494
APOCALYPTIC
AND
APOCRYPHAL
only eighth in rank. The work was obviously antiChristian. (See Schiirer3, iii. 265-266.) Book of Eldad and Modad.—This book was written in the name of the two prophets mentioned in ISTum. xi. 26-29. It consisted, according to the Targ. Jon. on Num. xi. 26-29, mainly of prophecies on Magog’s last attack on Israel. The Shepherd of Hermas quotes it Vis. ii. 3. (See Marshall in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary, i. 677.) Apocalypse of Elijah.—This apocalypse is mentioned in two of the lists of books. Origen, Ambrosiaster, and Euthalius ascribe to it 1 Cor. ii. 9. If they are right, the apocalypse is pre-Pauline. The peculiar form in which 1 Cor. ii. 9 appears in Clemens Alex. Frotrept. x. 94, and the Const. Apost. vii. 32 shows that both have the same source, probably this apocalypse. Epiphanius {Hcer. xlii. (ed. Oehler, vol. ii. 678) ascribes to this work Eph. v. 14. Isr. Levi {Revue des Etudes Juives, 1880, i. 108 sqq.) argues for the existence of a Hebrew apocalypse of Elijah from two Talmudic passages. A late work of this name has been published by Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch, 1855, iii. 65-68 and Buttenwieser in 1897. Zahn, Gesch. des NTKanons, ii. 801-810, assigns this apocalypse to the 2nd century a.d. (See Schiirer3, iii. 267-271.) Apocalypse of Zephaniah.—Apart from two of the lists this work is known to us in its original form only through a citation in Clem. Alex. Strom, v. 11, 77. A Christian revision of it is probably preserved in the two dialects of Coptic. Of these the Achmim text is the original of the Sahidic. These texts and their translations have been edited by Steindorff, Die Apokalypse des Elias, eine unbekannte Apokalypse und Bruchstucke der Sophonias-Apokalypse, 1899. As Schurer {Theol. Literaturzeitung, 1899, No. I. 4-8) has shown, these fragments belong most probably to the Zephaniah apocalypse. They give descriptions of heaven and hell, and predictions of the Antichrist. In their present form these Christianized fragments are not earlier than the 3rd century. (See Schurer, Gesch. des Jud. Volkes3, iii. 271-273.) (iv.) Wisdom Literature. The Pirke Aboth.—These sayings of the Jewish fathers are preserved in the 9th Tractate of the Fourth Order of the Mishna. They are attributed to some sixty Jewish teachers, and the collection is divided into five chapters. These teachers belong for the most part to the years a.d. 70-170, though a few of them are of a much earlier date. (See P. Ewald’s Pirke Aboth, 1825; Strack, Die Spruche der Vdter 2, 1888 ; Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers'*, 1899.) Sirach or Ecclesiasticus.—This book bore the name “Proverbs” (o'Wa), according to Jerome. It was also known as “The^Wisdom of Jesus, the son of Sirach” (2o<£ia ’L;a-on vlov 'ZeLpdx, or, more shortly, 'Sofia Seipay). In the Latin Church the book was, so far as we know, first called Ecclesiasticus in Cyprian (Testim. ii. 1 ; iii. 1, &c.). The expression “Libri ecclesiastici ” in Church writers designates the apocryphal books of the Old Testament in contradistinction from the canonical books. Among such books Ecclesiasticus was the Church book, /car’ e$oXgv. The name of the author is given in the Greek of 1. 27 as Jesus, the son of Sirach,” but in the Hebrew of 1. 27' and li. 30 as “Simon, son of Joshua, son of Eleazar,'son of Sira.” The prologue states that the Sirach’s grandson went to Egypt in the 38th year of Euergetes. Since of the two Ptolemies, who bore the surname of Euergetes, the first reigned only twenty-five years, it must be the second that is referred to here, i.e., Ptolemy YU. Physcon Euergetes II. This prince began to reign in 170 B.c.
LITERATURE
Hence 132 is the date of the arrival of Sirach’s grandson in Egypt, and the composition of Sirach’s work would be from forty to seventy years earlier. Thus the date would lie between 200 and 170 b.c. This date would harmonize well with the apparently contemporary account of the Highpriest Simon II. in 1. 1-26, who was in office about 200 b.c. Vdevsheim. (Speaker’s Apocrypha, ii. 4-9) and others contest this view. See, however, Ryssel (Kautzsch’s AjooA u. Pseud. i. 234-239; Ency. Biblica, ii. 1170-1171). That this book was written in Hebrew is stated by Jerome; but, with the exception of occasional sentences in the Talmud, it was lost to modern scholarship till 1896, when chaps, xxxix. 15-xlix. 11 were published by Cowley and Neubauer. This large fragment of the original text was found in a synagogue in Cairo. The discovery and publication of further fragments have followed in fast succession. In 1899 Schechter and Taylor edited chaps, iii. 6-vii. 29 ; xi. 34; xii. 2-xvi. 26; xxx. 11-xxxi. 11; xxxii. 1-xxxiii. 3; xxxv. 9-20; xxxvi. 1-21; xxxvii. 27-xxxviii. 27; xlix. 12-li. 30. In the same year G. Margoliouth published in the Jewish Quarterly Review chaps, xxxi. 12-31 ; xxxvi. 22-xxxvii. 26 ; and on pp. 462-465 of the same review in 1900 appeared further fragments discovered by Schechter, i.e., iv. 236, 30-31; v. 4-7, 9-13; xxv. 86, 13, 17-24; xxvi. l-2a; xxxvi. 19a; and on pp. 466-480 fragments discovered by Adler, vii. 29-xi. 33 ; xii. 1 ; and on pp. 688-702 fragments discovered by Gaster, xviii. 31-xix. 2 ; xx. 5-7 ; xxxvii. 19, 22, 24, 26 ; xx. 13 ; and finally, in the Revue des Etudes Juives, 1900, pp. 1-30, the fragments discovered by Levi—xxxvi. 24-26; xxxvii. 1-xxxviii. 1. Margoliouth’,s theory that these fragments are not part of the original Hebrew text, but of a mediaeval Hebrew version, is rejected almost universally, both by Jewish and Christian scholars. Versions—Greek and Syriac.—These, versions are from the Hebrew. The Greek is preserved in N A B C and Cod. Yen. of the Uncials, and in a large number of cursives. All these MSS. go back to the same Greek text, for they all attest the remarkable transposition in xxx.-xxxvi. The right order is preserved in the Syriac, Latin, and Arabic versions. We should, therefore, place xxx. 25-xxxiii. 13a after xxxiii. 136-xxxvi. 16a. The right order appears, it is true, in Cursive 248, but the form of the text shows that the dislocation existed in the text from which it was derived, and was set right subsequently. The Greek and Syriac are invaluable in the criticism of the Hebrew fragments. Latin and other Versions.—The Latin version, which preserves the right order in xxx.-xxxvi., and is herein followed by the English version, was made from the Greek before these chapters were dislocated. This version dates from a.d. 200-250. It occasionally preserves the right text where the Greek has since become corrupt. The Syro-Hexaplaric, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Coptic versions were derived from the Greek after the transposition of chaps, xxx. -xxxvi. Literature.—Owing to the recent discoveries and innumerable studies on the Hebrew texts and the various versions, all the earlier works are to a great degree antiquated. The best are Fritzsche’s Die Weisheit Jesus-Sirachs, 1859, and Edersheim’s commentary in the Speaker’s Apocrypha, ii. 1-239. In the latter work and Schiirer’s Gesch. des Jvjd.Volkes,z iii. 161-166, a full bibliography will be found. See particularly Toy in Ency. Bib. ii. 1164-1179. Smend has promised a comprehensive edition, taking into account all the most recent discovery and criticism. II.—Hellenistic Literature. (i.) Historical and Legendary. Additions to Daniel.—These are three in number: Susannah and the Elders, Bel and the Dragon, and The Song of the Three Children. Of these the two former have no organic connexion with the text. The case is otherwise with regard to the last. In some respects it helps to fill up a gap in the canonical text between verses 23 and 24 of chapter iii. And yet we find Polychronius, early in the 5th century, stating that this song was not found in the Syriac version.
