VII. Jewish Propaganda Under A Heathen Mask

VII. JEWISH PROPAGANDA UNDER A HEATHEN MASK
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).[2469] 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.[2470] 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.[2471] 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.[2472] 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.[2473] Among other computations the most noted is that of Varro who names ten sibyls.[2474] 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).
[2469] The most important material concerning the sibyls was already collected by Opsopöus in his edition of the Orac. Sibyll. pp. 56-143. For more recent authorities comp. especially: Klausen Aeneas und die Penaten (1839) pp. 203-312. Lücke Einleitung in die Offenbarung des Johannes (2nd ed.) p. 81 sqq. Alexandre in his 1st ed. vol. ii. (1856) pp. 1-101. Scheiffele art. “Sibyllae” in Pauly’s Real-Enc. vi. 1147-1153. Pape-Benseler Wörterb. der griech. Eigennamen s.v. Σίβυλλα. Marquardt Römische Staatsverwaltung vol. iii. (1878) p. 336 sqq. Bouché-Leclercq Histoire de la divination vol. ii.; Les sacerdoces divinatoires; devins chresmologues Sibylles; Oracles des dieux Paris 1879. Maass De Sibyllarum indicibus Diss. Gryphiswald 1879.
[2470] Maass De Sibyllarum indicibus p. 1.
[2471] E.g. Pausanias Descr. Graec. x. 12.
[2472] On the numerous calculations see especially Maass De Sibyllarum indicibus 1879.
[2473] On the numerous calculations see especially Maass De Sibyllarum indicibus 1879.
[2474] Varro in Lactantius Div. Instit. i. 6: primam fuisse de Persis … secundam Libycam … tertiam Delphida … quartam Cimmeriam in Italia … quintam Erythraeam … sextam Samiam … septimam Cumanam … octavam Hellesponticam in agro Troiano natam vico Marmesso circa oppidum Gergitium … nonam Phrygiam … decimam Tiburtem. See other computations e.g. in Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 21. 108 and 132; Suidas Lex. s.v. Σίβυλλα and others.
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.[2475] 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.[2476] They attained quite a different importance in Rome where they arrived by way of Cumae from Asia Minor.[2477] King Tarquin Superbus is said to have obtained a collection of Sibylline oracles which were preserved in the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.[2478] 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.[2479] 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.
[2475] See the collection in Alexandre’s 1st ed. of the Orac. Sibyll. vol. ii. (1856) pp. 118-129. Some already in Opsopöus in his edit. of the Orac. Sibyll. p. 414 sqq.
[2476] See on the Sibylline oracles among the Greeks Alexandre as above ii. 102-147.
[2477] See on the Sibylline oracles among the Romans Opsopöus pp. 462-496. Fabricius-Harles Biblioth. graec. i. 248-257. Alexandre in his 1st ed. ii. 148-253. Marquardt Römische Staatsverwaltung vol. iii. (1878) p. 336 sqq. Huidekoper Judaism at Rome (New York 1876) pp. 395-459.
[2478] Dionys. Halicarn. iv. 62.
[2479] Lactant. i. 6. 14 (comp. i. 6. 11). Tacit. Annal. vi. 12. Dionys. Halic. iv. 62.
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.[2480]
[2480]a The preface of the compiler of our present collection is still preserved (Friedlieb Appendix pp. ii.-vii. Alexandre’s 1st ed. i. 2-13 2nd ed. pp. 14-21). Alexandre thinks he can place it in the sixth century after Christ (1st ed. ii. 421-435 2nd ed. p. xxxvi. sqq.).
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).[2481]
[2481] Bleek denies the authorship of the whole epilogue to the composer of the rest. With respect to the first half (808-817) there is no valid ground for such denial. It might rather be doubted whether the first and second halves belong to each other. See Hilgenfeld Apokal. pp. 78-80.
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.”[2482] 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.[2483] 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 Ezekiel 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.).
