times, to frame their ideas on Wisdom as these appear\nin the Wisdom Literature, while still later the influence of the\nGreek spirit is to be clearly discerned. But our first task must be\nto seek the first beginnings of Wisdom in the earlier books of the\nOld Testament.\n\nWhen precisely ideas about Wisdom began to manifest themselves in\nIsrael it would be impossible to say, but the germs from which,\ncenturies after, the Wisdom Literature grew were already in existence\nduring the early days of the Monarchy, for the tradition of Solomon\u2019s\nwisdom is undoubtedly based upon fact. In 1 Kings iv. 30-34 (verses\n10-14 in the Hebrew) it is said: \u201cAnd Solomon\u2019s wisdom excelled\nthe wisdom of all the children of the east, and all the wisdom\nof Egypt. For he was wiser than all men.... And he spake three\nthousand proverbs; and his songs were a thousand and five. And he\nspake of trees.... And there came of all peoples to hear the wisdom\nof Solomon, from all the kings of the earth, which had heard of\nhis wisdom.\u201d[303] Even allowing for some exaggeration, which is so\nnatural to an oriental writer, there can be little doubt that this\npassage is based upon actual fact, though what is meant by Wisdom\nin this and similar passages was very different from what would now\nbe understood by that term, as we shall see. But Solomon was not\nthe first example of a \u201cwise man\u201d in Israel. The earliest form of\nWisdom is represented by what the Hebrews called a _m\u0101sh\u0101l_; this is\nusually translated by \u201cproverb,\u201d but it has, in addition to this, a\nmuch wider signification, for it is used of a prophetic figurative\ndiscourse, such as those uttered by Balaam; in later times it was\nalso used to describe a parable and an allegory; in this sense it\noccurs in Ezekiel. In its earlier simple sense a _m\u0101sh\u0101l_ meant a\n\u201cproverb,\u201d not necessarily of a religious, or even ethical, content;\nit expressed some general truth brought home to men by the observance\nof the ordinary experiences of life. One of the very simplest of\nthese found in the Old Testament is: \u201cOut of the wicked cometh forth\nwickedness\u201d (1 Sam. xxiv. 13); this is said to be \u201ca proverb of the\nancients,\u201d which shows that it must have long been in use among\nthe Israelites. In 2 Samuel xx. 18 another proverb, which seems\nlikewise to have been long current among the people, is preserved:\n\u201cThey were wont to speak in old time, saying, \u2018They shall surely\nask counsel at Abel\u2019\u201d; this was uttered by a \u201cwise woman.\u201d With\ndeeper observation and reflection more subtle thoughts came to be\nexpressed in this form. \u201cThe Israelites, like all other peoples, must\nhave reflected more or less, from the moment when they attained a\nsettled civilization, on general questions of life. The lowest form\nof such reflection appears in popular proverbs and fables, which\nexpress, usually in a one-sided and superficial way, the result of\nthe ordinary common-sense experience and observation.\u201d[304] As a\ngeneral rule, however, the few examples of proverbs which we find in\nthe earlier books of the Old Testament reflect a relatively somewhat\nadvanced type, and what is especially interesting about them is that\nthey appear not infrequently to have been made on the spur of the\nmoment; this is the case with the proverb in 1 Samuel x. 12: \u201cIs\nSaul among the prophets?\u201d which is said to have \u201cbecome a proverb.\u201d\nAnother saying the form and rhythm of which marks it out as a proverb\nis: \u201cThe blind and the lame shall not come into the house\u201d (2 Sam.\nv. 8, R.V. marg.); the fact that this is prefaced by the words,\n\u201cWherefore they say,\u201d also points to its having been a popular\nproverb. These, and similar proverbs, though originally composed\nin reference to some particular occurrence, became applicable in\ncourse of time in a more general way. The proverb, for example, \u201cIs\nSaul among the prophets?\u201d might be described as the _converse_ of\nthe modern proverb: \u201cBirds of a feather flock together\u201d; or, again,\nthe proverb: \u201cThey shall surely ask counsel at Abel,\u201d may well\nhave become a popular way of expressing the truth that if you want\nguidance you must seek it at the right quarter. A later and more\nadvanced type of proverb is uttered by the prophet Hosea (viii. 7):\n\u201cThey sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind\u201d; another is\nquoted in Jeremiah xxxi. 29 and Ezekiel xviii. 2 in the words: \u201cThe\nfathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children\u2019s teeth are set on\nedge.\u201d\n\nThe simplest form of proverb was thus the earliest type of \u201cWisdom\u201d\namong the Israelites, as it was among other peoples. But the content\nof a proverb easily lent itself, in the minds of the more reflective,\nto expansion, and thus by degrees were formed fables and parables\nwhereby truths were illustrated and brought home to the minds of men.\nOne of the earliest fables\u2014the exact application of which in its\npresent context is not quite easy to determine\u2014is preserved in Judges\nix. 8-15:\n\n      Once upon a time the trees went forth to anoint over them a king;\n      And they said to the olive: \u201cRule thou over us.\u201d And the olive\n            said to them:\n      \u201cShould I give up my fatness wherewith they honour gods and men,\n        And go and wave over the trees!\u201d\n      Then said the trees to the fig-tree: \u201cCome thou, be king over us.\u201d\n        And the fig-tree said to them:\n      \u201cShould I give up my sweetness and my good fruit,\n        And go and wave over the trees!\u201d\n      Then said the trees to the vine: \u201cCome thou, be king over us.\u201d\n        And the vine said unto them:\n      \u201cShould I give up my wine that cheereth gods and men,\n        And go and wave over the trees!\u201d\n      Then said all the trees to the thorn-bush: \u201cCome thou, be king\n            over us.\u201d\n        And the thorn-bush said to the trees:\n      \u201cIf truly ye anoint me as king over you,\n      Then come, trust to my shadow; but if not, then may fire come\n            forth from the thorn-bush,\n        And devour the cedars of Lebanon!\u201d\n\nWe have attempted to translate this in the poetical form of the\noriginal Hebrew; it will be seen that the thought-structure is very\nsimple, so that the ideas conveyed would be easily apprehended by\nthe common people to which the fable was addressed. Another fable,\nthe only other one preserved in the Old Testament, occurs in 2 Kings\nxiv. 9: \u201cThe bramble that was in Lebanon sent to the cedar that\nwas in Lebanon, saying, \u2018Give thy daughter to my son to wife\u2019; and\nthere passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon and trod down the\nbramble.\u201d But it is in the early Old Testament _parables_ that the\nhighest form of \u201cWisdom\u201d in pre-exilic Israel is reached. As in the\ncase of fables, only two parables are preserved; they differ from\nfables in two important particulars: in that only men are represented\nas taking part and speaking, and that the content of a parable,\nso far as we are able to judge from the specimens preserved, is\n_religious_; this is a large step forward in approximation to the\nlater Jewish conception of Wisdom. The earliest Old Testament parable\noccurs in 2 Samuel xii. 1-4, Nathan\u2019s parable of the ewe-lamb; it\nis sufficiently well known, and need not be quoted. The other is\nIsaiah\u2019s parable of the vineyard in Isaiah v. 1-4, which is written\nin poetry, while the former is in prose. We may add here one other\nform of Wisdom, found mainly in Ezekiel, namely the _allegory_;\nthis is also called a _m\u0101sh\u0101l_, but this word is here used in an\nextended sense, for the allegory, though a parable in form, presents\na symbolical picture the meaning of which is not, like the parable,\neasily grasped, but demands some thought before it can be properly\nunderstood; it is therefore sometimes called a \u201criddle.\u201d It differs\nin another respect from the parable, for symbols take the place of\npersons; but, like the parable, the Old Testament allegory has a\nreligious signification. Among the most striking allegories are: the\nallegory of the great eagles (Ezek. xvii. 3-8), the allegory of the\ncaldron (Ezek. xxiv. 3-5), and the allegory of the valley full of dry\nbones (Ezek. xxxvii. 1-10); but there are a considerable number of\nothers.\n\nThe examples of \u201cWisdom\u201d which have so far been given form an\nimportant element in the antecedents of the Wisdom literature; but\nthat this element was not exclusively Israelite is implied in the Old\nTestament itself, for in a passage already quoted (1 Kings iv. 30,\n[verse 10 in Hebrew]) it is said: \u201cAnd Solomon\u2019s wisdom excelled the\nwisdom of all the children of the east, and all the wisdom of Egypt.\u201d\nAs in so many other respects, so, too, in the domain of Wisdom,\nBabylon and Egypt evidently exercised considerable influence over\nthe Israelites[305]; and if this was so in pre-exilic times, much\nmore will it have been the case\u2014at any rate as far as Babylon was\nconcerned\u2014when a large portion, especially of the cultured classes,\nof the nation was brought into immediate contact with Babylonian\nthought during the exile. The following may be given as an example\nof the way in which the Babylonian conception of Wisdom influenced\nthe Jews. According to the Babylonian cosmology, Wisdom dwelt in the\ndepths of the sea with Ea, the creative deity. Apsu, \u201cthe deep,\u201d is\ncalled \u201cthe house of Wisdom\u201d because out of it came forth the Wisdom\nof Ea, and the word of Ea; one of the epithets applied to the god Ea\nis \u201clord of Wisdom.\u201d[306] This conception of the \u201cdeep\u201d being the\nhome of Wisdom is reflected in the Wisdom Literature of the Jews; in\nPsalms xxxvi. 6 it is said:\n\n      Thy judgements are a great deep,\n\nthe original is more forcible, for literally it runs:\n\n      Thy judgements are Tehom Rabbah,\n\nwhich is the ancient proper name for the ocean. So, too, in\nEcclesiasticus xxiv. 5, Wisdom says:\n\n      Alone I compassed the circuit of heaven,\n          And in the depth of the abyss I walked.[307]\n\nMoreover, the fundamental conception of Wisdom in the Wisdom\nLiterature (of which we shall speak presently) is its inseparable\nconnection with God; the deeper insight of the Jewish sages saw some\ntruth in the Babylonian conception of the origin of Wisdom, that it\ndwelt in the depth of the sea with the \u201cLord of Wisdom,\u201d i.e. was in\nclose touch with the creative deity, so they adopted the conception\nand placed it in a truer perspective.[308] What Kohler[309] says\nin a somewhat different connection is applicable here: \u201cAs soon as\nmonotheism was firmly established as a result of the labours of the\nprophets, the wisdom of the east could be consulted by Israel\u2019s\nsages, and questions concerning the origin of all things could be\nanswered, in both poetry and prose, far more intelligently than had\nbeen possible for the ancient Babylonians.\u201d\n\nThe origin of Wisdom is thus to be sought partly in Israel itself,\nand partly in certain ideas which were adopted from extraneous\nsources. But the way in which the Jewish sages of post-exilic times\ndeveloped both the indigenous as well as the foreign elements is\nextremely instructive; to this we must now devote some attention.\n\n\nIII. THE JEWISH CONCEPTION OF WISDOM\n\nOur chief concern is the conception of Wisdom as portrayed in the\nWisdom Literature; but it will be well to say just a word as to\nhow Wisdom was conceived of in the earlier literature, if only to\nshow the immense development of thought on the subject which took\nplace after the Exile. Wisdom (in Hebrew, _Chokmah_), and wise men\n(in Hebrew, _Chak\u0101m\u00eem_) are fairly frequently mentioned in the\nPentateuch, and in the prophetical as well as in the historical\nbooks; the words connote in general skill in doing anything, whether\nin reference to artisans, or goldsmiths, or sailors, or mourning\nwomen, or of the shrewdness of the astrologer or the magician. In a\nhigher sense it is used of wisdom in the administration of affairs;\nin a few instances, as in Hosea xiv. 10, a man is called wise who is\nfar-seeing in religious things (cp. also Deut. iv. 6, Isa. xi. 2).\nThat the prophets rarely refer to the subject of Wisdom is natural\nenough; it was not their function; they were called forth to rebuke\nand exhort in the words and after the manner of preachers; they\nappealed rather to the heart, to the emotions, to the conscience,\nthan to the intellect. Sometimes, it is true, we find that \u201cwise men\u201d\nare spoken of as a class; thus Jeremiah witnesses to the fact that\nalready in his day the _Chakam_ (\u201cwise man\u201d) occupied a recognized\nposition side by side with the priest and the prophet: \u201cFor the law\nshall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the\nword from the prophet\u201d (Jer. xviii. 18).\n\nTurning now to consider the various conceptions of Wisdom as\nportrayed in the Wisdom Literature, we may begin with the well-known\nwords: \u201cThe fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom.\u201d This saying\nwas to the Jewish sages probably the most important of any that was\nuttered on the subject; it occurs in Job xxviii. 28 in the form:\n\u201cBehold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom.\u201d In its more familiar\nform it appears in Psalms cxi. 6, Proverbs i. 7, ix. 10 (cp. xv.\n33), Ecclesiasticus i. 14 (cp. i. 15, 20, 27), and the sense of the\nwords occurs very often besides. But it is worth pointing out that\nthe meaning of the phrase is not that the fear of the Lord is the\ncommencement of Wisdom, but rather the \u201cend\u201d of it; it is true that\nthe Hebrew word used, _r\u00f4sh_ (lit. \u201chead\u201d), has also the sense of\n\u201cbeginning\u201d; but here it is \u201czenith\u201d that is meant; the highest and\nmost perfect form of Wisdom is the fear of the Lord; so that one\nmight quite correctly render: \u201cThe fear of the Lord is the end of\nWisdom.\u201d\n\nIn the Wisdom Literature generally Wisdom is never used in the sense\nof pure knowledge; in its earliest meaning it connoted the faculty of\ndistinguishing between what was useful or beneficent, and what was\nharmful; later, more ethically, between what was good and what was\nbad. In the Wisdom Literature there is always at bottom a _religious_\ncontent in Wisdom; that is to say, it is a divinely bestowed gift the\npossession of which makes man in some measure like God. To be able\nto distinguish truly between good and evil is the means whereby man\nis enabled to stand in close relationship with God. But since the\nfaculty to distinguish between good and evil is a divine endowment,\nevery form of Wisdom comes from God, so that although the knowledge\nand fear of the Lord is the highest type of Wisdom, there are less\nexalted forms of it which are also regarded as part of the one great\ngift of God; that is to say, what is called worldly wisdom does not\ndiffer in kind, but only in degree from the higher form. In Proverbs\nand Ecclesiasticus, which belong closely together, and which are the\nchief exponents of this worldly wisdom, moral precepts form the main\ntopics; and though widely different from divine Wisdom, both emanate\nfrom the same source, and are ultimately to be traced back to the\nGiver of all good things.\n\nBut the particular conception of Wisdom which is of far-reaching\nimportance is that of personification which is attributed to it\nin the Wisdom Literature. As a general rule Wisdom is spoken of\nas something abstract; but in some very striking passages it is\npersonified. Before proceeding to illustrate this it is necessary\nto utter a note of warning against exaggeration in two opposite\ndirections; on the one hand, we are not justified in reading into\nthe words which speak of the personification of Wisdom a meaning\nwhich they were not intended to bear; still less, on the other hand,\nare we justified in explaining away altogether the meaning which\nthose words _were_ intended to bear. When, nowadays, we speak of\nthings, whether abstract or concrete, as personalities the words\nare used metaphorically without the remotest intention of really\nimputing personality to the things described; but we must guard\nagainst the danger of assuming that our modern way of envisaging\nthings can be paralleled by that of two thousand years ago; the\n_mode of expression_ may not have greatly changed, but the _way of\nconceiving_ is totally different. When, among the Jewish sages of\nold, Wisdom was personified, it was conceived of, according to a\nmodern writer on the subject, as a \u201cprojection out of the Divine\nmind, as something more than an attribute, but as something less than\na hypostasis; \u2018a little more than kin, and less than kind.\u2019\u201d[310]\nThis is true as far as it goes; but the words of the Jewish sages, as\nwe shall see, lead one to believe that in their conception of Wisdom\nthey went even further than this; one may go so far as to say that\nWisdom was thought of as an intermediate being between God and the\nworld, a personality existing alongside of God, but separate from\nHim. This is more or less parallel to some other personifications,\nor quasi-personifications, of certain attributes proper to God\nwhich appear in early post-Christian Jewish writings; these occupy\nan intermediate position between personalities and abstract beings.\nWhile, on the one hand, they are represented as being so closely\nconnected with God as to appear as parts of Him, or attributes, they\nare, on the other hand, so often spoken of as undertaking individual\naction that they must be regarded in a real sense as separate from\nHim.[311]\n\nThe special importance of this conception of the hypostasis of\nWisdom lies not only in the fact that it forms the link between the\nPalestinian and Hellenistic development of Judaism, but also that\nit represents the contribution made by the Wisdom Literature to\nthe Christology of the Old Testament, and has, moreover, greatly\ninfluenced Christian theology.[312]\n\nWhat has been said must now be illustrated from the books of the\nWisdom Literature.\n\nIn the earlier portions of Proverbs, Wisdom is always an abstract\nthing; the only passage in which one might conceivably discern a\ntendency to something different would be xxii. 24:\n\n      Wisdom is before the face of him that hath understanding;\n\nbut it is doubtful whether this means more than that when a man has\nsought Wisdom and has found it, Wisdom may be said to be \u201cbefore his\nface,\u201d i.e., it is the man who has understanding before whose face\n(mental vision) Wisdom appears, because he has sought her. It is in\nwhat is pretty generally regarded as the latest portion of the book\n(viz. i.-ix., belonging to the third century B.C. _circa_) that a\nreal personification of Wisdom is found; the whole of chapter viii.\nis a speech uttered by Wisdom; much of it is undoubtedly figurative,\nbut the section viii. 22-31 evidently represents something more than\nfigurative language; it is too long to give in full, but a few of\nthe verses must be given in order to illustrate what has been said:\n\n      The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way,\n        Before his works of old.\n      I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning,\n        Or ever the earth was.\n      When there were no depths, I was brought forth;\n        When there were no fountains abounding with water....\n      When he established the heavens I was there;\n        When he set a circle upon the face of the deep;\n      When he made firm the skies above;\n        When the fountains of the deep became strong;\n      When he gave to the sea its bound,\n        That the waters should not transgress his commandment;\n      When he marked out the foundations of the earth;\n        Then was I by him, as a master workman....\n\nWith the thought of Wisdom being utilized by God in creating the\nworld (\u201cThen was I by him, as a master workman\u201d), one must compare\nthe thought of God having created the world by means of His _Word_;\nthis thought is already adumbrated in such a passage as Psalms\nxxxiii. 6: \u201cBy the Word of the Lord were the heavens made\u201d[313];\nthese words were, at any rate, interpreted in later times to mean\nthat the whole of the Creation, as described in Genesis i., was\naccomplished by means of the Word of God, \u201cWord,\u201d or _Memra_,\nhaving become, in the meantime, a quasi-personality like Wisdom.\nThis development may be seen at work in the Wisdom Literature; for\nexample, in Ecclesiasticus xlii. 15 it is said: \u201cBy the Word of God\n(are) His works,\u201d i.e. were His works created; the context shows that\nit is the works of the Creation which are referred to. In Wisdom iv.\n1 we have the same thought: \u201cO God of my fathers, and Lord of mercy,\nWho hast made all things by Thy Word, and by Thy wisdom didst form\nman ...\u201d; and, much later, in 2 (4) Esdras vi. 38, it is said again:\n\u201cThy Word was (i.e. made) a perfect work,\u201d where the reference is\nto the first day of Creation. We are here irresistibly led to think\nof the opening words of the fourth Gospel: \u201cIn the beginning was the\nWord, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was\nin the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without\nHim was not anything made that hath been made\u201d (John i. 1-3). It is\nvery striking to notice here how Christian truth was adumbrated in\npre-Christian times.\n\nIn the Book of Job, as everywhere in the Wisdom Literature, Wisdom is\nof divine origin, e.g. xi. 5, 6:\n\n      But oh that God would speak,\n        And open His lips against thee;\n      And that He would show thee the secrets of Wisdom,\n        For sound wisdom is manifold (cp. xv. 8).\n\nAs a general rule the wisdom spoken of in this book is that of\nexperience; but in one striking passage there is a definite\npersonification of Wisdom, viz. xxviii. 12-28; it begins with the\nquestion: \u201cWhere shall Wisdom be found?\u201d And after its priceless\nvalue has been described, the writer continues (verses 23 ff.):\n\n      God understandeth the way thereof,\n        And He knoweth the place thereof ...\n      When He made a decree for the rain,\n        And a way for the lightning of the thunder:\n      Then did He see it, and declare it;\n        He established it, yea, and searched it out....\n\nBut in this book where problems of great perplexity are treated,\nthere is less scope than in the other Wisdom books for dealing\nspecifically with Wisdom.\n\nIn Ecclesiastes (B.C. 200) Wisdom, as one would naturally expect,\nis always something abstract; but in this book, with its terribly\npessimistic tone, we come across a phenomenon which is found nowhere\nelse in the Wisdom literature; the Preacher\u2019s pessimism is seen to\naffect even his estimate of Wisdom; what, for example, could be more\ndismal than this?\n\n  And I applied my heart to seek and to search out by wisdom\n  concerning all that is done under heaven; it is a sore travail\n  that God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised\n  therewith.... I communed with mine own heart, saying, Lo, I\n  have gotten me great wisdom above all that were before me in\n  Jerusalem; yea, my heart hath had great experience of wisdom and\n  knowledge. And I applied my heart to know wisdom, and to know\n  madness and folly; I perceived that this also was a striving\n  after wind. For in much wisdom is much grief; and he that\n  increaseth knowledge increaseth grief (i. 13-18).\n\nThis forlorn writer, furthermore, seems sometimes to approach the\nsubject in an entirely perverse spirit; he says later:\n\n  I saw that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth\n  darkness. The wise man\u2019s eyes are in his head, and the fool\n  walketh in darkness; and yet I perceived that one event happeneth\n  to them all. Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the\n  fool, so will it happen even to me; and why was I then more\n  wise? Then I said in my heart, that this also was vanity. For of\n  the wise man, even as of the fool, there is no remembrance for\n  ever; seeing that in the days to come all will have been already\n  forgotten. And how doth the wise man die even as the fool (ii.\n  13-16).\n\nThis same spirit is manifested in the little parable in ix. 13-16:\n\n  ... There was a little city, and few men within it; and there\n  came a great king against it, and besieged it, and built great\n  bulwarks against it. Now there was found in it a poor wise man,\n  and he by his wisdom delivered the city; yet no man remembered\n  that same poor man. Then said I, Wisdom is better than strength;\n  nevertheless the poor man\u2019s wisdom is despised, and his words are\n  not heard.\n\nWe can only say that such an attitude is deplorable; the writer seems\nto think that unless Wisdom is recognized and the wise man rewarded,\nit is vanity! That is quite different from the usual attitude of the\nauthors of the Wisdom Literature, who esteem and love Wisdom for its\nown sake. There are, it is true, a few passages in this book which\nwitness to a better appreciation of Wisdom; for example, in vii. 11,\n12 it is said:\n\n  Wisdom is as good as an inheritance; yea, more excellent is it\n  for them that see the sun. For Wisdom is a defence, even as money\n  is a defence; but the excellency of knowledge is that Wisdom\n  preserveth the life of him that hath it.\n\nOr again in viii. 1:\n\n  A man\u2019s wisdom maketh his face to shine, and the hardness of his\n  face is changed.\n\nSo that, in spite of what he says elsewhere, the Preacher has an\ninnate liking for Wisdom; as a recent commentator on the book says,\n\u201che admires it, and at times follows it (i. 13, vii. 25, ix. 16);\nbut, on the other hand, he cannot rid himself of the feeling that\nthe wise man toils in vain (ix. 16), that his labour is a fruitless\nendeavour, and that a child born dead is in reality happier than the\nwise man (vi. 3-8). It is true that in another mood he declares that\nit is better to know that one will die than to know nothing (ix. 5);\nbut, on the whole, his verdict is that Wisdom, like all other things\nmundane, is vanity. The wise man has no real advantage, except that\nhe suffers with his eyes open; in the end he dies like a fool, and\ngoes to the same place (ix. 1 ff.).\u201d[314]\n\nIn the Wisdom of Ben-Sira (Ecclesiasticus) all that is taught\nconcerning Wisdom in the earlier books (with the exception of what\nis peculiar to Ecclesiastes) finds full expression, though Ben-Sira\nis not a slavish imitator; he has his own ideas, and amplifies the\nearlier teaching, always making it his own before giving expression\nto it. The divine origin of Wisdom is shown by teaching that it is a\ndirect emanation from God:\n\n      All Wisdom cometh from the Lord\n        And is with Him for ever (i. 1).\n\n      I came forth from the mouth of the Most High,\n        And as a mist I covered the earth (xxiv. 3).\n\nThe existence of Wisdom before the creation of world is definitely\nstated in the words:\n\n  Before them all (i.e. the heavens and the earth) was Wisdom\n  created (i. 4).\n\n  He created me from the beginning, before the world (xxiv. 9).\n\nIt is especially characteristic of Ben-Sira\u2019s teaching that he\nidentifies the Law with Wisdom; this identification is often taken\nfor granted, while in several passages it is categorically set\nforth. \u201cBen-Sira inculcates the truth that the way to lead a wise\nlife is to live according to the divine commandments, and acting\naccordingly, man makes his human wisdom approximate to the divine,\nand worldly, practical wisdom, in its many and various forms, is thus\nof the same kind, only less in degree, as divine wisdom. It is thus\neasy to see that the identification between the Law and Wisdom was\ninevitable.\u201d[315] This identification is to be seen in such passages\nas the following:\n\n      For he that feareth the Lord doeth this (i.e. seeketh Wisdom),\n      And he that taketh hold of the Law findeth her (xv. 1).\n\n      He that keepeth the Law controlleth his natural tendency,\n        And the fear of the Lord is the consummation of Wisdom\n                                                (xxi. 11).\n\nThe most direct assertion, however, of this identity between the Law\nand Wisdom is found in xxiv. 23, 25:\n\n      All these things (i.e. the things concerning Wisdom) are in\n            the book of the covenant of God Most High,\n      The Law which Moses commanded as an heritage for the assemblies\n            of Jacob,\n      Which filleth men with Wisdom, like Pison,\n        And like Tigris in the days of new fruits....\n\nAnd again in xix. 20:\n\n      All Wisdom is the fear of the Lord,\n        And all Wisdom is the fulfilling of the Law.\n\nAlthough Wisdom is the free gift of God,\n\n      Without measure doth He grant her to them that love Him (i. 26),\n\nyet man is not able to utilize it without earnest effort; he has an\nirksome discipline to go through which will test his sincerity:\n\n      But I will walk with him in disguise,\n        And at first I will try him with temptations.\n      Fear and dread will I bring upon him,\n        And I will torment him with chastisements (iv. 17);\n\nbut to the persevering the reward is great; this Ben-Sira expresses\nin a passage full of poetical beauty:\n\n      For at length thou wilt find her rest,\n        And she shall be turned for thee into gladness.\n      And her fetters shall become a stay of strength for thee,\n        And her bands for robes of glory.\n      An ornament of gold is her yoke,\n        And her fetters a cord of blue.\n      Thou shalt array thee with her as with robes of glory,\n        And crown thee with her as with a crown of beauty (vi. 28-31).\n\nIt will have been noticed that in several of the passages just quoted\nthe personification of Wisdom is graphically expressed; there are\nmany others in this book in which this is taught[316]; an interesting\none is i. 15, where Wisdom is described in taking up her abode among\nmen:\n\n      With faithful men is she, and she hath been established from\n              eternity,\n          And with their seed shall she continue.\n\nIn another passage Wisdom invites men to come and abide with her:\n\n      Come unto me, ye that desire me,\n        And be ye filled with my produce;\n      For my memorial is sweeter than honey,\n        And the possession of me than the honey-comb (xxiv. 19, 20).\n\nThis thought of Wisdom abiding among men is illustrated in another\nway; Ben-Sira, in desiring to show the superiority of the wisdom of\nIsrael over that of the Greeks, represents Wisdom as having sought\na resting-place among the nations of the world, but found that none\nwere worthy of her; thereupon God commanded her to abide in Israel\nwhere she would find a permanent home:\n\n      With all these (i.e. every people and nation) I sought a\n            resting-place,\n        And said: \u201cIn whose inheritance shall I lodge?\u201d\n      Then the Creator of all things gave me commandment,\n        And He that created me fixed my dwelling-place for me;\n      And He said: \u201cLet thy dwelling-place be in Jacob,\n        And in Israel take up thine inheritance....\u201d\n      And I took root among an honoured people,\n        In the portion of the Lord and of His inheritance\n                                                 (xxiv. 7-12).\n\nIn his teaching concerning the personification of Wisdom Ben-Sira\noffers something that is of a transitional character; in the main,\nhe bases his teaching on Proverbs, though he shows some advance upon\nthis; but he falls far behind what the Book of Wisdom has to say on\nthe subject. To this we must now devote some attention.\n\nThe writer of the Book of Wisdom, like the writers of all the books\nbelonging to this literature, teaches the divine origin of Wisdom;\nbut he has his own way of expressing this truth:\n\n      For she is a breath of the power of God,\n        And a clear effluence of the glory of the Almighty;\n      Therefore can nothing defiled find entrance into her.\n        For she is an effulgence from everlasting light,\n      And an unspotted mirror of the working of God,\n        And an image of His goodness (vii. 25, 26).\n\nThis divine Wisdom is so indispensable to man that he is of no\naccount without it:\n\n        For even if a man be perfect among the sons of men,\n      Yet if the Wisdom that cometh from Thee be not with him, he\n            shall be held in no account (ix. 6).\n\nAnother invariable doctrine in the Wisdom books, namely the\nexistence of Wisdom before the world was created, and her part in the\nCreation, is taught thus:\n\n      And with Thee is Wisdom, which knoweth Thy works,\n      And was present when Thou wast making the world (ix. 9).\n\n          For she is initiated into the knowledge of God,\n            And she chooseth out for Him His works (viii. 4).\n\nBen-Sira, as we saw, identifies the Law with Wisdom; the\nJewish-Hellenistic writer of the Book of Wisdom does not do so, but\nhe teaches an identification between the Holy Spirit of the Lord and\nWisdom[317]; this is clear from the following passage:\n\n      Because Wisdom will not enter into a soul that deviseth evil,\n        Nor dwell in a body that is held in pledge by sin;\n      For a holy spirit of discipline will flee deceit ...\n        For Wisdom is a spirit that loveth man,\n      And she will not hold a blasphemer guiltless for his lips ...\n        Because the spirit of the Lord hath filled the world (i. 4-7).\n\nStill more pointed are the words in ix. 17:\n\n      And who ever gained knowledge of Thy counsel, except Thou gavest\n            Wisdom,\n        And sentest Thy Holy Spirit from on high?\n\nFurther, Wisdom is identified with the Word of the Lord; the \u201cWord\u201d\nis, however, used in the Old Testament sense, not in that of the\nPhilonian Logos. The Word, like Wisdom, takes part in the Creation:\n\n      O God of the fathers, and Lord Who keepest Thy mercy,\n        Who madest all things by Thy Word;\n      And by Thy Wisdom Thou formedst man.... (ix. 1, 2).\n\nJust as Wisdom sits upon the throne of God:\n\n      Give me Wisdom, her that sitteth by Thee on Thy throne (ix. 4),\n\nso, too, the same is said of the Word:\n\n      Thine all-powerful Word leaped from heaven out of the royal\n            throne (xviii. 15).\n\nThe nature of Wisdom, as portrayed in this book, has been well summed\nup in the following words: \u201cWisdom is not an attribute, nor the sum\nof the attributes, of God: such an explanation would not take account\nof all the properties postulated of Wisdom, nor would it allow for\nthe completeness of the Divine transcendence. Wisdom, again, is not\nGod in manifestation; she is too distinct from Him to be merely a\ntheoretical aspect of Himself. Lastly, she is not a Being, personal\nand distinct from God: she emanates from Him, but the emanation\nhas not terminated. No birth-severance has taken place, giving her\nindependent life.\u201d[318]\n\nFinally, it will not be amiss to take a glance, though it be but a\nvery slight one, at the teaching concerning Wisdom which is given\nin some of the Apocalyptic books of which mention has been made in\nthe preceding chapter. It is true, these books do not belong to the\nWisdom Literature, nevertheless some of them contain teaching on the\nsubject of Wisdom which may appropriately find a brief consideration\nhere. We have already seen that in some of the earlier books of the\nOld Testament materials are to be discerned out of which the Wisdom\nLiterature developed; as there were, therefore, these early seeds out\nof which the Wisdom Literature grew, so in some of the Apocalyptic\nbooks an after-growth may also be discerned. While the full fruit is\nto be seen in the books with which we have just been concerned, it\nis well to realize that some fruit is also to be gathered outside of\nthese. It will be sufficient for our purpose if we illustrate what\nhas to be said from three Apocalyptic books, viz. the Book of Enoch,\nthe Similitudes of Enoch and the Secrets of Enoch.\n\nIn the oldest portions of the Book of Enoch there is no mention\nof Wisdom,[319] unless xci. 10 be included among these.[320] This\npassage runs:\n\n      And the righteous shall arise from their sleep,\n      And Wisdom shall arise and be given unto them.\n\nIn the next oldest part, the \u201cDream Visions,\u201d the thought which has\nalready come before us of Wisdom sitting on the throne of God, finds\nexpression:\n\n      Wisdom departs not from the place of Thy throne,\n          Nor turns away from Thy presence (lxxxiv. 3).\n\nBut it is in the \u201cSimilitudes\u201d that we find a number of passages\ndealing with the subject; in fact, all these \u201cSimilitudes,\u201d or\n\u201cParables,\u201d are declared to be the outcome of the Wisdom which the\nLord of Spirits granted to Enoch (see xxxvii. 1-4, and cp. lxxxii.\n2, 3). Differing from the teaching of earlier Wisdom books[321] it\nis here stated that Wisdom could nowhere find a dwelling-place among\nmen, and had therefore to return to heaven (cp. the passage just\nquoted):\n\n          Wisdom found no place where she might dwell;\n          Then a dwelling-place was assigned her in the heavens.\n      Wisdom went forth to make her dwelling among the children of men,\n          But found no dwelling-place;\n          Wisdom returned to her place,\n          And took her seat among the angels (xlii. 1, 2; cp. xciv. 5).\n\nIt is the Elect One, sitting on the throne of God, Who possesses all\nthe secrets of Wisdom:\n\n      And the Elect One shall in those days sit on my Throne,\n      And his mouth shall pour forth all the secrets of wisdom and\n            counsel:\n      For the Lord of Spirits hath given them to him, and hath\n            glorified him (li. 3; cp. xlix. 3).\n\nThe blessedness of those who accept Wisdom is described in xcix. 10.\n\nIn the Book of the Secrets of Enoch there is at least one passage in\nwhich Wisdom is personified; it is a very curious one repeating with\nstrange details the thought that Wisdom, as taught in earlier books,\ntook her part in the Creation; the words are put into the mouth of\nthe Creator:\n\n  On the sixth day I ordered my Wisdom to make man of seven\n  substances: his flesh from the earth; his blood from the dew;\n  his eyes from the sun; his bones from the stones; his thoughts\n  from the swiftness of the angels, and the clouds; his veins [or\n  \u201cnails\u201d] and hair from the grass of the earth; his spirit from my\n  spirit, and from the wind (xxx. 8).\n\nBut in other passages, e.g. xxxiii. 3, xliii. 2, Wisdom is conceived\nof as purely abstract.\n\n\nSUMMARY\n\nThe Wisdom Literature is preserved in both canonical and uncanonical\nbooks; but the distinction is here unimportant, for those belonging\nto either category are clearly members of the same family; they\nall possess one characteristic distinguishing them from the rest\nof the Old Testament, viz. in them religion has become philosophy.\nNot philosophy in the Greek sense, nor yet in that of the moderns,\nbut still religious philosophy of a distinct type. The fundamental\nJewish monotheistic belief is taken for granted throughout. There\nare, however, other characteristics not altogether in accord with\ntraditional Judaism. The writers of the Wisdom Literature are not\nalways consistent with one another, or even with themselves, and\ntheir speculations are often only tentative. This is not surprising,\nfor they were struggling with new ways of thinking and with new\nsubjects of thought; and they were, moreover, coming into contact\nwith new influences.\n\nIn the Wisdom Literature certain positions taken up show some\nvariance with tradition; thus, the wise men present a very\ninteresting combination of universalism and conservatism; little\nstress is laid on national institutions and laws such as the\nsacrificial system; in like manner the Messianic expectation\nreceives very scant recognition. The attitude towards the Gentiles\nis generally friendly; their higher culture is recognized, and\nthere is willingness to learn from them. Not infrequently the God of\nthe Jews is declared to be the God of all men. Most striking is the\nconception, which is quite un-Jewish, of the divine _Sophia_ which is\nconceived of as a creative power existing before the Creation.\n\nThere is a great difference between the conceptions of Wisdom in\npre-exilic writings, and those of the Wisdom Literature proper; but\nwithout doubt the former contain the seeds whose growth is seen in\nthe latter. Yet while it is true that the religious-intellectual\nspirit to which the Wisdom Literature owed its existence was\nan indigenous plant, yet the elements which contributed to its\ndevelopment were not exclusively Jewish. Babylonian influence was at\nwork before, as well as during, the Captivity, and Greek influence is\nto be discerned later.\n\nIt is not possible to say when ideas about Wisdom began to manifest\nthemselves in Israel. The earliest form of Wisdom is presented by\nwhat the Hebrews called a _m\u0101sh\u0101l_, usually translated \u201cproverb,\u201d but\nhaving a wider signification, being used of a prophetic figurative\ndiscourse such as was uttered by Balaam, or a parable or allegory of\nthe kind found in the Book of Ezekiel. In its earlier use, however,\n_m\u0101sh\u0101l_ did mean a \u201cproverb,\u201d i.e. a sentence expressing some truth,\nnot necessarily religious or ethical, which had been reached by\nexperience or observation.\n\nThe Hebrew words for \u201cWisdom\u201d (_Chokmah_) and for \u201cwise men\u201d\n(_Chak\u0101m\u00eem_) are found fairly frequently in the Pentateuch as well as\nin the prophetic and historical books; but the usual meaning in these\ndiffers from that found in the Wisdom Literature.\n\nOf the several conceptions of Wisdom in the Wisdom Literature the\nmost important is that expressed in the well-known words: \u201cThe fear\nof the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom\u201d; this occurs again and again\nin varying form, its real meaning being that the fear of the Lord\nis the _end_ of Wisdom, its highest and most perfect form. In this\nLiterature there is always a religious content in Wisdom; it is never\nused of pure knowledge. In Proverbs and Ecclesiastes there is much\nabout worldly wisdom, but the faculty of distinguishing between good\nand evil always comes from God.\n\nThe personification of Wisdom found in this Literature is of\nfar-reaching importance. We must neither read into the passages\nwhich treat of this a meaning they were not intended to bear, nor\nmust we explain away the meaning that was really intended. When\namong the Jewish sages of old Wisdom was personified, they thought\nof a personality existing alongside of God, an intermediate being\nbetween God and the world. This is more or less parallel to the\npersonification or quasi-personification of attributes proper to\nGod which is found in early post-Christian Jewish writings. The\nspecial importance of this conception of Wisdom lies not only in the\nfact that it forms the link between the Palestinian and Hellenic\ndevelopment of Judaism, but also that it represents the contribution\nmade by the Wisdom Literature to the Christology of the New\nTestament, and has, moreover, greatly influenced Christian theology.\n\nIn the earlier portions of Proverbs, Wisdom is always presented\nas something abstract, except perhaps in xvii. 24. A real\npersonification is found in the later parts. In Job it is the wisdom\nof experience that normally finds expression; but there is a definite\npersonification in xxxviii. 12-28. In Ecclesiastes Wisdom is always\nsomething abstract, and, a unique element, the estimate of Wisdom is\naffected by the Preacher\u2019s pessimism. In Ecclesiasticus all that is\ntaught in the other books about Wisdom finds expression, with the\nexception of the pessimism of Ecclesiastes; the identification of the\nLaw with Wisdom is a striking characteristic. The Jewish-Hellenistic\nwriter of the Book of Wisdom identifies Wisdom with the holy spirit\nof the Lord, as well as with the Word (in the Jewish sense), and\nteaches its divine origin and its existence before the creation of\nthe world (this is common to the Wisdom Literature generally).\n\nA brief glance at the teaching concerning Wisdom in the Apocalyptic\nLiterature shows that there is very little in the earliest parts of\nthe Book of Enoch, but there are a number of passages which touch the\nsubject in the \u201cSimilitudes,\u201d some of which have peculiar features.\nIn the Secrets of Enoch Wisdom is represented as taking part in the\nCreation.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII\n\nThe Doctrinal Teaching of the Apocrypha\n\n\nPRELIMINARY REMARKS\n\nIt would be difficult to point to anything which illustrates more\nclearly the arbitrary way in which the books of the Apocrypha have\nbeen separated off from the rest of the Jewish uncanonical religious\nliterature of the period with which we are dealing than the study\nof the doctrinal teaching of this literature. For in the Apocrypha\nonly part of that teaching is represented; to obtain it in its\nfulness, so far as the literature of the period is extant, we have\nto consult such pseudepigraphic works as the Book of Enoch, the\nSibylline Oracles, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Book\nof Jubilees, the Psalms of Solomon, the Assumption of Moses, the\nSyriac Apocalypse of Baruch, and the Ascension of Isaiah. But to take\nall these into consideration here is out of the question, and we\nhave already given a brief outline of the more important doctrines\ntaught in them (Chapter X). There is, however, one compensation in\nrestricting ourselves to the books of the Apocrypha; for the more\nimportant of these were recognized by official Judaism as containing\ngood orthodox teaching; so that in dealing with this body of\nliterature alone we are at all events on more or less secure ground\nas far as orthodox Judaism is concerned, and to get at that as a\nfoundation is useful for the further observance of the development\nof doctrine. At the same time, it is necessary to bear in mind\nthat while in most respects the books of the Apocrypha afford,\nspeaking generally, a criterion for the period B.C. 200-A.D. 100 as\nto orthodox Jewish teaching, in some respects they are inadequate,\nin others even insufficient, so that in such cases recourse must be\nhad to the Apocalyptic Literature, though we cannot here take that\nLiterature into fuller consideration.\n\nNow in dealing with the Judaism of this period we must again\nemphasize what has already been stated several times, namely the\nexistence of the external influences by which it was affected. The\nbackground of the Apocrypha books in the domain of doctrine is not\nsolely the Old Testament, though this is, of course, their chief\nsource of inspiration; but there have also been marked Persian and\nGreek influences in certain directions; it is essential that this\nshould be recognized. This point has been admirably dealt with\nby Fairweather, and some of his words are well worth quoting; he\nrightly says that there have been \u201ctwo great streams of influence\nflowing in upon the Jewish theology of this period, an Eastern and\na Western, a Persian and a Greek. Of these by far the stronger was\nthe Greek, though the Persian is as distinctly traceable ... the\nPersian current was that of Zoroastrianism; the Greek cannot be\nassociated with a single name. Out of these two forces, which were\nnew, or newly felt, active upon the native Judaism of Palestine,\nwhich was old, was formed that _third_ which we meet within the\nhome of Jewish theology of the period. But there was also a Jewish\ntheology outside of Palestine altogether. Not only did foreign\ninfluences flow in upon Judaism, but Judaism, now no longer confined\nto Palestine, went out to meet them. Thus the hitherto unbroken\nriver of Old Testament ideas and doctrines divided itself at this\npoint into three separate streams. One, the main current, continued\nto flow on in Palestine; while on the east and west of it ran two\nother streams\u2014the one through Persian territory, and the other\nthrough Greek. The tributaries of Persian and Greek ideas by which\nthese streams respectively were fed necessarily caused their waters\nto be of a composite character, exceedingly difficult to analyse so\nas to say definitely, \u2018This is Jewish, that is Persian,\u2019 or \u2018This is\nJewish, that is Greek,\u2019\u201d[322] The main current of which Fairweather\nspeaks represents Palestinian Judaism, while the other two streams\npowerfully affected the Judaism of the Dispersion; the differences\nbetween these two types of Judaism must be taken into consideration,\nfor both types are represented in the books of the Apocrypha. We\nmust also seek, as far as possible, to follow the teaching of the\nvarious books in chronological order. Differences of opinion exist,\nto be sure, regarding the actual dates of these, but there is in\nalmost all cases approximate unanimity as to the _centuries_ to\nwhich they belong. In some instances different parts of a book\nbelong to different times; this will be taken into consideration\nwhere necessary. When, therefore, quotations are given to illustrate\nsome point of doctrine they will be put, as far as possible, in\nchronological order; see the table on p. 320.\n\nThe doctrines to be dealt with are the following:\n\n  (_a_) The Doctrine of God.\n  (_b_) The Doctrine of the Law.\n  (_c_) The Doctrine of Sin.\n  (_d_) The Doctrine of Grace and Free-will.\n  (_e_) The Doctrine of the Messiah.\n  (_f_) The Doctrine of the Future Life.\n  (_g_) The Doctrine of Angels.\n  (_h_) Demonology.\n\nThe very important doctrine of Wisdom has already been considered in\nChapter VIII.\n\nIn dealing with these doctrines we shall only make cursory mention\nof those points in which the teaching of the Apocrypha is identical\nwith that of the Old Testament, as our main object is to try\nand show in what respects the books of the Apocrypha exhibit an\nadvance in doctrine upon the Old Testament, or, as in some cases, a\nretrogression; at the same time the characteristic form in which a\nbook presents any particular doctrine will be noted even in those\ncases in which there is no essential difference between the Old\nTestament and the Apocrypha. It will not always be possible to keep\nthe various doctrines entirely separate from each other, as one so\noften leads into another; so that some little repetition may at times\nbe unavoidable.\n\n\n(_a_) _The Doctrine of God._\n\nThe Old Testament teaching on the Personality of God is, as one\nwould expect, so full, that we must not look for much advance in the\nbooks of the Apocrypha on this subject. The Unity of God the Creator\nof all, His eternity and omnipotence, His activity in nature, His\nwisdom, holiness, justice, loving-kindness and mercy, His Fatherhood\nof Israel, and sometimes of all flesh\u2014these doctrines are all amply\ndealt with in Ecclesiasticus. In the fine passage Ecclesiasticus\nxlii. 15-xliii. 33, where Ben-Sira gets his inspiration largely from\nthe Psalms, the praise of God is sung as the Lord of Nature; there\nare one or two points in this passage which, to some extent, witness\nto an advance upon what the Old Testament teaches; in xlii. 16 it is\nsaid:\n\n      God\u2019s holy ones have not the power\n        To recount His wondrous works of might;\n      Though God hath given strength to His hosts\n        To endure in the presence of His glory.\n\nThese words represent the Hebrew, which was misunderstood by\nthe Greek translator; the meaning of them is that not even the\nangels[323] can declare God\u2019s mighty works, even though they stand\nin His presence; they are only able to stand in that presence because\nthey have received special strength for the purpose. What spiritual\nbeings, who thus stand in the very presence of God, are unable to\nfathom, can still less be understood by men, all they can do is to\noffer praise to God; so Ben-Sira says later in the same section:\n\n      We will sing praises, because we cannot fathom;\n        For greater is He than all His works.\n      Terrible is Jehovah exceedingly,\n        And wonderful are His mighty acts.\n      Ye that magnify Jehovah, lift up your voice\n        As much as ye can, for there is still more!\n      Ye that exalt Him, renew your strength,\n        And weary not, for ye cannot fathom Him!\n      Who hath seen Him, that he may tell thereof?\n        And who shall magnify Him as He is?\n      The number of things mysterious is greater even than these,\n        And I have seen but few of His works (xliii. 28-32).\n\nThe conception of God which is revealed in these two passages does\ncertainly seem to be a higher one even than is anywhere to be found\nin the Old Testament. In Tobit much the same general conception\nis found as in the Old Testament; but one passage may be quoted\nas showing a universalistic spirit which is found only in some of\nthe most exalted utterances of the prophets; in xiv. 6 it is said\nthat \u201call the nations which are in the whole earth, all shall turn\nand fear God truly; and all shall leave their idols, who err after\ntheir false error.\u201d Fully in accordance with the belief that Jehovah\nis the God of all men is the way in which the writer of this book\nnever tires of speaking of Him under various titles expressive of\nthe sincerest praise and faith; no book of the Apocrypha has such\na variety of names for God as this one. Another important point is\nthat God hears the prayers of men through angelic mediation. In great\ncontrast to this high conception of God is that found in Judith;\nfor while the power of God to help His chosen ones in face of the\nmost adverse circumstances is strongly insisted upon, the idea that\nGod\u2019s favour is only accorded to those who keep the Law, and that\nHe is only the God of the Jews, which is implied throughout even if\nnot definitely stated, is a very inadequate one and takes us back\nto some of the least exalted passages of the Old Testament which\ndeal with the doctrine of God. A special note, though in no sense\nnew in itself, is sounded in the Prayer of Manasses, where great\nstress is laid upon the divine compassion; the opening verses form a\nbeautiful hymn of praise to God. In turning to the secondary text of\nEcclesiasticus, which comes next in order, we have in the addition\nto xxiv. 23 (= 24 in the A.V.) a striking instance of the Pharisaic\ndoctrine of God, both as regards the divine Personality as well as\nthe relationship between Him and His true worshippers:\n\n      Faint not, but be strong in the Lord,\n        And cleave unto Him that He may strengthen you.\n      Cleave unto Him; the Lord, the Almighty, is the One and only God;\n        And beside Him there is no Saviour.\n\nThe great characteristic, so far as the present subject is\nconcerned, of this secondary text, or Pharisaic recension,[324] of\nEcclesiasticus is that of the closeness of God to those who love Him;\npersonal religion, that religious individualism which did so much to\nfoster spiritual worship, finds true expression here; not that the\noriginal writer was wanting in deep piety, in spite of what often\nstrikes one as a somewhat worldly spirit, but as compared with the\nPharisaic ideal of the beginning of the first century B.C. it is not\nsurprising to find that the book was considered in some respects\nwanting, and that it seemed to the more ardent religious temperament\nof the Pharisees as not sufficiently expressive of the close\nrelationship between God and His pious ones. This may be illustrated\nby one or two examples of the way additions are made to the original\ntext. In i. 12 Ben-Sira says:\n\n      The fear of the Lord delighteth the heart,\n        And giveth gladness, and joy, and length of days;\n\nbut the Pharisee deepens the sentiment by adding:\n\n      The fear of the Lord is a gift from the Lord,\n        For it setteth men upon paths of love.\n\nAnother example is found in the addition to xvii. 20. Ben-Sira says:\n\n      Their iniquities are not hid from Him,\n        And all their sins are inscribed before the Lord;\n\nto this the Pharisaic glossator adds:\n\n      But the Lord, being merciful, knowing also that they are made\n            in His own image,\n        Spared them, and forsook them not, nor cast them off.\n\nThe closeness of God to those who love Him is again brought out in\nthe addition to xvii. 26^_a_:\n\n      For He Himself will lead thee out of darkness unto the light\n            of salvation.[325]\n\nThere are, of course, other passages of a similar kind. The interest\nof these lies in the fact that they breathe the same spirit which\nwe find in a number of the later Psalms, and which are believed by\nmany scholars to emanate from the circle of the _Chassidim_ or \u201cPious\nones,\u201d the forerunners of the Pharisees; this spirit reappears in\nthe Psalms of Solomon, which are admittedly the work of a Pharisee,\nor Pharisees. In 1 Maccabees we find the strange characteristic of\nthe non-mention of the name of God,[326] which never occurs in the\noriginal text, though it is sometimes inserted in the Authorized\nVersion; on the other hand, a true faith in the omnipotence of God\nis at times expressed, e.g. iii. 18: \u201cThere is no difference in the\nsight of Heaven to save by many or by few; for victory in battle\nstandeth not in the multitude of an host, but strength is from\nHeaven\u201d; and trust in God as the God of Israel Who will help His\npeople against their foes occurs not infrequently, e.g. in iv. 10,\n11: \u201cAnd now let us cry unto Heaven, if He will have mercy upon us,\nand will remember the covenant of the fathers, and destroy this army\nbefore our face to-day, and then will all the Gentiles know that\nthere is One Who redeemeth and saveth Israel.\u201d[327] In all three\nof the documents which make up the Book of Baruch stress is laid\non God\u2019s guidance of Israel\u2019s destiny; in the portion, Baruch iv.\n5-v. 9 the special characteristic is that the divine compassion is\nconstantly recalled, for which reason the writer again and again\nbids his hearers be of \u201cgood cheer.\u201d The writer of 2 (4) Esdras\nfully represents the best of the Old Testament teaching concerning\nthe doctrine of God; he insists on the unity of God, His Creatorship\nwholly without any mediatorial agency; Israel is the specially\nelected nation with which God has entered into a covenant relation.\nThe problems with which the seer is presented are insoluble for man,\nwho cannot even comprehend the material things of the world, much\nless the spiritual secrets of Heaven: \u201c... He said moreover unto me,\nWhat belongs to thee, (namely) the things that have intermingled with\nthy growth, thou art incapable of understanding; how then should thy\nvessel be able to comprehend the way of the Most High? For the way\nof the Most High hath been found without measure; how, then, should\nit be possible for a mortal in a corruptible world to understand\nthe ways of the Incorruptible?\u201d (iv. 10, 11). The writer\u2019s faith in\nGod is specially shown forth by his conviction that in spite of all\nappearances God\u2019s love is for His people: \u201cJust as thou art unable\nto do even one of these that have been mentioned, even so art thou\npowerless to discover my judgement or the goal of the love that I\nhave declared unto My people\u201d (v. 40). With the Book of Wisdom we\nenter a religious atmosphere which is to a large extent alien to\nthat of Palestine; whether the two parts of this book were written\nby different authors, or whether they are both from the same author\nwriting at different periods of his life, it is quite clear that the\npresentation of the doctrine of God in each is entirely different;\nthe first part (i.-xi. 1) is more Greek than Jewish, and \u201cin\nnothing,\u201d says Holmes, \u201cis this more clearly shown than in the idea\nof God presented by the two parts respectively. The idea of God in\npart i. is that of Greek philosophy, a transcendent God Who has no\nimmediate contact with the world. It is true that in the later parts\nof the Old Testament the writers had largely abandoned the conception\nof Jahveh as a God Who had direct dealings with mankind.... God\ngradually became thought of as more and more remote, though even in\nDaniel the scene where the Ancient of Days sits in judgement on the\nnations shows that God could be still thought of as having immediate\ndealings with mankind. In Wisdom, however, in chapters i.-x. we find\nthat the author conceives God to be so remote, that He performs\nHis will by means of an intermediary, whom He sends forth into the\nworld (ix. 10). This intermediary is Wisdom, and possesses all the\nattributes of Deity. She is omnipotent (vii. 27), omniscient (viii. 8\nand ix. 11), and puts these attributes into action; she administers\nall things well (viii. 1).\u201d[328] In the second half of the book God\nis again and again spoken of as interfering personally in the affairs\nof men; a striking example is given in xiv. 1 ff., which speaks of\nthe folly of a navigator who prays for safety to an idol before\nembarking upon his vessel:\n\n      For that vessel the hunger for gain devised,\n      And an artificer by his wisdom built it;\n      And Thy providence, O Father, guideth it along,\n      Because even in the sea Thou gavest a way,\n      And in the waves a sure path;\n      Showing that Thou canst save out of every danger....\n\nIn other respects also the second part of this book represents the\nOld Testament doctrine, more especially in its insistence upon the\nneed of right worship, and in the way in which it deals with the\nmercy and justice of God.\n\n\n(_b_) _The Doctrine of the Law._\n\nIn Ecclesiasticus much stress is laid upon the importance of the Law\nboth from the ethical and ritual point of view, a fact which shows\nthis book to be a valuable link between the Judaism of post-exilic\ntimes and Rabbinical Judaism. The first point to note is the nature\nof the Law as taught by Ben-Sira; it is eternal, and it is divine,\nfor it has been given by God, the Eternal One. The existence of the\nLaw before the beginning of the world is involved by Ben-Sira\u2019s\nidentification of it with Wisdom. This is a conception which, so far\nas is known, occurs here for the first time; but the way in which\nthis identification seems to be taken for granted shows that it\ncannot have been wholly new to Ben-Sira\u2019s hearers; in speaking about\nthe search for Wisdom he says, for example, in xv. 1:\n\n      For he that feareth the Lord doeth this [i.e. seeketh Wisdom],\n        And he that taketh hold of the Law findeth her [i.e. Wisdom].\n\nThe Law and Wisdom are used again as synonymous terms in xxxiv.\n(xxxi. in the Greek) 8:\n\n      Without deceit shall the Law be fulfilled.\n        And Wisdom is perfect in a mouth that is faithful.\n\nPerhaps the most striking example of the way in which the two are\nidentified with each other is in xxiv. 23, where Ben-Sira speaks of\nthings concerning Wisdom, saying:\n\n      All these things are the book of the covenant of God Most High,\n        The Law which Moses commanded as an heritage for the assemblies\n              of Jacob.\n\nEqually direct are the words in xix. 20:\n\n      All wisdom is the fear of the Lord,\n        And all wisdom is the fulfilling of the Law.\n\nThe \u201cfear of the Lord,\u201d as is often said by Ben-Sira, is both the\ntrue observance of the Law, and the \u201cbeginning,\u201d or zenith, of\nWisdom. The constant insistence upon the need of observing the Law\nis characteristic of this book; the following passage offers a good\nexample out of many:\n\n      He that seeketh out the Law shall gain her,\n        But the hypocrite shall be snared thereby....\n      In all thy works guard thyself,\n        For he that so doeth keepeth the commandment.\n      He that observeth the Law guardeth himself,\n        And he that trusteth in Jehovah shall not be brought to shame\n                                                 (xxxii. 15-24).\n\nBen-Sira urges men not to be ashamed of the Law (xlii. 2), and loves\nto remind his hearers of how their great ancestors observed it and\nwere enlightened by it, and taught it to others (see xliv. 20,\nxlv. 5, 17, xlvi. 14); and he also teaches that the fulfilling of\nthe precepts of the Law is to be the chief concern in view of the\ninevitableness of death:\n\n      Remember thy last end, and cease from enmity;\n        Remember corruption and death, and abide in the commandments\n                                                    (xxviii. 6).\n\nAnother point of importance in this connection is Ben-Sira\u2019s teaching\non the spirit in which the precepts of the Law should be carried out;\nin xxxiv. 18, 19 (in the Greek xxxi. 21-23) he says:\n\n      The sacrifice of the unrighteous man is a mocking offering,\n        And unacceptable are the oblations of the godless.\n      The Most High hath no pleasure in the offerings of the ungodly,\n        Neither doth He forgive sins for a multitude of sacrifices.\n\nSomewhat different in character, but breathing quite the same spirit,\nare the following words:\n\n      He who washeth after contact with a dead body, and toucheth it\n            again,\n        What has he gained by his bathing?\n      So a man fasting for his sins,\n        And again doing the same,\n      Who will listen to his prayer?\n        And what hath he gained by his humiliation (verses 25, 26).\n\nThat the Law, according to Ben-Sira, was now meant only for Israel,\nwhatever might originally have been the case, may be gathered from\nthe following, when it is remembered that, as already shown, Wisdom\nand the Law are identified with each other; Wisdom is represented as\nspeaking thus:\n\n      With all these [i.e. every people and nation] I sought a\n            resting-place,\n        And said: In whose inheritance shall I lodge?\n      Then the Creator of all things gave me commandment,\n        And He that created me fixed my dwelling-place for me;\n      And He said: Let thy dwelling-place be in Jacob,\n        And in Israel take up thine inheritance....\n      And I took root among an honoured people,\n        In the portion of the Lord and of His inheritance\n                                              (xxiv. 7 f., 12).\n\nWe may recall here that according to the teaching of the Rabbis\nin later centuries the Law was originally intended by God to be a\nrevelation of Himself and of His will to all nations, but that the\nonly nation which accepted it was Israel.\n\nIn the Book of Tobit we meet with an earnest zeal for the fulfilments\nof legal precepts combined with deep devotion. This book is\nimportant for the indications it offers of the development of legal\nobservances. Prayer, almsgiving and fasting are strongly advocated\n(xii. 8), but more especially almsgiving, which is again and again\ninsisted upon, e.g.: \u201cGive alms of thy substance; turn not away thy\nface from any poor man, and the face of God shall not be turned away\nfrom thee. As thy substance is, give alms of it according to thine\nabundance; if thou have much, according to the abundance thereof\ngive alms; if thou have little, bestow it, and be not afraid to give\nalms according to that little....\u201d (iv. 6-11). The laws of tithe\n(i. 7, v. 13), marriage (vi. 12, vii. 13, 14), honouring parents\n(iv. 3), keeping the feasts (i. 6, ii. 1), purifying oneself (ii.\n5), as well as others, are all inculcated. This love for the Law,\ncombined with worship, i.e. prayer, observance of the feasts, and\nzeal for the honour of God, offers a fine illustration of the truly\npious Jew of this period. The observance of the Law appears as a real\ndelight, there is no hint of its being irksome; in this the book is a\ncommentary on the psalmist\u2019s words:\n\n      Oh, how I love Thy Law,\n      It is my meditation all the day (Ps. cxix. 97).\n\nIn no book of the Apocrypha is the observance of the Law more\nstrongly advocated than in Judith; while everything depends upon\ntrust in God and obedience to Him, both are shown forth by keeping\nthe Law which He gave; righteousness is only through the Law. As\nin the majority of the books of the Apocrypha there is no abstract\nconception concerning the Law, its practical observance only is\ntaught. Thus in viii. 5, 6 it is said of Judith that \u201cshe made her\na tent upon the roof of her house, and put on sackcloth upon her\nloins; and the garments of her widowhood were upon her. And she\nfasted all the days of her widowhood, save the eves of the sabbaths,\nand the eves of the new moons, and the new moons, and the feasts\nand joyful days of the house of Israel.\u201d This was all in accordance\nwith traditional practice; seclusion, mortification and fasting\nall belonged to the _r\u00f4le_ of a widow\u2019s mourning; it is, however,\na development that the eves of sabbaths, new moons and feasts were\nobserved, as here indicated. A further example of the need of the\nstrict observance of the Law is seen in xi. 12, 13, where the sin\nof touching forbidden food is spoken of: \u201cSince their (i.e. the\nJews\u2019) victuals failed them, and all their water was scant, they took\ncounsel to lay hands upon their cattle, and determined to consume all\nthose things which God charged them by His laws that they should not\neat; and they are resolved to spend the firstfruits of the corn, and\nthe tenths of the wine and the oil, which they had sanctified and\nreserved for the priests that stand before the face of our God in\nJerusalem; the which things it is not fitting for any of the people\nso much as to touch with their hands.\u201d Reference is also made to\nthe sacrificial system and the gifts of the people in xvi. 18, but\nin the poem in xvi. 2-17 the right spirit in offering is the really\nimportant matter:\n\n      For all sacrifice is very little for a sweet savour,\n      And all the fat is very little for a whole burnt-offering to Thee;\n      But he that feareth the Lord is great continually.\n\nThe teaching concerning the Law in this book is thus strongly\nPharisaic.\n\nIn 1 Maccabees there is reflected the earnest zeal for the Law on\nthe part of the patriots; this has been referred to with quotations\nabove (Chap. II), so that it is not necessary to say anything further\nhere. Much stress is laid upon legal observances in 2 Maccabees; in\ni. 8, 9 it is told how in Jerusalem the Jews offered sacrifice and\nmeal-offering, lighted the lamps, and set forth the shewbread; and\nit is enjoined that the feast of Tabernacles be kept in the month\nChislev. As in 1 Maccabees apostate Jews are severely rebuked for\nfollowing those who were unfaithful to the Law (iv. 11-17), the\npassage concludes with the words: \u201cIt is no light matter to act\nimpiously against the laws of God; time will show that.\u201d Another\npassage which illustrates the intense zeal for the Law is in chapter\nvii., where the story is told of the martyrdom of seven sons and\ntheir mother who \u201cdied for His laws\u201d (vii. 9). The whole attitude\ntowards the Law is that of the Pharisaic school of about the first\ncentury B.C. onwards; this also applies to 1 (3) Esdras.\n\nIn the document, Baruch iii. 9-iv. 4, where the Law and Wisdom are\nidentified, exiled Israel is told that the reason of his punishment\nis the forsaking of God\u2019s ways, the commandments of life, i.e. the\nLaw:\n\n      Hear, O Israel, the commandments of life;\n      Give ear to understand Wisdom.\n      How happeneth it, O Israel, that thou art in thine enemies\u2019 land,\n      That thou art waxen old in a strange country...?\n      Thou hast forsaken the fountain of Wisdom.\n      For if thou hadst walked in the way of God,\n      Thou shouldst have dwelled in peace for ever.\n      Learn where is Wisdom, where is strength,\n      Where is understanding; that thou mayest also know\n      Where is length of days, and life,\n      Where is the light of the eyes, and peace.\n\nThat the _Law_ is meant by Wisdom, strength, and understanding is\nclear from the words at the end of the piece, iv. 1 ff.:\n\n      This is the book of the commandments of God,\n      And the Law that endureth for ever;\n      All they that hold it fast are appointed to life,\n      But such as leave it shall die....\n\nThe lasting endurance of the Law which is also taught here frequently\nfinds expression in the Rabbinical literature. That the Law is for\nIsrael alone seems to be implied in the words:\n\n      Turn thee, O Jacob, and take hold of it,\n      Walk towards her shining in the presence of the light thereof;\n      Give not thy glory to another,\n      Nor the things that are profitable unto thee to a strange nation.\n      O Israel, happy are we,\n      For the things that are pleasing to God are made known unto us\n                                                    (iv. 3, 4).\n\nOf the different portions which make up 2 (4) Esdras the most\nimportant in the present connection is the \u201cSalathiel Apocalypse\u201d\nwhich forms the bulk of the book (iii.\u2014x.). A good instance of this\nwriter\u2019s attitude towards the Law together with a prophecy of the\ndoom upon Israel for having rejected it by sinning is ix. 31-37;\nfirst these words are put into the mouth of God: \u201cFor behold, I\nsow my Law in you, and it shall bring forth fruit in you, and ye\nshall be glorified in it for ever\u201d; then the writer continues: \u201cBut\nour fathers who received the Law observed it not, and the statutes\nthey did not keep, and yet the fruit of the Law did not perish, nor\ncould it, because it was Thine; but they who received it perished,\nbecause they kept not that which had been sown in them.... We who\nhave received the Law, and sinned, must perish, together with our\nheart, which hath taken it in; the Law, however, perisheth not, but\nabideth in its glory.\u201d In accordance with later Rabbinical teaching\nit is said in this book that the Law had originally been given to\nother nations, by whom it was rejected, while Israel alone accepted\nit: \u201cAnd Thy glory went through the four gates of fire, earthquake,\nwind and cold, to give the Law to Jacob\u2019s seed, and the commandment\nto the generation of Israel\u201d (iii. 19); on the other hand, in vii.\n72 it is said: \u201cTherefore shall the sojourners in the earth suffer\ntorture, because, having understanding, they yet wrought iniquity,\nand receiving precepts, they yet kept them not, and having obtained\nthe Law they set at nought that which they received.\u201d Both Israel and\nthe Gentiles thus received, or had the chance of receiving, the Law,\nand both by sinning perished in spite of the Law; the inadequacy of\nthe Law as a redemptive power here shown forth is very striking; the\nreason why the Law was ineffective was, according to iv. 30, because\nof \u201cthe grain of evil seed which was sown in the heart of Adam from\nthe beginning.\u201d We shall have to return to this when dealing with the\ndoctrine of Sin (see next section). In the other portions of this\nbook, so far as our present subject is concerned, the main stress is\nlaid on veneration for the Law.\n\nWe turn now to the Book of Wisdom, representing the Judaism of the\nDispersion, and here, as one would expect, there is very little on\nthis subject to be noted. In ii. 12 words are put into the mouth of\nthe ungodly which show that the writer, at any rate, recognizes the\nLaw and its obligations:\n\n      But let us lie in wait for the righteous, for he is of disservice\n            to us,\n        And is opposed to our doings,\n      And upbraideth us with sins against the Law,\n        And layeth to our charge sins against our discipline.\n\nIn vi. 4 rulers are denounced for not keeping the Law:\n\n      Because being officers of his kingdom ye did not judge aright,\n        Neither kept ye the Law, nor walked after the counsel of God.\n\nAs the reference here is to foreign rulers there is an advance in\ndoctrine to be noted, for the Law is held to be obligatory on others\nas well as on the Jews, and Gentile rulers are regarded as having\nreceived their authority from God.\n\n\n(_c_) _The Doctrine of Sin._\n\nThe prevalence of Sin is often spoken of in Ecclesiasticus; Ben-Sira\nrealizes its existence personally when he says in xxii. 27:\n\n      O that one would set a watch over my mouth,\n        And a seal of shrewdness over my lips....\n\nAnd again in xxiii. 3 ff.:\n\n      That mine ignorances be not multiplied,\n          And that my sins abound not....\n\nIts universal prevalence is witnessed to by the words in viii. 5:\n\n      Reproach not a man who repenteth,\n        Remember that we are all guilty.\n\nPunishment for every sin, Ben-Sira says, will assuredly overtake\nsinners:\n\n      Do not wickedly continue in sin,\n        For in respect of one sin thou art not without guilt;\n\ni.e. every single sin carries guilt with it, the implication being\nthat it will therefore not go unpunished. Of great interest and\nimportance is the teaching in this book on the origin of Sin;\nBen-Sira mentions three theories; one of these he combats, namely\nthat the existence of Sin is due to God; this is the belief,\napparently, of certain freethinkers against whom the following words\nare spoken:\n\n      Say not, \u201cFrom God is my transgression,\u201d\n        For that which He hateth made He not.\n      Say not, \u201cIt is He that made me to stumble,\u201d\n        For there is no need of evil men.\n      Evil and abomination doth the Lord hate,\n        And He doth not let it come nigh them that fear Him\n                                           (xv. 11-13).\n\nBut since Ben-Sira believed that God was the Creator of everything\nthat exists, he sometimes comes perilously near to uttering the very\nuntruth which he here combats. He says, for example, in xxxvii. 3:\n\n      O base nature! Why then wast thou created\n      To fill the world\u2019s face with deceit?\n\nThe words \u201cbase nature\u201d are the rendering of the Hebrew which is\nliterally, \u201cevil Yetzer\u201d; the \u201cYetzer\u201d is the bias or natural\ninclination which is implanted in every man; there is, therefore, in\nthe words quoted, an implication that this \u201cevil Yetzer\u201d was created\nby God. The same must be said of another passage, xxxiii. (xxxvi. in\nthe Greek) 13-15:\n\n      As the clay is in the power of the potter,\n        To fashion it according to his good pleasure;\n      So is man in the power of his Creator,\n        To make him according to His ordinance.\n      Over against evil stands good, and against death life;\n        Likewise over against the godly stands the sinner.\n      Even thus look upon all the works of God,\n        Each different, one the opposite of the other.\n\nIn this case, indeed, there is something more than an implication,\nfor the words seem to impute the origin of evil directly to God.\nYet it can hardly be that Ben-Sira believed this; for in view of\nwhat he says in the first passage quoted he regarded this as\naltogether wrong. The fact is that as soon as he begins to grapple\nwith this subject he involves himself in difficulties; he tries\nanother solution of the problem, but as will be seen, this is no real\nsolution; in XXV. 24 he says:\n\n      From a woman did sin originate [lit. \u201cis the beginning of sin\u201d],\n        And because of her we all must die.\n\nBut this only traces the history of Sin in the human race, and does\nnot touch upon its creation; moreover, it has to be remembered that\nBen-Sira usually regards Sin as something external to man, something\nwhich comes to him from outside (though exceptions to this will be\nreferred to presently); thus in xxi. 2, 3, for example, it is said:\n\n      Flee from sin as from the face of a serpent;\n        For if thou come nigh it, it will bite thee.\n      Like the teeth of a lion are the teeth thereof,\n        It slayeth the souls of men.\n      Like a two-edged sword is all iniquity,\n        From the stroke thereof is no healing.\n\nIf Sin is external to man, as is so often said and implied in this\nbook, it must have existed somewhere before it was appropriated by\nEve, and thus originated in the human race.[329] Nevertheless, in\nconnection with what appears to be a third theory, it is possible\nthat Ben-Sira believed Sin to be not external to man. For this third\ntheory we must consider first xxi. 27, 28:\n\n      When the fool curseth his adversary [lit. \u201cSatan\u201d],\n        He curseth his own soul;\n      The whisperer defileth his own soul,\n        And is hated whithersoever he sojourneth.\n\nThe meaning of this passage is no doubt difficult to determine; but,\nto begin with, it seems clear that by the words, \u201cThe whisperer\ndefileth his own soul,\u201d Ben-Sira meant to express the truth that\nthe evil in man is of his own making; it is also evident that the\nwords are intended to be an illustration of the truth enunciated\nin the preceding couplet. Whatever is meant by \u201cadversary\u201d\u2014whether\n\u201cSatan\u201d in the sense of the Devil, or an adversary in a more general\nsignification\u2014the words which follow (\u201cHe curseth his own soul\u201d)\nshow that what Ben-Sira intends to teach is that the \u201cadversary\u201d is\nsynonymous with the ungodly man\u2019s own self; i.e. he, and he alone, is\nresponsible for his sins. So that the gist of the passage would seem\nto be that man is his own \u201cSatan\u201d; in other words, that the origin\nof Sin is to be sought in man since the initiative lies with him.\nAnother passage which may be quoted in this connection is xvii. 31:\n\n      What is brighter than the sun? Yet this faileth;\n        And how much more man who hath the inclination of flesh and\n              blood!\n\nThe text here is uncertain; the Hebrew is not extant and the\nVersions differ, so that one cannot be sure about its meaning. Dr.\nTennant paraphrases the Greek thus: \u201cEven the sun darkens itself\u2014the\nbrightest thing in the world; how much more, then, frail man!\u201d And,\nin commenting on the words, he says that if Ben-Sira offers any\nexcuse for man\u2019s depravity \u201cit is that of his natural and essential\nfrailty ... but [that he] never [attributes it] to an external\ncause.\u201d Difficult as the verse is, it is quite possible that what\nwas in Ben-Sira\u2019s mind was that the origin of Sin was to be found in\nman, for it is extremely doubtful whether he differentiated between\nSin as an abstract conception and actual deeds of Sin committed by\nindividuals. The idea that seems to be adumbrated here as to the\norigin of Sin is, in any case, true from one point of view, for it\naccords with the facts of experience if human free-will is believed\nin, and Ben-Sira does believe in this (see next section); for every\nsin committed originates, so far as any particular sin is concerned,\nin man, whatever be the origin of the sinful tendency. This can be\nillustrated by one other quotation:\n\n      But the sinner is ensnared through his lips,\n        And the fool stumbleth through his mouth (xxiii. 8).\n\nBen-Sira\u2019s teaching concerning the origin of Sin may, then, be\nsummed up thus: He implies, though he hardly goes so far as to\nmake the definite assertion, that the origin of Sin is due to God;\nyet in one important passage he strongly combats this. He teaches,\nfurther, that so far as the human race is concerned the origin of\nSin is to be sought in the fall of Eve, but he does not attempt to\ntrace its history further back; this was, however, from his point\nof view unnecessary if, in accordance with his third theory, sin\noriginates in the individual; nevertheless, he involves himself in a\ncontradiction here in saying that because of Eve\u2019s sin all men must\ndie. In addition to this, however, there is a further inconsistency\nregarding this third theory, for while teaching that Sin originates\n_in_ man, he sometimes speaks of it as something external to him.\nThese contradictory thoughts bring into clear relief Ben-Sira\u2019s\ninability to formulate a consistent and logical doctrine as to the\norigin of Sin; and in this he but shows himself the forerunner of the\nRabbis, from whose writings it can be seen that these later thinkers\nwere involved in precisely the same inconsistencies as soon as they\nattempted to construct a working theory on the subject.\n\nThere is one other point connected with this subject to which brief\nreference must be made, namely, the means whereby sins are atoned\nfor; the importance here lies in the fact that the teaching of this\nbook concerning atonement for sins is the same as that of the later\nRabbinical literature; it is, therefore, a great development upon\nOld Testament teaching. Ben-Sira follows the teaching of the Old\nTestament in so far that he believes in the need of the sacrificial\nsystem provided that sacrifices are offered in the right spirit; he\nsays, for example, in one place:\n\n      Give a meal-offering with a memorial,\n        And offer a fat sacrifice to the utmost of thy means\n                                            (xxxviii. 11);\n\nbut it depends upon the spirit of him who offers as to whether the\nsacrifice is acceptable or not:\n\n      The sacrifice of the unrighteous man is a mocking offering,\n        And unacceptable are the oblations of the godless.\n      The Most High hath no pleasure in the offerings of the ungodly,\n        Neither doth He forgive sins for a multitude of sacrifices\n                            (xxxiv. 18, 19, in the Greek xxxi. 21-23).\n\nThat sacrifices atoned for sins is a fundamental Old Testament\ndoctrine, but the other means of atonement which Ben-Sira mentions\nshow a development; these are as follows; (one quotation in support\nof each must suffice for illustration). Concerning Almsgiving it is\nsaid in iii. 30:\n\n      A flaming fire doth water quench,\n        So doth almsgiving atone for sin.\n\nThat Fasting is an atonement is implied in the following:\n\n      ... So a man fasting for his sins\n        And doing the same again,\u2014\n      Who will listen to his prayer,\n        And what hath he gained by his humiliation?\n                   (xxxiv. 26; in the Greek xxxi. 31).\n\nAnother means of atonement is Death; this is seen, or at any rate\nadumbrated, in the words in xviii. 22:\n\n      Delay not to pay thy vow in due time,\n        And wait not till death to be justified.\n\nThis last assumed ever-increasing importance with the growth of\nthe belief in the resurrection; in Ecclesiasticus it is perhaps no\nmore than adumbrated, for where there was as yet no belief in the\nresurrection nor in punishment for unatoned sins hereafter there was\nno inducement to formulate a doctrine as to the atoning efficacy\nof death; the above-quoted passage is, however, worth giving as\nillustrating a tendency. One other means of atonement must be\nmentioned because it teaches the truth of mediatorship; this is in\nxlv. 23:\n\n      Moreover Phinehas, the son of Eleazar,\n        Was glorious in might as a third [i.e. after Moses and Aaron],\n      In that he was jealous for the God of all,\n        And stood in the breach for his people,\n      While his heart prompted him,\n        And he made atonement for the children of Israel.\n\nWhat little is found in the Book of Tobit concerning the doctrine\nof Sin is connected with Demonology, which will be considered in \u00a7\n(_h_). There is a reference to the atoning efficacy of almsgiving in\niv. 10, 11: \u201c... Because alms delivereth from death, and suffereth\nnot to come into darkness. Alms is a good offering in the sight\nof the Most High for all that give it\u201d; and especially xii. 9,\n\u201cAlmsgiving doth deliver from death, and purgeth away all sin.\u201d There\nis nothing that calls for particular mention in the Book of Judith;\nor in the Additions to Daniel, with the exception of one interesting\npassage in the Prayer of Azariah, verse 12, where it is said: \u201cCause\nnot thy mercy to depart from us, for the sake of Abraham that is\nbeloved of Thee, and for the sake of Isaac Thy servant, and Israel\nThy holy one\u201d; so, too, in the Prayer of Manasses, verse 8, where it\nis implied that the patriarchs are sinless: \u201cThou, therefore, O Lord,\nthat art the God of the righteous, hast not appointed repentance unto\nthe righteous, unto Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, which have not\nsinned against Thee; but thou hast appointed repentance unto me that\nam a sinner.\u201d This is important, for the same idea finds expression\nin the later Rabbinical literature, and closely connected with it is\nthe doctrine of the merits of the fathers, i.e. that the good deeds\nof the patriarchs and other great personalities in the history of\nIsrael serve as an atonement for their descendants. There is probably\nno book in the Apocrypha in which such deep realization of sin is\nexpressed as in this short one; this is shown in verses 8-13:\n\n      For the sins I have sinned are more in number than the sands\n            of the sea,\n        For my transgressions were multiplied, O Lord;\n      My transgressions were multiplied,\n        And I am not worthy to behold and see the height of heaven\n            by reason of the multitude of mine iniquities....\n\nThe next book that calls for notice is 2 Maccabees, on account of\nits strangely particularistic doctrine of retribution for sin; in\nvi. 12-16 it is said: \u201cNow I beseech the readers of this book not\nto be discouraged by such calamities,[330] but to reflect that our\npeople were being punished by way of chastening, and not for their\ndestruction. For indeed it is a mark of great kindness when the\nimpious are not let alone for a long time, but punished at once. In\nthe case of other nations, the Sovereign Lord in His forbearance\nrefrains from punishing them till they have filled up their sins\nto the full, but in our case He has determined otherwise, that His\nvengeance may not fall on us in after-days when our sins have reached\ntheir height....\u201d The teaching of this subject in 1 (3) Esdras and\nBaruch is that of the Old Testament; but it is worth mentioning\nthat the doctrine of the merits of the fathers referred to above is\nexpressly repudiated in Baruch ii. 19: \u201cFor we do not present our\nsupplication before Thee, O Lord our God, for the righteousness of\nour fathers, and of our kings\u201d; evidently this doctrine must have\nbeen held by some, since it receives such a pointed repudiation.\n\nThe doctrine of Sin in 2 (4) Esdras is important as it is very fully\ndealt with; this will require a little more detailed notice, but\nwe can restrict ourselves to the \u201cSalathiel Apocalypse\u201d portion\nof the book (iii.-x.), as the other parts do not offer anything of\nimportance so far as this subject is concerned. The origin of Sin\nis traced to Adam, as the following passage (iii. 20-22, 25, 26)\nwill show: \u201cAnd yet Thou didst not take away from them the evil\nheart, that Thy Law might bring forth fruit in them. For the first\nAdam, clothing himself with the evil heart, transgressed, and was\novercome; and likewise also all who were born of him. Thus the\ninfirmity became inveterate; the Law indeed was in the heart of the\npeople, but together with the evil germ; so what was good departed,\nand the evil remained.... And, after this had been done many years,\nthe inhabitants of the city committed sin, in all things doing as\nAdam and all his generations had done; for they also had clothed\nthemselves with the evil heart.\u201d This teaching occurs more than once;\nin iv. 30 it is said: \u201cFor a grain of evil seed was sown in the\nheart of Adam from the beginning, and how much fruit of ungodliness\nhath it produced unto this time, and will yet produce until the\nthreshing-floor come!\u201d And, once more, in vii. 118: \u201cO thou Adam,\nwhat hast thou done! For though it was thou who sinned, the fall was\nnot thine alone, but ours also who are thy descendants!