Traces of Greek Influence in the Old Testament and in the Apocrypha
[LITERATURE.—See the books cited in the footnotes.]
I. REFERENCES TO THE GREEKS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
There are some few passages in the Old Testament which witness to a
knowledge of the Greeks on the part of the Jews; these may be briefly
alluded to by way of introduction.
The Hebrew form for the land of the Ionians, or Greeks, is _Javan_;
this is mentioned, though without further detail, in Genesis x. 2; 1
Chronicles i. 5, 7. As early as the eighth century B.C. the Greeks
pressed forward to the east.[91] Again, in the lamentation for Tyre
(Ezek. xxvii. 13) it is said: “Javan, Tubal and Meshech, they were
thy traffickers; they traded with the persons of men and vessels
of brass for thy merchandise” (cp. also verse 9). This subject is
referred to again in Joel iii. (Heb. iv.) 6-8, in a woe pronounced
against Tyre and Zidon, and the Philistines: “The children also of
Judah and the children of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the sons of
the Grecians, that ye might remove them far from their border ...”;
these last words, “far from their border,” suggest that the reference
is to the Greek colonies in the far west. From the fifth century
B.C. onwards Syrian slaves, among whom Jews must be reckoned, were
much sought after by the Greeks.[92] In Isaiah xxiv. 14, 15 it is
probable that “the songs of praise which the Jews in far countries
raise in honour of Jahweh were the result of Alexander the Great’s
victorious march through Asia Minor in B.C. 334.”[93] Mention is
made of Javan in Isaiah lxvi. 19, it is there reckoned among those
nations to whom the glory of Jehovah shall be declared; according to
Zechariah ix. 13-15, on the other hand, Judah and Ephraim are to be
Jehovah’s instruments for the punishing of the sons of Javan. And,
once more, in Daniel viii. 21, x. 20, xi. 2, there are references
to the Græco-Macedonian empire. In addition to these there are two
or three references to the Greeks in the Septuagint which are not
without significance. In Isaiah ix. 12 (11) it is said that Syria
from the east and the Hellenes from the west are the destroyers of
Israel; in the Hebrew text “Philistines” stands for “Hellenes,” which
is doubtless the right reading; but the Septuagint rendering is of
interest as showing that, when the translation was made, the real
danger for the Jews was the Greek nation. The same belief evidently
underlies the Septuagint form of Jeremiah xxvi. (= xlvi. in the
Hebrew) 16: “Let us arise and let us return to our people, to our
fatherland, from the face of the Hellenic sword”; the Hebrew, which
has again the correct reading, has “the oppressing sword” instead
of “the Hellenic sword.” The same substitution for the Hebrew word
occurs again in the Septuagint of Jeremiah xxvii. (= l. in the
Hebrew) 16.
These practically exhaust the actual references to the Greeks in
the Old Testament; but traces of Greek influence are probably to be
discerned in other directions.
This influence is obvious in those cases, though they are but few
in number, in which Greek words are adapted; this occurs only in
the Book of Daniel, where a few Greek words for musical instruments
appear in an aramaized form, viz., _psantērîn_, _symphōnia_, in
Daniel iii. 5, and _kaithros_ in iii. 7 (cp. also iii. 10, 15); the
form of the word _psantērîn_ is interesting, because “this form
alongside of the Greek _psaltērion_ proves the influence of the
Macedonian dialect which substituted _n_ for _l_.”[94]
II. TRACES OF GREEK INFLUENCE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
The question as to the existence or otherwise of Hellenistic
influence in certain other books of the Old Testament is a difficult
one upon which much diversity of opinion exists among scholars.
