CHAPTER XII

The Doctrinal Teaching of the Apocrypha

PRELIMINARY REMARKS

It would be difficult to point to anything which illustrates more

clearly the arbitrary way in which the books of the Apocrypha have

been separated off from the rest of the Jewish uncanonical religious

literature of the period with which we are dealing than the study

of the doctrinal teaching of this literature. For in the Apocrypha

only part of that teaching is represented; to obtain it in its

fulness, so far as the literature of the period is extant, we have

to consult such pseudepigraphic works as the Book of Enoch, the

Sibylline Oracles, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Book

of Jubilees, the Psalms of Solomon, the Assumption of Moses, the

Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, and the Ascension of Isaiah. But to take

all these into consideration here is out of the question, and we

have already given a brief outline of the more important doctrines

taught in them (Chapter X). There is, however, one compensation in

restricting ourselves to the books of the Apocrypha; for the more

important of these were recognized by official Judaism as containing

good orthodox teaching; so that in dealing with this body of

literature alone we are at all events on more or less secure ground

as far as orthodox Judaism is concerned, and to get at that as a

foundation is useful for the further observance of the development

of doctrine. At the same time, it is necessary to bear in mind

that while in most respects the books of the Apocrypha afford,

speaking generally, a criterion for the period B.C. 200-A.D. 100 as

to orthodox Jewish teaching, in some respects they are inadequate,

in others even insufficient, so that in such cases recourse must be

had to the Apocalyptic Literature, though we cannot here take that

Literature into fuller consideration.

Now in dealing with the Judaism of this period we must again

emphasize what has already been stated several times, namely the

existence of the external influences by which it was affected. The

background of the Apocrypha books in the domain of doctrine is not

solely the Old Testament, though this is, of course, their chief

source of inspiration; but there have also been marked Persian and

Greek influences in certain directions; it is essential that this

should be recognized. This point has been admirably dealt with

by Fairweather, and some of his words are well worth quoting; he

rightly says that there have been “two great streams of influence

flowing in upon the Jewish theology of this period, an Eastern and

a Western, a Persian and a Greek. Of these by far the stronger was

the Greek, though the Persian is as distinctly traceable ... the

Persian current was that of Zoroastrianism; the Greek cannot be

associated with a single name. Out of these two forces, which were

new, or newly felt, active upon the native Judaism of Palestine,

which was old, was formed that _third_ which we meet within the

home of Jewish theology of the period. But there was also a Jewish

theology outside of Palestine altogether. Not only did foreign

influences flow in upon Judaism, but Judaism, now no longer confined

to Palestine, went out to meet them. Thus the hitherto unbroken

river of Old Testament ideas and doctrines divided itself at this

point into three separate streams. One, the main current, continued

to flow on in Palestine; while on the east and west of it ran two

other streams—the one through Persian territory, and the other

through Greek. The tributaries of Persian and Greek ideas by which

these streams respectively were fed necessarily caused their waters

to be of a composite character, exceedingly difficult to analyse so

as to say definitely, ‘This is Jewish, that is Persian,’ or ‘This is

Jewish, that is Greek,’”[322] The main current of which Fairweather

speaks represents Palestinian Judaism, while the other two streams

powerfully affected the Judaism of the Dispersion; the differences

between these two types of Judaism must be taken into consideration,

for both types are represented in the books of the Apocrypha. We

must also seek, as far as possible, to follow the teaching of the

various books in chronological order. Differences of opinion exist,

to be sure, regarding the actual dates of these, but there is in

almost all cases approximate unanimity as to the _centuries_ to

which they belong. In some instances different parts of a book

belong to different times; this will be taken into consideration

where necessary. When, therefore, quotations are given to illustrate

some point of doctrine they will be put, as far as possible, in

chronological order; see the table on p. 320.

The doctrines to be dealt with are the following:

(_a_) The Doctrine of God.

(_b_) The Doctrine of the Law.

(_c_) The Doctrine of Sin.

(_d_) The Doctrine of Grace and Free-will.

(_e_) The Doctrine of the Messiah.

(_f_) The Doctrine of the Future Life.

(_g_) The Doctrine of Angels.

(_h_) Demonology.

The very important doctrine of Wisdom has already been considered in

Chapter VIII.

In dealing with these doctrines we shall only make cursory mention

of those points in which the teaching of the Apocrypha is identical

with that of the Old Testament, as our main object is to try

and show in what respects the books of the Apocrypha exhibit an

advance in doctrine upon the Old Testament, or, as in some cases, a

retrogression; at the same time the characteristic form in which a

book presents any particular doctrine will be noted even in those

cases in which there is no essential difference between the Old

Testament and the Apocrypha. It will not always be possible to keep

the various doctrines entirely separate from each other, as one so

often leads into another; so that some little repetition may at times

be unavoidable.

(_a_) _The Doctrine of God._

The Old Testament teaching on the Personality of God is, as one

would expect, so full, that we must not look for much advance in the

books of the Apocrypha on this subject. The Unity of God the Creator

of all, His eternity and omnipotence, His activity in nature, His

wisdom, holiness, justice, loving-kindness and mercy, His Fatherhood

of Israel, and sometimes of all flesh—these doctrines are all amply

dealt with in Ecclesiasticus. In the fine passage Ecclesiasticus

xlii. 15-xliii. 33, where Ben-Sira gets his inspiration largely from

the Psalms, the praise of God is sung as the Lord of Nature; there

are one or two points in this passage which, to some extent, witness

to an advance upon what the Old Testament teaches; in xlii. 16 it is

said:

God’s holy ones have not the power

To recount His wondrous works of might;

Though God hath given strength to His hosts

To endure in the presence of His glory.

These words represent the Hebrew, which was misunderstood by

the Greek translator; the meaning of them is that not even the

angels[323] can declare God’s mighty works, even though they stand

in His presence; they are only able to stand in that presence because

they have received special strength for the purpose. What spiritual

beings, who thus stand in the very presence of God, are unable to

fathom, can still less be understood by men, all they can do is to

offer praise to God; so Ben-Sira says later in the same section:

We will sing praises, because we cannot fathom;

For greater is He than all His works.

Terrible is Jehovah exceedingly,

And wonderful are His mighty acts.

Ye that magnify Jehovah, lift up your voice

As much as ye can, for there is still more!

Ye that exalt Him, renew your strength,

And weary not, for ye cannot fathom Him!

Who hath seen Him, that he may tell thereof?

And who shall magnify Him as He is?

The number of things mysterious is greater even than these,

And I have seen but few of His works (xliii. 28-32).

The conception of God which is revealed in these two passages does

certainly seem to be a higher one even than is anywhere to be found

in the Old Testament. In Tobit much the same general conception

is found as in the Old Testament; but one passage may be quoted

as showing a universalistic spirit which is found only in some of

the most exalted utterances of the prophets; in xiv. 6 it is said

that “all the nations which are in the whole earth, all shall turn

and fear God truly; and all shall leave their idols, who err after

their false error.” Fully in accordance with the belief that Jehovah

is the God of all men is the way in which the writer of this book

never tires of speaking of Him under various titles expressive of

the sincerest praise and faith; no book of the Apocrypha has such

a variety of names for God as this one. Another important point is

that God hears the prayers of men through angelic mediation. In great

contrast to this high conception of God is that found in Judith;

for while the power of God to help His chosen ones in face of the

most adverse circumstances is strongly insisted upon, the idea that

God’s favour is only accorded to those who keep the Law, and that

He is only the God of the Jews, which is implied throughout even if

not definitely stated, is a very inadequate one and takes us back

to some of the least exalted passages of the Old Testament which

deal with the doctrine of God. A special note, though in no sense

new in itself, is sounded in the Prayer of Manasses, where great

stress is laid upon the divine compassion; the opening verses form a

beautiful hymn of praise to God. In turning to the secondary text of

Ecclesiasticus, which comes next in order, we have in the addition

to xxiv. 23 (= 24 in the A.V.) a striking instance of the Pharisaic

doctrine of God, both as regards the divine Personality as well as

the relationship between Him and His true worshippers:

Faint not, but be strong in the Lord,

And cleave unto Him that He may strengthen you.

Cleave unto Him; the Lord, the Almighty, is the One and only God;

And beside Him there is no Saviour.

The great characteristic, so far as the present subject is

concerned, of this secondary text, or Pharisaic recension,[324] of

Ecclesiasticus is that of the closeness of God to those who love Him;

personal religion, that religious individualism which did so much to

foster spiritual worship, finds true expression here; not that the

original writer was wanting in deep piety, in spite of what often

strikes one as a somewhat worldly spirit, but as compared with the

Pharisaic ideal of the beginning of the first century B.C. it is not

surprising to find that the book was considered in some respects

wanting, and that it seemed to the more ardent religious temperament

of the Pharisees as not sufficiently expressive of the close

relationship between God and His pious ones. This may be illustrated

by one or two examples of the way additions are made to the original

text. In i. 12 Ben-Sira says:

The fear of the Lord delighteth the heart,

And giveth gladness, and joy, and length of days;

but the Pharisee deepens the sentiment by adding:

The fear of the Lord is a gift from the Lord,

For it setteth men upon paths of love.

Another example is found in the addition to xvii. 20. Ben-Sira says:

Their iniquities are not hid from Him,

And all their sins are inscribed before the Lord;

to this the Pharisaic glossator adds:

But the Lord, being merciful, knowing also that they are made

in His own image,

Spared them, and forsook them not, nor cast them off.

The closeness of God to those who love Him is again brought out in

the addition to xvii. 26^_a_:

For He Himself will lead thee out of darkness unto the light

of salvation.[325]

There are, of course, other passages of a similar kind. The interest

of these lies in the fact that they breathe the same spirit which

we find in a number of the later Psalms, and which are believed by

many scholars to emanate from the circle of the _Chassidim_ or “Pious

ones,” the forerunners of the Pharisees; this spirit reappears in

the Psalms of Solomon, which are admittedly the work of a Pharisee,

or Pharisees. In 1 Maccabees we find the strange characteristic of

the non-mention of the name of God,[326] which never occurs in the

original text, though it is sometimes inserted in the Authorized

Version; on the other hand, a true faith in the omnipotence of God

is at times expressed, e.g. iii. 18: “There is no difference in the

sight of Heaven to save by many or by few; for victory in battle

standeth not in the multitude of an host, but strength is from

Heaven”; and trust in God as the God of Israel Who will help His

people against their foes occurs not infrequently, e.g. in iv. 10,

11: “And now let us cry unto Heaven, if He will have mercy upon us,

and will remember the covenant of the fathers, and destroy this army

before our face to-day, and then will all the Gentiles know that

there is One Who redeemeth and saveth Israel.”[327] In all three

of the documents which make up the Book of Baruch stress is laid

on God’s guidance of Israel’s destiny; in the portion, Baruch iv.

5-v. 9 the special characteristic is that the divine compassion is

constantly recalled, for which reason the writer again and again

bids his hearers be of “good cheer.” The writer of 2 (4) Esdras

fully represents the best of the Old Testament teaching concerning

the doctrine of God; he insists on the unity of God, His Creatorship

wholly without any mediatorial agency; Israel is the specially

elected nation with which God has entered into a covenant relation.

The problems with which the seer is presented are insoluble for man,

who cannot even comprehend the material things of the world, much

less the spiritual secrets of Heaven: “... He said moreover unto me,

What belongs to thee, (namely) the things that have intermingled with

thy growth, thou art incapable of understanding; how then should thy

vessel be able to comprehend the way of the Most High? For the way

of the Most High hath been found without measure; how, then, should

it be possible for a mortal in a corruptible world to understand

the ways of the Incorruptible?” (iv. 10, 11). The writer’s faith in

God is specially shown forth by his conviction that in spite of all

appearances God’s love is for His people: “Just as thou art unable

to do even one of these that have been mentioned, even so art thou

powerless to discover my judgement or the goal of the love that I

have declared unto My people” (v. 40). With the Book of Wisdom we

enter a religious atmosphere which is to a large extent alien to

that of Palestine; whether the two parts of this book were written

by different authors, or whether they are both from the same author

writing at different periods of his life, it is quite clear that the

presentation of the doctrine of God in each is entirely different;

the first part (i.-xi. 1) is more Greek than Jewish, and “in

nothing,” says Holmes, “is this more clearly shown than in the idea

of God presented by the two parts respectively. The idea of God in

part i. is that of Greek philosophy, a transcendent God Who has no

immediate contact with the world. It is true that in the later parts

of the Old Testament the writers had largely abandoned the conception

of Jahveh as a God Who had direct dealings with mankind.... God

gradually became thought of as more and more remote, though even in

Daniel the scene where the Ancient of Days sits in judgement on the

nations shows that God could be still thought of as having immediate

dealings with mankind. In Wisdom, however, in chapters i.-x. we find

that the author conceives God to be so remote, that He performs

His will by means of an intermediary, whom He sends forth into the

world (ix. 10). This intermediary is Wisdom, and possesses all the

attributes of Deity. She is omnipotent (vii. 27), omniscient (viii. 8

and ix. 11), and puts these attributes into action; she administers

all things well (viii. 1).”[328] In the second half of the book God

is again and again spoken of as interfering personally in the affairs

of men; a striking example is given in xiv. 1 ff., which speaks of

the folly of a navigator who prays for safety to an idol before

embarking upon his vessel:

For that vessel the hunger for gain devised,

And an artificer by his wisdom built it;

And Thy providence, O Father, guideth it along,

Because even in the sea Thou gavest a way,

And in the waves a sure path;

Showing that Thou canst save out of every danger....

In other respects also the second part of this book represents the

Old Testament doctrine, more especially in its insistence upon the

need of right worship, and in the way in which it deals with the

mercy and justice of God.

(_b_) _The Doctrine of the Law._

In Ecclesiasticus much stress is laid upon the importance of the Law

both from the ethical and ritual point of view, a fact which shows

this book to be a valuable link between the Judaism of post-exilic

times and Rabbinical Judaism. The first point to note is the nature

of the Law as taught by Ben-Sira; it is eternal, and it is divine,

for it has been given by God, the Eternal One. The existence of the

Law before the beginning of the world is involved by Ben-Sira’s

identification of it with Wisdom. This is a conception which, so far

as is known, occurs here for the first time; but the way in which

this identification seems to be taken for granted shows that it

cannot have been wholly new to Ben-Sira’s hearers; in speaking about

the search for Wisdom he says, for example, in xv. 1:

For he that feareth the Lord doeth this [i.e. seeketh Wisdom],

And he that taketh hold of the Law findeth her [i.e. Wisdom].

The Law and Wisdom are used again as synonymous terms in xxxiv.

(xxxi. in the Greek) 8:

Without deceit shall the Law be fulfilled.

And Wisdom is perfect in a mouth that is faithful.

Perhaps the most striking example of the way in which the two are

identified with each other is in xxiv. 23, where Ben-Sira speaks of

things concerning Wisdom, saying:

All these things are the book of the covenant of God Most High,

The Law which Moses commanded as an heritage for the assemblies

of Jacob.

Equally direct are the words in xix. 20:

All wisdom is the fear of the Lord,

And all wisdom is the fulfilling of the Law.

The “fear of the Lord,” as is often said by Ben-Sira, is both the

true observance of the Law, and the “beginning,” or zenith, of

Wisdom. The constant insistence upon the need of observing the Law

is characteristic of this book; the following passage offers a good

example out of many:

He that seeketh out the Law shall gain her,

But the hypocrite shall be snared thereby....

In all thy works guard thyself,

For he that so doeth keepeth the commandment.

He that observeth the Law guardeth himself,

And he that trusteth in Jehovah shall not be brought to shame

(xxxii. 15-24).

Ben-Sira urges men not to be ashamed of the Law (xlii. 2), and loves

to remind his hearers of how their great ancestors observed it and

were enlightened by it, and taught it to others (see xliv. 20,

xlv. 5, 17, xlvi. 14); and he also teaches that the fulfilling of

the precepts of the Law is to be the chief concern in view of the

inevitableness of death:

Remember thy last end, and cease from enmity;

Remember corruption and death, and abide in the commandments

(xxviii. 6).

Another point of importance in this connection is Ben-Sira’s teaching

on the spirit in which the precepts of the Law should be carried out;

in xxxiv. 18, 19 (in the Greek xxxi. 21-23) he says:

The sacrifice of the unrighteous man is a mocking offering,

And unacceptable are the oblations of the godless.

The Most High hath no pleasure in the offerings of the ungodly,

Neither doth He forgive sins for a multitude of sacrifices.

Somewhat different in character, but breathing quite the same spirit,

are the following words:

He who washeth after contact with a dead body, and toucheth it

again,

What has he gained by his bathing?

So a man fasting for his sins,

And again doing the same,

Who will listen to his prayer?

And what hath he gained by his humiliation (verses 25, 26).

That the Law, according to Ben-Sira, was now meant only for Israel,

whatever might originally have been the case, may be gathered from

the following, when it is remembered that, as already shown, Wisdom

and the Law are identified with each other; Wisdom is represented as

speaking thus:

With all these [i.e. every people and nation] I sought a

resting-place,

And said: In whose inheritance shall I lodge?

Then the Creator of all things gave me commandment,

And He that created me fixed my dwelling-place for me;

And He said: Let thy dwelling-place be in Jacob,

And in Israel take up thine inheritance....

And I took root among an honoured people,

In the portion of the Lord and of His inheritance

(xxiv. 7 f., 12).

We may recall here that according to the teaching of the Rabbis

in later centuries the Law was originally intended by God to be a

revelation of Himself and of His will to all nations, but that the

only nation which accepted it was Israel.

In the Book of Tobit we meet with an earnest zeal for the fulfilments

of legal precepts combined with deep devotion. This book is

important for the indications it offers of the development of legal

observances. Prayer, almsgiving and fasting are strongly advocated

(xii. 8), but more especially almsgiving, which is again and again

insisted upon, e.g.: “Give alms of thy substance; turn not away thy

face from any poor man, and the face of God shall not be turned away

from thee. As thy substance is, give alms of it according to thine

abundance; if thou have much, according to the abundance thereof

give alms; if thou have little, bestow it, and be not afraid to give

alms according to that little....” (iv. 6-11). The laws of tithe

(i. 7, v. 13), marriage (vi. 12, vii. 13, 14), honouring parents

(iv. 3), keeping the feasts (i. 6, ii. 1), purifying oneself (ii.

5), as well as others, are all inculcated. This love for the Law,

combined with worship, i.e. prayer, observance of the feasts, and

zeal for the honour of God, offers a fine illustration of the truly

pious Jew of this period. The observance of the Law appears as a real

delight, there is no hint of its being irksome; in this the book is a

commentary on the psalmist’s words:

Oh, how I love Thy Law,

It is my meditation all the day (Ps. cxix. 97).

In no book of the Apocrypha is the observance of the Law more

strongly advocated than in Judith; while everything depends upon

trust in God and obedience to Him, both are shown forth by keeping

the Law which He gave; righteousness is only through the Law. As

in the majority of the books of the Apocrypha there is no abstract

conception concerning the Law, its practical observance only is

taught. Thus in viii. 5, 6 it is said of Judith that “she made her

a tent upon the roof of her house, and put on sackcloth upon her

loins; and the garments of her widowhood were upon her. And she

fasted all the days of her widowhood, save the eves of the sabbaths,

and the eves of the new moons, and the new moons, and the feasts

and joyful days of the house of Israel.” This was all in accordance

with traditional practice; seclusion, mortification and fasting

all belonged to the _rôle_ of a widow’s mourning; it is, however,

a development that the eves of sabbaths, new moons and feasts were

observed, as here indicated. A further example of the need of the

strict observance of the Law is seen in xi. 12, 13, where the sin

of touching forbidden food is spoken of: “Since their (i.e. the

Jews’) victuals failed them, and all their water was scant, they took

counsel to lay hands upon their cattle, and determined to consume all

those things which God charged them by His laws that they should not

eat; and they are resolved to spend the firstfruits of the corn, and

the tenths of the wine and the oil, which they had sanctified and

reserved for the priests that stand before the face of our God in

Jerusalem; the which things it is not fitting for any of the people

so much as to touch with their hands.” Reference is also made to

the sacrificial system and the gifts of the people in xvi. 18, but

in the poem in xvi. 2-17 the right spirit in offering is the really

important matter:

For all sacrifice is very little for a sweet savour,

And all the fat is very little for a whole burnt-offering to Thee;

But he that feareth the Lord is great continually.

The teaching concerning the Law in this book is thus strongly

Pharisaic.

In 1 Maccabees there is reflected the earnest zeal for the Law on

the part of the patriots; this has been referred to with quotations

above (Chap. II), so that it is not necessary to say anything further

here. Much stress is laid upon legal observances in 2 Maccabees; in

i. 8, 9 it is told how in Jerusalem the Jews offered sacrifice and

meal-offering, lighted the lamps, and set forth the shewbread; and

it is enjoined that the feast of Tabernacles be kept in the month

Chislev. As in 1 Maccabees apostate Jews are severely rebuked for

following those who were unfaithful to the Law (iv. 11-17), the

passage concludes with the words: “It is no light matter to act

impiously against the laws of God; time will show that.” Another

passage which illustrates the intense zeal for the Law is in chapter

vii., where the story is told of the martyrdom of seven sons and

their mother who “died for His laws” (vii. 9). The whole attitude

towards the Law is that of the Pharisaic school of about the first

century B.C. onwards; this also applies to 1 (3) Esdras.

In the document, Baruch iii. 9-iv. 4, where the Law and Wisdom are

identified, exiled Israel is told that the reason of his punishment

is the forsaking of God’s ways, the commandments of life, i.e. the

Law:

Hear, O Israel, the commandments of life;

Give ear to understand Wisdom.

How happeneth it, O Israel, that thou art in thine enemies’ land,

That thou art waxen old in a strange country...?

Thou hast forsaken the fountain of Wisdom.

For if thou hadst walked in the way of God,

Thou shouldst have dwelled in peace for ever.

Learn where is Wisdom, where is strength,

Where is understanding; that thou mayest also know

Where is length of days, and life,

Where is the light of the eyes, and peace.

That the _Law_ is meant by Wisdom, strength, and understanding is

clear from the words at the end of the piece, iv. 1 ff.:

This is the book of the commandments of God,

And the Law that endureth for ever;

All they that hold it fast are appointed to life,

But such as leave it shall die....

The lasting endurance of the Law which is also taught here frequently

finds expression in the Rabbinical literature. That the Law is for

Israel alone seems to be implied in the words:

Turn thee, O Jacob, and take hold of it,

Walk towards her shining in the presence of the light thereof;

Give not thy glory to another,

Nor the things that are profitable unto thee to a strange nation.

O Israel, happy are we,

For the things that are pleasing to God are made known unto us

(iv. 3, 4).

Of the different portions which make up 2 (4) Esdras the most

important in the present connection is the “Salathiel Apocalypse”

which forms the bulk of the book (iii.—x.). A good instance of this

writer’s attitude towards the Law together with a prophecy of the

doom upon Israel for having rejected it by sinning is ix. 31-37;

first these words are put into the mouth of God: “For behold, I

sow my Law in you, and it shall bring forth fruit in you, and ye

shall be glorified in it for ever”; then the writer continues: “But

our fathers who received the Law observed it not, and the statutes

they did not keep, and yet the fruit of the Law did not perish, nor

could it, because it was Thine; but they who received it perished,

because they kept not that which had been sown in them.... We who

have received the Law, and sinned, must perish, together with our

heart, which hath taken it in; the Law, however, perisheth not, but

abideth in its glory.” In accordance with later Rabbinical teaching

it is said in this book that the Law had originally been given to

other nations, by whom it was rejected, while Israel alone accepted

it: “And Thy glory went through the four gates of fire, earthquake,

wind and cold, to give the Law to Jacob’s seed, and the commandment

to the generation of Israel” (iii. 19); on the other hand, in vii.

72 it is said: “Therefore shall the sojourners in the earth suffer

torture, because, having understanding, they yet wrought iniquity,

and receiving precepts, they yet kept them not, and having obtained

the Law they set at nought that which they received.” Both Israel and

the Gentiles thus received, or had the chance of receiving, the Law,

and both by sinning perished in spite of the Law; the inadequacy of

the Law as a redemptive power here shown forth is very striking; the

reason why the Law was ineffective was, according to iv. 30, because

of “the grain of evil seed which was sown in the heart of Adam from

the beginning.” We shall have to return to this when dealing with the

doctrine of Sin (see next section). In the other portions of this

book, so far as our present subject is concerned, the main stress is

laid on veneration for the Law.

We turn now to the Book of Wisdom, representing the Judaism of the

Dispersion, and here, as one would expect, there is very little on

this subject to be noted. In ii. 12 words are put into the mouth of

the ungodly which show that the writer, at any rate, recognizes the

Law and its obligations:

But let us lie in wait for the righteous, for he is of disservice

to us,

And is opposed to our doings,

And upbraideth us with sins against the Law,

And layeth to our charge sins against our discipline.

In vi. 4 rulers are denounced for not keeping the Law:

Because being officers of his kingdom ye did not judge aright,

Neither kept ye the Law, nor walked after the counsel of God.

As the reference here is to foreign rulers there is an advance in

doctrine to be noted, for the Law is held to be obligatory on others

as well as on the Jews, and Gentile rulers are regarded as having

received their authority from God.

(_c_) _The Doctrine of Sin._

The prevalence of Sin is often spoken of in Ecclesiasticus; Ben-Sira

realizes its existence personally when he says in xxii. 27:

O that one would set a watch over my mouth,

And a seal of shrewdness over my lips....

And again in xxiii. 3 ff.:

That mine ignorances be not multiplied,

And that my sins abound not....

Its universal prevalence is witnessed to by the words in viii. 5:

Reproach not a man who repenteth,

Remember that we are all guilty.

Punishment for every sin, Ben-Sira says, will assuredly overtake

sinners:

Do not wickedly continue in sin,

For in respect of one sin thou art not without guilt;

i.e. every single sin carries guilt with it, the implication being

that it will therefore not go unpunished. Of great interest and

importance is the teaching in this book on the origin of Sin;

Ben-Sira mentions three theories; one of these he combats, namely

that the existence of Sin is due to God; this is the belief,

apparently, of certain freethinkers against whom the following words

are spoken:

Say not, “From God is my transgression,”

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.

Evil and abomination doth the Lord hate,

And He doth not let it come nigh them that fear Him

(xv. 11-13).

But since Ben-Sira believed that God was the Creator of everything

that exists, he sometimes comes perilously near to uttering the very

untruth which he here combats. He says, for example, in xxxvii. 3:

O base nature! Why then wast thou created

To fill the world’s face with deceit?

The words “base nature” are the rendering of the Hebrew which is

literally, “evil Yetzer”; the “Yetzer” is the bias or natural

inclination which is implanted in every man; there is, therefore, in

the words quoted, an implication that this “evil Yetzer” was created

by God. The same must be said of another passage, xxxiii. (xxxvi. in

the Greek) 13-15:

As the clay is in the power of the potter,

To fashion it according to his good pleasure;

So is man in the power of his Creator,

To make him according to His ordinance.

Over against evil stands good, and against death life;

Likewise over against the godly stands the sinner.

Even thus look upon all the works of God,

Each different, one the opposite of the other.

In this case, indeed, there is something more than an implication,

for the words seem to impute the origin of evil directly to God.

Yet it can hardly be that Ben-Sira believed this; for in view of

what he says in the first passage quoted he regarded this as

altogether wrong. The fact is that as soon as he begins to grapple

with this subject he involves himself in difficulties; he tries

another solution of the problem, but as will be seen, this is no real

solution; in XXV. 24 he says:

From a woman did sin originate [lit. “is the beginning of sin”],

And because of her we all must die.

But this only traces the history of Sin in the human race, and does

not touch upon its creation; moreover, it has to be remembered that

Ben-Sira usually regards Sin as something external to man, something

which comes to him from outside (though exceptions to this will be

referred to presently); thus in xxi. 2, 3, for example, it is said:

Flee from sin as from the face of a serpent;

For if thou come nigh it, it will bite thee.

Like the teeth of a lion are the teeth thereof,

It slayeth the souls of men.

Like a two-edged sword is all iniquity,

From the stroke thereof is no healing.

If Sin is external to man, as is so often said and implied in this

book, it must have existed somewhere before it was appropriated by

Eve, and thus originated in the human race.[329] Nevertheless, in

connection with what appears to be a third theory, it is possible

that Ben-Sira believed Sin to be not external to man. For this third

theory we must consider first xxi. 27, 28:

When the fool curseth his adversary [lit. “Satan”],

He curseth his own soul;

The whisperer defileth his own soul,

And is hated whithersoever he sojourneth.

The meaning of this passage is no doubt difficult to determine; but,

to begin with, it seems clear that by the words, “The whisperer

defileth his own soul,” Ben-Sira meant to express the truth that

the evil in man is of his own making; it is also evident that the

words are intended to be an illustration of the truth enunciated

in the preceding couplet. Whatever is meant by “adversary”—whether

“Satan” in the sense of the Devil, or an adversary in a more general

signification—the words which follow (“He curseth his own soul”)

show that what Ben-Sira intends to teach is that the “adversary” is

synonymous with the ungodly man’s own self; i.e. he, and he alone, is

responsible for his sins. So that the gist of the passage would seem

to be that man is his own “Satan”; in other words, that the origin

of Sin is to be sought in man since the initiative lies with him.

Another passage which may be quoted in this connection is xvii. 31:

What is brighter than the sun? Yet this faileth;

And how much more man who hath the inclination of flesh and

blood!

The text here is uncertain; the Hebrew is not extant and the

Versions differ, so that one cannot be sure about its meaning. Dr.

Tennant paraphrases the Greek thus: “Even the sun darkens itself—the

brightest thing in the world; how much more, then, frail man!” And,

in commenting on the words, he says that if Ben-Sira offers any

excuse for man’s depravity “it is that of his natural and essential

frailty ... but [that he] never [attributes it] to an external

cause.” Difficult as the verse is, it is quite possible that what

was in Ben-Sira’s mind was that the origin of Sin was to be found in

man, for it is extremely doubtful whether he differentiated between

Sin as an abstract conception and actual deeds of Sin committed by

individuals. The idea that seems to be adumbrated here as to the

origin of Sin is, in any case, true from one point of view, for it

accords with the facts of experience if human free-will is believed

in, and Ben-Sira does believe in this (see next section); for every

sin committed originates, so far as any particular sin is concerned,

in man, whatever be the origin of the sinful tendency. This can be

illustrated by one other quotation:

But the sinner is ensnared through his lips,

And the fool stumbleth through his mouth (xxiii. 8).

Ben-Sira’s teaching concerning the origin of Sin may, then, be

summed up thus: He implies, though he hardly goes so far as to

make the definite assertion, that the origin of Sin is due to God;

yet in one important passage he strongly combats this. He teaches,

further, that so far as the human race is concerned the origin of

Sin is to be sought in the fall of Eve, but he does not attempt to

trace its history further back; this was, however, from his point

of view unnecessary if, in accordance with his third theory, sin

originates in the individual; nevertheless, he involves himself in a

contradiction here in saying that because of Eve’s sin all men must

die. In addition to this, however, there is a further inconsistency

regarding this third theory, for while teaching that Sin originates

_in_ man, he sometimes speaks of it as something external to him.

These contradictory thoughts bring into clear relief Ben-Sira’s

inability to formulate a consistent and logical doctrine as to the

origin of Sin; and in this he but shows himself the forerunner of the

Rabbis, from whose writings it can be seen that these later thinkers

were involved in precisely the same inconsistencies as soon as they

attempted to construct a working theory on the subject.

There is one other point connected with this subject to which brief

reference must be made, namely, the means whereby sins are atoned

for; the importance here lies in the fact that the teaching of this

book concerning atonement for sins is the same as that of the later

Rabbinical literature; it is, therefore, a great development upon

Old Testament teaching. Ben-Sira follows the teaching of the Old

Testament in so far that he believes in the need of the sacrificial

system provided that sacrifices are offered in the right spirit; he

says, for example, in one place:

Give a meal-offering with a memorial,

And offer a fat sacrifice to the utmost of thy means

(xxxviii. 11);

but it depends upon the spirit of him who offers as to whether the

sacrifice is acceptable or not:

The sacrifice of the unrighteous man is a mocking offering,

And unacceptable are the oblations of the godless.

The Most High hath no pleasure in the offerings of the ungodly,

Neither doth He forgive sins for a multitude of sacrifices

(xxxiv. 18, 19, in the Greek xxxi. 21-23).

That sacrifices atoned for sins is a fundamental Old Testament

doctrine, but the other means of atonement which Ben-Sira mentions

show a development; these are as follows; (one quotation in support

of each must suffice for illustration). Concerning Almsgiving it is

said in iii. 30:

A flaming fire doth water quench,

So doth almsgiving atone for sin.

That Fasting is an atonement is implied in the following:

... So a man fasting for his sins

And doing the same again,—

Who will listen to his prayer,

And what hath he gained by his humiliation?

(xxxiv. 26; in the Greek xxxi. 31).

Another means of atonement is Death; this is seen, or at any rate

adumbrated, in the words in xviii. 22:

Delay not to pay thy vow in due time,

And wait not till death to be justified.

This last assumed ever-increasing importance with the growth of

the belief in the resurrection; in Ecclesiasticus it is perhaps no

more than adumbrated, for where there was as yet no belief in the

resurrection nor in punishment for unatoned sins hereafter there was

no inducement to formulate a doctrine as to the atoning efficacy

of death; the above-quoted passage is, however, worth giving as

illustrating a tendency. One other means of atonement must be

mentioned because it teaches the truth of mediatorship; this is in

xlv. 23:

Moreover Phinehas, the son of Eleazar,

Was glorious in might as a third [i.e. after Moses and Aaron],

In that he was jealous for the God of all,

And stood in the breach for his people,

While his heart prompted him,

And he made atonement for the children of Israel.

What little is found in the Book of Tobit concerning the doctrine

of Sin is connected with Demonology, which will be considered in §

(_h_). There is a reference to the atoning efficacy of almsgiving in

iv. 10, 11: “... Because alms delivereth from death, and suffereth

not to come into darkness. Alms is a good offering in the sight

of the Most High for all that give it”; and especially xii. 9,

“Almsgiving doth deliver from death, and purgeth away all sin.” There

is nothing that calls for particular mention in the Book of Judith;

or in the Additions to Daniel, with the exception of one interesting

passage in the Prayer of Azariah, verse 12, where it is said: “Cause

not thy mercy to depart from us, for the sake of Abraham that is

beloved of Thee, and for the sake of Isaac Thy servant, and Israel

Thy holy one”; so, too, in the Prayer of Manasses, verse 8, where it

is implied that the patriarchs are sinless: “Thou, therefore, O Lord,

that art the God of the righteous, hast not appointed repentance unto

the righteous, unto Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, which have not

sinned against Thee; but thou hast appointed repentance unto me that

am a sinner.” This is important, for the same idea finds expression

in the later Rabbinical literature, and closely connected with it is

the doctrine of the merits of the fathers, i.e. that the good deeds

of the patriarchs and other great personalities in the history of

Israel serve as an atonement for their descendants. There is probably

no book in the Apocrypha in which such deep realization of sin is

expressed as in this short one; this is shown in verses 8-13:

For the sins I have sinned are more in number than the sands

of the sea,

For my transgressions were multiplied, O Lord;

My transgressions were multiplied,

And I am not worthy to behold and see the height of heaven

by reason of the multitude of mine iniquities....

The next book that calls for notice is 2 Maccabees, on account of

its strangely particularistic doctrine of retribution for sin; in

vi. 12-16 it is said: “Now I beseech the readers of this book not

to be discouraged by such calamities,[330] but to reflect that our

people were being punished by way of chastening, and not for their

destruction. For indeed it is a mark of great kindness when the

impious are not let alone for a long time, but punished at once. In

the case of other nations, the Sovereign Lord in His forbearance

refrains from punishing them till they have filled up their sins

to the full, but in our case He has determined otherwise, that His

vengeance may not fall on us in after-days when our sins have reached

their height....” The teaching of this subject in 1 (3) Esdras and

Baruch is that of the Old Testament; but it is worth mentioning

that the doctrine of the merits of the fathers referred to above is

expressly repudiated in Baruch ii. 19: “For we do not present our

supplication before Thee, O Lord our God, for the righteousness of

our fathers, and of our kings”; evidently this doctrine must have

been held by some, since it receives such a pointed repudiation.

The doctrine of Sin in 2 (4) Esdras is important as it is very fully

dealt with; this will require a little more detailed notice, but

we can restrict ourselves to the “Salathiel Apocalypse” portion

of the book (iii.-x.), as the other parts do not offer anything of

importance so far as this subject is concerned. The origin of Sin

is traced to Adam, as the following passage (iii. 20-22, 25, 26)

will show: “And yet Thou didst not take away from them the evil

heart, that Thy Law might bring forth fruit in them. For the first

Adam, clothing himself with the evil heart, transgressed, and was

overcome; and likewise also all who were born of him. Thus the

infirmity became inveterate; the Law indeed was in the heart of the

people, but together with the evil germ; so what was good departed,

and the evil remained.... And, after this had been done many years,

the inhabitants of the city committed sin, in all things doing as

Adam and all his generations had done; for they also had clothed

themselves with the evil heart.” This teaching occurs more than once;

in iv. 30 it is said: “For a grain of evil seed was sown in the

heart of Adam from the beginning, and how much fruit of ungodliness

hath it produced unto this time, and will yet produce until the

threshing-floor come!” And, once more, in vii. 118: “O thou Adam,

what hast thou done! For though it was thou who sinned, the fall was

not thine alone, but ours also who are thy descendants!” Adam’s fall

and sin in man are thus directly connected, but how this connection

came about the writer nowhere says. From the passage quoted above,

however, it will be seen that the writer of this book recognizes

each man’s individual responsibility for his own sins (“they also

had clothed themselves with the evil heart”). “It is noteworthy,”

says Box,[331] “that the form of the apocalyptist’s conception is

specifically Rabbinic. He bases his conclusions on the _Yetzer

ha-ra‘_ [i.e. the “evil tendency”]; there is no suggestion that the

introduction of evil into the world was due to external agents or

forces. The older mythological view (found in Genesis and in the

older apocalyptic literature) that the fall of man was brought about

by demonic incitement is tacitly discarded. The corruption of the

human race is regarded as due to a development of something inherent

in man’s nature (the _Yetzer ha-ra‘_). Though this doctrine is

sometimes combined, in the Rabbinical literature, with the popular

view of Satan (Satan works his evil purpose by the instrumentality

of the _Yetzer ha-ra‘_), it probably really represents a theological

refinement which was intended to supersede the older crude popular

ideas about demonic agency.... Where our apocalyptist differs,

and differs fundamentally, from the orthodox doctrine of Judaism,

expressed in the Rabbinical literature, is in the emphasis he lays

on the ravages of the evil _Yetzer_ upon human nature generally. The

enfeeblement of man’s nature is such that practically no one has

been able successfully to withstand the _Yetzer_; the whole race has

fallen into corruption. The Rabbis insisted, on the other hand, that

human nature is not, by any means, in such a hopeless condition. Man

can, by moral effort and assisted by the grace of God, successfully

resist the suggestions of the evil impulse.” In this book, therefore,

it is taught that Sin is universal among men: “For in truth there

is none of the earth-born that has not dealt wickedly, and among

those that exist that has not sinned” (viii. 35); and therefore the

writer’s sense of sin is very pronounced: “For the evil heart has

grown up in us, which has estranged us from God, and brought us into

destruction; and has made known unto us the ways of death, and showed

us the paths of perdition, and removed us far from life; and that not

a few only, but well-nigh all that have been created!” Turning now to

the Book of Wisdom, we may note first that the writer believed in an

original state of good:

Court not death in the error of your life;

Neither draw upon yourselves destruction by the works of your

hands;

Because God made not death,

Neither delighteth He when the living perish.

For He created all things that they might have being,

And the products of the world are healthsome,

And there is no poison of destruction in them ... (i. 12 ff.).

Still more explicit are the words in viii. 19, 20:

Now I was a child good by nature, and a good soul fell to my lot;

Nay rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled.

Without going into the question here of the writer’s belief whether,

and in what manner, the soul pre-existed, it is clear enough that

he did not believe in the innate sinfulness of human nature. In the

second part of the book, however, a somewhat different attitude is

taken, for in xii. 10, 11, when speaking about the Canaanites, he

says:

But judging them by little and little Thou gavest them a place of

repentance,

Though Thou knewest their nature was evil, and their wickedness

inborn,

And that their manner of thought would in no wise ever be changed;

For they were a seed accursed from the beginning;

Neither was it through fear of any that Thou didst pass over their

sins.

The view here held is quite contrary to that found in the two former

quotations which suggest a different authorship for the two parts of

the book. This is also borne out by what is said regarding death, as

the result of Adam’s sin presumably; for in ii. 23, 24 it is said:

Because God created man for incorruption,

And made him an image of His own proper being.

But by the envy of the devil death entered into the world,

And they that belong to his realm experience it.

Death, which is the result of Sin, was thus not originally intended

to come upon the human race. But in the second part of the book

there is no hint of this. The first part of the Book of Wisdom is,

therefore, quite unique among the books of the Apocrypha on this

subject; the second part offers nothing that is new.

(_d_) _The Doctrine of Grace and Free-will._

A true balance is kept in Ecclesiasticus between Grace and Free-will;

many passages could be cited to show this, but the few following will

suffice. In speaking of the ideal scribe, Ben-Sira says (xxxix. 6):

If it seem good to God Most High,

He [i.e. the scribe] shall be filled with the spirit of

understanding;

He himself poureth forth wise sayings in double measure,

And giveth thanks unto the Lord in prayer.

Again, in i. 14 it is said:

To fear the Lord is the beginning [i.e. the essence] of Wisdom,

And with the faithful she was created in the womb.

Equally definite is Ben-Sira’s teaching on Free-will; he says, e.g.

in xv. 15-17:

If thou so desirest thou canst keep the commandment,

And it is wisdom to do His good pleasure.

Poured out before thee are fire and water,

Stretch forth thine hand unto that which thou desirest.

Life and death are before man,

That which he desireth shall be given to him.

Both truths are combined in the words:

If thou desire Wisdom keep the commandments,

And the Lord will give her freely unto thee.

The important point about Ben-Sira’s teaching here is the way in

which he combines the two apparently opposing truths; he shows

that they are not mutually contradictory, but complementary. He

thus continues the teaching of the Old Testament concerning the

omnipotence of God and the responsibility of man.

In the Book of Tobit similar teaching is found; for example in iv. 5

Tobit says to his son Tobias: “My child, be mindful of the Lord all

thy days, and let not thy will be set to transgress His commandments;

do acts of righteousness all the days of thy life, and walk not in

the ways of unrighteousness.” But that divine grace is needed for

this is taught in iv. 19: “Bless the Lord thy God at all times, and

ask of Him that thy ways may be made straight, and that all thy paths

and counsels may prosper.” In the rest of the books belonging to this

century nothing calls for particular note under this heading; but in

the secondary text of Ecclesiasticus the same balance of doctrine

is found as in the original book; thus, dependence on God and the

reception of the gift of love from Him are expressed in the addition

to xvii. 17:

Whom [i.e. Israel] He brought up as His first-born

With severity, yet loving them,

Imparting to them the light of love;

And He forsook them not.

Man has, however, his part to play, for in the addition to xx. 31 it

is said:

Better is persistent endurance in seeking the Lord,

Than a driver of his own life without a master.

In 1 Maccabees the doctrinal subject under consideration is closely

connected with the doctrine of God as presented in this book. We have

seen above that direct divine intervention in the nation’s affairs

is not nearly as prominently expressed here as in the books of the

Old Testament; and it has also been already remarked that God is

never mentioned by name in the whole book. The writer is certainly

not wanting in earnest belief and faith in God; his conviction

of the existence of an all-seeing Providence is clear from many

passages; but he also has a strong belief in the truth expressed

by the modern proverb that “God helps those who help themselves.”

This attitude was largely due to the influence of certain tendencies

which were beginning to assert themselves. These centred round the

doctrine of God. Just as there was a disinclination, on account of

its transcendent holiness, to utter the name of God, and instead to

substitute paraphrases for it, so there arose also a disinclination

to ascribe action among men directly to God on account of His

inexpressible majesty. One result of this was the further tendency

to emphasize and extend the scope of human free-will. We find,

therefore, in this book that much more emphasis is laid on free-will

than on divine grace. In the Additions to Esther it is just the other

way about; for here human free-will is scarcely taken into account,

while the divine activity among men is throughout insisted upon. But

in both this book and 1 Maccabees there can be no doubt that the

one-sided emphasis on divine grace and human free-will respectively

was prompted by the particular subject-matter of either book.

In the case of 2 Maccabees, though written with a definitely

religious object, there is very little to note under the present

heading; the frequent stress laid, however, on the fact that the Jews

are God’s chosen people, and therefore under His special protection

and guidance, is a point to be borne in mind. The next book to be

considered is 2 (4) Esdras, and here again it is only the “Salathiel

Apocalypse” that claims attention. “The writer’s intense sense

of sinfulness, and his conviction of man’s inability to acquire

justification by the works of the Law, impel him to throw himself

wholly upon the divine compassion; he despairs of a life of absolute

obedience to the Law, even by Israel, not to speak of the world. The

unconscious and unexpressed cry of the book is for a moral dynamic,

which legalism could not supply.”[332] This deeply religious writer

must, therefore, perforce have looked to divine grace where human

will-power was helpless. As we should expect, in the Book of Wisdom

the main stress is laid on free-will, though the other side of the

truth is not lost sight of. The former is plainly taught in i. 12-16:

Court not death in the error of your life,

Neither draw upon yourselves destruction by the works of your

hands.

* * * * *

But the ungodly by their hands and words called him [i.e. Hades]

unto them;

Deeming him a friend they were consumed with love of him,

And they made a covenant with him,

Because they are worthy to be of his portion.

But, on the other hand, the opening words of the book bring out in

a very clear manner the indispensable need of divine grace for the

right exercise of the will:

Love righteousness, ye that be judges of the earth,

Think ye of the Lord with a good mind,

And in singleness of heart seek ye Him;

For He is found of them that tempt Him not,

And is manifested unto them that do not mistrust Him....

For the holy spirit of discipline will flee deceit,

And will start away from thoughts that are without understanding,

And will be scared away when the unrighteous approacheth

(i. 1-5).

(_e_) _The Doctrine of the Messiah._

The didactic character of Ecclesiasticus is sufficient to account for

the extreme meagreness of references to the Messiah. In the few cases

in which the subject is referred to it is the seed of David to which

the Messiah belongs, viz.:

He will not cut off the posterity of His chosen ones,

Nor will He destroy the offspring of them that love Him;

And He will give to Jacob a remnant,

And to the house of David a root from him (xlvii. 22).

And in the eighth verse of the Hymn of Praise which (in the Hebrew

only) is inserted after li. 12, occur these words:

Give thanks unto Him that maketh a horn to sprout for the house

of David,

For His mercy endureth for ever.

Ben-Sira, therefore, believes in a Messiah who is purely human,

according to the usual Jewish doctrine, and who belongs to the house

of David; but his belief is otherwise vague. Apart from the nature

of the book itself, it must be remembered that the conceptions of

a Messiah were largely conditioned by the historical circumstances

of any given period; during the time of Ben-Sira these were not

of a nature to call forth Messianic hopes, and therefore the

teaching regarding the Messiah was indefinite, and receded into the

background. In the Book of Tobit the Messiah is never mentioned, but

the renovated Jerusalem which the writer speaks of, and the gathering

in of the dispersed Israelites as well as of the Gentiles, gives a

picture of what corresponds to the Messianic Kingdom:

O Jerusalem, thou holy city! He will chastise thee for the works

of thy hands,

And will again have mercy on the sons of the righteous.

Give thanks to the Lord with goodness, and bless the everlasting

King,

That thy tabernacle may be builded in thee again with joy,

And that He may make glad in thee all that are captives,

And love in thee all that are miserable and all the generations

of eternity.

A bright light shall shine unto all the ends of the earth;

Many nations shall come from afar,

And the inhabitants of the utmost ends of the earth unto Thy

holy name ...

(xiii. 7-18; see also xiv. 4-6).

No other books of the Apocrypha offer any teaching on this subject

until we come to 1 Maccabees, where there is conceivably in the mind

of the writer the thought of the Messiah in iv. 46, “... so they

pulled down the altar, and laid down the stones in the mountain of

the House, in a convenient place, until a prophet should come and

decide as to what should be done concerning them.” The reference

here is probably to Deuteronomy xviii. 18, which is not a Messianic

passage, though it may have been so interpreted in later times. A

somewhat more definite reference to the Messiah is perhaps to be

seen in xiv. 41: “And the Jews and the priests were well pleased

that Simon should be their leader and high-priest for ever, until

a faithful prophet should arise.” The words “for ever” mean that

the high-priesthood should continue hereditary in the house of

the Hasmonæans, so that if by “a faithful prophet” the Messiah is

meant, the writer would imply that the Messiah would be of Hasmonæan

lineage. In 2 Maccabees there is no reference to the Messiah, though

there is to the Messianic Kingdom, for the gathering together of the

scattered Israelites in Jerusalem is an undoubted Messianic _trait_:

“Gather together our dispersion, set at liberty them that are in

bondage among the heathen.... Plant Thy people in Thy holy place” (i.

27); and again in ii. 18: “In God have we hope, that He will speedily

have mercy upon us, and gather us together from under the wide heaven

to the holy place.”[333] In Baruch the Messianic Kingdom, though not

the Messiah, is spoken of in iv. and v., where the destruction of

Israel’s enemies is referred to:

... But shortly thou shalt see his [i.e. the enemy’s] destruction,

And shalt tread upon their necks (iv. 25, cf. verses 31 ff.).

The ingathering of Israel is also described:

... O Jerusalem, look about thee toward the east,

And behold the joy that cometh unto thee from God,

Lo, thy sons come, whom thou sentest away,

They come gathered together from the east to the west,

Rejoicing in the glory of God ... (iv. 36-v. 9).

The only other book which has teaching on this subject is the

important apocalypse 2 (4) Esdras, and here, as one would expect, the

teaching is full. The first point to notice is that as this book is

of composite authorship the conceptions of the Messiah differ; thus,

in the “Salathiel Apocalypse” (iii.-x.) the Messiah is regarded as

purely human: “For my son the Messiah shall be revealed, together

with those who are with him, and shall rejoice the survivors four

hundred years. And it shall be, after these years, that my son the

Messiah shall die, and all in whom there is human breath” (vii.

