6

that time is divided into twelve parts; and after a description of the characteristics of these parts, he is informed-Now the measure and computation of that time will be two parts, weeks, of the seven weeks.'1 The seven weeks' probably refer to the seven weeks of Daniel ix. 25. Two parts, weeks,' can hardly mean anything but two-sevenths of the whole period. This interpretation is defended by Hilgenfeld against Ewald, who formerly understood by the two parts' two-thirds.2 The addition of weeks' to 'parts' seems decisive; and we therefore arrive at two weeks, that is, in all probability, fourteen years, as the period of the final tribulation. Hilgenfeld reckons this from the beginning of the Jewish war in 65 [66] A.D., and supposes that Baruch was written about the beginning of the second week, in the year 72. All this, however, is very uncertain. We might with equal propriety calculate from the destruction of Jerusalem, and all that we could venture to affirm would be that the book was published some time before the end of the second week, that is, before 84 a.d. But as Wieseler 3 points out, we ought to date, not the two, but the seven weeks from the destruction of Jerusalem, and then the two weeks immediately preceding the appearance of the Messiah would comprise 105-119 A.D. Hence Wieseler concludes that the book was written in the time of Trajan. There is, however, nothing to indicate that the two weeks were not still future to the author himself, and the argument can only avail to prove that the work appeared between 70 and 119 A.D. If it was composed after 4th Ezra, this extension of time for the appearance of the Messiah may have been due to the failure of the

1 'Erunt duæ partes hebdomades Tv septem hebdomadarum.'

2 Mess. Jud. p. lxiii. n. 2.

3 Das vierte Buch Esra,' in the Studien und Krit., 1870, S. 288.

prediction contained in the latter book; and if so, it must have been composed after the death of Domitian. This, however, is an insecure basis on which to rest, and we must be content with the conclusion that it was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, but not so long after as to impair in the author's mind the vividness of his memory or the freshness of his grief.

CHAPTER II.

LYRICAL LITERATURE.

The Psalms of Solomon.

6

THE eighteen Psalms which bear this title were first given to the modern world by the Jesuit J. L. de la Cerda, who in 1626 published them from the text of a single Greek manuscript.1 Fabricius republished this text, with some emendations, in his Codex Pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti,' in 1713. The manuscript from which De la Cerda's edition was taken is, it seems, no longer to be found. Fabricius, however, referred to one which was said to exist in the Imperial Library at Vienna; and Hilgenfeld, having procured a collation of this with the text of Fabricius, made use of it in preparing the new edition of the Psalms which appeared in his Messias Judæorum.'3

That these Psalms proceeded from a single author is evinced by the unity of their thought and style. That they were originally written in Hebrew is regarded as certain by Ewald and Dillmann. Hilgenfeld, however,

1 Fabricius, Cod. Pseud. Vet. Test. i. pp. 914, 915.

2 Ibid. p. 973, note.

3 See his Prol. p. xii. sq. Since the appearance of this work editions have been published by Geiger (Der Psalter Salomo's, herausgegeben und erklärt von P. Eduard Ephraem Geiger. Augsburg, 1871), and Fritzsche (in his Libri Apocryphi Vet. Testamenti, Lips., 1871). The latter of these I have not had an opportunity of seeing.

4 Gesch, des Volk. Is. iv. 392, Anm. 1.

Herzog, Encyk., art. 'Pseudepig. d. A. T.' S. 305.

contends for a Greek original, chiefly on the ground that the Wisdom of Solomon' seems, to have been used by the author, and believes accordingly that they were composed in Egypt.1 His references do not appear to me conclusive; but, on the other hand, the Hebraic structure of the language is no greater than we should expect in a writer whose Greek style was formed upon Biblical models.2 There is a certain Hellenistic breadth in the spirituality of the author's thought and his very scanty reference to the specialities of the Jewish law; but nevertheless he speaks of the calamities of Jerusalem as though he had known them with the bitterness of a personal experience. Perhaps we might reconcile these conflicting appearances by supposing that the writer was a native of Palestine, but had been driven away, partly by his animosity to the leading party at Jerusalem, and partly by the invasion which he regarded as a divine judgment on the sins of the people. The supposition derives some support from express indications in the Psalms. In xvii. 18, having spoken of the iniquity of the sons of the covenant' the author adds: Those who love the synagogues of the holy fled from them,' and were scattered. In verse 6 he declares that sinners' thrust us out;' but in verse 23 he prays that God will raise up to them their king, the son of David,' as though he himself were no longer in the midst of them. Again, in viii. 33-35, though the words may bear a different interpretation, he seems to include himself in the dispersion of Israel :- Turn, O God, thy compassion upon us, and pity us. Bring together the dispersion of Israel with compassion and kind

1 Mess. Jud. Prol. p. xvi.-xviii.

6

6

2 Geiger shows that many readings may be explained on the supposition of a Hebrew original, S. 20-23. He thinks the work was translated as late as the third century.

3 See especially ii. 23, 24; viii, 1-7; xvii. 13: Thy yŷu hμŵr.

ness; because thy faith is with us, and we hardened our neck.' That our conjecture is not intrinsically improbable is proved by the statement of Josephus that at the time of the invasion of Judea by Aretas the principal men among the Jews left the country, and fled into Egypt; for, as we shall see, the Psalms refer in all likelihood to the troubles of that period. It is not impossible, then, that it may have been to more than the historic eye of the author that God showed the body of the oppressor lying unburied beside the mountains and the waves of Egypt.2

8

Ewald, with whom Oehler and Dillmann 5 agree, believes that the Psalins were composed soon after Antiochus Epiphanes had taken and plundered Jerusalem in the year 170 B.C. F. C. Movers, who is followed by Hilgenfeld, Keim, Schürer, Hausrath,10 and others, refers them to the period subsequent to the capture of Jerusalem by Pompeius in 63 B.C. The writers, however, who adopt the latter view differ from one another as to the number of years which elapsed between the fall of Jerusalem and the composition of the Psalms. In order to judge between these conflicting opinions we must review the evidence.

We need hardly observe that the title of the Psalms gives no clue to their real date. Whether it was adopted by the author or subsequently added by an editor, there seems to be no reason for its existence except the fact that one thousand and five songs are attributed to Solo

1 Ant. xiv. 2, 1.

3 Gesch. d. V. I. iv. S. 392.

5 Herzog, Pseudep. d. A. T. S. 305.

4

2 ii. 30, 31.

Herzog, Messias, S. 426.

• Kirchen-Lexikon, oder Encyklopädie der katholischen Theologie und ihrer Hilfswissenschaften. Herausgegeben von H. J. Wetzer und B. Welte. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1847-60. Art. Apokryphen-Literatur, S. 340-1. 7 Mess. Jud. Prol. and notes. 8 Gesch. Jesu, i. S. 243.

Neutest. Zeitgesch. S. 141 sq.

10 Neutest. Zeitgesch. i. S. 168.