The Assumption of Moses, translated from the Latin sixth-century manuscript, the unemended text of which is published herewith, together with the text in its restored and critically emended form, edited with introduction, notes and indices by R. H. Charles. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1897.

Mr. Charles's last work will have a hearty welcome from students of Syriac whose interest is linguistic, and from theological students who have learned the value of Jewish and Christian pseudepigraphy ; and the educated general reader will find much of high interest in it, regard being had to its date and its theological standpoint." — Record.

Mr. Charles has in this work followed up the admirable editions of other pieces of apocalyptic literature with an edition equally admirable. Some of the notes on theolc^cal or other points of special interest are very full and instructive. The whole work is an honour to English scholarship. . . . The work before us is one that no future student of the apocalyptic literature will be able to neglect, and students of the New Testament or the contemporary Jewish thought will find much to interest them in it." — Primitive Methodist Quarterly Review,

''As is intimated in the title-page, the Syriac text, based on ten MSS., from which the Epistle of Baruch is translated, is included in the volume. The learned footnotes which accompany the translation throughout will be found most helpful to the reader. Indeed, nothing seems to have been left undone which could make this ancient writing intelligible to the student." — Scotsman,

''To say that this is the edition of the Apocalypse of Baruch is to say nothing. Let us say that it is an edition which alone would give an editor a name to live." — Expository Times,

"It is a book that should be mastered by every student of the New Testament." — Westminster Review,

" Mr. Charles's new work, ' The Apocalypse of Baruch,' which he is the first to edit from the Syriac in a form accessible to English readers, is the best example that English literature has ever had of the modern analysis of ancient books ; and those to whom such criticism is still obscure cannot do better than study the way in which the artist unravels the tangled skein of authorship in the most beautiful of all the Apocalypses that have come down to us. He has certainly written a very valuable work, for which the students of apocalyptic literature will give him their hearty thanks." — Expositor,

I

OTHER WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

THE APOCALYPSE OP BAPUCff.—Tnasiaied from the Syriac: Chapters I.-LXXVII. from the Sixth Centmy MS. in the Ambrosian Library of Milan, and Chapters LXXVIII.-LXXXVII.— TWjB EPISTLE OFBARUCH, — From a New and Critical Text based on Ten MSS. and published herewith. Edited, with Introduction, Notes, and Indices. 7s. 6d. net

London: A & C BLACK.

THE BOOK OF ENOCH. —TrsLnshited from Dillmann's Ethiopic Text (emended and revised in accordance with hitherto uncoUated Ethiopic MSS. and with the Gizeh and other Greek and Latin Fragments), with Introduction, Notes, and Indices. 8vo, i6s.

THE ETHIOPIC VERSION OF THE HEBREW BOOK OF fC/BILEES.'-Edited from Four MSS. and critically revised, emended, and restored in accordance with the Hebrew, Syriac, Greek, and Latin Fragments of this Book.

THE BOOK OF THE SECRETS OF ENOCH—Tnnslated from the Slavonic by W. R. Morfill, M.A., and edited, with Introduction, Notes, and Indices, by R. H. Charles, M.A. 8vo, 7s. 6d.

Oxford: THE CLARENDON PRESS.

TRANSLATED FROM THE LATIN SIXTH CENTURY MS., THE UNEMENDED TEXT OF WHICH IS PUBLISHED HEREWITH, TOGETHER WITH THE TEXT IN ITS RESTORED AND CRITICALLY EMENDED

FORM

EDITED WITH INTRODUCTION, NOTES, AND INDICES

R. H. CHARLES, M.A.

TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN, AND EXETER COLLEGE, OXFORD

LONDON ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK

[Aii Rights Reserv€d]

I

MY FATHER AND MOTHER

PREFACE

Wbittbn in Hebrew shortly after the beginning of the Christian era, this book was designed by its author to protest against the growing secularisation of the Pharisaic party through its fusion with political ideals and popular Messianic beliefs. Its author, a Pharisaic Quietist, sought herein to recall his party to the old paths, which they were fast forsaking, of simple unobtrusive obedience to the Law. He glorifies, accordingly, the old ideals which had been cherished and pursued by the Chasid and Early Pharisaic party, but which the Pharisaism of the first century b.c. had begun to disown in favour of a more active role in the life of the nation. He foresaw, perhaps, the doom to which his country was hurrying under such a shortsighted and unspiritual policy, and laboured with all his power to stay its downward progress. But all in vain. He but played afresh the part of Cassandra. The leavening of Pharisaism with

viii PREFACE

earthly political ideals went on apace, and the movement thus initiated culminated finally in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Eomans in 70 a.d.

It adds no little to the interest of the book that it was written during the early life of our Lord, or possibly contemporaneously with His public ministry. At all events, it was known to the writers of Jude 9, 16 and Acts vii, and most probably to the writers of 2 Peter ii 10-11 and Matthew xxiv. 29 (Luke xxi 25—26).

It may be well here to indicate the features in which this edition differs from previous editions of the Assumption. These consist (1) in a fuller and more critical treatment of the Latin text, and of the Greek and Semitic background which it presupposes; (2) in an exegesis of the text at once more comprehensive and detailed.

I. The Latin Text. — The Latin text has been critically edited and emended four times in Germany. But three of these editions have failed to recognise the Semitic background of the Latin text, and have thus limited their horizon. The fourth — that of Schmidt-Merx — which has shown ample recognition of this fact, is often brilliant indeed, but of tener arbitrary, alike in its emendations and restorations. With a view to carrying forward the criticism of the Latin text, the present editor has tabulated the peculiar Latin forms it contains, and

PREFACE ix

compared them with like forms in the fifth-century Latin MS. of the Gk)spels, A;, and also given the appropriate references to Bonsch's Itala und Vvlgata and Schuchardt's VokalisimiB des Vvlgdr-Lateins. The idiosyncrasies of the text have likewise been carefully summarised, and its derivation from the Greek exhibited on grounds in many respecte new. At the next stage of the investigation I have been obliged to part company with all scholars but Bosenthal in my advocacy of a Hebrew original That the book was derived from a Semitic original, it is no longer possible to doubt. That the language in question was Aramaic is, owing to the advocacy of Schmidt-Merx, now generally accepted, but, as it appears to me, on inadequate grounds; for I have shown, I believe, that it is possible to explain, from the standpoint of a Hebrew original, most of the crucial passages adduced by Schmidt-Merx in favour of an Aramaic, and that the remaining passages have no evidential value on the question at issue. I have shown further, I hope, that whereas many of the passages admit of explanation on either hypothesis, there are several which are explicable only on that of a Hebrew original.

II. The Exegesis, — The work done in this direction has been very inadequate. Short studies, indeed, from time to time, have appeared in Germany and England, but these have in every

X PREFACE

instance confined themselves to one or more of the salient features and main statements of the book. The occasional explanatory notes in the editions of Volkmar, Hilgenf eld, and Schmidt-Merx are, though often most helpful and suggestive, open to the same criticism. This exegetic meagreness of past scholarship on the subject has made the task of the present editor more arduous than might have been expected. It has, however, been beneficial in necessitating a first-hand study of all the questions involved in the text. As a result of this study, I have been obliged to differ from all preceding scholars on the interpretation of several of the most important facts and chapters in the book. With what success I must leave to others to determine.

As a help to the reader, I should add that the ex^etical notes are placed under the English translation and the critical under the Latin text. This practice, however, is occasionally broken througL

Finally, I wish here to express my deep gratitude to Dr. Cheyne for his revision of my proofs of a Hebrew original, and for suggestions connected therewith, and also to Dr. Sutherland Black for his revision of the entire book in proof, as well as for numerous corrections.

17 Bbadmoke Road, Oxford,

CONTENTS

PAOK

Intboduotion xiii-lxv

§ 1. Short Aoconnt of the Book (pp. ziii-ziy). — § 2. Other Books of Moses (pp. ziy-xrii). — § 3. Editions of the Latin Text — Ceriani, Hilgenfeld, Yolkmar, Schmidt and Merz, Fritzsohe (pp. zviiizzi). — § 4. Critical Inquiries — Ewald, Langen, Hilgenfeld, Haupt, Bonsch, Philippi, Oolani, Carriere, Wieseler, Geiger, Heidenheim, Hausrath, St^helin, Drummond, Beuss, Dillmann, Bosenthal, SchUrer, Baldensperger, Deane, Thomson, De Faye, Briggs (pp. zxi-zxyiii). — § 5. The Latin Version of the Assumption : Its Linguistic Character — Palaeography and Syntax, and Critical Worth (pp. xxviii-xxxvi). — § 6. The Latin Version — a Translation from the Greek: for (1) Greek Words are transliterated; (2) Greek Idioms survive in the Latin ; (8) we must at times translate, not the Latin Text, hut the Greek which it presupposes, but which was misrendered by the Latin translator ; (4) through retranslation into Greek, the source of the incoherencies of the Text can, in some cases, be discovered; Fragments of the Greek still survive (pp. xxxvi-xxxviii).— § 7. The Greek — a translation from the Hebrew Original : for (1) Hebrew idiomatic Phrases survive in the Latin ; (2) Hebrew syntactical Idioms probably survive;

xii CONTENTS

PAOB

(8) we must at times translate, not the Latin Text, bat the Hebrew presupposed by it; (4) frequently it is only through retranslation into Hebrew that we oan understand the source of the corruptions in the Text and remove them ; (6) Paronomasie appear on retranslation into Hebrew (pp. xxxviii-xlv). — § 8. The present Book in reality a Testament of Moses. The original Assumption preserved only in a few Greek quotations (pp. xlv-1). — § 9. Dislocation of Chapters YIII.-IX. in the Latin Text from their original position after Chapter Y. (p. 11). — § 10. The Author — not a Sadducee, Zealot, or Essene, but a Pharisaic Qnietist (pp. li-liv). — § 11. The Date (pp. Iv-lviii).— § 12. Views of the Author on Moses, Israel, the Messianic Kingdom, Good Works (pp. Iviii-lxi). — § 13. New Testament and later Writers acquainted with the Assumption (pp. Ixii-lxv).

The Assumptiox of Moses — Translation and Exe-

OETiOAL Notes 1-51

The Latin Ybbsion of the Assumption of Moses gbitigallt revised and elcendbd, toobtheb

WITH THE UnEMENDED LaTIN TsXT OF THE SiXTH

Century MS. in the Milan Lib&aet . . . 58-101

The Assumption of Moses — Surviving only in a

FEW Greek Fragments 103-110

Appendix on L 8 Ill

Index L — Passages from the Soriptures and other Ancient Books dibectly connected or closely PARALLEL with THE Text 113

Index II.— Names and Subjects .... 114-117

I

INTRODUCTION

§ 1. Short Account of the Book

The Assumption of Moses was, in all probability, a composite work, and consisted of two originally distinct books, of which the first was really the Testament of Moses, and the second the Assumption. The former was written in Hebrew, between 7 and 29 A.D., and possibly also the latter. A Greek version of the entire work appeared in the first century a.d. Of this a few phrases and sentences have been preserved in St. Matt. xxiv. 29 ; Acts Baruch, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and other Greek writers. The fragments in the Greek writers are printed below (pp. 107-109). The Greek version was translated into Latin not later than the fifth century. That such a Latin version ever existed was imknown to the modern world till nearly forty years ago, when a large fragment of it was discovered by Ceriani in a sixth-century MS. in the Ambrosian Library in Milan.

xiv INTRODUCTION

The book was written by a Pharisaic Quietist, and forms a noble but inefifectual protest against the growing Zelotie spirit of the party. Its author was a learned Jew, well versed in the Scriptures, and intimately acquainted with the history of his nation subsequent to the close of the canon. He was full of patriotism; thus he looks for the return of the ten tribes, the establishment of the theocratic kingdom, the triumph of Israel over its foes, and its final exaltation to heaven, whence it should see its enemies weltering in the fires of gehenna. But though a patriot, he is not a Zealot ; the duty of the faithful is not to resort to arms, but simply to keep the law and prepare, through repentance, for the personal intervention of God in their behalf.

§ 2. Other Books of Moses

There has been a large and very diverse literature bearing the name of Moses. As it furnishes little or no help to the explanation of the present book, I shall content myself here with a simple enumeration of the various Apocryphal books of Moses that have appeared in Jewish, Christian, and Gnostic literature.

I. In Jewish literature — (a) In Hebrew, (J) iq Greek, (c) m Arabic, {d) in Slavonic,

INTRODUCTION xv

(a) Midrash Twivikuma Debarimy translated into German by Wlinsche (1882). Petirath Moshe (neiD m''M), eA by GUb. Gaulmyn (Paris, 1629), with a Latin translation. This translation was subsequently published in 1714 by J. A. Fabricius, and in 1840 by Gfrorer, Frophetae veteres psevdepigraphiy pp. 303, 304. Two other recensions of this Midrash have been published by JeUinek, have not been able to see. On these legends, see also Beer, Leben Moses Ttach Auffassung der jildischen Sage (Leipzig, 1863); Benedetti. Vita e Marte di Mose (Pisa, 1879); Zunz, GottesdienstlicJie Vortrdge, p. 146.

(6) Philo's Vita Masis, p. 39 ; and Josephus,

B (fiXo^Aoycjv Mvotik&v Mtovaeto^. This book

is distinguished from the Assumption in the

Acts of the Nicene Council, II. 18, where,

after mentioning the latter, these proceed :

Kal €P Qlpkfp Aiyayv Mvotik&v Mtovaito^,

avTo^ Mtova-r]^ Trpoeiire irepl rod Aa/SlS xal

Sa\ofi&vTo^, 0VTCD9 irpoelire' kcu StaSt^eva-ei

ek ainbv 6 Oeo^ O'0if>lav kcu Sixauxriivrjv

Koi iTTiCTi^fi/rfv irKrjfyri* aiyro^ olKoSofi'qaei

rov oIkov tov Seov koI to, 6^9. I have

xvi INTRODUCTION

classed this book as a Jewish work, but the evidence tells neither way.

(c) In Arabic. Dr. Leitner has translated into Gerlnan {Deutsche Vierteljahrschrift (1871), pp. 184-212) from the Arabic, a Samaritan Apocalypse of Moses. I have found it useful in the explanation of IX. 1 of our book.

{d) In Slavonic, as Mr. MorfiU has kindly informed me, there is a book entitled "The Exodus of Moses," or more fully, " The life of the holy Prophet Moses, and how he ruled among the Saracens, and how he resisted King Pharaoh and Balaam the Wizard, and how he brought the People out of Egypt," Tichonravov, PamiatniJci otrechennoi rvsskoi lUeraturi, i. p. 233 sqq, (1863). This writing has no connection with our Assumption. It is very rabbinic in character, and possesses many such features in common with Josephus's account of Moses. Mr. Morfill will shortly publish the translation of this work.

II. In Christian literature.

Apocalypm Mom, in Tischendorf 's "Apocalypses apocryphae" (1866), pp. 1-23; Ceriani, Armenian version has also been published in

INTRODUCTION xvii

the Uncanonical Books of the Old Testament, by the Mechitarists at Venice, pp. 1-23 (see James's Apocrypha anecdota, ii 158, 159, whence I have derived this last reference). This book really belongs to the Adamic literature (see Eonsch, Das Buch der JvHn" Iden, pp. 470-474 ; Dillmann, fferzog's

Apocryphum Mosis (^A'ir6fcpv<f>ov MoDva-eco^). According to Euthalius (Zaccagni's Collectanea TnonumentoruTH veterum (1698), Syncellus (ed. Bonn, i p. 48), St. Paul derived Gal. vi 16, ovt€ irepiToiiri ri ioriv oire aKpofivarta aXXit Katvff icrUn^^ from this Apocryph. There can be no doubt that the borrowing is just the other way, and that this Apocryph is a Christian composition, of the general contents of which we have no knowledge.

^iory of Moses. This is found in Armenian (see Sdixmed^ Apocrypha anecdota^ ii. p. 160).

III. In Gnomic literature.

See Epiphanius, ffasr, XXXIX. 5, where it is said that the Sethites used certain Books of Moses in addition to others attributed to Abraham and other Old Testament worthies.

xviii INTRODUCTION

§ 3. Editions of the Latin Tbxt

Ceriani, Monurrventa stwra et pro/ana, voL L belongs the honour of discovering and identifying these fragments of the lost Assumption of Moses. In this edition of the text Ceriani contented himself with reproducing the text. This he did with such accuracy that subsequent inquiries, conducted by Volkmar, relative to the reading of certain passages, failed to lead to any material improvement on Ceriani's printed edition (see Appendix C, Volkmar's edition).

Hilgenfeld, Novum Testamentum extra carumem owe the finest textual work that has been produced on this book. Much of it is of permanent value, and many of his emendations are accepted as final. His contention, however, that the book was written originaUy in Greek, has, of necessity.

I

limited the range of his vision, and barred the way to further progress. But fault-finding is ungracious where such high services have been rendered, and particularly in the case of one who has not only done the best work within his self -limited province, but has also been the first to do it. Ceriani, indeed, was the first to publish the text, but

INTRODUCTION xix

Hilgenfeld the book, as he himself rightly claims : ^'Antonio M. Cerianio . . . codicis latini, non libri ipsius primam editionem debemus " {Mess^ Jud,, Proleg. p. Ixx, note).

In the Zeitschrift filr wissenschafti, TheoL (1868), pp. 273—309, 356, and in his Messias Jvdojexyrwm (1869), pp. 435-468, Hilgenfeld has retranslated the Latin into Greek, and on the whole with admirable success. On many passages I have found occasion to differ with him. In the sequel the reader will find a number of these, where the critical treatment of the text presupposes a Greek background diverging from that supplied by Hilgenfeld.

Volkmar, Mose Prophetie und Himmdfahrt^ tint Quelle filr das Neue Testament, zum erstenmale deutsch herausgegeben im Zusammenhang der Apohrypha und der Christologie iiberhaupt (Leipzig, 1867). This writer has made some undoubted contributions to the emendation of the book, and occasionally to its interpretation. But his work is disfigured by many errors, and at times by gross ignorance. His well-known partiality for a certain period of history intervenes here also, and leads him to wrest facts into accordance with his preconceived theories.

Schmidt and Merx, " Die Assumptio Mosis, mit Einleitung und erklarenden Anmerkungen herausgegeben " (Merx, Archiv fur wissenschaftliche Erforsehung des Alien Testaments, I. ii. (1 8 6 8), pp. 1 1 1 -

XX INTRODUCTION

152). In this learned study Schmidt-Merx have rightly shown that the original of our book must have been written not in Greek, but in Semitio — according to their view, in Aramaic. They were not, indeed, the first to recognise a Semitic original, but they were the first to apply this hypothesis consistently and continuously in the interpretation of the Latin text. For some review of their arguments in favour of an Aramaic as against a Hebrew original, see p. xxxix.

Their emendations and restorations of the Latin are not unfrequently happy, but at times they are wholly beside the mark and unreasonable. How, for instance, are we to explain the correction of the Semitic idiom, facient facientes, into the unmeaning in faciem facientes, by editors who are advocating a Semitic original? That Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, and Fritzsche should remove this Hebraism from their texts by correction is intelligible from their standpoint; but on what principle can we explain the action of these editors ? Their treatment of the text in other passages is just as arbitrary. It must be conceded, however, that their work, though often untrustworthy, is always stimulating and suggestive.

Fritzsche, lAhri apocryphi Vet Testamenti graece (1871), pp. 700-730. In this very serviceable edition, Fritzsche prints on one page the text as

INTRODUCTION xxi

originally published by Ceriani, and facing it, on the opposite page, an emended text with critical footnotes. This work is based mainly on the labours of Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, and Schmidt-Merx. To their contributions to the recovery of the text Fritzsche has added some of his own. It is a saner text than that of Schmidt-Merx, but Hot half so brilliant.

§ 4. Critical Inquiries

Under the head of each of the following writer^ on the Assumption, his most characteristic contributions or views are briefly given;

Ewald, Oottinger gelehrte Anzeigen (1862), voL L des Volkes Israel, vol. vi 51-61 (Eng. trans.). Ewald regards our book as derived from a Semitic original (Hebrew or Aramaic). It was written by a Zealot, a few years after the death of Herod the Great, and subsequent to the rising of Judas the Gaulonite. The "slaves, sons of slaves," are the Maccabean high priests, and chap. YII. is directed against the Pharisees.

Langen, JDas Judenthum in FcUdstina (1866), pp. 102-111 ; Eeusch's Theolog. IMeraturhl (1871), No. 3. Langen holds that the Assumption was written in Palestine in Hebrew, and shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 a.d.

xxii INTRODUCTION

Hilgenfeld, Zeitsehr. f. vrissensch. Theol (1867), pp. 217-223 ; Memos Jvdaeorum (1869), Prolegom, lxx.-lxxvi. See also the books quoted under his |

name on pp. xviii— xix. The Assumption was written in Greek by a Boman Jew in the West drca 44—45 A.D. Chap. VII. is to be interpreted of the Herodian princes. The exegetical side of Hilgenfeld's work is weak compared with the textual

Haupt, '' Bemerkungen zu der editio princeps der Himmelfahrt des Moses," Z.f.W.T. (1867), p. 448. These remarks consist of a few emendations of the

Latin text. <

I

Bonsch has made many contributions to the study of the Assumption. Some of these are of great value, especially those which deal with the Latin Version purely from the linguistic sida \

Others, which are devoted to the emendation of the text, are less good, though occasionally his restorations are very felicitous. These subjects are treated

suggests certain corrections and changes to be made in Hilgenfeld's retranslation into Greek. The various names under which the Assumption has appeared are discussed in Z/.W.T., vol xii. \

Zeitschrift, pp. 542-562, he addresses himself to the exegesis of this book, and then again returns

INTRODUCTION xxiii

to the emendation of the text. The exegesis could hardly be more unsatisfactory, and the impression left by these, his later attempts at emendatiop, cannot be said to be much better. In six pages of emendations, only one or two appear probable. I here append a specimen of his work. For the wellknown corrupt word putavimus in VII. 8, Eonsch proposes laetabimus or litabimus, or adjutabimus, or si lutabimus, or exaltabimus, but ultimately prefers perpotabimus, Bonsch returned once again to this subject in vol. xxviii of the same ZeUschrift (1885), pp. 102-104. For further references to this book,

Philippi, Das Buch Henoch (1868), pp. 166-191. This writer assigns the composition of this book to the second century of our era, and interprets chap. VII. of the Pharisees.

Colani, " L'Assomption de Moise " (Bevue de Thdohgie, vol. iv. (1868), pp. 65-94). This scholar thinks that Schmidt-Merx have made it impossible any longer to doubt the Aramaic origin of the book. With Volkmar, he regards chap. VIII. as historical and concerned with the tragic history of the Jews under Hadrian, and IX. as a veiled account of the action of Babbi Jehuda ben Baba, who, after ordaining seven of his disciples in a narrow gorge near Usha, was put to death by the Bomans. This rabbi is the Taxo in IX. 1. Chap. VI. contains an

xxiv INTRODUCTION

indictment of the Jewish Doctors of Jabneh and Usha. Hence the book was written c. 137—138. As for its silence regarding the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., he thinks this quite immaterial. This book was the work not of an Essene, nor a Zealot, but was the manifesto of a writer who felt that Israel could do alike without the temple or its national independence, since it could find its satisfaction in those elements of the cult which were independent of the temple. This very clever, but most inconclusive, treatise concludes with the words : " Toute difficult^, je crois se trouve levee ! "

Carriere, " Note sur le Taxo de TAssumption de my Commentary y p. 35.

Wieseler, "Die jtingst aufgefundene Aufnahme Moses nach Ursprung und Inhalt untersucht " {Jah/rbilcher fii/r deutsche Theologie (1868), pp. 622— 648). Wieseler thinks that our book was written by a Zealot, in Hebrew (?), shortly after the war of Varus. His interpretation of chap. VII. will be found on p. 24 in my notes, and of Taxo on p. 35.

Geiger, Jildische Zeitschrift fur Wissenschaft und chap. VII. to be a description of the Sadducees, adducing such phrases as regnabunt de his homines pestilentiosi and tanquam principes erimus. In docentes se esse justos (d^P^'^tv) there is a play on

INTRODUCTION xxy

their name. The words noli me tangere empha^ sise their priestly parity.

Heidenheim, " Beitrage zom bessem Verstandniss der Ascensio Moysis" {VierUljahrschrift fii/r detdsehund eTiglisch'theohgische Forschung und Kritik, vol. trustworthy work it has been my duty to read in all the literature of this book. Occasioncdly a few helpful references to Jewish literature are given.

Hausrath, NeutestavurUlicfie Zeitgeschichte, 2nd ed., iv. pp. 76—80. Hausrath is of opinion that the book was written at Eome in the reign of Domitian in Aramaic.

Stahelin, JahrhueTterfiir detUsche Tkeologie (1874), pp. 216—218. The book preaches not a Messiah kingdom, but an O.T. theophany. Michael is to introduce the new order of things.

Drummond, Tfie Jewish if«ssmA(1877),pp.74— 84, We have here a very clear and but too brief account of the Assumption. Dr. Drummond thinks that, "as there is no sufficient reason for supposing a Hebrew or Aramaean original, we may assume that the book, notwithstanding its Hebraic colouring, was composed in Greek." Then follows an able discussion on the date, which he holds to be about 6 A.D.

Beuss, OeschichU der h. Schriften des AUen TestamerUs (1890), pp. 738-740. This writer does not commit himself to a definite date. He thinks that

xxvi INTRODUCTION

the words in VI. 7, "He (i.e. Herod) will beget children, who succeeding him will rule for shorter periods," do not necessarily determine the date. Philip and Antipater did, it is true, reign longer than their father. " Der Verf asser konnte auch an Archelaus und Agrippa denken die ja allein fiir einen Jerusalemer Interesse hatten."

DiUmann, art. " Pseudepigraphen," in Herzog's Beal'Encyc. 2nd ed., xii. 352, 353. Dillmann agrees withEwald, Wie8eler,andDrummond in assigning the composition of this book to the first decade after the death of Herod. The writer was a Zealot and was hostile to the Pharisees, whom he assails in chap. VIL The book was probably written in Aramaic.

Bosenthal, Vier apocryphische BUcher (1885), pp. 13-38. This is a very interesting and fresh study of our book. The writer ascribes it to the years immediately succeeding the fall of the temple. The author was a Zealot, and wrote in Hebrew and not in Aramaic. He attempts to prove this thesis by the removal of obscurities or corruptions from the text through retranslation into Hebrew. In only one or two cases, however, is it possible to admit that he is successfuL On his view of chapter VII.,

Schtirer, A History of the Jewish People in the We have here an admirable account of this book.

INTRODUCTION xxvii

Scblirer refers its composition to the first decade after the death of Herod. Its writer was a Zealot, and the homines pestilentiosi in YII. are the " Pharisees, to whom every word is unmistakably applicable." A very valuable bibliography is appended.

Baldensperger, Das Selbsthevmsstsein Jesu (1888), pp. 25-31. This writer regards the Assumption as a Jewish manifesto, with an apologetic, or rather a secret, polemical aim. This aim is to glorify Moses, the Law, and Judaism over against Christianity. The attributes ascribed to the Founder of Christianity are here, in large measure, assigned to Moses. He is the " mediator " between God and man (I. 14, 17), the high priest who intercedes daily on bended knee (XL 11), the divine prophet and perfect teacher (XL 16). The Law is to abide for ever (IV. 2, XIL 13), and Israel always to be pre-eminent (XII. 4). The book was not written before 50 A.D. Its author was a Quietist, and chap. VII. is to be regarded as descriptive of the Koman procurators.

Deane, Psevdepigrapha (1891), pp. 95-130. We have here a very full and readable account of our book, which shows a large acquaintance with the literature of the subject. Its author he takes to be a Zealot. It was written very early in the first century. Chap. YII. is directed against the Herodian princes and the Pharisees.

Thomson, Boohs which Influenced Our Lord and

xxviii INTRODUCTION

We have here a scholarly treatment of the Assumption. Its date is fixed at 6 A.D., and its original language as Aramaic His interpretation of YII. is strange. It is regarded as a description of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Publicans.

De Faye, Les Apocalypses Juives (1892), pp. 67-75. De Faye agrees with Dillmann, Schiirer, and others as to the date and the interpretation of chap. VIL The author was a Zealot, whose hopes for Israel were wholly confined to this world. Taxo is the righteous kernel of the nation.

Briggs, The Messiah of the Apostles (1895), pp. 5—7, 18. The Assumption is a secret polemic against Christianity. Its very title betrays as much. Its author was a Zealot, who wrote prior to 70 A.D. Taxo and his seven sons are in antithesis to Jesus and His twelve disciples, and are represented as excelling them in self-sacrifice. The law is of perpetual obligation. Its fulfilment is the preparation for the divine advent.

§ 5. The Latin Version of the Assumption : Its LiNauiSTic Character and Critical Worth

The solitary MS. of this version was discovered in the Ambrosian Library at Milan by Ceriani, and published by him in his Mon. sacr. et prof., I. i

INTRODUCTION xxix

55—64, in 1861. This MS. is a palimpsest of the sixth century. It consists of eight folios, written on both sides. There are two columns on each page, and from twelve to eighteen letters in each line. There is no division of words, and the punctuation, which but rarely occurs, is above the line, not on it. Occasionally whole verses are indecipherable. The palimpsest came origioally from the Abbey of Bobbio, near Pavia.

Some scholars have supposed that in this MS. we have the actual work of the original translator of the Latin Version, but I shall show presently that this is not so. It is, in fact, only a fragmentary copy of that version. It is not the original version, but only a copy of it ; for (a) our text contains duplicate renderings and attempts at a better translation, which must primarily have been merely marginal glosses, but were afterwards introduced by a copyist into the text. The clearest example of this is to be found in V. 6, where the dittography extends to six lines in the MS. Other dittographies will be found in VI. 3, VIII. 5, XL 13. (b) Again, in XL 2 we find an actual correction of the copyist. The text reads, et hortatus est cum Mouse, but the context requires et hortatus est eum Mouses. Here, first of all, the copyist took e in eum to be c, and so, finding cum Mouses to be impossible, emended Mouses into Mouse. Eum is twice taken

XXX INTRODUCTION

as cum in the Bobbio MS. k, in Mt. ix. 1, xiii 48, (c) Ab his, corrupt for abis (XL 9), must be due to a Latin copyist, and not to the Latin translator.

The Latin belongs in style and orthography to the fifth century. La order to make this clear I will show that nearly all its chief characteristics can be paralleled from the old fifth-century Bobbio MS. k edited in 1886 by Wordsworth, Sanday, and White. I have drawn my examples of k from Dr. Sanday's Introduction, pp. xcix-clxvi. This N.T. MS. I shall henceforth refer to simply as k, I have likewise used Schuchardt's Der Vokalismus des Vvl^ gdr-Lateins, and Bonsch's Itaia und VtUgata, to which I refer the reader occasionally.

We shall now treat of the Latin text under two heads — (i.) Its linguistic character, (ii) Its critical worth.

(i.) Linguistic Character. — This can best be dealt with under two divisions : (a) its palaeography and orthography, (6) its syntax.

(a) PalcBography and Orthography. — Of the vowel and consonantal changes occurring in this MS., some are due to errors of sight, others to errors of sound, while others represent the pronunciation of the time.

ae is found for a in profetiae, I. 5 : cf. k, Mt. xii. 31, blasfemiae. ae for e in quaereUa, I. 10 ; quisquae, VI. 1; inconpraehensibilia,

INTRODUCTION xxxi

XI. 16 ; praeces, XL 17; faciae, XL 18. This is of

frequent occurrence in k : cf. Mt. iii. 10, saecuris ;

xiii. 46, praetiosus, etc. a for e in ad (et), X. 6 : cf. ky Mt. iii. 3, parata (parate). a for i in timebat, XL 12 ; erant, XL 14. a for u in secabantur, VIIL 3. Conversely, u for a in A; : cf. Mt.

xiii. 8, dabunt (dabant). b for p in scribtura, I. 16; clibsis, IIL 7: of, k, Mt. viii. 2,

lebrosus ; cf. Schuchardt, VokaZismus des Vulgdr-

c for s in celares, XL 4, for Solaris : cf. k, Mk. xv. 38, acutu (a

susu). See Schuchardt, op. cit, i. 163, cimul (simul). c for t in tum. III. 11 : of. k, Mk. xiii. 21, devocasti (devotasti). ch for c in chedrio, I. 17. For other instances of this usage see

Schuchardt, op, cit, i. 73.

e for a in fecit (faciet), 11. 4 : cf. k, Mk. ix. 1, quidem (quidam). e for ae in scene, I. 7; liena, IIL 4 ; herere, X. 9 ; que (quae),

xi. 21, facte (factae), etc.: cf. Schuchardt, op. dt,

e for i in contegerunt, IX. 3, XII. 7: cf. k, Mt. x. 22, odebiles;

Mk. ix. 32, temebant, etc. See Schuchardt, op. cit.

ii. 1 sqq. e for o in celaris, XI. 4, for Solaris : cf. k, Mt. vi. 28, quemodo, etc. f for ph always in fynicis, I. 3 ; profetiae, I. 5 (IIL 11, XI. 16);

allofilorum, lY . 3 ; blasfemare, VIII. 5. So always in

ky as Farisaei, blasfemare, etc. f for t in ferrum (?), II. 4. ge for qui in ingenationibus, Y. 3. i for e in transio, I. 15; dimittes (demittes), II. 2 ; liena. III. 4 ;

scalciati, XI. 12 ; ducit (-et), IIL 3, and passim :

cf. kf Mt. vii. 23, recidite (recedite), etc. i for y in allofilorum, lY. 3 ; acrobistiam, YIIL 3 : cf. Schuchardt,

m for CO in mortes (for coortes (?), i.e. cohortes), YL 8. o for i in forma, X. 15 : cf. k, Mt. xiii. 27, zozania (zizania) ;

Mk. xiii. 18, hoc (hie). C

xxxii INTRODUCTION

o for u in misereator, lY. 6 : cf. Jc, Mk. viii. 38, filios (filius), etc. ; Schuchardt, ii. 149 9qq,

pa for an in palam (?), II. 4.

r for b in regnarunt (?), VII. 3. The converse change of b into r is found in ky Mt. xii. 14, exiebunt (exierunt).

8 for ex in scalciati, XI. 12 ; cf. Bonsch, op. cU, 469.

B for n in suacitabunt (corrupt for concelabunt (X)), YII. 4.

8 for t in abrumpens, II. 8 : cf. k, Mk. ix. 1, adstans (adstant), etc.

t for n i^ tunc, I. 15 : cf. ky Mt. x. 11, digtns (dignus).

t for 8 in eminent, IX. 2 : cf. k^ Mt. ii. 4, scribit (-is), etc.

u for e in transferunt, II. 4 ; coguntur, VII. 2 ; ut, VII. 7; crescunt, exegunt, XII. 10 : cf. A?, Mk. xii. 32, ut for et, etc.

u for o in putavimus (potabimus), VII. 8 : cf. ky Mk. ix. 22, putes (potes) ; ix. 41, putaverit (potaverit). See Ronsch, op. cit, p. 465; cf. Schuchardt, op. eit. ii.

V for b in intravit and oravit, IV. 1 ; acervus, VI. 5, X. 4 ; putavimus, VII. 8; suscitavit, VIII. 1 ; vindicavitur, IX. 7 (X. 2); conturvavitur, X. 5 ; altavit, X. 9 ; provata, (-abit); xii. 42, damnavit (-abit), etc.

z for di in Zabulus, X. 1 : cf. k, Mt. xiii. 39, Ziabolus. This change is frequent in the Latin fathers : cf. Ronsch,

Other noteworthy points of orthography are — the prefixing of the aspirate : heremo, III. 11: cf. k, haestis (estis), Mt. viii. 26 ; see Eonsch, op. dt. 462—463. The insertion of n in Monses (III. 11, note): cf. k, Mt. vi. 19, thensaurus; see Ronsch, sion of one of two doubled letters in tribum, III. 6, IV. 9 ; in prof etis, IV. 11: cf. k, where filii and alii are usually written fili and ali; also Mk.

INTRODUCTION xxxiii

ix. 50, tatum- (tatutun), etc.; see Schnchardt, op. eii. ii 464-466. The duplication of a vowel in patruum, IV. 8.

