ANTIOCH, anti-ec, SCHOOL OF: A term designating, not an educational institution like the catechetical school of Alexandria, but a theological tendency deriving its influence from a number of prominent teachers. [The name is from Antioch on the Orontes, 16 m. from the Mediterranean, the famous city, the third in point of population in the Roman empire, and no mean rival of Rome in splendor. There were the groves of Daphne, where the sensual was pandered to in all ways. Yet there the first preachers of Christianity came, and it was there that the converts to the new faith were first called Christians.] A distinction must be made between an old and a new school-the former from about 270 to 360, the latter (to which the name is confined by some), after 360. The presbyter and martyr Lucian (q.v.; d. 311), who had great influence as an exegete and a metaphysician, and his contemporary the presbyter Dorotheus are generally mentioned as the founders of this school, but it may even go back as far as Paul of Samosata; at least, Lucian seems to have refused his assent to Paul's condemnation. Under altered circumstances, the cool intellectuality of the Antiochians, which shrank from the " mystery" of the incarnation, became Arianism. Arius himself, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Asterius were disciples of Lucian; and the name of the last was frequently used by the Eusebian party to countenance their attempts at compromise. Most important, however, was Lucian's activity in Biblical criticism. In this field his influence was directly opposed to the dogmatico-allegorical expositions of the school of Origen, and it made for historical investigation.
Of Lucian's scholars, Arius as a presbyter in Alexandria had performed for some time the function of expounding the Scriptures, and the clever " sophist " Asterius is said to have written commentaries on the Gospels, the Psalms, and the Epistle to the Romans, of which only an unimportant fragment remains. The semi-Arian bishop Eusebius of Emesa (q.v.) is of more importance. Jerome attests the influence of his exegetical method on Diodorus, and calls Chrysostom "the follower of Eusebius of Emesa and Diodorus " (De vir. ill., cxix., oxxix.). Eustathius of Antioch (q.v.) must be mentioned, not only for his dogmatic connection with the school (though a strict adherent
|
202 |
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Neander, Christian Church, i. 605-606, ii. 187, 193, 205, 432-434, 436, 761; Hefele, Concaiertge.
achichte, i. 502-530, Eng. transl., ii. 56-82; F. Maasaen, Geachichte der QBgllen des kanoniachen Rwhta, i. 65 eqq., Gratz, 1870.ANTIOCHUS, an-taro-kus: The name of thirteen kings of Syria, belonging to the dynasty
founded by Seleucus I., Nicator (312-280 s.c.), after the death of Alexander the Great. See SELEUCIDA.
ANTIOCHUS: Abbot of Mar Saba (about 3 hours s.w. of Jerusalem), early in the seventh century, a Galatian by birth. He wrote a work entitled in Greek " ° Pandect of the Holy Scriptures," a collec tion of moral sayings from the Bible and the older Church Fathers. An introductory epistle de scribes the martyrdom of forty-four monks of Mar Saba and the capture of Jerusalem when the Persian king Chosroes II. conquered Palestine (614), and the last chapter gives a list of her etics beginning with Simon Magus. Another of his works, Exomologesis, also depicts the sufferings of Jerusalem. BIBLIOGRAPHY: MPG, 1XXXlx.ANTIPAS: Son of Herod the Great. See HEROD AND HIS FAMILY.
ANTIPATER (an-tip's-ter) OF ROSTRA: Bishop of Bostra (70 m. s. of Damascus) soon after 450. As a theologian he belongs to the opponents of the
|
203 |
ANTIPOPE: A papal usurper, not elected in the canonical way, but resting his claims on fraud or force. Political intrigues, the ambitions of sovereigns, and the action of a minority of the cardinals have generally been responsible for rival popes. In 1046 there were four claimants of the papacy: Sylvester III., Benedict IX., Gregory VI., and Clement II. It has not always been easy to decide which of the rivals was the true pope, and in such cases schism has been the result. The longest schism (known as " the Great Schism ") succeeded the death of Gregory XI. (1378) and lasted fifty years (see SCHIsM). For the names of the antipopes, see the list given in the article POPE, PAPACY, AND PAPAL SYSTEM.
ANTITACTZ, an"ti-tac'ti or -te: The name given by Clement of Alexandria (Strom., iii. 34 39; followed by Theodoret, Htereticarum fabularum epitome, i. 16) to a branch of Gnostic libertines, who rejected the demiurge. See CARPOCRATES AND THE CARPOCRATIANS. G. KRUGER. ANTITRINITARIANISM. The Earliest Antitrinitarianism (§ 1), Monarchianism and Other Forms to the Reformation (§ 2). Antitrinitarianism in Great Britain (§ 3). In New England (§ 4). Antitrinitarianism of the Present (§ 5). Antitrinitarianism is the general name for a num ber of very different views which agree only in reject ing the Christian doctrine of the Triune God. This doctrine did not originate in the extra-Christian world, but, with whatever adumbrations in the Old Testament revelation (cf. Dorner, System o f Christian Doctrine, i., Edinburgh, 1880, pp. 345 sqq.), was first distinctly revealed in the missions of the Son and Spirit, and first clearly taught by Jesus (cf. W. Sanday, The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, Lon don, 1905, pp. 218 sqq.) and his apostles. It nat urally, therefore, as a purely Christian doctrine, had to establish itself against both Jewish and heathen conceptions; and throughout its history it has met with more or less contradiction from the two opposite points of view of modalism (which tends to sink the persons in the unity of the Godhead) and subordinationism (which tends to degrade the second and third persons into creatures).The earliest antitrinitarians were those Jews who in the first age of the Church were convinced, indeed, that Jesus was the promised Messiah, but, in their jealously guarded monotheism, could not admit him to be God, and taught therefore a purely humanitarian Christology. They bear the name in history of Ebionites (q.v.). The emanationism
of the Gnostic sects, which swarmed r. The throughout the second century, tended
Earliest to subordinationism; and this tend- Antitrini- ency is inherent also in the Logos tarianism. speculation by which the Christo-logical thought of the Church teachers through the second and third centuries was dominated. The Logos speculation was not, however, consciously antitrinitarian; its purpose was, on the contrary, to construe the Church's immanent faith in the Trinity to thought, and to that end it suggested a descending series of gradations of deity by which the transcendent God (the Father)
|
204 |
tendencies waxed strong (Boehme, Zinzendorf, Swedenborg). Meanwhile Laelius and Faustus Socinus succeeded in forming an organized sect of rationalistic antitrinitarians who founds, refuge in Poland, established a famous university, issued symbolical documents (the chief of which is the Racovian Catechism, 1805), and created an influential literature (Schlichting, Volkel, the two Crells, Ostorodt, Schmalz, Wolzogen, Wiszowati).
By the middle of the seventeenth century the Socinian establishment at Racow was broken up, but the influence of the type of thought it represented has continued until the present day. In Transylvania, indeed, the old 'Unitarian organization dating from the labors of Blandrata and David still exists. Elsewhere antitrinitarianism has crept in by way of more or less covert innovations representing themselves as " liberal," and running commonly through the stages of Arminianism and Arianism to Socinianism. In England, for example, a wide-spread hesitancy with regard to the doctrine of the Trinity was observable before the end of the seventeenth century, manifesting itself no less in the high subordinationism of writers like George Bull than in the frank Arianism of others
like Samuel Clarke. It was not until 3. Antitrin-1774, however, that the first Uni-
itarianism tarian chapel distinctly known as in Great such was founded (Theophilus Lind- Britain. sey), though this type of thoughtwas rapidly permeating the community under the influence of men of genius like Joseph Priestly and men of learning like Nathaniel Lardner; and before the end of the second decade of the nineteenth century, a large body of the foremost Presbyterian congregations had become avowedly Unitarian. A somewhat similar history was wrought out in Ireland, where after a protracted controversy the Synod of Ulster was divided in 1827 on this question, W. Bruce leading the Unitarian party.
By the middle of the eighteenth century, the prevalent attitude of suspicion with regard to the
doctrine of the Trinity had commu4. In New nicated itself to the New England
England. churches, and soon an antitrinitarianmovement, developing out of the lingering Arminianism, was in full swing, which from 1815 received the name of Unitarianism. The consequent controversy reached its height in 1819, the date of the publication of W. E. Channing's sermon at the ordination of Jared Sparks at Baltimore, and was virtually over by 1833. The result was a body of definitely antitrinitarian churches bound together on this general basis, whose leaders have illustrated, on every possible philosophical foundation, every possibla variety of antitrinitarianism from the highest modalism or Arianism down (and increasingly universally so as time has passed) to the lowest Socinianism.
Meanwhile the " liberal " tendencies of modern theological thought have produced throughout Christendom a very large number of theological teachers who, while not separating themselves from the trinitarian churches, are definitely anti-
|
205 |
BIBLIOGRAPHY: J..H. Allen, Historical Sketch of the Unitarian Movement since the Reformation. New York, 1894 (in American Church $istory Series); F. S. Bock, Historia Antitrinitariorum, 2 vols., KSnigaberg, 1774-84; L. Lange, Geschichte and Entwickelung der Systems der Unitarier vor der Nicanischen Synode, Leipsic, 1831; F. Trechsel, Die protestantischen Antitrinitarier vor Socin, Heidelberg, 183944; O. Fock, Der Socinianismus nach seiner Stellung in der Gesammtentwickelung des christlichen Geistes, Kiel, 1847; R. Wallace, Antitrinitarian Biography, 3 vols., London, 1850. See ~ also under ARIANISM; EBIONrrEe; MONARCHIANISM; BOCINUa (FAUSTUS), 9OCINIANB; UNI TARIANS: and cf. the treatment of these movements in the Church histories.
