This will be evident if we compare the Book of
APOCRYPHA
APOCRYPHA
Drinie/ witli 1 Mr(ccabccs. These two books deal with the same period. Yet the former, althoufjh it does not know a iierscm.:! Mr-.^i.Ui. is lln- very fount and spring of tin' .M''~-i:Miir cciii. ,|ii mn dI the golden age in Kul>M'(|iirii( A|h>c,i1\ |.-i-, (in the other hand, 1 Macc;il" ■ ~ i ihn. - i lir M.~ l.llli^■ hope, at all events in its u u.i I! ;, :m.mj.|..1 [.illil.
Only two passagTS in this 1 ; ' I '• i jj-st-
ing: the Messianic idea, aiifl till ; ■' i. i 1 i^
Bometimes put upon them. Tli.^ Iii^i i I l I' I f'H-
being merciful inherited the thionc ul .• \ I ■ i i i i hkI ever.' We have here that very element.-in i ': i,mi.
idea, if we may so call it, tiie permainn i ■ m
But it ig evident that David as the fouii'ii r ..r i i. i.,;, ,i im. , n- i the Messiah, is here referred to, and thai lii>- |i. i umti, n. . .-l Hit- throne is for the succession of his descendants, )iot foi- any one jwrson. Not only is this the most reasonable mteqiretation of the passage, but it rests on OT promises to that effect, where the family ( " (r..7. 2S7V!.16,( earlier Scriiitur
irrcat Son, and i
Ps 132
[i.e. the sanctuary] dowi because the Gentiles had altar, and laid up the st< convenient place, until
prophet' of whom we
■ siiccitically it to nny
Nevertheless, though we cannot pt Messianic prophecy in 1 Mac, some of attributed to this period indicate a prevaloiiue of ideas that belong to the same circle of thought. Pa.ssionate patriotism fired by martyrdom and crowned with temporary succe.ss naturally painted great hopes for the nation. The reason why these were not connected with a coming Messiah inay be twofold. (1) For a time it seemed likely that the Maccabees themselves were realizing those hopes, that this remarkable family of ])atriots was really restoring the glory of Israel. (2) Since these men were of the priestly line, the splendour of their achievements eclipsed for the time being the national dreams of the house of David.
The reaction of the later Hasuhin, uni of wliom the Pharisaic party emerged, ,t,i;:iiiisI (Ip' worldly methods of the Hasmoniean family m\i\ I hiir identi- fication of the mission of Israel ^vitll military prowess, released the more spiritual reliijions hopes, and so prepared for a revival of JMessianic ideas. This new movement, which saw the true good of the nation to lie in her religion and looked for lier help from God, did not altogether coincide with the hope of a jiersonal Christ, for God Himself was the Supreme King whose coming was to be ex- pected by His people.
The book of Judith is a romance issuing from the Pharisaic reactionary party ; but it is devoid of all specific Messianic ideas. In this case the human saviour of Israel is a woman.
Of the three other popular tales, two. The His- tori) of Susanna and Bel and the Dragon, contain nothing bearing on the Messianic idea ; hut the latter part of Tobit may be accounted Messianic in the general sense as giving a picture of the Golden Age of the future. Jerusalem is to be scourged for her children's works, but she is to give i)raise to the everlasting King that 'afterwards his taber- nacle may be Ijuilded ' in her ' again with joy.' Many nations are to come from far to the name of the Lord God with gifts in their hands. All generations sli.ill in.ii-e lur with great joy. The city is t(i lie liuili and |ia\ e,l with jirecious stones. 'And all her slie.is shall s,iy Hallelujah; and they shall praise him, saving, Blessed be God, which bath exalted it for ever' (To 13''-'»). In all this there is no mention of the son of David or any human king and deliierer. (In the Hebrew varia-
tion of the text of this chapter as rendered by Neubauer, we read of ' the coming of the Re- deemer ,ind the building of Ariel,' i.e. Jerusalem ; but evidently this Hedeemer is Jahweh). We must go outAide our Ajiocrypha to ths Psalms of Suloiitun fur the Pharisaic revival of the Messiali uf the line of David.
Apocalyptic literature lends itself more readily to Messianic ideas, and tlie.se find full expression in the Book of Enoch, where — in the 'Similitudes'
I he descriptions of the Messiah who appears in elimds as the Sou of IMan are assigned by Dr. Charles to tlie pre-Christian Jewish composition.
~ Esdras, also a Jewish Ajwcalyptic work, calls for closer examination, since it is contained in our Apocrypha, although its late date diminishes its value in the history of the development of thought. The Christian additions (chapters(a) 1. 2; (6) 15. 16) do not call for attention here ; they could only come into the study of the development of Christian thought if they were in anj' way contributions to tliat subject ; lull llie warnings of the supplanting (if Isr.'iel by the Gentiles m (,,), and the judgment of the nations in (//), eanmit, Ije regarded in that liglit. The original work (chapters 3-14) aHbrds significant evidence of the melancholy condition into which Jewish JMessianic hopes had sunk during the gloomy interval between the destruc- tion of Jerusalem and the rise of Bar-Cochba, the reign of Dtmiitian (A.D. 81-96) being its generally aceoiited date (see Hasting.s' DB, vol. i. p. 765). Unlike the other Ajwcryphal writings, since it does not illustrate the transition from the OT to the NT, it is serviceable only in the study of post- Christian Judaism. Its Christian interpolations do not materially hinder us from discovering the original text. The Messianic passages are in chapters 7. 12. and 13. The insertion of the name 'Jesus' in 7'* (not found in the Oriental versions) by a Christian hand is not sufficient rea-son for dis- crediting the Jewish character of the composition. The picture of the Messiah is quite un-Cliristian. It is startling to read that he is to die (7'-'°) ; but (1) this is after reigning 400 years, and (2) without a subsequent resurrection. The first point indi- cates the visionary ideas of the Apocalyptic writer, not the known fact of our Lord's brief life on earth, and the second is in conflict with the great pro-