The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (2 vols)

THE APOCRYPHA AND PSEUDEPIGRAPHA

OF THE

OLD TESTAMENT

IN ENGLISH

WITH INTRODUCTIONS AND CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES TO THE SEVERAL BOOKS

EDITED IN CONJUNCTION WITH MANY SCHOLARS BY

R. H. CHARLES, D.Litt., D.D.

FELLOW OF MERTON COLLEGE, OXFORD

FELLOW OF THE BRITISH ACADEMY

VOLUME I

APOCRYPHA

OXFORD

AT THE CLARENDON PRESS

CONTRIBUTORS TO VOLUME I

Ball, C. J., M.A., D.Litt., Queen’s College, University Lecturer in Assyriology, Oxford: The Epistle of Jeremy.

Bennett, W. H., Litt.D., D.D., Professor of Old Testament Exegesis, Hackney College, London: The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Children.

Box, G. H., M.A., formerly Scholar of St. John’s College, Oxford; Lecturer in Rabbinical Hebrew, King’s College, London; Rector of Sutton, Beds.: Sirach (along with Dr. Oesterley).

Cook, S. A., M.A., Ex-Fellow and Lecturer in the Comparative Study of Religions, and Lecturer in Hebrew and Aramaic, Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge: 1 Esdras.

Cowley, A. E., M.A., D.Litt., Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford: Judith.

Davies, T. Witton, B.A., Ph.D., Professor of Semitic Languages, University College, Bangor: Bel and the Dragon.

Emmet, Cyril W., M.A., formerly Scholar of Corpus Christi College, Oxford; Rector of West Hendred: 3 Maccabees.

Gregg, J. A. F., D.D., Archbishop King’s Professor in Divinity, Trinity College, Dublin: The Additions to Esther.

Holmes, Samuel, M.A., Lecturer in Theology, Jesus College, Oxford: The Wisdom of Solomon.

Kay, D. M., B.D., Professor of Oriental Languages, St. Andrews: Susanna.

Moffatt, James, D.D., Yates Professor of New Testament Greek and Exegesis, Mansfield College, Oxford: 2 Maccabees.

Oesterley, W. O. E., D.D. (Cambridge): 1 Maccabees, Sirach (jointly with G. H. Box).

Ryle, Right Rev. Bishop Herbert E., D.D., Dean of Westminster; formerly Hulsean Professor of Divinity, Cambridge, and Bishop of Exeter and Winchester: The Prayer of Manasses.

Simpson, D. C., M.A., Lecturer in Theology and Hebrew, St. Edmund Hall, and Reader in Hebrew and Old Testament in Manchester College, Oxford: Tobit.

Whitehouse, O. C., M.A., D.D., Theological Tutor, Cheshunt College, Cambridge: 1 Baruch.

INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME I

§ 1. The origin of the term apocryphal.

How the term ‘Apocryphal Books’ (ἀπόκρυφα βιβλία) arose has not yet been determined. It did not, as Zahn (Gesch. des Neutestamentlichen Kanons I. i. 123 sq.), Schurer, Porter, N. Schmidt, and others maintain, originate in the Late Hebrew phrase

ספרים גנוזים, ‘hidden books.’ But Talmudic literature knows nothing of such a class. The Hebrew word ganas (

גנז) does not mean ‘to hide’, but ‘to store away’ things in themselves precious. Indeed, so far is it from being a technical term in reference to non-Canonical writings, that it is most frequently used in reference to the Canonical Scriptures themselves. When writings were wholly without the pale of the Sacred books—such as those of the heretics or Samaritans—they were usually designated ḥiṣonim, i.e. ‘outside’ (Sanh. x. 1

ספרים חצונים and

ספרי המינים). To this class the Apocrypha were never relegated, save Sirach, according to a statement found only in Sanh. x. 1 in the Palestinian Talmud, where it is stated that ‘whoso reads the outside books would have no part in the life to come’. But it is clear that there is some error either in the text or the interpretation; for Sirach is very frequently cited by the Rabbis (see the Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus, Cowley and Neubauer, pp. xix-xxx), and two passages of it (Sir. vii. 10 in Erubin 65a and xiii. 16 in Baba Qama 92 b) are cited as belonging to the Hagiographa. The facts show that Sirach was read—read at all events for private edification though not in the synagogues.

§ 2. Extent of the Jewish apocryphal writings.

We are not here of course concerned with all Jewish apocryphal writings, but with those which were written between 200 B.C. and A.D. 120. The most notable of these in the past centuries were those which we may define as the Apocrypha Proper, i.e.

1 Esdras

2 Esdras

Tobit

Judith

Additions to Esther

Wisdom of Solomon

Ecclesiasticus or Sirach

1 Baruch

Epistle of Jeremy

Additions to Daniel—The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Children

Additions„ to Daniel—„Susanna

Additions„ to Daniel—„Bel and the Dragon

Prayer of Manasses

1 Maccabees

2 Maccabees

If we compare the collection of the Sacred books as they are found in the Hebrew Old Testament, the LXX, and the Vulgate, we shall find that the Apocrypha Proper constitutes the excess of the Vulgate over the Hebrew Old Testament, and that this excess is borrowed from the LXX. But the official Vulgate (1592) does not include 1 and 2 Esdras (i.e. 4 Ezra in this edition) and the Prayer of Manasses among the Canonical Scriptures, but prints them as an appendix after the New Testament. The Roman Church excludes them from the Canon. Only 1 Esdras is found in the LXX. That 2 Esdras (i.e. 4 Ezra) was not incorporated can only have been due to an accident. Further, it is to be observed that, whereas 3 and 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151 are found in most manuscripts of the LXX, they are absent from the Vulgate and the Apocrypha Proper.

Thus the difference between the Protestant Canon and that of Rome represents the difference between the Canon of the Palestinian and the Alexandrian Jews. This difference is not due, as it was thought at one time, to the difference in the language of the originals—a view which appears as early as the controversy of Africanus with Origen; for, as we are now aware, the bulk of the Apocrypha was originally written in Hebrew.

But besides the Apocrypha Proper there was a vast body of literature in circulation in Judaism to which is now generally attached the term ‘Pseudepigrapha’, i.e. books written between 300 B.C. and A.D. 120 under the names of ancient worthies in Israel. Since these will be briefly dealt with in the Introduction to vol. ii we shall not discuss them here.

To the Apocrypha Proper in this volume we have added 3 Maccabees—a quasi-historical work—which is found in very many manuscripts of the LXX. It might have been advisable to have included also Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, which was written originally in Hebrew and possibly soon after A.D. 70. But this work has not yet been critically edited. Of lost apocrypha we might mention the History of Johannes Hyrcanus, mentioned in 1 Macc. xvi. 23, 24, Jannes and Mambres (i.e. Jambres), Book of Joseph and Asenath.

§ 3. Various meanings of the term ‘apocryphal’.

