V. Pseudepigraphic Prophecies

V. PSEUDEPIGRAPHIC PROPHECIES
The whole of the literary products hitherto mentioned were fashioned more or less after the models of the older and by that time the canonical literature to which moreover they made the closest approximation both in point of spirit and matter. We have now a new species of literature and one that in our period was more popular and influential than any other namely the pseudepigraphic prophecies. The old prophets in their teachings and exhortations addressed themselves directly to the people and that first and foremost through their oral utterances and then but only as subordinate to these by means of written discourse as well. But now when men felt themselves impelled at any time by their religious enthusiasm to try to influence their contemporaries through their teaching and exhortations instead of directly addressing them in person like the prophets of old they did so by a writing purporting to be the work of some one or other of the great names of the past in the hope that in this way the effect would be all the surer and all the more powerful. We may venture to regard the predilection shown for the kind of medium here in question as evidence of the somewhat degenerate character of the age. It shows that there were natures of a highly religious cast who nevertheless had no longer the courage to confront their contemporaries with the proud claim to have their words listened to as the words of God Himself but who rather seemed to think it necessary to conceal themselves under the guise of some one or other of the acknowledged authorities of the olden time. And so for this reason all the writings of a prophetic character that make their appearance in our period are pseudepigraphic. They are given to the world bearing the name of an Enoch a Moses a Baruch an Ezra or of the twelve patriarchs but we do not know who the real author is of any one of them. Then the standpoint of the pseudonymous author to whom the work is ascribed is as a rule skilfully maintained throughout. The writings are composed in such a way as to make it appear as though they had actually been intended for the contemporaries of the respective personages whose names they bear. But what is addressed to those assumed contemporaries is in reality of such a nature that it concerns rather more the contemporaries of the real author himself. From his artificially assumed standpoint the writer looks on into the future and predicts often with considerable detail the future history of Israel and the world but always taking care to see that predictions stop short at his (the real author’s) own time and so to arrange matters as to make it appear that this was also to be the time of judgment and of the dawn of redemption alike and all this for the purpose of serving as a warning to sinners on the one hand and to comfort and encourage the godly on the other. The fact that the alleged predictions are seen to have been already fulfilled in the previous history of Israel and the world serves at the same time to inspire confidence in the prophet so that there will now be a readier disposition to believe him when he predicts what (from the standpoint of the real contemporaries) still lies in the future.
The contents of those pseudepigraphic prophecies are of a very varied description. As in the older prophetic writings so also in these two things were as a rule combined with each other viz. instruction and exhortation. Prominence is given sometimes to the one and sometimes to the other to the former for example in the Book of Enoch to the latter in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. But in no case is one or other of them found to be entirely absent. The exhortation is uniformly based upon the previous instruction while the religious instruction thus imparted always aims at stimulating the reader to a behaviour of a corresponding nature. But the character of the writings varied very much according as one or other of those elements happened to predominate in them. At one time they give one more the impression of moral sermons (as for example the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs) at another they are more concerned with the unveiling of divine mysteries (as in the case of the Book of Enoch). Yet however much they may thus differ from one another they all belong so far as their essential character is concerned to one and the same category. The revelations given in them in due keeping with their hortatory purpose have reference first of all to the history of the Jewish people and of mankind in general but they also concern themselves though only in a more subordinate way with certain theological problems such as the question regarding the connection between sin and calamity on the one hand and righteousness and prosperity on the other. But besides this they also seek to enlighten the reader with regard to the mysteries of nature the supernatural and heavenly background of the operations of the natural world. On all those matters which are more or less remotely connected with the religious life they claim to give authentic information.
The form in which those communications are clothed is that of apocalypse. They claim throughout to be supernatural revelations given to mankind by the mouth of those men of God in whose names the various writings appear. The peculiarity of this later “apocalyptic” medium as distinguished from the older genuine prophecy is this that it imparts its revelations not in clear and plain language but in a mysterious enigmatical form. The thing intended to be communicated is veiled under parables and symbols the meaning of which can only be guessed at. However the extent to which this veiling is carried is not always the same. At one time it only goes the length of the author’s abstaining from mentioning the names of persons that are otherwise plainly enough indicated while at another again the whole thing is symbolical from begininng to end. Persons are represented under the symbolism of animals events in the history of the human race under that of the operations of nature. And if as sometimes happens the interpretation is added this latter again is only a less obscure form of the enigma and not a solution of it.
The majority of those writings were occasioned by times of trouble and distress or by the depressed circumstances of the people generally. It is the contradiction that is found to exist between the ideal and the actual between the promises which God has given to His people and the existing bondage and persecution which they had to endure at the hands of Gentile powers—it was this contradiction I say that impelled their authors to write those works. And where no present trouble or persecution actually existed the motive for writing may be looked for in the pessimistic view of things which they were cherishing at the time. The existing state of matters the present condition of the chosen people was felt to be a glaring contradiction to its true destiny. Such a state of things could not last an entire revolution must of necessity take place and that ere long. Such is the conviction to which expression is given in the whole of the writings now in question. They therefore owe their origin on the one hand to a pessimistic view of the present and on the other to an intense faith in the glorious future of the people. And the object at which their authors aim is to awaken and quicken the same faith in others as well. They insist that there must be no such thing as doubting but rather a clinging with all stedfastness to the belief that God will conduct His people safely through all the afflictions which He has been sending upon them in order to test and purify them and bring them at length to greatness and glory. This belief must meanwhile comfort and encourage the people in the midst of their present sufferings. But inasmuch as the revelation in question is represented as being near at hand the wicked are meant at the same time to take warning from this and repent so long as there is an opportunity to do so. For the coming judgment will be a right stern one bringing salvation to the godly and perdition to the wicked. The actual effect of those enthusiastic predictions appears to have been both powerful and lasting. Through them the Messianic hope was quickened through them the people were confirmed in the belief that they were called not to serve but to rule. But it is for this very reason that this apocalyptic literature has played so important a part in developing the political sentiments of the people. If we find that from the date of the tax imposed by Quirinius whereby Judaea was placed directly under Roman administration revolutionary tendencies among the people grew stronger and stronger year by year till they led at last to the great insurrection of the year 66 then there cannot be a doubt that this process was essentially promoted if not exclusively caused by the apocalyptic literature.
The standpoint of the whole of those writings is essentially that of orthodox Judaism. They exhort to a God-fearing behaviour in accordance with the regulative principles of the law and deplore the tendency to disregard the law that was manifesting itself here and there. But at the same time it is not the official Judaism of the Pharisaic scribes to which expression is give here. The principal stress is laid not on what the people have to do but on what they have to expect. In regard to the former of these viz. conduct matters are treated more in their general aspect without any special stress being laid exactly upon scholastic correctness in details. We should further add that neither are these writings without numerous individual peculiarities as is only to be expected in the case of the products such as these are of an intense religious enthusiasm. However we cannot feel warranted in specifying the particular circle from which any one of those writings may be supposed to have emanated. The Essenes above all have been thought of in this connection.[2381] But what points of contact there are are far too slender to admit of our speaking even of one of the writings in question as an Essenian product. The most we can say is that they are not the product of the school but of a free religious individuality.
[2381] So Hilgenfeld in his book entitled Die jüdische Apokalyptik (1857) p. 253 sqq.; and to a certain extent also Lucius Der Essenismus (1881) p. 109 sqq.
1. The Book of Daniel
The oldest and most original of the kind of writings now under consideration—and the one that at the same time served as a model for those of a later date—is the canonical Book of Daniel The unknown author of this apocalypse originated with creative energy those modes of representation of which the subsequent authors of similar works knew how to avail themselves. The book is the direct product of the Maccabaean struggles in the very heart of which it came into existence. With the conflict actually raging around him the author aims at encouraging and comforting his co-religionists by assuring them of speedy deliverance.
The book is divided into two parts. The first part (1-6) contains a series of hortatory narratives; the second (7-12) a series of prophetic visions. Chap. 1 rehearses how young Daniel and his three companions were brought up at the court of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. We are told how in order to avoid defiling themselves by partaking of Gentile food the four young men refused to eat of the meat provided for them by the king and preferred pulse and water instead. Notwithstanding this as we further learn they seemed to thrive better than the other young men who partook of the royal fare. The hortatory object of this narrative is obvious at a glance. In chap. 2 Nebuchadnezzar the king dreams a dream and calls upon the magi not only to interpret it but also to tell him what the dream itself was. Not one however of the magi of the country is found able to do this. Daniel alone shows himself capable of performing such a feat and for this he is abundantly rewarded by the king and appointed to the office of chief of all the magi of Babylon. In the course of the interpretation of the dream it is intimated that the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar would be succeeded by yet three other kingdoms the last of which (the Greek one) would be “split up” (into that of the Ptolemies on the one hand and that of the Seleucidae on the other) and crushed to pieces by the hand of God. In chap. 3 Nebuchadnezzar causes a golden image to be set up and orders it to be worshipped. For refusing to comply with this order Daniel’s three companions are cast into a fiery furnace but when it is found that they were not in the least injured by the flames Nebuchadnezzar sees his own folly and promotes the three young men to positions of high distinction. In chap. 4 Nebuchadnezzar publishes an edict in which he confesses how as a punishment for his impious presumption he was smitten with insanity; and how after he had duly given God the glory he is restored once more to his former greatness. In chap. 5 Belshazzar king of Babylon and son of Nebuchadnezzar makes a great feast at which the vessels which his father had taken from the temple at Jerusalem are made use of as drinking-cups. To punish Belshazzar for this he loses both his kingdom and his life together that very night. In chap. 6 Darius king of the Medes and the conqueror and successor of Belshazzar in order to punish Daniel for praying to his own God in defiance of the king’s prohibition causes him to be cast into a den of lions where however he does not sustain the slightest injury. The result of this is that Darius comes to see his own folly and issues a decree to the effect that Daniel’s God is to be worshipped throughout the whole kingdom. It is no less obvious that a hortatory purpose pervades the last four of those narratives (3-6) as well while at the same time the contemporary historical background is also plainly discernible. By the three kings we are in every instance to understand Antiochus Epiphanes as being the person meant who with impious arrogance assumed such lofty airs (4) who carried off the sacred vessels from the temple at Jerusalem (5) who forbade the Jews to worship their own God (6) and commanded them to pay divine honour to the gods of the Gentiles (3). We are shown how as a judgment for his misdeeds he is given over to destruction and how on the other hand the Jews whom he persecuted are miraculously delivered. While therefore all those narratives are meant to stimulate to unfailing stedfastness the faithful people whom Antiochus was persecuting we are introduced in the second part of the book (7-12) to a series of visions in which from the standpoint of the Chaldaean period the future development of the events of the world is foretold. The whole of the visions agree in this that the monarchy which they foretell as being the last is the Greek one which ultimately resolves itself into the godless rule of Antiochus Epiphanes who though not mentioned by name is plainly enough indicated. We have above all in the last vision (from 10 to 12) a prediction of a highly detailed character in which are foretold the history of the kingdoms of the Ptolemies and the Seleucidae respectively (for it is these that are meant by the kingdom of the south and the kingdom of the north) and their manifold relations to one another. Here the most remarkable thing is that the prediction becomes more and more minute and detailed the nearer it approaches to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. Precisely the history of this monarch is here related with the utmost minuteness without his name being once mentioned (11:21 sqq.). It is still the suppression of the Jewish worship the desecration of the temple and the erection of the heathen altar for sacrifice as well as the commencement of the Maccabaean insurrection (11:32-35) that are predicted. But at this point the predictions suddenly stop and the author now cherishes the expectation that immediately after the struggles connected with the rising in question the consummation will come and the kingdom of God begin to appear. Nor is it merely in the eleventh chapter that the predictions stop at this period but in no other part of the book does the horizon of the author ever stretch beyond it not even in the visions of the four monarchies (2 and 7). For the fourth is not the Roman Empire but the Greek monarchy as any one who candidly considers the matter will readily admit (the first being the Babylonian the second that of the Medes the third the Persian and the fourth the Greek). In presence of these facts it is admitted by all the expositors of the present day—by all that is who are not hampered by dogmatic pre-dilections—that our book was composed at the time of the Maccabaean rising or to speak more precisely between 167 and 165 B.C. that is to say before the re-consecrating of the temple for as yet this latter event lies beyond the horizon of the author. It is only as viewed in the light of this period that the book can be said to have either sense or meaning. From beginning to end it is framed with the view of exercising a practical influence precisely in such a time as this. With its various narratives and revelations it seeks on the one hand to encourage the hosts of faithful Israelites to maintain a stedfast adherence to the law and on the other to console them with the certain prospect of immediate deliverance. It is even at this very moment—such is the author’s thought—when the distress is at its height that the deliverance is also nearest at hand. The days of the Gentile monarchies are drawing to a close. The last and at the same time the most godless and criminal of them all is on the point of being annihilated through the impending miraculous breaking in on the part of God upon the current of the world’s history whereupon the sovereignty of the world will be committed to the “saints of the Most High” the faithful Israelites. They will inherit the kingdom and possess it for ever and ever. That is what those who are just now so sorely oppressed and persecuted are to bear in mind for their comfort and encouragement.
The book was composed partly in Hebrew and partly in Aramaic (Chaldee) the Aramaic portion being that extending from 2:4 to 7:28. And so from this we can see that it was just then that the Aramaic came to be the prevailing dialect of Palestine while the Hebrew fell more and more into desuetude. In the course of two centuries after this viz. in the time of Jesus Christ we find that the process which at this point is thus beginning has been already fully completed (see ).
The high estimation in which from the first this book was held by believing Israelites is best shown by the fact that it always continued to retain its place in the canon. Even that somewhat older work the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach was ultimately excluded from the Hebrew canon and that although in point of form and contents it approximates more closely to the early Hebrew literature than the Book of Daniel. Obviously the reason of both those facts is this that the work of Jesus the son of Sirach was published under the author’s real name whereas the Book of Daniel appeared under the name of one of the older authorities. It is in fact the only literary product of its time that retained a place in the canon with the exception of a number of psalms which happened to have been previously embodied in the Psalter. We already find evidence of acquaintance with our book in the oldest of the Sibyls (Orac. Sibyll. 3:396-400 only a few decades later than Daniel); further in 1Ma_2:59-60 and Bar_1:15-18.
The exegetical and critical literature of the Book of Daniel is enumerated in De Wette-Schrader’s Einleitung in die kanon. und apokr. Bücher des A. T. (1869) p. 485 sq. Kleinert Abriss der Einleitung zum A. T. (1878) pp. 59-61. Reuss Gesch. der heil. Schriften Alten Testaments (1881) § 464. Graf art. “Daniel” in Schenkel’s Bibellex. i. 564.
Perhaps we may be allowed in passing to offer here a small contribution toward the exposition of chap. 9:24-27. In that passage the author endeavours to explain the seventy years of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 25:11-12) by taking them to mean seventy weeks of years (70×7) And this number again he proceeds to break up into 7+62+1. Then as the context makes it well-nigh impossible to doubt he reckons the first seven weeks of years (therefore 49 years) at the period that would elapse between the destruction of Jerusalem and the accession of Cyrus which pretty nearly coincides with the actual number of years embraced in that period (588-537 B.C.). The subsequent sixty-two weeks of years he reckons and that with rather more nicety than before as being the period extending from the time of Cyrus to his (the author’s) own day: till “an anointed one shall be cutoff” by which we have probably to understand the murder of the high priest Onias III. in the year 171. But the number of years between 587 and 171 is only 366 whereas 62 weeks of years would be equal to 434. Consequently the author has miscalculated to the extent of 70 years. Some have supposed that this is impossible and have therefore tried in various ways to evade the only interpretation of which the context will permit. But that such an error as this is actually possible is proved most conclusively by the circumstance that Josephus for example likewise falls into an error of a similar kind as may be seen from the three following passages: (1) Bell. Jud. vi. 4. 8 where he gives 639 as the number of years that elapsed between the second year of Cyrus’s reign till the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (70 A.D.). In that case the second year of Cyrus’s reign would have to be the year 569 B.C. (2) Antt. xx. 10 where he makes out that there was a period of 414 years between the return from the captivity (in the first year of Cyrus’s reign) and the time of Antiochua V. Eupator (164-162). (3) Antt. xiii. 11. 1 where he calculates that 481 years elapsed between the return from the captivity (in the first year of the reign of Cyrus) and the time of Aristobulus (105-104). Consequently according to (1) the accession of Cyrus must have taken place in the year 570 B.C.. according to (2) somewhere about 578 B.C. and according to (3) in 586 B.C. whereas in point of fact it took place in 537 B.C. Josephus therefore has miscalculated to the extent of from forty to fifty years too many. A somewhat nearer approach to the numbers of Daniel is made by the Jewish Hellenist Demetrius who reckons that 573 years elapsed between the carrying away of the ten tribes into captivity and the time of Ptolemy IV. (222 B.C.) and so precisely like Daniel putting it at some seventy years too many (see the passage as given in Clement of Alexand. Strom. i. 21. 141; for more about Demetrius see § 33 below). Therefore in estimating the length of the period in question at some seventy years too much Daniel is obviously following some current view on the matter. Just at the time now under consideration there was as yet an absence of the necessary means for determining the correct chronology. In Daniel’s case however the error is all the less to be wondered at that his estimating the length of the period referred to at sixty-two year weeks was simply a consequence of his interpretation of Jeremiah’s prophecy.
2. The Book of Enoch
Enoch (in common with Elijah) occupies this singular position among the Old Testament men of God that when removed from the earth he was carried directly to heaven. A man of this stamp could not but appear peculiarly well fitted to serve as a medium through which to communicate to the world revelations regarding the divine mysteries seeing that he had even been deemed worthy of immediate intercourse with God. Accordingly at a somewhat early period probably as far back as the second century before Christ an apocalyptic writing appeared purporting to have been composed by Enoch which work was subsequently issued in an enlarged and revised form. This Book of Enoch was already known to the author of the Book of “Jubilees” and of the “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs” and was afterwards a great favourite in the Christian Church. As is well known it is quoted in the Epistle of Jude (14 15) while many of the Fathers use it without hesitation as the genuine production of Enoch and as containing authentic divine revelations although it has never been officially recognised by the Church as canonical. We still find the Byzantine chronicler George Syncellus (about 800 A.D.) quoting two long passages from it (Syncell. Chron. ed. Dindorf i. 20-23 and 42-47). But after that the book disappeared and was looked upon as lost till in the course of last century the discovery was made that an Ethiopic version of it was still extant in the Abyssinian Church. In the year 1773 Bruce the English traveller brought three manuscripts of it to Europe. But it was not till the year 1821 that the whole work was given to the world through the English translation of Laurence. A German translation was issued by Hoffmann which from chap. 1 to 55 (1833) was based upon the English version of Laurence and from chap. 56 to the end (1838) on the Ethiopic version collated with a new manuscript. The Ethiopic text was published first by Laurence in 1838 and subsequently by Dillmann in 1851 after having collated it with five manuscripts. Dillmann likewise issued (1853) a new German translation in which there were material emendations and on which all disquisitions connected with this book have been based ever since. It seemed as though there were reason to hope that more light would be thrown upon this book when a small fragment of it in Greek (extending from ver. 42 to ver. 49 of chap. 89) taken from a Codex Vaticanus (cod. gr. 1809) written in tachygraphic characters was published in facsimile by Mai (Patrum Nova Biblioth. vol. ii.) and deciphered by Gildmeister (Zeitschr. der DMG. 1855 pp. 621-624). For from what was stated by Mai one was led to suppose that there was still far more in the codex than had yet been published. But alas! a fresh examination by Gebhardt revealed the fact that the deciphered fragment was all of the Book of Enoch that it contained (Merx’ Archiv vol. ii. p. 243).
But in order to be able to form something like a clear idea of the origin and character of this remarkable book it will be necessary to present to the reader a brief outline of its contents.
Chap. 1:1: Title. Enoch’s benediction on the elect and the righteous. Chaps. 1-4: Introduction. Enoch rehearses the fact that he saw a vision in heaven which was shown him by the angels who communicated to him the history of all the future generations of men telling him that the wicked would be sentenced to everlasting damnation while the righteous would obtain eternal life. Chaps. 6-9 contain an account of the fall of the angels based upon the sixth chapter of Genesis though in a much more elaborate form. God ordains the kind of punishment to which the fallen angels are to be condemned and appoints the mode in which the earth is to be purged of their evil-doing and wickedness. The angels are entrusted with the task of executing both those behests. in chaps. 12-16 Enoch who mingles among the angels in heaven is commissioned by these latter to betake himself to the earth for the purpose of announcing to the fallen angels the impending judgment (here Enoch resumes the use of the first person). When he has fulfilled his commission the fallen angels prevail upon him to intercede with God in their behalf. But God refuses to entertain the intercession of Enoch who in a new and imposing vision receives a fresh commission to go and announce once more their approaching destroction. In 17-36 Enoch relates (in the first person) how he was carried over mountains water and rivers and shown everywhere the secret divine origin of all the objects and operations of nature. He also tells how he was shown the ends of the earth and the place to which the evil angels were banished; and the abode of departed spirits of the just as well as the unjust; and the tree of life which is in store for the elect righteous; and the place of punishment for the condemned; and the tree of knowledge of which Adam and Eve had eaten. Chaps. 37 to 71 record “the second vision of wisdom which Enoch the son of Jared saw” consisting of three allegories. Chaps. 38 to 44 contain the first allegory. Enoch sees in a vision the dwellings of the righteous and the resting-places of the saints. He also sees the myriads upon myriads who stand before the majesty of the Lord of spirits and the four archangels Michael Raphael Gabriel and Phanuel. He is further permitted to look upon the mysteries of heaven to see the places where the winds are kept and the receptacles for the sun and moon and lastly to behold the lightning and the stars of heaven all of which have their own special names and which names they respectively answer to. Chaps. 44 to 57 contain the second allegory. Enoch is favoured with information regarding the “Chosen One” the “Son of man” i.e. regarding the Messiah His nature and mission how He is to judge the world and establish His kingdom. Chaps. 58 to 69 contain the third allegory treating of the blessedness of the righteous and the elect; of the mysteries of the thunder and lightning; of the day on which the Chosen One the Son of man is to sit in judgment upon the world. Here several portions are inserted which interrupt the continuity and plainly show that they are interpolations by another hand. Chaps. 70-71 contain the conclusion of the allegories. In chaps. 72-82 we have “the book concerning the revolutions of the lights of heaven” or the astronomical book. Here Enoch favours us with all sorts of astronomical information which he himself had obtained from the angel Uriel. Chaps. 83 to 90 contain two visions. (a) In 83 to 84 Enoch sees in a dreadful vision the destruction (by the flood) which is awaiting the sinful world and prays God not to annihilate the whole human family (b) In 85 to 90 we have the vision of the cattle sheep wild beasts and shepherds; under the symbolism of which the whole history of Israel is predicted down to the commencement of the Messianic era. As this historical vision is the only part of the book which enables us with anything like approximate certainty to determine the date of its composition we will devote more special attention to its contents at a subsequent stage. In chap. xci. we have Enoch’s exhortation to his children to lead a righteous life (by way of conclusion to what goes before). Chap. 92 forms the introduction to the next section. In 93 and 94:12-17 Enoch enlightens us “out of the books” regarding the world-weeks. In the first week Enoch lives in the second Noah in the third Abraham in the fourth Moses in the fifth the temple is built at the end of the sixth it is destroyed again in the seventh an apostate generation arises and at the end of those weeks the righteous are instructed in the mysteries of heaven; in the eighth righteousness receives a sword and sinners are given into the hands of the righteous and a house is built for the great King; in the ninth the judgment is revealed; in the tenth and in the seventh part of it the final judgment will take place. Chaps. 94 to 105 contain woes upon the wicked and the ungodly the announcement of their certain destruction and an exhortation to cherish joyful expectations addressed to the righteous (very diffuse and full of mere repetitions). In chaps. 106 and 107 we have a narrative of the birth of Noah and what took place at it The wonderful appearance of this personage gives Enoch occasion to predict the flood. Chap. 108 contains “a further writing by Enoch” in which he tells hows he had got certain information from an angel regarding the fire of hell to which the souls of the wicked and the blaspheming are to be consigned as well as regarding the blessings that are in store for the humble and the righteous.