[2482] Vers. 394-400: Ὧν δή περ γενεὴν αὐτὸς θέλει ἐξαπολέσσαι
[2483] Two things only are suspicious: (1) The subject of κόψει ver. 398 seems to be not φυτὸν ἄλλο but the god of war and αὐτός ver. 399 not to go upon φυτὸν ἄλλο but upon γενετήρ. (2) Alexander Balas was not overthrown by Demetrius II. and Antiochus VII. but by the former and his father-in-law Ptolemy VI. Philometor (1Ma_11:1-19; Joseph. Antt. xiii. 4. 5-8).
Ἐκ τῶν δὴ γενεῆς κείνου γένος ἐξαπολεῖται·
Ῥίζαν ἴαν γε διδοὺς ἣν καὶ κόψει βροτολοιγὸς
Ἐκ δέκα δὴ κεράτων παρὰ δὲ φυτὸν ἄλλο φυτεύσει.
Κόψει πορφυρέης γενεῆς γενετῆρα μαχητὴν
Καὐτὸς ἀφʼ υἱῶν ὧν ἐς ὁμόφρονα αἴσιον ἄρʼῥης
Φθεῖται· καὶ τότε δὴ παραφυόμενον κέρας ἄρξει.
The words ὧν ἐς ὁμόφρονα αἰσιον ἄρʼῥης are certainly corrupt.
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.[2484] Such are also found especially from the third book[2485] among the oldest patristic quotations.
[2484] The quotation in Josephus is taken from Alexander Polyhistor without mention of his name (Antt. i. 4. 3 = Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 15). See Bleek i. 148-152. Freudenthal Alex. Polyh. p. 25 note. The statements too concerning the building of the Tower of Babel in Abydenus (Euseb. Chron. i. 34 and Praep. evang. ix. 14. Syncell. i. 81 sq. Cyrill. p. 9).
[2485] Athenagoras Suppl. c. 30. Theophilus ad Autol. ii. 31. Tertullian ad nationes ii. 12. Clemens Alex. Protrept. vi. 70 vii. 74. Pseudo-Justin. Cohort. ad Graec. c. 16.
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.[2486] 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.[2487] 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.
[2486] Gnostic fragment in Hippolyt. Philosophum. v. 16. Clemens Alex. Protrept. ii. 27; Protr. vi. 71 = Strom. v. 14. 108; Protr. viii. 77 = Strom. v. 14. 115; Strom. iii. 3. 14. Pseudo-Justin. Cohort. ad Graec. c. 16. Lactantius i. 6. 15-16 7. 13 8. 3; ii. 11. 18 (?) 12. 19; iv. 6. 5. Id. de ira dei c. 22. 7.
[2487] Comp. Bleek i. 160-166. Lactantius distinguishes the different books as different Sibyls. When after quoting from one book he makes a quotation from another he says: alia Sibylla dicit. Among his somewhere about fifty quotations extending over Books iii. to viii. of our collection only those from the proem preserved in Theophilus and from the third book are entitled prophecies of the Erythraean Sibyl. From the proem: Lact i. 6. 13-16 8. 3; ii. 12. 19; iv. 6. 5. From the third book: Lact. ii. 16. 1 (= Sib. 3:228 229 ed. Friedlieb); iv. 6. 5 (= Sib. 3:774); iv. 15. 29 (= Sib. 3:814-817); vii. 19. 9 (= Sib. 3:618); vii. 20. 1-2 (= Sib. 3:741 742); vii. 24. 12 (= Sib. 3:787-793). The passage Lact. iv. 6. 5 is however the most instructive: Sibylla Erythraea in carminis sui principio quod a summo Deo exorsa est filium Dei ducem et imperatorem omnium his versibus praedicat: παντοτρόφον κτίστην ὅστις γλυκὺ πνεῦμα ἅπασι || κάτθετο χʼ ἡγητῆρα θεῶν πάντων ἐποίησε (= proem vers. 5-6). Et rursus in fine ejusdem carminis: αὐτὸν ἔδωκε θεὸς πιστοῖς ἀνδράσσι γεραίρειν (= Sib. 3:774 ed. Friedlieb). Et alia Sibylla praecipit hunc oportere cognosci: αὐτὸν σὸν γίνωσκε θεὸν θεοῦ υἱὸν ἐόντα (= Sib. 8:329). Here then it is plainly said that the proem belongs to our third book.
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.[2488] 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.[2489] It is also noteworthy that two verses included in it (97-98) are already mentioned by Strabo p. 536 as oracular sayings.
[2488] So too Lightfoot (St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon 1:2 nd ed. 1876 p. 96 sq.) and Freudenthal (Alex. Polyhistor pp. 129 195). Comp. also my account of the work of Badt in the Theol. Litztg. 1878 p. 358. Dechent again gives his decision for the Christian authorship Zeitschr. für Kirchengesch. ii. 491-496.
[2489] Justin. Apol. i. 20 (refers to Sib. 4:172-177) Clemens Alex. Protrept. iv. 50 and 62; Paedag. ii. 10. 99 iii. 3. 15; Constit. apostol. v. 7. Pseudo-Justin. Cohort. c. 16. Lactant. vii. 23. 4. Id. de ira dei c. 23 (three passages).
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.[2490] 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.[2491]
[2490] Sib. vers. 256-259:—
[2491] Clem. Alex. Protrept. iv. 50; Paedag. ii. 10. 99.
Εἷς δέ τις ἔσσεται αὖθις ἀπʼ αἰθέρος ἔξοχος ἀνὴρ
Οὗ παλάμας ἥπλωσεν ἐπὶ ξύλον πολύκαρπον
Ἑβραίων ὁ ἄριστος ὃς ἠέλιόν ποτε στῆσεν
Φωνήσας ῥήσει τε καλῇ καὶ χcίλεσιν ἁγνοῖς.
6. Of the remaining books vi vii. and viii. are generally and correctly esteemed to be of Christian authorship.[2492] 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.[2493] 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.[2494]
[2492] The eighth book (viii. 217-250) contains the famous acrostic upon Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς θεοῦ υἱὸς σωτὴρ σταυρός which is also given in Constantine’s Oratio ad sanct. coet. (= Euseb. Vita Const. v.) c. 18.
[2493] So also Bleek in his notice of Lücke’e book (Stud. u. Krit. 1854 p. 976). According to this the statement in Dechent (Dissert. p. 49) that Bleek’s view concerning Book xi. “was not known” must be corrected.
[2494] The oldest testimony which Dechent (Dissert. p. 37) can point out is found in Constantine’s Oratio ad sanct. coet. (= Euseb. Vita Const. v.) c. 18: ἡ τοίνυν Ἐρυθραία Σίβυλλα φάσκουσα ἑαυτὴν ἕκτῃ γενεᾷ μετὰ τὸν κατακλυσμὸν γενέσθαι. Comp. Sib. 1:283 sqq.
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.[2495] 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).
[2495] So e.g. the celebrated commencement of the Phaenomena of Aratus (third century B.C.): Ἐκ Διὸς ἀρχώμεσθα τὸν οὐδέποτʼ ἄνδρες ἐῶσιν ἄρʼῥητον etc. from which is derived the saying quoted Acts 17:28 : τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν. The Jewish philosopher Aristobulus (in Euseb. Praep. evang. xiii. 12. 6 ed. Gaisford) already quotes this verse; also Theophilus ad Autol. ii. 8. Clemens Alex. Strom. v. 14. 101 = Euseb. Praep. evang. xiii. 13. 26.
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.[2496] 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.
[2496] De monarchia c. 3 e.g. comp. with Clemens Alex. Strom. v. 14. 121-122 (= Euseb. Praep. ev. xiii. 13. 47-48) is instructive. First a portion from Sophocles is given in De monarchia (ἔσται γάρ ἔσται etc.). Then Clement has the same portion but divided into two halves; and the second half is introduced by the formula: καὶ μετʼ ὀλίγα αὖθις ἐπιφέρει. Undoubtedly Clement is here the more original. The author of De monarchia joined together the two pieces which are not directly connected. A contrary relation takes place in the next following but in Clement preceding piece: οἴει σὺ τοὺς θανόντας of which Clement ascribes the whole to Diphilus while the author of De monarchia ascribes the first and longer half to Philemon the second and shorter to Euripides. In the latter ascription he is correct for it contains a few genuine verses of Euripides which are completed by spurious ones (see Dindorf’s note in his edition of Clement). Here then the work “De monarchia” preserves the original; Clement by an oversight ascribing the two unconnected pieces to one author.
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 Isaiah 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.[2497]
[2497] The same verses run according to Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 14. 124 = Euseb. Praep. ev. xiii. 13. 51 (and almost exactly so according to Aristobulus in Euseb. Praep. xiii. 12. 5)—
Αὐτὸς δʼ αὖ μέγαν αὖτις ἐπʼ οὐρανὸν ἐστήρικται
Χρυσέῳ εἰνὶ θρόνῳ γαίη δʼ ὑπὸ ποσσὶ βέβηκεν.
Clement already notices the agreement with Isaiah 66:1.
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.)[2498] 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).
[2498] Since it can be proved that Theodoret elsewhere borrows such quotations from Clement there can be no doubt that his text is in the main a combination of Clem. Strom. v. 12. 78 and v. 14. 124. Only the first three verses in Theodoret agree in part more with Aristobulus than with Clem. Protr. vii. 74.
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)[2499] 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.
[2499] On Herennius Philo or Philo Byblius see Müller Fragm. hist. Graec. 560 sqq.
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.[2500] 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.
[2500] The passage of Diodorus here in question (from Book xl. of his larger work) has been preserved by Photius Biblioth. cod. 244. See the wording slso in Müller Fragm. hist. Graec. ii. 391-393.
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 (1Ma_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. 1Ma_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.[2501]
[2501] It may also be mentioned that Mendelssohn (Jenaer Litsraturzeitung 1875 No. 23) places the composition in the first half of the first century before Christ because it is said of the Jewish land that it had “good harbours” (λιμένας εὐκαίρους) viz. Ascalon Joppa Gaza Ptolemais (Merx’ Archiv 272. 23 sqq. = Havercamp’s Josephus ii. 2. 114). This presupposed the union of these seaport towns with the Jewish land by Alexander Jannaeus. But Ascalon and Ptolemais were never united at all to the Jewish district not even by Alexander Jannaeus. Hence the inference is inconclusive. The notion of Grätz that pseudo-Aristeas wrote under Tiberius (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissentch. des Judenthums 1876 pp. 289 sqq. 337 sqq.) is worth as much as many others of this scholar’s fancies.
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 (Deuteronomy 22:6-7 = Phocylides vers. 84-85) or that the flesh of animals killed by beasts of prey may not be eaten (Deuteronomy 14:21; Exodus 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.[2502] 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.
[2502] In the notice of Bernays’ “Gesammelten Abhandlungen” in the Theol. Literaturzeitung 1885 p. 160. Harnack chiefly relies upon ver. 104 where it is said of the risen that they “afterwards become gods” (ὀπίσω δὲ θεοὶ τελέθονται). This is certainly a specifically Christian view which Bernays gets rid of by changing θεοί into νέοι.
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.[2503] 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.
[2503] The first traces of its being used are found in Stobaeus and in certain classic scholia. See Bernhardy Grundriss der griechischen Litteratur ii. 1 (3rd ed. 1867) p. 520.
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.[2504] 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.[2505] The saying then is not a Jewish forgery but only an exaggeration due to oral tradition of the real view of Numenius.
[2504] Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 22. 150. Hesychius Miles in Müller Fragm. hist. Graec. iv. 171. Suidas Lex. s.v. Νουμήνιος.
[2505] Euseb. Praep. ev. xi. 10. 14 ed. Gaisford: Εἰκότως δῆτα εἰς αὐτον ἐκεῖνο τὸ λόγιον περιφέρεται διʼ οὗ φάναι μνημονεύεται τί γάρ ἐστι Πλάτων ἢ Μωσῆς ἀττικίζων;
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.