28, 29). On the other hand, in the “Eagle Vision” (xi.-xii. 39) the

pre-existence of the Messiah is taught, though he is to spring from

the seed of David: “This is the Messiah, whom the Most High hath kept

unto the end of the days, who shall spring from the seed of David

...” (xii. 32). The same is taught in the “Vision of the Man from

the Sea” (xiii.): “Whereas thou didst see a Man coming up from the

heart of the sea—this is he whom the Most High is keeping many ages

...” (xiii. 25, 26). In this vision the Messiah is of a supernatural

character. This truth of the Messiah’s pre-existence is likewise

implied in the “Ezra Legend” (xiv.): “For thou shalt be taken up

from among men, and henceforth thou shalt remain with my son, and

with such as are like thee, till the times be ended” (xiv. 9). Only

in the “Salathiel Apocalypse” are the signs which are to precede the

Messianic Kingdom (i.e. the “Messianic Woes”) mentioned, but they are

given in considerable detail: “Concerning the signs, however—Behold

the days come when the inhabitants of the earth shall be seized with

great panic, and the way of truth shall be hidden, and the land of

faith be barren. And iniquity shall be increased above that which

thou thyself now seest or that thou hast heard of long ago. And the

land that thou seest now to bear rule shall be a pathless waste; and

men shall see it forsaken; if the Most High grant thee to live, thou

shalt see it after the third period in confusion. Then shall the sun

suddenly shine forth by night, and the moon by day; and blood shall

trickle from the wood, and the stone utter its voice. The peoples

shall be in commotion, the outgoings of the stars shall change.

And one whom the dwellers upon earth do not look for shall wield

sovereignty, and the birds shall take to general flight, and the sea

shall cast forth its fish. And one whom the many do not know shall

make his voice heard by night; and all shall hear his voice. And

the earth o’er wide regions shall open, and the fire burst forth for

a long period. The wild beasts shall desert their haunts, and women

bear monsters. Salt waters shall be found in the sweet. Friends shall

attack one another suddenly. Then shall intelligence hide itself, and

Wisdom withdraw to its chamber—by many shall be sought and not found.

And unrighteousness and incontinency shall be multiplied upon the

earth. One land shall also ask another and say: Is righteousness—that

doeth the right—passed through thee? And it shall answer: No. And

it shall be that in that time men shall hope and not obtain, shall

labour and not prosper” (v. 1-12).

Regarding the Messianic Kingdom itself it is to be of limited

duration, and, according to the “Eagle Vision” Gentiles as well

as Jews are to enjoy it: “And so the whole earth, freed from thy

violence, shall be refreshed again, and hope for the judgement and

mercy of Him that made her” (xi. 46).[334] In the “Vision of the Man

from the Sea” the Gentiles are wholly destroyed by the Messiah, and

his kingdom is only for his own people (xiii. 8-13).

In the Book of Wisdom there is no doctrine of the Messiah, nor is

there, in the Jewish Palestinian sense, a belief in a Messianic

Kingdom; what we do find, however, is that Jewish traditional

eschatological conceptions are utilized by the author, and that a

glorious future is believed to be reserved for the Jews; there are

two passages in which this future is portrayed, viz. iii. 8:[335]

They [i.e. the righteous] shall judge nations, and have dominion

over peoples;

And the Lord shall reign over them for evermore.

The thought that is apparently in the writer’s mind here is that

of such passages as Isaiah ii. 4_a_: “And He shall judge among the

nations, and shall decide concerning many peoples,” and Isaiah

xlix. 23: “And kings shall be thy nursing-fathers and queens thy

nursing-mothers; they shall bow down to thee with their faces to

the earth ...”; these, it is true, refer to an earthly theocracy,

whereas the author of Wisdom is speaking of the hereafter, but the

_adaptation_ of Scriptural passages is a very natural procedure; he

does not define closely the nature of the eternal kingdom which will

be set up hereafter, any more than the prophet does in regard to his

ideal earthly kingdom. The other passage is v. 15-23:

But the righteous live for ever,

And the Lord is their reward,

And the care for them with the Most High.

Therefore shall they receive a glorious kingdom,

And a diadem of beauty from the Lord’s hand;

Because with His right hand will He cover them,

And with His arm will He shield them.

So far this passage, like the other one, is based upon Old Testament

Messianic passages such as Isaiah xl. 10, iv. 5, 6, xxviii. 5, 6,

lix. 16, 17, and others[336]; but in verses 17-23^{_ab_}, where the

Most High goes out Himself as a warrior, a different element enters

in. It is true, that here, too, the Old Testament conception of

Jehovah as a mighty man of war lies at the back of the passage, but

there are also other eschatological, or rather apocalyptic, traits

which appear. These elements have been utilized by the author of

Wisdom, who has sought to spiritualize them:

He shall take His jealousy as complete armour,

And shall make the whole creation His weapons for vengeance

on His enemies;

He shall put on righteousness as a breastplate,

And shall take judgement unfeigned as a helmet;

He shall take holiness as an invincible shield,

And shall sharpen stern wrath for a sword;

And the world shall go forth with Him to fight against His

insensate foes.

Shafts of lightning shall fly with true aim,

And from the clouds, as from a well-drawn bow, shall they leap

to the mark.

And as from an engine of war shall be hurled hailstones full

of wrath;

The water of the sea shall rage against them,

And rivers shall sternly overwhelm them;

A mighty blast shall encounter them,

And as a tempest shall it winnow them away.

So shall lawlessness make all the land desolate,

And their evil-doing shall overturn the thrones of princes.

These two last lines are strikingly out of harmony with what has

preceded, since they deal with this world; such a sudden change of

subject is unnatural, the lines cannot originally have stood here.

There is, thus, no doctrine of a Messiah or a Messianic Kingdom in

the ordinary Jewish sense; the kingdom which is described has God

as its ruler, it is an eternal kingdom which only the righteous

shall possess; the writer does not make clear whether it is to be

set up on this earth, or whether it is to be a spiritual kingdom

hereafter. From the way in which he spiritualizes it is presumably to

be a kingdom in the world to come; against this it cannot be urged

that there are materialistic _traits_ which point to a kingdom to

be set up on this earth, for the writer has clearly borrowed and

incorporated traditional eschatological material without intending

to utilize more than its outward form. To interpret otherwise would,

in view of the spirit of the rest of this portion of the book, be to

misunderstand the author.

(_f_) _The Doctrine of the Future Life._

In Ecclesiasticus the teaching on this subject is substantially that

of the normal Old Testament type; one or two quotations will suffice

to illustrate this:

For what pleasure hath God in all that perish in Hades,

In place of those who live and give Him praise?

Thanksgiving perisheth from the dead as from one that is not,

But he that liveth and is in health praiseth the Lord

(xvii. 27, 28).

The corruption of the body is looked upon as the end of man:

When a man dieth he inheriteth

Worm and maggot, lice and creeping things (x. 11);

though the annihilation of the spirit as well as the body is

evidently not contemplated in view of such words as these:

Weep gently for the dead, for he hath found rest (xxii. 11);

and in xxx. 17 death is spoken of as an “eternal rest” (cp. xxxviii.

23, xlvi. 19). This idea of rest for the soul hereafter is “very

different from that of death being corruption and the end of all

things, which is the more usual one in Ecclesiasticus, and one is

perhaps justified in seeing the beginnings of development here,

based, it is true, on some Old Testament passages; the conception

of the dead resting must involve some sort of a belief beyond the

bare existence of the shade hereafter.”[337] It is of particular

interest to note that in one or two cases the Greek shows signs of

some development of conception regarding the future life where in the

Hebrew the normal Old Testament position is maintained; thus in vii.

17 the Hebrew has:

Humble thy pride greatly,

For the expectation of man is worms.

This is rendered in the Greek:

Humble thy soul greatly,

For the punishment of the ungodly man is fire and the worm.

It is clear that the development which is known to have taken place

in the doctrine of the future life during the second century B.C. is

reflected here. Very noticeable is the fact that a kind of technical

sense has become attached to the word “worm,” such as we find in

Mark ix. 48 (“... where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not

quenched”). In xxi. 9, 10 it is probable that a similar development

exists, though in this case it cannot be proved as the Hebrew is

unfortunately not extant; but in view of the example just given it

is highly probable that the following reading of the Greek likewise

represents a developed idea:

Like tow wrapped together is the assembly of the ungodly,

And their end is the flame of fire.

The way of sinners is made smooth without stones,

And at the end thereof is the pit of Hades.

It will be noticed that the parallelism between “the flame of fire,”

and “the pit of Hades,” suggests that the latter has developed into

Gehenna. Another example is to be found in xlviii. 11, where the

reference is to Elijah; only one line of the original couplet is

decipherable in the Hebrew, viz.:

Blessed is he that seeth thee and dieth;

i.e. the man who before he died saw Elijah is blessed; the next line

is illegible in the Hebrew and corrupt in the Greek; but the point of

importance is that the Greek adds this further line:

And we also shall surely live,

the reference being evidently to the life hereafter, since Elijah is

the subject of the preceding couplet.

One other passage must be mentioned, not because in itself it points

to any development of thought, but because the Old Testament episode

(1 Kings xvii. 17-24) to which it refers must sooner or later have

suggested the thought of the dead rising; it is also in reference to

Elijah (xlviii. 5):

Who didst raise up a dead man from death,

And from Sheol, according to the good pleasure of Jehovah.

The Hebrew and the Greek do not differ materially.

In the Book of Tobit the normal Old Testament doctrine is taught; so,

e.g., when Tobit prays: “Command my spirit to be taken from me, that

I may be released from off the earth and become earth” (iii. 6); in

the same verse Sheol is spoken of as “the everlasting place,” it is

a place of “darkness” (iv. 10), and “below the earth” (xiii. 2). In

the Book of Judith there is only one reference to the future life,

but the passage is an important one as it witnesses to a development

of thought similar to that found in the Greek text of Ecclesiasticus

vii. 17, xxi. 9, 10, where Hades is a place of punishment; the

passage is xvi. 17—Judith speaks as follows:

Woe to the nations that rise up against my race;

The Lord Almighty will take vengeance of them in the day of

judgement,

To put fire and worms in their flesh;

And they shall weep and feel their pain for ever.

Here it is clear that the body is conceived of as suffering anguish

hereafter. Something similar to this is adumbrated in the Prayer of

Manasses, verse 12. It says here:

... Neither, in Thy continual anger against me,

Lay up evil in store for me;

Nor pass Thou sentence against me

When I am in the lowest parts of the earth.

In the Pharisaic recension of Ecclesiasticus we may also note one or

two occurrences of development of doctrine; thus after xix. 17 the

following words are added:

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of acceptance by Him,

And wisdom will gain love from Him.

The knowledge of the commandments of the Lord is life-giving

instruction;

And they who do the things that are pleasing unto Him shall

pluck the fruit of the tree of immortality.

Again, reward hereafter for right doing in this life is taught in the

addition to xviii. 22:

For the reward of God abideth to eternity.

Two instances of merely verbal additions point in the same direction;

in xxi. 10 the second addition in the ordinary Greek text runs:

And at the end thereof is the pit of Hades;

for “the pit of Hades” the Old Latin Version has: “the lowest depth

and darkness and punishment.”[338] One other addition, this time of

only a single word, witnesses to the belief of the soul, not merely

the shade of the departed, existing in Sheol; this is in xlviii. 5,

a passage already referred to, where it speaks of Elijah raising a

man from death and from Sheol; the secondary Greek text adds “his

soul” after “Sheol.” These are, it is true, but slight points,

nevertheless they are worth mention as supplementing what has already

been said. The next book which contains references to the doctrine

of the future life is 2 Maccabees, and here an immense development

will be seen to have taken place. We have to note first that Hades

is a place of punishment for the wicked, for in vi. 26 Eleazar, in

refusing to commit the crime of offering idolatrous sacrifice, says:

“Even were I for the moment to evade the punishment of men, I should

not escape the hands of the Almighty in life or in death.” For the

righteous Hades is only a temporary abode since the resurrection is

reserved for them; thus, the second son of the mother whose seven

sons are being martyred for their faith before her face, when at

the last gasp, says to the king: “Thou cursed miscreant! Thou dost

dispatch us from this life, but the King of the world shall raise us

up, who have died for His laws, and revive us to life everlasting”

(vii. 9); the same truth is taught in verses 23, 29 of the same

chapter; but the resurrection is not only that of the spirit, but

of the body also; in the account of the martyrdom of the third son

it says: “And when he was told to put out his tongue, he did so

at once, stretching forth his hands courageously, with the noble

words, These I had from heaven; for His name’s sake I count them

nought; from Him I hope to get them back again” (vii. 10, 11; see

also xiv. 46). It is taught, further, that for the wicked there is

no resurrection, thus the fourth son speaks thus to the king: “’Tis

meet for those who perish at men’s hands to cherish hope divine that

they shall be raised up by God again; but thou—thou shalt have no

resurrection to life” (vii. 14, so too in verse 36). The belief in

the resurrection is further illustrated by the following passage:

“... In this he acted quite rightly and properly, bearing in mind the

resurrection—for if he had not expected the fallen to rise again, it

would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead—and

having regard to the splendour of the gracious reward which is

reserved for those who have fallen asleep in godliness; a holy and

pious consideration” (xii. 43-45). It will thus be seen that we have

in this book a very advanced doctrine of the future life. In the Book

of Baruch two isolated references to the future life occur, and here

the teaching is the same as ordinarily found in the Old Testament:

“... the dead that are in the grave, whose breath is taken from their

bodies, will give unto the Lord neither glory nor righteousness” (ii.

17, cp. iii. 19).

In 2 (4) Esdras there is an extraordinary wealth of material

regarding the future life; this is mostly confined to the “Salathiel

Apocalypse” portion and the Redactor’s additions—it is therefore to

these that we restrict ourselves. For clearness’ sake it will be best

to deal with the subject under the three heads: (1) The Resurrection,

(2) The Intermediate state, (3) The Judgement; there are some

subsidiary points which will be touched upon incidentally.

(1) The doctrine of the _Resurrection_ as taught in the “Salathiel

Apocalypse” is not altogether consistent; it is not quite easy to

understand how the writer conceived of the resurrection, for it can

scarcely have been the resurrection of the body which he thought of

since this is regarded as altogether corruptible; thus, in speaking

of the future life of those who have kept the ways of the Most High,

he says that “they shall be separated from this corruptible vessel”

(vii. 88), and in the world to come “they rejoice that they have

now escaped what is corruptible, and that they shall inherit that

which is to come” (vii. 96); that the body is meant by “what is

corruptible” is clear from verse 100, where the seer asks: “Shall

time, therefore, be given unto the souls after they are separated

from the bodies...?” Later in the book (ix. 36) it is said again:

“We who have received the Law and sinned must perish, together with

our heart, which has taken it in.” Added to this is the fact that

this writer, unlike the Redactor of the book (see below), never

speaks of the resurrection of the body, which one would rightly look

for had he believed in this; nor is there any mention of the soul

being re-united to the body; but he looks upon the body as belonging

wholly to this corruptible, material world; he definitely contrasts

the spiritual with the material, the two are mutually antagonistic:

“How should it be possible for a mortal in a corruptible world to

understand the ways of the Incorruptible?” (iv. 11). Whereas in the

world to come “corruption is forgotten” (viii. 53). Yet, in spite

of what has been said, it would seem that the writer must have

pictured to himself a body of some kind in the world to come, for in

the Intermediate state (to which we shall refer presently) he must,

apparently, have believed in the existence of bodies. The conclusion

one is led to is this: the writer believed that the material body

became wholly annihilated at death; but that the soul, when released

from it, assumed a non-material body in the Intermediate state, and

that this body did not undergo any further change at the Judgement;

it was non-material (it is difficult to know how else to express it;

“spiritual” does not seem the right word to use in view of what is

said about the body in the Intermediate state)—it was non-material,

and therefore incorruptible, immortal; and for this reason no

further change could take place in it at the final Judgement, for

it would then be fit for the new world to be created (cp. vii. 75).

One is, therefore, led to assume that the resurrection takes place

almost immediately after death, i.e. at the end of the seven days of

“freedom,” or “rest,” which, according to vii. 101, intervene between

the end of this life and the beginning of the Intermediate state, and

therefore before the Judgement. As to whether the wicked, as well as

the righteous, rise one cannot speak with certainty, the implication

seems to be that this is not so, but no definite pronouncement

is made on this point; cp. the following words which are put into

the mouth of God: “For, indeed, I will not concern myself about

the creation of those who have sinned, or their death, judgement,

or perdition; but I will rejoice rather over the creation of the

righteous, over their pilgrimage also, and their salvation, and their

recompense” (viii. 38, 39).

(2) Regarding the _Intermediate state_, minute details are given,

but the main points are these; in vii. 78-87 the lot of the wicked

is thus described: “When the decisive decree has gone forth from the

Most High that the man should die, as the soul from the body departs,

that it may return to Him Who gave it, to adore the glory of the

Most High first of all;—if it be one of those that have scorned,

and have not kept, the ways of the Most High, and have despised His

Law, and that hate those who fear God, such souls shall not enter

into habitations, but shall wander about henceforth in torture, ever

grieving and sad, in seven ways.” These ways are then described. On

the other hand the lot of the righteous is as follows: “Of those,

however, who have kept the ways of the Most High this is the order,

when they shall be separated from this vessel of mortality.... First

of all they shall see with great joy the glory of Him Who receives

them; and they shall rest in seven orders ...”; these orders are

then described; of the seventh it is said that it “exceeds all the

aforesaid; they shall rejoice with boldness, be confident without

confusion, be glad without fear; for they are hastening to behold

the face of Him Whom in life they served, and from Whom they are

destined to receive their reward in glory. This is the order of the

souls of the righteous ...” (vii. 88-99). As to the duration of this

Intermediate state we are given no details.

