women. The New Testament, it will be remembered, gives us an account of a Roman centurion at Capernaum who loved the Jewish nation and had built a synagogue;1 and of another who imitated the subject people in fasting, prayer, and the giving of alms.2 Previous to the Exile, proselytism had been mostly a matter of forcing the Jewish religion upon subjugated peoples or individual slaves. Even under the Asmonæan dynasty such examples of enforced conversion, as in the case of the Idumæans and Ituræans, were not unknown. But, as a rule, in the later times, and as a matter of course after the Jews had lost their political power, the step was voluntarily taken. There were abundant grounds for it. The Jews enjoyed a freedom from military service and other civil privileges that were not granted to others. Their successful industry and commercial, prosperity were proverbial and must have made a profound impression on their heathen neighbors. Sometimes, too, there may have been social reasons, as particularly the desire for intermarriage, that prompted to the step. But most of all the positive religious faith of the Jewish people having its basis in a written canon as over against a prevailing skepticism, or the empty forms of a materialistic worship, found a natural response in the deeper longings of many a human soul. That such a case as that of Cornelius of the Italian band " was not a solitary one is evident. There were two classes of proselytes: the so-called proselytes of the gate, whose name seems to have been derived from the frequent formula of Scripture," the stranger that is within thy gates," and the proselytes of righteousness. It was only the latter, who having been baptized and, if men, circumcised, and having brought an appointed offering, were admitted to the full rights of the theocracy. Their number, as compared with the former class, was small. Proselytes of the gate, on the other hand, bound themselves to avoid the following things: blasphemy, idolatry, murder, uncleanness, theft, disobedience towards the authorities, and the eating of flesh with its blood. The social position of proselytes, especially in the later times, was a peculiarly hard one. Despised and hated by their own people, they were distrusted also by the Jews, and conditions of the most stringent character came to be enacted for the purpose of excluding supposed unworthy candidates. The Alexan drian philos ophy of religion.5 The Jews of the Dispersion may properly be divided into two great classes: those that made use of the Greek language and the Septuagint version of the Bible, and those who spoke Aramaic. Of the former, next to Jerusalem, and in some respects above Jerusalem, Alexandria in Egypt was the great spiritual, as well as commercial centre. Of the peculiar religious philosophy which during the last two centuries before Christ there developed itself, and left so deep an impression on the religious thought of many succeeding centuries, we will now, in closing the present section, briefly speak. A philosophy of religion among the Jews appears, at first thought, an unwarranted expression. How could they who, on the intellectual and religious side, secluded themselves so sedulously from all intercourse with neighboring peoples and were fully determined to give no admission to their sacrilegious notions concerning God and religious matters, come to feel any need of a religious philosophy, or to have any inclination for it. The reason was that the attempted seclusion, especially in Alexandria, was far from complete, the spiritual blockade inadequate to accomplish its purpose. It was inevitable that Greek ideas would follow the Greek language, and as soon as the doors were opened widely enough to admit the Septuagint version, some other means of defense than simple attempts to exclude and ignore the supposed hostile force were imperative. Hence began the period of compromise. Hellenism and the Hellenistic philosophy were an effort to harmonize the revelation of the Old Testament with the current and dominant teachings of Plato, Aristotle, and Pythagoras. Jewish scholars, like the author of the Book of Wisdom, like Aristobulus and Philo, did not intend by any means to surrender anything essential to their faith, but, on the contrary, to win for their own prophets and wise men, even among the Greeks, a position higher than that held by their most admired philosophers. They hoped to beat the enemy on his own ground. Philo, in one place, even bravely expresses the thought that the Scriptures which in the original tongue had been accessible to so few comparatively might now, that they were translated into Greek, become the means of salvation to the greater part, if not indeed, the whole of mankind. We may, therefore, admire and commend, in general, the apparent aim of these philosophic defenders of the Jewish faith without at all approving 2 Acts x. 2, 80. 8 Jos., Antiq., xiii. 9, § 1. 4 Jos., Antiq., xiv. 10, § 3. 1 Luke vii. 5. 5 See Lipsius in Schenkel's Bib. Lex., art. "Alex. Philosophie; " Müller in Herzog's Real-Encyk., art." Philo; " Dähne; Hrörer; Kuenen, iii. 168-206; Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien; and other authorities given in Schürer, p. 648. 6 De Vita Mosis, ii. 140. the means that they adopted. That would be impossible. They acted indeed, as though they were ashamed to have the Scriptures, in the simple and natural form of their teachings, brought into comparison with the refined subtilties of the Greek philosophers. Something corresponding to these subtilties, something spun out of their own brains, must therefore be first introduced into the sacred national literature to render it fit to be put in circulation among intelligent Greeks. From our point of view, however, the impression is irresistible that such a state of things implies, on the part of these Jewish thinkers themselves, a kind of intellectual and spiritual apostasy. It would seem that in their own judgment the Scriptures were not on a level with the philosophical and religious development of the age in which they lived, and needed no little tinkering in order to bring them to the required standard. Or, on the other hand, if we suppose, as perhaps we ought, that Philo and others were really sincere in thinking that what they deduce from the Scriptures was actually contained in them, then we can give them credit for but a small amount of common sense and an exceedingly low estimate of what is required by any reasonable theory of Biblical inspiration and hermeneutics. Rise of the allegorical method of interpretation. The first evidences of a philosophizing spirit on the part of the Jews of Alexandria appeared at a comparatively early period. We have already alluded to a certain Ezekiel who dramatized in Greek the history of the departure of the Israelites from Egypt, an elder Philo, who wrote an epic poem on Jerusalem, and a Theodotus, who, likewise, in the form of Epic verse described the history of ancient Sychem. At about the same time, contemporaneously perhaps, with the origin of the LXX., we meet with efforts to introduce Biblical ideas into Greek works. The text of Homer, for instance, in the Odyssey (v. 262), was changed so as to convey the meaning that God finished the work of creation in seven days. The LXX. itself, moreover, is not without clear traces of a like tendency to curry favor with the popular, philosophical conceptions of the time. Especially is there a perceptible effort to soften down as much as possible the anthropomorphic representations of the being and activity of God, and the idea that he comes personally in contact with the visible creation. So the name Jehovah (Jalıveh) instead of being transferred bodily into the Greek, like any other proper name, and written with Greek letters, is translated by the expression, the Lord. It is true that Alexandrian Judaism does not, in this respect, go much beyond the ideas and usages that prevailed also in Palestine at the same time. Still, these examples show a spirit already ripe whose fullest development was the religio-philosophical system of an Aristobulus and a Philo. The definite and unmistakable form which it takes in certain of the Old Testament Apocrypha we have elsewhere sufficiently illustrated. It appears, also, in various pseudepigraphal works of the period, particularly in the so-called Epistle of Aristeas 2 and in the Jewish Sibyls. But the spirit and method of the entire school, if so it may be called, is best studied in its chief representatives. Aristobulus.4 Aristobulus, if we may trust the accounts which we have of him and a later writer did not assume the name of an earlier, lived at Alexandria in the time of Ptolemy Philometer (cir. B. C. 160), and was the first among the Jews who devoted himself especially, to the study of philosophy. He wrote a commentary on the Pentateuch, fragments of which have been preserved by Eusebius of Cæsarea (“ Præparatio Evangelica,” vii. 14; viii. 10; xiii. 12), and Clement of Alexandria (Strom., i. 15, 22; v. 14; vi. 13). His philosophical tendency may be learned from the fact that he was known as a Peripatetic. The special object of his commentary was to prove that the true source of wisdom was the Old Testament, and that whatever was true and beautiful not only in the writings of the Greek philosophers like Plato and Pythagoras, but also in the poets like Orpheus, Hesiod, and Homer, was derived from it. He says, for example, that "Plato has imitated our legislation and made himself thoroughly acquainted with all it contains. Before the conquests of Alexander and the Persians, parts of the law had already been translated, so that it is obvions that the said philosopher borrowed a great deal from it." 5 Somewhat further on he makes the same assertion with respect to Pythagoras and Socrates. The following is a specimen of his allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures in a passage where he is trying to show what is meant when they speak of the feet of God and of his standing: "The organization of the world . Cf. Gen. vi. 6, 7; xv. 3; xix. 3; Ex. xxiv. 9-11; Numb. xii. 8. 2 See Merx, Archiv, i. 240–312. 8 Schürer, pp. 513-520; Lücke, pp. 66-89; Reuss in Herzog's Real-Encyk., xiv. 315–329. 4 Gfrörer, ii. 71-121; Dähne, ii. 73-112. 5 Euseb., Prap. Ev., xiii. 12, cited by Kuenen, iii. 192. may, in accordance with its greatness, be fitly called God's standing. For God is over all, and all is subject to him, and has received from him its stability, so that man can discover that it is immovable. I mean this, that the sky has never been earth, nor the earth sky, the sun has never been the bright moon, nor conversely the moon the sun, the rivers never seas, nor the seas rivers. . It is all unchangeable, and alternates and passes away always in the same manner. With this in view we can speak of God's standing, for all is subject to him." 1 But Aristobulus was not content with such weak, and therefore, comparatively harmless philosophizing. He, or somebody in his name, deliberately falsified his authorities in order to bring them into harmony with what he thought ought to be true, thus illustrating in himself the fearfully demoralizing effects of the false methods he had adopted. He alleged, for instance, that Orpheus had once met Moses in Greek Musæus - in Egypt, and on that basis went on to interpolate facts from the Mosaic cosmogony into the Orphic poems (iepòs Aóyos). Inasmuch as the poems in their original form are still extant it is easy to detect the changes which Aristobulus dishonestly introduced into them. A recent writer has remarked: "Aristobulus was the spiritual ancestor of Philo, and Philo was the immediate parent of that fantastic theology which to most of the fathers and the schoolmen took the place of the reasonable and critical interpretation of all the Scriptures of the Old Testament and of much of the New." 8 The date Philo. Little is known of the personal history of the renowned Jewish allegorist Philo. of his birth is generally given at cir. B. c. 20. He was a person of great influence among his countrymen in Alexandria, brother of the alabarch,5 and was himself sent at the head of a delegation to the emperor Caligula on the occasion of the outbreak of persecution against the Jews, A. D. 37-41. His works consist of a series of essays or treatises on various topics suggested by the Old Testament writings, particularly the Pentateuch. One series has such subjects as the Creation, the Cherubim, the Sacrifices of Cain and Abel, the Snares laid for the Good by the Wicked, the Descendants of Cain, etc., etc., which follow, as it will be seen, the chronological order of the sacred history. Another series was on the life of Moses in three books, to which was appended essays on Circumcision, the Decalogue, Sacrifices, etc. He also, wrote an account of the embassy to Rome and a work against Flaccus, who was governor of Egypt at that time. With respect to the Scriptures, Philo's attitude was much the same as that of Aristobulus. He held that they were divinely inspired and significant to the last word. In them, moreover, he found, simply because he was determined to, all that he considered good in the Greek philosophy. His system represents a singular admixture of Biblical elements with the speculations of Plato and Aristotle, of Stoics and Pythagoreans, and the obvious want of agreement in its several parts seems not to have disturbed his equanimity or detracted from the zeal and learning which he devoted to its support. In one place, for instance, he defines God as pure being without attributes, and later, proceeds to ascribe to him the various attributes of a supposed perfect being. Inasmuch as in his conception of God, He could not without contamination come into immediate contact with anything outside of himself, for the construction of the world and its government it was necessary to suppose a vast and complicated system of mediation. And this mediatory system of Philo is one of the most striking features of his philosophy. In it he has combined Plato's doctrine of ideas, that concerning operative forces, or causes, as held by the Stoics, that of angels as taught in the Bible, and of demons as found in the Greek philosophy. At one time he represents these mediating forces as something immanent in God, at another time as quite independent of him, without pausing to reconcile the inconsistency or even seeming to be aware that such inconsistency exists. In the word Logos (Adyos) especially, Philo found something eminently suited to his purpose. This he represented as the chief of, and as including within itself all those forces which are at once immanent in God and yet are self-existent entities. The double meaning of the word, as referring both to that which is spoken and also to the thought of which the word is the outward expression, adapted it particularly to his use." 1 Euseb., Prap. Ev., viii. 10. 2 Pseudo-Justin, De Monarch., cap. ii.; Cohortat. ad Gen., cap. xv., cited by Lipsius, 1. c., p. 89. 8 Stanley, iii. 281. 4 In addition to the works referred to under Aristobulus, cf. Stahl, "Versuch eines systematischen Entwurfs der Lehrbegriffs Pailo's von Alex.," in Eichhorn's Allgemeine Bib. d. Bib. Lit., iv. 770-890; Müller, Philo's Buch von der Weltschipfing: articles by Creuzer and Dähne respectively, in Stud. u. Krit.. 1832, 3-43; 1833, 984-1040; Heinze, Die Lehre vom Logos, etc. The best edition of Philo's works is still that by Mangey, Lond., 1702. 6 Jos, Antiq, xviii. 8, § 1. 6 See Stud. u. Krit., 1868, pp. 300-314; 1871, pp. 503-509. linued). With respect to the material world he teaches that as matter it has an independent exis tence. The universe was not created but formed through the Logos and other Philo (con- mediating forces. Matter is in itself corrupt and corrupting, and from the beginning on no person can be free from sin while connected with a material body. The highest goal of man therefore is, as spirit derived from God, through the aid of the Logos to tread the material and sensual under foot and rise above it. When this is accomplished or to the degree that it is accomplished, one has his reward in a nearness to God and in a beatific vision of his person and glory. There is no denying that with much that is purely speculative and without basis in reason or revelation there are also, here and there, thoughts uttered that are both reasonable and practicable. The importance that he ascribes to faith and love as ethical principles, the fact that he insists on the pursuit of virtue for its own sake, cannot be overlooked. At the same time, regarded as a means for reconciling the Old Testament with the Greek philosophy, Philo's system must be regarded as a signal failure. Its methods, like those of Aristobulus, are dishonest and false. Its conclusions are often based on premises that have no existence save in the imagination. And while its influence on reflecting minds among the Greeks was inconsiderable, on the thinking Jew it could scarcely have been otherwise than evil. If one might interpret the Mosaic law thus allegorically, why could he not also keep it allegorically? What further need for the burdensome system of praying, fasting, almsgiving, and ceremonial purifications? Philo himself, indeed, seems to have remained to a good degree loyal to the Jewish faith. But it is a fact not without its significance that a nephew of his who became governor of Judæa A. D. 46-48 abandoned it. The principal value of Philo's labors, as of those of his predecessors, consists in the material which was thereby furnished for the use of Christian writers and thinkers of the following centuries. As well single words as formulas of speech, unknown to the world before, were made ready for the new thought and new life that were about to dawn upon it. From a providential point of view this seems to have been the mission of the religious philosophy of Alexandria. It is no reflection on the originality or sublimity of the opening chapter of the fourth Gospel to say that the fitting language in which its profound and glorious thoughts are clothed was forged in the workshop of the Alexandrian Philo. But the legacy of this thinker was far enough from being an unmixed good to his successors. As its effects upon Judaism could not have been otherwise than weakening, so, as a system of philosophy it hurt more than it helped Christianity. The deluge of dogmas which, humanly speaking, came so near overwhelming and destroying the church of the first Christian centuries and from whose damaging effects it has not even yet recovered, has a direct connection with the speculations of Philo and his school. And still, it is not to be denied that a noble idea underlay his striving, however little he himself may have been consciously controlled by it. The Bible does contain moral and spiritual elements which may, and often must be, separated from the outward form in which they have come down to us. Its truths are universal in their scope, and harn.onize with what is true always and everywhere. And there is a philosophy of religion recncilable with the Scriptures and largely dependent on them for its fundamental principles, although it may still await one greater than a Philo or an Origen to give it adequate and practicable form. 1 Cf. Kuenen, iii. 199. PART SECOND. - THEIR ORIGIN, CHAR THE APOCRYPHAL BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, 1. Origin of the Old Testament Apocrypha. cluded. THE books in the English Bible included in the so-called Apocrypha are as follows: 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Additions to Esther, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch What books with the Epistle of Jeremiah, the Song of the Three Children, the Story of Su- are here insanna, the Idol Bel and the Dragon, the Prayer of Manasses, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. These books were introduced into the English version by Miles Coverdale in his translation made in the year 1535. Succeeding versions, also, as Matthews, the Great Bible, Crumwell's, and those that followed published them, and hence they found their way, though not without opposition, into the "authorized" translation of 1611.1 This accounts, moreover, for the fact that the list of books in the English Bible does not agree, in all respects, with that of the LXX. The number of books is the same, but instead of 3 Maccabees we have 2 Esdras. The latter work does not exist in any Greek version, but was admitted into the Vulgate from a Latin translation and from thence into the Swiss-German Bible (1524-29, 1539), on which Coverdale's was based. The omission of 3 Maccabees in the English version though it was contained in the earlier editions of the German Bible, is due to the fact that it was not to be found in the Vulgate - having first been translated into Latin in the sixteenth century · nor in the complete edition of the German Bible, edited by Luther himself (1534).2 In the present work 2 Esdras has been omitted and 3 Maccabees introduced, not only as being in harmony with the LXX., but with the fitness of things, the latter book being historically connected with the two others of the same name, while the former in its language, age, and general characteristics is to be reckoned with such works as the Book of Enoch, the Sibylline Oracles, and like representatives of the Jewish Apocalyptic literature. The position which, in the Greek Bible, has been given to the apocryphal additions, is as follows: 1 Esdras is found before the canonical books of Ezra and Nehemiah; Tobit and Judith immediately after the latter; the additions to Esther in connection with that book; the Prayer of Manasses immediately after the Psalms; the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus follow the Song of Solomon; Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah have a place after the prophecy of Jeremiah but before Lamentations; the additions to Daniel are naturally found in connection with that book, while the three books of Maccabees follow it, at the end of the Greek Bible. A fourth book of Maccabees, falsely ascribed to Josephus, is contained in the Sinaitic and Alexandrine manuscripts and in some editions of the LXX., but excepting its name it has nothing in common with the other three. Origin of the title.3 The word apocrypha (àñóкрʊpα) first came into use among early ecclesiastical writers in the sense of matters secret or mysterious. It was so used particularly by the Gnostics as referring to certain books possessed by them, which either themselves were not to be made public, or contained doctrines that were to be concealed from the uninitiated. These books bore the names of sacred personages belonging either to the old or new covenant and, as it was asserted, had been obtained by means of a secret tradition. They were so numerous and so often quoted that it came to be understood among Christians that when apocryphal books were spoken of, these private, heretical writings of the Gnostics were meant. They were also, on the part of their defenders, accorded the dignity of canonization as over against the canonical books of the Bible. And this fact served still further to modify the meaning of the word, so that in addition to the idea of being something heretioal it also came to be applied to a work which made improper claim to acceptance among canonical books. Up to this time, however, the term had not been used to designate any of 1 See Anderson, p. 470; Westcott's Bib. in Church, p. 286, f. 2 Cf. Herzog's Real-Encyk., vii. 266, and Schenkel's Bib. Lex., iv. 98 8 See Gieseler in Stud. u. Krit., 1829, pp. 141-146; Bleek, in the same. 1858, p. 267, also, the latter's Introd. to Old Test., ii. 802, 304. |