Support Site Improvements

A History Of The Jewish People In The Time Of Jesus Christ: Two Divisions In Five Volumes


Preliminary Observations.

UNQUESTIONABLE as it is on the one hand that zeal for the law of God and the hope of a better future constituted the two distinctive marks of the Judaism of the period now under consideration still it must not be forgotten on the other that those interests sought to express themselves in a great variety of forms and that in the sphere of the spiritual life there were yet other aims that claimed to rank along with them though having no immediate connection with them. How far this was the case may be seen from a glance at the Jewish literature of our period. The aspect which that literature presents is of so diversified a character that it is difficult to combine all the different elements into one connected whole. And if this be true of the literature of Palestinian Judaism alone it becomes much more so if we take into account the literature of Hellenistic Judaism as well. In that case there will be seen to stretch before us a field of so extensive and varied a character that it is scarcely any longer possible to make out the internal connection between all the various products of this literature.

In this strangely varied mass two leading groups may in the first instance be distinguished the Palestinian and the Hellenistic. We select those designations for want of better; and to correspond with them we also divide our subject into two leading sections. But at the same time it must be distinctly borne in mind that the line of demarcation between those two groups is of a somewhat fluctuating and indefinite character and that the designations applied to them are to be taken very much cum grano salis. By the Palestinian Jewish literature we mean that which in all essential (but only essential) respects represents the standpoint of Pharisaic Judaism as it had developed itself in Palestine; while by the Hellenistic Jewish literature again we mean that which either as regards form or matter bears traces; to any noticeable extent of Hellenistic influences. The products belonging to the first-mentioned group were for the most part composed in Hebrew; but the fact of their having been so composed must not be regarded as a decisive criterion and that for the simple reason that in numerous instances it is no longer possible to make out whether it was Hebrew or Greek that was the original language but further because in the case of several compositions the circumstance of their being written in Greek is a thing purely external and accidental. And hence it is that we also include in this group several writings that possibly nay probably were composed in Greek at the very first while reserving for the other group only those that show pretty evident traces of Hellenistic influence either in the form or the matter. But the line of demarcation between the two cannot be sharply defined there being in fact some writings that have almost as much title to be included in the one group as in the other. And just as the distinction we have adopted is not intended to imply that those belonging to the one group were written in Hebrew and those belonging to the other in Greek so as little do we intend it to be understood by our use of the term “Palestinian” that all the compositions included under this designation were written in Palestine. For there was Palestinian Judaism outside of Palestine just as conversely there was Hellenistic Judaism within it.

In the period now under consideration literary efforts as such were essentially foreign to “Palestinian” Judaism. One might almost venture to say that it had no literature at all. For the few literary productions of which it could boast had for the most part a purely practical aim and had but a very slender connection with each other. It is precisely from these writings themselves that we can see how true it is that zcal for the law and for the faith of the fathers eclipsed every other interest. When any one took to writing he did so as a rule for the purpose of in one form or another exhorting his readers to keep firm hold of those precious blessings or of indirectly helping to increase and strengthen a spirit of faithful devotion to the law. Literary pursuits as such and the cultivation of literature in the interests of culture generally were things quite unknown to genuine Judaism. Its “culture” consisted in the knowledge and observance of the law.

Looked at from this standpoint it was a somewhat extraordinary thing to find that in the palmy days of the Hasmonaean dynasty works of native history had been composed (the First Book of Maccabees the Chronicles of Hyrcanus). This presupposed the existence of a patriotic self-consciousness for which native history as such was a thing of some value. Later on after the Hasmonaean dynasty had been overthrown we no longer meet with any further traces of Jewish historiography such as those now referred to; and so for his information with regard to this period Josephus had to depend on other than Jewish sources. We already begin to notice indications of an intimate connection with the aims of legal Judaism in those Psalms that were composed during this period in imitation of the older models (the Maccabaean Psalms the Psalter of Solomon). The whole of those compositions were written with a view to religious edification and therefore—for at that time religion meant simply a firm adherence to the law—more or less with the view of fostering and quickening a spirit of faithful devotion to the law. In our period what is known as gnomic wisdom exercised a direct influence in the way of promoting the spirit in question. For notwithstanding the very diversified character of the wisdom of life exhibited in the proverbs of Jesus the son of Sirach their alpha and omega is simply this: fear God and keep His commandments. Then in the maxims of the scribes of the time of the Mishna and which have been collected in the Pirke Aboth we hear from beginning to end and in every variety of tone the exhortation to a strict observance of the law. But there was a species of literature of a totally different character that also served precisely the same end viz. the hortatory narrative (Judith Tobit). When in compositions of this class we have brought before us in a somewhat imaginative fashion the doings and the fortunes of persons who had been distinguished for their heroic faith or their exemplary piety and who had at the same time been sustained by the divine help the object of the story is not to entertain the reader but to inculcate the truth that the fear of God is the highest wisdom and that a fear of God in the sense of legal Pharisaic Judaism. But in our period a more favourite kind of literature still than the hortatory narrative was the genuine prophetic exhortation i.e. exhortations based upon alleged special revelations with regard to the future destinies of the people. It was a favourite practice to put such revelations in the mouths of the recognised authorities of the olden time with the view of thereby giving peculiar weight to the exhortations and the consolations based upon them. The object therefore of those pseudepigraphic prophetic compositions (Daniel Enoch The Ascension of Moses The Apocalypse of Baruch The Apocalypse of Ezra The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and others) was always of an eminently practical kind viz. consolation amid the sufferings of the present and encouragement to maintain a stedfast adherence to the law by pointing to the certainty of future rewards and punishments. None of those literary productions could be said to have had any direct connection with the professional labours of the scribes. No doubt they served to promote a spirit of faithful devotion to the law but they had no concern with the law and the Holy Scriptures as such; we should rather regard them as free literary productions of a very diversified character and composed for the most part in imitation of the older models. In the period now in question the habours of the scribes labours which concerned themselves with the text of the Holy Scriptures and with the work of forming new adaptations of that text either on its legal or its historical and dogmatic side were as yet chiefly of an oral kind. This holds true above all with regard to the process of adaptation as applied to the law. It was not till toward the close of our period in the time of R. Akiba that the results of these learned adaptations of the law began to be committed to writing (see ). On the other hand however there undoubtedly existed as early as our period literary adaptations or reconstructions of sacred history framed in the spirit of scribism. The Book of Chronicles may be taken as a case in point inasmuch as it treats the earlier history of Israel in such a way as to make it accord with the ideals of later Judaism (see ). But we have a classical example of the Haggadic Midrash in the Book of Jubilees which in any case falls within the period with which we are here dealing. It reconstructs the history of the canonical Book of Genesis entirely after the fashion of the Rabbinical Midrash. Other literary productions which in all probability fall no less within our period select certain episodes or personages from sacred history around which they seek to shed a halo of glory by means of fictitious legends (the Books of Adam the History of Jannes and Jambres and others). It would appear however that at first Hellenistic did more in this way than Rabbinical Judaism. For this latter the palmy days of haggadean fiction did not begin till the Talmudic age. The object of those modifications or embellishments of sacred history was now no longer of so directly practical a character as it had been in the case of the majority of the writings previously mentioned. They owed their origin in the first instance to the universal interest that was taken in the sacred history generally to the desire to have as exact and complete and accurate an acquaintance with it as possible in connection with which however the tendency to embellish it also began at once to assert itself. And yet this tendency again had now in like manner an ulterior practical aim. In thus throwing around the sacred history as bright a halo as possible the object was to show to what an extent Israel had from time to time been enjoying the miraculous protection of its God but above all how by their exemplary conduct and wonderful exploits the holy patriarchs had proved themselves to be true men of God.

Thus we see then that it was objects chiefly of a practical kind that the literary efforts of Palestinian Judaism sought to serve. This was at least true of the department of history with the consideration of which we will now enter upon our present subject.

1. The First Book of Maccabees

Short notices of the Maccabaean rising and of the brothers Judas Jonathan and Simon Maccabaeus who played so prominent a part in it must have been committed to writing shortly after the events themselves. For it is simply impossible that any writer living two generations after could have been so well informed with regard to those events as we find the author of the First Book of Maccabees to be unless he had been able to avail himself of existing written sources. Those sources of the First Book of Maccabees—though we know nothing further of their origin and nature—are therefore entitled to foremost mention in any complete list of the historical literature of our period.

Our First Book of Maccabees itself gives a connected minute and graphic narrative of the events that led to the Maccabaean rising then of the course of the rising itself particularly of the exploits and fortunes of Judas Maccabaeus. It then proceeds to give the further history of the patriotic enterprises of the Jews under the leadership of Jonathan the brother of Judas and of the institution of the Hasmonaean high priesthood and the founding of Jewish independence by the former. Then lastly we have an account of Simon Jonathan’s brother and successor who by establishing the combined office of priest and prince and making it hereditary in the family of the Hasmonaeans on the one hand and by the complete emancipation of the Jewish people from Syrian supremacy on the other completed on both its sides the work undertaken by Jonathan. The narrative is brought down to the death of Simon so that altogether it embraces a period of forty years (175–135 B.C.). The standpoint of the author is that of orthodox rigidly legal Judaism. But yet it is somewhat remarkable that the successes with which the Maccabaean enterprises were crowned are almost nowhere attributed to any immediate supernatural intervention on the part of God but are represented throughout as the result of the military skill and political wisdom of the Maccabaean princes. Of course those princes always act with an unshaken trust in the powerful protection and help of God. It would therefore be a mistake to suppose that the author is not animated by a religious spirit. But still his way of putting things is at the same time rather different from that of the earlier historical works of the Old Testament. His style is the plain narrative style being similar to that adopted in Old Testament historiography. The author has at his disposal such a fund of details that it is impossible to entertain any doubt as to the credibility of his narrative as a whole. His book is one of the most valuable sources we possess for the history of the Jewish people. Nor is its value in this respect in any way affected by the fact that the author shows himself to be very imperfectly informed with regard to the state of things among foreign nations. We see in this only the simple standpoint of the observer who following his sources confines his view exclusively to the circle of Jewish affairs. Again the freedom with which numbers are dealt with and discourses put in the mouths of leading personages can scarcely be regarded as telling against the author. In matters of this sort ancient historians generally were never particularly scrupulous. It is a singularly fortunate circumstance that the dates of all the more important events are duly fixed in accordance with a definite era namely the Seleucidian era of the year 312 B.C. (on the question as to whether in the present instance this era was made to date from the usual starting-point or from another somewhat different from it see § 3). As regards the date of composition it is admitted on all hands that this work must have been written previous to the Roman conquest and therefore previous to the year 63 B.C. For as yet the Romans are known to the author merely as friends and protectors of the Jewish people in contrast to the Syrian kings. On the other hand he is already acquainted with a chronicle referring to the history of John Hyrcanus so that he must have written at the soonest toward the close of that prince’s reign probably not till after its close. According to this the work would be composed during the first decades of the first century before Christ. It was written originally in Hebrew (or Aramaic) as may be confidently Inferred from its grammatical peculiarities and as is further confirmed by the testimony of Origen and Jerome. The Hebrew (or Aramaic) title Σαρβὴθ Σαβαναιέλ handed down by Origen still continues to be as much as ever an unsolved enigma. The work has come down to us only in the form of a Greek translation which was probably in existence as early as the time of Josephus. That it is still extant is due to the circumstance of its having been incorporated with the Greek Bible and as forming part of this latter read in the Christian Church.

At the close of his account of the Hebrew canon Origen adds (as quoted in Euseb. Hist. eccl. vi. 25. 2): Ἔξω δὲ τούτων ἐστὶ τὰ Μακκαβαϊκὰ ἅπερ ἐπιγέγραπται Σαρβὴθ Σαβαναιέλ. Consequently he was acquainted with the First Book of Maccabees (for unquestionably it is it that is meant) in its Hebrew form but as not belonging to the Hebrew canon. Jerome Prologus galeatus to the Books of Samuel (Opp. ed. Vallarsi ix. 459 sq.): Machabaeorum primum librum Hebraicum reperi. Secundus Graecus est quod ex ipsa quoque φράσει probari potest. An endless variety of hypotheses have been advanced with the view of explaining the meaning of the title mentioned by Origen (see Fabricius-Harles Biblioth. graec. iii. 745; Grimm Exeget. Handbuch to 1 Macc. p. xvii.; Keil Commentar über die Bücher der Makkabäer p. 22; Curtiss The Name Machabee 1876 p. 30; and the general literature mentioned below). But nearly all of them are based upon the reading Σαρβὴθ Σαρβανεέλ so generally adopted since Stephanus whereas according to the testimony of the manuscripts the only reading that can claim to be recognised is Σαρβὴθ Σαβαναιέλ (so also Josephus the Christian Hypomnest. c. xxv. in Fabricius’ Codex pseudepigr. Vet. Test. vol. ii. p. 48 of Appendix).

The acquaintance of Josephus with the First Book of Maccabees is generally regarded as beyond a doubt; his acquaintance on the other hand with our Greek text has been questioned. In his German translation of 1 Maccabees (1778) Michaelis has propounded the view that Josephus made use of the Hebrew text. His arguments however are not of a cogent nature. The conjecture has recently been hazarded by Destinon (Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus 1882 pp. 60–91) that Josephus (or rather as Destinon thinks the anonymous writer whose work Josephus has merely remodelled) had an older redaction of 1 Maccabees before him which on the one hand was in regard to many points rather fuller than our book while on the other it wanted as yet the whole of the last section chaps. xiv.–xvi. which is to be regarded as a subsequent addition. But the first point cannot be sufficiently substantiated; for the extra matters found in Josephus were either drawn from other sources or had their origin in the historian’s own imagination. As for the other question again whether Josephus was acq uainted with the concluding section of the book it is one that of course deserves consideration in view of the singular brevity with which the historian disposes of the reign of Simon. As favouring the view that Josephus was acquainted with our Greek text see Grimm Exeget. Handbuch to 1 Macc. p. xxviii. Bloch Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus 1879 pp. 80–90.

In the Christian Church our book has been read from the very first. See Tertullian Adv. Judaeos c. iv.: Nam et temporibus Maccabaeorum sabbatis pugnando fortiter fecerunt etc. (comp. 1 Macc. 2:41 sqq.). Hippolytus in narrating the history of the Maccabean rising in his Comment. in Daniel c. xxxi.–xxxii. (Opp. ed. Lagarde p. 163) adheres closely to our book quoting 1 Macc. 2:33 sqq. almost word for word. Origen (besides the passage in Euseb. Hist. eccl. vi. 25. 2 already mentioned) particularly Comment. in epist. ad Rom. book viii. chap. i. (in Lommatzsch vii. 193): Sicut Mathathias de quo in primo libro Machabaeorum scriptum est quia “zelatus est in lege Dei” etc. (1 Macc. 2:24). Observe the designation of our book as the First Book of Maccabees precisely as in the case of Jerome in the passage already quoted and in that of Ensebius Demonstr. evang. viii. 2. 72 ed. Gaisford. Cyprian quotes several passages from the book in his Testimonia and always with the formula in Machabaeis (Testimon. iii. 4 15 53). For the further history of the book in the Christian Church see the various works and dissertations on the history of the Old Testament canon also Jahn’s Einleitung in die göttl. Bücher des Alten Bundes 2nd ed. Part ii. § 3 and 4 (1803) 1st and 2nd supplements and likewise my article “Apokryphen des A. T.” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. i. 485–489. As is well known it has been the practice in the Protestant Church to follow Jerome in applying the designation “Apocrypha” to such books as are not included in the Hebrew canon and it so happens that our book is one of them.

From the history of the book just given it will be seen that the Greek text has been transmitted to us only through the manuscripts of the Greek Bible. The Books of Maccabees being omitted in Codex Vaticanus 1209 the most important manuscripts here are the Codex Sinaiticus (quoted in Fritzsche’s edition of the Apocrypha as x.) and the Codex Alexandrinus (known in Fritzsche as in Holmes and Parsons before him as No. iii.); next to these comes a Codex Venetus (known in the critical apparatuses as No. 23). All the other manuscripts are minusculi. For more precise information on this point see my article “Apocrypha” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. i. pp. 489–491. The text of our book in common with that of the so-called Apocrypha generally is to be found in the majority of the editions of the Septuagint. The received text is borrowed from the Sixtine edition (Vetus Testamentum juxla Septuaginta ex auctoritate Sixti v. Pont. Max. editum Romae 1587). The most copious critical apparatus we have is to be found in the Vetus Testamentum Graecum edd. Holmes et Parsons 5 vols. Oxonii 1798–1827 (the whole of the Apocrypha are given together in the fifth volume). We have a handy portable edition in the shape of the Vetus Testamentum Graece juxta LXX. interpretes ed. Tischendorf 2 vols. Leipz. 1850 (6th ed. 1880). Tischendorf as well as Holmes and Parsons follow the Sixtine text. Among the separate editions of the Apocrypha we may mention the Libri Vet. Test. Ap cryphi textum graecum recognorit Augusti Lips. 1804 and the Libri Vet. Test. apocryphi graece accurats recognitos ed. Apel Lips. 1837. The latest and best of such editions although even it fails as yet to satisfy every requirement is the Libri apocryphi Veteris Testamenti graece recensuit et cum eommentario critico edidit Fritzsche Lips. 1871 (Fritzsche gives a recension of his own based upon the materials furnished by Holmes and Parsons and upon the recently acquired Codex Sinaiticus as well as the fragments in the Codex Ephraemi). So far as some of the books are concerned Fritzsche had not as yet collated them with the most important of the manuscripts the Codex Vaticanus there being no complete collation in Holmes and Parsons. It is true no doubt that this manuscript had been already made use of for the Sixtine edition so that so far it helped to shape the received text. But the text of the Vaticanus could not be said to be known to any trustworthy extent till the issue of the new Roman edition (Bibliorum Sacrorum Graecus Codex Vaticanus edd. Vercellone et Cozza 6 vols. Rome 1868–1881; comp. Theol. Litztg. 1882 p. 121). The edition of Mai (Vetus et Novum Testamentum ex antiquissimo codice Vaticano 5 vols. Rome 1857) is unreliable. Nestle has added to the latest edition of Tischendorf’s Septuagint a collation based upon the edition of Vercellone and Cozza (also published separately under the title Veteris Testamenti codices Vaticanus et Sinaiticus cum textu recepto collati ab E. Nestle Lips. 1880). For more on the editions see Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. vol. i. 494 sq.

Of the early translations the following are of interest in connection with the history of the transmission of the text: (1) The Latin of which there are two (a) the one that was incorporated with the Vulgate and (b) another which as far as chap. xiii. has been preserved in a Codex Sangermanensis both being given in Sabatier Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae vol. ii. Remis 1743. (2) The Syriac in the Peshito (separate edition Libri Vet. Test. apocryphi Syriace ed. Lagarde Lips. 1861). In the great Peshito manuscript of Milan reproduced in photo-lithograph by Ceriani (Translatio Syra Pescitto Veteris Testamenti ex codice Ambrosiano ed. Ceriani 2 vols. Milan 1876–1883) we have as far as chap. xiv. a Syriac translation which deviates from the printed received text; see Ceriani’s prolegomena; and Nestle Theol. Literaturztg. 1884 col. 28. For more on the early translations see Herzog’s Real-Enc. i. 491–494. Also the texts in the London Polyglot vol. iv.

Exegetical Aids. (1) Special lexicon: Wahl Clavis librorum Veteris Testamenti apocryphorum philologica Lips. 1853. (2) Modern versions: the German translations of De Wette (Die heil. Schrift des A. und N. T.’s übersetzt 4th ed. 1858) and of Holtzmann (in Bunsen’s Bibelwerk für die Gemeinde vol. vii. Leipzig 1869) the latter with short notes. Versions in other modern languages: Dijserinck De apocriefe boeken des ouden verbonds uit het grieksch opnieuw vertaald en met opschriften en eenige aanteekeningen voorzien Haarlem 1874. Reuss La Bible traduction nouvelle avec introductions et commentaires Ancien Testament VI partie Philosophie religieuss et morale des Hebreux Paris 1879 (containing among others Sirach Wisdom Tobit the appendices to Daniel Baruch the Prayer of Manasseh); VII partie of the same work Literature politique et polemique Paris 1879 (containing among others the Books of Maccabees Judith Bel and the Dragon Epistle of Jeremiah). Bissell The Apocrypha of the Old Testament with historical introductions a revised translation and notes critical and explanatory New York 1880. On Luther’s translation see Grimm Luthers Uebersetzung der ATl. Apokr. (Stud. u. Krit. 1883 pp. 375–400). (3) Commentaries: J. D. Michaelis Deutsche Uebersetzung des ersten Buchs der Maccabäer mit Anmerkungen 1778. Grimm Das erste Buch der Maccabäer erklärt (Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des A. T.’s 3 parts) Leipzig 1853 (by far the most sterling work on the subject which we possess). Keil Commentar über die Bücher der Maccabäer Leipzig 1875. For additional exegetical literature see Grimm p. xxxiv. sq. Fürst Bibliotheca Judaica ii. 317 sq. and Herzog’s Real-Enc. vol. i. 496.

Works of critical inquiry: Frölich Annales compendiarii regum et rerum Syriae Viennae 1744. E. F. Wernsdorf De fontibus historiae Syriae in libris Maccabaeorum prolusio Lips. 1746. Frölich. De fontibus historiae Syriae in libris Maccabaeorum prolusio Lipsiae edita in examen vocata Viennae 1746. Gottl. Wernsdorf Commentatio historico-critica de fule historica librorum Maccabaicorum Wratislav. 1747. (Khell) Auctoritas utriusque libri Maccabaici canonico-historica adserta Viennae 1749. Rosenthal Das erste Maccabäerbuch Leipzig 1867. Schnedermann Ueber das Judenthum der beiden ersten Maccabäerbücher (Zeitschr. für kirchl. Wissensch. und kirchl. Leben 1884 pp. 78–100). Critical material is also to be found in the early and the more recent polemical treatises on the value of the Apocrypha by Rainold Keerl Stier Hengstenberg Vincenzi and others; see Herzog’s Real-Enc. i. p. 489.

For the circumstances under which our book and the Apocrypha generally were written see Jahn Einleitung in die göttl Bücher des A. B. 2nd ed. second part 3rd and 4th secs. Wien 1803. Eichhorn Einleitung in die apokryphischen Schriften des A. T. Leipzig 1795. Bertholdt Historisch-kritische Einl. in die sämtl. kanon. und apokr. Schriften des A. und N. T.’s 6 vols. Erlangen 1812–1819. Welte Specielle Einleitung in die deutero-kanonischen Bücher des A. T.’s Freiburg 1844 (also under the title Einl. in die heil. Schriften des A. T.’s von Herbst 2 parts 3 divisions). Scholz Einleitung in die heil. Schriften des A. und N. T.’s 3 vols. Köln 1845–1848. Nöldeke Die Alttestamentltche Literatur in einer Reihe von Aufsätzen dargestellt Leipzig 1868. De Wette Lehrbuch der hist.-krit. Einleitung in die kanonischen und apokryphischen Bücher des A. T.’s 8th ed. bearb. von Schrader Berlin 1869. Reusch Lehrb. der Einl. in das A. T. 4th ed. Freiburg 1870. Keil Lehrb. der hist.-krit. Einleitung in die kanon. und apokryph. Schriften des A. T.’s 3rd ed. 1873. Kaulen Einleitung in dis heil. Schrift A. und N. T.’s 2 divisions 1st part Besondere Einl. in das A. T. Freiburg 1881. Kleinert Abriss der Einkitung zum A. T. in Tabellenform Berlin 1878. Reuss Geschichte der heil. Schriften Alten Testaments Brauntohweig 1881. Geiger Urschrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel 1857 p. 200 sqq. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel iv. 602 sqq. Fritzsche in Schenkel’s Bibellex. iv. 89 sqq.

2. The History of John Hyrcanus

We have probably a work similar to that of the First Book of Maccabees in the History of John Hyrcanus to which reference is made at the close of the former where it is said 1 Macc. 16:23 24: καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν λόγων Ἰωάννου καὶ τῶν πολέμων αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν ἀνδραγαθιῶν αὐτοῦ ὧν ἠνδραγάθησε καὶ τῆς οἰκοδομῆς τῶν τειχέων ὧν ᾠκοδόμησε καὶ τῶν πράξεων αὐτοῦ ἰδοὺ ταῦτα γέγραπται ἐπὶ βιβλίῳ ἡμερῶν ἀρχιερωσύνης αὐτοῦ ἀφʼ οὗ ἐγενήθη ἀρχιερεὺς μετὰ τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ. Apart from this notice we have no further information regarding this work. As the reign of John Hyrcanus did not possess the same interest for subsequent generations as the epoch in which Jewish independence was established through the achievements of the Maccabees the book would have but a limited circulation and could not fail soon to be lost altogether. It is evident that Josephus knew nothing of it in his time for the supposition that he made use of it in his Antiquities is more than improbable. What few notices he has regarding the reign of John Hyrcanus at all are either borrowed in so far as they refer to external political history from Greek historians or in so far as they refer to internal affairs are of a purely legendary character. No trace can be detected of the use of any contemporary Jewish source. Considering then at how early a period the history of Hyrcanus dropped out of sight it is inconceivable that it should still have existed in manuscript in the sixteenth century as following Sixtus Senensis many have assumed.

In his Bibliotheca sancta (Venetiis 1566) Sixtus Senensis gives an account at p. 61 sq. of a Fourth Book of Maccabees which he saw in the library of Santes Pagninus at Lyons and which began as follows: Καὶ μετὰ τὸ ἀποκτανθῆναι τὸν Σίμωνα ἐγενήθη Ἰωάννης υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ἀρχιερεὺς ἀντ αὐτοῦ. Judging from the enumeration of the contents as given by Sixtes this book simply narrates the history of John-Hyrcanus and that precisely as in Josephus (the same facts and in the same order). With regard to this he himself observes: Historiae series et narratio eadem fere est quae apud Josephum libro Antiquitatum decimo tertio; sed stylus hebraicis idiotismis abundans longe dispar. Consequently he ventures to conjecture that it may have been a Greek translation of the history of Hyrcanus mentioned at the end of the First Book of Maccabees. Many modern writers have concurred in this conjecture and hence their regret that the manuscript should have perished soon after when the library just mentioned was destroyed by fire (see Fabricius-Harles Biblioth. graeca iii 748. Grimm Exeget. Handbuch note on 1 Macc. 16:24). But in view of the enumeration of the contents given by Sixtus it seems to me there can hardly be a doubt that the book was simply a reproduction of Josephus the style being changed perhaps for a purpose.

3. Josephus’ History of the Jewish War

In post-Hasmonaean times the fondness for writing histories seems to have died away. At least we nowhere come across any hint to the effect that the writing of anything like connected historical narratives had been undertaken by any one. It was not till the important events of the war extending from the year 66 to 70 B.C. that the occasion for such histories once more presented itself. The Jewish priest Joseph son of Matthias better known under the name of Flavius Josephus wrote the history of this war of which he himself had personal knowledge whether as a passive observer or as playing an active part in it. He composed the work in his own vernacular therefore in the Aramaic tongue and intended it chiefly for the benefit of the ἄνω βάρβαροι i.e. the Jews of Mesopotamia and Babylon. Of this work we know nothing beyond what he himself mentions in his Greek version of the history of the Jewish war Bell. Jud. prooem. 1 where he says: προυθέμην ἐγὼ τοῖς κατὰ τὴν Ῥωμαίων ἡγεμονίαν Ἑλλάδι γλώσσῃ μεταβαλών ἃ τοῖς ἄνω βαρβάροις τῇ πατρίῳ συντάξας ἀνέπεμψα πρότερον ἀφηγήσασθαι. The Greek version of this work in common with the extant works of Josephus generally belongs to the department of Hellenistico-Jewish literature and will therefore fall to be mentioned in the next section.

1. The Psalms of the Maccabaean Age

It had been already observed by Calvin with reference to the 44th Psalm that: Querimoniae quas continet proprie conveniunt in miserum illud et calamitosum tempus quo grassata est saevissima tyraunis Antiochi. Ever since the question whether psalms belonging to the Maccabaean age are also to be found in our canon has been mooted and more and more answered in the affirmative. It was Hitzig Lengerke and Olshausen above all that referred a large number of the psalms to the time of the Maccabaean struggles and to a still later period (embracing the reign of the Hasmonaean princes down to the second century B.C.). Others have limited the number of Maccabaean psalms to only a very few. But the fact that we have psalms belonging to Maccabaeau times in the canon at all is being more and more recognised. Nor is it possible to allege any plausible reason for thinking otherwise. For the assertion that that was an age but little calculated to develope religious fervour or poetical genius is a mere petitio principii while as little can be said in favour of the Other assertion that at that time the canon had been already closed. for this is just a point about which we simply know nothing whatever unless we ought rather to say that the Book of Daniel alone is sufficient proof to the contrary. If therefore the possibility of the existence of psalms belonging to Maccabaean times be beyond question then it can only be shown from the contents of the different psalms themselves how far that possibility is also a reality. Accordingly there is a wide consensus of opinion in favour of the view that the 44th 77th 79th and 83rd Psalms above all contain within themselves the most powerful reasons possible for ascribing their origin to the Maccabaean age. It was only then that it could be rightly and fairly asserted as is done in Ps. 44 that the people had faithfully adhered to the covenant made with Jehovah and had not deviated from it and that it was just for this very reason therefore for their religion that they were being persecuted (Ps. 44:18 19 23). It is only to such a time as that that we could well refer the complaints that the “houses of God” (מוֹעֲדֵי־אֵל) i.e. the synagogues had been burnt in the land and that there is no longer any prophet there (Ps. 74:8 9). There is no age except the Maccabaean to which all that could so well apply which in Ps. 79 is said about the desecration but not the destruction of the temple and the laying waste of Jerusalem and in Ps. 83 on the persecution of Israel. But if these four psalms had their origin in Maccabaean times then there are many more of a kindred nature that must be referred to the same period. The real point at issue then can only be not “whether” there are any such psalms at all but only “how many of them” there are. And this will always remain a disputed point for there are but few of the psalms that bear such evident traces of the date and circumstances of their origin as those just mentioned. Meanwhile let it suffice to have pointed out the fact that the holy Church of the Maccabaean time has given proof of its creative powers in the department of sacred lyrics as well through those new psalms in which it pours out its wail of distress before God and cries for protection and help from the Almighty.

For the literature of this question see the various introductions to the Old Testament for example De Wette-Schrader Einleit. in die kanon. und apotr. Bücher des A. T.’s (1869) § 334; Kleinert Abriss der Einl. zum A. T. (1878) p. 45.

The following authorities have expressed themselves in favour of the view that there are Maccabaean psalms in our canon: Rüdinger (1580). Venema (1762–67). E. G. Bengel Dissertatio ad introductiones in librum Psalmorum supplementa quaedam exhibens Tübing. 1806. Hitzig Begriff der Kritik am A. T. praktisch erörtert Heidelb. 1831. Idem Die Psalmen 2 vols. Heidelb. 1835 1836. Idem Ueber die Zeitdauer der hebräischen Psalmenpoesie (Züricher Monatschr. 1856 pp. 436–452). Hesse De psalmis Maccabaicis Vratisl. 1837. Lengerke Die fünf Bücher der Psalmen 2 vols. Königsberg 1847. Olshauaen Die Psalmen erklärt Leipzig 1853 (being the fourteenth number of the Exegetical Handbook to the Old Testament). De Jong Disquisitio de Psalmis Maccabaicis Lugd. Bat. 1857. Steiner art. “Psalmen” in Schenkel’s Bibellex. vol. v. pp. 1–9. Reuse Gesch. der heil Schriften Alten Testaments (1881) § 481. Comp. further Reuse La Bible Ancien Testament 5th part Paris 1875. Giesebrect Ueber die Abfassungszeit der Psalmen (Stade’s Zeitsch. für die alttestamentl. Wissensch. vol. i. 1881 pp. 276–332). Delitzsch in the more recent editions of his commentary on the psalms also admits the existence of several Maccabaean psalms.

The following authorities again take an opposite view: Gesenius in No. 81 of the supplements to the Allgemeinen Literaturzeitung 1816. Hassler Comment. crit. de psalmis Maccab. 2 vols. Ulm 1827–1832. Ewald Jahrb. der bibl. Wissensch. vi. 1854 pp. 20–32 viii. 1857 p. 165 sqq. Dillmann Jahrbb. für deutsche Theol. 1858 p. 460 sqq. Hupfeld Die Psalmen übersetzt und ausgelegt 4 vols. Gotha 1855–1862. Ehrt Abfassungszeit und Abschluss des Psalters zur Prüfung der Frage nach Makkabäerpsalmen historisch-kritisch untersucht Leipzig 1869. Wanner Etude critique sur les Psaumes 44 74 79 et 83 considéres par plusieurs théologiens comme provenant de l’époque des Maccabées Lusanne 1876 (comp. the reviews in the Revue de théologie et de philosophie 1877 p. 399 sq.).

2. The Psalms of Solomon

In the list of books as given in several copies of the Christian canon of the Old Testament the ψαλμοὶ Σολομῶντος are also included and that in some instances under the category of ἀντιλεγόμενα along with the Books of Maccabees the Wisdom of Solomon Jesus the Son of Sirach Judith Tobit etc. (as in the case of the so-called Stichometria of Nicephorus and in the Synopsis Athanasii) and in others under the category of ἀντιλεγόμενα along with Enoch the Patriarchs Apocalypses of Moses and Ezra etc. (as in the case of anonymous list of the canon still extant in various manuscripts). From its first-mentioned position we can see that in the Christian Church this book was in many quarters regarded as canonical. It is included under the category of ἀπόκρυφα simply because not being in the Hebrew canon it was not acknowledged to be canonical by those who made that the standard. Besides this there are still in existence several Greek manuscripts of the Bible in which the Psalms of Solomon find a place precisely in accordance with the lists just mentioned; and it is just possible that if the manuscripts of the Septuagint were carefully searched there might be found to be still more of them than are already known to us. These psalms amount to eighteen in number. They were first printed from an Augsburg manuscript by de la Cerda (1626) and subsequently by Fabricius (1713) while in our own time an edition collated with a Vienna manuscript has been published by Hilgenfeld whose text is also followed in the editions of Geiger Fritzsche and Pick.

The ascribing of these psalms to Solomon is simply due to the later transcribers. The work itself does not lay the slightest claim to such authorship; on the contrary it betrays very distinct traces of the date of its composition. That certainly was not as Ewald Grimm Oehler Dillmann (at one time) Weiffenbach and Anger would have us believe the time of Antiochus Epiphanes nor as Movers Delitzsch and Keim suppose the time of Herod but as is now universally admitted—for example by Langen Hilgenfeld Nöldeke Geiger Carriere Wellhausen Reuss Dillmann (now)—the period shortly after the conquest of Jerusalem by Pompey. That the psalms were composed at that time may be regarded as absolutely certain from the various explicit indications of this in the second eighth and seventeenth psalms. The contemporary state of things which these psalms presuppose is somewhat as follows: A family to which the promise of ruling over Israel had not been given seized the reins of government by force (17:6). They did not give God the glory but of themselves assumed the king’s crown and took possession of the throne of David (17:7 8). In their time the whole of Israel fell into sin. The king despised the law the judge was unfaithful to truth and the people lived in sin (17:21 22). But God overthrew those princes by raising up against them a man from a strange land and who was not of the race of Israel (17:8 9). From the ends of the earth God brought one who could strike with a mighty blow who declared war against Jerusalem and all its territory. The princes of the land in their blindness went out to meet him with joy and said to him: “Thy approach has been longed for come hither enter in peace.” They opened the gates to him so that he entered like a father into the house of his sons (8:1520). But after he had securely established himself in the city he also seized the battlements and threw down the walls of Jerusalem with the batteringram (8:21 2:1). Jerusalem was trodden under foot by the heathen (2:20); nay the strange peoples ascended the altar of God itself (2:2). All the leading men and every wise man in the council were put to death; and the blood of the inhabitants of Jerusalem was poured out like unclean water (8:23). The inhabitants of the land were carried away captive into the West and its princes insulted (17:13 14 2:6 8:24). But at last the dragon that had conquered Jerusalem (2:29) was itself put to death on the mountains of Egypt by the sea-shore. But his body was allowed to lie unburied (2:30 31). It can scarcely require any further commentary to prove that we are here dealing with the time of the conquest of Jerusalem by Pompey and that it is to it alone that the circumstances presupposed can be said to apply. The princes who had been so arrogant as to assume the rule over Jerusalem and take possession of the throne of David are the Hasmonaeans who ever since Aristobulus L. had taken the title of king. The last of the princes of this house Alexander Jannaeus and Aristobulus II. openly favoured the Sadducean party so that in the eyes of our author with his Pharisaic leanings they appeared in the light of sinful and lawless men. The “man of the strange land” and “of powerful blows” whom God summons from the end of the earth is no other than Pompey. The princes who go out to meet him are Aristobulus II. and Hyrcanus II. The supporters of this latter opened the gates of the city to Pompey who then proceeded to take by storm (ἐν κριῷ 2:1) the other portion of the town in which those belonging to Aristobulus’s party had entrenched themselves. All the rest that follows the contemptuous treading of the temple by the conquerors the mowing down of the inhabitants the execution of the leading men among them the carrying away of the captives to the West and of the princes to be mocked (εἰς ἐμπαιγμόν 17:14 i.e. for the triumphal procession in Rome) corresponds with what actually took place. But it is above all the circumstance of the captives being carried away to the West (17:14) that proves that the taking of Jerusalem by Pompey is alone to be thought of. For the only other case besides this that might possibly be in view is the conquest of Jerusalem by Titus but to this none of the other circumstances are found to apply. But if there could be any doubt before it utterly vanishes when finally we are told that the conqueror was killed on the coast of Egypt on the sea-shore (ἐπὶ κυμάτων) and that his body was left lying without being buried (2:31). For this is precisely what actually took place in the case of Pompey (in the year 48 B.C.). Consequently the second psalm was undoubtedly composed soon after this event while the eighth and seventeenth as well as most of the others may be assumed to have been written between the years 63–48. There exists no reason whatever for coming down so late as to the time of Herod. For “the man from the strange land” who according to 17:9 rose up against the Hasmonaean princes is as the context makes it impossible to doubt the same personage who according to 17:14 carries away the captives to the West and therefore not Herod as Movers Delitzsch and Keim would have us suppose but Pompey.

The spirit which the psalms breathe is entirely that of Pharisaic Judaism. They are pervaded by an earnest moral tone and a sincere piety. But the righteousness which they preach and the dearth of which they deplore is all through the righteousness that consists in complying with all the Pharisaic prescriptions the δικαιοσύνη προσταγμάτων (14:1). The fate of man after death is represented as depending simply upon his works. It is left entirely in his own option whether he is to decide in favour of righteousness or unrighteousness (comp. especially 9:7). If he does the former he will rise again to eternal life (3:16); if the latter eternal perdition will be his doom (13:9 sqq. 14:2 sqq. 15) As a contrast to the unlawful rule of the Hasmonaeans which had been put an end to by Pompey the author cherishes the confident expectation of that Messianic king of the house of David who is one day to lead Israel to the promised glory (17:1 5 23–51 18:6–10. Comp. further 7:9 11).

The view previously held by Grätz that our psalms are of Christian origin seems to have been abandoned by that writer himself and in any case does not call for serious refutation. But neither have we any right to assume that they contain even Christain interpolations. For the sinlessness and holiness which the author ascribes to the Messiah expected by him (17:41 46) is not sinlessness in the sense of Christian dogmatics but simply rigid legalism in the Pharisaic sense.

Despite Hilgenfeld’s view to the contrary it is almost universally allowed that the psalms were originally composed in Hebrew. And undoubtedly not without good reason. For the diction of the psalms is so decidedly Hebrew in its Character that it is impossible to suppose that they were written originally in Greek. And for this reason it is no less certain that they were not written in Alexandria but in Palestine. It may not be amiss to mention further the correspondence to some extent a verbal one between Psalm 11. and the fifth chapter of Baruch. If we are correct in supposing that the psalms were written originally in Hebrew then the imitation must be regarded as being on the part of Baruch.

The place assigned to our psalms in the Christian canon: I. Among the ἀντιλεγόμενα: (1) in the Stichometria of Nicephorus as given in Credner Zur Geschichte des Kanons (1847) p. 120 Nicephori opuscula ed. de Boor (Lips. 1880) p. 134. (2) In the Synopsis Athanasii as given in Credner Zur Gesch. des Kanons p. 144. II. Among the ἀπόκρυφα in an anonymous list of canonical books which has been printed (1) from a certain Codex Coislinianus as given in Montfaucon’s Bibliotheca Coisliniana Paris 1715 p. 194; (2) from a Parisian manuscript as given in Cotelier’s Patrum apost. Opp. vol. i. 1698 p. 196; (3) from a certain Codex Baroccianus at Oxford and as given in Hody’s De Bibliorum textibus 1705 p. 649 col. 44; (4) from a Vatican codex as given in Pitra’s Juris ecclesiastici Graecorum historia et monumenta vol. i. 1864 p. 100 (on the relation of those four texts to each other see No. V. below the chapter on the lost Apocalypses). III. In his scholia to the decrees of the Council of Laodicea Zonoras observes in connection with the 59th canon (Beveregius Pandectae canonum Oxon. 1672 vol. i. p. 481): ἐκτὸς τῶν ρνʹ ψαλμῶν τοῦ Δαβὶδ εὑρίσκονται καί τινες ἕτεροι λεγόμενοι τοῦ Σολομῶντος εἶναι καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν οὓς καὶ ἰδιωτικοὺς ὠνόμασαν οἱ πατέρες καὶ μὴ λέγεσθαι ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ διετάξαντο. Similarly Balsamon (in Beveregius i. 480). IV. In the Codex Alexandrinus of the Greek Bible the Psalms of Solomon as is shown by the list of contents prefixed to the codex found a place in the Appendix to the New Testament after the Epistles of Clement (see Credner Gesch. des neutestamentl. Kanons 1860 p. 238 sq.). In the Vienna manuscript on the other hand where the Psalms are still extant they come in between the Wisdom of Solomon and Jesus the Son of Sirach.

Up to the present time the manuscripts that have been found are five in number: (1) The manuscript from which the editio princeps of de la Cerda was printed; it was brought from Constantinople in the year 1615 was in the possession of David Höschel and then found its way to the Augsburg library (Fabricius Cod. pseudepigr. i. 973 914 sq.) but it has now disappeared. (2) A Vienna codex (cod. gr. theol. 7) Haupt’s collation of which Hilgenfeld made use of in his edition of the Psalms. (3) A Copenhagen manuscript an account of which is given by Graux in the Revue Critique 1877 No. 46 pp. 291–293. (4) A Moscow manuscript and (5) a Parisian one both of which were discovered and collated by Gebhardt (see Theol. Literaturzeitung 1877 p. 627 sq.). The three last-mentioned MSS. have not yet been made use of in any edition of our Psalms.

Editions: (1) De la Cerda Adversaria sacra Lyons 1626 Appendix. (2) Fabricius Codex pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti vol. i. 1713 pp. 914–999. (3) Hilgenfeld Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl. Theologie 1868 pp. 134–168. Idem Messias Judaeorum Lips. 1869 pp. 1–33. (4) Eduard Ephräm Geiger Der Psalter Salomo’s herausgegeben und erklärt Augsburg 1871. (5) Fritzsche Libri apocryphi Veteris Testamenti graece Lips. 1871 pp. 569–589. (6) Pick Presbyterian Review 1883 Oct. pp. 775–812. A new edition was prepared by Gebhardt for the “Texte und Untersuchungen” edited by himself and Harnack.

German translations with explanatory notes have been published by Geiger as above. Hilgenfeld Die Psalmen Salomo’s deutsch übersetzt una anfs Neue untersucht (Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theologie 1871 pp. 383–418). Wellhausen Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer (1874) pp. 131–164. There is an English translation by Pick as above.

On the circumstances under which our Psalms were written: I. Ewald Geschichte des Volkes Israel iv. 392 sq. (subsequently Ewald hit upon the idea of dating the Psalms back to the time of Ptolemy Lagus; see the reviews of the writing of Geiger and Carriere in the Göttinger gel. Anzeigen 1871 pp. 841–850 and 1873 pp. 237–240). Grimm Exeget. Handbuch zu 1 Makk. p. 27. Oehler art. “Messias” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1st ed. ix. 426 sq. Dillmann art. “Pseudepigraphen” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1st ed. xii. 305 sq. Weiffenbach Quae Jesu in regno coelesti dignitas sit synopticorum sententia exponitur (Gissae 1868) p. 49 sq. Anger Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der messianischen Idee (1873) p. 81 sq. II. Movers in Wetzer und Welte’s Kirchenlex. 1st ed. i. 340. Delitzsch Commentar über den Psalter 1st ed. ii. 381 sq. Keim Geschichte Jesu von Nazara i. 243. III. Langen Das Judenthum in Palästina (1866) pp. 64–70. Hilgenfeld Zeitschr. 1868 Messias Judaeorum proleg. Zeitschr. 1871. Nöldeke Die alttestamentl. Literatur (1868) p. 141 sq. Hausrath Neutestamentl. Zeitgesch. 2nd ed. i. pp. 157 sq. 168. Geiger in his edition of our Psalms. Fritzsche prolegom. to his edition. Wittichen Die Idee des Reiches Gottes (1872) pp. 155–160. Carriere De psalterio Salomonis Argentorati 1870. Well-hausen Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer p. 112 sqq. Stähelin Jahrb. für deutsche Theol. 1874 p. 203. Drummond The Jewish Messiah (1877) pp. 133–142. Kaulen in Wetzer und Welte’s Kirchenlex. 2nd ed. i. 1060 sq. Lucius Der Essenismus (1881) pp. 119–121. Reuss Gesch. der heil. Schriften A. T.’s § 526. Dillmann in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. vol. xii. 1883 p. 346. Pick The Psalter of Solomon (Presbyterian Review 1883 Oct. pp. 775–812).

1. Jesus the Son of Sirach

There is nothing that shows so clearly the practical character of the Palestinian Jewish literature of our period as the fact that even in the merely theoretical speculations of the time there was always an eye to the practical aims and tasks of life. A theoretical philosophy strictly so called was a thing entirely foreign to genuine Judaism. Whatever it did happen to produce in the way of “philosophy” (= wisdom חָכמָה) either had practical religious problems as its theme (Job Ecclesiastes) or was of a directly practical nature being: directions based upon a thoughtful study of human things for so regulating our life as to ensure our being truly happy. The form in which those contemplations and instructions were presented was that of the מָשָׁל the apothegm which contained a single thought expressed in concise and comprehensive terms and in a form more or less poetical and in which there was nothing of the nature of discussion or argument. A collection of aphorisms of this sort had already found a place among the canonical writings of the Old Testament in the shape of the so-called proverbs of Solomon. We have a collection of a similar character in the book known as Jesus the Son of Sirach and which we now proceed to consider. This book takes that older collection as its model not only as regards the form but the matter as well though it contributes a large number of new and original thoughts. The fundamental thought of the author is that of wisdom. For him the highest and most perfect wisdom resides only in God who has established and who continues to govern all things in accordance with His marvellous knowledge and understanding. On the part of man therefore true wisdom consists in his trusting and obeying God. The fear of God is the beginning and end of all wisdom. Hence it is that the author living as he did at a time when the fear of God and the observance of the law were already regarded as one and the same thing inculcates above all the duty of adhering faithfully to the law and keeping the commandments. But besides this he also points out in the next place how the truly wise man is to comport himself in the manifold relationships of practical life. And accordingly his book contains an inexhaustible fund of rules for the regulation of one’s conduct in joy and sorrow in prosperity and adversity in sickness and in health in struggle and temptation in social life in intercourse with friends and enemies with high and low rich and poor with the good and the wicked the wise and the foolish in trade business and one’s ordinary calling above all in one’s own house and family in connection with the training of children the treatment of men-servants and maid-servants and the way in which a man ought to behave toward his own wife and the fair sex generally. For all those manifold relationships the most precise directions are furnished directions that are prompted by a spirit of moral earnestness which only now and then degenerates into mere worldly prudence. The counsels of the author are the mature fruit of a profound and comprehensive study of human things and of a wide experience of life. In entering as they do into such a multiplicity of details they at the same time furnish us with a lively picture of the manners and customs and of the culture generally of his time and his people. How far the thoughts expressed as well as the form in which they are expressed were the author’s own and how far he only collected what was already in current and popular use it is of course impossible in any particular instance to determine. To a certain extent he may have done both. But in any case he was not a mere collector or compiler the characteristic personality of the author stands out far too distinctly and prominently for that. Notwithstanding the diversified character of the apothegms they are all the outcome of one connected view of life and the world.

At the close of the book chap. 50:27 the author calls himself Ἰησοῦς υἱὸς Σιρὰχ ὁ Ἱεροσολυμίτης. Many manuscripts insert Ἐλεάζαρ after Σιράχ; but this despite the strong testimony in its favour must be regarded as a gloss (see Fritzache’s edition and commentary). The name Σιράχ is equivalent to the Hebrew סִירָא “a coat of mail” (the accent being on the final syllable as in ἀκελδαμάχ Acts 1:19). The singular mistake of Syncellus (Chron. ed. Dindorf i. 525) who alleges that he was a high priest can only have arised from the fact that in the chronicle of Eusebius which Syncellus makes use of our Jesus the Son of Sirach is mentioned after the high priest Simon the son of Onias II. though not as a high priest but only as the author of the book now under consideration (Euseb. Chron. ad Ol. 137–38 ed. Schoene ii. 122). Again the notion that he was an ordinary priest is also entirely without foundation notwithstanding the fact that it has found expression in the text of the cod. Sinaiticus 50:27. The time at which he lived may be determined with tolerable precision. His grandson who translated the book into Greek states in the prologue prefixed to it that he (the grandson) came to Egypt ἐν τῷ ὀγδόῳ καὶ τριακοστῷ ἔτει ἐπὶ τοῦ Εὐεργέτου βασιλέως. By the “thirty-eighth year” he of course does not mean that of his own age but the thirty-eighth year of the reign of Euergetes. Now seeing that of the two Ptolemys who bore this surname the one reigned only twenty-five years it is only the second that can be intended and whose full name was Ptolemaeus VII. Physcon Euergetes II. This latter in the first instance shared the throne along with his brother (from the year 170 onwards) and subsequently reigned alone (from the year 145 onwards). But he was in the habit of reckoning the years of his reign from the former of those dates. Consequently that thirty-eighth year in which the grandson of Jesus the son of Sirach came to Egypt would be the year 132 B.C. That being the case his grandfather may be supposed to have lived and to have written his book somewhere between 190 and 170 B.C. This further accords with the fact that in the book (50:1–26) he pays a respectful tribute to the memory of the high priest Simon the son of Onias by whom we are to understand not Simon I. (in the beginning of the third century see Joseph. Antt. xii. 2. 4) but Simon II. (in the beginning of the second century see Joseph. Antt. xii. 4. 10). Jesus the son of Sirach passes an encomium upon the meritorious character of this personage who had just passed away from the world and the thought of whom was still so fresh in his memory.

The book has come down to us only in the form of the Greek translation which according to the prologue was executed by the author’s grandson. We further learn from this prologue what is also confirmed by the character of the diction that the work was originally composed in Hebrew by which we are to understand Hebrew strictly so called and not Aramaic (see Fritzsche Exeget. Handbuch p. 18). The Hebrew text was still in existence in the time of Jerome who tells us that he had seen it see Praef. in vers. libr. Salom. (Vallarsi ix. 1293 sq.): Fertur et πανάρετος Jesu filii Sirach liber et alius ψευδεπίγραφος qui Sapientia Salomonis inscribitur. Quorum priorem Hebraicum reperi non Ecclesiasticum ut apud Latinos sed Parabolas praenotatum cui juncti erant Ecclesiastes et Canticum Canticorum ut similitudinem Salomonis non solum librorum numero sed etiam materiarum genere coaequaret.

The fact that a Hebrew text was still extant in the time of Jerome is evidence of itself that the book was also prized within the circle of Rabbinical Judaism. Not only so but quotations from it are repeatedly met with in Talmudic literature. But it was prized far more highly still within the Christian Church. It is frequently quoted as γραφή by the Greek and the Latin Fathers alike and that too in the form in which it has come down to us in the manuscripts of the Bible. The restricting of the Christian canon to precisely the same number of books as was in the Hebrew Bible was in the early Church and that of the Middle Ages almost always a pure matter of theory and was only practically recognised and acted upon for the first time in the Protestant Church.

On the quotations from בן סירא in Talmudic literature see Wolf Bibliotheca Hebraea i. 257 sqq. Zunz Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden p. 101 sqq. Delitzech Zur Geschichte der jüdischen Poesie pp. 20 sq. 204 sq. Dukes Rebbinische Blumenlese p. 67 sqq. Fritzsche Exeget. Handbuch p. xxxvii. Joel Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte (1880) p. 71 sqq. Strack in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. vii. 430 sq. We must beware of confounding with those quotations the very late and apocryphal Alphabet of Ben Sira a collection of 44 (2 × 22) sayings arranged in alphabetical order. On this see Wolf Bibliotheca Hebraea i. 260 sqq. iii. 156 sq. Fabricius-Harles Biblioth. grace. iii. 726 sq. Steinschneider Catalogus librorum Hebraeorum in bibliotheca Bodleiana (1852–1860) col. 203–205. Fürst Biblioth. Judaica iii. 341. Modern edition Alphabetum Siracidis utrumque ed. Steinschneider Berlin 1858.

On the title of our book see in particular the passage from Jerome quoted above. In the manuscripts it runs thus: Σοφία Ἰησοῦ υἱοῦ Σιράχ. In the Greek Church the designation ἡ πανάρετος σοφία which according to Euseb. Hist. eccl. iv. 22. 8 was in the first instance usually applied to the proverbs of Solomon came to be extended to our book as well. So for the first time Eusebius Chron. ed. Schoene ii. 422 (where the conformity on the part of Syucellus and Jerome with the Armenian text serves to show that the expression is peculiar to Eusebius himself). Demonstr. evang. viii. 2.71 ed. Gaisford: Σίμων καθʼ ὃν Ἰησοῦς ὁ τοῦ Σιρὰχ ἐγνωρίζετο ὃ τὴν καλουμένην πανάρετον Σοφίαν συντάξας. This designation does not occur as yet in connection with any of the numerous quotations in Clement and Origen. In the Latin Church Ecclesiasticus came to be adopted as the regular title of the book (Cyprian Testimon. ii. 1 iii. 1 35 51 95 96 97 109 110 111). Comp. the Latin translation of Origen In Numer. homil. xviii. 3 (ed. Lommatzsch x. 221): In libro qui apud nos quidem inter Salomonis volumina haberi solet et Ecclesiasticus dici apud Graecos vero sapientia Jesu filii Sirach appellatur.

The use of the book in the Christian Church begins with the New Testament itself. In the Epistle of Jamce above all there are unmistakeable reminiscences of it. See in general Bleek Stud. u. Krit. 1853 pp. 337 sq. 344–348. Werner Theol. Quartalschr. 1872 p. 265 sqq. The express quotations begin with Clement of Alexandria who quotes our book times without number and on most occasions using either the formula ἡ γραφὴ λέγει φησίν and such like (thirteen times: Paedag. i. 8. 62 8. 68 ii. 2. 34 5. 46 8. 69 8. 76 10. 98 10. 99 iii. 3.17 3. 23 4. 29 11. 58 11. 83) or ἡ σοφία λέγει φησίν and such like (nine times: Paedeg. i. 8. 69 8. 72 9. 75 ii. 1. 8 2. 24 7. 54 7. 58 7. 59; Strom. v. 3. 18); or further quoting passages now and again as the words of the παιδαγωγός (Paedag. ii. 10. 99 101. 109). He speaks of the book as the σοφία Ἰησοῦ only twice (Strom. i. 4. 27 10. 47). On one occasion he appears to call Solomon the author (Strom. ii. 5. 24); the quotation however is somewhat uncertain. In one instance again an expression in our σοφία is described as Sophoclean (Paedag. ii. 2. 24). It is very much the same with regard to the quotations in Origen only here it is impossible in many instances to make out the exact formulae made use of seeing that the majority of Origens writings are extant only in Latin translations. Like Clement he also appears to have quoted the book most frequently as γραφή. In the Latin text Solomon is several times spoken of as the author (In Numer. homil. xviii. 3 = Lommatzsch x. 221; In Josuam homil. xi. 2 = Lommatzsch xi. 108; In Samuel. homil. i. 13 = Lommatzsch xi. 311). But that this cannot be taken as representing the opinion of Origen himself in proved by the following passage in contra Cels. vi. 7 (ed. Lommatzsch xix. 312): παραδείξωμεν ἀπὸ τῶν ἱερῶν γραμμάτων ὅτι προτρέπει καὶ ὁ θεῖος λόγος ἡμᾶς ἐπὶ διαλεκτικήν• ὅπου μὲν Σολομῶντος λέγοντος.…ὅπου δὲ τοῦ τὸ σύγγραμμα τὴν σοφίαν [l. τῆς σοφίας] ἡμῖν καταλιπόντος Ἰησοῦ υἱοῦ Σειρὰχ φάσκοντος. Cyprian uniformly quotes our book as being a work of Solomon’s quite as much as any of the rest of his writings (Testimon. ii. 1 iii. 6. 12 35 51 53 95 96 97 109 113; Ad Fortunatum chap. ix.; De opere et eleemosynis chap. v.; Epist. iii. 2). Similarly other Latin writers. See especially the passage quoted above from the Latin version of Origen In Numer. homil. xviii. 3 (Lommatzsch x. 221) and also Jerome who in his Comment. in Daniel. chap. ix. (Opp. ed. Vallarsi v. 686) reproduces the passage from Euseb. Demonstr. evang. viii. 2. 71 as follows: Simon quo regente populum Jesus filius Sirach scripsit librum qui Graece παναρετός appellatur et plerisque Salomonis falso dicitur. On the further history of the use of the book in this way comp. the works and dissertations devoted to the history of the Old Testament canon also Jahn’s Einleitung in die goal Bücher des A. B. 2nd ed. vol. ii. § 3 and 4 (1803) 1st and 2nd appendices as well as my article in Herzog’s Real-Enc. i. 485–489.

The most important manuscripts are: (1) The Vaticanus 1209 i.e. the famous Vatican manuscript of the Bible which however if we except the eclectic use made of it in the Sixtine edition has not as yet been made available for the criticism of the text in connection with any edition of our book not even that of Fritzsche (comp. p. 10). (2) The Sinaiticus in Fritzsche’s edition marked No. x. (3) The Alexandrinus in Fritzsche as in Holmes and Parsons before him marked No. iii. (4) The fragments of the Codex Ephraemi in Fritzsche = C. (5) A Venetian codex in Fritzsche who following Holmes and Parsons marks it No. xxiii. For further information regarding these manuscripts see Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. i.489–491.

On the editions see p. 10 and Herzog’s Real-Enc. i. 494 sq. Separate edition: Liber Jesu Siracidae Graece ad fidem codicum et versionum emendatus et perpetua annotatione illustratus a C. G. Bretschneider Ratisb. 1806. For further separate editions see Herzog’s Real-Enc. i. 495.

Of the early translations the following may be specially mentioned: (1) The old Latin one which Jerome did not revise (praef. in edit. librorum Salmonis juxta Sept. interpretes [Vallarsi x. 436]: Porro in eo libro qui a plerisque Sapientia Salomonis inscribitur et in Ecclesiastico quem esse Jesu filii Sirach nullus ignorat calamo temperavi tantummodo canonicas scripturas vobis emendare desiderans). It found its way into the Vulgate and hence it came to be printed in all subsequent editions of this latter. The variations of four manuscripts (for Jesus the Son of Sirach as well as for the Wisdom of Solomon) are given by Sabatier in his Bibliorum sacrorum versiones antiquae vol. ii. Remis 1743. The text of the Codex Amiatinus has been published (for those two books also) by Lagarde in his Mitthelungen 1884. (2) The two Syrian versions: (a) The Peschito or the Syrian received text on the editions of which comp. p. 11; (b) the Syrus hexaplaris which for our book as well as for the Wisdom of Solomon was edited for the first time from a Milan manuscript by Cerini Codex Syro-Hexaplaris Ambrosianus photolithographice editus Mediol. 1874 (forming vol. vii. of the Monum. Sacra et prof.). For more on the early versions see Herzog’s Real-Enc. i. 491–494. Also texts in the London Polyglot vol. iv.

For the exegetical aids generally see p. 11. Commentaries: Bretschneider in the separate edition previously mentioned. Fritzeche Die Weisheit Jesus Sirach’s erklärt und übersetzt (Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen 5 Thl.) Leipzig 1859. For the earlier literature see Fabricius Biblioth. graec. ed. Harles iii. 718 sqq. Fürst Biblioth. Judaica iii. 341 sq. Fritzsche p. xl. Herzog’s Real-Enc. i. 496.

Special disquisitions: Gfrörer Philo vol. ii. (1831) pp. 18–52. Dähne Geschichtl. Darstellung der jüdisch-alexandrinischen Religionsphilosophie vol. ii. (1834) pp. 126–150. Winer De utriusque Siracidae aetate Erlang. 1832. Comp. also Winer’s Realwörtb. art. “Jesus Sirach.” Zunz Die gottesdienstl. Vorträge der Juden (1832) pp. 100–105. Ewald “Ueber das griech. Spruchbuch Jesus’ Sohnes Sirach’s” (Jahrbb. der bibl. Wissensch. vol. iii. 1851 pp. 125–140). Bruch Weisheitslehre der Hebräer 1851 pp. 266–319. Geiger Zeitschr. der deutschen morgenländ Gesellsch. xii. 1858 pp. 536–543. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel iv. 340 sqq. Horowitz Das Buch Jesus Sirach Breslau 1865. Fritzsche in Schenkel’s Bibellex. iii. 252 sqq. Grätz Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1872 pp. 49 sqq. 97 sqq. Merguet Die Glaubens- und Sittenlehre des Buches Jesus Sirach Königsberg 1874. Seligmann Das Buch der Weisheit des Jesus Sirach (Josua ben Sira) in seinem Verhältnis zu den salomonischen Sprüchen und seiner historischen Bedeutung Breslau 1883. The various introductions of Jahn Eichhorn Bertholdt Welte Scholz Nöldeke De Wette-Schrader Reusch Keil Kaulen Kleinert Reuss (see p. 12).

2. The Pirke Aboth

Nor did the gnomic wisdom become extinct in the period following that of Jesus the son of Sirach. Jesus Christ Himself indeed frequently clothed His teaching in this aphoristic form. But besides the work we have just been considering there is still extant and that in Hebrew a collection of such proverbial sayings as we have referred to above and which so far at least as its substratum is concerned belongs to our period we mean the so-called Pirke Aboth (פִּרקֵי אָבוֹת sayings of the fathers) known also under the abbreviated form of Aboth. This collection was inserted among the tractates of the Mishna (among those of the fourth division) though strictly speaking it is quite out of place there. For while the rest of the Mishna is simply a codification of Jewish law our tractate contains a collection of aphorisms after the manner of Jesus the son of Sirach. The only difference is that the Pirke Aboth is not the work of a single individual like that book but a collection of sayings by some sixty learned doctors who are mentioned by name. The majority of these latter are also otherwise known as distinguished doctors of the law. As a rule each doctor is represented in the work by a couple or more of his characteristic maxims such as he had been in the habit of inculcating upon his disciples and contemporaries as rules of life well worthy of special consideration. Many of those maxims are of a purely utilitarian character but the most of them are related in some way or other to the domain of religion; and it is extremely significant as regards the characteristic tendency of this later age that here the importance and necessity of the study of the law are inculcated with quite a special emphasis (comp. the specimens given at ). The authorities whose utterances were collected in this fashion belong for the most part to the age of the Mishna i.e. to the period extending from the year 70 to 170 A.D. Besides these a few but only a few of the authorities belonging to earlier times are also taken notice of. The tractate consists of five chapters. In many editions a sixth chapter is added but it is of much later origin.

Our tractate is given in every edition of the Mishua (on this see § iii. above). In the edition of the Mishna published under Jost’s supervision by Lewent in Berlin 1832–1834 there is an excellent German translation printed in the Hebrew character. There is also a Latin version in Surenhusius Mishna etc. vol. iv. 1702 pp. 409–484. Of the numerous separate editions (some of them accompanied with translations) the following may be specially mentioned: P Ewald Pirke Aboth oder Sprüche der Vater übersetzt und erklärt Erlangen 1825. Cahn Pirke Aboth sprachlich und sachlich erläutert erster Perek (all that has been published) Berlin 1875. Taylor Sayings of the Jewish Fathers comprising Pirke Aboth and Pereq R. Meir in Hebrew and English with critical and illustrative notes etc. Cambridge 1877 (where the text is given exactly in accordance with a Cambridge manuscript University Addit. 470. 1). Strack פרקי אבות Die Sprüche der Väter ein ethischer Mischna-Traktat mit kurzer Einleitung Anmerkungen und einem Wortregister 1882 (where additional literature is to be found in the introduction).

1. The Book of Judith

The hortatory narrative was a peculiar species of literature which was frequently cultivated during our period. Stories of a purely fictitious character were composed which the author no doubt intended to be regarded as founded on fact though at the same time the object in view was not so much to impart historical information as to use these stories as a vehicle for conveying moral and religious lessons and exhortations. From the incidents narrated—and which are taken from the history of the Jewish people or from the life of certain individuals—the readers are expected to learn the truth that the fear of God is after all the highest wisdom for God always delivers His children in some wonderful way in the end although for a little He may bring them into circumstances of trouble and danger.

The history of Judith is a narrative of this description. The following is an outline of the story. Nebuchadnezzar the king of Assyria (sic!) calls upon the peoples of Asia Minor and among them the inhabitants of Palestine to furnish him with troops to help him in the war he was waging against Arphaxad the king of Media. As those who received this summons did not think proper to comply with it Nebuchadnezzar as soon as he had vanquished Arphaxad sent his general Holofernes with a large force against the nations of the West with the view of chastising them for their disobedience. Holofernes executes his orders devastates the various countries one after another and demolishes their sanctuaries in order that Nebuchadnezzar alone might receive the worship due to God (1–3). When he got as far as the plain of Esdrelon the Jews who had just returned from the captivity and had newly re-established their worship (sic! in Nebuchadnezzar’s time) prepare to offer resistance. By order of Joakim the high priest they intercept Holofernes on his way to Jerusalem at Fort Betylua (Βετυλούα; Latin Bethulia) opposite the plain of Esdrelon (4–6). Now when Holofernes was besieging Betylua and the distress within the town had reached a climax a wealthy beautiful and pious widow called Judith resolved to save her people by an act of daring (7–9). Richly attired and having no one with her but a bondwoman she betakes herself to the enemy’s camp and there under the pretext of wishing to show him how to get to Jerusalem she contrives to obtain an interview with Holofernes. This latter reposes confidence in her and is charmed with her beauty. After spending three days in the camp she is called upon to be present at a banquet at the conclusion of which she is left alone with Holofernes in his tent. But the general is so intoxicated with wine that Judith now finds an opportunity for carrying out her design. She accordingly takes Holofernes’s own sword and cuts off his head with it. She then manages to get away from the camp without being observed while the slave brings away the head of Holofernes in a bag. Having thus accomplished her object she returns to Betylua where she is welcomed with grest rejoicings (10–13). When the enemy discovered what had been done they fled in all directions and were without difficulty mown down by the Jews. But Judith was extolled by all Israel as their deliverer (14–16).

As our book happens to have found a place in the Christian Bible not only Catholic but also many Protestant theologians have felt it to be their duty to defend the historical character of the narrative (as was still done on the Protestant side above all by O. Wolff 1861). But the historical blunders are so gross and the hortatory purpose so obvious that one cannot venture to assume even a nucleus of fact. The book is a piece of fiction composed with the view of encouraging the people to offer a brave resistance to the enemies of their religion and their liberties. The standpoint of the author is already entirely that of Pharisaic legalism. It is precisely the scrupulous care with which she observes the laws regarding purifications and meats that is so much admired in Judith while it is plainly enough intimated that it was just for this reason that she had had God upon her side. But the story points to a time when danger threatened not only the people themselves but their religion as well. For Holofernes demands that Nebuchadnezzar should be worshipped instead of God. This is suggestive of Daniel and the Maccabaean age. Consequently the origin of the book may with great probability be referred to this period (so also Fritzsche for example and Ewald Hilgenfeld 1861 Nöldeke). Seeing that the author appears to be quite as deeply interested in political as in religious liberty probably we ought to understand him as referring not to the earlier days of the insurrection but to a somewhat later period. It would hardly be advisable to come so far down as the Roman age for the political background (the high priest as supreme head of the Jewish commonwealth the Hellenistic cities as independent towns and subject to the suzerain only to the extent of having to furnish troops in time of war) corresponds far more with the Greek than the Roman period. It is entirely out of the question to refer the composition of the book to the time of Trajan (so Hitzig Grätz and above all Volkmar who finds in it a disguised account of Trajan’s campaigns); for the story of Judith was already known to Clement of Rome (toward the end of the first century of our era).

Jerome had the book before him in a Chaldee text (see below). How far this agreed with or differed from our Greek text we are not in a position to say exactly for we have no means of knowing to what extent Jerome followed the Chaldee text when he was preparing the Latin one. In any case judging from internal grounds it is tolerably certain—and moreover almost universally acknowledged—that our Greek text is a translation of a Hebrew (or Aramaic) original (see Movers in the article mentioned below and Fritzsche Handb. p. 115 sq.).

In the time of Origen the book was not in use among the (Palestinian) Jews nor was any Hebrew text of it known to exist for in Epist. ad African. chap. xiii. he says: Ἑβραῖοι τῷ Τωβίᾳ οὐ χρῶνται οὐδὲ τῇ Ἰουδήθ: οὐδὲ γὰρ ἔχουσιν αὐτὰ ἐν ἀποκρύφοις ἑβραϊστί• ὡς ἀπʼ αὐτῶν μαθόντες ἐγνώκαμεν. It may therefore be conjectured that the Hebrew original was lost at an early period and that the Chaldee text with which Jerome was acquainted was a later version based upon the Greek one. For yet later Jewish versions see Zunz Die gottesdienstl. Vorträge der Juden p. 124 sq. Lipsius “Jüdische Quellen zur Judithsage” (Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1867 pp. 337–366).

Use in the Christian Church: Clement of Rome chap. lv.: Ἰουδὶθ ἡ μακαρία. Tertullian De monogam chap. xvii.: Nec Joannes aliqui Christi spado nec Judith filia Merari nec tot alia exempla sanctorum (!). Clement of Alexandria Strom. ii. 7. 35 iv. 19. 118 (Judith being expressly mentioned in the latter passage). Origen Fragm. ex libro sexto Stromatum in Jerome adv. Rufin. Book I. (Lommatzsch xvii. 69 sq.): Homo autem cui incumbit necessitas mentiendi diligenter attendat ut sic utatur interdum meudacio quomodo condimento atque medicamine; ut servet mensuram ejus ne excedat terminos quibus usa est Judith contra Holophernem et vicit eum prudenti simulatione verborum. Further quotations in Origen are to be found: Comm. in Joann. vol. ii. chap. xvi. (Lommatzsch xi. 279). In Lib. Judicum homil. ix. 1 (Lommatzsch xi. 279); De Oratione chap. xiii. (Lommatzsch xvii. 134); De Oratione chap. xxix. (Lommatzsch xvii. 246). For the further history of the use see the history of the canon.

The Greek text exists in three different recensions: (1) The original text which is that given in the majority of manuscripts and among others also in the Codex Vaticanus (marked in the critical apparatuses as No. ii.) Alexandrinus (No. iii.) and Sinaiticus (No. x.). (2) A revised text viz. that of Codex 58 (according to numbering of the manuscripts in Holmes and Parsons). It is on this text also that the Latin and Syriac versions are based. (3) Another recension though akin to the one just mentioned is to be found in Codices 19 and 108. On the editions see p. 10.

Of the early versions the following call for special mention in the case of our book as well: (1) The Latin and that (a) the Vetus Latinus (previous to Jerome) for which Sabatier collated five manuscripts in which the deviations from each other are found to be so great as entirely to corroborate what Jerome says about the multorum codicum varietas vitiosissima in his day (Sabatier Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae vol. i. Remis 1748 pp. 744–790). On the relation of the texts to one another and to the Greek text see Fritzsche’s Commentar p. 118 sqq. (b) Jerome’s translation (= Vulgata) on the origin of which he himself says in the preface (Opp. ed. Vallarsi x. 21 sq.): Apud Hebraeos liber Judith inter apocrypha (al. hagiographa) legitur … Chaldaeo tamen sermone conscriptus inter historias computatur. Sed quia hunc librum Synodus Nicaena in numero sanctarum scripturarum legitur computasse acquievi postulationi vestrae immo exactioni et sepositis occupationibus quibus vehementer arctabar huic unam lucubratiunculam dedi magis sensum e sensu quam ex verbo verbum transferens. Multorum codicum varietatem vitiosissimam amputavi: sola ea quae intelligentia integra in verbis Chaldaeis invenire potui Latinis expressi. According to this his own confession the work is a free rendering and one too that was executed somewhat hurriedly. It was based upon the old Latin version. Comp. Fritzsche’s Commentar p. 121 sq. For the criticism of the text see Thielmann Beiträge zur Textkritik der Vulgata insbesondere des Buches Judith a school program Speier 1883. (2) The Syriac Version on which and its editions see p. 11. The London Polyglot gives in addition to the Greek text only the Latin Vulgate and the Syriac version.

For the exegetical aids generally see p. 11. Commentaries: Fritzsche Die Bücher Tobi und Judith erklärt (Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen 2 vols.) Leipzig 1853. O. Wolff Das Buch Judith als geschichtliche Urkunde vertheidigt und erklärt Leipzig 1861. The older literature in Fabricius Biblioth. graec. ed. Harles iii. 736–738. Fürst Biblioth. Judaica ii 51 (under “Jehudit”). Volkmar Handb. der Einl. in die Apokryphen i. 1 (1860) pp. 3–5. Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. i. 496.

Special disquisitions: Montfaucon La vérité de l’histoire de Judith Paris 1690. Movers “Ueber die Ursprache der deuterokanonischen Bücher des A. T.” (Zeitschr. für Philos. und kalhol. Theol. Part 13 1835 p. 31 sqq. [on Judith exclusively]). Schoenhaupt Etudes historiques et critiques sur le livre de Judith Strasb. 1839. Reuss art. “Judith” in Ersch and Gruber’s Allg. Enc. § ii. vol. xxviii. (1851) p. 98 sqq. Nickes De libro Judithae Vratislav. 1854. Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record vol. iii. 1856 pp. 342–363 vol. xii. 1861 pp. 421–440. Volkmar “Die Composition des Buches Judith” (Theol. Jahrbb. 1857 pp. 441–498). Hilgenfeld Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1858 pp. 270–281. R. A. Lipsius ibid. 1859 pp. 39–121. Hitzig ibid. 1860 pp. 240–250. Volkmar Handbuch der Einleitung in die Apokryphen Part 1 Div. 1 Judith 1860. Hilgenfeld Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol. 1861 pp. 335–385. K. H. A. Lipsius “Sprachliches zum Buche Judith” (Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol. 1862 pp. 103–105). Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel vol. iv. (3rd ed. 1864) p. 618 sq. Grätz Gesch. der Juden vol. iv. (2nd ed. 1866) note 14 p. 439 sqq. R. A. Lipsius “Jüdische Quellen zur Judithsage” (Zeitschr. f. wissenschaftl. Theol. 1867 pp. 337–366). Fritzsche in Schenkel’s Bibellex. iii. 445 sqq. The introductions of Jahn Eichhorn Bertholdt Welte Scholz Nöldeke De Wette-Schrader Reusch Keil Kaulen Kleinert Reuss (see p. 12).

2. The Book of Tobit

The Book of Tobit is a work of a similar character to that of Judith only it does not move in the domain of political history but in that of biography though like it it addresses its exhortations not to the people at large but to the individual reader. Tobit the son of Tobiel of the tribe of Naphtali who in the days of Shalmaneser king of Assyria had been taken captive to Nineveh relates how both before and after going into captivity even under the succeeding kings Sennacherib and Esarhaddon he and his wife Anna and his son Tobias had always lived in strict accordance with the requirements of the law. Besides this he had been particularly in the habit of interring the bodies of such of his countrymen as had been put to death by the Assyrians and allowed to lie unburied. One day after performing a kind service of this sort he lay down to sleep in the open air (in order that denied as he was by contact with a dead body he might not communicate the defilement to his house) when some sparrow’s dung fell upon his eyes in consequence of which he lost his sight (1–3:6). At the same time there was living in Ecbatana in Media a pious Jwesss called Sarah the daughter of Raguel who already had had seven husbands but all of whom had been put to death on the marriage night by the evil spirit Asmodeus (3:7–17). Meanwhile the aged Tobit remembered in the midst of his distress that on one occasion he had left ten talents of silver at Rages in Media in charge of one Gabael a member of his own tribe. Consequently when he saw that his end was approaching he sent his son Tobias to Rages with instructions to get the money which he was to retain as his patrimony. Tobias sets out taking with him a fellow-traveller this latter however being in reality no other than the angel Raphael (45). On his way Tobias bathes in the Tigris and while doing so he catches a fish. At the angel’s behest he takes out the fish’s heart liver and gall and carries them away with him. Having now reached Ecbatana they take up their quarters at the house of Raguel. This latter recognises in Tobias one of her own relations and gives him her daughter Sarah to be his wife. As soon as the new-married couple had entered the bride-chamber Tobias acting on the instructions of the angel raises a smoke by burning the heart and the liver of the fish which had the effect of expelling the demon Asmodeus who was bent on disposing of him too precisely as he had disposed of the former husbands of Sarah. Thus the fourteen days of marriage festivity were allowed to pass by without disturbance or interruption the angel having meanwhile taken the opportunity to go to Rages to get the money from Gabael (6–9). After the marriage celebrations were over Tobias returns to Nineveh to his parents accompanied by Sarah his wife and there he contrives to cure his father’s blindness by anointing his eyes with the gall of the fish (10–12). Full of gratitude to God Tobit chants a song of praise and continues to live for nearly a hundred years longer. Tobias also lives to the age of 127 years (13–14).

The plot of the story is well contrived there is great variety of details and the various threads joined on at different points in the narrative are skilfully interwoven with each other. Consequently as a literary product our book is decidedly superior to that of Judith. But the religious standpoint is exactly the same. Here too as in Judith the whole stress is laid upon the strict observance of the law of which the practice of deeds of kindness also forms a part. And in connection with this we at the same time get some instructive glimpses of the superstition of the time. As the whole story centres in the dispersion it would seem from this that the author wrote mainly for the Jews of the dispersion. By holding up those patterns of excellence before the eyes of his readers he hopes to produce such an impression upon the minds of those of his countrymen scattered among the Gentiles as may lead them to adhere no less faithfully to the law and to observe it in an equally strict and conscientious manner. In consequence of the purpose of the book being as here described it is impossible to determine whether it had it? origin in Palestine or in the dispersion.

The date of the composition of the work can only be fixed within tolerably wide limits. Comparatively speaking it may be regarded as most certain of all that the book was written previous to the building of the temple of Herod. No doubt Hitzig thought (Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1860 p. 250 sqq.) that we were bound to assume that it was written after the destruction of the temple by Titus because among the predictions at the close of the book it is above all foretold that the temple will be rebuilt again with great magnificence (13:16 f. 14:4 5). But on more careful consideration we will find it probable that the author wrote when the temple of Zerubbabel was still standing. He places himself at the standpoint of the Assyrian age and from this he predicts first of all the destruction of the temple by the Chaldaeans and then its reconstruction where however he distinguishes between two things: (1) the restoration of an unpretending structure till the lapse of a definite period; and (2) the rebuilding with extraordinary magnificence and splendour that is to take place at the expiry of this period (14:5: καὶ οἰκοδομήσουσι τὸν οἶκον οὐχ οἷος ὁ πρότερος ἕως πληρωθῶσι καιροὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος• καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἐπιστρέψουσιν ἐκ τῶν αἰχμαλωσιῶν καὶ οἰκοδομήσουσιν Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐντίμως• καὶ ὁ οἶκος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῇ οἰκοδομηθήσεται εἰς πάσας τὰς γενεὰς τοῦ αἰῶνος οἰκοδομῇ ἐνδόξῳ καθὼς ἐλάλησαν περὶ αὐτῆς οἱ προφῆται). The historical structure with which the author is acquainted is therefore more unpretending than the former one the temple of Solomon (οὐχ οἷος ὁ πρότερος). For surely he could hardly have expressed himself as he does if he was already acquainted with the temple of Herod. If this latter then forms the terminus ad quem for the composition of our book the safest course would he to say that it was written in the course of the last two centuries before Christ. For we are precluded by the whole spirit of the book from going farther back.

In preparing his Latin version of our book Jerome made use of a Chaldee text precisely as in the case of the Book of Judith (see below). Such a text is still extant in the shape of a manuscript that only at a comparatively recent date found its way into the Bodleian library at Oxford from which Neubauer took his edition (The Book of Tobit a Chaldee text etc. ed. by Neubauer Oxford 1878). Both texts the Latin of Jerome and the Chaldee one are marked by a singular peculiarity common to themselves and to themselves alone. The peculiarity in question is this that while according to the Greek text and the other versions Tobit in the first section (1:1–3:6) tells his story in the first person and only changes to the third after Sarah makes her appearance in the narrative Jerome and the author of the Chaldee text on the other hand make use of the third person from beginning to end. From this it is highly probable that Jerome had before him if not exactly our Chaldee text at all events one very much akin to it (that our Chaldee text is only the reproduction of an older one is probable for other reasons see below). But the peculiarity just referred to also serves to prove at the same time that our Chaldee text is not based upon the Greek one. For the inserting of the third person all through is clearly an afterthought while the transition from the first to the third correctly represents the original text. But there is no ground whatever for supposing that our Greek text is a version based upon a Semitic original. For the two Hebrew texts which were printed in the sixteenth century are also later products (see below). On the other hand there are numerous peculiarities of diction (for example the phrase καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθός 7:7) which serve to confirm the view that the Greek must have been the original text.

It would appear from what Origen asserts that in his time our book was not in use among the (Palestinian) Jews and that a Hebrew text was unheard of (Origen Epist. ad African. chap. xiii.; for the terms of the passage see p. 35. Idem De oratione chap. xiv. = Lommatzsch xvii. 143: τῇ δὲ τοῦ Τωβὴτ βίβλῳ ἀντιλέγουσιν οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς ὡς μὴ ἐνδιαθήκῳ). But that it came to be received with favour not long after is proved by the existing Semitic manuscripts with one of which Jerome was already acquainted.

Its use in the Christian Church is already evidenced by the apostolic Fathers. Comp. 2 Clem. xvi. 4 = Tobit 12:8 (on which see Harnack’s notes to 2 Clem.). Epist. Polycarp. x. 2 = Tobit 4:10. According to Irenaeus i. 30. 11 the Ophites included Tobias among the Old Testament prophets. Clement of Alexandria repeatedly quotes the book as γραφή (Strom. ii. 23. 139 vi. 12. 102). Hippolytus in his commentary on the story of Susannah brings in the story of Tobit by way of parallel (Hippolyt. ed. Lagarde p. 151). Origen in his Epist. ad African. refers at some length to the story of Tobias and adds quite in a general way: χρῶνται τῷ Τωβίᾳ αἱ ἐκκλησίαι. Consequently he in like manner frequently quotes it as γραφή (Comment. in epist. ad Rom. book viii. chap. xi. fin. = Lommatzsch vii. 272; De oratione chap. xi. = Lommatzsch xvii. 124; comp. besides De oratione chaps. xiv. and xxxi. = Lommatzsch xvii. 143 284; contra Cels. v. 19 = Lommatzsch xix. 196). Cyprian makes frequent use of the book (Testimon. iii. 1 6 62; Ad Fortunatum chap. xi.; De opere et eleemosynis chaps. v. and xx.). For more on this subject see the works on the history of the Canon; also Jahn’s Einleit. in die göttl. Bücher des Alten Bundes 2nd ed. vol. ii. § 3 and 4 (1803) 1st and 2nd appendices.

Of the Greek text there are three recensions in existence: (1) The one found in the majority of manuscripts and among others also in Codex Vaticanus (No. ii.) and Alexandrinus (No. iii.). To it the Syrian version adheres as far as chap. vii. 9. (2) The text of the Codex Sinaiticus (No. x.) which deviates very much from the ordinary text. To it again the old Latin version adheres though not entirely yet chiefly. (3) The text of Codices 44 106 and 107 (according to the numbering of Holmes and Parsons) which is akin to that of the Codex Sinaiticus. However this latter appears to have been adhered to by the manuscripts just mentioned only from vi. 9 to xiii. 8 while in all that precedes and follows they conform to the ordinary recension. This text again is that on which from vii. 10 onwards the Syrian version is based. Whether the ordinary text or that of the Codex Sinaiticus is the original one it is difficult to determine for the claims of both admit of being well supported. Fritzsche (Proleg. to his edition) and Nöldeke (Monatsberichte der Berliner Akademie) 1879 p. 45 sqq. decide in favour of the ordinary text while Reusch (in his separate edition; comp. also Theol. Literaturzeitung 1878 p. 333 sq.) upholds the claims of the Codex Sinaiticus. In Fritzsche’s edition of the Apocrypha the whole three texts are printed alongside of each other. The text of the Codex Sinaiticus has been published separately by Reusch (Libellus Tobit e codice Sinaitico editus et recensitus Bonnae 1870). Comp. further on the editions p. 10.

Of the early versions we may mention: (1) The Latin and that (a) the old Latin one the text of which shows very considerable variations in the four manuscripts collated by Sabatier though it substantially agrees with that of the Codex Sinaiticus (Sabatier Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae vol. i.). Sabatier’s four manuscripts represent two recensions the one of which is contained in three of them and the other in the remaining one (Vat. 7). Fragments of a third recension are furnished by the quotations given in the Speculum Augustini (on which see Reusch Das Buch Tobias 1857 p. xxvi.) edited by Mai. The text of a certain Codex Ambrosianus has not yet been inspected. Ceriani contemplates preparing an edition of it for the Monum. sacra et profana but so far as I am aware it has not as yet appeared. The same may be said of a Münich codex which Ziegler purposes editing (Neubauer The Book of Tobit p. 10 note 6). See in general Ilgen Die Geschichte Tobt’s p. 183 sqq. Fritzsche Handb. p. 11 sq. Reusch Das Buch Tobias p. 25 sqq. Sengelmann Das Buch Tobit pp. 49–56. (b) Jerome’s version (= Vulgata) which was executed in circumstances similar to those under which that of Judith was prepared see Praef. in vers. libri Tob. (Vallarsi x. 1 sq.): Exigitis ut librum Chaldaeo sermone conscriptum ad Latinum stilum traham librum utique Tobiae quern Hebraei de catalogo divinarum scripturarum secantes his quae apocrypha [al. hagiographa] memorant manciparunt. Feci satis desiderio vestro.… Et quia vicina est Chaldaeorum lingua sermoni Hebraico utriusque linguae peritissimum loquacem reperiens unius diei laborem arripui et quidquid ille mihi Hebraicis verbis expressit hoc ego accito notario sermonibus Latinis exposui. A comparison of this version with the old Latin one will show that Jerome based his translation upon this latter giving a somewhat free rendering of it however much he may at the same time have kept the Chaldee text in view. Comp. Ilgen p. cxliv. sqq. Fritzsche p. xii. sq. Reusch p. xxxii. Sengelmann pp. 56–61. We have no further means of verification notwithstanding the recovery of the Chaldee text for this latter is itself simply a reproduction with greater or less accuracy of the original one. (2) The Syriac text which has come down to us (printed for the first time in the London Polyglot vol. iv.) is composed of the fragments of two different versions one of which (as far as vii. 9) followed the ordinary Greek text while the other (from vii. 10 onwards) followed the text of Codices 44 106 107. See Ilgen pp. cxxxvii. sq. clxix. sqq. Reusch p. ix. sq. Sengelmann p. 47 sq. On the editions see p. 11. The Book of Tobit is not given in the large Peschito manuscript of Milan.

(3) The Chaldee text (see p. 40 above) edited by Neubauer agrees substantially with the Greek recension of the Codex Sinaiticus on which it was probably based. But the text as we now have it is in all likelihood only an abridged and modified form of an older Chaldee text. See besides Neubauer’s edition Bickell Zeitschr. für kathol. Theol. 1878 pp. 216–222 and especially Nöldeke Monatsberichte der Berliner Akademie 1879 pp. 45–69.

(4) Lastly we have further to mention two Hebrew versions which have been frequently printed since the sixteenth century namely: (a) The so-called Hebraeus Fagii a Hebrew version based upon the ordinary Greek text published first of all at Constantinople in 1517 and then by Fagius in 1542. On this see Ilgen p. cxxxviii. sqq. Fritzsche p. 9 sq. Reusch p. xlvii. Sengelmann p. 63 sq. (b) The Codex Hebraeus Münsteri a free Hebrew version which (according to Neubauer p. 12) was published first at Constantinople in 1516 and then by Sebastian Münster in 1542. Until the discovery of the Chaldee text it was supposed that the old Latin version was based upon it (so Ilgen p. ccxvii. sqq.; Fritzsche p. 14; Reusch p. xlvii. eq.; Sengelmann p. 61 sqq.). After seeing the Chaldee text we cannot but regard it as certain that the Codex Hebraeus Münsteri is based upon it though not on that text as it has come down to us but on an older form of it. See especially Nöldeke as above; also Bickell as above. As in the Greek text so also in this older form the first person was made use of in the first three chapters and this has also been retained in the Codex Heb. Münst. Neubauer has published an excellent edition of this codex based upon a collation of two manuscripts and accompanied with an English translation (The Book of Tobit a Chaldee text etc. ed. by Neubauer Oxford 1878). Both the Hebrew texts along with a Latin translation have also found a place in the London Polyglot vol. iv. On the earlier editions comp. Wolf Bibliotheca Hebraea i. 391 sqq. ii. 413 sq. iii. 275 iv. 154. Fabricius-Harles Biblioth. graec. iii. 738 sq. Steinschneider Catalogus librorum Hebraeorum in Bibliotheca Bodleiana (1852–1860) cols. 200–202. Fürst Biblioth. Judaica iii. 425.

For the exegetical aids generally see p. 11 above. Commentaries: Ilgen Die Geschichte Tobi’s nach drei verschieden Originalen dem Griechischen dem Lateinischen des Hieronymus und einem Syrischen übersetzt und mit Anmerkungen exegetischen und kritischen Inhalts auch einer Einleitung versehen Jena 1800. Fritzsche Die Bücher Tobi und Judith erklärt (Exeget. Handb. su den Apokryphen vol. ii.) Leipzig 1853. Reusch Das Buch Tobias übersetzt und erklärt Freiburg 1857. Sengelmann Das Buch Tobit erklärt Münster 1877. For the older literature consult Fabricius-Harles iii. 738 sq. Fürst Bibl. Jud. iii. 425 sq. Fritzsche p. 20. Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. i. 496.

Special disquisitions: [Eichhorn] “Ueber das Buch Tobias” (Allgem. Biblioth. der bibl. Literatur ii. 410 sqq.) Reusch. “Der Dämon Asmodäus im B. Tobias” (Theol. Quartalschr. 1856 pp. 422–445). Idem Review of Sengelmann in the Theol. Quartalschr. 1858 pp. 318–332. Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record iv. 1857 pp. 59–71 vi. 1858 pp. 373–382. Hitzig Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1860 pp. 250–261. Hilgenfeld ibid. 1862 pp. 181–198. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel vol. iv. (3rd ed.) p. 269 sqq. Grätz Gesch. der Juden vol. iv. (2nd ed.) p. 466 sq. note 17. Kohut “Etwas über die Moral und die Abfassungszeit d. B. Tobias” (Geiger’s Jüdische Zeitschr. für Wissenschaft u. Leben x. 1872 pp. 49–73; also in a separate form). Fritzsche in Schenkel’s Bibellex. v. 540 sqq. Renan L’église chrétienne (1879) pp. 554–561. Gräte Monatsschr. f. Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1879 pp. 145 sqq. 385 sqq. 433 sqq. 509 sqq. Grimm Zeitschr. f. wissenschaftl. Theol. 1881 pp. 33–56. Preiss Zeitschr. f. wissenschaftl. Theol. 1885 pp. 24–51. The introductions of Jahn Eichhorn Bertholdt Welte Scholz Nöldeke De Wette-Schrader Reusch Keil Kaulen Kleinert Reuse (see p. 12).

The whole of the literary products hitherto mentioned were fashioned more or less after the models of the older and by that time the canonical literature to which moreover they made the closest approximation both in point of spirit and matter. We have now a new species of literature and one that in our period was more popular and influential than any other namely the pseudepigraphic prophecies. The old prophets in their teachings and exhortations addressed themselves directly to the people and that first and foremost through their oral utterances and then but only as subordinate to these by means of written discourse as well. But now when men felt themselves impelled at any time by their religious enthusiasm to try to influence their contemporaries through their teaching and exhortations instead of directly addressing them in person like the prophets of old they did so by a writing purporting to be the work of some one or other of the great names of the past in the hope that in this way the effect would be all the surer and all the more powerful. We may venture to regard the predilection shown for the kind of medium here in question as evidence of the somewhat degenerate character of the age. It shows that there were natures of a highly religious cast who nevertheless had no longer the courage to confront their contemporaries with the proud claim to have their words listened to as the words of God Himself but who rather seemed to think it necessary to conceal themselves under the guise of some one or other of the acknowledged authorities of the olden time. And so for this reason all the writings of a prophetic character that make their appearance in our period are pseudepigraphic. They are given to the world bearing the name of an Enoch a Moses a Baruch an Ezra or of the twelve patriarchs but we do not know who the real author is of any one of them. Then the standpoint of the pseudonymous author to whom the work is ascribed is as a rule skilfully maintained throughout. The writings are composed in such a way as to make it appear as though they had actually been intended for the contemporaries of the respective personages whose names they bear. But what is addressed to those assumed contemporaries is in reality of such a nature that it concerns rather more the contemporaries of the real author himself. From his artificially assumed standpoint the writer looks on into the future and predicts often with considerable detail the future history of Israel and the world but always taking care to see that predictions stop short at his (the real author’s) own time and so to arrange matters as to make it appear that this was also to be the time of judgment and of the dawn of redemption alike and all this for the purpose of serving as a warning to sinners on the one hand and to comfort and encourage the godly on the other. The fact that the alleged predictions are seen to have been already fulfilled in the previous history of Israel and the world serves at the same time to inspire confidence in the prophet so that there will now be a readier disposition to believe him when he predicts what (from the standpoint of the real contemporaries) still lies in the future.

The contents of those pseudepigraphic prophecies are of a very varied description. As in the older prophetic writings so also in these two things were as a rule combined with each other viz. instruction and exhortation. Prominence is given sometimes to the one and sometimes to the other to the former for example in the Book of Enoch to the latter in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. But in no case is one or other of them found to be entirely absent. The exhortation is uniformly based upon the previous instruction while the religious instruction thus imparted always aims at stimulating the reader to a behaviour of a corresponding nature. But the character of the writings varied very much according as one or other of those elements happened to predominate in them. At one time they give one more the impression of moral sermons (as for example the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs) at another they are more concerned with the unveiling of divine mysteries (as in the case of the Book of Enoch). Yet however much they may thus differ from one another they all belong so far as their essential character is concerned to one and the same category. The revelations given in them in due keeping with their hortatory purpose have reference first of all to the history of the Jewish people and of mankind in general but they also concern themselves though only in a more subordinate way with certain theological problems such as the question regarding the connection between sin and calamity on the one hand and righteousness and prosperity on the other. But besides this they also seek to enlighten the reader with regard to the mysteries of nature the supernatural and heavenly background of the operations of the natural world. On all those matters which are more or less remotely connected with the religious life they claim to give authentic information.

The form in which those communications are clothed is that of apocalypse. They claim throughout to be supernatural revelations given to mankind by the mouth of those men of God in whose names the various writings appear. The peculiarity of this later “apocalyptic” medium as distinguished from the older genuine prophecy is this that it imparts its revelations not in clear and plain language but in a mysterious enigmatical form. The thing intended to be communicated is veiled under parables and symbols the meaning of which can only be guessed at. However the extent to which this veiling is carried is not always the same. At one time it only goes the length of the author’s abstaining from mentioning the names of persons that are otherwise plainly enough indicated while at another again the whole thing is symbolical from begininng to end. Persons are represented under the symbolism of animals events in the history of the human race under that of the operations of nature. And if as sometimes happens the interpretation is added this latter again is only a less obscure form of the enigma and not a solution of it.

The majority of those writings were occasioned by times of trouble and distress or by the depressed circumstances of the people generally. It is the contradiction that is found to exist between the ideal and the actual between the promises which God has given to His people and the existing bondage and persecution which they had to endure at the hands of Gentile powers—it was this contradiction I say that impelled their authors to write those works. And where no present trouble or persecution actually existed the motive for writing may be looked for in the pessimistic view of things which they were cherishing at the time. The existing state of matters the present condition of the chosen people was felt to be a glaring contradiction to its true destiny. Such a state of things could not last an entire revolution must of necessity take place and that ere long. Such is the conviction to which expression is given in the whole of the writings now in question. They therefore owe their origin on the one hand to a pessimistic view of the present and on the other to an intense faith in the glorious future of the people. And the object at which their authors aim is to awaken and quicken the same faith in others as well. They insist that there must be no such thing as doubting but rather a clinging with all stedfastness to the belief that God will conduct His people safely through all the afflictions which He has been sending upon them in order to test and purify them and bring them at length to greatness and glory. This belief must meanwhile comfort and encourage the people in the midst of their present sufferings. But inasmuch as the revelation in question is represented as being near at hand the wicked are meant at the same time to take warning from this and repent so long as there is an opportunity to do so. For the coming judgment will be a right stern one bringing salvation to the godly and perdition to the wicked. The actual effect of those enthusiastic predictions appears to have been both powerful and lasting. Through them the Messianic hope was quickened through them the people were confirmed in the belief that they were called not to serve but to rule. But it is for this very reason that this apocalyptic literature has played so important a part in developing the political sentiments of the people. If we find that from the date of the tax imposed by Quirinius whereby Judaea was placed directly under Roman administration revolutionary tendencies among the people grew stronger and stronger year by year till they led at last to the great insurrection of the year 66 then there cannot be a doubt that this process was essentially promoted if not exclusively caused by the apocalyptic literature.

The standpoint of the whole of those writings is essentially that of orthodox Judaism. They exhort to a God-fearing behaviour in accordance with the regulative principles of the law and deplore the tendency to disregard the law that was manifesting itself here and there. But at the same time it is not the official Judaism of the Pharisaic scribes to which expression is give here. The principal stress is laid not on what the people have to do but on what they have to expect. In regard to the former of these viz. conduct matters are treated more in their general aspect without any special stress being laid exactly upon scholastic correctness in details. We should further add that neither are these writings without numerous individual peculiarities as is only to be expected in the case of the products such as these are of an intense religious enthusiasm. However we cannot feel warranted in specifying the particular circle from which any one of those writings may be supposed to have emanated. The Essenes above all have been thought of in this connection. But what points of contact there are are far too slender to admit of our speaking even of one of the writings in question as an Essenian product. The most we can say is that they are not the product of the school but of a free religious individuality.

1. The Book of Daniel

The oldest and most original of the kind of writings now under consideration—and the one that at the same time served as a model for those of a later date—is the canonical Book of Daniel The unknown author of this apocalypse originated with creative energy those modes of representation of which the subsequent authors of similar works knew how to avail themselves. The book is the direct product of the Maccabaean struggles in the very heart of which it came into existence. With the conflict actually raging around him the author aims at encouraging and comforting his co-religionists by assuring them of speedy deliverance.

The book is divided into two parts. The first part (1–6) contains a series of hortatory narratives; the second (7–12) a series of prophetic visions. Chap. 1 rehearses how young Daniel and his three companions were brought up at the court of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. We are told how in order to avoid defiling themselves by partaking of Gentile food the four young men refused to eat of the meat provided for them by the king and preferred pulse and water instead. Notwithstanding this as we further learn they seemed to thrive better than the other young men who partook of the royal fare. The hortatory object of this narrative is obvious at a glance. In chap. 2 Nebuchadnezzar the king dreams a dream and calls upon the magi not only to interpret it but also to tell him what the dream itself was. Not one however of the magi of the country is found able to do this. Daniel alone shows himself capable of performing such a feat and for this he is abundantly rewarded by the king and appointed to the office of chief of all the magi of Babylon. In the course of the interpretation of the dream it is intimated that the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar would be succeeded by yet three other kingdoms the last of which (the Greek one) would be “split up” (into that of the Ptolemies on the one hand and that of the Seleucidae on the other) and crushed to pieces by the hand of God. In chap. 3 Nebuchadnezzar causes a golden image to be set up and orders it to be worshipped. For refusing to comply with this order Daniel’s three companions are cast into a fiery furnace but when it is found that they were not in the least injured by the flames Nebuchadnezzar sees his own folly and promotes the three young men to positions of high distinction. In chap. 4 Nebuchadnezzar publishes an edict in which he confesses how as a punishment for his impious presumption he was smitten with insanity; and how after he had duly given God the glory he is restored once more to his former greatness. In chap. 5 Belshazzar king of Babylon and son of Nebuchadnezzar makes a great feast at which the vessels which his father had taken from the temple at Jerusalem are made use of as drinking-cups. To punish Belshazzar for this he loses both his kingdom and his life together that very night. In chap. 6 Darius king of the Medes and the conqueror and successor of Belshazzar in order to punish Daniel for praying to his own God in defiance of the king’s prohibition causes him to be cast into a den of lions where however he does not sustain the slightest injury. The result of this is that Darius comes to see his own folly and issues a decree to the effect that Daniel’s God is to be worshipped throughout the whole kingdom. It is no less obvious that a hortatory purpose pervades the last four of those narratives (3–6) as well while at the same time the contemporary historical background is also plainly discernible. By the three kings we are in every instance to understand Antiochus Epiphanes as being the person meant who with impious arrogance assumed such lofty airs (4) who carried off the sacred vessels from the temple at Jerusalem (5) who forbade the Jews to worship their own God (6) and commanded them to pay divine honour to the gods of the Gentiles (3). We are shown how as a judgment for his misdeeds he is given over to destruction and how on the other hand the Jews whom he persecuted are miraculously delivered. While therefore all those narratives are meant to stimulate to unfailing stedfastness the faithful people whom Antiochus was persecuting we are introduced in the second part of the book (7–12) to a series of visions in which from the standpoint of the Chaldaean period the future development of the events of the world is foretold. The whole of the visions agree in this that the monarchy which they foretell as being the last is the Greek one which ultimately resolves itself into the godless rule of Antiochus Epiphanes who though not mentioned by name is plainly enough indicated. We have above all in the last vision (from 10 to 12) a prediction of a highly detailed character in which are foretold the history of the kingdoms of the Ptolemies and the Seleucidae respectively (for it is these that are meant by the kingdom of the south and the kingdom of the north) and their manifold relations to one another. Here the most remarkable thing is that the prediction becomes more and more minute and detailed the nearer it approaches to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. Precisely the history of this monarch is here related with the utmost minuteness without his name being once mentioned (11:21 sqq.). It is still the suppression of the Jewish worship the desecration of the temple and the erection of the heathen altar for sacrifice as well as the commencement of the Maccabaean insurrection (11:32–35) that are predicted. But at this point the predictions suddenly stop and the author now cherishes the expectation that immediately after the struggles connected with the rising in question the consummation will come and the kingdom of God begin to appear. Nor is it merely in the eleventh chapter that the predictions stop at this period but in no other part of the book does the horizon of the author ever stretch beyond it not even in the visions of the four monarchies (2 and 7). For the fourth is not the Roman Empire but the Greek monarchy as any one who candidly considers the matter will readily admit (the first being the Babylonian the second that of the Medes the third the Persian and the fourth the Greek). In presence of these facts it is admitted by all the expositors of the present day—by all that is who are not hampered by dogmatic pre-dilections—that our book was composed at the time of the Maccabaean rising or to speak more precisely between 167 and 165 B.C. that is to say before the re-consecrating of the temple for as yet this latter event lies beyond the horizon of the author. It is only as viewed in the light of this period that the book can be said to have either sense or meaning. From beginning to end it is framed with the view of exercising a practical influence precisely in such a time as this. With its various narratives and revelations it seeks on the one hand to encourage the hosts of faithful Israelites to maintain a stedfast adherence to the law and on the other to console them with the certain prospect of immediate deliverance. It is even at this very moment—such is the author’s thought—when the distress is at its height that the deliverance is also nearest at hand. The days of the Gentile monarchies are drawing to a close. The last and at the same time the most godless and criminal of them all is on the point of being annihilated through the impending miraculous breaking in on the part of God upon the current of the world’s history whereupon the sovereignty of the world will be committed to the “saints of the Most High” the faithful Israelites. They will inherit the kingdom and possess it for ever and ever. That is what those who are just now so sorely oppressed and persecuted are to bear in mind for their comfort and encouragement.

The book was composed partly in Hebrew and partly in Aramaic (Chaldee) the Aramaic portion being that extending from 2:4 to 7:28. And so from this we can see that it was just then that the Aramaic came to be the prevailing dialect of Palestine while the Hebrew fell more and more into desuetude. In the course of two centuries after this viz. in the time of Jesus Christ we find that the process which at this point is thus beginning has been already fully completed (see ).

The high estimation in which from the first this book was held by believing Israelites is best shown by the fact that it always continued to retain its place in the canon. Even that somewhat older work the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach was ultimately excluded from the Hebrew canon and that although in point of form and contents it approximates more closely to the early Hebrew literature than the Book of Daniel. Obviously the reason of both those facts is this that the work of Jesus the son of Sirach was published under the author’s real name whereas the Book of Daniel appeared under the name of one of the older authorities. It is in fact the only literary product of its time that retained a place in the canon with the exception of a number of psalms which happened to have been previously embodied in the Psalter. We already find evidence of acquaintance with our book in the oldest of the Sibyls (Orac. Sibyll. 3:396–400 only a few decades later than Daniel); further in 1 Macc. 2:59 60 and Baruch 1:15–18.

The exegetical and critical literature of the Book of Daniel is enumerated in De Wette-Schrader’s Einleitung in die kanon. und apokr. Bücher des A. T. (1869) p. 485 sq. Kleinert Abriss der Einleitung zum A. T. (1878) pp. 59–61. Reuss Gesch. der heil. Schriften Alten Testaments (1881) § 464. Graf art. “Daniel” in Schenkel’s Bibellex. i. 564.

Perhaps we may be allowed in passing to offer here a small contribution toward the exposition of chap. 9:24–27. In that passage the author endeavours to explain the seventy years of Jeremiah (Jer. 25:11 12) by taking them to mean seventy weeks of years (70×7) And this number again he proceeds to break up into 7+62+1. Then as the context makes it well-nigh impossible to doubt he reckons the first seven weeks of years (therefore 49 years) at the period that would elapse between the destruction of Jerusalem and the accession of Cyrus which pretty nearly coincides with the actual number of years embraced in that period (588–537 B.C.). The subsequent sixty-two weeks of years he reckons and that with rather more nicety than before as being the period extending from the time of Cyrus to his (the author’s) own day: till “an anointed one shall be cutoff” by which we have probably to understand the murder of the high priest Onias III. in the year 171. But the number of years between 587 and 171 is only 366 whereas 62 weeks of years would be equal to 434. Consequently the author has miscalculated to the extent of 70 years. Some have supposed that this is impossible and have therefore tried in various ways to evade the only interpretation of which the context will permit. But that such an error as this is actually possible is proved most conclusively by the circumstance that Josephus for example likewise falls into an error of a similar kind as may be seen from the three following passages: (1) Bell. Jud. vi. 4. 8 where he gives 639 as the number of years that elapsed between the second year of Cyrus’s reign till the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (70 A.D.). In that case the second year of Cyrus’s reign would have to be the year 569 B.C. (2) Antt. xx. 10 where he makes out that there was a period of 414 years between the return from the captivity (in the first year of Cyrus’s reign) and the time of Antiochua V. Eupator (164–162). (3) Antt. xiii. 11. 1 where he calculates that 481 years elapsed between the return from the captivity (in the first year of the reign of Cyrus) and the time of Aristobulus (105–104). Consequently according to (1) the accession of Cyrus must have taken place in the year 570 B.C.. according to (2) somewhere about 578 B.C. and according to (3) in 586 B.C. whereas in point of fact it took place in 537 B.C. Josephus therefore has miscalculated to the extent of from forty to fifty years too many. A somewhat nearer approach to the numbers of Daniel is made by the Jewish Hellenist Demetrius who reckons that 573 years elapsed between the carrying away of the ten tribes into captivity and the time of Ptolemy IV. (222 B.C.) and so precisely like Daniel putting it at some seventy years too many (see the passage as given in Clement of Alexand. Strom. i. 21. 141; for more about Demetrius see § 33 below). Therefore in estimating the length of the period in question at some seventy years too much Daniel is obviously following some current view on the matter. Just at the time now under consideration there was as yet an absence of the necessary means for determining the correct chronology. In Daniel’s case however the error is all the less to be wondered at that his estimating the length of the period referred to at sixty-two year weeks was simply a consequence of his interpretation of Jeremiah’s prophecy.

2. The Book of Enoch

Enoch (in common with Elijah) occupies this singular position among the Old Testament men of God that when removed from the earth he was carried directly to heaven. A man of this stamp could not but appear peculiarly well fitted to serve as a medium through which to communicate to the world revelations regarding the divine mysteries seeing that he had even been deemed worthy of immediate intercourse with God. Accordingly at a somewhat early period probably as far back as the second century before Christ an apocalyptic writing appeared purporting to have been composed by Enoch which work was subsequently issued in an enlarged and revised form. This Book of Enoch was already known to the author of the Book of “Jubilees” and of the “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs” and was afterwards a great favourite in the Christian Church. As is well known it is quoted in the Epistle of Jude (14 15) while many of the Fathers use it without hesitation as the genuine production of Enoch and as containing authentic divine revelations although it has never been officially recognised by the Church as canonical. We still find the Byzantine chronicler George Syncellus (about 800 A.D.) quoting two long passages from it (Syncell. Chron. ed. Dindorf i. 20–23 and 42–47). But after that the book disappeared and was looked upon as lost till in the course of last century the discovery was made that an Ethiopic version of it was still extant in the Abyssinian Church. In the year 1773 Bruce the English traveller brought three manuscripts of it to Europe. But it was not till the year 1821 that the whole work was given to the world through the English translation of Laurence. A German translation was issued by Hoffmann which from chap. 1 to 55 (1833) was based upon the English version of Laurence and from chap. 56 to the end (1838) on the Ethiopic version collated with a new manuscript. The Ethiopic text was published first by Laurence in 1838 and subsequently by Dillmann in 1851 after having collated it with five manuscripts. Dillmann likewise issued (1853) a new German translation in which there were material emendations and on which all disquisitions connected with this book have been based ever since. It seemed as though there were reason to hope that more light would be thrown upon this book when a small fragment of it in Greek (extending from ver. 42 to ver. 49 of chap. 89) taken from a Codex Vaticanus (cod. gr. 1809) written in tachygraphic characters was published in facsimile by Mai (Patrum Nova Biblioth. vol. ii.) and deciphered by Gildmeister (Zeitschr. der DMG. 1855 pp. 621–624). For from what was stated by Mai one was led to suppose that there was still far more in the codex than had yet been published. But alas! a fresh examination by Gebhardt revealed the fact that the deciphered fragment was all of the Book of Enoch that it contained (Merx’ Archiv vol. ii. p. 243).

But in order to be able to form something like a clear idea of the origin and character of this remarkable book it will be necessary to present to the reader a brief outline of its contents.

Chap. 1:1: Title. Enoch’s benediction on the elect and the righteous. Chaps. 1–4: Introduction. Enoch rehearses the fact that he saw a vision in heaven which was shown him by the angels who communicated to him the history of all the future generations of men telling him that the wicked would be sentenced to everlasting damnation while the righteous would obtain eternal life. Chaps. 6–9 contain an account of the fall of the angels based upon the sixth chapter of Genesis though in a much more elaborate form. God ordains the kind of punishment to which the fallen angels are to be condemned and appoints the mode in which the earth is to be purged of their evil-doing and wickedness. The angels are entrusted with the task of executing both those behests. in chaps. 12–16 Enoch who mingles among the angels in heaven is commissioned by these latter to betake himself to the earth for the purpose of announcing to the fallen angels the impending judgment (here Enoch resumes the use of the first person). When he has fulfilled his commission the fallen angels prevail upon him to intercede with God in their behalf. But God refuses to entertain the intercession of Enoch who in a new and imposing vision receives a fresh commission to go and announce once more their approaching destroction. In 17–36 Enoch relates (in the first person) how he was carried over mountains water and rivers and shown everywhere the secret divine origin of all the objects and operations of nature. He also tells how he was shown the ends of the earth and the place to which the evil angels were banished; and the abode of departed spirits of the just as well as the unjust; and the tree of life which is in store for the elect righteous; and the place of punishment for the condemned; and the tree of knowledge of which Adam and Eve had eaten. Chaps. 37 to 71 record “the second vision of wisdom which Enoch the son of Jared saw” consisting of three allegories. Chaps. 38 to 44 contain the first allegory. Enoch sees in a vision the dwellings of the righteous and the resting-places of the saints. He also sees the myriads upon myriads who stand before the majesty of the Lord of spirits and the four archangels Michael Raphael Gabriel and Phanuel. He is further permitted to look upon the mysteries of heaven to see the places where the winds are kept and the receptacles for the sun and moon and lastly to behold the lightning and the stars of heaven all of which have their own special names and which names they respectively answer to. Chaps. 44 to 57 contain the second allegory. Enoch is favoured with information regarding the “Chosen One” the “Son of man” i.e. regarding the Messiah His nature and mission how He is to judge the world and establish His kingdom. Chaps. 58 to 69 contain the third allegory treating of the blessedness of the righteous and the elect; of the mysteries of the thunder and lightning; of the day on which the Chosen One the Son of man is to sit in judgment upon the world. Here several portions are inserted which interrupt the continuity and plainly show that they are interpolations by another hand. Chaps. 70–71 contain the conclusion of the allegories. In chaps. 72–82 we have “the book concerning the revolutions of the lights of heaven” or the astronomical book. Here Enoch favours us with all sorts of astronomical information which he himself had obtained from the angel Uriel. Chaps. 83 to 90 contain two visions. (a) In 83 to 84 Enoch sees in a dreadful vision the destruction (by the flood) which is awaiting the sinful world and prays God not to annihilate the whole human family (b) In 85 to 90 we have the vision of the cattle sheep wild beasts and shepherds; under the symbolism of which the whole history of Israel is predicted down to the commencement of the Messianic era. As this historical vision is the only part of the book which enables us with anything like approximate certainty to determine the date of its composition we will devote more special attention to its contents at a subsequent stage. In chap. xci. we have Enoch’s exhortation to his children to lead a righteous life (by way of conclusion to what goes before). Chap. 92 forms the introduction to the next section. In 93 and 94:12–17 Enoch enlightens us “out of the books” regarding the world-weeks. In the first week Enoch lives in the second Noah in the third Abraham in the fourth Moses in the fifth the temple is built at the end of the sixth it is destroyed again in the seventh an apostate generation arises and at the end of those weeks the righteous are instructed in the mysteries of heaven; in the eighth righteousness receives a sword and sinners are given into the hands of the righteous and a house is built for the great King; in the ninth the judgment is revealed; in the tenth and in the seventh part of it the final judgment will take place. Chaps. 94 to 105 contain woes upon the wicked and the ungodly the announcement of their certain destruction and an exhortation to cherish joyful expectations addressed to the righteous (very diffuse and full of mere repetitions). In chaps. 106 and 107 we have a narrative of the birth of Noah and what took place at it The wonderful appearance of this personage gives Enoch occasion to predict the flood. Chap. 108 contains “a further writing by Enoch” in which he tells hows he had got certain information from an angel regarding the fire of hell to which the souls of the wicked and the blaspheming are to be consigned as well as regarding the blessings that are in store for the humble and the righteous.

As may be seen from this outline of its contents this book purports to be a series of revelations with which Enoch was favoured in the course of his peregrinations through heaven and earth and of his sojourn among the heavenly spirits. These revelations he committed to writing for the benefit of mankind and transmitted them to posterity. The contents are of an extremely varied character. They embrace the laws of nature no less than the organization and history of the kingdom of God. To impart information regarding the whole of those matters is the purpose and object of this mysterious book. The work furnishes but few data that can be turned to account in the way of enabling us to make out the circumstances under which it was composed. Consequently the views that have been expressed relative to this are of a widely divergent order. Still a certain consensus of opinion has grown up with regard to at least a few leading points. In the first place we may say that the view of J. Chr. K. von Hofmann Weisse and Philippi to the effect that the entire book is the work of a Christian author (Hofmann holding that the interpolations are but of a trifling character) is confined pretty much to those writers themselves. In the case of the whole three of them the entertaining of such a view is essentially due to dogmatic reasons while in the case of Hofmann and Philippi in particular it is to be attributed to a desire to get rid of the fact that our book is quoted in the Epistle of Jude (for they would have us believe that conversely it was that passage in the Book of Jude that first suggested the writing of the book now under consideration). But speaking generally it may be affirmed that there is scarcely any modern scholar who holds that the whole work was composed by one and the same author. Even Dillmann who in his translation and exposition still continued to assume a substantial unity of authorship (the interpolations being only trifling although tolerably numerous) has—in spite of Wittichen’s almost entire concurrence in it—long ago abandoned this view. He is now at one with almost all the critics in holding that the book consists of several pieces and all of them entirely different from one another. On this assumption it is almost universally admitted that the so-called “allegories” chaps. 37–71 are above all to be ascribed to a separate author (so for example Krieger Lücke 2nd ed. Ewald Dillmann latterly Köstlin Hilgenfeld Langen Sieffert Reuss Volkmar). Likewise in the case of the other leading sections of the book (1–36 and 72–108) interpolations more or less numerous are almost universally acknowledged to exist although there is considerable diversity of opinion as to where in each instance they begin and end. Again there is comparatively speaking a high degree of unanimity with regard to the date of the composition of each of those leading sections above all of the one containing the visions (83–90). Volkmar alone has found his predilection for the time of Barcocheba too much for him in this instance as well preferring as he does to regard the portions in question as having been written by one of Akiba’s disciples. All the others are agreed in holding that they belong to the second century B.C. either limiting the date to the earlier years of the Maccabaean period (so Krieger Lücke 2nd ed. Langen) or finding it further on viz. in the days of John Hyrcanus (so Ewald Dillmann Köstlin Sieffert Reuss likewise Wittichen) or even so late as the time of Alexander Jannaeus (so Hilgenfeld). But it is with respect to that section which as regards its contents is the most important of any viz. the allegories chaps. 36–71 that opinion fluctuates most of all. Here Hilgenfeld and Volkmar agree with Hofmann Weisse and Philippi thus far that in common with these latter they ascribe the section in question to a Christian author (Hilgenfeld to a Gnostic writer). All other critics refer it to some pre-Christian period Langen to the earlier days of the Maccabaean age in common with the rest of the book Ewald to somewhere about 144 B.C. Köstlin Sieffert and Dillmann (Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. xii. 351 sq.) to some date previous to 64 B.C. Krieger and Lücke to the early part of Herod’s reign while Reuss refrains from suggesting any date at all.

Such unanimity as has thus far been secured may serve at the same time to give us an idea how far we can here hope to obtain results of a trustworthy character. If there is one thing more certain than another it is this that the book is not all the production of one and the same author. Not only is the section containing the allegories chaps. 37–71 undoubtedly a perfectly independent portion of the book but all the rest of the work is composed of very heterogeneous elements and obviously interspersed with a great number of longer or shorter interpolations. Confining ourselves to the leading portions of the work the following groups may be distinguished:—

1. The original writing i.e. the leading portion consisting of 1–36 72–90 but with the restriction just referred to. The only clue we get to the date of its composition is that furnished by the historical vision in chaps. 85–90. Here we have a representation of the entire history of the theocracy from Adam down to the author’s own day and that under the symbolism of cattle and sheep. In a vision presented to him in a dream Enoch saw how a white ox (Adam) once sprung out of the earth; and then a white cow (Eve); and along with this latter yet other cattle a black ox (Cain) and a red one (Abel). The black ox gored the red one which thereupon vanished from the earth. But the black ox begat many other black cattle. Thereupon the cow just referred to (Eve) gave birth to a white ox (Seth) from which sprung a great many other white cattle. But stars (angels) fell from heaven and after having had intercourse with the cows of the black cattle (the daughters of Cain) they begat elephants camels and asses (the giants). And so in this way the history is proceeded with the theocratic line being always represented by the white cattle. From Jacob onwards white sheep are substituted for the white cattle. The symbolic character of the representation is patent all through while it presents hardly any difficulty in the way of interpretation till we come to the point where the sheep are attacked by wild animals i.e. till the hostile powers of Assyria and Babylon come upon the stage. For in 89:55 it is narrated how the Lord of the sheep delivered them into the hand of the lions and tigers and wolves and jackals and into the hand of the foxes and all manner of wild beasts; and how the wild beasts began to tear the sheep to pieces. And the Lord forsook their house (Jerusalem) and their tower (the temple) 89:56 i.e. He withdrew His gracious presence from them (for there is no question of the destruction of these till a much later stage). And He appointed seventy shepherds to feed the sheep and charged them to allow as many to be torn to pieces by the wild beasts as He would order them but not more (89:59 60). And he summoned “another” and commanded him to write down the number of sheep destroyed by the shepherds (89:61–64). And the shepherds fed them “each his time” and delivered the sheep into the hand of the lions and tigers. And these latter burnt down that tower (the temple) and destroyed that house (Jerusalem 89:65 66). And the shepherds delivered to the wild beasts far more sheep than they had been ordered to do (89:68–71). And when the shepherds had fed the flock twelve hours three of those sheep came back and began to rebuild the house (Jerusalem) and the tower (the temple) chap. 89:72 73. But the sheep were so blinded as to mingle with the beasts of the field; and the shepherds did not rescue them from the hand of the beasts (89:74 75). But when five-and-thirty shepherds had fed them all the fowls of the air the eagles the hawks the kites and the ravens came and began to prey upon those sheep and to peck out their eyes and to devour their flesh (90:1 2). And again when three-and-twenty shepherds had tended the flock and eight-and-fifty times in all were completed (90:5) then little lambs were born of the white sheep and they began to cry to the sheep; but these pay no heed to them (90:6 7). And the ravens swooped down upon the lambs and seized one of them and tore and devoured the sheep till horns grew upon the lambs and above all a large horn shot out to which all the young ones betake themselves (90:8–10). And the eagles and the hawks and the kites still continue to tear the sheep to pieces. And the ravens sought to break to pieces the horn of that young sheep and struggled with it; and it strove with them. And the Lord came to the help of that young one; and all the beasts flee and fall before him (90:11–15). Here the narrative breaks off. For what follows seems for the author to lie in the future. It is only further remarked that the twelve last shepherds had destroyed more than those who had preceded them (90:17).

In their endeavours to interpret this narrative so clear and perspicuous in all the leading points the expositors seem almost to have vied with each other in trying who would misunderstand it most. Strangely enough all the earlier expositors down to Lücke inclusive have taken the first thirty-seven shepherds to mean the native kings of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah ! It is true no doubt that in the present day all are agreed that the seventy shepherds are intended to represent the period during which Israel was subjected to the away of the Gentile powers. But it is a strange misapprehension into which almost all the expositors have been betrayed when they suppose that the seventy shepherds are intended to represent a corresponding number of Gentile rulers. The whole narrative leaves no room whatever to doubt that the shepherds are rather to be understood as angels who are entrusted with the duty of seeing that only as many of the sheep are torn to pieces as God intends and no more. So far as I am aware up till the publication of the first edition of the present work Von Hofmann was the only writer who recognised this (Schriftbeweis i. 422). It is as it is impossible to doubt the wild beasts and the birds of prey that represent the Gentile rulers. Consequently the shepherds must have some other meaning altogether. But they certainly cannot be taken as representing human beings for throughout the entire vision these latter are without exception represented under the symbolism of animals whereas the angels appear even in chap. 87 under that of men. And that the shepherds are as matter of fact intended to represent angels is still further confirmed by what follows: (1) Before they commence to tend the flock they all appear before God at one and the same time and from Him receive their commission to feed the flock one after the other (89:59). How could this apply to Gentile rulers? Or are we to think of them as in a pre-existent state? (2) At the judgment they are classed along with the fallen angels (90:20 sqq.). (3) The angel that is summoned to write down the number of sheep that are destroyed is in 89:61 briefly spoken of as “another” which would surely justify us in assuming that the shepherds mentioned immediately before belong to precisely the same category as this “other.” (4) Nor can the shepherds be identified with the Gentile rulers for this further reason that according to 89:75 they are also entrusted with the duty of protecting the sheep from the wild beasts. Consequently they are evidently an impartial power placed over the sheep and the wild beasts alike or they are meant to be so at least. The thought in the author’s mind then is this that from the moment that in accordance with the divine purpose Israel was assailed and subjugated by the Gentile powers God appointed angels whose duty it was to see that these powers executed upon Israel the judgment with which He intended them to be visited; and not only so but also to see that they did not oppress and persecute Israel unduly. But the watchers neglect their duty; they allow the wild beasts to destroy a greater number than they ought to have done and as is predicted toward the conclusion they are for this to be cast into hell-fire along with the fallen angels.

It would lead to too great a digression were we to do more in the way of refuting the misapprehensions here in question. We must content ourselves with briefly stating what—following Dillmann and Ewald above all—we conceive to be the correct interpretation. The numbers in the text serve to show that the author divides the time of the duration of the Gentile supremacy into four periods arranged thus: 12 + 23 + 23 + 12 which are simply intended to denote in a general way two shorter periods (at the beginning) and two longer ones (in the middle). For every calculation pretending to chronological exactness must be radically erroneous whether with Hilgenfeld we take year-weeks or with Volkmar take decades as our basis. Nor can there be any doubt as to where the different periods are intended to begin and end. The first begins with the time when the Gentile powers (consequently that of Assyria in the first instance) began to turn against Israel and extends to the time of the return of the exiles in the reign of Cyrus the only difficulty here being as to who are meant by the three returning sheep (89:72). Probably the author here alludes to Zerubbabel Ezra and Nehemiah the less prominent colleague of Zerubbabel viz. Joshua being left out of account. The second period extends from Cyrus to Alexander the Great. For the substitution of the birds of prey for the wild beasts (90:2) plainly marks the transition from the Persians to the Greeks. The third extends from Alexander the Great to Antiochus Epiphanes. Nothing but stubborn prejudice can prevent any one from seeing that by the symbolism of the lambs (90:6) the Maccabees are to be understood. Lastly the fourth period extends from the commencement of the Maccabaean age on to the author’s own day. That everything considered this latter coincides with the time of the Hasmonaean princes it is impossible to doubt. And it is very likely that by the great horn which is mentioned last it is John Hyrcanus that is referred to. Only we feel bound to agree with Gebhardt who owing to the uncertain character of the Ethiopic text warns us against being too detailed in our interpretation. But (seeing that from the beginning of the Maccabaean age onwards the times of twelve shepherds had elapsed) this may be regarded as certain that the author wrote some time in the last third of the second century B.C. If we compare the 12 + 23 + 23 + 12 times that are put down to represent the four periods with the actual duration of those periods we will find that for the eye of the author looking backwards the length of the time is foreshortened. He represents the third period (333–175 B.C.) as being of precisely the same length as the second whereas in point of fact this latter was considerably longer (537–333 B.C.). And for his eye the first period dwindles down still more. All this is exactly what we might expect in the case of one who is looking back upon the events of the past.

If we were to be allowed to assume that the author of the historical vision is in the main the author of chaps. 1–36 72–105 as well then the date of the composition of the whole of those sections would thereby be determined at the same time.

2. The allegories chaps. 37–71 (with the exception of the Noachian portions). Even on a hasty perusal one cannot fail to notice that the allegories form one distinct whole and that they are different from the remaining portions of the book. In fact there cannot be the slightest doubt but that they are the production of a different author. The use of the names of God the angelology the eschatology and the doctrine of the Messiah differ essentially from those of the rest of the book (comp. especially Köstlin pp. 265–268). And as little can there be any room to doubt that they are of a later date than the original work. For the favourite notion of Ewald that they rank first in point of time has been sufficiently refuted by Köstlin (pp. 269–273). Among the peculiarities of the allegories we notice this in particular that a decided prominence is given in them to the Messianic hope and the person of the Messiah whereas in the other parts of the book those are matters that are touched on once or twice at the most. This again is connected with a further peculiarity to which Köstlin in particular has directed attention namely that here instead of its being the wicked and the ungodly in general who appear in contrast to the pious as is the case in the rest of the book it is rather the Gentile rulers the kings and the powerful ones of the earth (chaps. 38:4 5 46:7 8 48:8–10 53:5 54:2 55:4 62:1 3 6 9–11 63:1–12). This circumstance serves to explain why it is that precisely in these allegories such decided prominence is given to the Messianic hope. But when it may now be asked were they composed? The only passage which furnishes any clue to the date is chap. 56 where it is predicted that in the closing period the Parthians and Medes would come from the east and invade the Holy Land but that they would encounter obstacles at the holy city when they would turn upon and destroy each other (56:5–7). When Köstlin would have us infer from this passage that the writing here in question must have been composed previous to the year 64 B.C. as otherwise we should have expected that the Romans would have been mentioned as Well we may reply that such an expectation is absolutely groundless and unwarrantable. It would be much nearer the truth to conclude with Lücke that this passage presupposes what had already taken place viz. the Parthian invasion of Palestine (40–38 B.C.) the recollection of which would have some influence in shaping the author’s eschatological hopes so that according to this the allegories would be composed at the very soonest in the time of Herod. On the other hand the prediction to the effect that the Parthian power would collapse outside the walls of Jerusalem presupposes that the city was still standing as otherwise it would surely have been necessary first of all to predict its restoration. But the main question now is this are the allegories of pre- or of post-Christian origin? An answer to this question is all the more desirable that it is precisely in these that we find so many points of contact with the Christology and eschatology of the Gospels. But unfortunately it is extremely difficult to arrive at any positive decision. However this much at least ought to be admitted that the view of the Messiah presented in the part of the book at present under consideration is perfectly explicable on Jewish grounds and that to account for such view it is not necessary to assume that it was due to Christian influences. Nothing of a specifically Christian character is to be met with in any part of this section. But supposing the reverse to have been the case it is to say the least of it quite incredible that a Jew would have been likely to have borrowed it and so there would be nothing for it but to pronounce at once in favour of a Christian origin. And this is what has actually been done by all those who cannot see their way to admit the pre-Christian origin of the writing (Hofmann Weisse Hilgenfeld Volkmar Philippi). But no sooner is such a view seriously entertained than the difficulties begin to accumulate. An anonymous Christian author would scarcely have been so reserved as to avoid making any allusion to the historical personality of Jesus. Surely if the writer had any object in view at all it would be to win converts to the faith. But how could he hope to accomplish this object if he always spoke merely of the coming of the Messiah in glory merely of “the Chosen One” as the Judge of the world without making the slightest reference to the fact that in the first place He would have to appear in His estate of humiliation? Surely any one who candidly weighs the arguments on the one side and on the other must feel constrained to admit that the pre-Christian origin is decidedly more probable than the Christian one. Further the objection based upon the circumstance that according to Matt. 16:13–16 John 12:34 the expression “Son of man” was not as yet a current designation for the Messiah in the time of Christ whereas it is of frequent occurrence in this sense in the allegories is without force. For we are by no means at liberty to infer from those passages that the expression “Son of man” was not at that time currently in use as a Messianic title. In the case of the passage in John this inference is based simply upon false exegesis (see on the other hand Meyer for example). The passage in Matthew again is disposed of by the circumstance that in its original form as preserved in Mark 8:27 = Luke 9:18 the expression “Son of man” does not occur at all.

3. The Noachian portions. The investigations of Dillmann Ewald and Köstlin have already sufficiently proved that the passages 54:7–55:2 60:65–69:25 break the sequence and were only inserted among the allegories at a later period. And if further proof were needed we have it in the fact that in chap. 68:1 “The Book of the Allegories of Enoch” is expressly quoted. Those portions have been called Noachian partly because they treat of Noah and his time and partly because they purport to have been written by him. Probably chaps. 106 107 should also be included among them. Chap. 108 is an independent addition inserted at a later period. It is utterly impossible to say at what dates those various interpolations were made.

The whole Book of Enoch which was gradually put together in the way we have just stated undoubtedly owes its origin to Palestine (comp. Dillmann Einleitung p. 51). But as our present Ethiopic version is taken from the Greek it becomes a question whether this latter was the original or whether it was in turn a translation from the Hebrew or Aramaic. Certainly the numerous Hebrew names of the angels point to this latter as probable to say nothing of the fact that in the Hasmonaean age Greek was hardly ever used for literary purposes. Consequently it has been almost universally assumed that the original was composed in Hebrew or Aramaic. The only exceptions are Volkmar (Zeitschr. der DMG. 1860 p. 131) and Philippi (p. 126) who feel compelled to adopt the view that Greek was the language of the original.

For the Enoch-legend generally comp. (next to Gen. 5:18–24) Jesus the Son of Sirach 44:16 49:14; Heb. 11:5; Irenaeus v. 5. 1; Tertullian De anima chap. 1.; Hippolyt. De Christo et Antichristo chaps. xliii.–xlvii.; Evang. Nicodemi (= Acta Pilati) chap. xxv.; Historia Josephi (apoer.) chaps. xxx.–xxxii. Thilo Codex apocr. Nov. Test. p. 756 sqq. Rud. Hofmann Das Leben Jesu nach den Apokryphen p. 459 sqq. Winer Realwörtb. art. “Henoch.” Hamburger Real-Encycl. für Bibel und Talmud Part ii. art. “Henochsage.” The Bible dictionaries generally. The expositors on Revelation xi. For a great number of earlier dissertations consult Fabricius Cod. pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 222 sq.

To an acquaintance with our book is perhaps to be traced so early a notice as that of a Jewish or Samaritan Hellenist (probably not Eupolemus but some person unknown see § xxxiii.) which has been transmitted to us by Alexander Polyhistor and after him by Eusebius to the effect that Enoch was the inventor of astrology (Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 17. 8 ed. Gaisford: τοῦτον εὑρηκέναι πρῶτον τὴν ἀστρολογίαν). In the Book of Jubilees not only is our book largely drawn upon but expressly mentioned (see Ewald’s Jahrbb. der bibl. Wissensch. ii. 240 sq. iii. 18 sq. 90 sq. Rönsch Das Buch der Jubiläen p. 403 sqq.). In the following nine passages in the Test. XII. Patr. express reference is made to Enoch’s prophetical writings: Simeon 5; Levi 10:14 16; Judah 18; Zebulon 3; Dan 5; Naphtali 4; Benjamin 9. Further the mention of the ἐγρήγορες (watchers = angels) in Reuben 5 Naphtali 3 may also be said to point to Enoch.

Christian testimonies: Epist. of Jude 14: ἐπροφήτευσεν δὲ καὶ τούτοις ἕβδομος ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ Ἐνὼχ λέγων κ.τ.λ. Epist. of Barnabas iv.: τὸ τέλειον σκάνδαλον ἤγγικεν περὶ οὐ γέγραπται ὡς Ἐνὼχ λέγει. Ibid. xvi.: λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή (then follows a quotation from the Book of Enoch). Irenaeus iv. 16. 2: Sed et Enoch sine circumcisione placens Deo cum esset homo Dei legatione ad angelos fungebatur et tranelatus est et conservator usque nunc testis justi judicii Dei. Tertullian De cultu feminarum i. 3: Scio scripturam Enoch quae hunc ordinem angelis dedit non recipi a quibusdam quia nec in armarium Judaicum admittitur. Opinor non putaverunt illam ante cataclysmum editam post eum casum orbis omnium rerum abolitorein salvam esse potuisse.… Tertullian then goes on to point out how this vas still quite possible after which he proceeds as follows: Sed cum Enoch eadem scriptura etiam de domino praedicarit a nobis quidem nihil omnino rejiciendum est quod pertineat ad nos. Et legimus omnem scripturam aedificationi habilem divinitus inspirari. A Judaeis potest jam videri propterea rejecta sicut et cetera fere quae Christum sonant.… Eo accedit quod Enoch apud Judam apostolum testimonium possidet. Comp. besides the whole of the introduction to chap. ii. the subject of which is taken from Enoch. Idem De cultu feminarum ii. 10: (iidem angeli) damnati a deo sunt ut Enoch refert. Idem De idololatr. iv.: Antecesserat Enoch praedicens etc. Idem De idololatr. xv.: Haec igitur ab initio praevidens spiritus sanctus (!) etiam ostia in superstitionem ventura praececinit per antiquissimum propheten Enoch. Clemens Alex. Eclogae prophet. chap. ii. (Dindorf iii. 456): “Εὐλογημένος εἶ ὁ βλέπων ἀβύσσους καθήμενος ἐπὶ Χερουβίμ” ὁ Δανιὴλ λέγει ὁμοδοξῶν τῷ Ἐνὼχ τῷ εἰρηκότι “καὶ εἶδον τὰς ὕλας πάσας.” Idem Eclogae prophet. chap. liii. (Dindorf iii. 474): ἤδη δὲ καὶ Ἐνώχ φησιν τοὺς παραβάντας ἀγγέλους διδάξαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἀστρονομίαν καὶ μαντικὴν καὶ τὰς ἄλλας τέχνας. Celsus in Origen Contra Cels. v. 52 endeavours to show that Christians would contradict themselves were they to maintain that Christ was the only ἄγγελος sent down into the world by God. As evidence of this he quotes the following words: ἐλθεῖν γὰρ καὶ ἄλλους λέγουσι πολλάκις καὶ ὁμοῦ γε ἑξήκοντα ἢ ἑβδομήκοντα• οὓς δὴ γενέσθαι κακοὺς καὶ κολάζεσθαι δεσμοῖς ὑποβληθέντας ἐν γῇ• ὅθεν καὶ τὰς θερμὰς πηγὰς εἶναι τὰ ἐκείνων δάκρυα κ.τ.λ. In commenting on this passage Origen (Contra Cels. v. 54 55) remarks that it is taken from the Book of Euoch. He thinks however that Celsus did not read it there himself but heard it from somebody or other for he does not mention the author’s name. Origen Contra Cels. v. 54: ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις οὐ πάνυ φέρεται ὡς θεῖα τὰ ἐπιγεγραμμένα τοῦ Ἐνὼχ βιβλία (observe the plural). Idem De principiis i. 3. 3: Sed et in Enoch libro his similia describuntur. Idem De principiis iv. 35: Sed et in libro suo Enoch ita ait: “Ambulavi usque ad imperfectum” … scriptum namque est in eodem libello dicente Enoch: “Universas materias perspexi.” Idem In Numer. homil. xxviii. 2 (de la Rue ii. 384 = Lommatzsch x. 366): De quibus quidem nominibus plurima in libellis qui appellantur Enoch secreta continentur et arcana: sed quia libelli isti non videntur apud Hebraeos in suctoritate haberi interim nunc ea quae ibi nominantur ad exemplum vocare differamus. Idem In Joannem vol. vi. chap. xxv. (de la Rue iv. 142 = Lommatzsch i. 241): ὡς ἐν τῷ Ἐνὼχ γέγραπται εἴ τω φίλον παραδέχεσθαι ὡς ἅγιον τὸ βιβλίον. Anatolius in Eusebius Hist. eccl. vii. 32. 19: Τοῦ δὲ τὸν πρῶτον παρʼ Ἑβραίοις μῆνα περὶ ἰσημερίαν εἶναι παραστατικὰ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῷ Ἐνωχ μαθήματα. Jerome De viris illustr. chap. iv.: Judas frater Jacobi parvam quae de septem catholicis est epistolam reliquit. Et quia de libro Enoch qui apocryphus est in ea assumit testimonia a plerisque rejicitur etc. Idem Comment. in Epist. ad Titum i. 12 (Vallarsi vii. 1. 708): Qui autem putant totum librum debere sequi eum qui libri parte usus sit videntur mihi et apocryphum Enochi de quo apostolus Judas in epistola sua testimonium posuit inter ecclesiae scripturas recipere. In the so-called stichometry of Nicephorus and in the Synopsis Athanasii the Book of Enoch is classed with the Apocrypha (Credner Zur Geschichte des Kanons pp. 121 145). So also in the anonymous list of the canonical books which has been edited by Montfaucon Cotelier Hody and Pitra respectively (see v. 7 below). Constit. apostol. vi. 16: καὶ ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς δέ τινες συνέγραψαν βιβλία ἀπόκρυφα Μωσέως καὶ Ἐνὼχ καὶ Ἀδὰμ Ἠσαΐου τε καὶ Δαβὶδ καὶ Ἡλία καὶ τῶν τριῶν πατριαρχῶν φθοροποιὰ καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐχθρά. For yet other testimonia patrum consult Fabricius Codex pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 160–223 ii 55–61. Philippi Das Buch Henoch p. 102 sqq. Also the two large fragments from Syncellus in Dillmann Das Buch Henoch pp. 82–86.

Editions of the Ethiopic text: Laurence Libri Enoch versio Aethiopica Oxoniae 1838. Dillmann Liber Henoch Aethiopice ad quinque codicum fidem editus cum variis lectionibus Lipsiae 1851.

Versions: (1) English ones: Laurence The Book of Enoch an apocryphal production supposed to have been lost for ages but discovered at the close of the last century in Abyssinia now first translated from an Ethiopic MS. in the Bodleian Library Oxford 1821. Schodde The Book of Enoch translated with Introduction and Notes Andover 1882. (2) German ones: Hoffmann (Andreas Gottlieb) Das Buch Henoch in vollständiger Uebersetzung mit fortlaufendem Commentar ausführlicher Einleitung und erläuternden Excursen 2 vols. Jena 1833–1838. Dillmann Das Buch Henoch übersetzt und erklärt Leipzig 1853.

Critical inquiries: Laurence in his English translation. Hoffmann (Andr. Gottl.) art. “Henoch” in Ersch and Gruber’s Encycl. § 2 vol. v. (1829) pp. 399–409. Idem in his German translation. Gfrörer Das Jahrhundert des Heils (also under the title Gesch. des Urchristenthums vol. i–ii 1838) i. 93–109. Wieseler Die 70 Wochen und die 63 Jahrwochen des Propheten Daniel 1839 p. 162 sqq. Krieger (Lützelberger) Beiträge zur Kritik und Exegese Nürnberg 1845. Lücke Einleitung in die Offenbarung des Johannes (2nd ed. 1852) pp. 89–144; comp. 1171–1173. Hofmann (J. Chr. K.) “Ueber die Entstehungszeit des Buch Henoch” (Zeitschr. der deutschen morgenländ. Gesellsch. vol. vi. 1852 pp. 87–91). Idem Schriftbeweis (2nd ed.) i. 420–423. Idem Die heil. Schrift N. T.’s zusammenhängend untersucht vii. 2 p. 205 sqq. Dillmann in his German translation. Idem in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1st ed. xii. 308–310. Idem Zeitschr. DMG. 1861 pp. 126–131. Idem in Schenkel’s Bibellex. iii. (1871) pp. 10–13. Idem in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. xii. (1883) pp. 350–352. Ewald “Abhandlung über des äthiopischen Buches Henókh Entstehung Sinn und Zusammensetzung” (Abhandlungender königl. Gesellsch. der Wissensch. zu Göttingen vol. vi. 1853–1855 Historico-philosoph. section pp. 107–178. Also separate reprint). Idem Gesch. des Volkes Israel 3rd ed. iv. 451 sqq. Weisse Die Evangelienfrage (1856) pp. 214–224. Köstlin “Ueber die Entstehung des Buchs Henoch” (Theol. Jahrbücher 1856 pp. 240–279 370–386). Hilgenfeld Die jüdische Apokalyptik (1857) pp. 91–184. Idem Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol. vol. iii. 1860 pp. 319–334; iv. 1861 pp. 212–222; v. 1862 pp. 216–221; xv. 1872 pp. 584–587. Volkmar “Beiträge zur Erklärung des Buches Henoch nach dem äthiopischen Text” (Zeitschr. der DMG. vol. xiv. 1860 pp. 87–134 296). Idem in Der Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. vol. iv. 1861 pp. 111–136 422 sqq.; v. 1862 p. 46 sqq. Idem Eine Neutestamentliche Entdeckung und deren Bestreitung oder die Geschichte-Vision des Buches Henoch im Zusammenhang Zürich 1862. Geiger Jüdische Zeitschr. für Wissensch. und Leben for year 1864–65 pp. 196–204. Langen Das Judenthum in Palästina (1866) pp. 35–64. Sieffert Nonnulla ad apocryphi libri Henochi originem et compositionem nec non ad opiniones de regno Messiano eo prolatas pertinentia Regimonti Pr. 1867 (the same work under the title De apocryphi libri Henochi origine et argumenta Regimonti Pr. s. a.). Hallévi “Recherches sur la langue de la redaction primitive du livre d’Enoch” (Journal asiatique 1867 April–May pp. 352–395). Philippi Das Bach Henoch sein Zeitalter und sein Verhältniss zum Judasbriefe Stuttg. 1868. Wittichen Die Idee des Menschen (1868) pp. 63–71. Idem Die Idee des Reiches Gottes (1872) pp. 118–133 145–148 149 sq. Gebhardt “Die 70 Hirten des Buches Henoch und ihre Deutungen mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Barkochba-Hypothese” (Merx’ Archiv für wissenschaftl. Erforschung des A. T. vol. ii. part 2 1872 pp. 163–246). Tideman “De apocalypse van Henoch en het Essenisme” (Theol. Tijdschrift 1875 pp. 261–296). Drummond The Jewish Messiah (1877) pp. 17–73. Lipsius art. “Enoch.” in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography vol. ii. (1880) pp. 124–128. Reuss Gesch. der heil. Schriften A. T.’s § 498–500. Wieseler “Zur Abfassungszeit des Buchs Henoch” (Zeitschr. der DMG. 1882 pp. 185–193).

3. The Assumptio Mosis

It had long been known from a passage in Origen (De princip. iii. 2. 1) that the legend referred to in the Epistle of Jude (ver. 9) regarding a dispute between the archangel Michael and Satan about the body of Moses was taken from an apocryphal book entitled the Ascensio Mosis. Some little information regarding this Ἀνάληψις Μωυσέως had also been gleaned from quotations found in the Fathers and subsequent writers (see below). But it was not till somewhat recently that a large portion of this work in an old Latin version was discovered in the Ambrosian Library at Milan by Ceriani and published by him (1861) in the first part of his Monumenta. It is true the fragment bears no title but its identity with the old Ἀνάληψις Μωυσέως is evident from the following quotation (Acta Synodi Nicaenae ii. 18 in Fabricius i. 845): Μέλλων ὁ προφήτης Μωυσῆς ἐξιέναι τοῦ βίου ὡς γέγραπται ἐν βίβλῳ Ἀναλήψεως Μωυσέως προσκαλεσάμενος Ἰησοῦν υἱὸν Ναυὴ καὶ διαλεγόμενος πρὸς αὐτὸν ἔφη• Καὶ προεθεάσατό με ὁ θεὸς πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου εἶναί με τῆς διαθήκης αὐτοῦ μεσίτην These same words also occur in Ceriani’s fragment i. 14: Itaque excogitavit et invenit me qui ab initio orbis terrarum praeparatus sum ut sim arbiter testamenti illius. Since its publication by Ceriani this writing has been edited by Hilgenfeld (clementis Romani Epist. 1866 2nd ed. 1876) Volkmar (Latin and German 1867) Schmidt and Merx (Merx’ Archiv 1868) and Fritzsche (Libri apocr. 1871). A rendering back into the Greek from which the Latin version had been taken was executed by Hilgenfeld (Zeifsckr. 1868 and Messias Judaeorum 1869).

The following is an outline of the contents of the writing (and here we adopt Hilgenfeld’s division of the chapters which is also adhered to by Schmidt-Merx and Fritzsche and departed from by Volkmar alone):—

Chap. 1:1–9. The introduction in which we are given to understand that what follows was an address which Moses gave to Joshua when he appointed him to be his successor at Ammon beyond Jordan. In 1:10–17 Moses discloses to Joshua the fact that the course of his life has come to an end and that he is on the point of departing to his fathers. By way of legacy he hands over to Joshua certain books of prophecies which he is requested to preserve in a place appointed by God for the purpose. In chap. 2 Moses reveals to Joshua in brief outline the future history of Israel from the entrance into Palestine down to the destruction of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. In chap. 3 it is stated that a king (Nebuchadnezzar) will come from the east and destroy the city and the temple with fire and carry away the inhabitants into his own domains. The captives will then remember that all this had been already foretold by Moses. Chap. 4. In answer to the prayers of a man who is over them (Daniel) God will again take pity upon them and raise up a king (Cyrus) who will allow them to return to their native land. A few fragments of the tribes will return and will rebuild the holy place and will remain stedfast in their allegiance to the Lord only sad and sighing because they cannot sacrifice to the God of their fathers. Chap. 5. And judgment will overtake their kings (their Gentile rulers). But they themselves (the Jews) will be divided in regard to the truth. And the altar will be defiled by men who are not (true) priests but slaves born of slaves. And their scribes (magistri [et] doctores eorum) will be partial and will pervert justice. And their land will be full of unrighteousness. Chap. 6. Then kings will arise among them and priests of the Most High God will be appointed who will nevertheless commit wickedness even in the very holy of holies itself (plainly alluding to the Hasmonaeans). And these will be succeeded by an insolent monarch not belonging to the family of the priests an arrogant and ungodly man. And he will deal with those who have preceded him as they deserve. He will cut off their proud ones with the sword and bury their bodies in secret places so that nobody will know where they have been laid. He will put to death old and young alike and will not spare. Then there will be great dread of him among them throughout the land and he will sit in judgment upon them as did the Egyptians for four-and-thirty years (all which obviously points to Herod the Great). And he will beget sons who will reign though for shorter periods as his successors. Cohorts of soldiers will come into their land and a powerful monarch of the West (Quintilius Varus) who will conquer them and take them captive and destroy a part of their temple with fire while some of them he will crucify around their city. Chap. 7. After this will come the end of the times. Their course will have run after the expiry of yet four hours … (then follow several lines in the manuscript that are hardly legible). And there will reign among them wicked and ungodly men who say that they are righteous. They are deceitful men who will live only to please themselves dissemblers in all their concerns and at every hour of the day lovers of feasts mere gluttons … (here again follows a hiatus). They devour the possessions of the poor and declare that they do this out of pity. Their hands and their minds indulge in impurity and their mouth utters high-sounding things; and further they say “touch me not lest thou defile me.” … Chap. 8. Vengeance and wrath will come upon them such as has never been among them from the beginning till the time when he will raise up to them the king of kings (Antiochus Epiphanes) who will crucify those who profess circumcision and will cause them to get their children uncircumcised again and to carry about the impure idols in public and to contemn the word. Chap. 9. Then in obedience to the command of that king there will appear a man of the tribe of Levi whose name will be taxo who will have seven sons to whom he will say: Behold my sons vengeance has once more come upon the people a cruel vengeance without one touch of pity. For what nation of the ungodly has ever had to endure anything equal to what has befallen us? Now listen my sons and let us do this: Let us fast three days and on the fourth let us go into a cave which is in the field and die there rather than transgress the commandments of our Lord the God of our fathers. Chap. 10. And then will His kingdom appear throughout His whole creation. Then will the devil have an end and sorrow will disappear along with him. For the Heavenly One will rise up from His throne. And the earth will tremble the sun will withhold its light and the horns of the moon will be broken. For God the Most High will appear and He will punish the Gentiles. Then wilt thou be happy O Israel and God will exalt thee. And now Joshua (and here Moses turns again to address his successor) keep these words and this book. As for me I am going to the resting-place of my fathers. Chap. 11 then goes on to relate how after this address was ended Joshua turned to Moses and lamented over the prospect of his departure and regretted that in consequence of his own weakness and incompetency he would not be equal to the great task that had been imposed upon him. Thereupon chap. 12 proceeds to tell how Moses exhorted Joshua not to under-estimate his ability and not to despair of the future of his people seeing that however much they might be punished for their sins they could never be utterly destroyed.

Here the manuscript ends. But all that has gone before leads us to expect what the fragments tend to confirm that in the subsequent portion of the book it had gone on to give an account of how Moses was taken away from the earth the scene from which the whole work obtained the title of the Ἀνάληψις Μωυσέως. It is also in this concluding part of the work that the dispute between the archangel Michael and Satan about the body of Moses must have occurred which dispute as is well known is also mentioned in verse 9 of the Epistle of Jude.

Opinion is very much divided regarding the date of the composition of this book. Ewald Wieseler Drummond and Dillmann refer it to the first decade after the death of Herod; Hilgenfeld calculates that it may have been written in the course of the year 44–45 A.D.; Schmidt and Merx say some time between 54 and 64 A.D.; Fritzsche and Lucius trace it to the sixth decade of the first century A.D.; Langen thinks it must have been shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (chap. 8 being erroneously interpreted as referring to this event); Hausrath prefers the reign of Domitian; Philippi the second century of our era (the latter fixing on this date solely with the object of his being able to ascribe the authorship to a Christian and of reversing the relation in which our book and ver. 9 of the Epistle of Jude stand to each other; see in particular pp. 177 182); while Volkmar (in accordance with his well-known predilection for the time of Barcocheba) thinks the date would be some time in the course of the year 137–138 A.D. Almost the whole of the critics just mentioned base their calculation upon the well-nigh illegible fragments of numbers in chap. 7. But surely one may fairly question the propriety of trying to found anything whatever upon lines so mutilated as those are; and if we had no other data but these to help us to fix the date in question we would have nothing for it but to abandon the attempt altogether. Still I cannot help thinking that there are two such data at our disposal. (1) Toward the end of chap. 6 it is plainly stated that the sons of Herod are to reign for a shorter period (breviora tempora) than their father. Now it is well known that Philip and Antipas reigned longer than their father; and one cannot help seeing the embarrassment to which those words have led in the case of all those critics who refer the composition of our book to a latish date. They are capable of being explained solely on the assumption that the work was written toward the commencement of the reign of the last-mentioned princes. (2) It is as good as universally admitted that the concluding sentences of chap. 6 refer to the war of Varus in the year 4 B.C. When therefore chap. 7 goes on to say: Ex quo facto finientur tempora surely there can hardly be room for any other inference than this that the author wrote subsequent to the war of Varus. In that case the enigmatical numbers that follow in this same chapter cannot be supposed to be a continuation of the narrative but are to be regarded as a calculation added by way of supplement after the narrative has been brought down to the date at which the author was writing. Only considering how mutilated those numbers are every attempt to explain them must prove a failure. Consequently the view of Ewald Wieseler Drummond and Dillmann with regard to the date of the composition of our book is substantially correct.

Some light is thrown upon the author’s party leanings partly by chap. 7 and partly by chap. 10. The homines pestilentiosi against whom he inveighs in chap. 7 are by no means the Herodian princes (so Hilgenfeld) nor the Sadducees (so Volkmar p. 105; Geiger p. 45 sq.; Lucins p. 116 sqq.). nor the Sadducees and Pharisees (so Wieseler p. 642 sq. who refers vv. 3 4 to the former and vv. 6–10 to the latter); bat the Pharisees and the Pharisees alone to whom every word is unmistakably applicable (so Ewald Gesch. v. 81; Schmidt-Merx p. 121; Philippi p. 176). Our author then was inimical to the Pharisees though at the same time he was neither an Essene for as such he would not have jeered as he does in chap. 7 at the Pharisaical purifications (Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 10) nor a Sadducee for according to chap. 10 he looks forward with the most fervent longings for the advent of the kingdom of God and that too a kingdom accompanied with outward pomp and circumstance. Wieseler is perhaps nearest the truth in seeking him among the Zealots who notwithstanding their kinship to the Pharisees had still an intense dislike to them because they looked upon them as being too dogmatic and formal as regards the law and too undecided with respect to their politics. That the book was written in Palestine may to say the least of it be accepted as the most obvious and natural supposition. Hilgenfeld and Hausrath have suggested Rome without however alleging any ground for doing so. On the assumption that it was composed in Palestine it becomes further probable that it was written originally in Hebrew or Aramaic. But we are not in a position positively to assert this. Only this much is certain that our old Latin version was taken from the Greek.

Of the legend regarding the death of Moses extensive and varied use has been made in Jewish literature. Besides our book there fall to be mentioned: Philo (Vita Mosis) Josephus (Antt. iv. fin.) Midrash Tanchuma debarum (translated into German by Wünsche 1882) and a Midrash which treats specially of the departure of Moses (פטירת משה Petirath Moshe). This latter has been frequently published in two recensions among others by Gilb. Gaulminus Paris 1629 with a Latin translation; then this Latin translation was published by itself by John Alb. Fabricius Hamburg 1714 and by Gfrörer Prophetae veteres pseudepigraphi Stuttg. 1840 (see Wolf Bibliotheca Hebraea ii. 1278 sq. 1395. Zunz Die gottesdienstliches Vorträge der Juden p. 146. Steinschneider Catal. librorum Hebraeorum in Biblioth. Bodl. p. 630 sq.). For one of these two recensions see also Jellinek Beth ha-Midrash vol. i. 1853. Also a third which Jellinek regards as the oldest in his Beth ha-Midrash vol. vi. 1877. Comp. in general on these legends: Bernard’s edition of Josephus note on Antt. iv. fin. Fabricius Cod. pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 839 sqq. Beer Leben Moses nach Auffassung der jüdischen Sage Leipzig 1863. Benedetti Vita e morte di Mosé leggende ebr. tradotte illustrate e comparate Pisa 1879 (on which see Magazin für die Wissensch. des Judenth. 1881 pp. 57–60). Leop. v. Ranke Weltgeschichte vol. iii. 2nd part (1883) pp. 12–33.

Care must be taken not to confound our Assumptio Mosis with the Christian Apocalypse of Mosis in Greek which has been edited by Tischendorf (Apocalypses apocryphae Lips. 1866); similarly from a Milanese manuscript by Ceriani Monumenta sacra et profana v. 1. This work belongs to the class of Adamic books for it records the history of the life and death of Adam as it had been revealed to Moses. On this comp. Tischendorf Stud. u. Krit. 1851 p. 432 sqq. Le Hir Etudes Bibliques (1869) ii. pp. 110–120. Rönsch Das Buch der Jubiläen p. 470 sqq. According to Euthalius and others Gal. 6:15 (οὔτε περιτομή τι ἐστιν οὔτε ἀκροβυστία ἀλλὰ καινὴ κτίσις) found a place in an Apocryphum Mosis where of course it could only have been borrowed from the Epistle to the Galatians (Euthalius in Zaccagni’s Collectanea monumentorum veterum 1698 p. 561 = Gallandi Biblioth. patr. x. 260. Similarly Syncellus ed. Dindorf i. 48 and an anonymous list of the quotations in the New Testament given in Montfaucon Bibliotheca Bibliothecarum i. 195 = Diarium Italicum p. 212 and in Cotelier Patr. apost. note on Const apost. vi. 16). Now seeing that Euthalius also makes use of precisely the same formula of reference (Μωυσέως ἀποκρύφου) as in the case of verse 9 of the Epistle of Jude (Zaccagni p. 485) we may perhaps venture to assume that he had before him a Christian version of the Assumptio Mosis in which Gal. 6:15 had been inserted. Syncellus and the author of the anonymous list just referred to have clearly drawn upon Euthalius. Gnostic Books of Moses are mentioned as being in use among the Sethites by Epiphan. Haer. xxxix. 5. For Apocrypha Mosis generally see Const. apost. vi. 16. Fabricius Cod. pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 825–849 ii. 111–130. Lücke Einleitung in die Offenbarung Johannis pp. 232–235. Dillmann art. “Pseudepigraphen” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. xii. 352 sqq. (Nos. 4 18 26 29 35).

Use of the Assumptio Mosis in the Christian Church: Epistle of Jude ver. 9. Clement of Alexandria Adumbrat. in epist. Judae (in Zahn’s Supplementum Clementinum 1884 p. 84): Hic confirmat assumptionem Moysi. Other legends in Clement of Alexandria regarding the death and ascension of Moses have in all probability been borrowed no less from our writing (Strom. i. 23. 153 vi. 15. 132. Comp. Zahn p. 96 sq.). Origen De principiis iii. 2. 1: Et primo quidem in Genesi serpens Evam seduxisse describitur de quo in Adscensione Mosis cujus libelli meminit in epistola sua apostolus Judas Michael archangelus cum diabolo disputans de corpore Mosis ait a diabolo inspiratum serpentem causam exstitisse praevaricationis Adae et Evae. Idem In Josuam homil. ii. 1 (ed. Lommatzsch xi. 22): Denique et in libello quodam licet in canone non habeatur mysterii tamen hujus figura describitur. Refertur enim quia duo Moses videbantur: unus vivus in spiritu alius mortuus in corpore. Didymus Alex. In epist. Judae enarratio (in Gallandi Biblioth. patr. vi. 307) finds in Jude ver. 9 evidence in favour of the view that even the devil is not evil by nature or substantialiter and alleges that the adversarii hujus contemplationis praescribunt praesenti epistolae et Moyseos assumptioni propter eum locum ubi significatur verbum Archangeli de corpore Moyseos ad diabolum factum. Acta Synodi Nicaen. ii. 20 (in Fabricius i. 844): Ἐν βιβλίῳ δὲ Ἀναλήψεως Μωυσέως Μιχαὴλ ὁ ἀρχάγγελος διαλεγόμενος τῷ διαβόλῳ λέγει κ.τ.λ. For another passage from these same Acts see p. 74 above. Evodii epist. ad Augustin. (Augustin. epist. cclix. in Fabricius i. 845 sq.): Quanquam et in apocryphis et in secretis ipsius Moysi quae scriptura caret auctoritate tunc cum ascenderet in montem ut moreretur vi corporis efficitur ut aliud esset quod terrae mandaretur aliud quod angelo comitanti sociaretur. Sed non satis urget me apocryphorum praeferre sententiam illis superioribus rebus definitis. For additional passages and chiefly from Greek scholia see Rönsch Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1869 pp. 216–220. Hilgenfeld Clementis Romani epist. 2nd ed. pp. 127–129. In the lists of the apocryphal books we find a Διαθήκη Μωυσέως and an Ἀνάληψις Μωυσέως (the one immediately after the other in the stichometry of Nicephorus and in the “Synopsis Athanasii” as given in Credner’s Zur Geschichte des Kanons pp. 121 145; as also in the anonymous list edited by Pitra and others see v. 7 below). Now seeing that the writing that has come down to us is in point of fact a “Testament (will) of Moses” though as we have already seen it is quoted in the Acts of the Council of Nicaea under the title Ἀνάληψις Μωυσέως it may be assumed that both 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.

Editions of the Latin text: Ceriani Monumenta sacra et prof. vol. i. fasc. i. (Milan 1861) pp. 55–64. Hilgenfeld Clementis Romani epistulae (likewise under the title Novum Testam. extra canonem receptum fasc. i.) 1st ed. 1866 pp. 93–115 2nd ed. 1876 pp. 107–135. Volkmar Mose Prophetie und Himmelfahrt eine Quelle für das Neue Testament zum erstenmale deutsch herausgegeben im Zusammenhang der Apokrypha und der Christologie überhaupt Leipzig 1867. Schmidt (Moriz) and Merx “Die Assumptio Mosis mit Einleitung und erklärenden Anmerkungen herausgegeben” (Merx’ Archiv für wissenschaftl. Enforschung des A. T.’s vol. i. Part ii. 1868 pp. 111–152). Fritzsche Libri apocryphi Vet. Test. graece (Lips. 1871) pp. 700–730; comp. Prolegom. pp. 32–36. A rendering back into the Greek was attempted by Hilgenfeld for which see Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1868 pp. 273–309 356 and his Messias Judaeorum 1869 pp. 435–468; comp. Prolegom. pp. 70–76.

For contributions toward the criticism and exposition of our book see besides the editions just mentioned Ewald Göttinger gelehrte Anz. 1862 St. 1. Idem Gesch. des Volkes Israel vol. v. (3rd ed. 1867) pp. 73–82. Langen Das Judenthum in Palästina (1866) pp. 102–111. Idem in Reusch’s Theolog. Literaturbl. 1871 No. 3. Hilgenfeld Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1867 pp. 217–223. Ibid. Haupt p. 448. Rönsch Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. vol. xi. 1868 pp. 76–108 466–468; xii. 1869 pp. 213–228; xiv. 1871 pp. 89–92; xvii. 1874 pp. 542–562; xxviii. 1885 pp. 102–104. Philippi Das Buch Henoch (1868) pp. 166–191. Colani “L’Assomption de Moïse” (Revue de Théologie 1868 2nd part). Carriere Note sur le Taxo de l’Assomption de Moïse (ibid. 1868 2nd part). Wieseler “Die jüngst aufgefundene Aufnahme Moses nach Ursprung und Inhalt untersucht” (Jahrbb. für deutsche Theol. 1868 pp. 622–648). Idem “Θασσί und Taxo” (Zeitschr. der deutschen morgenländ. Gesellsch. 1882 p. 193 sq.). Geiger’s Jüdische Zeitschr. für Wissensch. und Leben 1868 pp. 41–47. Heidenheim “Beiträge zum bessern Verständniss der Ascensio Mosis” (Vierteljahrschr. für deutsch. und Englisch-theol. Forschung und Kritik vol. iv. (Part I. 1869). Hausrath Neutestamentl. Zeitgesch. 2nd ed. iv. pp. 76–80 (1st ed. iii. 278–282). Stähelin Jahrbb. für deutsche Theol. 1874 pp. 216–218. Drummond The Jewish Messiah (1877) pp. 74–84. Lucius Der Essenismus (1881) pp. 111–119 127 sq. Reuss Gesch. der heil. Schriften A. T.’s § 572. Dillmann art. “Pseudepigraphen” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. xii. 352 sq. Deane “The Assumption of Moses” (Monthly Interpreter March 1885 pp. 321–348).

4. The Apocalypse of Baruch

The large Peshito manuscript of Milan (Cod. Ambros. B. 21 inf.) also contains a Revelation of Baruch regarding which we have no further information of a trustworthy kind. Only a small fraction of it viz. the epistle addressed to the nine and a half tribes in the captivity inserted at the close (chaps. 78–86) has been otherwise transmitted to us and already printed in the Paris and London Polyglots. But beyond this there is hardly any other trace of it to be met with (see below). The book was first introduced to public notice through a Latin version prepared and edited by Ceriani (1866). This scholar subsequently published the Syrian text itself (in ordinary type in 1871 and in a photo-lithographed facsimile in 1883). Fritzsche after making a few emendations upon it embodied Ceriani’s Latin version in his edition of the Apocrypha (1871). The book purports to be a writing composed by Baruch in which he recounts (using the first person throughout) what happened to him immediately before and after the destruction of Jerusalem and what revelations were made to him. The contents are substantially as follows:—First section chaps. 1–5: In the five and twentieth year of the reign of Jeconiah [a complete confounding of dates by which the author means to indicate the time of the destruction of Jerusalem] God intimates to Baruch the impending ruin of Jerusalem and the kingdom of Judah. Chaps. 6–8: On the following day the Chaldean army appears before the walls of the city. However it is not the Chaldeans but four angels that destroy it. No sooner is this done than the Chaldeans enter the city and carry away its inhabitants into captivity. Chaps. 9–12: While Jeremiah accompanies these latter Baruch. in obedience to the command of God remains behind among the ruins. Second section chaps. 13–15: After he had fasted seven days God informs him that one day judgment would overtake the Gentiles as well and that in his own time; and He calms his apprehensions generally about the prosperity of the ungodly and the calamities of the righteous. Chaps. 16–20: Baruch brings forward yet further grounds of perplexity but God discourages his doing so and ultimately orders him to prepare by another seven days’ fasting for receiving a revelation of the order of the times. Third section 21–26: After fasting and praying to God he is first of all censured by God for his doubts and pusillanimity and then in answer to his question as to when the judgment of the ungodly would take place and how long it would last God communicates to him the following (chaps. 27–28): The time of the tribulation will be divided into twelve parts and each part will bring with it its own special disaster. But the measure of that time will be two parts weeks of seven weeks (duae partes hebdomades septem hebdomadarum). Chaps. 28–30: To the further question of Baruch whether the tribulation would be confined to only one part of the earth or extend to the whole of it God answers that it will of course affect the whole earth. But after that the Messiah will appear and times of joy and glory begin to dawn. Chaps. 31–34: After receiving those revelations Baruch summons a meeting of the elders of the people in the valley of Kidron when he announces to them that: post modicum tempus concutietur aedificatio Sion ut aedificetur iterum. Verum non permanebit ipsa illa aedificatio sed iterum post tempus eradicabitur et permanebit desolata usque ad tempus. Et postea oportet renovari in gloria et coronabitur in perpetuum. Fourth section chaps. 35–38: Hereupon Baruch as he sits lamenting upon the ruins of the Holy of holies falls asleep and in a dream is favoured with a new revelation. He sees a large forest surrounded by mountains and rocks. Over against it grew a vine and from under the vine flowed a spring which developed into large streams that made channels for themselves underneath the forest and the mountains till these latter fell in and were swept away. Only a single cedar was left but at last it too was uprooted. Thereupon the vine and the spring came and ordered the cedar to betake itself to where the rest of the forest had already gone. And the cedar was burnt up but the vine continued to grow and everything around it flourished. Chaps. 38–40: In answer to Baruch’s request God interprets the dream to him as follows: Behold the kingdom that destroys Zion will itself be overthrown and subjugated by another that will succeed it. And this in its turn will be overthrown and a third will arise. And then this also will be swept away and a fourth will arise more terrible than all that have preceded it. And when the time for its overthrow has come then Mine Anointed will appear who is like a spring and a vine and He will annihilate the armies of that kingdom. And that cedar means the last remaining general (dux prince?) in it who will be condemned and put to death by Mine Anointed. And the reign of Mine Anointed will endure for ever. Chaps. 41–43: Baruch receives a commission to exhort the people and at the same time to prepare himself by renewed fasting for fresh revelations. Chaps. 44–46: Baruch exhorts the elders of the people. Fifth section chaps. 47–48:24: He fasts seven days and prays to God. Chap. 48:25–50: The new revelations have reference in the first instance to the tribulations of the last time generally. Chaps. 49–52: When upon this Baruch expresses a desire to learn something more about the nature of the new resurrection bodies of the righteous his wish is complied with; not only so but he is enlightened with regard to the future blessedness of the righteous and the misery of the ungodly generally. Sixth section chap. 53: In a new vision Baruch sees a huge cloud rising from the sea and covering the whole earth and discharging first black water and then clear then black again and then clear and so on twelve times in succession. At last there came black waters and after them bright lightning which latter brought healing to the whole earth and ultimately there came twelve streams and subjected themselves to this lightning. Chaps. 54–55: In answer to his prayer Baruch receives through the angel Ramiel the following interpretation of the vision: Chaps. 56–57: The huge cloud means the present world. The first the dark water means the sin of Adam whereby he brought death and ruin into the world. The second the clear water means Abraham and his descendants who although not in possession of the written law nevertheless complied with its requirements. The third the dark water represents the subsequent generations of sinful humanity particularly the Egyptians. The fourth the clear water means the appearing of Moses Aaron Joshua and Caleb and the giving of the law and God’s revelations to Moses. The fifth the dark water represents the works of the Amorites and the magicians in which Israel also participated. The sixth the clear water represents the time of David and Solomon. The seventh the dark water means the revolt of Jeroboam and the sins of his successors and the overthrow of the kingdom of the ten tribes. The eighth the clear water means the integrity of Hezekiah and his deliverance from Sennacherib. The ninth the dark water means the universal ungodliness in the days of Manasseh and the announcing of the destruction of Jerusalem. The tenth the clear water denotes the reign of the good king Josiah. The eleventh the dark water represents the present tribulation (i.e. in Baruch’s own time) the destruction of Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity. Chap. 68: But the twelfth the clear water means that the people of Israel will again experience times of joy that Jerusalem will be rebuilt that the offering of sacrifices will be resumed and that the priests will return to their duties. Chaps. 69–71: But the last dark water which is yet to come and which proves worse than all that went before means this: that tribulation and confusion will come upon the whole earth. A few will rule over the many the poor will become rich and the rich will become poor knaves will be exalted above heroes wise men will keep silence and fools will speak. And in obedience to God’s command the nations which He has prepared for the purpose will come and war with such of the leaders as are still left (cum ducibus qui reliqui fuerint tunc). And it will come to pass that he who escapes from the war will perish by the earthquake and he who escapes from the earthquake will perish by fire and he who escapes the fire will perish with hunger. And he who escapes the whole of those evils will be given into the hands of Mine Anointed. Chaps. 72–74: But this dreadful dark water will at length be followed by yet more clear water. This means that the time of Mine Anointed will come and that He will judge the nations and sit for ever upon the throne of His kingdom. And all tribulation will come to an end and peace and joy will reign upon the earth. Chaps. 75–76: Baruch thanks God for the revelation with which he had been favoured and then God directs him to wait for forty days and then go to the top of a certain mountain where all the different regions of the earth would pass before his view. After this he is to be removed from the world. Seventh section chap. 77: Baruch delivers a hortatory address to the people and at the request of the latter he on the 21st day of the eighth month also composes two hortatory addresses to be sent to their brethren in the captivity one to the nine and a half tribes and the other to the remaining two and a half. Chaps. 78–86: The import of the first of the two addresses is as follows: Baruch in the first place reminds his readers that the judgment of God which has overtaken them is a just judgment he then tells them of the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and the carrying away of the inhabitants into captivity and intimates to them the judgment of God that is awaiting their oppressors and then their own ultimate deliverance. In conclusion he founds upon this an exhortation to continue steadfast in their devotion to God and His law. Chap. 87: He sends this epistle to the nine and a half tribes in captivity through the medium of an eagle.

At this point the book as we now possess it breaks off. But originally it must have contained somewhat more for from 77:19 there is reason to infer that the epistle addressed to the nine and a half tribes was followed by a similar one addressed to the other two and a half tribes. And from chap. 76 it is to be presumed that the book would proceed to tell how Baruch was shown all the countries of the world from the top of a mountain and was thereafter taken away from the earth.

As regards the date of the composition of our apocalypse this much at least may be affirmed with certainty that it was not written till after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. For in chap. 32:2–4 Baruch announces to the assembled people that (after its first destruction by Nebuchadnezzar) Jerusalem is to be rebuilt again. But that this building will not continue to stand but that it will in like manner be destroyed again. And then the city will lie waste for a long period until the glorious time when it will be rebuilt and crowned for ever. But with the exception of this passage there is not another that throws any light upon the date of the composition of our book. For nothing bearing upon this is to be gathered from the obscure passage in which we are informed that the time of tribulation is to last “two parts weeks of seven weeks” (28:2: duae partes hebdomades septem hebdomadarum) for the meaning of these words is as uncertain as it is obscure. Consequently the calculations which Ewald Hilgenfeld Wieseler and Dillmann above all have tried to found upon this passage have no certain basis on which to rest. Possibly one would be much more likely to find some clue to the date in question in the affinity which this work bears to the Fourth Book of Ezra. For the points of contact between both those books in regard to thought and expression alike are (as Langen has pointed out pp. 6–8) so numerous that we must of necessity assume either that they were written by one and the same author or that the one borrowed from the other. It is now almost universally believed that it may be proved with a greater or less degree of certainty that our book has drawn upon the Fourth Book of Ezra (so Ewald Langen Hilgenfeld Hausrath Stähelin Renan Drummond Dillmann). It appears to me however that as yet no decisive arguments have been advanced in support of this view. In the case of Langen who was the first to go thoroughly into this question and who has done much to influence subsequent opinion on the matter his main argument was that the Book of Baruch corrected as he supposed the somewhat crude notions of Ezra respecting the doctrine of original sin. In order that the reader may be in a more favourable position for estimating the value of this argument we will here subjoin in parallel columns what each of the two books says on this point:—




3:7: Et huic (Adamo) mandasti diligere viam tuam et praeteriviteam; et statim instituisti in eum mortem et in nationibus ejus.

3:21–22: Cor enim mailgnum bajulans primus Adam transgressus et victus est; sed et omnes qui de eo nati sunt. Et facta est permanens infirmitas.

4:30: Quoniam granum seminis mali seminatum est in corde Adam ab initio et quantum impietatis generavit usque nunc et generat usque dum verfiat area!

7:48: O tu quid fecisti Adam? Si enim tu peccasti non est factus solius tuus casus sed et nostrum qui ex te advenimus.

              17:3: (Adam) mortem attulit et abscidit annos eorum qui ab eo geniti fuerunt.

23:4: Quando peccavit Adam et decreta fuit mors contra eos qui gignerentur etc.

48:42: O quid fecisti Adam omnibus qui a te geniti sunt!

54:15 19: Si enim Adam prior peccavit et attulit mortem super omnes immaturam; sed etiam illi qui ex eo nati sunt unusquisque ex eis praeparavit animae suae tormentum futurum: et iterum unusquisque ex eis elegit sibi gloriam futuram … Non est ergo Adam causa nisi animae suae tantum; nos vero. unusquisque fuit animae suae Adam.


Now Langen supposes that the last of the passages quoted from Baruch (54:19: Non est ergo Adam causa nisi animae suae tantum; nos vero unusquisque fuit animae suae Adam) is above all intended to modify the somewhat harsh view of Ezra. But one can easily see that the utterances of Baruch on other occasions are quite as blunt as those of Ezra. And on the other hand there are passages to be met with in Ezra in which the author emphasizes quite as strongly as Baruch 54:19 though in different terms the thought that every man is to blame for his own ruin. To take only a single example compare 8:55–61. Here then we have not even an actual difference of view far less a correction of the one writer on the part of the other. Further such other reasons as have been advanced in favour of the priority of Ezra and the dependent character of Baruch are merely considerations of an extremely general kind which may be met with considerations equally well calculated to prove quite the reverse. Some are inclined to think that in the case of the author of the Fourth Book of Ezra “there is more of a despairing frame of mind that his striving after light and his desire to have his apprehensions quieted are deeper more urgent and of a more overmastering character that because the impressions produced by the dreadful events are rather fresher in his mind his narrative is also for this very reason and in spite of its verbosity the more impressive of the two and so on” (so Dillmann). My own opinion is that it is quite the converse of this and that it would be nearer the truth to say that it is precisely in the case of Baruch that this problem is uppermost viz. How is the calamity of Israel and the impunity of its oppressors possible and conceivable? while in the case of Ezra though this problem concerns him too still there is a question that almost lies yet nearer his heart viz. Why is it that so many perish and so few are saved? The subordination of the former of these questions to the other which is a purely theological one appears to me rather to indicate that Ezra is of a later date than Baruch. Not only so but it is decidedly of a more finished character and is distinguished by greater maturity of thought and a greater degree of lucidity than the last-mentioned book. But this is a point in regard to which it is scarcely possible to arrive at a definite conclusion. And hence we are equally unable to say whether our book was written shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem (so Hilgenfeld Fritzsche Drummond) or during the reign of Domitian (so Ewald) or in the time of Trajan (so Langen Wieseler Renan Dillmann). Undoubtedly the most probable supposition of all is that it was composed not long after the destruction of the holy city when the question “How could God permit such a disaster?” was still a burning one. It is older at all events than the time of Papias whose chimerical fancies about the millennial kingdom (Irenaeus v. 33. 3) are borrowed from our Apocalypse (xxix. 5). The existing Syrian text has been taken from the Greek (see Langen p. 8 sq.; Kneucker p. 192 sq.; Dillmann p. 358).

With the exception of the passage in Papias just mentioned no certain trace of the use of our book in the Christian Church is anywhere to be met with. There is every reason to believe that it had been pushed into the background by the kindred Ezra-apocalypse. Still the fact of its finding a place in the Peshito manuscript of Milan serves to show that it was still in use at a later period at least in the Syrian Church. In the lists of the apocrypha given in the Stichometry of Nicephorus and the “Synopsis Athanasii” (in Credner Zur Geschichte des Kanons pp. 121 145) there are added at the close: Βαροὺχ Ἀββακοὺμ Ἐζεκιὴλ καὶ Δανιὴλ ψευδεπίγραφα. But it is extremely uncertain whether by the first-mentioned book it is our apocalypse that is meant for besides the Baruch of the Greek Bible and which in the lists just referred to is included among the canonical books there were also other apocryphal writings bearing this name. (1) There are considerable fragments of a gnostic Book of Baruch given in the Philosophumena v. 26–27 (comp. v. 24). (2) A Christian Book of Baruch. which is akin to our apocalypse and has borrowed largely from it has been published in Ethiopic by Dillmann under the title “Reliqua verborum Baruchi” (in Dillmann’s Chrestomathia aethiopica Lips. 1866) as it had been previously in Greek in a Greek Menaeus (Venetiis 1609) and recently again by Ceriani under the title “Paralipomena Jeremiae” (Monumenta sacra et profana vol. v. 1 Mediol. 1868) and finally in a German version by Prätorius (Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1872 pp. 230–247) and by König (Stud. u. Krit. 1877 pp. 318–338). On this book comp. also Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel vii. 183. Fritzsche Libri apocr. prolegom. p. 82. Sachsse Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1874 p. 268 sq. Kneucker Das Buch Baruch p. 196 sq. Dillmann in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. xii. 358 sq. (3) In the Altercatio Simonis Judaei et Theophili Christiani lately published by Harnack there occurs the following passage from a Book of Baruch (Gebhardt and Harnack Texte und Untersuchungen vol. i. part 3 1883 p. 25): Prope finem libri sui de nativitate ejus [scil. Christi] et de habitu vestis et de passione ejus et de resurrectione ejus prophetavit dicens: Hic unctus meus electus meus vulvae incontaminatae jaculatus natus et passus dicitur. Judging from the Christology implied in this passage the Baruch here in question can only have been composed at the soonest in the fourth century of our era (see Harnack p. 46). Further in Cyprian’s Testim. iii. 29 we find that in one manuscript there has been inserted a quotation from some Book of Baruch or other which quotation however we have no means of verifying. (4) Tichonrawow contemplates editing an Apocalypse of Baruch in the old Slavonic version (see Theol. Literaturztg. 1877 p. 658). Whether it has as yet appeared and what its relation to other Books of Baruch with which we are already acquainted I am unable to say.

The epistle to the nine and a half tribes in the captivity which forms the conclusion of our apocalypse has been already printed in the Paris Polyglot vol. ix. in the London Polyglot vol. iv. in Lagarde’s edition of the Syrian version of the apocrypha (Libri Vet. Test. apocryphi syriace ed. de Lagarde Lips. 1861) also in Latin in Fabricius Codex pseudepigr. Vet. Test. ii. 145–155. Also in an English and French version; see Fritzsche’s Exeget. Handbuch zu den Apokryphen i. 175 sq. and Libri Apocr. p. xxxi. Kneucker Das Buch Baruch p. 190 sq.

Ceriani’s Latin version of our apocalypse appeared in the Monumenta sacra et profana vol. i. fasc. 2 (Mediol. 1866) pp. 73–98. For this see also Fritzsche Libri apocryphi Vet. Test. graece (Lips. 1871) pp. 654–699. The Syrian text was edited by Ceriani in the Monumenta sacra et profana vol. v. fasc. 2 (Mediol. 1871) pp. 113–180. This latter was also included in the photo-lithographed fac-simile of the whole manuscript published under the title Translatio Syra Pescitto Veteris Testamenti ex codice Ambrosiano sec. fere VI. photolithographice edita curante et adnotante Antonio Maria Ceriani 2 vols. in 4 parts Milan 1876–1883 (the Apocalypse of Baruch being in the last part). Comp. Theol. Literaturzeitung 1876 p. 329; 1878 p. 228; 1881 col. 4; 1884 col. 27.

Critical inquiries: Langen De apocalypsi Baruch anno superiori primum edita commentatio Friburgi in Brisgovia 1867 (xxiv. p. 4). Ewald Göttinger gel. Anzeigen 1867 p. 1706 sqq. Idem Gesch. des Volkes Israel vii. 83–87. Hilgenfeld Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1869 pp. 437–440. Idem Messias Judaeorum p. lxiii. sq. Wieseler Theol Stud. u. Krit. 1870 p. 288 (in his article on the Fourth Book of Ezra). Fritzsche Libri apocr. Prolegom. pp. 30–32. Hausrath Neutestamentl. Zeitgesch. 2nd ed. iv. 88 sq. (1st ed. iii. 290). Stähelin Jahrbb. für deutsche Theol. 1874 p. 211 sqq. Renan “L’Apocalypse de Baruch” (Journal des Savants April 1877 pp. 222–231). Idem Les évangiles 1877 pp. 517–530. Drummond The Jewish Messiah 1877 pp. 117–132. Kneucker Das Buch Baruch 1879 pp. 190–198. Kaulen in Wetzer and Welte’s Kirchenlex. 2nd ed. i. 1058 sq. (art. “Apokryphen-Literatur”). Dillmann in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. xii. 356–358 (art. “Pseudepigraphen”). Deane “The Apocalypse of Baruch” i. (Monthly Interpreter April 1885 pp. 451461).

5. The Fourth Book of Ezra

Of all the Jewish apocalypses none has been so widely circulated in the early Church and in the Church of the Middle Ages as the so-called Fourth Book of Ezra. By Greek and Latin Fathers it is used as a genuine prophetical work (see below). The fact of there being Syrian Ethiopic Arabic and Armenian versions of the book is evidence of the extent to which it was circulated in the East. Then the circumstance that a Latin version has come down to us in a large number of Bible manscripts is calculated to show the favour with which in like manner it was still regarded by the Church of Rome in the Middle Ages. It was for this reason no doubt that it was also added as an appendix to the authorized Roman Vulgate. Not only so it even found its way into German versions of the Protestant Bible (see more below). The whole of the five versions which we possess are taken some of them directly others indirectly from a Greek text (now no longer extant) which moreover is to be regarded as the original one.

The text of the Latin Vulgate consists of sixteen chapters. But as is generally admitted the two first and the two last of these which do not appear in the Oriental versions are later additions by a Christian hand. Accordingly in its original form the book would only embrace the portion between chaps. 3 and 14 inclusive. The contents of the original work are divided into seven visions with which as he himself informs us Ezra had been favoured. First vision (3:1–5:20): In the thirtieth year after the destruction of the city (Jerusalem) Ezra is in Babylon and in his prayer to God he complains of the calamities of Israel on the one hand and of the prosperity of the Gentile nations on the other (3:1–36). The angel Uriel comes and in the first place reproves him for his complaints (4:1–21) and then proceeds to remind him that wickedness has its appointed time (4:22–32) just as the dead have an appointed time during which they require to stay in the nether world (4:33–43). But the most of the distress is already past and its end will be announced by means of definite signs (4:44–5:13). Ezra is so exhausted by the revelation that has been imparted to him that he requires to be strengthened by the angel. By fasting for seven days he prepares himself for a new revelation (5:14–20). Second vision (5:21–6:34): Ezra renews his complaints and is once more rebuked by the angel (5:21–40). This latter points out to him that in the history of mankind one thing must come after another and that the beginning and the end cannot come at one and the same time. Ezra is reminded however that he may nevertheless see that the end is already approaching. It will be brought about by God Himself the Creator of the world (5:41–6:6). The signs of the end are more fully enumerated than in the previous vision (6:7–29). Uriel here takes leave of Ezra with the promise of further revelations (6:30–34). Third vision (6:35–9:25): Ezra complains again and is again rebuked by the angel (6:35–7:25). Upon this he is favoured with the following revelation:—Whenever the signs (enumerated in the preceding visions) begin to appear then those delivered from the calamities in question will see wonderful things: For my Son the Anointed One will appear with His retinue and He will diffuse joy among those that are spared and that for four hundred years. And at the expiry of those years my Son the Anointed One will die He and all who have the breath of life. For the space of seven days corresponding to the seven creative days there will not be a single human being upon the earth. Then the dead will rise; and the Most High will come and sit upon the judgment-seat and proceed with the judgment (7:26–35). And the place of torment will be revealed and over against it the place of rest. And the length of the day of judgment will be a year-week (6:1–17 = Bensly vv. 36–44). Only a few men will be saved. The majority will be consigned to perdition (6:18–48 = Bensly vv. 45–74). Moreover the ungodly do not enter at death into habitations of rest but when they die are at once consigned to sevenfold torment of which this also forms a part that they find it no longer possible to repent and that they foresee their future condemnation. But the righteous on the other hand enter into rest and experience sevenfold joy of which among other things this forms a part that they foresee their ultimate blessedness (6:49–76 = Bensly 75–101). But on the day of judgment each receives what he has deserved; and no one by interceding for him can alter the fate of another (6:77–83 = Bensly 102–105). Ezra’s objection that surely the Scriptures speak of the righteous having often interceded in behalf of the ungodly is dismissed with the remark on the part of the angel that what might avail for this world will not do so for eternity as well (7:36–45). When Ezra is deploring that the whole ruin of the human race has been brought about by Adam the angel refers him to the impiety of men through which they have become the authors of their own ruin (7:46–69). Then follow further explanations having reference to the circumstance that of the many that are created so very few are saved (8:1–62). Finally the signs of the last time are unfolded to Ezra anew (8:63–9:13) and his anxiety at the thought of so many being lost is once more set at rest (9:14–25). Fourth vision (9:26–10:60): While Ezra is again indulging his complaints he sees a woman on his right hand weeping and who in answer to his questions tells him that after thirty years of barrenness she gave birth to a son brought him up with great difficulty and then procured a wife for him but that just as he was entering the bride-chamber he fell and was killed (9:26–10:4). Ezra chides her for bewailing the mere loss of a son when she ought rather to be weeping over the destruction of Jerusalem and the ruin of so many men (10:5–24). Then all at once her face is lifted up she utters a cry the earth quakes and instead of the woman there appears a strongly built city. At this sight Ezra is so perplexed that he cries to the angel Uriel who at once appears and gives him the following explanation of what he had just seen: The woman is Zion. The thirty years of barrenness are the 3000 years during which no sacrifices had as yet been offered on Zion. The birth of the son represents the building of the temple by Solomon and the instituting of sacrificial worship on Zion. The death of the son refers to the destruction of Jerusalem. But the newly built city was shown to Ezra in the vision with the view of comforting him and of saving him from despair (10:25–60). Fifth vision (11:1–12:51): In a dream Ezra sees an eagle rise out of the sea having twelve wings and three heads. And out of the wings grew eight subordinate wings which became small and feeble winglets. But the heads were resting and the centre one was larger than the others. And the eagle flew and ruled over the land. And from within its body there issued a voice which ordered the wings to rule one after another. And the twelve wings ruled one after the other (the second more than twice as long as any of the others 11:17) and then vanished and similarly two of the winglets so that at last only the three heads and the six winglets were left. Two of those winglets separated themselves from the rest and placed themselves under the head on the right-hand side. The other four wanted to rule but two of them soon vanished and the two were consumed by the heads. And the middle head ruled over the whole earth and then vanished. And the two other heads also ruled. But the one on the right-hand side devoured the one on the left (11:135). Then Ezra sees a lion and hears how with a human voice it describes the eagle just referred to as being the fourth of those animals to which God has in succession committed the empire of the world. And the lion announces to the eagle its impending destruction (11:36–46). Thereupon the only remaining head also vanished. And the two winglets which had joined themselves to it began to rule. But their rule was of a feeble character. And the whole body of the eagle was consumed with fire (12:1–3). The meaning of the vision which Ezra rehearses is as follows. The eagle represents the last of Daniel’s kingdoms. The twelve wings are twelve kings who are to rule over it one after another. The second will begin to reign and will reign longer than the others. The voice which issues from the body of the eagle means that in the course of the duration of that kingdom (inter tempus regni illius as we ought to read with the Syriac and the other Oriental versions) evil disorders will arise; and it will be involved in great trouble only it will not fall but regain its power. But the eight subordinate wings represent eight kings whose respective times will be of short duration. Two of these will perish when the intermediate time approaches (appropinquante tempore medio i.e. that interregnum to which reference had just been made). Four of them will be reserved for the time when the end is approaching and two for the time of the end itself. But the meaning of the three heads is as follows. At the time of the end the Most High will raise up three kings who will rule over the earth. And they will cause impiety to reach a climax and will bring about the end. The one (= the middle head) will die in his bed but in the midst of torment. Of the remaining two one will be cut off by the sword of the other while the latter will himself fall by the sword at the time of the end. Finally the two subordinate wings which joined the head on the right represent the two remaining kings of the closing period whose reign will be feeble and full of disorder (12:4–30). But the lion which announces to the eagle its impending destruction represents the Messiah whom the Most High has reserved for the end. He will arraign them (the kings?) while yet alive before His tribunal and convict them of their wickedness and then destroy them. But the people of God He will cause to rejoice (during 400 years as was foretold in the third vision) till the day of judgment comes (12:31–34). After receiving those revelations Ezra is commissioned to write what he had seen in a book and preserve it in a secret place (12:35–51).—Sixth vision (13:1–58): Once more he sees in a dream a man rising up out of the sea. And an innumerable company of men gathered themselves together for the purpose of warring against that man. And when they marched out against him he emitted a fiery breath and flames from his mouth so that they were all burnt up. Thereupon other men advanced toward him some of them joyfully others in sadness and some again in fetters (13:1–13). In answer to Ezra’s request this vision is explained to him as follows. The man who rises out of the sea is he by whom God will redeem His whole creation. He will annihilate his enemies not with the spear or implements of war but by means of the law which is like unto fire. But the peaceful crowd that advances towards him is the ten tribes returning from the captivity (13:14–58).—Seventh vision (14:1–50): Ezra is commissioned by God to instruct the people and set his house in order and withdraw from mortal things for he is about to be taken from the earth. Moreover he is to take to himself five men who during a period of forty days are to write down what they are told to write. And Ezra did so. And the men wrote what they did not understand. Thereupon Ezra was carried away and conveyed to the place appointed for such as he (14:1–50).

For anything at all decisive with regard to the date of the composition of this remarkable book we are chiefly indebted to the interpretation of the vision of the eagle. For the data furnished by the other passages that have been brought to bear upon this point are of too uncertain a character to be of much service. For example in chap. 6:9 it is stated that the present world is to end with the rule of Edom while the world to come is to begin with the supremacy of Israel (finis enim hujus saeculi Esau et principium sequentis Jacob). But it is open to question whether by Edom it is the Herodians (so Hilgenfeld Volkmar) or whether it is the Romans (so Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1st ed. vol. ix. p. 430 2nd ed. vol. ix. p. 660; Ewald Excursus p. 198; Langen p. 125 sq.) that are meant. The latter is no doubt the correct view of the matter. But even if the former were to be preferred very little after all would be gained considering the long period embraced by the Herodian dynasty (down till the year 100 of our era). Then as for the calculation of the world-periods as given in chap. 14:11 12 (Duodecim enim partibus divisum est saeculum et transierunt ejue decimam et dimidium decirnae partis superant autem ejus duae post medium decimae partis). The mere fact of the reading fluctuating so much here (in the Syriac and Armenian versions the passage does not occur at all) should of itself have been enough to deter any one from attempting any calculation whatever of these world-periods. It will be seen then that apart from the general purport of the book it is the vision of the eagle alone that can be said to furnish a clue to the date of its composition. In the interpretation of this vision the following points which naturally present themselves on a general survey of the contents are to be kept steadily in view: the twelve principal wings the eight subordinate ones and the three heads represent twenty-three sovereigns or rulers who reign one after the other and that in the following order. First we have the twelve principal wings and two of the subordinate ones. Then comes a time of disorder. At the expiry of this period four subordinate wings have their turn and after them the three heads. During the reign of the third head the Messiah appears upon which follows the overthrow of the third head and the short feeble reign of the two remaining subordinate wings. We thus see that from the author’s standpoint both the overthrow of the third head and the reign of the last two subordinate wings were still in the future; from which it follows that he must have written during the reign of the third head and that the reign of the two last subordinate wings is not matter of history but exists only in the author’s imagination. Further the following points are to be specially noted: (1) The second principal wing reigns more than twice as long as any of the rest (11:17). (2) Many of the wings particularly of the subordinate wings come upon the scene without actually getting the length of reigning and therefore represent mere pretenders and usurpers. (3) All the rulers belong to one and the same kingdom and are or at least aim at being the rulers of the whole of that kingdom. (4) The first dies a natural death (12:26) the second is murdered by the third (11:35 12:28). Now with the help of this exegetical result let us test the various interpretations that have been attempted and which we may divide into three leading groups according as the eagle has been supposed to refer either (1) to Rome under the monarchy and the republic or (2) to the Greek rule or (3) to Rome under the emperors.

1. Laurence van der Vlis and Lücke (2nd ed.) understand the vision of the eagle as referring to the history of Rome from the time of Komulus till that of Caesar. Those three writers are all agreed in this that the three heads represent Sulla Pompey and Caesar and that our book was composed in the time of Caesar (Lücke) or shortly after his assassination (van der Vlis) or a little later still (Laurence). No doubt the interpretation 12+8 wings is beset with considerable difficulty but this is supposed to be got over by falling back upon those persons who at a later period aspired to the throne and upon the party leaders in the time of the civil wars. But even if this were not a somewhat doubtful proceeding there are still two considerations that could not fail to prove fatal to this view: first the fact that for a Jewish apocalyptic writer the whole period previous to the time of Pompey would have simply no interest whatever; and then this other fact that if Rome is to be thought of at all the reference can only be to a time when she was mistress of the world. For the whole of the wings and heads are intended to represent rulers who exercised or at all events aspired to exercise away over the entire world.

2. Hilgenfeld supposes the vision to have reference to the Greek rule. It is true that previously (Apokalyptik pp. 217–221) he took the 12+8 wings to mean the Ptolemies. The twelve wings and the first two of the subordinate wings he made out to be the following:—(1) Alexander the Great (2) Ptolemy I. Lagi (3–8) Ptolemy II. to Ptolemy VII. (9) Cleopatra I. (10–14) Ptolemy VIII. Lathyrus to Ptolemy XII. Auletes. The other six subordinate wings Were supposed to refer to the offshoots from the Ptolemaic dynasty down to Cleopatra the younger († 30 B.C.). Then some time after (Zeitschr. 1860 pp. 335–358) he substituted the Seleucidae for the Ptolemies and reckoned the kings from Alexander the Great on to the descendants of Seleucus. But still he always adhered strictly to the view that the three heads were to be taken as referring to Caesar Antony and Octavian and that the book must have been composed immediately after Antony’s death in the year 30 B.C. (Zeitschr. 1867 p. 285: “exactly 30 years before Christ”). Although this interpretation enables us more easily to find room for the twenty kings than the foregoing one still it can hardly be said to be a bit more tenable. One great objection to it above all is this that while it supposes the twenty wings to refer to Greek rulers it regards the three heads on the other hand as referring to Roman rulers whereas the text obviously requires us to regard the whole as rulers of one and the same kingdom. But Hilgenfeld’s interpretation is incompatible above all with the statement that the second wing was to rule twice as long as any of the others (11:17). For this will suit neither the case of Ptolemy I. nor that of Seleucus I. Nicator. Hilgenfeld too has fully realized the awkwardness of this passage and while at one time he was disposed to look upon it as an interpolation he has more recently had recourse to the expedient of supposing that in the statement in question the author had in view only the first six wings namely those on the right side on which assumption he finds that the notice exactly suits the case of Seleucus I. (Zeitschr. 1867 p. 286 sq. 1870 p. 310 sq.). But the text does not in the least degree sanction such a limitation as this (nemo post te tenebit tempus tuum sed nee dimidium ejus). There is a further contradiction of the text in the referring of the first head to Caesar who as is well known was assassinated whereas according to chap. 12:26 the ruler in question was to die super lectum. But let us say generally that every interpretation is to be regarded as untenable which proceeds on the assumption that the book was written earlier than the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. One of the principal objects of the book is just this to comfort the people on the occasion of the destruction in question. Ezra over and over again prays to have an explanation of the mystery of Jerusalem’s lying low in the dust while the Gentile nations exult in triumph. It is with regard to this that through the medium of a divine revelation he obtains instruction and comfort. Now to write a work of this nature could hardly be supposed to have any meaning or object whatsoever except at a time when Jerusalem was actually lying in ruins. No doubt it is the first destruction of the city (by Nebuchadnezzar) that is in view. But as it is of course impossible that the book can have been written in the decades immediately following this event (if for nothing but chap. 11:39 12:11 where Daniel is presupposed) the only course open to us is to come down to a date subsequent to the destruction by Titus and to assume that the author intended that first destruction by Nebuchadnezzar to be regarded as so to speak a type of the second and that the consolations purporting to have been communicated to Ezra were in reality meant for that generation in whose minds the recollection of the destruction of the year 70 was still fresh; although for the pseudo-Ezra this event was perhaps more a thing of the past than it was for the pseudo-Baruch. Then a distinct allusion to the destruction of the city by the Romans may also be found in the words which the lion addresses to the eagle (11:42): Destruxisti habitationes eorum qui fructificabant et humiliasti muros eorum qui te non nocuerunt. Consequently there cannot be a doubt that—

3. Corrodi Lücke (1st ed.) Gfrörer Dillmann Volkmar Ewald Langen Wieseler Keil Hausrath Renan Drummond Reuss Gutschmid Le Hir are correct in holding that the eagle is to be understood as representing imperial Rome. They are all at one in this that the line of rulers should begin with Caesar and that by the second wing the duration of whose reign was more than twice as long as that of any of the others (11:17) it is Augustus that is meant. This point may in fact be regarded as settled. For the placing of Cæsar as the first in the line of Roman emperors is also to be met with elsewhere (Joseph. Antt. xviii. 2. 2 6. 10; Orac. Sibyll. 5:10–15. Comp. Volkmar p. 344). Moreover the length of time during which Augustus reigned is estimated as a rule at 56 years counting from his first consulate in the year 711 A.U.C. = 43 B.C. (see Volkmar p. 344; Gutschmid Zeitschr. 1860 p. 37). According to this calculation the actual duration of the reign of Augustus is found to have been more than twice longer than that of all the other Roman emperors belonging to the first three centuries.

But there is one point in regard to which there is an essential difference between Gutschmid and Le Hir on the one hand and all the other writers mentioned above on the other. For while Corrodi (i. 208) and the others understand the three heads as referring to the three Flavian emperors (Vespasian Titus and Domitian) and accordingly regard the book as having been written during the last decades of the first century of our era Gutschmid interprets as follows:—He takes the twelve principal wings to represent: (1) Caesar (2) Augustus (3) Tiberius (4) Caligula (5) Claudius (6) Nero (7) Vespasian (8) Domitian (9) Trajan (10) Hadrian (11) Antoninus Pius (12) Marcus Aurelius. The first two of the subordinate wings he supposes to refer to Titus and Nerva and the four immediately following them to: (1) Commodus (2) Pertinax (3) Didius Julianus and (4) Pescennius Niger. The three heads again he takes to represent Septimius Severus (193–211 A.D.) with his two sons Caracalla and Geta. Geta was murdered by Caracalla but this latter also fell by the sword (217 A.D.). The last two of the subordinate wings he supposes to be intended for Macrinus and his son Diadumenianus who were assassinated in the year 218 A.D. He thinks therefore that the vision of the eagle must have been written immediately before in the month of June 218 (Zeitschr. 1860 p. 48). Moreover Gutschmid regards the vision of the eagle as a later interpolation while he thinks—and here he is more in accord with Hilgenfeld—that the main body of the book must have been written in the year 31 B.C. Le Hir in his interpretation of the vision now in question coincides with Gutschmid in almost every particular (Etudes Bibliques i. pp. 184–192). The only point in which they differ is this that Le Hir founding upon the list of emperors given by Clement of Alexandria counts the reign of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus as simply one thus including the latter among those represented by the principal wings while to make up for this he inserts Clodius Albinus after Pescennius Niger among those represented by the subordinate wings. Nor does he think that the entire book was written in the year 218 A.D. but is of opinion that there was in the first instance a Jewish original and subsequently a Christian revision and modification of this latter. He holds that the former which is already made use of in the Epistle of Barnabas was written in the last quarter of the first century of our era while the Christian revision in which the vision of the eagle was inserted would be composed in the year 218 A.D. (Etudes Bibliques i. p. 207 sq.).

The tempting thing about this interpretation is that it enables us actually to specify all the rulers represented by the 12 + 8 wings which if we suppose the Flavian period to be in view it is impossible to do. But for all that it is unquestionably erroneous. It is precluded above all by the circumstance that the book is already quoted by Clement of Alexandria. Consequently it must have been in existence toward the close of the second century. No doubt Gutschmid and Le Hir are disposed to fall back upon the hypothesis of interpolation or of revision and modification. But the book itself furnishes neither occasion nor justification for such a hypothesis. The vision of the eagle fits in admirably and could scarcely be omitted without completely mutilating the work. The hypothesis of interpolation is therefore gratuitous in the extreme to say nothing of the fact that it is incompatible with many points of detail. For example Galba Otho and Vitellius are completely left out of account. Commodus is classed by Gutschmid with those who are represented by the subordinate wings while Le Hir counts his reign and that of Marcus Aurelius as constituting simply one reign all which is extremely forced. But the most awkward thing of all is that the two subordinate wings Titus and Nerva did not reign as the text however requires us to suppose (12:21) appropinquante tempore medio i.e. shortly before the interregnum before the period of disorder but in the heart of the peaceful rule of the principal wings.

Consequently if we are to adopt the ordinary interpretation we will have to stop at the Flavian period. There can be no mistaking the fact that all that is said with regard to the three heads will apply admirably to the three Flavian emperors Vespasian Titus and Domitian. Those who had brought about the destruction of the holy city really constituted for the Jew the acme of power and ungodliness. Vespasian died as we are told 12:26 super lectum et tamen cum tormentis (comp. Sueton. Vesp. xxiv. Dio Cass. lxvi. 17). It is true Titus was not murdered by Domitian as is presupposed in chaps. 11:35 12:28. Yet it was currently believed that this was the case and certainly Domitian’s demeanour at the time of his brother’s death gave ample occasion for such a belief (Sueton. Domitian II. Dio Cass. lxvi. 26; Orac. Sibyll. 12:120–123. Aurelius Victor Caesar x. and xi. states explicitly that Titus had been poisoned by Domitian). This likewise corresponds with the actual fact that several of the subordinate wings i.e. of the usurpers had been disposed of with the help of the other two heads. But after all the finding of a place for the whole 12 + 8 wings is not a matter of insuperable difficulty. The twelve principal wings may be regarded as representing say the following rulers:—(1) Caesar (2) Augustus (3) Tiberius (4) Caligula (5) Claudius (6) Nero (7) Galba (8) Otho (9) Vitellius to whom may be added the three usurpers: (10) Vindex (11) Nymphidius (12) Piso. But what is to be made of the eight subordinate wings? To dispose of them Volkmar and Ewald have had recourse to expedients of the most singular kind. Volkmar who is followed by Renan makes out the number of rulers to be not 12 + 8 but by taking the wings as pairs only 6 + 4. The six rulers he takes to be the Julian emperors from Caesar to Nero; the four again he takes to be: Galba Otho Vitellius and Nerva. So Volkmar and Renan and that although we are plainly told in chap. 12:14 that: Regnabunt autem in ea reges duodecim unus post unum; and in ver. 20 of the same chapter find the words: exsurgent enim in ipso octo reges. Ewald again goes the length of thinking that not only the eight subordinate wings but also the three heads are to be regarded as included among the twelve principal wings and consequently that the three groups of rulers are to be identified and that we should reckon only twelve rulers altogether (counting from Caesar to Domitian). The most obvious exegetical principles should have been sufficient to prevent any such attempts at explanation as we have here. Nor can Langen be said to have altogether eschewed this arbitrary style of criticism when he inclines as he does to take the numbers merely as round numbers and to regard the twelve principal wings as intended to represent the six Julian emperors. For the text undoubtedly requires us to assume that there were 12 + 8 rulers or at all events pretenders. No less untenable is the view of Gfrörer (i. 90 sq.) who refers the eight subordinate wings partly to Herod and some of his descendants partly to Jewish (!!) agitators as John of Gischala and Simon Bar-Giora; or that of Wieseler who thinks that the whole eight subordinate wings are meant to represent the Herodian dynasty alone. In point of fact however the only distinction between the subordinate and the principal wings is this that in the case of the former the reign is short and feeble (12:20) or they fail ever to get the length of reigning at all (11:25–27). As for the rest they are quite as much as the principal wings rulers of the entire empire or at all events aspire to be so. Consequently it is impossible to suppose that it is vassal princes that are represented by those subordinate wings; rather must we hold with Corrodi (Gesch. des Chiliasmus i. 207) that it is “governors rival candidates for the throne and rebels” or with Dillmann (Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1st ed. vol. xii. p. 312) that it is “Roman generals and pretenders” that are in view. Of course we have had to avail ourselves of the better known among the usurpers in order to complete the number twelve. But it would appear that the author reckons along with them all those Roman generals who during the period of disorder (68–70) had at any time put forward claims to the throne. And of these surely it would not be difficult to make out six. For it is only a question of six seeing that as has been already noticed the last two of the subordinate wings do not represent actual historical personages.

If the view which represents the three heads as referring to the Flavian emperors be correct it should not be difficult to determine the date of the composition of our book. We have already seen that the author wrote during the reign of the third head inasmuch as he is already acquainted with the manner in which the second was put to death while on the other hand he is looking forward to the overthrow of the third after the Messiah has made His appearance. Consequently the composition of the book is not with Corrodi and Ewald to be referred to so early a date as the time of Titus nor again with Volkmar Langen Hausrath and Renan to one so late as the time of Nerva but with Gfrörer Dillmann Wieseler and Reuss to the reign of Domitian (81–96 A.D.).

The designation Fourth Book of Ezra under which our work is known is current only in the Latin Church and is to be traced to the fact that the canonical books Ezra and Nehemiah were reckoned as First and Second Ezra respectively while the Ezra of the Greek Bible was regarded as Third Ezra (so Jerome Praef. in version. libr. Ezrae Opp. ed. Vallarsi ix. 1524: Nec quemquam moveat quod unus a nobis editus liber est; nec apocryphorum tertii et quarti somniis delectetur). This mode of designating those different books has also been retained in the official Roman Vulgate where Third and Fourth Ezra are inserted at the end of the New Testament. In the manuscript of Amiens from which Bensly edited the Latin fragment the canonical books Ezra and Nehemiah taken together are regarded as First Ezra the so-called Third Ezra is counted as Second Ezra while Fourth Ezra is divided into three books chaps. i.–ii. being counted as Third Ezra chaps. iii.–xiv. as Fourth Ezra and chaps. xv. xvi. as Fifth Ezra (Bensly The Missing Fragment p. 6). Similarly though with greater complication still in the Codex Sangermanensis and the manuscripts derived from it (Bensly p. 85 sq.). The earliest designation seems to have been Ἔσδρας ὁ προφήτης (Clemens Alex. Strom. iii. 16. 100) or Ἔσδρα ἀποκάλυψις for it is doubtless our Fourth Book of Ezra that is meant by the apocryphal work bearing that name which occurs in the list of the Apocrypha edited by Montfaucon Cotelier Hody and Pitra (see p. 126). For more on the different titles see Volkmar Das vierte Buch Esra p. 3. Hilgenfeld Messias Judaeorum pp. xviii.–xxi.

Use and high repute of the book in the Christian Church.—It is probable that it is this work that is referred to in the following passage in the Epistle of Barnabas chap. xii.: Ὁμοίως πάλιν περὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ όρίζει ἐν ἄλλῳ προφήτῃ λέγοντι• Καὶ πότε ταῦτα συντελεσθήσεται; λέγει κύριος• Ὅταν ξύλον κλιθῇ καὶ ἀναστῇ καὶ ὅταν ἐκ ξύλου αἷμα στάξῃ. Comp. Fourth Ezra 4:33: Quomodo et quando haec? … 5:5: Si de ligno sanguis stillabit. It is true that here the first half of the quotation is wanting but for all that Le Moyne and Fabricius (Cod. pseudepigr. ii. 184) were undoubtedly correct in tracing it to Fourth Ezra. Comp. further Cotelier Hilgenfeld and Harnack in their editions of the Epistle of Barnabas; Hilgenfeld Die apostol. Väter p. 47. It is also extremely probable that we are indebted to Fourth Ezra for the legend to the effect that when the Holy Scriptures had perished on the occasion of the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar Ezra completely restored them again by means of a miracle. So Irenaeus iii. 21. 2. Tertullian De cultu femin. i. 3. Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 22. 149. Comp. Fourth Ezra 14:18–22 and 37–47. Fabricius Codex pseudepigr. i. 1156–1160. Hilgenfeld Messias Judaeorum p. 107. Strack in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. vol. vii. 414 sq. (art. “Kanon des A. T.’s”).

The first express quotation occurs in Clemens Alex. Strom. iii. 16. 100: Διὰ τί γὰρ οὐκ ἐγένετο ἡ μήτρα τῆς μητρός μου τάφος ἵνα μὴ ἰδω τὸν μόχθον τοῦ Ἰακὼβ καὶ τὸν κόπον τοῦ γένους Ἰσραήλ; Ἔσδρας ὁ προφήτης λέγει. Comp. 4 Ezra 5:35. Our book is repeatedly used and quoted as prophetical above all by Ambrose. See the passages in Fabricius Cod. pseudepigr. ii. pp. 183 185 sqq. Hilgenfeld Messias Judaeorum p. xxii. sq. Le Hir Etudes Bibliques i. 142. Bensly The Missing Fragment pp. 74–76. It is also quoted as propheta Esdras in the so-called Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum printed among Chrysostom’s works (ed. Montfaucon vol. vi.) Homil. xxxiv. s. fin. Jerome who maintains a critical attitude toward the Apocrypha generally is the only one who expresses himself unfavourably. See the passage quoted above from the Praef. in version. libr. Ezrae and especially Adv. Vigilantium chap. vi. (Opp. ed. Vallarsi ii. 393): Tu vigilans dormis et dormiens scribis et proponis mihi librum apocryphum. qui sub nomine Esdrae a te et similibus tui legitur ubi scriptum est quod post mortem nullus pro aliis audeat deprecari quem ego librum numquam legi. Quid enim necesse est in manus sumere quod ecclesia non recepit. But although our book continued to be excluded from the canon it nevertheless enjoyed a wide circulation especially in the Middle Ages. Bensly has proved by actual verification that it finds a place in more than sixty Latin manuscripts of the Bible (Bensly The Missing Fragment pp. 42 82 sqq.) and this without taking into account scarcely any of the Italian libraries. As we have already mentioned it appears in the official Vulgate as an appendix. It also finds a place in not a few German editions of the Bible Lutheran and Reformed as well as Catholic (for the evidence in regard to this see Gildemeister Esdrae liber quartus arabice 1877 p. 42). On the history of the use comp. further Fabricius Codex pseudepigr. ii. 174–192. Idem Cod. apocryph. Nov. Test. i. 936–938. Volkmar Das vierte Buch Ezra p. 273 sq. Hilgenfeld Messias Judaeorum pp. xviii.–xxiv. lxix. sq.

Care must be taken not to confound the Fourth Book of Ezra with the Christian work entitled the Apocalypse of Ezra which Tischendorf has edited (Apocalypses apocryphae Lips. 1866 pp. 24–33). On this comp. Tischendorf Stud. u. Krit. 1851 p. 423 sqq. Idem Prolegom. to his edition pp. 12–14. Le Hir Etudes Bibliques (Paris 1869) ii. 120–122. By the Ἔσδρα ἀποκάλυψις which occurs in the list of the Apocrypha edited by Montfaucon Pitra and others it is possibly the Fourth Book of Ezra that is meant (see p. 126). On the Ezra-Apocrypha comp. also Fabricius Cod. pseudepigr. i. 1162. On the later additions to the Fourth Book of Ezra (chaps. i.–ii. and xv. xvi.) which in the manuscripts appear as yet as separate Books of Ezra and which came for the first time to be blended with the main work in the printed text see Dillmann in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. vol. xii. 356 and Bensly The Missing Fragment pp. 35–40.

The texts of the Fourth Book of Ezra that have come down to us are the following:—

(1.) The old Latin version which is the most literal and therefore the most important of all. The vulgar text as it had long been printed was extremely inaccurate. In the edition of Fabricius (Codex pseudepigraphus Vet. Test. vol. ii. 1723 pp. 173–307) the Arabic version which was given to the public through Ockley’s English translation in 1711 was collated throughout with the Latin text. Sabatier was the first to lay the foundation for the critical restoration of the text by his publication of the variants of the important Codex Sangermanensis (Sabatier Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae vol. iii. 1743 pp. 1038 1069–1084). Numerous emendations based upon the Codex Sangermanensis and the Ethiopic version published by Laurence in 1820 were proposed by Van der Vlis (Disputatio critica de Ezrae libro apocrypho vulgo quarto dicto Amstelod. 1839). The first critical edition was published by Volkmar (Handbuch der Einleitung in die Apocryphen second part: Das vierte Buch Ezra Tüb. 1863). In this edition Sabatier’s collation of the Cod. Sangermanensis and a Zürich manuscript collated by Volkmar himself were made use of. These manuscripts however were not collated with sufficient care as the subsequent editions of Hilgenfeld (Messias Judaeorum Lips. 1869) and Fritzsche (Libri apocryphi Vet. Test. graece Lips. 1871) have shown. Both these writers give the Latin text according to three different manuscripts: (a) the Cod. Sangermanensis saec. ix. collated anew for Hilgenfeld’s edition by Zotenberg; (b) the Cod. Turicensis saec. xiii. also collated anew for Hilgenfeld’s edition by Fritzsche; (c) a Cod. Dresdensis saec. xv. collated by Hilgenfeld. In the whole of those editions a considerable fragment is wanting between chaps. vii. 35 and vii. 36 which could only be supplied from the Oriental versions. This fragment was first discovered so far as the Latin text is concerned by Bensly in a manuscript at Amiens (formerly at Corbie near Amiens) in the year 1875 (Bensly The Missing Fragment of the Latin Translation of the Fourth Book of Ezra discovered and edited with an Introduction and Notes Cambridge 1875. Comp. Theol. Literaturztg. 1876 p. 43 sq.). After this it was also published by Hilgenfeld (Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1876 pp. 421–435). Two years after this again the same fragment was edited from a Madrid manuscript (formerly in Alcalá de Henares) by Wood and from among the remains of John Palmer the Orientalist († 1840) who had transcribed it as early as the year 1826 (Journal of Philology vol. vii. 1877 pp. 264–278). Besides the manuscripts hitherto mentioned Bensly (pp. 42 82 sqq.) has verified some sixty others of the Latin text. Those of them in which there is the large hiatus in chap. vii. and this holds true of probably the whole of them at all events of the Turicensis and the Dresdensis as also of the printed vulgar text are of no value for the hiatus in the Cod. Sangermanensis was due to the cutting out of a leaf so that all the manuscripts and texts in which precisely the same hiatus occurs must have followed that codex (as from a letter addressed to Bensly Gildemeister appears to have already noted in the year 1865). Consequently in the case of any future edition consideration will be due in the first instance only to: (a) the Cod. Sangermanensis (now in Paris) dating from the year 822 A.D. (Bensly p. 5); (b) the Amiens manuscript also belonging to the ninth century and independent of the Cod. Sanger.; and (c) the Madrid manuscript. At the same time we may observe that the Latin manuscripts of the Bible in the majority of the Italian libraries have not yet been examined in connection with our book.

(2.) Next to the Latin the best and most trustworthy version is the Syriac which has been transmitted to us in the large Peshito manuscript of Milan (Cod. Ambros. B. 21 Inf.). It was published for the first time by Ceriani first of all in a Latin version (Ceriani Monumenta sacra et profana vol. i. fasc. 2 Mediol. 1866 pp. 99–124) then in the Syriac text itself (Ceriani Mon. sac. et prof. vol. v. fasc. 1 Mediol. 1868 pp. 4–111). This latter is also given in the photo-lithographed facsimile of the whole manuscript (Translatio Syra Pescitto Veteris Testamenti ex cod. Ambr. photolithographice ed. Ceriani 2 vols. in 4 parts Milan 1876–1883; comp. vol. iii. p. 92). Hilgenfeld has embodied Ceriani’s Latin version in his Messias Judaeorum (Lips. 1869).

(3.) The Ethiopic version which is also of importance for the reconstruction of the original text. It had been previously published by Laurence accompanied with a Latin and English version but only from a single manuscript and not quite free from errors (Laurence Primi Ezrae libri qui apud Vulgatam appellatur quartus versio Aethiopica nunc primo in medium prolata et Latine Angliceque reddita Oxoniae et Londoni 1820). Numerous corrections have been made by van der Vlis (Disputatio critica de Ezrae libro apocrypho vulgo quarto dicto Amst. 1839). A collection of the variants in the other manuscripts has been furnished by Dillmann in the appendix to Ewald’s dissertation in the Abhandlungen der Göttinger Gesellsch. der Wissensch. vol. xi. 1862–1863. Then in the last place Prätorius availing himself of Dillmann’s collection of variants and also collating with a Berlin manuscript has made various emendations in the Latin version which Hilgenfeld has embodied in his Messias Judaeorum (Lips. 1869). A critical edition is still a desideratum. Among the Ethiopic manuscripts of the so-called Magdala collection which some years ago were forwarded to the British Museum at the close of the war between the English and King John of Abyssinia there happen to be no fewer than eight of our book (see Wright’s catalogue in the Zeitschr. der DMG. 1870 p. 599 sqq. Nos. 5 10 11 13 23 24 25 27. Bensly The Missing Fragment p. 2 note 3).

(4.) The two Arabic versions are of but secondary importance owing to the great freedom in which their authors often indulge. (a) One of them which is in a manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford was in the first instance published only in an English version by Ockley (in Whitson’s Primitive Christianity revived vol. iv. London 1711). Ewald was the first to publish the Arabic text (Transactions of the Göttingen Gesellsch. der Wissensch. vol. xi. 1862–1863). Emendations upon Ockley’s version and Ewald’s text were furnished by Steiner (Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1868 pp. 426–433) with whose assistance Hilgenfeld also composed a Latin rendering for his Messias Judaeorum (Lips. 1869). The Arabic version here in question is also found in a Codex Vaticanus which though merely a transcript of the one in the Bodleian library is nevertheless of some value in so far as it was copied before the leaf which is at present wanting in the Bodleian codex went amissing (Bensly The Missing Fragment p. 77 sq. Gildemeister Esdrae liber quartus p. 3; this latter supplies at pp. 6–8 the text of this fragment which is omitted in Ewald’s edition). (b) An extract from another Arabic version is likewise found in a Bodleian codex from which it has been edited by Ewald (as above). A German version of this extract was furnished by Steiner (Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol. 1868 pp. 396–425). On the extract itself comp. further Ewald Transactions of the Göttingen Gesellsch. der Wissensch. 1863 pp. 163–180. The complete text of this version was published by Gildemeister in Arabic and Latin from a Codex Vaticanus (Esdrae liber quartus arabice e codice Vaticano nunc primum edidit Bonnae 1877).

(5.) The Armenian version which is still freer than the Arabic one and is of but little service for the restoration of the original text. It was published as early as the year 1805 in the edition of the Armenian Bible issued under the superintendence of the Mechitarists but Ceriani was the first to rescue it from oblivion while Ewald again furnished specimens of it in a German rendering (Transactions of the Göttingen Gesellsch der Wissensch. 1865 pp. 504–516). A Latin version prepared by Petermann and based upon a collation of four manuscripts is given in Hilgenfeld’s Messias Judaeorum (Lips. 1869). In the older editions of the Armenian Bible (the first dating as far back as 1666) there is an Armenian version of our book which was prepared by the first editor Uscanus himself and taken from the Vulgate (see Scholtz Einl. in die heiligen Schriften vol. i. 1845 p. 501. Gildemeister Esdrae liber quartus arabice p. 43. This may be made use of for the purpose of correcting Bensly p. 2 note 2).

German versions of our book have been published by Volkmar (Das vierte Buch Esra 1863) and Ewald (Transactions of the Göttingen Gesellsch. der Wissensch. vol. xi. 1862 1863) while Hilgenfeld attempted a rendering back into the Greek (Messias Judaeorum Lips. 1869).

Critical inquiries. For the earlier literature see Fabricius Codex pseudepigr. ii. 174 sqq. Lücke Einl. p. 187 sqq. Volkmar Das vierte Buch Esra (1863) pp. 273–275 374 sqq. Hilgenfeld Messias Judaeorum p. liv. sqq. Corrodi (also spelt Corodi) Kritische Geschichte des Chiliasmus vol. i. (1781) pp. 179–230. Gfrörer Das Jahrhundert des Heils (also under the title Geschichte des Urchristenthums vols. i. ii.) 1838 i. 69–93. Lücke Versuch einer vollständigen Einleitung in die Offenbarung des Johannes (2nd ed. 1852) pp. 144–212. Bleek Stud. u. Krit. 1854 pp. 982–990 (review of Lücke’s Einl.). Noack Der Ursprung des Christenthums vol. i. (1857) pp. 341–363. Hilgenfeld Die jüdische Apokalyptik (1857) pp. 185–242. Idem Die Propheten Esra und Daniel 1863. Idem Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theologie vol. i. 1858 pp. 250–270; iii. 1860 pp. 335–358; vi. 1863 pp. 229–292 457 sq.; x. 1867 pp. 87–91 263–295; xiii. 1870 pp. 308–319; xix. 1876 pp. 421–435. Gutschmid “Die Apokalypse des Esra und ihre späteren Bearbeitungen” (Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1860 pp. 1–81). Dillmann in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1st ed. vol. xii. 1860 pp. 310–312; 2nd ed. vol. xii. 1883 pp. 353–356 (art. “Pseudepigraphen”). Volkmar Handbuch der Einleitung in die Apokryphen second part: Das vierte Buch Esra Tüb. 1863. At a previous date by the same author Das vierte Buch Esra und apokalyptische Geheimnisse überhaupt Zürich 1858. “Einige Bemerkungen über Apokalyptik” (Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1861 pp. 83–92). Ewald “Das vierte Esrabuch nach seinem Zeitalter seinen arabischen Uebersetzungen und einer neuen Wiederherstellung” (Transactions of the Royal Gesellsch. der Wissensch. of Göttingen vol. xi. 1862–1863 histor.-philol. section pp. 133–230. Also as a separate reprint). Idem Gesch. des Volkes Israel vol. vii. 3rd ed. 1868 pp. 69–83. Ceriani “Sul Das vierte Ezrabuch del Dottor Enrico Ewald” (Estratto dalle Memorie del R. Instituto Lombardo di scienze e lettere) Millano 1865. Langen Das Judenthum in Palästina 1866 pp. 112–139. Le Hir “Du IV. livre d’Esdras” (Etudes Bibliques 2 vols. Paris 1869 i. 139–250). Wieseler “Das vierte Buch Esra nach Inhalt und Alter untersucht” (Stud. u. Krit. 1870 pp. 263–304). Keil Lehrb. der histor.-krit. Einleitung in die kanon. und apokr. Schriften des A. T. 3rd ed. 1873 pp. 758764. Hausrath Neutestamentl. Zeitgesch. 2nd ed. iv. 80–88 (1st ed. iii. 282–289). Renan “L’apocalypse de l’an 97” (Revue des deux Mondes 1875 March pp. 127–144). Idem Les évangiles 1877 pp. 348–373. Drummond The Jewish Messiah 1877 pp. 84–117. Reuss Gesch. der heiligen Schriften Alten Testaments (1881) sec. 597.

6. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

In the pseudepigraphic prophecies which we have hitherto been considering revelations and predictions—and therefore the apocalyptic element—chiefly predominated. But just as these revelations themselves had practical objects as their ultimate aim such objects as the strengthening and comforting of the faithful so alongside of them there was also another class of works in which the exhortations and encouragements were more directly expressed. We have a pseudepigraphic prophecy of this description in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs which is chiefly composed of such direct exhortations. This somewhat extensive work has come down to us in its entirety in the Greek text which was published for the first time by Grabe (1698) although from the beginning of the sixteenth century a good many printed copies of a Latin version prepared in the thirteenth by Robert Grossetest Bishop of Lincoln had been in circulation.

The book as we now have it contains a great many direct allusions to the incarnation of God in Christ for which reason almost all modern critics look upon it as the production of a Christian author. But it is extremely doubtful whether this is a correct view of the matter and whether we ought not rather to assume that the work in its original form is of Jewish authorship and that the passages that are of a Christian character were interpolated at some later date. As is indicated by the title itself the book consists of the spiritual “testaments” which the twelve sons of Jacob left behind them for their descendants. In each of those testaments three different elements may be distinguished. (1) The patriarch in each instance rehearses in the first place the history of his own life in the course of which he either charges himself with sins he has committed (as is done by the majority of them) or on the other hand boasts of his virtues. The biographical notices follow the lines of the Biblical narrative although after the fashion of the Haggadean Midrash they are enriched with a large number of fresh details. (2) The patriarch then proceeds to address to his descendants a number of appropriate exhortations based upon the preceding autobiographical sketch urging them to beware of the sin that had been the cause of such deep distress to their ancestor and in the event of his being able to boast of something redounding to his credit recommending them to imitate his virtuous behaviour. The subject on which the exhortations turn is as a rule one that happens to have a very intimate connection with the biographical notices the patriarch’s descendants being warned precisely against that sin or it may be to imitate that virtue which had been exemplified in his own life. (3) But besides this we also find toward the end of each of the testaments (with the exception perhaps of that of Gad where this point is only briefly hinted at) certain predictions regarding the future of the particular tribe in question the patriarch for example predicting that his descendants would one day apostatize from God or what sometimes appears to amount to the same thing sever their connection with the tribes of Levi and Judah and thereby involve themselves in misery and especially the evils of captivity and dispersion. This prediction is frequently accompanied with an exhortation to adhere to the tribes of Levi and Judah. On the other hand these predictions are interspersed with a large number of very direct references to redemption through Christ.

The circles of thought in these “testaments” are of a very heterogeneous character. On the one hand they contain a great deal that it seems impossible to explain except on the assumption that they were composed by a Jewish author. The history of the patriarchs is amplified precisely in the style of the Haggadean Midrash. The author assumes that salvation is in store only for the children of Shem while those of Ham are doomed to destruction (Simeon 6). He manifests a lively interest in the Jewish tribes as such; he deplores their apostasy and dispersion; he exhorts them to cleave to the tribes of Levi and Judah as being those which God has specially called to be the leaders of the others; he cherishes the hope of their ultimate conversion and deliverance. It is true no doubt that in his positive injunctions he nowhere inculcates the observance of the ceremonial law such injunctions being more of a moral character throughout nearly the entire book and consisting for example of warnings against the sins of envy avarice anger lying incontinency exhortations to the love of one’s neighbour compassion integrity and such like. But at the same time he does not fail to speak of the priestly sacrificial worship and that even with many details introduced into it not met with in the Old Testament itself as being an institution of divine appointment. On the other hand again we also meet with numerous passages which can only have been written by a Christian passages which teach the Christian doctrine of the universal character of salvation as well as that of redemption through the incarnation of God nay in one instance there is a distinct reference to the Apostle Paul (Benjamin 11). The Christology upon which those passages proceed is of a decidedly patripassian character.

Grabe who was the first to edit the Greek text already endeavoured to account for those incongruities by the hypothesis that the book was written by a Jew but had been subsequently interpolated by a Christian. All modern critics however (since Nitzsch) have entirely dismissed this hypothesis and the only point on which there is a difference of opinion amongst them is as to whether the author occupied the standpoint of a Jewish or a Gentile Christian. The former is the prevailing view; the latter was propounded by Ritschl in the first edition of his Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche was subsequently adopted by Vorstman and Hilgenfeld but was ultimately abandoned again by Ritschl himself. At the same time there was no doubt a feeling on the part of many that it would be impossible to solve the difficulty without having recourse to the interpolation hypothesis. Kayser above all tried to demonstrate the existence of a tolerably large number of such interpolations. But even in his case the matter is dealt with only incidentally to enable him to maintain the view as to the Jewish-Christian character of the writing. It was reserved for Schnapp to enter in a systematic manner into the question as to whether the whole work had not been reconstructed from beginning to end. He endeavoured to show that to the book in its original form belonged only the parts mentioned under Nos. 1 and 2 above i.e. merely the biographical narratives and their accompanying exhortations. But he seeks to prove that all those portions in which the future fortunes of the tribes are predicted with some other things of a kindred nature (visions in particular) are to be regarded as later interpolations though he distinguishes at the same time between Jewish and Christian interpolations. He thinks that the bulk of these interpolations would be made by a Jewish hand but that into these again numerous references to the redemption through Christ had been afterwards inserted by a Christian hand. He considers therefore that the original work itself must also have been of Jewish origin. It appears to me that the latter part of this hypothesis in so far that is as the Christian revision is concerned has at all events hit the mark. It would be vain to attempt to reduce the heterogeneous utterances in our Testaments to a common Jewish-Christian standpoint all of them that bear a specifically Christian stamp being without exception of a Gentile-Christian and universalist character. The salvation is destined εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη. The Christology is the patripassian Christology that so largely prevailed in many quarters in the Christian Church during the second and third centuries. There is nothing here that can be said to indicate a “Jewish-Christian” standpoint. Again it is impossible to reconcile with the Christian passages in question that series of utterances characterized above which can only have emanated from a Jewish author. How is it ever to be supposed that a Christian ay or even a Jewish-Christian author should think of characterizing the tribes of Levi and Judah as those to whom God had committed the guidance of Israel. Then what could we conceive such an author to mean by exhorting the rest of the tribes to join themselves to the two just mentioned and to submit themselves to their authority? Why it was precisely the tribes of Levi and Judah i.e. the official Judaism of Palestine that distinguished themselves above all the others in the way of rejecting the gospel. We can hardly imagine therefore that even a Jewish-Christian author would be likely to represent them as occupying the leading position above referred to. Nor does he so represent them as one who is merely taking a theoretical survey of history and as though he meant to censure the defection from the tribes of Levi and Judah merely as a thing of the past. But he also urges a loyal adherence to those tribes as a present duty. Nor can we here suppose that Levi is intended to represent the Christian clergy. For what in that case would Judah be supposed to represent? Then there is the further circumstance that many of the Christian passages obviously disturb the connection and thus proclaim themselves to be interpolations at the very outset. What is more the much canvassed passage regarding Paul in the Testament of Benjamin (11) is wanting in the case of two independent testimonies among the manuscripts and versions as at present known to us namely in the Roman manuscript and the Armenian version. From all this it may be regarded as tolerably certain that all the Christian passages are to be ascribed to some interpolator who with a Jewish original before him introduced modifications here and there to adapt it to the purposes and needs of the Christian Church. This assumption will also enable us to explain how it comes to be stated in our Testaments that Christ was a descendant of the tribes of Levi and Judah alike. How it would ever occur to a Christian author himself to emphasize this point so much even supposing Mary to have belonged to the tribe of Levi it is difficult to see for in the primitive Christian tradition it was only upon the descent from Judah that stress was laid. But the matter becomes perfectly intelligible when we assume that the author had a text before him in which Levi and Judah were held up as the chosen and model tribes. For finding this in his text he proceeds to justify it from his Christian standpoint by representing Christ as descended from the tribe of Levi in His capacity as priest and from that of Judah in His capacity as king it being left an open question whether he assumes the Levitical descent of Mary or has in view only some spiritual connection on the part of Christ with both those tribes in virtue of His twofold office of priest and king. It is further worthy of note that deviating from his Jewish original the Christian interpolator as a rule puts the tribe of Judah first. How long or short those Christian interpolations may have been it is not always possible to determine with any degree of certainty. It is probable however that they were on a larger scale than Schnapp is inclined to suppose.

It is rather more difficult to answer this other question namely whether this Jewish original itself was not the production of several authors. The grounds on which Schnapp bases his attempt to distinguish and eliminate the prophetic portions of the book are not quite so cogent in the case of Christian passages. At the same time there is no denying that in most instances those predictions start up in the book with a remarkable suddenness. The Testaments seem to have been intended in the first instance to serve as a kind of moral sermon. They concern themselves as a rule with some special sin or other of which the patriarch had been guilty and against which he warns his descendants. When we find then that all of a sudden and in quite a general way there comes in some prediction about the falling away of the tribes and that without any further notice being taken of the special sin that had been previously treated of it becomes evident at once that the connection is thereby interrupted and disturbed all the more that the terms with which the Testaments conclude are such as imply that they had been preceded by exhortations and exhortations alone. Comp. above all Simeon 5–7; Levi 14–19; Judah 21–25; Dan 5. In any case we can have no difficulty in detecting in the Testaments a good many interpolations of considerable length even apart from those passages that are of a specifically Christian kind; take for example the two visions in the Testament of Levi 2–5 and 8 which only interrupt the connection. Then in the biographical portion of the Testament of Joseph we find two perfectly parallel narratives coming the one immediately after the other (chaps. 1–10 and 10–18) of which only one can be supposed to be the original one. Again in the course of what is said with regard to the tribe of Levi we come across this glaring contradiction that while on the one hand it is recommended to the other tribes as their leader it is represented on the other as having itself fallen away nay as having been instrumental in seducing the rest into apostasy (Levi 14; Dan 5). Both those classes of statements cannot possibly have emanated from one and the same person. We may therefore say that in any case the Testaments have undergone repeated revision and remodification. But this much however may be held as certain that the great bulk of the book is of Jewish origin. The foremost place in it is assigned to these moral sermons which remind us partly of Jesus the Son of Sirach and partly of Philo and which must have emanated from some author to whom moral conduct was a matter of deeper interest than the ceremonial law. Along with these we have prophetic passages composed by the same or some other author in which the falling away from Levi and Judah is represented as being the cause of all evil while the members of the nation scattered throughout the whole world are recommended to enter into close relationship with these tribes therefore with the leading circles of Palestine. On the date of the composition of our book it is impossible to express anything like a definite opinion. As it is probable that the Christian revision was already known to Irenaeus the Jewish original cannot have been composed later than the first century of our era though on the other hand we can scarcely venture to refer it to an earlier date seeing that the author probably made use of the Book of Jubilees (see below). In several passages the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is presupposed (Levi 15; Dan 5 fin.). But it is extremely doubtful whether these are to be regarded as belonging to the work in its original shape. Possibly they were subsequently inserted by some Christian hand.

On the references in our book to earlier writings see Sinker Testamenta XII. Patriarcharum (1869) pp. 34–48; Dillmann in Ewald’s Jahrb. der bibl. Wissensch. iii. 91–94; Rönsch Das Buch der Jubiläen (1874) pp. 325 sqq. 415 sqq. References to the predictions of Enoch are of very frequent occurrence (Simeon 5; Levi 10 14 16; Judah 18; Zebulon 3; Dan 5; Naphtali 4; Benjamin 9). These passages all belong to the prophetic sections though in the majority of instances they are not actual quotations but free allusions to alleged predictions of Enoch with the view of explaining how the patriarchs obtained their information with regard to the future. Surely from this it is perfectly obvious that the author must have already been acquainted with one or more of the various books bearing the name of Enoch. In the biographical portions therefore in those sections which undoubtedly belong to the original work there are numerous coincidences with the Book of Jubilees. But neither are these absent from those portions which according to Schnapp are supposed to belong to the author of the Jewish revision. See in general Dillmann and Rönsch as above.

In patristic literature the notion of the descent of Christ from the tribes of Levi and Judah is met with as early as the time of Irenaeus which notion is probably to be traced to our book; see Irenaeus Fragm. xvii. (ed. Harvey ii. 487): Ἐξ ὦν ὁ Χριστὸς προετυπώθη καὶ ἐκεγνώσθη καὶ ἐγεννήθη• ἐν μὲν γὰρ τῷ Ἰωσὴφ προετυπώθη• ἐκ δὲ τοῦ Λευὶ καὶ τοῦ Ἰούδα τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ὡς βασιλεὺς καὶ ἱερεὺς ἐγεννήθη• διὰ δὲ τοῦ Συμεὼν ἐν τῷ ναῷ ἐπεγνώσθη κ.τ.λ. The passages in Tertullian Adv. Marcion. v. 1 Scorpiace xiii. which since Grabe’s time (Spicileg. i. 132) have usually been traced to the Testament of Benjamin 11 are simply based on Gen. 49:27; similarly Hippolyt. ed. Lagarde p. 140 fragm. 50. It is not unlikely that the passage about Paul in Benjamin 11 would be inserted in the text of the Testament at a very late period and that on the strength of the patristic interpretation of Gen. 49:27; comp. p. 119. The Testaments are expressly quoted by Origen In Josuam homil. xv. 6 (ed. de la Rue ii. 435; Lommatzsch xi. 143): Sed et in aliquo quodam libello qui appellatur testamentum duodecim patriarcharum quamvis non habeatur in canone talem tamen quendam sensum invenimus quod per singulos peccantes singuli satanae intelligi debeant (comp. Reuben 3). It is doubtful whether Procopius Gazaeus may be supposed to have our book in view in his Comment. in Gen. xxxviii. (see the passage in Sinker’s Test. XII. Patr. p. 4). In the Stichometry of Nicephorus the Πατριάρχαι are included among the ἀπόκρυφα along with Enoch the Assumptio Mosis and such like (Credner Zur Gesch. des Kanons p. 121); similarly in the Synopsis Athanasii (Credner p. 145) and in the anonymous list of canonical books edited by Montfaucon Pitra and others (on which see p. 126 below). In the Constitut. apostol. vi. 16 mention is made of an apocryphal work entitled οἱ τρεῖς πατριάρχαι which must be different from the book now in question unless there has been some mistake with regard to the number.

Four manuscripts of the Greek text are extant: (1) A Cambridge one belonging to the tenth century; (2) an Oxford one belonging to the fourteenth (on both of which see Sinker’s Test. XII. Patr. pp. vi–xi.); (3) a manuscript in the Vatican Library belonging to the thirteenth century; and (4) one in the cloister of St. John in Patmos belonging to the sixteenth (on both of which again see Sinker Appendix 1879 pp. 1–7). In addition to these we should also mention as independent testimonies (1) the as yet unprinted Armenian version eight manuscripts of which have been verified by Sinker and the oldest of which dates from the year 1220 A.D. (Sinker Appendix pp. 23–27 and p. vii. sq.); and (2) the Old Slavonic version which was published by Tichonrawow in his Pamjatniki otretschennoi russkoi literatury (2 vols. Petersburg 1863) but which has not yet been submitted to critical investigation.

As yet no trace has been discovered of any early Latin version. But coming down to the thirteenth century we find the Latin version of Robert Grossetest Bishop of Lincoln and which as Sinker has shown is based upon the Cambridge manuscript (see Grabe’s Spicileg. i. 144; Sinker Appendix p. 8). This version has come down to us through numerous manuscripts (Sinker’s Test. pp. xi.–xv. Appendix p. 9) and since the beginning of the sixteenth century it has not only been frequently printed (at first without place or date being given though probably about 1510–1520 see Sinker Appendix p. 10; on the later impressions consult Sinker Test. p. xvi. sq.) but likewise translated into almost every modern language—English French German Dutch Danish Icelandic Bohemian while these translations again were also frequently printed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Sinker Appendix pp. 11–23).

The first edition of the Greek text was prepared by Grabe who based it upon the Cambridge manuscript collating it at the same time with the Oxford one. This edition also contained Grossetest’s Latin version for which two manuscripts belonging to the Bodleian Library were made use of (Grabe Spicilegium Patrum vol. i. Oxon. 1698 2nd ed. 1714; on the use of the manuscripts see p. 336 sq.). Grabe’s text has been reproduced by Fabricius (Codex pseudepigraphus Vet. Test. vol. i. Hamburg 1713) Gallandi (Bibliotheca veterum patrum vol. i. Venetiis 1788) and Migne (Patrolog. graec. vol. ii.). A careful edition of the Cambridge manuscript accompanied with the variants of the Oxford one has been printed by Sinker (Testamenta XII. Patriarcharum ad fidem codicis Cantabrigiensis edita accedunt lectiones cod. Oxoniensis Cambridge 1869). Some time after this same scholar published in an Appendix a collation of the Vatican and the Patmos manuscripts (Testamenta XII. Patriarcharum: Appendix containing a collation of the Roman and Patmos MSS. and bibliographical notes Cambridge 1879).

Special disquisitions: Grabe in his edition (Spicileg. i. 129–144 and 335–374). Corrodi Kritische Geschichte des Chiliasmus ii. 101–110. K. J. Nitzsch. Commentatio critica de Testamentis XII. Patriarcharum libro V. T. pseudepigrapho Wittenberg 1810. Wieseler Die 70 Wochen und die 63 Jahrwochen des Propheten Daniel (1839) p. 226 sqq. Lücke Einl. in die Offenbarung Johannis (2nd ed. 1852) pp. 334–337. Dorner Entwicklungsgesch. der Lehre von der Person Christi i. 254–264. Reuss Gesch. der heil. Schriften Neuen Testaments § 257. Ritschl Die Entstehung der alt-kathol. Kirche (2nd ed. 1857) pp. 172–177. Kayser “Die Test. der XII. Patr.” in the Beiträge zu den theologischen Wissenschaften edited by Reuss and Cunitz 3 vols. (1851) pp. 107–140. Vorstman Disquisitio de Testamentorum Patriarcharum XII. origine et pretio Rotterd. 1857. Hilgenfeld Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1858 p. 395 sqq.; 1871 p. 302 sqq. Van Hengel “De Testamenten der twaalf Patriarchen op nieuw ter sprake gebragt” (Godgeleerde Bijdragen 1860). Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel vii. 363–369. Langen Das Judenthum in Palästina (1866) pp. 140–157. Sinker in his edition. Geiger Jüdische Zeitschr. für Wissensch. und Leben 1869 pp. 116–135; 1871 pp. 123–125. Friedr. Nitzsch Grundriss der christl. Dogmengeschichte vol. i. 1870 pp. 109–111. Renan L’église chrétienne (1879) pp. 268–271. An article in The Presbyterian Review for January 1880 (mentioned by Bissell The Apocrypha p. 671). Dillmann art. “Pseudepigraphen” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. vol. xii. p. 361 sq. Schnapp Die Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen untersucht Halle 1884 (and notice of this work in the Theolog. Literaturzeitung 1885 p. 203).

7. The Lost Pseudepigraphic Prophecies

Besides the pseudepigraphic prophecies that have come down to us many others of a similar description were in circulation in the early Church as we learn partly from the lists of the canon and partly from quotations found in the Fathers. In the case of most of them it is of course no longer possible to determine with any certainty whether they were of Jewish or of Christian origin. But considering that in the earliest days of the Christian Church this was a species of literary activity that flourished chiefly among the heretical sects and that it was not till a somewhat later period that it began to be cultivated in Catholic circles as well it may be assumed with some degree of probability that those Old Testament pseudepigraphic writings which are mentioned in terms of high respect by the earliest of the Fathers down say to Origen inclusive are to be regarded generally as being of Jewish and not of Christian origin. With the criterion thus obtained we may combine still another. We happen to have several lists of the canon in which the Old Testament Apocrypha are enumerated with great completeness. Now among the writings thus enumerated occur those which have come down to us (Enoch the Twelve Patriarchs the Assumptio Mosis the Psalms of Solomon) and which are undoubtedly of Jewish origin. This then must surely be regarded as sufficiently justifying the conjecture that the others would also be of similar origin. The lists in question are the following:—

1. The so-called Stichometry of Nicephorus i.e. a list of the canonical and apocryphal books of the Old and New Testaments along with the number of verses in each book and which list is given as an appendix to the Chronographia compendiaria of Nicephorus Constantinopolitanus (about 800 A.D.) though it is without doubt of a considerably earlier origin (printed in the appendix to Dindorf’s edition of George Syncellus further in a critically amended text given by Credner in two programmes for the University of Giessen 1832–1838 and also reproduced in Credner’s Zur Geschichte des Kanons 1847 pp. 117–122 but best of all in de Boor’s Nicephori opuscula Lips. 1880). Here the list of the Old Testament ἀπόκρυφα runs thus (ed. de Boor p. 134 sq.):—

αʹ              Ἐνὼχ στίχων ͵δωʹ (4800).

βʹ              Πατριάρχαι στίχων ͵ερʹ (5100).

γʹ              Προσευχὴ Ἰωσὴφ στίχων ͵αρʹ (1100).

δʹ              Διαθήκη Μωϋσέως στίχων ͵αρʹ (1100).

εʹ              Ἀνάληψις Μωϋσέως στίχων ͵αυʹ (1400).

ςʹ              Ἀβραὰμ στίχων τʹ (300).

ζʹ              Ἐλὰδ (sic) καὶ Μωδὰδ στίχων υʹ (400).

ηʹ              Ἡλία προφήτου στίχων τιςʹ (316).

θʹ              Σοφονίου προφήτου στίχων χʹ (600).

ιʹ              Ζαχαρίου πατρὸς Ἰωάννου στίχων φʹ (500).

ιαʹ              Βαρούχ Ἀμβακούμ Ἰεζεκιὴλ καὶ Δανιὴλ ψευδεπίγραφα.

2. The so-called Synopsis Athanasii which simply reproduces from the Stichometry of Nicephorus the section containing the Apocrypha without giving however the number of the verses (Credner Zur Geschichte des Kanons p. 145).

3. Akin to this latter is an anonymous list which was published: (a) from a Codex Coislinianus belonging to the tenth century by Montfaucon Bibliotheca Coisliniana Paris 1715 p. 194; (b) from a Cod. Paris. Regius by Cotelier Patrum Apost. Opp. vol. i. 1698 p. 196; (c) from a Cod. Baroccianus by Hody De Bibliorum textibus 1705 p. 649 col. 44 (those three manuscripts are based upon each other in the order just given and as may be seen from a more careful comparing of them with the text); and lastly (d) from a Codex Vaticanus by Pitra Juris ecclesiastici Graecorum historia et monumenta vol. i. Romae 1864 p. 100. As appears from the numbering there is an omission in the three first-mentioned manuscripts (No. 8 being left out). According to Pitra the complete list of the ἀπόκρυφα is as follows:—

αʹ              Ἀδάμ.

βʹ              Ἐνώχ.

γʹ              Λάμεχ.

δʹ              Πατριάρχαι.

εʹ              Ἰωσὴφ προσευχή.

ςʹ              Ἐλδὰμ καὶ Μοδάμ (al. Ἐλδὰδ καὶ Μωδάδ).

ζʹ              Διαθήκη Μωσέως.

ηʹ              Ἡ ἀνάληψις Μωσέως.

θʹ              Ψαλμοὶ Σολομῶντος.

ιʹ              Ἡλίου ἀποκάλυψις.

ιαʹ              Ἡσαίου ὅρασις.

ιβʹ              Σοφονίου ἀποκάλυψις.

ιγʹ              Ζαχαρίου ἀποκάλυψις.

ιδʹ              Ἔσδρα ἀποκάλυψις.

ιέ              Ἰακώβου ἱστορία.

ιςʹ              Πέτρου ἀποκάλυψις and so on (these being followed by other New Testament Apocrypha).

This list is in the main identical with that of the Stichometry of Nicephorus. With a single exception (No. 6 Ἀβραάμ) the whole of the first ten numbers of the Stichometry are reproduced in it. But besides this these nine numbers have this in common with each other that they are probably all of them prophetic pseudepigraphs i.e. writings purporting to have been composed by the various men of God whose names they bear or at all events containing a record of revelations with which those men are alleged to have been favoured a circumstance which probably accounts for their comparatively wide circulation throughout the Church. The last of the nine here in question shows by its title Ζαχαρίου πατρὸς Ἰωάννου that it belongs to the Christian Apocrypha. With regard to the others four of them have already been considered by us (Enoch. the Patriarchs the Testament and the Ascension of Moses; on the two latter see p. 81) while the remaining four (Joseph’s Prayer Eldad and Modad Elias Zephaniah) are all quoted with deference either by Origen or by some still older Fathers and may therefore be regarded with a certain degree of probability as Jewish products. Consequently they fall to be more fully considered by us here.

1. Joseph’s Prayer (Προσευχὴ Ἰωσήφ). For the information we possess regarding this production we are indebted above all to repeated quotations from it found in Origen. This Father speaks of it as “a writing not to be despised” (οὐκ εὐκαταφρόνητον γραφήν) and expressly states that it was in use among the Jews (παρʼ Ἑβραίοις). In the passages quoted it is Jacob who figures all through describing himself as the first-born of all living beings nay as the head of all the angels themselves. He informs us that when he was coming from Mesopotamia he met Uriel who wrestled with him and claimed to be the foremost of the angels. But he says that he corrected him and told him that he Uriel was only the eighth in rank after himself. In another passage Jacob states that he had had an opportunity of inspecting the heavenly records and that there he read the future destinies of men.

Origen In Joann. vol. ii. chap. xxv. (Opp. ed. de la Rue iv. 84; Lommatzsch i. 147): Εἰ δέ τις προσίεται καὶ τῶν παρʼ Ἑβραίοις φερομένων ἀποκρύφων τὴν ἐπιγραφομένην Ἰωσὴφ προσευχὴν ἄντικρυς τοῦτο τὸ δόγμα καὶ σαφῶς εἰρημένον ἐκεῖθεν λήψεται … Φησὶ γοῦν ὁ Ἰακώβ• “Ὁ γὰρ λαλῶν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐγὼ Ἰακὼβ καὶ Ἰσραὴλ ἄγγελος θεοῦ εἰμι ἐγὼ καὶ πνεῦμα ἀρχικόν• καὶ Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ προεκτίσθησαν πρὸ παντὸς ἔργου• ἐγὼ δὲ Ἰακὼβ ὁ κληθεὶς ὑπὸ ἀνθρώπων Ἰακὼβ τὸ δὲ ὄνομά μου Ἰσραὴλ ὁ κληθεὶς ὑπὸ θεοῦ Ἰσραὴλ ἀνὴρ όρῶν θεὸν ὅτι ἐγὼ πρωτόγονος παντὸς ζώου ζωουμένου ὑπὀ θεοῦ.” Καὶ ἐπιφέρει• “Ἐγὼ δὲ ὅτε ἠρχόμην ἀπὸ Μεσοποταμίας τῆς Συρίας ἐξῆλθεν Οὐριὴλ ὁ ἄγγελος τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ εἶπεν ὅτι κατέβην ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ κατεσκήνωσα ἐν ἀνθρώποις• καὶ ὅτι ἐκλήθην ὀνόματι Ἰακώβ ἐζήλωσε καὶ ἐμαχέσατό μοι καὶ ἐπάλαιε πρὸς μὲ λέγων• προτερήσειν ἐπάνω τοῦ ὀνόματός μου τὸ ὄνομα αὑτοῦ καὶ τοῦ πρὸ [l. πρὸ τοῦ] παντὸς ἀγγέλου. Καὶ εἶπα αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ καὶ πόσος ἐστὶν ἐν υἱοῖς θεοῦ• οὐχὶ σὺ Οὐριὴλ ὄγδοος ἐμοῦ κἀγὼ Ἰσραὴλ ἀρχάγγελος δυνάμεως κυρίου καὶ ἀρχιχιλίαρχός εἰμι ἐν υἱοῖς θεοῦ; οὐχὶ ἐγὼ Ἰσραὴλ ὁ ἐν προσώπῳ θεοῦ λειτουργὸς πρῶτος καὶ ἐπεκαλεσάμην ἐν ὀνόματι ἀσβέστῳ τὸν θεόν μου.”

Origen ibid. (Lommatzsch i. 148): Ἐπὶ πλεῖον δὲ παρεξέβημεν παραλαβόντες τὸν περὶ Ἰακὼβ λόγον καὶ μαρτυράμενοι ἡμῖν οὐκ εὐκαταφρόνητον γραφήν.

Origen Fragm. comment. in Genes. vol. iii. chap. ix. toward the end (ed. de la Rue ii. 15; Lommatzsch viii. 30 sq. = Euseb. Praep. evang. vi. 11. 64 ed. Gaisford): Διόπερ ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ δύναται οὕτω νοεῖσθαι τὸ λεγόμενον ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἰακώβ• “Ἀνέγνων γὰρ ἐν ταῖς πλαξὶ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὅσα συμβήσεται ὑμῖν καὶ τοῖς υἱοῖς ὑμῶν." Comp. also ibid. chap. xii. toward the end of the chapter (ed. de la Rue ii. 19; Lommatzsch viii. 38) where the contents of the somewhat lengthened fragment first quoted are given in an abridged form.

Fabricius Codex pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 761–771. Dillmann art. “Pseudepigraphen” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. xii. 362.

2. The book entitled Eldad and Modad. This was a writing that was circulated under the name of two Israelites called אֶלדָּד and מֵידָד (Sept. Ἐλδὰδ καὶ Μωδάδ) who according to Num. 11:26–29 uttered certain predictions in the camp during the march through the wilderness. Besides being mentioned in the lists of the Apocrypha this book is also quoted in the Shepherd of Hermas and that as a genuine prophetical work. According to the Targum of Jonathan on Num. 11:26–29 the predictions of the two personages here in question had reference chiefly to Magog’s final attack upon the congregation of Israel. But whether this may be regarded as indicating what the theme of our book is likely to have been is extremely doubtful.

Hermas Pastor Vis. ii. 3: Ἐγγὺς κύριος τοῖς ἐπιστρεφομένοις ὡς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἐλδὰδ καὶ Μωδάτ τοῖς προφητεύσασιν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ τῷ λαῷ.

The Targum of Jonathan on the Pentateuch is given in the fourth volume of the London Polyglot along with a Latin translation. Comp. also Beer “Eldad und Medad im Pseudojonathan” (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1857 pp. 346–350). Weber System der altsynagogalen palästinischen Theologie 1880 p. 370.

Fabricius Codex pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 801–804. Dillmann art. “Pseudepigraphen” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. xii. 363. Cotelier Hilgenfeld and Harnack in their editions of the Shepherd of Hermas notes on Vision ii. 3.

3. The Apocalypse of Elijah. The prophet Elijah has this in common with Enoch. that like him he was taken up to heaven without dying. Consequently in the legends of the saints he is often associated with Enoch (for the literature of this see Enoch. p. 70) and like this latter could not fail to be regarded as a peculiarly suitable medium through which to communicate heavenly revelations. A writing bearing his name is mentioned in the Constitut. apostol. vi. 16 and in the patristic quotations simply as an Apocryphum. According to the more exact titles as given in the lists of the Apocrypha (Ἡλία προφήτου in Nicephorus Ἡλίου ἀποκάλυψις in the anonymous list) and in Jerome (see below) this book was a somewhat short apocalyptic work consisting according to the Stichometry of Nicephorus of 316 verses. It is often mentioned by Origen and subsequent ecclesiastical writers as being the source of a quotation made by Paul and which cannot be traced to any part of the Old Testament (1 Cor. 2:9: καθὼς γέγραπται• ἃ ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ εἶδεν καὶ οὖς οὐκ ἤκουσεν καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἀνέβη κ.τ.λ.). No doubt Jerome strongly protests against the notion that Paul is here quoting an apocryphal work. But the thing is not at all incredible for do we not find that the Book of Enoch has also been undoubtedly quoted by the author of the Epistle of Jude? If that be so then this circumstance serves at the same time to prove the early existence and Jewish origin of the Apocalypse of Elijah. This same passage that is quoted in First Corinthians is likewise quoted by Clemens Romanus chap. xxxiv. fin. Now as non-canonical quotations occur elsewhere in Clement it is just possible that he in like manner has made use of the Apocalypse of Elijah. At the same time it is more likely that he has borrowed the quotation from the First Epistle to the Corinthians. According to Epiphanius the passage Eph. 5:14 (ἔγειρε ὁ καθεύδων καὶ ἀνάστα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν καὶ ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ Χριστός) was also taken from our Apocryphum. But seeing that Origen makes no mention of this in his collations of passages of this sort that statement is of a very questionable character and probably rests upon some confusion or other. According to Euthalius Eph. 5:14 was taken from an apocryphal work that bore the name of Jeremiah.

Origen Comment. ad Matth. xxvii. 9 (de la Rue iii. 916; Lommatzsch v. 29): Et apostolus scripturas quasdam secretorum profert sicut dicit alicubi: “quod oculus non vidit nec auris audivit” (1 Cor. 2:9); in nullo enim regulari libro hoc positum invenitur nisi in secretis Eliae prophetae. Comp. further Comment. ad Matt. xxiii. 37 (de la Rue iii. 848; Lommatzsch iv. 237 sqq.) where in connection with the saying of Christ that Jerusalem killed the prophets Origen observes that the Old Testament records only a single instance of a prophet being put to death in Jerusalem and then proceeds to add: Propterea videndum ne forte oporteat ex libris secretioribus qui apud Judaeos feruntur ostendere verbum Christi et non solum Christi sed etiam discipulorum ejus (for example such further statements as Heb. 11:37) … Fertur ergo in scripturis non manifestis serratum esse Jesaiam et Zachariam occisum et Ezechielem. Arbitror autem circuisse in melotis [ἐν μηλωταῖς Heb. 11:37] in pellibis caprinis Eliam qui in solitudine et in montibus vagabatur. And so among the other passages that go to prove that apocryphal books are sometimes referred to in the New Testament we should also include 1 Cor. 2:9. Lastly Origen goes on to observe: Oportet ergo caute considerare ut nec omnia secreta quae feruntur in nomine sanctorum suscipiamus propter Judaeos qui forte ad destructionem veritatis scripturarum nostrarum quaedam finxerunt confirmantes dogmata falsa nec omnia abjiciamus quae pertinent ad demonstrationem scripturarum nostrarum. The whole connection here plainly shows that it is exclusively Jewish Apocrypha that Origen has in view.

Euthalius in his learned statistical work on the Epistles of Paul (458 A.D.) likewise traces 1 Cor. 2:9 to the Apocalypse of Elijah (Zaccagni Collectanea monumentorum veterum Romae 1698 p. 556 = Gallandi Biblioth. patrum x. 258). In this he is followed by Syncellus ed. Dindorf i. 48 and an anonymous list of quotations in Paul’s Epistles which is given (a) by Montfaucon (Diarium Italicum p. 212 sq. and Bibliotheca Bibliothecarum i. 195) from a Codex Basilianus and (b) by Cotelier (in his edition of the Apostolic Fathers note on Constitut. apost. vi. 16) from two Parisian manuscripts.

Jerome Epist. 57 ad Pammachium chap. ix. (Opp. ed. Vallarsi i. 314): Pergamus ad apostolum Paulum. Scribit ad Corinthios: Si enim cognovissent Dominum gloriae etc. (1 Cor. 2:8–9).… Solent in hoc loco apocryphorum quidam deliramenta sectari et dicere quod de apocalypsi Eliae testimonium sumtum sit etc. (Jerome then traces the quotation to Isa. 44:3). Idem Comment. in Jesaijam lxiv. 3 [al. lxiv. 4] (Vallarsi iv. 761): Parapbrasim hujus testimonii quasi Hebraeus ex Hebraeis assumit apostolus Paulus de authenticis libris in epistola quam scribit ad Corinthios (1 Cor. 2:9) non verbum ex verbo reddens quod facere omnino contemnit sed sensuum exprimens veritatem quibus utitur ad id quod voluerit roborandum. Unde apocryphorum deliramenta conticeant quae ex occasione hujus testimonii ingeruntur ecclesiis Christi.… Ascensio enim Isaiae et Apocalypsis Eliae hoc habent testimonium.

Clemens Rom. chap. xxxiv. fin.: λέγει γάρ• Ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ εἶδεν καὶ οὖς οὐκ ἤκουσεν καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἀνέβη ὅσα ἡτοίμασεν τοῖς ὑπομένουσιν αὐτόν (in St. Paul: τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν). Comp. the note on this in Gebhardt and Harnack’s edition. The passage is also frequently quoted elsewhere in patristic literature and was a special favourite with the Gnostics; see Hilgenfeld Die apostol. Väter p. 102; Ritschl Die Entstehung der altkathol. Kirche p. 267 sq.

Epiphanius Haer. xlii. p. 372 ed. Petav. (Dindorf ii. 388): “Διὸ λέγει ἔγειρε ὁ καθεύδων καὶ ἀνάστα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν καὶ ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ Χριστός” (Eph. 5:14). Πόθεν τῷ ἀποστόλῳ τὸ “διὸ καὶ λέγει” ἀλλὰ ἀπὸ τῆς παλαιᾶς δῆλον διαθήκη; τοῦτο δὲ ἐμφέρεται παρὰ τῷ Ἠλίᾳ. Hippolytus De Christo et Antichr. chap. lxv. quotes the same passage (Eph. 5:14) with the formula ὁ προφήτης λέγει and with a slight deviation in regard to the terms (ἐξεγέρθητι instead of ἀνάστα). It also occurs with the same deviation and with the formula ἡ γραφὴ λέγει in an utterance of the Naasenes quoted by Hippolytus (Philosophum. v. 7 p. 146 ed. Duncker). But both those quotations are undoubtedly to be traced simply to the Epistle to the Ephesians (Hilgenfeld Nov. Test. extra canonem receptum 2nd ed. iv. 74 thinks though without any distinct ground for doing so that they may have been taken from the Apocalypse of Peter). According to Euthalius Eph. 5:14 formed part of an Apocryphum that bore the name of Jeremiah (Zaccagni Collectanea monumentorum veterum p. 561 = Gallandi Biblioth. patr. x. 260). Similarly Syncellus ed. Dindorf i. 48 and the above-mentioned anonymous list of Paul’s quotations from the Scriptures which simply reproduces Euthalius. We may safely venture to assume that this Apocryphum bearing the name of Jeremiah was itself of Christian origin.

The work by the Hellenist Eupolemus περὶ τῆς Ἠλίου προφητείας (Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 30) has nothing to do with our Apocryphum. On this see sec. 33. Isr. Levi endeavours to make out the probable existence of a Hebrew Apocalypse of Elijah on the strength of two Talmudic passages (Sanhedrin 97b; Joma 19b) where certain utterances of Elijah regarding questions of Messianic dogma happen to be quoted (Revue des études juives vol. i. 1880 p. 108 sqq.). On a passage of this sort from post-Talmudic times see Jellinek Bet-ha-Midrash vol. iii.

Fabricius Cod. pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 1070–1086. Lücke Einleitung in die Offenbarung des Johannes 2nd ed. p. 235 sq. Bleek Stud. u. Krit. 1853 p. 330 sq. Dillmann in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. xii. 359. The commentaries on 1 Cor. 2:9 and Eph. 5:14.

4. The Apocalypse of Zephaniah. Apart from the Stichometry of Nicephorus and the anonymous list of the Apocrypha (see p. 126) all we know of this writing is from a quotation in Clement of Alexandria.

Clemens Alex. Strom. v. 11. 77: Ἆρʼ οὐχ ὅμοια ταῦτα τοῖς ὑπὸ Σοφονία λεχθεῖσι τοῦ προφήτου; “καὶ ἀνέλαβέν με πνεῦμα καὶ ἀνήνεγκέν με εἰς οὐρανὸν πέμπτον καὶ ἐθεώρουν ἀγγέλους καλουμένους κυρίους καὶ τὸ διάδημα αὐτῶν ἐπικείμενον ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ ἦν ἑκάστου αὐτῶν ὁ θρόνος ἑπταπλασίων φωτὸς ἡλίου ἀνατέλλοντος οἰκοῦντας ἐν ναοῖς σωτηρίας καὶ ὑμνοῦντας θεὸν ἄρρητον ὕψιστον.”

Fabricius Cod. pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 1140 sq. Dillmann in Herzog’s Real-Enc. xii. 360.

The Apocalypses we have just been considering are far from exhausting the number of them that were in circulation in the early Church. At the end of the Stichometry of Nicephorus mention is made of ψευδεπίγραφα of Baruch Habakkuk Ezekiel and Daniel. As we have already stated Euthalius was acquainted with an Apocryphum bearing the name of Jeremiah. Jerome mentions a Hebrew Apocryphum bearing this prophet’s name in which Matt. 27:9 occurred. But as regards all these and many others besides it is extremely doubtful for various reasons and chiefly from their appearing somewhat late in the Christian Church whether they are of Jewish origin. It is obvious that the four last-mentioned pseudepigraphs are to be regarded as an addition at some subsequent period to the original Stichometry of Nicephorus.

The authors of the pseudepigraphic prophecies had chiefly in view the practical aim of imparting greater weight to the lessons and exhortations which they desired to address to their contemporaries by ascribing them to the sacred authorities whose names they bear. Not only however did they represent the holy men of God themselves as speaking to posterity but it was not uncommon at the same time to enrich the accounts we have regarding those personages with new material partly for the purpose of giving to the present generation a clearer view of the sacred narrative generally by the addition of copious details and partly by surrounding these saints of the olden time with a halo of glory to hold them up more and more unreservedly as shining models for Israel to imitate (comp. in general  et seq.). Now there were two ways in which the things here in question viz. the amplifying and embellishing of the sacred story and adapting it to purposes of edification could be effected either by a continual modifying of the text of the Biblical narrative or by singling out certain personages in it and making them the heroes of fictitious legends. At first it was the former of these courses that was chiefly followed though afterwards the latter came more and more to be adopted as well. A classical example of each of those two modes of enriching the sacred story has come down to us from a comparatively early period from somewhere about the time of Christ. The so-called Book of Jubilees is an instance of the way in which the text was modified while in the Martyrdom of Isaiah we have a specimen of the fictitious legend. Other writings of this description are either known to us merely from quotations or have come down to us only in the shape of Christian versions of them. But a large amount of material of this sort is also to be found in writings the principal objects of which are different from those mentioned above. Legendary amplifications of the sacred narrative are also to be met with in almost all of the pseudepigraphic prophecies. This as appears from what has been already said is true above all of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs into which the biographical element enters so largely. And so for this reason it has also very many points of contact with the first of the two principal works which we will now proceed to consider.

1. The Book of Jubilees

Didymus Alexandrinus Epiphanius and Jerome quote an apocryphal book under the title τὰ Ἰωβηλαῖα or ἡ λεπτὴ Γένεσις from which they borrow various details connected with the history of the patriarchs. Then copious extracts from this same work are given by the Byzantine chroniclers Syncellus Cedrenus Zonoras Glycas from the beginning of the ninth down to the twelfth century. But at this latter point the book disappears and for a long time it was looked upon as lost till it turned up again in the present century in the Abyssinian Church where it was found in an Ethiopic version. It was published for the first time by Dillmann in a German translation (Ewald’s Jahrbücher ii.–iii. 1850–1851) and afterwards in the Ethiopic text (1859). Besides this Ethiopic version a large fragment of the work is likewise extant in an old Latin version which in like manner was not discovered till modern times the author of the discovery being Ceriani who found it in a manuscript in the Ambrosian Library at Milan and afterwards published it among the Monumenta sacra et profana (vol. i. fasc. 1 1861). This Latin fragment was also subsequently edited by Rönsch accompanied with a Latin rendering by Dillmann of the corresponding portion in the Ethiopic version as well as a commentary and several excursuses full of valuable matter (1874).

The contents of the book are substantially the same as those of our canonical Genesis for which reason it is also generally styled “the smaller Genesis” not because it is of smaller dimensions (on the contrary it is larger than the other) but because it is inferior in point of authority to the canonical book. It stands to this latter very much in the same relation as a Haggadean commentary to the text of the Bible. At the same time it is as far as possible from being an actual exposition of the text which in fact the Haggadean Midrash never pretends to be but simply a free reproduction of the early Biblical history from the creation of the world down to the institution of the Passover (Ex. 12) and that from the standpoint and in the spirit of later Judaism. The whole is made to assume the form of a revelation imparted to Moses on Mount Sinai by an “angel of the presence.” The object of the author in selecting this form was to secure at once for the new matters which he has to communicate the same authority as was already accorded to the text of the Bible. In his reproduction he has paid special attention to the matter of chronology the due fixing of this being without doubt one of the leading objects for which his book was written. He takes as the basis of reckoning the jubilee-period of 49 years which again resolves itself into seven year-weeks of seven years each and then in fixing the date of any event he determines the exact month of the exact year of the exact year-week of the exact jubilee-period in which it occurred. From this it is not difficult to see why the whole book was called τὰ Ἰωβηλαῖα “the Jubilees.” As the author was interested in chronology generally so he lays a peculiar stress upon the observance of the annual festivals and endeavours to prove with regard to each of the leading feasts that it had been instituted in the very earliest times; so for example with regard to Pentecost or the feast of Weeks (Ewald’s Jahrbb. ii. 245 iii. 8) the feast of Tabernacles (Ibid. iii. 11) the great Day of Atonement (iii. 46) and the feast of the Passover (iii. 68 sq.). This also serves to explain why it is that he happens to finish with the institution of the Passover (Ex. 12).

As the author seeks to reproduce the history of primitive times in the spirit of his own day he deals with the Biblical text in a very free fashion. Many things that did not happen to interest him or that he considered objectionable were either omitted or altered while others were still further amplified by the addition of numerous particulars of one kind or another. He is always by way of showing exactly where the founders of the primitive families or races got their wives from; he explains how far Gen. 2:17 had been literally fulfilled (comp. Justin Dial. c. Tryph. chap. lxxxi.) with whose help Noah brought the animals into the ark how the Hamitic family of the Canaanites and the Japhetic one of the Medes found their way within the sphere of the Semitic family why Rebecca had such a decided preference for Jacob and so on. He is acquainted with the names of the wives of the whole of the patriarchs from Adam down to the twelve sons of Jacob he knows the name of the particular peak of Mount Ararat on which Noah’s ark rested and many other things of a similar kind. All those embellishments and amplifications are entirely in the spirit of later Judaism. A peculiarly characteristic feature is the circumstance that the patriarchs are represented as paragons of moral excellence to even a greater extent than in the Biblical narrative itself and as being already in the habit of observing the whole of the Mosaic ritual of offering sacrifices and firstlings and of celebrating the annual festivals the new moons and the Sabbaths. It is further characteristic that everywhere the hierarchia coelestis is represented as forming the background of this world’s history. The angels good and evil alike are regularly interfering with the course of human affairs and inciting men to good and evil actions. We learn that the angels observed the law in heaven long before it was promulgated upon earth. For from the very beginning that law stood inscribed upon the heavenly tablets and it was only by degrees that it was copied from these and communicated to men. It appears moreover that the whole of the divine teachings had not been openly published to the people of Israel many of them having been communicated to the patriarchs only in secret books which were transmitted by them to later generations.

Notwithstanding its many salient features of a characteristic nature it is still difficult to say amid what circles the book had its origin. Jellinek regards it as an Essenian work of an anti-Pharisaic tendency. But although a good many things in it such as its highly developed angelology its secret books its doctrine of the continued existence of the soul without any resurrection of the body (iii. 24) seem to favour the hypothesis of an Essenian origin yet there are others that but the more decisively preclude such a hypothesis. It says nothing about those washings and purifications that formed so important a feature of Essenism. It is true the author strongly reprobates the eating of blood still he by no means expresses his disapproval of animal sacrifices as was so emphatically done by the Essenes. Still less are we to think of a Samaritan origin as Beer is disposed to do for this hypothesis again is precluded by the fact that the author speaks of the garden of Eden the mount of the east Mount Sinai and Mount Zion as being “the four places of God upon earth” (ii. 241 251) and thus excludes Gerizim from the number. Again Frankel’s view that the book was written by a Hellenistic Jew belonging to Egypt is no less untenable. For as will be seen immediately the language in which it was originally composed was not Greek but Hebrew. There cannot be a doubt that the greater number of the peculiarities by which this book is characterized are such as it has in common with the prevailing Pharisaism of the time. And one might refer it to this without further ado were it not that several difficulties stand in the way such as its opposition to the mode of reckoning adopted in the Pharisaic calendar (ii. 246) and its doctrine of a continued existence of the soul apart from any resurrection (ii. 24). But it would be absolutely erroneous again if in consequence of these facts and because of the decided prominence given to the tribe of Levi (iii. 39 sq.) we were to suppose that a Sadducee was the author of our work for its elaborate angelology and its doctrine of immortality are of themselves sufficient to render such a supposition impossible. The truth of the matter would rather seem to be this that the author while of course representing in all essential respects the standpoint of the dominant Pharisaism of his time gives expression to his own personal views only in connection with one or two particulars here and there (so also for example Dillmann Rönsch Drummond).

That the book had its origin in Palestine is already evidenced by the fact that it was written originally in Hebrew For although the Ethiopic and the Latin versions have been taken from the Greek this does not alter the fact that the original was composed in Hebrew as is evident from explicit statements to this effect made by Jerome. The date of the composition of our work may be determined if not within very narrow limits yet with an approximate degree of certainty. For we find on the one hand that our author undoubtedly makes use of nay that he actually quotes the Book of Enoch. Then it is extremely probable on the other that the author of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs had our book before him when he wrote. In addition to this there is the further circumstance that we nowhere find any reference whatever to the destruction of Jerusalem; on the contrary it is assumed throughout to be still standing as the central place of worship (comp. above all iii. 42 69). From all this we may venture with tolerable probability to refer the composition of our work to the first century of our era.

On the various titles of the book see Rönsch Das Buch der Jubiläen pp. 461–482. Besides those mentioned above we also find in Syncellus and Cedrenus the title ἀποκάλυψις Μωυσέως (Syncellus ed. Dindorf i. 5 and 49; Cedrenus ed. Bekker i. 9).

The Ethiopic and Latin versions are both based upon a Greek text on the former of which see Dillmann in Ewald’s Jahrbb. iii. 88 sq. and on the latter Rönsch Zeitschr. für wissenchaftl. Theol. 1871 pp. 86–89. Idem Das Buch der Jubiläen pp. 439–444. But according to Jerome we must assume that the original text was in Hebrew. It may be conjectured that the Greek version would be prepared only at a comparatively late date say in the third century A.D. which would serve to explain how it happened that the book did not come into use in the Christian Church till the fourth century A.D.

It is obvious that in our work a liberal use is made of the Book of Enoch nay in one passage (Ewald’s Jahrbb. ii. 240) it is said of Enoch that: “He wrote in a book the signs of heaven in the order of their months in order that the children of men might know the seasons of the years according to the order of the various months.… He saw in his dream the past and the future what was going to happen to the sons of the children of men in their generations one after another down to the day of judgment. All this he saw and knew and wrote it down as a testimony and left it on the earth as a testimony for all the sons of the children of men and for their generations.” This and all that is said elsewhere regarding Enoch agrees entirely with the contents of our Book of Enoch. See in general Dillmann in Ewald’s Jahrbb. iii. 90 sq. Rönsch Das Buch der Jubiläen pp. 403–412.

On the allusions to our book in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs see p. 122. The quotations found in the Fathers and the Byzantine writers are collected by Fabricius in his Codex pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 849–864 ii. 120 sq. Rönsch Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1871 p. 69 sq. Idem Das Buch der Jubiläen pp. 250–382.

Didymus Alex. In epist. canonicas enarrationes ad 1 John iii. 12 (Gallandi Biblioth. patr. vi. 300): Nam et in libro qui leprogenesis [l. leptogenesis] appellatur ita legitur quia Cain lapide aut ligno percusserit Abel (to which quotation Langen has drawn attention in the Bonner Theol. Literaturbl. 1874 p. 270).

Epiphanius Haer. xxxix. 6: Ὡς δὲ ἐν τοῖς Ἰωβηλαίοις εὑρίσκεται τῇ καὶ λεπτῇ Γενέσει καλουμένῃ καὶ τὰ ὀνόματα τῶν γυναικῶν τοῦ τε Καΐν καὶ τοῦ Σὴθ ἡ βίβλος περιέχει κ.τ.λ.

Jerome Epist. 78 ad Fabiolam Mansio 18 (Vallarsi i. 488) speaking of the name of a place called Ressa (רִסָּה Num. 33:21) observes: Hoc verbum quantum memoria suggerit nusquam alibi in scripturis sanctis apud Hebraeos invenisse me novi absque libro apocrypho qui a Graecis λεπτή id est parva Genesis appellatur; ibi in aedificatione turris pro stadio ponitur in quo exercentur pugiles et athletae et cursorum velocitas comprobatur. Ibid. Mansio 24 (Vallarsi i. 485) speaking again of the name of a place called Thare (תֶּרַח Num. 33:27) observes: Hoc eodem vocabulo et iisdem literis scriptum invenio patrem Abraham qui in supradicto apocrypho Geneseos volumine abactis corvis qui hominum frumenta vastabant abactoris vel depulsoris sortitus est nomen.

In the Decretum Gelasii we find included among the Apocrypha a work entitled Liber de filiabus Adae Leptogenesis (see Credner Zur Gesch. des Kanons p. 218. Rönsch. pp. 270 sq. 477 sq.). It may be conjectured that here we have an erroneous combination of two titles belonging to two separate works. However we can see from this as well as from the circumstance of their being a Latin version of it that the book was also known in the West. On the indications of its having been made use of by occidental writers see Rönsch pp. 322–382 passim.

Syncellus ed. Dindorf i. 5: ὡς ἐν λεπτῇ φέρεται Γενέσει ἣν καὶ Μωϋσέως εἶναί φασί τινες ἀποκάλυψιν. i. 7: ἐκ τῆς λεπτῆς Γενέσεως. i. 13: ἐκ τῶν λεπτῶν Γενέσεως. i. 49: ἐν τῇ Μωϋσέως λεγομένῃ ἀποκαλύψει. i. 183: ἡ λεπτὴ Γένεσίς φησιν. i. 185: ὡς ἐν λεπτῇ κεῖται Γενέσει. i. 192: ὥς φησιν ἡ λεπτὴ Γένεσις. i. 203: ἐν λεπτῇ Γενέσει φέρεται.

Cedrenus ed. Bekker i. 6: καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς λεπτῆς Γενέσεως. i. 9: ὡς ἐν λεπτῇ φέρεται Γενέσει ἣν καὶ Μωσέως εἶναί φασί τινες ἀποκάλυψιν. i. 16: ὡς ἡ λεπτὴ Μωσέως Γένεσίς φησιν. i. 48: ὡς ἐπὶ τῇ λεπτῇ κεῖται Γενέσει. i. 53: ἐν τῇ λεπτῇ Γενέσει κεῖται. i. 85: ἐν τῇ λεπτῇ Γενέσει κεῖται.

Zonoras ed. Pinder (given in common with the two foregoing in the Boun edition of the Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae) vol. i. p. 18: ἐν τῇ λεπτῇ Γενέσει.

Glycas ed. Bekker (also given in the Bonn collection) p. 198: ἡ λεγομένη λεπτὴ Γένεσις. P. 206: ἡ δὲ λεπτὴ Γένεσις λέγει. P. 392: ἡ δὲ λεγομένη λεπτὴ Γένεσις οὐκ οἶδʼ ὅθεν συγγραφεῖσα καὶ ὅπως φησίν.

The literature of our book is enumerated and considered at some length by Rönsch in Das Buch der Jubiläen pp. 422–439.

Texts: Kufâlê sive Liber Jubilaeorum aethiopice ad duorum libror. manuscr. fidem primum ed. Dillmann Kiel 1859. Dillmann Das Buch der Jubiläen oder die kleine Genesis aus dem Aethiopischen übersetzt (Ewald’s Jahrbb. der bibl. Wissensch. vol. ii. 1850 pp. 230–256; vol. iii. 1851 pp. 1–96). Ceriani Monumenta sacra et profana vol. i. fasc. 1 (1861) pp. 15–54. Rönsch Das Buch der Jubiläen oder die kleine Genesis unter Beifügungen des revidirten Textes der in der Ambrosiana aufgefundenen lateinischen Fragmente etc. etc. erläutert untersucht und herausgegeben Leipzig 1874.

Special disquisitions: Treuenfels Die kleine Genesis (Fürst’s Literaturbl. des Orients 1846 Nos. 1–6; comp. vol. for 1851 No. 15) which was written before the Ethiopic text was discovered. Jellinek Ueber das Buch der Jubiläen und das Noach-Buch Leipzig 1855 (reprinted from part 3 of the Bet ha-Midrasch). Beer Das Buch der Jubiläen und sein Verhältniss zu den Midraschim Leipzig 1856. Idem Noch ein Wort über das Buch der Jubiläen Leipzig 1857. Frankel Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenthums 1856 pp. 311–316 380–400. Dillmann Zeitschr. der deutschen morgenländ. Gesellsch. xi. 1857 pp. 161–163. Krüger “Die Chronologie im Buch der Jubiläen” (Zeitschr. der DMG. vol. xii. 1858 pp. 279–299). Langen Das Judenthum in Palästina (1866) pp. 84–102. Rubin Das Buch der Jubiläen oder die kleine Genesis in’s Hebräische übersetzt mit einer Einleitung und mit Noten versehen Wien Beck’s Univ.-Buchhandlung 1870. Ginsburg art. “Jubilees Book of” in Kitto’s Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature. Rönsch Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1871 pp. 60–98. Idem Das Buch der Jubiläen Leipzig 1874. Hilgenfeld Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1874 pp. 435–441. Drummond The Jewish Messiah (1877) pp. 143–147. Reuss Gesch. der heil. Schriften A.T.’s § 571. Dillmann Beiträge aus dem Buch der Jubiläen zur Kritik des Pentateuch-Textes (Transactions of the Berlin Academy 1883 pp. 323–340). Idem in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. xii. 364 sq.

2. The Martyrdom of Isaiah

An apocryphal work containing an account of the martyrdom of Isaiah is repeatedly mentioned by Origen. He simply calls it an ἀπόκρυφον tells us nothing of its contents beyond the statement that Isaiah had been sawn asunder and plainly describes it as a Jewish production. Again in the Constitutiones apostol. reference is made merely in a general way to an Apocryphum Ἡσαΐου. On the other hand in the list of the canon edited by Montfaucon Pitra and others there is a more precise mention of a Ἡσαΐου ὅρασις (see p. 127). Epiphanius knows of an ἀναβατικὸν Ἡσαΐου which was in use among the Archontics and the Hieracites. Jerome speaks of an Ascensio Isaiae. It is extremely probable that these references are not all to one and the same work that on the contrary Origen had in view a purely Jewish production while the others referred to a Christian version of it or to some Christian work quite independent of it. For there exists a Christian Apocryphum on Isaiah which at all events is made up of a variety of elements though the oldest of them may be pretty clearly seen to be a Jewish history of the martyrdom of Isaiah. This Apocryphum like so many others has come down to us in its entirety only in an Ethiopic version and was published for the first time by Laurence (1819). The second half of it is likewise extant in an old Latin version which was printed at Venice in 1522 but had long disappeared until it was brought to light again by Gieseler (1832). This whole material accompanied with valuable disquisitions and elucidations has been embodied in Dillmann’s edition (Ascensio Isaiae Lips. 1877). Lastly Gebhardt published (1878) a Greek text which however does not profess to be the original book but an adaptation of it in the shape of a Christian legend of the saints.

The contents of the whole work as given in the Ethiopic text are as follows: First part: the martyrdom (chaps. 1–5). Isaiah intimates to Hezekiah the future impiety of his son Manasseh (chap. 1). After Hezekiah’s death Manasseh as had been foretold abandons himself entirely to the service of Satan in consequence of which Isaiah and those of his way of thinking retire into solitude (chap. 2). Thereupon a certain person called Balkirah complains to King Manasseh that Isaiah had been uttering prophecies against the king and the people (chap. 3:1–12). As for Balkirah he had been incited to this hostility to Isaiah by Satan (Berial) who was angry at the former because he had predicted the coming redemption by Christ. Here the writer takes occasion to recount the whole history of Jesus and His Church as it had been foretold by Isaiah and that from Christ’s incarnation down to the Neronic persecution (chap. 4:2) and the last judgment (3:13–4 fin.). In deference to the clamours for the punishment of the prophet Manasseh orders him to be sawn asunder a martyr death which he bears with singular firmness (chap. 5). Second part: the vision (chaps. 6–11). In the twentieth year of Hezekiah’s reign Isaiah sees the following vision which he communicates to King Hezekiah and to Josab his own (the prophet’s) son (chap. 6). An angel conducts the prophet first of all through the firmament and throughout the whole six lower heavens and shows him all that was to be seen in each of them (chaps. 7 and 8). At last they reach the seventh heaven where Isaiah sees all the righteous that have died from Adam downwards and then he sees God the Lord Himself (chap. 9). After having heard God the Father giving to his Son Jesus Christ His commission to descend into the world Isaiah comes back again to the firmament accompanied by the angel (chap. 10). Here there is revealed to him the future birth of Jesus Christ and the history of His life upon earth down to His crucifixion and resurrection whereupon the angel returns to the seventh heaven while Isaiah goes back to his earthly body (chap. 11).

This outline of the contents of our book will suffice to show that here we have to do with two elements of a totally distinct and dissimilar nature. There is no connection whatever between the vision and the martyrdom. Not only so the vision is with singular awkwardness made to follow the martyrdom which in the order of time it should of course have preceded. Nor does the martyrdom again form one connected whole. Above all is the whole passage 3:13–5:1 which interrupts and disturbs the connection obviously to be regarded as a later interpolation as is also the kindred passage in the second part 11:2–22. And lastly the introduction again has only an apparent connection with what follows. On closer examination we find reason to suspect that in all probability that introduction was inserted at some subsequent period. On the strength of these facts Dillmann has propounded the following hypotheses regarding the origin of our book. In the first place we are to distinguish two elements that are independent of each other. (1) The account of the martyrdom of Isaiah chaps. 2:1–3:12 and 5:2–14 which is of Jewish origin; and (2) the vision of Isaiah chaps. 6–11 (exclusive of 11:2–22) which is of Christian origin. Then we are to regard these two elements (3) as having been amalgamated by a Christian who at the same time composed and inserted the introduction (chap. 1). Lastly when the work had assumed this shape another Christian would afterwards insert the two sections (chaps. 3:13–5:1 and 11:2–22). These conjectures may at least be regarded as extremely probable. They are borne out not only by the internal indications already referred to but by external testimony as well. In the free version of the whole book edited by Gebhardt no trace is to be met with of sections 3:13–5:1 and 11:2–22. Besides this latter section (11:2–22) does not occur in the Latin version which as has been previously observed embraces only chaps. 6–11. It is evident therefore that the sections in question must be later interpolations. But the circumstance that the vision and the vision alone is all that has come down to us in the Latin version goes to confirm the assumption that this vision of itself originally formed an independent whole. By the ὅρασις the ἀναβατικόν ascensio Isaiae mentioned by the Fathers we have therefore to understand merely that visionary journey of Isaiah through the seven heavens which had been composed by some Christian or another. In the case of Origen however it is the Jewish account of the martyrdom of Isaiah (chaps. 2:1–3:12 and 5:2–14) that is in view. This latter is simply a legendary story composed for the purpose of glorifying the prophet. It contains nothing of an apocalyptic character and consequently does not belong to the category of prophetic pseudepigraphs but to that of legendary works.

The story of the sawing asunder of Isaiah is mentioned by writers of so early a date as Justin Martyr Dial. c. Tryph. chap. cxx.; Tertullian De patientia chap. xiv.; Scorpiace chap. viii. (comp. ). It is probably this too that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews has in view in chap. xi. 37. In so far as it is probable that the reference here is to our book so far have we at the same time a clue to the date of the composition of that Epistle.

Origen Epist. ad Africanum chap. ix. (de la Rue i. 19 sq.; Lommatzsch xvii. 51). With the view of proving that the Jewish authorities had suppressed everything that represented them in an unfavourable light some specimens of which have nevertheless come down to us in apocryphal writings (ὧν τινα σώζεται ἐν ἀποκρύφοις) Origen proceeds as follows: Καὶ τσύτου παράδειγμα δώσομεν τὰ περὶ τὸν Ἡσαΐαν ἱστορούμενα καὶ ὑπὸ τῆς πρὸς Ἑβραίους ἐπιστολῆς μαρτυρούμενα ἐν οὐδενὶ τῶν φανερῶν βιβλίων γεγραμμένα (here follows the quotation Heb. 11:37).… Σαφὲς δʼ ὅτι αἱ παραδόσεις λέγουσι πεπρίσθαι Ἡσαΐαν τὸν προφήτην• καὶ ἔν τινι ἀποκρύφῳ τοῦτο φέρεται• ὅπερ τάχα ἐπίτηδες ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων ῥεραδιούργηται λέξεις τινὰς τὰς μὴ πρεπούσας παρεμβεβληκτόων τῇ γραφῇ ἵνʼ ἡ ὅλη ἀπιστηθῇ.

Origen Ad Matth. xiii. 57 (de la Rue iii. 465; Lommatzsch iii. 49): Καὶ Ησαΐας δὲ πεπρίσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ λαοῦ ἱστόρηται• εἰ δέ τις οὐ προσίεται τὴν ἱστορίαν διὰ τὸ ἐν τῷ ἀποκρύφῳ Ἡσαΐα αὐτὴν φέρεσθαι πιστευσάτω τοῖς ἐν τῇ πρὸς Ἑβραίους οὕτω γεγραμμένοις (Heb. 11:37).

Origen Ad Matth. xxiii. 37 (de la Rue iii. 848; Lommatzsch iv. 237 sq.): Propterea videndum ne forte oporteat ex libris secretioribus qui apud Judaeos feruntur ostendere verbum Christi et non solum Christi sed etiam discipulorum ejus.… Fertur ergo in scripturis non manifestis serratum esse Jesaiam etc.

Origen In Jesaiam homil. i. 5 (de la Rue 108; Lommatzsch xiii. 245 sq.): Ajunt [Judaei] ideo Isaiam esse sectum a populo quasi legem praevaricantem et extra scripturas annuntiantem. Scriptura enim dicit: “nemo videbit faciem meam et vivet.” Iste vero ait: vidi Dominum Sabaoth.” Moses ajunt non vidit et tu vidisti? Et propter hoc eum secuerunt et condemnaverunt eum ut impium. And this is precisely as the affair is represented in our book chap. iii. 8 sqq.

Epiphanius Haer. xl. 2 (speaking of the Archontics): λαμβάνουσι δὲ λάβας ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀναβατικοῦ Ἡσαΐα ἔτι δὲ καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν ἀποκρύφων. Idem Haer. lxvii. 3: βούλεται δὲ [scil. Hierakas] τὴν τελείαν αὐτοῦ σύστασιν ποιεῖσθαι ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀναβατικοῦ Ἡσαΐου δῆθεν ὡς ἐν τῷ ἀναβατικῷ λεγομένῳ ἔλεγεν ἐκεῖσε (here follows a quotation which substantially coincides with a passage in chap. ix. of our book).

Jerome Comm. in Isaiam chap. lxiv. 3 [al. lxiv. 4] (Vallarsi iv. 761): Ascensio enim Isaiae et apocalypsis Eliae hoc habent testimonium namely the passage 1 Cor. 2:9. With regard to the Apocalypsis Eliae see p. 129. The passage actually occurs in the Latin text of the Ascensio Isaiae. It is wanting however in the Ethiopic and so is obviously an interpolation.

Jerome Comm. in Isaiam chap. lvii. fin. (Vallarsi iv. 666): Judaei … arbitrantur … Isaiam de sua prophetare morte quod serrandus sit a Manasse serra lignea quae apud eos certissima traditio est.

On the patristic quotations comp. also Fabricius Codex pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 1086–1100.

The Ethiopic text was published by Laurence accompanied with a Latin and English version (Ascensio Isaiae vatis opusculum pseudepigraphum cum versione Latina Anglicanaque publici juris factum Oxoniae 1819). Mai (Scriptorum veterum nova collectio vol. iii. 2 1828 p. 238 sq.) published two fragments of an old Latin version viz. chaps. ii. 14–iii. 13 and vii. 1–19 without being aware that they formed part of our Apocryphum. After Niebuhr had discovered the source from which they came they were fully discussed by Nitzsch (Stud. u. Krit. 1830 p. 209 sqq.). The old Latin version of the Visio (chaps. vi.–xi. of the Ethiopic text) which had been printed at Venice in 1522 and had then disappeared for a long time was found again and reprinted by Gieseler in a Göttingen program (Vetus translatio latina visionis Jesaiae etc. Götting. 1832). The Latin version of Laurence accompanied with the old Latin texts was also reprinted by Gfrörer Prophetae veteres pseudepigraphi Stuttg. 1840. A German version of those texts was published by Jolowicz (Die Himmelfahrt und Vision des Propheten Jesaja aus dem Aethopischen [or as it should rather have been? aus Laurence lateinischer Uebersetzung] und Lateinischen in’s Deutsche übersetzt Leipzig 1854). A critical edition of the Ethiopic text along with an amended translation and containing also the old Latin versions was issued by Dillmann (Ascensio Isaiae Aethiopice et Latine cum prolegomenis adnotationibus criticis et exegeticis additis versionum Latinarum reliquiis edita Lips. 1877). Gebhardt published a Greek text in which we have a free version of the whole book framed in the style of the later Christian legends of the saints (Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theologie 1878 pp. 330–353).

Special disquisitions: Gesenius Commentar über den Jesaja vol. i. 1821 p. 45 sqq. Nitzsch Stud. u. Krit. 1830 pp. 209–246. Gieseler Göttinger Progr. 1832 (see above). Gfrörer Das Jahrhundert des Heils 1838 i. p. 65 sqq. A. G. Hoffmann art. “Jesajas” in Ersch and Gruber’s Allg. Encycl. sec. ii. vol. xv. (1838) pp. 387–390. Lücke Einleitung in die Offenbarung des Johannes 2nd ed. 1852 pp. 274–302. Bleek Stud. u. Krit. 1854 pp. 994–998. Reuss Gesch. der heil. Schriften Neuen Testaments sec. 274. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel vii. 369–373. Langen Das Judenthum in Palästina (1866) pp. 157–167. Dillmann in his edition (1877). Idem in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. vol. xii. 359 sq. Renan L’église chrétienne 1879) p. 528 sq.

3. The Lost Legendary Works

In a manner similar to that which we have just seen exemplified in the case of Isaiah pretty nearly the whole of the prominent personages belonging to the hallowed days of old were laid hold of by the legendary spirit for the purpose of throwing around them a halo of glory. The plain narratives of Holy Scripture were far too simple and unadorned to satisfy the tastes and the needs of later times. A desire was manifested to know more about those men above all to know something regarding them of a more piquant and edifying character than was furnished by the canonical records. Accordingly we find that it is the lives of the three great heroes Adam the progenitor of the human race Abraham the father of Israel and Moses the great lawgiver that have been most elaborately embellished by fictitious legends. And there are many other men of God besides whose lives have been subjected to a similar treatment (comp. in general  et seq.). Then Christians have laid hold of the existing Jewish legends and elaborated them with equal nay if possible with greater zeal. Consequently as in the case of the Apocalypses so also here we often find it impossible to distinguish with any certainty between what is Jewish and what is Christian. The foundations of the legends themselves are in most cases undoubtedly Jewish. But it is not improbable that the earliest writings of this class are also to be ascribed to Jewish authors. This holds true above all of the three great founders of new epochs Adam Abraham and Moses to whom therefore we will here confine ourselves.

1. Books of Adam. A variety of tolerably voluminous Christian works on the life of Adam have come down to us an Ethiopic one a Syriac one another in Syriac and Arabic one in Greek and another in Latin. Although the whole of these are unquestionably of Christian origin and although there is not one of them that can be regarded as based upon a Jewish original still it is probable that they have drawn upon Jewish material. A Jewish Book of Adam is mentioned in the Talmud. The Constitutiones apostol. vi. 16 mention an apocryphal Ἀδάμ along with the Apocrypha bearing the names of Moses Enoch and Isaiah. Again in the list of the Apocrypha published by Montfaucon Pitra and others Ἀδάμ finds a place among the rest of the Jewish Apocrypha (see p. 126). Indeed at an early period there already existed Gnostic ἀποκαλύψεις τοῦ Ἀδάμ (Epiphanius Haer. xxvi. 8). In the Decretum Gelasii there occurs a Liber qui appellatur Poenitentia Adae (Credner Zur Gesch. des Kanons p. 219).

Editions of the Christian books of Adam: (1) Dillmann published a German translation of an Ethiopic Book of Adam (Ewald’s Jabrbb. der bibl. Wissensch. vol. v. 1853 pp. 1–144). The Ethiopic text was published by Trumpp (Transactions of the Akademie der Wissensch. of Münich philosopho-philol. department vol. xv. 1879–1881) and an English version by Malan (Book of Adam and Eve also called the Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan translated from the Ethiopic London 1882). (2) Akin to the above and if we are to believe Dillmann possessing a greater claim to originality is a Syriac work entitled “the treasure hole” (i.e. the hole in which the treasures of Paradise were kept) which as yet is known only through a German version published by Bezold (Die Schatzhöhle aus dem syr. Texte dreier unedirter Handschriften in’s Deutsche übersetzt Leipzig 1883). (3) Another Syriac and Arabic work entitled “The Testament of Adam” has been published by Renan in the Syriac text accompanied with a French translation (Journal asiatique fifth series vol. ii. 1853 pp. 427–71). (4) Tischendorf published a Greek Book of Adam under the title Apocalypsis Mosis (Apocalypses apocryphae Lips. 1866) and which was also published by Ceriani (Monum. sacra et prof. v. 1). On this comp. p. 81. (5) Nearly allied to this Greek work in fact to some extent identical with it is the Latin Vita Adae et Evae published by Wilh. Meyer (Transactions of the Münich Academy philos.-philol. department vol. xiv. 1878).

Comp. in general Fabricius Codex pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 1–94 ii. 1–43. Zunz Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden 1832 p. 128 sq. (the Rabbinical quotations here). Dukes in Fürst’s Literaturbl. des Orients 1849 coll. 76–78. Comp. also ibid. 1850 pp. 705 sqq. 732 sqq. Lücke Einl. in die Offenbarung des Johannes 2nd ed. p. 232. Hort art. “Adam Books of” in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography vol. i. 1877 pp. 34–39. Renan L’église chrétienne (1879) p. 529 sq. Dillmann in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. xii. 366 sq.

2. Abraham. A short apocryphal book of Ἀβραάμ (consisting of 300 verses) occurs in the Stichometry of Nicephorus and the Synopsis Athanasii (see p. 125). And as in these lists it is found in the very heart of the Jewish Apocrypha it is of course a different book from that of the ἀποκάλυψις Ἀβραάμ which was in use among the Sethites (Epiphanius Haer. xxxix. 5). On the other hand it is no doubt the former of these that Origen has in view in the case of those statements regarding Abraham which he borrows from a certain apocryphal work.

Origen In Lucam homil. xxxv. init. (de la Rue iii. 973; Lommatzsch v. 217): Legimus si tamen cui placet hujuscemodi scripturam recipere justitiae et iniquitatis angelos super Abrahami salute et interitu disceptantes dum utraeque turmae suo eum volunt coetui vendicare.

Comp. also Lücke Einl. in die Offenb. Joh. p. 232; and for the Abrahamic legend generally see ; and Fabricius Cod. pseudepigr. i. pp. 341–428 ii. p. 81 sq. B. Beer Leben Abrahams nach Auffassung der jüdischen Sage Leipzig 1859.

3. Moses and his time. The apocryphal literature regarding Moses himself has been already considered at p. 80. But among the books referring both to himself and his time there is still another work to be mentioned the theme of which was a single episode in the lawgiver’s life we mean the Book of Jannes and Jambres the two Egyptian magicians who according to Ex. 7:8 sqq. wrought miracles before Pharaoh equal to those of Moses and Aaron but were nevertheless beaten in the end. The names are not mentioned in the Old Testament but they occur at a comparatively early date in the legends and they were known not only in Jewish but in Gentile and Christian circles as well as the names of the two famous Egyptian magicians in question. The orthography fluctuates exceedingly. In the Greek texts the prevailing spelling is Ἰαννῆς καὶ Ἰαμβρῆς as in the Targum of Jonathan it is יניס וימבריס. In the Talmud on the other hand we find יוחני וממרא (Jochane and Mamre) while in the Latin texts the names are almost uniformly spelt Jannes (or Jamnes) et Mambres. What the original spelling was it is difficult to determine. In any case the names appear to be of Semitic origin (see Steiner in Schenkel’s Bibellex. iii. 189; Riehm’s Wörterb. p. 665 sq.; Orelli in Herzog’s Real-Enc. vi. 478 sq.). The book written about the magicians in question is mentioned by Origen and in the Decretum Gelasii. As the name of Jannes was known even to so early a writer as Pliny and as it is probable that those anonymous personages owed their name and individuality first of all to the apocryphal book itself we may perhaps venture to refer the date of the composition of this work to pre-Christian times.

For the Rabbinical passages referring to Jannes and Jambres see Buxtorf’s Lex. Chald. col. 945–947. Schoettgen Horae hebr. note on 2 Tim. 3:8. Wetstein Nov. Test. note on same passage. Levy Chald. Wörterb. i. 337. Idem Neuhebr. Wörterb. ii. 226. The form יוחני וממרא is found in Menachoth lxxxv.; יניס וימבריס in the Targum of Jonathan on Ex. 1:15 7:11; Num. 22:22; and also יונוס ויומברוס (Jonos and Jombros) in the Tanachuma and Sohar.

Of heathen writers Pliny and Apuleius are acquainted with Jannes while the neo-Platonist Numenius knows both Jannes and Jambres. (1) Pliny Hist. Nat. xxx. 1. 11: Est et alia magices factio a Mose et Janne et Lotape ac Judaeis pendens sed multis milibus annorum post Zoroastren. (2) Apuleius Apolog. (or De magia) chap. xc. ed. Hildebrand: Ego ille sim Carinondas vel Damigeron vel is Moses vel Jannes vel Apollonius vel ipse Dardanus vel quicumque alius post Zoroastren et Hostanen inter magos celebratus est. (3) Numenius in Eusebius Praep. evang. ix. 8: Τὰ δʼ ἑξῆς Ἰαννῆς καὶ Ἰαμβρῆς Αἰγύπτιοι ἱερογραμματεῖς ἄνδρες οὐδένος ἥττους μαγεῦσαι κριθέντες εἶναι ἐπὶ Ἰουδαίων ἐξελαυνομένων ἐξ Αἰγύπτου. Μουσαίῳ γοῦν τῷ Ἰουδαίων ἐξηγησαμένῳ ἀνδρὶ γενομένῳ θεῷ εὔξασθαι δυνατωτάτῳ οί παραστῆναι ἀξιωθέντες ὑπὸ τοῦ πλήθους τοῦ τῶν Αἰγυπτίων οὗτοι ἦσαν τῶν τε συμφορῶν ἃς ὁ Μουσαῖος ἐπῆγε τῇ Αἰγύπτῳ τὰς νεανικωτάτας αὐτῶν ἐπιλύεσθαι ὤφθησαν δυνατοί. In view of this passage Origen Contra Celsum iv. 51 says with regard to Numenius that: Ἐκτίθεται καὶ τὴν περὶ Μωϋσέως καὶ Ἰαννοῦ καὶ Ἰαμβροῦ ἱστορίαν. Owing to the circumstance that the term Μουσαῖος which is here used for Moses is precisely the same as that employed by the Hellenist Artapan Freudenthal (Alexander Polyhistor. 1875 p. 173) is disposed to think that the story is borrowed from Artapan and that he is the author of the legend. But this argument however cannot be regarded as conclusive. Then the names of the magicians which in all probability are Semitic seem rather to point to a Palestinian origin.

Then passing within the pale of Christianity the passage that first claims attention is 2 Tim. 3:8: ὃν τρόπον δὲ Ἰαννῆς καὶ Ἰαμβρῆς ἀντέστησαν Μωϋσεῖ. Further among Greek authors we may mention Evang. Nicodemi (= Acta Pilati) chap. v.; Constitut. apostol. viii. 1 and subsequent Fathers; but above all the hagiologist Palladius who relates in his Historia Lausiaca (written about 420 A.D. see Fabricius-Hartes Bibl. graec. x. 98 sqq.) that Macarius visited the κηποτάφιον which Jannes and Jambres had erected for themselves and that he had an interview with the demons that had their abode there (see the passage in Fabricius Cod. pseudepigr. ii. 106–111). Latin writers: The Latin text of the Evang. Nicodemi (= Gesta Pilati) chap. v.; Abdiae hist. apostol. vi. 15 (in Fabricius Cod. apocr. Nov. Test. i. 622). Cyprian De unitate ecclesiae chap. xvi. The Latin translator of Origen in the passages to be quoted below. The Decretum Gelasii (in Credner Zur Gesch. des Kanon’s p. 220) and subsequent Fathers. The Latin writers as well as the Western authorities for the text of 2 Tim. 3:8 (Cod. FG and the text of the Itala) read Jannes (or Jamnes) et Mambres almost uniformly. See the various readings in connection with 2 Tim. 3:8 in the critical editions of the New Testament; also Thilo Cod. apocr. Nov. Test. p. 553 and the earlier literature given there. As the Talmud adopts the spelling ממרא Westcott and Hort are warranted in observing as they do in the note on 2 Tim. 3:8 in their edition of the New Testament that “the Western text probably derived Μαμβρῆς from a Palestinian source.”

The Book of Jannes and Jambres (or Mambres) is mentioned: (1) By Origen Ad Matth. xxvii. 9 (de la Rue iii. 916; Lommatzsch v. 29): Quod ait “sicut Jannes et Mambres restiterunt Mosi” non invenitur in publicis scripturis sed in libro secreto qui suprascribitur: Jannes et Mambres liber. (2) Again Origen Ad Matth. xxiii. 37 (de la Rue iii. 848; Lommatzsch iv. 239) quotes 2 Tim. 3:8: “sicut Jannes et Mambres restiterunt Mosi sic et isti resistunt veritati” as evidence that apocryphal writings are sometimes referred to in the New Testament. Nec enim scimus in libris canonizatis historiam de Janne et Mambre resistentibus Mosi. (3) It is also mentioned in the Decretum Gelasii (in Credner Zur Gesch. des Kanon’s p. 220): Liber qui appellatur Poenitentia Jamnis et Mambre apocryphus.

Comp. in general: Fabricius Codex pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 813–825 ii. 105–111. Suicer Thesaurus under Ἰαννῆς. Wolf Curae philol. in Nov. Test. note on 2 Tim. 3:8; and the commentaries generally on this passage. J. G. Michaelis De Janne et Jambre famosis Aegyptiorum magis Hal. 1747 The lexicons to the New Testament and the Bible Dictionaries of Winer Schenkel and Riehm. Rud. Hofmann Das Leben Jesu nach den Apokryphen (1851) p. 352 sq. Orelli in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. vi. 478 sq. Dillmann ibid. xii. 365. Holtzmann Die Pastoralbriefe (1880) p. 140 sq. Heath in Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 1881 pp. 311–317.

Whatever other works based on Biblical legends were in use in the early Church are either entirely unknown to us (such for example as the Book of Λάμεχ quoted in the list of the Apocrypha edited by Montfaucon and Pitra see p. 126) or they may without hesitation be regarded as Christian productions as for instance the history of Noria the wife of Noah (Epiph. Haer. xxvi. 1) or the ἀναβαθμοὶ Ἰακώβου (Epiph. Haer. xxx. 16) or the history of Asenath the wife of Joseph (according to Gen. 41:45) which are still extant in various texts. What the Jewish substratum may have been in those instances it is impossible to make out with any degree of certainty although there can scarcely be a doubt that Jewish Books of Noah for example were once to be met with. For further information regarding this whole literature consult Fabricius Cod. pseudepigr. and Dillmann art. “Pseudepigraphen” in Herzog’s Real-Enc.

By way of appendix to the above we may here mention further a class of literary productions which lie on the extreme confines of Jewish literature and which serve to show that the superstition that had sprung from the soil of the heathen nature-religions also continued to flourish with no little vigour among the people of Israel: we refer to the books of magic and magic spells. In the ancient world these represented the popular arts of healing. As even in our own day Christians are often met with who prefer the quack doctor to the skilled physician so in the ancient world at least in that part of it that was under the influence of the East there was often a tendency to have recourse to the magician and the exorcist rather than to the regular doctor in every sort of ailment. It is interesting in this connection to hear for example what Celsus says about the Egyptians (in Origen Contra Cels. viii. 58): “That some (higher) being or other controls things of even the most trifling nature may be learnt from what is alleged by the Egyptians who tell us that thirty-six (or as others affirm a good many more) demons or divinities of the air have allotted among themselves the human body which is supposed to be divided into a corresponding number of parts and that each has taken one of these parts under his own peculiar charge. And they know the names of the demons in their native tongue such as Chnumen and Chachumen and Knat and Sikat and Biu and Eru and Erebui and Ramanor and Reinanoor or whatever else they may be called. By invoking these they cure the ailments of the different members of the body.” What Celsus here alleges with respect to the Egyptians is confirmed mutatis mutandis by hundreds of testimonies in regard to the rest of the ancient world as well. Magic and exorcism and that above all for curative purposes were uncommonly popular and prevalent throughout the entire Roman Empire. Nor did the Jewish people form an exception. We know from the Old and New Testaments as well as from Josephus how extensively the various forms of magic prevailed also among them. In later times Solomon was regarded as being above all the author of this art (on the strength of 1 Kings 5:12 13). Josephus informs us that this monarch composed and bequeathed to posterity certain incantations by means of which demons could be restrained and so effectually expelled that they would never re-enter the man again. By way of showing the efficacy of those incantations he tells a very amusing story about a Jew of the name of Eleazar who on one occasion and in presence of Vespasian and his sons and several Roman officers drew out a demon through the demoniac’s nose by holding a magic ring under this organ and repeating at the same time the incantations of Solomon forbade him ever to enter again. At length to prove that the demon was actually expelled he ordered this latter to overturn a vessel of water that was near at hand which order was at once complied with (Joseph. Antt. viii. 2. 5). From the way in which Josephus speaks of the Solomonic incantations we feel constrained to assume that they must have been embodied in special books. Origen distinctly alleges as much. Those books survived although only after having undergone a variety of adaptations till far on into the Middle Ages. We still hear of one of the name of Aaron being at the court of Manuel Comnenus and who was in possession of a βίβλον Σολομώντειον by means of which whole legions of demons could be exorcised. This literature also found its way into Christian circles. The Decretum Gelasii knows of a Contradictio Salomonis while a Christian Testamentum Salomonis is still extant. And it is through popular Christian works of this sort that the knowledge of the efficacy of Solomon’s magic spells has come down to more modern times and found its way into Goethe’s Faust (the exorcising of the poodle: “Für solche halbe Hüllenbrut 1st Salomonis Schlüssel gut”).

Official Judaism did not of course quite approve of those books of magic although the Babylonian Talmud itself is full of superstition. According to a tradition which is found both in the Mishna and in certain Byzantine writers (Suidas Glycas) we learn that the pious king Hezekiah ordered the suppression of Solomon’s “Book of Cures” because the people trusted it so much that they neglected to pray to God.

On the subject of magic in the ancient world generally an abundant store of material is to be found in Georgii’s art. “Magia” in Pauly’s Real-Encyc. der class. Alterthumswissensch. iv. 1377–1418. On the same among the Jews see the article “Zauberei” in the Bible dictionaries of Winer Schenkel and Riehm. On this subject in Talmudic Judaism again see Brecher Das Transcendentale Magie und magische Heilarten im Talmud Wien 1850. Joel Der Aberglaube und die Stellung des Judenthums zu demselben 1st part Breslau 1881.

On Solomon see Fabricius Codex pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 1032–1063. The Crypta ubi Salomon daemones torquebat were still seen at Jerusalem by the pilgrim of Bordeaux in the fourth century A.D. (Tobler Palaestinae descriptiones 1869 p. 3).

Joseph. Antt. viii. 2. 5: Ἐπῳδάς τε συνταξάμενος αἶς παρηγορεῖται τὰ νοσήματα τρόπους ἐξορκώσεων κατέλιπεν οἷς ἐνδούμενα τὰ δαιμόνια ὡς μηκέτʼ ἐπανελθεῖν ἐκδιώκουσι κ.τ.λ. (here follows the story about Eleazar referred to above).

Origen Ad. Matth. xxvi. 63 (de la Rue iii. 910; Lommatzsch. v. 7): Quaeret aliquis si convenit vel daemones adjurare; et qui respicit ad multos qui talia facere ausi sunt dicet non sine ratione fieri hoc. Qui autem adspicit Jesum imperantem daemonibus sed etiam potestatem dantem discipulis suis super omnia daemonia et ut infirmitates sanarent dicet quoniam non est secundum potestatem datam a Salvatore adjurare daemonia; Judaicum est enim. Hoc etsi aliquando a nostris tale aliquid fiat simile fit ei quod a Salomone scriptis adjurationibus solent daemones adjurari. Sed ipsi qui utuntur adjurationibus illis aliquoties nec idoneis constitutis libris utuntur; quibusdam autem et de Hebraeo acceptis adjurant daemonia.

On the βίβλον Σολομώντειον of Aaron in the time of Manuel Comnenus see the passage from Nicetas Choniates quoted in Fabricus Cod. pseudepigr. i. 1037 sq.

Decretum Gelasii (in Credner Zur Gesch. des Kanons p. 224) § 61: Scriptura quae appellatur Contradictio Salomonis apocr. Ibid. § 62: Philacteria omnia quae non angelorum ut illi confingunt sed daemonum magis conscripta sunt nominibus apocr.

The Christian Testamentum Salomonis was published by Fleck Wissenschaftl. Reise durch Deutschland Italien etc. vol. ii. 3 (1837) pp. 111–140. Also in Fürst’s Orient vols. v. and vii. A German translation was contributed by Bornemann (Zeitschr. für die histor. Theol. 1844 iii. pp. 9–56). Comp. also Bornemann Conjectanea in Salomonis Testamentum (Biblische Studien von Geistlichen des Königr. Sachsen second year 1843 pp. 45–60 for fourth year 1846 pp. 28–69). With regard to the date of its composition comp. the passage from Leontius as given in Fabricius Cod. pseudepigr. i. 1063 sq. In how strange a manner Jewieh-Christian and heathen elements were all mixed up with each other may be seen for example from two Greek manuscripts containing magical treatises which were published by Parthey (Transactions of the Berlin Academy 1865).

Mishna Pesachim iv. 9: “Hezekiah concealed the book of cures (גנז ספר רפואות) and the learned approved of this.” Comp. the commentary of Maimonides on this in Surenhusius’s Mishna ii. 150 where it is expressly stated that the tradition had in view Solomon’s Book of Cures. Suidas (Lex. under Ἐζεκίας): Ἦν Σολομῶνι βίβλος ἰαμάτων πάθους παντός ἐγκεκολαμμένη τῇ τοῦ ναοῦ φλιᾷ. Ταύτην ἐξεκόλαψεν Ἐζεκίας οὐ προσέχοντος τοῦ λαοῦ τῷ θεῷ διὰ τὸ τὰς θεραπείας τῶν παθῶν ἐνθένδε τοὺς πάσχοντας αὐτοὺς κομίζεσθαι περιορῶντας αἰτεῖν τὸν θεόν. Glycas in Fabricius Cod. pseudepigr. i. 1042 sq.

Preliminary Remarks.

STILL more varied than the Palestinian-Jewish is the Graeco-Jewish literature. Scriptural and Rabbinic Judaism on the one hand Greek philosophers poets and historians on the other form the factors through whose co-operation a literature of the most motley and varied character sprang up upon the soil of the Jewish Dispersion; a literature many-sided with respect not only to its forms but also to the standpoints taken up by its authors and the objects they pursued.

Hellenistic Judaism and its literature partake of the general intellectual and literary character of the period viz. of that Alexandrino-Roman epoch of Greek literature during which the latter left the soil of Greek nationality and became a universal literature. For the nations of the Mediterranean region did not merely assimilate Greek culture but also contributed on their part to the literary productivity of the age. In all lands authors made their appearance whose Greek education prepared them to participate in every kind of literary effort and whose co-operation imparted to Greek literature a cosmopolitan character; cosmopolitan in the twofold respect of origin and effect. The tide of the mental acquisitions of the East now flowed in increasingly upon Greek literature. Religion and philosophy received thence fresh impulses poets and historians fresh material. And on the other hand the effect aimed at was also cosmopolitan for they who now took pen in hand wrote not only for the little nation of the Greeks but for the educated classes throughout the world.

In this literary productivity Hellenized Jews also took a part. And what has just been said applies to them above all others viz. that they introduced a new element into Greek literature. The religious knowledge of Israel which had hitherto been the possession of only a small circle now brought its influence to bear in the department of Greek literature. The religious faith of Israel its history and its great and sacred past were depicted in the forms and with the means furnished by the literary culture of the Greeks and thus made accessible to the whole world. Such Jews wrote not only for their compatriots and co-religionists but for the purpose of making known to all mankind the illustrious history of Israel and its pre-eminent religious enlightenment.

The connection between their own national culture and that of the Greeks was of course in the case of the Jews as well as of other Orientals no merely external one. Judaism and Hellenism now really entered upon a process of mutual internal amalgamation. Judaism which in its unyielding Pharisaic phase appears so rigidly exclusive proved itself uncommonly pliable and accommodating upon the soil of Hellenism and allowed a far-reaching influence to the ascendant Greek spirit. The Hellenistic Jews were as unwilling as others to let themselves be deprived of that common possession of the entire educated world the great poets philosophers and historians of Greece. They too derived from the living spring of the Greek classics that human culture which seemed to the ancient world the supreme good. Under its influence however Judaism imperceptibly underwent a change. It stripped itself of its particularistic character. It discovered that there were true and Divine thoughts in the literature of the heathen world and appropriated them it embraced all men as brethren and desired to lead all who were still walking in darkness to the knowledge of the truth.

But while the Jews were thus like other Orientals becoming Greeks it was at the same time seen that Judaism was something very different from the heathen religions. Its internal power of resistance was incomparably greater than theirs. While the other Oriental religions were merged in the general religious medley of the times Judaism maintained itself essentially inviolate. It adhered strictly and firmly to the unity of the Godhead and the repudiation of all images in worship and maintained the belief that God’s dealings with mankind tend to a blissful end. Judaism by thus firmly adhering in presence of the pressure exercised by Hellenism to that which formed its essence proved the pre-eminence of its religious strength.

The consciousness of this pre-eminence impresses its character upon the Graeco-Jewish literature. It pursues for the most part the practical aim of not only strengthening its co-religionists and making them acquainted with their great past but also of convincing its non-Jewish readers of the folly of heathenism and of persuading them of the greatness of Israel’s history and of the futility of all attacks upon that nation. Great part of it is therefore in the most comprehensive sense apologetic. In the predominance of the practical aim it is akin to the Palestinian. For as the latter has chiefly in view the strengthening and reviving of fidelity to the law the Graeco-Jewish literature at least for the most part pursues the object of inspiring the non-Jewish world with respect for the people and the religion of Israel nay if possible of bringing them to embrace the latter.

The chief seat of Hellenistic Judaism and consequently of Graeco-Jewish literature was Alexandria the capital of the Ptolemies which through their exertions had been raised to the first rank as a place of scholarship in the Hellenistic period. The means of culture afforded by the age were here at disposal in a profusion not to be found elsewhere; while at the same time Jews were nowhere else found living together in so great numbers out of Palestine. Hence there was an inward necessity that Hellenic Judaism should here reach its utmost prosperity and its literature be here chiefly cultivated. But it would be a mistake to suppose that such pursuits were cultivated only in Alexandria. They were indeed by no means specifically “Alexandrine” but the common possession of Hellenistic that is extra-Palestinian Judaism in general. Nay even in Palestine they found advocates although the Maccabean movement opposed a strong barrier to the encroachments of this tendency.

The diversity both in literary form and theological standpoint of the works now to be discussed is chiefly dependent on their greater adherence now to scriptural types now to Greek models. Between the two extremes here mentioned however are found a great variety of productions which it is difficult to subject to definite classification. The following groups may perhaps be most fitly distinguished.

1. The Septuagint

The foundation of all Judaeo-Hellenistic culture is the ancient anonymous Greek translation of the Scriptures known by the name of the Septuagint (οἱ ἑβδομήκοντα septuaginta interpretes) and preserved entire by the tradition of the Christian Church; Hellenistic Judaism is as inconceivable without it as the evangelical Church of Germany without Luther’s translation of the Bible.

The single name must not mislead us to the notion; that we have here to deal with a single work not only the work of different authors but the work also of different times being subsequently comprised under this name. The oldest part is the translation of the Pentateuch of the origin of which the so-called Epistle of Aristeas gives a detailed narrative. King Ptolemy II. Philadelphus (283–247 B.C.) was induced by his librarian Demetrius Phalereus to have the laws of the Jews also translated into Greek for his library. At his request the Jewish high priest Eleasar sent him seventy-two able men six out of each tribe by whose labours the whole was finished in seventy-two days (for particulars see No. VII). The historical nature of this account embellished as it is by a multitude of graphic details is now generally given up. The only question is whether the foundation of the fictitious embellishment may not perhaps be some historical tradition the essence of which was that the translation of the Jewish law into Greek was projected by Ptolemy Philadelphus at the instance of Demetrius Phalereus. This would in itself be very possible. For the learned and literary zeal of the Ptolemies and especially of Ptolemy Philadelphus would certainly make it conceivable that he should wish to incorporate the law of the Jews also in his library. In favour of this view may also be cited the circumstance that the Jewish philosopher Aristobulus in the time of Ptolemy VI. Philometor relates just what we have designated as the possible essence of the tradition without betraying any acquaintance with the fictitious embellishments of the Epistle of Aristeas which seems to show that he was following some tradition quite independent of the said Epistle. It is however suspicious that according to a very trustworthy account Demetrius Phalereus did not live at the court of Ptolemy at all but had already been banished by him from Alexandria immediately after the death of Ptolemy Lagos. Thus the supposed essence of the tradition also falls and there remains merely a bare possibility that the Septuagint translation of the Pentateuch owes its origin to the literary efforts of Ptolemy Philadephus. It is also as possible that it was called forth by the exigencies of the Jews themselves. For Jews who had at heart the maintenance of an acquaintance with the law even among the Dispersion observing that the knowledge of the sacred language was more and more decreasing and that the Jews of the Dispersion were appropriating Greek as their mother tongue might feel themselves induced to translate the law into Greek for the purpose of preserving the knowledge of it among Greek Jews also. This translation having been in the first place undertaken as a private labour gradually obtained official validity also. But obscure as is the origin of the translation it may be safely admitted on internal grounds that its locality was Alexandria and its date the third century before Christ for the Hellenist Demetrius who wrote in the time of Ptolemy IV. (222–205) certainly made use of it (see below No. III.).

The preceding remarks apply only to the translation of the Pentateuch to which alone the Aristeas legend refers. But after the sacred Thorah had once been made accessible to Hellenistic Jews the need of possessing the rest of the Scriptures in the Greek tongue was gradually experienced. Hence translations first of the prophets and afterwards of the Hagiographa followed. These too chiefly originated in Egypt. Some of the Hagiographa such as the Book of Daniel and some of the psalms not having been composed till the era of the Maccabees the Greek translations of these more recent Hagiographa cannot have been made earlier than about the middle of the second century before Christ. It seems however that in fact the translations into Greek of the. bulk of the Hagiographa together with the prophets were at about this time already in existence. Sirach the grandson of Jesus who came to Egypt in the year 132 excuses the defects of his translation by the fact that what is said in Hebrew does not retain the same meaning when translated into another language which is he says the case not only in his work but also in the Law and the Prophets and the other Scriptures (Wisdom Prolog.: οὐ γὰρ ἰσοδυναμεῖ αὐτὰ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἑβραϊστὶ λεγόμενα καὶ ὅταν μεταχθῇ εἰς ἑτέραν γλῶσσαν• οὐ μόνον δὲ ταῦτα ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ νόμος καὶ αἱ προφητεῖαι καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν βιβλίων οὐ μικρὰν ἔχει τὴν διαφορὰν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς λεγόμενα). Hence he evidently was already acquainted with a translation of the Prophets and the “other Scriptures.” The Septuagint translation of Chronicles was certainly known to Eupolemus who wrote about the middle of the second century before Christ (see below paragraph 3 and Freudenthal Alexander Polyhistor p. 119); that of the Book of Job to the historian Aristeas whose date it must be admitted is not exactly known but who being quoted by Alexander Polyhistor must have lived at latest in the first half of the first century before Christ (see below No. III. and Freudenthal Alexander Polyhistor p. 139).

After what has been said no further proof of all these translations being of Jewish origin is needed. The character of the translation differs widely in the different books being now tolerably free now helplessly verbal but chiefly the latter. As yet a precise investigation has been made only of individual books. A special difficulty in such investigation lies in the fact that it is often necessary to reconstruct the Hebrew text which must have been in the hands of the translators. In one point however all these works are alike viz. in the barbarous Greek produced under the influence of the Hebrew originals. Quite a new language swarming with such strong Hebraisms that a Greek could not understand it is here created. Not to mention the imitation of Hebrew constructions many Greek words which correspond to one meaning of a Hebrew word are without further ceremony made equivalent to the whole extent of the meanings comprised in the Hebrew word and thus significations are forced upon words which they do not at all possess in Greek (e.g. the words δόξα εἰρήνη and many others). How far colloquial intercourse with Hellenized Jews may have anticipated the labours of the translators cannot be determined. It is probable that an alternative action here took place. Much which the translators ventured upon was already found by them in colloquial language. But then the reaction upon the development of Judaic Greek exercised by a translation which came into general use would at the least be quite as great.

For the translations in question were not only combined into a whole but were also universally accepted by the Jews of the Dispersion as their text of Scripture. The oldest Hellenists Demetrius and Eupolemus in their compilations of Scripture history rely solely upon the Septuagint; Philo throughout assumes it Josephus does so for the most part. With Philo the text of the Septuagint is so far a sacred text that he argues from its casual details nay not only did this translation universally penetrate into private use but it was also used as Holy Scripture in the synagogue service (see ). It was then transferred from the hands of the Jews to the Christian Church and regarded by it as the authentic text of Scripture. But the very circumstance of the Christian Church taking possession of this translation and deriving thence its polemical weapons in its conflict with the Jews gradually co-operated in bringing the Septuagint into discredit with them and in giving rise to new Jewish translations especially that of Aquila which in the time of Origen stood in higher respect with the Jews than did the Septuagint.

The text of the Septuagint has come down to us solely by the tradition of the Christian Church. In its history the learned labours of Origen which finally—and not without his own fault—led to a base corruption of the text are epoch-making Origen on account of the uncertainty of the Septuagint text and its great deviations from the Hebrew prepared a large edition of the Bible in which were written in six adjacent columns: (1) The Hebrew text in Hebrew characters; (2) the Hebrew text in Greek characters; (3) the translation of Aquila; (4) that of Symmachus; (5) the Septuagint; (6) the translation of Theodotion and indeed in this order (see Hieronymus Comment. in Tit. iii. 9 [Opp. ed. Vallarsi vii. 1. 734]; Epiphan. de mensuris et ponderibus § 19 and the other evidences in Field Origenis hexaplorum guae supersunt prolegom. p. 50). This was to lay a sure foundation for learned Scripture exegesis and especially for learned controversy against the Jews who often reproached Christians with their ignorance of the genuine text of Scripture (see on the motive and object of his undertaking Origen Comment. in Matth. vol. xv. c. xiv.; epist. ad African. § 5). The work affording a sixfold Scripture text was called the Hexapla. Origen also prepared another edition without the two Hebrew columns which was called the Tetrapla (Euseb. Hist. eccl. vi. 16). On the other hand it was also called Octapla because in certain books of the Old Testament two anonymous Greek translations were added to the above-named six texts (Epiphain. de mensuris et ponderibus § 19; Euseb. Hist. eccl. vi. 16. Comp. on the whole work the Prolegomena in Field Origenis Hexaplorum guae supersunt 2 vols. Oxonii 1875 and the Introductions to the Old Test of e.g. De Wette-Schrader § 56; Bleek-Wellhausen § 282). The fatal circumstance was that Origen was not content with placing the text of the Septuagint in juxtaposition with the others but to facilitate its use noted is the Septuagint text itself the deviations from tke Hebrew by (a) furnishing such words sentences or paragraphs as were missing in the Hebrew with an obelus (the sign of erasure) and (b) by interpolating with the addition of an asterisk from other translations and mostly from Theodotion those found in the Hebrew and missing in the Septuagint (see his own remarks in his Comment. in Matth vol. xv. c. xiv. [Lommatzsch iii. 357]: καί τινα αὲν ὠβελίσαμεν ἐν τῷ έβραϊκῷ μὴ κείμενα οὐ τολμήσαντες αὐτὰ πάντη περιελεῖν• τινὰ δὲ μετʼ ἀστερίσκων προσεθήκαμεν. Hieronymus Praef. in vers. Paralipom. [ed. Vallarsi ix. 1407 sq.]: sed quod majoris audaciae est in editione Septuaginta Theodotionis editionem miscuit asteriscis designans quae minus ante fuerant et virgulis quae ex superfluo videbantur apposita). He often proceeded also in a similar manner with inaccurate translations of the LXX. “by adding with an asterisk behind the obelized reading of the LXX. the parallel passages corresponding with the Hebrew from another version” (Bleek-Wellhausen p. 586). This text then especially copied from the Hexapla and often showing very careless dealing with the critical marks being disseminated since Eusebius (see Field Proleg. p. 99) a mass of such “hexaplarian” readings was introduced into the traditional text of the Septuagint; the common text (κοινὴ ἔκδοσις) being corrected by this hexaplarian one. The exclusion of hexaplarian additions is therefore the chief task of Septuagint criticism; and this is still approximately attainable for most of the books of the Old Testament the critical notes of Origen being still extant partly in certain Greek manuscripts partly in the Syriac translation of the hexaplarian Septuagint text (see Bleek-Wellhausen Einl. in das A. T. pp. 593 588 sqq.). The inserted matter has been very completely collected in Field Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt sive veterum interpretum Graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum fragmenta 2 vols. Oxonii 1875. By the separation however from the hexaplarian text of the Septuagint of the passages marked with an asterisk the original text is by no means obtained. The MSS. already varied very much in the time of Origen (see Comment. in Matth. vol. xv. c. xiv. ed. Lommatzsch iii. 357). Origen first compiled from them a text for himself and then quietly altered according to the Hebrew many particulars in it which could not be made known by obelus or asterisk (Field p. 60 sqq.). Hence such a proceeding will only obtain the Recension of Origen.

Others besides Origen have occupied themselves with learned labours upon the text of the Septuagint. We know especially of two other recensions those of Hesychius and Lucianus; the former of these was disseminated in Egypt the latter from Antioch to Constantinople (Hieronymus praef. in vers. Paralipom. ed Vallarsi ix. 1405 sq.: Alexandria et Egypta in Septuaginta suis Hesychium laudat auctorem. Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani Martyris exemplaria probat. Mediae inter has provinciae Palestinos codices legunt quos ab Origine elaboratos Eusebius et Pamphilus vulgaverunt; totusque orbis hac inter se trifaria varietate compugnat). Hesychius is perhaps identical with the Egyptian bishop of this name who suffered martyrdom in the persecution of Maximinus 312 (Euseb. Hist. eccl. viii. 13. 7). No particulars are known concerning the nature of his recension. Lucianus was the noted presbyter of Antioch who also suffered martyrdom in the persecution of Maximinus 312 (Euseb. Hist. eccl. viii. 13.2 ix. 6.3). His recension was an emendation of the Septuagint according to the Hebrew with the help of other Greek translations (Suidas Lex. s.v.: Λουκιανὸς ὁ μάρτυς• αὐτὸς ἁπάσας [scil. τὰς ἱερὰς βίβλους] ἀναλαβὼν ἐκ τῆς Ἑβραΐδος αὐτὰς ἐπανενεώσατο γλώττης ἣν καὶ αὐτὴν ἠκριβωκὼς ἐς τὰ μάλιστα ἦν). Comp. Field Proleg. cap. ix. Harnack in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. viii. 767 sqq. on “Hesychius and Lucianus.” Also the Introductions to the Old Testament e.g. De Wette-Schrader § 57; Bleek-Wellhausen § 283. According to the recent investigations of Field and Lagarde (see Theol. Litztg. 1876 p. 605) the recension of Lucianus is still preserved in several MSS. Lagarde has edited the text according to these (one volume has as yet appeared Librorum Veteris Testamenti canonicorum pars 1 graece edita Götting. 1883).

The labours however of Hesychius and Lucianus have but contributed to further confusion in the text of the Septuagint. For the text of the κοινή is now not only mixed up with the Hexapla text but also with those of Hesychius and Lucianus and the former having been even in the text of Origen very uncertain there is no longer any prospect of a certain recovery of the original text of the Septuagint. It is true that being still acquainted with the chief recensions we are in a position safely to pronounce judgment as to which of the MSS. is comparatively freest from the peculiarities of these recensions and therefore represents with the greatest comparative purity the original text. The old Latin texts also furnish important assistance.

Among those Greek manuscripts which contain the whole Old Testament or at least a great part of it the Vaticanus (1209) is acknowledged to hold the first rank with respect to the purity of the text. Its text has been ostensibly published by Mai (Vetus et Novum Testamentum ex antiquissimo codice Vaticano 5 vols. Rome 1857). His edition is however very untrustworthy. More accurate is the new Roman édition de luxe in facsimile type (Bibliorum Sacrorum Graecus codex Vaticanus edd. Vercellone and Cozza 6 vols. Rom 1868–1881 price of each vol. £6; comp. also Theol. Litztg. 1882 p. 121). Next to the Vaticanus must be mentioned the Sinaiticus discovered by Tischendorf in the year 1859 of which about half of the Old Testament has been preserved. Edition de luxe Bibliorum Codex Sinaticus Petropolitanus ed. Tischendorf 4 vols. Petersburg 1862. Tischendorf had previously discovered a smaller portion of this manuscript and published it under the title of Frederico-Augustanus (Codex Frederico-Augustanus ed. Tischendorf Lips. 1846).—The Alexandrinus which is already much infected by hexaplarian readings ranks third among these great Bible manuscripts. It forms the foundation of Grabe’s edition of the Septuagint. The Vetus Testamentum Graecum e Codice MS. Alexandrino cura Henrici Herveii Baber 3 vols. London 1812–1826 gives the text of the MS. itself. Recently an edition has been prepared in photo-lithographic facsimile of which the portion comprising the New Testament has been first issued (Facsimile of the Codex Alexandrinus New Testament and Clementine Epistles published by order of the Trustees London 1879; comp. Theol. Litztg. 1880 p. 230).—The Old Testament appeared in 3 vols. 1881 sqq. Comp. also on the manuscripts the Prolegomena of the editions especially Holmes-Parsons and Tischendorf. The publications of Tischendorf (Monumenta sacra inedita) and Ceriani (Monumenta sacra et profana) contain much material.

Bibliographical information concerning the numerous editions of the Septuagint will be found in Le Long Bibliotheca sacra ed. Masch. vol. ii. 2 1781 pp. 262–304 Fabricius Bibliotheca graeca ed. Harles iii. 673 sqq. Rosenmüller Handbuch für die Literatur der bibl. Kritik und Exegese vol. ii. 1798 pp. 279–322. Winer Handbuch der Theol. Literatur i. 47 sq. Frankel Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta 1841 pp. 242–252. Tischendorf Prolegomena to his edition. De Wette-Schrader Einleitung in das A. T. § 58. All the editions fall back upon the following four chief editions: (1) The Complutensian Polyglot 6 vols. in Complutensi universitate 1514–1517. (2) The Aldina Sacrae Scripturae Veteris Novaeque omnia Venice 1518. (3) The Roman or Sixtine edition Vetus Testamentum juxta Septuaginta ex auctoritate Sixti V. Pont. Max. editum Rome 1587. The text of this edition is relatively the best among the printed texts conforming as it does frequently though by no means entirely to the Vaticanus 1209. Since the majority of the more recent editions reproduce this Sixtine text the printed common text is a relatively good one. (4) Grabe’s edition Septuaginta Interpretum vols. i.–iv. ed. Grabe Oxonii 1707–1720. It chiefly follows the Codex Alexandrinus. Of recent editions the most important is Vetus Testamentum Graecum edd. Holmes and Parsons 5 vols. Oxonii 1798–1827. The text is reproduced from the Sixtine edition but accompanied by an unusually copious collection of manuscript various readings. Though what is offered is not quite trustworthy and rather confuses than instructs by its copiousness still this edition has the merit of having for the first time brought forward the material furnished by the MSS. in general (comp. Bleek and Wellhausen Einl. in das A. T. p. 592 sq.). The manual edition of Tischendorf Vetus Testamontum Graece juxta LXX. interpretes 2 vols. Lips. 1850 2nd ed. 1880 also gives the Sixtine text with only unimportant corrections. Nestle has added to the sixth edition a collatios of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as well as of the Alexandrinus already collated by Tischendorf (Veteris Testamenti Graeci codices Vaticanus et Sinaiticus cum textu recepto collati ab E. Nestle Lips. 1880).

The literature on the Septuagint is almost unbounded (comp. Fabricius-Harles Biblioth. gr. iii. 658 sqq. Rosenmüller Handb. für die Literatur der bibl. Kritik und Exegese ii. 395 sqq. De Wette-Schrader Einl. in das A. T. § 51 sqq. Fritzsche in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2 vols. i. 280 sqq.). The chief work of earlier date is: Hody De bibliorum textibus originalibus versionibus Graecis et Latina vulgata Oxon. 1705. Of recent times may be mentioned: (1) On single books Thierseh De Pentateuchi versione Alexandrina Erlang. 1841. Hollenberg Der Charakter der alexandrinischen Uebersetzung des Buches Josua und ihr textkritischer Werth Moers 1876 (Gymnasialprogr.). Wichelhaus De Jeremiae versione Alexandrina Halis 1847. Vollers Das Dodekapropheten der Alexandriner 1st half Berlin 1880. The same in Stade’s Zeitschr. für die alttestamentl. Wissensch. vol. iii. 1883 pp. 219–272 vol. iv. 1884 pp. 1–20. Lagarde Anmerkungen zur griechischen Uebersetzung der Proverbien Leipzig 1863. Bickell De indole ac ratione versionis Alex. in interpretando libro Jobi Marb. 1863. (2) On the whole: Frankel Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta Leipzig 1841. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael iii. 465 sqq. 534–556. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel iv. 322 sqq. Gfrörer Philo ii. 8–18. Dähne Geschichtliche Darstellung der jüd.-alex. Religions-Philosophie ii. 1–72. Fritzsche art. “Alexandrinische Uebersetzung des A. T.” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. i. 280–290. The Introductions to the Old Testament of Eichhorn Bertholdt Hävernick Keil and others especially De Wette Lehrbuch der hist.-krit. Einl. in die kanon und apokr. Bücher des A. T. viii. edited by Schrader (1869) § 51–58. Bleek Einleitung in das Alte Testament 4th ed. superintended by Wellhausen (1878) pp. 571–598. Reuss Gesch. der heil. Schriften Alten Testaments (1881) § 436–439.

2. Aquila and Theodotion

The Septuagint translation was indisputably regarded as the sacred text of the Scriptures by Hellenistic Jews down to the beginning of the second century after Christ. The period of its ascendancy is at the same time that of the prime of Hellenistic Judaism. Subsequently to the second century the latter entered upon a slow but continuous course of retrogression which—to leave out of consideration the limits prescribed to the encroachments of Judaism by political legislation—was mainly brought about by the co-operation of two factors viz. the increased power of Rabbinic Judaism and the victorious advance of Christianity. A significant symptom in this movement was the new Greek translations of the Bible the object of which was to place in the hand of Greek-speaking Jews a text in conformity with the authorized Hebrew one. It is true that on the one hand the undertaking of such translations was a proof of the still existing strength and importance of Hellenistic Judaism. On the other hand however they show that Hebrew authority had now attained acceptance and acknowledgment in a far stricter sense than formerly in the region of Hellenistic Judaism. The Jews of the Dispersion were renouncing their own culture and placing themselves under the guardianship of the Rabbins. These translations are at the same time a monument in the history of the struggle between Judaism and Christianity. They were to place in the hands of the Jews a polemical weapon in their contest with Christian theologians who were making the most of the very uncertain Septuagint text in their own cause (comp. especially Justin Dial. c. Tryph. c. 68 s. fin. 71 and elsewhere).

Of the three Greek translations of the Bible which Origen placed in his Hexapla of the Septuagint (Aquila Symmachus and Theodotion see above p. 164) only Aquila and Theodotion will here engage our notice; for Symmachus was according to Euseb. Hist. eccl. vi. 17 an Ebionite and therefore a Christian. Of Theodotion too it is not certain whether he was a Jew. Aquila on the contrary is unanimously designated as such and indeed as a proselyte.

According to Irenaeus who is the first to mention Aquila he was a Jewish proselyte of Pontus. The statement with respect to his native land is by reason of its striking parallel with Acts 18:2 somewhat suspicious though Epiphanius more precisely names Sinope in Pontus as his home. On the other hand it seems certain—notwithstanding his thorough Knowledge of Hebrew—that Aquila was a proselyts. For he is designated as such (עקילס הַגֵּר) not only by all the Fathers but also in the Jerusalem Talmud and in Rabbinic literature in general. Of the fables related of him by Epiphanius—that he was a relation (πενθερίδης) of the Emperor Hadrian that he at first turned Christian then was excluded from the Christian Church on account of his inclination to astrology and became a Jew—thus much is credible that he lived in the time of Hadrian. Rabbinical tradition also places him in the time of R. Elieser R. Joshua and R. Akiba and thus in the first decades of the second century after Christ. The aim of his translation was to imitate the Hebrew text as exactly as possible so that he not only ventured upon the bold formation of a multitude of new words for the purpose of obtaining Greek terms which should exactly correspond with Hebrew ones but he slavishly rendered Hebrew particles by Greek particles even when their meaning did not allow it (for proof of this see Field and others). A noted example ridiculed by Jerome is that in the very first sentence of Genesis he rendered the sign of the accusative אֵת by σύν (σὺν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ σὺν τὴν γῆν). This attention to the most trifling detail may perhaps be referred to the influence of Akiba whose pupil Aquila is said to have been. Jerome often mentions a prima and secunda editio of Aquila. And the numerous passages in which two different translations are referred to Aquila (collected in Field) confirm the existence of two different editions of the work. On account of its close accordance with the Hebrew text the work was at its first appearance favoured by R. Elieser and R. Joshua the eminent Rabbinical authorities and was as testified by Origen and also indirectly confirmed by Justinian’s 146th Novella soon much preferred to the LXX. by Hellenistic Jews. About a dozen passages are quoted from it in Rabbinic literature. The work as a whole perished with Rabbinic Judaism. For what remains of it we are indebted to its admission into Origen’s Hexapla. Numerous notices of Aquila’s translation are preserved from the latter work some by quotations in Eusebius Jerome and other Fathers who still made use of the original Hexapla in the library of Pamphilus at Caesarea (Hieron. comment. in Tit. iii. 9 ed. Vallarsi vii. 1. 734) some in marginal notes in the MSS. of the Hexaplarian Septuagint text.

Irenaeus iii. 21. 1 (in Greek in Eusebius H. E. v. 8. 10): ἀλλʼ οὐχ ὡς ἔνιοί φασι τῶν νῦν τολμώντων μεθερμηνεύειν τὴν γραφήν• “ἰδοὺ ἡ νεᾶνις ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει καὶ τέξεται υἱόν” ὡς Θεοδοτίων ἡρμήνευσεν ὁ Ἐφέσιος καὶ Ἀκύλας ὁ Ποντικὸς ἀμφότεροι Ἰουδαῖοι προσήλυτοι. Eusebius Demonstr. evang. vii. 1. 32 ed. Gaisford (p. 316 ed. Paris): προσήλυτος δὲ ὁ Ἀκύλας ἦν οὐ φύσει Ἰουδαῖος. Epiphanius De mensuris et ponderibus § 14 15.

Hieronymus Epist. 57 ad Pammachium c. 11 (Opp. ed. Vallarsi i. 316): Aquila autem proselytus et contentiosus interpres qui non solum verba sed etymologias quoque verborum transferre conatus est jure projicitur a nobis. Quis enim pro frumento et vino et oleo possit vel legere vel intelligere χεῦμα ὀπωρισμόν σιλπνότητα quod nos possumus dicere fusionem pomationem et splendentiam. Aut quia Hebraei non solum habent ἄρθρα sed et πρόαρθρα ille κακοζήλως et syllabas interpretatur et literas dicitque σὺν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ σὺν τὴν γῆν quod Graeca et Latina lingua omnino non recipit. Jerome generally gives a very favourable opinion of the accuracy and trustworthiness of Aquila. See Epist. 32 ad Marcellam (Vallarsi i. 152) Comm. in Jesaj. xlix. 5 6 (Vallarsi iv. 564) Comm. in Hoseam ii. 16 17 (Vallarsi vi. 656). See the passages of Jerome in which he mentions the prima and secunda editio of Aquila in Field Origenis Hexaplae quae supersunt proleg. p. xxv. sq.

Talmud jer. Megilla i. 11 fol. 71: תירגם עקילס הגר התורה לפני ר׳ אליעזר ולנפי ר׳ יהושע וקילסו אותו ואמרו לו יָפיָפִיתָ מבני אדם “Aquila the proselyte translated the Thorah in the time of R. Elieser and R. Joshua; and they praised him and said to him ‘Thou art the fairest among the children of men’ ”(Ps. 45:3 with an allusion to the translation of the Thorah into the Japhetic). Jer. Kiddushin i. 1 fol. 59: תירגם עקילס הגר לפני ר׳ עקיבה “Aquila the proselyte translated in the time of Akiba” etc. Hieronymus Comment. in Jes. viii. 11 sqq. (Vallarsi iv. 122 sq.): Akibas quem magistrum Aquilae proselyti autumant. (Comp. .) A collection of Rabbinical passages in which the translation of Aquila is quoted is already given by Asariah de Rossi Meor Enajim c. 45; comp. also Wolf Biblioth. Hebraea i. 958–960 iii. 890–894; Zunz Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden p. 82 sq.; and most exhaustively by Anger De Akila pp. 12–25. The name of Aquila is in Rabbinical literature often distorted into אונקלוס (Onkelos); so also e.g. in all the passages of the Tosefta see Zuckermandel’s edition Index s.v. אונקלס.

Origenes epist. ad African. c. 2: Ἀκύλας … φιλοτιμότερον πεπιστευμένος παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις ἡρμηνευκέναι τὴν γραφήν• ᾧ μάλιστα εἰώθασιν οἱ ἀγνοοῦντες τὴν Ἑβραίων διάλεκτον χρῆσθαι ὡς πάντων μᾶλλον ἐπιτετευγμένῳ. It is mentioned in Justinian’s Novella 146 that it was disputed among the Jews themselves whether the Scriptures were to be read in Hebrew or Greek in the synagogue service. Justinian directs that the latter shall not be hindered and as a Christian emperor recommends in the first place the use of the Septuagint but permits also the use of Aquila’s translation (which was thus manifestly preferred by the Jews).

The fragments are very completely collected in Field Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt 2 vols. Oxonii 1875. The chief work formerly was Montfaucon Hexaplorum Origenis quae supersunt 2 vols. Paris 1713. Freudenthal regards the Septuagint translation of Ecclesiastes as the work of Aquila see Alexander Polyhistor p. 65 note.

The Literature: Hody De bibliorum textibus (1705) pp. 573–578. Montfaucon Hexapl. Orig. praelim. pp. 46–51. Fabricius Biolioth. graec. ed. Harles iii. 690–692. Anger De Onkelo Chaldaico quem ferunt Pentateuchi paraphraste et quid ei rationis intercedat cum Akila Graeco Veteris Testamenti interprete Part I.: De Akila Lips. 1845. Field Proleg. pp. xvi.–xxvii. Arnold art. “Bibelübersetzungen” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1st ed. ii. 187 sq. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel vii. 386–390. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael iii. 62–64. Grätz Gesch. der Juden iv. 2nd ed. p. 437 sqq. Lagarde Clementina (1865) p. 12 sqq. Joel Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte (1880) p. 43 sqq. Die Einleitungen in’s Alte Testament von Eichhorn (4th ed.) i. 521–531; Bertholdt ii. 534–537; Herbst i. 155–157; Keil (3rd ed.) p. 557 sq.; De Wette-Schrader § 55; Bleek-Wellhausen § 281.

It might appear questionable whether Theodotion who as well as Symmachus is as a rule called an Ebionite by Jerome should be named here at all. But Jerome elsewhere calls him a Jew and in a passage in which he expresses himself most precisely states the former as only the opinion of some. The other opinion viz. that Theodotion was a Jew and indeed a Jewish proselyte is evidenced by Irenaeus and also by Epiphanius whose fictions (that Theodotion was at first a Marcionite and then went over to Judaism) are not deserving of credit. According to Irenaeus Theodotion was a native of Ephesus. Epiphanius makes him a Marcionite and a native of Pontus. With regard to his date Epiphanius who places him under Commodus (A.D. 180–192) is generally credited. But the statements of Epiphanius are here untrustworthy. Nor must the circumstance that Origen places Theodotion in the last place in his Hexapla mislead us to the notion of his being the most recent of these translators of Scripture. He is at all events a predecessor of Irenaeus and very probably not more recent than Aquila for the use of his translation in the Shepherd of Hermas has lately been raised to almost a certainty. The work of Theodotion pursues in general the same object as that of Aquila viz. that of furnishing a translation which should render the Hebrew text more accurately than is done by the LXX. Theodotion however bases his work upon the LXX. correcting the latter according to the Hebrew so that it can only be called a thorough revision of this translation with which it is however in very close accordance. One peculiarity of his work is that he transcribes Hebrew words into Greek without translating them even more frequently than Aquila and Symmachus (Field gives a list of all the known cases Proleg. p. 40 sq.). We have no evidence of the use of this translation among the Jews. His translation of Daniel having been received by the Christian Church and having therefore supplanted the original Septuagint translation of Daniel in the Septuagint manuscripts has come down to us complete (the latter is preserved in only one MS. a codex Chisianus). For the rest numerous fragments of Theodotion have been preserved in the same manner as those of Aquila.

Hieronymus De viris illustr. c. liv. (Vallarsi ii. 893): Aquilae scilicet Pontici proselyti et Theodotionis Hebionei et Symmachi ejusdem dogmatis. Idem Comment. in Habak. iii. 11–13 (Vallarsi vi. 656): Theodotio autem vere quasi pauper et Ebionita sed et Symmachus ejusdem dogmatis. pauperem sensum secuti Judaice transtulerunt.… Isti Semichristiani Judaice transtulerunt et Judaeus Aquila interpretatus est ut Christianus. Idem praef. in vers. Iob (Vallarsi ix. 1100): Judaeus Aquila Symmachus et Theodotio judaizantes haeretici. Elsewhere however Jerome calls Theodotion simply a Jew see Epist. 112 ad Augustin. c. 19 (Vallarsi i. 752): hominis Judaei atque blasphemi. Jerome expresses himself most precisely in the praef. comment. in Daniel (Vallarsi v. 619 sq.): Illud quoque lectorem admoneo Danielem non juxta LXX. interpretes sed juxta Theodotionem ecclesias legere qui utique post adventum Christi incredulus fuit licet eum quidam dicant Ebionitam qui altero genere Judaeus est.

Irenaeus iii. 21. 1 (= Euseb. H. E. v. 8. 10); see the passage above p. 171. Epiphanius De mensuris et ponderibus § 17 18.

As for the chronology the circumstance which is chiefly decisive is that Theodotion was certainly the predecessor of Irenaeus. For the latter not only expressly mentions him but also makes use of his translation of Daniel (see Zahn art. “Irenaeus” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. vii. 131). The relation of Justin Martyr to Theodotion is doubtful. The text of the long portion which he quotes from Daniel Dial. c. Tryph. c. xxxi. agrees indeed in many minutiae with Theodotion in opposition to the Septuagint of the cod. Chisianus and yet the use of the former cannot be inferred because the agreement with the latter preponderates. See Credner Beiträge zur Einl. in die biblischen Schriften vol. ii. (1838) pp. 253–274. In the Shepherd of Hermas Vis. iv. 2. 4 however use is freely made of Daniel 6:23 and that in a form which strikingly agrees with Theodotion in opposition to the LXX. (see Hort in John Hopkins’ University Circular December 1884 and Harnack Theol. Litztg. 1885 p. 146). Hence it can scarcely be doubted that he preceded Hermas. But perhaps he was also a predecessor of Aquila for after the acceptance of Aquila’s translation by the Hellenistic Jews forming as it does the first halting-place on the way to the formation of a Greek translation of the Bible in strict conformity with the Hebrew his would have been tolerably superfluous. This assumption will also explain his disappearance from Jewish tradition. It is also worthy of remark that Irenaeus names him before Aquila. Finally it may also be mentioned that in the Revelation of St. John sentences and expressions from Daniel are used in a form which accords more with Theodotion than the Septuagint (9:20 10:5 13:7 20:4. Comp. Salmon Introduction to the Study of the Books of the Old Testament 1885 pp. 654–668; and in accordance with it Harnack Theol. Litztg. 1885 p. 267). It must however be confessed that the accordances are not of a kind to allow us to infer with certainty an acquaintance with Theodotion’s work on the part of the writer of the Apocalypse.

On the relation of Theodotion to the Septuagint Jerome says in his Comment. in Ecclesiastes ii. (Vallarsi iii. 396): Septuaginta vero et Theodotio sicut in pluribus locis ita et in hoc quoque concordant (i.e. in opposition to Aquila and Symmachus).

The acceptance of Theodotion’s version of Daniel by the Christian Church in place of the Septuagint is repeatedly testified by Jerome see Contra Rufin. ii. 33 (Vallarsi ii. 527); praef. comment. in Daniel (Vallarsi v. 619 sq.); praef. in version. Daniel (Vallarsi ix. 1361 sq.).

The Literature: Hody De bibliorum textibus (1705) pp. 579–585. Montfaucon Hexapl. Orig. praelim. pp. 56 57. Fabricius Bibliotheca graec. ed. Harles iii. 692–695. Field Orig. Hexapl. proleg. pp. xxxviii–xlii. Arnold art. “Bibelübersetzungen” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1st ed. ii. 188. Fürst in the Literaturbl. des Orients 1848 p. 793. Credner as above. Zahn as above. Supernatural Religion (complete edition 1879) ii. 210 sq. The Introductions to the Old Testament of Eichhorn Bertholdt Herbst Keil De Wette-Schrader Bleek-Well-hausen and others. The older literature in Fürst Biblioth. Judaica iii. 420–422.

The work of Aquila and its favourable reception on the part of the Hellenistic Jews prove that from about the second century after Christ Hellenistic Judaism also kept strictly to the text and canon of the Palestinians. This is confirmed by the expressions of Origen in his Epistle to Julius Africanus. He here speaks of such component parts of the canon as are missing in the Hebrew especially of the additions to Daniel and Esther and the Books of Tobit and Judith as if they had never belonged to the Jewish canon. He regards them as the exclusive possession of Christians and says plainly that they are rejected by the Jews without making any distinction between Greek and Hebrew Jews (Epist. ad African. c. 2 3 and 13). Hence the canon of the Palestinians was at that time absolutely valid among the Jews of the Dispersion also. This was not the case in earlier times. The Jews of the Dispersion indeed always possessed on the whole the same Scriptures as those of Palestine. But in Palestine the canon attained a settled form about the second century before Christ. Later works even when they appeared under the name of sacred authorities and found approbation were no longer incorporated therein. Among the Hellenistic Jews on the contrary the boundaries still fluctuated for some centuries. A whole multitude of works originating in the last two centuries before or even in the first after Christ were united by them to the collection of the Holy Scriptures and among them some also which being originally written in Hebrew and originating in Palestine did not become the property of Hellenistic Judaism till they had been translated into Greek. We have certainly no direct evidence of this fact. But the fact that the Christian canon of the Old Testament was from the beginning of wider and more vacillating extent than the Hebrew can only be explained by the circumstance that the Christian Church received the canon in just this form from the hands of Hellenistic Judaism. Hence the latter at the time of the founding of the Christian Church had in its collection of Holy Scriptures those books which are in the Protestant Church designated according to the precedent of Jerome as “apocryphal” because they are absent from the Hebrew canon. One thing however must not be forgotten that on the whole no settled boundary existed.

It is in accordance with this long maintained freedom in dealing with the canon that the Hellenistic Jews allowed themselves a liberty of procedure with single works longer than the Palestinians did. In the same manner as Palestinian Judaism had formerly acted with respect to its literature did Hellenistic Judaism during our period also freely handle and enrich by additions works already canonical in Palestine. This treatment had as a rule the same motives and objects as the legendary embellishment of more ancient sacred history. The only difference was that in the case of books already canonical the legend was placed beside the Scripture text while in that of books not as yet received into the canon it was interpolated in the text itself.

The majority of those books which though admitted by the Hellenistic Jews into the collection of the Holy Scriptures originally made no claim to be esteemed as such has therefore been treated of by us elsewhere. We here group together only (1) the revisions and completions of such books as had in their more ancient forms become canonical in Palestine (Ezra Esther Daniel the Prayer of Manasseh [an addition to 2 Chron. 33]) and (2) certain books which from the first aspired to be regarded as Scripture and which entered as such into the Hellenistic collection of the Scriptures (Baruch the Epistle of Jeremiah).

1. The Greek Ezra

Besides the Greek translation of the Hebrew canonical Book of Ezra there is also a free Greek revision differing from the canonical Ezra partly by transpositions partly by interpolations. The exact relation between the two will appear from the following survey of the composition of the Greek Ezra:—

Chap. 1 = 2 Chron. 35–36: Restoration of the temple worship under Josiah (639–609) and history of the successors of Josiah down to the destruction of the temple (588).

Chap. 2:1–14 = Ezra 1: Cyrus in the first year of his reign (537) permits the return of the exiles and delivers up the sacred vessels.

Chap. 2:15–25 = Ezra 4:7–24: In consequence of a complaint against the Jews Artaxerxes forbids (465–425) the continuance of the rebuilding of (the temple and) the walls of Jerusalem.

Chap. 3–5:66: independent: Zerubbabel obtains the favour of Darius (521–485) and receives from him permission for the return of the exiles.

Chap. 5:7–70 = Ezra 2:1–4:5: A list of those who returned with Zerubbabel the operations of Zerubbabel and the interruption of the building of the temple in the time of Cyrus (536–529) till the second year of Darius (520).

Chap. 6–7 = Ezra 5–6: Resumption and completion of the rebuilding of the temple in the sixth year of Darius (516).

Chap. 8–9:36 = Ezra 7–10: Return of Ezra with a train of exiles in the seventh year of Artaxerxes (458); commencement of Ezra’s operations.

Chap. 9:37–55 = Neh. 7:73–8:13: Public reading of the law by Ezra

According to this survey the reviser of the canonical Ezra took in hand the following changes: 1. The portion chap. 4:7–24 of the canonical Ezra is removed to an earlier place. 2. The portion chaps. 3–5:6 of the Greek Ezra is interpolated from an unknown source. 3. The book opens with 2 Chron. 35–36:4. Neh. 7:73–8:13 is added at the close. By the two first-named operations the confusion partly begotten by the canonical Ezra is considerably increased. For in this latter the portion chap. 4:6–23 stands out of place. It belongs to a much later period and treats not of the interruption of the rebuilding of the temple but of an interruption in the building of the walls. The editor of the Greek Ezra has indeed rescued this passage from the connection in which it is incorrectly placed but only to transpose it to a position if possible still more erroneous taking at the same time the liberty of adding to it by way of completion the interruption of the building of the temple. Not however contented with this he has also interpolated the paragraph chaps. 3–5:6 which transposes us to the times of Darius while subsequently (5:7–70) the times of Cyrus are again spoken of. Thus then the history goes directly backwards; first we have (2:15–25) Artaxerxes then (3–5:6) Darius and lastly (5:7–70) Cyrus. And in the last-named portion we are told in the most unembarrassed manner that Zerubbabel returned with the exiles in the time of Cyrus (comp. 5:8 67–70) while previously it was expressly stated that Zerubbabel received permission for their return from the special favour of Darius. With respect to the documents which were in the hands of our compiler only two things remain to be noticed: 1. That he did not translate the canonical Ezra from the Hebrew (so Fritzsche and most others) but compiled from the Septuagint (so rightly Keil Einl. 3rd ed. p. 704 sq.). 2. That he certainly discovered beforehand the portion chaps. 3–5:6 since it stands in direct opposition to the rest of the narrative. It seems to be a Greek original and not a translation from the Hebrew. The object of the whole compilation has been on the whole correctly expressed by Bertholdt (Einl. iii. 1011): “He intended to compile from older works a history of the temple from the last epoch of the legal worship to its rebuilding and the restoration of the prescribed ritual therein.” Evidently however he meant to give also still more concerning Nehemiah for the abrupt conclusion could not possibly have been intentional. With respect to the date of the book all that can be said is that it was already used by Josephus (Antt. xi. 1–5).

Josephus in his account of the restoration of the theocracy (Antt. xi. 1–5) entirely conforms to the course of this Greek Ezra. For he brings what is contained in chaps. 2:15–25 and 3–5:6 of this book into the same position and the same order i.e. interpolates it between the first and second chapters of the canonical Ezra (Antt. xi. 2–3). In so doing however he does not proceed without historical criticism for he simply changes Artaxerxes who in the Greek Ezra is inserted in a quite impossible place into Cambyses so as to restore the correct order: Cyrus Cambyses Darius. He removes the further historical stumbling-block of the Greek Ezra of Cyrus reappearing after Darius by doing away with Cyrus in this place and making the return of the exiles first take place under Darius. This indeed restores the correct order of the Persian kings but a narrative is thus concocted which differs still more widely from actual history than that of the Greek Ezra itself.

Apparently this book was generally and from the first used in the Christian Church also. Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 21. 124: Ἐνταῦθα Ζοροβάβελ σοφίᾳ νικήσας τοὺς ἀνταγωνιστὰς τυγχάνει παρὰ Δαρείου ὠνησάμενος ἀνανέωσιν Ἱερουσαλὴμ καὶ μετὰ Ἔσδρα εἰς τὴν πατρῴαν γῆν ἀναζεύγνυσι (can only refer to chaps. iii. iv. of the Greek Ezra). Origenes Comment. in Johann. vol. vi. c. 1 (Lommatzsch i. 174): Καὶ κατὰ τοὺς Ἔσδρα χρόνους ὅτε νικᾷ ἡ ἀλήθεια τὸν οἶνον καὶ τὸν ἐχθρὸν βασιλέα καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας ἀνοικοδομεῖται ὁ ναὸς τῷ θεῷ (comp. Esra graec. iv. 33 sqq.). Idem in Josuam homil. ix. 10 (Lommatzsch xi. 100): et nos dicamus sicut in Esdra scriptum est quia “a te domine est victoria et ego servus tuus benedictus es deus veritatis” (Esra graec. iv. 59–60). Cyprian epist. lxxiv. 9: Et apud Hesdram veritas vicit sicut scriptum est: “Veritas manet et invalescit in aeternum et vivit et obtinet in saecula saeculorum” etc. (Esra graec. iv. 38–40). For numerous passages from later Fathers see Pohlmann Tüb. Theol. Quartalschrift 1859 p. 263 sqq. In the authorized editions of the Vulgate the book is placed in the Appendix to the Bible after the New Testament.

The book is sometimes entitled the first Book of Ezra (so the Greek MSS.: Ἔσδρας αʹ) sometimes the third Book of Ezra the canonical Books of Ezra and Nehemiah being reckoned the first and second (so Jerome [praef. in version. libr. Esrae ed. Vallarsi ix. 1524: nec quemquam moveat quod unus a nobis editus liber est; nec apocryphorum tertii et quarti somniis delectetur] and especially the authorized editions of the Vulgate).

Among the Greek manuscripts the Vaticanus (called No. 2 in Fritzsche’s edition as well as by Holmes and Parsons) and the Alexandrinus (No. 3) hold the first rank the book not being contained in the Sinaiticus. On the editions see above pp. 10 and 11.

Ancient translations: 1. The old Latin preserved in two recensions one of which is found in the manuscripts and editions of the Vulgate the other in the cod. Colbertinus 3703. Both texts in Sabatier Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae vol. iii. (in the Appendix after the New Testament corresponding to the position in the Vulgate). On the relation of both to one another see Fritzsche Handb. i. 10. 2. The Syriac on which comp. p. 11. This book is not contained in the large Milan Peshito manuscripts.

On the exegesis in general see p. 11. Commentary: Fritzsche Exeget. Handbuch zu den Apokryphen Part i. Leipzig 1851.

Separate investigations: [Trendelenburg] “On the apocryphal Esras” (Eichhorn’s Allg. Biblioth. der bibl. Literatur vol. i. 1787 pp. 178–232). Dähne Geschichtl. Darstellung der jüd–alex. Religionsphilosophie vol. ii. (1834) pp. 116–125. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael i. 320 sqq. iii. 72 sqq. Treuenfels “Ueber das apokryphische Buch Esra” (Fürst’s Literaturbl. des Orients 1850 Nos. 15–18 40–49). The same “Entstehung des Esra apocryphus” (Fürst’s Orient 1851 Nos. 7–10). Pohlmann “Ueber das Ansehen des apokryphischen dritten Buchs Esras” (Tüb. Theol. Quartalschr. 1859 pp. 257–275). Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel iv. 163–167. Bissell “The First Book of Esdras” (Bibliotheca sacra 1877 pp. 209–228; reprinted in Bissell The Apocrypha of the Old Testament 1880 p. 62 sqq. Clark Edinburgh). The Introductions of Eichhorn Bertholdt De Wette-Schrader Keil Reuss (see above p. 12).

2. Additions to Esther

The canonical Book of Esther relates how a Jewish virgin a foster-daughter of Mordecai was chosen for his wife by the Persian king Ahasuerus (Xerxes); how Haman the prime minister of the king published a decree in his name for the extirpation of all the Jews and was already making preparations to hang Mordecai; how Mordecai however who had formerly saved the king’s life was raised to great honour and Haman hanged on the gibbet destined for Mordecai whereupon Mordecai by an edict promulgated in the king’s name revoked the edict of Haman and gave permission to the Jews to destroy their enemies; and finally how the Jewish feast of Purim was instituted for the commemoration of this wonderful deliverance of the Jews. A multitude of passages are interpolated in the Greek revision of the book e.g. the edict of Haman a prayer of Mordecai and a prayer of Esther the edict of Mordecai and the like. In these portions the spirit of the narrative is maintained and they present nothing needing remark. There is no reason for adopting the view of a Hebrew model (so e.g. Langen). According to the superscription of the Greek edition it was the work of Lysimachus the son of Ptolemy of Jerusalem and was brought to Egypt in the fourth year of King Ptolemy and Cleopatra by the priest Dositheus and his son Ptolemy. Since no less than four Ptolemies had a Cleopatra to wife the information even if it be regarded as trustworthy is not of much chronological value. It is certain only that Josephus was already acquainted with the Greek revision with the additions.

Josephus in his reproduction of its contents (Antt. xi. 6) has admitted also all the additions of the Greek revision.

Origenes Epist. ad African. c. 3 mentions these additions and expressly names the most important; assuming as self-evident the canonicity of the book in this form (the additions included). He also mentions De oratione c. 13 (Lommatzsch xvii. 134) the prayers of Mordecai and Esther inserted between chaps. 4 and 5 and gives in the same work c. 14 (Lommatzsch xvii. 143) the first words of both prayers.

The Greek text is extant in two widely differing recensions: (1) the common which is supported by the best manuscripts the Vaticanus (No. 2) the Alexandrinus (No. 3) and the Sinaiticus (No. 10); and (2) a much retouched one in codd. 19 93 108 (or more precisely 19 93 and 108 the last two manuscripts containing both the common and the touched-up texts). Langen thought he could prove that Josephus already had access to the latter. But Josephus chiefly coincides with the common text (comp. e.g. the portion Esth. 2:21–23 = Joseph. Antt. xi. 6.4 which is entirely expunged from the revised text the name of the eunuch Achrathaios Esth. 4:5 = Joseph. Antt. xi. 6. 4 which is also absent in the revised text and other matters). It has also been rendered very probable by recent investigations that the revised text is derived from Lucianus (see above p. 165). If then one or two instances of contact between Josephus and the revised text are really not accidental this would only prove that the words in question were formerly found in the common text also. Fritzsche published both texts at first separately (Ἐσθήρ duplicem libri textum ed. O. F. Fritzsche Zurich 1848) then in his edition of the Libri apocryphi Vet. Test. graece (1871). Comp. on the editions 10 above.

Ancient translations. 1. The Latin (a) The old Latin scording to a cod. Corbeiensis with the various readings of two other manuscripts in Sabatier Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae vol. i. The beginning of the book according to the same translation is also found in Bibliotheca Casinensis vol. i. (1873) Florileg. pp. 287–289. On the character of the translation see Fritzsche Exeget. Handb. i. 74 sq. (b) The translation of Jerome who in his translation of the book from the Hebrew gives also a free Latin version of the Greek additions but places them all at the end and marks them with the obelus (Opp. ed. Vallarsi ix. 1581: Quae habentur in Hebraeo plena fide expressi. Haec autem quae sequuntur scripta reperi in editione vulgata quae Graecorum lingua et teris continetur … quod juxta consuetudinem nostram obelo ÷ id est veru praenotavimus). 2. The Syriac translation see above p. 11.

For the exegesis in general see above p. 11. Commentary: Fritzsche Exeget. Handbuch zu den Apokryphen Part i. Leipzig 1851. The other literature: Zunz Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden (1832) pp. 120–122. Langen “Die beiden griechischen Texte des Buches Esther” (Theol. Quartalschr. 1860 pp. 244–272). The same Die deuterokanonischen Stücke des Buches Esther Freiburg 1862. The introductory works of von Jahn Eichhorn Bertholdt Welte Scholz Nöldeke De Wette-Schrader Reusch Keil Kaulen Kleinert Reuss (see above p. 12).

3. Additions to Daniel

The Greek text of the Book of Daniel contains the followig additions: (a) The Prayer of Azariah and the Thanksgiving of the Three Children in the Furnace. For when the three companions of Daniel were cast into the furnace (Dan. 3) one of them Azariah who was also called Abed-Nego first uttered a prayer for deliverance and when this was heard all three joined in a song of praise. The words of both are given. (b) The History of Susannah. A beautiful Jewess named Susannah the wife of Jehoiakim is while bathing surprised by two lustful Jewish elders and then when she cries for assistance slanderously accused by them of having committed adultery with a youth. Upon the false witness of the elders Susannah is condemned to death but saved by the wisdom of the youthful Daniel who procures a fresh investigation and by a skilful examination convicts the elders of perjury. (c) The History of Bel and the Dragon. Properly two independent narratives both of which are intended to expose the worthlessness and imposture of idolatrous worship. In the one we are told how King Cyrus (so Theodotion the king’s name not being mentioned in the Septuagint text) was convinced by a clever contrivance of Daniel that the image of Bel did not itself consume the food laid before it. In the other how Daniel having fed the Dragon to whom divine honours were paid by the Babylonians with cakes made of pitch fat and hair and so killed it was cast into the den of lions and there miraculously fed by the prophet Habakkuk and after seven days drawn out of the pit unhurt. Of these fragments only the first (the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Children) is properly speaking a completion of the canonical Book of Daniel the two others having no internal connection with it. In the text of Theodotion the History of Susannah stands at the commencement of that book the History of Bel and the Dragon at its close. This position is also evidenced by the Fathers (Hippolytus Julius Africanus and Origen). Neither of the fragments gives occasion for assuming a Hebrew original. The History of Susannah is even very certainly a Greek original as Julius Africanus and Porphyry already showed from the play upon the words σχῖνος and σχίζειν (vers. 54 55) πρῖνος and πρίειν (vers. 58 59) (African. epist. ad Origen Porphyr. quoted by Jerome praef. comment. in Daniel ed. Vallarsi 619).

Specially copious material is in existence for the history of the use and canonical validity of these fragments in the Christian Church.

Justin Martyr mentions Apol. i. Ananias Azarias and Misael the three companions of Daniel. But it is not clear from his brief notice of them whether he was also acquainted with the additions.

Irenaeus and Tertullian quote both the History of Susannah and that of Bel and the Dragon. Irenaeus iv. 26. 3: audient eas quae sunt a Daniele propheta voces etc. (comp. Susanna vers. 56 and 52 53 according to Theodotion). Idem iv. 5. 2: Quem (Deum) et Daniel propheta cum dixisset ei Cyrus rex Persarum: “Quare non adoras Bel?” annuntiavit dicens: “Quoniam” etc. Tertullian De corona c. iv. (Susanna). Idem De idololatria c. xviii. (Bel and the Dragon); de jejunio c. vii. fin. (the same).

Hippolytus in his commentary on Daniel deals also with the Greek additions. The explanation of the History of Susannah (Opp. ed. Lagarde pp. 145–151) and a few notes on the Song of the Three Children (Lagarde p. 186 fragm. 122 p. 201 fragm. 138) are extant. It is evident from the beginning of the notes on Susannah that Hippolytus read this portion as the commencement of the Book of Daniel. See in general Bardenhewer Des heiligen Hippolytus von Rom Commentar zum Buche Daniel Freiburg 1877; and Zahn Theol. Litztg. 1877 p. 495 sqq.

Julius Africanus alone among the older Fathers disputes the canonicity of these fragments. In his Epistola ad Origenem (printed in the editions of Origen e.g. in Lommatzsch xvii. 17 sqq.) he calls Origen to account for appealing in a disputation to the History of Susannah which is but a spurious addition to Daniel: Θαυμάζω δὲ πῶς ἔλαθέ σε τὸ μέρος τοῦ βιβλίου τοῦτο κίβδηλον ὄν … ἥδε ἡ περικοπὴ σὺν ἄλλαις δύο ταῖς ἐπὶ τῷ τέλει τῷ παρὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων εἰλημμένῳ Δανιὴλ οὐκ ἐμφέρεται. The last remark refers as appears from the reply of Origen to the two pieces of Bel and of the Dragon. Hence Africanus read these at the close and the History of Susannah at the beginning of the book.

Origen in his reply (Epistola ad Africanum) seeks to defend the genuineness and canonicity of these pieces with a great amount of scholarship. In so doing he mentions not only the History of Susannah and those of Bel and the Dragon but also the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Children and indeed speaks of them as standing in the midst of the text of Daniel remarking that all three were found both in the LXX. and in the text of Theodotion (Epist. ad African. c. ii.). In the tenth book of his Stromata he gives an exegesis of the History of Susannah and that of Bel from which Jerome makes extracts in his commentary on Daniel chaps. 13–14 (Hieron. Opp. ed. Vallarsi v. 730–736; also in Orig. Opp. ed. Lommatzsch xvii. 70–75). All the fragments are elsewhere frequently quoted by Origen and that according to the text of Theodotion. (1) Susannah Comm. in Joann. vol. xx. c. 5 (Lommatzsch ii. 204); ibid. vol. xxviii. c. 4 (Lommatzsch ii. 316); Comm. in Matth. series lat. c. 61 (Lommatzsch iv. 347); Comm. in Epist. ad. Rom. lib. iv. c. 2 (Lommatzsch vi. 249); Fragm. in Genes. vol. iii. c. iv. (Lommatzsch viii. 13); in Genes. homil. xv. 2 (Lommatzsch viii. 261); in Josuam homil. xxii. 6 (Lommatzsch xi. 190); Selecta in Psalmos Ps. 36 (37) homil. iv. 2 (Lommatzsch xii. 210); in Ezekiel homil. vi. 3 (Lommatzsch xiv. 82); Selecta in Ezek. c. 6 (Lommatzsch xiv. 196). Comp. especially with respect to canonicity in Levit. homil. i. 1 (Lommatzsch ix. 173) against those who adhere to the literal and historical sense of Scripture: sed tempus est nos adversus improbos presbyteros uti sanctae Susannae vocibus quas illi quidem repudiantes historiam Susannae de catalogo divinorum voluminum desecarunt. Nos autem et suscipimus et opportune contra ipsos proferimus dicentes “Angustiae mihi undique.” (2) Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Children: Comm. in Matth. vol. xiii. c. 2 (Lommatzsch iii. 211); Comm. in Matth. series lat. c. 62 (Lommatzsch iv. 352); Comm. in Epist. ad Rom. lib. i. c. 10 (Lommatzsch vi. 37); ibid. lib. ii. c. 9 (Lommatzsch vi. 108); ibid. lib. vii. c. 1 (Lommatzsch vii. 87); De Oratione c. xiii. and xiv. (Lommatzsch xvii. 134 143). (3) Bel and the Dragon: Exhortatio ad martyrium c. 33 (Lommatzsch xx. 278).

Cyprian de dominica oratione c. 8 adduces the Song of the Three Children as a standard example of publica et communis oratio. Comp. also De Lapsis c. 31. He quotes the story of Bel ad Fortunatum c. 11; and Epist. lviii. 5.

The Greek text used by the Fathers since Irenaeus was that of Theodotion which has also passed into the manuscripts and editions of the LXX. (see above p. 173). The genuine Septuagint text of Daniel is preserved to us in only one manuscript a cod. Chisianus; and after the previous labours of others (Bianchini and Vincentius de Regibus see Theol. Litztg. 1877 p. 565) has been published for the first time by Simon de Magistris (Daniel secundum LXX. ex tetraplis Origenis nunc primum editus e singulari Chisiano codice Rom. 1772). On this edition which is not free from errors are based the more recent ones and also that of Hahn (Δανιὴλ κατὰ τοὺς ἑβδομήκοντα e cod. Chisiano ed. etc. H. A. Hahn Lips. 1845). Still more incorrect is the text in part formed from Holmes and Parsons’ Apparatus of Various Readings which Tischendorf has added to his edition of the Septuagint. It is to Cozza (Sacrorum Bibliorum vetustissima fragmenta Graeca et Latina ed. Cozza pars iii. Romae 1877; comp. the notice of Gebhardt Theol. Litiztg. 1877 p. 565 sq.) that we are first indebted for a trustworthy impression of the MSS. The Syriac translation of the hexaplarian LXX. text of which Daniel and other books have been preserved in a Milan manuscript serves as a check and criticism of the cod. Chisianus. The Book of Daniel from this translation has already been published by Bugati (Daniel secundum editionem LXX. interpretum ex Tetraplis desumtam ex codice Syro-Estranghelo Bibliothecac Ambrosianae Syriace edidit etc. Caj. Bugatus Mediol. 1788). A photo-lithographic copy of the whole manuscript has been published by Ceriani (Codex Syro-Hexaplaris Ambrosianus photolithographice editus Mediol. 1874 as vol. vii. of the Monum. sacra et prof.). Fritzsche in his edition of the Apocrypha gives both the Greek texts (LXX. and Theodotion) of Susannah Bel and the Dragon and the Septuagint only with the various readings of Theodotion of the Prayer of Azarias and the Song of the Three Children in which Theodotion has made but few alterations. Comp. on the editions of the Greek text (i.e. of Theodotion) p. 10 above.

Ancient translations. A Vetus Latinus only fragmentary in Sabatier Biblior. sacror. Latinae versiones antiguae vol. ii. The Greek original is Theodotion. Jerome has likewise translated the Greek additions from Theodotion and admitted them marked with the obelus into his translation of Daniel from the Hebrew. See his remarks ed. Vallarsi ix. 1376 1399. On the editions of the Syriac common text see above p. 11. The Syriac translation of the Story of Bel and the Dragon from a collection of Midrashim is also found in Neubauer The Book of Tobit 1878 pp. 39–43.

For the exegesis in general see above p. 11. Commentary: Fritzsche Exeget. Handbuch zu den Apocryphen Pt. i. Leipzig 1851. The other literature: Zunz Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden (1832) p. 122 sq. Delitzsch De Habacuci prophetae vita atque aetate (Lips. 1842) pp. 23 sqq. 105 sqq. Frankel Monatsschr. f. Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1868 pp. 440–449 (on Susannah). Wiederholt Theol. Quartalschr. 1869 pp. 287 sqq. 377 sqq. (History of Susannah); 1871 p. 373 sqq. (Prayer of Azarias and Song of the Three Children); 1872 p. 554 sqq. (Bel and the Dragon). Rohling Das Buch des Propheten Daniel 1876. Brüll “Das apokryphische Susannabuch” (Jahrbb. für jüd. Gesch. und Literatur Pt. iii. 1877 pp. 1–69; also separate). The Introductions of Jahn Eichhorn Bertholdt Welte Scholz Nöldeke De Wette-Schrader Reusch Keil Kaulen Kleinert Reuss (see above p. 12).

4. The Prayer of Manasseh

In like manner as the prayers of Mordecai and Esther were interpolated as supplements to the Book of Esther and the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Children to that of Daniel so was a prayer of Manasseh in which the king in his captivity humbly confesses his sin before God and prays for pardon composed as a completion of 2 Chron. 33:12 13. There was the more occasion for the composition of such a prayer since it is stated in 2 Chron. 33:18 19 that the Prayer of Manasseh is written in the history of the kings of Israel and in the Chronicle of Hosai. The prayer stands in most manuscripts in the appendix to the Psalms where many other similar fragments are collected (so e.g. in the cod. Alexandrinus).

The Prayer is first quoted in the Constitut. apostol. ii. 22 where it is given in its literal entirety. For later Christian testimony to its canonicity see Fabricius Biblioth. graec. ed. Harles iii. 732 sq. In the authorized Romish Vulgate it is in the appendix to the Bible after the New Testament (like 3 and 4 Ezra).

The Latin translation which has passed into the Vulgate is “of quite another kind from the usual old Latin and is certainly of more recent origin” (Fritzsche i. 159). Sabatier has compared three manuscripts for it (Biblior. sacror. Lat. vers. ant. iii. 1038 sq.).

The editions and the exegesis are the same as of the other Apocrypha. Commentary: Fritzsche Exeget. Handbuch zu den Apocryphen Pt. i. Leipzig 1851.

For other legends (Jewish and Christian) with respect to Manasseh see Fabricius Cod. pseudepigr. i. 1100–1102. Id. Biblioth. gr. ed. Harl. iii. 732 sq. Fritzsche Handb. i. 158.

5. The Book of Baruch

The Greek Book of Baruch properly belongs to the class of Pseudepigraphic prophets and is distinguished among them by its very meritorious contents. We place it here as being at least according to its second half of Graeco-Jewish origin and as having been admitted into the Greek Bible as a canonical book.

The whole claims to be the composition of Baruch the confidential friend and companion of the prophet Jeremiah. Its contents are tolerably miscellaneous and are divided into two halves the second of which again comprises two sections. The first half (chaps. 1:1–3:8) begins with a superscription in which what follows is described as a Book of Baruch which he wrote in the fifth year after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans (1:1 2). This book was read by Baruch before King Jeconiah and all the exiles in Babylon; and the reading produced such an impression that it was resolved to send money to Jerusalem that sacrifices and prayers might there be offered for King Nebuchadnezzar and his son Belshazzar. At the same time the Jews dwelling in Jerusalem were enjoined to read out in the temple on the feast days the writing therewith sent (1:3–14). This writing which is next given in full is evidently identical with that read by Baruch and therefore announced in the superscription. It is an ample confession of sin on the part of the exiles who recognise in the fearful fate which has overtaken themselves and the holy city the righteous chastisement of God for their sins and entreat Him again to show them favour. They confess especially that their disobedience to the King of Babylon was a rebellion against God Himself because it was His will that Israel should obey the King of Babylon (2:21–24). The second half of the book (chaps. 3:9–5:9) contains instruction and consolation for the humbled people: (a) Instruction—Israel is humbled because they have forsaken the source of wisdom. True wisdom is with God alone. To it must the people return (3:9–4:4). (b) Consolation—Jerusalem is not laid waste for ever nor are the people to be always in captivity. They must take courage for the scattered members shall again he assembled in the Holy Land (4:5–5:9).

The second half is joined to the first without any intervening matter at chap. 3:9. An internal connection only so far exists that both halves presuppose the same historical situation viz. the desolation of Jerusalem and the carrying away of the people into captivity. In other respects however they stand in no connection with each other and it is hardly conceivable that they formed from the first part of the same whole. To this must be added that the style and mode of expression widely differ being in the first half Hebraistic and in the second fluent and rhetorical Greek. Hence Fritzsche Hitzig Kneucker Hilgenfeld and Reuss have correctly inferred that the two halves are the works of different authors. Nay one might feel inclined with Hitzig Kneucker and Hilgenfeld to regard even the first half as no single work but to look upon chap. 1:3–14 as a later interpolation. For it cannot be denied that the narrative of the reading of the Book of Baruch and of the effect produced thereby comes in like an interruption between 1:1 2 and 1:15–3:8. After the superscription 1:1 2 the book itself is expected. A discrepancy of statement also ensues owing to the inserted narrative the destruction of the temple being assumed by the book itself (1:2 2:26) and; the continuance of the sacrificial service by the narrative (1:10–14). But lastly all these inconsistencies are possible in one and the same author; and other matters such especially as the like dependence on Daniel in 1:11 12 and 1:15–2:20 favour identity of authorship.

Most of the older critics adopt the view of a Hebrew original for the whole; and Kneucker in spite of his assumption of three different composers firmly maintains it nay tries with much care to reconstruct the Hebrew original. There are however sufficient points of contact for this in the first half only. The second half is evidently a Greek original. Hence we are constrained with Fritzsche Hilgenfeld and Reuss to admit concerning the origin of this book that its first half was originally composed in Hebrew then translated into Greek and completed by the addition of the second half.

In determining the date of its composition its close dependence on the Book of Daniel is decisive. There are in it correspondences with the latter which make the employment of it by the author of Baruch indubitable. Especially is there an almost verbal agreement between Dan. 9:7–10 and Baruch 1:15–18. The juxtaposition too of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar is common to both books (Dan. 5:2 sqq. = Baruch 1:11 12). That so thoroughly original and creative a mind however as the author of the Book of Daniel should have copied from the Book of Baruch is certainly not to be admitted. Thus we have already arrived at the Maccabaean period and most Protestant critics stop there (so e.g. Fritzsche Schrader Keil). But the situation assumed in the Book of Baruch by no means agrees with the Maccabaean era. The Book of Baruch and especially its first half with which we are first of all concerned presupposes the destruction of Jerusalem and the leading of the people into captivity (1:2 2:23 26). In this catastrophe the people recognise a judgment of God for their sins and particularly for their rebellion against the heathen authority which God Himself had set over Israel (2:21–24). The penitent people hasten therefore to order sacrifices and prayers for their heathen rulers (1:10 11). All this—as the destruction by the Chaldeans is out of question—only suits the time after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. This very catastrophe was moreover brought about by the rebellion of the people against the heathen authorities. And the special act of rebellion was as Josephus expressly states the doing away with the daily sacrifice for the Roman emperor (Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 2–4; comp. above  sq.). In this political revolution our author saw a rebellion against the will of God and therefore in the fearful catastrophe the righteous judgment of God upon it. And he sought by all he relates of the exiles in the time of Baruch to bring this view to bear upon his fellow-countrymen. It must therefore certainly be admitted as by Hitzig and Kneucker that this book was written after the year A.D. 70. For the quite non-historical juxtaposition of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar recalling the relation of Vespasian and Titus also agrees with that date. The narrative that in the straits of war parents ate the flesh of their children (2:3) frequently recurs indeed in the description of the horrors of war but is also found just in the description of the siege of A.D. 70 by Josephus (Bell. Jud. vi. 3. 4).

What has been said applies chiefly to only the first half of the book. But the second half also essentially assumes the same situation viz. the desolation of Jerusalem and the leading of the people into captivity (4:10–16). Its object is to give instruction and consolation in view of these events. Hence its composition cannot well be placed much later than that of the first half. At all events this second half is later than the Salomonian Psalter. For Baruch 5. agrees almost verbally with Psalt. Salom. 11.; and the dependence must by reason of the psalm-like character and the probably primitive Hebrew of the Salomonian Psalter be sought for on the side of the Book of Baruch.

The fact that it found acceptance in the Christian Church is not opposed to our conclusion as to the somewhat recent composition of the book. For exactly the same thing took place in the case of the Apocalypse of Baruch and the fourth Book of Ezra.

The existence of a Hebrew text of this book is disputed by Jerome see praef. comment. in Jerem. (Vallarsi iv. 834): Libellum autem Baruch qui vulgo editioni Septuaginta copulatur nec habetur apud Hebraeos. Idem praef. in version. Jerem. (Vallarsi ix. 783): Librum autem Baruch notarii ejus qui apud Hebraeos nec legitur nec habetur. So too Epiphanius De mensuris et ponderibus § 5: τῶν θρήνων αὐτοῦ καὶ τῶν ἐπιστολῶν Βαροὺχ εἰ καὶ οὐ κεῖνται ἐπιστολαὶ παρʼ Ἑβραίοις. But both Jerome and Epiphanius for the most part try only to prove that the book was not in the Hebrew canon. Certainly they seem to have known of no Hebrew text at all but that does not prove that none ever existed. For its existence may be cited the remark found three times in the Milan manuscript of the Syrus hexaplaris (on i. 17 and ii. 3) “this is not in the Hebrew” (see Ceriani’s notes to his edition in the Monum. sacra et prof. i. 1 1861).

Among the Jews (i.e. among the Hellenistic Jews?) this book together with the Lamentations of Jeremiah was according to the testimony of the Apostolic Constitutions read at public worship on the 10th Gorpiaios (by which is certainly meant the 10th Ab the day of the destruction of Jerusalem) Const. apost. v. 20: καὶ γὰρ καὶ νῦν δεκάτῃ τοῦ μηνὸς Γορπιαίου συναθροιζόμενοι τοὺς θρήνους Ἱερεμίου ἀναγινώσκουσιν … καὶ τὸν Βαρούχ. In the Syriac text of the Const. apost. the Book of Baruch it is true is not named. See Bunsen Analecta Ante-Nicaena ii. 187. On the date of the 10th Gorpiaios comp. also Freudenthal Die Flavius Josephus beigelegte Schrift über die Herrschaft der Vernunft (1869) p. 147 sq.

On its use in the Christian Church see the copious proofs in Reusch Erklärung des Buch’s Baruch (1853) pp. 1–21 and 268 sqq. The book is very frequently quoted as a work of the prophet Jeremiah because it was from early times combined with his book. The passage concerning the appearance of God upon earth (Bar. 3:37: μετὰ τοῦτο ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ὤφθη καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συνανεστράφη) which Kneucker rightly regards as a Christian gloss was a favourite one with the Fathers. The oldest quotation is in Athenagoras Suppl. c. 9 where Bar. 3:35 is cited as the saying of a προφήτης. Irenaeus iv. 20 refers to Bar. 3:37. He also quotes (v. 35. 1) Bar. 4:36 to 5 fin. with the formula significavit Jeremias propheta dicens. Clemens Alexandrinus Paedag. i. 10. 91 92 quotes various passages of this book as sayings of the prophet Jeremiah. In Paedag. ii. 3. 36 he quotes Bar. 3:16–19 with the formula ἡ θεία που λέγει γραφή. Hippolytus mentions in his work Contra Noetum that Noetus and his followers appealed to Bar. 3:35–37 among other passages in proof of their patripassian Christology (Hippol. ed. Lagarde p. 44). He then to help himself out of difficulty himself gives (ed. Lagarde p. 47) a very sophistical interpretation of the passage. Hence the book is for Hippolytus as well as Noetus a standard authority. Origenes in Jerem. homil. vii. 3 (Lommatzsch xv. 190): γέγραπται• “ἄκουε Ἰσραήλ κ.τ.λ.” = Bar. 3:9–13. Idem. Selecta in Jerem. c. 31 (Lommatzsch xv. 456): γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Βαρούχ• “τί ὅτι ἐν γῇ κ.τ.λ.” = Bar. 3:10. Commodian. Carmen apologet. (ed. Ludwig) vers. 367 368: Hieremias ait: Hic deus est etc. = Bar. 3:35–37. Cyprian. Testim. ii. 6: Item apud Hieremiam prophetam: Hic deus noster etc. = Bar. 3:35–37. Material from later Fathers will be found in Reusch as above quoted to which need only be added Altercatio Simonis Judaei et Theophili Christiani ed. Harnack p. 17 (in Gebhardt and Harnack Texte und Untersuchungen vol. i. No. 3 1883).

Among the Greek manuscripts the most important are: the Vaticanus (which however not having been collated for this book by Holmes and Parsons has also been paid no regard to in Fritzsche’s edition) the Alexandrinus (No. iii. in Holmes and Parsons) and the Marchalianus (No. xii.). The Sinaiticus does not contain the Book of Baruch. On the editions see above p. 10.

Ancient translations. 1. The Latin which is extant in two widely differing recensions: (a) that which has passed into the Vulgate and (b) one first published by Joseph Caro Rome 1688. The latter according to three MSS. in Sabatier Biblior. sacror. Latinae versiones antiquae vol. ii. p. 734 sqq. Also in Bibliotheca Casinensis vol. i. (1873) Florileg. pp. 284–287. On the relation of the two to each other see Fritzsche Handb. i. 175. Reusch Erklärung des Buchs Baruch p. 88 sq. Kneucker Das Buch Baruch p. 157 sqq. 2. The two Syriac translations (a) the Peshito or the Syriac common text comp. above p. 11. (b) The Syrus hexaplaris contained for this book in the Milan manuscript of the Syrus hexaplaris. The Book of Baruch with the letter of Jeremiah of this MS. were first published by Ceriani (Monumenta sacra et profana vol. i. fasc. i. 1861). Also in the photo-lithographic copy of the entire manuscript see above p. 187. 3. A Coptic translation published by Brugsch (Zeitschr. für ägyptische Sprache und Alterthumskunde 10–12th year 1872–1874 comp. 1876 p. 148).

The exegesis in general see above p. 11. Commentaries: Fritzsche Exeget. Handb. zu den Apokrypken Part i. Leipzig 1851. Reusch Erklarung des Buchs Baruch Freiburg 1853. Ewald Die Propheten des Alten Bundes vol. iii. (2nd ed. 1868) pp. 251–298. Kneucker Das Buch Baruch Geschichts und Kritik Uebersetzung und Erklärung Leipzig 1879. The other literature: Hävernick De libro Baruchi apocrypho comm. crit. Regim. 1843. Hitzig Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1860 pp. 262–273. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel vol. iv. (1864) p. 265 sqq. Hilgenfeld Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. vol. v. 1862 pp. 199–203; xxii. 1879 pp. 437–454; xxiii. 1880 pp. 412–422. Kneucker the same periodical 1880 pp. 309–323. The Introductions of Jahne Eichhorn Bertholdt Welte Scholz De Wette-Schrader Reusch Keil Kaulen Kleinert Reuss (see above p. 12).

6. The Letter of Jeremiah

The letter of Jeremiah which is said to have been written to the exiles destined to be led away to Babylon is a warning against idolatry turning upon the theme that images of wood silver and gold are the weak powerless and perishable creatures of man’s hand which can absolutely do neither good nor harm. The author seeks by these particulars to restrain his co-religionists in the Dispersion from all participation in heathen rites. This small fragment is certainly of Greek origin.

Many have seen in the passage 2 Macc. 1:1 sqq. a reference to this letter. But what is there said does not actually suit it. When Origen asserts that the Lamentations and “the letter” also were combined in the Hebrew canon with the Book of Jeremiah (Euseb. Hist. eccl. vi. 25. 2: Ἱερεμίας σὺν θρήνοις καὶ τῇ ἐπιστολῇ ἐν ἑνί) this certainly rests upon an oversight. Origen only means to say that the writings of Jeremiah were reckoned by the Jews as one so that the number twenty-two is consequently that of the collected books of Holy Scripture. Christian quotations: Tertullian Scorpiace c. 8. Cyprian De dominica oratione c. 5 and later writers.

In the majority of editions and manuscripts the letter is appended to the Book of Baruch (in the Vulgate as its sixth chapter). Hence what has been said of manuscripts editions ancient translations and exegesis with respect to that book applies almost throughout in this case.

The literary productions as yet discussed are in part compilations in part imitations of older scriptural works. Hence there is but little specifically “Hellenistic” to be observed in them. The peculiarity of Judaeo-Hellenistic literature is apparent in an entirely different manner in those works which incline in form towards non-scriptural Greek models and are thus found in the department of historical poetic and philosophic literature. And first for the historical. Pharisaic Judaism as such had scarcely an interest in history. It saw in history merely an instruction a warning how God ought to be served. Hellenistic Judaism was certainly in a far higher degree interested in history as such. A knowledge of the history of the past formed part of the culture of the times. And no people could lay claim to he reckoned among the civilised nations unless they could point to an old and imposing history. Even nations hitherto regarded as barbarian now compiled their histories and clad them in Greek garments for the purpose of making them accessible to the entire cultured world. The Hellenistic Jews also took their part in such efforts. They too worked up their sacred history for the instruction of both their own fellow-countrymen and the non-Jewish world. The most comprehensive work of the kind with which we are acquainted is the great historical work of Josephus. He had however a series of predecessors who laboured some upon longer some upon shorter periods of Jewish history in various forms. Of these some set to work in modest annalistic manner (Demetrius) some with fantastic and legendary embellishments in majorem Judaeorum gloriam (Eupolemus Artapanus) while some sought in a philosophical manner to represent the great Jewish lawgiver as the greatest of philosophers nay as the father of all philosophy (Philo). But the Greek Jews occupied themselves not only with the older Jewish history but also depicted—as Pharisaic Judaism had ceased to do—important occurrences which they had as contemporaries experienced for the purpose of transmitting them to posterity (Jason of Cyrene Philo Josephus Justus of Tiberias). Many who carried on authorship as a vocation were active in both departments. We therefore here place together historical works of both kinds viz. compilations of the older sacred history and delineations of contemporary events.

The most ancient of these Judaeo-Hellenistic historians have been only rescued from utter oblivion by Alexander Polyhistor. This voluminous writer who lived about the years 80–40 B.C. (according to the statements of Suidas Lex. s.v. Ἀλέξανδρος and Sueton. De gramm. c. 20 comp. Müller Fragm. iii. 206 and Unger Philologus 1884 p. 528 sqq.) composed among other works one περὶ Ἰουδαίων in which he strung together apparently with scarcely any additions of his own extracts from foreign authors concerning the Jews. Eusebius in his turn embodied in his Praeparatio evangelica (ix. 17–39) a large portion of this collection of extracts. And it is to this circumstance that we are almost entirely indebted for our acquaintance with the oldest Judaeo-Hellenistic and Samaritan compilations of scriptural history whether in poetic or prosaic form with those of Demetrius Eupolemus Artapanus Aristeas Kleodemus Philo Theodotus and Ezekiel. Besides Eusebius Clemens Alexandrinus also once quotes Alexander’s work περὶ Ἰουδαίων (Strom. i. 21. 130); and he undoubtedly makes use of it even when he quotes Demetrius Philo Eupolemus Artapanus and Ezekiel from whom Alexander gives extracts (Strom. i. 21. 141 23. 153–156). The quotation also in Josephus Antt. i. 15 is certainly derived from the work περὶ Ἰουδαίων with which Josephus elsewhere betrays his acquaintance (contra Apion. i. 23 and various traces in the Antiquities). But this is all that is preserved of independent quotation from Alexander’s work. The extracts in Eusebius are in chronological order. They begin with fragments on the history of Abraham from Eupolemus Artapanus Molon Philo Kleodemus. Then follow portions on the history of Jacob from Demetrius and Theodotus then others on Joseph from Artapanus and Philo. That this order is not first derived from Eusebius but was followed by Alexander Polyhistor is shown by the nature of the text. For the single portions are joined together by the connecting words of Alexander himself.

This is moreover confirmed by a comparison of the quotations in Clemens Alexandrinus. For as in Eusebius so in Clemens Alexandrinus the extracts on the history of Moses follow each other in direct succession:—

Eupolemus = Euseb. ix. 26 = Clemens Str. i. 23. 153.

Artapanus = Euseb. ix. 27 = Clemens Str. i. 23. 154.

Ezekiel = Euseb. ix. 28 = Clemens Str. i 23. 155 156.

Hence we see that this is the original order of Alexander Polyhistor. The genuineness of Alexander’s work has of late been frequently disputed especially by Rauch and Cruice. It is thought inconceivable that a heathen author like Alexander should have had so special an interest in Jewish affairs; it is also thought strange that he should call the Old Testament Scriptures ἱεραὶ βίβλοι (Euseb. ix. 24 29. 15) and that he should here give such detailed accounts of Jewish history while he elsewhere betrays the strangest ignorance of it. Its genuineness has been defended against these objections by Hulleman (p. 156 sq.) Müller (Fragm. iii. 209) and especially with convincing proofs by Freudenthal (pp. 174–184). The question is moreover one of minor importance since it is tolerably indifferent whether these extracts were collected by Alexander or by some one else; for in either case the extraordinary differences in form and contents existing in these fragments is a guarantee that we have here to deal with extracts from works then actually existing and not with the single work of a forger. Only the determination of the date would be affected if it could be really proved that the collection was not the production of Alexander Polyhistor inasmuch as the time of Alexander would then cease to be a limit. The fragments in themselves furnish no cause for relegating them to a later date. For the most recent of the authors from whom the extracts are made and whose date can be determined independently of Alexander is Apollonius Molon (Euseb. ix. 19) a Greek orator of probably about 120–100 B.C. (see No. VI. below).

References to Jewish affairs are also found in other works of Alexander Polyhistor. He quotes the Jewish Sibyl in his Chaldaean ancient history (Euseb. Chron. ed. Schöne i. 23. Cyrill. adv. Julian. ed. Spanh. p. 9. Syncell. ed. Dindorf i. 81. Comp. Joseph. Antt. i. 4. 3; Freudenthal p. 25 sq.). In his work on Italy is found the odd assertion that the Jewish law was derived from a female named Moso (Suidas Lex. s.v. Ἀλέξανδρος. Müller Fragm. n. 25); and to his work on Syria belongs probably the information that Judaea received its name from Juda and Idumaea the children of Semiramis (Steph. Byz. s.v. Ἰουδαία. Müller Fragm. n. 98–102). It is just these strange statements which have given rise to the denial of Alexander’s authorship of the work περὶ Ἰουδαίων—but very incorrectly for he simply copied what he found in his authorities. Consequently according to their nature his information is now correct now incorrect. It rests upon only a somewhat wanton combination when the pseudo-Justinian Cohort. ad Graec. c. 9 ascribes also to Alexander a statement concerning the date of Moses (see my article on “Julius Africanus as the source of the pseudo-Justinian Cohortatio ad Graecos” in Brieger’s Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch. vol. ii. 1878 p. 319 sqq.).

The text of the fragment περὶ Ἰουδαίων is in Euseb. Evangelicae Praeparationis libri xv. ed. Gaisford 4 vols. Oxford 1843. Clementis Alex. Opera ed. Dindorf 4 vols. Oxford 1869. Müller Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum vol. iii. pp. 211–230. The prose fragments partly according to a recent collation of manuscripts are best given in Freudenthal Alex. Polyhistor pp. 219–236. On the manuscripts and editions of Eusebius see Freudenthal pp. 199–202.

Comp. in general: Rauch De Alexandri Polyhistoris vita atque scriptis Heidelb. 1843 quoted by Müller and others as “Rumpf.” Cruice De Fl. Josephi in auctoribus contra Apionem afferendis fide et auctoritate (Paris 1844) pp. 20–30. Hulleman “De Corn. Alexandro Polyhistore” (Miscellanea philologa et paedagoga edd. gymnasiorum Batavorum doctores vol. i. 1849 pp. 87–178). C. Müller Fragm. hist. Graec. iii. 206–244. Vaillant De historicis qui ante Josephum Judaicas res scripsere nempe Aristea Demetrio Eupolemo Hecataeo Abderita Cleodemo Artapano Justo Tiberiensi Cornelio Alexandro Polyhistore (Paris 1851 Didot) pp. 88–98 (a follower of Cruice). Creuzer Theol. Stud. und Krit. 1853 p. 76 sqq. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael iii. 570 sqq. Westermann in Pauly’s Real-Enc. der class. Alterthums-wissensch. i. 1 (2nd ed. 1864) p. 734 sq. Freudenthal Alexander Polyhistor und die von ihm erhaltenen Reste judaischer und samaritanischer Geschichtswerke Bresl. 1875. Reuss Gesch. der heiligen Schriften A. T.’s (1881) § 520 521. Unger “Wann schrieb Alexander Polyhistor?” (Philologus vol. xliii. 1884 pp. 528–531).

1. Demetrius

In the same century in which Berosus composed the ancient history of the Chaldaeans and Manetho that of the Egyptians but about sixty years later Demetrius a Jewish Hellenist compiled in a brief chronological form a history of Israel his work being equally with theirs according to the sacred records. Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 21. 141 states its title to have been περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ βασιλέων. And it can be scarcely a reason for doubting the correctness of this title that the fragments deal almost all with only the most ancient period (so Freudenthal p. 205 sq.). For Justus of Tiberias e.g. also treated of the time of Moses in his Chronicle of the Jewish kings. The first fragment in Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 21 concerns the history of Jacob from his emigration to Mesopotamia till his death. At the close the genealogy of the tribe of Levi is carried on to the birth of Moses and Aaron. Chronology is made a special aim. Nay the whole is far more a settlement of chronology than a history properly so called. The date of every single circumstance in the life of Laban e.g. the birth of each of his twelve sons and such matters is precisely determined. Of course many dates have to be assumed for which Scripture offers no support. A large portion of the chronological statements is obtained by combinations and in some instances very complicated combinations of actual dates of Holy Scripture. A second fragment (Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 29. 1–3) from the history of Moses is chiefly occupied in proving that Zipporah the wife of Moses was descended from Abraham and Keturah. This fragment is also used in the Chronicon paschale ed. Dindorf i. 117 and is quoted from Eusebius in the Chron. Anon. in Cramer Anecdota Paris ii. 256. In a third (Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 29. 15) the history of the bitter waters (Ex. 15:22 sqq.) is related. Lastly the chronological fragment preserved in Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 21. 141 gives precise statements concerning the length of time from the carrying away into captivity of the ten tribes and the tribes of Judah and Benjamin to Ptolemy IV. It is just this fragment which gives us also a key to the date of Demetrius. For it is evident that he chose the time of Ptolemy IV. (222–205 B.C.) as a closing point for his calculations because he himself lived in the reign of that monarch. Hence we obtain also an important standpoint for determining the date of the LXX. For that Demetrius made use of the Septuagint translation of the Pentateuch is acknowledged even by Hody although such acknowledgment is unfavourable to his tendency of pointing out the limited diffusion obtained by the LXX. A glance at the contents of the fragment renders it needless to prove that its author was a Jew. It would certainly never have entered the mind of a heathen to take such pains in calculating and completing the Biblical chronology. Nevertheless Josephus took him for one and confounded him with Demetrius Phalereus (Contra Apion. i. 23 = Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 42; comp. Müller Fragm. ii. 369. Freudenthal p. 170 note). Among moderns too e.g. Hody is found the mistaken notion that he was a heathen. The correct one is however already met with in Eusebius Hist. eccl. vi. 13. 7 and after him in Hieronymus De vir. illustr. c. 38 (ed. Vallarsi ii. 879).

Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 21. 141: Δημήτριος δέ φησιν ἐν τῷ περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ βασιλέων τὴν Ἰούδα φυλὴν καὶ Βενιαμὶν καὶ Λευὶ μὴ αἰχμαλωτισθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ Σεναχηρεὶμ ἀλλʼ εἶναι ἀπὸ τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας ταύτης εἰς τὴν ἐσχάτην ἣν ἐποιήσατο Ναβουχοδονόσορ ἐξ Ἱεροσολύμων ἔτη ἑκατὸν εἴκοσι ὀκτὼ μῆνας ἕξ. ἀφʼ οὗ δὲ αἱ φυλαὶ αἱ δέκα ἐκ Σαμαρείας αἰχμάλωτοι γεγόνασιν ἕως Πτολεμαίου τετάρτου [B.C. 222] ἔτη πεντακόσια ἑβδομήκοντα τρία μῆνας ἐννέα ἀφʼ οὗ δὲ ἐξ Ἱεροσολύμων ἔτη τριακόσια τριάκοντα ὀκτὼ μῆνας τρεῖς. The text of this fragment is in many instances corrupt 1. It is impossible that Demetrius with his minute accuracy in scriptural chronology could have reckoned from 573–338 i.e. 235 years from the carrying away of the ten tribes to the carrying away of the tribes of Benjamin and Judah when the interval amounts to about a hundred years less. Hence the number 573 must either be reduced or that of 338 increased by one hundred. The latter is undoubtedly correct since it may be shown that other ancient chronologists have made the post-exilian period too long (see above on Daniel p. 54). If Demetrius therefore put down about seventy years too much for this time there is for just this reason utterly no motive for doing away with this mistake by altering “Ptolemy IV.” into “Ptolemy VII.” For even in the accurate Demetrius such a mistake concerning the length of the post-exilian period cannot seem surprising since the scriptural figures here leave him in the lurch. 2. By abbreviation of the text arose the absurdity that an αἰχμαλωτισθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ Σεναχηρείμ is first denied and then that this αἰχμαλωσία is computed from. The thought of the original text undoubtedly is that the tribes of Judah and Benjamin were not made captives but only laid under contribution by Sennacherib; and that 120 years elapsed between this pillaging expedition of Sennacherib and the carrying away of Judah and Benjamin. With this computation it best agrees that from the carrying away of the ten tribes to that of Judah and Benjamin 573 - 438 = 135 years are reckoned. For the carrying away of the ten tribes by Shalmanezer actually took place about seven or eight years before Sennacherib’s attack upon Judah (2 Kings 18:9–13).

Comp. in general: Vigerus’ Anmerkungen to his edition of the Praep. evang. of Eusebius (1628). Huetius Demonstr. evang. (5th ed. Lips. 1703) Prop. iv. c. 2 § 22 30. Hody De biblior. textibus (1705) p. 107. Valckenaer De Aristobulo p. 18. Dähne Geschichtl. Darstellung der jüd.-alex. Rel.-Phil. ii. 220 sq. Cruice De Fl. Josephi fide (1844) pp. 53–58. C. Müller Fragm. hist. Graec. iii. 207 sqq. Vaillant De historicis gui ante Josephum Judaicas res scripsere (Paris 1851). pp. 45–52. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael iii. 486–488 575 sq. M. Niebuhr Gesch. Assur’s und Babel’s (1857) pp. 101–104. Freudenthal Alexander Polyhistor (1875) pp. 35–82 205 sqq. 219 sqq. Mendelssohn Anzeige Freudenthal’s in der Jenaer Lit.-Ztg. 1885 No. 6. Siegfried Zeitschr. f. wissenschaftl. Theol. 1875 p. 475. Gutschmid Jahrbb. für Protestant. Theol. 1875 p. 744 sqq. Grätz Monatsschr. f. Gesch. u. Wissensch. d. Judenth. 1877 p. 68 sqq. Bloch Die Quellen des Fl. Josephus (1879) p. 56 sqq.

2. Eupolmus

In place of the dry chronological computations of Demetrius we find in Eupolemus a chequered narrative which freely handles the scriptural history and further embellishes it with all kinds of additions. Formerly three different works of this writer were spoken of: 1. Περὶ τῶν τῆς Ἀσσυρίας Ἰουδαίων; 2. Περὶ τῆς Ἠλίου προφητείας; and 3. Περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ βασιλέων (so Kuhlmey p. 3). The first of these falls away because in the fragment in Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 17: Εὐπόλεμος δὲ ἐν τῷ περὶ Ἰουδαίων τῆς Ἀσσυρίας φησὶ πόλιν Βαβυλῶνα πρῶτον μὲν κτισθῆναι ὑπὸ τῶν κ.τ.λ. the words τῆς Ἀσσυρίας certainly refer to what follows (Rauch p. 21; Freudenthal p. 207). The title περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ βασιλέων is certified by Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 23. 153. To this work also undoubtedly belongs the fragment referring to the history of David and Solomon in Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 30–34 which Alexander Polyhistor asserts that he took from a work περὶ τῆς Ἠλίου προφητείας (Freudenthal p. 208). Thus we in truth obtain only one work instead of the supposed three. The first fragment (Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 17) probably does not belong to Eupolemus at all (comp. hereon No. 6 below); a second almost verbally identical in Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 26 and Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 23. 153 represents Moses as the “first sage” who transmitted to the Jews the art of alphabetical writing which was then handed on by the Jews to the Phoenicians and by the latter to the Hellenes. The Chronicon paschale ed. Dindorf i. 117 also has this fragment from Eusebius and Cyrillus Alex. adv. Julian. ed. Spanh. p. 231 has it from Clement. The long passage in Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 30–34 refers to the history of David and Solomon. It commences with a summary of chronology from Moses to David then briefly relates the chief events of the history of David (Euseb. ix. 30) and then gives a correspondence between Solomon and the kings Uaphree of Egypt and Suron of Phoenicia about assistance in the building of the temple (Euseb. ix. 31–34; comp. Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 21. 130; Chron. pasch. ed. Dind. i. 168); and lastly describes in detail the building of the temple (Euseb. ix. 34). The correspondence with Suron = Hiram is taken from 2 Chron. 2:2 15 comp. 1 Kings 5:15–25; and that with Uaphres freely imitated from this model. Probably the fragment in Euseb. ix. 39 in which it is related how Jeremiah foretold the captivity and how his prediction was fulfilled by the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar also belongs to Eupolemus. The fragment is according to the reading of the best manuscripts anonymous but may on internal grounds be ascribed to Eupolemus (Freudenthal p. 208 sq.). A chronological fragment in Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 2114. 1 which computes in a summary manner the time from Adam and Moses respectively to the fifth year of Demetrius or the twelfth of Ptolemy gives us information concerning the date of Eupolemus. For by this Demetrius we must probably understand (see below) Demetrius I. Soter (162–150 B.C.) and hence Eupolemus would have written in the year 158–157 B.C. or shortly afterwards. He may therefore be as many have supposed identical with the Eupolemus mentioned 1 Macc. 8:17. In this case he would be a Palestinian which is certainly favoured also by the circumstance that he seems besides the translation of the LXX. of which the Book of Chronicles was certainly in his hands to have made use also of the original Hebrew text (Freudenthal pp. 108 119). Concerning his nationality whether Jew or heathen opinions are as also in the case of Demetrius divided; Josephus c. Apion. i. 23 (= Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 42) esteemed him a heathen as do also Hody and Kuhlmey. On the other hand Eusebius Hist. eccl. vi. 13. 7 and Jerome De viris illustr. c. 38 regard him as a Jew. And this as Freudenthal has recently shown is undoubtedly correct (pp. 83–85).

Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 21. 141: Ἔτι δὲ καὶ Εὐπόλεμος ἐν τῇ ὁμοίᾳ πραγματείᾳ τὰ πάντα ἔτη φησὶν ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ ἄχρι τοῦ πέμπτου ἔτους Δημητρίου βασιλείας Πτολεμαίου τὸ δωδέκατον βασιλεύοντος Αἰγύπτου συνάγεσθαι ἔτη ͵ερμαʹ. ἀφʼ οὗ δὲ χρόνου ἐξήγαγε Μωυσῆς τοὺς Ἰουδαίους ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐπὶ τὴν προειρημένην προθεσμίαν συνάγεσθαι ἔτη δισχίλια πεντακόσια ὀγδοήκοντα. [ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ χρόνου τούτου ἄχρι τῶν ἐν Ῥώμῃ ὑπάτων Γαΐου Δομετιανοῦ Κασιανοῦ συναθροίζεται ἔτη ἑκατὸν εἵκοσι]. In this fragment also the text is defective. Above all it is certain that the number 2580 must be corrected to 1580 since Eupolemus could not have reckoned 2580 years from Moses to his own time. Then the synchronism of the fifth year of Demetrius with the twelfth of Ptolemy causes difficulties. For no twelfth year of any Ptolemy coincides with the fifth year of Demetrius II. (= 142–141 B.C.). The twelfth year indeed of Ptolemy VII. (= 159–158) concurs with the fifth year of Demetrius I. (= 158–157 B.C.). But Ptolemy VII. Physcon was at that time only ruler of Cyrenaica. He reigned in Egypt contemporaneously with his brother Ptolemy VI. Philometor who however began his reign four years previously. We must therefore either regard with Gutschmid the whole statement concerning Ptolemy as a gloss or which is more simple alter the number. However this may be the supposition that Demetrius I. Soter is intended is especially favoured by the circumstance that at all events such was the view of Clemens Alex. For he reckons from the fifth year of Demetrius to the consulship of Cn. Domitius Calvinus and C. Asinius Pollio (these names being certainly hidden under the corrupted words Γαΐου Δομετιανοῦ Κασιανοῦ) i.e. to the year 40 B.C. in which Herod was named king (Joseph. Antt. xiv. 14. 5) 120 years which of necessity reach back to Demetrius L even if the reckoning is not quite accurate. Gutschmid has best restored the closing words by the complement Γναίου Δομετίου καὶ Ἀσινίου ὑπὸ Κασιανοῦ συναθροίζεται. Cassianus is mentioned as a chronologist by Clem. Strom. i. 21. 101.

Comp. in general: Huetius Demonstr. evang. Prop. iv. c. ii. § 29. Hody De biblior. textib. p. 106. Valckenaer De Aristobulo pp. 18 24. Dähne Geschichtl. Darstellung ii. 221 sq. Kuhlmey Eupolemi fragmenta prolegomenis et commentario instructa Berol. 1840. Rauch De Alex. Polyh. pp. 20–22. Cruice De Fl. Jos. fide pp. 58–61. C. Müler Fragm. hist. gr. iii. 207 sqq. Vaillant De historicis etc. pp. 52–59. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael iii. 481–483 572–574. M. Niebuhr Gesch. Assur’s pp. 353–356. Cobet in Λόγιος Ἑρμῆς ἐκδ. ὑπὸ Κόντου vol. i. (Leyden 1866) p. 168 sq. Ewald Gesch. d. V. Isr. i. 76 vii. 91 92. Freudenthal Alex. Polyh. pp. 82 sqq. 105–130 208 sqq. 225 sqq. Siegfried Zeitschr. f. wissenschaftl. Theol. 1875 p. 476 sqq. Gutschmid Jahrbb. f. prot. Theol. 1875 p. 749 sqq. Grätz Monatsschr. f. Gesch. u. Wissensch. d. Judenth. 1877 p. 61 sqq. Bloch Die Quellen des Fl. Josephus (1879) p. 58 sqq.

3. Artapanus

In his work περὶ Ἰουδαίων Artapanus is still farther removed than Eupolemus from the sober and unadorned style of Demetrius. The sacred history is quite methodically embellished or to speak more correctly remodelled by fantastic and tasteless additions—and this recasting is throughout in the interest of the tendency to a glorification of the Jewish people. One chief aim is directed towards proving that the Egyptians were indebted to the Jews for all useful knowledge and institutions. Thus the very first fragment (Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 18) relates that Abraham when he journeyed into Egypt instructed the king Pharethothes in astrology. A second (Euseb. ix. 23) narrates how Joseph when raised by the king to be the chief governor of the country provided for the better cultivation of the land. And finally the long article concerning Moses (Euseb. ix. 27) gives detailed information of his being the real founder of all the culture and even of the worship of the gods in Egypt. For he it was whom the Greeks call Musaeus the instructor of Orpheus the author of a multitude of useful inventions and attainments of navigation architecture military science and philosophy. He also divided the country into thirty-six provinces and commanded each province to worship God; he also instructed the priests in hieroglyphics. He introduced order into State affairs. Hence he was beloved by the Egyptians who called him Hermas διὰ τὴν τῶν ἱερῶν γραμμάτων ἑρμηνείαν. King Chenephres however sought out of envy to get rid of him. But none of the means he used succeeded. When Chenephres was dead Moses received commandment from God to deliver His people from Egyptian bondage. The history of the exodus and of all that preceded it especially of the miracles by which the permission to depart was extorted is then related at length and in accordance with the Scripture narrative but at the same time with many additions and embellishments. Single traits from this history are related with express appeal to Artapanus in Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 23. 154 in Chron. pasch. ed. Dindorf i. 117 and in the Chron. anonym. in Cramer Anecdota Paris ii. 176. Traces of the employment of this work may be pointed out especially in Josephus (see Freudenthal pp. 169–171). The more plainly its Jewish authorship is manifested by the tendency of the whole work the more strange does it appear that Moses and the patriarchs should be exhibited as founders of the Egyptian worships. Jacob and his sons are represented as founding the sanctuaries at Athos and Heliopolis (23. 4). Moses directs each province to honour God (τὸν Θεὸν σεφθήσεσθαι); he prescribes the consecration of the Ibis (27. 9) and of Apis (27. 12). In a word the religion of Egypt is referred to Jewish authority. This fact has been explained by Freudenthal by the surely incorrect notion that the author was indeed a Jew but wanted to pass for a heathen and indeed for an Egyptian priest (pp. 149 sq. 152 sq.). For nowhere does such an attempt come plainly forward. And with such a tendency an entirely unknown name such as Artapanus would certainly never have been chosen as a shield. Nor does it at all explain the phenomena. For if the work had appeared under a heathen mask we should surely expect that it would have energetically denounced in the name of this acknowledged authority the abomination of idol-worship as is actually done e.g. in the case of the Sibyllist (iii. 20) and of pseudo-Aristeas (pp. 38 14 sq. ed. Mor. Schmidt). Thus under all circumstances the strange fact remains that a Jewish author has represented Moses as the founder of Egyptian rites. But however strange this may appear it is explained by the tendency of the whole. Moses was the introducer of all culture even of religious culture. This and nothing else is the meaning. Besides it must be considered that the heathen worship is in reality represented in a tolerably innocent light. For the sacred animals are not so much worshipped as on the contrary “consecrated” for their utility—τῷ Θεῷ as we cannot but conclude. But even thus we certainly have still to do with a Jewish author who cared more for the honour of the Jewish name than for the purity of divine worship. Perhaps too an apologetic purpose co-operated in causing the Jews who were decried as despisers of the gods to figure as founders of religious worship. Considering the marked prominence of Egyptian references there needs no other proof that the author was an Egyptian. With regard to date it can only be affirmed with certainty of him and of those who follow that they were predecessors of Alexander Polyhistor.

Comp. in general: Huetius Demonstr. evang. Prop. iv. c. ii. § 62. Valckenaer De Aristobulo p. 26. Dähne Geschichtl. Darstellung ii. 200–203. Rauch De Alexandro Polyhistore p. 22 sq. C. Müller Fragm. iii. 207 sqq. Vaillant De historicis etc. pp. 74–83. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael iii. 483–486 574. Cobet in the Λόγιος Ἑρμῆς i. 170 171. Ewald ii. 129. Freudenthal Alex. Polyh. pp. 143–174 215 sqq. 231 sqq. Bloch Die Quellen des Josephus p. 60 sqq.

4. Aristeas

A fragment from the work of one otherwise unknown Aristeas περὶ Ἰουδαίων in which the history of Job is briefly related in accordance with the Bible is given in Euseb. Praep. ev. ix. 25. The history itself presents nothing worthy of remark but the personal accounts both of Job and his friends are supplemented on the ground of other scriptural material. Thus it is said of Job that he was formerly called Jobab Ἰώβ being evidently identical with Ἰωβάβ Gen. 36:33. Upon the ground of this identification Job is then made a descendant of Esau for Jobab was a son of Serach (Gen. 36:33) and the latter a grandson of Esau (Gen. 36:10 13). According indeed to the extract of Alexander Polyhistor Aristeas is said to have related that Esau himself “married Bassara and begot Job of her” (τὸν Ἤσαυ γήμαντα Βασσάραν ἐν Ἐδὼμ γεννῆσαι Ἰώβ). Most probably however this rests upon an inaccurate reference of Alexander Polyhistor; for Aristeas who was quoting from the Bible must certainly have called Jobab not the son but correctly the great-grandson of Esau. From Gen. 36:33 is also derived the name Bassara as the mother of Job (Ἰωβὰβ υἱὸς Ζαρὰ ἐκ Βοσόρʼῥας where indeed Bosra is in reality not the mother but the native place of Jobab). Our author already used the LXX. translation of the Book of Job. It is moreover remarkable that in the supplement to Job in the Septuagint the personal accounts of Job are compiled exactly after the manner of Aristeas. Freudenthal thinks it certain that this supplement was derived from Aristeas.

Comp. in general: C. Müller Fragm. iii. 207 sqq. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael iii. 488 sqq. 577–579. Ewald vii. 92. Freudenthal Alex. Polyhistor pp. 136–143 231.

5. Cleodemus or Malchus

The work of a certain Cleodemus or Malchus of which unfortunately only a short notice is preserved seems to have presented a classic example of that intermixture of native (Oriental) and Greek traditions which was popular throughout the region of Hellenism. The notice in question is communicated by Alexander Polyhistor but is taken by Eusebius Praep. evang. ix. 20 not directly from the latter but from Josephus Antt. i. 15 who on his part quotes literally from Alexander. The author is here called Κλεόδημος ὁ προφήτης ὁ καὶ Μάλχος ὁ ἱστορῶν τὰ περὶ Ἰουδαίων καθὼς καὶ Μωϋσῆς ἱστόρησεν ὁ νομοθέτης αὐτῶν. Both the Semitic name Malchus and the contents of the work prove that the author was no Greek but either a Jew or a Samaritan. Freudenthal prefers the latter view chiefly on account of the intermixture of Greek and Jewish traditions. But about 200–100 B.C. this is quite as possible in a Jew as in a Samaritan. In the work of this Malchus it is related that Abraham had three sons by Keturah Ἀφέραν Ἀσουρείμ Ἰάφραν from whom the Assyrians the town of Aphra and the land of Africa derive their names. The orthography of the names (which I have given according to Freudenthal) vacillates considerably. Hence אַשּׁוּרִם עֵיפָה and עֵפֶר Gen. 25:3 4 are evidently identical with them. But while in Gen. 25 Arab tribes are intended our author derives from them entirely different nations which were known to him. He then further relates that the three sons of Abraham departed with Heracles to Libya and Antaeus that Heracles married the daughter of Aphra and of her begat Diodorus whose son again was Sophonas (or Sophax) from whom the Sophaki derive their name. These last traditions are also found in the Libyan (or Roman?) history of King Juba (Plutarch. Sertor c. ix. also in Müller Fragm. hist. gr. iii. 471); only that the genealogical relation of Diodorus and Sophax is reversed: Heracles begets Sophax of Tinge the widow of Antaeus and Diodorus is the son of Sophax.

Comp. in general: C. Müller Fragm. iii. 207 sqq. Vaillant De historicis etc. pp. 72–74. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael iii. 489 575. Ewald vii. 91. Freudenthal. Alex. Polyh. pp. 130–136 215 230. Siegfried Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol. 1875 p. 476 sq.

6. An Anonymous Writer

Among the extracts of Alexander Polyhistor are found Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 17 and 18 two which to judge by their contents are evidently identical although the one is much shorter than the other. The longer (Euseb. ix. 17) is given as an extract from Eupolemus who relates that Abraham descended in the [thir]teenth generation from the race of giants who after the deluge built the tower of Babel that he himself emigrated from Chaldaea to Phoenicia and taught the Phoenicians τροπὰς ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα. He also proved of assistance to them in war. He then departed by reason of a famine to Egypt where he lived with the priests in Heliopolis and taught them much. instructing them in τὴν ἀστρολογίαν καὶ τὰ λοιπά. The real discoverer however of astrology was Enoch who received it from the angels and imparted it to men. We are told the same virtually but more briefly in the second extract Euseb. ix. 18 which Alexander Polyhistor derived from an anonymous work (ἐν δὲ ἀδεσπότοις εὕρομεν). If this parallel narrative is itself striking it must also be added that the longer extract can scarcely be from Eapolemus. Eupolemus was a Jew but in the extract Gerizim is explained by ὄρος ὑψίστου. Also according to Eupolemus Moses was the first sage (Euseb. ix. 26) while in the extract Abraham is already glorified as the father of all science. Hence the supposition of Freudenthal that the original of both extracts was one and the same viz. the anonymous work of a Samaritan and that the longer extract of Alexander has been ascribed by an oversight to Eupolemus is one which commends itself. In this work also as remains to be mentioned Greek traditions and Scripture history are again blended.

Comp. in general: C. Müller Fragm. iii. 207 sqq. Freudenthal Alex. Polyh. pp. 82–103 207 sq. 223 sqq. Siegfried Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1875 p. 476.

7. Jason of Cyrene and the Second Book of Maccabees

The authors from whom extracts were made by Alexander Polyhistor compiled chiefly from the older Scripture history. The work of Jason of Cyrene on which our second Book of Maccabees is based is an example of the treatment of those important epochs of later Jewish history in which they had themselves lived by Hellenistic Jews. For this book is as the author himself informs us only an abridgment (ἐπιτομή 2 Macc. 2:26 28) from the larger work of a certain Jason of Cyrene (2 Macc. 2:23). The original work comprised five volumes which are in our second Book of Maccabees condensed into one (2 Macc. 2:23). Thus the contents of the former seem to have been parallel with those of the latter. The abridgment handed down to us tells first of an unsuccessful attack upon the treasury of the temple undertaken in the time of Seleucus IV. (B.C. 175) by his minister Heliodorus; it then relates the religious persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes and the apostasy of a portion of the Jews; and lastly recounts the Maccabaean rising and its progress down to the decisive victory of Judas over Nicanor (160 B.C.). Thus the book comprises a period of not much more than fifteen years 175–160 B.C. The events related are for the most part the same as in the first Book of the Maccabees. But the narrative differs in many particulars and in some parts even in the order of the events from the account in the first book. The differences are of such a kind that an acquaintance with that book can hardly be assumed on the part of our author (Hitzig Gesch. des Volkes Israel ii. 415 holds the opposite view). At the same time there can be no doubt that on the whole the simple narrative of 1 Macc. based as it is on good native sources deserves the preference over the rhetorical narrative of the second. On the other hand the latter offers a copiousness of independent detail especially in the preliminary history of the Maccabaean rising the historical truth of which there are no grounds for doubting. The view must therefore be accepted that contemporary sources of information were at the disposal also of Jason of Cyrene but that these were probably not in writing but only the oral accounts of contemporaries who narrated from memory the events of those fifteen years. If such narratives reached Jason not directly but through a series of intermediaries this would explain both the copiousness and the inaccuracy of the details.

If the view that Jason of Cyrene derived the history he relates from the lips of contemporaries is correct he must have written not long after 160 B.C. At all events unless we are willing to allow for the use of written documents also we must not make the interval between the events and the date of the author too long as otherwise an acquaintance with such numerous and yet relatively correct particulars would be no longer possible. Nor does the mythical character of many of the narratives (e.g. the martyrdom of Eleazar and the seven brethren 2 Macc. 6–7) tend against the view of so early an origin. For a period of a few decades—especially at a distance from the scene of the events—is more than sufficient for the formation of such myths. The unhistorical notice xv. 37 that after the victory over Nicanor Jerusalem remained in the hands of the Hebrews can indeed only have been written by one at a great distance from the events. But on the other hand this scarcely affects Jason but his epitomizer. Why the narrative breaks off at the victory over Nicanor is somewhat enigmatical. Perhaps this ending was not contemplated by Jason.

With respect to the date of the epitomizer it can only be said that he is certainly more ancient than Philo who seems to have been acquainted with this book. Both the original work and the epitome were without doubt originally written in Greek. For it is very characteristically distinguished by its rhetorical Greek style from the annalistic Hebrew style of the first Book of Maccabees. The second book is very unlike the first in another respect also; it aims directly at edification by the narrative of the heroic faith of the Maccabees and of the marvellous events by which God preserved the continuance of the Jewish religion and worship.

The two letters which are now placed before this book (2 Macc. 1–2:18) stand in no connection with it. They are letters of the Palestinian to the Egyptian Jews in which the latter are summoned to the feast of the Dedication. They are evidently two originally independent pieces of writing afterwards combined by a later hand but not that of the epitomizer with this second Book of Maccabees. Their purpose is to influence the Egyptian Jews with respect to the feast of the Dedication.

In Philo’s work Quod omnis probus liber § 13 (Mang. ii. 459) is described the manner in which many tyrants have persecuted the pious and virtuous. The several features of this description so greatly recall that of Antiochus Epiphanes in the second Book of Maccabees that an acquaintance with this book on the part of Philo can scarcely be doubted; comp. Lucius Der Essenismus (1881) pp. 36–39. Josephus has indeed a few points in common with this book which are absent from 1 Macc. (see Grimm Exeget. Handb. zu 2 Macc. p. 13). It is nevertheless very improbable that he was acquainted with the second Book of Maccabees (see Grimm p. 20). On the other hand the philosophical exhortation known as the fourth Book of Maccabees is entirely based upon it.

Christian testimony begins with Heb. 11:35; for ἐτυμπανίσθησαν evidently refers to 2 Macc. 6:19 28 (ἐπὶ τὸ τύμπανον προσῆγε ἐπὶ τὸ τύμπανον εὐθέως ἦλθε) while other allusions in Heb. 11:35 sq. recall 2 Macc. 6–7 Comp. Bleek Stud. und Kritik 1853 p. 339 and Bleek’s Commentary on Heb. 11:35. The oldest quotation is Clemens Alex. Strom. v. 14. 97: Ἀριστοβούλῳ … οὗ μέμνηται ὁ συνταξάμενος τὴν τῶν Μακκαβαϊκῶν ἐπιτομήν (comp. 2 Macc. 1:10). Hippolytus in his work de Christo et Antichristo c. 49 (Lagarde p. 25) refers to this book in the words: καὶ ταῦτα μὲν … σεσήμανται ἐν τοῖς Μακκαβαϊκοῖς.

Origen appeals in many passages to this book in proof of important doctrines: 1. Of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo to 2 Macc. 7:28 (ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐποίησεν αὐτὰ ὁ Θεός): Comment. in Joann. vol. i. c. 18 (Lommatzsch i. 37); de principiis ii. 1. 5 (Lommatzsch xxi. 142). 2. Of the doctrine of the intercession of saints to 2 Macc. 15:14 (ὁ πολλὰ προσευχόμενος περὶ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ τῆς ἁγίας πόλεως Ἱερεμίας): Comment. in Joann. vol. xiii. c. 57 (Lommatzsch ii. 120); in Cant. Cant. lib. iii. (Lommatzsch xv. 26); de oratione c. 11 (Lommatzsch xvii. 125). 3. He also makes special and very full mention of the history of Eleazar and the seven Maccabaean brothers (2 Macc. 6:18–7 fin.) as glorious examples of dauntless martyrdom in the Exhortatio ad martyrium c. 22–27 (Lommatzsch xx. 261–268); comp. also Comment. in epist. ad Rom. lib. iv. c. 10 (Lommatzsch vi. 305). 4. Other quotations in Origen: fragm. in Exod. (Lommatzsch viii. 302); contra Cels. viii. 46 fin. (Lommatzsch xx. 176).

Cyprian also quotes the history of the Maccabaean martyrs 2 Macc. 6–7 (ad Fortunatum c. 11 and Testim. iii. 17). The Fathers in general have delighted in treating of these Maccabaean martyrs (often with the use of the so-called fourth Book of Maccabees); nay they were at last transplanted among Christian saints. For material bearing on this see Wetstein’s notes on Origen Exhort. ad martyr. c. 23 (Lommatzsch xx. 262) and the Vitae Sanctorum (Lipomannus Surius Bollandist. Nilles’ Kalendarium manuale 1879 to August 1); some also in Freudenthal Die Flavius Josephus beigelegte Schrift über die Herrschaft der Vernunft (1869) p. 29 sqq. Creuzer Stud. und Krit. 1853 p. 85 sq. Bähr Die christlichen Dichter und Geschichtschreiber Roms (2nd ed. 1872) p. 50 sqq.

Its title as the second Book of the Maccabees is first found in Euseb. Praep. evang. viii. 9 fin.: Ἀριστόβουλος … οὗτος δʼ αὐτὸς ἐκεῖνος οὗ καὶ ἡ δευτέρα τῶν Μακκαβαίων ἐν ἀρχῇ τῆς βίβλου μνημονεύει. Hieronymus Prol. galeatus to the Books of Samuel (Vallarsi ix. 459): Machabaeorum primum librum Hebraicum reperi. Secundus Graecus est quod ex ipsa quoque φράσει probari potest.

With respect to manuscripts editions and ancient translations what was said above p. 10 in the case of the first Book of Maccabees applies in most instances to the second. We need only remark: (1) that the second Book of Maccabees is not contained in the cod. Sinaiticus and (2) that besides the old Latin translation which has passed into the Vulgate (and which alone Sabatier Biblior. sacror. Lat. versiones antiquae vol. ii. knows) there is another in a cod. Ambrosianus from which Peyron has published it (Ciceronis orationum pro Scauro pro Tullio et in Clodium fragmenta inedita 1824 p. 73 sqq.); the edition of the same text promised for Ceriani’s Monumenta sacra et prof. vol. i. fasc. 3 has as far as I know not yet made its appearance.

The exegetical and critical literature also of this book is almost entirely the same as that of the first Book of Maccabees (see above p. 11 sq.). In the Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen (Leipzig 1857) the fourth part compiled by Grimm treats of the second third and fourth Books of the Maccabees. We mention besides: [H. Eberh. Glo. Paulus] “Ueber das zweyte Buch der Maccabäer” (Eichhorn’s Allg. Biblioth. der bibl. Literatur vol. i. 1787 pp. 233–241). Bertheau De secundo libro Maccabaeorum Gotting. 1829. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael ii. 443–456. Patrizzi De consensu utriusque libri Machabaeorum Romae 1856. Cigoi Historischchronologische Schwierigkeiten im zweiten Makkabäerbuche Klagenfurt 1868. Kasten Der historische Werth des zweiten Buches der Makkabäer Stolp 1879 (Gymnasialprogr.).

On the two letters at the beginning of the book see (besides the above-named literature): Valckenaer De Aristobulo pp. 38–44. Schlünkes Epistolae quae secundo Macc. libro i. 1–9 legitur explicatio Colon. 1844. The same Difficiliorum locorum epistolae quae 2 Macc. i. 10–ii. 18 legitur explicatio Colon. 1847. Grätz “Das Sendschreiben der Palästinenser an die ägyptischjudäischen Gemeinden wegen der Feier der Tempelweihe” (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1877 pp. 1–16 49–60).

8. The Third Book of Maccabees

The so-called third Book of Maccabees may here be mentioned along with the second as having at least the form of an historical narrative of a supposed episode of later Jewish history. In truth it is a tolerably insipid piece of fiction founded at most on an entirely unascertainable historical fact. It relates how Ptolemy IV. Philopator after his victory over Antiochus the Great at Raphia came to Jerusalem and entertained the desire of entering also the interior of the temple. As he was not to be turned from his purpose by any representations the Jews in their distress cried to God who heard their prayer and struck Ptolemy so that he fell stunned to the ground (1–2:24). Ptolemy exasperated returned to Egypt and meditated revenge. He deprived the Alexandrian Jews of their civic rights and commanded that all the Jews in Egypt together with their wives and children should be brought in chains to Alexandria where they were confined in the racecourse. Their number was so great that the clerks who were to write down the names of each had not after forty days’ labour come to the end and were obliged to leave off for want of writing materials (2:25–4 fin.). Ptolemy now commanded that five hundred elephants should be intoxicated by wine and incense and incited against the people in the racecourse. When all preparations had been made the execution was delayed till the next day because the king had slept till the time for his chief meal. On the second day too nothing was done because the king had through the dispensation of God suddenly forgotten everything and was very angry to find that hostile designs were entertained against his faithful servants the Jews. On the same day however he repeated at his repast the former order for the extirpation of the Jews. When then on the third day matters at last seemed getting serious and the king was already approaching the racecourse with his troops two angels appeared from heaven at the prayer of the Jews and paralysed the troops of the king with terror. The elephants then rushed upon the troops of the king trampled on and destroyed them (5–6:21). The king was now much irritated against his counsellors and commanded the Jews to be liberated from their chains nay to be entertained for seven days at his expense. Then they celebrated their deliverance with feasting and rejoicing and resolved to keep these days as festivals for ever. And the king issued a letter of protection in favour of the Jews to all governors in the provinces and gave the Jews permission to put to death such of their fellow-countrymen as had apostatized from the faith. They made abundant use of this permission and returned joyfully home (6:22–7 fin.).

This narrative is not only almost throughout a mere fiction but it belongs among productions of the kind to those of the weakest sort. The author evidently revels in keeping up psychological impossibilities. The style also corresponds being bombastic and involved. The only foundation for the author’s fiction seems to have been an old legend which we still read in Josephus. For he relates (contra Apion. ii. 5) that Ptolemy VII. Physcon cast the Jews of Alexandria who as adherents of Cleopatra were his political opponents to intoxicated elephants who however turned instead against the friends of the king whereupon the king gave up his purpose and the Jews of Alexandria celebrated the day in remembrance of the event. According to this account the celebration of this festival which is also mentioned in the third Book of Maccabees (6:36) seems at all events to be historical. And some unascertained fact may certainly be the foundation of the legend the older form of which seems to have been in the hands of Josephus since all is in his account simpler and more psychologically comprehensible and he was evidently unacquainted with the third Book of Maccabees. When then the latter refers the history to Ptolemy IV. instead of VII. this is already a divergence from the older legend and still more so are the other additions with which the author has enriched his narrative.

As to the date of the author the utmost that can be ventured is a conjecture. The contents and tendency of the book seem to presuppose a persecution of the Alexandrian Jews on account of which the author desires to comfort and encourage his co-religionists. This leads our thoughts to the time of Caligula when such a persecution on a large scale took place for the first time. Hence Ewald Hausrath Reuss and others place the composition of the book in his reign. But then it would be strange that the author does not make Ptolemy lay claim to divine honours which was the chief stumbling-block in the case of Caligula. On the whole we should expect in it more special references to events under Caligula. Hence we can but approve of Grimm’s reservation though he has every inclination to agree with Ewald’a hypothesis (Exeget. Handb. p. 218 sq.). In general we may say that the book originated at the earliest in the first century before Christ at the latest in the first century after Christ; the former because the author already knows the Greek additions to Daniel (6:6); the latter because it would otherwise have found no acceptance with the Christian Church.

The oldest Christian testimony is the Canones apost. (in Cotelier Patr. apost. 2nd ed. i. 453) canon 76 (al. 85): Μακκαβαίων τρία. The stichometry of Nicephorus also reckons: Μακκαβαϊκὰ γʹ (in Credner Zur Gesch. des Kanons p. 119). In the Synopsis Athanasii stands instead Μακκαβαϊκὰ βιβλία δʹ Πτολεμαϊκά (Credner p. 144) where according to Credner’s conjecture καί is perhaps to be read instead of the number δʹ so that our third Book of Maccabees would have to be understood by Πτολεμαϊκά. For other testimony see Eichhorn Einl. in die apokr. Schriften des A. T. p. 288 sq. Grimm Handb. p. 221 sq. The book seems never to have been known in the Latin Church on which account it is absent from the Vulgate. On the other hand it found approbation in the Syrian Church as the existing old Syriac translation proves. The name “Book of Maccabees” has been very inaptly given to the book merely because here also a persecution of Jews faithful to their religion is the subject.

The book is as a rule found in the manuscripts of the Septuagint so especially in the cod. Alexandrinus. Hence it is also found in most editions of the Septuagint and in the separate editions of the Greek apocryphal books (see above p. 10 sq.). Of ancient versions the old Syriac need only be mentioned here (see above p. 11).

For the exegetical aids in general see above p. 11. Commentary: Grimm “Das zweite dritte und vierte Buch der Maccabäer” (Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des A.T.’s Part 4) Leipzig 1857. Investigations: Eichhorn Einl. in die apokryphischen Schriften des A.T.’s pp. 278–290. Bertholdt Einl. in sammtliche kanon. und apokr. Schriften des A. u. N. T. vol. iii. pp. 1082–1091. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel iv. 611–614. De Wette-Schrader Einl. in das A.T.’s p. 572 sq. Keil Einl. in das A.T. 3rd ed. p. 720 sq. Hausrath Neutestamentl. Zeitgesch. 2nd ed. ii. 262–265. Reuss Gesch. der heil Schriften Alten Testaments § 574.

9. Philo’s Historical Works

Philo the philosopher must also be named here as a writer of works on Jewish history. Indeed he has left us narratives not only from the more ancient history but also from that of his own times.

1. With respect to the former a large work which has been preserved almost entire viz. a comprehensive delineation of the Mosaic legislation must first be mentioned. It is not indeed an historical narrative properly so called but a systematic statement; still it is one so made that Philo attempts therein to give a survey of the legislative labours of Moses himself i.e. of the virtual contents of the Pentateuch. That he does not do this without being essentially influenced by his own philosophical views is a thing self-evident. But still his purpose is simply to give in an objective historical manner; a survey of the Mosaic legislation. The several parts of this work have come down to us in the manuscripts and editions under special titles as though they were separate books. It will be shown below § 34 that the plan of the whole work is as follows: (a) The first book refers to the creation of the world. For Moses treated of this in the beginning of his work to make it plain that his legislation was according to the will of nature. (b) The following books treat of the lives of Enos Enoch Noah Abraham Isaac Jacob and Joseph but so that the first three are only briefly treated in the introduction to the life of Abraham while the last four have each a separate book devoted to them. The lives of Abraham and Joseph have been preserved. The histories of all these individuals is related because by their lives they exhibit the universal types of morality “the living unwritten laws.” (c) Next follows the legislation proper the ten chief commandments first in one book and then in four books the special laws arranged according to the rubrics of the ten commandments (particulars § 34). Thus a survey is really taken of the actual contents of the Pentateuch. The tendency of the entire work is everywhere to hold up the Jewish law as the wisest and most humane. The ritual and ceremonial laws are not passed by; but Philo always knows how to realize their rational side so that he who perfectly observes them is not only the best but also the most cultured man the true philosopher. This also makes it clear that the work if not solely was chiefly intended for non-Jewish readers. The educated of all nations were to be brought by it to the perception that the Jewish was the most perfect law the law by which men were best trained to be good citizens and true philosophers.

In a separate work which does not as has been usually supposed belong to this collective work Philo has also written a life of Moses himself. In this also the manner and object are the same as in the systematic work. Moses is described as the greatest and wisest of lawgivers and as raised above all others by mighty deeds and miraculous experiences.

2. Philo also described in a lengthy work the most important and the saddest episode of the Jewish history of his times the persecutions of the Jews under Caligula. By way of introduction he spoke also in it of the persecutions brought about by Sejanus in the reign of Tiberius. The work according to Eusebius contained five books. The two which have come down to us (in Flaccum and de legatione ad Cajum) probably formed the third and fourth (particulars § 34). Philo having been an eye-witness of the events he narrates nay as leader of a Jewish embassy to Caligula a prominent sharer in them his work is a first-class authority for the history of this period.

10. Josephus

The best known historian of Jewish affairs in the Greek language is the Palestinian Josephus properly Joseph the son of Matthias a priest of Jerusalem. Of his two chief works one is the Ἰουδαϊκὴ Ἀρχαιολογία a comprehensive delineation of the entire Jewish history from the beginning to his own times. It is the most extensive work on Jewish history in the Greek language with which we are acquainted and has on that account so retained the lasting favour of Jewish heathen and Christian readers as to have been preserved entire in numerous manuscripts (particulars see above Div. i. vol. i. § 3). Notwithstanding its great difference from the philosophizing delineation of Philo its tendency is similar. For it is the purpose of Josephus not only to instruct his heathen readers for whom it was in the first instance intended in the history of his people but also to inspire them with respect for the Jewish nation both as having a history of hoar antiquity and a long series of celebrities both in peace and war to point to and as able to bear comparison in respect of laws and institutions with any nation (comp. especially Antt. xvi. 6. 8). The other chief work of Josephus the History of the Jewish War from A.D. 66–73 gives the history more for its own sake. The events of these years are in themselves so important that they seemed worthy of a detailed description. Perhaps it was written by command of Vespasian from whom Josephus received an annual salary (Vita 76) and to whom the work was delivered as soon as it was completed (contra Apion. i. 9; Vita 65). If a tendency to boasting is detected in it this refers rather to the individual Josephus and the Romans than to the Jewish nation.

11. Justus of Tiberias

Justus of Tiberias a contemporary and fellow-countryman of Josephus was also his fellow-labourer. He too devoted himself to authorship after the destruction of his nation but having been less successful therein than Josephus his works were less read and have therefore been lost. He has this in common with Josephus that he too treated both of Jewish history as a whole and of the events of his own times each in one work. His History of the Jewish Kings from Moses to Agrippa II. was according to the statement of Photius who was still acquainted with it (Biblioth. Cod. 33) “very brief in expression and passed over much that was necessary.” As it was made use of by Julius Africanus in his Chronicle it may well be supposed that its form was that of a chronicle in which stress was chiefly laid upon the settling of the chronology.

In another work Justus seems to have presented whether wholly or partly the History of the Jewish War in a manner by which Josephus felt himself compromised since in his Vita he enters into a very warm controversy against Justus.

1. Philo the Epic Poet

The appropriation of Greek forms of literature on the part of the Hellenistic Jews did not stop at prose. Even the epic and dramatic poetry of the Greeks were transplanted to the soil of Hellenistic Judaism the sacred history being sung under the form of the Greek Epos nay represented in the form of the Greek drama. For what is still preserved of this remarkable literature we are indebted to the extracts of Alexander Polyhistor which have been inserted by Eusebius in his Praeparatio evangelica (see above p. 197 sqq.).

Three small fragments from a Greek poem “On Jerusalem” (Περὶ τὰ Ἱεροσόλυμα) by a certain Philo are given by Eusebius (Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 20 24 37). The subject of the first is Abraham of the second Joseph of the third the springs and water-pipes of Jerusalem the abundance of which is extolled. The first and third are taken from the first book of the work quoted (ix. 20: Φίλων ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν Περὶ τὰ Ἱεροσόλυμα; ix. 37: Φίλων ἐν τοῖς Περὶ Ἱεροσολύμων … ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ); the second professedly from the fourteenth (ix. 24: Φίλων ἐν τῇ ιδʹ τῶν Περὶ Ἱεροσόλυμα). But that Philo should have used fourteen books to get as far as the history of Joseph is too improbable. Hence we may suppose with Freudenthal that possibly we must read ἐν τῇ ιδʹ instead of ἐν τῇ δʹ. The language of Philo is that of the Greek epic but his hexameters are written with a true contempt of Greek prosody and the diction is pompous and so involved as to be unintelligible.

The Philo mentioned by Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 21. 141 and by Josephus contra Apion. i. 23 (= Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 42) and whom Josephus distinguishes from the more recent philosopher by calling him Philo the elder (Φίλων ὁ πρεσβύτερος) is certainly identical with our epic writer. According to the notice of him in Clemens Alexandrinus we might indeed suppose that some prose writer who treated Jewish history in like manner as Demetrius and Eupolemus do was spoken of (Strom. i. 21. 141: Φίλων δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς ἀνέγραψε τοὺς βασιλεῖς τοὺς Ἰουδαίων διαφώνως τῷ Δημητρίῳ). Josephus took him for a heathen for he adduces him together with Demetrius and Eupolemus as a proof that many heathen authors also had a tolerably accurate acquaintance with Jewish history. But the circumstance that both Clemens and Josephus in the passages cited place this Philo in the same series as Demetrius and Eupolemus (both have the order Demetrius Philo Eupolemus) proves that both were drawing from the same source and this can be no other than Alexander Polyhistor. Since then no other Philo than the epic writer occurs in the copious contributions from Alexander Polyhistor in Eusebius there is no doubt that Clemens and Josephus mean the same. Consequently Philo as the fragments in Eusebius give us reason to suppose sang in such wise of the town of Jerusalem as to give at the same time a history of the Jewish kings.

As to the date of Philo this much only can be said that he preceded Alexander Polyhistor. Hence he may be perhaps placed in the second century before Christ. There is no direct evidence that he was a Jew but from the tenor of his poem it can scarcely be doubtful.

Comp. in general: Huetius Demonstr. ev. Prop. iv. c. 2 § 33. Viger’s Anm. zu Euseb. ix. 20. Philippson Ezechiel des jüdischen Trauerspieldichters Auszug aus Egypten und Philo des Aelteren Jerusalem 1830. Delitzsch Zur Gesch. der jüd. Poesie (1836) pp. 24 209. Dähne Geschichtl. Darstellung der jüd.-alex. Religions-Philosophie ii. 215 note. Cruice De Fl. Josephi fide (1844) p. 61 sq. Müller Fragm. hist. Graec. iii. 207 sqq. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael iii. 519 575. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel iv. 338 vii. 91. Freudenthal Alex. Polyhistor pp. 34 100 170.

2. Theodotus

The poem of Theodotus on Sichem a long portion from which is given partly by verbal quotation partly by a statement of its contents in Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 22 seems to have been of the same kind as that of Philo on Jerusalem. The entire portion refers to the history of the town of Sichem. Its situation is first described and then its seizure by the Hebrews in accordance with Gen. 34; how Jacob first dwelt in Mesopotamia there married and begat children then departed with them to the district of Sichem and received a portion of land from Emmor the king of Sichem; next how Sichem the son of Emmor ravished Dinah Jacob’s daughter whereupon Jacob declared himself ready to give Dinah to Sichem to wife on condition that all the Sichemites should be circumcised; and lastly how Simeon and Levi two of Jacob’s sons slew Emmor and Sichem and in conjunction with their brethren destroyed the city of the Sichemites. Jacob’s sojourn in Mesopotamia not being mentioned till after the description of the town of Sichem and only as an introduction to the history of its seizure by the Hebrews which follows it is evident that the history of the town of Sichem is the real theme of the poem; and since it is called a “holy city” (ἱερὸν ἄστυ) it can scarcely be doubted that Theodotus was a Samaritan. Hence the title Περὶ Ἰουδαίων given to the poem in Eusebius can hardly be accurate. At the commencement of the extract it is said that the town had its name from Sikimios a son of Hermes (ἀπὸ Σικιμίου τοῦ Ἑρμοῦ). Theodotus thus seems like other Hellenists to have embellished Jewish history with scraps from Greek mythology. The diction as well as the construction of the hexameters is better than Philo’s. With respect to date what was said of Philo applies here also.

Comp. in general: Huetius Demonstr. ev. iv. 2. 32. Fabricius-Harles Biblioth. gr. x. 516. Müller Fragm. hist. gr. iii. 207 sqq. Pauly’s Real-Enc. der class. Alterthumswissensch. art. “Theodotus” Nr. 13. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael iii. 520 sq. 576 sq. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel iv. 338 vii. 91. Freudenthal Alex. Polyh. p. 99 sq.

3. Ezekiel the Tragic Poet

The most remarkable phenomenon in the department of Judaeo-Hellenistic poetry is the manufacture of scriptural matter into Greek dramas. We know indeed of only one such Jewish dramatist Ezekiel; and it must be left uncertain whether he had either successor or predecessor. But at all events he composed other dramas besides the one which is known to us by extracts being called “The poet of Jewish tragedies” (Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 23. 155: ὁ Ἐζεκίηλος ὁ τῶν Ἰουδαϊκῶν τραγῳδιῶν ποιητής. Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 28: Ἐζεκιῆλος ὁ τῶν τραγῳδιῶν ποιητής). We know more by extensive extracts in Eusebius and Clemens Alexandrinus (after Alexander Polyhistor) of one of them which was called “the Exodus” Ἐξαγωγή and which depicted the history of the departure of the Jews from Egypt (Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 23. 155: ἐν τῷ ἐπιγραφομένῳ δράματι “Ἐξαγωγή.” Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 29. 14 ed. Gaisford: ἐν τῷ δράματι τῷ ἐπιγραφομένῳ Ἐξαγωγή). The moment chosen as the starting-point of the action was apparently that when Moses fled to Midian after slaying the Egyptian (Ex. 2); for the first extract transposes us to that period (Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 28 = Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 23. 155–156). It is a long monologue of Moses in which he relates the history of his life down to that juncture and concludes with the words that he is now in consequence a wanderer in a foreign land. He then sees the seven daughters of Raguel approaching (Ex. 2:16 sqq.) and asks who they are when Zipporah gives him the information. The further progress of the action is only alluded to in the extract where we are told that the watering of the flock and the marriage of Zipporah with Moses now takes place (Ex. 2:16 sqq.). In the second extract (Euseb. ix. 29. 4–6 ed. Gaisford) Moses relates a dream to his father-in-law which the latter explains to mean that Moses will attain to a high official post and will have the knowledge of things past present and future. In another scene (Euseb. ix. 29. 7–11 ed. Gaisford) it is represented on the authority of Ex. 3–4 how God spoke to Moses from a burning bush and commissioned him to deliver the people of Israel from bondage. As God speaks invisibly from the bush He is not made to appear on the stage but only His voice is heard. The details are pretty much in agreement with Ex. 3–4. In the extract which follows (Euseb. ix. 29. 12–13 ed. Gaisford) God gives (according to Ex. 11–12) more exact directions concerning the departure and the celebration of the Passover. It cannot be decided whether this also belongs to the scene of the bush. In a further scene (Euseb. ix. 29. 14 ed. Gaisford) an Egyptian enters who has escaped the catastrophe in the Red Sea and relates how the Israelites passed safely through the waters and the Egyptian host perished in them. Finally in the last fragment (Euseb. ix. 29. 15–16) a messenger in whom we are to imagine one sent to reconnoitre for the Israelites announces to Moses the discovery of an excellent place of encampment at Elim with twelve springs of water and seventy palm trees (Ex. 15:27 = Num. 33:9). Then the messenger relates how a marvellously strong bird nearly twice as large as an eagle which all the other birds followed as their king appeared. The description of this bird is also found without mention of the name of Ezekiel in Eustathius Comm. in Hexaemeron ed. Leo Allatius (1629) p. 25 sq.

From these fragments it appears that the action agrees pretty closely with the scriptural narrative though with many embellishments of detail. The poetry of the author is very prosaic. On the other hand a certain amount of skill in dramatizing the material cannot be denied him. The diction and versification (Iambic trimeters) are tolerably fluent. It has been doubted—incorrectly it seems to me—whether this drama was ever intended for representation. The aim of it is certainly the same as that of the scriptural dramas of the Middle Ages (the passion plays etc.) viz. on the one hand to make the people in this way also better acquainted with sacred history on the other and chiefly to supplant as far as possible profane and heathen pleasures by the supply of such “wholesome food.” Here perhaps as in other productions of Judaeo-Hellenistic literature heathen readers and spectators were calculated on.

That Ezekiel was a Jew is undoubtedly shown even by his name. What was said of the dates of Philo and Theodotus applies in his case also.

Comp. in general: Huetius Demonstr. evang. iv. 2. 24. Fabricius Biblioth. graec. ed. Harles ii. 305 sq. viii. 624 sq. 635 636. Eichhorn “De Judaeorum re scenica” in the Commentationes Societ. Gotting. recentiores vol. ii. Gotting. 1813. Philippson Ezechiel des jüdischen Trauerspieldichters Auszug aus Egypten und Philo des Aelteren Jerusalem 1830. Delitzsch Zur Gesch. der jüdischen Poesie (1836) pp. 28 209 211–219. Dähne Geschichtl. Darstellung der jüd.-alex. Religions-Philosophie ii. 199 sq. Fürst Biblioth. Jud. i. 264. Frankel Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik (1851) pp. 113–119. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael iii. 517–519. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel ii. 127 iv. 338. Bähr in Pauly’s Real-Enc. iii. 365. Dübner in the appendix to Fragmenta Euripidis iterum ed. F. G. Wagner (accedunt indices locupletissimi Christus patiens Ezechieli et christianorum poetarum reliquiae dramaticae) Paris Didot 1846 pp. 7–10 and 1–7. Magnin Journal des Savants 1848 pp. 193–208 (Recension of Dübner’s appendix to Fragm. Eurip. ed. Wagner). Dindorf Praefat. to his edition of Euseb. Opp. vol. i. pp. 19–25. Bernhardy Grundriss der griechischen Litteratur ii. 2 (3rd ed. 1872) p. 76. Cobet in the Λογιος Ερμης i. 457–459.

In the departments of history and poetry it was chiefly only the external form that was borrowed from the Greeks but in that of philosophy a real internal blending of Jewish and Greek thought a strong actual influencing of Jewish belief by the philosophy of the Greeks took place. We perceive this the most plainly in Philo. He exhibits a completely double aspect; on one side he is a Jew on the other a Greek philosopher (particulars § 34). But we should be much mistaken if we took him for an isolated phenomenon in the history of his people and age. He is but a classic representative of a current flowing through centuries and necessarily implied by the nature of Hellenistic Judaism. To Greek culture belonged also an acquaintance with the great thinkers of the Greeks. The Hellenistic Jews in appropriating the former thereby placed themselves also under the influence of Greek philosophy. We have certain proofs of this since the second century before Christ. But we may assume that the fact mentioned is in general as old as Hellenistic Judaism itself. The Jew whom Aristotle met in Asia Minor was already Ἑλληνικὸς οὐ τῇ διαλέκτῳ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ τῇ ψυχῇ (see vol. ii. 225).

The Jewish feature of this Judaeo-Hellenistic philosophy appears chiefly in the fact that like the Palestinian חָכמָה it pursued essentially practical aims. Not logic or physics but ethic was in its sight the chief matter. This ethic was indeed often founded upon the theoretic philosophy of the Greeks. Still the latter is but a means to an end the proper end of Jewish philosophers viz. the practical one of educating man to true morality and piety.

Also in the choice made of the literary form the Jewish foundation is still apparent. The case here is exactly the reverse of what it is in poetry. The contents exhibit a strong Greek influence but the literary form is derived from Palestine. The author of the Wisdom of Solomon chooses the form of proverbs Philo gives his discussions in the manner of Rabbinic Midrash i.e. in prolix learned commentaries on the text of the Pentateuch from which the most heterogeneous philosophic ideas are developed by the help of allegorical exegesis. The so-called fourth Book of the Maccabees is a hortatory address of which the synagogue sermon may perhaps be regarded as the model. Only in a few smaller pieces does Philo choose the form of inquiry and dialogue after Greek models.

In the mixture of Jewish and Greek notions in these writers the proportions of course vary. In some the influence of Greek ideas is stronger in others weaker. But even those which are most saturated with Greek ideas are essentially rooted in the soil of Judaism. For they not only insist upon the unity of a supramundane God and the control of Divine Providence which punishes the wicked and rewards the good but they also firmly adhere to the belief that the most perfect knowledge of things human and divine is given in the Mosaic revelation so that Judaism is the way to true wisdom and virtue. And not only does the amount of Greek influence vary but different Greek systems are preferred now one now another being more agreed with. Plato Aristotle the Stoics and Pythagoreans have all furnished material to the sphere of ideas of these Jewish philosophers. Especially in the Platonico-Pythagorean and in the Stoic teaching did Jewish thinkers find many elements capable of being assimilated with the Jewish faith. That the appropriation of these was always eclectic is self-evident. But here Jewish philosophy only participates in the fundamental characteristic of later Greek philosophy in general.

1. The Wisdom of Solomon

We place the so-called “Wisdom of Solomon” first not because it is certainly the oldest of the literary productions to be here discussed but because it most closely resembles in form the ancient Palestinian proverbial wisdom. In like manner as Jesus the son of Sirach does the author praise true wisdom which is to be found only with God and is imparted to man by God alone. But the execution is quite different from that of Jesus Sirach. While the latter shows how the truly wise man comports himself in the different circumstances of practical life this book is properly only a warning against the folly of ungodliness and especially of idolatry. Around this one theme do the contents of the whole book revolve and consequently the proverbial form is not strictly adhered to but often passes into that of connected discourse.

According to chap. 9:7 sqq. Solomon himself is to be regarded as the speaker and those addressed are the judges and kings of the earth (1:1: οἱ κρίνοντες τὴν γῆν; 6:1: βασιλεῖς δικασταὶ περάτων γῆς). Thus it is properly an exhortation of Solomon to his royal colleagues the heathen potentates. He the wisest of all kings represents to them the folly of ungodliness and the excellence of true wisdom. Its contents may be divided into three groups. It is first shown (chaps. 1–5) that the wicked and ungodly although for a period apparently prosperous will not escape the judgments of God but that the pious and just after having been for a time tried by sufferings attain to true happiness and immortality. In a second section (chaps. 6–9) Solomon directs his royal colleagues to his own example. It is just because he has loved high and divine wisdom and has united himself to her as his bride that he has attained to glory and honour. Hence he still prays for such wisdom. The third section (chaps. 10–19) points out by referring to the history of Israel and especially to the different lots of the Israelites and the Egyptians the blessing of godliness and the curse of ungodliness. A very long tirade on the folly of idolatry (chaps. 13–15) is here inserted.

The work being in its chief contents a warning against the folly of ungodliness it can only be so far intended for Jewish readers as ungodliness was to be found among them also. But we should be hardly mistaken if we were to suppose that the author had heathen readers at least as much in view. The numerous allusions to Scripture history seem indeed to presuppose Jewish readers (so e.g. Grimm Exeget. Handb. p. 27). But then what is the purpose of the garment chosen according to which the kings and potentates of the earth are addressed? Why the long-winded discourse on the folly of idolatry for which there was no occasion with Jewish readers who still deserved the name? The contents recall in many respects the Sibylline oracles which going forth under a heathen authority were certainly intended for heathen readers. As in these so in the book in question the folly of an ungodly life is set before its readers. At all events its warning and instruction are addressed to heathen-minded readers whether these are by birth Jews or heathen and chiefly indeed to the great and mighty of this world.

The special theological standpoint of the author agrees with that of Palestinian proverbial wisdom as we find it in the Proverbs of Solomon and in Jesus the son of Sirach. Divine Wisdom is the supreme good the source of all truth virtue and happiness with our author also. But while like the author of the Book of Proverbs and Jesus Sirach he starts from the assertion that this Wisdom is first of all present with God it becomes in his conception almost an independent person beside God. His utterances indeed do not seem to really exceed what we already read in Prov. 8–9. But what is there more a poetic personification becomes with him a philosophic theory. Wisdom is according to him a breath (ἀτμίς) of God’s power a pure effluence (ἀπόρʼῥια) from the glory of the Almighty the brightness (ἀπαύγασμα) of the everlasting light (7:25 26). It is most intrinsically united with God (συμβίωσιν θεοῦ ἔχουσα) is initiated into the knowledge of God (μύστις τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπιστήμης) and a chooser of His works (αἱρέτις τῶν ἔργων αὐτοῦ) i.e. chooses among the works of which God has conceived the idea which shall be carried into execution (8:3 4: comp. Grimm on the passage) is assessor on God’s throne (9:4: ἡ τῶν σῶν θρόνων πάρεδρος) understands the works of God and was present when He created the world knows what is well-pleasing in His eyes and right according to His commandments (9:9). Wisdom is thus not only represented as the special possession of God but as an assistant of God originating from His own nature. Together therewith “the almighty word of God” (ὁ παντοδύναμός σου λόγος) is also personified in a manner which approaches hypostatic union (18:15 sq.). Thus we have here already the elements from which the Philonian doctrine of the λόγος (= reason and word of God) as a hypostasis mediating between God and the world is formed. For Wisdom occupies in our author a position similar to that of Philo’s Logos with respect to the world also. She has a spirit which is easily moving all-overseeing all-pervading (7:22–24: εὐκίνητον πανεπίσκοπον διήκει καὶ χωρεῖ διὰ πάντων etc.). She works everything (8:5; τὰ πάντα ἐργαζομένη) rules all things (8:1: διοικεῖ τὰ πάντα) makes all things new (7:27: τὰ πάντα καινίζει). “By passing from generation to generation into holy souls she prepares friends of God and prophets” (7:27). It is she who was manifested in the history of Israel e.g. in the pillar of fire and cloud which led the Israelites through the wilderness (10:17 and chap. 10 in general). Hence Wisdom is in a word the medium by which God works in the world. The tendency of this whole speculation is evidently the same as in Philo viz. to secure by the insertion of such an intermediary the absolute supramundane nature of God who cannot be conceived of as in direct contact with a sinful world. But it must not be lost sight of that it is by no means our author’s concern to dwell upon this thought. He desires on the contrary to exhibit Divine Wisdom as the supreme good. He does not seek to show that Wisdom is different from God but on the contrary how near it is to Him. While then he is moving in this sphere of thought he merely takes up a view already current among his associates.

The influence of Greek philosophy is moreover shown in the details of execution. The formulae with which the rule of wisdom in the world is described (7:24: διήκει χωρεῖ; 8:1: διοικεῖ) recall the Stoic doctrine of the world-spirit of God as the wisdom of the world immanent in and pervading it. The enumeration also of the four cardinal virtues (8:7: σωφροσύνη φρόνησις δικαιοσύνη ἀνδρεία) is to be referred to Stoic influence (see Zeller as above). The psychology of the author on the other hand is Platonico-dualistic. The soul of man is pre-existent. If it is good it enters an undefiled body (8:20: ἀγαθὸς ὢν ἦλθον εἰς σῶμα ἀμίαντον). The body is only an “earthly tabernacle” for the νοῦς (9:15: γεῶδες σκῆνος). After a short time the body must restore the soul like a loan and then fall to dust (15:8). In this anthropology the territory of the Jewish view is entirely forsaken. Instead of a resurrection of the body we have here the Greek view of the immortality of the soul.

With respect to the author’s date it must be regarded as certain that he succeeds Jesus the son of Sirach but precedes Philo. For his standpoint is a preliminary step to Philo’s. This would not in itself prove a higher antiquity. But with the near affinity of the two it is not conceivable that our author would have remained unaffected by Philo if he had succeeded him. There is absolutely no foundation for the notion (as e.g. by Weisse) of Christian origin. That the author was an Alexandrian may by reason of the great prominence of references to Egyptian matters be regarded as certain. On the other hand it cannot be imagined that Philo was himself the author of this book as was believed by some even in the time of Jerome (Hieron. praef. in vers. libr. Salom. Opp. ed. Vallarsi ix. 1293 sq.: “Nonnulli scriptorum veterum hunc esse Judaei Philonis affirmant”); and also by many moderns as Luther Joh. Gerhard Calovius and others (see Grimm Handb. p. 21 sqq.). The authorship of Philo is entirely excluded by the difference of his sphere of thought.

The book has been used from the beginning in the Christian Church. Even in the Pauline Epistles such loud echoes are found as make St. Paul’s acquaintanceship with the book probable (see Bleek Stud. und Krit. 1853 pp. 340–344; on the other side Grimm Exeget. Handb. p. 35 sqq.). It is tolerably certain that it was known to Clemens Romanus (Clem. Rom. xxvii. 5 = Sap. Sal. 12:12 and 11:21; comp. also Clem. lx. 1 = Sap. 7:17). In Tatian Oratio ad Graecos c. vii. init. the same is said of Christ as is said (Sap. 2:23) of God. Irenaeus in his large work on heresy nowhere quotes indeed Sap. Sol. but borrows from it (iv. 38. 3) the saying: ἀφθαρσία δὲ ἐγγὺς εἶναι ποιεῖ θεοῦ (Sap. 6:20). With reference to this Eusebius (Hist. eccl. v. 8. 8) says of Irenaeus: Καὶ ῥητοῖς δέ τισιν ἐκ τῆς Σολομῶνος σοφίας κέχρηται μονονουχὶ φάσκων• Ὅρασις δὲ θεοῦ περιποιητικὴ ἀφθαρσίας ἀφθαρσία δὲ ἐγγὺς εἶναι ποιεῖ θεοῦ. In the βιβλίον διαλέξεων διαφόρων which has not come down to us Irenaeus according to the testimony of Eusebius expressly quoted from the Book of Wisdom (Hist. eccl. v. 26: τῆς λεγομένης σοφίας Σολομῶντος μνημονεύει). Canon Muratorianus lin. 69–71: “Sapientia ab amicis Salomonis in honorem ipsius scripta.” See also Hesse Das muratorische Fragment (1873) p. 239 sqq. Tertullian adv. Valentinianos c. 2 refers to Wisd. 1:1 in the words: “ut docet ipsa Sophia non quidem Valentini sed Salomonis.” Tertullian also made use of the Book of Wisdom. Clemens Alexandrinus quotes it nine times and frequently makes use of it besides. The express quotations are introduced as either sayings of Solomon (so Strom. vi. 11. 93 14. 110 14. 114 15. 120–121) or of the σοφία (Paedag. ii. 1. 7; Strom. ii. 2. 5 iv. 16. 103–104 v. 14. 89) or with the formula εἴρηται (Strom. vi. 14. 113). Hippolytus repeatedly quotes the book as a genuine προφητεία Σολομῶν περὶ Χριστοῦ (adv. Judaeos § 9 and 10 = Lagarde p. 66 sq.) especially the passage 2:12–20 which is also frequently interpreted in a Messianic sense by moderns (see vol. ii. p. 139).

Origen is after the author of the Muratorian Fragment the first to intimate a doubt with respect to the Solomonian authorship. He quotes it with the sceptical formula as ἡ ἐπιγεγραμμένη τοῦ Σολομῶντος σοφία (in Joann. vol. xx. c. 4 = Lommatzsch ii. 202) ἡ σοφία ἡ ἐπιγεγραμμένη Σολομῶντος (in Jerem. homil. viii. 1 = Lommatzsch xv. 193) ὁ περὶ τῆς σοφίας εἰπών (Selecta in Jerem. c. 29 = Lommatzsch xv. 453) ἐν τῇ ἐπιγεγραμμένῃ Σολομῶντος σοφίᾳ (contra Cels. v. 29 = Lommatzsch xix. 216) “in sapientia quae dicitur Salomonis qui utique liber non ab omnibus in auctoritate habetur” (de principiis iv. 33 = Lommatzsch xxi. 472 sq.). But he quotes it almost as frequently simply as a work of Solomon. And that it is to him a canonical book is especially shown by the entire section de principiis i. 2. 5–13 where he uses the passage Wisd. 7:25 26 together with Col. 1:15 and Heb. 1:3 as fundamental passages from which he develops his Christology. The whole section de princ. i. 2. 9–13 is nothing but an exegetical discussion of Wisd. 7:25 26. On the whole there are about forty quotations from this book in Origen.

Cyprian uses the Book of Wisdom as in the fullest sense canonical. He quotes it as Sapientia Salomonis (Testim. ii. 14 iii. 16 53 58 59 66; Ad Fortunatum c. 1) scriptura divina (De habitu virginum c. 10; Epist. vi. 2) scriptura sancta (Ad Demetrianum c. 24) or with the formulae as scriptum est (De zelo et livore c. 4; Epist. iv. 1 lv. 22) per Salomonem docet spiritus sanctus and the like (De mortalitate c. 23; Ad Fortunatum c. 12). He quotes two or three times passages from the Proverbs with the formula in Sapientia Salomonis (Testim. iii. 1 6 16 56); and once a passage from Wisdom with the formula in Ecclesiastico (Testim. iii. 112); but both from inadvertence since he elsewhere decidedly distinguishes between Proverbs Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom.

The manuscripts editions and ancient translations (together with their editions) are the same for this book as for Ecclesiasticus (see above p. 29) the two books being as a rule combined with each other. The cod. Vaticanus has been used for our book in Fritzsche’s edition of the Apocrypha but apparently only according to the data in Reusch (Observ. crit. 1861) which on their part rest upon the untrustworthy edition of the codex by Mai (see upon this p. 11 above). Valuable contributions to the textual criticism are given in Reusch Observationes criticae in librum Sapientiae Frib. 1861. The separate edition (Reusch Liber Sapientiae graece Frib. 1858) gives the text of the Sixtine edition. An edition of the Greek text with the old Latin and the Authorized English translation: Deane Σοφια Σαλωμων The Book of Wisdom the Greek text the Latin Vulgate and the Authorized English version with an introduction critical apparatus and a commentary Oxford 1881.

The exegesis in general see above p. 11. Commentaries: Bauermeister Commentarius in Sapientiam Salomonis Götting. 1828. Grimm Commentar über das Buch der Weisheit Leipzig 1837. J. A. Schmid Das Buch der Weisheit übersetzt und erklärt 1858 (Cathol.). Grimm Das Buch der Weisheit erklärt (Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen 6 pts.) Leipzig 1860 (not a new edition of the former work but an entirely new one). Gutberlet Das Buch der Weisheit übersetzt und erklärt 1874 (Cathol.). Deane in the above-named separate edition. The older literature in Fabricius Biblioth. graec. ed. Harles iii. 727–732. Fürst Biblioth. Jud. iii. 219–221. Grimm Exeget. Handb. p. 45 sq. Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. i. 496.

Separate investigations: Salthenius Diss. critico-theol. de auctore libri Sapientiae Philone potius Alexandrino quam seniore Regim. 1739. Bretschneider De libri Sapientiae parte priore c. i.–xi. e duobus libellis conflata. Pts. i.–iii. Viteb. 1804. Winzer De philosophia morali in libro Sap. exposita Viteb. 1811. Grimm De Alexandrina Sapientiae libri indole perperam asserta Jen. 1833 (subsequently withdrawn by himself). Gfrörer Philo vol. ii. (1831) pp. 200–272. Dähne Geschichtl. Darstellung der jüd.-alex. Religionsphilosophie vol. ii. (1834) pp. 152–180. Bruch Weisheitslehre der Hebräer Strassb. 1851 pp. 322–378. Schmieder Ueber das B. der Weisheit 1853. Weisse Die Evangelienfrage (1856) p. 202 sqq. Noach Psyche iii. 2 pp. 65–102. Nägelsbach in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1st ed. xvii. 622 sqq. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel iv. 626 sqq. The same Jahrbb. der bibl. Wissensch. iii. 264 sq. ix. 234 sq. x. 219 sq. xi. 223 sqq. Zeller Die Philosophie der Griechen iii. 2 (3rd ed. 1881) pp. 271–274. Kübel “Die ethischen Grundanschauungen der Weisheit Salomo’s” (Stud. und Krit. 1865 pp. 690–722). Heinze Die Lehre vom Logos (1872) pp. 192–202. Fritzsche in Schenkel’s Bibellex. v. 647 sqq. Hausrath Neutestamentl. Zeitgesch. 2nd ed. ii. 259 sqq. Grätz Gesch. der Juden vol. iii. (3rd ed. 1878) pp. 628–630 (note 3). Perez La Sapienza di Salomone saggio storico-critico Firenze 1871. The same Sopra Filone Alessandrino e il suo libro detto “La Sapienza di Salomone” Palermo 1883. The Introductions of Jahn Eichhorn Bertholdt Welte Scholz Nöldeke De Wette-Schrader Reusch Keil Kaulen Kleinert Reuss (see above p. 12).

2. Aristobulus

The author of the Wisdom of Solomon is one whose views are still chiefly based upon the Palestinian Proverbial Wisdom which in him is only peculiarly modified by the influence of Greek philosophy. The Alexandrian Aristobulus on the contrary is a Hellenistic philosopher in the proper sense. He is acquainted with and expressly quotes the Greek philosophers Pythagoras Socrates Plato and is at home with their views as a philosopher by profession.

The statements of the ancients do not indeed entirely agree as to his date. It may however pass for certain that he lived in the time of Ptolemy VI. Philometor and therefore towards the middle of the second century before Christ (about 170–150 B.C.). He himself says in one of his works addressed to a Ptolemy that the Greek translation of the Pentateuch was made “under King Philadelphus thy ancestor” (Euseb. Praep. evang. xiii. 12. 2 ed. Gaisford: ἐπὶ τοῦ προσαγορευθέντος Φιλαδέλφου βασιλέως σοῦ δὲ προγόνου). Thus he at all events wrote under a descendant of Ptolemy II. Philadelphus. But both Clemens Alexandrinus and Eusebius in his Chronicle distinctly mention Philometor. The same chronology is also presupposed when Clemens Alexandrinus and Eusebius identify this Aristobulus with the one who is mentioned in the beginning of the second Book of Maccabees (2 Macc. 1:10). In opposition to such evidence it cannot be taken into consideration that Anatolius places him under Ptolemy II. Philadelphus and that the only manuscript of the Stromata of Clemens Alexandrinus has erroneously Philadelphus instead of Philometor in one passage.

According to Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 14. 97 this Aristobulus wrote βιβλία ἱκανά. Probably Clemens does not mean to say that he wrote several books but that the one work which he knew of his was an extensive one. We are indebted for further particulars to Clemens Alexandrinus (Strom. i. 15. 72 i. 22. 150 v. 14. 97 vi. 3. 32) Anatolius (in Euseb. Hist. eccl. vii. 32 16–19 Anatolius was an older contemporary of Eusebius) and Eusebius (Praep. evang. vii. 14 viii. 10 xiii. 12). Aristobulus is also briefly mentioned by Origen (contra Cels. iv. 51). The only two passages which are verbally preserved are in Euseb. Praep. evang. viii. 10 and xiii. 12. For whatever other verbal quotations are found (Clemens Strom. i. 22. 150 = Euseb. Praep. ix. 6. Clemens Strom. vi. 3. 32 = Euseb. Praep. vii. 14) are certainly contained also in the text of these larger fragments. The passage which Cyrillus Alex. (contra Julian. p. 134 ed. Spanh.) ascribes to Aristobulus is derived from the third Book of the Indica of Megasthenes and has been only ascribed to Aristobulus in consequence of a very inconsiderate use of Clem. Al. Strom. i. 15. 72.

The work which was in the hands of these Fathers is designated as an explanation of the Mosaic laws. According however to the fragments preserved we must conceive of it not as an actual commentary on the text but as a free reproduction of the contents of the Pentateuch in which the latter is philosophically explained. Hence it is not Philo’s allegorical commentaries on single passages of the text but his systematic delineation of the Mosaic legislation the characteristics of which have been described p. 219 above which is analogous to it. Like Philo Aristobulus already seems to have given a connected representation of the contents of the Pentateuch for the purpose of showing to the cultured heathen world that the Mosaic law if only correctly understood already contained all that the best Greek philosophers subsequently taught. The work was first of all intended for King Ptolemy Philometor himself who is therefore addressed in the text (Eus. Pr. viii. 10. 1 sqq. xiii. 12. 2). Hence it is self-evident that it is addressed simply to heathen readers. His chief object was as Clement says to show “that the peripatetic philosophy was dependent upon the law of Moses and the other prophets” (Strom. v. 14. 97: Ἀριστοβούλῳ … βιβλία πεπόνηται ἱκανὰ διʼ ὧν ἀποδείκνυσι τὴν περιπατητικὴν φιλοσοφίαν ἔκ τε τοῦ κατὰ Μωυσέα νόμου καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἠρτῆσθαι προφητῶν). This is substantially confirmed by the fragments preserved only instead of the peripatetic the Greek philosophy in general should rather be spoken of. For Aristobulus is not contented with exhibiting the intrinsic agreement of the Mosaic law with the philosophy of the Greeks but roundly asserts that the Greek philosophers a Pythagoras a Socrates a Plato derived their doctrines from Moses nay that even the poets Homer and Hesiod borrowed much from him for that the essential contents of the Pentateuch had been rendered into Greek long before the Greek translation of the Pentateuch made under Ptolemy Philadelphus. This bold assertion that Moses was the father of Greek philosophy and culture was embraced also by later Jewish Hellenists. Especially do we again meet with it in Philo.

The fragments preserved give us at least an approximate notion of the execution in detail. A large portion of the passages are employed in settling the true sense of the Biblical anthropomorphisms. Thus e.g. the long passage in Euseb. Pr. evang. xiii. 12. 1–8 which according to the parallel passage in Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 22. 150 = Euseb. Pr. ix. 6 is taken from the first book of Aristobulus’ work and evidently belonged to the explanation of the history of the Creation shows that nothing else is meant by the words “God said and it was” than that everything came to pass by the operation (δυνάμει) of God as indeed was taught by the Greek philosophers Orpheus and Aratus. The following passage (Eus. Pr. xiii. 12. 9–16) which also belonged to the explanation of the history of the Creation treats of the seventh day as the day of rest and explains its meaning by an appeal among other things to supposed verses of Hesiod Homer and Linus. Another passage (Eus. Pr. viii. 10) shows what we are to understand when the hands arms face and feet of God or a walking of God are spoken of. Lastly the extract from Anatolius given in Euseb. Hist. eccl. vii. 32. 17–18 is occupied with the Passover which is celebrated when both the sun and moon are in the equinox viz. the sun in the vernal and the moon opposite him in the autumnal equinox. Just this fragment shows that Aristobulus by no means occupied himself with only philosophically explaining away the text of the Pentateuch but that he really gave a description and explanation of the Mosaic law. While endeavouring however to settle its meaning he often enters as Origen especially intimates (contra Cels. iv. 51) into the region of allegorical interpretation.

The fragments give no further disclosure concerning the philosophical standpoint of Aristobulus. It may without any hesitation be assumed that he was an eclectic. The fragment on the meaning of the Sabbath “enters into a Pythagorean-like dilation on the power of the number seven.” Elsewhere Aristobulus appeals not only generally to Pythagoras Socrates and Plato but when entering more into detail to the peripatetic doctrine in particular. That he the more closely adhered to the latter is vouched for by the Fathers who unanimously call him a peripatetic.

It is almost incomprehensible that many more recent scholars (e.g. Richard Simon Hody Eichhorn Kuenen Grätz Joel) should have disputed the genuineness of the whole work of Aristobulus. The picture which we obtain from the fragments of the work that have come down to us so entirely coincides with all that we elsewhere learn of the intellectual tendency of Hellenistic Judaism that there is absolutely no occasion for any kind of doubt. The sole reason against the genuineness which at all deserves mention is the certainly indisputable fact that Aristobulus cites supposed verses of Orpheus Hesiod Homer and Linus which are certainty forged by a Jew. It is thought that such audacity is inconceivable in a work intended for King Ptolemy himself. The assumption on which the argument starts is that the verses were forged by Aristobulus himself—an assumption not only incapable of proof but in the highest degree improbable. The verses were probably derived from an older Jewish work (see on this point No. VII.) and adopted by Aristobulus in all good faith in their genuineness. Aristobulus only did what later Christian apologists have also done without thereby affording a ground for doubting the genuineness of their works.

The entire work of Aristobulus is said according to a marginal note in the cod. Laurentianus of Clemens Alexandrinus’ Stromata to have been still extant towards the dose of the Middle Ages in a library at Patmos (on Strom. i. 22. 150 a hand of the fifteenth or sixteenth century remarks: Ἀριστοβούλου βίβλος αὕτη ἡ πρὸς τὸν Φιλομήτορα ἐστὶν εἰς τὴν Πάτμον ἣν ἔγωγε οἶδα; see the note in Dindorf’s ed.). Whether this note is worthy of credence is however very doubtful.

Compare in general: Richard Simon Histoire critique du Vieux Testament pp. 189 499. Hody De bibliorum textibus p. 50 sqq. Fabricius Biblioth. graec. ed. Harles i. 164 iii. 469 sq. Eichhorn Allgem. Bibliothek der biblischen Literatur vol. v. (1793) pp. 253–298. Valckenaer Diatribe de Aristobulo Judaeo philosopho peripatetico Alexandrino Lugd. Bat. 1806 (chief work). Gabler’s Journal für auserlesene theolog. Literatur vol. v. (1810) pp. 183–209 (advertisement of Valckenaer’s work). Winer in Ersch and Gruber’s Allgem. Encydop. § 1 vol. v. (1820) p. 266. Lobeck Aglaophamus i. (1829) p. 448. Gfrörer Philo ii. 711–21. Dähne Geschichtl. Darstellung der jüd.-alex. Religionsphilosophie ii. 73–112. Fürst Biblioth. Jud. i. 53 sq. Herzteld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael iii. 473 sqq. 564 sqq. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel iv. 335 sqq. Teuffel in Pauly’s Real-Enc. i. 2 (2nd ed.) p. 1600. Cobet in the Λογιος Ἑρμης i. (1866) pp. 173–177 521. Zeller Die Philosophie der Griechen iii. 2 (3rd ed.) pp. 257–264. Ueberweg Grundriss 4th ed. i. 240 sqq. Binde Aristobulische Studien 2 pts. Glogau 1869–1870 (Gymnasialprogr.). Heinze Die Lehre vom Logos (1872) pp. 185–192. Kuenen De godsdienst van Israël ii. (1870) pp. 433–440. Freudenthal Alexander Polyhistor pp. 166–169. Grätz Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1878 pp. 49–60 97–109. Joel Blicke in die Religionsgeschichte zu Anfang des zweiten christlichen Jahrhunderts (1880) pp. 77–100.

3. Philo

Philo the more recent fellow-countryman of Aristobulus by two centuries represents the same tendency. His main effort also is to prove that the views derived from Greek philosophers were genuinely Jewish. And this he does now for heathen now for Jewish readers; for the former to inspire them with respect for Judaism for the latter to educate them to such a Judaism as he himself represents. It may safely be assumed that there were between Aristobulus and Philo other representatives of this tendency. For it presented itself in Philo with such assurance and in such maturity of form as would not be conceivable without historical connection. Nothing however of the supposed literary productions of such individuals has come down to us.

Since Philo by reason of his eminent importance and the extent of his extant works demands a separate delineation (§ 34) we will here only briefly mention those writings of his in which philosophical instruction and discussion form the main object. Among these are in the first place two of his principal works on the Pentateuch viz.: (1) the Ζητήματα καὶ λύσεις a short explanation of Genesis and Exodus in the form of questions and answers; and (2) the Νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίαι the extensive allegorical commentaries on select passages of Genesis in the form of Rabbinical Midrash. These form Philo’s chief philosophical work properly so called and constitute in extent about the half of Philo’s still extant writings. (3) The work Περὶ τοῦ πάντα σπουδαῖον εἶναι ἐλεύθερον (Quod omnis probus liber) properly only the second half of a work whose first half which is lost dealt with the theme περὶ τοῦ δοῦλον εἶναι πάντα φαῦλον was also occupied in the discussion of philosophical questions. (4) Περὶ προνοίας. (5) Ἀλέξανδρος ἢ περὶ τοῦ λόγον ἔχειν τὰ ἄλογα ζῶα. Particulars concerning all these works will be found in § 34. The two last-named are also of interest because Philo in them chooses the form of the Greek dialogue in discussing the theme.

4. The Fourth Book of Maccabees

To philosophical literature belongs also the so-called fourth Book of Maccabees. For the Judaism which the author recommends is influenced by the Stoic philosophy.

In its form this piece of writing is a discourse. It directly addresses its hearers or readers (1:1 18:1). The contents being of a religious and edifying kind it might even be called a sermon and the choice of this form referred to the custom of religious lectures in the synagogues. But when Freudenthal (pp. 4–36) emphatically insists that we have here an actual specimen of synagogue preaching this is not only incapable of proof but also improbable the theme discoursed on being not a text of Holy Scripture but a philosophic proposition.

The author had only Jews in view whether as hearers or readers (18:1: ὦ τῶν Ἀβραμιαίων σπερμάτων ἀπόγονοι παῖδες Ἰσραηλῖται). He desires to show them that it is not difficult to lead a pious life if only they follow the precepts of “pious reason.” For “pious reason is the absolute ruler of the motives” (1:1: αὐτοδέσποτός ἐστι τῶν παθῶν ὁ εὐσεβὴς λογισμός). This proposition is the proper theme of the discourse; its meaning is first explained and its truth afterwards proved by facts from Jewish history especially by the laudable martyrdom of Eleazar and the seven Maccabaean brothers. A large portion of the contents is therefore devoted to a description of the martyrdom of these heroes of faith. In his grossly realistic delineation of the several tortures the author shows even greater want of taste than the second Book of Maccabees and the psychology assumed is as contrary as possible to nature. His authority seems to have been the second Book of Maccabees. At least it cannot be proved that he drew as Freudenthal (pp. 72–90) supposes from the larger work of Jason of Cyrene (2 Macc. 2:23).

The author’s own standpoint is influenced by Stoicism. The fundamental idea of the whole discourse is that of Stoic morality viz. the rule of reason over impulse. The setting up too of four cardinal virtues (φρόνησις δικαιοσύνη ἀνδρεία σωφροσύνη) is derived from Stoicism. But this influence of Stoicism does not anywhere penetrate more deeply with the author. Even the fundamental idea is transformed in Jewish fashion. For the reason to which he ascribes dominion over desire is not human reason as such but pious reason: ὁ εὐσεβὴς λογισμός (1:1 7:16 13:1 15:20 16:1 18:2) i.e. reason guiding itself according to the rule of the divine law (comp. also 1:15 sq.). He also goes his own way in the description and division of the affections (see Freudenthal p. 55 sqq.; Zeller iii. 2. 276). But it would be doing him too much honour to designate him as an eclectic philosopher. He is but a dilettante in philosophicis somewhat after the fashion of Josephus who also knows how to give his Judaism a philosophic tinge. Of all Jewish philosophers known to us our author stands relatively nearest to Pharisaism for just what he extols in the Maccabaean brethren is their punctilious adherence to the ceremonial law. Two of his Jewish views in particular may be brought forward as worthy of notice—(1) his belief in the resurrection the form of which is not that of the Pharisaic belief in that doctrine but the form met with among other Jewish Hellenists of a faith in an eternal and blessed life of pious souls in heaven (13:16 15:2 17:5 18 fin.); and (2) the notion that the martyrdom of the righteous serves as an atonement for the sins of the people (6:29: καθάρσιον αὐτῶν ποίησον τὸ ἐμὸν αἷμα καὶ ἀντίψυχον αὐτῶν λάβε τὴν ἐμὴν ψυχήν; 17:29: ὰντίψυχον γεγονότας τῆς τοῦ ἔθνους ἁμαρτίας).

Josephus is named by Eusebius and other Church writers as the author of this book. This view however has only the value of a hypothesis. For the book still appears in many manuscripts anonymously and was therefore certainly at first issued without the name of the author. The entirely different style and the circumstance that Josephus in his Antiquities nowhere makes use of the second Book of Maccabees and thus seems not to know it while the work in question is entirely based upon it speak against his authorship. The first century after Christ is generally accepted as the date of composition chiefly because the book must have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem. Though the latter cannot be proved this view must be pretty nearly correct since a more recent book would no longer have been accepted by the Christian Church.

Eusebius speaking of the writings of Josephus says concerning the title and authorship Hist. eccl. iii. 10. 6: Πεπόνηται δὲ καὶ ἄλλο οὐκ ἀγεννὲς σπούδασμα τῷ ἀνδρὶ περὶ αὐτοκράτορος λογισμοῦ ὅ τινες Μακκαβαϊκὸν ἐπέγραψαν κ.τ.λ. Hieronymus De viris illustr. c. 13 (Vallarsi ii. 851): “Alius quoque liber ejus qui inscribitur περὶ αὐτοκράτορος λογισμοῦ valde elegans habetur in quo et Machabaeorum sunt digesta martyria.” The same contra Pelagianos ii. 6 (Vallarsi ii. 749): “Unde et Josephus Machabaeorum scriptor historiae frangi et regi posse dixit perturbationes animi non eradicari (= 4 Macc. 3:5).” The article in Suidas Lex. s.v. Ἰώσηπος is taken from the Greek translation of Hieron. de viris illustris c. 13. For other authors who attribute this book to Josephus see Grimm Handb. p. 293 sq. It is also frequently attributed to Josephus in the MSS. (Grimm as above. Freudenthal p. 117 sqq.). Its title as the fourth Book of Maccabees (Μακκαβαίων δʹ) is found in Philostorgius and Syncellus and in some Scripture MSS. and indeed in the latter without the mention of Josephus as its author (so esp. cod. Alex. and Sin.). For further particulars see Freudenthal pp. 117–120. On the use of the book in Christian ascetic literature see above p. 214.

The manuscripts in which our book has come down are some of them manuscripts of Scripture some of Josephus. The former are not numerous since as a rule only three books of Maccabees were received as canonical (Freudenthal pp. 118 119). Still the two most important manuscripts for our book are Scripture MSS. viz. the codex Alexandrinus (No. iii. in Fritzsche) and Sinaiticus (No. x. in Fritzsche). On the editions of these manuscripts see above p. 166. More concerning them will be found in Fabricius-Harles Biblioth. graec. v. 26 sq. Grimm Handb. p. 294 Freudenthal pp. 120–127 169 sq. 173. Fritzsche Prolegom. p. xxi. sq. Collations chiefly in Havercamp’s edition of Josephus ii. 1. 497 sqq. ii. 2. 157 sqq. A fragment in Tischendorf Monumenta sacra inedita vol. vi. 1869. Various readings of a Florentine MS. (Acquis. ser. iii. No. 44) are given by Pitra Analecta sacra vol. ii. (1884) pp. 635–640.

The text is printed in accordance with the manuscripts on the one hand in some editions of the Septuagint and in separate editions of the Apocrypha on the other and chiefly in the editions of Josephus. Most of the editors have troubled themselves very little about the manuscripts. The first attempt at a recension of the text from the best authorities is made in Fritzsche’s edition of the Libri apocryphi Vet. Test. graece (Lips. 1871). For more on the editions see Grimm Handb. p. 294 sq. Freudenthal pp. 127–133.

Erasmus compiled a Latin paraphrase of this book (printed e.g. in Havercamp’s Josephus ii. 2. 148–156). Nothing reliable is as yet known of any ancient Latin translation on which it is based. See Grimm p. 296. Freudenthal p. 133 sqq. The old Syriac translation is published in Ceriani’s photo-lithographic edition of the Milan Peshito manuscript (see above p. 92).

Grimm has given a careful commentary on this book in his Exeget. Handb. zu den Apokryphen 4 parts Leipzig 1857. Freudenthal’s Die Flavius Josephus beigelegte Schrift Ueber die Herrschaft der Vernunft (4 Makkabäerbuch) eine Predigt aus dem ersten nachchristlichen Jahrhundert untersucht Breslau 1869 is a complete monograph. A German translation is contained in the Bibliothek der griechischen und römischen Schriftsteller über Judenthum und Juden in neuen Uebertragungen und Sammlungen 2 vols. Leipzig 1867.

Comp. in general: Gfrörer Philo ii. 173–200. Dähne Geshichtl. Darstellung der jüd.-alex. Religionsphilosophie ii. 190–199. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel iv. 632 sqq. Langen Das Judenthum in Palästina (1866) pp. 74–83. Geiger Jüdische Zeitschr. für Wissensch. und Leben 1869 pp. 113–116. Fritzeche in Schenkel’s Bibellex. iv. 98–100. Keil Einl. in’s A. T. 3rd ed. (1873) p. 722 sqq. Grätz Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1877 p. 454 sqq. Reuss Gesch. der heil. Schriften A. T.’s § 570. Zeller Die Philosophie der Griechen iii. 2 (3rd ed. 1881) pp. 275–277.

The peculiarity of the Jewish people involved the circumstance that the Jews were felt to be more than other Orientals an anomaly in the framework of the Graeco-Roman world. Denying all authority to other religions they were paid in the same coin and their right of existence upon the soil of Hellenistic culture disputed. The town municipalities tried to get rid of such inconvenient fellow-citizens; the populace was always ready to lift up a hand against them while by the educated they were despised and derided (see vol. ii. pp. 273–276 291). Hellenistic Judaism thus found itself continually at war with the rest of the Hellenistic world; it had ever to draw the sword in its own defence. Hence a large share of the entire Graeco-Jewish literature subserves apologetic purposes. Especially does the historic and philosophic literature essentially pursue the design of showing that the Jewish nation was by reason of the greatness of its history and the purity of its teaching if not superior at least equal to others. Besides these indirectly apologetic works there were also some which sought in a systematic manner to refute the reproaches with which Judaism was assailed. These were called forth by the sometimes utterly absurd fables propagated by certain Greek literati concerning the Jews and generally by the direct accusations brought against them in Greek and Latin literature. These accusations had their rise in Egypt (Joseph. contra Apion. i. 25). Alexandrian literati were the first to write against the Jews. From these turbid waters later writers especially Tacitus drew. In what follows we shall speak in the first place of literary opponents and afterwards of the apologetic works and the points of dispute themselves (Attack and Defence).

1. The Literary Opponents

1. Manetho (comp. Josephus contra Apion. i. 26–31). The Egyptian priest Manetho composed in the time of Ptolemy II. Philadelphus therefore about 270–250 B.C. a learned work on Egyptian history in the Greek language derived from the sacred records themselves (Joseph. contra Apion. i. 14: γέγραφε Ἑλλάδι φωνῇ τὴν πάτριον ἱστορίαν ἔκ τε τῶν ἱερῶν ὡς φησὶν αὐτός μεταφράσας. Ibid. i. 26: ὁ τὴν Αἰγυπτιακὴν ἱστορίαν ἐκ τῶν ἱερῶν γραμμάτων μεθερμηνεύειν ὑπεσχημένος). From these Αἰγυπτιακά of Manetho Josephus gives in two places long fragments which however as Josephus himself states are of very different character. The portions (from the second Book of the Αἰγυπτιακά) in i. 14–16 which treat of the rule of the Hyksos in Egypt make by the copiousness of their contents and the conciseness of their form the most favourable impression. Nothing in them gives occasion for doubting that their contents are really derived from the ancient records. Of quite another kind are the portions in i. 26 27. These do not indeed pretend to be authentic history but only give according to Manetho’s own confession the legends current concerning the Jews (i. 16: ὁ Μανεθὼν οὐκ ἐκ τῶν παρʼ Αἰγυπτίοις γραμμάτων ἀλλʼ ὡς αὐτὸς ὡμολόγηκεν ἐκ τῶν ἀδεσπότως μυθολογουμένων προστέθεικεν. I. 26: μέχρι μὲν τούτων ἠκολούθησε ταῖς ἀναγραφαῖς ἔπειτα δὲ δοὺς ἐξουσίαν αὑτῷ διὰ τοῦ φάναι γράψειν τὰ μυθευόμενα καὶ λεγόμενα περὶ τῶν Ἰουδαίων λόγους ἀπιθάνους παρενέβαλεν). It is here related how King Amenophis of Egypt assembled in one place all the lepers of the country 80000 in number and sent them to work in the stone quarries east of the Nile. After they had laboured there a long time they petitioned the king to assign to them the town of Auaris which had formerly been inhabited by the Hyksos as a place of residence. The king granted their request. When however they had taken possession of the town they were attacked by the king and chose a priest of Heliopolis named Osarsiph as their head who gave them new laws in which they were especially commanded to worship no gods and to kill the sacred animals. He also invoked the aid of the Hyksos from Jerusalem as allies. With their assistance the lepers now drove away King Amenophis and ruled Egypt for thirteen years. The priest Osarsiph then took the name of Moses. After the thirteen years the Hyksos and the lepers were driven out of Egypt by King Amenophis. This history concerning the origin of the Jews was therefore read in his text of Manetho by Josephus. Whether it is derived from Manetho himself is questionable. Many recent investigators e.g. Boeckh Carl Müller Kellner regard it as a later insertion. The possibility of its being such cannot be disputed since this much read work already existed in various recensions even in the time of Josephus. This view does not however appear to me to be probable in the case in question. For if an enemy of the Jews had subsequently inserted the passage he would scarcely have been so truthful as expressly to bring forward the fact that he was not giving a history accredited by ancient records but only τὰ μυθευόμενα καὶ λεγόμενα περὶ τῶν Ἰουδαίων. In these words we hear the strict investigator who indeed as an enemy of the Jews cannot deny himself the reporting of these tales but expressly distinguishes them as legends from authentic history. At any rate Josephus read the section in all the copies known to him of Manetho; for he says nothing of any difference in this respect.

The fragments of Manetho are best collected in Carl Müller Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum vol. ii. (1848) pp. 511–616. Comp. on Manetho in general: Böckh Manetho und die Hundssternperiode ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Pharaonen Berlin 1845. Bähr in Pauly’s Real-Enc. iv. 1477 sqq. Nicolai Griechische Literaturgeschichte 2nd ed. vol. ii. (1876) pp. 198–200. Krall “Die Composition und die Schicksale des Manethonischen Geschichtswerkes” (Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akademie philos.-histor. Classe vol. xcv. yearly course 1879 pp. 123–226) treats pp. 152–169 especially of the fragments in Josephus.

On the fragments in Josephus: Hengstenberg Die Bücher Moses und Aegypten with an appendix: Manetho und die Hyksos Berlin 1841. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel (3rd ed.) ii. 110 sqq. Kellner De fragmentis Manethonianis quae apud Josephum contra Apionem i. 14 and i. 26 sunt. Marburg 1859. J. G. Müller Des Flavius Josephus Schrift gegen den Apion (Basel 1877) pp. 120 sqq. 185 sqq. 214 sqq.

2. Apollonius Melon (or Molonis?). Among the literary opponents of Judaism Josephus frequently names one Ἀπολλώνιος ὁ Μόλων (contra Apion. ii. 14 ii. 36) in a later passage ὁ Μόλων Ἀπολλώνιος (comp. ii. 7: Apollonium Molonis) whose full name he also abridges so as to write either only Ἀπολλώνιος (ii. 14 and ii. 37 twice) or only Μόλων (ii. 2 ed. Bekker 226. 13; comp. ii. 33 and ii. 41: Μόλωνες). This adversary of the Jews in Josephus is undoubtedly identical with him from whom Alexander Polyhistor gives a passage (in Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 19: ὁ δὲ τὴν συσκευὴν τὴν κατὰ Ἰουδαίων γράψας Μόλων). An orator of the same name (Apollonius Molon) is elsewhere frequently mentioned as the teacher of Cicero and Caesar and as a writer on rhetoric. It seems however that some discrepancies had already crept in concerning him among the ancients. For Strabo distinguishes two orators an Apollonius and a Molon evidently by reason of a more accurate knowledge of the matter. He mentions both (xiv. 2. 13 p. 655) as eminent men who lived in Rhodes and remarks that both came from Alabanda in Caria but that Molon came to Rhodes subsequently to Apollonius on which account Apollonius said to him “ὀψὲ μολών.” Thus they were not only fellow-countrymen but contemporaries. Strabo also distinguishes them in another passage in which he is enumerating the eminent men of Alabanda (xiv. 2. 26 p. 661). Cicero too mentions both and indeed so that he calls the one only Apollonius and the other who was Cicero’s tutor only Molon. Hence we must certainly distinguish between the two. Apollonius however was called by his full name Ἀπολλώνιος ὁ τοῦ Μόλωνος (Plutarch. Cicero 4 Caesar 3; Joseph. Apion. ii. 7); and he seems by placing his father’s name beside his own according to a custom which may be pointed to elsewhere to have called himself Ἀπολλώνιος ὁ Μόλων. This gave rise to his being frequently confounded with Molon. Cicero had probably heard both but his own teacher was Molon. We are here concerned not with the latter but with his older fellow-countryman Apollonius who according to Cicero was already a noted teacher 120 years before Christ.

There existed before the end of the second century before Christ in Caria and Rhodes sufficient occasion for the composition of a polemical work against the Jews by a living orator. For we know that just here the Jews were already numerously dispersed during the second century B.C. The work of Apollonius was according to Alexander Polyhistor a συσκευὴ κατὰ Ἰουδαίων (Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 19). Hence it dealt not merely occasionally like Manetho’s Αἰγυπτιακά but exclusively with the Jews. As Josephus says Apollonius did not like Apion heap up his accusations in one place but calumniated the Jews in many passages and throughout the work now in one manner now in another (contra Apion. ii. 14: τὴν κατηγορίαν ὁ Ἀπολλώνιος οὐκ ἀθρόαν ὥσπερ ὁ Ἀπίων ἔταξεν ἀλλὰ σποράδην καὶ διὰ πάσης τῆς συγγραφῆς … λοιδορεῖ) hence it must be supposed that the work was not a purely polemical one but that in connection with statements concerning the Jews it contained much polemical invective. This is also thoroughly confirmed by the fact that the fragment in Alexander Polyhistor (Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 19) is occupied in a purely objective manner with the history of Abraham. It follows from the allusions of Josephus that the history of the exodus from Egypt was also treated of (contra Apion. ii. 2) and that the work “contained unjust and untrue reports concerning our legislator Moses and our laws” (ii. 14). In the latter respect we learn also that Apollonius reproached the Jews with “not worshipping the same gods as others” (ii. 7) with having no fellowship with those who believed differently (ii. 36) and with being therefore ἄθεοι and μισάνθρωποι also as at one time cowardly at another fanatic as the most incapable among barbarians and as having furnished nothing towards general culture (ii. 14). Josephus on his part repays Apollonius in his own coin reproaching him with gross want of sense arrogance and immoral conduct (ii. 36 37).

Comp. on Apollonius in general: C. Müller Fragm. hist. Graec. iii. 208 sq. Creuzer Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1853 p. 83 sq. Teuffel in Pauly’s Real-Enc. l. 2 (2nd ed.) p. 1318. J. G. Müller Des Flavius Josephus Schrift gegen den Apion (1877) p. 230. Riese “Molon oder Apollonius Molon?” (Rheinisches Museum vol. xxxiv. Jahrg. 1879 pp. 627–630).

3. Lysimachus (comp. Josephus contra Apion. i. 34–35). The fragment which Josephus ibid. gives from the work of a certain Lysimachus relates to the departure of the Jews from Egypt and narrates concerning it similar fables but still more absurd than those told by Manetho. The few occasional notices which Josephus elsewhere (contra Apion. ii. 2 twice and ii. 14) gives refer to the same fact. According to contra Apion. ii. 2: Ἀπίων … τὸν αὐτὸν Λυσιμάχῳ σχεδιάσας he seems to have been Apion’s predecessor. From the tenor of the fragment it may be assumed that he was an Egyptian. According to Cosmas Indicopleustes the work from which the fragment is taken is said to have been a “History of Egypt.” Since however Cosmas evidently derives his information only from Josephus and erroneously reckons Apollonius Molon among the Αἰγυπτιακὰ συγγραψάμενοι and nothing else is known of the Αἰγυπτιακά of Lysimachus the matter must be left uncertain. Two works Θηβαϊκὰ παράδοξα and Νόστοι (returns reversiones i.e. of Greek heroes from Troy) of an author named Lysimachus are frequently cited elsewhere in ancient literature. As the author of the Νόστοι seems to have been an Alexandrian and to have lived in the first century before Christ he is probably identical with this Lysimachus.

The fragments of Lysimachus (both those from Josephus and those of the Φηβαϊκὰ παράδοξα and the Νόστοι) are collected in C. Müller Fragm. historicorum Graecorum iii. 334–342. The fragments of the Θηβ. παράδ. are also in Westermann Παραδοξογράφοι (Brunsvigae 1839) p. xxx. sq. 164 sq. Comp. in general: Westermann in Pauly’s Real-Enc. iv. 1311. Stiehle “Die Nosten des Lysimachos” (Philologus vol. iv. 1849 pp. 99–110; v. 1850 p. 382 sq.). J. G. Müller Des Flavius Josephus Scrhift gegen den Apion p. 208.

4. Chaeremon (comp. Josephus contra Apion. i. 32–33). The fragment from Chaeremon also refers to the departure of the Jews from Egypt and is with respect to its contents nearer to the narrative of Manetho than Lysimachus is. Josephus in this case expressly says that the fragment was taken from the Αἰγυπτιακὴ ἱστορία of Chaeremon (contra Apion. i. 32) This Chaeremon is also elsewhere known as an author on Egyptian matters. In the letter of Porphyrius to the Egyptian Anebon from which Eusebius Praep. evang. iii. 4 and v. 10 gives extracts two portions which relate to the Egyptian mythology and theology are cited from Chaeremon. In the second (Euseb. v. 10. 5 ed. Gaisford) Porphyrius designates Chaeremon as ἱερογραμματεύς. In the work of Porphyrius which has come down to us De abstinentia iv. 6–8 a detailed description of the life of Egyptian priests is given from Chaeremon which Porphyry introduces with the words: “Chaeremon the Stoic in treating of the Egyptian priests who as he says are esteemed philosophers among the Egyptians relates that they chose the sanctuaries as the place for philosophizing (Τὰ γοῦν κατὰ τοὺς Αἰγυπτίους ἱερέας Χαιρήμων ὁ Στωικὸς ἀφηγούμενος οὓς καὶ φιλοσόφους ὑπειλῆφθαί φησι παρʼ Αἰγυπτίοις ἐξηγεῖται ὡς τόπον μὲν ἐξελέξαντο ἐμφιλοσοφῆσαι τὰ ἱερά).… Despising every other occupation and human pursuit they devote their whole life to the contemplation of things divine” etc. At the end of this account Porphyrius calls Chaeremon a truth-loving trustworthy and intelligent Stoic philosopher (iv. 8 fin.: ἀνδρὸς φιλαλήθους τε καὶ ἀκριβοῦς ἔν τε τοῖς Στωικοῖς πραγματικώτατα φιλοσοφήσαντος). All these portions may well have stood in an “Egyptian History.” From it are also derived the communications from Chaeremon in a treatise of Psellus published by Sathas (1877). The same Chaeremon also wrote a work which is taken up in explaining the hieroglyphics (διδάγματα τῶν ἱερῶν γραμμάτων). From this the Byzantine Tzetzes has given extracts in his historical work (v. 403 in Müller Fragm. iii. 499) and in his commentary on the Iliad (ed. Gottfr. Hermann 1812 pp. 123 and 146). Tzetzes also designates Chaeremon as ἱερογραμματεύς and says that according to Chaeremon’s view “the φυσικὸς λόγος concerning the gods their physical signification is allegorically exhibited in the hieroglyphics” (Zeller). This also characterizes Chaeremon as a Stoic. Hence there can be no doubt that he is identical with our ἱερογραμματεύς who in a few other citations (e.g. in Origen’s contra Celsum l. 59. Euseb. Hist. eccl. vi. 19. 8) is simply called Στωικός. He is on this account a very remarkable personage for his age: an Egyptian priest and at the same time a Stoic philosopher. Since he was according to Suidas the instructor of Nero (Suidas’ Lex. s.v. Ἀλέξανδρος Αἰγαῖος) and also the instructor and predecessor of Dionysius of Alexandria who lived from Nero to Trajan (Suidas’ Lex. s.v. Διονύσιος Ἀλεξανδρεύς) he must have lived towards the middle of the first century after Christ. He was according to Suidas the predecessor of Dionysius in the office of librarian at Alexandria. He cannot by reason of the chronology stated be identical with the Chaeremon who is mentioned by Strabo (xvii. 1. 29 p. 806) as a contemporary of Aelius Gallus. Besides the latter has been described as a man who made himself ridiculous by his ostentation and ignorance which are certainly not characteristics of a philosopher.

The fragments of Chaeremon are collected in C. Müller Frag. hist. graec. iii. 495–499. To these are to be added: (1) the extracts given in Tzetzes Draconis Stratonicensis liber de matris poeticis et Joannis Tzetzae exegesis in Homeri Iliadem 1st ed. Godofr. Hermannus Lips. 1812 pp. 123 and 146; and (2) those in the treatise of Psellus published by Sathas (Bulletin de correspondance hellénique vol. i. 1877 pp. 121–133 194–208 309–314). Comp. in general: Bähr in Pauly’s Real-Enc. ii. 298 sq. Birch “On the lost book of Chaeremon on Hieroglyphics” (Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature second series vol. iii. 1850 pp. 385–396). Bernays Theophrastos’ Schrift über die Frömmigkeit (1866) pp. 21 sq. 150 sq. Zeller “Die Hieroglyphiker Chäremon und Horapollo (Hermes vol. xi. 1876 pp. 430–433). Nicolai Griechische Literaturgesch. 2nd ed. ii. 559 561 677 690 iii. 383. J. G. Müller Des Flavius Josephus Schrift gegen den Apion (1877) p. 203 sqq.

5. Apion (comp. Josephus contra Apion. ii. 1–13). Apion the grammarian who was distinguished among all the opponents of the Jews for his special malevolence and was therefore treated with special harshness by Josephus was a contemporary and fellow-countryman of Chaeremon. His full name was Ἀπίων ὁ Πλειστονίκης. According to Suidas Πλειστονίκης was the name of his father (Lex. s.v. Ἀπίων ὁ Πλειστονίκου) which he afterwards took as a surname. When Julius Africanus (in Euseb. Praep. evang. x. 10. 16 ed. Gaisford; and in Syncellus ed. Dindorf i. 120 and 281) and after him the pseudo-Justinian Cohortatio ad Graecos c. 9 call the name of the father Ποσειδώνιος this is certainly but a corruption of Πλειστονίκης. According to Josephus (contra Apion. ii. 3) Apion was born in the oasis of Egypt and hence was not as he gave himself out to be a native of Alexandria. He afterwards however received the rights of Alexandrian citizenship (Jos. l.c.) and acquired some fame in Alexandria as a grammarian. He taught temporarily in Rome also in the time of Tiberius and Claudius (Suidas Lex. s.v. Ἀπίων). In the reign of Caligula he travelled through Greece as an itinerant orator delivering lectures on Homer (Seneca epist. 88). It was also under Caligula that on the occasion of the sanguinary conflict of the Alexandrians with the Jews he came to Rome as the ambassador of the former (Joseph. Antt. xviii. 8. 1). According to Josephus (contra Apion. ii. 3) his death was caused by ulcers in the genitals against which circumcision was of no avail. He is described as having been ridiculously vain. Tiberius called him cymbalum mundi. He himself said without embarrassment that those to whom he addressed a work became thereby immortal and congratulated Alexandria on having such a citizen as he was (Joseph. c. Apion. ii. 12).

The works of Apion were manifold. The best known seem to have been his works on Homer (Commentaries and a Dictionary). We are here only concerned with his Egyptian History (Αἰγυπτιακά) which according to Tatian comprised five books of which Josephus cites the third Tatian and his successors the fourth and Gellius the fifth book. This Egyptian History evidently contained all those attacks upon the Jews to which the reply of Josephus refers (c. Apion. ii. 1–3). Josephus says at the beginning of his discussion that it was not easy to go through the discourse (τὸν λόγον) of Apion because he brought forth all in the greatest disorder. But that about three points might be distinguished: (1) the fables concerning the departure of the Jews from Egypt (2) the malicious assertions concerning the Alexandrian Jews and (3) the accusations in respect of worship and legal customs. Of the latter Josephus says that they are mixed up with the accusations of the first two categories (ἐπὶ τούτοις μέμικται ii. 1 fin.). Thus it appears that a single λόγος of Apion containing all these accusations and divided by Josephus for the sake of order into three categories was in question. Josephus after entering successively into all three categories (c. Apion. ii. 2–3 relates to the first ii. 4–6 to the second ii. 7–13 to the third) leaves Apion and begins to give a positive delineation of the Mosaic legislation. At its commencement he once more touches incidentally upon Apion and says of him that he has heaped his indictments all together (ii. 14: τὴν κατηγορίαν … ἀθρόαν … ἔταξεν) in distinction from Apollonius Molon whose polemic pervades his whole work. There can therefore be no doubt that the polemic of Josephus refers to only one work of Apion’s and indeed to only one section of a larger work. This work was as Josephus expressly says in the beginning of his discussion (ii. 2) the Egyptian History. In it Apion apparently took occasion in narrating the departure of the Jews from Egypt to give a hostile description of them in like manner as Tacitus does in his Histories (Hist. v. 1–12). When consequently Clemens Alexandrinus and later Church authors mention a special work of Apion κατὰ Ἰουδαίων this rests only upon a mistaken inference from the information of Josephus. It is just the silence of Josephus which proves that no such work ever existed. That these Church authors also had no actual acquaintance with it is made evident by a more accurate comparison of the text. For Clemens Alexandrinus in the passage where he mentions it is in fact only copying from Tatian who on his part is only quoting Apion’s Egyptian History. And all subsequent writers who pretend to know anything of a work of Apion κατὰ Ἰουδαίων obtain their information from either Clement or Josephus.

Tatian Oratio ad Graecos c. 38 (= Euseb. Praep. evang. x. 11. 14 ed. Gaisford): Μετὰ δὲ τοῦτον Ἀπίων ὁ γραμματικός ἀνὴρ δοκιμώτατος ἐν τῇ τετάρτῃ τῶν Αἰγυπτιακῶν (πέντε δέ εἰσιν αὐτῷ γραφαί) πολλὰ μὲν καὶ ἄλλα φησὶ δὲ ὅτι• Κατέσκαψε τὴν Αὔαριν Ἄμωσις κατὰ τὸν Ἀργεῖον γενόμενος Ἴναχον ὡς ἐν τοῖς Χρόνοις ἀνέγραψεν ὁ Μενδήσιος Πτολεμαῖος.

Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 21. 101 (= Euseb. Praep. evang. x. 12. 2 ed. Gaisford): Ἀπίων τοίνυν ὁ γραμματικὸς ὁ Πλειστονίκης ἐπικληθεὶς ἐν τῇ τετάρτῃ τῶν Αἰγυπτιακῶν ἱστοριῶν καίτοι φιλαπεχθημόνως πρὸς Ἑβραίους διακείμενος ἅτε Αἰγύπτιος τὸ γένος ὡς καὶ κατὰ Ἰουδαίων συνπάξασθαι βιβλίον Ἀμώσιος τοῦ Αἰγυπτίων βασιλέως μεμνημένος καὶ τῶν κατʼ αὐτὸν πράξεων μάρτυρα παρατίθεται Πτολεμαῖον τὸν Μενδήσιον καὶ τὰ τῆς λέξεως αὐτοῦ ὧδε ἔχει• "Κατέσκαψε δὲ τὴν κ.τ.λ." (here follows verbally the same quotation as in Tatian whom Clemens had just before expressly quoted).

Julius Africanus in Euseb. Praep. evang. x. 10. 16 and in Syncell. ed. Dindorf i. 120 and 281: Ἀπίων δὲ ὁ Ποσειδωνίου περιεργότατος γραμματικῶν ἐν τῇ κατὰ Ἰουδαίων βίβλῳ καὶ ἐν τῇ τετάρτῃ τῶν ἱστοριῶν φησὶ κατὰ Ἴναχον Ἄργους βασιλέα Ἀμώσίος Αἰγυπτίων βασιλεύοντος ἀποστῆναι Ἰουδαίους ὧν ἡγεῖσθαι Μωσέα.

Pseudo-Justin. Cohortatio ad Graec. c. 9: Οὕτω γἀρ Πολέμων τε ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν ἱστοριῶν μέμνηται καὶ Ἀππίων ὁ Ποσειδωνίου ἐν τῇ κατὰ Ἰουδαίων βίβλῳ καὶ ἐν τῇ τετάρτῃ τῶν ἱστοριῶν λέγων κατὰ Ἴναχον Ἄργους βασιλέα Ἀμώσιδος Αἰγυπτίων βασιλεύοντος ἀποστῆναι Ἰουδαίους ὧν ἡγεῖσθαι Μωϋσέα. Καὶ Πτολεμαῖος δε ὁ Μενδήσιος τὰ Αἰγυπτίων ἱστοριῶν ἅπασι τούτοις συντρέχει.

The mention of Apion’s supposed work κατὰ Ἰουδαίων was first introduced in this connection by means of Clement. But Clement only says that Apion wrote such a work; for the rest he simply quotes as Tatian does Apion’s Egyptian History as his authority for the statement that Amosis reigned in the time of Inachus. Julius Africanus on the contrary now ventures to assert on the foundation of the passage of Clement that this statement was found in both the supposed works of Apion and at the same time drags in Moses also who is not even spoken of in the passage quoted from Apion. Finally the author of the Cohortatio again copies only from Julius Africanus. This latter fact I have I think proved in Brieger’s Zeitschrift für Kirchengesch. ii. (1878) pp. 319–331. Comp. also Donaldson History of Christian Literature ii. 96 sqq. Harnack Texts und Untersuchungen vol. i. Nos. 1 2 1882 p. 157. Neumann Theol. Literaturzeitung 1883 p. 582. Renan Marc-Aurèle 1882 p. 107 note. The dependence of the Cohortatio upon the text to which Julius Africanus had access is at any rate indubitable. Hence Gutschmid starting from the mistaken assumption that the Cohortatio was more ancient than Julius Africanus supposed that both had a common source (Jahrbb. fü class. Philologie 1860 pp. 703–708). Some moderns also acquiesce in this view more through faith in Gutschmid than on sufficient grounds. So Völter Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1883 p. 180 sqq. Dräseke Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch. vol. vii. p. 257 sqq.

Eusebius Hist. eccl. iii. 9. 4 in enumerating the works of Josephus says that his work Ueber das hohe Alter der Juden (i.e. contra Apion.) was written “against Apion the grammarian” who had then composed a λόγος against the Jews (πρὸς Ἀπίωνα τὸν γραμματικὸν κατὰ Ἰουδαίων τηνικάδε συντάξαντα λόγον). Evidently this is only inferred from Josephus. The same applies also to Hieronymus De viris illustr. c. 13 (Opp. ed. Vallarsi ii. 851): adversum Appionem grammaticum Alexandrinum qui sub Caligula legatus missus ex parte gentilium contra Philonem etiam librum vituperationem gentis Judicae continentem scripserat. The account of Eusebius which Jerome as his custom is copies is here only enlarged by the combination that Apion’s book was directed against Philo. This combination is founded on Joseph. Antt. xviii. 8. 1. From the Greek translation of Jerome (Sophronius) again arise the statements in Suidas Lex. s.v. Ἰώσσηπος. When it is at last said in the Clementine Homilies that Apion wrote πολλὰ βιβλία against the Jews this statement must of course not be taken seriously.

Comp. on Apion in general: Burigny “Mémoire sur Apion” (Mémoires de l’Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres ancient series vol. xxxviii. 1777 pp. 171–178). Lehrs “Quid Apio Homero praestiterit” (Quaestiones Epicae 1837 pp. 1–34). Cruice De Flavii Josephi in auctoribus contra Apionem offerendis fide et auctoritate (Paris 1844) p. 9. Schliemann Die Clementinen (1844) p. 111 sqq. C. Müller Fragm. hist. Graec. iii. 506–516. Volkmann in Pauly’s Real-Enc. i. 1 (2nd ed.). p. 1243 sq. Creuzer Theol. Stud. und Krit. 1853 p. 80 sq. Paret Des Flavius Josephus Werke übersetzt 7 vols. (1856) pp. 741–745. Hausrath Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte 2nd ed. ii. 187–195. Nicolai Griech. Literaturgesch. 2nd ed. ii. 345–347. J. G. Müller Des Fl. Josephus Schrift gegen den Apion (1877) pp. 14–17. Lightfoot art. “Apion” in Smith and Wace Dictionary of Christian Biography i. 128–130.

6. The literary opponents of the Jews hitherto mentioned have been here treated of more thoroughly because the polemic of Josephus is directed chiefly against them. An exhaustive enumeration of all the Greek and Roman authors who from the beginning of the second century after Christ expressed themselves in a hostile manner against the Jews would furnish a list of distinguished names. Almost all the authors who have to speak of the Jews at all do so in a hostile manner. Among pre-Christian Greek authors Josephus chiefly names the distinguished historian and philosopher Posidonius as an adversary of the Jews (c. Apion. ii. 7). In his great historical work (see on it Div. i. vol. i. § 3) he probably somewhere seized the opportunity of giving a polemical excursus against the Jews and afterwards many subsequent writers as Diodorus (xxxiv. 1) and Trogus Pompeius who comes down to us through the extract of Justin (xxxvi. 2 3) drew either directly or indirectly from his much read work. The works too of Nikarchus (Müller Fragm. iii. 335) and Damokritus (Müller Fragm. iv. 377) which are scarcely known by name were also polemical. Of Roman historians besides Trogus Pompeius already mentioned prominence must be given to Tacitus whose description of the Jews (Hist. v. 2 sqq.) is dictated by the most profound contempt. The Roman satirists Horace Juvenal and Martial have also notably made the Jews the butt of their wit.

2. Apologetic

Jewish Apologetic followed a twofold way of defence a direct and an indirect one against the many attacks which Judaism had to undergo. A large portion of the historic and philosophic literature of Hellenistic Judaism is of an indirectly apologetic character; it seeks to show that the Jewish nation need in no respect shrink from a comparison with other nations. But this was not thought enough; the attempt was also sometimes made to refute point after point in a systematic manner the accusations raised against the Jews. Two of such systematically apologetic works are known to us one (that of Philo) only by a short fragment the other (that of Josephus) in the complete text. (1) Eusebius gives in the Praep. evang. viii. 11 the description of the Essenes from Philo’s ἀπολογία ὑπὲρ Ἰουδαίων. From this however we can form no idea of its whole design. The work of Philo περὶ Ἰουδαίων mentioned in Euseb. Hist. eccl. ii. 18. 6 is certainly identical with it. (2) The work of Josephus to he mentioned in this connection is known to us by the title of contra Apion. This title which did not originate with Josephus himself gives an erroneous idea of its contents. For it is by no means occupied with Apion alone but undertakes a comprehensive and systematic defence of the Jewish people against all the accusations raised against them (further particulars Div. i. vol. i. § 3).

In endeavouring in what follows to give a sketch of the main substance of the indictment and defence we must chiefly restrict ourselves to the material afforded by Josephus his work being the only one handed down to us which both contains a survey of the points of accusation and furnishes a view of the method of apologetic demonstration. The disposition of the Graeco-Roman world towards the Jews has been already described (). Here only the actual accusations and the Jewish answer to them will be brought forward.

1. Extensive and learned matter is furnished by Josephus in the first section (i. 1–23) to prove that the Jewish nation was not inferior in point of antiquity to other cultured nations. He says that to maintain that it is of recent origin because the Greek historians say nothing of it is foolish even if the assumption were correct. For even the silence of all the Greek historians would prove nothing against the early existence of the nation since the Jews as dwelling in an inland country might easily remain unknown to the Greeks. In truth however the Jewish nation was already known in very ancient times by the best historians of he Egyptians Phoenicians Chaldaeans (Manetho Dios Menander Berosus and others) nay even by Greek historians themselves. The zeal which Josephus exhibits and the large amount of matter he brings forward show how important this point was in his eyes. The assertion of modern origin was equivalent to the assertion of historical insignificance. A nation which had but recently appeared upon the stage of history had of course also no importance in history. It received its culture from the more ancient nations. But this was to strike at the roots of Jewish honour and hence the Jewish apologist regarded it as his first duty thoroughly to repel such an insult.

2. While the Greeks in general were satisfied with denying the high antiquity of the Jewish nation the Alexandrians related very unfair things concerning the origin of the Jews. The quintessence of their fictions was that the Jews were leprous Egyptians who succeeded in a very dishonourable manner in forming themselves into a separate nation in leaving Egypt and settling in Palestine. Josephus felt himself master of the situation in opposing these fables. With dignified superiority he pointed out to the Alexandrians the absurdity and the internal discrepancy of their assertions (i. 24–35 ii. 1–3).

3. With the imputation of recentness of origin was connected the assertion that the Jews had done nothing for culture. Apollonius Molon said that they were the most incapable of barbarians and had therefore contributed no useful invention to general culture (contra Apion. ii. 14: ἀφυεστάτους εἶναι τῶν βαρβάρων καὶ διὰ τοῦτο μηδὲν εἰς τὸν βίον εὕρημα συμβεβλῆσθαι μόνους). Apion said that they had produced no eminent men such as inventors of arts or men distinguished for wisdom (contra Apion. ii. 12: θαυμαστοὺς ἄνδρας οὐ παρεσχήκαμεν οἷον τεχνῶν τινῶν εὑρετὰς ἢ σοφίᾳ διαφέροντας). These reproaches were encountered with the older Jewish legend that the Jews were on the contrary the originators of all culture. According to Eupolemus Moses was the first sage the inventor of alphabetic writing (see above p. 203). According to Artapanus Abraham instructed the Egyptians in astrology Joseph undertook the improved cultivation of the land and Moses introduced culture of every kind (p. 206). The philosopher Aristobulus already declares Moses to be the father of Greek philosophy and that Pythagoras Socrates Plato and the rest all derived their philosophy from him (p. 240 sq.). The same assertion is repeated by Philo and Josephus takes just the same tone though making no use in his Apology of the legends of Eupolemus and Artapanus. He lays the chief stress upon proving besides the high antiquity the wisdom and excellence of the Mosaic legislation.

4. The special accusations against Judaism were above all in respect of its religious worship which was always connected with the refusal to acknowledge any other worship as legitimate. This last was in the era of heathenism a thing unheard of. “To live and let live” was the motto in the province of religion. The most opposite kinds of religious worship were readily tolerated if only the adherents of one cultus would hold others legitimate. Especially was it taken for granted as a thing self-evident that the citizens of the same town should besides any private worship of their own participate in honouring the gods of the town. What an abnormity then must it have been felt that the Jews should entirely reject every kind of worship except their own and absolutely refuse to take part in any other! From the standpoint of Hellenism this was synonymous with Atheism. If they are citizens why do they not worship the gods of the city? This accusation of ἀθεότης of contempt for the gods recurs in almost all adversaries of the Jews from Apollonius Molon and Posidonius to Pliny and Tacitus; and from it certainly arose in great part the conflicts of municipalities with the Jews especially in the towns where they possessed rights of citizenship. It was easy in theory but difficult in practice for apologetic to hold its ground in presence of this accusation. With an educated reader it was not very difficult to make manifest the advantages of the monotheistic and spiritual view of the nature of God especially as Greek philosophy offered an abundance of thoughts which came in this respect to the aid of Jewish apologists. In this sense does Josephus proceed simply exhibiting the Jewish idea of God in its superiority (contra Apion. ii. 22). In practice however the masses were not to be influenced by such considerations. For the reproach still adhered to the Jews that they absolutely rejected what others regarded as the worship of God. Hence the chief weapon of Jewish apologetic upon this point was a vigorous attack. When the Jews were reproached for despising the gods they showed on their part what kind of gods they were whom others honoured; weak images of wood stone silver or gold the work of men’s hands or animals of every kind or at best beings who were affected with manifold human weaknesses. The Jews might well feel themselves superior to the worshippers of such gods (comp. e.g. pseudo-Aristeas in Havercamp’s Josephus ii. 2. 116. Sap. Salomonis c. 13–15. The Epistle of Jeremiah Joseph. contra Apion. ii. 33–35 and especially the Sibyllines).

Of less practical importance than the charge of ἀθεότης were certain ridiculous fables which were related concerning the Jewish worship; that they paid divine honours to an ass’s head and that they annually sacrificed a Greek and fed upon his entrails (see above § 31 notes 23 24 25 Such fables were indeed believed only in small circles and Josephus very easily proves their absurdity (contra Apion. ii. 7–9).

5. Of greater weight on the other hand was another point connected with the ἀθεότης of the Jews viz. their refusal of the worship of the emperor. Subsequently to Augustus all the provinces emulated each other in the practice of this cult (see  sq.). Zeal for this was the standard of a loyal and Rome-loving disposition its entire rejection was synonymous with not showing due respect to the authorities. Such was at least the view of the Hellenistic population who according to the customs of the Hellenistic period freely offered their worship to the emperor. The Jews were in a favourable position in this respect inasmuch as the emperors of the first centuries with the sole exception of Caligula did not directly demand this worship. Nor apart from the short episode under Caligula was it ever required of the Jews whose mode of worship received legal protection together with the legal recognition of their communities from Caesar onwards (see above ). For the adversaries of the Jews however it was always a welcome point of attack that they proved themselves bad citizens by their refusal of worship to the emperor. Jewish apologists could in answer to this charge appeal to the fact that a sacrifice was daily offered for the emperor in the temple at Jerusalem (Joseph. c. Apion. ii. 6 fin.; Bell. Jud. ii. 10. 4; comp. ) and that on special occasions even hecatombs were offered for the Roman emperor (Philo Leg. ad Caj. § 45 Mang. ii. 598). Thus in fact was a certain equivalent furnished for that worship of the emperor which was impossible to Jews. Josephus besides does not neglect pointing on every occasion to the favour which the Jews enjoyed both from the Ptolemies and from Caesar (c. Apion. ii. 4 5; Antt. xiv. 10 xvi. 6). This surely would have been impossible unless they had been loyal citizens!

6. With this religious isolation was connected a certain amount of social isolation. Judaism expressly repudiated the idea now more and more making its way in Hellenism that all men are brethren and therefore equal before God. It saw in the unbeliever only the sinner who has incurred the judgment of God and referred the fatherly love of God only to the seed of Abraham on which account only the children of Abraham are brethren to each other. If this particularism was not held in its full rigour by philosophic and Hellenistic Judaism in general it gained on the other hand a support from the view that the heathen as such were unclean that in the interest of Levitical purity intercourse with them was as far as possible to be avoided and from the anxiety with which contact with everything that stood in any kind of relation to idolatry was abhorred (comp. Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 51–56). If then the Jew was already directed in theory to regard the non-Jew as only an “alien” it was also impossible to him in practice if he desired to observe the law to live in any close social intercourse with the heathen. This theoretical and practical ἀμιξία which was in opposition to the entire tendency of the Hellenistic period was constantly and very specially made a reproach against the Jews. To the Greeks and Romans who were unacquainted with its deeper motives it appeared only as a want of humanity of true philanthropy nay as criminal misanthropy. And it may indeed not infrequently have really manifested itself in such forms. The process adopted in this respect by apologetic writers was on the one hand chiefly that of pointing to the humane appointments of the law especially with regard to strangers (Joseph. c. Apion. ii. 28–29) and on the other that of showing how the ancient laws of other States went much farther in the exclusion of strangers than the Mosaic law did (c. Apion. ii. 36–37).

7. The peculiarities of the Jews already mentioned viz. their ἀθεότης and their ἀμιξία are those which came forward the most prominently in public life. It was on this account that the Jews appeared to be the enemies of such public regulations and institutions as had then been formed nay as the opponents of all other human intercourse. Hence it is on these points that attacks are most seriously directed. Other peculiarities gave occasion rather to derision and contempt than to actual accusations. Among these were (a) circumcision (b) abstinence from swine’s flesh and (c) the observance of the Sabbath. Even the most malicious of their other opponents did not venture upon the reproach of that special immorality to which Tacitus alludes. Apologetic writers oppose to the derision shown towards these several peculiarities an ideal picture of the entire Mosaic code. As Philo by his idealistic representation of the Mosaic legislation (see above p. 219 sq.) already gave an indirect apology for it so also does Josephus endeavour by a connected and positive statement to show that the precepts of the Mosaic law are in every respect the purest and most ideal (c. Apion. ii. 22–30). In doing this he does not enter into these objectionable points but contents himself with referring his opponent the Egyptian Apion to the fact that the Egyptian priests also were circumcised and abstained from swine’s flesh (Ap. ii. 13). To show the value and excellency of the law he points out in general its high antiquity (ii. 15) the blameless character of Moses the lawgiver and also the fact that this law really fulfilled its object being known and obeyed by all which astonishing result arose from its being not only taught but practised (ii. 16–19). Finally Josephus brings forward the circumstance that no Jew is ever unfaithful to his law which is again a proof of its excellence (ii. 31–32 38). The deficiencies found in this treatise inasmuch as it does not further enter into those points which were objected to by the heathen are abundantly compensated for by Philo who in his special delineation of the Mosaic law treats all these points very thoroughly and everywhere proves their reasonableness.

At the close of our survey we have still to discuss a class of literary productions highly characteristic of Hellenistic Judaism viz. Jewish works under a heathen mask. The works which belong to this category differ greatly so far as their literary form is concerned but have all the common feature of appearing under the name of some heathen authority whether of a mythological authority as the sibyl or of persons eminent in history as Hecataeus and Aristeas. The very choice of this pseudonymic form shows that all these works were calculated for heathen readers and designed for the propagation of Judaism among the heathen. For only with heathen readers were such names a standard authority and only on their account could this form have been chosen by Jewish authors. Hence the tendency which is peculiar to a large portion of the Graeco-Jewish literature in general viz. the tendency to influence non-Jewish readers here obtains significant expression. In one respect or another its intention was to carry on among the heathen a propaganda for Judaism. The special design however certainly differed in different cases. The Sibyllines desire to effect a propaganda properly so called. They set forth directly before the heathen world the folly of idolatry and the depravity of its moral conduct; they threaten punishment and ruin in case of impenitence and promise reward and eternal happiness in case of conversion and they thus seek to win adherents to the Jewish faith in the midst of the heathen world. An effect however of quite a different kind is aimed at in other works of this category; their purpose is not so much to propagate the faith as the honour and credit of the Jews. Thus pseudo-Aristeas e.g. seeks in his whole narrative of the translation of the Jewish law into Greek to show what a high opinion was entertained by the learned Ptolemy II. of this law and of Jewish wisdom in general and with what great honour he treated Jewish scholars. A directly missionary purpose does not come forward in this author; he cares more to create a favourable disposition towards Judaism and the Jewish law. And thus throughout this category now one now the other purpose comes more into the foreground—at one time that of winning believers at another that of creating a favourable impression. Still in one way or the other and in the wider meaning all subserve the propagation of Judaism. And since they all make choice of a heathen mask for this purpose they all belong however much they may differ otherwise in form and contents to one category.

We begin our discussion with the Sibylline oracles not because these are the oldest works of this class but because they are the most important both with respect to extent and actual effect.

1. The Sibyllines

The sibyl was in heathen antiquity “the semi-divine prophetess of the orders and counsels of the gods concerning the fate of cities and kingdoms” (Lücke). She was distinguished from the official priestly order of prophets by representing a free and non-official prophetic power being indeed first of all a personification of the Deity as revealing itself in nature. She is represented as a nymph dwelling by streams and grottoes. The most ancient authors speak only of a sibyl; so Heraclitus who is the first to mention one at all (in Plutarch de Pythiae oraculis c. 6); so also Euripides Aristophanes Plato. The fact that her voice was said to have been perceived in different places then led to the supposition that she wandered from place to place. At last this was not found sufficient and different sibyls said to dwell in different places were distinguished. Their number is very differently stated. There are learned combinations which have been made now in one manner now in another. The statement of Pausanias (Descr. Graec. x. 12) who distinguishes four sibyls is worthy of notice. These are: (1) The Herophile who came from Marpessus in the region of Troy prophesied in various parts of Asia Minor and Greece and was falsely stated by the Erythraeans to have been an Erythraean; (2) a more ancient one probably the Libyan (Maass p. 7) but whose abode in consequence of a gap in the text of Pausanias cannot be determined; (3) the Cumanian; and (4) the Hebrew who is also called the Babylonian or Egyptian. It seems as if Pausanias purposed thus to state the four chief kinds of sibyl: the Libyan as the most ancient that of Greek Asia Minor the Roman and the Oriental. He expressly designates the latter as the most recent. It is highly probable that the information relating to this subject is already a deposite of the Jewish sibyl fiction. Among other computations the most noted is that of Varro who names ten sibyls. In the Roman period the most famous were the Erythraean (from Erythraea on the Ionian coast opposite the island of Chios) and the Cumanian (in Lower Italy).

Written records of supposed Sibylline oracles were here and there in circulation; but such remains of them as have come down to us through occasional quotations in authors such as Plutarch Pausanias and others are brief and scanty and furnish no distinct notion of them. In Asia Minor and Greece these pieces circulated only in private possession without being publicly supervised or officially used. But their credit and influence must not be on that account slightly estimated. They attained quite a different importance in Rome where they arrived by way of Cumae from Asia Minor. King Tarquin Superbus is said to have obtained a collection of Sibylline oracles which were preserved in the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus. These having perished in the conflagration of the Capitol B.C. 83 the Senate at the instigation of the consul C. Curio sent an embassy B.C. 76 to Asia Minor which again made in Erythraea and other places a collection of about a thousand verses which was again deposited in the Capitol. The collection was afterwards occasionally enlarged and expurgated and was in existence in the fourth century after Christ. Besides this official collection Sibylline verses in private possession were also circulated but these by reason of the misuse made of them were frequently confiscated and destroyed by the authorities. The official collection was kept secret and only consulted on important occasions chiefly to ascertain what expiations were required on the occurrence of public misfortunes.

This Sibyllism was from its very nature specially adapted for being turned to account in the interest of religious propaganda. The oracles being of apocryphal origin in private possession and circulating without control might be completed and added to at pleasure. What had been done in this respect by Greek hands might as easily be undertaken by Jewish. Besides the oracles like the mysterious in general enjoyed a high reputation among religiously disposed minds. It might then be hoped that entrance to extensive circles would be obtained under this form. Hence it was a happy hit when Jewish propaganda took possession of this form to turn it to account for its own purposes. As far as can be ascertained it was in the second century before Christ that an extensive Sibylline oracle of Jewish origin was first put in circulation from Alexandria. The result seems to have been favourable for imitators soon arose at first among the Jews and subsequently among the Christians. For Christians were in this respect also the apt scholars of Hellenistic Judaism. They not only made willing use of the Jewish Sibylline oracles and highly esteemed them but also copiously increased what they found extant. Production in this department continued down to later imperial times and it is just to the tradition of the Christian Church that we are indebted for the possession of the older Jewish Sibylline oracles also.

The first edition of the Judaeo-Christian Sibyllines (Basle 1545) which have come down to us was prepared by Xystus Betuleius after an Augsburg now a Munich manuscript and comprised eight books. The later editions show the same number down to and including that printed in Gallandi’s Bibliotheca patrum (vol. i. Venice 1788). Angelo Mai was the first to publish from a Milan manuscript a fourteenth book (1817) and afterwards from two Vatican manuscript books eleven to fourteen (1828). All are combined in the modern editions of Alexandre (1st ed. in 2 vols. 1841–1856 2nd ed. 1 vol. 1869) and Friedlieb (1852).

The form of these Judaeo-Christian Sibylline oracles is the same as that of the ancient heathen ones. The Jewish and Christian authors respectively make the ancient Sibyl speak to heathen nations in Greek hexameters and in the language of Homer. The contents subserve throughout the purposes of religious propaganda. The Sibyl prophesies the fate of the world from the beginning to the times of the author for the purpose of then uniting with it both threats and promises for the immediate future; she rebukes the heathen nations for the sinfulness of their idolatry and blasphemy and exhorts them to repent while yet there is time for that fearful judgments will fall upon the impenitent.

The collection as we have it is a chaotic wilderness to sift and arrange which will ever baffle the most acute criticism. For unfortunately it is not the case that each book forms of itself an original whole but that even the single books are some of them arbitrary aggregates of single fragments. The curse of pseudonymous authorship seems to have prevailed very specially over these oracles. Every reader and writer allowed himself to complete what existed after his own pleasure and to arrange the scattered papers now in one now in an opposite manner. Evidently much was at first circulated in detached portions and the collection of these afterwards made by some admirer was a very accidental one. Hence duplicates of many portions are found in different places. And the manuscripts which have come down to us exhibit great discrepancies in the arrangement.

Such being the nature of the whole it is not possible always to distinguish with certainty between Jewish and Christian matter. The oldest portions are at all events Jewish worked up perhaps with single small heathen oracles. The main body of the later books is certainly Christian. But neither the one nor the other appears in large and closely connected masses. As a rule we have always but small portions quite loosely strung together and often without any connection. Hence it is only with respect to single and comparatively small portions that we can pass a certain judgment as to whether they are Jewish or Christian. Much is of so neutral a character that it may just as well have proceeded from one side as from the other. The following portions may with some probability be distinguished as Jewish.

1. The most ancient and certainly Jewish portions are in any case contained in the third book. All critics since Bleek concur in this opinion. Views however differ widely as to any nearer determination whether of the date of composition or of the extent of the Jewish portions. According to Bleek Book iii. 97–807 (according to another computation iii. 35–746) is the work of an Alexandrian Jew of the time of the Maccabees (170–160 B.C.) and contains also a working up of older Jewish fictions (97–161 433–488 [= 35–99 371–426]) and later Christian interpolations (350–380 [= 289–318]). The majority of Bleek’s successors regard the whole as Jewish. Gfrörer Lücke and Friedlieb concur with Bleek with regard to the date of composition. Hilgenfeld on the ground of an ingenious exposition of the difficult section iii. 388–400 places the whole (iii. 97–817) about 140 B.C. and is followed herein by Reuss Badt and Wittichen. Zündel also accepted his exposition of iii. 388–400 but kept to Bleek’s view of the earlier date of composition. Ewald went a little farther forward than Hilgenfeld by placing the composition of Book iii. 97–828 at about 124 B.C. But while all hitherto mentioned agree in assuming a Jewish authorship Alexandre ascribes only the portions iii. 97–294 489–817 to an Alexandrian Jew of about 168 B.C. and the intermediate portion 295–488 on the contrary to a Christian writer. Larocque while going still farther in the division agrees with Alexandre in regarding the bulk of Book iii. 97–294 489–828 as written about 168 B.C. but admits also later interpolations in the last section and considers the sections iii. 1–96 and 295–488 as “subordinate collections of heterogeneous pieces” of which only certain individual portions belong to the author of the two first-named large portions. Delaunay also esteems the portions iii. 97–294 and 489–817 not as single productions but as aggregates of separate unconnected oracles of different periods ranging from about the beginning to the middle of the second century B.C.

For the purpose of forming a judgment we will first give a survey of the contents with the omission of the section iii. 1–96 which certainly does not belong to what follows. The rest is clearly divided by means of the recent additions in vers. 295 and 498 into three groups (97–294 295–488 489–828). The beginning of the first group is wanting. It commences abruptly by recalling the building of the Tower of Babel and the Confusion of Tongues as the causes of the dispersion of mankind in all lands (97–100). When the whole earth was peopled the sovereignty over it was divided between Chronos Titan and Japetos. All three at first ruled peacefully near each other but a quarrel arose between Chronos and Titan which was only settled for a time by an assembly of the gods (or as the Jewish author expresses it by an assembly of the βασιλεῖς) and resulted in the contest between the Chronides and Titans and the destruction of both these races. After their annihilation arose successively the kingdoms of the Egyptians Persians Medes Ethiopians Assyrians Babylonians Macedonians then again of the Egyptians and lastly of the Romans (110–161). Now first does the Sibyl begin to prophesy; in the first place the prosperity of the Solomonian kingdom then the Graeco-Macedonian lastly the many-headed (πολύκρανος) kingdom of the Romans. After the seventh king of Egypt of the Hellenic race the people of God again attain to sovereignty and will be to all mortals a leader of life (162–195). The judgment of God will fall upon all the kingdoms of the world from the Titans and Chronides onwards. Even the pious men of Solomon’s kingdom will be visited by misfortune. Here the author takes occasion to give a sketch of the Jewish people their reverence for God and the main points of their history from their departure from Egypt down to Cyrus (196–294). The second group is almost entirely taken up with announcements of judgments and calamities: Against Babylon (295–313) against Egypt (314–318) against Gog and Magog (319–322) against Libya (323–333). After the signs which forebode calamity have been stated there follow proclamations of woe to single towns and countries concluding with the promise of a universal condition of Messianic prosperity and peace in Asia and Europe (341–380). Then follow oracles concerning Antiochus Epiphanes and his successors (381–400) concerning Phrygia Troy (interspersed with polemic against Homer) Lycia Cyprus Italy and other countries towns and islands (401–488). The third group begins with oracles concerning Phoenicia Crete Thrace Gog and Magog the Hellenes (489–572); it then points to the people of Israel who cleave to the law of God and do not devote themselves to idolatry and unnatural crimes (573–600). Hereupon follows a second prophecy of judgment upon the sinful world terminating in promises (601–623) and an exhortation to conversion with a description of the ruin which will come upon the ungodly world and especially upon Hellas (624–651). The promise of the Messianic King a prophecy of judgment and a detailed description of Messianic prosperity interspersed with exhortations to Hellas to cease from their presumption and references to omens of the last judgment form the conclusion (652–807). The Sibyl says in the epilogue that she came from Babylon but was wrongly regarded by the Greeks as a native of Erythraea (808–817) also that she was a daughter of Noah and had been with him in the ark at the time of the Deluge (818–828).

This survey of the contents shows that in any case we have not to deal with a single composition. In the second group especially the different portions are entirely unconnected with each other. Hence it is in any case a collection of separate oracles. Nevertheless it is at least possible that the greater number of them are the work of one author. For there is not sufficient support for accepting either a heathen or a Christian origin of the pieces. The mythological portion at the beginning which kindly makes the heathen gods guiltless human kings of antiquity may very well have been written by a Jew nay this kind of intermixture of Greek and Jewish legends just corresponds with the character of Hellenistic Judaism. There exists however no reason for supposing that it contains Christian elements since instead of υἱὸν θεοῖο in ver. 775 the correct reading is probably νηὸν θεοῖο (see vol. ii. p. 139). The circumstance that the time of the seventh Ptolemy is referred to in all three groups (vers. 191–193 316–318 608–610) speaks for their virtual connection. Hence the inference attained with respect to the date of composition of the separate portions may with a certain amount of probability be extended to the whole.

For determining the date of composition the following limits exist. The author is acquainted with the Book of Daniel (vers. 388–400) and the expeditions of Antiochus Epiphanes to Egypt (vers. 611–615). On the other hand Rome is still a republic (ver. 176: πολύκρανος). But the most accurate limit is furnished by the threefold recurrence of the assurance that the end will appear under the seventh king of Egypt of Hellenic race (vers. 191–193 316–318 608–610). Hence the author wrote under Ptolemy VII. Physcon who at first reigned together with his brother Ptolemy VI. Philometor (170–164 B.C.) was then banished from Egypt but attained after his brother’s death to the sole sovereignty (145–117 B.C.). When Zundel thinks that because the king is called βασιλεὺς νέος (ver. 608) only the years from 170–164 B.C. can be thought of since Ptolemy Physcon could by no means be any longer called young after the year 145 it must be answered that νέος means not only “young” but “new.” The proper sovereignty however of Ptolemy Physcon did not begin till the year 145. And that the author intended just this period of sole sovereignty is already in and by itself probable; for he would have designated the joint government of the two brothers as the sixth kingship. This too is confirmed by the plain allusions to the destruction of Carthage and Corinth (vers. 484 sq. 487 sq.) both which cities were as is well known destroyed in the year 146 before Christ. The section vers. 388–400 also leads according to the ingenious but not indeed quite certain explanation of Hilgenfeld to the same period (Apokalyptik p. 69 sq.; Zeitschr. 1860 p. 314 sqq. 1871 p. 35). Here Antiochus Epiphanes is first referred to and his overthrow then prophesied: “He will himself destroy their race through whose race his race also will be destroyed. He has a single root which also the manslayer (Ares) will eradicate out of ten horns. But he will plant another shoot beside it. He will eradicate the warlike progenitor of a royal race. And he himself is exterminated by the sons. And then will a horn planted near rule.” The race which Antiochus Epiphanes will destroy is that of his brother Seleucus IV. The sole root of Antiochus Epiphanes viz. his son Antiochus V. Eupator is murdered by Demetrius I. son of Seleucus IV. or as the author expresses it he is eradicated out of ten horns i.e. as the last of ten kings. The shoot which the god of war plants near is Alexander Balas. He will exterminate the warlike progenitor of a royal race viz. Demetrius I. But he will be himself destroyed by Demetrius II. and Antiochus VII. Sidetes sons of Balas. And then will the upstart Trypho rule (146–139 B.C.). According to this explanation of Hilgenfeld our author would have written about 140 B.C. And to this we must in any case adhere even if the details of the explanation should not be all correct. Traces of a later time can scarcely be found. For the western nation which according to vers. 324 328 sq. is to take part in the destruction of the temple is not the Roman but according to Ezek. 38:5 the Libyan (so Lücke Hilgenfeld). Only vers. 464–470 seem to turn upon later Roman times and to be an insertion (Hilgenfeld Apokal. p. 72; Zeitschr. 1871 p. 35 sq.).

The conclusion arrived at is also confirmed by external testimony. For according to the information of Euseb. Chron. ed. Schoene i. 23 = Syncell. ed. Dindorf i. 81 = Cyrill. adv. Julian. ed. Spanh. p. 9 the prophecy of the Sibyl concerning the building of the Tower of Babel and the conflict between the Chronides and Titans which followed it was already expressly quoted under the name of the Sibyl (Σίβυλλα δέ φησιν etc.) by Alexander Polyhistor and therefore in the first half of the first century before Christ in his Χαλδαϊκά. Such are also found especially from the third book among the oldest patristic quotations.

2. To the oldest Jewish Sibylline oracles undoubtedly belong also the two extensive fragments (together eighty-four verses) communicated by Theophilus ad Autol. ii 36. Single verses from them are also quoted by other Fathers. These are not found in our manuscripts. In the editions they are generally printed at the head of the whole collection because Theophilus says that they stood at the beginning of the Sibyl’s prophecy (ἐν ἀρχῇ τῆς προφητείας αὐτῆς). But the present first and second books being very recent and placed quite by accident at the beginning of the collection and the third book being certainly the oldest part it may be assumed beforehand that these pieces formed the introduction to our third book. This supposition probable in itself becomes a certainty through the fact that Lactantius among his numerous citations calls only such portions as are found in the Theophilus fragments and in our third book prophecies of the Erythraean Sibyl nay evidently quotes both as parts of one book. The contents of these verses may be called the special programme of all Jewish Sibyllism: they contain an energetic direction to the only true God and as energetic a polemic against idolatry. From no portion can the tendency of Jewish Sibyllism be better perceived than from this proem.

3. Section iii. 36–92 (according to another computation: vers. 36–62 of the intermediate section between Books ii. and iii. and Book iv. 1–30) now standing at the beginning of the third book is also a Jewish fragment of the prae-Christian period. Bleek already perceived that this fragment proceeded from an Alexandrian Jew of the time of the first triumvirate (40–30 B.C.) and he has justly found general acquiescence So Gfrörer Lücke Friedlieb Hilgenfeld (Apokal. p. 241) Reuss Larocque (at least for vers. 26–52) and Wittichen. Only Badt (pp. 54–61) goes as far as 25 B.C. thinking according to a suggestion made by Frankel that the Σεβαστηνοί of ver. 63 must mean inhabitants of Sebaste-Samaria. Alexandre and Ewald indeed ascribe the oracle to a Christian author of the time of the Antonines (Alexandre) or even of about A.D. 300 (Ewald). Bleek’s view is however the best founded. The piece begins with a cry of woe to the wicked race which is full of all crimes. With this is combined the prophecy that when Rome rules over Egypt also then will begin the judgment and the rule of the Messianic King. Even this definition of time: “when Rome rules over Egypt also” (ver. 46: Αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ Ῥώμη καὶ Αἰγύπτου βασιλεύσει) points to a period when the rule of Rome over Egypt was something new therefore to the time of Antony soon after 40 B.C. The date becomes perfectly clear by the allusion to the triumvirate of Antony Octayius and Lepidus (ver. 52: Τρεῖς Ῥώμην οἰκτρῇ μοίρῃ καταδηλήσονται) and by the mention of the widow under whose hands the world finds itself being governed by her and obeying her in all things i.e. Cleopatra (vers. 75–80). Hence the oracle was written between 40 and 30 B.C. To go farther down is inadmissible the end being expected during the lifetime of Cleopatra. The mention of the Σεβαστηνοί (ver. 63) on account of which Badt would place the oracle as late as 25 B.C. may safely be laid to the account of a later interpolator. It is probable as Bleek and Lücke suppose that the bracketed words in vers. 60–63 should be expunged—

Ἥξει γὰρ ὁπόταν θείου διαβήσεται ὀδμὴ

Πᾶσιν ἐν ἀνθρώποισιν [Ἀτὰρ τὰ ἕκαστʼ ἀγορεύσω

Ὅσσαις ἐν πόλεσιν μέροπες κακότητα φέρουσιν

Ἐκ δὲ Σεβαστηνῶν ἥξει] Βελίαρ μετόπισθεν.

4. Opinions are more divided concerning the fourth book than with regard to the passages hitherto treated of. The majority of older critics regard it as Christian. Friedlieb Ewald Hilgenfeld (Zeitschr. 1871 pp. 44–50) and especially Badt (1878) admit a Jewish author and place its composition about A.D. 80. This view must be allowed to pass as correct. For there is nothing at all specifically Christian in the book. The Sibyl who at the commencement calls herself the prophetess of the true God proclaims by His commission manifold calamities through war earthquakes and other natural events to the cities countries and peoples of Asia and Europe. Unless they repent God will destroy the whole world by fire and will then raise men from the dead and sit in judgment sending the ungodly to Tartarus and bestowing a new life on earth upon the godly. There is nothing in these particulars to recall the Christian sphere of thought although it would hardly be possible to a Christian author to avoid mentioning Christ when writing on eschatology. Nor are there any grounds for supposing the author to have been an Essene (so Ewald and Hilgenfeld). For the polemic against animal sacrifices (ver. 29) is only directed against heathen sacrifices; and the baptism to which the heathen are summoned is merely Jewish proselyte baptism (comp. ). For determining the date of composition it is decisive that the destruction of Jerusalem (vers. 115–127) and the eruption of Vesuvius of A.D. 79 (vers. 130–136) are presupposed. The author also believes with many of his contemporaries in Nero’s flight across the Euphrates and his impending return (vers. 117–124 137–139). Consequently the oracle must have been composed about A.D. 80 or not much later and more probably in Asia Minor (so e.g. Lightfoot and Badt) than in Palestine (so Freudenthal). The patristic quotations from this book begin with Justin. It is also noteworthy that two verses included in it (97–98) are already mentioned by Strabo p. 536 as oracular sayings.

5. Very divergent are the decisions of critics concerning the fifth book. Bleek distinguishes the following portions as Jewish:—(a) vers. 260–285 481–531 written about the middle of the second century before Christ by an Alexandrian Jew; (b) vers. 286–332 by a Jew of Asia Minor soon after A.D. 20; (c) perhaps also vers. 342–433 by a Jewish author about A.D. 70. While Lücke entirely and Gfrörer at least partly agree with Bleek Friedlieb ascribes the whole fifth book to a Jew of the beginning of Hadrian’s reign and Badt to a Jew of about A.D. 130; Ewald Hilgenfeld (Zeitschr. 1871 pp. 37–44) and Hildebrandt regard at least Book v. 52–531 as the work of a Jew of about A.D. 80 (Ewald) or a few years earlier (Hilgenfeld Hildebrandt); while Alexandre Reuss and Dechent (Zeitschr. f. Kirchengesch. ii. 497 sqq.) attribute the book to a Christian Jew. It seems to me a vain effort to attempt to settle in detail the origin and date of composition of the pieces combined in this book. For it is palpable that we have here no compact whole but a loose conglomerate of heterogeneous portions. The greater number are certainly of Jewish origin; for the sections in which Jewish interests and views are brought more or less plainly forward run through the whole book (comp. especially vers. 260–285 328–332 344–360 397–413 414–433 492–511). On the other hand the remarkable passage vers. 256–259 in which “the excellent man coming from heaven who spreads out his hands on the fruit-bearing tree” (Jesus) is identified with Joshua (Jesus the son of Nave) is certainly Christian. Thus Jewish and Christian pieces are at all events combined in this book. The summing up of the discrepant elements under the common term “Judaeo-Christian” is as unhappy an expedient as it is e.g. in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. When however the mixture of Jewish and Christian pieces in this fifth book is acknowledged it cannot in many instances where religion is a matter of indifference be determined to which side they belong. So much only is certain that the Jewish element preponderates. With such characteristics it is also impossible to determine the respective dates of composition. In the Jewish pieces the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem (397–413) and apparently the destruction also of the Onias-temple in Egypt (so far as vers. 492–511 refer to this) are lamented. These pieces and consequently the main body of the book might then have been written in the first century after Christ. On the other hand the chronological oracle at the beginning (vers. 1–51) certainly leads as far as to the time of Hadrian. Quotations are first found in Clemens Alexandrinus.

6. Of the remaining books vi vii. and viii. are generally and correctly esteemed to be of Christian authorship. The origin on the other hand of Books i–ii and xi–xiv is doubtful. Most investigators regard these also as Christian. Lücke Friedlieb and Dechent on the contrary ascribe Book xi. and Friedlieb Book xiv. also to a Jewish author. Dechent attempts as Friedlieb also partly does to point out in Books i. and ii. Jewish pieces of greater extent. How difficult it is to find sure footing in this respect is proved by the circumstance that Lücke in a later section of his work (Einl. die Offenb. des Joh. p. 269 sqq.) retracted his view concerning Book xi. and ascribed it to a Christian author. This eleventh book is really not worth contesting. It is a religiously colourless versified history of Egypt down to the beginning of the Roman supremacy and may just as well be Jewish as Christian. Nor is it very different with the other pieces. The portions separated by Dechent from Books i and ii. may in fact be Jewish but they may just as well be Christian and their entire lack of attestation by the Fathers of the first three centuries rather speaks for a later i.e. a Christian origin.

The most ancient author who quotes a Jewish Sibylline book (and indeed Sib. 3:97 sqq. ed. Friedlieb) is Alexander Polyhistor about 80–40 B.C. See the passage from his Χαλδαϊκά in Euseb. Chron. ed. Schoene i. 23 = Syncell. ed. Dindorf i. 81 = Cyrill. adv. Julian. ed. Spanh. p. 9. The almost verbally identical passage in Josephus Antt. i. 4. 3 (= Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 15) is copied from Alexander Polyhistor without mention of his name. Comp. p. 282 above.

On the use of the Sibyllines by the Fathers see Vervorst De carminibus Sibyllinis apud sanctos Patres disceptatio Paris 1844. Besançon De l’emploi que les Pères de l’église ont fait des oracles sibyllins Montauban 1851. Alexandre’s 1st ed. vol. ii. (1856) pp. 254–311. A collection of the most ancient quotations is also given in Harnack’s Patres apostol. note on Hermas Vis. ii. 4. A thorough discussion of the numerous citations in Lactantius is given by Struve Fragmenta librorum Sibyllinorum quae apud Lactantium reperiuntur Regiom. 1817. A manuscript collection by the Scotchman Sedulius (ninth century) of the quotations in Lactantius is printed in Mont-faucon’s Paleogr. gr. lib. iii. cap. vii. pp. 243–247 and from this in Gallandi’s Biblioth. patr. i. 400–406 comp. his proleg. p. lxxxi.

Whether Clemens Romanus has quoted the Sibyllines is doubtful. For it is said in the pseudo-Justinian Quaestt. et response ad orthodoxos quaest. 74 (Corp. apolog. ed. Otto 3rd ed. vol. v. p. 108): εἰ τῆς παρούσης καταστάσεως τὸ τέλος ἐστὶν ἡ διὰ τοῦ πυρὸς κρίσις τῶν ἀσεβῶν καθά φασιν αἱ γραφαὶ προφητῶν τε καὶ ἀποστόλων ἔτι δὲ καὶ τῆς Σιβύλλης καθώς φησιν ὁ μακάριος Κλήμης ἐν τῇ πρὸς Κορινθίους ἐπιστολῇ. The Sibyl not being mentioned in the received text of the Clementine Epistles the καθώς must probably be taken as parallel to the καθά and thus the words ἔτι δὲ καὶ τὴς Σιβύλλης are not the words of Clement but of the pseudo-Justin. Comp. Harnack’s 2nd ed. of the Clementine Epistles Proleg. p. xl.; Otto in his note on the passage is of the contrary opinion. Hermas Vis. ii. 4 mentions only the Sibyl and not the Sibylline books. Quotations from the latter are on the other hand given in the Predicatio Petri et Pauli in Clemens Alex. Strom. vi. 5. 42–43 (see also Lücke Einl. in die Offenb. Joh. p. 238; Hilgenfeld Nov. Test. extra canon. rec. fasc. iv. 2nd ed. pp. 57 63 sq.). Gnostics in Hippolyt. Philosophum. v. 16. Justin. Apol. i. 20. Athenagoras Suppl. c. 30. Theophilus ad Autol. ii. 3. 31 36. Tertullian ad nationes ii. 12. Pseudo-Melito Apol. c. 4 (in Otto Corp. apolog. vol. ix. pp. 425 463 sq.). Pseudo-Justin. Cohortat. ad Graec. c. 16 37–38. Const. Apost. v. 7. Constantini Oratio ad sanct. coet. (= Euseb. Vita Const. v.) c. 18–19. Quotations abound most in Clemens Alex. and Lactantius.

Clemens Alexandrinus quotes: (1) The prooemium: Protrept. ii. 27. Protr. vi. 71 = Strom. v. 14. 108. Protr. viii. 77 = Strom. v. 14. 115. Strom. iii. 3. 14. (2) The third book: Protr. vi. 70 vii. 74. (3) The fourth book: Protrept. iv. 50 and 62. Paedag. ii. 10. 99 iii. 3. 15. (4) The fifth book: Protrept. iv. 50. Paedag. ii. 10. 99. Comp. also Strom. i. 21. 108 132. It is seen from these statistics that just the three books which on internal grounds we esteem (or at least their greater part) to be Jewish and these only were known to Clement. Other patristic quotations too down to Clement refer to these books alone. They thus evidently form the most ancient Jewish body of Sibylline oracles.

Lactantius quotes about fifty passages from our Sibyllines most frequently from Book viii. next to this from Book iii. only sometimes from Books iv. v. vi. and vii. from the rest not at all. See the material in Struve and Alexandre. Hence it seems that he was acquainted with only Books iii. to viii. of our present collection. He must however have had in them somewhat which is lacking in our MSS.; for apart from the passages from the prooemium which indeed is only preserved to us by Theophilus other quotations are also found in Lactantius which cannot be pointed out in our texts Lact. vii. 19. 2 viii. 24. 2. The verses too cited by Lactantius ii. 11. 18 and very probably belonging to the prooemium are not contained in Theophilus. Iactantius expresses himself in general on the books known to him as follows: Inst. 1 6 (after an enumeration of the ten Sibyls) Harum omnium Sibyllarum carmina et feruntur et habentur praeterquam Cymaeae cujus libri a Romanis occuluntur nec eos ab ullo nisi a quindecimviris inspectos habent. Et sunt singularum singuli libri qui quia Sibyllae nomine inscribuntur unius esse creduntur; auntque confusi nec discerni ac suum cuique adsignari potest nisi Erythraeae quae et nomen suum verum carmini inseruit et Erythraeam se nominat ubi praelocuta est quum esset orta Babylone.

Celsus also testifies to the credit of the Sibyllines among Christians (Orig. c. Cehus vi. 61 vii. 53 56). Celsus however already charges the Christians with having forged the oracles nor were such charges subsequently wanting. Comp. the allusions in Constantine’s Oratio ad sand. coet. (= Euseb. Vita Const. v.) c. 19. 1. Lactant. Inst. iv. 15. 26. Augustine de civ. Dei xviii. 46.

On the credit and use of the Sibyllines in the Middle Ages see Alexandre’s 1st ed. ii. 287–311. Lücken “Die sibyllinischen Weissagungen ihr Ursprung und ihr Zusammenhang mit den afterprophetischen Darstellungen christlicher Zeit” (Katholische Studien No. V.) Würzb. 1875. Vogt “Ueber Sibyllenweissagung” (Beiträge zur Gesch. der deutschen Sprache und Literatur edited by Paul and Braune vol. iv. 1877 pp. 48–100). Bang Voluspá und die sibyllinischen Orakel translated from the Danish Wien 1880.

On the manuscripts see Friedlieb De codicibus Sibyllinorum manuscriptis in usum criticum nondum adhibitis commentatio Vratislav. 1847. Friedlieb’s edition Introd. p. lxxii. sqq. and App. pp. ix.–xii. Alexandre’s 1st ed. vol. i. p. xliii. sqq.; his 2nd ed. pp. xxxviii–xlii Volkmann Lectiones Sibyllinae Pyritz 1861. Bernhardy Grundriss der griech. Literatur ii. 1 (3rd ed. 1867) p. 452 sq.

On the editions see Gallandi Biblioth. patr. i. p. 81. Fabricius Biblioth. graec. ed. Harles i. 257–261. Bleek i. p. 123 sq. Alexandre’s 1st ed. vol. i. pp. xxx–xliii The first edition superintended by Xystus Betuleius according to an Augsburg now a Munich manuscript was brought out by Oporinus in Basle 1545. The same with a Latin translation by Seb. Castalio (which first appeared separately in 1546) Basle 1555. The most esteemed among the older editions is that of Opsopöus Paris 1599 (repeated in 1607; the account by the bibliographers of a supposed edition of 1589 rests upon a mistake). The edition of Gallaeus Amsterdam 1689 is less esteemed. The Sibyllines have appeared besides in various collections e.g. in Gallandi’s Bibliotheca veterum patrum vol. i. (Venetiis 1788) pp. 333–410; comp. Proleg. pp. lxxvi–lxxxii. All these editions contain only the first eight books. The fourteenth book was first published from a Milan manuscript by Angelo Mai (Sibyllae liber xiv. editore et interprete Angelo Maio Mediolan. 1817); and afterwards Books xi. to xiv. from two Vatican manuscripts by the same (Scriptorum veterum nova collectio ed. ab Angela Maio vol. iii. 3 1828 pp. 202–215). Everything hitherto known is combined in the editions of Alexandre (Oracula Sibyllina curante C. Alexandre 2 vols. Paris 1841–1856. Editio altera ex priore ampliore contracta integra tamen et passim aucta multisque locis retractata Paris 1869 [the copious Excursi of the first edition are omitted in this second one]) and of Friedlieb (Die sibyllinischen Weissagungen vollständig gesammelt nach neuer Handschriften-Vergleichung mit kritischen Commentare und metrischer deutscher Uebersetzung Leipzig 1852). A Latin translation is added to most editions a German one to that of Friedlieb. A French one has been commenced by Bouché Leclercq (Revue de l’histoire des religions vol. vii. 1883 pp. 236–248; vol. viii. 1883 pp. 619–634 etc.).

Contributions to textual criticism: Volkmann De oraculis Sibyllinis dissertatio supplementum editionis a Friedliebio exhibitae Lips. 1853. The same Specimen novae Sibyllinorum editionis Lips. 1854 (containing the first book). A discussion of Alexandre’s edition in the Philologus vol. xv 1860 p. 317 sqq. The same Lectiones Sibyllinae Pyritz 1861. X: “Zur Textkritik der sibyllin. Bücher” (Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1861 pp. 437–439). Meineke “Zu den sibyllinischen Büchern” (Philologus vol. xxviii. 1869 pp. 577–598). Ludwich. “Zu den sibyllinischeu Orakeln” (Neue Jahrbb. für Philol. und Pädagogik vol. cxvii. 1878 pp. 240–245). Nauck “Kritische Bemerkungen” (Mélanges gréco-romains tirés du bulletin de l’académie impériale des sciences de St. Pétersbourg vol. ii. 1859–1866 p. 484 sq.; iii. 1869–1874 pp. 278–282; iv. 1875–1880 pp. 155–157 630–642). Rzach “Zur Kritik der Sibyllinischen Weissagungen” (Wiener Studien vol. iv. 1882 pp. 121–129). More in Engelmann’s Biblioth. script. class. ed. Preuss.

Lists of the literature on the Sibyllines in general are given in Fabricius Biblioth. graec. ed. Harles i. 227–290. Bleek i. 129–141. Reuss Gesch. der heil. Schriften Neuen Testaments § 274. Alexandre’s 1st ed. ii. 2. 71–82 also 2nd ed. p. 418 sq. Engelmann Bibliotheca scriptorum classicorum (8th ed. revised by Preuss) Div. i. 1880 p. 528 sq. The first to investigate the collection according to correct critical principles was: Bleek “Ueber die Entstehung und Zusammensetzung der uns in 8 Büchern erhaltenen Sammlung Sibyllinischer Orakel” (Theologische Zeitschrift edited by Schleiermacher de Wette and Lücke No. 1 1819 pp. 120–246; No. 2 1820 pp. 172–239). Comp. also his notice of Lücke’s Einl. in the Stud. und Krit. 1854 pp. 972–979. Gfrörer Philo vol. ii. 1831 pp. 121–173. Lücke Versuch einer vollständigen Einleitung in die Offenbarung des Johannes (2nd ed. 1852) pp. 66–89 248–274. Friedlieb’s Introd. to his edition (1852). Alexandre’s 1st ed. ii. 312–439; 2nd ed. p. 21 sqq. Hilgenfeld Die jüdische Apokalyptik in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwickelung (1857) pp. 51–90. The same Zeitschr. für wissenchaftl. Theologie vol. iii. 1860 pp. 313–319; xiv. 1871 pp. 30–50. Ewald “Abhandlung über Entstehung Inhalt und Werth der Sibyllischen Bucher” (Transactions of the Göttinger Gesellsch. der Wissensch. vol. viii. 1858–1859 hist.-philol. Class pp. 43–152 also separately). Frankel “Alexandrinische Messiashoffnungen” (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1859 pp. 241–261 285–308 321–330 359–364). Volkmann in the “Philologus” vol. xv. 1860 pp. 317–327. Bernhardy Grundriss der griechischen Literatur ii. 1 (3rd ed. 1867) pp. 441–453. Reuss art. “Sibyllen” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1st ed. xiv. 1861 pp. 315–329 (2nd ed. xiv. 1884 pp. 179–191). The same Gesch. der heil. Schriften Alten Testaments 1881 § 489 490 537. Zündel Kritische Untersuchungen über die Abfassungszeit des Buches Daniel 1861 pp. 140–172. Langen Das Judenthum in Palästina zur Zeit Christi 1866 pp. 169–174. Badt De oraculis Sibyllinis a Judaeis compositis Bresl. 1869. The same Ursprung Inhalt und Text des vierten Buches der sibyllinischen Orakel Breslau 1878. Larocque “Sur la date du troisième livre des Oracles sibyllins” (Revue archéologique new series vol. xx. 1869 pp. 261–270). Wittichen Die Idee des Reiches Gottes 1872 pp. 134–144 160 sq. Dechent Ueber das erste zweite und elfte Buch der sibyllinischen Weissagungen Frankf. 1873. The same “Charakter und Geschichte der altchristlichen Sibyllenschriften” (Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch. vol. ii. 1878 pp. 481–509). Hildebrandt “Das römische Antichristenthum zur Zeit der Offenbarung Johannis und des fünften sibyllinischen Buches” (Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol. 1874 pp. 57–95). Delaunay Moines et Sibylles dans l’antiquité judeogrecque Paris 1874. Renan Journal des Savants 1874 pp. 796–809. Delitzsch “Versuchte Lösung eines sibyllischen Räthsels” [on i. 137–146] Zeitschr. für luth. Theol. 1877 pp. 216–218. The Edinburgh Review No. 299 July 1877 pp. 31–67. Drummond The Jewish Messiah 1877 pp. 10–17. Nicolai Griechische Literaturgeschichte vol. iii. 1878 pp. 335–338.

2. Hystaspes

Ammianus Marcellinus (xxiii. 6. 32–33) relates of Hystaspes the Mede the father of King Darius that during his sojourn among the Indian Brahmins he learned from them “the laws of the motions of the world and stars and pure religious customs” (purosque sacrorum ritus) and then imparted some of these to the native Magi who handed them down to posterity. A Greek work under the name of this Hystaspes who was thus regarded by antiquity as an authority in religious matters was known to the Fathers by whom the following indications concerning it are given. According to Justin the future destruction of the world by fire was therein predicted. In the Praedicatio Petri et Pauli cited by Clemens Alex. it is asserted that Hystaspes plainly referred to the Son of God and to the conflict of Messiah and his people with many kings and to his stedfastness (ὑπομονή) and glorious appearing (παρουσία). Lastly according to Lactantius the destruction of the Roman Empire was foretold in it and also that in the tribulation of the last times the pious and believing would pray to Zeus for assistance and that Zeus would hear them and destroy the ungodly. Lactantius finds fault here only with the circumstance that what God will do is ascribed to Zeus and at the same time laments that in consequence of the deceit of the daemons nothing is here said of the sending of the Son of God. From these notices it is evident that the work was of an apocalyptic and eschatological tenor. Since Lactantius expressly says that the sending of the Son of God to judge the world is not mentioned in it we must regard it as rather Jewish than Christian. The choice too of Zeus as the name of God corresponding more with the literary usages of Hellenistic Judaism than with those of Christianity speaks for its Jewish origin. What the author also of the Praedicatio Petri et Pauli says concerning the appearance of the Messiah prophesied of in Scripture does not go beyond the framework of Jewish expectation. The apparent contradiction between his statement and that of Lactantius may be explained by remembering that Lactantius only misses the co-operation of the Messiah at the day of judgment. Yet it may be also possible that the author of the Praedicatio Petri et Pauli had an inter polated copy before him. The limits of the date of composition are fixed by the appearance on the one side of the Roman Empire as the power hostile to God on the other by Justin’s acquaintance with the work.

Justin. Apol. i. 20: Καὶ Σίβυλλα δὲ καὶ Ὑστάσπης γενήσεσθαι τῶν φθαρτῶν ἀνάλωσιν διὰ πυρὸς ἔφασαν. Comp. also c. 44.

Praedicatio Petri et Pauli in Clemens Alex. Strom. vi. 5. 42–43 (comp. Lucke Einl. in die Offenb. Joh. p. 238; Hilgenfeld Nov. Test. extra canonem rec. fasc. iv. 2nd ed. pp. 57 63 sq.): Λάβετε καὶ τὰς Ἑλληνικὰς βίβλους ἐπίγνωτε Σίβυλλαν ὡς δηλοῖ ἕνα θεὸν καὶ τὰ μέλλοντα ἔσεσθαι καὶ τὸν Ὑστάσπην λαβόντες ἀνάγνωτε καὶ εὑρήσετε πολλῷ τηλαυγέστερον καὶ σαφέστερον γεγραμμένον τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ καθὼς παράταξιν ποιήσουσι τῷ Χριστῷ πολλοὶ βασιλεῖς μισοῦντες αὐτὸν καὶ τοὺς φορούντας τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ καὶ τοὺς πιστοὺς αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν ὑπομονὴν καὶ τὴν παρουσίαν αὐτοῦ.

Lactantius Inst. vii. 15. 19: Hystaspes quoque qui fuit Medoruin rex antiquissimus … admirabile somnium sub interpretatione vaticinantis pueri ad memoriam posteris tradidit sublatum iri ex orbe imperium nomenque Romanum multo ante praefatus quam illa Troiana gens conderetur. Ibid. vii. 18. 2–3: Hystaspes enim quem superius nominavi descripta iniquitate saeculi hujus extremi pios ac fideles a nocentibus segregatos ait cum fletu et gemitu extensuros esse ad coelum manus et imploraturos fidem Jovis; Jovem respecturum ad terram et auditurum voces hominum atque impios extincturum. Quae omnia vera sunt praeter unum quod Jovem dixit illa lacturum quae Deus faciet. Sed et illud non sine daemonum fraude subtractum est missum iri a patre tune filium Dei qui deletis omnibus malis pios liberet.

Comp. in general: Walch “De Hystaspe” (Commentationes societatis scientt. Gotting vol. ii. 1780). Fabricius-Harles Biblioth. graec. i. 108 sq. A. G. Hoffmann in Ersch and Gruber’s Alllgem. Encykl. § 2 vol. xiii. 1836 p. 71 sq. Lücke. Einl. in die Offenbarung des Johannes 2nd ed. pp. 237–240. Otto’s Anmerkung zu Justin as above (in his edition of the Corpus apologet.)

3. Forged Verses of Greek Poets

Both Jewish and Christian apologists repeatedly appeal to the most eminent Greek poets to prove that the more intelligent among the Greeks held correct views concerning the nature of God His unity spirituality and supramundane character. Many such quotations especially in Clemens Alexandrinus are really taken from the genuine works of these poets and have been skilfully selected and explained by the apologists. But among these genuine quotations are also to be found not a few which have been palpably forged in the interest of either Jewish or Christian apologetic. The works where such forged verses have been discovered are chiefly the following: 1. Aristobulus in Eusebius Praeparatio evangelica xiii. 12. 2. Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. v. 14; also given in Euseb. Praep. evang. xiii. 13; comp. also Protrept. vii. 74. 3. The pseudo-Justinian Cohortatio ad Graecos c. 15 and 18. 4. The pseudo-Justinian work De monarchia c. 2–4 (the two latter in Otto’s Corpus apologetarum Christian. vol. iii.). The authors to whom the verses are ascribed are: the great tragic poets Aeschylus Sophocles Euripides; the writers of comedies Philemon Menander Diphilus; a large fragment is ascribed to Orpheus; and certain verses on the Sabbath to Hesiod Homer and Linus (or Callimachus).

In forming a judgment concerning the origin of these pieces the following considerations are of importance. Almost all the portions which come under notice are found both in Clemens Al. Str. v. 14. 113–133 (= Eus. Pr. xiii. 13. 40–62 ed. Gaisford) and in the pseudo-Justinian work De monarchia c. 2–4. Aristobulus and the Cohortatio ad Graecos have only single verses and such as are found in the others also. Both in Clement and in the work De monarchia however the suspicious portions stand pretty thick together; in the De monarchia indeed almost without other accessories. It is thus clear that either one made use of the other or that both drew from a common source. A strict observation shows however that the former supposition cannot be accepted. For though the pieces quoted are almost all identical they are more completely and accurately given now by one now by another. It is then indubitable that both drew from a common source in which all the suspected pieces were probably found together. What this source was moreover we are directly told by Clement: it was the work of the pseudo-Hecataeus on Abraham. For Clement introduces the first of the suspected quotations a supposed portion of Sophocles with the words (Strom. v. 14. 113 = Eus. Pr. xiii. 13. 40 ed. Gaisford): Ὁ μὲν Σοφοκλῆς ὥς φησιν Ἑκαταῖος ὁ τὰς ἱστορίας συνταξάμενος ἐν τῷ κατʼ Ἄβραμον καὶ τοὺς Αἰγυπτίους ἄντικρυς ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς ἐκβοᾷ. Böckh already showed that he on the whole correctly perceived the state of matters by ascribing all the quotations from the scenic poets (tragic and comic) to the pseudo-Hecataeus. Hence it was no advance when Nauck e.g. (in his edition of the Fragm. tragic.) and Otto (in his notes in the Corp. apologet.) again spoke of Christian forgeries for the work of the pseudo-Hecataeus is certainly Jewish. The verdict of Böckh must however be also extended to the large portion from Orpheus and to the verses of Hesiod Homer and Linus on the Sabbath which are already cited by Aristobulus (in Euseb. xiii. 12) and the forgery of which is therefore set by many e.g. Valckenaer and also Böckh to the credit of Aristobulus. The Orphean piece is also found both in Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 14. 123 sqq. (= Euseb. xiii. 13. 50 sqq.) and in the work De monarchia c. 2 in the midst of the forged verses of the tragic and comic poets. And the testimonies of Hesiod and Homer concerning the Sabbath stand at least near in Clement (Strom. v. 14. 107 = Euseb. xiii. 13. 34) and in juxtaposition along with the Orphean piece certainly in Aristobulus. It is hence very probable that these forgeries also belong to the pseudo-Hecataeus.

If our conjecture is correct these forgeries belong to the third century before Christ; for such is the date of the pseudo-Hecataeus (see next paragraph). It seems that numerous passages from Greek poets were collected in his work as testimonies to the true belief in God that among them many were certainly genuine but that these not seeming sufficiently powerful to the author he enhanced and completed them by verses of his own making. The work was certainly in the hands of Clemens Alex and the author of De monarchia in the original.

Comp. in general: Valckenaer Diatribe de Aristobulo Judaeo (Lugd. Bat. 1806) pp. 1–16 73–125. Böckh Graecae tragoediae principum Aeschyli Sophoclis Euripidis num ea quae supersunt et genuina omnia sint et forma primitiva servata an eorum familiis aliquid debeat ex iis tribui (Heidelb. 1808) pp. 146–164 (treats especially on the Jewish forgeries). Gfrörer Philo ii. 74 sqq. (on the Orphean verses). Dähne Geschichtliche Darstellung der jüdisch-alexandrinischen Religions-Philosophie ii. 89–94 225–228. Meineke Menandri et Philemonis reliquiae Berol. 1823. The same Fragmenta comicorum Graecorum vol. iv. Berol. 1841 (among others the Fragments of Philemon Menander Diphilus). Nauck Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta Lips. 1856. Cobet in Λόγιος Ἑρμῆς ἐκδ. ὑπὸ Κόντου vol. i. (Leyden 1866) pp. 176 454 459–463 524. Dindorf’s notes on the passages in question in his edition of Clem. Alex. Otto’s notes on the passages in question in his edition of the Corpus apologet. christ. vol. iii. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael iii. 566–568 (on the verses quoted by Aristobulus). Freudenthal Alexander Polyhistor pp. 166–169. Huidekoper Judaism at Home (New York 1876) pp. 336–342.

The several portions are (according to their order in the pseudo-Justinian work De monarchia) as follows:—

1. Twelve verses of Aeschylus (Χώριζε θνητῶν τὸν θεόν) on the elevation of God above every creature De monarchia c. 2 (Otto’s Corpus apologetarum 3rd ed. vol. iii. p. 130); Clemens Alex. Strom. v. 14. 131 = Euseb. Praep. ev. xiii. 13. 60 ed. Gaisford. Böckh p. 150 sq. Nauck Tragicorum Graec. fragm. p. 100.

2. Nine verses of Sophocles (Εἷς ταῖς ἀληθείαισιν) on the unity of God who made heaven and earth and on the folly of idolatry De monarchia c. 2 (Otto’s Corpus apolog. 3rd ed. vol. iii. p. 132); Clemens Alex. Strom. v. 14. 113 = Euseb. Praep. evang. xiii. 13. 40 ed. Gaisford; Clem. Protrept. vii. 74; Pseudo-Justin. Cohort. ad. Graec. c. 18; Cyrill. Alex. adv. Julian. ed. Spanh. p. 32; Theodoret Graecarum affectionum curatio c. vii. s. fin. (Opp. ed. Schulze iv. 896); Malalas ed. Bonnens. p. 40 sq. Cedrenus ed. Bonnens. i. 82. The two first verses are also in Athenagoras Suppl. c. 5. Böckh p. 148 sq. Nauck Trag. Graec. Fragm. p. 284 sq. Müller Fragm. hist. Graec. ii. 196. Dindorf’s note to Clem. Strom. v. 14. 113.

3. Two verses ascribed in De monarchia c. 2 to the comic poet Philemon but in Clemens Alex. Protrept. vi. 68 to Euripides (Θεὸν δὲ ποῖον) treat of God as one who sees everything but is himself unseen. On their spuriousness see Meineke Fragmenta comicorum Graec. iv. 67 sq. Nauck Trag. Graec. Frag. p. 552. Otto Corp. Apologet. 3rd ed. vol. iii. p. 132 note 21. Dindorf’s note to Clem. Protr. l.c.

4. A long piece attributed to Orpheus is extant in two different recensions which materially differ from each other. The shortest is that in the two pseudo-Justinian works de monarchia and Cohort. ad graec. c. 15. The text is identical in both only that in De monarchia the two introductory verses are omitted. The Cohortatio also gives the text with an abbreviation in the midst (Cyrill. Alex. adv. Julian. ed. Spanheim p. 26). The contents of the piece (one-and-twenty verses in the Cohort.) turn upon the thought that there is but one God who made and still governs all things who is enthroned in supramundane glory in heaven invisible yet everywhere present. If further proof of the Jewish origin of these verses were needed it is clearly found in the thought borrowed from Isa. 66:1 that heaven is God’s throne and earth His footstool—

Οὗτος γὰρ χάλκειον ἐπʼ οὐρανὸν ἐστήρικται

Χρυσέῳ ἐνὶ θρόνῳ γαίης δʼ ἐπὶ ποσσὶ βέβηκε.

It is worthy of remark that the author lays stress on the notion that evil too is sent by God—

Οὗτος δʼ ἐξ ἀγαθοῖο κακὸν θνητοῖσι δίδωσι

Καὶ πόλεμον κρυόεντα καὶ ἄλγεα δακρυόεντα.

The whole instruction is addressed to Musaeus the son of Orpheus (to the latter according to Cohort. c. 15). According to Monarchia c. 2 it is contained in the “Testament of Orpheus” in which repenting of his former teaching of 360 gods he proclaimed the one true God (μαρτυρήσει δέ μοι καὶ Ὀρφεύς ὁ παρεισαγαγὼν τοὺς τριακοσίους ἑξήκοντα θεούς ἐν τῷ Διαθῆκαι ἐπιγραφομένῳ βιβλίῳ ὁπότε μετανοῶν ἐπὶ τούτῳ φαίνεται ἐξ ὧν γράφει). Comp. also Cohort. c. 15 and 36 and especially in Theophilus ad Autol. iii. 2: τί γὰρ ὠφέλησεν … Ὀρφέα οἱ τριακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα πέντε θεοί οὓς αὐτὸς ἐπὶ τέλει τοῦ βίου ἀθετεῖ ἐν ταῖς Διαθήκαις αὐτοῦ λέγων ἕνα εἶναι θεόν.

(b) A longer recension of the same Orphean fragment is given by Aristobulus in Euseb. Praep. evang. xiii. 12. 5. At its commencement it coincides on the whole with the before-named recension but adds considerably more towards the close especially a reference to the Chaldaean (Abraham) who alone attained to the true knowledge of God. The passage according to which God is also the inflicter of evil is here corrected into its opposite—

Αὐτὸς δʼ ἐξ ἀγαθῶν θνητοῖς κακὸν οὐκ ἐπιτέλλει

Ἀνθρώποις• αὐτῷ δὲ χάρις καὶ μῖσος ὀπηδεῖ

Καὶ πόλεμος καὶ λοιμὸς ἴδʼ ἄλγεα δακρυόεντα.

Aristobulus names as the source the poems of Orpheus κατὰ τὸν ἱερὸν λόγον (Euseb. Praep. xiii. 12. 4: ἔτι δὲ καὶ Ὀρφεὺς ἐν ποιήμασι τῶν κατὰ τὸν Ἱερὸν Λόγον αὐτῷ λεγομένων οὕτως ἐκτίθεται).

(c) The quotations in Clemens Alex. Protrept. vii. 74; Strom. v. 12. 78 and especially Strom. v. 14. 123–127 = Euseb. Praep. evang. xiii. 13. 50–54 ed. Gaisford represent a third recension. Theodoret Graecarum affectionum curatio ii. (Opp. ed. Schulze iv. 735 sq.) again draws from Clement. Clement gives the text only piecemeal and broken up into separate quotations. But taking all these together it is clearly seen that not only the whole portion given by Aristobulus but also considerably more was in his hands. Much as he agrees in the main with Aristobulus (especially in having the passage concerning the Chaldee) this only on the other hand makes the coincidences in many details with the pseudo-Justinian works the more striking. Clement also has in particular the passage concerning the infliction of evil by God in its original form like the pseudo-Justinian works (Strom. v. 14. 126 = Euseb. Praep. xiii. 13. 53). On the work of Orpheus from which the passage is taken Clement agrees with the others in saying that Orpheus “after teaching the orgies and the theology of idols made a recantation conformable with truth by singing though late the truly holy doctrine” (Protrept. vii. 74: Ὀρφεὺς μετὰ τὴν τῶν ὀρλίων ἱεροφαντίαν καὶ τῶν εἰδώλων τὴν θεολογίαν παλινῳδίαν ἀληθείας εἰσάγει τὸν ἱερὸν ὄντως ὀψέ ποτε ὅμως δʼ οὖν ᾄδων λόγον).

On the relation of the three recensions to each other Lobeck (Aglaophamus i. 438 sqq.) has brought forward the view that the recension of the Justinian works is the oldest that of Clemens a more recent and that of Aristobulus the most recent the latter being of a date subsequent to Clemens Alexandrinus (i. 448: dementis certe temporibus posteriorem). There is however no constraining reason for the last notion. We have ourselves acknowledged that the text of Aristobulus is in one point secondary in comparison with the other two. That is not however saying that it is so in every respect. It may be regarded as certain that none of the three recensions is directly the source of the others. Nor can the short portion in the Justinian works be the archetype for it is evidently only a fragment from a larger copy probably with abbreviations in the text. The three recensions will thus fall back upon a common source which has afterwards been subjected to manifold variations. And this source may very well have been the pseudo-Hecataeus. In any case this Orphean passage is one of the boldest forgeries ever attempted. It is a supposed legacy of Orpheus to his son Musaeus in which having arrived at the close of his life he expressly recalls all his other poems which are dedicated to polytheistic doctrines and proclaims the alone true God. According to Suidas (Lex. s.v. Ὀρφεύς) there were ἱεροὺς λόγους ἐν ῥαψωδίαις κδʹ of Orpheus. This legacy to speak with Clement was to be his true ἱερὸς λόγος. Comp. on this Jewish piece: Gottfr. Hermann Orphica pp. 447–453 (the text). Valckenaer De Aristobulo pp. 11–16. 73–85. Lobeck Aglaophamus i. 438–465 (the most thorough investigation). Gfrörer Philo ii. 74 sqq. Dähne Geschichtliche Darstellung der jüd.-alex. Religionsphilosophie ii. 89–94 225–228. Abel Orphica pp. 144–148 (the text). On Orpheus and the Orphean literature in general: Fabricius Biblioth. graec. ed. Harles i. 140–181. Gottfr. Hermann Orphica Lips. 1805 (collection of the text and fragments). Lobeck Aglaophamus sive de theologiae mysticae Graecorum causis 2 vols. Regim. Pr. 1829 (chief work). Klausen art. “Orpheus” in Ersch and Gruber’s Allgem. Encyclopädie § 3 vol. vi. 1835 pp. 9–42. Preller art. “Orpheus” in Pauly’s Real-Enc. v. 992–1004. Bernhardy Grundriss der griech. Literatur ii. 1 3rd ed. 1867 pp. 408–441. Nicolai Griech. Literaturgesch. i. 445–447 iii. 330–335. Abel Orphica Lips. 1885 (texts and fragments). Still more literature in Engelmann’s Biblioth. script. class. ed. Preuss.

5. The next Jewish piece quoted in De monarchia is eleven verses of Sophocles on the future destruction of the world by fire and the different lots of the righteous and unrighteous (Ἔσται γάρ ἔσται κεῖνος αἰώνων χρόνος) De monarchia c. 3 (Otto’s Corp. apol. iii. 136). In Clemens Alex. Strom. v. 14 121–122 = Euseb. Pr. xiii. 13. 48 the same verses are cited as words of the τραγῳδία without naming Sophocles. In Clemens they are also divided into halves by the remark καὶ μετʼ ὀλίγα αὖθις ἐπιφέρει while pseudo-Justin combines the two halves into a whole. Clement does not give the verses on the different lots of the righteous and unrighteous in this connection but in the preceding fragment which he quotes from Diphilus where they are more suitable (Strom. v. 14. 121 = Euseb. Praep. viii. 13. 47). Böckh p. 149 sq. Nauck Tragicorum Graec. fragm. p. 285 sq.

6. Ten verses of the comic poet Philemon on the certain punishment of even hidden sins by the all-knowing and just God (Οἴει σὺ τοὺς θανόντας) and ten verses of Euripides on the same theme (Ἄφθονον βίου μῆκος) De monarchia c. 3 (Otto’s Corp. apolog. iii. 136–140). Part of the Euripidean verses is genuine the rest spurious (see Dindorf’s note to Clemens and Nauck). In Clemens Alex. Strom. v. 14. 121 = Euseb. Praep. xiii. 13. 47 both pieces are attributed to the comic poet Diphilus. Theodoret Graec. affect. curatio c. vi. (Opp. ed. Schulze iv. 854 sq.) also gives the text of Clemens in the extract. Valckenaer De Aristobulo pp. 1–8. Böckh pp. 158–160. Meineke Fragm. comicorum Graec. iv. 67. Nauck Tragic. Graec. fragm. p. 496 sq.

7. Twenty-four verses of Philemon on the theme that a moral life is more needful and of more value than sacrifice (Εἴ τις δὲ θυσίαν προσφέρων) De monarchia c. 4 (Otto’s Corp. apol. iii. 140 sq.). In Clemens Alex. Strom. v. 14. 119–120 = Euseb. Praep. ev. xiii. 13. 45–46 the same verses are attributed to Menander. Böckh p. 157 sq. thinks that the piece is based upon single genuine verses.

8. Among the other pieces cited from scenic poets in De monarchia and in Clement there are also a few more suspicious verses which are introduced in De monarchia c. 5. (Otto’s Corp. apol. iii. 150 sq.) by the formula Μένανδρος ἐν Διφίλῳ. In Clemens Strom. v. 14. 133 = Euseb. Praep. ev. xiii. 13. 62 they are ascribed to Diphilus. They summon to the worship of the one true God. Comp. Meineke Fragm. com. Graec. iv. 429 sq. Perhaps too the verses of Sophocles in Clem. Strom. v. 14. 111 = Euseb. Praep. xiii. 13. 38 in which Zeus is represented in a very unflattering light are also spurious. Comp. Nauck Tragic. Graec. fragm. p. 285. Dindorf’s note to Clemens.

9. Lastly in this connection must be noticed the verses on the Sabbath to which Aristobulus and Clement appeal Aristobulus in Euseb. Praep. ev. xiii. 12. 13–16. Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 14. 87 = Euseb. Praep. ev. xiii. 13. 34. They are—(a) two verses of Hesiod; (b) three verses of Homer; (c) five verses of Linus for whom Clement erroneously has Callimachus. The verses are a mixture of genuine and spurious. The divergences in the text between Clement and Aristobulus are but unimportant. Comp. Valckenaer De Aristobulo pp. 8 10 89–125. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael iii. 568. Schneider Callimachea vol. ii. Lips. 1873 p. 412 sq.

4. Hecataeus

Hecataeus of Abdera (not to be confounded with the far more ancient geographer Hecataeus of Miletus about 500 B.C.) was according to Josephus a contemporary of Alexander the Great and of Ptolemy Lagos (Joseph. c. Apion. 22: Ἑκαταῖος δὲ ὁ Ἀβδηρίτης ἀνὴρ φιλόσοφος ἅμα καὶ περὶ τὰς πράξεις ἱκανώτατος Αλεξάνδρῳ τῷ βασιλεῖ συνακμάσας καὶ Πτολεμαίῳ τῷ Λάγου συγγενόμενος). This statement is also confirmed by other testimony. According to Diogenes Laert. ix. 69 Hecataeus was a hearer of the philosopher Pyrrho a contemporary of Alexander. According to Diodor. Sic. i. 46 he made in the time of Ptolemy Lagos a journey to Thebes. He was a philosopher and historian and seems to have lived chiefly at the court of Ptolemy. A work on the Hyperboreans (Müller Fr. 1–6) a History of Egypt (Müller Fr. 7–13) and in Suidas’ Lex. s.v. Ἑκαταῖος a work περὶ τῆς ποιήσεως Ὁμήρου καὶ Ἡσιόδου of which no other trace is found are mentioned as his writings.

Under the name of this Hecataeus of Abdera there existed a book “on the Jews” or as it is also entitled “on Abraham” concerning which we have the following testimonies:—(1) Pseudo-Aristeas quotes Hecataeus as authority for the notion that profane Greek authors do not mention the Jewish law just because the doctrine held forth in it is a sacred one (Aristeas ed. Mor. Schmidt in Merx’ Archiv. i. 259 = Havercamp’s Josephus ii. 2. 107: διὸ πόρʼῥω γεγόνασιν οἵ τε συγγραφεῖς καὶ ποιηταὶ καὶ τὸ τῶν ἱστορικῶν πλῆθος τῆς ἐπιμνήσεως τῶν προειρημένων βιβλίων καὶ τῶν κατʼ αὐτὰ πεπολιτευμένων καὶ πολιτευομένων ἀνδρῶν διὰ τὸ ἁγνήν τινα καὶ σεμνὴν εἶναι τὴν ἐν αὐτοῖς θεωρίαν ὥς φησιν Ἑκαταῖος ὁ Ἀβδηρίτης. See the passage also in Euseb. Praep. ev. viii. 3. 3 and more freely rendered in Joseph. Antt. xii. 2. 3). (2) Josephus says that Hecataeus not only incidentally alluded to the Jews but also wrote a book concerning them (contra Apion. i. 22: οὐ παρέργως ἀλλὰ περὶ αὐτῶν Ἰουδαίων συγγέγραφε βιβλίον; comp. i. 23: βιβλίον ἔγραψε περὶ ἡμῶν). He then gives in the same passage (contra Apion. i. 22 = Bekker’s ed. vol. vi. pp. 202 1–205 22) long extracts from this work concerning the relations between the Jews and Ptolemy Lagos their fidelity to the law the organization of their priesthood and the arrangement of their temple; lastly a passage is given at the close in which Hecataeus relates an anecdote of which he was himself a witness at the Red Sea: a Jewish knight and archer who belonged to the expeditionary corps shot a bird dead whose flight the augur was anxiously observing and then derided those who were angry for their awe concerning a bird who did not even foreknow its own fate. Eusebius (Praep. ev. ix. 4) also gives single pieces from these extracts of Josephus. From the same source Josephus (contra Apion. ii. 4) gives the information that Alexander the Great bestowed upon the Jews the country of Samaria as a district exempt from taxation as a reward for their fidelity. While according to all this there can be no doubt that the book treated on the Jews in general Josephus tells us in another passage that Hecataeus not only mentions Abraham but also wrote a book concerning him (Antt. i. 7. 2 = Euseb. Praep. ev. ix. 16: μνημονεύει δὲ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἄβράμου Βηρωσσός … Ἑκαταῖος δὲ καὶ τοῦ μνησθῆναι πλέον τι πεποίηκε• βιβλίον γὰρ περὶ αὐτοῦ συνταξάμενος κατέλιπε). Is this identical with the work on the Jews? To the decision of this question the two following pieces of testimony mainly contribute. (3) According to Clemens Alexandrinus the spurious verses of Sophocles were contained in the work of Hecataeus on Abraham and others (Clem. Al. Strom. v. 14. 113 = Euseb. Praep. ev. xiii. 40: ὁ μὲν Σοφοκλῆς ὥς φησιν Ἑκαταῖος ὁ τὰς ἱστορίας συνταξάμενος ἐν τῷ κατʼ Ἄβραμον καὶ τοὺς Αἰγυπτίους ἄντικρυς ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς ἐκβοᾷ). (4) Origen says that Hecataeus in his work on the Jews was so strong a partisan for the Jewish people that Herenius Philo (beginning of the second century after Christ) at first doubted in his work on the Jews whether the work was indeed the production of Hecataeus the historian but afterwards said that if it were his Hecataeus had been carried away by Jewish powers of persuasion and had embraced their doctrines (Orig. contra Cels. i. 15: καὶ Ἑκαταίου δὲ τοῦ ἱστορικοῦ φέρεται περὶ Ἰουδαίων βιβλίον ἐν ᾧ προστίθεται μᾶλλόν πως ὡς σοφῷ τῷ ἔθνει ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ὡς καὶ Ἑρέννιον Φίλωνα ἐν τῷ περὶ Ἰουδαίων συγγράμματι πρῶτον μὲν ἀμφιβάλλειν εἰ τοῦ ἱστορικοῦ ἐστι τὸ σύγγραμμα• δεύτερον δὲ λέγειν ὅτι εἴπερ ἐστὶν αὐτοῦ εἰκὸς αὐτὸν συνηρπάσθαι ἀπὸ τῆς παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις πιθανότητος καὶ συγκατατεθεῖσθαι αὐτῶν τῷ λόγῳ). According to these testimonies of Clement and Origen there can be no doubt that the work “on the Jews” was as much forged by a Jew as that “on Abraham.” We cannot therefore conclude—as according to the extracts in Josephus we might feel inclined—that the work on the Jews is genuine and that on Abraham spurious. The two are on the contrary very probably identical and the different titles to be explained by the circumstance that the work was indeed entitled περὶ Ἀβράμου but dealt in fact περὶ Ἰουδαίων.

Certain however as is especially according to the information of Origen the spuriousness of the work “on the Jews” it is still probable that it is founded on genuine portions of Hecataeus. In the extracts of Josephus we already get a partial impression of genuineness. To this is to be added that Diodorus Siculus gives a long portion from Hecataeus on the Jews their origin religious rites political constitution manners and customs which from its whole tenor is certainly not derived from the pseudo-Jewish Hecataeus but from the real Hecataeus and indeed not as Diodorus mistakenly states from Hecataeus of Miletus but from Hecataeus of Abdera. It is thus probable that the latter in his Egyptian history went into details concerning the Jews and that the Jewish counterfeiter thence derived a portion of his material.

The scanty fragments are not sufficient to give us a clear idea of the design of the whole work. Since it dealt in the first instance with Abraham it is probable that the life and acts of that patriarch served as the point of departure for a general description and glorification of Judaism. In this the honourable history of the Jews (e.g. the favour shown them by Alexander the Great and Ptolemy Lagos) as well as the purity of their religious ideas were referred to. In the description of the latter the forged verses of the Greek poets would be inserted for the purpose of proving that the nobler Greeks also were quite in harmony with the views of Judaism (see the preceding section). The work seems to have been tolerably extensive and to have contained much genuine as well as spurious material from the Greek poets. It thus became a mine for subsequent Jewish and Christian apologists.

Its date of composition may be approximately determined. It is already cited by pseudo-Aristeas who flourished not later than about 200 B.C. (see the next section). Thus pseudo-Hecataeus would have lived in the third century before Christ.

The fragments of both the real and the spurious Hecataeus of Abdera are collected in Müller Fragmenta historicorum Graecorum ii. 384–396. Comp. in general: Hecataei Abderitae philosophi et historici Eclogae sive fragmenta integri olim libri de historia et antiquitatibus sacris veterum Ebraeorum graece et latine cum notis Jos. Scaligeri et commentario perpetuo P. Zornii Altona 1730. Eichhorn’s Allg. Bibliothek der bibl. Literatur v. 1793 pp. 431–443. Creuzer Historicorum graec. antiquiss. fragm. (Heidelb. 1806) pp. 28–38. Kanngiesser in Ersch and Gruber’s Allgem. Encykl. sec. ii. vol. v. (1829) p. 38 sq. Dähne Geschichtliche Darstellung der jüd.-alex. Religionsphilosophie ii. 216–219. Cruice De Flavii Josephi in auctoribus contra Apionem afferendis fide et auctoritate (Paris 1844) pp. 64–75. Vaillant De historicis qui ante Josephum Judaicas res scripsere (Paris 1851) pp. 59–71. Müller Fragm. hist. Graec. l.c. Creuzer Theol. Stud. und Krit. 1853 pp. 70–72. Klein Jahrbb. für class. Philol. vol. lxxxvii. 1863 p. 532. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel ii. 131 sqq. iv. 320 sq. Freudenthal Alexander Polyhistor pp. 165 sq. 178. J. G. Müller Des Flavius Josephus Schrift gegen den Apion (1877) p. 170 sqq.

5. Aristeas

The celebrated Epistle of Aristeas to Philocrates on the translation of the Jewish law into Greek also belongs to the class of writings under consideration. The legend related forms only the external frame of the statement. The whole is in truth a panegyric upon Jewish law Jewish wisdom and the Jewish name in general from the mouth of a heathen. The two individuals Aristeas and Philocrates are not known to history. Aristeas in the narrative gives himself out as an official of King Ptolemy II. Philadelphus and as held in high esteem by that monarch (ed. Mor. Schmidt in Merx’ Archiv. i. 261. 13–14 and 262. 8–10 = Havercamp’s Josephus ii. 2. 108). Philocrates was his brother (Merx’ Archiv i. 254. 10 275. 20–21 = Havercamp’s Josephus ii. 2. 104 115) an earnest-minded man eager for knowledge and desiring to appropriate all the means of culture which the age afforded. It is self-evident that both were not Jews (Aristeas says of the Jews 255. 34–256. 2: τὸν γὰρ πάντων ἐπόπτην καὶ κτίστην θεὸν οὗτοι σέβονται ὃν καὶ πάντες ἡμεῖς δὲ μάλιστα προσονομάζοντες ἑτέρως Ζῆνα καὶ Δία). Aristeas then relates to his brother Philocrates—and indeed as one who was both an eye-witness and assistant—the manner in which the translation of the Jewish law into Greek took place. The librarian Demetrius Phalereus called the attention of King Ptolemy II. Philadelphus (for it is he who is intended p. 255. 6 and 17) to the fact that the law of the Jews was yet lacking in his great library and that its translation into Greek was desirable for the sake of its incorporation in the royal collection of books. The king obeyed this suggestion and presently sent Andreas the captain of his body-guard and Aristeas to Jerusalem to Eleazar the Jewish high priest with rich presents and with the request that he would send him experienced men capable of undertaking this difficult task. Eleazar was ready to fulfil the king’s desire and sent him seventy-two Jewish scholars six from each of the twelve tribes. Aristeas then gives a full description of the splendid presents sent on the occasion by Ptolemy to Eleazar also a description of the town of Jerusalem of the Jewish temple the Jewish worship nay of the land all which he had himself seen on the occasion of this embassy. The whole description has evidently the tendency of glorifying the Jewish people with their excellent institutions and luxuriant prosperity. With the same purpose does Aristeas then communicate the purport of a conversation he had carried on with the high priest Eleazar concerning the Jewish law. Aristeas was by reason of this conversation so much persuaded of the excellency of the Jewish law that he held it necessary to explain to his brother Philocrates “its holiness and its naturalness (reasonableness)” (283. 12–13: τὴν σεμνότητα καὶ φυσικὴν διάνοιαν τοῦ νόμου προῆγμαι διασαφῆσαί σοι). Especially are the folly of idolatry and the reasonableness of the Jewish laws of purity thoroughly treated of. When the Jewish scholars arrived at Alexandria they were received with distinguished honours by the king and were for seven days invited day after day to the royal table. During these repasts the king continually addressed to the Jewish scholars in turn a multitude of questions on the most important matters of politics ethics philosophy and prudence which they answered so excellently that the king was full of admiration for the wisdom of these Jews. Aristeas himself too who was present at these repasts could not contain himself for astonishment at the enormous wisdom of these men who answered off-hand the most difficult questions which with others usually require long consideration. After these festivities a splendid dwelling upon the island of Pharos far from the tumult of the city was allotted to the seventy-two interpreters where they zealously set to work. Every day a portion of the translation was despatched in such wise that by a comparison of what each had independently written a harmonious common text was settled (306. 22–23: οἱ δʼ ἐπετέλουν ἕκαστα σύμφωνα ποιοῦντες πρὸς ἑαυτοὺς ταῖς ἀντιβολαῖς). The whole was in this manner completed in seventy-two days. When it was finished the translation was first read to the assembled Jews who acknowledged its accuracy with expressions of the highest praise. Then it was also read to the king who “was much astonished at the intelligence of the lawgiver” (308. 8–9: λίαν ἐξεθαύμασε τὴν τοῦ νομοθέτου διάνοιαν) and commanded that the books should be carefully preserved in his library. Lastly the seventy-two interpreters were dismissed to Judea and rich presents for themselves and the high priest bestowed upon them.

This survey of the contents shows that the object of the narrative is by no means that of relating the history in the abstract but the history so far as it shows what esteem and admiration were felt for the Jewish law and for Judaism in general by even heathen authorities such as King Ptolemy and his ambassador Aristeas. For the tendency of the whole culminates in the circumstance that praise was accorded to the Jewish law by heathen lips. The whole is therefore in the first place intended for heathen readers. They are to be shown what interest the learned Ptolemy the promoter of science felt in the Jewish law and with what admiration his highly placed official Aristeas spoke of it and of Judaism in general to his brother Philocrates. When then it is also remarked at the close that the accuracy of the translation was acknowledged by the Jews also this is not for the purpose of commending the translation to Jews who might still oppose it but to testify to the heathen that they had in the present translation an accurate version of the genuine Jewish law and it is they the heathen who are thus invited to read it.

No consensus concerning the date of this book has been arrived at by critics. It seems however tolerably certain to me that it originated not later than about 200 years before Christ. The legend that it was Demetrius Phalereus who suggested the whole undertaking to Ptolemy Philadelphus is unhistorical not only in its details but in the main point; for Demetrius Phalereus in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus no longer lived at court at Alexandria (see above p. 161). When then the Jewish philosopher Aristobulus designates just Demetrius Phalereus as the originator of the undertaking (in Euseb. Praep. evang. xiii. 12. 2 see the passage above p. 160) it is very probable that the book in question was already in his hands. Now Aristobulus lived in the time of Ptolemy Philometor about 170–150 B.C. and the result thus obtained is supported on internal grounds also. The period when the Jewish people were leading a peaceful and prosperous existence under the conduct of their high priest and in a relation of very slight dependence upon Egypt i.e. the period before the conquest of Palestine by the Seleucidae evidently forms the background of the narrative. There is nowhere any allusion to the complications and difficulties which begin with the Seleucidian conquest. The Jewish people and their high priest appear as almost politically independent. At all events it is to a time of peace and prosperity that we are transferred. Especially is it worthy of remark that the fortress of Jerusalem is in the possession of the Jews (Merx’ Archiv i. 272. 10 to 273. 4 = Havercamp’s Josephus ii. 2. 113). Whether this stood on the same spot as the one subsequently erected by Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Macc. 1:33) or not the author is in any case acquainted with only the one in the possession of the Jews. The fortress however erected by Antiochus remained in the possession of the Seleucidae till the time of the high priest Simon (142–141 B.C. 1 Macc. 13:49–52). Of this fact the author has evidently as yet no knowledge and as little of the subsequent princely position of the high priest; to him the high priest is simply the high priest and not also prince or indeed king. In every respect then it is the circumstances of the Ptolemaic age that are presupposed. If the author has only artificially reproduced them this is done with a certainty and a refinement which cannot be assumed in the case of a pseudonymous author living after it. Hence the opinion that the book originated not later than 200 B.C. is justified.

The legend of this book has been willingly accepted and frequently related by Jews and Christians. The first who betrays an acquaintance with it is Aristobulus in Euseb. Praep. evang. xiii. 12. 2. The next is Philo Vita Mosis lib. ii. § 5–7 (ed. Mangey ii. 138–141). Josephus reproduces Antt. xii. 2 a great portion of this composition almost verbally. Comp. also Antt. proem. 3 contra Apion. ii. 4 fin. In rabbinic literature also are found some echoes though quite confused ones of this legend. See Lightfoot Opp. ed. Roterod. ii. 934 sqq. Frankel Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta (1851) p. 25 sqq. Berliner Targum Onkelos (1884) ii. 76 sqq.

The passages of the Fathers and Byzantines are most conveniently found collected (with full verbal correctness) in Gallandi Bibliotheca veterum patrum vol. ii. (Venetiis 1788) pp. 805–824. The legend is here reproduced with various modifications especially the two following:—1. That the interpreters translated independently of each other and yet verbally coincided (the exact opposite of which is found in Aristeas viz. that agreement was only obtained by comparison). 2. That not only the law but the entire Holy Scriptures were translated by the seventy-two (in Aristeas only the former is dealt with). See on the various forms of the legend: Eichhorn’s Repertorium für bibl. und morgenländ. Literatur i. (1777) p. 266 sqq. xiv. (1784) p. 39 sqq. The passages given in Gallandi are the following: Justin. Apol. i. 31. Dial. c. Tryph. c. 71. Pseudo-Justin. Cohortatio ad Graec. c. 13. Irenaeus adv. haer. iii. 21. 2 (Greek in Euseb. Hist. eccl. v. 8. 11 sqq.). Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 22. 148 sq. Tertullian. Apologet. c. 18. Anatolius in Euseb. Hist. eccl. vii. 32. 16. Eusebius gives in his Praeparatio evangelica viii. 2–5 and 9 large portions of the book of Aristeas verbatim; comp. also viii. 1. 8 ix. 38. Chronic. ed. Schoene ii. 118 sq. (ad ann. Abrah. 1736). Cyrill. Hieros. cateches. iv. 34. Hilarius Pictav. prolog. ad librum psalmorum. The same tractat in psalmum ii. tractat in psalmum cxviii. Epiphanius De mensuris et ponderibus § 3 6 9–11 (fully and specially). Hieronymus Praefat. in version. Genes. (Opp. ed. Vallarsi ix. 3 sq.). The same Praefat. in librum quaestion. hebraic. (Vallarsi iii. 303). Augustinus De civitate dei xviii. 42–43. Chrysostomus Orat. i. adversus Judaeos. The same homil. iv. in Genes. Theodoret “praefat. in psalmos.” Pseudo-Athanasii Synopsis scripturae sacrae c. 77. Cosmas Indicopleustes Topograph. christ. lib. xii. Joannes Malala Chronogr. lib. viii. ed. Dindorf p. 196. Chronicon paschale ed. Dindorf i. 326. Georgius Syncellus ed. Dindorf i. 516–518. Georgius Cedrenus ed. Bekker i. 289 sq. Joannes Zonaras Annal. iv. 16 (after Joseph. Antt. xii. 2). The five last-named are contained in the Bonn Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae.

On the manuscripts of this book of Aristeas comp. Moriz Schmidt in Merx’ Archiv für wissenschaftliche Erforschung des alten Testamentes i. 244 sqq.; and especially Lumbroso Recherches sur l’économie politique de l’Egypte sous les Lagides (Turin 1870) p. 351 sqq. The latter specifies seven other manuscripts besides the two Parisian ones compared by Moriz Schmidt.

On the editions (and translations) see Fabricius Biblioth. graec. ed. Harles iii. 660 sqq. Rosenmüller Handbuch für die Literatur der bibl. Kritik und Exegese vol. ii. (1798) p. 344 sqq. Moriz Schmidt’s above-named work p. 241 sqq. Lumbroso’s above-named work p. 359 sqq. The editio princeps of the Greek text was issued by Oporinus in Basle 1561. The book has since been often reprinted in Havercamp’s edition of Josephus and elsewhere (ii. 2 pp. 103–132) and in Gallandi’s Bibliotheca patrum (ii. 773–804). Much however remains to be done for the establishment of a critical text. Moriz Schmidt has taken a first step towards it by his edition in Merx’ Archiv für wissenschaftl. Erforschung des alten Testamentes vol. i. (1869) pp. 241–312 for which two Parisian manuscripts were compared.

The older literature on Aristeas is specified by Rosenmüller as above ii. 387–411; also in Fürst Biblioth. Jud. i. 51–53. Comp. especially: Hody Contra historiam Aristeae de LXX. interpretibus dissertatio Oxon. 1685. The same De bibliorum textibus originalibus versionibus Graecis et Latina vulgata Oxon. 1705 (in this larger work the earlier dissertation is reprinted and enriched with notes). Van Dale Dissertatio super Aristea de LXX. interpretibus Amstelaed. 1705. Rosenmüller Handbuch für die Literatur der bibl. Kritik und Exegese vol. ii. (1798) pp. 358–386. Gfrörer Philo ii. 61–71. Dähne Geschichtliche Darstellung der jüdisch-alexandr. Rel.-Philosophie ii. 205–215. Zunz Die gottesdienstl. Vorträge der Juden p. 125. Herzfeld Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael i. 263 sq. iii. 545–547. Frankel Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1858 pp. 237–250 281–298. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel iv. 322 sqq. Hitzig Gesch. des Volkes Israel p. 338 sqq. Nöldeke Die alttestamentliche Literatur (1868) pp. 109–116. Cobet in Λόγιος Ἑρμῆς ἐκδ. ὑπὸ Κόντου vol. i. (Leyden 1866) pp. 171 sqq. 177–181. Kurz Aristeae epistula ad Philocratem Bern 1872 (comp. Literar. Centralbl. 1873 No. 4). Freudenthal Alexander Polyhistor pp. 110–112 124 sq. 141–143 149 sq. 162–165 203 sq. Grätz “Die Abfassungszeit des Pseudo-Aristeas” (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1876 pp. 289 sqq. 337 sqq.). Papageorgios Ueber den Aristeasbrief München 1880 (comp. Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1881 p. 380 sq.). Reuss Gesch. der heil. Schriften Alten Testaments (1881) § 515. The introductions to the Old Testament of Jahn Eichhorn Bertholdt Herbst Scholz Hävernicki De Wette-Schrader Bleek Keil Reusch Kaulen.

6. Phocylides

Phocylides of Miletus the old composer of apothegms lived (according to the statements in Suidas Lex. s.v. Φωκυλίδης and Euseb. Chron. ad Olymp. 60 ed. Schoene ii. 98) in the sixth century before Christ. Few of his genuine sayings have been preserved. He must however have been held as an authority in the department of moral poetry. For in the Hellenistic period a didactic poem (ποίημα νουθετικόν) was interpolated in his work by a Jew (or Christian?) giving in 230 hexameters moral instruction of the most diversified kind. Having frequently been used as a school-book in the Byzantine period it has been preserved in many manuscripts and often printed since the sixteenth century. The contents of these verses are almost exclusively ethical. It is but occasionally that we find the one true God and the future retribution also referred to. The moral doctrines which the author inculcates extend to the most various departments of practical life somewhat in the manner of Jesus the son of Sirach. In their details however they coincide most closely with the Old Testament especially with the Pentateuch echoes of which are heard throughout in the precepts on civil relations (property marriage pauperism etc.). Even such special precepts are found here as that which enjoins that when a bird’s nest is taken only the young ones must be kept but the mother let fly (Deut. 22:6 7 = Phocylides vers. 84–85) or that the flesh of animals killed by beasts of prey may not be eaten (Deut. 14:21; Ex. 22:30 = Phocylides vers. 139 147–148). There can thus be no doubt that the author was either a Jew or a Christian. The former is the prevailing opinion since the fundamental investigation of Bernays; Harnack has recently advocated the latter. Both views have their difficulties. For there is nothing in the work either specifically Jewish or specifically Christian. The author designedly ignores the Jewish ceremonial law and even the Sabbatic command which is more striking here than in the Sibyllines because the author in other respects enters into the details of the Mosaic law. On the other side there is no kind of reference to Christ nor above all to any religious interposition for salvation. It is just bare morality which is here preached. Hence a certain decision as to the Jewish or Christian origin of the poem is scarcely possible. The scale against the Christian origin of the poem seems to me especially turned by the fact that the author’s moral teaching coincides only with the Old Testament and not with the moral legislation of Christ as we have it in the synoptists. Of the latter there is in this poem as far as I can see no certain traces. And this is scarcely conceivable in a Christian author who means to preach morality. If at the same time there are still single expressions or propositions in the poem which betray a Christian hand (like θεοί ver. 104) they must be set to the account of the Christian tradition and how freely this dealt with the text is shown us by the portion which by some chance or other got into the collection of the Sibyllines (Sibyll. ii. 56–148 = Phocylides 5–79). The text as there presented diverges pretty much from that elsewhere handed down and plainly shows the hand of a Christian reviser.

If then this poem is of Jewish origin it is of especial interest just through its lack of anything specifically Jewish. The design of the author is first of all to labour only for Jewish morality. He has not even the courage to speak strongly against idolatry. The two fundamental religious notions of Judaism the unity of God and the future retribution are indeed to be found in him also and he indirectly advocates them. But he does it in so reticent a manner as to make it evident that morality occupies the first place in his regards. His Judaism is even paler than that of Philo.

For the date of composition no other limits can be laid down than those which are given for Judaeo-Hellenistic literature in general. It could not have appeared later than the first century after Christ and in all probability considerably earlier. It might seem strange that it is not cited by Christian apologists by a Clement or a Eusebius who use so much else of this kind. But the strangeness disappears as soon as we consider the object for which such quotations are made viz. in the first place to produce heathen testimony to the religious ideas of Christianity to the notions of the unity of God and the future retribution and these were not expressed in Phocylides as forcibly as could be desired.

The most careful monograph on this poem is Bernays Ueber das Phokylideische Gedicht ein Beitrag zur hellenistischen Litteratur Breslau 1856 (reprinted in Bernays Gesammelte Abhandlungen published by Usener 1885 vol. i. pp. 191–261). The text of the poem with critical apparatus is best given in Bergk Poetae lyrici Graeci vol. ii. (3rd ed. 1866) pp. 450–475 (the same pp. 445–449 also the fragment of the genuine Phocylides). Bernays as above gives the text according to his own recension. On the older editions especially in the collections of gnomic writers see Schier in his separate edition Lips. 1751. Fabricius-Harles Biblioth. graec. i. 704–749. Eckermann art. “Phokylides” in Ersch and Gruber’s Allgem. Encyklopädie § 3 vol. xxiv. (1848) p. 485. Fürst Biblioth. Judaica iii. 96 sqq. The separate edition: Phocylidis etc. carmina cum selectis adnotationibus aliquot doct. virorum Graece et Latine nunc denuo ad editiones praestantissimas rec. Schier Lips. 1751 must be brought forward. A German translation is given by Nickel Phokylides Mahngedicht in metrischer Uebersetzung Mainz 1833.

Comp. in general: Wachler De Pseudo-Phocylide Rinteln 1788. Rohde De veterum poetarum sapientia gnomica Hebraeorum imprimis et Graecorum Havn. 1800. Bleek Theol. Zeitschr. edited by Schleiermacher de Wette and Lücke i. 1819 p. 185 (in the article on the Sibyllines). Dähne Geschichtl. Darstellung der jüd.-alex. Religionsphilosophie ii. 222 sq. Eckermann art. “Phokylides” in Ersch and Gruber’s Allg. Encyklop. § 3 vol. xxiv. (1848) pp. 482–485. Teuffel in Pauly’s Real-Enc. v. 1551. Alexandre’s 1st ed. of the Oracula Sibyllina ii. 401–409. Bernhardy Grundriss der griechischen Litteratur ii. 1 (3rd ed. 1867) pp. 517–523. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel vi. 405 412. Freudenthal Die Flavius Josephus beigelegte Schrift über die Herrschaft der Vernunft (1869) p. 161 sqq. Leop. Schmidt’s notice of Bernays’ work in the Jahrbb. für class. Philol. vol. lxxv. (1857) pp. 510–519. Goram “De Pseudo-Phocylide” (Philologus vol. xiv. 1859 pp. 91–112). Hart “Die Pseudophokylideia und Theognis im codex Venetus Marcianus 522” (Jahrbb. für class. Philol. vol. xcvii. 1868 pp. 331–336). Bergk “Kritische Beiträge zu dem sog. Phokylides” (Philologus vol. xli. 1882 pp. 577–601). Sitzler “Zu den griechischen Elegikern” (Jahrbb. für class. Philol. vol. cxxix. 1884 p. 48 sqq.). Phocylides Poem of Admonition with introd. and commentaries by Feuling trans. by Goodwin Andover Mass. 1879. Still more literature in Fürst Biblioth. Judaica iii. 96 sqq.; and in Engelmann’s Bibliotheca scriptorum classicorum ed. Preuss.

7. Smaller Pieces Perhaps of Jewish Origin Under Heathen Names

1. Letters of Heraclitus?—Epistolography was a favourite kind of literature in the later times of antiquity. The letters of eminent rhetoricians and philosophers were collected as a means of general culture. Letters were composed and also feigned under the names of famous persons and generally for the purpose of furnishing entertaining and instructive reading. To the numerous species of the latter kind belong also nine supposed letters of Heraclitus to which Bernays has devoted very thorough research. In two of them the fourth and seventh he thinks he can recognise the hand of “a believer in Scripture” and indeed in such wise that the fourth is merely interpolated but the seventh entirely composed by such an one. In fact the austere polemic against the worship of images in the fourth letter sounds quite Jewish or Christian as does also the stern morality preached in the seventh in which especially the partaking of “live” flesh i.e flesh with the blood is denounced (τὰ ζῶντα κατεσθίετε; comp. on the Jewish and Christian prohibition Acts 15:29 and ). It must however as Bernays himself acknowledges remain a question whether this “believer in the Scriptures” was a Jew or a Christian.

Bernays Die heraklitischen Briefe ein Beitrag zur philosophischen und religionsgeschichtlichen Litteratur (Berlin 1869) pp. 26 sqq. 72 sqq. 110 sq. Bernays gives also the text of the letters with a German translation. The latest edition of the Epistolographi in general is Hercher Epistolographi Graeci recensuit etc. Paris Didot 1873. A separate edition of the letters of Heraclitus: Westermann Heracliti epist. quae feruntur Lips. 1857 (Universitäts-progr.). Comp. on the entire epistolographic literature Fabricius-Harles Biblioth. graec. i. 166–703. Nicolai Griechische Literaturgeschichte 2nd ed. ii. 2 (1877) p. 502 sqq.

2. A letter of Diogenes?—Among the fifty-one supposed letters of Diogenes Bernays thinks that one the twenty-eighth may be referred to the same source as the seventh of Heraclitus. In fact it contains a similar moral sermon to the latter.

Bernays Lucian und die Kyniker (Berlin 1879) pp. 96–98. See the text in all the editions of the Epistolographi e.g. in Hercher Epistolographi Graeci pp. 241–243.

3. Hermippus?—Hermippus Callimachius who lived under Ptolemy III. and IV. and therefore in the second half of the third century before Christ composed a large number of biographies of eminent persons. Among the pieces of information thence obtained two arrest our attention. According to Origen contra Cels. i. 15 it was said in the first book “on the lawgivers” that Pythagoras derived his philosophy from the Jews (Λέγεται δὲ καὶ Ἕρμιππον ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ περὶ νομοθετῶν ἱστορηκέναι Πυθαγόραν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φιλοσοφίαν ἀπὸ Ἰουδαίων εἰς Ἕλληνας ἀγαγεῖν). According to Josephus contra Apion. i. 22 a similar remark was contained in the first book “on Pythagoras.” The notice of Josephus is however much more particular and accurate than that of Origen. For according to Josephus Hermippus relates that Pythagoras taught “not to go over a place where an ass had sunk on his knees to abstain from turbid water and to avoid all slander and blasphemy” and on this Hermippus then remarked: “Pythagoras did and taught these things imitating and adopting the opinions of the Jews and Thracians” (ταῦτα δʼ ἔπραττε καὶ ἔλεγε τὰς Ἰουδαίων καὶ Θρᾳκῶν δόξας μιμούμενος καὶ μεταφέρων εἰς ἑαυτόν). Thus Hermippus did not denote the philosophy of Pythagoras as a whole but only those special doctrines as borrowed from the Jews. For the words which follow in Josephus: λέγεται γὰρ ὡς ἀληθῶς ὁ ἀνὴρ ἐκεῖνος πολλὰ τῶν παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις νομίμων εἰς τὴν αὑτοῦ μετενεγκεῖν φιλοσοφίαν are no longer the words of Hermippus but of Josephus. In the reference of Josephus the words of Hermippus contain nothing which he might not actually have written. It is otherwise with the reference of Origen. If this had been accurate we should have had to conclude that a Jew had interpolated the work of Hermippus. But Origen himself intimates that he had not seen the work of Hermippus; he says only: “Hermippus is said to have declared.” It is most probable that he is here relying solely on the passage of Josephus which he reproduces but incorrectly. Thus we have here not a Jewish forgery but only an inaccurate reference of Origen to authenticate.

C. Müller Fragm. hist. Graec. iii. 35–54 has admitted both passages among genuine fragments of Hermippus (Fr. 2 and 21). Comp. for and against their genuineness: Dähne Geschichtl. Darstellung der jüd.-alex. Religionsphilosophie ii. 219 sq. Kellner De fragmentis Manethonianis (1859) p. 42. Hilgenfeld Einl. in das N. T. p. 168 note. Freudenthal Alex. Polyh. pp. 178 192. J. G. Müller Des Flavius Josephus Schrift gegen den Apion (1877) p. 161 sqq.

4. Numenius?—The Pythagorean and Platonist Numenius (towards the end of the second century after Christ) as the genuine precursor of Neo-Platonism was acquainted with and after his fashion made use of the Jewish Scriptures nay of Jewish tradition (e.g. concerning Jannes and Jambres see above p. 149). Origen bears decided testimony to this when he says contra Cels. iv. 51 that he knows that Numenius quotes “in many passages of his works sayings of Moses and the prophets and convincingly explains them in an allegorical manner as e.g. in the so-called Epops in the books on numbers and in those on space” (ἐγὼ δʼ οἶδα καὶ Νουμήνιον … πολλαχοῦ τῶν συγγραμμάτων αὑτοῦ ἐκτιθέμενον τὰ Μωϋσέως καὶ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ οὐκ ἀπιθάνως αὐτὰ τροπολογοῦντα ὥσπερ ἐν τῷ καλουμένῳ Ἔποπι καὶ ἐν τοῖς “περὶ ἀριθμῶν” καὶ ἐν τοῖς “περὶ τόπου”). Comp. also Orig. c. Cels. i. 15; Zeller Philos d. Griechen iii. 2. 217 sq. We have no reason to mistrust this testimony. It is not however credible that Numenius should have used just this expression: τί γάρ ἐστι Πλάτων ἢ Μωυσῆς ἀττικίζων which Clemens Alex. and others attribute to him. If it really stood in a work of Numenius it would certainly have to be laid to the account of a Jewish editor. We see however the real state of affairs from Eusebius who only says that this saying is ascribed to Numenius viz. by oral tradition. The saying then is not a Jewish forgery but only an exaggeration due to oral tradition of the real view of Numenius.

Comp. on this question: Freudenthal Alex. Polyhistor p. 173 note. On Numenius in general: Zeller Die Philosophie der Griechen iii. 2 (3rd ed. 1881) pp. 216–223.

5. Hermes Trismegistus?—The god Hermes and that as Trismegistus was first represented as an author by the Egyptians. According to Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. 4. 37 there were forty-two books of Hermes thirty-six of which contained the entire philosophy of the Egyptians the other six were devoted to medicine. Tertullian de anima c. 2 and 33 is already acquainted with books of Mercurius Aegyptius which taught a Platonizing psychology. From the latter circumstance it is seen that the later Platonists especially had already taken possession of this pseudonym. Thus then the works of Hermes which have come down to us are of Neo-Platonic origin. They are first cited by Lactantius and were probably of the third century after Christ. Their position with respect to the heathen popular religions is a thoroughly positive one. “Just the defence of national and particularly of Egyptian religion is one of their chief objects” (Zeller iii. 2. 234 sq.). But all the pieces are not the work of one author nor are they even all of heathen origin. Neither can the co-operation of Jewish hands in the production of this literature be proved. On the contrary what is not of heathen seems to be of Christian origin (c. 1 and 13 of the so-called Poemander).

Comp. on this whole literature: Fabricius-Harles Biblioth. graec. i. 46–94. Bähr in Pauly’s Real-Enc. iii. 1209–1214. Ueberweg Grundriss der Gesch. der Philosophie i. (4th ed. 1871) p. 256. Erdmann Grundriss der Gesch. der Philos. 3rd ed. 1878 vol. i. pp. 179–182. Zeller Die Philosophie der Griechen iii. 2 (3rd ed. 1881) pp. 224–235. Erdmann and Zeller did not enter into a thorough description of the Hermes works till the more recent editions of their works as cited above.

Mangey’s edition of the works of Philo the Prolegomena and especially the notes prefixed to the several works.

Fabricius Bibiotheca graeca ed. Harles vol. iv. (1795) pp. 721–750.

Scheffer Quaestionum Philonianarum part. I. sive de ingenio moribusque Judaeorum per Ptolemaeorum saecula Marburgi 1829. Idem De usu Philonis in interpretatione Novi Testamenti Marburgi 1831.

Gfrörer Philo und die alexandrinische Theosophie vol. i. (1831) pp. 1–113.

Creuzer “Zur Kritik der Schriften des Juden Philo” (Theol. Stud. und Krit. 1832 pp. 3–43).

Dähne “Einige Bemerkungen über die Schriften des Juden Philo” (Theol. Stud. und Krit. 1833 pp. 984–1040). Idem art. “Philon” in Ersch and Gruber’s Allg. Encyklopädie § 3 vol. xxiii. (1847) pp. 435–454.

Grossman De Philonis Judaei operum continua serie et ordine chronologico Comment. Pts. i. ii. Lips. 1841–1842.

Steinhart art. “Philo” in Pauly’s Real-Enc. der class. Alterthumswissensch. vol. v. (1848) p. 1499 sq.

J. G. Müller art. “Philo” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1st ed. xi. (1859) pp. 578–603. Idem Ueber die Texteskritik der Schriften des Juden Philo Basel 1839 (printed in J. G. Müller Des Juden Philo Buch von der Weltschöpfung 1841 pp. 17–45).

Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel 3rd ed. vol. vi. (1868) pp. 257–312.

Ueberweg Grundriss der Gesch. der Philosophie 4th ed. i. (1871) pp. 240–249.

Hausrath Neutestamentliche Zeitgesch. 2nd ed. vol. ii. (1875) pp. 131–182

Delaunay Philon d’ Alexandrie écrits historiques influence luttes et persécutions des juifs dans le monde romain 2nd ed. Paris 1870.

Treitel De Philonis Judaei sermone Bresl. 1872 (30 pp.).

Siegfried Die hebräischen Worterklärungen des Philo und die Spuren ihrer Einwirkung auf die Kirchenväter (37 pp. gr. 4) 1863. Idem “Philonische Studien” (Merx’s Archiv für Erforschung des A. T. ii. 2 1872 pp. 143–163). Idem “Philo und der überlieferte Text der LXX.” (Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1873 pp. 217 sqq. 411 sqq. 522 sqq.). Idem Zur Kritik der Schriften Philo’s (Ebendas. 1874 p. 562 sqq.)

Siegfried Philo von Alexandria als Ausleger des Alten Testaments an sich selbst und nach seinem geschichtlichen Einfluss betrachtet. Nebst Untersuchungen über die Gräcität Philo’s Jena 1875.

Nicolai Griechische Literaturgeschichte 2nd ed. ii. 2 (1877) pp. 653–659.

Grätz Gesch. der Juden vol. iii. (3rd ed. 1878) pp. 678–683.

Bernh. Ritter Philo und die Halacha eine vergleichende Studie Leipzig 1879.

Reuss Geschichte der heil. Schriften Alten Testaments (1881) § 566–568.

Hamburger Real-Enc. für Bibel und Talmud vol. ii. (1883) arts. “Philo” and “Religionsphilosophie.”

Zöckler art. “Philo” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. xi. (1883) pp. 636–649.

Among Jewish Hellenists none other besides Josephus takes so eminent a position as Philo the Alexandrian. Even by reason of the extent of his works which have been handed down he is one of the most important to us. Of no other can we form even approximately so clear a picture of his thoughts and literary and philosophic labours. But he is also in himself evidently the most illustrious among all those who strove to unite Jewish belief with Hellenic culture to be the means of imparting to Jews the cultivation of the Greeks and to Greeks the religious knowledge of the Jews. No other Jewish Hellenist was so fully saturated with the wisdom of the Greeks; no other enjoyed equal consideration in history. This is testified by the immense influence which he exercised upon after times and above all upon Christian theology the inheritor of the Judaeo-Hellenistic.

We have but a few scanty notices concerning his life. The assertion of Jerome that he was of priestly race has no support from older sources nor does Eusebius know anything of it. According to Josephus he was a brother of the Alabarch Alexander and consequently a member of one of the most aristocratic families of Alexandrian Jews. The sole event in his life which can be chronologically fixed is his participation in the embassy to Caligula in A.D. 40 of which he has himself furnished an account in the work De Legatione ad Cajum. As he was then of advanced age he may have been born about the year 20–10 B.C. The Christian legend that he met St. Peter at Rome in the reign of Claudius is of no historical value.

Much has been lost of Philo’s numerous works. But thanks to his being a favourite with the Fathers and Christian theologians the bulk of them has been preserved. Of the collective editions that of Mangey is notwithstanding its deficiencies the most valuable. Among recent contributions the works of Philo preserved only in Armenian published by Aucher are by far the most important. Greek portions of greater or less extent were given by Mai Grosamann and Tischendorf. Pitra has communicated material of various kinds from manuscripts. In the more recent hand editions these publications have been at least partially turned to account. A satisfactory collective edition is however as yet wanting. That planned long since by Grossmann has not been carried into execution. For a new edition a careful investigation also of the material offered by the as yet un-printed Florilegia (collections of extracts from the Fathers and more ancient authors) would be necessary.

A tolerably complete catalogue of Philo’s works is already given by Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History. Unfortunately however it is in such disorder as to afford no foothold for the correct classification of the works. In this respect we are almost exclusively referred to the contents of the works themselves a careful consideration of which evidently shows that they by no means form so unconnected a mass as appears from the titles in the editions. The great majority are on the contrary only sub-divisions of some few large works. And indeed as especially Ewald has correctly perceived three chief works on the Pentateuch may be distinguished which alone embrace more than three-quarters of what has come down to us as Philo’s.

I. The Ζητήματα καὶ λύσεις Quaestiones et solutiones which first became more widely known through the publications of Aucher from the Armenian are a comparatively brief catechetical explanation of the Pentateuch in the form of questions and answers. It is not easy to ascertain how far they extended. In the time of Eusebius they were extant for only Genesis and Exodus (H. E. ii. 18. 1 and 5) and such other traces as may be regarded as certain extend only to these two books. The explanation of Genesis comprised probably six books at all events only so much can be certainly pointed out from the quotations. The explanation of Exodus comprised according to the testimony of Eusebius (H. E. ii. 18. 5) and Jerome five books. Of these are preserved (1) in the Armenian tongue about the half of these eleven books viz. four on Genesis (incomplete) and two on Exodus (also imperfect); and (2) a large fragment (comprising about half of the fourth book on Genesis) in an old Latin translation which was repeatedly printed in the beginning of the sixteenth century but entirely ignored by the publishers of the Greek works. Lastly (3) in Greek numerous small fragments still awaiting collection. By the help of the Armenian text it is now settled that many passages have been taken almost verbally from this work without mention of Philo’s name by the Fathers and especially by Ambrose. The composition of these Quaestiones et solutiones is in some parts of earlier in other of later date than that of the large allegorical commentary as is shown by the allusions to each other in both works.

II. While this shorter explanation in a catechetical form was intended for more extensive circles Philo’s special and chief scientific work is his large allegorical commentary on Genesis Νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίαι (such is the title given it in Euseb. Hist. eccl. ii. 18. 1 and Photius Bibliotheca cod. 103. Comp. also Origen Comment. in Matth. vol. xvii. c. 17; contra Celsum iv. 51). These two works frequently approximate each other as to their contents. For in the Quaestiones et solutiones also the deeper allegorical signification is given as well as the literal meaning. In the great allegorical commentary on the contrary the allegorical interpretation exclusively prevails. The deeper allegorical sense of the sacred letter is settled in extensive and prolix discussion which by reason of the copious adducting of parallel passages often seems to wander from the text. Thus the entire exegetic method with its dragging in of the most heterogeneous passages in elucidation of the idea supposed to exist in the text forcibly recalls the method of Rabbinical Midrash. This allegorical interpretation however has with all its arbitrariness its rules and laws the allegorical meaning as once settled for certain persons objects and events being afterwards adhered to with tolerable consistency. Especially is it a fundamental thought from which the exposition is everywhere deduced that the history of mankind as related in Genesis is in reality nothing else than a system of psychology and ethic. The different individuals who here make their appearance denote the different states of soul (τρόποι τῆς ψυχῆς) which occur among men. To analyse these in their variety and their relations both to each other and to the Deity and the world of sense and thence to deduce moral doctrines is the special aim of this great allegorical commentary. Thus we perceive at the same time that Philo’s chief interest is not—as might from the whole plan of his system be supposed—speculative theology for its own sake but on the contrary psychology and ethic. To judge from his ultimate purpose he is not a speculative theologian but a psychologist and moralist (comp. note 183).

The commentary at first follows the text of Genesis verse by verse. Afterwards single sections are selected and some of them so fully treated as to grow into regular monographs. Thus e.g. Philo takes occasion from the history of Noah to write two books on drunkenness (περὶ μέθης) which he does with such thoroughness that a collection of the opinions of other philosophers on this subject filled the first of these lost books (Mangey i. 357).

The work as we have it begins at Gen. 2:1: Καὶ ἐτελέσθησαν οἱ οὐρανοὶ καὶ ἡ γῆ. The creation of the world is therefore not treated of. For the composition De opificio mundi which precedes it in our editions is a work of an entirely different character being no allegorical commentary on the history of the creation but a statement of that history itself. Nor does the first book of the Legum allegorias by any means join on to the work De opificio mundi; for the former begins at Gen. 2:1 while in De opif. mundi the creation of man also according to Gen. 2 is already dealt with. Hence—as Gfrörer rightly asserts in answer to Dähne—the allegorical commentary cannot be combined with De opif. mundi as though the two were but parts of the same work. At most may the question be raised whether Philo did not also write an allegorical commentary on Gen. 1. This is however improbable. For the allegorical commentary proposes to treat of the history of mankind and this does not begin till Gen. 2:1. Nor need the abrupt commencement of Leg. alleg. i. seem strange since this manner of starting at once with the text to be expounded quite corresponds with the method of Rabbinical Midrash. The later books too of Philo’s own commentary begin in fact in the same abrupt manner. In our manuscripts and editions only the first books bear the title belonging to the whole work Νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίαι. All the later books have special titles a circumstance which gives the appearance of their being independent works. In truth however all that is contained in Mangey’s first vol.—viz. the works which here follow—belongs to the book in question (with the sole exception of De opificio mundi).

1. Νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίαι πρῶται τῶν μετὰ τὴν ἑξαήμερον. Legum allegoriarum liber i. (Mangey i. 43–65). On Gen. 2:1–17.—Νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίαι δεύτεραι τῶν μετὰ τὴν ἑξαήμερον. Legum allegoriarum liber ii. (Mangey i. 66–86). On Gen. 2:18–3:1.—Νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίαι τρίται τῶν μετὰ τὴν ἑξαήμερον. Legum allegoriarum liber iii. (Mangey i. 87–137). On Gen. 3:8–19.—The titles here given of the first three books as customary in the editions since Mangey require an important correction. Even the different extent of Books i. and ii. leads us to conjecture that they may properly be but one book. In fact Mangey remarks at the commencement of the third book (i. 87 note): in omnibus codicibus opusculum hoc inscribitur ἀλληγορία δευτέρα. Thus we have in fact but two books. There is however a gap between the two the commentary on Gen. 3:1–8 being absent. The commentary too on Gen. 3:20–23 is wanting for the following book begins with Gen. 3:24. As Philo in these first books follows the text step by step it must be assumed that each of the two pieces was worked up into a book by itself and this is even certain with respect to the second. Hence the original condition was very probably as follows: Book i. on Gen. 2:1–3 1 Book ii. on Gen. 3:1–3 8 Book iii. on Gen. 3:8–19 Book iv. on Gen. 3:20–23. With this coincides the fact that in the so-called Johannes Monachus ineditus the commentary on Gen. 3:8–19 is indeed more often quoted as τὸ γʹ τῆς τῶν νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίας (Mangey i. 87 note). When on the other hand the same book is entitled in the MSS. ἀλληγορία δευτέρα this must certainly be explained as showing that the actual second book was already missing in the archetype of these manuscripts.

2. Περὶ τῶν Χερουβὶμ καὶ τῆς φλογίνης ῥομφαίας καὶ τοῦ κτισθέντος πρώτου ἐξ ἀνθρώπου Κάϊν. De Cherubim et flammeo gladio (Mangey i. 138–162). On Gen. 3:24 and 4:1. From this point onwards the several books have been handed down no longer under the general title νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίαι but under special titles. According to our conjecture as above this book would be the fifth unless it formed the fourth together with the commentary on Gen. 3:20–23.

3. Περὶ ὧν ἱερουργοῦσιν Ἄβελ τε καὶ Κάϊν. De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini (Mangey i. 163–190). On Gen. 4:2–4. In the codex Vaticanus the title runs: Περὶ γενέσεως Ἄβελ καὶ ὧν αὐτὸς καὶ ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ Κάϊν ἱερουργοῦσιν. Frequently quoted in Johannes Monachus ineditus with the formula Ἐκ τοῦ περὶ γενέσεως Ἄβελ (see Mangey i. 163 note). Also in the Florilegium of the codex Coislinianus. The missing commentary on Gen. 4:5–7 would have formed either the conclusion of this book or a separate book.

4. Περὶ τοῦ τὸ χεῖρον τῷ κρείττονι φιλεῖν ἐπιτίθεσθαι. Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat (Mangey i. 191–225). On Gen. 4:8–15. The book is already quoted by Origen under this special title (Comm. in Matth. vol. xv. c. 3). Eusebius mistakenly quotes under the same title several passages belonging to De confusione linguarum (Praep. Ev. xi. 15). In the Florilegium of Leontius and Johannes several passages are cited from our book with the formula ἐκ τοῦ ζ καὶ η τῆς νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίας. Also in Johannes Monachus ineditus (Mangey i. 191 note). The unusual formula ἐκ τοῦ ζ καὶ η must surely mean that the seventh book was according to another computation also called the eighth (ἐκ τοῦ ζ τοῦ καὶ η would thus be the more accurate). This book then is according to the usual numbering the seventh but was in consequence of De opificio mundi being placed first also called the eighth.

5. Περὶ τῶν τοῦ δοκησισόφου Κάϊν ἐγγόνων καὶ ὡς μετανάστης γίνεται. De posteritate Caini sibi visi sapientis et quo pacto sedem mutat (Mangey i. 226–261). On Gen. 4:16–25. This book was first published by Mangey from the cod. Vat. 381. Much more correctly from the same manuscript by Tischendorf Philonea pp. 84–143. Holwerda gave emendations in 1884 (see note 1 above). This book is in like manner as the former quoted with the formula ἐκ τοῦ η καὶ θ τῆς νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίας in Leontius and Johannes in the Florilegium of the codex Coislinianus and in Johannes Monachus ineditus (Mangey i. 226 note).

Of these hooks none is mentioned by its special title in the catalogue of Eusebius Hist. eccl. ii. 18 while all that follow are quoted under these titles evidently because Eusebius considers the former to be included and the latter not included in the joint title νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίαι. To this must be added that in the Florilegia also the quotations under the general title extend exactly thus far. It is therefore highly probable that Philo issued the following looks only under the special titles. Nay it is also evident why this was done viz. because from this point onwards the uninterrupted text was no longer commented on but only selected passages. The exegetic method is however quite the same in the following books.

6. Περὶ γιγάντων. De gigantibus (Mangey i. 262–272). On Gen. 6:1–4.—Ὅτι ἄτρεπτον τὸ θεῖον. Quod deus sit immutabilis (Mangey i. 272–299). On Gen. 6:4–12. These two paragraphs which are in our editions separated form together but one book. Hence Johannes Monachus ineditus cites passages from the latter paragraph with the formula ἐκ τοῦ περὶ γιγάντων (Mangey i. 262 note 272 note). Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 4: περὶ γιγάντων ἢ [elsewhere καὶ] περὶ τοῦ μὴ τρέπεσθαι τὸ θεῖον.

7. Περὶ γεωργίας. De agricultura (Mangey i. 300–328). On Gen. 9:20.—Περὶ φυτουργίας Νῶε τὸ δεύτερον. De plantatione Noe (Mangey i. 329–356). On Gen. 9:20. The common title of these two books is properly περὶ γεωργίας. Comp. Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 2: περὶ γεωργίας δύο. Hieronymus De vir. illustr. 11: de agricultura duo. Euseb. Praep. Evang. vii. 13. 3 (ed. Gaisford): ἐν τῷ περὶ γεωργίας προτέρῳ. Ibid. vii. 13. 4: ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ.

8. Περὶ μέθης. De ebrietate (Mangey i. 357–391). On Gen. 9:21. From the beginning of this book it is evident that another book preceded it in which τὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις φιλοσόφοις εἰρημένα περὶ μέθης were stated. This first book is lost but was still extant in the time of Eusebius Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 2: περὶ μέθης τοσαῦτα (viz. two). Hieronymus vir. illustr. 11: de ebrietate duo. They seem to have been in the hands of Johannes Monachus ineditus in the reverse order. For what he quotes with the formula ἐκ τοῦ περὶ μέθης αʹ is found in that which has come down to us; while what he cites with the formula ἐκ τοῦ περὶ μέθης δευτέρου λόγου is not found in it (Mangey i. 357 note).

9. Περὶ τοῦ ἐξένηψε Νῶε. De sobrietate (Mangey i. 392–403). On Gen. 9:24.—In the best manuscripts (Vaticanus and Mediceus) the title runs: περὶ ὧν ἀνανήψας ὁ νοῦς εὔχεται καὶ καταρᾶται (Mangey i. 392 note). Almost exactly the same Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 2: περὶ ὧν νήψας ὁ νοῦς εὔχεται καὶ καταρᾶται. Hieronymus vir. illustr. 11: de his quae sensu precamur et detestamur.

10. Περὶ συγχύσεως διαλέκτων. De confusione linguarum (Mangey i. 404–435). On Gen. 11:1–9.—The same title also in Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 2. In the Praep. evang. xi. 15 Eusebius quotes several passages from it with the mistaken statement that they are from: Περὶ τοῦ τὸ χεῖρον τῷ κρείττονι φιλεῖν ἐπιτίθεσθαι.

11. Περὶ ἀποικίας. De migratione Abrahami (Mangey i. 436–472). On Gen. 12:1–6.—The same title also in Eusebius H. E. ii. 18. 4.

12. Περὶ τοῦ τίς ὁ τῶν θείων πραγμάτων κληρονόμος. Quis rerum divinarum haeres sit (Mangey i. 437–518). On Gen. 15:1–18.—Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 2: περὶ τοῦ τίς ὁ τῶν θείων ἐστὶ κληρονόμος ἢ περὶ τῆς εἰς τὰ ἴσα καὶ ἐναντία τομῆς. Hieronymus vir. illustr. 11 makes from this double title the two works: De haerede divinarum rerum liber unus De divisione aequalium et contrariorum liber. Suidas Lex. s.v. Φίλων also follows him. Johannes Monachus ineditus quotes this book with the formula ἐκ τοῦ τίς ὁ τῶν θείων κληρονόμος (Mangey i. 473 note). When he likewise quotes it with the formula ἐκ τοῦ περὶ κοσμοποιΐας (Mangey l.c.) we must not conclude from this that the latter was a general title which was applied to this book as well as others for we have here simply an error in quotation. In the commencement of this book a former composition is referred to in the words: Ἐν μὲν τῇ πρὸ ταύτης βίβλῳ περὶ μισθῶν ὡς ἐνῆν ἐπʼ ἀκριβείας διεξήλθομεν. This composition is not lost as Mangey supposed (see his note on the passage) but is the book περὶ ἀποικίας which in fact treats περὶ μισθῶν. We see at the same time that Gen. 13–14 was not commented on by Philo.

13. Περὶ τῆς εἰς τὰ προπαιδεύματα συνόδου. De congressu quaerendae eruditionis causa (Mangey i. 519–545). On Gen. 16:1–6.—In Eusebius H. E. ii. 18. 2 the title runs: περὶ τῆς πρὸς τὰ παιδεύματα συνόδου. But the προπαιδεύματα which has come down in the Philo-manuscripts is preferable for the fact that Abraham cohabited with Hagar before he had issue by Sarah means according to Philo that we must become acquainted with propaideutic knowledge before we can rise to the higher wisdom and obtain its fruit namely virtue. Comp. also Philo’s own allusion in the beginning of the following book (de profugis): Εἰρηκότες ἐν τῷ προτέρῳ τὰ πρέποντα περὶ τῶν προπαιδευμάτων καὶ περὶ κακώσεως κ.τ.λ.

14. Περὶ φυγάδων. De profugis (Mangey i. 546–577). On Gen. 16:6–14.—Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 2: περὶ φυγῆς καὶ εὑρέσεως. And exactly so Johannes Monachus ineditus: ἐκ τοῦ περὶ φυγῆς καὶ εὑρέσεως (Mangey i. 546 note). This is without doubt the correct title. For the work deals with the flight and refinding of Hagar.

15. Περὶ τῶν μετονομαζομένων καὶ ὧν ἕνεκα μετονομάζονται. De mutatione nominum (Mangey i. 578–619). On Gen. 17:1–22.—The same title in Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 3. Johannes Monachus ineditus quotes under this title much that is not found in this book nor in any of the preserved works of Philo (Mangey i. 578 note). In this book Philo alludes to a lost work: Τὸν δὲ περὶ διαθηκῶν σύμπαντα λόγον ἐν δυσὶν ἀναγέγραφα πράξεσι which was no longer extant in the time of Eusebius (comp. H. E. ii. 18. 3).

16. Περὶ τοῦ θεοπέμπτους εἶναι τοὺς ὀνείρους. De somniis lib. i. (Mangey i. 620–658). On Gen. 28:12 sqq. and 31:11 sqq. (the two dreams of Jacob).—Lib. ii. of the same work (Mangey i. 659–699). On Gen. 37 and 40–41 (the dreams of Joseph and of Pharaoh’s chief butler and baker).—According to Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 4 and Hieronymus vir. illustr. 11 Philo wrote five books on dreams. Thus three are lost. Those that have come down to us seem to judge from their openings to be the second and third. In any case our first was preceded by another which probably treated on the dream of Abimelech Gen. 20:3. Origenes contra Celsum vi. 21 fin. already mentions the paragraph on Jacob’s ladder Gen. 28:12 (contained in the first of the preserved books).

III. The third chief group of Philo’s works on the Pentateuch is a Delineation of the Mosaic Legislation for non-Jews. In this whole group indeed the allegorical explanation is still occasionally employed. In the main however we have here actual historical delineations a systematic statement of the great legislative work of Moses the contents excellence and importance of which the author desires to make evident to non-Jewish readers and indeed to as large a circle of them as possible. For the delineation is more a popular one while the large allegorical commentary is an esoteric and according to Philo’s notions a strictly scientific work. The contents of the several compositions forming this group differ indeed considerably and are apparently independent of each other. Their connection however and consequently the composition of the whole work cannot according to Philo’s own intimations be doubtful. As to plan it is divided into three parts. (a) The beginning and as it were the introduction to the whole is formed by a description of the creation of the world (κοσμοποιΐα) which is placed first by Moses for the purpose of showing that his legislation and its precepts are in conformity with the will of nature (πρὸς τὸ βούλημα τῆς φύσεως) and that consequently he who obeys it is truly a citizen of the world (κοσμοπολίτης) (de mundi opif. § 1). This introduction is next followed by (b) biographies of virtuous men. These are as it were the living unwritten laws (ἔμψυχοι καὶ λογικοὶ νόμοι de Abrahamo § 1 νόμοι ἄγραφοι de decalogo § 1) which represent in distinction from the written and specific commands universal moral norms (τοὺς καθολικωτέρους καὶ ὡσὰν ἀρχετύπους νόμους de Abrahamo § 1). Lastly the third part embraces (c) the delineation of the legislation proper which is divided into two parts: (1) that of the ten chief commandments of the law and (2) that of the special laws belonging to each of these ten commandments Then follow by way of appendix a few treatises on certain cardinal virtues and on the rewards of the good and the punishments of the wicked. This survey of the contents shows at once that it was Philo’s intention to place before his readers a clear description of the entire contents of the Pentateuch which should be in essential matters complete. His view however is in this respect the genuinely Jewish one that these entire contents fall under the notion of the νόμος. The work begins with:

1. Περὶ τῆς Μωϋσέως κοσμοποιΐας. De mundi opificio (Mangey i. 1–42).—It was customary to place this work at the head of Philo’s works before the first book of the Legum allegoriae. And this position has been resolutely defended especially by Dähne. Gfrörer on the other hand already convincingly showed that the book de Abrahamo must be immediately joined to de mundi opificio. He has only erred in the matter of declaring this whole group of writings older than the allegorical commentary (p. 33 sq.). It was easy to show in reply that this popular delineation of the Mosaic legislation is on the contrary more recent than the bulk of the allegorical commentary. On the other hand there is nothing to prevent our relegating the work de mundi opificio also to the more recent group. We have already shown p. 331 above that it is not connected with the allegorical commentary. On the contrary the beginning of the work de mundi opificio makes it quite evident that it was to form the introduction to the delineation of the legislation and it is equally plain that the composition de Abrahamo directly follows it. Comp. de Abrahamo § 1: Ὃν μὲν οὖν τρόπον ἡ κοσμοποιΐα διατέτακται διὰ τῆς προτέρας συντάξεως ὡς οἷόν τε ἦν ἠκριβώσαμεν. To refer this intimation to the whole series of the allegorical commentaries is both by reason of the expression κοσμοποιΐα and of the singular διὰ τῆς προτέρας συντάξεως quite impossible.—But however certain all this is the matter is not thus as yet settled. For on the other hand it is just as certain that the composition de mundi opificio was subsequently placed at the head of the allegorical commentaries to compensate for the missing commentary on Gen. 1. Only thus can it be explained that Eusebius Praep. evang. viii. 13 quotes a passage from this composition with the formula (viii. 12 fin. ed. Gaisford): ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου τῶν εἰς τὸν νόμον). It is just this which explains the transposition of this treatise into the catalogue of Eusebius Hist. eccl. ii. 18 (it was in his eyes comprised in the νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίαι) and also the peculiar form of citation: ἐκ τοῦ ζ καὶ η [resp. ἐκ τοῦ η καὶ θ] τῆς νόμων ἱερῶν ἀλληγορίας mentioned p. 333 above.—There still remains the question whether this supplementary insertion of the Legum allegoriae between de mundi opificio and de Abrahamo originated with Philo himself? This is especially the view of Siegfried. It seems to me however that the reasons brought forward are not conclusive. J. G. Müller has lately brought out a separate edition of this composition with a commentary.

2. Βίος σοφοῦ τοῦ κατὰ διδασκαλίαν τελειωθέντος ἢ περὶ τόμων ἀγράφων [αʹ] ὅ ἐστι περὶ Ἀβραάμ. De Abrahamo (Mangey ii. 1–40).—With this composition commences the group of the νόμοι ἄγραφοι i.e. the βίοι σοφῶν (de decalogo § 1) the biographies of virtuous men who exhibit by their exemplary behaviour the universal types of morality. Of such types there are twice three viz. (1) Enos Enoch Noah; (2) Abraham Isaac Jacob. Enos represents ἐλπίς Enoch μετάνοια καὶ βελτίωσις Noah δικαιοσύνη (de Abrahamo § 2 3 5). The second triad is more exalted: Abraham is the symbol of διδασκαλικὴ ἀρετή (virtue acquired by learning) Isaac of φυσικὴ ἀρετή (innate virtue) Jacob of ἀσκητικὴ ἀρετή (virtue attained by practice) see de Abrahamo § 11; de Josepho § 1 (Zeller iii. 2. 411). The first three are only briefly dwelt on. The greater part of this composition is occupied with Abraham.—In Eusebius H. E. ii. 18. 4 the title runs: βίου [read βίος] σοφοῦ τοῦ κατὰ δικαιοσύνην τελειωθέντος ἢ [περὶ] νόμων ἀγράφων. Δικαιοσύνην instead of the διδασκαλίαν furnished by the Philo manuscripts is here certainly incorrect. For Abraham is the type of διδασκαλικὴ ἀρετή. The number αʹ must be inserted after ἀγράφων this book being only the first of the unwritten laws.

3. Βίος πολιτικὸς ὅπερ ἐστὶ περὶ Ἰωσήφ. De Josepho (Mangey ii. 41–79).—After the life of Abraham we next expect the biographies of Isaac and Jacob. That Philo wrote these is made certain by the opening of de Josepho. They seem however to have been very soon lost since not a trace of them is anywhere preserved. The beginning of de Josepho makes it also certain that this composition follows here which is strange since we might have expected that the number of typical βίοι was exhausted with the triad Abraham Isaac and Jacob. Joseph however is made to succeed them because the examples of Abraham Isaac and Jacob refer only to the ideal cosmopolitan state of the world not to the empiric world with its various constitutions. The life of Joseph is therefore said to show “how the wise man has to move in actually existing political life.”—In the editions the title is βίος πολιτικοῦ the manuscripts have βίος πολιτικός (Mangey ii. 41 note. Pitra Analecta ii. 317). Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 6: ὁ πολιτικός. Photius Biblioth. cod. 103: περὶ βίου πολιτικοῦ. Suidas Lex. s.v. Ἀβραάμ• Φίλων ἐν τῷ τοῦ πολιτικοῦ βίῳ (Suidas in the article Φίλων following the Greek translator of Jerome writes περὶ ἀγωγῆς βίου).

4. Περὶ τῶν δέκα λογίων ἃ κεφάλαια νόμων εἰσί. De decalogo (Mangey ii. 180–209).—After the life of Joseph is generally inserted the life of Moses which certainly would according to its literary character be in place in this group. It is however nowhere intimated that this composition which comes forward quite independently is organically connected with the entire work now under discussion. Nay it would be an interruption in it. For in it Moses as a lawgiver stands alone he is thus no universally valid type of moral conduct nor is he depicted as such.—Hence the composition de decalogo with which the representation of the legislation proper (τῶν ἀναγραφέντων νόμων de decalogo § 1) begins reciting indeed first of all the ten commandments given by God Himself without the intervention of Moses must necessarily follow the life of Joseph.—The title of this composition vacillates very much in the manuscripts (Mangey ii. 180 note). The usual form περὶ τῶν δέκα λογίων resting on the cod. Augustanus is confirmed by Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 5. Jerome in consequence of a careless abbreviation in the text of Eusebius has de tabernaculo et decalogo libri quattuor.

5. Περὶ τῶν ἀναφερομένων ἐν εἴδει νόμων εἰς τὰ συντείνοντα κεφάλαια τῶν δέκα λόγων αʹ βʹ γʹ δʹ. On the special laws referring to the respective heads of the ten sayings Such is the title according to Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 5 of the work de specialibus legibus; and with this agree the Philo-manuscripts with the sole exception that instead of εἰς τὰ συντείνοντα κεφάλαια τῶν δέκα λόγων its special contents are stated for each of the four books (e.g. εἰς τρία γένη τῶν δέκα λόγων τὸ τρίτον τὸ τέταρτον τὸ πέμπτον κ.τ.λ.). In this work Philo makes a very laudable attempt to reduce the special Mosaic laws to a systematic arrangement according to the ten rubrics of the decalogue. Thus he states in connection with the first and second commandments (the worship of God) the entire legislation concerning the priesthood and sacrifices in connection with the fourth (the sanctification of the Sabbath) all the laws concerning festivals in connection with the seventh (the prohibition of adultery) the marriage laws in connection with the remaining three the entire civil and criminal law. Herein notwithstanding the brevity of statement we frequently recognise an agreement with the Palestinian Halachah. Philo indeed has no professional acquaintance with it on which account we also meet with many divergences therefrom. According to the testimony of Eusebius H. E. ii. 18. 5 the whole work comprised four books which have it seems been preserved entire though needing to be restored from the mangling they have undergone in the manuscripts.

(a) Book I.: περὶ τῶν ἀναφερομένων ἐν εἴδει νόμων εἰς βʹ κεφάλαια τῶν δέκα λογίων• τό τε μὴ νομίζειν ἔξω ἑνὸς θεοῦ ἑτέρους αὐτοκρατεῖς καὶ τὸ μὴ χειρότμητα θεὸν πλαστεἳν. This title which is missing in the editions stands in the cod. Mediceus at the head of the treatise de circumcisione (Mangey ii. 210 note). But even without this external evidence the commencement of the said treatise would of itself prove that this first book begins with it. The whole book comprises the following pieces: de circumcisione (Mangey ii. 210–212) de monarchia (Mangey ii. 213–222) de monarchia lib. ii. (Mangey ii. 222–232) de praemiis sacerdotum (ii. 232–237) de victimis (ii. 237–250) de sacrificantibus or de victimas offerentibus (ii. 251–264) de mercede meretricis non accipienda in sacrarium (ii. 264–269).

(b) Book II.: περὶ τῶν ἀναφερομένων ἐν εἴδει νόμων εἰς τρία γένη τῶν δέκα λόγων τὸ τρίτον τὸ τέταρτον τὸ πέμπτον τὸ περὶ εὐορκίας καὶ σεβασμοῦ τῆς ίερᾶς ἑβδομάδος καὶ γονέων τιμῆς. Under this title the editions give first only a small portion (Mangey ii. 270–277) and then add as a separate portion the treatise de septenario (Mangey ii. 227–298) which of course belongs to this book. The text of de septenario is however incomplete in Mangey and the treatise which we expect de colendis parentibus is entirely missing. The greater portion of this missing treatise was already given by Mai (De cophini festo et de colendis parentibus Mediolan. 1818 also in Classicor. auctor. vol. iv. 402–429); but the complete text of this book was first given by Tischendorf Philonea pp. 1–83.

(c) Book III.: περὶ τῶν ἀναφερομένων ἐν εἴδει νόμων εἰς δύο γένη τῶν δέκα λόγων τὸ ἕκτον καὶ τὸ ἕβδομον τὸ κατὰ μοίχων καὶ παντὸς ἀκολάστου καὶ τὸ κατὰ ἀνδροφόνων καὶ πάσης βίας (Mangey ii. 299–334).—According to Mangey ii. 299 note Philo here shows a knowledge of Roman law.

(d) Book IV.: περὶ τῶν ἀναφερομένων ἐν εἴδει νόμων εἰς τρία γένη τῶν δέκα λογίων τὸ ηʹ καὶ τὸ θʹ καὶ ί τὸ περὶ τοῦ μὴ ἐκικλέπτειν καὶ ψευδομαρτυρεῖν καὶ μὴ ἐπιθυμεῖν καὶ τῶν ἐς ἕκαστον ἀναφερομένων• καὶ περὶ δικαιοσύνης ἣ πᾶσι τοῖς λογίοις ἐφαρμόζει ὅ ἐστι τῆς συντάξεως (Mangey ii. 335–358).—This book was first published by Mangey from the cod. Bodleianus 3400. Some kind of word (such as τέλος) or the number δʹ is missing at the close of the title. In the editions the last sections also appear under the special titles: de judice (ii. 344–348) and de concupiscentia (ii. 348–358). That they are also integral portions of this book cannot considering their contents be doubtful.—To the same book too belongs as an appendix the treatise περὶ δικαιοσύνης de justitia (Mangey ii. 358–374) which again is in the editions wrongly divided into two sections: de justitia (ii. 358–361) and de creatione principum (ii. 361–374). The latter section does not deal exclusively with the appointment of authorities but is simply a continuation of the treatise de justitia. This whole treatise is closely connected with the fourth book de specialibus legibus nay forms part of it as is intimated by the closing words of the latter (Mang. ii. 358: νυνὶ δὲ περὶ τῆς … δικαιοσύνης λεκτέον) and especially by the title of the whole book in which it is expressly stated that it also treats περὶ δικαιοσύνης ἣ πᾶσι τοῖς λογίοις ἐφαρμόζει (Mangey ii. 335).

6. Περὶ τριῶν ἀρετῶν ἤτοι περὶ ἀνδρείας καὶ φιλανθρωπίας καὶ μετανοίας. De fortitudine (Mangey ii. 375–383) de caritate (ii. 383–405) de poenitentia (ii. 405–407).—The treatise de justitia the continuation of which is here given is referred to in the commencement of this book (περὶ δικαιοσύνης καὶ τῶν κατʼ αὐτὴν ὅσα καίρια πρότερον εἰπὼν μέτειμι τὸ ἑξῆς ἐπʼ ἀνδρίαν). This book then also belongs to the appendix of the work de specialibus legibus and it was only an external reason (viz. that of making the two books nearly equal in extent) which occasioned Philo to combine a portion of this appendix with the fourth book itself and to give the rest as a separate book. The title of this book is found as given by Mangey in cod. Bodleianus (Mang. ii. 375 note). Confirmed by Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 2: περὶ τῶν τριῶν ἀρετῶν ἃς σὺν ἄλλαις ἀνέγραψε Μωϋσῆς. Hieronymus vir. illustr. 11: de tribus virtutibus liber unus. Two manuscripts the Mediceus and Lincolniensis have on the other hand: περὶ ἀρετῶν ἤτοι περὶ ἀνδρείας καὶ εὐσεβείας καὶ φιλανθρωπίας καὶ μετανοίας. It seems to speak in favour of this title that the treatise de caritate begins with the words (Mang. ii. 383): τὴν δὲ εὐσεβείας συγγενεστάτην καὶ ἀδελφὴν καὶ δίδυμον ὄντως ἑξῆς ἐπισκεπτέον φιλανθρωπίαν as though a treatise de pietate were missing between de fortitudine and de caritate. Still the words do not necessarily require this meaning. On the contrary the title of the Med. and Lincoln. seems to have arisen from this incorrect meaning.—According to Gfrörer and Dähne only the treatise de fortitudine is in place here and the two others (de caritate and de poenitentia) must be entirely separated from it and added as an appendix to the Vita Mosis. The sole foundation however for this view is the bare fact that in the beginning of de caritate the Vita Mosis is cited. This is certainly too weak an argument to oppose to the testimony of the manuscripts to the connection of these three treatises with each other. Their contents on the contrary show that the treatises here placed together belong to the work de specialisms legibus. Those Mosaic laws also are here placed together which belong not to the rubrics of the ten commandments but to the rubric of certain cardinal virtues which latter indeed are only actually realized by the practice of the Decalogue in its entirety (compare the close of de concupiscentia ii. 358 Mangey).

7. Περὶ ἄθλων καὶ ἐπιτιμίων. De praemiis et poenis (Mangey ii. 408–428).—Περὶ ἀρῶν. De execrationibus (Mangey ii. 429–437).—These two pieces so inaptly separated from each other form in reality but one book. Comp. Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 5: περὶ τῶν προκειμένων ἐν τῷ νόμῳ τοῖς μὲν ἀγαθοῖς ἄθλων τοῖς δὲ πονηροῖς ἐπιτιμίων καὶ ἀρῶν.—In the beginning of this composition Philo says that having in his former works treated of the three main categories of the Mosaic revelations (the κοσμοποιΐα the ἱστορικόν and the νομοθετικὸν μέρος) he now purposed to pass to the rewards appointed for the good and the penalties destined for the wicked. Hence this writing is later than the works of Philo hitherto discussed and joins on as a sort of epilogue to the delineation of the Mosaic legislation.—On the treatise de nobilitate which Mangey combines with this composition see below No. IV. 7.

IV. Besides these three large works on the Pentateuch Philo wrote several separate compositions of which the following have been preserved some entire some in fragments.

1. Περὶ βίου Μωσέως. Vita Mosis lib. i. (Mangey ii. 80–133) lib. ii. (Mangey ii. 134–144) lib. iii. (Mangey ii. 145–179).—The division into three books is already found in the manuscripts but is certainly a false one as is proved by the following quotation by Philo himself de caritate § 1 (Mangey ii. 383 sq.): δεδήλωται πρότερον ἐν δυσὶ συντάξεσιν ἃς ἀνέγραψα περὶ τοῦ βίου Μωϋσέως. Our books i. and ii. are in fact but one book as even their extent serves to show. The work is already quoted by Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. i. 23. 153: ᾗ φησι Φίλων ἐν τῷ Μωυσέως βίῳ. Comp. also Strom. ii. 19. 100. Hence it is the more remarkable that it should be absent from the catalogue of Eusebius. In its place appears (H. E. ii. 18. 5) a work περὶ τῆς σκηνῆς. Now as the tabernacle is fully described in the Vita Mosis the treatise περὶ τῆς σκηνῆς is certainly a portion of the Vita Mosis; probably however the text of Eusebius is imperfect. The date of composition of this work was according to Mangey ii. 141 (see the passage note 4 above) probably antecedent to that of the large work on the Mosaic legislation; but probably subsequent to de mundi opificio (see below note 8 and thus to speak more precisely between de mundi opif. and de Abrahamo. We have already seen (p. 342 sq.) that it is no integral element of the delineation of the Mosaic legislation though certainly connected with it by its entire literary character. For as in the larger work the Mosaic legislation so in this the life and acts of the legislator himself are wortrayed for heathen readers.

2. Περὶ τοῦ πάντα σπουδαῖον εἶναι ἐλεύθερον. Quod omnis probus liber (Mangey ii. 445–470).—This work is properly only one half of a larger one which worked out the thought suggested in the title in its two opposite aspects Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 6: περὶ τοῦ δοῦλον εἶναι πάντα φαῦλον ᾧ ἑξῆς ἐστιν ὁ περὶ τοῦ πάντα σπουδαῖον ἐλεύθερον εἶναι. Philo himself alludes to the first and missing half in the opening of the second and preserved half. A long portion of the latter (on the Essenes) is given in Euseb. Praep. evang. viii. 12. The genuineness of the work has not been unassailed. The circumstance that the description of the Essenes differs in a few subordinate points from that given by Philo himself in another work (Apologia pro Judaeis in Euseb. Praep. evang. viii. 11) has especially given rise to suspicion. Its genuineness is however according to the thorough investigations of Lucius surpassingly probable. The work may it is conjectured belong to Philo’s earliest period and may not give the description of the Essenes according to his own inspection.

3. Εἰς Φλάκκον. Adversus Flaccum (Mangey ii. 517–544).—Περὶ ἀρετῶν καὶ πρεσβείας πρὸς Γάϊον. De legatione ad Cajum (Mangey ii. 545–600).—In these two books Philo relates the persecutions which the Jews had to endure especially at Alexandria in the time of Caligula. The narrative is so detailed and graphic that it could be written only by one who had himself participated in a prominent manner in the events. This circumstance makes these two books an authority of the first rank not only for the history of the Jews of those days but also for the history of Caligula. It cannot be perceived from the statements in Mangey how the titles run in the best manuscripts. On the title Φίλωνος εἰς Φλάκκον he only remarks (ii. 517): similiter codex Mediceus in reliquis vero manuscriptis scribitur Φίλωνος Ἑβραίου ἱστορία ὠφέλιμος καὶ πάνυ βίῳ χρήσιμος. Τὰ κατὰ τὸν Φλάκκον [sic: therefore not τοῦ Φλάκκου] ἤτοι περὶ προνοίας. Still more indefinite are Mangey’s statements concerning the title of the second composition (ii. 545): in nonnullis codicibus sic legitur: ἱστορία χρήσιμος καὶ πάνυ ὠφέλιμος περὶ τῶν κατὰ τὸν Γάϊον καὶ τῆς αἰτίας τῆς πρὸς ἅπαν τὸ Ἰουδαίων ἔθνος ἀπεχθείας αὐτοῦ. According to the statements of Pitra (Analecta sacra ii. 318 sq.) the titles usual in the printed text Εἰς Φλάκκον and Περὶ ἀρετῶν καὶ πρεσβείας πρὸς Γάϊον appear to be also those which prevail in the manuscripts. In Photius Bibliotheca cod. 105 (ed. Bekker) it is said: Ἀνεγνώσθη δὲ αὐτοῦ καὶ λόγος οὗ ἡ ἐπιγραφὴ "Γάϊος ψεγόμενος" καὶ "Φλάκκος ἢ Φλάκκων ψεγόμενος" ἐν οἷς λόγοις κ.τ.λ. (therefore two λόγοι). So too Eusebius in the Chronicle. Comp. also Johannes Monachus ineditus (Mangey ii. 517): ἐκ τῶν κατὰ Φλάκκου. On the titles mentioned by Eusebius in the Ecclesiastical History see farther on. Only the two books which have come down to us seem to have been extant in the time of Photius. But the beginning of the first and the close of the second show that they are only portions of a larger whole. For the book adversus Flaccum begins (ii. 517): Δεύτερος μετὰ Σηιανὸν Φλάκκος Ἀουίλλιος διαδέχεται τὴν κατὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐπιβουλήν. Thus this book was preceded by another in which the persecutions inflicted on the Jews by Sejanus were narrated. The book de legatione ad Cajum moreover ends with the words: Εἴρηται μὲν οὖν κεφαλαιωδέστερον ἡ αἰτία τῆς πρὸς ἅπαν τὸ Ἰουδαίων ἔθνος ἀπεχθείας Γάϊου• λεκτέον δὲ καὶ τὴν παλινῳδίαν [πρὸς Γάϊον]. Hence another book must have followed in which Philo related the παλινῳδία i.e. the turn for the better in the fate of the Jews by the death of Caligula and the edict of toleration of Claudius. Now we know also from a notice in the Chronicle of Eusebius that the persecutions under Sejanus were related in the second book of this entire work. Consequently we should reckon not less than five books for the whole. And this is confirmed by the decided statement in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius ii. 5. 1: καὶ δὴ τὰ κατὰ Γάϊον οὗτος Ἰουδαίοις συμβάντα πέντε βιβλίοις παραδίδωσι. The brief survey too given by Eusebius of the contents of this work agrees exactly with these results. For he says that Philo here relates how in the time of Tiberius Sejanus made great exertions in Rome to destroy the whole nation and that in Judaea Pilate caused great commotion among the Jews because he desired to undertake something with respect to the temple which was contrary to their institutions. After the death however of Tiberius Caius who then came to the throne behaved indeed with the greatest arrogance to all but inflicted most injury on the whole Jewish nation. What is here said respecting Sejanus and Pilate cannot refer to some occasional declarations in the books preserved to us. For these treat only of the time of Caligula. The oppressions however of Sejanus and Pilate must according to the above intimations of Eusebius have been related in a separate paragraph before the events under Caligula. From all that has been said the following must consequently have been the arrangement of the whole work. Book i. contained it may be presumed a general introduction. Book ii. related the oppressions in the reign of Tiberius by Sejanus in Rome and by Pilate in Judaea. Among the former must undoubtedly be placed the important measure of A.D. 19 by which all Jews were banished from Rome. Among the attempts of Pilate “to undertake something with respect to the temple contrary to Jewish institutions” the setting up of consecrated shields in the palace of Herod mentioned in the letter of Agrippa communicated by Philo cannot at all events be intended; we must rather regard them as the facts recorded by Josephus viz. that Pilate caused the soldiers to march into Jerusalem with the imperial ensigns and employed the temple-treasure in building an aqueduct. That the former act was also related by Philo is expressly testified by Eusebius. Book iii. is the preserved composition adversus Flaccum which relates the persecution of the Alexandrinian Jews arising from the initiative of the populace of that city in the commencement of Caligula’s reign. It had as yet nothing to do with the setting up of the statue of the emperor in the Jewish synagogue nor with any edict of Caligula. In Book iv. on the contrary i.e. in the Legatio ad Cajum which is preserved are depicted the sufferings inflicted on the Jews in consequence of the edict of Caligula that Divine honours should everywhere be paid him. Lastly the lost Book v. treated of the παλινῳδία in the sense stated above.

The statements of Eusebius give rise also to some difficulties with regard to the title of the entire work. According to the passage from the Chronicle quoted above (note 6 the whole work seems to have been designated ἡ πρεσβεία. And Eusebius says also when giving the contents of the whole work that all this is written ἐν ᾗ συνέγραψε πρεσβείᾳ (H. E. ii. 5. 6). This title is therefore possible because Philo’s account of the embassy to Caligula of which he was the leader forms in fact the kernel of the whole. The several books might then have had their special titles such as Φλάκκος or the like (see above p. 350). Now Eusebius says further towards the conclusion of his summary of the contents that Philo had related a thousand other sufferings which befell the Jews at Alexandria ἐν δευτέρῳ συγγράμματι ᾧ ἐπέγραψε "περὶ ἀρετῶν (H. E. ii. 6. 3). From this it appears to result that Philo had treated of these events in two works the title of one being ἡ πρεσβεία of the other περὶ ἀρετῶν. This inference is however precluded not only by its improbability but by the circumstance that Eusebius in his chief catalogue of Philo’s writings H. E. ii. 18 only mentions the latter title. He says that Philo ironically gave to his work on the ungodly deeds of Caius the title περὶ ἀρετῶν (H. E. ii. 18. 8). No other work referring to these events is mentioned though the catalogue is in other respects a very complete one. We are thus I think constrained to admit that the δευτέρῳ is the gloss of a transcriber who could not make the different titles in ii. 5. 6 and ii. 6. 3 harmonize and that in fact both titles refer to one and the same work.

A special interest has always been attached to this work by reason of its importance as an historical authority. It has been repeatedly published separately translated into modern languages and made the subject of historical research. The dispute of its genuineness by Grätz scarcely deserves mention This book must not be confounded with the book de tribus virtutibus (see above p. 345) nor with that published by Mai de virtute ejusque partibus (see above note 1

4. Περὶ προνοίας. De providentia.—The title in Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 6; Praep. evang. vii. 20 fin. viii. 13 fin. The work is only preserved in Armenian and has been published by Aucher with a Latin translation. Two Greek fragments a smaller and a very large one in Euseb. Praep. evang. vii. 21 and viii. 14. The Armenian text comprises two books. Of these however the first though on the whole genuine has at all events been preserved in only an abbreviated and in some parts a touched up form. Eusebius seems to have been acquainted with only the second at least both fragments belong to this book and are introduced by Eusebius with the formula ἐν τῷ (Sing.) περὶ προνοίας. In the Ecclesiastical History the reading fluctuates between τὸ περὶ προνοίας and τὰ περὶ προνοίας. There are quotations also in Johannes Damascenus and Johannes Monachus ineditus.

5. Ἀλέξανδρος ἢ περὶ τοῦ λόγον ἔχειν τὰ ἄλογα ζῶα (this title in Euseb. H. E. ii 18. 6). De Alexandro et quod propriam rationem muta animalia habeant (so Jerome de viris illustr. c. 11).—This work too is preserved only in Armenian and has been published by Aucher. Two short Greek fragments are found in the Florilegium of Leontius and Johannes. The book belongs to Philo’s later works the embassy to Rome being already contemplated p. 152 (ed. Aucher).

6. Ὑποθετικά.—Our knowledge of this work rests solely on the fragments in Euseb. Praep. evang. viii. 6–7 which are introduced by Eusebius with the words (viii. 5 fin.): Φίλωνος … ἀπὸ τοῦ πρώτου συγγράμματος ὧν ἐπέγραψεν Ὑποθετικῶν ἔνθα τὸν ὑπὲρ Ἰουδαίων ὡς πρὸς κατηγόρους αὐτῶν ποιούμενος λόγον ταῦτά φησιν. The title does not signify “suppositions concerning the Jews” but as Bernays has pointed out “counsels recommendations.” For Ὑποθετικοὶ λόγοι are such dissertations as contain moral counsels or recommendations in contradistinction to theoretical investigations of ethic questions. Philo as the preserved fragments already show has devoted the main point of his work to the discussion of such Jewish precepts as he could recommend to the obedience of a non-Jewish circle of readers to whom the work is unmistakeably directed. As the work pursues apologetic aims we might be inclined to regard it as identical with the Apologia pro Judaeis to be forthwith mentioned but that Eusebius distinguishes the two by different titles.

7. Περὶ Ἰουδαίων.—This title in Euseb. H. E. ii. 18. 6. Ἡ ὑπὲρ Ἰουδαίων ἀπολογία from which Eusebius (Praep. evang. viii. 11) borrows the description of the Essenes is certainly identical with this work. The conjecture of Dähne that the piece de nobilitate (Mangey ii. 437–444) also belongs to this work is not improbable. It treats of true nobility i.e. of the wisdom and virtue of which the Jewish nation also was not devoid and is therefore a very suitable element in an apology for the Jews. The genuineness of the ἀπολογία has been recently disputed by Hilgenfeld (see above note 5

V. The last-named works are only known to us by fragments but the following books most of which have been already mentioned in this survey are entirely lost. (1) Of the Quaestiones et solutiones two books on Genesis and more than three on Exodus (see above p. 327). (2) Two books of the Legum allegoriae (see above p. 332). (3) The first book περὶ μέθης (see p. 335). (4) Both the books περὶ διαθηκῶν (see p. 337). (5) Three of the five books de somniis (see p. 337). (6) The two biographies of Isaac and Jacob (see p. 342). (7) The work περὶ τοῦ δοῦλον εἶναι πάντα φαῦλον (see p. 349). (8) The first second and fifth books of the work on the persecutions of the Jews under Caligula (see p. 350). (9) A work περὶ ἀριθμῶν to which Philo refers in the Vita Mosis and elsewhere. (10) A dialogue between Isaac and Ishmael on the difference between true wisdom and sophisticism of which it is not indeed certain whether Philo wrote or only intended to write it. (11) According to a remark in Quod omnis probus liber Philo intended to write a disquisition “On the government of the wise.” We do not know whether this intention was carried out. (12) In the Florilegium of Leontius and Johannes a small piece is cited ἐκ τῶν περὶ τοῦ ἱεροῦ. Can a work known to us under some other name be intended?

VI. The following supposed works of Philo are now pretty generally regarded as spurious:—

1. Περὶ βίου θεωρητικοῦ ἢ ἱκετῶον ἀρετῶν. De vita contemplativa (Mangey ii. 471–486).—Eusebius twice cites the title in the following form (H. E. ii. 17. 3 and ii. 18. 7): περὶ βίου θεωρητικοῦ ἢ ἱκετῶν. The ἀρετῶν added at the end must therefore be expunged. Eusebius H. E. ii. 17 gives full information concerning the contents comp. also ii. 16. 2. This composition has since the time of Eusebius enjoyed special approbation in the Christian Church. Christian monks being almost universally recognised in the “Therapeutae” here described and glorified. The likeness is indeed surprising; but for that very reason the suspicion is also well founded that the author’s design was under the mask of Philo to recommend Christian monachism. But apart from this there are other suspicious elements by reason of which even such critics as do not regard the Therapeutae as representing a Christian but as a Jewish ideal of life have denied the authorship of Philo. Upon the ground of the identification of the Therapeutae with Christian monks Lucius after the precedent of Grätz and Jost has declared this composition spurious. It is by his thorough and methodical investigation that the spuriousness of its authorship has been definitely decided.

2. Περὶ ἀφθαρσίας κόσμου. De incorruptibilitate mundi (Mangey ii. 487–516).—This composition is regarded as genuine by Grossmann and Dähne. But even the transmission of the manuscripts and the external testimony are unfavourable to its genuineness which since the investigations of Bernays has been generally given up. Bernays has also especially shown that the traditional text has fallen into disorder through the transposition of the pages. He has published the text in Greek and German according to the order restored by himself and furnished it with a commentary. Bücheler gives emendations of Bernays’ text. Zeller attempts to show that the composition has been touched up.

3. Περὶ κόσμου. De mundo (Mangey ii. 601–624).—The spuriousness of this work has long been acknowledged. It is a collection of extracts from other works of Philo especially from the composition de incorruptibilitate mundi.

4. De Sampsone (Aucher Paralipomena Armena 1826 pp. 549–577).—De Jona (Aucher pp. 578–611).—A general agreement prevails as to the spuriousness of these two discourses which are published in Armenian and Latin by Aucher.

5. Interpretatio Hebraicorum nominum. Origen Comment. in Joann. vol. ii. c. 27 (Opp. ed. Lommatzsch i. 150) mentions an apparently anonymous work on this subject: εὕρομεν τοίνυν ἐν τῇ ἑρμηνείᾳ τῶν ὀνομάτων. Eusebius says that it is ascribed to Philo but the manner in which he speaks of it plainly shows that he was only acquainted with the work as an anonymous one H. E. ii. 18. 7: καὶ τῶν ἐν νόμῳ δὲ καὶ προφήταις Ἑβραϊκῶν ὀνομάτων αἱ ἑρμηνεῖαι τοῦ αὐτοῦ σπουδαὶ εἶναι λέγονται. Jerome says that according to the testimony of Origen Philo was the author. Hence he evidently saw the work only in an anonymous copy. He himself desired to translate it into Latin but found the text so barbarized that he considered it necessary to undertake an entirely new work. In the preface he expresses himself concerning the history of these Onomastica as follows: Philo vir disertissimus Judaeorum Origenis quoque testimonio conprobatur edidisse librum hebraicorum nominum eorumque etymologias juxta ordinem litterarum e latere copulasse. Qui cum vulgo habeatur a Graecis et bibliothecas orbis inpleverit studii mihi fuit in latinam eum linguam vertere Verurn tam dissona inter se exemplaria repperi et sic confusum ordinem ut tacere melius judicaverim quam reprehensione quid dignum scribere. Itaque.… singula per ordinem scripturarum volumina percucurri et vetus aedificium nova cura instaurans fecisse me reor quod a Graecis quoque adpetendum sit.… Ac ne forte consummato aedificio quasi extrema deesset manus novi testamenti verba et nomina interpretatus sum imitari volens ex parte Origenem quem post apostolos ecclesiarum magistrum nemo nisi inperitus negat. Inter cetera enim ingeni sui praeclara monimenta etiam in hoc laboravit ut quod Philo quasi Judaeus omiserat hic ut christianus inpleret. According to this account of Jerome it must certainly be admitted that Origen already considered Philo to be the author. But the work being anonymous his testimony is not sufficient and the question of authorship cannot be decided on internal grounds because the work is no longer extant in its most ancient form. A tolerably copious list of Philonean etymologies may be collected from those works of Philo which have been preserved.

6. On a Latin work de biblicis antiquitatibus ascribed to Philo see Fabricius-Harles iv. 743 and especially Pitra Analecta sacra ii. 298 sq. 319–322. The pseudo-Philonian Breviarum temporum a forgery of Annius of Viterbo (Fabricius-Harles l.c.) must not be confounded with this. On the treatise de virtute ejusque partibus published by Mai under Philo’s name see above note 1

Stahl “Versuch eines systematischen Entwurfs des Lehrbegriffs Philo’s von Alexandrien” (Eichhorn’s Allgemeine Bibliothek der biblischen Litteratur vol. iv. paragraph 5 1793 pp. 765–890).

Grossmann Questiones Philoneae. I. De theologiae Philonis fontibus et auctoritate quaestionis primae particula prima. II. De λόγῳ Philonis. Quaestio altera. Lips. 1829.

Gfrörer Philo und die alexandrinische Theosophie (also under the title Kritische Geschichte des Urchristenthums) 2 vols. Stuttgard 1831.

Dähne Geschichtliche Darstellung der jüdisch-alexandrinischen Religions-Philosophie 2 vols. Halle 1834. Comp. also his art. “Philon” in Ersch and Gruber’s Encyklopädie.

Ritter Geschichte der Philosophi vol. iv. (1834) pp. 418–492.

Georgii “Ueber die neuesten Gegensätze in Auffassung der Alexandrinischen Religionsphilosophie insbesondere des Jüdischen Alexandrinismus” (Zeitschr. für die histor. Theol. 1839 No. 3 pp. 3–98 No. 4 pp. 3–98).

Lücke Commentar über das Evang. des Johannes vol. i. (3rd ed. 1840) p. 272 sqq.

Keferstein Philo’s Lehre von den göttlichen Mittelwesen zugleich eine kurze Darstellung der Grundzüge des philonischen Systems Leipzig 1846.

Bucher Philonische Studien Tübingen 1848.

Niedner De subsistentia τῷ θείῳ λόγῳ apud Philonem tributa quaestionis Parts i. ii. Lips. 1848 1849 (also in the Zeitsch. für die histor. Theol. 1849).

Lutterbeck Die neutestamentlichen Lehrbegriffe vol. i. (1852) pp. 418–446.

Dorner Entwickelungsgesch. der Lehre von der Person Christi vol. i. pp. 21–57.

Wolff Die philonische Philosophie in ihren Hauptmomenten dargestellt 2nd ed. 1858.

Joel “Ueber einige geschichtliche Beziehungen des philonischen Systems” (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1863 pp. 19–31).

Frankel “Zur Ethik des jüdisch-alexandrinischen Philosophen Philo” (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1867 pp. 241–252 281–297).

Keim Gesch. Jesu i. 208–225.

Lipsius art. “Alexandrinische Religionsphilosophie” in Schenkel’s Bibellex. i. 85–99.

Zeller Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung Part iii. Div. 2 (3rd ed. 1881) pp. 338–418.

Heinze Die Lehre vom Logos in der griechischen Philosophie (1872) pp. 204–297.

Stein Sieben Bücher zur Geschichte des Platonismus Part iii. (1875) pp. 3–17.

Soulier La doctrine du Logos chez Philon d’Alexandrie Turin 1876 (comp. Theol. Litztg. 1877 101).

Réville Le Logos d’après Philon d’Alexandrie Genève 1877 (see Bursian’s Philol. Jahresber. xxi. 35 sq.). The same La doctrine du Logos dans le quatrième évangile et dans les oeuvres de Philon Paris 1881.

Nicolas “Etudes sur Philon d’Alexandrie” (Revue de l’histoire desreligions vol. v. 1882 pp. 318–339; vol. vii. 1883 pp. 145–164; vol. viii. 1883 pp. 468–488 582–602 756–772).

Comp. also the works and articles mentioned above p. 321 sq. of Steinhart J. G. Müller Ewald Ueberweg Hausrath Siegfried Hamburger Zöckler.

The survey already given of Philo’s works is sufficient to show the many-sidedness of his culture and of his literary efforts. That which applies to the representatives of Judaeo-Hellenism in general viz. that they combined in themselves both Jewish and Hellenic culture is pre-eminently true of him. It must be admitted that Greek philosophy comes the most prominently into the foreground. He was a man saturated with every means of culture afforded in his age by the schools of the Greeks. His diction was formed by the Greek classical authors; and especially “may the influence of Plato’s works upon Philo in even a lexical and phraseological respect be called very considerable.” He was intimately acquainted with the great Greek poets Homer Euripides and others whom he occasionally quotes. But it is the philosophers whom he most highly esteems. He calls Plato “the great;” Parmenides Empedocles Zeno Cleanthes are in his eyes divine men and form a sacred society. But it is his own view of the world and of life which shows more than aught else how highly he esteemed the Greek philosophers. It agrees in the most essential points with the great teachers of the Greeks. Nay Philo has so profoundly absorbed their doctrines and so peculiarly worked them up into a new whole as himself to belong to the series of Greek philosophers. His system may on the whole be entitled an eclectic one Platonic Stoic and Neo-Pythagorean doctrines being the most prominent. Just in proportion as now one now the other was embraced has he been designated at one time a Platonist at another a Pythagorean. He might just as correctly be called a Stoic for the influence of Stoicism was at least as strong upon him as that of Platonism or Neo-Pythagoreanism.

Notwithstanding however this profound appropriation of Greek philosophy Philo remained a Jew: and the wisdom of the Greeks did not make him unfaithful to the religion of his fathers. Nor must his Jewish education be depreciated in presence of the philosophical culture which certainly appears the more prominent. He was not indeed fluent in the Hebrew tongue and he read the Old Testament exclusively in the Greek translation. Still he had a respectable knowledge of Hebrew as is shown by his numerous etymologies which indeed often appear absurd to us but are in truth not worse than those of the Palestinian Rabbis. He had indeed no accurate knowledge of the Palestinian Halachah. But that he had a general acquaintance with it is proved not only by a single decided intimation but especially by his whole work de specialibus legibus. In the Haggadic interpretation of Scripture he was quite a master. For the whole of his allegorical commentary is with respect to form nothing else than a transference of the method of the Palestinian Midrash to the region of Hellenism. It is just by this means that Philo gains the possibility of showing that his philosophical doctrine already exists in the Old Testament. Many close approximations are also found with respect to substance though these are much slighter than the agreement in method. For his legendary embellishment of the life of Moses Philo expressly appeals to the tradition of the πρεσβύτεροι who “always combined oral tradition with what was read aloud.”

Philo has nowhere given a systematic statement of his system. He has at most developed single points such as the doctrine of the creation of the world with some degree of connection. As a rule he gives the ideas he has worked out in conjunction with the text of the Old Testament This is consistent with the formal principle of his whole theology viz. the assumption of the absolute authority of the Mosaic law. The Thorah of Moses is to him as to every Jew the supreme nay the sole and absolutely decisive authority: a perfect revelation of Divine wisdom. Every word written in Holy Scripture by Moses is a divine declaration. Hence no word in it is without definite meaning. The Scriptures also of the other prophets in conjunction with those of Moses contain Divine revelations. For all the prophets are God’s interpreters who makes use of them as instruments for the revelation of the Divine will. With this formal principle of the absolute authority of Holy Scripture and especially of the Mosaic law is connected the further assumption that all true wisdom was actually contained just in this source of all knowledge. In other words Philo deduces formally from the Old Testament all those philosophical doctrines which he had in fact appropriated from the Greek philosophers. Not in Plato Pythagoras and Zeno but above all in the writings of Moses is to be found the deepest and most perfect instruction concerning things divine and human. In them was already comprised all that was good and true which the Greek philosophers subsequently taught. Thus Moses is the true teacher of mankind and it is from him—as Philo like Aristobulus presupposes—that the Greek philosophers derived their wisdom.

The scientific means by which it was possible for Philo to adhere to and carry out these assumptions is allegorical interpretation. This was no invention of Philo but one which had already been perfected and wielded by others. Hence it was for him a quite self-evident process which he nowhere thought it necessary to justify although he occasionally extols its value and declares it indispensable. By the help of this process he was able to read out of the primitive history of Genesis those profound philosophical theories especially in the department of Psychology and Ethic which really grew up in the soil of Greek philosophy. The most external occurrences of scriptural history become in his hands mines of instruction concerning the supreme problems of human existence.

Only by means of this method could the double mission be in fact fulfilled which Philo saw allotted to him. He thus became to his Jewish co-religionists with whom he shared the presupposition of the Divine authority of the Mosaic law the medium of the philosophic culture of the Greeks; showing them that Moses had taught just what appeared to him true and valuable in Greek philosophy. On the other hand he proved to the Greeks by the same means that all the knowledge and intuition for which they so highly esteemed their own philosophers were already to be found in the writings of Moses. It was not they but Moses who was both the best of lawgivers and the first and greatest of philosophers. These two tendencies are it may be plainly perceived the mainsprings of Philo’s extensive literary activity. Being himself both Jew and Greek he desired to act upon both to make the Jews Greeks and the Greeks Jews. His religious assumptions are in the first place those of Judaism with its belief in revelation. But these religious assumptions underwent a powerful and peculiar modification by the elements which he derived from the Greek philosophy. And as he combined both in himself he desired to set up a propaganda on both sides.

No strictly completed system of Philo can in truth be spoken of. The elements of which his view of the world is compounded are too heterogeneous to form a strictly completed unity. Nevertheless his several views exhibit a connected whole whose members mutually condition one another. In the following attempt to give a brief sketch of this whole we shall leave out of consideration his specifically Jewish assumptions and confine ourselves to his philosophical views. The characteristic feature of his standpoint is just this that his philosophy i.e. his entire view of the world may be completely stated without the necessity of mentioning any Jewish particularistic notions. His Judaism virtually consists in the formal claim that the Jewish people are by reason of the Mosaic revelation in possession of the highest religious knowledge—one might almost say of the true religious illumination. In a material respect Greek views have gained the upper hand. For even his theology is only so far Jewish as to insist on monotheism and on the worship of God apart from images. In this however it stands in opposition only to the polytheism of the heathen religions but not to the idea of God of Greek philosophy which on the contrary Philo very closely follows. Thus his Judaism is already very powerfully modified. Moreover the specifically Jewish i.e. the particularistic notions are embraced by him in a form which is tantamount to their denial. It is just this which makes it possible entirely to disregard them in a sketch of his view of the world.—The following survey follows chiefly the excellent exposition of Zeller certainly the best we now have.

1. The Doctrine of God. The fundamental thought from which Philo starts is that of the dualism of God and the world. God alone is good and perfect the finite as such is imperfect. All determinations which are adapted to finite existence are therefore to be denied of God. He is eternal unchangeable simple free self-sufficing. He is not only free from human faults but exalted above human virtuss He is better than the good and the beautiful. Nay since every determination would be a limitation He is devoid of qualities ἄποιος without a ποιότῃς and thus His nature is undefinable. We can only say that He is not what He is.—It is true that together with these purely negative definitions which advance almost to an absence of attributes is found also a series of positive assertions on the nature of God by which assertions of the former kind are again abolished. This contradiction however is not to be wondered at. For the object of this assertion of an absence of attributes is merely to remove all limitation all imperfection from God. And therefore Philo makes no difficulty in placing beside it the other assertion: that all perfection is combined in God and derived from Him He fills and comprises everything. All perfection in the creature is derived solely and only from Him

2. The Intermediate Beings. God as the absolutely Perfect cannot enter into direct contact with matter. All contact therewith would defile Him. An acting therefore of God upon the world and in the world is according to Philo only possible through the intervention of intermediate causes of interposing powers who establish an intercourse between God and the world. For the more precise definition of these intermediate beings four notions suited to this purpose offered themselves to Philo; two belonging to the philosophical two to the religious region. These were the Platonic doctrine of ideas the Stoic doctrine of active causes the Jewish doctrine of angels and the Greek doctrine of daemons. All these elements but chiefly the Stoic doctrine of powers were used by Philo in constructing his peculiar doctrine of intermediate beings. Before the creation of this world of the senses he teaches God created the spiritual types of all things. These types or ideas must however be conceived of as active causes as powers which bring disordered matter into order. It is by means of these spiritual powers that God acts in the world. They are His ministers and vicegerents the ambassadors and mediums between God and things finite the λόγοι or partial powers of the universal reason. By Moses they are called angels by the Greeks daemons. If according to this they appear to be conceived of as independent hypostases nay as personal beings other assertions again forbid us to take them for decidedly such. It is expressly said that they exist only in the Divine thought. They are designated as the infinite powers of the infinite God and thus regarded as an inseparable portion of the Divine existence. But it would again be a mistake on the ground of these assertions to deny definitely the personification of the λόγοι or δυνάμεις. The truth is just this that Philo conceived of them both as independent hypostases and as immanent determinations of the Divine existence. And it is an apt remark of Zeller’s that this contradiction is necessarily required by the premisses of Philo’s system. “He combines both definitions without observing their contradiction nay he is unable to observe it because otherwise the intermediary rôle assigned to the Divine powers would be forfeited even that double nature by reason of which they are on the one hand to be identical with God that a participation in the Deity may by their means be possible to the finite and on the other hand different from Him that the Deity notwithstanding this participation may remain apart from all contact with the world.”

With this ambiguous view of the nature of the δυνάμεις the question as to their origin must also necessarily remain undecided. It is true that Philo frequently expresses himself in an emanistic sense. But yet he never distinctly formulates the doctrine of emanation. The number of the δυνάμεις is in itself unlimited. Yet Philo sometimes gives calculations when comprising the individual powers under certain notions of species. He mostly distinguishes two supreme powers: goodness and might which again are combined and reconciled by the Divine Logos which so far as it is reckoned among the powers at all is the chief of all the root from which the rest proceed the most universal intermediary between God and the world that in which are comprised all the operations of God.

3. The Logos. “By the Logos Philo understands the power of God or the active Divine intelligence in general; he designates it as the idea which comprises all other ideas the power which comprises all powers in itself as the entirety of the supersensuous world or of the Divine powers.” It is neither uncreated nor created after the manner of finite things. It is the vicegerent and ambassador of God; the angel or archangel which delivers to us the revelations of God; the instrument by which God made the world. The Logos is thus identified with the creative word of God. But not only is it the mediator for the relations of God to the world but also for the relations of the world to God. The Logos is the High Priest who makes intercession for the world to God. But notwithstanding this apparently undoubted personification of the Logos what has been said above of the Divine powers in general applies here also. “The definitions which according to the presuppositions of our thought would require the personality of the Logos are crossed in Philo by such as make it impossible and the peculiarity of his mode of conception consists in his not perceiving the contradiction involved in making the idea of the Logos oscillate obscurely between personal and impersonal being. This peculiarity is equally misunderstood when Philo’s Logos is regarded absolutely as a person separate from God and when on the contrary it is supposed that it only denotes God under a definite relation according to the aspect of His activity. According to Philo’s opinion the Logos is both but for this very reason neither one nor the other exclusively; and he does not perceive that it is impossible to combine these definitions into one notion.” “But Philo cannot dispense with these definitions. With him the Logos like all the Divine powers is only necessary because the supreme God Himself can enter into no direct contact with the finite; it must stand between the two and be the medium of their mutual relation; and how can it be this unless it were different from both if it were only a certain Divine property? In this case we should have again that direct action of God upon finite things which Philo declares inadmissible. On the other hand the Logos must now indeed be again identical with each of the opposites which it was to reconcile it must likewise be a property of God as a power operative in the world. Philo could not without contradiction succeed in combining the two.”

Philo was as it seems the first to postulate under the name of the Logos such an intermediate being between God and the world. Points of contact for his doctrine lay in both Jewish theology and Greek philosophy. In the former it was chiefly the doctrine of the wisdom of God and in the second place that of the Spirit and the Word of God which Philo took up. From the Platonic philosophy it was the doctrine of ideas and of the soul of the world which he utilized for his purpose. But it is the Stoic doctrine of the Deity as the active reason of the world which is the nearest to his. “We need only to strip off from this Stoic doctrine of the Logos its pantheistic element by distinguishing the Logos from the Deity and its materialistic element by distinguishing it from organized matter to have the Philonean Logos complete.”

4. The creation and preservation of the world. All existence cannot however the intermediate beings notwithstanding be traced back to God. For the evil the imperfect can in no wise not even indirectly have its cause in God. It originates from a second principle from matter (ὕλη or stoically οὐσία). This is the formless lifeless unmoved unordered mass devoid of properties from which God by means of the Logos and the divine powers formed the world. For only a forming of the world and not creation in its proper sense is spoken of in Philo since the origin of matter is not in God but it is placed as a second principle beside Him. And the preservation of the world as well as its formation is effected by means of the Logos and the Divine powers. Nay the former is in truth but a continuation of the latter; and what we call the laws of nature are but the totality of the regular Divine operations.

5. Anthropology. It is in anthropology where Philo chiefly follows the Platonic doctrine that the dualistic basis of his system comes most strongly to light. Philo here starts from the assumption that the entire atmosphere is filled with souls. Of these it is the angels or demons dwelling in its higher parts who are the mediums of God’s intercourse with the world. Those on the contrary who remain nearer to the earth are attracted by sense and descend into mortal bodies. Consequently the soul of man is nothing else than one of those Divine powers of those emanations of Deity which in their original state are called angels or daemons. It is only the life-sustaining sensitive soul that originates by generation and indeed from the aeriform elements of the seed; reason on the contrary enters into man from without. The human πνεῦμα is thus an emanation of Deity: God breathed His spirit into man.—The body as the animal part of man is the source of all evil it is the prison to which the spirit is banished the corpse which the soul drags about with it the coffin or the grave from which it will first awake to true life. Sense as such being evil sin is innate in man No one can keep himself free from it even if he were to live but a day.

6. Ethic. According to these anthropologic assumptions it is self-evident that the chief principle of ethic is the utmost possible renunciation of sensuousness the extirpation of desire and of the passions. Hence among philosophical systems the Stoic must be most of all congenial to Philo in the matter of ethic. It is this that he chiefly embraces not only in its fundamental thought of the mortification of the senses but also in single statements as in the doctrine of the four cardinal virtues and of the four passions. Like the Stoics he teaches that there is only one good morality; like them he requires freedom from all passions and the greatest possible simplicity of life; like them he also is a cosmopolitan. But with all this affinity Philo’s ethic still essentially differs from the Stoic. The Stoics refer man to his own strength; according to Philo man as a sensuous being is incapable of liberating himself from sensuousness: for this he needs the help of God. It is God who plants and promotes the virtues in the soul of man. Only he who honours Him and yields himself to His influence can attain to perfection. True morality is as Plato teaches the imitation of the Deity. In this religious basis of ethic Philo is very decidedly distinguished from the Stoics. Political activity and practical morality in general have a value only so far as they are a necessary medium for contending against evil. But knowledge also must subserve this one object and hence ethic is the most important part of philosophy. Nevertheless the purity of life attained by such self-knowledge is not the ultimate and supreme object of human development. On the contrary the origin of man being transcendental the object of his development is likewise transcendental. As it was by falling away from God that he was entangled in this life of sense so must he struggle up from it to the direct vision of God. This object is attainable even in this earthly life. For the truly wise and virtuous man is lifted above and out of himself and in such ecstasy beholds and recognises Deity itself. His own consciousness sinks and disappears in the Divine light; and the Spirit of God dwells in him and stirs him like the strings of a musical instrument. He who has in this way attained to the vision of the Divine has reached the highest degree of earthly happiness. Beyond it lies only complete deliverance from this body that return of the soul to its original incorporeal condition which is bestowed on those who have kept themselves free from attachment to this sensuous body.

Philo’s influence upon the two circles which he had chiefly in view viz. Judaism and heathenism was impaired by the fact that from his time onward Jewish Hellenism in general gradually lost in importance. On the one hand the Pharisaic tendency gained strength in the Dispersion also on the other Hellenistic Judaism was in respect of its influence upon heathen circles repressed nay altogether dissolved by Christianity which was now in its prime. Hence Judaeo-Hellenistic philosophy had gradually to give place to its stronger rival in both regions. Its influence was nevertheless still considerable. Jewish Rabbis and heathen neo-Platonists were more or less affected by it. Its strongest and most enduring influence was however exercised in a direction which still lay outside Philo’s horizon upon the development of Christian dogma. The New Testament already shows unmistakeable traces of Philonean wisdom; and almost all the Greek Fathers of the first century the apologists as well as the Alexandrians the Gnostics as well as their adversaries and even the great Greek theologians of subsequent centuries have some more some less either directly or indirectly consciously or unconsciously drawn from Philo. But to follow out these traccs lies beyond the province of this work.

ABRAHAM book of, iii. 148

Accusations against the Jews, iii. 263; concerning their origin, 264; want of culture, 264; atheism, 265; sacrifice of a Greek, 266; worship of the emperor, 267; social isolation, 267; circumcision, 269; abstinence from swine’s flesh, 269; observance of the Sabbath, 269

Adam books of, iii. 147

Amarkelin, i. 263

Apion, iii. 257

Apollonius Molon, iii. 251

Apologetic, iii. 248, 262

Aquila and Theodotion, iii. 168

Aristeas, iii. 208, 306

Aristobulus, iii. 237

Artapanus, iii. 206

Assumptio Mosis the, iii. 73

Augustus worship of at Caesarea, i. 15 sq.

BARUCH the Apocalypse of, iii. 83

Baruch book of, iii. 188; date of its composition, 191

CANON the, i. 310

Chaberim name explained, ii. 22

Chaeremon, iii. 255

Cleanness and uncleanness ordinances concerning, ii. 106

Cleanness or uncleanness of earthen vessels, ii. 107; of wooden leathern bone and glass vessels, 108

Cleodemus (or Malchus), iii. 209

Coins and worship of Dora, i. 17; Ptolemais, 17; Damascus, 18; Kanatha and Philadelphia, 19; Scythopolis, 19; Decapolis, 20; Samaria, 20; Sepphoris, 21; Tiberias, 21

Constitution of Jewish communities in the Dispersion, ii. 243; their internal organization, 243; their political position, 252

Culture Hellenic diffusion of, i. 11

Culture state of in general, i. 1

DAGON worship of, i. 14

Daniel additions to, iii. 183

Daniel book of, iii. 49

Demetrius, iii. 200

Derceto or Atargatis worship of, i. 13 sq.

Development of the Messianic hope historical survey of the, ii. 137; apocryphal books of the Old Testament, 138; the Jewish Sibyllines, 139; book of Enoch, 141; Psalterium Salomonis, 142; Assumptio Mosis, 144; book of Jubilees, 145; New Testament, 148; popular tumults, 149; Apocalypses of Baruch and Ezra, 150

Diogenes letter of, iii. 317

Dislike of the Graeco-Roman world to the Jews, ii. 296

Dispersion the extent of, ii. 220

Districts east of Lake of Gennesareth, i. 4

Dusares worship of, i. 22

ELDAD and Modad, iii. 129

Elijah apocalypse of, iii. 129

Enoch book of, iii. 54; the original writing, 61; the allegories, 66; the Noachian portions, 69

Epic poetry and the drama, iii. 222

Epic poet the Philo, iii. 222

Erubh appointments concerning the, ii. 120

Essenes the, ii. 188; their daily labour, 197; ethics manners and customs of, 198; theology of, 202

Essenism nature and origin of, ii. 205; influence of Buddhism, 215; Parseeism, 216; Pythagoreanism upon, 216

FASTING rules concerning, ii. 118

GAMES Greek in cities of Palestine, i. 23–28, 32–34

Genesis the smaller, iii. 135

Gentiles participation of in the worship at Jerusalem, i. 299

Gentiles varying degrees of observance of the ceremonial law by, ii. 311

God-fearing Gentiles, ii. 314

Grace before and after meals, ii. 117

Greek architecture, i. 34; music, 36; plastic art, 36; writing, 36; trade and industry, 37; and coinage in Palestine, 38

Greek and Latin words in the Mishna, i. 46, 47

Greck and Roman coins, i. 28–40; articles of commerce, 41–45; domestic utensils, 45 in Palestine

Greek poets forged verses of, iii. 294

HAGGADAH the, i. 339

Haggadic treatment of the history of the Creation etc., i. 342

Halachah and Haggadah, i. 329

Halachic Midrash, i. 331

Heathen idolatry and non-observance of the Levitical law guarded agaiust, i. 52, 54

Hecataeus, iii. 302

Hellenism in the Jewish region, i. 29

Hellenism in non-Jewish regions, i. 11

Hellenistic towns constitutions of, i. 57–60

Hermippus, iii. 317

High priest functions of the, i. 254

High priests, i. 195; list of, 197; persons described as ἀρχιερεῖς but not found in, 203

Historical works of Philo, iii. 219

Historiography, iii. 6; Maccabees first book of, 7

Holy Scripture canonical dignity of, i. 306

Houses letting of to Gentiles forbidden, i. 55

Hyrcanus Chronicles of, iii. 3

Hystaspes, iii. 292

ISAIAH martyrdom of, iii. 141

JEREMIAH the letter of, iii. 195

Jerusalem the only city proper, i. 161

Jesus the son of Sirach, iii. 23; Greek translation of, 27; Hebrew text of, 27

Jewish communities recognised by the State, ii. 260; administer their own funds, 260; exercise jurisdiction over their members, 262

Jewish law the a law of ritual, i. 337

Jewish region threefold division of, i. 2

Jewish propagandism success of, ii. 297; testimony of Josephus to, 305; of Seneca and Dio Cassius to, 307; of the Acts, 308; of Horace and Juvenal, 308

Jewish temple at Leontopolis, ii. 28

Jewish territory the strictly, i. 149

Jews admitted to rights of Roman citizenship, ii. 276

Jews the admitted in some towns to rights of citizenship, ii. 271

Jews exemption of from military service, ii. 264

Jews of the Dispersion religions life of, ii. 281

Jews position of in mainly heathen communities, i. 148

John Hyrcanus history of, iii. 13

Josephus works of, iii. 221

Jubilees the book of, iii. 134

Judaea division of into toparchies, i. 157

Judaism extension of, i 1

Judaism foreign influences on, i. 350

Judaism in the Dispersion, ii. 219

Judaism position of with respect to heathenism, i. 51

Judaism treated as a religio licita, ii. 259

Judith book of, iii. 32

Justus of Tiberias, iii. 222

LANGUAGE Greek knowledge of, i. 48–50

Language Latin use of, i. 50, 51

Language the of Jewish population, i. 8

Law of Moses canonical, i. 306

Legendary works Lost, iii. 146

Legends the sacred, iii. 132

Levites the, i. 223; their courses, 225; residence, 229

Life under the law, ii. 90

Literati Greek in Palestine, i. 28, 29

Literature historical Graeco-Jewish, iii. 195

Literature the Graeco-Jewish, iii. 156

Literature the Palestinian Jewish, iii. 1

Local courts, i. 151 sqq.

Lysimachus, iii. 254

MACCABEES first book of, iii. 7

Maccabees second book of, iii. 210; date of, 213

Maccabees third book of, iii. 216; date of, 218

Maccabees fourth book of, iii. 244

Magic and magical spells books of, iii. 151

Manasseh Prayer of, iii. 188

Mementoes the three, ii. 111

Messiah the suffering, ii. 184

Messianic hope the, ii. 126; the distinction of the later from the older, 129

Messianic theology systematic statement of, ii. 154; the last tribulation, 154; Elijah as forerunner, 156; the appearing of the Messiah, 158; last attack of hostile powers, 164; destruction of hostile powers, 165; renovation of Jerusalem, 168; gathering of the dispersed, 169; kingdom of glory in Palestine, 170; renovation of the world, 177; the general resurrection, 179

Moses and his time, iii. 149

Moses apocryphal literature regarding, iii. 149

Musicians sacred the, i. 270

NARRATIVE hortatory, iii. 32

Native and Greek religions mixture of, i. 13

Nicephorus stichometry of, iii. 125

OPPONENTS the literary, iii. 249

PALESTINE Jewish population of, i. 1

Palestinian Jewish literature, iii. 1; native historical works, 3; pseudepigraphic writings, 44

Pharisaic party proceeded from the scribes, ii. 9

Pharisaism history and origin of, ii. 25

Pharisaism religious and dogmatic views of, ii. 12; politics of, 17

Pharisees and Sadducees, ii. 1; testimony of Josephus concerning, 2; of the Mishna, 5

Pharisees name of explained, ii. 19

Pharisees the, ii. 10

Philo, iii. 243

Philo the Jewish philosopher life and writings of, iii. 321; Quaestiones et solutiones, 327; Legum allegoriarum lib., i. ii. and iii. 331; De Cherubim et flammeo gladio, 332; De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini, 332; Quod deterius potiori insidiari soleat, 333; De posteritate Caini sibi visi sapientis et quo pacto sedem mutat, 333; De gigantibus, 334; De agricultura, 335; De ebrietate, 335; De sobrietate, 335; De confusione linguarum, 335; De migratione Abrahami, 335; Quis rerum divinarum haeres sit, 336; De congressu quaerendae eruditionis causa, 336; De profugis, 337; De mutatione nominum, 337; De somniis, 337; Delineation of the Mosaic legislation for non-Jews, 338; De mundi opificio, 339; De Abrahamo, 341; De Josepho, 341; De decalogo, 342; De specialibus legibus, 343; De fortitudine, 345; De praemiis et poenis, 347; Vita Mosis, 348; Quod omnis probus liber, 349; Adversus Flaccum, 349; De providentia, 354; De Alexandro et quod propriam rationem muta animalia habeant, 355; Ὑποθετικά, 355; Περὶ Ἰουδαίων, 356; the lost books, 356; spurious works, 357

Philo the doctrine of, iii. 362; a Greek philosopher, 364; remained a Jew, 365; his allegorical interpretation, 367; his double mission, 367; his doctrine of God, 369; intermediate beings, 371; the Logos, 374; creation and preservation of the world, 376; anthropology, 377; ethic, 378; influence, 381

Philosophy, iii. 228

Philosophy Greek influence of, iii. 233

Pirke Aboth the, iii. 30

Poet the tragic Ezekiel, iii. 225

Police duties of to the temple fulfilled by priests and Levites, i. 264

Prayers legal appointments concerning, ii. 115

Presidents functions of the, i. 259

Priesthood the a distinct order, i. 207; a sacred order, 213

Priesthood the and temple worship, i. 207

Priests emoluments of, i. 230; firstlings and tithes, 231; portions of offerings, 232; dues independent of sacrifices, 237; extraordinary offerings, 245

Priests pedigree the primary requisite in, i. 210; regulations concerning marriage of, 210; must be free from physical defect, 214; consecration of, 214; twenty-four families or courses of, 216

Propaganda Jewish under a heathen mask, iii. 270

Prophecies pseudepigraphic, iii. 44; contents, 45; form, 46

Prophecies pseudepigraphic the lost, iii. 124

Prophets and historical books also canonical, i. 308

Proselytes, ii. 291, 316; baptism of, 321; obligations of, 324

Proseuchae, ii. 73

Public worship imposts for defraying expense of, i. 249; free-will offerings for, 253

Purification different kinds of, ii. 109

RABBI title of, i. 315

Rabbinical power increase of after the fall of Jerusalem, i. 365

Rabbis legislative power of, i. 323

Religions native, i. 11

Retribution divine faith in, ii. 91

SABBATH sanctification, ii. 96

Sabbath thirty-nine prohibited works on the, ii. 97; other employments forbidden, 102

Sacrifices public and private, i. 279

Sadducean party proceeded from the priests, ii. 9

Sadducees the, ii. 29; distinctive marks of, 29, 34, 36, 39

Samaritans the, i. 5; position of Judaism proper with respect to, 7

Sanhedrim the supreme in Jerusalem its history, i. 165; its composition, 174; president, 180; jurisdiction, 184; time and place of meeting, 190; its judicial procedure, 193

School and synagogue, ii. 44

School the, ii. 46; subject of instruction, 50

Schools of Hillel and Shammai, i. 361

Scribes labours of gratuitous, i. 317

Scribes professional employment of, i. 320

Scribes the and their activity in general, i. 312; real teachers of the people, 313

Scribes the most famous, i. 351; the five pairs of, 356

Scribism, i. 306

Scripture lessons, ii. 79; sermon, 82

Scripture literature revision and completion of, iii. 175

Segan functions of the, i. 257

Septuagint the, iii. 159; accepted by the Jews of the dispersion, 163

Service morning the, i. 292; evening, 297

Service the daily, i. 273

Shema, the, ii. 83

Shemoneh Esreh, the, ii. 85

Sibyllines, the, iii. 271; survey of the contents of, 277; date of composition, 280

Small pieces of Jewish origin under heathen names, iii. 316

Solomon as an author of magic, iii. 152

Solomon Psalms of, iii. 17

Solomon wisdom of, iii. 230

Symmachus, iii. 169

Synagogue the, ii. 52; presupposes a religious community, 55; officials of, 56; religious discipline, 60; rules of, 63; Decem otiosi, 67; the building, 68

Synagogue order of Divine worship in, ii. 75

TEMPLE topographical observations on, i. 280

Temple tribute and festival pilgrimages of the Jews of the Dispersion, ii. 288

Temple vocal and instrumental music in the, i. 290

Theodotus, iii. 224

Tobit book of, iii. 37

Towns in and near Palestine general history of, i. 61–63; their kind of dependence on Rome different, 63–66; special history of, 66–148; Raphia, 66; Gaza, 68 sqq.; Anthedon, 72; Ascalon, 74; Azotus, 76; Jamnai, 78; Joppa, 79; Apollonia, 83; Straton’s Tower, 84; Dora, 87; Ptolemais, 90; Damascus, 96; Hippus, 98; Gadara, 100; Abila, 104; Raphana, 106; Kanata, 106; Kanatha, 108; Scythopolis, 110; Pella, 113; Dium, 115; Gerasa, 116; Philadelphia, 119; Sebaste-Samaria, 123; Gaba, 127; Esbon or Hesbon, 128; Antipatris, 130; Phasaelis, 131; Caesarea Panias, 132; Julias formerly Bethsaida, 135; Sepphoris, 136; Julias or Livias, 141; Tiberias, 143

Translations of Scripture, iii. 159

Treasurers functions of the, i. 261

Twelve Patriarchs Testaments of the, iii. 114

VILLAGES subordinate to towns, i. 154 sqq.

WISDOM the gnomic, iii. 23

Works the lost legendary, iii. 146

Writer an anonymous, iii. 210

ZEPHANIAH Apocalypse of, iii. 132

IN accordance with the strongly expressed wish of Professor Schürer his elaborate and carefully compiled Index has been faithfully reproduced in English for the benefit of students of his History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ. The need of an Index for so extensive and thorough-going a treatise as that which has now been completed in five English volumes will be apparent to all who are in any measure acquainted with the work. The English edition has been issued almost contemporaneously with the German the last two volumes having been translated from proof-sheets forwarded by the author from time to time as the printing of the original advanced.

The figures used in the Index references indicate respectively the Division (I. II.) the volume in each Division (I. i. ii.; II. i. ii. iii.) and the page.

At the end of this volume are given the Additions and Corrections which Professor Schürer wishes to be made to Division II. Those supplied by the author for Division I. are given at the close of vol. ii. of that Division.



20th December 1890.


                            INDEX B—HEBREW WORDS

                            INDEX C—GREEK WORDS

                            INDEX D—NAMES AND SUBJECTS





אב month, I. ii. 363

אב בית דין, II. i. 180–184

אבא, II. i. 316

אגדה, II. i. 330, 339

אדר month, I. ii. 363, 371

אזוב, II. i. 43

איר month,

איש הבירה, II. i. 267

איש הר הבית, II. i. 267

אלול month, I. ii. 363

אליניסתין, II. ii. 284

אמן, II. ii. 78, 82

אמרכלין, II. i. 264

אנלגין, II. ii. 75

ארץ אחרת, II. ii. 170

אשכולות, II. i. 357

אשלמתא, II. i. 311

אתריג = κίτριον, I. i. 300


בטלנין, II. ii. 67

בירה, II. i. 267

בית אב, II. i. 221

בית דין, II. i. 169–172

בית הכנסת, II. ii. 68

בית המדרש, II. i. 325, ii. 50

בית הספר, II. ii. 49, 50

בכורים, II. i. 237

בן נכר, II. i. 300

בני הכנסת, II. ii. 58

בני העיר, II. ii. 57

בר מצוה, II. ii. 51

בריתא, I. i. 133

ברכת המינים, II. ii. 88


גאלה on coins, I. ii. 385, 386

גבאי צדקה, II. ii. 66

גבינה, II. i. 43

גד יון, II. i. 23

גזברים, II. i. 264

גזית, II. i. 191

גזרה שוה, II. i. 336

גיהנום, II. ii. 183

גיורא, II. ii. 315

גיורת, II. ii. 315

גיניסיא, I. ii. 26 f.

גן עדן, II. ii. 183

גר תושב, II. ii. 316–319

גרי הצדק, II. ii. 316 f.

גרי השער, II. ii. 316–319

גרים, II. ii. 315

גרוס, II. i. 43


דברי חכמים, II. i. 334

דברי סופרים, II. i. 314, 333

דושרא, II. i. 22

דין, II. i. 334

דלעת, II. i. 43

דרוש, II. i. 348

דרך ארץ, II. i. 333

דרש, II. i. 330

דרשה, II. ii. 82

דרשן, II. ii. 82

דת יהודית, II. i. 333


הבדלה, II. ii. 88

הגדה, II. i. 330. See also אגדה

הלכה, II. i. 330, 332, 329, ii. 12

הפטיר בנביא, II. ii. 81

הרצאת דמים, II. ii. 319


זבחי שלמים, II. i. 236, 279

זוגות, II. i. 356

זוז, II. i. 39

זיתוס, II. i. 42

זכר, II. i. 336

זקן, II. i. 360, 361, 364. See also “Elders” in Index D


חביתים, II. i. 289

חבל, II. i. 45

חבלי המשיח, II. ii. 155

חבר Chaber, II. i. 324, ii. 8 f., 22–25

חבר היהודים Cheber, I. i. 284

חבר עיר Cheber, II. ii. 57

חגזית חגזיות, II. i. 190 f.

חומץ, II. i. 42

חזן, II. i. 273, ii. 66

חכמים, II. i. 315, 334

חלה, II. i. 241

חלילים, II. i. 272

חמתה, II. i. 101, 144

חנכה, I. i. 218

חסידים, II. i. 357. See also “Chasidim” in Index D

חסין Essenes, II. ii. 191

חצוצרית, II. i. 272, ii. 75

חצר, II. i. 154

חרדל, II. i. 43

חרות on coins, I. ii. 385, 386

חרם something devoted, II. i. 246

חרם exclusion from the Church, II. ii. 60


טבילה, See “Washing” in Index D

טבת month, I. ii. 363

טוטפות, II. ii. 113

טלית, II. ii. 113


יהודית Jewish, II. i. 332

יהוה pronounced in the temple as it spells, II. i. 296

not pronounced in the synagogue worship, II. ii. 82


כותח, II. i. 42

כותים, II. i. 6

כיור, II. i. 278, 283

כמון κύμινον, II. i. 229

כנור, II. i. 272

כנישתא, II. ii. 68

כנישתא דגופנא, II. ii. 74

כנסת, II. ii. 58. See also בית בני חזן ראש

כנסת הגדולה, II. i. 354

כסלו month, I. ii. 363

כפיפה, II. i. 45

כפר, II. i. 154, 155

כפרה, II. ii. 320

כרך, II. i. 155

כרם, II. i. 326

כתבי הקדש, II. i. 311


לולב φοίνιξ, I. i. 300

לשון הקדש, II. i. 10

לשכת הגזית, II. i. 190


מדרש, II. i. 330, 339, 341

מועדי אל, II. ii. 54, iii. 16

מופלא, II. i. 184

מוצאי שביעית, I. i. 41

מוצאי שבת, I. i. 41

מזוזה, II. i. 112

מטפחות, II. ii. 74

מילה, II. ii. 319. See also “Circumcision” in Index D

מינים, II. ii. 88

מכס, I. ii. 66, 71

מלכות שמים, II. ii. 171

מעמד, II. i. 275

מצלתים, II. i. 271

מקרא, II. i. 333

מר μάριν, I. ii. 93

μαρὰν ἀθά, II. i. 9

מרחשין month, I. ii. 363

משוך, I. i. 204

משיח משיחא, II. i. 9, ii. 158

משל, II. iii. 24

משמר, II. i. 220

משנה, I. i. 119 f.; II. i. 324

משנה ראשונה, I. i. 120

מתורגמן, II. ii. 81


נבל, II. i. 272

נדכות, II. i. 253, 300

נדוי, II. ii. 61

נדרים, II. i. 253, 300

ניפן month, I. ii. 363

נשיא, II. i. 180–184; on coins I. ii. 386

נתגיר, II. ii. 315

נתינים, II. i. 225 f., 273


סגן, II. i. 257–259

סוד, II. i. 348

סופרים, II. i. 314, 333

סיון month, I. ii. 363

סיקרום, I. ii. 179

סירא, II. iii. 25

סלם, II. i. 44

סמיכה, II. i. 177

סעידה, II. ii. 174


עבר לפני התיבה, II. ii. 78

עדשים, II. i. 43

עולם הזה, II. ii. 177–179

עולם הבא, II. ii. 177–179

עיר, II. i. 154, 155

עלת התמיד, II. i. 284

עם האדץ, II. ii. 8, 22 f.

ערב שבת, I. i. 41


פול, II. i. 43

פולתוס, See πόλεμος

פחות, II. i. 259

פירות taxes, II. ii. 45

פרדס, II. ii. 183

פר׳׳דס, II. i. 348

פרדסות סבסטי, II. i. 125

פרוזבול, II. i. 32, 362

פרוטה, II. i. 40

פרושים, II. ii. 19

פרישה, II. ii. 19

פרישות, II. ii. 19

פרשיות, II. ii. 80

פשט, II. ii. 348


צבור, II. ii. 59

צופום, I. ii. 213

ציצית, II. ii. 111

צלצל, II. i. 271

צמח דוד, II. ii. 159

צפה, II. ii. 15, 17


קבלה, II. i. 311

קדשים קלים, II. i. 243

קהל, II. ii. 59

קוסים, II. i. 45

קופה, II. i. 46, ii. 66

קילקי, II. i. 44

קל יהומר, II. i. 336

קנאן קנא, I. ii. 80

קצרה קצטרא castra ἀκρόπολις, II. i. 130

קצין, II. i. 22

קרן capital, II. ii. 45

קתוליקין, II. i. 264


ראיה, II. i. 336

ראש בית אב, II. i. 221, 257

ראש בית רין, II. i. 184

ראש הכנסת, II. ii. 64

ראש המשמר, II. i. 221

ראש חבר היהודים, I. i. 284

רבן רבי, II. i. 315

רמז, II. i. 348

רשות, II. ii. 120


שבט month, I. ii. 363

שבת ἄνηθον, II. i. 239

שופרות, II. ii. 75

שכר, II. i. 42

שליה צבור, II. ii. 67, 78

שלמים, See זבחי שלמים

שמונה עשרה, II. ii. 77, 85–88

שמים metonym for God, II. ii. 171

שמע, II. ii. 77, 84

שמתא, II. ii. 60

שנה δευτεροῦν, I. i. 119, ii. 324

שפלה, I. i. 252

שקוץ משמם, I. i. 208


תחום הרבת, II. ii. 102

תחית המתים, II. ii. 179

תיבה, II. ii. 74

תלמוד, I. i. 133

תלמידי חכמים, II. i. 324

תמוז month, I. ii. 363

תמחוי, II. ii. 66

תמיד, II. i. 284

תנופה, II. i. 284

תפלה, II. ii. 85

תפלין, II. ii. 113

תרומה, II. i. 238

תשרי month, I. ii. 363


ἀββᾶ, II. i. 9

ἀγορανόμος, II. i. 146

ἀζανίται, II. ii. 66

ἀηρ אויר, II. i. 46

ἀθεότης of the Jews, II. iii. 265

αἰὼν οὖτος, II. ii. 177–179

—μέλλων, II. ii. 177–179

ἐρχόμενος, II. ii. 177–179

ἀκελδαμάχ, II. i. 9, iii. 25

ἀκρόασις, I. ii. 131

ἀκρόπολις, II. i. 139

ἀλαβάρχης, II. ii. 280

ἀμήν, II. ii. 78, 82

ἀμιξία of the Jews, II. iii. 268

ἀνάθεμα, II. ii. 61

ἀναλογεῖον, II. ii. 75

ἄνηθον, II. i. 239

ἀντιστράτηγος = pro praetore, I. i. 348

ἀντίψυχον, II. iii. 246

ἀπογράφειν ἀπογραφή, I. ii. 112, 137

ἀραβάρχης, II. ii. 280

ἀριστοκρατία the Jewish constitution in the times of the Procurators, I. ii. 72; II. i. 171

ἀρχή ארכי, II. i. 31, 138

ἀρχιερατικὸν γένος, II. i. 205

ἀρχιερεῖς (see also “High Priest” in Index D), II. i. 177, 203–205

ἀρχιερεύς as title of non-Jewish princes, I. ii. 331, 334

ἀρχισυνάγωγος, II. ii. 252

ἀρχιτελώνης, I. ii. 68

ἄρχοντες in Jerusalem, II. i. 177

ἄρχοντες in the Dispersion, See “Archons” in Index D

ἄρχων, II. i. 66, 145

ἀσθενής אסטניס, II. i. 47

Ἀσιδαῖοι, See Chasidim in Index D

ἀσπάραγος אספרגוס, II. i. 43

ἀσσάριον אסר, II. i. 39

ἄσυλος, See “Asylum” (right of) in Index D

αὐλών the Jordan-valley, I. i. 424–425

αὐτονομία, II. i. 64. See also “Autonomy” in Index D


B the letter B = the second district of the city of Alexandria, II. ii. 229

βαλανεύς בלז, II. i. 33

βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, II. ii. 171

βασιλική בסילקי, II. i. 34. See “Basilica” in Index D

βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, I. i. 208

βῆμα בימה, II. i. 34, ii. 75

βίος διὰ βίου, II. ii. 250

βουλή βουλευταί βουλευτήριον in Jerusalem, II. i. 151, 172, 190

βυρσεύς בורסי, II. i. 45


Γ = גמא used to represent the figure Γ, II. i. 50

γαββαθᾶ, II. i. 9

γαζοφύλακες γαζοφυλάκιον, II. i. 261

γέεννα, II. ii. 183

γειώρας, II. ii. 315

γενάρχης, II. ii. 244

γενέσια, I. ii. 27

γένη ἀρχιερέων γένος ἀρχιερατικόν, II. i. 204, 205

γερουσία, See “Gerusia” in Index D

γερουσιάρχης γερουσιάρχων, II. ii. 248

γηόρας, II. ii. 315

γιώρας, See γειώρας

γλωσσόκομον גלוסקמא, II. i. 46

γνώριμοι, II. i. 177

γολγοθᾶ, II. i. 9

γραμματεῖς, II. i. 313, 314


Δ(τὸ καλούμενη Δέλτα) = the fourth city district of Alexandria, II. ii. 230

δαλματική דלמטיקיון, II. i. 44

δεῖγμα דוגמא, II. i. 46

δεῖπνα, See σύυδειπνα

δέκα πρῶτοι, II. i. 145

δεξιολάβοι, I. ii. 55

δευτερόω δευτέρωσις δευτερωτής, I. i. 119, 120; II. i. 324

δηνάριον דינר, II. i. 39

διὰ βίου, II. ii. 250

διαθήκη דיתיקי, II. i. 32. See also “Testament” in Index D

δίδραχμον, II. i. 41. See also “Didrachma tax” in Index D

δυνατοι, II. i. 178


ἐθνάρχης, I. i. 378; II. ii. 244

ἐκκλησία, II. ii. 58 f.

Ἑλληνιστί אליניסתין, II. ii. 284

Ἐλωΐ, II. i. 10

ἐμπίλια אצפליא, II. i. 44

ἐνσαραμέλ, I. i. 265

ἐξέδρα אכסדרה, II. i. 34

ἐξηγηταὶ πατρίων νόμων, II. i. 314

ἔπαρχος, I. ii. 45; II. i. 66

ἔπηλυς, I. ii. 93 (Philo in Flacc. § 8)

ἐπήλυτος, II. ii. 316

ἐπισπασμός, I. i. 204

ἐπίτροπος אפיטרופוס, II. i. 31

ἐπίτροπος as title of state official, I. i. 378, ii. 45

ἒρανοι, II. ii. 254

εὐσεβής as title, I. ii. 162, 343

ἐφημερία ἐφημερίς, II. i. 221

ἐφφαθά, II. i. 9


ζὰ βίου=διὰ βίου, II. ii. 250

ζηλωτής, I. ii. 80

ζῦθος זותוס, II. i. 42


ἡγεμονία הגמוניא, II. i. 31

ἡγεμών הגמון, II. i. 31; I. ii. 264, 276

ἡγεμών = praeses as title of the Roman governor, I. ii. 45


θέρμος תורמוס, II. i. 43

θήκη תיק, II. i. 46, ii. 74

θίασοι, II. ii. 254

θύρα ὡραία, II. i. 35, 280

θυρεός תריס, II. i. 31


ἰδιώτης הדיוט, II. i. 46

ἱερὰ καὶ ἄσυλος, See “Asylum” (right of) in Index D

ἰερογραμματεῖς, II. i. 314

ἱεροψάλται, II. i. 271

ἰσοπολιτεία, II. i. 148


καθάρσιον, II. iii. 246

καθέδρα קתדרא, II. i. 45

καθήγορος קטיגור, II. i. 32

καῖρος קירוס, II. i. 45

κάλαμος קלמוס, II. i. 37

κάμπτρα קמטרא, II. i. 46

κάνναβος קנבוס, II. i. 45

καταφερής קטפרס, II. i. 47

κεφάλαιον, I. ii. 69

κῆτος, II. i. 15

κιβωτός, II. ii. 74

κίθαρις, II. i. 36

κιθαρισταί, II. i. 271

κινύρα, II. i. 272

κίτριον = אתרוג, I. i. 300

κοδράντης, II. i. 40

κοινόν of Jerusalem, II. i. 172

κορβανᾶς, II. i. 9

κράσπεδα, II. ii. 112

κυβεία קוביא, II. i. 36

κύμβαλα, II. i. 271

κύμινον, II. i. 239

κώμη, II. i. 154, 160 f.

κωμόπολις, II. i. 154, 161


λεγιῶνε לגיונות, II. i. 31

λεπτόν פרוטה, II. ii. 40

λῃστῆς לסטים, II. i. 46

Λιβερτῖνοι, II. ii. 57, 276

λόγια δέκα the ten commandments, II. iii. 342 ff.


μαμωνᾶς, II. i. 9

μαοὰν ἀθά, II. i. 9

μάριν, I. ii. 93

μαρσύπιον מרצוף, II. i. 46

μέγας in what sense Herod so called, I. i. 467

μέγας βασιλεύς, I. ii. 162

μεριδάρχης, I. i. 243

Μεσσιας, II. i. 9

μητροκωμὶα, II. i. 161

μητρόπολις, See “Metropolis” in Index D

μὶσθωσις, I. ii. 70

μονοπώλης מנפול, II. i. 38


νάβλα, II. i. 272

νάννος ננס, II. i. 46

νεωκόροι, II. i. 273

νῆμα נימא, II. i. 45

νομικοί, II. i. 314

νομοδιδάσκαλοι, II. i. 314

νομος embracing also the Prophets and the Poetical Writings, II. i. 312

νουμηνία, I. ii. 377. See “New Moon” in Index D


ξένοι אבסניא, II. i. 34

ξυστός, II. i. 191


ὀθόνιον Ἰνδικόν, II. i. 44

οἰκουμένη in Luke, I. ii. 112, 142

οὐρανοί metonym for God, II. ii. 171

ὁψώνιον אפסניא, II. i. 31


παλιγγενεσία, II. i. 177; also Addenda in Index vol.

πανάρετος σοφία, II. iii. 27, 28

πανδοκεῖον פונדקי, II. i. 34

παράδεισος, II. ii. 183

παράκλητος פרקליט, II. i. 32

παρεδροι פרהדרין, II. i. 32

πασχα, II. i. 9

πατήρ as title, See “Abba” and “Pater” in Index D

πατριά, II. i. 221

πενταετηρίς, II. i. 26

περσική אפרסקי, II. i. 43

κίθος פיטס, II. i. 46

μιλίον פליון, II. i. 44

πίναξ פנקס, II. i. 38

πόλεμος פולמוס, II. i. 31; I. ii. 5, 286

πόλις, II. i. 154 f.

πολίτευμα, II. ii. 246

πραιτώριον, I. ii. 48

πρατήρ פלטר, II. i. 38

πρεσβευτής = legatus Augusti, I. i. 348

πρεσβυτέριον, II. i. 172

πρεσβύτεροι, See “Elders” in Index D

προσβολή פרוזבול, II. i. 32, 363

προσευκτήριον, II. ii. 69

προσευκή = Synagogue, II. ii. 68–74

προσήλυτοι, II. ii. 316

προστασία τοῦ ἔθνους, I. ii. 72

πρωτοκαθεδρια, II. ii. 75

πρῶτος comparative, I. ii. 135

——πρῶτοι δέκα, II. i. 145


ῥαββί, II. i. 315

ῥαββουνί, II. i. 316

ῥακά, II. i. 9


σαβαχθανί, II. i. 9

σαββατεῖον, II. ii. 69

Σαμβαθεῖον, II. ii. 69

σάνδαλον סנדל, II. i. 44

Σαραμέλ, I. i. 265

Σαρβὴθ Σαβαναιέλ, II. iii. 9

σατανᾶς, II. i. 9

Σεβαστὴ σπεῖρα, I. ii. 53

Σεβαστός, See “Augustus” in Index D

σεβόμενοι τὸν θεόν, II. ii. 308, 314–319

Σεφήλα, I. i. 251 f.

σικάριοι, I. ii. 178, 179

σινδόνες Ἰνδικαί, II. i. 44

σιράχ = סירא, II. iii. 25

σιτώνης סיטון, II. i. 38

σκηνοποιός, II. i. 44

σουδάριον סודרין, II. i. 44

σοφισταί, II. i. 314

σπεῖρα Ἰταλική, I. ii. 54

σπεῖρα Σεβαστή, I. ii. 53

σπεκουλάτωρ, I. ii. 62 f.

στάδιον אצטדין, II. i. 34

στατήρ, II. i. 39

στέμμα στέμματα, I. i. 69

στοά איצטבא, II. i. 35

στολή איצטלית, II. i. 44

στρατηγός, I. i. 242, 265, 383, 384, 386; II. i. 66

στρατηγὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ, II. i. 258

στρατιά אסטרטיא, II. i. 31

συμβόλαιά τῶν δεδανεικότων, II. i. 363

συμβούλιον of the Roman governor, I. ii. 60

σύμμαχος Ῥωμαίων, I. i. 449

συμφωνία סמפוניא, II. i. 36

συναγωγή = church or congregation, II. ii. 58, 246

συναγωγή the building in which the congregation meets, II. ii. 68

συναγωγὴ ἐλαίας, II. ii. 74

συναγώγιον, II. ii. 69

συνέδριον סנהדרין, II. i. 32, 169, 172

its meaning generally, II. i. 169

συνέδριον at Jerusalem, II. i. 168–173

συνέδρια of Gabinius, II. i. 168; I. i. 373 f.

σύνοδοι, II. i. 168


ταλιθὰ κούμ, II. i. 9

τάριχος, II. i. 43, 44

τελώνης, I. ii. 68

τετράρχης, I. ii. 7, 8

τρίκλινος טריקלין, II. i. 35

τύπος טופס, II. i. 46


ὑμνῳδοί, II. i. 271

ὕπαρχοι, II. i. 146

ὑπηρέτης, II. ii. 66, 252

ὑποθετικά ὑποθετικοὶ λόγοι, II. iii. 355 f.

ὑποθήκη אפוהיקי, II. i. 32


φελόνη, II. ii. 75

φιάλη פילי, II. i. 45

Φιλέλλην, I. i. 184, 292, ii. 353

Φιλόκαισαρ, I. ii. 162, 343

Φιλοκλαύδιος, I. ii. 343

Φιλορώμαιος, I. i. 437, ii. 162, 163, 343

Φίλος καὶ σύμμαχος Ῥωμαίων, I. i. 449

φοβούμενοι τὸν θέον, II. ii. 308, 314–319

φοίνιξ = לולב, I. i. 300

φυλακτήρια, I. ii. 113

φυλή, II. i. 221


Χ = כי used to represent the figure Χ, II. i. 50

Χιλίαρχος, I. ii. 55

Χριστός, II. ii. 158


ψαλμῳδοί ψαλτῳδοί, II. i. 271

ψαλτήριον, II. i. 36


ὠδεῖον, II. i. 27

ὠδῖνες, II. i. 155

THOSE passages in which the fullest treatment of the subject in question is to be found are distinguished by an asterisk.—In classifying names under the letters C and K attention has been given to the most approved English orthography and where the practice of translators of Divisions I. and II. differs entries have been made under both letters.

Aaron’s sons alone have the privilege of priesthood, II. i. 209 f., 224, 225

Ab, Hebrew month, I. ii. 363

Ab beth-din, title, II. i. 180–184

Abadim, Talmudic tract, I. i. 144

Abba, title, II. i. 316

Comp. also pater.

Abba Areka, disciple of R. Judah, I. i. 134

Abba Gorion or Gurjan II., II. i. 316

Abba Gorion I., Midrash of, I. i. 149

Abba Saul, I. i. 127; II. i. 316, 378

Abel, see Abila.

Abia, one of the courses of the priests, II. i. 219, 274

Abias, king of Arabia, I. ii. 359

Abida, II. i. 105

Abila, various places of this name, II. i. 104

Abila in Decapolis, I. i. 307; II. i. 104, 105

coins and era of, II. i. 105

Abila Lysaniä, and Abilene, I. ii. 335–339

Lysaniä, situation and coins, I. ii. 336

Aboda sara, Talmudic tract, I. i. 124

Aboth, Tract, see Pirke Aboth.

Aboth derabbi Nathan, Tract, I. i. 143

Abraham, legends about, II. i. 342

as astrologer, II. i. 342, iii. 206

history in Artapanus, II. iii. 206

history in Cleodemus, II. iii. 210

history in Eupolemus, II. iii. 210

history in Philo the Epic poet, II. iii. 223

history in Appolonius Molon, II. iii. 253

history in Philo the philosopher, II. iii. 335 ff., 341

comp. also Josephus and Book of Jubilees;

reference to in pseudo-Orpheus, II. iii. 299

treatise of Hecataeus about, II. iii. 296, 305 ff.

apocryphal treatises about, II. iii. 143

Abraham’s children, prerogatives of, according to Philo, II. iii. 369

proselytes not allowed the name of, II. ii. 326

Abtaljon, II. i. 180, 353, 359

Abtinas, priestly course engaged in preparation of incense, II. i. 268

Abydenus, II. iii. 282

Acco, Ace, see Ptolemais.

Acme, female Jewish slave of the Empress Livia, II. ii. 38

Acra, citadel of Jerusalem in Epistle of Aristeas, II. iii. 310

history in Maccabean age, I. i. 206 222, 236, 241, 245, 247, 253, 262, 270

its position, I. i. 206 f., ii. 238;

levelling of the hill of the, I. i. 262

Acrabatta, capital of a toparchy, II. i. 157–161

besieged by Vespasian, I. ii. 232

another in the south of Judea, I. i. 220; II. i. 158

Actia Dusaria in Adraa and Bostra, II. i. 22

Actian games, when celebrated, I. i. 409

Actium, battle of, I. i. 344 f., 427

Adam, Legends about, II. i. 342

books of, II. iii. 147 f.

his sin and its consequences to mankind, II. iii. 89 f.

Adar, Hebrew month, I. ii. 363

first and second, I. ii. 371

Adasa, place so named, I. i. 229

Adda, R., in Sura, I. ii. 372

Adiabene, conversion of royal family to Judaism, II. ii. 308–311

Adida, place so named, I. i. 251 f. 254, 304, ii. 231

Adin, family, II. i. 253

Adora in Idumea, I. i. 254, 280

Adraa in Batanea, I. ii. 11

Ἄκτια Δουσάρια there, II. i. 22

Adramyttium, Jews there, II. ii. 261

Aegina, Jewish inscriptions there, II. ii. 65, 232

Aelia Capitolina, I. ii. 291, 294, 315–317

entrance forbidden to the Jews, I. ii. 315

worship and coins, I. ii. 316

Aelius Gallus, campaign against Arabia, I. i. 406, 407, 453

Aelius, L. Lamia, I. i. 360–362

Aemilius, M. Scaurus, general of Pompey, I. i. 318, 324

governor of Syria, I. i. 328 372

conquers Aretas, king of Arabia, I. i. 328, ii. 353

brings sea monster from Joppa to Rome, II. i. 15

Aemilius Secundus, lieutenant of Quirinius, I. i. 357, ii. 339

Aeneas = Aretas IV.

Aequus Modius, I. ii. 200

Aerarium in Rome, I. ii. 65

Aeschylus, forged verses ascribed to, II. iii. 298

Aethicus Ister, I. ii. 118

Aetolia, Jews residing in, II. ii. 222

Africa, derivation of the name, II. iii. 210

Africanus, Julius, probably used Justus of Tiberias in his Chronicle, I. i. 68, 307, 390, 391

on the descent of Herod, I. i. 314

on the additions to Daniel, II. iii. 184, 185

on the times of Moses, II. iii. 260

in consequence of his representations Emmaus, under the name of Nicopolis, is raised to a city, I. ii. 254

Agada, see Haggada.

Agadath Chasith, I. i. 148

Agadath Megilla, I. i. 149

Agnitos (Egnatius?), Roman governor, I. ii. 264

Agoranomos, II. i. 164

Agriculture, grain a chief product of Palestine, II. i. 41

tithes of produce of soil to priests, II. i. 233

main occupation of the Essenes, II. ii. 197

Agrigentum, Jews dwelling there, II. ii. 242

Agrippa, Marcus, friend and son-in-law of Augustus, his influence and doings in the East, I. i. 349

Herod visits him twice in Asia Minor, I. i. 409, 411, 452

at Jerusalem, I. i. 411, 452

sacrifices at Jerusalem, II. i. 302

presents gifts for adornment of Jerusalem, II. i. 305

protects the Jews in Asia Minor, II. ii. 262

returns to Rome, I. i. 411

his map of the world, I. ii. 117

Ἀγριππήσιοι, Jewish assemblies in Rome, II. ii. 248

Agrippa I., Jewish king, life before ascending the throne, I. i. 361, 364, ii. 150–155

receives in spring A.D. 37 tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanius, I. ii. 16, 153, 336

in autumn A.D. 38 goes from Rome by Alexandria to Palestine, I. ii. 37, 92, 95

receives in beginning of A.D. 40 the tetrarchy of Antipas, I. ii. 36–38

at Rome again in winter A.D. 40–41, I. ii. 101–103, 152

receives also Samaria and Judea, I. ii. 103, 154

reign, I. ii. 155–165

letter to Caligula communicated by Philo, I. ii. 82, 101 f., II. ii. 222

high priests appointed by, II. i. 119

inscriptions, I. ii. 155, 162

coins, I. ii. 155, 161 f.

title, I. ii. 162

death and account of it, I. ii. 163

Agrippa II., Jewish king, I. ii. 191–206

compare I. ii. 165, 168, 173, 185, 209, 210, 211, 218, 220

(1)               gifts of territory, I. ii. 192, 343

(2)               gifts of territory, I. ii. 193, 336, 340

(3)               gifts of territory, I. ii. 194

(4)               gifts of territory, I. ii. 201

high priests appointed by, II. i. 200 f.

years of his reign variously stated, I. ii. 192 f., 193 f.

inscriptions, I. ii. 162, 192, 193, 195

coins, I. ii. 192, 195, 202

name, I. ii. 191, 192

policy, I. ii. 196

private life, I. ii. 195, 204

building of temple, I. ii. 198

title, I. ii. 196

year of death, I. i. 92, ii. 205

relations with Josephus, I. i. 83

Agrippa, son of King Alexander, see Julius Agrippa.

Agrippa, son of Felix and Drusilla, I. ii. 177

Agrippa Simonides, son of Josephus, I. i. 82

Agrippeion or Agrippias, city (Anthedon), I. i. 435, II. i. 72.

Ἀγριππήσιοι, II. ii. 248

Agrippina, wife of Claudius, on Palestinian coins, I. ii. 78, 175

Agrippinas, city on the east of the Jordan, I. ii. 176

Ake, see Ptolemais.

Akiba, R., II. i. 375

comp. I. i. 126, II. i. 309, 315, 323, 327, 335, 370, 372

announces Bar-Cochba as Messiah, I. ii. 299

death by martyrdom, I. ii. 312

Mishna of, I. i. 130

Akkaron, see Ekron.

Akko, see Ptolemais.

Ala, organization generally, I. ii. 49

Ituraeorum, I. ii. 340 f.

sebastenorum, I. ii. 52

Alabanda in Caria, home of Apollonius Molon, II. iii. 252

Alabarchs in Egypt (Arabarchs), II. ii. 280

Albinus, procurator, I. ii. 188

Alcimus = Jakim the high priest, I. i. 227 f., 230, 234–236

Alesia, besieged by Caesar, I. ii. 241

Aleuas divides Thessaly into four parts, I. ii. 7

Alexander—(1) Kings and princes:—

Alexander the Great

conquers Gaza, II. i. 68

Hellenizes Samaria, II. i. 123

sacrifices in Jerusalem, I. i. 187, II. i. 301

settles Jews in Alexandria, II. ii. 227

Jewish Alexandrian legends about, I. i. 187

coins of, in Palestinian cities, II. i. 74, 84, 91, 96, 111, 120

Alexander Balas

duration of his reign, I. i. 175

ascends the throne, I. i. 240–243

relations with the Jews, I. i. 240–245

character, I. i. 243

death, I. i. 244 f.

Alexander Zabinas

duration of his reign, I. i. 178 f.

secures to himself sovereignty, I. i. 280

his cognomen Zabinas, I. i. 280

his death, I. i. 281

Alexander Jannäus

reign, I. i. 295–307

chronology, I. i. 273

the name Jannäus = Jonathan, I. i. 305

conflicts with Pharisees, I. i. 298–301

coins, I. i. 305

Jannäus in Jewish legends interchanged with Herod, I. i. 384, 467

Alexander, son of Aristobulus II., pretender, I. i. 324, 372, 374, 376

Alexander, son of Herod, I. i. 408–415, 455–461

Alexander, king (of house of Herod), on inscription at Ephesus, I. ii. 162

Alexander—(2) Other persons:—

Alexander Polyhistor, II. iii. 191–200

used the Jewish Sibyllines, II. iii. 199, 282, 288

Alexander, Alabarch, II. ii. 280, iii. 323

nephew of Philo, II. iii. 323

see Tiberius Alexander

Alexander the Zealot, about A.D. 50, I. ii. 172

Alexandra Salome, wife of Aristobulus I. and Alexander Jannäus, I. i. 294

her reign, I. i. 308–312

chronology, I. i. 273

called also Salina, I. i. 309

coins, I. i. 308

Alexandra, daughter of Hyrcanus II., mother-in-law of Herod, I. i. 397, 401, 405, 420 f., 430 f.

Alexandreion, fortress, I. i. 320, 372, 436

Alexandria, the five city divisions, II. ii. 229

the Jews there, II. ii. 226–230

position of the Jews’ quarter, II. ii. 226–230

constitution of the Jewish community, II. ii. 244 f.

citizen rights of the Jews, II. ii. 271 f.

Jewish Arabarchs, II. ii. 280 f.

enmity between Jews and Gentiles, II. ii. 273

numerous synagogues, I. ii. 93, 95, II. ii. 73, 282

the great synagogue formed like a Basilica, II. ii. 70

special festivals of Alexandrian Jews, II. ii. 257, iii. 217, 311

persecution under Caligula, I. ii. 90–99

rebellions under Vespasian and Trajan, I. ii. 283

during the rebellion under Trajan the city is partly laid waste, I. ii. 282

Jewish Hellenistic literature, II. iii. 156–381

synagogue of Alexandria as in Jerusalem, II. i. 49, ii. 57, 73

Alexandria on the Gulf of Issus, I. ii. 219

Alityrus, Jewish actor, I. i. 78, ii. 239

Alms, receivers of, II. ii. 66

Altar of burnt-offering, II. i. 282, 251 f., I. i. 208, 217

of incense, II. i. 281, 289, 293–295

Am-haarez, II. ii. 8, 22 f.

Amarkelin, II. i. 263

Amatha, error in text of Josephus, Antiq. xvii. 10. 6, II. i. 141

Amathus, fortress under rule of the tyrant Theodorus, II. i. 60

conquered by Jannäus, I. i. 297

destroyed, I. i. 301

site of a Synedrium, I. i. 372

Ambrosius, M., procurator, I. ii. 81

Ambrose quotes Philo, II. iii. 329

whether Latin version of Wars of Jews is by him, I. i. 101

Amen, responsive, II. ii. 78, 82

Amicus populi Romani, I. i. 440

Amman = Philadelphia, II. i. 119

Ammaus = Emmaus.

Ammon, worship of, in the Hauran, II. i. 23

Ammonites, Timotheus leader of the, I. i. 190

defeated by Judas Maccabaeus, I. i. 220

rabbinical statements about, II. ii. 326

Amoreans = Jewish scholars in time of Talmud, I. i. 133

Amosis, king of Egypt in time of Moses, II. iii. 260

Amphitheatre, see Games.

Ananel, high priest = Chanamel, I. i. 420; II. i. 197

Ananias, son of Onias IV., general of Cleopatra, I. i. 297; II. ii. 279

Ananias, son of Nedebäus, high priest, II. i. 200

Comp. I. ii. 188, 189, 211; II. i. 182, 202

Ananias, Jewish merchant in Adiabene, II. ii. 313

Ananias, see also Chananiah.

Ananos, family, II. i. 204

Ananos, son of Seth, high priest (in N. T., Annas), II. i. 182, 198 202, 204

Ananos, son of former high priest, II. i. 201

comp. I. ii. 186, 214, 228, 229; II. i. 182 f., 204

Anapa in Crimea, inscription there, II. ii. 226

is not Jewish. See Addenda in Index vol.

Anatolius, Christian, writer, I. ii. 371, II. iii. 238, 241

Ancyranum Monumentum, I. i. 115

Andrew, officer of Ptolemy Philadelphus in the Epistle of Aristeas, II. iii. 307

leader of the Jews in Cyrene, I. ii. 284

Andromachus at the court of Herod, I. i. 442

Andromeda-myth at Joppa, II. i. 15

Andros, island, I. ii. 95

Angels, fall according to Gen. 6 in Book of Enoch, II. iii. 56

doctrine of Pharisees, II. ii. 14

of Essenes, II. ii. 204

of Book of Enoch, II. iii. 56, 57

of Book of Jubilees, II. iii. 137

seventy over Gentile world, II. iii. 63

Angitos (Agnitos), I. ii. 264

Animal images forbidden, see Images

worship, Egyptian, introduced by Moses, II. iii. 206

Annas, see Ananos.

Annius, L., officer of Vespasian, I. ii. 231

Annius, Rufus, procurator (Tineius Rufus), I. ii. 81

Anointing with oil omitted in rigid fasting, II. ii. 119

quite abandoned by Essenes, II. ii. 199, 212

Antaeus, defeated by Hercules, II. iii. 210

Anthedon, city, II. i. 72–73

comp. I. i. 195, 298, 306, 404, 428, 435

worship in, II. i. 12

coins, II. i. 73

Anthropomorphisms in the Bible explained by Aristobulus, II. iii. 240

Antibius of Ascalon, philosopher, II. i. 28

Antichrist, II. ii. 165

Antigonus, successor of Alexander the Great, I. ii. 349, II. i. 67

Antigonus of Socho, scribe, II. i. 356, II. ii. 32

Antigonus, son of John Hyrcanus, II. i. 283, 291

Antigonus, son of Aristobulus II., the last Asmonean, I. i. 324, 374, 378, 389

made king by the Parthians, I. i. 390

his reign, I. i. 392–399

his death, I. i. 398 f.

his sister keeps fortress of Hyrcania, I. i. 436

his daughter marries Antipater, son of Herod, I. i. 432, 455

Ἀντιοχεῖς ἐν Πτολεμαΐδι (add to literature: De Saulcy Numismatic Chronicle 1871 pp. 69–92: Sur les Monnaies des Antiochéens frappées hors d’ Antioche), II. i. 92

Ἀντιοχεῖς πρὸς Ἵππον, II. i. 100

Ἀντιοχεῖς πρὸς τῷ Χρυσορόᾳ (= Gerasa), II. i. 118

Ἀντιοχεῖς as title of inhabitants of Jerusalem, I. i. 203

Antioch = Gadara, II. i. 103

Antioch in Pisidia, Jewish archisynagogoi there, II. ii. 65

those who feared God” there, II. ii. 307

Antioch in Syria, Jews there, II. ii. 225, 249, 271

citizen rights of these, II. ii. 275

their “great synagogue”, II. ii. 283

enmity between Jews and Gentiles, II. ii. 274

those who feared God” there, II. ii. 307

buildings of Herod, I. i. 437

Antiochus II., Theos, II. i. 273

See also Addenda in Index vol.

Antiochus III., the Great, II. i. 59, ii. 226

Antiochus IV., Epiphanes, literature about, I. i. 173, 186

duration of reign, I. i. 172

character, I. i. 199–202

Egyptian campaign, I. i. 172 f., 205 f.

undertakings against the Jews, I. i. 202–233

plundering of temple of Jerusalem, I. i. 205

death, I. i. 222

Megillath Antiochus, I. i. 165

Antiochus V., Eupator, duration of reign, I. i. 173

undertakings against the Jews, I. i. 225–227

death, I. i. 226 f.

Antiochus VI., period of reign, I. i. 176

set up by Trypho as pretender, I. i. 248

murdered by Trypho, I. i. 256

Antiochus VII., Sidetes, period of reign, I. i. 177

secures to himself the sovereignty, I. i. 269

Parthian campaign and death, I. i. 279

relations with the Jews, I. i. 269–279

during siege of Jerusalem sends a sacrifice, II. i. 301

Antiochus VIII., Grypos, period of reign, I. i. 179

title, I. i. 184

beginning of reign, I. i. 181

struggles with Antiochus Cyzicenos, I. i. 281

by his daughter Laodice, ancestor of dynasty of Commagene, I. i. 184 f.

Antiochus IX., Cyzicenos, period of reign, I. i. 181

beginning of reign, I. i. 282

character, I. i. 282

supports Samaritans against John Hyrcanus, I. i. 283

Antiochus X., Eusebes, period of reign, I. i. 182

Antiochus XI., period of reign, I. i. 182

Antiochus XII., period of reign, I. i. 182

fights against Jannäus and the Arabian king, I. i. 303, ii. 352

death, I. i. 303, ii. 352

Antiochus XIII., period of reign, I. i. 183

Antiochus of Commagene, related to Seleucid dynasty, I. i. 184

in time of Claudius and Nero, I. ii. 157, 159, 220

in time of Marc Antony, I. i. 341, 395, 398

Antiochus of Ascalon, philosopher, II. i. 28

Antipas, a Herodian, I. ii. 228

Antipas Herod, I. i. 416, 458, 463 464, 466, ii. 2, 5

reign, I. ii. 17–38, 151

character, I. ii. 19

marriage with Herodias, I. ii. 21–23

date of that marriage, I. ii. 32

Jesus Christ, I. ii. 29–32

inscriptions, I. ii. 17

John the Baptist, I. ii. 23–28

war with Aretas, I. ii. 32 f.

coins, I. ii. 20

comp. I. i. 466, ii. 38

founding of cities, I. ii. 18, 19; II. i. 36–48

banishment and death, I. ii. 36–38

Antipater, Jewish ambassador, I. i. 249

Antipater, father of Herod, descent, I. i. 314

intrigue against Aristobulus II., I. i. 315

prospers under Hyrcanus II., I. i. 376, 383–386

death, I. i. 386

Antipater, son of Herod, I. i. 411–416, 455, 457–462

his wife daughter of last Asmonean Antigonus, I. i. 432, 455

Antipater, courtier of Herod Antipas, I. ii. 3

Antipater of Ascalon in Athens, I. i. 315

Antipatris, city = Capharsaba, II. i. 130, 131 I. i. 303, 435, ii. 231

Antiquity of the Jews, II. iii. 263

Antistius, C., Vetus, I. i. 336, 385

Antonia, citadel in Jerusalem, I. i. 433 f., ii. 55, 209, 210, 238–242

connection with the temple, I. ii. 55

could be cut off, I. ii. 209

comp. I. ii. 242

garrison in time of procurators, I. ii. 55

the commander in A.D. 6–36 was keeper of high priest’s vestments, I. ii. 76

Antonia, wife of Drusus, I. ii. 151

Antoninus Pius, emperor, inscription to his honour in Aelia (Jerusalem), I. ii. 316

Jewish rebellion under, I. ii. 318

permits circumcision, I. ii. 292; II. ii. 268

Antony, Marc, triumvir, serves under Gabinius in Syria, I. i. 331, 372

after battle of Philippi, master of the East, I. i. 339–344, 387–404, 420–429

decrees in favour of the Jews, I. i. 388

death, I. i. 345, 428

Antonius, L., brother of the triumvir, II. ii. 263

Antonius Felix, procurator, see Felix.

Antonius Julianus, writer, I. i. 64

Antonius Melissa, II. iii. 326

Apamea in Phrygia, Jews residing there, II. ii. 261

in Syria, I. i. 247 269, 337

called also Pella, II. i. 114

census there, I. i. 357, ii. 123

Apellaios, see Months.

Aphairema, see Ephraim.

Aphrodisias, inscription there, II. i. 25

Aphrodite, her worship in Aelia Capitolina, I. ii. 317

her worship in Ascalon, II. i. 13

her worship in Gaza, II. i. 12

her worship in the Hauran, II. i. 23

her worship in bath of Aphrodite in Ptolemais, II. i. 18

= Astarte, II. i. 13

worship of Cyprian Aphrodite in Athens, II. ii. 253, 300

Aphtha, place so named, I. ii. 228

Apion, writer, I. i. 93 f.; II. ii. 294, iii. 257–261

leads an embassy of Alexandrians to Rome, I. ii. 96

Apocalypse of St. John, did author of Theodotion’s translation use it?, II. iii. 174

Apocalypses, Jewish, II. iii. 49–133

Apocalyptics, nature of, II. iii. 44–49

bearers of apocalyptic revelations, II. iii. 44

content of the apocalypses, II. iii. 45

form of the apocalypses, II. iii. 46

occasion of, II. iii. 47

Apocrypha of the Old Testament (according to the views of the Protestant Church), editions, translations, and exegetical aids to them, II. iii. 9–13

Messianic hope, II. ii. 138

for details see the several articles

Apocrypha, lists of, II. iii. 125

Apollo, worship of, in Ascalon, II. i. 14

in Caesarea, II. i. 17

in Dora, II. i. 17

in Gaza, II. i. 12 f.

in Neapolis, I. ii. 267

in Raphia, II. i. 12

ancestral god of the Seleucidae, II. i. 17

Apollodorus, chronographer, I. i. 76

Apollonia in Palestine, II. i. 83,  196, 306

See also Addenda in Index vol.

Apollonia in Pisidia, I. i. 115

Apollonius, general of Antiochus Epiphanes, I. i. 206, 214

Apollonius, general in time of Demetrius II., I. i. 244

Apollonius of Ascalon, historian, II. i. 28

Apollonius Molon, II. iii. 251–254

Apologetics, Jewish, II. iii. 249–270

Apostoli, Jewish, II. ii. 269, 290, I. ii. 277

Apostolic age, literature on the chronology of, I. i. 21 f.

Apparitores, Roman, I. i. 61

Appellatio, Roman, I. i. 59; II. ii. 278

Appian, Life and Works, I. i. 112

flies in time of Jewish rebellion from Egypt, I. ii. 281

Apsines of Gadara, II. i. 104

Apuleius on Moses and other magians, II. iii. 150

Apulia, Jews residing there, II. ii. 242

Aqueducts in Jerusalem, I. ii. 84, 85; II. iii. 223

at Jericho, I. ii. 41

at Kanata, II. i. 107

Aquila, Bible translator, II. iii. 164, 168–172

scholar of Akiba, II. i. 376, iii. 170

= Onkelos, I. i. 157, II. iii. 172

Aquileia, I. i. 412 f., 457

Jews there: Οὐρσακίου ἀπὸ Ἀκουιλείας, II. ii. 242, 249

Arab, place so named, II. i. 366

Arabarchs in Egypt, II. ii. 280


(1)               Northern, Nabatean, or Petrean, history to A.D. 106, I. ii. 345–362

as a Roman province, I. ii. 361

deities, II. i. 22

Jews residing there, II. ii. 223

(2)               Southern, campaign of Aelius Gallus, I. i. 407

geographical literature, I. i. 407

Arach, family, II. i. 252

Arachin, Talmudic tract, I. i. 124

Aradus, Jews residing there, II. ii. 221

Arâk el-Emir, II. i. 36

Aramaic language in Palestine, II. i. 8 f.

Aratus’ Phaenomena, quotations by Jews and Christians, II. iii. 295

Arbatta, district in Palestine, I. i. 192

Arbela = Arbad Irbid and its caves near the lake of Gennezaret, I. i. 394

native place of Nittai, II. i. 357

synagogue there, II. ii. 71

Arca, Arcae = Caesarea on the Lebanon, I. ii. 201 f.

Archaeology, biblical literature on, I. i. 13, 14

Archelais, village, I. ii. 41, 122

situation of, I. ii. 41

Archelaus, king of Cappadocia, I. i. 413, 456, 457 f.

Archelaus, a later king of Cappadocia, I. ii. 123

Archelaus, son of Herod, I. i. 416, 456, 464, 465, ii. 1 f., 5 f.

reign, I. i. 38–42

called also Herod, I. i. 39

high priests under him, II. i. 198

coins, I. i. 39

Archelaus, son-in-law of Agrippa I., see Julius Archelaus

Archisynagogoi, II. ii. 63–65

in Rome and Italy, II. ii. 251

title given to women and children, II. ii. 65

in heathen religious societies, II. ii. 65 (see also: Bulletin de Correspondence Hellénique t. viii. 1884 463 sq.)

whether used to designate Christian office-bearers Addenda in Index vol.

Archives, Roman library on the capitol, I. i. 90

Archons, municipal e.g. in Tiberias, II. i. 145

Archons, Jewish, in Alexandria, II. ii. 245

in Antioch, II. ii. 244

in Berenice, II. ii. 246

in Rome and Italy, II. ii. 249

annual election in September, II. ii. 250

Areios, see Areus

Areka, see Abba Areka

Ἀρέτας Ἀρέθας orthography of the name, I. ii. 359

Aretas I., prince of the Nabateans, I. ii. 350

Aretas II., king of the Nabateans, I. ii. 351

Aretas III., B.C. 85–60, I. ii. 352–355

on coins Φιλέλλην, I. ii. 353

conquered Coele Syria, I. i. 182, 303, ii. 352

fights against Aristobulus II., I. i. 316–318

submits to Scaurus, I. i. 329, ii. 353

Aretas IV. Aeneas, B.C. 9-A.D. 40, I. ii. 5, 13, 19, 22, 25, 30, 33, 89, 356–359

literature about, I. ii. 347

title “Rachemammeh”, I. ii. 359

inscriptions and coins, I. ii. 359

held Damascus at the time of Paul’s flight, I. ii. 354, 357; II. i. 66, 98

Areus, king of Sparta, I. i. 250

Argos, Jews residing there, II. ii. 222

Ariarthes, king of Cappadocia, I. i. 240

Aricia, Jews residing there, II. ii. 238

Arimathia = Ramathaim, I. i. 245 f.

Aristeas, epistle on origin of Septuagint, II. iii. 160, 306–312

contents, II. iii. 306–308

date of composition, II. iii. 310

used by Fathers of Church, II. iii. 310

MSS. editions and literature, II. iii. 312

Aristeas, historian, II. iii. 197, 208

Aristo of Gerasa, II. i. 29, 119

Aristo of Pella, I. i. 69–72

Aristobulus I., son of John Hyrcanus, conquered Samaria, I. i. 283

reign, I. i. 291–294

chronology, I. i. 273

called also Judas, I. i. 293

Aristobulus II. (B.C. 69–63), I. i. 310, 311

reign, I. i. 313–325

taken prisoner to Rome by Pompey, I. i. 324

later acts and fortunes, I. i. 374

death, I. i. 376

mentioned in psalms of Solomon, II. iii. 19

Aristobulus III., Asmonean prince and high priest, I. i. 401, 420, 421; II. i. 197

Aristobulus, son of Herod, I. i. 408–415, 454–461

Aristobulus, brother of Agrippa I., I. ii. 101

Aristobulus, son of Herod of Chalcis, king of Lesser Armenia, I. ii. 342, 343

comp. I. ii. 28

Aristobulus of Chalcidice, I. ii. 343

Aristobulus, Jewish philosopher, II. iii. 237–243

on the origin of the LXX., II. iii. 160, 309, 310

on the Jewish calendar (date of Passover), I. ii. 371; II. iii. 240 f.

quotes forged verses of Greek poets, II. iii. 295 f.

Aristocracy, Jewish, II. ii. 30, 39, 42

constitution of Jewish commonwealth, I. ii. 72

See also Constitution

Ariston, see Aristo

Aristotle, meeting with a Hellenistic Jew in Asia Minor, II. ii. 225

influence on Aristobulus, II. iii. 239, 241

Nicolas of Damascus on Aristotelian, I. i. 58, 62 f.

pseudo-Aristotelian treaties de plantis and περὶ κόσμου, I. i. 63, ii. 170

Arka, see Arca

Armenia, campaign of Marc Antony, I. i. 342, 422

C. Caesar sent thither, I. i. 354

war of Corbulo, I. i. 368

dynasty of Lesser Armenia, see Cotys, Aristobulus

Armilus, Antichrist = Romulus, II. ii. 165

See Addenda in Index vol.

Arrian on the proselytes, II. ii. 323

Arruntius, I. i. 363

Arsaces, name of Parthian kings, I. i. 269

Arsuph, see Apollonia

Art, plastic in Palestine, II. i. 36

iron art work in park of Herod, I. i. 440

Artabanus, king of Parthia, I. ii. 34

Artapanus, writer, II. iii. 198, 206–208

influence on Josephus, I. i. 85

Artavasdes, king of Armenia, I. i. 422

Artaxerxes Ochus, II. ii. 223.

Artemidorus, geographer, II. i. 84

Artemidorus, historian, of Ascalon, II. i. 28

Artemio, leader of Jews in Cyprus, I. ii. 284

Artemis, worship of, in Damascus, II. i. 19

in Gerasa, II. i. 20, 118

in Neapolis, I. ii. 267

in Ptolemais, II. i. 18

in Raphia, II. i. 12

Artemisios, see Months

Aruch, rabbinical lexicon, II. ii. 23

Arzareth = terra alia, II. ii. 170

As Roman coin, II. i. 39

Asaph, family of singers, II. i. 271

Ascalon, city, II. i. 74–76

comp. I. i. 195, 248, 306, 437, ii. 54

in the Persian age subject to the Tyrians, II. i. 74

eras from B.C. 104 to 57, II. i. 75

worship, II. i. 13

was Herod’s family from it?, I. i. 314 f.

Jews residing there, II. i. 76

enmity of Jews and Gentiles, II. ii. 275

calendar, II. i. 72

merchants from Ascalon in Athens and Puteoli, I. i. 314

merchants of in Delos (Bulletin de correspondance hellénique t. viii. 1884 p. 128 sq. 133 488 sq.)

coins, II. i. 74, 75, 76

celebrated writers, II. i. 28

games, II. i. 25, 26

wine, II. i. 41

Asclepios, worship of, in Ascalon, II. i. 13 f.

Asenath, wife of Joseph, II. iii. 151

Ashdod, see Azotus

Asia Minor, Jews there, II. ii. 222, 225 258, 263, 270, 273, 276, 282

synagogue of those of Asia in Jerusalem, II. i. 49, ii. 57.

See also districts and cities:

(1)               Districts: Asia, Bithynia, Cilicia, Galatia, Cappadocia, Caria, Lycia, Lydia, Pamphylia, Phrygia, Pontus

(2)               Cities: Adramyttium, Apamea, Cnidus, Ephesus, Halicarnassus, Laodicea, Miletus, Myndus, Pergamum, Phaselis, Sardis, Side, Smyrna, Thyatira

Add to these: inscriptions from Hypaepa, Corycos, Magnesia on Sipylus, Jasos (Revue des étudesjuives x. 1885 pp. 74–76 and Phocaea (ibid. xii. 1886 p. 236 sq.)

Asideans, see Chasidees

Asinius Pollio, consul in B.C. 40, I. i. 293, II. iii. 205

historical work, I. i. 51 f.

receives sons of Herod into his house, I. i. 456

Askalon, see Ascalon

Asmodeus in Tobit, II. iii. 37, 44

Asmoneans, see Hasmoneans

Asochis, town, I. i. 296

Asophon, town, I. i. 296

Asor, see Hazor

Asparagus, II. i. 43

Aspendos, I. i. 180

Aspis, I. i. 319, 329

Ass worship ascribed to the Jews, II. ii. 294, iii. 266

Assumptio Mosis, II. iii. 73–83 I. ii. 81

contents, II. iii. 74–78

date of composition, II. iii. 78

standpoint, II. iii. 79

use in Christian Church, II. iii. 81 f.

editions and literature, II. iii. 82

Messianic hope, II. ii. 144

Assyrian = Syrian, II. i. 104

Astarte, worship in Aelia Capitolina, I. ii. 317

in Anthedon, II. i. 12

in Ascalon, II. i. 13

in Caesarea, II. i. 17

in Gadara, II. i. 20

= Aphrodite, II. i. 13

Aster, Claudia, Hierosolymitana captiva, II. ii. 239

Astrology invented by Enoch, II. iii. 70

Abraham a teacher of, II. i. 343, iii. 206, 211

in Book of Enoch, II. iii. 58

Astypalaea, league of friendship with Rome, I. i. 232

Asveros, corruption of text for Varus, I. ii. 5

Asylum (right of), ἄσυλος as title of Abila, II. i. 105

Diocaesarea, II. i. 140

Dora, II. i. 89

Gadara, II. i. 103

Gaza, II. i. 72

Hippus, II. i. 100

Ptolemais, II. i. 92, 94

Scythopolis, II. i. 112

Atargatis, worship of, in Ascalon, II. i. 13

Comp. Addenda in Index vol.

Athanasii Synopsis, II. iii. 126


hegemony over the Phoenician coast, II. i. 88

mint at Gaza in the Persian age, II. i. 68

commercial colony of Athenians at Ake = Ptolemais in the time of Demosthenes, I. i. 195; II. i. 91

(on travels of Athenians to Judea on private business see Josephus Antiq. xiv. 8. 5)

foreign merchants at, I. i. 314; (more materials in Corpus Inscript. Attic. ii. 3 pp. 218–276; ibid. iii. 2 pp. 120–196)

oriental religions in, II. ii. 300

inscription of Sidonian king Straton, II. i. 84

inscriptions for Herod and his family, I. i. 437, ii. 204, 343

buildings of Herod, I. i. 437

Jews in Athens and Attica generally, II. ii. 222, 232, 282

Jewish inscription, II. ii. 232

those who feared God” in Athens, II. i. 308

Athenaeus, general of Antigonus, I. ii. 349

Athene, worship of, in Ascalon, II. i. 14

Caesarea, II. i. 17

Damascus, II. i. 19

the Hauran, II. i. 23

Ἀθηνα Γοζμαια at Kanatha, II. i. 23

Athenio, commander under Cleopatra, I. i. 426

Athenobius, officer of Antiochus Sidetes, I. i. 270

Athronges, I. ii. 4

Atonement, day of, I. i. 322

Attalus II. of Pergamum, I. i. 240

Attica, Jews residing there, II. ii. 222

Atticus, governor of Judea, I. ii. 260

Audynaios, see Months.

Augusta Caesarea, II. i. 85

Augustamnica, Egyptian province, II. ii. 280

Αὐγουστήσιοι, Jewish communities at Rome, II. ii. 247

Augustus Σεβαστός, title of Octavianus, I. i. 406

of Tiberius and Livia, I. ii. 338

of Titus (in lifetime of Vespasian), I. ii. 205

cohors Augusta, I. ii. 53

Augustus, see Octavianus

Aumu, the Syrian sun-god, II. i. 23

Auranitis or Hauran, district of country, I. i. 409, 453, ii. 12

pagan worship there, II. i. 21–23

Greek inscriptions there, I. i. 24

Nabatean inscriptions, I. ii. 13, 347, 356, 360

Authorities, relation of Pharisees to the Gentile, I. ii. 79, II. ii. 17

offerings and prayers for them, I. ii. 76; II. i. 363, ii. 191

Autonomy of cities, II. i. 64

αὐτόνομος as title of Abila, II. i. 105

Capitolias, I. ii. 267

Diocaesarea, II. i. 140

Dora, II. i. 89

Gadara, II. i. 103

Gaza, II. i. 72

Ptolemais, II. i. 92

Auxiliary troops, see alae, cohortes

Ava, heathen colonists in Samaria, II. i. 6

Avillius, Flaccus, governor of Egypt, persecutor of Jews, I. ii. 91–95

writing of Philo against him, II. iii. 349–354

Aza = Gaza, II. i. 68

Azariah in Book of Daniel, prayer of, II. iii. 183–187

Azariah, Jewish commander in the times of the Maccabees, I. i. 221

Azizus, Arabian prince of time of Pompey, I. i. 184

Azizus, king of Emesa, I. ii. 176, 197, II. ii. 308

Azotus (Ashdod), city, II. i. 76

comp., I. i. 195, 221, 244, 306, ii. 7

worship there, II. i. 14

Jews residing there, II. i. 78

coins, II. i. 78

Baba bathra, Talmudic tract, I. i. 123

Baba kamma, Talmudic tract, I. i. 123

Baba mezia, Talmudic tract, I. i. 123

Babas and his sons, I. i. 431

other men of that name, I. i. 431

Babylon, heathen colonists from thence in Samaria, II. i. 6

Babylonia, Jews residing there, II. ii. 223–225 290

rebellion under Trajan, I. ii. 285

Babylonian Jews settled in Batanea, I. ii. 13, 132, II. i. 4

Babylonian pap or sauce as food, II. i. 42

tower building, II. iii. 210, 278, 282

Bacchides, general under Demetrius, I. i. 227, 228, 232, 233, 234, 235, 238

Bacchius, Judaeus, I. i. 319

Bacchus, see Dionysos

Baison, see Beth-sean

Bajanites, defeated by Judas Maccabaeus, I. i. 220

Balas, see Alexander

Balsam, gardens at Jericho, I. i. 423 f.

Bamidbar rabba, Midrash, I. i. 148

Ban, curse, exclusion from the Church, II. ii. 60–62 157

Banus, a hermit, I. i. 78

Baptism and ritual washings generally, II. ii. 106–111

the officiating priests, II. i. 278

of proselytes, II. ii. 319–324

Baraytha, I. i. 133

de-Rabbi Elieser, I. i. 151

Bar-Cochba (Simon), I. ii. 297

reigns 3½ years, I. ii. 311

coins, I. ii. 299, 301

persecutes the Christians, I. ii. 300

Barcoziba = Bar-Cochba

Bargiora, Simon, I. ii. 232

Barmizwa, II. ii. 51

Barnabas, Epistle of, on temple building in Hadrian’s time, I. ii. 290

meaning of the 318 servants of Abraham, II. i. 349

uses the Book of Enoch, II. iii. 70

had read the fourth Book of Ezra, II. iii. 109

Bartholomew, Bartimaeus, for analogous cases, see under Ben


(1)               The Greek book, II. iii. 188–195

contents and sources, II. iii. 189 f.

date of composition, II. iii. 191

dependence on Psalms of Solomon, II. iii. 22, 192

read in synagogues on 10th Gorpiaios, II. iii. 193

used in the Christian Church, II. iii. 193 f.

ascribed to Jeremiah, II. iii. 193

(2)               Apocalypse, II. iii. 83–93

contents, II. iii. 83–88

date of composition, II. iii. 88–91

relation to fourth Book of Ezra, II. iii. 89

editions and literature, II. iii. 92

Messianic hope, II. ii. 150

(3)               Various apocrypha, II. iii. 91 f.

Barzapharnes, Persian satrap, I. i. 389.

Bascama, place so named, I. i. 254

Basilides, priest on Carmel, I. ii. 323

Basilica generally, II. i. 34

βασίλειος στοά in the temple, II. i. 35

the great synagogue at Alexandria has form of a, II. ii. 70 f.

Bassus, see Caecilius and Lucilius Bassus

Batanea, district of country, I. i. 409, 453, ii. 10 13

colony of Babylonian Jews there, I. ii. 13, 132, II. i. 4

mixed population, II. i. 2, 4

heathen forms of worship, II. i. 21–23

Baths, a heathen institution, but permitted to the Jews, II. i. 33

public, visited by Antiochus Epiphanes, I. i. 201

bath of Aphrodite in Ptolemais, II. i. 18, 53

of Gadara (warm springs), II. i. 100

Callirrhoë, I. i. 463

Livias, II. i. 143

Tiberias, II. i. 143

Levitical, see Washings

Bathyra (see also Bathanea), I. ii. 203

Beans, Egyptian, II. i. 42

Cilician bean meal, II. i. 42

Beasts, why many regarded as unclean (according to Philo and Aristeas), II. iii. 270

fallen or torn by beasts of prey not to be eaten, II. iii. 313

Bechoroth, Talmudic tract, I. i. 124

Beer, Median and Egyptian, II. i. 42

Beisan, see Bethsean

Bekiin, place so named, II. i. 371

Bel and the Dragon, addition to Daniel, II. iii. 184–188

Bemeselis, place so named, I. i. 302

Bemidbar (Bamidbar), I. i. 148

Ben Asai (Simon), I. i. 127; II. i. 377

Ben Cosiba, see Bar-Cochba

Ben Gamla (Jesus, son of Gamaliel), II. i. 201 202, ii. 49; I. ii. 190, 228, 229

Ben Nannos (Simon), I. i. 127; II. i. 378

Ben Sakkai (Jochanan), II. i. 366

comp. I. i. 126, 128, ii. 275; II. i. 323, 324, 335, 378

Ben Soma, II. ii. 82

Bench, see Furniture

Bene-Barak, place so named, II. i. 375

Benedictions of the Jews, see Prayer, Blessings, Grace

Berachoth, Talmudic tract, I. i. 121

Berea, place so named, I. i. 233

Berenice, city in Cyrenaica, Jewish inscription and constitution of Jews there, II. ii. 246.

Berenice, daughter of Costobar and Salome, mother of Agrippa I., I. i. 456, ii. 151, 152.

Berenice, daughter of Agrippa I., loved by Titus, I. ii. 164, 195–204, 211, 342

inscription at Athens, I. ii. 204

Berenicianus, son of Herod of Chalcis, I. ii. 342

Bereshith rabba, Midrash, I. i. 147

Beröa in Syria, I. i. 182

Berur-Chail, place so named, II. i. 366

Beryllus, secretary to Nero, I. ii. 184

Berytus, Roman colony from B.C. 15, I. i. 460

buildings there of Herod, I. i. 437

of Agrippa I., I. ii. 160

buildings there of Agrippa II., I. ii. 196

merchants at Puteoli, II. ii. 253 f.

linen industry, II. i. 41

games, I. ii. 160, 249, II. i. 24

Beth-ha-Midrash, II. i. 325

Beth-aramphtha (= Livias Julias), II. i. 141

Beth-basi, I. i. 238

Bethel, I. i. 236, ii. 232

Bether (Beth-ther), I. ii. 309 f.

Beth-esob, I. ii. 241

Beth-haram (Livias), II. i. 141

Beth-horon, I. i. 214, 229, 236

Bethlehem, grave of Archelaus, I. ii. 42

Solomon’s port and aqueduct, I. ii. 84

Beth-leptepha, capital of a toparchy, II. i. 157, 159

Beth-ome, I. i. 302

Beth-phage, priest village, II. i. 230

Beth-ramtha (Livias), II. i. 141

Beth-saida, II. i. 136

Beth-saida = Julias, I. ii. 14, 194; II. i. 135, 136

Beth-sean (Scythopolis), II. i. 110

Beth-ther (Bether), situation, I. ii. 309

siege and conquest in Hadrian’s war, I. ii. 310

date of conquest, I. ii. 311 f.

Beth-ulia, in the Book of Judith, II. iii. 33

Beth-zachariah, I. i. 223

Beth-zur, I. i. 216, 219, 220, 223, 236, 241

Betylia, see Beth-ulia

Beza, Talmudic tract, I. i. 122

Bezetha, suburb of Jerusalem, I. ii. 213, 239

Bibulus, see Calpurnius Bibulus

Bikkurim, Talmudic tract, I. i. 122

Bilga, one of the courses of the priests, II. i. 219

Birds, miraculous, appear to Israelites in desert, II. iii. 227

if taken from nest, mother to be left, II. iii. 313; I. i. 440

Birkath hamminim, II. ii. 89

Birthday festival, I. ii. 26, 158

Bithynia, Jews residing there, II. ii. 222

cheese from, II. i. 43

Bitther, see Beth-ther

Blessings in the temple (benediction), II. i. 296, ii. 80

in the synagogue, II. ii. 80

should be given only in Hebrew, II. i. 10, ii. 284

Bliss, future and eternal,  II. ii. 181–183

in Philo = return of soul into union with God, II. iii. 380

Blood, Jews forbidden to use, II. ii. 318

in the Book of Jubilees, II. iii. 137

in the Heraclitean Epistles, II. iii. 316

Boeotia, Jews residing there, II. ii. 222

Boethus, grandfather (or father?) of Mariamme, wife of Herod, I. i. 455, II. i. 97

Boethus, high priestly family, II. i. 204

בויתוסים, II. ii. 32

Boethus, scholar of Antigonus of Socho, II. ii. 32

Bologna, Jews residing at, II. ii. 242

Books of Old Testament, see Scriptures, Holy

Books, covers and cases, II. ii. 74

Books, heavenly, II. ii. 204

Boraytha, see Baraytha

Bosporus, Cimmerian, Jews residing there, II. ii. 226

Bostra, capital of province of Arabia, I. ii. 13, 362, II. i. 118

era, I. ii. 361

Ἄκτια Δουσάρια there, II. i. 22

Botrys, city, I. ii. 330

Bread presented as dues to the priests, II. i. 241 f.

of Gentiles unclean, II. i. 53

Brescia, Jews residing there, II. ii. 242

Brutus, M., I. i. 337 f., 385, 387, II. ii. 259

Bubastis, II. ii. 286.

Buddhism, influence on the West, II. ii. 215

influence on the Essenes, II. ii. 207, 215

Building and style of building in Palestine, II. i. 34–36

Phoenician and Egyptian, II. i. 36

of Herod, see Herod

Burrus, praefectus praetorio, I. ii. 184

Butis = Pella in the Decapolis, II. i. 114

Byblus, buildings of Herod there, I. i. 437

linen industry at, II. i. 41

Byssus, II. i. 276

Cabbala, original meaning of the word, II. i. 311

Caecilius Bassus, I. i. 336, 337, 385

Caecilius Creticus Silanus, I. i. 358

Caesar, Julius, triumvirate and civil war, I. i. 332, 376, 377

proceedings in Syria, I. i. 335, 377

Aera Caesariana in Syria, I. i. 336, 364, 370; II. i. 94

arrangements in Judea, I. i. 378–383; II. i. 169

decrees favourable to Jews outside of Palestine, I. i. 382; II. ii. 257

loved by the Jews, I. i. 383, II. ii. 235

death, I. i. 337, 385

Caesar, Sextus, I. i. 335, 384, 385

Caesar, C., grandson of Augustus, I. i. 354–357

Caesarea (Straton’s Tower), II. i. 84–87

rebuilt by Herod, I. i. 434, II. i. 85

residence of Roman procurators, I. ii. 48, 265

garrisoned by native troops, I. ii. 51–54

conflict between Jews and Gentiles over the ἰσοπολιτεία, I. ii. 181 f., 184 f.; II. i. 86, 148

becomes a Roman colony, I. ii. 265, II. i. 86

religious worship there, II. i. 16

coins, II. i. 85, 86

purple dyeing, II. i. 42

games, I. ii. 163, 248; II. i. 24, 25 f.

Jews residing there, II. i. 86, ii. 275, 283

R. Levi heard the Shemah there recited in Greek, II. ii. 284

see also under Straton’s Tower

Caesarea Philippi (Panias, Neronias), II. i. 132–135; I. ii. 14, 196

era, II. i. 133

worship, II. i. 21

coins, II. i. 133, 134

games, I. ii. 248; II. i. 25, 28

Caesarea ad Libanum (Arca), I. ii. 202

Caesar, worship of, see Emperor Worship

Caiaphas, high priest, II. i. 182, 199

Calabria, Jews residing there, II. ii. 242


(1)               Jewish, I. ii. 363–377

of 1 Maccabees, I. i. 36 ff.

of Josephus, I. ii. 374–377

polemic against lunar year in Book of Jubilees, II. iii. 138

of fasts, see Megillath Taanith

beginning of year in spring and autumn, I. i. 36–46, 465; II. ii. 250

post-biblical feasts, see Feasts

(2)               Syrian and Palmyrene, I. ii. 374, 375

of Gaza, Ascalon, Tyre, and Sidon, II. i. 72

of Tyre, I. ii. 376

(3)               Athenian, I. ii. 366

(4)               Literature on Roman calendar, I. i. 21

Caligula, period of his reign, I. i. 365

oath of provincials on his accession, I. i. 445 f.

sacrifice and oath of Jews on his accession, I. ii. 90

generosity toward the reges soccii, I. ii. 127

friendship with Agrippa, I. ii. 152, 153

chronology of last years of his reign, I. ii. 36 f., 97, 98

death, I. ii. 103, 153

demands divine honours, I. ii. 91

persecution of Jews in Alexandria, I. ii. 90–98

in Judea, I. ii. 99

insists upon his statue being placed in the temple at Jerusalem, I. ii. 99

writing of Philo about him, II. iii. 349–354

Callimachus, verses on the Sabbath, II. iii. 302

Callimander, Syrian general, I. i. 283

Callirrhoë, place on other side of the Dead Sea, I. i. 463

Callistus, Roman bishop, II. ii. 268

Calpurnius, M. Bibulus, governor of Syria, I. i. 333.

Calpurnius, L. Bibulus, I. i. 343

Calpurnius, L. Piso, consul, B.C. 139, I. i. 267

Calpurnius, Cn. Piso, governor of Syria in time of Tiberius, I. i. 358

on others of Piso family, see Piso

Calvinus, see Domitius

Campus Martius, II. ii. 248

Canatha, see Kanatha

Canata, see Kanata

Candlestick, the seven branched in temple, II. i. 281

its use, II. i. 281, 289, 293–295

Corinthian, II. i. 45

Canon, Old Testament, II. i. 306–312

wonderful restoration under Ezra, II. iii. 99

attitude of Sadducees toward, II. ii. 38

of Hellenistic Jews, II. iii. 176

of Philo, II. iii. 366

of Josephus, I. i. 107

Book of Baruch used in public worship, II. iii. 192

patristic lists of canon with Apocrypha, II. iii. 125

Capernaum = Tell Hum, synagogue there, II. ii. 71

Capharsaba, I. i. 303; II. i. 130

Capharsalma, I. i. 228

Capital punishment could not in times of procurators be carried out by Sanhedrim, II. i. 187–190

whether carried out by the soldiers, I. ii. 61–65

Capito, see Herennius Capito

Capitol in Rome, preservation of State records there, I. i. 90

payment of the Jewish didrachma tax to temple of Capitoline Jupiter, I. ii. 255; II. i. 251, ii. 266.

Capitolias, city, I. ii. 267, II. i. 106

Cappadocia, Jews there (Ariasthes, Archelaus), II. ii. 221, 222

Capsa, II. i. 46

Capua, Jewish inscription there, II. ii. 242, 250

Carcer Mamertinus in Rome, I. ii. 250

Cardinal virtues, the four, II. iii. 233, 245, 378

Caria, Jews there (Halicarnassus, Cnidus, Myndus), II. ii. 222

add: inscriptions from Jasos Le Bas and Waddington Inscriptions t. iii. n. 294: Νικήτας Ἰάσονος Ἱεροσολυμίτης

Carmel, sanctuary there, I. ii. 223

Carraë, city, I. i. 332

Carthage, Jews there, II. ii. 232

Cassianus, chronologer, II. ii. 205

Cassida, the helmet, II. i. 31

Cassiodorus on Latin translations of Josephus, I. i. 99

on the imperial census, I. ii. 116

Cassius, C. Longinus, under the Emperor Claudius, I. i. 366, ii. 167

C. Longinus, companion of Brutus, I. i. 333, 337, 339, 375, 385–388, ii. 224

Cassius, L., I. i. 339

Cassius Dio, see Dio Cassius

Castles in Jerusalem, see Acra, Antonia, Palace of Herod

Castor, chronicle, I. i. 76

Castra Judaeorum in Egypt, II. ii. 287

Casuistry, Jewish, see Law Observance, Halacha

Catacombs, see Cemeteries

Cattle-rearing, gifts of flesh to the priests, II. i. 233, 240

tithing of, II. i. 240

Caves at Arbela, I. i. 394

in the Hauran, I. ii. 329; II. i. 4

Celsus, philosopher, knows the dialogue between Jason and Papiscus, I. i. 70 f.

uses Book of Enoch, II. iii. 71

charges Christians with forging Sibylline books, II. iii. 290

Celsus, a later writer, translates the dialogue of Jason and Papiscus into Latin, I. i. 70

Cemeteries, Jewish, in Rome, II. ii. 240

in Venosa, II. ii. 242

inscriptions from, I. i. 31–34

Censorinus, see Marcius Censorinus

Census, the Roman, I. ii. 105–143

whether an imperial census under Augustus, I. ii. 114–120

of Quirinius in Judea, see Sulpicius

Cepheus, worship of, in Joppa, II. i. 15

Cerealis (= Sext. Vettulenus Cerialis), I. ii. 233, 236, 258

Cestius Gallus, I. i. 368 f., ii. 199, 212, 218

Ceto = κῆτος, II. i. 15

Chabarzaba, see Antipatris

Chaber, Chaberim (= Pharisees), II. ii. 8, 22–25

Chadasha = Adasa

Chadid = Adida

Chaeremon, on the Jews, II. ii. 293, iii. 255 f.

Chagiga, Talmudic tract, I. i. 122

Chalcis ad Belum, I. ii. 330, 343

Chalcis on the Lebanon, I. ii. 329, 330, 343

coins and era, I. ii. 344

history of kingdom, I. ii. 325–344

(1)               The larger kingdom of Ptolemy Mennäus and Lysanias, I. ii. 329–332

gifted by Antony to Cleopatra, I. i. 402, ii. 332

(2)               The petty principality of Herod of Chalcis, I. ii. 341–344

Chaldean—“the Chaldee” = Abraham, II. iii. 299

Challa, Talmudic tract, I. i. 121

the bread presented to the priests, II. i. 241

Chanamel, high priest, see Ananel

Chananiah, סגן הכהנים, I. i. 126; II. i. 259, 368

Chananiah ben Antigonus, I. i. 127

Chananiah ben Teradion, II. ii. 44

Chananiah, see Ananias

Chance, games of, II. i. 36

Chants of Palestine, I. i. 19

Chanuka = feast of dedication of temple, I. i. 217 f.

Chanuth, Chanujoth, reported place of meeting of Sanhedrim, II. i. 192

Chasidees, I. i. 198, 211 227; II. ii. 21 f.

Chazor, see Hazor

Chebron, see Hebron

Cheese, Bithynian, II. i. 43

Chelkias, son of Onias IV., II. ii. 279 f.

Chenephres, king of Egypt, II. iii. 206.

Children, how far obliged to study the law, II. ii. 48 f.

at what age required to enter on full study of law, II. ii. 49

might read the law in synagogue, II. ii. 79

the title Archisynagogus held by children, II. ii. 65

Chisleu, Hebrew month, I. ii. 363

Chios, buildings of Herod there, I. i. 437

Chonjo, see Onias IV

Chorazin (= Keraze), synagogue there, II. ii. 71

Chrestus = Christus, II. ii. 238

Christians, flight of community from Jerusalem to Pella, I. ii. 230

intercourse of a Jewish Christian with R. Elieser, II. i. 372

Jewish prayer against Jewish Christians, II. ii. 88 f.

persecution by Bar-Cochba, I. ii. 300

in Rome, see Flavius Clemens

Christology, patripassian in Testamentum XII. Patr., II. iii. 118

in Book of Baruch, II. iii. 193

Christ, see Jesus Christ

Chronicles, Books of, are historical Midrashim, II. i. 340

place in the Canon, II. i. 309

age of the Greek translation, II. iii. 162

Chronology, literature on Roman and Biblical, I. i. 20–23

of Seleucidae, I. i. 169–185

of the Asmoneans, I. i. 272 f.

of Herod, I. i. 398, 401–416, 464–467

of the life of Jesus, I. ii. 30–32

see also Era, Calendar, World (duration of); in the Book of Daniel, II. iii. 53 f.

in the Book of Jubilees, II. iii. 135

in Demetrius, II. iii. 200 f.

in Eupolemus, II. iii. 205

in the Books of Maccabees, I. i. 36–46

Josephus, I. i. 108

Chrysorrhoas, near Damascus, and near Gerasa, I. ii. 336; II. i. 118

Chrysostom Dio, on the Essenes, II. ii. 194

Chullin, Talmudic tract, I. i. 124

Church officers, see Synagogue

Church constitution, see Constitution

Cicero, I. i. 114, 330, 331

Oratio pro Flacco, II. ii. 235, 261

Cicero, son, I. i. 346

Cilicia, belongs to Syria in B.C. 3–2, I. i. 352

King Polemon of Cilicia see Polemon; groats, II. i. 43

haircloth, II. i. 44

Jews residing in, II. ii. 222

Jewish archisynagogus there, II. ii. 63

synagogue of Cilicians in Jerusalem, II. i. 49, ii. 57

Circumcision allowed on Sabbath, II. ii. 103

of crowds of subject peoples by Asmoneans, I. i. 280, 293, 307

adhered to by Herodian princes, I. i. 444, ii. 157, 197

of proselytes, II. ii. 312, 313, 319, 320

whether absolutely necessary, II. ii. 313, 320

prohibited by Antiochus Epiphanes, I. i. 207

prohibited by Hadrian and again permitted by Antoninus Pius, I. ii. 292, 293, 318, II. ii. 268

heathen abuse and Jewish apology, II. iii. 269

artificial removal of marks (ἐπισπασμος), I. i. 203

Circus, see Games

Cirta, Jewish inscription at, II. ii. 231

Citations from O. T. in the Mishna, by what formula introduced, II. i. 311

Cities, Jewish, distinguished from villages, II. i. 154, ii. 68

Hellenistic, in Palestine, history and constitution, II. i. 57–149

coins of these and literature about them, I. i. 25–28

worship in, II. i. 11–23

games, II. i. 23–28

famous men, II. i. 28, 29

founding of—

(1)               by Alexander the Great and the Diadochai, I. i. 195 f.

(2)               by Ptolemy Philadelphus, see under his name

(3)               by Gabinius, II. i. 62

(4)               by Herod the Great and his sons, I. i. 434 f.; II. i. 122–148

(5)               by Roman emperors, see Colonies

Civitates liberae, foederatae, II. i. 63, 64

Claudia Aster Hierosolymitana captiva, II. ii. 239

Claudius, emperor, period of reign, I. i. 366

accession to the throne, I. ii. 154

rule of freedmen at his court, I. ii. 175

famine in his time, I. ii. 169 f.

comp. 142

games in honour of his campaign in Britain, I. ii. 163

Palestinian coins, I. ii. 78, 175

Palestinian cities favoured by him,  see Κλαυδιεῖς

toleration edict regarding the Jews issued by, I. ii. 99; II. ii. 236, 266

rescript about the robes of the high priest, I. ii. 168

expulsion of Jews from Rome, II. ii. 236 f.

Claudius Paternus Clementianus, procurator of Judea, I. ii. 264

Clean and unclean according to traditional law, II. ii. 106–111

tracts of Mishna treating of this sixth seder, I. i. 125

practice of the Pharisees, II. ii. 20–25

Gentiles as such unclean, II. i. 54, ii. 320

purifying of priests (washing), II. i. 215, 283, iii. 119

what kind of water must be used, II. ii. 109–111

to keep clean Alexandrian Jews live in a separate quarter, II. ii. 228, 229

Clearchus, II. ii. 225

Clemens, see Flavius Clemens

Clemens Alexandrinus on the death of Moses, II. iii. 81

on the time of Moses, II. iii. 259, 260

uses the Sibyllines, II. iii. 289

uses forged verses of Greek poets, II. iii. 295

Clementianus, see Claudius Pat. Cl.

Cleodemus = Malchus, writer, II. iii. 97, 209 f.

Cleopatra, daughter of Antiochus III., wife of Ptolemy V, II. i. 60, 67

Cleopatra, daughter of Ptolemy V., wife of her brother Ptolemy VI. Philometor and Ptolemy VII. Physcon, II. ii. 279, 286

Cleopatra, daughter of Ptolemy VI. Philometor, wife of the three Syrian kings, Alexander Balas, Demetrius II., and Antiochus VII. Sidetes, I. i. 180, 242, 244, 281

Cleopatra, another daughter of Ptolemy VI., mother of Ptolemy VIII. Lathurus, I. i. 284 f., 296–297; II. i. 93, ii. 279

Cleopatra, the last Egyptian queen, wife of Marc Antony, I. i. 339, 344 401–403 420–428

obtains dominion over parts of Syria, Phoenicia, Palestine, and Arabia, I. i. 344 f., 402 f., 423, ii. 332, 355; II. i. 62

era of Chalcis, I. i. 402

coins in Ascalon, II. i. 75 f.

death, I. i. 341, 428

a granddaughter married to Felix the Procurator, I. ii. 176

Cleopatra, wife of Herod, I. i. 456, ii. 20

Cleopatra, wife of the Procurator Gessius Florus, I. ii. 190

Clitae, a tribe in Asia Minor, I. ii. 123

Closet in synagogue for keeping rolls, etc., II. ii. 74

Clothing, Greek and Roman, used in Palestine, II. i. 43–45

of priests, II. i. 276

of high priest, II. i. 256; I. ii. 76

of priests kept in temple, II. i. 260, 268

white of the Essenes, II. ii. 194, 211

made of linen and woollen mixed is forbidden (except to priests), II. i. 277; I. ii. 71

zizith to be worn on upper, II. ii. 112

of Am-haarez is unclean, II. ii. 6, 24

Cluvius Rufus, whether used by Josephus, I. i. 89

Cnidus, Jews residing there, II. ii. 222

Cochba, see Bar-Cochba

Codex de Rossi, 138

this MS. of the Mishna peculiarly serviceable to me is to be found in Parma

Coele-Syria, according to Theophrastus, embraces also the Lower Jordan district, I. i. 425

in Ptolemy’s time a taxation district along with Judea, Samaria, and Phoenicia, I. i. 190

taken by Antiochus IX. Cyzicenos, I. i. 182

Damascus, capital of (Jos. Antt. xiii. 15. 2), II. i. 97

Herod, governor of, I. i. 384, 386

cities reckoned in Coele-Syria: Philoteria on Lake of Gennezaret, I. i. 307

all those of Decapolis: Abila (according to coins), II. i. 105

Dium (according to Steph. Byz.), II. i. 115

Gadara (coins and Jos. Ant. xiii. 13. 3), II. i. 103

Gerasa (Steph. Byz.), II. i. 117

Pella (Steph. Byz.), II. i. 114

Philadelphia (coins), II. i. 121

Scythopolis (Steph. Byz. and Jos. Ant. xiii. 13. 2), II. i. 110

many writers like Polybius and Diodorus reckon in it cities on Philistine coast, e.g. Raphia, II. i. 67

Joppa, II. i. 80

Cohortatio ad Graecos, see Justin

Cohortes, organization generally, I. ii. 49

peditatae and equitatae, I. ii. 56

cohors I. Flavia Damascenorum, I. ii. 354

Ituraeorum, I. ii. 341

Sebastenorum, I. ii. 52, 53

coh. Italica (Acts 10:1), I. ii. 54

coh. Augusta (Acts 27:1), I. ii. 53

Coins and coinage—

(1)               Numismatic literature:

(a)               On Seleucid coins, I. i. 23 f.

(b)               On coins of autonomous cities of Palestine (Phoenician, Greek, Roman), I. i. 24 f.

(c)               On Jewish coins, I. i. 25–28

(d)               On Nabatean coins, I. ii. 345–348

(2)               Coins of Alexander the Great at Ascalon, II. i. 75

at Straton’s Tower, II. i. 84

at Ace, II. i. 91

at Damascus, II. i. 96

at Scythopolis, II. i. 111

at Philadelphia, II. i. 120

(3)               Phoenician coins in Gaza, II. i. 69

Ashdod, II. i. 77

Ace, II. i. 92

Phoenician or Tyrian coinage, II. i. 38–40, 244, 250

(4)               Hebrew shekels, I. i. 257 f., ii. 379–383

coins of the rebellion (Bar-Cochba), I. ii. 383–392

(5)               Palestinian coinage of the Graeco-Roman period, II. i. 38–40

coins have no human figure, I. i. 443, ii. 77

right of vassal kings to mint these, I. i. 450

(6)               Coins of the Jewish princes

John Hyrcanus, I. i. 284

Aristobulus I., I. i. 293

Alexander Jannäus, I. i. 305

Alexandra, I. i. 308

Autigonus, I. i. 392

Herod the Great, I. i. 443, 450

Philip, I. ii. 15 f.

Herod Antipas, I. ii. 20 f.

comp., I. i. 466, ii. 38

Archelaus, I. ii. 39

Agrippa I., I. ii. 155, 161

Agrippa II., I. ii. 191 f., 194, 204 f.

Herod of Chalcis, I. ii. 343

(7)               Imperial coins, Palestinian of time of Procurators, I. ii. 77, 124 f.

of Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian celebrating subjugation of Judea, I. ii. 250

comp, I. ii. 225

(8)               Dynasty of Chalcis:

Ptolemy, I. ii. 325, 331

Lysanias, I. ii. 325, 331

Zenodorus, I. ii. 325, 332 f.

(9)               Nabatean coins:

Obedas I., I. ii. 352

Aretas III., I. ii. 353

Obedas II., I. ii. 356

Aretas IV., I. ii. 358

Malchus II., I. ii. 360

Rabel, I. ii. 361

(10)               Coins of cities (Greek and Roman):

Abila (Decapolis), II. i. 205

Aelis Capitolina, I. ii. 316

Ace, see Ptolemais

Anthedon, II. i. 73

Area Arcae see Caesarea on Lebanon

Ascalon, II. i. 74, 75, 76

Azotus, II. i. 77

Berytus, I. i. 460

Caesarea on Lebanon, I. ii. 202

Caesarea Pants, II. i. 133, 134

Caesarea Stratonis, II. i. 84, 85, 87

Capitolias, II. i. 106

Chalcis on Lebanon, I. ii. 344

Damascus, II. i. 96, 97

Diocaesarea, see Sepphoris

Dium, II. i. 116

Dora, II. i. 89

Emmaus, see Nicopolis

Esbon, II. i. 130

Gaba, II. i. 128

Gadara, II. i. 101

Gaza, II. i. 68, 71

Gerasa, II. i. 118

Hippus, II. i. 100

Joppa, II. i. 82 f.

Kanata, II. i. 107

Kanatha, II. i. 109

Neapolis, I. ii. 266

Nicopolis (Emmaus), I. ii. 253 f.

Pella, II. i. 115

Petra, I. ii. 350

Philadelphia, II. i. 121

Ptolemais, II. i. 90, 91, 92, 94

Raphia, II. i. 67

Sebaste = Samaria, II. i. 125, 126

Sepphoris = Diocaesarea, II. i. 137, 140

Scythopolis, II. i. 111, 112

Tiberias, II. i. 144, 146

Collegia religious, II. ii. 255, 257

Colonies, Roman in Palestine and Syria, II. i. 65

Berytus (from B.C. 15), I. i. 460

Heliopolis (from time of Augustus),  I. ii. 340

Ptolemais (since Claudius), II. i. 94

Caesarea (since Vespasian), II. i. 87

Aelia Capitolina (since Hadrian), I. ii. 315, 316

Sebaste-Samaria (since Septimius Severus), II. i. 126

Caesarea on Lebanon = Arca (since Heliogabelus or earlier), I. ii. 202

Damascus (since Alexander Severus), II. i. 98

Neapolis (since Philip the Arabian), I. ii. 266

Gadara (since?), II. i. 103

Gaza (since?), II. i. 72

Colonizations by Herod, I. i. 440, ii. 13, II. i. 4

Commagene, origin of dynasty, I. i. 184

Condemnation, eternal, II. ii. 181 f.

Congiaria of the emperor, I. i. 412

of the city communes, II. ii. 265

Connubium with Gentiles rejected, II. iii. 268

Consilium of the Roman governors, I. ii. 60

Constitution of the Hellenistic cities in Palestine, II. i. 57–149

Jewish towns and villages, II. i. 149–165 ii. 55 ff.; I. ii. 72

Jewish communities in non-Jewish cities and in the Dispersion, II. i. 149, ii. 55, 243–270

Constantia, harbour town of Gaza, II. i. 71

Consular-fasts see Fasti.

Consular rank of Roman vassal kings, I. i. 450, ii. 154

Conventus juridici, I. i. 373; II. ii. 168

Cooking on Sabbath forbidden, II. ii. 99

Coponius, Procurator, I. ii. 79, 81

Corbulo, see Domitius

Corea, place so called, I. i. 320, ii. 231

Corinth, Jews residing there, II. ii. 222

Jewish synagogue there, II. ii. 232, 282

brass and columns of temple of Jerusalem from, II. i. 35

Corinthian candlestick, II. i. 45

Cornelius Palma, governor of Syria, I. ii. 361

Cornificius, Q., I. i. 337

Corvinus, see Messalla

Cos, Jews residing there, II. ii. 221, 232, 261

inscription of Herod Antipas there, I. ii. 17

Cosiba, see Bar-Cochba

Cosmology in Book of Enoch, II. iii. 56

in pseudo-Aristotelian περὶ κόσμου, I. i. 63, ii. 170

in pseudo-Philonic περὶ κόσμου, II. iii. 359

Costobar, husband of Salome, I. i. 405, 431, 456

Costobar, relative of Agrippa, I. ii. 189

Council, democratic, in Hellenistic communes, II. i. 58

in Gaza, II. i. 70

in Tiberias, II. i. 145

Supreme in Jerusalem, see Sanhedrim

Court of the temple at Jerusalem, II. i. 265, 280–284; I. i. 237

inscription on entrance to inner, II. i. 266

Crassus, see Licinius Crassus

Creation, Haggadic allegorizing of narrative of, II. i. 342

representation of by Aristobolus, II. iii. 240

by Philo, II. iii. 376

ex nihilo, II. iii. 214

Crete, Jews residing there (Gortyna), II. ii. 222, 232

Josephus marries a woman of, I. i. 82

Jews said to have had origin from, II. ii. 292

Creticus Silanus, see Caecilius

Crimea, Jews residing there, II. ii. 226, 283

Jewish inscriptions there, II. ii. 226

Criminal Jurisprudence, see Jurisprudence

Crispus, see Marcius Crispus

Crucifixions in vast numbers:

By Alexander Jannäus, I. i. 303

Quinctilius Varus, I. ii. 5

Ummidius Quadratus, I. ii. 173

Florus, I. ii. 208

Titus, I. ii. 240

crucified taken down and recovered, I. i. 80

of Roman citizens not allowed, II. ii. 278

of Jesus Christ, whether done by soldiers, I. ii. 61

finding of the cross of Christ, I. ii. 308

Ctesiphon, I. ii. 285

Culture Hellenistic, see Hellenism

Cumae, the Sibyl there, II. iii. 274

Cumanus, see Ventidius Cumanus

Cupa, II. i. 46

Custom or toll in Palestine, I. ii. 66–71

extent of district, I. ii. 66

farming of, I. ii. 68–70

tariff of Palmyra, I. ii. 67, 70

frauds practised, I. ii. 71

Cuspius Fadus, procurator, I. ii. 167

Cutheans = Samaritans, II. i. 5

Cybele, worship in Ptolemais, II. i. 18

Cymbals, II. i. 270

Cypros, mother of Herod, I. i. 429

Cypros, daught