\u201d Adam\u2019s fall\nand sin in man are thus directly connected, but how this connection\ncame about the writer nowhere says. From the passage quoted above,\nhowever, it will be seen that the writer of this book recognizes\neach man\u2019s individual responsibility for his own sins (\u201cthey also\nhad clothed themselves with the evil heart\u201d). \u201cIt is noteworthy,\u201d\nsays Box,[331] \u201cthat the form of the apocalyptist\u2019s conception is\nspecifically Rabbinic. He bases his conclusions on the _Yetzer\nha-ra\u2018_ [i.e. the \u201cevil tendency\u201d]; there is no suggestion that the\nintroduction of evil into the world was due to external agents or\nforces. The older mythological view (found in Genesis and in the\nolder apocalyptic literature) that the fall of man was brought about\nby demonic incitement is tacitly discarded. The corruption of the\nhuman race is regarded as due to a development of something inherent\nin man\u2019s nature (the _Yetzer ha-ra\u2018_). Though this doctrine is\nsometimes combined, in the Rabbinical literature, with the popular\nview of Satan (Satan works his evil purpose by the instrumentality\nof the _Yetzer ha-ra\u2018_), it probably really represents a theological\nrefinement which was intended to supersede the older crude popular\nideas about demonic agency.... Where our apocalyptist differs,\nand differs fundamentally, from the orthodox doctrine of Judaism,\nexpressed in the Rabbinical literature, is in the emphasis he lays\non the ravages of the evil _Yetzer_ upon human nature generally. The\nenfeeblement of man\u2019s nature is such that practically no one has\nbeen able successfully to withstand the _Yetzer_; the whole race has\nfallen into corruption. The Rabbis insisted, on the other hand, that\nhuman nature is not, by any means, in such a hopeless condition. Man\ncan, by moral effort and assisted by the grace of God, successfully\nresist the suggestions of the evil impulse.\u201d In this book, therefore,\nit is taught that Sin is universal among men: \u201cFor in truth there\nis none of the earth-born that has not dealt wickedly, and among\nthose that exist that has not sinned\u201d (viii. 35); and therefore the\nwriter\u2019s sense of sin is very pronounced: \u201cFor the evil heart has\ngrown up in us, which has estranged us from God, and brought us into\ndestruction; and has made known unto us the ways of death, and showed\nus the paths of perdition, and removed us far from life; and that not\na few only, but well-nigh all that have been created!\u201d Turning now to\nthe Book of Wisdom, we may note first that the writer believed in an\noriginal state of good:\n\n      Court not death in the error of your life;\n        Neither draw upon yourselves destruction by the works of your\n              hands;\n      Because God made not death,\n        Neither delighteth He when the living perish.\n      For He created all things that they might have being,\n        And the products of the world are healthsome,\n      And there is no poison of destruction in them ... (i. 12 ff.).\n\nStill more explicit are the words in viii. 19, 20:\n\n      Now I was a child good by nature, and a good soul fell to my lot;\n        Nay rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled.\n\nWithout going into the question here of the writer\u2019s belief whether,\nand in what manner, the soul pre-existed, it is clear enough that\nhe did not believe in the innate sinfulness of human nature. In the\nsecond part of the book, however, a somewhat different attitude is\ntaken, for in xii. 10, 11, when speaking about the Canaanites, he\nsays:\n\n      But judging them by little and little Thou gavest them a place of\n            repentance,\n        Though Thou knewest their nature was evil, and their wickedness\n            inborn,\n      And that their manner of thought would in no wise ever be changed;\n        For they were a seed accursed from the beginning;\n      Neither was it through fear of any that Thou didst pass over their\n            sins.\n\nThe view here held is quite contrary to that found in the two former\nquotations which suggest a different authorship for the two parts of\nthe book. This is also borne out by what is said regarding death, as\nthe result of Adam\u2019s sin presumably; for in ii. 23, 24 it is said:\n\n      Because God created man for incorruption,\n        And made him an image of His own proper being.\n      But by the envy of the devil death entered into the world,\n        And they that belong to his realm experience it.\n\nDeath, which is the result of Sin, was thus not originally intended\nto come upon the human race. But in the second part of the book\nthere is no hint of this. The first part of the Book of Wisdom is,\ntherefore, quite unique among the books of the Apocrypha on this\nsubject; the second part offers nothing that is new.\n\n\n(_d_) _The Doctrine of Grace and Free-will._\n\nA true balance is kept in Ecclesiasticus between Grace and Free-will;\nmany passages could be cited to show this, but the few following will\nsuffice. In speaking of the ideal scribe, Ben-Sira says (xxxix. 6):\n\n      If it seem good to God Most High,\n        He [i.e. the scribe] shall be filled with the spirit of\n            understanding;\n      He himself poureth forth wise sayings in double measure,\n        And giveth thanks unto the Lord in prayer.\n\nAgain, in i. 14 it is said:\n\n      To fear the Lord is the beginning [i.e. the essence] of Wisdom,\n        And with the faithful she was created in the womb.\n\nEqually definite is Ben-Sira\u2019s teaching on Free-will; he says, e.g.\nin xv. 15-17:\n\n      If thou so desirest thou canst keep the commandment,\n        And it is wisdom to do His good pleasure.\n      Poured out before thee are fire and water,\n        Stretch forth thine hand unto that which thou desirest.\n      Life and death are before man,\n        That which he desireth shall be given to him.\n\nBoth truths are combined in the words:\n\n      If thou desire Wisdom keep the commandments,\n        And the Lord will give her freely unto thee.\n\nThe important point about Ben-Sira\u2019s teaching here is the way in\nwhich he combines the two apparently opposing truths; he shows\nthat they are not mutually contradictory, but complementary. He\nthus continues the teaching of the Old Testament concerning the\nomnipotence of God and the responsibility of man.\n\nIn the Book of Tobit similar teaching is found; for example in iv. 5\nTobit says to his son Tobias: \u201cMy child, be mindful of the Lord all\nthy days, and let not thy will be set to transgress His commandments;\ndo acts of righteousness all the days of thy life, and walk not in\nthe ways of unrighteousness.\u201d But that divine grace is needed for\nthis is taught in iv. 19: \u201cBless the Lord thy God at all times, and\nask of Him that thy ways may be made straight, and that all thy paths\nand counsels may prosper.\u201d In the rest of the books belonging to this\ncentury nothing calls for particular note under this heading; but in\nthe secondary text of Ecclesiasticus the same balance of doctrine\nis found as in the original book; thus, dependence on God and the\nreception of the gift of love from Him are expressed in the addition\nto xvii. 17:\n\n      Whom [i.e. Israel] He brought up as His first-born\n        With severity, yet loving them,\n      Imparting to them the light of love;\n        And He forsook them not.\n\nMan has, however, his part to play, for in the addition to xx. 31 it\nis said:\n\n      Better is persistent endurance in seeking the Lord,\n        Than a driver of his own life without a master.\n\nIn 1 Maccabees the doctrinal subject under consideration is closely\nconnected with the doctrine of God as presented in this book. We have\nseen above that direct divine intervention in the nation\u2019s affairs\nis not nearly as prominently expressed here as in the books of the\nOld Testament; and it has also been already remarked that God is\nnever mentioned by name in the whole book. The writer is certainly\nnot wanting in earnest belief and faith in God; his conviction\nof the existence of an all-seeing Providence is clear from many\npassages; but he also has a strong belief in the truth expressed\nby the modern proverb that \u201cGod helps those who help themselves.\u201d\nThis attitude was largely due to the influence of certain tendencies\nwhich were beginning to assert themselves. These centred round the\ndoctrine of God. Just as there was a disinclination, on account of\nits transcendent holiness, to utter the name of God, and instead to\nsubstitute paraphrases for it, so there arose also a disinclination\nto ascribe action among men directly to God on account of His\ninexpressible majesty. One result of this was the further tendency\nto emphasize and extend the scope of human free-will. We find,\ntherefore, in this book that much more emphasis is laid on free-will\nthan on divine grace. In the Additions to Esther it is just the other\nway about; for here human free-will is scarcely taken into account,\nwhile the divine activity among men is throughout insisted upon. But\nin both this book and 1 Maccabees there can be no doubt that the\none-sided emphasis on divine grace and human free-will respectively\nwas prompted by the particular subject-matter of either book.\n\nIn the case of 2 Maccabees, though written with a definitely\nreligious object, there is very little to note under the present\nheading; the frequent stress laid, however, on the fact that the Jews\nare God\u2019s chosen people, and therefore under His special protection\nand guidance, is a point to be borne in mind. The next book to be\nconsidered is 2 (4) Esdras, and here again it is only the \u201cSalathiel\nApocalypse\u201d that claims attention. \u201cThe writer\u2019s intense sense\nof sinfulness, and his conviction of man\u2019s inability to acquire\njustification by the works of the Law, impel him to throw himself\nwholly upon the divine compassion; he despairs of a life of absolute\nobedience to the Law, even by Israel, not to speak of the world. The\nunconscious and unexpressed cry of the book is for a moral dynamic,\nwhich legalism could not supply.\u201d[332] This deeply religious writer\nmust, therefore, perforce have looked to divine grace where human\nwill-power was helpless. As we should expect, in the Book of Wisdom\nthe main stress is laid on free-will, though the other side of the\ntruth is not lost sight of. The former is plainly taught in i. 12-16:\n\n      Court not death in the error of your life,\n      Neither draw upon yourselves destruction by the works of your\n            hands.\n\n             *       *       *       *       *\n\n      But the ungodly by their hands and words called him [i.e. Hades]\n            unto them;\n        Deeming him a friend they were consumed with love of him,\n      And they made a covenant with him,\n        Because they are worthy to be of his portion.\n\nBut, on the other hand, the opening words of the book bring out in\na very clear manner the indispensable need of divine grace for the\nright exercise of the will:\n\n      Love righteousness, ye that be judges of the earth,\n        Think ye of the Lord with a good mind,\n      And in singleness of heart seek ye Him;\n        For He is found of them that tempt Him not,\n      And is manifested unto them that do not mistrust Him....\n        For the holy spirit of discipline will flee deceit,\n      And will start away from thoughts that are without understanding,\n        And will be scared away when the unrighteous approacheth\n                                                     (i. 1-5).\n\n\n(_e_) _The Doctrine of the Messiah._\n\nThe didactic character of Ecclesiasticus is sufficient to account for\nthe extreme meagreness of references to the Messiah. In the few cases\nin which the subject is referred to it is the seed of David to which\nthe Messiah belongs, viz.:\n\n      He will not cut off the posterity of His chosen ones,\n        Nor will He destroy the offspring of them that love Him;\n      And He will give to Jacob a remnant,\n        And to the house of David a root from him (xlvii. 22).\n\nAnd in the eighth verse of the Hymn of Praise which (in the Hebrew\nonly) is inserted after li. 12, occur these words:\n\n      Give thanks unto Him that maketh a horn to sprout for the house\n            of David,\n        For His mercy endureth for ever.\n\nBen-Sira, therefore, believes in a Messiah who is purely human,\naccording to the usual Jewish doctrine, and who belongs to the house\nof David; but his belief is otherwise vague. Apart from the nature\nof the book itself, it must be remembered that the conceptions of\na Messiah were largely conditioned by the historical circumstances\nof any given period; during the time of Ben-Sira these were not\nof a nature to call forth Messianic hopes, and therefore the\nteaching regarding the Messiah was indefinite, and receded into the\nbackground. In the Book of Tobit the Messiah is never mentioned, but\nthe renovated Jerusalem which the writer speaks of, and the gathering\nin of the dispersed Israelites as well as of the Gentiles, gives a\npicture of what corresponds to the Messianic Kingdom:\n\n      O Jerusalem, thou holy city! He will chastise thee for the works\n            of thy hands,\n        And will again have mercy on the sons of the righteous.\n        Give thanks to the Lord with goodness, and bless the everlasting\n            King,\n      That thy tabernacle may be builded in thee again with joy,\n        And that He may make glad in thee all that are captives,\n        And love in thee all that are miserable and all the generations\n            of eternity.\n      A bright light shall shine unto all the ends of the earth;\n        Many nations shall come from afar,\n        And the inhabitants of the utmost ends of the earth unto Thy\n            holy name ...\n                                 (xiii. 7-18; see also xiv. 4-6).\n\nNo other books of the Apocrypha offer any teaching on this subject\nuntil we come to 1 Maccabees, where there is conceivably in the mind\nof the writer the thought of the Messiah in iv. 46, \u201c... so they\npulled down the altar, and laid down the stones in the mountain of\nthe House, in a convenient place, until a prophet should come and\ndecide as to what should be done concerning them.\u201d The reference\nhere is probably to Deuteronomy xviii. 18, which is not a Messianic\npassage, though it may have been so interpreted in later times. A\nsomewhat more definite reference to the Messiah is perhaps to be\nseen in xiv. 41: \u201cAnd the Jews and the priests were well pleased\nthat Simon should be their leader and high-priest for ever, until\na faithful prophet should arise.\u201d The words \u201cfor ever\u201d mean that\nthe high-priesthood should continue hereditary in the house of\nthe Hasmon\u00e6ans, so that if by \u201ca faithful prophet\u201d the Messiah is\nmeant, the writer would imply that the Messiah would be of Hasmon\u00e6an\nlineage. In 2 Maccabees there is no reference to the Messiah, though\nthere is to the Messianic Kingdom, for the gathering together of the\nscattered Israelites in Jerusalem is an undoubted Messianic _trait_:\n\u201cGather together our dispersion, set at liberty them that are in\nbondage among the heathen.... Plant Thy people in Thy holy place\u201d (i.\n27); and again in ii. 18: \u201cIn God have we hope, that He will speedily\nhave mercy upon us, and gather us together from under the wide heaven\nto the holy place.\u201d[333] In Baruch the Messianic Kingdom, though not\nthe Messiah, is spoken of in iv. and v., where the destruction of\nIsrael\u2019s enemies is referred to:\n\n      ... But shortly thou shalt see his [i.e. the enemy\u2019s] destruction,\n        And shalt tread upon their necks (iv. 25, cf. verses 31 ff.).\n\nThe ingathering of Israel is also described:\n\n      ... O Jerusalem, look about thee toward the east,\n        And behold the joy that cometh unto thee from God,\n      Lo, thy sons come, whom thou sentest away,\n        They come gathered together from the east to the west,\n        Rejoicing in the glory of God ... (iv. 36-v. 9).\n\nThe only other book which has teaching on this subject is the\nimportant apocalypse 2 (4) Esdras, and here, as one would expect, the\nteaching is full. The first point to notice is that as this book is\nof composite authorship the conceptions of the Messiah differ; thus,\nin the \u201cSalathiel Apocalypse\u201d (iii.-x.) the Messiah is regarded as\npurely human: \u201cFor my son the Messiah shall be revealed, together\nwith those who are with him, and shall rejoice the survivors four\nhundred years. And it shall be, after these years, that my son the\nMessiah shall die, and all in whom there is human breath\u201d (vii.\n28, 29). On the other hand, in the \u201cEagle Vision\u201d (xi.-xii. 39) the\npre-existence of the Messiah is taught, though he is to spring from\nthe seed of David: \u201cThis is the Messiah, whom the Most High hath kept\nunto the end of the days, who shall spring from the seed of David\n...\u201d (xii. 32). The same is taught in the \u201cVision of the Man from\nthe Sea\u201d (xiii.): \u201cWhereas thou didst see a Man coming up from the\nheart of the sea\u2014this is he whom the Most High is keeping many ages\n...\u201d (xiii. 25, 26). In this vision the Messiah is of a supernatural\ncharacter. This truth of the Messiah\u2019s pre-existence is likewise\nimplied in the \u201cEzra Legend\u201d (xiv.): \u201cFor thou shalt be taken up\nfrom among men, and henceforth thou shalt remain with my son, and\nwith such as are like thee, till the times be ended\u201d (xiv. 9). Only\nin the \u201cSalathiel Apocalypse\u201d are the signs which are to precede the\nMessianic Kingdom (i.e. the \u201cMessianic Woes\u201d) mentioned, but they are\ngiven in considerable detail: \u201cConcerning the signs, however\u2014Behold\nthe days come when the inhabitants of the earth shall be seized with\ngreat panic, and the way of truth shall be hidden, and the land of\nfaith be barren. And iniquity shall be increased above that which\nthou thyself now seest or that thou hast heard of long ago. And the\nland that thou seest now to bear rule shall be a pathless waste; and\nmen shall see it forsaken; if the Most High grant thee to live, thou\nshalt see it after the third period in confusion. Then shall the sun\nsuddenly shine forth by night, and the moon by day; and blood shall\ntrickle from the wood, and the stone utter its voice. The peoples\nshall be in commotion, the outgoings of the stars shall change.\nAnd one whom the dwellers upon earth do not look for shall wield\nsovereignty, and the birds shall take to general flight, and the sea\nshall cast forth its fish. And one whom the many do not know shall\nmake his voice heard by night; and all shall hear his voice. And\nthe earth o\u2019er wide regions shall open, and the fire burst forth for\na long period. The wild beasts shall desert their haunts, and women\nbear monsters. Salt waters shall be found in the sweet. Friends shall\nattack one another suddenly. Then shall intelligence hide itself, and\nWisdom withdraw to its chamber\u2014by many shall be sought and not found.\nAnd unrighteousness and incontinency shall be multiplied upon the\nearth. One land shall also ask another and say: Is righteousness\u2014that\ndoeth the right\u2014passed through thee? And it shall answer: No. And\nit shall be that in that time men shall hope and not obtain, shall\nlabour and not prosper\u201d (v. 1-12).\n\nRegarding the Messianic Kingdom itself it is to be of limited\nduration, and, according to the \u201cEagle Vision\u201d Gentiles as well\nas Jews are to enjoy it: \u201cAnd so the whole earth, freed from thy\nviolence, shall be refreshed again, and hope for the judgement and\nmercy of Him that made her\u201d (xi. 46).[334] In the \u201cVision of the Man\nfrom the Sea\u201d the Gentiles are wholly destroyed by the Messiah, and\nhis kingdom is only for his own people (xiii. 8-13).\n\nIn the Book of Wisdom there is no doctrine of the Messiah, nor is\nthere, in the Jewish Palestinian sense, a belief in a Messianic\nKingdom; what we do find, however, is that Jewish traditional\neschatological conceptions are utilized by the author, and that a\nglorious future is believed to be reserved for the Jews; there are\ntwo passages in which this future is portrayed, viz. iii. 8:[335]\n\n      They [i.e. the righteous] shall judge nations, and have dominion\n            over peoples;\n        And the Lord shall reign over them for evermore.\n\nThe thought that is apparently in the writer\u2019s mind here is that\nof such passages as Isaiah ii. 4_a_: \u201cAnd He shall judge among the\nnations, and shall decide concerning many peoples,\u201d and Isaiah\nxlix. 23: \u201cAnd kings shall be thy nursing-fathers and queens thy\nnursing-mothers; they shall bow down to thee with their faces to\nthe earth ...\u201d; these, it is true, refer to an earthly theocracy,\nwhereas the author of Wisdom is speaking of the hereafter, but the\n_adaptation_ of Scriptural passages is a very natural procedure; he\ndoes not define closely the nature of the eternal kingdom which will\nbe set up hereafter, any more than the prophet does in regard to his\nideal earthly kingdom. The other passage is v. 15-23:\n\n          But the righteous live for ever,\n            And the Lord is their reward,\n          And the care for them with the Most High.\n      Therefore shall they receive a glorious kingdom,\n          And a diadem of beauty from the Lord\u2019s hand;\n      Because with His right hand will He cover them,\n          And with His arm will He shield them.\n\nSo far this passage, like the other one, is based upon Old Testament\nMessianic passages such as Isaiah xl. 10, iv. 5, 6, xxviii. 5, 6,\nlix. 16, 17, and others[336]; but in verses 17-23^{_ab_}, where the\nMost High goes out Himself as a warrior, a different element enters\nin. It is true, that here, too, the Old Testament conception of\nJehovah as a mighty man of war lies at the back of the passage, but\nthere are also other eschatological, or rather apocalyptic, traits\nwhich appear. These elements have been utilized by the author of\nWisdom, who has sought to spiritualize them:\n\n      He shall take His jealousy as complete armour,\n        And shall make the whole creation His weapons for vengeance\n            on His enemies;\n      He shall put on righteousness as a breastplate,\n        And shall take judgement unfeigned as a helmet;\n      He shall take holiness as an invincible shield,\n        And shall sharpen stern wrath for a sword;\n      And the world shall go forth with Him to fight against His\n            insensate foes.\n        Shafts of lightning shall fly with true aim,\n      And from the clouds, as from a well-drawn bow, shall they leap\n            to the mark.\n        And as from an engine of war shall be hurled hailstones full\n            of wrath;\n      The water of the sea shall rage against them,\n        And rivers shall sternly overwhelm them;\n      A mighty blast shall encounter them,\n        And as a tempest shall it winnow them away.\n      So shall lawlessness make all the land desolate,\n        And their evil-doing shall overturn the thrones of princes.\n\nThese two last lines are strikingly out of harmony with what has\npreceded, since they deal with this world; such a sudden change of\nsubject is unnatural, the lines cannot originally have stood here.\n\nThere is, thus, no doctrine of a Messiah or a Messianic Kingdom in\nthe ordinary Jewish sense; the kingdom which is described has God\nas its ruler, it is an eternal kingdom which only the righteous\nshall possess; the writer does not make clear whether it is to be\nset up on this earth, or whether it is to be a spiritual kingdom\nhereafter. From the way in which he spiritualizes it is presumably to\nbe a kingdom in the world to come; against this it cannot be urged\nthat there are materialistic _traits_ which point to a kingdom to\nbe set up on this earth, for the writer has clearly borrowed and\nincorporated traditional eschatological material without intending\nto utilize more than its outward form. To interpret otherwise would,\nin view of the spirit of the rest of this portion of the book, be to\nmisunderstand the author.\n\n\n(_f_) _The Doctrine of the Future Life._\n\nIn Ecclesiasticus the teaching on this subject is substantially that\nof the normal Old Testament type; one or two quotations will suffice\nto illustrate this:\n\n      For what pleasure hath God in all that perish in Hades,\n        In place of those who live and give Him praise?\n      Thanksgiving perisheth from the dead as from one that is not,\n        But he that liveth and is in health praiseth the Lord\n                                          (xvii. 27, 28).\n\nThe corruption of the body is looked upon as the end of man:\n\n      When a man dieth he inheriteth\n        Worm and maggot, lice and creeping things (x. 11);\n\nthough the annihilation of the spirit as well as the body is\nevidently not contemplated in view of such words as these:\n\n      Weep gently for the dead, for he hath found rest (xxii. 11);\n\nand in xxx. 17 death is spoken of as an \u201ceternal rest\u201d (cp. xxxviii.\n23, xlvi. 19). This idea of rest for the soul hereafter is \u201cvery\ndifferent from that of death being corruption and the end of all\nthings, which is the more usual one in Ecclesiasticus, and one is\nperhaps justified in seeing the beginnings of development here,\nbased, it is true, on some Old Testament passages; the conception\nof the dead resting must involve some sort of a belief beyond the\nbare existence of the shade hereafter.\u201d[337] It is of particular\ninterest to note that in one or two cases the Greek shows signs of\nsome development of conception regarding the future life where in the\nHebrew the normal Old Testament position is maintained; thus in vii.\n17 the Hebrew has:\n\n      Humble thy pride greatly,\n        For the expectation of man is worms.\n\nThis is rendered in the Greek:\n\n      Humble thy soul greatly,\n      For the punishment of the ungodly man is fire and the worm.\n\nIt is clear that the development which is known to have taken place\nin the doctrine of the future life during the second century B.C. is\nreflected here. Very noticeable is the fact that a kind of technical\nsense has become attached to the word \u201cworm,\u201d such as we find in\nMark ix. 48 (\u201c... where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not\nquenched\u201d). In xxi. 9, 10 it is probable that a similar development\nexists, though in this case it cannot be proved as the Hebrew is\nunfortunately not extant; but in view of the example just given it\nis highly probable that the following reading of the Greek likewise\nrepresents a developed idea:\n\n      Like tow wrapped together is the assembly of the ungodly,\n        And their end is the flame of fire.\n      The way of sinners is made smooth without stones,\n        And at the end thereof is the pit of Hades.\n\nIt will be noticed that the parallelism between \u201cthe flame of fire,\u201d\nand \u201cthe pit of Hades,\u201d suggests that the latter has developed into\nGehenna. Another example is to be found in xlviii. 11, where the\nreference is to Elijah; only one line of the original couplet is\ndecipherable in the Hebrew, viz.:\n\n      Blessed is he that seeth thee and dieth;\n\ni.e. the man who before he died saw Elijah is blessed; the next line\nis illegible in the Hebrew and corrupt in the Greek; but the point of\nimportance is that the Greek adds this further line:\n\n      And we also shall surely live,\n\nthe reference being evidently to the life hereafter, since Elijah is\nthe subject of the preceding couplet.\n\nOne other passage must be mentioned, not because in itself it points\nto any development of thought, but because the Old Testament episode\n(1 Kings xvii. 17-24) to which it refers must sooner or later have\nsuggested the thought of the dead rising; it is also in reference to\nElijah (xlviii. 5):\n\n      Who didst raise up a dead man from death,\n        And from Sheol, according to the good pleasure of Jehovah.\n\nThe Hebrew and the Greek do not differ materially.\n\nIn the Book of Tobit the normal Old Testament doctrine is taught; so,\ne.g., when Tobit prays: \u201cCommand my spirit to be taken from me, that\nI may be released from off the earth and become earth\u201d (iii. 6); in\nthe same verse Sheol is spoken of as \u201cthe everlasting place,\u201d it is\na place of \u201cdarkness\u201d (iv. 10), and \u201cbelow the earth\u201d (xiii. 2). In\nthe Book of Judith there is only one reference to the future life,\nbut the passage is an important one as it witnesses to a development\nof thought similar to that found in the Greek text of Ecclesiasticus\nvii. 17, xxi. 9, 10, where Hades is a place of punishment; the\npassage is xvi. 17\u2014Judith speaks as follows:\n\n      Woe to the nations that rise up against my race;\n        The Lord Almighty will take vengeance of them in the day of\n            judgement,\n      To put fire and worms in their flesh;\n        And they shall weep and feel their pain for ever.\n\nHere it is clear that the body is conceived of as suffering anguish\nhereafter. Something similar to this is adumbrated in the Prayer of\nManasses, verse 12. It says here:\n\n      ... Neither, in Thy continual anger against me,\n        Lay up evil in store for me;\n      Nor pass Thou sentence against me\n        When I am in the lowest parts of the earth.\n\nIn the Pharisaic recension of Ecclesiasticus we may also note one or\ntwo occurrences of development of doctrine; thus after xix. 17 the\nfollowing words are added:\n\n      The fear of the Lord is the beginning of acceptance by Him,\n        And wisdom will gain love from Him.\n      The knowledge of the commandments of the Lord is life-giving\n            instruction;\n        And they who do the things that are pleasing unto Him shall\n            pluck the fruit of the tree of immortality.\n\nAgain, reward hereafter for right doing in this life is taught in the\naddition to xviii. 22:\n\n      For the reward of God abideth to eternity.\n\nTwo instances of merely verbal additions point in the same direction;\nin xxi. 10 the second addition in the ordinary Greek text runs:\n\n      And at the end thereof is the pit of Hades;\n\nfor \u201cthe pit of Hades\u201d the Old Latin Version has: \u201cthe lowest depth\nand darkness and punishment.\u201d[338] One other addition, this time of\nonly a single word, witnesses to the belief of the soul, not merely\nthe shade of the departed, existing in Sheol; this is in xlviii. 5,\na passage already referred to, where it speaks of Elijah raising a\nman from death and from Sheol; the secondary Greek text adds \u201chis\nsoul\u201d after \u201cSheol.\u201d These are, it is true, but slight points,\nnevertheless they are worth mention as supplementing what has already\nbeen said. The next book which contains references to the doctrine\nof the future life is 2 Maccabees, and here an immense development\nwill be seen to have taken place. We have to note first that Hades\nis a place of punishment for the wicked, for in vi. 26 Eleazar, in\nrefusing to commit the crime of offering idolatrous sacrifice, says:\n\u201cEven were I for the moment to evade the punishment of men, I should\nnot escape the hands of the Almighty in life or in death.\u201d For the\nrighteous Hades is only a temporary abode since the resurrection is\nreserved for them; thus, the second son of the mother whose seven\nsons are being martyred for their faith before her face, when at\nthe last gasp, says to the king: \u201cThou cursed miscreant! Thou dost\ndispatch us from this life, but the King of the world shall raise us\nup, who have died for His laws, and revive us to life everlasting\u201d\n(vii. 9); the same truth is taught in verses 23, 29 of the same\nchapter; but the resurrection is not only that of the spirit, but\nof the body also; in the account of the martyrdom of the third son\nit says: \u201cAnd when he was told to put out his tongue, he did so\nat once, stretching forth his hands courageously, with the noble\nwords, These I had from heaven; for His name\u2019s sake I count them\nnought; from Him I hope to get them back again\u201d (vii. 10, 11; see\nalso xiv. 46). It is taught, further, that for the wicked there is\nno resurrection, thus the fourth son speaks thus to the king: \u201c\u2019Tis\nmeet for those who perish at men\u2019s hands to cherish hope divine that\nthey shall be raised up by God again; but thou\u2014thou shalt have no\nresurrection to life\u201d (vii. 14, so too in verse 36). The belief in\nthe resurrection is further illustrated by the following passage:\n\u201c... In this he acted quite rightly and properly, bearing in mind the\nresurrection\u2014for if he had not expected the fallen to rise again, it\nwould have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead\u2014and\nhaving regard to the splendour of the gracious reward which is\nreserved for those who have fallen asleep in godliness; a holy and\npious consideration\u201d (xii. 43-45). It will thus be seen that we have\nin this book a very advanced doctrine of the future life. In the Book\nof Baruch two isolated references to the future life occur, and here\nthe teaching is the same as ordinarily found in the Old Testament:\n\u201c... the dead that are in the grave, whose breath is taken from their\nbodies, will give unto the Lord neither glory nor righteousness\u201d (ii.\n17, cp. iii. 19).\n\nIn 2 (4) Esdras there is an extraordinary wealth of material\nregarding the future life; this is mostly confined to the \u201cSalathiel\nApocalypse\u201d portion and the Redactor\u2019s additions\u2014it is therefore to\nthese that we restrict ourselves. For clearness\u2019 sake it will be best\nto deal with the subject under the three heads: (1) The Resurrection,\n(2) The Intermediate state, (3) The Judgement; there are some\nsubsidiary points which will be touched upon incidentally.\n\n(1) The doctrine of the _Resurrection_ as taught in the \u201cSalathiel\nApocalypse\u201d is not altogether consistent; it is not quite easy to\nunderstand how the writer conceived of the resurrection, for it can\nscarcely have been the resurrection of the body which he thought of\nsince this is regarded as altogether corruptible; thus, in speaking\nof the future life of those who have kept the ways of the Most High,\nhe says that \u201cthey shall be separated from this corruptible vessel\u201d\n(vii. 88), and in the world to come \u201cthey rejoice that they have\nnow escaped what is corruptible, and that they shall inherit that\nwhich is to come\u201d (vii. 96); that the body is meant by \u201cwhat is\ncorruptible\u201d is clear from verse 100, where the seer asks: \u201cShall\ntime, therefore, be given unto the souls after they are separated\nfrom the bodies...?\u201d Later in the book (ix. 36) it is said again:\n\u201cWe who have received the Law and sinned must perish, together with\nour heart, which has taken it in.\u201d Added to this is the fact that\nthis writer, unlike the Redactor of the book (see below), never\nspeaks of the resurrection of the body, which one would rightly look\nfor had he believed in this; nor is there any mention of the soul\nbeing re-united to the body; but he looks upon the body as belonging\nwholly to this corruptible, material world; he definitely contrasts\nthe spiritual with the material, the two are mutually antagonistic:\n\u201cHow should it be possible for a mortal in a corruptible world to\nunderstand the ways of the Incorruptible?\u201d (iv. 11). Whereas in the\nworld to come \u201ccorruption is forgotten\u201d (viii. 53). Yet, in spite\nof what has been said, it would seem that the writer must have\npictured to himself a body of some kind in the world to come, for in\nthe Intermediate state (to which we shall refer presently) he must,\napparently, have believed in the existence of bodies. The conclusion\none is led to is this: the writer believed that the material body\nbecame wholly annihilated at death; but that the soul, when released\nfrom it, assumed a non-material body in the Intermediate state, and\nthat this body did not undergo any further change at the Judgement;\nit was non-material (it is difficult to know how else to express it;\n\u201cspiritual\u201d does not seem the right word to use in view of what is\nsaid about the body in the Intermediate state)\u2014it was non-material,\nand therefore incorruptible, immortal; and for this reason no\nfurther change could take place in it at the final Judgement, for\nit would then be fit for the new world to be created (cp. vii. 75).\nOne is, therefore, led to assume that the resurrection takes place\nalmost immediately after death, i.e. at the end of the seven days of\n\u201cfreedom,\u201d or \u201crest,\u201d which, according to vii. 101, intervene between\nthe end of this life and the beginning of the Intermediate state, and\ntherefore before the Judgement. As to whether the wicked, as well as\nthe righteous, rise one cannot speak with certainty, the implication\nseems to be that this is not so, but no definite pronouncement\nis made on this point; cp. the following words which are put into\nthe mouth of God: \u201cFor, indeed, I will not concern myself about\nthe creation of those who have sinned, or their death, judgement,\nor perdition; but I will rejoice rather over the creation of the\nrighteous, over their pilgrimage also, and their salvation, and their\nrecompense\u201d (viii. 38, 39).\n\n(2) Regarding the _Intermediate state_, minute details are given,\nbut the main points are these; in vii. 78-87 the lot of the wicked\nis thus described: \u201cWhen the decisive decree has gone forth from the\nMost High that the man should die, as the soul from the body departs,\nthat it may return to Him Who gave it, to adore the glory of the\nMost High first of all;\u2014if it be one of those that have scorned,\nand have not kept, the ways of the Most High, and have despised His\nLaw, and that hate those who fear God, such souls shall not enter\ninto habitations, but shall wander about henceforth in torture, ever\ngrieving and sad, in seven ways.\u201d These ways are then described. On\nthe other hand the lot of the righteous is as follows: \u201cOf those,\nhowever, who have kept the ways of the Most High this is the order,\nwhen they shall be separated from this vessel of mortality.... First\nof all they shall see with great joy the glory of Him Who receives\nthem; and they shall rest in seven orders ...\u201d; these orders are\nthen described; of the seventh it is said that it \u201cexceeds all the\naforesaid; they shall rejoice with boldness, be confident without\nconfusion, be glad without fear; for they are hastening to behold\nthe face of Him Whom in life they served, and from Whom they are\ndestined to receive their reward in glory. This is the order of the\nsouls of the righteous ...\u201d (vii. 88-99). As to the duration of this\nIntermediate state we are given no details.\n\n(3) At the close of the Intermediate state comes the _Judgement_;\nbut here again there is some ambiguity, for from vii. 113, 114 we\nlearn that \u201cthe Day of Judgement shall be the end of this age and\nthe beginning of the eternal age that is to come, wherein corruption\nis passed away, weakness is abolished ...\u201d; but this is inconsistent\nwith the idea that corruption passes away with death (vii. 88), i.e.\nthat the Intermediate state is the beginning of the age to come.\nDoes the writer conceive of the new age, the age of incorruption and\neternity, as beginning immediately after death, or at the Judgement?\nIf the former, then it agrees with what he, presumably, believes\nregarding the resurrection which likewise takes place immediately\nafter death; but if the latter, then the Intermediate state is left\nout of reckoning. In either case the teaching is inconsistent;\nevidently the writer\u2019s own mind is not clear on the subject. Upon\nother points there is, however, no want of definiteness; thus, what\nthe righteous and the wicked have respectively experienced in the\nIntermediate state is only a foretaste of what will be enormously\nincreased at the Judgement, for the righteous their happiness, for\nthe wicked their torment. The writer is very strong in insisting\nthat on the Day of Judgement no intercession of the righteous will\navail on behalf of the wicked. The seer asks \u201cwhether in the Day of\nJudgement the righteous shall be able to intercede for the ungodly,\nor to intreat the Most High in their behalf ...\u201d; and the reply is:\n\u201c... so shall none then pray for another on that Day, neither shall\none lay a burden on another; for then every one shall bear his own\nrighteousness or unrighteousness ...\u201d (vii. 102-115).\n\nIn the other parts of this book these subjects are only slightly\ndealt with; but there is some important teaching in those portions\nwhich have probably been added by the Redactor.[339] He believes in\na general resurrection (at any rate he makes no distinction between\ngood and bad) of the body, and though he does not specifically\nmention the Intermediate state he evidently holds the same belief\nregarding this as the original writer: \u201cThe earth shall restore those\nthat sleep in her, and the dust those that are at rest therein; and\nthe chambers shall restore the souls that were committed unto them\u201d\n(vii. 32). Here there is thus a clear reference to the re-union\nof soul and body, but the time at which this takes place is at\nthe beginning of a new age which will begin seven days after the\nclose of the Messianic Age. The Redactor, in seeking to combine the\neschatology of the individual with that of the nation, presents the\ncourse of the final events in a different way, thus: \u201cFor, behold,\ndays come\u2014and it shall be when the signs which I have foretold unto\nthee [i.e. the Messianic Woes] shall come to pass\u2014then shall the city\nthat is now invisible [i.e. the heavenly Jerusalem] appear, and the\nland which is now concealed [i.e. the heavenly Paradise] be seen.\nAnd whosoever is delivered from the predicted evil, the same shall\nsee My wonders. For My Son, the Messiah, shall be revealed, together\nwith those who are with Him, and shall rejoice the survivors four\nhundred years. And it shall be, after these years, that My Son the\nMessiah shall die, and all in whom there is human breath. Then shall\nthe world be turned into the prim\u00e6val silence seven days, like as in\nthe first beginnings, so that no man is left. And it shall be after\nseven days that the Age which is not yet awake, shall be roused, and\nthat which is corruptible shall perish\u201d (vii. 26-31); then follows\nthe passage about the resurrection quoted above, and it continues\n(verses 33 ff.): \u201cAnd the Most High shall be revealed upon the throne\nof judgement; and then cometh the end.... And recompense shall\nfollow, and the reward be made manifest; deeds of righteousness shall\nawake, and deeds of iniquity shall not sleep. And then shall the\npit of torment appear; and over against it the place of refreshment.\nThe furnace of Gehenna shall be made manifest, and over against it\nthe Paradise of delight. And then the Most High shall say to the\nnations that have been raised (from the dead): Look now, and consider\nWhom ye have denied, Whom ye have not served, Whose commandments ye\nhave despised! Look, now, before you: here delight and refreshment,\nthere fire and torments....\u201d Here, then, we have an eschatological\nscheme quite different from that of the \u201cSalathiel Apocalypse\u201d; the\nMessianic Age is preceded by the signs, or woes; then the Messiah\nis revealed and His kingdom lasts four hundred years; at the end\nof this period all flesh, including the Messiah, dies, and the\nworld is plunged in prim\u00e6val silence for seven days; then comes the\nResurrection, a bodily resurrection, in which all men, Gentile and\nJew, ungodly and godly, partake; this is immediately followed by the\nJudgement which ushers in the New Age.\n\nTurning now to the Book of Wisdom we note that there is no\nresurrection of body taught here; this follows naturally from\nthe writer\u2019s doctrine of the inherent evil of matter. The only\nimmortality is that of the soul, and this is gained through \u201ckinship\nunto wisdom\u201d:\n\n      When I considered these things in myself,\n        And took thought in my heart how that in kinship unto wisdom\n            is immortality,\n      And in her friendship is good delight....\n        I went about seeking how to take her unto myself\n                                       (viii. 17, 18);\n\nso that immortality begins on this earth. The Judgement takes place\nimmediately after death; the writer describes fully the lot in the\nfuture life reserved respectively for the righteous and the ungodly;\nin the beautiful and well-known passage (iii. 1-9) the blessedness of\nthe righteous is described in this way:\n\n      But the souls of the righteous are in the hands of God,\n        And no torment shall touch them ...\n      But they are in peace.\n        For though in the sight of men they be punished,\n      Their hope is full of immortality ... (iii. 1-9).\n\nOf the ungodly it is said, on the other hand:\n\n      But the ungodly shall be requited even as they reasoned,\n        They which lightly regarded the righteous man, and revolted\n            from the Lord ...\n      And void is their hope, and their toils unprofitable,\n        And useless are their works ... (iii. 10 ff.).\n\nAnd again in chapter v. the contrast hereafter between the righteous\nand the unrighteous is told in the following way:\n\n      But the righteous shall live for ever,\n        And the Lord is their reward,\n      And the care for them with the Most High.\n        Therefore shall they receive a glorious kingdom,\n      And a diadem of beauty from the Lord\u2019s hand ... (v. 15 ff.);\n\nbut the ungodly, on seeing the blessedness of the righteous, will be\ngreatly troubled:\n\n      When they see it they shall be troubled with terrible fear,\n        And shall be amazed at the marvel of His salvation ...\n\nBitter remorse takes hold of them as they review their former godless\nlife and see that they have now no further hope:\n\n      Because the hope of the ungodly is like chaff carried off by\n            the wind (see v. 1-14).\n\nBut in regard to the Judgement the writer of Wisdom is not\nconsistent, for in iii. 8 it is said:\n\n      They [i.e. the righteous] shall judge nations, and have dominion\n            over peoples;\n      And the Lord shall reign over them for evermore.\n\nOn the other hand, in v. 17-23, there is an entirely different\neschatological conception:\n\n      He [i.e. Jehovah] shall take His jealousy as complete armour,\n        And shall make the whole creation His weapons of vengeance\n            on His enemies ...;\n\nthis is all described with great vividness in the verses which\nfollow. It seems as though the author were acquainted with more than\none Jewish eschatological scheme, and utilized them, but without\nrealizing that they were inconsistent with each other. See further\nabove, section (_e_), on the doctrine of the Messiah. According to\nthis book, then, there is no Intermediate state; if one can speak of\na Resurrection at all it is only in reference to the soul; as the\nsoul is immortal both the righteous and the ungodly live hereafter;\nthe righteous in bliss the ungodly in torment of a purely spiritual\nkind (see iv. 19, v. 2, xvii. 21); it is not said where the scene\nof the Judgement is. The writer, it will thus be seen, departs\nwidely from Palestinian Jewish belief on this subject, but he is not\nignorant of it; though a Jew, his Hellenistic caste of mind makes it\nimpossible for him to accept the Jewish position.\n\n\n(_g_) _The Doctrine of Angels._\n\nThe nature of the contents of Ecclesiasticus is such that one does\nnot look for much reference to angels; nevertheless, in two passages\nthere is a distinct mention of them, viz. xlii. 16 (17):\n\n      God\u2019s holy ones have not the power\n        To recount His wondrous works of might;\n      Though God hath given strength to His hosts\n        To endure in the presence of His glory (so the Hebrew).\n\nThe meaning of the passage is that even the \u201choly ones\u201d (i.e. angels,\nas in Deut. xxxiii. 1. [but see Driver\u2019s _Deuteronomy_, p. 392],\nJob v. 1, Ps. lxxxix. 7, and often in the apocalyptic books) are\nunable to recount God\u2019s marvellous works though, by means of special\nstrength given to them, they stand in His very presence. The other\npassage is xliii. 26:\n\n      Through Him His angel prospereth,\n        And at His word what He wills is done.\n\nThe Hebrew text here is a little uncertain, but that a reference to\nangels is intended is probable because the whole passage of which\nthis is the concluding verse is based upon Psalm civ. 1 ff., verse\n4 of which runs: \u201cWho maketh His angels of the winds, His ministers\nof the flaming fire.\u201d In the Book of Tobit the angel Raphael[340]\nplays an important part; in xii. 15 he says of himself: \u201cI am\nRaphael, one of the seven holy angels, which present the prayers\nof the saints, and go in before the glory of the Holy One\u201d (cp.\nalso verse 12). This angel is sent from God, according to iii. 7,\nto heal Tobit\u2019s blindness, and to bring about the marriage between\nTobit\u2019s son Tobias and Sarah, the daughter of Raguel, by binding\nAsmodeus the evil spirit (cp. vi. 10-17). He accompanies Tobias on\nhis journey to Media, and thus appears as a guardian angel. The\nangelic host is referred to in viii. 15: \u201cBlessed art Thou, O God,\nwith all pure and holy blessing; and let Thy saints bless Thee, and\nall Thy creatures; and let all Thine angels and elect bless Thee for\never.\u201d There is no mention of angels in the Book of Judith; but in\nthe Additions to Daniel there are several references; thus in the\n\u201cPrayer of Azariah,\u201d verses 26, 27, it is said: \u201cBut the angel of\nthe Lord came down into the furnace together with Azariah and his\nfellows, and he drove the flame of the fire out of the furnace, and\nmade the midst of the furnace as it had been a moist whistling wind,\nso that the fire touched them not at all, neither hurt nor troubled\nthem.\u201d In \u201cSusanna,\u201d again, the activity of angels is referred to in\nverses 44, 45 (Septuagint Version), where the angel of the Lord is\nsaid to have bestowed \u201ca spirit of discernment\u201d upon Daniel; also in\nverse 55 (Septuagint Version), where the angel of the Lord is about\nto \u201ccleave the soul\u201d of one of the criminals brought before Daniel;\nand, once more, it is an angel who carries out the sentence against\nthe two elders: \u201cThen the angel of the Lord cast fire in the midst\nof them\u201d (verse 62). In Theodotion\u2019s Version the angel of the Lord\nis referred to in verses 55, 59, and is spoken of in each case as\nthe avenging angel. Then, again, in \u201cBel and the Dragon,\u201d verses\n34-39, there is the curious story of how the angel of the Lord took\nup the prophet Habakkuk by the hair and transported him from Judah\nto Babylon in order that he might give food to Daniel in the lion\u2019s\nden. In the Prayer of Manasses the angelic host is spoken of in verse\n15: \u201cFor all the host of heaven doth sing Thy praise.\u201d In the Epistle\nof Jeremy, verse 7, a guardian angel is spoken of as being with the\ncaptives in Babylon. The belief in angels is incidentally referred to\nin the Additions to Esther (Fourth Addition, xv. 13 in R.V.), where\nEsther compares the king to an angel of God. A somewhat fantastic\nrepresentation of the activity of angels is given in three passages\nin 2 Maccabees; in iii. 24 ff. there is an account of how the attempt\nof Seleucus and Heliodorus to take the temple at Jerusalem was\nfrustrated; on their reaching the treasury \u201cthe Sovereign of spirits\nand all authority prepared a great apparition, so that all who had\npresumed to enter were stricken with dismay at the power of God, and\nfainted with sheer terror. For there appeared to them a horse with\na terrible rider, and it was decked in magnificent trappings, and\nrushing fiercely forward it struck at Heliodorus with its forefeet.\nAnd the rider seemed to be armed with a golden panoply. Two youths\nalso appeared before Heliodorus, remarkable for their strength,\ngloriously handsome, and splendidly arrayed, who stood by him on\neither side, and scourged him unceasingly, inflicting on him many\nsore stripes....\u201d Again, in xi. 6-10, God is besought \u201cto send a good\nangel to save Israel\u201d; the prayer is heard, and \u201ca rider appeared at\ntheir head, in white apparel, brandishing weapons of gold\u201d; owing to\nhis help the Israelites win the battle. Lastly, in xv. 11-16 belief\nin angels seems to be connected with dreams; for Maccab\u00e6us recounts\nthe following \u201creliable dream,\u201d which has the effect of greatly\nencouraging the people: \u201cOnias, the former high-priest, a good and\ngreat man, of stately bearing yet gracious in manner, well-spoken,\nand trained from childhood in all points of virtue\u2014Onias, with\nout-stretched hands, invoking blessings on the whole body of the\nJews; then another man in the same attitude, conspicuous by his grey\nhairs and splendour, and invested with marvellous, majestic dignity.\nThis, Onias explained to him, is the lover of the brethren, for he\nprayeth fervently for the people and the holy city, Jeremiah the\nprophet of God. And Jeremiah held out his right hand to present Judas\nwith a golden sword, and as he gave it he addressed him thus: Take\nthis holy sword as a gift from God, and with it thou shalt crush the\nfoe.\u201d No other books refer to angels until we come to 2 (4) Esdras.\n\nA greatly developed angelology appears in the \u201cSalathiel Apocalypse\u201d;\nwe must content ourselves here with an outline of this only. At the\nhead of the angelic host stand seven archangels; of these only two\nare mentioned in this book, viz. Jeremiel, who guards the souls of\nthe righteous in the chambers where they are awaiting the final\njudgement and resurrection (iv. 33-37)[341]; and Uriel, who is sent\nto the seer in order to show him the inscrutability of God\u2019s ways\n(iv. 1-11). Elsewhere angels are referred to as speaking in the name\nof God, e.g. vii. 130; they are instant in fulfilling God\u2019s commands,\nwhatsoever these may be:\n\n      Before Whom heaven\u2019s hosts stand trembling.\n        And at Thy word change to wind and fire (viii. 21);\n\nand their power is much restricted: \u201cAs for me, I am unwise and\npowerless; how then should I essay to speak of these things of which\nthou questionest me?\u201d (v. 39). Throughout this apocalypse it is by\nangelic agency that God communicates with the seer.\n\nIn the Book of Wisdom the point of interest is that the place of\nangels is taken by Wisdom, or by the Word, the development of\ndoctrine having eliminated angelology altogether; thus, in x. 17, 18\nit is said of Wisdom that:\n\n      She rendered unto holy men a reward of their toils;\n        She guided them along a marvellous way,\n      And became unto them a covering in the daytime,\n        And a light of stars through the night....\n\nHere Wisdom has taken the place of the \u201cangel of God\u201d in Exodus xiv.\n19. Again, in xviii. 15, 16 it is said:\n\n      Thine all-powerful Word leaped from heaven down from the royal\n            throne,\n        A stern warrior, into the midst of the doomed land,\n      Bearing as a sharp sword thine unfeigned commandment,\n        And standing, filled all things with death;\n      And while it touched the heaven it trode upon the earth.\n\nHere the Logos has taken the place of the avenging angel, for it is\nevident that the writer had 1 Chronicles xxi. 15, 16 in his mind:\n\u201c... And David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of the Lord\nstand between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his\nhand.\u201d This allegorizing is what one would naturally look for in\nWisdom.\n\n\n(_h_) _Demonology._\n\nIt is doubtful whether there is any reference to demons in\nEcclesiasticus; possibly, however, xxxix. 28-31 contains such a\nreference.[342] In Tobit iii. 8 mention is made of Asmodeus, \u201cthe\nevil demon,\u201d who slays men; the angel, however, has power to\n\u201cunbind\u201d him from people (iii. 17, viii. 3), though apparently the\nmost efficacious way of getting rid of him is by burning the liver\nand heart of a fish on incense which drives the demon away (vi. 17,\nviii. 3). The only other reference to demons is in Baruch iv. 35,\nwhere it is said that they are to inhabit the desolate city \u201cfor a\ngreat time.\u201d It is worth pointing out, finally, that in the Book of\nWisdom, while there is no demonology in the ordinary sense, there is\na belief in the devil:\n\n      But by the envy of the devil death entered into the world,\n        And they that belong to his realm experience it (ii. 24).\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nRegarding the importance for the study of the New Testament of the\ndoctrines which have been considered see the respective sections of\nthe different introductions to the books of the Apocrypha in Part II.\n\n\nSUMMARY\n\nThe books of the Apocrypha contain only part of the doctrinal\nteaching of the literature from which they have been, quite\narbitrarily, distinguished. It is not possible here to consider\nall the works which must be consulted for a complete study of the\nperiod with which we are dealing, but in restricting ourselves to the\nApocrypha there is this compensation, that the more important of its\nbooks were recognized by official Judaism as containing good orthodox\nteaching, so that they supply a useful foundation for further study\nof the development of doctrine. In some cases, however, recourse must\nbe had to the Apocalyptic Literature, for though the books of the\nApocrypha afford a general criterion as to orthodox Jewish teaching\nfrom 200 B.C. to A.D. 100, they are in some respects inadequate.\n\nIt must again be emphasized that the Old Testament is not the sole\nbackground of the Apocryphal books in the domain of doctrine: there\nhave been marked Persian and Greek influences in certain directions.\nThe main current of Palestinian Judaism was affected by these, while\nthe Judaism of the Dispersion in its turn was influenced by both\nPersian and Greek thought, and the effect of all this is traceable\nin the Apocrypha. The teaching of the various books must also be\nfollowed in chronological order; there are differences of opinion\nas to actual dates, but there is approximate unanimity as to the\ncenturies to which the books, in almost all cases, belong. In some\ninstances different parts of a book belong to different times, as\nwill be seen from the Chronological Table (p. 320). For discussions\nof the dates, see the Introductions in Part II.\n\nThe doctrine of Wisdom was considered in Chapter VIII; here we have\nto deal with the doctrines of God, of the Law, of Sin, of Grace and\nFree-will, of the Messiah, of the Future Life, of Angels, and with\nDemonology; these cannot always be kept separate, as one leads into\nanother. Only cursory mention will be made of those points where the\nteaching is identical with that of the Old Testament, though even in\nthese cases the characteristic form in which a doctrine is exhibited\nwill be noted, the main object is to show in what respects the books\nof the Apocrypha show an advance, or it may be a retrogression, in\ndoctrine as compared with the Old Testament.\n\n\n(_a_) _The Doctrine of God._\n\nEcclesiasticus treats of the Unity of God, the Creator of all;\nHis eternity and omnipotence, His activity in nature, His wisdom,\nholiness, justice, loving-kindness, and mercy, His fatherhood of\nIsrael and sometimes of all flesh (see xlii. 15-xliii. 33). Here the\ninspiration is drawn largely from the Psalms, but in xlii. 16, and\nxliii. 28-32, Ben-Sira seems to go beyond anything to be found in\nthe Old Testament. No book of the Apocrypha has such a variety of\nnames for God as Tobit, which is also distinguished by a doctrine\nof angelic mediation and a universalistic spirit which is in marked\ncontrast to Judith. In the Prayer of Manasses great stress is laid\non the Divine compassion. In the secondary text of Ecclesiasticus,\nwhich is a Pharisaic recension of the work, the great characteristic\nis that religious individualism which did so much to foster spiritual\nworship. The heightened expression of the close relationship between\nGod and His pious ones which the more ardent religious temperament\nof the Pharisees demanded can be illustrated by a comparison of i.\n12, and xvii. 20, with the lines which immediately follow in either\ninstance. This spirit reappears in the Psalms of Solomon.\n\nIn the original text of 1 Maccabees all mention of the name of God is\ndeliberately avoided; once or twice, as in iii. 18, a true faith in\nthe omnipotence of God is expressed, and not infrequently there is\ntrust in God as the God of Israel Who will help His people against\ntheir foes. In all three of the documents which make up Baruch,\nstress is laid on God\u2019s guidance of Israel\u2019s destiny, and in the\nportion, iv. 5-v. 9, the Divine compassion is constantly recalled.\n2 (4) Esdras represents the best of the Old Testament teaching\nconcerning the doctrine of God: the Unity of God, His Creatorship\nwithout any mediatorial agency, Israel as the chosen nation with\nwhich God has entered into a covenant relation, are all insisted upon\nby the writer, whose faith in God, and conviction that His love is\nfor His people, remains, though he is presented with problems which\nare insoluble for man. In the Book of Wisdom the religious atmosphere\nis to a large extent alien to that of Palestine: the presentment of\nthe doctrine of God is entirely different in its two parts, whether\nthese are by two different authors or by one writing at different\ntimes in his life. The first part (ii.-xi. 1) is more Greek than\nJewish, the idea of God is that of Greek philosophy: a transcendent\nGod Who has no immediate contact with the world, but performs His\nwill through an intermediary, who is Wisdom. In the second part God\nis again and again spoken of as interfering personally in mundane\naffairs, and in other respects also the Old Testament doctrine is\nrepresented, as in the need of right worship, and the mercy and\njustice of God.\n\n\n(_b_) _The Doctrine of the Law._\n\nThe stress laid in Ecclesiasticus on the importance of the Law, from\nboth ethical and ritual points of view, shows this work to be a\nvaluable link between the Judaism of post-exilic times and Rabbinical\nJudaism. The Law is eternal and divine, and its pre-existence is\nimplied in its identification with Wisdom. So far as is known this\nidentification occurs here for the first time, but the way it is\ntaken for granted shows that it cannot have been wholly new. The\ninsistence on the need of observing the Law is characteristic of\nthis book, as is the teaching on the spirit in which the precepts\nare to be carried out. In chapter xxiv. 7 ff. the Law is only for\nIsrael. In Tobit an earnest zeal for the Law is combined with deep\ndevotion. This book indicates a development of legal observances;\nprayer, almsgiving and fasting are strongly advocated, particularly\nalmsgiving. The laws of tithe, marriage, honour to parents, keeping\nthe feasts, purifications and others are inculcated. This love for\nthe Law, combined with worship, offers a fine illustration of the\ntruly pious Jew at this period. The teaching concerning the Law in\nJudith is strongly Pharisaic; while everything depends upon trust in\nGod and obedience to Him, both are shown by keeping the Law; only the\npractical observance is taught; there is no abstract conception. The\nobservance of Sabbaths, new moons and feasts is emphasized. Reference\nis made to the sacrificial system and the gifts of the people, and\nin the poem xvi. 2-17 the right spirit in offering is the really\nimportant matter. In 1 Maccabees there is reflected the earnest zeal\nfor the Law on the part of the patriots. In 2 Maccabees much stress\nis laid upon legal observances, and the whole attitude towards the\nLaw is that of the Pharisaic school of about the first century B.C.\nonwards. This also applies to 1 (3) Esdras.\n\nIn the document Baruch iii. 9-iv. 4, where the Law and Wisdom are\nidentified, exiled Israel is told that the reason of his punishment\nis the forsaking of the commandments of life, i.e. the Law. The\nLaw endures for ever, and is apparently for Israel alone. Of the\ndifferent portions which make up 2 (4) Esdras the most important in\nthe present connection is the \u201cSalathiel Apocalypse,\u201d which forms the\nbulk of the book (iii.-x.) Here it is said, in accordance with later\nRabbinical teaching, that the Law had originally been given to other\nnations, by whom it was rejected, while Israel alone had accepted\nit. In the other portions of the book the main stress is laid on\nveneration for the Law. In the Book of Wisdom there is very little on\nthe subject to be noted, but the foreign rulers are denounced for not\nkeeping the Law.\n\n\n(_c_) _The Doctrine of Sin._\n\nIn Ecclesiasticus the prevalence of Sin in one and all is often\nnoted, and there is much said about its origin. Here Ben-Sira finds\na problem too difficult for him. He implies, though he hardly goes\nso far as to make the definite assertion, that the origin of sin is\ndue to God (xxxiii. 13-15), but in one important passage he strongly\ncombats this (xv. 11-13). He traces it back to the fall of Eve,\nbut no farther. He speaks sometimes of Sin as originating within\nman, sometimes as being external to him. Like the later Rabbis, he\nbecomes involved in inconsistencies as soon as he tries to construct\na working theory on the subject. In his teaching on the atonement for\nsins he shows a great advance on the Old Testament, adding almsgiving\nand fasting as means of atonement, and foreshadowing the idea that\nDeath also may be one. This last idea became of ever-increasing\nimportance with the growth in later Judaism of the belief in the\nresurrection. There is little that calls for notice in Tobit except\na reference to the atoning efficacy of almsgiving; and nothing in\nJudith, or the Additions to Daniel; but in the Prayer of Manasses we\nfind the thought that the Patriarchs were sinless\u2014an idea developed\nin the later Rabbinical Literature in connection with the \u201cTreasury\nof Merit\u201d of the Fathers\u2014and a deeper realization of sin than is to\nbe found in any other book of the Apocrypha. In 2 Maccabees there\nis a strangely particularistic doctrine of retribution for Sin. The\nteaching in 1 (3) Esdras and Baruch is that of the Old Testament,\nbut the doctrine as to the merits of the Fathers is expressly\nrepudiated in Baruch. 2 (4) Esdras is important; especially, again,\nthe Salathiel Apocalypse. Here the origin of sin is traced to Adam,\nthough its connection with him is not explained; but Sin is regarded\nas universal, each man clothing himself with the evil heart. In the\nBook of Wisdom there is a belief in an original state of good, which\nis so decidedly contradicted by a later passage (xii. 10, 11) as to\nemphasize belief in a different authorship for the two parts of the\nbook: on this point, as on the subject of Death, it is the first part\nthat is important for us, the second offers nothing new.\n\n\n(_d_) _The Doctrine of Grace and Free-will._\n\nA true balance between these two is kept in Ecclesiasticus; they\nare shown as complementary, not contradictory, thus continuing the\nteaching of the Old Testament concerning the omnipotence of God and\nthe responsibility of man. Similar teaching is found in Tobit. The\nrest of the books belonging to this century have nothing that calls\nfor particular notice, but in the secondary text of Ecclesiasticus\nthe same balance is found as in the first. In 1 Maccabees much more\nemphasis is laid on Free-will than on Grace, owing to a growing\ndisinclination to ascribe action among men directly to God, because\nof His inexpressible majesty. In the Additions to Esther, on the\ncontrary, there is throughout insistence on the Divine activity,\nwhile human free-will is scarcely taken into account; there can be no\ndoubt that the one-sided emphasis in either case was prompted by the\nparticular subject-matter of the book. In 1 Maccabees there is very\nlittle to note under the present heading, though stress is frequently\nlaid upon the idea that the Jews are under special protection and\nguidance. In 2 (4) Esdras it is again only the Salathiel Apocalypse\nthat claims attention; here the writer is driven by his deep sense\nof sinfulness and his conviction of man\u2019s inability to acquire\njustification by the works of the Law, to look to Divine Grace\nwhere human will-power was helpless. In the Book of Wisdom the main\nemphasis is on Free-will, though the other side of the truth is not\nleft out of sight.\n\n\n(_e_) _The Doctrine of the Messiah._\n\nThe didactic character of Ecclesiasticus accounts for the meagre\nreference to this doctrine; there is belief in a Messiah who is to\nbe purely human and of the House of David, but it is vague in the\nextreme. The conceptions of a Messiah were largely regulated by\nthe historical circumstances of any given period, and during the\ntime of Ben-Sira these were not of a nature to call forth Messianic\nhopes. In Tobit the Messiah is never mentioned, but the renovated\nJerusalem and the ingathering of the dispersed Israelites, and also\nof the Gentiles, give a picture of what corresponds to the Messianic\nKingdom. No other books offer teaching on the subject until we come\nto 1 Maccabees, where \u201ca prophet\u201d is looked for; in one passage he is\nto be of Hasmon\u00e6an lineage. In 2 Maccabees there is no reference to\nthe Messiah, though there is to the Messianic Kingdom. The only other\nbook is the important apocalypse 2 (4) Esdras, and here the teaching\nis full, and, as the book is of composite authorship, various. In the\nSalathiel Apocalypse (iii.-x.), the Messiah is regarded as purely\nhuman, and only in this portion are the signs which are to precede\nthe Messianic Kingdom mentioned. In the eagle vision (xi.-xii. 29),\nand the vision of the man rising from the sea (xiii.), and in the\nEzra legend (xiv.), the pre-existence of the Messiah is taught.\nThe Messianic Kingdom itself is to be of limited duration, and, in\nthe eagle vision, Gentiles as well as Jews are to enjoy it, but in\nthe vision of the man from the sea the Gentiles are to be wholly\ndestroyed by the Messiah, and His kingdom is only for His own people.\nIn the Book of Wisdom there is no doctrine of the Messiah, nor is\nthere a belief in a Messianic Kingdom in the Jewish Palestinian\nsense, but the traditional Jewish eschatological conceptions are\nutilized by the author and a glorious future is believed to be\nreserved for the Jews.\n\n\n(_f_) _The Doctrine of the Future Life._\n\nIn Ecclesiasticus the teaching on this subject is substantially of\nthe normal Old Testament type; the corruption of the body is looked\nupon as the end of man, though the annihilation of the spirit as well\nis evidently not contemplated.\n\nOnce or twice death is spoken of as a rest. The development in\nthis doctrine which is known to have taken place during the second\ncentury B.C. is reflected by some additions. It is of particular\ninterest to note that in one or two cases the Greek shows signs of\nsome development of conception where in the Hebrew the normal Old\nTestament position is maintained. It is very noticeable that a kind\nof technical sense has become attached to the word \u201cworm,\u201d as in\nMark ix. 48. In Tobit the normal Old Testament doctrine is taught.\nIn Judith the only reference is an important one, as it witnesses\nto a development of the thought of Hades as a place of punishment.\nThere is something similar to this in the Prayer of Manasses. In\nthe Pharisaic recension of Ecclesiasticus words added here and\nthere show a development of thought as to the Future Life. The next\nbook which contains references to this is 2 Maccabees, and here an\nimmense development has taken place; Hades is a place of punishment\nfor the wicked; but only a temporary abode for the righteous, since\nthe Resurrection is reserved for them; and the Resurrection is not\nonly of the spirit, but of the body also. For the wicked there is no\nresurrection. In Baruch there are two isolated references; and in\nboth the teaching is that ordinarily found in the Old Testament. In\n2 (4) Esdras there is an extraordinary wealth of material, mostly\nconfined to the Salathiel Apocalypse. Here the doctrine of the\nresurrection is not altogether consistent, and the writer\u2019s thought\nis not quite easy to understand; he seems to have believed that the\nmaterial body became wholly annihilated at death, but the soul, when\nreleased from it, assumed a non-material body in the Intermediate\nstate, and that this, being incorruptible, did not undergo any\nfurther change at the Judgement. The Resurrection apparently takes\nplace immediately after death. It is uncertain whether the wicked\nrise as well as the righteous. Minute details are given as to the\nlot of the wicked and that of the righteous in the Intermediate\nstate, but none as to the duration of this. At its close comes the\nJudgement. Here there is the same ambiguity; the writer\u2019s mind is\nnot clear whether the age of incorruption and eternity is to begin\nimmediately after death, or only at the Judgement. But there is\nno want of definiteness as to the happiness of the righteous and\nthe torment of the wicked; both will be enormously increased at\nthe Judgement, and then no intercession of the righteous for the\nwicked will avail. In those portions of the book which have probably\nbeen added by the Redactor there is some important teaching as to\na general resurrection, and a re-union of soul and body, which is\nto take place at the beginning of a new age seven days after the\nclose of the Messianic Age. This is part of a new eschatological\nscheme, quite different from that of the Salathiel Apocalypse, and\nseeking to combine the eschatology of the individual with that of\nthe nation. In the Book of Wisdom there is no resurrection of the\nbody; the only immortality is that of the soul, and it begins on this\nearth. Judgement takes place immediately after death, and there is no\nIntermediate state. The bliss of the righteous and the torment of the\nungodly are of a purely spiritual kind. It seems as though the author\nwere acquainted with more than one Jewish eschatological scheme, and\nused them without recognizing their inconsistency. He says nothing as\nto where the scene of the Judgement will be laid; he is not ignorant\nof the Palestinian Jewish belief, but, being of an Hellenic cast of\nmind, he cannot accept it.\n\n\n(_g_) _The Doctrine of Angels._\n\nIn Ecclesiasticus there are but few references; in xlii. 16 the\n\u201choly ones\u201d are unable to recount God\u2019s marvellous works, though\nstrength is given them to stand in His presence. In Tobit the angel\nRaphael plays an important part; he binds Asmodeus, and appears as\nguardian angel to Tobit on his journey. The angelic host is referred\nto in viii. 15. There is no mention of angels in Judith, but in the\nAdditions to Daniel the angel of the Lord appears in each of the\nstories. The angelic host is spoken of in the Prayer of Manasses, and\na guardian angel in the Epistle of Jeremy, and there is an incidental\nreference to angels in the Additions to Esther. A somewhat fantastic\nrepresentation of the activity of angels is given in 2 Maccabees in\nthe stories of Heliodorus and of the rider leading Israel to battle\nand of the \u201creliable dreams\u201d of Maccab\u00e6us. No other books refer\nto angels till we come to 2 (4) Esdras, and here in the Salathiel\nApocalypse a greatly developed angelology appears. At the head of the\nangelic host stand seven archangels, and God communicates with the\nseer by means of the angels. In the Book of Wisdom the place of these\nis taken by the Word or by Wisdom, the development of doctrine having\nhere eliminated angelology altogether.\n\n\n(_h_) _Demonology._\n\nIt is doubtful whether there is any reference to demons in\nEcclesiasticus; there may be one in xxxix. 18-31. In Tobit there is\nan evil demon who slays men. The only other reference is in Baruch;\nbut in the Book of Wisdom, though there is no demonology in the\nordinary sense, there is a belief in the devil.\n\n\n\n\n_PART II_\n\nINTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF THE APOCRYPHA\n\n\n\n\nIntroductory\n\n\nWe come now to deal with the books of the Apocrypha. As far as\npossible we shall take these in chronological order, though it will\nbe recognized that certitude in this matter is not to be expected.\nThere are different opinions regarding the dates of most of the\nbooks, and in some cases the _data_ for coming to a conclusion\nare too scanty to allow of anything approaching confidence in the\ncorrectness of the date assigned. Moreover, as to some of the books,\ndifferent parts belong to different periods; this can be proved\neven though one cannot be sure of the exact date of each part. Then\nthere is the further difficulty regarding the question as to whether\na particular book, as we now have it, approximates to its original\nform, and if there is reason to believe that this is not the case, as\nto the date of the original as well as that of its present form.\n\nThe plan here followed is to take the books in the order of the dates\nof their original form (as far as this can be ascertained), even\nthough parts of a book belong to a later date, which will, of course,\nbe notified. It will also be wiser to assign a period rather than a\nfixed date, excepting in the one case, that of Ecclesiasticus, where\nthe date of the original can be fixed to within a decade or so with\nreasonable certainty. The books belonging to a particular period are\nput in chronological order within that period. The following table\nwill show this:\n\n  Ecclesiasticus, _circa_ B.C. 180. Pharisaic recension, B.C.\n  100-50.\n\n  Tobit. Pre-Maccab\u00e6an.\n\n  Judith                          }\n  Additions to Daniel (excepting  } Maccab\u00e6an, about the middle of\n    the Prayer of Azarias which   }   the second century B.C.\n    is pre-Maccab\u00e6an)             }\n  Rest of Esther                  }\n\n  Prayer of Manasses              }\n  1 Maccabees                     } Post-Maccab\u00e6an, _circa_ B.C. 110.\n  1 (3) Esdras                    }\n\n  Wisdom. Earliest portion middle of first century B.C., latest\n  portion beginning of first century A.D.\n\n  2 Maccabees. Beginning of first century A.D.\n\n  Baruch and the Ep. }                      Incorporates some earlier\n      of Jeremiah.   } End of first           material.\n  2 (4) Esdras       }   century A.D.       Chaps. i. ii. xv. xvi. are\n                     }                        later.\n\nIn quotations from these books the translation of Dr. Charles and his\neditors[343] has as a rule, but not always, been used. The original\ntexts used are:\n\n  Ecclesiasticus: for the Hebrew, Smend\u2019s text (_Die Weisheit des\n  Jesus Sirach, Hebr\u00e4isch und Deutsch_, 1906); for the Greek,\n  Swete\u2019s text (_The Old Testament in Greek_, 1896), and Hart\u2019s\n  text of Cod. 248 (_Ecclesiasticus_, pp. 1-71, 1909).\n\n  2 (4) Esdras: for the Latin, Bensly and James\u2019 text (_The Fourth\n  Book of Ezra_, pp. 1-82, 1895).\n\nFor the rest of the books, Swete\u2019s text mentioned above.\n\nThe Literature given at the head of each chapter does not profess\nto be more than a selection. Editions of original texts, and\ntext-critical discussions, are not given, as references to these will\nbe found in the Literature cited.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nThe Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach; or Ecclesiasticus\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014Fritzsche, _Die Weisheit Jesus Sirachs erkl\u00e4rt und\n  \u00fcbersetzt_ (1859); Edersheim, in Wace, II, pp. 1-239; Ryssel, in\n  Kautzsch, I. pp. 230-475; Schechter, _Studies in Judaism_ (Second\n  Series), pp. 55-101 (1908); Hart, _Ecclesiasticus_ ... (1909);\n  Oesterley, _Ecclesiasticus_, in \u201cThe Cambridge Bible\u201d (1912); Box\n  and Oesterley, in Charles, I, pp. 268-517.]\n\n\nI. THE TITLE OF THE BOOK\n\n\u201cEcclesiasticus,\u201d the name with which we are most familiar, gives no\nindication as to the contents of the book; it has, however, been the\ntitle whereby the book was known in the Western Church ever since the\nthird century. St. Jerome retained the familiar title in his Latin\nVersion of the Bible, and it has continued in the Church ever since.\nOn account of its manifold instruction in conduct of life it was much\nused in the early Church, especially in the case of catechumens;\nthe title, therefore, of \u201cEcclesiasticus\u201d was probably given to it\nbecause it was the ecclesiastical or Church book _par excellence_.\nWhat the original title was we do not know; but in most manuscripts\nof the Greek Version the title given is: \u201cWisdom of Jesus the son\nof Sirach\u201d; in the Syriac Version it is: \u201cWisdom of Bar Sira.\u201d[344]\nBoth these were translations from the Hebrew, so that we shall not\nbe far wrong in believing that the original title ran: \u201cThe Wisdom\nof Ben-Sira,\u201d or, \u201cThe Wisdom of Jesus Ben-Sira.\u201d[345] The Greek\ntranslator, in the Prologue to the book, speaks of his grandfather\n\u201cJesus\u201d as the author. In the Talmud the book is referred to as: \u201cThe\nBook of Ben-Sira\u201d; the name \u201cJesus\u201d would have been omitted by the\nRabbis for obvious reasons.\n\n\nII. THE AUTHOR AND HIS BOOK\n\nIn the Prologue to the Greek Version the writer says that he is\nabout to translate his grandfather\u2019s work; in the Hebrew text the\nauthor gives his name, as we have seen; this is also given in\nthe subscription; moreover, in the Talmud the author is given as\nBen-Sira. There is, therefore, every reason to believe that the\nauthor was Ben-Sira; and this is universally acknowledged. That\nhe wrote the whole of the book does not admit of doubt; unity of\nauthorship is stamped upon the work throughout. Further, that the\nGreek translation represents substantially the author\u2019s book which\nhis grandson had before him is also practically certain. On the other\nhand, it may be doubted whether the book represents the final form\nwhich the author intended it to have; whether he was interrupted in\nhis work, or whether he died before he was able to sift and arrange\nhis material, a careful study of the book leaves the impression that\nthe author left it in an incomplete state. The main reasons for this\nbelief are three: firstly, in many parts of the book the material\nseems to be thrown down in a somewhat chaotic state, whereas a little\nobvious sifting would put things right; for example: in one section\n(xiv. 20-xvi. 23) the following subjects are dealt with in this\norder\u2014the blessedness of seeking Wisdom which is only obtainable by\nthose who fear God; human free-will; the curse of ungodly children;\nGod\u2019s righteous anger against the wicked; it is madness to imagine\nthat one can avoid the notice of God and therefore escape judgement\nbecause a man is but an atom in a boundless creation. It is clear\nenough that here we have some subjects which would follow upon one\nanother logically, only the sequence is broken by the intrusion\nof other subjects which belong to a different _milieu_. A similar\nstate of affairs occurs in various parts of the book, while in many\nother parts, on the contrary, we have sections in which there is a\nperfect sequence of thought. Secondly, the same subject is treated in\ndifferent parts of the book; but in a well arranged scheme one would\nnaturally expect the different items of teaching on a given subject\nto be gathered together into a consistent whole; this _is_ often\ndone in the book, so that where we find the contrary the natural\nsupposition is that those parts in which the contrary occurs have\nnot assumed their final shape. Examples of this are: on the curse\nof ungodly children, xvi. 1-5, xxii. 3-6; on lending and becoming\nsurety, viii. 12, 13, xxix. 1-20; on friendship, vi. 5-17, vii. 18,\nxii. 8-18, xxii. 19-26, xxxvii. 1-6; concerning the tongue, v. 9-vi.\n1, xxiii. 7-15, xxviii. 13-26; on independence, xxix. 21-28, xxxiii.\n19-23; and a number of other examples could be given. Thirdly,\nthere is inconsistency of teaching on one or two cardinal points of\ndoctrine; this is especially so in the case of the doctrine of Sin;\nbut as we have already dealt with this in an earlier chapter[346] it\nwill be unnecessary to say anything further here. For these reasons,\ntherefore, we are led to the conclusion that the book in its present\nform is not that which the author intended it to have finally.\n\nBen-Sira was not only an orthodox Jew, but he was also a scribe, and\na teacher. His grandson tells us in the Prologue that his grandfather\nhad devoted his life to the study of \u201cthe Law, the prophets, and the\nother books of our fathers,\u201d and that his object in doing so was\nthat he might, by teaching, help others to a knowledge of the Law,\nas well as in carrying out its precepts. Ben-Sira\u2019s own words bear\nout the truth of this, for he is evidently speaking from personal\nexperience when he says: \u201cLeisure increaseth wisdom to the scribe\u201d\n(xxxviii. 24); moreover, his very intimate knowledge of the Old\nTestament is just what one would expect of a scribe; this knowledge\nis evident on every page of his book, which is saturated with the\nthoughts of the Old Testament Wisdom Literature, almost the very\nwords of which occur again and again; in the concluding chapters of\nhis book (xliv.-l. 24) he sings the praises of all the great ones of\nIsrael, and shows how he has his Old Testament at his fingers\u2019 ends.\nBearing in mind what is said in the Prologue, it is highly probable\nthat Ben-Sira is referring to himself as the true scribe in writing\nthe words in xxxviii. 24-xxxix. 3; here he passes in review various\ncallings in life, and declares that it is not possible for men to\nacquire wisdom if their time is taken up in earning their livelihood\nby these means; in describing, then, the manner in which he \u201cwho\nmeditates in the Law of the Most High\u201d goes about his work Ben-Sira\nsets forth the mental activity of the scribe in such a way as to make\nit certain that he is imparting the secrets of his own practice. He\nsays of such an one that he\n\n        Searcheth out the wisdom of all the ancients,\n      And is occupied with the prophets of old;\n        He heedeth the discourses of men of renown,\n      And entereth into the deep things of parables;\n        He searcheth out the hidden meaning of proverbs,\n      And is conversant with the dark sayings of parables ...\n                                         (xxxix. 1-3).\n\nObviously no true man who had given himself so whole-heartedly to the\nstudy and acquisition of holy learning would be content to keep it to\nhimself, and so Ben-Sira gives us clearly to understand that he was\na teacher earnestly desirous of imparting to others what he himself\nhad learned of Wisdom; so he cries:\n\n      Turn in unto me, ye unlearned,\n        And lodge in my house of instruction;\n      How long will ye lack these things?\n        And how long shall your soul be athirst?\n      I open my mouth and speak of her,\n        Acquire Wisdom for yourselves without money ...\n      Hearken to my teaching, though ye be but few,\n        And much silver and gold shall ye acquire thereby (li. 23-28).\n\nThe similes used by Ben-Sira regarding himself as a successor to\nteachers of Wisdom who had gone before are interesting as showing\nthat he claimed to be a link, though a humble one, in the great chain\nof Israel\u2019s inspired writers. He says, for example, in one place:\n\n      And as for me, I was as a stream from the river,\n        And I came forth as a conduit into a garden;\n      I said: \u201cI will water my garden,\n        I will abundantly water my garden beds\u201d;\n      And lo, my stream became a river,\n        And my river became a sea ...\n      Yet again will I pour forth doctrine as prophecy,\n        And leave it for eternal generations.\n      Look ye (and see) that I have not laboured for myself only,\n        But for all those that diligently seek her (xxiv. 30-34).\n\nIn another passage he says:\n\n      I, indeed, came last of all,\n        As one that gleaneth after the grape-gatherers;\n      I advanced by the blessing of God,\n        And filled my wine-press as a grape-gatherer.\n      Consider that not for myself alone have I laboured,\n        But for all that seek Wisdom (xxxiii. 16-18).\n\nAnd once again:\n\n      Yet again will I fix my thoughts and make my doctrine to shine\n            forth,\n        As the full moon on the twelfth day.\n      Hearken unto me, ye pious ... (xxxix. 12 ff.).\n\nAll these passages show that Ben-Sira reckoned himself as following\nin the line\u2014though the last in the succession\u2014of the wise men such\nas the writers of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, and that therefore\nhis claim to be a teacher in Israel was justified. While quoting\nfreely from the Old Testament writers, and thereby acknowledging\nhis indebtedness to them, he often expands a quotation, especially\nfrom Proverbs, thus making the proverb into a little essay; so\nthat although he does not show great originality of thought, he\nnevertheless has his own ideas which he sets forth in his own way.\n\nSome further details concerning the author may be gathered from his\nbook; if, as seems reasonable, the words of xxxix. 1-3, quoted above,\nare taken as referring to the writer himself, then the same must be\nsaid of the words which follow in the text, viz.:\n\n      Who serveth among great men,\n        And appeareth before princes;\n      Who travelleth through the lands of the peoples,\n        And testeth good and evil among men (xxxix. 4);\n\nfrom these words we may gather that Ben-Sira had at one time been in\nthe service of some influential person, and that he had spent some\ntime in travel; of that he speaks more than once, for he says in\nxxxiv. 10-12:\n\n      He that is without experience knoweth little,\n        But the well-versed man hath skill.\n      In my journeying I have seen much,\n        And many things have befallen me.\n      Often was I in danger even unto death,\n        But was preserved because of these things (i.e. experience\n            and knowledge of the world).\n\nIn another passage (li. 13) he refers to the time before he had\ncommenced his travels. The danger of which he speaks in the passage\njust quoted was owing to the fact that he had been the victim of some\nslanderous tongue, if one may be guided by his words in li. 1-12,\nwhere he thanks God in saying:\n\n      Thou didst preserve me from the scourge of a slanderous tongue,\n        And from the lips of them that turn aside to lies;\n      Thou wast on my side in the face of those that rose up against\n            me,\n        Thou didst help me, according to the abundance of Thy mercy,\n      Out of the snare of them that watch for my stumbling,\n        And from the hands of those that seek my life ...