The Books of the Apocrypha

Chapter XII The Ezra Apocalypse (2 (4) Esdras)

[Literature.—Volkmar, Das Vierte Buch Esra (1863); Drummond, The Jewish Messiah (1877); Lupton, in Wace (1888); Kabisch, Das vierte Buch Esra auf seine Quellen untersucht (1889); Schürer, Op. cit., II, iii. pp. 93-114 (1891) German ed. III. pp. 315-335 (1909); Ball, in The Variorum Apocrypha; Bensly and James, The Fourth Book of Ezra; the Latin Version edited from the MSS., in “Texts and Studies,” III, 2 (1895); Charles, The Apocalypse of Baruch, pp. lxvii.-lxxvi (1896); Gunkel, in Kautzsch, II, pp. 331-401; Violet, Die Esra-Apokalypse (4 Esra) (1910...); Box, The Ezra-Apocalypse (1912); Box, in Charles, II, pp. 542-624.]

I. The Title of the Book

As we shall see, chapters i. ii. xv. xvi. did not originally belong to our book and are only found in the Latin Version (the Greek Version is not extant). In the oriental Versions (Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic, Armenian) the book consists of only chapters iii.-xiv. In the later Latin MSS. we often find that: “2 Esdras” = chapters i. ii., “3 Esdras” = 1 Esdras of our Apocrypha, “4 Esdras” = chapters iii.-xiv., and “5 Esdras” = chapters xv. xvi. of our book. The reason, therefore, why the book is often referred to as 2 (4) Esdras is because what in our Apocrypha is designated “2 Esdras” is in the Vulgate entitled “4 Esdras.”535

The book is a pseudepigraph,536 for although the name of Esdras (Ezra) occurs in the title, it is obvious, as will be seen as we proceed, that no part of the book can have been written by him. For the reason of such false ascriptions of authorship, see above, pp. 200 ff.

Since the book consists of three independent writings it will be necessary to consider each separately. We shall deal with the two later additions first.

II. Chapters I. Ii

These chapters, which tell how Ezra received the commission to declare to the Jews their rejection by God, contains a curious mixture of Jewish and Christian teaching; i. 4-27 speaks of the deliverance from Egypt and the wanderings in the wilderness somewhat after the manner of Psalm cvi. A number of other passages suggest a mental atmosphere which is Jewish, notably i. 38-40, where it is said that “a people that come from the east” will have for their leaders the patriarchs and the prophets; the enumeration which follows includes the names of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and those of the twelve minor prophets. In another passage (i. 8) evil is threatened against the Jews because they have been disobedient to the Law. On the other hand, these chapters plainly tell of the rejection of the nation as a whole, e.g. i. 7: “Let them be scattered abroad among the heathen, let their names be blotted out of the earth; for they have despised my covenant”; their heritage is to be given to others who have now become the people of God: “Tell my people that I will give them the kingdom of Jerusalem, which I would have given unto Israel.” This “kingdom of Jerusalem” is the “new Jerusalem,” as is clear from the concluding verses of the whole piece (ii. 42-48): “I, Esdras, saw upon the mount Sion a great multitude, whom I could not number, and they all praised the Lord with songs. And in the midst of them there was a young man of a high stature, taller than all the rest, and upon every one of their heads he set crowns.... Then said I unto the angel: ‘What young man is he that setteth crowns upon them, and giveth them palms in their hands?’ So he answered and said unto me: ‘It is the Son of God, Whom they have confessed in the world.’...” There are, moreover, a number of passages which are obviously based upon words in the Gospels, e.g.: “I gathered you together as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings” (i. 30, cp. Matt, xxiii. 37); “I sent unto you my servants the prophets, whom ye have taken and slain, and torn their bodies in pieces, whose blood I will require [of your hands]” (i. 32, cp. Luke xi. 50, 51); “Ask, and ye shall receive; pray for few days unto you, that they may be shortened; the kingdom is already prepared for you; watch” (ii. 13, cp. Matt. vii. 7, xxiv. 22, xxv. 13, 32).

It seems, therefore, probable, that these chapters were written by a Jewish-Christian, who compiled them from various sources. They are a later addition to the body of the book, though they contain material which is older. It is impossible to say when they were added, but there can be no doubt that they were prefixed before chapters xv. xvi. were added.

III. Chapters Xv. Xvi

These chapters form an appendix to the book itself; they consist of denunciations against Egypt (xv. 5-27), Asia and Babylon (xv. 28-xvi. 17); while the remaining section, “The beginning of sorrows” (xvi. 18-78) is a prophecy of terrors and tribulation which are to come upon the world; only the Lord’s elect shall ultimately be delivered. The entire section is written in the style of the Old Testament prophets, interspersed, however, with words and thoughts from the New Testament; e.g.: “... he that occupieth merchandize, (let him be) as he that hath no profit by it; and he that buildeth, as he that shall not dwell therein; he that soweth, as if he should not reap; so also he that pruneth, as he that shall not gather grapes; they that marry, as they that shall get no children; and they that marry not, as the widowed” (xvi. 41-44, cp. 1 Cor. vii. 29-31).

The chapters, therefore, partake to some extent of the character of chapters i. ii., though the denunciation of the Jewish nation is here quite absent. As to their date, Thackeray, following Hilgenfeld (Messias Judæorum, p. 208) says they are placed “about A.D. 268 by most critics; xv. 10-12 refers to the troubles of Alexandria under Gallienus (260-268), when two-thirds of the population were destroyed by a plague following upon a famine (Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., vii. 21, 22). xv. 28-33 refers to the conquests of the Sassanidæ, especially Sapor I (240-273), who overran Syria, but was repulsed by Odenathus and Zenobia, the founders of Palmyra; they, in turn, were defeated by Aurelian. xv. 33 describes the murder of Odenathus at Emesa (266) by his cousin Mæonius. xv. 34 ff. refer to the invasion of Asia Minor by the Goths and Scythians from the north of the Euxine; Gallienus marched against them, but was recalled by the revolt of Aureolus. xv. 46 alludes to the association of Odenathus in the Empire, A.D. 264.”537

IV. The Component Parts of Chapters iii.-xiv

Before we come to consider the contents of the various sections composing our book it will be well to enumerate them, and to discuss shortly the question of their authorship and date.

(a) The Salathiel Apocalypse (iii.-x.); this is divided into four Visions:

First Vision, iii. 1-v. 20.
Second Vision, v. 21-vi. 34.
Third Vision, vi. 35-ix. 25.
Fourth Vision, ix. 26-x. 59.

(b) The Eagle Vision (xi.-xii. 39); the passage xii. 40-51 is not part of the Vision.

(c) The Vision of the Man rising from the Sea (xiii.).

(d) An Ezra Legend (xiv.).

Whether all this matter is to be assigned to one or more authors is a question concerning which a variety of opinions are held by scholars. But on two points there is scarcely room for diversity of view; in the first place, a great deal that occurs in the book is traditional material which has been utilized by the writer; this applies more especially to the eschatological portions; examples will be given when we come to speak about these parts of the book. The sources whence the writer of our book took this traditional material may well have been, in all probability were, written ones; but the excerpts which were made from such writings have been so interwoven with what the writer himself composed that the attempt to indicate precisely how much belongs to a particular source seems to us somewhat precarious. At any rate, that the writer did utilize various sources will not be doubted. Another point upon which there can scarcely be disagreement is that the final form of the work is due to a redactor who has brought the component parts of the book into a more or less connected whole.

