is obviously necessary to take the “Hebrew Ezra” and Nehemiah into
account; and it will help us to some extent in seeking to find our
way about the hopelessly intricate historical maze in which we soon
become involved if we begin by drawing up a chronological table. We
will, however, preface this with the following list of Persian kings;
the names which are put in square brackets do not concern us, but
they are added for completeness’ sake:
Cyrus, as king of Persia, B.C. 538-529.
[Cambyses, B.C. 529-522.]
Darius I, Hystaspes, B.C. 522-486.
[Xerxes, B.C. 486-465.]
Artaxerxes I, Longimanus, B.C. 465-426.
Now we give a chronological list of events with the references to the
canonical Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah; for the corresponding references
in the “Greek Ezra” see the table on pp. 440 ff.
Fall of Jerusalem, B.C. 586 (2 Chron. xxxvi. 17-21).
Edict of Cyrus, in his first year, permitting the return of the
Jews to Jerusalem under Zerubbabel, B.C. 538 (Ezra i. 1 ff.).
Laying of the foundation-stone of the Temple, B.C. 536 (Ezra iii.
8 ff.).
Building of the Temple interrupted till the second year of
Darius, B.C. 520 (Ezra iv. 1-5, 24 [in Ezra iv. 6-23 the
reference is to interference with the building of the city walls,
not to the Temple; this section has either got out of place, or
it is a later insertion]).
Edict of Darius permitting the building of the Temple to be
recommenced, B.C. 520 (Ezra vi. 1 ff.).
Completion and dedication of the Temple in the sixth year of
Darius, B.C. 516 (Ezra vi. 13 ff.).
Arrival of Ezra in Jerusalem, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes,
and his activity there, B.C. 458. (Ezra vii. 1 ff.) [Note the gap
of fifty-eight years between this and the previously recorded
event.]
Arrival of Nehemiah in Jerusalem in the twenty-first year of
Artaxerxes, B.C. 444; permission given to rebuild the city walls
(Neh. ii. 1 ff.). [Note the gap of fourteen years between this
and the previously recorded event.]
Reading of the Law by Ezra, B.C. 444, late in the year (Neh. vii.
73_b_, viii. 1 ff.).
* * * * *
On comparing the history of the “Greek Ezra” with that of
Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah the two most prominent points to be
noted are that, (1) the “Greek Ezra” makes the order of the
Persian kings the reverse of what that order actually was, viz.,
Artaxerxes (ii. 15-25), Darius (iii. 1-v. 6), Cyrus (v. 7-70), while
Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah has the right order. It is, however, well to
remember that the “Greek Ezra” in ii. 1 ff. begins the list in the
right order, namely, with Cyrus. And (2) the “Greek Ezra” takes no
account of Nehemiah i. 1-vii. 72, but gives the history as recorded
in Ezra vii.-x., Nehemiah vii. 73-viii. 12; so that the “Greek Ezra”
does not present the gap of fourteen years found in Ezra-Nehemiah,
for it makes the history of Ezra continuous.
As regards the first of these two points, it is evident that the
writer of the “Greek Ezra” was not unaware of the fact that the
events were in their wrong order, otherwise we should not have
found Cyrus mentioned first, as in ii. 1 ff., and Artaxerxes last,
as in viii. 1 ff. An important fact in this connection is that
Josephus, who follows the “Greek Ezra” and not 2 Esdras with its
literal translation of the “Hebrew Ezra,” has “Cambyses” instead
of “Artaxerxes,” thus getting the order correct; and, in following
the text of the “Greek Ezra,” he has a consistent chronology. But
the contents of the passage in question (ii. 16-30) show that the
_position_ in which it stands must be wrong because it speaks of the
interruption of the building of the Temple before the foundation
is begun. So that if Josephus did not himself alter “Artaxerxes”
to “Cambyses,” which is very improbable, he must have found it in
the source he had before him; in this case a redactor or compiler
altered the name, desiring to get the names of the Persian kings
in their right order. But if this is so it suggests the fact
that in the original translation of the book the chronology was
inconsistent, in which case the same must be true of the Hebrew text
which the translator had before him. Now when we look at the Hebrew
text of Ezra-Nehemiah we find that it, too, contains historical
inaccuracies of a serious character, and that there has clearly been
a considerable manipulation of the text. What seems, therefore, to be
pretty clear is that there were several different Hebrew records of
the history of the people since the Return, and that the knowledge of
this history was hazy; but that finally an authoritative, revised,
Hebrew form was made in which the general uncertainty regarding
the historical events is strongly reflected; not only so, but for
particular purposes (see next section) certain aspects of the history
were emphasized, while others were treated more scantily; the final
result being that before any Greek translation was made there were
two, at least, Hebrew accounts of the history both characterized
by a particular tendency, and both characterized by historical
inaccuracies. Our two Greek versions represent these two Hebrew (or
Hebrew-Aramaic) forms. But it does not follow that the historicity
of either of these was superior to the other; in this matter each
has something to contribute. A striking example of the way in which
the “Greek Ezra” sometimes shows its superiority is the second point
referred to above; in this case the Ezra story is more logical,
differing from the canonical account by making Ezra vii.-x. to be
immediately followed by Nehemiah vii. 73-viii. 12.
There are many other differences between the “Greek Ezra” and the
canonical books, details of which would be out of place here, but
the two given illustrate the main point regarding the historicity
of our book which we wish to emphasize, namely, that its historical
value is, at the lowest estimate, on a level with that of its
canonical rival; each has many inaccuracies, but each has something
to contribute; to use one without the other in dealing with the
history of the period would be a great mistake. “It can no longer
be assumed,” Cook rightly points out, “that the Massoretic text
necessarily represents a more trustworthy record of the age, and that
_E_ (= the “Greek Ezra”) is necessarily arbitrary and methodless.
Both share fundamental imperfections. _E_, therefore, in any case
deserves impartial consideration, and its problems involve those of
Ezra-Nehemiah. These problems, owing to the absence of decisive and
independent evidence, can be handled only provisionally; but enough
is clear to permit the conclusion that _E_ represents a text in
some respects older than the _present_ Massoretic text, to which,
however, some attempt seems to have been made to conform it.... From
a comparison of both with Josephus and other sources (notably Daniel)
it would further appear that _E_ represents one of the efforts to
give an account of a period, the true course of which was confused
and forgotten, if not intentionally obscured; different attempts
were made to remove difficulties and inconsistencies, and the desire
to give greater prominence to the priestly Ezra than to the secular
governor Nehemiah is probably responsible for the arrangement of the
extant texts.”[465]
V. THE PURPOSE OF THE BOOK
It is an open question as to what the special purpose was which the
writer of the original Hebrew work had in his mind; one might at
first naturally suppose that it was the same as the writer of any
other Jewish historical book, namely to give the history of the
particular period dealt with. But assuming, as we may justly do, that
our Greek translation gives, upon the whole, an equivalent of the
Hebrew that lay before it, it is not difficult to discern a special
tendency at work in it. In the first place, political history is
quite relegated to the background; but great stress is laid upon
everything that has to do with worship and ritual, the re-instatement
of the sacrificial system and of the priests and their duties, the
due support of the priests, the return of the holy vessels of the
sanctuary, the celebration of the festivals, and the purification of
the congregation. In addition to this, it is the rebuilding of the
Temple which is emphasized, while the rebuilding of the city walls
takes quite a secondary place. It is pretty evident, therefore, that
the object which the writer had in view was not so much that of
giving the history of his people during the post-exilic period, but
rather to set forth the paramount importance of the worship of the
Temple. In the second place, and closely connected with this, is the
further purpose of presenting Ezra as the one really important person
who figures in Jewish post-exilic history, and with his name was, of
course, indissolubly connected the Law, of which he was the great
champion. The title of the book, in fact, implies its purpose. All
this is in accordance with what we know to have been characteristic
of the attitude of the Jewish religious leaders during the late
post-exilic period. In the original form of the Hebrew this was in
all probability not so to the same extent, but that original was
worked over in the interests of the school of thought just referred
to; so that the actual form of the Hebrew which lay before the Greek
translator was not the original form in which the book was written.
The present title was a subsequent addition.
VI. THE STORY OF THE THREE YOUNG MEN OF DARIUS’ BODYGUARD
A few words about this section of our book is needed both because,
according to some scholars, it is closely connected with the purpose
for which our book was written, and also because it is the part which
is peculiar to the “Greek Ezra.” It occurs in iii. 1-v. 6,[466] and
is briefly as follows:
Three young men of Darius’ bodyguard undertake to enter upon a
competition as to which of them shall be able to put forth a
“sentence which shall seem wiser” than those of the other two;
it seems to be taken for granted that the successful one will be
richly rewarded by the king. They, therefore, wrote their sentences
and sealed them, and laid them “under the king his pillow.” The
king and the three princes of Persia are to be the judges as to
which is the wisest of the three sentences, these being: “Wine is
the strongest”; “The king is strongest”; “Women are strongest, but
above all things Truth beareth away the victory” (iii. 1-12). Then
the king, having had these sentences placed before him, calls upon
all the state officials to assemble, while he sits in the seat of
judgement, so that all may hear the explanations of their sentences
which the three young men are invited to give (iii. 13-17). The
first seeks to establish the truth of his sentence by showing that
its power is uniform over all men; it affects all alike in that it
enforces them to forget (iii. 17_b_-24). The second, by pointing
to the unlimited power of the king over his subjects who obey his
every command, maintains that the king is the strongest (iv. 1-12).
The third, who, it is added in parenthesis, is Zerubbabel, speaks
at greater length; he deals first with women, and shows that though
the king is great, and wine is strong, yet “Women have borne the
king and all the people that bear rule by sea and land. Even of them
came they; and they nourished up them that planted the vineyards,
from whence the wine cometh.” Man’s succumbing to the fascination of
woman, and therefore her superior power, is the theme of the verses
that follow (iv. 13-32). The second part of his oration is concerned
with truth, and it contains some really fine sentences: “O sirs,
are not women strong? (Yet) great is the earth, high is the heaven,
swift is the sun in its course, for it compasseth the heavens round
about, and fetcheth its course again to its own place in one day—is
_He_ not great that maketh these things? Therefore great is truth,
and stronger than all things.... Truth abideth, and is strong for
ever; she liveth and conquereth for evermore.... Blessed be the
God of Truth.” And then all the people shouted and said: “Great is
truth, and strong above all things”; in the Latin Version: _Magna
est veritas, et praevalet_ (iv. 13-41). Needless to say, the last
speaker is the winner, and he receives the king’s reward. But the
curious part is that here we suddenly get transported into an
entirely different region of thought, for on the king desiring him
to make some further request over and above what had been originally
settled, he replies: “Remember thy vow, which thou didst vow to build
Jerusalem, in the day when thou camest to thy kingdom, and to send
away all the vessels that were taken out of Jerusalem.... Thou didst
also vow to build up the temple ...” (iv. 42-46). Then the king gives
orders that all this is to be carried out (iv. 47-57). The young man
(he is not again referred to as Zerubbabel) offers up a prayer of
thanksgiving (iv. 58-63); the return of the exiles commences (v. 1-6).
Now, one can scarcely fail to perceive that the whole section, from
iv. 41 to the end, does not really belong to the original story of
the three young men; or rather, one should say that this story does
not belong to the context in which it now stands, or indeed to the
historical record at all of which our book is a compilation, for its
presence creates great chronological confusion. The words in iv. 13,
spoken in reference to the third young man, “this was Zerubbabel,”
do not belong there; they were added later to the story, but they
are important because they point to the reason why this story was
interpolated into the historical compilation. As we have seen, the
whole purpose of our book, in the form in which we now have it,
was to lay stress on ritual and worship, and to place the person
and work of Ezra in the foreground; this reflects the orthodox
and legalistic Pharisaic attitude. An attempt to counterbalance
this was made by a Hellenistic Jew who inserted the story of the
three young men (whether his own composition, or taken from some
collection of stories does not affect the point), and added the words
“this is Zerubbabel” for the purpose of bringing into prominence
this personality, and thereby making Ezra and all which his name
connoted not the sole important issue in Jewry. Zerubbabel, it will
be remembered, was the great instrument of the prophets Haggai and
Zechariah (see Hag. i., ii., Zech. iv.); he represented, therefore,
the prophetical ideals expressed, for example, in such words as:
“Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord of
Hosts” (Zech. iv. 6), as against the legalism of Ezra and the school
that followed him, above all his disciples, the Pharisees, in the
post-Maccabæan period.
It need scarcely be added that this story did not belong to the
Hebrew even in its latest form; it was in all probability written
in Greek by a Hellenistic Jew; yet the possibility of an Aramaic
original is not excluded. If it could be proved that Hebrew or
Aramaic was the original language of this addition, and that
Palestine was its home, the interesting theory might then be put
forth that it, together with the inserted words “this is Zerubbabel,”
was added by a Sadducee in opposition to Pharisaism; Zerubbabel’s
close connection with the high-priest (see Hag. i. 12, 14, ii. 2, 4,
and all Zech. iv.) would fully explain the reason of the inserted
words. But whichever view be correct the main purpose of the addition
would be the same, viz. an attempt to counteract the influence of
Pharisaism.
VII. THE DATE OF THE BOOK
Very few words are needed in speaking of the date of our book, or
rather, of its compilation. To fix the date of the original documents
made use of by the compiler of the Hebrew form is not in question
here. If we inquire as to the date of the Hebrew form which lay
before the Greek translator it must be replied that this depends upon
what that form was; if it contained the marks of what may be called
the “Ezra-tendency,” then it must probably be post-Maccabæan, in
which case our present Greek translation might fairly be dated not
later than the middle of the last century B.C.
But if the Hebrew did not contain these marks—we refer especially
to the passage dealt with in the preceding section—and they are
due to the Greek translator or a redactor, which we believe more
probable, then the Hebrew, even in the form in which it lay before
the translator, was pre-Maccabæan, and the Greek form, though
post-Maccabæan, might well be dated about B.C. 100. It is to this
latter date that we incline; and it is corroborated by considerations
of vocabulary, as has been well shown by Dewick.[467]
CHAPTER IX
The Book of Wisdom
(The Wisdom of Solomon)
[LITERATURE.—Grimm, _Das Buch der Weisheit erklärt_ (1860);
Montefiore, _The Wisdom of Solomon_ (1887); Farrar, in Wace, I,
pp. 403-534; Deane, _The Book of Wisdom_ ... (1881); Menzel, _Der
griechische Einfluss auf Prediger und Weisheit Salomos_, pp.
39-70 (1889); Bois, _Essai sur les origines de la philosophie
judéo-alexandrine_ (1890); Schürer, II, iii. pp. 230-237, German
ed., pp. 505-512; Siegfried, in Kautzsch, I, pp. 476-507; Linke,
_Samarien und seine Propheten_, pp. 119-144 (1903); Stevenson,
_Wisdom and Jewish Apocryphal Writings_ (1903); M. Friedländer,
_Griechische Philosophie im Alten Testamente_, pp. 182-208
(1904); Zeller, _Outlines of Greek Philosophy_ (1909); Gregg,
_The Wisdom of Solomon_ (1909); Holmes, in Charles, I, pp.
518-568; Goodrick, _The Book of Wisdom_ (1913). See also the
articles by Freudenthal, in “The Jewish Quarterly Review,” III,
pp. 722-753 (1891), Siegfried, in Hastings’ _Dict. of the Bible_,
and Toy, in the _Encycl. Bibl._]
I. THE TITLE AND AUTHORSHIP OF THE BOOK
The title “The Wisdom of Solomon” in the English Versions comes from
the Greek manuscripts,[468] the three oldest of which have this exact
title, while, in one form or another, they _all_ have it. But the
Old Latin Version has only “The Book of Wisdom,” without any mention
of Solomon; and the Syriac Version, while ascribing it to Solomon,
adds, “of which there is a doubt; whether another wise man of the
Hebrews wrote it in a prophetic spirit, putting it in the name of
Solomon, and it was received.”[469] Although some of the early Latin
Fathers believed that the book was the work of Solomon, they formed
the exceptions; it is obvious that it cannot have been written by
him, as we shall see as we proceed. But it may well be asked why it
should have been ascribed to Solomon; the usual and obvious answer
that to the Jews Solomon was the wisdom-writer _par excellence_, and
that therefore anyone desiring to commend a book on wisdom would
naturally choose this name as a pseudonym in preference to any other,
is doubtless correct in a general way; but Plumptre has suggested a
stronger reason; believing that the book was written in antagonism to
Ecclesiastes,[470] he says: “Let us remember in what light it [i.e.
Ecclesiastes] must have presented itself to him [i.e. the writer of
Wisdom]. It had not ... the claim which comes from the reverence due
to the authority of a remote antiquity or an unquestioned acceptance.
He must have known that it had not been received as canonical without
serious opposition, that the strictest school of the Pharisees had
been against its reception, that it had seemed to them tainted with
the heresy of Epicuræanism and Sadduceeism. If it was interpreted
then as it has often been interpreted since, it may have seemed to
him to sanction a lawless sensuality, to fall in with the thoughts of
those who said, ‘let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die,’ and to
throw doubt, if not denial, on the soul’s immortality. Was this, he
seems to have asked himself, the true ideal of wisdom? Was it not his
duty to bring before men another Solomon than that whose experience
seemed to end in materialism and pessimism, in the scepticism of an
endless doubt? And so he, too, adopts without any hesitation the
form of personated authorship.”[471] This puts the matter on a higher
plane altogether. That the writer of our book had what he considered
to be the erroneous teaching of Ecclesiastes in mind will be clear to
any one who reads Wisdom ii. 1-9 in conjunction with the following
passages from Ecclesiastes:[472]
Wisdom ii. 1 with Ecclesiastes ii. 23, v. 1.