ANTON, PAUL: Lutheran; b. at Hirschfelde (near Zittau, 50 m. e.s.e. of Dresden), in Upper Lausitz, Feb. 2, 1661; d. at Halle Oct. 20, 1730. He studied at Leipsic, became tutor there, and helped to found Francke's Collegia biblica (see PIETISM). In 1687-89 he traveled in southern Europe as chaplain to the future Elector of Saxony
Frederick Augustus, and on his return became superintendent at Rochlitz. In 1693 he was summoned as court chaplain to Eisenach, and two years later was appointed professor in the newly established university at Halle. With J. J. Breit haupt and A. H. Francke (qq.v.), Anton gave to the Hallensian theology its pietistic character, and he helped largely to make the university one of the leading schools of Protestant theology in Germany. He adhered more closely than his colleagues to the orthodox Lutheran doctrine. His peculiar activity was in the field of practical theology. As professor of polemics, he sought to ground that study upon psychological principles. " Every one," he was accustomed to say, " carries within himself the seeds of unbelief and heresy; and introspection is a more fruitful means for ascertaining the true principles of belief than per sonal or sectarian controversy." The Lord, he taught, would forgive a thousand faults and trans gressions, but not hypocrisy or unfaithfulness to duty. The consciousness of sin was always present with him, and he impressed himself upon his audi tors by his evident sincerity. Anton's lectures were edited in part by Schwenzel in 1732 under the title Collegium antitheticum. His devotional works -such as Evangelische Hausgesprdch von der Erlo sung (Halls, 1723) and Erbauliche Betrachtung fiber die sieben Worte Christi am Kreuz (1727)-attained great popularity. (GEORG MCLLER.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: An autobiography to 1725 was published in Denkmal des Herrn Paul Anton, Halle, 1731.ANTONELLI, do"to-nel'li, GIACOMO, jd'co-m6: Cardinal secretary of state under Pius IX. and chief political adviser of that pope; b. at Sonnino (64 m. s.e. of Rome), in the then Papal States, Apr. 2, 1806; d. in Rome Nov. 6, 1876. He received his earlier education at the Roman Seminary, then studied law at the Sapienza, and, after holding several minor posts in the papal gpvernment, was appointed delegate or governor successively of Orvieto, Viterbo, and Macerata. He showed so much force and judgment at the outbreak of the revolution of 1831 that Gregory XVI. found a place for him in the Ministry of the Interior, transferring him in 1845 to the position of treasurer of the Camera Apostolica or minister of finance. On his appointment in 1840 as canon of St. Peter's he received deacon's orders, but he never became a priest. Pius IX. made him a cardinal in .1847, and on the organization of the municipal council, in the autumn of that year, named him as its president. A few months later, on the establishment of a ministry on modern lines, he was again placed at the head (as president of the council, though Recchi was nominally prime minister), but soon resigned the position, becoming prefect of the pontifical palaces, in which position he organized the flight to Gaeta. Thence, as secretary of state, he conducted the negotiations which led to the pope's return (Apr.12,1850); from which date till his death he remained at the head of public affairs under Pius·IX.
As the strongest supporter of the reactionary policy, Antonelli was regarded by the Liberals as an incarnation of evil; but materials are not yet
|
206 |
at hand for the formation of a final judgment on his career. His opponents, however, admit that he was a man of genius in diplomacy and of unswerving constancy in the defense of his principles. His private life has been bitterly attacked, and it is true that he was more statesman than cleric. Whatever may be thought of his character, however, he was one of the strong men of the nineteenth century; and his name will be indissolubly connected in history with that of the pontiff whom he served so faithfully. See Plus IX.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. de Waal, Cardinal Antonelli. Bonn. 1876: Tres hombres ilustree, Pio IX., Lamoricikre y Antonelli, Madrid, 1860; E. Veuillot, ChlebrWe catholiquea contemporainee, Paris, 1870; KL, i. 978-979.
ANTONIANS, an-t6'ni-ans, or ANTONINES, an"to-nainz': 1. Religious orders among the Roman Catholic Chaldeans, Maronites, and Armenians, which follow a rule called the rule of St. Anthony. In reality St. Anthony (251-356), although he is justly styled the father of cenobitic life, left no rule to his followers save those scattered directions found in his writings. The so-called rule of St. Anthony is, therefore, the work of some later writer who took its substance, however, from the teachings of the saint. At the present time the Antonians are grouped in four congregations; the Chaldean Antonians of St. Hormisdas, founded in Mesopotamia in 1809 for missionary work, with about one hundred members; the Maronite Antonians of Aleppo, with 120 members; the Maronite Balar dite Antonians, the most numerous of all, with 700 members; and the Maronite Congregation of St. Isaiah, with 240 members. JOHN T. CREAGH.
A fifth congregation called after St. Anthony, now almost extinct, was founded among the Roman Catholic Armenians by Abraham Attar-Muradian, a merchant, who in 1705, with his brother James, a priest, retired to Mount Lebanon to lead an ascetic life. Here, in 1721, they established the monastery of Kerem, followed by another at Beit-Khasbo near Beirut. In 1761 a third community was founded in Rome, near the Vatican. About 1740 the exiled bishop of Haleb (Aleppo), Abraham Ardzivian, who had found refuge at Kerem, took advantage of a long vacancy in the Cilician patriarchate to set himself up as catholicos of Cilicia, and secured papal confirmation in 1742. His first successor was the above-mentioned James, who was followed by Michael and Basil, also Antonians. In 1866 the patriarch of the Catholic Armenians, Anthony Hasun, residing in Constantinople, adopted the title " Patriarch of Cilicia," and put an end to the nominal Antonian patriarchate. The Antonians usually numbered fifty or sixty, and served the Roman Catholic mission in Turkey. In 1834 they transferred their novitiate and. school to Rome, only the abbot and a few brothers remaining in the Lebanon. In 1865 Suldas Gazanjian was chosen abbot and was consecrated by the last Lebanon patriarch. He lived in Constantinople as head of the anti-Hasun party. On Hasun's charges, he was summoned to Rome in 1869; but before his case could be heard'we
the Vatican council met. He and his monks re
among the first to reject papal infallibility, and were obliged to escape by night, with the help of the French ambassador. In 1876 Malachi Ormanian, the best-known and best-educated of the Antonians, went to Rome and finally closed their house there. (He afterward joined the Armenian Church, and has published Le Vatican et les Armkniens and other works.) The present members of the congregation, having made their submission to the pope, are concentrated in one community in Constantinople.
2. An antinomian sect which originated in the canton of Bern, Switzerland, early in the nineteenth century, founded by Anton Unternahrer (b. at Schiipfheim, in the canton of Lucerne, Sept. 5, 1759; d. in the jail of Lucerne June 29, 1824). Unternahrer was educated and confirmed in the Roman Catholic Church; after a varied career as cowherd, cabinet-maker, private teacher, and quack doctor, he settled in 1800 at Amsoldingen, near Thin, and began to hold religious meetings, to preach, and to issue books. He announced himself as the Son of God, come to fulfil the incomplete work of Jesus, to judge mankind (especially rulers and judges, who were all to be abolished), and to cancel all debts. On Apr. 16, 1802, he appeared before the Minster of Bern with a crowd of adherents, to whom he had predicted the occurrence of some great event. The tumult was suppressed, and Unternahrer was condemned to two years' imprisonment. On his release he was received by his adherents with enthusiasm, and riots again occurred. For five years Unternahrer was confined in Lucerne as a lunatic. He returned to the world more collected and more serious, but by no means cured, and in 1820 he was permanently confined in the jail.
Unternahrer's publications comprise about fifteen pamphlets, including, with others, Gerichtsbiich lein; Buch der Er fullung ; and beheimndss der Liebe. He taught that the primitive relation be tween God and man was expressed in the two commandments, to love and multiply, and. to abstain from the tree of knowledge. Tempted by Satan, man violated the second commandment and attained great wisdom, which is the curse of mankind. It began with the distinction between good and evil, and ends in institutions innumer able-State, Church, courts, schools, and the like. From the curse there is only one 'means of salvation; namely, through the fulfilment of the first command ment, to love and multiply; and for this purpose all restraints arising from such ideas as marriage, family, etc., must be thrown off. The principal seat of the sect was Amsoldingen, whence it spread to Gsteig, near Interlaken. Suppressed here in 1821, it reappeared at Wohlen, near Bern, in 1830, under the leadership of Benedict Schori, and again at Gsteig, in 1838-40, under the leadership of Christian Michel. Severe measures were necessary to suppress its excesses.BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Ziegler, Aktenmaerige Vachrkhten idber die eopenannten Antoninkle im Kanton Bern, in 7)reeh-
eel, Beitrttpe zur Geechichte der echweLeriechen reformirten Kirehe, iii. 70 eqq, Bern, 1842; G. Jose, Dae Sektenueaen
im Kanton Bern, ib. 1881.|
207 |
mula confessionum (Mondovi, 1472); and Summa historialis or Chronicon_ab orbe condita bipartitum (3 vols., Venice, 1480, and often; ed. P. Maturus, S. J., Lyons, 1587), a world-chronicle to 1457, uncritical and full of fables and legends, but showing industry and systematic arrangement. Here and there, as in judging of the great schism, he ventures to advance his awn opinion and he questions the genuineness of the Donation of Constantine. A complete edition of Antoninus' works, in four volumes, was published at Venice, 1474-75, and a second edition, in eight volumes, at Florence, 1741. 1n later years have appeared: Opera a hen vivere di Sant' Antonino (Florence, 1858) and Lettere (1859). K. BENRATH.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: A life, by Franciscus Castilionensis, and another by Leonardus de Serubertis are in ASB, May, i. 314-362; Qu6tif-Eehard, Scriptores ordinis pradicatorum, i. 817-819, Paris, 1719; tEneas Silvius, Commentarii, p. 50, Frankfort, 1614; Creighton, Papacy, i. 504; A. von Reumont, Briefe heiliger and gotles/iirchtiger Italiener, pp. 135-1.50, Freiburg, 1877; idem, Lorenzo de' Medici, i. 148, 176, 562-564, Leipsic, 1874, Eng. transl., i. 123, 151, 463-465, London, 1876.