Coming now to speak of the date of the book it must be explained that by this is meant the date at which the author wrote it. Since he used traditional material much of the essence of the book goes back to a time long anterior to that of the writer. Again, the book in its present form, having been worked over by a redactor, is obviously of a later date than that in which it left the original writer’s hands. Furthermore, the study of the book makes it evident that the different parts of which it is composed were not all written at the same time. Even if the whole book (apart from i. ii. xv. xvi.) is substantially the work of one author, there is no sort of doubt that he must have written the different parts of it at different times. Bearing these points in mind we turn first to the Salathiel Apocalypse. In iii. 1 it is said that “in the thirtieth year after the ruin of the city” (cp. iii. 29), Salathiel (= Shealtiel) was in Babylon, and “thoughts came up over his heart for he saw the desolation of Sion.” The writer looks back and recalls to his mind the terrible catastrophe which befel his people long ago; it was in the year B.C. 586 that Jerusalem was destroyed and the nation was carried into captivity to Babylon. Thirty years after this Salathiel, living in captivity, contemplated the ruin of the city and the dire distress of his people. The writer chooses this episode and writes in the name of Salathiel, because he sees in it a type of his present experience; now again the city has been ruined, and he, like Salathiel of old, contemplates the desolation of his people. Clearly enough there is but one destruction, after that of B.C. 586, of Jerusalem which can be meant here, namely that of A.D. 70 by Titus. So that when the writer gives the thirtieth year after the ruin of the city as that in which he experienced the visions he is about to describe, the date of this portion of the book must be set down as not later than A.D. 100.

Regarding the date of the Eagle Vision, it is generally agreed to be about A.D. 96; the indications of date in the Vision are fairly clear; we shall point out what these are when dealing with this Vision.

The Vision of the Man rising from the Sea contains more of traditional elements than any other part of the book, so that as for as thought and conceptions are concerned it is probably the oldest portion of the whole book; but as adapted by our author it implies, as we shall see later, an historical situation prior to the destruction of Jerusalem i.e. before, but not long before, A.D. 70. The Ezra Legend in chapter xiv. belongs to the same period as the Salathiel Apocalypse, viz. about A.D. 100.

We shall now proceed to examine the contents and teaching of these Visions, and it will be best to take them in their chronological order.

V. The Vision of the Man Rising From the Sea538

This Vision is as follows:

And it came to pass after seven days that I dreamed a dream by night; and, behold, a wind arose from the sea, and it stirred up all the waves thereof. And I looked, and behold [that wind caused to arise up from the heart of the sea as it were the form of a man. And I looked, and behold], that man flew with the clouds of Heaven; and whithersoever he turned his face and looked, everything quaked that was seen by him; and whithersoever the voice from his mouth went, all that heard his voice melted away,539 like as wax melteth away when it feeleth the fire. And after this I looked, and behold, a multitude of men, without number, from the four winds of Heaven, were gathered together to war against the man who had arisen from the sea. And I looked, and behold, he cut out for himself a great mountain, and did fly upon it. But I sought to see the region of the place out of which the mountain had been cut; but I could not. And after this, I looked, and behold, all those who had gathered together against him to make war upon him, feared greatly; nevertheless they dared to fight. And behold, when he saw the onslaught of the approaching multitude, he neither raised his hand, nor took hold of spear or other warlike weapon; but I only saw how he sent forth from his mouth as it were a fiery stream, and from his lips a flaming breath, and from his tongue he shot forth a storm of sparks; and all these were mixed together, the fiery stream and the flaming breath and the mighty storm.540 And these fell upon the approaching multitude, ready to fight, and burned them all, so that suddenly nothing was seen of the immense multitude but the dust of ashes and the smell of smoke. And I looked, and was amazed. And after this I saw that man coming down from the mountain and calling unto himself another, a peaceful, multitude. And there drew unto him the faces of many men, some of whom were glad, and some were sorrowful, and some were bound, and some were leading others who were to be offered.

The writer’s interpretation of this Vision with which the rest of the chapter is taken up, is as follows: The man who ascended from the sea and flew with the clouds of Heaven is the Messiah; the innumerable multitude of men who fight against him, and who are annihilated, are the nations of the world; the great mountain which was cut out, and concerning which the seer was in perplexity, is the heavenly Jerusalem which came down from Heaven. The fiery stream, and flaming breath, and storm of sparks represent the fire of the Law whereby the enemies of the Messiah are annihilated. The peaceful multitude which the Messiah called unto himself are the ten tribes gathered out of the lands of the Dispersion. Those who were glad and those who were sorrowful are respectively Jews and Gentiles coming to do homage to the Messiah. Those who were bound were Jews who had been in captivity; while those who were leading others to be offered, were the heathen bringing Jews as an oblation to the Messiah, according to the word of the prophet: “And they shall bring all your brethren out of all the nations to be an oblation to Jehovah” (Isa. lxvi. 20).

Stress must be laid upon the fact that between the Vision itself and the writer’s explanation of it there are some incongruities; this, as Box truly points out (Op. cit., pp. 281 f.), “is a common phenomenon in apocalyptic; the material employed by the apocalyptists is often extremely old, and has been derived by the apocalyptic writer from a tradition which was already ancient when he wrote. The meaning of certain details in the fixed tradition which he uses is not always clear to the apocalyptic writer himself. Hence the lack of adjustment between certain features in the Vision and the interpretation.... Thus, here the rising of the man from the sea is explained (verse 52) as symbolical of the mysterious origin of the Messiah (My Son), and the peaceable multitude as the lost ten tribes. There are also features in the interpretation which have nothing corresponding to them in the Vision itself, viz., the internecine war of the nations before they band themselves together against the Messiah (verses 31 f.), and the mention of the survivors who are found ‘within my holy border,’ and whom the Messiah shall defend (verses 48, 49).... Thus the first point to be noted is that when the Vision first assumed a written form, the real significance of many features in the original Vision was already lost, and was obscured by a more or less artificially adjusted interpretation. In other words, religious thought and outlook had long outgrown those of the fixed tradition. It had become necessary to re-interpret the latter to suit later conditions.” What the Vision and many of its curious details really mean is an intricate, but very interesting, question; we cannot, however, deal with this here, and must direct those who desire further information on the subject to the following works: Gunkel, Chaos und Schöpfung in Urzeit und Endzeit, pp. 64 ff. (1895); Volz, Jüdische Eschatologie, pp. 220 ff. (1903); Gressmann, Der Ursprung der israelitisch-jüdischen Eschatologie, pp. 349 ff.; Oesterley, The Evolution of the Messianic Idea, passim (1908); Box, Op. cit., pp. 282 ff.

