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.