(3) At the close of the Intermediate state comes the _Judgement_;

but here again there is some ambiguity, for from vii. 113, 114 we

learn that “the Day of Judgement shall be the end of this age and

the beginning of the eternal age that is to come, wherein corruption

is passed away, weakness is abolished ...”; but this is inconsistent

with the idea that corruption passes away with death (vii. 88), i.e.

that the Intermediate state is the beginning of the age to come.

Does the writer conceive of the new age, the age of incorruption and

eternity, as beginning immediately after death, or at the Judgement?

If the former, then it agrees with what he, presumably, believes

regarding the resurrection which likewise takes place immediately

after death; but if the latter, then the Intermediate state is left

out of reckoning. In either case the teaching is inconsistent;

evidently the writer’s own mind is not clear on the subject. Upon

other points there is, however, no want of definiteness; thus, what

the righteous and the wicked have respectively experienced in the

Intermediate state is only a foretaste of what will be enormously

increased at the Judgement, for the righteous their happiness, for

the wicked their torment. The writer is very strong in insisting

that on the Day of Judgement no intercession of the righteous will

avail on behalf of the wicked. The seer asks “whether in the Day of

Judgement the righteous shall be able to intercede for the ungodly,

or to intreat the Most High in their behalf ...”; and the reply is:

“... so shall none then pray for another on that Day, neither shall

one lay a burden on another; for then every one shall bear his own

righteousness or unrighteousness ...” (vii. 102-115).

In the other parts of this book these subjects are only slightly

dealt with; but there is some important teaching in those portions

which have probably been added by the Redactor.[339] He believes in

a general resurrection (at any rate he makes no distinction between

good and bad) of the body, and though he does not specifically

mention the Intermediate state he evidently holds the same belief

regarding this as the original writer: “The earth shall restore those

that sleep in her, and the dust those that are at rest therein; and

the chambers shall restore the souls that were committed unto them”

(vii. 32). Here there is thus a clear reference to the re-union

of soul and body, but the time at which this takes place is at

the beginning of a new age which will begin seven days after the

close of the Messianic Age. The Redactor, in seeking to combine the

eschatology of the individual with that of the nation, presents the

course of the final events in a different way, thus: “For, behold,

days come—and it shall be when the signs which I have foretold unto

thee [i.e. the Messianic Woes] shall come to pass—then shall the city

that is now invisible [i.e. the heavenly Jerusalem] appear, and the

land which is now concealed [i.e. the heavenly Paradise] be seen.

And whosoever is delivered from the predicted evil, the same shall

see My wonders. For My Son, the Messiah, shall be revealed, together

with those who are with Him, and shall rejoice the survivors four

hundred years. And it shall be, after these years, that My Son the

Messiah shall die, and all in whom there is human breath. Then shall

the world be turned into the primæval silence seven days, like as in

the first beginnings, so that no man is left. And it shall be after

seven days that the Age which is not yet awake, shall be roused, and

that which is corruptible shall perish” (vii. 26-31); then follows

the passage about the resurrection quoted above, and it continues

(verses 33 ff.): “And the Most High shall be revealed upon the throne

of judgement; and then cometh the end.... And recompense shall

follow, and the reward be made manifest; deeds of righteousness shall

awake, and deeds of iniquity shall not sleep. And then shall the

pit of torment appear; and over against it the place of refreshment.

The furnace of Gehenna shall be made manifest, and over against it

the Paradise of delight. And then the Most High shall say to the

nations that have been raised (from the dead): Look now, and consider

Whom ye have denied, Whom ye have not served, Whose commandments ye

have despised! Look, now, before you: here delight and refreshment,

there fire and torments....” Here, then, we have an eschatological

scheme quite different from that of the “Salathiel Apocalypse”; the

Messianic Age is preceded by the signs, or woes; then the Messiah

is revealed and His kingdom lasts four hundred years; at the end

of this period all flesh, including the Messiah, dies, and the

world is plunged in primæval silence for seven days; then comes the

Resurrection, a bodily resurrection, in which all men, Gentile and

Jew, ungodly and godly, partake; this is immediately followed by the

Judgement which ushers in the New Age.

Turning now to the Book of Wisdom we note that there is no

resurrection of body taught here; this follows naturally from

the writer’s doctrine of the inherent evil of matter. The only

immortality is that of the soul, and this is gained through “kinship

unto wisdom”:

When I considered these things in myself,

And took thought in my heart how that in kinship unto wisdom

is immortality,

And in her friendship is good delight....

I went about seeking how to take her unto myself

(viii. 17, 18);

so that immortality begins on this earth. The Judgement takes place

immediately after death; the writer describes fully the lot in the

future life reserved respectively for the righteous and the ungodly;

in the beautiful and well-known passage (iii. 1-9) the blessedness of

the righteous is described in this way:

But the souls of the righteous are in the hands of God,

And no torment shall touch them ...

But they are in peace.

For though in the sight of men they be punished,

Their hope is full of immortality ... (iii. 1-9).

Of the ungodly it is said, on the other hand:

But the ungodly shall be requited even as they reasoned,

They which lightly regarded the righteous man, and revolted

from the Lord ...

And void is their hope, and their toils unprofitable,

And useless are their works ... (iii. 10 ff.).

And again in chapter v. the contrast hereafter between the righteous

and the unrighteous is told in the following way:

But the righteous shall live for ever,

And the Lord is their reward,

And the care for them with the Most High.

Therefore shall they receive a glorious kingdom,

And a diadem of beauty from the Lord’s hand ... (v. 15 ff.);

but the ungodly, on seeing the blessedness of the righteous, will be

greatly troubled:

When they see it they shall be troubled with terrible fear,

And shall be amazed at the marvel of His salvation ...

Bitter remorse takes hold of them as they review their former godless

life and see that they have now no further hope:

Because the hope of the ungodly is like chaff carried off by

the wind (see v. 1-14).

But in regard to the Judgement the writer of Wisdom is not

consistent, for in iii. 8 it is said:

They [i.e. the righteous] shall judge nations, and have dominion

over peoples;

And the Lord shall reign over them for evermore.

On the other hand, in v. 17-23, there is an entirely different

eschatological conception:

He [i.e. Jehovah] shall take His jealousy as complete armour,

And shall make the whole creation His weapons of vengeance

on His enemies ...;

this is all described with great vividness in the verses which

follow. It seems as though the author were acquainted with more than

one Jewish eschatological scheme, and utilized them, but without

realizing that they were inconsistent with each other. See further

above, section (_e_), on the doctrine of the Messiah. According to

this book, then, there is no Intermediate state; if one can speak of

a Resurrection at all it is only in reference to the soul; as the

soul is immortal both the righteous and the ungodly live hereafter;

the righteous in bliss the ungodly in torment of a purely spiritual

kind (see iv. 19, v. 2, xvii. 21); it is not said where the scene

of the Judgement is. The writer, it will thus be seen, departs

widely from Palestinian Jewish belief on this subject, but he is not

ignorant of it; though a Jew, his Hellenistic caste of mind makes it

impossible for him to accept the Jewish position.

(_g_) _The Doctrine of Angels._

The nature of the contents of Ecclesiasticus is such that one does

not look for much reference to angels; nevertheless, in two passages

there is a distinct mention of them, viz. xlii. 16 (17):

God’s holy ones have not the power

To recount His wondrous works of might;

Though God hath given strength to His hosts

To endure in the presence of His glory (so the Hebrew).

The meaning of the passage is that even the “holy ones” (i.e. angels,

as in Deut. xxxiii. 1. [but see Driver’s _Deuteronomy_, p. 392],

Job v. 1, Ps. lxxxix. 7, and often in the apocalyptic books) are

unable to recount God’s marvellous works though, by means of special

strength given to them, they stand in His very presence. The other

passage is xliii. 26:

Through Him His angel prospereth,

And at His word what He wills is done.

The Hebrew text here is a little uncertain, but that a reference to

angels is intended is probable because the whole passage of which

this is the concluding verse is based upon Psalm civ. 1 ff., verse

4 of which runs: “Who maketh His angels of the winds, His ministers

of the flaming fire.” In the Book of Tobit the angel Raphael[340]

plays an important part; in xii. 15 he says of himself: “I am

Raphael, one of the seven holy angels, which present the prayers

of the saints, and go in before the glory of the Holy One” (cp.

also verse 12). This angel is sent from God, according to iii. 7,

to heal Tobit’s blindness, and to bring about the marriage between

Tobit’s son Tobias and Sarah, the daughter of Raguel, by binding

Asmodeus the evil spirit (cp. vi. 10-17). He accompanies Tobias on

his journey to Media, and thus appears as a guardian angel. The

angelic host is referred to in viii. 15: “Blessed art Thou, O God,

with all pure and holy blessing; and let Thy saints bless Thee, and

all Thy creatures; and let all Thine angels and elect bless Thee for

ever.” There is no mention of angels in the Book of Judith; but in

the Additions to Daniel there are several references; thus in the

“Prayer of Azariah,” verses 26, 27, it is said: “But the angel of

the Lord came down into the furnace together with Azariah and his

fellows, and he drove the flame of the fire out of the furnace, and

made the midst of the furnace as it had been a moist whistling wind,

so that the fire touched them not at all, neither hurt nor troubled

them.” In “Susanna,” again, the activity of angels is referred to in

verses 44, 45 (Septuagint Version), where the angel of the Lord is

said to have bestowed “a spirit of discernment” upon Daniel; also in

verse 55 (Septuagint Version), where the angel of the Lord is about

to “cleave the soul” of one of the criminals brought before Daniel;

and, once more, it is an angel who carries out the sentence against

the two elders: “Then the angel of the Lord cast fire in the midst

of them” (verse 62). In Theodotion’s Version the angel of the Lord

is referred to in verses 55, 59, and is spoken of in each case as

the avenging angel. Then, again, in “Bel and the Dragon,” verses

34-39, there is the curious story of how the angel of the Lord took

up the prophet Habakkuk by the hair and transported him from Judah

to Babylon in order that he might give food to Daniel in the lion’s

den. In the Prayer of Manasses the angelic host is spoken of in verse

15: “For all the host of heaven doth sing Thy praise.” In the Epistle

of Jeremy, verse 7, a guardian angel is spoken of as being with the

captives in Babylon. The belief in angels is incidentally referred to

in the Additions to Esther (Fourth Addition, xv. 13 in R.V.), where

Esther compares the king to an angel of God. A somewhat fantastic

representation of the activity of angels is given in three passages

in 2 Maccabees; in iii. 24 ff. there is an account of how the attempt

of Seleucus and Heliodorus to take the temple at Jerusalem was

frustrated; on their reaching the treasury “the Sovereign of spirits

and all authority prepared a great apparition, so that all who had

presumed to enter were stricken with dismay at the power of God, and

fainted with sheer terror. For there appeared to them a horse with

a terrible rider, and it was decked in magnificent trappings, and

rushing fiercely forward it struck at Heliodorus with its forefeet.

And the rider seemed to be armed with a golden panoply. Two youths

also appeared before Heliodorus, remarkable for their strength,

gloriously handsome, and splendidly arrayed, who stood by him on

either side, and scourged him unceasingly, inflicting on him many

sore stripes....” Again, in xi. 6-10, God is besought “to send a good

angel to save Israel”; the prayer is heard, and “a rider appeared at

their head, in white apparel, brandishing weapons of gold”; owing to

his help the Israelites win the battle. Lastly, in xv. 11-16 belief

in angels seems to be connected with dreams; for Maccabæus recounts

the following “reliable dream,” which has the effect of greatly

encouraging the people: “Onias, the former high-priest, a good and

great man, of stately bearing yet gracious in manner, well-spoken,

and trained from childhood in all points of virtue—Onias, with

out-stretched hands, invoking blessings on the whole body of the

Jews; then another man in the same attitude, conspicuous by his grey

hairs and splendour, and invested with marvellous, majestic dignity.

This, Onias explained to him, is the lover of the brethren, for he

prayeth fervently for the people and the holy city, Jeremiah the

prophet of God. And Jeremiah held out his right hand to present Judas

with a golden sword, and as he gave it he addressed him thus: Take

this holy sword as a gift from God, and with it thou shalt crush the

foe.” No other books refer to angels until we come to 2 (4) Esdras.

A greatly developed angelology appears in the “Salathiel Apocalypse”;

we must content ourselves here with an outline of this only. At the

head of the angelic host stand seven archangels; of these only two

are mentioned in this book, viz. Jeremiel, who guards the souls of

the righteous in the chambers where they are awaiting the final

judgement and resurrection (iv. 33-37)[341]; and Uriel, who is sent

to the seer in order to show him the inscrutability of God’s ways

(iv. 1-11). Elsewhere angels are referred to as speaking in the name

of God, e.g. vii. 130; they are instant in fulfilling God’s commands,

whatsoever these may be:

Before Whom heaven’s hosts stand trembling.

And at Thy word change to wind and fire (viii. 21);

and their power is much restricted: “As for me, I am unwise and

powerless; how then should I essay to speak of these things of which

thou questionest me?” (v. 39). Throughout this apocalypse it is by

angelic agency that God communicates with the seer.

In the Book of Wisdom the point of interest is that the place of

angels is taken by Wisdom, or by the Word, the development of

doctrine having eliminated angelology altogether; thus, in x. 17, 18

it is said of Wisdom that:

She rendered unto holy men a reward of their toils;

She guided them along a marvellous way,

And became unto them a covering in the daytime,

And a light of stars through the night....

Here Wisdom has taken the place of the “angel of God” in Exodus xiv.

19. Again, in xviii. 15, 16 it is said:

Thine all-powerful Word leaped from heaven down from the royal

throne,

A stern warrior, into the midst of the doomed land,

Bearing as a sharp sword thine unfeigned commandment,

And standing, filled all things with death;

And while it touched the heaven it trode upon the earth.

Here the Logos has taken the place of the avenging angel, for it is

evident that the writer had 1 Chronicles xxi. 15, 16 in his mind:

“... And David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of the Lord

stand between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his

hand.” This allegorizing is what one would naturally look for in

Wisdom.

(_h_) _Demonology._

It is doubtful whether there is any reference to demons in

Ecclesiasticus; possibly, however, xxxix. 28-31 contains such a

reference.[342] In Tobit iii. 8 mention is made of Asmodeus, “the

evil demon,” who slays men; the angel, however, has power to

“unbind” him from people (iii. 17, viii. 3), though apparently the

most efficacious way of getting rid of him is by burning the liver

and heart of a fish on incense which drives the demon away (vi. 17,

viii. 3). The only other reference to demons is in Baruch iv. 35,

where it is said that they are to inhabit the desolate city “for a

great time.” It is worth pointing out, finally, that in the Book of

Wisdom, while there is no demonology in the ordinary sense, there is

a belief in the devil:

But by the envy of the devil death entered into the world,

And they that belong to his realm experience it (ii. 24).

* * * * *

Regarding the importance for the study of the New Testament of the

doctrines which have been considered see the respective sections of

the different introductions to the books of the Apocrypha in Part II.

SUMMARY

The books of the Apocrypha contain only part of the doctrinal

teaching of the literature from which they have been, quite

arbitrarily, distinguished. It is not possible here to consider

all the works which must be consulted for a complete study of the

period with which we are dealing, but in restricting ourselves to the

Apocrypha there is this compensation, that the more important of its

books were recognized by official Judaism as containing good orthodox

teaching, so that they supply a useful foundation for further study

of the development of doctrine. In some cases, however, recourse must

be had to the Apocalyptic Literature, for though the books of the

Apocrypha afford a general criterion as to orthodox Jewish teaching

from 200 B.C. to A.D. 100, they are in some respects inadequate.

It must again be emphasized that the Old Testament is not the sole

background of the Apocryphal books in the domain of doctrine: there

have been marked Persian and Greek influences in certain directions.

The main current of Palestinian Judaism was affected by these, while

the Judaism of the Dispersion in its turn was influenced by both

Persian and Greek thought, and the effect of all this is traceable

in the Apocrypha. The teaching of the various books must also be

followed in chronological order; there are differences of opinion

as to actual dates, but there is approximate unanimity as to the

centuries to which the books, in almost all cases, belong. In some

instances different parts of a book belong to different times, as

will be seen from the Chronological Table (p. 320). For discussions

of the dates, see the Introductions in Part II.

The doctrine of Wisdom was considered in Chapter VIII; here we have

to deal with the doctrines of God, of the Law, of Sin, of Grace and

Free-will, of the Messiah, of the Future Life, of Angels, and with

Demonology; these cannot always be kept separate, as one leads into

another. Only cursory mention will be made of those points where the

teaching is identical with that of the Old Testament, though even in

these cases the characteristic form in which a doctrine is exhibited

will be noted, the main object is to show in what respects the books

of the Apocrypha show an advance, or it may be a retrogression, in

doctrine as compared with the Old Testament.

