UC-NRLF 
 
 li iiiiti liii 
 
 i III 1 III i 
 
 1 li III 1 
 
 
 $C 3S fiMS 
 
 
 
%,./ 
 
 
\*- START 
 
 Microfilmed by 
 
 Department of Photoduplication 
 
 The University of Chicago Library 
 
 Swift Hall 
 Chicago 37, Illinois 
 
 ©B QDD©^aT?D®C] [?ra©Gao "y^Wd 
 
 caaTfBBn/A\[i \S\[j\y/ □©•d' bq c3/a\idq 
 
 CZJD'ir[]G.©D!Ji7 [?Q[X]C2D88[]©C] [?[D©[a 
 *ir[X]Q /A\DD'i?S]©ra /a\C]© ©Q[P/A\BT?K]Bra7 
 
 Thesis No. /2Z9/ 
 
 •Fr^piYiTUnT''|'''l'^| 
 
 ^. 
 
 ''V 
 
 t 
 
 : 
 
 & 
 
Xlbe lUntvecsitc of Gbicago 
 
 THE JEWISH APOLOGETIC JO THE 
 GRECIAN WORLD IN THE A^CRY- 
 PHAL AND PSEUDEPlGRAffiiCAL 
 LITERATURE 
 
 Thy sons, O Zion, 
 against thy sons, O Greece. — Zech. 9:13 
 
 A DISSERTATION 
 
 SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE DIVXNITY SCHOOI. 
 IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF 
 
 doctor of philosophy 
 (devastuent of old testament literatuke and imtespsetation) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 BY 
 
 
 
 
 , 
 
 
 
 
 ISAAC GEORGE MATTHEWS . 
 
 
 
 
 . > • .   • 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 CHICAGO 
 1914 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 .. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 (J^:^3^^/«5-' 
 
 tOAN STAC5 
 
 ! - 
 
 CoBBpoMd iBd rriKtod Br 
 
 The Unlna^ty of CbitMgo Prca 
 
 Chiapi, 'lliaols. V^A. 
 
 
 WUM 
 
 I 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 Intkodcction 
 
 Environment, Fonnative in Hebrew Life 
 
 Canaan, Phoenicia, Assyria, Babylonia, and Persia Each Made a 
 Contribution. Greek Thought and Life, Subtly Pervasive in All 
 Phases of Activity. 
 
 I. The Indhect Apologetic Seen in the Jewish Adaptation to thi 
 
 GkEEK ENVnONMENT 
 
 The Adoption of the Greek Language Had Very Important Issuo. . 4 
 
 LXX. Translated, Widespread Literary Activity. 
 Philosophic Terminology — Ethical, Cosmological, Theological, Vtf- 
 chological. Ecclesiastical — Introduced. 
 
 General Literary Tendencies — Literary Forms, Pseudjpigraphy, Inter- 
 polations, Forged Letters, Exuberant Apocalyptic — Developed. 
 Allegory as a Method of Interpretation Was Perfected. 
 
 The Contact with the Social Life and Customs of the Greeks Changed the 
 
 Outlook and Colored the Ideals of the Hebrews ij 
 
 The Stadium, Hippodrome, Gymnasia, Theater, Agora, Architecture, 
 Govenmient, and Religion, All Left Their Influence on the Subject 
 People. 
 
 II. The Jewish Answer to the VAWotre Attacks 
 
 The Attacks on the Nation 19 
 
 Lacking in Antiquity; a Leprous and Slave Race; Barbarous and 
 
 Uncultured; Fellow-Haters and Bad Citizens. 
 The Attacks on Their Religion 35 
 
 The Ritual; Circumcision; Sabbath; Idolatry; Human Sacrifice; 
 
 Atheism. 
 
 lU. A Review of the Litekatusx 
 The Hebrew Thought Restated in Terms of Grecian Philosophy ... 38 
 
 A. COSHOUXSY 
 The Greek Cosmogonies Were a Growth. s8 
 
 The Hebrews Though Not Interested in Cosmogony per se, Took 
 
 Over the General Semitic Ideas. 
 Development in the Interbiblical Period 30 
 
 Conception More Orderly; Greek Words Appropriated; Ideas of 
 
 Harmony; Creation out of Passive Matter; Medium of Creation, 
 
 and Archetypal Ideas. 
 
 a • 
 
 957 
 
iv 
 
 PSYCHOLOCy 
 
 The Greek Idea Contrasted wUh the Hebrew 34 
 
 Greek Influence Seen in Dichotomy and Trichotomy; Pre-Ezistence; 
 Immortality; Freedom of the Will, and Conscience. 
 
 C. ETHICS 
 
 The Messages of the Prophets Still Have Their Exponents, but the Greek 
 
 Cultural Movements Are Infectious 46 
 
 The Love of Beauty; the Attitude toward Woman; Desire for Name 
 and Fame; the Cardinal Virtues of the Platonists; the Attitude 
 toward Truth, and the Idea of the Sacredness of Life Show the 
 Influence of the Greeks. 
 
 D. THEOLOGY 
 
 Greek Speculation, the Result of Centuries of Development .... 56 
 To the Hebrews the Existence of God Was Axiomatic 
 
 Readjustment Is Made to the Philosophic Outlook of the Greeks . . 57 
 Transcendency Emphasized, Names and Characteristics of Deity. 
 No Place for Idolatry. 
 Providence. 
 
 System of Intermediaries, Angelology, Logos. 
 
 Revelation Idea. The Literature Is Accredited by Evidence of Inspira- 
 tion of the Media of Revelation, Appeal to the Content. 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 Environment is one of the potent channels of influence in the life 
 of any people. Most potent is that of the life and thought of a domi- 
 nant nation. The Hebrews were always susceptible to outside influ- 
 ences. In their early history they readily adapted themselves to their 
 surroundings. While throughout they maintained their identity and 
 carried forward the noblest of their early religious convictions, they 
 always took on the color of their immediate situation. To them the 
 crucible of international struggle was the meiting-pot in which their 
 religious ideals were purified. 
 
 Many of their early leaders strenuously opposed any assimilation 
 of Canaanitish life or thought. Later they became not only agricul- 
 turists, but, along with that, the functions of the Baal of the land were 
 appropriated to Yahweh (Hos. 2:8). As the austerity of the desert 
 life gave way before the softening influence of an advancing civilization, 
 the conception of deity likewise became more cultural. Through con- 
 tact with Phoenicia, a commercial, seacoast people, Israel gained her 
 first glimpse of a larger world life, and thus laid the foimdation for her 
 later world-outlook. 
 
 Contact with Assyria widened still further the horizon of their 
 leaders. The choice spirits who were carried to Babylon from Judah 
 in 597 maintained their integrity. But Babylon was a school in which 
 they learned much. Ritual was systematized and intensified. General 
 customs were adopted. History was reinterpreted. The Babylonian 
 calendar was accepted. Literary form was influenced and word» 
 received new content. Cosmological ideas were reordered. Laws and 
 religious feasts, which earlier had been related to natural events, as 
 seasois, etc., are now made statutory and commemorative of super- 
 natural religion. The conception of God was liberalized. Great spirit- 
 ual conceptions were deepened and broadened. The ideas of a great 
 religious commonwealth and a great world-missionary obligation were 
 bom. New conceptions and new forms of activity were produced tmder 
 the demand of these new conditions. An intense loyalty to the God 
 of their fathers was now poured into a mold, which was the result of 
 their Babylonian experience. 
 
 Persian influence likewise was not a dead letter. Eschatological 
 ideas seem at least to have gathered some color from Persian thought 
 
 m^mrwtmmi^iii'i'r'immnmtrmfmmifmii^i^^m'im 
 
•^ba^MMttt^AUMtiiailiiWii 
 
 iittmt^tiitimauii^iMimimiMmattmiiliud^ 
 
 DITRODUCnOH .5 
 
 subject people, on the whole their overlords bestowed favors and privi- 
 leges on them, which more than reconciled many to the rule of the 
 conqueror. 
 
 Thus gradually, from the third century on, the Greeks commanded 
 more and more completely the life-interests of all those nations which 
 they had vanquished by arras. In the second century the sway of 
 Hellenic culture was all but complete throughout their vast domains. 
 The most stubborn, and the last of all to yield, were the Jews. Their 
 last stand was made in the realm of religion. By many the Greek 
 inroads were long held at bay. Certain influences were never permitted 
 to affect Jewish thought. Yet the inevitable happened. Slowly, even 
 unconsciously, the encroachment of the enemy is seen, and more or less 
 completely the culture of the conquerors, even in things religious, won 
 its sway over the minds of the people. Much of this came as a matter 
 of course. The influence of the Greek was subtly pervasive. They 
 were a people even more noted for their philosophies than for their 
 conquests. No wall could be built to withstand effectively this thought- 
 atmosphere. The Diaspora, which extended from inner Asia to Gibral- 
 tar, was not the least important element in the readjustment of the 
 Jewish life and thought to that of the Greek ideal (Bousset, Relig. d. 
 Jud., 69-83; Siegfried, Philos., 2-5; Matter, Bisf. de I'tcoie d'AUx., 
 
 1-3). 
 
 In the following chapter there will be discussed the chief features 
 which the Jewish people, in part consciously and in part unconsciously, 
 adopted from their Greek neighbors, and which paved the way for the 
 later and more conspicuous apologetic 
 
 ^^^•^H^m^^^m^ 
 
 a THE JEWISH APOLOCEnC TO THE GSECIAN WORLD 
 
 and symbolism. The symbolism of the beasts, this present evil world 
 as over against the world to come (Isa., chaps. 24-27; Zech., chaps. 
 « 12-14, etc.), the seven heavens (Slav. En., chaps. 3-21; T. Levi 
 2:7 — 3:3; IV Esdr. 8:81 f.), the shema at the temple every dawn, the 
 destruction of the world by fire, the one thousand or six thousand years 
 of eschatology (Jub. 4:30; Slav. En. 32:2; 33:1), angelology and 
 dualism, all helped to color the Jewish thought and phraseology. Some 
 of these ideas, though perhaps of Babylonian origin (cf. Bousset, 
 Relig. d. Jud., 538; SSderblom, La vie future d'aprii le Mcadlisme, 
 223 f.) were direct importations from Persia. It is quite probable also 
 that certain oriental folk tales received a strong impress from Persian 
 sources before they were adopted by the Jews (e.g., Achichar, Tobit, 
 Esther). Certain laws also, as leprosy, seem to show the influence of 
 Persian customs (Fairweather, Background of the Gospels, 46-50). No 
 more striking testimony, however, to the widespread cultural dominancy 
 of this people is found than that preserved in the far-famed tombstone 
 of Antiochus V, which bears evidence to the presence of Mithras-worship 
 in the West (cf . Cumont, Textes et monuments figuris rel. aux mystires 
 de MUhra, II, 89, 187). 
 
 Of chief significance to us, however, is the Grecian influence on 
 Jewish thought. Judaism was in many ways at this time most sus- 
 ceptible to the type of influences which now surrounded it. To many 
 of their leaders, owing to the irony of the past, the hope of a material 
 kingdom was on the wane. Distressing oppressions and unfulfilled 
 predictions gave birth to a deepened religious sense which was now 
 ready to spiritualize the old idea of the Davidic kingdom. 
 
 From the time of Alexander, the Greeks and the Grecian culture 
 surrounded them on every side. The caravans passing through the 
 land were chiefly Greek. Greek colonies were everywhere. The Greek 
 soldier, the oflScer of the law, and the tax-gatherer were famih'ar figures 
 in the streets of all Jewish villages and cities. Greek sanctuaries with 
 their devotees and regular worship were in all parts of the land. Greek 
 architecture, with its stately columns and graceful, simple outlines, was 
 the vogue where once the less beautiful structures of Syrian and Egyp- 
 tian form had ruled. The social life of the Greek, with its decorous 
 affability and inviting luxury, as well as the splendor of the foreign court, 
 breathed a new atmosphere over the bare heights of Judah. The 
 ephebotvith his chlamys, and the peripatetic philosopher with his mantle, 
 moved with their air of romance and charm among the busy throng of 
 the market. While persecutions at times did break out against the 
 
 ' jii Jiiii. 1 vm^mmummfufn^ 
 
 
wyUtriBMMtkaiMIMiMiMliilMiaiMiiai 
 
 ttammttti 
 
 THE INDKECT APOLOGETIC 
 
 THE INDIRECT APOLOGETIC SEEN IN THE JEWISH ADAP- 
 TATION TO THE GREEK ENVIRONMENT 
 
 The adoption of the language of their masters was the first important 
 movement in this direction. The susceptibility of the Jews in this 
 regard was earlier illustrated by their use of the Canaanitbh script in 
 the early days of the kingdom, their later appropriation of the Aramaic 
 language in exilic and post-exilic times, as seen both in Syria and Ele- 
 phantine, and by the still later adoption of the Aramaic square character 
 for their writing. It would seem that the first generation after the con- 
 quest of 33J B.C. must have become somewhat acquainted with the lan- 
 guage of the foreigners. Intermarriage with the Greeks, which, through 
 various prohibitions (Jub. 20:4; 22:20; 25:1-10; 30:7, 10, 11; cf. I 
 Mace. 1:15; Tob. 3:8) we learn was not uncommon, would promote it. 
 It was the language of the army, the language of the new commerce, and 
 the language of the court. It was the medium of the finest learning of 
 the day. The profit to be derived from the knowledge of Greek, in 
 both the social and the commercial world, would be a strong incentive 
 toward its use and mastery. Every phase of public life gave a growing 
 familiarity with it. To the Diaspora it was the lingua franca of the 
 business world. 
 
 Thus through the language was opened the door to some of the 
 most momentous results in the religious thinking of the Jews. Not 
 the least of these was the translation of the Hebrew scriptures into 
 Greek. Hausrath succinctly expresses the apologetic character of this 
 work when he says: It was "the first apostle to go out into all the world 
 and teach all people" (Hausrath, Bist. of N.T. Times, I, 141). On the 
 whole, it seems more likely that this work was the result of a movement 
 from within Judaism herself, bom of a desire to minister to her own 
 Greek-speaking adherents, than that it was primarily initiated by a 
 literature-loving king of Egypt. There may have been opp)osition from 
 the more orthodox Jews at first, but in the course of two centuries 
 the Septuagint was fully accepted as bearing the divine oracles and as 
 on a par with the Hebrew itself (Schiirer, Hist. Jew. Peop., II, 3, 163). 
 
 From the time of the beginning of this most significant work of 
 translation we find the Greek language a most acceptable literary medium 
 
 4 
 
 of the Jews. Naturally the Diaspora of Alexandria contributed the 
 larger quota to this activity. The importance of this movement to 
 Jewish life and thought is indicated by the abundance of literature which 
 in this period emanated from Jewish pens. 
 
 The fragments of the Sibylline Oracles, the additions to Daniel and 
 Esther, the Prayer of Manasseh, 11 Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, 
 Slavonic Enoch, the Ascension of Isaiah, III and IV Maccabees, IV 
 Esdras, besides the works of Joscphus, Philo, Aristeas, Aristobulus, and 
 a host of others to whom we have only the barest references, all attest 
 the popularity and activity of writers in Greek. Further, the same 
 conclusion is reached by the fact that all the books which were originally 
 written in a Semitic language were speedily translated into the Greek, 
 and thus preserved. 
 
 Indeed, so completely did the new language gain acceptance among 
 the dispersion, that very early it was admitted as a legitimate language 
 for most of the functions of worship. The priestly benediction and a 
 few special passages of Scripture, as the Tepkittim and Metusoth, only 
 were reserved for use exclusively in the Hebrew (Mishna, Sola, VII: 1, 
 2; Megilla, 1:8; Schiirer, Hist. Jew. Peop., II, 2, 284). A significant 
 fact is that from this early period there has not been found a single 
 instance in which Hebrew is the language used for tombstone epitaphs 
 (Schiirer, Hist. Jew. Peop., II, 2, 284). The building of a temple, 
 which was modeled after that in Jerusalem, on Grecian soil, in 160 B.C., 
 and the introduction of the Jewish ritual there, indicate the readjust- 
 ment on the part of the Jews to the new Grecian situation (Schiirer, 
 Hist. Jew. Peop., II, 2, 288). 
 
 A very definite evidence of the way the Jews adopted the culture of 
 their neighbors is seen by the fact that they took over many Greek 
 names. The Hebrew people had always been ready to pay a compli- 
 ment to a foreign nation through this use of their language. Gad 
 (Gen. 30:11), Samson (Judg., chap. 13), Kush (Zeph. 1:1), Zerubbabel 
 (Hag. 1:12), Mordecai (Esth. 2:7), Bigvai (Neh. 7:7) — and the non- 
 Jewish names borne by the Jews in Elephantine — all attest this fact. 
 
 The following proper names, which are either Grecianized Hebrew, 
 or pure Greek, are illustrations of the fact that this tendency became 
 quite common in these later days: Alcimus (I Mace. 7:5; 9:54, e< al.), 
 perhaps the Grecianized form of Eliakin; Jason (I Mace. 8: 17) Grecian- 
 ized from Joshua; Onias (II Mace. 3:5), for Jonah; Jannaeus for 
 Jonathan (Jos., Ant., XIU, xii). 
 
 Of names which are pure Greek are these examples: Aristobulus 
 
 mm^m^^f^i^m 
 
 rm^^mmfmit 
 
MiiiMiiiaaaAiMM^ 
 
 ii«iirrii«aiirii[ 
 
 itfijiniliitrttniili- 
 
 •mttitlitMiamtiikitt^ttSilMiiamtiibmtKiiiam 
 
 6 THE JEWISH APOLOCEnC TO THE GRECIAN WOKLD 
 
 (n Mace. I : lo), Eupolemus (1 Mace. 8: 17; II Mace. 4:11), Lysimachus 
 (11 Mace. 4:29, 39, 40), Menelaus (II Mace. 4:23), Ptolemy (I Mace. 
 16: ii), Dositheus (II Mace. 12:19, 24), Sosipater (II Mace. 4:27), 
 Rhodocus (II Mace. 13:21), Razis (II Mace. 14:37), Antipater (I Mace. 
 12: 16), Epaphroditus (Jos., Ant., pref.), Dorotheus (Arist. 182, 183, 
 186). Greek names were so much in favor before the time of Antiochus 
 Epiphanes that later it was said, "The names of Israelites outside of 
 Palestine are like those of the Gentiles" (Jre. Gilt., 43J). 
 
 In a less measure the same is true as to place names: Aphaerema 
 (I Mace. II 134), Accaron (I Mace. 10:89). This feature is particularly 
 striking in the cases where we find a city changing its old name in favor 
 of a new Greek one. Haleb became Beroea; Nisibis became Antioch, 
 and Acco became Ptolemais (Bevan, Jerus. under the B. Priests, 34). 
 Sebaste was the Grecian name given to Samaria after it had been rebuilt 
 and re-peopled by the Macedonians. 
 
 The names of the months likewise suffered change. The early 
 Canaanitish nomenclature had been somewhat displaced by Babylonian 
 influence. As Abib had given way before Nisan, so Nisan is now sup- 
 planted by Xanthicus of the Macedonians (II Mace. 11:30, 38). In 
 general, while the old month names, Elul (I Mace. 14:27), Shebat 
 (I Mace. 16:14), Adar (I Mace. 7:43, 49), Adar-Sheni (I Mace. 9:3), 
 Chislev (I Mace. 1:54), and also the newer Babylonian terminology, 
 First (I Mace. 9:3), Second (I Mace. 9:54), Seventh (I Mace. 10:21), 
 Ninth (I Mace. 4:32), Twelfth (II Mace. 15:36), still obtain, yet for 
 the sake of adaptation to the environment, new Greek names are intro- 
 duced. Xanthicus (II Mace. 11:30, 33, 38) is the sixth month of the 
 Macedonian calendar. Dioscorinthius (II Mace. 11:21; ef. Tob. 2:12; 
 Addit. Esth. 13:6) is either incorrect for Atw Kopiv6lm>, perhaps for 
 the first month of the Macedonian year, or for Aio<r<tvpov, the third 
 month of the Cretan calendar (Charles, Apoc. and Pseud., I, 147). The 
 sourc! of Pachon (III Mace. 6:38), the name used in Alexandria for the 
 month May 25-June 24, and Epiphi (III Mace. 6:38), the name for 
 the following month, can only be conjectured. They were apparently 
 accepted from Alexandria and may have been of Egyptian origin (cf. 
 Charles, Apoc. and Pseud., I, 173). j 
 
 Greek coinage names are now freely used as: talent, mina (I Mace 
 15:18), drachma (II Mace. 12:43). These, later, gave place again to 
 the Roman as, quadrans, and denarius. 
 
 The Greek names for musical instruments likewise found their way 
 into the Hebrew vocabulary at an early date. Cithara (LXX Ps. 80: 2; 
 
 I- 
 
 mtmf^-wmmmmmmmm 
 
 mm 
 
 THE INOISECT APOtOGETIC J 
 
 I Mace. 4: 24), psalterion (Wisd. of Sol. 19:18; Eeelus. 40: 21), tympantun 
 (LXX Judg. 11:34; Exod. 15:20; Jud., chap. 3; I Mace. 9:39) were 
 in use in the third century B.C. 
 
 In Slavonic Enoch we have the Greek names of the planets, Kronos, 
 Aphrodite, Ares, Zeus, Hermes, Selene, Helios, and the order preserved 
 is in partial agreement with that of the Greek physicists (Slav. En. 30: 
 3-5 ; cf. Cicero De Div. ii. 43). The author of "Wisdom " has an accurate 
 knowledge of the terms of Greek science, and considers instruction 
 therein to be the work of God (Wisd. of Sol. 7 : 17-22). 
 
 One of the most important contributions of the Greek language to 
 the Jew, however, was its philosophic terminology. With its numerous 
 synonyms and its fine distinctions it made possible an advance in thought 
 which was prohibited by the meagemess of the Hebrew. Ideas such as 
 friendship, conscience, virtue, deathlessness, etc., which to the Jew had 
 existed only in the concrete example, could now be definitely expressed 
 by a single word. 
 
 A more varied and a vastly different ethical vocabulary was now at 
 hand. Moderation, ambition, leisure, fame, and freedom from passion 
 are in part the ideals of the Greeks, and their phrases respond adequately 
 to their thought. The fundamental virtues which the Hebrew expressed 
 by derivatives of such roots as: SHX , I^K , 1'3 , ICn , ttjn , 7T , ST, 
 DH3 , pTS , IBTp , D5TD , tJBID , were now re-expressed by more numer- 
 ous and more definite terms as: iya$ii, ipirt), ivi/Ma, St/uk, irapaiU, 
 ^yvof, A\^0fia, yvtMri^, SLKottyrwrj, (wrcfitia, (vXoyurria, iyKpartia, $aptrim, 
 Upoc, KoXAof, o<rtof, muScta, ffiortf, <r(/jivoi, fTw^ia, t^poyyjtriK, XP^fM. 
 
 A substantial contribution is also made in words of eosmological 
 significance: atSi;^, Afxoptpcv vkrp, i€futrvpyf'iy, Stotxctv, jcoc/ioc. 
 
 Very numerous and significanf were the terms now adopted which 
 were used to characterize the Deity. The most important are: iriyni, 
 ilfJMpftivij, iirtKUifa. r^s owuic, htaworvft, ^rffuovpyoi, Swaimfv, Xoyo«, ffo^M, 
 firywrro?, fiovap^o^, vpoaiinrov, wavovpyiK, wayroKpartttp, vrooToo'ic, v^oirrof, 
 Xapuriui. 
 
 Perhaps more significant still is the terminology foimd in the field 
 of psychology. The Greeks were the philosophers of antiquity. The 
 Hebrew Wisdom literature is an indication that intellectual leaven was 
 at work among the Jews. The founder of the ethico-intellectual system 
 of Stoicism was a Jew. The Greek in return now hands his nation an 
 adequate terminology for their growing intellectual conceptions. The 
 liberal extent to which they availed themselves of this is seen by the use 
 of words such as the following: iSaKurla, iSivarot, i^Bxipvia, iwK^mn, 
 
 ^mrmmrn 
 
 r^mr 
 
tjummt^ititiiu 
 
 8 THE JEWISH APOLOGEnC TO THE GRECIAN WOKLD 
 
 (It {•i^r almior, ynunt, iri<rr«, wmSeio, /iMurAu, /»Km}pu>r, nit, <l>pr}r, 
 ^poKi;mt, ^urt{ui', <ruwiSi)<n«, <rrcv>ia, V™X7- 
 
 Words of an official character, cither secular or ecclesiastical, are 
 found. Some of those of an ecclesiastical significance are: riXtiot, 
 ftva-nit, (rwSpuiv, while yijpovo-ia, l<t>€fiM, refer to the secular side of life. 
 
 Literary influences of a much more general and wide-sweeping type 
 than those noticed above were at work. Xf^!ptw (I Mace. ij:6; 
 UMacc. i:io; 9:19; 11:34; III Mace. 3 : 1 2 ; 7:1), the Greek epistolary 
 greeting, is now found side by side with, or supersedes, the old Hebrew 
 
 cnbio- 
 
 The Greek chronological system, the first really satisfactory one 
 used by the Jews, finds its way into common use as early as the time of 
 the wTiting of I Maccabees (I Mace, i : 10). Henceforth the beginning 
 of the Seleucid era, 312 B.c , forms a customary starting-point. 
 
 As early as Ben Sirach, divisions were made in dissertations in accord- 
 ance with Greek custom, and appropriate chapter titles were inserted 
 (Ecclus. 18:30; 20:27; 23:7; 24:1; 30:1, 16; 44:1? 51:'; clJiw- 
 Enc. on " Sirach"). This is the earliest known illustration of this in the 
 writing of a Hebrew. Here again, and in the translation of Esther, 
 the writer or scribe appends his full signature, as was common in Grecian 
 literature. 
 
 Greek literary forms and ideas also quite naturally displaced those 
 of the Hebrew. For the first time in their experience a Jew wrote his- 
 tory for its own sake. Demetrius Phalereus, the elder Philo, Eupole- 
 mus, .\rtapanus, Aristobulus (of. Drummond, Phil. Jud., I, 236), 
 Josephus, and the author of I Maccabees, were all in the line of suc- 
 cession of such writers as Herodotus and Diodorus, rather than the 
 followers of those religious historians who wrote Samuel, Kings, and 
 Chronicles. Epistolography, though no new thing to the Hebrew, now 
 flourished under the patronage of a letter-writing people. Aristeas, 
 Heraclitus, Diogenes seem with reasonable certainty to be the names 
 of Jews who were noted for their letters (Schiirer, Uisl. Jew. Peop., Ill, 
 a, 306-20). Beyond this we have a number of epistles in the various 
 historical books (cf. Ezra-Nehemiah, Esdras, II and III Maccabees). 
 
 We know that to the Greek literati the style was often of greater 
 importance than the content. Hence to the Jew the form became very 
 significant. Greek figures of speech were appropriated. Contrarieties 
 which smack of the Aristotelian method are found in Ben Sirach (Ecdus. 
 35:7-15). The stoic paradox is illustrated in IV Maccabees (7:25; 
 14: j), and an excellent example of the familiar rhetorical sorites is found 
 
 THE INDIRECT APOLOGETIC 
 
 in the Wisdom of Solomon (7: 17-20). This book itself is a good illus- 
 tration of an effort toward literary style rather than the presentation 
 of a logical discussion of the theme. Much of its background, as the 
 forgetfulness of 16:11, which is apparently Lethean, and the argiunent " 
 from design in 13:1, is decidedly Grecian. 
 
 A noticeable tendency is that toward new poetical forms. Greek 
 rhythm now displaces the Hebrew parallelism and assonance. Only ^ 
 remnants of what seems to have been a very wide literary activity have 
 been preserved to us. Thcodotus is known to us only by a mere frag- 
 ment of his poem on Sichem, which has been preserved in Eusebius 
 (Praep. evang., IX, 22). 
 
 Ezekiel, the tragic poet of perhaps the second century B.C., b the 
 only dramatist of whom we have any reference. Fragments of his 
 drama of the E.xodus have come down to us, again through Eusebius 
 (PrMp. evang., IX, 2&; XXIX, 4-6, 11, 13). Here the scriptural story of 
 the Exodus, with some embellishments, is dramatized in iambic trimeter.' 
 
 Philo, the poet of the second century, was the author of an epic 
 poem on Jerusalem, which was written in good hexameter, imitating 
 the Homeric verse (Euseb., Praep. evang., IX, 20, 24, 37). The same 
 measure is found in much of the far-famed Sibylline Oracles. It is inter- 
 esting to note that Duhm would find an imitation of the same move- 
 ment in Isa. 26:1-19 (Enc. Bib. 3803). 
 
 Pseudepigraphy is again one of the direct results of this national 
 contact. The necessity of the situation compelled it. Many names 
 of the past were greatly honored. During the closing centuries of the 
 period there were to the pious leaders but few breathing spaces from 
 some terror within or without. To meet the need, the worldK)rder was 
 interpreted apocalyptically. The ruling nation hence must always be 
 overthrown. Such a hope spread broadcast would bring upon its author 
 the charge of treason. Nor could a living man inspire his own gen- 
 eration so well as one of the Fathers. For three centuries or more the 
 idea of a Canon of Scripture had been rapidly crystallizing, and this 
 made it growingly difficult for the living voice to gain a sympathetic 
 audience (cf. Charles, Apoc. and Pseud., II, viii f.). So this double need 
 opened the door wide for the names of those specially worthy. Moses, 
 Elijah, Enoch were names with which to conjure. The Twelve Patri- 
 archs are called upon to utter their forecast of the future while ostensibly 
 blessing their various tribes. Noah, Solomon, Isaiah, Manasseh, Jere- 
 miah, Baruch, all have their scope enlarged by the method used in these 
 religious crises. 
 
10 THE JEWISH APOLOGETK TO THE GRECIAN WOBLD 
 
 Further, the use of heathen names seems to have been resorted to 
 for the purpose of bearing favorably to a hostile people the religious 
 ideals of the writers. Schurer {Uist. Jew. Peop., II, 3, 316 f.) gives a 
 number of cases in which a Greek name seems to be the doorway through 
 which over-zealous Jews made their entrance to the reading public. 
 Work of the same type and for the same purpose, is done by Pseudo- 
 Aristeas and Pseudo-Hecataeus (Schurer, Hist. Jew. Peop., II, 3, 313). 
 
 Jewish interpolations in old Grecian writers are of frequent occur- 
 rence. This is seen in Phocylides (vss. 84, 85, 139, 147, 148a). Forged 
 letters (I Mace. 6:10-15; II Mace. 9:12-17; 11:16-33) were also pro- 
 duced for the same purpose. Fiction, as found in III Maccabees, which 
 may be called a religious novel, having for its subject the triumph of the 
 Jews over their enemies through divine intervention, thus presenting 
 a series of incredible fables, was invented to meet the needs of the day. 
 The most significant example of this type of work is, however, seen in 
 the Sibylline Oracles." This is the climax of propaganda under a heathen 
 mask. It most emphatically indicated how completely the Jew had 
 been brought under the spell of his conquerors and, on the other hand, 
 how aggressive he was in the publishing of his own convictions. 
 
 To the same exigencies as those which produced pseudepigraphy 
 we owe the abundant apocalyptic material of this age. The roots of 
 this literature go back to the early conceptions of the day of Yahweh. 
 The unfulfilled hopes of national prosperity, which had been stimulated 
 by the prophets, prepared the way for the idea of the world to come. 
 Persia had contributed something in sj-mbol and conception. Now 
 the hopelessness of the nation in her own strength and the need of a 
 secret code which only the initiated might read caused a rapid develop- 
 ment and elaboration along these lines. Under this guise history was 
 rewritten. Daniel, Enoch, Twelve Patriarchs, the Book of Jubilees, 
 the .\ssumption of Moses, the Ascension of Isaiah, Baruch, and Slavonic 
 Enoch suggest or sketch earlier history of the chosen people, and hope 
 greatly to comfort the stricken nation by the \-ision of world-victory 
 for them in the immediate future through the power of their God. Pri- 
 marily this was all strongly apologeric. Its great task was to keep alive 
 the faith of the people by squaring the promises of the prophets with the 
 
 * The contention of Geffcken in Vnttrsuchunt d. Komposition und EtUsUhung der 
 Oracula Sibylline, to the effect that the Sibyl had at an earlier time been appropriated 
 by the Babylonians and tliat through them the Hebrews were influenced, even if 
 proven, wliich is rather a difficult proposition, would scarcely affect this statement. 
 Not imtil the Greek period have we any literary result from such influence. 
 
 mm 
 
 THE INDISECT APOtOGETIC xi 
 
 present crushing calamities. To the apocalyptists the hopelessness of 
 the present was nearing the end, and the future was brighter than the 
 most glowing expectations. Yahweh would keep faith with hb people. 
 These writers were interpreters, not only of the times, but also of the 
 Scriptures. Ezek., chaps. 38, 39, Joel, Zech., chaps. 9-14, Isa., chaps. 
 24-27, furnished a broad basis for elaboration. The seventy years of 
 Jeremiah is a time-connotation which has to be reinterpreted many 
 times (Jer. 29:10; cf. Dan. 9:2; 9:25, 27; En. 89:59; IV Esdr. u: 
 11,12; Ep. Jer., vs. 3). Weeks, generations, periods, times, and millen- 
 nia are among the resources of the apologists whereby chronology may 
 be definite enough for the comfort of the present generation and vague 
 enough to be manipulated by following ages. 
 
 The most decidedly apologetic move from the literary standpoint is 
 found, however, in the use of allegory as a system of scriptural inter- 
 pretation. The Hebrew was not unfamiliar with allegory as a medium 
 of conveying his message. Instances of this are preserved in the Old 
 Testament. But as a method of interpretation with universal appli- 
 cation he was innocent of it. Midrash was the post-exilic method of ' 
 bringing Scripture up to date. However, allegory as a thoroughgoing 
 system for exegetical purposes was found ready to hand. It was a 
 method which had been the result of a great need. The cultured Greeks 
 could neither literally accept the crude mythologies of earlier days, nor 
 could these with their wealth of tradition and poetry be banished from 
 the minds of the people. This early literature, which was so rooted in 
 the thinking of the common people, could be given value by the cul- 
 tured only as they found in it some deep fundamental truth. Hence 
 was bom that system which can find the message it wants in any lit- 
 erature. In the sixth century B.C. this method was applied to Homer 
 by Theogenes of Rhegium. This was an apology for the poetry ol 
 Homer. The Sophists applied the same method very widely, and 
 Aristotle did not entirely shun it. In the fifth century Anaxagoras 
 controlled by the same movement, asserted that Homer's subject was in 
 reality virtue or righteousness. In the hands of Metrodorus of Lamp- 
 sacus, who was his pupil, Herf, Athene, and Zeus were conceived of as 
 purely physical principles. The Cynics elaborated the method, and the 
 Stoics made it their system par excellence. By them all the old super- 
 stitions were made to do full duty in supporting their own tenets. To 
 Chrysippus, Zeus was the same as Xoyot, Ares was equal to war, etc 
 (cf. Siegfried, Philo v. Alex., 8-24; Adams, Relig. Teachers oj Greeu, 13; 
 Geffcken, art. "Allegory," Enc. Relig. and Eih.). 
 
 PMP 
 
■■■^■*^- 
 
 \a THE JEWISH APOLOGETIC TO THE GKEOAN WOBIB 
 
 Hence it is not surprising that a method which has of necessity been 
 introduced by most people who have canonized and Uteralized their 
 ancient scriptures (this is evidenced by the use of the Vedas and the 
 Koran, as well as that of Homer), should be heartily adopted by the Jew 
 for the purpose of interpreting his own scriptures. It was the scientific 
 method of the day, and proved to be particularly useful for the purpose 
 of reconciling the Pentateuch with Grecian phUosophy. Almost every- 
 thing, says Philo, or most things in the legislaUon are related allegori- 
 caUy (De Jos., U, 46). 
 
 The thorough adoption of it as a method of exegesis was a somewhat 
 slow process. Clear traces of its influence are found in the Wisdom of 
 Solomon. Here the serpent is allegorized into the devil (Wisd. of SoL 
 2:j4), the robe of the high priest is made out of the cosmos (Wisd. of 
 Sol. 18: J4), and ao^, in the tenth chapter, is the guard and guide of 
 the Patriarch and of the eariy naUon (Wisd. of Sol. 10:17). The brazen 
 serpent of the wUdemess is a symbol of salvaUon (Wisd. of Sol. 16:5, 7) 
 and the pillar of salt that of an unbelieving soul (Wisd. of Sol. 10:7). 
 The darkness over Egypt was only a symbol of a deeper spiritual darkness 
 (Wisd. of Sol. 17:21), and Hades is personified (Wisd. of Sol. 1:14). 
 In IV Maccabees are a few traces of the same treatment. The seven 
 days of creation represented the seven Maccabean leaders (IV Mace. 
 14:8), and the serpent tempting Eve in the garden of Eden is but the 
 impulse of the wUl (IV Mace. 18:8). Slavonic Enoch finds in the Greek 
 letters of the name Adam, the proof that the first man was formed from 
 substances from the four comers of the earth (Slav. En. 30:13; cf. 
 Sibyl. Or., Ill, S4-J6). 
 
 Aristeas makes some use of allegory. In interpretmg the law and 
 defending it against the attacks of the Greeks he held that absUnence 
 from certain foods stood for spiritual absUnence from violence, evil 
 pracrices, etc. (Aristeas 144-50)- In the permission to eat certain ani- 
 mals there was a deeper significance than that which might appear on 
 the surface. It was an injunction to pracrice religious meditation 
 (Aristeas 160). Likewise Aristobulus is reported by Origen to have 
 made use of allegory (Coni. Cdsus, IV, 51). 
 
 While undoubtedly there was quite general appreciation and a not 
 / infrequent adopUon of this Stoic principle of interpretation, it was left 
 to Philo to perfect it as a system and apply it in the most thorough- 
 going way to the Old TesUment Scriptures. Philo was a Pharisee, 
 and hence a legalist. At the same time he was trained and saturated 
 in Greek philosophy. Steeped in the thought of his own day, yet for 
 
 MliarM««aadlai 
 
 THE INDIRECT APOLOGETIC 
 
 13 
 
 the literature and the religion of his fathers he had the greatest zeal. 
 These extremes of thought he bridges in a way satisfactory to himself 
 by the application of allegory to all those features in tie Scriptures 
 which did not literally meet with his approval. He goes farther. Those 
 features which superficially seem only to be commonplace or otherwise 
 insignificant, inasmuch as to him they are divine oracles, must have 
 some inner spiritual significance, which is hidden only to those whose 
 eyes are holden (Philo, Yonge's translation, I, 18, 33, 41, 52, 166, 
 192, 194, 284; II, 23, 41, 57, 64; III, 16, 109, 136; IV, 253, 26, 284, 
 et al.). 
 
 As Philo is the thoroughgoing exponent both of Grecian thought 
 and interpretative method, a few glimpses of his system may here be 
 given by way of illustrarion. His general attitude toward the letter of 
 Scripture may be gleaned from one quotation. In interpreting the alle- 
 gories of the sacred laws Philo writes in respect to, " He shall watch thy 
 head and thou shall watch his heel" (Gen. 3:15): "This expression is, 
 as to its language, a barbarism, but as to the meaning which is conveyed 
 by it, a correct expression" (De Leg. All. 67). 
 
 To him all the numbers used in the Scriptures were significant of 
 spiritual values. This is not to be wondered at when we remember the 
 place they played in Grecian thought from the time of Pythagoras on. 
 In Philo's system number was akin to arrangement. For instance, God 
 made the world in six days, "not because the Creator stood in need of 
 length of time; but because the things created required arrangement; 
 and number is akin to arrangement; and of all numbers six is, by the 
 laws of nature, the most productive. For of all numbers from the unit 
 upward, it is the first perfect one, being made equal to its parts, and 
 being made complete by them; the number three being half of it, and 
 the number two a third of it, and the unit a sixth of it, and, so to say, 
 it is formed so as to be both male and female, and is made up of the 
 power of both natures; for in existing things the odd number is the male, 
 and the even is the female, accordingly of odd numbers the first is the 
 number three, and of even numbers the first is two, and the two num- 
 bers multiplied together make six. It is fitting, therefore, that the 
 world, being the most perfect of created things, should be made accord- 
 ing to the perfect number, namely, six " {De Mundi Opif. 3). 
 
 His theory of the inner meaning of proper names is indicated in the 
 following scheme, which he uses throughout all his writings with a rare 
 consistency: Abel is lover of God; Joseph is the diversified pride of life; 
 Ishmael is the sophist, the exponent of wild opinions; Israel is seeing 
 
 ^vipniipK* 
 
MaiWkHtMMaU 
 
 14 THE JEWISH APOLOGETIC TO THE GRECIAN WORIO 
 
 God; Jacob is virtue acquired by practice; Isaac is self-taught offspring; 
 Cain is wickedness; Enoch is grace; Phanuel is turning away from God; 
 Gideon is retreat from robbers; Aaron is uttered speech; Leah is virtue; 
 Asher is riches; Sara is prudence; Rebecca is patience; Dinah is judg- 
 ment; Manasseh is forgetfulness; Laban is mind without wisdom; 
 Abraham is virtue derived from instruction, etc. 
 
 Names of countries also are interpreted as having some peculiar 
 inner meaning: Egypt stands for passions; Sodom is barren of wisdom ; 
 Country is body; Chaldea is opinion; Haran is land of outward sense; 
 Ephraim is memory; Canaan is wickedness; Edom is earthly; Meshek 
 is eternal sense; Amorite is sophist. 
 
 Likewise, when animals are spoken of In Holy Writ there is a hidden 
 meaning which only the initiated may know: Horse is restive passion; 
 cattle is irrational nature; ram is speech; goat is external sense; turtle- 
 dove is divine wisdom; pigeon is human wisdom; reptile is soul rooted 
 in the ground; serpent is concupiscence; raven is wickedness; brazen 
 serpent is patient endurance; camel is memory. 
 
 Further, the commonplace things of earthly life are fraught with 
 sterling philosophic meaning for those who can read: Charioteer is 
 mind; belly is pleasure; feet is support of pleasure; shoulder b labor; 
 breast is passion ; ark is body; cherubim is time — eternity; candlestick 
 is heaven; sword is heaven ; house is soul; vine is folly; wine is greedi- 
 ness; Jordan is deceit; heaven is mind; water is passions or mind; river 
 is speech; rod is education ; pitcher is teaching; manna is divine word; 
 first fruit is full doctrine; night is folly; day is wisdom; Paradise b 
 wisdom; flame is virtue; sun is mind; rib is virtue; man b mind; 
 woman is outer sense; priest is conviction; high priest b reason. 
 
 The above is only a suggestion of the exhaustive and thoroughgoing 
 scheme of this master of allegory. It is readily seen that his task was 
 no insincere one. He not only finds history in the sacred writings, but 
 everywhere there must be an inner meaning. Beneath the suriace he 
 reads, as Greeks and Romans had done before him (cf . Cicero De Nat. 
 Deo. ii. 26; iii. 24), the interplay of virtues and the subtle but none the 
 less convincing elaboration of true philosophic dogma. By the efficient 
 use of his method he made the Old Testament law, discourse in the 
 accents and syllogisms of contemporary Greek thought. In this he was 
 perhaps the most outstanding apologete of Judaism in all her history. 
 Certainly he perfected the movement among hb own people, which had 
 been in course of development for more than six centuries, and which 
 later was adopted by some of the early leaders of the Christian church. 
 
 i 
 
 TBE INDIKECI APOLOGETIC 
 
 IS 
 
 Beyond the appropriation of the language of the more cultured 
 nation and the significant change of front which came about thereby, 
 the Jewish people also adopted many of the general customs of their 
 conquerors, and thus reduced very considerably the chasm between 
 them. Nowhere was the impact of Greece on Palestine felt more strongly 
 than in the social life of the people. The virile Greek overlords were 
 almost unparalleled as propagandists. Simultaneously with the con- 
 quest of their arms and the march of their armies they introduced their 
 social customs. Here Hellenism and Hebraism came together in close 
 contact for the first time. The luxurious living, the social freedom, and 
 the riotous pleasures of the shores of the Aegean were now transplanted 
 to the barren hillsides of Judean life. Greek ideals that appealed to 
 the pleasure-loving side of the youth of the land were thus disseminated 
 through media which were all but irresistible. 
 
 The stadium, with its physical struggles and the splendid develop- 
 ment and achievements of the participants, soon attracted the native 
 populace in and around every Greek city and enlisted the services of 
 many of the youths of the land in its contests (II Mace. 4: 13-16). The 
 hippodrome, with its recklessness and wild excitement, drew its motley 
 mass of patrons from every race and from every walk in life (III Mace. 
 4:11; T. Jos. 20:3). The gymnasium was of perhaps still greater 
 and more far-reaching influence (I Mace. 1:14; II Mace. 4:9-14; IV 
 Mace. 4:20). This was an unmistakable expression of Greek life and 
 thought. In developing the body they were living out their fundamental 
 demand for beauty of form. This presented to the Jewish youth an 
 ambition which was entirely unknown to his forefathers. The strength 
 of that appeal is seen in the fact that many of those whose fathers con- 
 sidered it the greatest stigma to be " uncircimicized," now voluntarily 
 put away the sign of their national religion (II Mace. 4:12-17; 11:24; 
 Jub. 3:31; 7:20; I Mace. 1:15; Assump. Mos. 8:1-3; Jos., y4n<., XII, 
 v, 1). In fact, Jewish thought itself became revolutionized. It was 
 only because of such influences as the above that a Jew later could utter 
 as his own the ideals of the Greek, " He that striveth for the mastery b 
 temperate in all things" (I Cor. 9:25). But the gj-mnasium was not 
 merely for the development of the physical. It was a social center. It 
 was a place of companionships, and a stimulant to ambition. Related 
 to it and organized under it were guilds of young men called tpheboi. 
 The members of the guild wore an attractive uniform, a broad-rimmed 
 hat or cap, high-laced boots, and a chlamys fastened around the shoulders 
 with a brooch, and on certain public occasions marched in procession in 
 
i6 
 
 THE JEWISH APOLOCETIC TO IBE GSEdAN WOKLD 
 
 all their regalia. The cap (wrnunt) was a sign of subjection to Greek 
 customs (11 Mace. 4: 12-15; cf- Ath. 537 {.). Certain of the princes of 
 the subject race were admitted into the inner circles of these guilds. 
 Jonathan was admitted to the rank of Friend, and also Kinsmen by 
 Balas (Bevan, Jerus. u. B. Priest, 104-6). Thus in a most definite way 
 was the youth drawn into the currents of Greek national life and inocu- 
 lated with its spirit. Indeed the strong tendency was for secession of 
 the people, particularly the youth, from the cold and barren regime which 
 had been inherited from the early experience of their ancestors, to the 
 more mellow atmosphere of the new culture (III Mace. 2:32; cf. II 
 Mace. 4:12-15). The actual situation is well portrayed in the Twelve 
 Patriarchs: "Ye shall make your daughters singing girls and harlots, 
 and ye shall mingle in the abominations of the Gentiles" (T. Judah 23 : 2). 
 
 While the agora with its public discussions and its intellectual out- 
 look did not immediately affect so wide a circle as did some of the more 
 popular movements, nevertheless, it did infect a few very deeply and 
 essentially with Hellenic ideals. The theater, however, with its unequal 
 merits ranging from the poorest comedies to the works of the great 
 dramatists, was a school which cast its spell on all classes of citizens 
 alike. Thus it was not long before a knowledge of Greek literature 
 seemed to be a sine qua non of culture. This is supported by the fact 
 that from this period there has been preserved much Jewish literature 
 in Greek, but very little in the mother tongue. 
 
 The influence of architecture was also felt. On every side the form 
 of the Corinthian column and the decorative ornamentation of Greek 
 art was found. Her buildings were erected in all the main dries of the 
 country. The wealthy Jew modeled his residence after the more ornate 
 and more fashionable new structures. In the time of Anriochus Epiph- 
 anes, Jason received permission to remodel Jerusalem on Hellenic 
 lines. Later the Herodian temple bore witness to the prevailing type of 
 architecture (Bevan, Jerus. u. H. Priest, 79; Jos., Ant., XV, xi, 5). 
 
 Government, changing with the growing city life, grew apace. 
 Alexander the Great was a noted city builder, and the new life which 
 was infused throughout Syria set its currents strongly toward city life. 
 Thus the city became the ideal. Only under such an influence could 
 Ben Sirach contemptuously cry: "How can he have wisdom .... 
 whose talk is of bullocks?" (Ecclus. 38:25). The very consritution <rf 
 the Jewish commonwealth could not fail to be radically affected thereby. 
 
 The elders (mpT) seem not only to have been affected in their com- 
 posirion and function, though the exact influence is not definitely known, 
 
 ^mvmmn^Hp^ft 
 
 •m^ 
 
 THE INSntECT APOLOGETIC 
 
 «7 
 
 but the new situarion gave them a new name, yripmxrCa. This name is 
 first met in I Maccabees (I Mace. 12:6; cf. LXX II Chron. 19:8). 
 Later we find references to it in other books (Judith 4:8; 11:14; 15:8; 
 IIMacc. 1:10; 4:44; 11:28; IIIMacc. 1:8). The high priest presided 
 over it. It seems to have been constituted by annual elecUon, and 
 thus some changes from the old aristocrarie idea were in full swing. 
 So far as it is possible to trace, it seems feasible to think that this is the 
 same body as that which is known better by the later name, again a 
 foreign one, Sanhedrin (Jos., Ant., XIV, ix; 4; cf. Charles, Apoc. and 
 Pseud., I, in). 
 
 The scientific thought of the Greek world no doubt was readily 
 accepted by many of the Jews. Sirach is urgent in his recommendarion 
 to culrivate the physician: "It is from God the physician getteth wis- 
 dom, .... God hath created medicines out of the earth" (Ecclus. 
 38:1-5; cf. Bevan, /erttj. «. ff. Pr»M/, 67). Nor is the author of Wis- 
 dom less appreciative of the particular sciences fostered in those days by 
 the Greeks— philosophy, cosmology, chronology, astronomy, zoology, 
 and demonology (Wisd. of Sol. 7:17-22; cf. Charles, Apoc. and Pseud., 
 I, 546). 
 
 But perhaps there is no single fact that is of greater evidential value 
 for our own discussion than this, that that party which among the Jews 
 had always to be reckoned with, in national and religious affairs, the 
 Sadducees, was the protagonist for Hellenic culture (Schurer, Hist. 
 Jew. Peop., I, I, 286-87). 
 
 But the influence of surrounding custom strikes still deeper. It 
 affects the religious life and religious forms. Feasts went hand in hand 
 with all public functions. Deeorarions played a part almost entirely 
 foreign to the old and sterner life. The temple itself is enwreathed in 
 garlands on joyous occasions (I Mace. 4:57; II Mace. 10:7; cf. Jud. 
 15:13; Wisd. of Sol. 2:8). Music adds to the enliveranent of these 
 feasts. Plato had held that music was one of the liberal arts. The 
 spirit of the Greeks is caught up in Ben Sirach (Ecclus. 14:4-6, lo-ii, 
 14-19; 31:28, 31; 32:3-6; 40:20-21; 44:5; 47:9; cf. Twelve Patr., 
 T. Judah 23:2-4). The Jewish temple service may itself have been 
 enriched in its music by a reflection from this life (cf. Ecclus. 50: 11-21). 
 
 But the Greek feasts were inseparable from the Greek religion. 
 This, like the customs, was all pervasive. Not only was circumcision 
 denied, but the literal interpretarion of much of the law was only poorly 
 observed. Flesh of forbidden animals was eaten. Not only was the 
 ircrao-ot worn (II Mace. 4:12-15), but we find many initiated into 
 
 mmfimmm' 
 
MiMi 
 
 i8 
 
 THE JEWISH APOLOGETIC TO THE GKECIAN WOKLD 
 
 the Greek mysteries (Wisd. of Sol. 8:4) and leam that not only were 
 there novitiates (^wtij?), but also those who were full fledged (rtXoot; 
 cf. Hatch, Greek Iitfl., 283). It is quite possible that the synagogue 
 now arose among the Diaspora as an offset to these paganizing influ- 
 ences (Bousset, Relig. d. Jud., ji, 197 f.)- The movement toward a 
 spiritual and intellectual observance of the Sabbath, which perhaps 
 dated back earlier than the time of Ezra, would now be accelerated, 
 especially among the Diaspora (Bousset, Relig. d. Jud., 199). Perhaps 
 what may be the recognition of the organization of the synagogue has 
 been preserved in the phrase "Congregation of God" (5S "nyiS), used 
 in one of the Psalms (Ps. 74:8). 
 
 It is thus readily seen that all phases of Hebrew life and activity 
 were saturated to their very depths by the thought of a people whose 
 viewpoint was the antipodes of their own. This new, subtle, and master- 
 ful life reacted strongly on them. In part they absorbed it, in part it 
 served to bring out the more clearly their own unique contributions to 
 the world-thought. We are now prepared to consider their direct 
 replies to the various attacks which were launched against them by their 
 conquerors. 
 
 n 
 
 THE JEWISH ANSWER TO THE VARIOUS ATTACKS 
 
 That the name Jew was generally opprobrious is well known. A 
 people so seclusive, and at the same time so intolerant of any worship 
 other than their own, and so insistent in the annunciation of their own 
 faith, would of necessity be strongly opposed and greatly hated by the 
 nations among whom they lived. During their contact with the Greeks 
 their experience was no more favorable than it had been among other 
 nations. In various ways, directly and indirectly, the Jew through 
 three centuries presented his apologetic to the criticisms which were 
 huried against him and his religion (cf . Kriiger, Hellenismus u. Judentum 
 im. N.T. Zeilaller, 31-82). The charges and the answers thereto may 
 be ordered under two heads: first, those relating to the natioq; second, 
 those which deal more specifically with their religion. 
 
 THE ATTACKS ON THE NATION 
 
 A glorious antiquity was considered to be the passport into the 
 charmed circle of the Greek intellectual aristocracy. No boast has 
 been more common among people of all races than that of distinguished 
 and ancient lineage. Early Egypt boasted of an ancestry which was 
 lost in the haze of far distant millennia. Babylonia, likewise, gloried 
 in a past which was lost in antiquity. The charge of a brief and insig- 
 nificant genealogical record is one which the apologists took the greatest 
 care to remove. Fragments from Demetrius, who lived about 200 B.C., 
 Eupolemus, and Artapanus, who came a little later, go to show that 
 there were Jewish writers who were confident of the antiquity and the 
 glory of their race (Euseb., Praep. evang., IX, 1-3; XXI, 18; Clement, 
 Str., I, »3, 153). 
 
 Apollonius of Molon carefully constructed a chronology, showmg 
 the antiquity of his people. Josephus is, however, the chief advocate 
 of the ancient glory of his nation against the current attacks. Though 
 beyond the scope of our task, the contribution of Josephus, though often 
 not so accurate as we might wish, is so direct and emphatic that we may 
 here take it as the organization of tendencies of which only remnants 
 have been preserved to us outside of his work. He arranged his books 
 after the order of Greek historians, and, influenced further by them, he 
 
 ip 
 
 
i^ 
 
 ta^M^^i^mMMhtmmAtmtiam 
 
 *~^i 
 
 ^^^^^ggjgj^^,^^ 
 
 ■liliii 
 
 JO THE JEWISH APOLOGETIC TO THE GKECIAN WOEtO 
 
 gave as a title to his first work, "Twenty Books of Judean Archaeology." 
 His claim is clearly outlined in Contra A pion: "Our Jewish nation is of 
 
 ; verj' great antiquity and had a distinct subsistence of its own originally" 
 (Conl. Ap., I, i). His purpose was to provide a more just opinion of 
 his nation. If they were not well known, it was because of their inland 
 situation, and their quiet type of life. Further, their conduct of life 
 was peculiar to themselves, and thus they were not mentioned frequently 
 by historians. Yet, he contends, the fact remains that they were known 
 by the outside nations. From the testimony of Manetho he quotes: 
 "The forefathers of the Jews were delivered out of Egypt 393 years 
 before Danus, upon whom the Argives look as their most ancient King, 
 came to Argos" {Cont. Ap., I, 16). Thus he deduces the fact that the 
 Jews were delivered from Egypt almost one thousand years before the 
 siege of Troy (Cont. A p., I, 14-16). Similarly he makes use of Syrian 
 records, and shows that the splendid temple of Solomon was built 143 
 years before the Syrians founded Carthage (Cont. A p., \, 17). Menander 
 the Ephesian is quoted to corroborate the same fact (Cord. Ap., I, 18). 
 Josephus seems to have done a thorough piece of research work in his- 
 tory, for he gives us a list of some eighteen writers who bear witness to" 
 the antiquity of the Jews. Later Philo meets in the same way similar 
 and other attacks in his pamphlet. Quod Deus sit immuiabilis. 
 
 There was, however, to be met no more persbtent attack against 
 the Jews than that they were a leprous slave people who lacked all 
 semblance of culture. Manetho, the Egyptian priest, (circa 250 B.C.) 
 seems to have been the first chronicler of the tradition that the Jews 
 were a nation of slaves, who were leprous and impure, and that thus 
 they were driven out of Egypt and sold to the mines east of the Nile 
 (Cont. Ap., 1, 14-16, 26-27). Lysimachus of the first century B.C. 
 repeats the story in part, making to it a new contribution. Not only 
 were they leprous and scabby, but they obtained their food by begging, 
 and under the leadership of Moses they were regardless of proprieties, 
 and delighted to overturn altars. Because of such actions, by the com- 
 mand of Bochoris they were all drowned (Conl. Ap., I, 34-35; II, 2, 14). 
 Chaeremon, another Egyptian priest, who was also a Stoic philosopher, 
 repeated in general the story of Manetho (Conl. A p., I, 32-33). Then 
 Apion, a contemporary of Josephus, in his work Aiyu^ruuio, repeats the 
 slanders of the earlier historians (Cont. Ap., H, 1-3). The same attitude 
 is preserved by all the Greek historians, who in their writings treat at 
 
   all of the Jewish people (Schiirer, Hist. Jew. Peop., II, 3, 261 ff.). Even 
 Tacitus in his writings gives a similar account of Jewish history (Hist. 
 V. 22 ff.). 
 
 '^ 
 
 1 
 
 THE JEWISH ANSWER TO VARIOUS ATTACKS 21 
 
 Indirect replies to such an attitude as that represented in the above 
 were many. The early days and the great names of the nations past 
 were glorified in much of the current literature. The Israelitish indi- ' 
 vidual or nation is held up as an illustrious example of right conduct 
 and heroic action, or as the recipient of astonishing divine favors in such 
 books as Tobit, Sibylline Oracles, Jubilees, Patriarchs, Daniel, Esther, 
 Maccabees, the lost work of Jason of Cyrene, Judith, and Josephus. In 
 many of these, as will be seen later, the characteristic which is idealized 
 is Grecian rather than Jewish. All these writers show the nation as • 
 possessing the same high-bom culture as other nations. Their leaders 
 in great achievement and in breadth of intellectual outlook were in the 
 van of the world's great leaders. Frequently the immorality and 
 grossness of the Patriarchs were omitted in the rewriting of history (cf. 
 Twelve Patriarchs). Always the picture was gilded and frequently the 
 telling touches were borrowed from Greek ideals. This literature had 
 not only as iU object the comfort of the Hebrews, but it also sought to 
 inspire a respect for the Jewish people and their religion, and it thus 
 forms a very substantial background for the more direct polemic. 
 
 An anonymous writer, from whom a fragment has been preserved 
 in Eusebius, traces the genealogy of Abraham back to the giants, 
 asserts that he taught the Phoenicians concerning the sun and the moon, 
 and then, going to Egypt, taught the priests of Heliopolis in matters of 
 astrology and other learning (Praep. evang., IX, 17-18). The father of 
 the faithful thus was made to stand out as the man of greatest culture 
 in the eariy days. Kleodomus, whom Polyhistor accredits with writing 
 a history, gives him yet greater glory, and links him up with current 
 Greek legends (Jos., Ant., I, xv). John Hyrcanus is reported to have 
 written a history of his people along much the same lines. Polyhistor 
 refers also to the apologetic of the same type by Aristeas, Theodotus, 
 Molon, and Ezekiel. These have been preserved to us in part by Euse- 
 bius (Praep. evang., IX, 17-39). Artapanus adopts a rather novel 
 method to prove his case. He presents and supports the theory that 
 Moses of the Jews is none other than the Greek Musaeus and the Egyp- 
 tian Hermes. He surrounds the traditional lawgiver with many of the 
 accessories of Egyptian legend, and thus endeavors to win for the founder 
 of his nation a favorable consideration from the gentile worid (Euseb., 
 Praep. evang., IX, 27). Aristobulus asserts that Pythagoras, Socrates, 
 and Plato derived their doctrines from Moses, in fact, the peripatetic 
 philosophy was dependent on him (Euseb., Praep. evang., XIIl, 12, i; 
 Clement, Str., V, 14, 97). The pseudepigraphists exalt a number of their 
 
 ^fff" 
 
 ^WB»l^>W"^ 
 
 ^imnfiw 
 
„>^ 
 
 33 THE JEWISH APOLOGEnC TO THE GKEdAN WORLD 
 
 great historical characters, as Daniel, Solomon, Jeremiah, Josiah, Baruch, 
 to the pinnacle of human perfection. 
 
 Josephus here again proves to be the systematic defender of his 
 people. As already indicated, his history from the indirect standpoint 
 was a most telling apologetic. The prowess and the virtue of his 
 ancestry were here celebrated. The men of the past and their deeds 
 were idealized. With the passing of the centuries and their accumulat- 
 ing traditions, under the glowing patriotism of the historian, the human 
 weaknesses of the actors were forgotten, their heroism stood out more 
 prominently, statistics representing national strength were increased by 
 thousands, late conceptions were represented as having obtained from 
 the beginning, and the whole history of the people, as it was rewritten, 
 was intended to impress the mind of the gentile reader. But Josephus 
 put all his strength into a direct defense against various definite accusa- 
 tions. He cited the then well-known facts, that in recent years the 
 Jews had been considered worthy of special favors at the hands of 
 their rulers. Alexander the Great had given them possession of their 
 own country, and had bestowed on them the same freedoms and immuni- 
 ties as on the Macedonians themselves. The Jews in the various cities 
 in which they lived were permitted, by special statute, to be called by 
 the name of that city, as Alexandrians, Ephesians, etc. Quoting from 
 Hecataeus, he shows that "Alexander honored the Jews to such a degree, 
 that, for the equity and fidelity, which they gave proof of, he permitted 
 them to hold the country of Samaria free from tribute." Ptolemy 
 Lagus was so confident of their loyalty and valor that he intrusted to 
 their care the fortresses of Egypt and colonized Cyrene and other cities 
 of Lybia with these people. Ptolemy Philadclphus not only freed the 
 nation, but removed certain duties from them, and further was so con- 
 vinced as to the value of their Scriptures as to require a translation of 
 them. Ptolemy Euergetes showed his belief in the power of the God of 
 the Jews by sacrificing in Jerusalem according to their laws on the occa- 
 sion of his victory over all Syria. Philometer and Cleopatra so recog- 
 nized their efficiency as to give the whole charge of the government to 
 Onias and Doritheus, who were both Jews. These men saved the 
 Egyptian nation from the hands of revolters. Later, when Ptolemy 
 Physcon planned to destroy many Jews of Alexandria by a band of 
 elephants, the divine approval of the oppressed people was manifested 
 when the enraged beasts wreaked vengeance on Jhe servants of the 
 tyrant. Last of all, Julius Caesar, in his epistles, bore testimony to the 
 virtue of the Jewish nation (CotU. Ap., II, 4-5). 
 
   M l xm ^mmsm 
 
 Pl'WP' 
 
 i#fTi«^8ifiiHii I 
 
 THE JEWISH ANSWER TO VARIOUS ATTACKS 
 
 »3 
 
 Beyond this, however, Josephus moves back into history and asserts 
 the greatness of certain individuals of his nation. That among his own 
 people there should be men of culture he held was most natural. As a 
 race they were not given to war or robbery. They were not a maritime 
 people, so their attention was taken up with their home affairs. The 
 education of their children was thus their chief care, and they thought 
 the true business of life was the observance of the rules of piety {Cont. 
 Ap., I, is). 
 
 The outside world had learned much from his ancestors. The 
 philosophy of Diogenes had been borrowed from the Jews (Cont. A p., 
 I, 22). It had been stated by Hermippus that Pythagoras had imitated 
 the Jewish doctrines and had incorporated many of their laws in his 
 philosophy (jCotU. Ap., I, 22). Tyre also, it was stated by Theophrastus, 
 had laws such as prohibition against swearing foreign oaths, etc., which 
 were found only among the Jews and hence borrowed {Conl. Ap., I, 22). 
 The work and significance of Moses, which had been attacked by Apol- 
 lonius of Molon, Lysimachus, and Apion, was stoutly defended by 
 Josephus. He was the most ancient of all lawgivers, and at the same 
 time his laws were the best. He claimed that the earliest Grecian phi- 
 losophers had followed the Jewish legislator. Plato had imitated Moses 
 chiefly in this point that everyone should learn the laws accurately. In 
 fact, even " as God himself pervades all the world, so hath our law passed 
 throughout all the worid also" {Cont. Ap., II, 13, 15, 37, 40). He seeks 
 to prove from Dius the Phoenician historian that Solomon was wiser 
 than Hiram of Tyre {Cont. Ap., I, 17}. In order to refute the strictures 
 of the enemies of his nation, he not only deals in assertions and quotes 
 various historians, but by pitting one accusation against another he 
 reduces the whole to a reductio ad absurdum {Cont. Ap., I, 28-31). Only 
 one instance of this is required to show the method of his argument, viz., 
 inasmuch as Moses introduced a very strict law concerning leprosy and 
 its treatment, these people could not be a nation of lepers. The whole 
 tendency in the treatise Contra Apion is to show that the Jewish nation 
 either originated or laid special emphasis on those things which were 
 generally considered to be Greek. In many ways the same spirit is seen, 
 though it is not so systematically set forth, in the writings of Philo. 
 Thus in the interbiblical period there was a great deal of Jewish literature 
 which was written for gentile eyes, having the express purpose of raising 
 the nation of the authors in the general esteem of the pagan world. 
 
 The challenge of the opponents of Judaism went even deeper than 
 that of the lack of culture. They branded them as "fellow-haters" 
 
 '"IPWWPW»W*P"^"*^ 
 
iiAMa*^ii*iaMMM 
 
 34 THE JEWISH APOLOGETIC TO THE CKECIAN WORLD 
 
 (iiuila, Jos., Conl. Ap., II, II, 29, 37)- In that age of cosmopolitan- 
 ism such a fault was a crime. Under the influence of Stoicism, the 
 dominant note of the cultured community was social and philanthropic 
 (Zeller, Slcics, 295-96). Along with this went the kindred charge that 
 they were thoroughly bad citizens and not infrequently proved disloyal 
 to their lords. They were accused of taking an oath " to bear no good 
 will to any foreigners, and particularly to none of the Greeks" (Cont. 
 Ap., II, ii). It was considered conclusive that inasmuch as they did 
 not worship the same gods as the Alexandrians, they were therefore the 
 authors of sedition (Cont. Ap., II, 6). Because the Jews would not 
 worship the king they were constantly pilloried by the Gentiles. 
 
 It was necessary for the apologists to admit that their nation was 
 somewhat exclusive. Josephus maintained, however, that, on the one 
 hand, this was the common practice of all nations (Cont. Ap., II, 37). 
 On the other hand, he asserted that the lawgiver of Israel "does not 
 show any envious mind toward those who cultivate a friendship with 
 us" (Cont. Ap., II, 29). It was ordained that even enemies should be 
 treated with moderation (Cont. Ap., II, 30), and that those who desired 
 to partake of Jewish institutions should be freely admitted, thereto 
 (Cont. Ap., II, 37). On the whole, it is concluded that the Jew had not 
 been narrower in his sympathies than those of other nations. Beyond 
 this, these people had been found possessing that most excellent quality 
 of faithfulness to their own laws, in a degree not surpassed by any other 
 nation. Not only are their observance of specific laws, as those per- 
 Uining to the Sabbath, images, foods, etc., referred to in much of their 
 literature, as Tobit, Daniel, Esther, II Maccabees, Judith, etc., but 
 Josephus concludes the whole matter by such a sweeping declaration 
 as: "No one can tell of more than one or two that have betrayed our 
 laws, even on fear of death" (Cont. Ap., II, 38; I, 22; II, 31; Jos., 
 Ant., XVI, ii, 4; XVI, vi, 2). 
 
 These writers are at considerable pains to establish their loyalty. 
 The above-mentioned favors granted by kings are appealed to. The 
 various good offices of the Jews are recited. The sacrifice offered in 
 Jerusalem for the monarch is emphasized (cf. I Mace. 7:33; II Mace. 
 3:32; Ezra 6:10). Their peculiar religious conceptions which opposed 
 idolatry are elaborated as reasons why they should not follow in the 
 easy ways of human worship of other nations. All sides of the 
 question are met and answered especially by Josephus (Conl. Ap., II, 
 6-38). 
 
 ■I'WiWi.Lli 
 
 THE JEWISH ANSWER TO VARIOUS ATTACKS 
 
 »S 
 
 THE ATTACKS ON THEIR RELIGION 
 
 The religious ideas and attitude of the Hebrews are, however, 
 equally a point of attack by the Hellenists. The ritual is both grossly 
 misunderstood and scathingly censured. Food laws presented an 
 excellent target for the critics. Abhorrence of swine's flesh was one of 
 the distinguishing characteristics of the true Jew. Antiochus Epiphanes 
 did his best to override the prejudices of the people in thb respect 
 (I Mace. 1:47; 2:16). The same attitude of opposition on the part 
 of the Greeks to this taboo is found down to the end of our period (Jos., 
 Jew. Wars, VII, 81; Cont. Ap., II, 14)- 
 
 Circumcision likewise meets with the derision of the more cultured 
 nation Qoi., Cont. Ap., II, 13; Horace Sat. i. 9- 69; Juvenal Sat. 
 xiv. 105-*; Tac. Hist. v. 4). The attitude of the young Jew to this 
 sign of his race indicates how strong the feeling had grown. 
 
 The Sabbath was another of their distinctive regulations which met 
 with general ridicule on the part of their enemies. On more than one 
 occasion their reverence for the letter of the law cost them the lives of 
 many of their fellows (cf. I Mace. 2:34; 9 = 34; Jo*-. '4«'-. XIV, iv, 3; 
 II Mace. 5:24, 25; 6:6; 8:26; 12:38). No more scandalous attack 
 was made against this religious function than that in which Apion 
 attempts to explain the origin of the observance. He relates it to Sab- 
 batosis, which he asserts was the name of the Egyptian remedy for the 
 buboes in the groin, from which the Jews suffered after six days' travel- 
 ing from Egypt (Cont. Ap., II, 2). 
 
 There were, however, some very wild misrepresentations of their 
 ritual afloat through the country. Two of the most notorious were the 
 following. Apion transmitted the story of earlier tradiUonalists that 
 in the holy place of the Jews, there was a golden head of an ass, of 
 immense value, and that they worshiped this head as deity. The 
 other most unfounded criticism is also chronicled most fully by Apion. 
 The story is as follows: "Antiochus found, upon entering the temple, a 
 man lying upon a bed, with a table before him, set out in all the deli- 
 cacies that either sea or land could afford The King bade him 
 
 speak freely The man then burst into tears and proceeded to 
 
 answer: I am a Greek .... and was taken up by some foreigners, 
 brought to this place, and shut up with posiUve orders not to suffer 
 
 mortal to approach me They gave me to understand that the 
 
 Jews had a custom among them, once a year, upon a certain day pre- 
 fixed, to seize upon a Grecian stranger and, when they had kept him 
 
 'fippsi'fWif* 
 
 ■v 
 
 WT" 
 
36 
 
 THE JEWISH APOLOGETIC TO THE GRECIAN WOKU> 
 
 fattening one whole year, to take him into a wood, and offer him up as 
 a sacrifice, according to their own form, taking a taste of his blood, 
 with a horrid oath to live and die sworn enemies to the Greeks" (Coni. 
 Ap., U, 8). 
 
 To these accusations two lines of defense were instituted: The one 
 was that many of these calumnies were preposterous on the face of them. 
 None of the prosel>'tes from other nations were aware of these atrocities, 
 and they were contrary to the whole genius of the Jewish religion (Cont. 
 ^P; Hi 9~")- The other method of meeting the situation was a defense 
 of the validity of such restrictions. The Eg>'ptian priests were quoted 
 as both abstaining from swine's food and practicing circumcision (Cont. 
 Ap., II, 14). An early WTiter had drawn sufficiently on his imagination 
 to assure his readers that though the heathen scoffed at the rite of 
 circumcision, the very angels themselves had been so created Qub. 
 15:26, 27, 14). A similar apologetic is made by the sanie writer for 
 the observance of the Sabbath (Jub. 2:18-19, 2, 31). Other nations, 
 likewise, it was held by Josephus, had their exclusive regulations, and, 
 on the whole, the constancy of the Jew to the laws of his fathers was 
 commendatory (Cont. Ap.,l,S, 21; II, 38). 
 
 Aristobulus was a thoroughgoing Pythagorean when he explained 
 the origin of the Sabbath, not from the idea that God rested— the 
 Divine Being never needed rest — but from the consideration that this 
 was doing honor to the number 7 (Zeller, Die. Or., Ill, 2, 264). 
 
 The charge of atheism is also laid at their door (Cont. Ap., II, 22, 
 36). This was in large measure due to the fact that they did not wor- 
 ship the gods of other nations, nor give to men that homage which was 
 due to God only, nor would they bow down before images. Their 
 most acceptable apologetic was the able statement of monotheism made 
 by Josephus in Cont. Ap., II. 16, 23; cf. Aristeas 16. 
 
 The attack upon their worship was fundamentally an attack on 
 their Scriptures. Josephus, here again, makes the earliest formal 
 defense of their Scriptures. To prove the veracity of the Jewish Scrip-   
 tures in matters of histor>', he calls to his aid the testimony of many 
 of the world-historians: Manetho, Menander, Berosus, Megasthenes, 
 PhilostratuS, Dius the Phoenician, el al. (Cont. Ap., I, 14-21). After 
 various proofs he concludes that the records of the Jews are of 
 all the most accurate. They carry down the story of the world from 
 the creation to his own time, and are free from any disagreement (CotU. 
 Ap., II, 6-8). Priests had been appointed for the purpose of making 
 and preserving the records from the beginning. This duty, because 
 
 «Mi« 
 
 THE JEWISH ANSWER TO VARIOUS ATTACKS 
 
 »7 
 
 of the great care of the system and the high character of the priests, had 
 been performed most adequately (Cont. A p., II, 7). The character 
 of the Scripture had, on the one hand, been attested by the fact that 
 many Jews would rather lose their lives than violate a single word 
 (Cont. A p., I, 8, 22). On the other hand, the fact that the proselytes 
 were not few (Cont. Ap., II, i, 11), and that even a Greek king had 
 worshiped in Jerusalem in accordance with the rites of the temple 
 (Cont. Ap., II, s; cf. Aristeas 16, 19, 37; III Mace. 3:21; S'-i^'< 6:24- 
 26; 7:6-8) was good evidence that they were not less worthy than the 
 scriptures of other peoples. The somewhat confident conclusion to 
 the whole matter is that the laws of the Jew were the best in all history 
 as well as the most ancient. In them there was nothing which could be 
 changed for the better; in fact the law continues immortal (Cont. Ap., 
 II, 18, 22-23, 39). 
 
 Apart from the theoretical answers which were given to the oppo- 
 nents of Judaism, there was a movement which was a most practical 
 apologetic. The intense loyalty of numbers of the Jews to their religion, 
 together with its spiritual monotheism, laid a basis for a strong appeal 
 to the Greeks. The synagogues throughout the land were centers of 
 religious fires which must have been felt by the Gentiles. Though we 
 have no way of ascertaining the strength of the movement or the num- 
 ber of converts, we have good evidence that a proselytizing propaganda 
 of considerable moment was carried on in the closing centuries of Jewish 
 national life (Wisd. of Sol. 1:1; 6:1-9, 21; Jos., Cont. Ap., II, 10, 39; 
 Jos., Jrw. Wars, II, xx, 2). No doubt there was a substantial historical 
 background for the words, "They compassed sea and land to make one 
 proselyte " (Matt. 23 : 15). This gives all the more point to such attacks 
 as that of Apion and also suggests apologetic and propagandist tendencies 
 in much of the literature of this period (cf. Bousset, Relig. d. Jud., 
 88-99). 
 
 The duty now remains to pass from the indirect and negative atti- 
 tude of the apologetic to the more positive note. The way for this was 
 admirably prepared by the close contact of the two peoples for a couple 
 of centuries with the resultant absorption of the thought atmosphere 
 of the Greeks by the Jews. Slowly the way had been prepared for 
 Hebrew thought to be cast in Hellenic mold. With thb the following 
 section will deaL 
 
 ^W"^fl^»W^ 
 
 PW^^^^^^W^ 
 
'■T'-fl'fl 
 
 in 
 
 A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 
 
 THE HEBREW THOUGHT RESTATED IN TERUS OF CREaAN PHILOSOPHY 
 
 In the literature of this period we are faced by a readjustment to 
 the current movements of the day in four different though correlated 
 fields of thought: cosmology, psychology, ethics, and theology. In 
 each division we shall endeavor to state briefly the orthodox Jewish 
 belief and the significant features of the Greek philosophies, and then 
 attempt to show how one gradually in part or in whole passed over into 
 the other. 
 