(1) In its earliest use this term ( ἀπόκρυφος) was applied in a laudatory signification to writings which were withheld from public knowledge because they were vehicles of mysterious or esoteric wisdom which was too sacred or profound to be disclosed to any save the initiated. In this sense it is found in a magical book of Moses, which has been edited by Dieterich (Abraxas 169) and may be as old as the first century A.D. This book is entitled ‘A sacred secret Book of Moses’ ( Μωυσέως ἱερὰ βίβλος ἀπόκρυφος).

But we have still earlier indications of the existence and nature of the Apocrypha in this sense. The Book of Daniel is represented as withheld from public knowledge until the time came for its publication: xii. 4, ‘But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, even unto the time of the end.’ The writer of 1 Enoch speaks of his revelations as designed not for his own, i. 2, cviii. 1, but for the elect of later generations: xciii. 10

And at its close shall be elected

The elect righteous of the eternal plant of righteousness,

To receive sevenfold instruction concerning; all His creation.

Similarly, the writer of the Assumption of Moses enjoins that his book is to be preserved for a later period, i. 16–17. That with large bodies of the Jews this esoteric literature was as highly or more highly treasured than the Canonical Scriptures is clear from the claims made by the Rabbis on behalf of their oral, which was originally in essence an esoteric, tradition, since it was not to be committed to writing. Though they insisted on the exclusive canonicity of the twenty-four books, they claimed to be the possessors of an oral tradition that not only overshadowed but frequently displaced the written Law. In 4 Ezra xiv. 44 sq. we have a categorical statement as to the superior worth of this esoteric literature: ‘So in forty days were written ninety-four books. And it came to pass when the forty days were fulfilled, that the Most High spake unto me saying: The twenty-four books that thou hast written publish, that the worihy and the unworthy may read (them): But the seventy last thou shalt keep to deliver to the wise among thy people.

For in them is the spring of understanding,

The fountain of wisdom,

And the stream of knowledge.’

In a like laudatory sense Gregory of Nyssa reckons the New Testament Apocalypse as ἐν ἀποκρύφοις (Oratio in suam ordinationem, III. 549: Ed. Migne).

(2) But the word was applied to writings that were withheld from public circulation, not on the ground of their transcendent worth, but because their value was confessedly secondary or questionable. Thus Origen differentiates writings that were read in public worship from apocryphal works (Comm. in Matt. x. 18, xiii. 57). This use became current, and prepared the way for the third and unfavourable sense of the word.

(3) The word came to be applied to what was false, spurious, or heretical. This meaning appears also in Origen, Prolog. in Cant. Cantic.: Lommatzsch, xiv. 325).

§ 4. The attitude of the Christian Church to the Apocrypha.

The degree of estimation in which the apocryphal books have been held in the Church has varied with age and place.

(1) The Greek Fathers such as Origen and Clement, who used the Greek Bible, which included these books, frequently cite them as ‘scripture’, ‘Divine scripture’, ‘inspired’, or the like. Later Greek Fathers rejected in various ways this conception of the Canon, but it was accepted and maintained in the West by St. Augustine. Where the Greek differed from the Hebrew Augustine held that the difference was due to Divine inspiration, and that this difference was to be regarded as a sign that in the passage in question an allegorical—not a literal—interpretation was to be looked for. Since he habitually used a Latin Bible, which embraced the Apocrypha, he appealed to the authority of these books as of the rest of the Scriptures. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and that of Carthage (A.D. 397), at both of which Augustine was present respectively as a presbyter and a bishop, drew up a list of Canonical writings, which, though formed by Latin-speaking bishops, was the chief authority on which the Council of Trent based its own decision. In fact the list authoritatively issued by the Council of Hippo and that of Trent agree in nearly every respect, save that the Tridentine divines appear to have misunderstood the meaning of 1 and 2 Esdras in the list of the African Council. That in this list 1 Esdras meant the apocryphal book which Augustine acknowledged as Scripture (De Civ. Dei, xviii. 36) and 2 Esdras meant the Canonical Ezra and Nehemiah there is no reason for doubt; but the Tridentine divines, taking 1 Esdras as = the Canonical Ezra and 2 Esdras as = the Canonical Nehemiah; through a misunderstanding declared 1 Esdras (i.e. the apocryphal Esdras) apocryphal.

(2) On the other hand, teachers connected with Palestine and familiar with the Hebrew Canon, like Africanus and Jerome, declared all books outside the Hebrew Canon as apocryphal.

(3) Alongside these two opposing views arose a third which held that, though these books were not to be put in the same rank as those in the Hebrew collection, they nevertheless had their value for moral uses, and should be read in the Church services. Hence they were called ‘ecclesiastical’—a designation that is found first in Rufinus (ob. A.D. 410). Notwithstanding many variations in the attitude of different authorities and councils these three opinions maintained their ground down to the Reformation.

At the Reformation the above ecclesiastical usages were transformed into articles of belief, which may be regarded as characteristic of the Churches by which they were adopted. As we have already remarked, the Council of Trent adopted the Canon of the Council of Hippo and of Augustine, declaring: ‘If any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate … let him be anathema.’ All the Apocrypha except 1 Esdras, 4 Ezra, and the Prayer of Manasses belonging to the Apocrypha Proper were declared Canonical.

On the other hand, the Protestant Churches have universally declared their adhesion to the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament. Yet amongst these a milder and a severer view prevailed. While in some Confessions, i.e. the Westminster, it is decreed that they are not ‘to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings’, a more favourable view is expressed regarding them in many other quarters; e.g. in the preface prefixed to them in the Genevan Bible: ‘As books proceeding from godly men (they) were received to be read for the advancement and furtherance of the knowledge of history and for the instruction of godly manners: which books declare that at all times God had an especial care of His Church, and left them not utterly destitute of teachers and means to confirm them in the hope of the promised Messiah’; and in the Sixth Article of the Church of England: ‘the other books the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners.’

In addition to the spiritual and moral service rendered by these books, the modern student recognizes that without them it is absolutely impossible to explain the course of religious development between 200 B.C. and A.D. 100. In this respect the Apocrypha is to be regarded as embracing the Pseudepigrapha as well. If the Canonical and Apocryphal Books are compared in reference to the question of inspiration, no unbiased scholar could have any hesitation in declaring that the inspiration of such a book as Wisdom or the Testaments of the XII Patriarchs is incomparably higher than that of Esther.

§ 5. Editions—partial or complete—of the Apocrypha.

Fritzsche und Grimm, Kurzgef. exeget. Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des A. T., 1851–60. Fritzsche, Lief. I, 3 Esra, Zusätze zu Esther und Daniel, Gebet Manasses, Baruch, Brief Jer.; II. Tobit und Judith; V. Sirach. Grimm, Lief. III, 1 Makk.; IV. 2–4 Makk.; VI. Wisdom.

E. C. Bissell, The Apocrypha of the Old Testament, with historical Introductions and Notes Critical and Explanatory, New York, 1880. This work contains the Apocrypha Proper (though 2 Esdras (i.e. 4 Ezra) is added in an Appendix); also 3 Macc., and a summary of 4 Macc. In a second Appendix a short account is given of some of the Pseudepigrapha.

Wace, Apocrypha (in the ‘Speaker’s Commentary’), 2 vols., London, 1888. This edition is furnished with a good introduction by Salmon. The various books are edited by different English scholars.

O. Zöckler, Die Apokr. des A. T. nebst einem Anhang über die Pseudepigraphenliteralur, 1891.

Ball, The Ecclesiastical or Deutero-Canonical Books of the Old Testament, commonly called the Apocrypha (1892).

Kautzsch, Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments, 2 vols., Tübingen, 1900. This is the best work that has hitherto appeared on this literature as a whole. But many parts of it are already antiquated.

§ 6. General literature dealing directly or indirectly with the period of this literature.

Weber, System der altsynagogalen palästinischen Theologie (1880). The last edition of this work was published under the title Lehre des Talmuds, 1897.

Bacher, Die Aggada der Tannaiten, 2 vols., 1884-90.

Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. ii, Das Ende des jüdischen Staatswesens (by O. Holtzmann). 1888.

Drummond, Philo Judaeus, 2 vols., 1888.

Bois, Essai sur les origines de la philosophie judéo-Alexandrine, 1890.

Toy, Judaism and Christianity, 1890.

Smith, G. A., Historical Geography of the Holy Land, 1894, 1901 7.

Mahaffy, The Empire of the Ptolemies, 1895.

Bertholet, Die Stellung der Israeliten und der Juden zu den Fremden, 1896.

Schechter, Studies in Judaism, 1896.

Cheyne, Jewish Religious Life after the Exile, 1898.

Streane, The Age of the Maccabees, 1898.

Kent, A History of the Jewish People, Part III, 1899.

Wellhausen, Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte 5, 1901.

Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes 3, 1898–1901.

Bevan, The House of Seleucus, 2 vols., 1902.

Volz, Judische Eschatologie von Daniel bis Aqiba, 1903.

Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeilalter, 1903, 1906 2.

Baldensperger, Die Messianisch-Apokalyptische Hoffnungen des Judenthums, 1903.

Porter, The Messages of the Apocalyptical Writers, 1905.

Friedlander, Die religiösen Bewegungen innerhalb des Judenthums im Zeitalter Jesu, 1905.

Marti, Geschichte der Israelitischen Religion 5, 1907. See Sections V and VI.

Oesterley and Box, The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue, 1907.

Kent, The Sermons, Epistles, and Apocalypses of Israel’s Prophets from the Beginning of the Assyrian Period to the End of the Maccabean Struggle, 1910.

H. Pentin, International Journal of Apocrypha.

ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA TO VOLUME I

P. 60 (1 Macc.), l. 28 from bottom, delete comma after ‘although’

P. 99, l. 29 from bottom, read ‘v. 25’ for ‘v. 25’

P. 118, l. 20 from bottom, read ‘Sion’ for ‘Zion’

P. 123, l. 3 from top, read ‘enemies” for ‘enemies’

P. 174. The evidence referred to in § 3 will be published in the J. T. S., July, 1913, under the title: ‘Original Text of Tobit’.

P. 197 (Tobit), l. 26 from top, read ‘eternal’ for ‘external’

P. 534. To the literature add ‘Goodrick, The Book of Wisdom, 1913’—a very valuable commentary.

P. 559 (Wisdom). In xv. 5 for ‘leadeth fools into lust’ (which gives the sense well) render more literally ‘for fools leadeth into lust’.

P. 579 (1 Baruch), l. 25 from bottom, read ‘130 A.D.’ for ‘130 B.C.’

THE SIBYLLINE ORACLES

Introduction

§ 1. Sibylline Oracles in General.

The collection of verses known as the Sibylline Oracles was originally comprised in fifteen books and various fragments. Three books (ix, x and xv) are entirely missing, and there are gaps in some of those that remain, but with a total of some 4,240 lines their bulk is still very considerable. The greater part of this collection, however, is late and of comparatively little intrinsic worth, and the present study deals only with those of the fragments which are preserved in Theophilus ad Autolycum, and together form a kind of prelude or Proem, and with the earlier books iii, iv and v. But it will be necessary to give some preliminary sketch of the problem presented by the Sibylline literature in general.

It is a common feature of early peoples to look for oracular utterances of divine or quasi-divine inspiration from the mouth of old women, such as are represented by the witch of Endor in the Old Testament, the Pythian priestess among the Greeks, and, possibly, the nymph Egeria among the Romans; and it added immensely to the prestige of such utterances if they were ambiguous or difficult to understand. It was from a common feeling such as this that the Sibylline Oracles took their rise, but they are pre-eminent among all similar literature in the authority which they wielded and the fascination which they exercised over the minds of men. Their power they owed chiefly to their claim to remote antiquity, and to the obscurity in which they were always wrapped. Of Greek origin, and written principally, if not exclusively, in Greek, it was at Rome where they were chiefly venerated and had the most direct influence. In times of special difficulty they were frequently consulted, apparently with satisfactory result. There can be little doubt that the ingenuity of the custodians of the Sibylline rolls supplied sometimes a suitable response to the question under discussion.

A brief account of these oracles among the Romans is given below, but it is not with them that we have to deal. They have nearly all perished, and have left little more than a name and a history behind. But their great interest lies in the fact that the success which they achieved in their day led Jews and, later, Christians, seeking to defend or propagate their faith, to compose or adapt verses which they put forth under the name and authority of the ancient mysterious prophetesses known as the Sibyls, and in which lessons of monotheism and the like were put forth as the real teaching of the inspired teachers of the most hoar antiquity. With the morality of such a proceeding we have not here to deal: it is closely bound up with the question of the ancient idea of copyright, which was, as is obvious, radically different from ours. But of the success of this method of proselytising there can be little doubt, and indeed most Christian writers down to the time of Augustine accept without question the genuineness of these verses.

The Sibylline Oracles, therefore, which we possess are a compilation of old and new oracles worked up by Jewish or Christian authors who lived at various times between c. 160 B.C. and the fifth century, or even later, A.D. Their chief interest for us lies in (i) their date and interpretation, (ii) their relation to other apocalyptic literature, (iii) the side-lights thrown on history.

The above brief sketch must now be somewhat amplified, in order to explain the peculiar authority exercised by this form of oracle over Pagan, Jewish and Christian thought alike. And it will be necessary to go into a little more detail as to the Sibyl herself and the history of the Sibylline literature.

§ 2. The Sibyl.

The name ‘Sibyl’ first attracts attention. It has been maintained by some scholars (especially by R. H. Klausen in Aeneas und die Penaten) that the word is not a proper name but implies a sound issuing from a subterranean oracle, conveyed either by the rustling of the wind, as in the case of the oaks of Dodona, or by the splash of water. But there seems to be little justification for this, and it is better to follow the universal testimony of antiquity in regarding Σίβυλλα as a proper name. Nor is there any inherent improbability in deriving the name from Θεός and βουλή, for there is sufficient evidence to show that among the Aeolians and Dorians Θεός appeared as Ζιός, and in an inscription from Cumae βολλᾷ is found for βουλῇ. Σίβυλλα, therefore, means the counsel of God (cf. Lact. Div. Inst. i. 6).

