iv. _Apocalyptic as distinguished from Prophecy._--We have already dwelt on certain notable differences between apocalyptic and prophecy; but there are certain others that call for attention.

(a) _In the Nature of its Message._--The message of the prophets was primarily a preaching of repentance and righteousness if the nation would escape judgment; the message of the apocalyptic writers was of patience and trust for that deliverance and reward were sure to come.

(b) _By its dualistic Theology._--Prophecy believes that this world is G.o.d's world and that in this world His goodness and truth will yet be vindicated. Hence the prophet prophesies of a definite future arising out of and organically connected with the present. The apocalyptic writer on the other hand despairs of the present, and directs his hopes absolutely to the future, to a new world standing in essential opposition to the present. (_Non fecit Altissimus unum saeculum sed duo_, 4 Ezra vii. 50.) Here we have essentially a dualistic principle, which, though it can largely be accounted for by the interaction of certain inner tendencies and outward sorrowful experience on the part of Judaism, may ultimately be derived from Mazdean influences. This principle, which shows itself clearly at first in the conception that the various nations are under angelic rulers, who are in a greater or less degree in rebellion against G.o.d, as in Daniel and Enoch, grows in strength with each succeeding age, till at last Satan is conceived as "the ruler of this world" (John xii. 31) or "the G.o.d of this age" (2 Cor. iv. 4). Under the guidance of such a principle the writer naturally expected the world's culmination in evil to be the immediate precursor of G.o.d's intervention on behalf of the righteous, and every fresh growth in evil to be an additional sign that the time was at hand. The natural concomitant in conduct of such a belief is an uncompromising asceticism.

He that would live to the next world must shun this. Visions are vouchsafed only to those who to prayer have added fasting.

(c) _By pseudonymous Authorship._--We have already touched on this characteristic of apocalyptic. The prophet stood in direct relations with his people; his prophecy was first spoken and afterwards written.

The apocalyptic writer could obtain no hearing from his contemporaries, who held that, though G.o.d spoke in the past, "there was no more any prophet." This pessimism and want of faith limited and defined the form in which religious enthusiasm should manifest itself, and prescribed as a condition of successful effort the adoption of pseudonymous authorship. The apocalyptic writer, therefore, professedly addressed his book to future generations. Generally directions as to the hiding and sealing of the book (Dan. xii. 4, 9; 1 Enoch i. 4; a.s.s. Mos. i. 16-18) were given in the text in order to explain its publication so long after the date of its professed period. Moreover, there was a sense in which such books were not wholly pseudonymous. Their writers were students of ancient prophecy and apocalyptical tradition, and, though they might recast and reinterpret them, they could not regard them as their own inventions. Each fresh apocalypse would in the eyes of its writer be in some degree but a fresh edition of the traditions naturally attaching themselves to great names in Israel's past, and thus the books named respectively Enoch, Noah, Ezra would to some slight extent be not pseudonymous.

(d) _By its comprehensive and deterministic Conception of History._--Apocalyptic took an indefinitely wider view of the world's history than prophecy. Thus, whereas prophecy had to deal with temporary reverses at the hands of some heathen power, apocalyptic arose at a time when Israel had been subject for generations to the sway of one or other of the great world-powers. Hence to harmonize such difficulties with belief in G.o.d's righteousness, it had to take account of the role of such empires in the counsels of G.o.d, the rise, duration and downfall of each in turn, till finally the lordship of the world pa.s.sed into the hands of Israel, or the final judgment arrived. These events belonged in the main to the past, but the writer represented them as still in the future, arranged under certain artificial categories of time definitely determined from the beginning in the counsels of G.o.d and revealed by Him to His servants the prophets. Determinism thus became a leading characteristic of Jewish apocalyptic, and its conception of history became severely mechanical.

II. OLD TESTAMENT APOCALYPTIC

i. Canonical:--

Isaiah xxiv.-xxvii.; x.x.xiii.; x.x.xiv.-x.x.xv.

(Jeremiah x.x.xiii. 14-26?) Ezekiel ii. 8; x.x.xviii.-x.x.xix.

Joel iii. 9-17.

Zech. xii--xiv.

Daniel.

We cannot enter here into a discussion of the above pa.s.sages and books.[1] All are probably pseudepigraphic except the pa.s.sages from Ezekiel and Joel. Of the remaining pa.s.sages and books Daniel belongs unquestionably to the Maccabean period, and the rest possibly to the same period. Isaiah x.x.xiii. was probably written about 163 B.C. (Duhm and Marti); Zech. xii.-xiv. about 160 B.C., Isaiah xxiv.-xxvii. about 128 B.C., and x.x.xiv.-x.x.xv. sometime in the reign of John Hyrca.n.u.s.

Jeremiah x.x.xiii. 14-26 is a.s.signed by Marti to Maccabean times, but this is highly questionable.

ii. Extra-canonical:--

(a) _Palestinian_:--

(200-100 B.C.) Book of Noah.

1 Enoch vi.-x.x.xvi.; lxxii.-xc.

Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs.

(100 B.C. to 1 B.C.) 1 Enoch i.-v.; x.x.xvii.-lxxi.; xci.-civ.

Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs, i.e. T. Lev. x., xiv.-xvi., T. Jud.

xxi. 6-xxiii, T. Zeb. ix., T. Dan. v. 6, 7.

Psalms of Solomon.

(A.D. 1-100 and later.) a.s.sumption of Moses.

Apocalypse of Baruch.

4 Ezra.

Greek Apocalypse of Baruch.

Apocalypse of Zephaniah.

Apocalypse of Abraham.

Prayer of Joseph.

Book of Eldad and Modad.

Apocalypse of Elijah.

(b) _h.e.l.lenistic_:--

2 Enoch.

Oracles of Hystaspes.

Testament of Job.

Testaments of the III. Patriarchs.

Sibylline Oracles (excluding Christian portions).

_Book of Noah._--Though this book has not come down to us independently, it has in large measure been incorporated in the Ethiopic Book of Enoch, and can in part be reconstructed from it. The Book of Noah is mentioned in Jubilees x. 13, xxi. 10. Chapters lx., lxv.-lxix. 25 of the Ethiopic Enoch are without question derived from it. Thus lx. 1 runs: "In the year 500, in the seventh month ... in the life of Enoch." Here the editor simply changed the name Noah in the context before him into Enoch, for the statement is based on Gen. v. 32, and Enoch lived only 365 years. Chapters vi.-xi. are clearly from the same source; for they make no reference to Enoch, but bring forward Noah (x. 1) and treat of the sin of the angels that led to the flood, and of their temporal and eternal punishment. This section is compounded of the Semjaza and Azazel myths, and in its present composite form is already presupposed by 1 Enoch lx.x.xviii.-xc. Hence these chapters are earlier than 166 B.C.

Chapters cvi.-cvii. of the same book are probably from the same source; likewise liv. 7-lv. 2, and Jubilees vii. 20-39, x. 1-15. In the former pa.s.sage of Jubilees the subject-matter leads to this identification, as well as the fact that Noah is represented as speaking in the first person, although throughout Jubilees it is the angel that speaks.

Possibly Eth. En. xli. 3-8, xliii.-xliv., lix. are from the same work.

The book may have opened with Eth. En. cvi.-cvii. On these chapters may have followed Eth. En. vi.-xi., lxv.-lxix. 25, lx., xli. 3-8, xliii.-xliv., liv. 7-lv. 2; Jubilees vii. 26-39, x. 1-15.

The Hebrew Book of Noah, a later work, is printed in Jellinek's _Bet ha-Midrasch_, iii. 155-156, and translated into German in Ronsch, _Das Buch der Jubilaen_, 385-387. It is based on the part of the above Book of Noah which is preserved in the _Book of Jubilees_. The portion of this Hebrew work which is derived from the older work is reprinted in Charles's _Ethiopic Version of the Hebrew Book of Jubilees_, p. 179.

_1 Enoch, or the Ethiopic Book of Enoch._--This is the most important of all the apocryphal writings for the history of religious thought. Like the Pentateuch, the Psalms, the Megilloth and the Pirke Aboth, this work was divided into five parts, which, as we shall notice presently, spring from five different sources. Originally written partly in Aramaic (i.e.

vi.-x.x.xvi.) and partly in Hebrew (i.-vi., x.x.xvii.-cviii.), it was translated into Greek, and from Greek into Ethiopic and possibly Latin.

Only one-fifth of the Greek version in two forms survives. The various elements of the book were written by different authors at different dates, vi.-x.x.xvi. was written before 166 B.C., lxxii.-lx.x.xii. before the _Book of Jubilees_, i.e. before 120 B.C. or thereabouts, lx.x.xiii.-xc.

about 166 B.C., i.-v., xci.-civ. before 95 B.C., and x.x.xvii.-lxxi.

before 64 B.C. There are many interpolations drawn mainly from the Book of Noah.

_Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs._--This book, in some respects the most important of Old Testament apocryphs, has only recently come into its own. Till a few years ago, owing to Christian interpolations, it was taken to be a Christian apocryph, written originally in Greek in the 2nd century A.D. Now it is acknowledged by Christian and Jewish scholars alike to have been written in Hebrew in the 2nd century B.C. From Hebrew it was translated into Greek and from Greek into Armenian and Slavonic.

The versions have come down in their entirety, and small portions of the Hebrew text have been recovered from later Jewish writings. The Testaments were written about the same date as the _Book of Jubilees_.

These two books form the only Apology in Jewish literature for the religious and civil hegemony of the Maccabees from the Pharisaic standpoint. To the Jewish interpolation of the 1st century B.C. (about 60-40), i.e. T. Lev. x., xiv.-xvi.; T. Jud. xxii.-xxiii., &c., a large interest attaches; for these, like I Enoch xci.-civ. and the Psalms of Solomon, const.i.tute an unmeasured attack on every office--prophetic, priestly and kingly--administered by the Maccabees. The ethical character of the book is of the highest type, and its profound influence on the writers of the New Testament is yet to be appreciated. (See TESTAMENTS OF THE XII. PATRIARCHS.)

_Psalms of Solomon._--These psalms, in all eighteen, enjoyed but small consideration in early times, for only six direct references to them are found in early literature. Their ascription to Solomon is due solely to the copyists or translators, for no such claim is made in any of the psalms. On the whole, Ryle and James are no doubt right in a.s.signing 70-40 B.C. as the limits within which the psalms were written. The authors were Pharisees. They divide their countrymen into two cla.s.ses--"the righteous," ii. 38-39, iii. 3-5, 7, 8, &c., and "the sinners," ii. 38, iii. 13, iv. 9, &c.; "the saints," iii. 10, &c., and "the transgressors," iv. II, &c. The former are the Pharisees; the latter the Sadducees. They protest against the Asmonaean house for usurping the throne of David, and laying violent hands on the high priesthood (xvii. 5, 6, 8), and proclaim the coming of the Messiah, the Son of David, who is to set all things right and establish the supremacy of Israel. Pss. xvii.-xviii. and i.-xvi. cannot be a.s.signed to the same authorship. The hopes of the Messiah are confined to the former, and a somewhat different eschatology underlies the two works. Since the Psalms were written in Hebrew, and intended for public worship in the synagogues, it is most probable that they were composed in Palestine.

(See SOLOMON, THE PSALMS OF.)

_The a.s.sumption of Moses_.--This book was lost for many centuries till a large fragment of it was discovered by Ceriani in 1861 (_Monumenta Sacra_, I. i. 55-64) from a palimpsest of the 6th century. Very little was known about the contents of this book prior to this discovery. The present book is possibly the long-lost [Greek: Diatheke Mouseos]

mentioned in some ancient lists, for it never speaks of the a.s.sumption of Moses, but always of his natural death. About a half of the original Testament is preserved in the Latin version. The latter half probably dealt with questions about the creation. With this "Testament" the "a.s.sumption," to which almost all the patristic references and that of Jude are made, was subsequently edited. The book was written between 4 B.C. and A.D. 7. As for the author, he was no Essene, for he recognizes animal sacrifices and cherishes the Messianic hope; he was not a Sadducee, for he looks forward to the establishment of the Messianic kingdom (x.); nor a Zealot, for the quietistic ideal is upheld (ix.), and the kingdom is established by G.o.d Himself (x.). He is therefore a Chasid of the ancient type, and glorifies the ideals which were cherished by the old Pharisaic party, but which were now being fast disowned in favour of a more active role in the political life of the nation. He pours his most scathing invectives on the Sadducees, who are described in vii. in terms that recall the anti-Sadducean Psalms of Solomon. His object, therefore, is to protest against the growing secularization of the Pharisaic party through its adoption of popular Messianic beliefs and political ideals. (See also MOSES, a.s.sUMPTION OF.)

_Apocalypse of Baruch--The Syriac._--This apocalypse has survived only in the Syriac version. The Syriac is a translation from the Greek, and the Greek in turn from the Hebrew. The book treats of the Messiah and the Messianic kingdom, the woes of Israel in the past and the destruction of Jerusalem in the present, as well as of theological questions relating to original sin, free will, works, &c. The views expressed on several of these subjects are often conflicting. We must, therefore, a.s.sume a number of independent sources put together by an editor or else that the book is on the whole the work of one author who made use of independent writings but failed to blend them into one harmonious whole. In its present form the book was written soon after A.D. 70. For fuller treatment see BARUCH.

_4 Ezra._--This apocryph is variously named. In the first Arabic and Ethiopic versions it is called I Ezra; in some Latin MSS. and in the English authorized version it is 2 Ezra, and in the Armenian 3 Ezra.

With the majority of the Latin MSS. we designate the book 4 Ezra. In its fullest form this apocryph consists of sixteen chapters, but i.-ii. and xv.-xvi. are of different authorship from each other and from the main work iii.-xiv. The book was written originally in Hebrew. There are Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic (two), and Armenian versions. The Greek version is lost. This apocalypse is of very great importance, on account of its very full treatment of the theological questions rife in the latter half of the 1st century of the Christian era. The book, even if written by one author, was based on a variety of already existing works.

It springs from the same school of thought as the _Apocalypse of Baruch_, and its affinities with the latter are so numerous and profound that scholars have not yet come to any consensus as to the relative priority of either. In its present form it was composed A.D. 80-100. For fuller treatment see EZRA.

_Apocalypse of Baruch--The Greek._--This work is referred to by Origen (_de Princip._ II. iii. 6): "Denique etiam Baruch prophetae librum in a.s.sertionis hujus' testimonium vocant, quod ibi de septem mundis vel caelis evidentius indicatur." This book survives in two forms in Slavonic and Greek. The former was translated by Bonwetsch in 1896, in the _Nachrichten von der konigl. Ges. der Wiss. zu, Gott_. pp. 91-101; the latter by James in 1897 in _Anecdota_, ii. 84-94, with an elaborate introduction (pp. li.-lxxi.). The Slavonic is only of secondary value, as it is merely an abbreviated form of the Greek. Even the Greek cannot claim to be the original work, but only to be a recension of it; for, whereas Origen states that this apocalypse contained an account of the seven heavens, the existing Greek work describes only five, and the Slavonic only two. As the original, work presupposes 2 Enoch and the Syriac _Apocalypse of Baruch_ and was known to Origen, it was written between A.D. 80 and 200, and nearer the earlier date than the later, as it would otherwise be hard to understand how it came to circulate among Christians. The superscription shows points of connexion with the _Rest of the Words of Baruch_, but little weight can be attached to the fact, since t.i.tles and superscriptions were so frequently transformed and expanded in ancient times. As James and Kohler have pointed out, part of section 4 on the Vine is a Christian addition. A German translation of the Greek appears in Kautzsch's _Apok. u. Pseud_, ii. 448-457, and a strong article by Kohler on the Jewish authorship of the book in the _Jewish Encyclopedia_, ii. 549-551. (See BARUCH.)

_Apocalypse of Abraham._--This book is found only in the Slavonic (edited by Bonwetsch, _Studien zur Geschichte d. Theologie und Kirche_, 1897), a translation from the Greek. It is of Jewish origin, but in part worked over by a Christian reviser. The first part treats of Abraham's conversion, and the second forms an apocalyptic expansion of Gen. xv.

This book was possibly known to the author of the _Clem. Recognitions_, i. 32, a pa.s.sage, however, which may refer to Jubilees. It is most probably distinct from the [Greek: Apokalepsis Abraam] used by the gnostic Sethites (Epiphanius, _Haer_. x.x.xix. 5), which was very heretical. On the other hand, it is probably identical with the apocryphal book [Greek: Abraam] mentioned in the Stichometry of Nicephorus, and the Synopsis Athanasii, together with the Apocalypses of Enoch, &c.

_Lost Apocalypses: Prayer of Joseph._--The _Prayer of Joseph_ is quoted by Origen [_In Joann._ II. xxv, (Lommatzsch, i. 147, 148); _in Gen._ III. ix. (Lommatzsch, viii. 30-31)]. The fragments in Origen represent Jacob as speaking and claiming to be "the first servant in G.o.d's presence," "the first-begotten of every creature animated by G.o.d," and declaring that the angel who wrestled with Jacob (and was identified by Christians with Christ) was only eighth in rank. The work was obviously anti-Christian. (See Schurer, iii. 265-266.)

_Book of Eldad and Modad._--This book was written in the name of the two prophets mentioned in Num. xi. 26-29. It consisted, according to the Targ. Jon. on Num. xi. 26-20, mainly of prophecies on Magog's last attack on Israel. The Shepherd of Hermas quotes it _Vis._ ii. 3. (See Marshall in Hastings' _Bible Dictionary_, i. 677.)

_Apocalypse of Elijah._--This apocalypse is mentioned in two of the lists of books. Origen, Ambrosiaster, and Euthalius ascribe to it I Cor.

ii. 9. If they are right, the apocalypse is pre-Pauline. The peculiar form in which I Cor. ii. 9 appears in Clemens Alex. _Protrept._ x. 94, and the _Const. Apost._ vii. 32, shows that both have the same source, probably this apocalypse. Epiphanius (_Haer._ xlii., ed. Oehler, vol.

ii. 678) ascribes to this work Eph. v. 14. Isr. Levi (_Revue des etudes juives_, 1880, i. 108 sqq.) argues for the existence of a Hebrew apocalypse of Elijah from two Talmudic pa.s.sages. A late work of this name has been published by Jellinek, _Bet ha-Midrasch_, 1855, iii.

65-68, and b.u.t.tenwieser in 1897. Zahn, _Gesch. des N.T. Kanons_, ii.

801-810, a.s.signs this apocalypse to the 2nd century A.D. (See Schurer, iii. 267-271.)