Uncanonical Books (II). The Apocalyptic Literature
[LITERATURE.—See the headings to the various sections.]
PRELIMINARY REMARKS
Uncanonical books of a sacred character came to be divided by
the Jewish religious authorities into two categories, though the
exact dividing line varied according to the opinions of different
teachers. These two categories consisted, on the one hand, of books
which contained orthodox teaching, but which, for one reason or
another, were not admitted into the Canon; roughly speaking, under
this category were included the books of our Apocrypha. The other
category consisted of what were regarded as heretical books. The
former, though they did not “defile the hands,” were permitted to be
read. The latter came to be regarded with horror, and the reading of
them was strictly forbidden; they were called _Sepharim hachizônim_,
“Outside Books,” to which reference has been made in the preceding
chapter; when precisely this term came to be applied to them we
cannot say, but it is evident that the feeling in regard to them
expressed by the term was in existence before B.C. 100.
Now among the “Outside Books” were those which were called
_Ha-Gilyônim_. There is some difference of opinion among scholars as
to the meaning of this term and as to what kind of books it refers;
Hölscher has, however, as it appears to us, shown conclusively that
by it was meant “The Apocalypses,” and that it refers to what we now
know as the Apocalyptic Literature.[275] There is no doubt that the
whole of this literature was rejected, ultimately, by the Palestinian
Jewish authorities, the Pharisees.[276] Strongly as the Pharisees had
been influenced by some of the teaching contained in this literature,
they had from their point of view sufficient reason to discountenance
the books as a whole. The pronounced other-worldly character of them
was in marked contrast to the strictly practical and narrow purview
of scholastic Pharisaism. The scant insistence on the need of legal
observance, in the Pharisaic sense, which to the Pharisees was the
basis of all religion, was a natural cause of antagonism; and this
antagonism inevitably widened as time went on, for there was a danger
that the popularity of the apocalyptic books would relegate the older
religious literature to the background; indeed, we have definite
proof that in some circles the apocalyptic literature was held in
higher esteem than the canonical twenty-four; thus in 2 (4) Ezra
xiv. 45-47 it is said: “And it came to pass when the forty days were
fulfilled, that the Most High spoke unto me saying, The twenty-four
books that thou hast written publish, that the worthy and unworthy
may read them; but the seventy last [i.e. the apocalyptic books] thou
shalt keep, to deliver them to the wise among thy people. For in
them is the spring of understanding, the fountain of wisdom, and the
stream of knowledge.” There was possibly a further cause of hostility
to some of these books, viz. their _original_ authorship, which in
some cases was Sadducæan; in such cases, although worked over by
Pharisaic editorship the Sadducæan trail could not be altogether
obliterated; hence their condemnation. Highly improbable as this
sounds at first, it will be seen, when we come to consider these
books in brief detail, that in some cases the contention is not
altogether unjustified.
It is doubtless due to this Pharisaic hostility that almost all the
Hebrew or Aramaic originals of these books have disappeared and
that these writings are preserved only in translations. There can,
moreover, be little doubt that this hostility was further nourished
on account of the use of apocalyptic books in the early Christian
Church.
Another preliminary remark about this literature is necessary. All
the known books belonging to it have false names in their titles,
for which reason they are called the _Pseudepigrapha_. How are we
to account for this apparent fraud on the part of writers who were
clearly devout and earnest men? This strange procedure, as it appears
to us nowadays, may to a large extent be explained if we remember
that “the apocalyptic writers almost certainly drew their material
from popular tradition. Many of the ideas which receive various
embodiment in this literature were derived doubtlessly from the
common stock of the popular consciousness; their ascription to or
association with the great heroic figures of antiquity, like Enoch,
Abraham, Isaiah, or the twelve Patriarchs, may also be a feature
from the popular consciousness. The men who reduced the various
elements to writing, or utilized them for enforcing religious views
or lessons may, on this view, be acquitted from any charge of fraud
or dishonesty; they implicitly trusted the popular tradition so far
as to believe that the ideas to which they were giving expression
really did go back to the heroic figures of old. Their estimate,
moreover, of the function and importance of authorship probably
differed fundamentally from that of the moderns; it was far less
self-conscious, and was the natural outcome of a literary modesty
which was _naïve_.”[277]
It is likely enough that one way whereby the popular traditions came
into being was owing to Haggadic homiletics, i.e. the explanation of
Scripture teaching by narrative or parable; passages of Scripture
would be explained and illustrated by means of imaginary narratives
which were, of course, not intended to be other than explanatory;
then, as these were repeated and handed on, they tended in process of
time to be regarded as accounts of events which actually did happen,
and which had been handed down by tradition. If this supposition be
correct, it would in some sense be analogous to the somewhat similar
process which happened in the domain of Halakah, i.e. that which is
concerned with the legal and ritual elements in Scripture.
A brief examination of these apocalyptic books is demanded here
inasmuch as in the early Church—and in all probability in the
pre-Christian Jewish Church at one time—the distinct line of
demarcation between them and those of the Apocrypha was not drawn
in the way that it was in later times. It is also worth noting that
such books as the Book of Enoch, and the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs have, as Charles has shown,[278] exercised more influence
upon the writers of the New Testament than any of the books of the
Apocrypha.
In giving now some short account of the more important books
belonging to this body of literature, we shall take them, as far
as possible, in chronological order; but, as is to be expected,
one cannot always be certain as to the date of a book, so that we
cannot claim to be sure that a strictly chronological order is being
followed.
(_a_) THE BOOK OF ENOCH
[LITERATURE.—Schürer, II, iii. pp. 54-73; German ed., III, pp.
268-290; Swete, _The Old Testament in Greek_, III, pp. 789-809
(1899); Beer, in Kautzsch, II, pp. 217-310 (1900); Volz,
_Jüdische Eschatologie_, pp. 12-21 (1903); Martin, _Le Livre
d’Hénoch_ (1906); Charles, _The Book of Enoch_ (1912); Leszynsky,
_Die Sadduzäer_, pp. 253-266 (1912); Charles, in _The Apocr. and
Pseud. of the Old Testament_, II, pp. 163-281 (1913); Charles,
_Eschatology; Hebrew, Jewish, and Christian_ (1913); Burkitt,
_Jewish and Christian Apocalypses_ pp. 17-34 (1914). The articles
on “Apocalyptic Literature” in Hastings’ _Dict. of the Bible_,
the _Encycl. Bibl._, and the _Jewish Encycl._ It has not been
thought necessary to enumerate the editions of the various
published original texts as these are given in Schürer, Kautzsch,
and Charles. This applies to all the apocalypses to which we
shall refer.]
According to Charles the various elements of which the book in its
present form is made up belong to different dates. The following
table will show the dates of the different parts of the book; Charles
believes that these are probably correct, without committing himself
to the certainty of this in each case:
Chaps.
xii.-xxxvi. }
xciii. } } The oldest pre-Maccabæan
xci. 12-17 } “The Apocalypse of Weeks” } portions.
vi.-xi. } }
liv. 7-lv. 2 } }
lx. } Fragments of the “Book } Pre-Maccabæan at the
lxv.-lxix. 25 } of Noah”[279] } latest.
cvi. cvii. } }
lxxxiii.-xc. “The Dream Visions,” B.C., 165-161.
lxxii.-lxxxii. “The Book of the Heavenly Luminaries.” Before B.C. 110.
xxxvii.-lxxi. “The Parables,” or “Similitudes” } B.C. 105-64.
xci. 1-11, 18, 19-civ. }
i.-v. The latest portion, but pre-Christian.
Chapter cv., which consists only of two verses, cannot be dated;
while cviii. is, according to Charles, an appendix to the entire work.
While these dates may be regarded as approximately correct, it
should be pointed out that there is not a complete consensus of
opinion among scholars on the subject. Schürer, for example, holds
that the entire book, with the exception of chapters xxxvii.-lxxi.,
was written during the period B.C. 130-100, these other chapters
being not earlier than the time of Herod the Great. Beer thinks
that the “Dream Visions” belong to the time of John Hyrcanus (B.C.
135-105), and he includes under the pre-Maccabæan portions only
xci. 12-17, xcii., xciii. 1-14; but he agrees with Charles in
thinking that the book as a whole belongs to a period prior to B.C.
64. Dalman maintains that it cannot be proved that the important
section xxxvii.-lxxi. (“The Similitudes”) is “the product of the
pre-Christian period,” though he fully recognizes its Jewish
character.[280]
As to the question of authorship; since the book is made up of
sections belonging to various dates, it is obvious that unity of
authorship is not to be looked for. But if there is not unity,
there is, so Charles maintains, uniformity of authorship; for,
according to him, all the sections were written by _Chassidim_, or
by their successors, the Pharisees. An entirely different view of
authorship has, however, recently been put forth with much skill by
Leszynsky.[281] While frankly recognizing the composite character
of the book, he holds that the original portions of it (according
to him these are: i.-xxxvi., lxxii.-lxxxii., lxxxiii.-xc., xciii.
xci. 12-17) to have emanated from Sadducæan circles, and that the
special object of the book in its original form was that of bringing
about the reform of the calendar.[282] He points first of all to
the ascription of the book to Enoch as supporting his contention;
Enoch lived 365 years, i.e. his years correspond to the number of
days in the solar year, which, as we have seen, was one of the
fundamental differences between the Sadducees and Pharisees, these
latter reckoning time by the lunar year. Further, Enoch ascended
into the heavens and would therefore be just the one to know all
about the heavenly luminaries; he was thus the most appropriate
author of a book which was to deal with astronomical questions.
“The Sadducæan character of the original work,” says Leszynsky, “is
seen most clearly in the discussion regarding the calendar; chapter
lxxii.-lxxxii. are rightly called the Book of Astronomy[283]: ‘the
book of the courses of the luminaries of the heaven, the relations of
each, according to their classes, their dominion and their seasons,
according to their names and places of origin, and according to
their months ... with regard to all the years of the world and unto
eternity, till the new creation is accomplished which endureth
till eternity’ (lxxii. 1). That sounds almost as though the author
of the Book of Jubilees had written it. That it is not a merely
scientific interest which impels the writer to give expression to his
astronomical theories may be seen from the words at the conclusion of
the section: ‘Blessed are all the righteous, blessed are all those
who walk in the way of righteousness, and sin not as the sinners
in the reckoning of all their days, in which the sun traverses the
heaven, entering into and departing from the portals for thirty days
...’ (lxxxii. 4-7). Herein one can discern quite clearly the tendency
of the writer. He desires the adoption of the solar year, while his
contemporaries wrongly followed a different reckoning and therefore
celebrated the feasts at the wrong time. The ‘sinners who sin in
the reckoning of the year’ are the Pharisees; and the righteous
ones who are blessed, the _Zaddîkim_,[284] who walk upon the paths
of righteousness (_Zedek_), as the name was made to imply, were the
Sadducees.” Leszynsky works out his argument in much detail, the
study of the whole of which is necessary to grasp the full force of
his contention. The other portions of the book he does not hold to be
Sadducæan. In the concluding portion he sees a bitter polemic by a
Pharisee against the Sadducees (see especially cii. 6 ff.). Regarding
the important section called the “Similitudes” (xxxvii.-lxxi.)
Leszynsky has nothing definite to suggest other than that it is not
Christian, still less Jewish. He says: “We know too little about the
sects which existed about the time of the beginning of Christianity
to be able to say to what circle the author of this writing belonged.”
The contentions of Charles and Leszynsky are thus diametrically
opposed. To the present writer the great difficulty in accepting
either as it stands lies in the fact that, broadly speaking, the
Apocalyptic Literature, of which the Book of Enoch is the most
striking example we possess, was acceptable to neither Pharisees
nor Sadducees. No doubt Charles is right in assigning the earlier
portions of the book (i.e. the pre-Maccabæan) to the _Chassidim_; but
we have sought, in an earlier chapter,[285] to show that Friedländer
is justified in maintaining that the _Chassidim_ were the forbears of
both Apocalyptists and Pharisees, two branches of the parent stock
which diverged widely in spite of some fundamental points of family
likeness. The Book of Enoch, therefore, may, in its pre-Maccabæan
portions, well be ascribed to the _Chassidim_; but it is not on
that account necessary to ascribe all the later portions to the
Pharisees; three points especially militating against this: the
Messianic doctrine, the, generally speaking, universalistic spirit,
and the attitude to the Law not being the Pharisaic one.[286] The
Apocalyptists, on the other hand, were also the descendants of the
_Chassidim_; and no sufficient reason exists for not ascribing the
bulk of the later portions of our book to them. Regarding Leszynsky’s
view, while we feel that that part of it is justified which ascribes
to the Sadducees the “Book of Astronomy” (lxxii.-lxxxii.) and
possibly certain other portions, there is a grave difficulty in
regarding such parts as i.-xxxvi. and xciii., xci. 12-17, in which
the apocalyptic element is prominent, as of Sadducæan origin, for
nothing that we know of the Sadducees leads us to suppose that
they cultivated apocalyptic studies. What we feel to be of extreme
importance in assigning authorship to Jewish books belonging to
the last two pre-Christian centuries is the fact well expressed by
Friedländer: “... But who would maintain that these two parties, i.e.
the Pharisees and Sadducees, constituted in reality the Jewish people
at this period, however much they may have been pushed into the
foreground of historical events? The Pharisees and Sadducees, no less
than the Essenes, who were far removed from the sphere of politics,
were only sects of the Jews. The Pharisees formed, even on Josephus’
showing (_Antiq._, XVII, ii. 4), only a fraction of the people, and
did not number much more than six thousand all told; they were thus
not much more numerous than the Essenes with their four thousand
(Philo, _Quod omn. prob._, II, 457; Josephus, _Antiq._, XVIII, i. 5).
And if it be willingly granted that the Pharisees had many adherents
among the people, yet this was very far from being the People
itself.... And where remain then the great masses of the ‘people of
the land,’ the really deciding factor, who were neither Pharisæan
nor Sadducæan, but among whom the Jewish spirit-of-the-people
(_Volksgeist_), developed under favourable conditions during the
memorable days of the Ptolemys, was not yet wholly extinguished and
still possessed sufficient power to protect itself against the yoke
which Pharisaism sought to put upon the people?”[287]
It is not necessary to assume that all the literature produced by
the Jews during these centuries emanated either from Pharisaic or
Sadducæan circles. There are other alternatives; and in the present
case it seems most probable that the bulk of this book was written
by apocalyptists who belonged neither to Pharisaic nor yet to
Sadducæan circles.
The Book of Enoch was originally written partly in Aramaic
(vi.-xxxvi., lxxxiii.-xc., according to Charles) and partly in Hebrew
(the rest of the book). No portion of the book in its original form
has come down to us; the Ethiopic version is the only complete one
extant, it was translated from the Greek version of which only
fragments remain.[288] The Latin version, which was also made from
the Greek, is not extant with the exception of i. 9, cvi. 1-18. That
the book is Palestinian is generally acknowledged; its original
language of itself points to this.
The Book of Enoch is in many respects the most important of all
the apocalypses, since it is without a rival for the history of
doctrinal development during the last two pre-Christian centuries.
The teaching of the book is sometimes contradictory, which is not
to be wondered at in view of its composite authorship; for example,
in lxix. 11 it is said that man was originally created without sin,
“like the angels,” but that death came through sin and destroyed
him; but elsewhere the entering in of sin from the first is traced
to the spiritual world. The doctrines of angels and demons appear in
a developed form in this book. The teaching concerning the Kingdom
is likewise contradictory; vi.-xxxvi. are full of materialistic
ideas, whereas xci.-civ. are marked by conceptions which are entirely
spiritual. So, too, with regard to the Messiah; at one time He is
represented as without having any special _rôle_ to fill, at another
He appears as the “Righteous One,” or as the “Elect One,” “The Son
of Man,” and “The Christ” or “Anointed One.” Regarding the Last
Things, the teaching about the Judgement varies according as to
whether the Messianic Kingdom is conceived of as an eternal earthly
kingdom, in which case the final Judgement precedes it, or as only
a temporary earthly kingdom, when the Judgement takes place at
its close; in xxxvii.-lxxi. (“The Similitudes”) it is taught that
the Messianic Kingdom is eternal and embraces heaven and earth,
here it is initiated by the final Judgement. The punishment of the
wicked takes place in Sheol, part of which is a place of fire, and
equivalent to the later Gehenna conception; another part of Sheol
is described as an intermediate resting-place of the righteous.
In the oldest portions of the book both soul and body, a physical
body, rise and abide eternally in the earthly Messianic Kingdom; in
“The Similitudes” it is a spiritual body which rises to a spiritual
kingdom; while in the latest section of the book it is taught
that only the spirit rises, and only the righteous attain to the
resurrection.
Most of the New Testament writers have been influenced by the book in
thought and diction. “It is quoted as a genuine production of Enoch
by St. Jude (verses 14, 15), and as Scripture by St. Barnabas. The
authors of the Book of Jubilees, the Apocalypse of Baruch, and 4 Ezra
laid it under contribution. With the earlier Fathers and Apologists
it had all the weight of a canonical book.”[289]
(_b_) THE SIBYLLINE ORACLES
[LITERATURE.—Schürer, II, iii. pp. 270-292, German ed., III, pp.
555-592; Blass, in Kautzsch, II, pp. 177-217; Lanchester, in
Charles, II, pp. 368-406; M. S. Terry has published this book in
blank verse (New York, undated). See also an article on this book
in the _Edinburgh Review_, July, 1877, pp. 31-67.]
This work consisted originally of fourteen books, twelve of which
have survived; but we are here concerned only with the Proœmium and
books iii.-v., the remainder belonging to later times. The Proœmium
and books iii.-v. belong, like the rest of the work, to different
dates, but the bulk of the Proœmium and book iii. belong to about the
middle of the second century B.C., books iv. and v. to the latter
half of the first century A.D. These portions are all Jewish in the
main, though interspersed with Christian elements.
Of authorship little can be said; the main portion of the Proœmium
and book iii. were probably written by a Jew of Alexandria, parts of
book iv. by a Palestinian Jew, and the bulk of book v. also by a Jew
of Alexandria. The Oracles were, of course, all written in Greek,
and they were put forth in the interests of Jewish _propaganda_,
of which mention has already been made above. They were written in
the form of the ancient heathen oracles, in Greek hexameters. The
sibyl of heathen antiquity was a prophetess inspired by the gods who
prophesied about the fate of cities and kingdoms, and gave counsel
in times of stress and difficulty; she dwelt, like a nymph, beside
streams or in grottoes. “Written records of supposed Sibylline
oracles,” says Schürer, “were here and there in circulation; but such
remains of them as have come down to us through occasional quotations
in authors such as Plutarch, Pausanias and others are brief and
scanty, and furnish no distinct notion of them. In Asia Minor and
Greece these pieces circulated only in private possession, without
being publicly supervised or officially used; but their credit and
influence must not be on that account lightly estimated.”[290] Book
iii., which is of most importance in the present connection, is full
of apocalyptic elements; it tells of the fate of the successive
kingdoms which are to bear rule over the Jews, and of the judgements
of God upon both Jews and Gentiles; the coming of the Messianic king
is prophesied, and the victory over his adversaries described; an
account of the prosperity and blessedness of the Messianic Kingdom
follows, to which is added a recital of the signs which shall herald
the end of all things:
When swords upon the star-lit heavens
Appear at even and at morn,
Then will the whirlwind come from heaven
Upon the earth; the sun above
At mid-day e’en will cease to shine,
The moon instead will give her light,
And come again upon the earth.
One sign will be that drops of blood
Will flow down from the very rocks;
And in the clouds shall ye behold
A conflict fought ’twixt warriors fierce,
Likewise a chase upon wild beasts,—
All seemingly in hazy mist.
Then shall the Lord Who dwells in heaven
Bring all things to their final end (iii. 798-806).
In book iv., as well as in book v., the apocalyptic element is
absent, with the one exception that in the latter there is a prophecy
of woe upon the idolatrous Gentiles, and of blessing upon Israel (v.
260-285). The superiority of Judaism over the heathen religions is,
as one would expect in propagandist literature of this kind, again
and again insisted upon.
(_c_) THE TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS
[LITERATURE.—Sinker, _Testamenta xii. Patriarcharum_ ... (1869);
_Ante-Nicene Christian Library_, xxii. pp. 13-79 (1871); Schürer,
II, iii., pp. 114-124; German ed., III, pp. 339-356; Schnapp, in
Kautzsch, II, pp. 458-506; Charles, _The Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs_ (1908), also in _The Apocr. and Pseudepigr. of the
Old Testament_, II, pp. 282-367; Leszynsky, _Die Sadduzäer_, pp.
237-252 (1921). Burkitt, _Jewish and Christian Apocalypses_, pp.
34 ff. (1914). Two articles in _The Jewish Quarterly Review_,
V, pp. 375-398, by Conybeare, “On the Jewish Authorship of the
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” and pp. 400-406 by Kohler
on “The Pre-Talmudic Haggada” (1893).]
Professor Charles says in reference to the authorship of this
book: “I have with some hesitation come to the conclusion that the
groundwork is the work of a single writer of the Pharisaic school.
He is an upholder of the Law and the Temple sacrifices; he believes
in the Messianic Kingdom and the resurrection of the body to a new
life therein. He is, however, a Pharisee of the early type—that is a
Chasid.... The groundwork, which consists of about eleven-twelfths
of the Testaments, after the removal of the Jewish and Christian
additions, presents, it must be confessed, a want of coherence at
times, and the parts dealing with the duty of submission to Levi,
or to Levi and Judah jointly, come in occasionally very abruptly.
