488
APOCALYPTIC
AND
APOCRYPHAL LITERATURE Uchc, Wissenschaft, 1900, pp. 198-201). The author was not a Ethiopic, Arabic, Armenian. A Jewish book of Adam is Hellenistic Jew, as Frankel supposes, nor a Samaritan, as Beer mentioned in the Talmud and likewise in the Constitutiones thought, nor yet an Essene, but essentially a Pharisee in the most Apost. vi. 16. See Smith’s Dictionary of Christian Biorigorous sense of the term (see Ency. Biblica, i. 232 ; Kautzsch, graphy, i. 34-39; Ency. Bibl. i. 253; Schurer, Gesch. d. op. cit. ii. 36-37). Bibliography.—See Ency. Brit. ii. 17/ ; Scnurer, Gesch. d. Jud. Jud. Volkes, iii. 287-289. Jannes and Jambres.—These two men are referred to Volkes, iii. 277-280. The first commentary on the whole text, by Charles, was published in 1902. in 2 Tim. iii. 8 as the Egyptian magicians who withstood Moses. The book which treats of them is mentioned by Judith.—This book (see Ency. Brit. xiii. 765-766) Origen (ad Matt, xxiii. 37 and xxvii. 9 [Jannes et was written originally in Hebrew. This is shown not Mambres Liberf), and in the Gelasian Decree as the only by the numerous Hebraisms, but also by mistransla- Poenitentia Jamnis et Mambre. The names in Greek are tions of the Greek translation, as in ii. 2, iii. 9, and other generally Tavvijs koX ’lapfSpip (— cnnou Dm) as in the Targ.passages (see Fritzsche and Ball in loci), despite the state- Jon. on Exod. i. 15; vii. 11. In the Talmud they appear ment by Origen (Ep. ad Afric. 13) that the book was not received by the Jews among their apocryphal writings. as n-iddi unv. Since the western text of 2 Tim. iii. 8 has MagfSprjs, Westcott and Hort infer that this form was In his preface to Judith, Jerome says that he based his derived from a Palestinian source. These names were Latin version on the Chaldee, which the Jews reckoned among their Hagiographa. Ball (Speaker’s Apocrypha, i. known not only to Jewish but also to heathen writers, may go 243) holds that the Chaldee text used by Jerome was a such as Pliny and Apuleius. The book, therefore, 3 back to pre-Christian times. (See Schiirer , iii. 292-294; free translation or adaptation of the Hebrew. The book exists in two forms. The shorter, which is preserved only Ency. Biblica, ii. 2327-2329.) Joseph and Asenath.—The statement in Gen. xli. 45, in Hebrew (see under Hebrew Midrashim below), is, according to Scholz, Lipsius, Ball, and Gas ter, the older. The 50 that Joseph married the daughter of a heathen priest naturally gave offence to later Judaism, and gave rise to longer form is that contained in the versions. the fiction that Asenath was really the daughter of Greek Version.—This is found in three recensions : (1) in A B, N ; Shechem and Dinah, and only the foster-daughter of (2) in codices 19, 108 (Lucian’s text) ; (3) in cod. 58, the source Potipherah (Targ.-Jon. on Gen. xli. 45 ; Tractat. Sopherim, of the Old Latin and Syriac. Syriac and Latin Versions.—Two Syriac versions were made xxi. 9; Jalkut Shimoni, c. 134. See Oppenheim, Fabula from the Greek—the first, that of the Peshitto ; and the second, Josephi et Asenethae, 1886, pp. 2-4). Origen also was that of Paul of Telia, the so-called Hexaplaric. The Old Latin acquainted with some form of the legend (Selecta in Genesin, was derived from the Greek, as we have remarked above, and Jerome's from the Old Latin, under the control of a Chaldee ad Gen. xli. 45, ed. Lommatzsch, viii. 89-90). The Christian legend, which is no doubt in the main based on the Jewish, version. Later Hebrew Midrashim.—These are printed in Jellinek’s Bet is found in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, Slavonic, and ha-Midrasch, i. 130-131 ; ii. 12-22 ; and by Gaster in Proceedings mediaeval Latin. Since it is not earlier than the 3rd or of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, 1894, pp. 156-163. Date.—The book in its fuller form was most probably written in 4th century, it will be sufficient here to refer to Smith’s the 1st century, before the Christian era. The writer places his Diet, of Christ. Biog. i. 176-177 ; Hastings’ Bible Diet. i. romance three centuries earlier, in the time of Ochus, as we may 162-163; Schurer, iii. 289-291. reasonably infer from the attack made by Holofernes and Bagoas on Judaea ; for Artaxerxes Ochus made an expedition against Phoenicia (iii.) Apocalyptic Literature. and Egypt in 350 b.c., in which his chief generals were Holofernes and Bagoas. Apocalypse of Abraham.—This book is found only Recent Literature.—Ball, Speaker’s Apocrypha, 1888, an excellent piece of work; Scholz, Das Buch Judith^, 1896; Lohr, Apok. in the Slavonic (edited by Bonwetsch, Studien zur und Pseud. 1900, ii. 147-164; Porter in Hastings’ Bible Did. ii. 822-824 ; Gaster, Ency. Biblica, ii. 2642-2646. See Ball, pp. Geschichte d. Theologie und Kirche, 1897), a translation from the Greek. It is of Jewish origin, but in part 260-261, and Schiirer, in loc., for a full bibliography. worked over by a Christian reviser. The first part treats Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum.—Though of Abraham’s conversion, and the second forms an the Latin version of this book was thrice printed in the apocalyptic expansion of Gen. xv. This book was 16th century (in 1527, 1550, and 1599), it was practically possibly known to the author of the Clem. Recognitions, unknown to modern scholars till it was recognized by i. 32, a passage, however, which may refer to Jubilees. Conybeare and discussed by Cohn in the Jewish Quarterly It is most probably distinct from the an-oKaXvxpLS ’Afipadg Review, 1898, pp. 279-332. It is an Haggadic revision of used by the Gnostic Sethites (Epiphanius, Hcer. xxxix. the Biblical history from Adam to the death of Saul. Its 5), which was very heretical. On the other hand, it is chronology agrees frequently with the LXX. against that probably identical with the apocryphal book ’AfSpadp of the Massoretic text, though conversely in a few cases. mentioned in the Stichometry of Nicephorus, and the The Latin is undoubtedly translated from the Greek. Synopsis Athanasii, together with the Apocalypses of Greek words are frequently transliterated. While the Enoch, &c. LXX. is occasionally followed in its translation of Biblical Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch.—This apocalypse has passages, in others the Massoretic is followed against the survived only in the Syriac version, of which Ceriani disLXX., and in one or two passages the text presupposes a covered a 6th-century MS. in the Milan Library. Of this text different from both. On many grounds Cohn infers he published a Latin translation in 1866 (Monumenta a Hebrew original. The eschatology is similar to that Sacra, I. ii. 73-98), which Fritzsche reproduced in 1871 taught in the similitudes of the Book of Enoch. In fact, (Libri Apocryphi V. T. pp. 654-699), and the text in Eth. En. li. 1 is reproduced in this connexion. Prayers 1871 (Mon. Sacra, V. ii. 113-180), and subsequently in of the departed are said to be valueless. The book was photo - lithographic facsimile in 1883. Chaps. Ixxviii.written after a.d. 70; for, as Cohn has shown, the exact Ixxxvi., indeed, of this book have long been known. date of the fall of Herod’s temple is predicted. These constitute Baruch’s epistle to the nine and a-half Lost Legends—The Adam Books.—That there was a tribes in captivity, and have been published in Syriac Jewish book or books of Adam, which recounted the life and Latin in the London and Paris Polyglots, and in of Adam and Eve after the Fall, we must conclude from Syriac alone from one MS. in Lagarde’s Libri V. T. the host of Christian apocryphs which have this subject Apocryphi Syr. 1861; and by Charles from ten MSS. for their theme. These are found in Greek, Syriac, (Apocalypse of Baruch, 1896, pp. 124-167 The entire