\n\nThe book contains a very large number of moral maxims and wise\ncounsels for help and guidance in the every-day affairs of life; but\nthe earnest piety of the writer which so frequently finds expression\nshows that his aim was not merely to write a handbook on ethics, but\nfar more to be a spiritual adviser, wisdom in its manifold forms\nbeing, according to him, so many illustrations of godliness. Finally,\n\u201cthe mass of information which the book contains regarding Jewish\nreligion, thought, and ethics, during a period for which we do not\notherwise possess much knowledge, marks it out as a work of high\nimportance. The writer evidently intended to offer to his people a\nkind of text-book to which men and women might have recourse for\nguidance in almost every conceivable circumstance of life. He does\nthis, however, with the primary object of setting in clear light the\nsuperior excellence of Judaism over Hellenism. In a sense, therefore,\nEcclesiasticus may be regarded as an apologetic work, inasmuch as it\naims at combating the rising influence of Greek thought and culture\namong the Jews.\u201d[347]\n\n\nIII. THE DATE OF THE BOOK\n\nIn his Prologue to the Greek translation of the book Ben-Sira\u2019s\ngrandson tells us that \u201cin the eight and thirtieth year under\nEuergetes the king, having come into Egypt and continued there, I\nfound opportunity for no small instruction. I, therefore, deemed it\nmost necessary myself to devote some zeal and love-labour to (the\ntask of) translating this book; devoting, indeed, much watchful\ncare and skill during the time at my disposal in order that, having\ncompleted the book (i.e. its translation), I might publish it for\nthe benefit of those who in the land of their sojourning were\ndesirous to learn, being already prepared in respect of their moral\nculture to live by the Law.\u201d Those words enable us to fix the date,\napproximately, of the translation of the book; for there was only\none Egyptian king of the name of Euergetes to whom the translator\u2019s\nwords could apply, namely Euergetes II, surnamed Physcon, who reigned\naltogether fifty-four years; first he was joint-ruler with his elder\nbrother, Philometor (B.C. 170-145), and then he reigned alone (B.C.\n145-116).[348] The thirty-eighth year of his reign would be B.C.\n132; soon after this date, therefore, the Greek translation was\nmade. Having got this date it is not difficult to fix an approximate\ndate for the original work; it would be about fifty or sixty years\nearlier. At the end of chapter xlix. and beginning of l., according\nto the Hebrew of our book, it says:\n\n      Great among his brethren, and the glory of his people\n        Was Simeon, the son of Jochanan, the priest.\n\nThis Simeon, the second of the name, was high-priest from B.C.\n219-199; Ben-Sira was clearly a contemporary of his (see l. 1 ff.),\nbut the way in which he writes about him suggests that Simeon must\nhave been dead some time when Ben-Sira wrote; we shall, therefore,\nnot be far wrong in assigning the year B.C. 180, or thereabouts, as\nthe date of the composition of the book in its original form. It is,\nhowever, certain that the book was in preparation for some years\nbefore this; for since, as we have already seen, Ben-Sira had his own\nhouse of instruction where he gave lectures to his pupils, we may\njustly assume that the contents of his book represent the pith of\nthese lectures.\n\n\nIV. THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE BOOK; THE RECENTLY FOUND HEBREW\nMANUSCRIPTS\n\nApart from the fact that a large portion (about two-thirds) of our\nbook has in recent years been found in Hebrew, which very often gives\nthe original form, the following considerations made it certain, even\nbefore this was found, that the original language was Hebrew: in his\nPrologue to the book the translator says: \u201cThings originally spoken\nin Hebrew have not the same force in them when they are translated\ninto another tongue; and not only these, but the Law itself, and\nthe Prophecies, and the rest of the books, have no small difference\nwhen they are spoken in their original form.\u201d Although he does not\nactually say so, it is pretty obvious that Ben-Sira\u2019s grandson\nimplies here that he translated his grandfather\u2019s book from Hebrew.\nIn the second place, in St. Jerome\u2019s time it would appear that Hebrew\nmanuscripts of the book existed in Palestine, for in his preface to\nthe Books of Solomon he says that he found the book of Jesus the son\nof Sirach in Hebrew. Then, again, in later times Saadiah (A.D. 920)\nspeaks of the existence of copies of the Hebrew text, and he says\nthat the vowel-points were added, which was, as a rule, only done in\nthe case of canonical books.[349] And lastly, in a number of cases\nthe renderings of the Greek necessitate the assumption that they were\ntranslated from Hebrew.\n\nBut all doubt, where such existed, was set at rest by the discovery\n(1896-1900) of a number of fragments of the Hebrew text. Those to\nwhom this important find, or rather series of finds, is due are Mrs.\nLewis and Mrs. Gibson, Cowley and Neubauer, Schechter and Taylor,\nG. Margoliouth, Levi, Adler, and Gaster. Altogether about thirty\nleaves were found; they are fragments belonging to four different\nmanuscripts, and they all came from the Genizah of a synagogue in\nCairo. As all these manuscripts are written on paper and not on\nvellum they cannot be earlier than the ninth century A.D., for paper\nwas not introduced until this century[350]; they all belong probably\nto the end of the tenth or the beginning of the eleventh century.[351]\n\nThe question arises as to whether the Hebrew of these manuscripts\nis not a translation from the Greek or Syriac forms of the text\nwhich had been in existence for a number of centuries previously;\nand, further, it must be asked that even supposing Hebrew to have\nbeen the original language of the book, do these fragments present\nthe original Hebrew, or a later form of this? The answer to these\nquestions involves a detailed study of the text in its various\nforms, and a comparison of these with the Hebrew text; clearly a\ntechnical discussion of this kind would be out of place here; we can\nonly give a _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ of the results of such study. \u201cAs a general\nrule a text which is a translation betrays the fact by certain\nindications which are almost infallible; idiomatic expressions in the\noriginal, misunderstandings of words in the original and consequent\nmistranslation which interfere with the sense of a passage, clumsy\ndiction owing to difficulties in giving a proper rendering of\nthe original; these and other signs of the non-originality of a\nwriting are almost certain to show themselves; but the Hebrew of\nEcclesiasticus does not present signs of this kind. Its whole\nstyle stamps its language as the original one; the symmetry of the\nHebrew, in the main, points in the same direction; moreover, there\nare a number of instances which could be given which exclude the\npossibility of translation from either Greek or Syriac; there are\nalso many cases in which the Versions have no equivalent for the\nHebrew; and lastly, the Hebrew often contains a text so obviously\nsuperior to that of the Versions that its originality cannot be\ndisputed. When we add to this that both the Greek and Syriac\nfrequently exhibit the well-known indications of translation, it may\nbe taken as certain that the Hebrew was the original language in\nwhich Ecclesiasticus was written.\u201d[352]\n\nBut while it is thus evident that Hebrew was the original language\nin which our book was written, it does not necessarily follow that\nthe recently found manuscripts contain the original form of the\nHebrew; indeed, there have not been wanting scholars who have stoutly\ndenied this, and who maintain that this Hebrew is a translation of\na Persian rendering of a Syriac text[353]; or that it is, at any\nrate in part, a translation from the Greek and Syriac.[354] Here,\nagain, in order to prove our point that, in the main, the Hebrew of\nthe recently found manuscripts does represent the original form,\nnumerous details of a technical character would be required[355]\nwhich would be out of place here; it must suffice to say that \u201cthe\ntext of the Hebrew, though it is disfigured by scribal errors and\ncorruptions, and\u2014in some places\u2014by the presence of glosses, is yet\nessentially independent of the Greek and the Syriac; the hypothesis\nof retranslation breaks down, at best a plausible case for the\ninfluence of such a factor can only be made out for an insignificant\nnumber of verses, where, however, an alternative\u2014and, on the whole,\nmore probable\u2014explanation is possible.\u201d[356]\n\n\nV. THE AUTHORIZED AND REVISED VERSIONS OF ECCLESIASTICUS\n\nIn comparing the Authorized and Revised Versions it will be seen\nthat, apart from differences of rendering, there is this fundamental\ndifference between the two: the Authorized Version contains a large\nnumber of verses which are omitted in the Revised Version. These\nomissions are noted in the Revised Version, for in the margin one\nconstantly comes across the words: \u201cVerse ... is omitted by the best\nauthorities.\u201d The reason of this difference between the two Versions\nis that for the Revised Version only the great uncials of the fourth\ncentury A.D. were used; whereas for the Authorized Version a number\nof cursive manuscripts belonging to a much later time were used. The\nprocedure of the Revisers is justified on the grounds of textual\ncriticism, for as authorities the great uncial manuscripts of the\nfourth century are far superior to the cursives of the thirteenth\nand fourteenth centuries; on the other hand, the Authorized Version\nis not only supported by early patristic authority, but also by\nthat of the Old Latin Version which contains many really ancient\nelements.[357] There is, of course, a great deal of matter common\nto the uncial and cursive manuscripts as represented by the Revised\nand Authorized Versions; but the difference between this common\nmatter and that which is peculiar to the cursives is very marked; the\nadditions, numbering a hundred and fifty lines or more, besides many\nverbal additions (and it is more than probable that both amounted to\nmany more originally), must have been added for some special reason,\nand that reason, whatever it was, must have existed at a very\nearly date, for as we shall see, the additions have existed since\npre-Christian times.\n\nAs to these additions, what is their character, and why were they\nadded? The right answer to these questions was first given by Mr.\nHart, who holds that they are \u201cfragments of the Wisdom of a Scribe\nof the Pharisees, and contain tentative Greek renderings of many of\nthe technical terms and watchwords of the Sect. As Jesus Ben-Sira\ndealt with the earlier Scriptures, so some unknown disciple dealt\nwith his master\u2019s composition. He received the deposit and added\nto it.\u201d[358] Mr. Hart works out this theory on pp. 275-320 of his\nbook; following his lead, we have studied the matter independently,\nand have found that the more it is studied, the more firmly is his\ntheory substantiated. Before coming to deal in some detail with this\nsubject, it will be well to put the question: Why should a Pharisee\nhave felt it incumbent upon him to make these additions? The answer,\nproof for which will be offered in a moment, is that Ecclesiasticus\nin its original form represents the \u201cSadduc\u00e6an\u201d[359] standpoint, and\nat the close of the Maccab\u00e6an struggle, when Pharisaism appeared\nas an active movement and the Pharisees became the dominant party\nin Israel, it was no doubt considered essential that a book like\nEcclesiasticus, which was greatly in vogue (for, as far as it\nwent, it was orthodox) should bear on the face of it the marks of\nPharisaic orthodoxy, and thus become a vehicle for the propagation of\nPharisaism.\n\nWe shall now first seek to show that Ecclesiasticus in its original\nform represented the traditional Sadduc\u00e6an standpoint, and that the\nadditions reflect the teaching of the Pharisees. We have already\ndealt with the specific doctrines of these two parties, so that\nwhat is now to be said should be read in the light of what has been\nwritten in Chapter VII.\n\n\nVI. THE \u201cSADDUC\u00c6AN\u201d DOCTRINAL STANDPOINT IN ECCLESIASTICUS\n\nIn considering first in what respects Josephus\u2019 account of the\nteaching of the Sadducees is reflected in Ecclesiasticus it must be\nborne in mind that the book in its original form was written before\nthe distinctive doctrines of Pharisaism had become formulated,\nand therefore before anything in the nature of antagonism between\nSadduc\u00e6an and Pharisaic teaching had arisen; \u201cit is not to be\nsupposed that the two parties were from the first sharply divided,\nstill less that they acquired distinctive names. It is historically\nmore probable that the divergence increased gradually, and was\nintensified, and at last definitely realized in the religious\nrevival of Maccab\u00e6an times.\u201d[360] The evidence which Josephus gives\nis late; in his time the opposition between the two parties had\nfully developed, and, as so often happens between opposing parties,\ntheir respective tenets tended to become exaggerated. Of this there\nis naturally no sign in Ecclesiasticus. Cowley rightly points out,\nin speaking of the Sadducees during the period that succeeded the\nMaccab\u00e6an struggle, that \u201cin their political relations they show\na sympathy with foreign influences which was strongly reprobated\nby the nationalistic Pharisees. Thus we find them accused, perhaps\njustly, of tolerating Greek religious practices, and even of adopting\nthem. This is the less surprising if it be considered that the\nJudaism which they professed can have had (to use a modern phrase)\nno religious hold on them. It was rather the machinery by which a\ncertain political system was worked, and when circumstances changed\nit could be adapted to new conditions.\u201d[361] So that when we speak\nof the Sadduc\u00e6an doctrinal standpoint in Ecclesiasticus it will\nbe understood that this is somewhat different from that which was\ndeveloped more than a century later owing largely to opposition\nto Pharisaic teaching. Ben-Sira represents traditional Judaism of\na high type,[362] and in so far is to be regarded as standing for\nconservative Sadduc\u00e6anism; but in many respects, and especially in\nthat which regarded devotional religion, which is such a prominent\nfeature in Ecclesiasticus, Pharisaism was identical with the best\nthat traditional Judaism offered; so that, from this point of view,\nit may be said that Ben-Sira also represented \u201cPharisaism,\u201d though to\nuse this term in speaking of the time of Ben-Sira would, of course,\nbe an anachronism.\n\nWe shall now take in order the doctrines of the Sadducees, so far\nas we know them, and see in what ways they are illustrated in our\nbook. The utterly un-Jewish doctrine that God takes no interest in\nthe world of His creation and that He is not concerned in men\u2019s doing\nor not doing what is evil was certainly not held by the \u201cSadducees\u201d\nin pre-Maccab\u00e6an times; its adoption must have been due to Greek\ninfluence if Josephus is to be relied upon at all here. Ben-Sira\u2019s\nbook is full of very different teaching; indeed, in one striking\npassage he seems to be combating something similar to the very\ndoctrine with which Josephus credits the Sadducees; in xvi. 17-23 he\nsays:\n\n      Say not: \u201cI am hidden from God,\n        And in the height who will remember me?\n      I shall not be noticed among so illustrious a people,\n        And what is my soul among the mass of the spirits of all the\n            children of men?...\n      In truth, unto me He will not have respect,\n        And as for my ways, who will mark them?\n      If I sin, no eye beholdeth it,\n        Or if I deal untruly in all secrecy, who will know it?\n      My righteous dealing, who declareth it?\n        And what hope is there, for the decree is distant.\u201d\n      They that lack understanding think these things,\n        And the man of folly thinketh this.\n\nPositive teaching on the close relationship which should normally\nexist between God and men is given again and again in the book.\nBen-Sira\u2019s doctrine of sin is inadequate,[363] it is true; but\nthat is in spite of, not in consequence of, his exalted teaching\nconcerning God.\n\nRegarding the teaching on human free-will Ben-Sira sometimes\nreflects a thoroughly Sadduc\u00e6an standpoint; nothing could be more\nuncompromising, for example, than this:\n\n      God created man from the beginning,\n        And placed him in the hand of his _Yetzer_.[364]\n      If thou so desirest, thou canst keep the commandment,\n        And it is wisdom to do His good pleasure.\n      Poured out before thee are fire and water,\n        Stretch forth thine hand unto that which thou desirest.\n      Life and death are before man,\n        That which he desireth shall be given him (xv. 14-17).\n\nWith this may also be compared xxxvii. 17, 18:\n\n      The roots of the heart\u2019s deliberations\n        Bring forth four branches:\n      Good and evil, life and death,\n        But the tongue ruleth over them altogether.\n\nOn the other hand, assertions regarding the action of Divine grace\nare not wanting; perhaps the most pointed of these is that contained\nin the words of xxxiii. 13-15:\n\n      As the clay is in the power of the potter,\n        To fashion it according to his good pleasure;\n      So is man in the power of his Creator,\n        To make him according to His ordinance.\n      Over against evil stands the good, and against death life;\n        Likewise over against the godly the sinner.\n      Even thus look upon all the works of God,\n        Each different, one the opposite of the other.\n\nOn the subject of immortality and resurrection the teaching is\nentirely that of the Sadducees; a few passages will illustrate this:\n\n      When a man dieth he inheriteth\n        Worm and maggot, lice and creeping things (x. 11).\n\nIt is callous counsel which Ben-Sira gives to a mourner, for after\ntelling him to mourn for \u201ca day or two,\u201d and to be moderate in his\nsorrow because \u201csadness of heart prostrateth vigour,\u201d he concludes as\nfollows:\n\n      And let him no more occupy thy thoughts,\n        Dismiss the remembrance of him, and remember (thy) end.\n      Remember him not, for he hath no hope;\n        Thou canst not profit him, while thou harmest thyself.\n      Remember his doom, for it is the doom of thyself;\n        His yesterday, and thine to-day!\n      When the dead is at rest, let his memory rest;\n        And be consoled when his soul departeth (xxxviii. 16-23).\n\nThe same dreary belief, or rather non-belief, occurs in xli. 3, 4:\n\n      Fear not death, it is thy destiny,\n        Remember that the former and the latter share it with thee.\n      This is the portion of all flesh from God,\n        And how canst thou withstand the decree of the Most High!\n      Be it for a thousand years, for a hundred, or for ten that thou\n            livest,\n        In Sheol there are no reproaches concerning life\n                                 (cp. xvii. 27, 28).\n\nThere are various other passages to the same effect, while none occur\nwhich show the slightest advance on the teaching which these contain.\n\nRegarding the attitude towards the non-Jewish world, Ben-Sira is\ndistinctly tolerant; it was the Maccab\u00e6an struggle which hardened\nthe Jews towards the Gentiles; nevertheless, Ben-Sira has no doubt\nabout the superiority of his own race. The attitude which is more\nin accordance with that of the Sadducees may be seen in the whole\npassage xviii. 8-14, where he speaks of man generally, and teaches\nthat God\u2019s mercy is extended universally:\n\n      The mercy of man is exercised upon his own kin,\n        But the mercy of God is extended to all flesh,\n      Reproving, and chastening, and teaching,\n        bringing them back as a shepherd his flock (verse 13).\n\nThe same universalistic spirit is exhibited in xxxvi. 17:\n\n      Thou wilt hear the prayer of Thy servants,\n        According to Thy good favour towards Thy people;\n      That all the ends of the earth may know\n        That Thou art the eternal God.\n\nA striking passage containing similar teaching is xxxvi. 1-5:\n\n      Save us, O God of all,\n        And cast Thy fear upon all the nations.\n      Shake Thy hand against the strange people,\n        And let them see Thy power.\n      As Thou hast sanctified Thyself in us before them,\n        So glorify Thyself in them before us;\n      That they may know as we also know,\n        That there is none other God but Thee.\n\nThe only passage (in the original form of the book) of a\nparticularistic character is that in which Wisdom is described in\nhaving taken up her abode in Israel (xxiv. 6-16), but here it has to\nbe remembered that one of Ben-Sira\u2019s great objects in writing his\nbook was to show the superiority of Israel\u2019s wisdom over that of the\nGreeks. This, however, is quite different from the later Pharisaic\nspirit of active hostility to all the Gentile world.\n\nThere are a few passages which seem to be uttered against the Oral\nLaw. It is true, the _data_ we possess regarding the beginnings\nof the formation of the Oral Law are very scanty; but it may be\nsafely asserted that, in its technical sense, this was, to some\nconsiderable extent, in existence for at least half a century before\nEcclesiasticus was written; it is, therefore, probable that Ben-Sira\nuttered the following words as a protest against what he considered a\ndangerous innovation:\n\n      He that seeketh out the Law shall gain her,\n        But the hypocrite shall be snared thereby.\n      They that fear Jehovah discern His judgement,\n        And elicit guidance from the darkness.\n      The man of violence wresteth reproofs,[365]\n        And forceth the Law to suit his necessity (xxxii. 15-17).\n\nIn this connection it is worth noting that although Ben-Sira approves\nof the laws concerning the sacrificial system \u201cbecause it is\ncommanded,\u201d he does not regard their literal observance as binding;\nhe teaches the equal efficacy of spiritual sacrifices in a way which\nwould not have received the approval of the Pharisees, at any rate as\nlong as the Temple was standing; thus, in xxxiv. 18-26 he says:\n\n      The sacrifice of the unrighteous man is a mocking offering,\n        And unacceptable are the oblations of the godless.\n      The Most High hath no pleasure in the offerings of the ungodly,\n        Neither doth He forgive sins for a multitude of sacrifices....\n      He who washeth after contact with a dead body and toucheth it\n            again,\n        What hath he gained by his washing?\n      So a man fasting for his sins,\n        And again doing the same,\n      Who will listen to his prayer?\n        And what hath he gained by his humiliation?\n\nThen he continues, in xxxv. 1-3, to advocate spiritual sacrifices,\nthough in the verses that follow he urges men not to appear with\nempty hands in the presence of the Lord; his words in xxxv. 1-3 are\nas follows\u2014\n\n      He that keepeth the Law multiplieth offerings,\n        He sacrificeth a peace-offering that heedeth the commandments;\n      He that practiseth kindness offereth fine flour,\n        And he that doeth mercy sacrificeth a thank-offering....\n\nAnother fact which is worth emphasizing is that there is no mention\nof angels or demons in the book; this is more or less in accordance\nwith Sadduc\u00e6an theology. Finally, on the general subject of the\nSadduc\u00e6an standpoint of the book, we may quote some important\nwords of Dr. Taylor.[366] He says: \u201cWe have no authentic remains\nof Sadducee literature, but it has been suggested with a certain\nplausibility that the book Ecclesiasticus approximates to the\nstandpoint of the primitive Caduqin (Sadducees) as regards its\ntheology, its sacerdotalism, and its want of sympathy with the\n_modern_ Soferim (Scribes). The name of Ezra is significantly omitted\nfrom its catalogue of worthies. \u2018It remains singular,\u2019 remarks\nKuenen, \u2018that the man whom a later generation compared, nay, made\nalmost equal, to Moses, is passed over in silence.... Is it not\nreally most natural that a Jesus ben Sirach did not feel sympathy\nenough for the first of the Scribes to give him a place of honour\nin the series of Israel\u2019s great men?\u2019\u201d Dr. Taylor mentions also the\nimportant fact that in the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 100_b_) the\nBooks of the Sadducees and the Book of Ben-Sira are placed side by\nside on the \u201cIndex expurgatorius.\u201d All that has been said receives\nconfirmation from the further fact that in the Hebrew text of the\nCanticle[367] which follows l. 12, these words occur\u2014\n\n      Give thanks unto Him that gave the sons of Zadok to be priests,\n                  For His mercy endureth for ever.\n\nEnough has now been said to show that our book in its original form\nrepresented the Sadduc\u00e6an standpoint. We have now to deal with the\nPharisaic additions.\n\n\nVII. THE PHARISAIC ADDITIONS TO ECCLESIASTICUS.\n\nThe brief reference to specific Pharisaic doctrines given in chapter\nVII, \u00a7 iii. (_a_) above, will enable us to form an opinion regarding\nthe character of the additions to Ecclesiasticus. That these\nadditions[368] were made by a Pharisee, or Pharisees, has already\nbeen asserted; but we must now seek to substantiate the assertion.\nWe cannot do more here than give a few illustrations out of a large\nnumber; and in order not to weary the reader we will merely quote\nthe addition in each case without specifying in which manuscripts or\nVersions it occurs.\n\nIn illustration of what has been said about the Pharisaic teaching\nconcerning God and man\u2019s relations to Him the following examples will\nbe found instructive. In xvi. 19 occurs this addition:\n\n      The whole world was made, and existeth, by His will.\n\nA stronger assertion of the divine governance of the world is added\nto xviii. 2:\n\n      Who guideth the world in the hollow of His hand,\n        And all things are obedient unto His will;\n      For He is the King of all kings, and they are in His power;\n        He separateth among them the holy things from the common.\n\nAn example of the intimate relationship existing between God and men\nis the addition to xxiii. 27:\n\n      To follow after God is great glory,\n        And length of days it is for thee to be accepted of Him.\n\nAnd again in the addition to xxiv. 23:\n\n      Faint not, but be strong in the Lord,\n        And cleave unto Him that He may strengthen you.\n      Cleave unto Him, the Lord, the Almighty;\n        He is the one and only God, and beside Him there is no Saviour.\n\nAlthough not explicitly stated it is men of Israel who are meant in\nthese quotations, but sometimes Israel is specially mentioned; so,\nfor example, in the addition to xvii. 17:\n\n      Whom [i.e. Israel] He brought up as His first-born\n        With severity, yet loving them,\n      Imparting to them the light of love;\n        And He forsook them not.\n\nThis teaching of the Divine governance of the world, involving as it\ndoes man\u2019s dependence upon God, is balanced by the doctrine of human\nfree-will; an example of this may be seen in the addition to xx. 31:\n\n      Better is persistent endurance (_lit._ patience) in seeking the\n            Lord,\n        Than a driver (_lit._ charioteer) of his own life without a\n            master.\n\nIn this couplet the Pharisaic doctrine of man\u2019s free-will is\nmaintained, while the Sadduc\u00e6an denial of providence is combated.\n\nTurning now to the teaching of the Pharisees concerning the future\nlife, the following addition is found after xix. 17:\n\n      ... The knowledge of the commandments of the Lord is life-giving\n            instruction,\n        And they who do the things that are pleasing unto Him shall\n            pluck the fruit of the tree of immortality.\n\nThe teaching of reward hereafter for the righteous may be instanced\nfrom xviii. 22 and the addition to this verse. The original text runs:\n\n      Delay not to pay thy vow in due time,\n        And wait not till death to be justified.\n\nDeath is here regarded as a means of atonement, as in the later\nRabbinical literature; but from the Pharisaic point of view these\nwords seemed inadequate, so the following words were added:\n\n      For the reward of God abideth to eternity.\n\nIt has been stated above that _repentance_ was one of the watchwords\nof the Pharisees; for the Sadducees, with their cold doctrine of God,\nrepentance could have had but little meaning; not that Ben-Sira did\nnot teach the need of repentance (see xviii. 21; but in xliv. 16 the\nGreek text is corrupt), but it occupies an extremely modest place in\nhis book, and therefore we shall not be surprised to find that it is\ninsisted upon several times in the additions; thus after the words of\nthe text of xvii. 22:\n\n      The righteousness of men is to Him as a signet,\n        And the mercy of man He preserveth as the apple of an eye,\n\nthe following addition is made:\n\n      Granting repentance to his sons and daughters.\n\nAgain, after xx. 2 this addition occurs:\n\n      How good it is when he who is reproved manifesteth repentance,\n        For thus wilt thou escape wilful sin.\n\nAs regards the Pharisaic teaching concerning the Law much stress\ncannot be laid on the few examples of its mention in the additions,\nfor at the time when these were made[369] it is improbable that the\nantagonism between Pharisees and Sadducees on this point had fully\ndeveloped; if it had, we should rightly expect to find it more\nstrongly reflected in the additions; whereas, as a matter of fact,\nquite a few examples of the mention of the Law (or the commandments)\noccur in the additions; nevertheless, since the Law played such\na very important part in Pharisaic teaching, its mention in the\nadditions would naturally point to the hand of a Pharisee. In the\naddition which has been put in after xi. 14, the Law is referred to\nas a divine gift, and therefore (so it is implied) he who observes\nit by walking uprightly is making use of a Divine gift; on the\nother hand, to live without the Law is folly and darkness which is\ncharacteristic of sinners:\n\n      Wisdom and insight and discernment of the Law\n        Come from the Lord;\n      Love and upright ways\n        Come from the Lord;\n      Folly and darkness have been formed for sinners,\n        And as for evil-doers, evil abideth with them.[370]\n\nAgain, in xxix. 19, after the first clause:\n\n      The sinner falleth in his suretyship,\n\noccurs the addition: \u201cTransgressing the commandments of the\nLord.\u201d[371]\n\nThe reference is to evil men who, as the second line of the verse\nshows, are ruined because they become surety for evil purposes, i.e.\nfor the sake of usurious practices; the addition was, therefore, made\nin order to emphasize the fact that this was a transgression of the\nLaw.\n\nFinally, what Josephus says about the asceticism of the Pharisees is\nillustrated by the addition to xix. 5. The original text here runs:\n\n      He that hath pleasure in wickedness shall be brought to\n            destruction;\n\nan ascetic tendency is clearly discernible in the Pharisaic addition\nwhich says:\n\n      And he that averteth his eye from pleasures crowneth his life.\n\nThese examples will suffice, it may be hoped, to substantiate the\ncontention that the numerous later additions which have for the most\npart been preserved in the cursive manuscripts mentioned above are\nthe work of a Pharisee, or Pharisees.\n\nThat these additions are post-Maccab\u00e6an goes without saying; but\ncloser indications of date are not forthcoming, so that we cannot do\nmore than say that they belong in all probability to the last century\nB.C.\n\n\nVIII. THE VALUE OF THE BOOK FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT\n\nThe main value of the books of the Apocrypha for the study of the New\nTestament\u2014it may be said here once for all\u2014lies in their doctrinal\nteaching. This we have already dealt with in the last chapter of\nPart I. But there are some other ways, also useful, though of less\nimportance, whereby these books can be utilized for New Testament\nstudy. Some of them, and above all Ecclesiasticus, throw much light\non the customs and manner of life of the Jews which helps us in a\nnumber of particulars to understand the Gospels better; others, such\nas Judith, illustrate the intensely national feeling of the Jews\nwhich helps to explain much that we read in the Acts, especially St.\nPaul\u2019s treatment by the Jews; or, again, the early part of Baruch\ngives us some insight into the long prayers which were in vogue among\nthe Jews; Wisdom shows us, among other things, the Hellenistic spirit\nwhereby not a few Jews, especially those of the Dispersion, were\nanimated; this is important for the understanding of much that we\nread in the Pauline epistles. Other points will suggest themselves to\nthoughtful readers of these books. It is not, however, with matters\nof this kind that we can deal here, for space would not permit of it.\nWhat we intend to touch upon briefly in the final section of each\nof these introductions to the Apocryphal books, when called for, is\nchiefly (though not exclusively) their use for the study of the New\nTestament from a literary point of view, the main purpose being to\ntry and show that the writers of the New Testament books had read and\nstudied those of the Apocrypha; not, of course, that these writers\nwere as familiar with them as with the canonical books of the Old\nTestament, but that they valued them and utilized them, some more\nthan others. This is to be expected from the outset, both because\nthe Old Testament they used contained these books as integral parts\nof the \u201cScriptures,\u201d and because the early Church Fathers held them\nin high estimation; this latter is not likely to have been the case\nunless that attitude towards these books had been handed down.\n\nThere are, firstly, a few examples, among many, of parallel thoughts\nbetween Ecclesiasticus and the Gospels which may be pointed out:\n\n         Ecclesiasticus.                     St. Matthew.\n\n  xxviii. 2. Forgive thy neighbour   vi. 14. For if ye forgive men\n      the injury done to thee.          their trespasses, your heavenly\n    And then, when thou prayest,        Father will also forgive you.\n      thy sins will be forgiven.\n\n                                             St. Luke.\n\n  xlviii. 10. [Speaking of Elijah]   i. 17. And he shall go before his\n      ... To turn the heart of          face in the spirit and power\n      fathers unto the children.        of Elijah, to turn the hearts\n                                        of the fathers unto the\n                                        children.\n\nThe verbal identity between the two passages here suggests either\ndirect influence, or else that a current saying (from Mal. iv. 6) has\nbeen adopted in each.\n\n  xi. 19. What time he saith, I      xii. 19, 20 ... And I will say\n      have found rest,                  to my soul, Soul, thou hast\n    And now will I enjoy my             much goods laid up for\n      goods,\u2014                           many years; take thine ease,\n    He knoweth not what lot             eat, drink and be merry.\n      shall befall;                     But God said unto him,\n    He shall leave them to others,      Thou foolish one, this\n      and die.                          night is thy soul required of\n                                        thee; and the things which\n                                        thou hast prepared, whose\n                                        shall they be?\n\nCp. also Ecclesiasticus xxxi. 3 with the Lucan passage last quoted.\n\nExamples of other small details illustrative of the usefulness\nof Ecclesiasticus for this purpose are i. 1-20, which offers an\ninteresting commentary on Matthew xi. 19: \u201cWisdom is justified by\nher works\u201d (cp. the various reading in Luke vii. 35). The visitation\nof the sick referred to in Matthew xxv. 39 is illustrated by\nEcclesiasticus vii. 35:\n\n      Forget not to visit the sick,\n      For thou wilt be loved for that.\n\nEvidently this was a duty laid upon all good Jews. And, once more,\nthe custom of wagging the head in sign of mockery mentioned in\nMatthew xxvii. 39 is also referred to in Ecclesiasticus xii. 18.\nNumbers of similar, small but interesting, points offer themselves to\nstudents of the book.\n\nBut the most striking fact in this connection is that of the many\nparallel thoughts and passages between Ecclesiasticus and the Epistle\nof St. James; these are of such a nature as to justify belief in the\ndirect influence of the former on the latter. A few examples are\nappended[372]:\n\n       Ecclesiasticus.                       St. James.\n\n  i. 26. If thou desire Wisdom,      i. 5. But if any of you lacketh\n      keep the commandments,            Wisdom, let him ask of God,\n    And the Lord will give her          Who giveth to all liberally\n      freely unto thee.                 and upbraideth not; and it\n                                        shall be given unto him.\n\n  xv. 11-13. Say not, From God       i. 13, 14. Let no man say when\n      is my trangression,               he is tempted, I am tempted\n    For that which He hateth            of God; for God cannot be\n      made He not.                      tempted with evil, and\n    Say not, It is He that made         He Himself tempteth no\n      me to stumble.                    man; but each man is\n    For there is no need of evil        tempted, when he is drawn\n      men.                              away by his own lust, and\n    Evil and abomination doth           enticed.\n      the Lord hate,\n    And He doth not let it come\n      nigh to them that fear Him.\n\n  v. 11. Be swift to hear,           i. 19. But let every man be\n    But with patience make reply.       swift to hear, slow to speak,\n                                        slow to wrath.\n\n  vii. 35, 36. Forget not to visit    i. 27. Pure religion and undefiled\n      the sick,                         before God and Father\n    For thou wilt be loved for that.    is this, to visit the fatherless\n    In all thy doings remember          and widows in their\n      thy last end,                     affliction, and to keep himself\n    Then wilt thou never do             unspotted from the\n      corruptly.                        world.\n\nA large number of other examples could be given; among them the\nfollowing will be found instructive:\n\n  Compare Ecclesiasticus\n                  xiv. 1, xix. 16, xxv. 8        with James  iii. 2\n     \u201d        \u201d   v. 13, 14, viii. 3, xxviii. 11   \u201d    \u201d    iii. 5, 6.\n     \u201d        \u201d   xxviii. 16-18                    \u201d    \u201d    iii. 8.\n     \u201d        \u201d   xxviii. 12 and context           \u201d    \u201d    iii. 10.\n     \u201d        \u201d   iv. 1-6, xxxiv. 22               \u201d    \u201d    v. 4.\n     \u201d        \u201d   vi. 19                           \u201d    \u201d    v. 7.\n     \u201d        \u201d   iv. 26                           \u201d    \u201d    v. 16.\n     \u201d        \u201d   xlviii. 3 and context            \u201d    \u201d    v. 17.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nThe Book of Tobit\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014Fritzsche, _Die B\u00fccher Tobi\u00e4 und Judith erkl\u00e4rt_,\n  in \u201cExegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen\u201d (1853); Hoffman,\n  _Ausz\u00fcge aus syrischen Akten persischer M\u00e4rtyrer_, pp. 182 ff.\n  (1880); Fuller, in Wace, 1, pp. 149-240 (1888); Conybeare, Rendel\n  Harris, and Agnes Smith Lewis, _The Story of Ahikar from the\n  Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Greek and Slavonic Versions_\n  (1898); a second and large edition of this work was issued early\n  in 1914; L\u00f6hr, in Kautzsch, II, pp. 135-147; Smend, _Alter\n  und Herkunft des Achikarromans und sein Verh\u00e4ltniss zu Aesop_\n  (1908); Sch\u00fcrer, II, iii. pp. 37-44, German ed., III, pp. 237-258\n  (1909); Nau, _Histoire et Sagesse d\u2019Ahikar_ (1909); E. Meyer,\n  _Der Papyrusfund von Elephantine_, pp. 102-128 (1912); Ungnad,\n  _Aram\u00e4ische Papyrus aus Elephantine_, pp. 62-82 (1911); Simpson,\n  in Charles, I, pp. 174-241; Harris, Lewis, and Conybeare, in\n  Charles, II, pp. 715-784 (translations of the Syriac, Arabic,\n  Armenian, Ethiopic and Greek Versions, as well as of the Aramaic\n  fragments from Elephantin\u00e9) (1913). See also the articles on\n  \u201cTobit\u201d in the _Encycl. Brit._ by Robertson Smith, in the\n  _Encycl. Bibl._ by Erbt, in Hastings\u2019 _Dict. of the Bible_ by\n  Marshall, and in the _Jewish Encycl._ by Toy.]\n\n\nBefore we come to deal with the Book of Tobit it will be well, for\nreasons which will become apparent as we proceed, to relate the story\nof Achikar the Wise. This story must at one time have been very\nwidespread and popular. It has come down to us in several forms which\ndiffer largely from each other, but which are, nevertheless, all\nvariations of the same story in their essence. A much mutilated form\nof the story was found among the recently discovered Aramaic _papyri_\nof Elephantin\u00e9, which shows that it was current among the Jews at\nleast as early as the fifth century B.C.\n\nThe following account is drawn from the various versions, and is only\nan outline of the main points.\n\n\nI. THE STORY OF ACHIKAR THE WISE\n\nSennacherib, King of Assyria, had a vizier named Achikar, a wise\nand erudite scribe. He conducted the affairs of the kingdom wisely\nand well. When the king died, and Esarhaddon his son reigned in his\nstead, Achikar continued to hold the same office. In course of time\nAchikar became very rich, and he had many wives, and built many\ncastles; but he had no son. And as he grew old he felt the want of a\nson more and more. Then he prayed earnestly that he might have a son.\nIn reply to his prayer it was told him that no son should be granted\nhim, but that he must instead adopt Nadin,[373] his nephew. This\nAchikar did, and educated Nadin carefully, teaching him all manner of\nwisdom. Now when Achikar felt the weakness of old age coming upon him\nhe besought the king that he would appoint Nadin vizier in his place.\nThis the king consented to do; and Nadin was made vizier. But Nadin\ndid not follow the wise counsels which he had received from Achikar;\nbut scattered his words, as it were, to the wind; and he ill-treated\nthe servants and handmaidens of his uncle, and slew his horses, and\nharmed his mules. And when Achikar sought to correct the misguided\ncourse of his adopted son, Nadin slandered him in the ears of the\nking, and accused him of traitorous intercourse with the enemies of\nthe kingdom, laying at the same time forged letters before the king\nin proof of Achikar\u2019s guilt. Then the king showed the letters to\nAchikar, and sought an explanation; but Achikar was so horrified and\ntaken aback that he could not utter a word.[374] The king, taking\nthis as a sign of guilt, gave command that Achikar should be put to\ndeath. But the officer, Nabusemakh, to whom this command was given,\nhad, years ago, been indebted to Achikar for the saving of his life\nwhen he had been the victim of a false accusation similar to that\nnow made against Achikar. So Nabusemakh spared Achikar\u2019s life, and\nhid him secretly in a hiding-place underground. In Achikar\u2019s place a\nslave was executed who was already under sentence of death. Now when\nPharaoh, king of Egypt, heard of the death, as he supposed, of the\nwise vizier, he rejoiced greatly, and sent a letter of the following\nimport to Esarhaddon:\n\n  Pharaoh, king of Egypt, to Esarhaddon,[375] king of Assyria and\n  Nineveh, greeting. I am planning to build a castle between heaven\n  and earth; wherefore seek out and send me from thy kingdom a man\n  who is a skilled architect, that he may give me reply concerning\n  all that I shall ask him. And when thou shalt send me such a\n  man, I will collect and send thee the revenue of Egypt for three\n  years. And if thou send me not a man who shall give me reply\n  concerning all that I ask him, then do thou collect and send me\n  the tribute of Assyria and Nineveh for three years, by the hands\n  of these ambassadors that come to thee.[376]\n\nThen Esarhaddon took counsel with Nadin and all the wise men as to\nwhat should be done; and they were in much perplexity, for they found\nno one among their number sufficiently wise to build a castle betwixt\nheaven and earth. Thereupon, Nabusemakh came and told the king how\nthat he had spared Achikar\u2019s life. The king, so far from punishing\nNabusemakh for having disobeyed the royal command, was only too\ndelighted to hear that Achikar was still alive, and richly rewarded\nNabusemakh. Then Achikar was brought, and declared himself ready and\nable to answer all that the king of Egypt should ask. When Achikar\ncame to the court of the king of Egypt he said he would show the king\nhow to build a castle betwixt heaven and earth. Then he asked that\nlime and stone and clay and workmen might be held in readiness. When\nall was prepared Achikar let out of a box which he had brought with\nhim two eagles with ropes tied to their feet; upon each eagle he set\na boy; and as the eagles soared upward and remained betwixt heaven\nand earth, the boys began to shout: \u201cBring bricks, bring clay, that\nwe may build the king\u2019s castle, for we are standing idle.\u201d But the\nking found no means of supplying them with bricks and clay up in\nthe air, and had perforce to give up the idea of building a castle\nbetwixt heaven and earth. Thus did Achikar the Wise deliver king\nEsarhaddon from his embarrassment. Achikar was placed again at the\nhead of the royal household and greatly honoured. On being asked by\nthe king what else he desired, he replied: \u201cBid them give me my son\nNadin, that I may teach him a further lesson; for he has forgotten my\nformer teaching.\u201d Then Achikar caused Nadin to be bound and thrashed;\nafter which he was confined in a dark chamber at the entrance to\nAchikar\u2019s house; and every time Achikar went in or out he uttered\nprecepts of wisdom for Nadin\u2019s benefit. Finally Nadin \u201cswelled up\nlike a bag and died.\u201d\n\nThe moral of the story, with which it concludes, is given thus: \u201cTo\nhim that doeth good, what is good shall be recompensed; and to him\nthat doeth evil, what is evil shall be rewarded. And he that diggeth\na pit for his neighbour, filleth it with his own stature.\u201d\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThis story of Achikar the Wise must have enjoyed great popularity\nin ancient times, for it has come down to us in various forms; and\nits existence among the Jews, in the fifth century, living at such\nan out-of-the-way spot as Elephantin\u00e9, is eloquent testimony of\nhow widespread the knowledge of the story was. That the various\nforms differ from each other very much is quite in the natural\norder of things, for a popular story not only undergoes change when\npassed from hand to hand, but sometimes it may assume a form almost\nunrecognizable at first, and only when the essential _traits_ are\nsought behind the external appearance can the kernel of the original\nstory be recognized. It is, therefore, not surprising that great\ndifferences are found in the Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Aramaic,\nAethiopic, Hebrew, Slavonic and Greek forms of the story which are\nstill preserved. But in the case of all these, in spite of variations\nof form and matter, and in spite of the addition of many extraneous\ndetails drawn from different sources, the original story lies\nimbedded and shows itself to have been utilized to a greater or less\nextent.\n\nNow the particular interest that the story of Achikar the Wise has\nfor the study of the Book of Tobit lies in the fact that the writer\nof the latter utilized the former in the composition of his book;\nhe assumes, moreover, as we shall see, a knowledge of the story of\nAchikar the Wise among his readers.\n\n\nII. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BOOK OF TOBIT AND THE STORY OF\nACHIKAR THE WISE.\n\nIt should be said at the outset that the best form of the Greek text\nof the Book of Tobit is that of _Codex Sinaiticus_; it is this text\nwhich has been utilized here.[377]\n\nThe first and most obvious point of interest in this connection\ncentres in the person of Achikar. In the Book of Tobit he appears,\nwhen first mentioned, quite incidentally, as though he were well\nknown.[378] In i. 21, 22, after the assassination of Sennacherib by\nhis two sons has been referred to, it continues: \u201cAnd they fled unto\nthe mountains of Ararat, and Sacherdonos [Esarhaddon] his son reigned\nafter him; and he appointed Acheikaros [Achikar], the son of Anael my\nbrother, over all the tribute of his kingdom, and he had authority\nover all the conduct of affairs. Then Acheikaros put me right [i.e.\nwith the king], and I came down unto Nineveh. For Acheikaros had\nbeen the chief cup-bearer, and (keeper) of the signet,[379] and\nthe chief minister, and overseer of the tribute under Sennachereim\n[Sennacherib], king of Assyria, and Sacherdonos appointed him a\nsecond time (to these offices).\u201d\n\nThis agrees with what is said about the position of Achikar in the\nstory given above.\n\nIn xi. 18 it is said that Achikar and Nadab, his cousin, came to\nthe wedding of Tobias. This sudden mention of Nadab, who has not\nbeen referred to before in the book, in connection with Achikar is\ncurious as it stands, and shows clearly enough that the writer of the\nbook must have been familiar with the story of Achikar, and that he\nassumed the same of his readers. The slight variation in the form of\nthe name (Nadab for Nadin), and his being called the cousin instead\nof the nephew of Achikar, does not affect the main point.\n\nBut the most striking proof that the writer of Tobit utilized the\nstory of Achikar is seen by his reference to it in xiv. 10: \u201cAnd now\ndo thou, my child, go forth from Nineveh, and abide not here. In\nthe day in which thou buriest thy mother with me, in that self-same\nday tarry no longer in these parts. For I see that there is much\nunrighteousness in her [i.e. Nineveh], and much deception is\npractised in her, and they are not ashamed. Behold, my child, what\nthings Nadab did to Acheikaros who nourished him; was he not brought\nliving into the earth? And God requited his iniquity before his\nface; and Acheikaros came forth into the light, and Nadab entered\ninto eternal darkness because he sought to slay Acheikaros. In that\nhe [i.e. Acheikaros] showed me mercy he came forth out of the snare\nof death which Nadab set for him; and Nadab fell into the snare of\ndeath, and it destroyed him.\u201d The real kernel of the Achikar story is\ncontained in these words, namely that Achikar brought up an adopted\nson who betrayed his benefactor by causing him to dwell in darkness\nunderground; but ultimately Achikar is saved and Nadab suffers the\nfate which he had designed for his benefactor. Thus righteousness\ntriumphs, and Nemesis overtakes the wicked. It is round this story\nthat the wisdom of Achikar is woven; and some of the wise sayings\nof Achikar are re-echoed in Tobit, which further illustrates the\nindebtedness of the writer to the Achikar story; a few examples of\nthis may be given:\n\n       Book of Tobit.                Story of Achikar (Syriac Version).\n\n    Take heed to thyself, my             My son, lift not up thy eyes\n  child, (to refrain) from all         and look upon a woman that\n  whoredom (iv. 12).                   is bedizened and painted; and\n                                       do not lust after her in thy\n                                       heart (ii. 5).\n\n    Alms delivereth from death,          As for me, my righteousness\n  and suffereth not to come into       (= alms) has saved me (viii. 2).\n  darkness (iv. 10).\n\n    Pour out thy bread and thy           My son, pour out thy wine\n  wine[380] on the tomb of the         on the graves of the righteous,\n  righteous, and give not to           rather than drink it with evil\n  sinners (iv. 17).                    men (ii. 10).\n\n    Ask counsel of every man             My son, associate with the\n  that is wise, and despise not        wise man, and thou wilt become\n  any counsel that is profitable       wise like him (ii. 12).\n                 (iv. 18).\n\n    It is good to keep close the         If thou hast heard a word let\n  secret of a king, but to confess     it die in thy heart, and reveal\n  and reveal the works of God          it to no man; lest it become a\n  (xii. 7).                            hot coal in thy mouth and burn\n                                       thee, and thou lay a blemish\n                                       on thy soul, and be angered\n                                       against God (ii. 2).\n\nThere are other minor indications of the writer of Tobit having\nutilized the Achikar story, such as the unusual double description\nof the empire, \u201cAssyria and Nineveh,\u201d in the earliest recension\nof our book[381] (xiv. 4, 15, cp. i. 3), which occurs also in the\nAchikar story (i. 1); but the _data_ given are sufficient to show\nthat the Achikar story is without doubt one of the sources of the\nBook of Tobit. The object which the writer had in introducing some of\nthe Achikar story elements into his book was probably that it might\nbe popularized thereby. The Achikar story must have been immensely\npopular when one remembers the manifold forms in which it has come\ndown to us; and the Book of Tobit, by being in some sort connected\nwith it, would have commended itself to Gentiles, as well as to Jews.\n\nThat the author of our book utilized other non-Jewish sources in\ncomposing it is very probable. There is, for example, a striking\nresemblance in one or two particulars between the Book of Tobit and\nthe \u201cStory of the grateful dead man,\u201d an Armenian tale, according to\nwhich a wealthy man was once riding through a forest when he came\nupon some men misusing a corpse; on inquiring the reason for this he\nis told that the dead man had owed them money; he pays the dead man\u2019s\ndebt, and buries the corpse. He then continues his journey home. Now\nin the city in which he dwelt there lived a rich man who had an\nonly daughter; she had married five husbands, but in each case the\nhusband had died on the night of the wedding. The hero of the tale\nresolves, at the instance of an unknown serving-man, to seek this\nwoman in marriage in spite of what has occurred. He succeeds in his\ndesire. But on the night of the wedding there issues forth from the\nmouth of his bride a serpent which seeks to bite him and thus kill\nhim; but the unknown serving-man, who had been keeping guard, slays\nthe serpent, and thus saves the life of the bridegroom, to whom he\nthen makes himself known as the dead man whose corpse the bridegroom\nhad buried in the forest.[382] The _traits_ common to this story and\nthe Book of Tobit are so marked that it is difficult to believe that\nthere is no connection between the two; that the latter is indebted\nto the former is probable because of the very widespread existence\nof the \u201cStory of the grateful dead man\u201d in various forms in Asia and\nEurope.[383]\n\nAnother possible source, but less striking than that just referred\nto, is \u201cThe Tractate of Khons,\u201d which was originally written for\nthe purpose of propagating the cult of the Egyptian god Khons; in\nit occurs the story of a beautiful princess who was possessed by\na demon, but by the help of Khons the demon was expelled and the\nprincess cured.[384]\n\n\nIII. THE CONTENTS OF THE BOOK OF TOBIT\n\nIn the first part of the book, chapters i.-iii., Tobit relates\nhow he, his wife Anna, and his son Tobias, had been carried away\ncaptive to Nineveh in the days of Shalmaneser, king of Assyria; he\nemphasizes his loyalty to the Law, saying that he and his family\nhad always been careful in keeping the ordinances of the Law both\nwhen they lived in their own land as well as in the land of their\nexile. He mentions specially his ardent zeal in giving alms, and in\naccording decent burial to those of his race who had been murdered\nand whose dead bodies had been cast out of the walls of the city.\nOnce when he was about to sit down to table at the feast of Pentecost\nhe bade his son go out and seek someone who was in want and bring him\nin to partake of the feast. Tobias, his son, went forth accordingly;\nbut he soon returned and reported to his father that one of his race\nhad but now been murdered, and that his body lay in the market-place.\nTobit went out forthwith, and took up the body from the street and\nlaid it in one of the chambers till sunset, when he intended to bury\nit. And when the sun was set, he digged a grave and buried the dead\nbody. But as he had touched a dead body he was unclean, and therefore\ncould not re-enter his house, lest by contact he should cause others\nto be unclean,[385] so he laid down in the courtyard by the side of\na wall, and because it was hot he left his face uncovered; but the\ndroppings of some sparrows fell into his eyes, and he became blind.\nThere follows here a short section (ii. 11-14) about Anna, which is\nquite out of place. The story is taken up again at chapter iii.,\nwhich tells of Tobit\u2019s sorrow at his affliction, and of his prayer\nto God that he may die (verses 1-6). Then a new element in the story\nis introduced. Sarah, the daughter of Raguel of Ecbatana in Media,\nsuffers reproach because she has no child, although she has had\nseven husbands; each of these husbands had, however, been slain by\nAsmod\u00e6us, \u201cthe evil demon,\u201d on the night of his wedding. Sarah, like\nTobit, prays in her great affliction that she may die. Tobit and\nSarah, though they know nothing of each other, have therefore this in\ncommon, that they are both in dire distress. Before proceeding with\nhis story the narrator adds a note for the comfort of his readers\nto the effect that God had sent Raphael, the angel, to heal them\nboth: \u201cin the case of Tobit to remove the white films from his eyes,\nthat he might see the light of God with his eyes; and in the case of\nSarah, the daughter of Raguel, to give her for a wife to Tobias, the\nson of Tobit, and to unbind Asmod\u00e6us the evil demon from her\u201d (iii.\n17).\n\nThe next section, chapters iv.-xi., which forms the bulk of the book,\ndeals with the journey of Tobias to Media in order to bring back\nmoney which Tobit had left in trust with Gabael. The advice which\nTobit gives his son preparatory to his starting is contained in iv.\n3-21. He also bids his son find a trusty companion who will travel\nwith him; this he does, the companion being none other than the\nangel Raphael, who had been sent by God for the purpose. Raphael, of\ncourse, does not reveal himself to Tobias. Then the departure takes\nplace (v.-vi. 2).\n\nSoon after they started they met with an adventure, for one evening\nas Tobias was washing in the river a great fish caught him by the\nfoot; but with his companion\u2019s help the fish was caught and brought\nto land. His companion the angel, who has taken the name of Azarias,\nbids him keep the gall and the liver and the heart of the fish, for\nthe two latter when burned make a smoke which will drive away demons,\nwhile the gall is efficacious for curing white films which may have\nformed themselves on the eyes of a man. Tobias does as he is bidden\n(vi. 2-9). On their nearing Ecbatana Raphael tells Tobias that he\nmust marry Sarah the daughter of Raguel as being nearest of kin; but\nTobias expresses his fears that he may fall a victim to the same evil\ndemon who had already caused the death of Sarah\u2019s seven husbands.\nThereupon Raphael reminds him of the liver and heart of the fish,\nwhich Tobias had kept, and he is told to place them upon the ashes of\nincense at the proper time, when the smell of the smoke will drive\nthe demon away (vi. 10-18). On their arrival at the house of Raguel\nthey are welcomed by their host; Raphael makes all arrangements with\nregard to the marriage between Tobias and Sarah. At the proper time\nTobias burns the liver and heart of the fish with all success; there\nis rejoicing and feasting in the house of Raguel (vii., viii.).\nAt Tobias\u2019 request Raphael goes to Gabael and fetches the money\nbelonging to Tobit (ix.).\n\nIn the meantime Tobias\u2019 parents are beginning to feel anxious about\nhis long delay (x. 1-7_a_). Tobias and his wife, Sarah, however,\nreturn to Nineveh to the great joy of Tobit and Anna. The first act\nof Tobias on seeing his blind father again is to bring out the gall\nof the fish and apply it to the latter\u2019s eyes; the beneficial effect\nis immediate; Tobit regains his sight, and weeps for joy (x. 7_b_-xi.\n8).\n\nThe last section of the book (xii.-xiv.) tells of Raphael making\nhimself known to Tobit, and of the wisdom of Raphael, after which is\nadded an account of Raphael\u2019s ascension (xii.); the two last chapters\ngive the prayer of Tobit (xiii.), and his last words (xiv.).\n\n\nIV. THE RELIGIOUS STANDPOINT OF THE WRITER\n\nIn various important particulars the writer of the Book of Tobit\nand Ben-Sira occupy the same religious standpoint; in others a\ncertain divergence is to be noticed which points to a development of\ndoctrine. A brief examination of the religious standpoint of the two\nwriters is, therefore, both interesting and instructive.\n\n(_a_) We will refer first to those points in which the teaching is\nidentical.\n\nWith regard to the Temple cultus at Jerusalem it will suffice to\nquote one passage from each book to show the identity of view; in\nTobit i. 6-8 occur these words: \u201cI used to go to Jerusalem with the\nfirstfruits and the firstlings and the tenths of the cattle and the\nfirst shearings of the sheep, and give them to the priests, the sons\nof Aaron, for the altar, and the tenth of the corn and the wine and\noil and pomegranates and the rest of the fruits to the sons of Levi,\nwho ministered at Jerusalem ...\u201d (cp. ii. 1-9). Quite in accordance\nwith this are Ben-Sira\u2019s words in vii. 29-31:\n\n      Fear God with all thy heart,\n        And reverence His priests.\n      With all thy strength love Him that made thee,\n        And forsake not His ministers.\n      Glorify God and honour the priest,\n        And give them their portion as it is commanded thee;\n      The food of the trespass-offering, and the heave-offering of\n            the hand,\n        The sacrifices of righteousness, and the offerings of holy\n            things (xxxv. 1-11, xlv. 14-16).\n\nBoth writers lay much stress on other legal ordinances, above all on\nPrayer and Almsgiving; these do not need illustrating, as they are\nso often spoken of in either book; but two points, the _spirit_ and\nthe _efficacy_ of almsgiving, are worth special mention: in Tobit\niv. 16 it is said: \u201cLet not thine eye be grudging when thou givest\nalms,\u201d and a similar spirit of whole-heartedness is enjoined in\nEcclesiasticus xviii. 15-18:\n\n      My son, bring no blemish on thy good deeds,\n      Nor in giving any gift cause grief through words....\n      The gift of an envious man consumeth the eyes.\n\nIn like manner the efficacy of alms is spoken of by both writers in\nan identical sense; in Tobit iv. 10 it is said: \u201cAlms delivereth from\ndeath, and suffereth not to come into darkness\u201d; and Ben-Sira says:\n\n      A flaming fire doth water quench,\n        So doth almsgiving atone for sin.\n\nBoth writers, moreover, use the word as almost synonymous with\nrighteousness. Fasting, strange to say, receives practically no\nnotice in Tobit,[386] though Ben-Sira insists upon its right use\n(xxxiv. 26). On one other point of legal observance, however, both\nwriters lay similar emphasis; in Tobit ii. 8, 10 Tobit says: \u201cAnd\nwhen the sun was set, I went and digged a grave and buried him....\nAnd the same night I washed myself and came into my courtyard and lay\ndown to sleep ...\u201d; the observance of this legal precept is referred\nto by Ben-Sira in these words:\n\n      He who washeth after (contact with) a dead body, and toucheth\n            it again,\n        What hath he gained by his bathing? (xxxiv. 25).\n\nThe similarity of the religious standpoint of these two writers may\nbe further illustrated by their _universalistic_ attitude and their\nteaching on the _future life_. Although, normally, Ben-Sira looks\nupon Israel as pre-eminently the nation upon which God\u2019s interest is\ncentred he shows a broader outlook in such a passage as xviii. 1-14:\n\n      ... As a drop of water from the sea, or as a grain of sand,\n        So are man\u2019s few years in the eternal days.\n      Therefore is the Lord long-suffering towards them,\n        And poureth out His mercy upon them....\n      The mercy of man is exercised upon his own kin,\n        But the mercy of God is extended to all flesh,\n      Reproving, and chastening, and teaching,\n        And bringing them back as a shepherd his flock....\n\nTobit, in like manner, contemplates all men as coming within the pale\nof God\u2019s mercy:\n\n      I exalt my God, and my soul shall rejoice in the King of heaven;\n        Of His greatness let all men tell,\n      And let them give Him thanks in Jerusalem....\n\n      A bright light shall shine unto all the ends of the earth;\n        Many nations shall come from afar,\n      And the inhabitants of the utmost ends of the earth unto Thy\n            holy name;\n\n      With their gifts also in their hands unto the King of heaven\n        Generations of generations shall utter rejoicing in Thee\n      And Thy name that is elect unto the generations of eternity\n                                   (xiii. 7-11; cp. xiv. 4-6).\n\nThe belief of both writers concerning the future life is identical,\nit follows the normal teaching of the Old Testament; there is,\ntherefore, no belief in the resurrection (see Ecclus. xvii. 27,\n28, xxviii. 6, xl. 11, etc., and Tobit iii. 10, iv. 10, xii. 9,\nxiii. 2); at the same time, one is perhaps justified in seeing the\nforeshadowing of a developed belief in such words as these: \u201cLord,\ncommand that I be released from this distress, let me go to the\neverlasting place, and turn not Thy face, O Lord, away from me\u201d\n(Tobit iii. 6).\n\n(_b_) A definite doctrinal development is to be discerned in two\ndirections; while in a number of passages the doctrine of God in each\nbook is the same as normally taught in the Old Testament, in Tobit\nthere is a distinct tendency to introduce the idea of an intermediate\nagency between God and men; this is seen in the activity of the angel\nRaphael, who is sent to fulfil God\u2019s purposes, e.g. iii. 16, 17: \u201cAt\nthe self-same time the prayer of both was heard before the glory of\nGod; and Raphael was sent to heal them both; ...\u201d and in xii. 12-14\nRaphael says: \u201cAnd now, when thou didst pray, and Sarah, I did bring\nthe memorial of your prayer before the glory of the Lord; and when\nthou didst bury the dead, likewise....\u201d It is also worth noting that\ninstead of speaking of God directly, expressions such as \u201cthe glory\nof God\u201d (as in the two passages just quoted), and the \u201cName\u201d (iii.\n11, viii. 5, xi. 14, xii. 6, xiii. 18) are used; stress is thus laid\non the transcendental character of God in a manner which reminds one\nof the later developments of Judaism regarding this subject. Closely\nconnected with what has just been said is the developed doctrine of\nangels in the Book of Tobit; in addition to the passages just quoted\nreference may be made to xi. 14: \u201cBlessed is God, and blessed is\nHis great name, and blessed are all His angels\u201d; and xii. 15: \u201cI am\nRaphael, one of the seven angels, which stand and enter before the\nglory of the Lord.\u201d Such ideas show a decided development of belief\non the subject of angels as compared with the teaching of Ben-Sira,\nfor in his book there is scarcely any reference to angels, xlii. 16\n(and, possibly, xliii. 26) being the only one. It is the same with\nthe subject of demonology, which has no place in the teaching of\nBen-Sira, while in Tobit the references to Asmod\u00e6us \u201cthe evil demon\u201d\n(iii. 8, 17, cp. vi. 14) and to methods of exorcism (vi. 7-9, 16-18,\nviii. 2, 3) show that belief in the activity of demons had begun to\nassume a position of considerable importance in popular superstition.\n\nThis comparison between the religious standpoint of the writer of\nTobit and that of Ben-Sira shows that there is much affinity between\nthe two, and leads to the conclusion that, in the main, though not\nin all respects, both belong to the same school of thought. We have\nseen that Ben-Sira represented the point of view of those who may\nbe regarded as the precursors of what developed into the Sadduc\u00e6an\nparty after the Maccab\u00e6an struggle. The writer of the Book of Tobit\napproximates to this standpoint upon the whole, though in some\nrespects he inclines to other directions. Loyalty to the Law and\nbelief in Providence, as we have pointed out in another chapter, are\nnot incompatible with the Sadduc\u00e6an position; the prominent stress\nlaid on almsgiving and its efficacy (iv. 10, xii. 9) does not differ\nfrom the teaching of Ben-Sira on the subject. In his universalistic\nattitude, though like Ben-Sira an ardent Israelite, the writer of\nTobit follows in the teaching of the greatest prophets, and in this\ndiffers fundamentally from the standpoint of those who, later,\ndeveloped into the party of the Pharisees. That there is no teaching\non the resurrection in passages where one would justly look for it\nhad such a doctrine been held, points in the same direction.\n\nOn the other hand, the developed teaching on the transcendental\ncharacter of God, the angelology and demonology, and the slight\nindications of the beginning of eschatological teaching, point away\nfrom the position indicated. This fact is full of interest as\nshowing that prior to the Maccab\u00e6an struggle no hard and fast lines\nwere drawn between different schools of thought, although definite\ntendencies were distinctly observable. We are inclined to see in the\nwriter of the Book of Tobit a thinker whose natural tendency was to\nfollow in the wake of the old conservative school, but who was not\nuninfluenced by the rising thought of the Apocalyptists (see xiii.\n1-18, xiv. 3-7), and who felt that much of what was taught by the\n_Chassidim_ was of permanent value. In _Chassidism_ were contained\nthe germs[387] of what before long developed into the Apocalyptic\nMovement and Pharisaism; as long as these only remained tendencies\nthere was nothing fundamentally antagonistic in either, and in the\nwriter of the Book of Tobit we see this exemplified. This helps us,\nby the way, to understand why we find later specifically apocalyptic\n_traits_ in Pharisaic teaching, and specifically Pharisaic _traits_\nin Apocalyptic teaching; and this in spite of the pronounced\nantagonism which in course of time arose between the two. This fact\nis to be explained not so much on the assumption that one influenced\nthe other, as that both descended from the same ancestor, viz.\n_Chassidism_.\n\n\nV. THE DATE OF THE BOOK, ITS INTEGRITY, AND PLACE OF ORIGIN\n\nFrom what has just been said we are led to the conclusion that our\nbook belongs to the same period as that of Ecclesiasticus, though\nperhaps slightly later in that period than the latter book. Its\ndoctrinal standpoint, like that of Ecclesiasticus, is pre-Maccab\u00e6an.\nThat there is not the slightest reference to the Maccab\u00e6an struggle\npoints in the same direction. Various reasons, some of them rather\nforced, have been put forward to show that the book is of much later\ndate, others to prove that it is much earlier; but we feel convinced\nthat the surest guide to the date of a Jewish book written between\nthose two great historical landmarks, the time of Ezra and the\nbeginning of the Christian era, is its doctrinal standpoint.[388]\nThis, taken as a whole, can in the case of our book only point to a\ntime previous to the Maccab\u00e6an struggle; for, after this, parties\nantagonistic to each other became definitely formed, and such\nan attitude as that of the writer of the Book of Tobit was then\nunthinkable; he must then have been either a Sadducee or a Pharisee\nor an Apocalyptist (Essenism does not come into consideration\nhere), whereas, in point of fact, he shows a mixture of all three\ntendencies. The book is not necessarily later than Ecclesiasticus,\nfor although it does in some respects show a development of doctrine\nit is quite possible for contemporaries to be in substantial\nagreement and yet for one to hold slightly more advanced views on\ncertain points than another. Our book may thus be assigned to a date\nnot much later than B.C. 175 and not earlier than B.C. 190.\n\nA careful study of the book shows no reason for questioning its\nintegrity; the author has obviously utilized different materials in\ncomposing his story, but apart from minor details, his composition\nhas not been added to by other writers.\n\nThe place of origin of the book cannot be decided with any certainty;\nit lies between Palestine and Egypt, though the balance of\nprobability points to the latter. The book was written for the Jews\nof the Dispersion; this is clear from such words as the following:\n\n      Give thanks unto Him before the Gentiles, ye children of Israel,\n        For He hath scattered you among them,\n        And there He hath shown you His greatness;\n        And extol ye Him before all the living (xiii. 3, 4),\n\nand the writer himself says he is in captivity in xiii. 6:\n\n      I, in the land of my captivity, give Him thanks.\n\nThat this land cannot be either the Far East, Persia, Assyria,\nBabylonia, or Media, as has been held by different scholars, is\nshown by Simpson, who says that \u201csuch surmises are, at the outset,\nnegatived by the author\u2019s ignorance of Eastern geography and his\nacceptance of the ordinary standards of Greek and Roman geographies.\nThat the Tigris flowed between Nineveh and Media was an idea common\namong the Greeks; that Ecbatana was situated in a plain was a\nconstant Western fallacy, and is repeated in Diodorus ii. 13, 6, in a\npassage dependent on Ctesias.\u201d[389] Another, apparently small, point\nalso suggests Egypt; it is said in vi. 3 that \u201ca great fish leaped up\nout of the water, and would have swallowed the foot of the young man\n...\u201d; no ordinary fish would do this kind of thing, it points rather\nto a crocodile of the Nile, and this was probably in the writer\u2019s\nmind; \u201cthis conjecture,\u201d in the words of Robertson Smith, \u201cis raised\nalmost to certainty when we read in Kazwini i. 132 that the smell of\nthe smoke of a crocodile\u2019s liver cures epilepsy, and that its dung\nand gall cure leucoma, which was the cause of Tobit\u2019s blindness. Very\nsimilar statements as to the medicinal virtues of the crocodile occur\nin Greek and Latin writers.\u201d[390]\n\nFurther, the sources utilized by the writer of the book suggest\nEgypt as the place of its origin; \u201conly Egyptian Jews could need an\nantidote to the _Tractate of Khons_,\u201d and this seems to have been\none main purpose of the book.[391] Finally, if, as seems upon the\nwhole probable, the book was originally written in Greek, a further\nreason for regarding Egypt as its original home is offered. Some\nscholars are strong advocates of a Semitic (Hebrew or Aramaic)\noriginal, but to give details of the reasons for either contention\nwould involve technicalities which would be inappropriate here. It\nmust suffice to say that the Greek as a whole does not read like\na translation, whatever may be the case in isolated instances.\nIf one reads the Greek of Ecclesiasticus, which is admittedly a\ntranslation, and compares it with that of the Book of Tobit, the\ndifference is enormous, and forces one to believe that if Tobit was\noriginally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, its Greek form must be not a\ntranslation, but a paraphrase.[392]\n\nIt is, however, quite possible that the home of the writer was\nPalestine, and that for some reason or other he was compelled to\nspend some considerable time in Egypt. Ben-Sira\u2019s grandson, who was\nevidently a native of Palestine, came into Egypt and continued there\nand issued his grandfather\u2019s book in a Greek form while living there.\nOn the supposition that the writer of Tobit was a native of Palestine\nsojourning in Egypt the Aramaic traits in his book could be explained\nin a quite natural way.\n\n\nVI. THE VALUE OF THE BOOK FOR NEW TESTAMENT STUDY\n\nThere are a few passages in the Book of Tobit which, on being\ncompared with similar ones in the Gospels, illustrate the truth\nthat Christ inculcated much of the teaching of Judaism with which\nHis hearers were already familiar, and which therefore had His\napproval. In iv. 8, 9 we read: \u201cAs thy substance is, give alms of it\naccording to thine abundance; if thou have much, according to the\nabundance therefore give alms; if thou have little, bestow it, and\nbe not afraid to give alms according to that little; for thou layest\nup a good treasure for thyself against the day of necessity.\u201d The\nspirit of this teaching is endorsed, but made more spiritual, in\nthe familiar words of Matthew vi. 19-21: \u201cLay not up for yourselves\ntreasures upon the earth ... but lay up for yourselves treasures in\nheaven ... for where thy treasure is, there will thy heart be also.\u201d\nAn even more pointed illustration is seen on comparing Tobit xii.\n8-10 with Matthew vi. 1-6; the former runs: \u201cBetter is prayer with\ntruth, and alms with righteousness, than riches with unrighteousness;\nit is better to give alms than to lay up gold ...\u201d; in Matthew vi.\n1-6 almsgiving and prayer are likewise placed together, only here\nagain the teaching is fuller and deeper. Again, in Tobit iv. 15 it\nis said: \u201cWhat thou thyself hatest, do to no man\u201d; this negative\ninjunction is put positively in Matthew vii. 12: \u201cAll things\ntherefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so\ndo ye also unto them\u201d (cp. Luke vi. 31). Once more, in Tobit iv. 16\nthe command is given: \u201cGive of thy bread to the hungry, and of thy\ngarments to them that are naked\u201d; this reminds one irresistibly of\nMatthew xxv. 35, 36: \u201cI was an hungred, and ye gave me meat; I was\nthirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in;\nnaked, and ye clothed me....\u201d\n\nThat St. Paul was well acquainted with the Book of Tobit, and was\ninfluenced by it, seems to come out clearly in some passages in\nhis epistles; thus the words in 2 Corinthians ix. 9, \u201cLet each\nman do according as he hath purposed in his heart; not grudgingly\nor of necessity,\u201d echo what is said in Tobit iv. 7, 16, \u201cAs thy\nsubstance is ...\u201d (quoted above) and in verse 16: \u201cLet not thine eye\nbe grudging when thou givest alms\u201d (cp. 1 Cor. xvi. 2, 2 Cor. viii.\n12). Although the identical injunction is given in Tobit iv. 12_a_\nand 1 Thessalonians iv. 3, and in Tobit iv. 15_b_ and Ephesians v.\n18, they do not necessarily imply that St. Paul was indebted to this\nbook for them because they are so general in character. On the other\nhand, the thought in Romans vi. 23, \u201cFor the wages of sin is death,\u201d\nseems to be derived from Tobit xii. 10: \u201cThey that commit sin and\nunrighteousness are enemies to their own life.\u201d In the first epistle\nto Timothy the influence of our book may also be discerned in a few\ncases; thus, in vi. 6 the words, \u201cBut godliness with contentment\nis great gain,\u201d are in their essence closely analogous to what is\nwritten in Tobit iv. 21: \u201cAnd fear not, my child, because we have\nbecome poor; thou hast much wealth, if thou fear God and avoid every\nkind of sin, and do the things which are good in the sight of the\nLord thy God.\u201d In the same way, the passage already quoted, Tobit iv.\n9, \u201c... for thou layest up a good treasure for thyself against the\nday of necessity,\u201d is spiritualized in 1 Timothy vi. 19: \u201c... laying\nup in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to\ncome, that they may lay hold on the life which is life indeed.\u201d It is\nalso worth mentioning that the expression \u201cKing eternal\u201d in 1 Timothy\ni. 17 occurs also in Tobit xiii. 6.\n\nIn a few other passages identity of thought and verbal similarities\nare of interest: the combination of good works and almsdeeds is\nfound in Tobit i. 3 and Acts ix. 36; in Tobit xii. 12 the words,\n\u201cI did bring the memorial of your prayer before the glory of the\nLord,\u201d reminds one forcibly of Acts x. 4: \u201cThy prayers and thine\nalms are gone up for a memorial before God.\u201d The idea of binding\nthe devil occurs both in Tobit viii. 3 and Revelation xx. 2, and\nthe description of the new Jerusalem in Tobit xiii. 16-18 has some\ndistinct points of similarity with the fuller picture given in\nRevelation xxi. 10-21.\n\nIn most of the cases given above the verbal similarity is more\nstriking when read in the original Greek.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nThe Book of Judith\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014Fritzsche, _Die B\u00fccher Tobi\u00e4 und Judith erkl\u00e4rt_,\n  in \u201cExegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen\u201d (1853); Ball, in\n  Wace, I, pp. 241-360; Sch\u00fcrer, II, iii. pp. 32-37, German ed.,\n  III, pp. 230-237; L\u00f6hr, in Kautzsch, I pp. 147-164; Gaster, in\n  the \u201cProceedings of the Soc. of Biblical Arch\u00e6ology\u201d for 1894,\n  pp. 156-163; Scholz, _Kommentar \u00fcber das Buch Judith und \u00fcber Bel\n  und Drache_ (1896); W\u00fcnsche, _Aus Israel\u2019s Lehrhallen_, II, pp.\n  164-185 (1908); Cowley, in Charles, I, pp. 242-267.]\n\n\nI. CONTENTS AND CHARACTER OF THE BOOK\n\nThe book purports to tell of events which took place in the reign\nof Nebuchadnezzar, \u201cwho reigned over the Assyrians in Nineveh.\u201d It\ntells of how this king in the twelfth year of his reign gathered\ntogether many nations to fight with him against the Medes; the\ncollection of this host seems to have taken five years, for it was\nnot until the seventeenth year of his reign that Nebuchadnezzar\nattacked and conquered Arphaxad, king of the Medes. Now among the\npeoples whom Nebuchadnezzar had summoned to join him in this war all\nthose of the west had refused to respond, among them being those\n\u201cthat were in Carmel and Gilead, in the higher Galilee and the\ngreat plain of Esdraelon, all that were in Samaria and the cities\nthereof, and beyond Jordan unto Jerusalem\u201d (i. 9); these and many\nothers, therefore, Nebuchadnezzar determined to punish now that he\nhad successfully dealt with the Medes. So he commands Holofernes,\nthe chief captain of his host, to go with an army of 132,000, and\ntake vengeance on these disobedient lands of the west. Then follows\nthe account of Holofernes\u2019 victorious progress until he reaches the\nplain of Esdraelon; he pitches his camp between Geba and Scythopolis,\nand rests there for a month in order to \u201cgather together all the\nbaggage of his host\u201d (ii. 21-iii. 10). The Jews are now filled with\nanxiety, and speedily set about taking measures of defence; above\nall, they fortify the villages on the mountain-tops. Joakim, the\nhigh-priest, takes the lead and commands the people of Bethulia\nto seize the ascents of the hill-country overlooking the plain of\nEsdraelon, \u201cbecause by them was the entrance into Jud\u00e6a, and it\nwas easy to stop them from approaching, inasmuch as the approach\nwas narrow, with space for two men at the most\u201d (iv. 1-8). The\npeople then give themselves to fasting and prayers, calling upon\nGod to help them in this hour of danger (iv. 9-15). Holofernes, on\nhearing of the preparations made to resist his advance, is greatly\nincensed. Then Achior, the leader of the Ammonites who had joined the\nAssyrian army, warns Holofernes, by pointing to the past history of\nthe Jews, that their God invariably helped these people so long as\nthey remained faithful to Him; so that \u201cif there is no lawlessness\nin their nation,\u201d Achior concludes, \u201clet my lord now pass by, lest\ntheir Lord defend them, and their God be with them, and we shall\nbe a reproach before all the earth.\u201d Holofernes, however, resents\nthis warning, thinking that Achior\u2019s intention is to protect the\nJews by thus seeking to dissuade him from further advance. To punish\nAchior, Holofernes has him bound and taken to the foot of the hill\non which the fortress of Bethulia is situated; he is left there in\nthe hopes that he will be killed by the enemy. But the Israelites, on\nfinding him, take him into the city and treat him kindly (v., vi.).\nHolofernes now makes a demonstration in the valley in the sight of\nthe garrison in Bethulia, his object being to inspire the Jews with\ndread and despair, and thus induce them to submit; the capture of\nthis mountain fortress was essential for the further advance. But\n\u201cthe children of Esau\u201d realize that it is no easy matter to reduce an\nalmost impregnable fortress like this otherwise than through famine;\nabove all, if the water supply is cut off, the garrison will speedily\nbe forced to give in; \u201cremain in thy camp,\u201d they say to Holofernes,\n\u201cand keep safe every man of thy host, and let thy servants get\npossession of the fountain of water which issueth forth from the foot\nof the mountain; for all the inhabitants of Bethulia have their water\nthence; and thirst will kill them, and they will give up their city.\u201d\nHolofernes sees the wisdom of this advice, which is carried out. The\nresult is that the people in Bethulia suffer terrible distress, and\nare reduced to despair; they come to Ozias, the elder of the city,\nand call upon him to surrender; Ozias implores them to hold out for\nanother five days, firmly believing that God will have mercy upon\nthem and not forsake them utterly. To this the people consent (vii.).\n\nThese first seven chapters, which constitute nearly half the book,\nform in reality only the introduction to what follows; the heroine of\nthe story has not yet even been mentioned. The writer has brought his\nnarrative to a point where, humanly speaking, nothing can save the\nill-fated people of Bethulia; but he leaves the impression upon his\nhearers that they are to expect something wonderful to happen during\nthe five days of waiting for the end. And, in truth, the story that\nfollows is extraordinarily dramatic; from chapter viii. onwards one\nis carried along in almost breathless excitement, it is a masterpiece\nof narrative; though the one thing that perhaps somewhat mars its\nperfection is the writer\u2019s proneness to be diffuse.\n\nWith chapter viii. Judith is introduced; first her genealogy is\ngiven, she belongs to the tribe of Simeon; then other details are\nmentioned. She has been a widow for three years and four months;\nher husband, Manasses, died of sunstroke; he had left his widow\n\u201cgold, and silver, and menservants, and maidservants, and cattle,\nand lands.\u201d Judith is a devout woman, and strict in her religious\nobservances; her great beauty is often insisted upon, and she is\nalso endowed with much wisdom. On her hearing of what had happened,\nshe sends her maid to the elders of the city, Ozias, Chabris, and\nCharmis, inviting them to her house; they come, and Judith addresses\nthem at some length, the gist of her words being that they have been\nwrong in promising to deliver up the city in five days, because in\ndoing so they have shown their want of faith in God; moreover, if\nBethulia is taken it will mean the utter downfall of the people, and\nthe profanation of the sanctuary. So she urges them to be an example\nto the people by showing unwavering trust in God. They commend her\nwords, and beg her to pray to God for rain, that the cisterns may be\nfilled and the people obtain refreshment. But Judith replies: \u201cHear\nme, and I will do a thing, which shall go down to all generations\namong the children of our race.\u201d She does not tell them what she is\ngoing to do, but only says that God will use her as an instrument of\ndeliverance before the five days are out (viii.). The whole of the\nnext chapter is taken up with Judith\u2019s prayer to God in preparation\nfor what she is about to undertake. Judith now goes with her maid to\nthe camp of Holofernes; everyone is struck with her beauty, and she\nis well received, Holofernes especially being very gracious to her.\nShe then declares to him the purpose of her coming, which is for\nnothing less than the betrayal of her people. She skilfully uses the\nargument which Achior had used, namely that as long as her people\nare faithful to God it will not be possible to overcome them, but if\nthey do anything to anger Him, then He will forsake them. This, she\ntells him, is true; but what Achior did not know, that she has come\nto tell, and it is this: the Israelites are about to do something\nwhich will bring down upon them the wrath of God; being in dire\nstraits they are going to eat sanctified food, which is contrary to\nthe Law; they are merely waiting to receive licence to do this from\nthe authorities in Jerusalem, where the same thing has already been\ndone, and as soon as they receive the permission they will transgress\nthe Law; then will be Holofernes\u2019 chance. So Judith says she will go\nforth each night, and will pray to God Who will tell her as soon as\nthe people have committed their sins; \u201cand I will come and show it\nalso unto thee; and thou shalt go forth with all thy host, and there\nshall be none of them that shall resist thee. And I will lead thee\nthrough the midst of Jud\u00e6a, until thou comest over against Jerusalem;\nand I will set thy seat in the midst thereof.\u201d Needless to say that\nHolofernes is greatly pleased with these words. For three days Judith\nand her maid remain in the camp within their own quarters; each night\nthey go forth to pray, the guards being instructed to let them pass\noutside the camp (x.-xii. 9). But on the fourth day Holofernes gives\na feast to which he invites Judith; she comes; the feast lasts long,\nand Holofernes becomes inflamed with wine and casts evil eyes upon\nJudith. Then all the servants go from the tent. Judith and Holofernes\nare left alone; but the latter is overcome with wine. Judith\napproaches the couch whereon he lies; then uttering a hasty prayer\nfor strength, she seizes the warrior\u2019s scimitar and hews his head\nfrom his body. She calls her maid, who puts the head of Holofernes\ninto her bag of victuals, and they both pass out of the camp, and\nreturn to Bethulia (xii. 10-xiii. 10). There is immense joy in the\ncity when they learn what Judith has done; the head of Holofernes is\nhung out on the battlements. The Assyrian army, on learning what has\nhappened, are plunged into fear and confusion; the Israelites fall\nupon them and put them to flight. Judith is richly rewarded, and\nhonoured by all the people (xiii. 11-xv. 13). Then follows Judith\u2019s\nSong of Praise (xvi. 2-17); and the book closes with a short account\nof how Judith dedicated to God her share of the spoil of the Assyrian\ncamp, of her prosperity, and finally of her death in Bethulia at a\nripe old age (xvi. 18-25).\n\nThe first question as to the character of the book that naturally\narises is whether, or how far, it is historical. The opening words\nof the book are in themselves sufficient to show that the writer\nis not to be looked upon as a historian. He says, \u201cIn the twelfth\nyear of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who reigned over the Assyrians\nin Nineveh ...\u201d; and again in ii. 1 ff. it is narrated how in his\neighteenth year he sent Holofernes to undertake the campaign in\nthe west. But further, in iv. 2, 3 it says that the people were\nexceedingly afraid at the approach of Holofernes, and were troubled\nfor Jerusalem, and for the temple of the Lord their God; \u201cbecause\nthey were newly come up from the Captivity, and all the people of\nJud\u00e6a were lately gathered together; and the vessels, and the altar,\nand the house, were sanctified after the profanation.