Testament—it may be said here once for all—lies in their doctrinal
teaching. This we have already dealt with in the last chapter of
Part I. But there are some other ways, also useful, though of less
importance, whereby these books can be utilized for New Testament
study. Some of them, and above all Ecclesiasticus, throw much light
on the customs and manner of life of the Jews which helps us in a
number of particulars to understand the Gospels better; others, such
as Judith, illustrate the intensely national feeling of the Jews
which helps to explain much that we read in the Acts, especially St.
Paul’s treatment by the Jews; or, again, the early part of Baruch
gives us some insight into the long prayers which were in vogue among
the Jews; Wisdom shows us, among other things, the Hellenistic spirit
whereby not a few Jews, especially those of the Dispersion, were
animated; this is important for the understanding of much that we
read in the Pauline epistles. Other points will suggest themselves to
thoughtful readers of these books. It is not, however, with matters
of this kind that we can deal here, for space would not permit of it.
What we intend to touch upon briefly in the final section of each
of these introductions to the Apocryphal books, when called for, is
chiefly (though not exclusively) their use for the study of the New
Testament from a literary point of view, the main purpose being to
try and show that the writers of the New Testament books had read and
studied those of the Apocrypha; not, of course, that these writers
were as familiar with them as with the canonical books of the Old
Testament, but that they valued them and utilized them, some more
than others. This is to be expected from the outset, both because
the Old Testament they used contained these books as integral parts
of the “Scriptures,” and because the early Church Fathers held them
in high estimation; this latter is not likely to have been the case
unless that attitude towards these books had been handed down.
There are, firstly, a few examples, among many, of parallel thoughts
between Ecclesiasticus and the Gospels which may be pointed out:
Ecclesiasticus. St. Matthew.
xxviii. 2. Forgive thy neighbour vi. 14. For if ye forgive men
the injury done to thee. their trespasses, your heavenly
And then, when thou prayest, Father will also forgive you.
thy sins will be forgiven.
St. Luke.
xlviii. 10. [Speaking of Elijah] i. 17. And he shall go before his
... To turn the heart of face in the spirit and power
fathers unto the children. of Elijah, to turn the hearts
of the fathers unto the
children.
The verbal identity between the two passages here suggests either
direct influence, or else that a current saying (from Mal. iv. 6) has
been adopted in each.
xi. 19. What time he saith, I xii. 19, 20 ... And I will say
have found rest, to my soul, Soul, thou hast
And now will I enjoy my much goods laid up for
goods,— many years; take thine ease,
He knoweth not what lot eat, drink and be merry.
shall befall; But God said unto him,
He shall leave them to others, Thou foolish one, this
and die. night is thy soul required of
thee; and the things which
thou hast prepared, whose
shall they be?
Cp. also Ecclesiasticus xxxi. 3 with the Lucan passage last quoted.
Examples of other small details illustrative of the usefulness
of Ecclesiasticus for this purpose are i. 1-20, which offers an
interesting commentary on Matthew xi. 19: “Wisdom is justified by
her works” (cp. the various reading in Luke vii. 35). The visitation
of the sick referred to in Matthew xxv. 39 is illustrated by
Ecclesiasticus vii. 35:
Forget not to visit the sick,
For thou wilt be loved for that.
Evidently this was a duty laid upon all good Jews. And, once more,
the custom of wagging the head in sign of mockery mentioned in
Matthew xxvii. 39 is also referred to in Ecclesiasticus xii. 18.
Numbers of similar, small but interesting, points offer themselves to
students of the book.
But the most striking fact in this connection is that of the many
parallel thoughts and passages between Ecclesiasticus and the Epistle
of St. James; these are of such a nature as to justify belief in the
direct influence of the former on the latter. A few examples are
appended[372]:
Ecclesiasticus. St. James.
i. 26. If thou desire Wisdom, i. 5. But if any of you lacketh
keep the commandments, Wisdom, let him ask of God,
And the Lord will give her Who giveth to all liberally
freely unto thee. and upbraideth not; and it
shall be given unto him.
xv. 11-13. Say not, From God i. 13, 14. Let no man say when
is my trangression, he is tempted, I am tempted
For that which He hateth of God; for God cannot be
made He not. tempted with evil, and
Say not, It is He that made He Himself tempteth no
me to stumble. man; but each man is
For there is no need of evil tempted, when he is drawn
men. away by his own lust, and
Evil and abomination doth enticed.
the Lord hate,
And He doth not let it come
nigh to them that fear Him.
v. 11. Be swift to hear, i. 19. But let every man be
But with patience make reply. swift to hear, slow to speak,
slow to wrath.
vii. 35, 36. Forget not to visit i. 27. Pure religion and undefiled
the sick, before God and Father
For thou wilt be loved for that. is this, to visit the fatherless
In all thy doings remember and widows in their
thy last end, affliction, and to keep himself
Then wilt thou never do unspotted from the
corruptly. world.
A large number of other examples could be given; among them the
following will be found instructive:
Compare Ecclesiasticus
xiv. 1, xix. 16, xxv. 8 with James iii. 2
” ” v. 13, 14, viii. 3, xxviii. 11 ” ” iii. 5, 6.
” ” xxviii. 16-18 ” ” iii. 8.
” ” xxviii. 12 and context ” ” iii. 10.
” ” iv. 1-6, xxxiv. 22 ” ” v. 4.
” ” vi. 19 ” ” v. 7.
” ” iv. 26 ” ” v. 16.
” ” xlviii. 3 and context ” ” v. 17.
CHAPTER II
The Book of Tobit
[LITERATURE.—Fritzsche, _Die Bücher Tobiä und Judith erklärt_,
in “Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen” (1853); Hoffman,
_Auszüge aus syrischen Akten persischer Märtyrer_, pp. 182 ff.
(1880); Fuller, in Wace, 1, pp. 149-240 (1888); Conybeare, Rendel
Harris, and Agnes Smith Lewis, _The Story of Ahikar from the
Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Greek and Slavonic Versions_
(1898); a second and large edition of this work was issued early
in 1914; Löhr, in Kautzsch, II, pp. 135-147; Smend, _Alter
und Herkunft des Achikarromans und sein Verhältniss zu Aesop_
(1908); Schürer, II, iii. pp. 37-44, German ed., III, pp. 237-258
(1909); Nau, _Histoire et Sagesse d’Ahikar_ (1909); E. Meyer,
_Der Papyrusfund von Elephantine_, pp. 102-128 (1912); Ungnad,
_Aramäische Papyrus aus Elephantine_, pp. 62-82 (1911); Simpson,
in Charles, I, pp. 174-241; Harris, Lewis, and Conybeare, in
Charles, II, pp. 715-784 (translations of the Syriac, Arabic,
Armenian, Ethiopic and Greek Versions, as well as of the Aramaic
fragments from Elephantiné) (1913). See also the articles on
“Tobit” in the _Encycl. Brit._ by Robertson Smith, in the
_Encycl. Bibl._ by Erbt, in Hastings’ _Dict. of the Bible_ by
Marshall, and in the _Jewish Encycl._ by Toy.]
Before we come to deal with the Book of Tobit it will be well, for
reasons which will become apparent as we proceed, to relate the story
of Achikar the Wise. This story must at one time have been very
widespread and popular. It has come down to us in several forms which
differ largely from each other, but which are, nevertheless, all
variations of the same story in their essence. A much mutilated form
of the story was found among the recently discovered Aramaic _papyri_
of Elephantiné, which shows that it was current among the Jews at
least as early as the fifth century B.C.
The following account is drawn from the various versions, and is only
an outline of the main points.
I. THE STORY OF ACHIKAR THE WISE
Sennacherib, King of Assyria, had a vizier named Achikar, a wise
and erudite scribe. He conducted the affairs of the kingdom wisely
and well. When the king died, and Esarhaddon his son reigned in his
stead, Achikar continued to hold the same office. In course of time
Achikar became very rich, and he had many wives, and built many
castles; but he had no son. And as he grew old he felt the want of a
son more and more. Then he prayed earnestly that he might have a son.
In reply to his prayer it was told him that no son should be granted
him, but that he must instead adopt Nadin,[373] his nephew. This
Achikar did, and educated Nadin carefully, teaching him all manner of
wisdom. Now when Achikar felt the weakness of old age coming upon him
he besought the king that he would appoint Nadin vizier in his place.
This the king consented to do; and Nadin was made vizier. But Nadin
did not follow the wise counsels which he had received from Achikar;
but scattered his words, as it were, to the wind; and he ill-treated
the servants and handmaidens of his uncle, and slew his horses, and
harmed his mules. And when Achikar sought to correct the misguided
course of his adopted son, Nadin slandered him in the ears of the
king, and accused him of traitorous intercourse with the enemies of
the kingdom, laying at the same time forged letters before the king
in proof of Achikar’s guilt. Then the king showed the letters to
Achikar, and sought an explanation; but Achikar was so horrified and
taken aback that he could not utter a word.[374] The king, taking
this as a sign of guilt, gave command that Achikar should be put to
death. But the officer, Nabusemakh, to whom this command was given,
had, years ago, been indebted to Achikar for the saving of his life
when he had been the victim of a false accusation similar to that
now made against Achikar. So Nabusemakh spared Achikar’s life, and
hid him secretly in a hiding-place underground. In Achikar’s place a
slave was executed who was already under sentence of death. Now when
Pharaoh, king of Egypt, heard of the death, as he supposed, of the
wise vizier, he rejoiced greatly, and sent a letter of the following
import to Esarhaddon:
Pharaoh, king of Egypt, to Esarhaddon,[375] king of Assyria and
Nineveh, greeting. I am planning to build a castle between heaven
and earth; wherefore seek out and send me from thy kingdom a man
who is a skilled architect, that he may give me reply concerning
all that I shall ask him. And when thou shalt send me such a
man, I will collect and send thee the revenue of Egypt for three
years. And if thou send me not a man who shall give me reply
concerning all that I ask him, then do thou collect and send me
the tribute of Assyria and Nineveh for three years, by the hands
of these ambassadors that come to thee.[376]
Then Esarhaddon took counsel with Nadin and all the wise men as to
what should be done; and they were in much perplexity, for they found
no one among their number sufficiently wise to build a castle betwixt
heaven and earth. Thereupon, Nabusemakh came and told the king how
that he had spared Achikar’s life. The king, so far from punishing
Nabusemakh for having disobeyed the royal command, was only too
delighted to hear that Achikar was still alive, and richly rewarded
Nabusemakh. Then Achikar was brought, and declared himself ready and
able to answer all that the king of Egypt should ask. When Achikar
came to the court of the king of Egypt he said he would show the king
how to build a castle betwixt heaven and earth. Then he asked that
lime and stone and clay and workmen might be held in readiness. When
all was prepared Achikar let out of a box which he had brought with
him two eagles with ropes tied to their feet; upon each eagle he set
a boy; and as the eagles soared upward and remained betwixt heaven
and earth, the boys began to shout: “Bring bricks, bring clay, that
we may build the king’s castle, for we are standing idle.” But the
king found no means of supplying them with bricks and clay up in
the air, and had perforce to give up the idea of building a castle
betwixt heaven and earth. Thus did Achikar the Wise deliver king
Esarhaddon from his embarrassment. Achikar was placed again at the
head of the royal household and greatly honoured. On being asked by
the king what else he desired, he replied: “Bid them give me my son
Nadin, that I may teach him a further lesson; for he has forgotten my
former teaching.” Then Achikar caused Nadin to be bound and thrashed;
after which he was confined in a dark chamber at the entrance to
Achikar’s house; and every time Achikar went in or out he uttered
precepts of wisdom for Nadin’s benefit. Finally Nadin “swelled up
like a bag and died.”
The moral of the story, with which it concludes, is given thus: “To
him that doeth good, what is good shall be recompensed; and to him
that doeth evil, what is evil shall be rewarded. And he that diggeth
a pit for his neighbour, filleth it with his own stature.”
* * * * *
This story of Achikar the Wise must have enjoyed great popularity
in ancient times, for it has come down to us in various forms; and
its existence among the Jews, in the fifth century, living at such
an out-of-the-way spot as Elephantiné, is eloquent testimony of
how widespread the knowledge of the story was. That the various
forms differ from each other very much is quite in the natural
order of things, for a popular story not only undergoes change when
passed from hand to hand, but sometimes it may assume a form almost
unrecognizable at first, and only when the essential _traits_ are
sought behind the external appearance can the kernel of the original
story be recognized. It is, therefore, not surprising that great
differences are found in the Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Aramaic,
Aethiopic, Hebrew, Slavonic and Greek forms of the story which are
still preserved. But in the case of all these, in spite of variations
of form and matter, and in spite of the addition of many extraneous
details drawn from different sources, the original story lies
imbedded and shows itself to have been utilized to a greater or less
extent.
Now the particular interest that the story of Achikar the Wise has
for the study of the Book of Tobit lies in the fact that the writer
of the latter utilized the former in the composition of his book;
he assumes, moreover, as we shall see, a knowledge of the story of
Achikar the Wise among his readers.
II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BOOK OF TOBIT AND THE STORY OF
ACHIKAR THE WISE.
It should be said at the outset that the best form of the Greek text
of the Book of Tobit is that of _Codex Sinaiticus_; it is this text
which has been utilized here.[377]
The first and most obvious point of interest in this connection
centres in the person of Achikar. In the Book of Tobit he appears,
when first mentioned, quite incidentally, as though he were well
known.[378] In i. 21, 22, after the assassination of Sennacherib by
his two sons has been referred to, it continues: “And they fled unto
the mountains of Ararat, and Sacherdonos [Esarhaddon] his son reigned
after him; and he appointed Acheikaros [Achikar], the son of Anael my
brother, over all the tribute of his kingdom, and he had authority
over all the conduct of affairs. Then Acheikaros put me right [i.e.
with the king], and I came down unto Nineveh. For Acheikaros had
been the chief cup-bearer, and (keeper) of the signet,[379] and
the chief minister, and overseer of the tribute under Sennachereim
[Sennacherib], king of Assyria, and Sacherdonos appointed him a
second time (to these offices).”
This agrees with what is said about the position of Achikar in the
story given above.
In xi. 18 it is said that Achikar and Nadab, his cousin, came to
the wedding of Tobias. This sudden mention of Nadab, who has not
been referred to before in the book, in connection with Achikar is
curious as it stands, and shows clearly enough that the writer of the
book must have been familiar with the story of Achikar, and that he
assumed the same of his readers. The slight variation in the form of
the name (Nadab for Nadin), and his being called the cousin instead
of the nephew of Achikar, does not affect the main point.
But the most striking proof that the writer of Tobit utilized the
story of Achikar is seen by his reference to it in xiv. 10: “And now
do thou, my child, go forth from Nineveh, and abide not here. In
the day in which thou buriest thy mother with me, in that self-same
day tarry no longer in these parts. For I see that there is much
unrighteousness in her [i.e. Nineveh], and much deception is
practised in her, and they are not ashamed. Behold, my child, what
things Nadab did to Acheikaros who nourished him; was he not brought
living into the earth? And God requited his iniquity before his
face; and Acheikaros came forth into the light, and Nadab entered
into eternal darkness because he sought to slay Acheikaros. In that
he [i.e. Acheikaros] showed me mercy he came forth out of the snare
of death which Nadab set for him; and Nadab fell into the snare of
death, and it destroyed him.” The real kernel of the Achikar story is
contained in these words, namely that Achikar brought up an adopted
son who betrayed his benefactor by causing him to dwell in darkness
underground; but ultimately Achikar is saved and Nadab suffers the
fate which he had designed for his benefactor. Thus righteousness
triumphs, and Nemesis overtakes the wicked. It is round this story
that the wisdom of Achikar is woven; and some of the wise sayings
of Achikar are re-echoed in Tobit, which further illustrates the
indebtedness of the writer to the Achikar story; a few examples of
this may be given:
Book of Tobit. Story of Achikar (Syriac Version).
Take heed to thyself, my My son, lift not up thy eyes
child, (to refrain) from all and look upon a woman that
whoredom (iv. 12). is bedizened and painted; and
do not lust after her in thy
heart (ii. 5).
Alms delivereth from death, As for me, my righteousness
and suffereth not to come into (= alms) has saved me (viii. 2).
darkness (iv. 10).
Pour out thy bread and thy My son, pour out thy wine
wine[380] on the tomb of the on the graves of the righteous,
righteous, and give not to rather than drink it with evil
sinners (iv. 17). men (ii. 10).
Ask counsel of every man My son, associate with the
that is wise, and despise not wise man, and thou wilt become
any counsel that is profitable wise like him (ii. 12).
(iv. 18).
It is good to keep close the If thou hast heard a word let
secret of a king, but to confess it die in thy heart, and reveal
and reveal the works of God it to no man; lest it become a
(xii. 7). hot coal in thy mouth and burn
thee, and thou lay a blemish
on thy soul, and be angered
against God (ii. 2).
There are other minor indications of the writer of Tobit having
utilized the Achikar story, such as the unusual double description
of the empire, “Assyria and Nineveh,” in the earliest recension
of our book[381] (xiv. 4, 15, cp. i. 3), which occurs also in the
Achikar story (i. 1); but the _data_ given are sufficient to show
that the Achikar story is without doubt one of the sources of the
Book of Tobit. The object which the writer had in introducing some of
the Achikar story elements into his book was probably that it might
be popularized thereby. The Achikar story must have been immensely
popular when one remembers the manifold forms in which it has come
down to us; and the Book of Tobit, by being in some sort connected
with it, would have commended itself to Gentiles, as well as to Jews.
That the author of our book utilized other non-Jewish sources in
composing it is very probable. There is, for example, a striking
resemblance in one or two particulars between the Book of Tobit and
the “Story of the grateful dead man,” an Armenian tale, according to
which a wealthy man was once riding through a forest when he came
upon some men misusing a corpse; on inquiring the reason for this he
is told that the dead man had owed them money; he pays the dead man’s
debt, and buries the corpse. He then continues his journey home. Now
in the city in which he dwelt there lived a rich man who had an
only daughter; she had married five husbands, but in each case the
husband had died on the night of the wedding. The hero of the tale
resolves, at the instance of an unknown serving-man, to seek this
woman in marriage in spite of what has occurred. He succeeds in his
desire. But on the night of the wedding there issues forth from the
mouth of his bride a serpent which seeks to bite him and thus kill
him; but the unknown serving-man, who had been keeping guard, slays
the serpent, and thus saves the life of the bridegroom, to whom he
then makes himself known as the dead man whose corpse the bridegroom
had buried in the forest.[382] The _traits_ common to this story and
the Book of Tobit are so marked that it is difficult to believe that
there is no connection between the two; that the latter is indebted
to the former is probable because of the very widespread existence
of the “Story of the grateful dead man” in various forms in Asia and
Europe.[383]
Another possible source, but less striking than that just referred
to, is “The Tractate of Khons,” which was originally written for
the purpose of propagating the cult of the Egyptian god Khons; in
it occurs the story of a beautiful princess who was possessed by
a demon, but by the help of Khons the demon was expelled and the
princess cured.[384]
III. THE CONTENTS OF THE BOOK OF TOBIT
In the first part of the book, chapters i.-iii., Tobit relates
how he, his wife Anna, and his son Tobias, had been carried away
captive to Nineveh in the days of Shalmaneser, king of Assyria; he
emphasizes his loyalty to the Law, saying that he and his family
had always been careful in keeping the ordinances of the Law both
when they lived in their own land as well as in the land of their
exile. He mentions specially his ardent zeal in giving alms, and in
according decent burial to those of his race who had been murdered
and whose dead bodies had been cast out of the walls of the city.
Once when he was about to sit down to table at the feast of Pentecost
he bade his son go out and seek someone who was in want and bring him
in to partake of the feast. Tobias, his son, went forth accordingly;
but he soon returned and reported to his father that one of his race
had but now been murdered, and that his body lay in the market-place.
Tobit went out forthwith, and took up the body from the street and
laid it in one of the chambers till sunset, when he intended to bury
it. And when the sun was set, he digged a grave and buried the dead
body. But as he had touched a dead body he was unclean, and therefore
could not re-enter his house, lest by contact he should cause others
to be unclean,[385] so he laid down in the courtyard by the side of
a wall, and because it was hot he left his face uncovered; but the
droppings of some sparrows fell into his eyes, and he became blind.
There follows here a short section (ii. 11-14) about Anna, which is
quite out of place. The story is taken up again at chapter iii.,
which tells of Tobit’s sorrow at his affliction, and of his prayer
to God that he may die (verses 1-6). Then a new element in the story
is introduced. Sarah, the daughter of Raguel of Ecbatana in Media,
suffers reproach because she has no child, although she has had
seven husbands; each of these husbands had, however, been slain by
Asmodæus, “the evil demon,” on the night of his wedding. Sarah, like
Tobit, prays in her great affliction that she may die. Tobit and
Sarah, though they know nothing of each other, have therefore this in
common, that they are both in dire distress. Before proceeding with
his story the narrator adds a note for the comfort of his readers
to the effect that God had sent Raphael, the angel, to heal them
both: “in the case of Tobit to remove the white films from his eyes,
that he might see the light of God with his eyes; and in the case of
Sarah, the daughter of Raguel, to give her for a wife to Tobias, the
son of Tobit, and to unbind Asmodæus the evil demon from her” (iii.
17).
The next section, chapters iv.-xi., which forms the bulk of the book,
deals with the journey of Tobias to Media in order to bring back
money which Tobit had left in trust with Gabael. The advice which
Tobit gives his son preparatory to his starting is contained in iv.
3-21. He also bids his son find a trusty companion who will travel
with him; this he does, the companion being none other than the
angel Raphael, who had been sent by God for the purpose. Raphael, of
course, does not reveal himself to Tobias. Then the departure takes
place (v.-vi. 2).
Soon after they started they met with an adventure, for one evening
as Tobias was washing in the river a great fish caught him by the
foot; but with his companion’s help the fish was caught and brought
to land. His companion the angel, who has taken the name of Azarias,
bids him keep the gall and the liver and the heart of the fish, for
the two latter when burned make a smoke which will drive away demons,
while the gall is efficacious for curing white films which may have
formed themselves on the eyes of a man. Tobias does as he is bidden
(vi. 2-9). On their nearing Ecbatana Raphael tells Tobias that he
must marry Sarah the daughter of Raguel as being nearest of kin; but
Tobias expresses his fears that he may fall a victim to the same evil
demon who had already caused the death of Sarah’s seven husbands.
Thereupon Raphael reminds him of the liver and heart of the fish,
which Tobias had kept, and he is told to place them upon the ashes of
incense at the proper time, when the smell of the smoke will drive
the demon away (vi. 10-18). On their arrival at the house of Raguel
they are welcomed by their host; Raphael makes all arrangements with
regard to the marriage between Tobias and Sarah. At the proper time
Tobias burns the liver and heart of the fish with all success; there
is rejoicing and feasting in the house of Raguel (vii., viii.).
At Tobias’ request Raphael goes to Gabael and fetches the money
belonging to Tobit (ix.).
In the meantime Tobias’ parents are beginning to feel anxious about
his long delay (x. 1-7_a_). Tobias and his wife, Sarah, however,
return to Nineveh to the great joy of Tobit and Anna. The first act
of Tobias on seeing his blind father again is to bring out the gall
of the fish and apply it to the latter’s eyes; the beneficial effect
is immediate; Tobit regains his sight, and weeps for joy (x. 7_b_-xi.
8).
The last section of the book (xii.-xiv.) tells of Raphael making
himself known to Tobit, and of the wisdom of Raphael, after which is
added an account of Raphael’s ascension (xii.); the two last chapters
give the prayer of Tobit (xiii.), and his last words (xiv.).
IV. THE RELIGIOUS STANDPOINT OF THE WRITER
In various important particulars the writer of the Book of Tobit
and Ben-Sira occupy the same religious standpoint; in others a
certain divergence is to be noticed which points to a development of
doctrine. A brief examination of the religious standpoint of the two
writers is, therefore, both interesting and instructive.
(_a_) We will refer first to those points in which the teaching is
identical.
With regard to the Temple cultus at Jerusalem it will suffice to
quote one passage from each book to show the identity of view; in
Tobit i. 6-8 occur these words: “I used to go to Jerusalem with the
firstfruits and the firstlings and the tenths of the cattle and the
first shearings of the sheep, and give them to the priests, the sons
of Aaron, for the altar, and the tenth of the corn and the wine and
oil and pomegranates and the rest of the fruits to the sons of Levi,
who ministered at Jerusalem ...” (cp. ii. 1-9). Quite in accordance
with this are Ben-Sira’s words in vii. 29-31:
Fear God with all thy heart,
And reverence His priests.
With all thy strength love Him that made thee,
And forsake not His ministers.
Glorify God and honour the priest,
And give them their portion as it is commanded thee;
The food of the trespass-offering, and the heave-offering of
the hand,
The sacrifices of righteousness, and the offerings of holy
things (xxxv. 1-11, xlv. 14-16).
Both writers lay much stress on other legal ordinances, above all on
Prayer and Almsgiving; these do not need illustrating, as they are
so often spoken of in either book; but two points, the _spirit_ and
the _efficacy_ of almsgiving, are worth special mention: in Tobit
iv. 16 it is said: “Let not thine eye be grudging when thou givest
alms,” and a similar spirit of whole-heartedness is enjoined in
Ecclesiasticus xviii. 15-18:
My son, bring no blemish on thy good deeds,
Nor in giving any gift cause grief through words....
The gift of an envious man consumeth the eyes.
In like manner the efficacy of alms is spoken of by both writers in
an identical sense; in Tobit iv. 10 it is said: “Alms delivereth from
death, and suffereth not to come into darkness”; and Ben-Sira says:
A flaming fire doth water quench,
So doth almsgiving atone for sin.
Both writers, moreover, use the word as almost synonymous with
righteousness. Fasting, strange to say, receives practically no
notice in Tobit,[386] though Ben-Sira insists upon its right use
(xxxiv. 26). On one other point of legal observance, however, both
writers lay similar emphasis; in Tobit ii. 8, 10 Tobit says: “And
when the sun was set, I went and digged a grave and buried him....
And the same night I washed myself and came into my courtyard and lay
down to sleep ...”; the observance of this legal precept is referred
to by Ben-Sira in these words:
He who washeth after (contact with) a dead body, and toucheth
it again,
What hath he gained by his bathing? (xxxiv. 25).
The similarity of the religious standpoint of these two writers may
be further illustrated by their _universalistic_ attitude and their
teaching on the _future life_. Although, normally, Ben-Sira looks
upon Israel as pre-eminently the nation upon which God’s interest is
centred he shows a broader outlook in such a passage as xviii. 1-14:
... As a drop of water from the sea, or as a grain of sand,
So are man’s few years in the eternal days.
Therefore is the Lord long-suffering towards them,
And poureth out His mercy upon them....
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,
And bringing them back as a shepherd his flock....
Tobit, in like manner, contemplates all men as coming within the pale
of God’s mercy:
I exalt my God, and my soul shall rejoice in the King of heaven;
Of His greatness let all men tell,
And let them give Him thanks in Jerusalem....
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;
With their gifts also in their hands unto the King of heaven
Generations of generations shall utter rejoicing in Thee
And Thy name that is elect unto the generations of eternity
(xiii. 7-11; cp. xiv. 4-6).
The belief of both writers concerning the future life is identical,
it follows the normal teaching of the Old Testament; there is,
therefore, no belief in the resurrection (see Ecclus. xvii. 27,
28, xxviii. 6, xl. 11, etc., and Tobit iii. 10, iv. 10, xii. 9,
xiii. 2); at the same time, one is perhaps justified in seeing the
foreshadowing of a developed belief in such words as these: “Lord,
command that I be released from this distress, let me go to the
everlasting place, and turn not Thy face, O Lord, away from me”
(Tobit iii. 6).
(_b_) A definite doctrinal development is to be discerned in two
directions; while in a number of passages the doctrine of God in each
book is the same as normally taught in the Old Testament, in Tobit
there is a distinct tendency to introduce the idea of an intermediate
agency between God and men; this is seen in the activity of the angel
Raphael, who is sent to fulfil God’s purposes, e.g. iii. 16, 17: “At
the self-same time the prayer of both was heard before the glory of
God; and Raphael was sent to heal them both; ...” and in xii. 12-14
Raphael says: “And now, when thou didst pray, and Sarah, I did bring
the memorial of your prayer before the glory of the Lord; and when
thou didst bury the dead, likewise....” It is also worth noting that
instead of speaking of God directly, expressions such as “the glory
of God” (as in the two passages just quoted), and the “Name” (iii.
11, viii. 5, xi. 14, xii. 6, xiii. 18) are used; stress is thus laid
on the transcendental character of God in a manner which reminds one
of the later developments of Judaism regarding this subject. Closely
connected with what has just been said is the developed doctrine of
angels in the Book of Tobit; in addition to the passages just quoted
reference may be made to xi. 14: “Blessed is God, and blessed is
His great name, and blessed are all His angels”; and xii. 15: “I am
Raphael, one of the seven angels, which stand and enter before the
glory of the Lord.” Such ideas show a decided development of belief
on the subject of angels as compared with the teaching of Ben-Sira,
for in his book there is scarcely any reference to angels, xlii. 16
(and, possibly, xliii. 26) being the only one. It is the same with
the subject of demonology, which has no place in the teaching of
Ben-Sira, while in Tobit the references to Asmodæus “the evil demon”
(iii. 8, 17, cp. vi. 14) and to methods of exorcism (vi. 7-9, 16-18,
viii. 2, 3) show that belief in the activity of demons had begun to
assume a position of considerable importance in popular superstition.
This comparison between the religious standpoint of the writer of
Tobit and that of Ben-Sira shows that there is much affinity between
the two, and leads to the conclusion that, in the main, though not
in all respects, both belong to the same school of thought. We have
seen that Ben-Sira represented the point of view of those who may
be regarded as the precursors of what developed into the Sadducæan
party after the Maccabæan struggle. The writer of the Book of Tobit
approximates to this standpoint upon the whole, though in some
respects he inclines to other directions. Loyalty to the Law and
belief in Providence, as we have pointed out in another chapter, are
not incompatible with the Sadducæan position; the prominent stress
laid on almsgiving and its efficacy (iv. 10, xii. 9) does not differ
from the teaching of Ben-Sira on the subject. In his universalistic
attitude, though like Ben-Sira an ardent Israelite, the writer of
Tobit follows in the teaching of the greatest prophets, and in this
differs fundamentally from the standpoint of those who, later,
developed into the party of the Pharisees. That there is no teaching
on the resurrection in passages where one would justly look for it
had such a doctrine been held, points in the same direction.
On the other hand, the developed teaching on the transcendental
character of God, the angelology and demonology, and the slight
indications of the beginning of eschatological teaching, point away
from the position indicated. This fact is full of interest as
showing that prior to the Maccabæan struggle no hard and fast lines
were drawn between different schools of thought, although definite
tendencies were distinctly observable. We are inclined to see in the
writer of the Book of Tobit a thinker whose natural tendency was to
follow in the wake of the old conservative school, but who was not
uninfluenced by the rising thought of the Apocalyptists (see xiii.
1-18, xiv. 3-7), and who felt that much of what was taught by the
_Chassidim_ was of permanent value. In _Chassidism_ were contained
the germs[387] of what before long developed into the Apocalyptic
Movement and Pharisaism; as long as these only remained tendencies
there was nothing fundamentally antagonistic in either, and in the
writer of the Book of Tobit we see this exemplified. This helps us,
by the way, to understand why we find later specifically apocalyptic
_traits_ in Pharisaic teaching, and specifically Pharisaic _traits_
in Apocalyptic teaching; and this in spite of the pronounced
antagonism which in course of time arose between the two. This fact
is to be explained not so much on the assumption that one influenced
the other, as that both descended from the same ancestor, viz.
_Chassidism_.
V. THE DATE OF THE BOOK, ITS INTEGRITY, AND PLACE OF ORIGIN
From what has just been said we are led to the conclusion that our
book belongs to the same period as that of Ecclesiasticus, though
perhaps slightly later in that period than the latter book. Its
doctrinal standpoint, like that of Ecclesiasticus, is pre-Maccabæan.
That there is not the slightest reference to the Maccabæan struggle
points in the same direction. Various reasons, some of them rather
forced, have been put forward to show that the book is of much later
date, others to prove that it is much earlier; but we feel convinced
that the surest guide to the date of a Jewish book written between
those two great historical landmarks, the time of Ezra and the
beginning of the Christian era, is its doctrinal standpoint.[388]
This, taken as a whole, can in the case of our book only point to a
time previous to the Maccabæan struggle; for, after this, parties
antagonistic to each other became definitely formed, and such
an attitude as that of the writer of the Book of Tobit was then
unthinkable; he must then have been either a Sadducee or a Pharisee
or an Apocalyptist (Essenism does not come into consideration
here), whereas, in point of fact, he shows a mixture of all three
tendencies. The book is not necessarily later than Ecclesiasticus,
for although it does in some respects show a development of doctrine
it is quite possible for contemporaries to be in substantial
agreement and yet for one to hold slightly more advanced views on
certain points than another. Our book may thus be assigned to a date
not much later than B.C. 175 and not earlier than B.C. 190.
A careful study of the book shows no reason for questioning its
integrity; the author has obviously utilized different materials in
composing his story, but apart from minor details, his composition
has not been added to by other writers.
The place of origin of the book cannot be decided with any certainty;
it lies between Palestine and Egypt, though the balance of
probability points to the latter. The book was written for the Jews
of the Dispersion; this is clear from such words as the following:
Give thanks unto Him before the Gentiles, ye children of Israel,
For He hath scattered you among them,
And there He hath shown you His greatness;
And extol ye Him before all the living (xiii. 3, 4),
and the writer himself says he is in captivity in xiii. 6:
I, in the land of my captivity, give Him thanks.
That this land cannot be either the Far East, Persia, Assyria,
Babylonia, or Media, as has been held by different scholars, is
shown by Simpson, who says that “such surmises are, at the outset,
negatived by the author’s ignorance of Eastern geography and his
acceptance of the ordinary standards of Greek and Roman geographies.
That the Tigris flowed between Nineveh and Media was an idea common
among the Greeks; that Ecbatana was situated in a plain was a
constant Western fallacy, and is repeated in Diodorus ii. 13, 6, in a
passage dependent on Ctesias.”[389] Another, apparently small, point
also suggests Egypt; it is said in vi. 3 that “a great fish leaped up
out of the water, and would have swallowed the foot of the young man
...”; no ordinary fish would do this kind of thing, it points rather
to a crocodile of the Nile, and this was probably in the writer’s
mind; “this conjecture,” in the words of Robertson Smith, “is raised
almost to certainty when we read in Kazwini i. 132 that the smell of
the smoke of a crocodile’s liver cures epilepsy, and that its dung
and gall cure leucoma, which was the cause of Tobit’s blindness. Very
similar statements as to the medicinal virtues of the crocodile occur
in Greek and Latin writers.”[390]
Further, the sources utilized by the writer of the book suggest
Egypt as the place of its origin; “only Egyptian Jews could need an
antidote to the _Tractate of Khons_,” and this seems to have been
one main purpose of the book.[391] Finally, if, as seems upon the
whole probable, the book was originally written in Greek, a further
reason for regarding Egypt as its original home is offered. Some
scholars are strong advocates of a Semitic (Hebrew or Aramaic)
original, but to give details of the reasons for either contention
would involve technicalities which would be inappropriate here. It
must suffice to say that the Greek as a whole does not read like
a translation, whatever may be the case in isolated instances.
If one reads the Greek of Ecclesiasticus, which is admittedly a
translation, and compares it with that of the Book of Tobit, the
difference is enormous, and forces one to believe that if Tobit was
originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, its Greek form must be not a
translation, but a paraphrase.[392]
It is, however, quite possible that the home of the writer was
Palestine, and that for some reason or other he was compelled to
spend some considerable time in Egypt. Ben-Sira’s grandson, who was
evidently a native of Palestine, came into Egypt and continued there
and issued his grandfather’s book in a Greek form while living there.
On the supposition that the writer of Tobit was a native of Palestine
sojourning in Egypt the Aramaic traits in his book could be explained
in a quite natural way.
VI. THE VALUE OF THE BOOK FOR NEW TESTAMENT STUDY
There are a few passages in the Book of Tobit which, on being
compared with similar ones in the Gospels, illustrate the truth
that Christ inculcated much of the teaching of Judaism with which
His hearers were already familiar, and which therefore had His
approval. In iv. 8, 9 we read: “As thy substance is, give alms of it
according to thine abundance; if thou have much, according to the
abundance therefore give alms; if thou have little, bestow it, and
be not afraid to give alms according to that little; for thou layest
up a good treasure for thyself against the day of necessity.” The
spirit of this teaching is endorsed, but made more spiritual, in
the familiar words of Matthew vi. 19-21: “Lay not up for yourselves
treasures upon the earth ... but lay up for yourselves treasures in
heaven ... for where thy treasure is, there will thy heart be also.”
An even more pointed illustration is seen on comparing Tobit xii.
8-10 with Matthew vi. 1-6; the former runs: “Better is prayer with
truth, and alms with righteousness, than riches with unrighteousness;
it is better to give alms than to lay up gold ...”; in Matthew vi.
1-6 almsgiving and prayer are likewise placed together, only here
again the teaching is fuller and deeper. Again, in Tobit iv. 15 it
is said: “What thou thyself hatest, do to no man”; this negative
injunction is put positively in Matthew vii. 12: “All things
therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so
do ye also unto them” (cp. Luke vi. 31). Once more, in Tobit iv. 16
the command is given: “Give of thy bread to the hungry, and of thy
garments to them that are naked”; this reminds one irresistibly of
Matthew xxv. 35, 36: “I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat; I was
thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in;
naked, and ye clothed me....”
That St. Paul was well acquainted with the Book of Tobit, and was
influenced by it, seems to come out clearly in some passages in
his epistles; thus the words in 2 Corinthians ix. 9, “Let each
man do according as he hath purposed in his heart; not grudgingly
or of necessity,” echo what is said in Tobit iv. 7, 16, “As thy
substance is ...” (quoted above) and in verse 16: “Let not thine eye
be grudging when thou givest alms” (cp. 1 Cor. xvi. 2, 2 Cor. viii.
12). Although the identical injunction is given in Tobit iv. 12_a_
and 1 Thessalonians iv. 3, and in Tobit iv. 15_b_ and Ephesians v.
18, they do not necessarily imply that St. Paul was indebted to this
book for them because they are so general in character. On the other
hand, the thought in Romans vi. 23, “For the wages of sin is death,”
seems to be derived from Tobit xii. 10: “They that commit sin and
unrighteousness are enemies to their own life.” In the first epistle
to Timothy the influence of our book may also be discerned in a few
cases; thus, in vi. 6 the words, “But godliness with contentment
is great gain,” are in their essence closely analogous to what is
written in Tobit iv. 21: “And fear not, my child, because we have
become poor; thou hast much wealth, if thou fear God and avoid every
kind of sin, and do the things which are good in the sight of the
Lord thy God.” In the same way, the passage already quoted, Tobit iv.
9, “... for thou layest up a good treasure for thyself against the
day of necessity,” is spiritualized in 1 Timothy vi. 19: “... laying
up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to
come, that they may lay hold on the life which is life indeed.” It is
also worth mentioning that the expression “King eternal” in 1 Timothy
i. 17 occurs also in Tobit xiii. 6.
In a few other passages identity of thought and verbal similarities
are of interest: the combination of good works and almsdeeds is
found in Tobit i. 3 and Acts ix. 36; in Tobit xii. 12 the words,
“I did bring the memorial of your prayer before the glory of the
Lord,” reminds one forcibly of Acts x. 4: “Thy prayers and thine
alms are gone up for a memorial before God.” The idea of binding
the devil occurs both in Tobit viii. 3 and Revelation xx. 2, and
the description of the new Jerusalem in Tobit xiii. 16-18 has some
distinct points of similarity with the fuller picture given in
Revelation xxi. 10-21.
In most of the cases given above the verbal similarity is more
striking when read in the original Greek.
CHAPTER III
The Book of Judith
[LITERATURE.—Fritzsche, _Die Bücher Tobiä und Judith erklärt_,
in “Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen” (1853); Ball, in
Wace, I, pp. 241-360; Schürer, II, iii. pp. 32-37, German ed.,
III, pp. 230-237; Löhr, in Kautzsch, I pp. 147-164; Gaster, in
the “Proceedings of the Soc. of Biblical Archæology” for 1894,
pp. 156-163; Scholz, _Kommentar über das Buch Judith und über Bel
und Drache_ (1896); Wünsche, _Aus Israel’s Lehrhallen_, II, pp.
164-185 (1908); Cowley, in Charles, I, pp. 242-267.]
I. CONTENTS AND CHARACTER OF THE BOOK
The book purports to tell of events which took place in the reign
of Nebuchadnezzar, “who reigned over the Assyrians in Nineveh.” It
tells of how this king in the twelfth year of his reign gathered
together many nations to fight with him against the Medes; the
collection of this host seems to have taken five years, for it was
not until the seventeenth year of his reign that Nebuchadnezzar
attacked and conquered Arphaxad, king of the Medes. Now among the
peoples whom Nebuchadnezzar had summoned to join him in this war all
those of the west had refused to respond, among them being those
“that were in Carmel and Gilead, in the higher Galilee and the
great plain of Esdraelon, all that were in Samaria and the cities
thereof, and beyond Jordan unto Jerusalem” (i. 9); these and many
others, therefore, Nebuchadnezzar determined to punish now that he
had successfully dealt with the Medes. So he commands Holofernes,
the chief captain of his host, to go with an army of 132,000, and
take vengeance on these disobedient lands of the west. Then follows
the account of Holofernes’ victorious progress until he reaches the
plain of Esdraelon; he pitches his camp between Geba and Scythopolis,
and rests there for a month in order to “gather together all the
baggage of his host” (ii. 21-iii. 10). The Jews are now filled with
anxiety, and speedily set about taking measures of defence; above
all, they fortify the villages on the mountain-tops. Joakim, the
high-priest, takes the lead and commands the people of Bethulia
to seize the ascents of the hill-country overlooking the plain of
Esdraelon, “because by them was the entrance into Judæa, and it
was easy to stop them from approaching, inasmuch as the approach
was narrow, with space for two men at the most” (iv. 1-8). The
people then give themselves to fasting and prayers, calling upon
God to help them in this hour of danger (iv. 9-15). Holofernes, on
hearing of the preparations made to resist his advance, is greatly
incensed. Then Achior, the leader of the Ammonites who had joined the
Assyrian army, warns Holofernes, by pointing to the past history of
the Jews, that their God invariably helped these people so long as
they remained faithful to Him; so that “if there is no lawlessness
in their nation,” Achior concludes, “let my lord now pass by, lest
their Lord defend them, and their God be with them, and we shall
be a reproach before all the earth.” Holofernes, however, resents
this warning, thinking that Achior’s intention is to protect the
Jews by thus seeking to dissuade him from further advance. To punish
Achior, Holofernes has him bound and taken to the foot of the hill
on which the fortress of Bethulia is situated; he is left there in
the hopes that he will be killed by the enemy. But the Israelites, on
finding him, take him into the city and treat him kindly (v., vi.).
Holofernes now makes a demonstration in the valley in the sight of
the garrison in Bethulia, his object being to inspire the Jews with
dread and despair, and thus induce them to submit; the capture of
this mountain fortress was essential for the further advance. But
“the children of Esau” realize that it is no easy matter to reduce an
almost impregnable fortress like this otherwise than through famine;
above all, if the water supply is cut off, the garrison will speedily
be forced to give in; “remain in thy camp,” they say to Holofernes,
“and keep safe every man of thy host, and let thy servants get
possession of the fountain of water which issueth forth from the foot
of the mountain; for all the inhabitants of Bethulia have their water
thence; and thirst will kill them, and they will give up their city.”
Holofernes sees the wisdom of this advice, which is carried out. The
result is that the people in Bethulia suffer terrible distress, and
are reduced to despair; they come to Ozias, the elder of the city,
and call upon him to surrender; Ozias implores them to hold out for
another five days, firmly believing that God will have mercy upon
them and not forsake them utterly. To this the people consent (vii.).
These first seven chapters, which constitute nearly half the book,
form in reality only the introduction to what follows; the heroine of
the story has not yet even been mentioned. The writer has brought his
narrative to a point where, humanly speaking, nothing can save the
ill-fated people of Bethulia; but he leaves the impression upon his
hearers that they are to expect something wonderful to happen during
the five days of waiting for the end. And, in truth, the story that
follows is extraordinarily dramatic; from chapter viii. onwards one
is carried along in almost breathless excitement, it is a masterpiece
of narrative; though the one thing that perhaps somewhat mars its
perfection is the writer’s proneness to be diffuse.
With chapter viii. Judith is introduced; first her genealogy is
given, she belongs to the tribe of Simeon; then other details are
mentioned. She has been a widow for three years and four months;
her husband, Manasses, died of sunstroke; he had left his widow
“gold, and silver, and menservants, and maidservants, and cattle,
and lands.” Judith is a devout woman, and strict in her religious
observances; her great beauty is often insisted upon, and she is
also endowed with much wisdom. On her hearing of what had happened,
she sends her maid to the elders of the city, Ozias, Chabris, and
Charmis, inviting them to her house; they come, and Judith addresses
them at some length, the gist of her words being that they have been
wrong in promising to deliver up the city in five days, because in
doing so they have shown their want of faith in God; moreover, if
Bethulia is taken it will mean the utter downfall of the people, and
the profanation of the sanctuary. So she urges them to be an example
to the people by showing unwavering trust in God. They commend her
words, and beg her to pray to God for rain, that the cisterns may be
filled and the people obtain refreshment. But Judith replies: “Hear
me, and I will do a thing, which shall go down to all generations
among the children of our race.” She does not tell them what she is
going to do, but only says that God will use her as an instrument of
deliverance before the five days are out (viii.). The whole of the
next chapter is taken up with Judith’s prayer to God in preparation
for what she is about to undertake. Judith now goes with her maid to
the camp of Holofernes; everyone is struck with her beauty, and she
is well received, Holofernes especially being very gracious to her.
She then declares to him the purpose of her coming, which is for
nothing less than the betrayal of her people. She skilfully uses the
argument which Achior had used, namely that as long as her people
are faithful to God it will not be possible to overcome them, but if
they do anything to anger Him, then He will forsake them. This, she
tells him, is true; but what Achior did not know, that she has come
to tell, and it is this: the Israelites are about to do something
which will bring down upon them the wrath of God; being in dire
straits they are going to eat sanctified food, which is contrary to
the Law; they are merely waiting to receive licence to do this from
the authorities in Jerusalem, where the same thing has already been
done, and as soon as they receive the permission they will transgress
the Law; then will be Holofernes’ chance. So Judith says she will go
forth each night, and will pray to God Who will tell her as soon as
the people have committed their sins; “and I will come and show it
also unto thee; and thou shalt go forth with all thy host, and there
shall be none of them that shall resist thee. And I will lead thee
through the midst of Judæa, until thou comest over against Jerusalem;
and I will set thy seat in the midst thereof.” Needless to say that
Holofernes is greatly pleased with these words. For three days Judith
and her maid remain in the camp within their own quarters; each night
they go forth to pray, the guards being instructed to let them pass
outside the camp (x.-xii. 9). But on the fourth day Holofernes gives
a feast to which he invites Judith; she comes; the feast lasts long,
and Holofernes becomes inflamed with wine and casts evil eyes upon
Judith. Then all the servants go from the tent. Judith and Holofernes
are left alone; but the latter is overcome with wine. Judith
approaches the couch whereon he lies; then uttering a hasty prayer
for strength, she seizes the warrior’s scimitar and hews his head
from his body. She calls her maid, who puts the head of Holofernes
into her bag of victuals, and they both pass out of the camp, and
return to Bethulia (xii. 10-xiii. 10). There is immense joy in the
city when they learn what Judith has done; the head of Holofernes is
hung out on the battlements. The Assyrian army, on learning what has
happened, are plunged into fear and confusion; the Israelites fall
upon them and put them to flight. Judith is richly rewarded, and
honoured by all the people (xiii. 11-xv. 13). Then follows Judith’s
Song of Praise (xvi. 2-17); and the book closes with a short account
of how Judith dedicated to God her share of the spoil of the Assyrian
camp, of her prosperity, and finally of her death in Bethulia at a
ripe old age (xvi. 18-25).
The first question as to the character of the book that naturally
arises is whether, or how far, it is historical. The opening words
of the book are in themselves sufficient to show that the writer
is not to be looked upon as a historian. He says, “In the twelfth
year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who reigned over the Assyrians
in Nineveh ...”; and again in ii. 1 ff. it is narrated how in his
eighteenth year he sent Holofernes to undertake the campaign in
the west. But further, in iv. 2, 3 it says that the people were
exceedingly afraid at the approach of Holofernes, and were troubled
for Jerusalem, and for the temple of the Lord their God; “because
they were newly come up from the Captivity, and all the people of
Judæa were lately gathered together; and the vessels, and the altar,
and the house, were sanctified after the profanation.” How utterly
unhistorical all this is can be seen at once by referring to 2 Kings
xxiv., xxv., and Jeremiah xxxix., xl. Nebuchadnezzar was king of
_Babylon_ (Nineveh fell in B.C. 608), and it was in the eighteenth
year of his reign (B.C. 586) that Jerusalem was besieged and captured
for the second time, the first time being in 597; and so far from the
people having newly come up from the Captivity, it was just in this
year that a further exportation of Jews took place. The return from
the Captivity was, at the earliest, in B.C. 536, the rebuilding of
the Temple took place some twenty years later. Then, again, in iv.
6-8 Joakim the high-priest is represented as supreme ruler; but as
a matter of fact Gedaliah had been appointed by Nebuchadnezzar as
governor over the cities of Judah (2 Kings xxv. 22, Jer. xl. 5).
On the face of it, therefore, the book is not to be regarded
as historical. Yet the writer is well acquainted with the Old
Testament, and so far as the geography of Palestine is concerned
he is thoroughly _au fait_. We must conclude that he simply chose
the historical names and times as the framework in which to place
his story in order that he might thereby render it more dramatic;
he purposely commits gross historical blunders in order to make
it clear to his readers at the outset that the historical period
chosen is merely for literary effect; “they are to understand that
this is fiction, not history; it did not take place in this or that
definite period of Jewish history, but simply ‘once upon a time,’
the real vagueness of the date being transparently disguised in the
manner which has become familiar in the folk-tales of other parts
of the world.”[393] There is, of course, always the possibility
that some historical basis may exist for the actual story of Judith
as distinct from its framework, and this is held to be the case
by some scholars; Zunz, for example, says: “It is quite possible
that in some Palestinian town a popular festival might have been
celebrated in memory of the heroic deed of some woman, and that when
the real occasion of it had been forgotten and had given place to a
legend with manifold embellishment, a story was composed in honour
of Judith, presumably before the destruction of the Temple.”[394]
The fact that several forms of the story exist supports this idea
(see the next section). But the majority of scholars are disposed to
regard the book as pure fiction (with a special object in view as we
shall see presently), and without any basis of fact.
As a piece of literary work the book must command sincere admiration;
the author is a master in the art of story-telling, and the way in
which he intertwines the purposes for which the book was written
with the narrative itself is very skilfully done. Striking, too, is
the dramatic power which the writer exhibits; the reader becomes
fascinated as step by step he is drawn nearer and nearer to the
climax, wondering what it is going to be; he is impelled to read
on in order to see what is really going to happen, for the writer
cleverly conceals this right up to the very moment that the climax
is reached. Judith’s object in coming to Holofernes seems to be
represented at first as the act of a traitress, and something
worse; and yet her deep piety convinces the reader that this cannot
be; so that he must read on; he cannot stop. Torrey is certainly
right in saying that “what gained for the book its high esteem in
early times, in both the Jewish and the Christian world, was its
intrinsic merit as a story, rather than its religious teaching or its
patriotism.”[395]
II. VARIETY OF FORM OF THE JUDITH STORY
Mention must be made of the fact that our book has come down to us
in more than one form. We have, firstly, the Greek form preserved
in the Septuagint; our Apocrypha follows this, and it is the one
of which some account has been given in the preceding section.
This Greek form of the story is much longer than the other, to be
spoken of presently; but it exists in three recensions, and the
differences between these are considerable. Of these three, one is
preserved in the principal uncial manuscripts, A, B, and to some
extent in ℵ; this, as just said, is the recension adopted in our
Apocrypha. The second is found in two cursive manuscripts, numbered
19 and 108; while the third occurs in a cursive numbered 58[396];
it was from a manuscript belonging to the type of text representing
this latter that the Old Latin and Syriac Versions were made.[397]
It is probable that all these recensions go back to a single
archetype.[398] But, in the second place, there exists, in Hebrew,
quite a different and much shorter form of the story; this form is
preserved in a Hebrew manuscript, found by Gaster,[399] belonging
approximately to the year A.D. 1000; its home was, according to
Gaster, “somewhere in Babylon,” and he believes that it “must have
belonged originally to the old Megillath Taanith,” a Rabbinical
tractate belonging to the Haggadic literature. In this shorter form
some of the essential features of the story differ from the longer
form; thus, Seleucus takes the place of Nebuchadnezzar; Judith
appears not as a widow, but as a maiden, the daughter of Ahitob;
the scene of the story, moreover, is not placed in Bethulia, but in
Jerusalem; and the relations between Judith and her victim are given
in somewhat unblushing detail. This form of the story occurs also in
the Megillath Taanith (chap, vi.), as we now have it; here there are
again some variations, for, according to Zunz, “Judith is represented
as the daughter of Jochanan, or of Mattathiah, and as a heroine
belonging to the Hasmonæan period.”[400]
The question naturally arises here as to which of these forms most
nearly represents the original story. The rather intricate details
which would have to be given in order to answer this would be
wearisome; we must content ourselves, therefore, with saying that
there can be little doubt that the shorter, Hebrew, form must be
regarded as coming closest to the original form of the story. In
comparing the contents of each form, as given respectively in the
Greek MSS. and in the magazine in which Gaster’s manuscript has been
published, it will be seen that a variety of indications lead to the
conviction that the shorter form is the older.
III. THE TEACHING AND PURPOSE OF THE BOOK
These two subjects go together; for the answer to the one is the
answer to the other. The teaching is that of the rigidly orthodox
Pharisaic type; observance of the Law is the one thing needful. This
is vividly brought out whenever Judith’s piety is extolled; her
strictness with regard to the dietary laws is described in xii. 1-9
(see also x. 5, xi. 12-15); when at last she sits down at the banquet
of Holofernes it is said: “She took and ate and drank before him what
her servant had prepared” (xii. 19). Her fasting and observance of
the feast-days is mentioned in viii. 6: “And she fasted all the days
of her widowhood, save the eves of the sabbaths, and the sabbaths,
and the eves of the new moons, and the new moons, and the feasts and
joyful days of the house of Israel” (cp. iv. 13). Ritual ablutions
are referred to in x. 3, xii. 7, 9, her devotion to prayer in the
whole of chapter ix., and incidentally in viii. 31, xi. 17, xii.
6, xiii. 3, 4, 7, 10. It is strange that there is no reference to
almsgiving. Further, zeal for the Temple is shown in iv. 2, 3, iv.
11-15, v. 19, viii. 21, 24, ix. 1, 8, 13, xvi. 20; and the duty of
mourning in viii. 5, 6, xvi. 24. The sin of withholding their dues
from the priests is emphasized in xi. 13. Pharisaic particularism is
to be discerned in viii. 20, ix. 14, xvi. 17; proselytism in xiv. 10;
and eternal punishment on the Gentiles in xvi. 17. The worship of
the One God of Israel, and the teaching concerning Him, is of course
insisted upon throughout.
It will thus be seen that, although much of the teaching is that of
traditional Judaism, certain specifically Pharisaic doctrinal points
stand out conspicuously; this, it may be said in passing, makes our
book important for the study of pre-Christian Judaism.
The main purpose of the book is, therefore, clearly to inculcate
and to forward Pharisaic Judaism; and at the time when this book
was written (see the next section) this was extremely needful; for
although there were some things in the Pharisaic presentation of
Judaism which were not conducive to spiritual religion, it cannot
be too strongly insisted upon that Pharisaism was the one and only
bulwark against heathenism in those days, and the upholder of a true
monotheistic faith. It has been truly pointed out by Elbogen[401]
that “the Pharisees are usually described as the party of narrow
legalistic tendencies, and it is forgotten how strenuously they
laboured against the Hellenizing movement for the maintenance
of Monotheism; it is forgotten that they built up religious
individualism and purely spiritual worship; that it was through them
more especially that belief in a future life was deepened; and that
they carried on a powerful mission (propaganda).”
Teaching of a different kind in our book, and of subsidiary
importance, is that where God’s honour is concerned His people must
fight, no matter how great the odds against them may be. A warlike
spirit breathes throughout the book; but it is against the enemies of
God, the heathen nations, that this spirit is directed; so that it is
the need and duty and glory of religious warfare that is inculcated.