Another peculiarity of style coneiBts in the use of irr^ular futures in bo, stabUibis, II. 2 ; tradibit (?), VIII. 2 ; tremebit, X. 4: cf. k, Mt. ii. 6, prodibit, etc Ct 'Roaach, op. dt. 291.

(b) Syntax. — We shall here notice some peculiar usages and constructions. Iste is used frequently for is or ille. Qui et ego, et is, or et ii, in I. 6, it et ille.

Dominarl is used as a passive, II. 3 ; judicare governs a dative, VI. 2 ; so also misereor, XL 10.

Eut the greatest departures from olaseical usage are to be found in connection with the prepositions. Thus cum takes the ace., X 3. For this us^e elsewhere, see Eonsch, IttUa und Vvlgata, 409—410. De twice takes the ace, I. 9, V. 1, where it is used of the agent, being here perhaps a rendering of Std with the gen. In XI. 13 it takes the ace. also where it has its ordinary meaning. For this usage elsewhere, see Konach, op. eil. p. 410. In IIL 10 it takes the dat or ablat. ( = eir( with d&t). In V. 4 it takes the ablative of instrument. In is used with the ablat where it shotild be the aec,, IX. 6, X 5 ; and with the ace. where it should be the ablat., VI. 5. In VIII. 4 it takes the ablat. of the

xxxiv INTRODUCTION

agent. Secus occurs eight times as a preposition Avith the ace, I. 10, 11. 2, 5, etc. Sine takes the ace, I. 10. For this usage elsewhere, see Bonsch,

As regards conjunctions, nam is always used in a non-naturalmeaning, i.e, as a rendering for Si ; for the instances, see p. xxxvii. Enim is used in same way, V. 5.

Finally, the ablative of the gerund is used for the present participle in I. 9, V. 5, XI. 17. For instances of this idiom, see Bonsch, op, cit. pp. 432-

But the above list is far from exhausting the peculiarities of the text. It is replete with Graecisms and Hebraisms. For a discussion of these the reader should consult sec. 6 and sec. 7.

(ii.) Critical Worth. — This Version is very literal. This will be apparent when we come to the next two sections, in which we shall find that our text, though Latin in diction, is occasionally Greek, and frequently Hebrew in idiom. This, of course, is due to the almost servile faithfulness of the Greek, no less than of the Latin, translation. At times, indeed, the translation is careless, very careless, but as a general rule it is extremely trustworthy. We shall now proceed to point out its defects under the following heads : —

INTRODUCTION xxxv

(a) Omissions. — Similitudinem, in 11. 9, after omnem through homoioteleuton. Filius before Naue in X. 11, 15; but this omission may have originated in the Greek, where 6 rov may have fallen out before Navrj, Suffixes are occasionally omitted : see IV. 6, note ; VII. 9, XII. 7. These may be due to the Greek translation. Others, such as those in I. 10, X. 10, 15, may be due to defects in the Hebrew copy used by the Greek translator.

(6) Interpolations, — I. 3-5 seem to have been originally marginal glosses from a Greek hand.

(c) Bittographies. — We have a most interesting case of this nature in V. 6, where six lines of the MS. are repeated twice. The slight dififerences existing between these duplicate renderings make it clear that we have here an attempt, on the part of the Latin translator, to improve on his first rendering. But the scribe of our MS. incorporated both. Other dittographies occur in VI. 3, XI. 13, and probably in VIII. 5.

(d) Transpositions. — In addition to transpositions of such as ut et for et ut in I. 8, and testatus et for et testans in IV. 12, etc., we have the transposition of the phrase cum infantibus nostris from the close of verse 5 to that of verse 4. A very complicated case of transposition occurs in X. 5. In L 10 there is a transposition of the verb to the end of the clause such as we find not infrequently in

xxxvi INTRODUCTION

remarkable transposition of all is the removal of chaps. VIII.-IX. from their right position after V. to their present place. Similar transpositions are to be met with in the Eth, Enoch lviii.-lxxxii., xci— xciii.

(e) Corruptions. — These are of very frequent occurrence. Many can be dealt with when we understand the character of the language and the confusions incidental to it. There are some cases of sheer blundering. But many of the present corruptions of the text are not native to it, but originated either in Greek Version or in the Hebrew. See sec. 6 and sec. 7.

(/) Carelessness, — We have instances of careless renderings in III. 11, 13 (see crit. notes, in loc,). The translator at times also renders the thought and not the word : cf. colonia. III. 2, V. 6, VI. 9, where Jerusalem is meant. This points to the fact that the Latin (or Greek ?) translation was made after the destruction of Jerusalem, and its restoration by Hadrian as a Roman colony under the name Aelia Capitolina.

§ 6. The Latin Version — a Translation from

THE Greek

Of the derivation of our Latin text from the Greek there can be no question. Thus (1) Greek words are

INTRODUCTION xxxvii

transliterated, as chedrio, I. 17, from Kehp6<o\ clibsis, III. 7, from ^\J^t9; heremus, III. 11, from ipfjfio^ ; acrobistia, VIII. 3, from atcpofivarla,

(2) Oreek forms arid idioms survive in the Latin. Thus scene, I. 7 t^ atcriv^ ; and in scenae, I. 9 ei/ T^ aKTipfj ; and in IV. 2, plebem banc esse tibi plebem banc exceptam, the second banc is the Greek article : thus the text rov \a6v tovtov elvai aoi rov \aov TOP iKKcKTov, For instances of this usage elsewhere, cf. Ronsch, /ifaZa u, Vulgata^-pp, 420—421. Finally, quia, V. 3 oTt recitantis ; and in usque nos duci captives, IIL 1 3, we have an imitation of the Greek, 6(09 Tov fifia^i ai'XjiaXaoTio'Orjvac.

(3) Not infrequently we must translate, n^ot the Latin tenet, but the Greek which it presupposes, hit which was misrendered ly the Latin translator. Thus nam must not be rendered by " for " in the following XII. 11, 12, for in all these instances it is a rendering of Se and must be translated accordingly. In like manner enim, V. 5 = he. Again, in VII. 7, we must render ab oriente usque ad occidentem, not " from east to west," but " from sunrise to sunset," i,e. d<f} fikiov avaTeX\opTO<s fi€')(pc Svofievov. The Greek is susceptible of either meaning. Again, in XI. 11, we must translate, not nee patiens ne unum quidem diem, but the Greek which it presupposes : ovBe irapieU oihefilav fifiepav, '* not omitting a single

xxxviii INTRODUCTION

day." For other instances, see critical notes on

(4) Through retranslation into Greek the source of the incoherencies of the teoct can, in some cases, be discovered. Thus finem in II. 7 opov, corrupt for opKov ; and adcedent irpoafirjaovraVy corrupt f Dr 7ra/)a/8^(roi/Tat " will transgress." It is possible that the Latin translator had irapa^rjaovrai before him, and followed a meaning of it inappropriate to the context. Again, in III. 4, ducent se a'^Oriaovrai, corrupt for d'x^Beaovrac ; and in V. 6, in campo = ei' &yp<p, corrupt for iv apryvptp. In these passages I have corrected the Latin text accordingly. See the critical notes, in loc.

(5) Fragmervts of the Greek Version are still preserved. See the notes on p. 6 ; see also pp. 107-

§ 7. The Greek — a Translation from a Hebrew

Original ^.Z

The derivation of our text from a Semitic original was stoutly denied by Hilgenfeld and others. Volkmar is doubtful {Mose Prophetic, pp. 56, 57). But this view can no longer be maintained. It is surprising, indeed, on what slender grounds it has been advanced. Thus Hilgenfeld {Mess. Jud., p. Ixxiii) urges the absence of the

INTRODUCTION xxxix

pronoun in the accusative after Deus creavit, in XII. 4; of the pronominal suffix after magistri in v. 5, as reasons against a Semitic original In my critical note on IV. 6, I have shown that Greek and Latin translators of Hebrew occasionally omitted the suffix in their translation. For instances in the LXX. and Vulgate, see the note referred to. Hilgenfeld's other arguments do not call for consideration. The difficulties he discovers, which make against a Semitic original, are mainly the offspring of his own imagination.

But although a Semitic original is now generally conceded, it is still a matter of debate whether the balance of evidence preponderates in favour of an Aramaic or of a Hebrew source. Schmidt- Merx, Colani, Hausrath, and Carriere decide for the former, and Eosenthal for the latter. Ewald apparently held both views at different times pp. 110—118). Schiirer thinks a Semitic original probable, but not certain. Of the above scholars, it IB only Schmidt-Merx, and in a minor degree Bosenthal, that have seriously treated the subject. In the Archiv f. wissenschaftl. Erforschung des A.T., I. ii. 111-152, Schmidt-Merx show, in a variety of passages, how readily the text admits of retranslation into Aramaic; but this proof in itself is wholly inadequate, for the same passages can

xl INTRODUCTION

just as easily be rendered into Hebrew. In two cases, however, they urge that, whereas the idiosyncrasies of the Latin text can be explained on the hypothesis of an Aramaic original, no such explanation is possible on the hypothesis of a Hebrew original. The first instance is to be found in I. 10, where, according to these editors, the order of the Latin text can only be accounted for by an Aramaic original. In my critical note on that verse, I have shown that it is possible to interpret the text in two ways. According to one of those, the present order of the text can be explained as derived from the Hebrew. But even, according to the other, it is not necessary to resort to the Aramaic hypothesis; for we cannot argue with certainty from our text as to the order of the original source. This is clear from I. 14, where, though the Greek and Latin Versions are preserved and agree verbally, they do not agree as to order. Hence the order in question is probably due to the carelessness of the translator. Moreover, other undoubted transpositions of the text do occur (cf. III. 4, 5, X. 5, crit. notes). That the Latin translator did not observe the order of the Greek before him, we see in numerous instances in the Codex Bobbiensis, k, see pp. xxxv— xxxvi The second instance of alleged Aramaic order is that in III. 2. Here Schmidt-Merx point out that

INTRODUCTION xli

the position of omnia in the phrase sancta vasa omnia is conformable to Aramaic, but not to Hebrew, syntax. This is quite true, but does not thereby justify the conclusion they seek to draw from it. For even in translations made directly from the Hebrew, and not as in the case of our text, which is derived from the Hebrew through the Greek, this same phenomenon recurs three times in the LXX. of Genesis, i,e. in xiv. 11, xxviii. 15, 1. 14 (in several MSS.). See also Lev. xx. 23 ; 2 Chron. xxi. 18. Now if, in a careful translation made directly from the Hebrew, this non-Hebrew order can appear three times in one book, it shows that no value is to be attached to its single occurrence in a version that is not immediately from the Hebrew, but only mediately, and that is likewise often careless to boot. Our verdict therefore must be, that Schmidt-Merx have furnished no adequate grounds for their thesis that the Assumption is derived from an Aramaic, and not from a Hebrew original.

It is now time to advance the grounds for a Hebrew original. These have gradually discovered themselves in the course of a long and careful study of this book. Whether I shall be more successful in my contention than my predecessors must be left to the reader to decide. Bosenthal {Vier apocryphische BUcIier, pp. 34—38) has already

xlii INTRODUCTION

preceded me in advocating this view. One or two of his restorations are good, and have been adopted in the sequel, with due recognition, but the bulk of his suggestions I cannot accept ; they are frequently wild and quite beside the mark. The grounds, then, for a Hebrew original are —

(1) Hebrew idiomatic phrases survive in the text. Thus in respectu quo respiciet, I. 18 ; tribus sanctitatis, II. 4 ; circumibo, II. 7 ; terram patriae suae. III. 3 ; homo de proximo suo ; testans . . . invocabat testes, III. 12 ; de isto. III. 13 ; dividentur ad veritatem, V. 2 ; in sacerdotes vocabuntur and facient facientes, YL 1 ; implebuntur manus, X. 2, are pure Hebraisms. The Hebrew equivalents will be found in the critical notes on the various passages. Now it is quite true that the majority of these could be paralleled by Aramaic expressions, but not alL Thus circumibo, II. 7 " I will protect," i,e. midk (cf. Deut. xxxii. 10), cannot be explained from the Aramaic ; nor yet in sacerdotes vocabuntur, VI. 1 D^^na h}) IS'ip^ (cf. 1 Chron. xxiiL 14).

(2) Syntactical idioms prolably survive^ e,g, the circumstantial clause in VII. 9 and IX. 4. In VIII. 2, torquebit et tradidit, there may be an instance of perfect with the strong vav; also in VII. 2, 3, cogentur . . . et regnarunt.

(3) In some cases we must translate^ not the Latin

INTRODUCTION xliii

text, but the Hebrew presupposed by it. Thus, successor BidBoxo^ JTiefe, must be rendered " minister," in I. 7 ; and non coepit ov/c ijp^aTo ^Kin vhy must be rendered by " He was not pleased."

(4) Frequently it is only through retranslation that we can understand the source of corruptions in the teocty and remove them. Thus, in IV. 9, the impossible text, devenient apud nationes (MS. natos) in tempore tribuum (MS. writes tribum for genitive, cf. III. 5).= d"'MB^ nya D^ma 1Tl^ Here the two corruptions that destroy the sense of the context at once become apparent — viy^ is corrupt for nns and d^d^b^ for on^SK*. Thus the text is brought into harmony not only with itself, but also with similar statements in Josephus, 4 Ezra, and Philo. This restoration would be impossible on the assumption of an Aramaic original

In V. 5, the equally impossible text, qui enim magistri sunt doctores eorum (with Hilgenfeld) oi Be BiBaafcaXoi ovre^, oi /caOrjyrjral avT(Sv urmo D^nm. Now the context of these words is against any mention of the rabbis or teachers here. But we see that the Hebrew does not necessarily refer to them, but also means " the many." And this gives a most appropriate sense. In the preceding verse, " some " are false priests ; in this verse, " many " are venal judges. Hence we see

xliv INTRODUCTION

that Dn^lD is here merely a marginal but mistaken gloss that was later incorporated in the text.

In X. 4 (see crit. note, p. 86) we can restore sanity to the text through retranslation. In X. 1 we have a most interesting restoration. In the words said of Israel triumphant in heaven, — videbis inimicos tuos in terram, — we have an impossible statement. After the final judgment, Israel's enemies can no longer be on the earth. The context implies that they are in torment, and in torment in the sight of glorified Israel. Now these two facts suggest at once Gehenna, and that the original was Din ^na. But the Din was somehow lost, and ^ja was partly rendered partly transliterated iv yy, and this in turn by in terram. •»3 is frequently so transliterated (see notes, pp. 43, 44).

I shall only adduce one more passage. In XII. 7, temperantius misericordiae ipsius . . . contegerunt mihi, we have an inadmissible text. But the source of the corruption comes to light if we retranslate. Thus the words hneticS)^ avpe/Srj fioc l\609 avrov nDn ^ni« tr\p\ h^^n. Here we should read D before non, and with this simple change we get an unexceptionable text : " He was pleased to call me in His compassion." See pp. 98, 99 for details. This restoration also is impossible on the Aramaic hypothesis.

(5) A play upon words discovers itself on retransla"

INTRODUCTION xlv

tion into Hebrew in VII. 3, where it is said of the Sadducees (D^pnv), dicentes se esse justos, ie, D^pnv. This has abeady been pointed out by Geiger. It recurs in VII. 6 (see p. 27).

On the above grounds, I hold, therefore, that it is no longer possible to doubt the Semitic original of this book. It may reasonably also be concluded from what precedes, that that original was in Hebrew and not in Aramaic.

How far the character of classical Hebrew was preserved in the original it is impossible to say. My retranslations presuppose generally such a character, but the cogency of the restorations is not bound up with such a presupposition.

§ 8. The presbnt Book in beauty a Testament OF Moses. The original Assumption preserved ONLY IN a few Quotations.

In the lists of apocryphal books we find mention of a Testament of Moses (AtaOijKr) MoDva-io)^) followed immediately by an Assumption of Moses ^ {'AvdXrjyjri^ MoDvaifos), In the " List of Sixty Books," and in the Synopsis of Athanasius, the

^ This book is so named in the Acta Synodi Nicam, ii. 18, 20 ; the Stichometry of Nicephoms ; and the Synopsis of Athanasius : as the Adseensio Moais in Origen, de Princip, iii. 2. 1; as the Assumptio Mosis in Didymus Alex. (seep. 108 for quotation); as Secreta Moysi in Evodius (see p. 108).

xlvi INTRODUCTION

number of stichoi in these two books is not given, but this desideratum is supplied by the Stichometry ascribed to Nicephorus, which assigns to them respectively 1100 and 1400 stichoi In this connection an excellent suggestion has been made by Schlirer to the following effect : " Seeing that the writing that has come down to us is in point of fact a ' Testament (will) of Moses/ though, as we have already seen, it is quoted in the Acts of the Council of Nicaea under the title 'ApaKrjyfri^; MoDva-ico^, it may be assumed that both these designations were the titles of two separate divisions of one and the same work, the first of which has been preserved, whereas the quotations in the Fathers almost all belong to the second." My study of the Latin Version and the Greek fragments has led me to accept this suggestion in a modified form. The Testament and Assumption mentioned in the above lists are to be regarded not as " two separate divisions of one and the same work " with Schlirer, but as two originally independent works subsequently put together and edited in one.

Before we adduce the grounds for this theory — owing to the scanty amount of materials these cannot be many — we must first show that Eonsch's identification of the above " Testament " with the Book of Jubilees (Das Btcch der Jiihilden, pp. 480, 481) is contrary to existing evidence. We

INTRODUCTION xivii

have seen above that in the Stichometry of Nicephorus, 1100 stichoi are ascribed to this "Testament." Now, in the same list, 4300 are assigned to Genesis. Hence, if Bonsch's identification is right. Genesis should be nearly four times larger than the Book of Jubilees. But since, as a matter of fact, it is considerably smaller, it is needless to consider further this identification.

Having disposed of this objection, we now return to our thesis that the present Latin Version and the Greek fragments in the Fathers belong respectively to two originally independent works, which were subsequently edited together. This conclusion is probable from the following facts : —

(L) The book quoted by St. Jude, by Clement of Alexandria, and later Greek writers, was wholly concerned with the Assumption of Moses and incidents connected with it. This we take to have been the

(ii.) The book preserved in the Latin Version is in reality a " Testament," and not an " Assumption of Moses." Indeed, it appears to be quite opposed to this claim made on Moses's behalf ; for

(a) According to the Latin Version {i,e. the

" Testament "), Moses was to die an ordinary

death. Thus in L 15, Moses says: "I am

passing away to sleep with my fathers even

xlviii INTRODUCTION

in the presence of all the people." In III. 13 the tribes speak of Moses's death In X. 14 Moses again declares: '*I shall go to sleep with my fathers." In X. 12 this was clearly the original sense. " From my death — ^assumption — until His advent there will be col. times." We shall touch presently on the explanation of the intruded word " assumption." (b) A description of the conclusion of the Testament appears to have been preserved in a Catena on the Pentateuch edited by Franc. Zephyrus, and quoted in Fabricius "Est quidem in Apocrypho Mysticoque codice legere, ubi de creatis rebus subtilius agitur, nubem lucidam, quo tempore mortuus est Moses, locum sepulchri complexam oculos circumstantium perstrinxisse ita, ut nullus neque morientem legislatorem neque locum videre potuerit, ubi cadaver conderetur." Here no Assumption seems to be implied, but only an extraordinary disappearance of Moses's body, such as is recorded in Deut xxxiv. 5, 6. If this , writer had been acquainted with the original Assumption, in which the details of Moses's ascension to heaven were re-

INTRODUCTION xlix

corded, he could not have written in these vague terms.

(iii.) The " Testament " and the " Assumption of Moses " were subsequently edited in one book. Of this editing we find a trace in X. 12 : "From my death — assumption — until His advent," etc. Here the word " assimiption " can best be explained as an insertion of the editor in order to adapt the text of the Testament to the main subject of the second work which he incorporates, i,e, the Assumption.

(iv.) In the thirteenth section of Vassiliev's Anecdota Oraeco-Byzantinay entitled Falaea historica, — an O.T. history of events from Adam to Daniel, — of the portion which deals with the death of Moses, part seems to be ultimately derived from the " Testament," and part from the " Assumption " properly so called. The follaioing lines (pp. 257— 258) would form a fitting close to the " Testament " : —

[Ilepl T^9 reXevrrj^ Mtova-eo)^,'] Koi ehrev Mtova'^ irpo^ ^Irjaovv rov NavL 'AveXOtofiev iv T& Sp€L Koi aveXOovTcov avT&v elBev MoDvaij^ rifv ytfv TTJ^ iirayyeTua^ kuI eiirev irpb^ avTOV. KdreXOe 7rp6^ rbv \a6vy koX dvdrfyefXop avTol^ ore Mfovarj*: irekevTTfaev. Koi KarrjKdev ^IrjaoO^ irpo^ rov \a6v, 6 Se M(ovaiJ9 ra reXTj rov /Slav ifcrijaaTO, Here Moses dismisses Joshua, and dies apparently an ordinary death. But according to the Assumption proper (see quotation from Clement Alex. p. 107),

1 INTRODUCTION

both Joshua and Caleb were present when the assumption of Moses took place. The words that follow on the above in Vassiliev are based ultimately on the Assimiption proper. Koi iireiparo SctfiovrfK a>9 &v Karafidarj to afcvvtofia ( = aKrjvtotm) avTOV T^ \dq) tva OeoTToirjd&aiv airrov. Mc^aijX Se 6 dpyiarpdTqyo^; irpoard^ei Geov TfXdev Xa/Seiv airrov koI (rvvaretkai' xai dvdiaTaro ain^ Sa/iovyX, tcai Btefid'XpvTO. dyavcucnja'a^ oiv 6 dpxto-Tpdrfjyo^ iTrerifirjaev avrov eiirtov 'EiriTCfif ae Kvpio^y Sidl3o\€, Kol ovTfi>9 fiTTrfdri 6 avTixelfievo^ Kal iPvytjv i^ijaaro' 6 Se dpydrfyeXo^ Mcya'^X avviareCXev to aKvvfOfia Mtovaij oirov irpoaerd^xOr) Trapd, Seov tov Xpcarov rfpAv,

(v.) This editing of the two books in one was probably done in the first century, as St. Jude draws upon both in his Epistle (see p. Ixii). The statement of Josephus {Ant, iv. 8. 48) is interesting: " v€(f)ov^ ai(f>vi^Lov inrep avrov ardvTO^, d(f)avL^€Tai Kard Tivo^ (f)dpayyo^. r€ypa(f)€ Be avrov iv rai^ Upah pipXoi^ reOve&ra, Beiaa^ /it) St inrep/SoXtfv rrj^ irepl airrov dperrj^ vpo^ to Oeiov airrov dva'^foprjaai ToXfiijatoaiv elireiv,'* It holds fast to Deut. xxxiv. 5, 6 and the account in the Testament, but shows that the writer is aware of the new claims made on Moses's behalf in the Assumption. Does the account of the Transfiguration point in any respect to popular belief in Moses's Assimiption ?

INTRODUCTION li

§ 9. Dislocation of Chapters VIIL-IX. in the Latin Text from their Original Position AFTER Chapter V.

The interpretation of these two chapters will remain an impossibility so long as scholars attempt to deal with them in their present position. I have given, in the notes on pp. 28-30, the grounds which necessitate this new departure in the exegesis of the book.

§ 10. The Author a Pharisaic Quietist

There is some difficulty in determining the religious party in Judaism to which the author belonged. First of all, however, it is clear that he was not a Sadducee; for (1) he looks forward to the direct intervention of God on behalf of Israel, and the establishment of a theocratic kingdom on earth (X. 3-8). (2) He dwells on the future blessedness of the righteous (X. 10, 11). (3) He attacks the Sadducean party in the most bitter terms (VII.).

Secondly. He was not a Zealot. This view has been advocated by Wieseler, Dillmann, Schtirer, and others. But it is just as impossible as that which precedes; for (1) the writer's complete silence as to the Maccabean rising forms an emphatic censure

Hi INTRODUCTION

of their appeal to arms. This silence is all the more impressive as the writer was thoroughly acquainted with the Maccabean movement. Thus his text shows an intimate acquaintance with Books I. and II. of the Maccabees, or, at all events, with the facts on which these are based ; and the reader will fail to appreciate the allusions and nuances of the narrative unless he brings to its perusal an accurate and detailed knowledge of Maccabean history. We have here, in fact, to deal with the work, not of a popular enthusiast, but of an accurate scholar. (2) And, whilst he thus shows his aversion to the aims and method of the Maccabees, — in other words, to a militant Judaism, — ^he is careful to indicate his own admirations. He will not trust in an arm of flesh. Thus his hero (IX.) is not one who takes up arms on behalf of Israel, but one who, amid the most bitter persecution that ever befel Israel, was faithful unto death, and, lifting no hand in selfdefence, committed his cause unto God. See notes on pp. 32—38. (3) The aim of such a description as appears in IX. is to indicate the line of action which the Pharisaic party should pursue, ie. one of non-resistance. The writer protests against the growing corruption of the Pharisaic party by political aims and methods. See notes on pp. 34, 35. (4) X. 3-10 is wholly against the idea of a Zealot author. This passage, in fact, confirms all that has

INTRODUCTION liii

been said above. The theocratic or Messianic kingdom is to be introduced not by the militant acts of the saints, but through the direct intervention of God.

Thirdly. He was not an Essene, as Schmidt-Merx have supposed. (1) The entire book is interpenetrated with national hopes and aspirations. See especially X. 8. The ideal of the Essene was individualistic and ethical, and not national. (2) The greatest interest is taken in all the fortunes of the temple. Thus it was built by God (II. 4), its frequent profanations are dwelt upon (II. 8, 9, V. 3, 4, VI. 1), and its complete destruction by Nebuchadnezzar (III. 2) and its partial destruction by Varus (VI. 9). Such an interest could not be natural in an Essene, who was excluded from its courts (Joseph, Arit. xviiL 1. 5). (3) The pure or polluted character of the sacrifices in the temple is carefully recorded. Thus it is said that they are (rightly) offered during a long period of history (II. 6). At a later period they are said to be imperfect (IV. 8). It is observed in II. 8 that sacrifices were offered to idols, and in V. 4 that, though offered to God, they were polluted. Now such a concern in the sacrifices of the temple is Likewise unnatural in an Essene, who disapproved wholly of animal sacrifice (Philo, ii. 457, ov fSa /caraOvovre^), and esteemed their sacrificial meals as far transcending any

liv INTRODUCTION

temple sacrifice in worth (Ant. xviii. 1. 5). (4) According to our author, the future abode of the blessed is the heaven of the stars (X. 9), but the Essene heaven was beyond the ocean (Bell, Jvd. ii 8. 11). Again, Gehenna is the place of punishment for Israel's national foes (X. 10). We know of no such conception among the Essenes. (5) The fact that pre-existence is ascribed to Moses as a special distinction (I. 14) implies a disbelief in the Essene doctrine of the pre-existence of all souls

As we have now shown that our author was neither a Sadducee, a Zealot, nor an Essene, there remains no further difficulty in determining the religious party to which he belonged. He was clearly a Pharisaic Quietist. This is shown by the facts which we have enumerated above in the refutation of the preceding views. He was a Pharisee of a fast-disappearing type, recalling in all respects the Ghasid of the early Maccabean times, and upholding the old traditions of quietude and resignation. While his party was fast committing itself to political interests and movements, he raised his voice to recall them from the evil ways on which they had entered, and besought them to return to the old paths, but his appeal was made in vain, and so the secularisation of the Pharisaic movement in due course culminated in the fall of Jerusalem.

INTRODUCTION Iv

§ 11. The Date

It is impossible to deal seriously with the late date assigned to this book by Volkmar and Colani, 137-138 A.D. Their only ground for so doing is to be found in the historical character of chaps. VIII., IX., which, they allege, is a veiled narrative of the persecution under Hadrian. The reader will see that, like these writers, I too have accepted the historicity of these chapters, and shown, by a minute investigation of every phrase, that they recount, not the calamities of the Jews under Hadrian, but under Antiochus Epiphanes. See notes on pp. 28—38. If this has been proved satisfactorily, as I hold it to be, then it is no longer possible to advocate a second-century date. But even should the proof be deemed inadequate, insuperable difficulties still confront the upholders of such a view. For, from internal evidence, it appears that the book must have been written before 70 a.d. This we shall now proceed to show.

The book was written before 70 a.d. For (1) the temple is to stand till the establishment of the theocratic kingdom (I. 17). See note on p. 7. (2) The temple was still standing when the book was written. This is to be inferred from the consideration that if it had fallen, such an event could not have been passed over in silence. It could not have

Ivi INTRODUCTION

been passed over ; for all the fortunes of the temple, even its temporary profanations by a faithless priesthood, are carefully recorded. See II. 4, 8, 9, III. 2, fall, it left an ineffaceable mark on all subsequent Jewish literature, but particularly in that of the next sixty years : cf. the later portions of the Apoc. Bar. and 4 Ezra. The views, therefore, of Volkmar, Colani, Keim, Hausrath, and Eosenthal, who date the composition of the Assumption after 70, are untenable.

Now, all other scholars are agreed as to its composition before 70 A.D., but differ with each other as to the exact period to which it should be assigned between 4 b.c. and 70 a.d. Many of these differences ^ are due to the purely arbitrary restorations of the unintelligible fragments of numbers in VII. 2, and may therefore be at once discounted.

So far we have determined only the latest limit of composition, i,e, 70 a.d. There is no diflSculty as to its earliest. This is 3 b.c. ; for Herod is already dead (VI. 6), and the war of Varus already past (VI. 9). After this war, the writer declares, the times will be ended, and " the four hours will come*' (VIII. 1). Thus the limits of composition lie between 3 b.c. and 70 a.d. But there are data

^ Thus Hllgenfeld assigns the book to the years 44-45 a.d. ; Schmidt-Merz to 54-64 ; Fritzsche to 50-60.

INTRODUCTION Ivii

for a nearer determination. In VI. 7 the statement, " And he (Herod) will beget children, who, succeeding him, will rule for shorter periods," was true of Archelaus alone; for Philip and Antipas reigned longer than their father. Hence the book must have been written before these princes had reigned for thirty -four years, i.e. before 30 a.d.^ Thus the date of composition lies between 3 b.c. and 30 a.d. But the limits may be defined still more closely. For the prediction, that Herod's sons should rule for shorter periods than their father, may be reasonably explained from two considerations : (a) from the general expectation that the sons of such a wicked king could not long preserve their authority ; but still more (b) from the actual deposition of Archelaus after a short reign of ten years 4 B.C.— 6 A.D., — an event which would naturally be construed by our author in the light of a divine judgment, and suggest to him the prediction which appears in the text as to the impending fate of Philip and Antipas. Hence, however, we may interpret the " four hours " in VII. 1 ; it may be fairly concluded that part of these

^ Ewald, Wieseler, Drummond, Dillmann, and Schiirer refer the composition of the book to the first decade after 4 b.c. This conclusion they arrive at by pressing the words "the times wiU be ended " in VII. 1. For the way in which Reuss, followed by Baldensperger and Rosenthal, seeks to evade the conclusions that naturally follow from VI. 7, see the note on that verse (p. 22).

Iviii INTRODUCTION

have already elapsed when the author writes, and that the earliest limit of composition is 7 A.D. Thus the book was composed between the years

§ 12. Views of the Author on Mosbs, Israel THE Messianic Kingdom, Good Works

Moses, — Moses was prepared, from before the foimdation of the world, to be the mediator of God's covenant with His people (I. 14, III. 12). During his life he was Israel's intercessor with God (XI. 11, 17) ; for forty years he suffered many things at their hands in Egypt, the Bed Sea, and the wilderness (III. 11). When about to die, he chose Joshua in his stead (X. 15), apparently as the prophet promised in Deut. xviii. 15. His death but no single place was worthy to mark the place of his burial, for his sepulchre was from the rising to the setting sun, and from the south to the confines of the north — yea the entire world was his sepulchre (XI. 8). But his relation to Israel did not cease with death; he was appointed by God to be their intercessor in the spiritual world

Israel — Israel is God's own people (I. 12): the world w£ks created in their behalf (I. 12) : and Moses

INTRODUCTION lix

prepared, from before the foundation of the world, to establish the covenant relation between God and His people (I. 14), and Jerusalem prepared, in like manner, to be the centre of the worship of Jehovah till the establishment of the theocratic kingdom (I. 17). Israel's history is then shortly summarised from the time of the Exodus to the split between the two kingdoms. From this time the writer carefully distinguishes between the two tribes and the ten. The former constitute the two " holy tribes " (11. 4), yet the solidarity of the twelve tribes is never lost sight of; for Judah's captivity is attributed to the sins of Israel (III. 5). In due time the two tribes return from their captivity, but grieve over their imperfect sacrifices (IV. 8) — imperfect, apparently, because the ten tribes are not with them, though they are increasing and multiplying in the land of their captivity (IV. 9). But the history of restored Judah becomes an evil one, namely, owing to the Sadducean priesthood (V.), but a righteous kernel still survived who were faithful to the law (IX. 4). Then ensues the persecution of Antiochus (VIII.), and the withdrawal of the Chasid party from political alliances (IX.). The Maccabean king-priests are alluded to, and their successor Herod (VI.). With his death, and probably the deposition of Archelaus, we arrive at the writer's own period. Herewith we pass from the region of

Ix INTRODUCTION

history to that of prediction. The theocratic or Messianic kingdom will be ushered in by a day of repentance (1. 17). 1750 years after the death of Moses,^ ie. between 75 and 107 A.D. (?), God will intervene on behalf of Israel, — of Israel, be it observed, not of Judah and Benjamin alone (X. 8). Here, again, the solidarity of the nation, in the writer's mind, discovers itself. As they suffered vicariously for each other's sii\p (III. 5), so likewise the promises were made to the twelve tribes collectively (III. 9), and they should all be glorified together (X. 8). Thus when the theocratic kingdom was established the ten tribes were to be restored. During this kingdom Israel's national enemies were to be destroyed (X. 8). Finally, Israel was to be exalted to heaven (X. 9), whence they should see their enemies in Grehenna

ITie Messianic or Theocratic Kingdom. — In the preceding paragraph we have given the various

^ This seems to be the period meant by the S50 times spoken of in X. 12 (see note). As we have no means of determining the length of the interval between the death of Moses and the Christian era, according to our author, we cannot determine the date of the expected advent of God, which was to take place 1750 years after Moses's death. If we may accept Josephus's chronology for this period, then the date of the Divine Advent was to be in the year as having elapsed between Moses's death and the Christian era, or

INTRODUCTION Ixi

references to this kingdom which are found in our author. There is no Messiah. Indeed, in X. 7, the author seems to be really inimical to this expectation : " The Eternal God alone . . . will punish the Gentiles*' (see note, in he). This may be due to the fact that the conception of the Messiah, as a man of war, was gaining more and more acceptance amongst the Pharisees, and was thus of a nature to promote the growing secularisation of Pharisaism. Now, it is against the latter evil that the author's writing is directed.

Oood Works. — On the doctrine of merit, or good works, our author's views are allied to O.T. conceptions, rather than to the rabbinic doctrine of man's righteousness, which bulks so largely in Jewish literature from 50 a.d. onwards. See my edition of the Apocalypse of Baruch xiv. 7, xxi 9, notes. So far from representing man's righteousness as involving merit over against God, — an undoubted Pharisaic doctrine of the first century of our era, — our author represents even the greatest hero of Judaism as declaring : " Not for any virtue or strength of mine, but in His compassion and long-suffering, was He pleased to call me" (XII. 7). Similarly Moses declares to Joshua : " It is not on account of the godliness of this people (Israel) that thou shalt root out the nations " (XII. 8).

Ixii INTRODUCTION

§ 13. New Testament and later Writers acquainted with the assumption

St. Jude unquestionably was acquainted both with the Testament of Moses and with, the Assumption, properly so-called, which together compose the complete book.

Thus St. Jude 9 is derived from the latter : see p. 107. From this indubitable case of borrowing we proceed to deal with another, for which the evidence is very strong. St. Jude 16 is composed of several clauses which agree verbally or in substance with V. 5, VII. 7, 9 of our Latin text — the original Testament of Moses. We shall here give the Greek text of Jude, inserting after each clause its parallel from our text. Oiroi eiai yoyyvcTaly fjbCfiyp'ifioLpoL (Ass. Moys. VII. 7, quaerulosi), Kara ra^ eirtOviila^ ain&v iropevo/ievoi' koI to (TTOfia avT&v XaXel vrripoyKa (VII. 9, et manus eorum et mentes immunda tractantes, et os eorum loquetur ingentia), Oavfrn^ovTe^ irpoa-wira, wt^eKeLa^ X<ip^v (V. 5, mirantes personas locupletum et accipientes munera). In St. Jude 18 the "mockers" (ifjLiralKTai) appear to be the homines pestilentiosi (VII. 3) (see note, in he,). The " ungodly men " who are mentioned in St. Jude 4 appear twice in chap. VII. 3, 7 (impii). Now, lest the full force of tbe@a parallels should escape us, we should observe

INTRODUCTION Ixiii

that the accounts in both books are actually or nominally prophetic. The classes of evil-doers dealt with are those who shall be " in the last time," according to Jude 18, and "when the times are ended," in our text.

The writer of 2 Peter also appears to have used our text. Thus II. 10, 11 are based on Jude 9, or both are equally dependent on the original Assumption. Some passages support the latter alternative. Thus with 2 Peter ii 13, riiovrjv 'qyov/ievot rrjv iv v/^^P^ Tpv^p'qv, compare Ass. Moysi, VII. 5, omni hora diei amantes convivia; and with evrpvf^&vre^ iv ral^ wyairah avr&v <rw€vo>xovfi€Pot (Vulg.y affluentes, in conviviis suis luxuriantes vobiscum), compare VII. 8, Habebimus discubitiones et luxuriam. Compare also 2 Peter ii. 3 with VII. 6.

There are some remarkable parallels between St. Stephen's speech in Acts vii and our text. The most remarkable is that in III. 11, "Who suffered many things in Egypt, and in the Bed Sea, and in the wilderness during forty years," which agrees verbally for the most part with Acts vii 36, 7roA77<ra9 repara koX arjfieia iv t§ Ai^virrtp KaX Iv 'EpvOpa dakdaa-rjy Kai iv ry ipv^ errj reaaapa- Kovra. The likeness is too close to be accidental. We must either assume that Acts vii. 36 is derived

from our text, or that III. 11& of our text is

Ixiv INTRODUCTION

interpolated. The evidence of Apoc. Bar. Ixxxiv. 3 is against the latter supposition : likewise also the word " suffered." ^ Again, in III. 2, in the words, "that we should not transgress (6od*s) commandments in the which he was a mediator to us," the fact that they did transgress them is implied, and the fact that Moses was the mediator through whom they came, is expressly stated. Now, these two facts are distinctly given in Acts vii. 38, 39 : "This is he that was . . . with the angel which spake to him on the Mount Sinai . . . who received living oracles to give unto us ; to whom our fathers would not be obedient." Finally, there is the prediction of the captivity in III. 13, and the citation of the prophecy of Amos to that effect in

Again, Matt. xxiv. 29 (cf. Mark xiiL 24-25 ; Luke xxi. 25—26) is either dependent on X. 5 of our text, or else both are derived from a common source. This is clear if we compare Matt. xxiv. 29 : 6 fjXio^ (TKOTLadrjacrai kcu ^ aekrjifr) ov SanreL to crakevO^a-ovraL, with X. 5 —

' This idea of Moses's suffering in connection with Israel is found in the JalktU (translated by Heidenheim, Deutsche Fierteyahroffenbar und bekannt ist dir meine Muhe und mein Leiden, das ich mit ihnen (den Israeliten) zu erleiden hatte, bis icli ihnen die Lehre . . . eingepragt hatte."

INTRODUCTION Ixv

(Sol) in tenebras convertet se, Et luna non dabit lumen. . . . Et orbifl stellamm conturbabitur.

It is noteworthy that in the parallel passage in Luke xxi. 25 there is a reference to the sea also, as there is in X. 6 of our text.

For another close parallel of our text, VIII. 1 with Matt. xxiv. 21, see notes on pp. 80, 81.

On the above grounds we conclude that this book was known to the writers of the Epistle of Jude and of Acts vii., and most probably to the writers of 2 Peter and Matt. xxiv. 29 (Mark xxii. 24-25 ;

It was known also to the writer of Apoc. Bar. Ixxxiv. 2-5: see notes in loc, (pp. 12, 13). For the citations in Clement of Alexandria, Origen, etc.,

ASSUMPTION OP MOSES

TRANSLATED FROM THE LATIN

I. (And it came to pass in the one hundred and twentieth year of the life of Moses), 2. That is,

L 1. See crit. note. 2. Two thousand fioe hundredth year. This date of Moses' death is of great importance in Jewish chronology. If we compare it with the various dates assigned to this event in the Massoretic text, the Samaritan, the Book of Jubilees, and Josephus,we shall find that no two of these authorities agree. Thus the death of Moses is variously dated according to —

Anno Mundi.

Book of Jubilees . Josephus, Ant» viii. 8. 1 bined with XX. 10 2580 Samaritan Pentateuch . 3309

From these variations among authorities before and after the Christian era, it appears

that the Massoretio chronology, which sets it down to 2706, either did not exist at the beginning of the Christian era, or else was only one of the many systems competing for popular acceptance. I shall return to this question in my Commentary on the Book of Jubilees, where the subject necessarily demands to be treated at some length. I shall, however, add here another fact which shows that the Massoretic chronology was wholly wanting in traditional authority cumstance that is incompatible with its assumed ancient origin. Thus according to Exod. xii. 40 (Mass. text), Israel is said to have sojourned 430 years in Egypt alone ; whereas, in the Samaritan, this period embraces also the sojourn of the patriarchs in Canaan before their

the two thousand five hundredth year from the creation of the world, 6. That he called to him Joshua the son of Nun, a man approved of the Lord, 7. That he might be the minister of the people and of the tabernacle of the testimony with all its

descent into Egypt. Here the Samaritan is supported by the LXX., and substantially also by the Pharisaic Book of Jubilees. This reckoniiL?, further, is followed by St. Paul, Gal. iii. 17, and Josephus, Ant. ii. 16. 2. It reappears also at a later date in the Targum of Jonathan on Exod. zii. 40. Some writers haye cited as testimonies to the Massoretic reckoning Philo, Quis Acts yii. 6: but all these passages are either directly drawn from or based upon Gen. xy. 18, where 400 years are spoken of, except that in Bell, Jud, v, 9, 4, where the context is indecisiye either way.

8. The MS. inserts here : ** But according to the reckoning of the East ... of the departure of the Phoenix.'* This yerse was interpolated by the Greek translator in the West. It may originally haye been a Greek marginal gloss. See crit.

4. The MS. inserts here : "When the people went forth after the exodus which was made by Moses to Amman across the Jordan." See crit. note. The Amman here mentioned aptown in the tribe of Gad. See

Amman quae nunc Filadelfia, urbs Arabiae nobilis, in qua habitayerunt olim Bafaim, gens antiqua; and 92, 2: Ammon trans Jordanem in tribu Gad. Haec est Amman de qua supra diximus, Filadelafi, ciyitas illnstris Arabiae.

5. The MS. inserts : "In the prophecy which was made by Mosesin the book Deuteronomy.

6. Called to him Joshua the son of Nun. These words are drawn from Deut. xxxL 7.

Approved of Vie Lord, For phrase cf. Acts ii. 22; 2 Tim. iL

7. Minister qf the people. See critical note on this yerse (p.

Tahemade qf the testimony. This is the fficqp^ rod fiaprvplov, i,e, nnyn hrtn, as would appear from l^e words following : " with all its holy things. " These holy things were the ark and the tables of testimony. Only for the addition of this clause the Hebrew might haye been nyiD VnK="tent of meeting," where God spoke to Moses, Exod. xxxiii. 7-11, etc., and to Moses and Joshua in Deut. xxxi. 14-23.. These two differing names of the tabernacle were deriyed from the two different purposes which it seryed.

CHAPTER I. 6-12

holy things, 8. And that he might bring the people into the land given to their fathers, 9. That it should be given to them according to the covenant and the oath, which he spake in the tabernacle to give (it) by Joshua : saying to Joshua these words : 10. ''(Be strong) and of a good courage according to thy might so as to do what has been commanded that thou mayst be blameless imto God." 11. So saith the Lord of the world. 12. For He hath

8. And that he might bring the people, etc Deut. zxzi. 7 ; cf. also zxzi. 21.

9. Ths coverumt and the oath. This is a favourite ezpression of the writer, cf. III. 9, XI. 17,XII. 13. We must restore it also in II. 7. See crit. note in loe» (pp.

Which He spake in the taher-

Saying to Joshua, These words are to be connected immediately with ver. 6 : "He called to him Joshua . . . saying to Joshua." The intervening words are of the nature of a parentheses.

10. {Be strong) and of a good courage. See crit. note (pp. 56, 57). These words go back immediately to Dent. xzxi. 7, from which also part of ver. 6 is derived.

Blameless unto God, See crit. note (pp. 57, 58). For the phrase

11. So saith the Lord, Moses here declares God to be the speaker of the words ' ' Be strong, " etc. In Josh. L 7 ; Deut. zxxi. 23, they are addressed directly

to Joshua by God, but in Deut zxxi. 6, 7 it is Moses that first uses them.

12, Created the world on hehalf qf His people. This is the prevalent view of Judaism from the first century of the Christian era onwards. Cf. 4 Ezra vi. 55, 59, vii. 11, and my note on Apoc. Bar. xiv. 18.

A still more limited view, i.e, that the world was created on behalf of the righteous in Israel, is expressed in Apoc. Bar. xiv. ception reappears in the Shepherd of Hennas in a form adapted to its Christian environment. There it is the Christian Church to which the world owes its creation: Vis, ii. 4. 1, dtd raxrr^v ( = t^i' iKKktiffiap) 6 Kdfffioi KaTTfprladrj, Cf. larger view, that the world was created on account of mankind, is found in Apoc. Bar. xiv. 18 ; 4 !^^ra viii. 1, 44 ; Hermae Pastor, Mand. xii. 4, iicTLae rbv Kdafxoy ipcKa rod dvdpitnrov, and is the prevalent one in post-apostolic writers. Cf. Justin Mart. Apol,

created the world on behalf of His people. 13. But He was not pleased to manifest this purpose of creation from the foundation of the world, in order that the Gentiles might thereby be convicted, yea to their own humiliation might by (their) arguments convict one another. 14. Accordingly He designed

lian, Adv, Ma/rc, i. 13; Origen, Cont/ra Cels, iy. 23.

13. Was not pleased. (See crit. note, p. 58.) The sense of the verse appears to be : God was unwilling to reveal the fact that the world was created on behalf of Israel in order that the Gentiles might be put to a common shame in their reasonings on this subject. What man could not discover (Eccles. iii. 11, viii. 17), God revealed through Moses

14. This verse is quoted by Gelasius of Cyzicum in his Comment, Act. Syn, Nic, ii. 18 (Fab- Mansi, Condi, ii. p. 844): fUKKwv 6 irpo<jy/fnii Mwvcr^; i^Uvax rod BioVy wf yiypanTcu iv ptpXifi AyaX'^^eias i/LtavaitoSf vpoaKoKeffdfievoi 'Irjaovv vlbv Navi; Kal 5ia- \ey6fiepos vpbs a^bv (iprj' Kal irpoeOedffaTd fie 6 Qebs irpib Kara- PoXijs Kbfffiov elval fie ttjs diaOr^K'rji airov fieffirrfv.

Prepared me before the foundation of the world. Pre-existence is here ascribed to Moses, as it was also to the Son of Man in Eth. En. xliii. 2 (where see note). But about the beginning of the Christian era such preexistence came to be regarded in

Alexandrian Judaism — not as the prerogative of one or more favoured souls, but as the common characteristic of all souls. See Slav. En. xxiii. 5. This was the prevailing doctrine of later Judaism.

From the four^dation of the world. See crit. note on I. 14

Mediator, The word fica-irrii, of which arbiter is clearly a translation, is found onl^ in later Greek (Polybius, Lucian, and once only in the LXX., Job ix. 33. This designation of Moses as a mediator does not occur in the O.T or in the Apocrypha, though his mediatorial functions appear clearly in Dent. v. 2, 5 ; £xod. XX. 19. It was, however, a recognised title of his in the first century of the Christian era. This is clear — (1) From the present work, I. 14, III. 12. i9, where Moses is said to be the mediator through whom came the law 6 vbfios , . . diarayels , , . 4v X^^P^ futrirov, A^ain in Heb. viii. 6, ix. 15, xii. 24 there is an obvious allusion to this designation of Moses, where over against the O.T. legislator, Christ is described as a ^* Mediator of a new (or * better') covenant." (3) From

and devised me, and He prepared me before the foundation of the world, that I should be the mediator of His covenant. 15. And now I declare unto thee that the time of the years of my life is fulfilled and I am passing away to sleep with my fathers even in the presence of all the people. 16. And receive thou this writing that thou mayst know how to preserve the books which I shall deliver unto thee : 17. And thou shalt set these in order and anoint them with oil of cedar and put them away in earthen vessels in the place which He made from the beginning of the creation of the

Philo, VU. Moys, iii. 19 : ola fualrris Kal dtaWdicrrfs. (4) From the Talmud, where Moses is frequently s^Kjken of as a mediator, t.e. as TiDno ; see Levy, Neuhebr. See also Shem. rab. on Exod. See Schottgen, Eor, pp. 738, 15. Sleep with my foLthers. Cf. Moses makes no reference here to his Assumption. The words, " Even in the presence of all the people," if they are the true text, refer clearly to his bodily decease. These words disagree both with the account in Deut. xxxiv. 5, '6, according to which no man witnessed his death, and with the Greek fragments of the Assumption (see pp. 107-110), according to which Joshua and Caleb were witnesses, but none other. With this verse compare

Apoo. Bar. xliv. 2: "Behold I go unto my fathers according to the way of all the earth."

16. This writing* Cf. X. 11,

17. Anomt them with oU of cedar. The sacred heavenly books shown to Enoch (Slav. En. xxii. 12) are described as "fragrant with myrrh."

From the heffirming of the creation of the world. See crit.

In the place f etc., i,e, Jerusalem. In Joma 546, Sifre 76&, the world is said to have been created with Zion as a startingpoint. See Weber, pp. 199, xxxviii. 12, V. 5, Zion is said to be the centre of the earth : cf. lees viii. Is there any reference here to "stone of foundation," M'ne^ pK, mentioned in the Targ. Jon. on Exod. xxviii 30 ?

world, 18. That His name should be called upoa until the day of repentance in the visitation wherewith the Lord shall visit them in the consummation of the end of the days.

II. (And now) they will go by means of thee into the land which He determined and promised

18. UntUtJ^edayo/rqfentanee, The temple was thus expected to stand till the establlsninent of the theocratic kingdom. As Hilgenfeld remarks, no Jew could have so written after the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. Still more impossible is the later date of Yolkmar and Colani, which assigns this book to a time when Jerusalem was rebuilt as a Roman colony with a heathen temple and sacrifices, and no Jew was permitted to approach it. Gf. Justin, Apol, Schlirer, Div. I. vol. ii. 294,

TTie day of repentcmce. Taken in connection with the following words, this phrase refers to the great national repentance that was to precede the establishment of the Messianic or, as here, the theocratic kingdom. This national repentance was a precondition of the coming of the kingdom. *' If Israel practises repentance, it will be redeemed ; if not, it will not be redeemed," Sanh. 975. This repentance was called also the great repentuice. '^Israel will not fulfil the great repentance before Elijah comes," Pirke de R. Eliezer, xliii. According to

this moral reformation was to be wrought by Elijah. So strongly were the Rabbins impressed with the value of this repentance, that in Pesikta 1636 it is said : " If all Israel together repented for a single day, redemption through the Messiah would follow" (see Weber, 333,

In the vuiitationf etc. The visitation here spoken of is one of mercy in relation to Israel. The word visit (^t<ric^rc(r^tti= ips) has generally in the O.T., and always in the N.T., a good sense. In the Apoo. Bar. and 4 Ezra it is almost always used in a bad sense of the penal visitation of God (see my note on Apoc. Bar. xx. 1). "The time of visitation " {xaipbt ivKr- KoiTTJSy Wisd. iii. 7) is the establishment of the kingdom ; cf. Luke xix. 44.

Them, Israel.

In the consummation of the end of days. Similarly in the Apoc. Bar. xxvii. 15, xxix. 8, the Messianic time is denoted by the phrase "the consummation of the times." The same phrase is used also of the last judgment ; see Apoc. Bar. xxx. 3.

CHAPTERS I. i8— II. 4 9

to give to their fathers, 2. In the which thou shalt bless and give to them individually and confirm unto them their inheritance in me and establish for them the kingdom, and thou shalt appoint them prefectures according to the good pleasure of their Lord in judgment and righteousness. 3. And (it will come to pass) in the sixth year after they enter into the land, that thereafter they shall be ruled by chiefs and kings for eighteen years, and during nineteen years the ten tribes will be apostates. 4. And the twelve tribes will go down

2. Their inherUa/nee in me. This is a peculiar phrase, but Rbnsch supports it by 2 Sam. XX. 1: "Neither have we inheritance in the sou of Jesse** his later suggestion on this pasr sage is possiolv better, in which be takes the Latin " in me " to be a corruption of **in earn." See crit. note on II. 2.

Appovnbihem prefectures. The text is obscure. See crit. note (p. 60). We might render also : '^appoint them local magistrates." These might be the Q'"i»9 mentioned in Deut. xvi. 18 ; 1 Ghrott. zxiii. 4, xxvi.

8. In the sixth year. The conquest of Canaan occupied five years. Gf. Josh. xiv. 10 ; Joseph. Ant» y. 1. 19 : iron di vifiHTOv Ijdrf vapcXrfXT&Oei Kal Xapcufalutv oiKiri otbeU inrdXi- XeiTTO,

For eighteen years. Each year signifies a reign or ruler. The

' chiefs and kin^'* are the fifteen judges and the three kings, Saul, David, and Solomon.

And during nineteen yea/rs the ten tribes wUl he apostates. These are the nineteen kings of Israel from Jeroboam to Hoshea. In these two statements the writer anticipates for the moment the course of history. In the next verse he turns back to record the removal of the ark by David to Jerusalem.

4. And the twelve tribes will

The Ood of heaven, Cf. iv. 4, X. 8. This expression, which is found in Gen. xxiv. 7, was a favourite one amongst the j^ostexilic Jews, Ezra v. 11, vi. 9, etc.

The God of hea/ven will make, etc. The building of the temple under Solomon is here referred to.

The court of His taberjiacle.

and transfer the tabernacle of the testimony. Then the God of heaven will make the court of His tabernacle and the tower of His sanctuary, and the two holy tribes will be (there) established : 5. But the ten tribes will establish kingdoms for themselves according to their own ordinances. 6. And they will oflfer sacrifices throughout twenty years : 7. And seven will entrench the walls, and I will protect nine, but (four) will transgress the covenant of the Lord, and profane the oath which the Lord made with them. 8. And they will sacrifice their sons to strange gods, and they will set up idols in the sanctuary, to worship them. 9. And in the house of the Lord they will work impiety and

Tower of Ets sa/nctuary. See

And the two holy tribes, etc. Only two tribes will remain faithful to the temple so built. This calls for a reference to the action of the ten tribes, which is given in the text verse.

5. This statement relative to the ten tribes is really parenthetical. It was called out by the prediction that (only) the two taibes would preserve their allegiance to the temple.

6. The writer, after the parenthetical reference to the ten tribes in ver. 6, returns here to the history of the two.

Offer sacrifices throughout twenty years. The twenty years designate the twenty sovereigns of Judah from Behoboam onwards, including Athaliah.

7. Seven wUl entrench the wcUls, i.e, seven kings will advance the strength and prosperity of Judah-Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Athaliah.

/ toill protect nine, i.e. nine kings will enjoy the divine protection — Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah.

(Four) wUl transgress, i.e, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, Zedekiah.

Transgress . . . oath. See

8. Sacrificed their sons, etc.

Set up idols in the sanctuary,

9. This verse is clearly based

CHAPTERS II. 5— III. 5

II

engrave every (form) of beast, (even) many abominations.

III. And in those days a king from the east will come against them and cover their land with (his) cavalry. 2. And he will bum their colony with fire together with the holy temple of the Lord, and he will carry away all the holy vessels. 3. And he will cast forth all the people, and he will take them to the land of his nativity, yea he will take the two tribes with him. 4. Then the two tribes will call upon the ten tribes, and will be indignant as a lioness on the dusty plains, being hungry and thirsty. 5. And they will cry aloud : " Eighteous

on Ezek. viii. 9, 10. Thus "in the house of the Lord they will work impiety," is derived from viiL 9, and tne remaining words from viii. 10. See crit. note for the restoration of the text.

III. 1. A king from the east, Nebuchadnezzar, 588-586 b.c.

2. Colony, This word is due either to the Greek or Latin translator, and points to the fact that when the translation was made Jerusalem had been rebuilt by Hadrian as a Roman colony under the name Aelia Capitolina. See also V. 6, VI. 9. The original may have used

All the holy vessels, 2 Chron. xxxvi. 7. According to Dan. i. 2, part of these had been carried away in the reign of Jehoiakim ; cf. Jer. xxvii. 19, 20. A tradition current in the first century of our era recounts

that on the destruction of Solomon's temple the holy vessels were concealed by angels (Apoc Bar. vi. ) or by Jeremiah (2 Mace, ii. 4-8) in order to preserve them for the future Messianic kingdom. See also Bammidbar rab, 15. The writer of this book was not apparently acquainted with this tradition.

3, 4. WUl he mdignarU, See crit. note (pp. 64, 65). Hungry amd thirsty, Cf. Apoc. Bar. Ixxvii. 14.

5. Righteous and holy is the Lord, Ps. cxlv. 17, diKcuos K^fpios , , , Kol 6(rtoSf and Vulgate, Justus Dominus et sanctus.

Righteous , , , is tJie Lord, for in/ismueh as, etc. Cf. Apoc. Bar. Ixxvii. 3, 4. Both here and in the Apoc. Bar. the calamities of Judah are said to be due to the wickedness of Israel. In the

and holy is the Lord, for, inasmuch as ye have sinned, we too, in like manner, have been carried away with you, together with our children." 6. Then the ten tribes will mourn on hearing the reproaches of the two tribes, 7. And they will say : " What have we done imto you, brethren ? Surely this tribulation has not come on all the house of Israel ?" 8. And all the tribes will mourn crying unto heaven and saying: 9. "God of Abraham God of Isaac and God of Jacob, remember Thy covenant which Thou didst make with them, and the oath which Thou didst swear unto them by Thyself, that their seed should never fail in the land which Thou hast given them." 10. Then

latter book, howeyer, Ixxvii. 10, the Apocryphal Bar. ii. 26, these are attributed to the wickedness of both Israel and Judah.

Together with ov/r children. These words are found at the end of ver. 4 in the MS., but there they are impossible. See

7. Baldensperger {Das Selhstbevmsstsein JesUf p. 30, note) thinks that if we could admit the date of the book to be after 70 A.D. the word ''tribulation" here might hint also at a recently experienced calamity.

8. UrUo heaven. Heaven seems here to be used as equi^ valent to God. This usage appears first in Dan. iv. 23. It is frequent later. Of. Matt. ▼. 34.

9. Ths oath . . . th^ their

seed should never faU in tJie la/nd. Gen. xvii. 8 ; cf. for phraseology Pss. Sol. xvii. 5: cb &fio(rai airrtfi vepl rod afripfiaros airoO els t6p cUupa toO fi^ iKXeiireiv . . . paaiXelav ai^oG ; also Test. XII. Patriar., Jud. 22. 10-13. These verses are either the source of Apoc. Bar. Ixxxiv. 2-5, or both passages are derived from a common original. The passage in Baruch is: 2. ** Hemember that formerly Moses assuredly called heaven and earth to witness against you, and said : * If ye tra/nsgress the law, ye shall be dispersed ; but if ye keep it, ye shall be kept.' 3. Ana other things he used to say unto you when ye, the twelve tribes, weretogethertn^c^er^. 4. And c^ter his death ye cast them away ^om you : on this account there

CHAPTER III. 6-14

they wiU remember me, saying, in that day, tribe unto tribe and each ma^ unto his neighbour : 11. ''Is not this that which Moses did then declare unto us in prophecies, who suffered many things in Egypt and in the Bed Sea and in the wilderness during forty years: 12. And assuredly called heaven and earth to witness against us, that we should not transgress His commandments, in the which he was a mediator unto us? 13. Behold these things have befallen us after his death according to his words and according to his declaration, as he declared to us at that time, yea behold these have taken place even to our being carried away captive into the country of the east." 14.

came upon yoa what had been predicted. 5. Arkd now Moses used to tell you before they be/ell you, and lo! they ha/oe befallen you," I have italicised the portions which are undoubtedly of close kin, Cf. Dan. ix. 11-13.

11. In Egypt amd in the Bed Sea and the toildemess forty years. These words are found exactly as they stand here, and likewise in reference to Moses in Stephen's speech in Acts yii. 36: oDros i^ityayev airraids, irotiJ<raf ripara koL aiffieTa iv ij Aly&jrrtfiy^ Kal iv *Epvdpgi $a\d(r(rOf Kal iv r^ ipi^fup #Ti; T€<raapdKovra, The fact of their having a partial parallel in Apoc. Bar. Ixxxiv. 3 (see above) seems to preclude the possibility of their being an interpolation here.

12. Assuredly called heawn

and earth to toitness. See crit. xix. 1, Ixxxiv. 2.

Mediator, See I. 14, note.

That we should not transgress His eommandments, Apoc. Bar. Ixxxiv. 2.

13. AtuI behold these things.

After his death. See crit. note (p. 67). Yea behold, etc.

Into the country of the east.

14. Seventy amd seven years. This refers back, no doubt, to Jeremiah's prophecy of seventy years' captivity, Jer. xxv. 11, 12, xxix. 10. This prophecy is referred to in Dan. ix. 2, and interpreted in ix. 24 to mean seventy weeks of years. How

Who will be also in bondage for about seventy and seven years.

IV. Then there will enter one who is over them, and he will spread forth his hands, and kneel upon his knees and pray on their behalf saying: 2. " Lord of all, King on the lofty throne, who rulest the world, and didst will that this people should be Thine elect people, then (indeed) Thou didst will that Thou shouldst be called their Grod, according to the covenant which Thou didst make with their fathers. 3. And yet they have gone in captivity into another land with their wives and their children, and around the gates of strange peoples and where there is great vanity. 4. Eegard and have compassion on them, Lord of heaven." 5. Then God will remember them on account of the covenant which He made with their fathers, and

the limits of this period are to be determined, it has hitherto been impossible to define. That the same impossibility attaches to the present time-determination is therefore not strange. If seventy-seven years be taken as weeks of years (as in Daniel), the total is 539 years. This subtracted from 588, when Jerusalem was destroyed, gives 49 B.G. But this is not intelligible. Merx thinks there is a play on the words seventyseven in the Semitic. See crit. note. Can seventy and seven signify here an indefinite number, as it actually does in

the 0. and N.T. (cf. Gen. iv.

IV. 1. One, i.e. Daniel ; cf.

2. Eulest the world. See xi.

ThvM elect people. Cf. Isa.

2. 3. Observe the contrast existing between Israel's reasonable expectations and their actual lot — God's chosen covenanted people the slave of an idolatrous human power.

3. Vanity, i.e, idolatry. See

Bar, xlviii. 18.

CHAPTER IV. 1-8

He will manifest His compassion in those times also. 6. And He will put it into the mind of a king to have compassion on them, and he wHl send them ofif to their land and country. 7. Then some portions of the tribes will go up and they wiU come to their appointed place, and they will entrench the place renewing (it). 8. And the two tribes will continue in their prescribed faith, sad and

kirvg, i,e. Cyrus ; cf. 2

Chron.

8. Lamentvng because they will not be able to offer mcrifices, etc. Worship in the second temple during the Persian period and later was discredited by several writers in different centuries and no doubt on different grounds. Thus Malachi (i. 7) writes : "ye offer poUuted bread upon Mine altar." Next, in the £th. En. Ixxxix. 73 the sacrifices are declared to be unclean under the symbolical words : "all the bread on it was polluted and not pure." Our next reference to the low estimation in which the worship of the second temple was held is found in the Apoc. Bar. Ixviii. 5, 6 : "And at that time, after a little interval, Zion will again be builded, and its offerings will again be restored ; and the priest will return to their ministry, and again the Grentiles wiU come to ^orify it. Nevertheless, not as fully as in the b^inning." The passiuros from mlachi and the Eth. En. seem to arraign only the imperfect character of the victims, and

the spirit of those that offer them. That in the Apoc Bar. may not amount to anything more than a reflection on the lesser glory of the second temple as compared with that of the first, such as we find in Hag. ii. 3 : "Who is left among you that saw this house in its former glory? and how do ye see it now?" Cf. also Ezra

But the passage in our text seems to eo deeper. It implies an Imper^ction attaching to the validity of the entire temple service. There is, indeed, no objection to saciifice as sudi in this book ; hence no Essenic tenet is to be sought for here. The writer's views may possibly be explained on the ground that he regarded it as impossible for Israel to render perfect worship so long as they were subject to heathen powers. From these powers Grod alone could deliver them. They were not, as we gather from IX., to attempt this task themselves. God Himself would achieve it for them when they duly repented, I. 17. The writer is a Pnarisaic quietist

lamenting because they will not be able to offer sacrifices to the Lord of their fathers. 9. And the ten tribes will increase and multiply among the Gentiles during the time of their captivity.

Y. And when the times of chastisement draw nigh and vengeance arises through the kings who share in their guilt and punish them, 2. They themselves also will be divided as to the truth. 3. Wherefore it hath come to pass: "They will

9. Multiply among the QerUUes during the tivne of their eaptimty. See crit. note (pp. 70, 71) for the grounds for tnis emendation, and for the passages from contemporary writers supporting the present statement.

V. 1. Vengeance arises through the kings who share im, their guUt. The writer shows that there was a special Nemesis in the instruments of their chastisement ; for the yery people, whose manners and customs they were so eager to adopt to the destruction of Hebrew religion and character, became in due course the actual means through which a righteous vengeance overtook them. We find the some thought expressed in reference to the HeUenising priests of Jason's time in 2 Mace. IV. 16: " By reason whereof sore calamity came upon them ; for they had them to be their enemies and avengers whose customs they followed so eagerly, and unto whom they desired to be like in all things {&v il^iiXovy rds AytayiLS Kal Kaddvav ijdeXov i^o/ioioOffdaiy To&rovs ToXefilovs Kal TifjMprp-is (<rxop)»

Here as in our text the writer regards the persecution under the Seleucidae, especially Antiochus, as a judgment on the HeUenising and apostasies of the leaders of the nation.

2. They . . . wUlbedivided as to the truth. The enormities of the Sadducean priesthood promoted in the way of reaction a reliffious awakening among the scribes, and gave birth to what was later known as the Pharisaic party. The origin of this party is symbolically described in the Eth. En. xc. 6, 7 as taking place at this time. (See my edition in loc. ) Schmidt-Merx wrongly describe these two parties as the war party of the Maccabeans and the stricter Chasids. Hilgenfeld strangelyinterprets these words as referring to the dispersion (dta(riro/[xi) under the Seleucids, and the precedingverse to the Persian kings. The two verses refer to the period of the Seleucid domination. There is no question of the Maccabees as yet.

8. It is impossible to trace this quotation, but portions of it

CHAPTERS IV. 9— V. 4

turn aside from righteousness and approach iniquity, and they will defile with pollutions the house of their worship," and " they will go a whoring after strange gods." 4. For they will not follow the

— at least their phraseology — may be found in the O.T. j'or * * turn aside from righteoasness, ' ' cf. Ezek. iii. 20 ; for "they will defile . . • the house of their worship," cf. Ezek. xliv. 7 : "Ye have brought in aliens ... to be in My sanctuary, to profane it, even My house " ; Zeph. iii. 4 : "her priests have profaned the sanctuary " ; see also Pss. Sol. 1. 9, where of the Jewish priesthood it is said: i^e^ijktaffav rd Siyui Kvplov iv Bepri\(AHreif and viii. 26 : i/iiavav lepovaaXiifi Kal rd ifyiacfUva T<fi 6v6fM,Ti ToO Qeov, The clause "will po a whoring after strange gods" IS found in Deut. xzxi. 16. 3, 4. All previous writers have, I believe, wrongly interpreted these verses. They have tiE^en them as referring to the early Maccabean high priests and their Sadducean supporters. But there are certain statements here which make such an interpretation impossible, i. The words "will go a whoring after strange gods cannot possibly be applied to the Maccabean high priests, 160-103. ii. In no case could the latter be described as those "who are no Eriests." No such charge is rought against them in all Jewish literature, whereas they are everywhere acknowledged to be of true priestly descent ; see 1 Mace. ii. 1-5 ; Joseph. Ant. xii. 6, 1. They were

sprung from Joiarib or Jehoiarib who returned from the Captivity, Finally, in vi. 2 of this book the statement that the Maccabees should be succeeded by one who was "not of the race of the priests," i.e, Herod, shows that the writer regarded the Maccabees as being of priestlv descent. But the very facts that make against the application of these verses to the Maccabees make it clear that they can only be rightly explained as descriptive of the high priests who held office previous to the Maccabees, together with their Sadducean foQowing. L There was every ^und for charging the paganising high priests Jason and Menelaus with "going a whoring after strange gods. Thus, not to dwell upon the contribution Jason sent to Tyre to be expended in a sacrifice to Hercules in that city, 2 Mace, iv. 19, 20, he set up a palaestra under the citadel, in which the young nobles of Jerusalem practised the Greek games, and even the priests, forsaking their service at the altar to do so. This Jason also, called in 2 Mace. iv. 13 "that un^odlv wretch, and no high priest, ' encouraged "Greek fiishions " and "heathen manners," "put down the institutions that were according to law, and brought up new

trnth of God, but some will pollute the altar with the very gifts which they ofifer to the Lord, who

castoms against the law," 2 Mace. iv. 11. Jason is finally declared in 2 Mace. v. 8 to be ^' hated as a forsaker of the laws, and being had in abomination as an open enemy of his country and countrymen." The above facts will amply account for such words also as "they will approach iniquity, and tney will defile with pollutions the house of their worship," in ver. 8, and **some will pollute the altar with the very gifts which they offer," in ver.

4. For similar charges against the priesthood, cf. the quotations given on ver. 3.

ii. But the words conclusive for our interpretation are : * * some . . . who are not priests but slaves, sons of slaves." We have shown above that the clause "who are not priests" cannot in any case be referred to the Maccabees. We have now to show that it applies to the Hellenising high priests under Antiochus Epiphanes. Amongst these we have undoubtedly in Menelaus a high priest who was not of priestly extraction at all, but was of the tribe of Benjamin. In 2 Mace. iv. 23 he is called the brother of Simon. This Simon, a Benjamite, was a Hellenising governor of the temple, 2 Mace. iii. 4. Josephus represents Menelaus as a brother of Onias iii., AtU, xii. 4. 10,

5. 1 ; but wrongly, as is universally admitted. This illegitimate appointment was exactly in keeping with the policy of

Antiochus. It was his aim, not only to outrage the Jewish Law, but to procure its entire abolition. Although this is the only authenticated instance of the high priesthood being held by one who was not of priestly descent, Grimm and other scholars are right in concluding that the occurrence of similar irregularities in appointments to the nigh priesthooa is implied in 1 Mace. vii. 14. There the Asidaeans declare, on the appointment of Alkimus to the high priesthood, that they comd suffer nothing at the hands of the army which was marching against them, because " one that is a priest of the seed of Aaron is come with the army."