ANTONIO DE LEBRIJA, an-t6'ni-o de le-bri'Ha, (Lat. ~Elius Antonius Nebrissensis, i.e., " of Lebri ja," the ancient Nebrissa, on the Guadalquivir, 34 m. s. of Seville): Spanish humanist; b. 1442 (14447); d. at Alcala July 2, 1522. He studied in his native land, and for about ten years in Italy, and returned to Spain with a plan for reforming the schools and studies. As professor in Salamanca and by his Introductiones in Latinam grammati cam (1481; innumerable editions, translations, and adaptations, even as late as Paris, 1858; an Eng. ed., London, 1631), he led the way to a knowledge of the classics. Retiring from the university, he spent eight or ten years in the preparation of a Latin-Spanish and Spanish-Latin lexicon (Seville, n.d.; Alcala, 1532; and often), a pioneer work at that time. He published also archeological works and a grammar of Greek and of Castilian, and labored to improve the text of the Vulgate. He was one of the chief workers on the Complutensian polyglot, and spent his last years as teacher at Alcala, protected by Cardinal Ximenes from the attacks of the adherents of the old scholastic school. As historiographer to Ferdinand the Catholic he wrote a history of two decades of the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella (Granada, 1545) [by some assigned to Hernando da Pulgar rather than to Antonio; cf. Potthast, Wegweiser, Berlin, 1896, p. 946]. K. BENRATH.BIBLIOGRAPHY: Nicholaus Antonius, Bibliotheca Hispana nova, i. 132-139, Madrid, 1783; J. B. Mudoz, in Memorias de la real academia de la historia, iii. 1-30, Madrid, 1799; C. J. Hefele, Cardinal Ximenes, pp. 116-117, 124, 379, 458, Tiibingen, 1844.
ANTWERP POLYGLOT. See BIBLES, POLYGLOT. APHARSACHITES, a-far'sa-knits, APHARSATHCHITES, a-far"sath'kaits, APHARSITES, a-far'saits : Words occurring only in the Book of Ezra (Apharsachites, v. 6; Apharsathchites and Apharsites, iv. 9). Most translators and commentators have regarded them as names of peoples, including them among the tribes settled in Samaria by the Assyrians (II Kings xvii. 24), and have made unsatisfactory attempts to identify them (e.g., the
|
208 |
Apharsites with the Parrhasii of East Mediaso M. Hiller, Onomasticum spcrum, Tabingen, 1706or with the Persians-Gesenius, Thesaurus; Ewald, Geschichte Israels; E. Bertheau, commentary on Ezra, Gottingen, 1838). The best explanation has been given by Eduard Meyer (Entstehung des Judenthums, Halle, 1896, pp. 37 sqq.), following a hint of G. Hoffmann (in ZA, ii., 1887, pp. 54 sqq.). He regards " Apharsachites " and " Apharsathchites " as equivalent, the " th " (the Hebrew letter tar) having been inserted in the latter by mistake, and gives to all three words the same meaning, " Persians." The passage Ezra iv. 9, accordingly, he reads: " Rehum the commissioner and Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their colleagues the Persian magistracy, the Persian tarpelaye, the people of Erech, Babylon, and Shushan, that is, the Elamites." The word tarpelaye (English versions " Tarpelites ") is left untranslated as necessarily meaning an official class of some unknown sort and not the name of a people. It is possible, however, that the " Apharsites " are not " Persians," but that the form arose by dittography, the word for scribe (saphera) just above being first copied by mistake and then assimilated to the form for " Persians." If " Apharsites " were to be thus ruled out of the verse and the Bible, the " Tarpelites " would be an unknown people heading the list like those that follow, and not the name of a class of officials. J. F. MCCURDY.
APHRAATES, a fr8'tiz: The " Persian sage." He is known as the author of twenty-two homilies, arranged according to the letters of the Syriac alphabet, and a treatise, De acino benedicto (Isa. lxv. 8), in Syriac. The first ten homilies were written in the years 336-337, the others in 344-345; the treatise in Aug., 345. The latter is mentioned in Armenian lists of the apocryphal books. In the life of Julianus Saba (P. Bedjan, Acts martyrum et sanctorum, vi., Paris, 1896, p. 386) it is said that Aphraates was a pupil of Julianus and that he died, according to some, at the age of 104 years. If this be true he may have been the Aphraates mentioned by Theodoret (Hilt. eoel., iv. 22-23), who had an interview with Valens. The name occurs again in the Syriac martyrology of the year 411. Its form in modern Persian is Farhad. The Dame Jacobus seems to have been adopted by Aphraates as bishop of the monastery of Mar Mattai, near Mosul (cf. G. P. Badger, The Nestorian,, i., London, 1852, p. 97).With Ephraem Syrus, Aphmates may be called the first classic writer of the Syrian Church. His style is pure, and he shows deep knowledge of the Scriptures, with earnest zeal for the welfare of the Church. There is no trace of the christological controversies of Arius, a single polemical passage against Valentinians, Marcionites, and Manicheans, but many against the Jews, from whose traditions Aph'aates draws richly (cf. S. Funk, Die haggadiRchen Elements in Aphraates, Vienna 1891). He used the Diatessaron of Tatian instead of the single Gospels. The sixth homily shows that monks and eremites were already organized in his time and place. His psychology is peculiar,
208especially his doctrine of the sleep of the soul. His days are Jan. 29 (Greek calendar) and Apr. 7.
Gennadius of Marseilles, in his De viris illustn7rus (c. 495), confounded Aphraates with Jacob of Nisibis, under whose name nineteen of the homilies were published in an Armenian translation by N. Antonelli (Rome, 1756). George, bishop of the Arabians, in a letter about 714 (P. de Lagarde, Analecta Syriaca, Leipsic, 1858; German transl. by V. Ryssel, ib. 1891), is better informed. The Syriac original was first made accessible by W. Wright (The Homilies of Aphraates, the Persian Sage, i., text, London, 1869; the translation did not appear). With Latin translation the homilies are in Patrologia Syriaca, i. (Paris, 1894). There is a German translation by G. Bert (T U, iii. 3, Leipsic, 1888), and an English translation of selections in NPNF, 2d ser., vol. xiii. E. NESTLE.BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. B. F. Sasse, Prolegomena in Aphraatie sermones, Leipeic, 1878; J. Forget, De vita et acriptis Aphraatis, Louvain, 1882; W. Wright, A Short History of Syriac Literature, London, 1894; and the preface to Wright's ed. of the Homilies; F. C. Burkitt, Early Eastern Christianity, pp. 132-140, London, 1904.
APHTHARTODOCETE, af'thdr"tti-do-si'tf. See MONOPHYHITEB.
APION, 6'pe-on: Alexandrian grammarian of the first century. He was born in the Great Oasis of Egypt, was educated in Alexandria, and gained repute there as teacher and lecturer; during the reigns of Tiberius and Claudius he lectured on rhetoric and grammar in Rome; under Caligula he traveled through Greece and Italy lecturing on Homer. He seems to have been vain and superficial, with a touch of the charlatan in his character. Among other works, he wrote a glossary on Homer, a eulogy of Alexander the Great, and a history of Egypt. But it is as an early anti-Semite that Apion is remembered; his hatred of the Jews was bitter .and extreme and led him to record slanders in his history of Egypt which are refuted by Josephus in his work known as Contra Apionem, although but a part of it is directed against Apion. In the year 40 A.D. Apion headed a delegation sent from Alexandria to Caligula at Rome to make charges against the Jews; the counterdelegation, sent by the Jews for their defense, was led by Philo (q.v.). The extant fragments of Apion's historical works are collected in C. 0. Muller's Fragmenta historicorum Grcecorum, iii. (Paris, 1849), pp. 506-516.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: DCB i. 128-130; Schorer, Geschichte, iii, 406-411, Leipsic, 1898, Eng. tranel., 11. iii. 257-261 (contains full references to literature); JE, i. 666-868.
APOCALYPSE, THE. See JOHN THE APOSTLE,II., 1. For apocryphal apocalypses, see APoc RYPHA, B, IV.; See also PBEUDEPIGRAPHA, OLD TESTAMENT, II., 4-21, and APOCALYPTIC LrTERA_ TURF, JEWISH.
APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE, JEWISH: The latest type of Jewish prophetic writing. The literature generally called " apocalyptic " commences with Daniel (for date, see DANIEL, BOOK OF)
and closes with IV Ezra-Baruch. On the one|
209 |
apocalyptic was thoroughly particularistic and narrowly national. God's kingdom involved only mercy to Israel and judgment to the heathen (Psalms of Solomon xvii. 2). In spite of the transcendental and ideal character which the apocalyptic picture gradually assumed (cf. the idea of a " coming age," world-judgment, waking from the dead), the old, earthly hopes of Israel of a kingdom of Davidic glory, a Messiah bearing David's name, an earthly empire, and a gloriously renewed Jerusalem are closely bound up with it. This divergence shows itself especially in the position which the expected Messiah occupied in this literature. With the world-judgment, the destruction of the world, and the awaking from the dead, the expected Davidic king was to have little to do; consequently his form occasionally disappeared entirely (so in Daniel and the Assumption of Moses). On the whole, however, the transcendental retained its position; at one time it was only partly pushed aside (Enoch xc. 4; IV Ezra vii. 28; Baruch xxix.); at another, it partly corresponded to the picture of hope which involved an ideal transfiguration (cf. Psalms of Solomon xvii., and the " similitudes " in Enoch). This divergence led finally to the assumption of a double finale: first, the intermediate Messianic realm (Rev. xx.; Book of the Secrets of Enoch xxxiii.), in which earthly expectations were to be realized; and, second, the " coming age," ushered in by the world-judgment and the resurrection from the dead which should satisfy the more transcendental aspirations (cf . Enoch xciii., xci.12-19; IV Ezra vii. 28-29; Baruch xl. 3; Rev. xx.; Book of the Secrets of Enoch xxxiii.).
With this fundamental character of Jewish apocalyptic a number of external qualities are connected. All apocalyptic writers indulged in fanciful computation of the end. The apocalyptic seer lived in a time when all felt that the prophetic spirit had departed, when important decisions awaited the coming of a prophet (I Mace. iv. 40; cf. ix. 27, xiv. 41) and the judgment of prophecy (Zech. xiii. 2 sqq.). Apocalyptic arithmetic took the place of prophecy; thus in the center of Daniel's prophecies (Dan. ix.) the seventy years of Jeremiah are interpreted as seventy year-weeks (i.e., 70 X 7 years), which interpretation is followed by Enoch lxxxix. sqq.; or the duration of the world was esti-
mated on the basis of some hidden External wisdom (Assumption of Moses i. 1, Qualities. x. 12; Enoch xc., xci.; IV Ezra xiv.11; Baruch liii.), for only the wise and intelligent could understand these secrets (Rev. xiii. 18, xvii. 9; Mark xiii. 14). A consequence of the foregoing is the non-creative character of this literature; it followed closely the older literature of Israel, especially the idea of theophanies (Isa. vi. and Ezek. i.), the prophecies concerning Babylon (Isa. xiii., xiv.; Jer. 1.-li.), Tyre (Ezek. xxvii., xxviii.), and Gog and Magog (Ezek. xxxviii., xxxix.). The most promiscuous notions and views from other religious departments crept in, and these, understood only in part or not at all, were circulated as coins stamped once for all. Behemoth and Leviathan, the dragon, the beast
|
210 |
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The best treatment is to be found in R. H. Charles's editions of apocalyptic writings, e.g., his Enoch , London, 1893, Apocalypse of Baruch, 1896, Ascension of Isaiah, 1900, Jubilees, 1902, and in his Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life, 1899; A. Hilgenfeld, Die jiWiache APokalyptik, Jens, 1857; J. Drummond, Jewish Messiah, London, 1877; R. Smend, in ZATW, v. (1885) 222-250; DB, i. 109-110; Schurer, Geschichte, iii. 181-185, Eng. tranel., II. iii. 44 eqq.; M. S. Terry, Biblical APocatyptim, New York, 1898; EB, i. 213250 (reviews the important apocalyptic literature); JE, i. 669-885 (treats of late Jewish productions); W. Bousset, Die yiWische Apokalyptik, Berlin, 1903; F. C. Porter, The Messaves of the Apocalyptical Writers, New York, 1905.
APOCATASTASIS, ap"o-ca-tas'ta-sis. Earliest Advocates (§ 1). In the Middle Ages (§ 3). Opponents (§ 2). The Reformation (§ 4). In Modern Times (§ 5).By Apocatastasis ("restoration") is meant the ultimate restitution of all things, including the doctrine that eventually all men will be saved. The term comes from the Greek of Acts iii. 21, but is given a wider meaning than it has in that passage. The doctrine first appears in Clement of Alexandria (flourished 200) in the declaration that the punishments of God are " saving and disciplinary, leading to conversion " (Strom ., vi. 6). His successor at the head of the Alexandrian catechetical school, Origen (186-253),
I. Earliest taught that all the wicked would be Advocates. restored after they had undergone severe punishment and had received instruction from angels and then from those of higher grade (De principiis, I. vi. 1-3). He also raised the question whether after this world there perhaps would be another or others in which this instruction would be given (De principiis, II. iii. 1), and interpreted Paul's teaching respecting the subjection of all things to God as implying the salvation of the °° lost " (De principiis, III. v. 7). These beliefs and speculations he based on Bible statements(especially on Ps. ex. 1;1 Cor. xv. 25 sqq.), but declared that the doctrine would be danger ous to disseminate (Contra Celaum, vi. 26). He, and it would seem, Clement of Alexandria. also, advocated the Apocatastasis as part of a theory of the divine attributes which subordinated right eousness to mercy; of human freedom, which made the will never finally fixed; and of sin, which represented it rather as weakness and ignorance.Similar ideas of the divine goodness, human freedom, and sin led to the advocacy of the Apocatastasis by Gregory Nazianzen (328-389), but not openly; by Gregory of Nyssa (332--398), publicly, as in his treatise "On the Soul and the Resurrection" (MPG, xlvi. 104); by Didymus of Alexandria (308-395), in his commentary on I Peter iii. (in Galland, Bibliotheca patrum, vi. 292 sqq.); and by Diodorus of Tarsus (flourished 375), in his treatise " On the Divine Economy" (in J. S. Assemanus, Bibliotheca orientalis, III. i. 324). Even Chrysostom (347-407), when commenting on I Cor. xv. 28, quoted without contradiction the view that by the expression " God shall be all in all " was meant universal cessation of opposition to God (MPG, lxi. 342). So also the Monophysite, Stephen barSudaili, abbot of a monastery at Edessa in the sixth century, advocated the Apocatastasis in a treatise which he wrote on the subject under the name of Hierotheus (as is stated in Assemanus, ut sup., ii. 290 sqq.). It was taught also by Maximus Confessor (580-662), called by the Greeks Theologos and revered as the leader of the Orthodox against the Monothelites, drawing from Gregory of Nyasa, as in his answer to the thirteenth question of his " Questions and Doubts" (MPG, xc. 796). The existence of this belief in the eighth century is shown by the warning against it given in 718 by Pope Gregory II., when sending out missionaries (MPL, lxxxix. 534). In the ninth century it was roundly asserted by that very independent speculative theologian Johannes Scotus Erigena, in the third book of his treatise "On the Division of Nature" (MPL, exxii. 619-742). He drew from Origen, pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, Gregory of Nyssa, and still more directly, from Maximus Confessor.
But the writers defending the Apocatestasis are decidedly in the minority; and so bad was the repute of Origen for sound thinking that any theory known to be derived from him was looked at askance by the sober-minded. Jerome (d. 420), for example, reckoned the Apocatastasis among the"abhorrent" heresies of Origen (Epist.,exxxiv.).
The emperor Justinian, in his edict 2. Oppo- against Origen, issued in 545, made it
nents. the ninth of the ten doctrines for which the latter should be anathe matized; and when, at Justinian's call, a council met in Constantinople that same year to condemn Origen, the doctrine appears as the fourteenth of the fifteen for which he was cursed (Hefele, Con eaiengeschichte, ii. 789, 797, Eng. transl., iv. 220, 228).In the West, Augustine (354-430) threw his influence against the Apocatastasis, teaching in the most unmistakable language the absolute endlessness of future punishment (e.g., "Cityof God," xxi, 11-23).
At a later period the doctrine appears in the teachings of the great pantheistic thinker Amahic of Bena (d. 1204), only to be again condemned by the Western Church; for it was one of the counts upon which Amalrie was declared a heretic by Pope Innocent III., and for which his followers, the Brethren and Sisters of the Free Spirit, after his
|
211 |
g. In the Jan Ruysbroeck (1293-1381), Johann Middle Tauler (1300-61), and Johann von Goch
Ages. (d. 1475) are said to have accepted it; but it was rejected by Eckhart (flourished 1300), Suso (1300-65), and their fol lowers (cf. C. Ullmann, Reformers before the Refor mation, i., Edinburgh, 1855). Still later it is found as one of the 900 theses which that brilliant scholar Giovanni Pico della Mirandola proposed to defend in public debate in Rome in 1487, and was thus expressed: " A mortal sin of finite duration is not deserving of eternal but only of temporal punish ment." But it was among the theses pronounced heretical by Pope Innocent VIII. in his bull of Aug. 4, 1484; and the debate was never held (cf. Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, ed. J. M. Rigg, London, 1890, pp. vii. sqq.).The Apocatastasis emerged in the Protestant Church of the earliest days. Thus Luther, writing on Aug. 18, 1522, to Hans von Rechen4. The Ref- berg, who had asked him if there was
ormation. any salvation for those out of Christ at death, states that a belief in the ultimate salvation of all men, and even of the devil and his angels, was held among the sect of Free Spirits in the Netherlands, one of whom was then in Wittenberg. They based it on Ps. Ixxvii. 9, 10 and on I Tim. ii. 4. He then proceeds to re fute it. Again Luther warns against this belief when writing to the Christians in Antwerp in 1525 (cf. de Wette's ed. of Luther's letters, ii. 453 and iii. 62). The doctrine was held among the Ana baptists. Hans Denk taught it in its extreme form, saying that not only all men, but even the devil and his angels, would ultimately be saved; and another Anabaptist leader, Jacob Kautz (Cucius), in 1527 at Worms put as the fifth of seven articles he propounded for debate: " All that was lost in the first Adam is and will be found more richly restored in the Second Adam, Christ; yea, in Christ shall all men be quickened and blessed forever" (Zwingli, Opera, viii. 77; cf. S. M. Jackson, Selections from Zwingli, p. 148). So, too, Zwingli asserts that it was part of the Anabaptist creed that the devil and all the impious will be blessed (Opera, iii. 435; cf. Jackson, ut sup., p. 256). In deed, while perhaps not universally accepted by Anabaptists, it was held by so many of the party in Switzerland, Upper Germany, and Alsace that in Article xvii. of the Augsburg Confession are these words: " They [the Lutherans] condemn the Anabaptists, who think that to condemned men and the devils shall be an end of torments." It is, however, not put in the Formula of Concord among the erroneous teachings of the Ana baptists.Toward the end of the seventeenth century the doctrine of the Apocatastasis again appeared, and ever since it has foulid numerous defenders. The earliest were Mrs. Jane Lead, of London (16231704), Johann Wilhelm Petersen (1649-1727), and the Philadelphian Society which Mrs. Lead founded. With them the doctrine was established
not only on the Bible, but also on personal revela tions. It is noteworthy that Jakob Boehme (1575 1624), who so greatly influenced them, g. In Mod- did not teach it (cf. his Besehreibung ern Times. der drei Prinzipien g6ttlichen Wesens; Eng. transl., Concerning the Three Principles o f the Divine Essence, London, 1648, chap. xxvii. § 20). There is an elaborate de fense of the Apocatastasis by Ludwig Gerhard, Yollstandiger Lehrbegri f j der ewigen Evangehi von der Widerbringung aller Dinge (Hamburg, 1727). The Philadelphians won over the authors of the Berleburg Bibel (1726-42; see BIBLES, ANNO TATED, AND BIBLE SumxtARIEs); but their chief convert was Friedrich Christoph Oetinger (q. v.; 1702-82), who wove this tenet into his theological system, depending chiefly upon I Cor. xv. and Eph. i. 9-11. It is said that Bengel (1687-1752), the father of modern exegesis, believed in it, but thought it dangerous to teach publicly.The rationalists of Germany, after the second half of the eighteenth century, commonly and supernaturalists frequently have upon various grounds advocated the Apocatastasis. Thus, Schleiermacher (1768-1834) was pronounced in its favor, deriving his principal arguments from his doctrines of the will and of the atonement, and remarking that the sensitiveness of conscience in the damned, as revealed in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, shows that they may be better in the next life than in this, and also that if a portion of God's creatures were forever debarked from participation in the redemption of Christ, then there would be an inexplicable dissonance in God's universe. Martensen and Dorner considered the probability that between death and the last judgment there might be a fiesh offer of the gospel, but put a rejection and consequent exclusion from salvation among the possibilities. The difficulties of the estate of the " lost " have driven others, as Rothe, Hermann Plitt, and Edward White, to the theory of annihilationism (q.v.). Ritachl thought that such information as the New Testament gives hardly admits of a decision between the theories of endless punishment and complete annihilation. Friedrich Nitzsch considered belief in a final restoration as well founded as the opposite view, and admitted the hypothesis of annihilationism as a.third possibility. In America opposition to the orthodox teaching as to the absolute endlessness of conscious suffering after death of those excluded from heaven has led to the formation of the Universalist denomination (see UNIVERSAL Isrs); and there are many of other religious connections in the United States, England, and other countries who favor the doctrine of an Apocatastasls in more or less modified form. For further discussion consult the histories of Christian doctrine and the works mentioned in the article UNIVERSALLSTS. The teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, which is flatly against the doctrine, is presented by J. B. Kraus in Die Apokatastasis der unfreien Kreatur (Regensburg, 1850).
