“ 11 f., 32, 76
“ 11-15, 388 f.
“ 13, 77
“ 15, 425
“ 20, 21, 425
“ 20-24, 398
“ 41-64, 398
“ 43, 426
“ 43, 44, 125
“ 44-49, 425 f.
ii. 4, 6, 411
“ 41, 412
“ 44-47, 427
“ 52 ff., 412
“ 54, 149
iii. 1-ix. 22, 427 ff.
“ 18 ff., 257, 306, 412
“ 25, 26, 427
iv. 1-24, 415
“ 10 ff., 258, 412
“ 46, 282
v. 1-68, 485
“ 10-13, 416
“ 15, 416
vi. 8-17, 491
“ 14, 15, 429
“ 28-54, 415
“ 49, 50, 485
“ 56, 429
vii. 1 ff., 485
“ 12, 13, 125
“ 26-50, 415
“ 50, 430
viii. 23-32, 420 f.
“ 32, 430 f.
ix. 1-22, 415
“ 22, 416
“ 23-xii. 53, 431 ff.
“ 32-53, 415
“ 43 ff., 46, 412
“ 43-49, 431
“ 54-57, 134
“ 58-73, 432
“ 73, 431
x. 4, 433
“ 18-20, 419
“ 25-45, 419
“ 26-45, 433
“ 30-37, 419 f.
“ 48 ff., 433
“ 59-66, 415
“ 89, 434
xi.-xiii, 418 f.
“ 21, 35
“ 37, 416
“ 57, 420
xii. 1-5, 416
“ 6-18, 416, 421
“ 7-9, 418
“ 10, 13, 417
“ 14-18, 417
“ 15, 419
“ 20-23, 418
xiii. 1-xvi. 24, 436 ff.
“ 25, 30, 413
“ 29, 421
“ 36-40, 420, 436
xiv. 4-15, 414
“ 5, 421
“ 16, 421, 422
“ 17-23, 422
“ 18, 27, 48 f., 416, 418
“ 20-22, 421
“ 24, 421
“ 27-47, 418
“ 30, 35, 134
“ 41 ff., 134, 282 f., 433
xv. 6-21, 422 f.
“ 9, 10, 437
“ 27, 437
xvi. 14-17, 438
“ 22, 24, 438
“ 23, 24, 413, 416
1 (3) ESDRAS
i. 1-58, 440
ii. 1 ff., 447, 448
“ 1-15, 440 f.
“ 15-25, 447, 448
“ 16-30, 441 f., 448
iii. 1-12, 451
“ 1-v. 6, 441 ff., 445, 447, 451 ff.
“ 13-17, 451
“ 17_b_-24, 451 f.
iv. 1-12, 452
“ 13, 453
“ 13-57, 452 f.
“ 29 ff., 443
“ 58-63, 453
v. 1-6, 453
“ 4-6, 441
“ 7-73, 441, 447
vi. 1-vii. 15, 441
viii. 1 ff., 448
“ 1-ix. 36, 441 f.
ix. 37-55, 442
THE BOOK OF WISDOM
i.-xi. 1, 259
“ 1, 467
“ 1-5, 281
“ 4-7, 244
“ 6-11, 470
“ 7, 86
“ 12 ff., 84, 277 f.
“ 12-16, 280 f.
“ 13-15, 468
“ 15, 84
ii.-v., 462
“ -xi., 465
“ 1-9, 457
“ 1-20, 470
“ 7-9, 471 f.
“ 10-20, 460 ff.
“ 12, 266 f., 459
“ 15, 462
“ 21-24, 471
“ 23, 24, 474, 477
“ 24, 305
iii. 1, 9, 284
“ 1-9, 285, 298 f., 471
“ 8, 285, 299, 474
“ 10 ff., 299, 471 f.
iv. 1, 237
“ 19, 300
“ 20, 472
v., 468
“ 1-14, 299, 472
“ 2, 300
“ 15 ff., 286 f., 299 f.
“ 17-20, 474 f.
vi. 1, 467
“ 2, 462
“ 4, 267
“ 5-9, 460
“ 17-20, 471 f.
“ 19, 84
vii.-ix., 469
“ 17, 475
“ 19, 20, 80
“ 22-24, 86, 458
“ 22-viii. 1, 465, 468, 477
“ 25, 26, 243
“ 27, 86, 259
viii. 1, 86
“ 1, 8, 259
“ 4, 244
“ 6, 465
“ 7, 87, 458
“ 17, 18, 298
“ 19, 458
“ 19, 20, 277
ix. 1, 2, 4, 17, 244
“ 1-6, 468
“ 6, 243 f.
“ 10, 11, 259
“ 15, 458, 476
“ 15, 16, 84
x. 1 ff., 465
“ 7, 477
“ 16 ff., 473
“ 17, 18, 304
xi. 1, 467
“ 1 ff., 473
“ 2-xix., 465
“ 17, 85, 458
“ 23, 476
“ 23-26, 468
xii., 477
“ 10, 11, 277, 310
“ 12, 459
“ 19, 462, 468
“ 22 ff., 457 f.
xiii., xiv., 477
“ -xv., 472 f.
“ 1, 466
“ 2, 3, 475 f.
“ 10-19, 507
xiv., 458, 462
“ 1 ff., 259 f.
“ 2, 466
“ 3, 458
“ 6-20, 462
“ 7, 464
“ 16, 17, 462
xv. 1, 466
“ 2, 8, 81, 83
“ 3, 84
“ 7, 476 f.
“ 10, 459
“ 13-17, 507
“ 18, 19, 458
xvi.-xix., 473
“ 1, 9, 458
“ 7, 468
xvii. 21, 300
“ 24, 249
xviii. 4, 458
“ 15, 244
“ 15, 16, 304
xix. 5, 462
“ 18-21, 87, 475
2 MACCABEES
i.-ii. 18, 490 ff.
“ 1-9, 490 ff.
“ 8, 9, 264
“ 9, 18, 487
“ 13-17, 491
“ 20-22, 492
“ 27, 283
“ 31-34, 492
ii. 1-12, 492
“ 16, 487
“ 18, 283
“ 19, 20, 487
“ 19-32, 479, 481
“ 22, 487
“ 24, 25, 480
“ 30-31, 479
iii. 1 ff., 508
“ 1-39, 481
“ 1-iv. 6, 486
“ 12, 487
“ 15-39, 493
“ 22-30, 489
“ 24 ff., 302 f.
“ 40-iv. 50, 482
iv. 7-17, 34, 35
“ 7-vii. 41, 486
“ 13-17, 264, 488
“ 20, 35
v. 1.-vii. 42, 482
“ 15, 487
“ 20, 493
“ 22, 485
vi., vii. 494
“ 1-11, 35
“ 11, 487
“ 12-16, 274, 484, 487, 493
“ 19, 28, 494
“ 23-28, 493
“ 26, 292
vii., 493
“ 1, 7, 9, 14, 494
“ 9, 264, 292
“ 9, 11, 14, 489
“ 10, 11, 292
“ 11, 22, 23, 484, 487
“ 14, 292
“ 23, 29, 292, 494
“ 36, 292
viii. 1-36, 482
“ 19-26, 493
“ 23, 176
“ 26, 487
ix. 1-29, 482, 491
“ 5, 488
“ 5-29, 488
x. 1, 488
“ 1-3, 487
“ 1-8, 482, 487 f.
“ 5-8, 487, 490 f.
“ 6, 494
“ 6 f., 487
“ 9-38, 482
“ 14-38, 485
“ 29-31, 489
“ 35-37, 486
“ 37, 485
xi. 1-38, 482
“ 6-11, 303, 489
“ 13, 488
“ 35 ff., 494
xii. 1-xiii. 26, 482
“ 10-45, 485
“ 11, 28, 488
“ 31, 38, 487
“ 35, 485
“ 39-42, 488
“ 43-45, 292, 484, 487, 489
xiii. 15, 488
“ 22, 23, 485
xiv. 1 ff., 485
“ 1-xv. 36, 482
“ 6, 125
“ 46, 292 f., 484, 487, 490
xv. 11-16, 303, 484, 487
“ 36, 487
“ 37-39, 482
THE BOOK OF BARUCH
i. 3, 4, 496
“ -iii. 8, 497 ff.
“ 6-10, 496
“ 11-13, 14, 496
“ 15-ii. 12, 496
“ 15-iii. 8, 389, 500 ff.
ii. 13-17, 501
“ 13-iii. 8, 496
“ 17, 293, 502
“ 19, 274, 502
iii. 9-iv. 4, 264 f., 309,
496 f., 503 f.
“ 19, 293
iv. 1 ff., 265
“ 3, 4, 265
“ 5-v. 9, 258, 306, 497, 504 ff.
“ 25, 31 ff., 283
“ 35, 305
“ 36, 37, 505
“ 36-v. 9, 283
v. 1, 2, 505
“ 7, 8, 505 f.
_Ep. of Jer._
7, 302
2 (4) ESDRAS
i., ii., 509 ff.
iii.-ix., 275
iii.-x., 265, 283, 309, 311, 513 ff.
iii.-xiv., 509
“ 1, 514
“ 1-v. 19, 522 ff.
“ 19, 266
“ 20-22, 275
“ 21, 22, 523
“ 25, 26, 275
“ 29, 514
iv. 1-11, 303
“ 10, 11, 258, 524
“ 11, 294
“ 21, 524
“ 30, 266, 275
“ 33-37, 303
“ 36, 37, 98
v. 1-12, 285 f.
“ 21-vi. 34, 524
“ 39, 304
“ 40, 258 f.
vi. 32, 101
“ 35-ix. 25, 524 ff.
“ 38, 237
“ 59, 525
vii. 21, 304
“ 26-31, 297
“ 26-44, 525
“ 28, 29, 283 f.
“ 32 ff., 297
“ 56-59, 103
“ 72, 266
“ 75, 294
“ 78-87, 295
“ 83, 100
“ 88, 293, 296
“ 88-99, 295
“ 96, 293
“ 100, 293
“ 101, 294
“ 102-105, 102 f.
“ 102-115, 296
“ 113, 114, 296
“ 118, 275
“ 125, 101
“ 130, 303
viii. 29, 100
“ 35, 276
“ 38, 39, 295
“ 53, 294
ix. 7-12, 100
“ 19, 526
“ 22, 526
“ 24, 101
“ 26-x. 59, 526 f.
“ 31-37, 265
“ 36, 293
x. 27, 527
“ 55-57, 527
xi.-xii. 39, 284, 312, 517 ff.
“ 13-17, 520
“ 22, 24, 520
“ 34, 35, 520
“ 46, 258
xii. 18, 520
“ 26, 27, 519
“ 32, 284
“ 34, 285
“ 36-38, 186
xiii., 284, 312, 515 ff.
“ 8-13, 285
“ 25, 26, 284
“ 31 f., 517
“ 48, 49, 517
“ 52, 517
xiv., 284, 312
“ 9, 284
“ 22, 26, 529
“ 44-47, 187, 191
xv., xvi., 509, 511 f.
