m tnl 1
Coariauing
L EHR.E UND WEHRE
MAGAZIN FUER Ev.-LUTH. HOMILETlK
THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY-THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY
Vol. xn September, 1941 No.9
CONTENTS P B
"All Israel Shall be Saved." Rom. 11:26. V. Bar tlino ..... _ ......... ..... .... 641
T1 e Alleged Contradiction betwrrn Gen. 1:24-27 and 2:19.
Alexander Heidel ................. _ .. __ ............................ _ .... 652
The Opinions of l\ludllrn Scholars on the Origin of the Various
Apoeryphal Books. K. G. Manz .......... __ ........ _ .... _ ..... _ ........ _ .. _._ ..... 658
Outlines on the Wuerttemberg Gospel Selections ............... _............... 687
Miscellanea . ____ ._ ... _ .... _._ ... _ .. _ ... _ .. ___ ........ __ ...... . ........ __ ._ ...... 697
Theological Observer. - Kirchlic -Zeitgcschichtlichcs .................. _ .. 702
nook < ,'I·W. - L UcrB!U. ._. .. ..... _ ....................................... _ ................. 713
l.. mws n1cht alletn 1Dei-
cUl\. .:.lao d ;r die Schafe unter-
wei. " . wle sie rechte Christen BoIlen
aeIn. IOndem auch daneben den Woel-
fen 1Deh .. en. daR sie die Schafe nlc:ht
angreifen und mit falscher Lehre ver-
tuehren und Irrtum einfuehren.
L f .,.
Es 1st keln Ding. das die Leute
mehr bel der Klrche behaelt Mm
die gute Predigt. - ApolQp-I • Art. %4
r" the trump" .;1 uncertain
~,()un' 1. who shall e lImlelf to
the 'L e? -1 Ccw.l ·! :8
F t Ii.!' Ad for the
Ev. Luth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, !" O' r- S ::It"
C 'S G USE, St. Louis, Mo.
658 Model'll Scholars on Origin of Various Apocryphal Books
The Opinions of Modem Scholars on the Origin
of the Various Apocryphal Books
The books which are ordinarily included in the Apocrypha of
the Old Testament are the following: 1 Esdras, 9 chapters; Tobit,
14 chapters; Judith, 16 chapters; Wisdom of Solomon, 19 chapters;
Wisdom of the Son of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), 51 chapters; Baruch,
5 chapters; Epistle of Jeremiah, 1 chapter; Prayer of Azariah and
Song of the Three Children, 1 chapter; Susanna, 1 chapter: Bel and
the Dragon, 1 chapter; 1 Maccabees, 16 chapters; 2 1\IT~ccabees,
15 chapters; 3 Maccabees, 7 chapters; 4 Maccabees, 18 chapters;
Prayer of Manasseh, 1 chapter; Additions to Esther found in various
chapters of the canonical book.
The order in which the books are given is in a general way the
usual one. It is not that which is given in Rahlfs's edition of the Sep-
tuagint, which starts out in this fashion: 1 Esdras, Judith, Tobit,
1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees. In fact, in
this edition, the Apocrypha are mingled with the canonical books.
The order above does not pretend to be chronological. An attempt
at a chronological order is made by Oesterley (The Boohs of the
Apocrypha, Their Origin, Teaching, and Contents, p. 320), with the
following result: Ecclesiasticus, ca. 180 B. C.; Pharisaic l'ecension,
100-50 B. C. Tobit, pre-Maccabean, early part of secDnd century
B. C. Judith, Maccabean, about the middle of the second cen-
tury B. C. Additions to Daniel (Bel, the Dragon, Prayer of Azariah, .
Song of the Three Children), about the middle of the second century
B. C. Additions to Esther, about the middle of the second cen-
tury B. C. Susanna, about the middle of the second century B. C.
Prayer of Manasses, post-Maccabean, ca. 110 B. C. 1 Maccabees,
post-Maccabean, ca. 110 B. C. 1 (3) Esdras, post-Maccabean,
ca. 110 B. C. Wisdom, earliest portion middle of first century B. C.,
latest portion beginning of first century A. D. 2 Maccabees, begin-
ning of first century A. D. Baruch, end of first century A. D.
Epistle of Jeremiah, end of first century A. D. The books not listed
here are likewise late.
Then~ is a reason why the various writers on this ,,,,,H~r do not
agree in the ordeT in which they present the books and why they
do not all follow the same chronological order. Says Oesterley (Op.
cit., p. 319): "There are different opinions regarding the dates of
most of the books, and in some cases the data for coming to a con-
clusion are too scanty to allow of anything approaching confidence
in L ___ ~~ __ ~:less 01: the date assigned."
Since it seems to be impossible to b;'ing conclusive evidence for
anyone chronological order, we shall follow the order given in the
Modern Scholars on Origin of Various Apocryphal Books 659
edition of the Septuagint and Apocrypha published by Samuel
Bagster and Son Limited, 15 Paternoster Row, London.
After all, the order makes no difference, since each book must
stand on its own merits. Naturally, however, the nationality and
the religious view of the author, the language of the original com-
position, and the date and place of composition or translation, are
important for our understanding of these ,writings. TIllS article
attempts to $ubmit the introductory material for the various apoc-
ryphal writings which modern scholarship has made available.
1. ESDRAS OR GREEK EZRA
As the Apocrypha in general have not received the treatment by
scholars which they merit, this book in particular has been treated
with scant respect by scholars for many centuries. Says Oesterley
(Op. cit., p. 439): "Jerome, in his preface to the books of "Ezra and
Nehemiah, condemned both the Esdras books in our Apocrypha
with their 'dreams,' and the Church has followed piro in relegating
them to a very inferior position. It is only during the last decade
or so that, owing, in the main, to the labors of Sir Henry Howorth,
scholars have come to realize the importance of 1 (3) Esdras, with
which we are at present concerned."
Perhaps the lack of interest in this book is due, after all, to the
little value in it. "Luther hat das Buch nicht uebersetzt, weil sein
Inhalt zu unbedeutend sei (E. A. 63, 103 f.) ," says Kautzsch, Die
Apohyphen l.md Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments, p . 2.
Moreover, Kautzsch (op.cit., p. 2) makes this rather sweeping state-
ment: "Irgendwelchen Anspruch auf geschichtlichen Wert kann das
Buch nicht erheben. Es eignet ihm vielmehr mit vielen andern
Erzeugnissen der spaeteren juedischen Litel'atur das Verfahrell,
aeltere Schriftstuecke zur Einkleidung und Stuetze eines in seiner
Zeit herrschenden Gedankens zu verwerten, gleichviel ob sie dazu
pass en oder nicht."
Since this book has received various titles, e. g., 1 Esdras,
2 Esdras, and 3 Esdras, and since the confusing titles have a ten-
dency to cause people to confuse this book with the canonical book
of Ezra, it will be necessary to agree on some name. On this babel
of names Kautzsch (op. cit., p. 2), who calls it 3 Esdras, has this to
say: "Die Bezeichnung 'drittes Buch des Ezra' stammt erst aus del'
lateinischen Bibeluebersetzung (Vulgata) [footnote: "Der Text der
lateinischen (d. i., der einzigen antiken) Version des 3. Ezrabuches
existiert in doppelter Gestalt: einer aelteren, die Sabatier in Biblio-
rum Sacrorum Latinae Versiones Antiquae (Paris 1751) am Schluss
des dritten Bandes aus einem Cod. Colbertinus mitteilt und die viel-
leicht mit der Vetus Latina identisch ist, und der 'durch Glaettung
und Verbesserung' daraus entstandenen Rezension in del' Vulgata;
660 Modern Scholars on Origin of Various Apocryphal Books
vgl. Schuerer, Art. 'Apokryphen des Alten Testaments' in der Pro-
test. Realencykl., Bd. I (Leipzig 1896), S. 632."], die unsere Buechel'
Ezra und Nehemia als erstes und zweites Buch des Ezra zaehlte.
Die griechische Bibeluebersetzung (Septuaginta) hatte es dagegen
vor die Buechel' Ezra und Nehemia gestellt und daher 'erstes Buch
des Ezra' genannt."
To bring about some order in the confusion of the titles given
to Books of Ezra, we follow Oesterley (op. cit., p.440) in submitting
a tabular form.
Illeb
.'Bible
1. Ezra
2. Nehemiah
3.-
4.-
Septuagint
2 Esdras or
Esdras B
Vulgate
1 Esdras
Neemias Nehemias Nehemiah
(called also
2 Esdras
in the Vulgate)
English
',pocrypha
(A. V.)
1 Esdras or 3 Esdras 1 Esdras
Esdras A
containing
most of the
canonical Ezra,
2 ehron. 35
and 36 and most
of Neh.8. It is
called the
Greek Ezra
Not extant 4 Esdras 2 Esdras
"It will conduce to clearness if we speak of our present book as
the 'Greek Ezra' and ignore those confusing titles. By the 'Hebrew
Ezra' is meant, of course, the canonical book of Ezra." Oesterley, op.
cit., p. 440.
Since, as Kautzsch indicates (op. cit., p.2), this book is not an
independent piece of literary performance, but rather a compilation
from various sources, it inight be of interest to indicate the Scriptural
sources from which parts of this book are drawn. These are not
verbatim quotations, and yet there naturally are to be expected
many literary similarities in words and phrases as well as contents.
Both Kautzsch and Oesterley give us tabulations which show
that the author, or rather compiler, has drawn from the canonical
books Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. According to these writers
Greek Ezra 1: 1-58 is drawn from 2 ehron. 35: 1 to 36: 21; Gl'eek Ezra
2: 1-15 from Hebrew Ezra 1: 1-11 and 2 Chron 36: 22,23; Greek Ezra
2:16-30, from Hebrew Ezra 4:7-24; Greek Ezra 3:1 to 5:6 shows no
direct or indirect borrowing from Scripture; Greek Ezra 5:7-73,
fran ~~ebrew:E . to 4: 5 and Nehemi ' - - --, - . -ezra 6: 1
to 7: 15, from Hebrew Ezra 5: 1 to 6: 22; Greek Ezra 8: 1 to 9: 36, from
Hebrew Ezra 7:1 to 9:44; Greek Ezra 9:37-55, from Nehemiah 7:73
to 8: 12.
Modern Scholars on Origin of Various Apocryphal Books 661
Since the Hebrew Ezra, i. e., the Book of Ezra in our Bibles,
2 Esdras or Esdras B, the translation of Hebrew Ezra in the Septua-
gint, and Greek Ezra, the book under consideration, cover in the
main the same points of history, it might be of interest to say some-
thing about the relationship in which the three stand to one another.
Naturally, the Hebrew Ezra was first. Esdras B, the translation
from the Hebrew Ezra, found in the Septuagint, should be next in
time, which, however, is not conceded by all. Oesterley (op. cit.,
p. 444) contends that there are strong grounds for believing that the
Greek Ezra is of earlier date than Esdras B. It is interesting to note
that the only part of this book which is not drawn from canonical
Scripture is that contained in chapters 3: 1 to 5: 3, the story of the
competition between the three men of the body-guard of Darius on
these three sentences: "Wine is the strongest"; "The king is
strongest"; "Women are strongest, but above all things truth
beareth away the victory" (3: 1-12).
Although both Esdras B and the Greek Ezra draw their material
(with the exception mentioned above) from the Hebrew Ezra, there
is marked difference in the Greek of the two books. Oesterley (op.
cit., p. 443) contends that the "translation is free and paraphrastic"
in the Greek Ezra, whereas in Esdras B, or 2 Esdras, the translation
is a very literal one; it follows the Hebrew text minutely and with
almost painful accuracy, sometimes giving renderings which are so
close as to be rather lacking in sense in their translated form."
Thackeray (Hastings, Diet. of the Bible, I, p. 759 f.) compares the
Greek of these two books in the following words: "The two trans-
lations are of an essentially different character. While the. writer
of Esdras B [2 Esdras] shows a slavish adherence to the Hebrew,
often transliterating his original and making no pretensions to style,
Esdras A [the Greek Ezra] is marked by a free style of translation,
an elegant and idiomatic Greek, a happy rendering of Hebraisms,
and an omission of difficulties, which make it a far more readable
book than the other. It was clearly intended for Greek readers
unacquainted with Hebrew. The writer was a litterateur in pos-
session of a wide Greek vocabulary.
In this statement Thackeray assumes that both Greek Ezra and
Esdras B are translations of Hebrew Ezra. That assumption does
not seem to be altogether correct. It is probably true that the
writer of the Greek Ezra based the major portion of his book on
Hebrew or Aramaic sources, as most of the writers assume. How-
ever, concerning the story of the three young men of the body-
guard of Darius, Greek Ezra 3: 1 to 5: 6, it is generally agreed that
this portion of the book, which by some is considered its core, was
composed in Greek. Says Kautzsch (op. cit., p. 1): "Es zeichnet sich
schon aeusserlich durch seine gefaelligere Form aus; denn es ist
662 Modern Scholars on Origin of Various Apocryphal Books
nicht, wie das uebrige, Uebersetzung aus dem Hebraeischen, son-
dern u r spruenglich griechisch geschrieben." Oesterley (op. cit.,
p.454) says: "It was in all probability written in Greek by a Hel-
lenistic J ~w; yet the possibility of an Aramaic original is not ex-
cluded." Cf. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the
Old Testament in English, p. 3; Kautzsch, op. cit., p. 1599.
About all that can be said with any degree of certainty about
the author of this book is that he was in all probability a Helle-
nistic Jew.
The date of the composition or compilation of the Greek Ezra
is also not at a ll certain. After weighing all considerations, Oesterley
(op. cit., p. 454) gives as the most probable date ca. 100 B. C.
The place of the composition of this book is a matter of dis':
pute. Some writers on the subject do not raise the question. Some
contend that it was compiled in Jerusalem or at least in Palestine;
others claim that it was written in Alexandria or at least in Egypt.
Charles (op. cit., p. 5) contends that certain references in the book
itself (e . g., 2:17; 4:15; 4:23; 4:27; 8:26) and phrases used which
agree with those used in Egyptian papyri suggest that it was written
in Egypt . This is the pr eferable view. Oesterley (op. cit., p.454)
claims even that the writing of the book at about 100 B. C. "is cor-
roborated by considerations of vocabulary, as has been well shown
by Dewick." (Cf. The International J01tTnal of Apocrypha, April,
1913, pp. 33,34.)
Bibliogl:aphy of Greek Ezra
Charles, R. H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, Vol. I, p. 1 fl.
Oesterley, W. O. E., The Books of the Apocrypha, * p. 439 fl.
Kautzsch, E., Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testa-
ments, p. 1 fl.
Fritsche, Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen.
Howorth, Sir H. H., in Academy (1893) .
Howorth, Sir H. H., in P1'oceedings of the Society of Biblical Archae-
ology (1901-2).
Torrey, Ezra Studies (1910).
Thackeray, in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible.
Volz, in Encycl. Bibl.
TOBIT
"The book of Tobit is one of the most perfect of Hebrew idylls.
It w as probably written within the second century B. C . It has
been transmitted in various forms, all of which are considered
to have sprung from a Hebrew or Aramic original," says the
introduction of Samuel Bagster's edition of the Apocrypha, p. 1.
In Alfr ed Rahlfs's critical edition of the Setuagint, which no
doubt is the best in existence, we find two renditions placed side
by side. To the first rendition this significant note is affixed: "Tob .
textus vulgaris: BA; in L hic liber deeft (pars huius libri in 108 ab
• Their Origin, Teaching, and Contents.
Modern Scholars on Origin of Various Apocryphal Books 66 B
alia manu addita est)." Added to the second rendition is this
note: "Tob. S: hic textus non nisi in cod. S inuenitur." (A denotes
Codex Alexandrinus, B Codex Vaticanus, and S Codex Sinaiticus,
usually referred to by the letter ~ 1.
On the various renditions of this book in Greek, Kautzsch
(op. cit., p.135) has this to say: "Das Buch Tobit liegt uns in einer
Reihe von mehr oder minder abweichenden Texten vor. Diese
verschiedenen Texte sind jedoch nicht etwa voneinander unab-
haengige Behandlungen des naemlichen Themas, sondern nur
Variationen der urspruenglichen Bearbeitung desselben.
"Als urspruenglichster oder gar der urspruengliche Text darf
wohl mit Noeldecke (Monatsberichte der Berliner Akad., 1879,
S. 45 fl.) der des Codex Alexandrinus (A) angesehen werden.
Verhaeltnismaessig wenige und geringe, aber immerhin als Glaet-
tungen anerkennbare Abweichungen davon zeigt der Codex Va-
ticanus (B). Den Charakter einer Textbearbeitung traegt der
Codex Sinaiticus (~). "Ein Stueck besonderer griechischer Text-
gestalt von 6, 9 bis 13, 8 bieten die Codices 44.106.107." Rahifs, by
the way, prefers the text given in Codex A and Oesterley that of
Codex Sinaiticus.
Kautzsch (op. cit., p.136), who claims that this book was
written in Greek originally and does not pretend to be history,
does not say anything about sources from which this book is
drawn, as he did in regard to Greek Ezra. Oesterley (op. cit.,
p. 349), however, contends that the writer of Tobit used sources
and especially the story of Achikar the Wise. In fact, he feels
that it will be necessary to know this story if we would under-
stand the story of Tobit, although he also admits other sources.
Says Oesterley: "This story must at one time have been very
wide-spread and popular. It has come down to us in several forms,
which differ largely from each other but which are, nevertheless,
all variations of the same story in their essence. A much-
mutilated form of the story was found among the recently dis-
covered Aramaic papyri of Elephantine, which shows that it was
current among the Jews at least as early as the fifth century B. C."
The Story of Achikar the Wise
The story which is told in considerable detail by Oesterley
is this: Sennacherib, king of Assyria, had a vizier named Achikar,
a wise and erudite scribe. When the king died, and Esarhaddon,
his son, reigned in his stead, Achikar continued to hold the same
office. In the course of time Achikar became very rich, had many
wives, and built many castles; but he had no son. In reply to his
earnest prayer for a son, it was told him that he must instead
adopt Nadin, his nephew. Achikar (' A%L6.%(lQO~ in Greek) did this
664 Modern Scholars on Origin of Various Apocryphal Books
and educated Nadin carefully, teaching him all manner of wisdom.
When Achikar became old, he asked the king to appoint Nadin in
his place. This the king did. But Nadin, as vizier, did not follow
the wise counsels which he had received from Achikar, but
rather ill-treated his uncle's household. When Achikar tried to
correct his adopted son, Nadin accused Achikar of high treason
against the king and showed the latter forged letters in proof of
Achikar's guilt. When Achikar was asked for an explanation by
the king, he was so horrified by the slanderous accusation that he
could not utter a word in defense. The king took this as a sign
of guilt and commanded that Achikar be put to death. Since,
however, the officer Nebusemakh, who was to execute the king's
command, had, in years past, been saved by Achikar, when he had
been the victim of a similar false accusation, he spared Achikar's
life and hid him in a secret hiding-place underground.
When Pharaoh, king of Egypt, heard of the death of this wise
vizier, he rejoiced and sent Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, a threaten-
ing letter to the effect that he would take away his kingdom from
him if he did not send him a wise man who would be able to
build a castle between heaven and earth. In his perplexity Esar-
haddon took counsel with Nadin and all the wise men of the
realm, but there was no one found to be able to do what the king
of Egypt demanded. Now Nabusemakh told the king that he had
spared the life of Achikar. This delighted the king, and he richly
rewarded Nabusemakh. Achikar was brought before the king,
agreed to answer all the requests of the king of Egypt, and thus
delivered king Esarhaddon from his embarrassment. Achikar was
again placed at the head of the royal household and greatly honored,
while Nadin was rejected and soon died. Cf.Oesterley, op. cit.,
pp. 350-353.
That this story of Achikar the Wise, which evidently enjoyed
great popularity in ancient times, was widely known among the
Jews and was passed down by word of mouth, has come down to
us in various forms need not surprise us. Great differences are
found in the Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Aramaic, Ethiopic, Hebrew,
Slavonic, and Gleek forms of the story, vv:,:,,:, me ~~:~~ p"eserved.
"N ow, the particular interest that the story of Achikal" the Wise
has for the study of the Book of Tobit lies in the fact that the
writer of the latter utilized the former in the composition of his
book; he assumes, moreover, as we shall see, a knowledge of the
story of Achikar the Wise among his readers." (00'st0'1:' op. cit.,
p.353.)
Oesterley's first reason for claiming that the writer of Tobit
used the story of Achikar the Wise as a basis of his book is this,
Modern Scholars on Origin of Various Apocryphal Books 665
that the author of Tobit, "quite incidentally, as though he were
well known" (op. cit., 354) , refers to the person of Achikar in Tobit
1: 21, 22, where we are told that Achikar was vizier of Sennacherib,
of Esarhaddon, and of Esarhaddon "appointed a second time." This
is certainly a statement which agrees with the story of Achikar
the Wise.
Next Oesterley (op. cit., p. 354) refers ,to Tobit 11: 18, in which
we are told that Achikar and Nadab were present at the wedding
of Tobias, as evidence of borrowing. The slight variation in the
name Nadab and the fact that he is called the cousin instead of the
nephew of Ach ikar need not affect the main point.
As the most striking evidence that the writer of Tobit used
the story of Achikar, Oesterley (op. cit., 354) refers to Tobit 14: 10.
Here we are told that Achikar brought up an adopted son who
betrayed his benefactor by causing him to dwell in darkness
underground; but that ultimately Achikar is saved and Nadab
suffers the fate which he had designed for his benefactor.
As a further illustration of the indebtedness of the writer of
Tobit to the story of Achikar, Oesterley (op. cit., p. 355) quotes
some parallel statements to Tobit from the story of Achikar (Syriac
Version), thus:
Book of Tobit
Pour out thy bread and thy wine
on the tomb of the righteous and
give not to sinners (4:17).
Ask counsel of every man that is
wise and despise not any counsel
that is profitable (4: 18).
Story of Achikar
My son, pour out thy wine on the
graves of the righteous, rather than
drink it with evil men (2: 10) .
My son, associate with the wise
man, and thou wilt become wise
like him (2: 12) .
That the author of Tobit used other non-Jewish sources is
very probable. There is, for example, a striking resemblance
between the Book of Tobit, 2: 2-9, and the "Story of the grateful
dead man," an Armenian tale, according to which a wealthy man
was once riding through a forest when he came upon some men
misusing a corpse. When he asked the reason for this, he was
told that the dead man had owed them money. He paid the man's
debts and buried the body. He then continued his journey home.
In his home city ther e dwelt a rich man, who had an only daughter .
She had married five husbands, but in each case the husband had
died on the night of the wedding. The hero of the tale resolved
to seek this woman in marriage in spite of what had occurred.
He succeeded in his desire. On the night of the wedding there
issued forth from the mouth of the bride a serpent, which sought
to bite and to kill him; but an unknown serving-man, who had
been keeping guard, slew the serpent and thus saved the life
of the bridegroom, to whom he then made himself known as the
666 Modern Scholars on Origin of Various Apocryphal Books
dead man whose corpse the bridegroom had buried in the forest.
That there should not be any connection between this story about
the daughter, the serpent on the wedding-night, and Tobit 3: 7 ff.
is hard to believe. Cf. Oesterley, op. cit., p. 356-357.
As to the purpose of the book Kautzsch (op. cit., p. 136) has
this to say: "Das Buch bietet natuerlich nicht wirkliche Geschichte.
Als Historil-cer aufzutreten, lag gar nicht in der Absicht seines
Verfassers; del' Zweck, den e1' verfolgte, war, seine Glaubens-
genossen zu ermahnen und zu erbauen dUTch den Gedanken, dass
del' Fromme, der seine Froemmigkeit, d. i., hier das genaue Ein-
halt en del' sittlichen und nicht zum wenigsten der rituallen Gebote
Gottes, im Unglued: und unter den Heiden bewaehrt, von Gott
wunderbar geleitet und mit reichem Lohne bedacht wird." The'
purpose is also expressed by Oesterley (op. cit .. _ p. 360 ff.) when he
discusses the religious standpoint of the authol'. Charles (op. cit.,
p.174) claims that this book "probably emanated from orthodox
circles in Egypt" and hence maintained the moral and ethical
teachings of the Jews.
The original language of this book is a matter of controversy.
After a thorough investigation of all evidence, Charles comes to
the conclusion: "It must be admitted that the evidence of a
Semitic origin is not strong enough to put the matter beyond con-
troversy" (op. cit., p. 182). "It is far more likely that a popular
work such as Tobit would be written in Aramaic than Hebrew,
especially if written in Egypt." (Op. cit., p.180.)
Kautzsch (op. cit., p.136) makes the bold statement: "Es
laesst sich fast mit Sicherheit behaupten, dass unser Buch ur-
spruenglich griechisch geschrieben gewesen ist. Der von A (und B)
dargebotene Text ist durchweg kritisch unanfechtbar."
Oesterley (op. cit., p.367-368) says: "Finally, if, as seems
upon the whole probable, the book was originally written in Greek,
a further reason for regarding Egypt as its original home is offered.
Some scholars are strong advocates of a Semitic (Hebrew or
Aramaic) original, but to give details of the reasons for either
contention would involve technicalities which would be inappro-
priate here. It must suffiee to SclY that the Greek, as a whole,
does not read like a translation, whatever may be the case in
isolated instances. If one reads the Greek of Ecclesiasticus, which
is admittedly a translation, and compares it with that of the Book
of Tobit, the difference is enormous and forces one to believe that,
if Tobit was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, its Greek
+~ mw ' t be ansla ,but~. ,_.:traph.case."
Where this book was written is :uso a question which is
debated by the scholars. Says Kautzsch (op. cit., p. 136): "Der
Ort der Abfassung 1st mit N oeldeke wahrscheinlich ausserhalb
Modern Scholars on Origin of Various Apocryphal Books 667
PalaesllE vielleicht in Aegypten zu suchen; die Betonung del'
{J.L;{fCo:AOOGL(l des Tobit scheint den Standpunkt des Verfassers selbst
anzudeuten. Ebenso weist die schwaermerische Verehrung Jeru-
salems alI: die juedische Diaspora. Manches spricht nun dafuer,
an die aegyptische zu denken; denn (1) in Oberaegypten wird
der Daem.on gefesselt; (2) die Kenntnis del' mesopotamischen
Gegenden ist ungenau; (3) am aegyptischen (ptolemaeischen
Hofe) finden wir wiederholt Mitglieder del' juedischen Gemeinde
in Amt und Wuerden."
o 'ley (017. cit, p. 366 f.) inclines to the same opinion as
Kautzsch, saying: "The place of origin of the book cannot be
decided with any certainty; it lies between Palestine and Egypt,
thougb. the balance of probability points to the latter. The book
was written for the Jews of the Dispersion; this is clear from
such words as the following: 'Give thanks unto Him before the
Gentiles, ye children of Israel ... living' (13: 3,4), and the writer
himself says he is in captivity in 13: 6: 'I, in the land of my cap-
tivity, give Him thanks.' As another evidence that the book was
written in Egypt, Oesterley (op. cit., p.367) points to Tobit 6: 3,
where we are told that "a great fish leaped out of the water and
would have swallowed the foot of the young man .... " He holds
that the author must have the crocodile in mind, which lives in
Egypt J _ ain, the fact that the writer used as a source the
"Tractate of Kohns" is claimed as evidence that Tobit was written
in Egypt. This tractate was originally written for the purpose of
propagating the cult of the Egyptian god Khons. In it occurred
the story of a beautiful princess who was possessed by a demon,
but by the help of Khons the demon was expelled and the princess
cured. Only Egyptian Jews needed an antidote to the "Tractate
of Khans."
The dace of the c(;mposL~J .• vf the =_~:_ of Tc~_~:' 1ike",'-~
uncertain. "The book is certainly pre-Maccabean," says Charles
(op. ci.t., p. 183) . After discussing various arguments in favor of
certail' ~"'t",s at some length, Charles comes to this conclusion'
"Tobit __ written at the very earliest ca. 350 B. C.; at the latest,
ca. 170 B. C., probably much nearer the laUer than the £orr11er
date." (Op. cit., p.185.)
On this matter Kautzsch (op. cit., p~ 136) comes to this con-
clusion: "Ueber Zeit und Ort del' Abfassung ist viel Sicheres und
Genaueo: nicht festzustellen. Nach Cornill lassen uns die ent-
wickelte Daemonologie und Angelologie sowie das pharisaeische
r',"C,;:;,.unigkE:':c:;dcal mel":' ~:.3ber dce; z'.veite "o7'C'h t'istlichp .T:lhr-
hundert zurueckgreifen. Vielleicht darf del' Umstand, dass viele
'Brueder' des gesetzestreuen Tobit in ihren religioesen PHichten
laessig sind, ,"1S nach Noeldcke an die Zeit kurz vor dem Auftreten
668 Modern Scholars on Origin of Various Apocryphal Books
der Makkabaeer erinnern, so dass wir als terminus a quo etwa
die Zeit plus-minus 175 anzusehen haetten. Ein terminus ad quem
laesst sich besser feststellen: es ist die Zeit plus-minus 25 v. Chr.
Der Verfasser unterscheidet naemlich 14:5 den gegenwaertigen
unansehnlichen, d. h., dem Salomonischen ungleichen, Tempel
Serubbabels von dem zukuenftigen herrlichen Bau der messia-
nischen Zeit. Er kennt also noch nicht den herodianischen Pracht-
bau, schreibt somit vor dessen Zeit."
Oesterley, judging by the teaching of the book, comes to this
conclusion: "The book is not necessarily later than Ecclesiasticus,
for, although it does in some respects shows a development of
doctrine, it is quite possible for contemporaries to be in substantial
agreement and yet for one to hold slightly more advanced views'
on certain points than another. Our book may thus be assigned
to a date not much later than B. C. 175 and not earlier than
B. C. 190." (Op. cit., p.366.)
Luther wrote a preface to the Book of Tobit. He makes these
remarks: "Und das griechische Exemplar siehet fast also, dass es
ein Spiel gewest sei; denn es redet aUes in Tobiae Person, wie die
Personen im Spiel zu tun pfiegen. Darnach ist ein Meister kom-
men und hat solch Spiel in eine ordentliche Rede gefasset."
"Darum ist das Buch uns Christen auch nuetzlich und gut zu
lese:::., ::0.s eines feinen hebraeischen Poeten, del' keine leicht-
fertigen, sondern die rechten Sachen handelt und aus der Massen
christlich treibt und beschreibt." (St. L., XIV: 76,77.)
Bibliography
Fritzsche, Die Buecher Tobiae und Judith erklaert (1853).
Hoffmann, Auszuege aus syrischen Akten persischer Maertyrer, pp. 182 if.
(1880).
Conybeare, Rendel Harris, and Agnes Smith Lewis, The Story of Ahikar
from the Syriac, Arabic, Annenian, Ethiopic, Greek, and Slavonic
VeTsions (1898).
Smend, Alter und HeTkunft des Achikarromans und sein Verhaeltnis
zu Aesop (1908).
Nau, Histoire et Sagesse d'Ahikar (1909).
Meyer, E., Der PapyTusfund von Elephantine, pp. 102-128 (1912).
Ungnad, Aramaeische Papyrus aus Elephantine, pp.62-82 (1911).
Charles, I, pp. 174-241.
Robertson Smith, "Tobit" in Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible (Marshall).
Erbt, "Tobit" in Encyclopaedia Biblica.
Toy, "Tobit" in Jewish Encyclopedia.
Simrock, Der gute GeThard und die dankbaTC?n Toten (1856).
Schneider, KultuT und Denken der BabylonieT und Juden, pp. !i38 ff.
(1910) .
Oesterley,* pp.349-371.
EdUtzsch,; l)fl. :L35--147.
The Books of the Apocrypha, etc.
t Die Apokryphen una Pseudepigraphen des Alien Testaments.
Mode= Scholars on Origin of Various Apocryphal Books 669
JUDITH
"The title of the book in Greek is simply 'Iou6Ellt .. . , The
name, of course, simply means 'Jewess.''' (Charles, op. cit., p. 243.)
"The story of Judith is a contribution to the literature of Jewish
patriotism. It is a sacred historical novel. The story is laid in the
period just after the return from the Captivity." (Samuel Bagster
Edition, Introduction.) ,
Oesterley (op. cit., pp. 372 ff.) outlines the contents of the book.
He refers to Judith 1: 1; 2: 1 ff.; 4: 2, 3; 4: 6-8 as evidence that the
writer is not to be looked upon as an historian and then concludes:
"On the face of it, therefore, the book is not to be regarded as
historical. Yet the writer is well acquainted with the Old Testa-
ment, and so far as the geography of Palestine is concerned, he is
thoroughly a1~ fait. We must conclude that he simply chose the
historical names and times as the framework in which to place his
story in order that he might thereby render it more dramatic; he
purposely commits gross historical blunders in order to make it
clear to his readers at the outset that the historical period chosen is
merely for literary effect; 'they are to understand that this is fiction,
not history; it did not take place in this or that definite period of
Jewish history, but simply "once upon a time," the real vagueness
of the date being transparently disguised in the manner which has
become familiar in the folk-tales of other parts of the world' (Tor-
rey in the Jewish Encyclopedia, VII, p.388b) ." (Oesterley, op. cit.,
p . 378.)
As to the various forms in which the Greek text has come down
to us Kautzsch (op. cit., p.147) has this to say: "Der Text der grie-
chis chen Uebersetzung liegt in drei Rezensionen vor: (a) Der der
LXX-Codices A und B, welch ersterem Sinaiticus haeufig folgt.
Unserer Uebersetzung ist der Text von A zugrunde gelegt; (b) der
der Codices 19,108, Lucians Textrevision; (c) der des Codex 58,
mit welchem Vet. Lat. und Syr. zusammengehen." Cf. Oesterley,
op. cit., p. 379 f.
Concerning the teaching of the book Kautzsch (op. cit., p.148)
says: "Unser Buch dient aehnlich wie das Tobit- Buch der Glau-
bensstaerkung und Erbauung der Volksgenossen des Verfassers.
Auch gegen die heidnische Uebermacht sollen sie bereit sein, fuer
ihren Glauben und K ultus den Kampf aufzunehmen. Solange sie
sich nicht an ihrem Gotte versuendigen durch Goetzendienst oder
Uebertretung seiner rituellen Gebote, sind sie seines Schutzes ge-
wiss, und vermag die gewaltigste K riegsmacht nichts wider sie.
Dieser Gedanke ist in eine Geschichte gekleidet, die wahrscheinlich
vom Verfasser frei erfunden ist. Benutzt hat er fuer seine Dar-
steHung mancherlei Namen historischer Personen und Ortschaften.
Von jenen sei Nabuchodonozor, den er zum Koenige von Ninive
670 Modern Scholars on Origin of Various Apocryphal Books
macht, Holofernes, der Satrap und Feldherr des Artaxerxes Ochus,
und der Eunuch Bagoas, ein Zeitgenosse des vorigen, erwaehnt.
Unter den Ortsnamen muessen wir vor allem Bethulia nennen, da
'der Verfasser seine Erzaehlung nicht geographisch in die Luft ge-
baut haben wird' (Schuerer)." Cf. Oesterley, op. cit., p . 381 f.
"As to the anonymous author there is no tradition. From his
writing in Hebrew and from his detailed references to the geography
of the Holy Land, it may be inferred that he was a Palestinian Jew.
From his theological views it seems that he belonged to the Phari-
saic party. He was a man of some literary skill," says Charles, op.
cit., p . 246.
In regard to the original language of this book Charles (op. cit.,
p . 224) says: "It is generally agreed that the original was Semitic,
and Hebrew rather than Aramaic. Indeed, there can be no pos-
sibility of doubt if we consider the style of the Greek and the nature
of some of the mistakes in it. The language is not mer ely that
popular Greek which we now know from papyri of the earlier
centuries of A. D . to have been identified with the XOL'Vn OLUA-EX'tOe:;
of the New Testament, even when independent from an y Semitic
idiom. The translation is so literal that it can be put back into
Hebrew with ease, and in some cases becomes fully intelligible only
when so retranslated. Moreover, the usual lack of particles shows
that the writer was under the influence of a foreign idiom, while
the constant recurrence of phrases uncommon in late Greek but
frequent in Hebrew shows incontestably the language of the orig-
inal." Cf. Pauly-Wissowa, p. 1609.
Oesterley (op. cit., p.384) agrees with Charles when he says :
"There can be not two opinions as to what the original language of
the book was, namely, Hebrew; in numerous instances the Greek
proves itself to have been translated from Hebrew, the idioms being
those of classical Hebrew, so that this was the language of both the
longer and the shorter forms. St. Jerome, in the preface to his
translation, says that he had the book before him in Aramaic; this
cannot, however, have been the original, for neither Origen nor the
Jews with whom he was in communication knew either of a Hebrew
or an Aramaic form of the book. The Hebrew original was lost alto-
gether in the West, but must have been preserved in some fon n or
other in the East."
Kautzsch (op . cit., p . 147) is very positive that the original was
Hebrew, for we read "Das Judith-Buch ist, wie mit Sicherheit be-
hauptet werden darf, urspruenglich hebraeisch geschrieben ge-
wesen. Das beweisen nicht nur die zahlreichen Hebraismen , wie
TJJ.l.EQClC; Jtonuc; und E'V 'taLe:; TJJ.l.EQme:; oder oqloll(lu und JtAfjfroe:; JtOA-V oqloll(lu
u. v. a., sondern auch Missverstaendnisse des griechischen Ueber-
setzers, wie das 3: 9."
Modern Scholars on Origin of Various Apocryphal Books 671
As to the date of the book Charles (op. cit., p. 245) says: "Allow-
ing some time for the original book to become established before it
was translated, .... we should probably date the Greek not later
than the beginning of the first century A. D."
Judging by the contents and the teaching of the book Oesterley
comes to this conclusion as to the date of the boole "So that we may
safely assign the middle of the first century B. C. as the date of the
later form of our book. As regards the earlier form of our book,
it is to be noted that it contains no references to ceremonial ob-
servances, a fact which proves that it must have been written before
Pharisaism had had time to develop; this is of itself sufficient to
show that the book in its original Iorm was written before 100 B. C.,
so that we shall not be far wrong in fixing its date about the middle
of the second century B. C." (Op. cit., p.384. Cf. Charles, op. cit.,
p. 245; Pauly-Wissowa, p.1609.)
On the time of the composition of this book Kautzsch (op. cit.,
p.149) says: "Als Abfassungszeit unsers Buches wird allgemein die
Zeit der Makkabaeer angesehen. Ein kriegerischer Geist durch-
weht das Ganze. Derselbe aeussert sich in fanatischem Hasse wider
alles heidnische Wesen, so dass selbst die vom iUten Testament
verurteilte Schandtat des Simeon und Levi Anerkennung fiT ' ,t,
und nicht minder ist fuer ibn charakteristisch das starke BewI.L_ t-
sein, dass del' gegenwaertige Krieg ein heiliger, fuer J ahwe und
seinen Kultus gefuehrter ist. Endlich erscheint als Feind del' J uden
der Koenig Nabuchodonozor, ein Typus fuer Antiochus Epiphanes;
vgl. Comill, Einl., S. 271. Das alles sind deutliche Merkzeichen der
makkabaeischen Zeit."
Luther expresses high admiration for this book in his preface
to it. (St. L. XIV: 68 fl.) He says: "Wo man die Geschichte Judith
koennte aus bewaehrten, gewissen Historien beweisen, so waere es
ein edel, fein Buch, das auch billig in der Bibel sein soUte, aber es
will sich schwerlich reimen mit den Historien del' Heiligen Schrift,
sonderlich mit Jeremia und Esra," etc. He also expressed the idea,
which is commonly accepted now, that it is not history but rather
propaganda literature, for he says: "Etliche wollen, es sei kein Ge-
schicht, sand ern ein geistlich sehoe"l Gcdicht eines heiligen, geist-
reichen Mannes, der darinnen hnbe '.'.ra11CH malen und vorbilden des
ganzen juedischen V olks Glueck und Sieg wider alle ihre Feinde,"
etc. "Solche Meinung gefaellt mil' fast wahl, und denke, dass del'
Dichter wissentlich und mit Fleiss den Irrlum der Gezeit und
Namen darein gesetzt hat, den Leser zu vermahnen, dass er's fuel'
ein saleh geistlich, heilig Gedicht halten und verstehen soUte."
"Darum ist es ein fein, gut, heilig, nuetzlich Buch, l,W; Cl'Tisten
wahl zu lesen."
From the fact that this book was written by a Palestinian Jew
672 Modern Scholars on Origin of Various Apocryphal Books
and in the Hebrew language (although the original Hebrew is not
at hand and the Hebrew versions known are late) both Charles and
Oesterley suggest Palestine as the probable place of composition of
this book. Cf. Charles, op. cit., p.245; Oesterley, op. cit., p.385;
Kautzsch, op. cit., p. 148.
Charles, I, pp. 242-267.
Oesterley, 372-384.
Kautzsch, I, pp.147-164.
Bibliography
Fritzsche, Die Buecher Tobiae und Judith erklae7't (1853).
Scholz, Kommentar ueber das Buch Judith 1md 1teber Bel und Drache
(1896) .
Wuensche, Aus Israel's Lehrhallen, II, pp. 164-185 (1908).
Schuerer, in Prot. Real-Encykl., I, 644.
Weiszmann, Das Buch htdith, historisch-kritisch beleuchtet, Wien, 1891.
THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON
Concerning the title of this book, which does not always bear
the same name, Charles says (op. cit., p. 519) : "The earliest
mention of the book is perhaps found in p. 11 a, line 8, of the
Muratorian Canon (A. D. 200). There the title is 'Sapientia,' with
the added words 'ab amicis Solomonis in honorem ipsius scripta.'
Clement of Alexandria, head of the Catechetical school, A. D. 190 to
203, speaks of it under the title 'Wisdom of Solomon.' Tertullian
(ca. 200) quotes it as the 'Wisdom of Solomon.'" Cf. Kautzsch,
op. cit, p.476.
Oesterley (op. cit., p.455) says about the title: "The title 'The
Wisdom of Solomon' in the English versions comes from the Greek
manuscripts, the three oldest of which have this exact title, while,
in one form or another, they all have it. But the old Latin
version has only 'The Book of Wisdom,' without any mention of
Solomon; and the Syriac version, while ascribing it to Solomon,
adds, 'of which there is a doubt; whether another wise man of
the Hebrews wrote it in a prophetic spirit, putting it in the name
of Solomon, and it was received.'''
On the matter of the title of the book Kautzsch (op. cit., p. 476)
has this illuminating note: "Das Euch der Weisheit Salomos ver-
dankt diese seine Aufschrift, sowohl im griechischen Original als
in d~ .• -=-_:"_~~_v~_Ub,"n, dem UmstandE.-, ..:U~~ ~~ ':H'--~' selbst an
mehreren Stellen, besonders in Kap. 7.~9, am deutlichsten Kap.
9: 7,8, als eine Rede des Koenigs Salomo einfuehrt."
If Solomon was not the author of this book, as is generally
agreed, although some early Latin Fathers believed that he
wrote it, we may well ask the question why it should have been
ascribed to Solomon in the first place. The answer which is
usually given in this, that to the Jews, Solomon was the wisdom-
writer par excellence and that, therefore, anyone desiring to com-
Modenl Scholars on Origin of Various Apocryphal Books 673
mend a book on wisdom would naturally choose this name as
a pseudonym in preference to any other.
Kautzsch (op;cit., p.476) says on this matter: "Es kann abel"
keinem Zweifel unterliegen, dass wir darin eine Nachbildung einel'
literarischen F'orm haben, die schon in der spaeteren hebraeischen
Literatur ueblich geworden war, nach del' der wegen seiner Weis-
heit beruehmte Koenig von Israel gewissermassen als Patron
der gesamten didaktischen Literatur angesehEm wurde (vgl. Sir.
47: 14-17 (16-19)." "Sicher haben die Zeitgenossen des Verfassers
nicht damn gedacht, class ihnen hier eine authentische Hede
Salomos vorgetragen werden sollte."
Charles states (op. cit., 524): "The author of the book is
generally assumed to be an Alexandrian Jew."
Although Oesterley discusses the question of a composite
authorship from page 464 to 469, he comes to no definite conclusion,
but says: "As to the personality of the author but very few data
are to be gathered from the book; he must in all probability have
been a Jew (cp. 12: 22), but a Hellenistic Jew, yet loyal to the
Law (18: 4), who lived and wrote in Egypt (see 12: 23 ff.; 15: IS, 19,
16:1,9, where reference is made to Egyptian animal worship).;
his Jewish feeling is evidenced throughout the book; that he was
domiciled in Alexandria is highly probable, for this was the center
of Jewish-Hellenistic culture." (Op. cit., 457-458.)
Kautzsch (op. cit., p. 479) is much more positive on the author-
ship of this book than Oesterley, for he says: "Das Werk ist offen-
bar das wohldisponierte Erzeugnis eines einzigen Verfassers.
Ueber jetzt verschollene Hypothesen, die es in Arbeiten verschie-
dener Haende zerlegten, s. Grimm, S.9--15; Wace, S.415 ....
Die Vermutungen ueber bestimmte Persoenlichkeiten als vermeint-
liche Verlasser des Buches glauben wir als wertlos uebergehen zu
sollen; vgI. darueber Grimm, S.16-26; Wace, S.411-415. Die
WahrschEnlichkeit spricht fuer einen griechisch gebildeten, aber
gesetzestreuen aegyptischen Juden. Dass er in Aegypten lebte,
verraet d ~ Anspielung auf den aegyptischen Tierdienst, 15: 18,19;
16: 1, 9. Fuer Alexandria spricht, dass hier die Heimstaette der
griechiscL -juedischen Bildung war."
Even Luther has something to S<''' 011 ~'lE mles+;')n ~~ au+1-. or-
ship, for w-e read (St. L., 1..IV: 72-77): "Dies Buch ist lange Zeit
in Zank gestanden, ob's nntel' die Buecher der Heiligen Schrift des
Alten Testaments zu rechnen sein saUte oder nicht, sonderlich wei!
der Dichter slch hoeren laesst im neunten Kapitel, V, 7, als redete
in diesem ganzen Buch der Koenig Salomo, welcher auch von der
'lVesheit im Buch der Koenige hoch geruehmt wird. Hbc die
alten Vaeter haben's stracks aus der Heiligen Schrift gesondert
. me gehalten, es sei unter der Person des Koenigs Salomo gemacht,
43
674 Modem Scholars on Origin of Various Apocryphal Books
auf dass es urn solches hochberuehmten Koenigs Namen und
Person willen desto mehr geachtet und groesser Ansehen haette
bei den Gewaltigen auf Erden, an welche es vornehmlich ge-
schrieben' ist, und vielleicht laengst untergegangen waere, wo es
der Meister, so er geringes Ansehens gewest, unter seinem Namen
haette lassen ausgehen."
As to the original language of the book Oesterley (op. cit.,
p. 455) makes the terse and telling footnote: "That the book was
originally written in Greek admits of no doubt." Charles (op. cit.,
p. 524 f.) fully agrees with Oesterley. Cf. Pauly-Wissowa, 2. Serie,
Bd. 2, S. 1612.
About the original language of the book Kautzsch (op. cit.,
p.476) says: "Das Buch selbst zeigt uns einen in griechischer
Sprache und Literatur nicht unbewanderten Juden. Sein Griech-
isch ist zwar nicht immer korrekt, indem er bisweilen Wode in
einer Bedeutung braucht, die in der klassischen Sprache nicht
ueblich ist. Aber andererseits zeigt er doch eine ausgebreitete
Kenntnis des griechischen W ortschatzes und ist in die Sprache
so eingelebt, dass er aehnlich wie Philo (vgL Siegfried, Philo von
Alexandria [1875], S. 46 f., 135) aueh eigne neue Wortkomposi-
tionen und Phrasen zu bilden wagt. Seine Darstellung zeigt
Belesenheit in den griechischen Dichtern in manchen Partien
seines Buches, die sich durch poetischen Schwung und geschickte
Handhabung mancher dichterischen Formen auszeichnen."
As to the date of the book Charles (op. cit., p.521) says:
"The present writer inclines to a date between 50 and '30 B. C. for
the first part of the book and 30 B. C. to A. D. 10 for the second
part."
"Fuel' die Abfassungszeit bildet die Entstehung der griechi-
schen Bibeluebersetzung (ca. 250) die Grenze nach oben, die nicht
zu bezweifelnde [? ED.] Bekanntschaft des Apostels Paulus mit
clem Buche die Grenze nach unten. Die neuesten Datierungen
schwanken zwischen 150 v. Chr. bis 40 n. Chr. Die SteHung, die
de!" Verfasser in del' Entwicklung des Alexandrinismus vor Philo
einnimmt (vgl. Siegfried, Philo von Alexandria, S. 22-24), spricht
clafuer, ihn zwischen 100-50 v. Chr. anzusetzen." After discussing
the matter on pp. 459-464 in a rather detailed form on the basis
of three separate considerations, Oesterley (p.464) comes to this
conclusion: "All things considered, the most probable date would
seem to be the latter half of the last century B. C., the earlier
part of the book belonging to the beginning, the latter haH to the
end, of this ppriod."
A short, but able appreciation of the book is given in these
words of the introduction to Samuel Bagster's edition of the
Apocrypha: "This book is one of the most beautiful and important in
Modern Scholars on Origin of Various Apocryphal Books 675
the Apocrypha. Its first portion (1:1 to 11:4) is distinguished for the
singular beauty of its style, its noble teaching of immortality, and
its panegyric on· wisdom. The second portion of the book is very
inferior to the first from a literary point of view. It contains a
pictorial commentary on the story of the Exodus. _ The book was,
without doubt, written in Greek by an Alexandrian Jew, probably
a short while before the Christian era."
Oesterley, pp. 455-478. Bibliography
Grimm, Das Buch der Weisheit erklaert (1860).
Montefiore, The Wisdom of Solomon (1887).
Wace, I, pp. 403-534.
Deane, The Book of Wi3dom (1881).
Menzel, Der griechische Einfluss auf Prediger und Weisheit Salomos,
pp.39--70 (1889).
Bois, Essai sur les origines de la philosophie j1ldeo-alexandrine (1890).
Schuerer, II, iii, pp. 230-237.
Kautzsch, I, pp. 476-507.
Linke, Samarien und seine Propheten, pp.119--144 (1903).
Stevenson, Wisdom and Jewish Apocryphal Writings (1903).
Friedlaender, M., Griechische Philo sophie im Alten Testamente, pp. 182
to 208 (1904).
Zeller, Outlines of Greek Philosophy (1909).
Gregg, The Wisdom of Solomon (1909).
Charles, I, pp. 51~568.
Goodrick, The Book of Wisdom (1913).
Freudenthal, in The Jewish Quarterly Review, HI, 722-753 (1891).
Siegfried, in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible.
Toy, in Encycl. Bibl.
Swete, The Old Testament in Greek, ii, p. 606 f.
Thackeray, The Relation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish Thought,
p. 231 (1900).
Grafe, Das Verhaeltnis der Paulinischen Sch'l'iften zur Sapientia Salo-
monis (1892).
Sanday and Headlam, Romans.
Hausl'ath, Der Apostel Paulus, p. 23 (1872).
SIRACH
This book is known by various names. "Eccl::::::::ticus," "1Nis-
dom of Jesus the Son of Sirach," "The Book of Ben Sira," "Das
Buch Jesus Sirach," and "Sirach" are some of these names.
Cf. Charles, op. cit., p.270; Oesterley, op. cit., p.321; Kautzsch,
op. cit, p. 230 ff.
A brief but nevertheless illuminating characterization of the
book is given in the introduction of Samuel Bagster's edition of
the Apocrypha. It reads: "This book was originally written in
Hebrew by Joshua Ben Sira of Jerusalem a few years before the
outbreak of the Maccabean persecution. It was translated by his
grandson into Greek, and until recently the book was known only
in i' ~ reek ' - -'1, but L, a Slr-~--: ~ing s~--; ~~ of discoveries nearly
the whole of the work is now extant in a Hebrew text.
"The book falls into two distinct and unequal divisions. The
first forty-three chapters com] . ,in A - main ~ text-book of
676 Modern Scholars on Origin of Various Apocryphal Books
morals, which is of great value as reflecting the manners and
customs of the age. The last eight chapters are occupied chiefly
with the beautiful prose-hymn known as 'The Praise of Famous
Men.'''
Luther, in his preface to this book (St. L., XIV: 78 ft.), pens
the following notes of appreciation of this book: "Dies Buch ist
bisher genannt im Latein Ecclesiasticus, welches sie haben ver-
deutscht: die geistliche Zucht. Und ist fast wahl getrieben und
gebraucht in der Kirche, mit Lesen, Sing en, und Predigen, abel'
mit wenigem Verstand und Nutzen, olme dass es hat muessen del'
Geistlichen Stand und Kirchengepraenge ruehmen. Sonst heisst
sein rechter Name 'Jesus Sirach,' nach seinem Meister, wie seine
eigene V orrede und das Griechische gibt. . .. Es ist ein nuetzlich
Buch fuel' den gemeinen Mann; denn auch aIle sein Fleiss ist,
dass er einen Buerger oder Hausvater gottesfuerchtig, fromm und
Idug mache," etc.
Concerning the title of the book Charles (op. cit., p.291) says:
"In the MSS. of the Greek Bible the author of our book is called
'IllO'oii; l:EL(H!X" or more briefly 1:EI.Qo.X,. . .. The full name of the
author is given in the body of the book, in 50: 27." There we read:
'IllO'ou; uio<; l:LQOtX 'EAeo.~(1Q 0 'IEQoT)O'oAUJ-Llcl]<;', Jesus, the son of Sirach
Eleazar of Jerusalem."
Rahlfs, in his edition of the LXX, gives us this note: "Sir.·
(= Siracides uel Ecclesiasticus [liber]): BSA."
This is the longest, and perhaps also the most important, of all
the books of the Apocrypha. It covers almost one hundred pages
in Rahlfs's edition of the LXX. Kautzsch uses 244 pages for his
Einleitung, Uebersetzung, and Anmerkungen in his edition of the
Apocrypha.
As to the importance of this book Kautzsch Copo cit., p.230)
says: "Die umfangreiche Spruchsammlung, die in del' Lutherschen
Bibeluebersetzung den Titel 'Das Buch Jesus Sirach' traegt, be-
ansprucht unter den Apokryphen des Alten Testaments schon
dadurch ein besonderes Interesse, wei! sie die aelteste diesel'
Schriften ist und an Alter sogar das Bueh Daniel [?] ueberragt,
Jas noch in den Kanon Aufnahmc gefunden hat, jedenfal1s deshalb,
weil es den altehrwuel'digen Namen des beruehmten Daniel, eines
Zeitgenossell des Cyrus, trug, waehrend der Siracide sein Werk
unter seinem Namen veroeftentlichteo Abel' dies Werk ist zu-
gleich unter den in rhythmischer Form abgefassten Apokryphen das
bedeutendste, ebenso wie das erste Buch del' Makkabaeer unter
den apokryphischen "Geschichtsbuechern." The hypothesls of a
second-century date for Daniel is unfornrled.
Explaining the title of this book, Oesterley (op. cit., p. 321 f.)
says: "Ecclesiasticus," the name with which we are most familiar,
Modern Scholars on Origin of Various Apocryphal Books 677
gives no indication as to the contents of the book; it has, however,
been the title whereby the book was known in the Western Church
ever since the third century. St. Jerome retained the familiar
title in his Latin version of the Bible, and it has continued in the
Church ever since. On account of its manifold instruction in
conduct of life it was much used in the early Church, especially
in the case of catechumens; the title, therefore, of Ecclesiasticus
was probably given to it because it was the ecclesiastical book
pal' excellence. What the original title was we do not know; but
in most manuscripts of the Greek version the title given is: 'Wisdom
of Jesus, the Son of Sirach'; in the Syriac version it is: 'Wisdom
of Ben Sira.' Both these were translations from the Hebrew, so
that we shall not be far wrong in believing that the original title
ran: 'The Wisdom of Ben Sira' or 'The Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sira.'
[Note: In the recently found Hebrew text the author speaks of
himself as "Simeon, the son of Jeshua (Jesus), the son of Eleazar,
the son of Sira."] The Greek translator, in the prolog of the book,
speaks of his grandfather 'Jesus' as the author. In the Talmud
the book is referred to as 'The Book of Ben Sira'; the name
'Jesus' would have been omitted by the Rabbis for obvious reasons."
The contents, the doctrinal standpoint of the author, the in-
tegrity of the text, the Sadducean or Pharisaic tendency of the
author, which Charles, Kautzsch, and Oesterley treat at consider-
able length, cannot be discussed here, for that would lead us too
far afield. All these questions are, of course, of interest. Some
are particularly important when the bearing of the Apocrypha on
the New Testament is studied.
There should be no need of much discussion as to the author
of this book since the author of the Greek translation in the prolog
calls the author of the original Hebrew his "grandfather Jesus."
It is the grandson of "Jesus, the son of Sirach of Jerusalem," who
wrote the Greek text. Cf. Charles, op. cit., p. 280-291; Pauly-
Wissowa, loco cit., p. 1611.
Yet we should like to know what manner of man this Jesus
Ben Sira was. Kautzsch (op. cit., 233,234) explains in detail the
presence of 'EAEu\;,aQ after ~HQax in 50; 27 in Codex Alexandrinus.
While Fritzsche held that this name was added by a latel' ~lall(I,
Kautzsch contends that it goes back to an old tradition.
From Oesterley's lengthy discussion of the author of the book
we draw the following. "In the prolog of the Greek version the
writer says that he is about to translate his grandfather's work;
in ~;}.;,) J:i~b!:"ew text 1.1,0 a\11hor :e:hres his name, as we have seen;
this is also given in the subscription; r loreover, in the Talmud
the author is given as Ben Sira. There is, therefore, every reason
to oeEc-ve tI-;.;:;~ th:: ::mtl::::- w::.= Ber "lira; and this is universally
678 Modern Scholars on Origin of Various Apocryphal Books
acknowledged. That he wrote the whole book does not admit of
doubt; unity of authorship is stamped upon the work throughout.
Further, that the Greek translation represents substantially the
author's book, which his grandson had before him, is also prac-
tically certain. On the other hand, it may be doubted whether
the book represents the final form which the author intended it to
have; whether he was interrupted in his work, or whether he died
before he was able to sift and arrange his material, a careful study
of the book leaves the impression that the author left it in an
incomplete state." Op. cit., p.322.
The reasons for thinking that the book did not receive its
final revision are these: In many parts of the book the material is
not logically arranged; the same subject matter is treated in:
different parts of the book; and there is inconsistency of teaching
on cardinal points of doctline, e. g., the doctrine of sin.
"Ben Sira was not only an orthodox Jew, but he was also a
scribe and a teacher. His grandson tells us in the Prolog that his
grandfather had devoted his life to the study of 'the Law, the
Prophets, and the other books of our fathers,' and that his object,
in doing so, was that he might by teaching help others to a
knowledge of the Law as well as in carrying out its precepts.
Ben Sira's own words bear out the truth of this, for he is evi-
dently speaking ;.0 ... personal experienc "' ~ ____ ~ __ --'J 3: 'Leisure
increaseth wisdom to the scribe' (38: 24); moreover, his very
intimate knowledge of the Old Testament is just what one would
expect of a scribe; this knowledge is evident on every page of his
book, which is saturated with the thoughts of the Old Testament
wisdom literature, almost the very words of which occur again and
again; in the concluding chapters of his book (44:1 to 50:24) he
sings the praises of all the great ones of Israel and shows how he
has his Old Testament at his fingers' ends." (Op. cit., p.324.)
The following passages from his book are quoted as having some
bearing upon the author as a scribe and a teacher: 38: 24 to 39: 3;
39: 1-3; 51: 23-28; 24: 30-34; 33: 16-18; 39: 12 ff.; 39: 4; 34: 10-12;
51:1-13; etc.
TL~'- +L~ ~_':'_~1 language was Hebrew is evident from these
words of the Greek translator in his prolog: "The same things
uttered in Hebrew and translated into another tongue have not
the sam.e force in them," v. 22 f. That is confirmed by the fact,
already alluded to, that a large portion (about two thirds) of the
book has in recent years been found in Hebrew. Cf. Oesterley,
opo cic., __ ~. ________ (h he does not aci , it l pretty
obvious that Ben Sira's grandson implies here that he translated
his grandfather's book from the Hebrew (from the words of the
Prolog). In the second place, in SL Jerome's time it would appear
Modern Scholars on Origin of Various Apocryphal Books 679
that Hebrew manuscripts of the book existed in Palestine, for in
his preface to the books of Solomon he says that he found the book
of Jesus, the son of Sirach, in Hebrew. Then, again, in later times
Saadiah (A. D. 920) speaks of the existence of copies of the Hebrew
text, and he says that the vowel-points were added, which was,
as a rule, only done in the case of canonical books. And, lastly,
in a number of cases the renderings of the .Greek necessitate the
assumption that they were translated from Hebrew.
"But all doubt, where such existed, was set at rest by the dis-
covery (1896-1900) of a number of fragments of the Hebrew
text. . .. Altogether about thirty leaves were found; they are
fragments belonging to four different manuscripts, and they all
come from the Genizah of a synagog in Cairo. As all these
manuscripts are written on paper and not on vellum, they cannot
be earlier than the ninth century A. D., for paper was not intro-
duced until this century; they all belong probably to the end of
the tenth or the beginning. of the eleventh century." Oesterley,
op. cit., pp. 329, 330.
"But while it is thus evident that Hebrew was the original
language in which our book was written, it does not necessarily
follow that the recently found manuscripts contain the original
form of the Hebrew." Oesterley, op. cit., p.331. Cf. Kautzsch,
op. cit., p. 255.
Zahn, The Introduction to the New Testament, p . 6, says con-
cerning the language of this book: "Jesus, the son of Sirach, a
resident of Jerusalem, wrote his book of proverbs in Biblical
Hebrew about 180 B. C., and his grandson in Egypt translated it
into Greek after 132 B. C."
Concerning the time of the composition of this book Kautzsch
(op. cit., p. 235) says: "Eine naehere Bestimmung der Abfassungs-
zeit ist auf Grund der im Vorstehendem mitgeteilten Einblicke
in sein Leben und Sterben nicht moeglich. Dagegen liegen zwei
Momente zur naeheren Bestimmung del' Zeit Jesus Sirachs VOl':
das eine in der Angabe seines Enkels, dass er, nachdem er im 38.
Jahre unter Euergetes nach Aegypten gekommen war, dort seine
griechische U ebersetzung del' Schrift des Grossvaters abfasste, das
andere in der Schilderung, die Jesus Sirach selbst von dem Hohen-
priester Simon, dem Sohne des Onias (bezw. J onias und nach
dem hebraeischen Texte J ochanan) , entwirft (50: 1 ff.) . Abel'
diese scheinbar recht bestimmt lautenden Angaben geben tatsaech-
lich zu den verschiedenartigsten ZeitQestimmungen Anlass und
Gelegenheit , und zwar schon deshalb, weil es zwei Euergetes und
zwei Hohepriester Simon gegeben hat. . .. Kam aber sonach del'
Enkel im Jahre 132 nach Aegypten, so faellt die Anfertigung der
Uebersetzung hoechstwahrscheinlich in die naechsten Jahre, etwa
680 Modern Scholars on Origin of Various Apocryphal Books
130. Und wenn der. Grossvater bei der Abfassung seiner Spruch-
sammlung etwa 40-60 Jahre aelter war als der Enkel bei der
Uebersetzungsarbeit, so faellt die erstere in die Jahre 190-170
v. Chr., und del' Hohepriester Simon, dessen Verdienste um sein
V olk und dessen hehre Erscheinung beim Gottesdienst Jesus
Sirach im frischen Andenken an den eben Dahingegangenen preist,
ist alsdann Simon 11., del' nach Schuerer (III, p.159) Anfang des
zweiten Jahrhunderts (wogegen sich Ewald's Fixierung auf 219 bis
199 nicht aufrecht halten laesst) Hohepriester war."
Oesterley (op. cit., pp. 327, 328) discusses the same matter,
starting from the data given in the Prolog. He concludes: "Those
words enable us to fix the date, approximately, of the translation
of the book; for there was only one Egyptian king of the name
of Euergetes to whom the translator's words could apply, namely,
Euergetes II, surnamed Physcon, who reigned altogether forty-
four years; first he was joint ruler with his elder brother, Philo-
metor (B. C. 170-145), and then he reigned alone (B. C. 145-116).
The thirty-eighth year of his reign would be 132 B. C.; soon after
this date, therefore, the Greek translation was made. Having got
this date, it is not difficult to fix an approximate date for the
original work; it would be about fifty or sixty years earlier.
At the end of chapter 49 and beginning of 50, according to the
Hebrew of our book, it says: 'Great among his brethren, and the
glory of his people, was Simeon, the son of Jochanan, the priest.'
"This Simeon, the second of the name, was high priest from
B. C. 219-199; Ben Sira was clearly a contemporary of his (see
1. 1 ff.), but the way in which he writes about him suggests that
Simeon must have been dead some time when Ben Sira wrote;
we shall therefore not be far wrong in assigning the year B. C. 180,
or thereabouts, as the date of the composition of the book in
its original form."
Charles (op. cit., p.293) says: "The translator calls the author
of the original book his {, 1tWmo<;;, a term which may be interpreted
in its usual sense of 'grandfather.' The composition of the original
book of Ben Sira may therefore be assigned to the first quarter
of the second century B. C. (200-175 B. C.)."
Basing his investigation on the last sentence of the Prolog,
namely: "For in the eighth and thirtieth ... the Law," Charles
concludes: "It may be concluded, therefore, that the translator
reached Egypt in this year (132 B. C.) and completed his transla-
tion of the book some few years later (between 132 and 116)."
(O~ ~;+ ~ ,)Q'l)
In the Prolog the translator clearly states that he came
"into Egypt" and that he found a book there which he translated.
He claims that he did this work of love for those "who in a strange
Nlodern Scholars on Origin of Various Apocryphal Books 681
country are willing to learn (1:0L<; EV 1:11 rruQO[.xLQ. ~ouAolLevoL<; qn),ofLO:-
IJELV) ."
As it is generally agreed that the original Hebrew was written
in Palestine, so it is generally assumed that the translation into
Greek was made in Egypt. Cf. Charles, op. cit., p.293; Oesterley,
op. cit., p. 327 f.; Kautzsch, op. cit., p. 233 ft.
Charles, I, pp. 268-517.
Oesterley, pp. 321-348.
Bibliography
Kautzsch, I, pp. 230--475.
Fritzsche, Die Weisheit J ems Sirach erklaert und uebersetzt (1859).
Wace, II, pp. 1-239.
Schechter, Studies in Judaism (Second Series), pp. 55-101 (1908).
Hart, Ecclesiasticus (1909).
Oesterley, Ecclesiasticus, in the Cambridge Bible (1912).
Cowley and Neubauer, The Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus,
pp. x-xi.
Margoliouth, The Origin of the "01'iginal" Hebrew of Ecclesiastic1'S.
BARUCH
This book, consisting of five chapters and a little over eight
pages in Rahl£s's edition of the Septuagint, is found in the Sep-
tuagint between the prophecies of Jeremiah and Lamentations.
This illuminating remark is added there: "Bar.: BA.-S post Ier.
scripsit librum Thr. usque ad 2: 20 conseruatum; librum Bar.
utrum post Thr. scripserit an omiserit, non liquet, quia post Thr.
2: 20 multa folia interierunt." It will be seen from this that the
Vatican and the Alexandrian MSS. contain this book, while the
Sinaitic codex is here defective.
Luther did not have a very exalted opinion of this book. In
his "Vorrede auf das Buch Baruch, 1530" he says: "Sehr geringe
ist dies Buch, wer auch der gute Baruch ist. Denn es ist nicht
glaublich, dass St. J eremiae Diener, der auch Baruch heisst (dem
auch diese Epistel zugemessen wird), nicht sollte hoeher und
reicher im Geiste sein, weder dieser Baruch ist." After stating
that he hardly cared to translate it, as he did not translate the third
and fourth books of Ezra, which did not contain matters as worth-
while as Aesop, he adds: "Baruch lassen wir mitlaufen unter
diesem Haufen (the books of the Apocrypha translated by Luther),
weil er wider die Abgoetterei so hart schreibt und Mosis Gesetz
vorhaelt." (St. L., XIV: 80,81.)
The book of Baruch is composed of three distinct parts.
Cf. Charles, op. cit., pp. 569 ft.; Oesterley, op. cit., pp. 497 ff.; Pauly-
Wissowa, op. cit., p. 1603. These three parts are: 1: 1 to 3: 8; 3: 9 io
4:4; 4:5 to 5:9.
In his description of the contents of this book, Oesterley
(op. cit., p.496) says in reference to the introductory remarks of
this b00k: "It purports to have been written by Baruch, the friend
682 Modern Scholars on Origin of Various Apocryphal Books
of Jeremiah, in Babylon during the Captivity; and after it had
been read there 'in the hearing of J echonias the son of J oakim,
king of Judah, and in the hearing of the people' (1: 3,4), it was
sent to Jerusalem to be read there (1: 14); with it was also sent a
collection of money to the high priest J oakim for the purpose of
defraying the expenses of sacrifices (1:6-10); the people in Jeru-
salem are also asked to pray for Nabuchodonosor, king of Babylon,
and for his son, BahasaI', as well as for the exiles (1: 11-13)."
He then gives the following titles to the three parts: 1. The
Book of Confessions (1: 1 to 3: 8); 2. The Sage's Words of En-
couragement (3:9 to 4:4). 3. A Message of Good Cheer (4:5 to
5: 9). With his description of the component parts of the Book of
Baruch compare also Kautzsch's "Einleitung," op. cit., p. 213 ff.
In regard to the author of this book Kautzsch (op. cit., p.213)
makes the following statements: "lndes, wie dem auch sein mag,
jedenfalls ist dies sicher: weder handelt es sich hier urn ein
wirkliches Produkt des geschichtlichen Baruch noch auch urn ein
irgendwie einheitliches Werle". .. "Es ist also nur eine Fiktion,
wenn das, was in dieser Schrift enthalten ist, mit dem Namen
Baruchs in Zusammenhang gebracht wird.". .. "Aber das Werk
1st auch keine Einheit oder doch nur insofern, als das Bussgebet
wie die uebrigen Teile des Buches den Fall Jerusalems und die
Zersteuung des Volkes in die Heidenwelt voraussetzen." Neither
Charles nor Oesterley make any definite statements as to the
author of this book other than to say that it "purports" to be the
book of Baruch, that it consists of three different parts which may
not have the same author. Cf. op. cit., p.569 and 496, respectively.
As to the original language of the Book of Baruch the view
commonly accepted by scholars now is this: The first part (chap.
1:1 to 3:8) was composed in Hebrew; the second part (chap. 3:9
to 4:4), in Hebrew or Aramaic; the third part (chap. 4:5 to 5:9),
in Greek. Cf. Charles, op. cit., p.572; Oesterley, op. cit., p.506;
Harwell, The Principal Versions of Baruch, p.66; Pauly-Wissowa,
lac. cit., p. 1609.
While this is the commonly accepted view, Kautzsch, op. cit.,
p.215, does not share that view fully. He says: "Was nun die
Frage anlangt, in welcher Sprache die in diesem Buche vereinigten
Stuecke urspruenglich abgefasst worden sind, so haben, wie die
Mehl'zahl del' aelteren Kritiker, zuletzt noch Kneuckel' (Das B1LCh
BaTuch) und Koenig (Einleitung, S.485), an einem hebl'aeischen
Original festgehalten, unsers El'achtens mit aHem Rechte. Die
meisten Neueren allerdings (vgl. z. B. Cornill, Ki.n.ll'ii1 I ))g, S.273;
Schuerer, Geschichte des juedischen Volkes, II, S. 722 f.) wollen
nur fuer den ersten Teil eine hebl'aeische Vorlage zugeben, waehr-
end die letzten Teile von 3: 9 an griechisches Original sein sollen.
Modern Scholars on Origin of Various Apocryphal Books 683
Die Eleganz des Griechischen (Cornill) in diesen Teilen kann
selbstvertaendlich nichts gegen die Annahme einer hebraeischen
Grundlage beweisen. Sie bewiese nur die Geschicklichkeit des
Uebersetzers; uebrigens ist dieselbe auch nicht so gar gross. Uns
hat sich bei der kritischen Untersuchung des Textes und seiner
rhytlliuischen Rekonstruktion in der Uebersetzung je laenger, je
mehr die Ueberzeugung unabweisbar aufgedraengt, dass es sich
auch in den Liedern urn urspruenglich wirklich hebraeische Ge-
saenge handelt."
Oesterley (op. cit., p.504) says concerning the first two parts:
"Both the sections so far considered were probably written in
Hebrew or, in the case of the second, in Aramaic; Marshall (in
Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, I, p.253) has given good ground
for the latter contention." Again, he says concerning the original
language of the last part: "The original language of the whole
of 4: 4 to 5: 9 is recognized by most scholars as having been Greek
from the ·beginning." (Op. cit., p.506.)
Assuming that the third part was originally written in Greek,
the date of the original and the translation of the first and of the
second part is a matter of much dispute. Some date it as early
as 100 B. C. and some as late as 150 A. D.
On the question of the date of the Book of Baruch, Kautzsch
(op. cit., p. 215) haE this to say: "Die Fr~ __ lach del' Entstehungs-
zeit ist natuerlich nach den kritischen Ergebnissen, die oben
mitgeteilt wurden, eine komplizierte. Wir haben die Zeit der
Herstellung des ganzen Buches von del' Zeit der Entstehung der
einzelnen Stuecke zu trennen. Die letzteren koennen lange vor-
handen gewesen sein, ehe sie zu deT Einheit als Buch Baruch
verbunden wurden. Fuer das Bussgebet 1: 16 ft. wuerde nun Dan.
9: 4 ft. eine Linie angeben, ueber die wir bei der zeitlichen An-
setzung desselbell l1icht hinaufgehen duerfen, und cia es nicht
unwahrscheinlich ist, dass auch das Gebet in Dan. 9 erst nach-
traeglich eingefuegt ist [?], so laege es durchaus nicht fern,
zu schliesen, dass dann die Entstehung des Bussgebets in Baruch
1-3 noch tiefer hinab anzusetzen seL Jedenfalls wuerde aber die
Makkabaeerzeit nach oben die Grenze sein. Die Mehrzahl del'
Forscher bleibt auch bei dieser Zeit stehen (vgl. z. B. Fritzsche).
Aber da nun aIle Teile unsers Buches die Zerstoerung J erusalems
und die Wegfuehrung des Volkes voraussetzen, so hat man neuer-
dings gesagt, das zwinge dazu, an eine Herstellung des Buches nach
der Zerstoerung J erusalems durch Titus im Jahre 70 n. Chr. zu
~l.enl:en, de!": 2.'-1f eine!' cmr'1~rn Ze.i t r>"n kt der juedischen Geschichte
seit del' Makkabaeerzeit passe die Voraussetzung durchaus nicht-
mehr; vgl. Hitzig (Zeitschr'ift fuer wissenschaftliche Theologie)
1860, S. 262 fT.), besonders Kneucker (a. a. 0.), Schuerer u. a. Indes,
684 Modern Scholars on Origin of Various Apocryphal Books
dies wuerde zunaechst doch nur auf die Vereinigung der verschie-
denen Stuecke zu dem Buch und hoechstens auch noch auf das
Bussgebet Anwendung finden. Die Lieder koennten ihrer hebraei-
schen Grundlage nach ganz gut sehr viel aelter sein. Allerdings
scheint in dem letzten 5: 5 ft. von dem Ps. Sal. 11: 3 ft. abhaengig zu
sein (vgl. z. B. Schuerer a. a. 0., S.274; Cornill, S. 274). Jeden-
falls finden sich hier auffaellige Beruehrungen im einzelnen. Aber
uns macht das letzte Lied des Baruchbuchs seinem ganzen Cha-
rakter nach eher noch den Eindruck, als sei es die originale Vor-
lage fuer den Salomopsalm. Tndes, jedenfalls laesst sich darueber
nur subjektiv urteilen."
Harwell (op. cit., p.66) says: "The date of the original com-
position would propably be not later than 100 B. C., and it is
altogether reasonable to suppose that the poems were composed
before the Maccabean age."
After a thorough investigation both Oesterley and Charles fix
the date of the first part at 74-75 A. D. Says Oesterley (op. cit.,
p. 500): "The period to which reference is intended in the book,
namely, the war with Rome, being A. D. 66-70, the fifth year
after the destruction of Jerusalem, mentioned in 1: 2, will give
us the precise date of this portion of our book, viz., A. D. 74-75."
Cf. Charles, op. cit., p. 574 f.
As to the date of the second part Oesterley (op. cit., p.504)
says: "This section (3: 9 to 4: 4), therefore, may quite possibly
have been written under these conditions at the commencement
of the second century A. D. or even later, though it must have
been written not later than about A. D. 150 or thereabouts, as the
book is quoted by Athenagoras and Irenaeus. (According to
Cornill, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, p. 274)."
Charles has this remark concerning the second part of the
book.: "i'he dO,-wuc;