Early writers know of only one Sibyl. So Heraclitus (ap. Plutarch), Aristophanes; Plato, and Aristotle. But in course of time many more were recognized, though the exact number differs widely among various writers. The earliest mention of a plurality of Sibyls seems to emanate from a certain sophist named Sopater, who is quoted by Photius as the author of a work on Prophetic women ‘which include the so-called Sibyls’. Other writers, e. g. Solinus and Ausonius, recognize at least three: Pausanias and Aelian speak of four: Clement of Alexandria mentions nine, and Varro’s list (cf. Lact. l. c.) includes ten. The names given to the various Sibyls vary considerably, but there is convincing testimony that the earliest and most famous was the Erythraean, of whom Clement preserves a detailed but somewhat confused account. He gives her date as prior to Orpheus, whereas others, including Augustine, make her contemporary with the siege of Troy, and Suidas puts her nearly five centuries later. The Erythraeans believed her to be the offspring of a shepherd and a nymph. According to an early and widespread tradition she was connected with Apollo. This is referred to in ‘Constantine’s’ Oratio ad Sanctos, preserved in Eusebius, where it is said that she was at an early age consecrated by her parent against her will to the temple of that god. At his hands she is said to have met her death after surviving nine generations of men, and her grave-stone was for long shown on the Erythraean shore, while her image or token is regularly found on the coins of that town.

Before long the claims of Erythrae to be the birthplace of the Sibyl were challenged by Marpessus, a town said by Pausanias to lie in Trojan Ida. Erythrae based her claims on the testimony of the Sibyl herself as contained in the lines (Orac. in Pausanias x. 12. 3):

εἰμὶ δ’ ἐγὼ γεγαυῖα μέσον θνητῆς τε Θεᾶς τε νύμφης τ’ ἀθανάτης, πατρὸς δ’ ααὖ κητοφάγοιο μητρόθεν Ἰδογενὴς, πατρὶς δέ μοί ἐστιν Ἐρυθρή.

But Marpessus alleged that Ἐρυθρή was merely an adjective, and that the next line,

Μαρπησσός, μητρὸς ἱερή, ποταμὸς δ’ Ἀϊδωνεύς,

had been suppressed by the Erythraeans.

Connected alike with Erythrae and Marpessus is the Sibyl of Cumae, whose fame early rivalled that of Erythrae. Justin Martyr paid a visit to Cumae, and relates how he saw there the cave made out of the single massive rock from which the oracles were given, and the three cisterns in which the Sibyl was said to wash. It was this Sibyl who, in the famous story told by Varro and Livy, came to Rome and offered the nine fateful books to Tarquin, and on being refused her price came back with six books and then with three. Various notices of her are preserved by Virgil and Ovid. The former represents her as having lived 700 years and having 300 yet to run, while Ovid relates that being offered by Apollo any boon she chose, she took up a handful of sand and asked that she might live as many years as there were grains in it.

These are the more famous Sibyls. It will not be necessary to do more than enumerate the various others connected with Tibur, Samos, Colophon, Rhodes, Ephesus, Babylonia, Egypt, Libya, and Sicily.

§ 3. The Earliest Sibylline Verses.

The first reference to the oracles of Sibyls is found in a quotation from Heraclitus, preserved in Plutarch (De Pyth. Or. 709 C): he says that the poems contained many gloomy matters, and specifies ‘many revolutions and upheavals of Greek cities, many appearances of barbarous hordes and murders of rulers’. Aristophanes mentions the Sibyl more than once and always with some tinge of respect (Pax 1095, 1116), and Plato speaks of her with reverence: Aristotle lays stress on her melancholy character and dismisses her more summarily. More details are given by Suidas, who summarizes the writings of the various Sibyls which he knows. Servius in his commentary on Virgil, Ecl. iv, mentions that the Cumaean Sibyl divided up the ages under the names of metals and showed which god was ruler in each (quis quo imperaret). But there is nothing to show exactly when collections of such verses came to be made. If we may believe the story of the Sibyl who appeared to Tarquin there was already a collection of nine books, but they must have been small in compass if a woman could carry them in the cumbrous form of rolls. It is probable that there were a great number of detached oracles, sometimes consisting of a line or two, current in the Greek-speaking world, and there may have been many private collections. After the destruction of the official Sibylline books in the burning of the Capitol in 82 B.C., a commission was dispatched to collect oracles from Sicily, Greece, and Asia Minor, and a large number were brought back (including 1,000 lines from Erythrae), from which a collection was made. After this the numbers increased so rapidly that Augustus commanded 2,000 spurious volumes to be destroyed. But with their increase in bulk their credit began to diminish, and the Emperor found it necessary to carry out a similar process of weeding.

§ 4. The Jewish Sibylline Verses.

The beginning of the Maccabean revolt revived the enthusiasm of the Jews in every department of life. Among other things the missionary side of their faith aroused greater interest, and a serious attempt was made to place its claim on intellectual grounds more clearly before the world. At the same time eschatology began to exercise more and more influence on men’s minds, and the conception of a final setting aright of all apparent injustice by the direct judgement of God appealed with increasing force to the more thoughtful of the Jews. The former tendency may be illustrated by the attempt of Aristobulus, a Jew living at the court of Ptolemy VII about 160 B.C., to prove that the best literature of Greece was in reality indebted to a large extent to Jewish inspiration: the latter point by the composition of the books of Daniel and Enoch. Both these tendencies combined to suggest to a cultivated Jew living in Egypt about the middle of the second century B.C., that, if he could use the authority of the ancient and revered Sibyl, he might by means of verses written in the Sibylline style gain a very much wider audience for the propagation of his faith. The example of the book of Daniel was in all probability before him, and he would recognize no moral fault in the use of such means, especially if collections of Sibylline Oracles were from time to time receiving large additions. His method was not pure invention: he took ancient oracles and pieced them together, adding passages of his own which breathed strong monotheism and the glorification of the Jewish people. It is probably to this unknown author that we owe the greater part of the third book. His example could hardly fail to inspire imitators both among Jews and later among Christians. Nor did the feeling of the day see anything incongruous in the ancient Sibyl denouncing idolatry and singing the praises of the happy land of Judaea. Indeed the new collection of oracles achieved very considerable success.

§ 5. The Sibyllines in later history.

The burning of the Capitol in 82 B.C. resulted in the complete destruction of the official collection of Sibylline Oracles. Seven years later the Senate dispatched three commissioners to Erythrae to fetch from thence any that could be discovered, and as a result of their efforts some 1000 verses were collected from that place while a considerable number were added from elsewhere. It is not improbable that the interest aroused by this search inspired the manufacture of many spurious oracles, some of which may have been of Jewish origin. From the materials thus collected a selection was made by the Quindecemviri, and the accepted verses were kept in greater secrecy. Nevertheless some knowledge of them was public property. Cicero (de Div. ii. 54) remarks on the art displayed in them as exemplified by their acrostic form and throws some suspicion on their genuineness. Virgil in his famous description of the Golden Age in Eclogue iv quotes from Sib. iii. 785 ff. But the publication of oracles took away the main point of their sanctity, and we find the Emperors diligent in preserving them, as far as possible, inviolate. So Augustus instituted a searching inquiry into them and destroyed all except a small collection which was stored under the base of the Palatine Apollo. A further investigation was carried out on similar lines by Tiberius.

In view of these facts, it is obvious that the wide knowledge of Sibylline verses among early Christian writers points to there having been many collections over and above the official collection of Rome. It is possible that the oracles rejected by the scrutiny of the Quindecemviri instead of being destroyed merely found a wider audience, being incorporated with various subsequent additions. Inasmuch as ‘the official collection, which was finally burned by order of Stilicho in the reign of Theodosius, was, as far as we know, never published, it would appear that the verses which we possess were all preserved in private hands.

There is no evidence that the Sibylline Oracles enjoyed any great popularity with later Jewish writers. Josephus (Ant. i. § 4) indeed alludes to Sib. iii. 97 ff., but the early appropriation of the Sibyl by Christian writers seems to have militated against extensive Jewish use. Among the early Fathers allusions and quotations are very frequent. Hermas alludes to the Sibyl in Pastor 2, § 4. Clement of Rome (cf. Justin, Resp. ad Quaest. 74) speaks of the Sibyl’s prophecy that the world should perish by fire. Justin refers without reserve to Books iii and iv, Athenagoras and Theophilus to the Proem and Book iii. Clement of Alexandria quotes freely from all the Jewish books and even represents St. Paul as appealing to the Sibyl (Strom. vi), and Celsus (ap. Orig. v, § 4) is moved to ridicule by their frequent use in Christian writers. Origen himself only once mentions the Sibyl (c. Cels v, §61), while Tertullian, though speaking of the Sibyl as anterior to all literature (ad Nat. 2), never makes use of the testimony of the Sibyl in his apologetics. Lactantius uses less reserve: he quotes freely from all the Jewish books and his writings are a perfect mine of Sibylline verses. His view of the Sibyls was that, though in themselves they were prophetesses of false gods, yet from time to time filled with Divine inspiration they poured forth precious truths. Ambrose has but one quotation from the Sibyllines: Augustine is aware of a prejudice against them, but in discussing their claims he finds nothing in them pertaining to the worship of false gods and he gravely admits the Sibyl to the number of those who belong to the City of God (de Civ. Dei xviii. 23).

§ 6. Introduction to the Jewish Books.

The two considerable fragments which are usually printed at the end of the book, together with the three lines of Fragment ii, are preserved to us in the treatise of Theophilus ad Autolycum (end of first century A.D.) in which the writer attempts to justify to an educated heathen the Christian idea of God and the doctrine of the Resurrection. From Fr. i. 30, Alexander has deduced a Christian origin for them, but their tone is rather Jewish than Christian and their main purport is to vindicate the unique sovereignty of the Holy Invisible God as against the undignified stories of polytheism on the one hand, and the worship of animals and idols on the other. In character they are closely similar to iii. 1–45 and all seem to originate from Egypt. There is no distinctive mark of date, but the Fragments are most probably prae-Christian. They are ascribed to the Erythraean Sibyl by Lactantius and Clement of Alexandria. From the way in which Theophilus introduces these lines (ad Aut. ii. 36 Σίβυλλα δέ, ἐν Ἕλλησιν καὶ ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς ἔθνεσιν γενομένη προφῆτις, ἐν ἀρχῇ τῆς προφητείας αὐτῆς ὀνειδίζει τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος λέγουσα …) the inference has been drawn that they stood originally at the beginning of the third book.

Book III has been variously divided. Friedlieb divides into three main sections 1–294: 295–488: 489–828, but these sections are not entirely homogeneous.

The following is an analysis:

1–7 is an introduction expressing the pain of the Sibyl under the Divine compulsion.

8–45 express the Jewish hatred of idolatry and give a description of the true God the Creator of the World.

46–62 an eschatological passage describing the reign of the Holy King and the destruction of the wicked. Lines 46, 47 and 52 give an indication of date, which, however, is not easy to fix. It may be as early as c. 168 B.C., at which time Rome first interfered decisively in the affairs of Egypt by the embassy of Popilius Laenas. Then the three men of l. 52 who are to afflict Rome would be, perhaps, the Gracchi. Or the date may be c. 96 B.C. when Ptolemy Apion bequeathed by will his kingdom of Cyrene to the Roman people. In this case the three men would be Marius, Sulla, and Cinna.

Or it may be as late as c. 51 B.C. when Ptolemy Auletes bequeathed his kingdom to his Roman creditors. Then the three men would be the Triumvirs, whether the First (so Volz, Jüd. Eschat., p. 47), or the Second (so Friedlieb, Intr. p. xxvii). The middle date is, on the whole, to be preferred. Alexandre would refer the ‘holy king’ of l. 49 to Vespasian and the ‘three men’ to Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, but this is quite improbable.

62–92. The destruction of Beliar: a late passage probably from the latter part of the first century A.D. Bousset, Antichrist, pp. 87, 100, considers the passage to be Jewish, but Jülicher, reviewing him in Theol. Litt.-Zeitung, 1896, maintains its Christian origin, and Geffcken is of the same opinion. The question largely turns on the meaning given to Σεβαστήνων in 63. The idea that the whole world should come under the dominion of a woman recurs in viii. 200. The most probable explanation is that the woman is Rome.

93–6. Four lines of transition usually regarded as Christian, but not necessarily so.

97–294. A section derived primarily from the Erythraean Sibyl relating to the building of Babylon, the story of the Titans and the birth of Zeus, with a short summary of history dealing specially with the history of the Jews. The antiquity of the section is attested by the references to it in Alexander Polyhistor (80–40 B.C.) and Abydenus (first or second century B.C.) and by the frequent quotations in Christian writers. There are two main marks of date: (1) the reference to the seventh king of Egypt in 192, 193 (cf. 318, 608) who is, in all probability, Ptolemy Philometor 182–146 B.C.; (2) the description of Rome in 175 ff., which would suit the years immediately following the battle of Pydna 168 A.D. A date circ. 160 A.D. would seem to be the most probable. The working up of old heathen oracles by a Jew would then be closely parallel to the attempt of Aristobulus about the same date to prove that the Old Testament was the primary source of the best works of ancient Greek literature. The Sibyllist takes not only the Erythraean Sibyl, but also extracts from the Babylonian (97–104), and perhaps the Chaldaean (218–30). But the latter section is also ascribed by Lactantius to the Erythraean Sibyl.

295–488 contain for the most part a collection of various oracles of different dates. Many of them are of a general character and cannot be historically identified. But the following passages contain some note of time.

