Page:1902 Encyclopædia Britannica - Volume 25 - A-AUS.pdf/535

 APOCALYPTIC

AND

APOCRYPHAL LITERATURE 487 Original Language and Date.—This was most probably written Syriac and Latin Versions. —There is no ancient Ethiopic version, but there are Syriac and Latin versions. The Syriac in Hebrew or Aramaic, but there is not sufficient evidence to appears in two forms : the first is that in the Peshitto from the determine this question definitely. As regards the date we may Greek text of Lucian (preserved in the cursives 19, 64, 93) ; the safely conclude that it was written not later than the 1st century second is that published by Ceriani from a 6th-century MS. The a.d. Thus it was well known to Origen (Ep. ad Africanum, ix., latter agrees more closely with the Greek, and is probably the Lommatzsch, xvii. 31 ; In Matt, xxiii. 37, Lommatzsch, iv. 237, &c.). result of a revision of the older text with the help of a Greek text Still earlier it was known to Tertullian {De Pat. 14) and to Justin (see G. Schmidt, Zeitschrift. f. d. alttest. Wissensch. 1897, xvii. 1-47, Martyr (Dial. c. Tryph. cxx.). Thus it was current early in the 233-262). There are also two forms of the old Latin version : 2nd century. It was probably known to the writer of the Epistle the first is that of the Vulgate, and the second is found in a to the Hebrews (xi, 37). This brings us, if the last reference is trustworthy, to the 1st century a.d., and this no doubt is the Complutensian MS. in Milan Library. Translations and Commentaries.—The most trustworthy English right date, for it is highly improbable that Jewish writings of the translations are those in the Variorum Bible and in the Revised 2nd century should gain currency in the Christian Church. Greek Version.—The Greek version, as edited in the Ascension, Version, and the best commentaries those of Rawlinson in the Speaker s Apocrypha, and Fairweather and Black, The First Book of has in part been just recovered and published by Grenfell and Hunt (Amherst Papyri, 1900, i. 1-22) ; see also Charles, Ascension Maccabees, 1897. In German there is nothing equal to Kautzsch’s translation {Apok. und Pseud. 1900, i. 24-81) and to Grimm’s Das of Isaiah, 1900, pp. xxii.-xxxiii. 84-95), where this text is critically erste Bitch der Maccabder erkldrt, 1853. On the literature generally, edited and compared with all other existing authorities. This martyrdom was known to the writer of the Opus hnperfedum (see see Schurer, Gesch. d. Jiid. VolkesJ, iii. 141-146. Montfaucon’s edition of Chrysostom, vi. pp. xx. xxi.) in its History of Johannes Hyrcanus.—This work is mentioned original form before it was incorporated in the Ascension (see in 1 Macc. xvi. 23, 24, but no trace of its existence has Charles, op. cit. pp. xl.-xlii., xliv. 8, 9). Ethiopic Version.—This was first edited by Laurence in 1819 been discovered elsewhere. from one MS., in 1877 by Dillmann from three (Ascensio Isaiae JEthiopice et Latine), and in 1900 by Charles from a more accurate (ii.) Legendary or Haggadic Works. collation of the same three MSS., together with the other versions. This version admirably represents the original. Two of the three Book of Baruch.—Recent criticism has in some respects MSS. are excellent. Latin Version.—Of this ii. 14-iii. 13 was discovered and edited diverged from the account of this book in Ency. Brit. iii. 404-405. Thus most scholars, such as Fritzsche, Hitzig, in 1828 by Mai. This was reprinted by Dillmann in 1877 in his of the Ascension, and in 1900 by Charles after a fresh Kneucker, Hilgenfeld, Reuss, agree in assuming that i.-iii. edition collation of the Vatican palimpsest. On the relation of the 8 and iii. 9-v. 9 are from distinct writers. But some various versions, see Charles, pp. xviii.-xxxiii. critics have gone further. Thus Rothstein (Kautzsch, Modern Translations.—Besides Laurence’s Latin and English Apok. und Pseud, i. 213-215) holds that there is no unity translations, which are not trustworthy, there are Dillmann’s Latin Basset’s French (L’ascension d'I sale, 1894), Beer’s in iii. 9-v. 9, but that it is composed of two independent translation, German (Apok. und Pseud, ii. 124-127), and Charles s English writings—iii. 9-iv. 4 and iv. 5-v. 9. Marshall (Hastings’ (op. cit. pp. 1-18, 40-42). For bibliography, see also Schiirer, Bible Diet. i. 251-254) gives a still more complex analysis. Gesch. des Jild. Volkesi, iii. 284-285. He finds in it the work of four distinct writers—i. 1-14, Jubilees.—This book is variously entitled rd Tw/fyAcua, i. 15-iii. 8, iii. 9-iv. 4, iv. 5-v. 9. Though most modern ot Tw/JqAcuoi, rj Xe-n-ri] Tevecns, rd AeTrrd Feveo-ews, Mixpowriters, as Cornill, Gifford, Schurer, &c., advocate a yevecris in Greek, and “The Book of the Division” in Hebrew original of i.-iii. 8 and a Greek original of the Ethiopic. It is really an Haggadic commentary on rest, Rothstein, Kneucker, and Kdnig hold fast to the Genesis, and is practically the sole monument of legalistic view of the older exegesis that the whole book is derived Pharisaism belonging to the latter half of the 2nd cenfrom the Hebrew. Marshall, on the other hand, argues tury b.c., and is a characteristic example of that form of for the view that i.-iii. 8 is translated from the Hebrew, religion against which the Pauline dialectic was directed iii. 9-iv. 4 from the Aramaic, and that iv. 5-v. 9 was (see Ency. Brit. ii. 176-177). It has a secret apologetic originally written in Greek. aim. It defends and justifies the assumption of the high Commentaries, <fcc.—In addition to those enumerated in Ency. priesthood by the Maccabees. Brit. iii. 405, the most valuable of the more recent works is Original Language.—This hook, as the production of a strict Kneucker’s Das Bitch Baruch, 1879 ; Gifford’s in Speaker's Apoc. ii. Pharisee, naturally written in Hebrew. This Hebrew was not Date.—The dates of the various constituents of this book are free from was Aramaic forms, as we infer from the formation of the quite uncertain. Ewald, followed by Gifford and Marshall, assigns proper name and from the statement of Jerome (Lp. i.-iii. 8 to the period after the conquest of Jerusalem by Ptolemy I. ad Fabiol, 78 “Mastema” in 320 b.c. ; Reuss to some decades later ; and Fritzsche, Schrader, of passages cannot be intelligibly translated unless on the preKeil, to the times of the Maccabees. Hitzig, Kneucker, and supposition of a Hebrew original (see Charles, Ethiopic Version of Schurer assume that it was written after a.d. 70. Ryle and James Hebrew Book of Jubilees, pp. ix. x. ; Littmann in Kautzsch’s Apok. {Psalms of Solomon, pp. Ixxii.-lxxvii.) hold that iv. 31-v. 9 is de- und Pseud, ii. 34, 35). Fragments of the original Hebrew are still pendent on the Greek version of Ps. xi., and that accordingly found in certain Midrashim. Baruch was reduced to its present form after a.d. 70. Versions: Greek, Syriac, Ethiopic, and Latin.—Large fragments Best of the Words of Baruch.—This book is most prob- of the Greek version have come down to us in Epiphanius and such annalists as Syncellus and Cedrenus. Only a few lines survive of ably of Jewish authorship and its present form due to a the Syriac. Both these were made from the original. As regards Christian hand, as Kohler (Jewish Quarterly Review, 1893, the two latter versions, which are derived from the Greek, the pp. 407-419) has shown. It has been preserved in Greek, whole of the Ethiopic survives and about one-fourth of the Latin. Ethiopic, Armenian, and Slavonic (see Schurer3, iii. 286, The latter was first published by Ceriani in 1861, next by Rbnsch (Das Bitch der Jubilden) in 1874, and by Charles in his edition of 287). The Greek was first printed at Venice in 1609, and the Ethiopic text. next by Ceriani in 1868 under the title “ Paralipomena Ethiopic Text and Translations.—This text was first edited by Jeremise” in his Monwmenta Sacra, v. 11-18, and by Dillmann from two MSS. in 1859, and in 1895 by Charles from Rendel Harris in 1889. Harris regards it in its present four. In the latter edition, the Greek and Latin fragments are printed together with the Ethiopic. The book was translated into form as an Eirenicon addressed to the Jews by a Christian German by Dillmann from one MS. in Ewald’s Jahrbiicher, ii. iii. after the rebellion of Bar-Cochba. 1850, 1851, and by Littmann (in Kautzsch’s Apok. und Pseud, ii. Martyrdom of Isaiah.—This Jewish work has been in 39-119) from Charles’s Ethiopic text ; in English by Schodde part preserved in the Ascension of Isaiah. To it belong (Bibl. Sacr. 1885) from Dillmann’s text, and by Charles (Jewish Quarterly Beview, Oct. 1893, July 1894, Jan. 1895) from the text i. 1, 2a, 66-13«; ii. 1-8, 10-iii. 12; v. lc-14 of that book. afterwards published in 1895. It is of Jewish origin, and recounts the martyrdom of Date and Author.—Jubilees was written after 135 b.c., when Isaiah at the hands of Manasseh. For the Christian J. Hyrcanus became ecclesiastical and civil head of the nation, elements of the Ascension of Isaiah, see “ Testament of and before 95 b.c., when the entire body of the Pharisees was at strife with his successor Jannaus (see Bousset, Zeitschr. f. NTHezekiah ” and “ Vision of Isaiah.”
 * mansions, 18). On the other hand, a large number