[Many significant facts indicate a relaxing of the traditional rigidity of belief with reference to this subject. There is an unwillingness on the
|
212 |
part of many to assume any dogmatic attitude concerning God's dealing with those who die impenitent. Again, there is a refusal to limit probation to the earthly life merely, fixing, instead, the decisive moment at the judgment, thus making room for those to whom an adequate offer of the gospel has been wanting here (cf. Progressive Orthodoxy, by professors of Andover Theological Seminary, Boston, 1886). Further, denominational approval or disapproval of the theory of an Apocatastasis is not so much in evidence as wide and influential advocacy of it by distinguished writers and preachers in many communions-the attitude partly of dogmatic belief, and partly of the " larger hope." It has been represented in Great Britain in the Established Church by F. D. Maurice (The Word " Eternal " and the Punishment of the Wicked, Cambridge, 1853), F. W. Farrar (Eternal Hope, London, 1878' Mercy and Judgment, 1881), E. H. Plumptre (The Spirits in Prison, London, 1886); among Baptists by Samuel Cox (Salvator Mundi, London, 1877; The Larger Hope, 1883); among Independents by J. Baldwin Brown (The Doctrine of Annihilation in the Light of the Gospel of Love, London, 1875) and R. J. Campbell of the London City Temple. In America it has found expression among Congregationalists by George A. Gordon (Immortality anal the New Theodicy, Boston, 1896), and among Baptists the grounds for it have been suggested by W. N. Clarke (Outline of Christian Theology, New York, 1898, pp. 476-480). Important theoretical considerations have influenced this result: (1) The tendency toward a monistic theory of the universe. (2) A change in the idea of God from that of sovereign and judge to that of father. (3) Election conceived of not as limited to a definite portion of mankind but, with Schleiermacher, as a historical process, therefore in this world only partially, in the world to come to be completely, realized. (4) The universal immanence of God and hence the presence of ethical and redemptive
Writings Withheld from Public Use (§ 1). Writings of Uncertain Origin (§ 2). Use of the Term by Protestants (§ 3). A. Old Testament Apocrypha. I. Position in the Canon. Apocrypha in the Greek Canon (§ 1). Used in Some New Testament Writings (§ 2). By the Church Fathers (§ 3). The Beginning of Exclusion (§ 4). Accepted by the Roman Catholic Church (§ 5). Rejected by Protestants (§ 6). II. Manuscripts of the Greek Text. III. Ancient Versions. 1. Latin. The Old Latin and Jerome's Versions (§ 1). THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG 212relations wherever the moral consciousness exists. (5) Life regarded less as probation than as discipline. (6) Sin defined not so much as wilful and incorrigible perversity as natural defect, ignorance, and emotional excess, as well as result of unfortunate heredity and unworthy environment. C. A. B.]
BIBLIOGRAPHY: In favor of the doctrine may be mentioned: F. Delitzsch, Bibliache Psydaologie, pp. 469-476, Leipslc, 1855, Eng. trand., Edinburgh, 1865; T. It. Birke, Vic tory of Divine Goodness, London, 1870; A. Jukes, Second Death and Restitution o/ All Things, ib. 1878; I. A. Dorner, Eschatology, ed. by Newman Smyth, New York, 1883; F. W. Farrar, Eternal Hope, London, 1892; Tennyson, In Memoriam, § liv. Against it: A. A. Hodge, Popular Lectures on Theological Themes, Philadelphia, 1887; A. Hovey, Biblical Eschatology, ib. 1888; and in general the orthodox writers on systematic theology. The subject may be studied in the various histories of doctrine and in the compends and systems of divinity in the sections on "Eschatology."
APOCRISIARIUS, ap"o-cris"i-6'ri-us: A general designation in early times for ecclesiastical ambassadors, derived from the Greek apokrinesthai " to answer " (hence the Latin term responsales for the same class). The name is found applied to the legates sent by the pope to guard his metropolitan rights in Sicily until the Mohammedan invasion, and to episcopal representatives in Rome. The office assumed its most formal and important character in the Easterp Church, where the patriarchs were represented at the imperial court by apocrisiarii, and bishops maintained similar diplomatic agents in the residences of the patriarchs. The popes also, at least from Leo the Great to the time of the iconoclastic controversy, regularly had apocrisiarii in Constantinople; they were sometimes called also diaconi, because usually chosen from the order df deacons. The officials described here have nothing but the name in common with the apocrisiarius of the Frankish ecclesiastical system (see ARe$icAPEa.LANus).
FRIEDBERG.) APOCRYPHA. 2. Syriac. The Peshito and Hexaplar Syriac Versions (§ 2). IV. Origin and Contents of the Indi. vidual Writings. 1. The Apocryphal Ems. 2. Additions to Esther. 3. Additions to Daniel. (a) The Song of the Three Children. (b) The History of Susanna. (o) Bel and the Dragon. 4, The Prayer of Manames. 5. Baruch. 6. The Epistle of Jeremiah. 7. Tobit. s. Judith. 9. I Maccabees. 10. II Maccabees. 11. III Maccabees. 12. Jesus $iraoh (Ecdesiudow). 13. The Wisdom of Solomon. B. New Testament Apocrypha. I. Apocryphal Gospels. 1. The Protevangelium of James. 2. The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew.3. The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary.
4. The History of Joseph the Car pentei.
6. The Gospel of Thomas.8. The Arabic Gospel of the Infancy.
7. The Gospel of NicodemusWritings Connected with the Name of Pilots and Relating to the Trial and'Death of Jesus
8-37. Apocryphal Gospels Preserved only in Fragments or Known only by Name.
II. Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles III. Apocryphal Epistles.
IV. Apocryphal Apocslypeee.Apocrypha is a Greek word meaning °` hidden," followers of Prodicus, according to Clement of which, when applied to writings, may signify either Alexandria (Strum., I. xv. 69), boasted of possessing those which are kept in concealment or those the the " apocryphal books " of Zoroaster, they called origin of which is unknown. The word is used is these works "apocryphal" not because they did both senses in patristic literature. When the not know their origin (since they ascribed them to
_ ~,t,~CGa~ ~ I ;R9k,|
213 |
Tertullian in the following passages. The former, speaking of the Marcosians,. says: " They adduce an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings, which they themselves have forged " (Hwr., I, xx, 1, ANF, i, 344); and Tertullian says: " I would yield my ground to you, if the scripture of the Shepherd [of Hermas] . . . had deserved to find a place in the divine canon; if it had not been habitually judged by every council of churches . . . among apocryphal and false writings " (De pudicitia, x, ANF, iv, 85). After the word was once introduced, its ambiguity easily led to a notion differing from the original meaning. In the case of Augustine this is certain. Jerome, too, seems to use the word in the sense of " obscure in origin " when he says that all apocryphal writings " are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed" (Epist., cvii, 12, NPNF, 2d ser. xi, 194) The two senses-" exclusion from public use in the Church " and " obscure in origin "-are often combined in the same passage. The meaning became finally so generalized that the word signifies simply what is wrong and bad, as in the Latin adaptation of Origen's " Preface to the Song of Solomon " at the end: " Those writings which are called apocryphal (which contain much that is corrupt and contrary to the true faith) should not be given place or admitted to authority;"the words in parentheses appear to be added by the Latin editor. (For further information cf. C. A. Credner, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, Berlin, 1860, pp. 110 sqq.; A. Hilgenfeld, Der Kanon and die Kritik des Neuen Testaments, Halle, 1863, pp. 6 aqq.; H. J. Holtzmann, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Freiburg, 1892, pp. 145 sqq.; T. Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, I, i, Leipsie, 1888, pp. 123 sqq.)
In the ancient Church and in the Middle Ages the term " apocryphal " was almost never applied, as in the Protestant Church, to those portions of the Greek and Latin Bibles which were foreign to the Hebrew canon. Indeed, it could not be so applied, for those books have always been a part of the Greek and Latin Bibles. Jerome alone once made a statement (in the Prologus galeatus) implying that these writings do indeed fall into the category of apocrypha. During the Middle Ages there were at the most a very few isolated voices which spoke to that effect (Hugo of St. Cher; cf. de Wette-Sehrader, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Berlin, 1869, p. 66). It was in
3. Use of the Protestant Church that this the Term by nomenclature first became customary.Protestants. The earliest to introduce it, appealing expressly to Jerome, was Carlstadt in his De canonicis eeripturis libeddus (Wittenberg, 1520; reprinted in Credner, Zur Geschichte des Kanons, Halle 1847, pp. 291 sqq.), He there expressly stated that by"apocryphal" he understood " non-canonical "; and in this sense the Protestant Church has always understood the word. The first edition of the Bible in which the writings in question were expressly called apocryphal was that of Frankfort, 1534, which was followed in the same year by Luther's first editi(m (cf. G. W.
|
214 |
Panzer, Geschichte der deutschen Bibelubersetzung, Nuremberg, 1783, pp. 294 sqq.).
A. Old Testament Apocrypha: Those portions of the Greek and Latin Old Testaments which are not found in the Hebrew Canon, the term " apocrypha " being used in this article with the meaning given to it by the Protestant Church (see § 3, above).
I. Position in the Canon: The Hebrew canon of the Bible in the first century of the Christian era comprised about the same books as at present, though the canonicity of the books of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs was disputed (Mishnah, Eduyot, v, 3; Yadayim, iii, 5; J. Fdrst, Der Kanon des Alten Testaments nach den Ueberlieferungen in Talmud and Midrasch, Leipsic, 1868; see CANON OF SCRIPTURE, I). But it was otherwise with the Hellenistic Jews. As far as the extent of the Greek canon of the Bible can be traced, it included a number of writings which are wanting in the Hebrew canon. No clear proofs of this from pre-
Christian times exist; but the fact 1. Apoory- that Christians using the Greek Bible aha in the received these other writings also Creek makes it highly probable that theseCanon. belonged to the canon of the Hellenistic Jews. While it may be conceded to the opponents of this view that Hellenistic Jews had no strict conception of a canon, it can not be denied that certain writings were received into the Greek Bible-collection which were foreign to the Hebrew canon (cf. De Wette-Schrader, Einleitung, pp. 311 aqq.; Bleek, TSK, 1853, pp. 323 sqq.). The fact that Philo did not quote these other writings proves nothing, since Philo was interested mainly in the Pentateuch.
In the New Testament there are no express references to the so-called Apocrypha, a fact the more remarkable since most of the New Testament authors took their quotations from the Greek translation of the Old Testament. But to understand this rightly, one must not forget that a number of canonical writings of the Old Testament are never cited in the New Testament; others only
seldom. The Pentateuch, the Proph2. Used is ets, and the Psalms are frequently
Some Now Testament quoted; the historical books not so Writings. often; while the Song of Songs, Eo-desiastes, Esther, Ezra, and Nehemiah are never cited. The lack of express citations can therefore not be emphasized; and on the other hand, it can not be denied that at least in some writings of the New Testament the Apocrypha are used. This applies particularly to the Epistle of James and that to the Hebrews. That Ecclesiasticus was known to the author of the Epistle of James can not be denied in the face of the many parallels (cf. Werner in TQ, 1872, pp. 265 sqq.). The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews doubtless refers in xi, 34 aqq. to the story of the Maccabees (cf. II Macc. vi, 18-vii, 42). Striking agreements with the Wisdom of Solomon are also found (thus Heb. i, 3=Wisdom vii, 26; Heb. iv, 12-13-Wisdom vii, 22-24); and there can be no doubt that Paul made use of this book (cf. in general Bleek, TSK, 1853, pp. 325 sqq., especially 337-349).
Among the Church Fathers the Apocrypha were in common use from the earliest times. Clement of Rome puts " the blessed " Judith beside Esther as an example of female heroism (Epist., Iv, ANF, ix, 245). Barnabas (xix, 9) goes back to Ecclus. iv, 31 when he quotes " Be not ready to stretch forth thy hands to take whilst thou withdrawest them from giving." Justin Martyr (Apol., i, 46, ANF, i, 178) refers to the additions to Daniel. That none of these passages has the form of a true
Scripture citation may be viewed as 3. By the accidental and may be explained
Church from the small extent of this oldestFathers. literature. But from the time of Athenagoras true citations can be proved. Athenagoras (" Plea for the Christians," i, 9, ANF, ii, 133) quotes among the " voices of the prophets," as divinely inspired, Baruch iii, 25 upon an equality with Isa. xliv, 6; Irenaeus (Hcer., IV, xxvi, 3, ANF, i, 497) cites as the words of " Daniel the Prophet " the history of Susanna, and (Hcer., V, xxxv, 1, ANF, i, 565) the Book of Baruch as the work of Jeremiah; Tertullian quotes the history of Susanna (De corona, iv, ANF, iii, 95), Bel and the Dragon (De idololatria, xviii, ANF, iii, 72), and the Wisdom of Solomon (Adversus Yalentinos, ii, ANF, iii, 504) as canonical Scripture. Clement of Alexandria quotes Ecclesiasticus very often with the formula " Scripture," " Holy Scripture," " Wisdom says," and the like, and not so frequently, but with the same formulas, Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, and Tobit. Abundant examples of the same practise can be cited from Hippolytus, Cyprian, and others.
In view of these facts it may be asserted that the Church of the first centuries made no essential difference between the writings of the Hebrew canon and the so-called Apocrypha. Only in an isolated way and evidently as the result of learned inquiry does an express limitation of the canon to the extent of the Hebrew Bible appear; for example, Melito of Sardis, according to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., IV, xxvi, 14), mentions only the books of the Hebrew canon as canonical, but he gives this list expressly as the result of learned inquiry in Palestine. When Origen gives a list which comprises only the Hebrew canon (Eusebius, Hist. ecd., vi, 25), he gives it as the canon of the Hebrews, and his own view can not be deduced from the passage given by Eusebius. On the other hand, from Origen's correspondence with Julius Africanus it is deducible that he was by no means in favor of excluding those parts which were wanting in the Hebrew canon, because he defends the Greek additions to Daniel, and he likewise cites some Apocryphal writings (Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Baruch) as " Scriptural authority," " the Holy Word," " Scripture" etc. (cf. De WetteSchrader, Einleitung, p. 53). ,The critique which Julius Africanus wrote on the Greek text of the Book of Daniel, trying to remove the portions not found in the Hebrew-Aramaic text (Epist. ad Ori9el,m), evidently remained an isolated phenomenon.
The learned disquisitions of men like Origen resulted, however, in this, that stricter regard was
|
215 |
paid to the difference between the Hebrew and the Greek canon. Wherever the purpose was to fix theoretically the range of the canon, recourse was had to the Hebrew canon as to something settled over against the fluctuations of the Greek canon. Thus there are a number of lists of the canonical books from the fourth century which confine themselves to the Hebrew canon and either do not mention the other writings or assign to them a lower value. Athanasius is most instructive in this respect. In his Epistola festalis, xxxix
(NPNF, 2d ser. iv, 552), after men 4. The Be- tioning the canonical writings of the tinning of Old and New Testaments, he adds Exclusion. Whom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith, Tobit, Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd of Hermas as " not included in the canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us and wish for instruction in the word of godliness." The specified writings were to be read in the Church, and are expressly differentiated by Athanasius from the "Apocrypha"; they are not mentioned at all in the lists of Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, and Amphilochius (of. T. Zahn, Geachichte, II, ,i, 172-180, 212 219). The usage of Epiphanius varies: in one place he gives only the Hebrew canon; in another he mentions also Tobit and Judith as in the canon, while Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom of Solomon seem to him " doubtful." That he expresses only his own opinion is proved by still a third passage (Hmr., lxxvi), where after the canonical writings, which are not named individually, he mentions Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus as " Holy Scripture." His wavering was due to the fact that, on the one hand, he used the canon of the Jews as the norm, while, on the other hand, he was unwilling to give up his Greek Bible (cf. T. Zahn, Geschichte, II, i, 219-226). The only one who in the ancient Church opposed the Apocrypha was Jerome; and this was no doubt due to his Hebrew studies and his zeal for the " body of truth in the Hebrew." The principal passage is in the Prologus galeatus (NPNF, 2d ser. vi, 489), in which he says that the books not on the list he gives must be reckoned among the Apocrypha.
All these declarations, more or ha unfavorable to the Apocrypha, lose much of their importance from the fact that the men who excluded the Apocrypha from the canon use them in an impartial manneras though canonical; soAthanasius, Cyril, Epiphanius, and even Jerome, who in spite of his theory is not afraid to quote Ecclesiasticus as " Sacred Scripture." Roman theologians have rightly laid great stress upon this fact; for it proves that, notwithstanding opposite theories, ecclesiastical practise on the whole was to use the Apocryphal like the canonical writings. Moreover, the West decided in their favor. Augustine (De dodrina Christiana, ii, 8) counted the Apocrypha as canonical, and the same was the case with the synods at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), held under his influence (cf. T. Zahn, Geschichte, II, i, 246-259). This position was prevalent down to the time of the Reformation, though in the Middle Ages
there were not lacking voices which sided with Jerome (cf. De Wette-Schrader, Einleitung, pp. 64 sqq.). In the Greek Church of the Middle Ages the Apocrypha were as a rule included in the canon.
