# Encyclopaedia Biblica/Apocalyptic Literature

Jump to: navigation, search
 Encyclopaedia Biblica/Apocalyptic Literature Apocalyptic Literature
 see Encyclopaedia Biblica for other articles, typographic issues, links to PDF copies, and public domain status

## APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE

CONTENTS

Introductory 08 i-4)-

Apocalypse of Baruch (g 5-17).

Enoch ; Kthiopic (fS 18-32), Slavonic (88 33-41).

Ascension of Isaiah (88 43-47)- Jubilees (88 48-58). Assumption of Moses (88 59-67). Sec Ai'OCKVi-HA for references to the following less important apocalypses.

Abraham (Apockyimia, 8 O- Elias (Ai-ockvpiia, 8 21, no. 10).

.\ci.im (ii>. 8 10). Edras {i7>. g 22, no. 13).

Bartholomew (ib. g 10 (1) ).

iMc

i (//'. 8 10, nos. I [a], no. 2, and g

Testaments of xii. Patriarchs (f| 68-76). Psalms of .Solomon (gg 77-85). Sibylline Oracles (gg 16-98).

Paul (Apocrypha, g 13). Zcphaniah (//'. g 21, no. i).

Introductory : The objects and nature of apocalyptic literature (g 1-4).

### I. Apocalypse of Baruch

J. A composite work derived ' . from at least five authors, written mainly in

1. Synopsis Palestine, if not in Jeru.salem, by Pharisees of Article. "" ^.u. 5o-(,o. Preserved only in Syriac (85-i7).

II. Lthiopic liooK OF Enocm. Written originally in Hebrew or Aramaic by at least five Assidcan authors (20^.64 D.c.) in Palestine. Part I. chaps. 1-3(5 earlier than 170 n.c. Part II. chaps. 83-!H), i66-i6i B.C. Part III. chaps. 1-104, 134-95 B.C. Part IV. (the Similitudes) chaps. 37-70, Q4-64 '..c. Part V. (the Bi)ok of Celestial Physics) chaps. 72-78, 82, 70. Part VI. (Fr.iKments of a lost Apocalypse of Noah) (8 i8-32).2

HI. Slavonic Hook ok E.moch, or The Hook ok the Secrets OF Enoch. Written by an Alexandrian Jew, mainly frnm pre- existing materials, about a.d. 1-50. Eclectic in character ; preserved only in Slavonic ( 33-41).

IV. Ascension ok Isaiah. A composite work, written originidly in Greek, partly by Jewish, partly by Christian authors, a.d. i-ioo. Preserved in Ethiopic and partially in Latin (8 42-47).

V. H()oK OF Ji'BiLEES. Written originally in Hebrew by a Palestininn Jew. a Pharisee of the Pharisees, probably 40-10 B.C. Prt^. i\.'l ill luliinpic and partially in Hebrew, Syriac, Greek, Lati:., .::ia Sl..^ . ..ic (S 48-5S).

>Ni OK MosKs. Written in Palestine, in Hebrew, 'harisee. Preserved only in Latin ( 59-67). KNTS OF THE XII. Patkiarchs. A Composite originally in Hebrew by two Jewish authors

Vl..\sM MI'l

7-30 A.D., by a

VII. Testa

work written

representing respectively the legalistic and the apocalyptic sides of Pharisaism, 130 B.c.-io a.u., and interpolated by a succession of Christian writers from the close of the jst century down to the 4th century a.d. Preserved in Greek, Armenian, and Slavonic versions ( 68-76).

VIII. Psalms ok Solomon. Written originally in Hebrew, possiblv in Jerusalem, by two or more Pharisees, 70-40 u.c. (88 77-85).

IX. SiiiVLi.i.NE Oraci ES. Written in Greek hexameters by Jewish and Christian authors, mainly by the latter the earliest portions belon;;ing to the 2nd century B.C., the latest not earlier than the 3rd century A.D. ( 86-98).

Introductory. The object of apocalyptic literature in general was to solve the difficulties connected with 2 Problem ^ be'ie'^ ^^ God's righteousness and the suffering condition of his servants on earth. The righteousness of God postulated the temporal prosixirity of the righteous, and this postulate was accepted and enforced by the Law. But while the continuous exposition of the Law in the post-e.xilic period confirmed the people in their monotheistic faith and intensified their hostility to hcathenisiti, their e.xpectations of m.aterial well-being, which likewise the Law had fostered, were repeatedly falsified, and a grave contradiction thus emerged between the old prophetic ideals and the actual e.xperience of the nation, between the promises of God and the bondage and per- secution which the people had daily to endure at the hands of their pagan oppressors. The difficulties arising from this confiict between promise and experience might be shortly resolved into two, which deal respectively with the position (i) of the righteous as a community, and (2) of the righteous man as an individual.

The or prophets had concerned themselves chiefly with the former, and pointed in the main to the restora- tion (or 'resurrection') of Israel as a nation, and to Israel's ultimate possession of the earth as a reward of righteousness. Later, with the growing claims of the individual, and the acknowledgment of these io the

1 On other Apocalypses of Baruch. see below, Apocrypha, 8 20. '.i On chaps. 71 80/, see g 30/

213

S I 49).

religious and intellectual life, the second problem pressed itself irresistibly on the notice of religious thinkers, and made it impossible for any conception of the divine rule and righteousness which did not render adecjuale satis- faction to the claims of the righteous individual to gain acceptance. Thus, in order to justify the righteousness of God, there was postulated not only the resurrection of the righteous nation but also the resurrection of the righteous individual. Apocalyptic literature, therefore, strove to show that, in resj^ect alike of the nation and of the individual, the righteousness of (jod would be fully vindicated ; and, in order to justify its contention, it sketched in outline the history of the world and of mankind, the origin of evil and its course, and the final consummation of all things ; and thus, in fact, it presented a Semitic philosophy of religion (cp Chronology ok OT, i). The righteous as a nation should yet possess the earth either in an eternal or in a temporary Messianic kingdom, and the destiny of the righteous individual should finally be determined according to his works. For, though lie might perish untimely amid the world's disorders, he would not fail to attain through the resurrection the reconipen.se that was his due in the Messianic kingdom, or in heaven itself. The conceptions as to the duration and character of the risen life vary with each writer.

The writings that are treated of in the rest of this article, however, deal not only with the Messianic e.x|)ectations but also with the exposition and aijjilication of the Law to the numberless circumstances of life. As Schiirer has rightly observed, the two subjects with which Jewish thought and enthusiasm were concerned were the Law and the Messianic kingdom. These were, in fact, parallel developments of Pharisaism. As we have the former its legalistic side represented in the Book of JubiUcs, so we have the latter its apocalyptic and mystical side set forth in the Book of Enoch. The Tcstannnts of the Twelve Patriarchs give expression to lx)th sides of Pharisaism ; but this book, as we shall see in the sequel, is really a composite work and springs from authors of different schools. The rest of the books here discussed belong mainly to the apocalyptic side of Pharisaism.

It is a characteristic of apocalyptic as distinguished from prophecy that the former trusts to the written, the 3 Method. ^^^^'^'^ ' '^^ spoken, word. This is due largely to the fact that the prophet addresses himself chiefly to the present and its concerns, and that, when he fixes his ga/.e on the future, his prophecy springs naturally from the circumstances of the present. The apocalyptic writer, on the other hand, almost wholly despairs of the present ; his main interests are supramundane. He entertains no hope of arousing his contemporaries to faith and duty by direct and jxjrsonal appeals. His pessimism and want of faith in the present thus naturally lead him to pseudonymous authorship, and so he approaches his countrymen \s ith a writing which purports to be the work of seme great figure in their history, such as Enoch, Moses, Daniel, or Baruch. The standfxjint thus assumed is as skilfully preserved as the historical knowledge and conditions of the pseudonymous author admit, and the future of Israel is ' foretold ' in a form enigmatical indeed but generally intelligible. All precision ceases, howcvei , when we come to the real author's own time : his j)redictions, thenceforward, are mere products of the religious imagination, and vary with each writer. In nearly every case, we should add, tliuse books claim to Ix; supernatural revelations given to the men by whose names they are designated.

It will not be amiss here to notice the gross mis- .i[)prehcnsion under which Jost, Graetz, and other

#### 4. Historical value.

Jewish writers laboured when they pro- nounced this literature to be destitute of value for the history of Jewish religion. To such statements it is a sufficient answer that from 200 n.c. to 70 A.n. the religious and political ideals that really shaped the history of Judaism found their expression in this literature. It is not in the discussions and logomachies of tlie Rabbinical schools tliat we are to look for the intiuences and aims that called forth some of the noblest patriotism and self- sacrifice the world has ever witnessed, and educated the nation for the destinies that waited it in the first century of our era, but in the ajjocalyptic and pseudepigraphic books which, beginning with Daniel, had a large share ill |)reparing the most religious and ardent minds of (Jalilee and Judiua cither to i)ass over into Christianity, or else to hurl themselves in fruitless efforts against the invincible might of Rome, and thereby all but annihilate their country and name. Still it is true that the work of the scribes and the exposition of the schools had opened the way for this new religious and literary development. The eschatological element, moreover, which later attained its full growth in such pseudepigraphical writings as Daniel, Enoch, Noah, etc., had already strongly asserted itself in later prophets such as Is. 24-27, Joel, Zech. 12-14. Not only the beginnings, therefore, but also a well-defined and developed ty[)e of this literature had already established itself in the OT. Its further developments were moulded, as we have pointed out above, by the necessities of the thought and by the historical exigencies of the time.

Cp Smend's introductory essay on Jewish apocalyptic, ZA TIV

5 222-250 ('35) ; Schiirer, //I'si. 644^; Hilgenfeld, />/' />/.

Apokalyptikin i/irergeschichtlicken Ilntivickelung, 1857 (Kin!.).

I. The Ai'oc.m.vp.sk ok Bakuch. The Apocalypse of Baruch was for the first time made known to the

#### 5. The Syriac Baruch.

modern world through a Latin version of Ceriani in 1866 {Mon. Sacr. i. 273-98). This version was made from a Syriac M.S of the sixth century, the text of which was also in due course published by the same scholar, in ordinary type in 1871, and in a photo-lithographic facsimile in 1883. An examination of the Syriac version _ . , , makes it clear that this version is a

#### 6. A translation from _ .

translation from the Greek. It occasionally transliterates Greek words, and the text is at times explicable only on the supposition that the wrong alternatives of two possible meanings of certain Greek words have been followed by the translator. Even before Ceriani's publication, however, we had some knowledge of the Apocalypse of iiaruch ; for chaps. 78-8(), which contain Baruch's Epistle to the nine tribes and a half that were in captivity, had already appeared in Syriac and Latin, in the London and the Paris Polyglots, in Syriac alone in Lagarde's Lib. Vet. Test. Apoc. Syr. 1861, in Latin alone in Fabricius's Cud. Pseiidep. Vet. Test., and in I'.nglish in Whiston's Authentic Records. Ceriani's Latin version was republished in F"ritzsche's Lib. Apoc. Vet. Test. ('71) in a slightly emended form; but, as the Syriac text was still inaccessible, I'Yitzsche's emendations are only guesses more or less fortunate generally less.

We have just remarked that the Syriac version is _, a translation from the Greek. We shall .' . I now enumerate the reasons from which Y it appears that the Greek was in turn translated from a Hebrew original.

(i.) The quotations from, or unconscious reproductions of, the

2 IS

OT agree in all cases but one with the Mas.soretic text against . (li.) Hebrew idioms survive in the Syriac text. Thus there arc niany instances of the familiar Hebrew idiom of the infinitive absolute combined with the finite verb, and many breaches of Syriac grammar in the Syriac text are probably to Ijc explained as survivals of Hebrew order and Hebrew syntiix. (iii.) Unintelligible expressions in the Syriac can be explained and the text restored by retranslation into Hebrew. '1 bus, among many others, the pas.sages 'Jl 9, 11, 12, 'J4 2 and 02 7 can be restored by retranslation into Greek and thence into Hebrew. The Syriac in these verses is the stock rendering of ftKatoOcrdat, and this in turn of

pis ; .

but


'"f

also^Sixaiot

eti/ac, and this is the meaning required in the' above pas.sages, where the Greek translator erroneously adopted the commoner rendering. (iv.) .Many paronomasitr discover themselves on retranslation into Hebrew. See Charles, Apoc. Bar. 44-53.

The final editor of this work assumes for literary purposes the person of Baruch, the son of Xeriah. 8 Contents ^^^ scene is laid in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem ; the supposed time is the period immediately preceding and subsequent to the capture of the city by the Chakhuans. Baruch, who begins by declaring that the word of the Lord came to him in the twenty-fifth year of Jeconiah,* speaks throughout in the first jxjrson. If we exclude the letter to the tribes in the captivity (chaps. 78-87), the work naturally divides itself into seven sections, separated from one another in all but one instance (i.e. after 35) by fasts which are, save at the end of the first section, of seven days' duration. The omission of a fast after chap. 35 may have been due either to an original oversight of the final editor or to the carelessness of a copyist.

That the text requires the insertion of such a fast is to be con- cluded on the following grounds : According to the scheme of the final editor events proceed in each sectinn in a certain order (see Charles, Apoc. Hnr. g, <6, 61). Thus first we find a fast, then generally a prayer, then a divine message or disclosure, and finally an announcement of this to an individual or to the people. Thus in the tifth section, il-34, we have a seven-days' fast (21 1), a prayer (-214-26), a revelation (22-30), and an address to the people (21 24). Then another seven-days' fa-t should ensue at the beginning of the sixth section (30-40). With the exception of this omission events follow in this section as in the others.

These sections are very uner|ual in length 1-56 57-8 9-124 125-20 21-35 36-46 47-77 a fact that, though it does not in itself make against unity of authorship, confirms the grounds afterwards to be adduced for regarding the work as composite.

1. The first section (l-'ie) opens with God's revelation to Raruch regarding the coming destruction of Jerusalem. But a time of prosperity .should return.

2. According to the next section (5 7-9 i), Baruch fasts until the evening, and the Chalda;ans encompa.ss Jerusalem next day. In a vision Baruch sees the sacred vessels removed from the temple by angels and hidden in the earth till the last times. The angels next overthrow the walls, the enemy are admitted and the people carried away captive to Babylon.

3. In the third section (9 2-12 4), Baruch fasts seven days, and receives a divine command to tell Jeremiah to go to Babylon ; but Baruch himself is to remain at Jerusalem to receive God's revelations regarding the future. I5aruch bewails Jerusalem and the lot of the survivors. ' Would that thou hadst ears, O earth, and that thou hadst a heart, O dust, that ye might go and announce in Sheol and say to the dead : " Blessed are ye more than we who live."'

4. In the fourth section (12 5-20), Baruch fasts for seven days, and is told by God that he will be preserved till the end of time in order to bear testimony against the nations that oppressed Zion. When Baruch complains of the prosperity of the wicked and the calamities of the righteous, God answers that the future world is made on account of the righteous that the blessings of life are to be reckoned not by its length but by its quality and its end. Baruch is bidden not to publish this revelation (20 3).

5. In the fifth section (21 i-S.'i), Baruch fasts, as usual, seven days. He deplores the bitterness of life, and suppliaites God to bring about the promised end. God reminds him of his ignor- ance, and declares that the end, though close at hand, cannot arrive till the predestined number ot men be fulfilled, and again, in answer to Baruch's question respecting the nature and the duration of the judgment of the ungodly, descril>es the coming time of tribulation, which will be divided into twelve parts At its close the Messiah will be revealed. Baruch summons a meeting of the elders in the valley of Kedron, and announces to them the future glory of Zion.

6. The sixth section (3rt-40) should begin with the mi.ssing fast of seven days. Shortly after, he has a vision of a cedar and a vine

1 We may observe here that Jeconiah reigned only three months, and was carried captive to Babylon eleven years before the fall of Jerusalem.

wiilth symbolise the Roman power and thetriumphofthe Messiah. When liaruch asks who shall share ni the future hlessciiness, God answers : To those who have U-lieved there will be the blessed- ness that was spoken of aforetime.' Haruch then (4-I-47) calls together his first-l)<>rn son and seven of the elders, tells them of his approaching end, and exhorts them to keep the law, lor ' a wise man will not be wanting to Israel, nor a son of the law to the race of Jacob.'

7. After a fast of seven days, Taruch in the seventh section (47-77) prays for Israel. The revelations that ensue tell of the coming tribulation, liaruch bow:. Us the evil eflccls of Adam's fall. In answer to his request, he is instructed as to the nature of ihe resurrection bodies. Then, in a new vision (.)3-74), he sees a cloud a.scending from ihe sea and covering the whole earth. There was lightning about its summit, and soon it began to discharge first black waters and then clear, and again black waters and then clear, and so on till there had been six black waters and six clear. At last it rained black waters, darker than had been all that were before. Thereupon, the lightning on the summit ot the cloud flashed forth and healed the earth wheie the last waters had fallen, and twelve streams came up from the sea and became subject to that lightning. In

the fillowing chapters the vision is interpreted. The cloud is the world, and the twelve successive discharges of black waters and clear waters symbolise six evil periods and six good periods of the world's history. The eleventh pcriutl, s\ iiil>(>li-,t(i by the black waters, pointed to the supposed present trilnilantiii of Jeru- silen?. The rest of the interpretation follows i , tin future tense. The twelfth clear waters point to the renewed prosperity of Israel and the rebuilding of Jerusalem. The last black waters that were to flow pointed to troubles, earthquakes, and wars over the whole earth. Such as survived these were to fall by the haiulscf the .Messi.ih. These bl.ickevt of .ill the waters were to Ik- f..ll.)\sca hy clear waters, which s\inl>.)Ii/i:(l tlie blessedness of tin: Mo-iaiiic times. This Messianic jirriiHUhould form the l)iiii:iil.iiy line- lii-tween corru])tion ami iiicurruiiiioii. 'That time i>5 til.- I .n-iiiiiinati'.n <if that which is corruptible, and the begin- ning .f i!i. a wliirli is inc.rruiiiible.' liaruch thanks God for the ivAclat 1.111 \iniclisafc(i. lie is then informed of his coming de- partuie from the earth, but is bidden first to g.) and instruct the people. He admonishes them to be faithful (chap. 77), and at their reiiuest sends two epistles, one to their brethren in liabylon (' the two and a half tribes ') and the other to the tribes (' nine and a half) beyond the Euphrates. The latter is given in chaps. 7S 87. It is probable that the lost letter to the two tribes and a half is identical with, or is the source of, the Greek Haruch 39-429. See Charles, Apoc. Bar. 65-57.

From the discovery of the Apocalypse of Rainich in

_ . . ,, 1866 till 1 89 1, it was regarded by scholars

#### 9. Kabiscns ^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ author.

In the latter tneory ot ^^^^^ KalMscli, in an article entitled ' Die sources. Qudlen der Apocalypse Baruchs ' {JPT, 1891, PI). 66-107), showed beyond the possibility of (luestion tliat the work was composite and derived from at least three or four authors.

Thus he distinguishes 1-24 i, 302-34, 41-52, and 75-87 as the groundwork written after 70 A.D., since these chapteis imply the destruction of the temple. He further observes that these parts are marked by a despair which no longer looked for peace and happiness in this world, but fixed its regards on the world of incorruption. In the other jjieces of the book there is a strong faith in Israels ultimate triumph here, and an optimism which looks f.>r the ,ni,>uniiii..ti..i, of Messianic bliss in this life ; and. as Kabisch ri-htiv ..marks, the ten. pic is still standing. These other secti'.ns, l,wJv,:i-, are the w,.rk n,,t of .,ne writer but of three, being cunstituied us follows : a short Ap..c. 24 3- 2!t, the Vine and Cedar Vision :i(i-40, and the Cloud Vision 53-74 : 30 I '>'! 2-4, 35 are due to the final editor.

This theory is certainly in the right direction. It is <)|)LMi. however, to unanswerable objections. 'I'here is no unity in the so-called groundwork.

#### 10. Present writer's results.

When submitted to a detailed criticism, it exhibits a mass of conflicting conceptions and staten)ents. The results of such a criticism mav lie stated briefly as follows (for the details see Charles.' .-//<^t:. liar. 53-67). 1-26 31-35 41-52 75- 87 were written after the fall of Jerusalem, and were derived from three or possibly four authors, Bj, Bj, B3, and possibly S.

Bi = l-i>i 43-447 45/77-82 84 8()/, written by a Pharisee who expected Jerusalem to be rebuilt and the dispersion to be brought kick from exile.

R.., = 9-12 13-25 302-35 41/ 448-15 47-52 75/ 83, also by a Pharisee who looked for no national restoration, but only for the recompense of the righteous in heaven.

P,3 = S5, written by a Jew in exile.

S. =106-124, possibly by a Sadducee, but perhaps to be as- signed to H.J.

The rest of the lx)ok was written before the fall of Jerusalem. It consists of an Apocalypse 27-30 1 ( = Ai) and the two Visions 36-40 ( = Aj) and 53-74 ( = A, already mentioned. All these different elements were combined by the final editor, to whom we owe also 42-6 2t5 284/. 322-4 and possibly some other additions.

Jewish religious thought busied itself, as already observed, mainly with two subjects, the Messianic hope ... . and the Law ; and in proportion as the .. . one Ijecame more prominent the other criteria. j^^. j^^^ ^^^ background. Now, the chapters written Ixifore 70 A.U. are mainly Messianic.

Chaps. 27-30 i (Ai) and 30-40 (.V.) take account of the I-aw only indirectly, whereas in those written after that date the whi le thought and hopcsof the writers centre in the Law as their presei t mainstay and their source of future bliss. In chaps. 53-74 (A:/, again, the Messianic hope and the Law are eijually emphasized. iTiis writing marks the fusion of early Kabbinism and tie popular Messianic expectation. (See Charles, oJ<. cit.)

In the sections B, and B,2, on the other hand, written after the fall of Jerusalem, we have two distinct outlooks as to the future. In B, the writer is still hopeful as to the future of Jerusalem.

It is delivered into the hands of its enemies indeed, but only for a time (41O9). The consolation of Zion should yet be accomplished (44 7 hi i 4), and the ten tribes brought back from their captivity (7S 7 84 10). Moreover, the retribution of the Gentiles was close at hand (82 2-9), and in due time would arrive the judgment, in which God's justice and truth should exact their mighty due (809).

In B.2. on the other hand (and if possible still more in B3 = chai3. 85), the writer is full of irremediable desjjair as to the earthly fortunes of Zion and its people in this world (106-11).

Destruction awaits this world of corruption (21 19 31 5). The righteous have nought to look for save the new world (44 12). the world that dies not (.'d 3), the world of incorruption (85 5). Only in the world to cmie will every man be recompensed in the resurrection according to his works (50/), when the wicked shall go into torment and the righteous shall be made like unto the angels.

In the sections written l)efore the fall of Jerusalem, the Messianic element, which was wanting in B,, B.^, and B.J, is predominant. The three Apocalypses '27-30 (.Aj) 36-40 (Aj) 53-74 (A,) have many features in common such as an optimistic outlook as to Israel's earthly prosperity, the earthly rule of the Messiah till the close of this world, and the material blessings of his kingdom. There are, however, good grounds for regard- ing them as of different authorship. The Messianic reign is to close with the final judgment. On the Escha- tology of the book see, further, IvsciiATOLoGV, 78.

All the elements of this book are distinctly Jewish. Its authors, as already observed, were Pharisees, full of confidence in the future glories of their nation, either in this world or in the next,

#### 12. Authorship.

notwithstanding their present hum

tions. They entertain the most lofty coiicejitioiis as to the divine election and the absolute pre-eminence of their race.

It was on Israel's account that not only the present world (14 19) but also the coming world (107) was created. Israel is God's chosen people whose like is not on earth (is 20); the perpetual felicity of Israel lay in the fact that tlty had not mingled with the nations (-18 23). The one haw which they had received from the one God (4824) could help and justify them (51 3); for so far as they kept its ordinances they could not fall (4S22): their works would save them (14 12 51 7<>3 3). In <!iie time also all nations should serve Israel ; but such of them as h.-\d injured Israel should be given to the swa.rd (72 6). The carnal .sensious nature of the Messiah and his kingdom (20-30 30 ; -40 72-74) is essentially Pharisaic. There w.is to be a general resurrection (42 8 12); but apparently only Israel .should l.e saved (51 4).

1 It is possible to determine approximately the earlier limit of the composition of .-\;t by means of what we might call the Enochic canon. This is : No early Jetvish book -u-hich extols Enoch could have been ivrittcn after 50 a.d., ami tlu attribu- tion 0/ Enoch's words and achievements in a Jc.vish tvotk 10 other O T heroes is a sign that it was written after the Pauline preaching 0/ Christianity. This hostility to I- noch from 50 A.U. onwards (cp Knoch) is to be traced to Lnochs .-icccptance among the Christians as a Messianic prophet. Kor the grounds and illustrations of this canon see Charles, .-iyVv. Bar. 21-22, loT. Now, in .50 5-11 of this Apocalypse many of 1 noch s functions and revelations are assigned to Moses. Hence Aj was written after 50 A.D.

The affinities of Apoc. Bar. with 4 Esdras are so strik- ing and so many that Kwald ascribed the two books to the . _ Aflinitv ^'"^ author. Though this view has not th 4 F ri '**^" ^'^cepted in later criticism, it will not be amiss to draw attention to these affinities, (r) The main features of the two books are similar. They have one anti the same object to de- plore Israel's present calamities and awaken hope in the coming glories, temporal or spiritual, of their race.

In both the speaker is a notable figure of the time of the Babylonian captivity. In both there is a sevenfold division of the work, and an interval (as a rule, of seven days) between each two divisions ; and, whereas in the one Ezra devotes forty days to the restoratiiin of the scriptures, in the other Haruch is bi Idsn to spend forty days in admonishing Israel before his de- parture from the earth.

(2) They have many doctrinal peculiarities in common.

According to l)oth, man is saved by his works (4 Esd. 7 77 8 33 97, A(>. Bar. 22l4i2etc.); the world was created in belialfof Israel (4 Esd. 6 55 7 1 1 ! 13, A/>. Bar. 14 19 l.'> 7 etc.) ; man came not into the world of his own will (4 Esd. 8 5, Ap. Bar. 14 11 48 15) ; a predetermined number of men must be attained before the end (4 Esd. 436/, Ap. Bar. 2845); God will visit his creation (4 Esd. 5 56 18 it 2, Ap. Bar. 20 2 24 4) ; Adam's sin was the cause of physical death (4 Esd. 3 7, Ap. Bar. 23 4) ; the souls of the good are kept safe in treasuries till the resurrection (4 E.sd. 435-377328095, Ap. /)'jr. 3O2).

This list might have been indefinitely added to. On the other hand, there are clear points of divergence. 14 Divereence ^" ^'-^'^^^^s the Messianic reign is limited

from 4 Esd * "^ years (7 28/ ), whereas in Baruch this period is quite indeterminate. Again, in the former {729) the Messiah is to die, and the Messianic reign is to close with the death of all living things ; whereas in the latter, according to 30, the Messiah is to return in glory to heaven at the close of his reign, and, according to 73/, this reign is to be eternal, though it is to belong partly to this world and partly to the ne.xt.

Again, in Esdras the writer urges that God's people should be punished by Gods own hands and not by the hands of their enemies {Jji() /.), for these have overthrown the altar and destroyed the temple, and made the holy place a desolation (10 217C). In Haruch it is described at length how the holy vessels were removed by angels and the walls of Jerusalem demolished by the same agency before the enemy drew nigh (0-8).

On the question of original sin likewise these two books are at variance. Whilst in Esdras the entire stream of physical and ethical death is traced to Adam (3 7 2iyC 4 307 48), and the guilt of his descendants minimised at the cost of their first parent (yet see S 55-61), Haruch derives physical death indeed from Adam's transgression (17 3 23 4 54 15), but as to ethical death de- clares that "each man is the Adam of his own soul " (54 19 ; yet see 4842).

It will be clear from the facts set forth above that the relations of these two apocalypses constitute a com-

#### 15 Real ^'^'^ problem.

If we attempt to deal with ,' .. this problem on the supposition that each

book is derived from a single author, no solution is possible ; and the barrenness of criticism hitherto in this direction is due to this supposition of their unity. When, however, we come perforce to recognise their comjiosite nature, we enter at the same time on the road that leads to the desired goal. For a pro- visional study of the relations lietween the various con- stituents of this apocalypse and 4 Ksdras, the reader can consult Charles, Apoc. Bar. 67-76. The results of this study tend to show that, whilst some of the con- stituents of 4 Ksdras are older than the latest of Baruch, other constituents of Baruch are decidedly older than the remaining ones of 4 Esdras.

The points of contact between this apocalypse and the NT are many ; but they are for the most part IR PI f insufficient to establish a relation of de- to NT^**" pendence on either side. The thoughts and expressions in questions are explicable from pre-e.xisting literature or as commonplaces of the time.

Such, among many others, are Mt. 3 16, Ap. Bar. 22 i, Mt. 26 24, Ap. Bar. 106, Lk. 21 28, Ap. Bar. 287, Rom. 818, Ap. Bar. 15 8.

The following passages are of a diflferent nature and postulate the dependence of our apocalypse on the NT, or possibly, in one or two of the instances, of both on a common source.

With Mt. 16 26, 'For what shall a man be profited, if he .shall gain the whole world and forfeit his soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?' cp Ap. Bar. 61 15, ' For what then have men lost their life, or for what have those who were on the earth exchanged their soul?' Also with i Cor. 15 19, ' If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most miserable,' cp Apoc. Bar. 21 ij, ' For if there were this life only . . . nothing could be mure bitter than this.' Also with I Cor. 15 35, ' How are the dead raised and with what manner of body do they come?' cp 4i> 2, ' In what shape will those live who live in that day?' Cp also Lk 1 42 with Ap. Bar. 54 10, Jas. 1 2 with 52 6, and Rev. 4 6 with 51 2.

As the Apocalypse of Baruch was written between 50 and 100 A.D. it furnishes us with the historical setting 17 'Valufl ^""^ background of many of the NT prob- lems, and thereby enables us to estimate the contributions made in this respect by Christian thought. Thus, whereas, from 492-51, we see that the Pauline doctrine of the resurrection in i Cor. 15 35-50 was not an innovation but a developed and more spiritual exposition of ideas already current in Judaism, it is clear, on the other hand, from the teaching of this book on Works and Justification, Forgiveness and Original Sin and Freewill (see Charles, op. cit. pp. 80-85), what a crying need there was for the Pauline dialectic, and what an immense gulf lay herein between Christian and Rabbinic teaching. No ancient book is so valuable in attesting the Jewish doctrine of that period.

Bihliof^raphy. In addition to the works already mentioned, the reader may consult Langen, De Apoc. Bar. comtii. ('67) ; Ew. CGA ('67), 1706-17, 1720; /fist. 0/ Israel, 857-61; Drummond, The Jeiois/t Messiah ('77), 1 17-132; Kneucker, Das Buch Bar. ('79), 190-198; Di. ' Pseudep." in PRE^^, 12356-358 ; Deane, I'scudtp. ('91), 130-162.

### II. The Book of Enoch.

#### 18. Jewish view of Enoch.

By the exegesis of later times, the statement that ICnoch walked with God (Gen. 24 ; see Enoch) was taken to mean that he enjoyed superhuman privileges of intercourse with God, and in this intercourse received revelations as to the nature of the heavens and the earth, the present lot and the destinies of men and angels. It was natural, there- fore, that an apocalyptic literature should seek the shelter and authority of his name in ages when such literature became current. In the Book of Enoch pre- served in Ethiopic we have large fragments of this literature proceeding from a variety of Jewish writers in Palestine ; and in the Book of the Secrets of Enoch preserved in Slavonic we have further portions of it, written originally by Hellenistic Jews in Eg\-pt. To the latter book we shall return.

The Book of Enoch as translated into Ethiopic belongs to the last two centuries B.C. All the writers of the NT were fannliar with it and were more or less influenced by it in thought Enoch : its , , t ;

, and diction. It is quoted as a genuine

lorDune . production in the Epistle of Jude( 14/) and as Scripture in that of Barnabas [Ep. 43 It) 5)- The wl^ho'cso{^.\^(i Secretsof Enoch, Jubilees, Test. xii. Pair., Apoc. Bar. and 4 Esd. laid it under contribution. With the earlier Fathers and Apologists it had all the weight of a canonical book ; but towards the close of the third and the beginning of the fourth centuries it began to be dis- credited, and finally it fell under the ban of the Church. The latest references to it are to be found in Synccllus and Cedrenus, who have preserved large fragments of the Greek version. The book was then lost sight of till 1773, when two MSS of the Ethiopic version were discovered by Bruce. From one of these M.SS Lawrence made the first modern translation of Enoch in 1821.

Enoch was originally written in Heb. or Aram., T jre "' '" Greek. On this question the

i . gu g . ^.j^jgf Apocalyptic scholars are practically agreed.

In the case of chaps. 1-32 this view is established beyond the reach of controversy ; for in IO9 19 188 27 2 28 i 21) i 31 i of the Greek version we find that the translator transliterated Heb. or Aram, words that were unintelliKible to him. The name view as lo the remaining chapiers has been amply proved in the Joum. As. ('67) 352-395 by Halivy, who regards the entire work as derived from a Hebrew orii-inal. See also Charles, Book 0/ Enoch, 21-22, 325. Recently some Dutch and flerman scholars have argued for an Aram, original on the ground that three Aram, forms have lecn preserved in the Gi/eh ( Ireck frag- ment \\t.. ^ova in 18, (Lavio^apa. in 28 i, and fia^ijpa. in L'l i. The first is, it is true, an .\ram. form of ^15 and the two latter onaip. Thisargumcnt, however, is inconclusive. Wc find oxava in2 K. H9/' [U.\*l asatransliterationof nin, and Xiva in Neh. 'J 14 (HKJ as a transliteration of ['V; and there are other inst.-inces of the siime pcailiarity in *. Hence the presence of such Arani.ii>nis in a text is not sufficient in itself to establish an Aram, original.

The Hel). original was translated into Greek, and from (ircok into J-2lhiopic and Latin. Of the Greek

#### 21 Versions

^'^*'"" c^^V^- 6-94 84-IO14 158-16i


^Greek ^^ ^' come down to us through Syncel-

lus((/rf. 800 A. u. ). and 8942-49 through a \':itican MS. ; hut tlie most important fragment of this version the CJi/ch tJreek fragment was discovered only a few years ago by the Mission Archtologique I'^ranfaise at Cairo, and published in 1892.

.M. I,od's critical edition of this frajjnient, accompanied by a translation, appeared almost simultaneously, and next year it was edited by the present writer, with an exhaustive comparison of the llreek and Ethiopic versions of 1-32, as an .Appendix to his work on Rnoch. The other Greek fragments will be found in the same work. The Gizeh fragment was edited also by Dill- mann (.S7;.-i;r ['92], li.-liii. 1039-1034, 1079-1092). The frag- ments of the Greek Knoch with a critical apparatus are to be published in the 2nd edition of vol. iii. of .Swete's Cambridge

The Latin version is wholly lost with the exception of 1 9, which is found in a treatise of the Pseudo-Cyi)rian

#### 22 Latin.

• ^"^*^ -^"' ^'ovutiatium (see Zahn's

(n-sth. it XTliclicn h'anoris, 2797-801), and 100 1-18, which owes its thscovery to Mr. James, in an eighth-century MS in the Hrit'ish Museum. This fr:iginent is critically edited in Charles's Ihiok of Enoch, 372-375' .I-inies, Apocrypha Auecdota, 146-150.

The Ethiopic version alone preser%es the entire text, and that in a more ancient and trustworthy form than

23. Ethiopic. thf otl-- versions. It has fewer '^ additions, fewer omissions, and fewer and less serious corruptions.

_ \. The Kth:\>/>ic .1/.S".S".~Tlie Ethiopic MSS are comp.-ira- tively many. I here are about twenty scattered throughout the libraries of Europe ; half of them are found in the liritish Museum. The best of all the known MSS is undoubtedly that design.itcd Orh-nt. ./V,- in the Hritish Museum.

I I. Fditions 0/ the I'.tkiopic Text.~Ox\\y two editions have api)eared that of Lawrence in 1S38 from one AIS, and that of iJiUmann in 1851 from five M.SS. Unhappily, these MSS were late and corrupt. The present writer hopes to issue a text based on the incomparably better MSS now accessible to scholars. Such a text is actually presupposed in his Translation and Commentary of 1893.

III. Translations and Commentaries. Translations accom- panied by Commentaries have been issued by I-awrence ('21), Hoffmann Cas-'^S), Dillniann (-53), Schodde (52), and Charles ^'??,^V P*" ^^'"'"T'n's and Schoddes Translations the reader will find a short review in Charles (6-9).

_ IV. Critical fntjuir.es. - Some account of these will be found in Schiirer, Hist. 70-73. and in Charles's Jiook pf Knoch, 9-21 309-31 1. Of the many works on this book the following deserve spcial mention here. Lucke, Kinl. in d. Offenh. dcs Joh.^i) ( >2); Ew. Abhandl. ah. d. nth. Jiuches Henokh Entstehunc, Sinn, und Zusammenseizung {'55); Kostlin, ' Ueb. die Entsteh. d. B. Henoch' (T/ieol. Jahrh. 1856, pp. 240-279 370- j86); Hilgenfeld, Die j fid. A/>okalyfitik ('57), 91-184 ; Geb- hardt, ' Die 70 Hirtcn des Buches Henoch und ihre Deutungen ' (Merx's Archiv /. wissoischafll. Er/orschung des AT, 1872, vol. 11. Heft 2 163-246) ; Dnimmond, The Je^vish .Messiah (87), 17-73; Eipsius in Smith and W^ct:'^ Diet. o/Chr. .fi/V- ('80), 2124-128; Schiirer, Hist. 54-73 ; Lawlor, y^Krw. I'hil. vol. xxy. pp. 164-225 I97].

The Book of Enoch is a fragmentary survival of an entire literature that once circulated under his name.

24. Com- '^ *^ ^^'^^ ^^ plurality of books as-

positeness S'o"ed to Enoch front the first may in some sense point : as, for instance, the exi)rcssion 'books' in 104 12 ; Te.tf. .vii. Patr. Jud. 18 ; Origen, c. Cchiiin, 554. and elsewhere. Of this literature five distinct fragments have been preserved in the five books into which the Book of Enoch is divided (1-36

37-71 72-82 83-90 91-108). These bookswereoriginally separate treatises ; in later limes they were collected and edited, but were much nmtiiaied in the course of retlaction and incorporation into a single work. In addition to this Enoch literature, the final editor of the Ixiok made use of a lost ai)OcaIypsc, the Hook of Noah (mentioned in Jubilees 10 13 21 10), from which he drew C-Il (?) 17-19 3Di2-/ 41 3-8 43/ 547 i:>i 59/ G5- 6925 106/ Another fragment of the Hook of .Noah has l)een embodied in the Hook of Jubilees (see below, 57).

We have already remarked that in the five books into which the whole work is divided we liave the writings

#### 25. Criticism.

of five different authors. I'cfore we proceed to give some of the grounds for this statement, we shall give in merest outline the different constituents found in the work by the chief scholars who have studied the subject.

I.iicke in his Einl. (see above, g 23) regards the book as con- sisting of two parts. 'i'he first part embraces l-3t> 7:;-10.'>, written at the l)egiiining of the Maccabean revolt, or, accortiing to his later view, in the reign of John Hyrcanus ; the second consists of the Similitudes (3i>-71), and was written in the early days of Herod the Great. In the latter, however, there are some interpolations. Hofmann (J. Chr. K.) ascribes the entire work to a c:hrisiian author of the second century. In thi-. view he was followed later by Weisse and Philippi. Hofmann deserves mention in this connection on the ground of his having been the first to give the correct interpretation of the seventy shepherds in ^'.)/. Ew. in his Ahhandl. (see above, 23) gives the following -cKeme : Book I. (37-71) f/Vc(? 144 n.c. ; Book II. (1-10 SI 1-4 S4 1I1-105) circa 135 B.C.; Book 111. (20-3t; 72-!iO \^&/.) circa 128 n.c. ; 108 later. Book IV., the Book of No.ih (li 3-8 8 1-3 97 10 1-3 n 22* 17-19 547-552 (M)i-io24 25 04-ti9 16), .somewhat later than the preceding. Kostlin in his essay (see above, g 2q), a coiitrilmtioii of great worth, arrives at the follow- ing analysis : the groundwork (l-lii 21-3) 72105) circa 1 10 I'.c. ; the Similitud<>s (37-71 and 17-1'.) before 64 B.C. ; Noachic fragments (54 -j-bh 2 1)0 ('.5-i;',i 25, possibly also 20 829-20 lIMiy:). 108 is an Essene addition. Hil-cnfeld (<?/. cit.) regards the groundwork, consistinj; of 1-10 20-30 72-105, as written before 98 11. r. ; .-ind the remaining chapters as coming from the h.ind of A C liiisti.in (Jnostic after the time of Satuminus. The int. lestiM- study of Tideman ('ThI'. I1875] 261-296), and the work> of l.ijisius, Schiirer, Drummond, enumerated above (iJ 23), and .Schodde ( /'^^ Book 0/ Enoch. iE82)can only be nienti iied here. As Dillmann changed his mind three times, and in each instance for the better, it will be enough to give his final analysis. The groundwork (1-36 72-105), in the time ol J,,hn Hyicaims; the Similitudes and 17-19, before 64 K.c. : the Noachic fragments (li 3-s 81-397 10 i 11 20 39 i 2a 54 7-55 2 00 Oj-f.'.t 25 lOli/.) ; 108 from a Liter hand.

We shall now proceed to di.scuss this question

#### 26 Results

'^^'-y' '^"'l endeavour to carry the criticism of the book one further stage towards finality.

Disregarding the interpolations from the Hook of Noah already mentioned as well as the closing chapter, we find liiat all critics are agreed in ascribing the Similitudes (37-70) to an authorship different from the rest. The remaining chapters (1-36 72-104) have been regarded by all critics except Ewald and Lipsius as proceeding from one and the same author ; but these scholars, while differ- ing from each other, have not i>ersuaded any one but themselves as to the justness of their res{x;ctive analyses. In their contention, however, as to the composileness of these chapters they were undoubtedly right. This question has been gone into at length in Charles's />'<)<'* of Enoch, 55 /, 187-189, 220 /, 260-263, where grounds are given for Ix^lieving that sections 1-36, 72-82, 83-90, and 91-104 are writings distinct as to author- sliiji, system of thought, and date. We must now proceed to sketch briefly the various independent writings contained in the entire work, assigning to each its most probable date.

Part I., consisting of chaps. 1-36 (for the Noachic interpolations, see 24), was written at latCit before 170 B.C., and mainly from the prophetic standpoint of such chapters as Is. C;"*. This is, undoubtedly, the oldest part of the book, being anterior to 72-82, 83-90. 91-104, as it is used by the writers of these sections.

As 83-00 was written not later than 161 B,c., l-3<3 must be some years earlier, and, as there is no allusion to the 1

#### 27. Chaps. 1-36.

of Antiochus Eplphanes, the above date, 170, is the latest reasonable limit for its composition.

This book /'.c. , 1-36 is the oldest piece of Jewish literature that teaches the general resurrection of Israel, describes Sheol according to the conception that prevails in the NT as opjjosed to that of the O T, or represents Gehenna as a final place of punishment (cp EscnATO- i.ocY, 63). The problem of the author is to justify the ways of God to men.

The rii;liteous will not suffer always (1 1). Sin is the cause of this sufTering, and the sin of man is due to the lust of the angels the Watchers ('.leg 10 IOk). Hence the Watchers, their companions, and their children, will be destroyed (104-1012). Their destruction will form the prelude to the first world-judgment, of which the Deluge will form the completion (10 i-^). Sin still prevailed after the l>eluge, however, through the influence of the evil spirits that went forth from the slaughtered children of the Watchers and the daughters of men (10 1). These act with impunity till the final judgment. In the meantime character finds its recompense in some measure immediately after death (-'2). In the last judt:ment the Watchers, the demons, and all classes of Israelites with one exception, will receive their final award (Iq-li;)). This jntlginent is preceded by a general resurr;-ction of Israel ('-'2). The wicked are cast into Ciehenna (J72); the earth is cleansed from sin (IO20-22); the Messianic kingdom is established, with Jerusalem as a centre (265) ; and Hod abides with men (203). The (Jentiles are converted (IO21). The righteous eat of the tree of life (264-6) and thereby enjoy patriarchal lives (09). As to what befalls the rmhteous after the second death there is no hint in this fragmeiUary section.

Part II., consisting of 83-90, was written between

p, 166 aiul 161 n.c. , niaiiilv from the same

83 90^^' ^'^'"'l'"'"^ =^s Daniel. On a variety of

grouiuls, we are obliged to discriminate

this section from the preceding.

It will be enough to mention that, whereas in this there is a Messiah, in the preceding there was none ; in this the life of the righteous is apparently unending, in the other it was finite ; in this the scene of the kingdom is the New Jer'is.-ilem set up by Ciod himself, in the other it was Jerusalem and the entire earth unchanged though purified. Finally, the picture in 83-00 is developed and spiritual, whilst that in 1-SO was naive, primitive, and sensuous.

The date assigned above is not difficult to fix.

The Hasidim (see AssiDEAN's), symbolised by the lambs that are born to the white sheep (006), are already an orL;aiiised party in the -Maccabean revolt. The lambs that become horned are the M;\ccabean fimily, and the great horn who is still warring while the author of the section is writing is Judas the Maccabee (OO9), who died in 161 ii.c.

Cliapters S3-90 recount two visions : 83/. , dealing with the first world-judgment ; 80-90, dealing with the entire history of the w-orki till the final judgment. In the second vision the author considers the question of Israel's unmerited suffering.

Israel has indeed sinned ; but the punishment immeasurably transcends its guilt. These undue severities, the author shows, have not come from the hand of (;od ; they are the doing of the seventy shepherds into whose care Ood committed Israel (SO 59). These shepherds or angels have proved faithless to their trust ; but not with impunity. An account has been taken of all their deeds (8961-64), and for them and for their victims there is laid up a due recompense (90 33). Moreover, when the outlook is darkest, a league of the righteous is organised in Israel (OOfi). In it there will arise a family from which will come forth the deliverer of Israel, Judas the Maccabee (OO9-16). Kvery effort of the Gentiles to de>troy him will prove vain, and God's appearance in person to judge will be the signal for their destruction. The apostates will be cast into Gehenna, and the wicked angels into an abyss of fire (90 20-25). ('od himself will set up the New Jerusalem (90 28 29) ; the surviving Gentile-i will be converted and serve Israel (90 30); the righteous dead will be raised to take part in the kingdom ; and finally the Messiah will appear among them (90 37). The Messianic kingdom lasts on earth for ever, and its members enjoy ever- lasting blessedness.

It will be observed that this is the earliest appearance of the Messiah in non-canonical literature (see Mkssi.mi, 5 ; EsciiATOLfXJY, 60). He has, however, no role to play : he has not as yet vindicated for himself a place in the apocalyptic doctrine of the last things.

Fart III., consisting of 91-104, was written between 134 and 95 B.C. The well-defined opposition of the Pharisees and the Sadducees depicted in this section cannot have been earlier than the breach between John Hyrcanus and the Pharisees (see IsRAKi,, 78; -SCKIBKS, i8| ; hence not earlier than 134 B.C. On the other hand, it cannot have been later than 95 B.C., as the merely passing reference to |x.T.secution in 103 15 could hardly be inter- jjreted of Jann.eus after his .savage massacres of the Pharisees in 95 B.C., which won for him the title, ' the slayer of the pious. '

This section was originally, like 83-90, an independent writing. In adapting it to its present environment, the redactor of the entire work broke up its original arranijement. In order to recover this we must read it in the following order : 92 91 i-io 93i-io 91 12-19 9-4-104. On a variety of grounds (see Charles, Hook 0/ I'.noch, 260-263), we must attribute this work to quite another author than that of either of the preceding sections.

In passing from 83-90 to 91-104 we enter on a world of new conceptions (cp Esch.\toi.()OY, 64/.). In all previous apocalyptic writings the resurrection and the final judgment have been the prelude to an ever- lasting Messianic kingdom ; whereas in the present writing the.se great events are relegated to the close of the Messianic kingdom, and not till then do the righteous enter on their reward. This kingdom is temporary (91 12-15) ; there is no Messiah ; the right- eous with God's help vindicate their just cause and destroy their oppressors. On the close of the kingdom follow the final judgment (91 15) and the risen spiritual life of blessedness in a new heaven (91 10 9"23). In this view of the future the centre of interest has obviously passed from the material world to the spiritual, and the Messianic kingdom is no longer the goal of the hopes of the righteous. Their fiiith finds its satisfaction only in a blessed immortality in heaven itself. This immortality is an immortality of the soul only (103 3-4). As for the wicked, they will descend into the pain of SheOl and abide there everlastingly (98310 10478). Here (lO;]?) Sheol appears as Hel'l for possibly the first time.

#### 30. Similitudes

: I'^'iY^' "^'^^ Si"litudes. consisting of


chaps 37-70 3/-/0, were written between 94 and 79 ^ ' B.C. , or between 70 and 64 B.C.

The kings and the mighty,' so often denounced, are the later -Maccabean princes and their .Sadducean supporters : the later Maccabean princes, for the blood of the righteous was not shed (as the writer complains, 47124) before 95 n.c; not the Herods, for the Sadducees were not allies of the Herods, and Rome was not as yet known to the writer as one of the great world-powens. This last fact necessitates an earlier dale than 64 B.C., when Rome interposed authoritatively in the affairs ofJiKla;a.

In his attempt to solve the problem of the suffering of the righteous, the author of the .Similitudes has no interest save for the moral and spiritual world. I lis view, too, is strongly apocalyptic, and follows closely in the wake of Daniel.

The origin of sin is traced one stage farther back than in 1-3(5. The first authors of sin were the Satans (407). The Watchers fell through becoming subject to these and leading mankind astray (546). Though the Watchers were forthwith confined in a deep abyss, sin still flourishes in the world and sinners deny the name of the Lord of Spirits (38 2) and of his Anointed (48 lo), and the kings and the mighty oppress the children of God (02 11). Suddenly there will appear the Head of Days, and with him the Son of Man (40 2 34 482), to e.\ecute judgment upon .all alike. To this end there will be a resurrection of all Israel (51 1 61 5), and all judgment will be committed to the Son of Man (4I9 0027), who will judge all according to their deeds (41 1). Sin and wrong-doing will be banished from the earth (492), and heaven and earth be transformed (45 4 5), and the righteous will have their mansions in Paradise (39 6 41 2). The Elect One will dwell among them (45 4); they will be chad in garments of life (()2 15 16), become anpels in heaven (51 4), and continue to grow in knowledge and rigtiteousness (585).

It will be observed that the Messianic doctrine in this section is unique, not only as regards the other sections of Enoch but also in Jewish literature as a whole (see, further, Eschatology, 66).

The" Me.ssiah exists from the beginning (48 2) ; he sits on the throne of (5od (463 473), and pos.sesses universal dominion (026); and all judgment is committed unto him (r)927). If we turn to the other sections we find that in 1-30 and 91-104 there is no -Messiah at all ; whilst in 83-90 the Messiah is evidently human, and has no real role to play in the doctrine of the last things.

If the reader will turn to the list of Noachic interpola- tions (see above, 24) lie will find that many of them are to be found in this section.

They have M a rule been drawn from an already existing Apocalypse of Noah, and adapted bv an editor to their present contexts in Knoch. This he docs by LorrowinK from the Simili- tudes characteristic terms, such as ' Lord of Spiriis,' ' Head of Days," 'Son of Man,' tu which, however, either through ignor- ance or of set intention, he generally gives a new connotation.

Chapter 71 does not belong to the Similitudes. It shows the s.-iine misuse of characteristic phrases as the interpola- tions just referred to (see Charles, Book of Knoch, 183/ ).

I'ait v., the Hook of Celestial Physics, consists of 31. Celestial ^2-78 82 7!>. This like the preceding

Physics (Chaps,

sections, is a work of independent

to TQ 00 tci\ '-luthorship. There are no means of li-1^, \il, 79). j^.t^.r,ining ^s ^jate.

It h.is sufTcrcd from both disarrangements and interpolations at the liands of the editor of the wliole work. In the first phice, ^9 / ' 'nanifest intrusion written from a standpoint quite dinerent from tliatofthe rest. In the next place, S2 does not st.md in its original position. The opening words of 7l> in fact prcsupp<jse 82 as already read. We have found a similar disloca- tion of the text in Part III.

Part VI., the Noachian and other interpolations. These have been enumerated above ( 24).

The influence of Enoch on Jewish literature (to exclude

#### 32. Influence

< the moment the NT) is seen in

of Enoch J'tbiiecs (written about the begmning of the Christian era), in the Slavonic Enoch (1-50 .\. I). ), Test. xii. Pair. , Apoc. Bar. , and in 4 Esdras.

In Jewish apocalyptic before 40 A.D. Enoch was the chief figure next to Daniel ; but his acceptance by the Christians as a Messianic prophet led to his rejec- tion by the Jews. See note on 10.

In patristic literature, Enoch is twice cited as .Scripture in I-:p. Harn. (43 I65). It is also quoted with approval, tliough not always by name, by Justin Martyr, Iren. and Athenag. , Tert. , Clem. Alex. , Orig. , Anatolius. Thence- forward it is mentioned with disapproval by Hilary, Chrys., Jer., .August., and finally condemned in explicit terms in the Const. A p. 6 16.

Far more important than its influence on Jewish litera- ture, was its influence on NT diction (a) and doctrine [b).

(rt) We shall here draw attention only to the indubitable instances. Knoch is quoted directly in Jude n /. Phrases, clauses, or thouphts derived from it, or of closest kin with it, are found in Jude 4 n / ; Rev. 2 7 3 10 4 6 li 10 9 i 14 20 20 13 ; Kom.,S33 95; Kph.l2i; Ileb.Us; Acts3i4; Jn.62227; Lk.935 I692335; Mt. 1928 2541 20 24.

{b) The doctrines in Enoch that had a share in mould- ing the analogous NT doctrines, or formed a neces- sary link in the development of doctrine from the O T to the NT, are those concerning the Messianic kingdom and the Messiah, Sheol and the resurrection, and demonology, on which reference must be made to the separate articles on these heads and to E.sch.\TOLOgv. We here content ourselves with remarking, as regards the doctrine of the Messiah, that four titles, afterwards reproduced in the New Testament, are first ajjplied to the personal Messiah in the Sintilitudes. These titles are 'Christ' or 'the Anointed One,' 'the Righteous One,' 'the IClect One,' and the Son of Man. ' The first title, found repeatedly in earlier writings but always in reference to actual con- temporary kings or priests, is now for t!v lirst time (48 10 r)24) applied to the ideal Messianic king that is to come. It is here associated with supernatural attributes. The second and the third of these titles, found first in Enoch, have passed over into the NT the former occurring in .\cts 3 14 75^ 2214. the latter in Lk. 935 2835. The last title, that of ' the Son of Man,' is historically the source of the New Testament designation. To the latter it contributes some of its most characteristic contents (see Charles, Book of Knoch, 312-317).

### 33 Secrets of Enoch

III. TiiK Book of thk Skckkts of Enoch. This book has, as far as is yet known, been preserved only in ^'^^""'*-- its fortunes.

For the sake of convenience we shall call it ' the .Slavonic Enoch, in contradistinction to the older book. which for the same reason we shall designate ' the Ethiopic Enoch. '

This new fragment of the Enochic literature has only recently come to light through certain MSS, some of which were found in Russia and some in Servia. Although the very knowledge of such a Ixxjk was lost for probably twelve hundred years, the book was nmch used by both Christians and heretics in the early centuries.

Citations appear from it, though without acknowledg- ment, in the Hook of Adam and Eve, Apoc. Moses and I'aul (400-500 A.D.), Sibylline OracUs, Asc. Isa. and /./. 0/ liar. (70-90 A.O.). It is quoted by name in the apocalyptic portion* of the Test, o/the xii. Patr. {circa i A.U.). It was referred to by Orig. and probably by Clem. Alex., and was used by Iren. Some piirases of the NT may be derived from it.

There are five Slavonic MS.S : in two of them the complete

text is found, while the remaining three supply oniy a shortened

, and incomplete rcclaction. Kor the edition uul>-

34. Ine lished by the present writer the two best of the

Slavonic al>ove MSS (A and H) were translated and put at MSS. ^ service of the editor by Mr. Morfill. The editor had at his disposal also .M r. .Moi fill's transla- tion of Prof. Sokolov's text, which is founded on these and other MSS. In i8g6 Prof. IJonwetsch published his Das .Slavische Henochbuclt, in which he gives a German translation of the MSS A and H side by side, preceded by a short introduction.

#### 36. Language.

.. ^l T^*" "'^'" ^'^'^. ^ ^^^ ' ^'^vonic

• * Enoch was written m Greek.

This is clear from such statements as (i) 30 13, 'And I gave him a name {i.e., Adam) from the four substances : the Kast, the West, the North, and the South.' Adam's name is thus derived from the initial letters of the Greek nan.es of the four quarters avaTo\ri, Jijais, apxro?, jiorritiPpia. This derivation was first elaborated in Greek : it is impossible in the Semitic languages. (2) The writer follows the chronology of 0. (3) In 60 4 he reproduces the text of I)t. 32 35 against the Hebrew. (4) He constantly uses Ecclesiasticus, which was current chiefly in Egypt.

(6) Certain portions were based on Hebrew originals. Such a hypothesis is necessary to account for the cjuota- tions from it or references to it which ajjpear in the Test. xii. Fair. The fact that the latter work was written in Hebrew obliges us to conclude that its author drew upon Hebrew originals in quotations and references.

#### 36. Place.

The book was written in Egypt.

This is deducible from the following facts : (i) The variety of speculations which i: holds in common with Philo and other Hellenistic writers : thus souls were created before the foundation of the world, 23 s (cp Philo, De Somno,\ 22 ; Wisd.81920). Again, man had seven natures, 309(cp I'hilo, De MundiOp. 40). (2) The whole Messianic teaching of the OT does not find a single echo in the work of this Helleniscd Isr.-ielite of Kgypt, although he shows familiarity with most of its books. (3) .Such monstrous creatures as appear in chap. 12 are n.ttural products of the Egyptian imagination. (4) The syncretistic character of the creation narrative in 25 y? betrays Egyptian elements.

Materials originally derived from this book are discoverable in

Joel and Cedrenus (1050-1200 a.u.), though in these authors the

_ . ,. materials are assigned to other names. Two

#### 37. lielation

assages of the Book of Adam and Eve (see


to other Apocuvfha, 10) in 1 6 and 8 are all but

works. quotations from '294y! and 31 2 of our book. Again in the Apoc. Moses, 19 (ed. Tisch. 1866), we have a further development of 14 2-4 of our text, just as in Apoc. Paul. 64 ovrot iiniv 6 jrapaieio-o?, tvOa. . . SevSpov . . ev if (iraverravfTO to nvevfi-a to ayiov is a Christian adaptation of 83, 'And in the midst (of Paradise is) the tree of life on which (jod rests when he comes into Paradise." The section on the derivation of Adam's name in the anonymous De Montihus Sina et Sion, 4, is to be traced ultimately to 30 13, and Augustine's speculation, De Civ. xxii. 30 5, on the eighth eternal day to 33 2.

Still earlier we find almost a verbal reproduction of 50 5-51 i in the Sibylline Oracles, 2 75. In Irena;us, Contra //ter.v.'2S^, the Jewish speculation of 33iy; is reproduced, and possibly in Origen (see Lommatzsch ed., vol. xxi. 59). However this may be, there is no doubt as to the direct reference to 24-30 33 8 in the De Princip. i. 3 2 : ' Nam et in eo libello . . . quem Hernias conscripsit, ita refertur : Priiiio omnium crede, quia unus est Deus, qui esse fecit omnia . . . sed et in Enoch libro his similia describuntur.' There are good grounds for believing that in a still earlier period (50-100 A.i>.) the writers of Asc. Isa. 816 and oi Apoc. liar. 43 were acquainted with 19 i and 31 2 of this book respectively. In Ep. Ham. 15 5-8 and probably in 18 1 the thought and diction are dependent on 32 a-33 and 30 15.

In the NT the similarity of matter and language is sufliciently great to establish a close connection if not a literary dependence.

With Mt. 69, ' Blessed are the peacemakers,' cp 52 II, 'Blessed is he who establishes peace ' ; with Mt. 634 35 37, ' Swear not at all,' etc., cp 49 I, 'I will not swear by a single oath, neither by heaven, nor by earth, nor by any other creature which God made. . . . If there is no truth in men, let them swear by a word,

#### 38. Date.

yea, yea, or nay, nay." Again, with Mt. 7 20 and 25 34, cp 42 n and 9 i ; with Jn. 14 2 cp 01 2 ; with Eph. 4 25 cp 42 12 ; with Rev. 9 I and 10 5/ cp 42 i and 667. Still earlier we find this book not only used but quoted by name in the '/'est. Van j, where the statement riiv irvtvii.aTiav n^s irKavrK avtyvioy yap tv ^/SXfp 'Kyti}\ TOu BiKaCov, on o ap^uiv vfjuau tarci' o XaTava^ is drawn from 18 3, 'These are the iJrigori (i.e. ' Eyprfyopoi) who with their prince Satanail rejectel the noly Lord." l inally, the references to Enoch in Tes/. Naph. 4, Test. Sim. 5, Test. Benj. 9, are adaptations of 34 2-3.

The question as to the date has, to a large extent, been deterniined already. The portions which have a Hebrew background are at latest pre-Christian.

This follows from the fact of their quotation in the Test. xii. Patr. Turning to the rest of the book, we find that the ter- tninus a quo is determined by the fact that it frequently uses Ecclus. (cp 43 2/. 47 5 52 8 61 2 4, etc. ; see the writer's edition of the Slavonic Enoch). The Ethiopic Enoch, further, is con- tinually presupposed to be in the background. Its phraseology and conceptions are reproduced (7 4/! 3349/! 35 2, etc.). At times its views are put forward in a developed form (8 i ^y. 40 1^ 64 5), and occasionally divergent conceptions are enunciatea (16 7 IS 4). Fmally, explanations are claimed to have been given by this writer which, as a matter of fact, are to be found not in his writings but in the Kth. En. (;ee 40 5/ 8/). It is possible that the Book of Wisdom also was used by our author ; see 05 4.

Since, therefore, Ecclus. , the Efh. Enoch, and Wisdom (?) were used by this author, his work cannot have been earlier than 30 B.C.

The terminus ad quern must be set down as earlier than 70 A.D. For (i) the temple is still standing. (2) This book was known and used by the writers of Ep. Barn, and Asc. Isa. , and probably by some of the writers of the NT. We may with reasonable certainty, therefore, assign the composition of the book in Greek to the period 50 A. D. The author is thus a contemporary of Philo, with whom, accordingly, we find that he holds many speculations in common. Much of the book, how- ever, goes back to a Hebrew background of an earlier date.

The author was thus an orthodox Hellenistic Jew who lived in I'.gypt. He believed in the value of sacrifices (426 59 I 662) though he is careful to enforce enlightened views with regard to them (-loa/. 61 4/) in the law (.528/), and in a blessed immortality (5O2 656 8/.), in which the righteous will wear ' the raiment of God's glory' (228). In questions affecting the origin of the earth, of sin, and of death, he allows himself the most unrestricted freedom and borrows from every quarter. Thus Platonic (30 16), Egj-ptian (252), and Zend (584-6) elements are in- corporated in his system. The result is highly syncretistic.

The book opens with a short account of Enoch as ' a very wise man ' whom ' God loved and received so that he should see the heavenly abodes, the kingdoms of the 40. Contents, wise, great, and never-changing God.' In chap. 1 two angels appear to Enoch and bid him make ready to ascend with them into heaven. In chap. 2 he admonishes his so is and directs them not to seek for him till he is brought back to them. Thereupon (3-6) he is carried up through the air into the first heaven, where he beholds a great sea, and the elders, the rulers of the orders of the stars, and the treasuries of the snow and ice and clouds and dew, and the angels who guard them. Thence the angels bear him to the second heaven (7), where he sees the angels who had rebelled against God, imprisoned and suffering torments. These angels ask Enoch to intercede for them. Next, he ascends to the third heaven (8), where is Paradise, with all manner of beautiful fruits and ' the tree of life on which God rests when he comes into the garden,' and the four streams of honey, milk, oil, and wine, that water the garden, and go down to the Paradise of Eden, between corruptibility and incorruptibility. The angels inform Enoch that ' this place is prepared as an eternal inherit- ance ' for those ' who turn their eyes from unrighteousness, and ace )mplish a righteous judgment, and give bread to the huuirry, and clothe the naked, and raise the fallen . . . and walk with- out blame before the face of the Lord.' Enoch is then t.aken to the northern region of this heaven (10), and shown 'a very terrible place' of 'savage darkness and impenetrable gloom," with 'fire on all sides, cold, and ice.' He is told that 'this place is prepared as an eternal inheritance ' for those ' who commit evil deeds on earth, sodomy, witchcraft "... who oppress the poor, who are guilty of ' stealing, lying, envy, evil thoughts, fornication, murder,' who ' worship gods without life.'

Thence Enoch is conducted to the fourth heaven, where he is shown the courses of the sun and moon (11), and the phoenixes,

#### 39. Authorship.

and the chalk.-idi i ? (12 ; cp Cockatrice), and the eastern and western gates of the sun (13-10), and ' an armed host serving the Lord with cymbals and organs' (17).

In 18 he is taken up to the fifth heaven, where he sees the Watchers who had rel>elled ; their brethren were already confined in torment in the second heaven. Then he passes to the sixth heaven (19), where are the angels wh.> regulate all the powers of nature and the courses of the stars, and write down the deeds of men. Finally, he is raised to the seventh heaven (20 /), where he sees God sitting on his throne, and the heavenly hosts in their ten orders on the steps of the throne, and the .Seraphim singing the trisagion. He falls down and worships (22). At God's command, Alichael takes from him his earthly robe, anoints him with the holy oil, and clothes him with the raiment of God's glory. Thus Enoch becomes like one of the glorious ones. Under the instruction of Vretil (chap. '23), he writes 366 books, in thirty days and thirty nights, about things in heaven and earth, and about the souls of men created from eternity, and their future dwelling-places.

In 24-26 God makes known to Enoch how he created the invisible out of the visible ; how he commanded Adoil (possibly a corruption of Uriel, regarded as = light of God), and Arkhas (possibly from pj( or Aram. Kpnx = earth), to come forth and burst asunder ; and so the light on high and the world below were produced. And God divided the light and the darkness (27), and made the seven heavens, and caused the waters under the heaven to be gathered into one place, and made the earth from the waters (-8). Such were the creations of the first day. And on the second day God created the heavenly hosts (291-3). And one of the archangels (.Satanail) rebelled, and God cast him down (284/) from the heights. On the third day (30 I 2) God caused the earth to produce trees and herbs, and planted Paradise. On the fourth (30 3-6), he ordered great lights to be in the various circles of the heavens Saturn, Venus, Mars, the Sun, Jupiter, Mercury, the Moon. On the fifth (30 7-18), he created the fish of the sea, and the fowl of heaven, and every thing that moveth on the earth, ami on the sixth he made man from seven substances, and called him Adam, and showed him the two ways. While Adam was in Paradise he could see the angels in heaven (31) ; but Satan envied him and deceived Kve. And God established the eighth day (33 1-2), at the beginning of which time should be no more. The corruption of the earth and the deluge are then foretold, and the preservation of Noah (3.'>). God bids Enoch return to the earth for thirty days and teach his sons during that time (30-38). Enoch admonishes and instructs his sons, tells them what he has seen, and gives utterance to nine beatitudes (39-42). He impresses on them the incomparable dignity of goodness 'none is greater than he who fears God' (43). They are not to revile the person of man, but to present their offerings ; yet they must not value these unduly, but con- sider the heart from which they spring (44-40). Enoch gives his books to his sons (47) ; instructs them not to swear (49) ; and bids them in meekness accomplish the number of their days, and be open-handed to those in need (.'iO/). Again he enunciates seven beatitudes and the woes with which they are contrasted (52). The departed .saints, he says, do not intercede for the living (.)3). At the close of the appointed time (55-59) Enoch again addresses his sons. He declares that no soul sh.all perish till the final judgment, and that the souls of beasts will then bring charges against the men who ill-treated them. Further instruction follows, as to sacrifice and man's duty to the needy, and warning against contempt and lying (00-t)3). The people assemble in Achuzan to take leave of Enoch, who addresses them on various topics and exhorts them to faithful- ness. He is then carried up to the highest heaven. His sons build an altar in Achuz.in and hold high festival, rejoicing and praising God (04-08).

#### 41. Value.

The value of the book, in elucid.ating contemporary and subsequent religious thought, may be exemplified by the fresh evidence it contributes on the following beliefs :

1. The inillennium. This Jewish conception is first found in 322-332. From this its origin is clear. The account in Genesis of the first week of creation came in pre-Christian times to be regarded not only as a history of the past, but also as a sketch of the future of the world. Thus, as the world was created in six days, its history was to last 6000 years ; for 1000 years with God are as one day(Ps. 9O4; Jub. 430; 2 Pet. 38); and as God rested on the seventh day, so at the close of 6000 years there should be a rest of 1000 years i.e., the millennium.

2. The seven heavens. The detailed account of the seven heavens in this book has served to explain difficulties in the NT conceptions of the heavens, and has shown beyond the reach of controversy that the sevenfold division of the heavens was believed by Paul, by the author of Hebrews, and probably by the author of Revelation. On the Secrets of Enoch see also

ESCHATOLOGY, 75.

### IV. The Ascension of Isaiah.

This apocryph has come down to us in its entirely only in the Kthiopic . . version. It is a composite work, as we shall see ; and two. if not three, of

Its lortunes. j^^ constituents existed independently U-fore ilR-ir incorporation in the present work. Of these the oldest is undoubtedly 2i3ia and Si^-m, which contains an account of the martyrdom of Isaiah (cp Isaiah, i. i. end). From this section, which is of Jewish authorship, seem to have been derived such state- ments as : they were sawn asunder, they were tempted, . . . they went about in sheepskins . . . being des- titute . . . wandering in deserts and mountains' (Heb. 1137/-; cp 2io-i2 5i ^).

The next probable reference is in Justin Martyr (c. Tryph. 120), where he says : ' ye sawed (Isaiah) in twain with a wooden saw.' So we find it in Tn. In Tertul. (Di: /a/ienlia,li) the reference is unmistakable, while in Orij;en the book or its matter is discussed : it is there called airoKpxxfiov Hiraiow, or simply anixcnxttov (A/, a^ A/ricanum,9 ; Ad Matt. 13 57 23 37 ; In Jesaiam homil. 1 5). The first reference to the !coii(i part (t)-ll) is in Epiph. (Htur. 40 and tiV 3), where we are told that certain heretics made use of this work, which he calU TO avafiaTiKOV 'Htroiov, to support their opinions. Jerome s|>eaks of an .Isctnsio Isaur, and in the list of the Canon edited by Montfaucon and others it is called 'llaaiov opaaif.

The various constituents of the book were written

originally in Greek. Thus, in 4 19 21 6 8 @ is

.. followed where it difl'ers from the

#### 43. Language, ^gi^rew.

Of the tireek the greater part has come down to us in a M.S found in the National Library in Paris, and edited by Gebhardt in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift (1878) though it is not the original work, but a free recast and rearrangement of it (see below).

Translations from the Greek were made into Latin, Ethiopic, and Slavonic. Of the Latin version, 6-11

#### 44. Versions.

"^T *"^ '" ?^ sixteenth century

and were prmted at \ enice m 1522, hut had long been lost to view when Gieseler re-edited them in 1832. Two other fragments, 214-813 and 71-19. were discovered and published in 1828 by Mai. though that editor was not aware that they belonged to this apocryph. Happily, as remarked above, the entire work has been preserved in Ethiopic, and on the whole faithfully, as we can infer from the Greek and the Latin fragments.

The sources of its corruptions are often immediately recognis- able by retranslation into Greek. Thus in U35 the Ethiopic = 'qui se ad te .advertit,' the Latin =' praicipiens.' The original of both is fTriTpfTToji', as we find in the Greek ; but the Kthiopic translator has followed an inappropriate meaning. That followed by the Latin translator is admissible ; but the context requires the ordinary sense of <irtTpe'n-coi'= ' permitting.'

The Kthiopic version was first edited by Laurence in 1 8 19 from one MS, and afterwards in 1877 by Dillmann from three M.S.S. To the latter edition are appended the Latin fragments. Next year, as we have already noticed, Gebhardt edited the Greek text. Although a free recast of our apocryph, it is very valuable for critical purposes, and in many respects confirins the critical acumen of Dillmann. Still there is need of a work which will give a text emended and corrected with the help of this Greek MS as well as of the Slavonic version and will deal more exhaustively with the different elements from which the apocryph is composed. This need Charles has tried to meet in his forthcoming work. The Ascension of Isaiah.

Ewald was the first to recognise the composite structure of this book, finding in it the works of three distinct authors. Subsequent criticisms, however, have only in part confirmed his analysis, and the best work as yet done in this direction is that of Dillmann. Dillmann's hypothesis is as follows : There were originally two independent works : one, an account of the martyrdom of Isaiah (2i-3i2 52-14), of Jewish origin ; the other, the vision of Isaiah (6-11 1 23-40), of Christian author- ship. These two works were next combined into one volume by a Christian, who supplied them with a prologue and an epilogue ( 1 1 / 43-13 11 42/. ). Finally,

#### 45. Compositeness.

when the lx)ok had assumed this shape, another editor inserted 1 34a 3 13-5 1 15/ 11 2-22 41. This will do as a provisional hypothesis, but it is not final ; and Gebhardt, Schtirer. and Deane are wrong in saying that it is borne out by external testimony, averring that in the Greek work there is no trace of the sections 3i3-5 11 12-22. By a minute examination of the (jreek certain phrases which imply the author's ac(|uaintance with 81317 4 8 11 19 are discoverable (see Charles, op. cit.). llms the final editing was completed before the comjxjsition of the Greek legend. Further, since 813 is found in one of the Latin fragments published by Mai, this section (i.e., 3 13-6 1) was already present before the Latin version was made. Too much stress must not l>e laid on the fact that 1 1 2-22 is represented in the Latin version by only a few lines ; for it is characteristic of this version to abridge the text it is rendering.

The following is an outline of the contents of tlic book.

In the twenty-sixth year of his reign Hezekiah summ-ns Maoassch in order to entrust to him certain writings toiicliing

the future (1 1-6). Isaiah foretells to Hezc-

#### 46. Contents.

ki.T.h his martyrdom at the hands of Manasseh

(1 7-13). On the death of Hezekiah, Manasseh abandons the service of (iod for that of Satan ; and thus, owing to the evils perpetrated in Jerusalem, Isaiah and other prophets withdraw into the wilderness (2). Thereupon Halkira, a Samaritan, accuses Isaiah and the prophets of prophesying evil things against the king and the people. .\s Herial h.is

fained possession of the king's heart, the king sends and sti/cs saiah (3 1-12). There is a sudden break in the narrative

here (the conclusion of the martyrdom of Isaiah follows in 62-14), to explain the reason of Berial's anger viz., Isaiah's vision and the revel.ition in which he laid bare the future rule and destruction of Sammael, as w'ell as the cominp redemption by Christ. In fact, we have the' history of the Christian Church summarised briefly from the coming of Christ to the Neronic persecution and the last judgment (313-61). In this short apocalypse we have the account of an eye-witness of the condition of the early Church, 50-80 a.d. Church organisation is still in its infancy ; the rulers are called presbyters and p.xstors ; bishops are nowhere mentioned. There are disputes alicjut the second advent ; prophecy has not yet disappeared ; the vice and greed of the Christian teachers are unsparingly dealt with. The writer feels that the end is at hand. On 52-14, see above. With 6 begins the vision which Isaiah saw in the twentieth year of the reign of Hezekiah ; he discloses it to the king and to Josab his son. In this vision Isaiah is conducted by an angel through the firmament and the six lower heavens, and is shown the chief wontlers in each ("_/;). Next he is raised to the seventh heaven, where he sees all the righteous from Adam downwards. He is then told of the coming advent of the Belovedinto the world, and of his crucifixion and resurrection. Finally, he sees the Beloved in the form of an angel, and likewise the Holy Spirit in the same form, and ' the Great Glory ' i.e., God worshipped by the Beloved and the Spirit (9). In 10, Isaiah hears God commissioning his Son to descend into the world, and thereupon follows an account of this descent. In the concluding chapter are revealed the birth of Jesus and the history of his life on earth down to his crucifixion and resurrection and ascension through the seven heavens to his seat at the right hand of t'.od.

The Martyrdom of Isaiah proper (2 1-3 12 52-14), which is of Jewish authorship, was written some time in the _ . first century of our era ; the Vision (6-11) * probably about its close ; and the apocalyptic section {3t3-5i) circa 50-80 A. D.

For additional bibliography on this book, see Schurer, Ilisi. 6 145-146 ; Charles, The Asicnsion of Isniah.

### V. The Book of Juhilees.

The Book of Jubilees, which is really a haggadic cotnmentary on CJeiicsis, is P , , miportant as being the chief monument _,.. _ (practically the sole monument) of legal Pharisaism belonging to the century

#### 46 Value

immediately preceding the Christian era. Just as we have the other side of Pharisaism, its apKjcalyptic and mystical side, represented in the Book of F.noch, so here we have its natural complement in the hard and inexorable legalism to whose yoke, accord- ing to the author, creation was subject from the beginning and must be subject for evermore.

Jubilees is not only indispensable to students of the NT and of the history of the Pharisaic movement : it is likewise of first-class importance as a witness to the readings of the Hebrew text of Gepesis about the

beginning of the Christian era. In this resjject it comes next in worth to (55 and the Samaritan text, and presents us with much earUer readings than are to l)e found in the Syr. or Lat. versions, or in Targ. Onk. In the matter of determining the respective values of the Samaritan, (P, and Massoretic chronologies its evidence will be practically of decisive weight.

This book has been variously named at different stages of its career. Its original name seems to have M ^^'*-'" 'Jubilees,' and not the 'Book of

• *'*- Jubilees.' So we find it in the Syriac

fragment, and likewise in Epiplianius, where it is desig- nated rd 'lu)(iri\aia or ol 'lulirjXatoi.

It is also called ^ Aen-Ti) r<Ve<ris in Kpiphanius, Syncellus, and others -a title pointing back to kqii riTNna- This name was given to it not because of its smaller bulk for it is greater than that of thccanonical (lenesis but on the ground of its inferior authority. Other variations of this title are Miicpo-yeVeo-is and TO. KtiTTo. Vevfdeuii. In the .Abyssinian Church it is named

the ' Hook of the Division,' from the first words of the in.scription at the beginning ; and we find still other designations. "Thus, in the decree of Gelasius, according to Ronsch's emendation, we find ' l.iber de filiabus .Vdae, hoc est Leptogenesis.' This name, as Ceriani observed, was given to the book because it contains the names of all the Patriarchs' wives and assigns them a prominent role in the course of events a view that is confirmed by the Syriac fragment. Again, it seems to be identified by Syncellus with ' the so-called Life of Adam ' 6 Aeydfiei'os pioi '\&dfi. ", for he cites as from that book three pass.iges that occur in Jubilees. This Li/e of Adam may have been identical with a part of Jubilees, or a later enlargement of a portion of it. Jubilees is once described as the 'Testament of .Moses," an4 once as the ' Apocalypse of Moses, but only by very late writers.

Such being the origin of Jubilees and the conditions under which it was produced, it was naturally written ^ in the sacred language of Palestine.

gu g . Qj- ^j^jg ^^ have direct testimony in Jer. /. 78, ad FaHolam, mansioric i8, where he discusses a Hebrew word for which he could cite no authority save that of this book. The entire cast and the idiom of the book confirm the statement of Jerome.

We have further testimony to the .same effect in the title of the Syriac fragment, in which the present book is design.ated 'The Hebrew l?ook called Jubilee.s.' It is, further, impossible to deal with the textual corruptions unle.ss we deal with them on this presupposition. In the case of many of these it is only necessary to retranslate them into Hebrew in order to discover the original misconception or misreading of the Greek translator. Some interesting transliterations of Hebrew words, moreover, still survive in the text.

Finally, fragments of the Hebrew original have come down to us embedded in the Midrashim. In these at times an entire sentence survives, preserving not only the words, but even their original order, as we can infer from the evidence of the versions.

There were probably four versions of Jubilees Greek, .Syriac, Kthiopic, and Latin. The first two were made from the original Hebrew. Of the Greek only some fragments have come down to us in Ki^iphanius and through such annalists as Syncellus and Cedrenus. Of the Syriac only a small fragment, containing the names of the Patriarchs' wives and a few other facts, survives.

The Kthiopic and the Latin versions were made from the Greek version, not from the original text. The _.. . . former survives almost in its entirety, " and from an exhaustive comparison of the Ix-'st attainable text with all existing materials we find that it is most accurate and trustworthy. It is, indeed, as a rule, servilely literal.

It has, of course, suffered from the corruptions naturally incidental to transmission through MSS ; but it is singularly free from the glos.ses and corrections of unscrupulous scribes, though the temptation to bring it into accord with the Kthiopic ver- sion of Genesis must have been great. Only in about a dozen instances did the temptation prove too great, with the result that changes were introduced into the text in subservience to that version.

#### 53. Latin.

Of the Latin version (made, as we have seen, from the Greek) more than a fourth has been preserved.

First published in i86i by Ceriani (,Moh. sacra et prof. torn. I, fasc. I, pp. 15-62), it was next edited with great learning by Ronsch in \%T$$I)as Buck dcr Juh. unt. Beifug. d. revidirten Testes dcr . . . lat. Fragiiiente). Ronsch #### 55. Date. emended the text in many passages ; but as he was not aware that it had been corrected in conformity both with and with the Vg., and as^ further, he Wad only a late representative of the ICthiopic version before him, his work is defective and far from final. A critically revised text of these fragments is given in Charles's edition of the Kthiopic text. The Kthiopic MSS, of which there are four, belong respect- ively to the National Library in l'aris(.$$, the British Museum (H), the University Library in Tubingen (C),

64. Text of and to M. d'Abbadie (D). B is by far the Jubilees, most valuable ; next in value comes A ; C and D are late and very corrupt. In addition to these MSS, however, there is a vast wealth of materials for the criticism and reconstruction of the text in the Mas. and Sam. Texts, and in the Gr., Syr., Aram., and Lat. versions of Genesis ; in the fragments of the Greek, Syriac, and Latin versions of Jubilees mentioned above ; and in abundant other documents of a less directly serviceable nature. _ (a) The Kthiof>ic Text has been edited twice first by Di. in 1859 from two MSS (C, D), and next, by the present writer from \, B, C, D.l Though Di. made no use of the critical materials just enumerated in the formation of his text, and it was, accord- ingly, in no .sense a critical edition, it was a great boon to scholars at the time. (b) Three translations have ap-

peared : the first by Di. in 1850 from one MS (i.e., C) ; the .second by Schodde {BiH. Sacra, 1885) from Di.'s edition of the text ; and the third by the present writer {JQ/^, 1894, 1895) from the text published in 1895 referred to above.

Jubilees cannot have been written later than 70 A.D. ; for the temple is throughout supposed to be standing. As the book repeatedly uses Enoch (1-3G 72-104), it cannot have lx.-en written much before 60 B.C. Though there is some evidence that would place it nearer the earlier than the later date, we shall leave the date undefined for the present.

#### 66. Author.

__ . .. the author was a Palestinian Jew and a Pharisee.

Frankel's view {MGli'/, 1856, pp. 3"-3'6, 38o-40o)that it was written by a Hellenistic Jew belonging to Kgypt is rendered un- tenable by the fact that it was written originally in Hebrew. Nor can the writer have been a Samaritan, as Beer supposes {Das Buck derjuh., 1856 ; Noch ein Wort Hb. d. Buck derjub., 1857) ; for, whereas the text agrees in turn with MT, , Syr. Vg., with Onkelos, and even with the Ar. against all the rest, it never, strange to say, agrees thus with the Samaritan. This evidence is con- clusive in itself; but we might further observe that, in speaking of the four places most favoured of God in all the earth, the author enumerates Eden, Sinai, Zion, and the mountain in the E.xst, but not Gerizim. Again, that he is not a Sadducee is proved by the fact th.-it he believes in angels and in the immortality of the soul. Nor, finally, was he an Kssene ; for, though some characteristics (a highly-developed angelology, the doctrine of the immortality of the soul without the resurrection of the body, the exaggerated reverence for the Sabbath and the number seven) would seem to argue an Kssene origin, such an origin is absolutely precluded by the enforcement of animal sacrifice and the absolute silence as to the washings and purifications that were of such importance among the Kssenes. 1 hus, though in some legal questions of less moment (Beer, Das Bucli der Juh.) the author's views are at variance with traditional Pharisa- ism, in all essentials he isemphaticallyaPharisceof the Pharisees.

That Palestine was the home of the author is deducible in the first instance from the language in which he wrote. A Hellenistic Jew would not have written in Hebrew. Again (not to press other details), the duty of absolute separation from the heathen, which is re- peatedly enforced, would have been impossible of fulfil- ment for any Jew outside Palestine.

There are several lacunce in the book ; but as far as evidence is forthcoming, these seem to

#### 67. Integrity.

^ ^.^^^^^ ^ j^ppg^^rs, on the other hand, to be free from interpolations.

.\ curious phenomenon, however, presents itself in chap. 7. Verses 20-39 '^^^ 'o '^*= ^" extract from the Book or .\pocalypse of Noah, be^mning in an indirect form with t. 20 and changing into the direct with v. 26, whence to the end Noah admonishes his sons in the first person. These verses are similar to the Noachic interpolations in the Book of Knoch (see above, 24).

The contents of Jubilees may be briefly described as a haggadic commentary on the biblical text, from the KB n \ creation of the world to the institution 88. contents ^^ ^^^ Pas.sover, in the spirit, and from and character. ^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^.^^^. ^^ ,_^^^^ Judaism. Its aim is to prove the everlasting validity of the law. The work assumes the form of a revelation to Moses, made on Mt. Sinai by the ' angel of the presence ' in the first year

1 The Eth. J'ers. of the Heb. Book of Jubilees, ed. from four MSS. R. H. Charles, M.A., 1895. Clar. Press, Oxford.

of the Kxodus. The author thereby seeks to secure a divine sanction for the additions he makes to the bibhcal narrative. Anmng these the most important novelty is his chronological system.

In this system the basis of rcckonine is the jubilee period of forty-nine yc.-irs. This jubilee period is subdivided into seven year-weeks of seven years each. Hence, in ordtr to dale any event exactly, the author determines it as occurring on a certain day of a certain month of a certain year in a certain year-week of a certain jubilee period. Fifty of these jubilee periods are assumed as the interval between the creation and the entrance of the Israelites into Canaan. His year strangely consists of fifty-twowecks(;>., 364 days), and, in opposition to the Pharisaism of his time, he claims that the year sliould Iw regulated by the movements of the sun without reference to those of the moon. The dates assigned to the various events, though presenting many difTiculties, favour in the main the Samaritan chronology. Another object of the author is to carry the Jewish cultus back into the patriarchal or even pre-Adamite jK-riod.

Thus we are ^iven to understand that the angels observed the rite of circumcision ; while, as regards the great annual festivals, the Feast of Weeks was observed by Noah and .\bram, the Feast of Tabernacles was first celebrated by .\bram about the time of the birth of Isaac, and the Day of Atonement was established by Jacob in memory of the loss of Joseph. .Again, the law regarding the purification of women after childbirth (I^v. 1'2) is traced to the fact that Adam was created in the first week and Kve in the second ; to this is due the command ' Seven days for a man-child and two weeks for a maid-child.'

Certain variations from the prescribed ritual are observable in relation to the festivals. Thus, the injunction of fasting on the Day of .\tonement and the exclusion of the uncircumciscd from tlic Passover .ire omitted ; while in the case of the Fe.ist of Tabernacles there is no reference to the custom of drawing water from the pool of Siloam and pouring it out upon the altar. Though in the last instance the author agrees w^th the Sadducees, it must be admitted that the practice was a Pharisaic innovation and that the Sadducees had the law on their side.

.\nolher notable characteristic of the work is the in- creasotl rigour of many of the Levitical ordinances.

Thus, the man who eats blood is to be utterly destroyed, and the father wlio gives his daughter, or the brother who gives his sister, in marri.age to a heathen, is to be stoned to death, and the woman to be burned. Death is to l>e the universal penalty for breaking the Sabbath ; and the Sabbath is broken by buying or selling, by lighting a fire, by drawing water, by talking of an intended journey, or by lying with one's wife.

Another no less interesting characteristic is the care either to leave unrecorded or to palliate the faults of the Patriarchs as well as to multiply their virtues.

Thus, from the first they were scrupulous observers of the ritual and ceremonial law before its authoritative promulgation on Sinai. There is no mention made of Abram's deceit at the court of Pharaoh ; Jacob's answer to Isaac's question ' Art thou my very son Ksau ? ' is cleared from verbal falsehood by representing him as answering ' I am thy son. This quibble is found likewise in the Talmud, and may therefore have been a stock interpretation of Jewish exegesis. Again, whereas in Genesis Levi is cursed for his share in the destruction of Shechem, in Jubilees he is highly honoured for the same action and his posterity elected to an everlasting priesthood. We find the same view taken by Philo (De Ebrietate, 23).

Akin to the aim just described is the attempt to justify from the standpoint of a later age the severities practised by Israel in their conquest of C^anaan.

It is a Jewish prototype of Rousseau's Social Contract. .Thus it is represented that, in the presence of an angel, Noah divided the earth by lot amongst his three sons, and bound them and tlieir successors by the most sacred oaths to observe the arrange- ment. Destruction was invoked on the head of him who trans- pressed it. According to the sequel, Canaan seized upon Shem's inheritance ; and thus our author justifies the extermination of his descendants by Israel.

As has alreadybeen pointed out, though the immortality of the soul is taught, there is no resurrection of the body. In the restored theocracy that is foreshadowed there may be a Messiah. See, futnher, Escii.vroi.cxJV, 72.

For the literature of this book .see Ronsch, Das liuch dcr Jub. 422-439; Schurer in loc. ; Charles, '/'//< Hook of JuhiUes.

### VI. The Assumption of Moses.

Of this book, which from the twelfth century was regarded as lost, a large fragment was rediscovered by

09 Assumpl. <^.eriani in the Ambrosian Library in

raoB. . Its j^^ji^j^ ^^j published by him in 1861

lortunes. ^ ,^^^^ ^^^^^ j ^^^^ ; pp j-.g^). This fragment was part of an old Latin version, and is written on a palimpsest of the sixth century the same MS thai contains the Latin version of Jubilees which originally Ijehjnged to the monastery of llobbio.

Before this discovery, however, we were, from various sources, in some degree acquainted with the contents of the lxx)k.

Thus, the account of the strife l>etween the archangel Michael and .Satan alxiut the bodv of Moses was drawn, as we know (Origen, De Princip.Zix), from the apocryphal book entitled \XiK Asctmio Mosisi.e.,a.viXif^<.'i Muvtrc'uf. Many other writers testify to the existence of this apocryph. Besides the reference already noticed in Origen, there are other references or citations in Clem. Alex. (.V/rcJW*. 1 23 153 15 132); in Origen (In Josuam liotnii.'li), Didymus Alex. (/ ep. Juti. inanat. in Gallandi, lUblioth. J'alr. t) 307), in Kvodius, Apollinaris, the Stichometries, and in the Acta Synoiti Nktrm/-, 'J 18. This l.l^t reference must be given in full as the passage quoted is fiiuiKl in Ceriani'sfr.igment, MfAAuifon-pw^jiTT;? Miuucni^ ifiiyairovPiuv, (i>( ytypairrai iv ^ip\if 'AvaATJt(itu)^ Muvo'cuif, irpo<r<taA(ru/iifi-os 'Irjaouv vibi' Nauij (ca'i iioAtyo/iecos irpot avTOV </ii} " (toi npotBcd.- <raTO ixt 6 fl<bs jrpo Kara/SoAi^^ xbir/iov Ii'ot fit TTJt ito^jjicij? ainoii li.Tin)v. The words quoted are thus rendered in the l-itin fragment (1 14) : Itaque excogitavit et invttiit me, qui al> initio orbis terrarum pra:paratus sum, ut sim arbiter testamenti illiii-.. The rest of the quotations are in the main from the part of this book which is lost.

Of the derivation of our Latin text from the Greek there can be no question. Thus Greek words are transliterated ; as chedrio from K(5p6u 1 17.

• , /tere/// us {romtpijfjiOiS 11, c/idsishomOXixfii

p^ , 87, and acroHstia from aKpo^varia b ^.

' Again, we are not infretjuently obliged Ut adopt not the Latin text but the Greek it presupposes, which has been misrendered by the translator. Thus ' ab oriente uscjue ad occidentcm,' which means 'from the east to the west,' is derived from d(p' i]\iov dvartX- \ovTos l^ixP'- dvofx^vov, which means also ' from sum ibc to sunset '^the meaning required by our context. lor similar instances see 11 11 18. Finally, retranslalion into Greek makes it evident that in the c;\se of some cor- ruptions in the Latin the error arose through the con- fusion of different though similar forms of words ; cp 27 84 56 11 16. In 4 I we have the Greek article rendered by /lie.

The derivation of our text from a Semitic original was Stoutly denied by N'olkmar, Hilgenfeld, and others.

This position, however, can no longer \x

61. Meore'W pgr^gvered in. A Semitic original nmst

onginal. ^^^^. ^ conceded. It remains a matter of debate whether the balance of evidence is in favour of an Aramaic or of a Hebrew source. Rosenthal decides for the latter; Schmidt- Merx, Colani, and Carriere for the former. Notwithstanding all that has been advanced by these three scholars, however, in support of their contention, the evidence points decidedly in the direction of a Hebrew original.

Rosenthal restores three or four passages by means of retrans- lation into Hebrew. In Charles's Assumption o/Mosts (1897) the necessity of such an hypothesis is shown alike in the Hebrew character of the Latin version and in the possibility of removing most of its corruptions by means of retranslation into Hebrew. Thus in ((36 we must follow the Hebrew presupposed by the Latin ; next, in l> 4 there is a play upon words po.ssible only in the Hebrew ; .again, there are Hebrew phrases and constructions reproduced in I 18 24 7 83 12 t) i 102. Finally, it is only through retranslation into Hebrew that we can understand the text ur get rid of its corruptions in 49 5 5 10 9 10 16 12 7.

Schiirer has already jxiinted out (///.>/. 882) that the Latin version we pos.sess is in reality a ' Testament of Moses,' although ()UOted in the .Acts of Moses.

#### 62. Real name Test.

the Council of Niciea as the AvdXTj^ts Mti>i'(r^<)S, and has conjectured that ' these designations were the titles of two separate divisions of one and the same work, the first of which has been preserved, whereas the quotations in the Fathers almost all belong to the second.' The piesent writers studies tend in some degree to support this conjecture.

Thus in the Latin version (1 15 and 10 14) Moses siicaks of his death as an ordinar>- one, and the same fact undoubtedly was stated in 10 12 before it was interpol.-ited by the editor who joined the ' Testament " and the ' .Vs-sumption of .Moses ' into one I 00k. Thus in 10 12 the text is: 'erunt enim a morte rcceptione m(ea) usque ad adventum lUius tempora CCL.' Schmidt-NIerx omit ' morte,' and Hilgenfeld omits ' receptione," these critics failing to see that 'rcceptione' was introduced by the final editor into the text of the 'Testament' which recounted nothing of Moses' Assumption, in order to prepare the reader for the main subject of the added work, the ' Assumption of Moses.'

Schurer apparently assumes that both the ' Testament ' and the ' Assumption ' were from one and the same autlior ; but the facts stated above are against this sup- position. The Latin fragment is the AiaO-^Kri Mwi/a^wj mentioned in the Stichometry of Nicephorus. It is there said to consist of iioo lines. Of these about half have survived. Some writers have sought to identify this ' Testament ' with the Book of Jubilees. This is impossible. Since 4300 lines are assigned to Genesis in Nicephorus' Stichometry, this ' Testament of Moses ' would have above 5000 or 6000 if it were the Book of Jubilees, for the latter is much longer than Genesis.

About one-half of the original Testament has been preserved by ourl^atin N'ersion.^ It is possible that the latter half dealt with certain revelations about

#### 63. Lost portion.

creation made by Moses, and that it closed with his disappearance in a cloud, so that his death was hid from human sight.

We make this conjecture on the ground of the following statement in .in old Catena on the Pentateuch (Fabric. CoiY. Psc'utf. l^.T.ii. 121-122). ' Est quidem in apocrypho mysticoque codice legere, ubi t/e creatis rebus subtiiius agitw, nuhein lucidam, quo tempore mortuus est Moses, locum sepulchri com- plexam oculos circumstantium perstrinxis.se ita, ut nullus neque morientem legislatorem necjue locum videre potuerit, ubi cadaver conderetur.' On the 'bright cloud' see also Jos. A>U. iv. 849.

On the question of the date of the Assumption of Moses the opinions of critics oscillate between the

fi4 n t death of Herod the Great and the death of

• * Bar-Cochba. The later date is impossible.

Ewald, Wieseler, Drummond, Dillmann, and Schurer assign it to the first decade after Herod's death ; Hilgenfeld assigns it to 44-45 .\.D. ; Mer.K to 54-64 .\.D. , and so also Fritzsche ; Baldensperger to 50-70 A.o. On various grounds all these determinations are unsatisfactory. The real date appears to lie between 4 B.C. and 30 A.D. It cannot be later than 30 A.D. Towards the close of chap. 6 it is stated that the sons of Herod should reign for a shorter period {breviora tempera) than their father -a statement that could have been made only while they were still living, since it is true of Archelaus alone ; for .Antipas reigned forty-three years, Philip thirty-seven, and Herod himself only thirty-four. The book must, therefore, have been written at the latest less than thirty -four years after Herod's death (4 B.C.) i.e., earlier, at all events, than 30 A.D. The limits may, however, be defined more closely ; for the pre- diction that Herod's sons should rule for shorter periods than their father, may owe its origin to the general expectation that the sons of such a wicked king could not long preserve their authority, but still more to the actual deposition of Archelaus in 6 A.D. an event that would naturally be construed by our author in the light of a divine judgment and suggest to him the prediction that appears in the text as to the impending fate of Philip and -Vntipas. Hence the earliest limit of comp>osition is 7 A.n.

As for the author, he was not a Sadducee ; for according to chap. 10 he looks forward to the establish-

fifi Author "^^"* *^ ^'^ -Messianic kingdom by God in person. Nor is it possible, with Wieseler and Schiirer, to regard him as a Zealot ; for ( i ) there is not a single incentive held forth to encourage men to take arms in behalf of the theocracy; (2) the actual advent of the kingdom is brought about, not by any action of the righteous in Israel, but

^ It is to be remarked that we have in this Latin Fragment a clear instance of dislocation of the text. The perception of this fact removes some of the main difficulties in the way of inter- pretation. In order to recover the original order, we have to restore 8 yC to their original position, before 6. For the grounds of this restoration of the text, see the present writer's edition of the book.

as.";

by the archangel Michael (10 1-2) and God himself (IO3-7) ; (3) the author's ideal of duty as regards pre- paration for the Messianic kingdom is that depicted in 9 i.e. , absolute obedience to the law and non-resistance. The faithful Israelite was quietly to do his duty and await God's will. The writer, accordingly, glorifies the old ideals cherished and pursued by the Hasid and Early Pharisaic party, which the Pharisaism of the first century B.C. had begun to disown in favour of a more active role in the life of the nation. See 81. God would in his own good time interpose in person (10); at all events, he would avenge the death of his servants (9;). Our author pours the most scathing invective on his religious and political opponents, the Sadducees, whom in 7 he describes in terms that freciuently recall the anti-Sadduccan Pss. of Solomon. (Through some ine.xplicable misapprehension, Schiirer and others have regarded this chapter as a description of the Pharisees. ) The author, therefore, was a Pharisee, and a Pharisee who was the antithesis of the Zealot exactly in those respects in which Pharisaism differed from Zealotism. His book was designed as a protection against the growing secularisation of the Pharisaic party through its adoption of political ideals and popular Messianic beliefs. To guard against the possible suggestion of an Essene author, we may remark that such a derivation is absolutely precluded by the recognition of animal sacrifices, by the declaration of the speedy coming of the Messianic or Theocratic kingdom, and by the strong sense of national life, unity, and triumph. See Charles's T/te Assumption of Moses, pp. 51-54 ; and cp Eschatology, 73.

#### 66. Contents

The following is an outline of the contents of Ass. Moses

I1-9: Introduction. 10-17 Moses tells Joshua that he is about to die, and commits certain books of prophecies to his safekeeping. In 2y; the subsequent history of Israel down to the captivity is briefly but clearly outlined. In their captivity the tribes remember that all that had befallen them had already been foretold by Moses. In 4, owing to the prayers of one who is over them (Daniel), God will take pity on them and raise up a king (Cyrus) who will re.store some fr.igments of their tribes to their own land. These will mourn because of their inability to sacrifice to the God of their father.s. Judgment (5 i) will overtake their oppres.sors (the .Seleucid kings). Yet they them- selves (the Sadducees and the Hasids) will be divided as to what is true, and the altar and temple will be defiled by men who are not priests (as Menelaus, who was a Benjamite), but slaves born of slaves (5 2-4) (the pagani.sing high-priests who were nominees of the Seleucidae), and many of them (the Sad- ducean priesthood and aristocracy), moreover, will be respecters of persons and unjust, and their country will be filled with unrighteousness (55-6). Then (81-5) a fresh vengeance will alight upon them, in which the king of kings (.\ntiochus) will crucify tho.se who confess to their circumcision, and force them to bear on their .shoulders impure idols, and to blaspheme the word. A man of the tribe of Levi (0 1-7), whose name is Taxo {i.e., Eleazar [2 Mac. 19] ; for, as Burkitt has dis- covered, Taxo is a mistake for Taxoc = Taf(i)<c = pia3n which by gemetria = -itl;'?K)> *>' say to his .seven .sons : ' Let us fast three days, and on the fourth let us go into a cave which is in the field and die, rather than transgress the commands of the God of our fathers.' In G 1-7 we are told of the assumption of royal power by the Maccabees, and of Herod as their succes.sor who IS to reign for thirty-four years. He will beget sons, who will reign as his succes.sors, but for shorter periods. Then follows ((iSyC) the capture of Jerusalem by a king of the west (V.irus). Soon after, Judaea becomes a Roman province. The author next launches out into a scathing denunciation of the Sadducees, of whose injustice, greed, and gluttony we have an account in 7. Thereupon (lOi-io) the times are fulfilled, and God appears to judge the enemies of Israel (10). Moses is then represented as exhorting Joshua to guard these words and this book (10 11). When Joshua deplores his inability to lead Israel (11), Mo.ses bids him not to depreciate himself and not to despair of the future of his people (12). Here the fragment ends.

Ceriani, Mon. Sacr. vol. i. fasc. i (1861); Hilgenfeld,

Messias Juderorum (1869), 43';-468, cp Prol. 70-76, and

Clem. Rom. Epist.'i' (1876), io7-it!5; Volkmar,

67. BibliO- Mose Prophetieund Himmel/ahrt(x'&bi)\^QVm\6.\.

eranhv and Merx {.A>v/iiv /. iviss. Er/orsihung dts

• ^ ^' ATs, I. ii. 111-152, 1868); Fritzsche, Libri

Apoc. VT (1871), 700-730; cp Prol. 32-36; Drummond, The J enuish Messiali(\%Tf), 74-84 ; Baldensperger, Das Selbstbevmsst- sein JesH (1888), 23-31, 114-118; Deane, Pseudepigr. (1891), 05-130; .Schurer, hiist. 67^-83; Charles, The Ass. of Mos. (iSgy). For complete bibliography, see the two works last mentioned.

### VII. The Testaments Of The XII. Pairiarchs.

The earliest reference to this Jxjok by name is in _ .. Origen in his Horn, in Josuam, 156 (Ed. n * *"" I-oinmatzsch 11 143) : ' in aliquo quodam Jratr. ; its fortunes.

lilx;llo qui appellatur testanicntuni duo- decini patriarcharum, quamvis non habca- tur in canone, talem tanien quendani sensum inveninms, quod per singulos jjeccantes siiiguli Satana; intelligi del)eant' (cp Reuljen 3). It is possible, indeed, that in the preceding century the ideas of Fragment 17 in Stieren's edition of Iren;i:us (18,56-837) are derived from this took t'f ili;' 6 Xpicrris TrpcxTvtrwdri Kal iircyviJoaOri Kal iytwrjOr]' iv fiiu yap t<^ 'Iwariif) irpoerv- nuidrf 4k S^ toO Aei'i Kal toO 'loi5a r6 Kara adpKO., ws aai\ivs Kal lepfvi iytw^Or) ' 5m 5^ tou i^i/^f tj" 4v rcjj vaiii (TTfyvuxxdr] . . . 5ia Si tov Befiafiiv, tov Ilai'Xoi', fh irdvTa rbv Kbafxov Krjpvx^fli iSo^dcOr}. This con- junction of Simeon and Levi is found in Sim. 7 ; I-ev. 2 8 ; Dan 5 ; Gad 8 ; Jos. 19 ; lienj. 11. Since, how- ever, it is now demonstrable that the Christian elements in the Testaments are due to interpolation, it is not possible at the present stage of criticism to determine the relative chronology of these elements and the writings of Irenitus.

The passages in TertuUian Adv. Marc. 5 1, Scorpiace 13, wliich most critics from Clraho onwards have regarded as based on lienj. 11, are due, as Schiirer has already recognised, simply to the patristic interpretation of Gen. 41t 27. This eleventh chap, of Benj., which contains the striking account of Paul, is not found in the .\rmenian version, and is for the most part wanting in the Greek MS R. On these and on other grounds we may safely regard it us one of the latest of the Christian interpola- tions.

There is possibly an allusion to this book in the con- temptuous words of Jerome, Adv. Vigilant. 6. The Testaments are next mentioned in the Stichometry of Nicephorus, in the Synopsis Athanasii as well as in the anonymous list of books edited by Montfaucon, Petra, and others. In these lists the book is simply calletl ITaTpidpxtt After this date the Testaments are lost to knowledge till their reappearance in the thirteenth century, when Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln, translated them from Greek into Latin. The MS from which the translation was made is the tenth century Cambridge MS of this book (Sinker). This Latin version was the parent of almost all the European versions.

The work consists, as its present title indicates, of the dying commands of the twelve sons of Jacob to their _.. . children. I2ach Testament deals with a fresh and special side of the ethical life, with some virtue or vice which finds apt illustration in the life of the particular patriarch. Thus, according to the titles in .Sinker's text, Simeon deals with the vice of envy, Zebulun with compassion and mercy, Dan with anger and lying. Gad with hatred, Joseph with chastity, and Benjamin with a pure mind. These titles are appro- priate ; but in manuscripts O and R all mention of the virtues and vices is omitted ; in P they are generally wanting, and when they are given they differ in all but two instances from Sinker's text, while in the Armenian version they are wanting in Simeon, Issachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin; for 'concerning chastity' in the title of the Test. Joseph we have ' concerning envy ' ; they differ in the case of Levi, (iad, and Asher ; only in the case of Judah do they give a divided support to the Cambridge MS, which Sinker follows. We may, therefore, regard the title of each Testament as origin- ally consisting of the word Ata^^KTj, followed by the name of the patriarch to whom it was attributed. It is possible, moreover, that the title was originally still shorter/.^. , as we find it in the Oxford MS, merely the name of the patriarch. The fact that in the Sticho- metry of Nicephorus and in the Synopsis Athanasii, as well as in the anonymous list of books edited by Montfaucon, Petra, and others, this book as a whole is designated simply IIarpidpx' points in the same direction ; and this evidence is the more weighty since the adjoining books in these lists have their full titles given. This supposition receives further support from the initial words of the Testaments themselves. In the case of seven of the Testaments the contents are simply described as the \l/yoi of the Patriarchs, which they spake or ordained (XaXeti', dirtlv, or SiaridfaOai) before they died. It is only in the ca.se of the remaining five that each is descrilx.'d ;is a SiadriKr; which the patriarch i spake, enjoined, or ordained (XoXeTi/, dirfiv, ivriWfaOai, I SiariOfffdai.). It is probable, theiefore, that the original title of the entire lx)ok was ' The Twelve Patriarchs."

#### 70. Contents.

In the next place, it is noteworthy that in each of the Testaments three elements are distinguishable. ( i ) In each instance the patriarch gives a brief or detailed account of his life, in which his particular virtues or vices are vigorously empl asiseil. The biblical notices of his life are expanded and en- riched after the manner of haggadic Midrash. In a few instances their place is taken by materials that conHict directly with the biblical narrative. (2) The patriarch next proceeds to press upon his children a series of exhortations based upon and naturally sug- gested by the virtues or the vices conspicuous in his own career ; they are to imitate the one and to shun the other. (3) l-'inally, the patriarch gives utterance to certain predictions which bear upon the future of his descendants, and the evils of overthrow and captivity which they will entail upon themselves by their sins and apostasies, and their broach with the tribes of Levi and Judah. These predictions are generally (a) of purely Jewish authorship ; but many are (i) distinctively Christian.

To account for the difficulties which confront us in this work, Grabe (Spicileg. Patrum'^-^ [1714], 1 129-144

71 Com- 335-374) was the first to suggest that the .. " book was written by a Jew and subse- pOBlteness. ^^^^^^^, interpolated by a Christian. This hypothesis was for the time so successfully combated by Corrodi (A'r//. Gcsc.h. des Chiliasmus, 2ioi-iio) that most subsequent writers, such as Nitzsch, Liicke, Ritschl, Vorstman, Hilgenfeld, Dillmann, and Sinker, have practically ignored the question of the integrity of the book and confined themselves mainly to the discussion of the religious and national affinities of the author.

Nitzsch (/A- Ttst. xii. Patriarch, litro I'T psnid., Witten- berg, 1810) describes the author as a Jewish Christian of Alex- andria who had imbibed many of the Essene doctrines that were then current. Ritschl {Entstch. der altkathol. Kirdte, 1. Aufl. 322 ^) assigns the book to a Gentile Christian, appealing principally to Benj. 11 (a chapter really due to Christian inter- polation : see 8 68). Ritschl's view w.-is vigorously assailed by Kayser (' Die Test. d. Zwulf Patr.' in Reuss and Cunitz's Hcitr. zu den theol. Wisscnscha/tcn [i?5il, 107-140), who on several grounds derives the book from Ebionitic circles, reviving on a large scale Grabe 's theory of interpolation in order to arrive at this result. Kayser's treatise was in turn examined by Vorstman (^De Test. xii. Patriarcharum origine et prctio, 1857), who, after a det.ailed criticism of Kayser's arguments, concluded that the Testaments present no trace of Ebionism, but were the work of a CJentile Christian. Hardly had Vorstman thus vindicated the view of Ritschl when a second edition of this schol.y's work (see above) appeared, in which his former contention (pp. 172-177) was abandoned as impossible, and the theory of a Nazarene authorship was advocated. Ritschl's first view, how- ever, has received the continued support of Hilgenfeld (Zli'T [1858], 395^ [1871] 302^), whilst I.angen(Z?rtj JudeiitAum in Pal. zur /.eit Christi, 140-157) and Sinker {The Test. xii. Patr. (1869), 16-34; art. 'Test. xii. Patr.' in Smith's Dictionary of Christian iiiofrraf'hy, 4^;65-874) hold fast to the theory of a Jewish Christian authorship.

If there were no other methods of determining the questions of authorship and date than those pursued by Nitzsch and his successors, finality or even progress in such matters would be a sheer impossibility. To Schnapp (Die Test, der xii. Patr. untersurht, Halle, 1884), however, is due the credit of lifting the criticism of this book out of the arena of fniitlcss logomachies by returning to Grabe's hypothesis of Christian interpolation of an originally Jewish work. Schnapp's theory is that in its original form the book consisted of biographical details respecting each of the patriarchs and of exhorta- tions suggested by these details. Thus the work comprised only two of tlie three elements mentioned in the preceding section ( 70). Subsequently, however, tlie book was worked over by a Jewish writer, who inserted, generally towards the end of each Testament, sections dealing with the future fortunes of the tribes and other matter of an apocalyptic nature. Finally, at a later period still, the book thus enlarged was revised by a Christian, who in some passages merely modified the text by slight changes, but in others made large inter- polations. Thus we have three writers concerned in the Testaments : the original Jewish author, the Jewish interpolator, and the Christian interpolator. It is not difficult to prove that in the main this theory is true.

Thus in the Testament of Joseph we have two partially conflicting accounts derived from diflferent authors i.e., 1-lOai, and 10^-18. As early as 1869, indeed, Sinker suggested a com- posite authorship as the solution of certain difliculties in the narrative ; but he made no attempt to verify this hypothesi.s, and so it was reserved for Schnapp to establish beyond question the dual origin of this Testament and the oiher Testaments. The same compositeness is observable on a smaller scale in Benj. 2, where 'ib conflicts with %i and with every other reference to the same subject in the rest of the Testaments. Again, in Levi 2 <l>s hi eiroi.fj.aCi'Onev ... 6 cc 17) KapSC(f fiov we have a large addition which conflicts with the words before and after. Levi sy. riKOofxev eU BcS^A is open to the same criticism. Again, in Dan t>, in adjoining sentences, Levi is commended as the guide and stay of Israel and denounced as the leader in Israel's apostasy. It is needless to multiply such instances further. The presence of additions to the list from a Jewish interpolator is unquestionable.!

It is, however, no less certain that all the Christian passages have been inserted in the text not, as Schnapp supposed, by a single Christian interpolator, but by a succession of such interpolators.

The grounds for this conclusion will be found in Conybeare's valuable article ' On the Jewish authorship of the Twelve Patriarchs ' (JQJf ['93], 375-398). By collating the Armeni.an version with the Greek text of Sinker, this scholar has shown that most of the Christian passages in the latter are not to be found in the former. Thus when the (Ireek MS used in making the Armenian version was written, the process of Christian interpolation had advanced only a short way in the direction in which later it progressed so far. _ In the Armenian version we have thus a striking confirmation of the critical sagacity of the scholars who saw in the Testaments a Jewish work interpolated later from Christian sources. With the fresh materials at our disposal, there is a splendid opportunity for a critical edition of the text, and a scientific edition of the work in which the various elements will be duly discriminated, their dates as far as possible determined, and their bearing on history elucidated.

We have now arrived at a stage when we are in a position to consider the question of the original language .J of the Testaments. Apart from Grabe,

.Lianguage. ^^ notable critic has advocated a Hebrew or Aramaic original. This is only what might be expected, since nearly all the students of this book believed in its integrity and Christian authorship. However, now that by means of external and internal evidence we have come to see that the book was origin- ally Jewish, the question as to its original language can no longer be evaded. On two grounds the present writer is inclined to advocate a Hebrew original. Space does not suffice for dealing with the first here. Let it merely fje observed that fragments have been found in the Testaments which are not exjjlicable on the assump- tion of a date later than 100 B.C. This and other kindred questions will be dealt with at length in the present writer's forthcoming edition of the Testaments. The second reason for supposing a Semitic origin is to be found in the language. Dr. Caster ( ' The Hebrew text of one of the Test. xii. Patr. ' PSBA, Dec. 1893, Feb. 1894) gives some evidence which points in this direction.

In the article just referred to, indeed, he publishes what he claims to be the 'actual Hebrew text of the Testament of Naphtali' entitled 'l^nSJ riNTlS- ' '" 'his text,' he writes, 'we have undoubtedly the original version of the Testament, free from any interpolation.' He adds : 'The Greek counterpart of the Hebrew makes no sense and has no meaning at all : while the Hebrew is rounded ofi" and complete, and perfectly clear.' It is not necessary to traverse these statements at any length.

1 Most of Schnapp's conclusions have been accepted by Schiirer (///*/. 5 114- 124).

First of all, the style of the Hebrew is not earlier, as Dr. Neubauer informs us, than the 7th or the 8th century A.D. In the next place, even if it were early, it can lay no claim to being the original of the Greek 'Testament.' All that could be urged is that the two texts possess some material in common. Their aim and their spirit are as antagonistic as possible. This Hebrew Naphtali, in fact, is a strong polemic against Joseph, whereas in the Greek Test. xii. Patr. as well as iti Jubilees, Joseph is universally extolled for his goodness and virtue, and the various patriarchs are punished in proportion as they are hostile to Joseph. By the name of Joseph in this polemical treatise we are probably to understand the ten tribes and their successors the Samaritans. Though this treatise was probably com-

posed long after the Christian era, it is based on old materials, .some of which are common to it and the Greek Test. Naph. ; and thus Gaster is probably right in observing that in chap, fi the text must be corrupt where the ship that comes sailing by is said to be fietTTOv rapixuiv, ckto^ vavriai' koX KvfiepvrjTov. The (xeo'Tbi' rapix'^"' full "f "^alt fish ' cannot be correct. It was probably due to a corrupt dittography of nVc N'^a, as n'po N>C, for in the Hebrew 'Testament' the text runs 3S1 n^Sin n"3N njm

Subjoined are some of the arguments for a Hebrew original.

(i) Hebrew constructions and expressions are frequent. Thus, (rvviiiv iv Tii to/xu (Reub. 3)= n-|in3 ]2 > ^^ "(p tf f Ae'f aro (6) = '2 nna; irai'Tas aiirou? (Jud. l) = n'?3, /Sapiis (/*.) = large i.e., 123 ; ^<'* (!*) transliteration of n3 iroielv y-er ai/rov Kpicriv (Joseph. 12) = ny aac'D , !'];, etc. (2) Paronomasiae, which are lost in the Greek but can be restored by retranslation into Hebrew, are frequent. Thus in Sim. 2 17 tJ-r/Trip ixov Ka\e<Te /if 'Zvp.fi^va. OTt riKova-e icvpioj ri)? fieTjcreios avT>)?= '.-^f riN ',';x Nipni rTn':'Sn hlt^yDC '2 Pi'Cr- I" Levin Ua\re TO ovop.a. aiiTOV l>)pcraju.. OTi fu t- yfj rjiXMV napoiKOi ^nei' = ct;nj "ICr nX Nipnl 1iS"lN3 ir\T Dnj 'D ; (Kd\ea-(V avTOV Mepapl o (7Ti niKpia /iOu = <-no t<^n mo ice nx NnpnV, 'luxa^eS . . . irfx^ri iv AlyvTTTw- ci/Sofos yap Vl^ "3K n^DJ "2 "C2 m'^U 123' I" 2ab. 1 cyio (Ifjii Za^ouAiiji', 6<rts aya9r) rot? -yoi/eCo-i |Uiou = -|3l mn j'^jai 31^. In Naph. 1 ei- navoipyia eTroirjae 'yaxrjK . . . Sia toOto iK\ri0riv Ne(/>eaAei> ^ 'S^gj 'nKipj pS "^m nhnZZ- I" 'he closing words of this same chapter we have two paronomasise on the name Bilhah. creice ttji/ BaAAav, Ae'ywc' KcuvoarrovSo^ fiou ij 6vyaTr\p- evOv^ yap rfx8i<ra i<nrev&i 0r]Ka.Cti.v = nrh2'nH 1*7'

nvh n':',i3 -2 'n'?in3 nSnanaK"?- In Issach. i. &ia t6c ilktBov

iKXrier)v 'l(Taxap = ^2C't/' "HNipj l^m- The Hebraisms given in no. I might occur, it is true, in an Hellenistic Greek original ; but it is otherwise with regard to the 'linguistic' phenomena just dealt with. These undoubtedly postulate a Hebrew original. (3) A third and final argument enforces the same postulate. There ate certain passages, obscure or unintelligible in the Greek, which become clear on retranslation into Hebrew. Thus in Zab. 4 i^aXov eaBUiv is unintelligible Greek. This is the text of C and O. R and P correct the text, the former giving iKaOiixav itrdieiv, and the latter T^p^avro ecrOieiv, both of which yield an excellent sense. They are, however, merely late emendations, and we must therefore start from the best attested text t^aAoi- e<TeUi.v = S^xV ICT" = ' they served up food ' It is possible, indeed, that the idea of R is right, and that 1ST' i^ corrupt for 13c"- Hence 'they sat down to eat.' In Gad 4 it is obvious from the contrast instituted between oKiyo\pvx^a- and fioKpoOvtiia that we must take the former not in its natural meaning as ' faintheartedness ' but as ' impatience. ' Hence we have here a mistranslation of nn nsp- Exactly the same contrast appears in Prov. 2a 15, and the sarne false render- ing in (5. Again, in Gad 7, atfyaipeZrai avra iv kokoU must mean ' He taketh them {i.e., riches) away from the wicked,' or 'when [wc] are wicked." Thus iv KaKoU seems due to confusing C"J,'C'"10 and C'i'n3> and should be iv kokoU.

Before leaving the question of a Hebrew original it will be well to notice some of the arguments advanced by Mr. Sinker in favour of the original being Greek.

(i) He urges that the very title at SiaOrJKai k.t.\. is against the hypothesis of a Hebrew original. But it is probable that the title was merely ot t^' jraTpia^x(i' L ^^^ ^ ^^' ^"'^' ^^^. ^"^ argues that such paronomasia as aOtreiv, vovOfTelv (Benj. 4) ; avaCj>eaii, a<j>aCpe(TLi (Judah 23); ei' Ta|ei, iraKTOv ; and Tofis, orafia (Nap. 2 3) imply a Greek original. As regards the first pair, they are late interpolations, since the passage in which they occur is wanting in the Armenian version and in O R. As regards the second pair, P reads avaipe<rii in both cases, R omits a^aCp(ri<:, and the Armenian version omits avaipe<m. It is probable, therefore, that there was no paronomasia in the early Greek version. There is no weight attaching to the other paronomasia; cited. (3) Again, Mr. Sinker speaks of the use of certain philosophical terms as favouring a Greek original. But these are found also in (B. (4) -^gain, the use of in Judah 24, which he presses in favour of a Greek original, is no longer a valid argument, .since we find from the Armenian version that the passage in which it occurs is a Christian interpolation.

We may, therefore, reasonably conclude that the groundwork of the Testaments was originally written in Hebrew. The additions of the Jewish interpolator were, as far as I have examined them, in the same language. Christian inter|M)lations were intro- duced at the close of the first century of the Christian era, and some jjrobably as late as the tliird or the fourth.

The earliest versions were the Greek, the Syriac, and the Armenian. Of the Syriac version only a fragment survives,

#### 73 Versions preserved in the British Museum

(Cat. o/

I i. V ersions. ^^^.^^ ,^ ^ ^. ^.^j j,,. , ^^ Of the W runian version six M.SS, varyinR in dale from 1220 to 1656, are in Venice (in tlic Library of the Mcchitarists of .San Lazzaro); one, of 1388, in Vienna; another, of the fourteenth century, in the library of Lord de la Zouche : and a ninth, in the pos- session of the Ikitish and Foreign Hible Society-. An edition of the Armenian version by the Mechitarist Fathers is soon to issue from the press. No trace has as yet been discovered of a Latin version anterior to that of Grosseteste in the thirteenth century. This version and the later European versions are of no critical worth. There is also an old SlaTonic version published by Tichonrawow in the Denktit. dcr altfuss. Aiocri. Lit., St. Petersburg, 1863.

F'ourl of these MSS have already been made known to the public : the Cambridge MS of the tenth century, and the _ . _T. Oxford MS of the fourteenth, through Sinkers I*, ine edition of the Greek text; t!ie Vatican MS Greek MSS. of the thirteenth and the I'atmos .MS of the sixteenth, through the Appendix he pid)-

hshed m 1879. These four MSS are designated by their editor respectively as CORP, and this notation has been followed in the present article.

It has already been observed that the process of Christian interpolation probably extended from the

#### 75 Date

• ^'^ ^ ^^ ^^^^ century a.d. to the fourth.

As regards the apocalyptic sections (see Ks( ii,\TOl.OGV, 61), which are due to a Jewish inter- polator, we have no means at present of determining their date with any exactness. Some of them are the oldest portions in the book, and were probably written in the second century B.C. ; but some of them are very much later, since they contain citations from the Kthiopic .mid the .Slavonic Enoch. As far as the present writer has examined them, he is inclined to regard them as all springing from a Hebrew original. The date, therefore, of these interpolations may possibly extend from the second century n.c:. to 30 A.n. It may be added, partly on the evidence of the Armenian version and partly from the context, that it is clear that in Levi 15, Judith 23, and Dano, there are no references to the Roman destruction of the temple in 70 A.n. The groundwork may have t)een written about the l)eginning of the Christian era. We can hardly suppo.se it to be based upon Jubilees, for it never mentions it ; yet, since it possesses in common with it a vast mass of biographical details as well as the same chrono- logical system, it is natural to regard both works as almost contemporary and as emanating from the same school of thought.

No attempt has l)een made to give a systematic stateiiKMit of the Christology, since the passages relating

76 Christ- * ^^'^ subject are derived not from one ology " ^^ '"*- period, but from a variety of

scribes and times. The value, therefore, of the ( "hristological portions in this book is slight.

### VIII. The Psalms of .Solomon.

77 Pss Sol '^"^^" ^

Very little is known of the early history of these its fortunes ' P^^"^- ^"'3' -"^' direct and undoubted references to them are found in early literature.

Four of these occur in catalogues of canonical and uncanonical books viz., in the .Synopsis Athnnasii, the Stichometry of Nicephonis, the ' Sixty Hooks,' and the table of contents in the Alexandrian MS. The fifth reference is found in the fifty-ninth canon of the Council of Laodicea, which ordains oti'ou 4(i tJiiurtKOVt i|/oA(xoi>s KiyetT0ai iv rj) iKK\r)(Ti(f, ovSi aKamvKrra fiifi\ia, oAAi fiofa to KavonKo. TJjt TroAain? tal (t<ni'V)s SiaOriKt)^. The sixth belongs to the twelfth century, and consists merely of a note on this canon. With doubtful references we have here

1 Mr. Sinker has .since discovered two other Greek MSS ; and these six MSS, with the other versions, he is using as the foundation of a new Greek Text which, we hope, will see the light soon.

It is obvious, therefore, that the book never attiincd a large circulation. On the other hand, as Ryle and James point out, ' where it was read ' it was ' read with res|x'ct ' ; for ' it is the solitary instance of an OT book which, from being merely dvTiXtyofjui'oi' , Ijccame diruKpv<pov.' As Ijclonging to the former it apjx-ars in the first two lists above mentioned ; as an dir6Kpv<t>ov it is enrolled in the ' Sixty Ikxjks."

It is notable in the next place that, whereas these psalms are designated in the first two lists as ^aXuoi

78 Extent '^^^ (I'abricius (^'3ai) ZoXonwvroi and xf/aXfjiol (cat <f55ai (varia leclio-T]) ' ^o\o- nQfToi, ctIxoi, ^fip, in the next two they are descrilx:d simply as \f/a\fxoi ^oXofiQvTos, with the addition of t^ in the ca.se of A. The Ixjok, therefore, circulated as early as the fifth century in two forms : one consisting simply of the eighteen ' Psalms of .Solomon,' the otlar of these together with certain Odes. The first form is the older. The second probably originated in an att(iii|)t to supplement a defective edition of the first by certain odes or songs, jiartly of Jewish, partly of Christian, authorship, that were current under Solomons name. For if we accept the numlx-r of ffrlxot assigned to tin/ psalms in the MSS {i.e., looo), we must regard the present psalms as deficient to the extent of 300. On the other hand, as the Stichometry of Xicephorus assigns 2100 arixoL to the psalms and the odes combined, the odes themselves must have been about the same length as the psalms. Of the odes only five have \x-vn preserved. These are edited in an apijcndix to the edition of Ryle and James.

Up to the present, five MSS of this book have been found ; but of these the Augsburg MS has long Ijecn lost, though we

poss(-.s a rt-cord of its readings in de la Cerda's 79. Text, clition, ul,i,l, was based upon it. The second

cod V i, thai of Vienna (=V). This MS w.is collated by Haupt f.,i II il^, nfuld's two editions {ZHT/t. (iE68], 133-168, and Messias Juduprutii, 1869, pp. xi-xviii 1-33); but the collation has been recently shown to lie most inaccurate. The next edition is that of (leiger, Der I'satt. Salomo's lurau^g. u. erkl. (1871), based on the same critical materials as Hilgcnfeld's. Though agreeing with Hilgenfeld .as to the date and situation, Geiger maintains, in opposition to him, the Hebrew original. Fritzsche's edition was published in the s:ime year (Liltri afoc. VT grnce, 569-89); and that of Pick in 1883 (/'/. Kn: 775-8i3)- The third codex is the Copenh.agen one (=H), to which attention was first called by Clraux in the Re-,'. Ciit. (1877), 291-293. The Moscosv ( = M) ami Pans (=P) MSS were discovered and collated by Gebhardt. All these authorities have been used in the edition of Ryle and James (liaA/ioi 2oAo/uaJ>'ros, T/te Psa/tiis 0/ the rharisi-(s, 1891). In this edition, eminent alike for its learning and for its critical insight, the reader will find everything worth knowing on the subject. "^ For the remaining literature on these psalms we must refer the student to this work {Inttoii. i;i-L'l), and to Schiir. (in loc); 1 ut we must not forget two of the most fruitful studies that have yet been made namely, an article by Movers in Herder's A'm//c- Lt.vicon (1847), and an Appendix to We.'s Pie J'har. u. Satiti. (1874), which contains the tr.-inslation with notes.

The date must be determined by the references to

1 Ryle and James m.ake it clear that in both cases ' we should read the plural, against the best MS.S.'

2 Since the above account was written two new editions of the text have appeared. The first is that of Swete ('/'Ae OT in Greek, 3 765-787). This editor h.as m.ade a valuable contribution to the criticism of the text by means of a hitherto uncollated MS (which Gebhardt designates R) belonging to the Vaticari. .\ccording to Gebh.ardt, however, his coll.ation of this MS is deficient in point of .accuracy. The second edition is that of O. von Gebhardt (i/zaA^iol SoAo/uaifTO^ Die I'salmen .Snlomonis zu/it ersten Male tnit lienutzuni:: li. Athoshaiiiiscliri/ten und d. Cod. Casanatensis, Leipzig, 1805). In the formation of his text Gebhardt has used the .MSS C H J I. R. Of these only H (the Copenhagen MS) was used by Ryle and J.-imcs, and H R by Swete. Hence C J I- are here used for the first time. These are respectively the Co<ld. Il>eriticus, I_nura-Klostu, and Casanatensis. The remaining MSS, M P V, Clebhanlt regards as not deserving consideration. He gives the following genealogy of all the MSS. Z represents the archetype :

contemporary events ; and, as these are many and 80 Date ^'"^ried, there will be little difficulty in assign- ing a definite period to the activities of the authors.

The book opens with the alarms of war (1 2, 8 i) in the midst of a period of great material prosperity (1 if. 8 7) ; but the prosperity is only seeming: from their ruler to the vilest of the people they are altogether sinful (17 21/). The king, too, be- longs to the family that has usurped the throne of David (IT 6-8). A righteous judgment, however, speedily comes upon them. A hostile army advances against them, led by a 'mighty striker,' who came from the ends of the earth (8 16). The princes of the land go forth to meet him with joy, and greet him with the words, ' Blessed is thy path : come ye, tnter in with peace ' (8 18). When he has established himself within the city he seizes its strongholds (821); he casts down its fenced walls with the battering ram (2i). Then the Gentiles tread Jerusalem under foot ('J 20) ; yea, they pollute even the altar with their presence ("i 2). Its princes and wise counsellors are put to the sword, and the blood of its inhabitants flows like water (S 23) ; its sons and daughters are carried away captive to the West (8 24 17 14) to serve in bondage ('.'a), and its princes to grace the triumph of their conqueror (17 14). Hut the dragon who has conquered Jerusalem (2 29), aimed at lordship of land and sea, and thought himself to be more than man, at last meets with shameful death on the shores of Kgypt, and there is none to bury him (2 aoyC).

There can be little doubt now as to the interpretation of these facts. The family that had usurj^ed the throne of David are the Asmonasans, who, since 105 B.C., had assumed the regal name. The 'mighty s;triker ' who comes ' from the ends of the earth ' is Pompey. The princes who welcomed his approach are Aristobulus II. and Hyrcanus II. When the followers of the latter opened the gates to Pompey, the party of Aristobulus shut themselves up within the temple, where they were besieged by Pompey and their defences battered down with battering-rams. The massacre that follows, and the carrying away captive to the West of princes and people, agree only with the capture of Jerusalem by Pompey. Finally, the cir- cumstances attending the death of the conqueror on the shores of Kgypt recall the death of Pompey in a manner that cannot be misconceived.

We conclude, therefore, that the second psalm was written very soon after the death of Pompey in 48 B.C., and that i, 8, 17 were composed between 63 and 48, as they presuppose Pompey's capture of Jerusalem but show no knowledge of his death. Psalms 5, 7, 9, 13, and 15 seem to allude to the same sequence of events as I, 8, and 17, and therefore to belong to the same period. In 4 and 12, on the other hand, 'the sinners' are denounced ; but as yet no visitation by the Gentiles is spoken of, nor any interposition of the Gentiles in Jewish affairs foretold. Hence these psalms are probably anterior to 64 B.C. Psalms 3, 4, 11, 14, and 16 betray no distinctly historical colouring ; but there is nothing in them which ref|uires us to assume different authorship and date from those of the other psalins. We may, therefore, with Ryle and James, safely assign 70-40 B.C. as the limits within which the psalms were written.

It may be added that Movers, Del. and Keim have identified the invader of Palestine with Herod ; but this is impossible on many grounds ; and just as many difficulties are against Ew.'s identification of this personage with Antiochus Epiphanes. In fact, all modern critics support the view advocated above.

The authors were clearly Pharisees. Thus they divide their countrymen into 'righteous' [Ukolioi; 238/ 83-57/.

#### 81. Authorship

^f i '"if ; "'""'^'^ ' .( W^^ot : 238 di3 49 1.356710), ' samts ( Off lot ; 3 10 47 8 40 etc. ) and ' transgressors ' {inxf)6.vo^oi\ 4 II 1321 27 12 1-4 17 27), of whom the former were the Pharisees and the latter the Sadducees. They assail the ' sinners' for having usurped the throne of David (1758) and laid violent hands on the high-priesthood (176). This assault on the Asmona;an house evidently emanates from a Pharisee.

The authors further denounce the priests for polluting the holy things by their uncleanness and their neglect of the true observances (2358 13 26), and likewise for outdoing the heathen in their abominations (1 8 89). Their attitude, moreover, to the law, theirconception of the theocracy, their ideal of the bearing of a righteous man in the case of (^entile oppression, all alike mark them out as belonging to the Pharisaic school. To the same school appertains the doctrine taught regarding future retribution and the Messiah. In regard to the last, Ryle and James observe with justice that the Messianic conception in these psalms ' marks the revolution which had passed over Pharisaic thought since the time, not a century before, when Israel's mission in the world was identified only with the fulfil- ment and dis.semination of the law. . . . The heroic deeds of Judas Maccabeus and his brothers had rekindled the ardour of the people for a Jewish dynasty and a Jewish kingdom ; and the Pharisaic supporters of a theocracy were powerless so long as their teaching showed no sympathy with this patriotic enthu.sia.sm.' But as it was hopeless to look for Israel's re- demption to the helpless and huied later Asmonajans, so it is just at this crisis that the author of these psalms 'comV>ines the recognition of the failure of the Asmonsean house with the popular enthusiasm for a Jewish monarchy ' (p. 57). Thus the Pharisees ' appealed to the patriotic feelings of those who had no power to appreciate the abstract beauty of the old legalism. By its hope for a "son of David " it proclaimed the downfall of the Levitical Asmonaean house. By its ideal reign of "wi.sdum and righteousness," it asserted the fundamental Pharisaic position that the law was supreme.' Thus 'the Messianic representation of our .seventeenth psalm marks the stage at which Pharisaic thought passed beyond the narrow limits of its earlier teaching, and availed itself of the popular a.spiration for an earthly kingdom.' "This step, however, 'entailed upon the theocratic party no policy beyond the exercise of patience till God should raise up the king, and until then the minute ob.servance of this law' (p. 58). Against the attitude adopted by the writers of this book the Assumption 0/ Moses is a protest from beginning to end (see above, 65).

We give below ( 85) some grounds for assuming that pss. 1-16 and 17-18 are due to different writers.

As the main interests of the psalms centre in 00 T>i. Jerusalem, the writer probably lived in that

82. i-iace. ^j^y

It is 'the City of the Sanctuary' (84); in it shall the song of triumph be sung when God brings back its children from the east and from the west (11 1-3). Though Jerusalem has now been trodden under foot by the Gentiles (2 2), the Messiah will cleanse it from all .such pollution (17 25 33), and thither all the nations of the earth will go up to .see the Messiah's glory (17 34). The psalmist's indictment of the Sadducean members of the Sanhedrim (4 i), and his account of their vices and abomination.s, are best understood as coming from a contemporary inhabitant of Jerusalem. To the writer of psalms 2, 8, and 17 that city is the centre of all the world, and the history of other nations or world-empires is of moment only in as far as it connects itself with 'the Holy City.'

The circumstances connected with these psalms point undoubtedly to a Hebrew original i.e., their compos!-

#### 83. Language.

^'";. ": 70-40 b.c, by a Pharisee residmg m Jerusalem ; and, notwith- standing Hilgenfeld's strong advocacy of a Greek original, all modern scholars admit that the psalms were coinposed in Hebrew.

This fact was first established by Geiger in opposition to Hilgenfeld's view. It has further been substantiated by Kyle and James with a fulness and insight that cannot fail to win conviction (Inlrod. pp. 77-87). .\s for the (jreek translation

#### 84. G-reek 'Version

, we may provisionally accept the date, assigned by the editors just named, who, by a hypothetical train of reasoning, show that it ' is not later than the middle of the first century a.u.'

We will now sketch in a few words some of the teaching of these psalms regarding the Messiah and the resurrec-

#### 88. Eschatology.

'T' ^' f '"^f'^ \- ' ^^"'^ 01. ijDv,ua,uuiu5j-. jl^g writer of p.salm 1/ returns to

the conception of the prophets and describes him as 'the son of David' (I723). He calls him also 'the Anointed One" (t'. 36, cp 186 8) a title that had been applied a few years before to the ideal Messianic king in association with supernatural attributes ( Enoch 48 10 524). Here, however, the Messiah is a man and nothing more.

He is to be raised up by God himself (17 23, cp 186). He is to destroy the supremacy of the Gentiles (the Romans) and drive them f jrth from the borders of Israel (17 25 27 31). The ' proud finners ' (the Sadducees) will be expelled from the heritage of God which they had unlawfully seized (t/v. i()/. 41 51). The Messiah will purge Jeru.salem from all impurity and make it his capital {vv. 33-35) ; he will bring b.ick to Palestine the dispersed tribes (r-.'. 28 34 50) ; the Gentiles will become tributary and be converted to the faith of Israel (^n>. -^xf. 34). He shall himself be free from sin {v. 41), and all his people will be holy (?'. 36). Further, he will not conquer by force of arms

iv. yf), but will smite the earth with the word of his mouth f . 39). Finally, his rule is temporary (z*. 42) : ' He shall not faint all his d.iys." Only the surviving righteous share in his kingdom (17 50); the departed righteous are not raised to participate in it.

As these hopes of the Messiah are confined to pss. 17/, and as not even the remotest hint of such hopes can be discovered in the preceeding sixteen psalms, it appears necessary to assunie for them a difference of authorship.

In these, we should ohserve, there is not a hint that redress for present evils is to be looked for from the Messiah. In every instance the Psalmist expresses his faith that wrong will be set right, either by ('lod's present judgments, by which his righteous- ness is or shall be justified (2 36 4 9 87 i> 3), or by his final judgment of the world, when the righteous shall rise to eternal life (:{ 16 14 6), and hell and destruction and darkness shall be the heritage of transgressors (14 6 ITi 14). This final judgment is spoken of as a ' visitation ' of God upon the righteous and the wicked (3 14-16 1") n/.) \ it is likewise called in respect of the righteous 'the day of mercy for the righteous' (14 6 186), whereas in respect of the wicked it is named ' the day of the judgment of the Lord ' (15 13).

Since there is in pss. 1-16 only a resurrection of the righteous, Sheol was conceived as the perpetual abode of the wicked, 16 2. Into Sheol, thus conceived as hell, the wicked enter immediately on death (16 2 coni|)ared with 14 6 15 11). The intermediate r.bode c^" the righteous is probably to be regarded as the ' treasuries ' to which we find the first reference in Elh. En. 100 s. .See also Kscn.ATOLocY, 67.

### IX. The Sybilline Literature.

#### 86 Prona characteristic of Hellenistic Judaism.

The Sibylline literature belongs to a class of productions highly jjjj i " ' These,' as Schiirer a[)tly remarks, ' were Jewish works under a heathen mask.'

However divergent the outward form assumetl, they all exhibited one characteristic in common :

they addressed themselves to heathen readers, under cloak of some name that was influential in the heathen world, and in the form most natural to their alleged origin.

liulireclly or directly, their aim was the propagation of Judaism among the Gentiles. Whilst the works ascrilnid to Hecat;rus and Aristeas belong to the former category (indirect propaganda), the Sibyllines are distinctly of the latter.

The .Sibyl was regarded in the ancient world as an

inspired prophetess. .She Iwlonged to no prophetic

an et.-u 1 order or priestly caste, but held a ijosition 87. Sibyls, f I . II 1 1 ,

' free anil uncontrolled as a superhumanly

gifted organ of the will and counsels of the gods.

The number of such Sibyls is variously stated at different times. Heraclitus in Plutarch (/->< i'ylhice orac. )), Aristo- phanes (Pax, logs), and Plato {fVuei/r. 2-J), speak of only one. Tacitus {Ann. ti la) is doubtful whether there were more th.an one. Pausanias (Descr. Cnec. 10 12) mentions four, while Varro (in Lactantius, X)/7'. /j///. 1 6) specifies ten. For further in- formation on this subject the reader should consult Ale.x.indre, Orac. Sibyl, (ist ed.), i8s6, 2 i-ioi ; Maa.ss, de .Sihyllari,m In.iicihus (1879), and the arts, on the subject in Smith's Diet. 0/ Gr. ami Rom. Jiiogr., and the J<ncy. Brit. (9).

Written accounts of the oracles delivered by the Sibyls obtained in Greece and Asia Minor only a

#### 88. Sibylline Oracles

private circulation. Still though they were not preserved by the State or publicly consulted, we must not under- rate their importance in the life and thought of the Kastern classical world. In Rome, however, they acquired (|uite a unique position. It is not necessary to treat here of the very ancient collection of these oracles, said to have been purchased by King Tarciuin, or to record the frequent occasions on which they were consulted by the state liefore their destruction in the fire that con- sumed the Capitol in B.C. 83. (Alexandre [2198] has traced sixty such occasions. ) Their place was soon afterwards taken (75 B.C.) by a collection, amounting in all to about 1009 verses, made in Greece, Asia Minor, Africa, and Italy, by order of the Senate. (.After being revised under Augustus, it seems finally to have been burnt by the order of Stilicho in 404 A. D. )

Inasmuch as such oracles enjoyed high authority and a wide circulation in the East, inasmuch, likewise, as they were anonymous in origin, free from authoritative revision, and capable of modification or enlargement at pleasure by those in whose hands they were for the time being, they offered to the missionary spirit of Hellenistic Judaism a form of literature which would readily admit the disguised expression of its highest beliefs, and at the same time procure for them a hearing in Gentile circles. It is not unlikely, too, that the prolongetl search of Roman officials for Sibylline oracles in the East may have further stimulated the inventive faculties of the Alexandrian Jews, and led to the composition of many of the verses in our present collection. In this method of propaganda the Christians proved themselves later to Ik: apt jnipils of the Jews. So common, indee<l, had lx;come in early Christian times the invention of such oracles that Celsus (Orig. coiitr. Cels. 5 61) terms Christians 1.i^v\\i.aTal, believers in sibyls, or sibyl-mongers.

This charge of Celsiis was not unmerited ; for with the exception of a citation alwut the tower of Haljel made by Alexander I'olyhistor, 80-40 K.C. (see Eus. Chron.\2^), and found likewise in Josephus {Ant. I43), it is to Christian writers that we are indebted, not only for all other references, but also for the preservation of the entire collection that has come down to us.

Hermas {Vis. '1 ^) mentions the Sibyl, but not her verses ; but quot.-xtions are frequent in Clement Alex, and Lactantius. A collection of the P.atristic <|uotations from the Sibyllines will be found in Struve {Fragittcnta ii/<rortint Sibyllinorunt quir apud Lactantium refieriuntur: 1817), in Vervorst {De Cariiiinitus Sibytlinis apud sanctos Patres discefitatio, Paris, 1844), in Besangon {De Veniploi que Us Pi-res de f^^hse ont /ait des oracles sibyllins: Montauban, i8si), and in .Alexandre (2 254-3' )

The Sibylline Oracles, as we now have them, are a chaotic medley. They consist of twelve books there were originally fourteen of various

#### 89. Surviving collection.

authorship, date, and religious con- ceiition.* This arrangement, which is due to an unknown editor of the sixth century (Alexandre), does not in itself determine identity of authorship, or of time, or of religious belief ; for many of the books are merely arbitrary groupings of unrelatetl fragments. As the editor, moreover, was guided by caprice as often as by any discernible principle of editing, it is not strange that the same passage fre- quently recurs in different contexts.

The first printed edition of the.se Oracles was published at Ba.stl, in 1545, from an .'\ugsburg (now a Munich) MS, and consisted of eight books. .\ metrical Latin

#### 90. Editions

, translation of these books by Sebastian Cxstalio appeared in the following year, and an emended Greek text from the same scholar in 1555. The most valuable of the early editions is that of Opsopotrus {i.e., Koch), Paris, 1599, in which fresh MS evidence-is brought to bear upon the text. These were followed by that of (Jal- laeus, Amsterdam, 1689 ; but his work is of no critical worth. These eight Sibylline books were likewise reprinted in Ciallandi's Bibliotheca Vett. Patr. (Venice, 1788). Book 14 was first edited by Mai in 1817 from a Milan MS and Books 11-14 from two Vatican MSS in 1828 by the same scholar. Books 9 and 10 have not been recovered. .Ml these editions have been

superseded by the first edition of -Alexandre's Oracuta Sihyllina (2 vols. Pans, 1841-1856), and his second edition of 1869, in which the valuable excursuses of the first are omitted ; and by the edition of Fricdiieb (Leipzig, 1852). The latter has a useful introduction, and is accompanied by a translation into German hexameters ; hut the text is untrustworthy.

By far the best text that has yet appeared is that of Rzach, Oracula Sihyllina (Vienna, 1891). For the formation of this text fourteen MSS have been used ; the text has been further emended by an exhaustive collation of quotations in the Fathers. Our citations will be made from this text.

F'or further literature on the subject, see Alexandre's work (ist ed. 271-82; 2nd ed. 418-419); Schiirer {Hist. 6288-292). English readers will find the subject well treated in the work of Schiirer just mentioned ; Edinb. Km. (July 1877, pp. 31-67); and Deane {Pseude/igr. 1891, pp. 276-344).

The relation of the Jewish and the Christian Sibyllines

to the ancient heathen ones it is practically impossible

_ . to determine, i. They assumetl, of

91. Kel. to course, the outward form of the older heathen Sibyl. Orades, being written in Homeric hexameter verse ; but they transgress e\ ery rule of pro- sody. Short syllables are lengthened through the influence of the accent, or even without it, owing to the exigencies of the verse ; and long syllables are likewise sliortened.

For peculiarities of metre and syntax, see Alexandre, Excursus, 7. It must be acknowledged, however, that many of these disappear in the better text of Rzach. Of acrostic verses, which, according to Dionys. Hal. (462) and Cicero {De Div. 254), was the form of the most ancient Sibyllines, only one specimen is still preserved viz., in 8 217-2S0, the initials of which are IHSOY2 XPEI2T02 EOY YI02 2nTHl> 2T.\Yl'02. It should be observed, further, that without tht; last word 1 the initialsof the title compose the word IXHY2 'a fish 'a frequent symbol of the Christian faith on early monuments.

2. As regards the matter, it is more than probable that the later Sibyls used much of the older material lying ready to hand.

Thus, in 3 414-413 (the passage about Helen), 'the Erinnysfrom Sparta,' is from a heathen source ; so likewise the punning couplet in 4 99-100, which frequently recurs :

K<C\. 2dnoi' a/i^o? an-acj-ac vir" i)iofe(7-<ri. KoXv^eL A^Aos 6' ovK en StJAos, a.hr\Ka. hi navra to. A)]Aov. Another notable instance is S 361, where a line from an ancient Delphic oracle is given verbatim. See Herod. 1 47.

#### 92. Composite character.

94. 397-829.

We must turn from such questions to discuss the various elctuents of which the work is composed. These, as we have already observed, are both Jewish and Christian, and the latter largely preponderate. Owing, however, to the character of the work, it is not always possible to distinguish between the two. It is therefore only on some of the smaller portions that we can arrive at any certainty. Much is of a neutral character, and, as far therefore as internal evidence goes, may equally well have proceeded from either class of writers. There is a great lack of external evidence. We shall now deal with the various elements of the work in their chrono- logical order as far as that is possible. Our space does not admit of an analysis of all the books ; we shall, however, give a short survey of the more important.

The first and oldest part is 397-829- and probably the Proteniiiun. The latter is not found in our M.SS ; it _ istakenfromthe.-/(//^/o/)'6V/;ofTheophilus

- ^^' (180 A.I).). It consists of two fragments, oemium. ^^ thirty-five and forty-nine lines respec- tively. Rzach (pp. 232-238) and Alexandre link them together by another short fragment of three lines. On very inadec|uate grounds the latter editor assigns them to Christian authorship ; but they contain nothing of an essentially Christian cast (on their contents, see EscH.VToi.OGY, 58). W'ith regard to 897-829 opinions are conflicting. Bleek regards verses 97-807 with the exception of 8350- 380, a later Christian interpolation as the work of an Alexandrian Jew, 170-160 B.C. ; Hilgenfeld thinks that the whole of 97-817 was written about 140 )5. c;. ; Ewald brings down the date to 124 B.C. Alexandre assigns 897-294, 4S9-828, to 168, but 295-488 to the age of the Antonines. The strongest evidence in favour of Alexandre's view is to be found in the difficulty of inter- preting adequately such passages as 8464-473 as applying to the civil war and the dissensions of Marius and Sulla (Friedlieb, p. 33).

397-818 falls naturally into three groups: (a) 97-294 ; (i) 295-488 ; (c) 489-8i8. The first (a) opens abruptly with the building and the destruction of Babel (97-104). Then the earth is peopled and its rule is divided between Cronos, Titan, and Japetos (106-110). In the strife that subsequently arose between the Cronides and the Titans these races were destroyed, and tliere arose in succes.sion the great kingdoms of the earth those of Egypt, Persia, Media, ./Etliiopia, Assj-ria, Macedonia, again of Egypt, and of Rome (ii8-i6i). This closes the retrospect of the Siljyl ; now begins her prophecy (162-166). First, she predicts the rise of the Jewish (under Solomon), the Macedonian, and the Roman kingdoms ; during the reign of the seventh king of Egypt, of Hellenic race, the people of God will again become powerful (167-195). Then are recounted the judgments of God

1 A Latin rendering with the last seven verses omitted is given in Augustine's De Civ. IS 23.

2 Where Kriedlieb and Alexandre give 828, Rzach gives 829 verses.

3 In the detailed analysis that follows, certain verses, un- important for the present purpose, are (for the sake of brevity) left unaccounted for.

on the kingdoms of the world and on the Jews (196-212). Next, the Sibyl takes as her theme the praise of the Jewish nation, their virtues, and the salient points in their hi.story from their departure from Egypt down to Cyrus (218-294). The

second group (ft) is mainly concerned with judgments against Babylon, Egypt, Gog and Magog, Libya (295-333), and likewise against individual cities (341-366). Then follows the promise of Messianic prosperity and peace (367-380), and this group closes with oracles regarding Antiochus Epiphanes and his successors, and various countries, towns, and islands (381-488). In 419-^32 we have the celebrated diatribe against Homer. The third

group (f ) opens with oracles against Phcenicia, Crete, Thrace, Gog and Magog, and the Hellenes (489-572). Then Israel is praised for its worship of the true God (573-600). Thereupon ensues a second prophecy of judgment and a call to conversion, and an account of the evils that were to befall the ungodly (601-651). Then the Sibyl foretells the coming of the Messianic king, who would take vengeance on his adversaries ; next comes a detailed .account of the period of Me.ssianic prosperity (652-731), and, finally, the signs that are to herald the end of all things (796-808). The Sibyl declares that she is neither the Erythrsan Sibyl nor yet the Cuma;an (809-818).

3. Though it is obvious from the above epitome that 897-818 is not a single and homogeneous composition but rather an aggregate of separate oracles, we are safe (with SchiJrer) in regarding the three groups as derived in the main from one author, and as dating from the same period, the reign of the seventh Ptolemy, which is referred to in all three groups (192-193, 316-318, 608-610). I Ptolemy VII. Physcon reigned first in conjunction with I his brother Ptolemy VT. Philometor (170-164 B.C.). He was then banished, but recovered the throne in 145 and reigned as sole king till 117 B.C. That the composition dates from the latter period is clear (520-572) from the prophecy of the com- plete subjugation of all Hellas. As Hilgenfeld, Schiirer, and Drummond point out, this cannot have been written before the fall of Corinth (146 u.c). The doom of Corinth is actually referred to (487), and possibly that of Carthage (492-503). Verses 388-400, which deal with the Seleucid kings, were written (according to Hilgenfeld's interpretation) about 140 B.C. Therefore, since the author represents the Messianic kingdom as beginning during the reign of Ptolemy Physcon, we may safely take 97-818 to have been written in the second half of the second century B.C. The Procemium, with which we h.^ve already dealt (see above 93), most probably formed the introduction to these verses, and Schfirer adduces external evidence from Lactantius (iv. (i 5) to that effect.

Before proceeding to discuss 3 1-96, we should add that Friedlieb and others reject 819-828 as a later addition, as these verses are at variance with 809-811.

With regard, however, to 81-92 all previous critics seem to have gone wrong in connecting 63-92 with the preceding verses. In 63-92 the end of all "" things is to come during the sway of Rome over the world (75-80). In 1-62, on the other hand, only the partial judgments that are to take effect on the coming of the Me.ssianic king in 49/ are re- counted. The Sibyl then promi.ses in 61/ to eimmerate the cities that are to suffer ; but here the account breaks off, and not a word more is said in 63-92 in fulfilment of her promise. Hence these two sections are of different authorship. 63 - 92 is certainly late and Christian. On 81-62, see .also Esch.\toi.<)GV, 68.

In 63-74 we have a rejiroduction of the myth concerning Nero, according to wliich Beliar was to return in the form of that emperor and work many mighty signs. This idea recurs in 2 167-170 (a distinctly Christian product), and in the Asc. Isa. 3i3-5i (cp Antichrist, 15).

As regards 3 1-62, it may be derived from one author, and V. 52 may refer to the triumvirate of Antony, Octavius, and Lepidus. In that case this section was written before 31 B.C.

Book 4 is, with Friedlieb, Ew.ald, Hilgenfeld, Alexandre, and Schiirer, to be regarded as of Jewish authorship, and was written about 80 a.d. or somewhat later. This 96. Book 4. date is determined by two allusions : the de- struction of Jerusalem (70 a.d.) in 115-127, and the eruption of Vesuvius (79 a.i>.) in 130-136. The latter was to be the immediate precursor of the vengeance that was to be wreaked on Rome by Nero, returning with many m>Tiads from the East (137-139). There are no grounds for a-ssigning this book, with Ew. and Hilgenfeld, to Essene authorship ; for, with the exception of the reference to ablutions in 163-165, there is no mention of anything characteristic of the E.ssenes, and the words in question are most naturally taken as referring to proselyte baptism (Schurer). The teaching enforced in 179-192 shows that the author cannot have been a Jew of Alexandria, but probably belonged to Palestine ; for the eschatologj' is very naive. From the bones and ashes of men's bodies God will fa-shion anew the bodies in which they will rise to judgment. The judgment will then proceed according to their deeds. The wicked will again die, but the righteous live again on earth. This recalls Enoch 1-30.

#### 97. Book 6.

Book 6 i^rofesses to be the work of an Eeyptian Sibyl, the sister of Isis (t. 53). It is mainly Jewish ; but there may be Christian elements, 'there is a marked absence of ideas charactcristic of Judaism or Christianity, and also of internal connection. Fricdlicb iiltriliulcs the book to an Egyptian lew in the time of Hadrian ; .Mcxiindre to .1 Christian Jew of Alexandria in the age of the Antonines. Tlie first fifty-one lines are in effect a chronological oracle ending with Hadrian. As the rest of the book deals with Egyptian affairs, it is probably of different authorship and date, and we may, with Ewald, Hilgenfcid, and Schiirer, accept 80 A.I), as an .-ipproximate date for 52-531. Some passages are decidedly Jewish : 7n>. 260-285 (announcement of woes upon the idolatrous Gentiles ; but of blessing on Israel), t?: 397-413 (the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem); tta 414-433, 492-511 (the building of a new temple in Egypt which is to take the place of that already destroyed at Leontopolis) ; there .ire others also. The one pass.-ige that seems to be certainly Christian is 256-259 :

Tt it Tit iferat auTis an' ai0poc '(oxot air^p, oi iraJidfiai jjn^iutrtv ini (vAov ayXaoKapwov 'V'fipaiiuv ox api<rTO, of jjiAiov iroT arrtatv '^vri<Ta(i p>)(T(i T< <caA^ xat ;((iA((ni' aytoif .

Book 6 is the work of a Gnostic (?) Christian.

Jesus, the natural son of Joseph, is united with Christ at baptism. The C OB P 1r A a ^""'"^^*cril)es certain incidents at the baptism

8. COOKS 6-8 son1ewh.1t after the manner of the apo<:rypb;d

11-14 1/. gospels. Book 7 is of like authorship .ind is not earlier than the third (see above, 91, 1) century a.d. Book 8, in which the famous acrostic occurs, is of Christian origin but of divided authorship. 1-429 belongs to the second century; 430-501 to the third. As to Books 1 /. and 11-14, there is a great variety of opinion. .Mexandre asssigns the former to a Christian author of the third century, and the latter to an Alexandrian Jew of about the year 2V67. Kriedlieb places \/. at the close of tne second century ;

11-14 he ascribes to Jewish writers of the second and the third centuries A.d. respectively; \'i /. to Christian writers of the third century.

Some of these judgments are simply hypotheses ; there is still room for indefinite study on these questions. K. 11. C.