Page Content (OCR)
the Parables will be best given in the separate examinations of both. The two appellations of God peculiar to 37-71 are “Lord of the spirits” and “the Ancient of days,” the latter of these, of course, being taken from the book of Daniel (cf. note on 46:1). The classical name in the Parables, however, is “the Lord of the spirits” (cf. note on 37:1 sq.), and is an appellation that nicely harmonizes with the general spiritual and trans-mundane character of this part, although there may be some doubt as to the exact idea which the author intended to convey in it. Again, the Parables lack at least one name of God characteristic of 1-37 and 72-105, i.e. The Holy and Great one (cf. note on 1:3). Certainly this exclusive use of different names in different parts would, if it were the only reason, scarcely justify a separation of the book into two or more portions, but taken in connection with the other indices it has considerable oa weight. A better reason for such a separation we find in the angelology and demonology of the Parables over against the statements in this respect in the other parts. In accordance with the more systematical character of the Parables in general, the classification of the angels is a stricter one than in the first part. In 71:7 those that guard the throne of God are classified a Cherubim, Seraphim, and Ophanim; and 61:10, the whole host of heaven are divided as Cherubim, Seraphim, Ophanim, angels of power and of government. A certain class, of which Michael, 71:3, 8, 13, is one, are called archangels, and are probably the same as the four angels before the throne of God in chap. 40. The angel of peace (cf. note on 40:8) is peculiar to this part, and in general it will be observed that its angelology is of a higher, almost more philosophical, character than in the other portions. This is apparent from the fact that the functions assigned them are all of an ethical character (cf. notes on 39:13; 40:1 sqq., 47:4, etc.), regulated entirely by the relation they sustain to the development of the Messianic kingdom, and hence their connection with the physical world is not dwelt upon to any extent. Whether 1-37 and 72-105 have a distinct classification of angels is more than doubtful. Aside from chap. 20, which being of doubtful authenticity cannot be used as evidence, the author seems only to know a class called Cherubim, 14:11, and the number of a peculiar class given differently in 87:2; 90:2 1-31 do not admit of any conclusion. Yet the greatest difference exists on the subject of evil spirits. The first part claims, 15:8, that the spirits of the giants, the sons of the fallen angels and of the women, are demons, who work violent destruction, and afterwards become the objects of false worship, 99:7. A different account is given in the Parables. Here we meet with satans, 40:7, of whom one, the Satan, is chief, 53:3; 54:6. The fall of the angels consisted in becoming subjects of Satan, 54:6, in whose service, 53:3, are the angels of punishment so frequently mentioned (cf. note on 53:3), whose work it is to punish the kings and the powerful after the final judgment. The idea of placing over against the kingdom of God an opposing kingdom of Satan, with a retinue of servants such as God has in the angels, can be traced back to the general plan of the author. His polemics are directed against the kings of the earth, hence he not only emphasizes the royalty of the Messiah as the future conqueror of these kings, but sees even in their future tormentors the emissaries of a prince called Satan. As the archangels are the chosen instruments for the special punishment of the fallen beings of their own kind, on account of the terribleness of their crimes, chap. 54, thus the kings, as special sinners, shall have their special tormentors. The kingdom of Satan, although opposed to God, still seems in some way dependent upon his will. The idea has a great similarity with that of Satan presented in the book of Job. This is but one of the many differences existing between 1-36 and 72-105, but is sufficient to prove that the same man did not pen both, that consequently the Parables are from a different author. How this conclusion is strengthened and verified will be seen presently in the separate examination of each part. But is the rest of the book, i.e. 1-37 and 72-105, from one hand? Here the following chapters are probably interpolations: 20; 70; 75:5; 82:9-20, for the reasons assigned in the notes. Whether the account of the world-weeks, 93 and 91:12-17, is altogether an interpolation, or only the account of the last three weeks, may be doubtful. That the account 91:12-17, at least, is such, is manifest from the fact that it makes no mention whatever of a Messiah, which we have a right to expect if it were written by the author of 90:9. But as the whole account is a connected one, it is best to regard it as an addition made by some admirer of Daniel, and in imitation of him. The question as to the authenticity of 105 is difficult, as it is simply