Notwithstanding, the present editor adheres to the idea of the unity
of the book; for the two phenomena referred to—the strictly Chasid
element in the book, and its loyal acceptance of the Maccabæan
dynasty—were exactly characteristic of the period to which our author
belongs, and to none other before or after. Furthermore, both these
parts of the book are alike universalistic in tone.”[291]
We have seen above what the attitude of the Sadducees was towards the
written Law; so that a book wherein loyalty to the Law and to the
Temple sacrifices is upheld does not necessarily point to Pharisaic
authorship unless it can be shown that by the Law is meant not merely
the Pentateuch, but also the Pharisaic conception of the Law; and of
this there are no indications in the book. The Sadducees believed,
moreover, in a Messianic Kingdom; but the Messiah, according to
them, was to be of priestly, not of Davidic, descent; so that belief
in the Messianic Kingdom does not necessarily imply Pharisaic
authorship of the book in which it occurs unless the specifically
Pharisaic conception of the Messiah is put forth; but this also is
not the case in the book before us. Charles says: “In the original
work the Messiah is to be descended from Levi, and not from Judah—in
other words, he is to be first of all a priest, and then a prophet
and king. There are many passages expressing this view”; these are
enumerated; he then continues: “We have here the attestation of a
most remarkable revolution in the Jewish expectations of the Messiah.
For some thirty or forty years the hopes of a Messiah from Judah was
abandoned in favour of a Messiah from Levi. But with the breach of
Hyrcanus with the Pharisees this hope was abandoned, and so we find
that in the first century additions, the hope of a Messiah from Judah
reappears (T. Jud., xxiv. 5, 6; T. Naph., iv. 5 (?)).”[292] An easier
and more natural explanation, however, is forthcoming if, as we
believe, the groundwork of this book is of Sadducæan authorship. The
loyal acceptance of the reigning dynasty is by no means necessarily
a proof of Pharisaic authorship, for the Pharisees broke entirely
with John Hyrcanus before the end of his reign (B.C. 104), while the
Sadducees were loyal to him in consequence.[293] The references to
the resurrection of the body would be fatal to Sadducæan authorship
if it could be proved that these are not later interpolations. That a
Pharisee has worked over the book is abundantly evident. We conclude,
therefore, that as in the groundwork of the book the distinctive
marks of Pharisaism are wanting, and that as what marks there are,
are those of a Sadducæan character, the book in its original form
was written by a Sadducee for the purpose of making peace with the
Pharisees; for the peaceable tone of many parts of the book is one of
its characteristics; the virtue of unity among the descendants of the
Patriarchs is again and again insisted on. _Traits_ of a specifically
Sadducæan character are well brought out by Leszynsky.[294] On the
other hand, nothing could be more un-Pharisaic than the spirit of the
book so well described by Charles: “A true son of the larger-hearted
Old Testament prophets he proclaims the salvation of the Gentiles.
The promised time has come. The kingdom is already established, and
all the Gentiles will be saved through Israel. In the Judgement the
conduct of the best heathen will form the norm according to which
Israel will be judged.”[295]
The earliest form of the book as now in existence is Greek; but
this is a translation from a Hebrew original. This is proved by
the presence of numberless Hebrew constructions and expressions
throughout the book. In its original form each of the “Testaments”
seems to have been modelled on the same pattern; in each case the
patriarch first gives an account of his life; this is based on
the Old Testament, but embellished with many new details. In each
autobiography the patriarch candidly confesses the sins of which he
has been guilty, though in some instances he is able to boast of
his virtues. In the next place, the patriarch offers in each case
an exhortation to his descendants; this is based on the preceding
autobiographical sketch; warnings are uttered against falling into
the sins of which the narrator himself has been guilty; in the
case of his life having been a virtuous one it is held out as an
example for his descendants to follow. A third element in each of
the Testaments is a prediction regarding the future of the tribe in
question.
There are a number of later Christian interpolations and additions
in the book; but, generally speaking, these are of so obvious a
character that they may be discerned at once; a good example is
found in the Testament of Simeon vi. 7, where these words are added:
“Because God hath taken a body and eaten with men, and saved men.”
Or, again, in the Testament of Levi xiv. 2, the original text runs:
“For our father Israel is pure from the transgressions of the chief
priests,” then the following Christian addition is made: “Who shall
lay their hands upon the Saviour of the world.” Similar additions,
as well as interpolations, occur throughout the book.
But the great importance of this book lies in its ethical teaching,
wherein it often reveals a spirit thoroughly akin to that of the
Gospels; it will be best to illustrate this by giving two of the most
notable examples. In the Testament of Gad vi. 3-7 it is said: “Love
ye, therefore, one another from the heart; and if a man sin against
thee, cast forth the poison of hate and speak peaceably to him, and
in thy soul hold not guile; and if he confess and repent, forgive
him. But if he deny it, do not get into a passion with him, lest
catching the poison from thee he take to swearing and so thou sin
doubly.... But if he be shameless, and perisheth in his wrong-doing,
even so forgive him from the heart, and leave to God the avenging”
(with this compare Matt. xviii. 15, Luke xvii. 3). The command to
love God and one’s neighbour finds expression in the Testament of Gad
v. 3: “Love the Lord through all your life, and one another with a
true heart” (cp. Matt. xxii. 37-39). These and many other examples
of a similar character are all the more striking when it is seen how
close the linguistic parallels are (amounting frequently to verbal
identity) between the Greek text of our book and that of the Gospels.
While these and similar passages read like genuine parts of the
original work the _possibility_ that they may be Christian is not
excluded.
The “Testaments” can scarcely be reckoned as belonging to the
Apocalyptic Literature proper, but there are apocalyptic elements in
the testaments of Levi and of Naphthali.
(_d_) THE PSALMS OF SOLOMON
[LITERATURE.—Ryle and James, _The Psalms of Solomon_ (1891);
Kittel, in Kautzsch, II, pp. 127-148; Schürer, II, iii. pp.
17-23, German ed., III, pp. 205-212; Viteau, _Les Psaumes de
Salomon_ (1911); Rendel Harris, _The Odes and Psalms of Solomon_
(1911); Leszynsky, _Op. cit._, pp. 274-279; Buchanan Gray in
Charles, II, pp. 631-652. See also Charles’ art. in the _Encycl.
Bibl._, i. 241-245.]
Although the eighteen psalms comprised in this book are not
apocalyptic in character, a brief mention of them here is not out of
place, for they offer us a true picture of the Pharisaic standpoint,
and are therefore useful for purposes of comparison when seeking to
decide the Pharisaic authorship, or otherwise, of other books.
These psalms were originally written in Hebrew during the middle
of the first century B.C.; concerning these two points there is
a general consensus of opinion. Whether the hand of one or more
writers is to be discerned is an open question. The mental background
of these Psalms is one of sorrow occasioned by the capture of
Jerusalem by Pompey and his desecration of the Temple. But this
event is represented as the just punishment of God, for instead of
a Davidic king the Hasmonæans were rulers, and they had assumed
the high-priestly office although they were not of high-priestly
descent. The ruling house was supported by the Sadducees; it is
this which causes the sorrow of the writer, or writers, to be mixed
with bitter resentment. These Psalms thus give us a picture of the
Pharisees and Sadducees, but from the Pharisaic point of view; so
that neither the portraiture of Pharisaic piety nor yet that of
Sadducæan wickedness must be taken _au pied de la lettre_. The
general point of view of the book has been well summed up by Buchanan
Gray thus: “It is the Pharisaic piety that breathes through the
Psalms; it is their opposition to the worldly, non-Davidic monarchy,
and to the illegitimate high-priesthood of the ruling Hasmonæan
king, Aristobulus, that finds expression here; the Messianic hope
(especially xvii. 23 ff.), the firm belief in a future life which
characterizes them later, and renders them naturally political
quietists and indifferent to political schemes, are already
conspicuous here. And, again, the later attitude of the Pharisees in
the matter of free-will as described by Josephus (_Bell. Jud._, II,
viii. 14)—these ascribe all to fate and to God, and yet allow that
to act as is right, or the contrary, is principally in the power of
men: although fate does co-operate in every action—is almost exactly
paralleled by two passages in the Psalms, v. 4, ix. 6.”[296]
(_e_) THE BOOK OF JUBILEES
[LITERATURE.—Schürer, II, iii. pp. 134-141, German ed., III, pp.
371-384; Littmann, in Kautzsch, II, pp. 31-119; Charles, _The
Book of Jubilees_ (1902); Leszynsky, _Op. cit._, pp. 179-236;
Charles, in _The Apocr. and Pseudep. of the O.T._, II, pp. 1-82.]
Although this book is also known as “The Apocalypse of Moses”[297]
(Syncellus), it is not an apocalyptic work in the proper sense of
the word. It purports, however, to have been given through angels
to Moses on Mount Sinai, and can, therefore, in a certain sense be
described as an apocalypse; but it scarcely touches upon the themes
which form the main content of the apocalyptic works proper. It is
also called the “Little Genesis,” as it follows the narrative as
given in the Book of Genesis and Exodus i.-xii., but this is divided
into fixed periods of time, or “Jubilees,” hence its name; for
this word is directly derived from the Hebrew term _Jobel_ which,
according to most modern scholars, means “ram” or “ram’s horn”; the
year of Jubilee thus means literally “the year of ram’s horn”; the
fiftieth year was so called because it was proclaimed by the blowing
of rams’ horns (see Lev. xxv.). “As the author seeks to reproduce the
history of primitive times _in the spirit of his own day_, he deals
with the biblical text in a very free fashion. Many things that did
not happen to interest him, or that he considered objectionable, were
either omitted or altered, while others were still further amplified
by the addition of numerous particulars of one kind or another”
(Schürer, _Op. cit._, II, iii. p. 136).
It is impossible to fix the exact date of the book with any
certainty, but that it belongs at the latest to the second half of
the first century B.C. may be unhesitatingly stated. That it was
written by a Palestinian Pharisee is the opinion of most scholars; it
is true that it is strongly legalistic in character, so much so that
the Messianic Kingdom is conceived of as the outcome of a gradual
process which is bound up with the study of the Law. The writer,
moreover, greatly extols the Sabbath, Circumcision, the dietary
laws, the laws of purification, etc.; its strongly marked spirit of
exclusiveness is also said to betray its Pharisaic origin. But with
the exception of the last point there is nothing in all this which
forbids us to believe in Sadducæan authorship (see above, Chapter IV,
§ ii. (_b_)). Leszynsky seems to us to have proved his contention
that the author was a Sadducee, who ascribed Mosaic authorship to the
book for the purpose of obtaining the needful authority for Sadducæan
views concerning the Law. The details of his argument would take us
too far afield; he discusses the question with much learning on pp.
181-234 of his book.
That the book was originally written in Hebrew admits of no doubt; no
part of this has come down to us, however. The Greek version, made
from the Hebrew, exists only in fragments found in the writings of
some ancient authors. The Ethiopic version, which was made from the
Greek, exists almost in its entirety; of the Latin version, also made
from the Greek, about one-fourth is extant. The importance of the
book, in the words of Charles, lies in the fact that it is “not only
indispensable to students of the New Testament, and of the history
of the Pharisaic movement: it is likewise of first-class importance
as a witness to the readings of the Hebrew text of Genesis about
the beginning of the Christian era” (_Encycl. Bibl._, I, 230). As
we incline, however, to the belief in its Sadducæan authorship, we
regard it as important for the history of the antagonism between the
Pharisees and Sadducees, and their respective teaching, rather than
merely for the history of the Pharisaic movement.
(_f_) THE ASSUMPTION OF MOSES
[LITERATURE.—Schürer, II, iii. pp. 73-83, German ed., III, pp.
294-305; Clemen, in Kautzsch, II, pp. 311-331; Charles, _The
Assumption of Moses_ (1897), and in _The Apocr. and Pseudep. of
the O.T._, II, pp. 407-424; Leszynsky, _Op. cit._, pp. 267-273.]
The numerous references in early Christian literature to apocryphal
books of Moses makes it clear that several well-known books of the
kind must once have been in existence. The different titles of these
books which are mentioned are a little confusing; we have just seen
that the “Apocalypse of Moses” was one of the names given to the Book
of Jubilees; we shall see below (§ _j_) that an “Apocalypse of Moses”
is more or less parallel with the “Life of Adam and Eve.” Mention is
made of a “Book of secret words of Moses” and of the “Assumption of
Moses” in the commentary of Gelasius Cyzicenus on the acts of the
council of Nicæa; Origen (_De princip._, III, ii. 1) speaks of the
book called the “Ascension of Moses,” and Didymus, in writing on the
epistle of Jude, refers to the “Assumption of Moses”; and more than
once the “Testament of Moses” is mentioned. It is probable that these
two latter are both included in the book we are considering, but that
they were originally distinct and of different authorship. The book
as a whole was written at the very beginning of the first century
A.D.; this is the opinion of most authorities, based upon fairly
clear indications in the book itself (see Charles in the _Encycl.
Bibl._, I, 235). The author, according to Charles, “was a Pharisee,
and a Pharisee who was the antithesis of the Zealot exactly in those
respects in which Pharisaism differed from Zealotism. His book was
designed as a protection against the growing secularization of the
Pharisaic party through its adoption of political ideals and popular
Messianic beliefs”; elsewhere Charles says[298]: “He was a Pharisee
of a fast-disappearing type, recalling in all respects the Chasid
of the early Maccabæan times, and upholding the old traditions of
quietude and resignation.” Leszynsky, on the other hand, is inclined
to believe that the author was a Sadducee; his arguments, however,
are not convincing.[299]
The book contains what purports to be a prediction of the future
history of Israel which had been revealed to Moses, and which he
in turn reveals to Joshua. It is, therefore, as a whole not an
apocalyptic book in the technical sense, though part of it does
distinctly come under this designation; this is clear from Chapter
x., which is written in poetry, and in the familiar apocalyptic
strain; it tells of the coming of divine rule upon earth, when sorrow
shall be taken away, and wrath shall come upon the enemies of God;
the signs of the end are graphically described.
The book was originally written in Hebrew, though some scholars
contend for an Aramaic original. Only part of the book has so far
been recovered and this is in Latin, which was, however, made from a
Greek translation of the original.
(_g_) THE ASCENSION OF ISAIAH
[LITERATURE.—Schürer, II, iii. pp. 141-146, German ed., pp.
386-393; Beer, in Kautzsch, II, pp. 119-127; Charles, _The
Ascension of Isaiah_ (1900); Charles, _The Martyrdom of Isaiah_,
in _The Apocr. and Pseudep. of the O.T._, II, pp. 155-162.
Burkitt, _Jewish and Christian Apocalypses_, pp. 45 ff.]
In ancient ecclesiastical writings mention is made of three
apocryphal books about Isaiah, viz. the “Ascension of Isaiah,” the
“Martyrdom of Isaiah,” and the “Vision of Isaiah.” It is possible
that the “Ascension” is only another name for the “Vision,” for in
Chapter x., which belongs to the “Vision” portion, an account is
given of Isaiah ascending to the seventh heaven. But, in any case,
two writings are incorporated in the book. Moreover, there are many
additions made by a Christian editor. These various elements belong
to different dates; the earliest is the “Martyrdom,” which comprises
ii. i-iii. 12, v. 2-14; this is of Jewish authorship, and belongs
to the first half of the first century A.D.; the final words of
this portion have a special interest inasmuch as the reference to
the sawing asunder of Isaiah there mentioned points to this being
the authority for the statement in Hebrews xi. 37. The words are
as follows: “But Isaiah neither cried aloud nor wept whilst he was
being sawn asunder, for his mouth spoke with the Holy Ghost until
he had been sawn asunder.” Next in date is a short apocalypse (iii.
13-v. 1); this gives a _résumé_ of the early history of the Christian
Church, and foretells the last judgement; this is by a Christian
author, and belongs to about the middle of the first century A.D.,
or a little later. Lastly, there is the “Vision” (vi.-xi.), which is
likewise Christian, and belongs to the end of the first century A.D.
The first chapter is probably an addition by a Christian editor, the
date of which cannot be fixed. The whole of this material has come
down to us in an Ethiopic version; this was made from the original
Greek, only fragments of which have survived; a Latin version which
was made from the Greek existed at one time, but here again only
fragments have come down to us.
(_h_) THE BOOK OF THE SECRETS OF ENOCH
[LITERATURE.—Schürer, German ed., III, pp. 290-294; Morfill
and Charles, _The Book of the Secrets of Enoch_ (1896); Forbes
and Charles, in _The Apocr. and Pseudep. of the O.T._, II, pp.
425-469.]
This Apocalypse, called also the “Slavonic Enoch” on account of
the language in which it has survived, has nothing to do with the
“Ethiopic Book of Enoch” already dealt with, excepting that it
sometimes reproduces the phraseology and conceptions of the latter.
Some sections, the exact extent of which it is impossible to define
(Charles), have a Hebrew background and were originally written in
this language; these are, at latest, pre-Christian; but the main part
of the book was written in Greek, and belongs to about the middle of
the first century A.D., at any rate to some period prior to the year
A.D. 70, for in lix. 2 the sacrificial system is referred to which
presupposes the existence of the Temple (“For a man offers clean
animals and makes his sacrifice that he may preserve his soul. And if
he offer as a sacrifice from clean beasts and birds, he preserves his
soul”). There are numberless indications in the book to prove that
the author was a Jew, but of the Hellenistic type, for in questions
affecting the origin of the earth, sin, death, etc., he adopts
Platonic, Egyptian and Zend elements into his system (Charles) in a
way which would have been impossible to a Palestinian Jew; he is,
however, so far orthodox in that he upholds the sacrificial system,
as we have seen, and believes in the Law and in the life eternal. It
is interesting to note that the writer frequently quotes passages
from Ecclesiasticus in its Greek form, and was also evidently
conversant with the Book of Wisdom.
There is one point of especial interest in this book to which a brief
reference may be made. We meet here for the first time with the
Jewish conception of the Millennium; the _rationale_ of its origin
is thus given by Charles: “The account in Genesis of the first week
of creation came in pre-Christian times to be regarded not only as
a history of the past, but as a forecast of the future history of
the world so created. Thus as the world was created in six days, so
its history was to be accomplished in 6,000 years; for 1,000 years
are with God as one day (cp. Ps. xc. 4; 2 Peter iii. 8), and as God
rested on the seventh day, so at the close of the 6,000 years there
would be a rest of 1,000 years, i.e. the millennium.” It is also
worth adding that the doctrine of the seven heavens is treated in
this book with a fulness and clearness not found elsewhere; for
an illuminating discussion on the subject see Morfill and Charles’
edition of the book, pp. xxx.-xlvii.
(_i_) THE SYRIAC APOCALYPSE OF BARUCH
[LITERATURE.—Schürer, II, iii. pp. 83-93, German, ed., III, pp.
305-315; Ryssel, in Kautzsch, II, pp. 404-446; Charles, _The
Apocalypse of Baruch_ (1896); and in _The Apocr. and Pseudep. of
the O.T._, II, pp. 470-526.]
This Baruch apocalypse is called the Syriac one because this is the
language in which it has come down to us; it is to be distinguished
from the “Greek Apocalypse of Baruch” § (_k_), which is an entirely
different work. In its present form it is composite in character, but
all its component parts may be assigned to the period A.D. 50-100.
To disentangle the various elements contained in the book from one
another is a very difficult task; we follow Dr. Charles in giving the
following details. The authors are all Pharisees; some lived before,
and some after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70; the portions
written before this date consist of an Apocalypse (xxvii.-xxx. 1),
and two Visions (xxxvi.-xl. and liii.-lxxiv,); these chapters are
important for the Messianic teaching contained in them. The portions
written after the year A.D. 70 include the rest of the book, with
the exception of a few chapters added by a final editor. The present
Syriac book is a translation from a Greek version of the original
Hebrew.
This apocalypse is one of the most important books we possess for the
study of Judaism at the beginning of the Christian era; all the vital
doctrines come in for consideration—the doctrine of God, of the Law,
of the Messiah, Original Sin and Free-will, Works and Justification,
Forgiveness, and the Resurrection.
(_j_) THE APOCALYPSE OF MOSES
[LITERATURE.—Schürer, _Op. cit._, II, iii. pp. 146, 147, German
ed., III, pp. 294-305; Fuchs in Kautzsch, pp. 506-528; F. C.
Conybeare in the _Jewish Quarterly Review_, vii., pp. 216 ff.
(1895); Charles, in the _Apocr. and Pseud. of the O.T._, II, pp.
407-424.]
This Jewish work, belonging possibly to the end of the first century
A.D., consists of forty-three chapters, most of which have their
parallel in the fifty-one chapters of the _Life of Adam and Eve_. The
original language of both was Hebrew; the latter exists now only in a
Latin form, while the Apocalypse is extant in Greek and Armenian. How
the book came to have the name of Moses in the title is difficult to
say; he is not mentioned in the book, which is strictly a legendary
life of Adam and Eve. For the study of the doctrine of sin the book
has some value, but the apocalyptic elements are very sparse; the
life hereafter and the resurrection are, however, referred to.
(_k_) THE GREEK APOCALYPSE OF BARUCH
This book does not come within our period as it was written,
probably, at the end of the second century A.D.; it is only mentioned
here for the purpose of pointing out again that it is to be
distinguished from the “Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch” dealt with above.
* * * * *
This chapter does not lend itself to a Summary as in the case of the
others.