 A. CX>SMOLOGy 
 
 That there was a broad chasm separating the old Hebrew cosmogony 
 from the Greek world-thought is easily recognized. The Greek cos- 
 mogonies themselves were the result of growth. Significant among 
 the early Greek philosophies stands the ?ythagorean movement. To 
 this school, number was not only the governing principle, but was 
 itself the essence of the cosmogony. Other schook endeavored to 
 explain the universe from a single principle, and that, to our concep- 
 tion, a material one. In thb material substance Heraclitus found the 
 warring of opposites, which was the e.xplanation of all phenomena. His 
 system, in spite of the fact that he considers the Logos or the cosmical 
 reason to be identical with universal law, is nevertheless a refined pan- 
 theistic materialism. Empedocles seems to have been the first who 
 traced the creation of the world to the operation of a non-material 
 agency. Anaxagoras, a contemporary, followed up this conception by 
 maintaining that row or "Reason" was the cause of the first movement 
 by which the world was formed. Here, mind and matter are conceived 
 as over against each other. To him »ow was a spiritual and not a 
 material substance. Thus the foundation for dualism was firmly laid. 
 Plato, however, in his own way, brought this opposition more clearly 
 to light. To him the first cause was purely spiritual. He further 
 recognized the difficulty of the purely spiritual acting on the purely 
 material. He considered that this could be accomplished in part only. 
 The material had a certain resisting quality named necessity (irayioj), 
 which the spiritual was unable completely to overcome and which was 
 the root of evil. Thus the spiritual in its creative activity introduced 
 
 >S 
 
 ■MittdiiiteiiiwiiiitoH 
 
 _^_ -- ''-^ili'ir li tti'mlt iat tmiM 
 
 A REVIEW or THE LITERATURZ 
 
 »9 
 
 into the material only "as many proportions as it was possible for it 
 to receive" {Tim. 69B). The corollary of this is his world of ideas. In 
 it there are two divisions, which are designated the body and the soul. 
 The body, which was composed of the four elements, was controlled by 
 mathematical forms and numbers {Tim. 53B). The soul was highly 
 metaphysical, possessing the attributes of motion and intelligence. 
 This universe, body and soul together, the archetypal world, was "the 
 image of the Creator, the only begotten" (Tim. 92C), and it governed 
 the natural and the known world. The cosmical soul (row or Aoy«), 
 was the nexus between these two worlds. This relation between the 
 two and the method of maintaining that relation is nowhere worked out 
 completely. We have, however, in this the systematic attempt to 
 explain the world on a dualistic principle. Later the neo-PIatonist« 
 contended that the ultimate source of being was a real unity which 
 transcended both matter and spirit. 
 
 The Stoics who carried forward the germinal ideas of earlier teachers 
 exercised considerable influence on Hebrew thought from another 
 viewpoint. To them the primary substance, called spirit (mmita) or 
 air (atdiip), was matter and force in one. The mode of creative activity 
 was inward pressure. Under this principle, called by them the seminal 
 logos, which was none other than God himself, they held that there was 
 an upward movement toward the lighter and more active substance 
 which becomes force, and a downward movement toward the more 
 solid substance which becomes more and more passive and most truly 
 matter. The universe thus was a rational evolution, of which process 
 man was the highest expression. Explaining the universe as they did 
 from the material principle, they were materialistic pantheists. 
 
 The Hebrew people, on the other hand, were never interested in ' 
 cosmogony per se. It was only as the God-idea affected it that it received 
 any consideration at their hands. As a rule, they accepted without ^ 
 question the general conceptions of their neighbors and kinsmen. In 
 their earliest writings their statements are very incomplete and some- 
 what naive. To them things were as they seemed. The general Semitic 
 idea of a flat earth, with waters above and waters below, was accepted. 
 Creation had been by a divine fiat from a God outside of the world, 
 which, once formed, remained static 
 
 Later in the Old Testament there seem to be advance movements. 
 In the P creation story (Gen. i : 1-2, 4a) much attention, after the man- 
 ner of this school, is given to the orderly progress in the work of creation. 
 It is fitted into a perfect number scheme and man is the culmination of 
 
 mfmm^^'m 
 
i^iM^dii^HMUta 
 
 30 
 
 TEE JEWISH APOLOGETIC TO THE GRECIAN WOKLD 
 
 the whole process. While in this story the conflict between God (D'tlbs) 
 and the void (DinP) is preserved by only the most tenuous suggestions, 
 there is nothing which denies the dualism which underlay the Babylonian 
 mythology. In view of what Semitic cosmogony was and the part 
 which astral worship played, "The greater light to rule the day and the 
 lesser light to rule the night" (Gen. 1:16), might easily have become 
 the basis for a type of dualism. A contemporary perhaps of P, who 
 has presented the most far-reaching view of monotheism in the Old 
 Testament, may have met this, or if not this then a similar danger, in 
 this memorable phrase, "I form light and create darkness" (Isa. 45:7). 
 
 Prov. 8: 22-31 (cf . 3 : 19-20) is a product of the idea of the transcend- 
 ence of God which reached its most adequate expression in Deutero- 
 Isaiah. Not only is it more poetic than the first chapter of Genesis, 
 but the conception of wisdom (m32H) being with God from the begin- 
 ning, before the creation of the cosmos, as a master-workman or nurseling 
 (^faS), is a decided step toward cosmological ideas which were prevalent 
 in the Greek World.' That the writer of this section of the Book of 
 Proverbs was directly influenced by outside thought movements it is 
 not possible to assert with certainty. With the development of the idea 
 of the transcendence and the spirituality of Deity, the Hebrews them- 
 selves, though not given much to philosophic thought, must have felt 
 the need of some intermediary between God and the world. In the 
 canonical books we have one other glimpse where beings of divine or 
 semi-divine origin are represented as present at and sympathetic with 
 the work of creation Qob 38:4-7). Apart from these few evidences — 
 and even these may have been influenced by' Greece — we have no 
 further indications of cosmological ideas of the Hebrews which would 
 correspond to the general outlook of the Greek world. 
 
 As the intellectual interest of the Jews was only incidentally turned 
 toward cosmological problems, the Grecian influence here may briefly 
 be summed up. No doubt the comprehensiveness of the Greek view- 
 point contributed to make the Jewrish statement of the universe more 
 orderly and systematic than it had hitherto been. Under this interest, 
 apparently, the story of the creation b thoroughly elaborated in the 
 Secrets of Enoch (En., chaps. 25-30). While the Qoloring of the con- 
 ceptions of heaven is largely influenced by Persia, the need of these 
 days resulted in many systematic attempts clearly to present the hypo- 
 thetical future world for the encouragement of the present sufferers. 
 
 » WTiile " master-workman '* is the translation favored in general by the older 
 lexicographers and commentators, with a good c'eal of justiBcation Gunkel {Schdpf. 
 u. Chaos, 94), Toy (l.C.C, in loc). Buhl (Lexicon), and others translate it " nurseling." 
 
 A REVIEW OF THE UTERATtHtX 
 
 31 
 
 Well-ordered presentations of the future world are found in Enoch 
 (En., chap. 22), the Twelve Patriarchs (T. Levi 2 : 7 — 3 : 10), the Book of 
 Jubilees (Jub. 4:21; 32:21-25), the Ascension of Isaiah (Asc. Isa., 
 chaps. 7-10), and the Secrets of Enoch (Slav. En., chaps. 3-22). Hades 
 is arranged in four divisions, and each division is peopled under the 
 principle of moral distinctions (En., chap. 22). Similarly there are 
 provisions made for orderly grading in the seven heavens (Slav. En., 
 chaps. 7-17). 
 
 To express the idea of a well-ordered whole, we find more than one ' 
 of their writers using certain time-honored philosophical expressions 
 of the Greeks. Kosmos («o<r/io«, used for "world" first by Pythagoras; 
 cf. Hatch, Greek Infl., 209) and the words from the same root have 
 found their way into the LXX (Dt. 4:19; 17:3; Isa. 24:21; 40:26, 
 etal.). Here it is used for the Hebrew SOX , and may only very indirectly 
 reflect the Greek idea of harmony and unity. In the Prayer of Manassdi 
 we find the word again with perhaps no deeper significance (<rJ» rim 
 T<u KoafLiS avriv. Prayer of Man., vs. 2). The Wisdom of Solomon uses 
 it in a comprehensive sense: "for the world is a fighter on behalf of the 
 righteous" {iiripitaxot yap o Koapm lirrl &ic<uVi>i', Wisd. of Sol. 16:17; cf. 
 7:17). Likewise &oti«I, which was a common expression on the lips 
 of the Stoics for the correct ordering of the world (e.g., Chrysippus 
 in Plutarch, Plac. Phil. i. 28; Diogenes, Laert. vii. 133; Epictet., Diss. 
 Ill, 15, 14; and frequently in Philo and Josephus), is regularly used 
 in the Wisdom of Solomon to express the same idea. The emphasis 
 on the orderly arrangement of the whole is clearly expressed in "And 
 sweetly doth she order all things" («<u &o>xu ri iroKra xpi)<rn>t, Wisd. 
 of Sol. 8: i). The same is true of "And orderest us with great favor" 
 (xat/icrairaAA^ ^u$avt&aiMi<iJ/uc, Wisd. of Sol. 12:18; cf.i5:i). Pytha- 
 gorean and Stoic terminology mingle in " But she hath ordered all things 
 in measure and number and weight" (iXXa iraiTii liirpif xat ipiBp^ ni 
 (TTaSiuf iiiraiat, Wisd. of Sol. 11:20; cf. Twelve Patr. T. Naph. 2:3; 
 En. 43:2). Again, we find two very common philosophic terms to 
 describe the process of creation, "She passeth through and goeth 
 through all things by reason of her pureness" {Sn^a SJ koI x'tpit Sti 
 irovT<i)» Sia T^v KaSaporrfra, Wisd. of Sol. 7:24; cf. Plutarch, Plac. Phil. i. 
 8, 17). 
 
 An interesting piece of apologetic, which is at least indirectly related 
 to the Hebrew cosmogony, is the book of "celestial physics" in Enoch 
 (chaps. 72-82). The aim of the writer seems to have been to prove 
 the validity of the Jewish calendar, particularly in opposition to that of 
 
 "^i^fmmr^^^m^^^m 
 
 T 
 
 l|MjJU l l}J ! i| i ppijll 
 
32 
 
 THE JEWISB APOLOGETIC TO THE GKECIAN WORU> 
 
 the Greeks. He asserts that the moon is the infallible divider of time, 
 bringing " in all the years exactly, so that their position is not prematurely 
 advanced or delayed by a single day unto eternity" (En. 74: 12).' His 
 lunar year of three hundred and si.xty-four days (7X52) he makes agree 
 with the solar year by the insertion of intercalary days in the third, 
 fifth, and eighth years (En. 74:13-16). He gives us reason to believe 
 that not only had he before him the eight-year cycle of the Greek 
 calendar, but that his special point of attack was the calendar of 365! 
 days which was then in vogue (En. 74:13-17; cf. Slav. En. 68:1-3). 
 He contended that the Greek calendar of 365} days caused much con- 
 fusion because, by the very necessity of the case, feast days yearly 
 changed from one day of the week to another (En. 82:5-9). While 
 the system presented was less perfect than those which were opposed, 
 being built up on the phases of the moon, it was essentially Jewish. 
 However, in his effort to win the day for a phase of thought which was 
 Semitic, he used as his instruments of defense a semi-scientific elabora- 
 tion of the methods and principles of the Pythagoreans. The opposite 
 side of this contention is taken up by the author of Jubilees. He over- 
 rides the lunar month and accepts that of the Greeks, viz., thirty days, 
 and the solar year of twelve months, adding a number of intercalary 
 days to make the year 365{ days (cf. Jub. 4:17; 5:27; 6:29-30; 12:16, 
 27; 16:11-13; 25:16). The fact that one who was a polemicist for 
 Judaism should thus defend and appropriate a Greek institution shows 
 how completely Greek influence was permeating Jewish thinking. 
 
 That under the tutelage of the Greeks some of the Hebrews came 
 to the conclusion that in the creation of the world the Creator acted 
 upon matter which was a passive substance is quite apparent. It b 
 true that the more Jewish idea of creation out of nothing {t( ov<c iyrar) 
 is emphasized by the authors of II Maccabees and the Apocalypse of 
 Baruch (U Mace. 7:28; Apoc. Bar. 21:4; 48:8). But, on the other 
 hand, the author of the Wisdom of Solomon uses the most significant 
 phrases of the dualists. He holds that the world («o<r/«os) was made 
 from formless matter (ii ttfufx^w ' vXi;«, Wisd. of Sol. 11:17). Both 
 of these words are used in a technical sense by the Platonists (Diog. 
 Laert. iii. 41; vii. 134; Plato, Tim. siA; cf. Wace, Comm„ in loc.). In 
 
   Charles by a change of text for which there is some evidence, both textual and 
 contextual, makes Enoch attribute the above result, viz., the exact division of time, 
 to the sun rather than the moon (Charles, Apoc. and Pseud., II, J40). If this repre- 
 sents the original reading, it leaves Enoch in entire agreement with the author of 
 Jubilees and makes him more of a Greek than he otherwise would be. 
 
 k^UAAkMMiiMB 
 
 A REVIEW OF THE UTEKATXntE 
 
 33 
 
 use SAij and foD« were the antitheses of each other. "Elements" 
 (o-TOiX'Ioi') is used in a Greek sense in Wisdom (Wisd. of Sol. 7:17; 
 19:18). In Slavonic Enoch, man is made by divine wisdom out of ' 
 seven substances (Slav. En. 30:8). In the same book we have a pic- 
 turesque representation of the world being formed out of pre-existent 
 material (Slav. En. 25:1-2). It is possible that Slav. En. 24:2, which 
 as it stands seems to contradict this, may be textually faulty (cf . Charles, 
 Apoc. and Pseud., II, 444). These few unordered expressions are 
 signs of that movement toward the Greek conception of matter which 
 was perfected in Philo. 
 
 When transcendence is so intensified as to make dualism a logical 
 necessity, the question of the medium of creation becomes a vital issue. 
 In late Hebrew thought the need was felt. Contact with Greece facili- 
 tated interpretation. Wisdom (nCDn) now became m^, vm, or 
 Xoyos. While it is true that God is spoken of as the all (to iro» Itrrir 
 avTvt, Ecclus. 43:27; cf. 11:14; 16:26; 18:1-14; 36:5, «/ ai.), yet o-o^ia 
 is the creative principle which is poured out from the mouth of Yahweh 
 on all the earth (Ecclus. i : 4-9). The Book of Jubilees, though an attack 
 on Hellenism, is so far unconsciously influenced by its environment as 
 to assign the various natural phenomena to the charge of angels (Jub. 
 2:2; cf. En. 60:12-21). The author of Wisdom was undoubtedly a 
 convert to the age. Soi^io was the medium by which God made the 
 world (Wisd. of Sol. 7:22-25; 8:1, 5; 10:17; cf- 9-9)- She was the 
 master-workman {rtxnnjt, 13:1) and was with the Almighty before 
 he made the world. She was an unmingled emanation from the glory 
 of the Almighty. This descriptive phrase (irofipoia . . . . d XutptK^, 
 7:24) was one which in the Greek world did duty in cosmological 
 theories. Athenagoras uses both terms for a similar purpose (Apol. 
 10). It corresponds to the Stoic idea of the htmian soul being the 
 out-pouring of the divine world-soul. The way in which <n^ is 
 spoken of in Wisdom (Wisd. of Sol. 8:1; 7:22-27; cf. IV Mace. 6:35) 
 shows us that not only were the phrases of the Stoics the common prop- 
 erty of the writer, but the \6yot of the Greeks as a creative principle 
 had gained an advocate at court among the Hebrew people. 
 
 The archetypal ideas of Plato may have left a slight trace in one or 
 two of our books (Dahne, Gesch. Darst. der jud.-alex. relig. Phil., II, 
 15-16, does full justice to the evidence). In the Wisdom of Solomon, b 
 the command to build a temple on the holy moimt in resemblance 
 (jufjirilia) of the holy temple which was prepared from the beginning 
 (Wisd. of Sol. 9:8; cf. LXX Ex. 25:4, 9, and Charles, Apoc. and 
 
 mmmf'^Kwsi^mn^mm^m 
 
■aiitiiHiMfiMi 
 
 34 
 
 THE JEWISH APOUXSETIC TO THE GRECIAN WOKLD 
 
 Pseud., I, 5.<;o). In the same book it is said that in the long gannent 
 of the priest was the whole world (oAot i Kotr/uK, Wisd. of Sol. 18:24). 
 Whether this was purposely used as a symbol or not, the same figure 
 is uken up both by Philo {De Man. II, 5; Vita Mos. Ill, 14; De Prop. 
 jo; De Migt. Abr. 18) and by Josephus (Ant., II, vii, 8) as of symbolic 
 significance referring to the whole universe. 
 
 In Slavonic Enoch there are many statements which show an appro- 
 priation of the same current thought. Time and time again the author 
 refers to the visible and the invisible things (Slav. En. 24:4; 2s:t; 
 47:4.5; Si^S; 64:5; 65:1,6; cf. LXX Gen. 1:2). In 25:1, "I com- 
 manded in the depths that visible things should come out of the invisible 
 things," there seems to be a decided leaning toward archetypal ideas. 
 Likewise, "For before anything which is visible existed, I alone held 
 my course among the invisible things" (Slav. En. 24:4). Even more 
 definite is, "Before that anything existed and all creatires were made, 
 the Lord made all things both visible and invisible" (Slav. En. 6$: i). 
 
 From what we have seen above we should judge that while the 
 Hebrews were rarely particularly interested in cosmological specula- 
 tion, yet they borrowed sufficient of the culture of the Greeks to make it 
 possible to gain their attention for weightier doctrines. Not only did 
 some of them freely and technically use Greek philosophical terms, but 
 • they borrowed their ideas. A carefully and harmoniously ordered uni- 
 verse, passivity of matter, and creation by subordinate beings, arche- 
 typal ideas, are among the most outstanding cosmological readjustments 
 made by those who were leaders of Jewish thought. These were all 
 carried to their full expression by their chief Hellenist, Philo. 
 
 B. PSYCHOLOGY 
 
 The Evaluation of Human Personality 
 It is convenient for us to analyze this side of our question under the 
 following heads: the nature of man, the idea of conscience, the problem 
 of freedom, and the conception of iimnortality. These problems, which 
 to us are psychological, were by the andents construed in a metaphysical 
 sense. 
 
 Treating first the nature of man, it is necessary for us to turn our 
 attention to the Greek and Hebrew ideas respectively. In the early 
 popular Greek conceptions which have been preserved in Homer {Odyssey 
 x-ii) the soul (<hn(n) had an existence in the body (<rS/«i), yet independent 
 therefrom, and it was the only part which survived after death. Yet 
 in Hades its existence was rather colorless. The Dionysian cult in 
 
 tm^^mmf'im'Vfmm^miitf^ 
 
 A REVIEW OF THE LITERATtJRE 
 
 35 
 
 Thrace had a well-defined dualism, though it believed that the soul 
 could not exist apart from a body. One of the earliest attempts of the 
 Greeks to explain the nature of man from a philosophic standpoint 
 is that of Heraclitus. He conceived the soul of man to be an exhalation 
 of fire, which developed out of the moist constituents of the world, and 
 that it was identical with the Logos. It was thus only the finer part 
 of the material substance of the universe, but herein is the beginning of 
 the philosophic dualism of body and soul. This is completed by Anaxag- 
 oras. To him row was a spiritual not a material substance, and it 
 alone was simple, pure, and unmixed. He further identifies rm with 
 ifnixn- Socrates asserts that the soul is part of the universal mind, 
 and Plato describes human souls, which were compounded by the Creator 
 himself, as being thrust down into bodies, which corresponded in per- 
 fection to the degree of their fidelity to their higher nature. These 
 souls were both pre-existent and immortal. The Stoics, in complete 
 accord with their pantheistic view, considered that there were souls 
 in all vegetation and also in the lower animals. Only in man, however, 
 did this soul become rational. It was divided up into eight parU, viz., 
 the five senses, speech, reproducrion, and the sovereign principle. 
 Through life's experiences the Xoy« was evolved in the individual by 
 impressions which were transmitted through the senses to the sovereign 
 principle of the soul. Thereby the human soul came into touch with 
 the universal Xoym. Thus we have a dualism of body and soul, the 
 soul, pre-existent and immortal as it is, linked up with the soul of the 
 universe; the body, material, hence mortal (cf. Adams, Relig. Teachers 
 of Greece, 131). The soul on the one side was linked up with the soul of 
 the universe, on the other side it made its impression upon man through 
 his reason (voCs) which was human (Adams, Relig. Teachers of Greece, 
 131). Thus their psychology inevitably led them to trichotomy. 
 
 The Hebrew conception may now be briefly summarized. In general • 
 there is no clear distinction between soul and body in the Old Testament. 
 The writers seem to have in mind the man as a unit, and personality 
 is not analyzed. Various words, such as TDB5, DTI liS3, 1153, fTn, 
 rrafflS, 33b, are used in a quite inclusive and non-technical sense. It 
 is true' that body and soul are sometimes placed over against each other 
 (Dan7:is; Job4:i9; 14:22; Ps- '6:9; 63:2-10); also that we have in 
 Gen. 2:4—3:1 a possible foundaUon for trichotomy, but on the whole 
 these speculations were of little interest to the Hebrew. One significant 
 passage occurs in which the spirit (m-H) is spoken of as a vital spark 
 which comes from and returns to God (Eccles. 12:7). Here there seems 
 
 "■(PIPIPPBIP!*- 
 
1 1 namtiOitmMtmm 
 
 36 
 
 THE JEWISH APOLOGETIC TO THE GSECIAN WORLD 
 
 to be a complete difTerentiation between body and spirit which agrees 
 with and may have been due to Grecian influence. 
 
 In the Jewish literature of the interbiblical period we are con- 
 stantly faced by a dualistic anthropology which was Platonic rather 
 than Jewish. The body and the soul are clearly set over against each 
 other in all the boolcs which at all touch on the subject (Ecclus. 1:30; 
 2:1,17; 4:2,6; En. 22:3-7; Bar. 2:17; Sibyl. Or. 678, 683, e/ai.). The 
 body belongs to the earth, is mortal, and is antagonistic to the spirit 
 
 • (Sibyl. Or. 678-83). In En., chaps. 1-37, the fact that the visions were 
 received by Enoch before he was married may be an indication of that 
 ascetic tendency which finds the roots of evil in the body. While the 
 soul and the body are made for each other in the Twelve Patriarchs 
 (Twelve Patr. T. Naph. 2:2, 3) in accordance with the best Platonic 
 schema, yet in the same book the body is represented as the seat of evil.. 
 
 • To the author the liver is the source of wrath.' Such significant phrases 
 as the following are found: e.g., "Since my liver was mercilessly set 
 against Joseph" (T. Gad 5:11); "The spirit of fighting in the liver 
 and gall" (T. Reub. 3:4; cf. T. Zeb. 2:4; T. Naph. 2:8; T. Sim. 
 2:4; 4:1). Even more clearly is the same doctrine presented in the 
 Wisdom of Solomon. "A corruptible body [o-i/ia] weigheth down the 
 soul and the earthly tabernacle [o-ic^i-os] lieth heavy on a mind that is 
 full of cares" (Wisd. of Sol. 9:15; cf. Plato, Phaedo 83D, 81C; where 
 <«ijH is used in the same way). Or again we read that Wisdom shall 
 not dwell in a body which is subject to sin (Wisd. of Sol. 1:4, Karixptif 
 aitapriat), a phrase that is similarly used by Polybius and Sophocles. 
 The same idea also underlies, "Not being ignorant that their nature 
 by birth was evil and their wickedness inborn" (Wisd. of Sol. 12:10; 
 cf. 4:3-6; i2:ii; 8:19,20). 
 
 Similar is, "I also am mortal like to all, and am sprung from one 
 bom of the earth" (Wisd. of Sol. 7:1). A further passage which is 
 difficult of interpretation is, "Now I was a child of parts, and a good 
 soul fell to my lot; Nay rather being good, I came into a body unde- 
 filed" (Wisd. of Sol. 8:19, 20). While the dualism is striking, the last 
 phrase is often interpreted as meaning that the body is morally neutral, 
 only reflecting the virtues or the guilt of the animating spirit. On the 
 whole, however, the indications seem clear that, like Plato, our author 
 
   While these expressions by the definite way in which they relate the passions 
 to the physical organs seem to show Grecian coloring, they nevertheless strongly 
 remind us o( the Old TeaUment use of pibs (Jer. I3:a; Job J9:>7i Prov. 23:16; 
 Ps. 16:7; 73:»0 and 3b or aab (Isa. 30:29; Jer. 15:16; Pi. 25:17; 13:3; 19:6). 
 
 A REVIEW OF THE UTERATURZ 
 
 37 
 
 thought of the body as the seat of evil (Phaedo 83D, 8iC). In a 
 chapter of Enoch which seems to show that ascetic interest which arose 
 from a belief in the inherent evil of the flesh the same thought again 
 recurs. Speaking of the humble "who afflict their bodies and are [for 
 that] recompensed by God," the author further describes them as those 
 "Who loved God and loved neither gold nor silver nor any of the ti^Mds 
 of the world, but gave their bodies to torture, and who, since they came 
 into being, longed not after earthly food, but regarded their bodies as 
 a breath that passeth away, and lived accordingly, and were much 
 tried by the Lord, and their spirits were found pure so that they should 
 bless His name" (En. 108:8, 9). A somewhat different statement is 
 found in a later writer. The author of IV Maccabees says in regard 
 to the desires, that some belong to the soul and others to the body; and 
 over each of these classes the reasoning appears to bear sway (IV Mace 
 1:31). This appears to be, however, rather the basis of an analysts 
 of the passions than a statement of genetic relation (cf . IV Mace, i : 20- 
 27; 2:4). From the above it will readily be seen that while the Jewish 
 writers of this period were but slightly interested in psychology, they 
 were nevertheless strongly influenced by their environment in their 
 conception of the body. 
 