We turn first to the Psalms. The majority of scholars are agreed
that a number of the Psalms belong to the Greek and Maccabæan
eras,[95] and if this is so the possibility of Greek influence
being discerned in them must be recognized. It is always precarious
to base conclusions upon what is assumed to be the political
situation depicted in any particular psalm; but considerations of
another character may well indicate the _age_ to which a psalm in
all probability belongs; for example, that the conditions which
form the background of many of the Psalms are those brought about
through contact with Hellenism during the period of the Ptolemaic
and Seleucid rule is proved by the fact that in a number of them
a plaintive cry, or vehement denunciation, is uttered not only on
account of the domination of the heathen, but also because within
the Jewish community itself a religious cleft has occurred; so that
a distinction is made between those of Israel who are faithful to
the Law, and those who are renegades and who are, therefore, classed
with the Gentiles.[96] When it is realized that there is no period
in Jewish history, excepting that just referred to, during which
conditions such as these obtained, it will be granted that there is
ample justification for assigning the Psalms in question to the Greek
period. We agree, therefore, with Friedländer in his belief that the
conflict between the god-fearing, pious Israelites, and the godless,
with which these Psalms are full, really reflects the attitude of
the champions of the old orthodoxy, which was founded by Ezra,
towards the rising tide of Hellenism.[97] Hellenistic influence, as
reflected in certain of the Psalms, therefore, is only to be seen
with certainty in that these witness to a state of affairs within
the community of Israel brought about by the spread of the Greek
spirit.[98]
In the next place we look at the Proverbs. Here it is the first nine
chapters with which we are concerned; there is a general consensus
of opinion among modern scholars that these chapters form the latest
portion of the book. The marks of Hellenistic influence are briefly
as follows: Firstly, _individualism_; Wisdom cries, for example, in
viii. 4:
Unto you, O men, I call,
And my voice is to the sons of men.
Again in ix. 4-6 she cries:
Whoso is simple let him turn in hither;
As for him that is void of understanding, she saith to him,
Come, eat ye of my bread,
And drink of the wine which I have mingled.
Leave off, ye simple ones, and live,
And walk in the way of understanding.
Here, and in other similar passages, it is the individual who is of
importance, not the nation, as in earlier days.
Secondly, _universalism_; Wisdom says (viii. 15, 16):
By me kings reign,
And princes decree justice.
By me rulers rule,
And nobles, even all the judges of the earth.
There is here no restriction to the rulers of the Jewish nation;
Wisdom is for all men, and her sway is worldwide for those who will
have her:
I love those that love me;
And those that seek me diligently shall find me (viii. 17).
A third mark of Hellenistic influence is the _allegorical form_ which
appears in this book, and especially in the first nine chapters[99];
the most striking example of this is the “strange woman” spoken of in
chapter ii. and elsewhere:
Which forsaketh the friend of her youth,
And forgetteth the covenant of God;
For her house inclineth unto death,
And her paths unto the dead ... (ii. 17-19).
This “strange woman” is undoubtedly an allegorical person; she is a
personification of the new Hellenistic spirit which, on its bad side,
encouraged unbridled licence and led away from God[100]; we have seen
above that there was a debased form of Hellenism which was especially
present in Syria. This interpretation of what was meant by the
“strange woman” was that of some of the early Church Fathers.[101]
The writer of these chapters is thus, probably unconsciously,
influenced by the more excellent _traits_ of the Hellenistic spirit,
but is fully alive to its dangers and warns his readers against them.
Lastly, a fourth mark of Hellenistic influence is the
_hypostatization of Wisdom_; the classical passage is viii. 22-36,
from which a few verses may be quoted:
The Lord possessed me in the beginning of His way,
Before His works of old.
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning,
Or ever the earth was....
When He established the heavens, I was there;
When He set a circle upon the face of the deep....
Then I was by Him, as a master workman,
And I was daily His delight....