In the Church of Rome the question concerning the Apocrypha was definitively settled by the Council of Trent, which in its fourth session fixed the extent of the canon in such a manner that it included the Apocrypha. Hence the official edition of the Vulgate (that of 1592) includes the Apocrypha with the other writings, and in the
5. Accept- following order: Nehemiah (numbered ed by the as II Ezra) is followed by Tobit, Roman Judith, Esther (with the additions), ChurchCatholic Job. Psalms> Proverbs> Ecclesiastes. > Song of Solomon, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecelesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch with the Epistle of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel with the additions, the Twelve Minor Prophets, I and II Maccabees. As an appendix (in smaller type and with the explicit statement that they stand " outside the series of canonical books "), the Old Testament is followed by the Prayer of Manasses, III and IV Ezra. From t.ds official canon of the Church of Rome the manu scripts and editions of the Greek Bible differ mainly in this, that in them III Ezra (which, however, is here always numbered as I Ezra) is put on a par with the other writings, IV Ezra (as a rule also the Prayer of Manasses) is wanting, III Maccabees being substituted for it; some few manuscripts and editions contain also IV Maccabees. The arrangement is generally this: I Ezra stands before the canonical Ezra; Judith and Tobit stand together with Esther; Wisdom, and Ecolesiasticus with the Solomonic writings; Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah with Jeremiah. The position of the books of the Maccabees is the most uncertain; in the (printed) editions they generally stand at the end of the Old Testament.In the Protestant Church, Carlstadt (De canoni cis scripturis, Wittenberg, 1520) was the first to pay special attention to the theory of the canon. He sided with Jerome in designating the writings in question as " apocrypha," that is, as non-canonical writings (cf. Credner, Zur Geschichte des Kanons, p. 364). Yet he distinguished within them two classes. On Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, Tobit, I and II Maccabees, he remarked: " These are apocrypha, i.e., outside of the Hebrew '5- IWOOW canon, nevertheless they are holy writings." The others, however, were
ptaate. for him " plainly apocrypha, deserv edly exposed to the strictures of the censor (Credner, 389): ' Though this discrimination has found no favor, Carlstadt's position is on the whole that of the Protestant Church. In the first complete original edition of Luther's translation (1534) the Apocrypha formed a supplement to the Old Testament with the heading " Apocrypha; that is, books which, although not estimated equal to the Holy Scriptures, are yet useful and good to read." As to the number of received writings, Luther's Bible agreed with the Vulgate, with the modification, however, that of the three books|
216 |
found in the appendix to the Vulgate the Prayer of Manasses was received, and both books of Ezra were excluded. In the Reformed Church the apocryphal books have received the same treatment as in the Lutheran, except that usually a stricter sentence has been passed upon them. In modem times, opposition has twice been raised against them, each time in England (1825 and 1850); and the result has been a substantial augmentation of information about them.
II. Manuscripts of the Greek Text: As the Apocrypha form an integral part of the Greek Old Testament, they are included in the Septuagint manuscripts, of which the most important are: (1) the Codex Vaticanus, in which the books of Maccabees do not appear; (2) the Codex Sinaiti cus, containing Esther, Tobit, Judith, I and IV Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus; (3) the Codex Alexandrinus, containing all the Apocrypha. (For particulars cf. the prolegomena to 0. F. Fritzsche, Libri Apocryphi Veteris Testamenti Greece, Leipsic, 1871. On the manuscripts of the Septuagint in general of. Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, Cambridge, 1900, pp. 122-170; see also BIBLE TEXT, I, 4, § 2.)
III. Ancient Versions: Mention is made here of only the Latin and Syriac because they are the most important in point of age and circulation.
1. Latin: Various Old Latin texts of most Apocrypha exist, the interrelations of which have not yet been fully investigated (cf. Scharer, Ge schichte, vol. iii). These must be distinguished from Jerome's translation, and an estimate of the amount of the Old Latin that has been preserved can be obtained only by inference from what is known concerning Jerome's labors. He undertook a twofold translation of the Old Testament. At first he was satisfied with revising the Old Latin translation on the basis of the Septuagint; after that he translated the Old Testament anew from the original text (cf. Kaulen, Geschichte der Vulgata, Mainz, 1868, pp. 153 sqq.; see BIBLE VERSIONS, A, II, 2), necessarily omitting the Apocrypha, be cause they were not in the original text. Jerome says expressly concerning some that he passes them by. In response to special 1. The.Old requests he worked over two of theLatin and apocryphal books Tobit and Judith, Jerome's bperformed the work hastily
Versions.and reluctantly and evidently not in connection with his great Bible version (cf. the ,preface to both books, Opera, ed. Vallarsi, 11 vols., Verona, 1734-42 x, 1, sqq., 21 sqq.). The Vulgate texts of .the additions to Esther and Daniel are also Jerome's work. He received these into his translation from the original text, but marked them with the obelus (cf. his remarks on Esther, Opera, ed. Vallarsi, ix, 1581). The translation of the additions to Esther is so free that in some passages it gives merely the general sense. The additions to Daniel are translated with greater fidelity, but from the text of Theodotion, as noted by Jerome himself. The version of these four books passed into the Vulgate. The Vulgate contains also the books of Ezra (put into the appendix since the Council of Trent), Baruch, and the Epistle
of Jeremiah, I and II Maccabees, Eoclesiasticus, and Wisdom. Since Jerome did not translate these, the Vulgate text is to be regarded as essentially the same as that of the Old Latin. The question is only whether some of these texts have not undergone correction at the hand of Jerome. It is to be regretted that information is very meager as to the extent of Jerome's revision of the Old Latin which was originally made from the Septuagint. But on two Apocrypha, the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus, there is a valuable notice in the extant " Preface to the Edition of the Books of Solomon according to the LXX " (Vallarsi, x, 436), from which it is learned that in Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom of Solomon, Jerome " saved the pen," i.e., he did not emend them since he " desired to correct only the canonical writings." As by "canonical writings" here he refers only to the Solomonic literature, it remains a possibility that he nevertheless emended the non-Solomonic Apocrypha, Ezra, Baruch, I and II Maccabees. And it is at any rate worthy of notice that these four books are extant in the Latin in double texts, whereas Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom acre extant only in the text of the Vulgate. The presumption is obvious: that one of each of these four double texts embodies the revision of Jerome. (The chief collection of Old Latin texts is P. Sabatier, Bibliorum sacrorum latine versiones antiquce, 3 vols., Paris, 1751; cf. also S. Berger, Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothpque Nationale et autres bibliothpques, Paris, 1893, xxxiv, 2, pp. 141-152; idem, Histoire de la Vulgate pendant lea premiers sibclea du moyen age, Paris, 1893; Thielmann. Berieht fiber das gesammelte handschriftliche Material zu einer kritischen Ausgabe der lateinischen Uebersetxungen des Alten Testaments, in Sitzungaberichte der Munchener Akademie, hiat. Klasse, 1899, vol. ii, pp. 205-243.)
2. Syriac: Here also distinction must be made between the common Syriac (Peshito) and the Hexaplar Syriac version. The former was printed by Walton in the London Polyglot, and, from examination of six manuscripts in the British Museum, by P. de Lagarde (Libri Veteria Testamend apocrypha Syriace, Leipsie, 1861). The most important manuscript is the Codex Ambrosianus B. 21 Inf. of the sixth century,
2. The which contains the whole of the Old
pH~p~ Testament and the following Apoo-
gyriac rypha: Wisdom, Epistle of Jeremiah,
versions. I and II Epistles of Baruch, addi
tions to Daniel, Judith, Ecelesiasticus,
Apocalypse of Baruch, IV Ezra, I-V Maccabees (V
Maccabees -Josephus, War, vi). Only Ezra and
Tobit are wanting. The character of this Syriac
translation is different in the different books, some
being quite literal and faithful, others free and
inaccurate. The Hexaplar Syriac is the Syriac
translation prepared after the text of Origen's
Hexapla, and is for the most part extant in manu
scripts at Milan, Paris, and London. The most
important manuscript is the Codex Ambrosianus, C.
313 Inf- It contains Wisdom, Ecclesfasticus,
Baruch, Epistle of Jeremiah, and the additions
to Daniel. TO the Hexaplar translation belongs
|
217 |
also the Syriac text of Tobit i-xii. The rest of the book is from the Peshito.
IV. Origin sad Contents of the Individual Writings.1. The Apocryphal Ezra (I Esdras; for II Eadras See PSEUDEPIGRAPHA, OLD TESTAMENT, II, 7): In the Greek Bibles this book is called II Ezra; in the Latin, III Ezra (Nehemiah =II Ezra). The whole is a worthless compilation, the main part of which is identical with the canonical Ezra. The mutual relations may be seen from the following:
Chap. i = II Chron. xxxv-xxxvi: The restoration of the temple worship under Josiah (639-609 B.C.), and the history of Josiah's successors till the destruction of the Temple (588). Chap. ii, 1-14=Ezra i: Cyrus in the first year of his reign (537 B.C.) allows the exiles to return, and restores to them the vessels of the Temple. Chap. ii, 15-25 = Ezra iv, 7-24: In consequence of an accusation against the Jews, Artaxerxes (465-425 B.C.) forbids the continuation of the building of the Temple and the walls of Jerusalem. Chap. iii-v, 6, independent: Zerubbabel obtains the favor of Darius (521-485 B.C.), and secures permission to lead the exiles back. Chap. v, 7-70=Ezra ii, 1-iv, 5: List of those who returned with Zerubbabel, the activities of Zerubbabel, and the interruption of the building of the Temple during the time of Cyrus (536-529 B.C.) and till the second year of Darius (520 B.C.). Chap. vi-vii= Ezra v-vi: Resumption and completion of the building of the Temple in the sixth year of Darius (516 B.C.). Chap. viii-ix, 36 Ezra vii-x: Ezra returns with a caravan of exiles in the seventh year of Artaxerxes (458 B.C.); the beginning of Ezra' s activities. Chap. ix, 37-55 = Neh. vii, 73-viii, 13: Ezra proclaims the Law.
