It would be difficult to point to anything which illustrates more clearly the arbitrary way in which the books of the Apocrypha have been separated off from the rest of the Jewish uncanonical religious literature of the period with which we are dealing than the study of the doctrinal teaching of this literature. For in the Apocrypha only part of that teaching is represented; to obtain it in its fulness, so far as the literature of the period is extant, we have to consult such pseudepigraphic works as the Book of Enoch, the Sibylline Oracles, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Book of Jubilees, the Psalms of Solomon, the Assumption of Moses, the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, and the Ascension of Isaiah. But to take all these into consideration here is out of the question, and we have already given a brief outline of the more important doctrines taught in them (Chapter X). There is, however, one compensation in restricting ourselves to the books of the Apocrypha; for the more important of these were recognized by official Judaism as containing good orthodox teaching; so that in dealing with this body of literature alone we are at all events on more or less secure ground as far as orthodox Judaism is concerned, and to get at that as a foundation is useful for the further observance of the development of doctrine. At the same time, it is necessary to bear in mind that while in most respects the books of the Apocrypha afford, speaking generally, a criterion for the period B.C. 200-A.D. 100 as to orthodox Jewish teaching, in some respects they are inadequate, in others even insufficient, so that in such cases recourse must be had to the Apocalyptic Literature, though we cannot here take that Literature into fuller consideration.
Now in dealing with the Judaism of this period we must again emphasize what has already been stated several times, namely the existence of the external influences by which it was affected. The background of the Apocrypha books in the domain of doctrine is not solely the Old Testament, though this is, of course, their chief source of inspiration; but there have also been marked Persian and Greek influences in certain directions; it is essential that this should be recognized. This point has been admirably dealt with by Fairweather, and some of his words are well worth quoting; he rightly says that there have been “two great streams of influence flowing in upon the Jewish theology of this period, an Eastern and a Western, a Persian and a Greek. Of these by far the stronger was the Greek, though the Persian is as distinctly traceable ... the Persian current was that of Zoroastrianism; the Greek cannot be associated with a single name. Out of these two forces, which were new, or newly felt, active upon the native Judaism of Palestine, which was old, was formed that third which we meet within the home of Jewish theology of the period. But there was also a Jewish theology outside of Palestine altogether. Not only did foreign influences flow in upon Judaism, but Judaism, now no longer confined to Palestine, went out to meet them. Thus the hitherto unbroken river of Old Testament ideas and doctrines divided itself at this point into three separate streams. One, the main current, continued to flow on in Palestine; while on the east and west of it ran two other streams—the one through Persian territory, and the other through Greek. The tributaries of Persian and Greek ideas by which these streams respectively were fed necessarily caused their waters to be of a composite character, exceedingly difficult to analyse so as to say definitely, ‘This is Jewish, that is Persian,’ or ‘This is Jewish, that is Greek,’”[322] The main current of which Fairweather speaks represents Palestinian Judaism, while the other two streams powerfully affected the Judaism of the Dispersion; the differences between these two types of Judaism must be taken into consideration, for both types are represented in the books of the Apocrypha. We must also seek, as far as possible, to follow the teaching of the various books in chronological order. Differences of opinion exist, to be sure, regarding the actual dates of these, but there is in almost all cases approximate unanimity as to the centuries to which they belong. In some instances different parts of a book belong to different times; this will be taken into consideration where necessary. When, therefore, quotations are given to illustrate some point of doctrine they will be put, as far as possible, in chronological order; see the table on p. 320.
The doctrines to be dealt with are the following:
(a) The Doctrine of God.
(b) The Doctrine of the Law.
(c) The Doctrine of Sin.
(d) The Doctrine of Grace and Free-will.
(e) The Doctrine of the Messiah.
(f) The Doctrine of the Future Life.
(g) The Doctrine of Angels.
(h) Demonology.
The very important doctrine of Wisdom has already been considered in 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.
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:
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:
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:
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:
but the Pharisee deepens the sentiment by adding:
Another example is found in the addition to xvii. 20. Ben-Sira says:
to this the Pharisaic glossator adds:
The closeness of God to those who love Him is again brought out in the addition to xvii. 26a:
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:
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.
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:
The Law and Wisdom are used again as synonymous terms in xxxiv. (xxxi. in the Greek) 8:
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:
Equally direct are the words in xix. 20:
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:
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:
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:
Somewhat different in character, but breathing quite the same spirit, are the following words:
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:
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:
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:
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:
That the Law is meant by Wisdom, strength, and understanding is clear from the words at the end of the piece, iv. 1 ff.:
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:
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:
In vi. 4 rulers are denounced for not keeping the Law:
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.
The prevalence of Sin is often spoken of in Ecclesiasticus; Ben-Sira realizes its existence personally when he says in xxii. 27:
And again in xxiii. 3 ff.:
Its universal prevalence is witnessed to by the words in viii. 5:
Punishment for every sin, Ben-Sira says, will assuredly overtake sinners:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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: