if taken literally, announces distinctly, a partial, not a general, resurrection from the dead: And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.'65 A question, however, naturally arises, whether, in the Babylonish captivity, the Jews had indeed advanced so far beyond their former views on the subject, as to adopt the belief of an actual resurrection from the dead; or, whether such was the case with Daniel himself? The question is not, whether he expected a general resurrection, such as the gospel teaches; for this, he evidently does not mean, howsoever we interpret his language. And there is a difficulty in supposing that he intended to assert literally a resurrection, even of any extent; for how, then, could we satisfactorily account for the instant disappearance of so novel and striking an idea? Among all the succeeding prophets of the Old Testament, down to Malachi, a hundred and thirty years afterward, we find no recognition of it, in any form. Did it merely burst into view, in a solitary passage in Daniel, and then go out, like a flash, from all the thoughts and reccollections of a whole nation? If we pursue our research still later, and trace the books of the Apocrypha, we must descend nearly four hundred years after the time of Daniel, before we again meet with anything of the kind. Such are the difficulties, of a historical nature, attending the literal interpretation. We shall add only three remarks: 1. The langnage itself, though to us it seems quite too strong for a figure, would

65 Dan. xii. 2.

not so appear to the Jews, at a time when their prophets were accustomed to represent a political restoration of the people, as a ransom from Sheol, as a reanimation of dry bones in the valley, as a resurrection out of their graves ;66 and when it was a favorite hyperbole with their sacred poets to descride their own deliverance from danger or dejection, as a recovery from the dead. 2. Whatever be the awakening, whether literal or figurative, to which Daniel alludes, it is evident, from the tenor of the chapter, that it was to take place among the Jews, and to embrace only a part of them. 3. He fixes it, by the context, to the period when there should be, among the Jews, 'a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, even to that time;' when God should have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people; when the daily sacrifice should be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up." 967 From these considerations, added to the historical circumstances, there would seem to be little room for doubt of the figurative character of the text. The reader, however, must decide between this conclusion, and the supposition, on the other hand, that it was intended literally to assert a resurrection of the dead, but confined to the Jews, partial even among them, and occurring at the period described.

Here we pass from the Old Testament, and enter on the times of the Apocrypha. In this transition, we take a final leave of Hebrew au

66 Hosea xiii. 14: Ezek. xxxvii. 1-14.

67 Dan. xii. 1, 7, 11.

thorities; for the subsequent Jewish works were composed, some of them, originally in Greek, and the rest have descended to us only in that language, and in later translations.

330 B. C.-B. C. 150.-We are now to contemplate the Jews under an influence, to them entirely new that of the Greek literature and philosophy. From their temporary contact with the Babylonian and Persian sentiments, we have seen them escape, with no very deep infection. Their exposure to the Greek doctrines, was of far longer duration, and followed by much greater effect. It was about the year 330 before Christ, that Alexander the Great passed through Syria and Palestine, and subjected them, as well as all the western part of Asia, and the adjacent country of Egypt, to the Macedonian empire. To the Jews, however, he is said to have shown peculiar favor, which must have won their sympathy, to some degree. After his death, and after the partition of his conquered dominions, his successors on the rival thrones of Syria and Egypt, held constant intercourse with them, sometimes in the way of patronage, sometimes of oppression. Placed

midway between these two contending powers, they were subject alternately to each; and they were obliged to mingle with both, at different times, in peace and in war. A large colony of them was early transplanted into Alexandria and the neighboring parts of Egypt, where they long flourished, in the very focus of all the philosophisms under heaven; and the communication which those of Egypt maintained with those of the parent country, tended rather to corrupt the

latter, than to preserve the former from the foreign nations amid which they lived. To what side soever the Jews turned, they came in contact with Greeks, and with Greek philosophy, under one modification or another. It was around them, and among them; for small bodies of that people were scattered through their own territories, as well as through the surrounding provinces. For a long time, they seem to have striven against its influence; but what security could human watchfulness afford, under such circumstances? It insinuated itself very slowly at first; but stealing upon them from every quarter, and operating from age to age, it mingled at length in all their views, and by the year 150 before Christ, had wrought a visible change in their notions and habits of thought; the first permanent change of the kind which they had ever experienced, to any great extent. We must, however, keep in view a marked distinction between the Jews of Palestine, and those of Egypt; for it was here that the corruptions appear to have begun, and to have maintained the advantage-ground, in succeeding times.68

The Septaugint, or Greek version of the Pentateuch, made by the Egyptian Jews, about 280 or 270 before Christ, is probably the earliest Jewish production that we have, subsequent to the end of the Old Testament. As it is but a translation, however, it can throw no other light on

68 These points, Brucker has illustrated at great length, (Hist. Crit. Philosophiæ, Vol. ii. particularly pp. 691-697; 703— 707.)

our subject than may be derived from the peculiarities of its execution, its manner of phraseology, its paraphrastic expressions, which naturally betray with more or less distinctness, the sentiments of the translators themselves. From some of these criteria, it appears that the ancient notion of Sheol was still retained. Wherever that term occurs in the Hebrew original, the authors of the Septaugint render it by the Greek word Hades, which denotes the subterranean world of the dead. They never confound it, as our English translators have done, with the grave or sepulchre; and never connect with it any verb that signifies to bury. In their version, Hades is kept as distinct from the place of burial, as heaven is from earth. It is always in the singular number, indicating but one region: the various words by which the grave is signified, are, on the other hand, either singular or plural, as the case may require.6 Such are the only traces we discover in the Greek version of the pentateuch; and as this was the standard copy of the law with the Jews of Egypt, who could not read the Hebrew, it may be regarded as an index of their opinions. The Septuagint translation of the rest of the Old Testament was made at a later date.

69

The apocryphal book, Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach, is probably the next, in order of time. It was originally composed in Palestine, 237 years, it is thought, before Christ; but we have only the Greek version, made in Egypt about a century after

69 Campbell's Preliminary Dis. vi. Pt. ii, § 8.