Page:1902 Encyclopædia Britannica - Volume 25 - A-AUS.pdf/543

 APOCALYPTIC

AND

APOCRYPHAL

LITERATURE

495

Song of the Three Children.—This section is composed of the worth. Geiger held that it was written as a deliberate poPrayer of Azariah and the Song of Azariah, Ananias, and Misael, lemic against 1 Macc.,and Kosters (Theol. Tijdschrift, 1878, and was inserted after iii. 23 of the canonical text of Daniel. According to Fritzsche, Konig, Schiirer, &c., it was composed in pp. 491-558)further argued that the so-called epitomizerwas Greek and added to the Greek translation. On the other hand, the actual author, and merely assumed the mask of Jason’s Delitzsch, Bissell, Ball, &c., maintain a Hebrew original. The name for controversial purposes. Although Kamphausen latter view has been recently supported by Rothstein, Apok. und {Apok. und Pseud, i. 84) follows Kosters’ lead, this view Pseud, i. 173-176, who holds that these additions were made to is preposterous. That a writer who wished to advocate the text before its translation in Greek. These additions still preserve, according to Rothstein, a fragment of the original text, the doctrines of Pharisaism should seek authentication by i.e., verses 23-28, which came between verses 23 and 24 of chapter appealing to the work of an African Jew, unless such a iii. of the canonical text. They certainly fill up excellently a work were actually in existence, would be without parallel manifest gap in this text. “The Song of the Three Child- in pseudepigraphic literature. Moreover, the eschatoren ” was first added after the verses just referred to, and subsequently the Player of Azariah was inserted before these logical details which appear in its narrative are just such as fit in with the eschatological systems of the 2nd century verses. Susannah.—This addition was placed by Theodotion before B.C., and were certainly not the current views when the chap, i., and “Bel and the Dragon” at its close, whereas by the epitomizer wrote between 50 b.c. and a.d. 1. LXX. and the Yulgate it was reckoned as chap. xiii. after the 3 Maccabees.—This so-called book of Maccabees (see twelve canonical chapters, Bel and the Dragon as xiv. Theodotion’s version is the source of the Peshitto for all three Ency. Brit. xv. 131) is a piece of fiction, recording an additions, and the LXX. is the source of the Syro - Hexaplaric, attempted massacre of the Jews under Ptolemy IY. Philowhich has been published by Ceriani (Mon. Sacr. vii.). The pator, and based in part on an old legend preserved in source of the story may, according to Ewald (Gesch.3, iv. 636), have Josephus, Contra Apion, ii. 5. The date is quite uncertain been suggested by the Babylonian legend of the seduction of two old men by the goddess of love. Daniel appears in this addition —sometime between 100 b.c. and a.d. 70 (see Grimm’s as a youthful judge. Notwithstanding the paronomasise on Exeget. Handbuch zu den Apok. 1853, vol. iii.; Bissell, Greek words in verses 54-55, 58-59, to which attention was called Apocrypha, 1880, pp. 615-637; Kautzsch’s Apok. u. Pseud. by Julius Africanus and Porphyry, it is by no means certain that 1900, i. 119-135; Fairweather in Hastings’ Bible Diet. the original was Greek. We may have here a free rendering of a Semitic original (see Bludau, Die Alexandrinische Uebersetzung iii. 192-194). Prayer of Manasseh.—Scholars are not yet agreed as to des Buches Daniel, 1897). Bel and. the Dragon.—We have here two independent narratives, the original language of this penitential psalm. Most in both of which Daniel appears as the destroyer of heathenism. take it to have been written in Greek, and with these The latter had a much wider circulation than the former, and is most probably a Judaized form of the old Semitic myth of the Fritzsche, Schurer, and Ryssel (Kautzsch, Apok. u. destruction of the old dragon, which represents primeval chaos Pseud, i. 165-168) agree. On the other hand, Furst, (see Ball, Speaker’s Apocr. ii. 346-348 ; Gunkel, Schopfung und Ewald, Ball, and Budde argue for a Hebrew original. Chaos, 320-323). Most scholars maintain a Greek original, but the statements in 2 Chron. xxxiii. 