Page:1902 Encyclopædia Britannica - Volume 25 - A-AUS.pdf/540

 492

APOCALYPTIC

AND

APOCRYPHAL LITERATURE death of Herod the Great and that of Bar-Cochba. But iv 1-51, V. 136-vi. 10, 30-vii. 25, vii. 45-viii. 62, ix. 13- the text precludes any date after a.d. 70. The true date x 57 xii 40-48, xiv. 28-35. E = an Ezra Apocalypse, appears to lie between 4 b.c. and a.d. 30. Herod is circ. 31 b.c., iv. 52-v. 13a, vi. 13-28, vii 26-44, vm. 63- already dead (vi. 6), hence it is after 4 B.c.; and Herod’s ix 12 A = an Eagle Vision, circ. 2a.d. 90, x. 60-xn. 35. sons are to rule for shorter periods than their father, hence M = a Son-of-Man Vision, xiii. E = an Ezra fragment, must have been composed before these princes had circ. a.d. 100, xiv. 1-I7a, 18-27, 36-47. All these, accord- it reigned thirty-four years—i.e., before a.d. 30. It may also, ing to Kahisch, were edited by a Zealot, circ. 120, who be shown that a.d. 7 is probably the earlier limit (see supplied the connecting links and made many small additions. In the main this analysis is excellent. If we Charles, op. cit. pp. Iv.-lviii.). As for the author, he was assume that the editor was also the author of S, and that no Essene, for he recognizes animal sacrifices and cherishes Messianic hope; he was not a Sadducee, for he looks such a vigorous stylist, as he shows himself to be, recast the forward to the establishment of the Messianic kingdom (x.) ; to some extent the materials he borrowed, there remains nor a Zealot, for the quietistic ideal is upheld (ix.) and but slight difference between the views of Kabisch and Gunkel. Neither view, however, is quite satisfactory, and the kingdom is established by God Himself (x.). He is. the problem still awaits solution. Other attempts, such as therefore a Chasid of the ancient type, and glorifies the Ewald’s (Gesch. d. Volkes Israel3, vii. 69-83) and De Faye’s ideals which were cherished by the old Pharisaic party, but which were now being fast disowned in favour of a more {Apocalypses Juives, 155-165), make no contribution. Time and Place.—The work was written towards the close of the active r61e in the political life of the nation. He pours his most scathing invectives on the Sadducees, who are 1st century (iii. 1, 29), and somewhere in the east. Literature.—In addition to the authorities mentioned above, described in vii. in terms that recall the anti-Sadducean 2, see Dill man n, Herzog’s Real Enkyk.* xii. 353 sqq. ; Schiirer, Psalms of Solomon. His object, therefore, is to protest Gesch. des Jud. Volkes*, iii. 246 sqq. ; and the articles on 4 Esdras in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary and the Encyclopaedia Biblica by against the growing secularization of the Pharisaic party through its adoption of popular Messianic beliefs and Thackeray and James respectively. The Assumption of Moses.—This book was lost for political ideals. See Ency. Brit. ii. 177 ; Ency. Bill. i. 233-236 ; Burkitt in many centuries till a large fragment of it was discovered and published by Ceriani in 1861 {Monumenta Sacra, I. i. Hastings’ Bible Did. iii. 448-450 ; Charles, Assumption of Moses, 55-64) from a palimpsest of the 6th century. Very little 1897; Schurer, Gesch. d. Jud. Volkes*, 1900, pp. 213-222. Book of Noah. — Though this book has not come was known about the contents of this book prior to this discovery. One passage found in this fragment is quoted down to us independently, it has in large measure been in the Acta Synodi Nicoence, ii. 18. Most of the other incorporated in the Ethiopic Book of Enoch, and can in references relate to the strife of Michael and Satan about part be reconstructed from it. The Book of JXoah is the body of Moses, and ascribe it the Ascensio Mosis, i.e., mentioned in Jubilees x. 13, xxi. 10. Ch. lx., Ixv.-lxix. 25. ’AvaX^fis Mcowecns. (Various other works have been of the Ethiopic Enoch are without question derived from it.. attributed to Moses, such as the Petirath Moshe, the (3c(3o<s Thus lx. 1 runs ; “ In the year 500, in the seventh month Aoywj/ M.v(ttlkwv Mwnaews, The Exodus of Moses (in ... in the life of Enoch.” Here the editor simply changed Slavonic), &c. See Charles, Assumption of Moses, the name Noah in the context before him into Enoch, for pp. xiv.-xvii.; Schurer, Gesch. des Jud. Volkes, iii. 220-221.) the statement is based on Gen. v. 32, and Enoch lived Editions and Translations.—In addition to those men- only 365 years. Chapters vi.-xi., cvi.-cvii. of the same book tioned in Ency. Brit. ii. 177, the only complete edition are probably from the same source; likewise liv. 7-lv. 2, has been published by Charles, The Assumption of Moses, and Jubilees vii. 26-39, x. 1-15. In the former passage of 1897. A German translation, with notes by Clemen, will Jubilees the subject-matter leads to this identification, as be found in Kautzsch’s Apok. und Pseud, ii. 311-331. That well as the fact that Noah is represented as speaking in the our Latin text is derived from the Greek there can be first person, although throughout Jubilees it is the angel no question. Thus Greek words are transliterated, as that speaks. Possibly Eth. En. xii. 3-8, xliii.-xliv., lix.,. “ chedrio ” from /ceSpow, “ heremus ” from eprjpos ; Greek are from the same work. The book may have opened with idioms are reproduced, as “usque nos duci captivos” = ews Eth. En. cvi.-cvii. On these chapters may have followed tov rjfjLas al^yaXwTLcrOrjvaL, and retranslation into Greek is Eth. En. vi.-xi., Ixv.-lxix. 25, lx., xii. 3-8, xliii.-xliv., liv. frequently necessary in order to correct the misrenderings 7-lv. 2; Jubilees vii. 26-39, x. 1-15. Since some of of the translator or the corruptions already inherent in the these chapters are earlier than Eth. En. Ixxxiii.-xc. and Greek. Finally, fragments of the Greek version are still Jubilees, the original work is not later than 166 B.c.. preserved. That the Greek was in turn derived from a (See Hastings’ Bible Diet. iii. 586-587.) The Hebrew Book of Noah, a later work, is printed in Semitic original was denied by Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, and others. It is still regarded as an open question by Jellinek’s Bet ha-Midrasch, iii. 155-156, and translated Clemen. On the other hand, Ewald, Schmidt-Merx, into German in Ronsch, Das Buch der Jubilden, 385-38/. Colani, Carriere, Hausrath, Dalman, Rosenthal, and others It is based on the part of the above Book of Noah which decide in favour of a Semitic. The present writer has is preserved in Jubilees. The portion of this Hebrew work, sought at some length to prove that the Greek goes back which is derived from the older work is reprinted in not to an Aramaic original, but to a Hebrew (see op. cit. Charles’s Ethiopic version of the Hebrew Book of Jubilees, pp. xxxviii.-xlv.). p. 179. Testaments of the XII Patriarchs. — The earliest The present book is possibly the long-lost AiaOrjKiq Momorews mentioned in some ancient lists; for it never reference to this book is found in Origen in his Horn, speaks of the assumption of Moses, but always of his in Josuam, xv. 6 (Ed. Lommatzsch, xi. 143): “In natural death (i. 15, iii. 13, x. 14). About a half of the aliquo quodam libello qui appellatur testamentum original Testament is preserved in the Latin version. duodecim patriarcharum, quamvis non habeatur in The latter half probably dealt with questions about the canone, talem tamen quendam sensum invenimus, quod Creation. (See Fabric. God. Pseud. V. T. ii. 844; Acta per singulos peccantes singuli Satanae intelligi debeant ” Synodi Niccence, ii. 20.) With this “ Testament ” the cf. Reuben, iii.). The Testaments are mentioned simply as “ Assumption,” to which almost all the patristic references liarpcdpxou in the Stichometry of Nicephorus, the Synopsis and that of Jude are made, was subsequently edited. Athanasii, and the anonymous list of books edited by The book has been assigned to most periods between the Montfaucon and others. From this period the Testaments