As may be seen from this outline of its contents this book purports to be a series of revelations with which Enoch was favoured in the course of his peregrinations through heaven and earth and of his sojourn among the heavenly spirits. These revelations he committed to writing for the benefit of mankind and transmitted them to posterity. The contents are of an extremely varied character. They embrace the laws of nature no less than the organization and history of the kingdom of God. To impart information regarding the whole of those matters is the purpose and object of this mysterious book. The work furnishes but few data that can be turned to account in the way of enabling us to make out the circumstances under which it was composed. Consequently the views that have been expressed relative to this are of a widely divergent order. Still a certain consensus of opinion has grown up with regard to at least a few leading points. In the first place we may say that the view of J. Chr. K. von Hofmann Weisse and Philippi to the effect that the entire book is the work of a Christian author (Hofmann holding that the interpolations are but of a trifling character) is confined pretty much to those writers themselves.[2382] In the case of the whole three of them the entertaining of such a view is essentially due to dogmatic reasons while in the case of Hofmann and Philippi in particular it is to be attributed to a desire to get rid of the fact that our book is quoted in the Epistle of Jude (for they would have us believe that conversely it was that passage in the Book of Jude that first suggested the writing of the book now under consideration). But speaking generally it may be affirmed that there is scarcely any modern scholar who holds that the whole work was composed by one and the same author. Even Dillmann who in his translation and exposition still continued to assume a substantial unity of authorship (the interpolations being only trifling although tolerably numerous) has—in spite of Wittichen’s almost entire concurrence in it—long ago abandoned this view. He is now at one with almost all the critics in holding that the book consists of several pieces and all of them entirely different from one another. On this assumption it is almost universally admitted that the so-called “allegories” chaps. 37-71 are above all to be ascribed to a separate author (so for example Krieger Lücke 2nd ed. Ewald Dillmann latterly Köstlin Hilgenfeld Langen Sieffert Reuss Volkmar). Likewise in the case of the other leading sections of the book (1-36 and 72-108) interpolations more or less numerous are almost universally acknowledged to exist although there is considerable diversity of opinion as to where in each instance they begin and end. Again there is comparatively speaking a high degree of unanimity with regard to the date of the composition of each of those leading sections above all of the one containing the visions (83-90). Volkmar alone has found his predilection for the time of Barcocheba too much for him in this instance as well preferring as he does to regard the portions in question as having been written by one of Akiba’s disciples. All the others are agreed in holding that they belong to the second century B.C. either limiting the date to the earlier years of the Maccabaean period (so Krieger Lücke 2nd ed. Langen) or finding it further on viz. in the days of John Hyrcanus (so Ewald Dillmann Köstlin Sieffert Reuss likewise Wittichen) or even so late as the time of Alexander Jannaeus (so Hilgenfeld). But it is with respect to that section which as regards its contents is the most important of any viz. the allegories chaps. 36-71 that opinion fluctuates most of all. Here Hilgenfeld and Volkmar agree with Hofmann Weisse and Philippi thus far that in common with these latter they ascribe the section in question to a Christian author (Hilgenfeld to a Gnostic writer). All other critics refer it to some pre-Christian period Langen to the earlier days of the Maccabaean age in common with the rest of the book Ewald to somewhere about 144 B.C. Köstlin Sieffert and Dillmann (Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. xii. 351 sq.) to some date previous to 64 B.C. Krieger and Lücke to the early part of Herod’s reign while Reuss refrains from suggesting any date at all.
[2382] Lücke who at one time (1st ed.) was also disposed to favour this view decidedly abandoned it afterwards.
Such unanimity as has thus far been secured may serve at the same time to give us an idea how far we can here hope to obtain results of a trustworthy character. If there is one thing more certain than another it is this that the book is not all the production of one and the same author. Not only is the section containing the allegories chaps. 37-71 undoubtedly a perfectly independent portion of the book but all the rest of the work is composed of very heterogeneous elements and obviously interspersed with a great number of longer or shorter interpolations. Confining ourselves to the leading portions of the work the following groups may be distinguished:—
1. The original writing i.e. the leading portion consisting of 1-36 72-90 but with the restriction just referred to. The only clue we get to the date of its composition is that furnished by the historical vision in chaps. 85-90. Here we have a representation of the entire history of the theocracy from Adam down to the author’s own day and that under the symbolism of cattle and sheep. In a vision presented to him in a dream Enoch saw how a white ox (Adam) once sprung out of the earth; and then a white cow (Eve); and along with this latter yet other cattle a black ox (Cain) and a red one (Abel). The black ox gored the red one which thereupon vanished from the earth. But the black ox begat many other black cattle. Thereupon the cow just referred to (Eve) gave birth to a white ox (Seth) from which sprung a great many other white cattle. But stars (angels) fell from heaven and after having had intercourse with the cows of the black cattle (the daughters of Cain) they begat elephants camels and asses (the giants). And so in this way the history is proceeded with the theocratic line being always represented by the white cattle. From Jacob onwards white sheep are substituted for the white cattle. The symbolic character of the representation is patent all through while it presents hardly any difficulty in the way of interpretation till we come to the point where the sheep are attacked by wild animals i.e. till the hostile powers of Assyria and Babylon come upon the stage. For in 89:55 it is narrated how the Lord of the sheep delivered them into the hand of the lions and tigers and wolves and jackals and into the hand of the foxes and all manner of wild beasts; and how the wild beasts began to tear the sheep to pieces. And the Lord forsook their house (Jerusalem) and their tower (the temple) 89:56 i.e. He withdrew His gracious presence from them (for there is no question of the destruction of these till a much later stage). And He appointed seventy shepherds to feed the sheep and charged them to allow as many to be torn to pieces by the wild beasts as He would order them but not more (89:59 60). And he summoned “another” and commanded him to write down the number of sheep destroyed by the shepherds (89:61-64). And the shepherds fed them “each his time” and delivered the sheep into the hand of the lions and tigers. And these latter burnt down that tower (the temple) and destroyed that house (Jerusalem 89:65 66). And the shepherds delivered to the wild beasts far more sheep than they had been ordered to do (89:68-71). And when the shepherds had fed the flock twelve hours three of those sheep came back and began to rebuild the house (Jerusalem) and the tower (the temple) chap. 89:72 73. But the sheep were so blinded as to mingle with the beasts of the field; and the shepherds did not rescue them from the hand of the beasts (89:74 75). But when five-and-thirty[2383] shepherds had fed them all the fowls of the air the eagles the hawks the kites and the ravens came and began to prey upon those sheep and to peck out their eyes and to devour their flesh (90:1 2). And again when three-and-twenty shepherds had tended the flock and eight-and-fifty times in all were completed (90:5) then little lambs were born of the white sheep and they began to cry to the sheep; but these pay no heed to them (90:6 7). And the ravens swooped down upon the lambs and seized one of them and tore and devoured the sheep till horns grew upon the lambs and above all a large horn shot out to which all the young ones betake themselves (90:8-10). And the eagles and the hawks and the kites still continue to tear the sheep to pieces. And the ravens sought to break to pieces the horn of that young sheep and struggled with it; and it strove with them. And the Lord came to the help of that young one; and all the beasts flee and fall before him (90:11-15). Here the narrative breaks off. For what follows seems for the author to lie in the future. It is only further remarked that the twelve last shepherds had destroyed more than those who had preceded them (90:17).
[2383] Dillmann reads thirty-six which is not supported by manuscript authority. The manuscripts read thirty-seven. But from what follows there can hardly be a doubt that thirty-five is the correct reading.
In their endeavours to interpret this narrative so clear and perspicuous in all the leading points the expositors seem almost to have vied with each other in trying who would misunderstand it most. Strangely enough all the earlier expositors down to Lücke inclusive have taken the first thirty-seven shepherds to mean the native kings of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah ! It is true no doubt that in the present day all are agreed that the seventy shepherds are intended to represent the period during which Israel was subjected to the away of the Gentile powers. But it is a strange misapprehension into which almost all the expositors have been betrayed when they suppose that the seventy shepherds are intended to represent a corresponding number of Gentile rulers. The whole narrative leaves no room whatever to doubt that the shepherds are rather to be understood as angels who are entrusted with the duty of seeing that only as many of the sheep are torn to pieces as God intends and no more. So far as I am aware up till the publication of the first edition of the present work Von Hofmann was the only writer who recognised this (Schriftbeweis i. 422).[2384] It is as it is impossible to doubt the wild beasts and the birds of prey that represent the Gentile rulers. Consequently the shepherds must have some other meaning altogether. But they certainly cannot be taken as representing human beings for throughout the entire vision these latter are without exception represented under the symbolism of animals whereas the angels appear even in chap. 87 under that of men. And that the shepherds are as matter of fact intended to represent angels is still further confirmed by what follows: (1) Before they commence to tend the flock they all appear before God at one and the same time and from Him receive their commission to feed the flock one after the other (89:59). How could this apply to Gentile rulers? Or are we to think of them as in a pre-existent state? (2) At the judgment they are classed along with the fallen angels (90:20 sqq.). (3) The angel that is summoned to write down the number of sheep that are destroyed is in 89:61 briefly spoken of as “another” which would surely justify us in assuming that the shepherds mentioned immediately before belong to precisely the same category as this “other.” (4) Nor can the shepherds be identified with the Gentile rulers for this further reason that according to 89:75 they are also entrusted with the duty of protecting the sheep from the wild beasts. Consequently they are evidently an impartial power placed over the sheep and the wild beasts alike or they are meant to be so at least.[2385] The thought in the author’s mind then is this that from the moment that in accordance with the divine purpose Israel was assailed and subjugated by the Gentile powers God appointed angels whose duty it was to see that these powers executed upon Israel the judgment with which He intended them to be visited; and not only so but also to see that they did not oppress and persecute Israel unduly. But the watchers neglect their duty; they allow the wild beasts to destroy a greater number than they ought to have done and as is predicted toward the conclusion they are for this to be cast into hell-fire along with the fallen angels.
[2384] Since then this view has been endorsed by Kesselring (Lit. Centralbl. 1874 p. 133) Drummond (The Jewish Messiah p. 40 sqq.) and Wieseler (Zeitschr. der deutschen morgenländ. Gesellsch. 1882 p. 186).
[2385] Even in the later Jewish Haggadah we meet with the idea that seventy angels were set over the Gentile world that is to say one over each of the seventy Gentile nations. See Targum of Jonathan on Deuteronomy 32:8. Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer chap. xxiv. Wagenseil’s note on Sota vii. 5 (in Surenhusius’s Mishna iii. 263 sq.). Schegg Evangelium nach Lukas übers. und erklärt ii. 69. Also the expositors generally on Luke 10:1.
It would lead to too great a digression were we to do more in the way of refuting the misapprehensions here in question. We must content ourselves with briefly stating what—following Dillmann and Ewald above all—we conceive to be the correct interpretation. The numbers in the text serve to show that the author divides the time of the duration of the Gentile supremacy into four periods arranged thus: 12 + 23 + 23 + 12 which are simply intended to denote in a general way two shorter periods (at the beginning) and two longer ones (in the middle). For every calculation pretending to chronological exactness must be radically erroneous whether with Hilgenfeld we take year-weeks or with Volkmar take decades as our basis. Nor can there be any doubt as to where the different periods are intended to begin and end. The first begins with the time when the Gentile powers (consequently that of Assyria in the first instance) began to turn against Israel and extends to the time of the return of the exiles in the reign of Cyrus the only difficulty here being as to who are meant by the three returning sheep (89:72). Probably the author here alludes to Zerubbabel Ezra and Nehemiah the less prominent colleague of Zerubbabel viz. Joshua being left out of account. The second period extends from Cyrus to Alexander the Great. For the substitution of the birds of prey for the wild beasts (90:2) plainly marks the transition from the Persians to the Greeks. The third extends from Alexander the Great to Antiochus Epiphanes. Nothing but stubborn prejudice can prevent any one from seeing that by the symbolism of the lambs (90:6) the Maccabees are to be understood. Lastly the fourth period extends from the commencement of the Maccabaean age on to the author’s own day. That everything considered this latter coincides with the time of the Hasmonaean princes it is impossible to doubt. And it is very likely that by the great horn which is mentioned last it is John Hyrcanus that is referred to. Only we feel bound to agree with Gebhardt who owing to the uncertain character of the Ethiopic text warns us against being too detailed in our interpretation. But (seeing that from the beginning of the Maccabaean age onwards the times of twelve shepherds had elapsed) this may be regarded as certain that the author wrote some time in the last third of the second century B.C. If we compare the 12 + 23 + 23 + 12 times that are put down to represent the four periods with the actual duration of those periods we will find that for the eye of the author looking backwards the length of the time is foreshortened. He represents the third period (333-175 B.C.) as being of precisely the same length as the second whereas in point of fact this latter was considerably longer (537-333 B.C.). And for his eye the first period dwindles down still more. All this is exactly what we might expect in the case of one who is looking back upon the events of the past.
If we were to be allowed to assume that the author of the historical vision is in the main the author of chaps. 1-36 72-105 as well then the date of the composition of the whole of those sections would thereby be determined at the same time.
2. The allegories chaps. 37-71 (with the exception of the Noachian portions). Even on a hasty perusal one cannot fail to notice that the allegories form one distinct whole and that they are different from the remaining portions of the book. In fact there cannot be the slightest doubt but that they are the production of a different author. The use of the names of God the angelology the eschatology and the doctrine of the Messiah differ essentially from those of the rest of the book (comp. especially Köstlin pp. 265-268). And as little can there be any room to doubt that they are of a later date than the original work. For the favourite notion of Ewald that they rank first in point of time has been sufficiently refuted by Köstlin (pp. 269-273). Among the peculiarities of the allegories we notice this in particular that a decided prominence is given in them to the Messianic hope and the person of the Messiah whereas in the other parts of the book those are matters that are touched on once or twice at the most. This again is connected with a further peculiarity to which Köstlin in particular has directed attention namely that here instead of its being the wicked and the ungodly in general who appear in contrast to the pious as is the case in the rest of the book it is rather the Gentile rulers the kings and the powerful ones of the earth (chaps. 38:4 5 46:7 8 48:8-10 53:5 54:2 55:4 62:1 3 6 9-11 63:1-12). This circumstance serves to explain why it is that precisely in these allegories such decided prominence is given to the Messianic hope. But when it may now be asked were they composed? The only passage which furnishes any clue to the date is chap. 56 where it is predicted that in the closing period the Parthians and Medes would come from the east and invade the Holy Land but that they would encounter obstacles at the holy city when they would turn upon and destroy each other (56:5-7). When Köstlin would have us infer from this passage that the writing here in question must have been composed previous to the year 64 B.C. as otherwise we should have expected that the Romans would have been mentioned as Well we may reply that such an expectation is absolutely groundless and unwarrantable. It would be much nearer the truth to conclude with Lücke that this passage presupposes what had already taken place viz. the Parthian invasion of Palestine (40-38 B.C.) the recollection of which would have some influence in shaping the author’s eschatological hopes so that according to this the allegories would be composed at the very soonest in the time of Herod. On the other hand the prediction to the effect that the Parthian power would collapse outside the walls of Jerusalem presupposes that the city was still standing as otherwise it would surely have been necessary first of all to predict its restoration. But the main question now is this are the allegories of pre- or of post-Christian origin? An answer to this question is all the more desirable that it is precisely in these that we find so many points of contact with the Christology and eschatology of the Gospels. But unfortunately it is extremely difficult to arrive at any positive decision. However this much at least ought to be admitted that the view of the Messiah presented in the part of the book at present under consideration is perfectly explicable on Jewish grounds and that to account for such view it is not necessary to assume that it was due to Christian influences. Nothing of a specifically Christian character is to be met with in any part of this section. But supposing the reverse to have been the case it is to say the least of it quite incredible that a Jew would have been likely to have borrowed it and so there would be nothing for it but to pronounce at once in favour of a Christian origin. And this is what has actually been done by all those who cannot see their way to admit the pre-Christian origin of the writing (Hofmann Weisse Hilgenfeld Volkmar Philippi). But no sooner is such a view seriously entertained than the difficulties begin to accumulate. An anonymous Christian author would scarcely have been so reserved as to avoid making any allusion to the historical personality of Jesus. Surely if the writer had any object in view at all it would be to win converts to the faith. But how could he hope to accomplish this object if he always spoke merely of the coming of the Messiah in glory merely of “the Chosen One” as the Judge of the world without making the slightest reference to the fact that in the first place He would have to appear in His estate of humiliation? Surely any one who candidly weighs the arguments on the one side and on the other must feel constrained to admit that the pre-Christian origin is decidedly more probable than the Christian one. Further the objection based upon the circumstance that according to Matthew 16:13-16 John 12:34 the expression “Son of man” was not as yet a current designation for the Messiah in the time of Christ whereas it is of frequent occurrence in this sense in the allegories is without force. For we are by no means at liberty to infer from those passages that the expression “Son of man” was not at that time currently in use as a Messianic title. In the case of the passage in John this inference is based simply upon false exegesis (see on the other hand Meyer for example). The passage in Matthew again is disposed of by the circumstance that in its original form as preserved in Mark 8:27 = Luke 9:18 the expression “Son of man” does not occur at all.
3. The Noachian portions. The investigations of Dillmann Ewald and Köstlin have already sufficiently proved that the passages 54:7-55:2 60:65-69:25 break the sequence and were only inserted among the allegories at a later period. And if further proof were needed we have it in the fact that in chap. 68:1 “The Book of the Allegories of Enoch” is expressly quoted. Those portions have been called Noachian partly because they treat of Noah and his time and partly because they purport to have been written by him. Probably chaps. 106 107 should also be included among them. Chap. 108 is an independent addition inserted at a later period. It is utterly impossible to say at what dates those various interpolations were made.
The whole Book of Enoch which was gradually put together in the way we have just stated undoubtedly owes its origin to Palestine (comp. Dillmann Einleitung p. 51). But as our present Ethiopic version is taken from the Greek it becomes a question whether this latter was the original or whether it was in turn a translation from the Hebrew or Aramaic. Certainly the numerous Hebrew names of the angels point to this latter as probable to say nothing of the fact that in the Hasmonaean age Greek was hardly ever used for literary purposes. Consequently it has been almost universally assumed that the original was composed in Hebrew or Aramaic.[2386] The only exceptions are Volkmar (Zeitschr. der DMG. 1860 p. 131) and Philippi (p. 126) who feel compelled to adopt the view that Greek was the language of the original.
[2386] For the view that the original was in Hebrew see in particular Hallévi Journal Asiatique 1867 April-May pp. 352-395.
For the Enoch-legend generally comp. (next to Genesis 5:18-24) Jesus the Son of Sirach Sir_44:16; Sir_49:14; Hebrews 11:5; Irenaeus v. 5. 1; Tertullian De anima chap. 1.; Hippolyt. De Christo et Antichristo chaps. xliii.-xlvii.; Evang. Nicodemi (= Acta Pilati) chap. xxv.; Historia Josephi (apoer.) chaps. xxx.-xxxii. Thilo Codex apocr. Nov. Test. p. 756 sqq. Rud. Hofmann Das Leben Jesu nach den Apokryphen p. 459 sqq. Winer Realwörtb. art. “Henoch.” Hamburger Real-Encycl. für Bibel und Talmud Part ii. art. “Henochsage.” The Bible dictionaries generally. The expositors on Revelation xi. For a great number of earlier dissertations consult Fabricius Cod. pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 222 sq.
To an acquaintance with our book is perhaps to be traced so early a notice as that of a Jewish or Samaritan Hellenist (probably not Eupolemus but some person unknown see § xxxiii.) which has been transmitted to us by Alexander Polyhistor and after him by Eusebius to the effect that Enoch was the inventor of astrology (Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 17. 8 ed. Gaisford: τοῦτον εὑρηκέναι πρῶτον τὴν ἀστρολογίαν). In the Book of Jubilees not only is our book largely drawn upon but expressly mentioned (see Ewald’s Jahrbb. der bibl. Wissensch. ii. 240 sq. iii. 18 sq. 90 sq. Rönsch Das Buch der Jubiläen p. 403 sqq.). In the following nine passages in the Test. XII. Patr. express reference is made to Enoch’s prophetical writings: Simeon 5; Levi 10:14 16; Judah 18; Zebulon 3; Daniel 5; Naphtali 4; Benjamin 9. Further the mention of the ἐγρήγορες (watchers = angels) in Reuben 5 Naphtali 3 may also be said to point to Enoch.
Christian testimonies: Epist. of Jude 1:14 : ἐπροφήτευσεν δὲ καὶ τούτοις ἕβδομος ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ Ἐνὼχ λέγων κ.τ.λ. Epist. of Barnabas iv.: τὸ τέλειον σκάνδαλον ἤγγικεν περὶ οὐ γέγραπται ὡς Ἐνὼχ λέγει. Ibid. xvi.: λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή (then follows a quotation from the Book of Enoch). Irenaeus iv. 16. 2: Sed et Enoch sine circumcisione placens Deo cum esset homo Dei legatione ad angelos fungebatur et tranelatus est et conservator usque nunc testis justi judicii Dei. Tertullian De cultu feminarum i. 3: Scio scripturam Enoch quae hunc ordinem angelis dedit non recipi a quibusdam quia nec in armarium Judaicum admittitur. Opinor non putaverunt illam ante cataclysmum editam post eum casum orbis omnium rerum abolitorein salvam esse potuisse.… Tertullian then goes on to point out how this vas still quite possible after which he proceeds as follows: Sed cum Enoch eadem scriptura etiam de domino praedicarit a nobis quidem nihil omnino rejiciendum est quod pertineat ad nos. Et legimus omnem scripturam aedificationi habilem divinitus inspirari. A Judaeis potest jam videri propterea rejecta sicut et cetera fere quae Christum sonant.… Eo accedit quod Enoch apud Judam apostolum testimonium possidet. Comp. besides the whole of the introduction to chap. ii. the subject of which is taken from Enoch. Idem De cultu feminarum ii. 10: (iidem angeli) damnati a deo sunt ut Enoch refert. Idem De idololatr. iv.: Antecesserat Enoch praedicens etc. Idem De idololatr. xv.: Haec igitur ab initio praevidens spiritus sanctus (!) etiam ostia in superstitionem ventura praececinit per antiquissimum propheten Enoch. Clemens Alex. Eclogae prophet. chap. ii. (Dindorf iii. 456): “Εὐλογημένος εἶ ὁ βλέπων ἀβύσσους καθήμενος ἐπὶ Χερουβίμ” ὁ Δανιὴλ λέγει ὁμοδοξῶν τῷ Ἐνὼχ τῷ εἰρηκότι “καὶ εἶδον τὰς ὕλας πάσας.” Idem Eclogae prophet. chap. liii. (Dindorf iii. 474): ἤδη δὲ καὶ Ἐνώχ φησιν τοὺς παραβάντας ἀγγέλους διδάξαι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἀστρονομίαν καὶ μαντικὴν καὶ τὰς ἄλλας τέχνας. Celsus in Origen Contra Cels. v. 52 endeavours to show that Christians would contradict themselves were they to maintain that Christ was the only ἄγγελος sent down into the world by God. As evidence of this he quotes the following words: ἐλθεῖν γὰρ καὶ ἄλλους λέγουσι πολλάκις καὶ ὁμοῦ γε ἑξήκοντα ἢ ἑβδομήκοντα· οὓς δὴ γενέσθαι κακοὺς καὶ κολάζεσθαι δεσμοῖς ὑποβληθέντας ἐν γῇ· ὅθεν καὶ τὰς θερμὰς πηγὰς εἶναι τὰ ἐκείνων δάκρυα κ.τ.λ. In commenting on this passage Origen (Contra Cels. v. 54 55) remarks that it is taken from the Book of Euoch. He thinks however that Celsus did not read it there himself but heard it from somebody or other for he does not mention the author’s name. Origen Contra Cels. v. 54: ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις οὐ πάνυ φέρεται ὡς θεῖα τὰ ἐπιγεγραμμένα τοῦ Ἐνὼχ βιβλία (observe the plural). Idem De principiis i. 3. 3: Sed et in Enoch libro his similia describuntur. Idem De principiis iv. 35: Sed et in libro suo Enoch ita ait: “Ambulavi usque ad imperfectum” … scriptum namque est in eodem libello dicente Enoch: “Universas materias perspexi.” Idem In Numer. homil. xxviii. 2 (de la Rue ii. 384 = Lommatzsch x. 366): De quibus quidem nominibus plurima in libellis qui appellantur Enoch secreta continentur et arcana: sed quia libelli isti non videntur apud Hebraeos in suctoritate haberi interim nunc ea quae ibi nominantur ad exemplum vocare differamus. Idem In Joannem vol. vi. chap. xxv. (de la Rue iv. 142 = Lommatzsch i. 241): ὡς ἐν τῷ Ἐνὼχ γέγραπται εἴ τω φίλον παραδέχεσθαι ὡς ἅγιον τὸ βιβλίον. Anatolius in Eusebius Hist. eccl. vii. 32. 19: Τοῦ δὲ τὸν πρῶτον παρʼ Ἑβραίοις μῆνα περὶ ἰσημερίαν εἶναι παραστατικὰ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῷ Ἐνωχ μαθήματα. Jerome De viris illustr. chap. iv.: Judas frater Jacobi parvam quae de septem catholicis est epistolam reliquit. Et quia de libro Enoch qui apocryphus est in ea assumit testimonia a plerisque rejicitur etc. Idem Comment. in Epist. ad Titum i. 12 (Vallarsi vii. 1. 708): Qui autem putant totum librum debere sequi eum qui libri parte usus sit videntur mihi et apocryphum Enochi de quo apostolus Judas in epistola sua testimonium posuit inter ecclesiae scripturas recipere. In the so-called stichometry of Nicephorus and in the Synopsis Athanasii the Book of Enoch is classed with the Apocrypha (Credner Zur Geschichte des Kanons pp. 121 145). So also in the anonymous list of the canonical books which has been edited by Montfaucon Cotelier Hody and Pitra respectively (see v. 7 below). Constit. apostol. vi. 16: καὶ ἐν τοῖς παλαιοῖς δέ τινες συνέγραψαν βιβλία ἀπόκρυφα Μωσέως καὶ Ἐνὼχ καὶ Ἀδὰμ Ἠσαΐου τε καὶ Δαβὶδ καὶ Ἡλία καὶ τῶν τριῶν πατριαρχῶν φθοροποιὰ καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐχθρά. For yet other testimonia patrum consult Fabricius Codex pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 160-223 ii 55-61. Philippi Das Buch Henoch p. 102 sqq. Also the two large fragments from Syncellus in Dillmann Das Buch Henoch pp. 82-86.
Editions of the Ethiopic text: Laurence Libri Enoch versio Aethiopica Oxoniae 1838. Dillmann Liber Henoch Aethiopice ad quinque codicum fidem editus cum variis lectionibus Lipsiae 1851.
Versions: (1) English ones: Laurence The Book of Enoch an apocryphal production supposed to have been lost for ages but discovered at the close of the last century in Abyssinia now first translated from an Ethiopic MS. in the Bodleian Library Oxford 1821. Schodde The Book of Enoch translated with Introduction and Notes Andover 1882. (2) German ones: Hoffmann (Andreas Gottlieb) Das Buch Henoch in vollständiger Uebersetzung mit fortlaufendem Commentar ausführlicher Einleitung und erläuternden Excursen 2 vols. Jena 1833-1838. Dillmann Das Buch Henoch übersetzt und erklärt Leipzig 1853.
Critical inquiries: Laurence in his English translation. Hoffmann (Andr. Gottl.) art. “Henoch” in Ersch and Gruber’s Encycl. § 2 vol. v. (1829) pp. 399-409. Idem in his German translation. Gfrörer Das Jahrhundert des Heils (also under the title Gesch. des Urchristenthums vol. i-ii 1838) i. 93-109. Wieseler Die 70 Wochen und die 63 Jahrwochen des Propheten Daniel 1839 p. 162 sqq. Krieger (Lützelberger) Beiträge zur Kritik und Exegese Nürnberg 1845. Lücke Einleitung in die Offenbarung des Johannes (2nd ed. 1852) pp. 89-144; comp. 1171-1173. Hofmann (J. Chr. K.) “Ueber die Entstehungszeit des Buch Henoch” (Zeitschr. der deutschen morgenländ. Gesellsch. vol. vi. 1852 pp. 87-91). Idem Schriftbeweis (2nd ed.) i. 420-423. Idem Die heil. Schrift N. T.’s zusammenhängend untersucht vii. 2 p. 205 sqq. Dillmann in his German translation. Idem in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1st ed. xii. 308-310. Idem Zeitschr. DMG. 1861 pp. 126-131. Idem in Schenkel’s Bibellex. iii. (1871) pp. 10-13. Idem in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. xii. (1883) pp. 350-352. Ewald “Abhandlung über des äthiopischen Buches Henókh Entstehung Sinn und Zusammensetzung” (Abhandlungender königl. Gesellsch. der Wissensch. zu Göttingen vol. vi. 1853-1855 Historico-philosoph. section pp. 107-178. Also separate reprint). Idem Gesch. des Volkes Israel 3rd ed. iv. 451 sqq. Weisse Die Evangelienfrage (1856) pp. 214-224. Köstlin “Ueber die Entstehung des Buchs Henoch” (Theol. Jahrbücher 1856 pp. 240-279 370-386). Hilgenfeld Die jüdische Apokalyptik (1857) pp. 91-184. Idem Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol. vol. iii. 1860 pp. 319-334; iv. 1861 pp. 212-222; v. 1862 pp. 216-221; xv. 1872 pp. 584-587. Volkmar “Beiträge zur Erklärung des Buches Henoch nach dem äthiopischen Text” (Zeitschr. der DMG. vol. xiv. 1860 pp. 87-134 296). Idem in Der Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. vol. iv. 1861 pp. 111-136 422 sqq.; v. 1862 p. 46 sqq. Idem Eine Neutestamentliche Entdeckung und deren Bestreitung oder die Geschichte-Vision des Buches Henoch im Zusammenhang Zürich 1862. Geiger Jüdische Zeitschr. für Wissensch. und Leben for year 1864-65 pp. 196-204. Langen Das Judenthum in Palästina (1866) pp. 35-64. Sieffert Nonnulla ad apocryphi libri Henochi originem et compositionem nec non ad opiniones de regno Messiano eo prolatas pertinentia Regimonti Pr. 1867 (the same work under the title De apocryphi libri Henochi origine et argumenta Regimonti Pr. s. a.). Hallévi “Recherches sur la langue de la redaction primitive du livre d’Enoch” (Journal asiatique 1867 April-May pp. 352-395). Philippi Das Bach Henoch sein Zeitalter und sein Verhältniss zum Judasbriefe Stuttg. 1868. Wittichen Die Idee des Menschen (1868) pp. 63-71. Idem Die Idee des Reiches Gottes (1872) pp. 118-133 145-148 149 sq. Gebhardt “Die 70 Hirten des Buches Henoch und ihre Deutungen mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Barkochba-Hypothese” (Merx’ Archiv für wissenschaftl. Erforschung des A. T. vol. ii. part 2 1872 pp. 163-246). Tideman “De apocalypse van Henoch en het Essenisme” (Theol. Tijdschrift 1875 pp. 261-296). Drummond The Jewish Messiah (1877) pp. 17-73. Lipsius art. “Enoch.” in Smith and Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography vol. ii. (1880) pp. 124-128. Reuss Gesch. der heil. Schriften A. T.’s § 498-500. Wieseler “Zur Abfassungszeit des Buchs Henoch” (Zeitschr. der DMG. 1882 pp. 185-193).
3. The Assumptio Mosis
It had long been known from a passage in Origen (De princip. iii. 2. 1) that the legend referred to in the Epistle of Jude (ver. 9) regarding a dispute between the archangel Michael and Satan about the body of Moses was taken from an apocryphal book entitled the Ascensio Mosis. Some little information regarding this Ἀνάληψις Μωυσέως had also been gleaned from quotations found in the Fathers and subsequent writers (see below). But it was not till somewhat recently that a large portion of this work in an old Latin version was discovered in the Ambrosian Library at Milan by Ceriani and published by him (1861) in the first part of his Monumenta. It is true the fragment bears no title but its identity with the old Ἀνάληψις Μωυσέως is evident from the following quotation (Acta Synodi Nicaenae ii. 18 in Fabricius i. 845): Μέλλων ὁ προφήτης Μωυσῆς ἐξιέναι τοῦ βίου ὡς γέγραπται ἐν βίβλῳ Ἀναλήψεως Μωυσέως προσκαλεσάμενος Ἰησοῦν υἱὸν Ναυὴ καὶ διαλεγόμενος πρὸς αὐτὸν ἔφη· Καὶ προεθεάσατό με ὁ θεὸς πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου εἶναί με τῆς διαθήκης αὐτοῦ μεσίτην These same words also occur in Ceriani’s fragment i. 14: Itaque excogitavit et invenit me qui ab initio orbis terrarum praeparatus sum ut sim arbiter testamenti illius. Since its publication by Ceriani this writing has been edited by Hilgenfeld (clementis Romani Epist. 1866 2nd ed. 1876) Volkmar (Latin and German 1867) Schmidt and Merx (Merx’ Archiv 1868) and Fritzsche (Libri apocr. 1871). A rendering back into the Greek from which the Latin version had been taken was executed by Hilgenfeld (Zeifsckr. 1868 and Messias Judaeorum 1869).
The following is an outline of the contents of the writing (and here we adopt Hilgenfeld’s division of the chapters which is also adhered to by Schmidt-Merx and Fritzsche and departed from by Volkmar alone):—
Chap. 1:1-9. The introduction in which we are given to understand that what follows was an address which Moses gave to Joshua when he appointed him to be his successor at Ammon beyond Jordan. In 1:10-17 Moses discloses to Joshua the fact that the course of his life has come to an end and that he is on the point of departing to his fathers. By way of legacy he hands over to Joshua certain books of prophecies which he is requested to preserve in a place appointed by God for the purpose. In chap. 2 Moses reveals to Joshua in brief outline the future history of Israel from the entrance into Palestine down to the destruction of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. In chap. 3 it is stated that a king (Nebuchadnezzar) will come from the east and destroy the city and the temple with fire and carry away the inhabitants into his own domains. The captives will then remember that all this had been already foretold by Moses. Chap. 4. In answer to the prayers of a man who is over them (Daniel) God will again take pity upon them and raise up a king (Cyrus) who will allow them to return to their native land. A few fragments of the tribes will return and will rebuild the holy place and will remain stedfast in their allegiance to the Lord only sad and sighing because they cannot sacrifice to the God of their fathers.[2387] Chap. 5. And judgment will overtake their kings (their Gentile rulers). But they themselves (the Jews) will be divided in regard to the truth.[2388] And the altar will be defiled by men who are not (true) priests but slaves born of slaves. And their scribes (magistri [et] doctores eorum) will be partial and will pervert justice. And their land will be full of unrighteousness. Chap. 6. Then kings will arise among them and priests of the Most High God will be appointed who will nevertheless commit wickedness even in the very holy of holies itself (plainly alluding to the Hasmonaeans). And these will be succeeded by an insolent monarch not belonging to the family of the priests an arrogant and ungodly man. And he will deal with those who have preceded him as they deserve. He will cut off their proud ones with the sword and bury their bodies in secret places so that nobody will know where they have been laid.[2389] He will put to death old and young alike and will not spare. Then there will be great dread of him among them throughout the land and he will sit in judgment upon them as did the Egyptians for four-and-thirty years (all which obviously points to Herod the Great). And he will beget sons who will reign though for shorter periods as his successors. Cohorts of soldiers will come into their land and a powerful monarch of the West (Quintilius Varus) who will conquer them and take them captive and destroy a part of their temple with fire while some of them he will crucify around their city.[2390] Chap. 7. After this will come the end of the times. Their course will have run after the expiry of yet four hours … (then follow several lines in the manuscript that are hardly legible). And there will reign among them wicked and ungodly men who say that they are righteous. They are deceitful men who will live only to please themselves dissemblers in all their concerns and at every hour of the day lovers of feasts mere gluttons … (here again follows a hiatus). They devour the possessions of the poor and declare that they do this out of pity. Their hands and their minds indulge in impurity and their mouth utters high-sounding things; and further they say “touch me not lest thou defile me.” … Chap. 8. Vengeance and wrath will come upon them such as has never been among them from the beginning till the time when he will raise up to them the king of kings (Antiochus Epiphanes) who will crucify those who profess circumcision and will cause them to get their children uncircumcised again and to carry about the impure idols in public and to contemn the word. Chap. 9. Then in obedience to the command of that king there will appear a man of the tribe of Levi whose name will be taxo who will have seven sons to whom he will say: Behold my sons vengeance has once more come upon the people a cruel vengeance without one touch of pity. For what nation of the ungodly has ever had to endure anything equal to what has befallen us? Now listen my sons and let us do this: Let us fast three days and on the fourth let us go into a cave which is in the field and die there rather than transgress the commandments of our Lord the God of our fathers.[2391] Chap. 10. And then will His kingdom appear throughout His whole creation. Then will the devil have an end and sorrow will disappear along with him. For the Heavenly One will rise up from His throne. And the earth will tremble the sun will withhold its light and the horns of the moon will be broken. For God the Most High will appear and He will punish the Gentiles. Then wilt thou be happy O Israel and God will exalt thee. And now Joshua (and here Moses turns again to address his successor) keep these words and this book. As for me I am going to the resting-place of my fathers. Chap. 11 then goes on to relate how after this address was ended Joshua turned to Moses and lamented over the prospect of his departure and regretted that in consequence of his own weakness and incompetency he would not be equal to the great task that had been imposed upon him. Thereupon chap. 12 proceeds to tell how Moses exhorted Joshua not to under-estimate his ability and not to despair of the future of his people seeing that however much they might be punished for their sins they could never be utterly destroyed.
[2387] The author seems to think that the sacrificial worship of the second temple could not be regarded as true worship owing to their being under Gentile supremacy and because the conducting of the worship was in the hands of priests friendly to the Greeks.
[2388] Hilgenfeld has correctly held that the words “Et ipsi dividentur ad reritatem” are to be regarded as beginning a new sentence. Schmidt and Merx have given a happy reproduction of the Greek text in the words Καὶ αὐτοὶ διαμερισθήσονται πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν (comp. Luke 11:17).
[2389] Comp. Joseph. Antt. xv. 10.4: πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ φανερῶς καὶ λεληθότως εἱς τὸ φρούριον ἀναγόμενοι τὴν Ὑρκανίαν ἐκεῖ διεφθείροντο.
[2390] According to Fritzsche’s amended form of it the passage runs thus Et producet natos (qui su)ccedentes sibi [= ei] breviora tempora dominarent [cod. donarent]. In partes eorum cohortes [cod. mortis] venient et occidentis rex potens qui expugnabit eos et ducet captives et partem aedis ipsorum igni incendet aliquos crucifiget circa coloniam eorum. Comp. with regard to the burning of the temple Joseph. Antt. xvii. 10. 2; and for the crucifixions Antt. xvii. 10. 10. What is in view therefore is the war of Varus in the year 4 B.C.
[2391] It is usually assumed that chaps. viii.-ix. have direct reference to the closing period. But this appears to be only indirectly the case. For the author represents Moses as prophesying that in the closing period there will be a state of matters the like of which will never have been before except once viz. in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. It is the description of this period of persecution under Antiochus that is also pursued in chap. ix. in which we accordingly meet with a legend similar to that in 2 Maccabees 7. The object of the hiding in the cave is not merely to escape persecution but also to find a place where the law can be observed without hindrance; comp. in particular 2Ma_6:11 and the Rabbinical legends regarding Simon ben Jochai (Grätz Gesch. der Juden iv. 470 sqq.); also in general Lucius Der Essenismus p. 128. There has been an unnecessary amount of puzzling of the brains over the enigmatical term taxo. It is undoubtedly to be looked upon as a corruption of the text. But one is at a loss to conceive how Hilgenfeld could ever suppose that under it there lay a reference to the Messiah. That would surely be a strange Messiah who could find nothing better to do than creep into a hole and there await the approach of death. Yet according to Philippi this latter is to be understood as referring to Christ and His disciples (pp. 177-180).
Here the manuscript ends. But all that has gone before leads us to expect what the fragments tend to confirm that in the subsequent portion of the book it had gone on to give an account of how Moses was taken away from the earth the scene from which the whole work obtained the title of the Ἀνάληψις Μωυσέως. It is also in this concluding part of the work that the dispute between the archangel Michael and Satan about the body of Moses must have occurred which dispute as is well known is also mentioned in verse 9 of the Epistle of Jude.
Opinion is very much divided regarding the date of the composition of this book. Ewald Wieseler Drummond and Dillmann refer it to the first decade after the death of Herod; Hilgenfeld calculates that it may have been written in the course of the year 44-45 A.D.; Schmidt and Merx say some time between 54 and 64 A.D.; Fritzsche and Lucius trace it to the sixth decade of the first century A.D.; Langen thinks it must have been shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (chap. 8 being erroneously interpreted as referring to this event); Hausrath prefers the reign of Domitian; Philippi the second century of our era (the latter fixing on this date solely with the object of his being able to ascribe the authorship to a Christian and of reversing the relation in which our book and ver. 9 of the Epistle of Jude stand to each other; see in particular pp. 177 182); while Volkmar (in accordance with his well-known predilection for the time of Barcocheba) thinks the date would be some time in the course of the year 137-138 A.D. Almost the whole of the critics just mentioned base their calculation upon the well-nigh illegible fragments of numbers in chap. 7. But surely one may fairly question the propriety of trying to found anything whatever upon lines so mutilated as those are; and if we had no other data but these to help us to fix the date in question we would have nothing for it but to abandon the attempt altogether. Still I cannot help thinking that there are two such data at our disposal. (1) Toward the end of chap. 6 it is plainly stated that the sons of Herod are to reign for a shorter period (breviora tempora) than their father. Now it is well known that Philip and Antipas reigned longer than their father; and one cannot help seeing the embarrassment to which those words have led in the case of all those critics who refer the composition of our book to a latish date. They are capable of being explained solely on the assumption that the work was written toward the commencement of the reign of the last-mentioned princes. (2) It is as good as universally admitted that the concluding sentences of chap. 6 refer to the war of Varus in the year 4 B.C.[2392] When therefore chap. 7 goes on to say: Ex quo facto finientur tempora surely there can hardly be room for any other inference than this that the author wrote subsequent to the war of Varus. In that case the enigmatical numbers that follow in this same chapter cannot be supposed to be a continuation of the narrative but are to be regarded as a calculation added by way of supplement after the narrative has been brought down to the date at which the author was writing. Only considering how mutilated those numbers are every attempt to explain them must prove a failure. Consequently the view of Ewald Wieseler Drummond and Dillmann with regard to the date of the composition of our book is substantially correct.
[2392] So Hilgenfeld Volkmar Schmidt-Merx Wieseler Dillmann and others also Langen Theol. Literaturbl. 1871 No. 3 Sp. 90 (where he retracts his previous absolutely untenable reference of the passage to Pompey; see Judenth. in Paläst. p. 109).
Some light is thrown upon the author’s party leanings partly by chap. 7 and partly by chap. 10. The homines pestilentiosi against whom he inveighs in chap. 7 are by no means the Herodian princes (so Hilgenfeld) nor the Sadducees (so Volkmar p. 105; Geiger p. 45 sq.; Lucins p. 116 sqq.). nor the Sadducees and Pharisees (so Wieseler p. 642 sq. who refers vv. 3 4 to the former and vv. 6-10 to the latter); bat the Pharisees and the Pharisees alone to whom every word is unmistakably applicable (so Ewald Gesch. v. 81; Schmidt-Merx p. 121; Philippi p. 176). Our author then was inimical to the Pharisees though at the same time he was neither an Essene for as such he would not have jeered as he does in chap. 7 at the Pharisaical purifications (Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 10) nor a Sadducee for according to chap. 10 he looks forward with the most fervent longings for the advent of the kingdom of God and that too a kingdom accompanied with outward pomp and circumstance. Wieseler is perhaps nearest the truth in seeking him among the Zealots who notwithstanding their kinship to the Pharisees had still an intense dislike to them because they looked upon them as being too dogmatic and formal as regards the law and too undecided with respect to their politics. That the book was written in Palestine may to say the least of it be accepted as the most obvious and natural supposition. Hilgenfeld and Hausrath have suggested Rome without however alleging any ground for doing so. On the assumption that it was composed in Palestine it becomes further probable that it was written originally in Hebrew or Aramaic. But we are not in a position positively to assert this. Only this much is certain that our old Latin version was taken from the Greek.
Of the legend regarding the death of Moses extensive and varied use has been made in Jewish literature. Besides our book there fall to be mentioned: Philo (Vita Mosis) Josephus (Antt. iv. fin.) Midrash Tanchuma debarum (translated into German by Wünsche 1882) and a Midrash which treats specially of the departure of Moses (פטירת משה Petirath Moshe). This latter has been frequently published in two recensions among others by Gilb. Gaulminus Paris 1629 with a Latin translation; then this Latin translation was published by itself by John Alb. Fabricius Hamburg 1714 and by Gfrörer Prophetae veteres pseudepigraphi Stuttg. 1840 (see Wolf Bibliotheca Hebraea ii. 1278 sq. 1395. Zunz Die gottesdienstliches Vorträge der Juden p. 146. Steinschneider Catal. librorum Hebraeorum in Biblioth. Bodl. p. 630 sq.). For one of these two recensions see also Jellinek Beth ha-Midrash vol. i. 1853. Also a third which Jellinek regards as the oldest in his Beth ha-Midrash vol. vi. 1877. Comp. in general on these legends: Bernard’s edition of Josephus note on Antt. iv. fin. Fabricius Cod. pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 839 sqq. Beer Leben Moses nach Auffassung der jüdischen Sage Leipzig 1863. Benedetti Vita e morte di Mosé leggende ebr. tradotte illustrate e comparate Pisa 1879 (on which see Magazin für die Wissensch. des Judenth. 1881 pp. 57-60). Leop. v. Ranke Weltgeschichte vol. iii. 2nd part (1883) pp. 12-33.
Care must be taken not to confound our Assumptio Mosis with the Christian Apocalypse of Mosis in Greek which has been edited by Tischendorf (Apocalypses apocryphae Lips. 1866); similarly from a Milanese manuscript by Ceriani Monumenta sacra et profana v. 1. This work belongs to the class of Adamic books for it records the history of the life and death of Adam as it had been revealed to Moses. On this comp. Tischendorf Stud. u. Krit. 1851 p. 432 sqq. Le Hir Etudes Bibliques (1869) ii. pp. 110-120. Rönsch Das Buch der Jubiläen p. 470 sqq. According to Euthalius and others Galatians 6:15 (οὔτε περιτομή τι ἐστιν οὔτε ἀκροβυστία ἀλλὰ καινὴ κτίσις) found a place in an Apocryphum Mosis where of course it could only have been borrowed from the Epistle to the Galatians (Euthalius in Zaccagni’s Collectanea monumentorum veterum 1698 p. 561 = Gallandi Biblioth. patr. x. 260. Similarly Syncellus ed. Dindorf i. 48 and an anonymous list of the quotations in the New Testament given in Montfaucon Bibliotheca Bibliothecarum i. 195 = Diarium Italicum p. 212 and in Cotelier Patr. apost. note on Const apost. vi. 16). Now seeing that Euthalius also makes use of precisely the same formula of reference (Μωυσέως ἀποκρύφου) as in the case of verse 9 of the Epistle of Jude (Zaccagni p. 485) we may perhaps venture to assume that he had before him a Christian version of the Assumptio Mosis in which Galatians 6:15 had been inserted. Syncellus and the author of the anonymous list just referred to have clearly drawn upon Euthalius. Gnostic Books of Moses are mentioned as being in use among the Sethites by Epiphan. Haer. xxxix. 5. For Apocrypha Mosis generally see Const. apost. vi. 16. Fabricius Cod. pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 825-849 ii. 111-130. Lücke Einleitung in die Offenbarung Johannis pp. 232-235. Dillmann art. “Pseudepigraphen” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. xii. 352 sqq. (Nos. 4 18 26 29 35).