\u201d How utterly\nunhistorical all this is can be seen at once by referring to 2 Kings\nxxiv., xxv., and Jeremiah xxxix., xl. Nebuchadnezzar was king of\n_Babylon_ (Nineveh fell in B.C. 608), and it was in the eighteenth\nyear of his reign (B.C. 586) that Jerusalem was besieged and captured\nfor the second time, the first time being in 597; and so far from the\npeople having newly come up from the Captivity, it was just in this\nyear that a further exportation of Jews took place. The return from\nthe Captivity was, at the earliest, in B.C. 536, the rebuilding of\nthe Temple took place some twenty years later. Then, again, in iv.\n6-8 Joakim the high-priest is represented as supreme ruler; but as\na matter of fact Gedaliah had been appointed by Nebuchadnezzar as\ngovernor over the cities of Judah (2 Kings xxv. 22, Jer. xl. 5).\n\nOn the face of it, therefore, the book is not to be regarded\nas historical. Yet the writer is well acquainted with the Old\nTestament, and so far as the geography of Palestine is concerned\nhe is thoroughly _au fait_. We must conclude that he simply chose\nthe historical names and times as the framework in which to place\nhis story in order that he might thereby render it more dramatic;\nhe purposely commits gross historical blunders in order to make\nit clear to his readers at the outset that the historical period\nchosen is merely for literary effect; \u201cthey are to understand that\nthis is fiction, not history; it did not take place in this or that\ndefinite period of Jewish history, but simply \u2018once upon a time,\u2019\nthe real vagueness of the date being transparently disguised in the\nmanner which has become familiar in the folk-tales of other parts\nof the world.\u201d[393] There is, of course, always the possibility\nthat some historical basis may exist for the actual story of Judith\nas distinct from its framework, and this is held to be the case\nby some scholars; Zunz, for example, says: \u201cIt is quite possible\nthat in some Palestinian town a popular festival might have been\ncelebrated in memory of the heroic deed of some woman, and that when\nthe real occasion of it had been forgotten and had given place to a\nlegend with manifold embellishment, a story was composed in honour\nof Judith, presumably before the destruction of the Temple.\u201d[394]\nThe fact that several forms of the story exist supports this idea\n(see the next section). But the majority of scholars are disposed to\nregard the book as pure fiction (with a special object in view as we\nshall see presently), and without any basis of fact.\n\nAs a piece of literary work the book must command sincere admiration;\nthe author is a master in the art of story-telling, and the way in\nwhich he intertwines the purposes for which the book was written\nwith the narrative itself is very skilfully done. Striking, too, is\nthe dramatic power which the writer exhibits; the reader becomes\nfascinated as step by step he is drawn nearer and nearer to the\nclimax, wondering what it is going to be; he is impelled to read\non in order to see what is really going to happen, for the writer\ncleverly conceals this right up to the very moment that the climax\nis reached. Judith\u2019s object in coming to Holofernes seems to be\nrepresented at first as the act of a traitress, and something\nworse; and yet her deep piety convinces the reader that this cannot\nbe; so that he must read on; he cannot stop. Torrey is certainly\nright in saying that \u201cwhat gained for the book its high esteem in\nearly times, in both the Jewish and the Christian world, was its\nintrinsic merit as a story, rather than its religious teaching or its\npatriotism.\u201d[395]\n\n\nII. VARIETY OF FORM OF THE JUDITH STORY\n\nMention must be made of the fact that our book has come down to us\nin more than one form. We have, firstly, the Greek form preserved\nin the Septuagint; our Apocrypha follows this, and it is the one\nof which some account has been given in the preceding section.\nThis Greek form of the story is much longer than the other, to be\nspoken of presently; but it exists in three recensions, and the\ndifferences between these are considerable. Of these three, one is\npreserved in the principal uncial manuscripts, A, B, and to some\nextent in \u2135; this, as just said, is the recension adopted in our\nApocrypha. The second is found in two cursive manuscripts, numbered\n19 and 108; while the third occurs in a cursive numbered 58[396];\nit was from a manuscript belonging to the type of text representing\nthis latter that the Old Latin and Syriac Versions were made.[397]\nIt is probable that all these recensions go back to a single\narchetype.[398] But, in the second place, there exists, in Hebrew,\nquite a different and much shorter form of the story; this form is\npreserved in a Hebrew manuscript, found by Gaster,[399] belonging\napproximately to the year A.D. 1000; its home was, according to\nGaster, \u201csomewhere in Babylon,\u201d and he believes that it \u201cmust have\nbelonged originally to the old Megillath Taanith,\u201d a Rabbinical\ntractate belonging to the Haggadic literature. In this shorter form\nsome of the essential features of the story differ from the longer\nform; thus, Seleucus takes the place of Nebuchadnezzar; Judith\nappears not as a widow, but as a maiden, the daughter of Ahitob;\nthe scene of the story, moreover, is not placed in Bethulia, but in\nJerusalem; and the relations between Judith and her victim are given\nin somewhat unblushing detail. This form of the story occurs also in\nthe Megillath Taanith (chap, vi.), as we now have it; here there are\nagain some variations, for, according to Zunz, \u201cJudith is represented\nas the daughter of Jochanan, or of Mattathiah, and as a heroine\nbelonging to the Hasmon\u00e6an period.\u201d[400]\n\nThe question naturally arises here as to which of these forms most\nnearly represents the original story. The rather intricate details\nwhich would have to be given in order to answer this would be\nwearisome; we must content ourselves, therefore, with saying that\nthere can be little doubt that the shorter, Hebrew, form must be\nregarded as coming closest to the original form of the story. In\ncomparing the contents of each form, as given respectively in the\nGreek MSS. and in the magazine in which Gaster\u2019s manuscript has been\npublished, it will be seen that a variety of indications lead to the\nconviction that the shorter form is the older.\n\n\nIII. THE TEACHING AND PURPOSE OF THE BOOK\n\nThese two subjects go together; for the answer to the one is the\nanswer to the other. The teaching is that of the rigidly orthodox\nPharisaic type; observance of the Law is the one thing needful. This\nis vividly brought out whenever Judith\u2019s piety is extolled; her\nstrictness with regard to the dietary laws is described in xii. 1-9\n(see also x. 5, xi. 12-15); when at last she sits down at the banquet\nof Holofernes it is said: \u201cShe took and ate and drank before him what\nher servant had prepared\u201d (xii. 19). Her fasting and observance of\nthe feast-days is mentioned in viii. 6: \u201cAnd she fasted all the days\nof her widowhood, save the eves of the sabbaths, and the sabbaths,\nand the eves of the new moons, and the new moons, and the feasts and\njoyful days of the house of Israel\u201d (cp. iv. 13). Ritual ablutions\nare referred to in x. 3, xii. 7, 9, her devotion to prayer in the\nwhole of chapter ix., and incidentally in viii. 31, xi. 17, xii.\n6, xiii. 3, 4, 7, 10. It is strange that there is no reference to\nalmsgiving. Further, zeal for the Temple is shown in iv. 2, 3, iv.\n11-15, v. 19, viii. 21, 24, ix. 1, 8, 13, xvi. 20; and the duty of\nmourning in viii. 5, 6, xvi. 24. The sin of withholding their dues\nfrom the priests is emphasized in xi. 13. Pharisaic particularism is\nto be discerned in viii. 20, ix. 14, xvi. 17; proselytism in xiv. 10;\nand eternal punishment on the Gentiles in xvi. 17. The worship of\nthe One God of Israel, and the teaching concerning Him, is of course\ninsisted upon throughout.\n\nIt will thus be seen that, although much of the teaching is that of\ntraditional Judaism, certain specifically Pharisaic doctrinal points\nstand out conspicuously; this, it may be said in passing, makes our\nbook important for the study of pre-Christian Judaism.\n\nThe main purpose of the book is, therefore, clearly to inculcate\nand to forward Pharisaic Judaism; and at the time when this book\nwas written (see the next section) this was extremely needful; for\nalthough there were some things in the Pharisaic presentation of\nJudaism which were not conducive to spiritual religion, it cannot\nbe too strongly insisted upon that Pharisaism was the one and only\nbulwark against heathenism in those days, and the upholder of a true\nmonotheistic faith. It has been truly pointed out by Elbogen[401]\nthat \u201cthe Pharisees are usually described as the party of narrow\nlegalistic tendencies, and it is forgotten how strenuously they\nlaboured against the Hellenizing movement for the maintenance\nof Monotheism; it is forgotten that they built up religious\nindividualism and purely spiritual worship; that it was through them\nmore especially that belief in a future life was deepened; and that\nthey carried on a powerful mission (propaganda).\u201d\n\nTeaching of a different kind in our book, and of subsidiary\nimportance, is that where God\u2019s honour is concerned His people must\nfight, no matter how great the odds against them may be. A warlike\nspirit breathes throughout the book; but it is against the enemies of\nGod, the heathen nations, that this spirit is directed; so that it is\nthe need and duty and glory of religious warfare that is inculcated.\n\n\nIV. THE DATE OF THE BOOK\n\nThe historical details given in the book are, as we have seen, wholly\nunreliable; they cannot, therefore, be of any use in seeking to fix\na date. In the absence of other indications there is only one way\nin which this can be approximately ascertained, and that is by the\nteaching and contents of the book. But as has already been pointed\nout, the form in which the story is given in the Apocrypha is not\nthe earliest; so that we must seek to establish dates both for the\nform that we have here followed, namely, that of the Apocrypha, and\nfor the story as it appeared in its original form. We have shown\nthat the teaching is that of the Pharisaic type; now it is, as has\nbeen pointed out in an earlier chapter,[402] from the _Maccab\u00e6an\nconflict_ with surrounding heathenism that Pharisaism emerges as an\nactive movement, and it only becomes quiescent after the annihilation\nof the Jewish national life in the reign of Hadrian[403]; this gives\ntwo outside dates within which the book in either form must have\nbeen composed, viz. roughly speaking between B.C. 150-A.D. 135.\nThe book is first quoted in the first epistle of Clement of Rome\nto the Corinthians,[404] which was written in A.D. 95 or 96; this\npresupposes the existence of our book for some time previously. But\na further consideration is this: the pseudepigraphic book called\n\u201cThe Assumption of Moses,\u201d[405] was written at the beginning of the\nfirst century A.D. by a Pharisee whose purpose in writing it was to\nurge upon the Jews quietude and patience instead of a warlike spirit\nand national assertion; the writer of this book belonged to the same\nparty as the writer of the Book of Judith in its later form; had both\nwriters lived at the same time it is highly improbable that they\nwould have taken up such entirely opposed attitudes on the question\nof religious warfare; as there is no period during the first century\nA.D. the historical conditions of which would suit the warlike spirit\nof our book, it is obvious that it must have been written before the\nbeginning of the Christian era. Gaster[406] has shown that there is\nonly one period with which all the elements of our book coincide so\nfar as warfare is concerned, and that is the approach of Pompey to\nJerusalem in B.C. 63. So that we may safely assign the middle of the\nfirst century B.C. as the date for the _later_ form of our book, As\nregards the earlier form of the book, it is to be noted that it\ncontains no references to ceremonial observances, a fact which proves\nthat it must have been written before Pharisaism had had time to\ndevelop; this is of itself sufficient to show that the book in its\noriginal form was written before B.C. 100; so that we shall not be\nfar wrong in fixing the date of this about the middle of the second\ncentury B.C.\n\n\nV. THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE BOOK\n\nThere can be no two opinions as to what the original language of\nthe book was, namely Hebrew; in numerous instances the Greek proves\nitself to have been translated from Hebrew, the idioms being those\nof classical Hebrew; so that this was the original language of both\nthe longer and shorter forms. St. Jerome, in the preface to his\ntranslation, says that he had the book before him in Aramaic; this\ncannot, however, have been the original, for neither Origen nor\nthe Jews with whom he was in communication knew either of a Hebrew\nor an Aramaic form of the book.[407] The Hebrew original was lost\naltogether in the West, but must have been preserved in some form or\nother in the East.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nThe Additions to the Book of Daniel\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014Br\u00fcll, _Das apokryphische Susanna-Buch_, in\n  \u201cJahrb\u00fccher f\u00fcr j\u00fcdische Geschichte und Literatur\u201d (1877);\n  Ball, in Wace, II, pp. 305-360; Sch\u00fcrer, II, iii. pp. 183-188,\n  German ed., III, pp. 452-458; Scholz, _Judith und Bel und der\n  Drache_ (1896); Julius, _Die griechischen Daniel-Zus\u00e4tze und ihre\n  kanonische Geltung_ (1901); Daubney, _The Three Additions to\n  Daniel_, (1906); Rothstein, in Kautzsch, I, pp. 172-193; Bennett,\n  Kay, and Witton Davies, in Charles, I, pp. 625-664. The articles\n  by Marshall in Hastings\u2019 _Dict. of the Bible_, and Kamphausen, in\n  the _Encycl. Bibl._]\n\n\nI. PRELIMINARY REMARKS\n\nBefore dealing with these Additions individually a word may be said\nabout them collectively. None of them occur in the Hebrew Bible and\nin only one manuscript of the Septuagint proper are they found[408];\nbut in the great uncials (B, A, Q), which contain Theodotion\u2019s\nVersion of the Septuagint, they all appear as integral parts of the\ntext of Daniel. \u201cIn the Greek manuscripts no break or separate title\ndivides these Greek additions from the rest of the text, except that\nwhen Daniel is divided into \u2018visions,\u2019 the first vision is made to\nbegin at i. 1, Susanna being thus excluded from the number; Bel, on\nthe other hand, is treated as the last of the visions.\u201d[409] What\nthe actual number of Additions originally was is uncertain; they\nare usually reckoned as three; it is possible, however, that five\noriginally separate pieces were incorporated into the text of the\nSeptuagint, viz. the Story of Susanna, the Prayer of Azariah, a short\nnarrative piece, the Song of the Three Children, and Bel and the\nDragon. The second, third and fourth of these are usually regarded\nas forming one piece; this question we shall consider immediately.\nAlthough some of these Additions are quite inappropriate in their\npresent context, they have from very early times been regarded as\nbelonging to the Book of Daniel proper; \u201cfrom the Fathers it is\nclear that in the earliest Christian copies of the Septuagint both\nSusanna and Bel formed part of Daniel, to which they are ascribed\nby Iren\u00e6us and Tertullian, and implicitly by Hippolytus. The\nremarkable letter of Julius Africanus to Origen which throws doubt\non the genuineness of Susanna, calling attention to indications of\nits Greek origin, form a solitary exception to the general view;\neven Origen labours to maintain their canonicity.\u201d[410] Clement of\nAlexandria also apparently regarded Susanna[411] and the Song of the\nThree Children[412] and Bel[413] as canonical; and a string of other\nauthorities could be cited. A useful collection of references to and\nquotations from these Additions in early Christian writings is given\nby Daubney, _The Three Additions to Daniel_, pp. 76-80, 163-169,\n235-239.\n\n\nII. THE PRAYER OF AZARIAH\n\nThis addition consists of two pieces: a narrative portion, verses\n1, 23-27, and the Prayer itself, verses 2-22. Now in the Aramaic\nof Daniel iii. 23, 24 the text runs: (23) \u201cAnd these three men,\nShadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, fell down in the midst of the\nburning fiery furnace. (24) Then Nebuchadnezzar, the king, was\nastonished, and rose up in haste....\u201d Any candid reader must see at\nonce that there is something not in order with the text here; the\nnatural sequence of the text would, one might justly expect, give\nsome reason for Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s astonishment before stating the\nfact. Something has evidently fallen out of the text after verse 23.\nIf we insert after verse 23 of the canonical Daniel the narrative\naddition found in the Septuagint (Theodotion\u2019s Version) we get the\nfollowing:\n\n  And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, fell down\n  in the midst of the burning fiery furnace. _And they walked in\n  the midst of the fire, singing the praise of God, and blessing\n  the Lord. And the king\u2019s servants, that put them in, ceased not\n  to make the furnace hot with naphtha, pitch, tow, and small\n  wood; so that the flame streamed forth above the furnace forty\n  and nine cubits. And it spread and burned those Chald\u00e6ans whom\n  it found about the furnace. But the angel of the Lord came down\n  into the furnace together with Azarias and his fellows, and he\n  drove the flame of the fire out of the furnace; and he made the\n  midst of the furnace as it had been a moist whistling wind, so\n  that the fire touched them not at all, neither hurt nor troubled\n  them._ Then Nebuchadnezzar, the king, was astonied, and rose up\n  in haste; he spake and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast\n  three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and\n  said unto the king, True, O king. He answered and said, Lo, I see\n  four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have\n  no hurt; and the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the gods.\n\nThe words printed in italics are from the Septuagint, the rest from\nthe canonical Daniel. There are two things that strike us here:\nfirstly, we get the reason for Nebuchadnezzar\u2019s astonishment; and\nsecondly, we are told how it was that four instead of three men\nwere seen in the furnace. The reference to the fourth person in\nthe furnace, as given in the canonical text, is abrupt; that will\nbe allowed. The whole narrative, as just given, runs smoothly and\nnaturally. We contend, therefore, that this narrative addition of the\nSeptuagint represents\u2014it may not be the exact translation\u2014an original\nportion of the canonical Daniel. It will be remarked that part of the\naddition, namely that which refers to the burning of the Chald\u00e6ans,\nis already represented in verse 22 of the canonical Daniel, viz.,\n\u201cthe flame of the fire slew those men that took up Shadrach, Meshach,\nand Abed-nego\u201d; but these words do not occur in the one manuscript,\nmentioned above, of the Septuagint proper which we possess, nor in\nTheodotion\u2019s Version; they are added in the Alexandrian manuscript,\nbut are evidently a later addition as this manuscript also contains\nthe reference to the Chald\u00e6ans as given in the quotation above.\n\nTurning now to the Prayer itself, we notice first that there is\nnothing in it which connects it with the episode to which it is\nsupposed to belong; the words of verse 2, which introduce the Prayer,\nviz. \u201cThen Azarias rose up and prayed thus, and opened his mouth in\nthe midst of the fire and said,\u201d are an expansion made in order to\ngive it an appearance of connection with verse 1; probably the words\nran originally: \u201cThen Azarias rose up and prayed thus,\u201d or something\nto this effect. The Azarias here mentioned is not one of the \u201cThree\nChildren\u201d; moreover, if the Prayer had originally been written in\nreference to them we should expect it to have been put into the mouth\nof Hananiah (Ananias), i.e. the equivalent of the Aramaic Shadrach,\nwhose name is always placed first.\n\nThat the Prayer was composed during the early part of the Maccab\u00e6an\nstruggle seems probable for the following reasons: in verse 5 it\nsays, \u201cIn all the things that Thou hast brought upon us, and upon\nthe holy city of our fathers, even Jerusalem, Thou hast executed\ntrue judgements; for according to truth and justice hast Thou\nbrought all these things upon us because of our sins.\u201d The nation\nhas thus suffered adversity. In verse 9 it says further: \u201cAnd Thou\ndidst deliver us into the hands of lawless enemies, and most hateful\nforsakers of God, and to a king unjust and the most wicked in all\nthe world.\u201d These \u201clawless enemies\u201d who are \u201cmost hateful forsakers\nof God\u201d are the extreme Hellenistic Jews mentioned in 1 Maccabees\ni. 11-15; and by the \u201cking unjust and the most wicked in all the\nworld\u201d is meant Antiochus Epiphanes (cp. 1 Macc. i. 20-24, 41-64).\nThe sore plight in which the nation found itself is shortly but\ngraphically described in verses 14, 15; \u201cFor we, O Master, have been\nmade less than all the nations, and are brought this day in all the\nworld because of our sins. Neither is there at this time prince, or\nprophet, or leader, or burnt-offering, or sacrifice, or oblation,\nor incense, or place to offer before Thee and to find mercy.\u201d\nThis certainly describes the state of affairs in Palestine at the\nbeginning of the Maccab\u00e6an struggle; the date of the composition\nwould, therefore, be about B.C. 170; and the passages quoted read\nlike the words of one who lived in Palestine. The indications in the\nPrayer of its having been originally written in Hebrew[414] would\npoint in the same direction.\n\nThe conjecture may be hazarded that in its original form it was in\nno way connected with the Book of Daniel; it was inserted, before\nthe Greek translation was made, because its author happened to have\nthe same name as one of the heroes in the Daniel story; but since\nsome copies of Daniel must have existed which did not contain this\naddition there was a doubt as to whether it had any right to a place\nthere. The canonical Daniel and the Septuagint represent respectively\nthese two opinions.\n\nWith the Prayer should be compared Daniel ix. 4-19 and Baruch i.\n15-iii. 8; all three partake of a liturgical character; this becomes\nabundantly clear if one reads them in connection with certain\nportions of the modern Jewish Liturgy (\u201cMorning Prayer,\u201d see Singer\u2019s\nedition, _The Authorized Daily Prayer Book_, pp. 37 ff.). It is\ndifficult to get away from the conviction that all three of the\npieces just mentioned were in some way connected with the ancient\nJewish Liturgy; whether extracts from time-honoured prayers, or\nbased upon these, it is of course impossible to say, but they quite\ndistinctly breathe the Jewish liturgical spirit.\n\n\nIII. THE SONG OF THE THREE CHILDREN\n\nThis Song is introduced with the words of verse 28: \u201cThen the three,\nas out of one mouth, praised, and glorified, and blessed God in the\nfurnace saying\u201d; thus the connection with the \u201cThree Children\u201d is\nbrought about. In verse 66, at the conclusion of the Song, another\nconnecting link is brought in:\n\n      O Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, bless ye the Lord,\n        Sing His praise and highly exalt Him for ever.\n      For He hath rescued us from Hades, and saved us from the power\n            of death,\n      And delivered us from the midst of the burning fiery furnace,\n            even out of the fire hath He delivered us.\n\nA concluding doxology (verses 67, 68) is added. It is probable that\nall these three verses form a later addition.\n\nThis Song again, apart from the added verses, has nothing in it which\nwould connect it with the \u201cThree Children.\u201d Its tone of exultation\nis in strong contrast to the despondent tone of the Prayer; this is,\nhowever, one indication of the date of its composition, though a\nnegative one, viz., it cannot have been written during the Maccab\u00e6an\nstruggle. It cannot, on the other hand, have been written before this\nstruggle as the advanced belief in the future life taught in verse 64\nprecludes this; that verse runs:\n\n      O ye spirits and souls of the righteous, bless ye the Lord,\n        Sing His praise, and highly exalt Him for ever.\n\nWe must, therefore, date it after the Maccab\u00e6an struggle, probably\nsoon after, on account of its jubilant tone. Like the Prayer, this\nSong was written in Hebrew, though the arguments for a Greek original\nin both cases cannot be lightly dismissed. Why it came to be placed\nin its present position can be quite naturally accounted for; it was\ndue to the desire to put into the mouth of the Three Children a hymn\nof blessing and glory to God for their wonderful deliverance. It must\nhave been put into its present place subsequently to the Prayer, but\nas regards its further history one must hazard a conjecture similar\nto that mentioned above in reference to the Prayer. It is also\nhighly probable that, like the Prayer, the Song was used in public\nworship. For the _form_ in which it is composed one should compare\ntwo liturgical pieces preserved in the modern Jewish Liturgy, viz.\nthe \u201cAbinu Malkenu\u201d (Our Father, our King)[415] and the \u201cOrder of\ncounting the Omer\u201d[416]; both differ wholly in content from that of\nthe Song, but the liturgical form is similar in each case. See also\nthe \u201cPsalm of Thanksgiving\u201d which occurs in Ecclesiasticus li. after\nverse 12 (only preserved in the Hebrew), and compare with it the\n\u201cShemoneh \u2018Esreh\u201d in the Jewish Liturgy (Singer, _Op. cit._, pp. 44\nff.).[417] That the Song, when one remembers its history\u2014and if we\nare right in believing that it was at one time used in public worship\nby the Jews\u2014has been incorporated into the English Church Liturgy\nseems to be only in the fit and natural order of things.\n\n\nIV. THE STORY OF SUSANNA\n\nThe position of this addition varies in the manuscripts; in some it\nprecedes the first chapter of the canonical Daniel; this is the case\nin the uncials, while in the one manuscript extant of the Septuagint\nproper which contains it, it forms chapter xiii. of that book.\n\nThe story is briefly as follows: Susanna was the daughter of a Jew\ndwelling in Babylon, named Joakim; she was beautiful and devout.\nAmong Joakim\u2019s friends were two elders of the people who were judges;\nthese two were frequent visitors at the house of Joakim. They both\nfell in love with Susanna, unbeknown to each other; but each was\ndetected by the other one morning when they had gone out into the\ngarden where Susanna was wont to bathe. They, therefore, agreed to\nact together in their wicked design; but on approaching Susanna\nthey were repulsed by her with indignation, and in order to protect\nthemselves they accused her of having been unfaithful to her husband\nby admitting a young man secretly into the garden. This accusation\nthey bring against her in the public court. As Susanna has no means\nof proving her innocence she is, according to the Law, condemned to\ndeath. On her way to execution the crowd is separated by a young man\nnamed Daniel, who maintains that Susanna\u2019s condemnation is due to\nfalse witness; and, basing his demand on the Law, insists that there\nshall be anew trial.[418] At this new trial the young man Daniel\nexamines the two witnesses, and asks each separately under which tree\nin the garden the crime of which they accuse Susanna took place;\none says, under a mastick tree, the other, under a holm tree. This\ncontradiction reveals their falseness, and they are condemned. \u201cSo\nwhen they had gagged them, they led them out and hurled them into a\nchasm; then the angel of the Lord cast fire in the midst of them.\nAnd thus was innocent blood kept safe on that day\u201d (verse 62_a_,\nSeptuagint).\n\nThe purpose which the writer of this story had in view is reflected\nin the quotation given above from the Mishna, Sanhedrin vi. 2, where\ntwo points are specially emphasized, namely, that a criminal who has\nbeen condemned is to have every chance of clearing himself, even\nup to the very end; and that adequate witness must be forthcoming\nbefore an accused man may be condemned. In fact the passage referred\nto is one of several others which could be given implying that a\nreform in the administration of justice had at one time taken place\namong the Jewish authorities. Ball, following Br\u00fcll,[419] shows,\nin the admirable introduction to his commentary on this book, that\nthis reform was instituted at the instance of Simon ben Shetach\nwho lived during the reigns of Alexander Jann\u00e6us (B.C. 103-76)\nand Alexandra[420] (B.C. 76-67); it consisted, firstly, in the\ninstitution of a proper examination of witnesses; in the Mishna,\nPirqe Aboth i. 9 it is said: \u201cSimon ben Shetach used to say, Examine\nthe witnesses abundantly, and be cautious in thy words, lest they\nlearn from them to give false answers.\u201d But Simon ben Shetach was\nalso, in the words of Ball, \u201cthe champion of another reform in\nconnection with the law of testimony. As the brother-in-law of king\nAlexander Jann\u00e6us, he was able, after a long struggle, to secure the\ntriumph of his party, the Pharisees, in the Sanhedrin, and of their\nprinciples in the administration of the Law, over their opponents,\nthe Sadducees.... According to Sadduc\u00e6an principles, they who had\nfalsely accused a man of a capital crime were only put to death if\nthe sentence had already been executed on their victim. The legal\naphorism, \u2018life for life,\u2019 was construed literally. The Pharisees,\non the other hand, relying on Deuteronomy xix. 19,[421] considered\nthe _intention_ of the accusers as equivalent to actual murder.\nAccording to them, the maxim \u2018life for life\u2019 came into application\nas soon as, in consequence of the false depositions, sentence had\nbeen pronounced, although not yet carried out. The law at the time\nextraordinarily favoured informations. The witnesses, who were also\nthe accusers, were only examined about the main fact, so that their\nfalsehood could not easily become evident; and even if it did, they\ngot off without punishment, though the accused had actually been\nexecuted. This crying evil the Pharisaic party sought to remedy by\nthe introduction of a more rigorous examination of witnesses, and by\nmaking the law more severe against false witnesses.\u201d The author\u2019s\naim, therefore, in writing this book, was to show, by means of a\nstory, that the administration of justice was in some most important\nparticulars defective, and to put forth the Pharisaic suggested\nreform as the proper remedy.\n\nThe questions of authorship, date, place of writing, and language,\nare all practically answered by what has been said; it was written\nby a Pharisee, during the last quarter of the first century B.C., in\nJerusalem (or, at any rate, in Palestine); the language was in all\nprobability Hebrew.\n\nThe judicial acumen of the \u201cyoung man\u201d who examined the false\nwitnesses, and upon whom \u201ca spirit of discernment\u201d (verse 45,\nSeptuagint) was bestowed, was probably the reason of the name of\nDaniel (\u201cMy judge is El\u201d) being given to him. Thus would sufficiently\nexplain why it became prefixed, or added, to the Book of Daniel, with\nwhich it has otherwise no connection.\n\n\nV. BEL AND THE DRAGON\n\nThis addition follows the preceding one in all the Greek manuscripts\nby which it is treated as an integral part of the canonical Daniel.\n\nThe story tells how Daniel proved to the king (called \u201cCyrus the\nPersian\u201d in Theodotion\u2019s Version, but not specified by name in the\nSeptuagint manuscript) that the Babylonian idol Bel was not a living\ngod. The king is convinced that Daniel is mistaken, and as proof\nthereof points to the food which the god demolishes daily. But Daniel\nundertakes to show the king that not Bel, but his priests, with their\nwives and children, are those who daily consume the food which they\nplace before him. Daniel and the king, then, go into the temple and\nwatch the food being set before Bel; thereupon the king\u2019s seal is set\nupon the entrance to the temple, but not before Daniel has managed to\nget the ashes of wood strewn all over the floor of the temple. During\nthe night the priests with their families enter the temple, as is\ntheir wont, by secret doors and enjoy the food set before Bel. The\nnext morning the king, accompanied by Daniel, enter the temple; the\nking, seeing the footprints of men, women and children in the ashes\non the floor, realizes the fraud of which he has been the victim, and\nwhich has now been exposed by the wisdom of Daniel. The image of Bel\nis destroyed, and his priests put to death.\n\nThere follows then the exploit of Daniel with the dragon. Daniel had\nscoffed at Bel because he had been made of clay and bronze; but this\ngod, as the king says, \u201cliveth, and eateth, and drinketh.\u201d However,\nDaniel undertakes to kill this living god without sword or staff,\nand thus prove that he is no god. So he takes pitch, and fat and\nhair, and makes lumps of them, and puts them into the dragon\u2019s mouth;\nthe dragon eats them and bursts asunder. The king is convinced. But\nthe populace threaten to rise against him unless he delivers unto\nthem the destroyer of their gods. The king gives way; and Daniel,\nbeing delivered up, is cast into a den of lions. After remaining in\nthe den for six days, without being touched by the lions, Habakkuk\n(presumably the prophet of that name is intended) brings him his\ndinner, having been conveyed by an angel from Palestine to Babylon\nfor this purpose. Finally, Daniel is released by the king, at whose\norder those who would have brought about his destruction are cast\ninto the den of lions and devoured instead.\n\nThe purpose of this addition is obviously to throw ridicule on\nidolatry; although the story is somewhat puerile it may well reflect\nforms of idolatry which obtained not only in Babylon in earlier days,\nbut also among the Gentiles at the time when the author lived (about\nB.C. 100, or a little earlier); that is to say that both images and\nliving animals were worshipped. By the \u201cdragon\u201d is probably meant\na serpent[422]; we know that serpents were kept at Greek shrines;\nfor example, in the temple of Aesculapius at Epidaurus,[423] and\nelsewhere, and were, therefore, probably objects of worship.[424]\nThe writer of this addition may likely enough have had this kind of\nidolatry in mind when speaking of the \u201cdragon.\u201d That Daniel slaying\nthe \u201cdragon\u201d was intended to be a reference to the myth of Merodach\nand his conflict with Tiamat seems highly improbable, for the\naddition is clearly a philippic against idolatry, and there would be\nno point in referring to this primeval combat. As it is not likely\nto have been written for Jews, the original language was probably\nGreek; there is nothing in the composition which indubitably stamps\nit as having been translated from a Semitic original. We are inclined\nto regard it as belonging to the same type of literature as the\nSibylline Oracles, and written for the purpose of Jewish propaganda;\ncp. verse 28, \u201cThe king has become a Jew,\u201d and verse 41, \u201cAnd the\nking cried out and said, Great is the Lord God, and there is no other\ngod beside Him.\u201d The universalistic attitude of the writer, and his\nsilence about the Law, the sacrifices, and the priesthood, also point\nin the direction indicated.\n\nAs the author chooses Babylon as the scene of his story, it is not\nunnatural that he should make Daniel his hero; this would account for\nthe addition having subsequently been appended to the Book of Daniel.\n\nThe verses 33-39_a_, which introduce the Habakkuk episode, are\nprobably from some legend regarding the prophet of that name; they\nhave been ineptly inserted here; the narrative reads far better\nwithout them, viz.: (verse 32) \u201cAnd Daniel was in the lion\u2019s den six\ndays; (verse 39_b_) but the Lord God remembered Daniel....\u201d\n\nIt would be hazardous to attempt to assign any particular place as\nthe home of this addition, beyond saying that, if we are correct in\nsupposing that the little composition was written for propagandist\npurposes, it is more likely to have been written somewhere in the\nDispersion than in Palestine.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nThe Additions to the Book of Esther\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014Josephus, _Antiq._, XI, vi.; Fritzsche, in\n  _Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des\n  Alten Testamentes_ (1851); Sch\u00fcrer, _Op. cit._, II, iii., pp.\n  181-183 (1891); Scholz, _Kommentar \u00fcber das Buch Esther mit\n  seinen Zus\u00e4tzen_ (1892); Cornill, _Op. cit._, pp. 261-263 (1896);\n  Jacob, _Das Buch Esther bei den lxx._, in the \u201cZeitschrift f\u00fcr\n  die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft\u201d (1890), pp. 241 ff.; Swete,\n  _Op. cit._, pp. 257-259 (1900); Ryssel, in Kautzsch, _Op. cit._,\n  I, pp. 193 ff. (1900); Gregg, in Charles, _Op. cit._, I. pp.\n  665-684.]\n\n\nI. THE NATURE AND OBJECT OF THE ADDITIONS\n\nIn the canonical Book of Esther the story is told of how Ahasuerus,\nking of Persia, dismissed his queen, Vashti, because she refused to\nobey his commandment to come and show her beauty to his assembled\nguests at a festival. In her place the king chose Esther, a Jewish\nmaiden belonging to the tribe of Benjamin, to be his queen. Esther\nwas of the Jewish exiles living in Persia, and was under the\nprotection of her cousin Mordecai; but she \u201chad not showed (it to)\nher people, nor her kindred; for Mordecai had charged her that she\nshould not show it.\u201d In consequence of the position now occupied by\nhis cousin, Mordecai came to court every day in order to watch over\nher interests. On one occasion he was the means of saving the king,\nall unconscious, from assassination; this was duly told to the king\nby Esther. But Mordecai had the misfortune to offend Haman, the\nking\u2019s chamberlain; in consequence of this Haman represented the\nJews to the king as a turbulent and disloyal people. The result was\nthat the king issued a proclamation according to which the Jews were\nto be plundered and massacred. The day for this Haman fixed by lot\n(\u201cthey cast Pur, that is, the lot, before Haman from day to day,\u201d\niii. 7). Esther, persuaded by Mordecai, resolves to save her people.\nShe invites the king and Haman to a banquet. On the night preceding\nthe banquet, the king, being unable to sleep, orders the national\nrecords to be brought to him; in reading these he comes across the\naccount of Mordecai\u2019s service in saving the king from assassination;\nthis the king had presumably forgotten, for Mordecai had never been\nrewarded. In the meantime, Haman, secure of favour, resolves upon\nthe immediate death of Mordecai; he has a gallows made, fifty cubits\nhigh, on which he intends to hang Mordecai, and he goes to the king\nat once to get permission to do so. On entering into the king\u2019s\npresence, Ahasuerus says to him: \u201cWhat shall be done to the man whom\nthe king delighteth to honour?\u201d Haman, thinking that the king has\nhim in mind, says that such a man should have royal apparel, and the\nking\u2019s horse to ride upon, and should ride through the city, attended\nby one of the great nobles, to receive the people\u2019s homage. Thereupon\nthe king orders Haman to attend upon Mordecai in such a procession;\nthis he has perforce to do. The next day Esther gives her banquet;\nAhasuerus and Haman hear for the first time that she is a Jewess.\nShe then asks the king that Haman may be hanged on the gallows he\nhas prepared for Mordecai; her request is granted, and Mordecai\nbecomes the king\u2019s chamberlain in his stead. The king issues another\nproclamation, at Esther\u2019s request, in which power is granted to the\nJews to pillage and slay their enemies. Finally the feast of Purim is\ninstituted \u201cbecause Haman ... the enemy of all the Jews, had devised\nagainst the Jews to destroy them, and had cast Pur, that is, the\nlot, to consume them, and to destroy them....\u201d (ix. 24-32).\n\nIt has been necessary to give this outline of the contents of the\ncanonical Book of Esther in order to show the point of the additions\nin the Septuagint; for as found in the English Apocrypha the\nadditions are taken together and treated as one whole; but by being\nthus separated from their contexts their _raison d\u2019\u00eatre_ is not seen.\nIn the Septuagint the additions form elaborations of certain passages\nof the canonical Esther; so that in order to see the object of the\nadditions each must be considered from the point of view of its\noriginal position.[425]\n\n(1) The first addition is given in the English Apocrypha as xi.\n2-xii. 6; in the Septuagint it precedes chapter i., and takes the\nform of an introduction to the whole story. It tells of how Mordecai\nhad a dream, which he interpreted as a revelation of the fact that an\nattempt was going to be made upon the king\u2019s life (see ii. 21-23 in\nthe canonical Esther). He tells the king of the threatened danger;\nhe watches those whom the dream has revealed as the culprits, and\noverhears them while making their plans; he then denounces them to\nthe king, and the conspirators, having confessed their guilt, are\nexecuted. Mordecai is promoted to a place of honour at court.\n\nThe object of this addition is, therefore, to show how Mordecai first\ngot advancement at the court of Artaxerxes (Ahasuerus).\n\n(2) The second addition is given in the English Apocrypha as xiii.\n1-7, which in the Septuagint comes between verses 13 and 14 of\nchapter iii. This purports to give _verbatim_ the letter sent by\nArtaxerxes to the governor of the provinces commanding the massacre\nof the Jews. In the canonical Esther iii. 13 runs: \u201cAnd the letters\nwere sent by post unto all the king\u2019s provinces, to destroy, to slay,\nto cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little children and\nwomen, in one day, even upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month,\nwhich is the month Adar, and to take the spoil of them for a prey\u201d;\nthen follows the addition of the Septuagint. In the letter the king\ntells of how it had been his wish ever since he came to the throne\nto see his people living in quietude and peacefulness; but that,\naccording to information he has received from Haman, this has not\nbeen possible of attainment because of \u201ca certain malignant people,\nthat had laws contrary to all nations, and continually set aside the\ncommandments of kings, so as the uniting of our kingdoms, honourably\nintended by us, cannot go forward.\u201d The command is then given to\nexterminate these people in order that the affairs of the kingdom can\nbe settled.\n\nThe object of this addition is evidently to emphasize the peril in\nwhich the Jews were owing to the machinations of Haman. Another\nobject may also have been to show the high favour which Haman enjoyed\n(he is spoken of as one \u201cthat excelled in wisdom among us, and was\napproved by his constant goodwill and steadfast fidelity\u201d) in order\nto place his ignominious downfall in more pronounced relief.\n\n(3) The next addition (xiii. 8-xiv. 19 in the English Apocrypha)\ncomes after iv. 17 of the canonical Esther. It contains a prayer of\nMordecai (xiii. 8-17), a prayer of Esther (xiv. 1-19), and one verse\n(xiii. 18) which says that all Israel also prayed to God; these are\nprayers for deliverance from the danger hanging over the people of\nJehovah in view of the king\u2019s letter. These prayers breathe a spirit\nof deep devotion and loyalty to God. The object of this addition\nis obvious; it is that the utter lack of religion in the canonical\nbook[426] should be made good; as is well known, the name of God does\nnot occur a single time in the canonical Esther.\n\n(4) The fourth addition (xv. 1-16 in the English Apocrypha) follows\nimmediately after the preceding one. This is an elaboration of\nv. 1, 2 of the canonical Esther, which verses are omitted in the\nSeptuagint; it recounts in detail Esther\u2019s appearance before the king\nfor the purpose of inviting him to the banquet as mentioned in v. 3\nff. of the canonical book. The object of this addition is similar to\nthat of the preceding; it is to show that the success of Esther\u2019s\ninterview with the king was due to \u201cthe all-seeing God and Saviour,\u201d\nupon Whom she called before setting forth.\n\n(5) This addition (xvi. 1-24 in the English Apocrypha) comes after\nviii. 12 of the canonical Esther; it purports to give the contents of\nthe letter of Artaxerxes (see viii. 8 ff. of the canonical Esther)\nwritten to revoke the order given in the former one (see (2)). Here\nthe object is twofold; in the first place it is, once more, to give\na religious tone to the book; the king speaks of those who try to\nescape \u201cthe evil-hating justice of God\u201d; he says that the Jews are\nthe \u201cchildren of the most high and most mighty living God, Who hath\nordered the kingdom both unto us and to our progenitors in the most\nexcellent manner\u201d; and in other ways he gives due honour to God by\nwhat he says. Secondly, another object of the addition seems to be to\nmitigate the rather bloodthirsty spirit of the canonical Esther.\n\n(6) The last addition (but first in _position_ in the English\nApocrypha, x. 4-xi. 1) comes at the end of the book in the\nSeptuagint; x. 4-13 contain the interpretation of the dream given\nin addition which we have numbered (1). This last addition, too, has\nthe object of giving a more religious tone to the book; \u201cthese things\nare of God,\u201d is the way in which the interpretation of the dream is\nintroduced; and the fact that the name of God is mentioned nine times\nin as many verses amply illustrates the purpose of the addition. xi.\n1 is a note added to the last addition which is intended to explain\nhow the \u201cLetter of Purim\u201d (by which is meant the whole book of Esther\nwith the additions) was brought to Egypt; but, as Swete says: \u201cthe\nhistorical value of the book is more than doubtful.\u201d[427]\n\n\nII. AUTHORSHIP AND DATE OF THE ADDITIONS\n\nThat the author, or, perhaps more probably, the authors of these\nadditions were Hellenistic Jews is sufficiently clear from the whole\ntone of them; a striking example of detail is that Artaxerxes is\nmade to say that both he and his forefathers had received their\nkingdom from God. As to the date at which the additions were made\nthere is nothing in the additions themselves which offers any clue;\nbut a book, such as the canonical Esther, in which a wonderful\ndeliverance of the Jews is recorded, would be especially welcome to\nthe people during a time of stress and anxiety; and if, at a time\nwhen such a book might well have been eagerly sought after, patriotic\nJews should have enhanced its lesson of hope and encouragement by\nadding explanatory details, such a procedure would have been in the\nhighest degree natural. There is but one period of stress and anxiety\nthat can come into consideration here, and that is the time of the\nMaccab\u00e6an struggle; so we conclude that these additions must have\nbeen made during the latter half of the second century B.C.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nThe Prayer of Manasses\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014Ball, in Wace, ii. pp. 361-371; Nestle,\n  _Septuagintastudien_, iii. pp. 6 ff. (1899); Ryssel, in Kautzsch,\n  i. pp. 161-171; Ryle, in Charles, I, pp. 612-624.]\n\n\nI. THE CONTENTS OF THE PRAYER\n\nThe Prayer is a beautiful one, finely constructed, full without being\ndrawn out, and breathing throughout deep personal religion. It is\ncertainly one of the best pieces in the Apocrypha.\n\nAfter the invocation to God Almighty, \u201cthe God of our fathers, of\nAbraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and of their righteous seed,\u201d comes an\nacknowledgement of His power and glory; all things tremble before His\nmight, and His wrath against sinners is unendurable; yet His mercy\nis without limit to the repentant: \u201cThou art the Lord Most High, of\ngreat compassion, long-suffering and abundant in mercy, and repentest\nThee for evils of men,\u201d i.e. God in His pity relents because of the\nsufferings of men, even though brought on them by their own sins.\nGod is then called upon to fulfil His promise of forgiveness to His\nrepentant servant. The supplicator confesses his manifold sins,\nand protests his sense of unworthiness: \u201cI am not worthy to behold\nand see the height of heaven by reason of the multitude of mine\niniquities.\u201d Then after further confession of sin, and pleading with\nGod to put away His anger and to show His mercy in forgiveness, the\nPrayer concludes with the words: \u201cAnd I will praise Thee for ever all\nthe days of my life; for all the host of heaven doth sing Thy praise,\nand Thine is the glory for ever and ever. Amen.\u201d\n\n\nII. THE ORIGIN OF THE PRAYER\n\nIn 2 Chronicles xxxiii. 12, 13 it is said that when Manasseh \u201cwas in\ndistress he besought the Lord his God, and humbled himself greatly\nbefore the God of his fathers. And he prayed unto Him; and He was\nentreated of him, and heard his supplication, and brought him again\nunto Jerusalem unto his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the Lord He\nwas God.\u201d Again, in verses 18, 19 of the same chapter the chronicler\nsays: \u201cNow the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and his prayer unto his\nGod, and the words of the seers that spake to him in the name of the\nLord, the God of Israel, behold, they are written among the acts\nof the kings of Israel. His prayer also, and how God was entreated\nof him ... behold, they are written in the history of Hozai.\u201d[428]\nThe \u201cPrayer of Manasses,\u201d it is usually held, purports to be the\nprayer to which the chronicler refers; Ball, for example, says: \u201cIt\nis evident from the references in 2 Chronicles xxxiii. 18, 19 that\na prayer of Manasseh, written in Hebrew, lay before that writer\n[i.e. the chronicler]; and we may perhaps venture to add that there\nis nothing in the form or substance of the Prayer before us which\ncan fairly be alleged against the possibility of its having been\nultimately derived from that lost Hebrew original.... We incline to\nthink that the Greek is a free translation from some lost Haggadic\nnarrative, which was itself perhaps founded upon the older document\nfrom which the chronicler derived his peculiar details of the\nhistory of Manasseh.\u201d[429] This is an attractive theory, but there\nare some objections to it which will appear as we proceed. Ryle\noffers an entirely different hypothesis as to its origin: \u201cIt is easy\nto understand that the chronicler\u2019s story of Manasseh\u2019s repentance\nand prayer, and deliverance from captivity must have produced upon\nthe minds of devout Jews a profound impression. The record of his\nidolatry and of his persecution of the servants of Jehovah had\nstamped his name with infamy in the annals of Judah. But side by\nside with his wickedness were commemorated the unusual length of the\nking\u2019s reign and the quiet peacefulness of his end. The chronicler\u2019s\nstory of the repentance and conversion of Manasseh provided an\nexplanation of a seemingly unintelligible anomaly. Henceforth his\nname was associated by Jewish tradition not only with the grossest\nacts of idolatry ever perpetrated by a king of Judah, but also\nwith the most famous instance of Divine forgiveness towards a\nrepentant sinner. What more remarkable example could be found of the\nlong-suffering compassion of the Almighty, and of His readiness to\nhear and to answer the supplication of a contrite penitent? Nothing\nwould be more natural than for a devout Jew to endeavour to frame in\nfitting terms the kind of penitential prayer, which, according to\nthe tradition, Manasseh had poured forth when he was in captivity in\nBabylon. The sentiments embodied in such a form of petition might\nconceivably be appropriate to those of his countrymen who had fallen\ninto idolatry, and who might yet be reclaimed from the error of their\nway.\u201d[430]\n\nHere again, one feels the strength of the argument; but we cannot\nhelp believing that there are reasons which militate against the\nacceptation of this hypothesis _as a whole_.\n\nIn the first place, the \u201cPrayer of Manasses\u201d does not belong to the\nSeptuagint proper; it occurs in Cod. A, and in the much later Cod. T\nwhich follows the former and is not independent evidence[431]; but\nin these it is given at the end of the Psalms in a collection of\nliturgical canticles.[432] As Ryle says: \u201cThe preservation of this\nshort disconnected Psalm may thus, with good reason, be ascribed\nto the accident of its occurrence in the _Didascalia_[433] and the\n_Apostolical Constitutions_.[434] There is no evidence to show that\nit was ever included in the Septuagint.\u201d[435] If it had been ascribed\nto Manasseh when first composed we might rightly, on the analogy of\nthe Additions to Esther and to Daniel, expect that it would have\nbeen incorporated in the text of Chronicles; that this is not the\ncase suggests, if nothing more, that the name of Manasseh was not\noriginally connected with the Prayer. With the exception of two short\nsentences there is absolutely nothing in the Prayer which is not\nappropriate in the mouth of any repentant sinner. These two sentences\nboth occur in verse 10; the first runs: \u201cI am bowed down with many\niron bands\u201d; and the second is: \u201cI have set up abominations, and\nhave multiplied detestable things.\u201d These sentences might well refer\nto Manasseh\u2019s imprisonment and to his idolatrous practices. But\nregarding the former, it is very questionable whether the words are\nto be taken literally, as though referring to 2 Chronicles xxxiii.\n11, where mention is made of the chains wherewith Manasseh was bound;\nfor the context, in the Prayer, which speaks of transgressions and\n\u201cthe multitude of mine iniquities,\u201d strongly suggests that the \u201cmany\niron bands\u201d is to be understood metaphorically of the chains of\nsin. That the words were so understood in early times is proved by\nthe rendering of the Ethiopic Version, quoted by Ball, which reads\nhere: \u201cI have laboured in fetters of iron,\u201d and continues, \u201cthat\nI might get rest from sin for my soul; but by this also I have\nnot gotten rest.\u201d The first of the sentences under consideration,\ntherefore, would be appropriate in the mouth of any contrite sinner,\nand therefore does not by any means necessarily refer to Manasseh.\nWith regard to the second sentence, \u201cI have set up abominations, and\nhave multiplied detestable things,\u201d the reference may well be to 2\nChronicles xxxiii. 6, where Manasseh\u2019s evil doings are enumerated.\nBut it is not without significance that we have in this passage\nthe one serious variation in the Greek text of the Prayer; for the\nuncial T reads here in place of, \u201cI have set up abominations, and\nhave multiplied detestable things,\u201d these words: \u201cI have not done Thy\nwill, nor kept Thy commandments.\u201d[436] The variety of reading just at\nthis particular spot suggests the possibility of the text here having\nbeen uncertain, and of having perhaps been altered for a particular\npurpose.[437]\n\nWe are inclined to believe that this Prayer was not originally\ncomposed in reference to Manasseh, and that the title, together\nwith the words, \u201cI have set up abominations, and have multiplied\ndetestable things,\u201d was added later, and thus made to refer to\nManasseh, this having been done under the influence of the numerous\nlegends concerning this king which seem to have been current.[438]\n\n\nIII. THE DATE OF THE PRAYER\n\nThe only indications of date are those to be derived from the\nteaching contained in the book, and here everything points to\npost-Maccab\u00e6an times. Thus, in verse 8 it is said: \u201cThou, therefore,\nO Lord, that art the God of the righteous, hast not appointed\nrepentance unto the righteous, unto Abraham, and Isaac, and\nJacob, which have not sinned against Thee\u201d; this doctrine of the\nsinlessness of the patriarchs does not, as far as we know, belong\nto pre-Maccab\u00e6an times. In verse 4 are these words: \u201cWho hast shut\nup the Deep, and sealed it with Thy terrible and glorious Name,\nWhom all things do dread\u201d; the supernatural efficacy which is here\nimputed to the Name of God is likewise a late conception. Further,\nthe whole burden of the Prayer, namely, the need of repentance, is\na specifically Pharisaic _trait_, pointing to post-Maccab\u00e6an times.\nAnd lastly, the conception of the underworld is a development of\nthe older belief, verse 13 runs: \u201cNor pass Thou sentence against\nme when I am in the lowest parts of the earth; for Thou, O Lord,\nart the God of them that repent.\u201d Although there is no hint of the\nresurrection here, the very fact that God is conceived of as in any\nway concerned with the souls of the departed is in itself an advance\nupon the normal teaching of the Old Testament, and points to a\ncomparatively late date. It is, of course, impossible to assign an\nexact date to the composition; Ryssel believes that, like a number\nof other apocryphal works, it was composed during the Maccab\u00e6an\nstruggle, with the purpose of urging upon the Jews the efficacy of\ntrue repentance as a means of delivering them out of their troubles.\nThis is possible; but the teaching points, as we have said, to a\npost-Maccab\u00e6an time. On the other hand, there is no reason for\nregarding it as post-Christian; the fact that it is never quoted or\nreferred to until it appears _verbatim_ in the _Didascalia_[439]\n(first half of the third century A.D.) does not necessarily imply\na very late date; its shortness and the character of its contents\nsufficiently account for its not being mentioned earlier. Some time\nbetween B.C. 100-50 seems as likely a date as any.\n\n\nIV. THE WRITER AND THE LANGUAGE IN WHICH HE WROTE\n\nThere can be no sort of doubt that the writer of this Prayer was a\nPharisee, and, moreover, one of the best type; the spirit of true\nreligion breathes through it, and it can only have been written by\none who was truly religious. The Judaism which the Prayer reflects\nis of the Palestinian type, and being a prayer one would expect it\nto have been originally written in Hebrew, the \u201choly tongue.\u201d The\nGreek form in which we now possess this composition does not, it is\ntrue, read like a translation excepting here and there (e.g. verse 7,\nwhere Charles thinks a \u201creal piece of evidence on behalf of a Semitic\noriginal\u201d is to be found), but, as Ball points out, \u201cthe writer may\nhave taken pains to soften down the harshness of a baldly literal\ntranslation.\u201d Where linguistic indications do not give definite\nclues, we must be guided by other considerations; the writer being a\nJew of the orthodox Palestinian type it is hard to believe that he\nwould have composed a prayer in any language than that in which he\nhad always been accustomed to pray; and set forms of prayer, like the\none before us, would have been written in Hebrew, not in Aramaic.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nThe First Book of Maccabees\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014Grimm, _Das erste Buch der Maccab\u00e4er erkl\u00e4rt_ in\n  \u201cKurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des\n  A.T.\u201d (1853); Keil, _Commentar \u00fcber die B\u00fccher der Maccab\u00e4er_\n  (1875); Bissell, _The First Book of Maccabees_, in Lange-Schaff\u2019s\n  \u201cCommentary ...\u201d (1880); Sch\u00fcrer, _Op. cit._, II, iii. pp.\n  6-13; Fairweather and Black, _The First Book of Maccabees_, in\n  the Cambridge Bible (1897); Kautzsch, in _Op. cit._ (1900);\n  Knabenbauer, in _Cursus Scriptur\u00e6 Sacr\u00e6_ (1907); Oesterley, in\n  Charles, _Op. cit._ (1913).]\n\n\nI. TITLE AND AUTHORSHIP OF THE BOOK\n\nWhat the title of this book in its original Hebrew form (see below)\nwas is not known for certain. Origen gives a transliteration of the\ntitle (Eusebius, _Hist. Eccles._, vi. 25, 2) which is equivalent to\n\u201cThe book of the house of the Hasmon\u00e6ans\u201d; but he transliterates\nhere an Aramaic title which probably stood at the head of an Aramaic\ntranslation of the Hebrew; possibly this title represented the Hebrew\nform. On the other hand, the writer of the book has clearly taken\nas his pattern the Books of the Kings, so that the supposition is\nreasonable that he framed his title in accordance with the form of\nthe title of these; in this case the title given in the Septuagint\n(which is followed in the English Apocrypha) would probably represent\nthe original. The name \u201cMaccabee\u201d was applied in the first instance\nto Judas (see 1 Macc. ii. 4, 6, etc.), but later to all the members\nof the family and their followers.\n\nAs to the author, or more strictly compiler, of the book, it is clear\nthat he was an ardent patriot, and a rigid adherent of orthodox\nJudaism; his intimate knowledge of the geography and topography of\nthe Holy Land marks him out as a native of Palestine. His religious\nstandpoint is of particular interest, for he writes at a time (see\n\u00a7 II below) when the distinct development of the Sadducees and\nPharisees as opposing parties had already taken place; yet, while\nhe is an upholder of Jewish orthodoxy and imbued with an intensely\npatriotic spirit, he seems, nevertheless, to have belonged to the\ncircle of the Sadducees; \u201calthough a loyal upholder of the Law, his\nzeal is not characterized by any approach to Pharisaic fanaticism;\nhis sympathy for the Jewish high-priesthood is frequently manifested;\nhis tolerant attitude towards the profaning of the Sabbath (see ii.\n41, ix. 43 ff.) is very different from that which would have been\nadopted by a Pharisee; there is not the slightest hint of a belief\nin the life after death, (see ii. 52 ff., where a reference to this\nwould have been eminently appropriate had it been believed in).\nThese reasons go far in justifying the opinion that the author was\na Sadducee.\u201d[440] Further, it is noticeable that the writer has a\nstrong belief in what may be expressed by the modern proverb, that\n\u201cGod helps those who help themselves\u201d; but his insistence on man\u2019s\nfree-will being the decisive factor in human affairs is balanced\nby his firm belief in the existence of an all-seeing Providence\n(see, e.g., iii. 18 ff., iv. 10 ff., ix. 46, xii. 15); yet it is\nstrange that God is not once mentioned by name in the whole book.\nThis attitude was doubtless, in part, owing to the influence of\ncertain religious tendencies, centering around the doctrine of God,\nwhich were beginning to manifest themselves. \u201cJust as there was a\ndisinclination, on account of its transcendent holiness, to utter the\nname of God, and instead, to substitute paraphrases for it, so there\narose also a disinclination to ascribe action among men directly\nto God, because of His inexpressible majesty.\u201d[441] It would seem,\ntherefore, that the author represented a type of Jew who was ready to\nassimilate much of what appealed to him in Pharisaism while holding\nto the traditional orthodoxy of the Sadducees.\n\n\nII. THE DATE OF THE BOOK\n\nThe First Book of Maccabees must have been written between the dates\n135 B.C. and 63 B.C. The events recorded in the book took place\nbetween the years 175 B.C. and 135 B.C., so that this latter date\nis the earliest possible at which it can have been written. On the\nother hand, Pompey took Jerusalem in the autumn of 63 B.C., and by\nentering into the Holy of Holies desecrated the Temple[442]; had\nthis happened before our book was written it is inconceivable that\nno mention should have been made of it; but as no reference is made\nto it there can be no doubt that it took place after the book was\nwritten. We can, however, get nearer than this; it is said in xiii.\n30, in reference to the sepulchre which Simon the Maccabee built for\nhis parents and his four brothers at Modin: \u201cThis is the sepulchre\nwhich he made at Modin, and it is there unto this day.\u201d It is said in\nxiii. 25 that this sepulchre was built on the death of Jonathan, i.e.\nin 143 B.C., and the words \u201cunto this day\u201d imply that it had been in\nexistence for some considerable time when the author wrote his book.\nThere are no means of ascertaining how long a time elapsed between\nthe building of the sepulchre and the writing of the book, but if we\nassume that it was about half a century, this would give as the date\nof the book some time between 100 B.C. and 90 B.C.; and this is a\ndate to which a further fact points; for in xvi. 23, 24 it is said:\n\u201cAnd the rest of the acts of John, and of his wars, and his valiant\ndeeds which he did, and of the building of the walls which he built,\nand of his doings, behold they are written in the chronicles of his\nhigh-priesthood, from the time that he was made high-priest after his\nfather.\u201d[443] Presumably the chronicles here referred to took up the\nnarrative at the point at which the writer of our book ceased, for\nthe Old Testament formula (and it will have been noticed that the\nphraseology of this passage is based on that of the Old Testament):\n\u201cAnd the rest of the acts\u201d etc., is always employed in reference to a\nruler whose reign has already come to an end; so that the writer of\nour book was writing subsequently to the time at which the chronicles\nof John\u2019s high-priesthood had been compiled. The high-priest John,\ni.e. John Hyrcanus, died in 105 B.C., and therefore the writer of our\nbook must have begun his work some time after this date, though it\nis not likely to have been long after this. Our conclusion is that\nthe book in its finished form appeared between 100 B.C. and 90 B.C.\nBut it is probable that the gathering of his materials was begun by\nthe author some considerable time before this; for there are some\ngraphic passages in the book which give the impression that he was an\neye-witness of what he describes (see, e.g., xiv. 4-15, in which the\ndetails of Simon\u2019s reign are described). It seems not improbable that\nthe writer began to gather materials for his history as early as the\nreign of Simon. The careful way in which his book is written, and the\nnumerous official documents from which he made extracts, shows that\nthe author must have taken a long time over his work.\n\n\nIII. THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE AND LITERARY CHARACTER OF THE BOOK\n\nThat this book was originally written in Hebrew scarcely admits\nof doubt; we have already pointed out that the writer framed his\nwork on the pattern of the Books of the Kings, a fact which in\nitself suggests that he wrote in Hebrew. But apart from this there\nare numberless indications in our present Greek text which stamp\nit indubitably as a translation from Hebrew; to give examples of\nthis would involve technical details which would be out of place\nhere[444]; it must suffice to say that the Greek again and again has\nsentences which are literal translations of Hebrew idiomatic phrases.\nBut in spite of this the writer has a distinct individuality of\nstyle; the narrative is written in a simple, straightforward manner;\nit is full of interest, the frequent graphic accounts of events\nimpelling attention throughout. The author writes as a historian,\nwhose duty it is to record the facts without bias; he is impartial,\nand frankly recognizes and registers the defeat of his own side when\nnecessary. That he sometimes bursts out into poetical strains, and\nnot infrequently exaggerates, especially where numbers are concerned,\ndoes not affect the substantial truth and trustworthiness of his\nnarrative.\n\n\nIV. THE SOURCES OF THE BOOK[445]\n\nThe possibility of the author of our book having himself been an\neye-witness of some of the events he records has already been\nhinted at; but whether this was so or not, there can be little\ndoubt that he utilized the accounts of some, be they one or more,\nwho had themselves seen what they recounted. What impels one to\nthis conviction are the wonderfully graphic descriptions of some of\nthe episodes recorded; examples of this can be seen in iv. 1-24,\nvi. 28-54, vii. 26-50, ix. 1-22, 32-53, x. 59-66. The accounts of\neye-witnesses may, therefore, be reckoned as one of the sources\nof the book. That he also had written sources to draw from may be\nassumed from such passages as ix. 22: \u201cAnd the rest of the acts of\nJudas, and his wars, and the valiant deeds which he did, and his\ngreatness, they are not written,\u201d the implication being that some\nother things relating to him were written (cp. xi. 37, xiv. 18,\n27, 48, 49); and xvi. 23, 24, already quoted: \u201cAnd the rest of the\nacts of John ... behold, they are written in the chronicles of his\nhigh-priesthood....\u201d\n\nIn addition to these sources, there are a certain number of documents\nwhich have been incorporated into the book. These are for the most\npart important, and will require a little detailed consideration.\nThere are, in the first place, some letters of _Jewish origin_, as\nfollows:\n\n(_a_) A letter from the Jews in Gilead asking Judas to send them help\nbecause they were being attacked by the Gentiles (v. 10-13). Although\nthis purports to contain the very words which were written, it is\nmore probably merely a summary of what the author of the book had\nderived from some well-informed source. That it represents, however,\nthe contents of some written document, and was not simply a verbal\nmessage, is evident; for it stands in contrast to what is stated to\nhave been a verbal message in v. 15.\n\n(_b_) A letter from Jonathan to the Spartans (xii. 6-18). The\nsomewhat artificial way in which this letter has been pressed into\nthe text is sufficient to arouse suspicion. In xii. 1 we are told of\nan embassy being sent to _Rome_; the narrative is broken by verse 2,\nwhich refers to a letter that had been sent to the _Spartans_ and \u201cto\nother places\u201d; in verse 3, which comes naturally after verse 1, the\nthread of the narrative is taken up again. Then in verse 5, where one\nmight reasonably have expected further details concerning the embassy\nto Rome, it goes on to say: \u201cAnd this is the copy of the letter which\nJonathan wrote to the _Spartans_.\u201d The copy of this letter then\nfollows; but the main subject with which the chapter began (viz., the\nembassy to Rome), obviously a more important one, is left without\nfurther mention. The simplicity and straightforward flow of the\nnarrative, so characteristic of the book, is lacking here, and the\nimpression of something being out of order is forced upon one. Then\nas to the letter itself, it is not quite easy to understand what the\npurpose of it was. In verse 10 the object is said to be the renewing\nof brotherhood and friendship with the Spartans; but in the same\nbreath, as it were, it is said that the Jews needed none of these\nthings, \u201chaving for our encouragement the holy books which are in our\nhands.\u201d Then again, in verse 13, after reference has been made to\nthe afflictions which the Jews had endured, the letter continues (in\nverses 14, 15): \u201cWe were not mindful, therefore, to be troublesome\nunto you, and to the rest of our confederates and friends, in these\nwars; for we have the help which is from heaven to help us, and we\nhave been delivered from our enemies, and our enemies have been\nbrought low.\u201d The letter concludes with the words (verses 17, 18);\n\u201cWe commanded them (i.e. the ambassadors), therefore, to go also unto\nyou, and to salute you, and to deliver you our letters concerning\nthe renewing (of friendship) and our brotherhood. And now ye shall\ndo well if ye give us an answer thereto.\u201d Thus, in one and the same\nletter, while, on the one hand, friendship and brotherhood are asked\nfor, on the other, it is said that these are not required; and yet,\nin the concluding words of the letter some anxiety is evinced that\na reply should be forthcoming. That a relationship of some kind had\nexisted between the Jews and the Spartans is possible enough. But\nthe ambiguous character of this letter inclines one to doubt its\ngenuineness. Probably it was inserted by a later editor who desired\nto emphasize the fact that a relationship had existed between his\npeople and the Spartans, while not wishing to make it appear that\nhis people had any need to depend upon foreign help in their struggle\nagainst their enemies.\n\nIn connection with this letter the following one must be considered.\n\n(_c_) A letter from Areios, king of the Spartans, to Onias the\nhigh-priest (xii. 20-23). This owes its presence here to the fact\nthat in the letter just dealt with Jonathan cites the existence of\nformer friendship between the Jews and the Spartans as a reason\nfor renewing the same (xii. 7-9); it is added as an appendix to\nJonathan\u2019s letter. The original of this document must have been\nwritten at least a century and a half earlier; the fact of its being\nquoted here shows with what care such documents were preserved.\n\n(_d_) In xiv. 27-47 we have a source of an entirely different\ncharacter. This passage contains a panegyric on Simon, together\nwith a _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ of his prosperous reign. It is stated to have been\nengraved on tables of brass, and to have been set up in a conspicuous\nplace within the precincts of the sanctuary; copies of it are also\nsaid to have been deposited in the treasury (verses 27, 48, 49).\nOn comparing the details of Simon\u2019s reign given in this section\nwith those in chapters xi.-xiii., however, it will be found that\nthere are several chronological discrepancies. The course of the\nhistory, as given in the book itself, is acknowledged on all hands\nto be, on the whole, of a thoroughly trustworthy character; but if\nthe passage in question be really the copy of an original document,\nwhich seems very probable, the accuracy of chapters xi.-xiii. is,\nto some extent, impugned. It is difficult to suppose that one and\nthe same author would write the historical account of Simon\u2019s reign\nin these chapters, and then in the very next chapter go on to give\na _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ of what had preceded differing from it in a number of\nparticulars. The suggested explanation of the difficulty is as\nfollows: The original writer of the book gave in chapters xi.-xiii. a\nsubstantially correct account of the period of history in question,\nbut was inaccurate in the sequence of events; a later editor added\na copy of the document under consideration, to which the original\nauthor of the book, for some reason or other, did not have access.\nThe later editor was not concerned with the discrepancies between the\nwritten history and the copy of the document which he added, because\nhe saw that, in the main, they were in agreement. Thus the two\naccounts of Simon\u2019s reign, differing to some extent, were left side\nby side.\n\nA second class of documentary sources comprises letters from _Syrian\nkings_ to the Jewish leaders.\n\n(_a_) The first is a letter from Alexander Balas (he was not yet\nking at the time) to Jonathan (x. 18-20). This is not a copy of the\nletter itself, but merely its purport, which the author of our book\nhas woven into the narrative. It is far too short and abrupt to be\nthe actual letter of one who was seeking the help and alliance of the\nJewish leader, and for whose friendship this aspirant to the Syrian\nthrone was bidding. The author of the book, moreover, adds some words\nof his own in the middle of the letter (verse 20), a thing which he\nwould scarcely have done had he been quoting the actual words of the\nletter itself. On the other hand, there is not the slightest reason\nto doubt that use has here been made of a genuine document.\n\n(_b_) A letter from Demetrius I to the Jewish nation (x. 25-45).\nThis was written for the purpose of out-bidding Alexander Balas\nin promises of favour and privileges. It is probably based on\nsome original document; but the accuracy of the details is open\nto question. The promises and concessions are over-stated, and\ncorrespond so exactly, in many respects, with the highest aspirations\nof the Jews at this time that they suggest rather the expression of\nJewish ideals than actual promises.\n\n(_c_) A letter from Demetrius II to Jonathan, enclosing one to\nLasthenes (xi. 30-37). What has just been said applies here too. It\nrepresents an original letter, the contents of which were utilized by\nour author, and elaborated by him in accordance with his ideals.\n\n(_d_) A letter from Antiochus VI to Jonathan (xi. 57). This is\nclearly a succinct summing-up of the contents of the original letter;\nits extreme shortness and the absence of salutation show that,\nalthough written in the first person, it does not profess to give\nmore than the general sense of the original.\n\n(_e_) A letter from Demetrius II to Simon (xiii. 36-40). This letter,\nin which the Syrian king acknowledges receipt of certain presents\nfrom the Jewish high-priest, and confirms earlier privileges, is\nstamped with the mark of genuineness; it reads like an original, and\nis doubtless a copy of one.\n\n(_f_) A letter from Antiochus VII to Simon (xv. 2-9). To some extent\nwhat has been said in regard to (_b_) and (_c_) applies also to this\nletter. It is probably not a _verbatim_ copy of the original, but\nrepresents, at all events in parts, the contents of the original. On\nthe other hand, there are elements in it which are the expression of\nardent desires rather than of actual facts.\n\nLastly, there is a third class of documentary sources which record\nthe relations between the Jews and the _rulers of foreign kingdoms_.\n\n(_a_) A treaty of alliance between the Romans and the Jews (viii.\n23-32). In verses 24 ff. it is stated, as one of the articles of the\ntreaty, that if the Romans are attacked by an enemy the Jews may\nnot render that enemy any help, whether of \u201cfood, arms, money, or\nships\u201d (verse 26). This mention of ships is held by some to show that\nthis document belonged to a date later than the time of Judas, in\nwhose time the Jews possessed no ships, and that therefore the whole\nsection is a later interpolation. But it is quite possible that the\nforesight of the Romans sufficiently explains this mention of ships;\nor they might have assumed the possession of ships by a nation whose\ncountry had a long coast-line. It was not long after the death of\nJudas that the Jews did acquire a harbour (see xiii. 29, xiv. 5).\nThere seems no sufficient reason to doubt that a genuine document has\nhere been utilized.\n\n(_b_) A letter from the Spartans to Simon (xiv. 20-22). We are\nconfronted here with a difficulty similar to that which occurs in\nthe letter from Jonathan to the Spartans in xii. 6-18 (see above).\nThe section opens (verse 16) with the words: \u201cAnd it was heard at\nRome that Jonathan was dead, and even unto Sparta, and they were\nexceedingly sorry.\u201d It then goes on to say that the Romans wrote to\nSimon, who had succeeded his brother Jonathan, on tables of brass\nto renew \u201cthe friendship and the confederacy\u201d (verse 18); but then,\ninstead of giving a copy of this document, as might reasonably be\nexpected, it goes on to say: \u201cAnd this is a copy of the letter which\nthe Spartans sent.\u201d In this letter it is stated that the two Jewish\nambassadors who were the bearers of it were Numenius, the son of\nAntiochus, and Antipater, the son of Jason. But then the narrative\n(verse 24) goes on: \u201cAfter this Simon sent Numenius to Rome with a\ngreat shield of gold of a thousand pound weight, in order to confirm\nthe confederacy with them.\u201d On the previous occasion on which mention\nis made of a confederacy between the Jews and the Romans, on the\none hand, and the Spartans on the other, the same two ambassadors\nwere sent, first to the Romans and then to the Spartans, on the\nsame journey (see xii. 16, 17); on the present occasion it is to be\npresumed, for the text implies it, that this was again done; but if\nso, how is one to account for the fact that in the letter to the\nSpartans these ambassadors are said to be the bearers of it, while,\nimmediately after (verse 24), it is said that Numenius started on\nhis journey? There is also a further difficulty; is it likely, as\nstated in the text, that on the death of Jonathan the Romans would\nhave taken the initiative in renewing the treaty with the Jews? This\nseems to be directly contradicted by what is said in verse 24 (quoted\nabove). It would appear that verses 17-23 are an interpolation added\nlater; this would also explain the otherwise unaccountable words,\n\u201cand even unto Sparta,\u201d in verse 16, which were presumably put in\nbecause of the interpolation. The contents of this letter read like\nan official document, the probability is that use was made of some\ngenuine record which was interpolated at a later period.\n\n(_c_) A letter from Lucius, the Roman consul, to Ptolemy Euergetes\nII, king of Egypt (xv. 16-21). This is the copy of a circular letter\nwritten in the name of \u201cLucius the consul,\u201d and brought back from\nRome by Numenius. In it the friendship between the Romans and the\nJews is proclaimed; copies of it are sent not only to the kings of\nEgypt and Syria, but also to a number of small independent States.\nNow Josephus (_Antiq._, XIV, viii. 5) mentions a letter from the\nRoman Senate, written in the name of the praetor Lucius Valerius\nin reply to a message brought by a Jewish embassy. As in the case\njust referred to, Numenius, the son of Antiochus, is one of the\nambassadors (two others accompany him), and he brings a gift of a\ngolden shield; the contents of this letter are similar to those of\nthe letter in our book, and it is likewise sent to a number of petty\nindependent States. But, according to Josephus, this happened in the\nninth year of Hyrcanus II, who reigned B.C. 63-40. Now if, as is\nmaintained by some, especially by Willrich,[446] Josephus is right\nhere, the passage we are dealing with must be an interpolation.\nMommsen[447] has, indeed, proved that Josephus is recording genuine\nhistory in saying that the praetor Lucius Valerius sent a letter to\nthe Jews, with the contents as given, during the reign of Hyrcanus\nII. This does not, however, constitute an insuperable difficulty,\nfor one of the consuls in B.C. 139 was named Lucius Calpurnius\nPiso, and the \u201cConsul Lucius,\u201d spoken of in the text (xv. 16) could\nquite well refer to him. What is more difficult is the fact of the\ngreat similarity in the contents between the letter given in our\nbook and of that given by Josephus; Mommsen maintains that they are\nnot identical, which would mitigate the difficulty; but the mention\nof Numenius, the son of Antiochus, in both letters is a grave\ndifficulty. Probably Willrich is right in regarding the passage as a\nlater interpolation, added because it seemed to be appropriate in a\nplace where Simon\u2019s treaty with Rome was mentioned.[448]\n\nThese, then, are the sources from which our book was compiled;\nthey show that the writer of 1 Maccabees had access to a number of\nofficial documents in addition to the accounts of events which he\nreceived from eye-witnesses. The documentary sources shed a most\nvaluable light on the external policy of the Jews as well as on the\nimportant _r\u00f4le_ they played in shaping Syrian politics; so that for\nthe history of the Jews of this period our book may well be described\nas the most valuable source which we possess.\n\n\nV. THE HISTORY OF THE MACCAB\u00c6AN STRUGGLE\n\nThe momentous struggle for religious liberty and political\nindependence which is described in our book deals with the period\n175-135 B.C., i.e. from the accession of Antiochus Epiphanes to the\ndeath of Simon Maccab\u00e6us. The divisions of the book are clearly\nmarked, recording respectively the progress of the war under the\nleadership of Mattathias, Judas, Jonathan, and Simon; and each\ndivision has as its central subject the description of an event of\nsupreme importance to the Jews, thus: the first division records\nthe opening of the struggle and its cause; the second tells of how\nreligious liberty was acquired; the third describes the establishment\nof the Hasmon\u00e6an high-priesthood; and the last shows how the way\nto political independence was secured.[449] The contents of these,\ntogether with the short Introduction by which they are prefaced, must\nnow occupy our attention.\n\n\n(_a_) _The Conquests of Alexander the Great, and the Division of his\nEmpire_ (i. 1-9)\n\nIn pregnant words Alexander\u2019s conquests are thus summed up: \u201cAnd he\nwaged many wars, and won strongholds, and slew kings, and pressed\nforward to the ends of the earth, and took spoils from many peoples.\u201d\nIn describing what happened on Alexander\u2019s death-bed the writer says\nthat the kingdom was divided among the dying king\u2019s chief ministers\n\u201cwhile he was yet alive,\u201d and that after he was dead \u201cthey all\nassumed the diadem.\u201d This does not agree with the statement made by\nJustin Martyr, Diodorus Siculus, and Curtius, to the effect that when\nthe dying king was no longer able to speak he handed his signet-ring\nto the captain of his bodyguard, Perdiccas, whom he thus indicated\nas his successor. That all the chief ministers assumed the diadem\nafter the king was dead is an inaccurate statement, as only five of\nAlexander\u2019s generals assumed the title of king, and that not until\nB.C. 306, seventeen years after his death. Here, as in a number\nof other cases, the writer of our book shows that his knowledge\nconcerning the affairs of foreign nations is imperfect; but the value\nof the book as a whole, and the credibility of the narrative in\ngeneral, is not affected by these inaccuracies; \u201cwe see in this only\nthe simple standpoint of the observer who, following his sources,\nconfines his view exclusively to the circle of Jewish affairs\u201d\n(Sch\u00fcrer).\n\n\n(_b_) _The Original Cause of the Struggle; the Leadership of\nMattathias_ (i. 10-ii. 70)\n\nAs we are clearly shown in this division the original cause of the\nMaccab\u00e6an struggle was of a twofold character; internal and external\nforces brought it about. A not inconsiderable section of the Jewish\npeople had been captivated by the attractions of Hellenism, and were\nready to give up their own faith and practice in exchange for that\nof the Gentiles; \u201cthey joined themselves to the Gentiles, and sold\nthemselves to do evil\u201d (i. 15). When Antiochus Epiphanes had overcome\nPtolemy, king of Egypt, he proceeded to deal with the Jews; \u201che\nwent up against Israel and Jerusalem with a great army; and in his\narrogance he entered into the sanctuary\u201d (i. 20, 21); having taken\neverything in the Temple on which he could lay hands, he returned\nhome. For two years the people were left in peace; then another blow\nwas inflicted on them. Apollonius, a \u201cchief collector of tribute,\u201d\nwas sent by Antiochus to Jerusalem with an army; he pretended that\nhis mission was a peaceful one, and with smooth words imposed upon\nthe people; then suddenly he fell upon the city, and a general sack\nseems to have taken place. The citadel was occupied by the foreign\ntroops, and the people were reduced to sore straits. All this,\nhowever, did not rouse the people to resistance. Then came the edict\nof uniformity of worship, put forth by Antiochus; to realize how this\nwas intended to affect the Jews it will be well to quote some words\nfrom it; the Jews were commanded that \u201cthey should practise customs\nforeign to the traditions of the land, and that they should cease\nthe sacrificing of the whole burnt-offerings, and sacrifices, and\ndrink-offerings in the sanctuary; and that they should profane the\nsabbaths and feasts, and pollute the sanctuary and those who had been\nsanctified; that they should, moreover, build high places, and sacred\ngroves, and shrines for idols, and that they should sacrifice swine\nand other unclean animals; and that they should leave their sons\nuncircumcized, and make themselves abominable by means of practising\neverything that was unclean and profane, so that they might forget\nthe Law, and change all the traditional ordinances\u201d (i. 44-49). It\nwas this which was the immediate cause of the Maccab\u00e6an revolt. But\nit may be questioned whether Antiochus would have attempted such\na cruel coercion had it not been for the presence of that strong\nHellenistic party among the Jews to which reference has already been\nmade. No sooner was the edict promulgated than this Hellenistic\nparty began to carry out its commands; \u201cmany in Israel took delight\nin the king\u2019s form of worship, and they began sacrificing to idols,\nand profaned the sabbath\u201d (i. 43). The king\u2019s officers went from\ncity to city to enforce the edict; a rigorous search was also made\nfor all copies of the Law, which were burned; horrible cruelties\nwere perpetrated on all who remained faithful to the ancestral\nreligion. Intense indignation took hold of the faithful in Israel;\nnumbers resisted, and suffered death rather than deny their God; but\nresistance of individuals was of no avail; what was required was a\nleader around whom the people could gather, and who would direct\ncorporate action. Such a leader soon appeared.\n\nIn going from city to city to enforce the decrees of the king\u2019s\nedict, the royal officers came to Modin, the present El-Medije, east\nof Lydda; this was the native city of the family of the Maccabees,\nof whom Mattathias was the head. The officers called on him to set\nan example of obedience to the royal commands, but he indignantly\nrefused; thereupon an apostate Jew stepped forth with the object of\nsacrificing according to heathen rites on the altar at Modin; this\naroused the righteous wrath of Mattathias to the highest pitch, he\nrushed upon his faithless fellow-townsman and killed him as he stood\nby the altar; then, turning upon one of the king\u2019s officers, he slew\nhim too. \u201cLet every one that is zealous for the Law,\u201d he then cried\nout to his people, \u201cand that would maintain the covenant, come after\nme!\u201d The standard of revolt was now definitely raised; large numbers\nof the Jews followed Mattathias into the mountains, among them many\nof the _Chassidim_. It was not sufficient for these patriots merely\nto act on the defensive, but, as the writer of our book says, they\n\u201csmote sinners in their anger, and lawless men in their wrath....\nMattathias and his friends went round about, and pulled down altars,\nand they circumcized by force the children that were uncircumcized\n... and they pursued after the sons of pride, and the work prospered\nin their hand\u201d (ii. 44-47).\n\nIn the following year (B.C. 167-166) Mattathias died; but his bold\nstep had done its work in consolidating a vigorous and determined\nbody of patriots. He directed that his third son, Judas, should take\nhis place as leader in war, while Simon, the elder brother of Judas,\nshould act as chief counsellor.\n\n\n(_c_) _The Leadership of Judas Maccab\u00e6us; Religious Liberty Secured_\n(iii. 1-ix. 22)\n\nJudas\u2019 capacity as a military leader was very soon vindicated by\ntwo signal victories gained over Apollonius, already mentioned,\nand Seron, the Syrian commander. Judas had taken the initiative\nin attacking the armies under these two generals in each case;\nhis quickness in appreciating the position of affairs, and his\npromptitude in action were the cause of these victories, which seem\nto have had a profound moral effect both on his own people and\non others. Even allowing for some very natural exaggeration the\nfollowing words doubtless reflect the actual facts: \u201cThen began the\nfear of Judas and of his brethren, and the dread of them fell upon\nthe nations round about them. And his name came near even unto the\nking; and every nation told of the battles of Judas\u201d (iii. 25, 26).\n\nAntiochus was, of course, greatly incensed when he heard of the\ndefeats of his forces; but being in want of money he found it\nnecessary to go to Persia in order to raise funds charging Lysias,\n\u201cone of the seed royal,\u201d to undertake to punish the rebels. The\nfirst act of Lysias was to raise a force of forty thousand footmen\nand seven thousand horse, which he despatched under three of his\ngenerals, Ptolemy, Nicanor, and Gorgias, to Jud\u00e6a to subdue Judas.\nAn attempted night surprise by Gorgias with part of the Syrian army\nfailed through the vigilance of Judas; and the following day Judas\nagain took the initiative with great success, the Syrians fleeing in\ndisorder, and losing about three thousand men. The next year Lysias\nraised a still larger army which he commanded in person; but again\nthe fortune of war went against him, and he suffered a serious defeat.\n\nThe Jews were now able to enjoy a short respite, which was utilized\nfor the purpose of rebuilding and re-dedicating the Temple. It was\non this occasion that the feast of _Chanukkah_ (\u201cDedication\u201d) was\ninstituted; it has been regularly observed by orthodox Jews ever\nsince.\n\nBut peace did not last long; the Jews were now attacked by some of\nthe smaller peoples who had made common cause with the chief enemy.\nHowever, Judas had little difficulty in silencing these, viz., the\nEdomites, B\u00e6anites, and Ammonites. Scarcely was this accomplished,\nwhen Judas received news that many of his people in Gilead were in\nstraits owing to the hostility of the Gentiles; in Galilee also the\nsame thing was happening. He thereupon sent his brother Simon with an\nadequate force into Galilee, while he himself went over the Jordan.\nIn both theatres of the war success continued to attend the Jewish\narms.\n\nIn B.C. 163 Antiochus Epiphanes died while yet in Persia; he was\nsucceeded by his son, Antiochus Eupator, who had been nourished up\nwhile yet young by Lysias. But the death of Epiphanes brought no\nrest to the Jews. Judas had, in the meantime, returned to Jerusalem;\nand he determined now to expel the garrison which had been stationed\nin the citadel from the beginning of the struggle. He, therefore,\nbesieged the citadel, and further strengthened his own position by\nfortifying Bethsura; this place occupied an important strategical\nposition on the road between Jerusalem and Hebron; Josephus\n(_Antiq._, XIII, v. 6) speaks of it as \u201cthe strongest place in all\nJud\u00e6a.\u201d Those who were besieged in the citadel managed to send word\nto the king, who came, accompanied by Lysias, with a large army\nto check the designs of Judas. In this he succeeded for the time;\nBethsura was starved out, and Jerusalem was taken by means of an\nact of the basest treachery. This happened in the following manner:\nwhen Antiochus Epiphanes was on his death-bed he designated Philip,\none of his nearest friends, as regent during the minority of the\nnew king (vi. 14, 15); but the latter had been under the special\ncare of Lysias hitherto; and as Philip was in Persia, while Lysias,\nwith the new king, was in Syria at headquarters, Lysias took the\nplace of adviser and guide to the king. Now while the king was busy\nfighting against Judas, as just recounted, Philip, determined to\nassert himself, returned from Persia and \u201csought to take unto him the\ngovernment\u201d (vi. 56); he had with him the army which Epiphanes had\nled into Persia; the position was clearly serious for the king and\nLysias; so on the advice of the latter peace was made with Judas,\nand all that he had been fighting for, i.e. religious liberty,\nwas accorded. Judas, trusting to the good faith of the king and\nLysias, came forth, and \u201cthe king entered into Mount Sion\u201d; but\nhaving thus got possession of the stronghold the king repudiated\nhis oath, and had the place dismantled, though the Jews still\nretained their hold upon it. Then he went to deal with Philip, whom\nhe found in possession of Antioch, the capital; he fought against\nPhilip, defeated him, and took the city. His triumph was, however,\nshort-lived; for in the following year he was assassinated by command\nof Demetrius, who now became king. A short digression is necessary\nhere in order to explain the position of Demetrius. When Antiochus\nIII (the Great) died he left two sons, Seleucus IV (Philopator),\nthe elder, who became king, and Antiochus (afterwards Epiphanes),\nwho lived at Rome as a hostage. In order that his brother might be\nreleased, Seleucus IV sent his own son, Demetrius, as a hostage to\nRome. When Antiochus reached Syria he found that his brother had\nbeen murdered, and instead of requiting the kindness that had been\nshown him by endeavouring to help Demetrius, the lawful heir, to the\nthrone, he usurped the kingdom himself, while Demetrius was left in\nRome. When Antiochus Epiphanes died his son, as we have seen, came\nto the throne, though Demetrius was, of course, still the rightful\nheir. But Demetrius succeeded in making his escape from Rome, and was\nthus enabled to come to his own. This was in B.C. 162; he was the\nfirst king of this name to reign over Syria, and received the name of\nSoter[450]; he reigned till B.C. 150.\n\nNo sooner was Demetrius seated on the throne than the war against\nthe Jews recommenced. Bacchides, one of the \u201cking\u2019s friends,\u201d and\nthe \u201cungodly Alcimus,\u201d whom Demetrius had made high-priest, were\nsent against Judas; but Bacchides soon returned to the king, leaving\nAlcimus with an army to look after the land. He, however, also\nreturned to the king when he saw that Judas was too strong for him.\nThe king, therefore, sent a new army against the Jews under the\ncommand of Nicanor. Once more Judas was victorious, Nicanor fell in\nthe battle and his army was scattered. Then, it is said, \u201cthe land\nof Judah had rest a little while\u201d (vii. 50). If we are to trust the\ncontents of chapter viii. of our book, Judas at this point made an\nalliance with the Romans (see above, p. 420), in consequence of which\nthey wrote to Demetrius, saying, \u201cWherefore hast thou made thy yoke\nheavy upon our friends and confederates the Jews? If, therefore,\nthey plead any more against thee, we will do them justice, and fight\nthee by sea and land\u201d (viii. 32). This threat did not, however, have\nany effect, for on Demetrius hearing of the death of Nicanor and the\ndefeat of his forces, he despatched Bacchides and Alcimus a second\ntime against Judas; this time they were too strong for the Jews,\nwho were defeated, and, worst of all, Judas fell. But Jerusalem\ncontinued in the possession of the Jews, and the Temple services were\ncelebrated; so that religious liberty had been gained and retained by\nthe devoted courage and perseverance of Judas.\n\n\n(_d_) _The Leadership of Jonathan; the Establishment of the Hasmon\u00e6an\nHigh-priesthood_ (ix. 23-xii. 53)\n\nThe first result of the death of Judas was, not unnaturally, to fill\nthe patriots with despair. But this did not last long; and the people\ncame to his brother Jonathan and elected him as their leader.\n\nAs soon as Bacchides got to know of this he renewed the attack, but\nwas repulsed by Jonathan. This seems to have been a more crushing\ndefeat, judging by the sequel, than the short account of it (ix.\n43-49) would imply; for the Jews were left in peace for two years. At\nthe end of that time another futile attempt was made by Bacchides,\nand he was glad to make terms of peace with Jonathan. What immense\nprogress had been made by the patriots can be seen by these pregnant\nwords: \u201cAnd the sword ceased from Israel. And Jonathan dwelt at\nMichmash. And Jonathan began to judge the people; and he destroyed\nthe ungodly out of Israel\u201d (ix. 73).\n\nThe Maccab\u00e6an struggle now enters upon a new phase owing to the\nactivity of the rival claimants to the Syrian throne; the Maccab\u00e6an\npower, as it may now be called, comes to occupy the position of the\n\u201cdeciding factor,\u201d and is thus courted first by one and then by the\nother claiment to the throne.\n\nWhen it is said, as quoted above, that \u201cthe sword ceased from Israel\n...\u201d the period of peace was, according to our book, one of about\nseven years; during the whole of this time the only act of war\nrecorded is the abortive attempt by Bacchides to subdue Jonathan, as\ntold in ix. 58-73. So that it looks as though Demetrius I had given\nup the struggle against these formidable champions of liberty. But\nthe Jews had not yet gained all they intended to have; their first\nobjective, viz., religious liberty, was already attained, mainly\nthrough the efforts of Judas; but they had now learned to realize\ntheir own power, and had determined to acquire political independence\nas well.\n\nIn B.C. 153, when Demetrius had ruled for about ten years, a rival\nto the Syrian throne appeared in the person of one Alexander Balas.\nThis man, a low-born native of Smyrna, gave himself out to be the\nson of Antiochus Epiphanes; the claim received some support owing to\nhis resemblance to the late usurper, Antiochus Eupator. The cause of\nAlexander was taken up by Attalus II, king of Pergamum, who supported\nhis claims to the kingdom of Syria against Demetrius. Although,\naccording to Polybius (xxxiii. 14, 6), it was well known that the\nclaims of Alexander were without justification, he was, nevertheless,\nsupported by the Roman Senate, who promised to help him. His success,\nto which we shall refer presently, was largely due to the fact that\nDemetrius was hated by his own people on account of his \u201cinsolence\nand difficulty of access,\u201d and because he was \u201cslothful and negligent\nabout public affairs\u201d; so Josephus tells us (_Antiq._, XIII, ii. 1).\nAlexander appeared suddenly upon the scene; his first act was to take\npossession of Ptolemais; in this he had no difficulty, for he was\nwelcomed as king by the inhabitants. As soon as Demetrius heard of\nthis he gathered his forces together; but before going to battle he\nsought to gain Jonathan for his cause; \u201clet us be beforehand to make\npeace with them,\u201d he said, \u201cere he make peace with Alexander against\nus\u201d (x. 4). The promises of Demetrius were, however, out-bidden by\nthose of Alexander, who wrote to Jonathan as soon as he heard of\nDemetrius\u2019 action. In his letter Alexander writes: \u201cWe have appointed\nthee this day to be high-priest of thy nation....\u201d This was the first\nbeginning of the establishment of the Hasmon\u00e6an[451] high-priesthood,\nthough it was not fully consolidated until some years later (B.C.\n141).[452] It was in vain that Demetrius wrote a second letter to\nJonathan full of the most extravagant promises[453] (x. 26-45), for\nJonathan and the people \u201cgave no credence\u201d to his words; an alliance\nwas, on the other hand, made with Alexander. A battle was then\nfought between Alexander and Demetrius; but the account of this, as\ngiven in x. 48 ff., is incomprehensible, we have to turn to Josephus\n(_Antiq._, XIII, ii. 4) to understand what really happened: \u201cAnd when\nit was come to a battle, the left wing of Demetrius put those who\nopposed them to flight, and pursued them a great way, and slew many\nof them, and spoiled their camp. But the right wing, where Demetrius\nhappened to be, was beaten; and as for all the rest, they ran away.\nBut Demetrius fought courageously, and slew a great many of the\nenemy; but as he was in pursuit of the rest, his horse carried him\ninto a deep bog, where it was hard to get out, and there it happened,\nthat upon his horse\u2019s falling down, he could not escape being killed;\nfor when his enemies saw what had befallen him, they returned back,\nand encompassed Demetrius round, and they all threw their darts at\nhim; but he, being now on foot, fought bravely; but at length he\nreceived so many wounds that he was not able to bear up any longer,\nand fell.\u201d The battle seems, thus, to have been indecisive until\nDemetrius fell, when evidently his followers lost heart. Alexander\u2019s\nnext step was to make a treaty with Ptolemy VI, Philometor, king of\nEgypt, whose daughter, Cleopatra, he married, the marriage being\ncelebrated with great pomp at Ptolemais; the Egyptian king himself\nwas present. Alexander, further, invited Jonathan to Ptolemais, where\nhe was received with much honour, the friendship and alliance between\nthe two being thus consolidated.\n\nFor a few years Alexander was left in peaceful possession of the\nSyrian throne, but in B.C. 147 the son of Demetrius, Demetrius\nNicator, came from Crete, where he had been living in exile since\nthe war between his father and Alexander began, and sought, as the\nrightful heir, to regain his kingdom. He appointed Apollonius his\ncommander-in-chief. An army having been raised, Apollonius encamped\nin Jamnia (Jabneh), and tried conclusions first with Jonathan,\nAlexander\u2019s ally. Jonathan was ably seconded by his brother Simon,\nand between them they inflicted a severe defeat on Apollonius.\nAlexander, on hearing this, \u201chonoured Jonathan yet more; and he sent\nunto him a buckle of gold, as the use is to give to such as are of\nthe kindred of the kings; moreover, he gave him Ekron and all the\nborders thereof for a possession\u201d (x. 89).\n\nThis friendship between Alexander and Jonathan was soon destined to\nplace the latter in a very awkward position, though he managed to\nextricate himself owing mainly to his having so firmly established\nhis power. This came about in the following way. A treaty was made\nbetween Ptolemy VI and Demetrius Nicator, in spite of the former\u2019s\nalliance with Alexander. Antioch was besieged by Ptolemy, and\nAlexander escaped to Arabia; but here he was treacherously murdered,\nwhile Ptolemy himself died only a few days afterwards. This left all\nclear for Demetrius, who now became king. As Jonathan had supported\nthe new king\u2019s rival, his position was now of a somewhat awkward\ncharacter. However, both the king and Jonathan considered it to be\nof advantage to themselves if they were at peace, so friendship was\nconcluded between them.\n\nBut Demetrius II was not to be left in peace long. Alexander had\nleft a son, Antiochus, in Arabia, whose cause was now about to be\nchampioned by Tryphon; the latter had been one of the close friends\nof Alexander. The time was propitious for Tryphon to attempt to\ngain the kingdom for his late master\u2019s son, for Demetrius had\nunwisely disbanded the bulk of his troops when he saw that peace\nwas established; in consequence of this they had revolted. In his\ndistress he looked for help to Jonathan; nor did he look in vain;\nfor Jonathan sent him three thousand men to Antioch. With the help\nof these Demetrius was enabled to re-establish himself. Things might\nhave continued to go well with him, but he foolishly fell out with\nJonathan, and had soon to pay the penalty. For Tryphon now made a\nsecond attempt; he brought the young Antiochus, still a child, with\nhim, and gathered around him all the troops which Demetrius had\ndisbanded. With these he stormed Antioch, and Demetrius had to flee.\nThe first act of Antiochus (the sixth as he now was) again showed the\nposition which Jonathan had gained; guided, of course, by Tryphon,\nhe sent word to Jonathan, confirming him in the high-priesthood and\nin the governorship of the governments of Jud\u00e6a, Ephraim, Lydda, and\nRamathaim, and conferring other honours upon him; at the same time\nsetting Simon, Jonathan\u2019s brother, over the district from \u201cthe ladder\nof Tyre\u201d[454] to the Egyptian frontier. The Jewish leaders were\nnot slow to appreciate this politic step on the part of Antiochus;\nthey immediately undertook a victorious campaign against their own\nenemies as well as against those of the king. Jonathan himself\nwent to Galilee, whither Demetrius had fled, with the purpose of\npunishing him; Demetrius seems to have succeeded in gathering an\narmy again, and a pitched battle took place. At first it looked as\nthough Jonathan were going to get the worst of it; but ultimately\nhe triumphed, and Demetrius again fled, and, for the present, gave\nup the struggle in Syria in order to try his fortune against the\nParthians; but he was taken prisoner by the Parthians, and remained\nin captivity for ten years, after which, as we shall see, he again\nappeared in Syria.\n\nIn the meantime Tryphon himself aspired to the Syrian throne; he\ncaused Antiochus VI to be killed, and usurped the kingdom. But\nfearing Jonathan, Tryphon captured him by treachery and imprisoned\nhim.\n\n\n(_e_) _The Leadership of Simon_ (xiii. 1-xvi. 24)\n\nSimon\u2019s first act was to try to avenge his brother; he did, indeed,\nseverely defeat Tryphon and drive him out of the country, but not\nuntil Tryphon had murdered Jonathan with his own hand. It was Simon\u2019s\nconviction that his wisest course would now be to bring about the\nre-instatement of Demetrius II; he accordingly sent messengers to\nDemetrius with this intimation, and, of course, received a very\nfavourable reply (xiii. 36-40). The next thing that we hear of\nDemetrius is that he went into Media to get help to fight against\nTryphon, who had by no means given up his hopes of regaining the\nthrone. Demetrius was captured, however, by the king of Persia and\nMedia, and again shut up in prison.[455]\n\nWith Demetrius II in prison, and Tryphon driven out of the country, a\nnew aspirant to the throne now appears in the person of Antiochus VII\n(Sidetes), the brother of Demetrius.\n\nThe new king, as had now become customary, first addresses himself\nto the Jewish leader; having gained his good-will by making many\npromises, Antiochus enters into the kingdom. Here he finds Tryphon,\nwhom he besieges in Dor; Tryphon managed to escape by ship, and is\nno more mentioned in our book.[456] Shortly after this Antiochus,\nbelieving, presumably, that his position was sufficiently strong, and\ndesiring to show that he could stand alone, repudiated his treaty\nwith Simon, and would not receive him, \u201cbut set at nought everything\nthat he had previously covenanted with him; and he was estranged from\nhim\u201d (xv. 27). Then he proceeded to send a force under Cendeb\u00e6us to\nattack Jud\u00e6a, and to worry the Jewish people in various ways. Simon,\nfeeling the weight of age upon him, appointed his two eldest sons,\nJudas and John, to undertake the further prosecution of the war. They\nattack Cendeb\u00e6us and defeat him; Judas was wounded, but John returned\nto Jud\u00e6a in peace (xv. 9, 10).\n\nOur book now gives an account of another act of treachery which\nthreatened to annihilate the direct line of the family of the\nMaccabees. Ptolemy, \u201cthe son of Abubus, Simon\u2019s son-in-law, who had\nbeen appointed captain over the plain of Jericho,\u201d desired to secure\nfor himself the supreme power, for which purpose it was necessary\nthat Simon and his sons should be got out of the way. The writer\nof our book recounts in pregnant phrases what happened: \u201cNow Simon\nwas visiting the cities that were in the country, and taking care\nfor the good ordering of them. And he went down to Jericho, he\nhimself and Mattathias and Judas, his sons, in the one hundred and\nseventy-seventh year [= B.C. 135], in the eleventh month, the same\nis the month Sebat [= February]. And the son of Abubus received them\ndeceitfully into the little stronghold that is called D\u00f4k, which he\nhad built, and he made them a great banquet; and he hid men there.\nAnd when Simon and his sons had drunk freely, Ptolemy and they that\nwere with him rose up, and took their arms, and came upon Simon into\nthe banqueting hall, and slew him and his two sons, and certain of\nhis servants. And he committed thus a great act of treachery, and\nrecompensed evil for good\u201d (xvi. 14-17). John was not with his father\nat the time, but Ptolemy despatched his creatures to Gazara, where\nJohn was staying, to murder him. Fortunately, however, John was\nwarned in time, and \u201che laid hands on the men that came to destroy\nhim, and slew them\u201d (xvi. 22).\n\nOur book closes with a reference to the acts of John which are\nwritten in \u201cthe chronicles of his high-priesthood\u201d (xvi. 24).\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nThe Greek Ezra\n\n(1 (3) Esdras)\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014Fritzsche, in _Exegetisches Handbuch zu den\n  Apokryphen_ (1851); Lupton, in Wace, I, pp. 1-69; Sir H. H.\n  Howorth in the _Academy_ (1893), and in the _Proceedings_ of\n  the \u201cSociety for Biblical Arch\u00e6ology\u201d (1901-1902); Torrey,\n  _Ezra Studies_ (1910); S. A. Cook, in Charles, I, pp. 1-58. The\n  articles by Thackeray in Hastings\u2019 _Dict. of the Bible_, and by\n  Volz in the _Encycl. Bibl._]\n\n\nI. THE TITLE OF THE BOOK\n\nThe book now to be considered has, with few exceptions, been treated\nwith scant respect by scholars for many centuries. Jerome, in his\nPreface to the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, condemned both the Esdras\nbooks in our Apocrypha with their \u201cdreams,\u201d and the Church has\nfollowed him in relegating them to a very inferior position. It is\nonly during the last decade or so that, owing, in the main, to the\nlabours of Sir Henry Howorth, scholars have come to realize the\nimportance of 1 (3) Esdras, with which we are at present concerned.\n\nThe various titles of the Ezra books are apt, thanks largely to\nJerome, to cause confusion; it will therefore, be advisable to set\nforth these different titles in tabular form, which will also explain\nhow they have arisen:\n\n  _Hebrew          _Septuagint_       _Vulgate_  _English   _English\n  Bible_                                          Bible_   Apocrypha_\n\n  Ezra[457]     }                     { 1 Esdras   Ezra\n  Nehemiah[457] } 2 Esdras,           { 2 Esdras   Nehemiah  2 Esdras\n                }   or Esdras B.      {                     i. ii.[458]\n\n                { 1 Esdras, or Esdras }\n                { A, together with 2  }\n                { Chronicles xxxv.,   }\n  Ezra          { xxxvi. and most of  } 3 Esdras   Ezra      1 Esdras\n                { Nehemiah viii. (the }\n                { \u201cGreek Ezra\u201d).      }\n\n                      Not extant        4 Esdras             2 Esdras\n                                                            iii.-xiv.\n\n                    No equivalent       5 Esdras             2 Esdras\n                                                            xv., xvi.\n\nIt will conduce to clearness if we speak of our present book as the\n\u201cGreek Ezra\u201d and ignore these confusing titles. By the \u201cHebrew Ezra\u201d\nis meant, of course, the canonical book of Ezra.\n\n\nII. CONTENTS OF THE BOOK\n\nAs will be seen by referring to the table given above, the contents\nof our book correspond substantially with parts of the canonical\nScriptures[459]; but the \u201cGreek Ezra\u201d does not run wholly parallel\nwith the \u201cHebrew Ezra,\u201d so that in enumerating the contents of the\nformer it will be necessary to record against each section to what\npassage in the canonical Scriptures it corresponds, whether to some\npassage in the \u201cHebrew Ezra,\u201d or in 2 Chronicles, or in Nehemiah.\n\ni. 1-58 (= 2 Chron. xxxv., xxxvi. 1-21): The book begins very\nabruptly with a long account of Josiah\u2019s celebration of the Passover\nin Jerusalem (verses 1-24). Then follows the story of Josiah\u2019s death\nat the battle of Megiddo where he was defeated by the king of Egypt;\nreference is made to \u201cthe book of the histories of the kings of\nJud\u00e6a,\u201d where these things are written (verses 25-33). The rest of\nthe section deals with Josiah\u2019s successors down to the destruction of\nJerusalem (verses 34-58).\n\nii. 1-15 (= 2 Chron. xxxvi. 22, 23 and Ezra i. 1-11): Cyrus the\nPersian issues a decree permitting the return of the people and the\nrebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem; the sacred vessels of the\nTemple are given back.\n\nii. 16-30 (= Ezra iv. 7-24): The Samaritans address a letter to\nArtaxerxes accusing the Jews of the intention to rebel in rebuilding\nthe walls of the city, and warning him of what the result will be\nif the building is persisted in (verses 16-24). The purpose of the\nletter is successful, and the building ceases until the second year\nof Darius (verses 25-30).\n\niii. 1-v. 3 (no corresponding passage in the canonical Scriptures):\nThe wisdom competition among three young men of Darius\u2019 bodyguard.\nZerubbabel proves himself to be wisest and is rewarded by the king\n(iii. 1-iv. 46); the reward consists in granting Zerubbabel his\nrequest that the king would issue a decree permitting the Jews to\nreturn to their country and rebuild the walls of Jerusalem and the\nTemple (iv. 47-57). Zerubbabel\u2019s thanksgiving (iv. 58-63), and the\nreturn of the exiles (v. 1-3).\n\nv. 4-6 (no corresponding passage in the canonical Scriptures): These\nverses contain the fragment of a list of the returned exiles.\n\nv. 7-73 (= Ezra ii. 1-iv. 5, 24 and Neh. vii. 6-73): A list of those\nwho returned from Babylon under Zerubbabel, Joshua and Nehemiah\n(verses 7-46); the rebuilding of the Temple (verses 47-65); the\nSamaritans desire to assist in the work, but are refused; in\nconsequence of this they plot against the Jews, and the building is\nsuspended (verses 66-73).\n\nvi. 1-vii. 15 (= Ezra v. 1-vi. 22): The building of the Temple is\nbegun (vi. 1-6); the letter of Sisinnes, the governor of Syria and\nPh\u0153nicia, to Darius, asking him to signify his approval of the\nundertaking (vi. 7-22); the favourable reply of Darius (vi. 23-34).\nThe completion of the building of the Temple, and its dedication\n(vii. 1-9). Celebration of the Feast of Passover (vii. 10-15).\n\nviii. 1-ix. 36 (= Ezra vii. 1-x. 44): With the permission of\nArtaxerxes, Ezra goes to Jerusalem with \u201ccertain of the children\nof Israel and of the priests and Levites\u201d (viii. 1-7). Copy of the\ncommission written by Artaxerxes to Ezra (viii. 8-24). A list of\nthose who returned with Ezra (viii. 25-60). The return to Jerusalem,\nand Ezra\u2019s work in combating mixed marriages (viii. 61-ix. 36).\n\nix. 37-55 (= Neh. vii. 73-viii. 12): The reading of the Law of Moses\nby Ezra.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt will thus be seen that the whole of our book, with the exception\nof iii. 1-v. 6, runs parallel with passages from the \u201cHebrew Ezra\u201d\nand parts of 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah. But it will be well to\nconsider the relationship between our book and the \u201cHebrew Ezra,\u201d and\nalso to inquire as to the relationship of 2 Esdras, or Esdras B, to\nour book.\n\n\nIII. THE \u201cHEBREW EZRA,\u201d THE \u201cGREEK EZRA,\u201d AND 2 ESDRAS\n\nIn the table given above it will be seen that the Hebrew Book of Ezra\nis represented twice in the Septuagint, viz. by 2 Esdras and the\n\u201cGreek Ezra,\u201d and that both the Greek forms contain more than simply\na translation of the \u201cHebrew Ezra,\u201d since 2 Esdras has the whole of\nwhat was once a single Hebrew book (Ezra-Nehemiah), and our \u201cGreek\nEzra\u201d has some matter in addition to the translation of Ezra.\n\nOur first point is to see how the \u201cHebrew Ezra\u201d and the \u201cGreek\nEzra\u201d compare. As regards the sequence of events there are only two\ncases of any considerable divergence, namely, ii. 16-30 (= Ezra\niv. 7-24) is out of place, and ix. 37-55 (= Neh. vii. 73-viii. 12)\nwhich follows viii. 1-ix. 36 (= Ezra vii. 1-x. 44) varies from the\norder in the Hebrew Bible. Otherwise the material of the two is the\nsame, with the one exception of iii. 1-v. 3, the story of the wisdom\ncompetition between the three young men of Darius\u2019 bodyguard; this is\npeculiar to our \u201cGreek Ezra,\u201d[460] and, unlike the rest of the book,\nwas originally composed in Greek. The rest of the book is translated\nfrom the Hebrew, but the translation is free and paraphrastic.\nTurning now for a moment to 2 Esdras, the point of chief importance\nhere is that the translation is a very literal one, it follows the\nHebrew text minutely and with almost painful accuracy, sometimes\ngiving renderings which are so close as to be rather lacking in sense\nin their translated form. In his comparison of the two Greek books\nThackeray says: \u201cThe two translations are of an essentially different\ncharacter. While the writer of Esdras B (2 Esdras) shows a slavish\nadherence to the Hebrew, often transliterating his original, and\nmaking no pretensions to style, Esdras A (the \u201cGreek Ezra\u201d) is marked\nby a free style of translation, an elegant and idiomatic Greek, a\nhappy rendering of Hebraisms, and an omission of difficulties, which\nmake it a far more readable book than the other. It was clearly\nintended for Greek readers unacquainted with Hebrew. The writer was a\n_litt\u00e9rateur_ in possession of a wide Greek vocabulary.\u201d[461]\n\nThe central problem of our book is to ascertain the relationship\nbetween it and the canonical Hebrew book, and 2 Esdras. How do\nthe \u201cGreek Ezra\u201d and 2 Esdras stand to one another? How comes it\nthat both are contained in the Septuagint? Do they both go back to\nthe same Hebrew original? These and other questions which suggest\nthemselves in studying the book are by no means easy to answer,\nand very varying opinions are held by scholars; nor does it appear\nthat any solution offered is clear from objections of some kind. To\ndeal with these theories would be out of the question here, for the\ndiscussion of them fills volumes[462]; a few facts may, however,\nbe enumerated which must be taken into consideration in seeking to\narrive at a conclusion.\n\n(1) There are strong grounds for believing that the \u201cGreek Ezra\u201d is\nof earlier date than 2 Esdras; in the Septuagint it precedes the\nlatter; Josephus uses it, and apparently does not know of 2 Esdras;\nthe writer of the \u201cGreek Ezra\u201d utilizes Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah\nin such a way as to suggest that these three formed one whole, and\nhad not yet been divided up; in 2 Esdras the \u201cHebrew Ezra\u201d is clearly\na separate book. The Hebrew text which underlies the \u201cGreek Ezra\u201d is\noften a purer, and therefore in all probability an older, one than\nthat represented in 2 Esdras. For these reasons we are justified in\nregarding the \u201cGreek Ezra\u201d as of earlier date than 2 Esdras.\n\n(2) The \u201cGreek Ezra\u201d and 2 Esdras often agree in small details; and,\nwhat is more striking, they not infrequently agree in deviating from\nthe Hebrew. But, on the other hand, there are many passages in which\nthe \u201cGreek Ezra\u201d follows the Hebrew more closely than 2 Esdras. Now,\nseeing that one of the characteristics of 2 Esdras is that it follows\nits Hebrew original in a slavish manner, one is led to the conclusion\nthat the Hebrew text underlying the \u201cGreek Ezra\u201d varied considerably\nfrom that which is represented in 2 Esdras. But how is one to account\nfor the agreements between the \u201cGreek Ezra\u201d and 2 Esdras, just\nmentioned? We suggest that something of this kind took place:\n\nThat the Hebrew text which underlay those two books respectively was\nnot the same is clear; the \u201cGreek Ezra\u201d represents a text differing\nin many respects from the Massoretic text, and therefore in all\nprobability an older one in which Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah were all\none book; 2 Esdras represents in the main the Massoretic text. A\nGreek translation was made of the earlier Hebrew text, before, that\nis to say, the Hebrew text became fixed. This Greek translation\nwas the immediate parent of our \u201cGreek Ezra.\u201d In the meantime the\nrevision of the Hebrew text took place, and a translator translated\nthis into Greek, utilizing at the same time the original Greek\ntranslation; this represents 2 Esdras. So that a different Hebrew\ntext lies ultimately at the base of the \u201cGreek Ezra\u201d and of 2 Esdras;\nnevertheless both have to recognize the parentage of an intermediate\nGreek translation, which accounts for the elements of agreement\nbetween them; while their differences are accounted for because they\nwere translated from different Hebrew texts. The accompanying diagram\nwill illustrate the suggestion made:\n\n                         Original Hebrew\n                                |\n         +----------------------+---------------------+\n         |                                            |\n  Original Greek                               Revised Hebrew\n         |                                            |\n         +-------------------------+                  |\n   \u201cGreek Ezra\u201d                    |                  |\n                                   +--------+---------+\n                                            |\n                                         2 Esdras\n\nThis suggestion is a combination of those of Ewald[463] and Sir H.\nH. Howorth.[464] What has been said does not account for all the\ndifficulties; there is, for example, the piece iii. 1-v. 3 to be\naccounted for; and the historical inaccuracies (see next section)\nconstitute another difficulty. Much can, however, be explained by\nrecognizing, what seems to be an undoubted fact, that a redactor has\nbeen at work on our book, but has not finished his work; there seems\nto have been a special purpose which this redactor had in view (see\nsection V) and he was concerned with this more than with historical\naccuracy. The difficulties are enhanced by the fact that the abrupt\nbeginning and ending show that the book is incomplete in its present\nform.\n\n\nIV. THE HISTORICITY OF THE BOOK\n\nIn discussing the question of the historical character of our book it\nis obviously necessary to take the \u201cHebrew Ezra\u201d and Nehemiah into\naccount; and it will help us to some extent in seeking to find our\nway about the hopelessly intricate historical maze in which we soon\nbecome involved if we begin by drawing up a chronological table. We\nwill, however, preface this with the following list of Persian kings;\nthe names which are put in square brackets do not concern us, but\nthey are added for completeness\u2019 sake:\n\n  Cyrus, as king of Persia, B.C. 538-529.\n  [Cambyses, B.C. 529-522.]\n  Darius I, Hystaspes, B.C. 522-486.\n  [Xerxes, B.C. 486-465.]\n  Artaxerxes I, Longimanus, B.C. 465-426.\n\nNow we give a chronological list of events with the references to the\ncanonical Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah; for the corresponding references\nin the \u201cGreek Ezra\u201d see the table on pp. 440 ff.\n\n  Fall of Jerusalem, B.C. 586 (2 Chron. xxxvi. 17-21).\n\n  Edict of Cyrus, in his first year, permitting the return of the\n  Jews to Jerusalem under Zerubbabel, B.C. 538 (Ezra i. 1 ff.).\n\n  Laying of the foundation-stone of the Temple, B.C. 536 (Ezra iii.\n  8 ff.).\n\n  Building of the Temple interrupted till the second year of\n  Darius, B.C. 520 (Ezra iv. 1-5, 24 [in Ezra iv. 6-23 the\n  reference is to interference with the building of the city walls,\n  not to the Temple; this section has either got out of place, or\n  it is a later insertion]).\n\n  Edict of Darius permitting the building of the Temple to be\n  recommenced, B.C. 520 (Ezra vi. 1 ff.).\n\n  Completion and dedication of the Temple in the sixth year of\n  Darius, B.C. 516 (Ezra vi. 13 ff.).\n\n  Arrival of Ezra in Jerusalem, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes,\n  and his activity there, B.C. 458. (Ezra vii. 1 ff.) [Note the gap\n  of fifty-eight years between this and the previously recorded\n  event.]\n\n  Arrival of Nehemiah in Jerusalem in the twenty-first year of\n  Artaxerxes, B.C. 444; permission given to rebuild the city walls\n  (Neh. ii. 1 ff.). [Note the gap of fourteen years between this\n  and the previously recorded event.]\n\n  Reading of the Law by Ezra, B.C. 444, late in the year (Neh. vii.\n  73_b_, viii. 1 ff.).\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nOn comparing the history of the \u201cGreek Ezra\u201d with that of\nChronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah the two most prominent points to be\nnoted are that, (1) the \u201cGreek Ezra\u201d makes the order of the\nPersian kings the reverse of what that order actually was, viz.,\nArtaxerxes (ii. 15-25), Darius (iii. 1-v. 6), Cyrus (v. 7-70), while\nChronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah has the right order. It is, however, well to\nremember that the \u201cGreek Ezra\u201d in ii. 1 ff. begins the list in the\nright order, namely, with Cyrus. And (2) the \u201cGreek Ezra\u201d takes no\naccount of Nehemiah i. 1-vii. 72, but gives the history as recorded\nin Ezra vii.-x., Nehemiah vii. 73-viii. 12; so that the \u201cGreek Ezra\u201d\ndoes not present the gap of fourteen years found in Ezra-Nehemiah,\nfor it makes the history of Ezra continuous.\n\nAs regards the first of these two points, it is evident that the\nwriter of the \u201cGreek Ezra\u201d was not unaware of the fact that the\nevents were in their wrong order, otherwise we should not have\nfound Cyrus mentioned first, as in ii. 1 ff., and Artaxerxes last,\nas in viii. 1 ff. An important fact in this connection is that\nJosephus, who follows the \u201cGreek Ezra\u201d and not 2 Esdras with its\nliteral translation of the \u201cHebrew Ezra,\u201d has \u201cCambyses\u201d instead\nof \u201cArtaxerxes,\u201d thus getting the order correct; and, in following\nthe text of the \u201cGreek Ezra,\u201d he has a consistent chronology. But\nthe contents of the passage in question (ii. 16-30) show that the\n_position_ in which it stands must be wrong because it speaks of the\ninterruption of the building of the Temple before the foundation\nis begun. So that if Josephus did not himself alter \u201cArtaxerxes\u201d\nto \u201cCambyses,\u201d which is very improbable, he must have found it in\nthe source he had before him; in this case a redactor or compiler\naltered the name, desiring to get the names of the Persian kings\nin their right order. But if this is so it suggests the fact\nthat in the original translation of the book the chronology was\ninconsistent, in which case the same must be true of the Hebrew text\nwhich the translator had before him. Now when we look at the Hebrew\ntext of Ezra-Nehemiah we find that it, too, contains historical\ninaccuracies of a serious character, and that there has clearly been\na considerable manipulation of the text. What seems, therefore, to be\npretty clear is that there were several different Hebrew records of\nthe history of the people since the Return, and that the knowledge of\nthis history was hazy; but that finally an authoritative, revised,\nHebrew form was made in which the general uncertainty regarding\nthe historical events is strongly reflected; not only so, but for\nparticular purposes (see next section) certain aspects of the history\nwere emphasized, while others were treated more scantily; the final\nresult being that before any Greek translation was made there were\ntwo, at least, Hebrew accounts of the history both characterized\nby a particular tendency, and both characterized by historical\ninaccuracies. Our two Greek versions represent these two Hebrew (or\nHebrew-Aramaic) forms. But it does not follow that the historicity\nof either of these was superior to the other; in this matter each\nhas something to contribute. A striking example of the way in which\nthe \u201cGreek Ezra\u201d sometimes shows its superiority is the second point\nreferred to above; in this case the Ezra story is more logical,\ndiffering from the canonical account by making Ezra vii.-x. to be\nimmediately followed by Nehemiah vii. 73-viii. 12.\n\nThere are many other differences between the \u201cGreek Ezra\u201d and the\ncanonical books, details of which would be out of place here, but\nthe two given illustrate the main point regarding the historicity\nof our book which we wish to emphasize, namely, that its historical\nvalue is, at the lowest estimate, on a level with that of its\ncanonical rival; each has many inaccuracies, but each has something\nto contribute; to use one without the other in dealing with the\nhistory of the period would be a great mistake. \u201cIt can no longer\nbe assumed,\u201d Cook rightly points out, \u201cthat the Massoretic text\nnecessarily represents a more trustworthy record of the age, and that\n_E_ (= the \u201cGreek Ezra\u201d) is necessarily arbitrary and methodless.\nBoth share fundamental imperfections. _E_, therefore, in any case\ndeserves impartial consideration, and its problems involve those of\nEzra-Nehemiah. These problems, owing to the absence of decisive and\nindependent evidence, can be handled only provisionally; but enough\nis clear to permit the conclusion that _E_ represents a text in\nsome respects older than the _present_ Massoretic text, to which,\nhowever, some attempt seems to have been made to conform it.... From\na comparison of both with Josephus and other sources (notably Daniel)\nit would further appear that _E_ represents one of the efforts to\ngive an account of a period, the true course of which was confused\nand forgotten, if not intentionally obscured; different attempts\nwere made to remove difficulties and inconsistencies, and the desire\nto give greater prominence to the priestly Ezra than to the secular\ngovernor Nehemiah is probably responsible for the arrangement of the\nextant texts.\u201d[465]\n\n\nV. THE PURPOSE OF THE BOOK\n\nIt is an open question as to what the special purpose was which the\nwriter of the original Hebrew work had in his mind; one might at\nfirst naturally suppose that it was the same as the writer of any\nother Jewish historical book, namely to give the history of the\nparticular period dealt with. But assuming, as we may justly do, that\nour Greek translation gives, upon the whole, an equivalent of the\nHebrew that lay before it, it is not difficult to discern a special\ntendency at work in it. In the first place, political history is\nquite relegated to the background; but great stress is laid upon\neverything that has to do with worship and ritual, the re-instatement\nof the sacrificial system and of the priests and their duties, the\ndue support of the priests, the return of the holy vessels of the\nsanctuary, the celebration of the festivals, and the purification of\nthe congregation. In addition to this, it is the rebuilding of the\nTemple which is emphasized, while the rebuilding of the city walls\ntakes quite a secondary place. It is pretty evident, therefore, that\nthe object which the writer had in view was not so much that of\ngiving the history of his people during the post-exilic period, but\nrather to set forth the paramount importance of the worship of the\nTemple. In the second place, and closely connected with this, is the\nfurther purpose of presenting Ezra as the one really important person\nwho figures in Jewish post-exilic history, and with his name was, of\ncourse, indissolubly connected the Law, of which he was the great\nchampion. The title of the book, in fact, implies its purpose. All\nthis is in accordance with what we know to have been characteristic\nof the attitude of the Jewish religious leaders during the late\npost-exilic period. In the original form of the Hebrew this was in\nall probability not so to the same extent, but that original was\nworked over in the interests of the school of thought just referred\nto; so that the actual form of the Hebrew which lay before the Greek\ntranslator was not the original form in which the book was written.\nThe present title was a subsequent addition.\n\n\nVI. THE STORY OF THE THREE YOUNG MEN OF DARIUS\u2019 BODYGUARD\n\nA few words about this section of our book is needed both because,\naccording to some scholars, it is closely connected with the purpose\nfor which our book was written, and also because it is the part which\nis peculiar to the \u201cGreek Ezra.\u201d It occurs in iii. 1-v. 6,[466] and\nis briefly as follows:\n\nThree young men of Darius\u2019 bodyguard undertake to enter upon a\ncompetition as to which of them shall be able to put forth a\n\u201csentence which shall seem wiser\u201d than those of the other two;\nit seems to be taken for granted that the successful one will be\nrichly rewarded by the king. They, therefore, wrote their sentences\nand sealed them, and laid them \u201cunder the king his pillow.\u201d The\nking and the three princes of Persia are to be the judges as to\nwhich is the wisest of the three sentences, these being: \u201cWine is\nthe strongest\u201d; \u201cThe king is strongest\u201d; \u201cWomen are strongest, but\nabove all things Truth beareth away the victory\u201d (iii. 1-12). Then\nthe king, having had these sentences placed before him, calls upon\nall the state officials to assemble, while he sits in the seat of\njudgement, so that all may hear the explanations of their sentences\nwhich the three young men are invited to give (iii. 13-17). The\nfirst seeks to establish the truth of his sentence by showing that\nits power is uniform over all men; it affects all alike in that it\nenforces them to forget (iii. 17_b_-24). The second, by pointing\nto the unlimited power of the king over his subjects who obey his\nevery command, maintains that the king is the strongest (iv. 1-12).\nThe third, who, it is added in parenthesis, is Zerubbabel, speaks\nat greater length; he deals first with women, and shows that though\nthe king is great, and wine is strong, yet \u201cWomen have borne the\nking and all the people that bear rule by sea and land. Even of them\ncame they; and they nourished up them that planted the vineyards,\nfrom whence the wine cometh.\u201d Man\u2019s succumbing to the fascination of\nwoman, and therefore her superior power, is the theme of the verses\nthat follow (iv. 13-32). The second part of his oration is concerned\nwith truth, and it contains some really fine sentences: \u201cO sirs,\nare not women strong? (Yet) great is the earth, high is the heaven,\nswift is the sun in its course, for it compasseth the heavens round\nabout, and fetcheth its course again to its own place in one day\u2014is\n_He_ not great that maketh these things? Therefore great is truth,\nand stronger than all things.... Truth abideth, and is strong for\never; she liveth and conquereth for evermore.... Blessed be the\nGod of Truth.\u201d And then all the people shouted and said: \u201cGreat is\ntruth, and strong above all things\u201d; in the Latin Version: _Magna\nest veritas, et praevalet_ (iv. 13-41). Needless to say, the last\nspeaker is the winner, and he receives the king\u2019s reward. But the\ncurious part is that here we suddenly get transported into an\nentirely different region of thought, for on the king desiring him\nto make some further request over and above what had been originally\nsettled, he replies: \u201cRemember thy vow, which thou didst vow to build\nJerusalem, in the day when thou camest to thy kingdom, and to send\naway all the vessels that were taken out of Jerusalem.... Thou didst\nalso vow to build up the temple ...\u201d (iv. 42-46). Then the king gives\norders that all this is to be carried out (iv. 47-57). The young man\n(he is not again referred to as Zerubbabel) offers up a prayer of\nthanksgiving (iv. 58-63); the return of the exiles commences (v. 1-6).\n\nNow, one can scarcely fail to perceive that the whole section, from\niv. 41 to the end, does not really belong to the original story of\nthe three young men; or rather, one should say that this story does\nnot belong to the context in which it now stands, or indeed to the\nhistorical record at all of which our book is a compilation, for its\npresence creates great chronological confusion. The words in iv. 13,\nspoken in reference to the third young man, \u201cthis was Zerubbabel,\u201d\ndo not belong there; they were added later to the story, but they\nare important because they point to the reason why this story was\ninterpolated into the historical compilation. As we have seen, the\nwhole purpose of our book, in the form in which we now have it,\nwas to lay stress on ritual and worship, and to place the person\nand work of Ezra in the foreground; this reflects the orthodox\nand legalistic Pharisaic attitude. An attempt to counterbalance\nthis was made by a Hellenistic Jew who inserted the story of the\nthree young men (whether his own composition, or taken from some\ncollection of stories does not affect the point), and added the words\n\u201cthis is Zerubbabel\u201d for the purpose of bringing into prominence\nthis personality, and thereby making Ezra and all which his name\nconnoted not the sole important issue in Jewry. Zerubbabel, it will\nbe remembered, was the great instrument of the prophets Haggai and\nZechariah (see Hag. i., ii., Zech. iv.); he represented, therefore,\nthe prophetical ideals expressed, for example, in such words as:\n\u201cNot by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of\nHosts\u201d (Zech. iv. 6), as against the legalism of Ezra and the school\nthat followed him, above all his disciples, the Pharisees, in the\npost-Maccab\u00e6an period.\n\nIt need scarcely be added that this story did not belong to the\nHebrew even in its latest form; it was in all probability written\nin Greek by a Hellenistic Jew; yet the possibility of an Aramaic\noriginal is not excluded. If it could be proved that Hebrew or\nAramaic was the original language of this addition, and that\nPalestine was its home, the interesting theory might then be put\nforth that it, together with the inserted words \u201cthis is Zerubbabel,\u201d\nwas added by a Sadducee in opposition to Pharisaism; Zerubbabel\u2019s\nclose connection with the high-priest (see Hag. i. 12, 14, ii. 2, 4,\nand all Zech. iv.) would fully explain the reason of the inserted\nwords. But whichever view be correct the main purpose of the addition\nwould be the same, viz. an attempt to counteract the influence of\nPharisaism.\n\n\nVII. THE DATE OF THE BOOK\n\nVery few words are needed in speaking of the date of our book, or\nrather, of its compilation. To fix the date of the original documents\nmade use of by the compiler of the Hebrew form is not in question\nhere. If we inquire as to the date of the Hebrew form which lay\nbefore the Greek translator it must be replied that this depends upon\nwhat that form was; if it contained the marks of what may be called\nthe \u201cEzra-tendency,\u201d then it must probably be post-Maccab\u00e6an, in\nwhich case our present Greek translation might fairly be dated not\nlater than the middle of the last century B.C.\n\nBut if the Hebrew did not contain these marks\u2014we refer especially\nto the passage dealt with in the preceding section\u2014and they are\ndue to the Greek translator or a redactor, which we believe more\nprobable, then the Hebrew, even in the form in which it lay before\nthe translator, was pre-Maccab\u00e6an, and the Greek form, though\npost-Maccab\u00e6an, might well be dated about B.C. 100. It is to this\nlatter date that we incline; and it is corroborated by considerations\nof vocabulary, as has been well shown by Dewick.[467]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nThe Book of Wisdom\n\n(The Wisdom of Solomon)\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014Grimm, _Das Buch der Weisheit erkl\u00e4rt_ (1860);\n  Montefiore, _The Wisdom of Solomon_ (1887); Farrar, in Wace, I,\n  pp. 403-534; Deane, _The Book of Wisdom_ ... (1881); Menzel, _Der\n  griechische Einfluss auf Prediger und Weisheit Salomos_, pp.\n  39-70 (1889); Bois, _Essai sur les origines de la philosophie\n  jud\u00e9o-alexandrine_ (1890); Sch\u00fcrer, II, iii. pp. 230-237, German\n  ed., pp. 505-512; Siegfried, in Kautzsch, I, pp. 476-507; Linke,\n  _Samarien und seine Propheten_, pp. 119-144 (1903); Stevenson,\n  _Wisdom and Jewish Apocryphal Writings_ (1903); M. Friedl\u00e4nder,\n  _Griechische Philosophie im Alten Testamente_, pp. 182-208\n  (1904); Zeller, _Outlines of Greek Philosophy_ (1909); Gregg,\n  _The Wisdom of Solomon_ (1909); Holmes, in Charles, I, pp.\n  518-568; Goodrick, _The Book of Wisdom_ (1913). See also the\n  articles by Freudenthal, in \u201cThe Jewish Quarterly Review,\u201d III,\n  pp. 722-753 (1891), Siegfried, in Hastings\u2019 _Dict. of the Bible_,\n  and Toy, in the _Encycl. Bibl._]\n\n\nI. THE TITLE AND AUTHORSHIP OF THE BOOK\n\nThe title \u201cThe Wisdom of Solomon\u201d in the English Versions comes from\nthe Greek manuscripts,[468] the three oldest of which have this exact\ntitle, while, in one form or another, they _all_ have it. But the\nOld Latin Version has only \u201cThe Book of Wisdom,\u201d without any mention\nof Solomon; and the Syriac Version, while ascribing it to Solomon,\nadds, \u201cof which there is a doubt; whether another wise man of the\nHebrews wrote it in a prophetic spirit, putting it in the name of\nSolomon, and it was received.\u201d[469] Although some of the early Latin\nFathers believed that the book was the work of Solomon, they formed\nthe exceptions; it is obvious that it cannot have been written by\nhim, as we shall see as we proceed. But it may well be asked why it\nshould have been ascribed to Solomon; the usual and obvious answer\nthat to the Jews Solomon was the wisdom-writer _par excellence_, and\nthat therefore anyone desiring to commend a book on wisdom would\nnaturally choose this name as a pseudonym in preference to any other,\nis doubtless correct in a general way; but Plumptre has suggested a\nstronger reason; believing that the book was written in antagonism to\nEcclesiastes,[470] he says: \u201cLet us remember in what light it [i.e.\nEcclesiastes] must have presented itself to him [i.e. the writer of\nWisdom]. It had not ... the claim which comes from the reverence due\nto the authority of a remote antiquity or an unquestioned acceptance.\nHe must have known that it had not been received as canonical without\nserious opposition, that the strictest school of the Pharisees had\nbeen against its reception, that it had seemed to them tainted with\nthe heresy of Epicur\u00e6anism and Sadduceeism. If it was interpreted\nthen as it has often been interpreted since, it may have seemed to\nhim to sanction a lawless sensuality, to fall in with the thoughts of\nthose who said, \u2018let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die,\u2019 and to\nthrow doubt, if not denial, on the soul\u2019s immortality. Was this, he\nseems to have asked himself, the true ideal of wisdom? Was it not his\nduty to bring before men another Solomon than that whose experience\nseemed to end in materialism and pessimism, in the scepticism of an\nendless doubt? And so he, too, adopts without any hesitation the\nform of personated authorship.\u201d[471] This puts the matter on a higher\nplane altogether. That the writer of our book had what he considered\nto be the erroneous teaching of Ecclesiastes in mind will be clear to\nany one who reads Wisdom ii. 1-9 in conjunction with the following\npassages from Ecclesiastes:[472]\n\n  Wisdom ii. 1 with Ecclesiastes ii. 23, v. 1.\n     \u201d   ii. 2   \u201d      \u201d       iii. 19, cp. ix. ii.\n     \u201d   ii. 3   \u201d      \u201d       xii. 7.\n     \u201d   ii. 4   \u201d      \u201d         i. 11, ii. 16, ix. 5, ii. 11.\n     \u201d   ii. 5   \u201d      \u201d        vi. 12, viii. 8.\n     \u201d   ii. 6   \u201d      \u201d        ii. 24.\n     \u201d   ii. 7   \u201d      \u201d        ix. 7.\n     \u201d   ii. 8   \u201d      \u201d        ix. 8.\n     \u201d   ii. 9   \u201d      \u201d       iii. 22, v. 18, ix. 8.\n\nIn Wisdom ii. 1 ff. (\u201cFor they said within themselves, reasoning not\naright ...\u201d) the writer is describing the tenets of the ungodly; and\nwhat he says agrees not only in substance, but often even verbally,\nwith the corresponding passages in Ecclesiastes.\n\nBearing Plumptre\u2019s words in mind, therefore, and remembering what\nhas been said above[473] regarding the estimate of the function and\nimportance of authorship among Easterns of earlier times, we should\nnot be justified in seeing any fraudulent intention on the part of\nour author in putting the name of Solomon to the title of his book.\n\nAs to the personality of the author[474] but very few _data_ are to\nbe gathered from the book; he must in all probability have been a\nJew (cp. xii. 22), but a Hellenistic Jew, yet loyal to the Law[475]\n(xviii. 4), who lived and wrote in Egypt (see xii. 23 ff., xv. 18,\n19, xvi. 1, 9, where reference is made to Egyptian animal-worship);\nhis Jewish feeling is evidenced throughout the book; that he was\ndomiciled in Alexandria is highly probable, for this was the centre\nof Jewish-Hellenistic culture. As Gregg well points out, the author\n\u201cmakes no effort to disguise his sympathy with Hellenic thought. He\nis a Euhemerist in his account of the origin of idol-worship (xiv.);\nhe is a Platonist in his sense of the beauty of the world, and in his\nargument that its beauty points to a supreme First Cause. He draws\non Plato for his doctrine of pre-existing matter (xi. 17), of the\npre-existence of the soul (viii. 19), and of the body as an obstacle\nin the path to spiritual knowledge (ix. 15). The teaching of the\nStoics suggested to him the penetratingness of Wisdom (vii. 24), and\nher quickness of understanding (vii. 22). The doctrine of Providence\n(xiv. 3) and the conception of the four cardinal virtues (viii.\n7), were a loan partly from Plato and partly from the Stoics. This\ncombination of knowledge of Egypt and sympathy with Greek studies\npoints plainly to Alexandria; and the inference is strengthened by\na comparison of Wisdom with the writings of the Alexandrian Philo.\nFor the affinity between them is so close, that the author has\nbeen styled a pre-Philonic Philonist. Like Philo (but in a more\nuncompromising way), he is a Jew loyal to the national religion; and\nno centre offered the same opportunities as did Alexandria for a\nJew who wished to unite a liberal eclecticism with his traditional\nfaith.\u201d[476] For the influence of Greek philosophy to be discerned in\nthe book see Part I, Chapter IV.\n\n\nII. THE DATE OF THE BOOK\n\nAmong modern scholars controversy regarding the date of our book\ncentres round the question as to whether it belongs to the middle\nof the last century B.C. or about a hundred years later, though\nsome (e.g. Gregg, _Op. cit._, p. xi.) would date it as early as\n\u201cwithin the last quarter of the second century B.C.\u201d There are three\nmain points to be taken into consideration in seeking to fix an\napproximate date.\n\n(_a_) The author quotes from the Septuagint of the Book of Isaiah\n(ii. 12, cp. Isa. iii. 10, and xv. 10, cp. Isa. xliv. 20), and also\nfrom the Book of Job (xii. 12, cp. Job ix. 12, 19); therefore these\nbooks must have already existed in their Greek form. Now from the\nPrologue to Ecclesiasticus it is evident that the prophetical books\nhad been translated into Greek before Sirach\u2019s grandson translated\nhis grandfather\u2019s work, and that therefore these books formed part\nof the Septuagint before B.C. 132.[477] But as regards the Book of\nJob, and the _Hagiographa_ generally,[478] we cannot say with any\ncertainty at what precise period they were translated[479]; Swete,\nafter reviewing the evidence, says: \u201cThus while the testimony of\nthe first century A.D. does not absolutely require us to believe\nthat all the books of the Hebrew canon had been translated and were\ncirculated in a Greek version during the Apostolic age, such a view\nis not improbable; and it is confirmed by the fact that they are all\ncontained in the canon of the Greek Bible which the Christian Church\nreceived from its Jewish predecessors.\u201d[480] The fact, therefore,\nthat the author of Wisdom quotes from the Book of Job in its Greek\nform makes it reasonably certain that our book was written during the\nlast century B.C.\n\n(_b_) The next point is as to the historical conditions reflected in\nthe book. Quite recently Goodrick has examined this question with\ngreat care, and it is one which needs a brief consideration. Rightly\nor wrongly, it is often taken for granted that the book was written\nat a time when the Jews were suffering, or had recently suffered,\npersecution; such passages as ii. 10-20, vi. 5-9 are supposed to be\nreferences to this. What persecution is it, then, to which reference\nis made? Goodrick believes that the allusion is to a persecution\nunder Caligula (A.D. 37-41). After giving the historical details,\nhe sums up as follows: \u201cA sore persecution has just been endured; a\npersecution not to the death indeed, but involving grave damage and\ndistress. This persecution, founded in part on gross calumny, had as\none of its main features the attempted enforcement of idolatry, and\nof idolatry in its most insane and revolting form\u2014the worship of a\nliving man. This living man was a prince ruling at a distance, but\nhis commands were enforced by apostate Jews dwelling close at hand,\nwho had surrendered their ancient belief without sincerely adopting\nany other, and represented no religion except that of Epicureanism,\nfor which they sought to find their text-book in the so-called\nSolomon\u2019s \u2018Preacher.\u2019 This persecution had been carried on through\nthe agency of the dregs of the populace of Alexandria, wherein were\nrepresented the superstition of ancient Egypt at its worst, combined\nwith hereditary Greek hatred of the Jews, and wild misrepresentation\nof their religion and ordinances. Finally, a time of temporary repose\nmust be pictured, in which it was possible to substitute severe\nrebuke for furious complaint. All these conditions the period from\nA.D. 41 to 44 presents, and an examination of the Book of Wisdom\nconfirms the belief that it was then written.\u201d[481] In support\nof this Goodrich refers first to ii. 10-20, where the ungodly say\n\u201cwithin themselves, reasoning not aright\u201d (see ii. 1):[482]\n\n  10. Let us oppress the righteous poor;\n      Let us not spare the widow,\n      Nor reverence the grey hairs of the old man full of years.\n\n  11. But let our strength be to us a law of righteousness,\n      For weakness is condemned as unprofitable.\n\n  12. But let us lie in wait for the righteous, for he is useless\n          to us,\n      And is opposed to our doings,\n      And upbraideth us for sins against the Law,\n      And denounceth to us sins against our discipline.\n\n  13. For he professeth to have knowledge of God,\n      And calleth himself the servant of the Lord.\n\n  14. He became for us a rebuke to our machinations;\n\n  15. He is grievous unto us even to look upon,\n      Because his life is unlike other men\u2019s,\n      And his ways are peculiar.\n\n  16. As base metal were we accounted by him,\n      And he abstaineth from our ways as from uncleanness.\n      He calleth the latter end of the righteous blessed,\n      And vaunteth that God is his Father.\n\n  17. Let us see if his words be true.\n      Yea, and make trial of what will happen at his going forth.\n\n  18. For if the righteous man be God\u2019s son, He will uphold him,\n      And will deliver him out of the hand of them that rise up\n          against him.\n\n  19. With insult and torture let us test him,\n      That we may know his tolerance,\n      And judge of his endurance of evil.\n\n  20. Let us condemn him to a shameful death,\n      So shall there be made examination of him from his own words.\n\nGoodrick maintains that we have here the description of the\noppression of the righteous man. Of the calumnies which had\ninstigated the persecution, \u201cthat which had obtained the widest\ncirculation ... was that of the hatred of the Jews for all mankind\nexcept their own nation. It is probably alluded to in ii. 15, and\nis controverted in xii. 19\u201d (\u201c... the righteous must be a lover of\nmankind\u201d). Further, he says that the allusion to the deification of\nliving men is plain in xiv. 16, 17:\n\n      Then in time, being enforced, the impious custom was kept as a\n            law,\n      And by the commands of despots graven images were worshipped,\n      Whom men, not being able to honour in their presence, through\n            dwelling at a distance,\n      Counterfeiting their features far away,\n      Made a visible image of the honoured king,\n      To flatter by their zeal the absent as present (cp. also vi. 2).\n\nFinally, the most striking reference to contemporary matters, says\nGoodrick, is \u201cthat in xix. 5 as to the rights of citizenship\u201d:\n\n      But these with feastings\n        (First) welcoming _them that already shared the same rights_,\n        Vexed them with sore labours.\n\nRegarding the question of historical conditions by itself Goodrick\u2019s\ncontention as to the date of our book is weighty; but even so his\narguments do not necessarily carry conviction. It is not necessary,\nas Toy points out, \u201cto suppose that the work was composed in the\nmidst of one of the violently hostile movements. The author, even\nif he lived in a relatively quiet time, would know enough of the\ngeneral fortunes of his people to paint his pictures of suffering\n(ii.-v., xiv.). Nor is his reference to the worship of the statues\nof kings (xiv. 16-20) chronologically decisive, for divine worship\nwas paid to Ptolemy I, and probably to Antiochus II, as well as to\nCaligula and other Roman emperors. The author is, in fact, as Grimm\nremarks, giving a learned account of the origin of idolatry, and it\nis unnecessary to assume that the deified princes to whom he refers\nwere his contemporaries.\u201d[483] It is also necessary to remember that\nthe command to worship the statue of Caligula meant the setting\nup of his effigy in the Temple at Jerusalem and in the synagogues\nof Alexandria; is it likely that our author, loyal and ardent Jew\nthat he was, would use the mild language that he does if it were a\nquestion of such a supreme outrage upon Jewish belief and practice?\n\n(_c_) But there is another point to be taken into consideration\nin discussing the date of our book, namely, whether or not it is\npre-Philonian. Diametrically opposed views are held by scholars;\nSch\u00fcrer (_Op. cit._, II, iii. p. 234) regards it as certain that\nour book precedes Philo, for \u201chis standpoint is a preliminary step\nto Philo\u2019s.\u201d This, as he says, would not in itself prove a higher\nantiquity; \u201cbut with the near affinity of the two it is inconceivable\nthat our author would have remained unaffected by Philo if he had\nsucceeded him.\u201d Farrar (_Op. cit._, p. 421) says that the impression\nleft on his mind is that \u201cthe book was composed in the Roman epoch,\nand by an author who was familiar with the speculations of Philo,\nbut regarded them from a completely independent point of view. The\nimpression that he was to some extent influenced by the views of\nPhilo, and that Philo was not influenced by him, is very strong.\nIf he had preceded Philo, some traces of the powerful style and\nindividuality and phraseology of the Pseudo-Solomon must surely have\nbeen observable in the voluminous pages of the Jewish Theosophist.\u201d\nGoodrick, while agreeing with Farrar that the author of our book\nregarded the speculations from a completely independent point of\nview, does not think that there is the slightest reference or\nallusion in either from either. While it is, so far, true that,\nas Goodrick says, \u201cwe are left to the _\u00e0 priori_ conjectures of\nscholars,\u201d there is one important point, emphasized by Gregg, which\nseems conclusive; Gregg writes (_Op. cit._, p. xii.): \u201cIn spite\nof the remarkable similarity (in some cases amounting almost to\nidentity) of the language of Philo and that of Wisdom, there is\none vital difference which points to a considerably earlier date\nfor the latter. The Logos-idea is the leading feature of Philo\u2019s\nsystem, and there is in Wisdom no trace of the Philonian Logos, nor\nis the Divine Wisdom ever even identified with the Logos. In Philo\u2019s\ntime the Logos-doctrine must have belonged to current Alexandrian\nthought; had Philo been its originator, he would have asserted it in\na more polemical manner. Accordingly, time must be allowed for the\ndevelopment of a doctrine which Philo found ready to hand, and that\nlength of time must have separated the composition of Wisdom from\nthe writings of Philo. The inference is (see Grimm, _Intr._, p. 34),\nthat Wisdom was composed a considerable time, perhaps a century,\nbefore Philo, who was born about B.C. 20, began to write.\u201d This is a\nstrong argument, though it does not seem necessary to date our book\nas much as a century before the time of Philo. Holmes grants the\nvalidity of Gregg\u2019s argument (which is also that of Grimm), though,\nas he says, \u201cit only means that the book must be earlier than the\nstudent-life of Philo, which may be placed from B.C. 5-A.D. 5....\nBut ignorance of the Alexandrine Logos-doctrine can only affect the\ndate of the first part of the book; the second part may with Bousset\n(_Religion des Judenthums_, p. 35) be dated after the beginning of\nthe Empire (say B.C. 30), on account of xiv. 17, where the likeness\nof an _absent_ ruler is mentioned\u201d (_Op. cit._, p. 521). All things\nconsidered, the most probable date would seem to be the latter half\nof the last century B.C., the earlier half of the book belonging to\nthe beginning, the later half to the end, of this period.\n\n\nIII. THE QUESTION OF COMPOSITE AUTHORSHIP\n\nThe question of the unity, or otherwise, of the book is a difficult\none; the arguments used in support of either position are strong;\nanyone who reads them all would, we should imagine, hesitate to\npronounce a definite opinion unless he had some new argument to\npresent on one side or the other.[484] We shall briefly enumerate\nthe reasons which have led many scholars to believe that the book is\nof composite authorship. Upon one point all authorities are agreed,\nwhether they accept the unity of the book or not, namely, that it\nis divided into two distinct parts: ii.-xi. 1, and xi. 2-xix. It is\nthe differences of various kinds between these two parts which have\nsuggested composite authorship; these are as follows:\n\n(_a_) The conception of God; in part I God\u2019s action is represented\nin a way quite different from that taught in part II; this will\nbe seen from the few following quotations from each part. In vii.\n22-viii. 1 Wisdom is spoken of in such a way as to show that God acts\n_indirectly_ through it:\n\n      ... Beneficent, loving toward man,\n        Steadfast, sure, free from care;\n      All-powerful, all-surveying,\n        And penetrating through all spirits\n      That are quick of understanding; pure, subtil,\n        For Wisdom is more mobile than any motion;\n      Yea, she pervadeth and penetrateth all things by reason of her\n            pureness.\n        For she is a breath of the power of God ...\n      ... For she is an effulgence from everlasting light,\n        And an unspotted mirror of the working of God,\n      And an image of His goodness.\n        And she, though but one, hath power to do all things ...\n      ... But she reacheth from one end of the world to the other\n            with full strength,\n        And ordereth all things well (cp. also x. 1 ff.).\n\nAnd again in viii. 6 it is said:\n\n      Who more than Wisdom is an artificer of the things that are?\n\nIt is clear enough from these passages that the Divine action is\nrepresented as being accomplished through the agency of Wisdom. In\ncontrast to this God\u2019s action is represented as _direct_ in part II;\nfor example, in xv. 1 we read:\n\n      But Thou, our God, art gracious and true,\n        Longsuffering, and in mercy ordering all things.\n\nThe same truth is taught in xiii. 1:\n\n      For by nature all men were foolish, and had no perception of God,\n        And from the good things to be seen had not power to know Him\n            that is,\n      Neither by giving honour to the works did they recognize the\n            Artificer.\n\n(_b_) Another thing which is believed to point to a difference of\nauthorship is that in part I Wisdom plays a most important _r\u00f4le_,\nwhereas in part II it is never mentioned.[485] This is rather\nstriking, especially when taken in conjunction with what has been\nsaid in (_a_), for so many opportunities occur in part II for Wisdom\nto be mentioned; in a number of passages it might have found a place\nvery naturally. For an author who has such an exalted conception of\nWisdom as the writer of part I, it certainly strikes one as strange\nto find that he suddenly ignores it altogether in part II; whereas if\nthe latter was of different authorship no problem presents itself.\n\n(_c_) Further, the generally broad outlook of part I stands in\nstriking contrast to the pronounced particularism of the second part.\nThis in itself is, of course, not sufficient to decide the question\nof authorship in favour of duality any more than the other arguments\nput forth; but the cumulative effect of all cannot be ignored; and\nthis is emphasized by one more, perhaps the strongest, argument, viz.:\n\n(_d_) Stylistic and linguistic differences. In part I the style\nis \u201crelatively simple and direct, with constant regard to the\nHebrew principle of parallelism, whilst, in the second part, it is\nambitious, grandiloquent, or turgid, complicated and artificial,\noften without parallelism.\u201d[486] With regard to the linguistic\ndifferences Holmes[487] has recently made a careful examination\nof them, and the results he gives are not to be ignored; they are\nfar too detailed and technical to be dealt with here. But his own\nconclusion is that the difference in style, presentation and tone,\ntogether with those of language and diction, taken together with\nother problems which present themselves, are such that \u201cthere are\nconsiderable difficulties in the way of accepting the unity of\nauthorship which have not been met by its upholders. If we could\nassume that the writer of the second part had studied the first part\ncarefully, and wished to write a supplement to it, both resemblances\nand differences could be accounted for.\u201d\n\nBut the arguments in favour of dual authorship have not been ignored\nby the champions of unity of authorship; their position has been\nwell summed up by Toy thus: \u201cIt may be said that a logical unity\n[between the two parts] is recognizable in the fact that the two\npoints of attack in the work, apostasy and idolatry, represent\nthe two great enemies of the later devout Judaism, and that a\nconsciousness of unity is shown in ix. 18, which makes the transition\nfrom the first part to the second,[488] and has not the appearance\nof an editorial insertion; that the similarity between i. 1 and\nvi. 1 suggests that the same speaker is intended throughout; that\nthe non-mention of Wisdom after xi. 1 is due to the fact that the\nauthor became so immersed in his historical sketch (which he meant\nas an indictment of his own contemporaries) that he forgot the\nphilosophical thesis with which he set out; that the change of style\nis a natural consequence of the change of the subject-matter, the\nmoral and philosophical discussions falling more easily into the form\nof the Book of Proverbs, the dramatic scenes of the earlier history\nreadily suggesting legendary touches and highly-coloured language;\nand that there are marked resemblances of tone and style in the two\nparts\u2014e.g. the rush of thoughts of the second part is paralleled in\nthe description of the wicked (v.) and of Wisdom (vii. 22-viii. 1),\nand the religiously elevated and dignified tone of the first part\nappears here and there in the second (cp. i. 13-15, ix. 1-6 with xi.\n23-26, xii. 19, xvi. 7).\u201d There is a great deal in what is here said;\nit cannot be denied that it is very difficult to come to a definite\nconclusion where the arguments on both sides are so strong. At the\nsame time it is worth remembering that some writers who advocate\nunity of authorship recognize that their position is not impregnable;\nEichhorn, for example, was so struck by the differences between the\ntwo parts that although he believed both were written by the same\nauthor he nevertheless thought that the second was written in his\nyouth, the former in maturer years. Similarly, in one of the most\nrecent commentaries on the book, that of Goodrick, the author says:\n\u201cit is possible that a writer who had laid aside his work, dictated\nin the beginning by irritation at apostasy and persecution, gave it\na new colour by adapting it to philosophic ideas which he had only\nlately assimilated, and, its original interest having passed with the\ntimes of persecution which suggested it, should endeavour to obtain\na vogue for it by the direct ascription of it to Solomon.\u201d[489]\nGoodrick is convinced of the unity of authorship, but thinks that the\n\u201cSolomonic chapters\u201d (vii.-ix.) were added after the rest of the\nbook had been completed.\n\nThe possibilities of what the original facts of the case may have\nbeen are numerous; upon the whole, while fully recognizing the\ndifficulties which surround the question, we do not feel convinced\nthat the advocates of unity of authorship have established their view\nbeyond possibility of doubt. Dual authorship seems to us the easier\nand more natural solution, though we are not blind to the fact that\nthe easier way is not always the right one.\n\n\nIV. THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE BOOK WAS WRITTEN\n\nWhether our book was written by a single author, or whether each\nof the two parts were of different authorship (see above, \u00a7 III),\nis immaterial so far as the aims and objects of the book are\nconcerned; for there is no doubt that it was of Jewish authorship\nand that is was written for Jews[490]\u2014Egyptian Jews\u2014who were beset\nby four special dangers, viz. Scepticism, Materialism, Idolatry and\nPersecution. That the writer of each part was a Jew we have already\nseen (\u00a7 I); that the book was written for Jews is clear enough from\nthe fact that it contains numerous allusions to the past history of\nIsrael which are no more than allusions; it is taken for granted\nthat the readers understand them without further explanation.\nMoreover, historical characters are again and again spoken of without\nmentioning their names; it is assumed that the readers will know who\nis meant since the references are to persons who took a leading part\nin the past history of Israel. It is, therefore, for the benefit\nof his own people in Egypt, that the writer warns or encourages or\ndenounces, according to the particular danger combated.\n\n\n(_a_) _Scepticism._\n\nThe old problem of the godly in adversity and the wicked in\nprosperity was evidently exercising the minds of many Jews in\nAlexandria to the detriment of both their faith and morals. Since\nthere was no divine justice, and life was short, they advocated\nmaking the most of life while they enjoyed it, without considering\nothers. The writer, in ii. 1-20, describes the attitude of the\nwicked, putting into their mouths the words which express this\nattitude:\n\n        Short and sorrowful is our life,\n      And there is no remedy when a man cometh to his end,\n        And none was ever known that returned from Hades.\n      Because by mere chance were we born,\n        And hereafter we shall be as though we had never been....\n      Come, therefore, and let us enjoy the good things that now are;\n        And let us use creation with all earnestness as youth\u2019s\n            possession.\n      Let us fill ourselves with costly wine and perfumes ...\n        Let us oppress the righteous poor,\n      Let us not spare the widow,\n        Nor reverence the hairs of the old man grey for length of\n            years....\n      We were accounted of him as base metal,\n        And he abstaineth from our ways as from uncleannesses.\n      The latter end of the righteous he calleth happy;\n        And he vaunteth that God is his father.\n      Let us see if his words be true,\n        And let us try what shall befall in the ending of his life.\n      For if the righteous man is God\u2019s son He will uphold him,\n        And He will deliver him out of the hand of his adversaries....\n\nThis attitude the writer combats by asserting first that the wicked\nwill not escape punishment:\n\n      Therefore no man that uttereth unrighteous things shall be\n            unseen;\n        Neither shall Justice, when it punisheth, pass him by.\n      For the counsels of the ungodly shall be searched out,\n        And the report of his words shall come unto the Lord\n      For the punishment of his lawless deeds ... (i. 6-11).\n\nBut the writer declares, further, that not only in this life shall\nthe wicked be punished, but in the next world as well, while the\ngodly will then be recompensed. He says of the wicked that:\n\n      They knew not the mysteries of God,\n        Neither hoped they for wages of holiness,\n      Nor did they judge that there is a prize for blameless souls.\n        Because God created man for incorruption ... (ii. 21-24).\n\nThen follows the well-known passage concerning the blessedness of the\nrighteous:\n\n      But the souls of the righteous are in the hands of God ...\n                                             (iii. 1-9),\n\nand in the verses that follow (iii. 10 ff.) the writer describes the\ntorment of the wicked in the world to come. The true way to prepare\nin this world for the next is by the acquisition of Wisdom:\n\n      For her true beginning is desire of instruction;\n        And the care for instruction is love of her;\n      And love of her is observance of her laws;\n        And to give heed to her laws is the assurance of incorruption;\n      And incorruption bringeth near to God;\n        So then the desire of Wisdom promoteth to a kingdom\n                                             (vi. 17-20).\n\nOne purpose, therefore, of the book is to bring the godless sceptics\namong the Jews to a better frame of mind; and this is done mainly by\nsetting forth the doctrine of immortality, and retribution or reward\nin the world to come.\n\n\n(_b_) _Materialism._\n\nClosely connected with the preceding was a second danger, that of\nMaterialism, the combating of which was another purpose that the\nwriter had in view in writing his book. In a passage already referred\nto, which contains the words put by the writer into the mouth of the\nungodly, the existence of this danger is seen from the following\nwords:\n\n      Let us fill ourselves with costly wine and perfumes;\n        And let no flower of spring pass us by.\n      Let us crown ourselves with rosebuds, before they wither,\n        Let there be no meadow without traces of our proud revelry.\n      Everywhere let us leave tokens of our mirth,\n        Because this is our portion, and our lot is this (ii. 7-9).\n\nFor these materialists the writer has the same message as for the\nsceptics:\n\n      The ungodly shall be requited as they reasoned (iii. 10).\n\nThey had reasoned that fulness of this life\u2019s enjoyment was their\nportion and their lot; so it shall be; but they are warned of what is\nto come hereafter:\n\n      They shall come, when their sins are reckoned up, with coward\n            fear;\n        And their lawless deeds shall convict them to their face\n                                 (iv. 20; and cp. v. 1-14).\n\nIt is by means of the doctrine of immortality that the writer\nseeks to combat these dangers of scepticism and materialism. The\nrecognition of this truth of a life hereafter is wisdom (see vi.\n17-20 quoted above).\n\n\n(_c_) _Idolatry._\n\nThat a further object of the book is to utter a warning against\nidolatry is obvious from what is said in chapters xiii.-xv.; but\nwhether the writer has in view mainly the Gentiles among whom he was\nliving or the renegades of his own race, is differently answered by\ncommentators. Probably both are in the writer\u2019s mind. At any rate,\nhis polemic against idolatry is very thorough; he regards it as the\ncause of all kinds of evil:\n\n      For the devising of idols was the beginning of fornication,\n        And the invention of them the corruption of life ...\n      And all things confusedly are filled with blood and murder,\n            theft and deceit,\n        Corruption, faithlessness, tumult, perjury.\n      Disquieting of the good,\n        Ingratitude for benefits received,\n      Defiling of souls, confusion of sex.\n        Disorder in marriage, adultery and wantonness.\n      For the worship of those unnameable idols\n        Is the beginning and cause and end of every evil ...\n                                         (xiv. 12-31).\n\nFrom the words that follow it would seem that in this passage, at\nany rate, it is apostate Jews which the writer has in mind:\n\n      For their worshippers either make merry unto madness, or\n            prophesy lies,\n        Or live unrighteously, or lightly forswear themselves;\n      For, putting their trust in lifeless idols,\n        They wickedly swear false oaths, and look not to be harmed\n      But for both sins shall the just doom pursue them,\n        Because they had evil thoughts of God by giving heed to idols,\n      And swore unrighteously in deceit, despising holiness ...\n                                           (xiv. 28-31).\n\nFor such a particularist as the writer of the second part of our book\nthe words, \u201cbecause they had evil thoughts of God\u201d could only refer\nto apostate Jews, for he would not contemplate the Egyptians with\ntheir animal-worship as even thinking of God; the same would apply to\nthe words \u201cdespising holiness.\u201d\n\n\n(_d_) _Persecution._\n\nLastly, the writer wrote with the purpose of comforting and\nencouraging his people in face of persecution which they were\nsuffering from the Egyptians; as Gregg rightly points out, the Jews\nmust have been suffering from pressure from without, for \u201cnothing\nelse will account for the intensity of the writer\u2019s hatred of Egypt,\nwhich he gratifies as he lingers over the bondage of the Israelites,\nand labours the contrast between the fortunes of oppressors and\noppressed (x. 16 ff., xi. 1 ff., xvi.-xix.). History repeats itself,\nand he regards the study of history as the best remedy for national\ndepression. If it was in respect of its divinities that Egypt was\nsmitten in the time of Moses, and if idolatry is not only folly\nbut the cause of all social and civic decadence (xiii.-xv.), the\nsuppressed conclusion is that the Egypt which still harries the\nresident Jews and has not yet repented of its beast-worship, will\nonce again bend before Israel.\u201d[491]\n\n\nV. THE INFLUENCE OF THE BOOK ON ST. PAUL\n\nThere are a large number of passages in the Pauline Epistles in\nwhich the influence of our book is to be discerned; to quote all the\npassages from Wisdom and the corresponding ones in the Epistles would\nbe out of the question here; but a few examples may be given in order\nto show how necessary the study of this book is for the New Testament\nstudent.\n\nIn ii. 23, 24 a doctrine of the Fall is touched upon which reflects\nthe Jewish ideas on the subject current at the time:\n\n      Because God created man for incorruption,\n      And made him an image of His own proper being;\n      But by the envy of the devil _death entered into the world_,\n      And they that belong to his realm experience it.\n\nWith these words should be compared the two following passages:\nRomans v. 12, \u201cTherefore, as through one man _sin entered into the\nworld, and death through sin_; and so death passed unto all men, for\nthat all sinned\u201d; cp. 1 Corinthians xv. 21, 22.\n\nIn iii. 8 it is said of the righteous departed that:\n\n      They shall judge nations, and have dominion over peoples;\n      And the Lord shall reign over them for evermore.\n\nThis reminds one forcibly of St. Paul\u2019s words in 1 Corinthians vi. 2,\n3:\n\n  Or know ye not that the saints shall judge the world...? know ye\n  not that we shall judge angels...?\n\nIn both these cases it is, of course, possible that the similarity\nexists solely because in both sets of passages current Jewish ideas\nfind expression; in the following one, however, it is difficult\nto believe that it did not influence St. Paul when he wrote the\nwell-known words in Ephesians vi. 11-20, beginning: \u201cPut on the whole\narmour of God\u201d; the passage in Wisdom is v. 17-20:\n\n      He shall take His jealousy as complete armour,\n      And shall make the whole creation His weapons for vengeance\n            upon His enemies:\n      He shall put on righteousness as a breastplate,\n      And shall take judgement unfeigned as a helmet;\n      He shall take holiness as an invincible shield,\n      And shall sharpen stern wrath as a sword.\n\nIt is probable that the writer of this had in mind Isaiah lix. 17:\n\u201cAnd He put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of\nsalvation upon His head; and He put on garments of vengeance for\nclothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloke\u201d; but while this passage\nwas no doubt the original inspiration of both Wisdom v. 17-20 and\nEphesians vi. 11-20, one cannot read these two latter without feeling\nconvinced that St. Paul knew and utilized the Book of Wisdom. On the\nother hand, regarding the somewhat intricate subject of \u201cthe elements\nof the world,\u201d which is referred to more than once both in Wisdom and\nby St. Paul, while one would hesitate to assert definitely that the\nlatter was influenced by the former it offers a good illustration of\nthe need of studying St. Paul\u2019s writings in the light of this book.\nTo show what we mean it will suffice to put the respective passages\nin parallel columns, and the reader will at once see the connection:\n\n  Wisdom vii. 17: \u201cFor He hath       Colossians ii. 8: \u201cTake heed lest\n    given me unerring knowledge        there shall be any one that\n    of the things that are, to         maketh spoil of you through\n    know the constitution of the       his philosophy and vain deceit,\n    world, and the working of the      after the tradition of\n    elements.\u201d                         men, after the elements of\n                                       the world, and not after Christ.\u201d\n  Wisdom xix. 18-21: \u201cFor the\n    elements changed their order     Colossians ii. 20: \u201cIf ye died with\n    one with another....\u201d              Christ from the elements of the\n                                       world, seek the things that are\n  Wisdom xiii. 2, 3: \u201cBut whether      above, where Christ is....\u201d\n    fire, or wind, or swift air, or\n    circling stars, or raging water,  Galatians iv. 3: \u201cSo we also,\n    or luminaries of heaven, they       when we were children, were\n    thought (all) were gods that        held in bondage under the\n    rule the world. And if              elements of the world.\u201d\n    through delight in their beauty\n    they took them to be gods,        Galatians iv. 8, 9: \u201cHowbeit at\n    let them know how much              that time, not knowing God,\n    better than these is their          ye were in bondage to them\n    Sovereign Lord....