VI. The Eagle Vision

This Vision is too long to quote in full, but, put shortly, its contents are as follows: In his vision the seer sees an eagle ascending out of the sea, having twelve wings and three heads. The eagle spreads her wings over all the earth, and the winds of heaven blow upon her. Out of her wings eight smaller wings grow; but her heads remain at rest. The middle head was greater than the others, “yet rested it with them.” Then the eagle flew to reign over the earth, and all the earth was subject unto her. And the seer heard the eagle bid her wings not all to watch at once, but each in turn; “but let the heads be kept until the end.” The voice which the seer heard came not from the heads, but from the midst of the eagle’s body. Then arose on the right side of the eagle one wing which reigned over the earth, and then disappeared; likewise a second wing arose, and reigned for long, then disappeared; but concerning this second wing a voice declared that after it none should reign even half as long. All the wings in turn arose, reigned, and then appeared no more. And now the seer sees the little wings set up, on the right side, in order to reign; some ruled, but disappeared almost at once, others rose up as though to rule, but did not. Nothing remained now on the eagle’s body but the three heads that rested, and six little wings. Two of these latter divided themselves from the rest and remained under the head that was upon the right side, the other four remained where they were. Of these four one assayed to reign, but quickly disappeared, then another vanished even more quickly; before the other two could arise to reign the middle head awoke and united itself to the other two heads which it then devoured. This head then ruled over all the earth with much oppression; but, like the wings, it, too, suddenly disappeared. There remained, however, the two heads, who also reigned over the earth; but presently that on the right side devoured that on the left. “Then,” the seer proceeds, “I heard a voice, which said unto me, Look before thee, and consider the thing that thou seest.” And he sees a lion which comes, roaring, out of a wood, and, speaking with the voice of a man, upbraids the eagle for her cruel oppression, and announces her approaching destruction, saying: “Therefore appear no more, thou eagle, nor thy horrible wings, nor thy evil little wings, nor thy cruel heads, nor thy hurtful talons, nor all thy worthless body; that all the earth may be refreshed, being delivered from thy violence, and may hope for judgement and mercy of him that made her.” While the lion spoke thus with the eagle the last head disappeared; and the two little wings which had detached themselves and had gone over to it, arose and sought to reign, but “their kingdom was small and full of uproar,” and they soon disappeared. “Then the whole body of the eagle was burned, so that the earth was in great fear.”

Thus the Vision; then follows the interpretation. The eagle who arose from the sea, he is told, “is the fourth kingdom which appeared in vision to thy brother Daniel.” In this kingdom twelve kings shall reign; these are represented by the twelve wings. Of these kings the second shall reign longer than any of the others. The eight smaller wings represented eight kings “whose times shall be small, and their years swift”; two of them shall perish when the “middle time” of the kingdom comes, four shall be preserved until the approach of the end, and two shall be kept until the end. The interpretation of the three heads as given to the seer is that in the last days of the kingdom the Most High will raise up three kings, who will renew many things in the kingdom, and bear tyrannous rule. “And whereas thou sawest that the great head appeared no more, it signifieth that one of them shall die upon his bed, and yet with pain. But for the two that remained, the sword shall devour them” (xii. 26, 27). The two wings that detached themselves and went to the head on the right are reserved for the end; for a short time they shall reign after the last head has disappeared, but their reign shall be troublous. The voice proceeding from “the midst of the body” means that “in the midst of the time of that kingdom” there shall arise “no small contentions, and it shall stand in peril of falling; nevertheless it shall not then fall, but shall be restored again to its first estate” (xii. 18). Finally, the lion is the “anointed one,” i.e. the Messiah, Whom the Most High has kept to the end of days.

The Vision represents history veiled in symbolical garb; as in the Vision of the Man rising from the sea, the seer’s interpretation does not always harmonize with the contents of the Vision itself; this is to be accounted for by the fact that a redactor made alterations in order to bring the Vision into agreement with the course of history as viewed from his, chronologically later, standpoint. As to the meaning of the general historical outline of which the Vision treats most scholars are agreed, but they differ as to details. The following table shows, in the main, the bulk of learned opinion (cp. Gunkel, Op. cit., p. 345):

The Eagle = The Roman Empire, the eagle being the military emblem of Rome.

The Sea = The Mediterranean sea; the Roman Empire, “for the Orientals, came up, as a matter of historical fact, from the sea, and it is this fact which is doubtless in the apocalyptist’s thought here” (Box).

The Twelve Wings = Julius Cæsar, Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vindex, Nymphidius, Piso. The second wing, mentioned in xi. 13-17, “which bare rule a great time,” symbolizes Augustus, who reigned for over fifty years.

The three heads Vespasian, Titus, Domitian; the middle head which is greater than the two others symbolizes Vespasian.

The eight smaller wings =?

The two little wings (xi. 24) = Mucianus, proconsul of Syria, and Tiberius Alexander, prefect of Egypt, according to Gunkel; but he says that this interpretation is uncertain. These two little wings are said to have remained under the head that was upon the right side; this head symbolizes Domitian.

The two heads that remained (xi. 34, 35) = Domitian and Titus, the latter is said to have been murdered by the former.

That this interpretation is not in all points satisfactory becomes clear as soon as it is studied in detail, and the same applies to other interpretations that have been offered; but recently a new solution has been put forth by Box which merits attention; we will give it in his own words (Op. cit., p. 265):

“It may be assumed that in the original form of the vision541 the three heads represent the three Flavian emperors; the twelve wings represent the six Julian emperors from Cæsar to Nero, reckoning the wings by pairs. The present writer suggests that the reckoning by pairs in the original vision was intended only to apply to the twelve wings, and had a symbolical significance. The pairs served to emphasize the greater dignity and power of the real emperors as contrasted with the ephemeral rulers symbolized by the little wings. In order to exaggerate the contrast the latter were intended to be reckoned singly. The eight little wings represent, in the original form of the vision, Vindex (March, 68), Nymphidius (a few months later)—these disappeared about the same time as the last of the twelve wings (end of Nero’s reign), as represented in our text (xi. 22). The middle four represent Galba, Otho, Civitis (died June, 69), and Vitellius (died Dec., 69). The two little wings that were to survive the last head probably signify Roman governors or generals who were expected to claim the imperial throne at the last, or possibly the two last members of the Herodian family, Agrippa II and Berenice.... In its original form, then, the vision may date from the closing years of Domitian’s reign (circa 95 A.D.). But if the editor did not incorporate it into his book—our Ezra-Apocalypse—till 120 A.D. or later (some time certainly in the reign of Hadrian), what, it may well be asked, was the significance he himself attached to the vision? He can no longer have identified the three heads with the Flavian emperors, seeing that the reigns of these had already long ended and the predicted deliverance had not yet come.” Box holds that the Redactor identified the three heads with Trajan, Hadrian and Lucius Quietus, the last of these being a favourite of Trajan and regarded as destined for the throne. Further, according to Box’s interpretation, the Redactor put a new meaning on to the “twelve wings,” these being symbolic of the six Julian emperors, Galba, Otho and Vitellius, together with the three Flavian emperors. There is much to be said in favour of this hypothesis, though it will not be denied that some difficulties still remain.542

VII. The Salathiel Apocalypse

This portion of our book, of which it forms the bulk, is of a very different character from those already considered. It consists of four Visions. We retain the term “Vision,” as it is that usually adopted, but they are rather Dialogues; the writer addresses God, but is answered by an angel. The questions put by the former are prompted by moral difficulties which trouble him; the answers are intended to solve these difficulties.