Use of the Assumptio Mosis in the Christian Church: Epistle of Jude ver. 9. Clement of Alexandria Adumbrat. in epist. Judae (in Zahn’s Supplementum Clementinum 1884 p. 84): Hic confirmat assumptionem Moysi. Other legends in Clement of Alexandria regarding the death and ascension of Moses have in all probability been borrowed no less from our writing (Strom. i. 23. 153 vi. 15. 132. Comp. Zahn p. 96 sq.). Origen De principiis iii. 2. 1: Et primo quidem in Genesi serpens Evam seduxisse describitur de quo in Adscensione Mosis cujus libelli meminit in epistola sua apostolus Judas Michael archangelus cum diabolo disputans de corpore Mosis ait a diabolo inspiratum serpentem causam exstitisse praevaricationis Adae et Evae. Idem In Josuam homil. ii. 1 (ed. Lommatzsch xi. 22): Denique et in libello quodam licet in canone non habeatur mysterii tamen hujus figura describitur. Refertur enim quia duo Moses videbantur: unus vivus in spiritu alius mortuus in corpore. Didymus Alex. In epist. Judae enarratio (in Gallandi Biblioth. patr. vi. 307) finds in Jude ver. 9 evidence in favour of the view that even the devil is not evil by nature or substantialiter and alleges that the adversarii hujus contemplationis praescribunt praesenti epistolae et Moyseos assumptioni propter eum locum ubi significatur verbum Archangeli de corpore Moyseos ad diabolum factum. Acta Synodi Nicaen. ii. 20 (in Fabricius i. 844): Ἐν βιβλίῳ δὲ Ἀναλήψεως Μωυσέως Μιχαὴλ ὁ ἀρχάγγελος διαλεγόμενος τῷ διαβόλῳ λέγει κ.τ.λ. For another passage from these same Acts see p. 74 above. Evodii epist. ad Augustin. (Augustin. epist. cclix. in Fabricius i. 845 sq.): Quanquam et in apocryphis et in secretis ipsius Moysi quae scriptura caret auctoritate tunc cum ascenderet in montem ut moreretur vi corporis efficitur ut aliud esset quod terrae mandaretur aliud quod angelo comitanti sociaretur. Sed non satis urget me apocryphorum praeferre sententiam illis superioribus rebus definitis. For additional passages and chiefly from Greek scholia see Rönsch Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1869 pp. 216-220. Hilgenfeld Clementis Romani epist. 2nd ed. pp. 127-129. In the lists of the apocryphal books we find a Διαθήκη Μωυσέως and an Ἀνάληψις Μωυσέως (the one immediately after the other in the stichometry of Nicephorus and in the “Synopsis Athanasii” as given in Credner’s Zur Geschichte des Kanons pp. 121 145; as also in the anonymous list edited by Pitra and others see v. 7 below). Now seeing that the writing that has come down to us is in point of fact a “Testament (will) of Moses” though as we have already seen it is quoted in the Acts of the Council of Nicaea under the title Ἀνάληψις Μωυσέως it may be assumed that both these designations were the titles of two separate divisions of one and the same work the first of which has been preserved whereas the quotations in the Fathers almost all belong to the second.
Editions of the Latin text: Ceriani Monumenta sacra et prof. vol. i. fasc. i. (Milan 1861) pp. 55-64. Hilgenfeld Clementis Romani epistulae (likewise under the title Novum Testam. extra canonem receptum fasc. i.) 1st ed. 1866 pp. 93-115 2nd ed. 1876 pp. 107-135. Volkmar Mose Prophetie und Himmelfahrt eine Quelle für das Neue Testament zum erstenmale deutsch herausgegeben im Zusammenhang der Apokrypha und der Christologie überhaupt Leipzig 1867. Schmidt (Moriz) and Merx “Die Assumptio Mosis mit Einleitung und erklärenden Anmerkungen herausgegeben” (Merx’ Archiv für wissenschaftl. Enforschung des A. T.’s vol. i. Part ii. 1868 pp. 111-152). Fritzsche Libri apocryphi Vet. Test. graece (Lips. 1871) pp. 700-730; comp. Prolegom. pp. 32-36. A rendering back into the Greek was attempted by Hilgenfeld for which see Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1868 pp. 273-309 356 and his Messias Judaeorum 1869 pp. 435-468; comp. Prolegom. pp. 70-76.
For contributions toward the criticism and exposition of our book see besides the editions just mentioned Ewald Göttinger gelehrte Anz. 1862 St. 1. Idem Gesch. des Volkes Israel vol. v. (3rd ed. 1867) pp. 73-82. Langen Das Judenthum in Palästina (1866) pp. 102-111. Idem in Reusch’s Theolog. Literaturbl. 1871 No. 3. Hilgenfeld Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1867 pp. 217-223. Ibid. Haupt p. 448. Rönsch Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. vol. xi. 1868 pp. 76-108 466-468; xii. 1869 pp. 213-228; xiv. 1871 pp. 89-92; xvii. 1874 pp. 542-562; xxviii. 1885 pp. 102-104. Philippi Das Buch Henoch (1868) pp. 166-191. Colani “L’Assomption de Moïse” (Revue de Théologie 1868 2nd part). Carriere Note sur le Taxo de l’Assomption de Moïse (ibid. 1868 2nd part). Wieseler “Die jüngst aufgefundene Aufnahme Moses nach Ursprung und Inhalt untersucht” (Jahrbb. für deutsche Theol. 1868 pp. 622-648). Idem “Θασσί und Taxo” (Zeitschr. der deutschen morgenländ. Gesellsch. 1882 p. 193 sq.). Geiger’s Jüdische Zeitschr. für Wissensch. und Leben 1868 pp. 41-47. Heidenheim “Beiträge zum bessern Verständniss der Ascensio Mosis” (Vierteljahrschr. für deutsch. und Englisch-theol. Forschung und Kritik vol. iv. (Part I. 1869). Hausrath Neutestamentl. Zeitgesch. 2nd ed. iv. pp. 76-80 (1st ed. iii. 278-282). Stähelin Jahrbb. für deutsche Theol. 1874 pp. 216-218. Drummond The Jewish Messiah (1877) pp. 74-84. Lucius Der Essenismus (1881) pp. 111-119 127 sq. Reuss Gesch. der heil. Schriften A. T.’s § 572. Dillmann art. “Pseudepigraphen” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. xii. 352 sq. Deane “The Assumption of Moses” (Monthly Interpreter March 1885 pp. 321-348).
4. The Apocalypse of Baruch
The large Peshito manuscript of Milan (Cod. Ambros. B. 21 inf.) also contains a Revelation of Baruch regarding which we have no further information of a trustworthy kind. Only a small fraction of it viz. the epistle addressed to the nine and a half tribes in the captivity inserted at the close (chaps. 78-86) has been otherwise transmitted to us and already printed in the Paris and London Polyglots. But beyond this there is hardly any other trace of it to be met with (see below). The book was first introduced to public notice through a Latin version prepared and edited by Ceriani (1866). This scholar subsequently published the Syrian text itself (in ordinary type in 1871 and in a photo-lithographed facsimile in 1883). Fritzsche after making a few emendations upon it embodied Ceriani’s Latin version in his edition of the Apocrypha (1871). The book purports to be a writing composed by Baruch in which he recounts (using the first person throughout) what happened to him immediately before and after the destruction of Jerusalem and what revelations were made to him. The contents are substantially as follows:—First section chaps. 1-5: In the five and twentieth year of the reign of Jeconiah [a complete confounding of dates by which the author means to indicate the time of the destruction of Jerusalem] God intimates to Baruch the impending ruin of Jerusalem and the kingdom of Judah. Chaps. 6-8: On the following day the Chaldean army appears before the walls of the city. However it is not the Chaldeans but four angels that destroy it. No sooner is this done than the Chaldeans enter the city and carry away its inhabitants into captivity. Chaps. 9-12: While Jeremiah accompanies these latter Baruch. in obedience to the command of God remains behind among the ruins. Second section chaps. 13-15: After he had fasted seven days God informs him that one day judgment would overtake the Gentiles as well and that in his own time; and He calms his apprehensions generally about the prosperity of the ungodly and the calamities of the righteous. Chaps. 16-20: Baruch brings forward yet further grounds of perplexity but God discourages his doing so and ultimately orders him to prepare by another seven days’ fasting for receiving a revelation of the order of the times. Third section 21-26: After fasting and praying to God he is first of all censured by God for his doubts and pusillanimity and then in answer to his question as to when the judgment of the ungodly would take place and how long it would last God communicates to him the following (chaps. 27-28): The time of the tribulation will be divided into twelve parts and each part will bring with it its own special disaster. But the measure of that time will be two parts weeks of seven weeks (duae partes hebdomades septem hebdomadarum). Chaps. 28-30: To the further question of Baruch whether the tribulation would be confined to only one part of the earth or extend to the whole of it God answers that it will of course affect the whole earth. But after that the Messiah will appear and times of joy and glory begin to dawn. Chaps. 31-34: After receiving those revelations Baruch summons a meeting of the elders of the people in the valley of Kidron when he announces to them that: post modicum tempus concutietur aedificatio Sion ut aedificetur iterum. Verum non permanebit ipsa illa aedificatio sed iterum post tempus eradicabitur et permanebit desolata usque ad tempus. Et postea oportet renovari in gloria et coronabitur in perpetuum. Fourth section chaps. 35-38: Hereupon Baruch as he sits lamenting upon the ruins of the Holy of holies falls asleep and in a dream is favoured with a new revelation. He sees a large forest surrounded by mountains and rocks. Over against it grew a vine and from under the vine flowed a spring which developed into large streams that made channels for themselves underneath the forest and the mountains till these latter fell in and were swept away. Only a single cedar was left but at last it too was uprooted. Thereupon the vine and the spring came and ordered the cedar to betake itself to where the rest of the forest had already gone. And the cedar was burnt up but the vine continued to grow and everything around it flourished. Chaps. 38-40: In answer to Baruch’s request God interprets the dream to him as follows: Behold the kingdom that destroys Zion will itself be overthrown and subjugated by another that will succeed it. And this in its turn will be overthrown and a third will arise. And then this also will be swept away and a fourth will arise more terrible than all that have preceded it. And when the time for its overthrow has come then Mine Anointed will appear who is like a spring and a vine and He will annihilate the armies of that kingdom. And that cedar means the last remaining general (dux prince?) in it who will be condemned and put to death by Mine Anointed. And the reign of Mine Anointed will endure for ever. Chaps. 41-43: Baruch receives a commission to exhort the people and at the same time to prepare himself by renewed fasting for fresh revelations. Chaps. 44-46: Baruch exhorts the elders of the people. Fifth section chaps. 47-48:24: He fasts seven days and prays to God. Chap. 48:25-50: The new revelations have reference in the first instance to the tribulations of the last time generally. Chaps. 49-52: When upon this Baruch expresses a desire to learn something more about the nature of the new resurrection bodies of the righteous his wish is complied with; not only so but he is enlightened with regard to the future blessedness of the righteous and the misery of the ungodly generally. Sixth section chap. 53: In a new vision Baruch sees a huge cloud rising from the sea and covering the whole earth and discharging first black water and then clear then black again and then clear and so on twelve times in succession. At last there came black waters and after them bright lightning which latter brought healing to the whole earth and ultimately there came twelve streams and subjected themselves to this lightning. Chaps. 54-55: In answer to his prayer Baruch receives through the angel Ramiel the following interpretation of the vision: Chaps. 56-57: The huge cloud means the present world. The first the dark water means the sin of Adam whereby he brought death and ruin into the world. The second the clear water means Abraham and his descendants who although not in possession of the written law nevertheless complied with its requirements. The third the dark water represents the subsequent generations of sinful humanity particularly the Egyptians. The fourth the clear water means the appearing of Moses Aaron Joshua and Caleb and the giving of the law and God’s revelations to Moses. The fifth the dark water represents the works of the Amorites and the magicians in which Israel also participated. The sixth the clear water represents the time of David and Solomon. The seventh the dark water means the revolt of Jeroboam and the sins of his successors and the overthrow of the kingdom of the ten tribes. The eighth the clear water means the integrity of Hezekiah and his deliverance from Sennacherib. The ninth the dark water means the universal ungodliness in the days of Manasseh and the announcing of the destruction of Jerusalem. The tenth the clear water denotes the reign of the good king Josiah. The eleventh the dark water represents the present tribulation (i.e. in Baruch’s own time) the destruction of Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity. Chap. 68: But the twelfth the clear water means that the people of Israel will again experience times of joy that Jerusalem will be rebuilt that the offering of sacrifices will be resumed and that the priests will return to their duties. Chaps. 69-71: But the last dark water which is yet to come and which proves worse than all that went before means this: that tribulation and confusion will come upon the whole earth. A few will rule over the many the poor will become rich and the rich will become poor knaves will be exalted above heroes wise men will keep silence and fools will speak. And in obedience to God’s command the nations which He has prepared for the purpose will come and war with such of the leaders as are still left (cum ducibus qui reliqui fuerint tunc). And it will come to pass that he who escapes from the war will perish by the earthquake and he who escapes from the earthquake will perish by fire and he who escapes the fire will perish with hunger. And he who escapes the whole of those evils will be given into the hands of Mine Anointed. Chaps. 72-74: But this dreadful dark water will at length be followed by yet more clear water. This means that the time of Mine Anointed will come and that He will judge the nations and sit for ever upon the throne of His kingdom. And all tribulation will come to an end and peace and joy will reign upon the earth. Chaps. 75-76: Baruch thanks God for the revelation with which he had been favoured and then God directs him to wait for forty days and then go to the top of a certain mountain where all the different regions of the earth would pass before his view. After this he is to be removed from the world. Seventh section chap. 77: Baruch delivers a hortatory address to the people and at the request of the latter he on the 21st day of the eighth month also composes two hortatory addresses to be sent to their brethren in the captivity one to the nine and a half tribes and the other to the remaining two and a half. Chaps. 78-86: The import of the first of the two addresses is as follows: Baruch in the first place reminds his readers that the judgment of God which has overtaken them is a just judgment he then tells them of the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and the carrying away of the inhabitants into captivity and intimates to them the judgment of God that is awaiting their oppressors and then their own ultimate deliverance. In conclusion he founds upon this an exhortation to continue steadfast in their devotion to God and His law. Chap. 87: He sends this epistle to the nine and a half tribes in captivity through the medium of an eagle.
At this point the book as we now possess it breaks off. But originally it must have contained somewhat more for from 77:19 there is reason to infer that the epistle addressed to the nine and a half tribes was followed by a similar one addressed to the other two and a half tribes. And from chap. 76 it is to be presumed that the book would proceed to tell how Baruch was shown all the countries of the world from the top of a mountain and was thereafter taken away from the earth.
As regards the date of the composition of our apocalypse this much at least may be affirmed with certainty that it was not written till after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. For in chap. 32:2-4 Baruch announces to the assembled people that (after its first destruction by Nebuchadnezzar) Jerusalem is to be rebuilt again. But that this building will not continue to stand but that it will in like manner be destroyed again. And then the city will lie waste for a long period until the glorious time when it will be rebuilt and crowned for ever. But with the exception of this passage there is not another that throws any light upon the date of the composition of our book. For nothing bearing upon this is to be gathered from the obscure passage in which we are informed that the time of tribulation is to last “two parts weeks of seven weeks” (28:2: duae partes hebdomades septem hebdomadarum) for the meaning of these words is as uncertain as it is obscure. Consequently the calculations which Ewald Hilgenfeld Wieseler and Dillmann above all have tried to found upon this passage have no certain basis on which to rest. Possibly one would be much more likely to find some clue to the date in question in the affinity which this work bears to the Fourth Book of Ezra. For the points of contact between both those books in regard to thought and expression alike are (as Langen has pointed out pp. 6-8) so numerous that we must of necessity assume either that they were written by one and the same author or that the one borrowed from the other. It is now almost universally believed that it may be proved with a greater or less degree of certainty that our book has drawn upon the Fourth Book of Ezra (so Ewald Langen Hilgenfeld Hausrath Stähelin Renan Drummond Dillmann). It appears to me however that as yet no decisive arguments have been advanced in support of this view. In the case of Langen who was the first to go thoroughly into this question and who has done much to influence subsequent opinion on the matter his main argument was that the Book of Baruch corrected as he supposed the somewhat crude notions of Ezra respecting the doctrine of original sin. In order that the reader may be in a more favourable position for estimating the value of this argument we will here subjoin in parallel columns what each of the two books says on this point:—
EZRA:
|BARUCH:
|
3:7: Et huic (Adamo) mandasti diligere viam tuam et praeteriviteam; et statim instituisti in eum mortem et in nationibus ejus.
3:21-22: Cor enim mailgnum bajulans primus Adam transgressus et victus est; sed et omnes qui de eo nati sunt. Et facta est permanens infirmitas.
4:30: Quoniam granum seminis mali seminatum est in corde Adam ab initio et quantum impietatis generavit usque nunc et generat usque dum verfiat area!
7:48: O tu quid fecisti Adam? Si enim tu peccasti non est factus solius tuus casus sed et nostrum qui ex te advenimus.
|17:3: (Adam) mortem attulit et abscidit annos eorum qui ab eo geniti fuerunt.
23:4: Quando peccavit Adam et decreta fuit mors contra eos qui gignerentur etc.
48:42: O quid fecisti Adam omnibus qui a te geniti sunt!
54:15 19: Si enim Adam prior peccavit et attulit mortem super omnes immaturam; sed etiam illi qui ex eo nati sunt unusquisque ex eis praeparavit animae suae tormentum futurum: et iterum unusquisque ex eis elegit sibi gloriam futuram … Non est ergo Adam causa nisi animae suae tantum; nos vero. unusquisque fuit animae suae Adam.
|
Now Langen supposes that the last of the passages quoted from Baruch (54:19: Non est ergo Adam causa nisi animae suae tantum; nos vero unusquisque fuit animae suae Adam) is above all intended to modify the somewhat harsh view of Ezra. But one can easily see that the utterances of Baruch on other occasions are quite as blunt as those of Ezra. And on the other hand there are passages to be met with in Ezra in which the author emphasizes quite as strongly as Baruch 54:19 though in different terms the thought that every man is to blame for his own ruin. To take only a single example compare Bar 8:55-61. Here then we have not even an actual difference of view far less a correction of the one writer on the part of the other. Further such other reasons as have been advanced in favour of the priority of Ezra and the dependent character of Baruch are merely considerations of an extremely general kind which may be met with considerations equally well calculated to prove quite the reverse. Some are inclined to think that in the case of the author of the Fourth Book of Ezra “there is more of a despairing frame of mind that his striving after light and his desire to have his apprehensions quieted are deeper more urgent and of a more overmastering character that because the impressions produced by the dreadful events are rather fresher in his mind his narrative is also for this very reason and in spite of its verbosity the more impressive of the two and so on” (so Dillmann). My own opinion is that it is quite the converse of this and that it would be nearer the truth to say that it is precisely in the case of Baruch that this problem is uppermost viz. How is the calamity of Israel and the impunity of its oppressors possible and conceivable? while in the case of Ezra though this problem concerns him too still there is a question that almost lies yet nearer his heart viz. Why is it that so many perish and so few are saved? The subordination of the former of these questions to the other which is a purely theological one appears to me rather to indicate that Ezra is of a later date than Baruch. Not only so but it is decidedly of a more finished character and is distinguished by greater maturity of thought and a greater degree of lucidity than the last-mentioned book. But this is a point in regard to which it is scarcely possible to arrive at a definite conclusion. And hence we are equally unable to say whether our book was written shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem (so Hilgenfeld Fritzsche Drummond) or during the reign of Domitian (so Ewald) or in the time of Trajan (so Langen Wieseler Renan Dillmann). Undoubtedly the most probable supposition of all is that it was composed not long after the destruction of the holy city when the question “How could God permit such a disaster?” was still a burning one. It is older at all events than the time of Papias whose chimerical fancies about the millennial kingdom (Irenaeus v. 33. 3) are borrowed from our Apocalypse (xxix. 5).[2393] The existing Syrian text has been taken from the Greek (see Langen p. 8 sq.; Kneucker p. 192 sq.; Dillmann p. 358).
[2393] In his edition of Irenaeus (ii. 417) Harvey attempts to show that the text of Papias presupposes a Syrian original on which it is based for he thinks that a certain anomaly occurring in his text may be most easily accounted for by the hypothesis of such an original. If this were correct it would be of considerable interest as regards the matter now in hand. The anomaly in question admits however of being otherwise explained. See Gebhardt and Harnack’s edition of the Epistle of Barnabas (2nd ed. 1878) p. 87.
With the exception of the passage in Papias just mentioned no certain trace of the use of our book in the Christian Church is anywhere to be met with. There is every reason to believe that it had been pushed into the background by the kindred Ezra-apocalypse. Still the fact of its finding a place in the Peshito manuscript of Milan serves to show that it was still in use at a later period at least in the Syrian Church. In the lists of the apocrypha given in the Stichometry of Nicephorus and the “Synopsis Athanasii” (in Credner Zur Geschichte des Kanons pp. 121 145) there are added at the close: Βαροὺχ Ἀββακοὺμ Ἐζεκιὴλ καὶ Δανιὴλ ψευδεπίγραφα. But it is extremely uncertain whether by the first-mentioned book it is our apocalypse that is meant for besides the Baruch of the Greek Bible and which in the lists just referred to is included among the canonical books there were also other apocryphal writings bearing this name. (1) There are considerable fragments of a gnostic Book of Baruch given in the Philosophumena v. 26-27 (comp. v. 24). (2) A Christian Book of Baruch. which is akin to our apocalypse and has borrowed largely from it has been published in Ethiopic by Dillmann under the title “Reliqua verborum Baruchi” (in Dillmann’s Chrestomathia aethiopica Lips. 1866) as it had been previously in Greek in a Greek Menaeus (Venetiis 1609) and recently again by Ceriani under the title “Paralipomena Jeremiae” (Monumenta sacra et profana vol. v. 1 Mediol. 1868) and finally in a German version by Prätorius (Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1872 pp. 230-247) and by König (Stud. u. Krit. 1877 pp. 318-338). On this book comp. also Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel vii. 183. Fritzsche Libri apocr. prolegom. p. 82. Sachsse Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1874 p. 268 sq. Kneucker Das Buch Baruch p. 196 sq. Dillmann in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. xii. 358 sq. (3) In the Altercatio Simonis Judaei et Theophili Christiani lately published by Harnack there occurs the following passage from a Book of Baruch (Gebhardt and Harnack Texte und Untersuchungen vol. i. part 3 1883 p. 25): Prope finem libri sui de nativitate ejus [scil. Christi] et de habitu vestis et de passione ejus et de resurrectione ejus prophetavit dicens: Hic unctus meus electus meus vulvae incontaminatae jaculatus natus et passus dicitur. Judging from the Christology implied in this passage the Baruch here in question can only have been composed at the soonest in the fourth century of our era (see Harnack p. 46). Further in Cyprian’s Testim. iii. 29 we find that in one manuscript there has been inserted a quotation from some Book of Baruch or other which quotation however we have no means of verifying. (4) Tichonrawow contemplates editing an Apocalypse of Baruch in the old Slavonic version (see Theol. Literaturztg. 1877 p. 658). Whether it has as yet appeared and what its relation to other Books of Baruch with which we are already acquainted I am unable to say.
The epistle to the nine and a half tribes in the captivity which forms the conclusion of our apocalypse has been already printed in the Paris Polyglot vol. ix. in the London Polyglot vol. iv. in Lagarde’s edition of the Syrian version of the apocrypha (Libri Vet. Test. apocryphi syriace ed. de Lagarde Lips. 1861) also in Latin in Fabricius Codex pseudepigr. Vet. Test. ii. 145-155. Also in an English and French version; see Fritzsche’s Exeget. Handbuch zu den Apokryphen i. 175 sq. and Libri Apocr. p. xxxi. Kneucker Das Buch Baruch p. 190 sq.
Ceriani’s Latin version of our apocalypse appeared in the Monumenta sacra et profana vol. i. fasc. 2 (Mediol. 1866) pp. 73-98. For this see also Fritzsche Libri apocryphi Vet. Test. graece (Lips. 1871) pp. 654-699. The Syrian text was edited by Ceriani in the Monumenta sacra et profana vol. v. fasc. 2 (Mediol. 1871) pp. 113-180. This latter was also included in the photo-lithographed fac-simile of the whole manuscript published under the title Translatio Syra Pescitto Veteris Testamenti ex codice Ambrosiano sec. fere VI. photolithographice edita curante et adnotante Antonio Maria Ceriani 2 vols. in 4 parts Milan 1876-1883 (the Apocalypse of Baruch being in the last part). Comp. Theol. Literaturzeitung 1876 p. 329; 1878 p. 228; 1881 col. 4; 1884 col. 27.
Critical inquiries: Langen De apocalypsi Baruch anno superiori primum edita commentatio Friburgi in Brisgovia 1867 (xxiv. p. 4). Ewald Göttinger gel. Anzeigen 1867 p. 1706 sqq. Idem Gesch. des Volkes Israel vii. 83-87. Hilgenfeld Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1869 pp. 437-440. Idem Messias Judaeorum p. lxiii. sq. Wieseler Theol Stud. u. Krit. 1870 p. 288 (in his article on the Fourth Book of Ezra). Fritzsche Libri apocr. Prolegom. pp. 30-32. Hausrath Neutestamentl. Zeitgesch. 2nd ed. iv. 88 sq. (1st ed. iii. 290). Stähelin Jahrbb. für deutsche Theol. 1874 p. 211 sqq. Renan “L’Apocalypse de Baruch” (Journal des Savants April 1877 pp. 222-231). Idem Les évangiles 1877 pp. 517-530. Drummond The Jewish Messiah 1877 pp. 117-132. Kneucker Das Buch Baruch 1879 pp. 190-198. Kaulen in Wetzer and Welte’s Kirchenlex. 2nd ed. i. 1058 sq. (art. “Apokryphen-Literatur”). Dillmann in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. xii. 356-358 (art. “Pseudepigraphen”). Deane “The Apocalypse of Baruch” i. (Monthly Interpreter April 1885 pp. 451-461).
5. The Fourth Book of Ezra
Of all the Jewish apocalypses none has been so widely circulated in the early Church and in the Church of the Middle Ages as the so-called Fourth Book of Ezra. By Greek and Latin Fathers it is used as a genuine prophetical work (see below). The fact of there being Syrian Ethiopic Arabic and Armenian versions of the book is evidence of the extent to which it was circulated in the East. Then the circumstance that a Latin version has come down to us in a large number of Bible manscripts is calculated to show the favour with which in like manner it was still regarded by the Church of Rome in the Middle Ages. It was for this reason no doubt that it was also added as an appendix to the authorized Roman Vulgate. Not only so it even found its way into German versions of the Protestant Bible (see more below). The whole of the five versions which we possess are taken some of them directly others indirectly from a Greek text (now no longer extant) which moreover is to be regarded as the original one.
The text of the Latin Vulgate consists of sixteen chapters. But as is generally admitted the two first and the two last of these which do not appear in the Oriental versions are later additions by a Christian hand. Accordingly in its original form the book would only embrace the portion between chaps. 3 and 14 inclusive. The contents of the original work are divided into seven visions with which as he himself informs us Ezra had been favoured. First vision (3:1-5:20): In the thirtieth year after the destruction of the city (Jerusalem) Ezra is in Babylon and in his prayer to God he complains of the calamities of Israel on the one hand and of the prosperity of the Gentile nations on the other (3:1-36). The angel Uriel comes and in the first place reproves him for his complaints (4:1-21) and then proceeds to remind him that wickedness has its appointed time (4:22-32) just as the dead have an appointed time during which they require to stay in the nether world (4:33-43). But the most of the distress is already past and its end will be announced by means of definite signs (4:44-5:13). Ezra is so exhausted by the revelation that has been imparted to him that he requires to be strengthened by the angel. By fasting for seven days he prepares himself for a new revelation (5:14-20). Second vision (5:21-6:34): Ezra renews his complaints and is once more rebuked by the angel (5:21-40). This latter points out to him that in the history of mankind one thing must come after another and that the beginning and the end cannot come at one and the same time. Ezra is reminded however that he may nevertheless see that the end is already approaching. It will be brought about by God Himself the Creator of the world (5:41-6:6). The signs of the end are more fully enumerated than in the previous vision (6:7-29). Uriel here takes leave of Ezra with the promise of further revelations (6:30-34). Third vision (6:35-9:25): Ezra complains again and is again rebuked by the angel (6:35-7:25). Upon this he is favoured with the following revelation:—Whenever the signs (enumerated in the preceding visions) begin to appear then those delivered from the calamities in question will see wonderful things: For my Son the Anointed One will appear with His retinue and He will diffuse joy among those that are spared and that for four hundred years. And at the expiry of those years my Son the Anointed One will die He and all who have the breath of life. For the space of seven days corresponding to the seven creative days there will not be a single human being upon the earth. Then the dead will rise; and the Most High will come and sit upon the judgment-seat and proceed with the judgment (7:26-35).[2394] And the place of torment will be revealed and over against it the place of rest. And the length of the day of judgment will be a year-week (6:1-17 = Bensly vv. 36-44). Only a few men will be saved. The majority will be consigned to perdition (6:18-48 = Bensly vv. 45-74). Moreover the ungodly do not enter at death into habitations of rest but when they die are at once consigned to sevenfold torment of which this also forms a part that they find it no longer possible to repent and that they foresee their future condemnation. But the righteous on the other hand enter into rest and experience sevenfold joy of which among other things this forms a part that they foresee their ultimate blessedness (6:49-76 = Bensly 75-101). But on the day of judgment each receives what he has deserved; and no one by interceding for him can alter the fate of another (6:77-83 = Bensly 102-105).[2395] Ezra’s objection that surely the Scriptures speak of the righteous having often interceded in behalf of the ungodly is dismissed with the remark on the part of the angel that what might avail for this world will not do so for eternity as well (7:36-45). When Ezra is deploring that the whole ruin of the human race has been brought about by Adam the angel refers him to the impiety of men through which they have become the authors of their own ruin (7:46-69). Then follow further explanations having reference to the circumstance that of the many that are created so very few are saved (8:1-62). Finally the signs of the last time are unfolded to Ezra anew (8:63-9:13) and his anxiety at the thought of so many being lost is once more set at rest (9:14-25). Fourth vision (9:26-10:60): While Ezra is again indulging his complaints he sees a woman on his right hand weeping and who in answer to his questions tells him that after thirty years of barrenness she gave birth to a son brought him up with great difficulty and then procured a wife for him but that just as he was entering the bride-chamber he fell and was killed (9:26-10:4). Ezra chides her for bewailing the mere loss of a son when she ought rather to be weeping over the destruction of Jerusalem and the ruin of so many men (10:5-24). Then all at once her face is lifted up she utters a cry the earth quakes and instead of the woman there appears a strongly built city. At this sight Ezra is so perplexed that he cries to the angel Uriel who at once appears and gives him the following explanation of what he had just seen: The woman is Zion. The thirty years of barrenness are the 3000 years during which no sacrifices had as yet been offered on Zion. The birth of the son represents the building of the temple by Solomon and the instituting of sacrificial worship on Zion. The death of the son refers to the destruction of Jerusalem. But the newly built city was shown to Ezra in the vision with the view of comforting him and of saving him from despair (10:25-60). Fifth vision (11:1-12:51): In a dream Ezra sees an eagle rise out of the sea having twelve wings and three heads. And out of the wings grew eight subordinate wings which became small and feeble winglets. But the heads were resting and the centre one was larger than the others. And the eagle flew and ruled over the land. And from within its body there issued a voice which ordered the wings to rule one after another. And the twelve wings ruled one after the other (the second more than twice as long as any of the others 11:17) and then vanished and similarly two of the winglets so that at last only the three heads and the six winglets were left. Two of those winglets separated themselves from the rest and placed themselves under the head on the right-hand side. The other four wanted to rule but two of them soon vanished and the two were consumed by the heads. And the middle head ruled over the whole earth and then vanished. And the two other heads also ruled. But the one on the right-hand side devoured the one on the left (11:1-35). Then Ezra sees a lion and hears how with a human voice it describes the eagle just referred to as being the fourth of those animals to which God has in succession committed the empire of the world. And the lion announces to the eagle its impending destruction (11:36-46). Thereupon the only remaining head also vanished. And the two winglets which had joined themselves to it began to rule.[2396] But their rule was of a feeble character. And the whole body of the eagle was consumed with fire (12:1-3). The meaning of the vision which Ezra rehearses is as follows. The eagle represents the last of Daniel’s kingdoms. The twelve wings are twelve kings who are to rule over it one after another. The second will begin to reign and will reign longer than the others. The voice which issues from the body of the eagle means that in the course of the duration of that kingdom (inter tempus regni illius as we ought to read with the Syriac and the other Oriental versions) evil disorders will arise; and it will be involved in great trouble only it will not fall but regain its power. But the eight subordinate wings represent eight kings whose respective times will be of short duration. Two of these will perish when the intermediate time approaches (appropinquante tempore medio i.e. that interregnum to which reference had just been made). Four of them will be reserved for the time when the end is approaching and two for the time of the end itself. But the meaning of the three heads is as follows. At the time of the end the Most High will raise up three kings[2397] who will rule over the earth. And they will cause impiety to reach a climax and will bring about the end. The one (= the middle head) will die in his bed but in the midst of torment. Of the remaining two one will be cut off by the sword of the other while the latter will himself fall by the sword at the time of the end. Finally the two subordinate wings which joined the head on the right represent the two remaining kings of the closing period whose reign will be feeble and full of disorder (12:4-30). But the lion which announces to the eagle its impending destruction represents the Messiah whom the Most High has reserved for the end. He will arraign them (the kings?) while yet alive before His tribunal and convict them of their wickedness and then destroy them. But the people of God He will cause to rejoice (during 400 years as was foretold in the third vision) till the day of judgment comes (12:31-34). After receiving those revelations Ezra is commissioned to write what he had seen in a book and preserve it in a secret place (12:35-51).—Sixth vision (13:1-58): Once more he sees in a dream a man rising up out of the sea. And an innumerable company of men gathered themselves together for the purpose of warring against that man. And when they marched out against him he emitted a fiery breath and flames from his mouth so that they were all burnt up. Thereupon other men advanced toward him some of them joyfully others in sadness and some again in fetters (13:1-13). In answer to Ezra’s request this vision is explained to him as follows. The man who rises out of the sea is he by whom God will redeem His whole creation. He will annihilate his enemies not with the spear or implements of war but by means of the law which is like unto fire. But the peaceful crowd that advances towards him is the ten tribes returning from the captivity (13:14-58).—Seventh vision (14:1-50): Ezra is commissioned by God to instruct the people and set his house in order and withdraw from mortal things for he is about to be taken from the earth. Moreover he is to take to himself five men who during a period of forty days are to write down what they are told to write. And Ezra did so. And the men wrote what they did not understand. Thereupon Ezra was carried away and conveyed to the place appointed for such as he (14:1-50).
[2394] What follows (6:1-83) is not found in the majority of the manuscripts of the Latin version and can only have been borrowed at some former period from the Oriental manuscripts and inserted here. Fritzsche gives the fragment according to the Syriac version though retaining the numbering of the chapters and verses usually followed in the Ethiopic one. Since 1875 and 1877 we have been made acquainted with the Latin text through two manuscripts (see below). I give above both the numbering of the verses adopted by Fritzsche and that followed by Bensly in his edition of the Latin text.
[2395] At this point the Latin Vulgate text comes in again.
[2396] Here the correct text is that presented by the Oriental versions. See Hilgenfeld and Fritzeche (in answer to Volkmar who adheres to the corrupt LA. of the Latin version).
[2397] So the Oriental versions. The Latin has tria regna.
For anything at all decisive with regard to the date of the composition of this remarkable book we are chiefly indebted to the interpretation of the vision of the eagle. For the data furnished by the other passages that have been brought to bear upon this point are of too uncertain a character to be of much service. For example in chap. 6:9 it is stated that the present world is to end with the rule of Edom while the world to come is to begin with the supremacy of Israel (finis enim hujus saeculi Esau et principium sequentis Jacob). But it is open to question whether by Edom it is the Herodians (so Hilgenfeld Volkmar) or whether it is the Romans (so Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1st ed. vol. ix. p. 430 2nd ed. vol. ix. p. 660; Ewald Excursus p. 198; Langen p. 125 sq.) that are meant. The latter is no doubt the correct view of the matter.[2398] But even if the former were to be preferred very little after all would be gained considering the long period embraced by the Herodian dynasty (down till the year 100 of our era). Then as for the calculation of the world-periods as given in chap. 14:11 12 (Duodecim enim partibus divisum est saeculum et transierunt ejue decimam et dimidium decirnae partis superant autem ejus duae post medium decimae partis). The mere fact of the reading fluctuating so much here (in the Syriac and Armenian versions the passage does not occur at all) should of itself have been enough to deter any one from attempting any calculation whatever of these world-periods. It will be seen then that apart from the general purport of the book it is the vision of the eagle alone that can be said to furnish a clue to the date of its composition. In the interpretation of this vision the following points which naturally present themselves on a general survey of the contents are to be kept steadily in view: the twelve principal wings the eight subordinate ones and the three heads represent twenty-three sovereigns or rulers who reign one after the other and that in the following order. First we have the twelve principal wings and two of the subordinate ones. Then comes a time of disorder. At the expiry of this period four subordinate wings have their turn and after them the three heads. During the reign of the third head the Messiah appears upon which follows the overthrow of the third head and the short feeble reign of the two remaining subordinate wings. We thus see that from the author’s standpoint both the overthrow of the third head and the reign of the last two subordinate wings were still in the future; from which it follows that he must have written during the reign of the third head and that the reign of the two last subordinate wings is not matter of history but exists only in the author’s imagination. Further the following points are to be specially noted: (1) The second principal wing reigns more than twice as long as any of the rest (11:17). (2) Many of the wings particularly of the subordinate wings come upon the scene without actually getting the length of reigning and therefore represent mere pretenders and usurpers. (3) All the rulers belong to one and the same kingdom and are or at least aim at being the rulers of the whole of that kingdom. (4) The first dies a natural death (12:26) the second is murdered by the third (11:35 12:28). Now with the help of this exegetical result let us test the various interpretations that have been attempted and which we may divide into three leading groups according as the eagle has been supposed to refer either (1) to Rome under the monarchy and the republic or (2) to the Greek rule or (3) to Rome under the emperors.
[2398] In Rabbinical literature Edom is quite a common designation for Rome; see Buxtorf’s Lexicon Chaldaicum col. 29 sqq. Otho Lex Rabb. under “Roma.” Levy Neuhebr. Wörterb. i. 29. Grünbaum Zeitschr. der DMG xxxi. pp. 305-309. Weber System der altsynag. paläst. Theol. p. 348 and elsewhere. This designation occurs so early as in the Sifre (see Weber p. 60) Comp. further Jerome’s Comment. ad Jesaj. xxi. 11 12 (Opp. ed. Vallarsi iv. 217): Quidam Hebraeorum pro Duma Romam legunt volentes prophetiam contra regnum Romanum dirigi frivola persuasione qua semper in Idumaeae nomine Romance existimant demonstrari.
1. Laurence van der Vlis and Lücke (2nd ed.) understand the vision of the eagle as referring to the history of Rome from the time of Komulus till that of Caesar. Those three writers are all agreed in this that the three heads represent Sulla Pompey and Caesar and that our book was composed in the time of Caesar (Lücke) or shortly after his assassination (van der Vlis) or a little later still (Laurence). No doubt the interpretation 12+8 wings is beset with considerable difficulty but this is supposed to be got over by falling back upon those persons who at a later period aspired to the throne and upon the party leaders in the time of the civil wars. But even if this were not a somewhat doubtful proceeding there are still two considerations that could not fail to prove fatal to this view: first the fact that for a Jewish apocalyptic writer the whole period previous to the time of Pompey would have simply no interest whatever; and then this other fact that if Rome is to be thought of at all the reference can only be to a time when she was mistress of the world. For the whole of the wings and heads are intended to represent rulers who exercised or at all events aspired to exercise away over the entire world.
2. Hilgenfeld supposes the vision to have reference to the Greek rule. It is true that previously (Apokalyptik pp. 217-221) he took the 12+8 wings to mean the Ptolemies. The twelve wings and the first two of the subordinate wings he made out to be the following:—(1) Alexander the Great (2) Ptolemy I. Lagi (3-8) Ptolemy II. to Ptolemy VII. (9) Cleopatra I. (10-14) Ptolemy VIII. Lathyrus to Ptolemy XII. Auletes. The other six subordinate wings Were supposed to refer to the offshoots from the Ptolemaic dynasty down to Cleopatra the younger († 30 B.C.). Then some time after (Zeitschr. 1860 pp. 335-358) he substituted the Seleucidae for the Ptolemies and reckoned the kings from Alexander the Great on to the descendants of Seleucus. But still he always adhered strictly to the view that the three heads were to be taken as referring to Caesar Antony and Octavian and that the book must have been composed immediately after Antony’s death in the year 30 B.C. (Zeitschr. 1867 p. 285: “exactly 30 years before Christ”). Although this interpretation enables us more easily to find room for the twenty kings than the foregoing one still it can hardly be said to be a bit more tenable. One great objection to it above all is this that while it supposes the twenty wings to refer to Greek rulers it regards the three heads on the other hand as referring to Roman rulers whereas the text obviously requires us to regard the whole as rulers of one and the same kingdom. But Hilgenfeld’s interpretation is incompatible above all with the statement that the second wing was to rule twice as long as any of the others (11:17). For this will suit neither the case of Ptolemy I. nor that of Seleucus I. Nicator. Hilgenfeld too has fully realized the awkwardness of this passage and while at one time he was disposed to look upon it as an interpolation he has more recently had recourse to the expedient of supposing that in the statement in question the author had in view only the first six wings namely those on the right side on which assumption he finds that the notice exactly suits the case of Seleucus I. (Zeitschr. 1867 p. 286 sq. 1870 p. 310 sq.). But the text does not in the least degree sanction such a limitation as this (nemo post te tenebit tempus tuum sed nee dimidium ejus). There is a further contradiction of the text in the referring of the first head to Caesar who as is well known was assassinated whereas according to chap. 12:26 the ruler in question was to die super lectum. But let us say generally that every interpretation is to be regarded as untenable which proceeds on the assumption that the book was written earlier than the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. One of the principal objects of the book is just this to comfort the people on the occasion of the destruction in question. Ezra over and over again prays to have an explanation of the mystery of Jerusalem’s lying low in the dust while the Gentile nations exult in triumph. It is with regard to this that through the medium of a divine revelation he obtains instruction and comfort. Now to write a work of this nature could hardly be supposed to have any meaning or object whatsoever except at a time when Jerusalem was actually lying in ruins. No doubt it is the first destruction of the city (by Nebuchadnezzar) that is in view. But as it is of course impossible that the book can have been written in the decades immediately following this event (if for nothing but chap. 11:39 12:11 where Daniel is presupposed) the only course open to us is to come down to a date subsequent to the destruction by Titus and to assume that the author intended that first destruction by Nebuchadnezzar to be regarded as so to speak a type of the second and that the consolations purporting to have been communicated to Ezra were in reality meant for that generation in whose minds the recollection of the destruction of the year 70 was still fresh; although for the pseudo-Ezra this event was perhaps more a thing of the past than it was for the pseudo-Baruch. Then a distinct allusion to the destruction of the city by the Romans may also be found in the words which the lion addresses to the eagle (11:42): Destruxisti habitationes eorum qui fructificabant et humiliasti muros eorum qui te non nocuerunt. Consequently there cannot be a doubt that—
3. Corrodi Lücke (1st ed.) Gfrörer Dillmann Volkmar Ewald Langen Wieseler Keil Hausrath Renan Drummond Reuss Gutschmid Le Hir are correct in holding that the eagle is to be understood as representing imperial Rome. They are all at one in this that the line of rulers should begin with Caesar and that by the second wing the duration of whose reign was more than twice as long as that of any of the others (11:17) it is Augustus that is meant. This point may in fact be regarded as settled. For the placing of Cæsar as the first in the line of Roman emperors is also to be met with elsewhere (Joseph. Antt. xviii. 2. 2 6. 10; Orac. Sibyll. 5:10-15. Comp. Volkmar p. 344). Moreover the length of time during which Augustus reigned is estimated as a rule at 56 years counting from his first consulate in the year 711 A.U.C. = 43 B.C. (see Volkmar p. 344; Gutschmid Zeitschr. 1860 p. 37). According to this calculation the actual duration of the reign of Augustus is found to have been more than twice longer than that of all the other Roman emperors belonging to the first three centuries.
But there is one point in regard to which there is an essential difference between Gutschmid and Le Hir on the one hand and all the other writers mentioned above on the other. For while Corrodi (i. 208) and the others understand the three heads as referring to the three Flavian emperors (Vespasian Titus and Domitian) and accordingly regard the book as having been written during the last decades of the first century of our era Gutschmid interprets as follows:—He takes the twelve principal wings to represent: (1) Caesar (2) Augustus (3) Tiberius (4) Caligula (5) Claudius (6) Nero (7) Vespasian (8) Domitian (9) Trajan (10) Hadrian (11) Antoninus Pius (12) Marcus Aurelius. The first two of the subordinate wings he supposes to refer to Titus and Nerva and the four immediately following them to: (1) Commodus (2) Pertinax (3) Didius Julianus and (4) Pescennius Niger. The three heads again he takes to represent Septimius Severus (193-211 A.D.) with his two sons Caracalla and Geta. Geta was murdered by Caracalla but this latter also fell by the sword (217 A.D.). The last two of the subordinate wings he supposes to be intended for Macrinus and his son Diadumenianus who were assassinated in the year 218 A.D. He thinks therefore that the vision of the eagle must have been written immediately before in the month of June 218 (Zeitschr. 1860 p. 48). Moreover Gutschmid regards the vision of the eagle as a later interpolation while he thinks—and here he is more in accord with Hilgenfeld—that the main body of the book must have been written in the year 31 B.C. Le Hir in his interpretation of the vision now in question coincides with Gutschmid in almost every particular (Etudes Bibliques i. pp. 184-192). The only point in which they differ is this that Le Hir founding upon the list of emperors given by Clement of Alexandria counts the reign of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus as simply one thus including the latter among those represented by the principal wings while to make up for this he inserts Clodius Albinus after Pescennius Niger among those represented by the subordinate wings. Nor does he think that the entire book was written in the year 218 A.D. but is of opinion that there was in the first instance a Jewish original and subsequently a Christian revision and modification of this latter. He holds that the former which is already made use of in the Epistle of Barnabas was written in the last quarter of the first century of our era while the Christian revision in which the vision of the eagle was inserted would be composed in the year 218 A.D. (Etudes Bibliques i. p. 207 sq.).