IV. THE DATE OF THE BOOK
The historical details given in the book are, as we have seen, wholly
unreliable; they cannot, therefore, be of any use in seeking to fix
a date. In the absence of other indications there is only one way
in which this can be approximately ascertained, and that is by the
teaching and contents of the book. But as has already been pointed
out, the form in which the story is given in the Apocrypha is not
the earliest; so that we must seek to establish dates both for the
form that we have here followed, namely, that of the Apocrypha, and
for the story as it appeared in its original form. We have shown
that the teaching is that of the Pharisaic type; now it is, as has
been pointed out in an earlier chapter,[402] from the _Maccabæan
conflict_ with surrounding heathenism that Pharisaism emerges as an
active movement, and it only becomes quiescent after the annihilation
of the Jewish national life in the reign of Hadrian[403]; this gives
two outside dates within which the book in either form must have
been composed, viz. roughly speaking between B.C. 150-A.D. 135.
The book is first quoted in the first epistle of Clement of Rome
to the Corinthians,[404] which was written in A.D. 95 or 96; this
presupposes the existence of our book for some time previously. But
a further consideration is this: the pseudepigraphic book called
“The Assumption of Moses,”[405] was written at the beginning of the
first century A.D. by a Pharisee whose purpose in writing it was to
urge upon the Jews quietude and patience instead of a warlike spirit
and national assertion; the writer of this book belonged to the same
party as the writer of the Book of Judith in its later form; had both
writers lived at the same time it is highly improbable that they
would have taken up such entirely opposed attitudes on the question
of religious warfare; as there is no period during the first century
A.D. the historical conditions of which would suit the warlike spirit
of our book, it is obvious that it must have been written before the
beginning of the Christian era. Gaster[406] has shown that there is
only one period with which all the elements of our book coincide so
far as warfare is concerned, and that is the approach of Pompey to
Jerusalem in B.C. 63. So that we may safely assign the middle of the
first century B.C. as the date for the _later_ form of our book, As
regards the earlier form of the book, it is to be noted that it
contains no references to ceremonial observances, a fact which proves
that it must have been written before Pharisaism had had time to
develop; this is of itself sufficient to show that the book in its
original form was written before B.C. 100; so that we shall not be
far wrong in fixing the date of this about the middle of the second
century B.C.
V. THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE BOOK
There can be no two opinions as to what the original language of
the book was, namely Hebrew; in numerous instances the Greek proves
itself to have been translated from Hebrew, the idioms being those
of classical Hebrew; so that this was the original language of both
the longer and shorter forms. St. Jerome, in the preface to his
translation, says that he had the book before him in Aramaic; this
cannot, however, have been the original, for neither Origen nor
the Jews with whom he was in communication knew either of a Hebrew
or an Aramaic form of the book.[407] The Hebrew original was lost
altogether in the West, but must have been preserved in some form or
other in the East.
CHAPTER IV
The Additions to the Book of Daniel
[LITERATURE.—Brüll, _Das apokryphische Susanna-Buch_, in
“Jahrbücher für jüdische Geschichte und Literatur” (1877);
Ball, in Wace, II, pp. 305-360; Schürer, II, iii. pp. 183-188,
German ed., III, pp. 452-458; Scholz, _Judith und Bel und der
Drache_ (1896); Julius, _Die griechischen Daniel-Zusätze und ihre
kanonische Geltung_ (1901); Daubney, _The Three Additions to
Daniel_, (1906); Rothstein, in Kautzsch, I, pp. 172-193; Bennett,
Kay, and Witton Davies, in Charles, I, pp. 625-664. The articles
by Marshall in Hastings’ _Dict. of the Bible_, and Kamphausen, in
the _Encycl. Bibl._]
I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS
Before dealing with these Additions individually a word may be said
about them collectively. None of them occur in the Hebrew Bible and
in only one manuscript of the Septuagint proper are they found[408];
but in the great uncials (B, A, Q), which contain Theodotion’s
Version of the Septuagint, they all appear as integral parts of the
text of Daniel. “In the Greek manuscripts no break or separate title
divides these Greek additions from the rest of the text, except that
when Daniel is divided into ‘visions,’ the first vision is made to
begin at i. 1, Susanna being thus excluded from the number; Bel, on
the other hand, is treated as the last of the visions.”[409] What
the actual number of Additions originally was is uncertain; they
are usually reckoned as three; it is possible, however, that five
originally separate pieces were incorporated into the text of the
Septuagint, viz. the Story of Susanna, the Prayer of Azariah, a short
narrative piece, the Song of the Three Children, and Bel and the
Dragon. The second, third and fourth of these are usually regarded
as forming one piece; this question we shall consider immediately.
Although some of these Additions are quite inappropriate in their
present context, they have from very early times been regarded as
belonging to the Book of Daniel proper; “from the Fathers it is
clear that in the earliest Christian copies of the Septuagint both
Susanna and Bel formed part of Daniel, to which they are ascribed
by Irenæus and Tertullian, and implicitly by Hippolytus. The
remarkable letter of Julius Africanus to Origen which throws doubt
on the genuineness of Susanna, calling attention to indications of
its Greek origin, form a solitary exception to the general view;
even Origen labours to maintain their canonicity.”[410] Clement of
Alexandria also apparently regarded Susanna[411] and the Song of the
Three Children[412] and Bel[413] as canonical; and a string of other
authorities could be cited. A useful collection of references to and
quotations from these Additions in early Christian writings is given
by Daubney, _The Three Additions to Daniel_, pp. 76-80, 163-169,
235-239.
II. THE PRAYER OF AZARIAH
This addition consists of two pieces: a narrative portion, verses
1, 23-27, and the Prayer itself, verses 2-22. Now in the Aramaic
of Daniel iii. 23, 24 the text runs: (23) “And these three men,
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, fell down in the midst of the
burning fiery furnace. (24) Then Nebuchadnezzar, the king, was
astonished, and rose up in haste....” Any candid reader must see at
once that there is something not in order with the text here; the
natural sequence of the text would, one might justly expect, give
some reason for Nebuchadnezzar’s astonishment before stating the
fact. Something has evidently fallen out of the text after verse 23.
If we insert after verse 23 of the canonical Daniel the narrative
addition found in the Septuagint (Theodotion’s Version) we get the
following:
And these three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, fell down
in the midst of the burning fiery furnace. _And they walked in
the midst of the fire, singing the praise of God, and blessing
the Lord. And the king’s servants, that put them in, ceased not
to make the furnace hot with naphtha, pitch, tow, and small
wood; so that the flame streamed forth above the furnace forty
and nine cubits. And it spread and burned those Chaldæans whom
it found about the furnace. But the angel of the Lord came down
into the furnace together with Azarias and his fellows, and he
drove the flame of the fire out of the furnace; and he 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._ Then Nebuchadnezzar, the king, was astonied, and rose up
in haste; he spake and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast
three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and
said unto the king, True, O king. He answered and said, Lo, I see
four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have
no hurt; and the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the gods.
The words printed in italics are from the Septuagint, the rest from
the canonical Daniel. There are two things that strike us here:
firstly, we get the reason for Nebuchadnezzar’s astonishment; and
secondly, we are told how it was that four instead of three men
were seen in the furnace. The reference to the fourth person in
the furnace, as given in the canonical text, is abrupt; that will
be allowed. The whole narrative, as just given, runs smoothly and
naturally. We contend, therefore, that this narrative addition of the
Septuagint represents—it may not be the exact translation—an original
portion of the canonical Daniel. It will be remarked that part of the
addition, namely that which refers to the burning of the Chaldæans,
is already represented in verse 22 of the canonical Daniel, viz.,
“the flame of the fire slew those men that took up Shadrach, Meshach,
and Abed-nego”; but these words do not occur in the one manuscript,
mentioned above, of the Septuagint proper which we possess, nor in
Theodotion’s Version; they are added in the Alexandrian manuscript,
but are evidently a later addition as this manuscript also contains
the reference to the Chaldæans as given in the quotation above.
Turning now to the Prayer itself, we notice first that there is
nothing in it which connects it with the episode to which it is
supposed to belong; the words of verse 2, which introduce the Prayer,
viz. “Then Azarias rose up and prayed thus, and opened his mouth in
the midst of the fire and said,” are an expansion made in order to
give it an appearance of connection with verse 1; probably the words
ran originally: “Then Azarias rose up and prayed thus,” or something
to this effect. The Azarias here mentioned is not one of the “Three
Children”; moreover, if the Prayer had originally been written in
reference to them we should expect it to have been put into the mouth
of Hananiah (Ananias), i.e. the equivalent of the Aramaic Shadrach,
whose name is always placed first.
That the Prayer was composed during the early part of the Maccabæan
struggle seems probable for the following reasons: in verse 5 it
says, “In all the things that Thou hast brought upon us, and upon
the holy city of our fathers, even Jerusalem, Thou hast executed
true judgements; for according to truth and justice hast Thou
brought all these things upon us because of our sins.” The nation
has thus suffered adversity. In verse 9 it says further: “And Thou
didst deliver us into the hands of lawless enemies, and most hateful
forsakers of God, and to a king unjust and the most wicked in all
the world.” These “lawless enemies” who are “most hateful forsakers
of God” are the extreme Hellenistic Jews mentioned in 1 Maccabees
i. 11-15; and by the “king unjust and the most wicked in all the
world” is meant Antiochus Epiphanes (cp. 1 Macc. i. 20-24, 41-64).
The sore plight in which the nation found itself is shortly but
graphically described in verses 14, 15; “For we, O Master, have been
made less than all the nations, and are brought this day in all the
world because of our sins. Neither is there at this time prince, or
prophet, or leader, or burnt-offering, or sacrifice, or oblation,
or incense, or place to offer before Thee and to find mercy.”
This certainly describes the state of affairs in Palestine at the
beginning of the Maccabæan struggle; the date of the composition
would, therefore, be about B.C. 170; and the passages quoted read
like the words of one who lived in Palestine. The indications in the
Prayer of its having been originally written in Hebrew[414] would
point in the same direction.
The conjecture may be hazarded that in its original form it was in
no way connected with the Book of Daniel; it was inserted, before
the Greek translation was made, because its author happened to have
the same name as one of the heroes in the Daniel story; but since
some copies of Daniel must have existed which did not contain this
addition there was a doubt as to whether it had any right to a place
there. The canonical Daniel and the Septuagint represent respectively
these two opinions.
With the Prayer should be compared Daniel ix. 4-19 and Baruch i.
15-iii. 8; all three partake of a liturgical character; this becomes
abundantly clear if one reads them in connection with certain
portions of the modern Jewish Liturgy (“Morning Prayer,” see Singer’s
edition, _The Authorized Daily Prayer Book_, pp. 37 ff.). It is
difficult to get away from the conviction that all three of the
pieces just mentioned were in some way connected with the ancient
Jewish Liturgy; whether extracts from time-honoured prayers, or
based upon these, it is of course impossible to say, but they quite
distinctly breathe the Jewish liturgical spirit.
III. THE SONG OF THE THREE CHILDREN
This Song is introduced with the words of verse 28: “Then the three,
as out of one mouth, praised, and glorified, and blessed God in the
furnace saying”; thus the connection with the “Three Children” is
brought about. In verse 66, at the conclusion of the Song, another
connecting link is brought in:
O Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, bless ye the Lord,
Sing His praise and highly exalt Him for ever.
For He hath rescued us from Hades, and saved us from the power
of death,
And delivered us from the midst of the burning fiery furnace,
even out of the fire hath He delivered us.
A concluding doxology (verses 67, 68) is added. It is probable that
all these three verses form a later addition.
This Song again, apart from the added verses, has nothing in it which
would connect it with the “Three Children.” Its tone of exultation
is in strong contrast to the despondent tone of the Prayer; this is,
however, one indication of the date of its composition, though a
negative one, viz., it cannot have been written during the Maccabæan
struggle. It cannot, on the other hand, have been written before this
struggle as the advanced belief in the future life taught in verse 64
precludes this; that verse runs:
O ye spirits and souls of the righteous, bless ye the Lord,
Sing His praise, and highly exalt Him for ever.
We must, therefore, date it after the Maccabæan struggle, probably
soon after, on account of its jubilant tone. Like the Prayer, this
Song was written in Hebrew, though the arguments for a Greek original
in both cases cannot be lightly dismissed. Why it came to be placed
in its present position can be quite naturally accounted for; it was
due to the desire to put into the mouth of the Three Children a hymn
of blessing and glory to God for their wonderful deliverance. It must
have been put into its present place subsequently to the Prayer, but
as regards its further history one must hazard a conjecture similar
to that mentioned above in reference to the Prayer. It is also
highly probable that, like the Prayer, the Song was used in public
worship. For the _form_ in which it is composed one should compare
two liturgical pieces preserved in the modern Jewish Liturgy, viz.
the “Abinu Malkenu” (Our Father, our King)[415] and the “Order of
counting the Omer”[416]; both differ wholly in content from that of
the Song, but the liturgical form is similar in each case. See also
the “Psalm of Thanksgiving” which occurs in Ecclesiasticus li. after
verse 12 (only preserved in the Hebrew), and compare with it the
“Shemoneh ‘Esreh” in the Jewish Liturgy (Singer, _Op. cit._, pp. 44
ff.).[417] That the Song, when one remembers its history—and if we
are right in believing that it was at one time used in public worship
by the Jews—has been incorporated into the English Church Liturgy
seems to be only in the fit and natural order of things.
IV. THE STORY OF SUSANNA
The position of this addition varies in the manuscripts; in some it
precedes the first chapter of the canonical Daniel; this is the case
in the uncials, while in the one manuscript extant of the Septuagint
proper which contains it, it forms chapter xiii. of that book.
The story is briefly as follows: Susanna was the daughter of a Jew
dwelling in Babylon, named Joakim; she was beautiful and devout.
Among Joakim’s friends were two elders of the people who were judges;
these two were frequent visitors at the house of Joakim. They both
fell in love with Susanna, unbeknown to each other; but each was
detected by the other one morning when they had gone out into the
garden where Susanna was wont to bathe. They, therefore, agreed to
act together in their wicked design; but on approaching Susanna
they were repulsed by her with indignation, and in order to protect
themselves they accused her of having been unfaithful to her husband
by admitting a young man secretly into the garden. This accusation
they bring against her in the public court. As Susanna has no means
of proving her innocence she is, according to the Law, condemned to
death. On her way to execution the crowd is separated by a young man
named Daniel, who maintains that Susanna’s condemnation is due to
false witness; and, basing his demand on the Law, insists that there
shall be anew trial.[418] At this new trial the young man Daniel
examines the two witnesses, and asks each separately under which tree
in the garden the crime of which they accuse Susanna took place;
one says, under a mastick tree, the other, under a holm tree. This
contradiction reveals their falseness, and they are condemned. “So
when they had gagged them, they led them out and hurled them into a
chasm; then the angel of the Lord cast fire in the midst of them.
And thus was innocent blood kept safe on that day” (verse 62_a_,
Septuagint).
The purpose which the writer of this story had in view is reflected
in the quotation given above from the Mishna, Sanhedrin vi. 2, where
two points are specially emphasized, namely, that a criminal who has
been condemned is to have every chance of clearing himself, even
up to the very end; and that adequate witness must be forthcoming
before an accused man may be condemned. In fact the passage referred
to is one of several others which could be given implying that a
reform in the administration of justice had at one time taken place
among the Jewish authorities. Ball, following Brüll,[419] shows,
in the admirable introduction to his commentary on this book, that
this reform was instituted at the instance of Simon ben Shetach
who lived during the reigns of Alexander Jannæus (B.C. 103-76)
and Alexandra[420] (B.C. 76-67); it consisted, firstly, in the
institution of a proper examination of witnesses; in the Mishna,
Pirqe Aboth i. 9 it is said: “Simon ben Shetach used to say, Examine
the witnesses abundantly, and be cautious in thy words, lest they
learn from them to give false answers.” But Simon ben Shetach was
also, in the words of Ball, “the champion of another reform in
connection with the law of testimony. As the brother-in-law of king
Alexander Jannæus, he was able, after a long struggle, to secure the
triumph of his party, the Pharisees, in the Sanhedrin, and of their
principles in the administration of the Law, over their opponents,
the Sadducees.... According to Sadducæan principles, they who had
falsely accused a man of a capital crime were only put to death if
the sentence had already been executed on their victim. The legal
aphorism, ‘life for life,’ was construed literally. The Pharisees,
on the other hand, relying on Deuteronomy xix. 19,[421] considered
the _intention_ of the accusers as equivalent to actual murder.
According to them, the maxim ‘life for life’ came into application
as soon as, in consequence of the false depositions, sentence had
been pronounced, although not yet carried out. The law at the time
extraordinarily favoured informations. The witnesses, who were also
the accusers, were only examined about the main fact, so that their
falsehood could not easily become evident; and even if it did, they
got off without punishment, though the accused had actually been
executed. This crying evil the Pharisaic party sought to remedy by
the introduction of a more rigorous examination of witnesses, and by
making the law more severe against false witnesses.” The author’s
aim, therefore, in writing this book, was to show, by means of a
story, that the administration of justice was in some most important
particulars defective, and to put forth the Pharisaic suggested
reform as the proper remedy.
The questions of authorship, date, place of writing, and language,
are all practically answered by what has been said; it was written
by a Pharisee, during the last quarter of the first century B.C., in
Jerusalem (or, at any rate, in Palestine); the language was in all
probability Hebrew.
The judicial acumen of the “young man” who examined the false
witnesses, and upon whom “a spirit of discernment” (verse 45,
Septuagint) was bestowed, was probably the reason of the name of
Daniel (“My judge is El”) being given to him. Thus would sufficiently
explain why it became prefixed, or added, to the Book of Daniel, with
which it has otherwise no connection.
V. BEL AND THE DRAGON
This addition follows the preceding one in all the Greek manuscripts
by which it is treated as an integral part of the canonical Daniel.
The story tells how Daniel proved to the king (called “Cyrus the
Persian” in Theodotion’s Version, but not specified by name in the
Septuagint manuscript) that the Babylonian idol Bel was not a living
god. The king is convinced that Daniel is mistaken, and as proof
thereof points to the food which the god demolishes daily. But Daniel
undertakes to show the king that not Bel, but his priests, with their
wives and children, are those who daily consume the food which they
place before him. Daniel and the king, then, go into the temple and
watch the food being set before Bel; thereupon the king’s seal is set
upon the entrance to the temple, but not before Daniel has managed to
get the ashes of wood strewn all over the floor of the temple. During
the night the priests with their families enter the temple, as is
their wont, by secret doors and enjoy the food set before Bel. The
next morning the king, accompanied by Daniel, enter the temple; the
king, seeing the footprints of men, women and children in the ashes
on the floor, realizes the fraud of which he has been the victim, and
which has now been exposed by the wisdom of Daniel. The image of Bel
is destroyed, and his priests put to death.
There follows then the exploit of Daniel with the dragon. Daniel had
scoffed at Bel because he had been made of clay and bronze; but this
god, as the king says, “liveth, and eateth, and drinketh.” However,
Daniel undertakes to kill this living god without sword or staff,
and thus prove that he is no god. So he takes pitch, and fat and
hair, and makes lumps of them, and puts them into the dragon’s mouth;
the dragon eats them and bursts asunder. The king is convinced. But
the populace threaten to rise against him unless he delivers unto
them the destroyer of their gods. The king gives way; and Daniel,
being delivered up, is cast into a den of lions. After remaining in
the den for six days, without being touched by the lions, Habakkuk
(presumably the prophet of that name is intended) brings him his
dinner, having been conveyed by an angel from Palestine to Babylon
for this purpose. Finally, Daniel is released by the king, at whose
order those who would have brought about his destruction are cast
into the den of lions and devoured instead.
The purpose of this addition is obviously to throw ridicule on
idolatry; although the story is somewhat puerile it may well reflect
forms of idolatry which obtained not only in Babylon in earlier days,
but also among the Gentiles at the time when the author lived (about
B.C. 100, or a little earlier); that is to say that both images and
living animals were worshipped. By the “dragon” is probably meant
a serpent[422]; we know that serpents were kept at Greek shrines;
for example, in the temple of Aesculapius at Epidaurus,[423] and
elsewhere, and were, therefore, probably objects of worship.[424]
The writer of this addition may likely enough have had this kind of
idolatry in mind when speaking of the “dragon.” That Daniel slaying
the “dragon” was intended to be a reference to the myth of Merodach
and his conflict with Tiamat seems highly improbable, for the
addition is clearly a philippic against idolatry, and there would be
no point in referring to this primeval combat. As it is not likely
to have been written for Jews, the original language was probably
Greek; there is nothing in the composition which indubitably stamps
it as having been translated from a Semitic original. We are inclined
to regard it as belonging to the same type of literature as the
Sibylline Oracles, and written for the purpose of Jewish propaganda;
cp. verse 28, “The king has become a Jew,” and verse 41, “And the
king cried out and said, Great is the Lord God, and there is no other
god beside Him.” The universalistic attitude of the writer, and his
silence about the Law, the sacrifices, and the priesthood, also point
in the direction indicated.
As the author chooses Babylon as the scene of his story, it is not
unnatural that he should make Daniel his hero; this would account for
the addition having subsequently been appended to the Book of Daniel.
The verses 33-39_a_, which introduce the Habakkuk episode, are
probably from some legend regarding the prophet of that name; they
have been ineptly inserted here; the narrative reads far better
without them, viz.: (verse 32) “And Daniel was in the lion’s den six
days; (verse 39_b_) but the Lord God remembered Daniel....”
It would be hazardous to attempt to assign any particular place as
the home of this addition, beyond saying that, if we are correct in
supposing that the little composition was written for propagandist
purposes, it is more likely to have been written somewhere in the
Dispersion than in Palestine.
CHAPTER V
The Additions to the Book of Esther
[LITERATURE.—Josephus, _Antiq._, XI, vi.; Fritzsche, in
_Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des
Alten Testamentes_ (1851); Schürer, _Op. cit._, II, iii., pp.
181-183 (1891); Scholz, _Kommentar über das Buch Esther mit
seinen Zusätzen_ (1892); Cornill, _Op. cit._, pp. 261-263 (1896);
Jacob, _Das Buch Esther bei den lxx._, in the “Zeitschrift für
die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft” (1890), pp. 241 ff.; Swete,
_Op. cit._, pp. 257-259 (1900); Ryssel, in Kautzsch, _Op. cit._,
I, pp. 193 ff. (1900); Gregg, in Charles, _Op. cit._, I. pp.
665-684.]
I. THE NATURE AND OBJECT OF THE ADDITIONS
In the canonical Book of Esther the story is told of how Ahasuerus,
king of Persia, dismissed his queen, Vashti, because she refused to
obey his commandment to come and show her beauty to his assembled
guests at a festival. In her place the king chose Esther, a Jewish
maiden belonging to the tribe of Benjamin, to be his queen. Esther
was of the Jewish exiles living in Persia, and was under the
protection of her cousin Mordecai; but she “had not showed (it to)
her people, nor her kindred; for Mordecai had charged her that she
should not show it.” In consequence of the position now occupied by
his cousin, Mordecai came to court every day in order to watch over
her interests. On one occasion he was the means of saving the king,
all unconscious, from assassination; this was duly told to the king
by Esther. But Mordecai had the misfortune to offend Haman, the
king’s chamberlain; in consequence of this Haman represented the
Jews to the king as a turbulent and disloyal people. The result was
that the king issued a proclamation according to which the Jews were
to be plundered and massacred. The day for this Haman fixed by lot
(“they cast Pur, that is, the lot, before Haman from day to day,”
iii. 7). Esther, persuaded by Mordecai, resolves to save her people.
She invites the king and Haman to a banquet. On the night preceding
the banquet, the king, being unable to sleep, orders the national
records to be brought to him; in reading these he comes across the
account of Mordecai’s service in saving the king from assassination;
this the king had presumably forgotten, for Mordecai had never been
rewarded. In the meantime, Haman, secure of favour, resolves upon
the immediate death of Mordecai; he has a gallows made, fifty cubits
high, on which he intends to hang Mordecai, and he goes to the king
at once to get permission to do so. On entering into the king’s
presence, Ahasuerus says to him: “What shall be done to the man whom
the king delighteth to honour?” Haman, thinking that the king has
him in mind, says that such a man should have royal apparel, and the
king’s horse to ride upon, and should ride through the city, attended
by one of the great nobles, to receive the people’s homage. Thereupon
the king orders Haman to attend upon Mordecai in such a procession;
this he has perforce to do. The next day Esther gives her banquet;
Ahasuerus and Haman hear for the first time that she is a Jewess.
She then asks the king that Haman may be hanged on the gallows he
has prepared for Mordecai; her request is granted, and Mordecai
becomes the king’s chamberlain in his stead. The king issues another
proclamation, at Esther’s request, in which power is granted to the
Jews to pillage and slay their enemies. Finally the feast of Purim is
instituted “because Haman ... the enemy of all the Jews, had devised
against the Jews to destroy them, and had cast Pur, that is, the
lot, to consume them, and to destroy them....” (ix. 24-32).
It has been necessary to give this outline of the contents of the
canonical Book of Esther in order to show the point of the additions
in the Septuagint; for as found in the English Apocrypha the
additions are taken together and treated as one whole; but by being
thus separated from their contexts their _raison d’être_ is not seen.
In the Septuagint the additions form elaborations of certain passages
of the canonical Esther; so that in order to see the object of the
additions each must be considered from the point of view of its
original position.[425]
(1) The first addition is given in the English Apocrypha as xi.
2-xii. 6; in the Septuagint it precedes chapter i., and takes the
form of an introduction to the whole story. It tells of how Mordecai
had a dream, which he interpreted as a revelation of the fact that an
attempt was going to be made upon the king’s life (see ii. 21-23 in
the canonical Esther). He tells the king of the threatened danger;
he watches those whom the dream has revealed as the culprits, and
overhears them while making their plans; he then denounces them to
the king, and the conspirators, having confessed their guilt, are
executed. Mordecai is promoted to a place of honour at court.
The object of this addition is, therefore, to show how Mordecai first
got advancement at the court of Artaxerxes (Ahasuerus).
(2) The second addition is given in the English Apocrypha as xiii.
1-7, which in the Septuagint comes between verses 13 and 14 of
chapter iii. This purports to give _verbatim_ the letter sent by
Artaxerxes to the governor of the provinces commanding the massacre
of the Jews. In the canonical Esther iii. 13 runs: “And the letters
were sent by post unto all the king’s provinces, to destroy, to slay,
to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little children and
women, in one day, even upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month,
which is the month Adar, and to take the spoil of them for a prey”;
then follows the addition of the Septuagint. In the letter the king
tells of how it had been his wish ever since he came to the throne
to see his people living in quietude and peacefulness; but that,
according to information he has received from Haman, this has not
been possible of attainment because of “a certain malignant people,
that had laws contrary to all nations, and continually set aside the
commandments of kings, so as the uniting of our kingdoms, honourably
intended by us, cannot go forward.” The command is then given to
exterminate these people in order that the affairs of the kingdom can
be settled.
The object of this addition is evidently to emphasize the peril in
which the Jews were owing to the machinations of Haman. Another
object may also have been to show the high favour which Haman enjoyed
(he is spoken of as one “that excelled in wisdom among us, and was
approved by his constant goodwill and steadfast fidelity”) in order
to place his ignominious downfall in more pronounced relief.
(3) The next addition (xiii. 8-xiv. 19 in the English Apocrypha)
comes after iv. 17 of the canonical Esther. It contains a prayer of
Mordecai (xiii. 8-17), a prayer of Esther (xiv. 1-19), and one verse
(xiii. 18) which says that all Israel also prayed to God; these are
prayers for deliverance from the danger hanging over the people of
Jehovah in view of the king’s letter. These prayers breathe a spirit
of deep devotion and loyalty to God. The object of this addition
is obvious; it is that the utter lack of religion in the canonical
book[426] should be made good; as is well known, the name of God does
not occur a single time in the canonical Esther.
(4) The fourth addition (xv. 1-16 in the English Apocrypha) follows
immediately after the preceding one. This is an elaboration of
v. 1, 2 of the canonical Esther, which verses are omitted in the
Septuagint; it recounts in detail Esther’s appearance before the king
for the purpose of inviting him to the banquet as mentioned in v. 3
ff. of the canonical book. The object of this addition is similar to
that of the preceding; it is to show that the success of Esther’s
interview with the king was due to “the all-seeing God and Saviour,”
upon Whom she called before setting forth.
(5) This addition (xvi. 1-24 in the English Apocrypha) comes after
viii. 12 of the canonical Esther; it purports to give the contents of
the letter of Artaxerxes (see viii. 8 ff. of the canonical Esther)
written to revoke the order given in the former one (see (2)). Here
the object is twofold; in the first place it is, once more, to give
a religious tone to the book; the king speaks of those who try to
escape “the evil-hating justice of God”; he says that the Jews are
the “children of the most high and most mighty living God, Who hath
ordered the kingdom both unto us and to our progenitors in the most
excellent manner”; and in other ways he gives due honour to God by
what he says. Secondly, another object of the addition seems to be to
mitigate the rather bloodthirsty spirit of the canonical Esther.
(6) The last addition (but first in _position_ in the English
Apocrypha, x. 4-xi. 1) comes at the end of the book in the
Septuagint; x. 4-13 contain the interpretation of the dream given
in addition which we have numbered (1). This last addition, too, has
the object of giving a more religious tone to the book; “these things
are of God,” is the way in which the interpretation of the dream is
introduced; and the fact that the name of God is mentioned nine times
in as many verses amply illustrates the purpose of the addition. xi.
1 is a note added to the last addition which is intended to explain
how the “Letter of Purim” (by which is meant the whole book of Esther
with the additions) was brought to Egypt; but, as Swete says: “the
historical value of the book is more than doubtful.”[427]
II. AUTHORSHIP AND DATE OF THE ADDITIONS
That the author, or, perhaps more probably, the authors of these
additions were Hellenistic Jews is sufficiently clear from the whole
tone of them; a striking example of detail is that Artaxerxes is
made to say that both he and his forefathers had received their
kingdom from God. As to the date at which the additions were made
there is nothing in the additions themselves which offers any clue;
but a book, such as the canonical Esther, in which a wonderful
deliverance of the Jews is recorded, would be especially welcome to
the people during a time of stress and anxiety; and if, at a time
when such a book might well have been eagerly sought after, patriotic
Jews should have enhanced its lesson of hope and encouragement by
adding explanatory details, such a procedure would have been in the
highest degree natural. There is but one period of stress and anxiety
that can come into consideration here, and that is the time of the
Maccabæan struggle; so we conclude that these additions must have
been made during the latter half of the second century B.C.
CHAPTER VI
The Prayer of Manasses
[LITERATURE.—Ball, in Wace, ii. pp. 361-371; Nestle,
_Septuagintastudien_, iii. pp. 6 ff. (1899); Ryssel, in Kautzsch,
i. pp. 161-171; Ryle, in Charles, I, pp. 612-624.]
I. THE CONTENTS OF THE PRAYER
The Prayer is a beautiful one, finely constructed, full without being
drawn out, and breathing throughout deep personal religion. It is
certainly one of the best pieces in the Apocrypha.
After the invocation to God Almighty, “the God of our fathers, of
Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and of their righteous seed,” comes an
acknowledgement of His power and glory; all things tremble before His
might, and His wrath against sinners is unendurable; yet His mercy
is without limit to the repentant: “Thou art the Lord Most High, of
great compassion, long-suffering and abundant in mercy, and repentest
Thee for evils of men,” i.e. God in His pity relents because of the
sufferings of men, even though brought on them by their own sins.
God is then called upon to fulfil His promise of forgiveness to His
repentant servant. The supplicator confesses his manifold sins,
and protests his sense of unworthiness: “I am not worthy to behold
and see the height of heaven by reason of the multitude of mine
iniquities.” Then after further confession of sin, and pleading with
God to put away His anger and to show His mercy in forgiveness, the
Prayer concludes with the words: “And I will praise Thee for ever all
the days of my life; for all the host of heaven doth sing Thy praise,
and Thine is the glory for ever and ever. Amen.”
II. THE ORIGIN OF THE PRAYER
In 2 Chronicles xxxiii. 12, 13 it is said that when Manasseh “was in
distress he besought the Lord his God, and humbled himself greatly
before the God of his fathers. And he prayed unto Him; and He was
entreated of him, and heard his supplication, and brought him again
unto Jerusalem unto his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the Lord He
was God.” Again, in verses 18, 19 of the same chapter the chronicler
says: “Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and his prayer unto his
God, and the words of the seers that spake to him in the name of the
Lord, the God of Israel, behold, they are written among the acts
of the kings of Israel. His prayer also, and how God was entreated
of him ... behold, they are written in the history of Hozai.”[428]
The “Prayer of Manasses,” it is usually held, purports to be the
prayer to which the chronicler refers; Ball, for example, says: “It
is evident from the references in 2 Chronicles xxxiii. 18, 19 that
a prayer of Manasseh, written in Hebrew, lay before that writer
[i.e. the chronicler]; and we may perhaps venture to add that there
is nothing in the form or substance of the Prayer before us which
can fairly be alleged against the possibility of its having been
ultimately derived from that lost Hebrew original.... We incline to
think that the Greek is a free translation from some lost Haggadic
narrative, which was itself perhaps founded upon the older document
from which the chronicler derived his peculiar details of the
history of Manasseh.”[429] This is an attractive theory, but there
are some objections to it which will appear as we proceed. Ryle
offers an entirely different hypothesis as to its origin: “It is easy
to understand that the chronicler’s story of Manasseh’s repentance
and prayer, and deliverance from captivity must have produced upon
the minds of devout Jews a profound impression. The record of his
idolatry and of his persecution of the servants of Jehovah had
stamped his name with infamy in the annals of Judah. But side by
side with his wickedness were commemorated the unusual length of the
king’s reign and the quiet peacefulness of his end. The chronicler’s
story of the repentance and conversion of Manasseh provided an
explanation of a seemingly unintelligible anomaly. Henceforth his
name was associated by Jewish tradition not only with the grossest
acts of idolatry ever perpetrated by a king of Judah, but also
with the most famous instance of Divine forgiveness towards a
repentant sinner. What more remarkable example could be found of the
long-suffering compassion of the Almighty, and of His readiness to
hear and to answer the supplication of a contrite penitent? Nothing
would be more natural than for a devout Jew to endeavour to frame in
fitting terms the kind of penitential prayer, which, according to
the tradition, Manasseh had poured forth when he was in captivity in
Babylon. The sentiments embodied in such a form of petition might
conceivably be appropriate to those of his countrymen who had fallen
into idolatry, and who might yet be reclaimed from the error of their
way.”[430]
Here again, one feels the strength of the argument; but we cannot
help believing that there are reasons which militate against the
acceptation of this hypothesis _as a whole_.
In the first place, the “Prayer of Manasses” does not belong to the
Septuagint proper; it occurs in Cod. A, and in the much later Cod. T
which follows the former and is not independent evidence[431]; but
in these it is given at the end of the Psalms in a collection of
liturgical canticles.[432] As Ryle says: “The preservation of this
short disconnected Psalm may thus, with good reason, be ascribed
to the accident of its occurrence in the _Didascalia_[433] and the
_Apostolical Constitutions_.[434] There is no evidence to show that
it was ever included in the Septuagint.”[435] If it had been ascribed
to Manasseh when first composed we might rightly, on the analogy of
the Additions to Esther and to Daniel, expect that it would have
been incorporated in the text of Chronicles; that this is not the
case suggests, if nothing more, that the name of Manasseh was not
originally connected with the Prayer. With the exception of two short
sentences there is absolutely nothing in the Prayer which is not
appropriate in the mouth of any repentant sinner. These two sentences
both occur in verse 10; the first runs: “I am bowed down with many
iron bands”; and the second is: “I have set up abominations, and
have multiplied detestable things.” These sentences might well refer
to Manasseh’s imprisonment and to his idolatrous practices. But
regarding the former, it is very questionable whether the words are
to be taken literally, as though referring to 2 Chronicles xxxiii.
11, where mention is made of the chains wherewith Manasseh was bound;
for the context, in the Prayer, which speaks of transgressions and
“the multitude of mine iniquities,” strongly suggests that the “many
iron bands” is to be understood metaphorically of the chains of
sin. That the words were so understood in early times is proved by
the rendering of the Ethiopic Version, quoted by Ball, which reads
here: “I have laboured in fetters of iron,” and continues, “that
I might get rest from sin for my soul; but by this also I have
not gotten rest.” The first of the sentences under consideration,
therefore, would be appropriate in the mouth of any contrite sinner,
and therefore does not by any means necessarily refer to Manasseh.
With regard to the second sentence, “I have set up abominations, and
have multiplied detestable things,” the reference may well be to 2
Chronicles xxxiii. 6, where Manasseh’s evil doings are enumerated.
But it is not without significance that we have in this passage
the one serious variation in the Greek text of the Prayer; for the
uncial T reads here in place of, “I have set up abominations, and
have multiplied detestable things,” these words: “I have not done Thy
will, nor kept Thy commandments.”[436] The variety of reading just at
this particular spot suggests the possibility of the text here having
been uncertain, and of having perhaps been altered for a particular
purpose.[437]
We are inclined to believe that this Prayer was not originally
composed in reference to Manasseh, and that the title, together
with the words, “I have set up abominations, and have multiplied
detestable things,” was added later, and thus made to refer to
Manasseh, this having been done under the influence of the numerous
legends concerning this king which seem to have been current.[438]
III. THE DATE OF THE PRAYER
The only indications of date are those to be derived from the
teaching contained in the book, and here everything points to
post-Maccabæan times. Thus, in verse 8 it is said: “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”; this doctrine of the
sinlessness of the patriarchs does not, as far as we know, belong
to pre-Maccabæan times. In verse 4 are these words: “Who hast shut
up the Deep, and sealed it with Thy terrible and glorious Name,
Whom all things do dread”; the supernatural efficacy which is here
imputed to the Name of God is likewise a late conception. Further,
the whole burden of the Prayer, namely, the need of repentance, is
a specifically Pharisaic _trait_, pointing to post-Maccabæan times.