That such thoughts are due to Greek influence scarcely admits of
doubt.[102]
We come next to the book of Job. In reference to this O. Holtzmann
says with much force that in this book “we have to do with a
religious-philosophical work; and, so far as we know, the Israelites
never evinced any inclination for philosophy until they came in
contact with Hellenism. Further, we must draw attention to the fact
that the book of Job has as its background the form of a novel,
which flourished everywhere among the Greeks; and this is one of the
clearest signs of the individualistic tendency which predominated at
this period.... Moreover, the form of dialogue which is peculiar to
this book receives thus a new significance; we have here, without
doubt, a Hebrew imitation of the philosophic dialogue of Plato; and
here one should recall how Plato meditated upon the causes of human
suffering, and how he, too, appreciated the grandeur and beauty of
the world.”[103] The author of the book of Job takes up a position
of antagonism towards the old orthodoxy, represented by the three
friends, as well as towards the new Hellenistic spirit, the ultimate
consequence of which must, as he sees, lead to atheism, pure and
simple. His position is thus, in this respect, similar to that of
the author of Proverbs i.-ix. Friedländer sees in the three friends
the “pious ones” of the Psalms.[104] Further, we have in the book
of Job a conception of Wisdom somewhat similar to that of Proverbs;
in the long passage, xxviii. 12-28, Wisdom is conceived of as God’s
co-operator, see especially verses 20-27; but unlike the teaching
of Proverbs on the subject, there is not the intimate relationship
existing between Wisdom and men; there is only a brief allusion to
this in verse 28.
In the book of Ecclesiastes it is held by many scholars that traces
of Greek philosophy are to be discerned. Tyler, for example, shows
that the passage, iii. 1-8, which gives a catalogue of times and
seasons, is an echo of the teaching of the Stoics that men should
live according to nature.[105] Again, the thought contained in iii.
18, 19 (“... that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts;
even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other;
yea, they have all one breath; and man hath no pre-eminence above the
beasts; for all is vanity ...”) is certainly in accordance with the
Epicurean teaching regarding the mortality of the soul.[106] Barton
argues strongly against these views[107]; but cogent as many of his
arguments are, they are not convincing in every case; this applies
especially to what he says in reference to the passage, iii. 18, 19:
“Koheleth’s denial of immortality differs from the Epicurean denial.
His is but a passing doubt; it is not dogmatically expressed, and
at the end (xii. 7) his doubt has vanished, and he reasserts the
older Jewish view (Gen. ii. 7). This older view was not an assertion
of immortality, but the primitive conception that the breath comes
from God and goes back to Him. The Epicureans, on the other hand,
dogmatically argued for the non-immortality of the soul, and
possessed well-assured theories about it.”[108] This argument is not
very convincing; at any rate, it does not disprove our present point,
which is that the _traces of Greek influence_ are to be discerned in
this book. Cornill’s sober _dictum_ on the subject generally is, we
feel convinced, the right one, when he says: “The question whether
_Koheleth_ shows immediate knowledge of and dependence upon Greek
philosophy is an open one; but so much appears certain, that such a
work could only have been produced by a Jewish mind imbued, or at
least influenced, by Hellenism.”[109] St. Jerome, in commenting on
the passage, ix. 7-9 (“Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink
thy wine with a merry heart ...”), remarks that the writer appears
to be reproducing some Epicurean ideas[110]; Cheyne is not surprised
at this, for the book is, as he says, “conspicuous by its want of a
native Jewish background ... it obviously stands at the close of the
great Jewish humanistic movement, and gives an entirely new colour to
the traditional humanism by its sceptical tone and its commendations
of sensuous pleasure”; and a little further on he says that “it is
perfectly possible to hold that there are distinctively Epicurean
doctrines in _Koheleth_. The later history of Jewish thought may well
seem to render this opinion probable. How dangerously fascinating
Epicureanism must have been when the word ‘Epicuros’ became a
synonym in Rabbinic Hebrew for infidel or even atheist.”[111] Cheyne
does not, however, believe in any traces of Greek influence, whether
Epicurean or Stoic, in the book. “I do not see,” he says, “that we
_must_ admit even a vague Greek influence. The inquiring spirit was
present in the class of ‘wise men’ even before the Exile, and the
circumstances of the later Jews were, from the Exile onwards, well
fitted to exercise and develop it. Hellenic teaching was in no way
