Sources

B.C. 200-100: Sirach; Daniel; Ethiopic Enoch 1-36, 83-90, 91-104; Baruch 1-35; Tobit; Sibylline Oracles (part of Book iii.); Testa- ments ef the Twelve Patriarchs (B.c. 140- A.D. 30): Book of Jubilees; Judith. B.C. 100-1: Ethiopic Enoch 37-70; 1 Maccabees; Psalms of Solomon ; 2 Maccabees. «.D. 1-100: Assumption of Moses; Book of Wisdom; Philo; Slavonic Enoch; 4 Mac- cabees ; Josephus; Apocalypse of Baruch ; Book of Baruch (from 3° onwards); 2 (4) Esdras; Ascension of Isaiah; Shemoneh Esreh.

[In the above list of authorities the Targums are not included. They undoubtedly contain frag- ments as old as the time of John Hyrcanus; but as they were not published until, perhaps, the 3rd or 4th cent. A.D., they must obviously be used with caution as sources for estimating the develop- ment of Jewish doctrine during our period]. Introduction. 1, The question stated. 2. Relation of later Judaism to foreign systems of thought. (1) Persian influence. (2) Greek influence. 3.

Decay of the older Hebraism. 4. Classification of the Apocrypha according to the national influences under which they were composed. i. THE DocTRINE oF GoD, 1. The OT position. 2. The position of this doctrine in Jewish writings of the Apocryphal period. 8. The extent to which foreign influences affected the doctrine of God as reflected in these writings. 4. Popular superstitions regarding the name Jahweh. 5. The Christian doctrine of God. ii. THe DocTRINE OF THE WISDOM. 1.

In OT presented not only as human, but also as Divine. 2. Hellenizing of the Heb. Hokhma in the Alexandrian Wisdom of Solomon, 8. The Logos of Philo. 4, The Memra of the Targums, 5. NT conception of the Logos, ji. ANGELOLOGY AND DEMONOLOGY. A. Angelology. 1. OT doctrine of angels. 2. Post-exilic development of angelology on Persian lines seen in (1) Daniel, (2) Tobit, 2 Mac., 2 (4) Esdras. 3. Conception of elemental angels in post-canonical Jewish literature. 4.

Doctrine of angels as held by the Essenes and by Philo, 5. Denial of angels by the Sadducees. B. Demonology. 1. The position as reflected in the earlier OT literature. 2. The Satan of Job, Zechariah, the Chronicler, and the Similitudes of Enoch. 8. The doctrine of evil spirits in the Apocrypha and in Josephus. 4. Demonology of the Alexandrian Jews, 5. Development of demonology in the Jewish pseudepi- grapha. ©.

Relation of the religious consciousness of our Lord to current beliefs about angels and demons. v. ANTHROPOLOGY. Teaching of the Apocrypha and Pseudepi- grapha as to— . Psychological nature of man. Original moral condition of man. Immortality of the soul. The first sin and its consequences, . Free will and foreordination. Ethics: (1) Palestinian ; (2) Alexandrian. Final shape given by Christian doctrine to Jewish anthropology ‘HE MESSIANIC HOPE, Meaning of the expression. The OT position.

The Messianic idea in the Apocrypha. Transformation into Apocalyptic ideas, The Messianic idea in later Palestinian books, . The Messianic expectation in Hellenistic Judaism. Peculiarities of the later Messianic hope. 8. Question as to retrogression of Messianic idea during the post-Prophetic period. vi. EscHATOLOGY. 1. Position of eschatological doctrine in OT. 2. Post-canonical development, with special reference to— (1) Future judgment.

ot NJoomporrd soo pwpr DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE (2) Realms of the departed: (a) Sheol; (6) Paradise (c) Heaven; (d) Gehenna. (3) The Resurrection. 8. Question as to the influence of Zoroastrianism upon Jewish eschatology. Literature. Introduction.—1. The question stated.—Our first concern in discussing the subject of doctrinal development in the Apocryphal period is to get a clear conception of the true bearings of the question.

The field over which our investigation is to extend consists practically of the intervening space between the Old and New Testaments. We have to deal with a transition period, to be con- sidered with due reference both to what precedes and what follows; we are to look back on the OT, and forward to the NT. In short, we must have the OT basis from which to start, and the NT position to which we are to be led up, both in full vision.

The question might be broadly stated, then, as the relation of Jewish views of theology at this time to the Old and New Testaments— the special point to be elucidated being whether and how far the Apocrypha and other non-canonical prone Jewish writings bridge the distance etween them. They do so historically; do they do so doctrinally? Is there evidence of real doc- trinal development ? The student of theology will hardly say there is no felt want of such a bridge.

hile the NT stands most intimately related to the OT, and would be a real enigma without it, it is yet true that the difference between them is of the most marked description. And many, instead of follow- ing the somewhat doubtful course of leaping from the one to the other, naturally prefer to tread the path, indistinct and curiously winding though it be, that undoubtedly leads through the gloom of these 400 years into the full-orbed light of the Christian era.

They claim that amid much that is admittedly of questionable value, and amid much to which distinct objection can be taken in these Apocryphal writings, the latter nevertheless furnish stepping-stones by means of which it is ae gradually to climb the long ascent from alachi to Matthew.

Nor is there anythin a priori extravagant in this claim, In virtue o its own inherent living power of growth, and in accordance with the divinely chosen method of its gradual delivery to man, revealed truth must have gained something, if not in actual content, at least in clearness of expression, during such a period.

As a matter of fact we find that, in the two centuries immediately preceding the Christian era, Jewish literature, though obviously past its prime, has still a measure of vigorous life. It throbs with patriotic feeling, of which indeed (in the Books of Maccabees) it reflects perhaps the most signal instances on record.

It shows also that during these ‘ Middle Ages of sacred history’ the lamp of true piety continued to burn, and, so long as that was the case, scriptural doctrine could not altogether have stood still, but must of necessity have undergone some development in its applica- tion to the circumstances of the age. And this theological development must have made itself felt in the Jewish religious books of the period.

As will be seen from the list of authorities given above, these numbered many more than those in- cluded in the OT Apocrypha. Among other extant works falling within the limits of our period are the remarkable and mysterious Palestinian Book of Enoch (preserved in Ethiopic), parts of which date from the 2nd cent. B.c.

; the Greeco-Jewish- Christian Sibylline Oracles, which, from a large Jewish nucleus issued from Alexandria towar the middle of the same century, grew first under Jewish and subsequently under Christian hands, into a ‘chaotic wilderness’ of fourteen books; the Book le DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE of Jubilces, assigned by the most recent scholarship to c. 130 B.c.; the Psalms of Solomon, dating from B.C.

70-40; and the Assumption of Moses, which appears to have been written practically at the dawn of the Christian era (A.D. 7-30). These and other pseudepigrapha dating from the early cen- turies of our era (e.g. the Apocalypse of Baruch and the Ascension of Isaiah) are mostly apocalyptic, and, while throwing a valuable supplementary light on the religious views of the Jewish people in the time of our Lord, do not take rank with the ‘deutero-canonical’ books.

Although they are sometimes termed apocryphal (Iren. Her. i. 20), they form no part of the OT Apocrypha properly so called, and perhaps we may take the latter as representing on the whole the continuity both of literature and dogma. At the same time, for the sake of completeness, it will be necessary to include in our historical survey material sup- plied by the pre-Christian Jewish literature gener- ally, as i as by the writings of Philo and Josephus, which date from the Ist cent.

of the Christian era, The history of the Church, moreover, no less than the expansive power of Divine truth, leads us to expect that there should be such a bridge between OT and NT doctrine. Almost any 400 years of Church history have witnessed important new developments of doctrine ; and every age has found occasion to sift and discuss many points that never suggested themselves to those of an ear- lier time.

Our own religious perspective has dis- tinetly changed within a relatively shorter period. And, mutatis mutandis, is it at all likely that the Jewish theology of the post-Prophetic period took no colour of its own from the special circumstances, struggles, and aspirations of the age?

No doubt it is true, as Langen* points out, that the OT could never have developed itself into the NT, as the seed does into the plant, seeing that a new and miraculous fact which could not develop, but was accomplished by Divine statute at a definite moment (viz. the Incarnation), came in and sharply defined the boundary line between the old and new economies, and expressed their essential difference of character.

But, though the term development be inapplicable here, it is otherwise as regards doctrine, which must always of necessity develop itself. This is a natural law in the spiritual world which will not be denied. Are we, then, to sup- pose that this organic development within the Wee of Jewish theology met with a sudden check after the issue of the books composing tlhe Heb. Canon,—ceased, in fact, in order to the sub- sequent sudden appearance of quite new truths?

Such a thing, to say the least, would be a great anomaly, and to ord the Apocryphal books have furnished some tangible and valuable links in the chain of biblical truth. Certainly, none can with reason refuse to believe that in the eventful period of Jewish history to which they owe their origin there was produced, and in these works preserved, something of signifi- cance for the universal Church of God. Yet they have been denounced as worse than worthless.

Few will now accept the bitterly hostile verdict of the Edinburgh Bible Society in 1825, that ‘the whole work (sic) is replete with instances of vanity, flattery, idle curiosity, affectation of learning, and other blemishes; with frivolous, absurd, false, superstitious, and contradictory statements.

’+ For while the Apocrypha admittedly do contain inaccu- razies, offences against re taste, and even serious deviations from ‘sound doctrine,’ it is ridiculous to speak of the whole collection as ‘ bad in itself, * Judenthwm in Palastina zur Zeit Christt, p. 64. + Statement relative to the circulation of the Apocrypha (1825), Appendix, p. 8.