Page Content (OCR)
are sheep, and by his strength, as he has large horns. The description does not transcend the human, and thus forms a decided contrast to the Messiah of the Parables. Both Messiah and the Messianic kingdom are capable of development, for he grows, and they grow with him. He becomes strong, so that the nations who have hitherto been mere lookers-on fear him, and all come and take part in his kingdom. This chief characteristic of the Messiah, as that of a military hero who will protect the just and establish their rule over all the nations, was suggested to the author as the fitting counterpart to the subjection of the righteous to the supremacy of the sinners in his days. Not a small portion of the author’s work is devoted to a tedious account of nature and its laws. Besides notices here and there, he devotes the whole section 72-82 to this topic. The sun, moon, stars, the phenomena of nature, such as lightning, thunder, rain, dew, etc., are the objects of his wisdom. For him these all have a moral purpose; they demonstrate the power and wisdom of God, and in their relation to him are an example of how men should conduct themselves, 5:3, 4; 101:1 sqq.! 40 c. Age. —The terminus ad quem is the Epistle of Jude, written in the first century after Christ, probably before the destruction of the second temple. This letter not only quotes the book of Enoch, 1:9, directly in ver. 14 and 15, but evidently uses it also in ver. 6. Hofmann and Philippi, indeed, claim that an inspired writer could not have cited an apocryphal work, and Jerome says that many regarded Jude as unauthentic, or placed it among the Antilegomena, for the same reason. Accordingly Hofmann and Philippi regard the words in Jude as the incitement that occasioned the writing of the apocryphal work. But if Paul could quote from the Gentile poets, it is certainly hard to understand why Jude could not cite a work that was evidently in high standing among the faithful. As, however, Jude quotes the book as a well-known work, its composition must fall quite a number of years before he wrote; but just when it was composed can only be determined by internal evidences. In chap. 90 the author finishes his survey of the world’s history, reaching his own time in 8-13, and passing over prophetically in 14 sqq. It has been shown in the notes that in all probability the “great horn” is not John Hyrcanus, but Judas Maccabi, and that according to the historical account there the book would be written before the death of Judas, in other words, in the midst of the Maccabean struggle. It remains now to be seen whether the other internal evidence, the spirit of the book, best harmonizes with the historical foundation furnished by the events of Judas’s time or by those of the reign of John Hyrcanus. It has been shown that the struggle between the conservative and orthodox party of the faithful and the new friends of advanced ideas had reached a certain decided point, in which the latter are masters and the former are 1 toed oe a eo ee 1 1 1 14 WW tort under their dominion. The Chasidim throughout appear as a persecuted and abased band, while the sinners enjoy the political power and possess all the wealth and blessings of the land. In seeking to fix this to the history of the famous struggle Josephus (Antiqq. xii. 5 sqq.) gives a fitting and appropriate answer. It is the time of the terrible persecutions under the reign of Antiochus (IV.) Epiphanes and the uprising of the faithful under the Maccabees. And while the history presupposed in the book entirely suits this period, it does not at all that of John Hyrcanus. Here the historical facts were entirely the reverse of what is here demanded. His reign, an eminently peaceful one, and not “full of war and rumors of war,” as 90:8-13 demands, was one characterized by the rule of the Chasidim over the sinners. It is a well-known fact that in no period in the history of Israel, from the exile on, the party that is represented here as the persecuted, enjoyed such absolute control and such perfect political and religious freedom as just in this reign, and therefore the guess at John Hyrcanus is the most unlucky that could be made. Schiirer (p. 117) closes his review of this reign with the significant words that since the days of David and Solomon no period had been so glorious and grand. We can, then, have no hesitancy in saying that a book prophesying to the faithful what they really then possessed would be without meaning and purpose, while making it a product of the Maccabean struggle, a word of encouragement to the little band of the faithful amidst their trials, can alone explain its origin, object, and ! Cf. notes, and Dillmann, p. xv sqq.