Chapter X: , we shall have occasion to refer to the evidence which in

all likelihood may be adduced from them.

[173] See also _Antiq._, XVIII, i. 3, 4.

[174] For examples of their fanatical zeal for the Law see _Antiq._, XIV, iv. 2 f.; the followers of Aristobulus there mentioned were of the Sadducæan party.

[175] See especially Matthew v. 17-20; and against the Pharisees Matthew xv. 1-20, xxiii. 4-26, Mark vii. 1-23, Luke xi. 37-54, etc.

[176] _Op. cit._, pp. 16-32. Hölscher’s conclusions differ from those of Leszynsky.

[177] _Op. cit._, pp. 36-141.

[178] Cp. Josephus, _Antiq._, XVIII, i. 4, where he says in reference to the Sadducees that “when they become magistrates, sometimes against their will and by force they follow the ideas of the Pharisees, for otherwise the people would not put up with them.”

[179] Lauterbach (_Op. cit._, p. 186 f.) would explain the matter a little differently, though the final result is much the same; he says that the Sadducees “laid down their own decisions and rules in a book called ‘Book of Decrees’ or ‘Decisions’ to guide them in deciding questions to which no answer could be found in the Mosaic Code. They did not deem it right or necessary to invent new rules of hermeneutics, or to develop methods of interpretation to enable them to force their laws and decisions into the meaning of the words of the Torah, so as to pass off their own rules and decisions as part of, or derived from, a Mosaic law, thus making them of equal authority with, and of the same binding character as, the written Law. For, in their opinion, no other laws could ever acquire the authority of the Laws of the Torah.... The Sadducees distinguished strictly between the absolutely binding written laws and their additional laws and decisions. The latter ... were authoritative only as long as they were considered necessary or feasible by the leaders and rulers of the community. For the same reason, they did not consider the decisions and practices instituted by their predecessors, the priests and teachers of former generations, which constituted the _traditional laws_, of absolute authority like the written Law. Hence their peculiar attitude towards the traditional Law, and their objection to its authority. They did not deny the existence of these old traditional laws, for they themselves were the possessors and transmitters of the same. Nor did they reject them as spurious or as without any authority, for they recognized the right of former priests and teachers to enact such laws. They only refused to consider these traditional laws as of authority absolute and equal with the written Law contained in the Torah.” The result, therefore, so far as their controversy with the Pharisees on this point was concerned, was the same: traditional laws, by whomsoever put forth, whether based on the written Law or not, were not permanently binding nor of equal authority with the written Law; the Pharisees, on the other, since they contended that the oral Law was based upon the written Law, regarded both as of equal authority and permanently binding.

[180] _Op. cit._, p. 141.

[181] Matthew iii. 7.

[182] Matthew xvi. 1.

[183] Acts v. 1 ff.

[184] _Antiq._, XVIII, i. 3.

[185] Leszynsky, _Op. cit._, p. 18.

[186] See further the section on Messianic teaching, below.

[187] Cp. Leszynsky, _Op. cit._, p. 91. It is also worth mentioning here that in Ecclesiasticus, which certainly represents the Sadducæan standpoint, angels are referred to—see below, Chapter XII, § (_g_).

[188] With this compare the popular belief as reflected in Acts xii. 15, where it is said in reference to St. Peter, “It is his angel.”

[189] The descent of Zadok is traced from Eleazar, the elder son of Aaron, in 1 Chronicles vi. 4-15, 50-53, xxiv 6.

[190] There is an important passage in Ecclesiasticus (xlv. 23-25, Hebr.) which must be referred to here; in this passage Phinehas is set beside Moses and Aaron as “the third ... and he made atonement for the children of Israel. Therefore for him too, He [i.e. God] established an ordinance, a covenant of peace to maintain the sanctuary; that to him and to his seed should appertain the High-priesthood for ever.” Then reference is made to David and to Aaron; the mention of these here in a chronological list of Israel’s great ones is quite out of place, and therefore there must be some special purpose in referring to them; that purpose is plain enough, for in speaking of David it is said that “the inheritance of the king is his son’s alone,” while in speaking of Aaron it is said that “the inheritance of Aaron belongs to his seed.” A differentiation is thus made between the royal line and the priestly line; and as the royal line had ceased, and only the priestly one continued, and the High-priest (the descendant of the house of Zadok) was both ecclesiastical and political leader, it was from this line that the Messiah would be expected to come. In Ecclesiasticus (see pp. 334 ff.) the Sadducæan standpoint is represented. See also 1 Maccabees ii. 54, “Phinehas our father ... obtained the covenant of an everlasting priesthood” (cp. 4 Macc. xviii. 12).

[191] Schechter, _Op. cit._, pp. xii.-xiii.

[192] Of course, it is not to be supposed that the Sadducees and Pharisees actually kept the feasts at different periods; the quarrel did not emerge out of the domain of theory; actual difference in usage regarding such matters would have been quite out of the question.

[193] See Leszynsky, _Op. cit._, pp. 52 ff.

[194] _Op. cit._, p. 51.

[195] For further details about the Pharisees’ teaching reference may be made, in addition to the literature at the head of this chapter, to Schechter’s _Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology_ (1909) and Montefiore’s article on “Rabbinic Conceptions of Repentance” in the _Jewish Quarterly Review_, XVI (January, 1904), pp. 209-257.

[196] See Josephus, _Antiq._, XIII, x. 5, 6; Schürer, _Op. cit._, I, i. pp. 286-290, German ed., I, pp. 270-273.

[197] _Op. cit._, p. 177.

[198] For details see Leszynsky, _Op. cit._, pp. 36 ff.

[199] With the Greek word _Kanôn_ (Canon) compare the Hebrew _qāneh_, a “reed,” which is also used in the sense of a “measuring rod” (Ezek. xlii. 16-19; cp. Judith xiii. 6, where the Greek word is used for the “rail” of a bed). Originally the word in Greek meant a “carpenter’s rule,” and had nothing to do with the books of Scripture. In its technical sense it is Christian, being thus used for the first time, so far as is known, about the middle of the fourth century A.D.; the fifty-ninth canon of the council of Laodicæa (about A.D. 360) speaks of “canonical books” as opposed to uncanonical. It is a still later usage, so far as our present knowledge goes, which applies the term Canon to the whole collection of biblical books. What the original idea was in using the expression in reference to the books of the Bible is uncertain, but probably it was that of “norm” or “rule” (cp. Gal. vi. 16; 2 Cor. x. 13); just as “canonical action” (1 Ep. of Clement vii. 2) was according to the Christian norm, so books judged by their contents, authorship, and history, were declared to be according to the Christian norm, and therefore “canonical”; cp. the expressions “rule (or canon) of truth,” “rule (or canon) of faith,” used in the early Church. It is probable that the adjective “canonical” preceded the use of the noun “Canon” in its technical sense.

[200] The Jews sometimes refer to the whole body of their canonical Scriptures under the name of _Tenak_, i.e. TNK, an abbreviation (with vowels inserted in order to make it pronounceable) formed by the initial letters of the names given to the three main divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures, viz., _T_orah, _N_ebiim, _K_ethubim.

[201] In the authoritative lists of the canonical books the order varies somewhat; but the order given above is that of the printed Hebrew Bibles.

[202] In the earliest known Hebrew manuscripts they appear as one book; so, too, 1, 2 Kings.

[203] Cp. Robertson Smith, _The Old Testament in the Jewish Church_ (2nd ed.), p. 149.

[204] Ab is the fifth month in the Jewish Calendar, and corresponds roughly to August; it is called the “Black Fast,” and commemorates the destruction of the first and second temples.

[205] So according to the Hebrew; the Greek is somewhat different.

[206] So according to Smend’s probable conjecture.

[207] _Kanonisch und Apokryph_, p. 20.

[208] See Ecclesiastes xii. 12.

[209] Ryle, for example, says that the expression by which Ben-Sira’s grandson “designates the third group certainly lacks definiteness. It does not warrant us to maintain that the ‘Writings’ or ‘Kethubim’ were all, in their completed form, known to the writer” (_Op. cit._, p. 119). And again (p. 121): “These writings, which are so well known to us, were probably only samples, though doubtless the choicest ones, of an abundant literature to which every Jew at the end of the third century B.C. had access.” On the other hand, Ryle believes that by about B.C. 200 there was a definitely recognized Hebrew Canon of Scripture consisting of the Law and the Prophets (_Op. cit._, p. 113).

[210] This Rabbinical phrase for denoting canonicity is explained below, p. 175.

[211] This book was denied a place in the Canon by Melito of Sardis in the middle of the second century A.D., according to Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._, iv. 26.

[212] Josephus reckons Ruth and Lamentations as belonging to Judges and Jeremiah respectively.

[213] The addition here of the words “as divine” does not, in all probability, belong to the original text.

[214] _Op. cit._, p. 164.

[215] For details see Hölscher, _Op. cit._, pp. 36 ff.

[216] _Op. cit._, pp. 165 ff.

[217] See further below, Chapter X.

[218] This was accounted for in later days by saying that when Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi died the Holy Spirit left Israel (Sanhedrin 11_a_); therefore (this is the inference) no inspired book can have been written in post-prophetic times, cp. Yoma 21_b_.

[219] For details of the evidence see Schürer II, i. pp. 366 ff. (German ed., II, pp. 432 ff., where the references are supplemented); Cheyne, _Job and Solomon_, pp. 280 ff.; Hölscher, _Op. cit._, pp. 32 ff.; _Jewish Encycl._, vii. 18.

[220] For details see Ryle, _Op. cit._, pp. 192-202.

[221] _Vita_, § 2.

[222] Thus Jochanan ben Zakkai (middle of first century A.D.) speaks of books which “defile the hands” (Jadaim iii. 2, 5; iv. 5, 6).

[223] See the Additional Note at the end of this chapter.

[224] Budde, in the _Encycl. Bibl._, i. 649; see further the Additional Note at the end of this chapter.

[225] Written, probably, about B.C. 50.

[226] Hölscher, _Op. cit._, p. 6.

[227] Romans i. 2, cp. 2 Timothy iii. 15.

[228] See, among other passages, Leviticus vi. 27-30, xi. 32-40, xiv. 1 ff., XV. 1 ff., 24, xvi. 26, 28, xviii. 19; Numbers v. 1-3; Deuteronomy xxi. 10-14.

[229] Abundant material will be found in Frazer’s _The Golden Bough: Taboo and the Perils of the Soul_ (1911).

[230] _The Religion of the Semites_, p. 449 (1894); and see Jevons’ _Introduction to the History of Religion_, pp. 59-95 (1904).

[231] Cases of death are on record; it was, of course, occasioned by fright, but savages would see only the result of the spirit’s anger. Instances of the infringement of custom would naturally be rare.

[232] See Leviticus xi. 32, Ezekiel xliv. 19, and cp. the idea of “holiness” in such passages, among many, as Exodus xix. 22, Deuteronomy xxiii. 18, where the Hebrew root is identical, though to us the ideas in either case are directly opposite.

[233] He is referring to the rules of ceremonial purity observed by divine kings, chiefs, and priests, as well as by homicides, mourners, women in childbed, girls at puberty, etc.

[234] _Op. cit._, p. 224.

[235] For example, in the case of a canonical book which “defiled” the hands the Talmud (Shabbath 14_a_) says it was taught that the hands became unclean by contact with the Holy Scriptures in order that they should not be touched by uncovered hands!

[236] Hölscher, _Op. cit._, p. 60.

[237] Moore, in the _Jewish Encycl._, II, 2_a_.

[238] Hölscher mentions, with references, a “book of cures,” a Targum which was forbidden, and heretical books, _Op. cit._, p. 62.

[239] Hölscher, _Op. cit._, p. 63.

[240] Ecclesiasticus is often quoted in the Talmud.

[241] Cp., further, Buhl, _Kanon und Text des Alten Testaments_ (Engl. Transl.), p. 26.

[242] See further below.

[243] James, in the _Encycl. Biblica_, i. 249.

[244] James, _Op. cit._, says that this book “may be as old as the first century A.D.”; but according to Hölscher and the editors of the papyrus (Leeman and Dieterich) it belongs to the third or fourth century A.D.

[245] Moore, _Op. cit._, ii. p. 1_a_.

[246] Hölscher, _Op. cit._, p. 47.

[247] _Ibid._

[248] Charles’ edition.

[249] Charles’ edition.

[250] Box’s edition.

[251] For this idea cp. also the Assumption of Moses i. 16-18 (see below, Chapter X (_f_)), where Moses is commanded to anoint certain books with cedar oil and hide them in earthenware vessels, these are to be secreted in a spot which had been created from the beginning of the world for this very purpose.

[252] Lest, in course of time, the number of these soiled copies should unduly increase, lest also, in case of persecution arising, they should run the risk of being desecrated, it was thought well that after the lapse of a certain time these rolls should be done away with; they were, therefore, sometimes burned, or thrown down a well, or in some cases placed in the grave of some respected Rabbi; more frequently, however, they were buried in a grave of their own in the cemetery.

[253] _Studies in Judaism_ (Second Series), p. 2.

[254] _Jewish Encycl._, V, 612_a_.

[255] For references see Hölscher, _Op. cit._, pp. 48, 49, see also p. 64.

[256] See below, Chapter X.

[257] See Zunz, _Die Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden_, pp. 165-179 (1892).

[258] Harnack, _Privater Gebrauch heiliger Schriften in der alten Kirche_, p. 72 (1912).

[259] For the private use in the early Church of biblical as well as other books see Harnack’s book just mentioned.

[260] But even these might only be read “as one reads a letter,” not studied (Hölscher, _Op. cit._, p. 45).

[261] Sanhedrin x. 1 (Strack’s edition, 1910).

[262] Cp. Mark iv. 11; 1 Cor. v. 12, 13; Col. iv. 5; 1 Thess. iv. 12.

[263] Hölscher, _Op. cit._, p. 46. The _Minim_ (“heretics”) are very often mentioned in Jewish writings; Herford says that the term “in some cases certainly denotes Christians” (_Christianity in Talmud and Midrash_, p. 99).

[264] Shabbath c. 16 (Jerusalem Talmud), quoted by Hölscher.

[265] Barton, _The Book of Ecclesiastes_ (The International Critical Commentary), pp. 197-199.

[266] Cp. Ezra iv. 7.

[267] Zunz, _Op. cit._, p. 9; Strack, _Einleitung in den Talmud_, p. 14 (1908).

[268] The term “Midrash,” which occurs in the Bible (2 Chron. xiii. 22, xxiv. 17) denotes “exposition” or “exegesis,” especially of an edifying and moralizing character; see further Oesterley and Box, _Op. cit._, pp. 77-100.

[269] Strack, _Op. cit._, pp. 13, 14.

[270] “Such topics as astronomy and astrology, medicine and magic, theosophy and mysticism, and similar subjects, falling mostly under the heading of folklore, pass as a rule also under the name of Haggadah” (Schechter).

[271] Under this term is embraced all that belongs to the strictly legal or ritual element in Scripture, or that can be deduced therefrom, including discussions of such points. But, as Schechter says, “the term extends also to the usages, customs, ordinances and decrees for which there is little or no authority in the Scriptures.”

[272] In 1904, 1906-1908.

[273] See above, pp. 50 ff.

[274] This was in Jerusalem; cp., in later days, the “School of Tyrannus” in Ephesus (Acts xix. 9).

[275] _Kanonisch und Apokryph_, pp. 42-46.

[276] See Friedländer, _Die rel. Bewegungen_ ..., pp. 22-77.

[277] Oesterley and Box, _Op. cit._, p. 36.

[278] See his editions of these books.

[279] Portions of this book are also found in the Book of Jubilees, vii. 20-39, x. 1-15, cp. xxi. 10.

[280] _Die Worte Jesu_, p. 199.

[281] _Op. cit._, pp. 253 ff.

[282] See above, pp. 150 ff.

[283] I.e. “The Book of the Heavenly Luminaries,” as Charles calls it.

[284] I.e. “the righteous”; a play on the word _Zaddūkim_, the “sons of Zadok,” i.e. “the Sadducees.”

[285] See p. 93.

[286] See also what is said above on the section called “The Book of the Heavenly Luminaries,” or “Book of Astronomy.”

[287] _Die rel. Bewegungen_ ..., pp. 59, 60.

[288] i.-xxxii. 6 and xix. 3-xxi. 9 in a duplicate form were discovered at Akhmîm in 1886-1887; vi.-x. 14, xv. 8-xvi. 1, and viii. 4-ix. 4 in a duplicate form, have been preserved in Syncellus; lxxxix. 42-49 occurs in a Greek Vatican MS. (No. 1809); there are also a few quotations in early Greek ecclesiastical writings.

[289] Charles, _The Book of Enoch_ (2nd ed.), p. ix.

[290] _Op. cit._, II, iii. 273.

[291] _Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs_, pp. liv. ff.

[292] _Op. cit._, pp. xcvii. f.

[293] There is, indeed, nothing to prohibit us from dating the book slightly later than Charles does (viz. B.C. 109-107), and assigning it to the reign of Alexander Jannæus, B.C. 103-76. Testament of Levi viii. 14 does not militate against this.

[294] _Op. cit._, pp. 239 ff.

[295] _Op. cit._, p. xcvii.

[296] _Op. cit._, II, p. 630.

[297] But see below, pp. 218, 223.

[298] _The Apocryph. and Pseud. of the O.T._, II, p. 411.

[299] _Op. cit._, pp. 268 ff.

[300] Proverbs, Job, some of the later Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom.

[301] Gregg, _The Wisdom of Solomon_, p. xxx.

[302] _Griechische Philosophie_ ..., p. 13.

[303] Cp. also the account of the meeting between Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, 1 Kings x. 1-9.

[304] Toy, in the _Encycl. Bibl._, IV, 5322.

[305] See Isaiah xix. 11-15; Jeremiah l. 35, li. 57.

[306] Jeremias, _Das alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_, pp. 29, 80.

[307] So the Greek; the Hebrew is not extant, but the Syriac has: “in the roots of Tehom,” so that the Hebrew in all probability read “Tehom.” See further, Proverbs viii. 26-30.

[308] On this see further in the next section.

[309] In the _Jewish Encycl._, XII, 537_b_.

[310] Fairweather, _The Background of the Gospels_, p. 84.

[311] Cp. Oesterley and Box, _Op. cit._, pp. 195-221.

[312] Fairweather, _Op. cit._, p. 84.

[313] Cp. also verse 9: “He spake and it was done,” and Psalm cxlviii. 5.

[314] Barton, _Ecclesiastes_, in the “International Critical Commentary,” p. 37.

[315] Oesterley and Box, _The Wisdom of Ben-Sira_, in Charles’ “The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament,” I, p. 308.

[316] The idea appears already in Proverbs viii. 31-36, ix. 1-6; but Ben-Sira elaborates it in his own way.

[317] See, on this subject, the very interesting essay on “The Holy Spirit as Wisdom,” by Rees, in the _Mansfield College Essays_ (1909).

[318] Gregg, _The Wisdom of Solomon_, p. xxxvi.

[319] The tree of wisdom in the Garden is referred to in xxxii. 3.

[320] See above, p. 202.

[321] But cp. Job xxviii. 12-14, though the general conception of Wisdom here differs from that of the later Wisdom books.

[322] Hastings’ _D.B._, V, p. 275.

[323] Spoken of as “the holy ones,” so too in Job xv. 15; cp. also Prayer of Manasses, verse 15.

[324] See pp. 331 ff; below.

[325] For other examples see the present writer’s section in the Introduction to _Sirach_ in Charles, I, pp. 285 f.

[326] For the reason of this see below, pp. 412 f.

[327] On the substitution of “Heaven” for the name of God, see Oesterley and Box, _Op. cit._, pp. 186 ff.

[328] Holmes in Charles, I, 527.

[329] Cp. the Book of Enoch lxix. 6, where it is said in reference to the evil angels: “Now the third is Gadreel; he it is who taught the children of man all the blows of death; and he led astray Eve....”

[330] These have been recounted in the preceding verses; the writer is addressing Jews.

[331] _The Ezra-Apocalypse_, pp. xl. f.

[332] Maldwyn Hughes, _The Ethics of Jewish Apocryphal Literature_, p. 240.

[333] See further the next section, on the Future Life.

[334] In one passage in this Vision, xii. 34, the Messianic Kingdom appears to be reserved for the children of Israel only; but it is probable that this verse does not belong to the original text.

[335] The whole passage, iii. 1-9, deals with the lot of the righteous hereafter, but the salient words in the present connection are those quoted above.

[336] “Behold, the Lord God will come as a mighty one and His arm shall rule for Him; behold, His reward is with Him, and His recompense before Him” (Isa. xl. 10). “And the Lord will create over the whole habitation of mount Zion, and over her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night; for over all the glory shall be spread a canopy. And there shall be a pavilion for a shadow in the day-time from the heat, and for a refuge and for a covert from storm and from rain” (Isa. iv. 5, 6). “In that day shall the Lord of hosts be for a crown of glory, and for a diadem of beauty, unto the residue of His people, and for a spirit of judgement to him that sitteth in judgement, and for strength to them that turn back the battle at the gate” (Isa. xxviii. 5, 6). It is the thought, not the language, which shows connection between the two; in the Septuagint of Isaiah xxviii. 5, for example, “a diadem of beauty” is differently expressed, but see Isaiah lxii. 3 (Sept.). “And He saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor; therefore His own arm brought salvation unto Him, and His righteousness it upheld Him. And He put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon His head; and He put on garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloke” (Isa. lix. 16, 17). Cp. also parts of Psalm xviii.

[337] See the present writer’s _Ecclesiasticus_, p. lxxvi.

[338] It is, of course, possible that this is due to a Christian glossator; but there is no doubt that the Old Latin contains many really ancient elements.

[339] We follow Box here (_The Ezra Apocalypse_, passim), though we are not convinced that all which Box assigns to the Redactor is necessarily from this hand.

[340] The meaning of the name is “God hath healed,” cp. iii. 17, “And Raphael was sent to heal them both.”

[341] In Enoch xx. 8 he is said to be him “whom God set over those who rise.”

[342] See, for details, the present writer’s _Ecclesiasticus_, in the Cambridge Bible, pp. 263 f.

[343] _The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament_ (1913).

[344] The final “ch” was added in Greek to show that the name was indeclinable.

[345] In the Hebrew text the author speaks of himself as: “Simeon, the son of Jeshua (Jesus), the son of Eleazar, the son of Sira.”

[346] See Part I., Chap. xii.

[347] See the present writer’s _Ecclesiasticus_ in the Cambridge Bible, p. xxiv.

[348] Euergetes I reigned for twenty-five years, B.C. 247-222.

[349] Cowley and Neubauer, _The Original Hebrew of a portion of Ecclesiasticus_, pp. x., xi.

[350] Cp. Maunde Thompson, _Handbook of Greek and Latin Palæography_, p. 43.

[351] See Gaster in the _Jewish Quarterly Review_, xii. pp. 688 ff.

[352] Oesterley, _Op. cit._, pp. xci. f. (See the Literature at the head of the chapter.)

[353] Prof. D. S. Margoliouth, _The Origin of the “Original” Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus_.

[354] Lévi, in the _Jewish Encycl._, xi. 393.

[355] See Box and Oesterley, _Op. cit._, pp. 272-278.

[356] _Ibid._, p. 277.

[357] In this connection it is important to note the following facts: _all_ the Greek manuscripts, uncial as well as cursives, have a great displacement in the text, xxx. 25-xxxiii. 13_a_ having exchanged places with xxxiii. 13_b_-xxxvi. 16_a_; since all the Greek manuscripts have this displacement it is obvious that all ultimately go back to a single parent manuscript; now the Old Latin Version has _not_ got the displacement, and yet it is a translation from the Greek; consequently this version represents a condition of affairs which is older than the oldest Greek manuscripts.

[358] _Op. cit._, p. 274; he adds in a note that these additions “do not necessarily proceed from the hand of one individual”; we feel convinced that he is right here also.

[359] We use this term as being the most convenient, but strictly speaking it is an anachronism, for, as we have seen above (Chap. vii), the _term_ belongs to post-Maccabæan times; we use it here as representing the pre-Maccabæan tendency which later on developed into Sadducæanism.

[360] Cowley, _Op. cit._, iv. 4237.

[361] _Ibid._

[362] Nothing better illustrates this than Ben-Sira’s copious use of the Psalms and Proverbs.

[363] See above, pp. 267 ff.

[364] I.e. natural tendency, or inclination.

[365] Perhaps the rendering of the Syriac Version is to be preferred here; for “wresteth reproofs” it reads “concealeth instruction.”

[366] In his edition of _Pirqe Aboth_ (2nd ed.), p. 115.

[367] This is only preserved in Hebrew.

[368] The additions are found scattered in the Greek cursives numbered 23, 55, 70, 106, 248 (this is the foremost representative of the group), 253; some were added by a later corrector of Codex Alexandrinus; also in the Syriac and Old Latin Versions (St. Jerome incorporated this in the Vulgate as it stood) and in the Syro-Hexapla; as well as in the quotations from the book in the writings of Clement of Alexandria.

[369] The fact that some of the additions are found in Hebrew points to their having been made at an early date; it is unlikely that a secondary Hebrew text would have been written in post-Christian times.

[370] This addition occurs in the Hebrew text, as well as in the cursives.

[371] The Hebrew of chapter xxix. is not extant; but the addition probably existed in the secondary Hebrew as it occurs in the Syriac Version as well as in the cursives and in the Old Latin Version.

[372] For further details see the commentaries of Mayor, and Knowling, on St. James, and Zahn’s _Einleitung_, I. p. 87.

[373] This is the form of the name given in the Aramaic fragments.

[374] “And when I saw them, my tongue stammered and my limbs became faint; and I sought for a single word from the words of wisdom, and I found none,” iv. 2 (Rendel Harris’ translation of the Syriac Version).

[375] So according to the Aramaic, the other Versions read “Sennacherib.” The Aramaic text is given in Ungnad’s _Aramäische Papyrus aus Elephantine_, pp. 62-82 (1911).

[376] According to the Armenian Version (Conybeare), Pharaoh threatens to attack the king of Assyria and to take away his kingdom if he does not fall in with the proposal.

[377] It is given in Swete, _The Old Testament in Greek_, vol. ii. pp. 815-848 (1896).

[378] In the Aramaic fragment this is not the case, apparently.

[379] In the Achikar story he is called “the Secretary and Great Seal of Sennacherib, king of Assyria and Nineveh” (Syriac Version iii. 8).

[380] Although the Greek omits the words “and thy wine” they occur in the Latin, Aramaic, and Hebrew Versions.

[381] Simpson, in Charles, I, p. 191.

[382] See Schürer, III, p. 241, where further literature is given; the English translation of Schürer does not contain this; it has been added to the last (fourth) German edition.

[383] See further, Simrock, _Der gute Gerhard und die dankbaren Todten_ (1856).

[384] For details see Schneider, _Kultur und Denken der Babylonier und Juden_, pp. 638 ff. (1910).

[385] Cp. Numbers xix. 11-13, 16 ff.

[386] The reference to fasting in xii. 8, does not belong to the true text.

[387] See above, pp. 92 f.

[388] The idea that the book is historical and therefore belongs to the seventh century B.C. does not merit serious consideration.

[389] _Op. cit._, I, p. 185.

[390] _Encycl. Brit._ art., “Tobit.”

[391] See, further, Simpson, _Op. cit._, I, p. 185.

[392] Origen, _Ep. ad Afric._, xiii., says that the book was not written in Hebrew; Jerome, _Praef. in Vers. libri Tob._, says he translated it from the Chaldee (i.e. Aramaic), but this was itself a translation, for while the Greek puts the narrative from i. 3-iii. 6 in the first person and from here onwards continues in the third person, Jerome’s Aramaic (which is in all probability represented by the manuscript edited by Neubauer, _The Book of Tobit, A Chaldee text_ ... 1878) makes the _whole_ narrative run in the third person; but if the original form of the story was written in the third person throughout, it is unthinkable that in a later form the first person would have been substituted in i. 3-iii. 6 alone. On the other hand, it would be quite natural for the original writer to commence his story in the first person and later to fall into the third person, for this latter is the simpler and easier form of narration. The Hebrew Versions are of quite late date, and obviously translations; see Neubauer, _Op. cit._, and Gaster, _Two Unknown Hebrew Versions of the Tobit Legend_ (1897).

[393] Torrey in the _Jewish Encycl._, vii. 388_b_.

[394] _Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden_ (2nd ed.), p. 132.

[395] _Op cit._, vii. 388_a_.

[396] These three cursives are all in the Vatican Library at Rome.

[397] Cp. Löhr, _Op. cit._, p. 147 (see the Literature above).

[398] So according to Scholz, _Op. cit._, pp. xxiv. f. (see the Literature above).

[399] See the Literature above.

[400] _Op. cit._, p. 131.

[401] _The Religious Views of the Pharisees_, p. 2; see also Herford, _Pharisaism, its Aim and its Method_, pp. 282-335.

[402] See above, p. 91.

[403] Owing to the revolt of Bar-Kokba.

[404] Chapter lv., where he speaks of “Judith the blessed.”

[405] See pp. 218 f. above.

[406] In the _Encycl. Biblica_, ii. 2645.

[407] Löhr, _Op. cit._, i. 148.

[408] Viz. _Cod. Chisianus_ (87), a cursive of the ninth century.

[409] Swete, _Intr. to the O.T. in Greek_, p. 260 (1900).

[410] Swete, _Op. cit._, p. 260.

[411] _Stromateis_ iv.

[412] _Eclogæ Propheticæ_, § I.

[413] _Strom._ i.

[414] Swete says: “The addition to Daniel iii. 23 is clearly Midrashic and probably had a Semitic original,” _Op. cit._, p. 261.

[415] Singer, _Op. cit._, pp. 55-57.

[416] Singer, _Op. cit._, pp. 270-273.

[417] In the present writer’s _Ecclesiasticus_ (Cambridge Bible) a translation of this Psalm is given together with the points of similarity between it and the “Shemoneh ‘Esreh,” pp. 349, 350.

[418] In the Mishna, Sanhedrin vi. 2, it is said: “If some cause for extenuation is brought forward on his (i.e. the condemned) behalf, he is liberated, otherwise he goes out (i.e. of the hall of judgement) to be stoned. Some (accredited) person calls out in front of him (i.e. as he is being led to the place of execution): ‘So and so, the son of so and so, is going forth to be stoned for having committed such and such a sin, and of which such and such are the witnesses; whosoever has anything to bring forward in his favour let him come forth and utter it on behalf of him’ (i.e. the condemned).”

[419] See the works mentioned under the Literature given above.

[420] The Jewish name was Salome.

[421] “Then shall ye do unto him as he thought to do unto his brother.”

[422] “The Greek word translated ‘dragon’ denotes originally a large serpent. Homer uses _drakōn_ and _ophis_ interchangeably without the least apparent difference. Even the _drakōn_ of Greek mythology remains essentially a serpent”—Witton Davies in Charles, I, 653.

[423] Rouse, _Greek Votive Offerings_, pp. 193 ff.

[424] Both Berosus and Helladius speak of gods worshipped as serpents in Babylon (Witton Davies).

[425] It should be noted that in the canonical Esther the chapters run from i. to x. 3; in the Apocrypha the chapters are numbered as though they came consecutively after those of the canonical Esther, viz. x. 4 to xvi. 24; this unnecessary confusion is due to St. Jerome “who relegated the Greek interpolations to the end of the canonical book; but it has had the effect of making them unintelligible” (Swete, _Op. cit._, p. 257).

[426] Unless the mention of fasting, in iv. 16, ix. 31, can be included in this.

[427] _Op. cit._, p. 258.

[428] In the margin of the Revised Version this note occurs: “Or, _the seers_. So the Septuagint”; this is, no doubt, what should be read.

[429] _Op. cit._, p. 362.

[430] _Op. cit._, p. 612.

[431] See Swete, _Intro. to the O.T. in Greek_, p. 142 (1900).

[432] See Swete, _Op. cit._, p. 253. The Greek text is given in Swete’s _The O.T. in Greek_, iii. pp. 824-826.

[433] Where it follows a reference to 2 Chronicles xxxiii. 18.

[434] In ii. 22.

[435] _Op. cit._, p. 613.

[436] Ryle treats these words as though they stood in the text of Cod. T _in addition to_ “I have set up ...” (which is the case in the Latin Version); but according to Swete’s _apparatus criticus_ they are not an addition, but a substitution.

[437] The text of Cod. A agrees, however, with that of the _Apostolical Constitutions_.

[438] See Fritzsche; _Kurzgefasstes exeget. Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des Alten Testamentes_, i. pp. 158 ff.; Ball, _Op. cit._, pp. 362 ff.

[439] The _Didascalia_ was incorporated into the _Apostolical Constitutions_ of which it forms the first six books; the _Apostolical Constitutions_ belongs to the fourth or fifth century.

[440] Oesterley, _Op. cit._, I, p. 59.

[441] Oesterley, _Op. cit._, p. 61.

[442] See Josephus, _Antiq._, XIV, iv. 2-4; _Bell. Jud._, I, vii. 3-6.

[443] See further, Schürer, _Op. cit._ II, iii. pp. 13, 14.

[444] The present writer has given many of these in his commentary referred to above.

[445] This section is taken substantially from the present writer’s commentary in Charles, I, pp. 61-65.

[446] _Juden und Griechen vor der makkabäischen Erhebung_, pp. 70 ff.

[447] _Hermes_, ix. pp. 284 ff., cp. Kautzsch, _Op. cit._, i. p. 30.

[448] _Op. cit._, p. 72.

[449] Though this did not actually come about until some time after the period dealt with in our book.

[450] “Saviour,” on account of his having delivered the Babylonians from the satrap Heraclides.

[451] The name of the Hasmonæan dynasty comes from that of the ancestor of the house, Asmonæus (Josephus, _Antiq._, XII, vi. 1; XIV, xvi. 4; XVI, vii. 1), who is said to have been the grandfather of Mattathias.

[452] It is in 1 Maccabees xiv. 41 that we are told of the ratification by the people of the high-priestly and princely dignity in the house of Asmonæus; “And the Jews and the priests were well pleased that Simon should be their leader and high-priest for ever....”

[453] See above, p. 419.

[454] According to Josephus (_Bell. Jud._, II, x. 2) this was a high hill a hundred _stadia_ north of Ptolemais.

[455] No further mention is made of him in 1 Maccabees; he was murdered three or four years later by the usurper Alexander Zabinas, who gave himself out to be the son of Alexander Balas.

[456] Josephus (_Antiq._, XIII, vii. 2) says that he “fled from Dora to Apamæa, where he was taken during the siege, and put to death, when he had reigned three years.”

[457] These formed originally one book, as in the Septuagint; their division into two books is probably due to Christian influence.

[458] In the Septuagint there is no equivalent to these two chapters; see on this below, pp. 510 f.

[459] For the exceptions to this, see below.

[460] Volz (_Encycl. Bibl._, II, 1490) says of this story that “it is an independent piece of narrative that is also found standing by itself in a MS. of the Vulgate (Berger, _Hist. de la Vulgate_, p. 94 [1893]). To all appearance this piece is itself also a composite production, the praise of truth being an addition. The whole seems to have been originally written in Greek, and shows affinity with the epistle of Aristeas (Ewald, _Hist._, v. 165); the writer appears to have knowledge of the court history of Persia (iv. 29 ff.). The hero of the story is not originally Zerubbabel.”

[461] Hastings’ _Dict. of the Bible_, I, 759 f.

[462] They are clearly and succinctly summarized by Thackeray in Hastings’ _Dict. of the Bible_, I, 758-763.

[463] _History of Israel_, v. pp. 126 ff.

[464] In the _Academy_ for 1893.

[465] _Op. cit._, p. 2.

[466] Cp. Josephus, _Antiq._, XI, iii. 2-6.

[467] _The International Journal of Apocrypha_, April 1913, pp. 33, 34.

[468] That the book was originally written in Greek admits of no doubt.

[469] Quoted by Goodrick, _Op. cit._, p. 34.

[470] He is followed by Wright, McNeile, and Barton, in their works on Ecclesiastes.

[471] _Ecclesiastes, or, The Preacher_, pp. 70 f.

[472] Cp. Barton, _The Book of Ecclesiastes_, pp. 57 f., where the passages are quoted in full in parallel columns.

[473] See pp. 200 f.

[474] For the various untenable theories regarding the identity of the author, see Grimm, pp. 16 ff., Farrar, pp. 410 ff.; the question of composite authorship is dealt with in the next section.

[475] Some scholars hold strongly that the author was an Essene; earlier commentators have argued in favour of the author being a Christian. That the book was written for Jews is probable, apart from other considerations, from the numerous references to the Old Testament and past history of the Jews.

[476] _Op. cit._, p. xvii.

[477] See above, pp. 165 f.

[478] It must be remembered that in the Hebrew Bible the Book of Job is reckoned among the _Hagiographa_.

[479] The words in the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus, “and the rest of the books,” are too indefinite for us to assume that the writer meant the _Hagiographa_ as we understand them. In the Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus (xlix. 9), Job is mentioned, but only in reference to Ezekiel xiv. 14, 20, nothing is said of Job as we know him from the book that bears his name.

[480] _Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek_, p. 26 f.

[481] Goodrick, _Op. cit._, p. 15.

[482] We have adopted some of Goodrick’s renderings in this quotation as being superior to that of the Revised Version; see Swete’s text, _The Old Testament in Greek_, ii. p. 606 f.

[483] _Encycl. Bibl._, iv. 5347.

[484] Mr. Gregg (_Op. cit._, p. xxvii.) says: “Attacks upon the unity of the book have failed, and no serious effort to dispute it has recently been made.” This is really not quite in accordance with the facts; Mr. Gregg has overlooked some not unimportant contributions to the literature on the subject; during the years 1903-1906 quite serious efforts have been made to show that the book is of composite authorship by at least five first-rate scholars.

[485] It is true that Wisdom is mentioned in xiv. 2, but it is used there in quite a different sense from that of the personified semi-divine Wisdom of part I, a fact which, if anything, strengthens the argument in favour of different authorship.

[486] Toy, in _Encycl. Bibl._, iv. 5338.

[487] _Op. cit._, i. pp. 522, 523.

[488] It should, however, be pointed out that differences of opinion exist as to where the dividing line between the two parts lies; Toy follows Houbigant here.

[489] _Op. cit._, p. 77.

[490] It is true that the book opens with an address to rulers; but Gregg is doubtless right in saying that this “would seem to be a purely rhetorical artifice, screening the real purpose of the book ...” (_Op. cit._, p. xxi.).

[491] _Op. cit._, pp. xxiii. f.

[492] _The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought_, p. 231 (1900).

[493] Torrey, in the _Encycl. Bibl._, iii. 2870.

[494] On this obscure episode of pre-Maccabæan Jewish history see Büchler, _Die Tobiaden und die Oniaden_, pp. 106 ff.

[495] These are very conveniently drawn up in parallel columns by Moffatt, in Charles, I, pp. 126, 127.

[496] See above, p. 415.

[497] There are some few scholars who take a different view, e.g. Niese, less directly in favour of 2 Maccabees are Büchler and Laqueur, more modified in their opinion are Sluys and Wellhausen, see Schürer, German ed., III, p. 484 (not mentioned in the English edition).

[498] The text reads “belonging to Bacenor’s company,” but this can scarcely be right, as in xii. 17-19 Dositheus belongs to the “Jews that are called Tubieni.”

[499] _Encycl. Bibl._, iii. 2873 f.

[500] This figure should be “eight” according to 1 Maccabees iv. 95.

[501] The month Chislev = approximately December.

[502] Cp. Torrey, _Encycl. Bibl._, iii. 2875 f.

[503] “The senate and Judas” in verse 10 should be read, with the Syriac Version, “the senate of the Jews.”

[504] Torrey, _Op. cit._, iii. 2877.

[505] Cp. the far more sober account in 1 Maccabees vi. 8-17.

[506] _Op. cit._, iii. 2876.

[507] _Op. cit._, iii. 2877.

[508] _Antiq._, XII, vii. 7.

[509] Lucius, _Der Essenismus_, pp. 36 ff.

[510] In his _Prologus Galeatus_.

[511] Westcott, in Smith’s _Dict. of the Bibl._, ii. p. 175.

[512] Or “first origin.”

[513] E.g., by Irenæus, _Adv. Haeres._, v. 35; Clement of Alexandria, _Paed._, i. 10.

[514] _Intr. to the O.T. in Greek_, p. 274 (1900).

[515] Cp. Charles, _The Apocalypse of Baruch_, pp. xvi. f. (1896).

[516] Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidos, the last king of Babylon, who was overthrown by Cyrus.

[517] See the account given by Josephus, _Bell. Jud._, II, xvii. 3.

[518] See Josephus, _Bell. Jud._, VI, iii. 4, ix. 2, 3.

[519] See the long account given by Josephus, _Bell. Jud._, VI, iv. 1-7.

[520] Cp. the Pharisaic additions in _Ecclesiasticus_.

[521] See Zunz, _Die Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden_, passim (1892).

[522] I.e., the _Shemoneh Esreh_ (“Eighteen Benedictions”); the name _Amidah_ (“Standing”) is given to it because it is said standing.

[523] In the liturgy the order of these two clauses is reversed.

[524] I.e. “‘Hear,’ O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One,” Deuteronomy vi. 4-9; xi. 13-21; Numbers xv. 37-41; in this last the deliverance from Egypt is referred to.

[525] Oesterley and Box, _The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue_, p. 367 (1911).

[526] According to Cornill, _Einleitung in das Alte Testament_, p. 274 (1896).

[527] In Hastings’ _Dict. of the Bible_, i. 253.

[528] This was pointed out long ago by Ryle and James, _The Psalms of the Pharisees_, pp. lxxii. ff.

[529] See pp. 214 ff.

[530] _Op. cit._, pp. lxxii.-lxxvii.

[531] In the Revised Version wrongly reckoned as verse 1, which is not done either in the Vulgate or the Septuagint.

[532] xxxvi. 1 in the Septuagint.

[533] In Hastings’ _Dict. of the Bible_, II, 579.

[534] _Encycl. Bibl._, ii. 2395.

[535] See further, p. 439 above. In the Vulgate the Prayer of Manasses, 1 (3) Esdras and 2 (4) Esdras are not included among the Apocrypha, but are placed in an Appendix at the end of the whole Bible, i.e. after the Book of Revelation.

[536] That it was originally written in Hebrew does not admit of doubt. See Box, _Op. cit._, pp. xiii.-xx.

[537] Hastings’ _D.B._, i. 766_a_.

[538] The following is translated from the Latin text edited by Bensly (see the Literature above); the words in brackets are wanting in the Latin, and are supplied from the Syriac Version.

[539] So the Syriac, which is required by the context; the Latin reads, “were burned.”

[540] The text is corrupt here; it reads _multitudo tempestatio_.

[541] Box rightly sees the hand of the Redactor in the form of the Vision as we now have it; he follows Kabisch in holding that the date of the Redactor is A.D. 120, possibly even a little later.

[542] For other interpretations that have been put forth, see Drummond, _Op. cit._, pp. 99-114.

[543] The passage v. 56-vi. 6 is a polemic against Christian teaching.

[544] At viii. 63 the dialogue is interrupted by a section on the Signs of the End; at ix. 13 it is taken up again.

[545] Maldwyn Hughes, _The Ethics of Jewish Apocryphal Literature_, p. 240.

[546] Box, _Op. cit._, p. xlvi.

[547] I.e. during the destruction of the city.

[548] This is the cup of inspiration, “full of the holy spirit, which, clear as water, is like fire” (Box).

[549] Box, _Op. cit._, p. 305; see also his Introduction, pp. lviii. ff.

[550] See above, pp. 198 ff.

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE

Footnotes [273], [457], [507] and [512] each have two anchors.

Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been
corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within
the text and consultation of external sources.

Some hyphens in words have been silently removed, some added,
when a predominant preference was found in the original book.

Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text,
and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained.

Pg ix: added missing page number ‘77’ for Ecclesiasticus.
Pg xiii: ‘(1 [3] Esdras)’ replaced by ‘(1 (3) Esdras)’.
Pg xiv: ‘(2 [4] Esdras)’ replaced by ‘(2 (4) Esdras)’.
Pg 124: ‘that three are’ replaced by ‘that there are’.
Pg 151: ‘this pseudepipraphic’ replaced by ‘this pseudepigraphic’.
Pg 174: ‘he might chose’ replaced by ‘he might choose’.
Pg 202: removed italic markup from ‘Burkitt’.
Pg 237: ‘should not trangress’ replaced by ‘should not transgress’.
Pg 268: ‘is my trangression’ replaced by ‘is my transgression’.
Pg 289: ‘together in the’ replaced by ‘together is the’.
Pg 293: ‘be sepa this’ replaced by ‘be separated from this’.
Pg 293: ‘the world to me’ replaced by ‘the world to come’.
Pg 386: ‘was astonied, and’ replaced by ‘was astonished, and’.
Pg 412: ‘centreing around’ replaced by ‘centering around’.
Pg 439: ‘(1 [3] Esdras)’ replaced by ‘(1 (3) Esdras)’.
Pg 485: ‘one is unevitably’ replaced by ‘one is inevitably’.
Pg 509: ‘(2 [4] Esdras)’ replaced by ‘(2 (4) Esdras)’.
Pg 515: ‘out of whch’ replaced by ‘out of which’.
Pg 523: ‘above the firmanent’ replaced by ‘above the firmament’.
Pg 535: entry ‘Civitis’ moved up to its proper position.

Footnote [240]: ‘Ecclesiaticus’ replaced by ‘Ecclesiasticus’.