Chapter VIII.

In dealing with these doctrines we shall only make cursory mention of those points in which the teaching of the Apocrypha is identical with that of the Old Testament, as our main object is to try and show in what respects the books of the Apocrypha exhibit an advance in doctrine upon the Old Testament, or, as in some cases, a retrogression; at the same time the characteristic form in which a book presents any particular doctrine will be noted even in those cases in which there is no essential difference between the Old Testament and the Apocrypha. It will not always be possible to keep the various doctrines entirely separate from each other, as one so often leads into another; so that some little repetition may at times be unavoidable.

(_a_) _The Doctrine of God._

The Old Testament teaching on the Personality of God is, as one would expect, so full, that we must not look for much advance in the books of the Apocrypha on this subject. The Unity of God the Creator of all, His eternity and omnipotence, His activity in nature, His wisdom, holiness, justice, loving-kindness and mercy, His Fatherhood of Israel, and sometimes of all flesh—these doctrines are all amply dealt with in Ecclesiasticus. In the fine passage Ecclesiasticus xlii. 15-xliii. 33, where Ben-Sira gets his inspiration largely from the Psalms, the praise of God is sung as the Lord of Nature; there are one or two points in this passage which, to some extent, witness to an advance upon what the Old Testament teaches; in xlii. 16 it is said:

God’s holy ones have not the power To recount His wondrous works of might; Though God hath given strength to His hosts To endure in the presence of His glory.

These words represent the Hebrew, which was misunderstood by the Greek translator; the meaning of them is that not even the angels[323] can declare God’s mighty works, even though they stand in His presence; they are only able to stand in that presence because they have received special strength for the purpose. What spiritual beings, who thus stand in the very presence of God, are unable to fathom, can still less be understood by men, all they can do is to offer praise to God; so Ben-Sira says later in the same section:

We will sing praises, because we cannot fathom; For greater is He than all His works. Terrible is Jehovah exceedingly, And wonderful are His mighty acts. Ye that magnify Jehovah, lift up your voice As much as ye can, for there is still more! Ye that exalt Him, renew your strength, And weary not, for ye cannot fathom Him! Who hath seen Him, that he may tell thereof? And who shall magnify Him as He is? The number of things mysterious is greater even than these, And I have seen but few of His works (xliii. 28-32).

The conception of God which is revealed in these two passages does certainly seem to be a higher one even than is anywhere to be found in the Old Testament. In Tobit much the same general conception is found as in the Old Testament; but one passage may be quoted as showing a universalistic spirit which is found only in some of the most exalted utterances of the prophets; in xiv. 6 it is said that “all the nations which are in the whole earth, all shall turn and fear God truly; and all shall leave their idols, who err after their false error.” Fully in accordance with the belief that Jehovah is the God of all men is the way in which the writer of this book never tires of speaking of Him under various titles expressive of the sincerest praise and faith; no book of the Apocrypha has such a variety of names for God as this one. Another important point is that God hears the prayers of men through angelic mediation. In great contrast to this high conception of God is that found in Judith; for while the power of God to help His chosen ones in face of the most adverse circumstances is strongly insisted upon, the idea that God’s favour is only accorded to those who keep the Law, and that He is only the God of the Jews, which is implied throughout even if not definitely stated, is a very inadequate one and takes us back to some of the least exalted passages of the Old Testament which deal with the doctrine of God. A special note, though in no sense new in itself, is sounded in the Prayer of Manasses, where great stress is laid upon the divine compassion; the opening verses form a beautiful hymn of praise to God. In turning to the secondary text of Ecclesiasticus, which comes next in order, we have in the addition to xxiv. 23 (= 24 in the A.V.) a striking instance of the Pharisaic doctrine of God, both as regards the divine Personality as well as the relationship between Him and His true worshippers:

Faint not, but be strong in the Lord, And cleave unto Him that He may strengthen you. Cleave unto Him; the Lord, the Almighty, is the One and only God; And beside Him there is no Saviour.

The great characteristic, so far as the present subject is concerned, of this secondary text, or Pharisaic recension,[324] of Ecclesiasticus is that of the closeness of God to those who love Him; personal religion, that religious individualism which did so much to foster spiritual worship, finds true expression here; not that the original writer was wanting in deep piety, in spite of what often strikes one as a somewhat worldly spirit, but as compared with the Pharisaic ideal of the beginning of the first century B.C. it is not surprising to find that the book was considered in some respects wanting, and that it seemed to the more ardent religious temperament of the Pharisees as not sufficiently expressive of the close relationship between God and His pious ones. This may be illustrated by one or two examples of the way additions are made to the original text. In i. 12 Ben-Sira says:

The fear of the Lord delighteth the heart, And giveth gladness, and joy, and length of days;

but the Pharisee deepens the sentiment by adding:

The fear of the Lord is a gift from the Lord, For it setteth men upon paths of love.

Another example is found in the addition to xvii. 20. Ben-Sira says:

Their iniquities are not hid from Him, And all their sins are inscribed before the Lord;

to this the Pharisaic glossator adds:

But the Lord, being merciful, knowing also that they are made in His own image, Spared them, and forsook them not, nor cast them off.

The closeness of God to those who love Him is again brought out in the addition to xvii. 26^_a_:

For He Himself will lead thee out of darkness unto the light of salvation.[325]

There are, of course, other passages of a similar kind. The interest of these lies in the fact that they breathe the same spirit which we find in a number of the later Psalms, and which are believed by many scholars to emanate from the circle of the _Chassidim_ or “Pious ones,” the forerunners of the Pharisees; this spirit reappears in the Psalms of Solomon, which are admittedly the work of a Pharisee, or Pharisees. In 1 Maccabees we find the strange characteristic of the non-mention of the name of God,[326] which never occurs in the original text, though it is sometimes inserted in the Authorized Version; on the other hand, a true faith in the omnipotence of God is at times expressed, e.g. iii. 18: “There is no difference in the sight of Heaven to save by many or by few; for victory in battle standeth not in the multitude of an host, but strength is from Heaven”; and trust in God as the God of Israel Who will help His people against their foes occurs not infrequently, e.g. in iv. 10, 11: “And now let us cry unto Heaven, if He will have mercy upon us, and will remember the covenant of the fathers, and destroy this army before our face to-day, and then will all the Gentiles know that there is One Who redeemeth and saveth Israel.”[327] In all three of the documents which make up the Book of Baruch stress is laid on God’s guidance of Israel’s destiny; in the portion, Baruch iv. 5-v. 9 the special characteristic is that the divine compassion is constantly recalled, for which reason the writer again and again bids his hearers be of “good cheer.” The writer of 2 (4) Esdras fully represents the best of the Old Testament teaching concerning the doctrine of God; he insists on the unity of God, His Creatorship wholly without any mediatorial agency; Israel is the specially elected nation with which God has entered into a covenant relation. The problems with which the seer is presented are insoluble for man, who cannot even comprehend the material things of the world, much less the spiritual secrets of Heaven: “... He said moreover unto me, What belongs to thee, (namely) the things that have intermingled with thy growth, thou art incapable of understanding; how then should thy vessel be able to comprehend the way of the Most High? For the way of the Most High hath been found without measure; how, then, should it be possible for a mortal in a corruptible world to understand the ways of the Incorruptible?” (iv. 10, 11). The writer’s faith in God is specially shown forth by his conviction that in spite of all appearances God’s love is for His people: “Just as thou art unable to do even one of these that have been mentioned, even so art thou powerless to discover my judgement or the goal of the love that I have declared unto My people” (v. 40). With the Book of Wisdom we enter a religious atmosphere which is to a large extent alien to that of Palestine; whether the two parts of this book were written by different authors, or whether they are both from the same author writing at different periods of his life, it is quite clear that the presentation of the doctrine of God in each is entirely different; the first part (i.-xi. 1) is more Greek than Jewish, and “in nothing,” says Holmes, “is this more clearly shown than in the idea of God presented by the two parts respectively. The idea of God in part i. is that of Greek philosophy, a transcendent God Who has no immediate contact with the world. It is true that in the later parts of the Old Testament the writers had largely abandoned the conception of Jahveh as a God Who had direct dealings with mankind.... God gradually became thought of as more and more remote, though even in Daniel the scene where the Ancient of Days sits in judgement on the nations shows that God could be still thought of as having immediate dealings with mankind. In Wisdom, however, in chapters i.-x. we find that the author conceives God to be so remote, that He performs His will by means of an intermediary, whom He sends forth into the world (ix. 10). This intermediary is Wisdom, and possesses all the attributes of Deity. She is omnipotent (vii. 27), omniscient (viii. 8 and ix. 11), and puts these attributes into action; she administers all things well (viii. 1).”[328] In the second half of the book God is again and again spoken of as interfering personally in the affairs of men; a striking example is given in xiv. 1 ff., which speaks of the folly of a navigator who prays for safety to an idol before embarking upon his vessel:

For that vessel the hunger for gain devised, And an artificer by his wisdom built it; And Thy providence, O Father, guideth it along, Because even in the sea Thou gavest a way, And in the waves a sure path; Showing that Thou canst save out of every danger....

In other respects also the second part of this book represents the Old Testament doctrine, more especially in its insistence upon the need of right worship, and in the way in which it deals with the mercy and justice of God.

(_b_) _The Doctrine of the Law._

In Ecclesiasticus much stress is laid upon the importance of the Law both from the ethical and ritual point of view, a fact which shows this book to be a valuable link between the Judaism of post-exilic times and Rabbinical Judaism. The first point to note is the nature of the Law as taught by Ben-Sira; it is eternal, and it is divine, for it has been given by God, the Eternal One. The existence of the Law before the beginning of the world is involved by Ben-Sira’s identification of it with Wisdom. This is a conception which, so far as is known, occurs here for the first time; but the way in which this identification seems to be taken for granted shows that it cannot have been wholly new to Ben-Sira’s hearers; in speaking about the search for Wisdom he says, for example, in xv. 1:

For he that feareth the Lord doeth this [i.e. seeketh Wisdom], And he that taketh hold of the Law findeth her [i.e. Wisdom].

The Law and Wisdom are used again as synonymous terms in xxxiv. (xxxi. in the Greek) 8:

Without deceit shall the Law be fulfilled. And Wisdom is perfect in a mouth that is faithful.

Perhaps the most striking example of the way in which the two are identified with each other is in xxiv. 23, where Ben-Sira speaks of things concerning Wisdom, saying:

All these things are the book of the covenant of God Most High, The Law which Moses commanded as an heritage for the assemblies of Jacob.

Equally direct are the words in xix. 20:

All wisdom is the fear of the Lord, And all wisdom is the fulfilling of the Law.

The “fear of the Lord,” as is often said by Ben-Sira, is both the true observance of the Law, and the “beginning,” or zenith, of Wisdom. The constant insistence upon the need of observing the Law is characteristic of this book; the following passage offers a good example out of many:

He that seeketh out the Law shall gain her, But the hypocrite shall be snared thereby.... In all thy works guard thyself, For he that so doeth keepeth the commandment. He that observeth the Law guardeth himself, And he that trusteth in Jehovah shall not be brought to shame (xxxii. 15-24).

Ben-Sira urges men not to be ashamed of the Law (xlii. 2), and loves to remind his hearers of how their great ancestors observed it and were enlightened by it, and taught it to others (see xliv. 20, xlv. 5, 17, xlvi. 14); and he also teaches that the fulfilling of the precepts of the Law is to be the chief concern in view of the inevitableness of death:

Remember thy last end, and cease from enmity; Remember corruption and death, and abide in the commandments (xxviii. 6).

Another point of importance in this connection is Ben-Sira’s teaching on the spirit in which the precepts of the Law should be carried out; in xxxiv. 18, 19 (in the Greek xxxi. 21-23) he says:

The sacrifice of the unrighteous man is a mocking offering, And unacceptable are the oblations of the godless. The Most High hath no pleasure in the offerings of the ungodly, Neither doth He forgive sins for a multitude of sacrifices.

