Bibliotheca Sacra 109 (Oct. 1952) 318-31. Copyright © 1952 by Dallas Theological Seminary. Cited with permission. Department of New Testament Greek and Literature THE KINGDOM OF GOD IN THE JEWISH APOCRYPHAL LITERATURE: PT. 3 BY GEORGE LADD, PH.D. (Continued from the April-June Number, 1952) I ENOCH Enoch is one of the most notable examples of the genus of Jewish literature called apocalyptic as well as one of the most important books for New Testament backgrounds. In it for the first time appears the concept of a temporal mes- sianic kingdom, and in it is elaborated the Jewish doctrine of the Son of Man. Before we discuss the book itself, a brief characterization of apocalyptic literature will give background for the discussion. The word "apocalypse" has a twofold meaning. In bib- lical literature it is used of divine disclosures made to indi- viduals1 or to men collectively,2 of supernatural truths either present3 or future.4 It is used in the introduction to the one prophetic book of the New Testament5 of the revelation or disclosure of the things which were shortly to come to pass, which God the Father gave to His Son who in turn, as the mediator of revelation, made it known to John.6 The word here refers to the total contents of our book which God, 1Gal. 1:12, 2:2, II Cor. 12:1, I Cor. 14:6, 26. 2Rom. 16:25, Eph. 1:17, II Thess. 1:7. 3Rom. 16:25, II Cor. 12:1, Gal. 1:12. 4Rom. 2:5, 8:19, I Pet. 1:7. 5Revelation 1:1. 6Some take the phrase, apokalypsis Iesou Christou, to involve an objective genitive; but the second phrase, "which God gave him", i.e., to Christ, seems to require the subjective genitive. Christ is indeed the mediator of revelation. Cf. John 7:16, 14:10, 17:7,8. (318) Kingdom of God in Jewish Apocryphal Literature 319 through Christ, disclosed to John on Patmos and which John later wrote down. The word may be similarly applied to the disclosures made to Daniel although the word is not there used. In modern biblical study, "apocalypse" has been infused with a broader technical meaning to describe the literary product of such divine disclosures, whether they are real or pretended. The word has been borrowed from the Revelation of John and applied to a series of Jewish writings which, in imitation of Daniel, are cast in the form of disclosures of future events. Epoch is the first of such books. The word itself is not found in any of these writings. The adjective "apocalyptic" has been given a still larger meaning to include writings which are not strictly apoc- alypses, i.e., whose literary form is not that of visionary rev- elations, but whose content deals largely or in substantial part with the sort of eschatological expectations which are found in the apocalypses. In this sense the eschatology of Jesus is called apocalyptic, for although He does not speak in symbols nor experience visions, He does prophesy the end of the world by the dramatic Parousia of the Son of Man from heaven and the judgment of God upon the world; and these are considered to be among the essential ideas of apocalyptic literature.7 It is customary for modern criticism to distinguish be- tween prophecy and apocalyptic and to consider apocalyptic as the successor of prophecy, arising out of the troubles of the Maccabean times. There is unquestionably a substantial measure of truth in this position, as we shall shortly see. However there is one all-important factor to be taken into consideration in the rise of the Jewish apocalypses which much modern criticism is unable fully to evaluate. This is the existence of the apocalyptic form in the genuine pro- 7Cf. for illustrations C. C. McCown, The Search for the Real Jesus (New York, 1940), pp. 243-53; H. J. Cadbury, The Peril of Modernizing Jesus (New York, 1937), pp. 73-75; H. H. Rowley, The Relevance of Apocalyptic (Second ed.; London, 1947), pp. 114-23; T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus (Cambridge, 1935), pp. 155 ff. 320 Bibliotheca Sacra phetic literature, especially in the book of Daniel.8 In the historical as well as the prophetic literature, visions and 8Most of the study of Jewish apocalyptic literature has been done by scholars who place Daniel in the Maccabean times, and understand it not as a genuine prophecy but as the first representative of the formal apocalyptic literary efforts, like Enoch and the other non-canonical apocalypses. (For some of the standard studies, see H. T. Andrews, "Apocalyptic Literature", A Commentary on the Bible [A. S. Peake, ed.; New York and London, 1919], pp. 431-35; A. C. Zenos, "Apocalyptic Literature" Hastings' Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, I, 79-94; R. H. Charles, "Apocalyptic Literature", Encyclopaedia Biblica, I, Col- umns 213-50; F. C. Porter, The Messages of the Apocalyptical Writers [New York, 1905] ; H. H. Rowley, The Relevance of Apocalyptic [Second ed.; London, 1947].) We are beyond a doubt greatly in the debt of such scholars for their work in this difficult field, and debts should be acknowledged wherever they exist. However, one of the most relevant questions in the historical interpretation of apocalyptic literature as a whole is that of the date of Daniel; for if the book was produced in Babylonian times as it claims, then the imitative factor in the later apocalypses is much greater than if Daniel is practically contemporary with the earliest parts of Enoch. There are unquestion- bly difficulties particularly in the linguistic area, which must be dealt with in establishing the date of Daniel. Still, the crucial problem is a theological one; for contrary to the insistence of many, theology cannot be isolated from historical study. The central issue in the Babylonian date of Daniel is that of "the reality of the supernatural and the divine origin of the revelations it contains" (R. H. Pfeiffer, Introduction to the Old Testament [New York, 1941], p. 175). The liberal critic main- tains that "historical research can deal only with authenticated facts which are within the sphere of natural possibilities and must refrain from vouching for the truth of supernatural events. In a historical study of the Bible, convictions based on faith must be deemed irrelevant, as belonging to subjective rather than objective knowledge" (Loc. cit. H. H. Rowley objects to this view. Cf. The Growth of the Old Testament [London, 1950], pp. 158f.). However, such an attitude does not really "refrain from vouching for the truth of supernatual events; it, in fact, renders a decision against their truthfulness. If one concludes, because of the references to Antiochus Epiphanes, that Daniel was not written in Babylonian but in Maccabean times, then one has decided that its alleged prophecies are not true but are indeed history, masquerading as prophecy" (A. S. Peake, A Commentary on the Bible, p. 48). This position eliminates on grounds the possibility of the impartation by God to men of a supernatural revelation, or of God's entering into human history for the salvation of sinful men. The conservative critic (who needs be no less "critical" in the true sense of the word for that reason) is compelled by the totality of experience to admit the reality of the supernatural in divine revelation and to see in Daniel predictive prophecy, what he does not find in Enoch or in the other non-canonical apocalypses. For conservative criticism of Daniel see Robert Dick Wilson, Studies in the Book of Daniel (New York, First Series, 1917; Second Series, 1938) ; E. J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testa- ment (Grand Rapids, 1949). While Dr. Young does not exegete Daniel in a premillennial manner, his works are very helpful for these critical problems. Kingdom of God in Jewish Apocryphal Literature 321 symbolic imagery are a frequent medium of divine revelation. Furthermore, one of the main themes of the prophetic lit- erature is the main concern of the later apocalypses, viz., the Day of the Lord and the kingdom of God. Numerous apoca- lyptic sections are to be found embedded in the prophetic writings.9 Thus the apocalypse of Daniel has its antecedents in the other prophetic literature. "The prophecies of Daniel are not distinguished even in their apocalyptic form from the whole body of prophecy in nature, but only in degree".10 The existence of the canonical Daniel provided the prototype for the subsequent apocalypses. It may well be that the ful- fllment of the detailed prophecy in Daniel of Antiochus Epiphanes provided the incitement in 168 B.C. to production of the earliest parts of the pseudepigraphical apocalypses, the books of Enoch,11 by giving rise to the expectation that God was now at last about to intervene to inaugurate His kingdom. It is not within the scope of the present studies to dis- cuss the problems involved in the book of Daniel. We believe it to be a genuine revelation given by God to Daniel under genuine prophetic inspiration. The later apocalypses were imitative productions coming from a time when the voice of prophecy had long been stilled.12 For many generations Israel, God's people, had been in subjection to a succession of world empires. The people over whom God alone should reign were subservient to the Gentiles. Centuries passed, and the kingdom of God predicted in Daniel and the prophets did not come. God seemed to be silent and to have removed 9Cf. such passages as Isaiah 24-27, Joel, Zechariah 12-14, Ezekiel 38-39, etc. Cf. T. H. Robinson in A Companion to the Bible (T. W. Manson, ed.; Edinburgh, 1945), pp. 307 f.; James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (New York, 1927), pp. 78 ff. 10C. F. Keil, The Book of Daniel (English Trans., Edinburgh, 1877; re- printed by Eerdmans, 1949), p. 27. Cf. further Robert Dick Wilson, "Apocalypses and the Date of Daniel", Studies in the Book of Daniel, (New York, 1938), pp. 101-16. 11For the reason for the detailed prophecy about Antiochus see Robert Dick Wilson, op. cit., pp. 270-80. 12For recognition of the cessation of prophecy, see I Macc. 4:46, 14:41. For the later talmudic literature see George Foot Moore, Judaism (Cam- bridge, 1944), I, 421. 322 Bibliotheca Sacra Himself from the historical experiences of His people. Finally, under the domination of the Grecian Ptolemies and then the Seleucids, there came the deadly inroads of Hellenism and of pagan customs and influences which threatened to turn the entire nation away from the Law and the worship of Jehovah.13 A hellenizing party arose among the Jews which by obtaining the high priesthood was able to promote its policies with great success.14 So far did these pagan influences advance that some scholars have felt that if the process had been allowed to pursue its natural course, the Jewish people would have been completely hellenized and would have lost their religious distinctives.15 There inter- vened the violent persecution by Antiochus when with fire and sword he attempted to force Greek religion upon the Jews. Through these long years of political bondage which witnessed the slow encroachment of pagan influences finally culminating in one of the fiercest persecutions God's people ever experienced, years during which evil in both subtle and violent form grew increasingly worse, God was silent. Again and again the question was raised, Where is God's kingdom which the prophets promised? Why does God not vindicate Himself? When shall the Day of Jehovah come? No prophet appeared to proclaim a fresh word from God in answer to these questions. No Isaiah, no Joel, no Zephaniah stood up among the people to announce, 'Thus saith the Lord.' God's voice was silent. In their despair the devout began to search the Scriptures afresh for an answer. They turned to the specifically predic- tive portions of the prophets, especially those passages which described in great detail the coming of the Day of Jehovah and the inauguration of the kingdom of God. The 13Cf. I Macc. 1:11-15. Cf. also W. O. E. Oesterley and T. H. Robinson, Hebrew Religion (London, 1937), pp. 340-43; Edwyn Bevan, Jerusalem under the High Priests (London, 1904), pp. 31-80. 14Cf. II Macc. 4:7-17. 15Cf. E. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (3 and 4 Aufl.; Leipzig, 1901), I, 189; English Trans., A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (New York, 1890), I, i, 197-98. Kingdom of God in Jewish Apocryphal Literature 323 example of this predictive prophecy par excellence was Daniel. Brooding over the message of these Old Testament revelations, devout souls tried to reinterpret their experi- ences in the light of Old Testament prophecy. Witnessing the fulfillment of some of Daniel's prophecies in the person of Antiochus Epiphanes,16 the messianic expectations of the devout were aroused. God was about to intervene! The kingdom was at hand! God's enemies were soon to be des- troyed! And this not by the success of Hasmonean arms, but by the direct intervention of God. The immediate future would witness the destruction of the wicked and the salva- tion of God's people. The pious need only be patient, for the end was about to come. The message of the apocalyptic literature is addressed mainly to this expectation. Out of this milieu of messianic expectation came the various parts of Enoch. Devout men, looking for the early intervention of God to establish His kingdom, wished to encourage their discouraged fellow Jews to steadfastness in view of the imminent end. How could they convey this message? The day of prophecy was over. Prophetic inspira- tion was no more. How could this conviction of an immedi- ate deliverance be authoritatively imparted? The apocalyptic writings needed some authority by which they might authen- ticate themselves to the people. Thus arose the use of pseudonyms, the names of some of the ancient men of Israel long dead. Moses to whom God had given the Law and who was buried by the hand of God in an unmarked grave; Enoch who was translated to heaven; Ezra who led God's People back to the land from captivity; Baruch, faithful friend and amanuensis of Jeremiah who held an important place in Jewish legend;17 these and other famous ancients lent their names to give weight to post-prophetic books of a prophetic character. Prophecy was dead; the canon was 16Cf. Daniel 8. The prophecy of the "Abomination of Desolation" of Daniel 9:27, 11:31, 12:11 was thought to be fulfilled by the profanation of the temple by Antiochus (cf. I Macc. 1:54 and Josephus, Ant. XII, v, 4). 17This is illustrated by the apocryphal book of Baruch. Cf. C. C. Torrey, The Apocryphal Literature (New Haven, 1945), pp. 59 ff. 324 Bibliotheca Sacra closed. The one way a book could obtain substantial influ- ence with the nation was to embody prophecies allegedly coming from one of the prophets or inspired writers.18 Into the mouth of the ancient patriarch or prophet, the author placed a prophecy of events which would ensue to the inauguration of the kingdom of God, what was thought to be near in the author's own time. This history, masquer- ading as prophecy, was portrayed in symbolic imagery in imitation of Daniel, but with this difference: whereas much of Daniel's symbolism is clear because it is interpreted in the book itself, the symbolism of the later apocalypses is usually fantastic and so obscure as to tax the interpreter's ability to find the intended application. In addition to such prophetic visions and dreams, the apocalyptic literature con- tains revelations of the secrets of heaven and sheol. In the hands of the apocalyptists, such visions became a set literary form and are often so wooden that they can hardly be thought to represent real visionary or ecstatic experiences. A word is now pertinent as to the source of the books of Enoch and of the other Jewish apocalypses and the place which such books had in Jewish life. Do the views found in these books represent the beliefs of the Pharisees? Were Jesus and the disciples familiar with these expectations? Or were these books and their beliefs the product of isolated, unimportant groups and individuals who did not represent the normal life and thought of the first-century Jews? This 18This is the explanation for pseudonymity suggested by R. H. Charles (A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life [Second ed.; London, 1913], pp. 196-205) and usually followed. However, H. H. Rowley feels this to be inadequate and has suggested a different expla- nation which finds pseudonymity first attaching itself to the book of Daniel by accident (The Relevance of Apocalyptic, pp. 37 ff.). It is of great significance that neither the Revelation of John nor the book of Daniel are pseudonymous in the above sense, even for those who espouse the Maccabean date of Daniel. John, even according; to liberal criticism, was a well-known personage in Asia and writes in his own name. Daniel, apart from the character in the canonical book, is a person of no significance in the Old Testament, whose name—and even this is contested—occurs only thrice (Ezekiel 14:14, 20, 28:5); a man so ignored in Jewish tradition that his very historicity is questioned by many critics. (Cf. Robert Dick Wilson, Studies in the Book of Daniel [New York, 1917], pp. 24-42). Such a pseudonym is certainly not of the same order as an Enoch, a Moses, or an Ezra. Kingdom of God in Jewish Apocryphal Literature 325 question, which has great implications for New Testament study, has been vigorously and widely debated, and extreme differences of opinion are to be found among critical scholars. On the one hand, it is sometimes said that the period between 168 B.C. and 100 A.D. swarmed with eschatologists;19 but on the other hand, it is maintained by students of the rab- binic tradition in Judaism that the apocalyptists played no more important role in the Jewish religious life as a whole than "the cabalistic combinations and chronological calcu- lations of our own millenarians" play in the liberal Protestant tradition of contemporary America.20 It must be frankly admitted that this problem cannot be solved with finality, because our sources are inadequate. We do not have evidence to prove that Jewry was swarming with apocalypses. On the other hand, the evidence which Moore cites to support his position, viz., the antipathy of the later rabbinic literature to the apocalyptic materials, is susceptible of adequate ex- planation on other grounds. R. H. Charles has shown that both apocalyptic and rabbinic Judaism stem from the same source of reverence for the Law.21 It is safe to conclude that the apocalyptic ideas were quite widely known among the Jews, although they may have been particularly cherished and nurtured by individuals or groups whose interests led in this direction. Much discussion has centered around the question of the circles from which the apocalypses arose. Some have held 19Cf. W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (Baltimore, 1946), p. 287. The assumption of the "Consistent Eschatology" of Johannes Weiss and Albert Schweitzer is that Jesus' idea of the kingdom of God is practically identical with the sort of kingdom found in these apocalypses. "The thoroughgoing application of Jewish eschatology to the interpretation of the teaching and work of Jesus has created a new fact upon which to base the history of dogma. . . . The Gospel is at its starting-point exclusively Jewish-eschatological" (A. Schweitzer, Paul and His Interpreters [English trans., London, 1912], p. ix). 20Cf. George Foot Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era (Cambridge, 1944), I, 127. 21 R. H. Charles, A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life (Second ed.; London, 1913), pp. 193-96; Religious Development Be- tween the Old and the New Testaments (London, 1914), pp. 33 ff. Charles' position that Christianity is the historical successor of apoca- lyptic Judaism as Rabbinic Judaism was the successor of legalistic Judaism merits a criticism which cannot here be given. 326 Bibliotheca Sacra that the Essenes produced these books;22 and although this view has not been very popular, it has recently received the able support of Professor Albright.23 Jewish scholars and students of Rabbinics, taking as their point of departure the viewpoint of the later writings, insist that the apocalyptic writings could not have come from the rabbinical schools but must have arisen among the zealots.24 The hostility of the later rabbinical schools to all of the "outside books" is well known.25 It does not necessarily follow, however, that the Pharisees of New Testament times, nor especially the Chasidim (or Asideans)26 of nearly two centuries earlier, maintained the same attitude. There is a great deal in our apocalyptic books which coincides with what we know about the Pharisees from other sources, particularly in the matter of reverence for the Law. Furthermore, it is difficult to be- lieve that the outlook of such a sect would remain static for over a period of three centuries. Events of world-shaking importance (from the Jewish viewpoint) took place in the first century A.D., in the fall of the Jewish state and the rise of the Christian church. Such events must have exer- cised a strong influence upon Jewish life and outlook,27 and the failure of the messianic revolt under Bar Cocheba in 133 A.D. must have brought disillusionment to the hopes ex- pressed by the apocalyptic literature.28 We may conclude, therefore, that those who understand 22Cf. J. E. H. Thomson, "Apocalyptic Literature", I.S.B.E., I, 163-64; Books Which Influenced Our Lord and His Apostles (Edinburgh, 1891), pp. 76-109. 23W. F. Albright, op. cit., pp. 287-90. Albright thinks that John the Baptist rose out of this milieu. 24Cf. R. Travers Herford, Judaism in the New Testament Period (London, 1928), pp. 11, 21, 111 and especially 126-27. 25Cf. G. H. Box, The Ezra Apocalypse (London, 1912), pp. lviii-lxi, 305-6 for a discussion of the relationship of apocalyptic to rabbinic Judaism. 26Cf. F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, The Beginnings of Chris- tianity (London, 1920), I, i, 87-89. Although Lake and Foakes Jack- son are skeptical at this point, it is usually felt that the Chasidim were the predecessors of the Pharisees. 27Cf. V. H. Stanton, The Jewish and the Christian Messiah (Edinburgh, 1886), pp. 30 ff. for a forceful statement of this position. 28Cf. H. Wheeler Robinson in A Companion to the Bible (T. W. Manson, ed.; Edinburgh, 1939), pp. 307-8; F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, op. cit., p. 361. Kingdom of God in Jewish Apocryphal Literature 327 the apocalyptic literature to have arisen out of the circle of the devout Jews who were motivated by a strong love for the Law, and who expected the kingdom to be inaugurated by the miraculous intervention of God in fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies, rather than by the success of Hasmonean arms or by the revolts of the zealots, are sound in their judgment. The "righteous" of Enoch may well be the Chasidim of Maccabean times.29 The name of Enoch is associated with two apocalyptic books which concern us; but the two works have nothing in common except that they describe the experiences and journeys of Enoch after his translation to heaven. The two books are called I and II Enoch, or Ethiopic and Slavonic Enoch, because of the languages in which they have mainly been preserved. The later work, also called the Secrets of Enoch, will be treated toward the end of this series since it is one of the latest of the apocalypses. Enoch is not a single book but a collection of books, some of which probably enjoyed an independent existence,30 whose history cannot be recovered. One need only read the several parts of the apocalypse to be struck by the differences of subject matter. There seems to have been a cycle of tra- dition that clustered around the name of Enoch which as- sumed written form at various times and was compiled finally in the book as we have it; but when and by whom this compilation was made we cannot say. Critics have an- alyzed the book in many ways;31 most recent criticism has followed Charles' division into five books as follows:32 I. The First Book. 1-36 A. Introduction. 1-5 B. The Fall of the Angels. 6-16 C. Enoch's Journeys through the Universe. 17-36 29Cf. F. M. Abel, Les Libres des Maccabees (Paris, 1949), p. 43. 30Otto Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament unter Einschluss der Apokryphen and Pseudepigraphen (Tübingen, 1934), p. 674. 31Cf. R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch (Oxford, 1912), pp. xxx-xlv for a brief survey of the most important critical inquiries. 32Ibid., pp. xlvi-lii. Cf. also R. H. Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times (New York, 1949), pp. 76-77.