Chapter VIII (1)

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

(_a_) _The Doctrine of God._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

but the Pharisee deepens the sentiment by adding:

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

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

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

to this the Pharisaic glossator adds:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(_b_) _The Doctrine of the Law._

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

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

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

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

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

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

Equally direct are the words in xix. 20:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(_c_) _The Doctrine of Sin._

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

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

And again in xxiii. 3 ff.:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Say not, “From God is my transgression,”
For that which He hateth made He not.
Say not, “It is He that made me to stumble,”
For there is no need of evil men.
Evil and abomination doth the Lord hate,
And He doth not let it come nigh them that fear Him
(xv. 11-13).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That Fasting is an atonement is implied in the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Court not death in the error of your life;
Neither draw upon yourselves destruction by the works of your
hands;
Because God made not death,
Neither delighteth He when the living perish.
For He created all things that they might have being,
And the products of the world are healthsome,
And there is no poison of destruction in them ... (i. 12 ff.).

Still more explicit are the words in viii. 19, 20:

Now I was a child good by nature, and a good soul fell to my lot;
Nay rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, in i. 14 it is said:

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

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

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

Both truths are combined in the words:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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