Slaves, sons of slaves. These words have been referred to the Maccabean high priests ; and the passage in Josephus, JtU. xiii. 10. 5, has been quoted in support of this view, where, at a banquet given by Hyrcanus, a Pharisee named Eleazar requested Hyrcanus to lay down the high

Enesthood, on the ground that is mother had been a captive during the reign of Antiochus. This statement, which Josephus declares to be false, is repeated in the Talmud. But, (1) as we have already seen in the preceding notes, tnere can be no reference here to the Maccabean hi^h priests; and (2) the first reference to them is found in vi. 1. If V. 4 already referred to the Maccabean hi^h priests, we should not find in vi. 1 the

CHAPTER V. 5-6

are not priests but slaves, sons of slaves. 5. And many in those times will respect the persons of the rich and receive gifts, and wrest judgment [on receiving presents]. 6. And on this account the

special record that the Maccabees called themselves high priests of God. The phrase ''slaves, sons of slaves/' then, is to be interpreted, not of the Maccabees, bat of their predecessors. In this regard it is fall of significance, and points tothecondition ofcomplete depadation in which the h(Hders of this office stood under Antiochns ; for they were the nominees and absohite tools of that despot, being made and unmade by him at pleasure. Thus Onias iii. was deposed to make room for Jason, and Jason in turn to make room for Mene-

5. And many in those times. The Latin text here is, qui enim magistri sunt doctores eorum illis temporibus. In the crit. note (pp. 72, 73) I have shown that doctores eorum is an incorrect marginal eloss in the Hebrew MS. on the preceding words D'aiiTi, which are here wrongly rendered by qui enim magistri sunt. These ** many " were the Sadducean party who supported the Hellenising high priests. Probably tlie reference may be more specific, and the " man^ " may signify the large Hellenising Sadducean majority in the Sanhedrim in Jerusalem. The Sanhedrim was the chief court for the administration of civil and criminal justice. See p. 26.

Begpeet the persons of the rich. See crit note (p. 73).

Deut. xvi. 19 is the source of this and the two foUowing clauses : ''Thou shalt not wrest judgment ; thou shalt not respect persons ; neither shalt thou taKe a gift."

Meceive g^fts and . . . wrest judgment. See preceding note ; also crit. note (p. 73).

[On receiving presents], I have bracketed this phrase as a dittography. See crit. note (pp. 78, 74), where I have shown that, if it is genuine, as it may be, we should probably be right in regarding accipientes munera in tne preceding line as : 5wpoXi7irrouKT€s yx3 D*yjna = greedy of gain (cf. Prov. xv. 27), and accordingly render the whole verse: "And many in those times will respect the persons of the rich, and be greedy of gain, and wrest judgment on receiving presents." In this case 1 Sam. viii. 8 was clearly before the mind of the writer: "And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgmerU, '

6, 6. Will forsake the Lord,

WiU be ready to judge for money, etc. See crit. note

VIII. IX, The persecution of the Jews under Antiochus ; the breach between the Chasids and the earlj Maccabees, and the resumption by the former of

colony and the borders of their habitation will be filled with lawless deeds and iniquities : they will forsake the Lord: they will be impious judges: they will be ready to judge for money as each may wish.

VI. Then there will be raised up unto them

their quietistic attitude. These chapters should be read immediately after V., where they belonged originally. For the grounds for this conclusion see notes in loc,

VI. 1. Kings bearing rvZe, and they will ecUl themselves high priests. See crit. note. Previous scholars have referred these words to Antigonus' assumption of the title of king in 104 B.C. It is true, no doubt, that Antigonus was the first to do so ; but, on the following grounds, it seems clear that the line of kings mentioned in the text begins, not with Antigonus, but with Jonathan or Judas. For (1) the name "king" is used loosely in this book : it does not necessarily mean anything more than commander or prince. Thus the Roman general Varus is called **a powerful king" in vi. 8. Hence this title could be used even of Judas, who was the de facto ruler of the Jews ; and on still better grounds of Jonathan, who was invested by Alexander Balas of Syria with princely rank through the symbms of the purple robe and diadem in ]^3 ; and on the most adequate grounds of Simon, who was the first independent Maccabean ruler of his nation. (2)

Now, according to the text, t?ieir assumption of the high priesthood is regarded as imbseqvsnt to their asswmption of the office of supreme military and civil rvZers of the nation. Hence, as the office of high priest was usurped as early as 153 b.c. by Jonathan, and this usurpation made legitimate, and the office declared to be hereditary in the Maccabean line in 141 B.C. by a council of the nation (1 Mace. xiv. 41), the words * ' kings bearing rule " mvst be referred to the Maccabean rulers previous^ at aZl events^ to 141 B.O. Hence this verse (vi. 1) embraces the entire Maccabean dynasty from Judas, 165 B.C., to Antigonus, 37 b.c., who was succeeded by Herod.

High priests of Ood, The Latin, which is here sacerdotes summi Dei, "priests of the Most Hiffh God,'^ I have, in my critical text, necessarily emended into summos sacerdote^ Dei (see crit. note, p. 75) ; for (1) such a titie would be unparalleled in connection with the Maccabees. In 1 and 2 Mace, and in the Antiquities and Jevnsh Wars of Josephus, they are simply described in their sacred character as "high priests," or **high priests of the nation." (2) The

CHAPTER VI. 1-3

Kings bearing rule, and they will call themselves high priests of God: they will assuredly work iniquity in the holy of holies. 2. And an insolent king will succeed them, who will not be of the race of the priests, a man bold and shameless, and he will judge them as they shall deserve. 3.

Jewish high priesthood was never, so far as 1 can discover, caUed a priesthood of the Most Hi^h God. (3) Again, if the divine title were here ** the Most High,'' we should find, according to universal Biblical usage, Dei summi or altissimi or Luke viii. 28 ; Heb. vii. 1), and not sununi Dei. (4) Summi sacerdotes is in many instances a Vulg. rendering of dpxiepeii The phrase **the high priest of God is found in Acte xxiii. 4.

The Maccabees had no wish to differentiate themselves from the high priests that preceded them. Their claim to this office, so far as they had any, rested on their Aaronic descent.

WHl assuredly work iniquity. On this Hebraism see crit. note.

2. This verse refers to Herod the Great, who reiened from 37 to 4 B.O. He could not assume the high priest's office, as he was not even a full-bom Jew, much less of priestly descent. Josephus. Ant. xiv. 15. 2, calls him ijfuiovdcuos.

Not of the race of the priests. Herod was the son of Antipater

of Idumea, and not of Jewish descent, according to Joseph. Our text does not go so far. Its silence seems to concede the Jewish origin of Antipater, and thus to agree with the statement of Nicolas of Damascus to that effect (AtU. xiv. 1. 3). See

Judge them as they deserve. The persons here declared to be deserving of punishment may be (a) the surviving members of the Maccabean family, all of whom were ultimately cut off by Herod ; (6) the Sadducean aristocracy forty-five of whom he had executed on becoming king {ArU. xv. sees, on the other hand, Herod was on the whole favourable. Even when they refused to take the oath of allegiance, they were spared at the intercession of Pollio and Sameas. The Essenes were also excused, but not the rest of the people. See Ant. xv. 10. 4. (c) Or else the nation at large, as in YI. 1. We should observe that VI. 4, 5 support the last interpretation.

3. Cut off their chief men, i.e. the Sadducean nobles. See preceding note.

Destroy {th£m) in secret places. Murders of this secret sort are

And he will cut off their chief men with the Bword, and will destroy (them) in secret places, so that no one may know where their bodies are. 4. He will slay the old and the young, and he will not spare. 5. Then the fear of him will be bitter unto them in their land. 6. And he will execute judgments on them as the Egyptians executed upon them, during thirty and four years, and he will punish them. 7. And he will beget children, who succeeding him will rule for shorter periods. 8.

reported in Joseph. Ant, xv. 10. 4 : voWoi re Koi tpavepws Kal \€\7jd&rtas els t6 <l>poif>iov dvaydfievoif r^v *TpKavLaVf ixet Si€<f>- Oelpovro,

4. Perhaps, as Hilgenfeld and Yolkmar suggest, we should omit the et before non and translate: *'He will slay the old, and the young he will not spare." Cf. Jer. li. 3.

5. Cf. for phraseology 2 Mace,

6. Thirty cmd four years. Herod reigned thirty-four years after the death of Antigonus, and thirty-seven after he had been declared king by the Romans. Cf. Joseph. Ant. xvii.

7. Children who . . . vyUl rule for shorter periods. See crit. note. Although there is some corruption in the text, there is no difficulty as to the sense. Herod's sons, it states, are to reign for shorter periods than their father. Kow this was true of Archelaus alone; for Antipas reigned forty-three

years, and Philip thirty-seven. From these facts we must conclude that, as Herod died 4 B.C., this book must have been written earlier, at all events, than 30 A.D. Reuss, on the other hand {Die Oeschichte der h. Schriften not agree that these woi*ds necessarily determine the date. Philip and Antipas did indeed reign longer than their father, but our author, he urges, was thinking only of Archelaus and Agrippa, '*die allein flir einen Jerussdemer Interesse hatten.'* In this view Reuss is followed by Rosenthal and Baldensperger.

8. Into their jpartSf coJtorts, etc.

A powerful king. Varus, governor of Syria, who suppressed a rebellion of the Jews against the Roman authority in 4 B.C. See Joseph. Ant. xvii.

Bum a part of their temple. The temple was set fire to, not by Yams, but by the soldiers

CHAPTERS VI. 4— VII. 3

Into their parts cohorts and a powerful king of the west will come, who will conquer them : 9. And he will take them captive, and bum a part of their temple with fire, (and) will crucify some around their colony.

VII. And when this is done the times will be ended, in a moment the (second) course will be (ended), the four hours will come. 2. They will' be forced 3. And, in the time of

under his lieutenant Sabinus. See Joseph. Ant, xvii. 10. 2 ; Bell, ii 3. 8. The injuries done to the temple on this occasion were not made good till as late as Nero's reign, though 18,000 men were employed m the restoration. See Ant. xx. 9. 7.

Will crucify some^ etc. 2000 were crucified by Varus (Ant,

YII. 1. And when this is done the times will he ended. With these words the actual history recounted by our author, as Ewald, Wieseler, Dillmann, and Schiirer have recognised, comes to a close. We have arrived at the date at which he is writing. Up to this point his historical allusions have been easy to interpret. A series of predictions follow, couched by their author in enigmatical symbols to begin with, and afterwards corrupted by translators or transcribers beyond the possibility of restoration.

2. It is wors^ than idle to attempt to deal with this verse till we know something about its actual wording. On the for-

lorn attempts made to restore it, by Hilgenfeld, Volkmar, Merx, Golani, and Wieseler, see crit.

3-10. Who were the persons aimed at by the writer 1 They are evidently contemporaries. The picture is drawn from life. And yet there is the greatest diversity of opinion among scholars as to the class designed by the writer. They have been taken to be — (i. ) The Herodian princes, by HUgenfeld, Mess. Jifd. 464, 465. But there are many objections to this identification.

(ii.) The Pharisees, (a) in the first decade after Herod's death, by Ewald, History of Israel, v. 367, note 5 (Eng. tr.), Drummond, Dillmann, tween 54-64 A.D., by Schmidt- Merx (Merx, Archvo. /. WissefnschafU. Erforschung des A.T., tain traits in these verses seem to favour this view, the prevailing tone of the entire passage makes it impossible. The persons here arraigned are unblushing Epicureans, gluttonous men and

these, scornful and impious men wiU rule, saying

winebibbers. Now, although nearly every other vice has been laid to the charge of the Pharisees, even their worst enemies have not accused them of open gluttony and drunkenness. Indeed, the Pharisees were decidedly ascetic in character, according to the testimony of Josephus ; "the Pharisees,** he writes, '* make little of the pleasui'es of the table, and do not surrender themselves to the comforts of the body" (AtU, xviii. 1. 3 : of re ykp ^puraToi r^v Siairav i^cvrcXil^ovffLVf o^d^ els t6 fJLa.\aK(irT€pov ivdiSdvTes. In Matt, xxiii. 25, indeed, they are accused of secret profligacy, '*but within they are full from extortion and excess " (4^ apirayTJs Kal dKpaalas).

But this ascetic tone was not universally characteristic of the Pharisees after 70 a.d. Hence this objection will not tell against the views of Philippi (Das Buck ffenochy p. 176) and Golani (JUvue de Theol. 1868, 2nd part, pp. 73-79), who interpret the

Fstssage as referring to the harisees in the earlier half of the second century. Colani, in particular, identines the class assailed in the text with the Jewish doctors at Jabne and Usha. At the head of the Sanhedrim at these places was a president (= Nasi), who lived in princely luxury, and enjoyed immense authority over the Jews of the Dispersion. Such phrases, he urges, as ''we shall be as princes," "we shall have feastings and luxury," would apply to aim and his ; likewise "do not

touch me," etc., in their relatioa to * * the people of the land. " Ee points out, further, that the words dicentes se haec faiere propter misericordiam are tD be explained by a decree of the Sanhedrim in that period, vhich forbade a man to give more than ^th of his fortune to the poor. Oolani's views are decnedly ingenious, and might win our assent if he could likewisB convince us of the late date he assigns to the book, i.e. after 136 A.D. But that a Jew, writing the history of his people in its main outlines, should omit all mention of the final and completed destruction of Jerusalem under Titus, and p&ss on at a bound to the national troubles which were consummated by the erection of Aelia Capitolina on the sacred site of Jerusalem, is indeed simply im-

Srasible. But this date of olani is dealt with elsewhere, (iii.) ThePJiariseegandtheSaddtLceeSf (a) in 4 b.c.-6a.d. This view was first advocated by "Wieseler {Jahrb. /. deiUschi referred vers. 3, 4 to the latter, and 6-10 to the former, {h) Soon after the fall of Jerusalem, 70 A. d. This view is urged by Rosenthal {Vier Apocryph. Biieher, 1885, Wieseler in attributing* vers. 8, 4 to the Sadducees, and 6-10 to the Pharisees. But this twofold interpretation is just as untenable as those that precede. The attempt to assign vers. 8, 4 to one class, and 6-10 to another, can only proceed from a super-

CHAPTER VII. 3

ficial study of the passage ; for if the persons denounced in ver. 4 are charged with gluttony, this is no less true in 8 ; if in 3 they are said to hold high office, they do so also in 8 ; if in 8 they proclaim their justice, in 10 they assert their purity ; if in 3 and 4 they are declared to be "deceitful," "impious,'* "treacherous," in 6-10 they are denounced as " deceitful," "impious, " " filled with lawlessness. " We have therefore one and the same class of persons to deal with in the entire passage, and these are not Pharisees prior to to 70 A.D., as we have already seen under ii. (6). But, according to Rosenthal, the classes designed in vers. 6-10 are the Jochanan ben Sakkai and his companions and pupils, who forsook Jerusalem during the siege and established themselves at Jabne. That a small body of learned men, whose main pursuit was the study and application of the law, who alone in the time of universal prostration held on high the standard of national hope and faith, could be so described by any thoughtful and learned Jew of that period (a Zealot, as Rosenthal supposes), this is, I confess, simply incredible. Besides, there is not a shred of evidence to show that the rabbis of Jabne (70-90) could with the faintest approach to truth be described as gluttons, drunkards, traitors, hypocrites, and murderers. Other arguments, on the ground of chronology, etc., might be advanced against the hypothesis of Rosenthal, but no more are needed.

(iv.) The Roman procurators^ by Baldensperger {Das Selbsthevmsstsein JesUy 1888, p. 31). This is a very attractive interpretation, and several of the charges made in the text, such as those of gluttony, drunkenness, and murder, could be amply substantiated against the Roman governors. On the other hand, there are phrases that cannot with any propriety be applied to them; i,e, "do not touch me, lest thou shouldst pollute me" (ver. 10), and "concealing themselves lest they should be recognised."

(v.) The Sadducees, (a) in the time of Nerva and Trajan, by Volkmar (p. 106). This view may be at once dismissed. The Sadducees were nobodies at this period, (h) Between 16-70 a.d. This is my own view. It is likewise advocated by Lucius {Der JSssenismuSy 1881, pp. 116- 119) and by Geiger (Judische though they assign no date to the book. The latter adduces such phrases as regnabunt de his homines pestilentiosi, and tanquam principes erimus. In dicentes se esse justos, he points to the play on the words D»pnx and D'pnx. These Sadduqim or Sadducees cover themselves with the mantle of priestly holiness. They emphasise their special priestly purity, and keep the people afar from them. In the notes that follow, this passage will be dealt with verse by verse, and the chief charges which it brings against the Sadducees justified by parallels from the rsalms of Solomon. I quote from Ryle and James's edition.

that they are just 4. And these will conceal the wrath of their minds, being treacherous men, self-

It will be snficieDt to premise here that from the deposition of Archelaus in 6 till 70 a.d. the ^vernment of Judea lay practically in the hands of the Sanhedrim, which was almost wholly Sadducean. Josephus, Ant. XX. 10, describes the form of government as aristocratic, as opposed to the monarchical rule of Herod and Archelaus (see Schilrer, I. ii. 72). His words are : ^terA W ttjv To&r(av reXevTi^v, dpiffTOKparla fjJ^v ^v ij ToKiTeia, TTiv di vpoaraalay rod

idvOVS ol dpXt'€p€lS i7r€7rl<TT€VVT0.

The high priests were but too often the willing tools of the Roman governors. Every abuse in the government would naturally be traced to those who were the actual though not nomiual government.

^. And in the tirne of these, I am here supposing that de his is a rendering of evl ro&ruv. It may, however, be a rendering of ^K ro&run'.

Scornful. We have here an instructive instance which illustrates the necessity of translating, not the Latin before us, but the Greek or Hebrew which it presupposes. The Latin is homines pestilentiosi di'^p(i;TO( \oifxol pjfV *B?JK. This Hebrew phrase is found in Prov, xxix. 8 ; Is. xxviii. 14 ; and the Greek in 1 Mace. x. 61. Xot/i6s is a frequent rendering of y^' Cf.

The {firefyriipavla ascribed to the Sadducees in the Pss. Sol.

is nearly related to the scorn spoken of in the text ; cf. Pss.

Impious, A natural description of the Sadducees from the standpoint of a Phaiisee. It could not, however, be used of a Pharisee.

Will rule, Cf. ver. 8: "we shall be as princes." We have shown in the preceding column that the government of Judea was practicaUy an aristocracy from 6-70 A. D. This aristocracy ruled through the Sanhedrim, which was mainly composed of Sadducees. Cf. Pss. Sol. iv. 1 : IvarL cif KdOrjaaLj ^^priXe, iv avvcSpUfi.

Vicentes se esse justos. Geiger has rightly recognised here a play on the words D^pns, * 'Sadducees," and D'pnx, "righteous."

4. Conceal the turath, etc. See crit. note. Text reads "rouse the wrath," etc.

Treacherous, i.e, 86\ioi. The Sadducees are so described in Pss. Sol. iv. 27 : dir6 dvOfxSywtDw 5o\l<av Kcd afJMpT<a\Qv,

Sdf'pleoMrs, So the Latin sibi placentes. We should probably read "pleasers of the mightv." See crit. note. We should then have in some measure a parallel to the designation so frequently applied to the Sadducees in Pss. Sol. iv., dyOporrdpeaKoi, "Pleasers of the mighty" would best be applied to the Sadducees owing to their subservient attitude to Rome and her Roman governors.

Dissemblers, The text gives ficti, which may he=ifvoKpi6iy-

CHAPTER VII. 4-7

pleasers, dissemblers in all their own affairs and lovers of banquets at every hour of the day, gluttons, gourmands .... 5. . . . 6. Devourers of the goods of the poor saying that they do so on the ground of their justice, but (in reality) to destroy them, complainers, deceitful, concealing themselves lest they should be recognised, impious, filled with lawlessness and iniquity from sunrise to sunset :

24, or else=irXcurro/. In Pas. Sol. iv. 7 the Saddueees are spoken of as living 4y {fTroKplaei,

Lovers of banquets at every hour of the day, Cf. ver. 8.

Gluttons, gourmands. The text is devoratores, golae. Previous editors take gulao as a genitive or dative in connection with devoratores.

6. Devourers of the goods of the poor. A similar charge is brought against the Saddueees in Pss. Sol. iv. 28 : iifyfiiuacav ofjcovf ToXXo^s &vdpdav(av iv dTifUg^ Kal iffKdpTTia-ay iv in-

Saying that they do so on the ground of their justice, I have rendered misericordiam in the text by justice. Propter misericordiam = 81' iXerjfuxrifvrjv, di* ikcTifioffi^vTjVf however, taken in its usual sense is hardly intelligible. But the difficulty disappears when we call to mind that this woi'd is a not infrequent rendering in the LXX. of npiri. Thus we are here to translate, n ot misericordiam , bat the Hebrew word it presupposes.

The text thus recovered agrees well with the statement in ver. 3 : "saying that they are just," and this second reference to the professed justice of the Sadducee repeats the play upon the name. The Saddueees, though profligates in secret, were stem administrators of justice; see Pss. Sol. iv. 2, 3. They were proverbially severe, Joseph. AnL xx. 9. 1, as the Pharisees were proverbially niercifal in judgment, Ant,

7. Deceitful. Cf. like statements regarding the Saddueees in Ps. Sol. iv. 4 : ij yXQatra aUroO rf/evST^s : 1 2. oi \6yoi airoO vapaKoryifffiol els vpSiiiv iridvfjUas dSlKov : 14. ir<^>€\oylffaTo iv \6yois.

Concealing themselves lest they should he recognised. For this also we find an excellent pai*allel in a similar accusation of the Saddueees in Pss. Sol. iv. 5 : iv vvktI koX iv diroKp6^ois dfiapifiaprlai a^rQv iv dvoKp6<f>Oi5,

Impious, filed vfith lawlessness and iniquity . vapdvofiM and dfMfyruiXol are standing epithets

8. Saying : " We shall have f eastings and luxury, eating and drinking, yea we shall drink our fill, we shall be as princes." 9. And though their hands and their minds touch unclean things, yet their mouth will speak great things, and they wiU say furthermore: 10. "Do not touch me lest thou shouldst pollute me in the placewhere I stand " . . . . VIII. And there will come upon them a second

of the Sadducees in the Pss. of Sol. (See Rjle and James's ed. Ivlrod, xlv-xlviii.) In iv. 3, moreover, of that book there is a like accusation against the Sadducees to that in our text : a.irrh% ivoxos iv voiKLKlq. afiapriQv Kal iv dKpaaiais, Cf. Matt, xxiii. 25 : " filled from extortion and excess."

From sunrise to suTiset, The text is ab oriente usque ad occidentem, which = d^' i)\iovdvaTi\- \ovTos M^XP*' SvofUvov, The Greek can mean either *'from east to west" (cf. xi. 8), or ** from sunrise to sunset." The context requires the latter meaning. Thus **from sunrise to sunset " is the equivalent of ** at every hour of the day," in ver.

Tea we shall drink our JUL

9. Though their hands and their minds touch, etc. . , . yet ye. For the Hebraism see crit.

Their TTuniih wiZl speaJc great things. Dan. vii 8, 20.

9, 10. This combination of inward nncleanness and outward

sacerdotal holiness in the Sadducean priesthood is also dwelt upon in Pss. Sol. viii. 13 : ivdrovv rb 6vaia<m/jpiov Kvplov dird vdarjs dxaOapaUis Kal iv d<f)ibp<^ aXfjuiros ifdauvov rds 6vaias u^s Kpia ^^rjXa, See also

10. Do not touch ine = *3"yan-SK. This is probably derived from Is. Ixv. 5 : **Come not near to me, for I am holier than thou," ami the yin'^K here may be a corruption of the ran-^K in Isa.

VIII.-IX. We have now come to one of the most difficult questions in this difficult book. How are we to regard VIII.-IX. ? Two interpretations have been offered. Volkmar, Philippi, and Colani contend that they are a record of what is already past, and constitute in fact a short history of the persecution under Hadrian after the rebellion of Bar Cochba, 136 a.d. All other scholars agree in regarding them as a forecast of what is yet to be — the final woes that are immediately to precede the advent of the theocratic kingdom.

Both views are untenable on

CHAPTERS VI L 8— VIII. i 29

visitation and wrath, such as has not befallen them

from the beginning until that time, in which He

the following grounds. The our author not already taken former, which regards VI II. -IX. account of it in its proper as a record of the persecution of chronological sequence ? These 136-138, is impossible ; for the questions lead to the final solubook was written in the first tion of the problem. For on recentury (see p. xiii. ). The second viewing the past chapters we yiew is equally impossible; for are unable to discover a single VIII. -IX. are not a prophecy of reference to the persecution oy the ^Tio^ woes. They are clearly Antiochus and the desecration designated as ''the second visiof the temple, and as we study tation " that is to befall Israel the context we further discover (see VIII. 1, note). The first that such an omission is imvisitation was the destruction of possible. For as we proceed we Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, find on investigation the facts to The last woes could not be debe as follows. A gap in the history scribed as "the second visitaexists between V. mid VI.; orition. " Other facts that support gincUly there was no such gap : its this conclusion will be dealt pla^ was JUled by VIIL-IX. with in the sequel. For (a) in V. the history is

If, then, "the second visitabrought down to the Hellenis-

tion'Msnotto be explained as ing high priests under Antiochus,

the last woes, how are we to inand VI. opens with a clear refer-

terpret it ? Clearly as that ence to the Maccabean princes,

which actually befell the Jews beginning with Jonathan. Thus

under Antiochus Epiphanes. there is not even an allusion to

The first visitation was that in the severities of the Antiochian

which Jerusalem was destroyed persecution and the horrors that

under Nebuchadnezzar. accompanied it, or to the dese-

That VIII.-IX. are to be reoration of the temple ("the garded as an account of the perabomination that maketh desosecution under Antiochus is to late ") and its subsequent reconbe inferred from the fact that secration, — an event that was they furnish an accurate descripkept green in the national retion of that persecution. Its membrance by the yearly " Fesaccuracy cannot be gainsaid, tival of the Dedication. That We shall prove it presently beone of the most tragic and yond the possibility of refutanever-to-be-forgotten periods in tion. Jewish history should be wholly

But the question now nat^runrecorded is therefore highly

ally arises, How comes it that we improbable, {h) But is more

find an accurate description of than improbable. It becomes a

the Antiochian persecution at a matter of moral certainty when

period in our book where it is we further observe that not only

chronologically impossible ? Has the main fortunes of the temple

will stir up against them the King of the kings of the earth and one that mleth with great power, who will crucify those who confess to their circumcision: 2. And those who conceal (it) he will torture and

are closely followed throughoat this book, but even the minor injuries inflicted on it are re- Its greatest desecration, therefore, could not have been passed over in silence.

(e) Bat the moral certainty that there was no such gap originally, is resolved into scientific conviction when, in addition to the former facts, we observe, that in VI II. -IX. we have not only an accurate account of the Antiochian horrors, but also the very fragment that is needed to fill up tne gap between V. and VI., and one that harmonises perfectly with that context.

This transposition of the text is due to the final editor. For other transpositions the reader can consult the Introduction (p. xxxv).

VIII. 1. A second msUaUon. It will be seen through reference to the critical notes that the word for "second" is partially restored. That this restoration of Schmidt-Merx is right is clear from IX. 2, where it is referred to again as "a second . . . visitation."

We have already remarked (p. 29) that the final Avoes preluding the theocratic kingdom could never have been so desciibed. This "second visitation" is the Antiochian persecution, of which we have a faithful description in the subsequent verses.

Such as has not befallen, etc. From Dan. xii. 1 ; cf. Jer. xxx. semblance between Matt. xxiv. 21 and our text, see crit. note. The phrase was clearly a current oue.

King of the kings of the ea/rth. This title is used of Nebuchadnezzar in Ezek. xxvi. 7 ; Dan. ii. 37 ; and of Artaxerxes in Ezra vii. 12. It is a title peculiar to Oriental despots. Hence it is aptly used here of Antiochus iv.

C'Tucify those who confess to their circumcision, Antiochus forbade circumcision, 1 Mace. i. iKfKewre hk koX /i^ vepirifweiv aifToifs tA riKva : certain women who disobeved this edict were hurled headlong from the city vi. io, viii. 4. From 1 Mace, it is clear that this edict was to a large extent obeyed till the Maccabean rising. But Josephus, Ant, xii. 5. 4, writes that the best and noblest amongst the Jews refused to obev this and similar commands of the king, and were accordingly tortured and crucified alive — fui(myo{h fievoi Kal rd ffibfiara \vfitiiv6ficvoi, ^Cjvt€^ iri Kal i/nrviovres dvearavpoOvTo,

2. Those who eoncecU (it). So I emend, but the text is doubtful. See crit. note.

CHAPTER VIII. 2-4

deliver them up to be bound and led into prison. 3. And their wives will be given to the gods among the Gentiles, and their young sons will be operated on by the physicians in order to bring forward their foreskin. 4. And others amongst

3. And their wives will he given to the godSf etc., i.e, for the cult of Venus, as Golani has observed. According to 2 Mace, vi. 4, the abominations peculiar to this goddess were carried on even in the temple and its courts. Antioch was a centre of this worship — especially its notorious suburb Daphne. Many women were, no doubt, as statea in the text, transported to Antioch and elsewhere to serve these purposes. Josephus, AtU, zii. 5. 4, says that upwards of 10,000 men, women, and children were carried away captive by the king.

Their young sons wUl he operated onhythe physicianSf etc Some years before Antiochus adopted ultimate measures in dealing with the Jews, many of the latter of noble birth voluntarily underwent this operation in order to appear like Greeks when they unaressed and took part in the Hellenic games established in Jerusalem — 1 Mace, •Hip twv alSoi<av vepiro/i^v ircKd' \v\//aPy u)s &y eUf koI rd vepl t^p d'ir6$v<rip ''EX\i7i»€$. But, when the king resorted to final measures, not only was circumcision forbidden, as we have seen above, but in the case of youn^ children who were already ciroumciaed, the traces of the circum-

cision were removed by an operation. To hringforwa/rd their foreskin ^iriar ay AKpo^virrlay a.irroh = Dn'?iyiBtoS. See Levy's Neuhehrdisches Lex, iii. 275, 276. Cf. 1 Cor. vii. 18, where this operation is referred to : Wetstein and Lightfoot on 1 Cor. vii. 18, and Schoettgen, Hor, Medic, vii. 18 ; Winer, JRealworterhuch ; Herzog, JSecU- JBncyel. ; Schenkel, JBib, Lex. under article ** Beschneidung."

4. WUl he punished hy tortures, Josephus, Ant. xii. 5. 4, says of those who refused to obey the commands of Antiochus, that icard rdaap Tj/xipav alKi^dfxevoi Kal mKpds paadvovs ivotpipovrei diriOvriffKov ; also 2 Mace. vi.

And fire, Cf. 2 Mace. vi.

Forced to hear in public their idols. In Amos v. 26, Isa« xlvi. 7, reference is made to Israel having voluntarily carried idols in the wilderness, and later. Cf. also Epist. Jer. 4 : d^6<rde ip Ba^vktopi OeoifS . . . 4ir* &ftots alpofiipovs ; and ver. 26. In the preceding passages we have parallels in expression, but in 2 Mace. vi. 7 we have a parallel in fact : yepofUpris 5k Aiopvaiutp ioprijs iipayKd^opTo Kiaaods ifxo'^^s ^o/irei^LP r(p Aiopiftrifi, Antiochus compelled the Jews

them will be punished by tortures and fire and sword, and they will be forced to bear in public their idols, (which are as) polluted as are the (shrines) that contain them. 5. And they will likewise be forced by those who torture them to enter their inmost sanctuary, and they will be forced by goads to blaspheme with insolence the name, finally aiter these things the laws and what they had above their altar.

IX. Then in that day there will be a man of the

to observe his birthday by joining in the Dionysiac festival.

PoUuUd as are, etc. This is the best I can make of this obscure claase.

5. Mnteriheir inmost sanettuiryy %.e, the Hl^vtov of the heathen temples. According to Josephus, Ant, XV. 5, 4, tne Jews were compelled to "build temples and raise idol altars in every city and village, and ofifer swine upon them every day." Cf.

Blaspheme . . . (he name, i.e. DtE^.TjiK 3p3, Lev. xxiv. 11. Israel was commanded to "fear the name," and one of **tbe seven precepts of the children of Koah enjoined Israel to "sanctify the name," nvn na-n (Sanh. 56b). 2 Mace viii. 4 speaks of the blasphemies committed against God s name during the Anti* ochian persecution : yevofiAvtav els rb dvofjui a&rov p\aa<j>riiuu>v.

The laws, etc. See crit. note.

JFhcU they had above (or upon) their altar. This clause = ir imn Dn3TD3, and appears to mean

the sacrifice. Cf. Matt, xxiii.

IX. Interpretation and historical source of this chapter. This chapter belongs closely to the preceding one. It is at once historical and pareTUtic, It is historical, (a) Its historical root is to be found in 1 Mace. ii. 29- 88, where we are told of a lar^ body of men who, with their wives and children, forsook all that they had and took refuge in the caves in the wilderness in order to worship there. When Antiochus* officers were informed of this movement they went in. pursuit, and, coming up to the caves where the Jews had taken refuge, they demanded that they should submit to the king's commands. When the refugees refused they were put to the sword, offering no resistance because it was the Sabbath. Their words : " Let us all die in our innocency** (ii. 37), correspond perfectly in sense with the words in our text, ver. 6 : " Let us die rather than transgress." Those that were

CHAPTER IX. I

slain were,accordmg to Josephus, AtU, xii. 6. 2, in number about 1000, but many escaped. Let us next try and determine the religious affinities of this body of zealous adherents of the law in the wilderness. In the first place, they were not followers of Mattathias and his party ; for it was not till after the massacre that its survivors became adherents of Mattathias, Ant, xii 6, 2. . In the next, it is most probable that they belonged to the Ghasid party. For the many survivors of tnis church in the wilderness. Ant. xii. 6. 2, as well as the Chasid party, 1 Mace, ii. 42, gave in their aahesion to Mattatnias after, and, without doubt, owing to the massacre just mentioned. In 1 Mace. ii. 42 the Chasids join Mattathias

i'ust after the latter had resolved lenceforth to fight in self-defence on the Sabbath — ^a new line of action adopted in consequence of the murder of their brethren, 1 Mace. ii. 41. In Josephus, ArU. xii. 6. 2, the only fresh adherents gained by Mattathias at this period are the survivors above mentioned. "These," he says, "appointed Mattathias to be their ruler, and he taught them to fight on the Sabbatn day." Thus this massacre, which is the historical fact at the root of our text, contributed to two results. (1) It was the direct cause of a new line of action as to the legitimacy of defensive warfare on the Sabxii. 6. 2). (2) It secured for Mattathias and his party the temporary support of the Chasids

In addition to 1 Mace. ii. 29- 38, which we have dealt with above, our author has drawn upon other materials such as we find in 2 Mace. vi. 18-vii., where we have an account of the martyrdom of Eleazar and of the mother and her seven sons under ADtiochus. Thusver. 6: "Let us die rather than transgress the commands of . . . the God of our lathers," is obviously the same as 2 Mace. vii. 2 : iroifioi ykp dirodir^aKeip iafUv 1j rapa- ^alveiy roifs varplovs wbfLom. This latter statement is reproduced in 4 Mace. ix. 1. For a similar expression of Eleazar's feeling, see 2 Mace. vi. 19. Again, in ver. 7 the strong assurance that God 'will avenge the blood of His servants is likewise found in 2 Finally, the visitation is called an "unclean" one, ver. 2. This epithet better than any other would describe the Antiochian persecution from a Jewish standpoint — their holy altar polluted with the sacrifice of unclean animals, the temple and its courts profaned by the indecencies of the Venus cult, and the faithful adherents of the law forced to eat swine's fiesh and to join in the Dionysiac revels.

This martyrdom of the mother and her seven sons was a very favourite subject both with Jew and Christian. It forms the theme of 4 Mace. It is alluded to in Heb. xi. 85, and Origen {Ecluyrtaiio ad-^Martyriumf 22- 27 ; Comment, in Epist. ad Rom. iv. 10) and Cyprian {ad Fortunatum, xi., and Testim, iii. 17) recount it at length. It has been retold by Prudentius, vcpX arc-

<f>dv(av X., and Marius Yictorinus. Augustine was so fascinated with it that he thought {de Civ. Dei, xviii. 36) that the books of the Maccabees should on account of these chapters be regarded as canonical.