Somewhat different in character, but breathing quite the same spirit, are the following words:

He who washeth after contact with a dead body, and toucheth it again, What has he gained by his bathing? So a man fasting for his sins, And again doing the same, Who will listen to his prayer? And what hath he gained by his humiliation (verses 25, 26).

That the Law, according to Ben-Sira, was now meant only for Israel, whatever might originally have been the case, may be gathered from the following, when it is remembered that, as already shown, Wisdom and the Law are identified with each other; Wisdom is represented as speaking thus:

With all these [i.e. every people and nation] I sought a resting-place, And said: In whose inheritance shall I lodge? Then the Creator of all things gave me commandment, And He that created me fixed my dwelling-place for me; And He said: Let thy dwelling-place be in Jacob, And in Israel take up thine inheritance.... And I took root among an honoured people, In the portion of the Lord and of His inheritance (xxiv. 7 f., 12).

We may recall here that according to the teaching of the Rabbis in later centuries the Law was originally intended by God to be a revelation of Himself and of His will to all nations, but that the only nation which accepted it was Israel.

In the Book of Tobit we meet with an earnest zeal for the fulfilments of legal precepts combined with deep devotion. This book is important for the indications it offers of the development of legal observances. Prayer, almsgiving and fasting are strongly advocated (xii. 8), but more especially almsgiving, which is again and again insisted upon, e.g.: “Give alms of thy substance; turn not away thy face from any poor man, and the face of God shall not be turned away from thee. As thy substance is, give alms of it according to thine abundance; if thou have much, according to the abundance thereof give alms; if thou have little, bestow it, and be not afraid to give alms according to that little....” (iv. 6-11). The laws of tithe (i. 7, v. 13), marriage (vi. 12, vii. 13, 14), honouring parents (iv. 3), keeping the feasts (i. 6, ii. 1), purifying oneself (ii. 5), as well as others, are all inculcated. This love for the Law, combined with worship, i.e. prayer, observance of the feasts, and zeal for the honour of God, offers a fine illustration of the truly pious Jew of this period. The observance of the Law appears as a real delight, there is no hint of its being irksome; in this the book is a commentary on the psalmist’s words:

Oh, how I love Thy Law, It is my meditation all the day (Ps. cxix. 97).

In no book of the Apocrypha is the observance of the Law more strongly advocated than in Judith; while everything depends upon trust in God and obedience to Him, both are shown forth by keeping the Law which He gave; righteousness is only through the Law. As in the majority of the books of the Apocrypha there is no abstract conception concerning the Law, its practical observance only is taught. Thus in viii. 5, 6 it is said of Judith that “she made her a tent upon the roof of her house, and put on sackcloth upon her loins; and the garments of her widowhood were upon her. And she fasted all the days of her widowhood, save the eves of the sabbaths, and the eves of the new moons, and the new moons, and the feasts and joyful days of the house of Israel.” This was all in accordance with traditional practice; seclusion, mortification and fasting all belonged to the _rôle_ of a widow’s mourning; it is, however, a development that the eves of sabbaths, new moons and feasts were observed, as here indicated. A further example of the need of the strict observance of the Law is seen in xi. 12, 13, where the sin of touching forbidden food is spoken of: “Since their (i.e. the Jews’) victuals failed them, and all their water was scant, they took counsel to lay hands upon their cattle, and determined to consume all those things which God charged them by His laws that they should not eat; and they are resolved to spend the firstfruits of the corn, and the tenths of the wine and the oil, which they had sanctified and reserved for the priests that stand before the face of our God in Jerusalem; the which things it is not fitting for any of the people so much as to touch with their hands.” Reference is also made to the sacrificial system and the gifts of the people in xvi. 18, but in the poem in xvi. 2-17 the right spirit in offering is the really important matter:

For all sacrifice is very little for a sweet savour, And all the fat is very little for a whole burnt-offering to Thee; But he that feareth the Lord is great continually.

The teaching concerning the Law in this book is thus strongly Pharisaic.

In 1 Maccabees there is reflected the earnest zeal for the Law on the part of the patriots; this has been referred to with quotations above (Chap. II), so that it is not necessary to say anything further here. Much stress is laid upon legal observances in 2 Maccabees; in i. 8, 9 it is told how in Jerusalem the Jews offered sacrifice and meal-offering, lighted the lamps, and set forth the shewbread; and it is enjoined that the feast of Tabernacles be kept in the month Chislev. As in 1 Maccabees apostate Jews are severely rebuked for following those who were unfaithful to the Law (iv. 11-17), the passage concludes with the words: “It is no light matter to act impiously against the laws of God; time will show that.” Another passage which illustrates the intense zeal for the Law is in chapter vii., where the story is told of the martyrdom of seven sons and their mother who “died for His laws” (vii. 9). The whole attitude towards the Law is that of the Pharisaic school of about the first century B.C. onwards; this also applies to 1 (3) Esdras.

In the document, Baruch iii. 9-iv. 4, where the Law and Wisdom are identified, exiled Israel is told that the reason of his punishment is the forsaking of God’s ways, the commandments of life, i.e. the Law:

Hear, O Israel, the commandments of life; Give ear to understand Wisdom. How happeneth it, O Israel, that thou art in thine enemies’ land, That thou art waxen old in a strange country...? Thou hast forsaken the fountain of Wisdom. For if thou hadst walked in the way of God, Thou shouldst have dwelled in peace for ever. Learn where is Wisdom, where is strength, Where is understanding; that thou mayest also know Where is length of days, and life, Where is the light of the eyes, and peace.

That the _Law_ is meant by Wisdom, strength, and understanding is clear from the words at the end of the piece, iv. 1 ff.:

This is the book of the commandments of God, And the Law that endureth for ever; All they that hold it fast are appointed to life, But such as leave it shall die....

The lasting endurance of the Law which is also taught here frequently finds expression in the Rabbinical literature. That the Law is for Israel alone seems to be implied in the words:

Turn thee, O Jacob, and take hold of it, Walk towards her shining in the presence of the light thereof; Give not thy glory to another, Nor the things that are profitable unto thee to a strange nation. O Israel, happy are we, For the things that are pleasing to God are made known unto us (iv. 3, 4).

Of the different portions which make up 2 (4) Esdras the most important in the present connection is the “Salathiel Apocalypse” which forms the bulk of the book (iii.—x.). A good instance of this writer’s attitude towards the Law together with a prophecy of the doom upon Israel for having rejected it by sinning is ix. 31-37; first these words are put into the mouth of God: “For behold, I sow my Law in you, and it shall bring forth fruit in you, and ye shall be glorified in it for ever”; then the writer continues: “But our fathers who received the Law observed it not, and the statutes they did not keep, and yet the fruit of the Law did not perish, nor could it, because it was Thine; but they who received it perished, because they kept not that which had been sown in them.... We who have received the Law, and sinned, must perish, together with our heart, which hath taken it in; the Law, however, perisheth not, but abideth in its glory.” In accordance with later Rabbinical teaching it is said in this book that the Law had originally been given to other nations, by whom it was rejected, while Israel alone accepted it: “And Thy glory went through the four gates of fire, earthquake, wind and cold, to give the Law to Jacob’s seed, and the commandment to the generation of Israel” (iii. 19); on the other hand, in vii. 72 it is said: “Therefore shall the sojourners in the earth suffer torture, because, having understanding, they yet wrought iniquity, and receiving precepts, they yet kept them not, and having obtained the Law they set at nought that which they received.” Both Israel and the Gentiles thus received, or had the chance of receiving, the Law, and both by sinning perished in spite of the Law; the inadequacy of the Law as a redemptive power here shown forth is very striking; the reason why the Law was ineffective was, according to iv. 30, because of “the grain of evil seed which was sown in the heart of Adam from the beginning.” We shall have to return to this when dealing with the doctrine of Sin (see next section). In the other portions of this book, so far as our present subject is concerned, the main stress is laid on veneration for the Law.

We turn now to the Book of Wisdom, representing the Judaism of the Dispersion, and here, as one would expect, there is very little on this subject to be noted. In ii. 12 words are put into the mouth of the ungodly which show that the writer, at any rate, recognizes the Law and its obligations:

But let us lie in wait for the righteous, for he is of disservice to us, And is opposed to our doings, And upbraideth us with sins against the Law, And layeth to our charge sins against our discipline.

In vi. 4 rulers are denounced for not keeping the Law:

Because being officers of his kingdom ye did not judge aright, Neither kept ye the Law, nor walked after the counsel of God.

As the reference here is to foreign rulers there is an advance in doctrine to be noted, for the Law is held to be obligatory on others as well as on the Jews, and Gentile rulers are regarded as having received their authority from God.

(_c_) _The Doctrine of Sin._

The prevalence of Sin is often spoken of in Ecclesiasticus; Ben-Sira realizes its existence personally when he says in xxii. 27:

O that one would set a watch over my mouth, And a seal of shrewdness over my lips....

And again in xxiii. 3 ff.:

That mine ignorances be not multiplied, And that my sins abound not....

Its universal prevalence is witnessed to by the words in viii. 5:

Reproach not a man who repenteth, Remember that we are all guilty.

Punishment for every sin, Ben-Sira says, will assuredly overtake sinners:

Do not wickedly continue in sin, For in respect of one sin thou art not without guilt;

i.e. every single sin carries guilt with it, the implication being that it will therefore not go unpunished. Of great interest and importance is the teaching in this book on the origin of Sin; Ben-Sira mentions three theories; one of these he combats, namely that the existence of Sin is due to God; this is the belief, apparently, of certain freethinkers against whom the following words are spoken:

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. Evil and abomination doth the Lord hate, And He doth not let it come nigh them that fear Him (xv. 11-13).

But since Ben-Sira believed that God was the Creator of everything that exists, he sometimes comes perilously near to uttering the very untruth which he here combats. He says, for example, in xxxvii. 3:

O base nature! Why then wast thou created To fill the world’s face with deceit?

The words “base nature” are the rendering of the Hebrew which is literally, “evil Yetzer”; the “Yetzer” is the bias or natural inclination which is implanted in every man; there is, therefore, in the words quoted, an implication that this “evil Yetzer” was created by God. The same must be said of another passage, xxxiii. (xxxvi. in the Greek) 13-15:

As the clay is in the power of the potter, To fashion it according to his good pleasure; So is man in the power of his Creator, To make him according to His ordinance. Over against evil stands good, and against death life; Likewise over against the godly stands the sinner. Even thus look upon all the works of God, Each different, one the opposite of the other.

In this case, indeed, there is something more than an implication, for the words seem to impute the origin of evil directly to God. Yet it can hardly be that Ben-Sira believed this; for in view of what he says in the first passage quoted he regarded this as altogether wrong. The fact is that as soon as he begins to grapple with this subject he involves himself in difficulties; he tries another solution of the problem, but as will be seen, this is no real solution; in XXV. 24 he says:

From a woman did sin originate [lit. “is the beginning of sin”], And because of her we all must die.

But this only traces the history of Sin in the human race, and does not touch upon its creation; moreover, it has to be remembered that Ben-Sira usually regards Sin as something external to man, something which comes to him from outside (though exceptions to this will be referred to presently); thus in xxi. 2, 3, for example, it is said:

Flee from sin as from the face of a serpent; For if thou come nigh it, it will bite thee. Like the teeth of a lion are the teeth thereof, It slayeth the souls of men. Like a two-edged sword is all iniquity, From the stroke thereof is no healing.

If Sin is external to man, as is so often said and implied in this book, it must have existed somewhere before it was appropriated by Eve, and thus originated in the human race.[329] Nevertheless, in connection with what appears to be a third theory, it is possible that Ben-Sira believed Sin to be not external to man. For this third theory we must consider first xxi. 27, 28:

When the fool curseth his adversary [lit. “Satan”], He curseth his own soul; The whisperer defileth his own soul, And is hated whithersoever he sojourneth.

The meaning of this passage is no doubt difficult to determine; but, to begin with, it seems clear that by the words, “The whisperer defileth his own soul,” Ben-Sira meant to express the truth that the evil in man is of his own making; it is also evident that the words are intended to be an illustration of the truth enunciated in the preceding couplet. Whatever is meant by “adversary”—whether “Satan” in the sense of the Devil, or an adversary in a more general signification—the words which follow (“He curseth his own soul”) show that what Ben-Sira intends to teach is that the “adversary” is synonymous with the ungodly man’s own self; i.e. he, and he alone, is responsible for his sins. So that the gist of the passage would seem to be that man is his own “Satan”; in other words, that the origin of Sin is to be sought in man since the initiative lies with him. Another passage which may be quoted in this connection is xvii. 31:

What is brighter than the sun? Yet this faileth; And how much more man who hath the inclination of flesh and blood!

The text here is uncertain; the Hebrew is not extant and the Versions differ, so that one cannot be sure about its meaning. Dr. Tennant paraphrases the Greek thus: “Even the sun darkens itself—the brightest thing in the world; how much more, then, frail man!” And, in commenting on the words, he says that if Ben-Sira offers any excuse for man’s depravity “it is that of his natural and essential frailty ... but [that he] never [attributes it] to an external cause.” Difficult as the verse is, it is quite possible that what was in Ben-Sira’s mind was that the origin of Sin was to be found in man, for it is extremely doubtful whether he differentiated between Sin as an abstract conception and actual deeds of Sin committed by individuals. The idea that seems to be adumbrated here as to the origin of Sin is, in any case, true from one point of view, for it accords with the facts of experience if human free-will is believed in, and Ben-Sira does believe in this (see next section); for every sin committed originates, so far as any particular sin is concerned, in man, whatever be the origin of the sinful tendency. This can be illustrated by one other quotation:

But the sinner is ensnared through his lips, And the fool stumbleth through his mouth (xxiii. 8).

Ben-Sira’s teaching concerning the origin of Sin may, then, be summed up thus: He implies, though he hardly goes so far as to make the definite assertion, that the origin of Sin is due to God; yet in one important passage he strongly combats this. He teaches, further, that so far as the human race is concerned the origin of Sin is to be sought in the fall of Eve, but he does not attempt to trace its history further back; this was, however, from his point of view unnecessary if, in accordance with his third theory, sin originates in the individual; nevertheless, he involves himself in a contradiction here in saying that because of Eve’s sin all men must die. In addition to this, however, there is a further inconsistency regarding this third theory, for while teaching that Sin originates _in_ man, he sometimes speaks of it as something external to him. These contradictory thoughts bring into clear relief Ben-Sira’s inability to formulate a consistent and logical doctrine as to the origin of Sin; and in this he but shows himself the forerunner of the Rabbis, from whose writings it can be seen that these later thinkers were involved in precisely the same inconsistencies as soon as they attempted to construct a working theory on the subject.

There is one other point connected with this subject to which brief reference must be made, namely, the means whereby sins are atoned for; the importance here lies in the fact that the teaching of this book concerning atonement for sins is the same as that of the later Rabbinical literature; it is, therefore, a great development upon Old Testament teaching. Ben-Sira follows the teaching of the Old Testament in so far that he believes in the need of the sacrificial system provided that sacrifices are offered in the right spirit; he says, for example, in one place:

Give a meal-offering with a memorial, And offer a fat sacrifice to the utmost of thy means (xxxviii. 11);

but it depends upon the spirit of him who offers as to whether the sacrifice is acceptable or not:

The sacrifice of the unrighteous man is a mocking offering, And unacceptable are the oblations of the godless. The Most High hath no pleasure in the offerings of the ungodly, Neither doth He forgive sins for a multitude of sacrifices (xxxiv. 18, 19, in the Greek xxxi. 21-23).

That sacrifices atoned for sins is a fundamental Old Testament doctrine, but the other means of atonement which Ben-Sira mentions show a development; these are as follows; (one quotation in support of each must suffice for illustration). Concerning Almsgiving it is said in iii. 30:

A flaming fire doth water quench, So doth almsgiving atone for sin.

That Fasting is an atonement is implied in the following:

... So a man fasting for his sins And doing the same again,— Who will listen to his prayer, And what hath he gained by his humiliation? (xxxiv. 26; in the Greek xxxi. 31).

Another means of atonement is Death; this is seen, or at any rate adumbrated, in the words in xviii. 22:

Delay not to pay thy vow in due time, And wait not till death to be justified.

This last assumed ever-increasing importance with the growth of the belief in the resurrection; in Ecclesiasticus it is perhaps no more than adumbrated, for where there was as yet no belief in the resurrection nor in punishment for unatoned sins hereafter there was no inducement to formulate a doctrine as to the atoning efficacy of death; the above-quoted passage is, however, worth giving as illustrating a tendency. One other means of atonement must be mentioned because it teaches the truth of mediatorship; this is in xlv. 23:

Moreover Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, Was glorious in might as a third [i.e. after Moses and Aaron], In that he was jealous for the God of all, And stood in the breach for his people, While his heart prompted him, And he made atonement for the children of Israel.

What little is found in the Book of Tobit concerning the doctrine of Sin is connected with Demonology, which will be considered in § (_h_). There is a reference to the atoning efficacy of almsgiving in iv. 10, 11: “... Because alms delivereth from death, and suffereth not to come into darkness. Alms is a good offering in the sight of the Most High for all that give it”; and especially xii. 9, “Almsgiving doth deliver from death, and purgeth away all sin.” There is nothing that calls for particular mention in the Book of Judith; or in the Additions to Daniel, with the exception of one interesting passage in the Prayer of Azariah, verse 12, where it is said: “Cause not thy mercy to depart from us, for the sake of Abraham that is beloved of Thee, and for the sake of Isaac Thy servant, and Israel Thy holy one”; so, too, in the Prayer of Manasses, verse 8, where it is implied that the patriarchs are sinless: “Thou, therefore, O Lord, that art the God of the righteous, hast not appointed repentance unto the righteous, unto Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, which have not sinned against Thee; but thou hast appointed repentance unto me that am a sinner.” This is important, for the same idea finds expression in the later Rabbinical literature, and closely connected with it is the doctrine of the merits of the fathers, i.e. that the good deeds of the patriarchs and other great personalities in the history of Israel serve as an atonement for their descendants. There is probably no book in the Apocrypha in which such deep realization of sin is expressed as in this short one; this is shown in verses 8-13:

For the sins I have sinned are more in number than the sands of the sea, For my transgressions were multiplied, O Lord; My transgressions were multiplied, And I am not worthy to behold and see the height of heaven by reason of the multitude of mine iniquities....

The next book that calls for notice is 2 Maccabees, on account of its strangely particularistic doctrine of retribution for sin; in vi. 12-16 it is said: “Now I beseech the readers of this book not to be discouraged by such calamities,[330] but to reflect that our people were being punished by way of chastening, and not for their destruction. For indeed it is a mark of great kindness when the impious are not let alone for a long time, but punished at once. In the case of other nations, the Sovereign Lord in His forbearance refrains from punishing them till they have filled up their sins to the full, but in our case He has determined otherwise, that His vengeance may not fall on us in after-days when our sins have reached their height....” The teaching of this subject in 1 (3) Esdras and Baruch is that of the Old Testament; but it is worth mentioning that the doctrine of the merits of the fathers referred to above is expressly repudiated in Baruch ii. 19: “For we do not present our supplication before Thee, O Lord our God, for the righteousness of our fathers, and of our kings”; evidently this doctrine must have been held by some, since it receives such a pointed repudiation.

The doctrine of Sin in 2 (4) Esdras is important as it is very fully dealt with; this will require a little more detailed notice, but we can restrict ourselves to the “Salathiel Apocalypse” portion of the book (iii.-x.), as the other parts do not offer anything of importance so far as this subject is concerned. The origin of Sin is traced to Adam, as the following passage (iii. 20-22, 25, 26) will show: “And yet Thou didst not take away from them the evil heart, that Thy Law might bring forth fruit in them. For the first Adam, clothing himself with the evil heart, transgressed, and was overcome; and likewise also all who were born of him. Thus the infirmity became inveterate; the Law indeed was in the heart of the people, but together with the evil germ; so what was good departed, and the evil remained.... And, after this had been done many years, the inhabitants of the city committed sin, in all things doing as Adam and all his generations had done; for they also had clothed themselves with the evil heart.” This teaching occurs more than once; in iv. 30 it is said: “For a grain of evil seed was sown in the heart of Adam from the beginning, and how much fruit of ungodliness hath it produced unto this time, and will yet produce until the threshing-floor come!” And, once more, in vii. 118: “O thou Adam, what hast thou done! For though it was thou who sinned, the fall was not thine alone, but ours also who are thy descendants!” Adam’s fall and sin in man are thus directly connected, but how this connection came about the writer nowhere says. From the passage quoted above, however, it will be seen that the writer of this book recognizes each man’s individual responsibility for his own sins (“they also had clothed themselves with the evil heart”). “It is noteworthy,” says Box,[331] “that the form of the apocalyptist’s conception is specifically Rabbinic. He bases his conclusions on the _Yetzer ha-ra‘_ [i.e. the “evil tendency”]; there is no suggestion that the introduction of evil into the world was due to external agents or forces. The older mythological view (found in Genesis and in the older apocalyptic literature) that the fall of man was brought about by demonic incitement is tacitly discarded. The corruption of the human race is regarded as due to a development of something inherent in man’s nature (the _Yetzer ha-ra‘_). Though this doctrine is sometimes combined, in the Rabbinical literature, with the popular view of Satan (Satan works his evil purpose by the instrumentality of the _Yetzer ha-ra‘_), it probably really represents a theological refinement which was intended to supersede the older crude popular ideas about demonic agency.... Where our apocalyptist differs, and differs fundamentally, from the orthodox doctrine of Judaism, expressed in the Rabbinical literature, is in the emphasis he lays on the ravages of the evil _Yetzer_ upon human nature generally. The enfeeblement of man’s nature is such that practically no one has been able successfully to withstand the _Yetzer_; the whole race has fallen into corruption. The Rabbis insisted, on the other hand, that human nature is not, by any means, in such a hopeless condition. Man can, by moral effort and assisted by the grace of God, successfully resist the suggestions of the evil impulse.” In this book, therefore, it is taught that Sin is universal among men: “For in truth there is none of the earth-born that has not dealt wickedly, and among those that exist that has not sinned” (viii. 35); and therefore the writer’s sense of sin is very pronounced: “For the evil heart has grown up in us, which has estranged us from God, and brought us into destruction; and has made known unto us the ways of death, and showed us the paths of perdition, and removed us far from life; and that not a few only, but well-nigh all that have been created!” Turning now to the Book of Wisdom, we may note first that the writer believed in an original state of good:

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 living perish. For He created all things that they might have being, And the products of the world are healthsome, And there is no poison of destruction in them ... (i. 12 ff.).

Still more explicit are 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.

Without going into the question here of the writer’s belief whether, and in what manner, the soul pre-existed, it is clear enough that he did not believe in the innate sinfulness of human nature. In the second part of the book, however, a somewhat different attitude is taken, for in xii. 10, 11, when speaking about the Canaanites, he says:

But judging them by little and little Thou gavest them a place of repentance, Though Thou knewest their nature was evil, and their wickedness inborn, And that their manner of thought would in no wise ever be changed; For they were a seed accursed from the beginning; Neither was it through fear of any that Thou didst pass over their sins.

The view here held is quite contrary to that found in the two former quotations which suggest a different authorship for the two parts of the book. This is also borne out by what is said regarding death, as the result of Adam’s sin presumably; for in ii. 23, 24 it is said:

Because God created man for incorruption, And made him an image of His own proper being. But by the envy of the devil death entered into the world, And they that belong to his realm experience it.

Death, which is the result of Sin, was thus not originally intended to come upon the human race. But in the second part of the book there is no hint of this. The first part of the Book of Wisdom is, therefore, quite unique among the books of the Apocrypha on this subject; the second part offers nothing that is new.

(_d_) _The Doctrine of Grace and Free-will._

A true balance is kept in Ecclesiasticus between Grace and Free-will; many passages could be cited to show this, but the few following will suffice. In speaking of the ideal scribe, Ben-Sira says (xxxix. 6):

If it seem good to God Most High, He [i.e. the scribe] shall be filled with the spirit of understanding; He himself poureth forth wise sayings in double measure, And giveth thanks unto the Lord in prayer.

Again, in i. 14 it is said:

To fear the Lord is the beginning [i.e. the essence] of Wisdom, And with the faithful she was created in the womb.

Equally definite is Ben-Sira’s teaching on Free-will; he says, e.g. in xv. 15-17:

If thou so desirest thou canst keep the commandment, And it is wisdom to do His good pleasure. Poured out before thee are fire and water, Stretch forth thine hand unto that which thou desirest. Life and death are before man, That which he desireth shall be given to him.

Both truths are combined in the words:

If thou desire Wisdom keep the commandments, And the Lord will give her freely unto thee.

The important point about Ben-Sira’s teaching here is the way in which he combines the two apparently opposing truths; he shows that they are not mutually contradictory, but complementary. He thus continues the teaching of the Old Testament concerning the omnipotence of God and the responsibility of man.

In the Book of Tobit similar teaching is found; for example in iv. 5 Tobit says to his son Tobias: “My child, be mindful of the Lord all thy days, and let not thy will be set to transgress His commandments; do acts of righteousness all the days of thy life, and walk not in the ways of unrighteousness.” But that divine grace is needed for this is taught in iv. 19: “Bless the Lord thy God at all times, and ask of Him that thy ways may be made straight, and that all thy paths and counsels may prosper.” In the rest of the books belonging to this century nothing calls for particular note under this heading; but in the secondary text of Ecclesiasticus the same balance of doctrine is found as in the original book; thus, dependence on God and the reception of the gift of love from Him are expressed in the addition to xvii. 17:

Whom [i.e. Israel] He brought up as His first-born With severity, yet loving them, Imparting to them the light of love; And He forsook them not.

Man has, however, his part to play, for in the addition to xx. 31 it is said:

Better is persistent endurance in seeking the Lord, Than a driver of his own life without a master.

In 1 Maccabees the doctrinal subject under consideration is closely connected with the doctrine of God as presented in this book. We have seen above that direct divine intervention in the nation’s affairs is not nearly as prominently expressed here as in the books of the Old Testament; and it has also been already remarked that God is never mentioned by name in the whole book. The writer is certainly not wanting in earnest belief and faith in God; his conviction of the existence of an all-seeing Providence is clear from many passages; but he also has a strong belief in the truth expressed by the modern proverb that “God helps those who help themselves.” This attitude was largely due to the influence of certain tendencies which were beginning to assert themselves. These centred round the doctrine of God. Just as there was a disinclination, on account of its transcendent holiness, to utter the name of God, and instead to substitute paraphrases for it, so there arose also a disinclination to ascribe action among men directly to God on account of His inexpressible majesty. One result of this was the further tendency to emphasize and extend the scope of human free-will. We find, therefore, in this book that much more emphasis is laid on free-will than on divine grace. In the Additions to Esther it is just the other way about; for here human free-will is scarcely taken into account, while the divine activity among men is throughout insisted upon. But in both this book and 1 Maccabees there can be no doubt that the one-sided emphasis on divine grace and human free-will respectively was prompted by the particular subject-matter of either book.

In the case of 2 Maccabees, though written with a definitely religious object, there is very little to note under the present heading; the frequent stress laid, however, on the fact that the Jews are God’s chosen people, and therefore under His special protection and guidance, is a point to be borne in mind. The next book to be considered is 2 (4) Esdras, and here again it is only the “Salathiel Apocalypse” that claims attention. “The writer’s intense sense of sinfulness, and his conviction of man’s inability to acquire justification by the works of the Law, impel him to throw himself wholly upon the divine compassion; he despairs of a life of absolute obedience to the Law, even by Israel, not to speak of the world. The unconscious and unexpressed cry of the book is for a moral dynamic, which legalism could not supply.”[332] This deeply religious writer must, therefore, perforce have looked to divine grace where human will-power was helpless. As we should expect, in the Book of Wisdom the main stress is laid on free-will, though the other side of the truth is not lost sight of. The former is plainly taught in i. 12-16:

Court not death in the error of your life, Neither draw upon yourselves destruction by the works of your hands.

* * * * *

But the ungodly by their hands and words called him [i.e. Hades] unto them; Deeming him a friend they were consumed with love of him, And they made a covenant with him, Because they are worthy to be of his portion.

But, on the other hand, the opening words of the book bring out in a very clear manner the indispensable need of divine grace for the right exercise of the will:

Love righteousness, ye that be judges of the earth, Think ye of the Lord with a good mind, And in singleness of heart seek ye Him; For He is found of them that tempt Him not, And is manifested unto them that do not mistrust Him.... For the holy spirit of discipline will flee deceit, And will start away from thoughts that are without understanding, And will be scared away when the unrighteous approacheth (i. 1-5).

(_e_) _The Doctrine of the Messiah._

The didactic character of Ecclesiasticus is sufficient to account for the extreme meagreness of references to the Messiah. In the few cases in which the subject is referred to it is the seed of David to which the Messiah belongs, viz.:

He will not cut off the posterity of His chosen ones, Nor will He destroy the offspring of them that love Him; And He will give to Jacob a remnant, And to the house of David a root from him (xlvii. 22).

And in the eighth verse of the Hymn of Praise which (in the Hebrew only) is inserted after li. 12, occur these words:

Give thanks unto Him that maketh a horn to sprout for the house of David, For His mercy endureth for ever.

Ben-Sira, therefore, believes in a Messiah who is purely human, according to the usual Jewish doctrine, and who belongs to the house of David; but his belief is otherwise vague. Apart from the nature of the book itself, it must be remembered that the conceptions of a Messiah were largely conditioned by the historical circumstances of any given period; during the time of Ben-Sira these were not of a nature to call forth Messianic hopes, and therefore the teaching regarding the Messiah was indefinite, and receded into the background. In the Book of Tobit the Messiah is never mentioned, but the renovated Jerusalem which the writer speaks of, and the gathering in of the dispersed Israelites as well as of the Gentiles, gives a picture of what corresponds to the Messianic Kingdom:

O Jerusalem, thou holy city! He will chastise thee for the works of thy hands, And will again have mercy on the sons of the righteous. Give thanks to the Lord with goodness, and bless the everlasting King, That thy tabernacle may be builded in thee again with joy, And that He may make glad in thee all that are captives, And love in thee all that are miserable and all the generations of eternity. A bright light shall shine unto all the ends of the earth; Many nations shall come from afar, And the inhabitants of the utmost ends of the earth unto Thy holy name ... (xiii. 7-18; see also xiv. 4-6).

No other books of the Apocrypha offer any teaching on this subject until we come to 1 Maccabees, where there is conceivably in the mind of the writer the thought of the Messiah in iv. 46, “... so they pulled down the altar, and laid down the stones in the mountain of the House, in a convenient place, until a prophet should come and decide as to what should be done concerning them.” The reference here is probably to Deuteronomy xviii. 18, which is not a Messianic passage, though it may have been so interpreted in later times. A somewhat more definite reference to the Messiah is perhaps to be seen in xiv. 41: “And the Jews and the priests were well pleased that Simon should be their leader and high-priest for ever, until a faithful prophet should arise.” The words “for ever” mean that the high-priesthood should continue hereditary in the house of the Hasmonæans, so that if by “a faithful prophet” the Messiah is meant, the writer would imply that the Messiah would be of Hasmonæan lineage. In 2 Maccabees there is no reference to the Messiah, though there is to the Messianic Kingdom, for the gathering together of the scattered Israelites in Jerusalem is an undoubted Messianic _trait_: “Gather together our dispersion, set at liberty them that are in bondage among the heathen.... Plant Thy people in Thy holy place” (i. 27); and again in ii. 18: “In God have we hope, that He will speedily have mercy upon us, and gather us together from under the wide heaven to the holy place.”[333] In Baruch the Messianic Kingdom, though not the Messiah, is spoken of in iv. and v., where the destruction of Israel’s enemies is referred to:

... But shortly thou shalt see his [i.e. the enemy’s] destruction, And shalt tread upon their necks (iv. 25, cf. verses 31 ff.).

The ingathering of Israel is also described:

... O Jerusalem, look about thee toward the east, And behold the joy that cometh unto thee from God, Lo, thy sons come, whom thou sentest away, They come gathered together from the east to the west, Rejoicing in the glory of God ... (iv. 36-v. 9).

The only other book which has teaching on this subject is the important apocalypse 2 (4) Esdras, and here, as one would expect, the teaching is full. The first point to notice is that as this book is of composite authorship the conceptions of the Messiah differ; thus, in the “Salathiel Apocalypse” (iii.-x.) the Messiah is regarded as purely human: “For my son the Messiah shall be revealed, together with those who are with him, and shall rejoice the survivors four hundred years. And it shall be, after these years, that my son the Messiah shall die, and all in whom there is human breath” (vii. 28, 29). On the other hand, in the “Eagle Vision” (xi.-xii. 39) the pre-existence of the Messiah is taught, though he is to spring from the seed of David: “This is the Messiah, whom the Most High hath kept unto the end of the days, who shall spring from the seed of David ...” (xii. 32). The same is taught in the “Vision of the Man from the Sea” (xiii.): “Whereas thou didst see a Man coming up from the heart of the sea—this is he whom the Most High is keeping many ages ...” (xiii. 25, 26). In this vision the Messiah is of a supernatural character. This truth of the Messiah’s pre-existence is likewise implied in the “Ezra Legend” (xiv.): “For thou shalt be taken up from among men, and henceforth thou shalt remain with my son, and with such as are like thee, till the times be ended” (xiv. 9). Only in the “Salathiel Apocalypse” are the signs which are to precede the Messianic Kingdom (i.e. the “Messianic Woes”) mentioned, but they are given in considerable detail: “Concerning the signs, however—Behold the days come when the inhabitants of the earth shall be seized with great panic, and the way of truth shall be hidden, and the land of faith be barren. And iniquity shall be increased above that which thou thyself now seest or that thou hast heard of long ago. And the land that thou seest now to bear rule shall be a pathless waste; and men shall see it forsaken; if the Most High grant thee to live, thou shalt see it after the third period in confusion. Then shall the sun suddenly shine forth by night, and the moon by day; and blood shall trickle from the wood, and the stone utter its voice. The peoples shall be in commotion, the outgoings of the stars shall change. And one whom the dwellers upon earth do not look for shall wield sovereignty, and the birds shall take to general flight, and the sea shall cast forth its fish. And one whom the many do not know shall make his voice heard by night; and all shall hear his voice. And the earth o’er wide regions shall open, and the fire burst forth for a long period. The wild beasts shall desert their haunts, and women bear monsters. Salt waters shall be found in the sweet. Friends shall attack one another suddenly. Then shall intelligence hide itself, and Wisdom withdraw to its chamber—by many shall be sought and not found. And unrighteousness and incontinency shall be multiplied upon the earth. One land shall also ask another and say: Is righteousness—that doeth the right—passed through thee? And it shall answer: No. And it shall be that in that time men shall hope and not obtain, shall labour and not prosper” (v. 1-12).

Regarding the Messianic Kingdom itself it is to be of limited duration, and, according to the “Eagle Vision” Gentiles as well as Jews are to enjoy it: “And so the whole earth, freed from thy violence, shall be refreshed again, and hope for the judgement and mercy of Him that made her” (xi. 46).[334] In the “Vision of the Man from the Sea” the Gentiles are wholly destroyed by the Messiah, and his kingdom is only for his own people (xiii. 8-13).

In the Book of Wisdom there is no doctrine of the Messiah, nor is there, in the Jewish Palestinian sense, a belief in a Messianic Kingdom; what we do find, however, is that Jewish traditional eschatological conceptions are utilized by the author, and that a glorious future is believed to be reserved for the Jews; there are two passages in which this future is portrayed, viz. iii. 8:[335]

They [i.e. the righteous] shall judge nations, and have dominion over peoples; And the Lord shall reign over them for evermore.

The thought that is apparently in the writer’s mind here is that of such passages as Isaiah ii. 4_a_: “And He shall judge among the nations, and shall decide concerning many peoples,” and Isaiah xlix. 23: “And kings shall be thy nursing-fathers and queens thy nursing-mothers; they shall bow down to thee with their faces to the earth ...”; these, it is true, refer to an earthly theocracy, whereas the author of Wisdom is speaking of the hereafter, but the _adaptation_ of Scriptural passages is a very natural procedure; he does not define closely the nature of the eternal kingdom which will be set up hereafter, any more than the prophet does in regard to his ideal earthly kingdom. The other passage is v. 15-23:

But the righteous live for ever, And the Lord is their reward, And the care for them with the Most High. Therefore shall they receive a glorious kingdom, And a diadem of beauty from the Lord’s hand; Because with His right hand will He cover them, And with His arm will He shield them.

So far this passage, like the other one, is based upon Old Testament Messianic passages such as Isaiah xl. 10, iv. 5, 6, xxviii. 5, 6, lix. 16, 17, and others[336]; but in verses 17-23^{_ab_}, where the Most High goes out Himself as a warrior, a different element enters in. It is true, that here, too, the Old Testament conception of Jehovah as a mighty man of war lies at the back of the passage, but there are also other eschatological, or rather apocalyptic, traits which appear. These elements have been utilized by the author of Wisdom, who has sought to spiritualize them:

He shall take His jealousy as complete armour, And shall make the whole creation His weapons for vengeance on His enemies; He shall put on righteousness as a breastplate, And shall take judgement unfeigned as a helmet; He shall take holiness as an invincible shield, And shall sharpen stern wrath for a sword; And the world shall go forth with Him to fight against His insensate foes. Shafts of lightning shall fly with true aim, And from the clouds, as from a well-drawn bow, shall they leap to the mark. And as from an engine of war shall be hurled hailstones full of wrath; The water of the sea shall rage against them, And rivers shall sternly overwhelm them; A mighty blast shall encounter them, And as a tempest shall it winnow them away. So shall lawlessness make all the land desolate, And their evil-doing shall overturn the thrones of princes.

These two last lines are strikingly out of harmony with what has preceded, since they deal with this world; such a sudden change of subject is unnatural, the lines cannot originally have stood here.

There is, thus, no doctrine of a Messiah or a Messianic Kingdom in the ordinary Jewish sense; the kingdom which is described has God as its ruler, it is an eternal kingdom which only the righteous shall possess; the writer does not make clear whether it is to be set up on this earth, or whether it is to be a spiritual kingdom hereafter. From the way in which he spiritualizes it is presumably to be a kingdom in the world to come; against this it cannot be urged that there are materialistic _traits_ which point to a kingdom to be set up on this earth, for the writer has clearly borrowed and incorporated traditional eschatological material without intending to utilize more than its outward form. To interpret otherwise would, in view of the spirit of the rest of this portion of the book, be to misunderstand the author.

(_f_) _The Doctrine of the Future Life._

In Ecclesiasticus the teaching on this subject is substantially that of the normal Old Testament type; one or two quotations will suffice to illustrate this:

For what pleasure hath God in all that perish in Hades, In place of those who live and give Him praise? Thanksgiving perisheth from the dead as from one that is not, But he that liveth and is in health praiseth the Lord (xvii. 27, 28).

The corruption of the body is looked upon as the end of man:

When a man dieth he inheriteth Worm and maggot, lice and creeping things (x. 11);

though the annihilation of the spirit as well as the body is evidently not contemplated in view of such words as these:

Weep gently for the dead, for he hath found rest (xxii. 11);

and in xxx. 17 death is spoken of as an “eternal rest” (cp. xxxviii. 23, xlvi. 19). This idea of rest for the soul hereafter is “very different from that of death being corruption and the end of all things, which is the more usual one in Ecclesiasticus, and one is perhaps justified in seeing the beginnings of development here, based, it is true, on some Old Testament passages; the conception of the dead resting must involve some sort of a belief beyond the bare existence of the shade hereafter.”[337] It is of particular interest to note that in one or two cases the Greek shows signs of some development of conception regarding the future life where in the Hebrew the normal Old Testament position is maintained; thus in vii. 17 the Hebrew has:

Humble thy pride greatly, For the expectation of man is worms.

This is rendered in the Greek:

Humble thy soul greatly, For the punishment of the ungodly man is fire and the worm.

It is clear that the development which is known to have taken place in the doctrine of the future life during the second century B.C. is reflected here. Very noticeable is the fact that a kind of technical sense has become attached to the word “worm,” such as we find in Mark ix. 48 (“... where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched”). In xxi. 9, 10 it is probable that a similar development exists, though in this case it cannot be proved as the Hebrew is unfortunately not extant; but in view of the example just given it is highly probable that the following reading of the Greek likewise represents a developed idea:

Like tow wrapped together is the assembly of the ungodly, And their end is the flame of fire. The way of sinners is made smooth without stones, And at the end thereof is the pit of Hades.

It will be noticed that the parallelism between “the flame of fire,” and “the pit of Hades,” suggests that the latter has developed into Gehenna. Another example is to be found in xlviii. 11, where the reference is to Elijah; only one line of the original couplet is decipherable in the Hebrew, viz.:

Blessed is he that seeth thee and dieth;

i.e. the man who before he died saw Elijah is blessed; the next line is illegible in the Hebrew and corrupt in the Greek; but the point of importance is that the Greek adds this further line:

And we also shall surely live,

the reference being evidently to the life hereafter, since Elijah is the subject of the preceding couplet.

One other passage must be mentioned, not because in itself it points to any development of thought, but because the Old Testament episode (1 Kings xvii. 17-24) to which it refers must sooner or later have suggested the thought of the dead rising; it is also in reference to Elijah (xlviii. 5):

Who didst raise up a dead man from death, And from Sheol, according to the good pleasure of Jehovah.

The Hebrew and the Greek do not differ materially.

In the Book of Tobit the normal Old Testament doctrine is taught; so, e.g., when Tobit prays: “Command my spirit to be taken from me, that I may be released from off the earth and become earth” (iii. 6); in the same verse Sheol is spoken of as “the everlasting place,” it is a place of “darkness” (iv. 10), and “below the earth” (xiii. 2). In the Book of Judith there is only one reference to the future life, but the passage is an important one as it witnesses to a development of thought similar to that found in the Greek text of Ecclesiasticus vii. 17, xxi. 9, 10, where Hades is a place of punishment; the passage is xvi. 17—Judith speaks as follows:

Woe to the nations that rise up against my race; The Lord Almighty will take vengeance of them in the day of judgement, To put fire and worms in their flesh; And they shall weep and feel their pain for ever.

Here it is clear that the body is conceived of as suffering anguish hereafter. Something similar to this is adumbrated in the Prayer of Manasses, verse 12. It says here:

... Neither, in Thy continual anger against me, Lay up evil in store for me; Nor pass Thou sentence against me When I am in the lowest parts of the earth.

In the Pharisaic recension of Ecclesiasticus we may also note one or two occurrences of development of doctrine; thus after xix. 17 the following words are added:

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of acceptance by Him, And wisdom will gain love from Him. The knowledge of the commandments of the Lord is life-giving instruction; And they who do the things that are pleasing unto Him shall pluck the fruit of the tree of immortality.

Again, reward hereafter for right doing in this life is taught in the addition to xviii. 22:

For the reward of God abideth to eternity.

Two instances of merely verbal additions point in the same direction; in xxi. 10 the second addition in the ordinary Greek text runs:

And at the end thereof is the pit of Hades;

for “the pit of Hades” the Old Latin Version has: “the lowest depth and darkness and punishment.”[338] One other addition, this time of only a single word, witnesses to the belief of the soul, not merely the shade of the departed, existing in Sheol; this is in xlviii. 5, a passage already referred to, where it speaks of Elijah raising a man from death and from Sheol; the secondary Greek text adds “his soul” after “Sheol.” These are, it is true, but slight points, nevertheless they are worth mention as supplementing what has already been said. The next book which contains references to the doctrine of the future life is 2 Maccabees, and here an immense development will be seen to have taken place. We have to note first that Hades is a place of punishment for the wicked, for in vi. 26 Eleazar, in refusing to commit the crime of offering idolatrous sacrifice, says: “Even were I for the moment to evade the punishment of men, I should not escape the hands of the Almighty in life or in death.” For the righteous Hades is only a temporary abode since the resurrection is reserved for them; thus, the second son of the mother whose seven sons are being martyred for their faith before her face, when at the last gasp, says to the king: “Thou cursed miscreant! Thou dost dispatch us from this life, but the King of the world shall raise us up, who have died for His laws, and revive us to life everlasting” (vii. 9); the same truth is taught in verses 23, 29 of the same chapter; but the resurrection is not only that of the spirit, but of the body also; in the account of the martyrdom of the third son it says: “And when he was told to put out his tongue, he did so at once, stretching forth his hands courageously, with the noble words, These I had from heaven; for His name’s sake I count them nought; from Him I hope to get them back again” (vii. 10, 11; see also xiv. 46). It is taught, further, that for the wicked there is no resurrection, thus the fourth son speaks thus to the king: “’Tis meet for those who perish at men’s hands to cherish hope divine that they shall be raised up by God again; but thou—thou shalt have no resurrection to life” (vii. 14, so too in verse 36). The belief in the resurrection is further illustrated by the following passage: “... In this he acted quite rightly and properly, bearing in mind the resurrection—for if he had not expected the fallen to rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead—and having regard to the splendour of the gracious reward which is reserved for those who have fallen asleep in godliness; a holy and pious consideration” (xii. 43-45). It will thus be seen that we have in this book a very advanced doctrine of the future life. In the Book of Baruch two isolated references to the future life occur, and here the teaching is the same as ordinarily found in the Old Testament: “... the dead that are in the grave, whose breath is taken from their bodies, will give unto the Lord neither glory nor righteousness” (ii. 17, cp. iii. 19).

In 2 (4) Esdras there is an extraordinary wealth of material regarding the future life; this is mostly confined to the “Salathiel Apocalypse” portion and the Redactor’s additions—it is therefore to these that we restrict ourselves. For clearness’ sake it will be best to deal with the subject under the three heads: (1) The Resurrection, (2) The Intermediate state, (3) The Judgement; there are some subsidiary points which will be touched upon incidentally.

(1) The doctrine of the _Resurrection_ as taught in the “Salathiel Apocalypse” is not altogether consistent; it is not quite easy to understand how the writer conceived of the resurrection, for it can scarcely have been the resurrection of the body which he thought of since this is regarded as altogether corruptible; thus, in speaking of the future life of those who have kept the ways of the Most High, he says that “they shall be separated from this corruptible vessel” (vii. 88), and in the world to come “they rejoice that they have now escaped what is corruptible, and that they shall inherit that which is to come” (vii. 96); that the body is meant by “what is corruptible” is clear from verse 100, where the seer asks: “Shall time, therefore, be given unto the souls after they are separated from the bodies...?” Later in the book (ix. 36) it is said again: “We who have received the Law and sinned must perish, together with our heart, which has taken it in.” Added to this is the fact that this writer, unlike the Redactor of the book (see below), never speaks of the resurrection of the body, which one would rightly look for had he believed in this; nor is there any mention of the soul being re-united to the body; but he looks upon the body as belonging wholly to this corruptible, material world; he definitely contrasts the spiritual with the material, the two are mutually antagonistic: “How should it be possible for a mortal in a corruptible world to understand the ways of the Incorruptible?” (iv. 11). Whereas in the world to come “corruption is forgotten” (viii. 53). Yet, in spite of what has been said, it would seem that the writer must have pictured to himself a body of some kind in the world to come, for in the Intermediate state (to which we shall refer presently) he must, apparently, have believed in the existence of bodies. The conclusion one is led to is this: the writer believed that the material body became wholly annihilated at death; but that the soul, when released from it, assumed a non-material body in the Intermediate state, and that this body did not undergo any further change at the Judgement; it was non-material (it is difficult to know how else to express it; “spiritual” does not seem the right word to use in view of what is said about the body in the Intermediate state)—it was non-material, and therefore incorruptible, immortal; and for this reason no further change could take place in it at the final Judgement, for it would then be fit for the new world to be created (cp. vii. 75). One is, therefore, led to assume that the resurrection takes place almost immediately after death, i.e. at the end of the seven days of “freedom,” or “rest,” which, according to vii. 101, intervene between the end of this life and the beginning of the Intermediate state, and therefore before the Judgement. As to whether the wicked, as well as the righteous, rise one cannot speak with certainty, the implication seems to be that this is not so, but no definite pronouncement is made on this point; cp. the following words which are put into the mouth of God: “For, indeed, I will not concern myself about the creation of those who have sinned, or their death, judgement, or perdition; but I will rejoice rather over the creation of the righteous, over their pilgrimage also, and their salvation, and their recompense” (viii. 38, 39).

(2) Regarding the _Intermediate state_, minute details are given, but the main points are these; in vii. 78-87 the lot of the wicked is thus described: “When the decisive decree has gone forth from the Most High that the man should die, as the soul from the body departs, that it may return to Him Who gave it, to adore the glory of the Most High first of all;—if it be one of those that have scorned, and have not kept, the ways of the Most High, and have despised His Law, and that hate those who fear God, such souls shall not enter into habitations, but shall wander about henceforth in torture, ever grieving and sad, in seven ways.” These ways are then described. On the other hand the lot of the righteous is as follows: “Of those, however, who have kept the ways of the Most High this is the order, when they shall be separated from this vessel of mortality.... First of all they shall see with great joy the glory of Him Who receives them; and they shall rest in seven orders ...”; these orders are then described; of the seventh it is said that it “exceeds all the aforesaid; they shall rejoice with boldness, be confident without confusion, be glad without fear; for they are hastening to behold the face of Him Whom in life they served, and from Whom they are destined to receive their reward in glory. This is the order of the souls of the righteous ...” (vii. 88-99). As to the duration of this Intermediate state we are given no details.

(3) At the close of the Intermediate state comes the _Judgement_; but here again there is some ambiguity, for from vii. 113, 114 we learn that “the Day of Judgement shall be the end of this age and the beginning of the eternal age that is to come, wherein corruption is passed away, weakness is abolished ...”; but this is inconsistent with the idea that corruption passes away with death (vii. 88), i.e. that the Intermediate state is the beginning of the age to come. Does the writer conceive of the new age, the age of incorruption and eternity, as beginning immediately after death, or at the Judgement? If the former, then it agrees with what he, presumably, believes regarding the resurrection which likewise takes place immediately after death; but if the latter, then the Intermediate state is left out of reckoning. In either case the teaching is inconsistent; evidently the writer’s own mind is not clear on the subject. Upon other points there is, however, no want of definiteness; thus, what the righteous and the wicked have respectively experienced in the Intermediate state is only a foretaste of what will be enormously increased at the Judgement, for the righteous their happiness, for the wicked their torment. The writer is very strong in insisting that on the Day of Judgement no intercession of the righteous will avail on behalf of the wicked. The seer asks “whether in the Day of Judgement the righteous shall be able to intercede for the ungodly, or to intreat the Most High in their behalf ...”; and the reply is: “... 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 ...” (vii. 102-115).

In the other parts of this book these subjects are only slightly dealt with; but there is some important teaching in those portions which have probably been added by the Redactor.[339] He believes in a general resurrection (at any rate he makes no distinction between good and bad) of the body, and though he does not specifically mention the Intermediate state he evidently holds the same belief regarding this as the original writer: “The earth shall restore those that sleep in her, and the dust those that are at rest therein; and the chambers shall restore the souls that were committed unto them” (vii. 32). Here there is thus a clear reference to the re-union of soul and body, but the time at which this takes place is at the beginning of a new age which will begin seven days after the close of the Messianic Age. The Redactor, in seeking to combine the eschatology of the individual with that of the nation, presents the course of the final events in a different way, thus: “For, behold, days come—and it shall be when the signs which I have foretold unto thee [i.e. the Messianic Woes] shall come to pass—then shall the city that is now invisible [i.e. the heavenly Jerusalem] appear, and the land which is now concealed [i.e. the heavenly Paradise] be seen. And whosoever is delivered from the predicted evil, the same shall see My wonders. For My Son, the Messiah, shall be revealed, together with those who are with Him, and shall rejoice the survivors four hundred years. And it shall be, after these years, that My Son the Messiah shall die, and all in whom there is human breath. Then shall the world be turned into the primæval silence seven days, like as in the first beginnings, so that no man is left. And it shall be after seven days that the Age which is not yet awake, shall be roused, and that which is corruptible shall perish” (vii. 26-31); then follows the passage about the resurrection quoted above, and it continues (verses 33 ff.): “And the Most High shall be revealed upon the throne of judgement; and then cometh the end.... And recompense shall follow, and the reward be made manifest; deeds of righteousness shall awake, and deeds of iniquity shall not sleep. And then shall the pit of torment appear; and over against it the place of refreshment. The furnace of Gehenna shall be made manifest, and over against it the Paradise of delight. And then the Most High shall say to the nations that have been raised (from the dead): Look now, and consider Whom ye have denied, Whom ye have not served, Whose commandments ye have despised! Look, now, before you: here delight and refreshment, there fire and torments....” Here, then, we have an eschatological scheme quite different from that of the “Salathiel Apocalypse”; the Messianic Age is preceded by the signs, or woes; then the Messiah is revealed and His kingdom lasts four hundred years; at the end of this period all flesh, including the Messiah, dies, and the world is plunged in primæval silence for seven days; then comes the Resurrection, a bodily resurrection, in which all men, Gentile and Jew, ungodly and godly, partake; this is immediately followed by the Judgement which ushers in the New Age.

Turning now to the Book of Wisdom we note that there is no resurrection of body taught here; this follows naturally from the writer’s doctrine of the inherent evil of matter. The only immortality is that of the soul, and this is gained through “kinship unto wisdom”:

When I considered these things in myself, And took thought in my heart how that in kinship unto wisdom is immortality, And in her friendship is good delight.... I went about seeking how to take her unto myself (viii. 17, 18);

so that immortality begins on this earth. The Judgement takes place immediately after death; the writer describes fully the lot in the future life reserved respectively for the righteous and the ungodly; in the beautiful and well-known passage (iii. 1-9) the blessedness of the righteous is described in this way:

But the souls of the righteous are in the hands of God, And no torment shall touch them ... But they are in peace. For though in the sight of men they be punished, Their hope is full of immortality ... (iii. 1-9).

Of the ungodly it is said, on the other hand:

But the ungodly shall be requited even as they reasoned, They which lightly regarded the righteous man, and revolted from the Lord ... And void is their hope, and their toils unprofitable, And useless are their works ... (iii. 10 ff.).

And again in chapter v. the contrast hereafter between the righteous and the unrighteous is told in the following way:

But the righteous shall live for ever, And the Lord is their reward, And the care for them with the Most High. Therefore shall they receive a glorious kingdom, And a diadem of beauty from the Lord’s hand ... (v. 15 ff.);

but the ungodly, on seeing the blessedness of the righteous, will be greatly troubled:

When they see it they shall be troubled with terrible fear, And shall be amazed at the marvel of His salvation ...

Bitter remorse takes hold of them as they review their former godless life and see that they have now no further hope:

Because the hope of the ungodly is like chaff carried off by the wind (see v. 1-14).

But in regard to the Judgement the writer of Wisdom is not consistent, for in iii. 8 it is said:

They [i.e. the righteous] shall judge nations, and have dominion over peoples; And the Lord shall reign over them for evermore.

On the other hand, in v. 17-23, there is an entirely different eschatological conception:

He [i.e. Jehovah] shall take His jealousy as complete armour, And shall make the whole creation His weapons of vengeance on His enemies ...;

this is all described with great vividness in the verses which follow. It seems as though the author were acquainted with more than one Jewish eschatological scheme, and utilized them, but without realizing that they were inconsistent with each other. See further above, section (_e_), on the doctrine of the Messiah. According to this book, then, there is no Intermediate state; if one can speak of a Resurrection at all it is only in reference to the soul; as the soul is immortal both the righteous and the ungodly live hereafter; the righteous in bliss the ungodly in torment of a purely spiritual kind (see iv. 19, v. 2, xvii. 21); it is not said where the scene of the Judgement is. The writer, it will thus be seen, departs widely from Palestinian Jewish belief on this subject, but he is not ignorant of it; though a Jew, his Hellenistic caste of mind makes it impossible for him to accept the Jewish position.

(_g_) _The Doctrine of Angels._

The nature of the contents of Ecclesiasticus is such that one does not look for much reference to angels; nevertheless, in two passages there is a distinct mention of them, viz. xlii. 16 (17):

God’s holy ones have not the power To recount His wondrous works of might; Though God hath given strength to His hosts To endure in the presence of His glory (so the Hebrew).

The meaning of the passage is that even the “holy ones” (i.e. angels, as in Deut. xxxiii. 1. [but see Driver’s _Deuteronomy_, p. 392], Job v. 1, Ps. lxxxix. 7, and often in the apocalyptic books) are unable to recount God’s marvellous works though, by means of special strength given to them, they stand in His very presence. The other passage is xliii. 26:

Through Him His angel prospereth, And at His word what He wills is done.

The Hebrew text here is a little uncertain, but that a reference to angels is intended is probable because the whole passage of which this is the concluding verse is based upon Psalm civ. 1 ff., verse 4 of which runs: “Who maketh His angels of the winds, His ministers of the flaming fire.” In the Book of Tobit the angel Raphael[340] plays an important part; in xii. 15 he says of himself: “I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels, which present the prayers of the saints, and go in before the glory of the Holy One” (cp. also verse 12). This angel is sent from God, according to iii. 7, to heal Tobit’s blindness, and to bring about the marriage between Tobit’s son Tobias and Sarah, the daughter of Raguel, by binding Asmodeus the evil spirit (cp. vi. 10-17). He accompanies Tobias on his journey to Media, and thus appears as a guardian angel. The angelic host is referred to in viii. 15: “Blessed art Thou, O God, with all pure and holy blessing; and let Thy saints bless Thee, and all Thy creatures; and let all Thine angels and elect bless Thee for ever.” There is no mention of angels in the Book of Judith; but in the Additions to Daniel there are several references; thus in the “Prayer of Azariah,” verses 26, 27, it is said: “But the angel of the Lord came down into the furnace together with Azariah and his fellows, and he drove the flame of the fire out of the furnace, and made the midst of the furnace as it had been a moist whistling wind, so that the fire touched them not at all, neither hurt nor troubled them.” In “Susanna,” again, the activity of angels is referred to in verses 44, 45 (Septuagint Version), where the angel of the Lord is said to have bestowed “a spirit of discernment” upon Daniel; also in verse 55 (Septuagint Version), where the angel of the Lord is about to “cleave the soul” of one of the criminals brought before Daniel; and, once more, it is an angel who carries out the sentence against the two elders: “Then the angel of the Lord cast fire in the midst of them” (verse 62). In Theodotion’s Version the angel of the Lord is referred to in verses 55, 59, and is spoken of in each case as the avenging angel. Then, again, in “Bel and the Dragon,” verses 34-39, there is the curious story of how the angel of the Lord took up the prophet Habakkuk by the hair and transported him from Judah to Babylon in order that he might give food to Daniel in the lion’s den. In the Prayer of Manasses the angelic host is spoken of in verse 15: “For all the host of heaven doth sing Thy praise.” In the Epistle of Jeremy, verse 7, a guardian angel is spoken of as being with the captives in Babylon. The belief in angels is incidentally referred to in the Additions to Esther (Fourth Addition, xv. 13 in R.V.), where Esther compares the king to an angel of God. A somewhat fantastic representation of the activity of angels is given in three passages in 2 Maccabees; in iii. 24 ff. there is an account of how the attempt of Seleucus and Heliodorus to take the temple at Jerusalem was frustrated; on their reaching the treasury “the Sovereign of spirits and all authority prepared a great apparition, so that all who had presumed to enter were stricken with dismay at the power of God, and fainted with sheer terror. For there appeared to them a horse with a terrible rider, and it was decked in magnificent trappings, and rushing fiercely forward it struck at Heliodorus with its forefeet. And the rider seemed to be armed with a golden panoply. Two youths also appeared before Heliodorus, remarkable for their strength, gloriously handsome, and splendidly arrayed, who stood by him on either side, and scourged him unceasingly, inflicting on him many sore stripes....” Again, in xi. 6-10, God is besought “to send a good angel to save Israel”; the prayer is heard, and “a rider appeared at their head, in white apparel, brandishing weapons of gold”; owing to his help the Israelites win the battle. Lastly, in xv. 11-16 belief in angels seems to be connected with dreams; for Maccabæus recounts the following “reliable dream,” which has the effect of greatly encouraging the people: “Onias, the former high-priest, a good and great man, of stately bearing yet gracious in manner, well-spoken, and trained from childhood in all points of virtue—Onias, with out-stretched hands, invoking blessings on the whole body of the Jews; then another man in the same attitude, conspicuous by his grey hairs and splendour, and invested with marvellous, majestic dignity. This, Onias explained to him, is the lover of the brethren, for he prayeth fervently for the people and the holy city, Jeremiah the prophet of God. And Jeremiah held out his right hand to present Judas with a golden sword, and as he gave it he addressed him thus: Take this holy sword as a gift from God, and with it thou shalt crush the foe.” No other books refer to angels until we come to 2 (4) Esdras.

A greatly developed angelology appears in the “Salathiel Apocalypse”; we must content ourselves here with an outline of this only. At the head of the angelic host stand seven archangels; of these only two are mentioned in this book, viz. Jeremiel, who guards the souls of the righteous in the chambers where they are awaiting the final judgement and resurrection (iv. 33-37)[341]; and Uriel, who is sent to the seer in order to show him the inscrutability of God’s ways (iv. 1-11). Elsewhere angels are referred to as speaking in the name of God, e.g. vii. 130; they are instant in fulfilling God’s commands, whatsoever these may be:

Before Whom heaven’s hosts stand trembling. And at Thy word change to wind and fire (viii. 21);

and their power is much restricted: “As for me, I am unwise and powerless; how then should I essay to speak of these things of which thou questionest me?” (v. 39). Throughout this apocalypse it is by angelic agency that God communicates with the seer.

In the Book of Wisdom the point of interest is that the place of angels is taken by Wisdom, or by the Word, the development of doctrine having eliminated angelology altogether; thus, in x. 17, 18 it is said of Wisdom that:

She rendered unto holy men a reward of their toils; She guided them along a marvellous way, And became unto them a covering in the daytime, And a light of stars through the night....

Here Wisdom has taken the place of the “angel of God” in Exodus xiv. 19. Again, in xviii. 15, 16 it is said:

Thine all-powerful Word leaped from heaven down from the royal throne, A stern warrior, into the midst of the doomed land, Bearing as a sharp sword thine unfeigned commandment, And standing, filled all things with death; And while it touched the heaven it trode upon the earth.

Here the Logos has taken the place of the avenging angel, for it is evident that the writer had 1 Chronicles xxi. 15, 16 in his mind: “... And David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of the Lord stand between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand.” This allegorizing is what one would naturally look for in Wisdom.

(_h_) _Demonology._

It is doubtful whether there is any reference to demons in Ecclesiasticus; possibly, however, xxxix. 28-31 contains such a reference.[342] In Tobit iii. 8 mention is made of Asmodeus, “the evil demon,” who slays men; the angel, however, has power to “unbind” him from people (iii. 17, viii. 3), though apparently the most efficacious way of getting rid of him is by burning the liver and heart of a fish on incense which drives the demon away (vi. 17, viii. 3). The only other reference to demons is in Baruch iv. 35, where it is said that they are to inhabit the desolate city “for a great time.” It is worth pointing out, finally, that in the Book of Wisdom, while there is no demonology in the ordinary sense, there is a belief in the devil:

But by the envy of the devil death entered into the world, And they that belong to his realm experience it (ii. 24).

* * * * *

Regarding the importance for the study of the New Testament of the doctrines which have been considered see the respective sections of the different introductions to the books of the Apocrypha in Part II.

SUMMARY

The books of the Apocrypha contain only part of the doctrinal teaching of the literature from which they have been, quite arbitrarily, distinguished. It is not possible here to consider all the works which must be consulted for a complete study of the period with which we are dealing, but in restricting ourselves to the Apocrypha there is this compensation, that the more important of its books were recognized by official Judaism as containing good orthodox teaching, so that they supply a useful foundation for further study of the development of doctrine. In some cases, however, recourse must be had to the Apocalyptic Literature, for though the books of the Apocrypha afford a general criterion as to orthodox Jewish teaching from 200 B.C. to A.D. 100, they are in some respects inadequate.

It must again be emphasized that the Old Testament is not the sole background of the Apocryphal books in the domain of doctrine: there have been marked Persian and Greek influences in certain directions. The main current of Palestinian Judaism was affected by these, while the Judaism of the Dispersion in its turn was influenced by both Persian and Greek thought, and the effect of all this is traceable in the Apocrypha. The teaching of the various books must also be followed in chronological order; there are differences of opinion as to actual dates, but there is approximate unanimity as to the centuries to which the books, in almost all cases, belong. In some instances different parts of a book belong to different times, as will be seen from the Chronological Table (p. 320). For discussions of the dates, see the Introductions in Part II.

The doctrine of Wisdom was considered in Chapter VIII; here we have to deal with the doctrines of God, of the Law, of Sin, of Grace and Free-will, of the Messiah, of the Future Life, of Angels, and with Demonology; these cannot always be kept separate, as one leads into another. Only cursory mention will be made of those points where the teaching is identical with that of the Old Testament, though even in these cases the characteristic form in which a doctrine is exhibited will be noted, the main object is to show in what respects the books of the Apocrypha show an advance, or it may be a retrogression, in doctrine as compared with the Old Testament.

(_a_) _The Doctrine of God._

Ecclesiasticus treats of the Unity of God, the Creator of all; His eternity and omnipotence, His activity in nature, His wisdom, holiness, justice, loving-kindness, and mercy, His fatherhood of Israel and sometimes of all flesh (see xlii. 15-xliii. 33). Here the inspiration is drawn largely from the Psalms, but in xlii. 16, and xliii. 28-32, Ben-Sira seems to go beyond anything to be found in the Old Testament. No book of the Apocrypha has such a variety of names for God as Tobit, which is also distinguished by a doctrine of angelic mediation and a universalistic spirit which is in marked contrast to Judith. In the Prayer of Manasses great stress is laid on the Divine compassion. In the secondary text of Ecclesiasticus, which is a Pharisaic recension of the work, the great characteristic is that religious individualism which did so much to foster spiritual worship. The heightened expression of the close relationship between God and His pious ones which the more ardent religious temperament of the Pharisees demanded can be illustrated by a comparison of i. 12, and xvii. 20, with the lines which immediately follow in either instance. This spirit reappears in the Psalms of Solomon.

In the original text of 1 Maccabees all mention of the name of God is deliberately avoided; once or twice, as in iii. 18, a true faith in the omnipotence of God is expressed, and not infrequently there is trust in God as the God of Israel Who will help His people against their foes. In all three of the documents which make up Baruch, stress is laid on God’s guidance of Israel’s destiny, and in the portion, iv. 5-v. 9, the Divine compassion is constantly recalled. 2 (4) Esdras represents the best of the Old Testament teaching concerning the doctrine of God: the Unity of God, His Creatorship without any mediatorial agency, Israel as the chosen nation with which God has entered into a covenant relation, are all insisted upon by the writer, whose faith in God, and conviction that His love is for His people, remains, though he is presented with problems which are insoluble for man. In the Book of Wisdom the religious atmosphere is to a large extent alien to that of Palestine: the presentment of the doctrine of God is entirely different in its two parts, whether these are by two different authors or by one writing at different times in his life. The first part (ii.-xi. 1) is more Greek than Jewish, the idea of God is that of Greek philosophy: a transcendent God Who has no immediate contact with the world, but performs His will through an intermediary, who is Wisdom. In the second part God is again and again spoken of as interfering personally in mundane affairs, and in other respects also the Old Testament doctrine is represented, as in the need of right worship, and the mercy and justice of God.

(_b_) _The Doctrine of the Law._

The stress laid in Ecclesiasticus on the importance of the Law, from both ethical and ritual points of view, shows this work to be a valuable link between the Judaism of post-exilic times and Rabbinical Judaism. The Law is eternal and divine, and its pre-existence is implied in its identification with Wisdom. So far as is known this identification occurs here for the first time, but the way it is taken for granted shows that it cannot have been wholly new. The insistence on the need of observing the Law is characteristic of this book, as is the teaching on the spirit in which the precepts are to be carried out. In chapter xxiv. 7 ff. the Law is only for Israel. In Tobit an earnest zeal for the Law is combined with deep devotion. This book indicates a development of legal observances; prayer, almsgiving and fasting are strongly advocated, particularly almsgiving. The laws of tithe, marriage, honour to parents, keeping the feasts, purifications and others are inculcated. This love for the Law, combined with worship, offers a fine illustration of the truly pious Jew at this period. The teaching concerning the Law in Judith is strongly Pharisaic; while everything depends upon trust in God and obedience to Him, both are shown by keeping the Law; only the practical observance is taught; there is no abstract conception. The observance of Sabbaths, new moons and feasts is emphasized. Reference is made to the sacrificial system and the gifts of the people, and in the poem xvi. 2-17 the right spirit in offering is the really important matter. In 1 Maccabees there is reflected the earnest zeal for the Law on the part of the patriots. In 2 Maccabees much stress is laid upon legal observances, and the whole attitude towards the Law is that of the Pharisaic school of about the first century B.C. onwards. This also applies to 1 (3) Esdras.

In the document Baruch iii. 9-iv. 4, where the Law and Wisdom are identified, exiled Israel is told that the reason of his punishment is the forsaking of the commandments of life, i.e. the Law. The Law endures for ever, and is apparently for Israel alone. Of the different portions which make up 2 (4) Esdras the most important in the present connection is the “Salathiel Apocalypse,” which forms the bulk of the book (iii.-x.) Here it is said, in accordance with later Rabbinical teaching, that the Law had originally been given to other nations, by whom it was rejected, while Israel alone had accepted it. In the other portions of the book the main stress is laid on veneration for the Law. In the Book of Wisdom there is very little on the subject to be noted, but the foreign rulers are denounced for not keeping the Law.

(_c_) _The Doctrine of Sin._

In Ecclesiasticus the prevalence of Sin in one and all is often noted, and there is much said about its origin. Here Ben-Sira finds a problem too difficult for him. He implies, though he hardly goes so far as to make the definite assertion, that the origin of sin is due to God (xxxiii. 13-15), but in one important passage he strongly combats this (xv. 11-13). He traces it back to the fall of Eve, but no farther. He speaks sometimes of Sin as originating within man, sometimes as being external to him. Like the later Rabbis, he becomes involved in inconsistencies as soon as he tries to construct a working theory on the subject. In his teaching on the atonement for sins he shows a great advance on the Old Testament, adding almsgiving and fasting as means of atonement, and foreshadowing the idea that Death also may be one. This last idea became of ever-increasing importance with the growth in later Judaism of the belief in the resurrection. There is little that calls for notice in Tobit except a reference to the atoning efficacy of almsgiving; and nothing in Judith, or the Additions to Daniel; but in the Prayer of Manasses we find the thought that the Patriarchs were sinless—an idea developed in the later Rabbinical Literature in connection with the “Treasury of Merit” of the Fathers—and a deeper realization of sin than is to be found in any other book of the Apocrypha. In 2 Maccabees there is a strangely particularistic doctrine of retribution for Sin. The teaching in 1 (3) Esdras and Baruch is that of the Old Testament, but the doctrine as to the merits of the Fathers is expressly repudiated in Baruch. 2 (4) Esdras is important; especially, again, the Salathiel Apocalypse. Here the origin of sin is traced to Adam, though its connection with him is not explained; but Sin is regarded as universal, each man clothing himself with the evil heart. In the Book of Wisdom there is a belief in an original state of good, which is so decidedly contradicted by a later passage (xii. 10, 11) as to emphasize belief in a different authorship for the two parts of the book: on this point, as on the subject of Death, it is the first part that is important for us, the second offers nothing new.

(_d_) _The Doctrine of Grace and Free-will._

A true balance between these two is kept in Ecclesiasticus; they are shown as complementary, not contradictory, thus continuing the teaching of the Old Testament concerning the omnipotence of God and the responsibility of man. Similar teaching is found in Tobit. The rest of the books belonging to this century have nothing that calls for particular notice, but in the secondary text of Ecclesiasticus the same balance is found as in the first. In 1 Maccabees much more emphasis is laid on Free-will than on Grace, owing to a growing disinclination to ascribe action among men directly to God, because of His inexpressible majesty. In the Additions to Esther, on the contrary, there is throughout insistence on the Divine activity, while human free-will is scarcely taken into account; there can be no doubt that the one-sided emphasis in either case was prompted by the particular subject-matter of the book. In 1 Maccabees there is very little to note under the present heading, though stress is frequently laid upon the idea that the Jews are under special protection and guidance. In 2 (4) Esdras it is again only the Salathiel Apocalypse that claims attention; here the writer is driven by his deep sense of sinfulness and his conviction of man’s inability to acquire justification by the works of the Law, to look to Divine Grace where human will-power was helpless. In the Book of Wisdom the main emphasis is on Free-will, though the other side of the truth is not left out of sight.

(_e_) _The Doctrine of the Messiah._

The didactic character of Ecclesiasticus accounts for the meagre reference to this doctrine; there is belief in a Messiah who is to be purely human and of the House of David, but it is vague in the extreme. The conceptions of a Messiah were largely regulated by the historical circumstances of any given period, and during the time of Ben-Sira these were not of a nature to call forth Messianic hopes. In Tobit the Messiah is never mentioned, but the renovated Jerusalem and the ingathering of the dispersed Israelites, and also of the Gentiles, give a picture of what corresponds to the Messianic Kingdom. No other books offer teaching on the subject until we come to 1 Maccabees, where “a prophet” is looked for; in one passage he is to be of Hasmonæan lineage. In 2 Maccabees there is no reference to the Messiah, though there is to the Messianic Kingdom. The only other book is the important apocalypse 2 (4) Esdras, and here the teaching is full, and, as the book is of composite authorship, various. In the Salathiel Apocalypse (iii.-x.), the Messiah is regarded as purely human, and only in this portion are the signs which are to precede the Messianic Kingdom mentioned. In the eagle vision (xi.-xii. 29), and the vision of the man rising from the sea (xiii.), and in the Ezra legend (xiv.), the pre-existence of the Messiah is taught. The Messianic Kingdom itself is to be of limited duration, and, in the eagle vision, Gentiles as well as Jews are to enjoy it, but in the vision of the man from the sea the Gentiles are to be wholly destroyed by the Messiah, and His kingdom is only for His own people. In the Book of Wisdom there is no doctrine of the Messiah, nor is there a belief in a Messianic Kingdom in the Jewish Palestinian sense, but the traditional Jewish eschatological conceptions are utilized by the author and a glorious future is believed to be reserved for the Jews.

(_f_) _The Doctrine of the Future Life._

In Ecclesiasticus the teaching on this subject is substantially of the normal Old Testament type; the corruption of the body is looked upon as the end of man, though the annihilation of the spirit as well is evidently not contemplated.

Once or twice death is spoken of as a rest. The development in this doctrine which is known to have taken place during the second century B.C. is reflected by some additions. It is of particular interest to note that in one or two cases the Greek shows signs of some development of conception where in the Hebrew the normal Old Testament position is maintained. It is very noticeable that a kind of technical sense has become attached to the word “worm,” as in Mark ix. 48. In Tobit the normal Old Testament doctrine is taught. In Judith the only reference is an important one, as it witnesses to a development of the thought of Hades as a place of punishment. There is something similar to this in the Prayer of Manasses. In the Pharisaic recension of Ecclesiasticus words added here and there show a development of thought as to the Future Life. The next book which contains references to this is 2 Maccabees, and here an immense development has taken place; Hades is a place of punishment for the wicked; but only a temporary abode for the righteous, since the Resurrection is reserved for them; and the Resurrection is not only of the spirit, but of the body also. For the wicked there is no resurrection. In Baruch there are two isolated references; and in both the teaching is that ordinarily found in the Old Testament. In 2 (4) Esdras there is an extraordinary wealth of material, mostly confined to the Salathiel Apocalypse. Here the doctrine of the resurrection is not altogether consistent, and the writer’s thought is not quite easy to understand; he seems to have believed that the material body became wholly annihilated at death, but the soul, when released from it, assumed a non-material body in the Intermediate state, and that this, being incorruptible, did not undergo any further change at the Judgement. The Resurrection apparently takes place immediately after death. It is uncertain whether the wicked rise as well as the righteous. Minute details are given as to the lot of the wicked and that of the righteous in the Intermediate state, but none as to the duration of this. At its close comes the Judgement. Here there is the same ambiguity; the writer’s mind is not clear whether the age of incorruption and eternity is to begin immediately after death, or only at the Judgement. But there is no want of definiteness as to the happiness of the righteous and the torment of the wicked; both will be enormously increased at the Judgement, and then no intercession of the righteous for the wicked will avail. In those portions of the book which have probably been added by the Redactor there is some important teaching as to a general resurrection, and a re-union of soul and body, which is to take place at the beginning of a new age seven days after the close of the Messianic Age. This is part of a new eschatological scheme, quite different from that of the Salathiel Apocalypse, and seeking to combine the eschatology of the individual with that of the nation. In the Book of Wisdom there is no resurrection of the body; the only immortality is that of the soul, and it begins on this earth. Judgement takes place immediately after death, and there is no Intermediate state. The bliss of the righteous and the torment of the ungodly are of a purely spiritual kind. It seems as though the author were acquainted with more than one Jewish eschatological scheme, and used them without recognizing their inconsistency. He says nothing as to where the scene of the Judgement will be laid; he is not ignorant of the Palestinian Jewish belief, but, being of an Hellenic cast of mind, he cannot accept it.

(_g_) _The Doctrine of Angels._

In Ecclesiasticus there are but few references; in xlii. 16 the “holy ones” are unable to recount God’s marvellous works, though strength is given them to stand in His presence. In Tobit the angel Raphael plays an important part; he binds Asmodeus, and appears as guardian angel to Tobit on his journey. The angelic host is referred to in viii. 15. There is no mention of angels in Judith, but in the Additions to Daniel the angel of the Lord appears in each of the stories. The angelic host is spoken of in the Prayer of Manasses, and a guardian angel in the Epistle of Jeremy, and there is an incidental reference to angels in the Additions to Esther. A somewhat fantastic representation of the activity of angels is given in 2 Maccabees in the stories of Heliodorus and of the rider leading Israel to battle and of the “reliable dreams” of Maccabæus. No other books refer to angels till we come to 2 (4) Esdras, and here in the Salathiel Apocalypse a greatly developed angelology appears. At the head of the angelic host stand seven archangels, and God communicates with the seer by means of the angels. In the Book of Wisdom the place of these is taken by the Word or by Wisdom, the development of doctrine having here eliminated angelology altogether.

(_h_) _Demonology._

It is doubtful whether there is any reference to demons in Ecclesiasticus; there may be one in xxxix. 18-31. In Tobit there is an evil demon who slays men. The only other reference is in Baruch; but in the Book of Wisdom, though there is no demonology in the ordinary sense, there is a belief in the devil.

_PART II_

INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF THE APOCRYPHA

Introductory

We come now to deal with the books of the Apocrypha. As far as possible we shall take these in chronological order, though it will be recognized that certitude in this matter is not to be expected. There are different opinions regarding the dates of most of the books, and in some cases the _data_ for coming to a conclusion are too scanty to allow of anything approaching confidence in the correctness of the date assigned. Moreover, as to some of the books, different parts belong to different periods; this can be proved even though one cannot be sure of the exact date of each part. Then there is the further difficulty regarding the question as to whether a particular book, as we now have it, approximates to its original form, and if there is reason to believe that this is not the case, as to the date of the original as well as that of its present form.

The plan here followed is to take the books in the order of the dates of their original form (as far as this can be ascertained), even though parts of a book belong to a later date, which will, of course, be notified. It will also be wiser to assign a period rather than a fixed date, excepting in the one case, that of Ecclesiasticus, where the date of the original can be fixed to within a decade or so with reasonable certainty. The books belonging to a particular period are put in chronological order within that period. The following table will show this:

Ecclesiasticus, _circa_ B.C. 180. Pharisaic recension, B.C. 100-50.

Tobit. Pre-Maccabæan.

Judith } Additions to Daniel (excepting } Maccabæan, about the middle of the Prayer of Azarias which } the second century B.C. is pre-Maccabæan) } Rest of Esther }

Prayer of Manasses } 1 Maccabees } Post-Maccabæan, _circa_ B.C. 110. 1 (3) Esdras }

Wisdom. Earliest portion middle of first century B.C., latest portion beginning of first century A.D.

2 Maccabees. Beginning of first century A.D.

Baruch and the Ep. } Incorporates some earlier of Jeremiah. } End of first material. 2 (4) Esdras } century A.D. Chaps. i. ii. xv. xvi. are } later.

In quotations from these books the translation of Dr. Charles and his editors[343] has as a rule, but not always, been used. The original texts used are:

Ecclesiasticus: for the Hebrew, Smend’s text (_Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach, Hebräisch und Deutsch_, 1906); for the Greek, Swete’s text (_The Old Testament in Greek_, 1896), and Hart’s text of Cod. 248 (_Ecclesiasticus_, pp. 1-71, 1909).

2 (4) Esdras: for the Latin, Bensly and James’ text (_The Fourth Book of Ezra_, pp. 1-82, 1895).

For the rest of the books, Swete’s text mentioned above.

The Literature given at the head of each chapter does not profess to be more than a selection. Editions of original texts, and text-critical discussions, are not given, as references to these will be found in the Literature cited.