necessary to an ardent but unsystematic thinker like Koheleth.”[112]
It is largely a question of the probabilities of the case; for, in
discussing the whole question of the presence or otherwise of traces
of Hellenistic influence in some of the later books of the Old
Testament,[113] we must keep before our minds the fact of the spread
of the Hellenistic spirit from the death of Alexander the Great
onwards, and the way in which (as we have seen in a previous chapter)
it affected the Jews in manifold directions. The important evidence
of 1 Maccabees i. 11 is worth recalling here: “In those days came
there forth out of Israel transgressors of the Law, and persuaded
many, saying, Let us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles that
are round about us; for since we parted from them many evils have
befallen us.” Two points come out clearly here: there was evidently
a strong Hellenistic party among the Jews in Palestine since these
transgressors of the Law “came forth out of Israel”; the passage
also shows that some time previously relations had existed between
these Hellenistic Jews and the Gentiles, as the writer says, “since
we parted from them.” The Maccabæan rising was, therefore, the
culminating point of a movement that had been going on long before,
viz., a conflict between orthodox and Hellenistic Jews, the latter
being supported by the ruling powers; or if conflict is too strong
a word to use, then let us say, at any rate, opposing tendencies. It
is, moreover, highly probable that the action of Antiochus Epiphanes
in seeking to stamp out Judaism was largely prompted by his knowledge
of the existence of considerable numbers of Jews who were in sympathy
with his plan; this seems clear from 1 Maccabees i. 13, where we read
further: “And certain of the people were forward herein and went to
the king (i.e., Antiochus Epiphanes), and he gave them licence to do
after the ordinances of the Gentiles.” If the Jews of Palestine were
thus surrounded by Gentiles, and were, as we have already seen to
be the case, strongly influenced by the Hellenistic spirit, whether
orthodox or not, it would be according to expectation to find marks
of this influence in those books of the Old Testament which belong
to the Hellenistic period. In the particular case of Ecclesiastes
it is granted that analogies between Greek philosophy and its ideas
exist[114]; it appears to us, therefore, more probable that these
ideas, in view of what has just been said, were due to the influence
of Greek thought rather than that they were independently reached.
III. TRACES OF GREEK INFLUENCE IN THE APOCRYPHA
There are only two books of the Apocrypha which come into
consideration here, but they are the two most important.
First we have the Wisdom of Ben-Sira or Ecclesiasticus.
Ben-Sira was an orthodox Jew; but in spite of this he betrays in his
book the influence that Greek culture had upon him, and is thus an
interesting example of the way in which the Hellenistic spirit worked
upon men unconsciously. He wrote his book with the purpose, among
others, of demonstrating the superiority of Jewish over Greek wisdom,
so that from this point of view Ecclesiasticus may be regarded as an
apologetic work.
The traces of Hellenistic influence in this book are to be found in
general conception rather than in definite form; for example, the
identification of virtue with knowledge is a distinctly Hellenistic
_trait_, and is treated in this book as axiomatic. No longer are
divine and human wisdom looked upon as though opposed the one to
the other, as had been the case in days gone by; Ben-Sira teaches,
and this is characteristic of the Wisdom literature generally,
that wisdom is the one thing of all others which is indispensable
to him who would lead a godly life. That there is no opposition
between divine and human wisdom was a doctrine for which Ben-Sira
was indebted, whether directly or indirectly is not the point, to
the influence of Hellenism. In this book the evil of wickedness
is represented as lying in the fact that wickedness is folly, and
therefore essentially opposed to Wisdom; on the other hand, the Jews
as a body were faithful to the Torah, or Law, whose ordinances were
binding because it was the revealed will of God; therefore, in order
to reconcile this traditional teaching with the newer teaching that
Wisdom is man’s main requirement, Wisdom became identified with the
Torah: “the fear of the Lord [i.e., the observance of the Torah]
is the beginning [i.e., the highest form] of Wisdom.” This is the
foundation-stone of the Jewish Wisdom literature; and it formed the
reconciling link between Judaism and Hellenism in this domain.[115]
This identification is nowhere more evident than in Ecclesiasticus;
throughout Ben-Sira inculcates the need of observing the commandments
of the Law which is man’s highest wisdom, but the Law is the
expression of the divine wisdom; so that he truly says:
If thou desire wisdom keep the commandments,
And the Lord will give her freely unto thee (i. 26).
Further, the existence of the influence of Greek philosophy among
some of the cultured Jews of Palestine is reflected in the book in
that Ben-Sira controverts the fatalistic philosophy of the Stoics;
see, for example, such a passage as the following:
Say not, “From God is my transgression”;
For that which He hateth made He not.
Say not, “It is He that made me to stumble,”
For there is no need of evil men (xv. 11, 12).
The Stoic enumeration of the human senses seems to have been in
the mind of one who added these words after xvii. 4: “They [i.e.,
men] received the use of five powers [i.e., the five senses] of the
Lord; but as sixth He also accorded them the gift of understanding
(_nous_), and as a seventh the Word (_logos_), the interpreter of His
powers.”
In one passage Ben-Sira utters words which sound rather like an echo
of Epicurean philosophy:
Give not thy soul to sorrow,
And let not thyself become unsteadied with care.
Heart-joy is life for a man,
And human gladness prolongeth days.
Entice thyself, and soothe thine heart,
And banish vexation from thee;
For sorrow hath slain many,
And there is no profit in vexation.
Envy and anger shorten days,
And anxiety maketh old untimely.
The sleep of a cheerful heart is like dainties,
And his food is agreeable unto him
(xxx. 21-25, according to the Hebrew).
In summing up the traces of Greek influence upon Ben-Sira, Prof.
Israel Levi says: “The fatalistic philosophers whose opinions he
contests were doubtless the Stoics; and the philosophical discussions
instituted by him were innovations and probably borrowed. His
criticisms of sceptics and would-be freethinkers are further
evidences of his knowledge of Hellenism; and some of his views find
close analogues in Euripides. Not only does he share characteristic
ideas with the Greek tragedians and moralists, but he even has the
same taste for certain common topics, such as false friendship, the
uncertainty of happiness, and especially the faults of women. The
impression of Greek influence is strengthened by the presence of a
polish quite foreign to Hebrew literature.”[116] This may or may
not be somewhat over-stated, but there can scarcely be any doubt
that, although the Judaic elements in the book preponderate to an
overwhelming degree, yet Hellenic traits are to be discerned to a
certain extent. Prof. Levi sees the results of Greek influence in
some other directions in the book; thus he says that “the customs
which he (i.e., Ben-Sira) describes are taken from Greek rather
than from Hebrew society; thus he mentions banquets accompanied by
brilliant conversation,[117] at which musical instruments were heard,
and over which presided ‘the master of the feast.’” At the same time
it is only right to point out that some scholars deny that there are
any signs of Greek influence in the book.
We turn now to the book of Wisdom which, as a product of the Judaism
of the Dispersion, is full of the Hellenistic spirit. The best way
to deal with this interesting but somewhat intricate subject will be
to illustrate by quotations the different Greek philosophical ideas
contained in the book, and then to indicate the teaching of the
Greek philosophers in each case; in this way the influence of Greek
philosophy in the book will be clearly seen.
(_a_) _The doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul._
That this is taken for granted is clear from the words in viii. 19,
20:
Now I was a child good by nature, and a good soul fell to my lot;
Nay, rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled.
And again, in xv. 8, though here pre-existence is not necessarily
implied:
... When the soul which was lent him shall again be demanded.
And, once more, in reference to the foolish man who manufactures
idols, it is said (xv. 11):
Because he was ignorant of Him that moulded him,
And of Him that inspired into him an active soul,
And breathed into him a vital spirit.