12, 13, 18, 19, this is by no means certain. Marshall (Hastings’ Bible Diet. i. 268) From argues for an Aramaic, and regards Gaster’s Aramaic text (Pro- it follows that the chronicler found this prayer in Hebrew ceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, 1894, pp. 280-290, in his sources, The History of the Kings of Israel and The 312-317; 1895, 75-94) as of primary value in this respect. History of the Seers. Ewald regards the Greek as an Additions to Esther.—These seven additions, written actual translation of the lost Hebrew, but Ball more wisely originally in Greek, were interpolated in the Greek trans- takes it as a free rendering of a lost Haggadic narrative lation of the Book of Esther. They consist of an edict of founded on the older document from which the chronicler Hanian, prayers of Mordecai and Esther, &c., and are drew his information. This view he supports by showing literature in circulaso skilfully interpolated as to make no interruption in that there was once a considerable 1 the history, though they occasionally contradict the tion regarding Manasseh’s later history. Fritzsche, Ball, canonical text. The Greek text appears in two widely- and Ryssel agree in assigning this psalm to the Maccabean differing recensions. The one is supported by A B N, and period. Its eschatology and doctrine “ of divine forgivethe other—a revision of the first—by codices 19, 93®, 108^. ness ” may point to an earlier date. The best short The latter is believed to have been the work of Lucian. account of the book is given by Ball {Speaker’s ApoFor an account of the Latin and Syriac versions, the crypha, ii. 361-371); see also Porter in Hastings’ Bible Targums, and the later Rabbinic literature connected with Dictionary, iii. 232-233. Tobit.—To the excellent account of this book in Ency. this subject, and other questions relating to these additions, see Fritzsche, Exeget. Handbuch zu den Apok. 1851, Brit, xxiii. 427-428, it will not be necessary to make any i. 67-108; Schurer3, iii. 330-332; Fuller in Speaker’s great addition. Notwithstanding the arguments of Gratz Apocr. i. 360-402; Ryssel, Kautzsch, Apok. u. Pseud. {Monatsschr. f. Gesch. des Judenthums, 1879, pp. 145 sepp, 385 sqg., 433 sqq., 509 sqq., and of Rosenthal {Vier apoi. 193-212. Epistle of Jeremy. — This letter (see Ency. Brit. iii. kryphische Bucher, 1885, pp. 104-150), and of Fuller 405-406) purports to have been written by Jeremiah to (Wace’s Apocrypha, i. 1888, pp. 164-171) for a Hebrew the exiles who were already in Babylon or on the way original, the original language is generally, with Noldeke thither. Recent research has not done much to elucidate {Monatsberichte d. Berliner Akad. 1879, 45 sqqf), taken the difficulties of this writing (see Fritzsche, Handb. zu to be Greek. The following table constructed by the den Apok. 1851 ; Gifford, Speaker’s Apocr. ii. 286-303 ; last-named scholar will explain most briefly the relations of the many versions of this book : Marshall, Hastings’ Bible Diet. ii. 578-579). A ( = Codex Alexandrinus) 2 Maccabees. — This book (see Ency. Brit. xv. 131) was written in the Pharisaic interest, probably by an Alexandrian Jew, although his work shows no trace of Syriac (first half) Ethiopic Hebrew of Fagius distinctively Alexandrian Judaism. Its aim is religious B. and c. rather than historical, and where it comes into collision with 1 Macc. its evidence is generally set aside as worth- Chaldee in Old Latin Syriac (second half) less. On the other hand, it has undoubtedly a value of its its original form Jerome’s Version own; and at times, in accord with Josephus, who was unacquainted with it (cf. iv.; vi. 2 ; xiii. 3-8; xiy. 1 ; see Hebrew of Miinster Grimm, Exeget. Handbuch, 1857, p. 13), it furnishes us, Bodleian Chaldee The Hebrew texts published by Gaster, Proceedings of where 1 Macc. is silent, with historical materials of great