brew or Aramaic." Few believe that the language was Greek."

The book has come down to us in an Ethiopic translation made from a Greek translation extant in Egypt during the first Christian century." In the New Testament quotations from the Ethiopic translations are found." The Apocalyse was held in much esteem by the Fathers of the Church, especially by Tertullian.100

96 Cf. Dean: Pseudepigrapha, pp. 75 ff; Enoch in Kautzsch's A. u. P., vol. II, p. 17; études juives, XXVI (1893), p. 149.

Beer's Einl. to Lévi: Revue des

97 Cf. Volkmar: Z. D. M. G., pp. 131 ff; Philippi: D. B. Henoch, 1868, pp. 124 ff; Dietrich: D. B. Henoch Nekyia, p. 216.

98 Cf. Beer's Einl. to Henoch in Kautzsch's A. u. P., vol. II, p. 218; Hallévi: Journal Asiatique, 1867, pp. 352-395; Dillmann in Sitzungsber. der Akad. d. Wissenschaft z. Berlin, 1892, pp. 1039 ff; König: Einl. in d. A. T., 1893, p. 494; Bouriant in "Mémoires publiée par les membres de la mission archéologique française au Cairo, vol. IX, 1892 (Lods); Schodde: The Bk. of Enoch, Andover, 1882; Charles: The Bk. of Enoch, London, 1893; A. Geiger: "Einige Worte über d. B. H." in Jüdische Ztsch., 1864-65, Breslau.

"Cf. Beer's: Einl. to Henoch in Kautzsch's A u. P., vol. II, p. 218.

100 Cf. Zahn: Gesch. d. neutest. Kanons, 1888, vol. I, p. 122.

CHAPTER VII

RESURRECTION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

The doctrine of Resurrection is a genuine product of Jewish genius, its factors are indigenous to Jewish. thought. The way was prepared for it in the independent and concurrent eschatologies of the nation and of the individual, the synthesis of which could not admit of any other resurrection, save that of the pious.1

Many have held as an undisputed fact that postexilic Judaism owes its most characteristic elements to foreign sources. Recent developments have shown that similarity of usage and custom among peoples does not necessarily imply that one has borrowed from the other, but that both may have drawn from the same common source. Thus, the similarity that is urged to exist between Judaism and Mazdeism is due to a common origin—the Religion of Chaldee. That the later eschatology of the Old Testament shows traces of Persian and Greek influence is well nigh established. But it has been the fashion to exaggerate

1 Dan. 12:2, 3.

2 Cf. Ed. Meyer: D. Entstehung d. Judenthums, Halle, 1896, p. 239, note; also Tiele: Gesch. d. Rel. im Altertum, Gotha, 1896, vol. I, p. 365; cf. Budde: D. A. T. u. d. Ausgrabungen, Giessen, 1902, in which Budde protests against the current tendency to trace the rel. development of Israel entirely to Babylonian influences.

3

this influence and make the Old Testament eschatology a copy of that of Persia and Greece. Gunkel believes that resurrection is foreign to the Old Testament, nor could it have risen from the eschatology of prophet or psalmist. The prophets, he claims, preached a future for the nation, not for the individual, and the psalmists believed in a God who could only be glorified and praised in the land of the living. But in Daniel we meet with a belief that is complete. This view of Gunkel is extreme. Granted that before Daniel' indi

3 Greek thought influenced Judaism greatly in Alexandria, which adopted the Platonic doctrine of the immortality of the soul. The Jews in Palestine under the influence of Persian thought accepted the teaching of Zoroaster of the resurrection of the body and a judgment after death.

Cf. Gunkel: Schöpfung u. Chaos, p. 291, n. 2; Mills: "Zoroaster and the Bible" in 19th century, Jan., 1894; Laing: A Modern Zoroastrian, London, 1893, 8th ed., chpt. 13; Hang: Essays on the Sacred Languages of the Parsees, London, 1884, pp. 310 ff.

5(164 B. C.) The traditional view of the date is the time of Nebuchadnezzar. Josephus (Antiq., XI:8) makes the unhistorical statement that Jaddua showed Alexander the prediction of his world-conquests. Keil (Daniel, Edinburgh, 1872) makes Daniel a contemporary of Ezekiel, referring to Ez. 14:20; 28:3. Nöldeke (Die Semitische Sprachen, Lpzg., 1887, p. 21) places the date 166 or 167 B. C. Herzfeld (Gesch. d. Volkes Jisrael, vol. I, Lpzg., 1863, p. 416), before 164 B. C. Kautzsch (Die Heilige Schrift d. A. T.), end of 165 or beginning of 164 B. C. Knobel (Der Prophetismus der Hebräer, Breslau, 1837, vol. II, p. 406) favors 163 B. C. Karpeles (Gesch. d. jüdischen Lit., Berl., 1886, pp. 126 ff) argues for 176-168 B. C. Steinthal (Zu Bibel und Religionsphil., Berl., 1895, p. 166) asserts that the author of Daniel knew nothing of the Maccabean uprising; he places the book

vidual resurrection was unknown to the Hebrews, how could the idea find its complete expression in Daniel, unless it had been matured before in the religious consciousness of the people? Such conceptions are of slow growth, for nations are conservative in matters that touch the fondest hopes. The real beginning of eschatology in the Old Testament is not before the exile, not during the exile, but must be looked for in the centuries that follow the return, when the prophecies that foretold the re-establishment of the Davidic House were not realized, and for two centuries blow had followed blow. From the awful days of Antiochus the nation never had any rest, and the woe that followed the destruction of the Second Commonwealth (70 C. E.) and the final expatriation of the people emphasized still more the hope of a future reward.

Distinct references to resurrection are found before the time of Daniel. The references in Ezekiel and in Isaiah point to a national resuscitation:

ва

between 200-164 B. C. Terry (Biblical Apocalyptics, N. Y., 1898, p. 183) favors the Maccabean time. Cf. Wildeboer: Lit. d. A. T., Göttingen, 1895, §27; also Behrmann: Das B. Daniel, Göttingen, 1894; Kamphausen: Das B. Daniel und die neuere Geschichtsforschung, Lpzg., 1893.

"Ib'n Esra, as well as Hitzig, interpret Dan. 12:2, 3 to refer to national resurrection. Schwally (D. Leben nach dem Tode, p. 135) thinks that it refers to the martyrs who had died for their religion during the persecutions of Antiochus. Cheyne (Bampton Lectures, 1889, p. 406) states: "Not for all men-only for the chosen nation, for there is no natural immortality."

a Cf. Prof. Toy's critical notes on Ez. (Engl. transl.) in P. B., note 5, p. 171 (Ez. 37:1-14); cf. Talm. Sanhedrin 92b.