The tempting thing about this interpretation is that it enables us actually to specify all the rulers represented by the 12 + 8 wings which if we suppose the Flavian period to be in view it is impossible to do. But for all that it is unquestionably erroneous. It is precluded above all by the circumstance that the book is already quoted by Clement of Alexandria. Consequently it must have been in existence toward the close of the second century. No doubt Gutschmid and Le Hir are disposed to fall back upon the hypothesis of interpolation or of revision and modification. But the book itself furnishes neither occasion nor justification for such a hypothesis. The vision of the eagle fits in admirably and could scarcely be omitted without completely mutilating the work. The hypothesis of interpolation is therefore gratuitous in the extreme to say nothing of the fact that it is incompatible with many points of detail. For example Galba Otho and Vitellius are completely left out of account. Commodus is classed by Gutschmid with those who are represented by the subordinate wings while Le Hir counts his reign and that of Marcus Aurelius as constituting simply one reign all which is extremely forced. But the most awkward thing of all is that the two subordinate wings Titus and Nerva did not reign as the text however requires us to suppose (12:21) appropinquante tempore medio i.e. shortly before the interregnum before the period of disorder but in the heart of the peaceful rule of the principal wings.[2399]
[2399] In answer to Gutschmid see also Volkmar p. 389 sq.
Consequently if we are to adopt the ordinary interpretation we will have to stop at the Flavian period. There can be no mistaking the fact that all that is said with regard to the three heads will apply admirably to the three Flavian emperors Vespasian Titus and Domitian. Those who had brought about the destruction of the holy city really constituted for the Jew the acme of power and ungodliness. Vespasian died as we are told 12:26 super lectum et tamen cum tormentis (comp. Sueton. Vesp. xxiv. Dio Cass. lxvi. 17). It is true Titus was not murdered by Domitian as is presupposed in chaps. 11:35 12:28. Yet it was currently believed that this was the case and certainly Domitian’s demeanour at the time of his brother’s death gave ample occasion for such a belief (Sueton. Domitian II. Dio Cass. lxvi. 26; Orac. Sibyll. 12:120-123. Aurelius Victor Caesar x. and xi. states explicitly that Titus had been poisoned by Domitian). This likewise corresponds with the actual fact that several of the subordinate wings i.e. of the usurpers had been disposed of with the help of the other two heads. But after all the finding of a place for the whole 12 + 8 wings is not a matter of insuperable difficulty. The twelve principal wings may be regarded as representing say the following rulers:—(1) Caesar (2) Augustus (3) Tiberius (4) Caligula (5) Claudius (6) Nero (7) Galba (8) Otho (9) Vitellius to whom may be added the three usurpers: (10) Vindex (11) Nymphidius (12) Piso. But what is to be made of the eight subordinate wings? To dispose of them Volkmar and Ewald have had recourse to expedients of the most singular kind. Volkmar who is followed by Renan makes out the number of rulers to be not 12 + 8 but by taking the wings as pairs only 6 + 4. The six rulers he takes to be the Julian emperors from Caesar to Nero; the four again he takes to be: Galba Otho Vitellius and Nerva. So Volkmar and Renan and that although we are plainly told in chap. 12:14 that: Regnabunt autem in ea reges duodecim unus post unum; and in ver. 20 of the same chapter find the words: exsurgent enim in ipso octo reges. Ewald again goes the length of thinking that not only the eight subordinate wings but also the three heads are to be regarded as included among the twelve principal wings and consequently that the three groups of rulers are to be identified and that we should reckon only twelve rulers altogether (counting from Caesar to Domitian). The most obvious exegetical principles should have been sufficient to prevent any such attempts at explanation as we have here. Nor can Langen be said to have altogether eschewed this arbitrary style of criticism when he inclines as he does to take the numbers merely as round numbers and to regard the twelve principal wings as intended to represent the six Julian emperors. For the text undoubtedly requires us to assume that there were 12 + 8 rulers or at all events pretenders. No less untenable is the view of Gfrörer (i. 90 sq.) who refers the eight subordinate wings partly to Herod and some of his descendants partly to Jewish (!!) agitators as John of Gischala and Simon Bar-Giora; or that of Wieseler who thinks that the whole eight subordinate wings are meant to represent the Herodian dynasty alone. In point of fact however the only distinction between the subordinate and the principal wings is this that in the case of the former the reign is short and feeble (12:20) or they fail ever to get the length of reigning at all (11:25-27). As for the rest they are quite as much as the principal wings rulers of the entire empire or at all events aspire to be so. Consequently it is impossible to suppose that it is vassal princes that are represented by those subordinate wings; rather must we hold with Corrodi (Gesch. des Chiliasmus i. 207) that it is “governors rival candidates for the throne and rebels” or with Dillmann (Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1st ed. vol. xii. p. 312) that it is “Roman generals and pretenders” that are in view. Of course we have had to avail ourselves of the better known among the usurpers in order to complete the number twelve. But it would appear that the author reckons along with them all those Roman generals who during the period of disorder (68-70) had at any time put forward claims to the throne. And of these surely it would not be difficult to make out six. For it is only a question of six seeing that as has been already noticed the last two of the subordinate wings do not represent actual historical personages.
If the view which represents the three heads as referring to the Flavian emperors be correct it should not be difficult to determine the date of the composition of our book. We have already seen that the author wrote during the reign of the third head inasmuch as he is already acquainted with the manner in which the second was put to death while on the other hand he is looking forward to the overthrow of the third after the Messiah has made His appearance. Consequently the composition of the book is not with Corrodi and Ewald to be referred to so early a date as the time of Titus nor again with Volkmar Langen Hausrath and Renan to one so late as the time of Nerva but with Gfrörer Dillmann Wieseler and Reuss to the reign of Domitian (81-96 A.D.).
The designation Fourth Book of Ezra under which our work is known is current only in the Latin Church and is to be traced to the fact that the canonical books Ezra and Nehemiah were reckoned as First and Second Ezra respectively while the Ezra of the Greek Bible was regarded as Third Ezra (so Jerome Praef. in version. libr. Ezrae Opp. ed. Vallarsi ix. 1524: Nec quemquam moveat quod unus a nobis editus liber est; nec apocryphorum tertii et quarti somniis delectetur). This mode of designating those different books has also been retained in the official Roman Vulgate where Third and Fourth Ezra are inserted at the end of the New Testament. In the manuscript of Amiens from which Bensly edited the Latin fragment the canonical books Ezra and Nehemiah taken together are regarded as First Ezra the so-called Third Ezra is counted as Second Ezra while Fourth Ezra is divided into three books chaps. i.-ii. being counted as Third Ezra chaps. iii.-xiv. as Fourth Ezra and chaps. xv. xvi. as Fifth Ezra (Bensly The Missing Fragment p. 6). Similarly though with greater complication still in the Codex Sangermanensis and the manuscripts derived from it (Bensly p. 85 sq.). The earliest designation seems to have been Ἔσδρας ὁ προφήτης (Clemens Alex. Strom. iii. 16. 100) or Ἔσδρα ἀποκάλυψις for it is doubtless our Fourth Book of Ezra that is meant by the apocryphal work bearing that name which occurs in the list of the Apocrypha edited by Montfaucon Cotelier Hody and Pitra (see p. 126). For more on the different titles see Volkmar Das vierte Buch Esra p. 3. Hilgenfeld Messias Judaeorum pp. xviii.-xxi.
Use and high repute of the book in the Christian Church.—It is probable that it is this work that is referred to in the following passage in the Epistle of Barnabas chap. xii.: Ὁμοίως πάλιν περὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ όρίζει ἐν ἄλλῳ προφήτῃ λέγοντι· Καὶ πότε ταῦτα συντελεσθήσεται; λέγει κύριος· Ὅταν ξύλον κλιθῇ καὶ ἀναστῇ καὶ ὅταν ἐκ ξύλου αἷμα στάξῃ. Comp. Fourth Ezra 4:33: Quomodo et quando haec? … 5:5: Si de ligno sanguis stillabit. It is true that here the first half of the quotation is wanting but for all that Le Moyne and Fabricius (Cod. pseudepigr. ii. 184) were undoubtedly correct in tracing it to Fourth Ezra. Comp. further Cotelier Hilgenfeld and Harnack in their editions of the Epistle of Barnabas; Hilgenfeld Die apostol. Väter p. 47. It is also extremely probable that we are indebted to Fourth Ezra for the legend to the effect that when the Holy Scriptures had perished on the occasion of the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar Ezra completely restored them again by means of a miracle. So Irenaeus iii. 21. 2. Tertullian De cultu femin. i. 3. Clemens Alex. Strom. i. 22. 149. Comp. 4 Ezra 14:18-22 and 4 Ezra 14:37-47. Fabricius Codex pseudepigr. i. 1156-1160. Hilgenfeld Messias Judaeorum p. 107. Strack in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. vol. vii. 414 sq. (art. “Kanon des A. T.’s”).
The first express quotation occurs in Clemens Alex. Strom. iii. 16. 100: Διὰ τί γὰρ οὐκ ἐγένετο ἡ μήτρα τῆς μητρός μου τάφος ἵνα μὴ ἰδω τὸν μόχθον τοῦ Ἰακὼβ καὶ τὸν κόπον τοῦ γένους Ἰσραήλ; Ἔσδρας ὁ προφήτης λέγει. Comp. 4 Ezra 5:35. Our book is repeatedly used and quoted as prophetical above all by Ambrose. See the passages in Fabricius Cod. pseudepigr. ii. pp. 183 185 sqq. Hilgenfeld Messias Judaeorum p. xxii. sq. Le Hir Etudes Bibliques i. 142. Bensly The Missing Fragment pp. 74-76. It is also quoted as propheta Esdras in the so-called Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum printed among Chrysostom’s works (ed. Montfaucon vol. vi.) Homil. xxxiv. s. fin. Jerome who maintains a critical attitude toward the Apocrypha generally is the only one who expresses himself unfavourably. See the passage quoted above from the Praef. in version. libr. Ezrae and especially Adv. Vigilantium chap. vi. (Opp. ed. Vallarsi ii. 393): Tu vigilans dormis et dormiens scribis et proponis mihi librum apocryphum. qui sub nomine Esdrae a te et similibus tui legitur ubi scriptum est quod post mortem nullus pro aliis audeat deprecari quem ego librum numquam legi. Quid enim necesse est in manus sumere quod ecclesia non recepit. But although our book continued to be excluded from the canon it nevertheless enjoyed a wide circulation especially in the Middle Ages. Bensly has proved by actual verification that it finds a place in more than sixty Latin manuscripts of the Bible (Bensly The Missing Fragment pp. 42 82 sqq.) and this without taking into account scarcely any of the Italian libraries. As we have already mentioned it appears in the official Vulgate as an appendix. It also finds a place in not a few German editions of the Bible Lutheran and Reformed as well as Catholic (for the evidence in regard to this see Gildemeister Esdrae liber quartus arabice 1877 p. 42). On the history of the use comp. further Fabricius Codex pseudepigr. ii. 174-192. Idem Cod. apocryph. Nov. Test. i. 936-938. Volkmar Das vierte Buch Ezra p. 273 sq. Hilgenfeld Messias Judaeorum pp. xviii.-xxiv. lxix. sq.
Care must be taken not to confound the Fourth Book of Ezra with the Christian work entitled the Apocalypse of Ezra which Tischendorf has edited (Apocalypses apocryphae Lips. 1866 pp. 24-33). On this comp. Tischendorf Stud. u. Krit. 1851 p. 423 sqq. Idem Prolegom. to his edition pp. 12-14. Le Hir Etudes Bibliques (Paris 1869) ii. 120-122. By the Ἔσδρα ἀποκάλυψις which occurs in the list of the Apocrypha edited by Montfaucon Pitra and others it is possibly the Fourth Book of Ezra that is meant (see p. 126). On the Ezra-Apocrypha comp. also Fabricius Cod. pseudepigr. i. 1162. On the later additions to the Fourth Book of Ezra (chaps. i.-ii. and xv. xvi.) which in the manuscripts appear as yet as separate Books of Ezra and which came for the first time to be blended with the main work in the printed text see Dillmann in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. vol. xii. 356 and Bensly The Missing Fragment pp. 35-40.
The texts of the Fourth Book of Ezra that have come down to us are the following:—
(1.) The old Latin version which is the most literal and therefore the most important of all. The vulgar text as it had long been printed was extremely inaccurate. In the edition of Fabricius (Codex pseudepigraphus Vet. Test. vol. ii. 1723 pp. 173-307) the Arabic version which was given to the public through Ockley’s English translation in 1711 was collated throughout with the Latin text. Sabatier was the first to lay the foundation for the critical restoration of the text by his publication of the variants of the important Codex Sangermanensis (Sabatier Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae vol. iii. 1743 pp. 1038 1069-1084). Numerous emendations based upon the Codex Sangermanensis and the Ethiopic version published by Laurence in 1820 were proposed by Van der Vlis (Disputatio critica de Ezrae libro apocrypho vulgo quarto dicto Amstelod. 1839). The first critical edition was published by Volkmar (Handbuch der Einleitung in die Apocryphen second part: Das vierte Buch Ezra Tüb. 1863). In this edition Sabatier’s collation of the Cod. Sangermanensis and a Zürich manuscript collated by Volkmar himself were made use of. These manuscripts however were not collated with sufficient care as the subsequent editions of Hilgenfeld (Messias Judaeorum Lips. 1869) and Fritzsche (Libri apocryphi Vet. Test. graece Lips. 1871) have shown. Both these writers give the Latin text according to three different manuscripts: (a) the Cod. Sangermanensis saec. ix. collated anew for Hilgenfeld’s edition by Zotenberg; (b) the Cod. Turicensis saec. xiii. also collated anew for Hilgenfeld’s edition by Fritzsche; (c) a Cod. Dresdensis saec. xv. collated by Hilgenfeld. In the whole of those editions a considerable fragment is wanting between chaps. vii. 35 and vii. 36 which could only be supplied from the Oriental versions. This fragment was first discovered so far as the Latin text is concerned by Bensly in a manuscript at Amiens (formerly at Corbie near Amiens) in the year 1875 (Bensly The Missing Fragment of the Latin Translation of the Fourth Book of Ezra discovered and edited with an Introduction and Notes Cambridge 1875. Comp. Theol. Literaturztg. 1876 p. 43 sq.). After this it was also published by Hilgenfeld (Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1876 pp. 421-435). Two years after this again the same fragment was edited from a Madrid manuscript (formerly in Alcalá de Henares) by Wood and from among the remains of John Palmer the Orientalist († 1840) who had transcribed it as early as the year 1826 (Journal of Philology vol. vii. 1877 pp. 264-278). Besides the manuscripts hitherto mentioned Bensly (pp. 42 82 sqq.) has verified some sixty others of the Latin text.[2400] Those of them in which there is the large hiatus in chap. vii. and this holds true of probably the whole of them at all events of the Turicensis and the Dresdensis as also of the printed vulgar text are of no value for the hiatus in the Cod. Sangermanensis was due to the cutting out of a leaf so that all the manuscripts and texts in which precisely the same hiatus occurs must have followed that codex (as from a letter addressed to Bensly Gildemeister appears to have already noted in the year 1865). Consequently in the case of any future edition consideration will be due in the first instance only to: (a) the Cod. Sangermanensis (now in Paris) dating from the year 822 A.D. (Bensly p. 5); (b) the Amiens manuscript also belonging to the ninth century and independent of the Cod. Sanger.; and (c) the Madrid manuscript. At the same time we may observe that the Latin manuscripts of the Bible in the majority of the Italian libraries have not yet been examined in connection with our book.
[2400] On two Parisian and two Berlin manuscripts see Gildemeister Esdrae liber quartus Arabice 1877 p. 44 fin.
(2.) Next to the Latin the best and most trustworthy version is the Syriac which has been transmitted to us in the large Peshito manuscript of Milan (Cod. Ambros. B. 21 Inf.). It was published for the first time by Ceriani first of all in a Latin version (Ceriani Monumenta sacra et profana vol. i. fasc. 2 Mediol. 1866 pp. 99-124) then in the Syriac text itself (Ceriani Mon. sac. et prof. vol. v. fasc. 1 Mediol. 1868 pp. 4-111). This latter is also given in the photo-lithographed facsimile of the whole manuscript (Translatio Syra Pescitto Veteris Testamenti ex cod. Ambr. photolithographice ed. Ceriani 2 vols. in 4 parts Milan 1876-1883; comp. vol. iii. p. 92). Hilgenfeld has embodied Ceriani’s Latin version in his Messias Judaeorum (Lips. 1869).
(3.) The Ethiopic version which is also of importance for the reconstruction of the original text. It had been previously published by Laurence accompanied with a Latin and English version but only from a single manuscript and not quite free from errors (Laurence Primi Ezrae libri qui apud Vulgatam appellatur quartus versio Aethiopica nunc primo in medium prolata et Latine Angliceque reddita Oxoniae et Londoni 1820). Numerous corrections have been made by van der Vlis (Disputatio critica de Ezrae libro apocrypho vulgo quarto dicto Amst. 1839). A collection of the variants in the other manuscripts has been furnished by Dillmann in the appendix to Ewald’s dissertation in the Abhandlungen der Göttinger Gesellsch. der Wissensch. vol. xi. 1862-1863. Then in the last place Prätorius availing himself of Dillmann’s collection of variants and also collating with a Berlin manuscript has made various emendations in the Latin version which Hilgenfeld has embodied in his Messias Judaeorum (Lips. 1869). A critical edition is still a desideratum. Among the Ethiopic manuscripts of the so-called Magdala collection which some years ago were forwarded to the British Museum at the close of the war between the English and King John of Abyssinia there happen to be no fewer than eight of our book (see Wright’s catalogue in the Zeitschr. der DMG. 1870 p. 599 sqq. Nos. 5 10 11 13 23 24 25 27. Bensly The Missing Fragment p. 2 note 3).
(4.) The two Arabic versions are of but secondary importance owing to the great freedom in which their authors often indulge. (a) One of them which is in a manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford was in the first instance published only in an English version by Ockley (in Whitson’s Primitive Christianity revived vol. iv. London 1711). Ewald was the first to publish the Arabic text (Transactions of the Göttingen Gesellsch. der Wissensch. vol. xi. 1862-1863). Emendations upon Ockley’s version and Ewald’s text were furnished by Steiner (Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1868 pp. 426-433) with whose assistance Hilgenfeld also composed a Latin rendering for his Messias Judaeorum (Lips. 1869). The Arabic version here in question is also found in a Codex Vaticanus which though merely a transcript of the one in the Bodleian library is nevertheless of some value in so far as it was copied before the leaf which is at present wanting in the Bodleian codex went amissing (Bensly The Missing Fragment p. 77 sq. Gildemeister Esdrae liber quartus p. 3; this latter supplies at pp. 6-8 the text of this fragment which is omitted in Ewald’s edition). (b) An extract from another Arabic version is likewise found in a Bodleian codex from which it has been edited by Ewald (as above). A German version of this extract was furnished by Steiner (Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol. 1868 pp. 396-425). On the extract itself comp. further Ewald Transactions of the Göttingen Gesellsch. der Wissensch. 1863 pp. 163-180. The complete text of this version was published by Gildemeister in Arabic and Latin from a Codex Vaticanus (Esdrae liber quartus arabice e codice Vaticano nunc primum edidit Bonnae 1877).
(5.) The Armenian version which is still freer than the Arabic one and is of but little service for the restoration of the original text. It was published as early as the year 1805 in the edition of the Armenian Bible issued under the superintendence of the Mechitarists but Ceriani was the first to rescue it from oblivion while Ewald again furnished specimens of it in a German rendering (Transactions of the Göttingen Gesellsch der Wissensch. 1865 pp. 504-516). A Latin version prepared by Petermann and based upon a collation of four manuscripts is given in Hilgenfeld’s Messias Judaeorum (Lips. 1869). In the older editions of the Armenian Bible (the first dating as far back as 1666) there is an Armenian version of our book which was prepared by the first editor Uscanus himself and taken from the Vulgate (see Scholtz Einl. in die heiligen Schriften vol. i. 1845 p. 501. Gildemeister Esdrae liber quartus arabice p. 43. This may be made use of for the purpose of correcting Bensly p. 2 note 2).
German versions of our book have been published by Volkmar (Das vierte Buch Esra 1863) and Ewald (Transactions of the Göttingen Gesellsch. der Wissensch. vol. xi. 1862 1863) while Hilgenfeld attempted a rendering back into the Greek (Messias Judaeorum Lips. 1869).
Critical inquiries. For the earlier literature see Fabricius Codex pseudepigr. ii. 174 sqq. Lücke Einl. p. 187 sqq. Volkmar Das vierte Buch Esra (1863) pp. 273-275 374 sqq. Hilgenfeld Messias Judaeorum p. liv. sqq. Corrodi (also spelt Corodi) Kritische Geschichte des Chiliasmus vol. i. (1781) pp. 179-230. Gfrörer Das Jahrhundert des Heils (also under the title Geschichte des Urchristenthums vols. i. ii.) 1838 i. 69-93. Lücke Versuch einer vollständigen Einleitung in die Offenbarung des Johannes (2nd ed. 1852) pp. 144-212. Bleek Stud. u. Krit. 1854 pp. 982-990 (review of Lücke’s Einl.). Noack Der Ursprung des Christenthums vol. i. (1857) pp. 341-363. Hilgenfeld Die jüdische Apokalyptik (1857) pp. 185-242. Idem Die Propheten Esra und Daniel 1863. Idem Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theologie vol. i. 1858 pp. 250-270; iii. 1860 pp. 335-358; vi. 1863 pp. 229-292 457 sq.; x. 1867 pp. 87-91 263-295; xiii. 1870 pp. 308-319; xix. 1876 pp. 421-435. Gutschmid “Die Apokalypse des Esra und ihre späteren Bearbeitungen” (Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1860 pp. 1-81). Dillmann in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 1st ed. vol. xii. 1860 pp. 310-312; 2nd ed. vol. xii. 1883 pp. 353-356 (art. “Pseudepigraphen”). Volkmar Handbuch der Einleitung in die Apokryphen second part: Das vierte Buch Esra Tüb. 1863. At a previous date by the same author Das vierte Buch Esra und apokalyptische Geheimnisse überhaupt Zürich 1858. “Einige Bemerkungen über Apokalyptik” (Zeitschr. für wissensch. Theol. 1861 pp. 83-92). Ewald “Das vierte Esrabuch nach seinem Zeitalter seinen arabischen Uebersetzungen und einer neuen Wiederherstellung” (Transactions of the Royal Gesellsch. der Wissensch. of Göttingen vol. xi. 1862-1863 histor.-philol. section pp. 133-230. Also as a separate reprint). Idem Gesch. des Volkes Israel vol. vii. 3rd ed. 1868 pp. 69-83. Ceriani “Sul Das vierte Ezrabuch del Dottor Enrico Ewald” (Estratto dalle Memorie del R. Instituto Lombardo di scienze e lettere) Millano 1865. Langen Das Judenthum in Palästina 1866 pp. 112-139. Le Hir “Du IV.e livre d’Esdras” (Etudes Bibliques 2 vols. Paris 1869 i. 139-250). Wieseler “Das vierte Buch Esra nach Inhalt und Alter untersucht” (Stud. u. Krit. 1870 pp. 263-304). Keil Lehrb. der histor.-krit. Einleitung in die kanon. und apokr. Schriften des A. T. 3rd ed. 1873 pp. 758-764. Hausrath Neutestamentl. Zeitgesch. 2nd ed. iv. 80-88 (1st ed. iii. 282-289). Renan “L’apocalypse de l’an 97” (Revue des deux Mondes 1875 March pp. 127-144). Idem Les évangiles 1877 pp. 348-373. Drummond The Jewish Messiah 1877 pp. 84-117. Reuss Gesch. der heiligen Schriften Alten Testaments (1881) sec. 597.
6. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
In the pseudepigraphic prophecies which we have hitherto been considering revelations and predictions—and therefore the apocalyptic element—chiefly predominated. But just as these revelations themselves had practical objects as their ultimate aim such objects as the strengthening and comforting of the faithful so alongside of them there was also another class of works in which the exhortations and encouragements were more directly expressed. We have a pseudepigraphic prophecy of this description in The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs which is chiefly composed of such direct exhortations. This somewhat extensive work has come down to us in its entirety in the Greek text which was published for the first time by Grabe (1698) although from the beginning of the sixteenth century a good many printed copies of a Latin version prepared in the thirteenth by Robert Grossetest Bishop of Lincoln had been in circulation.
The book as we now have it contains a great many direct allusions to the incarnation of God in Christ for which reason almost all modern critics look upon it as the production of a Christian author. But it is extremely doubtful whether this is a correct view of the matter and whether we ought not rather to assume that the work in its original form is of Jewish authorship and that the passages that are of a Christian character were interpolated at some later date. As is indicated by the title itself the book consists of the spiritual “testaments” which the twelve sons of Jacob left behind them for their descendants. In each of those testaments three different elements may be distinguished. (1) The patriarch in each instance rehearses in the first place the history of his own life in the course of which he either charges himself with sins he has committed (as is done by the majority of them) or on the other hand boasts of his virtues. The biographical notices follow the lines of the Biblical narrative although after the fashion of the Haggadean Midrash they are enriched with a large number of fresh details. (2) The patriarch then proceeds to address to his descendants a number of appropriate exhortations based upon the preceding autobiographical sketch urging them to beware of the sin that had been the cause of such deep distress to their ancestor and in the event of his being able to boast of something redounding to his credit recommending them to imitate his virtuous behaviour. The subject on which the exhortations turn is as a rule one that happens to have a very intimate connection with the biographical notices the patriarch’s descendants being warned precisely against that sin or it may be to imitate that virtue which had been exemplified in his own life. (3) But besides this we also find toward the end of each of the testaments (with the exception perhaps of that of Gad where this point is only briefly hinted at) certain predictions regarding the future of the particular tribe in question the patriarch for example predicting that his descendants would one day apostatize from God or what sometimes appears to amount to the same thing sever their connection with the tribes of Levi and Judah and thereby involve themselves in misery and especially the evils of captivity and dispersion. This prediction is frequently accompanied with an exhortation to adhere to the tribes of Levi and Judah. On the other hand these predictions are interspersed with a large number of very direct references to redemption through Christ.
The circles of thought in these “testaments” are of a very heterogeneous character. On the one hand they contain a great deal that it seems impossible to explain except on the assumption that they were composed by a Jewish author. The history of the patriarchs is amplified precisely in the style of the Haggadean Midrash. The author assumes that salvation is in store only for the children of Shem while those of Ham are doomed to destruction (Simeon 6). He manifests a lively interest in the Jewish tribes as such; he deplores their apostasy and dispersion; he exhorts them to cleave to the tribes of Levi and Judah as being those which God has specially called to be the leaders of the others;[2401] he cherishes the hope of their ultimate conversion and deliverance. It is true no doubt that in his positive injunctions he nowhere inculcates the observance of the ceremonial law such injunctions being more of a moral character throughout nearly the entire book and consisting for example of warnings against the sins of envy avarice anger lying incontinency exhortations to the love of one’s neighbour compassion integrity and such like. But at the same time he does not fail to speak of the priestly sacrificial worship and that even with many details introduced into it not met with in the Old Testament itself as being an institution of divine appointment.[2402] On the other hand again we also meet with numerous passages which can only have been written by a Christian passages which teach the Christian doctrine of the universal character of salvation as well as that of redemption through the incarnation of God nay in one instance there is a distinct reference to the Apostle Paul (Benjamin 11). The Christology upon which those passages proceed is of a decidedly patripassian character.[2403]
[2401] Reuben 6: Τῷ γὰρ Λευὶ ἔδωκε Κύριος τὴν ἀρχὴν καὶ τῷ Ἰούδᾳ. Judah 21: Καὶ νῦν τέκνα ἀγαπήσατε τὸν Λευί ἵνα διαμείνητε· καὶ μὴ ἐπαίρεσθε ἐπʼ αὐτόν ἵνα μὴ ἐξολοθρευθῆτε. Ἐμοὶ γὰρ ἔδωκε Κύριος τὴν βασιλείαν κἀκείνῳ τὴν ἱερατείαν καὶ ὑπέταξε τὴν βασιλείαν τῇ ἱερωσύνῃ. Issachar 5 fin.: Καὶ ὁ Λευὶ καὶ ὁ Ἰούδας ἐδοξάσθη παρὰ Κυρίου ἐν υἱοῖς Ἰακώβ. Καὶ γὰρ Κύριος ἐκλήρωσεν ἐν αὐτοῖς καὶ τῷ μὲν ἔδωκε τὴν ἱερατείαν τῷ δὲ τὴν βασιλείαν. Daniel 5 : Οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι ἐν ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις ἀποστήσεσθε τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ προσωχθιεῖτε τὸν Λευὶ καὶ πρὸς Ἰούδαν ἀντιτάξεσθε. Naphtali 5 (in a parable): Καὶ ὁ Λευὶ ἐκράτησε τὸν ἥλιον καὶ ὁ Ἰούδας φθάσας ἐπίασε τὴν σελήνην. Ibid. 8: Καὶ ὑμεῖς οὖν ἐντείλασθε τοῖς τέκνοις ὑμῶν ἵνα ἑνοῦνται τῷ Λευὶ καὶ τῷ Ἰούδᾳ.
[2402] Levi 9. Note for example the prescription: Καὶ πρὸ τοῦ εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὰ ἅγια λούου· καὶ ἐν τῷ θύειν νιπτου (with which comp. vol. i. p. 278); further the prescription in the same passage to the effect that no wood was to be used for the altar of burnt-offering but that of trees which were always in leaf (comp. Book of Jubilees chap. 21 in Ewald’s Jahrpp. iii. 19).
[2403] Simeon 6: Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς μέγας τοῦ Ἰσραήλ φαινόμενος ἐπὶ γῆς ὡς ἄνθρωπος. Ibid.: Θεὸς σῶμα λαβὼν καὶ συνεσθίων ἀνθρώποις ἔσωσεν ἀνθρώπους. Issachar 7: ἔχοντες μεθʼ ἑαυτῶν τὸν Θεὸν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ συμπορευόμενον τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἐν ἁπλότητι καρδίας. Zebulon 9 fin.: ὄψεσθε Θεὸν ἐν σχήματι ἀνθρώπου. Daniel 5 fin.: Κύριος ἔσται ἐμμέσῳ αὐτῆς τοῖς ἀνθρώποις συναναστρεφόμενος. Naphtali 8: ὀφθήσεται Θεὸς κατοικῶν ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. Asher 7: ἕως οὗ ὁ ὕψιστος ἐπισκέψηται τὴν γῆν καὶ αὐτὸς ἑλθὼν ὡς ἄνθρωπος μετὰ ἀνθρώπων ἐσθίων καὶ πινων. Benjamin 10: παραγενόμενον Θεὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐλευθερωτὴν οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν.
Grabe who was the first to edit the Greek text already endeavoured to account for those incongruities by the hypothesis that the book was written by a Jew but had been subsequently interpolated by a Christian. All modern critics however (since Nitzsch) have entirely dismissed this hypothesis and the only point on which there is a difference of opinion amongst them is as to whether the author occupied the standpoint of a Jewish or a Gentile Christian. The former is the prevailing view; the latter was propounded by Ritschl in the first edition of his Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche was subsequently adopted by Vorstman and Hilgenfeld but was ultimately abandoned again by Ritschl himself. At the same time there was no doubt a feeling on the part of many that it would be impossible to solve the difficulty without having recourse to the interpolation hypothesis. Kayser above all tried to demonstrate the existence of a tolerably large number of such interpolations. But even in his case the matter is dealt with only incidentally to enable him to maintain the view as to the Jewish-Christian character of the writing. It was reserved for Schnapp to enter in a systematic manner into the question as to whether the whole work had not been reconstructed from beginning to end. He endeavoured to show that to the book in its original form belonged only the parts mentioned under Nos. 1 and 2 above i.e. merely the biographical narratives and their accompanying exhortations. But he seeks to prove that all those portions in which the future fortunes of the tribes are predicted with some other things of a kindred nature (visions in particular) are to be regarded as later interpolations though he distinguishes at the same time between Jewish and Christian interpolations. He thinks that the bulk of these interpolations would be made by a Jewish hand but that into these again numerous references to the redemption through Christ had been afterwards inserted by a Christian hand. He considers therefore that the original work itself must also have been of Jewish origin. It appears to me that the latter part of this hypothesis in so far that is as the Christian revision is concerned has at all events hit the mark. It would be vain to attempt to reduce the heterogeneous utterances in our Testaments to a common Jewish-Christian standpoint all of them that bear a specifically Christian stamp being without exception of a Gentile-Christian and universalist character. The salvation is destined εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη. The Christology is the patripassian Christology that so largely prevailed in many quarters in the Christian Church during the second and third centuries. There is nothing here that can be said to indicate a “Jewish-Christian” standpoint. Again it is impossible to reconcile with the Christian passages in question that series of utterances characterized above which can only have emanated from a Jewish author. How is it ever to be supposed that a Christian ay or even a Jewish-Christian author should think of characterizing the tribes of Levi and Judah as those to whom God had committed the guidance of Israel. Then what could we conceive such an author to mean by exhorting the rest of the tribes to join themselves to the two just mentioned and to submit themselves to their authority? Why it was precisely the tribes of Levi and Judah i.e. the official Judaism of Palestine that distinguished themselves above all the others in the way of rejecting the gospel. We can hardly imagine therefore that even a Jewish-Christian author would be likely to represent them as occupying the leading position above referred to. Nor does he so represent them as one who is merely taking a theoretical survey of history and as though he meant to censure the defection from the tribes of Levi and Judah merely as a thing of the past. But he also urges a loyal adherence to those tribes as a present duty. Nor can we here suppose that Levi is intended to represent the Christian clergy. For what in that case would Judah be supposed to represent?[2404] Then there is the further circumstance that many of the Christian passages obviously disturb the connection and thus proclaim themselves to be interpolations at the very outset. What is more the much canvassed passage regarding Paul in the Testament of Benjamin (11) is wanting in the case of two independent testimonies among the manuscripts and versions as at present known to us namely in the Roman manuscript and the Armenian version.[2405] From all this it may be regarded as tolerably certain that all the Christian passages are to be ascribed to some interpolator who with a Jewish original before him introduced modifications here and there to adapt it to the purposes and needs of the Christian Church. This assumption will also enable us to explain how it comes to be stated in our Testaments that Christ was a descendant of the tribes of Levi and Judah alike.[2406] How it would ever occur to a Christian author himself to emphasize this point so much even supposing Mary to have belonged to the tribe of Levi it is difficult to see for in the primitive Christian tradition it was only upon the descent from Judah that stress was laid. But the matter becomes perfectly intelligible when we assume that the author had a text before him in which Levi and Judah were held up as the chosen and model tribes. For finding this in his text he proceeds to justify it from his Christian standpoint by representing Christ as descended from the tribe of Levi in His capacity as priest and from that of Judah in His capacity as king it being left an open question whether he assumes the Levitical descent of Mary or has in view only some spiritual connection on the part of Christ with both those tribes in virtue of His twofold office of priest and king.[2407] It is further worthy of note that deviating from his Jewish original the Christian interpolator as a rule puts the tribe of Judah first. How long or short those Christian interpolations may have been it is not always possible to determine with any degree of certainty. It is probable however that they were on a larger scale than Schnapp is inclined to suppose.
[2404]a That the various utterances regarding the tribes of Levi and Judah are of a strictly Jewish character may be further seen from others of a precisely similar nature in the Book of Jubilees chap. 31 (Ewald’s Jahrbücher iii. 39 sq.).
[2405] See Sinker Testamenta XII. Patriarcharum Appendix (1879) pp. 27 and 59; and Harnack’s notice in Theol. Literaturztg. 1879 p. 515. The Roman manuscript has the original text in still another passage (perhaps in more?) where the others show that passage to have undergone a Christian revision. Simeon 7 according to the Roman MS. runs thus: Καὶ νῦν τεκνία μου ἐπακούσατε τοῦ Λευὶ καὶ τοῦ Ἰούδα as without doubt it was originally written whereas the Cambridge MS. reads: Καὶ νῦν τεκνία μου ὑπακούετε Λευὶ καὶ ἐν Ἰούδᾳ λυτρωθήσεσθε.
[2406] Simeon 7: Ἀναστήσει γὰρ Κύριος ἐκ τοῦ Λευὶ ὡς ἀρχιερέα καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Ἰούδα ὡς βασιλέα Θεὸν καὶ ἄνθρωπον. Levi 2: διὰ σοῦ καὶ Ἰούδα ὀφθήνεται Κύριος ἐν ἀνθρώποις. Daniel 5.: Καὶ ἀνατελεῖ ὑμῖν ἐκ τῆς φυλη̈ς Ἰούδα καὶ Λευὶ τὸ σωτήριον Κυρίου. Gad 8: ὅπως τιμήσωσιν Ἰούδαν καὶ τὸν Λευί· ὅτι ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀνατελεῖ Κύριος σωτῆρα τῷ Ἰσραήλ. Joseph 19: τιμᾶτε τὸν Ἰούδαν καὶ τὸν Λευί· ὅτι ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀνατελεῖ ὑμῖν ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ χάριτι σὠζων πάντα τὰ ἔθνη.
[2407] This latter view is favoured by Simeon 7; at the same time it is possible that on the strength of Luke 1:36 (Ἐλισάβετ ἡ συγγενίς σου) the author has assumed the Levitical descent of Mary as many of the Fathers have also done (on which see Spitta Der Brief des Julius Africanus an Aristides 1877 p. 44 sqq.). But in any case it is certain that previous to the author of the Testaments no writer within the Church had ever directly maintained or in any way emphasized the Levitical descent of Jesus. For Hilgenfeld and following him Spitta have contrived to elicit something of this from the words of Clemens Romanus chap. xxxii. only by an exegesis of a very singular kind.
It is rather more difficult to answer this other question namely whether this Jewish original itself was not the production of several authors. The grounds on which Schnapp bases his attempt to distinguish and eliminate the prophetic portions of the book are not quite so cogent in the case of Christian passages. At the same time there is no denying that in most instances those predictions start up in the book with a remarkable suddenness. The Testaments seem to have been intended in the first instance to serve as a kind of moral sermon. They concern themselves as a rule with some special sin or other of which the patriarch had been guilty and against which he warns his descendants. When we find then that all of a sudden and in quite a general way there comes in some prediction about the falling away of the tribes and that without any further notice being taken of the special sin that had been previously treated of it becomes evident at once that the connection is thereby interrupted and disturbed all the more that the terms with which the Testaments conclude are such as imply that they had been preceded by exhortations and exhortations alone. Comp. above all Simeon 5-7; Levi 14-19‌a; Judah 21-25; Daniel 5. In any case we can have no difficulty in detecting in the Testaments a good many interpolations of considerable length even apart from those passages that are of a specifically Christian kind; take for example the two visions in the Testament of Levi 2-5 and 8 which only interrupt the connection. Then in the biographical portion of the Testament of Joseph we find two perfectly parallel narratives coming the one immediately after the other (chaps. 1-10‌a and 10‌b-18) of which only one can be supposed to be the original one. Again in the course of what is said with regard to the tribe of Levi we come across this glaring contradiction that while on the one hand it is recommended to the other tribes as their leader it is represented on the other as having itself fallen away nay as having been instrumental in seducing the rest into apostasy (Levi 14; Daniel 5). Both those classes of statements cannot possibly have emanated from one and the same person. We may therefore say that in any case the Testaments have undergone repeated revision and remodification. But this much however may be held as certain that the great bulk of the book is of Jewish origin. The foremost place in it is assigned to these moral sermons which remind us partly of Jesus the Son of Sirach and partly of Philo and which must have emanated from some author to whom moral conduct was a matter of deeper interest than the ceremonial law. Along with these we have prophetic passages composed by the same or some other author in which the falling away from Levi and Judah is represented as being the cause of all evil while the members of the nation scattered throughout the whole world are recommended to enter into close relationship with these tribes therefore with the leading circles of Palestine. On the date of the composition of our book it is impossible to express anything like a definite opinion. As it is probable that the Christian revision was already known to Irenaeus the Jewish original cannot have been composed later than the first century of our era though on the other hand we can scarcely venture to refer it to an earlier date seeing that the author probably made use of the Book of Jubilees (see below). In several passages the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is presupposed (Levi 15; Daniel 5 fin.). But it is extremely doubtful whether these are to be regarded as belonging to the work in its original shape. Possibly they were subsequently inserted by some Christian hand.
On the references in our book to earlier writings see Sinker Testamenta XII. Patriarcharum (1869) pp. 34-48; Dillmann in Ewald’s Jahrb. der bibl. Wissensch. iii. 91-94; Rönsch Das Buch der Jubiläen (1874) pp. 325 sqq. 415 sqq. References to the predictions of Enoch are of very frequent occurrence (Simeon 5; Levi 10 14 16; Judah 18; Zebulon 3; Daniel 5; Naphtali 4; Benjamin 9). These passages all belong to the prophetic sections though in the majority of instances they are not actual quotations but free allusions to alleged predictions of Enoch with the view of explaining how the patriarchs obtained their information with regard to the future. Surely from this it is perfectly obvious that the author must have already been acquainted with one or more of the various books bearing the name of Enoch. In the biographical portions therefore in those sections which undoubtedly belong to the original work there are numerous coincidences with the Book of Jubilees. But neither are these absent from those portions which according to Schnapp are supposed to belong to the author of the Jewish revision. See in general Dillmann and Rönsch as above.
In patristic literature the notion of the descent of Christ from the tribes of Levi and Judah is met with as early as the time of Irenaeus which notion is probably to be traced to our book; see Irenaeus Fragm. xvii. (ed. Harvey ii. 487): Ἐξ ὦν ὁ Χριστὸς προετυπώθη καὶ ἐκεγνώσθη καὶ ἐγεννήθη· ἐν μὲν γὰρ τῷ Ἰωσὴφ προετυπώθη· ἐκ δὲ τοῦ Λευὶ καὶ τοῦ Ἰούδα τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ὡς βασιλεὺς καὶ ἱερεὺς ἐγεννήθη· διὰ δὲ τοῦ Συμεὼν ἐν τῷ ναῷ ἐπεγνώσθη κ.τ.λ. The passages in Tertullian Adv. Marcion. v. 1 Scorpiace xiii. which since Grabe’s time (Spicileg. i. 132) have usually been traced to the Testament of Benjamin 11 are simply based on Genesis 49:27; similarly Hippolyt. ed. Lagarde p. 140 fragm. 50. It is not unlikely that the passage about Paul in Benjamin 11 would be inserted in the text of the Testament at a very late period and that on the strength of the patristic interpretation of Genesis 49:27; comp. p. 119. The Testaments are expressly quoted by Origen In Josuam homil. xv. 6 (ed. de la Rue ii. 435; Lommatzsch xi. 143): Sed et in aliquo quodam libello qui appellatur testamentum duodecim patriarcharum quamvis non habeatur in canone talem tamen quendam sensum invenimus quod per singulos peccantes singuli satanae intelligi debeant (comp. Reuben 3). It is doubtful whether Procopius Gazaeus may be supposed to have our book in view in his Comment. in Gen. xxxviii. (see the passage in Sinker’s Test. XII. Patr. p. 4). In the Stichometry of Nicephorus the Πατριάρχαι are included among the ἀπόκρυφα along with Enoch the Assumptio Mosis and such like (Credner Zur Gesch. des Kanons p. 121); similarly in the Synopsis Athanasii (Credner p. 145) and in the anonymous list of canonical books edited by Montfaucon Pitra and others (on which see p. 126 below). In the Constitut. apostol. vi. 16 mention is made of an apocryphal work entitled οἱ τρεῖς πατριάρχαι which must be different from the book now in question unless there has been some mistake with regard to the number.
Four manuscripts of the Greek text are extant: (1) A Cambridge one belonging to the tenth century; (2) an Oxford one belonging to the fourteenth (on both of which see Sinker’s Test. XII. Patr. pp. vi-xi.); (3) a manuscript in the Vatican Library belonging to the thirteenth century; and (4) one in the cloister of St. John in Patmos belonging to the sixteenth (on both of which again see Sinker Appendix 1879 pp. 1-7). In addition to these we should also mention as independent testimonies (1) the as yet unprinted Armenian version eight manuscripts of which have been verified by Sinker and the oldest of which dates from the year 1220 A.D. (Sinker Appendix pp. 23-27 and p. vii. sq.); and (2) the Old Slavonic version which was published by Tichonrawow in his Pamjatniki otretschennoi russkoi literatury (2 vols. Petersburg 1863) but which has not yet been submitted to critical investigation.
As yet no trace has been discovered of any early Latin version. But coming down to the thirteenth century we find the Latin version of Robert Grossetest Bishop of Lincoln and which as Sinker has shown is based upon the Cambridge manuscript (see Grabe’s Spicileg. i. 144; Sinker Appendix p. 8). This version has come down to us through numerous manuscripts (Sinker’s Test. pp. xi.-xv. Appendix p. 9) and since the beginning of the sixteenth century it has not only been frequently printed (at first without place or date being given though probably about 1510-1520 see Sinker Appendix p. 10; on the later impressions consult Sinker Test. p. xvi. sq.) but likewise translated into almost every modern language—English French German Dutch Danish Icelandic Bohemian while these translations again were also frequently printed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Sinker Appendix pp. 11-23).
The first edition of the Greek text was prepared by Grabe who based it upon the Cambridge manuscript collating it at the same time with the Oxford one. This edition also contained Grossetest’s Latin version for which two manuscripts belonging to the Bodleian Library were made use of (Grabe Spicilegium Patrum vol. i. Oxon. 1698 2nd ed. 1714; on the use of the manuscripts see p. 336 sq.). Grabe’s text has been reproduced by Fabricius (Codex pseudepigraphus Vet. Test. vol. i. Hamburg 1713) Gallandi (Bibliotheca veterum patrum vol. i. Venetiis 1788) and Migne (Patrolog. graec. vol. ii.). A careful edition of the Cambridge manuscript accompanied with the variants of the Oxford one has been printed by Sinker (Testamenta XII. Patriarcharum ad fidem codicis Cantabrigiensis edita accedunt lectiones cod. Oxoniensis Cambridge 1869). Some time after this same scholar published in an Appendix a collation of the Vatican and the Patmos manuscripts (Testamenta XII. Patriarcharum: Appendix containing a collation of the Roman and Patmos MSS. and bibliographical notes Cambridge 1879).
Special disquisitions: Grabe in his edition (Spicileg. i. 129-144 and 335-374). Corrodi Kritische Geschichte des Chiliasmus ii. 101-110. K. J. Nitzsch. Commentatio critica de Testamentis XII. Patriarcharum libro V. T. pseudepigrapho Wittenberg 1810. Wieseler Die 70 Wochen und die 63 Jahrwochen des Propheten Daniel (1839) p. 226 sqq. Lücke Einl. in die Offenbarung Johannis (2nd ed. 1852) pp. 334-337. Dorner Entwicklungsgesch. der Lehre von der Person Christi i. 254-264. Reuss Gesch. der heil. Schriften Neuen Testaments § 257. Ritschl Die Entstehung der alt-kathol. Kirche (2nd ed. 1857) pp. 172-177. Kayser “Die Test. der XII. Patr.” in the Beiträge zu den theologischen Wissenschaften edited by Reuss and Cunitz 3 vols. (1851) pp. 107-140. Vorstman Disquisitio de Testamentorum Patriarcharum XII. origine et pretio Rotterd. 1857. Hilgenfeld Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1858 p. 395 sqq.; 1871 p. 302 sqq. Van Hengel “De Testamenten der twaalf Patriarchen op nieuw ter sprake gebragt” (Godgeleerde Bijdragen 1860). Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel vii. 363-369. Langen Das Judenthum in Palästina (1866) pp. 140-157. Sinker in his edition. Geiger Jüdische Zeitschr. für Wissensch. und Leben 1869 pp. 116-135; 1871 pp. 123-125. Friedr. Nitzsch Grundriss der christl. Dogmengeschichte vol. i. 1870 pp. 109-111. Renan L’église chrétienne (1879) pp. 268-271. An article in The Presbyterian Review for January 1880 (mentioned by Bissell The Apocrypha p. 671). Dillmann art. “Pseudepigraphen” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. vol. xii. p. 361 sq. Schnapp Die Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen untersucht Halle 1884 (and notice of this work in the Theolog. Literaturzeitung 1885 p. 203).