 Much more striking, however, is the Grecian influence on the idea 
 of the essential principle of man. The soul is the chief part of man. 
 Various very significant words are used to designate this inner principle. 
 *"'OTi irfcE^, toC?, <l>p-qv, trtvant with a number of writers are synony- 
 mous terms. In the Twelve Patriarchs we find mviia used as referring 
 to the senses (Twelve Patr. T. Reub. 2:3 — 3:2). In this peculiar 
 passage which, it has been said, presents ideas found nowhere else out- 
 side of Stoic literature (Charles, A poc. and Pseud., II, 297, and Comm., 
 in he.) it seems the soul is dissected into eight different parts, five of 
 which represent the senses, the other three being respectively: power of 
 reproduction, the fact of sleep, and the spirit of life. That this b 
 influenced by Stoicism is seen by the fact that the Stoics distinctly 
 taught that the soul was divided into eight parts, much the same as the 
 above (Plutarch De Plac. iv. 21; Charles, Test. Twelve Patr., 4). In 
 MS 248 of Sirach in an interpolation which follows 17:4, there is a similar 
 eightfold division of the soul (Charles, Test. Twelve Pair., 5). Slavonic 
 Enoch has also preserved the marks of the same influence: " I gave him 
 seven natures: hearing ..... sight . . . . , smell ..... touch 
 
 taste " For the remaining part of the passage which 
 
 b corrupt, Charles, working from a similar passage in Philo, suggests 
 
 KUW i>n,Bi.,i ll!!IUiwyii.il 
 
38 
 
 THE JEWISH APOLOGETIC TO THE GRECIAM WOKLD 
 
 that "the vocal organs and the generative powers" may be the phrases 
 required for the text (Slav. En. 30:9). But apart from this sporadic 
 feature, we find that the whole trend of this time was to interest itself 
 in the conception of the soul as distinct from the body. Some of the 
 thinkers even went farther and endeavored to divide the inner life into 
 two parts: the soul and the spirit. Up to the beginning of the first 
 century B.C. these two views — dichotomy and trichotomy — held their 
 place side by side. In Ecdesiasticus we find ^vxv as parallel to mvt 
 (Ecclus. 1:30; 2:1, 17; 4:2, 6; 5:2; 23:6), synonymous with irvcJ/jo 
 (Ecclus. 9:9) and equivalent to xapSCa (Ecclus. 1:28; 2:1, 17; 3:29; 
 4:2). En., chaps. 1-36 shows the same attitude. Most frequently 
 ^rvxi) and Tvcv/ia are used indifferently (En. 22:3; 9:3; 22:5-7; 9:"~ 
 13). Three texts, however, have to be taken into consideration. In 
 9:10; 16:1; 22:3; the phrase, "the spirits of the souls of the dead," 
 is found in variants. It is difficult here to escape the conclusion that 
 some of those reworking the manuscripts were thoroughgoing trichoto- 
 mists. In the same period, moreover, we find the doctrine of trichot- 
 omy expressed clearly in Ecclus. 38:23; Bar. 2:17, and Tob. 3:6. In 
 the following century, however, dichotomy held quite general sway. 
 This may be illustrated by the following passages: II Mace. 6:30; 
 7:37; I4:.38; 15:30; En. 98:10; 102:5, 11; 103:3, 7, 8; Ps. of Sol. 
 4:13; 9:19; 15:11; 16:14. What seems to be a glimpse of trichotomy 
 appears in this century but once, viz., II Mace. 7:22, 23. 
 
 The belief in the pre-existence of the soul, which is stated more than 
 once in this period, is the last needed evidence for the influence of the 
 Greek dualism on the thinkers of these days. In three passages the 
 author of the Wisdom of Solomon more than implies such a pre-existence. 
 In 15:8, he uses the expression: "When the life [t^s ^x5*] which was 
 loaned him shall be demanded." Again in 16 : 11 is a passage even more 
 convincing, "For as much as he knew not his Maker, and Him that 
 inspired into him an active soul [mu tot iftrvtwram. outi(! Voixv* 
 inpymmr] and breathed in a living spirit [wotiiw.]." In the light of 
 these two passages and the general Greek tone of the book, the same 
 interpretation would seem to be needed for 8: 19, 20, "For I was a child 
 of parts, and a good soul fell to my lot; nay rather being good, I 
 came into a body undefiled."' The Assumption of Moses teaches that 
 
   F. C. Porter, in Old Teiiamtnt and Semitic Sludiei, in Memory of Wittiam Rainey 
 Harper, Vol. I, under the title "The Pre-existence of the Soul in the Book of Wisdom 
 and in the Rabbinical Writings," has done a very careful piece of work in which he 
 does not accept the above view which till recently has been quite commonly held. 
 His arguments which have been accepted by Maldyn Hughes in Ethics of Uu Jewisk 
 
 A KEVIEW OF THE UTERATUKX 
 
 39 
 
 "Moses was designed, and devised and prepared from before the founda- 
 tion of the world to be the mediator of the divine covenant" (Assurap. 
 Mos. 1:14; cf. En. 48:2; 62:6, where Son of Man is pre-existent). 
 The idea which, at best, is limited to one individual takes on a wider 
 sweep in Slavonic Enoch. To this writer all soiJs are pre-existent: 
 " For every soul was created eternally before the foundation of the world " 
 (Slav. En. 23:5; cotUra, Hughes, Eth. Jew. Apoc. Lit., 201). This 
 thoroughly Greek conception was made a part of the system of Philo 
 {Leg. All., I, 12, 28; De Somn., I, 22), was accepted by the Essenes 
 (Jos., Jew. Wars, II, viii, 11), and later became a prevailing dogma in 
 Judaism. 
 
 The idea of immortality in its various phases follows on logically 
 from the last discussion. The Greeks, who most influenced Judaism, 
 believed in an immortality of the soul, but not of the body, hence their 
 conception should be classed as spiritual as opposed to material. The 
 Hebrews, however, in their Scriptures left very few statements which 
 are definite. To quote R. H. Charles: " In Job it [immortality] emerges 
 merely as an inspiration. Only in Pss. 49 and 73 (if our interpretation 
 is valid) does it rise to the stage of conviction " (Enc. Bib., 1347). While 
 this no doubt is true, we must recognize that individual inmiortalitjr 
 lay implicit in much of the teaching of the Old Testament. Likewise 
 the doctrine of the resurrection, in any crystallized form, plays no impor- 
 tant part in its thought. From symbolic passages of national import, 
 such as Ezek., chap. 37, developed under the influence of eschatological 
 conceptions, we find at least two passages which deal with the general 
 idea of resurrection. In Isaiah we are told, "Thy dead shall live; my 
 dead bodies shall arise, awake and sing ye that dwell in the dust, for 
 thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast forth her dead" 
 (Isa. 24:19). In Daniel, the other significant passage, we find, "And 
 many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to 
 everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt" (Dan. 
 12:2). Appreciating the development between these two passages, 
 
 Apocryphal Literature, 177 f., are to the effect that the idea of pre-existence in the 
 Book of Wisdom is essentially Jewish and not Greek. He argues that the Jew thought 
 of the person as composed of body which was from below and of spirit or breath 
 which was from above; while the Greek thought of the soul as the thinking self or the 
 person. While Dr. Porter marshals all possible details to maintain that body and 
 soul are used in the Book of Wisdom in the Jewish sense, not so much over against 
 each other as together constituting the real personality, it seems to the present writer 
 that the author is not only using Greek phraseology, but, though perhaps not 000- 
 listent throughout, he is tinctured with Greek thought (ci. Charles, Enc. Bib., 1368, 
 t}7i,tnd Apoc. and Pseud., U, sit-ii). 
 
idUMMfeiaaHfau 
 
 40 
 
 THE JEWISB APOLOGEnC TO THE GRECIAN WORID 
 
 which took place in a little over a century and a half, we judge that the 
 idea of a bodily resurrection waS not uncommon in the years preceding 
 our period. 
 
 Turning now to the material in hand, we are again aware of the 
 attempt of many Jews to meet the Greeks on their own ground. In 
 Ecclesiasticus the old Hebrew idea is still dominant. For the individual 
 there is no immortality. "Who shall give praise to the Most High in 
 the grave, .... because the son of man is not immortal and all men 
 are earth and ashes" (Ecclus. 17:25-32; rf- 22:11; 44:9)- The per- 
 petuation of a name is an incentive for a good life and is one of the 
 highest rewards (Ecclus. 37:26; 39:9-11; 41:13; 44:14). This nega- 
 tive side, however, like some similar expressions of the Old Testament 
 (of. Job 14:10-14), seems to be a groping after a conscious future exist- 
 ence. The beginning of that thought may very well underlie many of 
 the passages of thb book (Ecclus. 17:17-32; 14:16; 41:1-13). A few 
 other sections of the book present what appears to be a gleam of a 
 positive doctrine. "The spirit of those that fear the Lord shall live; 
 .... for He is his hope" (Ecclus. 34:13,14). "Blessed are they that 
 saw thee, and they have been beautified with love: For we also shall 
 surely live" (Ecclus. 48:11; cf. 40:11, 12). In the Epistle of Baruch 
 the old Hebrew conception is stated in such an emphatic negative way 
 as to suggest antagonism against the permeating influence of Greek 
 thought: "For the dead that are in the grave, v.-hose breath is taken 
 away from their bodies, will give unto the Lord neither glory nor right- 
 eousness; but the soul that is greatly vexed, which goeth stooping and 
 feeble, and the eyes that fail, and the hungry soul, will give thee glory 
 and righteousness, O Lord" (Bar. 2:17, 18). To Baruch, life ({«ij) 
 is the ultimate individual reward (Bar. 4:2; 3:9, 11, 14; 2:17) and 
 glory and might is the future hope of the nation (Bar. 4:18, 21, 
 
 »3-2S)- 
 
 The latest type of Jewish thought, viz., Daniel, a followed, though 
 perhaps narrowed down, in both I and II Enoch (En., chaps. 1-36 and 
 chap^ 37-71)- The resurrection is limited to Israel and is to precede 
 the judgment (En. 22:1-4; S^'-^'< 61:5). Alongside of this is held 
 out the indefinite promise of long life to the righteous (En. 5:9; 25:4-6; 
 cf. 62:15, 16). 
 
 In the Book of Jubilees we meet a definite statement concerning 
 the future which is a turning-point, and shows unmistakably the influ- 
 ence of their neighbors: "And their bones will rest in the earth, and their 
 spirits will have much joy" (Jul). 23:31). Here, for the first time, a 
 
 A REVIEW OP THE LITERATURE 
 
 41 
 
 blessed immortality awaits the spirit, but there is no hope of a resurrec- 
 tion of the body. 
 
 The old lines in general are followed by the Book of the Twelve 
 Patriarchs. The resurrection is a physical one, and the eternal life 
 which is promised is to be enjoyed on a renovated earth (Twelve Patr. 
 T. Dan. 5:12; T. Zeb. 10:3; T. Jud. 25:3-5; T. Asher 5:3; 6:4-6; 
 7:3; T. Benj. 10:6-10). The tone is essentially the same in II Mac- 
 cabees. The unrighteous, at least the tyrant, will have no resurrection 
 to life (II Mace. 7:14). The righteous, those who belong to Israel, 
 and particularly those who suffer martyrdom, shall be raised to a life 
 everiasting (II Mace. 7:9, 14, 23, 30, 36; 12:44), which will be in a 
 physical body (II Mace. 7:11, 23; 14:16), and will enjoy an earthly 
 messianic kingdom (7:29, 33, 37; 14:15). 
 
 Third Enoch (En., chaps. 91-108) swings clear over to the Grecian 
 statement of the doctrine. The author, in a long passage, definitely 
 and vigorously assails the Old Testament idea of the future world (En. 
 102:4 — 104:9). He exhorts the righteous not to grieve if their souls 
 descend into Sheol. Then he summarizes the orthodox Sadducean 
 thought in a passage quite similar to Ecclus. 2:14-16 and 3:19-21: 
 "As we die so die the righteous and what benefit do they reap from their 
 deeds?" (En. 102:6-8). Following this, he declares that immortality 
 of the soul is the only goal and hope. The wicked shall be in an ever- 
 lasting Sheol of fire (En. 98:3, 10; 99:9, 11; 103:7). The promise 
 to the righteous is, "and the spirits of you who die in righteousness will 
 live and rejoice and be glad, and their spirits shall not perish, but their 
 memorial will be before the face of the Great One unto all generations 
 of the world " (En. 103 : 4). 
 
 When we come to the Psalms of Solomon and Wisdom the atmosphere 
 is Grecian, though the ideas are in general a development of the Hebrew 
 thought. In the Psalms, for those who fear the Lord and do righteous- 
 ness there is eternal life (ti« {wvk aiuriov, Ps. Sol. 3:16; 9:4; 12:4-7; 
 I3;S. 9. 11; 14:2,3,7; 15:8,15; 10:9). The doctrine of retribution 
 in the eternal life is strongly asserted (Ps. Sol. 2:7; 17:30-32, 37, 39; 
 9:9; 13:5; 15:14; 17:10). Destruction which savors of annihilation 
 awaits the sinner (Ps. Sol. 3:13; 9:9; 12:7; 13:10; 14:6; 15:11). 
 In the Wisdom of Solomon, immortality again is spiritual and not 
 physical, hence Grecian (Wisd. of Sol. 2:23; 3:4; 6:19). This wTiter, 
 even more clearly than Enoch (En. 102:4 — 104:2), conceives death to 
 be only a semblance which is the beginning of real life. "But the souls 
 of the righteous are in the hand of God, and there shall no torment touch 
 
UlMiMiiUlitfMW^UaiMiiailiiaMM 
 
 , --.■..—. —i.^w,MJi^-. ..;.,... 
 
 yuuMiaiiw 
 
 HiiiliiiriiiMiMiiHiariiiMaati 
 
 41 THE JEVrtSB APOLOGEnC TO TBE GKECIAN WORLD 
 
 them. In the sight of the universe they seem to die; and their departure 
 
 [JfoSfft] is taken for misery .... but they are at peace Yet 
 
 is their hope full of immortality" (Wisd. of Sol. 3:1-4). This most 
 likely took color from current Greek thought. Similar to it is the 
 expression of Euripides, which freely rendered is, " Who knows whether 
 life is death or death is life ? " (cf. Wace, A pocrypha, 1, 437). Variants of 
 the same idea are found in many Greek writers (Maximus Tyrus, Dissert., 
 XXV, 28s; Plat., Epinom., 9926; Philo, del. pot. insid. Opp. I, 200; 
 cf. Grimm, Comm., in loc.). We meet here also Grecian words used in a 
 quite Grecian sense. 'Adamtrla (immortality) is of frequent occurrence 
 (Wisd. of Sol. 3:4; 4:1; 8:13, 17; 15:3). Its significance is never 
 physical. It seems to have been first used by Plato in respect to the 
 gods. 'Kt^Bapaia (incorruptible immortality), found in Wisd. of Sol. 
 2:23; 6:18, 19, and only again in IV Mace. 17:12 — though of frequent 
 use in Philo — conveys a decidedly Grecian idea. ©omTot (death), 
 following Platonic usage, is never used for annihilation. While death 
 may be escaped through virtue (Wisd. of Sol. 1:15; 2:22; 6:18), yet 
 in general through death the soul enters upon retribution. Here, again, 
 is seen the mind of Plato. The result of Grecian tendencies is again 
 seen in Slavonic Enoch. A blessed immortality of endless life is the 
 position of those who in patience and meekness accomplish the number 
 of their days (Slav. En. 50:2; 65:8-10; 66:6). The whole tone of the 
 book suggests, if it does not prove, that there is no resurrection of the 
 body. The attitude toward the future life is essentially the same in 
 the Book of IV Maccabees. For the wicked there is eternal torment 
 (IV Mace. 9:9, 32; 10:11, 15; 12:19; 13:15; 18:5, 22), while there 
 awaits a blessed immortality for the righteous (IV Mace. 9:9, 22; 10: 15; 
 13:17; 17:4, 18; 18:23). 
 
 In the Apocalypse of Baruch we have a reversion to the earlier 
 Hebrew idea. Here we have a statement in its most developed form 
 of physical resurrection: "For the earth will then assuredly restore the 
 dead, which it now receives, in order to preserve them, making no change 
 in their form, but as it has received them, so will it restore them, and as 
 I have delivered them unto it, so also shall it raise them. For then it 
 will be necessary to show to the living that the dead have come to life 
 again, and that those who have departed have returned " (Apoc. of Bar. 
 50:2-3; cf. 49:2—51:3). 
 
 Thus, so far as the doctrine of immortality is concerned, we find 
 that under Grecian influence the Hebrew doctrine of a bodily resurrection 
 came to its gradual elaboration through the writers of Twelve Patri- 
 
 A KEVIEW OF THE LITEKATUSE 
 
 43 
 
 archs, II Maccabees, and Apocalypse of Baruch. Most of the writers 
 of this period, however, made their writings palatable to their rulers by 
 adopting the entirely spiritual conception of the resurrection. The 
 chief leaders in this movement were: Enoch, Psalms of Solomon, Wisdom 
 of Solomon, a few passages in II Maccabees, and Slavonic Enoch. 
 
 To some of the religious thinkers the freedom of the will became a 
 problem in this age. This question had in no way seriously disturbed 
 their forefathers. Constantly in the Old Testament we find the idea 
 of absolute divine sovereignty and human free ■mW lying side by side 
 without any attempt to reconcile them. It was vastly different with 
 the philosophic Greeks. The physics of their early writers, indeed even 
 of the Stoics, held resolutely to the principle of determinism. Plato, in 
 part, broke with this when he suggested that the reason why the Creator 
 had not produced a perfect work was because He was limited by the 
 indeterminateness (to irttpoy) of the phenomenal existence {Tim. 
 46C; 48A; 68E; cf. Drummond, Philo Judaeus, I, 62). However, in 
 the sphere of ethics the conclusions of a Monistic philosophy were not 
 followed. By devious and many arguments they maintained the power 
 of choice, if not always in a complete way for the individual, yet in a 
 real way for the universal Xoyo?. Though destiny and fate provided 
 that bad dispositions should not be free from sins, yet the general con- 
 clusion was that every man's own will governed his moral impulses 
 and actions. In ways which seemed harmonious to the individual 
 philosopher, these two pwles of thought were bridged so as to preserve 
 the universe to him as a metaphysical unity. 
 
 Among these Judaistic writers sovereignty is always an axiomatic 
 truth. To reconcile individual freedom with that is their task. Ecclesi- 
 asticus holds to predestination, on the one hand (Ecclus. 16:26; 23:20; 
 33:7-13; 39:20), and affirms as emphatically, on the other hand, the 
 principle of freedom (Ecclus.is:ii-2o; 17:6; 21:11, 27,28; 33:1; cf.Hart, 
 Ecclus. in Greek, 154). In I Enoch (chaps. 1-36) the origin of sin is 
 traced back to the angels under the term watchers. This reinteipretxi- 
 tion of Gen. 6: 1-4, under foreign influence, was the writer's method of 
 adjusting himself to the thought-world in which he moved. The giants, 
 who were the offspring of the unnatural union of fallen angels and women, 
 became the evil spirits upon the earth, who, though invisible, were the 
 efficient causes in the oppressions, the wars, and the evils of humanity 
 (En., chaps. 15, 16, 6). In II Enoch (chaps. 37-71) we find Satan as 
 the ultimate cause of sin. He it was who caused the watchers to fall 
 (40:7; 54:6; cf. 69:8-11, a Noachic fragment where Eve is led 
 
44 THE JEWISH APOLOGETIC TO THE GRECIAN WORLD 
 
 astray by demoniac agencies). Yet in spite of this explanation of the 
 origin of sin, freedom is assumed on the part of the authors of both I 
 and II Enoch (En. 5:1-4, 5; 27:2; 41:1). In Tobit, the will is the 
 direct cause of transgression, hence the individual alone is blameworthy 
 (Tob. 4:5). The Book of Jubilees carries both ideas side by side. Pre- 
 ordination is expressed (Jub. 5: 13), as is also moral accountability Qub. 
 41:25; 33:16). In the Epistle of Baruch indeterminism is simply 
 assumed (Bar. 2:29, 30). The Twelve Patriarchs is entirely orthodox, 
 for both sides of the question are emphasized. It goes farther, however, 
 and makes an attempt at reconciliation. The help which the human 
 will may receive from the Lord brings to the one fearing God enlighten- 
 ment and deliverance (Twelve Patr. T. Jud. 20:1; T. Sim. 3:4, 5; 
 T. Benj.3:4, 5). En., chaps. 91-108, is more positive as to indeterminism 
 than any previous writer. To this writer " Sin has not been sent upon 
 the earth, but man himself has created it, and into general condem- 
 nation will those fall who commit it" (En. 98:4; cf. 91:18; 94:3, 4). 
 The same seems to be the doctrine in the Psalms of Solomon (Ps. Sol. 
 9:7). In the Wisdom of Solomon there is divine foreknowledge (Wisd. 
 of Sol. 14:5; 17:2; 11:20; 12:10), but along with this, freedom is 
 asserted (Wisd. of Sol. 1:16; 5:3; 13:6-9; 19:2). Here, as in the case 
 of Jubilees, victory may be gained over evil through the strength of 
 God (Wisd. of Sol. 12:16; 9:4-6; cf. Jub. 21:25; 22:10, Assump. 
 Mos. 12:7). The privilege of choice between the two ways, good and 
 evil, light and darkness, was given to Adam, according to Slavonic 
 Enoch (Slav. En. 30:15, originating perhaps in Jer. 21:8). While in 
 this book there is a determinism as to the number of souls and the 
 place of each in the hereafter (Slav. En. 58:5) and a limitation placed 
 upon each man's freedom by his own ignorance (Slav. En. 30:16), yet 
 that responsibility which can be based only in moral freedom is assumed 
 throughout (Slav. En. 30:11; cf. F. C. Porter "The Yefer Hara," 
 Bib. and Sem. Studies, 154-56). On the other hand, however, he follows 
 the lead that Satan, through ambition, was the cause of moral evil 
 (Slav. En. 29:4, 5; 31:1-3). Further, he it was who seduced Eve and 
 thus started flowing the currents of evil (Slav. En. 30:17; 31:2, 6; 
 cf. Ecclus. 25:24). Demons are represented as the inciting cause of all 
 sin in the Martyrdom of Isaiah (Mart. Isa. 1:9; 2:4; 3:11; 5:1), and 
 Beliar is credited specially with being the angel of lawlessness (Mart. 
 Isa. 2:4-6). A most definite conclusion to that which must have been 
 a growing problem in the minds of many is presented in the Apocalypse 
 of Baruch. His conclusion can best be summed up in his on-n words: 
 
 -Ml^MMrilMftriirfH 
 
 A KEVIEW OF THE UTERATUKE 
 
 45 
 
 "For though Adam first sinned, and brought untimely death upon all, 
 yet of those who were born from him, each one of them has prepared for 
 his own soul torment to come, and again, each one of them has chosen 
 
 for himself glories to come Adam is therefore not the cause, 
 
 save only of his own soul, but each one of us has been the Adam of his 
 own soul" (Apoc. Bar. 54:15-19; cf. 15:6; 19:1-3; 59:2; 18:1, 2; 
 85:9). Another turn is given in IV Esdras, in which the conclusion 
 reached is that sin is due to a grain of evil seed which has been sown in 
 the heart (IV Esdr. 4:30; 7:92; cf. 3:21; 7:118; cf. F. C. Porter, 
 "The Yefcr Hara," Bib. and Scm. Studies, 146-52). The same author 
 goes farther, and holds that all is predetermined by the sovereign power: 
 "He hath worlds in a balance, and by measure hath he measured the 
 times, and by number hath he numbered them; aiid '■e shall not move 
 them or stir them, until the said measure be fulfilled" (IV Esdr. 4:36). 
 Man can neither find out nor turn aside the purpose of the Almighty 
 (IV Esdr. 5:34-40; 6:6; 7:11, 70). Yet withal the writer is a good 
 Jew and hol3s to freedom and responsibility (IV Esdr. 7 : 27-30 ; 7:21,72, 
 79; 8:56-62; 9:10, 11). One of his strongest passages is "The Most 
 High willeth not that men should come to naught; but they which he 
 created have themselves defiled the name of him that made them" , 
 (IVEsdr. 8:59, 60). 
 
 In our study of the psychology of this period, it seems fitting to 
 refer to the emergence and use of the word for "conscience." That this ' 
 idea was existent in the olden time we doubt not (Isa. 30: 15; Jer. 20:3, 
 4). But the Hebrew has no word whereby to express it. The Greek i 
 word (TvwiSi^ffis seems to have first been used in Periander by the * 
 Stoics. Again it is found in Euripides' Orest. 396. It is apparent that 
 before the second century B.C. it had become a technical word in the 
 psychology of the Stoics. In the LXX translation of the Hebrew 
 Scriptures the word is only once used, viz., in Eccles. 10:20, where it is 
 used for 5^ ("thought"). In point of time, its first fully developed use is | 
 that found in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. In Test. . 
 Reuben we read, "Even until now my conscience causeth me anguish 
 on account of my impiety" (T. Reub. 4:3). The acUon of conscience 
 is graphically set before the reader in Test. Judah, "And in the midst b 
 the spirit of understanding of the mind, to which it belongeth to turn 
 whithersoever it will. And the works of truth and the works of deceit 
 
 are written upon the hearts of men and the sinner is burnt up 
 
 by his own heart and cannot raise his face to the judge" (T. Jud. 20: 2-5). 
 The same thought is expressed in Test. Gad, "For he that is just and 
 
■■■fW^g 
 
 46 
 
 THE JEWISH AFOIACETIC TO THE GKECIAN WOKLD 
 
 humble is ashamed to do what is unjust.being reproved not of another.but 
 of his own heart, because the Lord looketh on his inclination" (T. Gad 
 5:3). The word is again used in its exact sense in Wisdom of Solomon : 
 "For wickedness condemned by her own witness is very timorous and, 
 being pressed with conscience, always forccasteth grievous things" 
 (Wisd. of Sol. 17:11). While the verb (wwaSwu) is found in three of 
 the books of the Maccabees (I Mace. 4:21; H Mace. 4:41; III Mace. 
 j:8), the noun is not again found within the bounds of our literature- 
 
 • It, however, is constantly found in Philo and in the New Testament. 
 From the foregoing it is seen that the Jewish writers, intentionally 
 or unintentionally, were influenced by the demands of the Greek culture 
 in the field of psychology, and endeavored to meet them in the following 
 ways. Most of the writers unhesitatingly and quite naturally follow 
 the Greek dualism. A number under the dominancy of certain Greek 
 tenets held that the body is evil and the source of evil. Thus for it 
 there is no resurrection. Others in opposition thereto, and brought to 
 clearness of expression thereby, built up the dogma of the resurrection 
 of the body in all its features. Following the Greeks, there are those 
 who declare that the soul is pure spirit, the essential part of man, pre- 
 existent and immortal. Others produce a polemic, which makes positive 
 the queries and the fears of some of the Old Testament writers, and 
 declare that for the individual there is no life beyond the grave. A few 
 take a side departure with the Stoics and analyze the soul into eight 
 different senses, and others again with the same school attribute souls 
 to all life, vegetable and animal alike. Most, however, follow the general 
 tendency and are trichotomists — quite largely so in the second century 
 B.C. — or dichotomists, prevailingly so during the last century before 
 Christ. Likewise under their teachers they gain a definite expression 
 for the conception of the rfile which conscience plays in the individual 
 life. As for the principle of freedom of the will, the influence of the 
 period is seen in three ways: (i) We find an effort to explain the origin 
 of evil as the work of evil angels or of Satan. (2) There were those who 
 endeavored to unite free will and sovereignty, by the nexus of a divine 
 dynamic which enforced the will of the individual. (3) Others made the 
 categorical statement that the will was free, and paid much less considera- 
 
 , tion to the question of sovereignty than would ba,ve been consistent to 
 the early Hebrews. 
 
 e. APOLOGETIC IN ETHICAI. CONCEFTIONS 
 
 It is recognized that the psychology of any people is fundamental 
 to their ethical conceptions. We have seen that in spite of certain 
 
 MkM 
 
 iiitofftfi 
 
 A KEVIEW OP THE LITERATinE 
 
 47 
 
 attempts to give a philosophic account of the origin of sin, the freedom 
 of the will became the axiom of the age. This tendency toward sub- 
 jectivity worked itself out along another line in the idea of conscience 
 as the inner monitor in the field of morals. These movements give us 
 the foundation for an advance in ethics upon cultural lines. In this 
 period we still hear the messages of the old prophets of Israel. Some- 
 times, it is true, their principles are conveyed through that apocalyptic 
 symbolism which threatens to obscure them. Often, however, the 
 annunciation of great moral principles is heard in tones as ringing as 
 ever heard in the heyday of prophecy (cf. Twelve Patr. T. Gad 6; 
 Slav. En. 42:6-14; 52:1-4; 63:1-4; 66:6-8). One brief illustra- . 
 tion out of many is sufficient to convince us that the fires which had 
 been burning in the hearts of the old prophets were not all quenched: 
 "Blessed is he who executes a just judgment, not for the sake of recom- 
 pense, but for the sake of righteousness, expecting nothing in return; a 
 sincere judgment shall afterwards come to him. Blessed is he who 
 clothes the naked with a garment, and gives his bread to the hungry. 
 Blessed is he who gives a just judgment for the orphan and the widow, 
 and assisU everyone who is wronged" (Slav. En. 42:7-9). While there 
 are numerous illustrations such as the foregoing, which prove that the 
 old Hebrew spirit was well preserved, yet there are indications not a 
 few which show not only that these people were submerged in a Grecian 
 atmosphere, but that some of their moralisU had imbibed deeply the 
 teaching of their schools. 
 
 In the new environment they gain a new outlook on life. The 
 spirit of the pleasure-loving Greeks was infectious. The carpe diem 
 of the Epicureans found a ready lodging-place in the thoughts of some 
 of the serious-minded Hebrews. Sirach is more of a Greek than a Jew 
 when he concludes, "The gladness of the heart is the life of man, and the 
 joyfulness of a man prolongeth his days. Love thine own soul, and 
 comfort thy heart . . . . " (Ecclus. 30:22-25).' The same influence 
 seems to have left its mark on him when he exhorts his hearers to " Defraud 
 not thyself of a good day; and let not the portion of a good desire pass 
 
 thee by Give, and take, and beguile thy soul . . . . " (Ecclus. . 
 
 14:14-16). 
 
 The Greek passion for beauty of form was not without effect on the • 
 Jews in some quarters. This manifested itself, not only in the ready • 
 
   It is quite possible as Charles suggests (A poc. and Pseud., I, J76), that as a similar 
 attitude toward life has been found in Babylonian literature, this may be a panlld 
 and not due to Hellenic coloring. It seems liltely, however, that Greek thought wai 
 the reagent that brought this to its first expression among religious leaders o{ Judaism. 
 
 '^^•mmni'm. 
 
t^MHMIiMittMriWIBtMN 
 
 **ir 
 
 ,^,t,MitiimiUliaUtmiii,tm 
 
 48 
 
 THE JEWISH APOLOGETIC TO THE GRECIAN WOBLD 
 
 response of the Jewish youth to the gymnasm, but also quite naturally 
 colored literature. It is adniitted that beauty of form and face is a 
 thought which is not absent from the Old TesUment. In the early 
 literature, beauty of appearance (mS'a'nS'') as applied to woman is 
 found in Gen. 12:11; 29:17; II Sam. 14:27, and beauty of form 
 ("IWITS") is also mentioned in three places (Gen. 29: 17; Deut. 21 : 11; 
 I Sam. 25:3). Outside of these passages the beauty of woman is rarely 
 referred to in pre-Grecian times. In the literature from this period there 
 is a growing abundance of such characterizations, and their significance 
 leans toward that of physical beauty. In Canticles, which shows Greek 
 influence, we find, as we might expect, an exuberance of epithet for beauty 
 (Cant. 1:8, 15, 16; 2:10, 13; 4:1.7; 5:9; 6:4, 10). That these are in 
 large part physical characterizations needs no serious defense here. A 
 casual glance at chap. 4 is conclusive proof. A similar strain is suggested 
 throughout the story of Esther (cf. 2:7). In the Grecian addition to 
 Esther this idea is developed. Carrying herself delicately (rpvt^ptMo- 
 fiiyti), she entered before the king. "And she was ruddy through the 
 perfection of her beauty [koXXovs], and her countenance was cheerful 
 and amiable" (15:3, 4). In Susanna and Judith we again meet the 
 same features. Susanna was a very delicate woman {rpvifxpa <r<^oJpo) 
 and beauteous of countenance (<taX^ T<f tliti, vs. 31; cf. vs. 56). That 
 this was physical is clearly shown by vs. 56, which declares her beauty 
 deceived the ciders. Judith is conmiended by Holofemes for her 
 beauty of face {iv koXXu rparaTrm, 11:21; cf. 10:23), and he approves 
 of her pretty or courteous (iffreia) countenance and her pleasant 
 (iyaS^) words (11:21). Expressions and ideals such as these were 
 common in Greek, and go back at least as early as Aristotle. In the 
 Nicomachean Ethics (IV, 3, 5) we find oZ ji«/xk ianiM «al oTjji/iCTpot 
 itaXoJ ST oi». In the Psalms of Solomon the beauty (miXXw) of an 
 ungodly woman may be the cause of sin (Ps. Sol. 16:8; cf. Prov. 6:25; 
 Ecclus. 9:8; 25:21). Comeliness or good form (eVop""-) is one of 
 the strongest allurements from which wisdom was able to turn aside 
 (Wisd. of Sol. 7:10). Similarly in the Apocalypse of Baruch, beauty 
 and gracefulness are two things which should be eschewed for the sake 
 of the higher (Apoc. Bar. 10:17; cf. 21:23; 48:3.s)- At the same time 
 this writer uses the same word to e.xpress his ideal of future glory (Apoc. 
 Bar. 51:3, 10; 54:8). In Tobit, Naphthali, the father of Tobias, is 
 described by the current Greek phrase (icaXAov itai iyoBov, Tob. 7:7). 
 These seem to be adequate indications that the minds of the Jewish 
 people readily adopted many of the phrases and ideals of their neighbors. 
 
 • > 
 
 » - 
 
 A REVIEW OF THE UTERATintE 
 
 49 
 
 The above paragraph not only suggests that beauty of form found a 
 large place in the writings of this period, but also that concomitant there- 
 with the attitude toward woman was Grecianizcd. With the Hebrew 
 people it is true that woman was considered subordinate to man (Gen. 
 3:16). There are traces in the Old Testament literature where crude 
 and primitive conditions have been preserved (Exod. 21:7-11). Yet the 
 status of woman in the Old Testament, as a whole, is higher than that 
 held by most people in a similar condition of civilization. "Honor thy 
 father and thy mother" (Exod. 20:12), presents in succinct form what 
 must have been an early ideal of those people. Later it is put even 
 more strongly, "Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father" 
 (Lev. 19:3). The eariy creation-story recognizes the wife as the "help- 
 meet" of man (Gen. 2: 18), and it is in later Hebrew literature that we 
 meet what might well be termed the classics on the ideal woman. The 
 mother, the daughter-in-law, the thrifty housewife, and the sweetheart 
 are immemorably enshrined in Isa. 49: 15, Ruth, Prov., chap. 31, and the 
 Song of Solomon, respectively. 
 
 Far different was it in the Greek literature and life. In the Odyssey, 
 Penelope is reproved by Telemachus and told to go to her own apart- 
 ments. Respect for woman was not very high. In Alexandria she 
 appeared unveiled in the streets and moved among and chatted freely 
 with the men. What some of the teachers had lauded in theory— free- 
 dom of intercourse — was an all too prevalent practice. The home, owing 
 to theories of military training and actual war, was often disorganized. 
 Social vice was in sufficiently good standing to permit the female cour- 
 tesan to figure prominently in the plays of Menander. In the city of 
 Corinth there were one thousand women devoted to immorality at the 
 shrine of Aphrodite alone. Thus it is easily seen that here again there 
 was a wide divergence between these two peoples. 
 
 The influence of the looser morals and the lesser reverence of the 
 Greeks was speedily felt. The faults of women are as a sweet morsel 
 under the tongue of the Son of Sirach. "A wicked woman is as a yoke 
 of oxen shaken to and fro: He that taketh hold of her is as one that 
 graspeth a scorpion" (Ecclus. 26:7). "Give me any plague but the 
 plague of the heart; and any wickedness but the wickedness of a woman " 
 (Ecclus. 25:13; cf. 25:16-26; 26:5-12; 42:9-14; 36:21-26, e<ai.). It 
 is not impossible that Prov., chap. 5, may have been written in order to 
 meet a condition of morals similar to that existing in Palestine in the time 
 of Antiochus. This condition is described in II Mace. 6:1-4: "Not - 
 long after this the king sent an old man of Athens to compel the Jews to 
 
 "W 
 
-'■|-- i YTVi'-- rrti i i^i|,,n-miiirB,tiiaBtliitM>MiM<iaiiaiit^^ 
 
 50 
 
 THE JEWISB AFOLOGEnC TO THE GREOAM WOSIS 
 
 depart from the laws of their fathers and not to live after the laws of 
 
 God The coming in of this mischief was sore and grievous to the 
 
 people; for the temple was filled with riot and revelling by the Gentiles, 
 who dallied with harlots, and had to do with women within the circuit of 
 the holy places, and besides this they brought in things that were not 
 lawful." It is apparent that such influences would lead many to assume 
 toward woman the same attitude both in theory and practice as that of 
 their masters (Twelve Patr. T. Jud. 23:2). 
 
 On the other hand, however, the old reverence for women still 
 asserted itself. They endeavored to offset the loose tendencies by exhor- 
 tation and regulation. In the Twelve Patriarchs the youth is enjoined 
 not even to speak with the women on the street: "Pay no heed to the 
 face of a woman, nor associate with another man's wife, nor meddle with 
 the affairs of womankind" (T. Reub. 3:10). "And command the 
 women likewise not to associate with men, that they also may be pure in 
 mind. For constant meetings, even though the ungodly deed be not 
 wrought, are to them an irremediable disease and to us a destruction of 
 Beliar and an eternal reproach" (T. Reub. 6:2, 3; cf. 4:1-5; 5:1-4; T. 
 Jud. 14:2, 3; 15:2; 23:2; T. Dan. 5:5; T. Benj. 8:2; 9:1, et at.). 
 Virgins were required to remain within doors (II Mace. 3: 19; III Mace. 
 1:18; Philo, De Spec. Leg. 31), and intermarriage with the Gentiles was 
 strenuously opposed (Twelve Patr. T. Jud. 14:6; 17:1). Moreover, 
 they created for their own satisfaction and encouragement such pure 
 and beautiful characters as Susanna and Judith, who in fictitious situa- 
 tions embodied the lofty Jewish ideal. Thus in spite of the inroads of 
 Grecian laissei /aire, yea perhaps strengthened because of those very 
 influences, they preserved for the New Testament times one of the 
 highest conceptions of womanhood the world had ever known. 
 
 A new ambition, stimulated by Grecian ideals, seems to have been 
 bom in the minds of some of the Jews at the very period when the 
 struggle with their enemy was strongest. Personal ambition now breaks 
 out among the people, whose former leaders had set up personal humility 
 and " God's glory " as the ideal. " Fame " and " Name," which are found 
 so frequently in the Maccabees, are surely Greek ideals on the lips of the 
 Hebrews. "And they said, let us also get us a name, and let us go fight 
 against the Gentiles" (I Mace. 5:57; cf. 2:51, 6:44; 9:10; 14:29; 3:3; 
 II Mace. 6:23, << a/.; cf. Ecclus. 4:7; 7:7). To the same desire we may 
 well attribute the monument which Simon had erected over the grave 
 of his father and his brethren (I Mace 13:27). The people who could 
 not identify the sepulchers of their greatest prophets, because their 
 
 ^imiitUlMaiiiamltmiikMmUSft^imi^ 
 
 A REVIEW or THE LITERATURE 
 
 SI 
 
 religious leaders had discouraged all pagan reverence for the dead, now 
 follow the lead of their most bitter enemies and fashion and adorn the 
 pillars after the most approved Greek art (I Mace. 13:29). ' 
 
 In the ethical realm the Jew further came en rapport with the Greek 
 by absorbing the cultural movements of the day, and thus broadening 
 his ethical conceptions. In this respect the four "cardinal virtues" of 
 the Platonists were adopted by some of these apologetes. Temperance, 
 Prudence, Justice, and Fortitude were the virtues which held the domi- 
 nant place in the Platonic school (Cicero De fin. v. 23, 67; cf. De of. 
 i. 5). Two of these. Justice and Prudence, were the common property 
 of the Jews. Justice was proclaimed by the prophets, Prudence had 
 claimed the attention of the sage. Now, however, we find these four 
 bound up together after the manner of the Greeks: "And if a man love 
 righteousness her labors are virtues; for she teacheth temperance 
 [o-tx^potrwii) and prudence [<Ap«t7<t«], justice [SutoioimTj], and fortitude 
 [irSptii}" (Wisd. of Sol. 8:7). The same combination is found in 
 IV Mace 1:18. In IV Mace. 5:22, 23, Piety {tixripua) which, by the 
 way, was one of the cardinal virtues for Socrates, displaces Prudence. 
 In IV Mace. 5:10, high-mindedness (^iyaAd^x»«) and brotherly love 
 (^cAo&X<^) both flavored by Grecian ideals, take the place of the two 
 peculiarly Hebrew virtues. Justice and Prudence. The same com- 
 bination is fundamental to the ethics of Philo {Leg. An. I, 19-23, et al.). 
 While it may be true that by critical examination we perhaps do not 
 find the e.Tact shade of thought in the Wisdom of Solon.on and IV 
 Maccabees that is found in Plato and his followers, it is quite 
 apparent that the Hebrews here appropriated as much of the thought of 
 their teachers as their theological system permitted. 
 
 While the combination above referred to is found only in the places 
 mentioned, the separate ideas are emphasized in many connections. 
 This is especially true of the two peculiarly Greek virtues. The demand 
 for temperance is found very frequently. The gymnasia with its contests 
 emphasized in a very concrete way the obligation of temperance. Spare 
 living, painful effort, self-mastery were the conditions of success. 
 Various phrases were used to express this idea. Besides temperance 
 (<ria<l>pc<nvri), there are used such words as self-control (lynpaToa), free- 
 dom from passions (Irapaiia), and phrases such as the mean state 
 (/xi^Sir iyai-) and the mind as ruler of the passions. Self-control 
 {iyKpartia) goes back to Aristotle where its technical significance is, 
 the mind's mastery of the passions. This is a favorite word and idea 
 with the author of Ecclesiasticus. In the LXX the paragraph (Ecclus. 
 
■itrCJfeiM i^f 
 
 5J THE JEWISH APOLOGETIC TO THE GRECIAN WORIJ> 
 
 18:30-33) is appropriately entitled lyKparua ^vx^c. The same theme 
 bin Ecclus. 3:21-24; 37:27-31; cf- i^-"- The same thought finds 
 expression in the Psalms of Solomon, where it is said "sufficient is 
 a moderation [to lurpov] with righteousness" (Ps. Sol. 5:20; cf. Prov. 
 30:8). In IV Maccabees the same thought rules. Freedom from 
 passion is the goal to be striven for (IV Mace. 8: 26). Further, the mind 
 should rule the passions (IV Mace. 1:16, 25; 2:4-6, 8-15, 22; 13:4). 
 In this there is complete agreement with the Stoics. 
 
 Fortitude (ii^tii) also becomes incorporated in their ethical 
 scheme. " Be not faint hearted" and "be of good courage" are constant 
 admonitions of Ben Sirach (Ecclus. 2:12; 4:9; 7:10; 19:10, et al.). 
 "Let us die manfully" (ivSpcui) is the exhortation of Judas to his 
 brethren before the engagement with Bacchides at Elasa (I Mace. 9: 10). 
 Faint-heartcdness in the time of affliction is not countenanced in the 
 Psalms of Solomon (Ps. Sol. 16:11). In II Maccabees manliness or 
 fortitude is the ideal (II Mace. r4: 18, 43; 15:17)- The same is counseled 
 in IV Maccabees (IV Mace. 1:18; 2:23; 5:23). 
 
 Further, conUct with the Greeks, by broadening the moral reabn of 
 the Jews had essentially changed the approach to their ethical judg- 
 ments. Piety and righteousness were the fundamental principles in the 
 old Hebrew ideas, and they were approached from the divine side. 
 Now there is a school which following the Greeks consider moral excel- 
 lence {iptrri) the fundamental principle, and this, mediated as it was by 
 their humanism, had its outlook on the human side. While ipcrij is 
 found in the LXX, it never there takes the place of any ethical word 
 (Hab. 3:3; Zech. 6:13; Isa. 42:8, 12; 43:21; 63:7; Esth.4:i7,(«WJ<.). 
 In the interbiblical period it is used to cover the "cardinal virtues" in 
 general (II Mace. 6:31; 15:12,17; Wisd. of Sol. 4:1; 5:13; 8:7; III 
 Mace. 6:1; IV Mace. 1:2, 8, 10, 30; 2:10; 7:22, «< a/.). 
 
 But further, and most important, some of the Jewish teachers 
 followed a school of Greek thinkers to the logical conclusion of the above. 
 Culture now became the synonym of piety (Bousset, Xe/ij. d. Jud., 189). 
 It is true, the roots of this are found in the Old Testament itself. The 
 seed was sown in the Book of Deuteronomy: "Behold 1 have taught 
 you statutes and ordinances, even as Jehovah m>; God commanded 
 me. .... Keep therefore and do them, for this is your wisdom and 
 your understanding in the sight of all the people" (Deut. 4: S. 6). Even 
 more clearly is it expressed in Job 28:28: "Behold the fear of the Lord 
 that is wisdom." Again we find the same thought in Ps. 1 19 : 34, " Give 
 me undersUnding, and I shall keep thy law." A substantial background 
 
   iiliii im nmitiiltmiiMm^i^ 
 
 A REVIEW OF THE UTERATUSE 
 
 S3 
 
 b found in the use of nSI in Hosea, Isaiah, the Sages, etc. But now, 
 under the influence of Greek thought, this tendency is accentuated. 
 With Socrates knowledge and virtue were one. Plato taught that specu- 
 lative [aot^ia) and practical wisdom (<^poMj<r«) were interchangeable 
 terms (cf. Sidgwick, Hist, of Ethics, 44). In Ecclesiasticus it is impossible 
 to distinguish between the use of these two words (cf. Hughes, Etk. 
 Jav.Apoc. Lit., 31). In the first chapter we have a significant series of 
 predicates for the fear of the Lord. The fear of the Lord is "the begin- 
 ning of wisdom" (vs. 14), "the fulness of wisdom" (vs. 16), "the crown 
 of wisdom" (vs. 18), "the root of wisdom" (vs. 20), "wisdom and 
 instruction" (vs. 17). In other chapters there are many similar desig- 
 nations, as "the source of joy" (Ecclus. 16:2), "the sum of all wisdom" 
 (Ecclus. 19:20), "the way of repentance" (Ecclus. 21:6), "its end b 
 wisdom" (Ecclus. 21:11). The exhortation to put away ignorance 
 emphasizes the same attitude toward knowledge (Ecclus. 5:15; 23:3; 
 cf. Tob. i-i). We have, of course, to recognize that wisdom here b 
 equivalent to knowledge of the law (Ecclus. 24:1, 2; 1:26; 6:37; 
 35:1-11; cf. En. 2:1-3; 5:4)- This appears to be but the Jewish 
 adaptation in which piety is put as the subject of the Grecian idea, where 
 wisdom is found as the object. It is the Jewish cast of the statement, 
 "virtue is knowledge" (cf. Charles, Apoc. and Pseud., I, 269). 
 
 The Psalms of Solomon is the next book to make a contribution on 
 this subject. Wisdom is used as synonymous with virtue. The evil 
 man is one who has perverted wisdom (Ps. Sol. 4:11). There is a hope 
 that Jerusalem may be purged by means of wisdom, by means of right- 
 eousness (cv (To^iy, h iiKouxrw]), Ps. Sol. 17:25; cf. Viteau, Les 
 Psaumes de Salomon, 353). When we compare, "He shall judge the 
 nations and the peoples with the wisdom of hb righteousness {Iv <ra^ 
 &<caio<rvn;5 airov, Ps. Sol. 17:31), with "He shall be wise through 
 the counsel of understanding" {koX tro^ov ivfiovXy wvttr€ut% koI Sixauxrvn/c, 
 Ps. Sol. 17:42), we are convinced on the testimony of this Pharisee that 
 Greek thought had found a responsive chord in the Jewish heart (cf. Ps. 
 Sol. 17:40; 18:8). 
 
 In the Wisdom of Solomon, after we have made due allowance for 
 the h>TX)statizing of Wisdom, we again find ourselves faced by Greek 
 ethical conceptions. "And his power when it is tried maketh manifest 
 the unwise [tow att>pomt], for into a malicious soul wisdom [<ro^ui] 
 shall not enter" (Wisd. of Sol. i .-3-5). "The multitude of the wise are 
 the welfare of the world, but wisdom will have no fellowship with an 
 envious man" (Wisd. of Sol. 6: 23, 24). Kings are admonished to learn 
 
54 
 
 THE JEWISH APOLOCETIC TO THE GRECIAN WOBLD 
 
 wisdom that they may not fall away (Wisd. of Sol. 6:9), and this is the 
 panacea which shall quickly remove all care (Wisd. of Sol. 6: 15). The 
 gift of wisdom is the greatest of all (Wisd. of Sol. 7:7), and the gifts that 
 come from learning make us friends with God (Wisd. of Sol. 7:14). God 
 loveth only those who dwell with wisdom, and wisdom alone shall be 
 able to prevail against vice (Wisd. of Sol. 7:28-30). While it is true 
 no doubt that wisdom has frequently an ethical rather than an intellectual 
 connotation (Wisd. of Sol. 3:9, 11; 5:6; 6:9, 10; 17:1), and it has to 
 be admitted that there are times when wisdom may perhaps be equiva- 
 lent to the Law (Wisd. of Sol. 6:4, 11, 12, 18; 16:6), there are traces of 
 that purely intellectual aspect of wisdom which could have been penned 
 only by one quite sympathetic with Greek culture (Wisd. of Sol. i :3, 4; 
 7: 14-22). The culture ideal which this book embodied under the name 
 of Solomon (Wisd. of Sol. 7:17-21) is none other than that of the cul- 
 tured Alexandrian about 100 B.C. The practical expression of this, with 
 a decidedly Hebraic coloring, is found in the cleavage between the Phari- 
 sees and the Am haarets. The Pharisee was one who was completely 
 instructed in the Law, while the Am haarets was the uninstructed, the 
 common man (cf. Bousset, Rtlig. d. Jud., 190). 
 
 In Slavonic Enoch we are brought into close touch with the negative 
 side of this doctrine. Adam's sin is explained as due to his ignorance of 
 his own nature : " I knew his nature, he did not know his nature. There- 
 , fore his ignorance is a woe to him that he should sin" (Slav. En. 30: 16). 
 "But I cursed him for his ignorance" (Slav. En. 31:7). From these 
 quotations it is clear that our author regarded ignorance, per se, as a sin, 
 and the root of all sin. In this he had accepted the fundamental Socratic 
 principle yvStOi atavrmi. Plato, who was the great protagonist of this 
 doctrine, maintained that no man would do wrong if he really knew it 
 {Phaed. 229E, 230A; Prot. 345D; Tim. 86D; Repub. IX, S89C). 
 
 But the Jewish writer who makes the most complete apology in this 
 field (aside from Philo) is the author of IV Maccabees. While holding 
 to the general proposition that virtue and wisdom are coincident, he 
 makes a flank movement on the Greeks and assumes that Wisdom is 
 bound up in the laws of Israel. Wisdom " is contained in the education 
 of the law by means of which we learn divine things reverently and 
 human things profitably" (IV Mace. 1:15-17). "We should be dis- 
 regarding our fathers if we did not obey the law " (IV Mace. 9:2). Israel 
 must as a people be loyal to their own laws (IV Mace. 5: 19), and thereby 
 she would remain unconquered in respect to virtue (IV Mace. 9: 18). 
 
 Two more brief questions, both apparently somewhat aloof from the 
 
 ttitmti^mt^mtmtm 
 
 A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 
 
 55 
 
 above treatment, yet both results of the general tendencies, remain to 
 be considered. The first is the attitude toward truth in the abstract. 
 With a growing subjectivity and surrounded by philosophic speculation 
 we need not be surprised to get a glimpse of a struggle toward the ascer- ' 
 taining of truth. This glimpse is found in one of the earliest books. 
 Be ashamed of lying "in regard to the truth of God" (Ecclus. 41:19), 
 In another place the same writer tells us that "Truth will return unto 
 them that practice in her" (Ecclus. 27:9). In Ecclus. 4:25-28, the 
 young man is bidden to "strive for truth unto the death, and the Lord 
 shall fight for thee." We meet essentially the same exhortations in 
 Nic. Ethics iv. and Diog. Laert. vii. 11 7-19. In Tobit we meet a 
 similar expression, which seems to be a favorite one with the author, 
 viz., "Walking in truth" (oS« iXifiiui, Tob. 1:3; 3:5; 4:6; 8:7; 
 
 14:7)- 
 
 The second question is that of the sacredness of life. There seems 
 to have been introduced in this period not only a less desirable attitude 
 toward woman, but also a less reverent view of life itself. In Hebrew ' 
 thought life was greatly reverenced, and in the Old Testament Scriptures 
 there is no assured case of the suicide of an Israelite (Saul; cf. I Sam. 
 31:4; II Sam. 1:6-10; cf. Ahithophel; II Sam. 17:14; cf. vs. 23). 
 Even should this interpretation be doubted, it is beyond question that 
 there is no praise for such in Scripture. In Greek thought, it is true, we 
 find Plato asserting that one who took his life is blameworthy, because 
 he thereby deserted a post in which he had been placed by God {Phaed. 
 6). This very comment, however, carries with it the inference that 
 such acts were not altogether unknown, and perhaps even in Plato's day 
 they may have had apologists. That this was the exact situation later 
 we learn from other sources. Zeller informs us that a part of the creed 
 of the Stoics held that it was permissible for one to take his own life 
 (Zeller, Stoics, 318). This, of course, only comports with their attitude " 
 toward life in general. 
 
 This may perhaps have been the background which brought to full 
 expression in a number of instances the Jewish ideals in that regard. In 
 Tobit, Sarah in her despair is hindered from the fatal deed by this 
 thought, "If I do this, it shall be a reproach unto him [her father] and I 
 shall bring down his old age with sorrow to the grave" (Tob. 3:10). 
 Twice in the Wisdom of Solomon the ban is put on suidde. It is the 
 wicked men who have called it (death) to them' (Wisd. of Sol. i : 16), and 
 again we find the following exhortation, " Seek not death in the error of 
 your life" (Wisd. of SoL 1:12). That the crushing persecutions led 
 
 'T'm 
 
 ■^^PWWWP^IWII 
 
S6 
 
 THE JEWISH APOLOGETIC TO THE GRECIAN WORLD 
 
 some to be sympathetic toward the Stoic influence is seen in II Macca- 
 bees. The suicide of Razis meets with the following commendation: 
 "He fell upon his sword, choosing rather to die manfully, than to come 
 into the hands of the wicked " (U Mace. 14 : 43, 44). Also in IV Macca- 
 bees the glorying in martyrdom, which is expressed so frequently, may 
 be touched by the Stoic apathy to life (IV Mace. 9:17; 11:25; IS^'S" 
 18). In these days we learn from Josephus that suicide was far from an 
 uncommon pracUce (Jos., Jew. Wars, III, vu, 34; IV, i, 10). To this 
 unhappy result not only the stress of circumstances may have been a 
 
 ' cause, but the Greek thought may also have made its contribution. 
 
 Thus we conclude that in the ethical realm there was a decided Jewish 
 apologetic to the Greeks. While the old Hebrew ideals still obtained, 
 and some Hebrew principles were restated more clearly than ever before, 
 yet there was a very definite trend which would help to mediate even 
 that which was peculiarly Jewish to the Greek mind. Some unfortunate 
 Greek attitudes, as that toward women and life, had become the familiar 
 property of the Jew. He also embraced the Grecian attitude toward 
 beauty, form, fame, name, and ambition. More essential features he 
 also appropriated. The cardinal virtues of the Stoics were ingrafted 
 into his code, and the axiom of Plato that knowledge is virtue, he 
 colored and translated into Judaism. While on the whole there was 
 little coherence in his ethical system, he had assuredly become all 
 
 ' things to all men. 
 
 D. THEOLOGY 
 
 It was not until the Greek period that the Jew came into anything 
 like close contact with a people of speculative interests. Indeed it was 
 not until their colony settled in Alexandria that they came face to face 
 with those rationalizing processes which sought to prove that God was 
 the highest perfection of which it was possible for one to think, in fact, 
 that it was not possible for the human mind rationally to comprehend 
 the Deity. This conclusion was the result of a long process on the part 
 of the Greeks themselves. The fact has been preserved to us by Aristotle 
 (Rhet., II, 23, 1399) that Xenophanes had assumed that God was 
 uncreated. But the pathway of later argument was slow and tortuous. 
 Anaxagoras, who may be called the father of theistic theory, held that 
 there was an original dualism. Mind and matter were opposed to each 
 other. Mind was simple, pure, unmixed, spiritual. It was the creator 
 of the universe, omnipotent and omniscient. Socrates made an impor- 
 Unt contribution. He taught that the gods were personal, inteUigent, 
 
 A REVIEW OP THE UTERATtnUt 
 
 57 
 
 and that a divine purpose was running through creation. Plato con- 
 sidered that the idea of the good was highest of all, and that it was the 
 cause of all the beautiful, the parent of light, the supplier of truth, and 
 identical with the divine man. Aristotle emphasized the conception of 
 the transcendence of the Infinite. The Stoics, working from a monistic 
 viewpoint, held that God was "purest body" and thus identified him 
 with nature. They endeavored to appropriate both the teleology of 
 Socrates and the transcendence of Aristotle. Through the doctrine of 
 the seminal Logos they worked out a theory of evolution in which the 
 gods were at the highest point of an ascending scale, of which matter was 
 the lowest. This in brief suggests the type of theological thought with 
 which the Jews came into contact. 
 
 To the Hebrew people the idea of God had been one of their earliest ' 
 axioms. He was, and they had not sought to prove his existence. It is 
 true that during the centuries their ideas had changed. In early days he 
 had been the God of the tribe, declaring himself in storm and war. He 
 had been very near to the early fathers, manifesting himself in the cloud 
 and on the mountain. But as their tribal life gained coherence, and as 
 their national life touched a wider world, so their ideas of their God 
 changed. From the deity of a nomadic people, he passed to that of an 
 agricultural nation, with a growing commerce. Under the influence of 
 the Prophets the conception became primarily ethical, hence universal, 
 and with the fall of the temple came the emphasis on his transcendence. . 
 Yet while the God of a small nomadic people has become the God of the 
 universe, controlling nature and nations alike, there had been no specu- 
 lation among the people as to the essential nature of deity or the modus 
 operandi whereby he keeps in touch with and controls this universe. 
 Nor were these people intellectually capable to any large degree of 
 exercising themselves in the mazy pathways of a speculative philosophy. 
 So while we find that many of their statements take on color from their 
 environment, yet, on the whole, in their statement of God they passed 
 but little beyond the conceptions of their fathers. 
 
 The emphasis on the transcendence of Deity is one of the most 
 noticeable features of this literature. Grecian thought has thus accentu- 
 ated a principle already assured to the Hebrew mind. The various 
 names which are used for God give striking evidence of this fact. It is 
 here to be noted that Yahweh, the early Hebrew name for their tribal 
 Deity, is never used in the LXX. This was not alone due to reverence 
 for the name, which later became too sacred to be pronounced by com- 
 mon lips, for the tetragrammaton was written in books issued after the 
 
Ill liiaitfr. 
 
 S8 
 
 THE JEWISH APOLOGETIC TO THE GKECIAM WOKIS 
 
 lime of the LXX translation. It was apparently in part a repudiation 
 of the name which was associated with the idea of a local and tribal deity, 
 so as to meet more adequately the wider conceptions which obtained 
 in Alexandria. In its place we now regulariy find m/MK and mpm i 
 (hot. 
 
 Out from the almost innumerable epithets which are applied to Deity 
 in this age we shall gather only a few of the most important. The Most 
 High (v^ioTot) is one of the frequent designations. It is of frequent 
 occurence in the LXX (Gen. 14:18, 19, 20; Deut. 32:8; Ps. 7:17; 9:2, 
 et al.). In the Book of EA:clesiasticus, a translation, it is found about 
 forty times. It has its Hebrew counterpart, Vl'bs but the translation 
 frequently is made to do duty for the humbler SS and for the exclusive 
 niiT. The same thing meets us as we move down through the litera- 
 ture. Found most frequently in the Twelve Patriarchs (T. Sim. 2:5; 
 T. Levi 3:10; 4:1, 2; 5:1; T. Issa. 2:5; T. Gad 3:1; T. Asher 2:6; 
 5:4; 7:3; T. Jos. 1:4; 3:10; 9:3; 10:3; T. Benj. 9:2) and the Apoca- 
 lypse of Baruch (21:3, et al.), it is also found occasionally in the Sibylline 
 Oracles (687, 629, 73s, et al.), the Prayer of Manasseh, Judith (13:18), 
 II Maccabees (3:31), Wisdom of Solomon (5:15; 6:3), and the Assump- 
 tion of Moses (10:7; cf. 4:2). TEough some of these are translations, 
 the fact of emphasis on the aloofness of Deity still remains. 
 
 Ruler (Awoonp), which was a term applied by the Greeks to Zeus 
 (Soph. AtU. 608), is found a few times in translations (LXX Job 6:23; 
 15:20; Lev. 19:15; Ecclus.46:5; 47:5.8; 48:20), but more frequcnuy 
 in Greek compositions (II Mace. 3:24; 12:15,28; 15:3,4.23.29; HI 
 Mace. 2:2, et al.). One quotation will suffice to exhibit the tendency of 
 the period: "The Lord of spiriu and Ruler of all authority" (4 rmr 
 xvcv/iaran' mpuK «" ira<7ij« iiovaiat ivuxarrp) is the name for Deity in 
 II Mace 3:24. 
 
 Absolute Ruler or Owner (Acotto'tijs) is found frequently in the 
 LXX, in II Maccabees (5:17, 20, et al.). Ill Maccabees (2:1; 5:12), 
 the Wisdom of Solomon, the Psalms of Solomon, and other books. 
 
 The Greatest One (jiiyurrat, III Mace. 1:9, 16; 5:25; 4:16), the 
 Monarch (jLovapxt, III Mace 2:1), the King of Kings (4 Si ^(urtXAt 
 rm /SoatXtir, II Macc. 13:4, for the first time), and many other com- 
 binations all contribute to the same conception. Words such as xipiat 
 and mwKpaTap are found times beyond number in the LXX and later 
 literature. Hebrew phrases, such as the Holy One, the Creator, the 
 Father (the All-Father b used in Sibyl. Or., Ill, 550), are of constant 
 recurrence. 
 
 A REVIEW O? THE UTEKATTTKE 
 
 59 
 
 Phrases which are used to characterize God throw further light on 
 the situation. Statements embracing his omnipotence and omniscience 
 abound everywhere. He is the One who liveth forever (Ecclus. 18:1; 
 36:17; 42:21; Job 13:1; Sus.42; Bel and the Drag. 5:25; Esther 16:6; 
 11 Macc. 7:33; cf. Ep. Bar. 4:22, 35; 5:2, et al.). The Greek designa- 
 tion immortal {ieayarot) is the favorite term in Sibyl. Or., Ill, 97-829 
 (11. loi, 276, 327, 672, 676, 678, et al.). A thoroughly Grecian expression - 
 is used in the Wisdom of Solomon: "With whose beauty if they being 
 delighted took them to be gods; let them know how much better the 
 Lord of them is; for the first author of beauty [i ya^i nm xiXXmt 
 y€yt<Tiapxrp] hath created them" (Wisd. of Sol. 13:3; cf. 13:5). The 
 same idea is expressed in Ecclesiasticus: "The beauty of the heaven, 
 
 the glory of the stars at the command of the Holy One they will 
 
 stand in their order and never faint in their watches " (Ecclus. 43 : 9, 10). ' 
 
 Perhaps in a general way there is no more illuminating illustration of 
 the spirit of the age than the quoution of one of the prayers which has 
 been preserved. In early Hebrew literature the prayers are marked by * 
 simplicity and directness of approach. One or two titles for Deity in 
 the early days (Exod. 5:22; 15:11; 32:11; I Kings 8: 15) gave way later 
 to the more ornate and less direct. Three or four epithets are used in 
 Neh. 1:5; Dan. 9:4; Ecclus. 51:1; Esther 13:9; Jud. 9:12. The 
 climax of this tendency is seen in the Prayer of Manasseh, where eleven 
 titles are used, and that of Jonathan, where there are fifteen. The 
 prayer of Jonathan was after this manner: "O Lord, Lord God, Creator 
 of all things, who art fearful and strong, and righteous and merciful, and 
 the only and gracious King, the only giver of all things, the only just, 
 almighty and everlasting, thou that didst deliver Israel from all trouble 
 and didst choose the fathers, and sanctify them" (II Macc. 1:24, 25; cf. 
 Prayer of Man., vss. 1-4; III Macc. 2:2, 3). 
 
 While a tendency to remove anthropomorphic and anthropopathic 
 conceptions of Deity is found in the LXX and in the interbiblical litera- 
 ture, it is, on the one hand, by no means general and thoroughgoing, and, 
 on the other hand, it is as truly Hebraic as Grecian. There remain, 
 however, for our discussion, a number of characterizations which belong 
 to the realm of pure speculation and are hence to that extent Grecian. 
 One of the eariiest fragments of the Sibylline Oracles— and this is a 
 characteristic note of the whole Jewbh collection— has an echo of the 
 speculative thought of the times. " The sole ruler of the worid, who only 
 through eternal ages bides, the selj-existent, unbegotttn One" (Proem., 
 First Frag., 15-17; cf. AristoUe, Rhel. U, 23, 1399). A similar thought. 
 
6o 
 
 THE JEWISH APOLOGETIC TO THE GRECIAN WOKLD 
 
 expressed from another standpoint in II Maccabees: "Thou, O Lord, 
 who in thyself hast no need of the universe" (2v Kvpu rur ikar 
 dir/xKrSi^ Jxopx"", II Macc. 14:35; cf. Dahne, Gesch. Darst. d.jud.-alex. 
 relig. Phil., II, 187), is completely out of alignment with the general 
 Old Testament thought and is in the closest sympathy with that 
 of the Greeks. "The one having no need of anything" (<n» t<p tS» 
 imyrm AxpoirStu, III Macc. 2:9) expresses exactly the same idea (cf. 
 IV Macc. 1:1; 13:16). Josephus, with the freedom of a Jewish his- 
 torian, introduces this anachronism into the Prayer of Solomon at the 
 dedication of the temple (Jos., Ant., VIII, iii, 3). In the Wisdom of 
 Solomon, agreeable to Greek phraseology, He is called the One who is 
 (twokto, Wisd. of Sol. 13:1; cf. Apoc. Bar. 48:24; 85:14). 
 
 A number of passages should be referred to here, which, while they 
 may not go beyond that development of thought which was germane to 
 the Hebrews themselves, may easily have been influenced by Greek ideas. 
 A number of these very closely approach the Platonic idea that God was 
 tmknowable in his essence: "And hardly do we guess aright at things 
 that are upon the earth, and with labor do we find the things that are 
 before us; but the things that are in heaven who hath searched out ?" 
 (Wisd. of Sol. 9:16; cf. 13:1; Ecclus.42:i7; 43 = 3°. 3i)- "Thesacred 
 spirit who was worthy of the Lord, manifold and incomprehensible" 
 (Assump. Mos. 11:16; cf. Apoc. Bar. 14:15; 21:10; Jud. 8:14, 16; IV 
 Esdr. 4:7-11). "The kingdoms of the wise, great, inconceivable, and 
 
 never changing God, the Lord of AU the unapproachable throne 
 
 of the Lord" (Slav. En. Introd.; cf. Num. 23:19; I Sam. 15:29). The 
 same influence may in part have affected the idea of the "incommuni- • 
 cable name" (Wisd. of Sol. 14:21). Similarly the avoidance of the 
 divine name Yahweh, so rigorously observed in most of the later litera- 
 ture, while perhaps based in taboo because of the Hebrew conception of 
 the relation between the name and the thing in itself, may have been 
 accentuated in a measure, owing to the growing idea of transcendence. 
 It is clear at least that the complete omission of any proper name for 
 deity, as in I Maccabees, is a tribute to the influence of the Greek thought. 
 The Jewish doctrine of the supremacy and the solity of Deity was 
 one which would easily gain a listening ear from the Greek. Aristeas 
 assures his readers that the Jews worship, like all other men, the Greek 
 God Zeus, only under a different name (vs. 15). The negative side of 
 that tenet, the vanity of idolatry, would also be appreciatively received 
 by them. The tirade against the idols is so constantly on the lips of 
 these leaders, particularly those who are most thoroughly saturated in 
 
 ,tt,timftimmmiama 
 
 A REVIEW OP THE UTERAT17BE 
 
 61 
 
 Greek thought, that one is inclined to feel that the writers were quite 
 aware of a Grecian audience (Tobit, Bel and the Dragon, Judith, Twelve 
 Patriarchs, Wisdom of Solomon; cf. Bousset, Rdig. d. Jud., 90 f.). 
 
 The Jewish conception of the universality of God is one of the most 
 fruitful ideas of the apocalyptic literature. Its scope is elaborated and 
 in some cases made more definitely Grecian. The thought of the possi- 
 bility of the salvation of the gentile world in whole or in part is found 
 frequently: "Let them all [i.e., all the nations] know thee as we have 
 also known thee" (Ecclus. 36:5) suggests the sweep of the late Jewish 
 Wisdom-literature. Holofemes is represented as willing to serve and 
 worship the God of the Israelites in Jud. 1 1 : 23 (cf. Jud. 9:14; Sibyl. Or., 
 Ill, 614 ff.). In- the Twelve Patriarchs there are many expressions of a 
 universal outlook: "The Lord shall visit all the Gentiles in his tender 
 mercies" (T. Levi 4:4; cf. 14:4). "And in his priesthood the Gentiles 
 shall be multiplied in knowledge upon the earth, and enlightened through 
 the grace of the Lord'" (T. Levi 18:9; cf. 2:11; 8:14). "God shall 
 appear on earth, to save the race of Israel, and to gather together the 
 righteous from among the Gentiles" (T. Napht. 8:3). "He shall save 
 Israel and all the Gentiles" (T. Asher 7:3). "And the twelve tribes 
 shall be gathered there and all the Gentiles" (T. Benj. 9:2; cf. T. Jud. 
 15:5; T. Dan. 6:7; T. Sim. 6:5). The Psahns of Solomon express the 
 same sentiment: "And he shall have mercy upon all the nations that 
 come before him in fear" (Ps. Sol. 17 : 32, 38). In Enoch the same thought 
 comes to complete expression more than once (En. 10:21; 90:28-36). 
 
 Besides the purely apocalyptic literature, which changes from a very 
 general hope for some or all of the Gentiles in the earlier literature to a 
 general condemnation of all Gentiles in the later literature, there are 
 three or four striking passages which lend their weight in the direction 
 of universality. A verse in the Testament of Levi, which is considered 
 late by Charles, speaks of " the light which was given through the law, to 
 lighten you and every man" (T. Levi 14:4). In the Apocalypse of 
 Baruch we meet perhaps the clearest expression of this idea. "The 
 judgment of the Lofty One who has no respect of persons" (Apoc. Bar. 
 13:8; cf. 44:4). 
 
 The thought of God's providential care for his people and his inter- 
 vention on their behalf is of ancient date for the Jews. Both these ideas 
 are accentuated here if possible. Their history writing is replete with 
 illustrations of the marvelous way in which their God has delivered them. 
 In order adequately to express themselves on this matter they have 
 borrowed two terms, which to the Greeks already had a theological 
 
 •^fimmmr 
 
6a 
 
 THS JEWISH APOUIGETIC T6 TBE GKECIAN WOSLD 
 
 significance. "Manifest signs" (in<^vua) vias a term which had been 
 used by the Greeks of any visible appearance of a God for any purpose 
 (Diod. i. 15; Plut., Thorn. 30). In II Maccabees this seems to be the 
 distinguishing characteristic of the book: "And the manifest signs that 
 came from heaven unto those that behaved themselves manfully to their 
 honor for Judaism" (II Mace. 2: ji; cf. 3:34; 5:2-4; 10:29,30; 11:6- 
 it; 15:17). The author of III Maccabees has gone a step farther. 
 The Ini^iytia are more clearly distinct from God, per se, and are seen 
 to function almost as Svvu/ut or X0705 or iyytXoi (III Mace. 2:9; 
 5 = 8,35,51; 6:9,18,39). Two quotations here will suffice: "Thou hast 
 been greatly glorified in magnificent manifestation" (III Mace. 2:9)- 
 "To pity those who are standing even now at the very gate of Hades 
 with your manifestations" (III Mace. 5:51). The tendency herein 
 indicated is seen very clearly in a passage from Josephus. In the 
 cleaving of the Red Sea, the activity of God is spoken of as iri^iitia 
 T«v $tm (Jos., Ant., II, xvi, 3). 
 
 The other term is Providence (»poKo<o). The idea was an old one. 
 But with the aeveloping transcendence of the idea of God it was necessary 
 that the doctrine should be more clearly formulated. The necessary 
 word to meet the need was at hand, npima had been used bf 
 Herodotus (iii. 108) and Plato (Tim. 44C; Phaed. 241E) for Providence. 
 It is used in Xenophon (Mem. i. 4, 6) in an absolute sense for Divine 
 Providence. The Stoics had appropriated it as a part of their working 
 theology. Naturally it comes into use in the Jewish literature through 
 those most closely in touch with Greek life. The Wisdom of Solomon 
 says, "But thy providence [xpoKKa] O Father, govemeth it" (i.e., the 
 vessel at sea, Wisd. of Sol. 14:3; ef. 17:2). The author of III Macca- 
 bees, a representative of the narrowest type of Judaism, quite consistently 
 with his general conception of divine care for Israel says, "That, how- 
 ever, was the work of an unconquerable providence [rpoymat iyuc^m] 
 which came from heaven to the help of the Jews" (III Mace. 4:21; cf. 
 5:30). Again, in IV Maccabees we find it used as follows: "Through 
 which our just and paternal Providence having become favorable to the 
 nation will punish this persecuting tyrant" (IV Mace. 9:24). 
 
 From the above we learn that under Grecian influence native 
 tendencies toward transcendency had been accentuated, so that some 
 were beginning to think of God as unknowable in essence and unap- 
 proachable. The corollary of thb was a complicated system of inter- 
 mediaries. Greek speculation had early felt the need and had 
 endeavored in a most systematic and philosophic way to bridge the gulf 
 
 A KEVIEW or THE UTEKATT3XK 
 
 63 
 
 between the unknown and the known. Between the reaction of oppo- 
 sites, which was the function of the Logos of Heraelitus and the seminal 
 Logos of the Stoics there had been many suggested hypotheses. All 
 alike, however, were agreed as to the need of some gradual approach 
 between spirit and matter. Plato presents one of the most complete 
 systems, and yet he has not adequately worked out the causal nexus 
 between his world of ideas and the actual world. He conceived the 
 cosmos to be a living being endowed with a cosmical soul, through which 
 relation was established and controlled between the two worlds. That 
 all-pervading principle he named iw or Xoyot. The Stoics who 
 identified God with nature worked out a theory of rational evolution. 
 In their pantheistic system the universal Aoyot which was known under 
 many names subordinated to itself or expressed itself through the seminal 
 Xoyoi, and these by the applied physics of Heraelitus were the efficient 
 cause of all things. Thus there was a gradual movement from the lower 
 to the higher from the material standpoint, and a gradual movement 
 from the higher to the lower from the intellectual standpoint. 
 
 As the idea of transcendence of Deity was an inner development of 
 Hebrew thought itself, so also the conception of intermediaries was not 
 foreign to it. Even in the earliest literature traces are still preserved 
 which indicate that to the popular mind there were supernatural beings 
 besides Yahweh. In the well-defined remnant of mythology found in 
 Genesis, we have the conception of celestial beings who seem to be in 
 measure independent of Yahweh (Gen. 6:1-4). 1° Joshua the host of 
 Yahweh, captained by his prince, is ready to fight the battles of Israel 
 (Josh. 5: 14). In a very remarkable picture in the Book of Kings, what 
 may have been a very common belief is accredited to Mieaiah the 
 prophet. He saw the council in heaven, in which Yahweh was seated 
 on his throne and surrounded by all the host of heaven who were minister- 
 ing servants (I Kings 22:19). A poetic suggestion behind which there 
 may lie a wealth of popular angelology is found in the Seraphim in the 
 vision of Isaiah (Isa., chap. 6). True, the glimpses are but few, but that 
 even so many were preserved in spite of the trenchant prophetic dogma 
 of practical monotheism is indicative of the original abimdance and 
 persistence of such material. In the post-exilic age we see the re- 
 emergence of the same idea. Following Isaiah and Ezekiel the need of 
 mediation is felt. Even Ezekiel is guided by a supernatural being (Ezek. 
 40:3). To Zechariah there must be sent the Angel of Yahweh, as the 
 interpreter of his visions (Zech. 1:11, et al.), and Satan functions as the 
 Adversary of Israel (Zech. 3:1, 2). In Job there is a heavenly council. 
 
04 THE JEWISH APOLOGETIC TO THE GRECIAN WOBLD 
 
 and Satan, while apparently a member of the council, perfonns a service 
 which is inimical to man. In Isa. 24:21, "the host of the height," and 
 in Dan. 4:17, "the watchers," we have part of the nomenclature for 
 supernatural beings which is found in contemporary literature. 
 
 In the Grecian period the development of the idea of intermediaries 
 diverges in two directions. The one is along the line of angelology. 
 This was largely Jewish, though considerable of the coloring came from 
 Persia. The stress of the times no doubt contributed to accelerate the 
 movement. The dualism in the angel world becomes complete. The 
 heavenly hosts are divided into two groups: the evil and the good. 
 They are arranged in ranks and are organized for service. They have 
 charge of individuals and the oversight of nations, and there are even 
 those which control some of the functions of nature. Like human beings 
 they have names, most of which are Hebrew. Thus from the side of 
 angelology the idea of intermediaries is well developed. 
 
 A more abstract turn was given by Greek philosophy. The Logos 
 speculation won its way into the minds of at least a few of the Jewish 
 thinkers. It seems probable that before the close of the Old Testament 
 Canon this influence was felt. Should Wisdom in Prov., chap. 8, be 
 nothing more than a vivid personification, yet a strong reflection of 
 Greek thought has colored the description and the ideal. It is admitted 
 that the early Semitic thought did not lack the element of hypostatiza- 
 tion. In Sippar, Justice and Integrity were called the children of 
 Shamash (Schrader, K.A.T. 3, 368 f.). Likewise Persia had its hypos- 
 tatization, and expressly called it Wisdom (Tiele, Gesch. d. Relig. im 
 Alterth., 11, i, 147-50). In many respects it seems that the Persian 
 idea resembled that of the Hebrews. While the genetic relation of the 
 Babylonian and Persian thought to that of the Greeks, and in turn to 
 that of the Hebrews, is a subject of considerable dispute, the fact remains 
 however that it was not until the Jews came into the closest contact 
 with the Greeks that this speculation became a part of their thinking. 
 Thus we find the practical aims of the Hebrews clothing themselves in 
 the mold of Greek culture (Prov. 8: 14-21). Greek speculation at least 
 assisted to push Wisdom back into that realm of time before the world 
 was (Prov. 8: 22-29). Should the accimiulatioi^ of epithets and charac- 
 terizations, and the uncertain translation "nurseling" (ITOS, Prov. 
 8:29) not be sufficient to prove hypostatization, they certainly show 
 Greek influence, direct or indirect, ind very adequately prepare the way 
 ' for later development. 
 
 Our conclusion in regard to Wisdom {tn^U) in Ecclesiasticus must 
 
 A REVIEW OF THE UTERATtntZ (c 
 
 be practically the same. Here Wisdom came from the Most High as the 
 firstborn of the creatures (Ecclus. 1:4; 24:1-7), and was the mold for 
 all the works of God. She was poured out upon all nations, but took up 
 her special abode with Israel (24:8-10). At times she seems to faU little 
 short of an intermediary between God and man, and often appears to 
 parallel the function of the Xo'y« of the Greeks. This thought is, 
 however, not consistent throughout, and we are compelled to stop short 
 of certainty as to her hypostasis (cf. Bousset, Relig. d. Jud., 139). The 
 conception in the Book of Baruch is so apparently influenced by Ecclesias- 
 ticus, without presenting any further development, that we need pay no 
 attention to it (Bar. 3:9-13, 27-32). 
 
 Until the time of Philo, the chief exponent of Grecian thought in 
 respect to Wisdom is the author of the Wisdom of Solomon. To him 
 Wisdom b a master-workman (Ttxyi-nfi): "For wisdom which is the 
 worker of al! things taught me (7 yap toktwk Texvmj? JScSoft lU mxJMi, 
 Wisd. of Sol. 7:22). Again he questions, "What is richer than wisdom 
 that worketh all things?" (r^s to rarra ipyaio/iinp, Wisd. of Sol. 8:5; 
 cf. 18:6). The thirteenth chapter opens with an utterance which is 
 not easy to interpret. The important part of the sUtement is "Neither 
 by considering the works did they acknowledge the master-workman" 
 (tok t«xi'i'ti7i'). The dilemma is as to whether it is God or Wisdom who 
 b referred to here. Our conclusion is, however, supported by either 
 interpretation. Should Tcxylrrri, which has previously been applied to 
 Wisdom, here be applied to Deity, then we must recognize God 
 as the efficient cause (so Wisd. of Sol. 1:14; 6:7; 9:1, 9) and 
 Wisdom as the actual agent in the worid-creation. On the other 
 hand, if we interpret this as Wisdom, we then have another case in which 
 she is set over against God. To her is attributed the power to do all 
 things (Wisd. of Sol. 7:22-30; 8:1, 5). She has been with God in aU 
 his work, operating as his instrument (Wisd. of Sol. 9:9; 11:24). The 
 same idea is again expressed in Slavonic Enoch (Slav. En. 30:8, 12; 
 33-3> 4; 48:4). and is essential to Philo's system. She is represented as 
 penetraUng all things (Wisd. of Sol. 7:24; 8:1, 7; 7:27). In this ' 
 respect she seems to be synonymous with the spirit of the Lord (nvv/ia 
 mpiov) which filleth the world (Wisd. of Sol. 1:7; cf. 1:6; 8:1). 
 Here Greek phraseology has been adopted as well as Greek thought. 
 Similar expressions and thought occur in Plato {Gorg. 508A; Iren., V, 
 23), Aristotle (De Mundo, 6), Xen. (Anab. vii. 2, 8), and later very fre- 
 quently in Philo (cf. Wace. Apoc, I, 427). By many other charac- ' 
 terizations she seems to be the chief ministrant, or even the Spirit of 
 
M 
 
 THE JEWISH APOIOCETIC TO THE GREOAM WORLD 
 
 God. With him she is living (Wisd. of Sol. 8:3). She knows the 
 mysteries of God (Wisd. of Sol. 8:4; 9:9, 11). She is his firstborn 
 (luyroyty^, Wisd. of Sol. 7:23; cf. 7:27). She is the breath (*T/ut), 
 a pure influence (diro^^oio) flowing from his glory (Wisd. of Sol. 7:25), 
 and she is the everlasting light and the mirror of the power of God (Wisd. 
 of Sol. 7:26). Further, in this remarkable chapter (Wisd. of Sol. 
 7:22-30) we meet twenty-one characterizations of Wisdom, some of 
 rather vague significance, many of them coming from the realm of Greek 
 qieculation, and the combination bringing vividly to memory the 
 twenty-six epithets by which the Stoic Kleanthes described "the Good" 
 (Euseb., Praep. aang., XIII, 3; cf. Grimm, Comm., 158, and Deane, 
 Book of Wisd., 10). 
 
 While Wisdom is seated on the throne at the side of God, and is his 
 master-workman accomplishing his will, she has also a special function 
 with men. She is universally accessible to all who love and seek her 
 (Wisd. of Sol. 6:12-15). She has saved or will save the world (Wisd. of 
 Sol. 6:21; 10:1-20; 9:18). It is through her that there may come all 
 desirable gifts. She gives mirth and joy; immortality and riches and 
 prudence come from her (Wisd. of Sol. 8: 16-21). Fame and authority 
 and an everlasting name are likewise bestowals from her hands (Wisd. 
 of Sol. 8:10-15). So from the cumulative evidence we are forced to 
 conclude that in one strand of this book, Wisdom is considered an essence 
 separate from God, which functions as an intermediary between God and 
 man. We might even go farther, and, because of the predicates which 
 are used of the Xo'ycn of God, viz., creation (Wisd. of Sol. 9:1), and the 
 agent of the plague (Wisd. of Sol. 18:15; cf. 10:15), we might be justified 
 in finding in tro^ita a Hebraic equation for the Grecian Xayot. To the 
 Greek thinkers who read the book, this would be the most natural 
 interpretation. 
 
 Under the God idea, that which last claims our attention is the con- 
 ception of revelation. The Hebrew conception had not been uniform 
 throughout. The early prophets had an overwhelming conviction that 
 they were the recipients of a direct communication from God. The 
 psychological processes are not explained, but they permit of no inter- 
 pretation which suggests any inter\-ention between these men and Deity. 
 Later prophets, owing to changing conceptions as well perhaps as more 
 moderate convictions, were guided in the pathways of truth by angels 
 or messengers of God (Ezekiel, Zechariah). Still later writers busied 
 themselves chiefly with the interpretation of the past in terms of the 
 present (Chronicles, Priest Code). From the beginning of the second 
 
 A REVIEW OF THE UTERATT7RE 
 
 67 
 
 century B.C., owing to the accumulated sorrows which were moving to 
 their climax under Greek rule, there is found an abundance of apocalyptic . 
 literature. Inspired by messages of the past, in form and color a com- 
 bination of Hebrew and Persian, this literature seems hardly conscious 
 of the Greek culture by which it was surrounded. 
 
 The Greeks themselves were not without a conception of revelation. 
 While essentially quite different, perhaps that which came nearest to the 
 high-water mark of the Hebrew people finds its best illustration in 
 Socrates, who was conscious of the constant presence of an inner guiding 
 spirit. In general the two peoples followed quite different lines. A 
 distinct cleavage is again noted in Greek thought itself; while the terms 
 should not be applied too rigidly, popular and philosophic may be used 
 to designate these two different dispositions. The popular idea found 
 its answer in oradc-giving and soothsaying. This is a conception which 
 obtains among all primitive people, the Hebrews included. In Israel, 
 however, the ban had been put on it by the ethical ministry of the 
 Prophets, and it had fallen into disrepute among the religious leaders. 
 Now under Greek influence it is rehabilitated. Not only is it in the 
 mouth of the Sibyl that oracles favorable to the Jew and his religion are 
 sought, but fictitious oracle-giving becomes a systematic pr.ictice, which 
 gains the favor of some of the best and most religious leaders of the 
 nation. The author of Daniel was a man of lofty aspirations and ster- 
 ling convictions. The writer of the book of the celestial physics (En., 
 chaps. 72-82) was no mean speculator in his time. There were perhaps 
 few men of keener moral sensibilities than the one who put the oracles 
 of the future in the mouths of the Twelve Patriarchs. When it is noted 
 that perhaps half of the literature of this period has assumed this oracular 
 guise we can appreciate the strength of that influence which assisted in 
 its re-emergence. 
 
 The other line of Greek influence, namely, the contribution of the 
 schools, was much more subtle and far-reaching. Greek philosophy, 
 with its many inner antagonisms was at least agreed in this, that all 
 knowledge must be attained rationally through some inner relation to 
 the system of the universe itself. For " revelation " as such they had no- 
 place in their pre-Alexandrian systems." With Plato and his followers 
 the measure of harmony with the archetypal idea of the good was the 
 measure of the rational development of the man. The "world-soul" , 
 was to them the determining principle of all knowledge. The Stoics 
 
   As the movements of the Sophbts and the Skeptics had no influence on our 
 literature, they need not here engage our attention. 
 
68 
 
 THE JEWISH APOLOGETIC TO THE CBEOAN WOKLD 
 
 held that just in proportion as the Xoyoc in the individual attained a 
 correspondence to the universal reason or conimon ideas (koiku lyyouu) 
 it attained to the truth. To them law (.vo/uk) and nature (^«n«) 
 were essentially synonymous terms. While it is true that there were 
 movements in Hellenistic thought which later expressed their logical 
 conclusion in such a phrase as " divine revelation is the highest source of 
 knowledge," in the period of our study, reason, law, and nature were 
 the categories of the highest authority. 
 
 The dissimilarity of this with the Hebrew conception is at once 
 apparent. Pressed on every side by this foreign teaching which 
 threatened to subvert the very foundations of their rehgion, the Jews 
 met the need of the situation by two different methods of approach. 
 The first, which was the full accrediting of the media of revelation, is 
 purely objective, and is certainly Jewish rather than Greek. It is the 
 dogmatic strengthening of their old position, to which they were forced 
 by the speculations of their opponents. The second is the accrediting 
 of the revelation through an appeal to its content, and is Grecian rather 
 than Jewish. 
 
 The Jew not only assumed but asserted that there was a need of a 
 divine revelation. That there are mysteries which the human mind 
 cannot fathom is asserted in the Old Testament: "Man cannot find out 
 the work that God hath done from the beginning even to the end" 
 (Eccles. 3 : 1 1 ; cf. 7:24). The mysteries of the unknown and the desire 
 to gain some glimpses into it are constantly reiterated in the apocryphal 
 writers (cf. especially IV Esdr., chaps. 3-5, 19; Ecclus. 16:17-23; 
 18:4-7; 24:28; 42:17-25; 39:16-21). In the past such revelation 
 had come through certain outstanding individuals in their national 
 history. The use of these time-honored names as pseudonyms is one 
 of the conspicuous attempts to defend revelation from the standpoint 
 of external authority. The plethora of pseudepigraphy of this period 
 cannot be recognized as merely the elaboration and development of 
 the ideas and systems of the men whose names they now bear. It 
 is true the names were usually chosen because of some special fitness 
 between the name and the content of the writing. But yet we must 
 admit that these books were "tracts for the times," to which were ' 
 attached names, reverenced in Israel and not unknown in the pagan 
 world, for the express purpose of gaining a hearing for the message. 
 Enoch, Noah, Baruch, the Sibyl, the Twelve Patriarchs, Daniel, Solo- 
 mon, Ezra, Moses, and Isaiah were noms de plumes with which the 
 literati of Judaism conjured in these dark days. Many of these were 
 
 A REVIEW OF THE LITERATUSE 
 
 69 
 
 great religious teachers far from strange to the ears of the cultured 
 Greek community. 
 
 In the closing of the Old Testament Canon, one name, and that 
 because of personal worth, had in respect to things of the law gained a 
 pre-eminence, viz., Moses. The strength of this tradition is indicated 
 in the latest historical books of the Old Testament (Ezra. 6: 18, et al.; cf. 
 Mai. 4:4). That tradition is now assumed by the Jewish defenders of 
 the faith, and the need of a revelation and the peculiar fitness of this 
 name to be the bearer of that revelation are duly emphasized. Law, and 
 this we shall take up later, is identified with that desired knowledge. 
 Moses, thus, as the original giver of that law, became a sine qua turn of 
 Jewish literary thought. To prove his unique fitness to be the channel 
 of such a revelation is a task which was attempted by many minds. Ben 
 Sirach, if we can trust the rendering of the Hebrew text, compared him 
 with the angels (DTlbiO , Eccles. 45 : 2 ; d . Wisd. of Sol. 10: 16). Ezekiel 
 the dramatist and Eupolemus sought to prove him the instructor of 
 his people in the arts and sciences (Euseb., Praep. evang., IX, 28, 26). 
 Artapanus identified him with Musaeus, the great teacher of Orphaeus. 
 Josephus calls him the one "next to God" (Jos., Jew. Wars, II, 8, 9; cf. 
 Jos., A nt., Ill, XV, 3). Philo held him to be the Master of all philosophies, 
 and sought to deduce from the Pentateuch a detailed Grecian philosophy 
 {De Vita Mas., i, 6). Many are the Haggadoth which describe in vary- 
 ing detail the ascent of Moses into the heaven and how he received the 
 Torah from God {Yoma). One of the evidences for his claim as revealer, 
 which is Grecian— f)erhaps influenced from the farther East — rather than 
 Hebrew, is that of his pre-existence. The passage which thus fully 
 accredits him to this high office is found in the Assumption of Moses: 
 "But he was not pleased to manifest this purpose of creation from the 
 creation of the world, in order that the Gentiles might thereby be con- 
 victed, yea to their own humiliation might by their arguments convict 
 one another. Accordingly he designed and devised me, and he prepared 
 me from before the foundation of the world, that I should be the mediator 
 of his covenant. And now I declare unto thee .... and receive thou 
 this writing that thou mayest know how to preserve the books which I 
 shall deUver unto thee" (Assump. Mos. 1:13-16; cf. 10:11; ii:i). 
 
 The effort to assure the credibihty of the medium of revelation is 
 supplemented from two different quarters. The Book of Jubilees traces 
 the course of divine revelation from the time of Moses back to the very 
 beginning and asserts that the law is a copy of that which is written on 
 the heavenly tablets. Traditions of the divine laws were handed down 
 
7° 
 
 TBE JEWISH AFOLOGEnC TO THE GKEOAN WORLD 
 
 through Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, who was given the gift of 
 understanding the Hebrew speech in order "that he might hear and 
 speak with the language which had been revealed" (Jub. 13:35), ^^^ 
 his descendants, and then later, for the sake of the greater accuracy, 
 written in heaven by the "angel of the presence" and given to Moses 
 (Jub. 1:4-6, 27-28; 3:10,14,31; 7:20,38,39; 8:11; 23:32; etal.; d. 
 Sibyl. Or., Ill, 256, 580, 600). 
 
 Another source of danger to the supernatural message, namely, the 
 errors arising through the transmission of the manuscript, is safeguarded 
 by another well-known theory. Ezra in a psychological state, induced 
 by a prepared drink, dictates to five scribes for a period of forty days 
 and thus under the mechanical guidance of the Holy Spirit the twenty- 
 four books of the Old Testament Canon, as well as seventy others, were 
 prepared (IV Ezra 14:37-48). The observance of the law which was 
 thus intrusted to the keeping of the chosen people has been, on the one 
 hand, supematurally enforced (II Mace. 3:24-27; Twelve Patr. T. 
 Reub. 1:7, 8; T. Sim. 2:12; T. Jud. 10:2-5; "^5; T. Gad 5:9; T. 
 Benj. 2:4), and, on the other hand, has been supematurally guarded by 
 Providence — the rpoma of the Stoics (III Mace. 2:21; 4:2; 5:26-28; 
 6:18-21). 
 
 There are, however, traces of movements along other directions 
 which were much more thoroughly Grecian. Under terminology such 
 as "Son of man," "angel," the Holy Spirit and Wisdom (o-o^) we 
 find the quasi-philosophical Hebraic equation for the vah or the Aoyoi 
 of the Greeks. Through these manifestations or existences the Hebrews 
 endeavor to rationalize their revelation idea. A few quotations will 
 suffice to illustrate this fact. This conception is put very clearly in 
 Enoch, "This is the Son of man who hath righteousness, with whom 
 dwelleth righteousness, and who reveals all the treasures of that which 
 is hidden, because the Lord of Spirits hath chosen him, and his lot before 
 the Lord of Spirits hath surpassed everything in uprightness forever" 
 (En. 46 : 3). Similar in import is another characterization from the same 
 author: "And in him dwells the spirit of wisdom and the spirit of Him 
 who gives knowledge" (En. 49:3). The function of the angels in regard 
 to revelation need here only be referred to. They were the official guides 
 of the apocalyptists from the time of Zechariah on. One of them, 
 Ramiel, is represented as the one who presides over true visions (Apoc. 
 Bar. 55:3; 63:6). The place of <To<^ia, however, b in this respect 
 especially important. In the Wisdom of Solomon she it was who, 
 because of her understanding spirit, taught the author all things either 
 
 A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 
 
 n 
 
 secret or manifest (Wisd. of Sol. 7:21, 22). It is through the spirit of 
 wisdom entering holy souls that they become friends of God and proph- 
 ets (Wisd. of Sol. 7:27). The counsel of God cannot be known save 
 through wisdom and the Holy Spirit from above (Wisd. of Sol. 9:17). 
 In the Epistle of Banich ao^ia is immanent in the book of the command- 
 ments of God (Bar. 3:9; 4:4). 
 
 Contributing to the same line of thought is the idea which became a 
 dogma of Judaism. Twice in the Apocalypse of Baruch we are told of 
 the voice coming from heaven bearing a revelation. The first time it 
 reads: "A voice came from the height and said unto me ... . hear the 
 word of the mighty God" (Apoc. Bar. 13:1, 2). More vivid is the 
 second declaration : " The heavens were opened .... and a voice was 
 heard from high and said unto me" (Apoc. Bar. 22:1; d. Matt. 3:17; 
 Rev. 4:1). Thus in a variety of ways did the Jews endeavor to 
 strengthen the external claims to revelation. 
 
 The second method of readjustment to the Greek thought, in the 
 matter of revelation, was the appeal to content. This was rational and 
 Hellenistic. With commendable unanimity they assume or seek to 
 prove that the Jewish law meets all possible requirements. To Ben 
 Sirach the pathway to true wisdom lay through the law: "If thou desire 
 wisdom, keep the commandments" (Ecclus. 1:26). "Let thy mind 
 dwell upon the ordinances of the Lord, and meditate continually in his 
 commandments; .... and thy desire of wisdom shall be given unto 
 thee" (Ecclus. 6:37). Human wisdom and the law are to this author 
 practically synonymous terms: "All wisdom is the fear of the Lord; 
 and in all wisdom is the doing of the Law" (Ecclus. 19:20). "Not so 
 he that hath applied his soul, and meditateth in the law of the Most 
 High; he will seek out the wisdom of the ancients" (Ecclus. 39:1). 
 The fruit of wisdom is found in the law: "All these things [enumerated 
 in Ecclus. 24: 1-22] are the book of the covenant of the Most High God, 
 even the law which Moses commanded us for a heritage " (Ecclus. 24 : 23). 
 Thus we see that a book touched most deeply by the Grecian culture- 
 movement is thoroughly saturated with a respect and love for the law. 
 In the addition to Esther, the Jews are spoken of as "no evil-doers, but 
 live by most just laws" (Esth. 16: 15), and in HI Maccabees the law of 
 the Jews, when consistently followed out, makes good and faithful 
 citizens: "But the Jews maintained toward their Kings good will and 
 unswerving loyalty; yet as they worshipped God and governed them- 
 selves according to his law .... they appeared odious to some persons. 
 But since they adorned their intercourse with one another with the good 
 
7» 
 
 THE JEWISH APOLOGETIC TO THE GRECIAN WORLD 
 
 works of the righteous, they had established themselves in the good 
 opinion of all men" (III Mace. 3:4-6; cf. 1:9; 7:10-12). In IV 
 Maccabees the Jewish law is asserted to be right reason (Xoyuriim). 
 Through the divine law alone can the persecuted people retain right 
 reason unsubdued (IV Mace. 11:23). When a man is obedient to the 
 law through right reason he becomes a careful husbandman, a controller 
 of his passions, a dutiful son, an affectionate husband, a wise parent, a 
 good master, and one whose whole course is dominated by virtue (IV 
 Mace. 2:9-23; cf. 5: 15-18). Further, this law which is divine is found 
 only in the writings of Moses (IV Mace. 9:2; 5:34; 2:9; 11:5). Wis- 
 dom is immanent in Jewish law according to Baruch (Bar. 3:9-14; 
 4:1), as also in the Apocalypse of Baruch (Apoc. Bar. 51:3, 7; 61:4; 
 59: 7). The synonymous parallelism found in the Apocalypse of Baruch 
 will suffice to illustrate the statement: "Also as for the glory of those 
 who have now been justified in my law, who have had understanding in 
 their Ufe, and who have planted in their hearts the roots of wisdom" 
 (Apoc. Bar. 51:3, 4). There are innumerable passages from almost 
 every quarter which insist that the law is the only true standard of life 
 (I Mace. 4:42-52; Ps. Sol. 9:7-9; 1:7-9; 2:3; 8:12; 10:5; 14:1-4; 
 18:9; Wisd. of Sol. 18:4, 9; 16:6; Aristeas, vs. 31; I Esdr. 5:47-53; 
 8:7-24; 9:39-41, et al.), and obedience to it is constantly representol 
 as essential for all (Twelve Patr. T. Levi 14:4; I Mace. 1:34-39; 2:21- 
 27, 34; II Mace. 4:17; 6:6, 23; 8:26; 12:38, Bar. 4:13; IV Esdr. 
 7:37-39)- 
 
 Another line of argument adopted in defense of the law was that, not 
 only as we have seen, was it from the foundation of the earth, but it was 
 also valid for all eternity. This is particularly true in Jubilees (Jub. 
 2:18; 3:31; 6:14; 15:25; 33:16), in Enoch (En. 99:2; 103:4), andin 
 the Apocalypse of Baruch (Apoc. Bar. 17:4; 3:6; 59:3-6; 84:2-3). 
 Likewise in the Epistle of Baruch it is spoken of as enduring forever 
 (Bar. 1:17-20; 2:1,2; 2:20-24). 
 
 In respect to the doctrines of God, Intermediaries, and Revelation 
 we would thus conclude that while no Jew within the scope of our study 
 presented anything like a harmonious philosophical system, yet among 
 them were those who had appropriated many of the Greek forms of speech 
 and categories of thought. A transcendent God was conceived of as 
 unknowable and immovable. Intermediaries to maintain the relation 
 between God and the world were necessary, and what was almost the 
 same as the Xoyot of the Greeks is found in Jewish thought under 
 varying names. An attempt is made to bring their doctrine of revelation 
 
 A REVIEW OF THE UTERATUSE 
 
 73 
 
 into harmony with surrounding thought. Some develop the popular 
 and primitive side of religion in the idea of oracle-giving. Others 
 approach more or less closely to the thought that the criteria of truth 
 are found in the universal reason. They thus seek to prove the universal 
 validity of the law by its content, and work out, in a semi-philosophic 
 way, though quite imperfectly, the media through which that revelation 
 could consistently come. These not altogether successful attempts of 
 the Hebraist to converse in the philosophic formulae of the Hellenist 
 point to the way in which the great Alexandrian Jew of the first centuiy 
 of the Christian era thought and taught. 
 
r^^fS^ 
 
 LOAN DEPT. '^^ 
 
 «H.WAtS OH^-«;; --r;i MOW. or 
 
^^^035^: 
 
 •-^^T^P^ 
 
 ^> o-^^o^ 
 
 I'^^rrr-fd^ 
 
 ^fer*;-T-'f:*r 
 
 B«''« 
 
 ^^<'Ci6 
 
 
 ^miy?: 
 
 ?^;7?^ 
 
 mi^: