The Project Gutenberg eBook of The books of the Apocrypha.
This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: The books of the Apocrypha.
their origin, teaching and contents
Author: William O. E. Oesterley
Release date: February 21, 2025 [eBook #75434]
Language: English
Original publication: London: Robert Scott, 1915
Credits: Brian Coe, John Campbell and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE BOOKS OF THE APOCRYPHA. ***
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.
Bold text is denoted by =equal signs=.
Footnote anchors are denoted by [number], and the footnotes have
been placed at the end of the book.
A superscript is denoted by ^x or ^{xx}.
Breves and macrons are accurately represented (ă ĕ ā ē etc). The
alef symbol ℵ is used on page 379.
The tables in this book are best viewed using a monospace font.
Some minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book.
THE BOOKS OF THE APOCRYPHA
THEIR ORIGIN, TEACHING AND CONTENTS
LIBRARY OF HISTORIC THEOLOGY
EDITED BY THE REV. WM. C. PIERCY, M.A.
_Each Volume, Demy 8vo, Cloth, Red Burnished Top, 5s. net._
VOLUMES NOW READY.
THE PRESENT RELATIONS OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION.
By the Rev. Professor T. G. BONNEY, D.Sc.
ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
By Professor EDOUARD NAVILLE, D.C.L.
MYSTICISM IN CHRISTIANITY.
By the Rev. W. K. FLEMING, M.A., B.D.
RELIGION IN AN AGE OF DOUBT.
By the Rev. C. J. SHEBBEARE, M.A.
THE CATHOLIC CONCEPTION OF THE CHURCH.
By the Rev W. J. SPARROW SIMPSON, D.D.
COMMON OBJECTIONS TO CHRISTIANITY.
By the Rev. C. L. DRAWBRIDGE, M.A.
MARRIAGE IN CHURCH AND STATE.
By the Rev. T. A. LACEY, M.A. (Warden of the London Diocesan
Penitentiary).
THE BUILDING UP OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
By the Rev. Canon R. B. GIRDLESTONE, M.A.
CHRISTIANITY AND OTHER FAITHS. An Essay in Comparative Religion
By the Rev. W. ST. CLAIR TISDALL, D.D.
THE CHURCHES IN BRITAIN. _Vols. I._ and _II._
By the Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, D.D. (formerly Master of University
College, Durham).
CHARACTER AND RELIGION.
By the Rev. the HON. EDWARD LYTTELTON, M.A. (Head Master of Eton
College).
MISSIONARY METHODS, ST. PAUL’S OR OURS?
By the Rev. ROLAND ALLEN, M.A. (Author of “Missionary Principles”).
THE RULE OF FAITH AND HOPE.
By the Rev. R. L. OTTLEY, D.D. (Canon of Christ Church, and Regius
Professor of Pastoral Theology in the University of Oxford).
THE RULE OF LIFE AND LOVE.
By the Rev. R. L. OTTLEY, D.D.
THE RULE OF WORK AND WORSHIP.
By the Rev. R. L. OTTLEY, D.D.
THE CREEDS: THEIR HISTORY, NATURE AND USE.
By the Rev. HAROLD SMITH, M.A. (Lecturer at the London College of
Divinity).
THE CHRISTOLOGY OF ST. PAUL (Hulsean Prize Essay).
By the Rev. S. NOWELL ROSTRON, M.A. (Late Principal of St. John’s
Hall, Durham).
_The following works are in Preparation_:—
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION: ITS PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE.
By the Rev. Prebendary B. REYNOLDS.
THE CHURCH OUTSIDE THE EMPIRE.
By the Rev. C. R. DAVEY BIGGS, D.D.
THE NATURE OF FAITH AND THE CONDITIONS OF ITS PROSPERITY.
By the Rev. P. N. WAGGETT, M.A.
THE ETHICS OF TEMPTATION.
By the Ven. E. E. HOLMES, M.A.
EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE.
By the Rev. WM. C. PIERCY, M.A.
AUTHORITY AND FREETHOUGHT IN THE MIDDLE AGES.
By the Rev. F. W. BUSSELL, D.D.
GOD AND MAN, ONE CHRIST.
By the Rev. CHARLES E. RAVEN, M.A.
GREEK THOUGHT AND CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.
By the Rev. J. K. MOZLEY, M.A.
THE GREAT SCHISM BETWEEN THE EAST AND WEST.
By the Rev. F. J. FOAKES-JACKSON, D.D.
THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL IN OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY.
By the Rev. A. TROELSTRA, D.D.
Full particulars of this Library may be obtained from the Publisher.
LONDON: ROBERT SCOTT.
THE BOOKS OF THE
APOCRYPHA
THEIR ORIGIN, TEACHING AND
CONTENTS
BY THE REV.
W. O. E. OESTERLEY, D.D.
EXAMINING CHAPLAIN TO THE BISHOP OF LONDON; WARDEN OF THE
“SOCIETY OF THE APOCRYPHA,” LONDON DIOCESE.
LONDON: ROBERT SCOTT
ROXBURGHE HOUSE
PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C.
1915
_All Rights Reserved_
_First Edition_, 1914.
_Second Impression_, 1915.
PREFACE
Signs have not been wanting during the last few years of an
increasing interest both in what is called the “Apocrypha” as well as
in the body of literature, mainly of an apocalyptic character, which
goes under the name of the “Pseudepigrapha.”
Notable among these signs are two of an outstanding character. The
founding of the “International Society for the Promoting of the Study
of the Apocrypha” was an important event in this connection; the
founder, the Rev. Herbert Pentin, is to be sincerely congratulated
on the success with which his efforts have been crowned; the support
accorded by many of our leading scholars has doubtless been very
gratifying to him. Few things have done more to foster interest in
the subjects which the Society has at heart than the publication of
its quarterly journal, _The International Journal of Apocrypha_.
This magazine makes its appeal to all grades of readers; and if the
greater stress is laid upon the popular side, the editor has his
good reasons for this, for it is the general reader who does not yet
understand that the “Apocrypha” and the “Pseudepigrapha” together
form an indispensable link between the Old and New Testaments.
The second outstanding sign was the publication last year by the
Oxford University Press of the two sumptuous volumes entitled _The
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English_, with
introductions and critical and explanatory notes to the several
books, edited, in conjunction with many scholars, by R. H. Charles,
Litt.D., D.D. This is the most elaborate thing of the kind ever
published in any country, and the debt to Canon Charles owed by all
lovers of learning is great indeed. The volumes appeal primarily to
the scholar, though the general reader will find in them a very great
deal which he will be able to appreciate. The drawback, for most
people, is their expense, obviously inevitable; it is, therefore,
the more to be regretted that the University Press could not see its
way to publish the various books in separate, as well as in their
collective, form.
Signs such as these are full of promise, and the growing interest
which they betoken is very welcome.
The present writer, as one of the Wardens of the afore-mentioned
Society, and as one of Canon Charles’ fellow-labourers in the work
just referred to, has been emboldened to write the following pages
with the object of pressing home the importance of one department
of the subject as a whole (though without wholly losing sight of
the other), viz., the “Apocrypha,” and, more especially, what is
involved by the study of this. The very unfortunate title which
has clung to this body of literature since the days of St. Jerome,
largely accounts for the attitude of suspicion with which it is often
regarded; but when once it is realized that the term “Apocrypha,”
as applied to these books, does not correspond to what is nowadays
understood by the word “apocryphal,” this attitude of suspicion will
disappear.
The study of these books opens up various questions which demand
consideration; so much so, that the student soon comes to realize
that important as the study of the Apocrypha is, more important
still is that which this study involves. The book here presented
is intended to illustrate this; with the result that Part I
(“Prolegomena”) occupies considerably more space than Part II,
which is devoted to the books of the Apocrypha themselves. There is,
however, no reason to offer any apology for this, as the Introductory
Note to the “Prolegomena” will show.
For the rest, the book, though primarily intended for the intelligent
general reader, may in some parts, it is hoped, be of interest to
scholars. It was originally intended to be a contribution to “The
Library of Historic Theology”; but the writer soon realized that
the scope of the subject would necessitate a larger volume than
the publishers thought desirable for this Series; they, therefore,
decided to publish it separately.
The writer desires to express his sincere thanks to the Rev. Wm. C.
Piercy for having read carefully through the book in manuscript as
well as in proof, and for having offered many valuable suggestions.
W. O. E. OESTERLEY.
HATCH END, 1914.
CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTORY 1
_PART I_
PROLEGOMENA TO THE APOCRYPHA
CHAPTER I
THE HELLENISTIC MOVEMENT 11
I. Hellenism in its Secular Aspect 12
II. Hellenism in its Religious Aspect 20
Summary 24
CHAPTER II
HELLENISTIC INFLUENCE UPON THE JEWS OF PALESTINE 27
I. Hellenism and Judaism 27
II. The Essenes 41
Summary 46
CHAPTER III
HELLENISTIC INFLUENCE UPON THE JEWS OF THE DISPERSION 49
I. The Dispersion 49
II. Hellenistic Influence on Religion 54
III. The Septuagint 58
IV. Philo of Alexandria 61
Summary 65
CHAPTER IV
TRACES OF GREEK INFLUENCE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND IN
THE APOCRYPHA 68
I. References to the Greeks in the Old Testament 68
II. Traces of Greek Influence in the Old Testament 70
III. Traces of Greek Influence in the Apocrypha 77
Ecclesiasticus 77
Wisdom:
(_a_) The doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul 80
(_b_) The doctrine of immortality 83
(_c_) The doctrine of the badness of the body 84
(_d_) The creation of the world out of formless
matter 85
(_e_) Signs of the influence of Stoic philosophy 86
Summary 87
CHAPTER V
THE APOCALYPTIC MOVEMENT 90
I. The Beginnings of the Apocalyptic Movement 90
II. The Apocalyptists 95
III. The Doctrinal Teaching of the Apocalyptic Literature 101
(_a_) Individualism 102
(_b_) Particularism and Universalism 103
(_c_) The doctrine of the Messiah 105
(_d_) The doctrine of the Future Life 107
Summary 111
CHAPTER VI
THE SCRIBES 113
(_a_) The Old Testament _data_ 113
(_b_) The Apocrypha _data_ 123
(_c_) Some further particulars 126
Summary 127
CHAPTER VII
THE PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES 130
I. The Meaning of the Terms “Pharisees” and “Sadducees” 130
(_a_) Pharisees 130
(_b_) Sadducees 132
II. The Sources 135
(_a_) Josephus 135
(_b_) Rabbinical sources 137
(_c_) The New Testament 138
(_d_) The Zadokite Fragments 138
III. The Doctrines of the Pharisees and Sadducees 139
(_a_) The doctrine of the Law 139
(_b_) The doctrine of God 144
(_c_) The doctrine of the Future Life 146
(_d_) The Sadducæan attitude regarding belief in
the existence of angels and spirits 147
(_e_) The doctrine of the Messiah 148
(_f_) The Sadducees and the Jewish Calendar 150
IV. Some Subsidiary Considerations 152
Summary 157
CHAPTER VIII
THE ORIGIN OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON 160
I. The Hebrew Canon in its Present Form 162
II. The Idea of a Canon 164
III. The Formation of the Hebrew Canon 169
IV. To Whom was the Final Fixing of the Hebrew Canon due? 174
Summary 176
Additional Note. The Conceptions underlying the Idea of
Levitical Impurity 177
CHAPTER IX
UNCANONICAL BOOKS (I) 183
I. The Meaning of the Term _Gānaz_ 183
II. The Meaning of the Term _Apokryphos_ 185
III. The Connexion between the Terms _Gānaz_ and
_Apokryphos_ 188
IV. How the Term “Apocrypha” came to be applied to
Sacred Books of the Second Rank 190
V. The Reading of Uncanonical Books 192
Summary 196
CHAPTER X
UNCANONICAL BOOKS (II). THE APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE 198
Preliminary Remarks 198
(_a_) The Book of Enoch 201
(_b_) The Sibylline Oracles 208
(_c_) The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 210
(_d_) The Psalms of Solomon 214
(_e_) The Book of Jubilees 216
(_f_) The Assumption of Moses 218
(_g_) The Ascension of Isaiah 219
(_h_) The Book of the Secrets of Enoch 220
(_i_) The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch 222
(_j_) The Apocalypse of Moses (The Life of Adam
and Eve) 222
(_k_) The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch 223
CHAPTER XI
THE WISDOM LITERATURE; THE JEWISH CONCEPTION OF WISDOM 224
I. The Wisdom Literature 224
II. The Origin of the Hebrew Conception of Wisdom 226
III. The Jewish Conception of Wisdom 233
Summary 247
CHAPTER XII
THE DOCTRINAL TEACHING OF THE APOCRYPHA 251
Preliminary Remarks 251
(_a_) The doctrine of God 254
(_b_) The doctrine of the Law 260
(_c_) The doctrine of Sin 267
(_d_) The doctrine of Grace and Free-will 278
(_e_) The doctrine of the Messiah 281
(_f_) The doctrine of the Future Life 288
(_g_) The doctrine of Angels 300
(_h_) Demonology 304
Summary 305
_PART II_
INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF THE APOCRYPHA
INTRODUCTORY 319
CHAPTER I
THE WISDOM OF JESUS, THE SON OF SIRACH; OR ECCLESIASTICUS 321
I. The Title of the Book 321
II. The Author and his Book 322
III. The Date of the Book 327
IV. The Original Language of the Book; the recently found
Hebrew Manuscripts 329
V. The Authorized and Revised Versions of Ecclesiasticus 331
VI. The “Sadducæan” doctrinal standpoint in
Ecclesiasticus 334
VII. The Pharisaic Additions to Ecclesiasticus 340
VIII. The Value of the Book for the Study of the New
Testament 345
CHAPTER II
THE BOOK OF TOBIT 349
I. The Story of Achikar the Wise 350
II. The Relationship between the Book of Tobit and the
Story of Achikar the Wise 353
III. The Contents of the Book of Tobit 357
IV. The Religious Standpoint of the Writer 360
V. The Date of the Book, its Integrity and Place of
Origin 365
VI. The Value of the Book for New Testament Study 368
CHAPTER III
THE BOOK OF JUDITH 372
I. Contents and Character of the Book 372
II. Variety of Form of the Judith Story 379
III. The Teaching and Purpose of the Book 381
IV. The Date of the Book 382
V. The Original Language of the Book 384
CHAPTER IV
THE ADDITIONS TO THE BOOK OF DANIEL 385
I. Preliminary Remarks 385
II. The Prayer of Azariah 386
III. The Song of the Three Children 390
IV. The Story of Susanna 391
V. Bel and the Dragon 394
CHAPTER V
THE ADDITIONS TO THE BOOK OF ESTHER 398
I. The Nature and Object of the Additions 398
II. Authorship and Date of the Additions 403
CHAPTER VI
THE PRAYER OF MANASSES 404
I. The Contents of the Prayer 404
II. The Origin of the Prayer 405
III. The Date of the Prayer 409
IV. The Writer and the Language in which he wrote 410
CHAPTER VII
THE FIRST BOOK OF MACCABEES 411
I. Title and Authorship of the Book 411
II. The Date of the Book 413
III. The Original Language and Literary Character of the
Book 414
IV. The Sources of the Book 415
V. The History of the Maccabæan Struggle 423
(_a_) The Conquests of Alexander the Great, and the
division of his Empire 424
(_b_) The original cause of the struggle; the
leadership of Mattathias 424
(_c_) The leadership of Judas Maccabæus; religious
liberty secured 427
(_d_) The leadership of Jonathan; the establishment
of the Hasmonæan high-priesthood 431
(_e_) The leadership of Simon 436
CHAPTER VIII
THE GREEK EZRA (1 (3) Esdras) 439
I. The Title of the Book 439
II. Contents of the Book 440
III. The “Hebrew Ezra,” the “Greek Ezra,” and 2 Esdras 442
IV. The Historicity of the Book 446
V. The Purpose of the Book 450
VI. The Story of the Three Young Men of Darius’ Bodyguard 451
VII. The Date of the Book 454
CHAPTER IX
THE BOOK OF WISDOM (The Wisdom of Solomon) 455
I. The Title and Authorship of the Book 455
II. The Date of the Book 459
III. The Question of Composite Authorship 464
IV. The Purposes for which the Book was Written 469
V. The Influence of the Book on St. Paul 474
CHAPTER X
THE SECOND BOOK OF MACCABEES 479
I. The Origin of the Book 479
II. The Contents of the Book 481
III. Comparison between 1 and 2 Maccabees 482
IV. The Historical Value of 2 Maccabees 485
V. The Purpose of the Book 487
VI. The Integrity of the Boo 490
VII. The Date and Original Language of the Book 493
VIII. The influence of the Book on New Testament Writers 493
CHAPTER XI
THE BOOK OF BARUCH, AND THE EPISTLE OF JEREMIAH 495
I. Short Account of the Book, and its Contents 495
II. Examination of the Component Parts of the Book 497
(1) The Book of Confessions (i.-iii. 8) 497
(2) A Sage’s words of encouragement (iii. 9-iv. 4) 503
(3) A Message of good cheer (iv. 5-v. 9) 504
The Epistle of Jeremiah 506
CHAPTER XII
THE EZRA APOCALYPSE (2 (4) Esdras) 509
I. The Title of the Book 509
II. Chapters i., ii. 510
III. Chapters xv., xvi. 511
IV. The Component Parts of Chapters iii.-xiv. 512
V. The Vision of the Man Rising from the Sea 515
VI. The Eagle Vision 517
VII. The Salathiel Apocalypse 522
VIII. An Ezra Legend 528
INDEXES—
General 533
Passages from the Old Testament 545
Passages from the Apocrypha 547
Passages from the Pseudepigrapha 552
Passages from the New Testament 552
Passages from Rabbinical Literature 553
Introductory
The book here presented is divided into two parts: the first, which
is somewhat longer than the second, deals with preliminary questions;
the second is occupied with some account of the nature and contents
of the books comprised under the term “Apocrypha.” To those whose
studies have not been concerned with early Jewish uncanonical
literature it may appear that many of the subjects discussed in Part
I are inappropriate, or at any rate unnecessary, because they lead,
apparently, far away from the main subject to be dealt with. Students
of the Apocrypha will know, however, that a really intelligent and
adequate study of this body of ancient literature necessitates
research into a number of topics which do not at first sight appear
to show a direct connexion with the main subject. Nevertheless, for
the benefit of those who have not made a study of the Apocrypha, it
may be well to justify at the outset the incursion into the many
side-issues dealt with in the “Prolegomena” (Part I) by showing
that the consideration of them is really indispensable for a proper
understanding of the Apocrypha, its origin, and its _raison d’être_.
Now one of the first things that must strike any intelligent reader
of the books of the Apocrypha is the extraordinary variety of their
contents. We have in the First Book of Maccabees genuine historical
records of the highest value; in the Second Book of Maccabees, on
the other hand, we have a mixture of history and fiction. In the
First (or Third) Book of Esdras we get portions of the canonical
Scriptures side by side with records from other sources; and,
strange to say, the latter are probably in some particulars more
trustworthy than the corresponding portions in the former. In The
Rest of Esther and the Prayer of Manasses we have additions to books
of the canonical Scriptures which are edifying, though largely the
work of the imagination; while in the additions to the Book of
Daniel, namely, The Song of the Three Holy Children, The History of
Susannah, and Bel and the Dragon, we have examples of fiction which
are not always edifying. Of an entirely different character is the
fascinating story of a brave and patriotic woman, told in the Book
of Judith, in which the writer’s power of dramatic narrative is
well exhibited. Interesting from other points of view is the homely
tale told in the Book of Tobit, with its developed angelology and
quaint demonology. But what is in many respects the most important
book in the whole collection is that fine example of the Palestinian
Wisdom Literature, the Wisdom of Ben-Sira (Ecclesiasticus), which,
apart from its subject proper, gives us much interesting information
regarding the conditions of Jewish life and manners during a period
of which we have otherwise but meagre sources of knowledge. Baruch,
again, is valuable as containing a liturgical piece of considerable
antiquity. Very important, too, and of great interest, is that
striking product of Hellenistic-Jewish wisdom, The Wisdom of Solomon,
as it is called; this book offers an illustration of the profound
influence which the Greek spirit had upon the Jews of the Dispersion.
And, lastly, we have what is in some respects one of the finest books
belonging to the Apocalyptic Literature ii. (iv.) Esdras, revealing
as it does in a wonderful way the moral and religious speculations
of an earnest mind seeking after the truth, and claiming to have
received revelations by supernatural means. Scripture, history,
legend, fiction, at least one liturgical piece, wisdom, philosophy,
apocalypse—truly it is an extraordinary variety of subjects which is
here presented.
But further; when one looks more closely one sees that in these
books various thought-tendencies and mental attitudes are
represented—political, intellectual, doctrinal, religious; so that
questions arise, and demand consideration, as to who the men were
among whom these thought-tendencies existed, what it was that first
gave rise to them, what the relation was between those who belonged
to the different schools of thought represented, and other questions
of a similar character. The intelligent reader will want to know,
on the one hand, what is reflected in these books concerning such
questions, and, on the other, what light they themselves shed on the
history of thought and religion during the period, extending over
about three hundred years, at which they were written.
Of a different character, but very much to the point, is the inquiry
into the position held by these books in the sacred literature of
the Jews. They are not assigned a place in the canonical Hebrew
Scriptures, but they are found in the Greek Old Testament, which was
the Bible used by the New Testament writers and by the Early Church.
Who excluded them from the canonical list, and on what grounds
were they excluded? What was their position before the Canon was
formed, and when was the Canon formed? What is meant by the title
“Apocrypha,” by whom was the title given, and when?
These are some of the many questions which suggest themselves to the
serious student of the Apocrypha; and a moment’s thought will show
that adequate answers to them are required if the contents of the
Apocrypha, and all that they imply, are to be properly understood.
The purpose of the “Prolegomena” is to try and give answers to these
and many other questions which arise as soon as the study of this
body of ancient Jewish sacred literature is undertaken.
The first chapter deals with the Hellenistic Movement. Some
consideration of the way in which the Greek spirit influenced the
world in general, from the third century B.C. onwards, is altogether
necessary because there was no department of life in which the
effects of this influence were not to be discerned. For our present
purpose the way in which Hellenism affected religious thought is, of
course, an exceedingly important subject for consideration. Now the
Hellenistic Movement synchronized with the entire period during which
the “Apocryphal” Literature was produced. It commenced as a result
of the conquests of Alexander the Great, and extended well into the
times of the Empire; within that period were written the earliest
and the latest of the books of the Apocrypha, viz., The Wisdom of
Ben-Sira, about B.C. 170, and The Apocalypse of Ezra, about A.D. 100.
The Hellenistic Movement was thus, as it were, the intellectual and
religious atmosphere of the world during the whole of the period in
which the writers of the books of the Apocrypha lived. No apology is
needed, therefore, for beginning our study with a brief consideration
of the Hellenistic Movement.
Since, like other great movements, this one was a vital process
which affected the whole world, the Jews, as just hinted, came under
its sway. We have, therefore, devoted two chapters to Hellenistic
influence upon the Jews. The extent and effect of this influence
upon the Jews of Palestine was not the same as upon the Jews of the
Dispersion, so that this part of our subject has to be dealt with
under two heads. In discussing the former we touch upon a factor
in the discussion which will come before us again and again as we
proceed, namely, the Jews as the people of the Law. We referred
just now to various schools of thought of which indications are to
be seen in the books of the Apocrypha; the most important of these
was that which looked upon the Law and its observances as that
which should occupy the thoughts and actions of every true Jew,
and to which everything else should be subordinated. It was the
championship of the Law which checked, and ultimately stamped out,
Hellenistic influence upon the Jews of Palestine, though not until
that influence had so permeated their minds that some of its elements
became incorporated into orthodox Judaism. As will be seen later,
these facts help to explain much that is written in the books of the
Apocrypha.
But distinct as the marks were which the influence of Hellenism
left upon the Jews of Palestine and upon some of their literature,
that influence was far less upon them than upon the Jews of the
Dispersion. In dealing with this part of our subject a preliminary
section is devoted to some account of the Dispersion, special
reference being made to Alexandria, the most important centre
of the Dispersion. The most notable and far-reaching result of
Hellenistic influence here is to be seen in the fact that it was the
birthplace of the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament; since it is
in this Version of the Scriptures that the books of the Apocrypha
were incorporated, it stands to reason that some account of it is
necessary. While the Septuagint was the most striking literary
product of the Hellenistic Movement in the Dispersion, Philo of
Alexandria was its most notable personality; a section devoted to him
can, therefore, not be out of place.
It was pointed out above that Hellenistic influence was to be
discerned in the sacred literature of the Jews. This is a subject
upon which differences of opinion exist, especially in regard to
some of the later books of the Old Testament; but it cannot well
be ignored in dealing with the books of the Apocrypha, so that in
Chapter IV we examine the question of traces of Greek influence in
the Old Testament and in the Apocrypha.
Further, we have referred to the fact that in the Apocrypha signs
of the existence of various thought-tendencies are to be discerned;
the attitude of extreme loyalty to the Law was one of these; another
was represented by the Apocalyptic Movement. Quite apart from the
fact that we have in The Apocalypse of Ezra a remarkable product
of the Apocalyptic Movement, which would of itself be sufficient
to demand some account of this movement here, there is the further
fact that some insight into the religious movements of a period is
indispensable to the true understanding of any body of literature
belonging to such period. It is for this reason that we have devoted
a chapter to the consideration of the Apocalyptic Movement and to a
brief survey of the doctrinal teaching of the Apocalyptic Literature;
it will be found to be of real interest if the general results of the
doctrinal teaching of this literature be compared with that of the
books of the Apocrypha, which is more fully dealt with in the last
chapter (XII) of the “Prolegomena.”
The thought-tendencies to which reference has been made, and each
of which has been embodied in literary form, have a history behind
them, dating at least from the time of Ezra; how these developed in
Palestine during the four centuries which preceded the advent of
Christ is a difficult and intricate, but none the less fascinating,
study, and altogether indispensable alike for the understanding
of the Apocrypha and of the New Testament. Scribes of different
kinds, _Chassidim_, Apocalyptists, Pharisees and Sadducees, how did
they come into being? What were their different special mental and
religious attitudes? What was their relationship to each other? There
are intricate problems involved in such questions, and the study of
the Apocrypha brings us face to face with them; that sufficiently
explains the reason why Chapters V-VII are devoted to the discussion
of them.
With Chapters VIII-X we approach an entirely different side of
our subject, namely, the question of the Canon and of uncanonical
books generally; this is, of course, of fundamental importance for
the study of the Apocrypha, so that no explanation is needed for
the reason of these three chapters figuring in the “Prolegomena.”
The same is also true of Chapter XI, which deals with the Wisdom
Literature, for not only have we two remarkable examples of this
literature in the Apocrypha, but it is a literature which, while
it begins in the Old Testament, is continued in the Apocrypha, so
that it must be treated as a whole; the question of canonical or
uncanonical books must not be allowed to interfere here.
The last chapter (XII), on the doctrinal teaching of the Apocrypha,
requires no further words here other than to say that the study of
this subject is very necessary for following out the development of
doctrine from the Old Testament to the New.
This, then, is the explanation and justification for the many
discussions in the “Prolegomena” which seem at first sight to lead
far away from the main subject in hand. These have, it is true, an
interest and an application far beyond that of their relation to the
Apocrypha, but that, it may safely be assumed, will not be regarded
as a drawback, or as a reason for making the discussion of them here
unnecessary.
_PART I_
PROLEGOMENA TO THE
APOCRYPHA
THE BOOKS OF THE APOCRYPHA: THEIR ORIGIN, TEACHING AND CONTENTS
CHAPTER I
The Hellenistic Movement
[LITERATURE.—Droysen, _Geschichte des Hellenismus_ (3rd ed.,
1877); Schürer, _A History of the Jewish People in the Time of
Jesus Christ_, II, i. pp. 1-149 (1890-1891), German ed. II,
pp. 1-267 (1901-1909); Usener, _Götternamen_ (1896); Kaerst,
_Geschichte des hellenistischen Zeitalters_ (1901, 1909); Zeller,
_Die Philosophie der Griechen_, III, i. ii. (4th ed., 1903,
1909); Zeller, _Outlines of the History of Greek Philosophy_
(Engl. ed., 1909); Rohde, _Psyche_ (3rd ed., 1903); Edwyn Bevan,
_Jerusalem under the High-priests_ (1904); M. Friedländer,
_Griechische Philosophie im Alten Testament_ (1904); Gruppe,
_Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte_ (1906); Mahaffy,
_The Silver Age of the Greek World_ (1906); Krüger, _Hellenismus
und Judenthum im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter_ (1908); Farnell,
_Greek Religion_ (1912); Wendland, _Die Hellenistisch-Römische
Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zu Judentum und Christentum_ (1912);
Edwyn Bevan, _Stoics and Sceptics_ (1913); Farnell’s art. on
“Greek Religion” in Hastings’ _Dict. of Religion and Ethics_.]
To offer in any detail an account of such an immense subject as the
Hellenistic Movement would be out of the question here; but no study
which has to do with Jewish religion or culture of the three last
pre-Christian centuries can be taken in hand without some reference
to the Movement which so profoundly affected the world of those
times. The object of the present chapter is, therefore, to indicate
the main directions in which Hellenistic influence was exercised;
so much is essential when it is remembered that the books of the
Apocrypha form an integral part of the Greek Old Testament, which is
itself one of the most striking products of the Hellenistic Movement
in the domain of literature.
A word must be said at the outset regarding the use of the terms
_Hellenic_ and _Hellenistic_. It is not always easy to be strictly
logical or consistent in the way in which one employs these; the
fundamental difference between the two is this: _Hellenic culture_
refers, of course, to the pure Greek civilization, religion, etc.,
existing previous to the coming of Alexander the Great; _Hellenistic
culture_ refers to this civilization as it appeared after having
absorbed numerous elements in the domain both of thought and religion
from non-Greek sources after the coming of Alexander the Great.
Hellenistic culture exercised a greater and wider influence upon the
world than Hellenic, because by absorbing alien elements it was able
to become a world-culture. The terms have thus a distinct and clearly
defined difference. But inasmuch as Hellenistic culture is based upon
and has as its chief characteristic Hellenic culture, it is sometimes
convenient to use the terms Hellenism and Hellenic in a wide and
inclusive sense; as so used it is equivalent to the term _Greek_,
without restriction to any particular age.
I. HELLENISM IN ITS SECULAR ASPECT
By the Hellenistic Movement is meant the process whereby the
supremacy of the Greek language and of Greek culture generally became
established during the period, roughly speaking, from B.C. 300 to
the beginning of the Christian era, that is to say, from the time
when Alexander the Great had completed his victorious career[1]
to the time when the Roman Empire was rising to pre-eminence and
establishing its power, more especially in the east. It was during
this period that Hellenism was what may be called an invading force;
having once established itself its influence was in evidence long
after the period indicated. Dill, in writing on the age of Hadrian
and the Antonines, says, for example: “The glory of classic art had
almost vanished; and yet, without being able to produce any works of
creative genius, the inexhaustible vitality of the Hellenic spirit
once more asserted itself. After a long eclipse, the rhetorical
culture of Greece vigorously addressed itself in the reign of Hadrian
to the conquest of the west. Her teachers and spiritual directors,
indeed, had long been in every family of note. Her sophists were now
seen haranguing crowds in every town from the Don to the Atlantic....
From the early years of the second century can be traced that great
combined movement of the Neo-Pythagorean and Platonist philosophies
and the renovated paganism which made a last stand against the
conquering Church in the reigns of Julian and Theodosius....”[2]
But the influence of Hellenism did not stop here; various writers
have shown that that influence persists even up to modern times,[3]
and Bevan states nothing but the literal truth when he says that
“what we call the Western spirit in our own day is really Hellenism
reincarnate.”[4]
It is well to realize, on the other hand, however, that the roots
of the Hellenistic Movement reached back somewhat further than the
time of Alexander. We must look to Athens for the real beginnings of
the Movement, the further development of which Alexander’s conquests
did so much to forward. It was the Attic sea-power which first
brought about the conditions under which the idea of a pan-Hellenic
culture could take form and ultimately become realized. Though Athens
declined with the rise of the Macedonian power, and ceased outwardly
to play any conspicuous part in the great drama of the world’s
history, yet Attic ideals and conceptions lived on and continued to
be the inner motive-power in the propagation of the newer culture.
So that the Hellenistic Movement grew and developed from Attic
antecedents.
Then, again, although the rise of the Hellenistic Movement is
rightly associated more particularly with the name of Alexander,
it is but simple justice which compels us to recall the fact that
the Macedonian empire, which formed the basis of Alexander’s future
world-power, owed its creation to his father, Philip (B.C. 359-336).
It was only through strenuous struggles with Thracians, Illyrians and
Athenians that Philip finally consolidated his kingdom, and thus made
the necessary preparations for his son’s greater work. The decisive
battle of Chæronea, in B.C. 338, when Philip defeated the allied
forces of Athens and Thebes, may legitimately be pointed to as one of
the preliminary determining factors which prepared the way for the
Hellenistic Movement.
In the first instance the influence of the newer Hellenism was, of
course, exercised by means of the Greek language. But it was a form
of Greek which differed in many respects from the older Attic Greek,
though based on this; it is now known by the name of Hellenistic
Greek. “It was the literary language of the cosmopolitan Hellas,
created by the genius of Alexander. The change [i.e., from Attic
Greek] had begun indeed before Alexander. Even Xenophon allows
himself to make free use of words of provincial origin, and to
employ Attic words with a new connotation; and the writings of
Aristotle mark the opening of a new era in the history of the Greek
language.”[5] The discovery and study of immense numbers of Greek
_papyri_ and _ostraka_ (potsherds) has shown the fallacy, universally
prevalent a generation ago, of speaking of “Biblical Greek,” i.e.,
the Greek of the Septuagint and of the New Testament, as though it
were a form of Greek peculiar to the Bible, to be separated off from
“profane” Greek. The Septuagint and the New Testament were written in
a late form of Greek, i.e., Hellenistic Greek which, as we have just
seen, came into vogue during the fourth century B.C. and onwards.
This late Greek, including the Greek of the Bible is, in the words
of Deissmann, “neither good nor bad; it bears the stamp of its age
and asserts its own distinctive position in a gradual process of
development in the language, which, beginning in the earliest times,
has lasted down to the present day. Late Greek has stripped off much
that was customary in the earlier period, and it contains germs of
future developments destined to be completed in modern Greek. We
may, then, speak of a certain peculiarity and uniformity in original
‘Bible’ Greek, but solely as opposed to earlier or later phases of
the history of the language, not as opposed to ‘profane’ Greek.”[6]
It was through the conquests of Alexander that the ways were made
clear and wide for this later form of the Greek language, this
Hellenistic Greek, to find an opening in all directions, and to
be employed as a common means of communication in ever-increasing
measure. Close upon the soldiers followed the merchants, nor did
it take long before colonists came and settled down in the newly
conquered territories; and when once colonies of Greek-speaking
people were established, teachers soon came and took up their
abode in the new settlements. New Greek cities thus arose in which
practically only Greek was spoken; with the employment of this
language it followed in a natural course that the influence of the
Greek spirit, and with it Greek forms of thought and Greek ideals,
made itself felt. In this way Alexander’s ambition was attained;
for his ideal was not only to conquer lands; he desired also that
the hearts and minds of men should be brought under the domination
of that Greek culture which was destined to affect the religion,
the philosophy, the literature and the art of mankind for all time.
Alexander was a worthy pupil of his great teacher, Aristotle.
It is, perhaps, not always sufficiently realized that the Hellenistic
Movement coincided to a large extent with an epoch which was in some
notable respects one of dissolution. In the domain of learning, for
example, the older Greek idea of the possibility of a single mind
assimilating the whole content of knowledge had been discarded; for
it had come to be seen that the sum of knowledge in its manifold
ramifications was far too great to be acquired by any one man,
however learned, and that specialists must devote themselves to
different departments of learning. Hence arose the grammarian as
well as the rhetorician, the historian as well as the mathematician,
while the philosopher occupied his special position.[7] The scholar,
therefore, who desired to gain some insight into more than one of the
various branches of knowledge no longer went, as in earlier days,
to one teacher who was supposed to possess encyclopædic learning,
but he studied under a grammarian in order to learn grammar, under
a rhetorician in order to learn rhetoric, under a philosopher in
order to learn philosophy, and so on. This newer system had already
forced itself to the front some time before the actual period with
which we are dealing; there are clear indications in the methods
and teaching of Plato, to say nothing of Aristotle and his pupils,
of an increasing tendency of making wider differentiation between
the various sciences, and of dividing them up into their various
groups. Philosophy stands alone; the exact sciences go each along
the line of their own development. What was thus prepared by these
great philosophers and their followers was acted upon and greatly
developed during the Hellenistic period proper. Nowhere was this
more the case than in Alexandria, the city of Alexander’s founding.
It was in Alexandria that during the third century B.C. the exact
sciences reached the height of their development. All that was
acquired through the incentive given later by the study of the exact
sciences of antiquity during the Middle Ages through the medium of
Arabic translations, and during the _Renaissance_ by means of newly
discovered Greek originals of the ancient classics, was in the main
due to the achievements wrought during this epoch.[8] That Alexandria
should have been, during the Hellenistic period, the centre of this
intensive, intellectual activity will be seen to have been a fact of
great importance when we come to speak of this city as having been
also the centre of the Jewish Dispersion.
Alexandria[9] was, however, but the greatest example of many other
new cities founded by Alexander, or through his inspiration, while a
far greater number which were already in existence were hellenized
through his instrumentality. With regard to these latter a fact
of great importance must be noted; one effect of the entry of
Hellenistic influence into the civic life of the “barbarians” was
that the Greek came to know and understand his fellow-creatures of
other nationalities; he saw that those whom he had always been taught
to despise as not much better than semi-civilized savages, also had
their forms of culture which likewise boasted of a hoary antiquity.
The Greeks were, therefore, led to study the methods of thought, the
customs and the beliefs of these “barbarians,” with the result that
contempt was turned to admiration, and the Greeks came to regard
the “barbarians” as brothers. Cynic and Stoic philosophers, “the
Rousseaus of Hellenism” as Krüger very happily calls them, spoke of
and taught a brotherhood of man, a new and wonderful thing; and a
cosmopolitanism, hitherto unheard of, came into being.
But if the mingling together of Greek and “barbarian” was the
means of creating a cosmopolitanism, in the best sense, no less
characteristic of the Hellenistic period is the fact that the
importance of the individual came to be recognized. The Hellenization
of “barbarian” cities, referred to just now, meant that these
attained to a state of semi-independence; in all cases of this kind
the local government of the city was framed on the Greek model; the
part which the people took in the political assemblies and in the
annual elections had the natural effect of making them feel that they
had a real interest and a definite part to play in the administration
of affairs. It is easy to understand how the result of this was
the emphasizing of the importance of each individual. Where the
individual, while claiming and exercising his rights of citizenship,
does not lose sight of his responsibilities, an ideal combination is
offered. This individualism of the true and genuine type the Greeks
gave to the world; it is an example of the sense of proportion which
was a peculiarly Hellenic _trait_. During the Hellenistic period,
therefore, individualism came to its own.
Not unconnected with this subject of individualism was the
philosophical teaching of the Hellenistic period. The main interest
in the philosophical systems of this time centred in ethics; and
ethical teaching concerns the individual first and foremost. It was
the ethical system of the Stoics[10] to which was primarily due
the emphasis laid on the conception of law and duty; virtue is the
only good, they taught, vice the only evil; all else is indifferent.
Moreover, Hellenistic philosophy set before men the ideal of wisdom;
the highest attainment for mortals, so it was taught, was that they
should become wise men. It was a noble picture that was depicted,
even though the Stoic ideal was unattainable, of the free and
independent and self-reliant individual who, through the wisdom that
he has acquired, stands towering above his fellows, though not in
aloofness, but as a helper. It has been pointed out with justice
that it is the stress laid on the importance of the individual which
largely accounts for the numerous striking personalities, both men
and women, who come before us during the Hellenistic period. The
historian Polybius (born about B.C. 204) was the first to recognize
the importance of the individual as a factor in the course and
development of history. It is during this period especially that
great individuals appear as the pivots of history. Now, too, for the
first time, biography becomes a science; delineation of character,
the motives of individual action, and psychological analysis of the
heart and mind are now regarded as indispensable for the proper
understanding of men and their doings.[11]
Whether in politics, or science, or philosophy, or literature, or
in estimating their fellow-creatures, the Greeks offer a remarkable
example of the determination to see men and things in the world
around them as they really are; their instinctive critical faculty
made them _realists_. Nothing must be taken for granted, all things
must be tested by the light of reason; only so can the reality
of things be ascertained. “The critical faculty, the reason—in
one light it appears as the _sense of proportion_; the sense of
proportion in politics, ‘common sense,’ balance of judgement; the
sense of proportion in behaviour, which distinguishes what is seemly
for the occasion and the person concerned; the sense of proportion in
art, which eliminates the redundant and keeps each detail in its due
subordination to the whole. How prominent this aspect of the critical
faculty was with the Greeks their language itself shows; _reason_ and
_proportion_ are expressed by a common word. ‘The Hellenes,’ Polybius
says, ‘differ mainly in this respect from other men, that they keep
to _what is due_ in each case.’”[12]
Important as it is to gain some little insight into Hellenism in its
secular aspect so that one may realize to some extent the nature of
the influence which it had upon the world, it is still more important
for our present purpose to consider it from the religious point of
view. To this we must now devote some little attention.
II. HELLENISM IN ITS RELIGIOUS ASPECT
It has already been pointed out that the Hellenistic Movement
coincided with an epoch which was in many respects one of
dissolution; this is distinctly the case in the domain of religion.
The history of religion offers numerous examples of the fact that
there arrive certain periods in which, for one reason or another,
the traditional form of faith ceases to exercise its power over
large sections of the people. One of two things then follows: either
religion gives place to scepticism, or else the old belief is adapted
to the altered spiritual and intellectual conditions which have
supervened. Among the Greeks of this period we find both processes at
work, though a downright atheistic position is the exception. Indeed,
one of the most interesting and significant facts in this connexion
is that the philosophy of the Hellenistic period, in spite of its
critical attitude towards religious beliefs, very soon developed into
theology. That is sufficient to show that, while there was a tendency
in certain circles to pour scorn on religion, the Hellenistic period
was very far from being one of irreligion.
The attitude of the cultured classes towards the national religion
differed, of course, from that of the masses; the critical spirit and
biting sarcasm of the philosophers, a great deal of which was wholly
justified, had the effect of making it impossible for educated people
to accept the old beliefs in the way in which this had been done
hitherto. The religious ideas taught by the philosophers were, in the
main, altogether subversive of those which tradition had handed down;
nevertheless, to the cultured it would have come as a relief to be
taught, as was done by the Epicuræans for example, that a man was not
godless because he destroyed belief in the popular gods, but that the
godless man was he who imputed to the gods the popular conceptions
concerning them.[13] Not that the Epicuræans were irreligious;
Epicurus[14] did not attack the belief in the gods as such; on the
contrary, he believed in them himself, and regarded the universality
of this belief as a proof that they actually existed. But he refused
to share the general ideas about them in their relation to the world,
and taught that their interference in the affairs of men was a thing
not to be thought of since nothing could be worse for men than to
feel that at every turn they might be hampered in their doings by the
gods. That Epicurus strenuously combated the fatalistic theory of the
Stoics can be readily understood. What he desired above all things
to do was to free men from the fear of the gods; belief in them, he
taught, was necessary for the fulness of happiness ultimately to be
enjoyed in their presence; but there was nothing in them to be afraid
of.
One of the very important things which philosophy did for religion
in this age was that it allegorized, and gave a new meaning to, the
ancient myths,[15] and thereby made them of practical religious
value at a time when the new mental outlook would otherwise have
necessitated the discarding altogether of both the substance and
form of the traditional beliefs. As it was, the time-honoured myths
were not rejected in spite of the awakening to new methods of
thought and of ever-increasing enlightenment; this clearer mental
atmosphere had the effect of transforming the essence of those myths,
while retaining their form. To give detailed examples of the way
in which this transformation was carried out cannot be undertaken
here, it would carry us too far afield; but reference may be made
to Wendland’s work (pp. 115-127) already referred to, and Usener’s
_Götternamen_, where much interesting information can be obtained;
references to the original authorities are given in abundance,
especially in the last-named book.
But the most striking factor, in the domain of religion, of the
Hellenistic Movement is the _religious syncretism_, which was so
profoundly characteristic of this period. Within the wide circle of
Hellenized cities and states a variety of nationalities, eastern as
well as western, were represented; and just as the inhabitants of
these had become united and had learned to live at peace with one
another, so did the various and numerous national deities come to be
regarded not only with tolerance, but also with favour by men to whom
they had hitherto been unknown.
The intermingling of races brought about the intermingling of
beliefs. Wonderfully illustrative of this are the religious
associations which formed the characteristic type of religion
during the Hellenistic period; and it is a striking fact that
among the members of these religious associations or guilds not
only Greeks, but foreigners, and these to a preponderating degree,
belonged.[16] While, undoubtedly, politics had a good deal to do with
the furtherance of religious syncretism,[17] its main motive-power
was the piety of individuals. With the knowledge of the existence
of hitherto unknown gods and goddesses came also the desire to do
homage to them; probably there was also the conviction among many
that, unless these newly found deities were duly honoured, evil
consequences would ensue. The desire to pay fitting honour to a god
is shown by the numerous attributive names which were frequently
addressed to him by his devotees; and in order to make up for any
unconscious omission the suppliant would add: “Or by whatever other
title thou desirest to be called.” Altars were also frequently
dedicated “to unknown gods,” lest a worshipper should bring down
upon himself the wrath of some deities of whose existence he was
unaware.[18]
The results of this religious syncretism, which was brought about
by the Hellenistic spirit, were far-reaching in their effect; thus,
as an example, it is worth mentioning that a type of monotheism
was taught; this centred in the cult of Tyche, an all-pervading
Fate; and though very inferior to the monotheism of the Jews, it
showed, nevertheless, that the religious instinct was becoming more
expansive and was asserting itself in a more rational way than had
hitherto obtained outside of Judaism. Nor must we forget to add that
with the higher conception of the Deity, of which this was a symptom,
there arose among the more deeply religiously-minded a longing for
fellowship with God, together with the inevitable consequence, a more
developed belief in the future life.
The Hellenistic Movement, therefore, considered at its best, and
apart altogether from the point of view of pure culture, constituted
an immense stride forward in the enlargening and development of
religious thought and belief. It is difficult to exaggerate its
importance for, and effect upon, religion, and therefore upon all
religious literature, during the period which we specially have in
view. Of this we shall have more to say in estimating the influence
and effect of Hellenism upon the Jews and their religion.
SUMMARY
The roots of the Hellenistic Movement must be sought in the
conditions brought about by the rise of the Attic sea-power. The
way was thus prepared for the victories of Alexander the Great,
with whose name the spread of the Hellenistic Movement is more
particularly associated, by his father, Philip; it was through the
exertions of the latter that the Macedonian Empire was consolidated.
The influence of Hellenism was, in the first instance, exercised by
means of the spread of the Greek language; but it was a form of Greek
which differed in many particulars from classical Greek, and is known
nowadays by the name of Hellenistic Greek. This is the language in
which the Septuagint and the New Testament are written; but it would
be a mistake to speak of it as “Biblical Greek,” because it was in
no sense used specifically for the Greek of the Bible, but was the
ordinary language used in every-day intercourse, and was developed
from the older form of Greek. Its wide prevalence is proved by the
discovery of great numbers of _papyri_ and _ostraka_ on which this
newer form of Greek occurs.
The Hellenistic Movement coincided with an epoch which was, in many
respects, one of dissolution, so that its influence began to spread
at a time when men’s minds would be likely to welcome its newer and
broader outlook upon the world.
The greatest centre of Hellenistic culture was Alexandria; but this
was only one, though the most striking, example of the Hellenization
that was going on in many other cities. The Hellenization of these
cities meant that their civic government was framed upon the Greek
model; “barbarians” and Greeks thus found themselves politically upon
an equality, and the knowledge of one another brought about in this
way resulted in the existence of a cosmopolitanism which was new to
the world.
On the other hand, the directly personal part which each individual
felt that he had to take as a citizen in the administration of
affairs, emphasized his importance, and this was one of the
contributing causes which made individualism a characteristic of
the Hellenistic period. Individualism was fostered, further, by the
philosophical systems of this period which centred in ethics; for
ethical teaching concerns the individual first and foremost.
The influence of Hellenism was seen in politics, science, philosophy
and literature. The critical faculty of the Greeks made them
realists. In their estimate of men and things the Greeks were guided
by an innate and strongly marked sense of proportion.
In the domain of religion it is to be noted, first, that Hellenistic
philosophy soon developed into theology; the Hellenistic period was,
therefore, not one of irreligion. But the critical attitude of the
philosophers towards the traditional religion made it impossible, at
any rate for the cultured classes, to believe in it as heretofore.
It was, however, all to the good that the essence of the ancient
myths was transformed while their form was retained. Another and
most important fact to be noted is the religious syncretism which
was a characteristic of this period; the intermingling of races
brought about the intermingling of worship. The Hellenistic Movement
was the means of a great development of religious thought; and the
resultant effect on the religious literature of the age is difficult
to exaggerate.
CHAPTER II
Hellenistic Influence upon the Jews of Palestine
[LITERATURE.—Stade, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, II, pp.
273-310 (1888); this part of the work is done by O. Holtzmann;
Toy, _Christianity and Judaism_, pp. 173-214 (1891); Schürer,
II, i. pp. 1-149, German ed. II, pp. 1-267; Swete, _Introduction
to the Old Testament in Greek_, pp. 1-9 (1900); Bousset, _Die
Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter_, pp.
448-493 (1903); Hölscher, _Palästina in der persischen und
hellenistischen Zeit_ (1903); Zeller, _Die Philosophie der
Griechen_, III, ii. (1903); Edwyn Bevan, _Jerusalem under the
High-priests_ (1904); M. Friedländer, _Die religiösen Bewegungen
innerhalb des Judentums im Zeitalter Jesu_, pp. 1-168 (1905);
Krüger, _Philo und Josephus als Apologeten des Judenthums_
(1906); Krüger, _Hellenismus und Judenthum im neutestamentlichen
Zeitalter_ (1908); Wendland, _Die Hellenistisch-Römische
Kultur_ ... pp. 187-211. See also the articles “Hellenism” in
the _Encyclopædia Biblica_, and “Griechenthum” in Hamburger’s
_Realencycl. für Bibel und Talmud_.]
I. HELLENISM AND JUDAISM
The influence which Greek thought and culture exercised upon the Jews
and the Jewish religion differed both in its extent and intensity
upon the Jews of Palestine on the one hand, and upon the Jews of the
Dispersion on the other. It will, therefore, be necessary to deal
separately with these two parts of the subject, although a great
deal of what we shall have to say about Hellenistic influence upon
the Jews of Palestine will naturally apply also to the Jews of the
Dispersion.
During the two centuries which preceded the appearance of Alexander
upon the world’s stage, the Jews as a nation had become more and
more the people of the Law. From the time of Ezra onwards this
tendency had increased with ever-growing volume. “Ezra had set his
heart to seek the Law of the Lord, and to do it, and to teach in
Israel statutes and judgements”[19]; his efforts were crowned with
a great measure of success. By this means it was sought to preserve
the Jewish religion and Jewish ethics uncontaminated by external
influences, whether through contact with foreign peoples,[20] or
with those who although they belonged to the Jewish race were not
faithful to the ordinances of the Law.[21] This separation was
successful at first; but with the rise and rapid spread of Hellenism
it became increasingly difficult to maintain, especially as the
influence of the Greek spirit was, with the exception of Egypt,
nowhere stronger than on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean.
“Girt about by a Greek population, the Palestinian Jews, in spite of
Ezra’s admirable organization, could not entirely resist the assaults
of Hellenism. It is probable that not merely the Greek language,
but also Greek philosophy, exerted a charm on some of the clearest
Jewish intellects. But we are within the bounds of acknowledged
fact in asserting that the ardour of Judæan piety, at least in the
highest class, greatly cooled in the age subsequent to Ezra’s, and in
ascribing this to Greek influences.”[22]
Of far-reaching importance to the Jews of Palestine, though only
indirectly, was the battle of Ipsus (B.C. 301); for one of the
results of this battle was that among the territories assigned to
the house of Ptolemy, according to the settlement agreed upon
after the battle, was Palestine (Cœle-Syria); and there followed,
for this country at any rate, a period of comparative peace which
lasted for about a hundred years.[23] It was, in the main, during
this century that the quiet and peaceful process of Hellenization
among the Jews went on. The wise policy, as it was upon the
whole, of the Ptolemys towards the Jews did much to favour this
process. The Jews were placed upon the same footing as the Egyptian
subjects; they were permitted absolute freedom in the exercise of
their religion and religious customs; in political matters also
the Jews found themselves in a position of perfect equality with
their fellow-subjects; indeed, so much were they trusted that they
not infrequently formed garrisons in the royal fortresses; of the
existence, too, of Jewish soldiers in the Ptolemaic armies we have
contemporary evidence.[24] Favourable treatment was also accorded to
the Jews by Seleucus in the northern parts of Syria; they were, for
example, here too granted the privilege of the rights of citizenship.
This kindly treatment which the Jews received would naturally have
had the effect of inclining them favourably towards their rulers; and
this was in itself a not unimportant factor in the new conditions by
means of which Greek culture was exercising its influence upon them.
Again, it was the policy of the Egyptian kings to foster free
intercourse between their Hellenic and Asiatic subjects; the chief
means whereby this was promoted was by planting Greek settlements
in Palestine—following herein the example of Alexander[25]—which
resulted in the rise of a number of new Greek cities in that country;
the Greeks and Macedonians who consequently became settlers there
constituted before long a numerous and influential element in
the population[26]; in many cases they changed a city which had
hitherto been wholly Semitic into one which became predominantly
Greek; examples of this are Raphia, Gaza, Ascalon, Azotus, Cæsarea,
Ptolemais, and others. Nor was this confined to Western Palestine;
many cities in Eastern Palestine as well became centres of Greek
influence. Invariably in cases of this kind the local government of
the city was framed on the Greek model; this meant the independent
organization of large municipal communities which, as Schürer
points out, was of “fundamental importance in the political life
of Palestine; this was,” he continues, “indeed, no novelty in
Palestine, where from of old the large towns of the Philistine and
Phœnician coasts had formed centres of political life. The influence
of Hellenism marks, however, a turning-point in this respect also.
For, on the one hand, it essentially transformed the existing
communities, while, on the other, it founded numerous new ones and
made the municipal communities in general _the basis of the political
organization of the country_ in a far more thorough manner than
before. Wherever Hellenism penetrated—especially on the Philistine
coasts and the eastern boundaries of Palestine beyond the Jordan—the
country districts were grouped around single large towns as their
political centres. Each of such communities formed a comparatively
independent whole, managing its own internal affairs; its dependence
upon the rulers of Syria consisted only in the recognition of
their military supremacy, the payment of taxes, and certain other
performances. At the head of such a Hellenistically organized
community was a democratic senate of several hundred members.”[27]
It cannot be doubted that the organization on Greek models of the
local government of Jewish cities must have brought a new mental
outlook to the Jews. The political assemblies and annual elections
in which each individual took his part must have tended to give to
the Jew a sense of his personal importance such as he is not likely
ever to have experienced before. In the past history of the Jewish
State a _régime_ had obtained in which the ordinary individual was
regarded as of little or no account; the vast bulk of the people took
no part, not even the most humble, either directly or indirectly, in
the conduct of affairs; they had no voice even in the smaller world
of local matters; they were mere ciphers without anything in the
shape of civic responsibility. Individual responsibility had, it is
true, been insisted upon in the domain of religion by Ezekiel[28];
but it was a new _rôle_ that the Jew was now called upon to fill
in this individual capacity. As a member of a community organized
according to Greek ideas he would feel that he had a real part to
play and some contribution to offer for the general welfare; he
would know that his decision would go towards affecting for good
or ill the conditions under which he and his fellows lived. Such a
new experience could not fail to generate in the Jew a new sense of
personal responsibility, a realization of duty towards others, not
only of his own race, and thus develop a wider outlook and a deeper
insight into the world of his surroundings.
Another thing which must have appealed strongly to the imagination
of an oriental people like the Jews, though it would have affected
them in a very different way, was the interest and fascination
afforded by the shows and processions associated with the annual
Greek festivals. That such sights had an alluring effect, and indeed
something more, upon some considerable section of the people is
evident, for the first book of Maccabees shows us that the question
of the adoption of Greek polytheism was first raised in Judæa by
apostate Jews themselves; the passage, to which we shall have to
refer again later, is 1 Maccabees i. 11 f.: “In those days [i.e.,
in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes] came there forth out of Israel
transgressors of the Law, and persuaded many, saying, Let us go and
make a covenant with the Gentiles that are round about us; for since
we parted from them many evils have befallen us. And the saying
was good in their eyes. And certain of the people were forward
herein, and went to the king, and he gave them licence to do after
the ordinances of the Gentiles. And they built a place of exercise
(‘gymnasium’) in Jerusalem according to the laws of the Gentiles; and
they made themselves uncircumcized, and forsook the holy covenant,
and joined themselves to the Gentiles, and sold themselves to do
evil.” It is rightly pointed out that in this the promoters “had no
doubt an eye to tactics in the way they chose to inaugurate their
campaign. A gymnasium would appeal especially to youth; and if the
Jewish youth could be won over to pagan practices, then the future
was theirs.”[29] The gymnasium was, in truth, one of the most potent
means whereby the Greek spirit was fostered, especially among those
entering upon manhood. Mr. Edwyn Bevan writes so interestingly on
this subject and so much to the point, that we cannot refrain from
quoting his words. He says: “The gymnasiums were as much of the
essence of a Greek state as the political assemblies; they expressed
fundamental tendencies of the Greek mind—its craving for harmonious
beauty of form, its delight in the body, its unabashed frankness with
regard to everything natural.... The gymnasiums also served other
by-ends besides the one of bodily training; they were the social
centres in which the life of a Greek youth got those interests which
go with companionship, the spur of common ambitions, and _esprit de
corps_. From the days of Alexander and his successors we find as
a regular institution in Greek cities guilds of young men, called
_epheboi_, attached to the gymnasiums and organized under state
control. A young man might remain in the ranks of the _epheboi_ for
a year. He wore a distinctive uniform, some variety of that Greek
country dress—the dress worn for hunting, riding, travelling—which
consisted of a broad-brimmed hat, _chlamys_ brooched about the
shoulders, and high-laced boots.... In state processions the body of
_epheboi_, wearing sometimes even crowns of gold, formed a brilliant
cluster in the spectacle.”[30] In a large variety of ways, therefore,
in every-day life Hellenism affected and influenced the Jews of
Palestine.
This influence was furthered by the powerful high-priestly party,
“the sons of Zadok”—not that all the members of this party were
necessarily priests—who were the political leaders of the people
and at the same time in favour of Greek culture. The active and
aggressive championship of Hellenism by this party began with the
advent of Antiochus Epiphanes to the Syrian throne in B.C. 175. The
high-priest at this time was Onias III; but he was not a supporter
of Hellenistic influence among his people; he was, therefore, driven
away by his brother Jesus, a thorough-going Hellenist, who changed
his Jewish name for the Greek Jason.[31] The second book of Maccabees
gives us an account of what happened, which may be accepted as
substantially correct; in iv. 7-17, it is said: “But when Seleucus
died, and Antiochus, who was called Epiphanes, succeeded to the
kingdom, Jason, the brother of Onias, supplanted his brother in the
high-priesthood, promising in a petition to the king three hundred
and threescore talents of silver, besides eighty talents from another
fund; in addition to which he undertook to pay a hundred and fifty
more, if he was commissioned to set up a gymnasium and ephebeum,
and to register the Jerusalemites as citizens of Antioch.[32] And
when the king had given his assent, Jason at once exercised his
influence in order to bring over his fellow-countrymen to Greek
ways of life ... and seeking to overthrow the lawful modes of life,
he introduced new customs forbidden by the Law; he deliberately
established a gymnasium under the citadel itself, and made the
noblest of the young men wear the petasus.[33] And to such a height
did the passion for Greek fashions rise, and the influx of foreign
customs, thanks to the surpassing impiety of that godless Jason—no
high-priest he!—that the priests were no longer interested in the
services of the altar, but despising the sanctuary, and neglecting
the sacrifices, they hurried to take part in the unlawful displays
held in the _palæstra_ after the quoit-throwing had been announced,
thus setting at nought what their fathers honoured, and esteeming
the glories of the Greeks above all else.”[34] We have quoted
this passage in full as it well illustrates the way in which the
high-priestly party, headed by Jason, furthered the Hellenistic
Movement in Palestine. Mixed motives probably prompted Jason and his
followers in their action; it was certainly to the party’s advantage,
not to say necessity, to be on good terms with the ruling powers;
on the other hand, it is likely enough that they were convinced of
the superiority of Greek culture, and honestly thought that it was
for the good of their people that it should be cultivated; but their
unnecessarily aggressive methods, coupled with the brutal action
of Antiochus in trying to stamp out Judaism altogether, brought an
inevitable reaction; and there followed, as a result, the Maccabæan
revolt which had the effect of obliterating Hellenism, as far as
this was possible, in Palestine.[35] It had, however, become too
deeply ingrained to be altogether eradicated; this will be seen as
we proceed. But it may be pointed out here that one of the signs of
how deep and widespread Hellenistic influence must have been among
the Jews of Palestine is to be seen in the large number of hebraized
Greek words which, as the Hebrew of the Mishna shows, had become
incorporated into the language of the Jews. Schürer has gathered a
great many examples of this, for the examination of which recourse
must be had to his work[36]; here it must suffice merely to indicate
the different departments of life in reference to which these
foreign Greek words became current; they include civil government,
the army, jurisprudence, public institutions such as heathen games,
the theatre, the baths, and public inns, architecture in general,
plastic art, music, writing, trade and industry, the coinage system,
provisions, clothes, furniture and domestic utensils; in addition to
this we find that the formation of many proper names is Greek, and
that multitudes, of Greek words were adapted which express ideas on
many various subjects. Schürer gives the following summary of the way
in which Hellenistic culture affected the every-day life of the Jews
of Palestine: “It fashioned in a peculiar manner the organization
of the state, legislation, the administration of justice, public
arrangements, art and science, trade and industry, and the customs of
daily life down to fashions and ornaments, and thus impressed upon
every department of life, wherever its influence reached, the stamp
of the Greek mind.”[37]
From what has been said it is evident that Hellenistic influence
upon the Jews of Palestine was very marked, for although it is
difficult, perhaps impossible, to trace step by step the progress
of this influence from its inception, we are able to see plainly
enough how profoundly it must have affected the Jews. The question,
however, arises as to whether the religious beliefs of the Jews were
influenced by Hellenism. That a large number of Jews prior to the
Maccabæan struggle gave up their traditional belief in their pursuit
after everything that was Greek is clear from the evidence of the
books of the Maccabees; but the point is rather as to whether Judaism
as a faith was in any way permanently affected by the Hellenistic
spirit. Restricting ourselves at present to Palestinian Judaism we
may say without hesitation that its fundamental tenets remained
untouched; but as regards various beliefs which, in process of
time, became part and parcel of Judaism, it was different; it cannot
be denied that these, of which mention will be made presently, do
witness to the action of extraneous influences, permanent in their
effect, of which Hellenism was one. “In no period,” says Wellhausen,
“was Judaism so fruitful as in this. It was, like Islam, of complex
appearance, full of antinomies, receptive like all that is living,
unsystematic, only to be understood in its historical setting. It was
only practical religion which was ruled by a pedantic spirit and by
strict discipline; in the domain of belief and religious conception a
curious freedom was permitted, although certain fundamental doctrines
were rigorously shielded.”[38] The difficulty of estimating to
what extent Jewish religious thought and practice were affected by
outside influences is very considerable; not less difficult is it to
determine _what_ outside influence had affected a given belief or
custom. We are dealing specifically with Hellenistic influences, but
these could be, and were, exercised both directly and indirectly. It
must be remembered that the conditions under which the Jews lived
during the period with which we are dealing, viz., in the midst
of surrounding nations which had all, more or less, come under
Hellenistic influences, and among whom the development of culture and
religion had been, and was, proceeding apace—it must be remembered
that these conditions were one of the consequences of the Hellenistic
Movement.[39] Further, the question must always be borne in mind as
to whether some eastern _trait_ which was absorbed by Judaism had not
first been assimilated by Hellenism with its strongly syncretistic
tendency, and then taken up by Judaism through this Greek channel.
Even in the cases in which eastern elements were directly taken up
into Judaism, must we not see in such Jewish syncretism at any
rate the indirect result of Hellenistic influence? This readiness
to accept what other religions had to offer was of the essence of
the Hellenistic spirit. As illustrating this latter point we may
mention the subjects of Jewish angelology and demonology; it may be
regarded as certain that the later Jewish idea of angels, the names
of which the Jews themselves describe as originating in Babylonia,
the opposition between good and bad angels, the latter being subject
to a personal head, the dualism between the realms of light and
darkness, in a word, the whole belief in the existence of good and
evil spirits, was due to the influence of Parseeism. In the domain
of eschatology extraneous influences were very marked, though it
is not easy always to decide the quarter from which these came. As
Bertholet says: “Jewish eschatology has become the very meeting-place
of foreign elements. It is especially the merit of Prof. Bousset,
who in general has dealt most successfully with our problem, to have
shown clearly that the expectation of a transcendent æon which,
inaugurated by a universal judgement of the world, replaces the æon
of this present world, differs so widely from the expectation of a
Messianic future which essentially concerns Israel alone and, on the
whole, will only be enacted on the stage of this present earth, that
they cannot have sprung from the same root. And here, considering the
ideas about periods of the world, resurrection, general judgement,
universal conflagration, a new world, and everlasting life, we
have first to take into account influences from Parseeism, mixed
with Babylonian elements, only incidentally Greek ideas....”[40]
Bousset, however, believes that in the domain of Jewish eschatology
Greek influence predominated over that of the east, though he fully
recognizes the influence of the latter.[41] Regarding the Jewish
belief of the immortality of the soul, there can be no doubt that
for this the Jews were indebted mainly to Hellenism, though the
development of this into the doctrine of the resurrection of the
body is Jewish. That the new material thus absorbed became integral
and permanent elements of Judaism is to be seen by their presence in
Rabbinical literature.
But the influence of Hellenistic or other extra-Judaic thought on
the religion of the Jews cannot be restricted to those points of
doctrine on which, as in the case of the ones just enumerated, that
influence was direct. All religious doctrines are so inter-related
that the development or modification of one can scarcely fail to
affect others in one way or another; and this is, above all, true
regarding the doctrine of God. We shall see later that among the
Jews of the Dispersion the doctrine of God was directly affected by
Greek philosophical thought; in the case of the orthodox Judaism of
Palestine this was not so; but there is reason for believing that
_indirectly_ the doctrine of God was, even in Palestinian Judaism,
affected by both Greek and oriental thought. The developed angelology
which became a characteristic of orthodox Judaism had its share
in moulding that conception of divine transcendence which was one
aspect of the Jewish doctrine of God; the teaching concerning those
semi-divine, superhuman beings who act as God’s intermediaries, and
are His agents in carrying out the divine will on earth,[42] is one
which is not unconnected with the developed angelology of later
Judaism; one has only to think of the place and activity assigned to
Michael to realize that this is so.
What has been said is also true of the doctrine of the resurrection
for which Judaism was indebted to Hellenism; here it will suffice to
put the question: How could the doctrine of God _not_ be affected by
belief in immortality? The question will be sufficiently answered by
comparing the Old Testament doctrine of Sheol with the doctrine of
the resurrection.
Further signs of Greek influence are to be discerned in some of the
books of the Old Testament and of the Apocrypha; and the Apocalyptic
Movement must be specially considered. But special chapters will be
devoted to these.
In conclusion, it is necessary to make a brief reference to the type
of Hellenism which grew up in Syria, for this, too, is a matter of
some importance. Attention has already been drawn to the syncretism
which was a characteristic of the Hellenistic period; one of the
results of this was the absorption of many oriental elements by
Hellenism whereby it was affected for the worse; and the Hellenism of
the east became a very different thing from the Hellenism of Greece.
It was especially in Syria that in course of time a degenerate form
of Hellenism prevailed; we have reason to believe, says Bevan, “that
it was just in Syria that Hellenism took a baser form. The ascetic
element which saved its liberty from rankness tended here more than
anywhere else to be forgotten. The games, the shows, the abandonment
of a life which ran riot in a gratification of the senses, grosser
or more refined, these made up too much of the Hellenism which
changed the face of Syria in the last centuries before Christ. ‘The
people of these cities,’ a historian wrote, about a hundred years
before Christ, ‘are relieved by the fertility of their soil from a
laborious struggle for existence. Life is a continuous series of
social festivities. Their gymnasiums they use as baths, where they
anoint themselves with costly oils and myrrhs. In the _grammateia_
(such is the name they give the public eating-halls) they practically
live, filling themselves there for the better part of the day with
rich foods and wine; much that they cannot eat they take away home.
They feast to the prevailing music of strings. The cities are filled
from end to end with the noise of harp-playing.’ Very likely that
picture is over-coloured.... The man who wrote it, Posidonius, a man
of huge literary industry, and a philosopher of the nobler school,
was himself a Syrian Greek; but it cannot be altogether untrue.”[43]
Considerably earlier than this, extraneous influences were already
affecting the Jews, for Hecatæus of Abdera (B.C. 306-283) bears
witness of how many Jews were influenced by foreign ways. He says:
“Under the dominations which were established in later times [he has
been writing about Mosaic times], namely that of the Persians, and
that of the Macedonians who overthrew the Persian rule, the Jews
greatly modified their traditional ordinances through their contact
with strangers.”[44]
Oriental and Hellenistic influences were thus both at work in
influencing the Jews of Palestine in many directions; the fusion of
these two influences took place, and the result was that a debased
form of Hellenism was produced. On the one hand, then, Hellenism,
with the many good qualities which were inherent in it, brought a
beneficial influence to bear upon the Jews of Palestine; but, on the
other hand, its effect, for the reason given, was evil; so that when
the great reaction against Hellenism took place, it was fostered by
ethical as well as religious considerations.
II. THE ESSENES
[LITERATURE.—Lucius, _Der Essenismus in seinem Verhältniss zum
Judenthum_ (1881); Lightfoot, _Colossians_, pp. 349-419 (1884);
M. Friedländer, _Zur Enstehungsgeschichte des Christenthums_, pp.
98-142 (1894); Schürer, II, ii. pp. 188-218, German ed. II, pp.
651-680; M. Friedländer, _Die religiösen Bewegungen_ ..., pp.
114-168 (1905); the articles “Essenes” in Hastings’ _Dict. of
the Bible_ and in the _Jewish Encycl._, by F. C. Conybeare and
Kohler respectively.]
The name Essene is in all probability derived from the Aramaic word
which is the equivalent of the Hebrew _Chassid_ (“Pious”).[45] The
question as to whether any signs of Hellenistic influence are to be
discerned in Essenism is one upon which much difference of opinion
exists among scholars. A massive literature upon the subject exists.
To go into much detail here would be out of the question; we can
only refer to a few points which make it difficult to believe that
Essenism was uninfluenced by Hellenism.[46]
There are, undoubtedly, a number of facts regarding Essene belief and
practice which show how un-Jewish they were in some respects, though,
as Josephus says, they were Jews by race.[47] Philo, who is our
earliest authority regarding the Essenes, says: “In the first place,
these men live in villages, avoiding the towns on account of the
sinfulness that reigns in them; for they know that just as disease
arises through unwholesome air, so, too, incurable infection to the
soul through intercourse.”[48] This withdrawing from the world is
elsewhere extolled by Philo when he speaks of it as characteristic
of those Greeks and barbarians who have dedicated their lives to the
search for wisdom, and “who have turned their backs upon the crowded
market-place and public life in order that they may be able to devote
themselves to meditation in their solitude.”[49] It is unnecessary
to insist upon the fact that withdrawing from the world and seeking
solitude was entirely un-Jewish; the Jews were essentially social
in their habits of life, their whole legislation assumes this, and
their history shows it throughout. It is, therefore, not from the
Jews that the Essenes acquired this characteristic. There are, on the
other hand, ample grounds for believing that among the Greeks and
Orientals examples of this were to be found; it is from one or other
of these, probably from a Greek pattern borrowed from the east, that
the Essenes adopted this.
Again, the Essenes exhibited another very un-Jewish _trait_ in the
position they took up on the question of marriage; the evidence of
Josephus regarding this is as follows: “They neglect wedlock, but
choose out other persons’ children while they are pliable and fit
for learning, and esteem them to be their kindred, and form them
according to their manner of life.”[50] This was quite against Jewish
teaching and practice, though in agreement with Jewish Hellenism,
which looked upon asceticism as the most efficacious, and indeed
indispensable, means of attaining to the vision of God.[51] The
asceticism of the Essenes, both in this and other respects, was an
inevitable result of their dualism. According to their teaching, God
and the world, which is wholly evil, stand opposed in irreconcilable
antagonism; this accounts for their elaborate angelology, for as God
cannot have any immediate intercourse with the evil world, angels
act as His intermediaries. This part of Essene belief is largely
due to Persian influence. Further, Josephus tells us that “the sect
of Essenes affirms that fate governs all things, and that nothing
befalls men but what is according to its determination.”[52] On this
point the Essenes and the Sadducees were at opposite extremes, while
the Pharisees occupied a middle position between the two.
Of great importance was the teaching of the Essenes on the
resurrection. “The opinion is strongly held among them,” says
Josephus, “that bodies are corruptible, and that the matter they
are made of is not permanent; but that the souls are immortal, and
continue for ever, and that they come out of the most subtle air,
and are united to their bodies as to prisons, into which they are
drawn by a certain natural enticement; but that when they are set
free from the bonds of the flesh, they then, as released from a long
bondage, rejoice and mount upward. And their opinion is like that of
the Greeks, that good souls have their habitation beyond the ocean,
in a region that is neither oppressed with storms of rain or snow,
nor with intense heat, but that this place is such as is refreshed by
the gentle breathing of a west wind that is perpetually blowing from
the ocean; while they allot to bad souls a dark and tempestuous den,
full of never-ceasing punishments.”[53] This belief, which Josephus
himself regards as due to Greek influence, is directly opposed to
the doctrine of the resurrection of the body which was a tenet of
orthodox Judaism. Un-Jewish, further, was the fact that the Essenes
would never enter the Temple for fear of becoming contaminated with
the crowds there; so that they did not offer sacrifices; though, on
the other hand, they sent offerings to the Temple.
One last point wherein Essenism was un-Jewish in character was
that in some respects it was a mystery-religion; each community
had a central house around which the brethren of the Order dwelt;
in this house they met for their religious observances; one of
these was a common meal; at this meal special holy garments were
worn, which were put off again when the wearers returned to work;
a priest offered up prayer before and after the meal. Whenever a
new candidate sought admission into the Order he had first to pass
a three years’ noviciate; then, on being admitted, he underwent a
form of baptism, and had to take solemn oaths to obey the rules of
the Order and to keep its secrets; he had also to swear to observe
secrecy regarding the names of the angels in whom the members of the
Order believed. As the Essenes lived entirely for the life to come,
they were much occupied in attempting to penetrate the secrets of the
future; indeed, they were accredited with the faculty of foretelling
the future; Josephus says that they were seldom mistaken in their
predictions, and gives three interesting examples of the correctness
of the prophecies.[54]
In a number of respects, therefore, the Essenes differed
fundamentally in faith and practice from orthodox Judaism; but in
their strict monotheism, in their high respect for the Law of Moses,
especially in the matter of Sabbath observance, and in their frequent
purifications, they were thoroughly Jewish.
While it seems, then, impossible not to recognize in the Essene
Movement to some considerable extent the result of Hellenistic
influence, it is evident that other extra-Jewish influences, namely,
oriental, also had a share in moulding it. Friedländer speaks of
Essenism as “a harmonious blending of the Mosaic and Hellenic
spirit”[55]; perhaps this does not take sufficient account of the
oriental influences whereby Essenism was undoubtedly affected;
at the same time it is certain that Hellenism, with its strongly
syncretistic tendencies, absorbed oriental elements prior to its more
pronounced extension in Palestine, in which case eastern influence
would only have been indirect, while that of Hellenism would have
been the more immediate.
SUMMARY
The separation of the Jews from the outside world which was brought
about through the exertions of Ezra and those who followed him,
and which had the effect of preserving the people from extraneous
influences, was only successful for a limited period of time. For
with the rise and rapid spread of the Hellenistic Movement came the
breaking down of all the barriers which had been so laboriously set
up; and the Jews, like the rest of the world of those days, came
under the sway of this irresistible power, so strongly exercised on
the eastern shores of the Mediterranean.
Hellenistic influence upon the Jews was exercised in an intensive
manner during the century of comparative peace for their country,
which was one of the results of the battle of Ipsus (B.C. 301).
The considerate treatment accorded to the Jews by their rulers
during this period was calculated to help forward the process of
Hellenization. The policy of the Egyptian kings of settling Greeks
and Macedonians in Palestine resulted in the rise of many Greek
cities there. Both in Western and Eastern Palestine civic life was
framed upon the Greek model; a marked individualism among the Jews
was one of the results of this.
Hellenistic influence was exercised, further, by means of the annual
celebrations of the Greek festivals; the gymnasium and all that this
involved became a still greater means for the spreading abroad of
this influence.
The fact that the powerful high-priestly party favoured the
Hellenistic Movement did much to forward it.
Thus, by the time that Antiochus Epiphanes came to the Syrian throne
in B.C. 175 much of what was essentially Hellenistic had become
ineradicably rooted in Jewish modes of life and thought, so much so
that when the great reaction against Hellenism arose in the shape of
the Maccabæan revolt, it was in many directions powerless to effect a
return to the Ezra ideal.
One effect of the deep and widespread influence of the Hellenistic
Movement is to be seen in the large number of Greek words which,
as the Hebrew of the Mishna shows, have been incorporated into the
Hebrew language.
As to Greek influence upon the _religious belief_ of the Jews of
Palestine, it did not directly affect its fundamental tenets; but in
one way or another, in conjunction with other eastern influences,
it did affect Judaism as a faith in some respects. Angelology and
demonology, which Judaism absorbed from the east, were elements the
incorporation of which may so far be regarded as due _indirectly_ to
the Hellenistic Movement in that the Greek spirit inculcated, and
set the example of syncretism, an example followed by the Jews no
less than by other peoples under the sway of Hellenism. In the domain
of eschatology both Greek and Eastern influences affected the Jews;
which of the two was the more powerful is not easily decided. As
regards the belief in the future life of the Jews the signs of Greek
influence are plainly discernible.
This influence cannot be restricted, however, to the points mentioned
because the inter-relation of doctrinal tenets is such that the
development or modification of one dogma affects others; an example
of this is the way in which the later angelology and demonology of
the Jews affected their doctrine of God.
The chapters on “Traces of Greek Influences in the Old Testament
and the Apocrypha” and “The Apocalyptic Movement” should be read in
conjunction with the subject of this chapter.
The Essene Movement was the outcome of mainly Hellenistic, but also
of Eastern, influences.
CHAPTER III
Hellenistic Influence upon the Jews of the Dispersion
[LITERATURE.—Stade, _Op. cit._, vol. II (1888); Schürer, II, ii.
pp. 219-327, German ed. III, pp. 1-188; Bertholet, _Die Stellung
dev Israeliten und Juden zu den Fremden_ (1890); Reinach,
_Textes d’auteurs Grecs et Romains relatifs au Judaisme_ (1895);
Willrich, _Juden und Griechen vor der makkabäischen Erhebung_
(1895); Swete, _Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek_
(1900); M. Friedländer, _Die religiösen Bewegungen_ ..., pp.
235-264 (1905); by the same author, _Geschichte der jüdischen
Apologetik als Vorgeschichte des Christentums_ (1903); Bousset,
_Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter_
(1903); Harnack, _The Mission and Expansion of Christianity_, I,
pp. 1-36 (1908); Bertholet, _Das religionsgeschichtliche Problem
des Spätjudenthums_ (1909); Oesterley and Box, _The Religion and
Worship of the Synagogue_, pp. 114-120 (1911); Wendland, _Op.
cit._, pp. 192-211; and the following articles, Ramsay, “The Jews
in the Græco-Asiatic Cities,” in the _Expositor_ (January, 1902);
“Diaspora” in the _Jewish Encycl._; “Dispersion” in Hastings’
_Dict. of the Bible_ (extra volume) and the _Encycl. Bibl._]
I. THE DISPERSION
A preliminary matter to be dealt with is the Dispersion of the Jews,
its origin and extent; after which we can turn our attention to the
special characteristics of the Dispersion Jews, and the influence of
Hellenism upon them.
The first beginnings of the Dispersion on a large scale are to be
seen in the deportation to Assyria of 27,290 of the inhabitants of
Samaria by Sargon in B.C. 722. In 2 Kings xvii. 23 it is said:
“So Israel was carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto
this day” (cp. 2 Kings xvii. 6; xviii. 11). The general reference
to this occurrence given in the Old Testament is supplemented by
an inscription of Sargon’s in which it is said: “I besieged and
captured Samerina (Samaria): 27,290 people dwelling in the midst of
it I carried off. Fifty chariots I collected among them, and allowed
them to have the rest of their goods.”[56] A further deportation
on a larger scale took place when Nebuchadnezzar carried captive
to Babylon the bulk of the nation of Judah in B.C. 597; this was
supplemented by further deportations in B.C. 586 and 582 (see 2
Kings xxiv. 14-16; xxv. 11, 21; Jer. lii. 15, 28-30). Some five or
six thousand exiles returned to Palestine in B.C. 430; but about a
century later, in the reign of Artaxerxes III (Ochus),[57] there was
another deportation, a number of Jews being transported to Hyrcania,
on the Caspian Sea, and Babylonia.[58] The great majority of these
exiles and their descendants were content to remain in their new
homes, and many settlements of Jews arose in Babylonia, the centre
of the Eastern Dispersion; from these centres they emigrated in all
directions, and in course of time the chief centre of the Dispersion
came to be Egypt, and of these Egyptian settlements Alexandria
became the most important. The earliest mention which we have of
Jews settling in Egypt is in one of the Aramaic _papyri_ found a few
years ago in Elephantiné[59]; these _papyri_ consist of official
documents—decrees of the Persian government and public ordinances
of the Jewish colony settled there—as well as private papers, such
as business letters, account books, records of debt, lists of names
and personal correspondence; some literary pieces were also found
in the collection. In one of these _papyri_—a petition addressed by
the Jewish soldiery stationed at Elephantiné to the governor of the
Jewish colony—it is stated that the forefathers of the petitioners
had been settled there and had built a temple to their God Jahu
(Jehovah) “since the days of the kings of Egypt.” The reference
is, in all probability, to the Jewish mercenaries in the army of
Psametik I (B.C. 663-609) of which mention is made in the _Letter of
Aristeas_, 12, 13. It was the successor of Psametik I, Pharoah Necho
II, who in B.C. 609 overran Syria and, having subdued Judah, exiled
Jehoahaz to Egypt (2 Kings xxiii. 29, 34). Not long after, in B.C.
586, Johanan, the son of Kareah, led a number of Jews, among whom was
the prophet Jeremiah, into Egypt (Jer. xlii., xliii.); and, according
to Jeremiah xliv. 1, there were Jewish settlements in Migdol,
Tahpanes, Noph (i.e. Memphis), as well as in the district of Pathros
in Upper Egypt (Isa. xi. 11).
These _data_ show that in comparatively early times there were
Jewish settlements in Egypt. But of great interest and importance is
the evidence of the Elephantiné _papyri_, mentioned just now; they
witness to the presence of Jews in Egypt during the fifth century
B.C.[60] The Jewish colony settled in Syene was a military one;
the _papyri_ tell us that the organization was much the same as in
other parts of the Persian Empire; there was a governor,[61] with
whom were associated the priests, who represented the colony in
all dealings with the suzerain power; he sends regular remittances
to the central government, and receives instructions in all things
concerning the colony from the satrap of the province. Side by side
with the civil organization is the military _régime_; the force is
divided into companies called after the names of their officers; the
soldiers of the garrison each have a small possession of land; their
office is hereditary; when not engaged in war they seem to have led
a comfortable and pleasant life concerning which the _papyri_ give
a number of details. Though the colony was not a large one, in all
probability not amounting to more than a hundred souls, the fact
of its existence is not without importance for the study of the
Dispersion.[62]
When the Persian Empire was conquered by Alexander the Great, many
Jews emigrated from Persia to the west, and settled down in the
centres of Greek civilization; nor did it take very long before there
was scarcely any part of the civilized world of those days in which
Jewish settlements did not exist. “The greatly enlarged channels of
commerce, especially by sea-routes, attracted many from the interior
to the coasts. The newly-founded Grecian cities, rendered attractive
by all the achievements of Greek art and civilization, became
favourite resorts. Henceforth, trade relations, the desire to see the
world, soon also political considerations and (we may well suppose)
a certain conscious or unconscious craving for culture, became
operative in promoting the dispersion of the Jews over the civilized
world.”[63] About the middle of the second century B.C. the
_Sybilline Oracles_ (iii. 271) bear witness to the wide dispersion
of the Jews in saying that “every land and every sea is full of
thee”; the language is hyperbolic, but testifies, nevertheless, to
the ubiquity of the Jews at this time. Somewhat later Strabo (_circa_
B.C. 60-A.D. 20) gives the following evidence: “These Jews are
already gotten into all cities, and it is hard to find a place in the
habitable earth that has not admitted this tribe of men, and is not
possessed by it.”[64]
The most important centre from every point of view, not only of the
Egyptian, but of the whole Dispersion, was Alexandria. As we have
seen, the nucleus of a Jewish population had existed in Egypt for
centuries before the time of Alexander. When Alexandria was founded
Jewish settlers were at once attracted to it because equal privileges
with all other citizens were accorded them; reference is made to this
in later times in an edict of Tiberius in which it is said: “Since I
am assured that the Jews of Alexandria, called _Alexandrians_, have
been joint inhabitants in the earliest times with the Alexandrians,
and have obtained from their kings equal privileges with them, as is
evident from the public records that are in their possession, and
the edicts themselves; and that after Alexandria had been subjected
to our empire by Augustus, their rights and privileges have been
preserved by those presidents who have at divers times been sent
thither; and that no dispute had been raised about those rights
and privileges.... I will, therefore, that the nation of the Jews
be not deprived of their rights and privileges ... but that those
rights and privileges which they formerly enjoyed be preserved to
them....”[65] In another place Josephus tells us that the Jews of
Alexandria had set apart for them “a particular place, that they
might live without being polluted [by the Gentiles], and were thereby
not so much intermixed with foreigners as before”; this was done
by the successors of Alexander.[66] On the other hand, Philo says
that the Jews lived in all parts of the city in his day[67]; the
earlier exclusiveness of the Jews would naturally be, to some extent,
broken down in course of time when living in Gentile surroundings,
especially in such a centre as Alexandria, where Jews of wealth and
social position lived who would desire to avail themselves of the
high culture enjoyed by their Gentile fellow-citizens.
Although Alexandria was by far the most important centre of the
Dispersion, not only in Egypt but in the whole civilized world of
those days, there were many other smaller settlements of Jews in that
country; Philo says that the one million Jews who dwelt in Egypt
were to be found in every part of it from Libya to the Ethiopian
frontier.[68] Of the many other lands in which Jews were settled we
cannot speak here; it must suffice to say that no country was without
them.[69]
II. HELLENISTIC INFLUENCE ON RELIGION
It has been pointed out above that among the Greeks themselves the
effect of the new spirit due to the Hellenistic Movement was very
great upon the men and women of the cultured classes, but that upon
the masses it did not exercise much influence. To a large extent this
is also true of the Jews of the Dispersion; for greatly as they
were influenced by the Greek spirit, the point must be emphasized
that this applies, primarily and mainly, to the cultured classes,
_literati_, philosophers and the like. No doubt, indirectly, other
classes were to a greater or less extent also affected, but so far
as the fundamental doctrines of Judaism were concerned, the bulk of
the Jews of the Dispersion were, in the main, true to the traditions
of their fathers in spite of their Greek surroundings, and in spite
of the fact that in other respects they were entirely under the sway
of the Greek spirit. Not only did they pay annually the half-shekel
to the Temple authorities in Jerusalem for the maintenance of the
sacrificial system, but as a rule circumcision was insisted upon, the
sanctity of the Sabbath was observed, and the great festivals were
regularly celebrated. Vast numbers made pilgrimages to Jerusalem to
keep the three principal feasts, Tabernacles, Passover and Weeks.[70]
Even Philo, who in mind and character was far more of a Greek
philosopher than a Jewish Rabbi, insists on the need of observing the
distinctive marks of Judaism.[71] It is necessary to point this out
by way of preface, otherwise from what we have to say further upon
the subject the reader might be led to suppose that, at all events,
the more cultured among the Jews of the Dispersion, and especially
those of Alexandria, lost touch with Judaism altogether; this, no
doubt, happened in many cases, but as compared with the many that
remained Jews in religion, these were the exceptions. Nevertheless,
in the case of great numbers, traditional Judaism became transformed.
To begin with, utterly unlike the intolerant attitude of the
Palestinian Jews towards the Gentiles, the Jews of the Dispersion
looked upon the larger world of their surroundings with interest and
sympathy; their religious interests were not so entirely absorbed
in their own view of things that they could not see and appreciate
the excellence of Greek thought and philosophy; their minds were
open to receive and to be influenced by what was good and true,
wherever it was to be found. The Dispersion Jew was a Jew at heart,
though not according to the Pharisaic standard, and convinced of
the pre-eminence of his own faith, but he was none the less ready
to render due justice to the opinions and convictions of his Greek
neighbours; the interesting evidence regarding this given in the
_Letter of Aristeas_[72] (121, 122) is worth quoting here: “Regarding
discussions and explanations of the Law they possessed great
aptitude. They struck just the right balance, for they discarded
the hard literalness of the letter, and were modest with regard to
their own wisdom, and were ready to hold argument, to listen to the
opinions of others, and to consider thoroughly every question that
might be raised.” This broad-mindedness was one of the results of
unfettered contact with the outer world. But a result, as remarkable
as it was important, followed; for in comparing his religion with the
various beliefs of the Gentiles, the Jew of the Dispersion became
convinced, in a way which hitherto had not been possible, that both
in faith and practice Judaism was, in so far as its fundamentals were
concerned, immeasurably purer and truer, in most respects, though
not in all, than anything that the Gentiles could offer. He felt,
therefore, that he had something to say and give to the world which
concerned all men. Hence arose those missionary efforts, so contrary
to the spirit of exclusiveness which characterized traditional
Judaism, but which were crowned with a considerable measure of
success. Yet a grave and subtle danger lurked here for the Jew of the
Dispersion; in his desire to make Judaism as attractive as possible
to the Gentiles, he presented it with such modifications that it
could no longer be called genuine Judaism. Under the influence of
the Hellenistic spirit the rigidity of the Law was smoothed down,
and some Jewish beliefs appeared in a somewhat modified form[73];
many converts did not do more than keep the dietary laws and observe
the Sabbath; and this was acquiesced in. The reaction of this upon
those who thus presented a form of Judaism which was to some extent
spurious, cannot well have been without its consequences, since
their action must necessarily have affected their own faith in their
religion and their ideas upon the importance of their religious
rites.[74]
If, as we have seen, syncretism affected Palestinian Judaism we shall
expect the same to have been the case with Hellenistic Judaism; this
was, indeed, so, and to a much greater extent. Thus, their conception
of God was enriched with new ideas from both Platonic and, to a
greater degree, from Stoic philosophy, e.g., the doctrine of Divine
Immanence, to which we shall refer in dealing with the signs of
Greek influence in Jewish religious literature (Chapter V), where
we shall see also that the Jewish conceptions of the nature of man
was greatly influenced by Greek philosophical teaching. Again, the
Dispersion Jews commended their Scriptures to the heathen world by
means of interpreting them allegorically; the real sense of Scripture
would often be entirely explained away by this method. This, too,
shows the influence of the Hellenistic spirit, for this method of
interpretation was borrowed from the Stoics who had been in the habit
of allegorizing the Greek myths.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that even in Palestine, as
indications in some later Old Testament and other books show, there
had for generations been a tendency towards mitigating the importance
of the sacrificial system; the effect of this is likely to have
been proportionately great among the Jews of the Dispersion, who
would, moreover, have found difficulties in observing many other
precepts of the Law. The result would have been to make them all
the more susceptible to the foreign cults and philosophical systems
which met them on every side; how great that susceptibility was has
been illustrated in an extraordinary manner by the recently found
_papyri_ referred to above. No one, as Bertholet has truly remarked,
can understand the religion of the Jews—and this applies to the Jews
of the Dispersion even more than to those of Palestine—“without a
full intelligence of their astonishing faculty of assimilation; this
assimilation even going the length of actively supporting heathen
cults or, as the recently discovered _papyri_ of Assouan have
informed us, of swearing by an Egyptian goddess.”[75]
III. THE SEPTUAGINT
One of the results of the Hellenistic Movement, the importance of
which cannot be exaggerated, was the Græco-Jewish literature to which
it gave birth. It is impossible to deal here with the whole mass of
that literature,[76] even in the most cursory manner, nor is this
necessary for our present purpose.[77] We must restrict ourselves in
this section to a brief mention of what Schürer calls “the foundation
of all Judæo-Hellenistic culture,” namely, the Greek translation of
the Hebrew Scriptures, which was the special possession of the Jews
of the Dispersion.
The name of this Greek Version of the Bible owes its origin to the
legend contained in the so-called _Letter of Aristeas_, in which
an account is given of how Ptolemy II (Philadelphus)[78] desired
to have a Greek translation of the Hebrew Book of the Law (i.e.,
the Pentateuch), and sent to Eleazar, the high-priest in Jerusalem,
asking him to send competent scholars to Alexandria who would be
able to undertake the task of translation. The high-priest, the
account continues, readily responded to this request, and despatched
seventy-two learned Jews, each of the twelve tribes being represented
by six of them. Ptolemy received them with great honour on their
arrival in Alexandria, and entertained them hospitably during the
whole of their sojourn. The seventy-two went into retirement to the
island of Pharos, opposite Alexandria, where they laboured at the
translation. This took seventy-two days; the translation was then
delivered to the king, who thereupon ordered the books to be placed
in the royal library. The translators, after having been presented
with rich gifts, returned to Judæa. This is the legend to which the
name _Septuagint_ (“Seventy”) owes its origin, a name which has clung
to it in spite of its being now generally recognized that the _Letter
of Aristeas_ is unhistorical so far as this story is concerned. Who
the translators of the Hebrew Bible into Greek were is not known.
That the various parts of the Septuagint were not only translated by
different authors, but also belong to different ages, is certain.
It is quite probable that, so far as the Pentateuch is concerned,
the _Letter of Aristeas_ contains a true tradition in ascribing
its translation into Greek to about B.C. 280.[79] As to the rest
of the books, though the evidence is fragmentary, it may be safely
stated that most of them, if not all, were translated before the
beginning of the Christian era. Ryle has shown that there is evidence
for believing that Philo (about B.C. 20-A.D. 50) utilized all the
books of the Greek Old Testament, with the exception of Esther,
Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs and Daniel.[80]
This great product of Hellenistic influence upon the Jews is seen to
be all the more significant when it is realized that in the fifth
century B.C. the Aramaic language, as the recently found Elephantiné
_papyri_ show, was the language spoken by the Jews of Egypt; and not
only was this the ordinarily spoken language, but it was also that
in which literary works were written.[81] Yet in the course of not
much more than a century this was displaced by Greek; and even in
the synagogues Greek was the language used. For some time, no doubt,
though apparently not for very long, the Hebrew Scriptures were
translated by word of mouth into Aramaic in the synagogues of the
Dispersion; but when this language fell into disuse Greek had to be
used; and ultimately it was found necessary to have the Scriptures
themselves in Greek.[82]
So far as we are here concerned, the great importance of the Greek
Old Testament lies in the fact that it has given us the books of the
Apocrypha. These will be dealt with separately in Part II, so that
it will not be necessary to say anything about them now further than
that the general purpose for which they were written was to expand
some of the already existing books of the Hebrew Scriptures, or
to add to their number. Some, such as the books of the Maccabees,
continue the record of the nation’s history; others are expansions
of canonical books, such as the Prayer of Manasses, the Additions to
Daniel, Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy, and the Rest of Esther;
while Ecclesiasticus and the Book of Wisdom are additions to the
Wisdom Literature of the Jews.
As regards the importance and far-reaching influence of the
Septuagint, we cannot do better than quote the words in which
Deissmann has so succinctly, and yet so adequately, expressed this:
“Take the Septuagint in your hand, and you have before you the
book that was the Bible of the Jews of the Dispersion and of the
proselytes from the heathen; the Bible of Philo the philosopher,
Paul the Apostle, and the earliest Christian missions; the Bible of
the whole Greek-speaking Christian world; the mother of influential
daughter-versions; the mother of the Greek New Testament.”[83]
IV. PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA
[LITERATURE.—Siegfried, _Philo von Alexandria als Ausleger des
Alten Testamentes_ (1875); O. Holtzmann in Stade’s _Geschichte
des Volkes Israel_, II, pp. 521-551 (1888); Schürer, II, iii.
pp. 321-381, German ed., III, pp. 633-716; Krüger, _Philo und
Josephus als Apologeten des Judentums_ (1906); Windisch, _Die
Frömmigkeit Philo’s_ ..., pp. 4-95 (1909). See also J. H. A.
Hart’s series of articles entitled “Philo of Alexandria” in the
_Jewish Quarterly Review_, vols. xvii. xviii. xix., these deal
with the writings of Philo; Lauterbach’s article on Philo in the
_Jewish Encycl._, X, pp. 6-18.]
As the Septuagint is, from our present point of view, the most
important product of the Hellenistic Movement, so among Græco-Jewish
writers is Philo the most remarkable whom this Movement brought
forth. No Jew was so immersed in the spirit of Greek wisdom, nor did
more to try and harmonize Greek and Hebrew thought.
The large number of his works which have come down to us owe their
preservation to the popularity they enjoyed among the early Church
Fathers, for by the Jewish leaders Philo was not regarded as
orthodox, his works were therefore unacceptable to them; some of the
Church writers even went so far as to speak of him as a Christian.
Scarcely anything is known with certainty about his life. He must
have been born about B.C. 20 or thereabouts, for he took part in an
embassy to Caligula in A.D. 40, when already somewhat advanced in
years; he refers to this in his work, _De Legatione ad Cajum_, §
28[84]; it is also mentioned by Josephus,[85] who speaks of Philo as
“a man eminent on all accounts, brother to Alexander the Alabarch,
and one not unskilful in philosophy.” This is practically all that is
known of him apart from what his works reveal of the man; but they do
not contain any biographical details.
Philo was a true Jew; he had an unbounded veneration for the Old
Testament Scriptures, and especially for Moses and the Pentateuch;
most of his works are concerned with this latter. Not only did he
look upon the Hebrew Scriptures as having been verbally inspired, but
he also believed this to have been the case with them in their Greek
form. His veneration for the Jewish Scriptures, on the one hand,
and his love for the philosophy of the Greeks on the other, led him
to the conviction that both contained and witnessed to one and the
same truth. He believed that the Greek philosophers had used the Old
Testament writings, and these he explained on the allegorical system
with such freedom that he was able to extract from them any meaning
he desired; by this means his own philosophical system became a
combination of Greek philosophy and Jewish theology.[86]
Regarding the philosophy of Philo, his conception of God forms
naturally the starting-point. Here he holds, on the one hand, that
so absolute is the perfection of God, so transcendent is the divine
majesty, and therefore so far removed from all that human thought is
capable of, that God is simply inconceivable; man can really know
no more than that God is; he cannot know _what_ God is. But, on the
other hand, since He is perfectly good and all-powerful, since He is
the Creator and Upholder of the world, the Final Cause of all that is
or ever can be, it follows that there must be a ceaseless activity
on His part; the world of His creation must occupy His thought and
action. These twofold conceptions of God—the thought of His being
outside of and above the world, immeasurably superior to it, and
the thought that He is active in the world—are clearly incompatible
one with the other. The way in which Philo sought to get over the
obvious contradiction here involved, was by assuming the existence of
intermediate beings. His teaching on this subject was not new, but
it had never before been so thoroughly and systematically treated.
These intermediate beings Philo called “powers” (_dunameis_); they
are properties of God, and yet His servants fulfilling His will
in the world. All these powers are comprehended in one, namely,
the “Logos,” or Word of God; the “Logos” is also spoken of as the
wisdom and reason of God, and the means whereby the world was
created.[87] But both in respect of the “powers” just mentioned, and
of the “Logos” itself, there is uncertainty as to the personality
attached to them; this was bound to be the case, for if there was
to be even the semblance of a solution of the opposing conceptions
concerning God referred to above, Philo had to conceive of the
“Logos” as less than a personal being distinct from God, and more
than an impersonal divine attribute; and the same applies to the
other “powers.” Otherwise it would be inconceivable that God could
be personally present and active in the world, while in His nature
He was wholly superior to it, and, on account of His transcendent
holiness, could not come into immediate and direct contact with it.
The “Logos” is, further, according to Philo, the mediator, and the
advocate, of men, and the expiator of sins; he speaks of it as the
“high-priest”; in such cases it is difficult to get away from the
thought of personality attaching to the “Logos.” On the other hand,
it is conceived of as distinctly impersonal when described as “the
idea of ideas,” and the “archetypal idea.”[88] Most striking of all
is the fact that in a number of passages Philo gives the “Logos” the
title of “first-born son,” and “only-begotten”; but the significance
of such titles depends, of course, upon the passages in which they
occur.[89]
In his doctrine of sin Philo teaches that evil is inherent in matter;
hence the body, with which the soul is connected, is the source of
sin in man. The subjugation of the passions is the one and only way
to virtue; but this can only be brought about by means of God’s
help, for He is the Author of whatever is good in man. Therefore the
highest virtue can only be attained by a close communion with God.
Knowledge is excellent; but even the closest attachment to wisdom
is less excellent than walking with God, for only so can man receive
the fulness of divine illumination. Philo teaches that this divine
illumination is accorded to man while in a state of unconsciousness;
so that while he lays much stress on the freedom of the will, this
highest state to which man can attain is solely attributable to
divine grace.
These doctrines of Philo, and we have only referred to the more
important, are to a great extent due to Greek influence; Platonism,
Pythagoreanism, Stoicism and Cynicism have all contributed to Philo’s
philosophical system; but to show this in detail would be out of
place here, for it would take us too far afield. We must content
ourselves with stating the fact; for detailed proof recourse must
be had to those works which treat specifically of Philo and of his
teaching.[90]
SUMMARY
In dealing with Hellenistic influence upon the Jews of the Dispersion
it was necessary to make some reference first to the Dispersion
itself and its extent during the period under consideration. It began
as early as the end of the eighth century B.C. with the fall of the
northern kingdom, and the deportation to Assyria of many thousands of
Israelites which followed. The fall of the southern kingdom was the
cause of a further step in the process of dispersion. The communities
which consequently came into existence in Babylonia formed centres
from which the Jews emigrated in all directions. We have the evidence
of the Old Testament that such centres existed in Egypt by the middle
of the sixth century B.C., if not earlier. Contemporary documentary
evidence, which has recently come to light, shows that a colony of
Jews was settled at Elephantiné during the fifth century B.C. After
the conquests of Alexander, many Jews emigrated from the east to
western centres of Greek civilization, and various writers testify
to the ubiquity of the Jews. Alexandria was the most important centre
of the Dispersion from every point of view.
The cultured Jews were more influenced by the Hellenistic Movement
than the masses; both, however, held in the main to the fundamental
tenets of traditional Judaism. Nevertheless, apart from these, and
in spite of their observance, traditional Judaism became largely
transformed. The tolerant attitude of the Dispersion Jews towards the
Gentiles was in marked contrast to that of the Jews of Palestine.
Unlike these latter, again, a vigorous missionary propaganda was
carried on by the Jews of the Dispersion. There lay here, however,
a subtle danger; for the desire to make Judaism attractive to the
Gentiles resulted in requiring but scanty observance of its practices
from them; this reacted unfavourably upon the Jews themselves.
Further, a strongly syncretistic attitude characterized the Jews of
the Dispersion; even their conception of God was influenced by the
teaching of the Greek philosophers. The allegorization of Scripture
was another mark of Hellenistic influence. The recently found Assouan
_papyri_ offer a striking example of the astonishing faculty of
assimilation possessed by the Jews.
One of the most important products of the Hellenistic Movement
was the Septuagint, for which we have to thank the Jews of the
Dispersion. The origin of the name of this Greek Version of the
Hebrew Scriptures is to be found in a legend contained in the _Letter
of Aristeas_. In all probability the entire books of the Hebrew Canon
were translated into Greek by the beginning of the Christian era.
The most important point about the Septuagint, so far as we are here
concerned, is that it has given us the books of the Apocrypha.
Among Græco-Jewish writers none can compare in importance with Philo
of Alexandria. His great aim was to try to harmonize Hebrew and
Greek thought. The preservation of the large number of his works is
due to their popularity among the early Church Fathers. By the Jewish
leaders he was not regarded as orthodox. Scarcely anything is known
of the life of Philo excepting what can be gained from his works, and
this is little enough.
In the short account given of the philosophy of Philo it is seen that
this is permeated with the spirit of the Greek philosophers.
CHAPTER IV
Traces of Greek Influence in the Old Testament and in the Apocrypha
[LITERATURE.—See the books cited in the footnotes.]
I. REFERENCES TO THE GREEKS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
There are some few passages in the Old Testament which witness to a
knowledge of the Greeks on the part of the Jews; these may be briefly
alluded to by way of introduction.
The Hebrew form for the land of the Ionians, or Greeks, is _Javan_;
this is mentioned, though without further detail, in Genesis x. 2; 1
Chronicles i. 5, 7. As early as the eighth century B.C. the Greeks
pressed forward to the east.[91] Again, in the lamentation for Tyre
(Ezek. xxvii. 13) it is said: “Javan, Tubal and Meshech, they were
thy traffickers; they traded with the persons of men and vessels
of brass for thy merchandise” (cp. also verse 9). This subject is
referred to again in Joel iii. (Heb. iv.) 6-8, in a woe pronounced
against Tyre and Zidon, and the Philistines: “The children also of
Judah and the children of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the sons of
the Grecians, that ye might remove them far from their border ...”;
these last words, “far from their border,” suggest that the reference
is to the Greek colonies in the far west. From the fifth century
B.C. onwards Syrian slaves, among whom Jews must be reckoned, were
much sought after by the Greeks.[92] In Isaiah xxiv. 14, 15 it is
probable that “the songs of praise which the Jews in far countries
raise in honour of Jahweh were the result of Alexander the Great’s
victorious march through Asia Minor in B.C. 334.”[93] Mention is
made of Javan in Isaiah lxvi. 19, it is there reckoned among those
nations to whom the glory of Jehovah shall be declared; according to
Zechariah ix. 13-15, on the other hand, Judah and Ephraim are to be
Jehovah’s instruments for the punishing of the sons of Javan. And,
once more, in Daniel viii. 21, x. 20, xi. 2, there are references
to the Græco-Macedonian empire. In addition to these there are two
or three references to the Greeks in the Septuagint which are not
without significance. In Isaiah ix. 12 (11) it is said that Syria
from the east and the Hellenes from the west are the destroyers of
Israel; in the Hebrew text “Philistines” stands for “Hellenes,” which
is doubtless the right reading; but the Septuagint rendering is of
interest as showing that, when the translation was made, the real
danger for the Jews was the Greek nation. The same belief evidently
underlies the Septuagint form of Jeremiah xxvi. (= xlvi. in the
Hebrew) 16: “Let us arise and let us return to our people, to our
fatherland, from the face of the Hellenic sword”; the Hebrew, which
has again the correct reading, has “the oppressing sword” instead
of “the Hellenic sword.” The same substitution for the Hebrew word
occurs again in the Septuagint of Jeremiah xxvii. (= l. in the
Hebrew) 16.
These practically exhaust the actual references to the Greeks in
the Old Testament; but traces of Greek influence are probably to be
discerned in other directions.
This influence is obvious in those cases, though they are but few
in number, in which Greek words are adapted; this occurs only in
the Book of Daniel, where a few Greek words for musical instruments
appear in an aramaized form, viz., _psantērîn_, _symphōnia_, in
Daniel iii. 5, and _kaithros_ in iii. 7 (cp. also iii. 10, 15); the
form of the word _psantērîn_ is interesting, because “this form
alongside of the Greek _psaltērion_ proves the influence of the
Macedonian dialect which substituted _n_ for _l_.”[94]
II. TRACES OF GREEK INFLUENCE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
The question as to the existence or otherwise of Hellenistic
influence in certain other books of the Old Testament is a difficult
one upon which much diversity of opinion exists among scholars.
We turn first to the Psalms. The majority of scholars are agreed
that a number of the Psalms belong to the Greek and Maccabæan
eras,[95] and if this is so the possibility of Greek influence
being discerned in them must be recognized. It is always precarious
to base conclusions upon what is assumed to be the political
situation depicted in any particular psalm; but considerations of
another character may well indicate the _age_ to which a psalm in
all probability belongs; for example, that the conditions which
form the background of many of the Psalms are those brought about
through contact with Hellenism during the period of the Ptolemaic
and Seleucid rule is proved by the fact that in a number of them
a plaintive cry, or vehement denunciation, is uttered not only on
account of the domination of the heathen, but also because within
the Jewish community itself a religious cleft has occurred; so that
a distinction is made between those of Israel who are faithful to
the Law, and those who are renegades and who are, therefore, classed
with the Gentiles.[96] When it is realized that there is no period
in Jewish history, excepting that just referred to, during which
conditions such as these obtained, it will be granted that there is
ample justification for assigning the Psalms in question to the Greek
period. We agree, therefore, with Friedländer in his belief that the
conflict between the god-fearing, pious Israelites, and the godless,
with which these Psalms are full, really reflects the attitude of
the champions of the old orthodoxy, which was founded by Ezra,
towards the rising tide of Hellenism.[97] Hellenistic influence, as
reflected in certain of the Psalms, therefore, is only to be seen
with certainty in that these witness to a state of affairs within
the community of Israel brought about by the spread of the Greek
spirit.[98]
In the next place we look at the Proverbs. Here it is the first nine
chapters with which we are concerned; there is a general consensus
of opinion among modern scholars that these chapters form the latest
portion of the book. The marks of Hellenistic influence are briefly
as follows: Firstly, _individualism_; Wisdom cries, for example, in
viii. 4:
Unto you, O men, I call,
And my voice is to the sons of men.
Again in ix. 4-6 she cries:
Whoso is simple let him turn in hither;
As for him that is void of understanding, she saith to him,
Come, eat ye of my bread,
And drink of the wine which I have mingled.
Leave off, ye simple ones, and live,
And walk in the way of understanding.
Here, and in other similar passages, it is the individual who is of
importance, not the nation, as in earlier days.
Secondly, _universalism_; Wisdom says (viii. 15, 16):
By me kings reign,
And princes decree justice.
By me rulers rule,
And nobles, even all the judges of the earth.
There is here no restriction to the rulers of the Jewish nation;
Wisdom is for all men, and her sway is worldwide for those who will
have her:
I love those that love me;
And those that seek me diligently shall find me (viii. 17).
A third mark of Hellenistic influence is the _allegorical form_ which
appears in this book, and especially in the first nine chapters[99];
the most striking example of this is the “strange woman” spoken of in
chapter ii. and elsewhere:
Which forsaketh the friend of her youth,
And forgetteth the covenant of God;
For her house inclineth unto death,
And her paths unto the dead ... (ii. 17-19).
This “strange woman” is undoubtedly an allegorical person; she is a
personification of the new Hellenistic spirit which, on its bad side,
encouraged unbridled licence and led away from God[100]; we have seen
above that there was a debased form of Hellenism which was especially
present in Syria. This interpretation of what was meant by the
“strange woman” was that of some of the early Church Fathers.[101]
The writer of these chapters is thus, probably unconsciously,
influenced by the more excellent _traits_ of the Hellenistic spirit,
but is fully alive to its dangers and warns his readers against them.
Lastly, a fourth mark of Hellenistic influence is the
_hypostatization of Wisdom_; the classical passage is viii. 22-36,
from which a few verses may be quoted:
The Lord possessed me in the beginning of His way,
Before His works of old.
I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning,
Or ever the earth was....
When He established the heavens, I was there;
When He set a circle upon the face of the deep....
Then I was by Him, as a master workman,
And I was daily His delight....
That such thoughts are due to Greek influence scarcely admits of
doubt.[102]
We come next to the book of Job. In reference to this O. Holtzmann
says with much force that in this book “we have to do with a
religious-philosophical work; and, so far as we know, the Israelites
never evinced any inclination for philosophy until they came in
contact with Hellenism. Further, we must draw attention to the fact
that the book of Job has as its background the form of a novel,
which flourished everywhere among the Greeks; and this is one of the
clearest signs of the individualistic tendency which predominated at
this period.... Moreover, the form of dialogue which is peculiar to
this book receives thus a new significance; we have here, without
doubt, a Hebrew imitation of the philosophic dialogue of Plato; and
here one should recall how Plato meditated upon the causes of human
suffering, and how he, too, appreciated the grandeur and beauty of
the world.”[103] The author of the book of Job takes up a position
of antagonism towards the old orthodoxy, represented by the three
friends, as well as towards the new Hellenistic spirit, the ultimate
consequence of which must, as he sees, lead to atheism, pure and
simple. His position is thus, in this respect, similar to that of
the author of Proverbs i.-ix. Friedländer sees in the three friends
the “pious ones” of the Psalms.[104] Further, we have in the book
of Job a conception of Wisdom somewhat similar to that of Proverbs;
in the long passage, xxviii. 12-28, Wisdom is conceived of as God’s
co-operator, see especially verses 20-27; but unlike the teaching
of Proverbs on the subject, there is not the intimate relationship
existing between Wisdom and men; there is only a brief allusion to
this in verse 28.
In the book of Ecclesiastes it is held by many scholars that traces
of Greek philosophy are to be discerned. Tyler, for example, shows
that the passage, iii. 1-8, which gives a catalogue of times and
seasons, is an echo of the teaching of the Stoics that men should
live according to nature.[105] Again, the thought contained in iii.
18, 19 (“... that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts;
even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other;
yea, they have all one breath; and man hath no pre-eminence above the
beasts; for all is vanity ...”) is certainly in accordance with the
Epicurean teaching regarding the mortality of the soul.[106] Barton
argues strongly against these views[107]; but cogent as many of his
arguments are, they are not convincing in every case; this applies
especially to what he says in reference to the passage, iii. 18, 19:
“Koheleth’s denial of immortality differs from the Epicurean denial.
His is but a passing doubt; it is not dogmatically expressed, and
at the end (xii. 7) his doubt has vanished, and he reasserts the
older Jewish view (Gen. ii. 7). This older view was not an assertion
of immortality, but the primitive conception that the breath comes
from God and goes back to Him. The Epicureans, on the other hand,
dogmatically argued for the non-immortality of the soul, and
possessed well-assured theories about it.”[108] This argument is not
very convincing; at any rate, it does not disprove our present point,
which is that the _traces of Greek influence_ are to be discerned in
this book. Cornill’s sober _dictum_ on the subject generally is, we
feel convinced, the right one, when he says: “The question whether
_Koheleth_ shows immediate knowledge of and dependence upon Greek
philosophy is an open one; but so much appears certain, that such a
work could only have been produced by a Jewish mind imbued, or at
least influenced, by Hellenism.”[109] St. Jerome, in commenting on
the passage, ix. 7-9 (“Go thy way, eat thy bread with joy, and drink
thy wine with a merry heart ...”), remarks that the writer appears
to be reproducing some Epicurean ideas[110]; Cheyne is not surprised
at this, for the book is, as he says, “conspicuous by its want of a
native Jewish background ... it obviously stands at the close of the
great Jewish humanistic movement, and gives an entirely new colour to
the traditional humanism by its sceptical tone and its commendations
of sensuous pleasure”; and a little further on he says that “it is
perfectly possible to hold that there are distinctively Epicurean
doctrines in _Koheleth_. The later history of Jewish thought may well
seem to render this opinion probable. How dangerously fascinating
Epicureanism must have been when the word ‘Epicuros’ became a
synonym in Rabbinic Hebrew for infidel or even atheist.”[111] Cheyne
does not, however, believe in any traces of Greek influence, whether
Epicurean or Stoic, in the book. “I do not see,” he says, “that we
_must_ admit even a vague Greek influence. The inquiring spirit was
present in the class of ‘wise men’ even before the Exile, and the
circumstances of the later Jews were, from the Exile onwards, well
fitted to exercise and develop it. Hellenic teaching was in no way
necessary to an ardent but unsystematic thinker like Koheleth.”[112]
It is largely a question of the probabilities of the case; for, in
discussing the whole question of the presence or otherwise of traces
of Hellenistic influence in some of the later books of the Old
Testament,[113] we must keep before our minds the fact of the spread
of the Hellenistic spirit from the death of Alexander the Great
onwards, and the way in which (as we have seen in a previous chapter)
it affected the Jews in manifold directions. The important evidence
of 1 Maccabees i. 11 is worth recalling here: “In those days came
there forth out of Israel transgressors of the Law, and persuaded
many, saying, Let us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles that
are round about us; for since we parted from them many evils have
befallen us.” Two points come out clearly here: there was evidently
a strong Hellenistic party among the Jews in Palestine since these
transgressors of the Law “came forth out of Israel”; the passage
also shows that some time previously relations had existed between
these Hellenistic Jews and the Gentiles, as the writer says, “since
we parted from them.” The Maccabæan rising was, therefore, the
culminating point of a movement that had been going on long before,
viz., a conflict between orthodox and Hellenistic Jews, the latter
being supported by the ruling powers; or if conflict is too strong
a word to use, then let us say, at any rate, opposing tendencies. It
is, moreover, highly probable that the action of Antiochus Epiphanes
in seeking to stamp out Judaism was largely prompted by his knowledge
of the existence of considerable numbers of Jews who were in sympathy
with his plan; this seems clear from 1 Maccabees i. 13, where we read
further: “And certain of the people were forward herein and went to
the king (i.e., Antiochus Epiphanes), and he gave them licence to do
after the ordinances of the Gentiles.” If the Jews of Palestine were
thus surrounded by Gentiles, and were, as we have already seen to
be the case, strongly influenced by the Hellenistic spirit, whether
orthodox or not, it would be according to expectation to find marks
of this influence in those books of the Old Testament which belong
to the Hellenistic period. In the particular case of Ecclesiastes
it is granted that analogies between Greek philosophy and its ideas
exist[114]; it appears to us, therefore, more probable that these
ideas, in view of what has just been said, were due to the influence
of Greek thought rather than that they were independently reached.
III. TRACES OF GREEK INFLUENCE IN THE APOCRYPHA
There are only two books of the Apocrypha which come into
consideration here, but they are the two most important.
First we have the Wisdom of Ben-Sira or Ecclesiasticus.
Ben-Sira was an orthodox Jew; but in spite of this he betrays in his
book the influence that Greek culture had upon him, and is thus an
interesting example of the way in which the Hellenistic spirit worked
upon men unconsciously. He wrote his book with the purpose, among
others, of demonstrating the superiority of Jewish over Greek wisdom,
so that from this point of view Ecclesiasticus may be regarded as an
apologetic work.
The traces of Hellenistic influence in this book are to be found in
general conception rather than in definite form; for example, the
identification of virtue with knowledge is a distinctly Hellenistic
_trait_, and is treated in this book as axiomatic. No longer are
divine and human wisdom looked upon as though opposed the one to
the other, as had been the case in days gone by; Ben-Sira teaches,
and this is characteristic of the Wisdom literature generally,
that wisdom is the one thing of all others which is indispensable
to him who would lead a godly life. That there is no opposition
between divine and human wisdom was a doctrine for which Ben-Sira
was indebted, whether directly or indirectly is not the point, to
the influence of Hellenism. In this book the evil of wickedness
is represented as lying in the fact that wickedness is folly, and
therefore essentially opposed to Wisdom; on the other hand, the Jews
as a body were faithful to the Torah, or Law, whose ordinances were
binding because it was the revealed will of God; therefore, in order
to reconcile this traditional teaching with the newer teaching that
Wisdom is man’s main requirement, Wisdom became identified with the
Torah: “the fear of the Lord [i.e., the observance of the Torah]
is the beginning [i.e., the highest form] of Wisdom.” This is the
foundation-stone of the Jewish Wisdom literature; and it formed the
reconciling link between Judaism and Hellenism in this domain.[115]
This identification is nowhere more evident than in Ecclesiasticus;
throughout Ben-Sira inculcates the need of observing the commandments
of the Law which is man’s highest wisdom, but the Law is the
expression of the divine wisdom; so that he truly says:
If thou desire wisdom keep the commandments,
And the Lord will give her freely unto thee (i. 26).
Further, the existence of the influence of Greek philosophy among
some of the cultured Jews of Palestine is reflected in the book in
that Ben-Sira controverts the fatalistic philosophy of the Stoics;
see, for example, such a passage as the following:
Say not, “From God is my transgression”;
For that which He hateth made He not.
Say not, “It is He that made me to stumble,”
For there is no need of evil men (xv. 11, 12).
The Stoic enumeration of the human senses seems to have been in
the mind of one who added these words after xvii. 4: “They [i.e.,
men] received the use of five powers [i.e., the five senses] of the
Lord; but as sixth He also accorded them the gift of understanding
(_nous_), and as a seventh the Word (_logos_), the interpreter of His
powers.”
In one passage Ben-Sira utters words which sound rather like an echo
of Epicurean philosophy:
Give not thy soul to sorrow,
And let not thyself become unsteadied with care.
Heart-joy is life for a man,
And human gladness prolongeth days.
Entice thyself, and soothe thine heart,
And banish vexation from thee;
For sorrow hath slain many,
And there is no profit in vexation.
Envy and anger shorten days,
And anxiety maketh old untimely.
The sleep of a cheerful heart is like dainties,
And his food is agreeable unto him
(xxx. 21-25, according to the Hebrew).
In summing up the traces of Greek influence upon Ben-Sira, Prof.
Israel Levi says: “The fatalistic philosophers whose opinions he
contests were doubtless the Stoics; and the philosophical discussions
instituted by him were innovations and probably borrowed. His
criticisms of sceptics and would-be freethinkers are further
evidences of his knowledge of Hellenism; and some of his views find
close analogues in Euripides. Not only does he share characteristic
ideas with the Greek tragedians and moralists, but he even has the
same taste for certain common topics, such as false friendship, the
uncertainty of happiness, and especially the faults of women. The
impression of Greek influence is strengthened by the presence of a
polish quite foreign to Hebrew literature.”[116] This may or may
not be somewhat over-stated, but there can scarcely be any doubt
that, although the Judaic elements in the book preponderate to an
overwhelming degree, yet Hellenic traits are to be discerned to a
certain extent. Prof. Levi sees the results of Greek influence in
some other directions in the book; thus he says that “the customs
which he (i.e., Ben-Sira) describes are taken from Greek rather
than from Hebrew society; thus he mentions banquets accompanied by
brilliant conversation,[117] at which musical instruments were heard,
and over which presided ‘the master of the feast.’” At the same time
it is only right to point out that some scholars deny that there are
any signs of Greek influence in the book.
We turn now to the book of Wisdom which, as a product of the Judaism
of the Dispersion, is full of the Hellenistic spirit. The best way
to deal with this interesting but somewhat intricate subject will be
to illustrate by quotations the different Greek philosophical ideas
contained in the book, and then to indicate the teaching of the
Greek philosophers in each case; in this way the influence of Greek
philosophy in the book will be clearly seen.
(_a_) _The doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul._
That this is taken for granted is clear from the words in viii. 19,
20:
Now I was a child good by nature, and a good soul fell to my lot;
Nay, rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled.
And again, in xv. 8, though here pre-existence is not necessarily
implied:
... When the soul which was lent him shall again be demanded.
And, once more, in reference to the foolish man who manufactures
idols, it is said (xv. 11):
Because he was ignorant of Him that moulded him,
And of Him that inspired into him an active soul,
And breathed into him a vital spirit.
A great deal depends here upon the question of authorship, or at any
rate upon the point of view of the writer; for it will be noticed
that the first of these quotations comes from part i. of the book,
while the last two are from part ii. We will speak of the point of
view of the writer without assuming that either one or two writers
is in question. There are two points of view represented in these
verses; the ordinary Jewish belief is expressed by the words: “Now
I was a child good by nature, and a good soul fell to my lot,” as
well as by the two other quotations. On the other hand, a point of
view influenced by Greek thought appears in the words: “Nay, rather,
being good, I came into a body undefiled.” It is well to point out
first that according to the ordinary Jewish belief there was no clear
conception of any difference between soul and spirit; the Hebrew
word for “soul” is _nĕphĕsh_; but this word does not correspond
properly to “soul”; it means a man’s own self, his personality,
including his body; what we understand by body and soul is expressed
in Hebrew by this word _nĕphĕsh_, so that when this is translated
by “soul” it is apt to cause misunderstanding; the Hebrews had no
word corresponding to the Greek _sōma_ (body), nor did the Greek
_psychē_ (soul) correspond with the Hebrew _nĕphĕsh_; the Hebrew
word which comes nearest to _psychē_ would be _nĕshāmāh_ (breath),
or possibly _rūach_ (spirit).[118] The words, therefore, “Now I
was a child good by nature, and a good soul fell to my lot,” mean
simply that he was by nature a good child and became also a good
man, by God’s mercy is implied. This traditional faith the writer
supplements, on account of the insight into Greek philosophy which
he had gained, by adding: “Or, rather, being good, I came into a
body undefiled”; he means thereby that his soul (in the Greek, not
the Hebrew, sense, for he does not include the body) entered into a
body undefiled; he thus expresses his belief in the pre-existence
of the soul. But an interesting point to be noted here is that the
writer, while accepting one Greek doctrine (the pre-existence of
the soul) repudiates another in the same breath, for by speaking of
a “body undefiled” he seems to be denying the Platonic doctrine of
the body being a hindrance (see below). As to Plato’s teaching on
the pre-existence of the soul, this has been so well summed up by
Zeller that we cannot do better than give it in his words: “The soul
of man is in its nature homogeneous with the soul of the universe,
from which it springs. Being of a simple and incorporeal nature it
is by its power of self-movement the origin of motion in the body;
inseparably connected with the idea of life, it has neither end nor
beginning. As the souls have descended from a higher world into the
earthly body, they return after death, if their lives have been pure
and devoted to higher objects, to this higher world, while those who
need correction in part undergo punishments in another world, and in
part migrate through the bodies of men and animals. In its earlier
existence our soul has seen the ideas of which it is reminded by the
sight of their sensuous copies.”[119]
The other two passages, xv. 8 and xv. 11, reflect the ancient Hebrew
belief as contained in Genesis ii. 7: “And the Lord God formed man
of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath
(_nĕshāmāh_) of life; and man became a living soul (_nĕphĕsh_)”; that
is to say, the _nĕshāmāh_ (which is equivalent to what we understand
by “soul”; there is no real distinction between “soul” and “spirit”
in Hebrew belief[120]) is in existence with God before man is
created. This belief in pre-existence, though quite different from
the Greek doctrine, became elaborated in course of time, and it was
taught that in the seventh heaven God kept the souls of those whom
He intends to send on earth[121]; the Midrash in which this occurs
(_Sifre_ 143_b_) belongs in its original form to the earlier part
of the second century A.D., and since it undoubtedly preserves much
ancient material it reflects thought long prior to the time when
Wisdom was written. In the passages quoted we have, then, references
to the belief in the pre-existence of souls as taught by the Jews on
one hand and by the Greeks on the other.
(_b_) _The doctrine of immortality._
We have seen that with regard to the doctrine of the pre-existence
of the soul the author of Wisdom expresses both Jewish and Greek
belief. The same is the case with the doctrine of immortality; Jewish
belief on this subject has already been dealt with in Part I, chap.
ix. (_f_); the influence of Greek thought is to be discerned in such
passages as the following:
Court not death in the error of your life;
Neither draw upon yourselves destruction by the works of your
hands;
Because God made not death,
Neither delighteth He when the wicked perish (i. 12, 13).
... For righteousness is immortal (i. 15).
The reference here is to spiritual death, the soul’s loss of true
life hereafter. Again:
But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God,
And no torment shall touch them (iii. 1).
They that trust on Him shall understand truth,
And the faithful shall abide with Him in love;
Because grace and mercy are to His chosen,
And He will graciously visit His holy ones (iii. 9, cp. xv. 3).
And, once more:
Incorruption bringeth near to God (vi. 19).
Of such passages Menzel says: “Who does not, in reading them, recall
the Platonic passage _Jambl. ad Phaed._ pp. 63_c_, 69_c_?”[122] To
quote Zeller again in his summing up of Plato’s philosophy: “As the
soul in its true nature belongs to the world above the senses, and
in that only can find a true and lasting existence, the possession
of the good or happiness which forms the final goal of human effort
can only be obtained by elevation into that higher world.... The true
mission of man, therefore, lies in that escape from this world, which
the ‘Theætetus,’ 176A, identifies with assimilation to the divine
nature....”[123]
(_c_) _The doctrine of the badness of the body._
In ix. 15, 16, it is said:
For a corruptible body weigheth down the soul,
And the earthly frame lieth heavy on the mind that is full of
cares.
And hardly do we divine the things that are on earth,
And the things that are close at hand we find with labour;
But the things that are in the heavens who ever yet traced out?
Practically all commentators are agreed that verse 15 is based on a
passage in Plato’s _Phaedo_ (81C), where the hindrance of the body
is spoken of; the verbal similarities are too striking for this to
be denied. The teaching is, moreover, in agreement with that found
elsewhere in the writings of Plato: “The body ... is the grave and
prison of the soul, which has received its irrational elements
through combination with it, and is the source of all desires and all
disturbances of intellectual activity”; thus Zeller sums up Plato’s
teaching on the subject.[124]
(_d_) _The creation of the world out of formless matter._
The term “formless matter” is a Platonic one; but this doctrine was
taught by the Stoics as well as by Plato, so that we cannot say to
which system the author of Wisdom was immediately indebted in writing
these words:
For Thine all-powerful hand,
That created the world out of formless matter ... (xi. 17).
In speaking of what Plato meant by the term “matter” Zeller says: “By
Plato’s matter we have to understand not a mass filling space, but
space itself. He never mentions it as that out of which, but only
as that in which, things arise. According to him, bodies are formed
when certain portions of space are thrown into the shapes of the four
elements. That it is not a corporeal mass out of which, they arise in
this manner is clear from the assertion that when they change into
one another they are broken up into their smallest _plane_ dimensions
in order to be compounded anew out of these. To carry this theory out
strictly was difficult; and in another place (_Tim._ 30A, 52 D, f.,
69B) he represents the matter as if the Deity, when engaged in the
formation of the elements, had found ‘all that is visible’ already in
existence as a chaotic mass moving without rule.”[125]
(_e_) _Signs of the influence of Stoic philosophy._[126]
Most commentators, from Grimm onwards, hold that the idea of the
_Anima Mundi_, or World Soul, of Stoic philosophy is to be discovered
in such passages as the following:
... Because the spirit of the Lord filleth the world,
And that which holdeth all things together hath knowledge of
every voice (i. 7).
The all-pervading character of Wisdom, described in vii. 22-24,
contains a similar thought:
For there is in her a spirit quick of understanding, holy,
Alone in kind, manifold,
Subtil, freely moving,
Clear in utterance, unpolluted,
Distinct, that cannot be harmed;
Loving what is good, keen, unhindered,
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 (cp. also vii. 27, viii. 1).
Another Stoic doctrine is that of the metabolism of the elements, “by
the help of which the writer of part ii. endeavours to rationalize
the miracles of the Exodus.... The metabolism of the elements at the
end of part ii.,” says Holmes,[127] “is traced by E. Pfleiderer to
Heraclitus, and to him directly, rather than indirectly through the
Stoics, on account of the allusion in chapter xix. to three elements
only—fire, water, earth—since Heraclitus recognized only three. But
it is difficult to see how the author could have brought in the idea
of air changing into anything else: water changes into earth in
the passage through the Red Sea, and earth becomes water again to
overwhelm the Egyptians; fire lost its power and was unable to melt
the heavenly food; what need or opportunity was there for adducing
the change of air into another element?... It must, no doubt, be
admitted that the Book of Wisdom has points of connexion with the
system of Heraclitus, who was highly esteemed in Alexandria, but
whether directly or indirectly it is impossible to say.” The passage
in question is xix. 18-21:
For the elements changed their order one with another....
For creatures of dry land were turned into creatures of waters,
And creatures that swim trode now upon the earth;
Fire kept the mastery of its own power in the midst of water,
And water forgat its quenching nature.
Contrariwise, flames wasted not the flesh of perishable creatures
that walked among them;
Neither melted they the ice-like grains of ambrosial food, that
were by nature apt to melt.
Lastly, reference may be made to viii. 7, where we find a
classification of the four cardinal virtues, which the Stoics copied
from Plato:
And if a man loveth righteousness,
The fruits of Wisdom’s labour are virtues,
For she teacheth _self-control_ and _understanding_,
_righteousness_, and _courage_;
And there is nothing in life more profitable than these.
Most of the marks of Greek influence in this book have now been
mentioned; it is probable enough that we have missed some, but we
venture to think that the most important have been dealt with.
SUMMARY
There are not many direct references to the Greeks in the Old
Testament; in a few scattered passages _Javan_, the Hebrew form for
the land of the Ionians (i.e. Greeks), is found. Three interesting
instances of variation from the Hebrew occur in the Septuagint;
the word “Greek” being substituted for “Philistine” in one case,
and “Hellenic sword” for “oppressing sword” in two others. These
deliberate alterations were made because it was believed by the Greek
translator that the real danger for the Jews lay in the spread of
the Greek spirit. In the Book of Daniel a few Greek names of musical
instruments have been adopted.
Traces of Greek influence are to be discerned in all probability
in some of the Psalms, for they witness to a state of affairs
brought about by the working of the Greek spirit. In the first nine
chapters of Proverbs, too, there are marks of Hellenic influence,
e.g. individualism, universalism, the use of allegory and the
hypostatization of Wisdom. In the Book of Job the same influence
may be discerned in the philosophic cast of the speeches, in its
imitation in form of Plato’s dialogues, and in the fact that the
background of the book is cast in the form of a novel, which was
likewise imitated from the Greeks. As to Ecclesiastes, opinions
differ as to whether it exhibits direct borrowing from Stoic and
Epicurean thought; but it certainly contains analogies with Greek
philosophy.
In the Apocrypha only two books come into consideration, but they are
the two most important. Ecclesiasticus was written with the purpose,
among others, of demonstrating the superiority of Jewish over Greek
wisdom; at the same time, Ben-Sira often shows himself influenced,
unconsciously it may be, by the latter, although the Judaic elements
in the book preponderate to an overwhelming degree. The Book of
Wisdom, a product of the Judaism of the Dispersion, is full of the
Hellenic spirit; this comes out very clearly in the treatment of
the doctrines of the pre-existence of the soul, of immortality, of
the body as evil, and of the creation of the world out of formless
matter. Further, most commentators find the influence of Stoic
philosophy in the ideas of the _Anima Mundi_ and of the metabolism
of the elements, as well as the classification of the four cardinal
virtues which the Stoics copied from Plato.
CHAPTER V
The Apocalyptic Movement
[LITERATURE.—Toy, _Judaism and Christianity_, pp. 372-414
(1891); Schlatter, _Israel’s Geschichte von Alexander d. Grossen
bis Hadrian_ (1900); Bousset, _Die Religion des Judentums im
neutestamentlichen Zeitalter_, pp. 195-290 (1903); Bousset,
_Die jüdische Apokalyptik_ (1903); Volz, _Jüdische Eschatologie
von Daniel bis Akiba_ (1903); M. Friedländer, _Die rel.
Bewegungen_ ..., pp. 22-77 (1905); Gressmann, _Der Ursprung
der israelitisch-jüdischen Eschatologie_ (1905); Oesterley,
_The Doctrine of the Last Things_ (1908); Schürer, II, iii. pp.
44-151, German ed. III, pp. 258-407 (1909); Oesterley and Box,
_The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue_, pp. 27-45, 222-254
(1911); Charles, _Eschatology, Hebrew, Jewish and Christian_
(1913); Burkitt, _Jewish and Christian Apocalypses_ (1914);
MacCulloch’s article on “Eschatology,” in Hastings’ _Encycl. of
Religion and Ethics_, v. pp. 373-391 (1912).]
I. THE BEGINNINGS OF THE APOCALYPTIC MOVEMENT
The fundamental ideas which ultimately developed into Jewish
Apocalyptic go back to a hoary antiquity. Many of these ideas
are present in one form or another in the Old Testament; but the
different sources, some undoubtedly indigenous, others extraneous,
whence these ideas emanated have, in all probability, a much longer
history behind them. With the history and development of early
Apocalyptic thought we are not here concerned, since our object is
only to deal with _Jewish_ Apocalyptic, and this merely in its broad
outlines as it appears in what is called the Apocalyptic Movement.
When specifically Jewish Apocalyptic commenced it is not possible
to say, for the doctrines and hopes and fears which it taught must
have been in men’s minds and have been widely inculcated long before
it appeared in the form in which we know it, namely, its literary
form. But it is not difficult to indicate the approximate date
at which the Apocalyptic literature, known to us, began to come
into existence; this was somewhere about the period 200-150 B.C.;
from that time it continued to grow during a period of about three
centuries. The early beginnings of this literature, therefore, date
from a time prior to the Maccabæan struggle. Before the Maccabæan
era the two great opposing parties, Sadducæan and Pharisaic, did not
exist. It is more than probable, however, as we have seen, that the
_tendencies_ which, later, developed and became directly antagonistic
were already in being, and that the Maccabæan struggle had the effect
of greatly strengthening them. Further, in pre-Maccabæan times, owing
to the influence of the Hellenistic Movement, an universalistic
spirit prevailed very largely among the Jews; they saw no objection
to associating with the Greeks, were glad to learn from them, and
welcomed the free and wide atmosphere which was characteristic of
Greek thought. The result was that Jewish Apocalyptic, enriched by
extraneous ideas and beliefs, flourished among the people; to many
it brought light and comfort because it solved problems which had
hitherto appeared insoluble; that this life was merely preparatory
to a happier and fuller one after death, when the godly would come
to their own and the wicked would receive their recompense, such
a doctrine laid at rest the doubts and heart-searchings of those
who were shocked at seeing the prosperity of the wicked, and who
were grieved at the adversity and sorrow of the righteous. Jewish
Apocalyptic, therefore, flourished; it appealed to the mass of the
people, for it inspired them with hope; it was individualistic, so
that each felt that here was a message for him in particular as well
as for the nation at large.
We have said that in the pre-Maccabæan era the tendencies which in
later years had the effect of calling into existence two antagonistic
parties were already present; we have also said that the Jews _as a
whole_ were more or less imbued with the Hellenistic spirit; let us
explain our meaning a little more fully. Not all the Jews at this
period were Hellenistically inclined, though the bulk were, and the
_influence_ was more or less upon all; but there was a minority of
the nation which had followed in the wake of those who since the time
of Ezra and Nehemiah had clung tenaciously to a rigid observance of
the Law; not that they were wholly uninfluenced by the Hellenistic
spirit, any more than the more thorough-going Hellenistic Jews as
a body were really disloyal to the Law. This minority consisted of
those who were called the “Pious ones,” or _Chassidim_[128]; it was
connected with the Scribes, for in the important passage, 1 Maccabees
vii. 12-14, it is said: “And there were gathered together unto
Alcimus and Bacchides a company of scribes, to seek for justice. And
the Chassidim were the first among the children of Israel that sought
peace of them....” It was the _Chassidim_ who in post-Maccabæan times
developed into the distinct party of the Pharisees, the party of
rigid orthodoxy, legalistic, exclusive, and narrow. Opposed, then, to
the ideas of this minority were those who were led by the governing
classes and the family of the High-Priest; men who were the friends
of Hellenistic culture, and who were not legalistic in the sense
that the _Chassidim_ were. These represented what in post-Maccabæan
times became the Sadducæan party. It cannot, however, be too strongly
insisted upon that, as already pointed out, in pre-Maccabæan times
there was neither a Sadducæan nor a Pharisaic _party_. The great
mass of the people, including many among the _Chassidim_, in these
pre-Maccabæan times, was not ranged definitely on either one side or
the other of those who represented the two tendencies just referred
to; their main religious interest was Apocalyptic. We feel convinced
that the evidence concerning the various religious thought-tendencies
in pre-Maccabæan times, taken as a whole, supports M. Friedländer’s
contention that “the great mass of the people, the multitudes
(_Am-haarez_) remained before and after [i.e. of the Maccabæan
struggle] under the spell of the Hellenistic spirit; and, as in the
case of the ruling parties, they, too, had, also in post-Maccabæan
times, their teachers and their ‘Pious’ ones. These teachers were the
_Chassidim_ and the creators of the apocalyptic literature.”[129]
These Apocalyptists, therefore, had this in common with the Pharisees
that both were descended from the ‘Pious ones,’ or _Chassidim_;
only, as Friedländer puts it, “whereas the Pharisees were the bodily
descendants of the pre-Maccabæan ‘Pious ones,’ the Apocalyptists were
their spiritual descendants; the former transformed the faithfulness
to the Law of their forefathers into legal burdens, the latter clung
loyally to the simple belief of those self-same forefathers, a belief
which was not blurred by intricate learning and a superabundant ‘oral
tradition’; theirs was a piety, on the contrary, which was born of
the spirit of the times and, therefore, such as was characteristic of
the common folk.”[130]
It will, no doubt, strike some as incongruous that the Pharisees,
with their circumscribed anti-Hellenistic views, and the
Apocalyptists, with their enlarged purview and pre-Hellenistic
ideas, should be said to have possessed a common ancestry; but
there are two facts which are of themselves sufficient to show the
probability of this having been the case: belief in a future life
among the Jews was largely due to Greek thought; it was one of the
main themes of apocalyptic teaching; but it was also one of the most
prominent tenets of the Pharisees, who developed it from the Platonic
doctrine of the immortality of the soul to a definite belief in the
resurrection of the body. That two schools of thought, differing in
some vital respects, should nevertheless be in agreement in differing
from the normal teaching of the Old Testament on such a special and
peculiarly important subject as that of the future life, certainly
points to an originally identical parentage. We have laid stress
on the fact that in pre-Maccabæan times the Jewish nation, as a
whole, was more or less influenced by the Hellenistic spirit; one
section of the people would be influenced in this way, another in
that. Thus, as an example, the _Chassidim_ were influenced by the
Hellenistic teaching on the future life; but the ruling classes were
not, they clung to the old traditional teaching as contained in the
Old Testament. Or again, among the _Chassidim_ were many who were
influenced by the freer and more tolerant atmosphere of the Greek
spirit, agreeing in this with the ruling classes, but differing from
those with whom they were in some other respects in agreement. So
that when, later, clearly defined parties came into existence, they
would not necessarily differ on _all_ points; and Pharisees and
Apocalyptists agreed as a whole upon the subject of a belief in the
future life, though, as we shall see, various opinions on certain
points concerning the future life were held by the Apocalyptists.
In another respect we may see an inner probability of the Pharisees
and Apocalyptists having a common ancestry. The _Chassidim_, as
their name implied, were intensely religiously-minded; the zeal
for the Law of some was one way in which their eager yearning to
do something for God could find vent; the steadfast gaze upon the
world to come of others was the expression of a longing to be nearer
God. Personal religion was the origin, the foundation and the
summit of _Chassidism_. Now when we turn to later times we are able
to see that same intense religious feeling in the Pharisees and in
the Apocalyptists; the expression of that feeling has, it is true,
become exaggerated in each case; but whether it is the somewhat rank
overgrowth of legalism of the one, or the lurid and often overdrawn
pictures of the eschatological drama of the other, beneath each is
to be discerned real piety. Pharisees and Apocalyptists differed in
many respects, but they were alike in their zeal for God which they
inherited from their common ancestry.
We are to see, therefore, the beginnings of the Jewish Apocalyptic
Movement in the teaching and literary activity of devout _Chassidim_,
or better, Apocalyptists, who laboured in the earlier part of the
second century B.C., and probably earlier.
Our purpose is now first of all to consider a little the mental
attitude of the Apocalyptists in general, their guiding principles,
their chief aims as teachers, and their personal characteristics.
Then we shall examine briefly the more outstanding doctrines of the
Apocalyptic Literature.
II. THE APOCALYPTISTS
It will be well to draw attention at the outset to a feature in the
teaching of the Apocalyptists which is at first very disconcerting,
namely, their inconsistency of thought and the variableness to be
found in the presentation of some of their doctrines which not
infrequently involves them in contradictions. The reason of this is
not to be sought simply in the fact that in the Apocalypses the hand
of more than one author is to be discerned; but chiefly because the
minds of individual Apocalyptists were, on the one hand, saturated
with the traditional thoughts and ideas of the Old Testament, and, on
the other, were eagerly absorbing the newer conceptions which the
spirit of the age had brought into being. This occasioned a continual
conflict of thought in their minds; there was a constant endeavour
to harmonize the old and the new; and in consequence there often
resulted a compromise which was illogical and contradictory.
This inconsistency of teaching is, therefore, not other than might
be expected under the circumstances; nor did it really affect the
great _rôle_ that the Apocalyptists played as the _true prophets of
the people_; in this they followed in some important particulars the
prophets of old, for if not in the same sense as these the expression
of the national conscience, the Apocalyptists spoke to the hearts
of the people in the name of God. If, upon the whole, their words
were addressed more to individual men than to the nation as a single
whole, it was a welcome sign that the individual was coming to his
own. The Apocalyptists came with a message of comfort and hope to
the God-fearing, bidding them be of good cheer; for though the world
was cruel and dark, though they were the victims of oppression
and tyranny, though their lot here was a hard one and they were
languishing in adversity, yet this world and all the fashion of it
was passing away; soon, very soon, the bright future would dawn, the
Great Deliverer would come, and sorrow and sighing would pass away:
But with the righteous He will make peace,
And will protect the elect,
And mercy shall be upon them.
And they shall all belong to God,
And they shall be prospered,
And they shall all be blessed.
And He will help them all,
And light shall appear unto them,
And He will make peace with them (1 Enoch i. 8).[131]
The joyous hope that was thus held out must have had a profound
effect upon the many pious Israelites who were perplexed by the
seeming incongruity of things in a world governed by a righteous
and just God. Tempted as they must often have been to lose faith
as well as hope, the message now brought to them would have
strengthened both. So that the Apocalyptists may be truly described
as upholders of the people’s faith. But they came, too, with the
thunder of denunciation against the godless who in their abundant
prosperity sought only their own pleasure and cared neither for the
honour of God nor for the sorrow of the godly; for such a future,
near approaching, of fearfulness and terror was predicted by the
Apocalyptists:
And when sin and unrighteousness and blasphemy
And violence in all kinds of deeds increase,
And apostasy and transgression and uncleanness increase,
A great chastisement shall come from heaven upon all these,
And the holy Lord will come forth with wrath and chastisement
To execute judgement upon the earth.
In those days violence shall be cut off from its roots,
And the roots of unrighteousness together with deceit,
And they shall be destroyed from under heaven
(1 Enoch xcii. 7, 8).
The main concern of the Apocalyptists was thus with the future, with
the world to come, wherein all the inequalities and incongruities
of the present world would be put right. But from this it followed
that most of what they taught was characterized by a _supernatural
colouring_ in which much that was exaggerated and fantastic was mixed
up with sublime conceptions and eternal truths. They laid great
stress upon the antithesis between this world and the next, between
the _Olam ha-zeh_ (this world), and the _Olam ha-bâ_ (the world
which is to come). Their view of this world was wholly pessimistic;
there was nothing to be hoped from it; indeed, its badness, entire
and irretrievable, as contrasted with the glorious world to come
wherein no evil might abide, involved the Apocalyptists in teaching
which was of the nature of dualism. Again, that which was to come
transcended human experience, so that in the great drama of the end
the Apocalyptists depict man as standing in passive awe in face of
the marvellous and supernatural occurrences which are then to take
place; man’s _rôle_ as an active agent ceases; supernatural beings
are God’s instruments in fulfilling His will; the scene is laid in
Heaven, or in the skies, not on earth. The future is to bring with it
a new world-order wherein all things will be different, the old order
is to disappear for ever. In all this the dominant note which sounds
throughout is that of the _supernatural_.
At the base of the whole position taken up by the Apocalyptists
in their teaching was a doctrine of _determinism_, which must be
briefly alluded to, for the recognition of this is essential to the
understanding of the subject. The Apocalyptists started with the
absolute conviction that the whole course of the world from beginning
to end, both as regards its physical changes, and also in all that
concerns the history of nations, their growth and decline, and of
individuals, good and bad, the innumerable occurrences of every
description and the very moment of their happening—in a word, the
entire constitution and course of the world and all that is in it,
whether regarded as _gē_ (the physical earth = the Hebrew _eretz_)
or as _oikoumenē_ (the inhabited world = the Hebrew _tēbēl_), was in
every respect predetermined by God before all time. The words in 2
(4) Esdras iv. 36, 37 present a belief common to the Apocalyptists:
For He hath weighed the age in the balance,
And by number hath He numbered the seasons;
Neither will He move nor stir things,
Till the measure appointed be fulfilled.
On these words Box well remarks: “The times and periods of the
course of the world’s history have been predetermined by God. The
numbers of the years have been exactly fixed. This was a fundamental
postulate of the Apocalyptists, who devoted much of their energy to
calculations, based upon a close study of prophecy, as to the exact
period when history should reach its consummation ... the underlying
idea is predestinarian.”[132]
But all these things are secrets; they can only be known to certain
God-fearing men who have the faculty, divinely accorded, of peering
into the hidden things of God, and who are thus able to reveal them
to their fellow-creatures; hence the name given to these seers,
viz., “revealers,” or Apocalyptists, because they wrote apocalypses,
“revelations.” It was because the Apocalyptists believed so firmly in
this power that they possessed of looking into the deep things of God
that they claimed to be able to measure the significance of what had
happened in the past and of what was happening in the present; more
especially they believed that upon the basis of this knowledge they
had the power of foreseeing things to come, and the time of their
coming, and here above all things those which they regarded as the
end of all, to which the whole history of the world had been tending
from the beginning.
But with all their mysticism and other-worldliness, with all their
eager looking forward to the passing of the present order, the
Apocalyptists were not blind to the necessity of religious life in
its practical aspect. They were _loyal to the Law_, though not in the
Pharisaic sense, laying stress rather on the spirit of its observance
than on carrying it out literally. The frequent reproaches levelled
against those who do not observe the ordinances of the Law shows
their attitude; for example, in 1 Enoch v. 4 it is said:
But ye—ye have not been steadfast, nor done the commandments of
the Lord,
But ye have turned away and have spoken proud and hard words
With your impure mouths against His greatness.
O ye hard-hearted, ye shall find no peace.
And again, in xcix. 2 of the same apocalypse:
Woe to them that pervert the words of uprightness,
And transgress the eternal law
(cp. also xcix. 14, Sib. Orac. iii. 276 ff.).
On the other hand, the reward to be accorded to those who are
faithful to the Law is often spoken of; this may be illustrated from
another book, 2 (4) Esdras, of later date, but in this as in some
other points of doctrine the Apocalyptists believed and taught alike
whether belonging to an early or a late date; in ix. 7-12 of this
book the promise of salvation to those who keep the Law is followed
by a prophecy of woe to those who have ignored it: “And every one
that shall then be saved, and shall be able to escape on account of
his works or his faith by which he hath believed—such shall survive
from the perils aforesaid, and shall see My salvation in My land,
and within My borders which I have sanctified for Myself eternally.
Then shall they be amazed that now have abused My ways; they shall
abide in the torments which they have spurned and despised. For
all who failed to recognize Me in their lifetime, although I dealt
bountifully with them, and all who have defied My Law, while they yet
had liberty, and, while place of repentance was still open to them,
gave no heed, but scorned it—these must be brought to know after
death by torment” (cp. vii. 83, viii. 29). The Law is also spoken of
as “the light in which nothing can err” (Syriac Apoc. of Baruch xix.
3), and in the same book (lix. 2) reference is made to “the lamp of
the eternal Law.” All such passages, and they could be enormously
increased, show that the Apocalyptists had a high veneration for the
Law, although they did not accept the Pharisaic interpretation of it.
In one respect, however, it may be gathered, the Apocalyptists were
at one with the Pharisees in their method of legal observance,
and that was in the matter of _ascetic practices_; for these are
frequently extolled, and are clearly regarded as highly meritorious.
In one book it is stated, for example, that among those who are
written and inscribed above in heaven are “the spirits of the humble,
and of those who have afflicted their bodies” (1 Enoch cviii. 7).
Elsewhere it is said: “Let us fast for the space of three days, and
on the fourth let us go into a cave which is in the field, and let us
die rather than transgress the commands of the Lord of lords, the God
of our fathers” (Assumption of Moses ix. 6). In 2 (4) Esdras ascetic
practices are often spoken of, see, e.g., vi. 32, vii. 125, ix. 24,
and often elsewhere.[133]
Lastly, one other point may be mentioned here, namely the, generally
speaking, _universalistic attitude_ of the Apocalyptists; they are
not consistent in this, but normally they embrace the Gentiles
equally with their own nation in the divine scheme of salvation; the
wicked who are excluded are not restricted to the Gentiles, but the
Jews equally with them shall suffer torment hereafter according to
their deserts. (See on this subject the next section.)
These are, then, briefly the main points which illustrate the
personal characteristics and general mental attitude of the
Apocalyptists. But this will be further illustrated by glancing
at the more important doctrines inculcated in the Apocalyptic
Literature; indeed, one cannot properly separate the doctrinal
teaching of the apocalypses from the mental standpoint of the
writers; but for the sake of convenience, in enumerating their main
points of doctrinal teaching, we propose to tabulate these in a
separate section.
III. THE DOCTRINAL TEACHING OF THE APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
We have already pointed out that consistency of teaching is not to
be looked for amongst the Apocalyptists as a whole; it is well to
reiterate this here, for in referring to the main points of doctrine
as taught in this literature examples of this will come before us. It
is not our intention to give an exhaustive account of the doctrinal
teaching of the Apocalyptic Literature; our object is to make some
brief mention of the more specifically characteristic points of
doctrine occurring in this literature.
(_a_) _Individualism._
It is one of the marks of Hellenistic influence when we find that
Individualism occupies an important place in the teaching of some
of the books of this literature. This is markedly the case in the
Book of 1 Enoch, where the importance of the individual is often
insisted upon; not the nation as such, but the righteous and elect,
the “plant of righteousness” as it is called in x. 16, lxxxiv. 6,
shall inherit the eternal reward. Thus it is said in civ. 1: “I swear
to you that in heaven the angels remember you for good before the
glory of the Great One; and your names are written before the glory
of the Great One.”[134] The redemption of the world is to be brought
about through the righteous and elect individuals, “the eternal
seed-plant.” This is one of the dominating thoughts of this book,
and also finds expression in others of this literature; it is one,
as Friedländer says, which did not emanate from Pharisaic soil, but
was a product of Jewish Hellenism.[135] In accordance with this,
individual responsibility is strongly emphasized; a very pointed
passage in this connection is 2 (4) Esdras vii. 102-105, where the
seer asks the angel: “If I have found favour in thy sight, show me,
thy servant, this also: whether in the Day of Judgement the righteous
shall be able to intercede for the ungodly, or to entreat the Most
High in their behalf—fathers for sons, sons for parents, brothers
for brothers, kinsfolk for their nearest, friends for their dearest.”
And the reply of the angel is: “The Day of Judgement is decisive, and
displays unto all the seal of truth. Even as now a father may not
send a son, or a son his father, or a master his slave, or a friend
his dearest, that in his stead he may be ill, or sleep, or eat, or
be healed, so shall none then pray for another on that Day, neither
shall one lay a burden on another, for then every one shall bear his
own righteousness or unrighteousness.”[136]
(_b_) _Particularism and Universalism._
Here we have a good example of the inconsistency of teaching already
referred to. The traditional belief of the Jewish nation being the
peculiar treasure of God asserts itself in spite of the broader
outlook inspired by Hellenistic influence. The former attitude is
seen, for example, in the Assumption of Moses i. 12, where Moses says
to Joshua: “He hath created the world on behalf of His people.” In
2 (4) Esdras, again, we have the following: “But as for the other
nations, which are descended from Adam, Thou hast said that they
are nothing, and that they are like spittle; and Thou hast likened
the abundance of them to a drop falling from a bucket. And now, O
Lord, behold, these nations which are reputed as nothing lord it
over us and crush us. But we, Thy people, whom Thou hast called
Thy first-born, Thy only-begotten, Thy beloved, are given up into
their hands. If the world has indeed been created for our sakes why
do we not enter into possession of our world?” (vii. 56-59). But
though other passages of similar import could be given from most
of the books of this literature, the particularistic attitude is
not the normal or usual one; far more frequent are those passages
which express a wider universalistic view; one or two instances may
be given: in 1 Enoch x. 21 it is said that “all the children of
men shall become righteous, and all nations shall offer adoration
and shall praise Me, and all shall worship Me”; in xlviii. 4 it is
said of the Son of Man that “He shall be the Light of the Gentiles”
(see also xi. 1, 2, xlix. 1, l. 2-5, xc. 30, xci. 14, Sib. Orac.,
iii. 702-726, Syr. Apoc. of Baruch xiv. 19, etc.); so, too, in the
Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Levi ii. 11: “And by thee and
Judah shall the Lord appear among men, saving every race of men.”
It is interesting to note that in quite a number of passages in
several of these apocalyptic books a blending of these two attitudes
seems to find expression; thus, in the Testament of the Twelve
Patriarchs, Levi xiv. 3, 4, Israel is regarded as superior to all
other nations, but the salvation of the latter is awaited, and Israel
is to be the means thereof: “My children, be ye pure, as the heaven
is purer than the earth; and ye who are the lights of Israel, shall
be as the sun and moon. What will the Gentiles do if ye be darkened
through transgression? Yea, curses will come upon your race, and the
light which was given through the Law to lighten you and every man,
ye shall desire to destroy, and teach your commandments contrary to
the ordinances of God.” Not essentially different is the thought
contained in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch lxvii. 5: “And at that
time, after a little interval, Zion will again be builded, and its
offerings will again be restored, and the priests will return to
their ministry, and also the Gentiles will come to glorify it.”
This teaching was not merely theoretical, it expressed what the
Apocalyptists, urged on by the influence of the Hellenistic spirit,
were actually striving to bring about; they desired to make Judaism a
world-religion which could be embraced by all the Gentiles; hence the
missionary propaganda which they initiated and carried out, and of
which a large part of their literary activity formed the expression.
According to them the Jewish Church was to consist of those who
were righteous, no matter what their nationality might be; and if
one, though he were a Jew, was not godly, he was not regarded as
a member of that Church. Outside of Palestine, as well as in many
parts within the land, Jew and Gentile were constantly being brought
into personal touch with one another, man with man; and many Jews
came to learn that the distinction between the “people of God” and
the “heathen world” was a wrong one, unfitting in the sight of God,
unjust to men. Hence arose the apprehension of the true distinction
to be drawn among men, a distinction between the righteous and the
ungodly, irrespective altogether of nationality or race; and it
is this distinction which finds such abundant expression in the
Apocalyptic Literature. This religious conception regarding humanity
resulted, in the natural course, in the desire to proclaim the name
of the true and one God to all men so that all might have the chance
of knowing Him. The Apocalyptists, inspired in large measure by the
teaching of some of the greatest prophets, were therefore the great
missionaries at this period; and this was the combined result of
the universalistic attitude brought about by the influence of the
Hellenistic spirit and the fuller apprehension and meaning of the
teaching of prophets such as those who wrote the latter half of the
Book of Isaiah and the Book of Jonah.
(_c_) _The Doctrine of the Messiah._
We need not go into all the details of Messianic teaching given in
this literature; much of it is similar to that found in the Old
Testament and in the Apocrypha; it will be sufficient if we point
out what is more specifically characteristic. The most important
point upon which to lay stress is the transcendental character of the
Messiah. In 1 Enoch the Messiah appears as One Who is divine, for He
has His place upon the throne of God:
On that day Mine Elect One shall sit upon the Throne of Glory
(xlv. 3).
He is Judge and Saviour, and is endowed with all wisdom:
For in those days the Elect One shall arise,
And He shall choose the righteous and holy from among them,
For the day has drawn nigh that they should be saved.[137]
And the Elect One shall in those days sit on My throne,
And His mouth shall pour forth all the secrets of wisdom and
counsel;
For the Lord of Spirits hath given them to Him, and hath
glorified Him (li. 2, 3).
But as a righteous judge He will condemn the wicked:
And He sat on the throne of His glory,
And the sum of judgement was given unto the Son of Man,
And he caused the sinners to pass away and be destroyed from
off the face of the earth,
And those who have led the world astray....
For that Son of Man has appeared,
And has seated himself upon the throne of His glory,
And all evil shall pass away before His face,
And the word of that Son of Man shall go forth,
And be strong before the Lord of Spirits
(lxix. 27-29, cp. lxi. 8).[138]
In accordance with this divine character of the Messiah is the
teaching of His pre-existence before the world began:
Yea, before the sun and the signs were created,
Before the stars of the heaven were made,
His name was named before the Lord of Spirits
(xlviii. 3, cp. verse 6).
This teaching is by no means confined to the Book of Enoch; in the
Sibylline Oracles v. 414 ff., for example, it is said in reference to
the Messiah that “there hath come from the plains of heaven a Blessed
Man with the Sceptre in His hand which God hath committed to His
clasp; and He hath won fair dominion over all, and hath restored to
all the good the wealth which the former men took.” In the Testament
of the Twelve Patriarchs, Judah xxiv. 1 it is said: “No sin shall be
found in Him”; and in Levi xviii. 10, 11 are the striking words:
And He shall open the gates of paradise,
And shall remove the threatening sword against Adam,
And He shall give to the saints to eat from the tree of life,
And the spirit of holiness shall be on them.
In 2 (4) Esdras the Messiah is likewise similarly portrayed, though
in some passages he appears as purely human (see below, chap. IX.
§ (_e_)). In some other apocalypses the Messiah is conceived of
as a man pure and simple; but the account given above is the more
characteristic of the Apocalyptic Literature taken as a whole.
(_d_) _The doctrine of the Future Life._
Two outstanding doctrines come into consideration here: the
doctrine of the immortality of the spirit, and the doctrine of the
resurrection of the body. The causes, humanly speaking, whereby one
led on to the other, were, firstly, the belief in a final retribution
which the existence of a just and righteous God rendered necessary;
and, secondly, innate materialistic conceptions which resulted in
causing men to impute to the spirit what belongs properly to the
body.[139] To dwell for a moment on the first point; the clearest
illustration of it is found in the Book of 1 Enoch, where in cii. 6-8
the following words are put into the mouth of sinners:
As we die, so die the righteous,
And what benefit do they reap for their deeds?
Behold, even as we, so do they die in grief and darkness,
And what have they more than we?
From henceforth we are equal.
And what will they receive, and what will they see for ever?
Behold, they too have died,
And henceforth for ever shall they see no light.
This evidently represents what was in effect actually believed and
said by many; and the normal teaching of the Old Testament bore out
the truth of it. But if it were true how could God’s righteousness
and justice be vindicated? So the Apocalyptists taught a doctrine
of retribution much in advance of anything to be found in the Old
Testament, a doctrine which involved belief in immortality, and here
they were indebted to Hellenistic influence, very different from the
traditional Sheol-conception. This doctrine is nowhere more clearly
set forth than in 1 Enoch ciii. 1-8. The passage is somewhat lengthy,
but in view of its importance it will be well to quote it in full:
Now, therefore, I swear to you, the righteous, by the glory of
the Great and Honoured and Mighty One in dominion, and by His
greatness I swear to you:—
I know a mystery,
And have read the heavenly tablets,
And have seen the holy books,
And have found written therein and inscribed regarding
them:
That all goodness and joy and glory are prepared for them,
And written down for the spirits of those who have died in
righteousness,
And what manifold good shall be given to you in recompense for
your labours,
And that your lot is abundantly beyond the lot of the living.
And the spirits of you who have died in righteousness shall
live and rejoice,
And their spirits shall not perish, nor their memorial from
before the face of the Great One,
Unto all the generations of the world. Wherefore, no longer fear
their contumely.
Woe to you sinners, when ye have died,
If ye die in the wealth of your sins,
And those who are like you, that say regarding you:
“Blessed are the sinners, they have seen all their days;
And now they have died in prosperity and in wealth,
And have not seen tribulation or murder in their life;
And they have died in honour,
And judgement hath not been executed on them during their life.”
Know ye, that their souls shall be made to descend into Sheol,
And they shall be wretched in their great tribulation.
And into darkness and chains, and a burning flame where there is
grievous judgement shall your spirits enter;
And the great judgement shall be for all the generations of the
world.
Woe to you, for ye shall have no peace.
It will be noticed that in this passage it is only the spirit which
is spoken of as living in the world to come, so that nothing more
than the immortality of the spirit is taught; a teaching considerably
in advance of the normal teaching of the Old Testament, but yet it
does not go beyond belief in the immortality of the spirit. On the
other hand, the passage contains expressions of a materialistic kind
incompatible with purely spiritual conceptions; so that a reflective
mind must sooner or later have been led to the fuller doctrine of the
resurrection of the body if his teaching was to be logical.
But here another element comes into consideration. Conceptions
regarding the Messianic Kingdom varied, and the subject we are
discussing was closely connected with those variations; for as
long as the Messianic Kingdom was conceived of as existing on
this earth the teaching on the life hereafter, i.e. within the
Messianic Kingdom, was bound to tend towards a bodily existence
then. But when the Kingdom came to be conceived of as existing in
the heavens, materialistic ideas receded, and more spiritual ones
found expression. There seem, therefore, to have been three stages of
conception regarding the state of man’s nature in the future life:
first of all a development of the Old Testament Sheol-conception
which resulted in the belief of the immortality of the spirit[140];
then with the expectation of the Messianic Kingdom of eternal
duration on this earth came the belief in the resurrection of the
body; and, lastly, when the Kingdom of Heaven was conceived of as
eternal in the Heavens above, it was the resurrection of the spirit
that was taught.
Variation of teaching is also found in the Apocalyptic Literature
regarding those who are to attain to the future life; sometimes
it is taught that all the Israelites, good and bad, shall rise,
those to inherit bliss, these to suffer torment; the Gentiles are
not considered. At other times only the good Israelites are to
rise; while it is also taught, though more rarely, that all mankind
shall rise, including therefore the Gentiles; the righteous rise to
eternal life, the wicked to eternal torment. An intermediate period
of waiting between death and the resurrection is also taught, the
wicked being in Hades, the righteous in Paradise. But sometimes there
is no mention of an intermediate state, the resurrection following
immediately after death.[141]
* * * * *
These, then, constitute the most important doctrines concerning
which the Apocalyptic Literature has something specific to teach.
The doctrine of God does not differ materially from anything that
is taught in the Old Testament and in the Apocrypha, and the same
applies to the doctrine of Sin; the doctrine of Wisdom will receive
consideration in Chapter IX. The Angelology and Demonology of this
Literature certainly show considerable development owing to Persian
influence; but these two subjects are not of sufficient importance
for present purposes to merit any detailed treatment.
For some account of the books of this literature see Chapter X.
SUMMARY
In discussing the beginnings of the Apocalyptic Movement a
consideration of the different thought-tendencies in Palestine prior
to the Maccabæan struggle is necessary. The Jewish nation as a whole
had come under the influence of the Hellenistic spirit, though not
all were Hellenistically inclined. A minority, who clung tenaciously
to the rigid observance of the Law, was known as the “Pious ones,”
or _Chassidim_. But these _Chassidim_ were of two types; there
were among them those who became the Apocalyptists, and there were
also among them those who, later, developed into the party of the
Pharisees. Thus both Apocalyptists and Pharisees acknowledged a
common descent, i.e. from the _Chassidim_.
The teaching of the Apocalyptists is on more than one subject
inconsistent; this is mainly due to the fact that their minds were,
on the one hand, saturated with the traditional thoughts and ideas
of the Old Testament, while on the other hand they were eagerly
absorbing the newer conceptions bred of the spirit of the age.
Nevertheless, the Apocalyptists were the true prophets of the people,
to whom they brought a message of comfort and hope by telling of the
new world which was soon to come; to the ungodly they addressed words
of stern warning. The teaching of the Apocalyptists dealt mainly with
the world to come, and most of what they taught was characterized by
its supernatural colouring. They held strongly that all things had
been predestined by God before all time. In spite of much mysticism
and a gaze concentrated on that which was to come, the Apocalyptists
were loyal to the Law, though not in the Pharisaic sense, the spirit
of its observance being regarded as more important than obedience to
the letter. Normally the Apocalyptists were universalists rather than
particularists, though in this they were inconsistent.
The main points in the doctrinal teaching of the Apocalyptic
Literature are: Individualism, the importance of the individual being
strongly emphasized; the inclusion of the Gentiles in the divine plan
of salvation; the transcendental character of the Messiah; and the
teaching concerning the future life; in this latter inconsistency is
found, sometimes the resurrection of the body is taught, at other
times only the immortality of the soul; there is also variety of
teaching on the subject of those who are to attain to the future life
a