A great deal depends here upon the question of authorship, or at any
rate upon the point of view of the writer; for it will be noticed
that the first of these quotations comes from part i. of the book,
while the last two are from part ii. We will speak of the point of
view of the writer without assuming that either one or two writers
is in question. There are two points of view represented in these
verses; the ordinary Jewish belief is expressed by the words: “Now
I was a child good by nature, and a good soul fell to my lot,” as
well as by the two other quotations. On the other hand, a point of
view influenced by Greek thought appears in the words: “Nay, rather,
being good, I came into a body undefiled.” It is well to point out
first that according to the ordinary Jewish belief there was no clear
conception of any difference between soul and spirit; the Hebrew
word for “soul” is _nĕphĕsh_; but this word does not correspond
properly to “soul”; it means a man’s own self, his personality,
including his body; what we understand by body and soul is expressed
in Hebrew by this word _nĕphĕsh_, so that when this is translated
by “soul” it is apt to cause misunderstanding; the Hebrews had no
word corresponding to the Greek _sōma_ (body), nor did the Greek
_psychē_ (soul) correspond with the Hebrew _nĕphĕsh_; the Hebrew
word which comes nearest to _psychē_ would be _nĕshāmāh_ (breath),
or possibly _rūach_ (spirit).[118] The words, therefore, “Now I
was a child good by nature, and a good soul fell to my lot,” mean
simply that he was by nature a good child and became also a good
man, by God’s mercy is implied. This traditional faith the writer
supplements, on account of the insight into Greek philosophy which
he had gained, by adding: “Or, rather, being good, I came into a
body undefiled”; he means thereby that his soul (in the Greek, not
the Hebrew, sense, for he does not include the body) entered into a
body undefiled; he thus expresses his belief in the pre-existence
of the soul. But an interesting point to be noted here is that the
writer, while accepting one Greek doctrine (the pre-existence of
the soul) repudiates another in the same breath, for by speaking of
a “body undefiled” he seems to be denying the Platonic doctrine of
the body being a hindrance (see below). As to Plato’s teaching on
the pre-existence of the soul, this has been so well summed up by
Zeller that we cannot do better than give it in his words: “The soul
of man is in its nature homogeneous with the soul of the universe,
from which it springs. Being of a simple and incorporeal nature it
is by its power of self-movement the origin of motion in the body;
inseparably connected with the idea of life, it has neither end nor
beginning. As the souls have descended from a higher world into the
earthly body, they return after death, if their lives have been pure
and devoted to higher objects, to this higher world, while those who
need correction in part undergo punishments in another world, and in
part migrate through the bodies of men and animals. In its earlier
existence our soul has seen the ideas of which it is reminded by the
sight of their sensuous copies.”[119]
The other two passages, xv. 8 and xv. 11, reflect the ancient Hebrew
belief as contained in Genesis ii. 7: “And the Lord God formed man
of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath
(_nĕshāmāh_) of life; and man became a living soul (_nĕphĕsh_)”; that
is to say, the _nĕshāmāh_ (which is equivalent to what we understand
by “soul”; there is no real distinction between “soul” and “spirit”
in Hebrew belief[120]) is in existence with God before man is
created. This belief in pre-existence, though quite different from
the Greek doctrine, became elaborated in course of time, and it was
taught that in the seventh heaven God kept the souls of those whom
He intends to send on earth[121]; the Midrash in which this occurs
(_Sifre_ 143_b_) belongs in its original form to the earlier part
of the second century A.D., and since it undoubtedly preserves much
ancient material it reflects thought long prior to the time when
Wisdom was written. In the passages quoted we have, then, references
to the belief in the pre-existence of souls as taught by the Jews on
one hand and by the Greeks on the other.
(_b_) _The doctrine of immortality._
We have seen that with regard to the doctrine of the pre-existence
of the soul the author of Wisdom expresses both Jewish and Greek
belief. The same is the case with the doctrine of immortality; Jewish
belief on this subject has already been dealt with in Part I, chap.
ix. (_f_); the influence of Greek thought is to be discerned in such
passages as the following:
Court not death in the error of your life;
Neither draw upon yourselves destruction by the works of your
hands;
Because God made not death,
Neither delighteth He when the wicked perish (i. 12, 13).
... For righteousness is immortal (i. 15).
The reference here is to spiritual death, the soul’s loss of true
life hereafter. Again:
But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God,
And no torment shall touch them (iii. 1).
They that trust on Him shall understand truth,
And the faithful shall abide with Him in love;
Because grace and mercy are to His chosen,
And He will graciously visit His holy ones (iii. 9, cp. xv. 3).
And, once more:
Incorruption bringeth near to God (vi. 19).
Of such passages Menzel says: “Who does not, in reading them, recall
the Platonic passage _Jambl. ad Phaed._ pp. 63_c_, 69_c_?”[122] To
quote Zeller again in his summing up of Plato’s philosophy: “As the
soul in its true nature belongs to the world above the senses, and
in that only can find a true and lasting existence, the possession
of the good or happiness which forms the final goal of human effort
can only be obtained by elevation into that higher world.... The true
mission of man, therefore, lies in that escape from this world, which
the ‘Theætetus,’ 176A, identifies with assimilation to the divine
nature....”[123]
(_c_) _The doctrine of the badness of the body._
In ix. 15, 16, it is said:
For a corruptible body weigheth down the soul,
And the earthly frame lieth heavy on the mind that is full of
cares.
And hardly do we divine the things that are on earth,
And the things that are close at hand we find with labour;
But the things that are in the heavens who ever yet traced out?
Practically all commentators are agreed that verse 15 is based on a
passage in Plato’s _Phaedo_ (81C), where the hindrance of the body
is spoken of; the verbal similarities are too striking for this to
be denied. The teaching is, moreover, in agreement with that found
elsewhere in the writings of Plato: “The body ... is the grave and
prison of the soul, which has received its irrational elements
through combination with it, and is the source of all desires and all
disturbances of intellectual activity”; thus Zeller sums up Plato’s
teaching on the subject.[124]
(_d_) _The creation of the world out of formless matter._
The term “formless matter” is a Platonic one; but this doctrine was
taught by the Stoics as well as by Plato, so that we cannot say to
which system the author of Wisdom was immediately indebted in writing
these words:
For Thine all-powerful hand,
That created the world out of formless matter ... (xi. 17).
In speaking of what Plato meant by the term “matter” Zeller says: “By
Plato’s matter we have to understand not a mass filling space, but
space itself. He never mentions it as that out of which, but only
as that in which, things arise. According to him, bodies are formed
when certain portions of space are thrown into the shapes of the four
elements. That it is not a corporeal mass out of which, they arise in
this manner is clear from the assertion that when they change into
one another they are broken up into their smallest _plane_ dimensions
in order to be compounded anew out of these. To carry this theory out
strictly was difficult; and in another place (_Tim._ 30A, 52 D, f.,
69B) he represents the matter as if the Deity, when engaged in the
formation of the elements, had found ‘all that is visible’ already in
existence as a chaotic mass moving without rule.”[125]
(_e_) _Signs of the influence of Stoic philosophy._[126]
Most commentators, from Grimm onwards, hold that the idea of the
_Anima Mundi_, or World Soul, of Stoic philosophy is to be discovered
in such passages as the following:
... Because the spirit of the Lord filleth the world,
And that which holdeth all things together hath knowledge of
every voice (i. 7).
The all-pervading character of Wisdom, described in vii. 22-24,
contains a similar thought:
For there is in her a spirit quick of understanding, holy,
Alone in kind, manifold,
Subtil, freely moving,
Clear in utterance, unpolluted,
Distinct, that cannot be harmed;
Loving what is good, keen, unhindered,
Beneficent, loving toward man,
Steadfast, sure, free from care,
All-powerful, all-surveying,
And penetrating through all spirits
That are quick of understanding, pure, subtil.
For Wisdom is more mobile than any motion;
Yea, she pervadeth and penetrateth all things by reason of her
pureness (cp. also vii. 27, viii. 1).
Another Stoic doctrine is that of the metabolism of the elements, “by
the help of which the writer of part ii. endeavours to rationalize
the miracles of the Exodus.... The metabolism of the elements at the
end of part ii.,” says Holmes,[127] “is traced by E. Pfleiderer to
Heraclitus, and to him directly, rather than indirectly through the
Stoics, on account of the allusion in chapter xix. to three elements
only—fire, water, earth—since Heraclitus recognized only three. But
it is difficult to see how the author could have brought in the idea
of air changing into anything else: water changes into earth in
the passage through the Red Sea, and earth becomes water again to
overwhelm the Egyptians; fire lost its power and was unable to melt
the heavenly food; what need or opportunity was there for adducing
the change of air into another element?... It must, no doubt, be
admitted that the Book of Wisdom has points of connexion with the
system of Heraclitus, who was highly esteemed in Alexandria, but
whether directly or indirectly it is impossible to say.” The passage
in question is xix. 18-21:
For the elements changed their order one with another....
For creatures of dry land were turned into creatures of waters,
And creatures that swim trode now upon the earth;
Fire kept the mastery of its own power in the midst of water,
And water forgat its quenching nature.
Contrariwise, flames wasted not the flesh of perishable creatures
that walked among them;
Neither melted they the ice-like grains of ambrosial food, that
were by nature apt to melt.
Lastly, reference may be made to viii. 7, where we find a
classification of the four cardinal virtues, which the Stoics copied
from Plato:
And if a man loveth righteousness,
The fruits of Wisdom’s labour are virtues,
For she teacheth _self-control_ and _understanding_,
_righteousness_, and _courage_;
And there is nothing in life more profitable than these.
Most of the marks of Greek influence in this book have now been
mentioned; it is probable enough that we have missed some, but we
venture to think that the most important have been dealt with.
SUMMARY
There are not many direct references to the Greeks in the Old
Testament; in a few scattered passages _Javan_, the Hebrew form for
the land of the Ionians (i.e. Greeks), is found. Three interesting
instances of variation from the Hebrew occur in the Septuagint;
the word “Greek” being substituted for “Philistine” in one case,
and “Hellenic sword” for “oppressing sword” in two others. These
deliberate alterations were made because it was believed by the Greek
translator that the real danger for the Jews lay in the spread of
the Greek spirit. In the Book of Daniel a few Greek names of musical
instruments have been adopted.
Traces of Greek influence are to be discerned in all probability
in some of the Psalms, for they witness to a state of affairs
brought about by the working of the Greek spirit. In the first nine
chapters of Proverbs, too, there are marks of Hellenic influence,
e.g. individualism, universalism, the use of allegory and the
hypostatization of Wisdom. In the Book of Job the same influence
may be discerned in the philosophic cast of the speeches, in its
imitation in form of Plato’s dialogues, and in the fact that the
background of the book is cast in the form of a novel, which was
likewise imitated from the Greeks. As to Ecclesiastes, opinions
differ as to whether it exhibits direct borrowing from Stoic and
Epicurean thought; but it certainly contains analogies with Greek
philosophy.
In the Apocrypha only two books come into consideration, but they are
the two most important. Ecclesiasticus was written with the purpose,
among others, of demonstrating the superiority of Jewish over Greek
wisdom; at the same time, Ben-Sira often shows himself influenced,
unconsciously it may be, by the latter, although the Judaic elements
in the book preponderate to an overwhelming degree. The Book of
Wisdom, a product of the Judaism of the Dispersion, is full of the
Hellenic spirit; this comes out very clearly in the treatment of
the doctrines of the pre-existence of the soul, of immortality, of
the body as evil, and of the creation of the world out of formless
matter. Further, most commentators find the influence of Stoic
philosophy in the ideas of the _Anima Mundi_ and of the metabolism
of the elements, as well as the classification of the four cardinal
virtues which the Stoics copied from Plato.