book iv. by a Palestinian Jew, and the bulk of book v. also by a Jew

of Alexandria. The Oracles were, of course, all written in Greek, and they were put forth in the interests of Jewish _propaganda_, of which mention has already been made above. They were written in the form of the ancient heathen oracles, in Greek hexameters. The sibyl of heathen antiquity was a prophetess inspired by the gods who prophesied about the fate of cities and kingdoms, and gave counsel in times of stress and difficulty; she dwelt, like a nymph, beside streams or in grottoes. “Written records of supposed Sibylline oracles,” says Schürer, “were here and there in circulation; but such remains of them as have come down to us through occasional quotations in authors such as Plutarch, Pausanias and others are brief and scanty, and furnish no distinct notion of them. In Asia Minor and Greece these pieces circulated only in private possession, without being publicly supervised or officially used; but their credit and influence must not be on that account lightly estimated.”[290] Book iii., which is of most importance in the present connection, is full of apocalyptic elements; it tells of the fate of the successive kingdoms which are to bear rule over the Jews, and of the judgements of God upon both Jews and Gentiles; the coming of the Messianic king is prophesied, and the victory over his adversaries described; an account of the prosperity and blessedness of the Messianic Kingdom follows, to which is added a recital of the signs which shall herald the end of all things:

When swords upon the star-lit heavens Appear at even and at morn, Then will the whirlwind come from heaven Upon the earth; the sun above At mid-day e’en will cease to shine, The moon instead will give her light, And come again upon the earth. One sign will be that drops of blood Will flow down from the very rocks; And in the clouds shall ye behold A conflict fought ’twixt warriors fierce, Likewise a chase upon wild beasts,— All seemingly in hazy mist. Then shall the Lord Who dwells in heaven Bring all things to their final end (iii. 798-806).

In book iv., as well as in book v., the apocalyptic element is absent, with the one exception that in the latter there is a prophecy of woe upon the idolatrous Gentiles, and of blessing upon Israel (v. 260-285). The superiority of Judaism over the heathen religions is, as one would expect in propagandist literature of this kind, again and again insisted upon.

(_c_) THE TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS

[LITERATURE.—Sinker, _Testamenta xii. Patriarcharum_ ... (1869); _Ante-Nicene Christian Library_, xxii. pp. 13-79 (1871); Schürer, II, iii., pp. 114-124; German ed., III, pp. 339-356; Schnapp, in Kautzsch, II, pp. 458-506; Charles, _The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs_ (1908), also in _The Apocr. and Pseudepigr. of the Old Testament_, II, pp. 282-367; Leszynsky, _Die Sadduzäer_, pp. 237-252 (1921). Burkitt, _Jewish and Christian Apocalypses_, pp. 34 ff. (1914). Two articles in _The Jewish Quarterly Review_, V, pp. 375-398, by Conybeare, “On the Jewish Authorship of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” and pp. 400-406 by Kohler on “The Pre-Talmudic Haggada” (1893).]

Professor Charles says in reference to the authorship of this book: “I have with some hesitation come to the conclusion that the groundwork is the work of a single writer of the Pharisaic school. He is an upholder of the Law and the Temple sacrifices; he believes in the Messianic Kingdom and the resurrection of the body to a new life therein. He is, however, a Pharisee of the early type—that is a Chasid.... The groundwork, which consists of about eleven-twelfths of the Testaments, after the removal of the Jewish and Christian additions, presents, it must be confessed, a want of coherence at times, and the parts dealing with the duty of submission to Levi, or to Levi and Judah jointly, come in occasionally very abruptly. Notwithstanding, the present editor adheres to the idea of the unity of the book; for the two phenomena referred to—the strictly Chasid element in the book, and its loyal acceptance of the Maccabæan dynasty—were exactly characteristic of the period to which our author belongs, and to none other before or after. Furthermore, both these parts of the book are alike universalistic in tone.”[291]

We have seen above what the attitude of the Sadducees was towards the written Law; so that a book wherein loyalty to the Law and to the Temple sacrifices is upheld does not necessarily point to Pharisaic authorship unless it can be shown that by the Law is meant not merely the Pentateuch, but also the Pharisaic conception of the Law; and of this there are no indications in the book. The Sadducees believed, moreover, in a Messianic Kingdom; but the Messiah, according to them, was to be of priestly, not of Davidic, descent; so that belief in the Messianic Kingdom does not necessarily imply Pharisaic authorship of the book in which it occurs unless the specifically Pharisaic conception of the Messiah is put forth; but this also is not the case in the book before us. Charles says: “In the original work the Messiah is to be descended from Levi, and not from Judah—in other words, he is to be first of all a priest, and then a prophet and king. There are many passages expressing this view”; these are enumerated; he then continues: “We have here the attestation of a most remarkable revolution in the Jewish expectations of the Messiah. For some thirty or forty years the hopes of a Messiah from Judah was abandoned in favour of a Messiah from Levi. But with the breach of Hyrcanus with the Pharisees this hope was abandoned, and so we find that in the first century additions, the hope of a Messiah from Judah reappears (T. Jud., xxiv. 5, 6; T. Naph., iv. 5 (?)).”[292] An easier and more natural explanation, however, is forthcoming if, as we believe, the groundwork of this book is of Sadducæan authorship. The loyal acceptance of the reigning dynasty is by no means necessarily a proof of Pharisaic authorship, for the Pharisees broke entirely with John Hyrcanus before the end of his reign (B.C. 104), while the Sadducees were loyal to him in consequence.[293] The references to the resurrection of the body would be fatal to Sadducæan authorship if it could be proved that these are not later interpolations. That a Pharisee has worked over the book is abundantly evident. We conclude, therefore, that as in the groundwork of the book the distinctive marks of Pharisaism are wanting, and that as what marks there are, are those of a Sadducæan character, the book in its original form was written by a Sadducee for the purpose of making peace with the Pharisees; for the peaceable tone of many parts of the book is one of its characteristics; the virtue of unity among the descendants of the Patriarchs is again and again insisted on. _Traits_ of a specifically Sadducæan character are well brought out by Leszynsky.[294] On the other hand, nothing could be more un-Pharisaic than the spirit of the book so well described by Charles: “A true son of the larger-hearted Old Testament prophets he proclaims the salvation of the Gentiles. The promised time has come. The kingdom is already established, and all the Gentiles will be saved through Israel. In the Judgement the conduct of the best heathen will form the norm according to which Israel will be judged.”[295]

The earliest form of the book as now in existence is Greek; but this is a translation from a Hebrew original. This is proved by the presence of numberless Hebrew constructions and expressions throughout the book. In its original form each of the “Testaments” seems to have been modelled on the same pattern; in each case the patriarch first gives an account of his life; this is based on the Old Testament, but embellished with many new details. In each autobiography the patriarch candidly confesses the sins of which he has been guilty, though in some instances he is able to boast of his virtues. In the next place, the patriarch offers in each case an exhortation to his descendants; this is based on the preceding autobiographical sketch; warnings are uttered against falling into the sins of which the narrator himself has been guilty; in the case of his life having been a virtuous one it is held out as an example for his descendants to follow. A third element in each of the Testaments is a prediction regarding the future of the tribe in question.

There are a number of later Christian interpolations and additions in the book; but, generally speaking, these are of so obvious a character that they may be discerned at once; a good example is found in the Testament of Simeon vi. 7, where these words are added: “Because God hath taken a body and eaten with men, and saved men.” Or, again, in the Testament of Levi xiv. 2, the original text runs: “For our father Israel is pure from the transgressions of the chief priests,” then the following Christian addition is made: “Who shall lay their hands upon the Saviour of the world.” Similar additions, as well as interpolations, occur throughout the book.

But the great importance of this book lies in its ethical teaching, wherein it often reveals a spirit thoroughly akin to that of the Gospels; it will be best to illustrate this by giving two of the most notable examples. In the Testament of Gad vi. 3-7 it is said: “Love ye, therefore, one another from the heart; and if a man sin against thee, cast forth the poison of hate and speak peaceably to him, and in thy soul hold not guile; and if he confess and repent, forgive him. But if he deny it, do not get into a passion with him, lest catching the poison from thee he take to swearing and so thou sin doubly.... But if he be shameless, and perisheth in his wrong-doing, even so forgive him from the heart, and leave to God the avenging” (with this compare Matt. xviii. 15, Luke xvii. 3). The command to love God and one’s neighbour finds expression in the Testament of Gad v. 3: “Love the Lord through all your life, and one another with a true heart” (cp. Matt. xxii. 37-39). These and many other examples of a similar character are all the more striking when it is seen how close the linguistic parallels are (amounting frequently to verbal identity) between the Greek text of our book and that of the Gospels. While these and similar passages read like genuine parts of the original work the _possibility_ that they may be Christian is not excluded.

The “Testaments” can scarcely be reckoned as belonging to the Apocalyptic Literature proper, but there are apocalyptic elements in the testaments of Levi and of Naphthali.