(_a_) _The Doctrine of God._

Ecclesiasticus treats of the Unity of God, the Creator of all;

His eternity and omnipotence, His activity in nature, His wisdom,

holiness, justice, loving-kindness, and mercy, His fatherhood of

Israel and sometimes of all flesh (see xlii. 15-xliii. 33). Here the

inspiration is drawn largely from the Psalms, but in xlii. 16, and

xliii. 28-32, Ben-Sira seems to go beyond anything to be found in

the Old Testament. No book of the Apocrypha has such a variety of

names for God as Tobit, which is also distinguished by a doctrine

of angelic mediation and a universalistic spirit which is in marked

contrast to Judith. In the Prayer of Manasses great stress is laid

on the Divine compassion. In the secondary text of Ecclesiasticus,

which is a Pharisaic recension of the work, the great characteristic

is that religious individualism which did so much to foster spiritual

worship. The heightened expression of the close relationship between

God and His pious ones which the more ardent religious temperament

of the Pharisees demanded can be illustrated by a comparison of i.

12, and xvii. 20, with the lines which immediately follow in either

instance. This spirit reappears in the Psalms of Solomon.

In the original text of 1 Maccabees all mention of the name of God is

deliberately avoided; once or twice, as in iii. 18, a true faith in

the omnipotence of God is expressed, and not infrequently there is

trust in God as the God of Israel Who will help His people against

their foes. In all three of the documents which make up Baruch,

stress is laid on God’s guidance of Israel’s destiny, and in the

portion, iv. 5-v. 9, the Divine compassion is constantly recalled.

2 (4) Esdras represents the best of the Old Testament teaching

concerning the doctrine of God: the Unity of God, His Creatorship

without any mediatorial agency, Israel as the chosen nation with

which God has entered into a covenant relation, are all insisted upon

by the writer, whose faith in God, and conviction that His love is

for His people, remains, though he is presented with problems which

are insoluble for man. In the Book of Wisdom the religious atmosphere

is to a large extent alien to that of Palestine: the presentment of

the doctrine of God is entirely different in its two parts, whether

these are by two different authors or by one writing at different

times in his life. The first part (ii.-xi. 1) is more Greek than

Jewish, the idea of God is that of Greek philosophy: a transcendent

God Who has no immediate contact with the world, but performs His

will through an intermediary, who is Wisdom. In the second part God

is again and again spoken of as interfering personally in mundane

affairs, and in other respects also the Old Testament doctrine is

represented, as in the need of right worship, and the mercy and

justice of God.

(_b_) _The Doctrine of the Law._

The stress laid in Ecclesiasticus on the importance of the Law, from

both ethical and ritual points of view, shows this work to be a

valuable link between the Judaism of post-exilic times and Rabbinical

Judaism. The Law is eternal and divine, and its pre-existence is

implied in its identification with Wisdom. So far as is known this

identification occurs here for the first time, but the way it is

taken for granted shows that it cannot have been wholly new. The

insistence on the need of observing the Law is characteristic of

this book, as is the teaching on the spirit in which the precepts

are to be carried out. In chapter xxiv. 7 ff. the Law is only for

Israel. In Tobit an earnest zeal for the Law is combined with deep

devotion. This book indicates a development of legal observances;

prayer, almsgiving and fasting are strongly advocated, particularly

almsgiving. The laws of tithe, marriage, honour to parents, keeping

the feasts, purifications and others are inculcated. This love for

the Law, combined with worship, offers a fine illustration of the

truly pious Jew at this period. The teaching concerning the Law in

Judith is strongly Pharisaic; while everything depends upon trust in

God and obedience to Him, both are shown by keeping the Law; only the

practical observance is taught; there is no abstract conception. The

observance of Sabbaths, new moons and feasts is emphasized. Reference

is made to the sacrificial system and the gifts of the people, and

in the poem xvi. 2-17 the right spirit in offering is the really

important matter. In 1 Maccabees there is reflected the earnest zeal

for the Law on the part of the patriots. In 2 Maccabees much stress

is laid upon legal observances, and the whole attitude towards the

Law is that of the Pharisaic school of about the first century B.C.

onwards. This also applies to 1 (3) Esdras.

In the document Baruch iii. 9-iv. 4, where the Law and Wisdom are

identified, exiled Israel is told that the reason of his punishment

is the forsaking of the commandments of life, i.e. the Law. The

Law endures for ever, and is apparently for Israel alone. Of the

different portions which make up 2 (4) Esdras the most important in

the present connection is the “Salathiel Apocalypse,” which forms the

bulk of the book (iii.-x.) Here it is said, in accordance with later

Rabbinical teaching, that the Law had originally been given to other

nations, by whom it was rejected, while Israel alone had accepted

it. In the other portions of the book the main stress is laid on

veneration for the Law. In the Book of Wisdom there is very little on

the subject to be noted, but the foreign rulers are denounced for not

keeping the Law.

(_c_) _The Doctrine of Sin._

In Ecclesiasticus the prevalence of Sin in one and all is often

noted, and there is much said about its origin. Here Ben-Sira finds

a problem too difficult for him. He implies, though he hardly goes

so far as to make the definite assertion, that the origin of sin is

due to God (xxxiii. 13-15), but in one important passage he strongly

combats this (xv. 11-13). He traces it back to the fall of Eve,

but no farther. He speaks sometimes of Sin as originating within

man, sometimes as being external to him. Like the later Rabbis, he

becomes involved in inconsistencies as soon as he tries to construct

a working theory on the subject. In his teaching on the atonement for

sins he shows a great advance on the Old Testament, adding almsgiving

and fasting as means of atonement, and foreshadowing the idea that

Death also may be one. This last idea became of ever-increasing

importance with the growth in later Judaism of the belief in the

resurrection. There is little that calls for notice in Tobit except

a reference to the atoning efficacy of almsgiving; and nothing in

Judith, or the Additions to Daniel; but in the Prayer of Manasses we

find the thought that the Patriarchs were sinless—an idea developed

in the later Rabbinical Literature in connection with the “Treasury

of Merit” of the Fathers—and a deeper realization of sin than is to

be found in any other book of the Apocrypha. In 2 Maccabees there

is a strangely particularistic doctrine of retribution for Sin. The

teaching in 1 (3) Esdras and Baruch is that of the Old Testament,

but the doctrine as to the merits of the Fathers is expressly

repudiated in Baruch. 2 (4) Esdras is important; especially, again,

the Salathiel Apocalypse. Here the origin of sin is traced to Adam,

though its connection with him is not explained; but Sin is regarded

as universal, each man clothing himself with the evil heart. In the

Book of Wisdom there is a belief in an original state of good, which

is so decidedly contradicted by a later passage (xii. 10, 11) as to

emphasize belief in a different authorship for the two parts of the

book: on this point, as on the subject of Death, it is the first part

that is important for us, the second offers nothing new.

(_d_) _The Doctrine of Grace and Free-will._

A true balance between these two is kept in Ecclesiasticus; they

are shown as complementary, not contradictory, thus continuing the

teaching of the Old Testament concerning the omnipotence of God and

the responsibility of man. Similar teaching is found in Tobit. The

rest of the books belonging to this century have nothing that calls

for particular notice, but in the secondary text of Ecclesiasticus

the same balance is found as in the first. In 1 Maccabees much more

emphasis is laid on Free-will than on Grace, owing to a growing

disinclination to ascribe action among men directly to God, because

of His inexpressible majesty. In the Additions to Esther, on the

contrary, there is throughout insistence on the Divine activity,

while human free-will is scarcely taken into account; there can be no

doubt that the one-sided emphasis in either case was prompted by the

particular subject-matter of the book. In 1 Maccabees there is very

little to note under the present heading, though stress is frequently

laid upon the idea that the Jews are under special protection and

guidance. In 2 (4) Esdras it is again only the Salathiel Apocalypse

that claims attention; here the writer is driven by his deep sense

of sinfulness and his conviction of man’s inability to acquire

justification by the works of the Law, to look to Divine Grace

where human will-power was helpless. In the Book of Wisdom the main

emphasis is on Free-will, though the other side of the truth is not

left out of sight.

(_e_) _The Doctrine of the Messiah._

The didactic character of Ecclesiasticus accounts for the meagre

reference to this doctrine; there is belief in a Messiah who is to

be purely human and of the House of David, but it is vague in the

extreme. The conceptions of a Messiah were largely regulated by

the historical circumstances of any given period, and during the

time of Ben-Sira these were not of a nature to call forth Messianic

hopes. In Tobit the Messiah is never mentioned, but the renovated

Jerusalem and the ingathering of the dispersed Israelites, and also

of the Gentiles, give a picture of what corresponds to the Messianic

Kingdom. No other books offer teaching on the subject until we come

to 1 Maccabees, where “a prophet” is looked for; in one passage he is

to be of Hasmonæan lineage. In 2 Maccabees there is no reference to

the Messiah, though there is to the Messianic Kingdom. The only other

book is the important apocalypse 2 (4) Esdras, and here the teaching

is full, and, as the book is of composite authorship, various. In the

Salathiel Apocalypse (iii.-x.), the Messiah is regarded as purely

human, and only in this portion are the signs which are to precede

the Messianic Kingdom mentioned. In the eagle vision (xi.-xii. 29),

and the vision of the man rising from the sea (xiii.), and in the

Ezra legend (xiv.), the pre-existence of the Messiah is taught.

The Messianic Kingdom itself is to be of limited duration, and, in

the eagle vision, Gentiles as well as Jews are to enjoy it, but in

the vision of the man from the sea the Gentiles are to be wholly

destroyed by the Messiah, and His kingdom is only for His own people.

In the Book of Wisdom there is no doctrine of the Messiah, nor is

there a belief in a Messianic Kingdom in the Jewish Palestinian

sense, but the traditional Jewish eschatological conceptions are

utilized by the author and a glorious future is believed to be

reserved for the Jews.

(_f_) _The Doctrine of the Future Life._

In Ecclesiasticus the teaching on this subject is substantially of

the normal Old Testament type; the corruption of the body is looked

upon as the end of man, though the annihilation of the spirit as well

is evidently not contemplated.

Once or twice death is spoken of as a rest. The development in

this doctrine which is known to have taken place during the second

century B.C. is reflected by some additions. It is of particular

interest to note that in one or two cases the Greek shows signs of

some development of conception where in the Hebrew the normal Old

Testament position is maintained. It is very noticeable that a kind

of technical sense has become attached to the word “worm,” as in

Mark ix. 48. In Tobit the normal Old Testament doctrine is taught.

In Judith the only reference is an important one, as it witnesses

to a development of the thought of Hades as a place of punishment.

There is something similar to this in the Prayer of Manasses. In

the Pharisaic recension of Ecclesiasticus words added here and

there show a development of thought as to the Future Life. The next

book which contains references to this is 2 Maccabees, and here an

immense development has taken place; Hades is a place of punishment

for the wicked; but only a temporary abode for the righteous, since

the Resurrection is reserved for them; and the Resurrection is not

only of the spirit, but of the body also. For the wicked there is no

resurrection. In Baruch there are two isolated references; and in

both the teaching is that ordinarily found in the Old Testament. In

2 (4) Esdras there is an extraordinary wealth of material, mostly

confined to the Salathiel Apocalypse. Here the doctrine of the

resurrection is not altogether consistent, and the writer’s thought

is not quite easy to understand; he seems to have believed that the

material body became wholly annihilated at death, but the soul, when

released from it, assumed a non-material body in the Intermediate

state, and that this, being incorruptible, did not undergo any

further change at the Judgement. The Resurrection apparently takes

place immediately after death. It is uncertain whether the wicked

rise as well as the righteous. Minute details are given as to the

lot of the wicked and that of the righteous in the Intermediate

state, but none as to the duration of this. At its close comes the

Judgement. Here there is the same ambiguity; the writer’s mind is

not clear whether the age of incorruption and eternity is to begin

immediately after death, or only at the Judgement. But there is

no want of definiteness as to the happiness of the righteous and

the torment of the wicked; both will be enormously increased at

the Judgement, and then no intercession of the righteous for the

wicked will avail. In those portions of the book which have probably

been added by the Redactor there is some important teaching as to

a general resurrection, and a re-union of soul and body, which is

to take place at the beginning of a new age seven days after the

close of the Messianic Age. This is part of a new eschatological

scheme, quite different from that of the Salathiel Apocalypse, and

seeking to combine the eschatology of the individual with that of

the nation. In the Book of Wisdom there is no resurrection of the

body; the only immortality is that of the soul, and it begins on this

earth. Judgement takes place immediately after death, and there is no

Intermediate state. The bliss of the righteous and the torment of the

ungodly are of a purely spiritual kind. It seems as though the author

were acquainted with more than one Jewish eschatological scheme, and

used them without recognizing their inconsistency. He says nothing as

to where the scene of the Judgement will be laid; he is not ignorant

of the Palestinian Jewish belief, but, being of an Hellenic cast of

mind, he cannot accept it.

(_g_) _The Doctrine of Angels._

In Ecclesiasticus there are but few references; in xlii. 16 the

“holy ones” are unable to recount God’s marvellous works, though

strength is given them to stand in His presence. In Tobit the angel

Raphael plays an important part; he binds Asmodeus, and appears as

guardian angel to Tobit on his journey. The angelic host is referred

to in viii. 15. There is no mention of angels in Judith, but in the

Additions to Daniel the angel of the Lord appears in each of the

stories. The angelic host is spoken of in the Prayer of Manasses, and

a guardian angel in the Epistle of Jeremy, and there is an incidental

reference to angels in the Additions to Esther. A somewhat fantastic

representation of the activity of angels is given in 2 Maccabees in

the stories of Heliodorus and of the rider leading Israel to battle

and of the “reliable dreams” of Maccabæus. No other books refer

to angels till we come to 2 (4) Esdras, and here in the Salathiel

Apocalypse a greatly developed angelology appears. At the head of the

angelic host stand seven archangels, and God communicates with the

seer by means of the angels. In the Book of Wisdom the place of these

is taken by the Word or by Wisdom, the development of doctrine having

here eliminated angelology altogether.

(_h_) _Demonology._

It is doubtful whether there is any reference to demons in

Ecclesiasticus; there may be one in xxxix. 18-31. In Tobit there is

an evil demon who slays men. The only other reference is in Baruch;

but in the Book of Wisdom, though there is no demonology in the

ordinary sense, there is a belief in the devil.

_PART II_

INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF THE APOCRYPHA

Introductory

We come now to deal with the books of the Apocrypha. As far as

possible we shall take these in chronological order, though it will

be recognized that certitude in this matter is not to be expected.

There are different opinions regarding the dates of most of the

books, and in some cases the _data_ for coming to a conclusion

are too scanty to allow of anything approaching confidence in the

correctness of the date assigned. Moreover, as to some of the books,

different parts belong to different periods; this can be proved

even though one cannot be sure of the exact date of each part. Then

there is the further difficulty regarding the question as to whether

a particular book, as we now have it, approximates to its original

form, and if there is reason to believe that this is not the case, as

to the date of the original as well as that of its present form.

The plan here followed is to take the books in the order of the dates

of their original form (as far as this can be ascertained), even

though parts of a book belong to a later date, which will, of course,

be notified. It will also be wiser to assign a period rather than a

fixed date, excepting in the one case, that of Ecclesiasticus, where

the date of the original can be fixed to within a decade or so with

reasonable certainty. The books belonging to a particular period are

put in chronological order within that period. The following table

will show this:

Ecclesiasticus, _circa_ B.C. 180. Pharisaic recension, B.C.

100-50.

Tobit. Pre-Maccabæan.

Judith }

Additions to Daniel (excepting } Maccabæan, about the middle of

the Prayer of Azarias which } the second century B.C.

is pre-Maccabæan) }

Rest of Esther }

Prayer of Manasses }

1 Maccabees } Post-Maccabæan, _circa_ B.C. 110.

1 (3) Esdras }

Wisdom. Earliest portion middle of first century B.C., latest

portion beginning of first century A.D.

2 Maccabees. Beginning of first century A.D.

Baruch and the Ep. } Incorporates some earlier

of Jeremiah. } End of first material.

2 (4) Esdras } century A.D. Chaps. i. ii. xv. xvi. are

} later.

In quotations from these books the translation of Dr. Charles and his

editors[343] has as a rule, but not always, been used. The original

texts used are:

Ecclesiasticus: for the Hebrew, Smend’s text (_Die Weisheit des

Jesus Sirach, Hebräisch und Deutsch_, 1906); for the Greek,

Swete’s text (_The Old Testament in Greek_, 1896), and Hart’s

text of Cod. 248 (_Ecclesiasticus_, pp. 1-71, 1909).

2 (4) Esdras: for the Latin, Bensly and James’ text (_The Fourth

Book of Ezra_, pp. 1-82, 1895).

For the rest of the books, Swete’s text mentioned above.

The Literature given at the head of each chapter does not profess

to be more than a selection. Editions of original texts, and

text-critical discussions, are not given, as references to these will

be found in the Literature cited.

CHAPTER I

The Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach; or Ecclesiasticus

[LITERATURE.—Fritzsche, _Die Weisheit Jesus Sirachs erklärt und

übersetzt_ (1859); Edersheim, in Wace, II, pp. 1-239; Ryssel, in

Kautzsch, I. pp. 230-475; Schechter, _Studies in Judaism_ (Second

Series), pp. 55-101 (1908); Hart, _Ecclesiasticus_ ... (1909);

Oesterley, _Ecclesiasticus_, in “The Cambridge Bible” (1912); Box

and Oesterley, in Charles, I, pp. 268-517.]