The First Vision (iii. 1-v. 19).

Salathiel, “the same is Esdras,” sees the desolation of Sion, and the prosperity of Babylon. This incongruousness between the adversity of God’s chosen people and the prosperity of the godless Gentiles causes perplexity to the mind of the seer, and prompts him “to speak words full of fear to the Most High.” In the thoughts which follow it is noticeable, first of all, that the writer expresses a sense of sin which was deeper than that of the traditional Jewish teaching on the subject. Hitherto the tendency had been to regard transgressions solely from the point of view of isolated acts; but here the conviction is implied that such isolated sinful acts are symptomatic of something far worse than temporary lapses would lead one to suppose; from Adam onwards, it is now taught, the whole human race has been steeped in sin; the existence not merely of sinful men but of sinful humanity—the realization of this fact is what plunges the writer into dark despair. Hence the sorrow and suffering in the world: “For the first Adam, clothing himself with a wicked heart, transgressed and was overcome; and not he only, but all they also who were born of him. Thus disease was made permanent” (iii. 21, 22); there is no hope in this world. Then a further thought comes into the writer’s mind; sin is everywhere prevalent, but how is it that while Israel suffers for sin the Gentiles are in such prosperity? Nay, more, is there any other nation that knows God besides Israel? And yet Israel is not rewarded! Let God, therefore, weigh the sins of each in the balance. All men sin; yet assuredly Israel, if not better, is not worse than the Gentiles; nevertheless, these prosper, but Israel languishes. Then comes God’s answer, given by the angel Uriel; it takes the form of calling upon the seer to do three things:

“Weigh me the weight of fire.”
“Measure me the measure of the wind.”
“Recall me the day that is past.”

But Esdras answers, who among the sons of man could do such things! Then the angel says, if I had asked thee how many dwellings there are in the heart of the sea, or how many springs in the source of the deep, or how many ways above the firmament, or where is the entrance to Hades, or the way to Paradise—with reason thou wouldst have been unable to say; but I have asked thee only concerning things within thine own cognizance, and thou canst give me no answer! Then the angel concludes: “Thine own things, that are grown up with thee, canst thou not know; how then can thy vessel [i.e. the body; containing the soul] comprehend the way of the Most High” (iv. 10, 11). In other words, God’s ways are inscrutable. This does not satisfy Esdras; so the angel proceeds to show him how foolish it is for a mortal man to wish to penetrate into the divine secrets; he would, in any case, be unable to understand them; “he only that dwelleth above the heavens may understand the things that are above the height of the heavens” (iv. 21). To this Esdras protests that it was not in his mind “to be curious of the ways above,” but only concerning such things as he sees daily before him. What he is unable to understand—and here he reverts to his initial difficulty—is why Israel should be afflicted, and in consequence the Law made of none effect. Then he is told that a New Age is about to dawn upon the world, and then all things will be made clear. On Esdras asking when the New Age will come, and whether he will still be on the earth then, the angel answers that he is unable to tell; but he recounts the signs that are to precede the end. These are given in v. 1-12; they are, in the main, the traditional and stereotyped eschatological “signs.” Thus ends the first Vision.

The Second Vision (v. 21-vi. 34).

The subject-matter of this Vision is the same as that of the preceding. Why does Israel suffer at the hand of oppressors? The angel replies by again showing Esdras that the ways of God cannot be comprehended by man, but that in spite of what appears God’s love is for His people. The seer then asks much about the coming of the End, and is told that this will be brought about by God alone.543 The Vision concludes with a second enumeration of the signs of the End.

The Third Vision (vi. 35-ix. 25).

Once more the problem which was the burden of the two first Visions is reiterated, though put in a somewhat different form: if the world was created for Israel’s sake, and if the world is steeped in sin, why does Israel not enjoy his inheritance, why is the world not subjected to Israel? “If the world hath indeed been created for our sakes, why do we not possess the world for our inheritance? How long shall this endure?” (vi. 59). The angel tells Esdras that this present world is but a narrow and dangerous entrance which leads to the wide world which is to come; it was, indeed, originally created for Israel, but through Adam’s sin it has become a place of sorrow and suffering, and therefore the righteous suffer with the wicked. There follows then (vii. 26-44) a long eschatological description which seems to have fallen out of its place, it breaks the course of the argument here. In the glorious world which is to come, it then continues, only those will be worthy to partake of its joys who have fulfilled the Law; but who has truly done so? Who among mortals, whether Jew or Gentile, has not been guilty of transgressing the divine Law? The angel answers that there are some who are righteous, but they are comparatively few; for them future joy is reserved. The rest of mankind will perish. A long section then deals with the subject of the state of the soul after death and before the last Judgement. The righteous enter into bliss, but the wicked are destined to suffer seven degrees of torment. These descriptions, as Box truly remarks (Op. cit., p. 141), are “psychological in character, and apparently portray the emotional experiences of the soul through which it passes during the entire period of the intermediate state. In its subtle delineation of the soul-life the whole section is remarkable, and by the elevation and refinement of its conceptions affords a striking contrast to similar descriptions in other parts of the apocalyptic literature.”

It is then shown to the seer that there is no escape for sinners, and he bitterly bewails the terrible fate hanging over the mass of humanity. But the angel has no further comfort to give than that there is more joy in heaven over the salvation of the few than sorrow over the loss of the many. Not unnaturally this reply does not satisfy the seer; he cannot think that the divine mercy and love, which are so lavishly displayed in the natural world around, should be so restricted in regard to souls hereafter. The reply to his question suggested by this thought, viz., that this world was made for the many, but the next for few, is so discouraging that he ceases to inquire concerning the human race as a whole, and restricts himself to his own race, the Jewish. But here again he is told that only the righteous, among whom he is reckoned, can enjoy felicity hereafter; he is bidden to refrain from further questionings regarding the fate of the wicked; they have but themselves to thank for their doom.544 The seer reiterates his former objection; to this a final reply is given: All the sorrow and suffering of this world is due to the sins of men; there was a time, before men were created, when none spoke against God, or disobeyed Him; but now men are evil, and have become “corrupted in their manners” (ix. 19); only a grape from the cluster, therefore, only a plant from the great forest, shall, by God’s mercy, be saved. “Let the multitude perish then, which has been born in vain; and let my grape be saved, and my plant; for with great labour have I made them perfect” (ix. 22).

The Fourth Vision (ix. 26-x. 59).