“ 5-27, 511
“ 10-12, 512
“ 28-33, 512
“ 28-xvi. 17, 511
“ 34 ff., 512
“ 46, 512
xvi. 18-78, 511
INDEX OF PASSAGES FROM THE PSEUDEPIGRAPHA
PAGE
THE BOOK OF ENOCH
i. 8, 96
v. 4, 99, 100
i.-xxxvi., 206
vi.-xxxvi., 207
x. 16, 102
x. 21, 103
xi. 1, 2, 104
xx. 8, 303
xxxii. 3, 245
xxxvii. 1-4, 246
xxxvii.-lxxi., 205, 208
xlii. 1, 2, 246
xlv. 3, 106
xlviii. 3, 4, 106
“ 4, 104
“ 7, 106
xlix. 1, 104
“ 3, 246
l. 2-5, 104
li. 2, 3, 106
“ 3, 246
lxi. 8, 106
lxix. 6, 269
“ 11, 207
“ 27-29, 106
lxxii.-lxxxii., 206
“ 1, 204
“ 2, 3, 246
lxxxii. 4-7, 204
lxxxiv. 3, 246
“ 6, 102
xc. 30, 104
xci.-civ., 207
“ 10, 245
“ 14, 104
xcii. 7, 8, 97
xciii. 12-17, 206
xciv. 5, 246
xcix. 2, 100
“ 10, 246
“ 14, 100
cii. 6-8, 107, 205
ciii. 1-8, 108, 109
civ. 1, 102
cviii. 1, 186
“ 7, 101
SIBYLLINE ORACLES
iii. 271, 53
“ 276 ff., 100
“ 702-726, 104
“ 798-806, 210
v. 260-285, 210
“ 414 ff., 106
TEST. XII PATR.
Sim. vi. 7, 213
Levi ii. 2, 104
“ viii. 14, 212
“ xiv. 2, 213
“ “ 3, 4, 104
“ xviii. 10, 11, 109
Jud. xxiv. 1, 106
“ “ 5, 6, 212
Naph. iv. 5, 212
Gad v. 3, 214
“ vi. 3-7, 214
PSALMS OF SOLOMON
v. 4, 216
ix. 6, 216
xi. 3, 505
“ 5-7, 505 f.
“ 8, 505 f.
xvii. 23 ff., 215
xvii., xviii., 106
BOOK OF JUBILEES
v. 13 ff., 103
vi. 3, 151
“ 34 ff., 151
ASSUMPTION OF MOSES
i. 12, 103
“ 16-18, 187
ix. 6, 101
x., 219
ASCENSION OF ISAIAH
ii. 1-iii. 12, 220
iii. 13-v. 1, 220
v. 2-14, 220
vi.-xi., 220
x., 219
SECRETS OF ENOCH
xxx. 8, 247
xxxiii. 3, 247
xliii. 2, 247
lix. 2., 221
lxviii. 2, 186
SYR. APOC. OF BARUCH
xiv. 19, 114
xix. 3, 100
lix. 2, 100
lxvii. 5, 104
lxxxv. 9, 103
LETTER OF ARISTEAS
12, 13, 57
121, 122, 56
4 MACCABEES
xviii. 12, 149
INDEX OF PASSAGES FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT
ST. MATTHEW
iii. 7, 145
iv. 16, 369
v. 17-20, 141
vi. 1-6, 369
“ 14, 346
“ 19-21, 369
vii. 7, 511
“ 12, 369
xi. 19, 346 f.
xv. 1-20, 141
xvi. 1, 145
xviii. 15, 214
xxii. 23 ff., 147
“ 37-39, 214
xxiii. 4-26, 121
“ 15, 131
“ 37, 511
xxiv. 22, 511
xxv. 13, 32, 511
“ 35, 36, 369
“ 39, 347
xxviii. 39, 347
ST. MARK
ii. 16, 127
iv. 2, 192
vii. 1-23, 141
ix. 48, 289, 312
ST. LUKE
i. 7, 346
v. 30, 127
vi. 31, 369
vii. 35, 347
xi. 37-54, 141
“ 50, 51, 511
xii. 19, 20, 346
xvii. 3, 214
ST. JOHN
i. 1-3, 238
ACTS
iv. 1, 147
v. 1 ff., 145
ix. 36, 370
x. 4, 370
xii. 15, 148
xvii. 23, 23
xix. 9, 195
xxiii. 1-10, 145
“ 8, 147, 148, 158
“ 9, 127
ROMANS
i. 2, 176
ii. 4, 476
v. 12, 474
vi. 23, 370
ix. 19-23, 476 f.
xi. 32, 476
1 CORINTHIANS
ii. 6-16, 477
v. 12, 13, 192
vi. 2, 3, 474
xv. 21, 22, 474
xvi. 2, 370
“ 41-44, 512
2 CORINTHIANS
v. 1, 4, 476
viii. 12, 370
ix. 9, 369
GALATIANS
iv. 3, 475
“ 8, 9, 475 f.
vi. 16, 162
EPHESIANS
v. 18, 370
vi. 11-20, 474 f.
COLOSSIANS
ii. 8, 475
“ 20, 475
iv. 5, 192
1 THESSALONIANS
iv. 3, 370
“ 12, 192
1 TIMOTHY
i. 17, 370
vi. 6, 370
“ 19, 370
2 TIMOTHY
iii. 15, 176
HEBREWS
v. 12, 476
xi. 37, 220
“ 38, 494
ST. JAMES
i. 5, 347
“ 13, 14, 347
“ 19, 347
iii. 2, 348
“ 5, 6, 348
“ 8, 348
“ 10, 348
v. 4, 348
“ 7, 348
“ 16, 17, 348
2 PETER
iii. 8, 221
“ 10, 12, 476
ST. JUDE
14, 15, 208
REVELATION
xx. 2, 370
xxi. 10-21, 371
INDEX OF PASSAGES FROM RABBINICAL LITERATURE
MISHNAH
Aboth i. 9, 393
“ ii. 4, 132
Eduyoth v. 3, 170
Jadaim iii. 2, 5, 175
“ iii. 5, 170
“ iv. 5, 6, 175
Niddah iv. 2, 131
Sanhedrin vi. 2, 392
“ x. 1, 192
TALMUD
Jebamoth 49_b_, 194
Sanhedrin 11_a_, 173
“ 90_b_, 147
“ 100_a_, 173
“ 100_b_, 340
Shabbath (Talm. Jer.) xvi., 193
Yoma 21_b_, 173
MIDRASH
Sifre 143_b_, 83
_Printed for_ ROBERT SCOTT, _Publisher_, PATERNOSTER ROW,
LONDON, E.C., _by_ BUTLER & TANNER, FROME.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] His first victory was in B.C. 334 on the river Granicus, where
he overcame the generals of Darius. In 333 came the decisive victory
at Issus, when Darius himself was defeated. In 332 Alexander marched
victoriously down the coast of Syria. In 331 he became master of
Egypt; and later in the same year he inflicted a crushing defeat
again on Darius, taking Babylon and Susa. In 330 he continued his
victories in Persia. During the next five years he was occupied in
the further east, fighting with invariable success. He died suddenly
in 323.
[2] _Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius_, pp. 4 ff.
[3] See, e.g., Wendland, _Op. cit._, pp. 2-11, and the works of
Wilamovitz referred to by him.
[4] _The House of Seleucus_, I, p. 17.
[5] Swete, _Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek_ (1st ed.), p.
294.
[6] _The Philology of the Greek Bible_, p. 61. See also an
interesting article by M. F. Jones, “The Language of the New
Testament,” in the _Church Quarterly Review_, October, 1913, pp.
113-133.
[7] Cp. Krüger, _Op. cit._, p. 9.
[8] Cp. Wendland, _Op. cit._, p. 54.
[9] The city was founded in B.C. 331.
[10] Zeno, the founder of the Stoic school, was born in B.C. 342, and
died in B.C. 270. Cp. Bevan, _Stoics and Sceptics_, Lecture ii. pp.
47-81.
[11] Cp. Wendland, _Op. cit._, p. 49.
[12] Bevan, _The House of Seleucus_, pp. 9, 10.
[13] Cp. Wendland, _Op. cit._, p. 107.
[14] B.C. 341-270, his lifetime thus coincided almost exactly with
that of Zeno.
[15] This had, it is true, to some extent taken place in earlier
times as well; but not in the way in which it was done during the
Hellenistic period, of which it was _characteristic_.
[16] Cp. Kaerst, _Op. cit._, II, i. pp. 279 ff.
[17] See Kaerst, _Op. cit._, II, i. p. 279; and on the general
subject, Rev. G. Friedländer, _Hellenism and Christianity_, chap. II.
[18] Wendland, _Op. cit._, p. 128, where references to original
authorities will be found. We are reminded of Acts xvii. 23, where
St. Paul speaks of an altar which he had seen with the inscription:
“To an unknown god.” On the whole subject of altars dedicated to
“unknown gods” an immense deal of valuable matter will be found in
Norden’s _Agnostos Theos_, pp. 31-124 (1913).
[19] Ezra vii. 10, x. 11.
[20] See Ezra ix. 1, 2.
[21] Cp. Ezra x. 17.
[22] Cheyne, _Job and Solomon_, p. 181.
[23] It may be well to recall here the following facts; at the death
of Alexander in B.C. 323 his empire was divided thus among his
generals: Antigonus obtained the provinces of Greater Phrygia, Lycia,
and Pamphylia; Seleucus, Babylonia; Ptolemy, Egypt; Lysimachus, the
Hellespont; and Cassander, Macedonia (cp. Josephus, _Antiq._, XII.
i. 1). Incessant wars, however, went on among these rulers. But in
B.C. 302 an alliance against Antigonus was made, or rather renewed,
by the four other kings; and in the following year, as a result of
the battle of Ipsus, the kingdom of Antigonus (he, in common with the
other rulers, had assumed the title of king) came to a final end.
The victorious allies divided his kingdom among themselves thus:
Seleucus got Syria proper; Lysimachus, a large portion of Asia Minor;
Cassander, Macedonia and Greece; while to the Egyptian kingdom of
Ptolemy was added Cœle-Syria (not, however, without a protest from
Seleucus), which remained in the possession of the Ptolemys for a
century; it was finally conquered by Antiochus III (the Great),
through his victory at Panias (B.C. 198), and it thus reverted to the
Syrian kingdom.
[24] Cp. Schechter, _Studies in Judaism_ (Second Series), p. 72.
[25] He had, for example, settled Macedonians in Samaria.
[26] See further, Grote, _The History of Greece_, X, pp. 208 ff.
[27] _Op. cit._, II, i. pp. 57-58, German ed. II, p. 95. Cp. also
Josephus, _Antiq._, XIII, xiii. 3, _Bell. Jud._, II, xxi. 9.
[28] “So long as the Jewish State existed the principle of solidarity
remained in force.... But as soon as the nation is dead, when the
bonds that unite men in the organism of national life are dissolved,
then the idea of individual responsibility comes into immediate
operation” (_Expositor’s Bible_, p. 143; ed. by W. Robertson Nicoll).
[29] Fairweather and Black, _The First Book of Maccabees_, p. 60
(Cambridge Bible).
[30] _Jerusalem under the High-priests_, p. 35.
[31] See Josephus, _Antiq._, XII, v. 1; see also Büchler’s _Die
Tobiaden und die Oniaden_ ..., pp. 8 ff.
[32] Josephus, _Antiq._, XII, iii. 1, says that in Antioch the Jews
had privileges equal to those of the Macedonians and Greeks.
[33] A broad-brimmed hat which, as the mark of Hermes, was the badge
of the _palæstra_ (wrestling-school).
[34] See also verses 18-20, and vi. 1-11; and cp. 1 Macc. xi. 21.
[35] Though Hellenistic influence asserted itself again at the
beginning of the Christian era; it was, in effect, never wholly
thrown off.
[36] _Op. cit._, II, i. pp. 31-47, German ed. II, pp. 59-89; and see
also Krauss, _Talmudische Archäologie_, II, pp. 349 ff.
[37] _Op. cit._, II, i. p. 30, German ed. II, p. 57.
[38] _Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte_, pp. 297 f. (1907).
[39] Cp. what was said in the preceding chapter about religious
syncretism being a characteristic of the Hellenistic Movement.
[40] _Transactions of the International Congress for the History of
Religions_, I, pp. 276 f. (1908).
[41] _Op. cit._, pp. 488 f.
[42] For details see Oesterley and Box, _The Religion and Worship of
the Synagogue_, pp. 195-221 (1911).
[43] _Jerusalem under the High-priests_, pp. 41 f., and see Lecture
III in the same writer’s book, _Stoics and Sceptics_, pp. 85-118.
[44] Quoted by Reinach, _Textes d’auteurs grecs et romains relatifs
au Judaisme_, pp. 20 f. (1895).
[45] See, for other theories regarding the derivation of the name,
Lightfoot, _Colossians_, pp. 349 ff.
[46] Zeller says: “They exhibit so important a relationship to the
Neo-Pythagoreans that we can only assume that they arose under the
influence of Orphic Pythagorean asceticism, and subsequently, after
the formation of a Neo-Pythagorean philosophy, adopted many of its
doctrines” (_Outlines of Greek Philosophy_, p. 317). Wendland (_Op.
cit._, p. 191, note 2) disagrees with this; he believes it improbable
as being a hypothesis insufficiently supported by the facts.
[47] _Bell. Jud._, II, viii. 2.
[48] _Quod omn. prob._, ii. 457. Josephus (_Bell. Jud._, II, viii.
4) says, on the other hand, that “they have no one certain city,
but many of them dwell in every city”; but even if they did live in
cities in the time of Josephus, they kept entirely to themselves,
for he says elsewhere of them that “as they live by themselves they
minister one to another” (_Antiq._, XVIII, i. 5).
[49] _De septen._, ii. 279, quoted by Friedländer, _Die rel.
Bewegungen_, p. 124.
[50] _Bell. Jud._, II, viii. 2; cp. also _Antiq._, XVIII, i. 5;
Philo, _Frag._, ii. 632 (quoted by Friedländer, _Op. cit._, p. 143);
Pliny, _Hist. Nat._, v. 17.
[51] Friedländer, _Op. cit._, p. 43.
[52] _Antiq._, XIII, v. 9.
[53] _Bell. Jud._, II, vii. 11.
[54] _Antiq._, XIII, xi. 2, XV, x. 5, XVII, xiii. 3.
[55] _Die rel. Bewegungen_, p. 8.
[56] From a slab-inscription found at Nimroud; see Pinches, _The
Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records of Assyria and
Babylonia_, p. 363.
[57] He reigned from B.C. 358-338.
[58] Syncellus, i. 486 (ed. Dindorf).
[59] The ancient Jêb, situated at the southern extremity of a small
island in the Nile, between two and three miles long, not far below
the first cataract and opposite Assouan, the ancient Syene.
[60] These _papyri_ belong to the period B.C. 494-400, i.e., from the
twenty-seventh year of the reign of Darius I, through the reigns of
Xerxes (485-465), Artaxerxes I (465-424), Darius II (424-405), to the
fifth year of Amyrtæus, who threw off the Persian yoke and made Egypt
independent.
[61] The Jewish governor under Darius II was, according to the
_papyri_, one Jedoniah.
[62] A detailed account of the excavations at Elephantiné during the
years 1906-1908 is given in the _Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache_,
vol. xlix. (1909). The most elaborate work on the subject is Sachau’s
_Aramäische Papyrus und Ostraka aus einer jüdischen Militärkolonie zu
Elephantine_ (1911). An excellent smaller work is Ed. Meyer’s _Der
Papyrusfund von Elephantine_ (1912), which has been translated into
English. A valuable text-book for students is Ungnad’s _Aramäische
Papyrus aus Elephantine_ (1911).
[63] Guthe, in the _Encycl. Bibl._, I, 1110.
[64] Quoted in Josephus, _Antiq._, XIV, vii, 2; cp. 1 Macc. xv.
16-24, from which it can be seen that Jewish settlements existed not
only in Egypt, but also in Syria, Asia Minor, along the Mediterranean
coast, and elsewhere.
[65] Quoted in Josephus, _Antiq._, XIX, v. 2.
[66] _Bell. Jud._, II, xviii. 7.
[67] _In Flaccum_, § 8 (ed. Mangey, II, p. 525).
[68] _In Flaccum_, § 6 (ed. Mangey, II, p. 523).
[69] For full details see Schürer, II, ii. pp. 219-327, German ed.,
III, pp. 1-188.
[70] Cp. Josephus, _Bell. Jud._, VI, ix. 3.
[71] See further § IV of this chapter.
[72] This document belongs roughly to about the year B.C. 100; though
Schürer would place it a century earlier; many modern scholars,
however, disagree with him in this.
[73] Cp. Bousset, _Die Religion des Judenthums_, pp. 405 ff.
[74] When we find that in the first centuries of Christianity even
orthodox Rabbis were to be found who held that Baptism without
Circumcision sufficed for proselytes we may well ask whether the
result of the Hellenistic spirit was not a contributory cause of such
a lapse from traditional Judaism.
[75] _Transactions of the Third International Congress for the
History of Religions_, I, p. 277.
[76] It is dealt with in Schürer, II, iii. pp. 156-320; German ed.,
III, pp. 420-633.
[77] Some account of the _Pseudepigrapha_, which are partly
Palestinian, but mainly Græco-Jewish, is given below, Chap. X.
[78] B.C. 285-246.
[79] Some scholars assign this to the reign of Ptolemy VI
(Philometor), B.C. 182-146.
[80] _Philo and Holy Scripture_, p. 32 (1895); see also Swete, _Op.
cit._, pp. 25 f.
[81] Cp. Meyer, _Der Papyrusfund von Elephantiné_, p. 19.
[82] For the further history of the Septuagint, and for the labours
of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and above all of Origen, Swete’s
book, already mentioned, should be consulted.
[83] _The Philology of the Greek Bible_, p. 8.
[84] Cohn and Wendland’s edition.
[85] _Antiq._, XVIII, viii. 1 ff.
[86] “The philosophy which Philo expounds is essentially the popular
Greek philosophy, a blend of Platonism, Pythagoreanism, and Stoicism,
slightly modified by the Hebrew belief in God” (Edwyn Bevan, _Stoics
and Sceptics_, p. 94).
[87] It is of importance for Christian theology to notice that in
several passages (see Lightfoot, _Colossians and Philemon_, p. 216)
Philo interprets “the image of God” to mean the “Logos”; so that
when, in Gen. i. 27, man is said to have been created in “the image
of God,” it means that he was created in the likeness of the “Logos.”
[88] _De Migratione Abrahami_, § 18, quoted by Lauterbach.
[89] On the whole subject of the relation between the Philonian and
the Johannine Logos doctrines see Réville, _La doctrine du Logos
dans le quatrième évangile et dans les œuvres de Philon_ (1872);
Baldensperger, _Der Prolog des Vierten Evangeliums_ (1898).
[90] For the influence of Philo upon St. Paul see Thackeray, _The
Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought_, passim (1900).
[91] Cp. Ed. Meyer, _Geschichte des Alterthums_, I, pp. 490 ff.
[92] Cp. Robertson Smith, in the _Encycl. Brit._, XIII, p. 705.
[93] Box, _The Book of Isaiah_, p. 113.
[94] Kamphausen in the _Encycl. Bibl._, I, 1009.
[95] To give but two examples: Robertson Smith (_The Old Testament
in the Jewish Church_, p. 212), after having examined the subject
carefully, says: “We are thus led by a concurrence of arguments to
assign the collection of Psalms xc.-cl. and the completion of the
whole Psalter to the early years of the Maccabee sovereignty.” Briggs
(The Book of Psalms, I, pp. xc., xci.) assigns a large number of the
Psalms to the Greek period.
[96] Cp. Stade, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, ii., p. 215 (1888).
[97] _Griechische Philosophie im Alten Testament_, pp. 25 f. (1904).
[98] Friedländer, in his book just referred to, sees many other signs
of Greek influence in the Psalms (pp. 15-58); it is probable that in
some cases he is right; in others this is doubtful.
[99] Cp. O. Holtzmann in Onken’s _Allgemeine Geschichte in
Einzeldarstellungen_, II, p. 295.
[100] Cp. Friedländer, _Op. cit._, p. 72.
[101] e.g. Clement of Alexandria, _Stromateis_, I., v. 29, quoted by
Friedländer, _Op. cit._, p. 73.
[102] Cp. Stade, _Op. cit._, II, p. 216; O. Holtzmann, _Op. cit._,
II, p. 297; M. Friedländer, _Op. cit._, pp. 79 ff.
[103] _Op. cit._, II, p. 351.
[104] _Op. cit._, p. 107. Friedländer’s contentions are combated by
Krüger, _Hellenismus und Judentum im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter_,
pp. 22 ff.
[105] _Ecclesiastes_, pp. 11 ff; he is followed by Plumptre in his
_Ecclesiastes_; Siegfried, _Prediger und Hoheslied_, and Haupt,
_Koheleth_; Krüger and Friedländer hold the same view.
[106] See further, Haupt, _Op. cit._, p. 6.
[107] _The Book of Ecclesiastes_, pp. 34-43.
[108] _Op. cit._, p. 38.
[109] _Einleitung in das Alte Testament_, p. 262 (1896); Friedländer
puts it more strongly, see _Die rel. Bewegungen_ ..., p. 1,
_Griechische Philosophie_ ..., pp. 131 ff.
[110] _Comm. in Eccles._, quoted by Cheyne, _Job and Solomon_, p. 262.
[111] _Op cit._, p. 262.
[112] _Op. cit._, p. 271.
[113] Few, we imagine, would date Ecclesiastes earlier than the
middle of the third century B.C. at the _earliest_.
[114] Cheyne, _Op. cit._, p. 265.
[115] See the present writer’s Ecclesiasticus in the _Cambridge
Bible_, p. xxv.
[116] _Jewish Encycl._, XI, 390_a_.
[117] This is an exaggeration; what Ben-Sira says is:
Speak, O elder, for it is thy privilege;
But be discreet in understanding, and hinder not song....
Speak, O young man, if thou art compelled....
Sum up thy speech, say much in little (xxxii. 3-8, in Hebrew).
[118] Cp. Ecclesiastes xii. 7: “... and the dust return to the earth
as it was, and the spirit (_rūach_) return to God Who gave it.”
[119] _Outlines of Greek Philosophy_ (English translation, 1909), pp.
152 f., where references to Plato’s works are given in support of
what is said.
[120] Unless _nĕphĕsh_ is used in the sense of _nĕshāmāh_ in 1 Samuel
xxv. 29, where Abigail says to David: “... Yet the soul (_nĕphĕsh_)
of my lord shall be bound in the bundle (or bag) of life with the
Lord thy God; and the souls of thine enemies, them shall He sling
out, as from the hollow of a sling”; but it is probably a quite
different set of ideas which comes into question here. At the same
time the idea of God’s solicitude for the souls of His beloved
which He takes care of in the “bundle of life,” and which are thus
separable from the body even during life, might easily, with the
advance of thought on the subject, suggest the pre-existence of the
soul.
[121] Cp. Weber, _Jüdische Theologie_, 2 ed., p. 205.
[122] Menzel, _Op. cit._, p. 58.
[123] Zeller, _Op. cit._, p. 155.
[124] _Op. cit._, p. 155.
[125] _Op. cit._, p. 147.
[126] Cp. Zeller, _Op. cit._, pp. 229-255; Wendland, _Die
Hellenistisch-Römische Kultur_ ... pp. 110-115.
[127] _Op. cit._, p. 532.
[128] The same as the Assidæans referred to in 1 Maccabees ii. 42.
[129] _Die rel. Bewegungen_, p. 22.
[130] _Op. cit._, p. 23.
[131] The quotations from this book are from Charles’ translation.
[132] _The Ezra Apocalypse_, pp. 35, 36.
[133] Though this book is late it reflects earlier thought and
practice.
[134] Cp. also the verses which follow, and xlviii. 1, lviii. 1-4,
etc.
[135] _Die rel. Bewegungen_ ..., p. 25.
[136] The verses which follow deal with the same subject; cp. the
Book of Jubilees v. 13 ff., Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch lxxxv. 9.
[137] Cp. xlviii. 7: “For in His name they are saved.”
[138] See also the Psalms of Solomon, xvii., xviii.
[139] The Pauline conception of a “spiritual body” was unknown to the
Apocalyptists. The fact that this expression is a contradiction in
terms need not trouble us; that is simply due to the impossibility of
expressing spiritual truths adequately in human language.
[140] As early as the end of the fourth century B.C. the Jews
of Palestine became acquainted with the Platonic doctrine of
immortality, though it was some time before this teaching was
accepted, cp. Friedländer, _Griechische Philosophie_ ..., p. 12.
[141] Quotations from the Apocalyptic Literature dealing with the
subject of this section have been collected in the present writer’s
_The Doctrine of the Last Things_, pp. 72-121.
[142] i.e., “Governor.”
[143] We have no information of what happened during the Exile
itself regarding the teaching of the Law; but it is difficult to
believe that such a zealous scribe and legalist as Ezra could have
been inactive; his knowledge of the Law was not merely the result of
his coming to Palestine, cp. Ezra vii. 6: “This Ezra went up from
Babylon, and he was a ready scribe in the Law of Moses.”
[144] Cp. Josephus, _Antiq._, XVIII, i. 3.
[145] See, for details, Ryle, _Ezra and Nehemiah_, p. xxxv.
[146] This is in accordance with Ben-Sira’s identification of Wisdom
with the Law, see xv. 1, xxxiv. 8, etc.
[147] It will be remembered that the Hebrews reckoned the historical
books among the Prophets.
[148] Assidæans, also written Hasidæans, is merely the Græcized form
of the Hebrew _Chassidim_; in the Authorized Version the word is
rendered “saints.”
[149] Made high-priest by the Syrian king.
[150] One of the Syrian generals.
[151] Cp. 2 Maccabees xiv. 6.
[152] In the original constitution of the Sanhedrin this was probably
not the case; for, as first constituted, the priestly aristocracy,
i.e., the Sadducæan party, dominated the Sanhedrin. The Sadducees
were, however, unable to resist the growing power of what came to be
the popular party, and before the New Testament period began both
Scribes and Pharisees were fully represented in the Sanhedrin.
[153] It is sometimes said that they were “separatists” in the sense
that they desired Israel to be separate from all the world; but this
ignores the fact that the Pharisees pursued an active missionary
_propaganda_ among the Gentiles, which is witnessed to, e.g., in
Matthew xxiii. 15, where Christ says that the Pharisees “compass sea
and land to make one proselyte.”
[154] _Antiq._, XIII, x. 6.
[155] This is the explanation given by some of the Church Fathers,
e.g., Epiphanius, _Haer._ xiv., and Jerome, _Comm. in Matth._, xii.
23 (Schürer), as well as by some modern scholars.
[156] _Encycl. Bibl._, iv. 4236. The present writer, in conjunction
with Mr. Box, was inclined to accept this interpretation (_The
Religion and Worship of the Synagogue_, p. 134), but further study of
the subject has compelled them to revise their former view.
[157] See the words of Josephus, _Antiq._, XIII, x. 6, quoted below.
[158] Cp. Josephus, _Antiq._, XI, viii. 7; XII, ii. 5, iv. 1, 10.
[159] Antiochus made Menelaus, who was not of priestly family,
high-priest; after him Alkimus filled the office (1 Macc. vii. 5,
9); though a priest he was not of the sons of Zadok (Josephus,
_Antiq._, XII, ix. 7). On the death of Alkimus (1 Macc. ix. 54-57)
the Hasmonæan high-priesthood began (1 Macc. xiv. 30, 35, 41 ff.; cp.
Josephus, _Antiq._, XIII, ii. 3).
[160] Two objections have been raised against the view that the term
Sadducees (_Zaddūkim_) takes its origin from the personal name Zadok.
One is that the double _d_ in _Zaddūkim_ does not permit of its being
derived from Zadok with only one; this objection would be serious
were it not that in the Septuagint and in Josephus Zadok is spelled
with two d’s. This objection, therefore, falls to the ground. The
other is that there is nothing to show that the Sadducees were ever
regarded as the sons of Zadok, nor that they themselves made such a
claim. This _argumentum e silentio_, always precarious, is upset by
the evidence of the _Zadokite Fragments_. Hölscher’s contention (_Op.
cit._, pp. 102 ff.) that the term “sons of Zadok” was one of reproach
does not appear to us to be necessary.
[161] Vita, § 2, cp. _Antiq._, XVIII, i. 3.
[162] _Antiq._, XV, x. 4.
[163] Cp. _Antiq._, X, xi. 7 (towards the end), XIII, v. 9; _Bell.
Jud._, II, viii. 14, where he speaks of these three as “the
philosophic sects among the Jews.”
[164] _Vita_, § 2.
[165] _Op. cit._, p. 16.
[166] This was first pointed by Jost, _Blicke in die
Religionsgeschichte_, ii. p. 93, referred to by Leszynsky, p. 25.
[167] Not to be confused with the _Tosaphôth_, i.e. the “additions”
made to Rashi’s Commentary on the Talmud by his disciples, who for
this reason are known as the _Tosaphists_.
[168] Other Rabbinical sources, of less importance, are given by
Leszynsky, _Op. cit._, pp. 36 ff.
[169] See further, Hölscher, _Op. cit._, pp. 16 ff.; Leszynsky, _Op.
cit._, pp. 36 ff.
[170] The name applied to a room adjoining the synagogue in which
were stored disused manuscripts of the books of the Bible which had
been used in public worship and had become worn out; heretical Hebrew
books were also placed in the _Genizah_.
[171] Büchler holds that this sect “lived in Damascus in the seventh
or eighth century A.D.,” and that the manuscripts contain “a picture
artificially drawn to reflect assumed conditions shortly before
the destruction of the second Temple.” Interesting and learned as
Büchler’s article is, the present writer is not convinced that
Schechter’s main contentions have been weakened by it.
[172] Some of the Apocalyptic books may also be regarded as sources
of information; but the evidence in these is largely of an indirect
character; and as regards authorship differences of opinion exist;
so we have thought it best to restrict ourselves to the sources
mentioned. In dealing, however, with these Apocalyptic books in
Chapter X, we shall have occasion to refer to the evidence which in
all likelihood may be adduced from them.
[173] See also _Antiq._, XVIII, i. 3, 4.
[174] For examples of their fanatical zeal for the Law see _Antiq._,
XIV, iv. 2 f.; the followers of Aristobulus there mentioned were of
the Sadducæan party.
[175] See especially Matthew v. 17-20; and against the Pharisees
Matthew xv. 1-20, xxiii. 4-26, Mark vii. 1-23, Luke xi. 37-54, etc.
[176] _Op. cit._, pp. 16-32. Hölscher’s conclusions differ from those
of Leszynsky.
[177] _Op. cit._, pp. 36-141.
[178] Cp. Josephus, _Antiq._, XVIII, i. 4, where he says in reference
to the Sadducees that “when they become magistrates, sometimes
against their will and by force they follow the ideas of the
Pharisees, for otherwise the people would not put up with them.”
[179] Lauterbach (_Op. cit._, p. 186 f.) would explain the matter
a little differently, though the final result is much the same; he
says that the Sadducees “laid down their own decisions and rules
in a book called ‘Book of Decrees’ or ‘Decisions’ to guide them in
deciding questions to which no answer could be found in the Mosaic
Code. They did not deem it right or necessary to invent new rules
of hermeneutics, or to develop methods of interpretation to enable
them to force their laws and decisions into the meaning of the words
of the Torah, so as to pass off their own rules and decisions as
part of, or derived from, a Mosaic law, thus making them of equal
authority with, and of the same binding character as, the written
Law. For, in their opinion, no other laws could ever acquire the
authority of the Laws of the Torah.... The Sadducees distinguished
strictly between the absolutely binding written laws and their
additional laws and decisions. The latter ... were authoritative
only as long as they were considered necessary or feasible by the
leaders and rulers of the community. For the same reason, they
did not consider the decisions and practices instituted by their
predecessors, the priests and teachers of former generations, which
constituted the _traditional laws_, of absolute authority like the
written Law. Hence their peculiar attitude towards the traditional
Law, and their objection to its authority. They did not deny the
existence of these old traditional laws, for they themselves were the
possessors and transmitters of the same. Nor did they reject them as
spurious or as without any authority, for they recognized the right
of former priests and teachers to enact such laws. They only refused
to consider these traditional laws as of authority absolute and equal
with the written Law contained in the Torah.” The result, therefore,
so far as their controversy with the Pharisees on this point was
concerned, was the same: traditional laws, by whomsoever put forth,
whether based on the written Law or not, were not permanently binding
nor of equal authority with the written Law; the Pharisees, on the
other, since they contended that the oral Law was based upon the
written Law, regarded both as of equal authority and permanently
binding.
[180] _Op. cit._, p. 141.
[181] Matthew iii. 7.
[182] Matthew xvi. 1.
[183] Acts v. 1 ff.
[184] _Antiq._, XVIII, i. 3.
[185] Leszynsky, _Op. cit._, p. 18.
[186] See further the section on Messianic teaching, below.