I. THE TITLE OF THE BOOK

“Ecclesiasticus,” the name with which we are most familiar, gives no

indication as to the contents of the book; it has, however, been the

title whereby the book was known in the Western Church ever since the

third century. St. Jerome retained the familiar title in his Latin

Version of the Bible, and it has continued in the Church ever since.

On account of its manifold instruction in conduct of life it was much

used in the early Church, especially in the case of catechumens;

the title, therefore, of “Ecclesiasticus” was probably given to it

because it was the ecclesiastical or Church book _par excellence_.

What the original title was we do not know; but in most manuscripts

of the Greek Version the title given is: “Wisdom of Jesus the son

of Sirach”; in the Syriac Version it is: “Wisdom of Bar Sira.”[344]

Both these were translations from the Hebrew, so that we shall not

be far wrong in believing that the original title ran: “The Wisdom

of Ben-Sira,” or, “The Wisdom of Jesus Ben-Sira.”[345] The Greek

translator, in the Prologue to the book, speaks of his grandfather

“Jesus” as the author. In the Talmud the book is referred to as: “The

Book of Ben-Sira”; the name “Jesus” would have been omitted by the

Rabbis for obvious reasons.

II. THE AUTHOR AND HIS BOOK

In the Prologue to the Greek Version the writer says that he is

about to translate his grandfather’s work; in the Hebrew text the

author gives his name, as we have seen; this is also given in

the subscription; moreover, in the Talmud the author is given as

Ben-Sira. There is, therefore, every reason to believe that the

author was Ben-Sira; and this is universally acknowledged. That

he wrote the whole of the book does not admit of doubt; unity of

authorship is stamped upon the work throughout. Further, that the

Greek translation represents substantially the author’s book which

his grandson had before him is also practically certain. On the other

hand, it may be doubted whether the book represents the final form

which the author intended it to have; whether he was interrupted in

his work, or whether he died before he was able to sift and arrange

his material, a careful study of the book leaves the impression that

the author left it in an incomplete state. The main reasons for this

belief are three: firstly, in many parts of the book the material

seems to be thrown down in a somewhat chaotic state, whereas a little

obvious sifting would put things right; for example: in one section

(xiv. 20-xvi. 23) the following subjects are dealt with in this

order—the blessedness of seeking Wisdom which is only obtainable by

those who fear God; human free-will; the curse of ungodly children;

God’s righteous anger against the wicked; it is madness to imagine

that one can avoid the notice of God and therefore escape judgement

because a man is but an atom in a boundless creation. It is clear

enough that here we have some subjects which would follow upon one

another logically, only the sequence is broken by the intrusion

of other subjects which belong to a different _milieu_. A similar

state of affairs occurs in various parts of the book, while in many

other parts, on the contrary, we have sections in which there is a

perfect sequence of thought. Secondly, the same subject is treated in

different parts of the book; but in a well arranged scheme one would

naturally expect the different items of teaching on a given subject

to be gathered together into a consistent whole; this _is_ often

done in the book, so that where we find the contrary the natural

supposition is that those parts in which the contrary occurs have

not assumed their final shape. Examples of this are: on the curse

of ungodly children, xvi. 1-5, xxii. 3-6; on lending and becoming

surety, viii. 12, 13, xxix. 1-20; on friendship, vi. 5-17, vii. 18,

xii. 8-18, xxii. 19-26, xxxvii. 1-6; concerning the tongue, v. 9-vi.

1, xxiii. 7-15, xxviii. 13-26; on independence, xxix. 21-28, xxxiii.

19-23; and a number of other examples could be given. Thirdly,

there is inconsistency of teaching on one or two cardinal points of

doctrine; this is especially so in the case of the doctrine of Sin;

but as we have already dealt with this in an earlier chapter[346] it

will be unnecessary to say anything further here. For these reasons,

therefore, we are led to the conclusion that the book in its present

form is not that which the author intended it to have finally.

Ben-Sira was not only an orthodox Jew, but he was also a scribe, and

a teacher. His grandson tells us in the Prologue that his grandfather

had devoted his life to the study of “the Law, the prophets, and the

other books of our fathers,” and that his object in doing so was

that he might, by teaching, help others to a knowledge of the Law,

as well as in carrying out its precepts. Ben-Sira’s own words bear

out the truth of this, for he is evidently speaking from personal

experience when he says: “Leisure increaseth wisdom to the scribe”

(xxxviii. 24); moreover, his very intimate knowledge of the Old

Testament is just what one would expect of a scribe; this knowledge

is evident on every page of his book, which is saturated with the

thoughts of the Old Testament Wisdom Literature, almost the very

words of which occur again and again; in the concluding chapters of

his book (xliv.-l. 24) he sings the praises of all the great ones of

Israel, and shows how he has his Old Testament at his fingers’ ends.

Bearing in mind what is said in the Prologue, it is highly probable

that Ben-Sira is referring to himself as the true scribe in writing

the words in xxxviii. 24-xxxix. 3; here he passes in review various

callings in life, and declares that it is not possible for men to

acquire wisdom if their time is taken up in earning their livelihood

by these means; in describing, then, the manner in which he “who

meditates in the Law of the Most High” goes about his work Ben-Sira

sets forth the mental activity of the scribe in such a way as to make

it certain that he is imparting the secrets of his own practice. He

says of such an one that he

Searcheth out the wisdom of all the ancients,

And is occupied with the prophets of old;

He heedeth the discourses of men of renown,

And entereth into the deep things of parables;

He searcheth out the hidden meaning of proverbs,

And is conversant with the dark sayings of parables ...

(xxxix. 1-3).

Obviously no true man who had given himself so whole-heartedly to the

study and acquisition of holy learning would be content to keep it to

himself, and so Ben-Sira gives us clearly to understand that he was

a teacher earnestly desirous of imparting to others what he himself

had learned of Wisdom; so he cries:

Turn in unto me, ye unlearned,

And lodge in my house of instruction;

How long will ye lack these things?

And how long shall your soul be athirst?

I open my mouth and speak of her,

Acquire Wisdom for yourselves without money ...

Hearken to my teaching, though ye be but few,

And much silver and gold shall ye acquire thereby (li. 23-28).

The similes used by Ben-Sira regarding himself as a successor to

teachers of Wisdom who had gone before are interesting as showing

that he claimed to be a link, though a humble one, in the great chain

of Israel’s inspired writers. He says, for example, in one place:

And as for me, I was as a stream from the river,

And I came forth as a conduit into a garden;

I said: “I will water my garden,

I will abundantly water my garden beds”;

And lo, my stream became a river,

And my river became a sea ...

Yet again will I pour forth doctrine as prophecy,

And leave it for eternal generations.

Look ye (and see) that I have not laboured for myself only,

But for all those that diligently seek her (xxiv. 30-34).

In another passage he says:

I, indeed, came last of all,

As one that gleaneth after the grape-gatherers;

I advanced by the blessing of God,

And filled my wine-press as a grape-gatherer.

Consider that not for myself alone have I laboured,

But for all that seek Wisdom (xxxiii. 16-18).

And once again:

Yet again will I fix my thoughts and make my doctrine to shine

forth,

As the full moon on the twelfth day.

Hearken unto me, ye pious ... (xxxix. 12 ff.).

All these passages show that Ben-Sira reckoned himself as following

in the line—though the last in the succession—of the wise men such

as the writers of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, and that therefore

his claim to be a teacher in Israel was justified. While quoting

freely from the Old Testament writers, and thereby acknowledging

his indebtedness to them, he often expands a quotation, especially

from Proverbs, thus making the proverb into a little essay; so

that although he does not show great originality of thought, he

nevertheless has his own ideas which he sets forth in his own way.

Some further details concerning the author may be gathered from his

book; if, as seems reasonable, the words of xxxix. 1-3, quoted above,

are taken as referring to the writer himself, then the same must be

said of the words which follow in the text, viz.:

Who serveth among great men,

And appeareth before princes;

Who travelleth through the lands of the peoples,

And testeth good and evil among men (xxxix. 4);

from these words we may gather that Ben-Sira had at one time been in

the service of some influential person, and that he had spent some

time in travel; of that he speaks more than once, for he says in

xxxiv. 10-12:

He that is without experience knoweth little,

But the well-versed man hath skill.

In my journeying I have seen much,

And many things have befallen me.

Often was I in danger even unto death,

But was preserved because of these things (i.e. experience

and knowledge of the world).

In another passage (li. 13) he refers to the time before he had

commenced his travels. The danger of which he speaks in the passage

just quoted was owing to the fact that he had been the victim of some

slanderous tongue, if one may be guided by his words in li. 1-12,

where he thanks God in saying:

Thou didst preserve me from the scourge of a slanderous tongue,

And from the lips of them that turn aside to lies;

Thou wast on my side in the face of those that rose up against

me,

Thou didst help me, according to the abundance of Thy mercy,

Out of the snare of them that watch for my stumbling,

And from the hands of those that seek my life ...

The book contains a very large number of moral maxims and wise

counsels for help and guidance in the every-day affairs of life; but

the earnest piety of the writer which so frequently finds expression

shows that his aim was not merely to write a handbook on ethics, but

far more to be a spiritual adviser, wisdom in its manifold forms

being, according to him, so many illustrations of godliness. Finally,

“the mass of information which the book contains regarding Jewish

religion, thought, and ethics, during a period for which we do not

otherwise possess much knowledge, marks it out as a work of high

importance. The writer evidently intended to offer to his people a

kind of text-book to which men and women might have recourse for

guidance in almost every conceivable circumstance of life. He does

this, however, with the primary object of setting in clear light the

superior excellence of Judaism over Hellenism. In a sense, therefore,

Ecclesiasticus may be regarded as an apologetic work, inasmuch as it

aims at combating the rising influence of Greek thought and culture

among the Jews.”[347]

III. THE DATE OF THE BOOK

In his Prologue to the Greek translation of the book Ben-Sira’s

grandson tells us that “in the eight and thirtieth year under

Euergetes the king, having come into Egypt and continued there, I

found opportunity for no small instruction. I, therefore, deemed it

most necessary myself to devote some zeal and love-labour to (the

task of) translating this book; devoting, indeed, much watchful

care and skill during the time at my disposal in order that, having

completed the book (i.e. its translation), I might publish it for

the benefit of those who in the land of their sojourning were

desirous to learn, being already prepared in respect of their moral

culture to live by the Law.” Those words enable us to fix the date,

approximately, of the translation of the book; for there was only

one Egyptian king of the name of Euergetes to whom the translator’s

words could apply, namely Euergetes II, surnamed Physcon, who reigned

altogether fifty-four years; first he was joint-ruler with his elder

brother, Philometor (B.C. 170-145), and then he reigned alone (B.C.

145-116).[348] The thirty-eighth year of his reign would be B.C.

132; soon after this date, therefore, the Greek translation was

made. Having got this date it is not difficult to fix an approximate

date for the original work; it would be about fifty or sixty years

earlier. At the end of chapter xlix. and beginning of l., according

to the Hebrew of our book, it says:

Great among his brethren, and the glory of his people

Was Simeon, the son of Jochanan, the priest.

This Simeon, the second of the name, was high-priest from B.C.

219-199; Ben-Sira was clearly a contemporary of his (see l. 1 ff.),

but the way in which he writes about him suggests that Simeon must

have been dead some time when Ben-Sira wrote; we shall, therefore,

not be far wrong in assigning the year B.C. 180, or thereabouts, as

the date of the composition of the book in its original form. It is,

however, certain that the book was in preparation for some years

before this; for since, as we have already seen, Ben-Sira had his own

house of instruction where he gave lectures to his pupils, we may

justly assume that the contents of his book represent the pith of

these lectures.

IV. THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE BOOK; THE RECENTLY FOUND HEBREW

MANUSCRIPTS

Apart from the fact that a large portion (about two-thirds) of our

book has in recent years been found in Hebrew, which very often gives

the original form, the following considerations made it certain, even

before this was found, that the original language was Hebrew: in his

Prologue to the book the translator says: “Things originally spoken

in Hebrew have not the same force in them when they are translated

into another tongue; and not only these, but the Law itself, and

the Prophecies, and the rest of the books, have no small difference

when they are spoken in their original form.” Although he does not

actually say so, it is pretty obvious that Ben-Sira’s grandson

implies here that he translated his grandfather’s book from Hebrew.

In the second place, in St. Jerome’s time it would appear that Hebrew

manuscripts of the book existed in Palestine, for in his preface to

the Books of Solomon he says that he found the book of Jesus the son

of Sirach in Hebrew. Then, again, in later times Saadiah (A.D. 920)

speaks of the existence of copies of the Hebrew text, and he says

that the vowel-points were added, which was, as a rule, only done in

the case of canonical books.[349] And lastly, in a number of cases

the renderings of the Greek necessitate the assumption that they were

translated from Hebrew.

But all doubt, where such existed, was set at rest by the discovery

(1896-1900) of a number of fragments of the Hebrew text. Those to

whom this important find, or rather series of finds, is due are Mrs.

Lewis and Mrs. Gibson, Cowley and Neubauer, Schechter and Taylor,

G. Margoliouth, Levi, Adler, and Gaster. Altogether about thirty

leaves were found; they are fragments belonging to four different

manuscripts, and they all came from the Genizah of a synagogue in

Cairo. As all these manuscripts are written on paper and not on

vellum they cannot be earlier than the ninth century A.D., for paper

was not introduced until this century[350]; they all belong probably

to the end of the tenth or the beginning of the eleventh century.[351]

The question arises as to whether the Hebrew of these manuscripts

is not a translation from the Greek or Syriac forms of the text

which had been in existence for a number of centuries previously;

and, further, it must be asked that even supposing Hebrew to have

been the original language of the book, do these fragments present

the original Hebrew, or a later form of this? The answer to these

questions involves a detailed study of the text in its various

forms, and a comparison of these with the Hebrew text; clearly a

technical discussion of this kind would be out of place here; we can

only give a _résumé_ of the results of such study. “As a general

rule a text which is a translation betrays the fact by certain

indications which are almost infallible; idiomatic expressions in the

original, misunderstandings of words in the original and consequent

mistranslation which interfere with the sense of a passage, clumsy

diction owing to difficulties in giving a proper rendering of

the original; these and other signs of the non-originality of a

writing are almost certain to show themselves; but the Hebrew of

Ecclesiasticus does not present signs of this kind. Its whole

style stamps its language as the original one; the symmetry of the

Hebrew, in the main, points in the same direction; moreover, there

are a number of instances which could be given which exclude the

possibility of translation from either Greek or Syriac; there are

also many cases in which the Versions have no equivalent for the

Hebrew; and lastly, the Hebrew often contains a text so obviously

superior to that of the Versions that its originality cannot be

disputed. When we add to this that both the Greek and Syriac

frequently exhibit the well-known indications of translation, it may

be taken as certain that the Hebrew was the original language in

which Ecclesiasticus was written.”[352]

But while it is thus evident that Hebrew was the original language

in which our book was written, it does not necessarily follow that

the recently found manuscripts contain the original form of the

Hebrew; indeed, there have not been wanting scholars who have stoutly

denied this, and who maintain that this Hebrew is a translation of

a Persian rendering of a Syriac text[353]; or that it is, at any

rate in part, a translation from the Greek and Syriac.[354] Here,

again, in order to prove our point that, in the main, the Hebrew of

the recently found manuscripts does represent the original form,

numerous details of a technical character would be required[355]

which would be out of place here; it must suffice to say that “the

text of the Hebrew, though it is disfigured by scribal errors and

corruptions, and—in some places—by the presence of glosses, is yet

essentially independent of the Greek and the Syriac; the hypothesis

of retranslation breaks down, at best a plausible case for the

influence of such a factor can only be made out for an insignificant

number of verses, where, however, an alternative—and, on the whole,

more probable—explanation is possible.”[356]

V. THE AUTHORIZED AND REVISED VERSIONS OF ECCLESIASTICUS

In comparing the Authorized and Revised Versions it will be seen

that, apart from differences of rendering, there is this fundamental

difference between the two: the Authorized Version contains a large

number of verses which are omitted in the Revised Version. These

omissions are noted in the Revised Version, for in the margin one

constantly comes across the words: “Verse ... is omitted by the best

authorities.” The reason of this difference between the two Versions

is that for the Revised Version only the great uncials of the fourth

century A.D. were used; whereas for the Authorized Version a number

of cursive manuscripts belonging to a much later time were used. The

procedure of the Revisers is justified on the grounds of textual

criticism, for as authorities the great uncial manuscripts of the

fourth century are far superior to the cursives of the thirteenth

and fourteenth centuries; on the other hand, the Authorized Version

is not only supported by early patristic authority, but also by

that of the Old Latin Version which contains many really ancient

elements.[357] There is, of course, a great deal of matter common

to the uncial and cursive manuscripts as represented by the Revised

and Authorized Versions; but the difference between this common

matter and that which is peculiar to the cursives is very marked; the

additions, numbering a hundred and fifty lines or more, besides many

verbal additions (and it is more than probable that both amounted to

many more originally), must have been added for some special reason,

and that reason, whatever it was, must have existed at a very

early date, for as we shall see, the additions have existed since

pre-Christian times.

As to these additions, what is their character, and why were they

added? The right answer to these questions was first given by Mr.

Hart, who holds that they are “fragments of the Wisdom of a Scribe

of the Pharisees, and contain tentative Greek renderings of many of

the technical terms and watchwords of the Sect. As Jesus Ben-Sira

dealt with the earlier Scriptures, so some unknown disciple dealt

with his master’s composition. He received the deposit and added

to it.”[358] Mr. Hart works out this theory on pp. 275-320 of his

book; following his lead, we have studied the matter independently,

and have found that the more it is studied, the more firmly is his

theory substantiated. Before coming to deal in some detail with this

subject, it will be well to put the question: Why should a Pharisee

have felt it incumbent upon him to make these additions? The answer,

proof for which will be offered in a moment, is that Ecclesiasticus

in its original form represents the “Sadducæan”[359] standpoint, and

at the close of the Maccabæan struggle, when Pharisaism appeared

as an active movement and the Pharisees became the dominant party

in Israel, it was no doubt considered essential that a book like

Ecclesiasticus, which was greatly in vogue (for, as far as it

went, it was orthodox) should bear on the face of it the marks of

Pharisaic orthodoxy, and thus become a vehicle for the propagation of

Pharisaism.

We shall now first seek to show that Ecclesiasticus in its original

form represented the traditional Sadducæan standpoint, and that the

additions reflect the teaching of the Pharisees. We have already

dealt with the specific doctrines of these two parties, so that

what is now to be said should be read in the light of what has been

written in Chapter VII.

VI. THE “SADDUCÆAN” DOCTRINAL STANDPOINT IN ECCLESIASTICUS

In considering first in what respects Josephus’ account of the

teaching of the Sadducees is reflected in Ecclesiasticus it must be

borne in mind that the book in its original form was written before

the distinctive doctrines of Pharisaism had become formulated,

and therefore before anything in the nature of antagonism between

Sadducæan and Pharisaic teaching had arisen; “it is not to be

supposed that the two parties were from the first sharply divided,

still less that they acquired distinctive names. It is historically

more probable that the divergence increased gradually, and was

intensified, and at last definitely realized in the religious

revival of Maccabæan times.”[360] The evidence which Josephus gives

is late; in his time the opposition between the two parties had

fully developed, and, as so often happens between opposing parties,

their respective tenets tended to become exaggerated. Of this there

is naturally no sign in Ecclesiasticus. Cowley rightly points out,

in speaking of the Sadducees during the period that succeeded the

Maccabæan struggle, that “in their political relations they show

a sympathy with foreign influences which was strongly reprobated

by the nationalistic Pharisees. Thus we find them accused, perhaps

justly, of tolerating Greek religious practices, and even of adopting

them. This is the less surprising if it be considered that the

Judaism which they professed can have had (to use a modern phrase)

no religious hold on them. It was rather the machinery by which a

certain political system was worked, and when circumstances changed

it could be adapted to new conditions.”[361] So that when we speak

of the Sadducæan doctrinal standpoint in Ecclesiasticus it will

be understood that this is somewhat different from that which was

developed more than a century later owing largely to opposition

to Pharisaic teaching. Ben-Sira represents traditional Judaism of

a high type,[362] and in so far is to be regarded as standing for

conservative Sadducæanism; but in many respects, and especially in

that which regarded devotional religion, which is such a prominent

feature in Ecclesiasticus, Pharisaism was identical with the best

that traditional Judaism offered; so that, from this point of view,

it may be said that Ben-Sira also represented “Pharisaism,” though to

use this term in speaking of the time of Ben-Sira would, of course,

be an anachronism.

We shall now take in order the doctrines of the Sadducees, so far

as we know them, and see in what ways they are illustrated in our

book. The utterly un-Jewish doctrine that God takes no interest in

the world of His creation and that He is not concerned in men’s doing

or not doing what is evil was certainly not held by the “Sadducees”

in pre-Maccabæan times; its adoption must have been due to Greek

influence if Josephus is to be relied upon at all here. Ben-Sira’s

book is full of very different teaching; indeed, in one striking

passage he seems to be combating something similar to the very

doctrine with which Josephus credits the Sadducees; in xvi. 17-23 he

says:

Say not: “I am hidden from God,

And in the height who will remember me?

I shall not be noticed among so illustrious a people,

And what is my soul among the mass of the spirits of all the

children of men?...

In truth, unto me He will not have respect,

And as for my ways, who will mark them?

If I sin, no eye beholdeth it,

Or if I deal untruly in all secrecy, who will know it?

My righteous dealing, who declareth it?

And what hope is there, for the decree is distant.”

They that lack understanding think these things,

And the man of folly thinketh this.

Positive teaching on the close relationship which should normally

exist between God and men is given again and again in the book.

Ben-Sira’s doctrine of sin is inadequate,[363] it is true; but

that is in spite of, not in consequence of, his exalted teaching

concerning God.

Regarding the teaching on human free-will Ben-Sira sometimes

reflects a thoroughly Sadducæan standpoint; nothing could be more

uncompromising, for example, than this:

God created man from the beginning,

And placed him in the hand of his _Yetzer_.[364]

If thou so desirest, thou canst keep the commandment,

And it is wisdom to do His good pleasure.

Poured out before thee are fire and water,

Stretch forth thine hand unto that which thou desirest.

Life and death are before man,

That which he desireth shall be given him (xv. 14-17).

With this may also be compared xxxvii. 17, 18:

The roots of the heart’s deliberations

Bring forth four branches:

Good and evil, life and death,

But the tongue ruleth over them altogether.

On the other hand, assertions regarding the action of Divine grace

are not wanting; perhaps the most pointed of these is that contained

in the words of xxxiii. 13-15:

As the clay is in the power of the potter,

To fashion it according to his good pleasure;

So is man in the power of his Creator,

To make him according to His ordinance.

Over against evil stands the good, and against death life;

Likewise over against the godly the sinner.

Even thus look upon all the works of God,

Each different, one the opposite of the other.

On the subject of immortality and resurrection the teaching is

entirely that of the Sadducees; a few passages will illustrate this:

When a man dieth he inheriteth

Worm and maggot, lice and creeping things (x. 11).

It is callous counsel which Ben-Sira gives to a mourner, for after

telling him to mourn for “a day or two,” and to be moderate in his

sorrow because “sadness of heart prostrateth vigour,” he concludes as

follows:

And let him no more occupy thy thoughts,

Dismiss the remembrance of him, and remember (thy) end.

Remember him not, for he hath no hope;

Thou canst not profit him, while thou harmest thyself.

Remember his doom, for it is the doom of thyself;

His yesterday, and thine to-day!

When the dead is at rest, let his memory rest;

And be consoled when his soul departeth (xxxviii. 16-23).

The same dreary belief, or rather non-belief, occurs in xli. 3, 4:

Fear not death, it is thy destiny,

Remember that the former and the latter share it with thee.

This is the portion of all flesh from God,

And how canst thou withstand the decree of the Most High!

Be it for a thousand years, for a hundred, or for ten that thou

livest,

In Sheol there are no reproaches concerning life

(cp. xvii. 27, 28).

There are various other passages to the same effect, while none occur

which show the slightest advance on the teaching which these contain.

Regarding the attitude towards the non-Jewish world, Ben-Sira is

distinctly tolerant; it was the Maccabæan struggle which hardened

the Jews towards the Gentiles; nevertheless, Ben-Sira has no doubt

about the superiority of his own race. The attitude which is more

in accordance with that of the Sadducees may be seen in the whole

passage xviii. 8-14, where he speaks of man generally, and teaches

that God’s mercy is extended universally:

The mercy of man is exercised upon his own kin,

But the mercy of God is extended to all flesh,

Reproving, and chastening, and teaching,

bringing them back as a shepherd his flock (verse 13).

The same universalistic spirit is exhibited in xxxvi. 17:

Thou wilt hear the prayer of Thy servants,

According to Thy good favour towards Thy people;

That all the ends of the earth may know

That Thou art the eternal God.

A striking passage containing similar teaching is xxxvi. 1-5:

Save us, O God of all,

And cast Thy fear upon all the nations.

Shake Thy hand against the strange people,

And let them see Thy power.

As Thou hast sanctified Thyself in us before them,

So glorify Thyself in them before us;

That they may know as we also know,

That there is none other God but Thee.

The only passage (in the original form of the book) of a

particularistic character is that in which Wisdom is described in

having taken up her abode in Israel (xxiv. 6-16), but here it has to

be remembered that one of Ben-Sira’s great objects in writing his

book was to show the superiority of Israel’s wisdom over that of the

Greeks. This, however, is quite different from the later Pharisaic

spirit of active hostility to all the Gentile world.

There are a few passages which seem to be uttered against the Oral

Law. It is true, the _data_ we possess regarding the beginnings

of the formation of the Oral Law are very scanty; but it may be

safely asserted that, in its technical sense, this was, to some

considerable extent, in existence for at least half a century before

Ecclesiasticus was written; it is, therefore, probable that Ben-Sira

uttered the following words as a protest against what he considered a

dangerous innovation:

He that seeketh out the Law shall gain her,

But the hypocrite shall be snared thereby.

They that fear Jehovah discern His judgement,

And elicit guidance from the darkness.

The man of violence wresteth reproofs,[365]

And forceth the Law to suit his necessity (xxxii. 15-17).

In this connection it is worth noting that although Ben-Sira approves

of the laws concerning the sacrificial system “because it is

commanded,” he does not regard their literal observance as binding;

he teaches the equal efficacy of spiritual sacrifices in a way which

would not have received the approval of the Pharisees, at any rate as

long as the Temple was standing; thus, in xxxiv. 18-26 he says:

The sacrifice of the unrighteous man is a mocking offering,

And unacceptable are the oblations of the godless.

The Most High hath no pleasure in the offerings of the ungodly,

Neither doth He forgive sins for a multitude of sacrifices....

He who washeth after contact with a dead body and toucheth it

again,

What hath he gained by his washing?

So a man fasting for his sins,

And again doing the same,

Who will listen to his prayer?

And what hath he gained by his humiliation?

Then he continues, in xxxv. 1-3, to advocate spiritual sacrifices,

though in the verses that follow he urges men not to appear with

empty hands in the presence of the Lord; his words in xxxv. 1-3 are

as follows—

He that keepeth the Law multiplieth offerings,

He sacrificeth a peace-offering that heedeth the commandments;

He that practiseth kindness offereth fine flour,

And he that doeth mercy sacrificeth a thank-offering....

Another fact which is worth emphasizing is that there is no mention

of angels or demons in the book; this is more or less in accordance

with Sadducæan theology. Finally, on the general subject of the

Sadducæan standpoint of the book, we may quote some important

words of Dr. Taylor.[366] He says: “We have no authentic remains

of Sadducee literature, but it has been suggested with a certain

plausibility that the book Ecclesiasticus approximates to the

standpoint of the primitive Caduqin (Sadducees) as regards its

theology, its sacerdotalism, and its want of sympathy with the

_modern_ Soferim (Scribes). The name of Ezra is significantly omitted

from its catalogue of worthies. ‘It remains singular,’ remarks

Kuenen, ‘that the man whom a later generation compared, nay, made

almost equal, to Moses, is passed over in silence.... Is it not

really most natural that a Jesus ben Sirach did not feel sympathy

enough for the first of the Scribes to give him a place of honour

in the series of Israel’s great men?’” Dr. Taylor mentions also the

important fact that in the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 100_b_) the

Books of the Sadducees and the Book of Ben-Sira are placed side by

side on the “Index expurgatorius.” All that has been said receives

confirmation from the further fact that in the Hebrew text of the

Canticle[367] which follows l. 12, these words occur—

Give thanks unto Him that gave the sons of Zadok to be priests,

For His mercy endureth for ever.

Enough has now been said to show that our book in its original form

represented the Sadducæan standpoint. We have now to deal with the

Pharisaic additions.

VII. THE PHARISAIC ADDITIONS TO ECCLESIASTICUS.

The brief reference to specific Pharisaic doctrines given in chapter

VII, § iii. (_a_) above, will enable us to form an opinion regarding

the character of the additions to Ecclesiasticus. That these

additions[368] were made by a Pharisee, or Pharisees, has already

been asserted; but we must now seek to substantiate the assertion.

We cannot do more here than give a few illustrations out of a large

number; and in order not to weary the reader we will merely quote

the addition in each case without specifying in which manuscripts or

Versions it occurs.

In illustration of what has been said about the Pharisaic teaching

concerning God and man’s relations to Him the following examples will

be found instructive. In xvi. 19 occurs this addition:

The whole world was made, and existeth, by His will.

A stronger assertion of the divine governance of the world is added

to xviii. 2:

Who guideth the world in the hollow of His hand,

And all things are obedient unto His will;

For He is the King of all kings, and they are in His power;

He separateth among them the holy things from the common.

An example of the intimate relationship existing between God and men

is the addition to xxiii. 27:

To follow after God is great glory,

And length of days it is for thee to be accepted of Him.

And again in the addition to xxiv. 23:

Faint not, but be strong in the Lord,

And cleave unto Him that He may strengthen you.

Cleave unto Him, the Lord, the Almighty;

He is the one and only God, and beside Him there is no Saviour.

Although not explicitly stated it is men of Israel who are meant in

these quotations, but sometimes Israel is specially mentioned; so,

for example, in the addition to xvii. 17:

Whom [i.e. Israel] He brought up as His first-born

With severity, yet loving them,

Imparting to them the light of love;

And He forsook them not.

This teaching of the Divine governance of the world, involving as it

does man’s dependence upon God, is balanced by the doctrine of human

free-will; an example of this may be seen in the addition to xx. 31:

Better is persistent endurance (_lit._ patience) in seeking the

Lord,

Than a driver (_lit._ charioteer) of his own life without a

master.

In this couplet the Pharisaic doctrine of man’s free-will is

maintained, while the Sadducæan denial of providence is combated.

Turning now to the teaching of the Pharisees concerning the future

life, the following addition is found after xix. 17:

... The knowledge of the commandments of the Lord is life-giving

instruction,

And they who do the things that are pleasing unto Him shall

pluck the fruit of the tree of immortality.

The teaching of reward hereafter for the righteous may be instanced

from xviii. 22 and the addition to this verse. The original text runs:

Delay not to pay thy vow in due time,

And wait not till death to be justified.

Death is here regarded as a means of atonement, as in the later

Rabbinical literature; but from the Pharisaic point of view these

words seemed inadequate, so the following words were added:

For the reward of God abideth to eternity.

It has been stated above that _repentance_ was one of the watchwords

of the Pharisees; for the Sadducees, with their cold doctrine of God,

repentance could have had but little meaning; not that Ben-Sira did

not teach the need of repentance (see xviii. 21; but in xliv. 16 the

Greek text is corrupt), but it occupies an extremely modest place in

his book, and therefore we shall not be surprised to find that it is

insisted upon several times in the additions; thus after the words of

the text of xvii. 22:

The righteousness of men is to Him as a signet,

And the mercy of man He preserveth as the apple of an eye,

the following addition is made:

Granting repentance to his sons and daughters.

Again, after xx. 2 this addition occurs:

How good it is when he who is reproved manifesteth repentance,

For thus wilt thou escape wilful sin.

As regards the Pharisaic teaching concerning the Law much stress

cannot be laid on the few examples of its mention in the additions,

for at the time when these were made[369] it is improbable that the

antagonism between Pharisees and Sadducees on this point had fully

developed; if it had, we should rightly expect to find it more

strongly reflected in the additions; whereas, as a matter of fact,

quite a few examples of the mention of the Law (or the commandments)

occur in the additions; nevertheless, since the Law played such

a very important part in Pharisaic teaching, its mention in the

additions would naturally point to the hand of a Pharisee. In the

addition which has been put in after xi. 14, the Law is referred to

as a divine gift, and therefore (so it is implied) he who observes

it by walking uprightly is making use of a Divine gift; on the

other hand, to live without the Law is folly and darkness which is

characteristic of sinners:

Wisdom and insight and discernment of the Law

Come from the Lord;

Love and upright ways

Come from the Lord;

Folly and darkness have been formed for sinners,

And as for evil-doers, evil abideth with them.[370]

Again, in xxix. 19, after the first clause:

The sinner falleth in his suretyship,

occurs the addition: “Transgressing the commandments of the

Lord.”[371]

The reference is to evil men who, as the second line of the verse

shows, are ruined because they become surety for evil purposes, i.e.

for the sake of usurious practices; the addition was, therefore, made

in order to emphasize the fact that this was a transgression of the

Law.

Finally, what Josephus says about the asceticism of the Pharisees is

illustrated by the addition to xix. 5. The original text here runs:

He that hath pleasure in wickedness shall be brought to

destruction;

an ascetic tendency is clearly discernible in the Pharisaic addition

which says:

And he that averteth his eye from pleasures crowneth his life.

These examples will suffice, it may be hoped, to substantiate the

contention that the numerous later additions which have for the most

part been preserved in the cursive manuscripts mentioned above are

the work of a Pharisee, or Pharisees.

That these additions are post-Maccabæan goes without saying; but

closer indications of date are not forthcoming, so that we cannot do

more than say that they belong in all probability to the last century

B.C.

VIII. THE VALUE OF THE BOOK FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT