THE BOOKS OF THE APOCRYPHA:THEIR ORIGIN, TEACHING ANDCONTENTS
[Literature.—Droysen,Geschichte des Hellenismus(3rd ed., 1877); Schürer,A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, II, i. pp. 1-149 (1890-1891), German ed. II, pp. 1-267 (1901-1909); Usener,Götternamen(1896); Kaerst,Geschichte des hellenistischen Zeitalters(1901, 1909); Zeller,Die Philosophie der Griechen, III, i. ii. (4th ed., 1903, 1909); Zeller,Outlines of the History of Greek Philosophy(Engl. ed., 1909); Rohde,Psyche(3rd ed., 1903); Edwyn Bevan,Jerusalem under the High-priests(1904); M. Friedländer,Griechische Philosophie im Alten Testament(1904); Gruppe,Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte(1906); Mahaffy,The Silver Age of the Greek World(1906); Krüger,Hellenismus und Judenthum im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter(1908); Farnell,Greek Religion(1912); Wendland,Die Hellenistisch-Römische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zu Judentum und Christentum(1912); Edwyn Bevan,Stoics and Sceptics(1913); Farnell’s art. on “Greek Religion” in Hastings’Dict. of Religion and Ethics.]
[Literature.—Droysen,Geschichte des Hellenismus(3rd ed., 1877); Schürer,A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, II, i. pp. 1-149 (1890-1891), German ed. II, pp. 1-267 (1901-1909); Usener,Götternamen(1896); Kaerst,Geschichte des hellenistischen Zeitalters(1901, 1909); Zeller,Die Philosophie der Griechen, III, i. ii. (4th ed., 1903, 1909); Zeller,Outlines of the History of Greek Philosophy(Engl. ed., 1909); Rohde,Psyche(3rd ed., 1903); Edwyn Bevan,Jerusalem under the High-priests(1904); M. Friedländer,Griechische Philosophie im Alten Testament(1904); Gruppe,Griechische Mythologie und Religionsgeschichte(1906); Mahaffy,The Silver Age of the Greek World(1906); Krüger,Hellenismus und Judenthum im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter(1908); Farnell,Greek Religion(1912); Wendland,Die Hellenistisch-Römische Kultur in ihren Beziehungen zu Judentum und Christentum(1912); Edwyn Bevan,Stoics and Sceptics(1913); Farnell’s art. on “Greek Religion” in Hastings’Dict. of Religion and Ethics.]
To offer in any detail an account of such an immense subject as the Hellenistic Movement would be out of the question here; but no study which has to do with Jewish religion or culture of the three last pre-Christian centuries can be taken in hand without some reference to the Movement which so profoundly affected the world of those times. The object of the present chapter is, therefore, to indicate the main directions in which Hellenistic influence was exercised; so much is essential when it is remembered that the books of the Apocrypha form anintegral part of the Greek Old Testament, which is itself one of the most striking products of the Hellenistic Movement in the domain of literature.
A word must be said at the outset regarding the use of the termsHellenicandHellenistic. It is not always easy to be strictly logical or consistent in the way in which one employs these; the fundamental difference between the two is this:Hellenic culturerefers, of course, to the pure Greek civilization, religion, etc., existing previous to the coming of Alexander the Great;Hellenistic culturerefers to this civilization as it appeared after having absorbed numerous elements in the domain both of thought and religion from non-Greek sources after the coming of Alexander the Great. Hellenistic culture exercised a greater and wider influence upon the world than Hellenic, because by absorbing alien elements it was able to become a world-culture. The terms have thus a distinct and clearly defined difference. But inasmuch as Hellenistic culture is based upon and has as its chief characteristic Hellenic culture, it is sometimes convenient to use the terms Hellenism and Hellenic in a wide and inclusive sense; as so used it is equivalent to the termGreek, without restriction to any particular age.
By the Hellenistic Movement is meant the process whereby the supremacy of the Greek language and of Greek culture generally became established during the period, roughly speaking, fromB.C.300 to the beginning of the Christian era, that is to say, from the time when Alexander the Great had completed his victorious career[1]to the time when theRoman Empire was rising to pre-eminence and establishing its power, more especially in the east. It was during this period that Hellenism was what may be called an invading force; having once established itself its influence was in evidence long after the period indicated. Dill, in writing on the age of Hadrian and the Antonines, says, for example: “The glory of classic art had almost vanished; and yet, without being able to produce any works of creative genius, the inexhaustible vitality of the Hellenic spirit once more asserted itself. After a long eclipse, the rhetorical culture of Greece vigorously addressed itself in the reign of Hadrian to the conquest of the west. Her teachers and spiritual directors, indeed, had long been in every family of note. Her sophists were now seen haranguing crowds in every town from the Don to the Atlantic.... From the early years of the second century can be traced that great combined movement of the Neo-Pythagorean and Platonist philosophies and the renovated paganism which made a last stand against the conquering Church in the reigns of Julian and Theodosius....”[2]
But the influence of Hellenism did not stop here; various writers have shown that that influence persists even up to modern times,[3]and Bevan states nothing but the literal truth when he says that “what we call the Western spirit in our own day is really Hellenism reincarnate.”[4]
It is well to realize, on the other hand, however, that the roots of the Hellenistic Movement reached back somewhat further than the time of Alexander. We must lookto Athens for the real beginnings of the Movement, the further development of which Alexander’s conquests did so much to forward. It was the Attic sea-power which first brought about the conditions under which the idea of a pan-Hellenic culture could take form and ultimately become realized. Though Athens declined with the rise of the Macedonian power, and ceased outwardly to play any conspicuous part in the great drama of the world’s history, yet Attic ideals and conceptions lived on and continued to be the inner motive-power in the propagation of the newer culture. So that the Hellenistic Movement grew and developed from Attic antecedents.
Then, again, although the rise of the Hellenistic Movement is rightly associated more particularly with the name of Alexander, it is but simple justice which compels us to recall the fact that the Macedonian empire, which formed the basis of Alexander’s future world-power, owed its creation to his father, Philip (B.C.359-336). It was only through strenuous struggles with Thracians, Illyrians and Athenians that Philip finally consolidated his kingdom, and thus made the necessary preparations for his son’s greater work. The decisive battle of Chæronea, inB.C.338, when Philip defeated the allied forces of Athens and Thebes, may legitimately be pointed to as one of the preliminary determining factors which prepared the way for the Hellenistic Movement.
In the first instance the influence of the newer Hellenism was, of course, exercised by means of the Greek language. But it was a form of Greek which differed in many respects from the older Attic Greek, though based on this; it is now known by the name of Hellenistic Greek. “It was the literary language of the cosmopolitan Hellas, created by the genius of Alexander. The change [i.e., from Attic Greek] had begun indeed before Alexander. Even Xenophon allows himself to make free use of words of provincial origin, and to employ Attic words with a new connotation;and the writings of Aristotle mark the opening of a new era in the history of the Greek language.”[5]The discovery and study of immense numbers of Greekpapyriandostraka(potsherds) has shown the fallacy, universally prevalent a generation ago, of speaking of “Biblical Greek,” i.e., the Greek of the Septuagint and of the New Testament, as though it were a form of Greek peculiar to the Bible, to be separated off from “profane” Greek. The Septuagint and the New Testament were written in a late form of Greek, i.e., Hellenistic Greek which, as we have just seen, came into vogue during the fourth centuryB.C.and onwards. This late Greek, including the Greek of the Bible is, in the words of Deissmann, “neither good nor bad; it bears the stamp of its age and asserts its own distinctive position in a gradual process of development in the language, which, beginning in the earliest times, has lasted down to the present day. Late Greek has stripped off much that was customary in the earlier period, and it contains germs of future developments destined to be completed in modern Greek. We may, then, speak of a certain peculiarity and uniformity in original ‘Bible’ Greek, but solely as opposed to earlier or later phases of the history of the language, not as opposed to ‘profane’ Greek.”[6]
It was through the conquests of Alexander that the ways were made clear and wide for this later form of the Greek language, this Hellenistic Greek, to find an opening in all directions, and to be employed as a common means of communication in ever-increasing measure. Close upon the soldiers followed the merchants, nor did it take long before colonists came and settled down in the newly conquered territories; and when once colonies of Greek-speakingpeople were established, teachers soon came and took up their abode in the new settlements. New Greek cities thus arose in which practically only Greek was spoken; with the employment of this language it followed in a natural course that the influence of the Greek spirit, and with it Greek forms of thought and Greek ideals, made itself felt. In this way Alexander’s ambition was attained; for his ideal was not only to conquer lands; he desired also that the hearts and minds of men should be brought under the domination of that Greek culture which was destined to affect the religion, the philosophy, the literature and the art of mankind for all time. Alexander was a worthy pupil of his great teacher, Aristotle.
It is, perhaps, not always sufficiently realized that the Hellenistic Movement coincided to a large extent with an epoch which was in some notable respects one of dissolution. In the domain of learning, for example, the older Greek idea of the possibility of a single mind assimilating the whole content of knowledge had been discarded; for it had come to be seen that the sum of knowledge in its manifold ramifications was far too great to be acquired by any one man, however learned, and that specialists must devote themselves to different departments of learning. Hence arose the grammarian as well as the rhetorician, the historian as well as the mathematician, while the philosopher occupied his special position.[7]The scholar, therefore, who desired to gain some insight into more than one of the various branches of knowledge no longer went, as in earlier days, to one teacher who was supposed to possess encyclopædic learning, but he studied under a grammarian in order to learn grammar, under a rhetorician in order to learn rhetoric, under a philosopher in order to learn philosophy, and so on. This newer system had already forced itself to the front some time before the actual period with which we are dealing;there are clear indications in the methods and teaching of Plato, to say nothing of Aristotle and his pupils, of an increasing tendency of making wider differentiation between the various sciences, and of dividing them up into their various groups. Philosophy stands alone; the exact sciences go each along the line of their own development. What was thus prepared by these great philosophers and their followers was acted upon and greatly developed during the Hellenistic period proper. Nowhere was this more the case than in Alexandria, the city of Alexander’s founding. It was in Alexandria that during the third centuryB.C.the exact sciences reached the height of their development. All that was acquired through the incentive given later by the study of the exact sciences of antiquity during the Middle Ages through the medium of Arabic translations, and during theRenaissanceby means of newly discovered Greek originals of the ancient classics, was in the main due to the achievements wrought during this epoch.[8]That Alexandria should have been, during the Hellenistic period, the centre of this intensive, intellectual activity will be seen to have been a fact of great importance when we come to speak of this city as having been also the centre of the Jewish Dispersion.
Alexandria[9]was, however, but the greatest example of many other new cities founded by Alexander, or through his inspiration, while a far greater number which were already in existence were hellenized through his instrumentality. With regard to these latter a fact of great importance must be noted; one effect of the entry of Hellenistic influence into the civic life of the “barbarians” was that the Greek came to know and understand his fellow-creatures of other nationalities; he saw that those whom he had always been taught to despise as not much better than semi-civilizedsavages, also had their forms of culture which likewise boasted of a hoary antiquity. The Greeks were, therefore, led to study the methods of thought, the customs and the beliefs of these “barbarians,” with the result that contempt was turned to admiration, and the Greeks came to regard the “barbarians” as brothers. Cynic and Stoic philosophers, “the Rousseaus of Hellenism” as Krüger very happily calls them, spoke of and taught a brotherhood of man, a new and wonderful thing; and a cosmopolitanism, hitherto unheard of, came into being.
But if the mingling together of Greek and “barbarian” was the means of creating a cosmopolitanism, in the best sense, no less characteristic of the Hellenistic period is the fact that the importance of the individual came to be recognized. The Hellenization of “barbarian” cities, referred to just now, meant that these attained to a state of semi-independence; in all cases of this kind the local government of the city was framed on the Greek model; the part which the people took in the political assemblies and in the annual elections had the natural effect of making them feel that they had a real interest and a definite part to play in the administration of affairs. It is easy to understand how the result of this was the emphasizing of the importance of each individual. Where the individual, while claiming and exercising his rights of citizenship, does not lose sight of his responsibilities, an ideal combination is offered. This individualism of the true and genuine type the Greeks gave to the world; it is an example of the sense of proportion which was a peculiarly Hellenictrait. During the Hellenistic period, therefore, individualism came to its own.
Not unconnected with this subject of individualism was the philosophical teaching of the Hellenistic period. The main interest in the philosophical systems of this time centred in ethics; and ethical teaching concerns the individual first and foremost. It was the ethical system ofthe Stoics[10]to which was primarily due the emphasis laid on the conception of law and duty; virtue is the only good, they taught, vice the only evil; all else is indifferent. Moreover, Hellenistic philosophy set before men the ideal of wisdom; the highest attainment for mortals, so it was taught, was that they should become wise men. It was a noble picture that was depicted, even though the Stoic ideal was unattainable, of the free and independent and self-reliant individual who, through the wisdom that he has acquired, stands towering above his fellows, though not in aloofness, but as a helper. It has been pointed out with justice that it is the stress laid on the importance of the individual which largely accounts for the numerous striking personalities, both men and women, who come before us during the Hellenistic period. The historian Polybius (born aboutB.C.204) was the first to recognize the importance of the individual as a factor in the course and development of history. It is during this period especially that great individuals appear as the pivots of history. Now, too, for the first time, biography becomes a science; delineation of character, the motives of individual action, and psychological analysis of the heart and mind are now regarded as indispensable for the proper understanding of men and their doings.[11]
Whether in politics, or science, or philosophy, or literature, or in estimating their fellow-creatures, the Greeks offer a remarkable example of the determination to see men and things in the world around them as they really are; their instinctive critical faculty made themrealists. Nothing must be taken for granted, all things must be tested by the light of reason; only so can the reality of things be ascertained.“The critical faculty, the reason—in one light it appears as thesense of proportion; the sense of proportion in politics, ‘common sense,’ balance of judgement; the sense of proportion in behaviour, which distinguishes what is seemly for the occasion and the person concerned; the sense of proportion in art, which eliminates the redundant and keeps each detail in its due subordination to the whole. How prominent this aspect of the critical faculty was with the Greeks their language itself shows;reasonandproportionare expressed by a common word. ‘The Hellenes,’ Polybius says, ‘differ mainly in this respect from other men, that they keep towhat is duein each case.’”[12]
Important as it is to gain some little insight into Hellenism in its secular aspect so that one may realize to some extent the nature of the influence which it had upon the world, it is still more important for our present purpose to consider it from the religious point of view. To this we must now devote some little attention.
It has already been pointed out that the Hellenistic Movement coincided with an epoch which was in many respects one of dissolution; this is distinctly the case in the domain of religion. The history of religion offers numerous examples of the fact that there arrive certain periods in which, for one reason or another, the traditional form of faith ceases to exercise its power over large sections of the people. One of two things then follows: either religion gives place to scepticism, or else the old belief is adapted to the altered spiritual and intellectual conditions which have supervened. Among the Greeks of this period we find both processes at work, though a downright atheistic position is the exception. Indeed, one of the most interesting and significant facts inthis connexion is that the philosophy of the Hellenistic period, in spite of its critical attitude towards religious beliefs, very soon developed into theology. That is sufficient to show that, while there was a tendency in certain circles to pour scorn on religion, the Hellenistic period was very far from being one of irreligion.
The attitude of the cultured classes towards the national religion differed, of course, from that of the masses; the critical spirit and biting sarcasm of the philosophers, a great deal of which was wholly justified, had the effect of making it impossible for educated people to accept the old beliefs in the way in which this had been done hitherto. The religious ideas taught by the philosophers were, in the main, altogether subversive of those which tradition had handed down; nevertheless, to the cultured it would have come as a relief to be taught, as was done by the Epicuræans for example, that a man was not godless because he destroyed belief in the popular gods, but that the godless man was he who imputed to the gods the popular conceptions concerning them.[13]Not that the Epicuræans were irreligious; Epicurus[14]did not attack the belief in the gods as such; on the contrary, he believed in them himself, and regarded the universality of this belief as a proof that they actually existed. But he refused to share the general ideas about them in their relation to the world, and taught that their interference in the affairs of men was a thing not to be thought of since nothing could be worse for men than to feel that at every turn they might be hampered in their doings by the gods. That Epicurus strenuously combated the fatalistic theory of the Stoics can be readily understood. What he desired above all things to do was to free men from the fear of the gods; belief in them, he taught, was necessaryfor the fulness of happiness ultimately to be enjoyed in their presence; but there was nothing in them to be afraid of.
One of the very important things which philosophy did for religion in this age was that it allegorized, and gave a new meaning to, the ancient myths,[15]and thereby made them of practical religious value at a time when the new mental outlook would otherwise have necessitated the discarding altogether of both the substance and form of the traditional beliefs. As it was, the time-honoured myths were not rejected in spite of the awakening to new methods of thought and of ever-increasing enlightenment; this clearer mental atmosphere had the effect of transforming the essence of those myths, while retaining their form. To give detailed examples of the way in which this transformation was carried out cannot be undertaken here, it would carry us too far afield; but reference may be made to Wendland’s work (pp. 115-127) already referred to, and Usener’sGötternamen, where much interesting information can be obtained; references to the original authorities are given in abundance, especially in the last-named book.
But the most striking factor, in the domain of religion, of the Hellenistic Movement is thereligious syncretism, which was so profoundly characteristic of this period. Within the wide circle of Hellenized cities and states a variety of nationalities, eastern as well as western, were represented; and just as the inhabitants of these had become united and had learned to live at peace with one another, so did the various and numerous national deities come to be regarded not only with tolerance, but also with favour by men to whom they had hitherto been unknown.
The intermingling of races brought about the intermingling of beliefs. Wonderfully illustrative of this are the religiousassociations which formed the characteristic type of religion during the Hellenistic period; and it is a striking fact that among the members of these religious associations or guilds not only Greeks, but foreigners, and these to a preponderating degree, belonged.[16]While, undoubtedly, politics had a good deal to do with the furtherance of religious syncretism,[17]its main motive-power was the piety of individuals. With the knowledge of the existence of hitherto unknown gods and goddesses came also the desire to do homage to them; probably there was also the conviction among many that, unless these newly found deities were duly honoured, evil consequences would ensue. The desire to pay fitting honour to a god is shown by the numerous attributive names which were frequently addressed to him by his devotees; and in order to make up for any unconscious omission the suppliant would add: “Or by whatever other title thou desirest to be called.” Altars were also frequently dedicated “to unknown gods,” lest a worshipper should bring down upon himself the wrath of some deities of whose existence he was unaware.[18]
The results of this religious syncretism, which was brought about by the Hellenistic spirit, were far-reaching in their effect; thus, as an example, it is worth mentioning that a type of monotheism was taught; this centred in the cult of Tyche, an all-pervading Fate; and though very inferior to the monotheism of the Jews, it showed, nevertheless, that the religious instinct was becoming more expansiveand was asserting itself in a more rational way than had hitherto obtained outside of Judaism. Nor must we forget to add that with the higher conception of the Deity, of which this was a symptom, there arose among the more deeply religiously-minded a longing for fellowship with God, together with the inevitable consequence, a more developed belief in the future life.
The Hellenistic Movement, therefore, considered at its best, and apart altogether from the point of view of pure culture, constituted an immense stride forward in the enlargening and development of religious thought and belief. It is difficult to exaggerate its importance for, and effect upon, religion, and therefore upon all religious literature, during the period which we specially have in view. Of this we shall have more to say in estimating the influence and effect of Hellenism upon the Jews and their religion.
The roots of the Hellenistic Movement must be sought in the conditions brought about by the rise of the Attic sea-power. The way was thus prepared for the victories of Alexander the Great, with whose name the spread of the Hellenistic Movement is more particularly associated, by his father, Philip; it was through the exertions of the latter that the Macedonian Empire was consolidated.
The influence of Hellenism was, in the first instance, exercised by means of the spread of the Greek language; but it was a form of Greek which differed in many particulars from classical Greek, and is known nowadays by the name of Hellenistic Greek. This is the language in which the Septuagint and the New Testament are written; but it would be a mistake to speak of it as “Biblical Greek,” because it was in no sense used specifically for the Greek of the Bible, but was the ordinary language used in every-day intercourse, and was developed from the older formof Greek. Its wide prevalence is proved by the discovery of great numbers ofpapyriandostrakaon which this newer form of Greek occurs.
The Hellenistic Movement coincided with an epoch which was, in many respects, one of dissolution, so that its influence began to spread at a time when men’s minds would be likely to welcome its newer and broader outlook upon the world.
The greatest centre of Hellenistic culture was Alexandria; but this was only one, though the most striking, example of the Hellenization that was going on in many other cities. The Hellenization of these cities meant that their civic government was framed upon the Greek model; “barbarians” and Greeks thus found themselves politically upon an equality, and the knowledge of one another brought about in this way resulted in the existence of a cosmopolitanism which was new to the world.
On the other hand, the directly personal part which each individual felt that he had to take as a citizen in the administration of affairs, emphasized his importance, and this was one of the contributing causes which made individualism a characteristic of the Hellenistic period. Individualism was fostered, further, by the philosophical systems of this period which centred in ethics; for ethical teaching concerns the individual first and foremost.
The influence of Hellenism was seen in politics, science, philosophy and literature. The critical faculty of the Greeks made them realists. In their estimate of men and things the Greeks were guided by an innate and strongly marked sense of proportion.
In the domain of religion it is to be noted, first, that Hellenistic philosophy soon developed into theology; the Hellenistic period was, therefore, not one of irreligion. But the critical attitude of the philosophers towards the traditional religion made it impossible, at any rate for the cultured classes, to believe in it as heretofore. It was,however, all to the good that the essence of the ancient myths was transformed while their form was retained. Another and most important fact to be noted is the religious syncretism which was a characteristic of this period; the intermingling of races brought about the intermingling of worship. The Hellenistic Movement was the means of a great development of religious thought; and the resultant effect on the religious literature of the age is difficult to exaggerate.