i. Canonical:--
Isaiah xxiv.-xxvii.; xxxiii.; xxxiv.-xxxv.
(Jeremiah xxxiii. 14-26?)
Ezekiel ii. 8; xxxviii.-xxxix.
Joel iii. 9-17.
Zech. xii--xiv.
Daniel.
We cannot enter here into a discussion of the above passages and
books.[1] All are probably pseudepigraphic except the passages from
Ezekiel and Joel. Of the remaining passages and books Daniel belongs
unquestionably to the Maccabean period, and the rest possibly to the
same period. Isaiah xxxiii. was probably written about 163 B.C. (Duhm
and Marti); Zech. xii.-xiv. about 160 B.C., Isaiah xxiv.-xxvii. about
128 B.C., and xxxiv.-xxxv. sometime in the reign of John Hyrcanus.
Jeremiah xxxiii. 14-26 is assigned by Marti to Maccabean times, but this
is highly questionable.
ii. Extra-canonical:--
(a) _Palestinian_:--
(200-100 B.C.)
Book of Noah.
1 Enoch vi.-xxxvi.; lxxii.-xc.
Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs.
(100 B.C. to 1 B.C.)
1 Enoch i.-v.; xxxvii.-lxxi.; xci.-civ.
Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs, i.e. T. Lev. x., xiv.-xvi., T. Jud.
xxi. 6-xxiii, T. Zeb. ix., T. Dan. v. 6, 7.
Psalms of Solomon.
(A.D. 1-100 and later.)
Assumption of Moses.
Apocalypse of Baruch.
4 Ezra.
Greek Apocalypse of Baruch.
Apocalypse of Zephaniah.
Apocalypse of Abraham.
Prayer of Joseph.
Book of Eldad and Modad.
Apocalypse of Elijah.
(b) _Hellenistic_:--
2 Enoch.
Oracles of Hystaspes.
Testament of Job.
Testaments of the III. Patriarchs.
Sibylline Oracles (excluding Christian portions).
_Book of Noah._--Though this book has not come down to us independently,
it has in large measure been incorporated in the Ethiopic Book of Enoch,
and can in part be reconstructed from it. The Book of Noah is mentioned
in Jubilees x. 13, xxi. 10. Chapters lx., lxv.-lxix. 25 of the Ethiopic
Enoch are without question derived from it. Thus lx. 1 runs: "In the
year 500, in the seventh month ... in the life of Enoch." Here the
editor simply changed the name Noah in the context before him into
Enoch, for the statement is based on Gen. v. 32, and Enoch lived only
365 years. Chapters vi.-xi. are clearly from the same source; for they
make no reference to Enoch, but bring forward Noah (x. 1) and treat of
the sin of the angels that led to the flood, and of their temporal and
eternal punishment. This section is compounded of the Semjaza and Azazel
myths, and in its present composite form is already presupposed by 1
Enoch lxxxviii.-xc. Hence these chapters are earlier than 166 B.C.
Chapters cvi.-cvii. of the same book are probably from the same source;
likewise liv. 7-lv. 2, and Jubilees vii. 20-39, x. 1-15. In the former
passage of Jubilees the subject-matter leads to this identification, as
well as the fact that Noah is represented as speaking in the first
person, although throughout Jubilees it is the angel that speaks.
Possibly Eth. En. xli. 3-8, xliii.-xliv., lix. are from the same work.
The book may have opened with Eth. En. cvi.-cvii. On these chapters may
have followed Eth. En. vi.-xi., lxv.-lxix. 25, lx., xli. 3-8,
xliii.-xliv., liv. 7-lv. 2; Jubilees vii. 26-39, x. 1-15.
The Hebrew Book of Noah, a later work, is printed in Jellinek's _Bet
ha-Midrasch_, iii. 155-156, and translated into German in Ronsch, _Das
Buch der Jubilaen_, 385-387. It is based on the part of the above Book
of Noah which is preserved in the _Book of Jubilees_. The portion of
this Hebrew work which is derived from the older work is reprinted in
Charles's _Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Book of Jubilees_, p. 179.
_1 Enoch, or the Ethiopic Book of Enoch._--This is the most important of
all the apocryphal writings for the history of religious thought. Like
the Pentateuch, the Psalms, the Megilloth and the Pirke Aboth, this work
was divided into five parts, which, as we shall notice presently, spring
from five different sources. Originally written partly in Aramaic (i.e.
vi.-xxxvi.) and partly in Hebrew (i.-vi., xxxvii.-cviii.), it was
translated into Greek, and from Greek into Ethiopic and possibly Latin.
Only one-fifth of the Greek version in two forms survives. The various
elements of the book were written by different authors at different
dates, vi.-xxxvi. was written before 166 B.C., lxxii.-lxxxii. before the
_Book of Jubilees_, i.e. before 120 B.C. or thereabouts, lxxxiii.-xc.
about 166 B.C., i.-v., xci.-civ. before 95 B.C., and xxxvii.-lxxi.
before 64 B.C. There are many interpolations drawn mainly from the Book
of Noah.
_Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs._--This book, in some respects the
most important of Old Testament apocryphs, has only recently come into
its own. Till a few years ago, owing to Christian interpolations, it was
taken to be a Christian apocryph, written originally in Greek in the 2nd
century A.D. Now it is acknowledged by Christian and Jewish scholars
alike to have been written in Hebrew in the 2nd century B.C. From Hebrew
it was translated into Greek and from Greek into Armenian and Slavonic.
The versions have come down in their entirety, and small portions of the
Hebrew text have been recovered from later Jewish writings. The
Testaments were written about the same date as the _Book of Jubilees_.
These two books form the only Apology in Jewish literature for the
religious and civil hegemony of the Maccabees from the Pharisaic
standpoint. To the Jewish interpolation of the 1st century B.C. (about
60-40), i.e. T. Lev. x., xiv.-xvi.; T. Jud. xxii.-xxiii., &c., a large
interest attaches; for these, like I Enoch xci.-civ. and the Psalms of
Solomon, constitute an unmeasured attack on every office--prophetic,
priestly and kingly--administered by the Maccabees. The ethical
character of the book is of the highest type, and its profound influence
on the writers of the New Testament is yet to be appreciated. (See
TESTAMENTS OF THE XII. PATRIARCHS.)
_Psalms of Solomon._--These psalms, in all eighteen, enjoyed but small
consideration in early times, for only six direct references to them are
found in early literature. Their ascription to Solomon is due solely to
the copyists or translators, for no such claim is made in any of the
psalms. On the whole, Ryle and James are no doubt right in assigning
70-40 B.C. as the limits within which the psalms were written. The
authors were Pharisees. They divide their countrymen into two
classes--"the righteous," ii. 38-39, iii. 3-5, 7, 8, &c., and "the
sinners," ii. 38, iii. 13, iv. 9, &c.; "the saints," iii. 10, &c., and
"the transgressors," iv. II, &c. The former are the Pharisees; the
latter the Sadducees. They protest against the Asmonaean house for
usurping the throne of David, and laying violent hands on the high
priesthood (xvii. 5, 6, 8), and proclaim the coming of the Messiah, the
Son of David, who is to set all things right and establish the supremacy
of Israel. Pss. xvii.-xviii. and i.-xvi. cannot be assigned to the same
authorship. The hopes of the Messiah are confined to the former, and a
somewhat different eschatology underlies the two works. Since the Psalms
were written in Hebrew, and intended for public worship in the
synagogues, it is most probable that they were composed in Palestine.
(See SOLOMON, THE PSALMS OF.)
_The Assumption of Moses_.--This book was lost for many centuries till a
large fragment of it was discovered by Ceriani in 1861 (_Monumenta
Sacra_, I. i. 55-64) from a palimpsest of the 6th century. Very little
was known about the contents of this book prior to this discovery. The
present book is possibly the long-lost [Greek: Diatheke Mouseos]
mentioned in some ancient lists, for it never speaks of the assumption
of Moses, but always of his natural death. About a half of the original
Testament is preserved in the Latin version. The latter half probably
dealt with questions about the creation. With this "Testament" the
"Assumption," to which almost all the patristic references and that of
Jude are made, was subsequently edited. The book was written between 4
B.C. and A.D. 7. As for the author, he was no Essene, for he recognizes
animal sacrifices and cherishes the Messianic hope; he was not a
Sadducee, for he looks forward to the establishment of the Messianic
kingdom (x.); nor a Zealot, for the quietistic ideal is upheld (ix.),
and the kingdom is established by God Himself (x.). He is therefore a
Chasid of the ancient type, and glorifies the ideals which were
cherished by the old Pharisaic party, but which were now being fast
disowned in favour of a more active role in the political life of the
nation. He pours his most scathing invectives on the Sadducees, who are
described in vii. in terms that recall the anti-Sadducean Psalms of
Solomon. His object, therefore, is to protest against the growing
secularization of the Pharisaic party through its adoption of popular
Messianic beliefs and political ideals. (See also MOSES, ASSUMPTION OF.)
_Apocalypse of Baruch--The Syriac._--This apocalypse has survived only
in the Syriac version. The Syriac is a translation from the Greek, and
the Greek in turn from the Hebrew. The book treats of the Messiah and
the Messianic kingdom, the woes of Israel in the past and the
destruction of Jerusalem in the present, as well as of theological
questions relating to original sin, free will, works, &c. The views
expressed on several of these subjects are often conflicting. We must,
therefore, assume a number of independent sources put together by an
editor or else that the book is on the whole the work of one author who
made use of independent writings but failed to blend them into one
harmonious whole. In its present form the book was written soon after
A.D. 70. For fuller treatment see BARUCH.
_4 Ezra._--This apocryph is variously named. In the first Arabic and
Ethiopic versions it is called I Ezra; in some Latin MSS. and in the
English authorized version it is 2 Ezra, and in the Armenian 3 Ezra.
With the majority of the Latin MSS. we designate the book 4 Ezra. In its
fullest form this apocryph consists of sixteen chapters, but i.-ii. and
xv.-xvi. are of different authorship from each other and from the main
work iii.-xiv. The book was written originally in Hebrew. There are
Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic (two), and Armenian versions. The Greek
version is lost. This apocalypse is of very great importance, on account
of its very full treatment of the theological questions rife in the
latter half of the 1st century of the Christian era. The book, even if
written by one author, was based on a variety of already existing works.
It springs from the same school of thought as the _Apocalypse of
Baruch_, and its affinities with the latter are so numerous and profound
that scholars have not yet come to any consensus as to the relative
priority of either. In its present form it was composed A.D. 80-100. For
fuller treatment see EZRA.
_Apocalypse of Baruch--The Greek._--This work is referred to by Origen
(_de Princip._ II. iii. 6): "Denique etiam Baruch prophetae librum in
assertionis hujus' testimonium vocant, quod ibi de septem mundis vel
caelis evidentius indicatur." This book survives in two forms in
Slavonic and Greek. The former was translated by Bonwetsch in 1896, in
the _Nachrichten von der konigl. Ges. der Wiss. zu, Gott_. pp. 91-101;
the latter by James in 1897 in _Anecdota_, ii. 84-94, with an elaborate
introduction (pp. li.-lxxi.). The Slavonic is only of secondary value,
as it is merely an abbreviated form of the Greek. Even the Greek cannot
claim to be the original work, but only to be a recension of it; for,
whereas Origen states that this apocalypse contained an account of the
seven heavens, the existing Greek work describes only five, and the
Slavonic only two. As the original, work presupposes 2 Enoch and the
Syriac _Apocalypse of Baruch_ and was known to Origen, it was written
between A.D. 80 and 200, and nearer the earlier date than the later, as
it would otherwise be hard to understand how it came to circulate among
Christians. The superscription shows points of connexion with the _Rest
of the Words of Baruch_, but little weight can be attached to the fact,
since titles and superscriptions were so frequently transformed and
expanded in ancient times. As James and Kohler have pointed out, part of
section 4 on the Vine is a Christian addition. A German translation of
the Greek appears in Kautzsch's _Apok. u. Pseud_, ii. 448-457, and a
strong article by Kohler on the Jewish authorship of the book in the
_Jewish Encyclopedia_, ii. 549-551. (See BARUCH.)
_Apocalypse of Abraham._--This book is found only in the Slavonic
(edited by Bonwetsch, _Studien zur Geschichte d. Theologie und Kirche_,
1897), a translation from the Greek. It is of Jewish origin, but in part
worked over by a Christian reviser. The first part treats of Abraham's
conversion, and the second forms an apocalyptic expansion of Gen. xv.
This book was possibly known to the author of the _Clem. Recognitions_,
i. 32, a passage, however, which may refer to Jubilees. It is most
probably distinct from the [Greek: Apokalepsis Abraam] used by the
gnostic Sethites (Epiphanius, _Haer_. xxxix. 5), which was very
heretical. On the other hand, it is probably identical with the
apocryphal book [Greek: Abraam] mentioned in the Stichometry of
Nicephorus, and the Synopsis Athanasii, together with the Apocalypses of
Enoch, &c.
_Lost Apocalypses: Prayer of Joseph._--The _Prayer of Joseph_ is quoted
by Origen [_In Joann._ II. xxv, (Lommatzsch, i. 147, 148); _in Gen._
III. ix. (Lommatzsch, viii. 30-31)]. The fragments in Origen represent
Jacob as speaking and claiming to be "the first servant in God's
presence," "the first-begotten of every creature animated by God," and
declaring that the angel who wrestled with Jacob (and was identified by
Christians with Christ) was only eighth in rank. The work was obviously
anti-Christian. (See Schurer[3], iii. 265-266.)
_Book of Eldad and Modad._--This book was written in the name of the two
prophets mentioned in Num. xi. 26-29. It consisted, according to the
Targ. Jon. on Num. xi. 26-20, mainly of prophecies on Magog's last
attack on Israel. The Shepherd of Hermas quotes it _Vis._ ii. 3. (See
Marshall in Hastings' _Bible Dictionary_, i. 677.)
_Apocalypse of Elijah._--This apocalypse is mentioned in two of the
lists of books. Origen, Ambrosiaster, and Euthalius ascribe to it I Cor.
ii. 9. If they are right, the apocalypse is pre-Pauline. The peculiar
form in which I Cor. ii. 9 appears in Clemens Alex. _Protrept._ x. 94,
and the _Const. Apost._ vii. 32, shows that both have the same source,
probably this apocalypse. Epiphanius (_Haer._ xlii., ed. Oehler, vol.
ii. 678) ascribes to this work Eph. v. 14. Isr. Levi (_Revue des etudes
juives_, 1880, i. 108 sqq.) argues for the existence of a Hebrew
apocalypse of Elijah from two Talmudic passages. A late work of this
name has been published by Jellinek, _Bet ha-Midrasch_, 1855, iii.
65-68, and Buttenwieser in 1897. Zahn, _Gesch. des N.T. Kanons_, ii.
801-810, assigns this apocalypse to the 2nd century A.D. (See
Schurer[3], iii. 267-271.)
_Apocalypse of Zephaniah._--Apart from two of the lists this work is
known to us in its original form only through a citation in Clem. Alex.
_Strom._ v. II, 77. A Christian revision of it is probably preserved in
the two dialects of Coptic. Of these the Akhmim text is the original of
the Sahidic. These texts and their translations have been edited by
Steindorff, _Die Apokalypse des Elias, eine unbekannte Apokalypse und
Bruchstucke der Sophonias-Apokalypse_ (1809). As Schurer (_Theol.
Literaturzeitung_, 1899, No. I. 4-8) has shown, these fragments belong
most probably to the Zephaniah apocalypse. They give descriptions of
heaven and hell, and predictions of the Antichrist. In their present
form these Christianized fragments are not earlier than the 3rd century.
(See Schurer, _Gesch. des jud. Volkes[3]_, iii. 271-273.)
2 _Enoch_, or the _Slavonic Enoch_, or the _Book of the Secrets of
Enoch._--This new fragment of the Enochic literature was recently
brought to light through five MSS. discovered in Russia and Servia. The
book in its present form was written before A.D. 70 in Greek by an
orthodox Hellenistic Jew, who lived in Egypt. For a fuller account see
ENOCH.
_Oracles of Hystaspes._--See under _N. T. Apocalypses_, below.
_Testament of Job._--This book was first printed from one MS. by Mai,
_Script. Vet. Nov. Coll._ (1833), VII. i. 180, and translated into
French in Migne's _Dict. des Apocryphes_, ii. 403. An excellent edition
from two MSS. is given by M.R. James, _Apocrypha Anecdota_, ii. pp.
lxxii.-cii., 104-137, who holds that the book in its present form was
written by a Christian Jew in Egypt on the basis of a Hebrew Midrash on
Job in the 2nd or 3rd century A.D. Kohler (_Kohut Memorial Volume_,
1897, pp. 264-338) has given good grounds for regarding the whole work,
with the exception of some interpolations, as "one of the most
remarkable productions of the pre-Christian era, explicable only when
viewed in the light of Hasidean practice." See _Jewish Encycl._ vii.
200-202.
_Testaments of the III. Patriarchs._--For an account of these three
Testaments (referred to in the _Apost. Const._ vi. 16), the first of
which only is preserved in the Greek and is assigned by James to the 2nd
century A.D., see that scholar's "Testament of Abraham," _Texts and
Studies_, ii. 2 (1892), which appears in two recensions from six and
three MSS. respectively, and Vassiliev's _Anecdota Graeco-Byzantina_,
(1893), pp. 292-308, from one MS. already used by James. This work was
written in Egypt, according to James, and survives also in Slavonic,
Rumanian, Ethiopic, and Arabic versions. It deals with Abraham's
reluctance to die and the means by which his death was brought about.
James holds that this book is referred to by Origen (_Hom. in Luc._
xxxv.), but this is denied by Schurer, who also questions its Jewish
origin. With the exception of chaps. x.-xi., it is really a legend and
not an apocalypse. An English translation of James's texts will be found
in the _Ante-Nicene Christian Library_ (Clark, 1897), pp. 185-201. The
Testaments of Isaac and Jacob are still preserved in Arabic and Ethiopic
(see James, _op. cit._ 140-161). See TESTAMENTS OF THE III. PATRIARCHS.
_Sibylline Oracles._--Of the books which have come down to us the main
part is Jewish, and was written at various dates, iii. 97-829, iv.-v.
are decidedly of Jewish authorship, and probably xi.-xii., xiv. and
parts of i.-ii. The oldest portions are in iii., and belong to the 2nd
century B.C.