” ii. 2 ” ” iii. 19, cp. ix. ii.
” ii. 3 ” ” xii. 7.
” ii. 4 ” ” i. 11, ii. 16, ix. 5, ii. 11.
” ii. 5 ” ” vi. 12, viii. 8.
” ii. 6 ” ” ii. 24.
” ii. 7 ” ” ix. 7.
” ii. 8 ” ” ix. 8.
” ii. 9 ” ” iii. 22, v. 18, ix. 8.
In Wisdom ii. 1 ff. (“For they said within themselves, reasoning not
aright ...”) the writer is describing the tenets of the ungodly; and
what he says agrees not only in substance, but often even verbally,
with the corresponding passages in Ecclesiastes.
Bearing Plumptre’s words in mind, therefore, and remembering what
has been said above[473] regarding the estimate of the function and
importance of authorship among Easterns of earlier times, we should
not be justified in seeing any fraudulent intention on the part of
our author in putting the name of Solomon to the title of his book.
As to the personality of the author[474] but very few _data_ are to
be gathered from the book; he must in all probability have been a
Jew (cp. xii. 22), but a Hellenistic Jew, yet loyal to the Law[475]
(xviii. 4), who lived and wrote in Egypt (see xii. 23 ff., xv. 18,
19, xvi. 1, 9, where reference is made to Egyptian animal-worship);
his Jewish feeling is evidenced throughout the book; that he was
domiciled in Alexandria is highly probable, for this was the centre
of Jewish-Hellenistic culture. As Gregg well points out, the author
“makes no effort to disguise his sympathy with Hellenic thought. He
is a Euhemerist in his account of the origin of idol-worship (xiv.);
he is a Platonist in his sense of the beauty of the world, and in his
argument that its beauty points to a supreme First Cause. He draws
on Plato for his doctrine of pre-existing matter (xi. 17), of the
pre-existence of the soul (viii. 19), and of the body as an obstacle
in the path to spiritual knowledge (ix. 15). The teaching of the
Stoics suggested to him the penetratingness of Wisdom (vii. 24), and
her quickness of understanding (vii. 22). The doctrine of Providence
(xiv. 3) and the conception of the four cardinal virtues (viii.
7), were a loan partly from Plato and partly from the Stoics. This
combination of knowledge of Egypt and sympathy with Greek studies
points plainly to Alexandria; and the inference is strengthened by
a comparison of Wisdom with the writings of the Alexandrian Philo.
For the affinity between them is so close, that the author has
been styled a pre-Philonic Philonist. Like Philo (but in a more
uncompromising way), he is a Jew loyal to the national religion; and
no centre offered the same opportunities as did Alexandria for a
Jew who wished to unite a liberal eclecticism with his traditional
faith.”[476] For the influence of Greek philosophy to be discerned in
the book see Part I, Chapter IV.
II. THE DATE OF THE BOOK
Among modern scholars controversy regarding the date of our book
centres round the question as to whether it belongs to the middle
of the last century B.C. or about a hundred years later, though
some (e.g. Gregg, _Op. cit._, p. xi.) would date it as early as
“within the last quarter of the second century B.C.” There are three
main points to be taken into consideration in seeking to fix an
approximate date.
(_a_) The author quotes from the Septuagint of the Book of Isaiah
(ii. 12, cp. Isa. iii. 10, and xv. 10, cp. Isa. xliv. 20), and also
from the Book of Job (xii. 12, cp. Job ix. 12, 19); therefore these
books must have already existed in their Greek form. Now from the
Prologue to Ecclesiasticus it is evident that the prophetical books
had been translated into Greek before Sirach’s grandson translated
his grandfather’s work, and that therefore these books formed part
of the Septuagint before B.C. 132.[477] But as regards the Book of
Job, and the _Hagiographa_ generally,[478] we cannot say with any
certainty at what precise period they were translated[479]; Swete,
after reviewing the evidence, says: “Thus while the testimony of
the first century A.D. does not absolutely require us to believe
that all the books of the Hebrew canon had been translated and were
circulated in a Greek version during the Apostolic age, such a view
is not improbable; and it is confirmed by the fact that they are all
contained in the canon of the Greek Bible which the Christian Church
received from its Jewish predecessors.”[480] The fact, therefore,
that the author of Wisdom quotes from the Book of Job in its Greek
form makes it reasonably certain that our book was written during the
last century B.C.
(_b_) The next point is as to the historical conditions reflected in
the book. Quite recently Goodrick has examined this question with
great care, and it is one which needs a brief consideration. Rightly
or wrongly, it is often taken for granted that the book was written
at a time when the Jews were suffering, or had recently suffered,
persecution; such passages as ii. 10-20, vi. 5-9 are supposed to be
references to this. What persecution is it, then, to which reference
is made? Goodrick believes that the allusion is to a persecution
under Caligula (A.D. 37-41). After giving the historical details,
he sums up as follows: “A sore persecution has just been endured; a
persecution not to the death indeed, but involving grave damage and
distress. This persecution, founded in part on gross calumny, had as
one of its main features the attempted enforcement of idolatry, and
of idolatry in its most insane and revolting form—the worship of a
living man. This living man was a prince ruling at a distance, but
his commands were enforced by apostate Jews dwelling close at hand,
who had surrendered their ancient belief without sincerely adopting
any other, and represented no religion except that of Epicureanism,
for which they sought to find their text-book in the so-called
Solomon’s ‘Preacher.’ This persecution had been carried on through
the agency of the dregs of the populace of Alexandria, wherein were
represented the superstition of ancient Egypt at its worst, combined
with hereditary Greek hatred of the Jews, and wild misrepresentation
of their religion and ordinances. Finally, a time of temporary repose
must be pictured, in which it was possible to substitute severe
rebuke for furious complaint. All these conditions the period from
A.D. 41 to 44 presents, and an examination of the Book of Wisdom
confirms the belief that it was then written.”[481] In support
of this Goodrich refers first to ii. 10-20, where the ungodly say
“within themselves, reasoning not aright” (see ii. 1):[482]
10. Let us oppress the righteous poor;
Let us not spare the widow,
Nor reverence the grey hairs of the old man full of years.
11. But let our strength be to us a law of righteousness,
For weakness is condemned as unprofitable.
12. But let us lie in wait for the righteous, for he is useless
to us,
And is opposed to our doings,
And upbraideth us for sins against the Law,
And denounceth to us sins against our discipline.
13. For he professeth to have knowledge of God,
And calleth himself the servant of the Lord.
14. He became for us a rebuke to our machinations;
15. He is grievous unto us even to look upon,
Because his life is unlike other men’s,
And his ways are peculiar.
16. As base metal were we accounted by him,
And he abstaineth from our ways as from uncleanness.
He calleth the latter end of the righteous blessed,
And vaunteth that God is his Father.
17. Let us see if his words be true.
Yea, and make trial of what will happen at his going forth.
18. For if the righteous man be God’s son, He will uphold him,
And will deliver him out of the hand of them that rise up
against him.
19. With insult and torture let us test him,
That we may know his tolerance,
And judge of his endurance of evil.
20. Let us condemn him to a shameful death,
So shall there be made examination of him from his own words.
Goodrick maintains that we have here the description of the
oppression of the righteous man. Of the calumnies which had
instigated the persecution, “that which had obtained the widest
circulation ... was that of the hatred of the Jews for all mankind
except their own nation. It is probably alluded to in ii. 15, and
is controverted in xii. 19” (“... the righteous must be a lover of
mankind”). Further, he says that the allusion to the deification of
living men is plain in xiv. 16, 17:
Then in time, being enforced, the impious custom was kept as a
law,
And by the commands of despots graven images were worshipped,
Whom men, not being able to honour in their presence, through
dwelling at a distance,
Counterfeiting their features far away,
Made a visible image of the honoured king,
To flatter by their zeal the absent as present (cp. also vi. 2).
Finally, the most striking reference to contemporary matters, says
Goodrick, is “that in xix. 5 as to the rights of citizenship”:
But these with feastings
(First) welcoming _them that already shared the same rights_,
Vexed them with sore labours.
Regarding the question of historical conditions by itself Goodrick’s
contention as to the date of our book is weighty; but even so his
arguments do not necessarily carry conviction. It is not necessary,
as Toy points out, “to suppose that the work was composed in the
midst of one of the violently hostile movements. The author, even
if he lived in a relatively quiet time, would know enough of the
general fortunes of his people to paint his pictures of suffering
(ii.-v., xiv.). Nor is his reference to the worship of the statues
of kings (xiv. 16-20) chronologically decisive, for divine worship
was paid to Ptolemy I, and probably to Antiochus II, as well as to
Caligula and other Roman emperors. The author is, in fact, as Grimm
remarks, giving a learned account of the origin of idolatry, and it
is unnecessary to assume that the deified princes to whom he refers
were his contemporaries.”[483] It is also necessary to remember that
the command to worship the statue of Caligula meant the setting
up of his effigy in the Temple at Jerusalem and in the synagogues
of Alexandria; is it likely that our author, loyal and ardent Jew
that he was, would use the mild language that he does if it were a
question of such a supreme outrage upon Jewish belief and practice?
(_c_) But there is another point to be taken into consideration
in discussing the date of our book, namely, whether or not it is
pre-Philonian. Diametrically opposed views are held by scholars;
Schürer (_Op. cit._, II, iii. p. 234) regards it as certain that
our book precedes Philo, for “his standpoint is a preliminary step
to Philo’s.” This, as he says, would not in itself prove a higher
antiquity; “but with the near affinity of the two it is inconceivable
that our author would have remained unaffected by Philo if he had
succeeded him.” Farrar (_Op. cit._, p. 421) says that the impression
left on his mind is that “the book was composed in the Roman epoch,
and by an author who was familiar with the speculations of Philo,
but regarded them from a completely independent point of view. The
impression that he was to some extent influenced by the views of
Philo, and that Philo was not influenced by him, is very strong.
If he had preceded Philo, some traces of the powerful style and
individuality and phraseology of the Pseudo-Solomon must surely have
been observable in the voluminous pages of the Jewish Theosophist.”
Goodrick, while agreeing with Farrar that the author of our book
regarded the speculations from a completely independent point of
view, does not think that there is the slightest reference or
allusion in either from either. While it is, so far, true that,
as Goodrick says, “we are left to the _à priori_ conjectures of
scholars,” there is one important point, emphasized by Gregg, which
seems conclusive; Gregg writes (_Op. cit._, p. xii.): “In spite
of the remarkable similarity (in some cases amounting almost to
identity) of the language of Philo and that of Wisdom, there is
one vital difference which points to a considerably earlier date
for the latter. The Logos-idea is the leading feature of Philo’s
system, and there is in Wisdom no trace of the Philonian Logos, nor
is the Divine Wisdom ever even identified with the Logos. In Philo’s
time the Logos-doctrine must have belonged to current Alexandrian
thought; had Philo been its originator, he would have asserted it in
a more polemical manner. Accordingly, time must be allowed for the
development of a doctrine which Philo found ready to hand, and that
length of time must have separated the composition of Wisdom from
the writings of Philo. The inference is (see Grimm, _Intr._, p. 34),
that Wisdom was composed a considerable time, perhaps a century,
before Philo, who was born about B.C. 20, began to write.” This is a
strong argument, though it does not seem necessary to date our book
as much as a century before the time of Philo. Holmes grants the
validity of Gregg’s argument (which is also that of Grimm), though,
as he says, “it only means that the book must be earlier than the
student-life of Philo, which may be placed from B.C. 5-A.D. 5....
But ignorance of the Alexandrine Logos-doctrine can only affect the
date of the first part of the book; the second part may with Bousset
(_Religion des Judenthums_, p. 35) be dated after the beginning of
the Empire (say B.C. 30), on account of xiv. 17, where the likeness
of an _absent_ ruler is mentioned” (_Op. cit._, p. 521). All things
considered, the most probable date would seem to be the latter half
of the last century B.C., the earlier half of the book belonging to
the beginning, the later half to the end, of this period.
III. THE QUESTION OF COMPOSITE AUTHORSHIP
The question of the unity, or otherwise, of the book is a difficult
one; the arguments used in support of either position are strong;
anyone who reads them all would, we should imagine, hesitate to
pronounce a definite opinion unless he had some new argument to
present on one side or the other.[484] We shall briefly enumerate
the reasons which have led many scholars to believe that the book is
of composite authorship. Upon one point all authorities are agreed,
whether they accept the unity of the book or not, namely, that it
is divided into two distinct parts: ii.-xi. 1, and xi. 2-xix. It is
the differences of various kinds between these two parts which have
suggested composite authorship; these are as follows:
(_a_) The conception of God; in part I God’s action is represented
in a way quite different from that taught in part II; this will
be seen from the few following quotations from each part. In vii.
22-viii. 1 Wisdom is spoken of in such a way as to show that God acts
_indirectly_ through it:
... Beneficent, loving toward man,
Steadfast, sure, free from care;
All-powerful, all-surveying,
And penetrating through all spirits
That are quick of understanding; pure, subtil,
For Wisdom is more mobile than any motion;
Yea, she pervadeth and penetrateth all things by reason of her
pureness.
For she is a breath of the power of God ...
... For she is an effulgence from everlasting light,
And an unspotted mirror of the working of God,
And an image of His goodness.
And she, though but one, hath power to do all things ...
... But she reacheth from one end of the world to the other
with full strength,
And ordereth all things well (cp. also x. 1 ff.).
And again in viii. 6 it is said:
Who more than Wisdom is an artificer of the things that are?
It is clear enough from these passages that the Divine action is
represented as being accomplished through the agency of Wisdom. In
contrast to this God’s action is represented as _direct_ in part II;
for example, in xv. 1 we read:
But Thou, our God, art gracious and true,
Longsuffering, and in mercy ordering all things.
The same truth is taught in xiii. 1:
For by nature all men were foolish, and had no perception of God,
And from the good things to be seen had not power to know Him
that is,
Neither by giving honour to the works did they recognize the
Artificer.
(_b_) Another thing which is believed to point to a difference of
authorship is that in part I Wisdom plays a most important _rôle_,
whereas in part II it is never mentioned.[485] This is rather
striking, especially when taken in conjunction with what has been
said in (_a_), for so many opportunities occur in part II for Wisdom
to be mentioned; in a number of passages it might have found a place
very naturally. For an author who has such an exalted conception of
Wisdom as the writer of part I, it certainly strikes one as strange
to find that he suddenly ignores it altogether in part II; whereas if
the latter was of different authorship no problem presents itself.
(_c_) Further, the generally broad outlook of part I stands in
striking contrast to the pronounced particularism of the second part.
This in itself is, of course, not sufficient to decide the question
of authorship in favour of duality any more than the other arguments
put forth; but the cumulative effect of all cannot be ignored; and
this is emphasized by one more, perhaps the strongest, argument, viz.:
(_d_) Stylistic and linguistic differences. In part I the style
is “relatively simple and direct, with constant regard to the
Hebrew principle of parallelism, whilst, in the second part, it is
ambitious, grandiloquent, or turgid, complicated and artificial,
often without parallelism.”[486] With regard to the linguistic
differences Holmes[487] has recently made a careful examination
of them, and the results he gives are not to be ignored; they are
far too detailed and technical to be dealt with here. But his own
conclusion is that the difference in style, presentation and tone,
together with those of language and diction, taken together with
other problems which present themselves, are such that “there are
considerable difficulties in the way of accepting the unity of
authorship which have not been met by its upholders. If we could
assume that the writer of the second part had studied the first part
carefully, and wished to write a supplement to it, both resemblances
and differences could be accounted for.”
But the arguments in favour of dual authorship have not been ignored
by the champions of unity of authorship; their position has been
well summed up by Toy thus: “It may be said that a logical unity
[between the two parts] is recognizable in the fact that the two
points of attack in the work, apostasy and idolatry, represent
the two great enemies of the later devout Judaism, and that a
consciousness of unity is shown in ix. 18, which makes the transition
from the first part to the second,[488] and has not the appearance
of an editorial insertion; that the similarity between i. 1 and
vi. 1 suggests that the same speaker is intended throughout; that
the non-mention of Wisdom after xi. 1 is due to the fact that the
author became so immersed in his historical sketch (which he meant
as an indictment of his own contemporaries) that he forgot the
philosophical thesis with which he set out; that the change of style
is a natural consequence of the change of the subject-matter, the
moral and philosophical discussions falling more easily into the form
of the Book of Proverbs, the dramatic scenes of the earlier history
readily suggesting legendary touches and highly-coloured language;
and that there are marked resemblances of tone and style in the two
parts—e.g. the rush of thoughts of the second part is paralleled in
the description of the wicked (v.) and of Wisdom (vii. 22-viii. 1),
and the religiously elevated and dignified tone of the first part
appears here and there in the second (cp. i. 13-15, ix. 1-6 with xi.
23-26, xii. 19, xvi. 7).” There is a great deal in what is here said;
it cannot be denied that it is very difficult to come to a definite
conclusion where the arguments on both sides are so strong. At the
same time it is worth remembering that some writers who advocate
unity of authorship recognize that their position is not impregnable;
Eichhorn, for example, was so struck by the differences between the
two parts that although he believed both were written by the same
author he nevertheless thought that the second was written in his
youth, the former in maturer years. Similarly, in one of the most
recent commentaries on the book, that of Goodrick, the author says:
“it is possible that a writer who had laid aside his work, dictated
in the beginning by irritation at apostasy and persecution, gave it
a new colour by adapting it to philosophic ideas which he had only
lately assimilated, and, its original interest having passed with the
times of persecution which suggested it, should endeavour to obtain
a vogue for it by the direct ascription of it to Solomon.”[489]
Goodrick is convinced of the unity of authorship, but thinks that the
“Solomonic chapters” (vii.-ix.) were added after the rest of the
book had been completed.
The possibilities of what the original facts of the case may have
been are numerous; upon the whole, while fully recognizing the
difficulties which surround the question, we do not feel convinced
that the advocates of unity of authorship have established their view
beyond possibility of doubt. Dual authorship seems to us the easier
and more natural solution, though we are not blind to the fact that
the easier way is not always the right one.
IV. THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE BOOK WAS WRITTEN
Whether our book was written by a single author, or whether each
of the two parts were of different authorship (see above, § III),
is immaterial so far as the aims and objects of the book are
concerned; for there is no doubt that it was of Jewish authorship
and that is was written for Jews[490]—Egyptian Jews—who were beset
by four special dangers, viz. Scepticism, Materialism, Idolatry and
Persecution. That the writer of each part was a Jew we have already
seen (§ I); that the book was written for Jews is clear enough from
the fact that it contains numerous allusions to the past history of
Israel which are no more than allusions; it is taken for granted
that the readers understand them without further explanation.
Moreover, historical characters are again and again spoken of without
mentioning their names; it is assumed that the readers will know who
is meant since the references are to persons who took a leading part
in the past history of Israel. It is, therefore, for the benefit
of his own people in Egypt, that the writer warns or encourages or
denounces, according to the particular danger combated.
(_a_) _Scepticism._
The old problem of the godly in adversity and the wicked in
prosperity was evidently exercising the minds of many Jews in
Alexandria to the detriment of both their faith and morals. Since
there was no divine justice, and life was short, they advocated
making the most of life while they enjoyed it, without considering
others. The writer, in ii. 1-20, describes the attitude of the
wicked, putting into their mouths the words which express this
attitude:
Short and sorrowful is our life,
And there is no remedy when a man cometh to his end,
And none was ever known that returned from Hades.
Because by mere chance were we born,
And hereafter we shall be as though we had never been....
Come, therefore, and let us enjoy the good things that now are;
And let us use creation with all earnestness as youth’s
possession.
Let us fill ourselves with costly wine and perfumes ...
Let us oppress the righteous poor,
Let us not spare the widow,
Nor reverence the hairs of the old man grey for length of
years....
We were accounted of him as base metal,
And he abstaineth from our ways as from uncleannesses.
The latter end of the righteous he calleth happy;
And he vaunteth that God is his father.
Let us see if his words be true,
And let us try what shall befall in the ending of his life.
For if the righteous man is God’s son He will uphold him,
And He will deliver him out of the hand of his adversaries....
This attitude the writer combats by asserting first that the wicked
will not escape punishment:
Therefore no man that uttereth unrighteous things shall be
unseen;
Neither shall Justice, when it punisheth, pass him by.
For the counsels of the ungodly shall be searched out,
And the report of his words shall come unto the Lord
For the punishment of his lawless deeds ... (i. 6-11).
But the writer declares, further, that not only in this life shall
the wicked be punished, but in the next world as well, while the
godly will then be recompensed. He says of the wicked that:
They knew not the mysteries of God,
Neither hoped they for wages of holiness,
Nor did they judge that there is a prize for blameless souls.
Because God created man for incorruption ... (ii. 21-24).
Then follows the well-known passage concerning the blessedness of the
righteous:
But the souls of the righteous are in the hands of God ...
(iii. 1-9),
and in the verses that follow (iii. 10 ff.) the writer describes the
torment of the wicked in the world to come. The true way to prepare
in this world for the next is by the acquisition of Wisdom:
For her true beginning is desire of instruction;
And the care for instruction is love of her;
And love of her is observance of her laws;
And to give heed to her laws is the assurance of incorruption;
And incorruption bringeth near to God;
So then the desire of Wisdom promoteth to a kingdom
(vi. 17-20).
One purpose, therefore, of the book is to bring the godless sceptics
among the Jews to a better frame of mind; and this is done mainly by
setting forth the doctrine of immortality, and retribution or reward
in the world to come.
(_b_) _Materialism._
Closely connected with the preceding was a second danger, that of
Materialism, the combating of which was another purpose that the
writer had in view in writing his book. In a passage already referred
to, which contains the words put by the writer into the mouth of the
ungodly, the existence of this danger is seen from the following
words:
Let us fill ourselves with costly wine and perfumes;
And let no flower of spring pass us by.
Let us crown ourselves with rosebuds, before they wither,
Let there be no meadow without traces of our proud revelry.
Everywhere let us leave tokens of our mirth,
Because this is our portion, and our lot is this (ii. 7-9).
For these materialists the writer has the same message as for the
sceptics:
The ungodly shall be requited as they reasoned (iii. 10).
They had reasoned that fulness of this life’s enjoyment was their
portion and their lot; so it shall be; but they are warned of what is
to come hereafter:
They shall come, when their sins are reckoned up, with coward
fear;
And their lawless deeds shall convict them to their face
(iv. 20; and cp. v. 1-14).
It is by means of the doctrine of immortality that the writer
seeks to combat these dangers of scepticism and materialism. The
recognition of this truth of a life hereafter is wisdom (see vi.
17-20 quoted above).
(_c_) _Idolatry._
That a further object of the book is to utter a warning against
idolatry is obvious from what is said in chapters xiii.-xv.; but
whether the writer has in view mainly the Gentiles among whom he was
living or the renegades of his own race, is differently answered by
commentators. Probably both are in the writer’s mind. At any rate,
his polemic against idolatry is very thorough; he regards it as the
cause of all kinds of evil:
For the devising of idols was the beginning of fornication,
And the invention of them the corruption of life ...
And all things confusedly are filled with blood and murder,
theft and deceit,
Corruption, faithlessness, tumult, perjury.
Disquieting of the good,
Ingratitude for benefits received,
Defiling of souls, confusion of sex.
Disorder in marriage, adultery and wantonness.
For the worship of those unnameable idols
Is the beginning and cause and end of every evil ...
(xiv. 12-31).
From the words that follow it would seem that in this passage, at
any rate, it is apostate Jews which the writer has in mind:
For their worshippers either make merry unto madness, or
prophesy lies,
Or live unrighteously, or lightly forswear themselves;
For, putting their trust in lifeless idols,
They wickedly swear false oaths, and look not to be harmed
But for both sins shall the just doom pursue them,
Because they had evil thoughts of God by giving heed to idols,
And swore unrighteously in deceit, despising holiness ...
(xiv. 28-31).
For such a particularist as the writer of the second part of our book
the words, “because they had evil thoughts of God” could only refer
to apostate Jews, for he would not contemplate the Egyptians with
their animal-worship as even thinking of God; the same would apply to
the words “despising holiness.”
(_d_) _Persecution._
Lastly, the writer wrote with the purpose of comforting and
encouraging his people in face of persecution which they were
suffering from the Egyptians; as Gregg rightly points out, the Jews
must have been suffering from pressure from without, for “nothing
else will account for the intensity of the writer’s hatred of Egypt,
which he gratifies as he lingers over the bondage of the Israelites,
and labours the contrast between the fortunes of oppressors and
oppressed (x. 16 ff., xi. 1 ff., xvi.-xix.). History repeats itself,
and he regards the study of history as the best remedy for national
depression. If it was in respect of its divinities that Egypt was
smitten in the time of Moses, and if idolatry is not only folly
but the cause of all social and civic decadence (xiii.-xv.), the
suppressed conclusion is that the Egypt which still harries the
resident Jews and has not yet repented of its beast-worship, will
once again bend before Israel.”[491]
V. THE INFLUENCE OF THE BOOK ON ST. PAUL
There are a large number of passages in the Pauline Epistles in
which the influence of our book is to be discerned; to quote all the
passages from Wisdom and the corresponding ones in the Epistles would
be out of the question here; but a few examples may be given in order
to show how necessary the study of this book is for the New Testament
student.
In ii. 23, 24 a doctrine of the Fall is touched upon which reflects
the Jewish ideas on the subject current at the time:
Because God created man for incorruption,
And made him an image of His own proper being;
But by the envy of the devil _death entered into the world_,
And they that belong to his realm experience it.
With these words should be compared the two following passages:
Romans v. 12, “Therefore, as through one man _sin entered into the
world, and death through sin_; and so death passed unto all men, for
that all sinned”; cp. 1 Corinthians xv. 21, 22.
In iii. 8 it is said of the righteous departed that:
They shall judge nations, and have dominion over peoples;
And the Lord shall reign over them for evermore.
This reminds one forcibly of St. Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians vi. 2,
3:
Or know ye not that the saints shall judge the world...? know ye
not that we shall judge angels...?
In both these cases it is, of course, possible that the similarity
exists solely because in both sets of passages current Jewish ideas
find expression; in the following one, however, it is difficult
to believe that it did not influence St. Paul when he wrote the
well-known words in Ephesians vi. 11-20, beginning: “Put on the whole
armour of God”; the passage in Wisdom is v. 17-20:
He shall take His jealousy as complete armour,
And shall make the whole creation His weapons for vengeance
upon His enemies:
He shall put on righteousness as a breastplate,
And shall take judgement unfeigned as a helmet;
He shall take holiness as an invincible shield,
And shall sharpen stern wrath as a sword.
It is probable that the writer of this had in mind Isaiah lix. 17:
“And He put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of
salvation upon His head; and He put on garments of vengeance for
clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloke”; but while this passage
was no doubt the original inspiration of both Wisdom v. 17-20 and
Ephesians vi. 11-20, one cannot read these two latter without feeling
convinced that St. Paul knew and utilized the Book of Wisdom. On the
other hand, regarding the somewhat intricate subject of “the elements
of the world,” which is referred to more than once both in Wisdom and
by St. Paul, while one would hesitate to assert definitely that the
latter was influenced by the former it offers a good illustration of
the need of studying St. Paul’s writings in the light of this book.
To show what we mean it will suffice to put the respective passages
in parallel columns, and the reader will at once see the connection:
Wisdom vii. 17: “For He hath Colossians ii. 8: “Take heed lest
given me unerring knowledge there shall be any one that
of the things that are, to maketh spoil of you through
know the constitution of the his philosophy and vain deceit,
world, and the working of the after the tradition of
elements.” men, after the elements of
the world, and not after Christ.”
Wisdom xix. 18-21: “For the
elements changed their order Colossians ii. 20: “If ye died with
one with another....” Christ from the elements of the
world, seek the things that are
Wisdom xiii. 2, 3: “But whether above, where Christ is....”
fire, or wind, or swift air, or
circling stars, or raging water, Galatians iv. 3: “So we also,
or luminaries of heaven, they when we were children, were
thought (all) were gods that held in bondage under the
rule the world. And if elements of the world.”
through delight in their beauty
they took them to be gods, Galatians iv. 8, 9: “Howbeit at
let them know how much that time, not knowing God,
better than these is their ye were in bondage to them
Sovereign Lord....” which by nature are no gods;
but now that ye have come
to know God, or rather to be
known of God, how turn ye
back again to the weak and
beggarly elements, whereunto
ye desire to be in bondage over
again?” (cp. Heb. v. 12;
2 Pet. iii. 10, 12).
Whatever may be meant here by “the elements of the world,” it is
clear that St. Paul is combating a false doctrine regarding belief in
elemental spirits; and for the study of this subject recourse to the
Book of Wisdom is imperative. An interesting parallel is that between
Wisdom ix. 15:
For a corruptible body weigheth down the soul,
And the earthly frame lieth heavy on the mind that is full of
cares,
and 2 Corinthians v. 1: “For we know that if the earthly house of
our tabernacle be dissolved, we have a building from ...,” and
verse 4: “For indeed we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being
burdened....”
And once more, in Wisdom xi. 23 it is said:
But Thou hast mercy on all men, because Thou hast power to do
all things,
And Thou overlookest the sins of men to the end that they may
repent.
We are at once reminded of St. Paul’s words in Romans ii. 4: “Or
despisest thou the riches of His goodness and forbearance and
long-suffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to
repentance?” (cp. Rom. xi. 32).
Still more striking is the following:
Wisdom xv. 7: “For a potter, Romans ix. 21-23: “Or hath
kneading soft earth, laboriously not the potter a right over the
mouldeth each vessel for clay, from the same lump to
our service: nay, out of the make one part a vessel unto
same clay doth he fashion both honour, and another unto
the vessels that minister to dishonour? What if God,
clean uses, and those of a willing to show His wrath,
contrary sort, all in like manner; and to make His power known,
but what shall be the endured with much longsuffering
use of either sort, the craftsman vessels of wrath
himself is the judge.” fitted unto destruction; and
that He might make known
the riches of His glory upon
vessels of mercy...?”
Space forbids us to do more than merely refer to other striking
resemblances and parallel passages which further illustrate the
influence of this book upon St. Paul, the three following subjects
would, however, repay careful study: the qualities of Wisdom—with
Wisdom vii. 22-viii. 1, ix. 6-17 compare 1 Corinthians ii. 6-16; the
doctrine of Predestination—with Wisdom xii., xv. 7 compare Romans
ix. 19-23; the question of heathen idolatry—with Wisdom xiii., xiv.
compare Romans i. 18-32.
The number of parallels, in the words of Thackeray, “between St. Paul
and Wisdom put it beyond doubt that the Apostle had at one time made
a close study of the apocryphal book. It was a book which no doubt
had a wide circulation at an early time, being the noblest product
of the pre-Christian Judaism of Alexandria, and combining in the
choicest language the broader views of Hellenism with the narrower
national spirit of Judaism: a combination which would make it of
special interest to the Apostle who sought to make himself all things
to all men that he might by all means gain some. ‘A practical man
with the sharp outlook for practical needs, Paul took what was good
wherever it offered itself.’ The influence is rather formal than
substantial. But in three, not unimportant points, the Apostle’s
views on idolatry, on predestination and on eschatology, he has been
to some extent affected by the matter, and not only the manner, of
the Alexandrian work.”[492]
For the further study of this subject the excellent book of
Thackeray’s, just quoted, is invaluable, as is also Grafe’s _Das
Verhältniss der Paulinischen Schriften zur Sapientia Salomonis_
(1892); see also Sanday and Headlam’s _Romans_, passim, and Hausrath,
_Der Apostel Paulus_, p. 23 (1872).
It is probable that the influence of _Wisdom_ is to be discerned in
other books of the New Testament; Gregg, _Op. cit._, pp. liv.-lvi.,
gives a long list of parallels between the book and St. John’s
Gospel; and for parallels with the epistle of St. James, see the same
author, pp. lix., lx. and Mayor’s _St. James_, p. lxxv.
CHAPTER X
The Second Book of Maccabees
[LITERATURE.—Grimm, _Exegetisches Handbuch zu 2. Makk._
(1853); Rawlinson, in Wace, II, pp. 539-648; Schlatter, _Jason
von Kyrene_ (1891); Willrich, _Juden und Griechen vor der
makkabäischen Erhebung_, pp. 76 ff. (1895); Schürer, II, iii. pp.
211-216, German ed., III, pp. 482-489; Kamphausen, in Kautzsch,
I, pp. 81-119; Büchler, _Die Tobiaden und die Oniaden im 2.
Makkabäerbuche_, pp. 282-398 (1899); Niese, _Kritik der beiden
Makkabäerbücher_ (1900); Moffatt, in Charles, I, pp. 125-154. See
also the articles by Westcott in Smith’s _Dict. of the Bible_
(2nd ed.), and Torrey in the _Encycl. Bibl._]
I. THE ORIGIN OF THE BOOK
In chapter ii. 19-32 of our book the writer explains in a preface
the origin, contents and purpose of his work. He tells us that an
account of all the heroic doings of Judas Maccabæus and his brothers
had been drawn up by Jason the Cyrenian in five books. He does not
say anything further about this Jason, and seems to take for granted
that his readers will know who is meant. Neither Jason nor his work
are mentioned elsewhere. However, as the writer says, his book is
an epitome of Jason’s larger work: “These things, then, which have
been made known by Jason the Cyrenian, we will essay to epitomize in
one volume” (ii. 23). The writer says further in his preface (verses
30, 31): “To enter into details, and to indulge in long discussions,
and to be curious in particulars, is the part of the original author
of the history; but to strive after brevity of expression, and to
avoid a laboured fulness in the treatment, must be granted to him
who puts the material into a new form.” These words plainly imply
that the writer utilized Jason’s history as his sole source, and that
he confined himself to an abridgement of what Jason had written.
His choice of excerpts was made on the principle that they must be
interesting; for, as he says a little earlier in his preface (verses
24, 25): “For having in view the confused mass of the numbers,
and the weariness which awaiteth them that would enter into the
narratives of the history, by reason of the abundance of the matter,
we were careful that they who choose to read may be attracted....” He
desires, therefore, to make his epitome popular by its attractiveness.
Judging from the book itself, it is evident that on the whole the
writer adheres to his intention of being simply and solely an
epitomist; that is to say, the words are as a rule, but not always,
copied straight from Jason, though there are certainly cases where
these are summarized. The want of unity, and the rather haphazard way
in which events are jotted down, fully supports the writer in saying
that he is merely an epitomist. At the same time, the writer had,
as we shall see later, a special purpose of his own, owing to which
there are some exceptions to this general rule.
But since our book relies for its main facts almost solely on Jason’s
history, which is thus to a considerable extent reflected in this
later work, it is pertinent to inquire whether any indications are
to be discerned in it regarding the sources which Jason used in
compiling his history. That he cannot have used the First Book of
Maccabees will be seen when we discuss the relationship between 1 and
2 Maccabees in a later section. No indication of any other literary
sources are given in the book; and since Jason’s history cannot have
been written very long after the Maccabæan struggle (probably B.C.
120-100), he must in all likelihood have composed his history from
oral sources. “The character of the history of which 2 Maccabees
is the abridgement can best be explained by supposing that its
author was a contemporary of men who had taken part in the Maccabæan
struggle; that he was obliged to depend mainly on oral accounts;
that he did not receive his information directly from those who had
themselves taken part in these events, but only after it had passed
through other hands; and that he was often unequal to the task of
criticizing and arranging the material thus obtained.”[493]
It is well to mention here, however, that the epitomizer must in some
instances have embellished and enlarged some of the material he used
(see below, § III); so that the question has always to be kept in
mind whether, and in how far, the epitomizer touched up for his own
purposes any given passage.
II. THE CONTENTS OF THE BOOK
Prefixed to the book are two letters purporting to have been
addressed by the Jews of Palestine to their brethren of the
Dispersion; but as these have nothing to do with the book itself, and
are evidently not part of the original work, they do not concern us
at present, and will be dealt with separately (§ VI).
The period of history covered by the book begins shortly before the
accession of Antiochus Epiphanes to the throne (B.C. 175), and goes
down to the year B.C. 161.
The book opens, as pointed out in the previous section, with a
preface by the epitomist in which he explains the method he has
adopted in the abridged history that is to follow (ii. 19-32).
In iii. 1-39 an account is given of how Heliodorus, the king’s
chancellor, was sent to seize the treasure in the Temple, but failed
owing to the miraculous appearance of a “terrible rider,” accompanied
by two young men, “beautiful in their glory and splendid in their
apparel,” by whom Heliodorus was scourged. He returns, discomfited,
to the king; but testifies to all men “the works of the most supreme
God which he had seen with his own eyes.” In the section which then
follows (iii. 40-iv. 50) the writer describes the sordid intrigues
on the part of aspirants to the high-priesthood at this time.[494]
With chapter v. commences the history of the Maccabæan struggle which
began with the profanation of the Temple and the attempt on the part
of Antiochus Epiphanes to hellenize the Jews by force; this, together
with some account of the persecution which followed, and especially
the story of how seven brothers and their mother were martyred, is
told in v. i-vii. 42. The rest of the book deals with the details
of the Maccabæan struggle: the rising-up of Judas Maccabæus and his
first successes (viii. 1-36); an account of the death of Antiochus
Epiphanes (ix. 1-29); the recapture of Jerusalem and the dedication
of the Temple (x. 1-8); further successes of Judas Maccabæus and
especially the capture of Gazara, when the Jews were aided by five
men from heaven, splendidly arrayed and sitting on horses with golden
bridles (x. 9-38); the defeat of Lysias, and a patched-up peace (xi.
1-38); more fighting, after which Lysias is again forced to make
terms of peace (xii. i-xiii. 26); three years’ peace, followed by an
attack on the part of Nicanor which results in his defeat and death
(xiv. i-xv. 36). The book then closes with a short and somewhat
_naïve_ epilogue by the epitomist (xv. 37-39).
III. COMPARISON BETWEEN 1 AND 2 MACCABEES
That the writers of these two books cannot have used the same sources
becomes very obvious when one compares together the large portions of
each which run parallel.[495] In fact, the first thing that strikes
one in comparing the two is the difference in aim of the compilers
and the contrast there is in their manner of presentation. The
writer of 1 Maccabees is, as we have seen,[496] a sober and reliable
historian, mostly accurate, who presents his facts without bias in
a businesslike, impartial way, and therefore inspires confidence.
The epitomist of 2 Maccabees, on the other hand, has utilized his
sources for a different purpose; his aim is not so much to write
history as to glorify the Jews, so he chooses episodes which will
serve this purpose. Martyrdoms are described, sometimes with painful
realism, to show the constancy of the Jews in suffering when they
are called upon to do this for their faith. The writer desires,
moreover, to inculcate certain religious truths, chief among which
is God’s solicitude for His people; so that he loves to dwell upon
the marvellous appearances of heavenly messengers sent by God to
succour His people at critical moments. How far these accounts are
due to Jason and how far to the epitomist is a difficult question;
but if, as there is reason to believe, Jason’s work was compiled
not long after the events they record, there is little time for
that growth of the miraculous which so often accompanies stories
when they are repeated and handed down, and which is characteristic
of much that is recorded in 2 Maccabees. In this case, a good deal
of the embellishment with which our book abounds, in contrast with
1 Maccabees, would have to be put down to the imagination of the
epitomist. And there are one or two facts which tend to support this
supposition; he says in his prefatory remarks that his intention
is only to give an outline of the events he is about to chronicle,
“leaving to the historian the exact handling of every particular,”
and that he has no intention of “filling in the outlines of our
abridgement”; but, as a matter of fact, he does on certain occasions
give minute details, and in most cases these are found in passages
which illustrate the special aims which he has in view. Again, he
confesses that he writes with a view to attracting; it will be no
injustice to him to say that his idea of attractiveness consists in
recording what is sensational. In both these cases it is, of course,
quite possible that the material in all its details comes from
Jason—for the epitomist is not afraid of contradicting himself—but
when one remembers the aim of the latter the possibility of the other
alternative must be conceded, the more so in that the epitomist does,
on the face of it, give us his own ideas at times. Here is a good
example:
I beseech, therefore, those that read this book, that they be
not discouraged at such calamities [he has been describing a
peculiarly cruel case of martyrdom], but to reflect that these
punishments were not for the destruction but for the chastening
of our race. For, indeed, that those who act impiously be not let
alone for any length of time, but suffer retribution immediately,
is a sign of great kindness. For in the case of the other nations
the Sovereign Lord doth with long-suffering forbear, until that
He punish them when they have attained to the full measure of
their sins. But in our case He hath determined otherwise that
His vengeance may not fall on us afterwards when our sins have
reached their height. Wherefore He never withdraweth His mercy
from us; yet though He chasteneth His own people with calamity,
yet doth He not forsake them. Howbeit, let what hath been said be
a reminder to ourselves. And after these few words we must come
back to our narrative (vi. 12-17).
It should also be remarked that the doctrine of retribution here
put forth, and the teaching on prayers for the dead (xii. 43, 45),
and on the intercession of the departed saints (xv. 11-16), and the
doctrine of the resurrection of the body (vii. 11, 22, 23, xiv. 46),
are all doctrines which belong more specifically to a somewhat later
time than Jason’s history. For these reasons we are justified in
believing that a not inconsiderable amount of matter in our book must
be assigned to the epitomist.
But the superiority of 1 Maccabees is equally evident on comparing
with it those many passages of 2 Maccabees, forming of course
the bulk of this book, in which the same events are recorded in
each book. To go in to the details of these would be out of place
here, recourse must be had to the commentaries for the study of the
subject; but one good example may be referred to; if one compares
1 Maccabees v. 1-68 with the parallel account of the events given
in 2 Maccabees x. 14-38, xii. 10-45, one is inevitably led to the
conclusion that the orderly narrative of 1 Maccabees contrasted
with the confused records of 2 Maccabees stamps the former as the
more reliable; and the same applies to a number of other instances.
This conviction is strengthened when one comes across obvious
mistakes in 2 Maccabees; one example may be given: in 2 Maccabees
x. 37 it is said that “they slew Timotheus who was hidden in a
cistern,” yet later, in chapter xii., a good deal is recorded about
Timotheus’ activity against the Jews. And lastly, the question of the
inferiority of 2 Maccabees is placed beyond further doubt[497] by the
historical errors of an obvious character found in it. Here again we
must refer our readers to the commentaries for details, while merely
pointing to a few instances, viz. ix. 5-29; compare v. 22, ix. 29
with what is said in xiii. 23; and cp. xiii. 22 with 1 Maccabees vi.
49, 50 and Josephus, _Antiq._, XII, ix. 5; xi. 1-15; cp. xiv. 1 ff.
with 1 Maccabees vii. 1 ff.
IV. THE HISTORICAL VALUE OF 2 MACCABEES
But in spite of what has been said it is not to be supposed that 2
Maccabees is wholly without historical value. If, as is probably the
case, the sources upon which it depends were themselves compiled,
in the main, from the accounts of eye-witnesses of the events
chronicled, this fact in itself counts for something; for example,
the following description is not without interest and certainly
reads as though told by one who was present: “But at dawn on the five
and twentieth day some young men belonging to the Maccabæan army,
burning with indignation because of these blasphemies, stormed the
wall like men, and furious with passion hewed down everyone whom they
met. Others in the meantime had followed them up by an encircling
movement and had set fire to the towers, thus kindling fires and
burning the blasphemers alive, while yet others burst open the gates
and let in the rest of the band, and thus took possession of the
city. And they slew Timotheus who was hidden in a cistern, and his
brother Chæreas, and Apollophanes” (x. 35-37). Or, again, the graphic
details given of the episode described in xii. 35 must evidently
have come originally from one who had witnessed it: “But a certain
Dositheus, belonging to the Tubieni,[498] a horseman and vigorous,
took hold of Gorgias and, seizing his cloke, dragged him along by
main force, intending to take the accursed man alive; but one of the
Thracian horsemen bore down upon him and disabled his shoulder, so
Gorgias escaped to Marisa.” These and other passages of a similar
character containing vivid touches, such as are not likely to have
been supplied excepting by eye-witnesses, have a distinct value of
their own. A point of importance in this connection is the fact that
for some five or six years preceding the accession to the throne of
Antiochus Epiphanes 2 Maccabees is the only existing source, see iii.
i-iv. 6; this passage contains a number of details, the historical
reliability of which there is no reason to doubt. The book also gives
a good deal of information supplementary to that of 1 Maccabees for
the subsequent period of about ten years (B.C. 176-B.C. 166), cp. 2
Maccabees iv. 7-vii. 41 with 1 Maccabees i. 10-64.
The final period treated of (B.C. 166-161) also supplements 1
Maccabees in many particulars and is not without value.
While upon the whole, therefore, the historical worth of our book is
not to be rated very highly, it can be of real use in supplementing
what is recorded in 1 Maccabees, though it must be used with caution
and discrimination.
V. THE PURPOSE OF THE BOOK
In reading our book it very soon becomes evident that it was written
with the special purpose of emphasizing some religious truths, and
this with the object of upholding orthodox Judaism and worship.
The predominating religious bent comes out clearly on reading such
a passage as vi. 12-17, already quoted (see also ii. 19, 20, xii.
43-45), and on noticing how everything that has to do with religion
is extolled. Thus, the references to the Temple are numerous, as
well as those to the altar, e.g., x. 1-3: “And Maccabæus and they
that were with him, the Lord leading them on, recovered the temple
and the city.... And having cleansed the sanctuary they made another
altar of sacrifice ...”; cp. further, ii. 22, iii. 12, v. 15, etc.;
again in xiii. 14 the people are exhorted “to contend nobly even
unto death for laws, temple, city, country ...”; in like manner are
mentioned the sabbaths (vi. 11, viii. 26, xii. 38), the feasts of
Tabernacles (x. 6 f.), Pentecost (xii. 31), Dedication (i. 9, 18,
ii. 16, x. 5-8), Purim (xv. 36), and the feast in celebration of
the death of Nicanor (xv. 36). Regarding this latter feast and the
feast of Dedication Torrey says: “Many scholars since Ewald have
remarked the prominence given in the plan of the book not only to
the feast celebrating the death of Nicanor, with the institution of
which the whole history comes to an end, but also to the feast of
the re-dedication of the temple, the description of which closes
the first half of the book, the passage x. 1-8 apparently being
removed for this purpose from its proper place. The account of the
institution of the Nicanor feast would have been a most natural point
for Jason to bring his book to a close, in any case. This would have
been just the kind of ending best suited to his general purpose....
The author’s aim not being that of a historian, there was no need for
him to go on and narrate the death of Judas; his purpose was fully
accomplished without that. The transposition of x. 1-8, however, is
probably to be attributed to the epitomist who saw how the plan of
the book could thus be made subservient to his more definite aim,
increased significance being thereby given both to the Nicanor feast
and to the feast of the Dedication. These were _the two Maccabæan
feasts_, by the observance of which the Jews of the Diaspora could
share, as in no other outward way, in the national glory of that
struggle.”[499]
This emphasizing of the national unity on the basis of religion and
worship was, we may well believe, in the author’s mind as well as in
that of the epitomist. His denunciation of those who are unfaithful
to the national religion (cp. iv. 13-17, xii. 39-42) only emphasizes
this still further.
Another feature in the religious attitude very prominent in this
book is the stress laid upon divine interposition; and here it is
noticeable that both the direct intervening of God is contemplated as
well as the accomplishment of His purposes by intermediary agents.
As illustrative of the former we may refer to ix. 5 where it is said
in reference to Antiochus Epiphanes that “the All-seeing Lord, the
God of Israel, smote him with a fatal and invisible stroke”; again
in xii. 28: “But calling upon the Sovereign Who with might breaketh
in pieces the strength of His enemies, they got the city into their
hands ...”; cp. further x. 1, xi. 13, xii. 11, xiii. 15. On the other
hand, there are some striking instances of a belief in intermediate
agencies, the most noteworthy being that of the “terrible rider”
accompanied by two young men who opposed Heliodorus and prevented him
from despoiling the Temple treasury (iii. 22-30); but there are other
examples in the book, see x. 29-31, xi. 6-11.
Lastly, brief mention must be made of the advanced teaching on the
resurrection which was evidently one of the truths which was coming
to be more and more definitely and emphatically taught as a tenet
of orthodox Judaism in the second half of the second century B.C.;
the important passages on this teaching are worth quoting, for there
is no other pre-Christian Jewish book which puts forth the doctrine
of the resurrection of the body more definitely. In vii. 9 one of
the martyrs addresses his persecutor thus: “Thou miscreant, thou
dost send us away out of this present life, but the King of the
world shall raise us up, who have died for His laws, unto an eternal
renewal of life.” Another martyr, after having had his limbs cut off,
is made to say: “From heaven I possess these; but for His law’s sake
I count them as nothing, and from Him I hope to receive them back
again” (vii. 11). And yet a third martyr says: “It is good for them
that die at the hands of men to look for the hopes of God that we
shall be raised up again by Him. But thou,” he says to his tormentor,
“thou shalt have no resurrection to life” (vii. 14). In xii. 43-45
not only is this doctrine taught, but its truth is substantiated by
Judas’ action in offering sacrifices and prayers for the dead:
“And he made a collection, man by man, to the sum of two thousand
drachmas of silver; and he sent this to Jerusalem for a sin-offering,
acting therein well and honourably, for he was bearing in mind the
resurrection. For if he were not expecting that the fallen would rise
again, it would have been superfluous and senseless to pray for the
dead. And if in doing this he was looking for the splendour of the
gracious reward which is laid up for them that have fallen asleep
in godliness, holy and pious was the thought. Wherefore he made a
propitiation for them that had died that they might be released from
their sin” (cp. xiv. 46).
VI. THE INTEGRITY OF THE BOOK
There is one portion of our book which neither belonged to Jason’s
history nor yet to the epitomist, viz. i.-ii. 18. This comprises two
letters which must be considered separately.
_The first letter_, i. 1-9. This purports to have been written by the
Jews of Jerusalem to their brethren throughout Egypt exhorting them
to observe the feast of the Dedication. It begins with a greeting
and a prayer that God may incline the hearts of the readers to serve
Him faithfully and keep His Law. Then follows the date at which the
letter was written, i.e. B.C. 143, after which the real object of the
letter finds expression; the readers are reminded of the original
institution of the feast of Dedication, namely after the Temple had
been polluted by Antiochus Epiphanes; “and we offered sacrifice
and meal-offering, and we lighted the lamps [this was the central
ceremony of the celebration], and we set forth the shewbread”; after
which the letter closes with the words: “And now see that ye keep the
days of the feast of tabernacles of the month Chislev.” To understand
these final words one must read x. 5-8: “Now on the same day that
the sanctuary had been profaned by aliens, upon that very day did
the cleansing of the sanctuary take place, even on the twenty-fifth
day of the same month, which is Chislev. And they kept eight days
with gladness in the manner of the feast of tabernacles, remembering
how that, not long before, during the feast of tabernacles they had
been wandering like wild beasts in mountains and caves. Therefore
bearing wands wreathed with leaves, and fair boughs and palms, they
offered up hymns of thanksgiving to Him that had prosperously brought
to pass the cleansing of His own place. They ordained also with a
public order and decree, for all the nation of the Jews, that they
should keep these ten[500] days every year.” So that this new feast
was observed as something parallel, in its joyfulness, to the feast
of Tabernacles (_Succôth_) which was also an eight-day feast, but
observed in the month Tishri (= October).[501]
The interpretation of this letter given above regards the date
mentioned in i. 10_a_ as belonging to the second letter[502]; there
are objections to this, but it seems the best way of dealing with
what is in any case a difficult point.
We see no reason why this letter should not be the fragment of a
genuine record, added by the epitomist himself.
_The second letter_, i. 10-11. 18. The date prefixed to this letter
is 188 of the Seleucid era, i.e. B.C. 124. Like the former letter
this also purports to have been written by the Jews[503] of Jerusalem
to their brethren in Egypt for the purpose of urging them to keep
the feast of the Dedication; but it has the special object “of
demonstrating at length its historical significance, indicating
at the same time in other ways the analogy between the Maccabæan
period and the other principal epochs of the nation’s life.”[504]
The Antiochus whose death is described in i. 13-17 is not Epiphanes,
concerning whose death an entirely different account is given in ix.
1-29,[505] but far more probably, as Torrey has shown, Antiochus VII
Sidetes.[506] This, like the first letter, may be regarded as having
been prefixed by the epitomist from some genuine record; at any rate,
the arguments against this view are not strong enough to exclude the
possibility of its being correct. The extraordinary stories which
the letter contains undoubtedly constitute a difficulty in regarding
it as genuine (i. 20-22, 31-34, ii. 1-12), but it is quite possible
to regard these as Midrashic comments on Old Testament texts written
for the purpose of showing that the institution of the feast of
the Dedication was the logical outcome of Old Testament precedent
and teaching. Torrey has rightly pointed out that “one feature of
the writer’s demonstration deserves especial notice, namely the
extent to which it is based on the conception of the Dedication as a
_restoration of the sacred fire_ to the altar and the temple.[507]
Evidently at that time this idea had a most prominent place (perhaps
the central place) in current Jewish thought regarding the origin
and meaning of this feast.”[507] It is perhaps this idea which is
reflected in the name of the feast given by Josephus, “the feast of
lights,”[508] and by its usual designation in the Talmud, “the Feast
of Illumination,” though in the first instance no doubt these names
had reference to the lamps lighted on each day of the feast, eight
on the first day, and one less on each succeeding day. However this
may be, if the stories referred to were originally Midrashic comments
there is no reason why they should not have been incorporated in a
letter from Jews to Jews.
Both these letters were originally written either in Hebrew or
Aramaic; and if, as we do not see sufficient reason to doubt, the
epitomist prefixed them to his book, his doing so, considering that
they emphasize the need of carrying out a religious ceremony, would
have been a natural proceeding on his part when one remembers the
leading characteristic of his book as pointed out above.
Although, therefore, these two letters do not belong to the book they
may reasonably be regarded as having been prefixed by the epitomist.
Whether there are other portions, in the body of the book which the
epitomist got from sources other than Jason’s history is a difficult
question to which it does not seem possible to give a definite answer.
VII. THE DATE AND ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF THE BOOK
There is scarcely anything in the book itself which gives us any
indication as to when it was written, the advanced doctrine of the
future life (in a non-apocalyptic book) and the tendency to ascribe
divine activity among men to intermediate agencies alone suggesting
a comparatively late date. On the other hand, it is practically
certain that Philo was acquainted with the book, for in his work
_Quod omnis probus liber_ (Mangey, ii. 45_a_) a description is given
of the way in which in time past the godly have suffered at the hands
of persecutors, which forcibly recalls the words in 2 Maccabees
concerning Antiochus Epiphanes.[509] Nothing more specific as to date
can, therefore, be given beyond saying that it was probably written
shortly before the beginning of the Christian era.
There is nothing in the book which points to its being a translation;
it was manifestly written in Greek (with the exception, of course,
of the two prefixed letters) as already Jerome saw.[510] “The style
is extremely uneven; at times it is elaborately ornate (iii. 15-39,
v. 20, vi. 12-16, 23-28, vii., etc.); and again, it is so rude and
broken up as to seem more like notes for an epitome than a finished
composition (viii. 19-26).”[511] In all probability the book was
written in Alexandria.
VIII. THE INFLUENCE OF THE BOOK ON NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS
In only one instance can the influence of our book be seen directly
in the New Testament, namely in Hebrews xi. 35 ff., where we
read: “Women received their dead by a resurrection; and others
were tortured, not accepting their deliverance; that they might
obtain a better resurrection; and others had trial of mockings and
scourgings....” On comparing with this the whole of 2 Maccabees
vi., vii. one cannot fail to see that the descriptions there given
influenced the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews here; we may
quote, for example, vi. 19 where, in speaking of the martyrdom of
Eleazar, it is said: “But he, welcoming death with renown rather than
life with pollution, advanced of his own accord to the instrument of
torture ...” (cp. also verse 28). Again, in vii. 23 the mother of the
seven martyred sons says: “Therefore the Creator of the World, Who
fashioned the generation[512] of man and devised the generation[512]
of all things, in mercy giveth back to you again your spirit and your
life”; and in verse 29 she says: “Fear not this butcher, but, proving
thyself worthy of thy brethren, accept thy death, that in the mercy
of God I may receive thee again with thy brethren” (cp. vii. 1, 7, 9,
14). In Hebrews xi. 38, once more, the words “wandering in deserts
and mountains and caves, and in the holes of the earth,” are in part
repeated from 2 Maccabees x. 6: “They were wandering in mountains and
in caves after the manner of wild beasts.” In all these passages the
similarity of the Greek words is in each case very striking.
CHAPTER XI
The Book of Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah
[LITERATURE.—Fritzsche, in _Exegetisches Handbuch zu den
Apokryphen_ (1851); Kneucker, _Das Buch Baruch_, (1879); Gifford,
in Wace, II, pp. 241-286; Schürer, II, iii. pp. 188-195, German
ed., III, pp. 460-467; Rothstein, in Kautzsch, I, pp. 213-225;
Whitehouse, in Charles, I, pp. 569-595. See also the articles
by Marshall, in Hastings’ _Dict. of the Bible_, Bevan, in the
_Encycl. Bibl._, and Toy, in the _Jewish Encycl._]
I. SHORT ACCOUNT OF THE BOOK, AND ITS CONTENTS
This short pseudepigraph is placed in the Septuagint after the Book
of Jeremiah, and before Lamentations, owing to which it is quoted
sometimes by the Church Fathers as though it were part of that
book.[513] In some of the Greek manuscripts the Epistle of Jeremiah
follows Baruch without a break; in the Vulgate, and, following it,
the English Versions, it is marked as chapter vi. of Baruch. Swete
says that “Baruch and the Epistle occur in lists which rigorously
exclude the non-canonical books.”[514] We shall consider the Epistle
separately. There was a considerable literature which arose and
circulated both before and after the beginning of the Christian
era[515]; our book belongs to this literature. It purports to have
been written by Baruch, the friend of Jeremiah, in Babylon during
the Captivity; and after it had been read there “in the hearing
of Jechonias the son of Joakim, king of Judah, and in the hearing
of all the people” (i. 3, 4), it was sent to Jerusalem to be read
there (i. 14); with it was also sent a collection of money to the
high-priest Joakim for the purpose of defraying the expenses of
sacrifices (i. 6-10); the people in Jerusalem are also asked to pray
for Nabuchodonosor, king of Babylon, and for his son, Baltasar, as
well as for the exiles (i. 11-13). This forms the introduction to the
book. Then follows what purports to be the Book of Baruch itself and
this consists of two parts:
i. 15-ii. 12: this, which fully bears out the description given of
it in i. 14 as a book of confession, begins with an ascription of
righteousness to God, after which follows a confession of sin; the
past history of the nation is recalled to show that in spite of God’s
mercy the people were disobedient to Him and forsook Him; for this
reason they are justly suffering for their sins in that they are in
subjection to the nations round about them.
ii. 13-iii. 8: a prayer to God for mercy forms the content of this
section; but it falls into three divisions; first, a prayer in the
real sense of the word (ii. 13-19); then, an historical survey which
is largely based on Old Testament passages, especially from the Books
of Daniel, Jeremiah and Deuteronomy (ii. 20-35); and, lastly, another
prayer combined with confession (iii. 1-8).
So far the book is written in prose, the remainder is in poetry, and
consists of two quite independent pieces:
iii. 9-iv. 4: this is a fragment of the Wisdom Literature type;
it tells of the reason why Israel is exiled in the land of their
enemies, namely because they have forsaken “the fountain of Wisdom”;
the people are, therefore bidden to find out where Wisdom is (iii.
14); the mighty rulers of the earth, the wealthy, the skilled—these
have not known where Wisdom is to be found (iii. 15-21), nor has it
been attained by those of Canaan or Teman (iii. 22, 23); the giants
of old knew not Wisdom, they perished in their foolishness (iii.
24-28); no one has gone up to heaven to fetch her, nor gone over the
sea to find her, because they do not know her paths (iii. 29-31);
only He that knows all things knows Wisdom, and He Who has found out
all the ways of knowledge has given Wisdom to Israel, and this Wisdom
is the Law that endures for ever (iii. 32-iv. 1); therefore Israel is
exhorted to make use of his possession (iv. 2-4).
iv. 5-v. 9: this piece is strongly reminiscent of the second half
of Isaiah; it consists of two parts, the first one being an ode of
comfort spoken by Jerusalem, personified as a mother, to her children
in captivity (iv. 5-35); the second is an ode of comfort spoken to
Jerusalem who is bidden to rejoice, for her children are to be led
back to her from their captivity (iv. 36-v. 9).
II. EXAMINATION OF THE COMPONENT PARTS OF THE BOOK
It will thus be seen that the book consists of three independent
documents: i.-iii. 8, iii. 9-iv. 4, iv. 5-v. 9; and these three
differ very much in content. We must now examine them a little more
closely in order to ascertain their nature, purpose, and approximate
date.
(1) _The Book of Confessions_ (i-iii. 8).
It is stated in i. 2 that the book was written in the “fifth year”;
presumably by this is meant the fifth year after the capture of
Jerusalem; but Jerusalem was captured in B.C. 597, and again in
B.C. 587 (2 Kings xxiv. 12-16; 2 Kings XXV. 9), so that our book
is assigned either to B.C. 592 or B.C. 582. Both these dates
are, however, impossible, for two indications in the book show
clearly that the writer utilized the Book of Daniel (early in the
Maccabæan era). Thus, the mistake made in Daniel v. 13, etc.,
where Belshazzar is regarded as the son of Nebuchadnezzar,[516] is
repeated in our book, i. 11, 12; so far as is known this mistake
does not occur elsewhere, the natural presumption, therefore, is
that the writer of Baruch got it from Daniel, especially when, in
the second place, we find that both the confession and prayer which
make up the whole section, are based upon Daniel ix. 7-19, of which
it is an elaboration. Further, that the section cannot belong to
the Maccabæan era is sufficiently clear from i. 11, 12, where the
people are recommended to pray for their oppressor and to acquiesce
in his sovereignty over them; such a recommendation on the part of
a Jew during the Maccabæan era, when the people were fighting not
only for their country and their homes, but for their religion and
for the honour of God, is quite unthinkable. The transference to
an earlier historical period than that at which a writer lived is
a literary device constructed for one of several reasons, whether
for dramatic effect, as in the case of the Book of Judith, where
likewise the reign of Nebuchadnezzar is chosen; or for reasons of
prudence, as probably in the present case; or because a somewhat
parallel set of historical conditions is offered; whatever the
reason may be, the procedure is not uncommon and need not occasion
surprise. In the present case there are strong grounds for believing
that the actual period at which this section of our book was written
was during the struggle of the Jews against the Roman power during
the years, A.D. 66-70; the reasons for this conclusion are briefly
these: Nebuchadnezzar and his son were, according to the belief of
the writer of our book, the kings under whom the conquered Jews
lived; their names might well stand, therefore, for Vespasian and his
son Titus. The Jews are bidden to submit to their conquerors (“Thus
saith the Lord, Bow your shoulders to serve the king of Babylon,
and remain in the land that I gave unto your fathers,” ii. 21); this
accords with what we know was the attitude of the Pharisees towards
their Roman conquerors, for they did their best to quiet the people
and get them to submit to Rome.[517] Again, the sufferings of the
Jews during the war with Rome, described by Josephus,[518] seem to be
indubitably referred to in ii. 2, where reference is made to “great
plagues, such as never happened under the whole heaven, as it came
to pass in Jerusalem”; in ii. 3, where it is said that every man ate
the flesh of his own son and of his own daughter; and in ii. 24, 25,
where it is said that “the bones of our kings, and the bones of our
fathers are taken out of their places; and, lo, they are cast out to
the heat by day, and to the frost by night; and they died in great
miseries by famine, by sword, and by pestilence.” It is also said in
i. 2 that Jerusalem was burnt with fire.[519]
An argument against this late date is that in ii. 17 we have a
conception of the future life which is the normal Old Testament
belief on the subject, viz.: “For the dead that are in the grave,
whose breath is taken from their bodies, will give unto the Lord
neither glory nor righteousness”; it is difficult to explain how such
a conception can have found expression at the date postulated above,
unless we suppose that we have in ii. 17-19 an interpolation by one
of the Sadducæan party; it is certainly striking that in verse 19
there is a repudiation of the doctrine of the merits of the fathers,
which plays so large a part in the later Jewish theology; the verse
runs: “For we do not present our supplication before Thee, O Lord our
God, for the righteousness of our fathers, and of our kings”; if in
these last words there is an implicit reference to David the passage
would be the more strikingly Sadducæan. That the book as a whole,
however, can be Sadducæan is out of the question; if for no other
reason on account of the penitential spirit contained in it which is
quite un-Sadducæan; but that an interpolator has added these verses
in the interests of his own school of thought is by no means an
impossible explanation of the difficulty (but see below).[520]
The period to which reference is intended in the book, namely the war
with Rome, being A.D. 66-70, the fifth year after the destruction of
Jerusalem, mentioned in i. 2, will give us the precise date of this
portion of our book, viz. A.D. 74 or 75.
But while the actual date of this portion of the book may thus
be regarded as fixed, it is necessary to point out that there
are cogent reasons for believing that the writer has made use of
earlier material. The fact is that the whole piece i. 15-iii. 8
reads remarkably like an extract of a liturgical character; it has
all the leading notes which we find so elaborated in the modern
Jewish Liturgy, a Liturgy the essential elements of which go back to
pre-Christian times.[521] Thus, in the passage under consideration
the three outstanding notes are: Praise, Confession of sin
(disobedience in not observing the divine commandments), and Prayer
for forgiveness (i.e. the turning away of God’s wrath). These all
represent what have become technical liturgical terms, viz. _Berakah_
(“Praise,” lit. “Blessing”), _Widdui_ (“Confession”), _Selichah_
(“Forgiveness”). When one studies the modern Jewish Liturgy one sees
that it is just in its oldest portions that these three elements are
so prominent; for example, the daily Morning Prayer has not only its
special psalm of Praise for each day, but contains a large number
of _Berakôth_ (“Blessings”) which precede this; while in the great
_Amidah_[522] prayer, which forms one of the central parts of the
service, the prominent elements are Confession of sin and Prayer for
forgiveness. It will be instructive to illustrate this by putting in
parallel columns a few quotations from Baruch and the _Amidah_:
_Baruch_ _Amidah_
To the Lord our God belongeth Blessed art Thou, O Lord our
righteousness (i. 15) ... God, and God of our fathers ...
we have sinned before the Lord, the great, mighty and reverend
and disobeyed Him, and have God, the most high God, Who
not hearkened unto the voice of bestowest loving-kindnesses,
the Lord our God, to walk in the and possessest all things....
commandments of the Lord that He Cause us to return, O our Father,
hath set before us (ii. 17, 18). unto Thy Law; draw us near,
... Let thy wrath turn from O our King, unto Thy service,
us; for we are but a few left and bring us back in perfect
among the heathen, where Thou repentance unto Thy presence.
hast scattered us. Hear our Blessed art Thou, O Lord,
prayer, O Lord, and our petition, Who delightest in repentance.
and deliver us for Thine Forgive us, O our Father, for we
own sake.... O Lord, look have sinned; pardon us, O our
down from Thine holy house, and King, for we have transgressed;
consider us; incline Thine ear, for Thou dost pardon and forgive.
O Lord, and hear ... (ii. 13-17). ... Look upon our affliction
and plead our cause,
and redeem us speedily for Thy
name’s sake.... Sound the great
horn for our freedom; lift up
the ensign to gather our exiles,
and gather us from the four
corners of the earth.
A detailed consideration of the two shows many more points of contact
between them and proves a very close relationship; but this is not
the place to go into great detail. Two other points must, however,
be touched upon. We suggested above that the passage ii. 17-19 might
be an interpolation in the interests of Sadducæan teaching, namely
to emphasize the old traditional belief regarding the departed,
and to repudiate the doctrine of the merits of the fathers; but
the possibility (perhaps even the probability) must be recognized
of verse 17 having been original, and having first been altered in
accordance with the developed Pharisaic teaching, and then having
finally been restored to its original form by a Sadducee. Verse 19,
on the other hand, would then have to be regarded as a Pharisaic
interpolation altered by the Sadducee, because there would be no
point in the repudiation of the doctrine of the merits of the fathers
unless the expression of this un-Sadducæan tenet had stood there
first; but it is not likely to have stood in the original form of
the section because the doctrine is a late one. It is especially
interesting and significant that the doctrines contained in these two
verses respectively should appear in close proximity in the _Amidah_;
let us place the two in parallel columns again:
_Baruch_ _Amidah_
For the dead that are in the Thou, O Lord, art mighty
grave, whose breath is taken for ever, Thou quickenest the
from their bodies, will give unto dead, Thou art mighty to save....
the Lord neither glory nor Yea, faithful art Thou to
righteousness (ii. 17). quicken the dead. Blessed art
Thou O Lord, Who quickenest
For we do not present our the dead.
supplication before Thee, O
Lord our God, for the righteous- Blessed art Thou, O Lord
ness of our fathers, and of our our God ... Who rememberest
kings (ii. 19). the pious deeds of the
patriarchs....[523]
The contrast here presented is the more striking on account of the
essential similarity of the two pieces in other respects.
The second point which further supports our contention that this
section is liturgical in character is that it contains references to
the deliverance from Egypt, an invariable element in all forms of
the Jewish Liturgy; this occurs three times in the Baruch section;
and in the modern Jewish Liturgy it is found, among other places, in
the “Benedictions” following the _Shema_,[524] which immediately
precedes the _Amidah_. “From Jeremiah xxiii. 7 it seems probable that
reference to the deliverance from Egypt in the public services goes
back to the time of the first Temple.”[525]
From what has been said, therefore, the supposition seems justified
that the section i. 15-iii. 8 is an extract from the Temple Liturgy
which has been enlarged by interjected clauses and adapted to the
special circumstances of the time, viz. A.D. 74 or 75.
(2) _A Sage’s Words of Encouragement_ (iii. 9-iv. 4).
The entirely different style of writing of both this and the
concluding piece from that of the one which we have just considered
is of itself sufficient to show that there is a difference of
authorship. There is no reference to calamity as in the earlier
piece; here it is said of the Israelites that they have “waxen old
in a strange country” (iii. 10). The contrast between the mental
disquietude of i. 15-iii. 8 and the calm of this section is very
marked. The assumed condition of the nation, however, is that of
the former section, the nation is in the land of exile. The writer
is an imitator of the ancient Sage or Wisdom writer; his word of
consolation to the people is that they should learn where Wisdom is
(iii. 14); but this Wisdom is “the Law that endureth for ever” (iv.
1); he bids his people reserve this for themselves and not impart it
to outsiders; “Give not thy glory to another, nor the things that are
profitable unto thee to a strange nation” (iv. 3). Finally, a spirit
of contentment breathes in the words: “O Israel, happy are we; for
the things that are pleasing to God are made known unto us” (iv. 4).
Now, although the indications of date are not very definite here,
one or two points of guidance do appear: there is peace, and the
people have been settled for a good while in their exile; therefore
the section belongs to a period some time after the destruction of
Jerusalem. The writer is a student of the Law, and he writes on
Wisdom, and rejoices in the knowledge of the things that are pleasing
unto God, and exhorts others to do the same. All these things lead
one to suggest that the scene is one of those academies in Babylonia,
such as that at Nehardea, which received a considerable influx of
Jews from Palestine after the great calamity of A.D. 70; in these
they studied in peace and reared up students of the Law. This section
(iii. 9-iv. 4), therefore, may quite possibly have been written under
these conditions at the commencement of the second century A.D. or
even later, though it must have been written not later than about
A.D. 150 or thereabouts as the book is quoted by Athenagoras and
Irenæus.[526]
Both the sections so far considered were probably written in Hebrew,
or in the case of the second in Aramaic; Marshall has given good
grounds for the latter contention.[527]
(3) _A Message of Good Cheer_ (iv. 5-v. 9).
This section consists of two divisions, but both have the same
object in view and both are in all probability by the same author.
The object of them is to cheer the Jewish people who are still
pictorially represented as being in captivity (iv. 24). The thought
and diction of the first division (iv. 5-35) are largely based on
those of the Old Testament; Jerusalem is represented as the mother
of the nation who tells her children why they are suffering, namely
through their own folly; she does not wish to plunge them into
despair by reminding them of this, but only to witness to the
facts for her children’s good; she has given herself to prayer,
and therefore is convinced that a new era will soon dawn for them.
The four times reiterated “Be of good cheer” (iv. 5, 21, 27, 30)
distinctly shows the purpose of the poem.
The last division (iv. 36-v. 9) is a message of comfort to Jerusalem
herself put into the mouth of God; she is bidden to rejoice because
her children are about to return “from the east to the west at the
word of the Holy One” (iv. 37). The similarity between this piece and
the eleventh of the Psalms of Solomon is striking,[528] so much so
that it is worth while putting the parallel passages in juxtaposition:
_Baruch_ _Psalms of Solomon_, xi.
O Jerusalem, look about thee Stand on the height, O Jerusalem,
toward the east, and behold thy children,
And behold the joy that cometh From the east to the west,
unto thee from God. gathered together by the
Lo, thy sons come, whom thou Lord (verse 3).
sentest away,
They come gathered together
from the east to the west,
Rejoicing in the glory of God
(iv. 36, 37).
Put off, O Jerusalem, the garment Put on, O Jerusalem, thy
of thy mourning and glorious garments;
affliction, Make ready thy holy robe ...
And put on the comeliness of the (verse 8).
glory that cometh from God
for ever.
Cast about thee the robe of the
righteousness which cometh
from God ... (v. 1, 2).
For God hath appointed that High mountains hath He abased
every high mountain, into a plain for them;
And the everlasting hills should The hills fled at their entrance.
be made low, The woods gave them shelter
And the valleys filled up, to as they passed by;
make plain the ground,
That Israel may go safely in the Every sweet-smelling tree God
glory of God. caused to spring up for them,
Moreover the woods and every That Israel might pass by in
sweet-smelling tree the visitation of the glory
Have overshadowed Israel of their God (verses 5-7).
(v. 7, 8).
The Psalms of Solomon belong, as we have seen,[529] to about the
middle of the last century B.C., and on the supposition that the
Baruch passage is dependent on the Psalm (Ryle and James),[530] a
_terminus a quo_ is given for the date of the former. The indications
in the Baruch passage, however, point to a much later date, and we
see no reason to regard the date of this piece as different from that
of the section iii. 9-iv. 4, the background of each is a peaceful
present and a calm future; the beginning of the second century A.D.
may be assigned as approximately the date of this section too.
The original language of the whole of iv. 5-v. 9 is recognized by
most scholars as having been Greek from the beginning.
THE EPISTLE OF JEREMIAH
[LITERATURE.—Gifford, in Wace, II, pp. 287-303; Rothstein, in
Kautzsch, I, pp. 226-229; Ball, in Charles, I, pp. 596-611.]
In the Vulgate this Epistle appears as the sixth chapter of Baruch;
but in the Septuagint it is treated as a separate book and comes
after Lamentations with the inscription “Letter of Jeremy,” and a
title[531] which runs: “Copy of a letter which Jeremiah sent to those
who were about to be led captives by the king of the Babylonians, to
give them a message, as it had been commanded him by God.”
It has been thought by some that this letter was suggested by the
letter referred to in Jeremiah xxix. 1,[532] which was sent “from
Jerusalem unto the residue of the elders of the captivity, and
to the priests, and to the prophets, and to all the people, whom
Nebuchadnezzar had carried away captive from Jerusalem to Babylon”;
but this seems unlikely because the contents of the letter here
spoken of are given in verses 4 ff. of the same chapter. The letter
before us is a not very skilfully composed polemic against idolatry
based to a large extent upon Jeremiah x. 1-16, Psalm cxv. 4-8, and
Isaiah xlix. 9-19; it is also reminiscent of such passages as Wisdom
xiii. 10-19, xv. 13-17.
That the writer is seeking to check a real danger, namely that of
many of the Dispersion Jews falling into idolatry, seems certain from
the obvious earnestness with which he writes; and this, indirect as
it is, seems to be the only indication of the date of the writing.
For if this danger was real it implies that the time was one of
peace for the Jews. We know from 2 Maccabees what was the result of
seeking to force an alien religion upon them, but from this letter
it is clear that the real danger lay in the allurement which the
idol-worship had for many of the Jews, and that their choice was
free. In times of stress loyalty to their religious beliefs and
customs was always characteristic of the Jews, while when peace and
quietude and prosperity was enjoyed by them laxity in religious
matters arose. The implication, therefore, is that this letter
was written at a time when the Jews were in the enjoyment both of
religious liberty and peaceful surroundings. Another implication is
that this period of quiet had lasted some time; the danger of which
the letter bears witness would have taken some time to develop.
Then further, there is no reference to the great calamity of A.D.
70, which affected the Dispersion Jews very deeply from a religious
point of view, and which would therefore have been referred to, one
may presume, had the letter been written some time soon after this
catastrophe. The possibility of its having been written some time
before this must be allowed; Marshall holds, for example, that it
was written during the first century B.C.[533]; and there is no
strong argument against this; the present writer prefers to date it
along with the two preceding sections of this book, though he fully
realizes the force of Cheyne’s words that “it is hardly possible
to fix the date exactly, and unsafe even to say that the epistle
was written before 2 Maccabees, the supposed reference to it in 2
Maccabees iii. 1 ff. being disputed.”[534]
The Epistle was, according to the opinion of most scholars, written
in Greek; Ball, with much ingenuity and learning, seeks to show that
it was written in Hebrew; but very ingenious as many of the instances
are which he brings forward to show that the Greek is a translation
of either the genuine Hebrew or, in other cases, of a corruption in
the Hebrew text, they are by no means always convincing; and while
it may be said that he has shown the possibility of its having
been translated from Hebrew, it can hardly be said that he has
demonstrated the probability of this. The Hebraisms it contains may
well be no more than what are characteristic of Hellenistic Greek. If
it could be proved that the epistle was written in B.C. 306, as Ball
holds, we should have to give up the idea of a Greek original; but in
this case we should be at a loss to know why it was not included in
the Hebrew Canon.
CHAPTER XII
The Ezra Apocalypse
(2 (4) Esdras)
[LITERATURE.—Volkmar, _Das Vierte Buch Esra_ (1863); Drummond,
_The Jewish Messiah_ (1877); Lupton, in Wace (1888); Kabisch,
_Das vierte Buch Esra auf seine Quellen untersucht_ (1889);
Schürer, _Op. cit._, II, iii. pp. 93-114 (1891) German ed. III.
pp. 315-335 (1909); Ball, in _The Variorum Apocrypha_; Bensly
and James, _The Fourth Book of Ezra; the Latin Version edited
from the MSS._, in “Texts and Studies,” III, 2 (1895); Charles,
_The Apocalypse of Baruch_, pp. lxvii.-lxxvi (1896); Gunkel, in
Kautzsch, II, pp. 331-401; Violet, _Die Esra-Apokalypse_ (4 Esra)
(1910 ...); Box, _The Ezra-Apocalypse_ (1912); Box, in Charles,
II, pp. 542-624.]
I. THE TITLE OF THE BOOK
As we shall see, chapters i. ii. xv. xvi. did not originally belong
to our book and are only found in the Latin Version (the Greek
Version is not extant). In the oriental Versions (Syriac, Ethiopic,
Arabic, Armenian) the book consists of only chapters iii.-xiv. In
the later Latin MSS. we often find that: “2 Esdras” = chapters i.
ii., “3 Esdras” = 1 Esdras of our Apocrypha, “4 Esdras” = chapters
iii.-xiv., and “5 Esdras” = chapters xv. xvi. of our book. The
reason, therefore, why the book is often referred to as 2 (4) Esdras
is because what in our Apocrypha is designated “2 Esdras” is in the
Vulgate entitled “4 Esdras.”[535]
The book is a pseudepigraph,[536] for although the name of Esdras
(Ezra) occurs in the title, it is obvious, as will be seen as we
proceed, that no part of the book can have been written by him. For
the reason of such false ascriptions of authorship, see above, pp.
200 ff.
Since the book consists of three independent writings it will be
necessary to consider each separately. We shall deal with the two
later additions first.
II. CHAPTERS i. ii.
These chapters, which tell how Ezra received the commission to
declare to the Jews their rejection by God, contains a curious
mixture of Jewish and Christian teaching; i. 4-27 speaks of the
deliverance from Egypt and the wanderings in the wilderness somewhat
after the manner of Psalm cvi. A number of other passages suggest a
mental atmosphere which is Jewish, notably i. 38-40, where it is said
that “a people that come from the east” will have for their leaders
the patriarchs and the prophets; the enumeration which follows
includes the names of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and those of the twelve
minor prophets. In another passage (i. 8) evil is threatened against
the Jews because they have been disobedient to the Law. On the other
hand, these chapters plainly tell of the rejection of the nation as
a whole, e.g. i. 7: “Let them be scattered abroad among the heathen,
let their names be blotted out of the earth; for they have despised
my covenant”; their heritage is to be given to others who have now
become the people of God: “Tell my people that I will give them the
kingdom of Jerusalem, which I would have given unto Israel.” This
“kingdom of Jerusalem” is the “new Jerusalem,” as is clear from the
concluding verses of the whole piece (ii. 42-48): “I, Esdras, saw
upon the mount Sion a great multitude, whom I could not number, and
they all praised the Lord with songs. And in the midst of them there
was a young man of a high stature, taller than all the rest, and
upon every one of their heads he set crowns.... Then said I unto
the angel: ‘What young man is he that setteth crowns upon them, and
giveth them palms in their hands?’ So he answered and said unto me:
‘It is the Son of God, Whom they have confessed in the world.’...”
There are, moreover, a number of passages which are obviously based
upon words in the Gospels, e.g.: “I gathered you together as a hen
gathereth her chickens under her wings” (i. 30, cp. Matt, xxiii. 37);
“I sent unto you my servants the prophets, whom ye have taken and
slain, and torn their bodies in pieces, whose blood I will require
[of your hands]” (i. 32, cp. Luke xi. 50, 51); “Ask, and ye shall
receive; pray for few days unto you, that they may be shortened; the
kingdom is already prepared for you; watch” (ii. 13, cp. Matt. vii.
7, xxiv. 22, xxv. 13, 32).
It seems, therefore, probable, that these chapters were written by a
Jewish-Christian, who compiled them from various sources. They are a
later addition to the body of the book, though they contain material
which is older. It is impossible to say when they were added, but
there can be no doubt that they were prefixed before chapters xv.
xvi. were added.
III. CHAPTERS xv. xvi.
These chapters form an appendix to the book itself; they consist of
denunciations against Egypt (xv. 5-27), Asia and Babylon (xv. 28-xvi.
17); while the remaining section, “The beginning of sorrows” (xvi.
18-78) is a prophecy of terrors and tribulation which are to come
upon the world; only the Lord’s elect shall ultimately be delivered.
The entire section is written in the style of the Old Testament
prophets, interspersed, however, with words and thoughts from the New
Testament; e.g.: “... he that occupieth merchandize, (let him be) as
he that hath no profit by it; and he that buildeth, as he that shall
not dwell therein; he that soweth, as if he should not reap; so also
he that pruneth, as he that shall not gather grapes; they that marry,
as they that shall get no children; and they that marry not, as the
widowed” (xvi. 41-44, cp. 1 Cor. vii. 29-31).
The chapters, therefore, partake to some extent of the character of
chapters i. ii., though the denunciation of the Jewish nation is
here quite absent. As to their date, Thackeray, following Hilgenfeld
(_Messias Judæorum_, p. 208) says they are placed “about A.D. 268 by
most critics; xv. 10-12 refers to the troubles of Alexandria under
Gallienus (260-268), when two-thirds of the population were destroyed
by a plague following upon a famine (Eusebius, _Hist. Eccles._,
vii. 21, 22). xv. 28-33 refers to the conquests of the Sassanidæ,
especially Sapor I (240-273), who overran Syria, but was repulsed
by Odenathus and Zenobia, the founders of Palmyra; they, in turn,
were defeated by Aurelian. xv. 33 describes the murder of Odenathus
at Emesa (266) by his cousin Mæonius. xv. 34 ff. refer to the
invasion of Asia Minor by the Goths and Scythians from the north of
the Euxine; Gallienus marched against them, but was recalled by the
revolt of Aureolus. xv. 46 alludes to the association of Odenathus in
the Empire, A.D. 264.”[537]
IV. THE COMPONENT PARTS OF CHAPTERS iii.-xiv.
Before we come to consider the contents of the various sections
composing our book it will be well to enumerate them, and to discuss
shortly the question of their authorship and date.
(_a_) _The Salathiel Apocalypse_ (iii.-x.); this is divided into four
Visions:
First Vision, iii. 1-v. 20.
Second Vision, v. 21-vi. 34.
Third Vision, vi. 35-ix. 25.
Fourth Vision, ix. 26-x. 59.
(_b_) _The Eagle Vision_ (xi.-xii. 39); the passage xii. 40-51 is not
part of the Vision.
(_c_) _The Vision of the Man rising from the Sea_ (xiii.).
(_d_) _An Ezra Legend_ (xiv.).
Whether all this matter is to be assigned to one or more authors is a
question concerning which a variety of opinions are held by scholars.
But on two points there is scarcely room for diversity of view; in
the first place, a great deal that occurs in the book is traditional
material which has been utilized by the writer; this applies more
especially to the eschatological portions; examples will be given
when we come to speak about these parts of the book. The sources
whence the writer of our book took this traditional material may well
have been, in all probability were, written ones; but the excerpts
which were made from such writings have been so interwoven with what
the writer himself composed that the attempt to indicate precisely
how much belongs to a particular source seems to us somewhat
precarious. At any rate, that the writer did utilize various sources
will not be doubted. Another point upon which there can scarcely be
disagreement is that the final form of the work is due to a redactor
who has brought the component parts of the book into a more or less
connected whole.
Coming now to speak of the date of the book it must be explained that
by this is meant the date at which the author wrote it. Since he used
traditional material much of the essence of the book goes back to
a time long anterior to that of the writer. Again, the book in its
present form, having been worked over by a redactor, is obviously
of a later date than that in which it left the original writer’s
hands. Furthermore, the study of the book makes it evident that the
different parts of which it is composed were not all written at
the same time. Even if the whole book (apart from i. ii. xv. xvi.)
is substantially the work of one author, there is no sort of doubt
that he must have written the different parts of it at different
times. Bearing these points in mind we turn first to the _Salathiel
Apocalypse_. In iii. 1 it is said that “in the thirtieth year after
the ruin of the city” (cp. iii. 29), Salathiel (= Shealtiel) was
in Babylon, and “thoughts came up over his heart for he saw the
desolation of Sion.” The writer looks back and recalls to his mind
the terrible catastrophe which befel his people long ago; it was in
the year B.C. 586 that Jerusalem was destroyed and the nation was
carried into captivity to Babylon. Thirty years after this Salathiel,
living in captivity, contemplated the ruin of the city and the
dire distress of his people. The writer chooses this episode and
writes in the name of Salathiel, because he sees in it a type of his
present experience; now again the city has been ruined, and he, like
Salathiel of old, contemplates the desolation of his people. Clearly
enough there is but one destruction, after that of B.C. 586, of
Jerusalem which can be meant here, namely that of A.D. 70 by Titus.
So that when the writer gives the thirtieth year after the ruin of
the city as that in which he experienced the visions he is about to
describe, the date of this portion of the book must be set down as
not later than A.D. 100.
Regarding the date of the Eagle Vision, it is generally agreed to
be about A.D. 96; the indications of date in the Vision are fairly
clear; we shall point out what these are when dealing with this
Vision.
The Vision of the Man rising from the Sea contains more of
traditional elements than any other part of the book, so that as
for as thought and conceptions are concerned it is probably the
oldest portion of the whole book; but as adapted by our author it
implies, as we shall see later, an historical situation prior to the
destruction of Jerusalem i.e. before, but not long before, A.D. 70.
The Ezra Legend in chapter xiv. belongs to the same period as the
Salathiel Apocalypse, viz. about A.D. 100.
We shall now proceed to examine the contents and teaching of these
Visions, and it will be best to take them in their chronological
order.
V. THE VISION OF THE MAN RISING FROM THE SEA.
This Vision is as follows[538]:
And it came to pass after seven days that I dreamed a dream by
night; and, behold, a wind arose from the sea, and it stirred
up all the waves thereof. And I looked, and behold [that wind
caused to arise up from the heart of the sea as it were the
form of a man. And I looked, and behold], that man flew with
the clouds of Heaven; and whithersoever he turned his face and
looked, everything quaked that was seen by him; and whithersoever
the voice from his mouth went, all that heard his voice melted
away,[539] like as wax melteth away when it feeleth the fire.
And after this I looked, and behold, a multitude of men, without
number, from the four winds of Heaven, were gathered together to
war against the man who had arisen from the sea. And I looked,
and behold, he cut out for himself a great mountain, and did
fly upon it. But I sought to see the region of the place out
of which the mountain had been cut; but I could not. And after
this, I looked, and behold, all those who had gathered together
against him to make war upon him, feared greatly; nevertheless
they dared to fight. And behold, when he saw the onslaught of
the approaching multitude, he neither raised his hand, nor took
hold of spear or other warlike weapon; but I only saw how he sent
forth from his mouth as it were a fiery stream, and from his
lips a flaming breath, and from his tongue he shot forth a storm
of sparks; and all these were mixed together, the fiery stream
and the flaming breath and the mighty storm.[540] And these fell
upon the approaching multitude, ready to fight, and burned them
all, so that suddenly nothing was seen of the immense multitude
but the dust of ashes and the smell of smoke. And I looked, and
was amazed. And after this I saw that man coming down from the
mountain and calling unto himself another, a peaceful, multitude.
And there drew unto him the faces of many men, some of whom were
glad, and some were sorrowful, and some were bound, and some were
leading others who were to be offered.
The writer’s interpretation of this Vision with which the rest of the
chapter is taken up, is as follows: The man who ascended from the sea
and flew with the clouds of Heaven is the Messiah; the innumerable
multitude of men who fight against him, and who are annihilated,
are the nations of the world; the great mountain which was cut out,
and concerning which the seer was in perplexity, is the heavenly
Jerusalem which came down from Heaven. The fiery stream, and flaming
breath, and storm of sparks represent the fire of the Law whereby
the enemies of the Messiah are annihilated. The peaceful multitude
which the Messiah called unto himself are the ten tribes gathered
out of the lands of the Dispersion. Those who were glad and those
who were sorrowful are respectively Jews and Gentiles coming to do
homage to the Messiah. Those who were bound were Jews who had been in
captivity; while those who were leading others to be offered, were
the heathen bringing Jews as an oblation to the Messiah, according to
the word of the prophet: “And they shall bring all your brethren out
of all the nations to be an oblation to Jehovah” (Isa. lxvi. 20).
Stress must be laid upon the fact that between the Vision itself
and the writer’s explanation of it there are some incongruities;
this, as Box truly points out (_Op. cit._, pp. 281 f.), “is a common
phenomenon in apocalyptic; the material employed by the apocalyptists
is often extremely old, and has been derived by the apocalyptic
writer from a tradition which was already ancient when he wrote.
The meaning of certain details in the fixed tradition which he
uses is not always clear to the apocalyptic writer himself. Hence
the lack of adjustment between certain features in the Vision and
the interpretation.... Thus, here the rising of the man from the
sea is explained (verse 52) as symbolical of the mysterious origin
of the Messiah (_My Son_), and the peaceable multitude as the lost
ten tribes. There are also features in the interpretation which
have nothing corresponding to them in the Vision itself, viz., the
internecine war of the nations before they band themselves together
against the Messiah (verses 31 f.), and the mention of the survivors
who are found ‘within my holy border,’ and whom the Messiah shall
defend (verses 48, 49).... Thus the first point to be noted is that
when the Vision first assumed a written form, the real significance
of many features in the original Vision was already lost, and was
obscured by a more or less artificially adjusted interpretation. In
other words, religious thought and outlook had long outgrown those
of the fixed tradition. It had become necessary to re-interpret the
latter to suit later conditions.” What the Vision and many of its
curious details really mean is an intricate, but very interesting,
question; we cannot, however, deal with this here, and must direct
those who desire further information on the subject to the following
works: Gunkel, _Chaos und Schöpfung in Urzeit und Endzeit_, pp.
64 ff. (1895); Volz, _Jüdische Eschatologie_, pp. 220 ff. (1903);
Gressmann, _Der Ursprung der israelitisch-jüdischen Eschatologie_,
pp. 349 ff.; Oesterley, _The Evolution of the Messianic Idea_, passim
(1908); Box, _Op. cit._, pp. 282 ff.
VI. THE EAGLE VISION
This Vision is too long to quote in full, but, put shortly, its
contents are as follows: In his vision the seer sees an eagle
ascending out of the sea, having twelve wings and three heads. The
eagle spreads her wings over all the earth, and the winds of heaven
blow upon her. Out of her wings eight smaller wings grow; but her
heads remain at rest. The middle head was greater than the others,
“yet rested it with them.” Then the eagle flew to reign over the
earth, and all the earth was subject unto her. And the seer heard the
eagle bid her wings not all to watch at once, but each in turn; “but
let the heads be kept until the end.” The voice which the seer heard
came not from the heads, but from the midst of the eagle’s body. Then
arose on the right side of the eagle one wing which reigned over
the earth, and then disappeared; likewise a second wing arose, and
reigned for long, then disappeared; but concerning this second wing a
voice declared that after it none should reign even half as long. All
the wings in turn arose, reigned, and then appeared no more. And now
the seer sees the little wings set up, on the right side, in order
to reign; some ruled, but disappeared almost at once, others rose up
as though to rule, but did not. Nothing remained now on the eagle’s
body but the three heads that rested, and six little wings. Two of
these latter divided themselves from the rest and remained under the
head that was upon the right side, the other four remained where they
were. Of these four one assayed to reign, but quickly disappeared,
then another vanished even more quickly; before the other two could
arise to reign the middle head awoke and united itself to the other
two heads which it then devoured. This head then ruled over all the
earth with much oppression; but, like the wings, it, too, suddenly
disappeared. There remained, however, the two heads, who also reigned
over the earth; but presently that on the right side devoured that
on the left. “Then,” the seer proceeds, “I heard a voice, which said
unto me, Look before thee, and consider the thing that thou seest.”
And he sees a lion which comes, roaring, out of a wood, and, speaking
with the voice of a man, upbraids the eagle for her cruel oppression,
and announces her approaching destruction, saying: “Therefore appear
no more, thou eagle, nor thy horrible wings, nor thy evil little
wings, nor thy cruel heads, nor thy hurtful talons, nor all thy
worthless body; that all the earth may be refreshed, being delivered
from thy violence, and may hope for judgement and mercy of him that
made her.” While the lion spoke thus with the eagle the last head
disappeared; and the two little wings which had detached themselves
and had gone over to it, arose and sought to reign, but “their
kingdom was small and full of uproar,” and they soon disappeared.
“Then the whole body of the eagle was burned, so that the earth was
in great fear.”
Thus the Vision; then follows the interpretation. The eagle who arose
from the sea, he is told, “is the fourth kingdom which appeared in
vision to thy brother Daniel.” In this kingdom twelve kings shall
reign; these are represented by the twelve wings. Of these kings the
second shall reign longer than any of the others. The eight smaller
wings represented eight kings “whose times shall be small, and their
years swift”; two of them shall perish when the “middle time” of the
kingdom comes, four shall be preserved until the approach of the
end, and two shall be kept until the end. The interpretation of the
three heads as given to the seer is that in the last days of the
kingdom the Most High will raise up three kings, who will renew many
things in the kingdom, and bear tyrannous rule. “And whereas thou
sawest that the great head appeared no more, it signifieth that one
of them shall die upon his bed, and yet with pain. But for the two
that remained, the sword shall devour them” (xii. 26, 27). The two
wings that detached themselves and went to the head on the right
are reserved for the end; for a short time they shall reign after
the last head has disappeared, but their reign shall be troublous.
The voice proceeding from “the midst of the body” means that “in
the midst of the time of that kingdom” there shall arise “no small
contentions, and it shall stand in peril of falling; nevertheless it
shall not then fall, but shall be restored again to its first estate”
(xii. 18). Finally, the lion is the “anointed one,” i.e. the Messiah,
Whom the Most High has kept to the end of days.
The Vision represents history veiled in symbolical garb; as in the
Vision of the Man rising from the sea, the seer’s interpretation does
not always harmonize with the contents of the Vision itself; this
is to be accounted for by the fact that a redactor made alterations
in order to bring the Vision into agreement with the course of
history as viewed from his, chronologically later, standpoint. As to
the meaning of the general historical outline of which the Vision
treats most scholars are agreed, but they differ as to details. The
following table shows, in the main, the bulk of learned opinion (cp.
Gunkel, _Op. cit._, p. 345):
_The Eagle_ = The Roman Empire, the eagle being the military
emblem of Rome.
_The Sea_ = The Mediterranean sea; the Roman Empire, “for the
Orientals, came up, as a matter of historical fact, from the sea,
and it is this fact which is doubtless in the apocalyptist’s
thought here” (Box).
_The Twelve Wings_ = Julius Cæsar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula,
Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vindex, Nymphidius, Piso.
The second wing, mentioned in xi. 13-17, “which bare rule a great
time,” symbolizes Augustus, who reigned for over fifty years.
_The three heads_ Vespasian, Titus, Domitian; the middle head
which is greater than the two others symbolizes Vespasian.
_The eight smaller wings_ = ?
_The two little wings_ (xi. 24) = Mucianus, proconsul of Syria,
and Tiberius Alexander, prefect of Egypt, according to Gunkel;
but he says that this interpretation is uncertain. These two
little wings are said to have remained under the head that was
upon the right side; this head symbolizes Domitian.
_The two heads that remained_ (xi. 34, 35) = Domitian and Titus,
the latter is said to have been murdered by the former.
That this interpretation is not in all points satisfactory becomes
clear as soon as it is studied in detail, and the same applies to
other interpretations that have been offered; but recently a new
solution has been put forth by Box which merits attention; we will
give it in his own words (_Op. cit._, p. 265):
“It may be assumed that in the original form of the vision[541] the
three heads represent the three Flavian emperors; the twelve wings
represent the six Julian emperors from Cæsar to Nero, reckoning
the wings by pairs. The present writer suggests that the reckoning
by pairs in the original vision was intended only to apply to the
twelve wings, and had a symbolical significance. The pairs served
to emphasize the greater dignity and power of the real emperors as
contrasted with the ephemeral rulers symbolized by the little wings.
In order to exaggerate the contrast the latter were intended to be
reckoned singly. The eight little wings represent, in the original
form of the vision, Vindex (March, 68), Nymphidius (a few months
later)—these disappeared about the same time as the last of the
twelve wings (end of Nero’s reign), as represented in our text (xi.
22). The middle four represent Galba, Otho, Civitis (died June, 69),
and Vitellius (died Dec., 69). The two little wings that were to
survive the last head probably signify Roman governors or generals
who were expected to claim the imperial throne at the last, or
possibly the two last members of the Herodian family, Agrippa II and
Berenice.... In its original form, then, the vision may date from
the closing years of Domitian’s reign (_circa_ 95 A.D.). But if the
editor did not incorporate it into his book—our Ezra-Apocalypse—till
120 A.D. or later (some time certainly in the reign of Hadrian),
what, it may well be asked, was the significance he himself attached
to the vision? He can no longer have identified the three heads with
the Flavian emperors, seeing that the reigns of these had already
long ended and the predicted deliverance had not yet come.” Box holds
that the Redactor identified the three heads with Trajan, Hadrian
and Lucius Quietus, the last of these being a favourite of Trajan
and regarded as destined for the throne. Further, according to Box’s
interpretation, the Redactor put a new meaning on to the “twelve
wings,” these being symbolic of the six Julian emperors, Galba, Otho
and Vitellius, together with the three Flavian emperors. There is
much to be said in favour of this hypothesis, though it will not be
denied that some difficulties still remain.[542]
VII. THE SALATHIEL APOCALYPSE
This portion of our book, of which it forms the bulk, is of a very
different character from those already considered. It consists of
four Visions. We retain the term “Vision,” as it is that usually
adopted, but they are rather _Dialogues_; the writer addresses God,
but is answered by an angel. The questions put by the former are
prompted by moral difficulties which trouble him; the answers are
intended to solve these difficulties.
_The First Vision_ (iii. 1-v. 19).
Salathiel, “the same is Esdras,” sees the desolation of Sion, and the
prosperity of Babylon. This incongruousness between the adversity
of God’s chosen people and the prosperity of the godless Gentiles
causes perplexity to the mind of the seer, and prompts him “to
speak words full of fear to the Most High.” In the thoughts which
follow it is noticeable, first of all, that the writer expresses a
sense of sin which was deeper than that of the traditional Jewish
teaching on the subject. Hitherto the tendency had been to regard
transgressions solely from the point of view of isolated acts; but
here the conviction is implied that such isolated sinful acts are
symptomatic of something far worse than temporary lapses would lead
one to suppose; from Adam onwards, it is now taught, the whole human
race has been steeped in sin; the existence not merely of sinful men
but of sinful humanity—the realization of this fact is what plunges
the writer into dark despair. Hence the sorrow and suffering in the
world: “For the first Adam, clothing himself with a wicked heart,
transgressed and was overcome; and not he only, but all they also who
were born of him. Thus disease was made permanent” (iii. 21, 22);
there is no hope in this world. Then a further thought comes into
the writer’s mind; sin is everywhere prevalent, but how is it that
while Israel suffers for sin the Gentiles are in such prosperity?
Nay, more, is there any other nation that knows God besides Israel?
And yet Israel is not rewarded! Let God, therefore, weigh the sins
of each in the balance. All men sin; yet assuredly Israel, if not
better, is not worse than the Gentiles; nevertheless, these prosper,
but Israel languishes. Then comes God’s answer, given by the angel
Uriel; it takes the form of calling upon the seer to do three things:
“Weigh me the weight of fire.”
“Measure me the measure of the wind.”
“Recall me the day that is past.”
But Esdras answers, who among the sons of man could do such things!
Then the angel says, if I had asked thee how many dwellings there
are in the heart of the sea, or how many springs in the source of
the deep, or how many ways above the firmament, or where is the
entrance to Hades, or the way to Paradise—with reason thou wouldst
have been unable to say; but I have asked thee only concerning things
within thine own cognizance, and thou canst give me no answer! Then
the angel concludes: “Thine own things, that are grown up with
thee, canst thou not know; how then can thy vessel [i.e. the body;
containing the soul] comprehend the way of the Most High” (iv. 10,
11). In other words, God’s ways are inscrutable. This does not
satisfy Esdras; so the angel proceeds to show him how foolish it
is for a mortal man to wish to penetrate into the divine secrets;
he would, in any case, be unable to understand them; “he only that
dwelleth above the heavens may understand the things that are above
the height of the heavens” (iv. 21). To this Esdras protests that
it was not in his mind “to be curious of the ways above,” but only
concerning such things as he sees daily before him. What he is unable
to understand—and here he reverts to his initial difficulty—is why
Israel should be afflicted, and in consequence the Law made of none
effect. Then he is told that a New Age is about to dawn upon the
world, and then all things will be made clear. On Esdras asking when
the New Age will come, and whether he will still be on the earth
then, the angel answers that he is unable to tell; but he recounts
the signs that are to precede the end. These are given in v. 1-12;
they are, in the main, the traditional and stereotyped eschatological
“signs.” Thus ends the first Vision.
_The Second Vision_ (v. 21-vi. 34).
The subject-matter of this Vision is the same as that of the
preceding. Why does Israel suffer at the hand of oppressors? The
angel replies by again showing Esdras that the ways of God cannot be
comprehended by man, but that in spite of what appears God’s love is
for His people. The seer then asks much about the coming of the End,
and is told that this will be brought about by God alone.[543] The
Vision concludes with a second enumeration of the signs of the End.
_The Third Vision_ (vi. 35-ix. 25).
Once more the problem which was the burden of the two first Visions
is reiterated, though put in a somewhat different form: if the
world was created for Israel’s sake, and if the world is steeped in
sin, why does Israel not enjoy his inheritance, why is the world
not subjected to Israel? “If the world hath indeed been created for
our sakes, why do we not possess the world for our inheritance? How
long shall this endure?” (vi. 59). The angel tells Esdras that this
present world is but a narrow and dangerous entrance which leads to
the wide world which is to come; it was, indeed, originally created
for Israel, but through Adam’s sin it has become a place of sorrow
and suffering, and therefore the righteous suffer with the wicked.
There follows then (vii. 26-44) a long eschatological description
which seems to have fallen out of its place, it breaks the course of
the argument here. In the glorious world which is to come, it then
continues, only those will be worthy to partake of its joys who have
fulfilled the Law; but who has truly done so? Who among mortals,
whether Jew or Gentile, has not been guilty of transgressing the
divine Law? The angel answers that there are some who are righteous,
but they are comparatively few; for them future joy is reserved.
The rest of mankind will perish. A long section then deals with
the subject of the state of the soul after death and before the
last Judgement. The righteous enter into bliss, but the wicked are
destined to suffer seven degrees of torment. These descriptions,
as Box truly remarks (_Op. cit._, p. 141), are “psychological in
character, and apparently portray the emotional experiences of
the soul through which it passes during the entire period of the
intermediate state. In its subtle delineation of the soul-life the
whole section is remarkable, and by the elevation and refinement of
its conceptions affords a striking contrast to similar descriptions
in other parts of the apocalyptic literature.”
It is then shown to the seer that there is no escape for sinners,
and he bitterly bewails the terrible fate hanging over the mass of
humanity. But the angel has no further comfort to give than that
there is more joy in heaven over the salvation of the few than
sorrow over the loss of the many. Not unnaturally this reply does
not satisfy the seer; he cannot think that the divine mercy and
love, which are so lavishly displayed in the natural world around,
should be so restricted in regard to souls hereafter. The reply to
his question suggested by this thought, viz., that this world was
made for the many, but the next for few, is so discouraging that
he ceases to inquire concerning the human race as a whole, and
restricts himself to his own race, the Jewish. But here again he is
told that only the righteous, among whom he is reckoned, can enjoy
felicity hereafter; he is bidden to refrain from further questionings
regarding the fate of the wicked; they have but themselves to thank
for their doom.[544] The seer reiterates his former objection; to
this a final reply is given: All the sorrow and suffering of this
world is due to the sins of men; there was a time, before men were
created, when none spoke against God, or disobeyed Him; but now men
are evil, and have become “corrupted in their manners” (ix. 19); only
a grape from the cluster, therefore, only a plant from the great
forest, shall, by God’s mercy, be saved. “Let the multitude perish
then, which has been born in vain; and let my grape be saved, and my
plant; for with great labour have I made them perfect” (ix. 22).
_The Fourth Vision_ (ix. 26-x. 59).
This Vision begins with a soliloquy concerning the Law which God
gave to the fathers, but they did not observe it any more than later
generations did; Israel must, therefore, perish; but the Law will
abide in glory. In the same way, the earthly Jerusalem must perish,
but the heavenly Jerusalem is eternal; upon this latter hope must be
fixed, for it is to be the joy of those blessed ones who shall gain
a glorious immortality in the world to come. The seer then recounts
a vision that he sees of a disconsolate woman who brought up an only
son, and he died on his wedding day. While the seer speaks with this
woman, he looks, and behold she vanishes, and in her place “there
was a city builded, and a place showed itself of large foundations”
(x. 27). The woman is the heavenly Jerusalem, her son is the earthly
Jerusalem. The heavenly reality is thus manifested to the seer,
and he is bidden to go and see “the beauty and greatness of the
building.... For thou art blessed above many, and with the Most High
art called by name, like as but few” (x. 55-57).
* * * * *
In these Visions, then, it will have been noticed that the problem
which figures in some of the later Psalms, and in the Book of Job,
as to why the righteous suffer and the wicked are in prosperity, is
reiterated; the solution given being that the righteous will come to
their own when they attain immortal life hereafter. The writer is
deeply pessimistic as far as this world is concerned; the universal
prevalence of sin which is ingrained in humanity through the fall
of Adam, and through which death, originally unnatural to man, has
come into the world, compels him to look upon the ultimate fate of
humanity as hopeless. Though an ardent Jew, he sees but little hope
even for himself or for his own people; the divine Law itself is of
no avail, for it cannot be truly observed; “he despairs of a life
of absolute obedience to the Law, even by Israel, not to speak of
the world. The unconscious and unexpressed cry of the book is for
a moral dynamic, which legalism could not supply.”[545] There is,
thus, an essential contradiction running through these Visions; on
the one hand, hope in the world to come, on the other, hopelessness
here and hereafter because all mankind is irretrievably lost through
sin. Nothing could better illustrate those alternating emotions which
incessantly stir the human heart: the voice of Conscience, and trust
in the Divine Mercy. If our writer’s heart remains dark to the end,
it is because his true instinct concerning sin is not balanced by an
equally true conception of God. At first sight it appears illogical
that, in spite of all that the writer has said, happiness hereafter
should be declared to be secured for a righteous remnant, among whom
he himself is included; the reason for this is, however, apparently
that God’s purpose in creating man for eternal life should not be
wholly frustrated.
In his eschatological teaching the writer of these Visions departs
from the older doctrines; “he does not look forward to a restoration
of the Jewish State, or a rebuilding of Jerusalem; nor to a renewed
and purified earth under the conditions of the present world-order.
His hopes are fixed on the advent of the new and better world
which will follow the collapse of the present world. Consequently
he anticipates merely the catastrophic end of the present
world-order—his theology does not allow of any intermediate Messianic
Age. The new Jerusalem which is to come will be the Heavenly City ...
which belongs to the future Age.”[546]
VIII. AN EZRA LEGEND
In chapter xiv. occurs the legend of Ezra re-writing the sacred
books. It tells of how Ezra, while sitting under an oak, heard the
voice of God “out of a bush,” telling him that he would soon be taken
away from men. He is told to set his house in order, to reprove his
people, to comfort the lowly, to instruct the wise, and to renounce
the life that is corruptible. Ezra expresses his readiness to do as
commanded; but he asks who there will be to admonish those who are
born after he is gone, for the world is in darkness and God’s Law is
burnt.[547] Then Ezra himself proposes that he should re-write the
Law “that men may be able to find the path, and that they who would
live in the latter days may live” (xiv. 22). He is then commanded
to prepare many tablets and to take five men with him who can write
swiftly; “and when thou hast done, some things shalt thou publish
openly, and some things shalt thou deliver in secret to the wise”
(xiv. 26). Ezra does as he is commanded after having asked for the
divine spirit to guide him; so that before he commences his work he
is given a cup to drink from, full of water, but the colour of it
like fire.[548] When he had drunk from this cup his heart poured
forth understanding, and wisdom grew in his breast, and his spirit
retained its memory. For forty days he dictated, and by the end of
this time ninety-four books were written by the five scribes. Then he
is commanded by the Most High to publish openly the first twenty-four
books that had been written, so that they might be read by the worthy
and the unworthy; but the last seventy he is told to keep in order to
deliver them to “such as be wise” among his people. This Ezra does.
Here the legend ends abruptly.
The twenty-four books refer to the canonical books of the Bible,
“the seventy secret books included, we may infer, not only the book
of _signs_ and the secret (apocalyptic) tradition associated with
the name of Moses, but many other apocalyptic books as well....
Thus, according to the representation of our chapter, Ezra, i.e.
the historical Ezra living in Jerusalem in the middle of the fifth
century B.C., was the restorer not only of the canonical books of
the Old Testament, but also of the large apocalyptic literature,
including some apocalyptic books which detailed visions and
revelations that had, ostensibly, occurred to himself.... This
amounts to a claim that the apocalyptic tradition occupies an
essential place in genuine Judaism. It claims for itself the great
names of Moses and Ezra, ‘the second Moses.’”[549] Box suggests that
the object of the publication of our book, and of associating it
with the name of Ezra, was to uphold, or to re-assert, the authority
of the apocalyptic literature, and thus gain for it “an officially
recognized place within Judaism as part of the oral tradition.” That
this was one of the objects for which the book was published seems
highly probable when it is remembered that the Jewish religious
authorities rejected the apocalyptic literature as a whole[550];
it was to be expected that the apocalyptists should make strenuous
efforts to secure the recognition of books which, as they believed,
recorded genuine tradition, and which in any case taught much that
was edifying.
Like the apocalyptic literature in general, this story of a divine
revelation accorded to Ezra to re-write all the sacred books which
had been destroyed, enjoyed considerable recognition among the Church
Fathers; it was known not only as included in our book, but as an
independent tradition. For references to it in patristic writings see
Bensly and James, _Op. cit._, pp. xxxvii. f.
* * * * *
Every reader of the Ezra-Apocalypse must, as he reads, be very soon
struck by the many reminiscences of Pauline thought and teaching
which it contains. But as the book is later than almost all the
books of the New Testament this is not the place to deal with this
important and fascinating subject; to those who might wish to pursue
the study of the connection between 4 Esdras and Pauline teaching on
such doctrines as the Fall and Sin, the Law, Election, Justification
and Eschatology, etc., no better English book could be recommended
than Thackeray’s _The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish
Thought_ (1900).
GENERAL INDEX
(_Pages printed in thick type indicate passages in which the subject
in question is dealt with in detail._)
Aaron, 149, 150
_Abinu Malkenu_, 391
Abtinas, house of, 194
Abubus, 437
Achikar, 195
— the Wise, story of, 349 ff.
Achior, 373
Adam, 523
— and Eve, Life of, 218, 223
Adaptation of belief, 20
Additions to Daniel, =385-397=
— to Esther, =398-403=
— —, Authorship of, 403
— —, Date of, 403
Aesculapius, 396
Agrippa II, 521
Ahasuerus, 399
Akiba, Rabbi, 143, 192, 194
Alcimus, 430 f.
Alexander Balas, 419, 432
— Jannæus, 393
— the Great, 12 ff., 16, 17, 30, 33, 52, 69
— —, conquests of, 12 f., 29, 424
— —, division of his empire, 424
— Zabinas, 436
Alexandria, 17, 50, 458, 512
—, centre of Jewish Dispersion, 17
—, the Jews in, 53 f.
Allegorical interpretation of Scripture, 57
Allegorization of ancient myths, 22
Allegorizing of Greek myths, 57
Allegory, 230 f.
— in Proverbs, 72
Almsgiving, 361
—, means of atonement, 272 f.
Altars to unknown gods, 23
_Am-haarez_, 93
_Amidah_, 500 ff.
Amyrtæus, 51
Angelology in Apocalyptic Literature, 110
—, Jewish, 38, 39
— of the Essenes, =43= f.
Angels, 102
—, doctrine of, in Additions to Daniel, 301 ff.
—, —, Ecclesiasticus, 300 ff., 340
—, —, 2 (4) Esdras, 303 ff.
—, —, Esther, 302
—, —, Ep. of Jeremiah, 302
—, —, 2 Maccabees, 302 f.
—, —, Prayer of Manasses, 302
—, —, Tobit, 301
—, Sadducæan doctrine of, 147 f.
_Anima Mundi_, 86
Antiochus Epiphanes, 34, 35, 77, 134, 156, 423, 427, 481 f., 488, 493
— —, death of, 482
— —, his attempt to stamp out Judaism, 425 f.
— Eupator, 428, 432
— Sidetes, 437, 491
— the Great, 430
— VI, 420
— VII, 420
Antonines, The, 13
Apamæa, 437
Apocalypse of Moses, The, 218
Apocalyptic Movement, 40, =90-95=, 160
— —, beginnings of the, 90 ff.
— books, authorship of, 199 ff.
— —, Hebrew and Aramaic originals lost, 200
— Jewish, 90 f.
— Literature, 91, =198-223=
— —, doctrinal teaching of, =101-110=
Apocalyptic Literature, place claimed for in orthodox Judaism, 530
— — rejected by Pharisees, 199
— — teaching on Individualism, 102 f.
— — — Particularism, 103 f.
— — — Universalism, 103 f.
— —, Supernatural colouring of, 97 f.
Apocalyptists, The, =95-112=, 161, 205 f., 530
—, —, asceticism of, 101
—, —, claims of, 99
—, —, concerned with the future, 97
—, —, denunciations of, 97
—, —, determinism of, 98 f.
—, —, effects of teaching, 96 f.
—, —, inconsistency of teaching, 95 f.
—, —, loyalty to the Law, 99 f.
—, —, other-worldliness of, 99
—, —, prophets of the people, 96
—, —, religious conceptions regarding humanity, 105
—, —, their message, 96
—, —, universalistic attitude of, 101
—, —, upholders of the people’s faith, 97
Apocrypha books, dates of, 320
Apocrypha, Doctrinal teaching of the, =251-315=
—, meaning of, 183
—, traces of Greek influence in, =77-87=
Apocryphal and canonical books, 161 ff.
—, use of term, 187
—, — by Origen, 189
—, — Jerome, 191
_Apokryphos_, meaning of, 185 ff.
Apollonius, 425, 427, 434
Apollophanes, 486
_Apostolical Constitutions_, 407, 410
Apsu, 231
Arabia, 435
Aramaic _papyri_, 50 ff., 194 f., 349
— Targums, 193
—, the language of Egyptian Jews, 60
Areios, 418
Aristeas, letter of, 443
Aristotle, 15, 16, 17
Armour of God, The, 474 f.
Artaxerxes, 51, 400, 441 f., 448
Artaxerxes III (Ochus), 50
Ascalon, 30
Ascension of Isaiah, The, =219-220=
Asceticism, 344
— of the Essenes, 43
Asmodæus, 358
_Assidæans_ (see _Chassidim_), 125
Assimilation, faculty of, among the Jews, 58
Associations, religious, 23
Assouan (Syene), 58
Assumption of Moses, The, 218
Atheism, 73
Athens, 14
Athenians, 14
Atonement, death a means of, 342
Attalus II, king of Pergamum, 432
Attic Greek, 14
— ideals, 14
— sea-power, 14
Attitude towards religious beliefs, 21
Augustus, 53, 520
Aurelian, 512
Aureolus, 512
Authorship, function of, in ancient times, 200
Avesta, 133
Azariah, Prayer of, 386 ff.
—, —, when composed, 388 f.
—, —, liturgical character of, 389 f.
Azotus, 30
Babylonia, 38
Babylonian influence, 227, 231 f.
Bacchides, 430 f.
Badness of the Body, doctrine of, 84 f.
— —, Platonic doctrine of, 85
Balas, Alexander, 419, 432
Baptism of the Essenes, 45
Baruch, book of, =495-506=
—, —, _A Sage’s Words of Encouragement_ in, 303 f.
—, —, account of, 495 ff.
—, —, _Book of Confessions_ in, 497 ff.
—, —, component parts of, 497 ff.
—, —, contains liturgical material, 502 f.
—, —, contents of, 495 ff.
—, Greek Apocalypse of, 223
—, Syriac Apocalypse of, =222=
Bel and the Dragon, 386, =394 ff.=
Beliefs, intermingling of, 22
Ben-Sira, 116, 123, 124, 195
—, attitude towards Gentiles, 337 f.