The apocryphal differs from the canonical Ezra in the following four points: (1) The passage iv, 7-24 of the canonical Ezra is placed first; (2) the passage iii-v, 6 of the apocryphal Ezra is inserted from an unknown source; (3) II Chron. xxxvxxxvi serves as a preface; (4) Neh. vii, 73-viii, 13 is added at the end. In the canonical Ezra, iv, 6-23 is in the wrong place; it belongs to a later period and treats not of the interruption of the building of the Temple but of the interruption of the building o_ the walls. The redactor of the apocryphal Ezra has indeed taken it out of its wrong surroundings, but he has increased the confusion by locating the passage wrongly and by adding as supplement the account of the interruption of work on the Temple. Not satisfied with this he inserted also the piece iii-y, 6, which transfers the action into the time of Darius, whereas in v, 7-70 events in the reign of Cyrus are discussed. Thus the history goes backward; first (ii, 15-25) Artaxerxes, then (iii-v, 6) Darius, finally (v, 7-70) Cyrus. And in the last passage it is told very ingenuously how Zerubbabel had already returned with the exiles under Cyrus (cf. v, 8, 67-70), after the statement has been made expressly that Zerubbabel through a special favor of Darius obtained permission to return. The opinion of Howorth that the apocryphal Ezra is more original than the canonical is a·reversal of the actual state of the case, as icy sufficiently shown by Kosters. Concerning the sources used by the compiler two facts appear: (a) The canonical Ezra which he used was not that of the Septuagint, but was the HebrewAramaic original (cf. Nestle, Marginalien and Mat-Wien, Tiibingen,1893, pp. 23-29); (b) the portion iii-v, 6 he certainly found ready to hand, since it stands in the directest opposition to the rest of the narrative. It seems to be from a Greek
original, not a translation from the Hebrew. The purpose of the entire compilation was correctly stated by Bertholdt (Historisch-kritische Einleitung in die Micher des Alten Testaments, 6 vols., Erlangen, 1812-19, iii, 1011) in the following words: "He intended to compi?e from older works a history of the Temple from the last epoch of the legal worship to its rebuilding and of the reestablishment of the prescribed divine service." The compiler evidently purposed to quote further from Nehemiah; for the abrupt close can not possibly have been intended. As to the date of compilation all that can be said is that the book was used by Josephus (Ant., xi, 1-5).
2. Additions to Esther (The Rest of Esther): The Book of Esther narrates how Esther, the fosterdaughter of a Jew named Mordecai at the court of King Ahasuerus (Xerxes) in Shushan, becomes the wife of the king; how Haman, the prime minister who intended to destroy Mordecai and all Jews, is himself brought to the gallows; and how by her intercession Esther finally induces the king to revoke the edict issued under Haman's influence, and thus saves her people. Into this narrative the following pieces are inserted in the Greek Bible: (a) Before i, 1, Mordecai's dream of the miraculous deliverance of his people; (b) after iii, 13, the text of the first edict of Artaxerxes (thus the king is named in this section) which decrees the extermination of the Jews; (c) after iv, 17, the text of the prayers of Mordecai and Esther for the salvation of their people; (d) in place of v, 1-2, the reception of Esther by the king; (e) in place of viii, 13, the text of the second edict of Artaxerxes, which recalls the first; (f) after x, 3, Mordecai perceives the significance of his dream. It is difficult to decide whether these pieces were interpolated by the translator of the Septuagint version of Esther or by a later hand. There is no reason for assuming for them a Hebrew original. It is true that Hebrew and Aramaic texts exist, but they are late in origin, and most likely were made directly or indirectly from the Greek, as were other Hebrew and Aramaic texts of the Apocrypha. For these additions Josephus is the oldest witness (Ant., VI, vi, 6 sqq.), since the annotation to Esther according to which Dositheus and his son Ptolemy brought the book (to Egypt) in the fourth year of the reign of King Ptolemy and Cleopatra, refers to the book as a whole and can not be used as testimony for the antiquity of the interpolated passages. Moreover, this testimony is very indecisive, since there were no less than four Ptolemies, each of whom had a wife named Cleopatra. In this book, especially interesting is the text-recension which is extant in Codices 19, 93A, lO8B, the latter two containing both texts, the common and the revised. The revision of the common text, which on the whole characterizes the readings of these manuscripts, is more radical in Esther than is usual, on which account Fritzsche published both texts side by side in his edition of 1848 as well as in his collection of the Apocrypha. Lagarde did the same in his edition of the Septuagint (i, 1883).
3. Additions to Daniel: (a) The Song of the Three Children: In the third chapter of Daniel it
,. _ . laesr:|
218 |
Daniel proves to the king of Babylon (whom Theodotion calls Cyrus) that the god Bel neither eats nor drinks the offerings put before him. The destruction of a dragon, which is an object of worship, Daniel brings about by feeding it with indigestible cakes. Being cast into the lion's den at the instigation of the enraged populace, Daniel is not touched by the lion, and is miraculously fed by the prophet Habakkuk.
Of these three insertions the first only is a proper supplement to the canonical book of Daniel. The other two are independent and probably originated independently. There is no certain reason for assuming that either of the three insertions was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic. The history of Susanna is certainly a Greek original, as was inferred by Julius Africanus and Porphyry from plays on words possible only in Greek (cf. Bertholdt, Einleitung iv, 1575 sqq.; a thorough but nevertheless abortive effort to put aside the force of these plays was made by Wiederholt in TQ, 1869, pp. 290-321). Of the Song of the Three Children in the furnace and the story of the dragon, Gaster published an Aramaic text from a Jewish chronicle of the Middle' Ages, which he regards as the original (Garter, The Unknown Aramaic Original of Theodotion's Additions to the Book o f Daniel, in PSBA, xvi, 1894, pp. 280-290, 312-317; xvii, 1895, pp. 75-94). But the author of the chronicle says that he gives the insertions, " which Thodos found; and this is the section which was inserted into his text by Thodos, the wise man, who translated in the days of Commodus, King of the Romans " (PSBA, xyi, 283, 312). Since Symmachus and Aquila are also mentioned as Bible translators, Thodos is no doubt Theodotion, as Gaster also states. The chronicler himself thus declares that the insertions are later than Theodo tion. Still less originality can be claimed by an, other Aramaic (Syriac) reproduction of the story of the dragon, which Raymundus Martini quoted in his Pugio fcdei, and which was published by Neubauer (The Book o/ Tobit, London, 1878, pp. xci-xcii, 39-43); the same can also be said of the Hebrew recension of the History of Susanna in Jellinek, Bet ha-Midraeh (6 vole., Vienna, 1877, vi, 126-128). On account of the linguistic agreement of the insertions with the translation of the rest ofthe book, Fritzsche is led to the assumption that they are united with the book by the translator [of the Septuagint], and were recast by him (Exegetisches Handbuch, i, 114). This is improbable if the Greek origin of the insertions is maintained. Before the Daniel legend could produce new formations in the Greek language, a Greek book of Daniel had to exist. On the History of Susanna there is an interesting correspondence between Julius Africanus and Origen, in which the former denies the genuineness of the story and the latter defends it (Julii Africani de historia Susannce epistoln ad Origenem et Origenis ad ilium respon8io, ed. J. R. Wetstenius, Basel, 1674, Eng. tranal., ANI%, iv, 385-392). The text of the Septuagint of the Book of Daniel, together with its additions, was early displaced from ecclesiastical use by the version of Theodotion; consequently all manuscripts and editions of the Septuagint contain Theodotion's version of Daniel. The text of the Septuagint is extant in only one manuscript, which is in the library of Prince Chigi at Rome (Codex Chisianus, no. 88 in Holmes's Vetus Te8tdmentum; Tischendorf dates it in the eleventh century), and was first edited by Simon de Ma,gistris (Daniel aecundum LXX ex tetraplis Origenis nunc primum editus a singulari Chismno codice, Rome, 1772). A correct reprint of the Codex Chisianus was first published by Cozza (Sacroram bibliorum vetustissima fragments Grceca et Latina, part iii, Rome, 1877), and after him by Swete (The Old Testament in Greek, iii, Cambridge, 1894). Wherever Theodotion could not revise after a Hebrew original, his text in the additions is nothing but a revision of the Septuagint. The text of the Septuagint is the basis of the Hexaplar-Syriac version.
4. The Prayer of Xanasses: After King Manasseh had been taken to Babylon by the Assyrians, and while in captivity, he repented and besought God to be delivered; God heard his prayer and brought him back again to Jerusalem (II Chron. xxxiii, 11-13). According to II Chron. xxxiii, 18-19, this prayer was written in the " Book of the Kings of Israel " and in the " history of HOZai " and " among the sayings of the seers." This reference suggested the composition of a prayer which should correspond to the situation. It is found in some manuscripts of the Septuagint (e.g., Codex Alexandrinus) among the hymns given at the head of the Psalms; and is also quoted in full in the Apostolic Constitutions, ii, 22. The latter furnishes the earliest trace of the existence of the prayer; it may be, as Nestle supposes, that it was transferred from this passage into the manuscripts of the Septuagint. It is nowhere found in the text of Chronicles. The Latin translation in the Vulgate (since the Council of Trent put into the appendix) is entirely different from the Old Latin, and is of very late origin.
b. Harnoh: Under the name of Baruch, the faithful friend and companion of the prophet Jeremiah, whose prophecies he wrote down (Jer. xxxvi, 4, 17 sqq., 27, 32; xlv,1) and with whom he shared the involuntary abode in Egypt (Jer. xliii, 5-71, a work is extant which consists of the follow-
|
219 |
ing three parts, rather loosely connected: (a) i, 2iii, 8: In the fifth year after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans (586 B.C.), the Jews in Babylon send messages to Jerusalem to the high priest Joiakim, forward money to provide sacrifices for the Temple, and ask prayers for the life of King Nebuchadnezzar and his son Belshazzar. In the letter which the messengers bring to Jerusalem the point is especially emphasized that the present misfortune is but a punishment for the people's sin and their disobedience to God's commandments, es