[187] Cp. Leszynsky, _Op. cit._, p. 91. It is also worth mentioning
here that in Ecclesiasticus, which certainly represents the Sadducæan
standpoint, angels are referred to—see below, Chapter XII, § (_g_).
[188] With this compare the popular belief as reflected in Acts xii.
15, where it is said in reference to St. Peter, “It is his angel.”
[189] The descent of Zadok is traced from Eleazar, the elder son of
Aaron, in 1 Chronicles vi. 4-15, 50-53, xxiv 6.
[190] There is an important passage in Ecclesiasticus (xlv. 23-25,
Hebr.) which must be referred to here; in this passage Phinehas is
set beside Moses and Aaron as “the third ... and he made atonement
for the children of Israel. Therefore for him too, He [i.e.
God] established an ordinance, a covenant of peace to maintain
the sanctuary; that to him and to his seed should appertain the
High-priesthood for ever.” Then reference is made to David and to
Aaron; the mention of these here in a chronological list of Israel’s
great ones is quite out of place, and therefore there must be some
special purpose in referring to them; that purpose is plain enough,
for in speaking of David it is said that “the inheritance of the
king is his son’s alone,” while in speaking of Aaron it is said that
“the inheritance of Aaron belongs to his seed.” A differentiation
is thus made between the royal line and the priestly line; and as
the royal line had ceased, and only the priestly one continued, and
the High-priest (the descendant of the house of Zadok) was both
ecclesiastical and political leader, it was from this line that the
Messiah would be expected to come. In Ecclesiasticus (see pp. 334
ff.) the Sadducæan standpoint is represented. See also 1 Maccabees
ii. 54, “Phinehas our father ... obtained the covenant of an
everlasting priesthood” (cp. 4 Macc. xviii. 12).
[191] Schechter, _Op. cit._, pp. xii.-xiii.
[192] Of course, it is not to be supposed that the Sadducees and
Pharisees actually kept the feasts at different periods; the quarrel
did not emerge out of the domain of theory; actual difference in
usage regarding such matters would have been quite out of the
question.
[193] See Leszynsky, _Op. cit._, pp. 52 ff.
[194] _Op. cit._, p. 51.
[195] For further details about the Pharisees’ teaching reference may
be made, in addition to the literature at the head of this chapter,
to Schechter’s _Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology_ (1909) and
Montefiore’s article on “Rabbinic Conceptions of Repentance” in the
_Jewish Quarterly Review_, XVI (January, 1904), pp. 209-257.
[196] See Josephus, _Antiq._, XIII, x. 5, 6; Schürer, _Op. cit._, I,
i. pp. 286-290, German ed., I, pp. 270-273.
[197] _Op. cit._, p. 177.
[198] For details see Leszynsky, _Op. cit._, pp. 36 ff.
[199] With the Greek word _Kanôn_ (Canon) compare the Hebrew _qāneh_,
a “reed,” which is also used in the sense of a “measuring rod” (Ezek.
xlii. 16-19; cp. Judith xiii. 6, where the Greek word is used for the
“rail” of a bed). Originally the word in Greek meant a “carpenter’s
rule,” and had nothing to do with the books of Scripture. In its
technical sense it is Christian, being thus used for the first time,
so far as is known, about the middle of the fourth century A.D.; the
fifty-ninth canon of the council of Laodicæa (about A.D. 360) speaks
of “canonical books” as opposed to uncanonical. It is a still later
usage, so far as our present knowledge goes, which applies the term
Canon to the whole collection of biblical books. What the original
idea was in using the expression in reference to the books of the
Bible is uncertain, but probably it was that of “norm” or “rule”
(cp. Gal. vi. 16; 2 Cor. x. 13); just as “canonical action” (1 Ep.
of Clement vii. 2) was according to the Christian norm, so books
judged by their contents, authorship, and history, were declared
to be according to the Christian norm, and therefore “canonical”;
cp. the expressions “rule (or canon) of truth,” “rule (or canon) of
faith,” used in the early Church. It is probable that the adjective
“canonical” preceded the use of the noun “Canon” in its technical
sense.
[200] The Jews sometimes refer to the whole body of their canonical
Scriptures under the name of _Tenak_, i.e. TNK, an abbreviation (with
vowels inserted in order to make it pronounceable) formed by the
initial letters of the names given to the three main divisions of the
Hebrew Scriptures, viz., _T_orah, _N_ebiim, _K_ethubim.
[201] In the authoritative lists of the canonical books the order
varies somewhat; but the order given above is that of the printed
Hebrew Bibles.
[202] In the earliest known Hebrew manuscripts they appear as one
book; so, too, 1, 2 Kings.
[203] Cp. Robertson Smith, _The Old Testament in the Jewish Church_
(2nd ed.), p. 149.
[204] Ab is the fifth month in the Jewish Calendar, and corresponds
roughly to August; it is called the “Black Fast,” and commemorates
the destruction of the first and second temples.
[205] So according to the Hebrew; the Greek is somewhat different.
[206] So according to Smend’s probable conjecture.
[207] _Kanonisch und Apokryph_, p. 20.
[208] See Ecclesiastes xii. 12.
[209] Ryle, for example, says that the expression by which Ben-Sira’s
grandson “designates the third group certainly lacks definiteness.
It does not warrant us to maintain that the ‘Writings’ or ‘Kethubim’
were all, in their completed form, known to the writer” (_Op. cit._,
p. 119). And again (p. 121): “These writings, which are so well known
to us, were probably only samples, though doubtless the choicest
ones, of an abundant literature to which every Jew at the end of the
third century B.C. had access.” On the other hand, Ryle believes that
by about B.C. 200 there was a definitely recognized Hebrew Canon of
Scripture consisting of the Law and the Prophets (_Op. cit._, p. 113).
[210] This Rabbinical phrase for denoting canonicity is explained
below, p. 175.
[211] This book was denied a place in the Canon by Melito of Sardis
in the middle of the second century A.D., according to Eusebius,
_Hist. Eccl._, iv. 26.
[212] Josephus reckons Ruth and Lamentations as belonging to Judges
and Jeremiah respectively.
[213] The addition here of the words “as divine” does not, in all
probability, belong to the original text.
[214] _Op. cit._, p. 164.
[215] For details see Hölscher, _Op. cit._, pp. 36 ff.
[216] _Op. cit._, pp. 165 ff.
[217] See further below, Chapter X.
[218] This was accounted for in later days by saying that when
Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi died the Holy Spirit left Israel
(Sanhedrin 11_a_); therefore (this is the inference) no inspired book
can have been written in post-prophetic times, cp. Yoma 21_b_.
[219] For details of the evidence see Schürer II, i. pp. 366 ff.
(German ed., II, pp. 432 ff., where the references are supplemented);
Cheyne, _Job and Solomon_, pp. 280 ff.; Hölscher, _Op. cit._, pp. 32
ff.; _Jewish Encycl._, vii. 18.
[220] For details see Ryle, _Op. cit._, pp. 192-202.
[221] _Vita_, § 2.
[222] Thus Jochanan ben Zakkai (middle of first century A.D.) speaks
of books which “defile the hands” (Jadaim iii. 2, 5; iv. 5, 6).
[223] See the Additional Note at the end of this chapter.
[224] Budde, in the _Encycl. Bibl._, i. 649; see further the
Additional Note at the end of this chapter.
[225] Written, probably, about B.C. 50.
[226] Hölscher, _Op. cit._, p. 6.
[227] Romans i. 2, cp. 2 Timothy iii. 15.
[228] See, among other passages, Leviticus vi. 27-30, xi. 32-40,
xiv. 1 ff., XV. 1 ff., 24, xvi. 26, 28, xviii. 19; Numbers v. 1-3;
Deuteronomy xxi. 10-14.
[229] Abundant material will be found in Frazer’s _The Golden Bough:
Taboo and the Perils of the Soul_ (1911).
[230] _The Religion of the Semites_, p. 449 (1894); and see Jevons’
_Introduction to the History of Religion_, pp. 59-95 (1904).
[231] Cases of death are on record; it was, of course, occasioned by
fright, but savages would see only the result of the spirit’s anger.
Instances of the infringement of custom would naturally be rare.
[232] See Leviticus xi. 32, Ezekiel xliv. 19, and cp. the idea
of “holiness” in such passages, among many, as Exodus xix. 22,
Deuteronomy xxiii. 18, where the Hebrew root is identical, though to
us the ideas in either case are directly opposite.
[233] He is referring to the rules of ceremonial purity observed by
divine kings, chiefs, and priests, as well as by homicides, mourners,
women in childbed, girls at puberty, etc.
[234] _Op. cit._, p. 224.
[235] For example, in the case of a canonical book which “defiled”
the hands the Talmud (Shabbath 14_a_) says it was taught that the
hands became unclean by contact with the Holy Scriptures in order
that they should not be touched by uncovered hands!
[236] Hölscher, _Op. cit._, p. 60.
[237] Moore, in the _Jewish Encycl._, II, 2_a_.
[238] Hölscher mentions, with references, a “book of cures,” a Targum
which was forbidden, and heretical books, _Op. cit._, p. 62.
[239] Hölscher, _Op. cit._, p. 63.
[240] Ecclesiasticus is often quoted in the Talmud.
[241] Cp., further, Buhl, _Kanon und Text des Alten Testaments_
(Engl. Transl.), p. 26.
[242] See further below.
[243] James, in the _Encycl. Biblica_, i. 249.
[244] James, _Op. cit._, says that this book “may be as old as the
first century A.D.”; but according to Hölscher and the editors of
the papyrus (Leeman and Dieterich) it belongs to the third or fourth
century A.D.
[245] Moore, _Op. cit._, ii. p. 1_a_.
[246] Hölscher, _Op. cit._, p. 47.
[247] _Ibid._
[248] Charles’ edition.
[249] Charles’ edition.
[250] Box’s edition.
[251] For this idea cp. also the Assumption of Moses i. 16-18 (see
below, Chapter X (_f_)), where Moses is commanded to anoint certain
books with cedar oil and hide them in earthenware vessels, these are
to be secreted in a spot which had been created from the beginning of
the world for this very purpose.
[252] Lest, in course of time, the number of these soiled copies
should unduly increase, lest also, in case of persecution arising,
they should run the risk of being desecrated, it was thought well
that after the lapse of a certain time these rolls should be done
away with; they were, therefore, sometimes burned, or thrown down a
well, or in some cases placed in the grave of some respected Rabbi;
more frequently, however, they were buried in a grave of their own in
the cemetery.
[253] _Studies in Judaism_ (Second Series), p. 2.
[254] _Jewish Encycl._, V, 612_a_.
[255] For references see Hölscher, _Op. cit._, pp. 48, 49, see also
p. 64.
[256] See below, Chapter X.
[257] See Zunz, _Die Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden_, pp.
165-179 (1892).
[258] Harnack, _Privater Gebrauch heiliger Schriften in der alten
Kirche_, p. 72 (1912).
[259] For the private use in the early Church of biblical as well as
other books see Harnack’s book just mentioned.
[260] But even these might only be read “as one reads a letter,” not
studied (Hölscher, _Op. cit._, p. 45).
[261] Sanhedrin x. 1 (Strack’s edition, 1910).
[262] Cp. Mark iv. 11; 1 Cor. v. 12, 13; Col. iv. 5; 1 Thess. iv. 12.
[263] Hölscher, _Op. cit._, p. 46. The _Minim_ (“heretics”) are very
often mentioned in Jewish writings; Herford says that the term “in
some cases certainly denotes Christians” (_Christianity in Talmud and
Midrash_, p. 99).
[264] Shabbath c. 16 (Jerusalem Talmud), quoted by Hölscher.
[265] Barton, _The Book of Ecclesiastes_ (The International Critical
Commentary), pp. 197-199.
[266] Cp. Ezra iv. 7.
[267] Zunz, _Op. cit._, p. 9; Strack, _Einleitung in den Talmud_, p.
14 (1908).
[268] The term “Midrash,” which occurs in the Bible (2 Chron. xiii.
22, xxiv. 17) denotes “exposition” or “exegesis,” especially of an
edifying and moralizing character; see further Oesterley and Box,
_Op. cit._, pp. 77-100.
[269] Strack, _Op. cit._, pp. 13, 14.
[270] “Such topics as astronomy and astrology, medicine and magic,
theosophy and mysticism, and similar subjects, falling mostly under
the heading of folklore, pass as a rule also under the name of
Haggadah” (Schechter).
[271] Under this term is embraced all that belongs to the strictly
legal or ritual element in Scripture, or that can be deduced
therefrom, including discussions of such points. But, as Schechter
says, “the term extends also to the usages, customs, ordinances and
decrees for which there is little or no authority in the Scriptures.”
[272] In 1904, 1906-1908.
[273] See above, pp. 50 ff.
[274] This was in Jerusalem; cp., in later days, the “School of
Tyrannus” in Ephesus (Acts xix. 9).
[275] _Kanonisch und Apokryph_, pp. 42-46.
[276] See Friedländer, _Die rel. Bewegungen_ ..., pp. 22-77.
[277] Oesterley and Box, _Op. cit._, p. 36.
[278] See his editions of these books.
[279] Portions of this book are also found in the Book of Jubilees,
vii. 20-39, x. 1-15, cp. xxi. 10.
[280] _Die Worte Jesu_, p. 199.
[281] _Op. cit._, pp. 253 ff.
[282] See above, pp. 150 ff.
[283] I.e. “The Book of the Heavenly Luminaries,” as Charles calls it.
[284] I.e. “the righteous”; a play on the word _Zaddūkim_, the “sons
of Zadok,” i.e. “the Sadducees.”
[285] See p. 93.
[286] See also what is said above on the section called “The Book of
the Heavenly Luminaries,” or “Book of Astronomy.”
[287] _Die rel. Bewegungen_ ..., pp. 59, 60.
[288] i.-xxxii. 6 and xix. 3-xxi. 9 in a duplicate form were
discovered at Akhmîm in 1886-1887; vi.-x. 14, xv. 8-xvi. 1, and
viii. 4-ix. 4 in a duplicate form, have been preserved in Syncellus;
lxxxix. 42-49 occurs in a Greek Vatican MS. (No. 1809); there are
also a few quotations in early Greek ecclesiastical writings.
[289] Charles, _The Book of Enoch_ (2nd ed.), p. ix.
[290] _Op. cit._, II, iii. 273.
[291] _Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs_, pp. liv. ff.
[292] _Op. cit._, pp. xcvii. f.
[293] There is, indeed, nothing to prohibit us from dating the book
slightly later than Charles does (viz. B.C. 109-107), and assigning
it to the reign of Alexander Jannæus, B.C. 103-76. Testament of Levi
viii. 14 does not militate against this.
[294] _Op. cit._, pp. 239 ff.
[295] _Op. cit._, p. xcvii.
[296] _Op. cit._, II, p. 630.
[297] But see below, pp. 218, 223.
[298] _The Apocryph. and Pseud. of the O.T._, II, p. 411.
[299] _Op. cit._, pp. 268 ff.
[300] Proverbs, Job, some of the later Psalms, Ecclesiastes,
Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom.
[301] Gregg, _The Wisdom of Solomon_, p. xxx.
[302] _Griechische Philosophie_ ..., p. 13.
[303] Cp. also the account of the meeting between Solomon and the
Queen of Sheba, 1 Kings x. 1-9.
[304] Toy, in the _Encycl. Bibl._, IV, 5322.
[305] See Isaiah xix. 11-15; Jeremiah l. 35, li. 57.
[306] Jeremias, _Das alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_, pp.
29, 80.
[307] So the Greek; the Hebrew is not extant, but the Syriac has:
“in the roots of Tehom,” so that the Hebrew in all probability read
“Tehom.” See further, Proverbs viii. 26-30.
[308] On this see further in the next section.
[309] In the _Jewish Encycl._, XII, 537_b_.
[310] Fairweather, _The Background of the Gospels_, p. 84.
[311] Cp. Oesterley and Box, _Op. cit._, pp. 195-221.
[312] Fairweather, _Op. cit._, p. 84.
[313] Cp. also verse 9: “He spake and it was done,” and Psalm
cxlviii. 5.
[314] Barton, _Ecclesiastes_, in the “International Critical
Commentary,” p. 37.
[315] Oesterley and Box, _The Wisdom of Ben-Sira_, in Charles’ “The
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament,” I, p. 308.
[316] The idea appears already in Proverbs viii. 31-36, ix. 1-6; but
Ben-Sira elaborates it in his own way.
[317] See, on this subject, the very interesting essay on “The Holy
Spirit as Wisdom,” by Rees, in the _Mansfield College Essays_ (1909).
[318] Gregg, _The Wisdom of Solomon_, p. xxxvi.
[319] The tree of wisdom in the Garden is referred to in xxxii. 3.
[320] See above, p. 202.
[321] But cp. Job xxviii. 12-14, though the general conception of
Wisdom here differs from that of the later Wisdom books.
[322] Hastings’ _D.B._, V, p. 275.
[323] Spoken of as “the holy ones,” so too in Job xv. 15; cp. also
Prayer of Manasses, verse 15.
[324] See pp. 331 ff; below.
[325] For other examples see the present writer’s section in the
Introduction to _Sirach_ in Charles, I, pp. 285 f.
[326] For the reason of this see below, pp. 412 f.
[327] On the substitution of “Heaven” for the name of God, see
Oesterley and Box, _Op. cit._, pp. 186 ff.
[328] Holmes in Charles, I, 527.
[329] Cp. the Book of Enoch lxix. 6, where it is said in reference to
the evil angels: “Now the third is Gadreel; he it is who taught the
children of man all the blows of death; and he led astray Eve....”
[330] These have been recounted in the preceding verses; the writer
is addressing Jews.
[331] _The Ezra-Apocalypse_, pp. xl. f.
[332] Maldwyn Hughes, _The Ethics of Jewish Apocryphal Literature_,
p. 240.
[333] See further the next section, on the Future Life.
[334] In one passage in this Vision, xii. 34, the Messianic Kingdom
appears to be reserved for the children of Israel only; but it is
probable that this verse does not belong to the original text.
[335] The whole passage, iii. 1-9, deals with the lot of the
righteous hereafter, but the salient words in the present connection
are those quoted above.
[336] “Behold, the Lord God will come as a mighty one and His
arm shall rule for Him; behold, His reward is with Him, and His
recompense before Him” (Isa. xl. 10). “And the Lord will create over
the whole habitation of mount Zion, and over her assemblies, a cloud
and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night; for
over all the glory shall be spread a canopy. And there shall be a
pavilion for a shadow in the day-time from the heat, and for a refuge
and for a covert from storm and from rain” (Isa. iv. 5, 6). “In
that day shall the Lord of hosts be for a crown of glory, and for a
diadem of beauty, unto the residue of His people, and for a spirit
of judgement to him that sitteth in judgement, and for strength to
them that turn back the battle at the gate” (Isa. xxviii. 5, 6). It
is the thought, not the language, which shows connection between the
two; in the Septuagint of Isaiah xxviii. 5, for example, “a diadem
of beauty” is differently expressed, but see Isaiah lxii. 3 (Sept.).
“And He saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no
intercessor; therefore His own arm brought salvation unto Him, and
His righteousness it upheld Him. 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” (Isa. lix. 16, 17). Cp. also parts of Psalm xviii.
[337] See the present writer’s _Ecclesiasticus_, p. lxxvi.
[338] It is, of course, possible that this is due to a Christian
glossator; but there is no doubt that the Old Latin contains many
really ancient elements.
[339] We follow Box here (_The Ezra Apocalypse_, passim), though
we are not convinced that all which Box assigns to the Redactor is
necessarily from this hand.
[340] The meaning of the name is “God hath healed,” cp. iii. 17, “And
Raphael was sent to heal them both.”
[341] In Enoch xx. 8 he is said to be him “whom God set over those
who rise.”
[342] See, for details, the present writer’s _Ecclesiasticus_, in the
Cambridge Bible, pp. 263 f.
[343] _The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament_ (1913).
[344] The final “ch” was added in Greek to show that the name was
indeclinable.
[345] In the Hebrew text the author speaks of himself as: “Simeon,
the son of Jeshua (Jesus), the son of Eleazar, the son of Sira.”
[346] See Part I., Chap. xii.
[347] See the present writer’s _Ecclesiasticus_ in the Cambridge
Bible, p. xxiv.
[348] Euergetes I reigned for twenty-five years, B.C. 247-222.
[349] Cowley and Neubauer, _The Original Hebrew of a portion of
Ecclesiasticus_, pp. x., xi.
[350] Cp. Maunde Thompson, _Handbook of Greek and Latin Palæography_,
p. 43.
[351] See Gaster in the _Jewish Quarterly Review_, xii. pp. 688 ff.
[352] Oesterley, _Op. cit._, pp. xci. f. (See the Literature at the
head of the chapter.)
[353] Prof. D. S. Margoliouth, _The Origin of the “Original” Hebrew
of Ecclesiasticus_.
[354] Lévi, in the _Jewish Encycl._, xi. 393.
[355] See Box and Oesterley, _Op. cit._, pp. 272-278.
[356] _Ibid._, p. 277.
[357] In this connection it is important to note the following
facts: _all_ the Greek manuscripts, uncial as well as cursives,
have a great displacement in the text, xxx. 25-xxxiii. 13_a_ having
exchanged places with xxxiii. 13_b_-xxxvi. 16_a_; since all the Greek
manuscripts have this displacement it is obvious that all ultimately
go back to a single parent manuscript; now the Old Latin Version has
_not_ got the displacement, and yet it is a translation from the
Greek; consequently this version represents a condition of affairs
which is older than the oldest Greek manuscripts.
[358] _Op. cit._, p. 274; he adds in a note that these additions “do
not necessarily proceed from the hand of one individual”; we feel
convinced that he is right here also.
[359] We use this term as being the most convenient, but strictly
speaking it is an anachronism, for, as we have seen above (Chap.
vii), the _term_ belongs to post-Maccabæan times; we use it here as
representing the pre-Maccabæan tendency which later on developed into
Sadducæanism.
[360] Cowley, _Op. cit._, iv. 4237.
[361] _Ibid._
[362] Nothing better illustrates this than Ben-Sira’s copious use of
the Psalms and Proverbs.
[363] See above, pp. 267 ff.
[364] I.e. natural tendency, or inclination.
[365] Perhaps the rendering of the Syriac Version is to be preferred
here; for “wresteth reproofs” it reads “concealeth instruction.”
[366] In his edition of _Pirqe Aboth_ (2nd ed.), p. 115.
[367] This is only preserved in Hebrew.
[368] The additions are found scattered in the Greek cursives
numbered 23, 55, 70, 106, 248 (this is the foremost representative
of the group), 253; some were added by a later corrector of Codex
Alexandrinus; also in the Syriac and Old Latin Versions (St.
Jerome incorporated this in the Vulgate as it stood) and in the
Syro-Hexapla; as well as in the quotations from the book in the
writings of Clement of Alexandria.
[369] The fact that some of the additions are found in Hebrew points
to their having been made at an early date; it is unlikely that a
secondary Hebrew text would have been written in post-Christian times.
[370] This addition occurs in the Hebrew text, as well as in the
cursives.
[371] The Hebrew of chapter xxix. is not extant; but the addition
probably existed in the secondary Hebrew as it occurs in the Syriac
Version as well as in the cursives and in the Old Latin Version.
[372] For further details see the commentaries of Mayor, and
Knowling, on St. James, and Zahn’s _Einleitung_, I. p. 87.
[373] This is the form of the name given in the Aramaic fragments.
[374] “And when I saw them, my tongue stammered and my limbs became
faint; and I sought for a single word from the words of wisdom, and I
found none,” iv. 2 (Rendel Harris’ translation of the Syriac Version).
[375] So according to the Aramaic, the other Versions read
“Sennacherib.” The Aramaic text is given in Ungnad’s _Aramäische
Papyrus aus Elephantine_, pp. 62-82 (1911).
[376] According to the Armenian Version (Conybeare), Pharaoh
threatens to attack the king of Assyria and to take away his kingdom
if he does not fall in with the proposal.
[377] It is given in Swete, _The Old Testament in Greek_, vol. ii.
pp. 815-848 (1896).
[378] In the Aramaic fragment this is not the case, apparently.
[379] In the Achikar story he is called “the Secretary and Great Seal
of Sennacherib, king of Assyria and Nineveh” (Syriac Version iii. 8).
[380] Although the Greek omits the words “and thy wine” they occur in
the Latin, Aramaic, and Hebrew Versions.
[381] Simpson, in Charles, I, p. 191.
[382] See Schürer, III, p. 241, where further literature is given;
the English translation of Schürer does not contain this; it has been
added to the last (fourth) German edition.
[383] See further, Simrock, _Der gute Gerhard und die dankbaren
Todten_ (1856).
[384] For details see Schneider, _Kultur und Denken der Babylonier
und Juden_, pp. 638 ff. (1910).
[385] Cp. Numbers xix. 11-13, 16 ff.
[386] The reference to fasting in xii. 8, does not belong to the true
text.
[387] See above, pp. 92 f.
[388] The idea that the book is historical and therefore belongs to
the seventh century B.C. does not merit serious consideration.
[389] _Op. cit._, I, p. 185.
[390] _Encycl. Brit._ art., “Tobit.”
[391] See, further, Simpson, _Op. cit._, I, p. 185.
[392] Origen, _Ep. ad Afric._, xiii., says that the book was not
written in Hebrew; Jerome, _Praef. in Vers. libri Tob._, says he
translated it from the Chaldee (i.e. Aramaic), but this was itself a
translation, for while the Greek puts the narrative from i. 3-iii.
6 in the first person and from here onwards continues in the third
person, Jerome’s Aramaic (which is in all probability represented
by the manuscript edited by Neubauer, _The Book of Tobit, A Chaldee
text_ ... 1878) makes the _whole_ narrative run in the third person;
but if the original form of the story was written in the third person
throughout, it is unthinkable that in a later form the first person
would have been substituted in i. 3-iii. 6 alone. On the other hand,
it would be quite natural for the original writer to commence his
story in the first person and later to fall into the third person,
for this latter is the simpler and easier form of narration. The
Hebrew Versions are of quite late date, and obviously translations;
see Neubauer, _Op. cit._, and Gaster, _Two Unknown Hebrew Versions of
the Tobit Legend_ (1897).
[393] Torrey in the _Jewish Encycl._, vii. 388_b_.
[394] _Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden_ (2nd ed.), p. 132.
[395] _Op cit._, vii. 388_a_.
[396] These three cursives are all in the Vatican Library at Rome.
[397] Cp. Löhr, _Op. cit._, p. 147 (see the Literature above).
[398] So according to Scholz, _Op. cit._, pp. xxiv. f. (see the
Literature above).
[399] See the Literature above.
[400] _Op. cit._, p. 131.
[401] _The Religious Views of the Pharisees_, p. 2; see also Herford,
_Pharisaism, its Aim and its Method_, pp. 282-335.
[402] See above, p. 91.
[403] Owing to the revolt of Bar-Kokba.
[404] Chapter lv., where he speaks of “Judith the blessed.”
[405] See pp. 218 f. above.
[406] In the _Encycl. Biblica_, ii. 2645.
[407] Löhr, _Op. cit._, i. 148.
[408] Viz. _Cod. Chisianus_ (87), a cursive of the ninth century.
[409] Swete, _Intr. to the O.T. in Greek_, p. 260 (1900).
[410] Swete, _Op. cit._, p. 260.
[411] _Stromateis_ iv.
[412] _Eclogæ Propheticæ_, § I.
[413] _Strom._ i.
[414] Swete says: “The addition to Daniel iii. 23 is clearly
Midrashic and probably had a Semitic original,” _Op. cit._, p. 261.
[415] Singer, _Op. cit._, pp. 55-57.
[416] Singer, _Op. cit._, pp. 270-273.
[417] In the present writer’s _Ecclesiasticus_ (Cambridge Bible)
a translation of this Psalm is given together with the points of
similarity between it and the “Shemoneh ‘Esreh,” pp. 349, 350.
[418] In the Mishna, Sanhedrin vi. 2, it is said: “If some cause for
extenuation is brought forward on his (i.e. the condemned) behalf, he
is liberated, otherwise he goes out (i.e. of the hall of judgement)
to be stoned. Some (accredited) person calls out in front of him
(i.e. as he is being led to the place of execution): ‘So and so, the
son of so and so, is going forth to be stoned for having committed
such and such a sin, and of which such and such are the witnesses;
whosoever has anything to bring forward in his favour let him come
forth and utter it on behalf of him’ (i.e. the condemned).”
[419] See the works mentioned under the Literature given above.
[420] The Jewish name was Salome.
[421] “Then shall ye do unto him as he thought to do unto his
brother.”
[422] “The Greek word translated ‘dragon’ denotes originally a large
serpent. Homer uses _drakōn_ and _ophis_ interchangeably without
the least apparent difference. Even the _drakōn_ of Greek mythology
remains essentially a serpent”—Witton Davies in Charles, I, 653.
[423] Rouse, _Greek Votive Offerings_, pp. 193 ff.
[424] Both Berosus and Helladius speak of gods worshipped as serpents
in Babylon (Witton Davies).
[425] It should be noted that in the canonical Esther the chapters
run from i. to x. 3; in the Apocrypha the chapters are numbered as
though they came consecutively after those of the canonical Esther,
viz. x. 4 to xvi. 24; this unnecessary confusion is due to St. Jerome
“who relegated the Greek interpolations to the end of the canonical
book; but it has had the effect of making them unintelligible”
(Swete, _Op. cit._, p. 257).
[426] Unless the mention of fasting, in iv. 16, ix. 31, can be
included in this.
[427] _Op. cit._, p. 258.
[428] In the margin of the Revised Version this note occurs: “Or,
_the seers_. So the Septuagint”; this is, no doubt, what should be
read.
[429] _Op. cit._, p. 362.
[430] _Op. cit._, p. 612.
[431] See Swete, _Intro. to the O.T. in Greek_, p. 142 (1900).
[432] See Swete, _Op. cit._, p. 253. The Greek text is given in
Swete’s _The O.T. in Greek_, iii. pp. 824-826.
[433] Where it follows a reference to 2 Chronicles xxxiii. 18.
[434] In ii. 22.
[435] _Op. cit._, p. 613.
[436] Ryle treats these words as though they stood in the text of
Cod. T _in addition to_ “I have set up ...” (which is the case in the
Latin Version); but according to Swete’s _apparatus criticus_ they
are not an addition, but a substitution.
[437] The text of Cod. A agrees, however, with that of the
_Apostolical Constitutions_.
[438] See Fritzsche; _Kurzgefasstes exeget. Handbuch zu den
Apokryphen des Alten Testamentes_, i. pp. 158 ff.; Ball, _Op. cit._,
pp. 362 ff.
[439] The _Didascalia_ was incorporated into the _Apostolical
Constitutions_ of which it forms the first six books; the
_Apostolical Constitutions_ belongs to the fourth or fifth century.
[440] Oesterley, _Op. cit._, I, p. 59.
[441] Oesterley, _Op. cit._, p. 61.
[442] See Josephus, _Antiq._, XIV, iv. 2-4; _Bell. Jud._, I, vii. 3-6.
[443] See further, Schürer, _Op. cit._ II, iii. pp. 13, 14.
[444] The present writer has given many of these in his commentary
referred to above.
[445] This section is taken substantially from the present writer’s
commentary in Charles, I, pp. 61-65.
[446] _Juden und Griechen vor der makkabäischen Erhebung_, pp. 70 ff.
[447] _Hermes_, ix. pp. 284 ff., cp. Kautzsch, _Op. cit._, i. p. 30.
[448] _Op. cit._, p. 72.
[449] Though this did not actually come about until some time after
the period dealt with in our book.
[450] “Saviour,” on account of his having delivered the Babylonians
from the satrap Heraclides.
[451] The name of the Hasmonæan dynasty comes from that of the
ancestor of the house, Asmonæus (Josephus, _Antiq._, XII, vi. 1; XIV,
xvi. 4; XVI, vii. 1), who is said to have been the grandfather of
Mattathias.
[452] It is in 1 Maccabees xiv. 41 that we are told of the
ratification by the people of the high-priestly and princely dignity
in the house of Asmonæus; “And the Jews and the priests were well
pleased that Simon should be their leader and high-priest for
ever....”
[453] See above, p. 419.
[454] According to Josephus (_Bell. Jud._, II, x. 2) this was a high
hill a hundred _stadia_ north of Ptolemais.
[455] No further mention is made of him in 1 Maccabees; he was
murdered three or four years later by the usurper Alexander Zabinas,
who gave himself out to be the son of Alexander Balas.
[456] Josephus (_Antiq._, XIII, vii. 2) says that he “fled from Dora
to Apamæa, where he was taken during the siege, and put to death,
when he had reigned three years.”
[457] These formed originally one book, as in the Septuagint; their
division into two books is probably due to Christian influence.
[458] In the Septuagint there is no equivalent to these two chapters;
see on this below, pp. 510 f.
[459] For the exceptions to this, see below.
[460] Volz (_Encycl. Bibl._, II, 1490) says of this story that “it
is an independent piece of narrative that is also found standing by
itself in a MS. of the Vulgate (Berger, _Hist. de la Vulgate_, p.
94 [1893]). To all appearance this piece is itself also a composite
production, the praise of truth being an addition. The whole seems to
have been originally written in Greek, and shows affinity with the
epistle of Aristeas (Ewald, _Hist._, v. 165); the writer appears to
have knowledge of the court history of Persia (iv. 29 ff.). The hero
of the story is not originally Zerubbabel.”
[461] Hastings’ _Dict. of the Bible_, I, 759 f.
[462] They are clearly and succinctly summarized by Thackeray in
Hastings’ _Dict. of the Bible_, I, 758-763.
[463] _History of Israel_, v. pp. 126 ff.
[464] In the _Academy_ for 1893.
[465] _Op. cit._, p. 2.
[466] Cp. Josephus, _Antiq._, XI, iii. 2-6.
[467] _The International Journal of Apocrypha_, April 1913, pp. 33,
34.
[468] That the book was originally written in Greek admits of no
doubt.
[469] Quoted by Goodrick, _Op. cit._, p. 34.
[470] He is followed by Wright, McNeile, and Barton, in their works
on Ecclesiastes.
[471] _Ecclesiastes, or, The Preacher_, pp. 70 f.
[472] Cp. Barton, _The Book of Ecclesiastes_, pp. 57 f., where the
passages are quoted in full in parallel columns.
[473] See pp. 200 f.
[474] For the various untenable theories regarding the identity of
the author, see Grimm, pp. 16 ff., Farrar, pp. 410 ff.; the question
of composite authorship is dealt with in the next section.
[475] Some scholars hold strongly that the author was an Essene;
earlier commentators have argued in favour of the author being a
Christian. That the book was written for Jews is probable, apart
from other considerations, from the numerous references to the Old
Testament and past history of the Jews.
[476] _Op. cit._, p. xvii.
[477] See above, pp. 165 f.
[478] It must be remembered that in the Hebrew Bible the Book of Job
is reckoned among the _Hagiographa_.
[479] The words in the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus, “and the rest
of the books,” are too indefinite for us to assume that the writer
meant the _Hagiographa_ as we understand them. In the Hebrew of
Ecclesiasticus (xlix. 9), Job is mentioned, but only in reference to
Ezekiel xiv. 14, 20, nothing is said of Job as we know him from the
book that bears his name.
[480] _Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek_, p. 26 f.
[481] Goodrick, _Op. cit._, p. 15.
[482] We have adopted some of Goodrick’s renderings in this quotation
as being superior to that of the Revised Version; see Swete’s text,
_The Old Testament in Greek_, ii. p. 606 f.
[483] _Encycl. Bibl._, iv. 5347.
[484] Mr. Gregg (_Op. cit._, p. xxvii.) says: “Attacks upon the unity
of the book have failed, and no serious effort to dispute it has
recently been made.” This is really not quite in accordance with the
facts; Mr. Gregg has overlooked some not unimportant contributions
to the literature on the subject; during the years 1903-1906 quite
serious efforts have been made to show that the book is of composite
authorship by at least five first-rate scholars.
[485] It is true that Wisdom is mentioned in xiv. 2, but it is
used there in quite a different sense from that of the personified
semi-divine Wisdom of part I, a fact which, if anything, strengthens
the argument in favour of different authorship.
[486] Toy, in _Encycl. Bibl._, iv. 5338.
[487] _Op. cit._, i. pp. 522, 523.
[488] It should, however, be pointed out that differences of opinion
exist as to where the dividing line between the two parts lies; Toy
follows Houbigant here.
[489] _Op. cit._, p. 77.
[490] It is true that the book opens with an address to rulers; but
Gregg is doubtless right in saying that this “would seem to be a
purely rhetorical artifice, screening the real purpose of the book
...” (_Op. cit._, p. xxi.).
[491] _Op. cit._, pp. xxiii. f.
[492] _The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought_, p.
231 (1900).
[493] Torrey, in the _Encycl. Bibl._, iii. 2870.
[494] On this obscure episode of pre-Maccabæan Jewish history see
Büchler, _Die Tobiaden und die Oniaden_, pp. 106 ff.
[495] These are very conveniently drawn up in parallel columns by
Moffatt, in Charles, I, pp. 126, 127.
[496] See above, p. 415.
[497] There are some few scholars who take a different view, e.g.
Niese, less directly in favour of 2 Maccabees are Büchler and
Laqueur, more modified in their opinion are Sluys and Wellhausen,
see Schürer, German ed., III, p. 484 (not mentioned in the English
edition).
[498] The text reads “belonging to Bacenor’s company,” but this can
scarcely be right, as in xii. 17-19 Dositheus belongs to the “Jews
that are called Tubieni.”
[499] _Encycl. Bibl._, iii. 2873 f.
[500] This figure should be “eight” according to 1 Maccabees iv. 95.
[501] The month Chislev = approximately December.
[502] Cp. Torrey, _Encycl. Bibl._, iii. 2875 f.
[503] “The senate and Judas” in verse 10 should be read, with the
Syriac Version, “the senate of the Jews.”
[504] Torrey, _Op. cit._, iii. 2877.
[505] Cp. the far more sober account in 1 Maccabees vi. 8-17.
[506] _Op. cit._, iii. 2876.
[507] _Op. cit._, iii. 2877.
[508] _Antiq._, XII, vii. 7.
[509] Lucius, _Der Essenismus_, pp. 36 ff.
[510] In his _Prologus Galeatus_.
[511] Westcott, in Smith’s _Dict. of the Bibl._, ii. p. 175.
[512] Or “first origin.”
[513] E.g., by Irenæus, _Adv. Haeres._, v. 35; Clement of Alexandria,
_Paed._, i. 10.
[514] _Intr. to the O.T. in Greek_, p. 274 (1900).
[515] Cp. Charles, _The Apocalypse of Baruch_, pp. xvi. f. (1896).
[516] Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidos, the last king of Babylon,
who was overthrown by Cyrus.
[517] See the account given by Josephus, _Bell. Jud._, II, xvii. 3.
[518] See Josephus, _Bell. Jud._, VI, iii. 4, ix. 2, 3.
[519] See the long account given by Josephus, _Bell. Jud._, VI, iv.
1-7.
[520] Cp. the Pharisaic additions in _Ecclesiasticus_.
[521] See Zunz, _Die Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden_, passim
(1892).
[522] I.e., the _Shemoneh Esreh_ (“Eighteen Benedictions”); the name
_Amidah_ (“Standing”) is given to it because it is said standing.
[523] In the liturgy the order of these two clauses is reversed.
[524] I.e. “‘Hear,’ O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One,”
Deuteronomy vi. 4-9; xi. 13-21; Numbers xv. 37-41; in this last the
deliverance from Egypt is referred to.
[525] Oesterley and Box, _The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue_,
p. 367 (1911).
[526] According to Cornill, _Einleitung in das Alte Testament_, p.
274 (1896).
[527] In Hastings’ _Dict. of the Bible_, i. 253.
[528] This was pointed out long ago by Ryle and James, _The Psalms of
the Pharisees_, pp. lxxii. ff.
[529] See pp. 214 ff.
[530] _Op. cit._, pp. lxxii.-lxxvii.
[531] In the Revised Version wrongly reckoned as verse 1, which is
not done either in the Vulgate or the Septuagint.
[532] xxxvi. 1 in the Septuagint.
[533] In Hastings’ _Dict. of the Bible_, II, 579.
[534] _Encycl. Bibl._, ii. 2395.
[535] See further, p. 439 above. In the Vulgate the Prayer of
Manasses, 1 (3) Esdras and 2 (4) Esdras are not included among the
Apocrypha, but are placed in an Appendix at the end of the whole
Bible, i.e. after the Book of Revelation.
[536] That it was originally written in Hebrew does not admit of
doubt. See Box, _Op. cit._, pp. xiii.-xx.
[537] Hastings’ _D.B._, i. 766_a_.
[538] The following is translated from the Latin text edited by
Bensly (see the Literature above); the words in brackets are wanting
in the Latin, and are supplied from the Syriac Version.
[539] So the Syriac, which is required by the context; the Latin
reads, “were burned.”
[540] The text is corrupt here; it reads _multitudo tempestatio_.
[541] Box rightly sees the hand of the Redactor in the form of the
Vision as we now have it; he follows Kabisch in holding that the date
of the Redactor is A.D. 120, possibly even a little later.
[542] For other interpretations that have been put forth, see
Drummond, _Op. cit._, pp. 99-114.
[543] The passage v. 56-vi. 6 is a polemic against Christian teaching.
[544] At viii. 63 the dialogue is interrupted by a section on the
Signs of the End; at ix. 13 it is taken up again.
[545] Maldwyn Hughes, _The Ethics of Jewish Apocryphal Literature_,
p. 240.
[546] Box, _Op. cit._, p. xlvi.
[547] I.e. during the destruction of the city.
[548] This is the cup of inspiration, “full of the holy spirit,
which, clear as water, is like fire” (Box).
[549] Box, _Op. cit._, p. 305; see also his Introduction, pp. lviii.
ff.
[550] See above, pp. 198 ff.
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Footnotes [273], [457], [507] and [512] each have two anchors.
Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been
corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within
the text and consultation of external sources.
Some hyphens in words have been silently removed, some added,
when a predominant preference was found in the original book.
Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text,
and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained.
Pg ix: added missing page number ‘77’ for Ecclesiasticus.
Pg xiii: ‘(1 [3] Esdras)’ replaced by ‘(1 (3) Esdras)’.
Pg xiv: ‘(2 [4] Esdras)’ replaced by ‘(2 (4) Esdras)’.
Pg 124: ‘that three are’ replaced by ‘that there are’.
Pg 151: ‘this pseudepipraphic’ replaced by ‘this pseudepigraphic’.
Pg 174: ‘he might chose’ replaced by ‘he might choose’.
Pg 202: removed italic markup from ‘Burkitt’.
Pg 237: ‘should not trangress’ replaced by ‘should not transgress’.
Pg 268: ‘is my trangression’ replaced by ‘is my transgression’.
Pg 289: ‘together in the’ replaced by ‘together is the’.
Pg 293: ‘be sepa this’ replaced by ‘be separated from this’.
Pg 293: ‘the world to me’ replaced by ‘the world to come’.
Pg 386: ‘was astonied, and’ replaced by ‘was astonished, and’.
Pg 412: ‘centreing around’ replaced by ‘centering around’.
Pg 439: ‘(1 [3] Esdras)’ replaced by ‘(1 (3) Esdras)’.
Pg 485: ‘one is unevitably’ replaced by ‘one is inevitably’.
Pg 509: ‘(2 [4] Esdras)’ replaced by ‘(2 (4) Esdras)’.
Pg 515: ‘out of whch’ replaced by ‘out of which’.
Pg 523: ‘above the firmanent’ replaced by ‘above the firmament’.
Pg 535: entry ‘Civitis’ moved up to its proper position.
Footnote [240]: ‘Ecclesiaticus’ replaced by ‘Ecclesiasticus’.