He is therefore a
Chasid of the ancient type, and glorifies the ideals which were
cherished by the old Pharisaic party, but which were now being fast
disowned in favour of a more active role in the political life of the
nation. He pours his most scathing invectives on the Sadducees, who are
described in vii. in terms that recall the anti-Sadducean Psalms of
Solomon. His object, therefore, is to protest against the growing
secularization of the Pharisaic party through its adoption of popular
Messianic beliefs and political ideals. (See also MOSES, ASSUMPTION OF.)

_Apocalypse of Baruch--The Syriac._--This apocalypse has survived only
in the Syriac version. The Syriac is a translation from the Greek, and
the Greek in turn from the Hebrew. The book treats of the Messiah and
the Messianic kingdom, the woes of Israel in the past and the
destruction of Jerusalem in the present, as well as of theological
questions relating to original sin, free will, works, &c. The views
expressed on several of these subjects are often conflicting. We must,
therefore, assume a number of independent sources put together by an
editor or else that the book is on the whole the work of one author who
made use of independent writings but failed to blend them into one
harmonious whole. In its present form the book was written soon after
A.D. 70. For fuller treatment see BARUCH.

_4 Ezra._--This apocryph is variously named. In the first Arabic and
Ethiopic versions it is called I Ezra; in some Latin MSS. and in the
English authorized version it is 2 Ezra, and in the Armenian 3 Ezra.
With the majority of the Latin MSS. we designate the book 4 Ezra. In its
fullest form this apocryph consists of sixteen chapters, but i.-ii. and
xv.-xvi. are of different authorship from each other and from the main
work iii.-xiv. The book was written originally in Hebrew. There are
Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic (two), and Armenian versions. The Greek
version is lost. This apocalypse is of very great importance, on account
of its very full treatment of the theological questions rife in the
latter half of the 1st century of the Christian era. The book, even if
written by one author, was based on a variety of already existing works.
It springs from the same school of thought as the _Apocalypse of
Baruch_, and its affinities with the latter are so numerous and profound
that scholars have not yet come to any consensus as to the relative
priority of either. In its present fo