And lastly, the conception of the underworld is a development of
the older belief, verse 13 runs: “Nor pass Thou sentence against
me when I am in the lowest parts of the earth; for Thou, O Lord,
art the God of them that repent.” Although there is no hint of the
resurrection here, the very fact that God is conceived of as in any
way concerned with the souls of the departed is in itself an advance
upon the normal teaching of the Old Testament, and points to a
comparatively late date. It is, of course, impossible to assign an
exact date to the composition; Ryssel believes that, like a number
of other apocryphal works, it was composed during the Maccabæan
struggle, with the purpose of urging upon the Jews the efficacy of
true repentance as a means of delivering them out of their troubles.
This is possible; but the teaching points, as we have said, to a
post-Maccabæan time. On the other hand, there is no reason for
regarding it as post-Christian; the fact that it is never quoted or
referred to until it appears _verbatim_ in the _Didascalia_[439]
(first half of the third century A.D.) does not necessarily imply
a very late date; its shortness and the character of its contents
sufficiently account for its not being mentioned earlier. Some time
between B.C. 100-50 seems as likely a date as any.
IV. THE WRITER AND THE LANGUAGE IN WHICH HE WROTE
There can be no sort of doubt that the writer of this Prayer was a
Pharisee, and, moreover, one of the best type; the spirit of true
religion breathes through it, and it can only have been written by
one who was truly religious. The Judaism which the Prayer reflects
is of the Palestinian type, and being a prayer one would expect it
to have been originally written in Hebrew, the “holy tongue.” The
Greek form in which we now possess this composition does not, it is
true, read like a translation excepting here and there (e.g. verse 7,
where Charles thinks a “real piece of evidence on behalf of a Semitic
original” is to be found), but, as Ball points out, “the writer may
have taken pains to soften down the harshness of a baldly literal
translation.” Where linguistic indications do not give definite
clues, we must be guided by other considerations; the writer being a
Jew of the orthodox Palestinian type it is hard to believe that he
would have composed a prayer in any language than that in which he
had always been accustomed to pray; and set forms of prayer, like the
one before us, would have been written in Hebrew, not in Aramaic.
CHAPTER VII
The First Book of Maccabees
[LITERATURE.—Grimm, _Das erste Buch der Maccabäer erklärt_ in
“Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des
A.T.” (1853); Keil, _Commentar über die Bücher der Maccabäer_
(1875); Bissell, _The First Book of Maccabees_, in Lange-Schaff’s
“Commentary ...” (1880); Schürer, _Op. cit._, II, iii. pp.
6-13; Fairweather and Black, _The First Book of Maccabees_, in
the Cambridge Bible (1897); Kautzsch, in _Op. cit._ (1900);
Knabenbauer, in _Cursus Scripturæ Sacræ_ (1907); Oesterley, in
Charles, _Op. cit._ (1913).]
I. TITLE AND AUTHORSHIP OF THE BOOK
What the title of this book in its original Hebrew form (see below)
was is not known for certain. Origen gives a transliteration of the
title (Eusebius, _Hist. Eccles._, vi. 25, 2) which is equivalent to
“The book of the house of the Hasmonæans”; but he transliterates
here an Aramaic title which probably stood at the head of an Aramaic
translation of the Hebrew; possibly this title represented the Hebrew
form. On the other hand, the writer of the book has clearly taken
as his pattern the Books of the Kings, so that the supposition is
reasonable that he framed his title in accordance with the form of
the title of these; in this case the title given in the Septuagint
(which is followed in the English Apocrypha) would probably represent
the original. The name “Maccabee” was applied in the first instance
to Judas (see 1 Macc. ii. 4, 6, etc.), but later to all the members
of the family and their followers.
As to the author, or more strictly compiler, of the book, it is clear
that he was an ardent patriot, and a rigid adherent of orthodox
Judaism; his intimate knowledge of the geography and topography of
the Holy Land marks him out as a native of Palestine. His religious
standpoint is of particular interest, for he writes at a time (see
§ II below) when the distinct development of the Sadducees and
Pharisees as opposing parties had already taken place; yet, while
he is an upholder of Jewish orthodoxy and imbued with an intensely
patriotic spirit, he seems, nevertheless, to have belonged to the
circle of the Sadducees; “although a loyal upholder of the Law, his
zeal is not characterized by any approach to Pharisaic fanaticism;
his sympathy for the Jewish high-priesthood is frequently manifested;
his tolerant attitude towards the profaning of the Sabbath (see ii.
41, ix. 43 ff.) is very different from that which would have been
adopted by a Pharisee; there is not the slightest hint of a belief
in the life after death, (see ii. 52 ff., where a reference to this
would have been eminently appropriate had it been believed in).
These reasons go far in justifying the opinion that the author was
a Sadducee.”[440] Further, it is noticeable that the writer has a
strong belief in what may be expressed by the modern proverb, that
“God helps those who help themselves”; but his insistence on man’s
free-will being the decisive factor in human affairs is balanced
by his firm belief in the existence of an all-seeing Providence
(see, e.g., iii. 18 ff., iv. 10 ff., ix. 46, xii. 15); yet it is
strange that God is not once mentioned by name in the whole book.
This attitude was doubtless, in part, owing to the influence of
certain religious tendencies, centering around the doctrine of God,
which were beginning to manifest themselves. “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, because of His inexpressible majesty.”[441] It would seem,
therefore, that the author represented a type of Jew who was ready to
assimilate much of what appealed to him in Pharisaism while holding
to the traditional orthodoxy of the Sadducees.
II. THE DATE OF THE BOOK
The First Book of Maccabees must have been written between the dates
135 B.C. and 63 B.C. The events recorded in the book took place
between the years 175 B.C. and 135 B.C., so that this latter date
is the earliest possible at which it can have been written. On the
other hand, Pompey took Jerusalem in the autumn of 63 B.C., and by
entering into the Holy of Holies desecrated the Temple[442]; had
this happened before our book was written it is inconceivable that
no mention should have been made of it; but as no reference is made
to it there can be no doubt that it took place after the book was
written. We can, however, get nearer than this; it is said in xiii.
30, in reference to the sepulchre which Simon the Maccabee built for
his parents and his four brothers at Modin: “This is the sepulchre
which he made at Modin, and it is there unto this day.” It is said in
xiii. 25 that this sepulchre was built on the death of Jonathan, i.e.
in 143 B.C., and the words “unto this day” imply that it had been in
existence for some considerable time when the author wrote his book.
There are no means of ascertaining how long a time elapsed between
the building of the sepulchre and the writing of the book, but if we
assume that it was about half a century, this would give as the date
of the book some time between 100 B.C. and 90 B.C.; and this is a
date to which a further fact points; for in xvi. 23, 24 it is said:
“And the rest of the acts of John, and of his wars, and his valiant
deeds which he did, and of the building of the walls which he built,
and of his doings, behold they are written in the chronicles of his
high-priesthood, from the time that he was made high-priest after his
father.”[443] Presumably the chronicles here referred to took up the
narrative at the point at which the writer of our book ceased, for
the Old Testament formula (and it will have been noticed that the
phraseology of this passage is based on that of the Old Testament):
“And the rest of the acts” etc., is always employed in reference to a
ruler whose reign has already come to an end; so that the writer of
our book was writing subsequently to the time at which the chronicles
of John’s high-priesthood had been compiled. The high-priest John,
i.e. John Hyrcanus, died in 105 B.C., and therefore the writer of our
book must have begun his work some time after this date, though it
is not likely to have been long after this. Our conclusion is that
the book in its finished form appeared between 100 B.C. and 90 B.C.
But it is probable that the gathering of his materials was begun by
the author some considerable time before this; for there are some
graphic passages in the book which give the impression that he was an
eye-witness of what he describes (see, e.g., xiv. 4-15, in which the
details of Simon’s reign are described). It seems not improbable that
the writer began to gather materials for his history as early as the
reign of Simon. The careful way in which his book is written, and the
numerous official documents from which he made extracts, shows that
the author must have taken a long time over his work.
III. THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE AND LITERARY CHARACTER OF THE BOOK
That this book was originally written in Hebrew scarcely admits
of doubt; we have already pointed out that the writer framed his
work on the pattern of the Books of the Kings, a fact which in
itself suggests that he wrote in Hebrew. But apart from this there
are numberless indications in our present Greek text which stamp
it indubitably as a translation from Hebrew; to give examples of
this would involve technical details which would be out of place
here[444]; it must suffice to say that the Greek again and again has
sentences which are literal translations of Hebrew idiomatic phrases.
But in spite of this the writer has a distinct individuality of
style; the narrative is written in a simple, straightforward manner;
it is full of interest, the frequent graphic accounts of events
impelling attention throughout. The author writes as a historian,
whose duty it is to record the facts without bias; he is impartial,
and frankly recognizes and registers the defeat of his own side when
necessary. That he sometimes bursts out into poetical strains, and
not infrequently exaggerates, especially where numbers are concerned,
does not affect the substantial truth and trustworthiness of his
narrative.
IV. THE SOURCES OF THE BOOK[445]
The possibility of the author of our book having himself been an
eye-witness of some of the events he records has already been
hinted at; but whether this was so or not, there can be little
doubt that he utilized the accounts of some, be they one or more,
who had themselves seen what they recounted. What impels one to
this conviction are the wonderfully graphic descriptions of some of
the episodes recorded; examples of this can be seen in iv. 1-24,
vi. 28-54, vii. 26-50, ix. 1-22, 32-53, x. 59-66. The accounts of
eye-witnesses may, therefore, be reckoned as one of the sources
of the book. That he also had written sources to draw from may be
assumed from such passages as ix. 22: “And the rest of the acts of
Judas, and his wars, and the valiant deeds which he did, and his
greatness, they are not written,” the implication being that some
other things relating to him were written (cp. xi. 37, xiv. 18,
27, 48, 49); and xvi. 23, 24, already quoted: “And the rest of the
acts of John ... behold, they are written in the chronicles of his
high-priesthood....”
In addition to these sources, there are a certain number of documents
which have been incorporated into the book. These are for the most
part important, and will require a little detailed consideration.
There are, in the first place, some letters of _Jewish origin_, as
follows:
(_a_) A letter from the Jews in Gilead asking Judas to send them help
because they were being attacked by the Gentiles (v. 10-13). Although
this purports to contain the very words which were written, it is
more probably merely a summary of what the author of the book had
derived from some well-informed source. That it represents, however,
the contents of some written document, and was not simply a verbal
message, is evident; for it stands in contrast to what is stated to
have been a verbal message in v. 15.
(_b_) A letter from Jonathan to the Spartans (xii. 6-18). The
somewhat artificial way in which this letter has been pressed into
the text is sufficient to arouse suspicion. In xii. 1 we are told of
an embassy being sent to _Rome_; the narrative is broken by verse 2,
which refers to a letter that had been sent to the _Spartans_ and “to
other places”; in verse 3, which comes naturally after verse 1, the
thread of the narrative is taken up again. Then in verse 5, where one
might reasonably have expected further details concerning the embassy
to Rome, it goes on to say: “And this is the copy of the letter which
Jonathan wrote to the _Spartans_.” The copy of this letter then
follows; but the main subject with which the chapter began (viz., the
embassy to Rome), obviously a more important one, is left without
further mention. The simplicity and straightforward flow of the
narrative, so characteristic of the book, is lacking here, and the
impression of something being out of order is forced upon one. Then
as to the letter itself, it is not quite easy to understand what the
purpose of it was. In verse 10 the object is said to be the renewing
of brotherhood and friendship with the Spartans; but in the same
breath, as it were, it is said that the Jews needed none of these
things, “having for our encouragement the holy books which are in our
hands.” Then again, in verse 13, after reference has been made to
the afflictions which the Jews had endured, the letter continues (in
verses 14, 15): “We were not mindful, therefore, to be troublesome
unto you, and to the rest of our confederates and friends, in these
wars; for we have the help which is from heaven to help us, and we
have been delivered from our enemies, and our enemies have been
brought low.” The letter concludes with the words (verses 17, 18);
“We commanded them (i.e. the ambassadors), therefore, to go also unto
you, and to salute you, and to deliver you our letters concerning
the renewing (of friendship) and our brotherhood. And now ye shall
do well if ye give us an answer thereto.” Thus, in one and the same
letter, while, on the one hand, friendship and brotherhood are asked
for, on the other, it is said that these are not required; and yet,
in the concluding words of the letter some anxiety is evinced that
a reply should be forthcoming. That a relationship of some kind had
existed between the Jews and the Spartans is possible enough. But
the ambiguous character of this letter inclines one to doubt its
genuineness. Probably it was inserted by a later editor who desired
to emphasize the fact that a relationship had existed between his
people and the Spartans, while not wishing to make it appear that
his people had any need to depend upon foreign help in their struggle
against their enemies.
In connection with this letter the following one must be considered.
(_c_) A letter from Areios, king of the Spartans, to Onias the
high-priest (xii. 20-23). This owes its presence here to the fact
that in the letter just dealt with Jonathan cites the existence of
former friendship between the Jews and the Spartans as a reason
for renewing the same (xii. 7-9); it is added as an appendix to
Jonathan’s letter. The original of this document must have been
written at least a century and a half earlier; the fact of its being
quoted here shows with what care such documents were preserved.
(_d_) In xiv. 27-47 we have a source of an entirely different
character. This passage contains a panegyric on Simon, together
with a _résumé_ of his prosperous reign. It is stated to have been
engraved on tables of brass, and to have been set up in a conspicuous
place within the precincts of the sanctuary; copies of it are also
said to have been deposited in the treasury (verses 27, 48, 49).
On comparing the details of Simon’s reign given in this section
with those in chapters xi.-xiii., however, it will be found that
there are several chronological discrepancies. The course of the
history, as given in the book itself, is acknowledged on all hands
to be, on the whole, of a thoroughly trustworthy character; but if
the passage in question be really the copy of an original document,
which seems very probable, the accuracy of chapters xi.-xiii. is,
to some extent, impugned. It is difficult to suppose that one and
the same author would write the historical account of Simon’s reign
in these chapters, and then in the very next chapter go on to give
a _résumé_ of what had preceded differing from it in a number of
particulars. The suggested explanation of the difficulty is as
follows: The original writer of the book gave in chapters xi.-xiii. a
substantially correct account of the period of history in question,
but was inaccurate in the sequence of events; a later editor added
a copy of the document under consideration, to which the original
author of the book, for some reason or other, did not have access.
The later editor was not concerned with the discrepancies between the
written history and the copy of the document which he added, because
he saw that, in the main, they were in agreement. Thus the two
accounts of Simon’s reign, differing to some extent, were left side
by side.
A second class of documentary sources comprises letters from _Syrian
kings_ to the Jewish leaders.
(_a_) The first is a letter from Alexander Balas (he was not yet
king at the time) to Jonathan (x. 18-20). This is not a copy of the
letter itself, but merely its purport, which the author of our book
has woven into the narrative. It is far too short and abrupt to be
the actual letter of one who was seeking the help and alliance of the
Jewish leader, and for whose friendship this aspirant to the Syrian
throne was bidding. The author of the book, moreover, adds some words
of his own in the middle of the letter (verse 20), a thing which he
would scarcely have done had he been quoting the actual words of the
letter itself. On the other hand, there is not the slightest reason
to doubt that use has here been made of a genuine document.
(_b_) A letter from Demetrius I to the Jewish nation (x. 25-45).
This was written for the purpose of out-bidding Alexander Balas
in promises of favour and privileges. It is probably based on
some original document; but the accuracy of the details is open
to question. The promises and concessions are over-stated, and
correspond so exactly, in many respects, with the highest aspirations
of the Jews at this time that they suggest rather the expression of
Jewish ideals than actual promises.
(_c_) A letter from Demetrius II to Jonathan, enclosing one to
Lasthenes (xi. 30-37). What has just been said applies here too. It
represents an original letter, the contents of which were utilized by
our author, and elaborated by him in accordance with his ideals.
(_d_) A letter from Antiochus VI to Jonathan (xi. 57). This is
clearly a succinct summing-up of the contents of the original letter;
its extreme shortness and the absence of salutation show that,
although written in the first person, it does not profess to give
more than the general sense of the original.
(_e_) A letter from Demetrius II to Simon (xiii. 36-40). This letter,
in which the Syrian king acknowledges receipt of certain presents
from the Jewish high-priest, and confirms earlier privileges, is
stamped with the mark of genuineness; it reads like an original, and
is doubtless a copy of one.
(_f_) A letter from Antiochus VII to Simon (xv. 2-9). To some extent
what has been said in regard to (_b_) and (_c_) applies also to this
letter. It is probably not a _verbatim_ copy of the original, but
represents, at all events in parts, the contents of the original. On
the other hand, there are elements in it which are the expression of
ardent desires rather than of actual facts.
Lastly, there is a third class of documentary sources which record
the relations between the Jews and the _rulers of foreign kingdoms_.
(_a_) A treaty of alliance between the Romans and the Jews (viii.
23-32). In verses 24 ff. it is stated, as one of the articles of the
treaty, that if the Romans are attacked by an enemy the Jews may
not render that enemy any help, whether of “food, arms, money, or
ships” (verse 26). This mention of ships is held by some to show that
this document belonged to a date later than the time of Judas, in
whose time the Jews possessed no ships, and that therefore the whole
section is a later interpolation. But it is quite possible that the
foresight of the Romans sufficiently explains this mention of ships;
or they might have assumed the possession of ships by a nation whose
country had a long coast-line. It was not long after the death of
Judas that the Jews did acquire a harbour (see xiii. 29, xiv. 5).
There seems no sufficient reason to doubt that a genuine document has
here been utilized.
(_b_) A letter from the Spartans to Simon (xiv. 20-22). We are
confronted here with a difficulty similar to that which occurs in
the letter from Jonathan to the Spartans in xii. 6-18 (see above).
The section opens (verse 16) with the words: “And it was heard at
Rome that Jonathan was dead, and even unto Sparta, and they were
exceedingly sorry.” It then goes on to say that the Romans wrote to
Simon, who had succeeded his brother Jonathan, on tables of brass
to renew “the friendship and the confederacy” (verse 18); but then,
instead of giving a copy of this document, as might reasonably be
expected, it goes on to say: “And this is a copy of the letter which
the Spartans sent.” In this letter it is stated that the two Jewish
ambassadors who were the bearers of it were Numenius, the son of
Antiochus, and Antipater, the son of Jason. But then the narrative
(verse 24) goes on: “After this Simon sent Numenius to Rome with a
great shield of gold of a thousand pound weight, in order to confirm
the confederacy with them.” On the previous occasion on which mention
is made of a confederacy between the Jews and the Romans, on the
one hand, and the Spartans on the other, the same two ambassadors
were sent, first to the Romans and then to the Spartans, on the
same journey (see xii. 16, 17); on the present occasion it is to be
presumed, for the text implies it, that this was again done; but if
so, how is one to account for the fact that in the letter to the
Spartans these ambassadors are said to be the bearers of it, while,
immediately after (verse 24), it is said that Numenius started on
his journey? There is also a further difficulty; is it likely, as
stated in the text, that on the death of Jonathan the Romans would
have taken the initiative in renewing the treaty with the Jews? This
seems to be directly contradicted by what is said in verse 24 (quoted
above). It would appear that verses 17-23 are an interpolation added
later; this would also explain the otherwise unaccountable words,
“and even unto Sparta,” in verse 16, which were presumably put in
because of the interpolation. The contents of this letter read like
an official document, the probability is that use was made of some
genuine record which was interpolated at a later period.
(_c_) A letter from Lucius, the Roman consul, to Ptolemy Euergetes
II, king of Egypt (xv. 16-21). This is the copy of a circular letter
written in the name of “Lucius the consul,” and brought back from
Rome by Numenius. In it the friendship between the Romans and the
Jews is proclaimed; copies of it are sent not only to the kings of
Egypt and Syria, but also to a number of small independent States.
Now Josephus (_Antiq._, XIV, viii. 5) mentions a letter from the
Roman Senate, written in the name of the praetor Lucius Valerius
in reply to a message brought by a Jewish embassy. As in the case
just referred to, Numenius, the son of Antiochus, is one of the
ambassadors (two others accompany him), and he brings a gift of a
golden shield; the contents of this letter are similar to those of
the letter in our book, and it is likewise sent to a number of petty
independent States. But, according to Josephus, this happened in the
ninth year of Hyrcanus II, who reigned B.C. 63-40. Now if, as is
maintained by some, especially by Willrich,[446] Josephus is right
here, the passage we are dealing with must be an interpolation.
Mommsen[447] has, indeed, proved that Josephus is recording genuine
history in saying that the praetor Lucius Valerius sent a letter to
the Jews, with the contents as given, during the reign of Hyrcanus
II. This does not, however, constitute an insuperable difficulty,
for one of the consuls in B.C. 139 was named Lucius Calpurnius
Piso, and the “Consul Lucius,” spoken of in the text (xv. 16) could
quite well refer to him. What is more difficult is the fact of the
great similarity in the contents between the letter given in our
book and of that given by Josephus; Mommsen maintains that they are
not identical, which would mitigate the difficulty; but the mention
of Numenius, the son of Antiochus, in both letters is a grave
difficulty. Probably Willrich is right in regarding the passage as a
later interpolation, added because it seemed to be appropriate in a
place where Simon’s treaty with Rome was mentioned.[448]
These, then, are the sources from which our book was compiled;
they show that the writer of 1 Maccabees had access to a number of
official documents in addition to the accounts of events which he
received from eye-witnesses. The documentary sources shed a most
valuable light on the external policy of the Jews as well as on the
important _rôle_ they played in shaping Syrian politics; so that for
the history of the Jews of this period our book may well be described
as the most valuable source which we possess.
V. THE HISTORY OF THE MACCABÆAN STRUGGLE
The momentous struggle for religious liberty and political
independence which is described in our book deals with the period
175-135 B.C., i.e. from the accession of Antiochus Epiphanes to the
death of Simon Maccabæus. The divisions of the book are clearly
marked, recording respectively the progress of the war under the
leadership of Mattathias, Judas, Jonathan, and Simon; and each
division has as its central subject the description of an event of
supreme importance to the Jews, thus: the first division records
the opening of the struggle and its cause; the second tells of how
religious liberty was acquired; the third describes the establishment
of the Hasmonæan high-priesthood; and the last shows how the way
to political independence was secured.[449] The contents of these,
together with the short Introduction by which they are prefaced, must
now occupy our attention.
(_a_) _The Conquests of Alexander the Great, and the Division of his
Empire_ (i. 1-9)
In pregnant words Alexander’s conquests are thus summed up: “And he
waged many wars, and won strongholds, and slew kings, and pressed
forward to the ends of the earth, and took spoils from many peoples.”
In describing what happened on Alexander’s death-bed the writer says
that the kingdom was divided among the dying king’s chief ministers
“while he was yet alive,” and that after he was dead “they all
assumed the diadem.” This does not agree with the statement made by
Justin Martyr, Diodorus Siculus, and Curtius, to the effect that when
the dying king was no longer able to speak he handed his signet-ring
to the captain of his bodyguard, Perdiccas, whom he thus indicated
as his successor. That all the chief ministers assumed the diadem
after the king was dead is an inaccurate statement, as only five of
Alexander’s generals assumed the title of king, and that not until
B.C. 306, seventeen years after his death. Here, as in a number
of other cases, the writer of our book shows that his knowledge
concerning the affairs of foreign nations is imperfect; but the value
of the book as a whole, and the credibility of the narrative in
general, is not affected by these inaccuracies; “we see in this only
the simple standpoint of the observer who, following his sources,
confines his view exclusively to the circle of Jewish affairs”
(Schürer).
(_b_) _The Original Cause of the Struggle; the Leadership of
Mattathias_ (i. 10-ii. 70)
As we are clearly shown in this division the original cause of the
Maccabæan struggle was of a twofold character; internal and external
forces brought it about. A not inconsiderable section of the Jewish
people had been captivated by the attractions of Hellenism, and were
ready to give up their own faith and practice in exchange for that
of the Gentiles; “they joined themselves to the Gentiles, and sold
themselves to do evil” (i. 15). When Antiochus Epiphanes had overcome
Ptolemy, king of Egypt, he proceeded to deal with the Jews; “he
went up against Israel and Jerusalem with a great army; and in his
arrogance he entered into the sanctuary” (i. 20, 21); having taken
everything in the Temple on which he could lay hands, he returned
home. For two years the people were left in peace; then another blow
was inflicted on them. Apollonius, a “chief collector of tribute,”
was sent by Antiochus to Jerusalem with an army; he pretended that
his mission was a peaceful one, and with smooth words imposed upon
the people; then suddenly he fell upon the city, and a general sack
seems to have taken place. The citadel was occupied by the foreign
troops, and the people were reduced to sore straits. All this,
however, did not rouse the people to resistance. Then came the edict
of uniformity of worship, put forth by Antiochus; to realize how this
was intended to affect the Jews it will be well to quote some words
from it; the Jews were commanded that “they should practise customs
foreign to the traditions of the land, and that they should cease
the sacrificing of the whole burnt-offerings, and sacrifices, and
drink-offerings in the sanctuary; and that they should profane the
sabbaths and feasts, and pollute the sanctuary and those who had been
sanctified; that they should, moreover, build high places, and sacred
groves, and shrines for idols, and that they should sacrifice swine
and other unclean animals; and that they should leave their sons
uncircumcized, and make themselves abominable by means of practising
everything that was unclean and profane, so that they might forget
the Law, and change all the traditional ordinances” (i. 44-49). It
was this which was the immediate cause of the Maccabæan revolt. But
it may be questioned whether Antiochus would have attempted such
a cruel coercion had it not been for the presence of that strong
Hellenistic party among the Jews to which reference has already been
made. No sooner was the edict promulgated than this Hellenistic
party began to carry out its commands; “many in Israel took delight
in the king’s form of worship, and they began sacrificing to idols,
and profaned the sabbath” (i. 43). The king’s officers went from
city to city to enforce the edict; a rigorous search was also made
for all copies of the Law, which were burned; horrible cruelties
were perpetrated on all who remained faithful to the ancestral
religion. Intense indignation took hold of the faithful in Israel;
numbers resisted, and suffered death rather than deny their God; but
resistance of individuals was of no avail; what was required was a
leader around whom the people could gather, and who would direct
corporate action. Such a leader soon appeared.
In going from city to city to enforce the decrees of the king’s
edict, the royal officers came to Modin, the present El-Medije, east
of Lydda; this was the native city of the family of the Maccabees,
of whom Mattathias was the head. The officers called on him to set
an example of obedience to the royal commands, but he indignantly
refused; thereupon an apostate Jew stepped forth with the object of
sacrificing according to heathen rites on the altar at Modin; this
aroused the righteous wrath of Mattathias to the highest pitch, he
rushed upon his faithless fellow-townsman and killed him as he stood
by the altar; then, turning upon one of the king’s officers, he slew
him too. “Let every one that is zealous for the Law,” he then cried
out to his people, “and that would maintain the covenant, come after
me!” The standard of revolt was now definitely raised; large numbers
of the Jews followed Mattathias into the mountains, among them many
of the _Chassidim_. It was not sufficient for these patriots merely
to act on the defensive, but, as the writer of our book says, they
“smote sinners in their anger, and lawless men in their wrath....
Mattathias and his friends went round about, and pulled down altars,
and they circumcized by force the children that were uncircumcized
... and they pursued after the sons of pride, and the work prospered
in their hand” (ii. 44-47).
In the following year (B.C. 167-166) Mattathias died; but his bold
step had done its work in consolidating a vigorous and determined
body of patriots. He directed that his third son, Judas, should take
his place as leader in war, while Simon, the elder brother of Judas,
should act as chief counsellor.
(_c_) _The Leadership of Judas Maccabæus; Religious Liberty Secured_
(iii. 1-ix. 22)
Judas’ capacity as a military leader was very soon vindicated by
two signal victories gained over Apollonius, already mentioned,
and Seron, the Syrian commander. Judas had taken the initiative
in attacking the armies under these two generals in each case;
his quickness in appreciating the position of affairs, and his
promptitude in action were the cause of these victories, which seem
to have had a profound moral effect both on his own people and
on others. Even allowing for some very natural exaggeration the
following words doubtless reflect the actual facts: “Then began the
fear of Judas and of his brethren, and the dread of them fell upon
the nations round about them. And his name came near even unto the
king; and every nation told of the battles of Judas” (iii. 25, 26).
Antiochus was, of course, greatly incensed when he heard of the
defeats of his forces; but being in want of money he found it
necessary to go to Persia in order to raise funds charging Lysias,
“one of the seed royal,” to undertake to punish the rebels. The
first act of Lysias was to raise a force of forty thousand footmen
and seven thousand horse, which he despatched under three of his
generals, Ptolemy, Nicanor, and Gorgias, to Judæa to subdue Judas.
An attempted night surprise by Gorgias with part of the Syrian army
failed through the vigilance of Judas; and the following day Judas
again took the initiative with great success, the Syrians fleeing in
disorder, and losing about three thousand men. The next year Lysias
raised a still larger army which he commanded in person; but again
the fortune of war went against him, and he suffered a serious defeat.
The Jews were now able to enjoy a short respite, which was utilized
for the purpose of rebuilding and re-dedicating the Temple. It was
on this occasion that the feast of _Chanukkah_ (“Dedication”) was
instituted; it has been regularly observed by orthodox Jews ever
since.
But peace did not last long; the Jews were now attacked by some of
the smaller peoples who had made common cause with the chief enemy.
However, Judas had little difficulty in silencing these, viz., the
Edomites, Bæanites, and Ammonites. Scarcely was this accomplished,
when Judas received news that many of his people in Gilead were in
straits owing to the hostility of the Gentiles; in Galilee also the
same thing was happening. He thereupon sent his brother Simon with an
adequate force into Galilee, while he himself went over the Jordan.
In both theatres of the war success continued to attend the Jewish
arms.
In B.C. 163 Antiochus Epiphanes died while yet in Persia; he was
succeeded by his son, Antiochus Eupator, who had been nourished up
while yet young by Lysias. But the death of Epiphanes brought no
rest to the Jews. Judas had, in the meantime, returned to Jerusalem;
and he determined now to expel the garrison which had been stationed
in the citadel from the beginning of the struggle. He, therefore,
besieged the citadel, and further strengthened his own position by
fortifying Bethsura; this place occupied an important strategical
position on the road between Jerusalem and Hebron; Josephus
(_Antiq._, XIII, v. 6) speaks of it as “the strongest place in all
Judæa.” Those who were besieged in the citadel managed to send word
to the king, who came, accompanied by Lysias, with a large army
to check the designs of Judas. In this he succeeded for the time;
Bethsura was starved out, and Jerusalem was taken by means of an
act of the basest treachery. This happened in the following manner:
when Antiochus Epiphanes was on his death-bed he designated Philip,
one of his nearest friends, as regent during the minority of the
new king (vi. 14, 15); but the latter had been under the special
care of Lysias hitherto; and as Philip was in Persia, while Lysias,
with the new king, was in Syria at headquarters, Lysias took the
place of adviser and guide to the king. Now while the king was busy
fighting against Judas, as just recounted, Philip, determined to
assert himself, returned from Persia and “sought to take unto him the
government” (vi. 56); he had with him the army which Epiphanes had
led into Persia; the position was clearly serious for the king and
Lysias; so on the advice of the latter peace was made with Judas,
and all that he had been fighting for, i.e. religious liberty,
was accorded. Judas, trusting to the good faith of the king and
Lysias, came forth, and “the king entered into Mount Sion”; but
having thus got possession of the stronghold the king repudiated
his oath, and had the place dismantled, though the Jews still
retained their hold upon it. Then he went to deal with Philip, whom
he found in possession of Antioch, the capital; he fought against
Philip, defeated him, and took the city. His triumph was, however,
short-lived; for in the following year he was assassinated by command
of Demetrius, who now became king. A short digression is necessary
here in order to explain the position of Demetrius. When Antiochus
III (the Great) died he left two sons, Seleucus IV (Philopator),
the elder, who became king, and Antiochus (afterwards Epiphanes),
who lived at Rome as a hostage. In order that his brother might be
released, Seleucus IV sent his own son, Demetrius, as a hostage to
Rome. When Antiochus reached Syria he found that his brother had
been murdered, and instead of requiting the kindness that had been
shown him by endeavouring to help Demetrius, the lawful heir, to the
throne, he usurped the kingdom himself, while Demetrius was left in
Rome. When Antiochus Epiphanes died his son, as we have seen, came
to the throne, though Demetrius was, of course, still the rightful
heir. But Demetrius succeeded in making his escape from Rome, and was
thus enabled to come to his own. This was in B.C. 162; he was the
first king of this name to reign over Syria, and received the name of
Soter[450]; he reigned till B.C. 150.
No sooner was Demetrius seated on the throne than the war against
the Jews recommenced. Bacchides, one of the “king’s friends,” and
the “ungodly Alcimus,” whom Demetrius had made high-priest, were
sent against Judas; but Bacchides soon returned to the king, leaving
Alcimus with an army to look after the land. He, however, also
returned to the king when he saw that Judas was too strong for him.
The king, therefore, sent a new army against the Jews under the
command of Nicanor. Once more Judas was victorious, Nicanor fell in
the battle and his army was scattered. Then, it is said, “the land
of Judah had rest a little while” (vii. 50). If we are to trust the
contents of chapter viii. of our book, Judas at this point made an
alliance with the Romans (see above, p. 420), in consequence of which
they wrote to Demetrius, saying, “Wherefore hast thou made thy yoke
heavy upon our friends and confederates the Jews? If, therefore,
they plead any more against thee, we will do them justice, and fight
thee by sea and land” (viii. 32). This threat did not, however, have
any effect, for on Demetrius hearing of the death of Nicanor and the
defeat of his forces, he despatched Bacchides and Alcimus a second
time against Judas; this time they were too strong for the Jews,
who were defeated, and, worst of all, Judas fell. But Jerusalem
continued in the possession of the Jews, and the Temple services were
celebrated; so that religious liberty had been gained and retained by
the devoted courage and perseverance of Judas.
(_d_) _The Leadership of Jonathan; the Establishment of the Hasmonæan
High-priesthood_ (ix. 23-xii. 53)
The first result of the death of Judas was, not unnaturally, to fill
the patriots with despair. But this did not last long; and the people
came to his brother Jonathan and elected him as their leader.
As soon as Bacchides got to know of this he renewed the attack, but
was repulsed by Jonathan. This seems to have been a more crushing
defeat, judging by the sequel, than the short account of it (ix.
43-49) would imply; for the Jews were left in peace for two years. At
the end of that time another futile attempt was made by Bacchides,
and he was glad to make terms of peace with Jonathan. What immense
progress had been made by the patriots can be seen by these pregnant
words: “And the sword ceased from Israel. And Jonathan dwelt at
Michmash. And Jonathan began to judge the people; and he destroyed
the ungodly out of Israel” (ix. 73).
The Maccabæan struggle now enters upon a new phase owing to the
activity of the rival claimants to the Syrian throne; the Maccabæan
power, as it may now be called, comes to occupy the position of the
“deciding factor,” and is thus courted first by one and then by the
other claiment to the throne.
When it is said, as quoted above, that “the sword ceased from Israel
...” the period of peace was, according to our book, one of about
seven years; during the whole of this time the only act of war
recorded is the abortive attempt by Bacchides to subdue Jonathan, as
told in ix. 58-73. So that it looks as though Demetrius I had given
up the struggle against these formidable champions of liberty. But
the Jews had not yet gained all they intended to have; their first
objective, viz., religious liberty, was already attained, mainly
through the efforts of Judas; but they had now learned to realize
their own power, and had determined to acquire political independence
as well.
In B.C. 153, when Demetrius had ruled for about ten years, a rival
to the Syrian throne appeared in the person of one Alexander Balas.
This man, a low-born native of Smyrna, gave himself out to be the
son of Antiochus Epiphanes; the claim received some support owing to
his resemblance to the late usurper, Antiochus Eupator. The cause of
Alexander was taken up by Attalus II, king of Pergamum, who supported
his claims to the kingdom of Syria against Demetrius. Although,
according to Polybius (xxxiii. 14, 6), it was well known that the
claims of Alexander were without justification, he was, nevertheless,
supported by the Roman Senate, who promised to help him. His success,
to which we shall refer presently, was largely due to the fact that
Demetrius was hated by his own people on account of his “insolence
and difficulty of access,” and because he was “slothful and negligent
about public affairs”; so Josephus tells us (_Antiq._, XIII, ii. 1).
Alexander appeared suddenly upon the scene; his first act was to take
possession of Ptolemais; in this he had no difficulty, for he was
welcomed as king by the inhabitants. As soon as Demetrius heard of
this he gathered his forces together; but before going to battle he
sought to gain Jonathan for his cause; “let us be beforehand to make
peace with them,” he said, “ere he make peace with Alexander against
us” (x. 4). The promises of Demetrius were, however, out-bidden by
those of Alexander, who wrote to Jonathan as soon as he heard of
Demetrius’ action. In his letter Alexander writes: “We have appointed
thee this day to be high-priest of thy nation....” This was the first
beginning of the establishment of the Hasmonæan[451] high-priesthood,
though it was not fully consolidated until some years later (B.C.
141).[452] It was in vain that Demetrius wrote a second letter to
Jonathan full of the most extravagant promises[453] (x. 26-45), for
Jonathan and the people “gave no credence” to his words; an alliance
was, on the other hand, made with Alexander. A battle was then
fought between Alexander and Demetrius; but the account of this, as
given in x. 48 ff., is incomprehensible, we have to turn to Josephus
(_Antiq._, XIII, ii. 4) to understand what really happened: “And when
it was come to a battle, the left wing of Demetrius put those who
opposed them to flight, and pursued them a great way, and slew many
of them, and spoiled their camp. But the right wing, where Demetrius
happened to be, was beaten; and as for all the rest, they ran away.
But Demetrius fought courageously, and slew a great many of the
enemy; but as he was in pursuit of the rest, his horse carried him
into a deep bog, where it was hard to get out, and there it happened,
that upon his horse’s falling down, he could not escape being killed;
for when his enemies saw what had befallen him, they returned back,
and encompassed Demetrius round, and they all threw their darts at
him; but he, being now on foot, fought bravely; but at length he
received so many wounds that he was not able to bear up any longer,
and fell.” The battle seems, thus, to have been indecisive until
Demetrius fell, when evidently his followers lost heart. Alexander’s
next step was to make a treaty with Ptolemy VI, Philometor, king of
Egypt, whose daughter, Cleopatra, he married, the marriage being
celebrated with great pomp at Ptolemais; the Egyptian king himself
was present. Alexander, further, invited Jonathan to Ptolemais, where
he was received with much honour, the friendship and alliance between
the two being thus consolidated.
For a few years Alexander was left in peaceful possession of the
Syrian throne, but in B.C. 147 the son of Demetrius, Demetrius
Nicator, came from Crete, where he had been living in exile since
the war between his father and Alexander began, and sought, as the
rightful heir, to regain his kingdom. He appointed Apollonius his
commander-in-chief. An army having been raised, Apollonius encamped
in Jamnia (Jabneh), and tried conclusions first with Jonathan,
Alexander’s ally. Jonathan was ably seconded by his brother Simon,
and between them they inflicted a severe defeat on Apollonius.
Alexander, on hearing this, “honoured Jonathan yet more; and he sent
unto him a buckle of gold, as the use is to give to such as are of
the kindred of the kings; moreover, he gave him Ekron and all the
borders thereof for a possession” (x. 89).
This friendship between Alexander and Jonathan was soon destined to
place the latter in a very awkward position, though he managed to
extricate himself owing mainly to his having so firmly established
his power. This came about in the following way. A treaty was made
between Ptolemy VI and Demetrius Nicator, in spite of the former’s
alliance with Alexander. Antioch was besieged by Ptolemy, and
Alexander escaped to Arabia; but here he was treacherously murdered,
while Ptolemy himself died only a few days afterwards. This left all
clear for Demetrius, who now became king. As Jonathan had supported
the new king’s rival, his position was now of a somewhat awkward
character. However, both the king and Jonathan considered it to be
of advantage to themselves if they were at peace, so friendship was
concluded between them.
But Demetrius II was not to be left in peace long. Alexander had
left a son, Antiochus, in Arabia, whose cause was now about to be
championed by Tryphon; the latter had been one of the close friends
of Alexander. The time was propitious for Tryphon to attempt to
gain the kingdom for his late master’s son, for Demetrius had
unwisely disbanded the bulk of his troops when he saw that peace
was established; in consequence of this they had revolted. In his
distress he looked for help to Jonathan; nor did he look in vain;
for Jonathan sent him three thousand men to Antioch. With the help
of these Demetrius was enabled to re-establish himself. Things might
have continued to go well with him, but he foolishly fell out with
Jonathan, and had soon to pay the penalty. For Tryphon now made a
second attempt; he brought the young Antiochus, still a child, with
him, and gathered around him all the troops which Demetrius had
disbanded. With these he stormed Antioch, and Demetrius had to flee.
The first act of Antiochus (the sixth as he now was) again showed the
position which Jonathan had gained; guided, of course, by Tryphon,
he sent word to Jonathan, confirming him in the high-priesthood and
in the governorship of the governments of Judæa, Ephraim, Lydda, and
Ramathaim, and conferring other honours upon him; at the same time
setting Simon, Jonathan’s brother, over the district from “the ladder
of Tyre”[454] to the Egyptian frontier. The Jewish leaders were
not slow to appreciate this politic step on the part of Antiochus;
they immediately undertook a victorious campaign against their own
enemies as well as against those of the king. Jonathan himself
went to Galilee, whither Demetrius had fled, with the purpose of
punishing him; Demetrius seems to have succeeded in gathering an
army again, and a pitched battle took place. At first it looked as
though Jonathan were going to get the worst of it; but ultimately
he triumphed, and Demetrius again fled, and, for the present, gave
up the struggle in Syria in order to try his fortune against the
Parthians; but he was taken prisoner by the Parthians, and remained
in captivity for ten years, after which, as we shall see, he again
appeared in Syria.
In the meantime Tryphon himself aspired to the Syrian throne; he
caused Antiochus VI to be killed, and usurped the kingdom. But
fearing Jonathan, Tryphon captured him by treachery and imprisoned
him.
(_e_) _The Leadership of Simon_ (xiii. 1-xvi. 24)
Simon’s first act was to try to avenge his brother; he did, indeed,
severely defeat Tryphon and drive him out of the country, but not
until Tryphon had murdered Jonathan with his own hand. It was Simon’s
conviction that his wisest course would now be to bring about the
re-instatement of Demetrius II; he accordingly sent messengers to
Demetrius with this intimation, and, of course, received a very
favourable reply (xiii. 36-40). The next thing that we hear of
Demetrius is that he went into Media to get help to fight against
Tryphon, who had by no means given up his hopes of regaining the
throne. Demetrius was captured, however, by the king of Persia and
Media, and again shut up in prison.[455]
With Demetrius II in prison, and Tryphon driven out of the country, a
new aspirant to the throne now appears in the person of Antiochus VII
(Sidetes), the brother of Demetrius.
The new king, as had now become customary, first addresses himself
to the Jewish leader; having gained his good-will by making many
promises, Antiochus enters into the kingdom. Here he finds Tryphon,
whom he besieges in Dor; Tryphon managed to escape by ship, and is
no more mentioned in our book.[456] Shortly after this Antiochus,
believing, presumably, that his position was sufficiently strong, and
desiring to show that he could stand alone, repudiated his treaty
with Simon, and would not receive him, “but set at nought everything
that he had previously covenanted with him; and he was estranged from
him” (xv. 27). Then he proceeded to send a force under Cendebæus to
attack Judæa, and to worry the Jewish people in various ways. Simon,
feeling the weight of age upon him, appointed his two eldest sons,
Judas and John, to undertake the further prosecution of the war. They
attack Cendebæus and defeat him; Judas was wounded, but John returned
to Judæa in peace (xv. 9, 10).
Our book now gives an account of another act of treachery which
threatened to annihilate the direct line of the family of the
Maccabees. Ptolemy, “the son of Abubus, Simon’s son-in-law, who had
been appointed captain over the plain of Jericho,” desired to secure
for himself the supreme power, for which purpose it was necessary
that Simon and his sons should be got out of the way. The writer
of our book recounts in pregnant phrases what happened: “Now Simon
was visiting the cities that were in the country, and taking care
for the good ordering of them. And he went down to Jericho, he
himself and Mattathias and Judas, his sons, in the one hundred and
seventy-seventh year [= B.C. 135], in the eleventh month, the same
is the month Sebat [= February]. And the son of Abubus received them
deceitfully into the little stronghold that is called Dôk, which he
had built, and he made them a great banquet; and he hid men there.
And when Simon and his sons had drunk freely, Ptolemy and they that
were with him rose up, and took their arms, and came upon Simon into
the banqueting hall, and slew him and his two sons, and certain of
his servants. And he committed thus a great act of treachery, and
recompensed evil for good” (xvi. 14-17). John was not with his father
at the time, but Ptolemy despatched his creatures to Gazara, where
John was staying, to murder him. Fortunately, however, John was
warned in time, and “he laid hands on the men that came to destroy
him, and slew them” (xvi. 22).
Our book closes with a reference to the acts of John which are
written in “the chronicles of his high-priesthood” (xvi. 24).
CHAPTER VIII
The Greek Ezra
(1 (3) Esdras)
[LITERATURE.—Fritzsche, in _Exegetisches Handbuch zu den
Apokryphen_ (1851); Lupton, in Wace, I, pp. 1-69; Sir H. H.
Howorth in the _Academy_ (1893), and in the _Proceedings_ of
the “Society for Biblical Archæology” (1901-1902); Torrey,
_Ezra Studies_ (1910); S. A. Cook, in Charles, I, pp. 1-58. The
articles by Thackeray in Hastings’ _Dict. of the Bible_, and by
Volz in the _Encycl. Bibl._]
I. THE TITLE OF THE BOOK
The book now to be considered has, with few exceptions, been treated
with scant respect by scholars for many centuries. Jerome, in his
Preface to the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, condemned both the Esdras
books in our Apocrypha with their “dreams,” and the Church has
followed him in relegating them to a very inferior position. It is
only during the last decade or so that, owing, in the main, to the
labours of Sir Henry Howorth, scholars have come to realize the
importance of 1 (3) Esdras, with which we are at present concerned.
The various titles of the Ezra books are apt, thanks largely to
Jerome, to cause confusion; it will therefore, be advisable to set
forth these different titles in tabular form, which will also explain
how they have arisen:
_Hebrew _Septuagint_ _Vulgate_ _English _English
Bible_ Bible_ Apocrypha_
Ezra[457] } { 1 Esdras Ezra
Nehemiah[457] } 2 Esdras, { 2 Esdras Nehemiah 2 Esdras
} or Esdras B. { i. ii.[458]
{ 1 Esdras, or Esdras }
{ A, together with 2 }
{ Chronicles xxxv., }
Ezra { xxxvi. and most of } 3 Esdras Ezra 1 Esdras
{ Nehemiah viii. (the }
{ “Greek Ezra”). }
Not extant 4 Esdras 2 Esdras
iii.-xiv.
No equivalent 5 Esdras 2 Esdras
xv., xvi.
It will conduce to clearness if we speak of our present book as the
“Greek Ezra” and ignore these confusing titles. By the “Hebrew Ezra”
is meant, of course, the canonical book of Ezra.
II. CONTENTS OF THE BOOK
As will be seen by referring to the table given above, the contents
of our book correspond substantially with parts of the canonical
Scriptures[459]; but the “Greek Ezra” does not run wholly parallel
with the “Hebrew Ezra,” so that in enumerating the contents of the
former it will be necessary to record against each section to what
passage in the canonical Scriptures it corresponds, whether to some
passage in the “Hebrew Ezra,” or in 2 Chronicles, or in Nehemiah.
i. 1-58 (= 2 Chron. xxxv., xxxvi. 1-21): The book begins very
abruptly with a long account of Josiah’s celebration of the Passover
in Jerusalem (verses 1-24). Then follows the story of Josiah’s death
at the battle of Megiddo where he was defeated by the king of Egypt;
reference is made to “the book of the histories of the kings of
Judæa,” where these things are written (verses 25-33). The rest of
the section deals with Josiah’s successors down to the destruction of
Jerusalem (verses 34-58).
ii. 1-15 (= 2 Chron. xxxvi. 22, 23 and Ezra i. 1-11): Cyrus the
Persian issues a decree permitting the return of the people and the
rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem; the sacred vessels of the
Temple are given back.
ii. 16-30 (= Ezra iv. 7-24): The Samaritans address a letter to
Artaxerxes accusing the Jews of the intention to rebel in rebuilding
the walls of the city, and warning him of what the result will be
if the building is persisted in (verses 16-24). The purpose of the
letter is successful, and the building ceases until the second year
of Darius (verses 25-30).
iii. 1-v. 3 (no corresponding passage in the canonical Scriptures):
The wisdom competition among three young men of Darius’ bodyguard.
Zerubbabel proves himself to be wisest and is rewarded by the king
(iii. 1-iv. 46); the reward consists in granting Zerubbabel his
request that the king would issue a decree permitting the Jews to
return to their country and rebuild the walls of Jerusalem and the
Temple (iv. 47-57). Zerubbabel’s thanksgiving (iv. 58-63), and the
return of the exiles (v. 1-3).
v. 4-6 (no corresponding passage in the canonical Scriptures): These
verses contain the fragment of a list of the returned exiles.
v. 7-73 (= Ezra ii. 1-iv. 5, 24 and Neh. vii. 6-73): A list of those
who returned from Babylon under Zerubbabel, Joshua and Nehemiah
(verses 7-46); the rebuilding of the Temple (verses 47-65); the
Samaritans desire to assist in the work, but are refused; in
consequence of this they plot against the Jews, and the building is
suspended (verses 66-73).
vi. 1-vii. 15 (= Ezra v. 1-vi. 22): The building of the Temple is
begun (vi. 1-6); the letter of Sisinnes, the governor of Syria and
Phœnicia, to Darius, asking him to signify his approval of the
undertaking (vi. 7-22); the favourable reply of Darius (vi. 23-34).
The completion of the building of the Temple, and its dedication
(vii. 1-9). Celebration of the Feast of Passover (vii. 10-15).
viii. 1-ix. 36 (= Ezra vii. 1-x. 44): With the permission of
Artaxerxes, Ezra goes to Jerusalem with “certain of the children
of Israel and of the priests and Levites” (viii. 1-7). Copy of the
commission written by Artaxerxes to Ezra (viii. 8-24). A list of
those who returned with Ezra (viii. 25-60). The return to Jerusalem,
and Ezra’s work in combating mixed marriages (viii. 61-ix. 36).
ix. 37-55 (= Neh. vii. 73-viii. 12): The reading of the Law of Moses
by Ezra.
* * * * *
It will thus be seen that the whole of our book, with the exception
of iii. 1-v. 6, runs parallel with passages from the “Hebrew Ezra”
and parts of 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah. But it will be well to
consider the relationship between our book and the “Hebrew Ezra,” and
also to inquire as to the relationship of 2 Esdras, or Esdras B, to
our book.
III. THE “HEBREW EZRA,” THE “GREEK EZRA,” AND 2 ESDRAS
In the table given above it will be seen that the Hebrew Book of Ezra
is represented twice in the Septuagint, viz. by 2 Esdras and the
“Greek Ezra,” and that both the Greek forms contain more than simply
a translation of the “Hebrew Ezra,” since 2 Esdras has the whole of
what was once a single Hebrew book (Ezra-Nehemiah), and our “Greek
Ezra” has some matter in addition to the translation of Ezra.
Our first point is to see how the “Hebrew Ezra” and the “Greek
Ezra” compare. As regards the sequence of events there are only two
cases of any considerable divergence, namely, ii. 16-30 (= Ezra
iv. 7-24) is out of place, and ix. 37-55 (= Neh. vii. 73-viii. 12)
which follows viii. 1-ix. 36 (= Ezra vii. 1-x. 44) varies from the
order in the Hebrew Bible. Otherwise the material of the two is the
same, with the one exception of iii. 1-v. 3, the story of the wisdom
competition between the three young men of Darius’ bodyguard; this is
peculiar to our “Greek Ezra,”[460] and, unlike the rest of the book,
was originally composed in Greek. The rest of the book is translated
from the Hebrew, but the translation is free and paraphrastic.
Turning now for a moment to 2 Esdras, the point of chief importance
here is that the translation is a very literal one, it follows the
Hebrew text minutely and with almost painful accuracy, sometimes
giving renderings which are so close as to be rather lacking in sense
in their translated form. In his comparison of the two Greek books
Thackeray says: “The two translations are of an essentially different
character. While the writer of Esdras B (2 Esdras) shows a slavish
adherence to the Hebrew, often transliterating his original, and
making no pretensions to style, Esdras A (the “Greek Ezra”) is marked
by a free style of translation, an elegant and idiomatic Greek, a
happy rendering of Hebraisms, and an omission of difficulties, which
make it a far more readable book than the other. It was clearly
intended for Greek readers unacquainted with Hebrew. The writer was a
_littérateur_ in possession of a wide Greek vocabulary.”[461]
The central problem of our book is to ascertain the relationship
between it and the canonical Hebrew book, and 2 Esdras. How do
the “Greek Ezra” and 2 Esdras stand to one another? How comes it
that both are contained in the Septuagint? Do they both go back to
the same Hebrew original? These and other questions which suggest
themselves in studying the book are by no means easy to answer,
and very varying opinions are held by scholars; nor does it appear
that any solution offered is clear from objections of some kind. To
deal with these theories would be out of the question here, for the
discussion of them fills volumes[462]; a few facts may, however,
be enumerated which must be taken into consideration in seeking to
arrive at a conclusion.
(1) There are strong grounds for believing that the “Greek Ezra” is
of earlier date than 2 Esdras; in the Septuagint it precedes the
latter; Josephus uses it, and apparently does not know of 2 Esdras;
the writer of the “Greek Ezra” utilizes Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah
in such a way as to suggest that these three formed one whole, and
had not yet been divided up; in 2 Esdras the “Hebrew Ezra” is clearly
a separate book. The Hebrew text which underlies the “Greek Ezra” is
often a purer, and therefore in all probability an older, one than
that represented in 2 Esdras. For these reasons we are justified in
regarding the “Greek Ezra” as of earlier date than 2 Esdras.
(2) The “Greek Ezra” and 2 Esdras often agree in small details; and,
what is more striking, they not infrequently agree in deviating from
the Hebrew. But, on the other hand, there are many passages in which
the “Greek Ezra” follows the Hebrew more closely than 2 Esdras. Now,
seeing that one of the characteristics of 2 Esdras is that it follows
its Hebrew original in a slavish manner, one is led to the conclusion
that the Hebrew text underlying the “Greek Ezra” varied considerably
from that which is represented in 2 Esdras. But how is one to account
for the agreements between the “Greek Ezra” and 2 Esdras, just
mentioned? We suggest that something of this kind took place:
That the Hebrew text which underlay those two books respectively was
not the same is clear; the “Greek Ezra” represents a text differing
in many respects from the Massoretic text, and therefore in all
probability an older one in which Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah were all
one book; 2 Esdras represents in the main the Massoretic text. A
Greek translation was made of the earlier Hebrew text, before, that
is to say, the Hebrew text became fixed. This Greek translation
was the immediate parent of our “Greek Ezra.” In the meantime the
revision of the Hebrew text took place, and a translator translated
this into Greek, utilizing at the same time the original Greek
translation; this represents 2 Esdras. So that a different Hebrew
text lies ultimately at the base of the “Greek Ezra” and of 2 Esdras;
nevertheless both have to recognize the parentage of an intermediate
Greek translation, which accounts for the elements of agreement
between them; while their differences are accounted for because they
were translated from different Hebrew texts. The accompanying diagram
will illustrate the suggestion made:
Original Hebrew
|
+----------------------+---------------------+
| |
Original Greek Revised Hebrew
| |
+-------------------------+ |
“Greek Ezra” | |
+--------+---------+
|
2 Esdras
This suggestion is a combination of those of Ewald[463] and Sir H.
H. Howorth.[464] What has been said does not account for all the
difficulties; there is, for example, the piece iii. 1-v. 3 to be
accounted for; and the historical inaccuracies (see next section)
constitute another difficulty. Much can, however, be explained by
recognizing, what seems to be an undoubted fact, that a redactor has
been at work on our book, but has not finished his work; there seems
to have been a special purpose which this redactor had in view (see
section V) and he was concerned with this more than with historical
accuracy. The difficulties are enhanced by the fact that the abrupt
beginning and ending show that the book is incomplete in its present
form.
IV. THE HISTORICITY OF THE BOOK