This Vision begins with a soliloquy concerning the Law which God gave to the fathers, but they did not observe it any more than later generations did; Israel must, therefore, perish; but the Law will abide in glory. In the same way, the earthly Jerusalem must perish, but the heavenly Jerusalem is eternal; upon this latter hope must be fixed, for it is to be the joy of those blessed ones who shall gain a glorious immortality in the world to come. The seer then recounts a vision that he sees of a disconsolate woman who brought up an only son, and he died on his wedding day. While the seer speaks with this woman, he looks, and behold she vanishes, and in her place “there was a city builded, and a place showed itself of large foundations” (x. 27). The woman is the heavenly Jerusalem, her son is the earthly Jerusalem. The heavenly reality is thus manifested to the seer, and he is bidden to go and see “the beauty and greatness of the building.... For thou art blessed above many, and with the Most High art called by name, like as but few” (x. 55-57).

---

In these Visions, then, it will have been noticed that the problem which figures in some of the later Psalms, and in the Book of Job, as to why the righteous suffer and the wicked are in prosperity, is reiterated; the solution given being that the righteous will come to their own when they attain immortal life hereafter. The writer is deeply pessimistic as far as this world is concerned; the universal prevalence of sin which is ingrained in humanity through the fall of Adam, and through which death, originally unnatural to man, has come into the world, compels him to look upon the ultimate fate of humanity as hopeless. Though an ardent Jew, he sees but little hope even for himself or for his own people; the divine Law itself is of no avail, for it cannot be truly observed; “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.”545 There is, thus, an essential contradiction running through these Visions; on the one hand, hope in the world to come, on the other, hopelessness here and hereafter because all mankind is irretrievably lost through sin. Nothing could better illustrate those alternating emotions which incessantly stir the human heart: the voice of Conscience, and trust in the Divine Mercy. If our writer’s heart remains dark to the end, it is because his true instinct concerning sin is not balanced by an equally true conception of God. At first sight it appears illogical that, in spite of all that the writer has said, happiness hereafter should be declared to be secured for a righteous remnant, among whom he himself is included; the reason for this is, however, apparently that God’s purpose in creating man for eternal life should not be wholly frustrated.

In his eschatological teaching the writer of these Visions departs from the older doctrines; “he does not look forward to a restoration of the Jewish State, or a rebuilding of Jerusalem; nor to a renewed and purified earth under the conditions of the present world-order. His hopes are fixed on the advent of the new and better world which will follow the collapse of the present world. Consequently he anticipates merely the catastrophic end of the present world-order—his theology does not allow of any intermediate Messianic Age. The new Jerusalem which is to come will be the Heavenly City... which belongs to the future Age.”546

VIII. An Ezra Legend

In chapter xiv. occurs the legend of Ezra re-writing the sacred books. It tells of how Ezra, while sitting under an oak, heard the voice of God “out of a bush,” telling him that he would soon be taken away from men. He is told to set his house in order, to reprove his people, to comfort the lowly, to instruct the wise, and to renounce the life that is corruptible. Ezra expresses his readiness to do as commanded; but he asks who there will be to admonish those who are born after he is gone, for the world is in darkness and God’s Law is burnt.547 Then Ezra himself proposes that he should re-write the Law “that men may be able to find the path, and that they who would live in the latter days may live” (xiv. 22). He is then commanded to prepare many tablets and to take five men with him who can write swiftly; “and when thou hast done, some things shalt thou publish openly, and some things shalt thou deliver in secret to the wise” (xiv. 26). Ezra does as he is commanded after having asked for the divine spirit to guide him; so that before he commences his work he is given a cup to drink from, full of water, but the colour of it like fire.548 When he had drunk from this cup his heart poured forth understanding, and wisdom grew in his breast, and his spirit retained its memory. For forty days he dictated, and by the end of this time ninety-four books were written by the five scribes. Then he is commanded by the Most High to publish openly the first twenty-four books that had been written, so that they might be read by the worthy and the unworthy; but the last seventy he is told to keep in order to deliver them to “such as be wise” among his people. This Ezra does. Here the legend ends abruptly.

The twenty-four books refer to the canonical books of the Bible, “the seventy secret books included, we may infer, not only the book of signs and the secret (apocalyptic) tradition associated with the name of Moses, but many other apocalyptic books as well.... Thus, according to the representation of our chapter, Ezra, i.e. the historical Ezra living in Jerusalem in the middle of the fifth century B.C., was the restorer not only of the canonical books of the Old Testament, but also of the large apocalyptic literature, including some apocalyptic books which detailed visions and revelations that had, ostensibly, occurred to himself.... This amounts to a claim that the apocalyptic tradition occupies an essential place in genuine Judaism. It claims for itself the great names of Moses and Ezra, ‘the second Moses.’”549 Box suggests that the object of the publication of our book, and of associating it with the name of Ezra, was to uphold, or to re-assert, the authority of the apocalyptic literature, and thus gain for it “an officially recognized place within Judaism as part of the oral tradition.” That this was one of the objects for which the book was published seems highly probable when it is remembered that the Jewish religious authorities rejected the apocalyptic literature as a whole550; it was to be expected that the apocalyptists should make strenuous efforts to secure the recognition of books which, as they believed, recorded genuine tradition, and which in any case taught much that was edifying.

Like the apocalyptic literature in general, this story of a divine revelation accorded to Ezra to re-write all the sacred books which had been destroyed, enjoyed considerable recognition among the Church Fathers; it was known not only as included in our book, but as an independent tradition. For references to it in patristic writings see Bensly and James, Op. cit., pp. xxxvii. f.

---

Every reader of the Ezra-Apocalypse must, as he reads, be very soon struck by the many reminiscences of Pauline thought and teaching which it contains. But as the book is later than almost all the books of the New Testament this is not the place to deal with this important and fascinating subject; to those who might wish to pursue the study of the connection between 4 Esdras and Pauline teaching on such doctrines as the Fall and Sin, the Law, Election, Justification and Eschatology, etc., no better English book could be recommended than Thackeray’s The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought (1900).

Footnotes

1 His first victory was in B.C. 334 on the river Granicus, where he overcame the generals of Darius. In 333 came the decisive victory at Issus, when Darius himself was defeated. In 332 Alexander marched victoriously down the coast of Syria. In 331 he became master of Egypt; and later in the same year he inflicted a crushing defeat again on Darius, taking Babylon and Susa. In 330 he continued his victories in Persia. During the next five years he was occupied in the further east, fighting with invariable success. He died suddenly in 323.

2 Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, pp. 4 ff.

3 See, e.g., Wendland, Op. cit., pp. 2-11, and the works of Wilamovitz referred to by him.

4 The House of Seleucus, I, p. 17.

5 Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (1st ed.), p. 294.

6 The Philology of the Greek Bible, p. 61. See also an interesting article by M. F. Jones, “The Language of the New Testament,” in the Church Quarterly Review, October, 1913, pp. 113-133.

7 Cp. Krüger, Op. cit., p. 9.

8 Cp. Wendland, Op. cit., p. 54.

9 The city was founded in B.C. 331.

10 Zeno, the founder of the Stoic school, was born in B.C. 342, and died in B.C. 270. Cp. Bevan, Stoics and Sceptics, Lecture ii. pp. 47-81.

11 Cp. Wendland, Op. cit., p. 49.

12 Bevan, The House of Seleucus, pp. 9, 10.

13 Cp. Wendland, Op. cit., p. 107.

14 B.C. 341-270, his lifetime thus coincided almost exactly with that of Zeno.

15 This had, it is true, to some extent taken place in earlier times as well; but not in the way in which it was done during the Hellenistic period, of which it was characteristic.

16 Cp. Kaerst, Op. cit., II, i. pp. 279 ff.

17 See Kaerst, Op. cit., II, i. p. 279; and on the general subject, Rev. G. Friedländer, Hellenism and Christianity, chap. II.

18 Wendland, Op. cit., p. 128, where references to original authorities will be found. We are reminded of Acts xvii. 23, where St. Paul speaks of an altar which he had seen with the inscription: “To an unknown god.” On the whole subject of altars dedicated to “unknown gods” an immense deal of valuable matter will be found in Norden’s Agnostos Theos, pp. 31-124 (1913).

19 Ezra vii. 10, x. 11.

20 See Ezra ix. 1, 2.

21 Cp. Ezra x. 17.

22 Cheyne, Job and Solomon, p. 181.

23 It may be well to recall here the following facts; at the death of Alexander in B.C. 323 his empire was divided thus among his generals: Antigonus obtained the provinces of Greater Phrygia, Lycia, and Pamphylia; Seleucus, Babylonia; Ptolemy, Egypt; Lysimachus, the Hellespont; and Cassander, Macedonia (cp. Josephus, Antiq., XII. i. 1). Incessant wars, however, went on among these rulers. But in B.C. 302 an alliance against Antigonus was made, or rather renewed, by the four other kings; and in the following year, as a result of the battle of Ipsus, the kingdom of Antigonus (he, in common with the other rulers, had assumed the title of king) came to a final end. The victorious allies divided his kingdom among themselves thus: Seleucus got Syria proper; Lysimachus, a large portion of Asia Minor; Cassander, Macedonia and Greece; while to the Egyptian kingdom of Ptolemy was added Cœle-Syria (not, however, without a protest from Seleucus), which remained in the possession of the Ptolemys for a century; it was finally conquered by Antiochus III (the Great), through his victory at Panias (B.C. 198), and it thus reverted to the Syrian kingdom.

24 Cp. Schechter, Studies in Judaism (Second Series), p. 72.

25 He had, for example, settled Macedonians in Samaria.

26 See further, Grote, The History of Greece, X, pp. 208 ff.

27 Op. cit., II, i. pp. 57-58, German ed. II, p. 95. Cp. also Josephus, Antiq., XIII, xiii. 3, Bell. Jud., II, xxi. 9.

28 “So long as the Jewish State existed the principle of solidarity remained in force.... But as soon as the nation is dead, when the bonds that unite men in the organism of national life are dissolved, then the idea of individual responsibility comes into immediate operation” (Expositor’s Bible, p. 143; ed. by W. Robertson Nicoll).

29 Fairweather and Black, The First Book of Maccabees, p. 60 (Cambridge Bible).

30 Jerusalem under the High-priests, p. 35.

31 See Josephus, Antiq., XII, v. 1; see also Büchler’s Die Tobiaden und die Oniaden..., pp. 8 ff.

32 Josephus, Antiq., XII, iii. 1, says that in Antioch the Jews had privileges equal to those of the Macedonians and Greeks.

33 A broad-brimmed hat which, as the mark of Hermes, was the badge of the palæstra (wrestling-school).

34 See also verses 18-20, and vi. 1-11; and cp. 1 Macc. xi. 21.

35 Though Hellenistic influence asserted itself again at the beginning of the Christian era; it was, in effect, never wholly thrown off.

36 Op. cit., II, i. pp. 31-47, German ed. II, pp. 59-89; and see also Krauss, Talmudische Archäologie, II, pp. 349 ff.

37 Op. cit., II, i. p. 30, German ed. II, p. 57.

38 Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte, pp. 297 f. (1907).

39 Cp. what was said in the preceding chapter about religious syncretism being a characteristic of the Hellenistic Movement.

40 Transactions of the International Congress for the History of Religions, I, pp. 276 f. (1908).

41 Op. cit., pp. 488 f.

42 For details see Oesterley and Box, The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue, pp. 195-221 (1911).

43 Jerusalem under the High-priests, pp. 41 f., and see Lecture III in the same writer’s book, Stoics and Sceptics, pp. 85-118.

44 Quoted by Reinach, Textes d’auteurs grecs et romains relatifs au Judaisme, pp. 20 f. (1895).

45 See, for other theories regarding the derivation of the name, Lightfoot, Colossians, pp. 349 ff.

46 Zeller says: “They exhibit so important a relationship to the Neo-Pythagoreans that we can only assume that they arose under the influence of Orphic Pythagorean asceticism, and subsequently, after the formation of a Neo-Pythagorean philosophy, adopted many of its doctrines” (Outlines of Greek Philosophy, p. 317). Wendland (Op. cit., p. 191, note 2) disagrees with this; he believes it improbable as being a hypothesis insufficiently supported by the facts.

47 Bell. Jud., II, viii. 2.

48 Quod omn. prob., ii. 457. Josephus (Bell. Jud., II, viii. 4) says, on the other hand, that “they have no one certain city, but many of them dwell in every city”; but even if they did live in cities in the time of Josephus, they kept entirely to themselves, for he says elsewhere of them that “as they live by themselves they minister one to another” (Antiq., XVIII, i. 5).

49 De septen., ii. 279, quoted by Friedländer, Die rel. Bewegungen, p. 124.

50 Bell. Jud., II, viii. 2; cp. also Antiq., XVIII, i. 5; Philo, Frag., ii. 632 (quoted by Friedländer, Op. cit., p. 143); Pliny, Hist. Nat., v. 17.

51 Friedländer, Op. cit., p. 43.

52 Antiq., XIII, v. 9.

53 Bell. Jud., II, vii. 11.

54 Antiq., XIII, xi. 2, XV, x. 5, XVII, xiii. 3.

55 Die rel. Bewegungen, p. 8.

56 From a slab-inscription found at Nimroud; see Pinches, The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records of Assyria and Babylonia, p. 363.

57 He reigned from B.C. 358-338.

58 Syncellus, i. 486 (ed. Dindorf).

59 The ancient Jêb, situated at the southern extremity of a small island in the Nile, between two and three miles long, not far below the first cataract and opposite Assouan, the ancient Syene.

60 These papyri belong to the period B.C. 494-400, i.e., from the twenty-seventh year of the reign of Darius I, through the reigns of Xerxes (485-465), Artaxerxes I (465-424), Darius II (424-405), to the fifth year of Amyrtæus, who threw off the Persian yoke and made Egypt independent.

61 The Jewish governor under Darius II was, according to the papyri, one Jedoniah.

62 A detailed account of the excavations at Elephantiné during the years 1906-1908 is given in the Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache, vol. xlix. (1909). The most elaborate work on the subject is Sachau’s Aramäische Papyrus und Ostraka aus einer jüdischen Militärkolonie zu Elephantine (1911). An excellent smaller work is Ed. Meyer’s Der Papyrusfund von Elephantine (1912), which has been translated into English. A valuable text-book for students is Ungnad’s Aramäische Papyrus aus Elephantine (1911).

63 Guthe, in the Encycl. Bibl., I, 1110.

64 Quoted in Josephus, Antiq., XIV, vii, 2; cp. 1 Macc. xv. 16-24, from which it can be seen that Jewish settlements existed not only in Egypt, but also in Syria, Asia Minor, along the Mediterranean coast, and elsewhere.

65 Quoted in Josephus, Antiq., XIX, v. 2.

66 Bell. Jud., II, xviii. 7.

67 In Flaccum, § 8 (ed. Mangey, II, p. 525).

68 In Flaccum, § 6 (ed. Mangey, II, p. 523).

69 For full details see Schürer, II, ii. pp. 219-327, German ed., III, pp. 1-188.

70 Cp. Josephus, Bell. Jud., VI, ix. 3.

71 See further § IV of this chapter.

[72] This document belongs roughly to about the year B.C. 100; though Schürer would place it a century earlier; many modern scholars, however, disagree with him in this.

73 Cp. Bousset, Die Religion des Judenthums, pp. 405 ff.

74 When we find that in the first centuries of Christianity even orthodox Rabbis were to be found who held that Baptism without Circumcision sufficed for proselytes we may well ask whether the result of the Hellenistic spirit was not a contributory cause of such a lapse from traditional Judaism.

75 Transactions of the Third International Congress for the History of Religions, I, p. 277.

76 It is dealt with in Schürer, II, iii. pp. 156-320; German ed., III, pp. 420-633.

77 Some account of the Pseudepigrapha, which are partly Palestinian, but mainly Græco-Jewish, is given below, Chap. X.

78 B.C. 285-246.

79 Some scholars assign this to the reign of Ptolemy VI (Philometor), B.C. 182-146.

80 Philo and Holy Scripture, p. 32 (1895); see also Swete, Op. cit., pp. 25 f.

81 Cp. Meyer, Der Papyrusfund von Elephantiné, p. 19.

82 For the further history of the Septuagint, and for the labours of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and above all of Origen, Swete’s book, already mentioned, should be consulted.

83 The Philology of the Greek Bible, p. 8.

84 Cohn and Wendland’s edition.

85 Antiq., XVIII, viii. 1 ff.

86 “The philosophy which Philo expounds is essentially the popular Greek philosophy, a blend of Platonism, Pythagoreanism, and Stoicism, slightly modified by the Hebrew belief in God” (Edwyn Bevan, Stoics and Sceptics, p. 94).

87 It is of importance for Christian theology to notice that in several passages (see Lightfoot, Colossians and Philemon, p. 216) Philo interprets “the image of God” to mean the “Logos”; so that when, in Gen. i. 27, man is said to have been created in “the image of God,” it means that he was created in the likeness of the “Logos.”

88 De Migratione Abrahami, § 18, quoted by Lauterbach.

89 On the whole subject of the relation between the Philonian and the Johannine Logos doctrines see Réville, La doctrine du Logos dans le quatrième évangile et dans les œuvres de Philon (1872); Baldensperger, Der Prolog des Vierten Evangeliums (1898).

90 For the influence of Philo upon St. Paul see Thackeray, The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought, passim (1900).

91 Cp. Ed. Meyer, Geschichte des Alterthums, I, pp. 490 ff.

92 Cp. Robertson Smith, in the Encycl. Brit., XIII, p. 705.

93 Box, The Book of Isaiah, p. 113.

94 Kamphausen in the Encycl. Bibl., I, 1009.

95 To give but two examples: Robertson Smith (The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, p. 212), after having examined the subject carefully, says: “We are thus led by a concurrence of arguments to assign the collection of Psalms xc.-cl. and the completion of the whole Psalter to the early years of the Maccabee sovereignty.” Briggs (The Book of Psalms, I, pp. xc., xci.) assigns a large number of the Psalms to the Greek period.

96 Cp. Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii., p. 215 (1888).

97 Griechische Philosophie im Alten Testament, pp. 25 f. (1904).

98 Friedländer, in his book just referred to, sees many other signs of Greek influence in the Psalms (pp. 15-58); it is probable that in some cases he is right; in others this is doubtful.

99 Cp. O. Holtzmann in Onken’s Allgemeine Geschichte in Einzeldarstellungen, II, p. 295.

100 Cp. Friedländer, Op. cit., p. 72.

101 e.g. Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis, I., v. 29, quoted by Friedländer, Op. cit., p. 73.

102 Cp. Stade, Op. cit., II, p. 216; O. Holtzmann, Op. cit., II, p. 297; M. Friedländer, Op. cit., pp. 79 ff.

103 Op. cit., II, p. 351.

104 Op. cit., p. 107. Friedländer’s contentions are combated by Krüger, Hellenismus und Judentum im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, pp. 22 ff.

105 Ecclesiastes, pp. 11 ff; he is followed by Plumptre in his Ecclesiastes; Siegfried, Prediger und Hoheslied, and Haupt, Koheleth; Krüger and Friedländer hold the same view.

106 See further, Haupt, Op. cit., p. 6.

107 The Book of Ecclesiastes, pp. 34-43.

108 Op. cit., p. 38.

109 Einleitung in das Alte Testament, p. 262 (1896); Friedländer puts it more strongly, see Die rel. Bewegungen..., p. 1, Griechische Philosophie..., pp. 131 ff.

110 Comm. in Eccles., quoted by Cheyne, Job and Solomon, p. 262.

111 Op cit., p. 262.

112 Op. cit., p. 271.

113 Few, we imagine, would date Ecclesiastes earlier than the middle of the third century B.C. at the earliest.

114 Cheyne, Op. cit., p. 265.

115 See the present writer’s Ecclesiasticus in the Cambridge Bible, p. xxv.

116 Jewish Encycl., XI, 390a.

117 This is an exaggeration; what Ben-Sira says is:
Speak, O elder, for it is thy privilege;
  But be discreet in understanding, and hinder not song....
Speak, O young man, if thou art compelled....
  Sum up thy speech, say much in little (xxxii. 3-8, in Hebrew).

118 Cp. Ecclesiastes xii. 7: “... and the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit (rūach) return to God Who gave it.”

119 Outlines of Greek Philosophy (English translation, 1909), pp. 152 f., where references to Plato’s works are given in support of what is said.

120 Unless nĕphĕsh is used in the sense of nĕshāmāh in 1 Samuel xxv. 29, where Abigail says to David: “... Yet the soul (nĕphĕsh) of my lord shall be bound in the bundle (or bag) of life with the Lord thy God; and the souls of thine enemies, them shall He sling out, as from the hollow of a sling”; but it is probably a quite different set of ideas which comes into question here. At the same time the idea of God’s solicitude for the souls of His beloved which He takes care of in the “bundle of life,” and which are thus separable from the body even during life, might easily, with the advance of thought on the subject, suggest the pre-existence of the soul.

121 Cp. Weber, Jüdische Theologie, 2 ed., p. 205.

122 Menzel, Op. cit., p. 58.

123 Zeller, Op. cit., p. 155.

124 Op. cit., p. 155.

125 Op. cit., p. 147.

126 Cp. Zeller, Op. cit., pp. 229-255; Wendland, Die Hellenistisch-Römische Kultur... pp. 110-115.

127 Op. cit., p. 532.

128 The same as the Assidæans referred to in 1 Maccabees ii. 42.

129 Die rel. Bewegungen, p. 22.

130 Op. cit., p. 23.

131 The quotations from this book are from Charles’ translation.

132 The Ezra Apocalypse, pp. 35, 36.

133 Though this book is late it reflects earlier thought and practice.

134 Cp. also the verses which follow, and xlviii. 1, lviii. 1-4, etc.

135 Die rel. Bewegungen..., p. 25.

136 The verses which follow deal with the same subject; cp. the Book of Jubilees v. 13 ff., Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch lxxxv. 9.

137 Cp. xlviii. 7: “For in His name they are saved.”

138 See also the Psalms of Solomon, xvii., xviii.

139 The Pauline conception of a “spiritual body” was unknown to the Apocalyptists. The fact that this expression is a contradiction in terms need not trouble us; that is simply due to the impossibility of expressing spiritual truths adequately in human language.

140 As early as the end of the fourth century B.C. the Jews of Palestine became acquainted with the Platonic doctrine of immortality, though it was some time before this teaching was accepted, cp. Friedländer, Griechische Philosophie..., p. 12.

141 Quotations from the Apocalyptic Literature dealing with the subject of this section have been collected in the present writer’s The Doctrine of the Last Things, pp. 72-121.

142 i.e., “Governor.”

143 We have no information of what happened during the Exile itself regarding the teaching of the Law; but it is difficult to believe that such a zealous scribe and legalist as Ezra could have been inactive; his knowledge of the Law was not merely the result of his coming to Palestine, cp. Ezra vii. 6: “This Ezra went up from Babylon, and he was a ready scribe in the Law of Moses.”

144 Cp. Josephus, Antiq., XVIII, i. 3.

145 See, for details, Ryle, Ezra and Nehemiah, p. xxxv.

146 This is in accordance with Ben-Sira’s identification of Wisdom with the Law, see xv. 1, xxxiv. 8, etc.

147 It will be remembered that the Hebrews reckoned the historical books among the Prophets.

148 Assidæans, also written Hasidæans, is merely the Græcized form of the Hebrew Chassidim; in the Authorized Version the word is rendered “saints.”

149 Made high-priest by the Syrian king.

150 One of the Syrian generals.

151 Cp. 2 Maccabees xiv. 6.

152 In the original constitution of the Sanhedrin this was probably not the case; for, as first constituted, the priestly aristocracy, i.e., the Sadducæan party, dominated the Sanhedrin. The Sadducees were, however, unable to resist the growing power of what came to be the popular party, and before the New Testament period began both Scribes and Pharisees were fully represented in the Sanhedrin.

153 It is sometimes said that they were “separatists” in the sense that they desired Israel to be separate from all the world; but this ignores the fact that the Pharisees pursued an active missionary propaganda among the Gentiles, which is witnessed to, e.g., in Matthew xxiii. 15, where Christ says that the Pharisees “compass sea and land to make one proselyte.”

154 Antiq., XIII, x. 6.

155 This is the explanation given by some of the Church Fathers, e.g., Epiphanius, Haer. xiv., and Jerome, Comm. in Matth., xii. 23 (Schürer), as well as by some modern scholars.

156 Encycl. Bibl., iv. 4236. The present writer, in conjunction with Mr. Box, was inclined to accept this interpretation (The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue, p. 134), but further study of the subject has compelled them to revise their former view.

157 See the words of Josephus, Antiq., XIII, x. 6, quoted below.

158 Cp. Josephus, Antiq., XI, viii. 7; XII, ii. 5, iv. 1, 10.

159 Antiochus made Menelaus, who was not of priestly family, high-priest; after him Alkimus filled the office (1 Macc. vii. 5, 9); though a priest he was not of the sons of Zadok (Josephus, Antiq., XII, ix. 7). On the death of Alkimus (1 Macc. ix. 54-57) the Hasmonæan high-priesthood began (1 Macc. xiv. 30, 35, 41 ff.; cp. Josephus, Antiq., XIII, ii. 3).

160 Two objections have been raised against the view that the term Sadducees (Zaddūkim) takes its origin from the personal name Zadok. One is that the double d in Zaddūkim does not permit of its being derived from Zadok with only one; this objection would be serious were it not that in the Septuagint and in Josephus Zadok is spelled with two d’s. This objection, therefore, falls to the ground. The other is that there is nothing to show that the Sadducees were ever regarded as the sons of Zadok, nor that they themselves made such a claim. This argumentum e silentio, always precarious, is upset by the evidence of the Zadokite Fragments. Hölscher’s contention (Op. cit., pp. 102 ff.) that the term “sons of Zadok” was one of reproach does not appear to us to be necessary.

161 Vita, § 2, cp. Antiq., XVIII, i. 3.

162 Antiq., XV, x. 4.

163 Cp. Antiq., X, xi. 7 (towards the end), XIII, v. 9; Bell. Jud., II, viii. 14, where he speaks of these three as “the philosophic sects among the Jews.”

164 Vita, § 2.

165 Op. cit., p. 16.

166 This was first pointed by Jost, Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte, ii. p. 93, referred to by Leszynsky, p. 25.

167 Not to be confused with the Tosaphôth, i.e. the “additions” made to Rashi’s Commentary on the Talmud by his disciples, who for this reason are known as the Tosaphists.

168 Other Rabbinical sources, of less importance, are given by Leszynsky, Op. cit., pp. 36 ff.

169 See further, Hölscher, Op. cit., pp. 16 ff.; Leszynsky, Op. cit., pp. 36 ff.

170 The name applied to a room adjoining the synagogue in which were stored disused manuscripts of the books of the Bible which had been used in public worship and had become worn out; heretical Hebrew books were also placed in the Genizah.

171 Büchler holds that this sect “lived in Damascus in the seventh or eighth century A.D.,” and that the manuscripts contain “a picture artificially drawn to reflect assumed conditions shortly before the destruction of the second Temple.” Interesting and learned as Büchler’s article is, the present writer is not convinced that Schechter’s main contentions have been weakened by it.

172 Some of the Apocalyptic books may also be regarded as sources of information; but the evidence in these is largely of an indirect character; and as regards authorship differences of opinion exist; so we have thought it best to restrict ourselves to the sources mentioned. In dealing, however, with these Apocalyptic books in 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., Torah, Nebiim, Kethubim.

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 11a); therefore (this is the inference) no inspired book can have been written in post-prophetic times, cp. Yoma 21b.

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 14a) 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, 2a.

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. 1a.

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, 612a.

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, 537b.

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. 13a having exchanged places with xxxiii. 13b-xxxvi. 16a; 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. 388b.

394 Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden (2nd ed.), p. 132.

395 Op cit., vii. 388a.

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. 766a.

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.

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

Pg ix: added missing page number ‘77’ for Ecclesiasticus.
Pg xiii: ‘(1 [3] Esdras)’ replaced by ‘(1 (3) Esdras)’ (to avoid confusion with footnote numbering).
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’.