\u201d                 which by nature are no gods;\n                                        but now that ye have come\n                                        to know God, or rather to be\n                                        known of God, how turn ye\n                                        back again to the weak and\n                                        beggarly elements, whereunto\n                                        ye desire to be in bondage over\n                                        again?\u201d (cp. Heb. v. 12;\n                                        2 Pet. iii. 10, 12).\n\nWhatever may be meant here by \u201cthe elements of the world,\u201d it is\nclear that St. Paul is combating a false doctrine regarding belief in\nelemental spirits; and for the study of this subject recourse to the\nBook of Wisdom is imperative. An interesting parallel is that between\nWisdom ix. 15:\n\n      For a corruptible body weigheth down the soul,\n      And the earthly frame lieth heavy on the mind that is full of\n            cares,\n\nand 2 Corinthians v. 1: \u201cFor we know that if the earthly house of\nour tabernacle be dissolved, we have a building from ...,\u201d and\nverse 4: \u201cFor indeed we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being\nburdened....\u201d\n\nAnd once more, in Wisdom xi. 23 it is said:\n\n      But Thou hast mercy on all men, because Thou hast power to do\n            all things,\n      And Thou overlookest the sins of men to the end that they may\n            repent.\n\nWe are at once reminded of St. Paul\u2019s words in Romans ii. 4: \u201cOr\ndespisest thou the riches of His goodness and forbearance and\nlong-suffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to\nrepentance?\u201d (cp. Rom. xi. 32).\n\nStill more striking is the following:\n\n  Wisdom xv. 7: \u201cFor a potter,        Romans ix. 21-23: \u201cOr hath\n    kneading soft earth, laboriously    not the potter a right over the\n    mouldeth each vessel for            clay, from the same lump to\n    our service: nay, out of the        make one part a vessel unto\n    same clay doth he fashion both      honour, and another unto\n    the vessels that minister to        dishonour? What if God,\n    clean uses, and those of a          willing to show His wrath,\n    contrary sort, all in like manner;  and to make His power known,\n    but what shall be the               endured with much longsuffering\n    use of either sort, the craftsman   vessels of wrath\n    himself is the judge.\u201d              fitted unto destruction; and\n                                        that He might make known\n                                        the riches of His glory upon\n                                        vessels of mercy...?\u201d\n\nSpace forbids us to do more than merely refer to other striking\nresemblances and parallel passages which further illustrate the\ninfluence of this book upon St. Paul, the three following subjects\nwould, however, repay careful study: the qualities of Wisdom\u2014with\nWisdom vii. 22-viii. 1, ix. 6-17 compare 1 Corinthians ii. 6-16; the\ndoctrine of Predestination\u2014with Wisdom xii., xv. 7 compare Romans\nix. 19-23; the question of heathen idolatry\u2014with Wisdom xiii., xiv.\ncompare Romans i. 18-32.\n\nThe number of parallels, in the words of Thackeray, \u201cbetween St. Paul\nand Wisdom put it beyond doubt that the Apostle had at one time made\na close study of the apocryphal book. It was a book which no doubt\nhad a wide circulation at an early time, being the noblest product\nof the pre-Christian Judaism of Alexandria, and combining in the\nchoicest language the broader views of Hellenism with the narrower\nnational spirit of Judaism: a combination which would make it of\nspecial interest to the Apostle who sought to make himself all things\nto all men that he might by all means gain some. \u2018A practical man\nwith the sharp outlook for practical needs, Paul took what was good\nwherever it offered itself.\u2019 The influence is rather formal than\nsubstantial. But in three, not unimportant points, the Apostle\u2019s\nviews on idolatry, on predestination and on eschatology, he has been\nto some extent affected by the matter, and not only the manner, of\nthe Alexandrian work.\u201d[492]\n\nFor the further study of this subject the excellent book of\nThackeray\u2019s, just quoted, is invaluable, as is also Grafe\u2019s _Das\nVerh\u00e4ltniss der Paulinischen Schriften zur Sapientia Salomonis_\n(1892); see also Sanday and Headlam\u2019s _Romans_, passim, and Hausrath,\n_Der Apostel Paulus_, p. 23 (1872).\n\nIt is probable that the influence of _Wisdom_ is to be discerned in\nother books of the New Testament; Gregg, _Op. cit._, pp. liv.-lvi.,\ngives a long list of parallels between the book and St. John\u2019s\nGospel; and for parallels with the epistle of St. James, see the same\nauthor, pp. lix., lx. and Mayor\u2019s _St. James_, p. lxxv.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nThe Second Book of Maccabees\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014Grimm, _Exegetisches Handbuch zu 2. Makk._\n  (1853); Rawlinson, in Wace, II, pp. 539-648; Schlatter, _Jason\n  von Kyrene_ (1891); Willrich, _Juden und Griechen vor der\n  makkab\u00e4ischen Erhebung_, pp. 76 ff. (1895); Sch\u00fcrer, II, iii. pp.\n  211-216, German ed., III, pp. 482-489; Kamphausen, in Kautzsch,\n  I, pp. 81-119; B\u00fcchler, _Die Tobiaden und die Oniaden im 2.\n  Makkab\u00e4erbuche_, pp. 282-398 (1899); Niese, _Kritik der beiden\n  Makkab\u00e4erb\u00fccher_ (1900); Moffatt, in Charles, I, pp. 125-154. See\n  also the articles by Westcott in Smith\u2019s _Dict. of the Bible_\n  (2nd ed.), and Torrey in the _Encycl. Bibl._]\n\n\nI. THE ORIGIN OF THE BOOK\n\nIn chapter ii. 19-32 of our book the writer explains in a preface\nthe origin, contents and purpose of his work. He tells us that an\naccount of all the heroic doings of Judas Maccab\u00e6us and his brothers\nhad been drawn up by Jason the Cyrenian in five books. He does not\nsay anything further about this Jason, and seems to take for granted\nthat his readers will know who is meant. Neither Jason nor his work\nare mentioned elsewhere. However, as the writer says, his book is\nan epitome of Jason\u2019s larger work: \u201cThese things, then, which have\nbeen made known by Jason the Cyrenian, we will essay to epitomize in\none volume\u201d (ii. 23). The writer says further in his preface (verses\n30, 31): \u201cTo enter into details, and to indulge in long discussions,\nand to be curious in particulars, is the part of the original author\nof the history; but to strive after brevity of expression, and to\navoid a laboured fulness in the treatment, must be granted to him\nwho puts the material into a new form.\u201d These words plainly imply\nthat the writer utilized Jason\u2019s history as his sole source, and that\nhe confined himself to an abridgement of what Jason had written.\nHis choice of excerpts was made on the principle that they must be\ninteresting; for, as he says a little earlier in his preface (verses\n24, 25): \u201cFor having in view the confused mass of the numbers,\nand the weariness which awaiteth them that would enter into the\nnarratives of the history, by reason of the abundance of the matter,\nwe were careful that they who choose to read may be attracted....\u201d He\ndesires, therefore, to make his epitome popular by its attractiveness.\n\nJudging from the book itself, it is evident that on the whole the\nwriter adheres to his intention of being simply and solely an\nepitomist; that is to say, the words are as a rule, but not always,\ncopied straight from Jason, though there are certainly cases where\nthese are summarized. The want of unity, and the rather haphazard way\nin which events are jotted down, fully supports the writer in saying\nthat he is merely an epitomist. At the same time, the writer had,\nas we shall see later, a special purpose of his own, owing to which\nthere are some exceptions to this general rule.\n\nBut since our book relies for its main facts almost solely on Jason\u2019s\nhistory, which is thus to a considerable extent reflected in this\nlater work, it is pertinent to inquire whether any indications are\nto be discerned in it regarding the sources which Jason used in\ncompiling his history. That he cannot have used the First Book of\nMaccabees will be seen when we discuss the relationship between 1 and\n2 Maccabees in a later section. No indication of any other literary\nsources are given in the book; and since Jason\u2019s history cannot have\nbeen written very long after the Maccab\u00e6an struggle (probably B.C.\n120-100), he must in all likelihood have composed his history from\noral sources. \u201cThe character of the history of which 2 Maccabees\nis the abridgement can best be explained by supposing that its\nauthor was a contemporary of men who had taken part in the Maccab\u00e6an\nstruggle; that he was obliged to depend mainly on oral accounts;\nthat he did not receive his information directly from those who had\nthemselves taken part in these events, but only after it had passed\nthrough other hands; and that he was often unequal to the task of\ncriticizing and arranging the material thus obtained.\u201d[493]\n\nIt is well to mention here, however, that the epitomizer must in some\ninstances have embellished and enlarged some of the material he used\n(see below, \u00a7 III); so that the question has always to be kept in\nmind whether, and in how far, the epitomizer touched up for his own\npurposes any given passage.\n\n\nII. THE CONTENTS OF THE BOOK\n\nPrefixed to the book are two letters purporting to have been\naddressed by the Jews of Palestine to their brethren of the\nDispersion; but as these have nothing to do with the book itself, and\nare evidently not part of the original work, they do not concern us\nat present, and will be dealt with separately (\u00a7 VI).\n\nThe period of history covered by the book begins shortly before the\naccession of Antiochus Epiphanes to the throne (B.C. 175), and goes\ndown to the year B.C. 161.\n\nThe book opens, as pointed out in the previous section, with a\npreface by the epitomist in which he explains the method he has\nadopted in the abridged history that is to follow (ii. 19-32).\nIn iii. 1-39 an account is given of how Heliodorus, the king\u2019s\nchancellor, was sent to seize the treasure in the Temple, but failed\nowing to the miraculous appearance of a \u201cterrible rider,\u201d accompanied\nby two young men, \u201cbeautiful in their glory and splendid in their\napparel,\u201d by whom Heliodorus was scourged. He returns, discomfited,\nto the king; but testifies to all men \u201cthe works of the most supreme\nGod which he had seen with his own eyes.\u201d In the section which then\nfollows (iii. 40-iv. 50) the writer describes the sordid intrigues\non the part of aspirants to the high-priesthood at this time.[494]\nWith chapter v. commences the history of the Maccab\u00e6an struggle which\nbegan with the profanation of the Temple and the attempt on the part\nof Antiochus Epiphanes to hellenize the Jews by force; this, together\nwith some account of the persecution which followed, and especially\nthe story of how seven brothers and their mother were martyred, is\ntold in v. i-vii. 42. The rest of the book deals with the details\nof the Maccab\u00e6an struggle: the rising-up of Judas Maccab\u00e6us and his\nfirst successes (viii. 1-36); an account of the death of Antiochus\nEpiphanes (ix. 1-29); the recapture of Jerusalem and the dedication\nof the Temple (x. 1-8); further successes of Judas Maccab\u00e6us and\nespecially the capture of Gazara, when the Jews were aided by five\nmen from heaven, splendidly arrayed and sitting on horses with golden\nbridles (x. 9-38); the defeat of Lysias, and a patched-up peace (xi.\n1-38); more fighting, after which Lysias is again forced to make\nterms of peace (xii. i-xiii. 26); three years\u2019 peace, followed by an\nattack on the part of Nicanor which results in his defeat and death\n(xiv. i-xv. 36). The book then closes with a short and somewhat\n_na\u00efve_ epilogue by the epitomist (xv. 37-39).\n\n\nIII. COMPARISON BETWEEN 1 AND 2 MACCABEES\n\nThat the writers of these two books cannot have used the same sources\nbecomes very obvious when one compares together the large portions of\neach which run parallel.[495] In fact, the first thing that strikes\none in comparing the two is the difference in aim of the compilers\nand the contrast there is in their manner of presentation. The\nwriter of 1 Maccabees is, as we have seen,[496] a sober and reliable\nhistorian, mostly accurate, who presents his facts without bias in\na businesslike, impartial way, and therefore inspires confidence.\nThe epitomist of 2 Maccabees, on the other hand, has utilized his\nsources for a different purpose; his aim is not so much to write\nhistory as to glorify the Jews, so he chooses episodes which will\nserve this purpose. Martyrdoms are described, sometimes with painful\nrealism, to show the constancy of the Jews in suffering when they\nare called upon to do this for their faith. The writer desires,\nmoreover, to inculcate certain religious truths, chief among which\nis God\u2019s solicitude for His people; so that he loves to dwell upon\nthe marvellous appearances of heavenly messengers sent by God to\nsuccour His people at critical moments. How far these accounts are\ndue to Jason and how far to the epitomist is a difficult question;\nbut if, as there is reason to believe, Jason\u2019s work was compiled\nnot long after the events they record, there is little time for\nthat growth of the miraculous which so often accompanies stories\nwhen they are repeated and handed down, and which is characteristic\nof much that is recorded in 2 Maccabees. In this case, a good deal\nof the embellishment with which our book abounds, in contrast with\n1 Maccabees, would have to be put down to the imagination of the\nepitomist. And there are one or two facts which tend to support this\nsupposition; he says in his prefatory remarks that his intention\nis only to give an outline of the events he is about to chronicle,\n\u201cleaving to the historian the exact handling of every particular,\u201d\nand that he has no intention of \u201cfilling in the outlines of our\nabridgement\u201d; but, as a matter of fact, he does on certain occasions\ngive minute details, and in most cases these are found in passages\nwhich illustrate the special aims which he has in view. Again, he\nconfesses that he writes with a view to attracting; it will be no\ninjustice to him to say that his idea of attractiveness consists in\nrecording what is sensational. In both these cases it is, of course,\nquite possible that the material in all its details comes from\nJason\u2014for the epitomist is not afraid of contradicting himself\u2014but\nwhen one remembers the aim of the latter the possibility of the other\nalternative must be conceded, the more so in that the epitomist does,\non the face of it, give us his own ideas at times. Here is a good\nexample:\n\n  I beseech, therefore, those that read this book, that they be\n  not discouraged at such calamities [he has been describing a\n  peculiarly cruel case of martyrdom], but to reflect that these\n  punishments were not for the destruction but for the chastening\n  of our race. For, indeed, that those who act impiously be not let\n  alone for any length of time, but suffer retribution immediately,\n  is a sign of great kindness. For in the case of the other nations\n  the Sovereign Lord doth with long-suffering forbear, until that\n  He punish them when they have attained to the full measure of\n  their sins. But in our case He hath determined otherwise that\n  His vengeance may not fall on us afterwards when our sins have\n  reached their height. Wherefore He never withdraweth His mercy\n  from us; yet though He chasteneth His own people with calamity,\n  yet doth He not forsake them. Howbeit, let what hath been said be\n  a reminder to ourselves. And after these few words we must come\n  back to our narrative (vi. 12-17).\n\nIt should also be remarked that the doctrine of retribution here\nput forth, and the teaching on prayers for the dead (xii. 43, 45),\nand on the intercession of the departed saints (xv. 11-16), and the\ndoctrine of the resurrection of the body (vii. 11, 22, 23, xiv. 46),\nare all doctrines which belong more specifically to a somewhat later\ntime than Jason\u2019s history. For these reasons we are justified in\nbelieving that a not inconsiderable amount of matter in our book must\nbe assigned to the epitomist.\n\nBut the superiority of 1 Maccabees is equally evident on comparing\nwith it those many passages of 2 Maccabees, forming of course\nthe bulk of this book, in which the same events are recorded in\neach book. To go in to the details of these would be out of place\nhere, recourse must be had to the commentaries for the study of the\nsubject; but one good example may be referred to; if one compares\n1 Maccabees v. 1-68 with the parallel account of the events given\nin 2 Maccabees x. 14-38, xii. 10-45, one is inevitably led to the\nconclusion that the orderly narrative of 1 Maccabees contrasted\nwith the confused records of 2 Maccabees stamps the former as the\nmore reliable; and the same applies to a number of other instances.\nThis conviction is strengthened when one comes across obvious\nmistakes in 2 Maccabees; one example may be given: in 2 Maccabees\nx. 37 it is said that \u201cthey slew Timotheus who was hidden in a\ncistern,\u201d yet later, in chapter xii., a good deal is recorded about\nTimotheus\u2019 activity against the Jews. And lastly, the question of the\ninferiority of 2 Maccabees is placed beyond further doubt[497] by the\nhistorical errors of an obvious character found in it. Here again we\nmust refer our readers to the commentaries for details, while merely\npointing to a few instances, viz. ix. 5-29; compare v. 22, ix. 29\nwith what is said in xiii. 23; and cp. xiii. 22 with 1 Maccabees vi.\n49, 50 and Josephus, _Antiq._, XII, ix. 5; xi. 1-15; cp. xiv. 1 ff.\nwith 1 Maccabees vii. 1 ff.\n\n\nIV. THE HISTORICAL VALUE OF 2 MACCABEES\n\nBut in spite of what has been said it is not to be supposed that 2\nMaccabees is wholly without historical value. If, as is probably the\ncase, the sources upon which it depends were themselves compiled,\nin the main, from the accounts of eye-witnesses of the events\nchronicled, this fact in itself counts for something; for example,\nthe following description is not without interest and certainly\nreads as though told by one who was present: \u201cBut at dawn on the five\nand twentieth day some young men belonging to the Maccab\u00e6an army,\nburning with indignation because of these blasphemies, stormed the\nwall like men, and furious with passion hewed down everyone whom they\nmet. Others in the meantime had followed them up by an encircling\nmovement and had set fire to the towers, thus kindling fires and\nburning the blasphemers alive, while yet others burst open the gates\nand let in the rest of the band, and thus took possession of the\ncity. And they slew Timotheus who was hidden in a cistern, and his\nbrother Ch\u00e6reas, and Apollophanes\u201d (x. 35-37). Or, again, the graphic\ndetails given of the episode described in xii. 35 must evidently\nhave come originally from one who had witnessed it: \u201cBut a certain\nDositheus, belonging to the Tubieni,[498] a horseman and vigorous,\ntook hold of Gorgias and, seizing his cloke, dragged him along by\nmain force, intending to take the accursed man alive; but one of the\nThracian horsemen bore down upon him and disabled his shoulder, so\nGorgias escaped to Marisa.\u201d These and other passages of a similar\ncharacter containing vivid touches, such as are not likely to have\nbeen supplied excepting by eye-witnesses, have a distinct value of\ntheir own. A point of importance in this connection is the fact that\nfor some five or six years preceding the accession to the throne of\nAntiochus Epiphanes 2 Maccabees is the only existing source, see iii.\ni-iv. 6; this passage contains a number of details, the historical\nreliability of which there is no reason to doubt. The book also gives\na good deal of information supplementary to that of 1 Maccabees for\nthe subsequent period of about ten years (B.C. 176-B.C. 166), cp. 2\nMaccabees iv. 7-vii. 41 with 1 Maccabees i. 10-64.\n\nThe final period treated of (B.C. 166-161) also supplements 1\nMaccabees in many particulars and is not without value.\n\nWhile upon the whole, therefore, the historical worth of our book is\nnot to be rated very highly, it can be of real use in supplementing\nwhat is recorded in 1 Maccabees, though it must be used with caution\nand discrimination.\n\n\nV. THE PURPOSE OF THE BOOK\n\nIn reading our book it very soon becomes evident that it was written\nwith the special purpose of emphasizing some religious truths, and\nthis with the object of upholding orthodox Judaism and worship.\nThe predominating religious bent comes out clearly on reading such\na passage as vi. 12-17, already quoted (see also ii. 19, 20, xii.\n43-45), and on noticing how everything that has to do with religion\nis extolled. Thus, the references to the Temple are numerous, as\nwell as those to the altar, e.g., x. 1-3: \u201cAnd Maccab\u00e6us and they\nthat were with him, the Lord leading them on, recovered the temple\nand the city.... And having cleansed the sanctuary they made another\naltar of sacrifice ...\u201d; cp. further, ii. 22, iii. 12, v. 15, etc.;\nagain in xiii. 14 the people are exhorted \u201cto contend nobly even\nunto death for laws, temple, city, country ...\u201d; in like manner are\nmentioned the sabbaths (vi. 11, viii. 26, xii. 38), the feasts of\nTabernacles (x. 6 f.), Pentecost (xii. 31), Dedication (i. 9, 18,\nii. 16, x. 5-8), Purim (xv. 36), and the feast in celebration of\nthe death of Nicanor (xv. 36). Regarding this latter feast and the\nfeast of Dedication Torrey says: \u201cMany scholars since Ewald have\nremarked the prominence given in the plan of the book not only to\nthe feast celebrating the death of Nicanor, with the institution of\nwhich the whole history comes to an end, but also to the feast of\nthe re-dedication of the temple, the description of which closes\nthe first half of the book, the passage x. 1-8 apparently being\nremoved for this purpose from its proper place. The account of the\ninstitution of the Nicanor feast would have been a most natural point\nfor Jason to bring his book to a close, in any case. This would have\nbeen just the kind of ending best suited to his general purpose....\nThe author\u2019s aim not being that of a historian, there was no need for\nhim to go on and narrate the death of Judas; his purpose was fully\naccomplished without that. The transposition of x. 1-8, however, is\nprobably to be attributed to the epitomist who saw how the plan of\nthe book could thus be made subservient to his more definite aim,\nincreased significance being thereby given both to the Nicanor feast\nand to the feast of the Dedication. These were _the two Maccab\u00e6an\nfeasts_, by the observance of which the Jews of the Diaspora could\nshare, as in no other outward way, in the national glory of that\nstruggle.\u201d[499]\n\nThis emphasizing of the national unity on the basis of religion and\nworship was, we may well believe, in the author\u2019s mind as well as in\nthat of the epitomist. His denunciation of those who are unfaithful\nto the national religion (cp. iv. 13-17, xii. 39-42) only emphasizes\nthis still further.\n\nAnother feature in the religious attitude very prominent in this\nbook is the stress laid upon divine interposition; and here it is\nnoticeable that both the direct intervening of God is contemplated as\nwell as the accomplishment of His purposes by intermediary agents.\nAs illustrative of the former we may refer to ix. 5 where it is said\nin reference to Antiochus Epiphanes that \u201cthe All-seeing Lord, the\nGod of Israel, smote him with a fatal and invisible stroke\u201d; again\nin xii. 28: \u201cBut calling upon the Sovereign Who with might breaketh\nin pieces the strength of His enemies, they got the city into their\nhands ...\u201d; cp. further x. 1, xi. 13, xii. 11, xiii. 15. On the other\nhand, there are some striking instances of a belief in intermediate\nagencies, the most noteworthy being that of the \u201cterrible rider\u201d\naccompanied by two young men who opposed Heliodorus and prevented him\nfrom despoiling the Temple treasury (iii. 22-30); but there are other\nexamples in the book, see x. 29-31, xi. 6-11.\n\nLastly, brief mention must be made of the advanced teaching on the\nresurrection which was evidently one of the truths which was coming\nto be more and more definitely and emphatically taught as a tenet\nof orthodox Judaism in the second half of the second century B.C.;\nthe important passages on this teaching are worth quoting, for there\nis no other pre-Christian Jewish book which puts forth the doctrine\nof the resurrection of the body more definitely. In vii. 9 one of\nthe martyrs addresses his persecutor thus: \u201cThou miscreant, thou\ndost send us away out of this present life, but the King of the\nworld shall raise us up, who have died for His laws, unto an eternal\nrenewal of life.\u201d Another martyr, after having had his limbs cut off,\nis made to say: \u201cFrom heaven I possess these; but for His law\u2019s sake\nI count them as nothing, and from Him I hope to receive them back\nagain\u201d (vii. 11). And yet a third martyr says: \u201cIt is good for them\nthat die at the hands of men to look for the hopes of God that we\nshall be raised up again by Him. But thou,\u201d he says to his tormentor,\n\u201cthou shalt have no resurrection to life\u201d (vii. 14). In xii. 43-45\nnot only is this doctrine taught, but its truth is substantiated by\nJudas\u2019 action in offering sacrifices and prayers for the dead:\n\n\u201cAnd he made a collection, man by man, to the sum of two thousand\ndrachmas of silver; and he sent this to Jerusalem for a sin-offering,\nacting therein well and honourably, for he was bearing in mind the\nresurrection. For if he were not expecting that the fallen would rise\nagain, it would have been superfluous and senseless to pray for the\ndead. And if in doing this he was looking for the splendour of the\ngracious reward which is laid up for them that have fallen asleep\nin godliness, holy and pious was the thought. Wherefore he made a\npropitiation for them that had died that they might be released from\ntheir sin\u201d (cp. xiv. 46).\n\n\nVI. THE INTEGRITY OF THE BOOK\n\nThere is one portion of our book which neither belonged to Jason\u2019s\nhistory nor yet to the epitomist, viz. i.-ii. 18. This comprises two\nletters which must be considered separately.\n\n_The first letter_, i. 1-9. This purports to have been written by the\nJews of Jerusalem to their brethren throughout Egypt exhorting them\nto observe the feast of the Dedication. It begins with a greeting\nand a prayer that God may incline the hearts of the readers to serve\nHim faithfully and keep His Law. Then follows the date at which the\nletter was written, i.e. B.C. 143, after which the real object of the\nletter finds expression; the readers are reminded of the original\ninstitution of the feast of Dedication, namely after the Temple had\nbeen polluted by Antiochus Epiphanes; \u201cand we offered sacrifice\nand meal-offering, and we lighted the lamps [this was the central\nceremony of the celebration], and we set forth the shewbread\u201d; after\nwhich the letter closes with the words: \u201cAnd now see that ye keep the\ndays of the feast of tabernacles of the month Chislev.\u201d To understand\nthese final words one must read x. 5-8: \u201cNow on the same day that\nthe sanctuary had been profaned by aliens, upon that very day did\nthe cleansing of the sanctuary take place, even on the twenty-fifth\nday of the same month, which is Chislev. And they kept eight days\nwith gladness in the manner of the feast of tabernacles, remembering\nhow that, not long before, during the feast of tabernacles they had\nbeen wandering like wild beasts in mountains and caves. Therefore\nbearing wands wreathed with leaves, and fair boughs and palms, they\noffered up hymns of thanksgiving to Him that had prosperously brought\nto pass the cleansing of His own place. They ordained also with a\npublic order and decree, for all the nation of the Jews, that they\nshould keep these ten[500] days every year.\u201d So that this new feast\nwas observed as something parallel, in its joyfulness, to the feast\nof Tabernacles (_Succ\u00f4th_) which was also an eight-day feast, but\nobserved in the month Tishri (= October).[501]\n\nThe interpretation of this letter given above regards the date\nmentioned in i. 10_a_ as belonging to the second letter[502]; there\nare objections to this, but it seems the best way of dealing with\nwhat is in any case a difficult point.\n\nWe see no reason why this letter should not be the fragment of a\ngenuine record, added by the epitomist himself.\n\n_The second letter_, i. 10-11. 18. The date prefixed to this letter\nis 188 of the Seleucid era, i.e. B.C. 124. Like the former letter\nthis also purports to have been written by the Jews[503] of Jerusalem\nto their brethren in Egypt for the purpose of urging them to keep\nthe feast of the Dedication; but it has the special object \u201cof\ndemonstrating at length its historical significance, indicating\nat the same time in other ways the analogy between the Maccab\u00e6an\nperiod and the other principal epochs of the nation\u2019s life.\u201d[504]\nThe Antiochus whose death is described in i. 13-17 is not Epiphanes,\nconcerning whose death an entirely different account is given in ix.\n1-29,[505] but far more probably, as Torrey has shown, Antiochus VII\nSidetes.[506] This, like the first letter, may be regarded as having\nbeen prefixed by the epitomist from some genuine record; at any rate,\nthe arguments against this view are not strong enough to exclude the\npossibility of its being correct. The extraordinary stories which\nthe letter contains undoubtedly constitute a difficulty in regarding\nit as genuine (i. 20-22, 31-34, ii. 1-12), but it is quite possible\nto regard these as Midrashic comments on Old Testament texts written\nfor the purpose of showing that the institution of the feast of\nthe Dedication was the logical outcome of Old Testament precedent\nand teaching. Torrey has rightly pointed out that \u201cone feature of\nthe writer\u2019s demonstration deserves especial notice, namely the\nextent to which it is based on the conception of the Dedication as a\n_restoration of the sacred fire_ to the altar and the temple.[507]\nEvidently at that time this idea had a most prominent place (perhaps\nthe central place) in current Jewish thought regarding the origin\nand meaning of this feast.\u201d[507] It is perhaps this idea which is\nreflected in the name of the feast given by Josephus, \u201cthe feast of\nlights,\u201d[508] and by its usual designation in the Talmud, \u201cthe Feast\nof Illumination,\u201d though in the first instance no doubt these names\nhad reference to the lamps lighted on each day of the feast, eight\non the first day, and one less on each succeeding day. However this\nmay be, if the stories referred to were originally Midrashic comments\nthere is no reason why they should not have been incorporated in a\nletter from Jews to Jews.\n\nBoth these letters were originally written either in Hebrew or\nAramaic; and if, as we do not see sufficient reason to doubt, the\nepitomist prefixed them to his book, his doing so, considering that\nthey emphasize the need of carrying out a religious ceremony, would\nhave been a natural proceeding on his part when one remembers the\nleading characteristic of his book as pointed out above.\n\nAlthough, therefore, these two letters do not belong to the book they\nmay reasonably be regarded as having been prefixed by the epitomist.\nWhether there are other portions, in the body of the book which the\nepitomist got from sources other than Jason\u2019s history is a difficult\nquestion to which it does not seem possible to give a definite answer.\n\n\nVII. THE DATE AND ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE BOOK\n\nThere is scarcely anything in the book itself which gives us any\nindication as to when it was written, the advanced doctrine of the\nfuture life (in a non-apocalyptic book) and the tendency to ascribe\ndivine activity among men to intermediate agencies alone suggesting\na comparatively late date. On the other hand, it is practically\ncertain that Philo was acquainted with the book, for in his work\n_Quod omnis probus liber_ (Mangey, ii. 45_a_) a description is given\nof the way in which in time past the godly have suffered at the hands\nof persecutors, which forcibly recalls the words in 2 Maccabees\nconcerning Antiochus Epiphanes.[509] Nothing more specific as to date\ncan, therefore, be given beyond saying that it was probably written\nshortly before the beginning of the Christian era.\n\nThere is nothing in the book which points to its being a translation;\nit was manifestly written in Greek (with the exception, of course,\nof the two prefixed letters) as already Jerome saw.[510] \u201cThe style\nis extremely uneven; at times it is elaborately ornate (iii. 15-39,\nv. 20, vi. 12-16, 23-28, vii., etc.); and again, it is so rude and\nbroken up as to seem more like notes for an epitome than a finished\ncomposition (viii. 19-26).\u201d[511] In all probability the book was\nwritten in Alexandria.\n\n\nVIII. THE INFLUENCE OF THE BOOK ON NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS\n\nIn only one instance can the influence of our book be seen directly\nin the New Testament, namely in Hebrews xi. 35 ff., where we\nread: \u201cWomen received their dead by a resurrection; and others\nwere tortured, not accepting their deliverance; that they might\nobtain a better resurrection; and others had trial of mockings and\nscourgings....\u201d On comparing with this the whole of 2 Maccabees\nvi., vii. one cannot fail to see that the descriptions there given\ninfluenced the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews here; we may\nquote, for example, vi. 19 where, in speaking of the martyrdom of\nEleazar, it is said: \u201cBut he, welcoming death with renown rather than\nlife with pollution, advanced of his own accord to the instrument of\ntorture ...\u201d (cp. also verse 28). Again, in vii. 23 the mother of the\nseven martyred sons says: \u201cTherefore the Creator of the World, Who\nfashioned the generation[512] of man and devised the generation[512]\nof all things, in mercy giveth back to you again your spirit and your\nlife\u201d; and in verse 29 she says: \u201cFear not this butcher, but, proving\nthyself worthy of thy brethren, accept thy death, that in the mercy\nof God I may receive thee again with thy brethren\u201d (cp. vii. 1, 7, 9,\n14). In Hebrews xi. 38, once more, the words \u201cwandering in deserts\nand mountains and caves, and in the holes of the earth,\u201d are in part\nrepeated from 2 Maccabees x. 6: \u201cThey were wandering in mountains and\nin caves after the manner of wild beasts.\u201d In all these passages the\nsimilarity of the Greek words is in each case very striking.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\nThe Book of Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014Fritzsche, in _Exegetisches Handbuch zu den\n  Apokryphen_ (1851); Kneucker, _Das Buch Baruch_, (1879); Gifford,\n  in Wace, II, pp. 241-286; Sch\u00fcrer, II, iii. pp. 188-195, German\n  ed., III, pp. 460-467; Rothstein, in Kautzsch, I, pp. 213-225;\n  Whitehouse, in Charles, I, pp. 569-595. See also the articles\n  by Marshall, in Hastings\u2019 _Dict. of the Bible_, Bevan, in the\n  _Encycl. Bibl._, and Toy, in the _Jewish Encycl._]\n\n\nI. SHORT ACCOUNT OF THE BOOK, AND ITS CONTENTS\n\nThis short pseudepigraph is placed in the Septuagint after the Book\nof Jeremiah, and before Lamentations, owing to which it is quoted\nsometimes by the Church Fathers as though it were part of that\nbook.[513] In some of the Greek manuscripts the Epistle of Jeremiah\nfollows Baruch without a break; in the Vulgate, and, following it,\nthe English Versions, it is marked as chapter vi. of Baruch. Swete\nsays that \u201cBaruch and the Epistle occur in lists which rigorously\nexclude the non-canonical books.\u201d[514] We shall consider the Epistle\nseparately. There was a considerable literature which arose and\ncirculated both before and after the beginning of the Christian\nera[515]; our book belongs to this literature. It purports to have\nbeen written by Baruch, the friend of Jeremiah, in Babylon during\nthe Captivity; and after it had been read there \u201cin the hearing\nof Jechonias the son of Joakim, king of Judah, and in the hearing\nof all the people\u201d (i. 3, 4), it was sent to Jerusalem to be read\nthere (i. 14); with it was also sent a collection of money to the\nhigh-priest Joakim for the purpose of defraying the expenses of\nsacrifices (i. 6-10); the people in Jerusalem are also asked to pray\nfor Nabuchodonosor, king of Babylon, and for his son, Baltasar, as\nwell as for the exiles (i. 11-13). This forms the introduction to the\nbook. Then follows what purports to be the Book of Baruch itself and\nthis consists of two parts:\n\ni. 15-ii. 12: this, which fully bears out the description given of\nit in i. 14 as a book of confession, begins with an ascription of\nrighteousness to God, after which follows a confession of sin; the\npast history of the nation is recalled to show that in spite of God\u2019s\nmercy the people were disobedient to Him and forsook Him; for this\nreason they are justly suffering for their sins in that they are in\nsubjection to the nations round about them.\n\nii. 13-iii. 8: a prayer to God for mercy forms the content of this\nsection; but it falls into three divisions; first, a prayer in the\nreal sense of the word (ii. 13-19); then, an historical survey which\nis largely based on Old Testament passages, especially from the Books\nof Daniel, Jeremiah and Deuteronomy (ii. 20-35); and, lastly, another\nprayer combined with confession (iii. 1-8).\n\nSo far the book is written in prose, the remainder is in poetry, and\nconsists of two quite independent pieces:\n\niii. 9-iv. 4: this is a fragment of the Wisdom Literature type;\nit tells of the reason why Israel is exiled in the land of their\nenemies, namely because they have forsaken \u201cthe fountain of Wisdom\u201d;\nthe people are, therefore bidden to find out where Wisdom is (iii.\n14); the mighty rulers of the earth, the wealthy, the skilled\u2014these\nhave not known where Wisdom is to be found (iii. 15-21), nor has it\nbeen attained by those of Canaan or Teman (iii. 22, 23); the giants\nof old knew not Wisdom, they perished in their foolishness (iii.\n24-28); no one has gone up to heaven to fetch her, nor gone over the\nsea to find her, because they do not know her paths (iii. 29-31);\nonly He that knows all things knows Wisdom, and He Who has found out\nall the ways of knowledge has given Wisdom to Israel, and this Wisdom\nis the Law that endures for ever (iii. 32-iv. 1); therefore Israel is\nexhorted to make use of his possession (iv. 2-4).\n\niv. 5-v. 9: this piece is strongly reminiscent of the second half\nof Isaiah; it consists of two parts, the first one being an ode of\ncomfort spoken by Jerusalem, personified as a mother, to her children\nin captivity (iv. 5-35); the second is an ode of comfort spoken to\nJerusalem who is bidden to rejoice, for her children are to be led\nback to her from their captivity (iv. 36-v. 9).\n\n\nII. EXAMINATION OF THE COMPONENT PARTS OF THE BOOK\n\nIt will thus be seen that the book consists of three independent\ndocuments: i.-iii. 8, iii. 9-iv. 4, iv. 5-v. 9; and these three\ndiffer very much in content. We must now examine them a little more\nclosely in order to ascertain their nature, purpose, and approximate\ndate.\n\n\n(1) _The Book of Confessions_ (i-iii. 8).\n\nIt is stated in i. 2 that the book was written in the \u201cfifth year\u201d;\npresumably by this is meant the fifth year after the capture of\nJerusalem; but Jerusalem was captured in B.C. 597, and again in\nB.C. 587 (2 Kings xxiv. 12-16; 2 Kings XXV. 9), so that our book\nis assigned either to B.C. 592 or B.C. 582. Both these dates\nare, however, impossible, for two indications in the book show\nclearly that the writer utilized the Book of Daniel (early in the\nMaccab\u00e6an era). Thus, the mistake made in Daniel v. 13, etc.,\nwhere Belshazzar is regarded as the son of Nebuchadnezzar,[516] is\nrepeated in our book, i. 11, 12; so far as is known this mistake\ndoes not occur elsewhere, the natural presumption, therefore, is\nthat the writer of Baruch got it from Daniel, especially when, in\nthe second place, we find that both the confession and prayer which\nmake up the whole section, are based upon Daniel ix. 7-19, of which\nit is an elaboration. Further, that the section cannot belong to\nthe Maccab\u00e6an era is sufficiently clear from i. 11, 12, where the\npeople are recommended to pray for their oppressor and to acquiesce\nin his sovereignty over them; such a recommendation on the part of\na Jew during the Maccab\u00e6an era, when the people were fighting not\nonly for their country and their homes, but for their religion and\nfor the honour of God, is quite unthinkable. The transference to\nan earlier historical period than that at which a writer lived is\na literary device constructed for one of several reasons, whether\nfor dramatic effect, as in the case of the Book of Judith, where\nlikewise the reign of Nebuchadnezzar is chosen; or for reasons of\nprudence, as probably in the present case; or because a somewhat\nparallel set of historical conditions is offered; whatever the\nreason may be, the procedure is not uncommon and need not occasion\nsurprise. In the present case there are strong grounds for believing\nthat the actual period at which this section of our book was written\nwas during the struggle of the Jews against the Roman power during\nthe years, A.D. 66-70; the reasons for this conclusion are briefly\nthese: Nebuchadnezzar and his son were, according to the belief of\nthe writer of our book, the kings under whom the conquered Jews\nlived; their names might well stand, therefore, for Vespasian and his\nson Titus. The Jews are bidden to submit to their conquerors (\u201cThus\nsaith the Lord, Bow your shoulders to serve the king of Babylon,\nand remain in the land that I gave unto your fathers,\u201d ii. 21); this\naccords with what we know was the attitude of the Pharisees towards\ntheir Roman conquerors, for they did their best to quiet the people\nand get them to submit to Rome.[517] Again, the sufferings of the\nJews during the war with Rome, described by Josephus,[518] seem to be\nindubitably referred to in ii. 2, where reference is made to \u201cgreat\nplagues, such as never happened under the whole heaven, as it came\nto pass in Jerusalem\u201d; in ii. 3, where it is said that every man ate\nthe flesh of his own son and of his own daughter; and in ii. 24, 25,\nwhere it is said that \u201cthe bones of our kings, and the bones of our\nfathers are taken out of their places; and, lo, they are cast out to\nthe heat by day, and to the frost by night; and they died in great\nmiseries by famine, by sword, and by pestilence.\u201d It is also said in\ni. 2 that Jerusalem was burnt with fire.[519]\n\nAn argument against this late date is that in ii. 17 we have a\nconception of the future life which is the normal Old Testament\nbelief on the subject, viz.: \u201cFor the dead that are in the grave,\nwhose breath is taken from their bodies, will give unto the Lord\nneither glory nor righteousness\u201d; it is difficult to explain how such\na conception can have found expression at the date postulated above,\nunless we suppose that we have in ii. 17-19 an interpolation by one\nof the Sadduc\u00e6an party; it is certainly striking that in verse 19\nthere is a repudiation of the doctrine of the merits of the fathers,\nwhich plays so large a part in the later Jewish theology; the verse\nruns: \u201cFor we do not present our supplication before Thee, O Lord our\nGod, for the righteousness of our fathers, and of our kings\u201d; if in\nthese last words there is an implicit reference to David the passage\nwould be the more strikingly Sadduc\u00e6an. That the book as a whole,\nhowever, can be Sadduc\u00e6an is out of the question; if for no other\nreason on account of the penitential spirit contained in it which is\nquite un-Sadduc\u00e6an; but that an interpolator has added these verses\nin the interests of his own school of thought is by no means an\nimpossible explanation of the difficulty (but see below).[520]\n\nThe period to which reference is intended in the book, namely the war\nwith Rome, being A.D. 66-70, the fifth year after the destruction of\nJerusalem, mentioned in i. 2, will give us the precise date of this\nportion of our book, viz. A.D. 74 or 75.\n\nBut while the actual date of this portion of the book may thus\nbe regarded as fixed, it is necessary to point out that there\nare cogent reasons for believing that the writer has made use of\nearlier material. The fact is that the whole piece i. 15-iii. 8\nreads remarkably like an extract of a liturgical character; it has\nall the leading notes which we find so elaborated in the modern\nJewish Liturgy, a Liturgy the essential elements of which go back to\npre-Christian times.[521] Thus, in the passage under consideration\nthe three outstanding notes are: Praise, Confession of sin\n(disobedience in not observing the divine commandments), and Prayer\nfor forgiveness (i.e. the turning away of God\u2019s wrath). These all\nrepresent what have become technical liturgical terms, viz. _Berakah_\n(\u201cPraise,\u201d lit. \u201cBlessing\u201d), _Widdui_ (\u201cConfession\u201d), _Selichah_\n(\u201cForgiveness\u201d). When one studies the modern Jewish Liturgy one sees\nthat it is just in its oldest portions that these three elements are\nso prominent; for example, the daily Morning Prayer has not only its\nspecial psalm of Praise for each day, but contains a large number\nof _Berak\u00f4th_ (\u201cBlessings\u201d) which precede this; while in the great\n_Amidah_[522] prayer, which forms one of the central parts of the\nservice, the prominent elements are Confession of sin and Prayer for\nforgiveness. It will be instructive to illustrate this by putting in\nparallel columns a few quotations from Baruch and the _Amidah_:\n\n          _Baruch_                                 _Amidah_\n\n    To the Lord our God belongeth       Blessed art Thou, O Lord our\n  righteousness (i. 15) ...           God, and God of our fathers ...\n  we have sinned before the Lord,     the great, mighty and reverend\n  and disobeyed Him, and have         God, the most high God, Who\n  not hearkened unto the voice of     bestowest loving-kindnesses,\n  the Lord our God, to walk in the    and possessest all things....\n  commandments of the Lord that He    Cause us to return, O our Father,\n  hath set before us (ii. 17, 18).    unto Thy Law; draw us near,\n  ... Let thy wrath turn from         O our King, unto Thy service,\n  us; for we are but a few left       and bring us back in perfect\n  among the heathen, where Thou       repentance unto Thy presence.\n  hast scattered us. Hear our         Blessed art Thou, O Lord,\n  prayer, O Lord, and our petition,   Who delightest in repentance.\n  and deliver us for Thine            Forgive us, O our Father, for we\n  own sake.... O Lord, look           have sinned; pardon us, O our\n  down from Thine holy house, and     King, for we have transgressed;\n  consider us; incline Thine ear,     for Thou dost pardon and forgive.\n  O Lord, and hear ... (ii. 13-17).   ... Look upon our affliction\n                                      and plead our cause,\n                                      and redeem us speedily for Thy\n                                      name\u2019s sake.... Sound the great\n                                      horn for our freedom; lift up\n                                      the ensign to gather our exiles,\n                                      and gather us from the four\n                                      corners of the earth.\n\nA detailed consideration of the two shows many more points of contact\nbetween them and proves a very close relationship; but this is not\nthe place to go into great detail. Two other points must, however,\nbe touched upon. We suggested above that the passage ii. 17-19 might\nbe an interpolation in the interests of Sadduc\u00e6an teaching, namely\nto emphasize the old traditional belief regarding the departed,\nand to repudiate the doctrine of the merits of the fathers; but\nthe possibility (perhaps even the probability) must be recognized\nof verse 17 having been original, and having first been altered in\naccordance with the developed Pharisaic teaching, and then having\nfinally been restored to its original form by a Sadducee. Verse 19,\non the other hand, would then have to be regarded as a Pharisaic\ninterpolation altered by the Sadducee, because there would be no\npoint in the repudiation of the doctrine of the merits of the fathers\nunless the expression of this un-Sadduc\u00e6an tenet had stood there\nfirst; but it is not likely to have stood in the original form of\nthe section because the doctrine is a late one. It is especially\ninteresting and significant that the doctrines contained in these two\nverses respectively should appear in close proximity in the _Amidah_;\nlet us place the two in parallel columns again:\n\n               _Baruch_                                 _Amidah_\n\n    For the dead that are in the        Thou, O Lord, art mighty\n  grave, whose breath is taken        for ever, Thou quickenest the\n  from their bodies, will give unto   dead, Thou art mighty to save....\n  the Lord neither glory nor          Yea, faithful art Thou to\n  righteousness (ii. 17).             quicken the dead. Blessed art\n                                      Thou O Lord, Who quickenest\n    For we do not present our         the dead.\n  supplication before Thee, O\n  Lord our God, for the righteous-      Blessed art Thou, O Lord\n  ness of our fathers, and of our     our God ... Who rememberest\n  kings (ii. 19).                     the pious deeds of the\n                                      patriarchs....[523]\n\nThe contrast here presented is the more striking on account of the\nessential similarity of the two pieces in other respects.\n\nThe second point which further supports our contention that this\nsection is liturgical in character is that it contains references to\nthe deliverance from Egypt, an invariable element in all forms of\nthe Jewish Liturgy; this occurs three times in the Baruch section;\nand in the modern Jewish Liturgy it is found, among other places, in\nthe \u201cBenedictions\u201d following the _Shema_,[524] which immediately\nprecedes the _Amidah_. \u201cFrom Jeremiah xxiii. 7 it seems probable that\nreference to the deliverance from Egypt in the public services goes\nback to the time of the first Temple.\u201d[525]\n\nFrom what has been said, therefore, the supposition seems justified\nthat the section i. 15-iii. 8 is an extract from the Temple Liturgy\nwhich has been enlarged by interjected clauses and adapted to the\nspecial circumstances of the time, viz. A.D. 74 or 75.\n\n\n(2) _A Sage\u2019s Words of Encouragement_ (iii. 9-iv. 4).\n\nThe entirely different style of writing of both this and the\nconcluding piece from that of the one which we have just considered\nis of itself sufficient to show that there is a difference of\nauthorship. There is no reference to calamity as in the earlier\npiece; here it is said of the Israelites that they have \u201cwaxen old\nin a strange country\u201d (iii. 10). The contrast between the mental\ndisquietude of i. 15-iii. 8 and the calm of this section is very\nmarked. The assumed condition of the nation, however, is that of\nthe former section, the nation is in the land of exile. The writer\nis an imitator of the ancient Sage or Wisdom writer; his word of\nconsolation to the people is that they should learn where Wisdom is\n(iii. 14); but this Wisdom is \u201cthe Law that endureth for ever\u201d (iv.\n1); he bids his people reserve this for themselves and not impart it\nto outsiders; \u201cGive not thy glory to another, nor the things that are\nprofitable unto thee to a strange nation\u201d (iv. 3). Finally, a spirit\nof contentment breathes in the words: \u201cO Israel, happy are we; for\nthe things that are pleasing to God are made known unto us\u201d (iv. 4).\n\nNow, although the indications of date are not very definite here,\none or two points of guidance do appear: there is peace, and the\npeople have been settled for a good while in their exile; therefore\nthe section belongs to a period some time after the destruction of\nJerusalem. The writer is a student of the Law, and he writes on\nWisdom, and rejoices in the knowledge of the things that are pleasing\nunto God, and exhorts others to do the same. All these things lead\none to suggest that the scene is one of those academies in Babylonia,\nsuch as that at Nehardea, which received a considerable influx of\nJews from Palestine after the great calamity of A.D. 70; in these\nthey studied in peace and reared up students of the Law. This section\n(iii. 9-iv. 4), therefore, may quite possibly have been written under\nthese conditions at the commencement of the second century A.D. or\neven later, though it must have been written not later than about\nA.D. 150 or thereabouts as the book is quoted by Athenagoras and\nIren\u00e6us.[526]\n\nBoth the sections so far considered were probably written in Hebrew,\nor in the case of the second in Aramaic; Marshall has given good\ngrounds for the latter contention.[527]\n\n\n(3) _A Message of Good Cheer_ (iv. 5-v. 9).\n\nThis section consists of two divisions, but both have the same\nobject in view and both are in all probability by the same author.\nThe object of them is to cheer the Jewish people who are still\npictorially represented as being in captivity (iv. 24). The thought\nand diction of the first division (iv. 5-35) are largely based on\nthose of the Old Testament; Jerusalem is represented as the mother\nof the nation who tells her children why they are suffering, namely\nthrough their own folly; she does not wish to plunge them into\ndespair by reminding them of this, but only to witness to the\nfacts for her children\u2019s good; she has given herself to prayer,\nand therefore is convinced that a new era will soon dawn for them.\nThe four times reiterated \u201cBe of good cheer\u201d (iv. 5, 21, 27, 30)\ndistinctly shows the purpose of the poem.\n\nThe last division (iv. 36-v. 9) is a message of comfort to Jerusalem\nherself put into the mouth of God; she is bidden to rejoice because\nher children are about to return \u201cfrom the east to the west at the\nword of the Holy One\u201d (iv. 37). The similarity between this piece and\nthe eleventh of the Psalms of Solomon is striking,[528] so much so\nthat it is worth while putting the parallel passages in juxtaposition:\n\n           _Baruch_                    _Psalms of Solomon_, xi.\n\n  O Jerusalem, look about thee        Stand on the height, O Jerusalem,\n      toward the east,                    and behold thy children,\n  And behold the joy that cometh      From the east to the west,\n      unto thee from God.                 gathered together by the\n  Lo, thy sons come, whom thou            Lord (verse 3).\n      sentest away,\n  They come gathered together\n      from the east to the west,\n  Rejoicing in the glory of God\n      (iv. 36, 37).\n  Put off, O Jerusalem, the garment   Put on, O Jerusalem, thy\n      of thy mourning and                 glorious garments;\n      affliction,                     Make ready thy holy robe ...\n  And put on the comeliness of the        (verse 8).\n      glory that cometh from God\n      for ever.\n  Cast about thee the robe of the\n      righteousness which cometh\n      from God ... (v. 1, 2).\n  For God hath appointed that         High mountains hath He abased\n      every high mountain,                into a plain for them;\n  And the everlasting hills should    The hills fled at their entrance.\n      be made low,                    The woods gave them shelter\n  And the valleys filled up, to           as they passed by;\n      make plain the ground,\n  That Israel may go safely in the    Every sweet-smelling tree God\n      glory of God.                       caused to spring up for them,\n  Moreover the woods and every        That Israel might pass by in\n      sweet-smelling tree                 the visitation of the glory\n  Have overshadowed Israel                of their God (verses 5-7).\n      (v. 7, 8).\n\nThe Psalms of Solomon belong, as we have seen,[529] to about the\nmiddle of the last century B.C., and on the supposition that the\nBaruch passage is dependent on the Psalm (Ryle and James),[530] a\n_terminus a quo_ is given for the date of the former. The indications\nin the Baruch passage, however, point to a much later date, and we\nsee no reason to regard the date of this piece as different from that\nof the section iii. 9-iv. 4, the background of each is a peaceful\npresent and a calm future; the beginning of the second century A.D.\nmay be assigned as approximately the date of this section too.\n\nThe original language of the whole of iv. 5-v. 9 is recognized by\nmost scholars as having been Greek from the beginning.\n\n\nTHE EPISTLE OF JEREMIAH\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014Gifford, in Wace, II, pp. 287-303; Rothstein, in\n  Kautzsch, I, pp. 226-229; Ball, in Charles, I, pp. 596-611.]\n\nIn the Vulgate this Epistle appears as the sixth chapter of Baruch;\nbut in the Septuagint it is treated as a separate book and comes\nafter Lamentations with the inscription \u201cLetter of Jeremy,\u201d and a\ntitle[531] which runs: \u201cCopy of a letter which Jeremiah sent to those\nwho were about to be led captives by the king of the Babylonians, to\ngive them a message, as it had been commanded him by God.\u201d\n\nIt has been thought by some that this letter was suggested by the\nletter referred to in Jeremiah xxix. 1,[532] which was sent \u201cfrom\nJerusalem unto the residue of the elders of the captivity, and\nto the priests, and to the prophets, and to all the people, whom\nNebuchadnezzar had carried away captive from Jerusalem to Babylon\u201d;\nbut this seems unlikely because the contents of the letter here\nspoken of are given in verses 4 ff. of the same chapter. The letter\nbefore us is a not very skilfully composed polemic against idolatry\nbased to a large extent upon Jeremiah x. 1-16, Psalm cxv. 4-8, and\nIsaiah xlix. 9-19; it is also reminiscent of such passages as Wisdom\nxiii. 10-19, xv. 13-17.\n\nThat the writer is seeking to check a real danger, namely that of\nmany of the Dispersion Jews falling into idolatry, seems certain from\nthe obvious earnestness with which he writes; and this, indirect as\nit is, seems to be the only indication of the date of the writing.\nFor if this danger was real it implies that the time was one of\npeace for the Jews. We know from 2 Maccabees what was the result of\nseeking to force an alien religion upon them, but from this letter\nit is clear that the real danger lay in the allurement which the\nidol-worship had for many of the Jews, and that their choice was\nfree. In times of stress loyalty to their religious beliefs and\ncustoms was always characteristic of the Jews, while when peace and\nquietude and prosperity was enjoyed by them laxity in religious\nmatters arose. The implication, therefore, is that this letter\nwas written at a time when the Jews were in the enjoyment both of\nreligious liberty and peaceful surroundings. Another implication is\nthat this period of quiet had lasted some time; the danger of which\nthe letter bears witness would have taken some time to develop.\nThen further, there is no reference to the great calamity of A.D.\n70, which affected the Dispersion Jews very deeply from a religious\npoint of view, and which would therefore have been referred to, one\nmay presume, had the letter been written some time soon after this\ncatastrophe. The possibility of its having been written some time\nbefore this must be allowed; Marshall holds, for example, that it\nwas written during the first century B.C.[533]; and there is no\nstrong argument against this; the present writer prefers to date it\nalong with the two preceding sections of this book, though he fully\nrealizes the force of Cheyne\u2019s words that \u201cit is hardly possible\nto fix the date exactly, and unsafe even to say that the epistle\nwas written before 2 Maccabees, the supposed reference to it in 2\nMaccabees iii. 1 ff. being disputed.\u201d[534]\n\nThe Epistle was, according to the opinion of most scholars, written\nin Greek; Ball, with much ingenuity and learning, seeks to show that\nit was written in Hebrew; but very ingenious as many of the instances\nare which he brings forward to show that the Greek is a translation\nof either the genuine Hebrew or, in other cases, of a corruption in\nthe Hebrew text, they are by no means always convincing; and while\nit may be said that he has shown the possibility of its having\nbeen translated from Hebrew, it can hardly be said that he has\ndemonstrated the probability of this. The Hebraisms it contains may\nwell be no more than what are characteristic of Hellenistic Greek. If\nit could be proved that the epistle was written in B.C. 306, as Ball\nholds, we should have to give up the idea of a Greek original; but in\nthis case we should be at a loss to know why it was not included in\nthe Hebrew Canon.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII\n\nThe Ezra Apocalypse\n\n(2 (4) Esdras)\n\n  [LITERATURE.\u2014Volkmar, _Das Vierte Buch Esra_ (1863); Drummond,\n  _The Jewish Messiah_ (1877); Lupton, in Wace (1888); Kabisch,\n  _Das vierte Buch Esra auf seine Quellen untersucht_ (1889);\n  Sch\u00fcrer, _Op. cit._, II, iii. pp. 93-114 (1891) German ed. III.\n  pp. 315-335 (1909); Ball, in _The Variorum Apocrypha_; Bensly\n  and James, _The Fourth Book of Ezra; the Latin Version edited\n  from the MSS._, in \u201cTexts and Studies,\u201d III, 2 (1895); Charles,\n  _The Apocalypse of Baruch_, pp. lxvii.-lxxvi (1896); Gunkel, in\n  Kautzsch, II, pp. 331-401; Violet, _Die Esra-Apokalypse_ (4 Esra)\n  (1910 ...); Box, _The Ezra-Apocalypse_ (1912); Box, in Charles,\n  II, pp. 542-624.]\n\n\nI. THE TITLE OF THE BOOK\n\nAs we shall see, chapters i. ii. xv. xvi. did not originally belong\nto our book and are only found in the Latin Version (the Greek\nVersion is not extant). In the oriental Versions (Syriac, Ethiopic,\nArabic, Armenian) the book consists of only chapters iii.-xiv. In\nthe later Latin MSS. we often find that: \u201c2 Esdras\u201d = chapters i.\nii., \u201c3 Esdras\u201d = 1 Esdras of our Apocrypha, \u201c4 Esdras\u201d = chapters\niii.-xiv., and \u201c5 Esdras\u201d = chapters xv. xvi. of our book. The\nreason, therefore, why the book is often referred to as 2 (4) Esdras\nis because what in our Apocrypha is designated \u201c2 Esdras\u201d is in the\nVulgate entitled \u201c4 Esdras.\u201d[535]\n\nThe book is a pseudepigraph,[536] for although the name of Esdras\n(Ezra) occurs in the title, it is obvious, as will be seen as we\nproceed, that no part of the book can have been written by him. For\nthe reason of such false ascriptions of authorship, see above, pp.\n200 ff.\n\nSince the book consists of three independent writings it will be\nnecessary to consider each separately. We shall deal with the two\nlater additions first.\n\n\nII. CHAPTERS i. ii.\n\nThese chapters, which tell how Ezra received the commission to\ndeclare to the Jews their rejection by God, contains a curious\nmixture of Jewish and Christian teaching; i. 4-27 speaks of the\ndeliverance from Egypt and the wanderings in the wilderness somewhat\nafter the manner of Psalm cvi. A number of other passages suggest a\nmental atmosphere which is Jewish, notably i. 38-40, where it is said\nthat \u201ca people that come from the east\u201d will have for their leaders\nthe patriarchs and the prophets; the enumeration which follows\nincludes the names of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and those of the twelve\nminor prophets. In another passage (i. 8) evil is threatened against\nthe Jews because they have been disobedient to the Law. On the other\nhand, these chapters plainly tell of the rejection of the nation as\na whole, e.g. i. 7: \u201cLet them be scattered abroad among the heathen,\nlet their names be blotted out of the earth; for they have despised\nmy covenant\u201d; their heritage is to be given to others who have now\nbecome the people of God: \u201cTell my people that I will give them the\nkingdom of Jerusalem, which I would have given unto Israel.\u201d This\n\u201ckingdom of Jerusalem\u201d is the \u201cnew Jerusalem,\u201d as is clear from the\nconcluding verses of the whole piece (ii. 42-48): \u201cI, Esdras, saw\nupon the mount Sion a great multitude, whom I could not number, and\nthey all praised the Lord with songs. And in the midst of them there\nwas a young man of a high stature, taller than all the rest, and\nupon every one of their heads he set crowns.... Then said I unto\nthe angel: \u2018What young man is he that setteth crowns upon them, and\ngiveth them palms in their hands?\u2019 So he answered and said unto me:\n\u2018It is the Son of God, Whom they have confessed in the world.\u2019...\u201d\nThere are, moreover, a number of passages which are obviously based\nupon words in the Gospels, e.g.: \u201cI gathered you together as a hen\ngathereth her chickens under her wings\u201d (i. 30, cp. Matt, xxiii. 37);\n\u201cI sent unto you my servants the prophets, whom ye have taken and\nslain, and torn their bodies in pieces, whose blood I will require\n[of your hands]\u201d (i. 32, cp. Luke xi. 50, 51); \u201cAsk, and ye shall\nreceive; pray for few days unto you, that they may be shortened; the\nkingdom is already prepared for you; watch\u201d (ii. 13, cp. Matt. vii.\n7, xxiv. 22, xxv. 13, 32).\n\nIt seems, therefore, probable, that these chapters were written by a\nJewish-Christian, who compiled them from various sources. They are a\nlater addition to the body of the book, though they contain material\nwhich is older. It is impossible to say when they were added, but\nthere can be no doubt that they were prefixed before chapters xv.\nxvi. were added.\n\n\nIII. CHAPTERS xv. xvi.\n\nThese chapters form an appendix to the book itself; they consist of\ndenunciations against Egypt (xv. 5-27), Asia and Babylon (xv. 28-xvi.\n17); while the remaining section, \u201cThe beginning of sorrows\u201d (xvi.\n18-78) is a prophecy of terrors and tribulation which are to come\nupon the world; only the Lord\u2019s elect shall ultimately be delivered.\nThe entire section is written in the style of the Old Testament\nprophets, interspersed, however, with words and thoughts from the New\nTestament; e.g.: \u201c... he that occupieth merchandize, (let him be) as\nhe that hath no profit by it; and he that buildeth, as he that shall\nnot dwell therein; he that soweth, as if he should not reap; so also\nhe that pruneth, as he that shall not gather grapes; they that marry,\nas they that shall get no children; and they that marry not, as the\nwidowed\u201d (xvi. 41-44, cp. 1 Cor. vii. 29-31).\n\nThe chapters, therefore, partake to some extent of the character of\nchapters i. ii., though the denunciation of the Jewish nation is\nhere quite absent. As to their date, Thackeray, following Hilgenfeld\n(_Messias Jud\u00e6orum_, p. 208) says they are placed \u201cabout A.D. 268 by\nmost critics; xv. 10-12 refers to the troubles of Alexandria under\nGallienus (260-268), when two-thirds of the population were destroyed\nby a plague following upon a famine (Eusebius, _Hist. Eccles._,\nvii. 21, 22). xv. 28-33 refers to the conquests of the Sassanid\u00e6,\nespecially Sapor I (240-273), who overran Syria, but was repulsed\nby Odenathus and Zenobia, the founders of Palmyra; they, in turn,\nwere defeated by Aurelian. xv. 33 describes the murder of Odenathus\nat Emesa (266) by his cousin M\u00e6onius. xv. 34 ff. refer to the\ninvasion of Asia Minor by the Goths and Scythians from the north of\nthe Euxine; Gallienus marched against them, but was recalled by the\nrevolt of Aureolus. xv. 46 alludes to the association of Odenathus in\nthe Empire, A.D. 264.\u201d[537]\n\n\nIV. THE COMPONENT PARTS OF CHAPTERS iii.-xiv.\n\nBefore we come to consider the contents of the various sections\ncomposing our book it will be well to enumerate them, and to discuss\nshortly the question of their authorship and date.\n\n\n(_a_) _The Salathiel Apocalypse_ (iii.-x.); this is divided into four\nVisions:\n\n  First Vision, iii. 1-v. 20.\n  Second Vision, v. 21-vi. 34.\n  Third Vision, vi. 35-ix. 25.\n  Fourth Vision, ix. 26-x. 59.\n\n(_b_) _The Eagle Vision_ (xi.-xii. 39); the passage xii. 40-51 is not\npart of the Vision.\n\n(_c_) _The Vision of the Man rising from the Sea_ (xiii.).\n\n(_d_) _An Ezra Legend_ (xiv.).\n\nWhether all this matter is to be assigned to one or more authors is a\nquestion concerning which a variety of opinions are held by scholars.\nBut on two points there is scarcely room for diversity of view; in\nthe first place, a great deal that occurs in the book is traditional\nmaterial which has been utilized by the writer; this applies more\nespecially to the eschatological portions; examples will be given\nwhen we come to speak about these parts of the book. The sources\nwhence the writer of our book took this traditional material may well\nhave been, in all probability were, written ones; but the excerpts\nwhich were made from such writings have been so interwoven with what\nthe writer himself composed that the attempt to indicate precisely\nhow much belongs to a particular source seems to us somewhat\nprecarious. At any rate, that the writer did utilize various sources\nwill not be doubted. Another point upon which there can scarcely be\ndisagreement is that the final form of the work is due to a redactor\nwho has brought the component parts of the book into a more or less\nconnected whole.\n\nComing now to speak of the date of the book it must be explained that\nby this is meant the date at which the author wrote it. Since he used\ntraditional material much of the essence of the book goes back to\na time long anterior to that of the writer. Again, the book in its\npresent form, having been worked over by a redactor, is obviously\nof a later date than that in which it left the original writer\u2019s\nhands. Furthermore, the study of the book makes it evident that the\ndifferent parts of which it is composed were not all written at\nthe same time. Even if the whole book (apart from i. ii. xv. xvi.)\nis substantially the work of one author, there is no sort of doubt\nthat he must have written the different parts of it at different\ntimes. Bearing these points in mind we turn first to the _Salathiel\nApocalypse_. In iii. 1 it is said that \u201cin the thirtieth year after\nthe ruin of the city\u201d (cp. iii. 29), Salathiel (= Shealtiel) was\nin Babylon, and \u201cthoughts came up over his heart for he saw the\ndesolation of Sion.\u201d The writer looks back and recalls to his mind\nthe terrible catastrophe which befel his people long ago; it was in\nthe year B.C. 586 that Jerusalem was destroyed and the nation was\ncarried into captivity to Babylon. Thirty years after this Salathiel,\nliving in captivity, contemplated the ruin of the city and the\ndire distress of his people. The writer chooses this episode and\nwrites in the name of Salathiel, because he sees in it a type of his\npresent experience; now again the city has been ruined, and he, like\nSalathiel of old, contemplates the desolation of his people. Clearly\nenough there is but one destruction, after that of B.C. 586, of\nJerusalem which can be meant here, namely that of A.D. 70 by Titus.\nSo that when the writer gives the thirtieth year after the ruin of\nthe city as that in which he experienced the visions he is about to\ndescribe, the date of this portion of the book must be set down as\nnot later than A.D. 100.\n\nRegarding the date of the Eagle Vision, it is generally agreed to\nbe about A.D. 96; the indications of date in the Vision are fairly\nclear; we shall point out what these are when dealing with this\nVision.\n\nThe Vision of the Man rising from the Sea contains more of\ntraditional elements than any other part of the book, so that as\nfor as thought and conceptions are concerned it is probably the\noldest portion of the whole book; but as adapted by our author it\nimplies, as we shall see later, an historical situation prior to the\ndestruction of Jerusalem i.e. before, but not long before, A.D. 70.\nThe Ezra Legend in chapter xiv. belongs to the same period as the\nSalathiel Apocalypse, viz. about A.D. 100.\n\nWe shall now proceed to examine the contents and teaching of these\nVisions, and it will be best to take them in their chronological\norder.\n\n\nV. THE VISION OF THE MAN RISING FROM THE SEA.\n\nThis Vision is as follows[538]:\n\n  And it came to pass after seven days that I dreamed a dream by\n  night; and, behold, a wind arose from the sea, and it stirred\n  up all the waves thereof. And I looked, and behold [that wind\n  caused to arise up from the heart of the sea as it were the\n  form of a man. And I looked, and behold], that man flew with\n  the clouds of Heaven; and whithersoever he turned his face and\n  looked, everything quaked that was seen by him; and whithersoever\n  the voice from his mouth went, all that heard his voice melted\n  away,[539] like as wax melteth away when it feeleth the fire.\n  And after this I looked, and behold, a multitude of men, without\n  number, from the four winds of Heaven, were gathered together to\n  war against the man who had arisen from the sea. And I looked,\n  and behold, he cut out for himself a great mountain, and did\n  fly upon it. But I sought to see the region of the place out\n  of which the mountain had been cut; but I could not. And after\n  this, I looked, and behold, all those who had gathered together\n  against him to make war upon him, feared greatly; nevertheless\n  they dared to fight. And behold, when he saw the onslaught of\n  the approaching multitude, he neither raised his hand, nor took\n  hold of spear or other warlike weapon; but I only saw how he sent\n  forth from his mouth as it were a fiery stream, and from his\n  lips a flaming breath, and from his tongue he shot forth a storm\n  of sparks; and all these were mixed together, the fiery stream\n  and the flaming breath and the mighty storm.[540] And these fell\n  upon the approaching multitude, ready to fight, and burned them\n  all, so that suddenly nothing was seen of the immense multitude\n  but the dust of ashes and the smell of smoke. And I looked, and\n  was amazed. And after this I saw that man coming down from the\n  mountain and calling unto himself another, a peaceful, multitude.\n  And there drew unto him the faces of many men, some of whom were\n  glad, and some were sorrowful, and some were bound, and some were\n  leading others who were to be offered.\n\nThe writer\u2019s interpretation of this Vision with which the rest of the\nchapter is taken up, is as follows: The man who ascended from the sea\nand flew with the clouds of Heaven is the Messiah; the innumerable\nmultitude of men who fight against him, and who are annihilated,\nare the nations of the world; the great mountain which was cut out,\nand concerning which the seer was in perplexity, is the heavenly\nJerusalem which came down from Heaven. The fiery stream, and flaming\nbreath, and storm of sparks represent the fire of the Law whereby\nthe enemies of the Messiah are annihilated. The peaceful multitude\nwhich the Messiah called unto himself are the ten tribes gathered\nout of the lands of the Dispersion. Those who were glad and those\nwho were sorrowful are respectively Jews and Gentiles coming to do\nhomage to the Messiah. Those who were bound were Jews who had been in\ncaptivity; while those who were leading others to be offered, were\nthe heathen bringing Jews as an oblation to the Messiah, according to\nthe word of the prophet: \u201cAnd they shall bring all your brethren out\nof all the nations to be an oblation to Jehovah\u201d (Isa. lxvi. 20).\n\nStress must be laid upon the fact that between the Vision itself\nand the writer\u2019s explanation of it there are some incongruities;\nthis, as Box truly points out (_Op. cit._, pp. 281 f.), \u201cis a common\nphenomenon in apocalyptic; the material employed by the apocalyptists\nis often extremely old, and has been derived by the apocalyptic\nwriter from a tradition which was already ancient when he wrote.\nThe meaning of certain details in the fixed tradition which he\nuses is not always clear to the apocalyptic writer himself. Hence\nthe lack of adjustment between certain features in the Vision and\nthe interpretation.... Thus, here the rising of the man from the\nsea is explained (verse 52) as symbolical of the mysterious origin\nof the Messiah (_My Son_), and the peaceable multitude as the lost\nten tribes. There are also features in the interpretation which\nhave nothing corresponding to them in the Vision itself, viz., the\ninternecine war of the nations before they band themselves together\nagainst the Messiah (verses 31 f.), and the mention of the survivors\nwho are found \u2018within my holy border,\u2019 and whom the Messiah shall\ndefend (verses 48, 49).... Thus the first point to be noted is that\nwhen the Vision first assumed a written form, the real significance\nof many features in the original Vision was already lost, and was\nobscured by a more or less artificially adjusted interpretation. In\nother words, religious thought and outlook had long outgrown those\nof the fixed tradition. It had become necessary to re-interpret the\nlatter to suit later conditions.\u201d What the Vision and many of its\ncurious details really mean is an intricate, but very interesting,\nquestion; we cannot, however, deal with this here, and must direct\nthose who desire further information on the subject to the following\nworks: Gunkel, _Chaos und Sch\u00f6pfung in Urzeit und Endzeit_, pp.\n64 ff. (1895); Volz, _J\u00fcdische Eschatologie_, pp. 220 ff. (1903);\nGressmann, _Der Ursprung der israelitisch-j\u00fcdischen Eschatologie_,\npp. 349 ff.; Oesterley, _The Evolution of the Messianic Idea_, passim\n(1908); Box, _Op. cit._, pp. 282 ff.\n\n\nVI. THE EAGLE VISION\n\nThis Vision is too long to quote in full, but, put shortly, its\ncontents are as follows: In his vision the seer sees an eagle\nascending out of the sea, having twelve wings and three heads. The\neagle spreads her wings over all the earth, and the winds of heaven\nblow upon her. Out of her wings eight smaller wings grow; but her\nheads remain at rest. The middle head was greater than the others,\n\u201cyet rested it with them.\u201d Then the eagle flew to reign over the\nearth, and all the earth was subject unto her. And the seer heard the\neagle bid her wings not all to watch at once, but each in turn; \u201cbut\nlet the heads be kept until the end.\u201d The voice which the seer heard\ncame not from the heads, but from the midst of the eagle\u2019s body. Then\narose on the right side of the eagle one wing which reigned over\nthe earth, and then disappeared; likewise a second wing arose, and\nreigned for long, then disappeared; but concerning this second wing a\nvoice declared that after it none should reign even half as long. All\nthe wings in turn arose, reigned, and then appeared no more. And now\nthe seer sees the little wings set up, on the right side, in order\nto reign; some ruled, but disappeared almost at once, others rose up\nas though to rule, but did not. Nothing remained now on the eagle\u2019s\nbody but the three heads that rested, and six little wings. Two of\nthese latter divided themselves from the rest and remained under the\nhead that was upon the right side, the other four remained where they\nwere. Of these four one assayed to reign, but quickly disappeared,\nthen another vanished even more quickly; before the other two could\narise to reign the middle head awoke and united itself to the other\ntwo heads which it then devoured. This head then ruled over all the\nearth with much oppression; but, like the wings, it, too, suddenly\ndisappeared. There remained, however, the two heads, who also reigned\nover the earth; but presently that on the right side devoured that\non the left. \u201cThen,\u201d the seer proceeds, \u201cI heard a voice, which said\nunto me, Look before thee, and consider the thing that thou seest.\u201d\nAnd he sees a lion which comes, roaring, out of a wood, and, speaking\nwith the voice of a man, upbraids the eagle for her cruel oppression,\nand announces her approaching destruction, saying: \u201cTherefore appear\nno more, thou eagle, nor thy horrible wings, nor thy evil little\nwings, nor thy cruel heads, nor thy hurtful talons, nor all thy\nworthless body; that all the earth may be refreshed, being delivered\nfrom thy violence, and may hope for judgement and mercy of him that\nmade her.\u201d While the lion spoke thus with the eagle the last head\ndisappeared; and the two little wings which had detached themselves\nand had gone over to it, arose and sought to reign, but \u201ctheir\nkingdom was small and full of uproar,\u201d and they soon disappeared.\n\u201cThen the whole body of the eagle was burned, so that the earth was\nin great fear.\u201d\n\nThus the Vision; then follows the interpretation. The eagle who arose\nfrom the sea, he is told, \u201cis the fourth kingdom which appeared in\nvision to thy brother Daniel.\u201d In this kingdom twelve kings shall\nreign; these are represented by the twelve wings. Of these kings the\nsecond shall reign longer than any of the others. The eight smaller\nwings represented eight kings \u201cwhose times shall be small, and their\nyears swift\u201d; two of them shall perish when the \u201cmiddle time\u201d of the\nkingdom comes, four shall be preserved until the approach of the\nend, and two shall be kept until the end. The interpretation of the\nthree heads as given to the seer is that in the last days of the\nkingdom the Most High will raise up three kings, who will renew many\nthings in the kingdom, and bear tyrannous rule. \u201cAnd whereas thou\nsawest that the great head appeared no more, it signifieth that one\nof them shall die upon his bed, and yet with pain. But for the two\nthat remained, the sword shall devour them\u201d (xii. 26, 27). The two\nwings that detached themselves and went to the head on the right\nare reserved for the end; for a short time they shall reign after\nthe last head has disappeared, but their reign shall be troublous.\nThe voice proceeding from \u201cthe midst of the body\u201d means that \u201cin\nthe midst of the time of that kingdom\u201d there shall arise \u201cno small\ncontentions, and it shall stand in peril of falling; nevertheless it\nshall not then fall, but shall be restored again to its first estate\u201d\n(xii. 18). Finally, the lion is the \u201canointed one,\u201d i.e. the Messiah,\nWhom the Most High has kept to the end of days.\n\nThe Vision represents history veiled in symbolical garb; as in the\nVision of the Man rising from the sea, the seer\u2019s interpretation does\nnot always harmonize with the contents of the Vision itself; this\nis to be accounted for by the fact that a redactor made alterations\nin order to bring the Vision into agreement with the course of\nhistory as viewed from his, chronologically later, standpoint. As to\nthe meaning of the general historical outline of which the Vision\ntreats most scholars are agreed, but they differ as to details. The\nfollowing table shows, in the main, the bulk of learned opinion (cp.\nGunkel, _Op. cit._, p. 345):\n\n  _The Eagle_ = The Roman Empire, the eagle being the military\n  emblem of Rome.\n\n  _The Sea_ = The Mediterranean sea; the Roman Empire, \u201cfor the\n  Orientals, came up, as a matter of historical fact, from the sea,\n  and it is this fact which is doubtless in the apocalyptist\u2019s\n  thought here\u201d (Box).\n\n  _The Twelve Wings_ = Julius C\u00e6sar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula,\n  Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vindex, Nymphidius, Piso.\n  The second wing, mentioned in xi. 13-17, \u201cwhich bare rule a great\n  time,\u201d symbolizes Augustus, who reigned for over fifty years.\n\n  _The three heads_ Vespasian, Titus, Domitian; the middle head\n  which is greater than the two others symbolizes Vespasian.\n\n  _The eight smaller wings_ = ?\n\n  _The two little wings_ (xi. 24) = Mucianus, proconsul of Syria,\n  and Tiberius Alexander, prefect of Egypt, according to Gunkel;\n  but he says that this interpretation is uncertain. These two\n  little wings are said to have remained under the head that was\n  upon the right side; this head symbolizes Domitian.\n\n  _The two heads that remained_ (xi. 34, 35) = Domitian and Titus,\n  the latter is said to have been murdered by the former.\n\nThat this interpretation is not in all points satisfactory becomes\nclear as soon as it is studied in detail, and the same applies to\nother interpretations that have been offered; but recently a new\nsolution has been put forth by Box which merits attention; we will\ngive it in his own words (_Op. cit._, p. 265):\n\n\u201cIt may be assumed that in the original form of the vision[541] the\nthree heads represent the three Flavian emperors; the twelve wings\nrepresent the six Julian emperors from C\u00e6sar to Nero, reckoning\nthe wings by pairs. The present writer suggests that the reckoning\nby pairs in the original vision was intended only to apply to the\ntwelve wings, and had a symbolical significance. The pairs served\nto emphasize the greater dignity and power of the real emperors as\ncontrasted with the ephemeral rulers symbolized by the little wings.\nIn order to exaggerate the contrast the latter were intended to be\nreckoned singly. The eight little wings represent, in the original\nform of the vision, Vindex (March, 68), Nymphidius (a few months\nlater)\u2014these disappeared about the same time as the last of the\ntwelve wings (end of Nero\u2019s reign), as represented in our text (xi.\n22). The middle four represent Galba, Otho, Civitis (died June, 69),\nand Vitellius (died Dec., 69). The two little wings that were to\nsurvive the last head probably signify Roman governors or generals\nwho were expected to claim the imperial throne at the last, or\npossibly the two last members of the Herodian family, Agrippa II and\nBerenice.... In its original form, then, the vision may date from\nthe closing years of Domitian\u2019s reign (_circa_ 95 A.D.). But if the\neditor did not incorporate it into his book\u2014our Ezra-Apocalypse\u2014till\n120 A.D. or later (some time certainly in the reign of Hadrian),\nwhat, it may well be asked, was the significance he himself attached\nto the vision? He can no longer have identified the three heads with\nthe Flavian emperors, seeing that the reigns of these had already\nlong ended and the predicted deliverance had not yet come.\u201d Box holds\nthat the Redactor identified the three heads with Trajan, Hadrian\nand Lucius Quietus, the last of these being a favourite of Trajan\nand regarded as destined for the throne. Further, according to Box\u2019s\ninterpretation, the Redactor put a new meaning on to the \u201ctwelve\nwings,\u201d these being symbolic of the six Julian emperors, Galba, Otho\nand Vitellius, together with the three Flavian emperors. There is\nmuch to be said in favour of this hypothesis, though it will not be\ndenied that some difficulties still remain.[542]\n\n\nVII. THE SALATHIEL APOCALYPSE\n\nThis portion of our book, of which it forms the bulk, is of a very\ndifferent character from those already considered. It consists of\nfour Visions. We retain the term \u201cVision,\u201d as it is that usually\nadopted, but they are rather _Dialogues_; the writer addresses God,\nbut is answered by an angel. The questions put by the former are\nprompted by moral difficulties which trouble him; the answers are\nintended to solve these difficulties.\n\n_The First Vision_ (iii. 1-v. 19).\n\nSalathiel, \u201cthe same is Esdras,\u201d sees the desolation of Sion, and the\nprosperity of Babylon. This incongruousness between the adversity\nof God\u2019s chosen people and the prosperity of the godless Gentiles\ncauses perplexity to the mind of the seer, and prompts him \u201cto\nspeak words full of fear to the Most High.\u201d In the thoughts which\nfollow it is noticeable, first of all, that the writer expresses a\nsense of sin which was deeper than that of the traditional Jewish\nteaching on the subject. Hitherto the tendency had been to regard\ntransgressions solely from the point of view of isolated acts; but\nhere the conviction is implied that such isolated sinful acts are\nsymptomatic of something far worse than temporary lapses would lead\none to suppose; from Adam onwards, it is now taught, the whole human\nrace has been steeped in sin; the existence not merely of sinful men\nbut of sinful humanity\u2014the realization of this fact is what plunges\nthe writer into dark despair. Hence the sorrow and suffering in the\nworld: \u201cFor the first Adam, clothing himself with a wicked heart,\ntransgressed and was overcome; and not he only, but all they also who\nwere born of him. Thus disease was made permanent\u201d (iii. 21, 22);\nthere is no hope in this world. Then a further thought comes into\nthe writer\u2019s mind; sin is everywhere prevalent, but how is it that\nwhile Israel suffers for sin the Gentiles are in such prosperity?\nNay, more, is there any other nation that knows God besides Israel?\nAnd yet Israel is not rewarded! Let God, therefore, weigh the sins\nof each in the balance. All men sin; yet assuredly Israel, if not\nbetter, is not worse than the Gentiles; nevertheless, these prosper,\nbut Israel languishes. Then comes God\u2019s answer, given by the angel\nUriel; it takes the form of calling upon the seer to do three things:\n\n  \u201cWeigh me the weight of fire.\u201d\n  \u201cMeasure me the measure of the wind.\u201d\n  \u201cRecall me the day that is past.\u201d\n\nBut Esdras answers, who among the sons of man could do such things!\nThen the angel says, if I had asked thee how many dwellings there\nare in the heart of the sea, or how many springs in the source of\nthe deep, or how many ways above the firmament, or where is the\nentrance to Hades, or the way to Paradise\u2014with reason thou wouldst\nhave been unable to say; but I have asked thee only concerning things\nwithin thine own cognizance, and thou canst give me no answer! Then\nthe angel concludes: \u201cThine own things, that are grown up with\nthee, canst thou not know; how then can thy vessel [i.e. the body;\ncontaining the soul] comprehend the way of the Most High\u201d (iv. 10,\n11). In other words, God\u2019s ways are inscrutable. This does not\nsatisfy Esdras; so the angel proceeds to show him how foolish it\nis for a mortal man to wish to penetrate into the divine secrets;\nhe would, in any case, be unable to understand them; \u201che only that\ndwelleth above the heavens may understand the things that are above\nthe height of the heavens\u201d (iv. 21). To this Esdras protests that\nit was not in his mind \u201cto be curious of the ways above,\u201d but only\nconcerning such things as he sees daily before him. What he is unable\nto understand\u2014and here he reverts to his initial difficulty\u2014is why\nIsrael should be afflicted, and in consequence the Law made of none\neffect. Then he is told that a New Age is about to dawn upon the\nworld, and then all things will be made clear. On Esdras asking when\nthe New Age will come, and whether he will still be on the earth\nthen, the angel answers that he is unable to tell; but he recounts\nthe signs that are to precede the end. These are given in v. 1-12;\nthey are, in the main, the traditional and stereotyped eschatological\n\u201csigns.\u201d Thus ends the first Vision.\n\n_The Second Vision_ (v. 21-vi. 34).\n\nThe subject-matter of this Vision is the same as that of the\npreceding. Why does Israel suffer at the hand of oppressors? The\nangel replies by again showing Esdras that the ways of God cannot be\ncomprehended by man, but that in spite of what appears God\u2019s love is\nfor His people. The seer then asks much about the coming of the End,\nand is told that this will be brought about by God alone.[543] The\nVision concludes with a second enumeration of the signs of the End.\n\n_The Third Vision_ (vi. 35-ix. 25).\n\nOnce more the problem which was the burden of the two first Visions\nis reiterated, though put in a somewhat different form: if the\nworld was created for Israel\u2019s sake, and if the world is steeped in\nsin, why does Israel not enjoy his inheritance, why is the world\nnot subjected to Israel? \u201cIf the world hath indeed been created for\nour sakes, why do we not possess the world for our inheritance? How\nlong shall this endure?\u201d (vi. 59). The angel tells Esdras that this\npresent world is but a narrow and dangerous entrance which leads to\nthe wide world which is to come; it was, indeed, originally created\nfor Israel, but through Adam\u2019s sin it has become a place of sorrow\nand suffering, and therefore the righteous suffer with the wicked.\nThere follows then (vii. 26-44) a long eschatological description\nwhich seems to have fallen out of its place, it breaks the course of\nthe argument here. In the glorious world which is to come, it then\ncontinues, only those will be worthy to partake of its joys who have\nfulfilled the Law; but who has truly done so? Who among mortals,\nwhether Jew or Gentile, has not been guilty of transgressing the\ndivine Law? The angel answers that there are some who are righteous,\nbut they are comparatively few; for them future joy is reserved.\nThe rest of mankind will perish. A long section then deals with\nthe subject of the state of the soul after death and before the\nlast Judgement. The righteous enter into bliss, but the wicked are\ndestined to suffer seven degrees of torment. These descriptions,\nas Box truly remarks (_Op. cit._, p. 141), are \u201cpsychological in\ncharacter, and apparently portray the emotional experiences of\nthe soul through which it passes during the entire period of the\nintermediate state. In its subtle delineation of the soul-life the\nwhole section is remarkable, and by the elevation and refinement of\nits conceptions affords a striking contrast to similar descriptions\nin other parts of the apocalyptic literature.\u201d\n\nIt is then shown to the seer that there is no escape for sinners,\nand he bitterly bewails the terrible fate hanging over the mass of\nhumanity. But the angel has no further comfort to give than that\nthere is more joy in heaven over the salvation of the few than\nsorrow over the loss of the many. Not unnaturally this reply does\nnot satisfy the seer; he cannot think that the divine mercy and\nlove, which are so lavishly displayed in the natural world around,\nshould be so restricted in regard to souls hereafter. The reply to\nhis question suggested by this thought, viz., that this world was\nmade for the many, but the next for few, is so discouraging that\nhe ceases to inquire concerning the human race as a whole, and\nrestricts himself to his own race, the Jewish. But here again he is\ntold that only the righteous, among whom he is reckoned, can enjoy\nfelicity hereafter; he is bidden to refrain from further questionings\nregarding the fate of the wicked; they have but themselves to thank\nfor their doom.[544] The seer reiterates his former objection; to\nthis a final reply is given: All the sorrow and suffering of this\nworld is due to the sins of men; there was a time, before men were\ncreated, when none spoke against God, or disobeyed Him; but now men\nare evil, and have become \u201ccorrupted in their manners\u201d (ix. 19); only\na grape from the cluster, therefore, only a plant from the great\nforest, shall, by God\u2019s mercy, be saved. \u201cLet the multitude perish\nthen, which has been born in vain; and let my grape be saved, and my\nplant; for with great labour have I made them perfect\u201d (ix. 22).\n\n_The Fourth Vision_ (ix. 26-x. 59).\n\nThis Vision begins with a soliloquy concerning the Law which God\ngave to the fathers, but they did not observe it any more than later\ngenerations did; Israel must, therefore, perish; but the Law will\nabide in glory. In the same way, the earthly Jerusalem must perish,\nbut the heavenly Jerusalem is eternal; upon this latter hope must be\nfixed, for it is to be the joy of those blessed ones who shall gain\na glorious immortality in the world to come. The seer then recounts\na vision that he sees of a disconsolate woman who brought up an only\nson, and he died on his wedding day. While the seer speaks with this\nwoman, he looks, and behold she vanishes, and in her place \u201cthere\nwas a city builded, and a place showed itself of large foundations\u201d\n(x. 27). The woman is the heavenly Jerusalem, her son is the earthly\nJerusalem. The heavenly reality is thus manifested to the seer,\nand he is bidden to go and see \u201cthe beauty and greatness of the\nbuilding.... For thou art blessed above many, and with the Most High\nart called by name, like as but few\u201d (x. 55-57).\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn these Visions, then, it will have been noticed that the problem\nwhich figures in some of the later Psalms, and in the Book of Job,\nas to why the righteous suffer and the wicked are in prosperity, is\nreiterated; the solution given being that the righteous will come to\ntheir own when they attain immortal life hereafter. The writer is\ndeeply pessimistic as far as this world is concerned; the universal\nprevalence of sin which is ingrained in humanity through the fall\nof Adam, and through which death, originally unnatural to man, has\ncome into the world, compels him to look upon the ultimate fate of\nhumanity as hopeless. Though an ardent Jew, he sees but little hope\neven for himself or for his own people; the divine Law itself is of\nno avail, for it cannot be truly observed; \u201che despairs of a life\nof absolute obedience to the Law, even by Israel, not to speak of\nthe world. The unconscious and unexpressed cry of the book is for\na moral dynamic, which legalism could not supply.\u201d[545] There is,\nthus, an essential contradiction running through these Visions; on\nthe one hand, hope in the world to come, on the other, hopelessness\nhere and hereafter because all mankind is irretrievably lost through\nsin. Nothing could better illustrate those alternating emotions which\nincessantly stir the human heart: the voice of Conscience, and trust\nin the Divine Mercy. If our writer\u2019s heart remains dark to the end,\nit is because his true instinct concerning sin is not balanced by an\nequally true conception of God. At first sight it appears illogical\nthat, in spite of all that the writer has said, happiness hereafter\nshould be declared to be secured for a righteous remnant, among whom\nhe himself is included; the reason for this is, however, apparently\nthat God\u2019s purpose in creating man for eternal life should not be\nwholly frustrated.\n\nIn his eschatological teaching the writer of these Visions departs\nfrom the older doctrines; \u201che does not look forward to a restoration\nof the Jewish State, or a rebuilding of Jerusalem; nor to a renewed\nand purified earth under the conditions of the present world-order.\nHis hopes are fixed on the advent of the new and better world\nwhich will follow the collapse of the present world. Consequently\nhe anticipates merely the catastrophic end of the present\nworld-order\u2014his theology does not allow of any intermediate Messianic\nAge. The new Jerusalem which is to come will be the Heavenly City ...\nwhich belongs to the future Age.\u201d[546]\n\n\nVIII. AN EZRA LEGEND\n\nIn chapter xiv. occurs the legend of Ezra re-writing the sacred\nbooks. It tells of how Ezra, while sitting under an oak, heard the\nvoice of God \u201cout of a bush,\u201d telling him that he would soon be taken\naway from men. He is told to set his house in order, to reprove his\npeople, to comfort the lowly, to instruct the wise, and to renounce\nthe life that is corruptible. Ezra expresses his readiness to do as\ncommanded; but he asks who there will be to admonish those who are\nborn after he is gone, for the world is in darkness and God\u2019s Law is\nburnt.[547] Then Ezra himself proposes that he should re-write the\nLaw \u201cthat men may be able to find the path, and that they who would\nlive in the latter days may live\u201d (xiv. 22). He is then commanded\nto prepare many tablets and to take five men with him who can write\nswiftly; \u201cand when thou hast done, some things shalt thou publish\nopenly, and some things shalt thou deliver in secret to the wise\u201d\n(xiv. 26). Ezra does as he is commanded after having asked for the\ndivine spirit to guide him; so that before he commences his work he\nis given a cup to drink from, full of water, but the colour of it\nlike fire.[548] When he had drunk from this cup his heart poured\nforth understanding, and wisdom grew in his breast, and his spirit\nretained its memory. For forty days he dictated, and by the end of\nthis time ninety-four books were written by the five scribes. Then he\nis commanded by the Most High to publish openly the first twenty-four\nbooks that had been written, so that they might be read by the worthy\nand the unworthy; but the last seventy he is told to keep in order to\ndeliver them to \u201csuch as be wise\u201d among his people. This Ezra does.\nHere the legend ends abruptly.\n\nThe twenty-four books refer to the canonical books of the Bible,\n\u201cthe seventy secret books included, we may infer, not only the book\nof _signs_ and the secret (apocalyptic) tradition associated with\nthe name of Moses, but many other apocalyptic books as well....\nThus, according to the representation of our chapter, Ezra, i.e.\nthe historical Ezra living in Jerusalem in the middle of the fifth\ncentury B.C., was the restorer not only of the canonical books of\nthe Old Testament, but also of the large apocalyptic literature,\nincluding some apocalyptic books which detailed visions and\nrevelations that had, ostensibly, occurred to himself.... This\namounts to a claim that the apocalyptic tradition occupies an\nessential place in genuine Judaism. It claims for itself the great\nnames of Moses and Ezra, \u2018the second Moses.\u2019\u201d[549] Box suggests that\nthe object of the publication of our book, and of associating it\nwith the name of Ezra, was to uphold, or to re-assert, the authority\nof the apocalyptic literature, and thus gain for it \u201can officially\nrecognized place within Judaism as part of the oral tradition.\u201d That\nthis was one of the objects for which the book was published seems\nhighly probable when it is remembered that the Jewish religious\nauthorities rejected the apocalyptic literature as a whole[550];\nit was to be expected that the apocalyptists should make strenuous\nefforts to secure the recognition of books which, as they believed,\nrecorded genuine tradition, and which in any case taught much that\nwas edifying.\n\nLike the apocalyptic literature in general, this story of a divine\nrevelation accorded to Ezra to re-write all the sacred books which\nhad been destroyed, enjoyed considerable recognition among the Church\nFathers; it was known not only as included in our book, but as an\nindependent tradition. For references to it in patristic writings see\nBensly and James, _Op. cit._, pp. xxxvii. f.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nEvery reader of the Ezra-Apocalypse must, as he reads, be very soon\nstruck by the many reminiscences of Pauline thought and teaching\nwhich it contains. But as the book is later than almost all the\nbooks of the New Testament this is not the place to deal with this\nimportant and fascinating subject; to those who might wish to pursue\nthe study of the connection between 4 Esdras and Pauline teaching on\nsuch doctrines as the Fall and Sin, the Law, Election, Justification\nand Eschatology, etc., no better English book could be recommended\nthan Thackeray\u2019s _The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish\nThought_ (1900).\n\n\n\n\nGENERAL INDEX\n\n(_Pages printed in thick type indicate passages in which the subject\nin question is dealt with in detail._)\n\n\n  Aaron, 149, 150\n\n  _Abinu Malkenu_, 391\n\n  Abtinas, house of, 194\n\n  Abubus, 437\n\n  Achikar, 195\n\n  \u2014 the Wise, story of, 349 ff.\n\n  Achior, 373\n\n  Adam, 523\n\n  \u2014 and Eve, Life of, 218, 223\n\n  Adaptation of belief, 20\n\n  Additions to Daniel, =385-397=\n\n  \u2014 to Esther, =398-403=\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, Authorship of, 403\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, Date of, 403\n\n  Aesculapius, 396\n\n  Agrippa II, 521\n\n  Ahasuerus, 399\n\n  Akiba, Rabbi, 143, 192, 194\n\n  Alcimus, 430 f.\n\n  Alexander Balas, 419, 432\n\n  \u2014 Jann\u00e6us, 393\n\n  \u2014 the Great, 12 ff., 16, 17, 30, 33, 52, 69\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, conquests of, 12 f., 29, 424\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, division of his empire, 424\n\n  \u2014 Zabinas, 436\n\n  Alexandria, 17, 50, 458, 512\n\n  \u2014, centre of Jewish Dispersion, 17\n\n  \u2014, the Jews in, 53 f.\n\n  Allegorical interpretation of Scripture, 57\n\n  Allegorization of ancient myths, 22\n\n  Allegorizing of Greek myths, 57\n\n  Allegory, 230 f.\n\n  \u2014 in Proverbs, 72\n\n  Almsgiving, 361\n\n  \u2014, means of atonement, 272 f.\n\n  Altars to unknown gods, 23\n\n  _Am-haarez_, 93\n\n  _Amidah_, 500 ff.\n\n  Amyrt\u00e6us, 51\n\n  Angelology in Apocalyptic Literature, 110\n\n  \u2014, Jewish, 38, 39\n\n  \u2014 of the Essenes, =43= f.\n\n  Angels, 102\n\n  \u2014, doctrine of, in Additions to Daniel, 301 ff.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, Ecclesiasticus, 300 ff., 340\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, 2 (4) Esdras, 303 ff.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, Esther, 302\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, Ep. of Jeremiah, 302\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, 2 Maccabees, 302 f.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, Prayer of Manasses, 302\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, Tobit, 301\n\n  \u2014, Sadduc\u00e6an doctrine of, 147 f.\n\n  _Anima Mundi_, 86\n\n  Antiochus Epiphanes, 34, 35, 77, 134, 156, 423, 427, 481 f., 488, 493\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, death of, 482\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, his attempt to stamp out Judaism, 425 f.\n\n  \u2014 Eupator, 428, 432\n\n  \u2014 Sidetes, 437, 491\n\n  \u2014 the Great, 430\n\n  \u2014 VI, 420\n\n  \u2014 VII, 420\n\n  Antonines, The, 13\n\n  Apam\u00e6a, 437\n\n  Apocalypse of Moses, The, 218\n\n  Apocalyptic Movement, 40, =90-95=, 160\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, beginnings of the, 90 ff.\n\n  \u2014 books, authorship of, 199 ff.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, Hebrew and Aramaic originals lost, 200\n\n  \u2014 Jewish, 90 f.\n\n  \u2014 Literature, 91, =198-223=\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, doctrinal teaching of, =101-110=\n\n  Apocalyptic Literature, place claimed for in orthodox Judaism, 530\n\n  \u2014 \u2014 rejected by Pharisees, 199\n\n  \u2014 \u2014 teaching on Individualism, 102 f.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014 \u2014 Particularism, 103 f.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014 \u2014 Universalism, 103 f.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, Supernatural colouring of, 97 f.\n\n  Apocalyptists, The, =95-112=, 161, 205 f., 530\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, asceticism of, 101\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, claims of, 99\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, concerned with the future, 97\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, denunciations of, 97\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, determinism of, 98 f.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, effects of teaching, 96 f.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, inconsistency of teaching, 95 f.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, loyalty to the Law, 99 f.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, other-worldliness of, 99\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, prophets of the people, 96\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, religious conceptions regarding humanity, 105\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, their message, 96\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, universalistic attitude of, 101\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, upholders of the people\u2019s faith, 97\n\n  Apocrypha books, dates of, 320\n\n  Apocrypha, Doctrinal teaching of the, =251-315=\n\n  \u2014, meaning of, 183\n\n  \u2014, traces of Greek influence in, =77-87=\n\n  Apocryphal and canonical books, 161 ff.\n\n  \u2014, use of term, 187\n\n  \u2014, \u2014 by Origen, 189\n\n  \u2014, \u2014 Jerome, 191\n\n  _Apokryphos_, meaning of, 185 ff.\n\n  Apollonius, 425, 427, 434\n\n  Apollophanes, 486\n\n  _Apostolical Constitutions_, 407, 410\n\n  Apsu, 231\n\n  Arabia, 435\n\n  Aramaic _papyri_, 50 ff., 194 f., 349\n\n  \u2014 Targums, 193\n\n  \u2014, the language of Egyptian Jews, 60\n\n  Areios, 418\n\n  Aristeas, letter of, 443\n\n  Aristotle, 15, 16, 17\n\n  Armour of God, The, 474 f.\n\n  Artaxerxes, 51, 400, 441 f., 448\n\n  Artaxerxes III (Ochus), 50\n\n  Ascalon, 30\n\n  Ascension of Isaiah, The, =219-220=\n\n  Asceticism, 344\n\n  \u2014 of the Essenes, 43\n\n  Asmod\u00e6us, 358\n\n  _Assid\u00e6ans_ (see _Chassidim_), 125\n\n  Assimilation, faculty of, among the Jews, 58\n\n  Associations, religious, 23\n\n  Assouan (Syene), 58\n\n  Assumption of Moses, The, 218\n\n  Atheism, 73\n\n  Athens, 14\n\n  Athenians, 14\n\n  Atonement, death a means of, 342\n\n  Attalus II, king of Pergamum, 432\n\n  Attic Greek, 14\n\n  \u2014 ideals, 14\n\n  \u2014 sea-power, 14\n\n  Attitude towards religious beliefs, 21\n\n  Augustus, 53, 520\n\n  Aurelian, 512\n\n  Aureolus, 512\n\n  Authorship, function of, in ancient times, 200\n\n  Avesta, 133\n\n  Azariah, Prayer of, 386 ff.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, when composed, 388 f.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, liturgical character of, 389 f.\n\n  Azotus, 30\n\n\n  Babylonia, 38\n\n  Babylonian influence, 227, 231 f.\n\n  Bacchides, 430 f.\n\n  Badness of the Body, doctrine of, 84 f.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, Platonic doctrine of, 85\n\n  Balas, Alexander, 419, 432\n\n  Baptism of the Essenes, 45\n\n  Baruch, book of, =495-506=\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, _A Sage\u2019s Words of Encouragement_ in, 303 f.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, account of, 495 ff.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, _Book of Confessions_ in, 497 ff.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, component parts of, 497 ff.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, contains liturgical material, 502 f.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, contents of, 495 ff.\n\n  \u2014, Greek Apocalypse of, 223\n\n  \u2014, Syriac Apocalypse of, =222=\n\n  Bel and the Dragon, 386, =394 ff.=\n\n  Beliefs, intermingling of, 22\n\n  Ben-Sira, 116, 123, 124, 195\n\n  \u2014, attitude towards Gentiles, 337 f.\n\n  \u2014, autobiographical details, 326 f.\n\n  \u2014, his claim to be an inspired writer, 325 f.\n\n  \u2014, his house of instruction, 325, 328\n\n  \u2014, his views on the sacrificial system, 339\n\n  \u2014, his knowledge of the O.T., 324\n\n  \u2014, his list of famous men, 165 ff.\n\n  Benedictions, 502 f.\n\n  _B\u0115ni Zadok_, 134, 154\n\n  _Berakah_, 500\n\n  Berenice, 521\n\n  Bethsura, 429\n\n  Bible, Hebrew, contents of, 162 ff.\n\n  \u2014, the Greek (see Septuagint), 161\n\n  \u201cBiblical\u201d Greek, 15\n\n  Biography a science in the Hellenistic period for the first time, 19\n\n  Blindness, 367\n\n  Book of Jubilees, The, =216-218=\n\n  \u2014 of secret words of Moses, 218\n\n  Books, ancient Jewish, 194\n\n  \u2014, heretical, 198\n\n  \u2014, reading of in ancient times, 195\n\n  \u2014, the seventy, 529\n\n  \u2014, the twenty-four, 529\n\n  Brotherhood of man, 18\n\n  Burial of the dead, 358\n\n\n  C\u00e6sarea, 30\n\n  Calendar, Jewish, Pharisaic and Sadduc\u00e6an attitude towards, 150 ff.\n\n  Caligula, 460, 464, 520\n\n  Cambyses, 448\n\n  Canon, Hebrew, 162 ff.\n\n  \u2014, Hebrew, formation of, =169-174=\n\n  \u2014, idea of a, =161-169=\n\n  \u2014, final fixing of, 173, =174-176=\n\n  \u2014, meaning of the word, 162\n\n  \u2014 of Old Testament, origin of, 160 ff.\n\n  \u2014, unknown to Ben-Sira, 167\n\n  \u2014, \u2014 Ben-Sira\u2019s grandson, 168 f.\n\n  Canonical and apocryphal books, 161 ff.\n\n  Canonicity, Josephus\u2019 theory of, 171 f.\n\n  \u2014, Rabbinical theory of, 172\n\n  Cardinal virtues, the four, 87, 458\n\n  Cendeb\u00e6us, 437\n\n  Ch\u00e6reas, 486\n\n  Ch\u00e6ronea, battle of, 14\n\n  _Chakamim_, 115, 116, 127, 233\n\n  _Chanukkah_, 428\n\n  _Chassid_, 42\n\n  _Chassidim_, 92, 93, 125 f., 203, 205, 257, 365, 427\n\n  \u2014, creators of apocalyptic literature, 93\n\n  \u2014, the spiritual ancestors of Pharisees and Apocalyptists, 93 ff.\n\n  Chijja, Rabbi, 194\n\n  Chislev, 490\n\n  Chlamys, 33\n\n  _Chokmah_, 233\n\n  Civitis, 521\n\n  Claudius, 520\n\n  Cleopatra, 434\n\n  C\u0153le-Syria, 29\n\n  Colonies, Greek-speaking, 15\n\n  Common meal of the Essenes, 45\n\n  Confession of sins, 500\n\n  Connection between _g\u0101naz_ and _apokryphos_, 188 f.\n\n  Cosmology, Babylonian, 231\n\n  Cosmopolitanism, 18\n\n  Crete, 434\n\n  Critical faculty of the Greeks, 20\n\n  Crocodile\u2019s liver, 367\n\n  Cup of inspiration, The, 529\n\n  Cynic philosophers, 18\n\n  Cyrus, 440\n\n\n  Daniel, 302\n\n  \u2014, Additions to, =385-397=\n\n  Darius, 12, 51, 441\n\n  \u2014 II, 51\n\n  Darius\u2019 bodyguard, story of the three young men of, 451 ff.\n\n  Dead, prayers for the, 489 f.\n\n  Death, means of atonement, 272, 342\n\n  Dedication, feast of, 428\n\n  \u2014, 487, 490, 491 f.\n\n  Defile the hands, meaning of, 175 f., 177 ff.\n\n  Deified princes, 462 f.\n\n  Deities, national, 22\n\n  Demetrius I, 419, 429 f.\n\n  \u2014 II, 419, 433 ff.\n\n  \u2014 Nicator, 434\n\n  Demonology in Apocalyptic Literature, 110\n\n  \u2014 in Ecclesiasticus, 304\n\n  \u2014 in Tobit, 304 f.\n\n  \u2014, Jewish, 38\n\n  _Didascalia_, 407, 410\n\n  Dispersion, The, 17, =49-54=\n\n  \u2014, Eastern, 50\n\n  Divine Immanence, doctrine of, 57\n\n  \u2014 revelation accorded to Ezra, 530\n\n  Doctrine of God in Baruch, 258\n\n  \u2014 \u2014 2 (4) Esdras, 258\n\n  \u2014 \u2014 1 Maccabees, 257 f.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014 Wisdom, 259 f.\n\n  Doctrines, inter-relation of, 39\n\n  D\u00f4k, 438\n\n  Domitian, 520\n\n  Dor, 437\n\n  Dositheus, 486\n\n  Dualism of the Essenes, 43\n\n\n  Ea, 231\n\n  Eagle Vision, The, 513 f., 517 ff.\n\n  Eastern Dispersion, 50\n\n  Ecclesiastes, 456 f.\n\n  \u2014, canonicity disputed, 170\n\n  \u2014, traces of Greek philosophy in, 74 ff.\n\n  Ecclesiasticus, an apologetic book, 327\n\n  \u2014 and the Ep. of St. James, 347 f.\n\n  \u2014, author of, 322\n\n  \u2014, A.V. and R.V. of, 331 ff.\n\n  \u2014, compared with Tobit, 364 f.\n\n  \u2014, date of, 327 f.\n\n  \u2014, Hebrew manuscripts of, 329 f.\n\n  \u2014, original language of, 329 f.\n\n  \u2014, Pharisaic recension of, 333, 340 ff.\n\n  \u2014, placed on \u201cIndex Expurgatorius,\u201d 340\n\n  \u2014, present form not intended to be final, 322 f.\n\n  \u2014, Prologue to, 168 f., 459\n\n  \u2014, Sadduc\u00e6an standpoint in, 333 ff.\n\n  \u2014, title of, 321 f.\n\n  \u2014, traces of Greek influence in, 77 ff.\n\n  \u2014, unity of authorship, 322\n\n  \u2014, universalism in, 338\n\n  \u2014, value of, for N.T. study, 345 ff.\n\n  Egypt, 12, 28\n\n  \u2014, Jewish settlements in, 51\n\n  Ekron, 434\n\n  El, 394\n\n  Eleazar, 59\n\n  Election, 531\n\n  Elect One, The, 246\n\n  Elephantin\u00e9, 349, 353\n\n  Elephantin\u00e9 _papyri_, 50 ff., 194 f.\n\n  Elijah, 289 f.\n\n  End, signs of the, 524\n\n  Enoch, the book of, =201-208=\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, authorship, 203 f.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, component parts of, 202\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, dates of component parts, 202 f.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, original language of, 207\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, teaching, 207 f.\n\n  \u2014, Book of the Secrets of, =220-222=\n\n  Epheboi, 33\n\n  Ephraim, 435\n\n  Epicur\u00e6anism, 79, 135, 456, 460\n\n  Epicur\u00e6an teaching, 21 f.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014 on immortality, 75\n\n  \u2014 \u2014 in Ecclesiastes, 74 f.\n\n  Epicur\u00e6ans not irreligious, 21\n\n  Epicuros, 21, 75\n\n  Epidaurus, 396\n\n  Epilepsy, 367\n\n  Epistle of Jeremiah, =506-508=\n\n  Eschatological signs, 524\n\n  Eschatology, Jewish, 38\n\n  Esdras, 1 (3), _see_ Greek Ezra\n\n  Essene baptism, 45\n\n  \u2014 communities, 45\n\n  \u2014, meaning of, 42\n\n  \u2014 monotheism, 45\n\n  \u2014 teaching on the Resurrection, 44\n\n  Essenes, The, =41-46=\n\n  \u2014 and the Law of Moses, 45\n\n  \u2014, asceticism of, 43\n\n  \u2014, dualism of, 43\n\n  \u2014, their angelology, 43 f.\n\n  \u2014, their purifications, 45\n\n  \u2014, their Sabbath observance, 45\n\n  Essenism a blending of the Mosaic and Hellenic spirit, 45\n\n  \u2014 a mystery-religion, 45\n\n  \u2014, influence of Hellenism on, 42\n\n  \u2014, un-Jewish in many respects, 42 ff.\n\n  Esther, 399\n\n  \u2014, canonicity disputed, 170\n\n  Eternal seed-plant, The, 102\n\n  Ethical teaching of the Hellenistical period, 18 f.\n\n  Euergetes I, 328\n\n  \u2014 II, Physcon, 328, 422\n\n  Euhemerism, 458\n\n  Ezekiel, 31\n\n  Ezra, 28, 71, 92, 116, 118, 442, 450, 453, 529\n\n  \u2014, divine revelation accorded to, 530\n\n  \u2014, not mentioned in Ecclesiasticus, 340\n\n  \u2014, opposition to, 121 f.\n\n  Ezra Apocalypse, The, =509-531=\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, an Ezra Legend in, 513 f., 528 ff.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, contains reminiscences of Pauline thought, 530\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, chaps. i. ii., 510 f.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, chaps. xv. xvi., 511 f.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, chaps. iii.-xiv., 512 ff.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, recognized by Church Fathers, 530\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, Vision, first, 522 ff.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, \u2014 second, 524\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, \u2014 third, 524 ff.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, \u2014 fourth, 526 f.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, title, 509 f.\n\n\n  Fables in ancient Jewish Literature, 230\n\n  Faith, traditional form of, 20\n\n  Fall, The, 474, 531\n\n  Fasting, 272, 361\n\n  Fatalism, 79\n\n  Fatalistic theory of the Stoics, 21\n\n  First Cause, Platonic teaching on, 458\n\n  Formless matter, creation of the world out of, 85\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, Platonic and Stoic teaching concerning, 85 f.\n\n  Free-will, 336, 342, 412\n\n  Future life, 342, 362\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, conception of, 499\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, developed belief in, 24\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, doctrine of, in Apocalyptic Literature, 107 ff.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, \u2014 in Baruch, 293\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, \u2014 in Ecclesiasticus, 288 ff., 291 ff.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, \u2014 in 2 (4) Esdras, 293 ff.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, \u2014 in Judith, 290 f.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, \u2014 in 2 Maccabees, 292\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, \u2014 Pharisaic and Sadduc\u00e6an doctrine of, 146 f.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, \u2014 in Tobit, 290\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, \u2014 in Wisdom, 298 ff.\n\n\n  Galba, 520\n\n  Gallienus, 512\n\n  Gamaliel I, 145\n\n  \u2014 II, 173\n\n  _G\u0101naz_, meaning of, 183 ff.\n\n  Gaza, 30\n\n  Gazara, 438, 482\n\n  Gehenna, 289\n\n  Genealogies, The roll of, 194\n\n  _Genizah_, 188 f.\n\n  God, conception of, by the Jews of the Dispersion, 57\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, in Wisdom, 465 f.\n\n  \u2014, doctrine of, 39, 412\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, in Apocrypha, =254-260=\n\n  \u2014, Pharisaic and Sadduc\u00e6an doctrine of, 144 ff.\n\n  \u2014, Philo\u2019s doctrine of, 63\n\n  Gorgias, 428, 486\n\n  Goths, 512\n\n  Governance of the world, divine, 341\n\n  Grace and Free-will, doctrine of, in Ecclesiasticus, 278\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, 2 (4) Esdras, 280 f.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, 1 Maccabees, 279\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, 2 Maccabees, 280\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, Tobit, 278 f.\n\n  \u2014, divine, 336\n\n  Gr\u00e6co-Macedonian empire referred to in Daniel, 69\n\n  _Grammateia_, 40\n\n  Granicus, 12\n\n  Grateful dead man, story of the, 356 f.\n\n  Greek cities, 15\n\n  \u2014 culture, superiority of, 35\n\n  \u2014 fashions, 34\n\n  \u2014 festivals, fascination of, 32\n\n  \u2014 forms of thought, 15\n\n  \u2014 ideals, 15\n\n  \u2014 influence in Apocrypha, traces of, 77 ff.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014 in O.T., traces of, 68 ff.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014 on Jewish eschatology, 38\n\n  \u2014 \u2014 on Judaism, 252 f.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, signs of, in O.T. and Apocrypha, 40\n\n  \u2014 language, 14\n\n  \u2014 mind, tendencies of, 33\n\n  \u2014 model of local government, 30, 31\n\n  \u2014 philosophy, influence of, 28\n\n  \u2014 settlements in Palestine, 30\n\n  \u2014 words in Daniel, 70\n\n  \u2014 words hebraized, 35 f.\n\n  Greek Ezra, The, =439-454=\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, and 2 Esdras 444 ff.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, chronological table of event in, 446 ff.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, The, contents, 440 ff.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, date of, 454\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, historicity of, 446 ff.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, its relationship to the Hebrew Ezra, 442 ff.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, Massoretic text of, 449 f.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, purpose of, 450 f.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, title of, 439 f.\n\n  Greeks and \u201cbarbarians,\u201d 17 f.\n\n  \u2014, references to, in O.T., =68-70=\n\n  \u2014, critical faculty of, 20\n\n  \u2014, their ideal of wisdom, 19\n\n  \u2014, their realism, 19\n\n  \u2014, their sense of proportion, 18, 20\n\n  Guilds, religious, 23\n\n  Gymnasium, 32 f., 40\n\n\n  Habakkuk, 395\n\n  Hades, 289, 292, 523\n\n  Hadrian, 13, 521\n\n  Haggadic homiletics, 201\n\n  \u2014 literature, 380\n\n  Halakah, 201\n\n  Haman, 399\n\n  _Ha-Gily\u00f4nim_, 198\n\n  Hasmon\u00e6an high-priesthood, 423 f., 433\n\n  Hasmon\u00e6ans, The, 411\n\n  Hebrew Bible, contents of, 162 ff.\n\n  \u2014 Canon, The, 162 ff.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, formation of, =169-174=\n\n  Hecat\u00e6us of Abdera, 41\n\n  Heliodorus, 302, 481 f., 489\n\n  Hellas, 14\n\n  Hellenic and Hellenistic, difference between, 12\n\n  \u2014 spirit, 13\n\n  \u2014 thought in book of Wisdom, 458\n\n  Hellenism, debased type in Syria, 40\n\n  \u2014, good and bad effects of, 41\n\n  \u2014, reaction against, 41\n\n  \u2014 in its religious aspect, =20-24=\n\n  \u2014, result of spread of, 28\n\n  \u2014 in its secular aspect, =12-20=\n\n  Hellenistic Greek, 14 f.\n\n  Hellenistic influence, direct and indirect, 37 f.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014 on Palestinian Jews, 36\n\n  \u2014 \u2014 on religion, 54 ff.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014 reflected in Job, 73 f.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014 \u2014 Proverbs, 71 ff.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014 \u2014 the Psalms, 71\n\n  \u2014 \u2014 upon the Jews of the Dispersion, =49-67=\n\n  \u2014 \u2014 upon the Jews of Palestine, =27-48=\n\n  \u2014 Movement, The, =11-26=, 160 f.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, effect of, 24\n\n  \u2014 \u2014 a period of dissolution, 16\n\n  \u2014 party, 426\n\n  \u2014 period not one of irreligion, 21\n\n  \u2014 philosophy, development of into theology, 21\n\n  \u2014 Movement, roots of, 13\n\n  \u2014 spirit, 92 ff.\n\n  Hellenization of cities, 18\n\n  Hellenized cities, 22\n\n  Heraclides, 430\n\n  Heraclitus, 86\n\n  Hermes, 34\n\n  High-priestly party, 33 f.\n\n  Hillel, 132\n\n  \u2014, school of, 170\n\n  Holofernes, 373, 375 f.\n\n  Hypostatization of Wisdom, 73, 226\n\n  Hyrcanus, John, 153, 422, 438\n\n  Hyrcania, transportation of Jews to, 50\n\n\n  Idolatry, 469, 472 f.\n\n  \u2014, polemic against, 507\n\n  Idol-worship, 458, 507\n\n  Illumination, Feast of, 492\n\n  Illyrians, 14\n\n  Immanence, divine, doctrine of, 57\n\n  Immortality, 337\n\n  \u2014, doctrine of in Wisdom, 83 ff.\n\n  \u2014, Plato\u2019s doctrine of, 84\n\n  \u2014 of the spirit, 107\n\n  \u2014 \u2014 soul, 39\n\n  Individual piety, 23\n\n  Individualism, 18, 31 f.\n\n  \u2014 in Proverbs, 71 f.\n\n  Individualistic tendency in Job, 73\n\n  Inspiration, the cup of, 529\n\n  Intermediate beings between God and man, 235 f.\n\n  \u2014 state, 110, 295, 300\n\n  Inter-relation of doctrines, 39\n\n  Ionians, 68\n\n  Ipsus, battle of, its indirect importance for the Jews, 29\n\n  Isaiah, book of, 105\n\n  Islam, 37\n\n  Issus, battle of, 12\n\n\n  Jabneh, Council of, 173 f.\n\n  Jamnia (Jabneh), 434\n\n  Jason, 34 f.\n\n  \u2014 the Cyrenian, 479, 484, 488\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, his history, 480\n\n  Javan, 68, 69\n\n  Jedoniah, Jewish governor in Syene, 51\n\n  Jehoahaz, 51\n\n  Jeremiah, 51, 303\n\n  \u2014, Epistle of, =506-508=\n\n  Jerome, 75\n\n  Jerusalem, 529\n\n  \u2014, earthly and heavenly, 526 f.\n\n  Jewish alliance with Rome, 420 f.\n\n  \u2014 angelology, 38, 39\n\n  \u2014 Apocalyptic, 90\n\n  \u2014 books, ancient, 194\n\n  \u2014 Church, The, 105\n\n  \u2014 demonology, 38\n\n  \u2014 eschatology, 38\n\n  \u2014 Liturgy, 390, 391, 500, 502\n\n  \u2014 mercenaries, 51\n\n  \u2014 propaganda, 396 f.\n\n  Jews in Syene, 51 ff.\n\n  \u2014 of the Dispersion, their religious outlook, 55 f.\n\n  Job, individualistic tendency in, 73\n\n  \u2014, book of, 73, 459\n\n  Jobel, 216\n\n  Jochanan ben Zakkai, 173\n\n  Jochanan, the son of Kareah, 51\n\n  John Hyrcanus, 414, 438\n\n  Jonah, book of, 105, 123\n\n  Jonathan, 416, 418\n\n  \u2014, leadership of, 431\n\n  Jose, Rabbi, 170\n\n  Josephus on the Essenes, 42, 43, 44, 45\n\n  \u2014 \u2014 Jews of Alexandria, 54\n\n  \u2014 \u2014 Pharisees and Sadducees, 135 ff.\n\n  Josiah, 440\n\n  Jubilees, book of, 151\n\n  Judaism, 55\n\n  \u2014 affected by extraneous influences, 252\n\n  \u2014 as a religion affected by Hellenism, 36 f.\n\n  \u2014 of Alexandria, 477\n\n  \u2014, orthodox, 487\n\n  \u2014, traditional, in the Dispersion, 55\n\n  Judas the Maccabee, 411\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, leadership of, 427 ff.\n\n  Judgement, The, 38, 295 ff., 525\n\n  \u2014, day of, 103\n\n  Judith, author of, 378 f.\n\n  \u2014, book of, =372-384=\n\n  \u2014, contents of, 372 f.\n\n  \u2014, character of, 372 f.\n\n  \u2014, Hebrew form of, 380\n\n  \u2014, in how far historical, 377 f.\n\n  \u2014, story, variety of form, 379 f.\n\n  Julian, 13\n\n  Julius C\u00e6sar, 520\n\n  Justice, reform in administration of, 393 f.\n\n  Justification, 531\n\n\n  Kabbalah, 163\n\n  Khons, tractate of, 357, 367\n\n  Knowledge, increase of, 16\n\n  \u2014, departments of, 16\n\n  Koheleth (_see_ Ecclesiastes)\n\n\n  Ladder of Tyre, 435\n\n  Landmarks, Jewish historical, 366\n\n  Lasthenes, 419\n\n  Law, The, 165, 450, 503, 504, 525\n\n  \u2014 identified with Wisdom, 241, 244\n\n  \u2014, Jews the people of the, 28\n\n  \u2014 of Moses venerated by the Essenes, 45\n\n  \u2014, the oral, 338 f.\n\n  \u2014, Pharisaic and Sadduc\u00e6an doctrine of, 139 ff., 152 f.\n\n  \u2014, Pharisaic teaching on in Ecclesiasticus, 343 f.\n\n  \u2014, Rabbinical teaching on, the, 262, 265\n\n  \u2014, doctrine of, in Baruch, 264 f.\n\n  \u2014, doctrine of, in Ecclesiasticus, 260 ff.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, 1 (3) Esdras, 264\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, 2 (4) Esdras, 265 f.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, Judith, 263 f.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, 2 Maccabees, 264\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, Tobit, 262 f.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, Wisdom, 266 f.\n\n  Legalistic Movement, The, 160\n\n  Letter of Aristeas, 59\n\n  \u2014 of Purim, 403\n\n  Leucoma, 367\n\n  Levitical Impurity, 175, =177-182=\n\n  Lights, Feast of, 492\n\n  Little Genesis, 216\n\n  Liturgy, Jewish, 390, 391, 500, 502\n\n  Local government of Jewish cities, 31\n\n  Logos, 464\n\n  \u2014, Philonian, 63 f., 464\n\n  Lucius, 422\n\n  \u2014 Calpurnius Piso, 423\n\n  \u2014 Quietus, 522\n\n  \u2014 Valerius, 422\n\n  Lydda, 435\n\n  Lysias, 428 f., 482\n\n\n  Maccab\u00e6an feasts, the two, 488\n\n  \u2014 revolt, 35\n\n  \u2014 rising, 76\n\n  \u2014 struggle, the, 161, 403, 482\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, causes of, 424 f.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, history of, 423 ff.\n\n  Maccabees, first book of, =411-438=\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, authorship, 411 ff.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, date, 413 f.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, historicity, 415\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, literary character, 414 f.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, original language, 414 f.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, sources, 415 ff.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, title, 411 ff.\n\n  \u2014, second book of, =479-494=\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, date, 493\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, compared with 1 Maccabees, 482 ff.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, contents of, 481 ff.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, historical value of, 485 ff.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, influence of on N.T. writers, 493 f.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, integrity of, 490 ff.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, origin of, 479 ff.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, original language, 493\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, purpose of, 487 ff.\n\n  Macedonian empire, 14\n\n  M\u00e6onius, 512\n\n  Makr\u012bz\u012b, 133\n\n  Man rising from the Sea, Vision of, 513 f., 515 ff.\n\n  Manasses, Prayer of, =404-410=\n\n  Manes, 133\n\n  Marisa, 486\n\n  Marriage avoided by the Essenes, 43\n\n  Martyrdom of Isaiah, The, 219\n\n  _M\u0101sh\u0101l_, 227 f.\n\n  Mas\u016bdi, 133\n\n  Materialism, 469, 471 f.\n\n  Mattathias, his zeal for the Law, 426\n\n  \u2014, leadership of, 424 ff.\n\n  Matter, Platonic idea of, 85\n\n  Mediterranean, 28\n\n  Megiddo, battle of, 440\n\n  _Megillath Semanim_, 194\n\n  _Megillath Seth\u0101rim_, 194\n\n  _Megillath Taanith_, 194, 380\n\n  _Megill\u00f4th_, 163 f.\n\n  Memphis, 51\n\n  _Memra_, 237\n\n  Merits of the fathers, 273 f.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014 \u2014, doctrine of, 499\n\n  Merodach, 396\n\n  Messiah, 298, 516\n\n  Messiah, doctrine of, in Apocalyptic Literature, 105 ff.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, Baruch, 283\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, Ecclesiasticus, 281 f.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, 2 (4) Esdras, 283 ff.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, 1 Maccabees, 282 f.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, 2 Maccabees, 283\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, Tobit, 282\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, Wisdom, 285 ff.\n\n  \u2014, Pharisaic and Sadduc\u00e6an doctrine of, 148 ff.\n\n  \u2014, pre-existence of, 106\n\n  Messianic Age, 298\n\n  \u2014 expectations, 226\n\n  \u2014 future, 38\n\n  \u2014 Kingdom, teaching of, in Apocalyptic Literature, 109\n\n  \u2014 Woes, 297\n\n  Metabolism of the elements, 86 f.\n\n  Michael, 39\n\n  Michmash, 431\n\n  Middle Ages, 17\n\n  Migdol, 51\n\n  Millennium, 221\n\n  _Minim_, 192 f.\n\n  Mishna, 35\n\n  Missionary propaganda among the Jews of the Dispersion, 56 f.\n\n  Mixed marriages among Israelites, 120\n\n  Modin, 413\n\n  Monotheism, 23\n\n  \u2014 of the Essenes, 45\n\n  Mordecai, 398 ff.\n\n  Moses, Apocalypse of, =222-223=\n\n  \u2014, the second = Ezra, 530\n\n  Mucianus, 520\n\n  Mystery-religion, Essenism a, 45\n\n  Myths allegorized, 22\n\n\n  National deities, 22\n\n  Nebuchadnezzar, 50\n\n  Nehemiah, 92, 450\n\n  Neo-Pythagoreans, 42\n\n  Neo-Pythagorean philosophy, 13\n\n  _N\u0115ph\u0115sh_, 81, 83\n\n  Nero, 520\n\n  _N\u0115sh\u0101m\u0101h_, 82, 83\n\n  New Age, The, 524\n\n  Nicanor, 428, 430 f., 482\n\n  \u2014, celebration of death of, feast, 487\n\n  Noph, 51\n\n  Numenius, 421 f.\n\n  Nymphidius, 520\n\n\n  Odenathus, 512\n\n  _Olam ha-b\u00e2_, 97\n\n  _Olam ha-zeh_, 97\n\n  Onias, 303, 418\n\n  \u2014 III, 34\n\n  Oral Law, The, 338 f.\n\n  \u2014 tradition, 93, 530\n\n  Oriental influence on Judaism, 38\n\n  \u2014 elements absorbed by Hellenism, 40\n\n  \u2014 influences on the Jews, 41\n\n  Orphic Pythagor\u00e6an asceticism, 42\n\n  _Ostraka_, 15\n\n  Otho, 520\n\n  \u201cOutside\u201d books, 198\n\n  Ozias, 374 f.\n\n\n  Paganism renovated, 13\n\n  _Pal\u00e6stra_, 34\n\n  Palestine, Eastern, 30\n\n  \u2014, political life of, 31\n\n  Palmyra, 512\n\n  _Papyri_, 15, 50 ff., 194 f., 349\n\n  Paradise, 523\n\n  Parseeism, 38\n\n  Parthians, 436\n\n  Particularism, 103 f., 122, 160\n\n  Pathros, 51\n\n  Paul, St., influenced by Wisdom, 474 ff.\n\n  Pentateuch, translation of, into Greek, 59\n\n  Pentecost, Feast of, 487\n\n  People of the land, The, 206\n\n  Perdiccas, 424\n\n  Persecution, 469, 473 f.\n\n  Persian influence on Essene belief, 44\n\n  \u2014 \u2014 on Judaism, 252 f.\n\n  \u2014 kings, list of, 446\n\n  Personal religion, 256\n\n  \u2014 responsibility, sense of, 32\n\n  Personalities of striking character during the Hellenistic period, 19\n\n  Personification of Wisdom, 235\n\n  Pessimism in 2 (4) Esdras, 525 f.\n\n  _Petasus_, 34\n\n  Pharisaic recension of Ecclesiasticus, 256 f.\n\n  \u2014 and Sadduc\u00e6an parties, 91 ff.\n\n  Pharisaism, 456\n\n  Pharisee, meaning of term, 130 ff.\n\n  Pharisees, =130-159=, 203 f., 393, 412, 453 f.\n\n  \u2014 reject Apocalyptic Literature, 199\n\n  \u2014 and the Canon, 174 f.\n\n  \u2014 different from Scribes, 127\n\n  \u2014, party of religious progress, 154\n\n  \u2014 and Sadducees, doctrines of, 139 ff.\n\n  \u2014, sources of information concerning, 135 ff.\n\n  Pharaoh Necho, II, 51\n\n  Pharos, island of, 59\n\n  Plato, 17, 73, 458\n\n  Platonic philosophy, 13\n\n  Philip, the friend of Antiochus Epiphanes, 429\n\n  Philip of Macedon, 14\n\n  Philo, =61-65=, 458, 463 f., 493\n\n  \u2014, his account of the Essenes, 42\n\n  \u2014, his doctrines due to Greek influence, 65\n\n  \u2014, his doctrine of God, 63\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, the Logos, 63 f.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, Sin, 64 f.\n\n  \u2014 on the Jews of Alexandria, 54\n\n  \u2014, philosophy of, 63 ff.\n\n  Philometor, 328\n\n  Philosophical teaching of the Hellenistic period, 18\n\n  Philosophy, 16\n\n  Piety of individuals, 23\n\n  Pious ones, 93, 257\n\n  \u2014 \u2014 in the Psalms, 71-74\n\n  Piso, 520\n\n  Politics, 23\n\n  Polybius on the Hellenes, 20\n\n  \u2014 and the importance of the individual, 19\n\n  Pompey, 413\n\n  Posidonius, 41\n\n  Praise, 500\n\n  Prayer, 361\n\n  \u2014 of Manasses, =404-410=\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, date of, 409 f.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, origin of, 405 ff.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, original language of, 410\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, writer of, 410\n\n  Prayers for the dead, 489\n\n  Pre-existence of the soul, Platonic doctrine of, 82\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, doctrine of, in Wisdom, 80 ff.\n\n  Pre-existing matter, doctrine of, 458\n\n  Prologue to Ecclesiasticus, 124 f., 459\n\n  Proverbs, allegory in, 72\n\n  \u2014, individualism in, 71 f.\n\n  \u2014, marks of Hellenistic influence in, 71 ff.\n\n  \u2014, universalism in, 72\n\n  Proverbs in ancient Jewish Literature, 228 f.\n\n  Providence, doctrine of, 458\n\n  Psalms of Greek and Maccab\u00e6an eras, 70 f.\n\n  \u2014, Greek influence in some, 70, 71\n\n  \u2014 of Solomon, =214-216=, 505 f.\n\n  Psametik I, 51\n\n  Pseudepigrapha, The, 189, 191, =200-223=\n\n  _Psych\u0113_, 81\n\n  Ptolemaic armies, Jewish soldiers in, 29\n\n  Ptolemais, 30, 432, 434\n\n  Ptolemy, house of, 28 f.\n\n  Ptolemy I, 462\n\n  Ptolemy II, (Philadelphus), 59\n\n  Ptolemy VI, (Philometor), 59, 434\n\n  Ptolemy, Antiochus Epiphanes\u2019 general, 428\n\n  Pur, 400\n\n  Purifications of the Essenes, 45\n\n  Purim, Feast of, 487\n\n  Pythagor\u00e6ans, 135\n\n\n  Rabbinical literature, 39\n\n  \u2014 sources on Pharisees and Sadducees, 137 ff.\n\n  Races, intermingling of, 22\n\n  Ram\u2019s horn, 216\n\n  Ramathaim, 435\n\n  Raphael, 301, 359, 360, 363\n\n  Raphia, 30\n\n  Realism of the Greeks, 19\n\n  Reform in administration of justice, 393 f.\n\n  Relationship between God and men, 341 f.\n\n  Religious associations, 23\n\n  \u2014 liberty secured by the Maccabees, 431\n\n  \u2014 syncretism, 22 f.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, results of, 23\n\n  _Renaissance_, 17\n\n  Repentance, 342 f., 476\n\n  Resurrection, 292, 296, 298, 300, 337\n\n  \u2014, advanced teaching on, in 2 Maccabees, 489 f.\n\n  \u2014 of the body, 39, 107\n\n  \u2014, doctrine of, 39 f.\n\n  \u2014, Essene teaching on, 44\n\n  \u2014 of the soul, 38\n\n  \u2014 of the spirit, 110\n\n  Retribution, doctrine of, in Apocalyptic Literature, 108\n\n  Rome, embassy to, 416\n\n  Roman alliance with the Jews, 420 f.\n\n  \u2014 empire, 13\n\n  _Ruach_, 82\n\n\n  Sabbath, 412, 487\n\n  \u2014 observance of the Essenes, 45\n\n  Sacrificial system, 226, 339\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, importance of, minimized, 58\n\n  Sadduc\u00e6an and Pharisaic parties, 91 ff.\n\n  \u2014 literary activity, 156 ff.\n\n  Sadduc\u00e6anism, 456, 500, 501 f.\n\n  Sadducee, meaning of term, 132 ff.\n\n  Sadducees, =130-159=, 203 f., 334, 393, 412, 453 f.\n\n  \u2014 and politics, 153 f.\n\n  \u2014, friends of Hellenistic culture, 154\n\n  \u2014 and Pharisees, doctrines of, 139 ff.\n\n  \u2014, sources of information concerning, 135 ff.\n\n  Samaria, 49, 50\n\n  \u2014, Macedonian settlers in, 30\n\n  Samaritans, The, 120, 441\n\n  Sanhedrin, 145\n\n  Salathiel Apocalypse, The, 513 f.\n\n  Sapor I, 512\n\n  Sargon, 49\n\n  \u2014, inscription of, 50\n\n  Sassanid\u00e6, 512\n\n  Scepticism, 20, 469 f.\n\n  Sciences, differentiation of, 17\n\n  Scribe in Ecclesiasticus, 123 f.\n\n  Scribe, the ideal in Ecclesiasticus, 324\n\n  Scribes, The, =113-119=, 161\n\n  \u2014 as lawyers, 126 f.\n\n  \u2014 different from Pharisees, 127\n\n  \u2014 in existence before the Exile, 114 f.\n\n  \u2014, O.T. _data_ concerning, 113 ff.\n\n  \u2014 and Scripture, 126\n\n  \u2014, two types of, 115, 116, 124\n\n  Scythians, 512\n\n  Secrets of Enoch, Book of the, =220-222=\n\n  Seleucid era, 491\n\n  Seleucid\u00e6, 153\n\n  Seleucus, 34\n\n  \u2014, his treatment of the Jews, 29\n\n  Seleucus IV (Philopator), 430\n\n  _Selichah_, 500\n\n  Semi-divine beings, 39\n\n  Sense of proportion a Hellenic _trait_, 18, 20\n\n  Separateness, 131\n\n  _Sepharim hachiz\u00f4nim_, 192, 198\n\n  Septuagint, The, 11, 15, =58-61=\n\n  \u2014, far-reaching influence of the, 61\n\n  Seven heavens, doctrine of, 221 f.\n\n  Seventh heaven, 83\n\n  Shammai, school of, 170\n\n  _Shema_, 503\n\n  _Shemoneh Esreh_, 391\n\n  Sheol, 40, 290 ff.\n\n  Sheol-conception, 109\n\n  Sibylline Oracles, The, =208-210=\n\n  _Sifre ham\u00een\u00eem_, 192\n\n  Simeon, the high-priest, 328\n\n  \u2014, Rabbi, 170\n\n  Simon ben Shetach, 393\n\n  \u2014 the son Onias, 167\n\n  \u2014 the Maccabee, 413, 414, 418, 421\n\n  \u2014, leadership of, 436 ff.\n\n  \u2014, murder of, 438\n\n  Sin, 523, 531\n\n  \u2014, atonement for, 271 f.\n\n  \u2014, doctrine of, in Baruch, 274\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, Ecclesiasticus, 267 ff.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, 1 (3) Esdras, 274\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, 2 (4) Esdras, 274 ff.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, 2 Maccabees, 274\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, Prayer of Azariah, 273\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, Prayer of Manasses, 273 f.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, Tobit, 273\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, Wisdom, 276 f.\n\n  \u2014, Philo\u2019s doctrine of, 64 f.\n\n  Sisinnes, 441\n\n  _S\u00f4f\u0113r_, 113, 114\n\n  _Soferim_, 340\n\n  Solomon, 227, 456\n\n  \u2014, Psalms of, 505 f.\n\n  _S\u014dma_, 81\n\n  Song of Songs, canonicity disputed, 170\n\n  Song of the Three Children, 386, 390 ff.\n\n  _Sophia_, 226\n\n  Sophists, 13\n\n  Spartans, 416 ff.\n\n  Spiritual body, 107\n\n  State processions, 33\n\n  Stoic enumeration of the human senses, 79\n\n  \u2014 philosophers, 18\n\n  \u2014 philosophy in Wisdom, 86 f.\n\n  Stoics, 19, 21, 135, 458\n\n  \u2014, fatalistic philosophy of, 79\n\n  \u2014, teaching of in Ecclesiastes, 74\n\n  Strabo on the Jews, 53\n\n  Superhuman beings, 39\n\n  Susanna, Story of, 386, 391 ff.\n\n  Syene, Jewish military colony in, 51\n\n  Syncretism, 22 f., 37, 38\n\n  \u2014 and the Jews of the Dispersion, 57\n\n  Syria, 12\n\n  Syrian slaves, 69\n\n  \u2014 throne, claimants to, 431 f.\n\n\n  Tabernacles, Feast of, 487, 491\n\n  Taboo, 178 ff.\n\n  Tahpanes, 51\n\n  Targums, 193\n\n  Tarphon, Rabbi, 192\n\n  _Tehom Rabbah_, 232\n\n  Teman, 497\n\n  Temple, The, 487\n\n  \u2014 Liturgy, 503\n\n  \u2014 not entered by the Essenes, 44\n\n  \u2014, offerings sent to, by the Essenes, 44\n\n  \u2014, profanation of, 482\n\n  Tendencies in pre-Maccab\u00e6an era, 91 f.\n\n  Testament of Moses, 218\n\n  Testament of the XII Patriarchs, The, =210-214=\n\n  _Tenak_, 162\n\n  Thebes, 14\n\n  Theodosius, 13\n\n  Thracians, 14\n\n  _Tiamat_, 396\n\n  Tiberius, 520\n\n  \u2014, edict of, regarding the Jews, 53 f.\n\n  \u2014, Alexander, 520\n\n  Timotheus, 486\n\n  Tishri, 491\n\n  Titles of books, false, the reason, 200 f.\n\n  Titus, 520\n\n  Tobit, book of, =349-371=\n\n  \u2014, compared with Ecclesiasticus, 364 f.\n\n  \u2014, contents of, 357 ff.\n\n  \u2014, doctrinal development in, 363 ff.\n\n  \u2014, date of the book of, 365 f.\n\n  \u2014, for whom written, 366\n\n  \u2014, integrity of, 366\n\n  \u2014, original language of, 367 f.\n\n  \u2014, place of origin of, 366\n\n  \u2014, relationship to story of Achikar the Wise, 353 ff.\n\n  \u2014, religious standpoint of the writer of, 360 ff.\n\n  \u2014, value of for N.T. study, 368 ff.\n\n  Tolerance, 22\n\n  Torah identified with Wisdom, 78 f.\n\n  Trajan, 522\n\n  Transcendence, divine, 39\n\n  Truth, 452\n\n  Tryphon, 435 f.\n\n  Tubieni Jews, 486\n\n  _Tyche_, 23\n\n  Tyre, Ladder of, 435\n\n\n  Uncanonical books, =183-223=\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, reading of, 192 ff.\n\n  Universalism, 122, 161\n\n  \u2014 in Ecclesiasticus, 338\n\n  \u2014 in Proverbs, 72\n\n  \u2014 in Tobit, 362\n\n  Unknown gods, 23\n\n  Uriel, 523\n\n\n  Vespasian, 520\n\n  Vindex, 520\n\n  Vision of the Man rising from the Sea, 513 f., 515 ff.\n\n  \u2014 of Isaiah, The, 219\n\n  Visions in 2 (4) Esdras, their teaching, 527 f.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014, eschatological teaching in, 528\n\n  Visitation of the sick, 347\n\n  Vitellius, 520\n\n\n  _Widdui_, 500\n\n  Wisdom, 72, 496 f., 504\n\n  \u2014 abiding among men, 242 f., 246\n\n  \u2014 in the book of Job, 238\n\n  \u2014 in the book of Proverbs, 236\n\n  \u2014 and the Creation, 237 f.\n\n  \u2014, conception of in Job, 74\n\n  \u2014, divine origin of, 243\n\n  \u2014 of Ea, 231\n\n  \u2014 in Ecclesiastes, 238 ff.\n\n  \u2014 in Ecclesiasticus, 240 ff.\n\n  \u2014 existent before the Creation, 241, 244\n\n  \u2014, fountain of, 496\n\n  \u2014, Hebrew conception of, 226 ff.\n\n  \u2014, hypostatization of, 226\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, in Proverbs, 73\n\n  \u2014, ideal of, among Greeks, 19\n\n  \u2014 identified with the Holy Spirit, 244\n\n  \u2014 \u2014 Law, 241, 244\n\n  \u2014 \u2014 Torah, 78 f.\n\n  \u2014 \u2014 the Word, 244\n\n  \u2014 as intermediary, 259\n\n  \u2014 of Israel, superiority of, 338\n\n  \u2014, Jewish conception of, 233 ff.\n\n  \u2014, Jewish superior to Greek, 243\n\n  \u2014 Literature, The, =224-250=\n\n  \u2014, nature of, 245\n\n  \u2014, personification of, 235, 242, 246\n\n  \u2014, takes the place of angels in book of Wisdom, 304\n\n  \u2014, teaching on, in Apocalyptic books, 245 ff.\n\n  Wisdom, authorship of, 455 ff.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, composite, 464 ff.\n\n  \u2014, book of, =455-478=\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, date, 459 ff.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, Greek philosophy in, 458\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, influence of, on St. Paul, 474 ff.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, personality of author, 457 f.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, purposes of, 469 ff.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, title, 455 f.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, traces of Greek influence in, 80 ff.\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, written in opposition,\n\n  \u2014, \u2014, to Ecclesiastes, 456 f.\n\n  Word, The, 237\n\n  Worm, 289\n\n\n  Xenophon, 14\n\n  Xerxes, 51\n\n\n  _Yeshibah_, 195\n\n  _Yetzer_, 336\n\n  _Yetzer-ha-ra\u2019_, 275, 276\n\n\n  Zabinas, Alexander, 436\n\n  _Zadd\u016bkim_, 132 f., 204\n\n  Zadok, 134, 135, 148, 149, 150, 340\n\n  \u2014, the son of Ahitub, 113\n\n  \u2014, sons of, 33\n\n  Zadokite Fragments, The, 135, 140, 145, 147, 149, 151, 152\n\n  Zealotism, 218\n\n  Zend, 133\n\n  Zeno, 19, 21\n\n  Zenobia, 512\n\n  Zerubbabel, 120, 441, 452 f.\n\n  _Zind\u012bk_, 133\n\n  Zoroaster, 186\n\n  Zoroastrianism, 133, 252\n\n\n\n\nINDEX OF PASSAGES FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT\n\n\n                                    PAGE\n  GENESIS\n\n  i.,                                237\n\n  ii. 7,                          75, 83\n\n  x. 2,                               68\n\n  xvi. 1 ff.,                        148\n\n  xxviii. 10,                        148\n\n\n  EXODUS\n\n  i.-xii.,                           216\n\n  xiv. 19,                           304\n\n  xix. 6,                            148\n\n   \u201c   22,                           180\n\n\n  NUMBERS\n\n  v. 1-3,                            178\n\n  xix. 11-13, 16 ff.,                358\n\n  xx. 16,                            148\n\n  xxii. 22 ff.,                      148\n\n\n  LEVITICUS\n\n  vi. 24-28,                         175\n\n   \u201c  27-30,                         178\n\n  xi. 32,                            180\n\n   \u201c  32-40,                         178\n\n  xiv. 1 ff.,                        178\n\n  xv. 1 ff.,                         178\n\n  xvi. 26-28,                        178\n\n  xviii. 19,                         178\n\n  xxv.,                              216\n\n\n  DEUTERONOMY\n\n  iv. 6,                             233\n\n  xviii. 18,                         282\n\n  xix. 19,                           393\n\n  xxi. 10-14,                        178\n\n  xxiii. 18,                         180\n\n  xxxiii. 1,                         300\n\n\n  JUDGES\n\n  ix. 8-15,                     229, 230\n\n\n  1 SAMUEL\n\n  x. 12,                             228\n\n  xxiv. 13,                          228\n\n  xxv. 29,                            83\n\n\n  2 SAMUEL\n\n  v. 8,                              228\n\n  viii. 17,                          113\n\n  xii. 1-4,                          230\n\n  xx. 18,                            228\n\n   \u201c  25,                            113\n\n\n  1 KINGS\n\n  iv. 30,                            231\n\n   \u201c  30-34,                         227\n\n   \u201c  32,                            166\n\n  x. 1-9,                            227\n\n  xvii. 17-24,                       290\n\n\n  2 KINGS\n\n  xii. 11,                           113\n\n  xiv. 9,                            230\n\n  xvii. 6,                            50\n\n    \u201c   23,                           50\n\n  xviii. 11,                          50\n\n    \u201c    18,                         113\n\n  xxiii. 29-34,                       51\n\n  xxiv., xxv.,                       377\n\n  xxiv. 12-16,                       497\n\n    \u201c   14-16,                        50\n\n  xxv. 9,                            497\n\n   \u201c   11-21,                         50\n\n   \u201c   19,                           114\n\n   \u201c   22,                           377\n\n\n  1 CHRONICLES\n\n  i. 5-7,                             68\n\n  ii. 55,                            118\n\n  v. 27-41,                          134\n\n  vi. 4-15,                          148\n\n   \u201c  50-53,                         148\n\n  xv. 11,                            134\n\n  xvi.,                              134\n\n   \u201c  4, 5,                          167\n\n  xxi. 15, 16,                       304\n\n  xxiv. 6,                           148\n\n\n  2 CHRONICLES\n\n  xiii. 22,                          193\n\n  xxiv. 11,                          113\n\n    \u201c   17,                          193\n\n  xxxiii. 6,                         408\n\n     \u201c    11,                        407\n\n     \u201c    12, 13,                    405\n\n     \u201c    18, 19,               405, 407\n\n  xxxiv. 13,                         119\n\n  xxxv., xxxvi. 1-21,                440\n\n  xxxvi. 17-21,                      446\n\n     \u201c   22, 23,                  440 f.\n\n\n  EZRA\n\n  i. 1 ff.,                          446\n\n  \u201c  1-11,                        440 f.\n\n  ii. 1-iv. 5, 24,                   441\n\n   \u201c  39,                            120\n\n   \u201c  61-63,                         120\n\n  iii. 8 ff.,                        446\n\n  iv. 1-5, 24,               120, 446 f.\n\n   \u201c  6-23,                       446 f.\n\n   \u201c  7,                             193\n\n   \u201c  7-24,                       441 f.\n\n  v. 1-vi. 22,                       441\n\n  vi. 1 ff.,                         447\n\n   \u201c  13 ff.,                        447\n\n  vii-x.,                            449\n\n   \u201c 1-x. 44,                     441 f.\n\n   \u201c 1 ff.,                          447\n\n   \u201c 6,                         116, 118\n\n   \u201c 10,                         28, 116\n\n  vii. 11, 12, 21,                   117\n\n   \u201c   25,                           117\n\n  ix. 1, 2,                      28, 120\n\n  x. 11, 17,                          28\n\n  \u201c  15,                             121\n\n  \u201c  18-44,                          121\n\n\n  NEHEMIAH\n\n  i. 1-7, 72,                        447\n\n  ii. 1 ff.,                         447\n\n   \u201c  19,                            120\n\n  iv. 1 ff.,                         120\n\n  vi. 10-14,                         121\n\n   \u201c  17, 19,                        121\n\n  vii. 6-73,                         441\n\n   \u201c  73-viii. 22,         442, 447, 449\n\n  viii.-x.,                          117\n\n    \u201c  2, 3,                         117\n\n    \u201c  7-9,                          117\n\n    \u201c  8,                       118, 132\n\n    \u201c  13-15,                        117\n\n  x. 28 ff.,                         122\n\n  xiii. 4 ff.,                       122\n\n    \u201c  15 ff.,                       122\n\n    \u201c   23, 24,                      121\n\n  xiv. 28,                           121\n\n\n  ESTHER\n\n  ii. 21-23,                         400\n\n  iii. 7,                            399\n\n   \u201c   12,                           114\n\n   \u201c   13,                           401\n\n  iv. 16,                            402\n\n  v. 1, 2,                           402\n\n  \u201c  3 ff.,                          402\n\n  viii. 8 ff.,                       402\n\n    \u201c   9,                           114\n\n    \u201c   12,                          402\n\n  ix. 24-32,                         400\n\n   \u201c  31,                            402\n\n\n  JOB\n\n  v. 1,                              300\n\n  ix. 12-19,                         459\n\n  xi. 5, 6,                          238\n\n  xv. 8,                             238\n\n   \u201c  15,                            254\n\n  xxviii. 12-14,                     246\n\n    \u201c 12-28,                     74, 238\n\n    \u201c 28,                            234\n\n  xxxviii. 12-28,                    249\n\n\n  PSALMS\n\n  xviii.,                            287\n\n  xxxiii. 6, 9,                      237\n\n  xxxvi. 6,                          232\n\n  xlv. 2,                            114\n\n  lxxxix. 7,                         300\n\n  xc.-cl.,                            70\n\n  xc. 4,                             221\n\n  civ. 1 ff., 4,                     301\n\n  cxi. 6,                            234\n\n  cxv. 4-8,                          507\n\n  cxix. 97,                          263\n\n  cxlviii. 5,                        237\n\n  cxlix. 1-9,                        125\n\n\n  PROVERBS\n\n  i.-ix.,                         71, 74\n\n   \u201c 7,                              234\n\n  ii. 17-19,                          72\n\n  viii. 4,                            71\n\n  viii. 15, 16, 17,                   72\n\n   \u201c 22-31,                 73, 236, 237\n\n   \u201c 26-30,                          232\n\n   \u201c 31-36,                          242\n\n  ix. 1-6,                           242\n\n   \u201c 4-6,                             71\n\n   \u201c 10,                             234\n\n  xv. 33,                            234\n\n  xxii. 24,                          236\n\n\n  ECCLESIASTES\n\n  i. 11,                             457\n\n   \u201c 13,                             240\n\n   \u201c 13-18,                          239\n\n  ii. 11,                            457\n\n   \u201c 13-16,                          239\n\n   \u201c 16,                             457\n\n   \u201c 23, 24,                         457\n\n  iii. 1-8,                           74\n\n   \u201c 18, 19,                          74\n\n   \u201c 19, 22,                         457\n\n  v. 1, 18,                          457\n\n  vi. 3-8,                           240\n\n   \u201c 12,                             457\n\n  vii. 11, 12,                       240\n\n   \u201c 25,                             240\n\n  viii. 1,                           240\n\n   \u201c 8,                              457\n\n  ix. 1 ff., 16,                     240\n\n   \u201c 2, 7, 8,                    75, 457\n\n   \u201c 5,                         240, 457\n\n   \u201c 13-16,                          239\n\n  xii. 7,                            457\n\n   \u201c 11, 12,                         193\n\n   \u201c 12,                             168\n\n   \u201c 17,                              74\n\n\n  ISAIAH\n\n  ii. 4_a_,                          286\n\n  iii. 10,                           459\n\n  iv. 5, 6,                          286\n\n  v. 1-4,                            230\n\n  ix. 12 (Septuagint),                69\n\n  xi. 2,                             233\n\n   \u201c  11,                             51\n\n  xix. 11-15,                        231\n\n  xxiv. 14, 15,                       69\n\n  xxviii. 5, 6,                      286\n\n  xl. 10,                            286\n\n  xliv. 20,                          459\n\n  xlix. 9-19,                        507\n\n    \u201c 23,                            286\n\n  lix. 16, 17,                  286, 475\n\n  lxii. 3,                           286\n\n  lxvi. 19,                           69\n\n    \u201c 20,                            516\n\n\n  JEREMIAH\n\n  viii. 9, 10,                    114 f.\n\n  x. 1-16,                           507\n\n  xviii. 18,                    114, 233\n\n  xxvi. 16 (Septuagint),              69\n\n  xxix. 1, 4 ff.,                 506 f.\n\n  xxxiii. 29,                        229\n\n  xxxv. 6-10,                        119\n\n  xxxvi.,                         114 f.\n\n    \u201c 10-12,                         119\n\n  xxxix., xl.,                       377\n\n  xl. 5,                             377\n\n  xlii., xliii.,                      51\n\n  xliv. 1,                            51\n\n  l. 35,                             231\n\n  li. 57,                            231\n\n  lii. 15, 28-30,                     50\n\n   \u201c 25,                             114\n\n\n  EZEKIEL\n\n  xiv. 20,                           167\n\n  xvii. 3-8,                         231\n\n  xviii. 2,                          229\n\n  xxiv. 3-5,                         231\n\n  xxvii. 9, 13,                       68\n\n  xxxvi. 1-10,                       231\n\n  xlii. 16-19,                       162\n\n  xliv. 15 ff.,                      148\n\n    \u201c 19,                            180\n\n\n  DANIEL\n\n  iii. 5, 7, 10-15,                   70\n\n   \u201c 23, 24,                      386 f.\n\n  v. 13 f.,                          497\n\n   \u201c 26-28,                          119\n\n  viii. 21,                           69\n\n  ix. 4-19,                     389, 498\n\n  x. 20,                              69\n\n  xi. 2,                              69\n\n  xii. 4, 9,                         186\n\n\n  HOSEA\n\n  viii. 7,                           229\n\n  xiv. 10,                           233\n\n\n  JOEL\n\n  iii. (Hebr. iv.) 6-8,               68\n\n\n  HAGGAI\n\n  i., ii.,                           453\n\n   \u201c 12, 14,                         454\n\n  ii. 2, 4,                          454\n\n   \u201c  10 ff.,                        123\n\n   \u201c  11-13,                         175\n\n\n  ZECHARIAH\n\n  iv.,                            453 f.\n\n   \u201c 6,                              453\n\n\n  MALACHI\n\n  i. 10-16,                          122\n\n  iv. 6,                             346\n\n\n\n\nINDEX OF PASSAGES FROM THE APOCRYPHA\n\n\n                                    PAGE\n  ECCLESIASTICUS\n\n  i. 1,                              240\n\n  \u201c  1-20,                           346\n\n  \u201c  4,                              241\n\n  \u201c  12,                     256 f., 306\n\n  \u201c  14,                        234, 278\n\n  \u201c  15,                             242\n\n  \u201c  15, 20, 27,                     234\n\n  \u201c  26, 78,                    242, 347\n\n  iii. 30,                           272\n\n  iv. 1-6,                           348\n\n   \u201c  17,                            242\n\n   \u201c  26,                            348\n\n  v. 9-vi. 1,                        323\n\n  \u201c  11,                             347\n\n  \u201c  13, 14,                         348\n\n  vi. 5-17,                          323\n\n   \u201c  19,                            348\n\n   \u201c  28-31,                         242\n\n  vii. 17,                           289\n\n   \u201c 18,                             323\n\n   \u201c 29-31,                          361\n\n   \u201c 35, 36,                      347 f.\n\n  viii. 3,                           348\n\n    \u201c 5,                             267\n\n    \u201c 12, 13,                        323\n\n  x. 11,                        288, 337\n\n  xi. 14,                         343 f.\n\n   \u201c  19,                            346\n\n  xii. 7,                             82\n\n   \u201c 8-18,                           323\n\n   \u201c 18,                             347\n\n  xiv. 1,                            348\n\n   \u201c 14, 20,                         459\n\n   \u201c 20-xvi. 23,                  322 f.\n\n  xv. 1,                   123, 241, 260\n\n   \u201c  11, 12,                         79\n\n   \u201c  11-13,               268, 309, 347\n\n   \u201c  14-17,                         336\n\n  xvi. 1-5,                          323\n\n   \u201c 17-23,                       335 f.\n\n   \u201c 19,                             341\n\n  xvii. 4,                            79\n\n    \u201c 9,                             167\n\n    \u201c 17,                       279, 342\n\n    \u201c 22,                            343\n\n    \u201c 20,                       257, 306\n\n    \u201c 26_a_,                         257\n\n    \u201c 27, 28,              288, 337, 363\n\n    \u201c 31,                            270\n\n  xviii. 1-14,                       362\n\n    \u201c 2,                             341\n\n    \u201c 8-14,                          338\n\n    \u201c 15-18,                         361\n\n    \u201c 21,                            343\n\n    \u201c 22,                  272, 291, 342\n\n  xix. 5,                            344\n\n   \u201c 16,                             348\n\n   \u201c 17,                        291, 342\n\n   \u201c 20,                        241, 261\n\n  xx. 2,                             343\n\n   \u201c 31,                        279, 342\n\n  xxi. 2, 3,                         269\n\n   \u201c 9, 10,                          289\n\n   \u201c 10,                             291\n\n   \u201c 11,                             241\n\n   \u201c 27, 28,                         269\n\n  xxii. 3-6,                         323\n\n    \u201c 11,                            288\n\n    \u201c 19-26,                         323\n\n    \u201c 27,                            267\n\n  xxiii. 3 ff.,                      267\n\n    \u201c    7-15,                       323\n\n    \u201c    8,                          271\n\n    \u201c    27,                         341\n\n  xxiv. 3,                           241\n\n    \u201c   5,                           232\n\n    \u201c   6-16,                        338\n\n    \u201c   7 f.,                        262\n\n    \u201c   7-12,                   242, 308\n\n    \u201c   9,                           241\n\n    \u201c   12,                          262\n\n    \u201c   19, 20,                      242\n\n    \u201c   23,                256, 260, 341\n\n    \u201c   23, 25,                      241\n\n    \u201c   30-32,                       167\n\n    \u201c   30-34,                       325\n\n    \u201c   33, 34,                      167\n\n  xxv. 24,                           269\n\n    \u201c  28,                           348\n\n  xxviii. 2,                         346\n\n     \u201c    6,                    261, 363\n\n     \u201c    10,                        346\n\n     \u201c    11, 12,                    348\n\n     \u201c    13-26,                     323\n\n     \u201c    16-18,                     348\n\n  xxix. 1-20,                        323\n\n    \u201c   19,                          344\n\n    \u201c   21-28,                       323\n\n  xxx. 17,                           288\n\n   \u201c   21-25,                         79\n\n  xxxi. 3,                           346\n\n    \u201c   8,                           260\n\n    \u201c   21-23,                  261, 272\n\n    \u201c   25, 26,                      262\n\n    \u201c   31,                          272\n\n  xxxii. 3-8,                         80\n\n     \u201c   15-17,                      339\n\n     \u201c   15-24,                      261\n\n  xxxiii. 13-15,             309, 336 f.\n\n     \u201c    16-18,                     325\n\n     \u201c    19-23,                     323\n\n  xxxiv. 8,                          125\n\n     \u201c   10-12,                      326\n\n     \u201c   18-26,                      339\n\n     \u201c   22,                         348\n\n     \u201c   25, 26,                     362\n\n  xxxv. 1-3,                         339\n\n    \u201c   1-11,                        361\n\n  xxxvi. 1-5,                        338\n\n     \u201c   13-15,                      268\n\n     \u201c   17,                         338\n\n  xxxvii. 1-6,                       323\n\n     \u201c    3,                         268\n\n     \u201c    17, 18,                    336\n\n  xxxviii. 11,                       272\n\n      \u201c    13,                       288\n\n      \u201c    16-23,                    337\n\n      \u201c  24-xxxix. 3,                324\n\n  xxxix. 1-3,                   324, 326\n\n     \u201c   1-11,                       123\n\n     \u201c   4,                          326\n\n     \u201c   6,                          278\n\n     \u201c  12 ff.,                      325\n\n     \u201c  18-31,                  315, 304\n\n  xl. 11,                            363\n\n  xli. 3, 4,                         337\n\n  xlii. 2,                           261\n\n    \u201c   15,                          237\n\n    \u201c  15-xliii.,               254, 306\n\n    \u201c  16,            254, 300, 314, 364\n\n  xliii. 26,                    301, 364\n\n    \u201c    28-32,                      255\n\n  xliv.-l.,                          165\n\n    \u201c   24,                          324\n\n    \u201c   16,                          343\n\n    \u201c   20,                          261\n\n  xlv. 5,                            165\n\n    \u201c  5, 17,                        261\n\n    \u201c  14-16,                        361\n\n    \u201c  23,                           273\n\n    \u201c  23-25,                        149\n\n  xlvi. 1,                           165\n\n    \u201c   11, 12, 13,                  165\n\n    \u201c   14,                          261\n\n    \u201c   19,                          288\n\n  xlvii. 2-7, 8-10, 17, 20,          166\n\n    \u201c    22,                         281\n\n  xlviii. 3,                         348\n\n     \u201c    5,                         291\n\n     \u201c  11,                       289 f.\n\n     \u201c  24,                          165\n\n  xlix.,                             328\n\n    \u201c  4,                            165\n\n    \u201c  6, 8, 10,                     166\n\n    \u201c  9,                       166, 459\n\n  l. 1 ff.,                     167, 328\n\n   \u201c 29,                        167, 195\n\n  li. 1-12,                       326 f.\n\n   \u201c  12,                  281, 340, 391\n\n   \u201c  13,                            326\n\n   \u201c  23-28,                         325\n\n\n  TOBIT\n\n  i.-iii.,                        357 f.\n\n   \u201c  3,                        356, 370\n\n   \u201c  3-iii. 6,                      368\n\n   \u201c  6,                             263\n\n   \u201c  6-8,                        360 f.\n\n   \u201c  7,                             263\n\n   \u201c  21, 22,                        354\n\n  ii. 1,                             263\n\n   \u201c  1-9,                           361\n\n   \u201c  5,                             263\n\n   \u201c  8,                             362\n\n   \u201c  11-14,                         358\n\n  iii. 1-6,                     290, 358\n\n   \u201c   6,                            363\n\n   \u201c   7,                            301\n\n   \u201c   8, 17,                304 f., 364\n\n   \u201c   10, 11,                       363\n\n   \u201c   16, 17,        301, 305, 359, 363\n\n  iv.-xi.,                           359\n\n  iv. 3,                             263\n\n   \u201c  3-21,                          359\n\n   \u201c  5,                             278\n\n   \u201c  6-11,                       262 f.\n\n   \u201c  7, 8, 9,                    369 f.\n\n   \u201c  10,     273, 290, 355, 361, 363 f.\n\n   \u201c  12,                       355, 370\n\n   \u201c  15,                         369 f.\n\n   \u201c  16,                       361, 370\n\n   \u201c  17, 18,                     355 f.\n\n   \u201c  19,                            271\n\n   \u201c  21,                            370\n\n  v.-vi. 2,                          359\n\n   \u201c 13,                             263\n\n  vi. 2-9,                           359\n\n   \u201c 3,                              366\n\n   \u201c 7-9, 14, 16-18,                 364\n\n   \u201c 10-18,                     301, 360\n\n   \u201c 12,                             263\n\n   \u201c 17,                             305\n\n  vii., viii.,                       360\n\n  vii. 13, 14,                       263\n\n  viii. 2, 3,                        364\n\n    \u201c   3,                      305, 370\n\n    \u201c   5,                           363\n\n    \u201c   15,                     301, 314\n\n  ix.,                               360\n\n  x. 1-7_a_,                         360\n\n   \u201c 7_b_-xi. 8,                     360\n\n  xi. 14,                            363\n\n   \u201c  18,                            354\n\n  xii.-xiv.,                         360\n\n   \u201c  6,                             363\n\n   \u201c  7,                             356\n\n   \u201c  8,                        262, 361\n\n   \u201c  8-10,                          369\n\n   \u201c  9,                     273, 363 f.\n\n   \u201c  10,                            370\n\n   \u201c  12,                       301, 370\n\n   \u201c  12-14,                         363\n\n   \u201c  15,                       301, 363\n\n  xiii. 1-8,                         365\n\n    \u201c   2,                      290, 363\n\n    \u201c   3, 4,                        366\n\n    \u201c   6,                      366, 370\n\n    \u201c   7-11,                        362\n\n    \u201c   7-18,                        282\n\n    \u201c   16-18,                    370 f.\n\n    \u201c   18,                          363\n\n  xiv. 3-7,                          365\n\n    \u201c  4-6,                     282, 362\n\n    \u201c  4, 15,                        356\n\n    \u201c  6,                            255\n\n    \u201c  10,                           354\n\n\n  JUDITH\n\n  i. 9,                              372\n\n  ii. 1 ff.,                         377\n\n   \u201c  21-iii. 10,                    373\n\n  iv. 1-8,                           373\n\n   \u201c  2, 3,                     377, 381\n\n   \u201c  6-8,                           377\n\n   \u201c  9-15,                          381\n\n   \u201c  13,                            381\n\n  v., vi.,                           373\n\n   \u201c  19,                            381\n\n  vii.,                              374\n\n  viii.,                          374 f.\n\n    \u201c  5, 6,                    263, 381\n\n    \u201c  20, 21, 24,                   381\n\n    \u201c  31,                           381\n\n  ix. 1, 8, 13, 14,                  381\n\n  x.-xii. 9,                         376\n\n   \u201c 3, 5,                           381\n\n  xi. 12, 13,                     263 f.\n\n   \u201c  12-15, 17,                     381\n\n  xii. 1-9, 19,                      381\n\n  xii. 6, 7, 9,                      381\n\n   \u201c  10-xiii. 10,                   376\n\n  xiii. 3, 4, 7, 10,                 381\n\n    \u201c   6,                           162\n\n    \u201c   11-xv. 13,                   377\n\n  xiv. 10,                           381\n\n  xvi. 2-17,               264, 308, 377\n\n   \u201c   17,                      290, 381\n\n   \u201c   18-25,                        377\n\n   \u201c   18,                           264\n\n   \u201c   20, 24,                       381\n\n\n  THE ADDITIONS TO\n  THE BOOK OF DANIEL\n\n  _Pr. of Azar._\n\n  1, 23-27,                          386\n\n  2-22,                          386 ff.\n\n  5, 9,                              388\n\n  12,                                273\n\n  14, 15,                            389\n\n  26, 27,                            301\n\n\n  _Song of Three Children._\n\n  28,                                390\n\n  64-68,                             390\n\n\n  _Susannah._\n\n  44, 45,                         301 f.\n\n  45,                                394\n\n  55, 59, 62,                        302\n\n  62_a_,                             393\n\n\n  _Bel and the Dragon._\n\n  28, 32,                            397\n\n  33-39_a_,                          397\n\n  34-39,                             302\n\n  39_b_, 41,                         397\n\n\n  THE ADDITIONS TO ESTHER\n\n  x. 4-13,                        402 f.\n\n   \u201c  4-xi. 1,                    402 f.\n\n  xi. 1,                             403\n\n   \u201c  2-xii. 6,                      400\n\n  xiii. 1-7,                      400 f.\n\n    \u201c   8-17,                        401\n\n    \u201c   8-xiv. 19,                401 f.\n\n    \u201c   18,                          401\n\n  xv. 1-16,                          402\n\n   \u201c  13,                            302\n\n  xvi. 1-24,                         402\n\n\n  PRAYER OF MANASSES\n\n  4, 7, 13,                          409\n\n  8,                            273, 409\n\n  8-13,                              274\n\n  10,                                407\n\n  12,                                291\n\n  15,                                302\n\n\n  1 MACCABEES\n\n  i. 1-9,                            424\n\n  \u201c  10-64,                          486\n\n  \u201c  10-ii. 70,                  424 ff.\n\n  \u201c  11 f.,                       32, 76\n\n  \u201c  11-15,                       388 f.\n\n  \u201c  13,                              77\n\n  \u201c  15,                             425\n\n  \u201c  20, 21,                         425\n\n  \u201c  20-24,                          398\n\n  \u201c  41-64,                          398\n\n  \u201c  43,                             426\n\n  \u201c  43, 44,                         125\n\n  \u201c  44-49,                       425 f.\n\n  ii. 4, 6,                          411\n\n   \u201c  41,                            412\n\n   \u201c  44-47,                         427\n\n   \u201c  52 ff.,                        412\n\n   \u201c  54,                            149\n\n  iii. 1-ix. 22,                 427 ff.\n\n   \u201c 18 ff.,               257, 306, 412\n\n   \u201c 25, 26,                         427\n\n  iv. 1-24,                          415\n\n   \u201c  10 ff.,                   258, 412\n\n   \u201c  46,                            282\n\n  v. 1-68,                           485\n\n   \u201c 10-13,                          416\n\n   \u201c 15,                             416\n\n  vi. 8-17,                          491\n\n   \u201c  14, 15,                        429\n\n   \u201c  28-54,                         415\n\n   \u201c  49, 50,                        485\n\n   \u201c  56,                            429\n\n  vii. 1 ff.,                        485\n\n   \u201c 12, 13,                         125\n\n   \u201c 26-50,                          415\n\n   \u201c 50,                             430\n\n  viii. 23-32,                    420 f.\n\n    \u201c 32,                         430 f.\n\n  ix. 1-22,                          415\n\n   \u201c  22,                            416\n\n   \u201c  23-xii. 53,                431 ff.\n\n   \u201c  32-53,                         415\n\n   \u201c  43 ff., 46,                    412\n\n   \u201c  43-49,                         431\n\n   \u201c  54-57,                         134\n\n   \u201c  58-73,                         432\n\n   \u201c  73,                            431\n\n  x. 4,                              433\n\n   \u201c 18-20,                          419\n\n   \u201c 25-45,                          419\n\n   \u201c 26-45,                          433\n\n   \u201c 30-37,                       419 f.\n\n   \u201c  48 ff.,                        433\n\n   \u201c  59-66,                         415\n\n   \u201c  89,                            434\n\n  xi.-xiii,                       418 f.\n\n   \u201c  21,                             35\n\n   \u201c  37,                            416\n\n   \u201c  57,                            420\n\n  xii. 1-5,                          416\n\n   \u201c 6-18,                      416, 421\n\n   \u201c 7-9,                            418\n\n   \u201c 10, 13,                         417\n\n   \u201c 14-18,                          417\n\n   \u201c 15,                             419\n\n   \u201c 20-23,                          418\n\n  xiii. 1-xvi. 24,               436 ff.\n\n    \u201c 25, 30,                        413\n\n    \u201c 29,                            421\n\n    \u201c 36-40,                    420, 436\n\n  xiv. 4-15,                         414\n\n    \u201c 5,                             421\n\n    \u201c 16,                       421, 422\n\n    \u201c 17-23,                         422\n\n    \u201c 18, 27, 48 f.,            416, 418\n\n    \u201c 20-22,                         421\n\n    \u201c 24,                            421\n\n    \u201c 27-47,                         418\n\n    \u201c 30, 35,                        134\n\n    \u201c 41 ff., 134, 282 f.,           433\n\n  xv. 6-21,                       422 f.\n\n   \u201c  9, 10,                         437\n\n   \u201c  27,                            437\n\n  xvi. 14-17,                        438\n\n   \u201c  22, 24,                        438\n\n   \u201c  23, 24,                   413, 416\n\n\n  1 (3) ESDRAS\n\n  i. 1-58,                           440\n\n  ii. 1 ff.,                    447, 448\n\n   \u201c  1-15,                       440 f.\n\n   \u201c  15-25,                    447, 448\n\n   \u201c  16-30,                 441 f., 448\n\n  iii. 1-12,                         451\n\n   \u201c 1-v. 6,  441 ff., 445, 447, 451 ff.\n\n   \u201c 13-17,                          451\n\n   \u201c 17_b_-24,                    451 f.\n\n  iv. 1-12,                          452\n\n   \u201c  13,                            453\n\n   \u201c  13-57,                      452 f.\n\n   \u201c  29 ff.,                        443\n\n   \u201c  58-63,                         453\n\n  v. 1-6,                            453\n\n   \u201c 4-6,                            441\n\n   \u201c 7-73,                      441, 447\n\n  vi. 1-vii. 15,                     441\n\n  viii. 1 ff.,                       448\n\n    \u201c 1-ix. 36,                   441 f.\n\n  ix. 37-55,                         442\n\n\n  THE BOOK OF WISDOM\n\n  i.-xi. 1,                          259\n\n  \u201c  1,                              467\n\n  \u201c  1-5,                            281\n\n  \u201c  4-7,                            244\n\n  \u201c  6-11,                           470\n\n  \u201c  7,                               86\n\n  \u201c  12 ff.,                  84, 277 f.\n\n  \u201c  12-16,                       280 f.\n\n  \u201c  13-15,                          468\n\n  \u201c  15,                              84\n\n  ii.-v.,                            462\n\n   \u201c -xi.,                           465\n\n   \u201c  1-9,                           457\n\n   \u201c  1-20,                          470\n\n   \u201c  7-9,                        471 f.\n\n   \u201c  10-20,                     460 ff.\n\n   \u201c  12,                    266 f., 459\n\n   \u201c  15,                            462\n\n   \u201c  21-24,                         471\n\n   \u201c  23, 24,                   474, 477\n\n   \u201c  24,                            305\n\n  iii. 1, 9,                         284\n\n   \u201c 1-9,               285, 298 f., 471\n\n   \u201c 8,                    285, 299, 474\n\n   \u201c 10 ff.,                 299, 471 f.\n\n  iv. 1,                             237\n\n   \u201c  19,                            300\n\n   \u201c  20,                            472\n\n  v.,                                468\n\n  \u201c  1-14,                      299, 472\n\n  \u201c  2,                              300\n\n  \u201c  15 ff.,              286 f., 299 f.\n\n  \u201c  17-20,                       474 f.\n\n  vi. 1,                             467\n\n   \u201c  2,                             462\n\n   \u201c  4,                             267\n\n   \u201c  5-9,                           460\n\n   \u201c  17-20,                      471 f.\n\n   \u201c  19,                             84\n\n  vii.-ix.,                          469\n\n   \u201c 17,                             475\n\n   \u201c 19, 20,                          80\n\n   \u201c 22-24,                      86, 458\n\n   \u201c 22-viii. 1,           465, 468, 477\n\n   \u201c 25, 26,                         243\n\n   \u201c 27,                         86, 259\n\n  viii. 1,                            86\n\n    \u201c   1, 8,                        259\n\n    \u201c   4,                           244\n\n    \u201c   6,                           465\n\n    \u201c   7,                       87, 458\n\n    \u201c   17, 18,                      298\n\n    \u201c   19,                          458\n\n    \u201c   19, 20,                      277\n\n  ix. 1, 2, 4, 17,                   244\n\n   \u201c  1-6,                           468\n\n   \u201c  6,                          243 f.\n\n   \u201c  10, 11,                        259\n\n   \u201c  15,                       458, 476\n\n   \u201c  15, 16,                         84\n\n  x. 1 ff.,                          465\n\n  \u201c  7,                              477\n\n  \u201c  16 ff.,                         473\n\n  \u201c  17, 18,                         304\n\n  xi. 1,                             467\n\n   \u201c  1 ff.,                         473\n\n   \u201c  2-xix.,                        465\n\n   \u201c  17,                        85, 458\n\n   \u201c  23,                            476\n\n   \u201c  23-26,                         468\n\n  xii.,                              477\n\n   \u201c  10, 11,                   277, 310\n\n   \u201c  12,                            459\n\n   \u201c  19,                       462, 468\n\n   \u201c  22 ff.,                     457 f.\n\n  xiii., xiv.,                       477\n\n    \u201c  -xv.,                      472 f.\n\n    \u201c  1,                            466\n\n    \u201c  2, 3,                      475 f.\n\n    \u201c  10-19,                        507\n\n  xiv.,                         458, 462\n\n   \u201c  1 ff.,                      259 f.\n\n   \u201c  2,                             466\n\n   \u201c  3,                             458\n\n   \u201c  6-20,                          462\n\n   \u201c  7,                             464\n\n   \u201c  16, 17,                        462\n\n  xv. 1,                             466\n\n   \u201c  2, 8,                       81, 83\n\n   \u201c  3,                              84\n\n   \u201c  7,                          476 f.\n\n   \u201c  10,                            459\n\n   \u201c  13-17,                         507\n\n   \u201c  18, 19,                        458\n\n  xvi.-xix.,                         473\n\n   \u201c   1, 9,                         458\n\n   \u201c   7,                            468\n\n  xvii. 21,                          300\n\n    \u201c   24,                          249\n\n  xviii. 4,                          458\n\n    \u201c   15,                          244\n\n    \u201c   15, 16,                      304\n\n  xix. 5,                            462\n\n   \u201c   18-21,                    87, 475\n\n\n  2 MACCABEES\n\n  i.-ii. 18,                     490 ff.\n\n  \u201c  1-9,                        490 ff.\n\n  \u201c  8, 9,                           264\n\n  \u201c  9, 18,                          487\n\n  \u201c  13-17,                          491\n\n  \u201c  20-22,                          492\n\n  \u201c  27,                             283\n\n  \u201c  31-34,                          492\n\n  ii. 1-12,                          492\n\n   \u201c  16,                            487\n\n   \u201c  18,                            283\n\n   \u201c  19, 20,                        487\n\n   \u201c  19-32,                    479, 481\n\n   \u201c  22,                            487\n\n   \u201c  24, 25,                        480\n\n   \u201c  30-31,                         479\n\n  iii. 1 ff.,                        508\n\n   \u201c  1-39,                          481\n\n   \u201c  1-iv. 6,                       486\n\n   \u201c  12,                            487\n\n   \u201c  15-39,                         493\n\n   \u201c  22-30,                         489\n\n   \u201c  24 ff.,                     302 f.\n\n   \u201c  40-iv. 50,                     482\n\n  iv. 7-17,                       34, 35\n\n   \u201c  7-vii. 41,                     486\n\n   \u201c  13-17,                    264, 488\n\n   \u201c  20,                             35\n\n  v. 1.-vii. 42,                     482\n\n  \u201c  15,                             487\n\n  \u201c  20,                             493\n\n  \u201c  22,                             485\n\n  vi., vii.                          494\n\n   \u201c  1-11,                           35\n\n   \u201c  11,                            487\n\n   \u201c  12-16,          274, 484, 487, 493\n\n   \u201c  19, 28,                        494\n\n   \u201c  23-28,                         493\n\n   \u201c  26,                            292\n\n  vii.,                              493\n\n   \u201c  1, 7, 9, 14,                   494\n\n   \u201c  9,                        264, 292\n\n   \u201c  9, 11, 14,                     489\n\n   \u201c  10, 11,                        292\n\n   \u201c  11, 22, 23,               484, 487\n\n   \u201c  14,                            292\n\n   \u201c  23, 29,                   292, 494\n\n   \u201c  36,                            292\n\n  viii. 1-36,                        482\n\n    \u201c   19-26,                       493\n\n    \u201c   23,                          176\n\n    \u201c   26,                          487\n\n  ix. 1-29,                     482, 491\n\n   \u201c  5,                             488\n\n   \u201c  5-29,                          488\n\n  x. 1,                              488\n\n  \u201c  1-3,                            487\n\n  \u201c  1-8,                    482, 487 f.\n\n  \u201c  5-8,                    487, 490 f.\n\n  \u201c  6,                              494\n\n  \u201c  6 f.,                           487\n\n  \u201c  9-38,                           482\n\n  \u201c  14-38,                          485\n\n  \u201c  29-31,                          489\n\n  \u201c  35-37,                          486\n\n  \u201c  37,                             485\n\n  xi. 1-38,                          482\n\n   \u201c  6-11,                     303, 489\n\n   \u201c  13,                            488\n\n   \u201c  35 ff.,                        494\n\n  xii. 1-xiii. 26,                   482\n\n   \u201c   10-45,                        485\n\n   \u201c   11, 28,                       488\n\n   \u201c   31, 38,                       487\n\n   \u201c   35,                           485\n\n   \u201c   39-42,                        488\n\n   \u201c   43-45,         292, 484, 487, 489\n\n  xiii. 15,                          488\n\n    \u201c   22, 23,                      485\n\n  xiv. 1 ff.,                        485\n\n   \u201c  1-xv. 36,                      482\n\n   \u201c  6,                             125\n\n   \u201c  46,          292 f., 484, 487, 490\n\n  xv. 11-16,               303, 484, 487\n\n   \u201c  36,                            487\n\n   \u201c  37-39,                         482\n\n\n  THE BOOK OF BARUCH\n\n  i. 3, 4,                           496\n\n  \u201c -iii. 8,                     497 ff.\n\n  \u201c  6-10,                           496\n\n  \u201c  11-13, 14,                      496\n\n  \u201c  15-ii. 12,                      496\n\n  \u201c  15-iii. 8,             389, 500 ff.\n\n  ii. 13-17,                         501\n\n   \u201c  13-iii. 8,                     496\n\n   \u201c  17,                       293, 502\n\n   \u201c  19,                       274, 502\n\n  iii. 9-iv. 4,             264 f., 309,\n                          496 f., 503 f.\n\n   \u201c  19,                            293\n\n  iv. 1 ff.,                         265\n\n   \u201c  3, 4,                          265\n\n   \u201c  5-v. 9,     258, 306, 497, 504 ff.\n\n   \u201c  25, 31 ff.,                    283\n\n   \u201c  35,                            305\n\n   \u201c  36, 37,                        505\n\n   \u201c  36-v. 9,                       283\n\n  v. 1, 2,                           505\n\n  \u201c  7, 8,                        505 f.\n\n\n  _Ep. of Jer._\n\n  7,                                 302\n\n\n  2 (4) ESDRAS\n\n  i., ii.,                       509 ff.\n\n  iii.-ix.,                          275\n\n  iii.-x.,   265, 283, 309, 311, 513 ff.\n\n  iii.-xiv.,                         509\n\n   \u201c  1,                             514\n\n   \u201c  1-v. 19,                   522 ff.\n\n   \u201c  19,                            266\n\n   \u201c  20-22,                         275\n\n   \u201c  21, 22,                        523\n\n   \u201c  25, 26,                        275\n\n   \u201c  29,                            514\n\n  iv. 1-11,                          303\n\n   \u201c  10, 11,                   258, 524\n\n   \u201c  11,                            294\n\n   \u201c  21,                            524\n\n   \u201c  30,                       266, 275\n\n   \u201c  33-37,                         303\n\n   \u201c  36, 37,                         98\n\n  v. 1-12,                        285 f.\n\n  \u201c  21-vi. 34,                      524\n\n  \u201c  39,                             304\n\n  \u201c  40,                          258 f.\n\n  vi. 32,                            101\n\n   \u201c  35-ix. 25,                 524 ff.\n\n   \u201c  38,                            237\n\n   \u201c  59,                            525\n\n  vii. 21,                           304\n\n   \u201c  26-31,                         297\n\n   \u201c  26-44,                         525\n\n   \u201c  28, 29,                     283 f.\n\n   \u201c  32 ff.,                        297\n\n   \u201c  56-59,                         103\n\n   \u201c  72,                            266\n\n   \u201c  75,                            294\n\n   \u201c  78-87,                         295\n\n   \u201c  83,                            100\n\n   \u201c  88,                       293, 296\n\n   \u201c  88-99,                         295\n\n   \u201c  96,                            293\n\n   \u201c  100,                           293\n\n   \u201c  101,                           294\n\n   \u201c  102-105,                    102 f.\n\n   \u201c  102-115,                       296\n\n   \u201c  113, 114,                      296\n\n   \u201c  118,                           275\n\n   \u201c  125,                           101\n\n   \u201c  130,                           303\n\n  viii. 29,                          100\n\n    \u201c   35,                          276\n\n    \u201c   38, 39,                      295\n\n    \u201c   53,                          294\n\n  ix. 7-12,                          100\n\n   \u201c  19,                            526\n\n   \u201c  22,                            526\n\n   \u201c  24,                            101\n\n   \u201c  26-x. 59,                   526 f.\n\n   \u201c  31-37,                         265\n\n   \u201c  36,                            293\n\n  x. 27,                             527\n\n  \u201c  55-57,                          527\n\n  xi.-xii. 39,         284, 312, 517 ff.\n\n   \u201c  13-17,                         520\n\n   \u201c  22, 24,                        520\n\n   \u201c  34, 35,                        520\n\n   \u201c  46,                            258\n\n  xii. 18,                           520\n\n   \u201c  26, 27,                        519\n\n   \u201c  32,                            284\n\n   \u201c  34,                            285\n\n   \u201c  36-38,                         186\n\n  xiii.,               284, 312, 515 ff.\n\n    \u201c  8-13,                         285\n\n    \u201c  25, 26,                       284\n\n    \u201c  31 f.,                        517\n\n    \u201c  48, 49,                       517\n\n    \u201c  52,                           517\n\n  xiv.,                         284, 312\n\n   \u201c  9,                             284\n\n   \u201c  22, 26,                        529\n\n   \u201c  44-47,                    187, 191\n\n  xv., xvi.,                 509, 511 f.\n\n   \u201c  5-27,                          511\n\n   \u201c  10-12,                         512\n\n   \u201c  28-33,                         512\n\n   \u201c  28-xvi. 17,                    511\n\n   \u201c  34 ff.,                        512\n\n   \u201c  46,                            512\n\n  xvi. 18-78,                        511\n\n\n\n\nINDEX OF PASSAGES FROM THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHA\n\n\n                                    PAGE\n  THE BOOK OF ENOCH\n\n  i. 8,                               96\n\n  v. 4,                          99, 100\n\n  i.-xxxvi.,                         206\n\n  vi.-xxxvi.,                        207\n\n  x. 16,                             102\n\n  x. 21,                             103\n\n  xi. 1, 2,                          104\n\n  xx. 8,                             303\n\n  xxxii. 3,                          245\n\n  xxxvii. 1-4,                       246\n\n  xxxvii.-lxxi.,                205, 208\n\n  xlii. 1, 2,                        246\n\n  xlv. 3,                            106\n\n  xlviii. 3, 4,                      106\n\n     \u201c    4,                         104\n\n     \u201c    7,                         106\n\n  xlix. 1,                           104\n\n    \u201c   3,                           246\n\n  l. 2-5,                            104\n\n  li. 2, 3,                          106\n\n   \u201c  3,                             246\n\n  lxi. 8,                            106\n\n  lxix. 6,                           269\n\n    \u201c   11,                          207\n\n    \u201c   27-29,                       106\n\n  lxxii.-lxxxii.,                    206\n\n     \u201c   1,                          204\n\n     \u201c   2, 3,                       246\n\n  lxxxii. 4-7,                       204\n\n  lxxxiv. 3,                         246\n\n     \u201c    6,                         102\n\n  xc. 30,                            104\n\n  xci.-civ.,                         207\n\n   \u201c   10,                           245\n\n   \u201c   14,                           104\n\n  xcii. 7, 8,                         97\n\n  xciii. 12-17,                      206\n\n  xciv. 5,                           246\n\n  xcix. 2,                           100\n\n    \u201c   10,                          246\n\n    \u201c   14,                          100\n\n  cii. 6-8,                     107, 205\n\n  ciii. 1-8,                    108, 109\n\n  civ. 1,                            102\n\n  cviii. 1,                          186\n\n    \u201c    7,                          101\n\n\n  SIBYLLINE ORACLES\n\n  iii. 271,                           53\n\n   \u201c  276 ff.,                       100\n\n   \u201c  702-726,                       104\n\n   \u201c  798-806,                       210\n\n  v. 260-285,                        210\n\n  \u201c  414 ff.,                        106\n\n\n  TEST. XII PATR.\n\n  Sim. vi. 7,                        213\n\n  Levi ii. 2,                        104\n\n   \u201c   viii. 14,                     212\n\n   \u201c   xiv. 2,                       213\n\n   \u201c    \u201c   3, 4,                    104\n\n   \u201c   xviii. 10, 11,                109\n\n  Jud. xxiv. 1,                      106\n\n   \u201c     \u201c   5, 6,                   212\n\n  Naph. iv. 5,                       212\n\n  Gad v. 3,                          214\n\n   \u201c  vi. 3-7,                       214\n\n\n  PSALMS OF SOLOMON\n\n  v. 4,                              216\n\n  ix. 6,                             216\n\n  xi. 3,                             505\n\n   \u201c  5-7,                        505 f.\n\n   \u201c  8,                          505 f.\n\n  xvii. 23 ff.,                      215\n\n  xvii., xviii.,                     106\n\n\n  BOOK OF JUBILEES\n\n  v. 13 ff.,                         103\n\n  vi. 3,                             151\n\n   \u201c  34 ff.,                        151\n\n\n  ASSUMPTION OF MOSES\n\n  i. 12,                             103\n\n  \u201c  16-18,                          187\n\n  ix. 6,                             101\n\n  x.,                                219\n\n\n  ASCENSION OF ISAIAH\n\n  ii. 1-iii. 12,                     220\n\n  iii. 13-v. 1,                      220\n\n  v. 2-14,                           220\n\n  vi.-xi.,                           220\n\n  x.,                                219\n\n\n  SECRETS OF ENOCH\n\n  xxx. 8,                            247\n\n  xxxiii. 3,                         247\n\n  xliii. 2,                          247\n\n  lix. 2.,                           221\n\n  lxviii. 2,                         186\n\n\n  SYR. APOC. OF BARUCH\n\n  xiv. 19,                           114\n\n  xix. 3,                            100\n\n  lix. 2,                            100\n\n  lxvii. 5,                          104\n\n  lxxxv. 9,                          103\n\n\n  LETTER OF ARISTEAS\n\n  12, 13,                             57\n\n  121, 122,                           56\n\n\n  4 MACCABEES\n\n  xviii. 12,                         149\n\n\n\n\nINDEX OF PASSAGES FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT\n\n\n  ST. MATTHEW\n\n  iii. 7,                            145\n\n  iv. 16,                            369\n\n  v. 17-20,                          141\n\n  vi. 1-6,                           369\n\n   \u201c  14,                            346\n\n   \u201c  19-21,                         369\n\n  vii. 7,                            511\n\n   \u201c   12,                           369\n\n  xi. 19,                         346 f.\n\n  xv. 1-20,                          141\n\n  xvi. 1,                            145\n\n  xviii. 15,                         214\n\n  xxii. 23 ff.,                      147\n\n    \u201c   37-39,                       214\n\n  xxiii. 4-26,                       121\n\n    \u201c    15,                         131\n\n    \u201c    37,                         511\n\n  xxiv. 22,                          511\n\n  xxv. 13, 32,                       511\n\n   \u201c   35, 36,                       369\n\n   \u201c   39,                           347\n\n  xxviii. 39,                        347\n\n\n  ST. MARK\n\n  ii. 16,                            127\n\n  iv. 2,                             192\n\n  vii. 1-23,                         141\n\n  ix. 48,                       289, 312\n\n\n  ST. LUKE\n\n  i. 7,                              346\n\n  v. 30,                             127\n\n  vi. 31,                            369\n\n  vii. 35,                           347\n\n  xi. 37-54,                         141\n\n   \u201c  50, 51,                        511\n\n  xii. 19, 20,                       346\n\n  xvii. 3,                           214\n\n\n  ST. JOHN\n\n  i. 1-3,                            238\n\n\n  ACTS\n\n  iv. 1,                             147\n\n  v. 1 ff.,                          145\n\n  ix. 36,                            370\n\n  x. 4,                              370\n\n  xii. 15,                           148\n\n  xvii. 23,                           23\n\n  xix. 9,                            195\n\n  xxiii. 1-10,                       145\n\n    \u201c    8,                147, 148, 158\n\n    \u201c    9,                          127\n\n\n  ROMANS\n\n  i. 2,                              176\n\n  ii. 4,                             476\n\n  v. 12,                             474\n\n  vi. 23,                            370\n\n  ix. 19-23,                      476 f.\n\n  xi. 32,                            476\n\n\n  1 CORINTHIANS\n\n  ii. 6-16,                          477\n\n  v. 12, 13,                         192\n\n  vi. 2, 3,                          474\n\n  xv. 21, 22,                        474\n\n  xvi. 2,                            370\n\n   \u201c   41-44,                        512\n\n\n  2 CORINTHIANS\n\n  v. 1, 4,                           476\n\n  viii. 12,                          370\n\n  ix. 9,                             369\n\n\n  GALATIANS\n\n  iv. 3,                             475\n\n   \u201c  8, 9,                       475 f.\n\n  vi. 16,                            162\n\n\n  EPHESIANS\n\n  v. 18,                             370\n\n  vi. 11-20,                      474 f.\n\n\n  COLOSSIANS\n\n  ii. 8,                             475\n\n   \u201c  20,                            475\n\n  iv. 5,                             192\n\n\n  1 THESSALONIANS\n\n  iv. 3,                             370\n\n   \u201c  12,                            192\n\n\n  1 TIMOTHY\n\n  i. 17,                             370\n\n  vi. 6,                             370\n\n   \u201c  19,                            370\n\n\n  2 TIMOTHY\n\n  iii. 15,                           176\n\n\n  HEBREWS\n\n  v. 12,                             476\n\n  xi. 37,                            220\n\n   \u201c  38,                            494\n\n\n  ST. JAMES\n\n  i. 5,                              347\n\n  \u201c  13, 14,                         347\n\n  \u201c  19,                             347\n\n  iii. 2,                            348\n\n   \u201c   5, 6,                         348\n\n   \u201c   8,                            348\n\n   \u201c   10,                           348\n\n  v. 4,                              348\n\n  \u201c  7,                              348\n\n  \u201c  16, 17,                         348\n\n\n  2 PETER\n\n  iii. 8,                            221\n\n   \u201c   10, 12,                       476\n\n\n  ST. JUDE\n\n  14, 15,                            208\n\n\n  REVELATION\n\n  xx. 2,                             370\n\n  xxi. 10-21,                        371\n\n\n\n\nINDEX OF PASSAGES FROM RABBINICAL LITERATURE\n\n\n  MISHNAH\n\n  Aboth i. 9,                        393\n\n    \u201c   ii. 4,                       132\n\n  Eduyoth v. 3,                      170\n\n  Jadaim iii. 2, 5,                  175\n\n    \u201c    iii. 5,                     170\n\n    \u201c    iv. 5, 6,                   175\n\n  Niddah iv. 2,                      131\n\n  Sanhedrin vi. 2,                   392\n\n      \u201c     x. 1,                    192\n\n\n  TALMUD\n\n  Jebamoth 49_b_,                    194\n\n  Sanhedrin 11_a_,                   173\n\n      \u201c  90_b_,                      147\n\n      \u201c  100_a_,                     173\n\n      \u201c  100_b_,                     340\n\n  Shabbath (Talm. Jer.) xvi.,        193\n\n  Yoma 21_b_,                        173\n\n\n  MIDRASH\n\n  Sifre 143_b_,                       83\n\n\n      _Printed for_ ROBERT SCOTT, _Publisher_, PATERNOSTER ROW,\n              LONDON, E.C., _by_ BUTLER & TANNER, FROME.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] His first victory was in B.C. 334 on the river Granicus, where\nhe overcame the generals of Darius. In 333 came the decisive victory\nat Issus, when Darius himself was defeated. In 332 Alexander marched\nvictoriously down the coast of Syria. In 331 he became master of\nEgypt; and later in the same year he inflicted a crushing defeat\nagain on Darius, taking Babylon and Susa. In 330 he continued his\nvictories in Persia. During the next five years he was occupied in\nthe further east, fighting with invariable success. He died suddenly\nin 323.\n\n[2] _Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius_, pp. 4 ff.\n\n[3] See, e.g., Wendland, _Op. cit._, pp. 2-11, and the works of\nWilamovitz referred to by him.\n\n[4] _The House of Seleucus_, I, p. 17.\n\n[5] Swete, _Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek_ (1st ed.), p.\n294.\n\n[6] _The Philology of the Greek Bible_, p. 61. See also an\ninteresting article by M. F. Jones, \u201cThe Language of the New\nTestament,\u201d in the _Church Quarterly Review_, October, 1913, pp.\n113-133.\n\n[7] Cp. Kr\u00fcger, _Op. cit._, p. 9.\n\n[8] Cp. Wendland, _Op. cit._, p. 54.\n\n[9] The city was founded in B.C. 331.\n\n[10] Zeno, the founder of the Stoic school, was born in B.C. 342, and\ndied in B.C. 270. Cp. Bevan, _Stoics and Sceptics_, Lecture ii. pp.\n47-81.\n\n[11] Cp. Wendland, _Op. cit._, p. 49.\n\n[12] Bevan, _The House of Seleucus_, pp. 9, 10.\n\n[13] Cp. Wendland, _Op. cit._, p. 107.\n\n[14] B.C. 341-270, his lifetime thus coincided almost exactly with\nthat of Zeno.\n\n[15] This had, it is true, to some extent taken place in earlier\ntimes as well; but not in the way in which it was done during the\nHellenistic period, of which it was _characteristic_.\n\n[16] Cp. Kaerst, _Op. cit._, II, i. pp. 279 ff.\n\n[17] See Kaerst, _Op. cit._, II, i. p. 279; and on the general\nsubject, Rev. G. Friedl\u00e4nder, _Hellenism and Christianity_, chap. II.\n\n[18] Wendland, _Op. cit._, p. 128, where references to original\nauthorities will be found. We are reminded of Acts xvii. 23, where\nSt. Paul speaks of an altar which he had seen with the inscription:\n\u201cTo an unknown god.\u201d On the whole subject of altars dedicated to\n\u201cunknown gods\u201d an immense deal of valuable matter will be found in\nNorden\u2019s _Agnostos Theos_, pp. 31-124 (1913).\n\n[19] Ezra vii. 10, x. 11.\n\n[20] See Ezra ix. 1, 2.\n\n[21] Cp. Ezra x. 17.\n\n[22] Cheyne, _Job and Solomon_, p. 181.\n\n[23] It may be well to recall here the following facts; at the death\nof Alexander in B.C. 323 his empire was divided thus among his\ngenerals: Antigonus obtained the provinces of Greater Phrygia, Lycia,\nand Pamphylia; Seleucus, Babylonia; Ptolemy, Egypt; Lysimachus, the\nHellespont; and Cassander, Macedonia (cp. Josephus, _Antiq._, XII.\ni. 1). Incessant wars, however, went on among these rulers. But in\nB.C. 302 an alliance against Antigonus was made, or rather renewed,\nby the four other kings; and in the following year, as a result of\nthe battle of Ipsus, the kingdom of Antigonus (he, in common with the\nother rulers, had assumed the title of king) came to a final end.\nThe victorious allies divided his kingdom among themselves thus:\nSeleucus got Syria proper; Lysimachus, a large portion of Asia Minor;\nCassander, Macedonia and Greece; while to the Egyptian kingdom of\nPtolemy was added C\u0153le-Syria (not, however, without a protest from\nSeleucus), which remained in the possession of the Ptolemys for a\ncentury; it was finally conquered by Antiochus III (the Great),\nthrough his victory at Panias (B.C. 198), and it thus reverted to the\nSyrian kingdom.\n\n[24] Cp. Schechter, _Studies in Judaism_ (Second Series), p. 72.\n\n[25] He had, for example, settled Macedonians in Samaria.\n\n[26] See further, Grote, _The History of Greece_, X, pp. 208 ff.\n\n[27] _Op. cit._, II, i. pp. 57-58, German ed. II, p. 95. Cp. also\nJosephus, _Antiq._, XIII, xiii. 3, _Bell. Jud._, II, xxi. 9.\n\n[28] \u201cSo long as the Jewish State existed the principle of solidarity\nremained in force.... But as soon as the nation is dead, when the\nbonds that unite men in the organism of national life are dissolved,\nthen the idea of individual responsibility comes into immediate\noperation\u201d (_Expositor\u2019s Bible_, p. 143; ed. by W. Robertson Nicoll).\n\n[29] Fairweather and Black, _The First Book of Maccabees_, p. 60\n(Cambridge Bible).\n\n[30] _Jerusalem under the High-priests_, p. 35.\n\n[31] See Josephus, _Antiq._, XII, v. 1; see also B\u00fcchler\u2019s _Die\nTobiaden und die Oniaden_ ..., pp. 8 ff.\n\n[32] Josephus, _Antiq._, XII, iii. 1, says that in Antioch the Jews\nhad privileges equal to those of the Macedonians and Greeks.\n\n[33] A broad-brimmed hat which, as the mark of Hermes, was the badge\nof the _pal\u00e6stra_ (wrestling-school).\n\n[34] See also verses 18-20, and vi. 1-11; and cp. 1 Macc. xi. 21.\n\n[35] Though Hellenistic influence asserted itself again at the\nbeginning of the Christian era; it was, in effect, never wholly\nthrown off.\n\n[36] _Op. cit._, II, i. pp. 31-47, German ed. II, pp. 59-89; and see\nalso Krauss, _Talmudische Arch\u00e4ologie_, II, pp. 349 ff.\n\n[37] _Op. cit._, II, i. p. 30, German ed. II, p. 57.\n\n[38] _Israelitische und j\u00fcdische Geschichte_, pp. 297 f. (1907).\n\n[39] Cp. what was said in the preceding chapter about religious\nsyncretism being a characteristic of the Hellenistic Movement.\n\n[40] _Transactions of the International Congress for the History of\nReligions_, I, pp. 276 f. (1908).\n\n[41] _Op. cit._, pp. 488 f.\n\n[42] For details see Oesterley and Box, _The Religion and Worship of\nthe Synagogue_, pp. 195-221 (1911).\n\n[43] _Jerusalem under the High-priests_, pp. 41 f., and see Lecture\nIII in the same writer\u2019s book, _Stoics and Sceptics_, pp. 85-118.\n\n[44] Quoted by Reinach, _Textes d\u2019auteurs grecs et romains relatifs\nau Judaisme_, pp. 20 f. (1895).\n\n[45] See, for other theories regarding the derivation of the name,\nLightfoot, _Colossians_, pp. 349 ff.\n\n[46] Zeller says: \u201cThey exhibit so important a relationship to the\nNeo-Pythagoreans that we can only assume that they arose under the\ninfluence of Orphic Pythagorean asceticism, and subsequently, after\nthe formation of a Neo-Pythagorean philosophy, adopted many of its\ndoctrines\u201d (_Outlines of Greek Philosophy_, p. 317). Wendland (_Op.\ncit._, p. 191, note 2) disagrees with this; he believes it improbable\nas being a hypothesis insufficiently supported by the facts.\n\n[47] _Bell. Jud._, II, viii. 2.\n\n[48] _Quod omn. prob._, ii. 457. Josephus (_Bell. Jud._, II, viii.\n4) says, on the other hand, that \u201cthey have no one certain city,\nbut many of them dwell in every city\u201d; but even if they did live in\ncities in the time of Josephus, they kept entirely to themselves,\nfor he says elsewhere of them that \u201cas they live by themselves they\nminister one to another\u201d (_Antiq._, XVIII, i. 5).\n\n[49] _De septen._, ii. 279, quoted by Friedl\u00e4nder, _Die rel.\nBewegungen_, p. 124.\n\n[50] _Bell. Jud._, II, viii. 2; cp. also _Antiq._, XVIII, i. 5;\nPhilo, _Frag._, ii. 632 (quoted by Friedl\u00e4nder, _Op. cit._, p. 143);\nPliny, _Hist. Nat._, v. 17.\n\n[51] Friedl\u00e4nder, _Op. cit._, p. 43.\n\n[52] _Antiq._, XIII, v. 9.\n\n[53] _Bell. Jud._, II, vii. 11.\n\n[54] _Antiq._, XIII, xi. 2, XV, x. 5, XVII, xiii. 3.\n\n[55] _Die rel. Bewegungen_, p. 8.\n\n[56] From a slab-inscription found at Nimroud; see Pinches, _The\nOld Testament in the Light of the Historical Records of Assyria and\nBabylonia_, p. 363.\n\n[57] He reigned from B.C. 358-338.\n\n[58] Syncellus, i. 486 (ed. Dindorf).\n\n[59] The ancient J\u00eab, situated at the southern extremity of a small\nisland in the Nile, between two and three miles long, not far below\nthe first cataract and opposite Assouan, the ancient Syene.\n\n[60] These _papyri_ belong to the period B.C. 494-400, i.e., from the\ntwenty-seventh year of the reign of Darius I, through the reigns of\nXerxes (485-465), Artaxerxes I (465-424), Darius II (424-405), to the\nfifth year of Amyrt\u00e6us, who threw off the Persian yoke and made Egypt\nindependent.\n\n[61] The Jewish governor under Darius II was, according to the\n_papyri_, one Jedoniah.\n\n[62] A detailed account of the excavations at Elephantin\u00e9 during the\nyears 1906-1908 is given in the _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr \u00e4gyptische Sprache_,\nvol. xlix. (1909). The most elaborate work on the subject is Sachau\u2019s\n_Aram\u00e4ische Papyrus und Ostraka aus einer j\u00fcdischen Milit\u00e4rkolonie zu\nElephantine_ (1911). An excellent smaller work is Ed. Meyer\u2019s _Der\nPapyrusfund von Elephantine_ (1912), which has been translated into\nEnglish. A valuable text-book for students is Ungnad\u2019s _Aram\u00e4ische\nPapyrus aus Elephantine_ (1911).\n\n[63] Guthe, in the _Encycl. Bibl._, I, 1110.\n\n[64] Quoted in Josephus, _Antiq._, XIV, vii, 2; cp. 1 Macc. xv.\n16-24, from which it can be seen that Jewish settlements existed not\nonly in Egypt, but also in Syria, Asia Minor, along the Mediterranean\ncoast, and elsewhere.\n\n[65] Quoted in Josephus, _Antiq._, XIX, v. 2.\n\n[66] _Bell. Jud._, II, xviii. 7.\n\n[67] _In Flaccum_, \u00a7 8 (ed. Mangey, II, p. 525).\n\n[68] _In Flaccum_, \u00a7 6 (ed. Mangey, II, p. 523).\n\n[69] For full details see Sch\u00fcrer, II, ii. pp. 219-327, German ed.,\nIII, pp. 1-188.\n\n[70] Cp. Josephus, _Bell. Jud._, VI, ix. 3.\n\n[71] See further \u00a7 IV of this chapter.\n\n[72] This document belongs roughly to about the year B.C. 100; though\nSch\u00fcrer would place it a century earlier; many modern scholars,\nhowever, disagree with him in this.\n\n[73] Cp. Bousset, _Die Religion des Judenthums_, pp. 405 ff.\n\n[74] When we find that in the first centuries of Christianity even\northodox Rabbis were to be found who held that Baptism without\nCircumcision sufficed for proselytes we may well ask whether the\nresult of the Hellenistic spirit was not a contributory cause of such\na lapse from traditional Judaism.\n\n[75] _Transactions of the Third International Congress for the\nHistory of Religions_, I, p. 277.\n\n[76] It is dealt with in Sch\u00fcrer, II, iii. pp. 156-320; German ed.,\nIII, pp. 420-633.\n\n[77] Some account of the _Pseudepigrapha_, which are partly\nPalestinian, but mainly Gr\u00e6co-Jewish, is given below, Chap. X.\n\n[78] B.C. 285-246.\n\n[79] Some scholars assign this to the reign of Ptolemy VI\n(Philometor), B.C. 182-146.\n\n[80] _Philo and Holy Scripture_, p. 32 (1895); see also Swete, _Op.\ncit._, pp. 25 f.\n\n[81] Cp. Meyer, _Der Papyrusfund von Elephantin\u00e9_, p. 19.\n\n[82] For the further history of the Septuagint, and for the labours\nof Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and above all of Origen, Swete\u2019s\nbook, already mentioned, should be consulted.\n\n[83] _The Philology of the Greek Bible_, p. 8.\n\n[84] Cohn and Wendland\u2019s edition.\n\n[85] _Antiq._, XVIII, viii. 1 ff.\n\n[86] \u201cThe philosophy which Philo expounds is essentially the popular\nGreek philosophy, a blend of Platonism, Pythagoreanism, and Stoicism,\nslightly modified by the Hebrew belief in God\u201d (Edwyn Bevan, _Stoics\nand Sceptics_, p. 94).\n\n[87] It is of importance for Christian theology to notice that in\nseveral passages (see Lightfoot, _Colossians and Philemon_, p. 216)\nPhilo interprets \u201cthe image of God\u201d to mean the \u201cLogos\u201d; so that\nwhen, in Gen. i. 27, man is said to have been created in \u201cthe image\nof God,\u201d it means that he was created in the likeness of the \u201cLogos.\u201d\n\n[88] _De Migratione Abrahami_, \u00a7 18, quoted by Lauterbach.\n\n[89] On the whole subject of the relation between the Philonian and\nthe Johannine Logos doctrines see R\u00e9ville, _La doctrine du Logos\ndans le quatri\u00e8me \u00e9vangile et dans les \u0153uvres de Philon_ (1872);\nBaldensperger, _Der Prolog des Vierten Evangeliums_ (1898).\n\n[90] For the influence of Philo upon St. Paul see Thackeray, _The\nRelation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought_, passim (1900).\n\n[91] Cp. Ed. Meyer, _Geschichte des Alterthums_, I, pp. 490 ff.\n\n[92] Cp. Robertson Smith, in the _Encycl. Brit._, XIII, p. 705.\n\n[93] Box, _The Book of Isaiah_, p. 113.\n\n[94] Kamphausen in the _Encycl. Bibl._, I, 1009.\n\n[95] To give but two examples: Robertson Smith (_The Old Testament\nin the Jewish Church_, p. 212), after having examined the subject\ncarefully, says: \u201cWe are thus led by a concurrence of arguments to\nassign the collection of Psalms xc.-cl. and the completion of the\nwhole Psalter to the early years of the Maccabee sovereignty.\u201d Briggs\n(The Book of Psalms, I, pp. xc., xci.) assigns a large number of the\nPsalms to the Greek period.\n\n[96] Cp. Stade, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, ii., p. 215 (1888).\n\n[97] _Griechische Philosophie im Alten Testament_, pp. 25 f. (1904).\n\n[98] Friedl\u00e4nder, in his book just referred to, sees many other signs\nof Greek influence in the Psalms (pp. 15-58); it is probable that in\nsome cases he is right; in others this is doubtful.\n\n[99] Cp. O. Holtzmann in Onken\u2019s _Allgemeine Geschichte in\nEinzeldarstellungen_, II, p. 295.\n\n[100] Cp. Friedl\u00e4nder, _Op. cit._, p. 72.\n\n[101] e.g. Clement of Alexandria, _Stromateis_, I., v. 29, quoted by\nFriedl\u00e4nder, _Op. cit._, p. 73.\n\n[102] Cp. Stade, _Op. cit._, II, p. 216; O. Holtzmann, _Op. cit._,\nII, p. 297; M. Friedl\u00e4nder, _Op. cit._, pp. 79 ff.\n\n[103] _Op. cit._, II, p. 351.\n\n[104] _Op. cit._, p. 107. Friedl\u00e4nder\u2019s contentions are combated by\nKr\u00fcger, _Hellenismus und Judentum im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter_,\npp. 22 ff.\n\n[105] _Ecclesiastes_, pp. 11 ff; he is followed by Plumptre in his\n_Ecclesiastes_; Siegfried, _Prediger und Hoheslied_, and Haupt,\n_Koheleth_; Kr\u00fcger and Friedl\u00e4nder hold the same view.\n\n[106] See further, Haupt, _Op. cit._, p. 6.\n\n[107] _The Book of Ecclesiastes_, pp. 34-43.\n\n[108] _Op. cit._, p. 38.\n\n[109] _Einleitung in das Alte Testament_, p. 262 (1896); Friedl\u00e4nder\nputs it more strongly, see _Die rel. Bewegungen_ ..., p. 1,\n_Griechische Philosophie_ ..., pp. 131 ff.\n\n[110] _Comm. in Eccles._, quoted by Cheyne, _Job and Solomon_, p. 262.\n\n[111] _Op cit._, p. 262.\n\n[112] _Op. cit._, p. 271.\n\n[113] Few, we imagine, would date Ecclesiastes earlier than the\nmiddle of the third century B.C. at the _earliest_.\n\n[114] Cheyne, _Op. cit._, p. 265.\n\n[115] See the present writer\u2019s Ecclesiasticus in the _Cambridge\nBible_, p. xxv.\n\n[116] _Jewish Encycl._, XI, 390_a_.\n\n[117] This is an exaggeration; what Ben-Sira says is:\n\n      Speak, O elder, for it is thy privilege;\n        But be discreet in understanding, and hinder not song....\n      Speak, O young man, if thou art compelled....\n        Sum up thy speech, say much in little (xxxii. 3-8, in Hebrew).\n\n[118] Cp. Ecclesiastes xii. 7: \u201c... and the dust return to the earth\nas it was, and the spirit (_r\u016bach_) return to God Who gave it.\u201d\n\n[119] _Outlines of Greek Philosophy_ (English translation, 1909), pp.\n152 f., where references to Plato\u2019s works are given in support of\nwhat is said.\n\n[120] Unless _n\u0115ph\u0115sh_ is used in the sense of _n\u0115sh\u0101m\u0101h_ in 1 Samuel\nxxv. 29, where Abigail says to David: \u201c... Yet the soul (_n\u0115ph\u0115sh_)\nof my lord shall be bound in the bundle (or bag) of life with the\nLord thy God; and the souls of thine enemies, them shall He sling\nout, as from the hollow of a sling\u201d; but it is probably a quite\ndifferent set of ideas which comes into question here. At the same\ntime the idea of God\u2019s solicitude for the souls of His beloved\nwhich He takes care of in the \u201cbundle of life,\u201d and which are thus\nseparable from the body even during life, might easily, with the\nadvance of thought on the subject, suggest the pre-existence of the\nsoul.\n\n[121] Cp. Weber, _J\u00fcdische Theologie_, 2 ed., p. 205.\n\n[122] Menzel, _Op. cit._, p. 58.\n\n[123] Zeller, _Op. cit._, p. 155.\n\n[124] _Op. cit._, p. 155.\n\n[125] _Op. cit._, p. 147.\n\n[126] Cp. Zeller, _Op. cit._, pp. 229-255; Wendland, _Die\nHellenistisch-R\u00f6mische Kultur_ ... pp. 110-115.\n\n[127] _Op. cit._, p. 532.\n\n[128] The same as the Assid\u00e6ans referred to in 1 Maccabees ii. 42.\n\n[129] _Die rel. Bewegungen_, p. 22.\n\n[130] _Op. cit._, p. 23.\n\n[131] The quotations from this book are from Charles\u2019 translation.\n\n[132] _The Ezra Apocalypse_, pp. 35, 36.\n\n[133] Though this book is late it reflects earlier thought and\npractice.\n\n[134] Cp. also the verses which follow, and xlviii. 1, lviii. 1-4,\netc.\n\n[135] _Die rel. Bewegungen_ ..., p. 25.\n\n[136] The verses which follow deal with the same subject; cp. the\nBook of Jubilees v. 13 ff., Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch lxxxv. 9.\n\n[137] Cp. xlviii. 7: \u201cFor in His name they are saved.\u201d\n\n[138] See also the Psalms of Solomon, xvii., xviii.\n\n[139] The Pauline conception of a \u201cspiritual body\u201d was unknown to the\nApocalyptists. The fact that this expression is a contradiction in\nterms need not trouble us; that is simply due to the impossibility of\nexpressing spiritual truths adequately in human language.\n\n[140] As early as the end of the fourth century B.C. the Jews\nof Palestine became acquainted with the Platonic doctrine of\nimmortality, though it was some time before this teaching was\naccepted, cp. Friedl\u00e4nder, _Griechische Philosophie_ ..., p. 12.\n\n[141] Quotations from the Apocalyptic Literature dealing with the\nsubject of this section have been collected in the present writer\u2019s\n_The Doctrine of the Last Things_, pp. 72-121.\n\n[142] i.e., \u201cGovernor.\u201d\n\n[143] We have no information of what happened during the Exile\nitself regarding the teaching of the Law; but it is difficult to\nbelieve that such a zealous scribe and legalist as Ezra could have\nbeen inactive; his knowledge of the Law was not merely the result of\nhis coming to Palestine, cp. Ezra vii. 6: \u201cThis Ezra went up from\nBabylon, and he was a ready scribe in the Law of Moses.\u201d\n\n[144] Cp. Josephus, _Antiq._, XVIII, i. 3.\n\n[145] See, for details, Ryle, _Ezra and Nehemiah_, p. xxxv.\n\n[146] This is in accordance with Ben-Sira\u2019s identification of Wisdom\nwith the Law, see xv. 1, xxxiv. 8, etc.\n\n[147] It will be remembered that the Hebrews reckoned the historical\nbooks among the Prophets.\n\n[148] Assid\u00e6ans, also written Hasid\u00e6ans, is merely the Gr\u00e6cized form\nof the Hebrew _Chassidim_; in the Authorized Version the word is\nrendered \u201csaints.\u201d\n\n[149] Made high-priest by the Syrian king.\n\n[150] One of the Syrian generals.\n\n[151] Cp. 2 Maccabees xiv. 6.\n\n[152] In the original constitution of the Sanhedrin this was probably\nnot the case; for, as first constituted, the priestly aristocracy,\ni.e., the Sadduc\u00e6an party, dominated the Sanhedrin. The Sadducees\nwere, however, unable to resist the growing power of what came to be\nthe popular party, and before the New Testament period began both\nScribes and Pharisees were fully represented in the Sanhedrin.\n\n[153] It is sometimes said that they were \u201cseparatists\u201d in the sense\nthat they desired Israel to be separate from all the world; but this\nignores the fact that the Pharisees pursued an active missionary\n_propaganda_ among the Gentiles, which is witnessed to, e.g., in\nMatthew xxiii. 15, where Christ says that the Pharisees \u201ccompass sea\nand land to make one proselyte.\u201d\n\n[154] _Antiq._, XIII, x. 6.\n\n[155] This is the explanation given by some of the Church Fathers,\ne.g., Epiphanius, _Haer._ xiv., and Jerome, _Comm. in Matth._, xii.\n23 (Sch\u00fcrer), as well as by some modern scholars.\n\n[156] _Encycl. Bibl._, iv. 4236. The present writer, in conjunction\nwith Mr. Box, was inclined to accept this interpretation (_The\nReligion and Worship of the Synagogue_, p. 134), but further study of\nthe subject has compelled them to revise their former view.\n\n[157] See the words of Josephus, _Antiq._, XIII, x. 6, quoted below.\n\n[158] Cp. Josephus, _Antiq._, XI, viii. 7; XII, ii. 5, iv. 1, 10.\n\n[159] Antiochus made Menelaus, who was not of priestly family,\nhigh-priest; after him Alkimus filled the office (1 Macc. vii. 5,\n9); though a priest he was not of the sons of Zadok (Josephus,\n_Antiq._, XII, ix. 7). On the death of Alkimus (1 Macc. ix. 54-57)\nthe Hasmon\u00e6an high-priesthood began (1 Macc. xiv. 30, 35, 41 ff.; cp.\nJosephus, _Antiq._, XIII, ii. 3).\n\n[160] Two objections have been raised against the view that the term\nSadducees (_Zadd\u016bkim_) takes its origin from the personal name Zadok.\nOne is that the double _d_ in _Zadd\u016bkim_ does not permit of its being\nderived from Zadok with only one; this objection would be serious\nwere it not that in the Septuagint and in Josephus Zadok is spelled\nwith two d\u2019s. This objection, therefore, falls to the ground. The\nother is that there is nothing to show that the Sadducees were ever\nregarded as the sons of Zadok, nor that they themselves made such a\nclaim. This _argumentum e silentio_, always precarious, is upset by\nthe evidence of the _Zadokite Fragments_. H\u00f6lscher\u2019s contention (_Op.\ncit._, pp. 102 ff.) that the term \u201csons of Zadok\u201d was one of reproach\ndoes not appear to us to be necessary.\n\n[161] Vita, \u00a7 2, cp. _Antiq._, XVIII, i. 3.\n\n[162] _Antiq._, XV, x. 4.\n\n[163] Cp. _Antiq._, X, xi. 7 (towards the end), XIII, v. 9; _Bell.\nJud._, II, viii. 14, where he speaks of these three as \u201cthe\nphilosophic sects among the Jews.\u201d\n\n[164] _Vita_, \u00a7 2.\n\n[165] _Op. cit._, p. 16.\n\n[166] This was first pointed by Jost, _Blicke in die\nReligionsgeschichte_, ii. p. 93, referred to by Leszynsky, p. 25.\n\n[167] Not to be confused with the _Tosaph\u00f4th_, i.e. the \u201cadditions\u201d\nmade to Rashi\u2019s Commentary on the Talmud by his disciples, who for\nthis reason are known as the _Tosaphists_.\n\n[168] Other Rabbinical sources, of less importance, are given by\nLeszynsky, _Op. cit._, pp. 36 ff.\n\n[169] See further, H\u00f6lscher, _Op. cit._, pp. 16 ff.; Leszynsky, _Op.\ncit._, pp. 36 ff.\n\n[170] The name applied to a room adjoining the synagogue in which\nwere stored disused manuscripts of the books of the Bible which had\nbeen used in public worship and had become worn out; heretical Hebrew\nbooks were also placed in the _Genizah_.\n\n[171] B\u00fcchler holds that this sect \u201clived in Damascus in the seventh\nor eighth century A.D.,\u201d and that the manuscripts contain \u201ca picture\nartificially drawn to reflect assumed conditions shortly before\nthe destruction of the second Temple.\u201d Interesting and learned as\nB\u00fcchler\u2019s article is, the present writer is not convinced that\nSchechter\u2019s main contentions have been weakened by it.\n\n[172] Some of the Apocalyptic books may also be regarded as sources\nof information; but the evidence in these is largely of an indirect\ncharacter; and as regards authorship differences of opinion exist;\nso we have thought it best to restrict ourselves to the sources\nmentioned. In dealing, however, with these Apocalyptic books in\nChapter X, we shall have occasion to refer to the evidence which in\nall likelihood may be adduced from them.\n\n[173] See also _Antiq._, XVIII, i. 3, 4.\n\n[174] For examples of their fanatical zeal for the Law see _Antiq._,\nXIV, iv. 2 f.; the followers of Aristobulus there mentioned were of\nthe Sadduc\u00e6an party.\n\n[175] See especially Matthew v. 17-20; and against the Pharisees\nMatthew xv. 1-20, xxiii. 4-26, Mark vii. 1-23, Luke xi. 37-54, etc.\n\n[176] _Op. cit._, pp. 16-32. H\u00f6lscher\u2019s conclusions differ from those\nof Leszynsky.\n\n[177] _Op. cit._, pp. 36-141.\n\n[178] Cp. Josephus, _Antiq._, XVIII, i. 4, where he says in reference\nto the Sadducees that \u201cwhen they become magistrates, sometimes\nagainst their will and by force they follow the ideas of the\nPharisees, for otherwise the people would not put up with them.\u201d\n\n[179] Lauterbach (_Op. cit._, p. 186 f.) would explain the matter\na little differently, though the final result is much the same; he\nsays that the Sadducees \u201claid down their own decisions and rules\nin a book called \u2018Book of Decrees\u2019 or \u2018Decisions\u2019 to guide them in\ndeciding questions to which no answer could be found in the Mosaic\nCode. They did not deem it right or necessary to invent new rules\nof hermeneutics, or to develop methods of interpretation to enable\nthem to force their laws and decisions into the meaning of the words\nof the Torah, so as to pass off their own rules and decisions as\npart of, or derived from, a Mosaic law, thus making them of equal\nauthority with, and of the same binding character as, the written\nLaw. For, in their opinion, no other laws could ever acquire the\nauthority of the Laws of the Torah.... The Sadducees distinguished\nstrictly between the absolutely binding written laws and their\nadditional laws and decisions. The latter ... were authoritative\nonly as long as they were considered necessary or feasible by the\nleaders and rulers of the community. For the same reason, they\ndid not consider the decisions and practices instituted by their\npredecessors, the priests and teachers of former generations, which\nconstituted the _traditional laws_, of absolute authority like the\nwritten Law. Hence their peculiar attitude towards the traditional\nLaw, and their objection to its authority. They did not deny the\nexistence of these old traditional laws, for they themselves were the\npossessors and transmitters of the same. Nor did they reject them as\nspurious or as without any authority, for they recognized the right\nof former priests and teachers to enact such laws. They only refused\nto consider these traditional laws as of authority absolute and equal\nwith the written Law contained in the Torah.\u201d The result, therefore,\nso far as their controversy with the Pharisees on this point was\nconcerned, was the same: traditional laws, by whomsoever put forth,\nwhether based on the written Law or not, were not permanently binding\nnor of equal authority with the written Law; the Pharisees, on the\nother, since they contended that the oral Law was based upon the\nwritten Law, regarded both as of equal authority and permanently\nbinding.\n\n[180] _Op. cit._, p. 141.\n\n[181] Matthew iii. 7.\n\n[182] Matthew xvi. 1.\n\n[183] Acts v. 1 ff.\n\n[184] _Antiq._, XVIII, i. 3.\n\n[185] Leszynsky, _Op. cit._, p. 18.\n\n[186] See further the section on Messianic teaching, below.\n\n[187] Cp. Leszynsky, _Op. cit._, p. 91. It is also worth mentioning\nhere that in Ecclesiasticus, which certainly represents the Sadduc\u00e6an\nstandpoint, angels are referred to\u2014see below, Chapter XII, \u00a7 (_g_).\n\n[188] With this compare the popular belief as reflected in Acts xii.\n15, where it is said in reference to St. Peter, \u201cIt is his angel.\u201d\n\n[189] The descent of Zadok is traced from Eleazar, the elder son of\nAaron, in 1 Chronicles vi. 4-15, 50-53, xxiv 6.\n\n[190] There is an important passage in Ecclesiasticus (xlv. 23-25,\nHebr.) which must be referred to here; in this passage Phinehas is\nset beside Moses and Aaron as \u201cthe third ... and he made atonement\nfor the children of Israel. Therefore for him too, He [i.e.\nGod] established an ordinance, a covenant of peace to maintain\nthe sanctuary; that to him and to his seed should appertain the\nHigh-priesthood for ever.\u201d Then reference is made to David and to\nAaron; the mention of these here in a chronological list of Israel\u2019s\ngreat ones is quite out of place, and therefore there must be some\nspecial purpose in referring to them; that purpose is plain enough,\nfor in speaking of David it is said that \u201cthe inheritance of the\nking is his son\u2019s alone,\u201d while in speaking of Aaron it is said that\n\u201cthe inheritance of Aaron belongs to his seed.\u201d A differentiation\nis thus made between the royal line and the priestly line; and as\nthe royal line had ceased, and only the priestly one continued, and\nthe High-priest (the descendant of the house of Zadok) was both\necclesiastical and political leader, it was from this line that the\nMessiah would be expected to come. In Ecclesiasticus (see pp. 334\nff.) the Sadduc\u00e6an standpoint is represented. See also 1 Maccabees\nii. 54, \u201cPhinehas our father ... obtained the covenant of an\neverlasting priesthood\u201d (cp. 4 Macc. xviii. 12).\n\n[191] Schechter, _Op. cit._, pp. xii.-xiii.\n\n[192] Of course, it is not to be supposed that the Sadducees and\nPharisees actually kept the feasts at different periods; the quarrel\ndid not emerge out of the domain of theory; actual difference in\nusage regarding such matters would have been quite out of the\nquestion.\n\n[193] See Leszynsky, _Op. cit._, pp. 52 ff.\n\n[194] _Op. cit._, p. 51.\n\n[195] For further details about the Pharisees\u2019 teaching reference may\nbe made, in addition to the literature at the head of this chapter,\nto Schechter\u2019s _Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology_ (1909) and\nMontefiore\u2019s article on \u201cRabbinic Conceptions of Repentance\u201d in the\n_Jewish Quarterly Review_, XVI (January, 1904), pp. 209-257.\n\n[196] See Josephus, _Antiq._, XIII, x. 5, 6; Sch\u00fcrer, _Op. cit._, I,\ni. pp. 286-290, German ed., I, pp. 270-273.\n\n[197] _Op. cit._, p. 177.\n\n[198] For details see Leszynsky, _Op. cit._, pp. 36 ff.\n\n[199] With the Greek word _Kan\u00f4n_ (Canon) compare the Hebrew _q\u0101neh_,\na \u201creed,\u201d which is also used in the sense of a \u201cmeasuring rod\u201d (Ezek.\nxlii. 16-19; cp. Judith xiii. 6, where the Greek word is used for the\n\u201crail\u201d of a bed). Originally the word in Greek meant a \u201ccarpenter\u2019s\nrule,\u201d and had nothing to do with the books of Scripture. In its\ntechnical sense it is Christian, being thus used for the first time,\nso far as is known, about the middle of the fourth century A.D.; the\nfifty-ninth canon of the council of Laodic\u00e6a (about A.D. 360) speaks\nof \u201ccanonical books\u201d as opposed to uncanonical. It is a still later\nusage, so far as our present knowledge goes, which applies the term\nCanon to the whole collection of biblical books. What the original\nidea was in using the expression in reference to the books of the\nBible is uncertain, but probably it was that of \u201cnorm\u201d or \u201crule\u201d\n(cp. Gal. vi. 16; 2 Cor. x. 13); just as \u201ccanonical action\u201d (1 Ep.\nof Clement vii. 2) was according to the Christian norm, so books\njudged by their contents, authorship, and history, were declared\nto be according to the Christian norm, and therefore \u201ccanonical\u201d;\ncp. the expressions \u201crule (or canon) of truth,\u201d \u201crule (or canon) of\nfaith,\u201d used in the early Church. It is probable that the adjective\n\u201ccanonical\u201d preceded the use of the noun \u201cCanon\u201d in its technical\nsense.\n\n[200] The Jews sometimes refer to the whole body of their canonical\nScriptures under the name of _Tenak_, i.e. TNK, an abbreviation (with\nvowels inserted in order to make it pronounceable) formed by the\ninitial letters of the names given to the three main divisions of the\nHebrew Scriptures, viz., _T_orah, _N_ebiim, _K_ethubim.\n\n[201] In the authoritative lists of the canonical books the order\nvaries somewhat; but the order given above is that of the printed\nHebrew Bibles.\n\n[202] In the earliest known Hebrew manuscripts they appear as one\nbook; so, too, 1, 2 Kings.\n\n[203] Cp. Robertson Smith, _The Old Testament in the Jewish Church_\n(2nd ed.), p. 149.\n\n[204] Ab is the fifth month in the Jewish Calendar, and corresponds\nroughly to August; it is called the \u201cBlack Fast,\u201d and commemorates\nthe destruction of the first and second temples.\n\n[205] So according to the Hebrew; the Greek is somewhat different.\n\n[206] So according to Smend\u2019s probable conjecture.\n\n[207] _Kanonisch und Apokryph_, p. 20.\n\n[208] See Ecclesiastes xii. 12.\n\n[209] Ryle, for example, says that the expression by which Ben-Sira\u2019s\ngrandson \u201cdesignates the third group certainly lacks definiteness.\nIt does not warrant us to maintain that the \u2018Writings\u2019 or \u2018Kethubim\u2019\nwere all, in their completed form, known to the writer\u201d (_Op. cit._,\np. 119). And again (p. 121): \u201cThese writings, which are so well known\nto us, were probably only samples, though doubtless the choicest\nones, of an abundant literature to which every Jew at the end of the\nthird century B.C. had access.\u201d On the other hand, Ryle believes that\nby about B.C. 200 there was a definitely recognized Hebrew Canon of\nScripture consisting of the Law and the Prophets (_Op. cit._, p. 113).\n\n[210] This Rabbinical phrase for denoting canonicity is explained\nbelow, p. 175.\n\n[211] This book was denied a place in the Canon by Melito of Sardis\nin the middle of the second century A.D., according to Eusebius,\n_Hist. Eccl._, iv. 26.\n\n[212] Josephus reckons Ruth and Lamentations as belonging to Judges\nand Jeremiah respectively.\n\n[213] The addition here of the words \u201cas divine\u201d does not, in all\nprobability, belong to the original text.\n\n[214] _Op. cit._, p. 164.\n\n[215] For details see H\u00f6lscher, _Op. cit._, pp. 36 ff.\n\n[216] _Op. cit._, pp. 165 ff.\n\n[217] See further below, Chapter X.\n\n[218] This was accounted for in later days by saying that when\nHaggai, Zechariah and Malachi died the Holy Spirit left Israel\n(Sanhedrin 11_a_); therefore (this is the inference) no inspired book\ncan have been written in post-prophetic times, cp. Yoma 21_b_.\n\n[219] For details of the evidence see Sch\u00fcrer II, i. pp. 366 ff.\n(German ed., II, pp. 432 ff., where the references are supplemented);\nCheyne, _Job and Solomon_, pp. 280 ff.; H\u00f6lscher, _Op. cit._, pp. 32\nff.; _Jewish Encycl._, vii. 18.\n\n[220] For details see Ryle, _Op. cit._, pp. 192-202.\n\n[221] _Vita_, \u00a7 2.\n\n[222] Thus Jochanan ben Zakkai (middle of first century A.D.) speaks\nof books which \u201cdefile the hands\u201d (Jadaim iii. 2, 5; iv. 5, 6).\n\n[223] See the Additional Note at the end of this chapter.\n\n[224] Budde, in the _Encycl. Bibl._, i. 649; see further the\nAdditional Note at the end of this chapter.\n\n[225] Written, probably, about B.C. 50.\n\n[226] H\u00f6lscher, _Op. cit._, p. 6.\n\n[227] Romans i. 2, cp. 2 Timothy iii. 15.\n\n[228] See, among other passages, Leviticus vi. 27-30, xi. 32-40,\nxiv. 1 ff., XV. 1 ff., 24, xvi. 26, 28, xviii. 19; Numbers v. 1-3;\nDeuteronomy xxi. 10-14.\n\n[229] Abundant material will be found in Frazer\u2019s _The Golden Bough:\nTaboo and the Perils of the Soul_ (1911).\n\n[230] _The Religion of the Semites_, p. 449 (1894); and see Jevons\u2019\n_Introduction to the History of Religion_, pp. 59-95 (1904).\n\n[231] Cases of death are on record; it was, of course, occasioned by\nfright, but savages would see only the result of the spirit\u2019s anger.\nInstances of the infringement of custom would naturally be rare.\n\n[232] See Leviticus xi. 32, Ezekiel xliv. 19, and cp. the idea\nof \u201choliness\u201d in such passages, among many, as Exodus xix. 22,\nDeuteronomy xxiii. 18, where the Hebrew root is identical, though to\nus the ideas in either case are directly opposite.\n\n[233] He is referring to the rules of ceremonial purity observed by\ndivine kings, chiefs, and priests, as well as by homicides, mourners,\nwomen in childbed, girls at puberty, etc.\n\n[234] _Op. cit._, p. 224.\n\n[235] For example, in the case of a canonical book which \u201cdefiled\u201d\nthe hands the Talmud (Shabbath 14_a_) says it was taught that the\nhands became unclean by contact with the Holy Scriptures in order\nthat they should not be touched by uncovered hands!\n\n[236] H\u00f6lscher, _Op. cit._, p. 60.\n\n[237] Moore, in the _Jewish Encycl._, II, 2_a_.\n\n[238] H\u00f6lscher mentions, with references, a \u201cbook of cures,\u201d a Targum\nwhich was forbidden, and heretical books, _Op. cit._, p. 62.\n\n[239] H\u00f6lscher, _Op. cit._, p. 63.\n\n[240] Ecclesiasticus is often quoted in the Talmud.\n\n[241] Cp., further, Buhl, _Kanon und Text des Alten Testaments_\n(Engl. Transl.), p. 26.\n\n[242] See further below.\n\n[243] James, in the _Encycl. Biblica_, i. 249.\n\n[244] James, _Op. cit._, says that this book \u201cmay be as old as the\nfirst century A.D.\u201d; but according to H\u00f6lscher and the editors of\nthe papyrus (Leeman and Dieterich) it belongs to the third or fourth\ncentury A.D.\n\n[245] Moore, _Op. cit._, ii. p. 1_a_.\n\n[246] H\u00f6lscher, _Op. cit._, p. 47.\n\n[247] _Ibid._\n\n[248] Charles\u2019 edition.\n\n[249] Charles\u2019 edition.\n\n[250] Box\u2019s edition.\n\n[251] For this idea cp. also the Assumption of Moses i. 16-18 (see\nbelow, Chapter X (_f_)), where Moses is commanded to anoint certain\nbooks with cedar oil and hide them in earthenware vessels, these are\nto be secreted in a spot which had been created from the beginning of\nthe world for this very purpose.\n\n[252] Lest, in course of time, the number of these soiled copies\nshould unduly increase, lest also, in case of persecution arising,\nthey should run the risk of being desecrated, it was thought well\nthat after the lapse of a certain time these rolls should be done\naway with; they were, therefore, sometimes burned, or thrown down a\nwell, or in some cases placed in the grave of some respected Rabbi;\nmore frequently, however, they were buried in a grave of their own in\nthe cemetery.\n\n[253] _Studies in Judaism_ (Second Series), p. 2.\n\n[254] _Jewish Encycl._, V, 612_a_.\n\n[255] For references see H\u00f6lscher, _Op. cit._, pp. 48, 49, see also\np. 64.\n\n[256] See below, Chapter X.\n\n[257] See Zunz, _Die Gottesdienstlichen Vortr\u00e4ge der Juden_, pp.\n165-179 (1892).\n\n[258] Harnack, _Privater Gebrauch heiliger Schriften in der alten\nKirche_, p. 72 (1912).\n\n[259] For the private use in the early Church of biblical as well as\nother books see Harnack\u2019s book just mentioned.\n\n[260] But even these might only be read \u201cas one reads a letter,\u201d not\nstudied (H\u00f6lscher, _Op. cit._, p. 45).\n\n[261] Sanhedrin x. 1 (Strack\u2019s edition, 1910).\n\n[262] Cp. Mark iv. 11; 1 Cor. v. 12, 13; Col. iv. 5; 1 Thess. iv. 12.\n\n[263] H\u00f6lscher, _Op. cit._, p. 46. The _Minim_ (\u201cheretics\u201d) are very\noften mentioned in Jewish writings; Herford says that the term \u201cin\nsome cases certainly denotes Christians\u201d (_Christianity in Talmud and\nMidrash_, p. 99).\n\n[264] Shabbath c. 16 (Jerusalem Talmud), quoted by H\u00f6lscher.\n\n[265] Barton, _The Book of Ecclesiastes_ (The International Critical\nCommentary), pp. 197-199.\n\n[266] Cp. Ezra iv. 7.\n\n[267] Zunz, _Op. cit._, p. 9; Strack, _Einleitung in den Talmud_, p.\n14 (1908).\n\n[268] The term \u201cMidrash,\u201d which occurs in the Bible (2 Chron. xiii.\n22, xxiv. 17) denotes \u201cexposition\u201d or \u201cexegesis,\u201d especially of an\nedifying and moralizing character; see further Oesterley and Box,\n_Op. cit._, pp. 77-100.\n\n[269] Strack, _Op. cit._, pp. 13, 14.\n\n[270] \u201cSuch topics as astronomy and astrology, medicine and magic,\ntheosophy and mysticism, and similar subjects, falling mostly under\nthe heading of folklore, pass as a rule also under the name of\nHaggadah\u201d (Schechter).\n\n[271] Under this term is embraced all that belongs to the strictly\nlegal or ritual element in Scripture, or that can be deduced\ntherefrom, including discussions of such points. But, as Schechter\nsays, \u201cthe term extends also to the usages, customs, ordinances and\ndecrees for which there is little or no authority in the Scriptures.\u201d\n\n[272] In 1904, 1906-1908.\n\n[273] See above, pp. 50 ff.\n\n[274] This was in Jerusalem; cp., in later days, the \u201cSchool of\nTyrannus\u201d in Ephesus (Acts xix. 9).\n\n[275] _Kanonisch und Apokryph_, pp. 42-46.\n\n[276] See Friedl\u00e4nder, _Die rel. Bewegungen_ ..., pp. 22-77.\n\n[277] Oesterley and Box, _Op. cit._, p. 36.\n\n[278] See his editions of these books.\n\n[279] Portions of this book are also found in the Book of Jubilees,\nvii. 20-39, x. 1-15, cp. xxi. 10.\n\n[280] _Die Worte Jesu_, p. 199.\n\n[281] _Op. cit._, pp. 253 ff.\n\n[282] See above, pp. 150 ff.\n\n[283] I.e. \u201cThe Book of the Heavenly Luminaries,\u201d as Charles calls it.\n\n[284] I.e. \u201cthe righteous\u201d; a play on the word _Zadd\u016bkim_, the \u201csons\nof Zadok,\u201d i.e. \u201cthe Sadducees.\u201d\n\n[285] See p. 93.\n\n[286] See also what is said above on the section called \u201cThe Book of\nthe Heavenly Luminaries,\u201d or \u201cBook of Astronomy.\u201d\n\n[287] _Die rel. Bewegungen_ ..., pp. 59, 60.\n\n[288] i.-xxxii. 6 and xix. 3-xxi. 9 in a duplicate form were\ndiscovered at Akhm\u00eem in 1886-1887; vi.-x. 14, xv. 8-xvi. 1, and\nviii. 4-ix. 4 in a duplicate form, have been preserved in Syncellus;\nlxxxix. 42-49 occurs in a Greek Vatican MS. (No. 1809); there are\nalso a few quotations in early Greek ecclesiastical writings.\n\n[289] Charles, _The Book of Enoch_ (2nd ed.), p. ix.\n\n[290] _Op. cit._, II, iii. 273.\n\n[291] _Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs_, pp. liv. ff.\n\n[292] _Op. cit._, pp. xcvii. f.\n\n[293] There is, indeed, nothing to prohibit us from dating the book\nslightly later than Charles does (viz. B.C. 109-107), and assigning\nit to the reign of Alexander Jann\u00e6us, B.C. 103-76. Testament of Levi\nviii. 14 does not militate against this.\n\n[294] _Op. cit._, pp. 239 ff.\n\n[295] _Op. cit._, p. xcvii.\n\n[296] _Op. cit._, II, p. 630.\n\n[297] But see below, pp. 218, 223.\n\n[298] _The Apocryph. and Pseud. of the O.T._, II, p. 411.\n\n[299] _Op. cit._, pp. 268 ff.\n\n[300] Proverbs, Job, some of the later Psalms, Ecclesiastes,\nEcclesiasticus, Wisdom.\n\n[301] Gregg, _The Wisdom of Solomon_, p. xxx.\n\n[302] _Griechische Philosophie_ ..., p. 13.\n\n[303] Cp. also the account of the meeting between Solomon and the\nQueen of Sheba, 1 Kings x. 1-9.\n\n[304] Toy, in the _Encycl. Bibl._, IV, 5322.\n\n[305] See Isaiah xix. 11-15; Jeremiah l. 35, li. 57.\n\n[306] Jeremias, _Das alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_, pp.\n29, 80.\n\n[307] So the Greek; the Hebrew is not extant, but the Syriac has:\n\u201cin the roots of Tehom,\u201d so that the Hebrew in all probability read\n\u201cTehom.\u201d See further, Proverbs viii. 26-30.\n\n[308] On this see further in the next section.\n\n[309] In the _Jewish Encycl._, XII, 537_b_.\n\n[310] Fairweather, _The Background of the Gospels_, p. 84.\n\n[311] Cp. Oesterley and Box, _Op. cit._, pp. 195-221.\n\n[312] Fairweather, _Op. cit._, p. 84.\n\n[313] Cp. also verse 9: \u201cHe spake and it was done,\u201d and Psalm\ncxlviii. 5.\n\n[314] Barton, _Ecclesiastes_, in the \u201cInternational Critical\nCommentary,\u201d p. 37.\n\n[315] Oesterley and Box, _The Wisdom of Ben-Sira_, in Charles\u2019 \u201cThe\nApocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament,\u201d I, p. 308.\n\n[316] The idea appears already in Proverbs viii. 31-36, ix. 1-6; but\nBen-Sira elaborates it in his own way.\n\n[317] See, on this subject, the very interesting essay on \u201cThe Holy\nSpirit as Wisdom,\u201d by Rees, in the _Mansfield College Essays_ (1909).\n\n[318] Gregg, _The Wisdom of Solomon_, p. xxxvi.\n\n[319] The tree of wisdom in the Garden is referred to in xxxii. 3.\n\n[320] See above, p. 202.\n\n[321] But cp. Job xxviii. 12-14, though the general conception of\nWisdom here differs from that of the later Wisdom books.\n\n[322] Hastings\u2019 _D.B._, V, p. 275.\n\n[323] Spoken of as \u201cthe holy ones,\u201d so too in Job xv. 15; cp. also\nPrayer of Manasses, verse 15.\n\n[324] See pp. 331 ff; below.\n\n[325] For other examples see the present writer\u2019s section in the\nIntroduction to _Sirach_ in Charles, I, pp. 285 f.\n\n[326] For the reason of this see below, pp. 412 f.\n\n[327] On the substitution of \u201cHeaven\u201d for the name of God, see\nOesterley and Box, _Op. cit._, pp. 186 ff.\n\n[328] Holmes in Charles, I, 527.\n\n[329] Cp. the Book of Enoch lxix. 6, where it is said in reference to\nthe evil angels: \u201cNow the third is Gadreel; he it is who taught the\nchildren of man all the blows of death; and he led astray Eve....\u201d\n\n[330] These have been recounted in the preceding verses; the writer\nis addressing Jews.\n\n[331] _The Ezra-Apocalypse_, pp. xl. f.\n\n[332] Maldwyn Hughes, _The Ethics of Jewish Apocryphal Literature_,\np. 240.\n\n[333] See further the next section, on the Future Life.\n\n[334] In one passage in this Vision, xii. 34, the Messianic Kingdom\nappears to be reserved for the children of Israel only; but it is\nprobable that this verse does not belong to the original text.\n\n[335] The whole passage, iii. 1-9, deals with the lot of the\nrighteous hereafter, but the salient words in the present connection\nare those quoted above.\n\n[336] \u201cBehold, the Lord God will come as a mighty one and His\narm shall rule for Him; behold, His reward is with Him, and His\nrecompense before Him\u201d (Isa. xl. 10). \u201cAnd the Lord will create over\nthe whole habitation of mount Zion, and over her assemblies, a cloud\nand smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night; for\nover all the glory shall be spread a canopy. And there shall be a\npavilion for a shadow in the day-time from the heat, and for a refuge\nand for a covert from storm and from rain\u201d (Isa. iv. 5, 6). \u201cIn\nthat day shall the Lord of hosts be for a crown of glory, and for a\ndiadem of beauty, unto the residue of His people, and for a spirit\nof judgement to him that sitteth in judgement, and for strength to\nthem that turn back the battle at the gate\u201d (Isa. xxviii. 5, 6). It\nis the thought, not the language, which shows connection between the\ntwo; in the Septuagint of Isaiah xxviii. 5, for example, \u201ca diadem\nof beauty\u201d is differently expressed, but see Isaiah lxii. 3 (Sept.).\n\u201cAnd He saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no\nintercessor; therefore His own arm brought salvation unto Him, and\nHis righteousness it upheld Him. And He put on righteousness as a\nbreastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon His head; and He put\non garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a\ncloke\u201d (Isa. lix. 16, 17). Cp. also parts of Psalm xviii.\n\n[337] See the present writer\u2019s _Ecclesiasticus_, p. lxxvi.\n\n[338] It is, of course, possible that this is due to a Christian\nglossator; but there is no doubt that the Old Latin contains many\nreally ancient elements.\n\n[339] We follow Box here (_The Ezra Apocalypse_, passim), though\nwe are not convinced that all which Box assigns to the Redactor is\nnecessarily from this hand.\n\n[340] The meaning of the name is \u201cGod hath healed,\u201d cp. iii. 17, \u201cAnd\nRaphael was sent to heal them both.\u201d\n\n[341] In Enoch xx. 8 he is said to be him \u201cwhom God set over those\nwho rise.\u201d\n\n[342] See, for details, the present writer\u2019s _Ecclesiasticus_, in the\nCambridge Bible, pp. 263 f.\n\n[343] _The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament_ (1913).\n\n[344] The final \u201cch\u201d was added in Greek to show that the name was\nindeclinable.\n\n[345] In the Hebrew text the author speaks of himself as: \u201cSimeon,\nthe son of Jeshua (Jesus), the son of Eleazar, the son of Sira.\u201d\n\n[346] See Part I., Chap. xii.\n\n[347] See the present writer\u2019s _Ecclesiasticus_ in the Cambridge\nBible, p. xxiv.\n\n[348] Euergetes I reigned for twenty-five years, B.C. 247-222.\n\n[349] Cowley and Neubauer, _The Original Hebrew of a portion of\nEcclesiasticus_, pp. x., xi.\n\n[350] Cp. Maunde Thompson, _Handbook of Greek and Latin Pal\u00e6ography_,\np. 43.\n\n[351] See Gaster in the _Jewish Quarterly Review_, xii. pp. 688 ff.\n\n[352] Oesterley, _Op. cit._, pp. xci. f. (See the Literature at the\nhead of the chapter.)\n\n[353] Prof. D. S. Margoliouth, _The Origin of the \u201cOriginal\u201d Hebrew\nof Ecclesiasticus_.\n\n[354] L\u00e9vi, in the _Jewish Encycl._, xi. 393.\n\n[355] See Box and Oesterley, _Op. cit._, pp. 272-278.\n\n[356] _Ibid._, p. 277.\n\n[357] In this connection it is important to note the following\nfacts: _all_ the Greek manuscripts, uncial as well as cursives,\nhave a great displacement in the text, xxx. 25-xxxiii. 13_a_ having\nexchanged places with xxxiii. 13_b_-xxxvi. 16_a_; since all the Greek\nmanuscripts have this displacement it is obvious that all ultimately\ngo back to a single parent manuscript; now the Old Latin Version has\n_not_ got the displacement, and yet it is a translation from the\nGreek; consequently this version represents a condition of affairs\nwhich is older than the oldest Greek manuscripts.\n\n[358] _Op. cit._, p. 274; he adds in a note that these additions \u201cdo\nnot necessarily proceed from the hand of one individual\u201d; we feel\nconvinced that he is right here also.\n\n[359] We use this term as being the most convenient, but strictly\nspeaking it is an anachronism, for, as we have seen above (Chap.\nvii), the _term_ belongs to post-Maccab\u00e6an times; we use it here as\nrepresenting the pre-Maccab\u00e6an tendency which later on developed into\nSadduc\u00e6anism.\n\n[360] Cowley, _Op. cit._, iv. 4237.\n\n[361] _Ibid._\n\n[362] Nothing better illustrates this than Ben-Sira\u2019s copious use of\nthe Psalms and Proverbs.\n\n[363] See above, pp. 267 ff.\n\n[364] I.e. natural tendency, or inclination.\n\n[365] Perhaps the rendering of the Syriac Version is to be preferred\nhere; for \u201cwresteth reproofs\u201d it reads \u201cconcealeth instruction.\u201d\n\n[366] In his edition of _Pirqe Aboth_ (2nd ed.), p. 115.\n\n[367] This is only preserved in Hebrew.\n\n[368] The additions are found scattered in the Greek cursives\nnumbered 23, 55, 70, 106, 248 (this is the foremost representative\nof the group), 253; some were added by a later corrector of Codex\nAlexandrinus; also in the Syriac and Old Latin Versions (St.\nJerome incorporated this in the Vulgate as it stood) and in the\nSyro-Hexapla; as well as in the quotations from the book in the\nwritings of Clement of Alexandria.\n\n[369] The fact that some of the additions are found in Hebrew points\nto their having been made at an early date; it is unlikely that a\nsecondary Hebrew text would have been written in post-Christian times.\n\n[370] This addition occurs in the Hebrew text, as well as in the\ncursives.\n\n[371] The Hebrew of chapter xxix. is not extant; but the addition\nprobably existed in the secondary Hebrew as it occurs in the Syriac\nVersion as well as in the cursives and in the Old Latin Version.\n\n[372] For further details see the commentaries of Mayor, and\nKnowling, on St. James, and Zahn\u2019s _Einleitung_, I. p. 87.\n\n[373] This is the form of the name given in the Aramaic fragments.\n\n[374] \u201cAnd when I saw them, my tongue stammered and my limbs became\nfaint; and I sought for a single word from the words of wisdom, and I\nfound none,\u201d iv. 2 (Rendel Harris\u2019 translation of the Syriac Version).\n\n[375] So according to the Aramaic, the other Versions read\n\u201cSennacherib.\u201d The Aramaic text is given in Ungnad\u2019s _Aram\u00e4ische\nPapyrus aus Elephantine_, pp. 62-82 (1911).\n\n[376] According to the Armenian Version (Conybeare), Pharaoh\nthreatens to attack the king of Assyria and to take away his kingdom\nif he does not fall in with the proposal.\n\n[377] It is given in Swete, _The Old Testament in Greek_, vol. ii.\npp. 815-848 (1896).\n\n[378] In the Aramaic fragment this is not the case, apparently.\n\n[379] In the Achikar story he is called \u201cthe Secretary and Great Seal\nof Sennacherib, king of Assyria and Nineveh\u201d (Syriac Version iii. 8).\n\n[380] Although the Greek omits the words \u201cand thy wine\u201d they occur in\nthe Latin, Aramaic, and Hebrew Versions.\n\n[381] Simpson, in Charles, I, p. 191.\n\n[382] See Sch\u00fcrer, III, p. 241, where further literature is given;\nthe English translation of Sch\u00fcrer does not contain this; it has been\nadded to the last (fourth) German edition.\n\n[383] See further, Simrock, _Der gute Gerhard und die dankbaren\nTodten_ (1856).\n\n[384] For details see Schneider, _Kultur und Denken der Babylonier\nund Juden_, pp. 638 ff. (1910).\n\n[385] Cp. Numbers xix. 11-13, 16 ff.\n\n[386] The reference to fasting in xii. 8, does not belong to the true\ntext.\n\n[387] See above, pp. 92 f.\n\n[388] The idea that the book is historical and therefore belongs to\nthe seventh century B.C. does not merit serious consideration.\n\n[389] _Op. cit._, I, p. 185.\n\n[390] _Encycl. Brit._ art., \u201cTobit.\u201d\n\n[391] See, further, Simpson, _Op. cit._, I, p. 185.\n\n[392] Origen, _Ep. ad Afric._, xiii., says that the book was not\nwritten in Hebrew; Jerome, _Praef. in Vers. libri Tob._, says he\ntranslated it from the Chaldee (i.e. Aramaic), but this was itself a\ntranslation, for while the Greek puts the narrative from i. 3-iii.\n6 in the first person and from here onwards continues in the third\nperson, Jerome\u2019s Aramaic (which is in all probability represented\nby the manuscript edited by Neubauer, _The Book of Tobit, A Chaldee\ntext_ ... 1878) makes the _whole_ narrative run in the third person;\nbut if the original form of the story was written in the third person\nthroughout, it is unthinkable that in a later form the first person\nwould have been substituted in i. 3-iii. 6 alone. On the other hand,\nit would be quite natural for the original writer to commence his\nstory in the first person and later to fall into the third person,\nfor this latter is the simpler and easier form of narration. The\nHebrew Versions are of quite late date, and obviously translations;\nsee Neubauer, _Op. cit._, and Gaster, _Two Unknown Hebrew Versions of\nthe Tobit Legend_ (1897).\n\n[393] Torrey in the _Jewish Encycl._, vii. 388_b_.\n\n[394] _Die gottesdienstlichen Vortr\u00e4ge der Juden_ (2nd ed.), p. 132.\n\n[395] _Op cit._, vii. 388_a_.\n\n[396] These three cursives are all in the Vatican Library at Rome.\n\n[397] Cp. L\u00f6hr, _Op. cit._, p. 147 (see the Literature above).\n\n[398] So according to Scholz, _Op. cit._, pp. xxiv. f. (see the\nLiterature above).\n\n[399] See the Literature above.\n\n[400] _Op. cit._, p. 131.\n\n[401] _The Religious Views of the Pharisees_, p. 2; see also Herford,\n_Pharisaism, its Aim and its Method_, pp. 282-335.\n\n[402] See above, p. 91.\n\n[403] Owing to the revolt of Bar-Kokba.\n\n[404] Chapter lv., where he speaks of \u201cJudith the blessed.\u201d\n\n[405] See pp. 218 f. above.\n\n[406] In the _Encycl. Biblica_, ii. 2645.\n\n[407] L\u00f6hr, _Op. cit._, i. 148.\n\n[408] Viz. _Cod. Chisianus_ (87), a cursive of the ninth century.\n\n[409] Swete, _Intr. to the O.T. in Greek_, p. 260 (1900).\n\n[410] Swete, _Op. cit._, p. 260.\n\n[411] _Stromateis_ iv.\n\n[412] _Eclog\u00e6 Prophetic\u00e6_, \u00a7 I.\n\n[413] _Strom._ i.\n\n[414] Swete says: \u201cThe addition to Daniel iii. 23 is clearly\nMidrashic and probably had a Semitic original,\u201d _Op. cit._, p. 261.\n\n[415] Singer, _Op. cit._, pp. 55-57.\n\n[416] Singer, _Op. cit._, pp. 270-273.\n\n[417] In the present writer\u2019s _Ecclesiasticus_ (Cambridge Bible)\na translation of this Psalm is given together with the points of\nsimilarity between it and the \u201cShemoneh \u2018Esreh,\u201d pp. 349, 350.\n\n[418] In the Mishna, Sanhedrin vi. 2, it is said: \u201cIf some cause for\nextenuation is brought forward on his (i.e. the condemned) behalf, he\nis liberated, otherwise he goes out (i.e. of the hall of judgement)\nto be stoned. Some (accredited) person calls out in front of him\n(i.e. as he is being led to the place of execution): \u2018So and so, the\nson of so and so, is going forth to be stoned for having committed\nsuch and such a sin, and of which such and such are the witnesses;\nwhosoever has anything to bring forward in his favour let him come\nforth and utter it on behalf of him\u2019 (i.e. the condemned).\u201d\n\n[419] See the works mentioned under the Literature given above.\n\n[420] The Jewish name was Salome.\n\n[421] \u201cThen shall ye do unto him as he thought to do unto his\nbrother.\u201d\n\n[422] \u201cThe Greek word translated \u2018dragon\u2019 denotes originally a large\nserpent. Homer uses _drak\u014dn_ and _ophis_ interchangeably without\nthe least apparent difference. Even the _drak\u014dn_ of Greek mythology\nremains essentially a serpent\u201d\u2014Witton Davies in Charles, I, 653.\n\n[423] Rouse, _Greek Votive Offerings_, pp. 193 ff.\n\n[424] Both Berosus and Helladius speak of gods worshipped as serpents\nin Babylon (Witton Davies).\n\n[425] It should be noted that in the canonical Esther the chapters\nrun from i. to x. 3; in the Apocrypha the chapters are numbered as\nthough they came consecutively after those of the canonical Esther,\nviz. x. 4 to xvi. 24; this unnecessary confusion is due to St. Jerome\n\u201cwho relegated the Greek interpolations to the end of the canonical\nbook; but it has had the effect of making them unintelligible\u201d\n(Swete, _Op. cit._, p. 257).\n\n[426] Unless the mention of fasting, in iv. 16, ix. 31, can be\nincluded in this.\n\n[427] _Op. cit._, p. 258.\n\n[428] In the margin of the Revised Version this note occurs: \u201cOr,\n_the seers_. So the Septuagint\u201d; this is, no doubt, what should be\nread.\n\n[429] _Op. cit._, p. 362.\n\n[430] _Op. cit._, p. 612.\n\n[431] See Swete, _Intro. to the O.T. in Greek_, p. 142 (1900).\n\n[432] See Swete, _Op. cit._, p. 253. The Greek text is given in\nSwete\u2019s _The O.T. in Greek_, iii. pp. 824-826.\n\n[433] Where it follows a reference to 2 Chronicles xxxiii. 18.\n\n[434] In ii. 22.\n\n[435] _Op. cit._, p. 613.\n\n[436] Ryle treats these words as though they stood in the text of\nCod. T _in addition to_ \u201cI have set up ...\u201d (which is the case in the\nLatin Version); but according to Swete\u2019s _apparatus criticus_ they\nare not an addition, but a substitution.\n\n[437] The text of Cod. A agrees, however, with that of the\n_Apostolical Constitutions_.\n\n[438] See Fritzsche; _Kurzgefasstes exeget. Handbuch zu den\nApokryphen des Alten Testamentes_, i. pp. 158 ff.; Ball, _Op. cit._,\npp. 362 ff.\n\n[439] The _Didascalia_ was incorporated into the _Apostolical\nConstitutions_ of which it forms the first six books; the\n_Apostolical Constitutions_ belongs to the fourth or fifth century.\n\n[440] Oesterley, _Op. cit._, I, p. 59.\n\n[441] Oesterley, _Op. cit._, p. 61.\n\n[442] See Josephus, _Antiq._, XIV, iv. 2-4; _Bell. Jud._, I, vii. 3-6.\n\n[443] See further, Sch\u00fcrer, _Op. cit._ II, iii. pp. 13, 14.\n\n[444] The present writer has given many of these in his commentary\nreferred to above.\n\n[445] This section is taken substantially from the present writer\u2019s\ncommentary in Charles, I, pp. 61-65.\n\n[446] _Juden und Griechen vor der makkab\u00e4ischen Erhebung_, pp. 70 ff.\n\n[447] _Hermes_, ix. pp. 284 ff., cp. Kautzsch, _Op. cit._, i. p. 30.\n\n[448] _Op. cit._, p. 72.\n\n[449] Though this did not actually come about until some time after\nthe period dealt with in our book.\n\n[450] \u201cSaviour,\u201d on account of his having delivered the Babylonians\nfrom the satrap Heraclides.\n\n[451] The name of the Hasmon\u00e6an dynasty comes from that of the\nancestor of the house, Asmon\u00e6us (Josephus, _Antiq._, XII, vi. 1; XIV,\nxvi. 4; XVI, vii. 1), who is said to have been the grandfather of\nMattathias.\n\n[452] It is in 1 Maccabees xiv. 41 that we are told of the\nratification by the people of the high-priestly and princely dignity\nin the house of Asmon\u00e6us; \u201cAnd the Jews and the priests were well\npleased that Simon should be their leader and high-priest for\never....\u201d\n\n[453] See above, p. 419.\n\n[454] According to Josephus (_Bell. Jud._, II, x. 2) this was a high\nhill a hundred _stadia_ north of Ptolemais.\n\n[455] No further mention is made of him in 1 Maccabees; he was\nmurdered three or four years later by the usurper Alexander Zabinas,\nwho gave himself out to be the son of Alexander Balas.\n\n[456] Josephus (_Antiq._, XIII, vii. 2) says that he \u201cfled from Dora\nto Apam\u00e6a, where he was taken during the siege, and put to death,\nwhen he had reigned three years.\u201d\n\n[457] These formed originally one book, as in the Septuagint; their\ndivision into two books is probably due to Christian influence.\n\n[458] In the Septuagint there is no equivalent to these two chapters;\nsee on this below, pp. 510 f.\n\n[459] For the exceptions to this, see below.\n\n[460] Volz (_Encycl. Bibl._, II, 1490) says of this story that \u201cit\nis an independent piece of narrative that is also found standing by\nitself in a MS. of the Vulgate (Berger, _Hist. de la Vulgate_, p.\n94 [1893]). To all appearance this piece is itself also a composite\nproduction, the praise of truth being an addition. The whole seems to\nhave been originally written in Greek, and shows affinity with the\nepistle of Aristeas (Ewald, _Hist._, v. 165); the writer appears to\nhave knowledge of the court history of Persia (iv. 29 ff.). The hero\nof the story is not originally Zerubbabel.\u201d\n\n[461] Hastings\u2019 _Dict. of the Bible_, I, 759 f.\n\n[462] They are clearly and succinctly summarized by Thackeray in\nHastings\u2019 _Dict. of the Bible_, I, 758-763.\n\n[463] _History of Israel_, v. pp. 126 ff.\n\n[464] In the _Academy_ for 1893.\n\n[465] _Op. cit._, p. 2.\n\n[466] Cp. Josephus, _Antiq._, XI, iii. 2-6.\n\n[467] _The International Journal of Apocrypha_, April 1913, pp. 33,\n34.\n\n[468] That the book was originally written in Greek admits of no\ndoubt.\n\n[469] Quoted by Goodrick, _Op. cit._, p. 34.\n\n[470] He is followed by Wright, McNeile, and Barton, in their works\non Ecclesiastes.\n\n[471] _Ecclesiastes, or, The Preacher_, pp. 70 f.\n\n[472] Cp. Barton, _The Book of Ecclesiastes_, pp. 57 f., where the\npassages are quoted in full in parallel columns.\n\n[473] See pp. 200 f.\n\n[474] For the various untenable theories regarding the identity of\nthe author, see Grimm, pp. 16 ff., Farrar, pp. 410 ff.; the question\nof composite authorship is dealt with in the next section.\n\n[475] Some scholars hold strongly that the author was an Essene;\nearlier commentators have argued in favour of the author being a\nChristian. That the book was written for Jews is probable, apart\nfrom other considerations, from the numerous references to the Old\nTestament and past history of the Jews.\n\n[476] _Op. cit._, p. xvii.\n\n[477] See above, pp. 165 f.\n\n[478] It must be remembered that in the Hebrew Bible the Book of Job\nis reckoned among the _Hagiographa_.\n\n[479] The words in the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus, \u201cand the rest\nof the books,\u201d are too indefinite for us to assume that the writer\nmeant the _Hagiographa_ as we understand them. In the Hebrew of\nEcclesiasticus (xlix. 9), Job is mentioned, but only in reference to\nEzekiel xiv. 14, 20, nothing is said of Job as we know him from the\nbook that bears his name.\n\n[480] _Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek_, p. 26 f.\n\n[481] Goodrick, _Op. cit._, p. 15.\n\n[482] We have adopted some of Goodrick\u2019s renderings in this quotation\nas being superior to that of the Revised Version; see Swete\u2019s text,\n_The Old Testament in Greek_, ii. p. 606 f.\n\n[483] _Encycl. Bibl._, iv. 5347.\n\n[484] Mr. Gregg (_Op. cit._, p. xxvii.) says: \u201cAttacks upon the unity\nof the book have failed, and no serious effort to dispute it has\nrecently been made.\u201d This is really not quite in accordance with the\nfacts; Mr. Gregg has overlooked some not unimportant contributions\nto the literature on the subject; during the years 1903-1906 quite\nserious efforts have been made to show that the book is of composite\nauthorship by at least five first-rate scholars.\n\n[485] It is true that Wisdom is mentioned in xiv. 2, but it is\nused there in quite a different sense from that of the personified\nsemi-divine Wisdom of part I, a fact which, if anything, strengthens\nthe argument in favour of different authorship.\n\n[486] Toy, in _Encycl. Bibl._, iv. 5338.\n\n[487] _Op. cit._, i. pp. 522, 523.\n\n[488] It should, however, be pointed out that differences of opinion\nexist as to where the dividing line between the two parts lies; Toy\nfollows Houbigant here.\n\n[489] _Op. cit._, p. 77.\n\n[490] It is true that the book opens with an address to rulers; but\nGregg is doubtless right in saying that this \u201cwould seem to be a\npurely rhetorical artifice, screening the real purpose of the book\n...\u201d (_Op. cit._, p. xxi.).\n\n[491] _Op. cit._, pp. xxiii. f.\n\n[492] _The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought_, p.\n231 (1900).\n\n[493] Torrey, in the _Encycl. Bibl._, iii. 2870.\n\n[494] On this obscure episode of pre-Maccab\u00e6an Jewish history see\nB\u00fcchler, _Die Tobiaden und die Oniaden_, pp. 106 ff.\n\n[495] These are very conveniently drawn up in parallel columns by\nMoffatt, in Charles, I, pp. 126, 127.\n\n[496] See above, p. 415.\n\n[497] There are some few scholars who take a different view, e.g.\nNiese, less directly in favour of 2 Maccabees are B\u00fcchler and\nLaqueur, more modified in their opinion are Sluys and Wellhausen,\nsee Sch\u00fcrer, German ed., III, p. 484 (not mentioned in the English\nedition).\n\n[498] The text reads \u201cbelonging to Bacenor\u2019s company,\u201d but this can\nscarcely be right, as in xii. 17-19 Dositheus belongs to the \u201cJews\nthat are called Tubieni.\u201d\n\n[499] _Encycl. Bibl._, iii. 2873 f.\n\n[500] This figure should be \u201ceight\u201d according to 1 Maccabees iv. 95.\n\n[501] The month Chislev = approximately December.\n\n[502] Cp. Torrey, _Encycl. Bibl._, iii. 2875 f.\n\n[503] \u201cThe senate and Judas\u201d in verse 10 should be read, with the\nSyriac Version, \u201cthe senate of the Jews.\u201d\n\n[504] Torrey, _Op. cit._, iii. 2877.\n\n[505] Cp. the far more sober account in 1 Maccabees vi. 8-17.\n\n[506] _Op. cit._, iii. 2876.\n\n[507] _Op. cit._, iii. 2877.\n\n[508] _Antiq._, XII, vii. 7.\n\n[509] Lucius, _Der Essenismus_, pp. 36 ff.\n\n[510] In his _Prologus Galeatus_.\n\n[511] Westcott, in Smith\u2019s _Dict. of the Bibl._, ii. p. 175.\n\n[512] Or \u201cfirst origin.\u201d\n\n[513] E.g., by Iren\u00e6us, _Adv. Haeres._, v. 35; Clement of Alexandria,\n_Paed._, i. 10.\n\n[514] _Intr. to the O.T. in Greek_, p. 274 (1900).\n\n[515] Cp. Charles, _The Apocalypse of Baruch_, pp. xvi. f. (1896).\n\n[516] Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidos, the last king of Babylon,\nwho was overthrown by Cyrus.\n\n[517] See the account given by Josephus, _Bell. Jud._, II, xvii. 3.\n\n[518] See Josephus, _Bell. Jud._, VI, iii. 4, ix. 2, 3.\n\n[519] See the long account given by Josephus, _Bell. Jud._, VI, iv.\n1-7.\n\n[520] Cp. the Pharisaic additions in _Ecclesiasticus_.\n\n[521] See Zunz, _Die Gottesdienstlichen Vortr\u00e4ge der Juden_, passim\n(1892).\n\n[522] I.e., the _Shemoneh Esreh_ (\u201cEighteen Benedictions\u201d); the name\n_Amidah_ (\u201cStanding\u201d) is given to it because it is said standing.\n\n[523] In the liturgy the order of these two clauses is reversed.\n\n[524] I.e. \u201c\u2018Hear,\u2019 O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One,\u201d\nDeuteronomy vi. 4-9; xi. 13-21; Numbers xv. 37-41; in this last the\ndeliverance from Egypt is referred to.\n\n[525] Oesterley and Box, _The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue_,\np. 367 (1911).\n\n[526] According to Cornill, _Einleitung in das Alte Testament_, p.\n274 (1896).\n\n[527] In Hastings\u2019 _Dict. of the Bible_, i. 253.\n\n[528] This was pointed out long ago by Ryle and James, _The Psalms of\nthe Pharisees_, pp. lxxii. ff.\n\n[529] See pp. 214 ff.\n\n[530] _Op. cit._, pp. lxxii.-lxxvii.\n\n[531] In the Revised Version wrongly reckoned as verse 1, which is\nnot done either in the Vulgate or the Septuagint.\n\n[532] xxxvi. 1 in the Septuagint.\n\n[533] In Hastings\u2019 _Dict. of the Bible_, II, 579.\n\n[534] _Encycl. Bibl._, ii. 2395.\n\n[535] See further, p. 439 above. In the Vulgate the Prayer of\nManasses, 1 (3) Esdras and 2 (4) Esdras are not included among the\nApocrypha, but are placed in an Appendix at the end of the whole\nBible, i.e. after the Book of Revelation.\n\n[536] That it was originally written in Hebrew does not admit of\ndoubt. See Box, _Op. cit._, pp. xiii.-xx.\n\n[537] Hastings\u2019 _D.B._, i. 766_a_.\n\n[538] The following is translated from the Latin text edited by\nBensly (see the Literature above); the words in brackets are wanting\nin the Latin, and are supplied from the Syriac Version.\n\n[539] So the Syriac, which is required by the context; the Latin\nreads, \u201cwere burned.\u201d\n\n[540] The text is corrupt here; it reads _multitudo tempestatio_.\n\n[541] Box rightly sees the hand of the Redactor in the form of the\nVision as we now have it; he follows Kabisch in holding that the date\nof the Redactor is A.D. 120, possibly even a little later.\n\n[542] For other interpretations that have been put forth, see\nDrummond, _Op. cit._, pp. 99-114.\n\n[543] The passage v. 56-vi. 6 is a polemic against Christian teaching.\n\n[544] At viii. 63 the dialogue is interrupted by a section on the\nSigns of the End; at ix. 13 it is taken up again.\n\n[545] Maldwyn Hughes, _The Ethics of Jewish Apocryphal Literature_,\np. 240.\n\n[546] Box, _Op. cit._, p. xlvi.\n\n[547] I.e. during the destruction of the city.\n\n[548] This is the cup of inspiration, \u201cfull of the holy spirit,\nwhich, clear as water, is like fire\u201d (Box).\n\n[549] Box, _Op. cit._, p. 305; see also his Introduction, pp. lviii.\nff.\n\n[550] See above, pp. 198 ff.\n\n\n\n\n  TRANSCRIBER\u2019S NOTE\n\n  Footnotes [273], [457], [507] and [512] each have two anchors.\n\n  Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been\n  corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within\n  the text and consultation of external sources.\n\n  Some hyphens in words have been silently removed, some added,\n  when a predominant preference was found in the original book.\n\n  Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text,\n  and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained.\n\n  Pg ix: added missing page number \u201877\u2019 for Ecclesiasticus.\n  Pg xiii: \u2018(1 [3] Esdras)\u2019 replaced by \u2018(1 (3) Esdras)\u2019.\n  Pg xiv: \u2018(2 [4] Esdras)\u2019 replaced by \u2018(2 (4) Esdras)\u2019.\n  Pg 124: \u2018that three are\u2019 replaced by \u2018that there are\u2019.\n  Pg 151: \u2018this pseudepipraphic\u2019 replaced by \u2018this pseudepigraphic\u2019.\n  Pg 174: \u2018he might chose\u2019 replaced by \u2018he might choose\u2019.\n  Pg 202: removed italic markup from \u2018Burkitt\u2019.\n  Pg 237: \u2018should not trangress\u2019 replaced by \u2018should not transgress\u2019.\n  Pg 268: \u2018is my trangression\u2019 replaced by \u2018is my transgression\u2019.\n  Pg 289: \u2018together in the\u2019 replaced by \u2018together is the\u2019.\n  Pg 293: \u2018be sepa   this\u2019 replaced by \u2018be separated from this\u2019.\n  Pg 293: \u2018the world to  me\u2019 replaced by \u2018the world to come\u2019.\n  Pg 386: \u2018was astonied, and\u2019 replaced by \u2018was astonished, and\u2019.\n  Pg 412: \u2018centreing around\u2019 replaced by \u2018centering around\u2019.\n  Pg 439: \u2018(1 [3] Esdras)\u2019 replaced by \u2018(1 (3) Esdras)\u2019.\n  Pg 485: \u2018one is unevitably\u2019 replaced by \u2018one is inevitably\u2019.\n  Pg 509: \u2018(2 [4] Esdras)\u2019 replaced by \u2018(2 (4) Esdras)\u2019.\n  Pg 515: \u2018out of whch\u2019 replaced by \u2018out of which\u2019.\n  Pg 523: \u2018above the firmanent\u2019 replaced by \u2018above the firmament\u2019.\n  Pg 535: entry \u2018Civitis\u2019 moved up to its proper position.\n\n  Footnote [240]: \u2018Ecclesiaticus\u2019 replaced by \u2018Ecclesiasticus\u2019.","title":"The books of the Apocrypha : $b their origin, teaching and contents","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":183178}