7. The Lost Pseudepigraphic Prophecies
Besides the pseudepigraphic prophecies that have come down to us many others of a similar description were in circulation in the early Church as we learn partly from the lists of the canon and partly from quotations found in the Fathers. In the case of most of them it is of course no longer possible to determine with any certainty whether they were of Jewish or of Christian origin. But considering that in the earliest days of the Christian Church this was a species of literary activity that flourished chiefly among the heretical sects and that it was not till a somewhat later period that it began to be cultivated in Catholic circles as well it may be assumed with some degree of probability that those Old Testament pseudepigraphic writings which are mentioned in terms of high respect by the earliest of the Fathers down say to Origen inclusive are to be regarded generally as being of Jewish and not of Christian origin. With the criterion thus obtained we may combine still another. We happen to have several lists of the canon in which the Old Testament Apocrypha are enumerated with great completeness. Now among the writings thus enumerated occur those which have come down to us (Enoch the Twelve Patriarchs the Assumptio Mosis the Psalms of Solomon) and which are undoubtedly of Jewish origin. This then must surely be regarded as sufficiently justifying the conjecture that the others would also be of similar origin. The lists in question are the following:—
1. The so-called Stichometry of Nicephorus i.e. a list of the canonical and apocryphal books of the Old and New Testaments along with the number of verses in each book and which list is given as an appendix to the Chronographia compendiaria of Nicephorus Constantinopolitanus (about 800 A.D.) though it is without doubt of a considerably earlier origin (printed in the appendix to Dindorf’s edition of George Syncellus further in a critically amended text given by Credner in two programmes for the University of Giessen 1832-1838 and also reproduced in Credner’s Zur Geschichte des Kanons 1847 pp. 117-122 but best of all in de Boor’s Nicephori opuscula Lips. 1880). Here the list of the Old Testament ἀπόκρυφα runs thus (ed. de Boor p. 134 sq.):—
αʹ Ἐνὼχ στίχων ͵δωʹ (4800).
βʹ Πατριάρχαι στίχων ͵ερʹ (5100).
γʹ Προσευχὴ Ἰωσὴφ στίχων ͵αρʹ (1100).
δʹ Διαθήκη Μωϋσέως στίχων ͵αρʹ (1100).
εʹ Ἀνάληψις Μωϋσέως στίχων ͵αυʹ (1400).
ςʹ Ἀβραὰμ στίχων τʹ (300).
ζʹ Ἐλὰδ (sic) καὶ Μωδὰδ στίχων υʹ (400).
ηʹ Ἡλία προφήτου στίχων τιςʹ (316).
θʹ Σοφονίου προφήτου στίχων χʹ (600).
ιʹ Ζαχαρίου πατρὸς Ἰωάννου στίχων φʹ (500).
ιαʹ Βαρούχ Ἀμβακούμ Ἰεζεκιὴλ καὶ Δανιὴλ ψευδεπίγραφα.
2. The so-called Synopsis Athanasii which simply reproduces from the Stichometry of Nicephorus the section containing the Apocrypha without giving however the number of the verses (Credner Zur Geschichte des Kanons p. 145).
3. Akin to this latter is an anonymous list which was published: (a) from a Codex Coislinianus belonging to the tenth century by Montfaucon Bibliotheca Coisliniana Paris 1715 p. 194; (b) from a Cod. Paris. Regius by Cotelier Patrum Apost. Opp. vol. i. 1698 p. 196; (c) from a Cod. Baroccianus by Hody De Bibliorum textibus 1705 p. 649 col. 44 (those three manuscripts are based upon each other in the order just given and as may be seen from a more careful comparing of them with the text); and lastly (d) from a Codex Vaticanus by Pitra Juris ecclesiastici Graecorum historia et monumenta vol. i. Romae 1864 p. 100. As appears from the numbering there is an omission in the three first-mentioned manuscripts (No. 8 being left out). According to Pitra the complete list of the ἀπόκρυφα is as follows:—
αʹ Ἀδάμ.
βʹ Ἐνώχ.
γʹ Λάμεχ.
δʹ Πατριάρχαι.
εʹ Ἰωσὴφ προσευχή.
ςʹ Ἐλδὰμ καὶ Μοδάμ (al. Ἐλδὰδ καὶ Μωδάδ).
ζʹ Διαθήκη Μωσέως.
ηʹ Ἡ ἀνάληψις Μωσέως.
θʹ Ψαλμοὶ Σολομῶντος.
ιʹ Ἡλίου ἀποκάλυψις.
ιαʹ Ἡσαίου ὅρασις.
ιβʹ Σοφονίου ἀποκάλυψις.
ιγʹ Ζαχαρίου ἀποκάλυψις.
ιδʹ Ἔσδρα ἀποκάλυψις.
ιέ Ἰακώβου ἱστορία.
ιςʹ Πέτρου ἀποκάλυψις and so on (these being followed by other New Testament Apocrypha).
This list is in the main identical with that of the Stichometry of Nicephorus. With a single exception (No. 6 Ἀβραάμ) the whole of the first ten numbers of the Stichometry are reproduced in it. But besides this these nine numbers have this in common with each other that they are probably all of them prophetic pseudepigraphs i.e. writings purporting to have been composed by the various men of God whose names they bear or at all events containing a record of revelations with which those men are alleged to have been favoured a circumstance which probably accounts for their comparatively wide circulation throughout the Church. The last of the nine here in question shows by its title Ζαχαρίου πατρὸς Ἰωάννου that it belongs to the Christian Apocrypha. With regard to the others four of them have already been considered by us (Enoch. the Patriarchs the Testament and the Ascension of Moses; on the two latter see p. 81) while the remaining four (Joseph’s Prayer Eldad and Modad Elias Zephaniah) are all quoted with deference either by Origen or by some still older Fathers and may therefore be regarded with a certain degree of probability as Jewish products. Consequently they fall to be more fully considered by us here.
1. Joseph’s Prayer (Προσευχὴ Ἰωσήφ). For the information we possess regarding this production we are indebted above all to repeated quotations from it found in Origen. This Father speaks of it as “a writing not to be despised” (οὐκ εὐκαταφρόνητον γραφήν) and expressly states that it was in use among the Jews (παρʼ Ἑβραίοις). In the passages quoted it is Jacob who figures all through describing himself as the first-born of all living beings nay as the head of all the angels themselves. He informs us that when he was coming from Mesopotamia he met Uriel who wrestled with him and claimed to be the foremost of the angels. But he says that he corrected him and told him that he Uriel was only the eighth in rank after himself. In another passage Jacob states that he had had an opportunity of inspecting the heavenly records and that there he read the future destinies of men.
Origen In Joann. vol. ii. chap. xxv. (Opp. ed. de la Rue iv. 84; Lommatzsch i. 147): Εἰ δέ τις προσίεται καὶ τῶν παρʼ Ἑβραίοις φερομένων ἀποκρύφων τὴν ἐπιγραφομένην Ἰωσὴφ προσευχὴν ἄντικρυς τοῦτο τὸ δόγμα καὶ σαφῶς εἰρημένον ἐκεῖθεν λήψεται … Φησὶ γοῦν ὁ Ἰακώβ· “Ὁ γὰρ λαλῶν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐγὼ Ἰακὼβ καὶ Ἰσραὴλ ἄγγελος θεοῦ εἰμι ἐγὼ καὶ πνεῦμα ἀρχικόν· καὶ Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Ἰσαὰκ προεκτίσθησαν πρὸ παντὸς ἔργου· ἐγὼ δὲ Ἰακὼβ ὁ κληθεὶς ὑπὸ ἀνθρώπων Ἰακὼβ τὸ δὲ ὄνομά μου Ἰσραὴλ ὁ κληθεὶς ὑπὸ θεοῦ Ἰσραὴλ ἀνὴρ όρῶν θεὸν ὅτι ἐγὼ πρωτόγονος παντὸς ζώου ζωουμένου ὑπὀ θεοῦ.” Καὶ ἐπιφέρει· “Ἐγὼ δὲ ὅτε ἠρχόμην ἀπὸ Μεσοποταμίας τῆς Συρίας ἐξῆλθεν Οὐριὴλ ὁ ἄγγελος τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ εἶπεν ὅτι κατέβην ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ κατεσκήνωσα ἐν ἀνθρώποις· καὶ ὅτι ἐκλήθην ὀνόματι Ἰακώβ ἐζήλωσε καὶ ἐμαχέσατό μοι καὶ ἐπάλαιε πρὸς μὲ λέγων· προτερήσειν ἐπάνω τοῦ ὀνόματός μου τὸ ὄνομα αὑτοῦ καὶ τοῦ πρὸ [l. πρὸ τοῦ] παντὸς ἀγγέλου. Καὶ εἶπα αὐτῷ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ καὶ πόσος ἐστὶν ἐν υἱοῖς θεοῦ· οὐχὶ σὺ Οὐριὴλ ὄγδοος ἐμοῦ κἀγὼ Ἰσραὴλ ἀρχάγγελος δυνάμεως κυρίου καὶ ἀρχιχιλίαρχός εἰμι ἐν υἱοῖς θεοῦ; οὐχὶ ἐγὼ Ἰσραὴλ ὁ ἐν προσώπῳ θεοῦ λειτουργὸς πρῶτος καὶ ἐπεκαλεσάμην ἐν ὀνόματι ἀσβέστῳ τὸν θεόν μου.”
Origen ibid. (Lommatzsch i. 148): Ἐπὶ πλεῖον δὲ παρεξέβημεν παραλαβόντες τὸν περὶ Ἰακὼβ λόγον καὶ μαρτυράμενοι ἡμῖν οὐκ εὐκαταφρόνητον γραφήν.
Origen Fragm. comment. in Genes.[2408] vol. iii. chap. ix. toward the end (ed. de la Rue ii. 15; Lommatzsch viii. 30 sq. = Euseb. Praep. evang. vi. 11. 64 ed. Gaisford): Διόπερ ἐν τῇ προσευχῇ τοῦ Ἰωσὴφ δύναται οὕτω νοεῖσθαι τὸ λεγόμενον ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἰακώβ· “Ἀνέγνων γὰρ ἐν ταῖς πλαξὶ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ὅσα συμβήσεται ὑμῖν καὶ τοῖς υἱοῖς ὑμῶν." Comp. also ibid. chap. xii. toward the end of the chapter (ed. de la Rue ii. 19; Lommatzsch viii. 38) where the contents of the somewhat lengthened fragment first quoted are given in an abridged form.
[2408] The large fragment from the third book of the Commentary on Genesis is to be found in the Philocalia chap. xxiii. (Origenis Opp. ed. Lommatzsch vol. xxv.) and the most of it also in Eusebius Praep. evang. vi. 11.
Fabricius Codex pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 761-771. Dillmann art. “Pseudepigraphen” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. xii. 362.
2. The book entitled Eldad and Modad. This was a writing that was circulated under the name of two Israelites called אֶלדָּד and מֵידָד (Sept. Ἐλδὰδ καὶ Μωδάδ) who according to Numbers 11:26-29 uttered certain predictions in the camp during the march through the wilderness. Besides being mentioned in the lists of the Apocrypha this book is also quoted in the Shepherd of Hermas and that as a genuine prophetical work. According to the Targum of Jonathan on Numbers 11:26-29 the predictions of the two personages here in question had reference chiefly to Magog’s final attack upon the congregation of Israel. But whether this may be regarded as indicating what the theme of our book is likely to have been is extremely doubtful.
Hermas Pastor Vis. ii. 3: Ἐγγὺς κύριος τοῖς ἐπιστρεφομένοις ὡς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἐλδὰδ καὶ Μωδάτ τοῖς προφητεύσασιν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ τῷ λαῷ.
The Targum of Jonathan on the Pentateuch is given in the fourth volume of the London Polyglot along with a Latin translation. Comp. also Beer “Eldad und Medad im Pseudojonathan” (Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1857 pp. 346-350). Weber System der altsynagogalen palästinischen Theologie 1880 p. 370.
Fabricius Codex pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 801-804. Dillmann art. “Pseudepigraphen” in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. xii. 363. Cotelier Hilgenfeld and Harnack in their editions of the Shepherd of Hermas notes on Vision ii. 3.
3. The Apocalypse of Elijah. The prophet Elijah has this in common with Enoch. that like him he was taken up to heaven without dying. Consequently in the legends of the saints he is often associated with Enoch (for the literature of this see Enoch. p. 70) and like this latter could not fail to be regarded as a peculiarly suitable medium through which to communicate heavenly revelations. A writing bearing his name is mentioned in the Constitut. apostol. vi. 16 and in the patristic quotations simply as an Apocryphum. According to the more exact titles as given in the lists of the Apocrypha (Ἡλία προφήτου in Nicephorus Ἡλίου ἀποκάλυψις in the anonymous list) and in Jerome (see below) this book was a somewhat short apocalyptic work consisting according to the Stichometry of Nicephorus of 316 verses. It is often mentioned by Origen and subsequent ecclesiastical writers as being the source of a quotation made by Paul and which cannot be traced to any part of the Old Testament (1 Corinthians 2:9 : καθὼς γέγραπται· ἃ ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ εἶδεν καὶ οὖς οὐκ ἤκουσεν καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἀνέβη κ.τ.λ.). No doubt Jerome strongly protests against the notion that Paul is here quoting an apocryphal work. But the thing is not at all incredible for do we not find that the Book of Enoch has also been undoubtedly quoted by the author of the Epistle of Jude? If that be so then this circumstance serves at the same time to prove the early existence and Jewish origin of the Apocalypse of Elijah. This same passage that is quoted in First Corinthians is likewise quoted by Clemens Romanus chap. xxxiv. fin. Now as non-canonical quotations occur elsewhere in Clement it is just possible that he in like manner has made use of the Apocalypse of Elijah. At the same time it is more likely that he has borrowed the quotation from the First Epistle to the Corinthians. According to Epiphanius the passage Ephesians 5:14 (ἔγειρε ὁ καθεύδων καὶ ἀνάστα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν καὶ ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ Χριστός) was also taken from our Apocryphum. But seeing that Origen makes no mention of this in his collations of passages of this sort that statement is of a very questionable character and probably rests upon some confusion or other. According to Euthalius Ephesians 5:14 was taken from an apocryphal work that bore the name of Jeremiah.
Origen Comment. ad Matth. xxvii. 9 (de la Rue iii. 916; Lommatzsch v. 29): Et apostolus scripturas quasdam secretorum profert sicut dicit alicubi: “quod oculus non vidit nec auris audivit” (1 Corinthians 2:9); in nullo enim regulari libro hoc positum invenitur nisi in secretis Eliae prophetae. Comp. further Comment. ad Matt. xxiii. 37 (de la Rue iii. 848; Lommatzsch iv. 237 sqq.) where in connection with the saying of Christ that Jerusalem killed the prophets Origen observes that the Old Testament records only a single instance of a prophet being put to death in Jerusalem and then proceeds to add: Propterea videndum ne forte oporteat ex libris secretioribus qui apud Judaeos feruntur ostendere verbum Christi et non solum Christi sed etiam discipulorum ejus (for example such further statements as Hebrews 11:37) … Fertur ergo in scripturis non manifestis serratum esse Jesaiam et Zachariam occisum et Ezechielem. Arbitror autem circuisse in melotis [ἐν μηλωταῖς Hebrews 11:37] in pellibis caprinis Eliam qui in solitudine et in montibus vagabatur. And so among the other passages that go to prove that apocryphal books are sometimes referred to in the New Testament we should also include 1 Corinthians 2:9. Lastly Origen goes on to observe: Oportet ergo caute considerare ut nec omnia secreta quae feruntur in nomine sanctorum suscipiamus propter Judaeos qui forte ad destructionem veritatis scripturarum nostrarum quaedam finxerunt confirmantes dogmata falsa nec omnia abjiciamus quae pertinent ad demonstrationem scripturarum nostrarum. The whole connection here plainly shows that it is exclusively Jewish Apocrypha that Origen has in view.
Euthalius in his learned statistical work on the Epistles of Paul (458 A.D.) likewise traces 1 Corinthians 2:9 to the Apocalypse of Elijah (Zaccagni Collectanea monumentorum veterum Romae 1698 p. 556 = Gallandi Biblioth. patrum x. 258). In this he is followed by Syncellus ed. Dindorf i. 48 and an anonymous list of quotations in Paul’s Epistles which is given (a) by Montfaucon (Diarium Italicum p. 212 sq. and Bibliotheca Bibliothecarum i. 195) from a Codex Basilianus and (b) by Cotelier (in his edition of the Apostolic Fathers note on Constitut. apost. vi. 16) from two Parisian manuscripts.
Jerome Epist. 57 ad Pammachium chap. ix. (Opp. ed. Vallarsi i. 314): Pergamus ad apostolum Paulum. Scribit ad Corinthios: Si enim cognovissent Dominum gloriae etc. (1 Corinthians 2:8-9).… Solent in hoc loco apocryphorum quidam deliramenta sectari et dicere quod de apocalypsi Eliae testimonium sumtum sit etc. (Jerome then traces the quotation to Isaiah 44:3). Idem Comment. in Jesaijam lxiv. 3 [al. lxiv. 4] (Vallarsi iv. 761): Parapbrasim hujus testimonii quasi Hebraeus ex Hebraeis assumit apostolus Paulus de authenticis libris in epistola quam scribit ad Corinthios (1 Corinthians 2:9) non verbum ex verbo reddens quod facere omnino contemnit sed sensuum exprimens veritatem quibus utitur ad id quod voluerit roborandum. Unde apocryphorum deliramenta conticeant quae ex occasione hujus testimonii ingeruntur ecclesiis Christi.… Ascensio enim Isaiae et Apocalypsis Eliae hoc habent testimonium.
Clemens Rom. chap. xxxiv. fin.: λέγει γάρ· Ὀφθαλμὸς οὐκ εἶδεν καὶ οὖς οὐκ ἤκουσεν καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίαν ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἀνέβη ὅσα ἡτοίμασεν τοῖς ὑπομένουσιν αὐτόν (in St. Paul: τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν). Comp. the note on this in Gebhardt and Harnack’s edition. The passage is also frequently quoted elsewhere in patristic literature and was a special favourite with the Gnostics; see Hilgenfeld Die apostol. Väter p. 102; Ritschl Die Entstehung der altkathol. Kirche p. 267 sq.
Epiphanius Haer. xlii. p. 372 ed. Petav. (Dindorf ii. 388): “Διὸ λέγει ἔγειρε ὁ καθεύδων καὶ ἀνάστα ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν καὶ ἐπιφαύσει σοι ὁ Χριστός” (Ephesians 5:14). Πόθεν τῷ ἀποστόλῳ τὸ “διὸ καὶ λέγει” ἀλλὰ ἀπὸ τῆς παλαιᾶς δῆλον διαθήκη; τοῦτο δὲ ἐμφέρεται παρὰ τῷ Ἠλίᾳ. Hippolytus De Christo et Antichr. chap. lxv. quotes the same passage (Ephesians 5:14) with the formula ὁ προφήτης λέγει and with a slight deviation in regard to the terms (ἐξεγέρθητι instead of ἀνάστα). It also occurs with the same deviation and with the formula ἡ γραφὴ λέγει in an utterance of the Naasenes quoted by Hippolytus (Philosophum. v. 7 p. 146 ed. Duncker). But both those quotations are undoubtedly to be traced simply to the Epistle to the Ephesians (Hilgenfeld Nov. Test. extra canonem receptum 2nd ed. iv. 74 thinks though without any distinct ground for doing so that they may have been taken from the Apocalypse of Peter). According to Euthalius Ephesians 5:14 formed part of an Apocryphum that bore the name of Jeremiah (Zaccagni Collectanea monumentorum veterum p. 561 = Gallandi Biblioth. patr. x. 260). Similarly Syncellus ed. Dindorf i. 48 and the above-mentioned anonymous list of Paul’s quotations from the Scriptures which simply reproduces Euthalius. We may safely venture to assume that this Apocryphum bearing the name of Jeremiah was itself of Christian origin.
The work by the Hellenist Eupolemus περὶ τῆς Ἠλίου προφητείας (Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 30) has nothing to do with our Apocryphum. On this see sec. 33. Isr. Levi endeavours to make out the probable existence of a Hebrew Apocalypse of Elijah on the strength of two Talmudic passages (Sanhedrin 97b; Joma 19b) where certain utterances of Elijah regarding questions of Messianic dogma happen to be quoted (Revue des études juives vol. i. 1880 p. 108 sqq.). On a passage of this sort from post-Talmudic times see Jellinek Bet-ha-Midrash vol. iii.
Fabricius Cod. pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 1070-1086. Lücke Einleitung in die Offenbarung des Johannes 2nd ed. p. 235 sq. Bleek Stud. u. Krit. 1853 p. 330 sq. Dillmann in Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. xii. 359. The commentaries on 1 Corinthians 2:9 and Ephesians 5:14.
4. The Apocalypse of Zephaniah. Apart from the Stichometry of Nicephorus and the anonymous list of the Apocrypha (see p. 126) all we know of this writing is from a quotation in Clement of Alexandria.
Clemens Alex. Strom. v. 11. 77: Ἆρʼ οὐχ ὅμοια ταῦτα τοῖς ὑπὸ Σοφονία λεχθεῖσι τοῦ προφήτου; “καὶ ἀνέλαβέν με πνεῦμα καὶ ἀνήνεγκέν με εἰς οὐρανὸν πέμπτον καὶ ἐθεώρουν ἀγγέλους καλουμένους κυρίους καὶ τὸ διάδημα αὐτῶν ἐπικείμενον ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ ἦν ἑκάστου αὐτῶν ὁ θρόνος ἑπταπλασίων φωτὸς ἡλίου ἀνατέλλοντος οἰκοῦντας ἐν ναοῖς σωτηρίας καὶ ὑμνοῦντας θεὸν ἄρρητον ὕψιστον.”
Fabricius Cod. pseudepigr. Vet. Test. i. 1140 sq. Dillmann in Herzog’s Real-Enc. xii. 360.
The Apocalypses we have just been considering are far from exhausting the number of them that were in circulation in the early Church. At the end of the Stichometry of Nicephorus mention is made of ψευδεπίγραφα of Baruch Habakkuk Ezekiel and Daniel. As we have already stated Euthalius was acquainted with an Apocryphum bearing the name of Jeremiah. Jerome mentions a Hebrew Apocryphum bearing this prophet’s name in which Matthew 27:9 occurred.[2409] But as regards all these and many others besides it is extremely doubtful for various reasons and chiefly from their appearing somewhat late in the Christian Church whether they are of Jewish origin. It is obvious that the four last-mentioned pseudepigraphs are to be regarded as an addition at some subsequent period to the original Stichometry of Nicephorus.
[2409] Jerome ad Matth. xxvii. 9 (Vallarsi vii. 1 228): Legi nuper in quodam Hebraiço volumine quod Nazaraenae sectae mihi Hebraeus obtulit Jeremiae apocryphum in quo haec ad verbum scripta reperi.