(b) But the character of this chapter appears to be not only historical, but slao pa/renetie. Its purpose is to indicate the line of action which the Ch^isids or PhaHsaic pa/rty of his own time shmUd pursue^ Thus he ignores the temporary coalition of the Chasids with Mattathias and Judas Maccabseus. This coalition lasted, as we know, but a few years. Very early the aims of the Maccabean party began to change with their successes in arms, and their strife, at first nothing more than a life and death struggle to maintain the faith of their fathers, soon resolved itself into a war for the independence of the nation. When this phase of the conflict appeared, tne Chasids withdrew from all further share in it. Their attitude was quietistic. Their sole duty was to obey the law, and leave the rest to God. It is this conception of duty that is depicted in historical actuality. But the actual incident in our author's hands is more than an historical event. It is likewise a precedent and example for after ages. It prescribes the duty our author would enforce on the Pharisaism of his own time. Just as his complete silence as to the Maccabean up' rising forms an emphatic censure of its aims, so his vigorous staU- ment of the opposed amd Chasid line cf action is designed as a

commendation of its character. Thus while some of the Pharisaic party of his own time were seeking to give a political character to religion, and so to follow Maccabean precedents, others, as our author, were as vigorously upholding the old traditions of quietude and resignation, and while the former urged, ** Let us war," the latter, with equal determination, rejoined: **Nay rather, let us die."

But let us return for a moment to the history of the Chasids after 164 B.C. When their coalition with Judas, which we have already mentioned, came to an end, they forsook so completely the field of political and public life, that they are practically unknown to history till the reign of J. Hyrcanus, when they reappear under their new name of Pharisees. This characteristic aversion of the Pharisees to patriotic aspirations began to disappear towards the close of the next century — ^a change that is in part attested by the Psalms of Solomon. About this time a fusion took place between their traditional doctrine of Law and popular Messianic beliefs, and thus the bulk of the Pharisaic party became committed to political interests and movements — the bulk, but not all ; for some, like our author, clung to the old attitude of non-resistance. But he protested in vain. The leavening of Pharisaism with patriotism and earthly political ideas, and its corruption through success, went on apace, and became the fruitful mother of national disasters. These

cnlminated in the fall of Jerusalem.

1. In thai day there wUl he.

A man of the tribe of Levi. The Ohasid movement thus sprang from or was associated with the priestly tribe, according to our author. He was probably thinking of Eleazar, who, in 2 Mace. vi. 18, is called one of the principal scribes, and in 4 Mace. V. 3 a priest.

Whose Tiame wiU he Tcuco, We have here the crux of the book. Scholars have to no purpose wasted their ingenuity upon it. The various interpretations are as follows : — i.Hilfenfeld takes itr(i^w. Next, e suppresses the second letter, and supposes the last to be corrupt, and thus arrives at r^' 363. But n*rDn( the Messiah) 363. Hence Taxo is the Messiah. It is needless to criticise this further than to add, that if it is allowable to change without some external documentary evidence two letters out of four, it is possible to make what we please out of anything.

iL Volkmar takes it rdfw, which, he assumes, was corrupted from ra^io431. But »opy pan (Rabbi Aqiba) = 431 . Hence Taxo is Rabbi Aqiba. But, unhappily for Volkmar, p3i is an impossible foiin, and Aqiba was never written without the yod. There are further objections into which we need not enter.

These last two attempts at solution proceeded on the hvpothesis of a Greek original ; but if the original was Semitic, no interpretation arrived at on that hypothesis could in any

sense be right. Later scholars have essayed the problem on the hypothesis of a Semitic original.

iii. Colani {Hevue de ITieologie, to be a corruption of rdfwv, ** ordaining " D'^. This last 340. So also does p nDn^ mm M33. Hence R. Jehuda ben Baba is the great Taxo, ''the ordainer," who, before he was slain in 137 A.D., ordained the seven last disciples of Aqiba as rabbis. At the close of this explanation C!olani adds: "Tout cela, bien entendu, est un jeu, rien qu* un jeu" — and we agree with him ; but his pleasantry is finer than the seriousness of his two predecessoi's.

iv. Carriere {JRevue de Theoi, predecessor, believes in an Aramaic original. The words cujus nomen eritTaxo retranslated into Aramaic Most) nu\t^ n, which is corrupt, for wao DV;'J**who will promulgate a decree," t.«. trace a line of conduct. MOst), which=" ordinance," etc., was wrongly taken to be a proper name by the Greek translator.

V. Hausrath {NeutestamenU. Zeitgesch. iv. p. 77, note) thinks that here by the method Ath Bash nV'B^ was transposed into "JDan. The Greek translator took the D as D. nW here is for the Messiah. We might say here with Colani in reference to Hilgenfeld's interpretation : "This passage has as much to do with the Messiah as with the Emperor Barbarossa."

Other attempts have been made on the hypothesis of a Hebrew original.

vi. Wieaeler (JaJir, /. d, Th, p. 193) thinks that that Taxo goes back to "vnn^ the badgerlike one. This designation is to be explained from the pious having to dwell in the caves of the earth ; cf. 2 Maoc. x. 6 : kqX iv rots airrjXaLois Orjplonf Tp&wov fiffav yefjidficvoi, Hilgenfeld remarks on this interpretation : Utinam melis Wieseleriana e spelunca sua nunquam prorepsisset.

vii. Rosenthal {Vier Apoc. Biicher, p^. 31, 82) adopts Hausrath's idea. He points out that n^'B^ is numerically equal to nro, and thinks that in iDsn, which, as Hausrath has suggested, corresponds to n^vff^ we have a mystical reference to a second Moses who was to rise again. He appeals to Deut. xviii. 18 in support of his contention.

None of these solutions is satisfactory. The person referred to IS, as we have seen, not one living in the future, but one who was a contemporary of Judas the Maocabee. From the standpoint of this interpretation I offer the following suggestion. In the Samaritan '* Legends of Moses," translated from the Arabic into German by Dr. Leitner ( Vierteljahrsehrift f. deuUch • und englisch - Theol, following passage occurs, which seems to be to some degree dependent on our text: "Angezeigt wurde dass ein Mann auferstehen wurde *Levi' und sein Name sollte sein 'Eiferer der Gemeinde,' und er die Ebraer and das Haus des Weines heil-

igen. Er wUrde in drei Tasen auferstehen ohne Recht." This passage appears to be very corrupt, and to be derived partiy from our text, partly from N.T. history. The phrases ''ein Mann . . . Levi" and ''sein Name sollte sein 'Eiferer der Gemeinde'" seem to be drawn from our text. Hence we conjecture that in cujus nomen erit Taxo, which KDpn idb' nrn, the last word is corrupt for K:pn "the zealous." Hence the text will be, "A man of the tribe of Levi whose name will be the zealous one." This person will be zealous for the law only, and show his zeal by submitting to death rather than transgress the commandments. Cf. vers. 4, 6, 7. The ¥rriter regards the person here described as representing those who were truly zealous for the law, over against the Maccabean party who claimed to be so. Zeal for the law was the most conspicuous as well as the most essential characteristic of the religious movement which opposed Antiochus. Cf. the words of Mattathias, pSfJUfi Kal IffTtop dtaO-^io/jv i^€\diT<a dvuru) fiov. This comes out still more clearly in the words attributed to Mattathias in Joseph. Ant. xii, 6. 2, et rts f^XamJs iari tQv warplbjv iBQ>v Kal t^j tov GeoO 6fyqffK€iaSf iiriadta, iprjalv, ifioi ; also in his address to his sons, 1 Mace. ii. 50, xal ¥vv, T^Kva, iyjXiacarc ry v6fufi koI S&re tAs ^uxAj iffjuav inrkp diadi^mis iraripiav {ffiQp,

Seven sons. The reference here can only be to the seven sons of the widow in 2 Mace.

CHAPTER IX. 2-6 37

tribe of Levi, whose name will be Taxo, who having seven sons will speak to them exhorting (them) : 2. " Observe, my sons, behold a second ruthless (and) unclean visitation has come upon the people, and a punishment merciless and far exceeding the first. 3. For what nation or what region or what people of those who are impious towards the Lord, who have done many abominations, have suffered as great calamities as have befallen us ? 4. Now therefore, my sons, hear me : for observe and know that neither did (our) fathers nor their forefathers tempt God, so as to transgress His commands. 5. And ye know that this is our strength, and thus we will do. 6. Let us fast for the space of three

vii. and 4 Maoc. See notes on in many of the Psalnis. Our

p. 33. author must have supposed that

2. Second unclean visitation, a faithful remnant had existed The first has been described in at all times.

III., which they endured at the To trcmsgress His commands,

hands of Nebuchadnezzar ; the Cf. ver. 6.

second is that which they suffer h. And this we will do, i,e,

under Antiochus. This latter as our fathers.

"far exceeds the first," the 6. Fast. ^ Cf. Dan. vi. 18, ix.

writer proceeds to say. Why 3 ; Apoc. Bar. v. 7, ix. 2, xii. 5,

this visitation was called unxxi. 1, xlvii. 2 ; 4 Ezra v. 20,

clean we have shown above in vi. 36, ix. 26, 27, xii. 51.

the notes on p. 33. Let us go inUo a cave in the

3. What nation^ etc. We field. When the persecution might compare Josephus' words became severe in b.c. 168, 167, in reference to the sufferings of those who still clung to the law the Jews during thewars between took refuge in caves, 1 Mace. Ptolemy Philopator and Antioi. 53, iv Kpv<pl<Hs, These hidingchus Epiphanes, Ant. xii. 3. 3. places are described in 1 Mace.

4. Neither did (our) parents ii. 31 as ** secret places in the nor their forefathers tempt Ood, wilderness " {Karipriaav . . . els See crit. note. This absence of roi>s irpv^oi); iv ry ifrfifufi) — a very the sense of demerit appears close parallel to the phrase in

days and on the fourth let us go into a cave which is in the field, and let us die rather than transgress the commands of the Lord of lords, the God of our fathers. 7. For if we do this and die, our blood will be avenged before the Lord. X. And then His kingdom will appear throughout all His creation,

our text. Gf. also 1 Maoc. ii. 36, 41. Those who were zealous for the law fled with their wives and children, and finding concealment in these caves lived there, Joseph. Ant, xii. 6. 2 : fierd. tQv riKvuy Kal yxnuuKWv iipvyop eh r^v ifnjfjLov Kal iv rots airriXalois diTjyov. Heb. xi. 38 points to this period. In these also they observed the religious festivals, 2 Mace. X. 6 : /act* cinppoffi^yris ^ov ij/j^pas 6icT<a . . . fivrifiO' jfe6ovT€S us irp6 fUKpov yjibvov r^v rdv CKrjvQy ioprr^v , , . iv toU a-jrri\aLois . . . ^av vefjidfievoi. But these hiding - places were betrayed to the Syro-Macedonian governor, and many Jews slain or burnt, 2 Mace. vi. 11 : irepoi 8i TrXrifflov avvSpafidtrrcs els tA (Tin^Xata XeXrjOdrus Ayeiv rifv i^dofjuidaf fnjvvOivTes rf ^iXiirinp <rvpe4>Xoyl<r0Ti(rav, did. rb eiiXa^Qs ix^*-^ ^orjOijffcu iavToTs icard dd^ay TTJs aefivordrris iifUpas.

Let us die rather than transgress, etc. As their fathers had been faithful to the law, Taxo and his seven sons are resolved to be so likewise, lest they transgress the commands of their fathers' God. The expression, ''let us die rather than transgress,'' etc., appears to have

originated with the persecution of Antiochus. It gives a characteristic and true note of the temper of the persecuted. It stereotypes the attitude of the faithful, as well of those who endured death passively as of those who rushed to arms in defence of their religion. These words are almost exactly those that were used by one of the seven martyrs in 2 Mace. vii. 2 : iroifioi yb.p dvoOvi^aKeiv iafiiv ij jrarp^ovs i^Sfiovs Trapa^aiveLV, Cf. 4 Mace. ix. 1. They are essentially the same as those uttered by the 1000 that were martyred in the wilderness, 1 Mace. ii. 37 : dtrodduwfiey ol Tdvres iv rij aTrX&rriTi ij/juap. Their thought is echoed in Mattathias' address to his children, Ant, xii. 6. 1 : KpeiTTov a&roTs cli'eu inr^p Twv xarpliav vd/juav dirodaveTv ij f^y oUtws dd6^(os ; and the resolve they express is ascribed also to the martyred Eleazar, 2

7. Our blood will he a/oenged, etc. This assurance that God will avenge is frequently found in the history of the seven martyred brethren, 2 Mace. vL 14,

X. 1-10. These verses form

CHAPTERS IX. 7— X. 2

And then Satan will be no more, And sorrow will depart with him. 2. Then the hands of the angel will be filled And he will be appointed chief, And he will forthwith avenge them of their

enemies.

a hymn of ten stanzas of three lines each. It falls into three sections. The first constitutes the introduction, and consists of two stanzas. The second and third consist of four stanzas each. The two last sections open with words almost identical. It will be observed that every stanza has a triple movement or parallelism — at all events, the greater number. This fact makes it highly probable that where this triple parallelism is not observed the error is due to corruption of the text. The error may be of the nature either of defect or redundancy. Thus vers. 3 and 9 are defective in this respect, and 4, 5, 10 may be redundant. If there are redundancies in these verses, they may be due to duplicate renderings or incorporated marginal glosses.

Schmidt-Merx are of opinion that the hymn begins witn ver. 3, and is tnerefore only of eight stanzas. They regard the enim in ver. 3 as = '3 introductory. They point out that the subject of ver. 3 is "God," but that ** angel" is the subject in ver. 2. Hence they suppose that the hymn is of earlier and different authorship than the rest of the book.

There are grounds for differen-

tiating 1, 2 and 3-10 other than those mentioned by Schmidt- Merx, as will appear below.

1. His kingdom will wppear^ etc. This seems to promise a new heaven and a new earth, but this is not the case if ver. 10a is right.

Satan wUl he no more. Does Satan mean here the head of the kingdom of evil or the adversary of Israel ? The following line makes for the former view.

Sorrow^ etc. Cf. Isa. xxxv.

2. The hcmds of the angel toill he filled J i,e. the angel will be delegated, appointed. The phraseTK'?D= ** to fill one's hand" means, to deliver the priesthood to him. Of. £xod. xxviii. Ovfiiafiaros &<rre Upare^eiv fie; Job xxxii. 3.

The angel f i,e, Michael the patron saint of Israel. Cf. Dan.

And he vnll he appointed chief. Michael will lead Israel. The text, qui est in summo constitutus = ' * who is placed supreme, " or " appointed chief," cannot be right. This clause, as it stands, is a mere epithet of "angel" (nuntii) in the preceding line,

3. For the Heavenly One will arise from His

royal throne, And He will go forth from His holy habitation And His wrath will burn on account of

His sons.

4. And the earth will tremble : to its confines

will it be shaken : And the high mountains will be made low And the hills will be shaken and fall.

whereas the parallelism requires, in the second line, the statement of a fresh fact which will modify or develop the statement which appears in the first line. Hence for est I have read erit and taken quiMim, as in I. 6. In summo B^KiV or B'Kia, or something equivalent.

And he wUl . . . (xvenge, etc. Michael will avenge IsraeL But since Michael is not so much as once referred to again in this hymn, and as it is God Himself that destroys the Gentiles and avenges Israel (vers. 7, 8), it is probable that 1, 2, and 3-10 are not from the same author. This conclusion gains confirmation if we compare the picture of perfect goodness and perfect happiness throughout all creation depicted in ver. 1, and compare it with vers. 4-6, and particularly with ver. 10, if the text is there right. Vers. 3-10 are, I believe, native to the text,

3-6. Second section. Signs which will accompany God's coming.

3. The Heavmly One, This

designation belongs to our

From His royal throne. The Latin a sede regni sui=M03 p widSd. Of. Dan. v. 20.

ffe will goforthj etc. Mic. i.

FroTn His holy habitation, Deut. xxvi. 15 ; Isa. Ixiii. 15.

And His wrath will hum. The text is here cum indignationem et iram. But the parallelism requires a finite sentence, and not an adverbial phrase depending on '*will go forth." The corruption seems to have arisen in the Greek. Cum indignatione et miv Ovfuf re Kal 6py^, which I take to be a corruption of xal dvfMtxrerai dfryy iSK mm, ** and His wrath will bum." The text as it stands = f\m pnna, "with indignation and wrath."

4. And the high mountain's will he made low. Isa. xl. 4 ;

And the hills will he shaJcen and fall. The text, which was corrupt, I have emended by means of Eth. En. i. 6 (Greek Version). See crit. note.

CHAPTER X. 3-7

5. And the horns of the sun will be broken

and he will be turned into darkness ;

And the moon will not give her light, and be turned wholly into blood.

And the circle of the v stars will be disturbed.

6. And the sea will retire into the abyss, And the fountains of waters will fail, And the rivers will dry up.

7. For the Most High will arise, the Eternal

God alone, And He will appear to punish the Gentiles, And He will destroy all their idols.

5. And the horns of the sun . . . into blood. On this restoration of the text see crit. notes (pp. 86, 87), where the parallel passages from the O.T. and the N.T. are cited.

Circle of the stars will he disturbed. Cf. Mark xiii. 25.

Fountains . . . faiZ, Cf. Pss. Sol. xvii. 21, in77ai <rvu€ffx^07jffav al<i)vioi ; Test. Levi 4, iddriau ^ripaivofi^vwv ; 4 Ezra vi. 24, et venae fontium stabunt.

FouTUains . . . and rivers. For this collocation, cf. Rev.

7-10. Third section. God punishes the Gentiles, destroys their idols, makes Israel to triumph over Rome, and exalts them finally to heaven.

7. TJie Most High will arise, Cf. ver. 3, "The Heavenly One will arise."

The Eternal Ood, Previous

editors have wrongly connected Summus and Deus. Ver. 3 shows that Summus here, as Coelestis there, are to be taken by themselves. Deus aetemus, moreover, is in all probability derived from Deut. xxxiii. 27, Dip mSk, as 8a certainly is from ver. 29 of the same chapter, and 85 probably from the same verse.

A lone. The text solus = naV. The meaning seems to be : God a>lone will come to punish the Gentiles and exalt Israel, and not a Messiah. This is said more clearly in 4 Ezra, where, to the question in v. 56, Demonstra servo tuo per quem visitas creaturam tuam ? God answers in vi. 6, Finis per me et non per alium. Thus this forms another argument against 1, 2 and 8-10 being from one and the same author.

8. Then thou, O Israel, wilt be happy,

And thou wilt mount upon the neck[8 and

wings] of the eagle. And (the days of thy mourning) will be ended.

9. And God will exalt thee,

8. Israers triumph over its enemies in this world.

Then thou, Israel^ wilt be happy. This is taken directly from Dent, xxxiii. 29.

TTiou wUt mount upon the necks and. If the text is right, it recalls Dent, xxxiii. 29, ynn iD*niD3-Vy, and gives the interpretation of that verse that was current for some time before and long after the Christian era. Thus, whereas modem scholars render ''Thou shalt tread upon their high places," the LXX., Syr., Vulg., Targ.-Onk., Targ.- Jon., Jarchi transLited ''Thou shalt tread upon their necks," or "neck." This rendering was probably due to Joshua x. 24, ''Put your feet upon the necks of these kings." Our text recalls Deut. xxxiii. 29, but does not agree exactly with it or any of the Versions. In Bar. iv. 26, €tI rpax^^ovs airup iiripi^ffy is derived directly from it. If our text is trustworthy, the reference is clearly to Israel's triumph over Rome. The plural ' 'necks " ought in that case to be written "neck " ; for onKisj, from which it is derived, can, according to Hebrew usage, be rendered singular or plural as the context requires. But it is not at all impossible that the text is corrupt, and that it ran originally, nmfi 'wrSy r^vn, "thou wilt

mount on the wings of eaeles," and was derived from Isa. xL 31. So the Targ.-Jon. interprets Isa. xl. 81. j^yffi 'BiJ hjf p'Sd. Thus cervices et would be a later interpolation. This figure of Israel "mounting on eagles' wings" would harmonise well with the exalted tone of the passage. If this be so, there is, of course, no reference to Rome in the text.

The days of thy mourning. So the lacuna is supplied by Dr. Gheyne. See crit. note.

On the vision of the threeheaded eagle with many wings, see 4 Ezra xi.~xii.

9. Israel's exaltation to eternal blessedness in heaven.

Cause thee to approach the heaven of the stars. This language might be metaphorical, {"or other examples, cf. Pss. Sol. i. 5, if^(i>d7)<ra,v Iws r(av dffTp(ap ; Jer. li. (LXX., xxviii.) 9, i^ijpep i(as TUP darpup. Instead of "the heaven of the stars" we have "the stars of heaven" in Isa. xiv. 13 (LXX.), iirdpu tGjp dffripiap rod oifpapov (^K *3313) dilffu) t6p 0p6pop fiov. These "stars of God" ("of heaven," LXX. ) are rendered by the Targ. - Jon. in this passage by "the people of God," and thus regarded as a metaphor.

But the language seems not to be metaphorical, but to relate to Israel transfigured and glorified

CHAPTER X. 8-IO

And He will cause thee to approach to the

heaven of the stars, And He will establish thy habitation among

them. 10. And thou wilt look from on high and wilt

see thy enemies in Ge(henna), And thou wilt recognise them and rejoice, Ajid thou wilt give thanks and confess thy

Creator.

after the final judgment — to Israel not in the body, but in the spirit. In this case we should compare Eth. £n. civ. 2, "Ye will shine as the stars of heaven, . . . and the portals of heaven will be opened to you " ; civ. 6, ** Ye will become companions of the hosts of heaven." The words, **Thou wilt see thy enemies in Ge(henna)," in the next verse favour this interpretation.

Atid He wUl establish thy habitation among them. The text is here, loco habitationis eorumQ3BnD oipcn, and is beyond question corrupt ; for (1) the parallelism is wanting, and (2) we expect here a statement as to the place of Israel's habitation and not that of the stars. Hence we regard D3B'id" their habitation" as defective for D3 iSB'iD " thy habitation among them," the 13 being omitted owing to the copyist's eye passing from the first 3 to tne second. In the next place, DipD3loco, is, as the structure of the rest of the stanza shows, a corruption of some transitive

verb preceded by vav, — I take it to be of D*p.Ti "and He will establish." Hence the above 10. See thy enemies in Ge(?ienna) videbis inimicos tuos in Ge(henna). So I emend and restore the corrupt text vides inimicos tuos in terram. Previous editors have merely changed this text into videbis inimicos tuos in terra. But the sense thus arrived at is impossible. If the words in terram are not corrupt, it is difficult to take them otherwise than literally ; but if we do so, how are we to explain them? If Israel's enemies are on the earth, and Israel beholds them from on high, then Israel must be already in heaven. But that could only be after the final judgment, and after that event the enemies of Israel could no longer be upon earth. Hence we must take the phrase ' * on the earth" metaphorically, or regard it as corrupt. But to take it metaphorically as="in the depths is not possible. Hence it is corrupt, or rather,

11. And do thou, Joshua (the son of) Nun, keep these words and this book; 12. For from my death — (my) assumption — until His advent there will be CCL times. 1 3. Ajid this is their course

defective. The context points to Israel's enemies being in torments ; for Israel rejoices over the plight of the latter. They are, moreover, in sight of Israel. These two facts at once suggest the thought of Gehenna here, and that the orimnal was ojn 'J3. But mrt was lost and "12 rendered 4v yj, and this in turn by in terram. D:n-33 *J3 is twice rendered iv yy Beepvdfi in 2 Chron. zxviii. 3 and in xxxiii. 6. yij or yal is likewise merely k*3 or 'J transliterated in Josh, xviii. Hence I take the true text to be, **Thou wilt see thy enemies in Gehenna, and thou wilt recognise them and rejoice." This portrays faithfully the expectations of the Jews as to the future life. In early times (Isa. Ixvi. 24 ; Eth. En. xxvii. Gehenna was regarded as the place of punishment for faithless Jews, who should there suffer in the presence of the righteous ; but in N.T. times it had become the future abode of the wicked generally, who were to be tormented within view of the blessed. Of. 4 Ezra vii. 36, Et apparebit locus tormenti, et contra ilium erit locus requietionis ; clibanus gehennae ostendetur, et contra eum jucunditatis paradisus.

Beeognise them, etc. If both Israel and their enemies were on earth, and Israel had just triumphed over the latter, this statement would be absurd. But if they are respectively in heaven and gehenna, the reco^ition is fuU of point, and just cause for rejoicing.

sumption. The word ** assumption" was not in the original here, which told only of Moses' It was introduced by the final editor, who combined in one work the two distinct books, " The Testament of Moses " and "The Assumption of Moses." Our present book is what survives of "The Testament of Moses," which knew nothing of Moses' "Assumption."

His Adveihty i.e, God's advent for judgment.

CCL times. Each " time " 7 years, or a year-week. Thus 250 times 1750 years. Hence from the creation (see I. 2) to the final judgment was to be a period of 4250 years, or 85 jubilees. This estimate is found elsewhere, I think, only in Sanhedrin 97b; but there the goal is the coming of the Messiah.

14. / shail go to sleep, etc. Moses here looks forward to an ordinary death, and to joining his fathers in Sheol, as also in

CHAPTERS X. II.— XI. 7 45

which they will pursue till they are consummated. 14. And I shall go to sleep with my fathers. 15. Wherefore, Joshua thou (son of) Nun, (be strong and) be of a good courage; (for) God hath chosen (thee) to be my successor in the same covenant.

XI. And when Joshua had heard the words of Moses that were written in his writing as well as all that he had before said, he rent his clothes and cast himself at Moses' feet. 2. And Moses comforted him and wept with him. 3. And Joshua answered him and said : 4. " Why dost thou comfort me, (my) lord Moses ? And how shall I be comforted in regard to that which thou hast spoken the bitter word which has gone forth from thy mouth, which is full of tears and lamentation, in that thou departest from this people? 5. And now what place will receive thee ? 6. Or what will be the sign that marks (thy) sepulchre ? 7. Or

In XI. 4, 9 also, an ordinary tions on Baruoh's departure,

death seems to be implied. See also 4 Ezra xii. 44. The

15. {Be strong and) be of a word "depart" is used in Apoc.

good courage. See crit. note. Bar. xiv. 19, xv. 1, xliii. 2,

Successor, See I. 7, note. etc. , in the sense of dying an

Joshua is the prophet promised ordinary death. That seems to

in Dent, xviii. 16, according to be implied here, and in ver. 9

our author. Thus no Messianic also.

interpretation is here given to 5-8. No single locality is

this passage by the Jews. worthy enough to become the

XI. 1. Sis writing. Of. 1. 16, place of Moses' burial. The

X. 11. whole earth is his sepulchre.

4. Comfort me . . , be com- 7. Baldensperger thinks that

forted ? See crit. note. this verse is directed polemically

Departest from this people, against the Christians, since the

Cf. Apoc. Bar. xxxiii. 3, body of Christ was moved from

Ixxvii. 12, for similar lamenta* the cross to the sepulchre.

who will dare to move thy body from thence as a man from place to place ? 8. For all men when they die have according to their age their sepulchres on earth ; but thy sepulchre is from the rising to the setting sun, and from the south to the confines of the north : all the world is thy sepulchre. 9. My lord, thou art departing, and who will feed this people ? 10. Or who is there that will have compassion on them and who will be their guide by the way ? 1 1. Or who will pray for them, not omitting a single day, in order that I may lead them into the land of (their) forefathers ? 12. How therefore am I to control this people as a father (his) only son, or as a mistress (her) virgin daughter, who is being prepared to be handed over to the husband she will revere, while she guards her person from the sun and (takes care) that her feet are not unshod for running upon the ground.

8. All the world is thy sepulelsewhere, we must translate

chre. The original of these not the text but the Hebrew, or,

words is, as Bonsch recognised, as it is here, the Greek pre-

to be found in Thuc. ii. 43, supposed by the text, oithk

dvdpQp 7A/) iwiipavQv vaaa yrj vapLcLs, See crit. note. rdipos. As with a very slight 12. Am I to control this people,

change these words become See crit. note. Greek iambics, it is possible that Or as a mistress her virgin

they were popular expressions, daughter. See crit. note, and thus reached Palestine as To he given to the husband.

did those of Aratus, Menander, See crit. note, where also par-

and Epimenides. Cf. Acts xvii. allels from Ecclus. will be found.

28 ; 1 Cor. xv. 33 ; Tit. i. 12. She wiU revere. See crit. note

11. Who will pray for him, and parallels from Ecclus.

See XII. 6. (p. 93). Ghuardiiig her person.

Not omitting. The text is nee Cf. Ecclus. vii. 24, Ovyar^pa a-ol

patiens ; but here, as frequently elai ; Trpoaexc r j; a-d/JLan aitruv.

1 3. And how shall I supply them with food and drink according to the pleasure of their will? 14. For of them there will be 600,000 men, for these have multiplied to this degree through thy prayers, (my) lord Moses. 15. And what wisdom or understanding have I that I should judge or answer by word in the house of the Lord? 16. And the kings of the Amorites also will then be emboldened to attack us ; (and) believing that there is no longer amongst them the sacred spirit who was worthy of the Lord, manifold and incomprehensible, the lord of the word, who was faithful in all things, God's chief prophet throughout the earth, the most perfect teacher in the world, (yea) that he is no longer among them, they will say: *Let us go against them. 17. If the enemy have but once wrought

13. See orit. note. Chd'a chief prophet throughout

14. 600,000 men. See crit. the earth. The text is divinum note. Cf. Exod. xii. 87. per orbem terraram profetem.

Through thy prayers. The A Hebrew superlative underlies

text is, in tiiis orationibus. The this phrase. It = rbv OeTop did

in ^1^ 3. Tov Kdcfiov TTfXH/yfynjv = K*a3

16. 2%jU there is no longer f^n D^nSjtn = **the prophet of

amangst them. See crit. note. God," etc.

Sacred spirit . . . manifold. The most peffeet teacher in the

Cf. Wisd. vii. 22, wedfia world. The text is: consum-

. . . ^7(01' . . . voXvfupiis, matum in saeculo doctorem —

Worthy of the Lord, Cf. Wisd. another Hebrew superlatives

iii. 5, 6 debs iTreipatrev airro^ koL D^iys QTSnn mion. e^pev airroin A^iovs iavroO, 17. Noadvocateto offer prayers^

Lord of the word. I cannot etc. Cf. ver. 14. This office of

suggest the origin of this phrase, praying on behalf of Israel is

FaUhfvZ in all things. Cf. frequently ascribed to Jeremiah.

Num. xii. 7, ''Moses . . . was Cf. 2 Mace. xv. 14, where Jere-

faithful in all Thy house " ; Heb. miah appeared along with

iii, 2, Onias in a vision to Judas

impiously against their Lord, they have no advocate to offer prayers on their behalf to the Lord, as did Moses the great messenger, who every hour day and night had his knees fixed to the earth, praying and looking for help to Him that ruleth all the world with compassion and righteousness, calling to mind the covenant of the fathers and propitiating the Lord with the oath/ 1 8. For they will say : ' He is not with them : let us go therefore and destroy them from off the face of the earth/ 19. What will then become of this people, my lord Moses ? "

XII. And when Joshua had finished (these) words, he cast himself again at the feet of Moses. 2. And Moses took his hand and raised him into the seat before him, and answered and said unto him : 3. " Joshua do not despise thyself, but set thy mind at ease, and hearken to my words. 4.

Maccabaeus, and is described by installation of Joshua in Moses'

the latter as : oStSs i<m b iroXXd place. Of. Sifri Piska 140 on

TTpoaevxbfJi'evos irepl rov \aov Kal X^um. xxvii. 28: ** Give Joshua

r^s &yLas irdXeus *l€p€filas 6 rov a teacher that in thy lifetime he

0€ov xpotfyfirris. Rest of words of may question, expound, give

Baruch ii. 3, Srav ijfjidpTapev 6 judgment, lest after thy death

Xabs ... 6 'lepefuds . . . rfiix^o the Israelites may say : * During

inrip Tov Xaov, iws div dfpidf a^fp the lifetime of his teacher he

i) &fjLaprLa, See also Apoc. Bar. did not give judgment, but now

ii. 2, and the Talmudic passages he does.' Thereupon (Moses)

cited in the notes. raised him (Joshua) from the

Looking for help to Him that ground and placed him beside

ruleth all the earth. See crit. himself on the chair. " Quoted

note on this difficult passage, by Heidenheim, DetUache Vier-

where also parallels are given. tdjahrschrifty 1871, p. 102.

XII. 2. Took his hand and 4. Both the Gentile and the

raised him into the seat before Israelite are the work of God's

him. This verse refers to the hands. The destinies likewise

CHAPTERS XL i8— XII.

All the nations which are in the earth God hath created as He hath us, He hath foreseen them and us from the beginning of the creation of the earth unto the end of the age, and nothing has been neglected by Him even to the least thing, but all things He hath foreseen and caused all to come forth. 5. (Yea) all things which are to be in this earth the Lord hath foreseen and lo! they are brought forward (into the light 6.

of both are of His making. Whatever befalls — whether of disaster to Israel or exaltation to the Gentile — has been foreseen even to the smallest detail, and nothing can set at nought or hinder God's original purpose in creation ; for the world was created on Israel's behalf, I. 12. However glorious the fortunes of the Gentile and depressed those of the Jew, there is no reason for downheartedness or despair (see ver. 8), — God's purpose standeth sure, and will ultimately assert itself.

Foreseen and caused to come forth. See crit. note.

6. Appointed trie to pray for their sins. This was a genuinely Jewish conception, and not borrowed from Christianity. Thus, as we have already seen in the note on XI. 17, Jeremiah was held to discharge this office in the spiritual world, 2 Mace. xv. 14. Enoch also (Slav. En. (MSS. AB) Ixiv. 5) was conceived of as ''one removes the sins of men." Philo speaks of the intercessions and prayers offered

on behalf of Israel by the righteous forefathers of the nation : these intercessions of the departed saints of Israel were to be the second of the three chief means for the restoration of their descendants, De Execrat, ix. KXiJroty Tu>v vpbs rhv varipa KaraWayCov . . , devrifXfid^ ry twv dpxvy^^^ '''ov ^dvovs 6(ri6njrif 8ti rats d<f>€ifi4vai5 (rQ>/idTQ>v \f/vxo.ti dv\a,ffTOv Kal yvfiv^v irrideiK- wjjAvais irpbs rhv Apxovra depairelay rd; i/jrip vlQv Kai Ovyar^pcov iKereLas ovk dreXeis elibdaffi voieiadaij y4pas auroU vapix^^'''<^^ '''ov varpds rb iv'^Koov 4v €&x,ais. In Joseph. Ant. i. 13. 3, Abraham is described as saying to Isaac, when on the point of sacrificing him : /a€t' citx'^v Si Kal Upovpylas iKeivov rifv ^I'xV "^^ ^^^ vpoffde^ojjAvov xal Trap airr<p KaOi' ^ovroi iffy fiol els K7f8€p,6pa Kal yripoK6p,ou, In the Slav. En. liii. 1 this doctrine is denied. See my note in loCf where a history of this doctrine is sketched briefly.

The Lord) hath on their behalf appointed me to pray for their sins and make intercession for them. 7. For not for any virtue or strength of mine, but in His compassion and longsuflfering was He pleased to call me. 8. For I say unto you, Joshua : it is not on account of the godliness of this people that thou shalt root out the nations. 9. The lights of the heaven, the foundations of the earth have been made and approved by God and are under the signet ring of His right hand. 10. Those, therefore, who do and fulfil the commandments of God will increase and be prospered: 11. But those who sin and set at nought the commandments will be without the blessings before mentioned, and they will be punished with many torments by the nations. 12. But wholly to root out and destroy

7. F<yr not for any mrivAy etc. . . . woA He pleased to ccUl me. See crit. notes. Just as in Bom. ix. 11, 12, the selection of Jacob rather than Esau is declared to be due not to works, but to the divine purpose, so also here. This election is an election to privilege and not to eternal life. As regards the latter, it is written in the Tanchuma Pikkude 8, God does not determine beforehand whether a man shall be righteous or wicked, but puts this in the hands of the man only. See Slav. En. xxx. 15,

8. Not on account of the

godliness of the people, etc, Cf. writer who so frankly recognises the wickedness of his nation and its need of frequent chastisement, its selection as the people of God could not well be ascribed to its merits, but must be traced back to the divine purpose. And yet he holds that the world was created on behalf of Israel, i. 12 ; and in knowledge, and not His predetermining purpose, that is dwelt upon.

9. See crit. notes.

12. Destroy, See crit. note.

CHAPTER XII. 7-13 51

them is not pennitted. 13. For God will go

forth who has foreseen all things for ever, and

His covenant has been established and the oath

ASSUMPTIONIS MOYSI FEAGMENTA

THE LATIN VERSION OF THE ASSUMPTION OF MOSES CRITICALLY REVISED AND EMENDED

TOQBTHBR WITH

THE UNEMENDED LATIN TEXT OF THE SIXTH CENTURY MS. IN THE MILAN LIBRARY

ASSUMPTIONIS MOYSI PRAGMEOTA

THE LATIN VEESION OF THE ASSUMPTION OF MOSES CRITICALLY REVISED AND EMENDED

Words included wWiin round brackeis ( ) are supplied by the Editor ; words vjtthin square brackets [ ] are to be regarded as interpoUUicns. WJien tke text is corrupt, btU the corruption is not noMve to the Latin but to the Oreek or the Hebrew j then the text is corrected accordingly, and attention is draum to the correction by an asterisk * placed in the margin,

I. (Et factum est anno aetatis Moysi centesimo et vigesimo), 2. Qui est bis millesimus et quingentesimus annus a creatura orbis terrae, [3. nam secus qui in oriente sunt numerus . . . mus' et* . . mus et' . . . . mus' profectionis fynicis. 4. Cum exivit plebs post profectionem quae fiebat per Moysen usque Amman trans Jordanem, 5. profetiae quae facta est a moysen in libro deutero-

I. 1. This verse, which is vieesimo ; by Ronsch : Liber wanting in the MS., is supplied receptionis Moysi factae anno as above, cf. Dent. xxxi. 2, by vitae ejus Cmo et XXmo. Schmidt-Merx, save that I have 3. With Yolkmar and Schmidtwritten Moysi instead of Mosis, as Merx I have omitted nam secus this is the form of the genitive .... mus as a marginal gloss, used by the Latin translator ; Such a remark is impossible in byHilgenfeld: AssumptioMoysis a book of Hebrew or Aramaic quae facta est anno vitae ejus origin. Profectionis fynicis are Cmo et XXmo; by Volkmar: also to be omitted with Volkmar, Liber profetiae Moysis, quem though Schmidt -Merx retain scripsit ano aetatis centesimo them, inserting before them the

ASSUMPTIONS MOYSI FRAGMENTA

TEXT OF THE SIXTH CENTURY LATIN MS. IN THE MILAN LIBRARY

The figures in clarendon in the margin denote the folio in the MS., and the letters a and b in the margin denote respectively the beginning cf the first and second columns in a folio.

2 qui est bis millesi mus et quingente simus annus a crea tura orbis terrae

3 nam secus qui in ori ente sunt numerus

word quadragesimo. Hilgenfeld, who holds the book to be of Greek origin, regards the entire verse as genuine and restores as follows : nam secus qui in oriente sunt numeros [MM] mus et [CC] mus et [XXXXX] mus profectionis phoenicis. Ronsch

qui est bis cum exivit

plebs as a parenthesis and thus restores ver. 3 : nam secus qui in oriente sunt numeros MM mus et

4 tionis fynicis* cum exivit plebs post profectionem quae fiebat per mosysen usque amman trans

5 jordanem profetiae quae facta est a moy

DCCL mus, et CCLV mus profectionis Phoenices.

4. I have bracketed this verse as an interpretation. Moses could not have spoken of Amman as across the J ordan : only a dweller in Jerusalem could have so described it.

6. Schmidt-Merx rightly reject this verse as a gloss. In a book of Hebrew origin the phrase libro Deuteronomio could not have been original.

56 ASSUMPTIONIS MOYSI JJ-RAGMENTA

nomio], 6. Qui vocavit ad se lesum filium Nave, hominem probatum Domino, 7. Ut sit successor plebi et scene testimonii cum omnibus Sanctis iUius, 8. Et ut inducat plebem in terram datam patribus eorum, 9. Ut detur illis per testamentum et per jusjurandum, quod locutus est in scenae dare de lesum dicendo ad lesum verbum hoc: 10. "(Confort&re) et firma te secus industriam tuam omnia quae mandata

6. Qui Kim. Cf. III. 14 ; often means the chief minister X. 2 ; see Introd., p. zxxiii. or servant : thus in Exod. xxiv. lesum filivm NaAje, i.e. 1170-oOv 13 ; xxxiii. 11 ; Nonu xi. 28 ; vlhv TSiavfi, This shows that the Josh. i. 1, Joshua is described Latin was derived directly from jf>ar excellence as Moses' servant, the Greek. If it had been nvo nnro. It is also used of directly from the Hebrew, these service in the tabernacle ; cf. words would have been Josue Num. viii. 26, etc. Hence the filium Nun. text oyn mro rn'riS. In x. 15

7. Ut sit successor plebi = tva the same meaning is to be etrj diddoxos t(} \oup. What is followed. It is, of course, posthe meaning of didSoxos^ It sible that diddoxoi here ma^ cannot mean * * a successor " here, represent nifr, as in 2 Chron. xxvi. as Schmidt-Merx recognise when 11. But this would not differ they propose successor (sibi et materially from the sense we antecessor). But there is no need have reached above.

of such a violent remedy. 8. I read et ut instead of ut

diddoxos means also (1) a court et, and patribus instead of ex

official of the second rank in the tribus, with Schmidt-Merx.

Egyptian papyri (see Steph. 9. After illis Sehmidt-Merx

Thesaurus); (2) the chief minister adds ut deus illis, and for quod

of the king : LXX. ; 1 Chron. read quondam. In scenae = ip

xviii. 17 ; 2 Chron. xxvi. 11, tJ a-Kriv^, just as scene in I. 7

xxviii. 7 ; Ecclus. xlvi. 1. This = ry ffKrjvy. Daie de lesum

meaning is found in Joseph, seems interpolated. De is used

Ant. XV. 10, and is frequent in in the sense of *^ by means of,"

Philo. And this is exactly what also in V. 1, de reges, **by

the context requires : 'Hhat he means of the kings."

might be the minister of the 10. Verbum Ju>c, {con/ortare)

people." We have now to diset firma te. The text here is

cover the Hebrew behind didverbum hoc, et promitte. Now

^oxos. This we learn from Moses' address to Joshua cannot

Ecclus. xlvi. 1, where it is a begin with et. Some verb has

rendering of nii^D. This word faUen out between hoc and et.

TEXT OF MS. CHAPTER I. 6-10

sen in libro deute

6 ronomio qui voca vit ad se jesum filinm naue hominem pro

7 batum domino ut sit successor plebi et

b scene testimonii cum omnibus Sanctis illius

8 ut et inducat plebem in terram datam ex

Thus there was probably here the oft-repeated phrase addressed to Joshua in Deut xxxi. 6, 7, yoK). Now if we retranslate the present text into Hebrew we shall discover the source of the corruptions and at the same time the original text. The words verbum hoc et promitte = TDK! mn nmn. ifow the missing verb before the 1 is clearly pm, as suggested above ; for this could readily fall out after n^rt, and TDK is an easy corruption of psK as Rosenthal has already seen. Hence the text ran : fotti pm mn nann This restoration is confirmed by X. 15. See note in loe,

Hilgenfeld emended the above words into verbum hoc ait : promitte. Volkmar took inrbaxo^ promitte to be a corruption of inro(rx,h ** undertake."

Omnia quae mandata sunt ut facias. In my translation I have supposed ut facias to be wrongly transposed to their present position. The Hebrew

9 tribus eorum ut de tur illis per testamen tum* et per jusjuran dum quod locutus est in scenae dare de jesum* dicendo ad jesum. 10 verbum hoc et pro mitte secus indus triam tuam omnia quae mandata sunt

order requires us to place them before omnia. But since such faulty transpositions of the Latin text are frequent we cannot argue on this ground against the Hebrew original in favour of an Aramaic. The Aramaic would admit of this order, and Dr. Neubauer assures me the later Hebrew also. But it is possible to regard the text in its present order as derived from the Hebrew. Thus "be strong, and hold fast according to thy might to all that is commanded to be done" would represent nwyV D'-npsn San inaa fom pm. This construction is found in 2 Chron. xxxi. 4, ipin* jyoS "irnna.

Quemadmodumsine qua^rellam sis deo, I have here emended est ideo into sis deo. The ideo cannot stand here, as ver. 11 refers to ver. 10. In Luke xxi. 14 of the Vulgate, praemeditari quemadmodum respondeatis represents iJ^) vpofieXerav diroXoynSrjvai, The text = D*Dn ywn^ dmSkV. Sine has often the

sunt ut facias quemadmodum sine quaerellam sis Deo." 11. Haec dicit Dominus orbis terranim. 12. Creavit enim orbem terrarum propter plebem suam. 13. Et non coepit earn inceptionem creaturae ab initio orbis terrarum palam facere, ut in ea gentes arguantur et humiliter inter se disputationibus arguant se. 14. Itaque excogitavit et invenit me, qui ab initio orbis terrarum praeparatus sum, ut sim arbiter testamenti illius. 15. Et nunc palam facio tibi quia consummatum est tempus annorum vitae meae et transio in dormitionem patrum meorum et palam omnem plebem. 16. (Tu) autem percipe scribturam banc ad recognoscendam tutationem librorum quos tibi tradam: 17. Quos

accusative in the Itala. Schmidtincepit, Z,f, fV, T, 1874, p. 567 :

Merx emend est ideo into est dHj^aTo a^bv dirapxn^ ^$

deo. KTiff€(t)s, Volkmar is whoUy at

13. Non coepit. The text here, sea. non coepit o()«r ^^aTo il7 Ah initio. The MS. inserts

^»K^n. But the Greek translator et before these words, has here foUowed the inappro- Humiliter inter se, Humiliter

priate meaning of Vk\ He may be corrupt for humilitate.

should have rendered oifK i^o^f In my translation I have sought

\€To, Hence render **He was only to give the sense: **to

not pleased." Merx was the theirown (or "common") "hu-

first to discover the real meanmiliation." Hilgenfeld emends

ing here. He did so through humiliter into similiter, retranslation into Aramaic, 14. This verse is found in the

na^ K*?. Greek. See exeg. note, p. 6.

Inceptionem="demgn." So Ah initio orbis terrarum,

also Scnmidt-Merx. Hilgenfeld This plirase has already occurred

has missed the sense of the passin I. 13. It recurs twice, I. 17,

age, as his reproduction of XII. 4, in the form ab initio crea-

the Greek shows : oi/K •fjf^o.ro turae orbis terrarum. Of this

Ta&rr}v r^v dirapxvv ttjs Kriaetas: verse the Greek (see I. 14, exeg.

likewise Bonsch taking non note) is happily preserved : irpb

coepit to be a corruption of icara/SoX^j xdafiov = nnoiD 'JaV

TEXT OF MS. CHAPTER I. 11-17

ut facias quemad modum sine quae

1 1 rellam est ideo haec dicit dominus orbis ter rarum

12 Creavit enim orbem terrarum propter

13 plebem suam et non coepit earn inceptio nem creaturae

lllaet ab initio orbis ter rarum palam face re ut in earn gentes arguantur et humi liter inter se dispu tationibus arguant

14 se itaque excogitavit et invenit me qui ab

cViyn or ah^v^ ipjrrap. It is to be observed that the Vulgate renders /cara/SoX^f KdcfMov by ab origine mundi, similarly as in our text, but elsewhere in the N.T. — Matt. xiii. 35, xxv. 34 ; Luke by a constitutione mundi. The phrase in 1. 17, XII. 4, ab initio creaturae orbis terrarum = dv dpxvf Krlaetas rod Kdfffiov (cf. Sann nnna. On the other hand, it is quite possible that the latter form of the phrase goes

initio orbis terra rum praeparatus sum ut sim arbiter testa

1 5 menti illius et tunc palam f acio tibi quia consummatum est tempus annorum vitae meae et tran sio in dormitionem patrum meorum

et palam omnem pie

16 bem autem percipe scribturam banc ad recognos cendam tutationem Ubrorum quos tibi

&17tradam quos ordina bis et chedriabis et

back to the same Greek as the former, for our Latin translator is far from being consistent or accurate.

15. Nunc. MS. tunc. Palam. Hilgenfeld emends

into pellam = draXXd^oy. I follow Bonsch in taking it as a proposition, but the text is doubtful.

16. Ad recognoscenda/m tutationem librorum. The obscurity of this phrase disappears whenre* translated into Hebrew, yin jyoS D'TsorrriK mDB> = ** mayst know how to preserve."

6o ASSUMPTIONIS MOYSI FRAGMENTA

ordinabis et chedriabis et repones in vasis fictilibus in loco quern fecit ab initio creaturae orbis terrarum, 18. Ut invocetur nomen illius usque in diem paenitentiae in respectu quo respiciet iUos Dominus in consummatione exitus dierum.

II. (Et nunc) intrabunt per te in terram, quam decrevit et promisit dare patribus eorum:

2. In qua tu benedices et dabis unicuique, et stabilibis eis sortem in me et constabilibis eis regnum, et magisteria locorum dimittes illis secus quod placebit Domino eorum in judicio et justitia.

3. (Fiet) autem postquam intrabunt in terram suam anno s(exto), et postea dominabuntur a principibus et tyrannis per annos XVIII, et XVIIII annos abrumpent tribus X. 4. Nam descendent tribus

18. Diem poenitentiae, Rosenthal supposes an error on the part of the Greek translator, i.e, that he took nni&nn dv to mean the day of repentance, whereas it meant "the day of the return," or "of the coming again," and refers to the return of the people to Palestine.

In, respectu quo respiciet = iu ri iviffKOTrf jf iviffK^yf/erou, — a familiar Hebraism, nvK nipsn nn ips\ Cf. Test. Lev. ill., iv. ; Pss. Sol. xi. 2. In consummatione exitus di- II. 1. {Et nunc). So Hilgenfeld. Volkmar, ecce nunc.

2. Schmidt-Merx bracket et stabilibis eis as spurious. In me, Hilgenfeld, in qua.

in eam where the in eam goes back to in qua, ipy • , , ip aCrrj,

Magisteria locorum = rorap- X^5. Probably roirapx^s is corrupt for Toxdpxaj.

Dimittes. This is corrupt. Schmidt-Merx emend it into dimetieris, but their reference to Pss. Sol. xvii. 30 gives no support to their suggestion. Dimittes may be for demittes KoOiiffcts, This may be a corruption of KaOlcreis or Karatrrfyreis * * thou wilt appoint. " In any case the sense required is clear. The original may nave been I'p^n Dnp9, "thou wilt appoint local magistrates." Cf. Gen. xli. 84.

3. Met, So Schmidt-Merx; Volkmar, dat ; Hilgenfeld, illi..

TEXT OF MS. CHAPTERS I. i8— II. 4

reponis in vasis fie tdlibus in loco quern feeit ab initio crea turae orbis terra

18 rum ut invocetur nomen illius usque in diem paenitentiae in respectu quo respicit illos dominus in consummatio ne exitus dierum

11. intrabunt

per te in terram quam decrevit et promisit dare pa 2 tribus eorum* in qua tu benedicis et da bis unicuique et sta bilibis eis sortem

in me et constabi libis eis regnum et magisteria loco HOarxxm dimittes illis secus quod place bit domino eorum in ju dicio et justitia

3 autem postquam intrabunt in terram suam annos

et postea dominabi tur a principibus et tyrannis per annos xviii* et xviiii' annos abrumpens tibx-

4 nam descendent tri bus duae et transfe runt scenae testi monium* tunc deus

Anrio s{exto). From Josh, ziv. lOandJoseph. Ant. v. i. 19, it appears that the Israelites spent five years in the conauest of Canaan. Hence the aoove emendation. Hilgenfeld, annos (quinque); Merx, anno8(eptimo).

DomincUmrUur. So Hilgenfeld and Schmidt-Merx. MS. dominabitur.

Abrumpent. So Hilgenfeld, Yolkmar, and Fritzsche. Abrumpentes, Schmidt-Merz ; MS. abrumpens.

Tribus. MS. tib.

4. Nam. Nam and enim are frequently used in this version to render W.

DescendeTit. Schmidt-Merx, discedent.

Ihtodecim. So Schmidt- Morx riffhtly emend from duae. In 2 Sam. vi. 1, 2, the chosen men of Israel and Judah accompanied David. The corruption arose in the Greek oX t/3' ^vKal by the t falling out, or else in the Hebrew.

TranferenL MS. transfenmt.

duodedm et transferent scenam testimoniL Tunc Deus caelestis faciet aulam scenae suae et turrem sanctuaiii sui, et ponentur duae tribus sanctitatis. 5. Nam X tribus stabilient sibi secus ordinationes suas regna : 6. Et adferent victimas per annos XX: 7. Et VII circumvallabunt muros, et circumibo Vim et (IV) transgredientur testamentum Domimi, et jusjurandum polluent quern fecit Dominus cum eis. 8. Et immolabunt natos sues diis alienis, et ponent idola scenae, servientes illis: 9. Et in domo Domini facient sceleste, et sculpent omnem (similitudinem) animalium idola multa.

III. (Et) illis temporibus veniet illis ab

Scenam tettimonii, MS. scenae testimoninm.

F(met atUam, So I emend from fecit palam with Hilgenfeld, who compares 2 Chron. XX. 5. Thephrase aulam scenae is found in £xod. xxvii. 9. For the various uses of nyi^ see the new Hebrew Lexicon in loe. Bonsch, figet palum ; Schmidt- Merx, fecit palam (zelum) ; Fritzsche, faciet palum.

Turrem, So I emend from ferrum. In a similar description of the future in Eth. £n. Ixxxiz. 50, 67, 73, the temple is spoken of as a tower. Hilgenfeld, forum, comparing 2 Mace. x. 2 ; Schmidt-Merx, fervorem. Volkmar gives the whole passage thus : fecit palam (locum) scenae suae et terram sanctuarii sui ; faciet palam (portam) scenae suae et forem sanctuarii sui.

Trilnu sanctitcUis, Hebraism

7. Circumibo = I will protect, Jer. xxxi. 22.

M{ir). Ihaveaddedthe(IV).

Trcmsgredientur testamentum Domini etjusfurandumpoHueut. So I emend the corrupt text : adcedent ad testamentum Domini et finem polluent. First of all, finem =d/)oi', which, as we see from the context, is corrupt for SoKov, Hence for finem we should read juRJurandum. This combination of testamentum and jusjurandum occurs four other times in this book — I. 9, thus confirms our emendation. The same combination is familiar in the O.T. Cf. Gen. xxvi. 28 ; Deut. xxix. 12, 14 ; Ezek. xvL place, adcedent testamentum

TEXT OF MS. CHAPTERS II. 5— III. i

caelestis fecit pa

lam scenae suae

et ferrum sanctua

rii suiet ponentur

duae tribus sanctita 5 tis* nam *x* tribus sta

bilient sibi secus

ordinationes suas b6 regna et adferent

victimas per annos 7 XX' et *vii* circumval

labunt muros et

circumibo "viiii* et

and jusjurandnm polluent are clearly parallel expressions, and as the latter is obviously right according to the context, the former must be wrong. The corruption therefore lies in adcedent, and is easy to discover. Adcedent = vpocP'^oyrai, corrupt for vapap'^ffoprai. 'H/v dutdiiicqv •nrapa^Tjvai is the actual phrase 19. Hence for adcedent read transgredientur.

On this passage previous editors are wholly at sea. They all accept adcedent jusjurandum. For et finem, Yolkmar reads sed in fine finem ; Schmidt- Merx, et (iv) fidem. Hilgenfeld accepts the words as they stand.

8. Scenae I take as a dative, **in the Sanctuary." Ronsch geniously proposes to read idola obscena, comparing LXX., Jer.

adcedent ad testa mentum dominr et finem polluent quem fe

8 cit dominus cum eis* et im molabunt natos

suos diis alienis* et ponent idola scenae servientes illis

9 et in domo domini faci ent sceleste* et s culpent omnem ani malium idola multa

III. illis temporibus

xxxii. (xxxix.) 34, koX l^tiKav rk fudcfMra aintav iv tQ (^K(p o0 iircKk'^dTi rb 6pofid fiov iv* airrw iv AKadapfficus airrwv,

9. Omnem {aimUUudinem) aniTMdiwn, Similitudinem fell out after omnem through homoioteleuton. Hilgenfeld and Yolkmar changed omnem into omnium, but the text thus arrived at is intolerable. They failed to recognise that this verse is based on Ezek. viii. 10, ** Every form of . . . abominable beasts and all the idols . . . graven upon the wall.** Thus omnem similitudinem animalium = nDnn n'jnirSs.

Idola mvlta, i.e. D'sn D'xipe^. The word j'pe^ is used immediately after nonn in Ezek. viii. 10, as here. The whole verse = n'jarrSa ipm niayin iry* mn» n'aai

III. 1. Veniet . . . equitatu. MS. venient . . . equitatus.

oriente rex, et teget equitatu terrain eorum : 2. Et incendet coloniam eorum igne cum aede sancta Domini, et sancta vasa omnia toilet : 3. Et omnem plebem eiciet, et ducet illos in terram patriae suae, et duas tribus ducet secum. 4. Tunc invocabunt duae tribus X tribus, et indignabunt, ut liena in campis pulveratis, esurientes et sitientes. 5. Et clamabunt : " Justus et sanctus Dominus, quia enim vos peccastis, et nos pariter abducti sumus vobiscum cum infantibus nostris." 6. Tunc plorabunt X tribus audientes inproperia verborum tribuum duarum, 7. Et dicent : " Quid f edmus vobis fratres ? Nonne in omnem domum Istrabel advenit clibsis haec?" 8. Et omnes tribus plor-

2. Coloniam. MS. oolonia.

Scmcta wua omnia, Schmidt- Merz point out that omnia after sancta vasa is not Hebraic but Aramaic order. l\nh2 k'jkd H'vnp, This is quite true, but it is impossible, on this ground onl]^, to argue back to an Aramaic original ; for the Greek and Latin translators frequently failed to observe the Hebrew Older when it was possible to do so. Thus, though hb in Hebrew always precedes its noun, it is

E laced after it, as here, in the iXX. in the following passages : Gen. xiv. 11, did B^arVrnK— LXX. T^y iiriroy varav r^v

01 awa^yres rdyres. Lev. xx. 23, kVk ^3 — LXX. raOra rdvra.

2 Chron. xxL 18, nnr^a nnn— LXX. /bierd ravra rdpra. Hence

we can attach but little value to this argument in itself, and when we consider that our Latin Version is but a careless rendering of the original, it ceases to have any weight at all.

8. Terram patriae stuie€ls T^y yifv T^j ytviaeiiK abrov vnViD pie.

4. IndignaburUur, The MS. gives dueent se. These words cannot be right. Observe — Tunc invocabunt . . . et dueent se . . . et clamabunt. Thd ten tribes cannot address the two, then march or be marched about, and then proceed with words of rebuke. Hence, instead of dueent se, we expect a verb expressive of anger, and this aU the more because of the words immediately subsequent — at liena in campis. Now

TEXT OF MS. CHAPTER III. 2-8

venient illis ab ori ente rex et teget equitatus terram

2 eorum et incendet colonia eorum ig ne cum aede sancta

109adomiiii et sancta vasa om

3 nia toilet et omnem plebem eiciet et du cet illos in terram patriae suae et duas tribus ducit secum

4 Tunc invocabunt duae tribus x* tribus et ducent se ut liena in campis pulverati esurientes et siti

entes cum infantibus

5 nostris et clamabunt Justus et sanctus dominus quia enim vos peccas

tis et nos pariter ad ducti sumus vobis

6 cum tunc plora bunt 'xtribus audien tes improperia ver borum tribum dua

7 rum et dicent* quid faciemus vobis fra tres* nonne in omnem

h domum istrahel ad venit dibsis haec

8 et omnes tribus plora bunt clamantes in

ducent se, if retranslated into Greek =dx0i^oKrai, and as this word is confounded in MSS. with i.x^^(fovrajLf the latter most

Srobablv stood originally in the reek Version. Hence my correction of ducent se into mdignabuntur. Could ducent se be a corruption of succensebunt ?

PuUvercUis. MS. pulverati. Schmidt- Merx omit.

Sitientes, Here the MS. adds cum infantibus nostris. This

Shrase I have, with Schmidt- [erz, transposed after vobiscum in ver. 4. If retained here, nostris must be changed into suis ; for

the children of the two tribes cannot be called children of Moses and Joshua.

5. Ahducti, So Fritzsche ; Schmidt-Merx, deducti. MS. adducti.

Cum infantibus nostris. See note on ver. 4.

6. Iiytroperia verborum =

7. Fecimus, So I emend with Hilgenfeld from faciemus.

Clibsis, i.e, $\t}f/u. There are several other Greek words — acrobystia (VIII. 3), cathedra (XII. 2), eremus (III. 11), chedriabis

abunt clamantes in caelum et dicentes : 9. " Deus Abraham et Deus Isaac et Deus lacob, reminiscere testamentum tuum quod factasti cum eis, et jusjurandum quod jurasti eis per Te, ne unquam deficiat semen eorum a terra quam dedisti illis." 10. Tunc reminiscentur me, die illo dicentes tribus ad tribum et homo de proximo suo : 11. " Nonne hoc est quod testabatur nobis tum Moyses in profetiis, qui multa passus est in Aegypto et in mari rubro et in heremo annis XL : 12. Et testans invocabat nobis testes caelum et terram, ne praeteriremus mandata lUius, in quibus arbiter fuit nobis : 13. Ecce ea advfenerunt nobis de isto secus verba ipsius et secus adfirmationem ipsius, quomodo testatus est nobis temporibus illis, ecce ea convenerunt usque nos duci captives in

9. Jteminiscere^&va/ufUfT^a'Kov,

10. Homo de proximo 8uo- Avdpuyn-os ivl ry v\7}aiop a&rov

11. Tum, So Schmidt-Merx. MS. cum.

Moyses, This name is written thus in XI. 1, and the interpolated passage I. 5. In I. 4 Mosyses. Elsewhere, in XI. 2, written as if from a Nom. Mouses. For a similar insertion of n, cf. Bobbio MS., q. Mt. vi. 19, thensaurus, etc. Moyses is the Coptic form of this name. The Hebrew form Moses Momt^s .WD, which Schmidt-Merx give in 1. 1, is not found in this MS.

Te^dbatvr, This word means here ^ * he declared. "It represents

diepe^atoOro, and this in tum, Tin or jn^n. The same diction lies behind adfirmationem ipsius quomodo testatus est (III. 13)= 5tap€pal<a<nv KaOdn die^epoiovTO, It is due to the carelessness of the Latin translator that he used tester as a rendering of two distinct Greek verbs.

Profetiis. MS. profetis.

12. M testans invocabat nobis testes caelum et terram. For et testans the MS. reads, testatus et, but wrongly; for clearly testans invocabat . . . testes diafMpTvp6fJL€vos diefiapr^pero^ T]fn lyn, and the whole phrase pKn-nm n^DvrrnH un n»yn '^v^. This statement is found, letter for letter, in the Apocalypse of Bamch Ixxziv. 2, *' Moses

TEXT OF MS. CHAPTER III. 9-13

caelum et dicentes 9 deus abraham* et deus isa ac et deus Jacob remi niscere testamen turn tuum quod fac tasti cum eis et jus jurandum quod ju rasti eis per te ne um quam deficiat semen eorum a terra quam dedisti illis

10 Tunc reminiscentur me die illo dicentes tribus ad tribum* et homo de proximo

1 1 suo nonne hoc est

quod testabatur no bis cum moyses in profetis qui multa 85a passus est in aegypto et in mari rubroet in heremo annis 'xl

1 2 testatus et invoca bat nobis testes cae lum et terram ne prae teriremus manda

ta illius in quibus arbi

1 3 ter fuit nobis quae advenerunt nobis de isto secus verba ipsius' et secus adfir mationem ipsius

assuredly caUed heaven and earth to witness against you." etc.

Ne praeteriremus ma/adaJta Illius. These words, also in a slightly different form, follow immediately on those just quoted from Apoc. Bar. Ixxxiv. 2, i.e. ** if ye transgress the law."

13. JScee ea advetierunt nobis. So I have emended from (][uae advenerunt nobis. That this is right is clear from the exactly parallel passage in Apoc. Bar. Ixxxiv. 5, ''And now Moses used to tell you before they befell you, and lo ! they hcvoe hef alien you" Schmidt-Merx,

followed by Hilgenfeld, emend quae into vae ; Yolkmar resolves it into et ea.

De isto. This is taken to i^ iKclvov ixp^yov). A comparison of the parallel passage in Apoc. Bar. Ixxxiv. 4, **And after his (i.e. Moses') death ye cast them away from you (see also XIX. 8), on this account they came upon you," appears to show that de isto vnnK = ** after him," i.e. "after his death." Cf. Job xxi. 21.

Ecce ea. So I have emended et qua>e. See above.

in partem orientis els /Upos T^s dvaroX^s nip fiH Tnp'^m Cf. Exod. zvi. 35.

partem orientis V* 14. Qui et servient circa annos LXXVII.

lY. Tunc intrabit unus qui supra eos est, et expandet manus et ponet genua sua, et orabit pro eis dicens : 2. " Domine omnis, rex in alta sede, qui dominaris saeculo, qui voluisti plebem banc esse tibi plebem banc exceptam, tunc voluisti invocari eorum deus secus testamentum, quod fecisti cum patribus eorum. 3. Et ierunt captivi in terram alienam cum uxoribus et natis suis et circa ostium allofylorum et ubi est vanitas magna. 4. Eespice et miserere eorum, Domine caelestis." 5. Tunc reminiscetur Deus eorum propter testamentum quod fecit cum patribus illorum, et palam faciet misericordiam suam et temporibus illis : 6. Et mittet in animam regis ut misereatur eorum, et dimittet illos

14. Merx reproduces this verse in Aramaic : fnay n pan pad "ly yn, and thinks that there is a play on the words "ly ( 77)also .T]| rnhiiji = idolatry), as this latter phrase was often simply denoted by the initial letters. Thus, ''they shall also practise idolatry through the years." If this play was intended by the autnor, it proves nothing for an Aramaic oiiginal against a Hebrew, as nni msy is good Hebrew also.

IV. 1. For intrabit, expandet, ponet, MS. reads intravit, expandit, ponit.

2. Domine omnis laipte rod wapris Heb. Va piK ; Aram.

Va KTD.

Plebem hanc exceptam^ Hanc here represents the Greek article : rbw \a6y rhv iKXeicTOPsz Tnan oyn. Cf. Isa. xliii. 20. Exceptam is here an unhappy rendering. We should have electam.

3. Fanitas. The MS. reads majestas. This is corrupt. Hilgenfeld and Merx emend it into maestitia ; Fritzsche into molestia. Volkmar supports the text, but without success. The corruption is not native to the Latin. Majestas = fuydXei&njs, corrupt for iMn-aUmis, ** vanity," i,e, "idolatry." Kothine impressed the Jews so much in their captivity amon£ the Gentiles as the idolatry of the latter.

TEXT OF MS. CHAPTERS III. 14— IV. 6 69

quomodo testatus est nobis tempori bus illis et quae conve nerunt usque nos duci oaptivos in par

14 tern orientis qui et servient circa annos ixxvii

IV. Tunc intravit unus qui supra eos est et expandit manus et ponit genua sua h et oravit pro eis di 2 cens Domine omnis rex in alta sede qui dominaris saeculo qui voluisti plebem banc esse tibi plebem banc exceptam tunc voluisti invocari eorum deus secus tes tamentum quod fe

For this use of fULTauorris for an idol, cf. Ps. xxxi. 6, etc: rd fidraia is jfrequent in this sense. X. 3. ^3n is the Hebrew.

5. JReminiscetur, MS. reminiscitur.

Stiam et, Hilgenfeld and Schmidt-Merx delete et.

cisti cum patribus

3 eorum et ierunt captivi in terram alienam cum uxori bus et natis suis et circa ostium allofi lorum et ubi est majestas magna

4 respice et misere

re eorum domine cao

5 lestis Tunc remi niscitur deus eorum propter testamen tum quod fecit cum

86a patribus illorum et palam faciet mise ricordiam suam* et

6 temporibus illis et mittit in animam re gis ut misereator eorum et dimittit illos in terram eorum

6. Miseraiur, MS. misereator. DimitUt. MS. dimittit.

Terrain eorum et regionem. Semitic syntax requires an eorum after the region - em. But the Greek and Latin translators of Hebrew omitted the suffix in their rendering. Cf. LXX. 1 Chron. xxviii. 11 ;

JO ASSUMPTIONIS MOYSI FRAGMENTA

(Elmended and Revised Text)

in terrain eorum et regionem. 7. Tunc ascendent aliquae partes tribuom et venient in locum constitutum suum et circumvallabunt locum renovantes. 8. Duae autem tribus permanebunt in praeposita fide sua, tristes et gementes, quia non poterint referre immolationes Domino patrum suorum. 9. Et X tribus crescent et multiplicantur apud nationes in tempore captivitatis suae.

V. Et cum adpropiabunt tempora arguendi, et vindicta surget de reges participes scelerum et punientes eos, 2. Et ipsi dividentur ad veritatem.

Yulg. Gen. xli. 8 ; Exod. xii. 9,

8. Sv4i. Volkmar and Schmidt- Merx emend into sed.

Poterint. Schmidt-Merx emend into potemnt.

9,Multiplic(mturapud7icUi(mes in tempore captivitatis suae. So I have emended the very corrupt text devenient apud natos in tempore tribum. Hilgenfeld accepts the text, but changes tribum into tribulationis, and takes these words as prophecy of the return of the tribes to their descendants in Jerusalem. But this is absolutely impossible. Not to speak of the incredible change of tribulationis into tribum, there are other insuperable difficulties. If apud natos could stand here at all, we should require suos to be added. And finally, devenient could not be used of going up to Jerusalem. The great ''Songs of the Ascents would, in that case, be called '* Songs of the Descents."

The right word in such a case would be ascendent (see ver. 7). Volkmar emends: devenient apud natos in tempore tribuum. But there is no meaning in the expression in tempore tribuum. Further, it is an unparalleled phrase. Schmidt-Merx emend : devertent apud nationes in tempore turbarum. But the sense is poor, "they will stay amongst the Gentiles in the time of troubles," and Fritzsche and Rosenthal rightly reject it. Rosenthal emends : devenient apud natos in tempore judiciiorum. In the criticism of Hilgenfeld's emendation we have already shown devenient apud natos in the sense of a retiirn to Palestine to be impossible. Some interest, however, attaches to his restoration in tempore judiciorum. In tempore tribuum is, he shows =D*B3rn nya, where D»03B?n is corrupt for D*ttflB'n. The time of the judgments is that of the final judgment of God.

TEXT OF MS. CHAPTERS IV. 7— V. 2 71

7 et regionem* tunc ascendent aliquae partes tribuum et venient in locum constitutum suum et circumvallabunt locum renovantes

8 duae autem tribus permanebunt in praeposita fide ^ua tristes et gemen tes quia non pote rint referre im

We have now discussed all preyioos emendations of this text, and been obliged to reject them. My own restoration is as follows. First of all, I accept the emendation apud natos into apud nationes. Next, we see that something is wrong with devenient It is coupled with crescent, and not improbably has a kindred meaning. Now devenient icareX6i^oinreu m\ which is clearly a corruption of n3Tmultiplicantur. Thus the text runs, crescent et multiplicantur apud nationes. We have now to deal with in tempore tribum. This tribum is a frequent fifthcentury equivalent of tribuum. The pnrase, then, in tempore tribuum d'bsb^ nys. Here D'B3B> nya is corrupt for nya Dn'39=in tempore captivitatis suae. Thus our emended text

molationes domino patruum suorum 9 et 'x* tribus cres h cent et devenient apud natos in tem V. pore tribum* et cum adpropiabunt tempora arguendi et vindicta surgit de reges participes scelerum et puni 2 entes eos et ipsi dividentur ad ve

= crescent et multiplicantur apud nationes in tempore captivitatis suae. Now this agrees exactly with the statement of dixa <f>v\al vipav eUriv E^^/sdrov i<as devpOf fivpiddes Aveipoi, xal dpid/Mfi yiKoaBTJvai firj dwdfiepou, and with the view expressed in 4 Ezra xiii. 86-48 ; Philo, Leg, ad Caiunif 31 (ii. 578, Mangey), iipSpow di adrbv koI al vipoLV "EiV^pdrov dwdfieir "jdeiydpBapv- \Qva Kal roXXdf dXXas tQv ffarpa- T€tQp ifvb 'Iov5ai(av Karexofi-^vas,

V. 1. Surget. MS. surgit.

De reges did r(av ^aciSiwy, De here per, as in I. 9, de lesum. So Bonsch and Hilgcnfeld. Schmidt- Merx, not observing the above sense of de, propose to emend de reges participes into ad participes regis, and punientes into punientis.

2. JHviaerUur ad verUatem=

3. Propter quod factum fuit: "Devitabunt justitiam et accedent ad iniquitatem, et contaminabunt inquinationibus domum servitutis suae," et quia "fornicabunt post deos alipnos." 4. Non enim sequentur veritatem Dei, sed quidam altarium inquinabunt de ipsis muneribus quae imponent Domino, qui non sunt sacerdotes, sed servi de servis natL 5. Qui enim magistri sunt [docto;res eorum]

duLfiepurO^aoyTai vpbs rrjv &\ijnaturally to be regarded as

Belay =:T\DH2 ^p)f)l. In 1 Kings forming the class of teachers,

zyi. 21, phn is used in the Niphal their functions in the text

of the division of the people into are of quite a different nat-

two factions as here. In the ure. They are judges, and

Talmud it is frequently used in their justice is renal. Now if

reference to difference of opinion, we retranslate into Greek and

Cf. Chag. xvi.6, ^Snj na ip'?n3 thence into Hebrew we shall

Tnn= ** the greatest Rabbis were be put in the way of discovering

divided on this point," quoted not merely the original text,

in Levy's Lex, ii. 65. but also a most interesting case

Propter quod = bi&irep. in which what was at first an

Factum,Y6[kmB.v emends into incorrect Hebrew marginal gloss

dictum, and Schmidt-Merx into was later incorporated in the

fatum. text. To proceed : qui enim

3. InquincUionibus, So Yolkmagistri sunt doctores eorum mar and Hilgenfeld, from in- (with Hilgenfeld) 61 dk didd<rgenationibus. Schmidt - Merx icaXot 6yTcs, ol KadTiyrp-al atrrQy (and later Hilgenfeld also), in DnniD D^aini (cf. John i. 39). nationibus. . Now, first of all, we know

4. De ipsis muneribus, I that D'3Tt, which can mean have here followed Ronsch, in either **the Rabbis'' or **the supplying the lacuna of six many," cannot have the former letters with ipsis. Hilgenfeld meaning in this context, as

fives iis ; Yolkmar, omnibus ; we have seen above ; and in

chmidt-Merx, donis et. the next, we see that the

5. Qui enim magistri surU latter meaning, *'the many," [doctores eorum"]. If we study harmonises perfectly with the this clause in connexion with rest of the context. For wherethe rest of this verse and that as in ver. 45 it is said that which follows, it will become so^}ie who are not true priests obvious that there is some corwill defile the altar of God, it is ruption here. For whereas here said that m/iny will admagistri doctores eorum are minister justice corruptly, the

TEXT OF MS. CHAPTER V. 3-5

3 ritatem' propter quod factum fuit devitabunt justi tiam et accedent ad iniquitatem et contaminabunt in genationibus domum servitutis suae

et quia fomicabunt post deos alienos

4 non enim sequen tur veritatem dei

"some "and the "many" belonging alike to the Sadducean party, to the Sanhedrin, the chief council of the nation. The Sanhedrin possessed civil and criminal jurisdiction (Schllrer, div. ii. vol. i. 187), and was at this period a body representative of the nobility, and not an association of learned men {op, dt, p. 174), as the Rabbins and the glosser on our text conceived it later. Having now determined the meaning of D*3nn to be not " the Rabbis," but " the many," or " many," we now see that Dn*"nD (i,e. doctores eorum) must ori^nally have been a Hebrew gloss inserted in the margin to explain D'snn. That the glosser misapprehended the sense of the word is now obvious. Hence we should translate, "and many in those times will respect the persons of the rich," etc.

Locupletum, The MS. gives cupiditatum. I have adopted

sed quidam altarium inquinabunt de 78a muneribus quae

inponent domino qui non sunt sacerdo tes sed servi de ser 5 vis nati* qui enim ma gistri sunt docto res eorum illis tem poribus erunt miran tes personas cupi ditatum* et accep

Fritzsche's suggestion of locupletum, though he edits nobilitatum in his own text. Schmidt-Mcrx propose (cupidi) cupiditatum.

AcHpientes munera = dwpo- \i}TTovvT€S or S(apo\'fyirTcis. So I emend acceptiones munerum. The corruption may have arisen in the Greek by ^wpoXTjirrcej becoming 5(apo\rjyl/las.

Pervertent, So Wieseler emends from pervendent. The three chief statements in this verse, that men will be mirantes personas, and acceptores munerum, and pervertent justitias are drawn from Deut. xvi. 19. Pervertent justitias is based on OBB^D nan k^ "thou shalt not wrest judgment." Erunt mirantes .. . justitias = DnoDV.T

Accipiendo poenas = accipientes poenas. This use of the ablative of the gerund for the present participle is characteristic of this Latin version. Cf.XI.

illis temporibus, erunt mirantes personas locupletum et accipientes munera, et pervertent justitias [accipiendo poenas]. 6. Et ideo implebitur colonia et fines habitationis eorum sceleribus et iniquitatibus. A Domino deficient, erunt impii judices, et erunt in argento judicare quomodo quisque volet.

VI. Tunc exurgent illis reges imperantes, et in sacerdotes summi Dei vocabuntur : facient facientes impietatem ab sancto sanctitatis. 2. Et succedet illis rex petulans, qui non erit de genere sacerdotum, homo temerarius et improbus,et judicabit

1 7. This usage is frequently found in the oldest biblical translations. See Ronsch, Zf, W, T, are simply a repetition of the phrase accipientes munera, I have bracketed them as a dittography. The only other alternative is to regard accipientes munera as representing hiapo- XrjirrovyTcs yj«3 D^yxia greedy after gain (Prov. xv. 27). There will then be no tautology in the verse: "They will respect the persons of the rich and be greedy of gain, and will wrest judgment on receiving presents." This form of the text would imply a knowledge of 1 Sam. viii. 3.

6. We have here a remarkable dittography, in which six lines of the MS. are repeated twice with some slight variations. The second is slightly more correct. The scribe no doubt intended to delete the former, but forgot. I here append the repeated portions side by side.

finis habita tiones eorum

leribus et ini-

quita tibus a deo ut

qui fa cit erunt impii

dices erunt in eam post

fines habita

tionis sceleribus

et iniquitatibus

a domino qui faciunt

erunt impii judices

Inerunt in campo

If we compare the concluding words of each column, it is clear that erunt in eam post in the first is corrupt for erunt in campo et. I have given above the text presupposed by the twofold text.

A Domino dejident. So I emend from the corrupt twofold text a deo ut qui facit and a dno qui faciunt. Hilgenfeld reads : adeo jus qui faciunt. Volkmar and Schmidt-Merx connect a domino and a deo respectively with what precedes, and proceed: Volkmar, (quae) qui faciunt

TEXT OF MS. CHAPTERS V. 6— VI. 2

tiones munenun et pervendent justitias accipien 6 do poenas* et ideo implebitur colo nia et finis habita tiones eorum see leribus et iniquita tibus a deo ut qui fa cit emnt impii ju dices erunt in earn post fines habita tionis sceleribus

erunt impii judices ; Schmidt- Merz, ut qui factarunt impie, judices erunt in ea inpost (=in posterum), etc.

^rvmJt in argento judicare. So I emend erunt in campo judicare. In campo ^y ^ypVt corrupt for ^ d/[)7iJpv»]D33. Erunt judicare is either corrupt for erunt judicautes or else it is to be referred back to the Hebrew, esr^ v.T" they will be intent or ready to juage.'* For this construction cf. 2 Chron. xxvi. 5. HUgenfeld takes in campo iv iredUfi, corrupt for ifixcdoif but the resulting sense is bad.

VI. 1. In summos sacerdotes Dei Yocabuntur. This emended text (see below) els dpxicpets rod Oeov K\7j0i/l<roifTat—u^irtDn Sy iKnpai D*n*?KS D*'?n:n. With this con- . struction cf. LXX., 1 Chron. xxiii. 14, iKXifjOrjaav els ^vMiv rod Aevi.Massoretic, hjj iKip

et iniquitatibus b a domino qui faciunt

erunt impii judices

inerunt in campo

judicare quomodo VI. quisquae volet tunc

exurgent illis re

ges imperantes et

in sacerdotes sum

mi dei vocabuntur

facient facientes

impietatem ab sancto 2 sanctitatis* et succedit illis

vhn oar = ** were numbered amon^ the tribe of Levi.'* But the Niphal H'yp has here a middle sense, as in Isa. xlviii. 2: *' they will number themselves amone the priests," i.e, **will cafl themselves priests." Thus the non-Greek expression els lepeTs K\7idTJv(u is to be explained from a Hebrew background. Instead of summos sacerdotes in the clause in summos sacerdotes Dei vocabuntur, the text reads sacerdotes summi. For the groiinds for this emendation see exegetical note, pp. 20, 21. Fritzsche unjustifiably changes in into qui.

Facient facientes: the wellknown Hebraism = iW nifc^y ; jet Schmidt-Merx emend it into in faciem facientes ! Yolkmar and Hilgenfeld omit facient, while Fitzsche omits facientes !

2. Succedet. MS. succedit.

illis quomodo digni erunt : 3. Qui elidet principales eorum gladio, et locis ignotis stinguet corpora illorum, ut nemo sciat ubi sint [corpora illorum] :

4. Occidet majores natu et juvenes, et non parcet.

5. Tunc timor erit illius acerbus [in eis] in terram eorum : 6. Et faciet in eis judicia, quomodo fecerunt in illis Aegyptii, per XXX et IIII annos, et punibit eos. 7. Et (p)roducet natos (qui su)ccedentes sibi breviora tempora dominarent. 8. In partes eorum cohortes venient et occidentis rex potens, qui expugnabit eos : 9. Et ducet captivos et partem aedis ipsorum igni incendet, (et) aliquos crucifiget circa coloniam eorum.

VII. Ex quo facto finientur tempora, momento (fini)etur cursus a(lter) horae IIII venient. 2. Co-

Judicobbit illis. Is this to be explained by uni p (cf. Ps. ex. 6), or shoula we correct illis into illos ?

3. Elideb, MS. elidit Stinguet, So Bonsch, from

MS. singuli et. Hilgenfeld, se^eliet ; Schmidt-Merx, jugiilabit. Stinguet =extinguet. [Corpora illorum] I have, with Schmidt-Merx, bracketed as an intrusion.

4. Occidet. MS. occldit. Hilgenfeld and Volkmar omit the et before non: "and he will not spare the young. "■

5. Acerbus. MS.acervus. With Schmidt-Merx I bracket in eis.

6. Punibit. Hilgenfeld and Volkmar, from puniunt.

7. {P)rodv4:et natos {qui su)ece-

denies sibi breviora tempora dominaremJl. So Hilgenfeld and Fritzsche, emending donarent of MS. into dominarent. Volkmar, (p)roducet natos, (qi d)ecedentes sibi duriora tempora donarent ; Schmidt-Merx, (p)roducet natos succedentes sibi et punientes eos breviora tempora donee repente.

8. Partes. MS. pares. Cohortes. So Volkmar, from MS. mortes. Gutschmidt, hostes ; Ronsch, martiales.

OcdderUis. MS. occidentes. Qui. So Schmidt-Merx, from quia.

9. Ducet. MS. ducent. Incendet. MS. incendit. Et I have added with Schmidt-Mevz.

Crucifiget. MS. crucifigit

TEXT OF MS. CHAPTERS VI. 3— VII. 2

rex petulans qui non erit de genere sacerdotum' homo temerarius et im probus et judicabit illis quomodo dig

3 ni erunt' qui elidit principales eorum gladio' et locis igno tis singuli et corpo ra illorum ut ne mo sciat ubi sint

77a corpora illorum

4 occidit majores natu et juvenes

5 et non parcet* tunc timor erit illius a cervus in eis in ter

6 ram eorum* et faci et in eis judicia quo modo fecerunt in

VII. 1. Facto. Schmidt-Merx omit.

(Fi7U)etur. So Hilgenfeld, Yolkmar, Wieseler. Schmidt- Merx and Colani read (8eqa)etur.

A{lter), So Schmidt-Merx, Colani. Yolkmar, quando : Hilgenfeld, a(eyi).

FmieiU. So Hilgenfeld, Yolkmar, Schmidt-Merx, from MS. yeniant.

illis aegypti per et liii' annos et pu

7 niunt eos 'et . . rodz^ cit natos . . . eoeden tea sibi breviora tem

8 pora donarent in pares eorum mor tis Yenient et occi dentes rex potens quia expugnabit eos

9 et ducent captives et partem aedis ipso rum igni incendit aliquos crucifigit circa coloniam eorum

b VII. ex quo facto finien tur tempora nomen to ... . etur cursus 2 niant coguntur secun

2. Though it is quite impossible to restore this verse, many scholars have made the attempt We cannot discover the actual words of the writer : even if we knew them, their interpretation would be difficult, as the^ are enigmatical or symbohcal. Yet certain scholars presume they know the hidden meaning of the writer, and re-

gentur secun 3. Et regnabunt de

his homines pestilentiosi et impii, dicentes se esse justos. 4. Et hi concelabunt iram animorum suorum, qui erunt homines dolosi, sibi placentes, ficti in omnibus suis et omni hora diei amantes eonvivia,

devoratores, gulae. 5 6. (Paupe)rum

bonorum comestores, dicentes se haec facere propter misericordiam suam 7. sed ut exterminarent eos, quaeru(losi), fallaces, celantes se ne possent cognosci, impii, in scelere pleni et iniquitate ab (sole)

store!tbe text accordingly. With such a defective text to start from, they can easily read their own ideas into it, and they so manage their restorations as to make the text attest the period they have settled beforehand. Hilgenfeld restores as foUows : Ex quo facto finienturtempora.'momento (fini)etur cursus a(eyi). horae IIII venient. Coguntur secus (septim)as 'Vir pos(tumas) initiis tribus ad exitiis. Villi propter initium, tres septimae secunda, tria in tertia, duae quartae. Volkmar, Ex quo facto finientur tempora . momento (fini)etur cursus, q(ando) horae •IIII* veniant. Coguntur secun(da, medi)a, e(t sic) pos(tuma in) initiis tribus ad exitus. VIII propter initium . tres {^(as) septimae. Secunda tria. in tertia duae (p)eractae. Schmidt-Merx, Ex quo finientur tempora momento . (sequ)etur cursusalter ; horae 'IIII' venient. Cogentur secun(do septiman)ae Villi, pos(tumae ab) initiis tribulationis ad exitus . Villi propter (fort, tempora) initiumi

tres septim(an)ae secunda, tria tertia, duae eractae. Colani, Ex quo facto finientur tempora momento . (sequ)etur cursus a(lter) . horae IIII venient . coguntur secu(li tempor)a e(jus) pos(trema) ab initiis tribu- (lationi)8 ad exitus Villi . propter initium tres septimae . secunda tria . in tertia duae (p)eractae. Wieseler, Horae IIII venient: cogentur secul(i septim)ae (dirae?) pos(tumae in) initiis tribus ad exitus Villi ; propter initium tres septimae, secunda tria(s), in tertia duae h(o)ra(e p)eraotae.

3. BegnabwU, Hilgenfeld and Schmidt-Merx, from MS. regnarunt. Is et regnarunt a Hebraism? z.e. "jWdv

Dicentes, HilgenMd, from MS. docentes.

4. Concelabunt, The MS. reads suscitabunt. But the following word dolosi and ficti seem to show that not the rousing of their anger, but its suppression or concealment, is the thought here required.

TEXT OF MS. CHAPTER VII. 3-7 • 79

initiis tribus ad 68as . . . n . . . ca

exitus 'viiii propter mcs diis ....

initium tres sep .... oinnis ....

timae secunda tria

3 ^ae et regnarunt roe elen

de his homines pes 6 tes rum bo

tilentiosi et impii norum comesto

docentes se esse res dicentes se haec

4 justos' et hi susci iacere propter mi tabunt iram animo sericordiam qu . , . rum suorxmi qui 7 se et extermina erunt homines do tores quaeru . . . losi sibi placentes fallaces celantes se ficti in omnibus suis ne possent cognos et omni hora diei ci impii in scelere amantes convivia pleni et iniquitate devoratores gulae ab oriente usque ad

Sibi placentes. This does not appear to give the right sense, coming as it does between dolosi and ficti. The corruption may be traceable to the Hebrew. Sibi placentes ^atn-oiS dp^a-Koyrcs DD!(y nM:rT ns^psD. Here DDsty may be corrupt for D'Disy, i.e, * * the mighty. * Hence we should render * * pleasers of the mighty. "

5. This verse, consisting of seven lines, is undecipherable.

6. {Paupe)rum, So Volkmar.

Suam, MS. qu . . . Volk-

mar, emends into eorum; HUgenfeld, quare.

7. Sed ut, MS. se et. Volkmar, si et ; Hilgenfeld, sicut ; Fritzsche, sed et.

Qttaeru{losi), MS. quaeru . . . Hilgenfeld, quaeru(nt) ; Volkmar, quaeru(nt qui); Fritzsche, queru(li et).

A b oriente usque ad occidentem, Cf. XI. 8. Observe that this= d0 ijXiov dvariXXoPTos lU^J^ ^^O' fUvov, Thus it can equally well mean "from east to west" or "from sunrise to sunset."

8o ASSUMPTIONIS MOYSI FRAGMENTA

oriente usque ad occidentem, 8. Dicentes : " Habebimus discubitiones et luxuriam, edentes et bibentes, et potabimus nos, tanquam principes erimus." 9. Et manus eorum et mentes immunda tractantes, et OS eorum loquetur ingentia, et superdicent : 10. " Noli (tu me) tangere, ne inquines me loco in quo

(ego) s(to)

VIII. Et (al)te(ra) veniet in eos ultio et ira, quae talis non fuit in illis a saeculo usque ad illud tempus, in quo suscitabit illis regem regum terrae et potentatem a potentia magna, qui confitentes circumcisionem in eruce suspendet, 2. Nam celantes torquebit et tradidit duci vinctos in

S, Mpotahimva. SoHilgenfeld, from et putavimus. Yolkmar, si mutavimus ; Ronsch, perpotabimus. If with Fritzsche we emend putavimus into putabimus, we should expunge erimus and render ''we shall esteem ourselves as princes."

9. Mentes. Hilgenfeld emends into dentes. The sentence — et manus eorum et mentes immunda tractantes et os eorum loquetur ingentia is thoroughly Hebraistic, beginning with a circumstantial clause. Cf. 1 Sam. mhii nan* onw.

1 0. Noli {tu me) tangere. So Volkmar.

VIII. 1. M {al)te{ra) veniet. So Schmidt-Merx restore. Cf. IX. 2. Hilgenfeld and Volkmar ; et cito adveniet ; Fritzsche, ec(ce) ta(nta) veniet.

Qu(ie talis non fuit in illis a saeculo usque ad Ulud tempus ota, o^K iyivero iv airrots i/irb Tov cUQvoi l^ui iKcivov rod Kcupov, This clause is based on Dan. xii. 1. Cf. Jer. XXX. 7. It will be observed that a saeculo usque ad illud tempus does not agree with the LXX. d0' od iycpi^driirav ?W5 TTJs ijfUfMi iKclvrjSf nor with Theodotion, d0 ^j ycyivTjrai ^$yos iv rj tJ Iws rod Kaipov ixelyov. It is nearer to the Syriac, which a diebus saeculorum, which is defective here. Instead of the Massoretic nvno ie\nn nyn nj; ♦la, our text and the Syriac imply K\nn nyn ny ly mD*D. Now it is remarkable that, in Mt. xxiv. 21, where this verse from Daniel recurs, we have practically the same text as that

Sresupposed by the Syriac of Daniel and by our text. Mt. zziv. 21 runs, $\i\l/is fieydXif, cXa

TEXT OF MS. CHAPTERS VI I. S—VIII. 2 81

8 ocddentein dicen tea habebimus dis cubitiones et luxu riam edentes et bibentes

Et ^tavimus nos b tanquam 'principea

9 erimus' et manus eorum et mentes inmunds, tractantes et OS eorum loque tur ingentia et m

10 per dicent noli .... ^ange ne mquines

VIII. in plebem quae s . . a. niet in eos ultio et ira quae talis non fuit in illis a saeculo usque ad ilium tern pus in quo susdta vit illis regem regum terrae et potesta tem a potentia mag na qui confitentes

67a circumcisionem in cruce suspendit 2 Nam necantes tor quebit et tradidit

od yiyovev dir* dpx^s Kdfffiov iltas rod pvy. Here dir dpxv^ Kdff/JLov is probably a free rendermg of ly JViDTD. In Isa. xliii 12, dir' dpXV^ is the LXX. rendering of DVD. alQpos wonld have been a better rendering of the Semitic original of Mt. than K6<rfiov, Thns there seems some connection between our text and Mt. zziv. 21. On the other hand, we have in Rev. xvi. 18 an independent rendering of the Hebrew of Dan. xii. 1. For similar phraseology, of. Jer.

Potentatem, SoBonsch, from potestatem. Yet potestatem may rby i^ownd^ovTaiih^i^rt, Potestatem a potentia magna may = rbp i^owrid^ojn-a i^ovalg. fieydXiif.

Su8pendet, MS. suspendit.

Illvd, MS. ilium. SuscitcUnt. MS. suscitavit.

2. Celantes. So I emend necantes of MS. Hilgenfeld, negantes ; Schmidt- Merz, non negantes. Those who conceal their circumcision are set over against those who openly confess it. Or should we read (circum)- secantes, or possibly secantes

cufltodiam. 3. Et uxores eorum deis donabuntur (in) gentibus, et filii eorum pueri secabuntur a medicis inducere acrobistiam illis. 4. Nam illi in eis punientur in tormentis et igne et ferro, et cogentur palam baiulare idola eorum inquinata, quomodo sunt pariter continentibus ea. 5. Et a torquentibus illos pariter cogentur intrare in abditum locum eorum, et cogentur stimulis blasfemare verbum contumeliose, novissime post haec leges et quod haberent supra altarium suum.

IX. Tunc illo die erit homo de tribu Levi, cujus nomen erit Taxo, qui habens VII fiHos dicet ad eos rogans : 2. " Videte, filii, ecce ultio facta est in plebe altera crudelis inmunda et traductio sine misericordia et eminens principatum. 3. Quae enim gens, aut quae regio, aut quis populus impiorum in Dominum, qui multa scelesta fecerunt, tanta

only, = ** those who circumcise. Cf. 1 Mace. i. 61, where it is recorded that those who did this operation were put to death.

M tradidit. If the text is correct, we have here an instance of strong yay with the perfect. Nam celantes torquebit et tradidit =n3r onTJODrmKi JW1. Previous editors emend tradidit into tradet. If we must change, we should probably read tradibit(?).

3. Deis dondbuntwr (in) gentibus, MS. diisdonabuntur gentibus. So Merz, but that he

reads dominis instead of deis. Haupt, disdonabuntur (=d(a5o- 6ij(TovTaC) gentibus.

Medicis, MS. adds pueri, which I omit, with Sclunidt- Merx and Fritzsche.

Secabuntur, Schmidt - Merx add et venabuntur.

iTvducere acrobisticmi. MS. inducere acrosisam.

5. Novissime post Tiaee, These two expressions may have arisen from two alternative renderings of the same Hebrew word or phrase.

Leges et, MS. et leges. This is the simplest and, so far as I

TEXT OF MS. CHAPTERS VIII. 3— IX. 3

duci vinctoB in cus

3 todiam et uxores eorum diis donabun tur gentibus

Et filii eorum pueri secabantur a medicis pueri inducere ac

4 rosisam illis nam illi in eifl punientur in tormentis et igne

et ferro* et cogen tur palam bajulare idola eorum iniqui nata quomodo sunt pariter continen

5 tibus ea et a torquen tibus illos pariter co gentur intrare in abditum locum eo rum* et cogentur

b stimulis blasfema re verbum contu meliose* novissime post haec et leges quod haberent su pra altarium suum IX. tunc illo dicente ho mo de tribu leuui cujus nomen erit taxo* qui habens "vii* filios dicens ad eos

2 rogans videte filii ecce ultio facta est in plebe altera cru delis immunda et traductio sine mi sericordia et emi nent principatum

3 quae enim gens aut quae regie aut quis

see, the most satisfactory emendation of the text. Hilgenfeld emends leges into legis, and takes it as genitive dependent on quod. Yomnar changes quod into quas. Schmidt-Merz would omit et leges or read et legis (latorem et). Fritzsche reads et leges et.

IX. 1. Die erit. So Schmidt- Merx, from dicente. Yolkmar, edicenti ; Hilgenfeld, ducente.

JDieet, MS. dicens.

Traductio =i\€yxos. Cf. Wis- (Ronsch).

2. Mninens principatum = ifir€- p^tav T^v dpxV* So Ronsch and Hilgenfeld, from eminent principatum. Schmidt-Merx and Fritzsche, dementia principatunm.

3. Dominum, So Hilgenfeld. MS. domum.

mala passi sunt, quanta nobis contegerunt? 4. Nunc ergo, filii, audite me; videte enim et sdte, quia nunquam temptan(te)s Deum, nee parentes (nostri), nee proavi eorum, ut praetereant mandata Illius. 5. Scitis enim quia haec sunt vires nobis. Et hoc faciemus. 6. Jejunemus triduo, et quarto die intremus in speluncam quae est in agro est, et moriamur potius, quam praetereamus mandata Domini Domimorum, Dei parentum nostrorum. 7. Hoc enim si faciemus et moriemur, sanguis noster vindicabitur coram Domino. X. Et tunc parebit regnum illius in omni creatura UUus

Et tunc Zabulus finem habebit,

Et tristitia cum eo abducetur.

2. Tunc implebuntur manus nuntii. Qui erit in summo constitutus,

Qui protinus vindicabit illos ab inimicis eorum.

3. (Exur)get enim Caelestis a sede regni sui, Et exiet de habitatione sancta sua

4. Nunqvamtempta/rUesDeumf nee parerUes (nostri), nee proam eorum, I have here added nostri witli Schmidt-Merx, and emended temptans of the MS. into temptantes, as Yolkmar. The construction is purely Semitic. The clause = tne Hebrew qj'k DnuK DJ \yi\2H D3 D'nSirnK d'ojd. The Aramaic is similar, pjn^S *Vn' po3D. HUgenfeld's emendation of temptans into temp-

tavimus is a strong measure, and is likewise against the context. The speaker is ureing his sons to do as their fathers before them, who never tempted God nor transgressed His commandments. And so, in ver. 7, he urges them to die rather than transgress.

5. F(wiem,%bs, Hilgenfeld emends into faciamus.

6. Spelumxim, MS.8pelunca,

TEXT OF MS. CHAPTERS IX. 4— X. 3

populus impiorum in ddmum qui mul ta scelesta fecerunt tanta mala passi sunt 91a quanta nobis contegerunt

4 Nunc ergo filii audite me videte enim et scite quia nunquam temptans deiun nee pa rentes nee proavi eorum ut praetere ant mandata illius

5 scitis enim quia haec sunt vires nobis

6 et hoc faciemus jeju nemus triduo* et quarto die intremus in spelunca quae in agro est et moria mur potius quam praetereamus man

data domini dominorum dei

7. FindicaMtur. MS. vindicavitar.

X. 1. ZdbtUiuf, i,e. diabulas. This form is frequent in the Latin fathers. Of. Lactant. De Tnort, pers, XVI., a te Zabulus victus est.

TristUia. MS. tristitiam.

Abdttcetw, So Hilgenfeld and

parentum nostro

7 rum* hoc enim si fa ciemus et morie mur sanguis nos ter vindicavitur

i coram domino X. Et tunc parebit reg num illius in omni creatura illius Et tunc zabulus finem habebit et tristitiam cum eo adducetur

2 Tunc implebuntur manus nuntii qui est in summo cons titutus* qui proti nus vindicavit illos . ab inimicis eorum

3 get enim caeles

tis a sede regni sui et exiet de habita tione sancta sua cum

Volkmar, from adducetur. Schmidt-Merx, deducetur.

2. ImplehmUti/r manus. The phrase 1' ic^o means, to give full powers to.

ErU, MS. est.

VindicoMt, MS. vindicavit.

3. Cwn indignationem et ircmi. For the emendation of

t Cum indignationein et iram t propter filios

4. Et tremebit terra, usque ad fines suas con-

cutietur, Et alti montes humiliabuntur Et colles concutientur et cadent.

5. (Et) cornua solis confringentur et in tenebras

convertet se, Et luna non dabit lumen et tota convertet se

in sanguinem, Et orbis stellarum conturbabitur.

6. Et mare usque ad abyssum decedet, Et fontes aquarum deficient,

Et fiumina exarescent ;

this corrupt text, see exegetical note on X. 3.

4. Schmidt-Merx bracket concutietur et.

M alti montes humiliabtmtur = Kal tA ^\^Xd Taireiwd'^ffeTai. This phrase is ultimately derived fromlsa. xl. 4, probably through

JEt collea ccmcutientii/r et cadent. The MS. is here impossible : et concutientur et convalles cadent. In the first place, it would be absurd to speak of the mountains being shaken after they had already been brought low ; and in the next, the valleys cannot be described as falling. Convalles is clearly wrong, and if we turn to Isa. xl. 4, wav 6poi Kal fiovvbs rairetfw^'J^o'rrcu, and Eth. En. i. 6, Kal aeurBific-opTai Kai trca-oOrrai Kal dcaXv^i^(rorrai

6fni d^hjXA KoX rair€iif(o6^0PTai fiovvol if\Jrff\ol (Greek Version), on which the present passage is based, we shall see that convalles should be colles, and that concutientur should be connected with cadent. So Eth. En. i. 6, <r€ia$T^ovTai Kal Treaodyrai, This corruption might possibly have arisen in the Latin. It is easy to explain it as a confusion of niyp3 with myaa.

5. (M) cornua solis , , . in sanguinem. The MS. reads, sol non dabit lumen et in tenebris convertent se cornua lunae et confringentur et tota convertit se in sanguine, which Hilgenfeld foUows, merely changing convertit into convertet. This verse is clearly corrupt. Fritzsche emended tenebris convei*tentinto tenebras convertet, convertit in-

TEXT OF MS. CHAPTER X. 4-6

indignationem et iram propter fiKos 4 suos et tremebit terra usque ad fi nes suae concutie tur* et alti montes humiliabuntur 92a et concutientur et convalles cadent

to convertet, and omits et before confringentor. Schmidt-Merx deal drastically with the text. They omit et in tenebris convertent se and et tota convertit se in sanguine as marginal glosses from Acts ii. 20. But they failed to remark that Joel iL 31 is the source of these phrases, and not Acts ii. 20. They further object (and I believe riffhtly) to the expression comua lunae, and think that cornua belongs to sol. Hence they read : et comua soils confringentur et luna non dabit lumen. It is not necessary, however, to delete the above phrases. They are well-known O.T. expressions. This, indeed, might favour the idea of their being glosses, but the fact that their removal would destroy the vigour of the text makes for their retention. Hence the text requires to be dealt with differently. First of all, in tenebras convertet se is a phrase nearly always used of the sun. Cf. Eccles. xii. 2 ;

5 sol non dabit lumen et in tenebris con vertent se comua lunae et confringen tur et tota conver tit se in sanguine et orbis stellarum con

6 turvavitur* et ma

re usque ad abyssum

vi. 12, ix. 2. Hence we have good grounds for connecting it with the sun in this passage, against the MS., which relates it to the moon. Secondly, the phrase non dabit lumen is not used of the sun, but of the moon only. Cf. Ezek. xxxii. 7 ; Mt. may be due to the paranomasia in the phrase in Hebrew: nv mK TK^-K*?. Thirdly, tota convertet se in sanguinem is only used of the moon : Joel ii. 31 ; , Actsii. 20 ; Rev. vi. 12. Finally, I accept Merx's view that cornua confringentur must be connected with sol. Hence the passage should read —

(Et) comua solis confringentur et in tenebras convertet

Et luna non dabit lumen et tota convertet se in sanguinem.

CorUurbabitur, MS. conturvavitur.

6. Decedet. MS. decedit.

Etfontes, MS. ad fontes.

Exarescent, So Haupt, from MS. expavescent. Cf. Test Levi iv. ifSdruv ^rjpcuvofUvotv,

7. Quia exTirget Sommus, Deus aetemus solus, Et palam veniet ut vindicet gentes,

Et perdet omnia idola eorum.

8. Tunc felix eris tu Istrahel,

Et ascendes supra cervices [et alas] aquilae, Et implebuntur (dies luctus tui).

9. Et altabit te Deus,

Et faciet te herere caelo stellarum, t Loco habitationis eorum t :

10. Et conspicies a summo et videbis inimicos

tuos in Ge(henna), Et cognosces illos et gaudebis, Et ages gratias et confiteberis creatori tuo.

11. Nam tu, Jesu Nave, custodi verba haec et hunc librum. 12. Erunt enim a morte — receptione — m(ea) usque ad adventum illius tempora CCL quae fient. 13. Et hie cursus (erit) horum quern convenient donee consummentur. 14. Ego autem ad dormitionem patrum meorum cam. 15. Itaque tu, Jesu Nave, (confortare, et) firma te (nam te) elegit Deus esse mihi successorem ejusdem testamenti

7. Exurget, MS. exurgit. AeUmus solus. Schmidt-Merx transpose after deus in ver. 9.

8. Implebuntur, In the lacuna already recognised by Merx and Fritzsche, following Dr. Cheyne's apt suggestion, I have supplied dies luctus tui from Isa. Ix. 20, where the context, as he points out, deals with Israel's glorious future on earth.

9. AltcibU, MS. altavit.

Faciet te herere, Herere, i,e, haerere=/icoXX6urdac, which may be a rendering of yu or ^ii (Job

9-10. Loco Jiabitatumis eorum. For my emendation of this corrupt text, see exegetical note on X. 9. Schmidt-Merx think the words are transposed, and write them as follows : et videbis

TEXT OF MS. CHAPTER X. 7-15

decedit ad fontes aquarum deficient et flumina expaves

7 cent* quia exurgit summus deus aetemus solus et palam ve

niet ut vindicet gen tes et perdet om nia idola eorum

8 Tunc felix eris tu is trahel et ascendes supra cervices et alas aquilae et in

i 9 plebuntur et alta

vit te deus et faciet te herere caelo stella rum loco habitatio

10 nis eorum* et cons pi^es a summo et vi

des inimicos tuos in terram et cognos ces illos et gaudebis et agis gratias et con fiteberis creatori

1 1 tuo nam tu jesu na ue custodi verba haec et hunc librum

12 erunt enim a morte receptionem usque ad adventum illius tempera *ccl* quae

13 fiunt et hie cursus . . . horum quern conveniunt donee consummentur

14 Ego autem ad dormi tionem patrum me

100a 1 5 orum eram itaque

inimicos tuos in terra et conspicies a summo locos habitationis eorum.

10. Conspides, MS. conspiges. Videbis, MS. vides. OeiTienna), So I emend and restore the corrupt text terram. See exegetical note on X. 10 for the grounds for so doing. Ages, MS. agis.

11. Nam, Hilgenfeld, jam.

12. A morte — rec^tione — m{ea), Volkmar and Fritzsche,a morte et receptione mea ; Hilgen-

feld, a morte mea; Schmidt- Merx, a receptione mea=dir6

Fient, So Hilgenfeld, from MS. fiunt.

13. Convenient, MS. conveniunt. This is a peculiar use of this word. Ronsch thinks that it represents fjLeOodei^owny. Fritzsche emends into conficient.

14. Ham. So all editors, from eram.

16. (Confortare et) firma, te

XI. Et cum audisset Jesus verba Moysi tain scripta in sua scriptura (quam) omnia quae praedixerat, scidit sibi vestimenta et procidit ad pedes Mouse. 2. Et hortatus est eum Mon8e£( et ploravit cum eo. 3. Et respondit illi et dixit Jesus : 4. *' Quid me Solaris, domine Mouse ? et quo genere Belabor de qua locutus es voce acerba quae exivit de ore tuo, quae est plena lacrimis et gemitibus, quia tu discedis de plebe ist(a) ? 5. (Sed ec)quis locus recipiet (jam) te ? 6. Aut quod erit monumentum sepulturae ? 7. Aut quis audebit corpus tuum transferre inde ut homo de loco in locum ? 8. Omnibus enim morientibus secus aetatem sepulturae suae sunt in terris ; nam tua sepultura ab oriente sole usque ad occidentem et ab austro usque ad fines aquilonis: omnis orbis terrarum

{nam te). So I have restored with Schmidt-Merz. For firma the MS. reads fonna. The text here unquestionably goes back to the phrase with which Moses addressed Joshua in Deut. xxxi. critical note on I. 10. This phrase is of frequent occurrence later, 1 Chron. xix. 13, xxii. 13, xxviii. 20 ; 2 Chron. xxxii. 7 ;

For forma Hilgenfeld reads firma, presumably meaning firmare ; Volkmar, firma te. Tarn. Volkmar adds dicta quam.

{Quam), I haye added quam after scriptura ; Schmidt-Merx and Fritzsche add it after omnia. Hilgenfeld makes no addition, but takes tam =oDtw.

Praedixerat, MS. praedixerant.

Mouse, MS. gives meos. Schmidt-Merx, Mose ; but see crit. note on III. 11. Volkmar, Moysis ; Hilgenfeld, Mosis.

2. Hortattis est = Tape Kd\c<r€.

Bwm, So Ronsch, Hilgenfeld and Schmidt-Merx, from cum. Mouses. MS. Mouse. Fritzsche ; Moyses.

4. Solaris . . . solahor. So Schmidt-Merx and Hilgenfeld, from MS. celares . , . celabor.

TEXT OF MS. CHAPTER XL i-8

100a tu jesu naue forma te elegit deus esse mihi successorem ejasdem

XI. testamenti' et cum audisset jesus verba moysi tam scripta in sua scriptura om nia quae praedixerant scidit sibi vestimen ta et procidit ad pe

2 dee meos et horta tus est cum mouse et ploravit cum eo

3 Et respondit illi et

4 dixit iesus' quid me ce lares domine mouse

et quo geneie cela bor de qua locutus est voce acerva que exivit de ore tuo quae est plena la

Volkmar, zelaris . . . zelabor. Quid me solaria . . . solabor= rl fie wapcKaXeTs xal rlvi, Tp&iru irapaKXifOiiffOfMi^T^^ ':nDm kdV DmnK.

Dequo, Volkmar, Schmidt- Merx, and Fritzsche emend into de qua.

JSs, MS. est.

Acerba quae, MS. acerva que.

5. I8t{a. Sed ecjquis, ^ I

crimis et gemitibus quia tu discedis de

h plebe ist

5 quis locus recipi^ ....

6 te aut quod erit mo nimientum sepul

7 turae aut quis aude vit corpus tuum trans ferre in eut homo de loco in locum

8 Omnibus enim mori entibus secus acta tem sepulturae su ae sunt in terris nam tua sepultura ab oriente sole usque ad occidentem* et

ab austro usque ad fi nes aquilonis omnis orbis terrarum se pulcrum est tuum

restore. Hilcenfeld ist(a raodo) ; Volkmar, ist(a multa) ; Schmidt- Merx, i8t(a et jam) ; Fritzsche, ist(a yerum).

Hecipiet (ja/m). So I restore with Fritzsche. Hilgenfeld, recipiendi ; Schmidt-Merx, recipiet (nunc).

7. Audebit, MS. audevit. Tnde ut. So Gutschmidt, from in«ut.

sepulcrum est tuum. 9. Domine, abis, et quis nutriet plebem istam? 10. Aut quis est qui miserebitur illis, et quis eis dux erit in via? 11. Aut quis orabit pro eis, nee patiens ne unum quidem diem, ut inducam illos in terram atavorum ? 12. Quomodo ergo potero plebem banc tanquam pater unicimi filium, aut tanquam domina filiam virginem, quae paratur dari viro, quem timebit, corpus custodiens ejus a sole et ne (sint) scalciati pedes ejus ad currendimi supra terram. 13. (Et qui) [de voluntate eorum] praestabo illis ciborum et potui secus voluptatem voluntatis eorum ? 14.

9. Ahis. So Schmidt-Merx and Hilgenfeld, from ab his. Nutriet, MS. nutrit.

11. Nee patiens ne unum diem o(f8i wapteli oiSefilat^ ii/Upav. Now irapt€/j " permitting " or "omitting." The Latin translator wrongly followed the former meaning. Hence for patiens read praetermittens. Hence there is no need to suppose a confusion of irdaxui' and wofr^fftop with Fritzsche, or regard patiens as a corruption of fatiscens with Schmidt-Merx. For unum, MS. reads uno.

Diem. Hilgenfeld and Schmidt-Merx change into die.

Ata/vorum, So Ronsch, from araborum. Cf. I. 8. Schmidt- Merx, abavorum ; Ewald, Amorreorum.

12. Potero plebem hanc. This I take to hedvva<rTc^(r(a rbv \abv TovTw ntn oya Wdk. Bwa(n'€(>ci,v is a rendering of

Wo in the LXX., and in 1 Chron. xvi. 21 and Dan. xi. 4 governs an accusative. Here, as in ver. 11, we have to render not the Latin word before us, but the Greek, which it presupposes. In ver. 17 we have to resolve the difficulty similarly.

For ergo potero, Hilgenfeld first suggested regere potero, then eeo potero. He also suggests that potero may be corrupt for procuro. Yolkmar thinks that potero =di;in^(ro/uii, which is corrupt for iiy^ffOfMU or bBrjyfiaofMi, According to Bonsch {Z,f, W, T, or JwaoreiJerw; {Z,f,W,T, 1869, 8wa<rrei^<a,

Domina jUiam virginem. So I emend filiam dominam virginem. Yolkmar took Kvpiav= begotten of his own body, but this is impossible. Merx reads filia dominam virginem. Fritzsche, filiam domina virgi-

TEXT OF MS. CHAPTER XI. 9-14

9 domine ab his

Et quis nutrit plebem

1 istam aut quis est qui miserebitur il lis et quis eis dux erit

00a in via* aut quis ora bit pro eis* nee pati ens ne uno quidem diem ut indueam il los in terram ara

12 borum* quomodo ergo potero plebem banc tanquam pa ter unicum filium aut tanquam filiam

dominam virginem quae paratur taK vi ro quae timebat cor pus custodiet ejus a sole et ne scalcia ti pedes ejus ad cur

13 rendum supra ter

ram de vo

luntatem eorum praestabo illis ci borum et potui se CUB voluntatem voluntatis eorum

14 enim illorum

i erant *c* milia* nam

nem. If we could reject the second tanquam, we might then take dominam to be a rendering of Kvplav, and this in turn to be a corruption of ibpcUap, The sense then would be admirable, '* as a father (his) only son or his comely virgin-daughter."

Dari viro. So I emend tali viro. Cf. Ecclus. vii. 25, ix^ov Bvyardpa , . . xal dv5pl trvvenfi d<bpria<u airrfiv. These words were most probably before the writer, as he has clearly drawn upon vii. 24, irpbaexe r^t ffd>fMTi airCjv, Volkmar reads (nup)t(i)- ali viro ; Schmidt-Merx, thalamo viri ; Ronsch, tradi viro.

Quem timebat. So Bonsch, from quae timebat, comparing

Syr. Vers, and Arab.), which seems to have been in the mind of the writer: Bvydrrip 8^ cdo-- Xhl^^^ "Ctti rbv&ydpa ivrpafn/jaerai, Bonsch thus restores the Greek irapd4vov TrapaaKeva^ofiiyTfv ixBo- Orjvai dySpl dp ivTpa,iHi<T€Tai,

13. {EtquVj. So Volkmar and Schmidt - Merx supply the lacuna ; Hilgenfeld, quid.

[De vdurUate eorum], I have bracketed this phrase as a dittography.

Secus voluptatem voluntatis eorum =Di^v^ fsna. Cf. Ephes. i. 5. MS. secus voluntatem voluntatis eorum. Other editors read secus voluntatem voluptatis eorum.

14. [Firi], So Hilgenfeld supplies the lacuna, comparing

(Viri) enim illorum erunt (D)C milia, nam isti in tantum increveront in tuis orationibus, domine Monse. 15. Et quae est mihi sapientia aut intellectus in domo (Domini) verbis aut judicare aut respondere? 16. Sed et reges Amorreorum tum audebunt expugnare nos, (et) credentes jam non esse t semet t sacrum spiritum dignum Domino, multiplicem et incompraehensibilem, dominum verbi, fidelem in omnia, divinum per orbem terrarum profetem, consummatum in saeculo doctorem jam non esse in eis, dicent : ' Eamus ad eos. 17. Si inimici impie fecerunt semel adhuc in

Exod. xii. 37 ; Yolkmar, copia ; Sohmidt-Merx, numerus.

Brunt, So Fritzsche, from erant.

(Z?) I have supplied from Exod. xii. 37.

iTicreverunt. So Hilgenfeld, from qui crevemnt. Bonsch emends qni into quidem. Hence in tantum quidem = e/s ToaoGrov

15. {Domini), So, rightly, former editors supply the lacuna in the MS.

16. Tum auddmnt expugnare no8. So I emend cum audierint expugnare nos. This, I think, ^ves the right sense to expugnare nos, making nos the object of expugnare. This thought is put into the mouths of the Amorites at the close of the verse : eamus ad eos. Schmidt- Merx add audebunt after audierint : cum audierint audebunt expugnare nos.

Non ease semet, Hilgenfeld takes semet ^avr6i', corrupt for iavTuy, Hence non esse semet is derived from oifK^t elyai iavrQy * * was no longer amongst them." Volkmar regards semet a{tT6v, corrupt for a&r6y, i,e, Moses. Wieseler emends it into semel, Schmidt-Merx into semen, and Ronsch into senem. Schmidt -Merx supply in eis before semen. Semet is corrupt, I think, for secum ffi>y avroU, a miswriting of a-i>y airroTs. Thus non esse cum eis is the same practically as the phrase at the close of the verse, non esse in eis.

Jam non esse in eis, Schmidt- Merx brackets. Dicent, MS. dicens.

17. Inimid, Schmidt-Merx, enim ei.

QuoTnodo MoTises ferehat Tnagnus nuntius. So I emend quomodo Monse erat ma^us

TEXT OF MS. CHAPTER XL 15-17

isti in tantum qui creverunt in tuis orationibus domine mon

15 se* et quae est mihi sapientia aut intelle lectus in domo .... verbis aut judicare aut respondere

16 sed et reges amor reorum cum audie rint expugnare nos credentes jam non esse semet sacrum

nuntius ; for the reading of the MS. does not give the sense required by the context. The words quomodo Moses erat must be connected either with non est defensor : ** thev have no advocate like unto Moses"; or with qui ferat pro eis praeces : **to offer prayers for them as Moses offered." If we pursue the latter course, we must emend erat into ferebat. Then quomodo Mouses ferebat praeces willm'?sn kjtj nro nB^KD. This I have done above. But the latter course may be preferable. * * No advocate like Moses ' * is more suitable to the context. Hence the error originated with the Greek translator, who misrendered ^n:n •\H^Drt nBrDD ''like unto Moses the great messenger." Previous editors have failed to remark this difficulty.

spiritum dignum domino multiplicem et in conpraehensibilem dominum verbi fidelem in omnia divinum per orbem terra rum profetam con summatum in sae culo doctorem jam non esse in eis di 98a cens Eamus ad e 17 OS si inimici impie fecerunt semel ad

Intuens potentem omnia orbis terra/rum cum misericordia. The MS. gives the corrupt text, intuens homini potentem orbem terrarum cum misericordia. First of all, cum misericoi'dia is clearly an adverbial phrase qualifying potentem. Hence potentem is to be regarded as a participle governing orbem and

?ualified by cum misericordia. t is thus obvious that homini cannot be compounded with it. It can only then belong to orbem terrarum. Hence we must read either omnem orbem terrarum or omnis orbis terrarum. The text thus runs : intuens potentem omnis orbis terrarum cum misericordia ^Atj8X^irw»' c/y rbv dwaareiDoyTa irai^r6$ toO KbafMv iv i\erf/JMa^v'(j hmDn hv nyiB? D*Dma D^iyn ^d-jik. See note on potero in XL 12. For Greek expressions justifying the above,

Dominum sumn, non est defensor illis qui ferat pro eis praeces Domino, quomodo Monses ferebat magnus nuntius, qui singulis horis, diebus et noctibus, habebat genua sua infixa in terra, orans et intuens potentem omms orbis terrarum cum misericordia et justitia, reminiscens testamentum parentum et jurejurando placando Dominum.' 18. Dicent enim : ' Non est cum eis : eamus itaque et confundamus eos a facie terrae.' 19. Quod ergo fiet plebi isti, domine Mouse ? "

XII. Et postquam finivit verba Jesus, iterum procidit ad pedes MonsL 2. Et Monses prendit manum ipsius et erexit ilium in cathedra ante se, et respondit et dixit illi : 3. '' Jesu, te ne contemnas, sed praebe te securum et adtende verbis meis. 4. Omnes gentes quae sunt in orbe terrarum Deus

cf. 3 Mace. ii. 7, ry t^s iiirdanjs ktIvcws dvyaare^oyTt. ; v. 7, rby . . . irdcriys dwdfJxoK dvvturTc^ovra; Ezn viii. 13, 6 tA wdvra $vpa<rr€6(av 0c6s,

Previoos editors tried many ways of emendation, of which the best are: Hilgenfeld, intnens omnipotentem orbem terrarum, which, he thinks, implies eltropQv t6p irdm-a Kparovvra rby Kifffiov, Is this conceivable ? Schmidt-Merx, intnens omni potent(ia tenent)em orbem terrarum dTci'f (ras vavrl <r$iv€i ict\ Aramaic, ^*n ^aa Kon mdVj; in^ mV. It is possible tiiat omnem does not belong to the text at aU. It may haye

arisen from the corruption of Vy into ^3.

JUminiacens = dyafufin^aKUfp, So Ronsch points out (Z,f. W, T,

Flaoamdo = placans. See critical note on accipiendo poenas in V. 5.

18. Canfundamtu. We must here translate, not the Latin word, but the Greek ffvyx^Cafuv^ which it implies.

Fade, MS. faciae.

XII. 2. Monses, MS. Mouse.

8. lesu te ne. So Hilgenfeld, from lesus et ne. Schmidt- Merx, lesu, set ne.

4. Orbe, MS. ore.

Ut nos. So Bonsch, from

TEXT OF MS. CHAPTERS XL i8— XII. 4 97

hue in dominum suum non est defensor illis qui ferat pro eis praeces domino quomodo mouse erat magnus nunti UB* qui singulis horis diebus et noctibus ha bebat genua sua in fixa in terra orans et intuens homini potentem orbem terrarum cum mi sericordia et jus titia reminiscens testamentum pa rentum* et jure jurando placando 18 dominum dicent enim non est ille cum eis

eamus itaque et con b f undamus eos a fa

19 ciae terrae quod ergo fiet plebi isti

XII. domine mouse et post quam finivit ver ba iesus iterum pro cidit ad pedes monsi

2 Et mouse prendit manum ipsius et e rexit ilium in cathe dra ante se* Et res pondit et dixit illi

3 iesus* et ne contem nas sed praebe te securum et adten

4 de verbis meis om nes gentes quae sunt in ore terra'rum deus creavit et nos

et nos. Schmidt-Merx, (iUos) et nos. Hilgenfeld connects nos with praevidit. Schmidt- Merx omit the following illos et nos.

Usque ad. So Gutschmidt, from ut ad.

Praevidit et promovU cunda. So I emend praevidit et provovit cum eis ; for in connection with praevidit we require another verb expressive of fiction^ as

in the preceding words, creavit . . . praevidit, and in the clause immediately subsequent, providit et ecce aufertur (*.c. affertur). Foreknowledge and action, or thought and actuality, are one in the divine mind.

Yolkmar reads praevidit et pronovit cum eis ; Schmidt- Merx, praenovit et providit cunctis ; Hilgenfeld, praevidit et pronovit cunctis,

creavit at nos, praevidit illos et nos ab initio creaturae orbis terrarum usque ad exitum saeculi, et nihil est ab eo neglectum usque ad pusillum, sed omnia praevidit et promovit cuncta. 6. (Et) Dominus omnia quae futura essent in hoc orbe terrarum providit et ecce affertur (in lucem. 6. Dominu)s me oonstituit pro eis ut pro peccatis eorum (orarem) et in(plorare(m) pro eis. 7. Non enim propter meam virtutem aut [in]finnitatem, sed temperantius misericordiae ipsius et patientia contegerunt mihL 8. Dico enim tibi, Jesu: Non propter pietatem plebis hujus exterminabis gentes. 9. Lumina caeli fundamenta orbis facta et probata a Deo et sub annulo dexterae Illius sunt. 10.

5. (JSt), Yolkmar and Hil- Temperantius. Over against

§ enfold supply the lacuna with non propter meam virtutem aut

eus ; Fritzsche, with ut. firmitatem we expect an expres-

Affertur. So Yolkmar, from sion of God's will or purpose :

aufertur. not my worth, but God's pur-

5-6. (In lucem, . . . Dofmnu)8, pose or call. Now, if we re-

ue. in lucem dfis. So I supply translate our text into Hebrew,

the lacuna, but there seems to we shall find that ths Hebrew

be a large gap here in the work, thus arrived at fiimiBhes the

though the MS. ^ves no hint of meaning we are in search of.

it. Hilgenfeld (itaque Dmn)s ; First of aU, temperantius =

Yolkmar (sic ds dmn)8. iirietKus, Now, in the only two

6. Ut. Yolkmar, from et. passages in the canonical books (Onxrem). So supplied by of the LXX. where irieixiot

Yolkmar. occurs, it is a translation of ^n\

Im{pl)oraTe{m). So Ronscb. 1 Sara. xii. 22, irietKQs icipiot

Yolkmar in(pr)ecare(r). wpoa-eXdpero i/xas iaxrr^ els Xa^r

7. ilnlfirmitcUem. I have DyV )h oanK mby^ ♦' S'mn ; and bracketed the in as an intrusion: 2 Kings vi. 8, Kal etwep 6 tU the context requires this, ^teticu); deCpoM Vmn inK.i lOMn Schmidt • Merx, in firmitate iVi. Thus temperantius miserimea. cordiae ipsius , . . contigemnt

TEXT OF MS. CHAPTER XII. 5-10

praevidit illos et no8 ab initio crea turae orbis terra rum' ut ad exitum saeculi et nihil est 97a ab eo neglectum us que ad pusillum* sed omnia praevidit et provovit cum

5 eis . . dns omnia quae futura essent in Jioc orbe terrarum pro vidit et ecce aufer

tuit pro eis et pro pec catis eorum . . .

7 pro eis* non enim

propter meam vir tutem aut infirmi tatem* sed tempe rantius misericor diae ipsius et pati entia contegenmt 8 mihi' dico enim ti bi iesu* non propter pietatem plebis hu jus exterminabis

b 9 gentes' omnia caeli firmamenta oibisfac ta ut provata a deo et sub nullo dexte rae illius sunt

10 Facientes itaque et con summantes manda ta ei crescunt et bo nam viam exigunt

T[dhi iri€iK&s trwipri fta iXeos airovnon wk mpi ^'wn. Here we mnst either change mpi into H^pn, and translate '*He was

E leased to make his compassion ght upon me," or else insert 3 or o oiefore non, and then we have, ''He was pleased to call me in His compassion "=dignatus est vocare me in misericordia ipsins.

Patieniia. We should add ipsius.

9. Lvmina, So Hilgenfeld,

from omnia. Funda/menta. So Hilgenfeld, from firmanenta. Schmidt-Merx read, omnia enim fundamenta orbis.

Et probata. MS. ut provata.

AfVMtlo. So Gutschmidt, from nullo. Ronsch compares Jer. xxii. 24, dvoff^pdyurfia (DJnn) ^l Trjs x^'-P^ W' Jc^*at fiov, Ecclus. zlix. 11. Schmidt- Merx propose umbra.

10. Crescent . . . exigent. So Schmidt -Merz, from crescunt , , . exigunt

loo ASSUMPTIONIS MOYSI FRAGMENTA

Facientes itaque et consummantes mandata Dei crescent et bonam vitam exigent: 11. Kam peccantibus et neglegentibus mandata carebunt bona quae praedicta sunt, et punientur a gentibus multis tormentis : 12. Nam (ut) in totum exterminet et extinguat eos fieri non potest 13. Exibit enim Deus qui praevidit omnia in saecula, et stabilitum est testamentum Illius et jusjurandum quod

11. CarebuiA bona. So 12. (Ut). Added by Yolkmar Fritzsche, from carere bonam. and Schmidt-Merz. Yolkmar, carent bona ea. ExtingucU, So I emend relin-

TEXT OF MS. CHAPTER XII. 11-13 loi

1 1 nam peccantibus et neglegentibus man data carere bonam quae praedicta sunt Et punientwr a gen tibus multis tormen 1 2 tis 'nam in totum ex terminet et relin

quat, which has no meaning after extenninet.

13. JExibit, So Yolkmar and Schmidt-Merz, from exivit.

quat eos fieri non 13 potest* exivit enim deus qui praevidit om nia in saecula et sta bilitum est testa mentum illius* et jurejurando quod

Jusjurandum, jurando.

MS. jure-

ORIGINAL ASSUMPTION

OF MOSES

I

I sections.

We have already seen in the Introduction (pp. xlv-1) good grounds for regarding the Latin Fragment, i.e, the so-called Assumption of Moses, as constituting originally not " The Assumption," but " The Testament of Moses." We further learnt that this Fragment shows traces of editing, by means of which this Testament was adapted to and combined with another document. For the leading characteristic of this latter document we are already prepared through the insertion in X. 12, which shows that it was the editor's intention to add to the " Testament " thus edited " The Assumption of Moses." Of this original Assumption of Moses, thus foreshadowed in X. 12, not a single line has survived in the Latin Fragment ; but it is not entirely lost to us, for some of its most remarkable passages have been preserved in Greek in St Jude and several of the patristic writers. From these scattered quotations and references we are able in some degree to restore the order of its thought, and in part its actual phraseology in one or more of its most important

Now, judging from the surviving Greek fragments, which we shall give in extenso presently, the order of

io6 ORIGINAL ASSUMPTION OF MOSES

the action' in the original Afisumption was probably as follows : —

i. Michael is commissioned to bury Moses :

ii. Satan opposes his burial, and that on two grounds —

(a) First, he claims to be the lord of matter (hence the body rightfully should be handed over to him).

To this claim Michael rejoins : " The Lord rebuke thee, for it was Gk>d's Spirit that created the world and all mankind." (Hence not Satan, but God was the Lord of matter.) (b) Secondly, Satan brings the charge of murder against Moses. (The answer to this charge is wanting.)

iii Having rebutted Satan's accusations, Michael then proceeds to charge Satan with having inspired the serpent to tempt Adam and Eve.

iv. Finally, all opposition having been overcome, the Assumption takes place in the presence of Joshua and Caleb, and in a very peculiar way. A twofold presentation of Moses appears: one is Moses "living in the spirit," which is carried up to heaven ; the other is the dead body of Moses, which is buried in the recesses of the mountains.

This sketch is founded, as we have observed, on quotations and references occurring in St. Jude and subsequent writers. We shall now reproduce it in the actual phraseology of these writers.

i. T€\€vnjcravT09 iv tw 8p€i MonKTCtos o apxayyeXo^ Mi;(a^X airoarikXerai fieraO'qa'tov ro criofJM,

ii. 'O oiv Bid/3oXo9 dvrcrxc Stkiav iLvarvjcrat, Xcycov orri* (a) "*Efiov corn TO €rw/JLtL, m rrj^ vXrfs ScoTrd^ovrt." 6 8c df>;(ayy€\os t<3 Sia/36X(f Suucpivo/ieyos cTireV " "EirtTtftiTO-ai (TOt Kvptos' diri yap ttvcv/witos dytov avrov irdi^€S cKTiirft;- /jLty KoX OLTTO wpoa-iairov rov ®€ov i(rjX6€ ro irvcO/Aa avrov, ical 6 KotTfios fycFCTo." (&) (Tore) 6 BtdfioXos hrqv€yK€ v/KXrffia

8ia Tov rov "Aiyvimov ^ovov, (A,cyo)v)* ^ovcvs iariv 6 Ma)V(r^* 8ia rovro ov <n;y;(O)/0€rrcu aurf tv;(Civ r^s hrvofiov

iii. Tore 6 dp;(ayycXos Mi;(a'^X r^ 8&a^oX^ SiaXeyofievos ciTreV "Su €v«rv€voras rbv o<^tv wcrre aZriov ytyicrOai rrjs 7rapa/3^€<a^ rov *A8afi ical rrjs Eva9.

iy. Kat rov Mtotxrca Sa^aXafifiavofitvov Sirrov cIScv 'Ii/o-oOs 6 rov Navi;, xat rov fih^ fier* dyyeXcov, rov 8^ iwl rot S/^i; ircpi ras <^apayyas fci^Scias &(i.ovfi€vov. cT8cv 6 'Ii^o'oOs r^v ^cav ravn/v Karo) trvevfuiTi. hrapO^is <tvv Ktu r^ XaXc^.

The passages from which we have constructed this sketch are as follows. After each passage I enclose in brackets numbers which show to what part of the above reconstruction the passage in question belongs.

St. Jude 9. 6 h\ Mi;(a^X 6 apxdyy^Xo^, ore r^ SiajSdXcp 8(axpivdficvos 8ieXeycro ircpl rov Moktccos aiafiaros, ovK erdX^i/o'c icpuriv cTreveyKctv ^Xoo^i^fiias, ^iXX* ctircv, "ETTtrtfii/o'ai 0*01 Kvptos (ii(a)).

Clement of Alexandria (Flor. 190-203 a.d.), Strom. vi. 15. 'Eucdrcos apa /cat r^v Moivo'ca d,vaka,fiPav6fjL€vov iiTTOv ctScv 'Iiycovs 6 rov Navi}, Kai rov ftcv fier dyycXtov, rov 8^ ^irl rot 6prj ircpt ras ^apayyas #ci78€(as aitovfievov. €T8cv 8c 'Ii^o'ovs r^v ^cav ravn^v xaro), weufjuari hrapOel^ avv Koi r^ XaXc^* dXX* ov;( ofioims afi<l>iii Ofwvrau dXX* 6 fiev Kal Oarrov fcar^X^cv, ttoXv ro fipWov lirayd/xcvos* 6 8^ ^iKar€X0cl>v wrr€pov r^v 8d^av 8ii;y€iro, $v Idtaro SiaJOprjcai 8wi;0cis fioXXov daripoVf arc Kal tcoBapvyrtpo^ ycvd/iicvos . . . 8i7Xovo^9, otfuu^ rrjs urropia^^ firf iravra>v cTvat r^v yvwo-tv (iv.).

^efttm&ra^ in Ep, Judae (Zahn's Supplementum Clementinum, p. 84). '^Quando Michael archangelus cum diabolo disputans altercabatur de corpore Moysi." Hie confirmat Assumptionem Moysi (ii).

io8 ORIGINAL ASSUMPTION OF MOSES

matzBch, xxi. 303, 304). £t primo quidem in Oenesi serpens Evam seduxisse describitur, de quo in Adscensione Mosis, cujus libelli meminit in epistola sua apostolus Judas, Michael archangelus cum diabolo disputans de corpore Mosis ait, a diabolo inspiratum serpentem causam. exstitisse praevaricationis Adae et £yae (iii.)

In Josuam horn, ii. 1 (Lommatzsch, xi. 22). Denique et in libello quodam, licet in canone non habeatur, mysterii tamen hujus figura describitur. Befertur enim quia duo Moses videbantur, unus vivus in spiritu, alius mortuus in corpore. In quo hoc est nimirum quod adumbratur, quia si intuearis literam legis inanem et vacuam ab iis omnibus quae superius memoravimus, ipse est Moses mortuus in corpore. Si vero potes removere legis velamen, et intelligere, quia lex spiritualis est, iste est Moses, qui vivit in spiritu (iv.).

Didymus Alex. (309-394). In Episi, Judae EnarrcUio (Gallandi, Bibliotheca Patruniy vi. 307). In reference to Jude 9, Didymus writes: Adversarii hujus contemplationis praescribunt praesenti epistolae et Moyseos Assumptioni propter eum locimi ubi significatur verbum Archangeli de corpore Moyseos ad diabolum factum

Evodius, contemporary of Augustine. Epist ad Augustin. apocryphis et in secretis ipsius Moysi, quae scriptura caret auctoritate, tunc cum ascenderet in montem ut moreretur, vi corporis efficitur, ut aliud esset quod terrae mandaretur, aliud quod angelo comitanti sociaretur. Sed non satis urget me apocryphorum praeferre sententiam illis superioribus rebus definitis (iy.).

Severus, Patriarch of Antioch (512-519). (Cramer, Cai. in Epist. CathoLy p. 160). BovXoficvos 6 ®cos roU viois 'Icr/Mi^A, Koi rovro viroSeiitu 8ia aiOfiariKOV rvwov rivos.

irap€a'K€vaxr€v Iv tq rov McDtMr^cos ''^^ ^av^at vir* 6<l>$aX- fiov9 avTOts 7rp09 T^ v€picrTo\rjv rov aafiaroi koX rrfv cv r^ Yff vtfjLOfiurfiivriv KaraOtaiv, avOurrdfitvov SnTirep rov irovrfpov Saifiova Koi avritrpdrrovra' Koi rovrta rov Mt^a^X ayaJBov ayycXov ovra irpoinnravrrjaai kcX airo(ToP7J<raC koX firj cf ovcrtooTtKws iwtrifi^aiy oAAa tw KvpC<^ twv oXcov irapw- ^(apvjarai rtf^ Kar €K€ivov Kpi<r€<t}^f kol cTttcv iwiri/irja'ai (rot Kvptos (i. ? and ii.).

Acta Synodi Nicaen. II. 20 (Fabricius, i. 844). *Ey PtPXC<fi 8c *Av<iA.i^e(t>s ManKrccof 'M.txo.rjk 6 ap;(ayyeXo9 Si,aX€y6fi€vo9 rf Sia)9dX<^ Xcyee* aTro yap irvevpxiro^ dryiot avrov vavTCS iKrCadripxv (ii.(a)).

ApoUinarius (Catena Nieeph. i. col. 1313). Xrjfieufyriov, on KOL Iv rots ;(pdvoi9 McDvcrecos ^(rav Koi aXXon )9t)3Xoi, at vvv etxrlv airoKpvfftoiy <Ls Si/Xoi koX ij rov *Iov8a cttccttoXi;* OTTOV SiSacTKCt /cat TTCpt rov Mcdvo'ccds (rw/iaro^ Kal €v6a fiifjLvrjrai tt>9 cic ^roXaias Tpatfuvj^^ *l8ov icvptos ^^ct Kae ro

The following anonymous writings are from Cramer's Mt;(a'^X 6 dp;(ayyeXo9, on rta SiafioXxa Siajcpivofnevoi 8teX€- ycro TTCpt rov Mcdvo'Ccds O'co/xaros koX ra i^rj^, ActKioKri #cai rrjv vaXaiav arvfi^fxavowrav r^ KcuvQy koi vkj^ evos 0cov 8c8ofievas* 6 yap 8ia)3oXos avr€tx€ OtXtov dirarrja-aiy on ifjubv ro o-cD/xa & rrj^ vXrj^ 8€OTrd{oKri* icat ^xovo-e Trapa rov ayycXov ro i'n'infiiQ<rai coi icvpto^* rovriari 6 Kvpioi rwv Trvcvfxdnov koi irdcn^ o-apKos (ii.(a)).

P. 161. Acyerat 6 Mt;(ai^X 'Trcpl r^v rw M<dvo'c<i>$ o'ctf/xaros 8ti;icon;iccvai raxfyqv' rov 8ia)3dXou Trpos roDro avOiarafjiivov (i.— ii.).

P. 163. rcXcvnyo-aiTos cv rw opci Mcdvo-cok, 6 Mt;(ai7X ttTTOOTcXXcrat /xcra^i/O'CDV ro o'cu/xa, ctra rov 8ta)9dXov Kara rov Mcovo'ccDS pXaxr<f>Tjfiovvro^f Kal tjiovea dyayop€vovr€s 8ta TO varafai rov AtyvTrrtov, ov'C IviyKmv rrjjv Kar avrov

no ORIGINAL ASSUMPTION OF MOSES

PXaa^fuav 6 jyycXof , '' hnrifii^mu aroi 6 0€o$ " irpos rov Stdfiokoy if^ (i. and iL(&)).

The next two scholia on Jude 9 were first printed by C. F. Matthaei (Sept. Epp. Gathoh, Biga 1782, pp. 238, 239), the first from D, an 11th century MS. rcXcvn;- (raKTO? Iv r<p ip€i l&tawriia^ 6 &p)(ayytXos "NLixo-rfX dirocnrcA.- Xcnu fjLera6vj<r(av ri arS^fJua, 6 oSv SiajSoXos dyrcr;(e OiXmv dirar^at, Xcyuv ort i/tov ro (rw/ui a>s r^s vXiys Seinrofarrc ^froi 8ca rft irarcC^oi r&v Alyuimor pXaarfj^rffwuvroi Kara roS dyuxi jccu ^orca dvaycpcvcravTOS, /a^ ^cyico>v r^ icar* avrov PXaa-^/jJav 6 SyytXoi " 'Eirircfi^ai era 6 0eo9," ^pos rov StApoKoy I4>rj (L and ii.(a) + (5)). It was Eonsch that first drew attention to this and the next scholion. The second scholion is from (Ecumenius (in, Epist, Jud., circ. 990), which Matthaei {Ic.) edited from a 12th or 13th century MS. H. Xcycrcu 6 Mt;(a^X rg rov Moivo-cco^ a-iOfJuiTOS Stoxovucevoi ra^, roS Sia)9dXov v/sos rovro avdurTafiivov (i. and ii.).

Finally, CEcumenius {Oomm. in JSp. Jvd,y p. 340, cited by Yolkmar). 17 S^ irept rov Mcdvo-ccds trt^fiaTos icpto'is ^crriv avny* Xcycrot rov Mi^a^X rov ApxayycXov r^J rov Mdwo'^cos Ta^ S€&i7Kon7KeF(u. rov yap &a)3oXov rovro /a^ KaroSc^oficvov, dXX' iir&^^povros hfKkrjfui 8ta rov rov Atyvirriov ^vor, tt>s atribv (so Hilgenfeld, from MS. avrov) ^vros rov M<Dvo'€<i>$, Kai 8ta rovro fi^ onr^copc&o'^at avrf rv;(erv r^ cvvo/Aov ro^s (i. and ii-(^)).

It will be observed that in all these passages there is not a single important statement which has not been incorporated in our sketch on p. 106.

APPENDIX ON I. 8

I HAVB just discovered that the text in I. 8, ut inducat plebem in terram, agrees with the Samaritan text, the Syriac and Vulgate Versions of Deut. xxxi. 7, K^an nHK pKrr^K nrn Dyrrnx, against the Massoretic, LXX., and Targum of Onkelos, which have Klin =" thou shalt enter," and its equivalents, instead of K^ID, " thou shalt cause to enter " or " thou shalt bring in."

Cite this text

The Assumption of Moses. London, 1897. Hermetic Cloud, https://hermeticcloud.com/library/charles-assumption-of-moses/. Public-domain text reproduced in full; markup only.

Transcription

Machine-read text of the Internet Archive scan assumptionmoses03chargoog; the reading is uncorrected apart from the removal of page numbers, running heads, line-end hyphens and the scan's own marks.