314–18 seems to refer to the internal struggles in Egypt between Ptolemy Philometor and Ptolemy Euergetes which ended with the capture of Euergetes in Cyprus in 154 B.C.

323–33 may refer to the desecration of the Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes in 168 B.C.

350–5 probably refers to the Mithradatic war of 88–84 B.C.

388–400 is best explained as depicting the events of 162–142 B.C.

464–9 appears to have reference to the Social war of 89–88 B.C.

483–8 mentions the capture of Carthage and Corinth in 146 B.C.

The section contains some ancient oracles, e.g. 364–6; 401–30.

The passage about Alexander 381–7 is referred to by Varro as coming from the Persian Sibyl; while the Scholion on Plato, Phaedr. 244 ascribes it to the Chaldaean Sibyl.

Lines 414–33 are ascribed on the authority of Pausanias and Varro to the Erythraean Sibyl.

489–829. This long section begins with woes on various lands, and especially on Greece, which is to be subjugated by a barbarian power. Then follows praise of the Jews and a reference to the attack of Antiochus Epiphanes on Egypt in 170 B.C. (611–15). An eschatological passage comes next, leading up to the description of the coming of the Messiah, to be followed by a time of ideal peace and prosperity for the Jews. This is interrupted by a short passage (732–40), which appears to celebrate the capture of the Acra of Jerusalem from the Seleucid troops. Another Messianic passage (767–95) is followed by a short description of the signs that are to precede the end (796–808) and the book ends with an Epilogue, which in itself seems to be composite, 819–29 being apparently a later addition.

The marks of date then in this last section are as follows:—

508–11. Refers to the Gaulish invasion of Asia Minor in 280 B.C.

520–61. Subjugation of Greece especially after the capture of Corinth in 146 B.C.

573–85. Prosperity of the Jews in Maccabean times c. 140 B.C.

608–15 refer particularly to 180–179 B.C.

732–40 represent the feeling of c. 140 B.C.

It should be noticed that l. 776 bears marks of having been at least worked over by a Christian hand.

Taking the book as a whole there is no adequate reason for doubting that lines 97–819 are, with the exception of a few passages (e. g. 350–5, 464–9, 776) either composed or incorporated by a Jew, probably living in Egypt about 140 B.C. The Egyptian colouring is marked e. g. by the interest in Egyptian history, 159, 161, 314–18, 348, 608–15; but the writer has frequent references to Rome and Greece, and, to a lesser degree, to Asia Minor.

An attempt has been made (by Friedlieb) to show that lines 97–808, together with the Proem, comprised the poem that went under the name of the Erythraean Sibyl, and is said by Lactantius to comprise about one thousand lines. It is a further suggestion of Bleek that lines 1–45, 819–29 may be ascribed to the author of Books I and II. These suggestions have the merit of providing a comprehensive framework for the first three Sibylline bocks, but they cannot be regarded as more than tentative. It is probable, for instance, that iii. 97–104 comes from the Chaldaean Sibyl, or possibly a Hebrew Sibyl (Josephus, Ant. i. §4) and the frequent notice of Egypt to which reference has been made would suggest that parts at least of the poem are from another source. At the same time, it is obvious that the Erythraean Sibyl became by far the most noted, and it is quite possible that other ancient oracles which bore no special mark of authorship were collected under her name.

The fourth book does not present any such difficult problems. Its plan is fairly simple. After a description of God as the source of inspiration (1–23) the writer proceeds to draw a picture of the joy of the righteous and the fate of the ungodly (24–46). He then proposes a sketch of the history of the ten generations of the world, but after two generations he breaks off into a series of oracles against various countries and towns in the dismal Sibylline style (47–151). Then follows an eschatological passage (152–92) interrupted by an exhortation to repentance (162–78).

The book is, therefore, in all probability a unity, and its date can be fixed with considerable certainty.

107–8 speak of the restoration of Laodicea after the earthquake of 60 A.D.

115–18 speak of the internal struggles in Jerusalem during the siege in 69 A.D.

125–6 speak of the destruction of the Temple.

119–24 speak of the disappearance of Nero, the expectation of his return, and the struggles of 69 A.D., and a similar expectation recurs in 138 f.

128, 129, 143, 144 speak of a great earthquake in Cyprus, which is fixed by a notice of Eusebius in 76 A.D.

The date then is after 76 A.D., but not long after, and at a time when the stirring events of the years 69–70 were fresh in men’s minds, and the expectation of the return of Nero was real and vivid. So by general consent the book is ascribed to about the year 80 A.D.

There is some uncertainty as to whether the writer is a Jew or a Christian. In favour of the latter supposition is adduced the outlook on temples (28) and sacrifices (29), the mention of the folly of the Jews (117), and the stress laid on repentance (168). But none of these ideas would be unnatural in a thoughtful Jew of 80 A.D., and as there is nothing specifically Christian in the book, so it ends with an eschatological outlook which seems distinctly Jewish in character.

The fifth book presents problems of its own. It is obvious at once that lines 1–51 stand by themselves. They give a brief sketch of history up to the time of Hadrian, or, if l. 51 be genuine, up till the time of Marcus Aurelius.

The rest of the book consists, in the main, of the proclamation of troubles in various lands; in Egypt (52–114), Asia (115–36), Greece, Italy, and other lands (137–78), Egypt, India, Corinth, &c. (179–227), Asia, Thrace, &c. (286–343), Babylon, &c. (434–83), Egypt, &c. (484–511). This fills up the main bulk of the book, but, interspersed among these conventional Sibylline outpourings, there are sections on other subjects which merit attention. Such are an ode to ὕβρις (228–46), which seems Eastern in character, and in which Hildebrandt claims to have discovered a direct quotation from the Avesta; an ideal description of Judaea (247–55, 260–85); a Christian fragment (256–9); an eschatological passage (344–85); a denunciation of evil livers (386–402); a hint of an attack on the Holy Land and of a Divine vengeance (403–33); and a description of a coming battle of the stars (512–31).

Passages which bear upon the question of the date are as follows. In the first section the extravagant praise of Hadrian (48, 49) would be inexplicable in a Jewish writing except in the earlier years of his reign, or at any rate before the revolt of Bar Cochba and the erection of Elia Capitolina on the site of Jerusalem. But 1. 51 speaks of three successors of Hadrian, one of whom (by which Marcus Aurelius is probably meant) should reign late in life. There is good reason to suspect this line to be a later interpolation.

In the main section, 52 to end, the chief indication of date lies in lines 411–13, which seem to speak of Titus as doomed to death as soon as he reached Italy on his return from the capture of Jerusalem. The expectation, which appears to have been somewhat widely held, was, of course, falsified by history, and so this section at any rate, if the emendation proposed be accepted, is fixed for the year 70 A.D. For the rest the expectation of the return of Nero appears in 34 f., 104 ff., 139 ff., 215 ff., 363 ff., as a conviction deeply held, although he is by this time half identified with the Antichrist.

The general conclusion leaves the date more or less uncertain. But there is no real reason to separate 1–51 from the rest of the book, and if we except lines 51 and 411–13 we may fix the date as somewhere in the reign of Hadrian before 130 A.D.

The author seems undoubtedly to be living in Egypt. So the Sibyl calls herself (if the text be not corrupt) sister of Isis (53), and has much to say about Egypt and its towns (60–114, 179–99, 458–9, 484–511).

Opinions are much divided as to whether the author is a Jew or a Christian. The adjective θεοχρίστους in 1. 68 seems to stamp the section to which it belongs as Christian, and 256–9 are unmistakably the same. But for the rest of the book the outlook is more Jewish than Christian. There is no reference to a New Testament writing, with the possible exception of l. 158 (cf. Apoc. viii. 10).

§ 7. Manuscripts.

Special service in the collation of MSS. has been rendered by A. Mai, Keil, and Rzach. The results are given at length in the introduction to Geffcken’s edition. The MSS. fall into three main classes, to which the terms Ω, Φ, and Ψ are conventionally given. The following are the only MSS. which contain the Jewish portions:—

In class Ω:

V. Codd. Vaticani 1120, 743, both fourteenth century, contain iv. Cod. Monacensis 1541 contains iv.

In class Φ:

A. Cod. Vindobonensis hist. gr. xcvi. 6, fifteenth century, contains all our sections.

P. Cod. Monacensis 351, fifteenth century, contains all our sections except the first part of the Prologue.

S. Cod. Scorialensis 11 Σ 7 contains all our sections.

B. Cod. Bodleianus Baroccianus 109, end of fifteenth century, contains all our sections except the Prologue and iii. 1–106.

In class Ψ:

F. Cod. Florentinus Laurentianus plut. xi. 17, fifteenth century, contains iii with the subscription στίχοι αλδ (1,034 lines), iv with subscription ρπά (181 lines), v with subscription στίχοι φλη (538 lines).

R. Cod. Parisinus 2851, end of fifteenth century, contains iii (with similar remark στίχοι αλδ), iv ( στίχοι ρπα), ν. 1–106.

L. Cod. Parisinus 2850: 1475 A.D. contains the same three books with the same remarks; only Book ii is called λόγος τέταρτος and Book iv λόγος πέμπτος.

T. Cod. Toletanus, a MS. recently discovered in the Library of Toledo Cathedral, written about 1500, containing all our sections except v. 482–end. It has Latin notes both in the margin and between the lines, but Geffcken regards it as of no particular value.

Besides the MSS. the following extracts have been found:—

Cod. Parisinus 1043 contains iv. 179–85, 187, 189, 190; v. 93–111.

Cod. Vat. 1357 contains viii. 217–50.

The citations in the early Fathers are also of great service in restoring the text.

Geffcken calls attention to the extreme difficulty of arriving at a satisfactory text. It is not infrequent to find lines in which no MS. gives a metrically possible text, and then it becomes necessary to have recourse to conjecture. In other instances a composite text has to be formed out of several different versions. But Geffcken arrives at two conclusions that are of definite value. First, the Ω text is on the whole preferable to Φ and Ψ; and secondly, Φ and Ψ seem to have branched off from an earlier and better text, and of the two Φ is to be preferred, though not by any means in every instance.

As regards the date of the different classes of MSS., Geffcken would put the Ω in the third or fourth century, and would find a kind of Ψ before the end of the fifth century.

§ 8. Theology.

The main object of the Jewish Sibyllists is to maintain the unity and sovereignty of God. God is one Being, invisible, self-sprung, without beginning or end. Idolatry is condemned in terms of unmeasured scorn; the heathen gods are nothing, lifeless and powerless; the sacred animals of Egypt are merely deceptions; Isis and Sarapis will be found ineffective to help their worshippers in the time of bitter distress. Phoebus himself, the inspirer of the heathen Sibyl, is a mere delusion. All idolaters, of whatever class, are people who have mistaken the true highway of life and wandered off into tortuous by-ways. They have failed to recognize the true God, Who although so lofty and majestic, has yet revealed Himself to men, and Who keeps a constant watch over all that goes on on earth. The ignorance and wilful transgressions of purblind man are inevitably storing up for the world volumes of wrath that will burst forth in terrible destruction.

The doctrine of God, then, is a fairly full one: again and again stress is laid on His unique position as existing from all time and owning no Creator. The terms which express this idea ( αὐτοφυής, αὐτογένητος, αὐτολόχευτος) are themselves open to misconstruction, but they seem to imply nothing more than God’s eternal existence, as contrasted with the idols that are the works of men’s hands and the gods of mythology concerning whose birth so many tales were rife. In three respects His intimate connexion with the visible world is vindicated: He is the Creator and Sustainer of all, sending rain and fruitful seasons, and manifesting His wrath in hailstorms and earthquakes. He has also revealed Himself to man, and although the means of His self revelation are not actually stated they are probably regarded as lying in the visible phenomena of nature. And again God is finally to judge the world, sending the just either to a fresh life of happiness on earth or to the abode of bliss, while the wicked are condemned to the woes of Tartarus. It may be noted that stress is laid on the conception of God Himself being the Judge (cf. iv. 41, 183) as though in protest against the Christian idea of Christ as the Judge of all, whereas the work of Creation is carried out through the medium of the Word (iii. 20, cf. Ps. xxxiii. 6).

With regard to worship there are varying conceptions. The older passages speak freely of the offering of sacrifices (e.g. Frag. i. 21: Bk. iii. 576 ff.), but in the fourth book we find a repudiation of all animal sacrifices (28 ff.) and even of a visible temple (8 and 28). This book seems to be tinged with Essene thought which manifests itself also in the stress laid on Grace before meals (25 f.) and lustrations (165).

The middle of the second century B.C. was a time when men’s minds were very full of the thought of the coming judgement of God, and the literature of that age influenced deeply the thought of successive generations. So although the main eschatological portions of the Sibyllines occur in the third book, echoes of them are not lacking in other parts. The wrath of God as it culminates in judgement on the earth is depicted in scenes of bewildering complexity. A principal element is fire, which is to burn up the world. Sometimes it is in the form of a rushing stream (ii. 54), sometimes as an essence (iii. 72), sometimes it comes in form of a sword (iii. 672, 798, iv. 174). A mighty darkness is to envelop the earth (v. 349); the sun, moon, and stars are to fail (iii. 801, v. 346); the very heavenly bodies are to come crashing down (iii. 80 ff.); a star is to be one of the agents of the destruction (v. 158 ff.). God himself is to appear in the clouds (v. 65 f.). The destruction of the earth is sometimes represented as complete (e. g. iii. 84 ff.). More generally it is only the ungodly who are to be destroyed, the righteous being reserved for a blessed life (v. 375–85). The signs of the end are manifold. There is to be a great increase of wickedness and presumption; in the later books this is usually connected with the return of Nero. A comet is to herald the end (iii. 334). Various portraits are to be seen, e. g. a battle among the clouds (iii. 805. v. 212). There is to be great distress among nations (ii. 556 ff., v. 225). Beliar is to appear and lead men astray with various lying wonders (ii. 63 ff.). Nero is to return in pride and arrogance, the world is to fall under the dominion of a woman (iii. 75 ff.).

It is noticeable that the destruction of the world is not strongly distinguished from judgements that are to affect merely certain localities. The universal and the particular shade off very easily into one another. Similarly in some passages the judgement is merely a prelude to the establishment of a blessed kingdom among the godly on earth (e. g. iii. 767 ff.). The Messiah himself is to come from heaven to assume the kingdom (v. 414 ff.). Under his rule the godly are to enjoy great peace (iii. 702 ff.); the earth is to bring forth her fruits in extraordinary abundance (iii. 741 ff.); the rough places of nature are to be made smooth (iii. 777 ff.), and even the animal world is to share in the universal peace and goodwill (iii. 785 ff.). Jerusalem is to become the fairest spot on earth (v. 420 ff.); the temple is to be resplendent once more with the gifts of varied peoples (iii. 657, 772).

It will be seen that the greater part of these idyllic conceptions are not in themselves unique or peculiar, but their fullness and variety make the Sibylline workings conspicuous among similar literature. They testify to the deep-rooted dissatisfaction with the present conditions among the most loyal spirits of the Jews, and the confident hope that the apparent injustice of God’s dealings in the world as shown in the triumph of His enemies, would be righted within no very long time by the vindication of His Divine purpose for men.

§ 9. Bibliography.

(a) Chief Editions of the Text.

Betuleius, Xystus, Sibyllinorum Oraculorum Libri Octo, Basel, 1545.

Opsopoeus, Joh., Σιβυλλιακοὶ Χρησμοί, Paris, 1599.

Gallaeus Servatius, Σιβυλλιακοὶ Χρησμοί, Amsterdam, 1687–9.

Mai, Angelo, Σιβύλλης Λόγοι ιδ1, Milan, 1817.

Alexandre, C., Χρησμοὶ Σιβυλλιακοί, Paris, 1841, 1853.

Friedlieb, J. H., Χρησμοὶ Σιβυλλιακοί, Leipzig, 1852.

Rzach, Aloisius, Χρησμοὶ Σιβυλλιακοί, Vienna, 1891.

Geffcken, J., Die Oracula Sibyllina, Leipzig, 1902.

(b) Chief Critical Enquiries and Editions.

Schwally, ‘Sibyllae’ in Real-Encyklopädie der klass. Altertumswissenschajt.

Thorlacius, B., Libri Sibyllistarum veteris ecclesiae crisi subiecti, Havniae, 1815.

Bleek, F., Ueber die Entstehung und den Zusammenhang der uns in acht Büchern erhaltenen Sammlung sibyllinischer Orakel,’ Theol. Zeitschr., 1819, 1820.

Gefrörer, Kritische Geschichte, Stuttgart, 1831.

Volkmann, De Oraculis Sibyllinis, Leipzig, 1853.

Alexandre, Excursus ad Sibyllina, Paris, 1858.

Ewald, H., Abhandlung über Entstehung, Inhalt und Werth der sibyllinischen Bücher, Göttingen, 1858.

Klausen, R. H., Æneas und die Penaten, Göttingen, 1858.

Reuss, ‘Les Sibylles chrétiennes,’ Nouvelle Revue, 1861.

Badt, B., Ursprung

… und Text des 4. Buches der sibyllinischen Orakel, Breslau, 1878.

Hilgenfeld, Jüdische Apokalyptik, Jena, 1857.

Hilgenfeld,„ ‘Die jüdische Apokalyptik und die neuesten Forschungen,’ Zeitschr. der wiss. Theologie, 1860.

Hilgenfeld,„ ‘Die jüdischen Sibyllen und der Essenismus,’ Z.W.T., 1871.

Larocque, J., Sur la date du troisième livre des oracles sibyllins,’ Revue Archéologique, 1869.

Hildebrandt, ‘Das römische Antichristentum zur Zeit der Offenbarung Johannis und des V. sibyllinischen Buches,’ Z.W.T., s. 57–95, 1874.

Zahn, T., ‘Ueber Ursprung und religiösen Character der sibyllinischen Bücher iv, v,’ Zeitschr. für kirchl. Wiss. und kirchl. Leben, 1886.

Diels, K., Sibyllinische Blätter, Berlin, 1890.

Fehr, E., Studia in Oracula Sibyllina, Upsala, 1893.

Geffcken, J., ‘Komposition und Entstehungszeit der Oracula Sibyllina,’ Texte d. Untersuchungen, 1902.

The literature which touches on the Sibylline Books is a very large one, and only a selection has been given above. A fuller Bibliography (up to 1900) will be found in Terry’s translation. Of the works mentioned Alexandre’s Excursus ad Sibyllina is a mine of information upon which the present writer has drawn freely. Friedlieb’s edition, with its spirited translation into German hexameters, contains many useful suggestions. Rzach’s text is furnished with a good apparatus criticus, but it is on the whole inferior to Geffcken’s which forms the basis of the present translation. Schürer has some serviceable remarks in his History of the Jewish People (English translation, Edinburgh, 1886), and sidelights may be gleaned from various books on Jewish History and Eschatology, notably R. H. Charles, Eschatology; Bousset, Religion der Juden im N.T. Zeitalter; and Volz, Jüdische Apokalyptik.

The following are noted in the very full Bibliography in The Sibylline Oracles translated from the Greek into English Blank Verse of M. S. Terry.

(a) English.

J. Floyer, The Sibylline Oracles, translated from the best Greek copies and compared with the sacred prophecies, especially with David and the Revelation, and with as much history as plainly shows that many of the Sibyl’s predictions are exactly fulfilled. With answers to objections made against them, London, 1731.

Terry, M. S., op. cit., New York, 1890.

(b) French.

Champier, S., Oracles de la Sibylle, tracduits par Simphorien Champier et Jean Robertet, 1702, 1703.

Bouché-Leclerq, in Revue de l’histoire des religions, vols. vii, viii, ix.

Nahrung, J. C., Neun Bücher sibyllinischer Prophezeiungen aus der griechischen in die deutsche Sprache übersetzt, Halle, 1819.

Friedlieb, J. H., Die sibyllinischen Weissagungen vollständig gesammelt, nach neuer Handschriften-Vergleichung, mit kritischem Commentare und metrischer deutscher Uebersetzung, Leipzig, 1852.

Blass, F., ‘Die sibyllinischen Orakel’ (in Apokr. u. Pseudep. des Alten Testaments), Tubingen, 1900.

(d) Italian.

Antolini, V., Oraculi Sibilini tradotti dal Greco in versi Italiani, Viterbo, 1775.

(e) Latin.

Castalio, S., Sibyllina Oracula de Graeco in Latinum conversa et in eadem annotationes, Basel, 1546.

Mai, Angelo, as above, Milan, 1817, 1828.

(f) Spanish.

Poreno, Baltasar, Oráculos de las doze Sibilas. Profetisas de Christo nuestro Señor entre los Gentiles, Cuenca, 1621.