APOCALYPTIC
AND
APOCRYPHAL
were lost sight of till the 13th century, when they were translated into Latin from a 10th-century MS. (now in Cambridge) by Grosseteste, bishop of Lincoln. The work consists of the dying commands of the twelve sons of Jacob to their children. Each testament treats of a special virtue or vice which finds illustration in the life of the particular patriarch. Three elements are distinguishable in each testament:—(1) The patriarch in each gives an account of his life, dwelling with particular emphasis on his particular virtues or vices. In many respects these accounts are of the nature of a Midrash on the Biblical notice^, concerning him, but in some instances they are in sharp conflict with them. (2) After the historical or legendary notices just referred to the patriarch gives appropriate exhortations, naturally suggested by the qualities conspicuous in his own career. (3) Finally he appends a series of predictions. Grabe {Spicileg. Patrum2, 1714, i. 129-144, 335-374) was the first to suggest that the work was written by a Jew and subsequently interpolated by a Christian. Most subsequent writers, however, rejected Grabe’s view, and so the exegesis of the book became a mere series of fruitless logomachies till Schnapp revived Grabe’s hypothesis in an excellent piece of work, Die Test, der XII Pair, untersucht, 1894, Halle. This critic has tried to prove, firstly, that in its original form the book consisted of biographical details respecting each of the patriarchs, and exhortations suggested by these details: next, that this work was revised by a Jew, who added the portions of an apocalyptic or predictive nature : and thirdly, that the book thus enlarged was revised by a Christian, who modified some passages and in others introduced interpolations. The third thesis has been confirmed by Conybeare’s collation of the Armenian version {Jewish Quarterly Review, 1893, 387 sqcp ; 1896, 260 sqq., 471 sqq) which omits most of the Christian passages in the Greek version. But Bousset has overthrown Schnapp’s second thesis and shown that the apocalyptic sections belonged to the original work: see “ Die Testamente der Zwolf Patriarchen ” in the second number of Preuschen’s Zeit&chr. f d. NTliche Wissenschaft. Till the last few years it has been generally believed that the Testaments were originally written in Greek. But this appears most improbable, and there are good grounds for supposing a Semitic original. In the first place, the greater part of the work cannot be later than 100 b.c. In the next the Greek is thoroughly Semitic in character. Gaster has published a Hebrew text of the Testament of Xaphtali, which he holds to be the original of the Greek. That this is not so, the present writer has shown in Ency. Biblica, i. 239-240. Gaster’s text, which is a late compilation possessing some materials in common with the Greek, is nevertheless of service in explaining through the Hebrew how one hopelessly corrupt passage in the Greek arose. Furthermore, in favour of a Hebrew original, it may be urged that (1) Hebrew7 constructions are frequent; (2) paronomasia), which are lost in the Greek but can be restored by retranslation, are frequent; and (3) certain passages which are unintelligible in the Greek become clear on retranslation. On the other hand, see Pass and Arendzen s 11 Fragment of an Aramaic Text of the Testament of Levi” in Jewish Quarterly Review, 1900, pp. 651-661. Versions.—The Greek version was edited by Sinker from two MSS. in 1869 and the variants of two other MSS. in an appendix in 1879. This scholar has long promised a new edition from six MSS., and another is said to be in preparation by yon Gebhardt. There were also early Syriac and Armenian versions. Of the former only a small fragment survives. The latter was published at Venice in 1896. Most of its variants have been made accessible through Conybeare in the Jewish Quarterly Review above referred
LITERATURE
493
to, and through “Preuschen’s Die armenische Uebersetzung der Testamente der zwolf Patriarchen” in the second number of Preuschen’s Z. f. d. NTliche Wissensch. u. d. Kunde d. Urchristenthums, 1900. Date.—Excluding the Christian additions, which were made at different dates down to the 5th century, the work was composed towards the close of the 2nd century B.C., with the exception of Levix. xiv.-xvi., Judah xxii.-xxv., and certain fragments in Dan. v. and Zebulonix., which belong to the 1st century B.c. See Bousset in Preuschen’s review (mentioned above), 1900, pp. 142-175,187-209, and the articles by Charles, in loc., in Ency. Biblica, i. 237-241, and Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, iv. Psalms of Solomon.—These psalms, in all eighteen, enjoyed but small consideration in early times, for only six direct references to them are found in early literature. Their ascription to Solomon is due solely to his scribes, for no such claim is made in any of the psalms. There are only three valuable editions of the text:—Ryle and James, ff'aX/ioi HohoyCovTos, The Psalms of the Pharisees, 1891, from five MSS. ; Swete, The Old Testament in Greek, iii. 1894, 765-787, from six MSS.; Gebhardt, ^dKyol HohoyCivTos — Die Psalmen Salomonis zum ersten Male mil Benutzung d. Athoshandschriften und d. Cod. Casanatensis, 1895, from five MSS., three of which are used for the first time. The best recent translation into English is that of Ryle and James. It has been done into German by Wellhausen in the appendix to his Die Pharisder u. Sadducaer, 1874, and recently by Kittel in Kautzsch’s Apok. u.Pseud. des A. T. ii. 130-148. The latter translation is based on Gebhardt’s text. The second psalm was written soon after 48 b.c., for it contains a triumphant reference to Pompey’s death, ii. 29for they presuppose Pompey’s capture of Jerusalem, but show no knowledge of his death. Pss. v., vii., ix., xiii., xv., belong apparently to the same period, but iv. and xii. to an earlier one. On the whole Ryle and James are no doubt right in assigning 70-40 b.c. as the limits within which the psalms were written. The authors were Pharisees. They divide their countrymen into two classes—“ the righteous,” ii. 38-39, iii. 3-5, 7, 8, &c., and “the sinners,” ii. 38, iii. 13, iv. 9, &c.; “the saints,” iii. 10, &c., and “the transgressors,” iv. 11, etc. The former are the Pharisees; the latter the Sadducees. They protest against the Asmonsean house for usurping the throne of David and laying violent hands on the high priesthood, xvii. 5, 6, 8, and proclaim the coming of the Messiah, the Son of David, who is to set all things right and establish the supremacy of Israel. Pss. xvii.-xviii. and i.-xvi. cannot be assigned to the same authorship. The hopes of the Messiah are confined to the former, and a somewhat different eschatology underlies the two works (see Charles, Eschatology: Hebrew, Jewish, and Christian, 220-225). There can be no doubt that Hebrew was the original language. This would follow from the fact that they were sung in the public worship of the synagogue, as we infer from the inscriptions. But independently of this fact it is impossible to translate the Greek intelligibly, save on this hypothesis : see the excellent commentary of Ryle and James, pp. Ixxvii.-lxxxvii. Since the Psalms were written in Hebrew, and intended for public worship in the synagogues, it is most probable that they were composed in Palestine. Besides, not a shred of evidence can be adduced in favour of any other country. In addition to the literature mentioned above and in Ryle and James’s edition, Schiirer’s Gesch. des Jud. Volkes• iii. 150 sqq., see Ency. Biblica, i. 241-245. Lost Apocalypses: Prayer of Joseph.—The Prayer of Joseph is quoted by Origen _In Joann. II. xxv. (Lommatzsch, i. 147, 148); in Gen. III. ix. (Lommatzsch, viii. 30speaking and claiming to be “ the first servant in God’s presence,” “ the first-begotten of every creature animated by God,” and declaring that the angel who wrestled with Jacob (and was identified by Christians with Christ) was