(_d_) THE PSALMS OF SOLOMON

[LITERATURE.—Ryle and James, _The Psalms of Solomon_ (1891); Kittel, in Kautzsch, II, pp. 127-148; Schürer, II, iii. pp. 17-23, German ed., III, pp. 205-212; Viteau, _Les Psaumes de Salomon_ (1911); Rendel Harris, _The Odes and Psalms of Solomon_ (1911); Leszynsky, _Op. cit._, pp. 274-279; Buchanan Gray in Charles, II, pp. 631-652. See also Charles’ art. in the _Encycl. Bibl._, i. 241-245.]

Although the eighteen psalms comprised in this book are not apocalyptic in character, a brief mention of them here is not out of place, for they offer us a true picture of the Pharisaic standpoint, and are therefore useful for purposes of comparison when seeking to decide the Pharisaic authorship, or otherwise, of other books.

These psalms were originally written in Hebrew during the middle of the first century B.C.; concerning these two points there is a general consensus of opinion. Whether the hand of one or more writers is to be discerned is an open question. The mental background of these Psalms is one of sorrow occasioned by the capture of Jerusalem by Pompey and his desecration of the Temple. But this event is represented as the just punishment of God, for instead of a Davidic king the Hasmonæans were rulers, and they had assumed the high-priestly office although they were not of high-priestly descent. The ruling house was supported by the Sadducees; it is this which causes the sorrow of the writer, or writers, to be mixed with bitter resentment. These Psalms thus give us a picture of the Pharisees and Sadducees, but from the Pharisaic point of view; so that neither the portraiture of Pharisaic piety nor yet that of Sadducæan wickedness must be taken _au pied de la lettre_. The general point of view of the book has been well summed up by Buchanan Gray thus: “It is the Pharisaic piety that breathes through the Psalms; it is their opposition to the worldly, non-Davidic monarchy, and to the illegitimate high-priesthood of the ruling Hasmonæan king, Aristobulus, that finds expression here; the Messianic hope (especially xvii. 23 ff.), the firm belief in a future life which characterizes them later, and renders them naturally political quietists and indifferent to political schemes, are already conspicuous here. And, again, the later attitude of the Pharisees in the matter of free-will as described by Josephus (_Bell. Jud._, II, viii. 14)—these ascribe all to fate and to God, and yet allow that to act as is right, or the contrary, is principally in the power of men: although fate does co-operate in every action—is almost exactly paralleled by two passages in the Psalms, v. 4, ix. 6.”[296]

(_e_) THE BOOK OF JUBILEES

[LITERATURE.—Schürer, II, iii. pp. 134-141, German ed., III, pp. 371-384; Littmann, in Kautzsch, II, pp. 31-119; Charles, _The Book of Jubilees_ (1902); Leszynsky, _Op. cit._, pp. 179-236; Charles, in _The Apocr. and Pseudep. of the O.T._, II, pp. 1-82.]

Although this book is also known as “The Apocalypse of Moses”[297] (Syncellus), it is not an apocalyptic work in the proper sense of the word. It purports, however, to have been given through angels to Moses on Mount Sinai, and can, therefore, in a certain sense be described as an apocalypse; but it scarcely touches upon the themes which form the main content of the apocalyptic works proper. It is also called the “Little Genesis,” as it follows the narrative as given in the Book of Genesis and Exodus i.-xii., but this is divided into fixed periods of time, or “Jubilees,” hence its name; for this word is directly derived from the Hebrew term _Jobel_ which, according to most modern scholars, means “ram” or “ram’s horn”; the year of Jubilee thus means literally “the year of ram’s horn”; the fiftieth year was so called because it was proclaimed by the blowing of rams’ horns (see Lev. xxv.). “As the author seeks to reproduce the history of primitive times _in the spirit of his own day_, he deals with the biblical text in a very free fashion. Many things that did not happen to interest him, or that he considered objectionable, were either omitted or altered, while others were still further amplified by the addition of numerous particulars of one kind or another” (Schürer, _Op. cit._, II, iii. p. 136).

It is impossible to fix the exact date of the book with any certainty, but that it belongs at the latest to the second half of the first century B.C. may be unhesitatingly stated. That it was written by a Palestinian Pharisee is the opinion of most scholars; it is true that it is strongly legalistic in character, so much so that the Messianic Kingdom is conceived of as the outcome of a gradual process which is bound up with the study of the Law. The writer, moreover, greatly extols the Sabbath, Circumcision, the dietary laws, the laws of purification, etc.; its strongly marked spirit of exclusiveness is also said to betray its Pharisaic origin. But with the exception of the last point there is nothing in all this which forbids us to believe in Sadducæan authorship (see above, Chapter IV, § ii. (_b_)). Leszynsky seems to us to have proved his contention that the author was a Sadducee, who ascribed Mosaic authorship to the book for the purpose of obtaining the needful authority for Sadducæan views concerning the Law. The details of his argument would take us too far afield; he discusses the question with much learning on pp. 181-234 of his book.

That the book was originally written in Hebrew admits of no doubt; no part of this has come down to us, however. The Greek version, made from the Hebrew, exists only in fragments found in the writings of some ancient authors. The Ethiopic version, which was made from the Greek, exists almost in its entirety; of the Latin version, also made from the Greek, about one-fourth is extant. The importance of the book, in the words of Charles, lies in the fact that it is “not only indispensable to students of the New Testament, and of the history of the Pharisaic movement: it is likewise of first-class importance as a witness to the readings of the Hebrew text of Genesis about the beginning of the Christian era” (_Encycl. Bibl._, I, 230). As we incline, however, to the belief in its Sadducæan authorship, we regard it as important for the history of the antagonism between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and their respective teaching, rather than merely for the history of the Pharisaic movement.

(_f_) THE ASSUMPTION OF MOSES

[LITERATURE.—Schürer, II, iii. pp. 73-83, German ed., III, pp. 294-305; Clemen, in Kautzsch, II, pp. 311-331; Charles, _The Assumption of Moses_ (1897), and in _The Apocr. and Pseudep. of the O.T._, II, pp. 407-424; Leszynsky, _Op. cit._, pp. 267-273.]

The numerous references in early Christian literature to apocryphal books of Moses makes it clear that several well-known books of the kind must once have been in existence. The different titles of these books which are mentioned are a little confusing; we have just seen that the “Apocalypse of Moses” was one of the names given to the Book of Jubilees; we shall see below (§ _j_) that an “Apocalypse of Moses” is more or less parallel with the “Life of Adam and Eve.” Mention is made of a “Book of secret words of Moses” and of the “Assumption of Moses” in the commentary of Gelasius Cyzicenus on the acts of the council of Nicæa; Origen (_De princip._, III, ii. 1) speaks of the book called the “Ascension of Moses,” and Didymus, in writing on the epistle of Jude, refers to the “Assumption of Moses”; and more than once the “Testament of Moses” is mentioned. It is probable that these two latter are both included in the book we are considering, but that they were originally distinct and of different authorship. The book as a whole was written at the very beginning of the first century A.D.; this is the opinion of most authorities, based upon fairly clear indications in the book itself (see Charles in the _Encycl. Bibl._, I, 235). The author, according to Charles, “was a Pharisee, and a Pharisee who was the antithesis of the Zealot exactly in those respects in which Pharisaism differed from Zealotism. His book was designed as a protection against the growing secularization of the Pharisaic party through its adoption of political ideals and popular Messianic beliefs”; elsewhere Charles says[298]: “He was a Pharisee of a fast-disappearing type, recalling in all respects the Chasid of the early Maccabæan times, and upholding the old traditions of quietude and resignation.” Leszynsky, on the other hand, is inclined to believe that the author was a Sadducee; his arguments, however, are not convincing.[299]

The book contains what purports to be a prediction of the future history of Israel which had been revealed to Moses, and which he in turn reveals to Joshua. It is, therefore, as a whole not an apocalyptic book in the technical sense, though part of it does distinctly come under this designation; this is clear from Chapter x., which is written in poetry, and in the familiar apocalyptic strain; it tells of the coming of divine rule upon earth, when sorrow shall be taken away, and wrath shall come upon the enemies of God; the signs of the end are graphically described.

The book was originally written in Hebrew, though some scholars contend for an Aramaic original. Only part of the book has so far been recovered and this is in Latin, which was, however, made from a Greek translation of the original.

(_g_) THE ASCENSION OF ISAIAH

[LITERATURE.—Schürer, II, iii. pp. 141-146, German ed., pp. 386-393; Beer, in Kautzsch, II, pp. 119-127; Charles, _The Ascension of Isaiah_ (1900); Charles, _The Martyrdom of Isaiah_, in _The Apocr. and Pseudep. of the O.T._, II, pp. 155-162. Burkitt, _Jewish and Christian Apocalypses_, pp. 45 ff.]

In ancient ecclesiastical writings mention is made of three apocryphal books about Isaiah, viz. the “Ascension of Isaiah,” the “Martyrdom of Isaiah,” and the “Vision of Isaiah.” It is possible that the “Ascension” is only another name for the “Vision,” for in