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, especially because they did not obey the king of Babylon, as God desired them; (b) iii, 9-iv, 4: Israel is exhorted to return to the source of all wisdom, who is God alone; (c) iv, 5-v, 9: The discouraged people are exhorted to take heart. Though Jerusalem is devastated and the people scattered, God will bring them back into the holy city.
Opinions differ much as to the date of composition. It is the more difficult to decide because the three pieces of which the work is composed are of different character and come from at least two, possibly three, authors. The position of Roman Catholic theologians that the book really belongs to Baruch is untenable. The author was unacquainted with the circumstances of the times (cf. Fritzsche, Exegetisehes Handbuch, i, 170), and was in the dark as to the situation invented by himself, not having pictured it clearly to his own consciousness. On the one hand, he presupposed the destruction of the city by the Chaldeans (i, 2), yet spoke as if the ritual and the Temple itself still existed (i, 10, 14). Even Ewald's view, that the book originated in the latter Persian and first Greek period, is far from the truth. There are parallels with the Book of Daniel which make certain literary dependence of one upon the other. Daniel ix, 7-10 corresponds almost literally to Baruch i, 15-18. But it is hardly conceivable that such a very original and creative mind as the author of Daniel copied from Baruch. This brings the book down into the later Maccabean times, on account of the necessary interval between Baruch and Daniel. With this date most of the Protestant critics seem to be satisfied (so Fritzsche, Exegetiaches Handbuch. i, 173, and De Wette-Sehrader, Einleitung, p. 603). But it is very questionable whether this is correct, whether, with Hitzig (ZWT, 1860, pp. 262 sqq.) and Kneucker (Dos Buch Baruch, Leipsic,1879), the date should not be brought down to the time of Vespasian.
Mention should be made of the fact, first noted by P. E. E. Geiger (Der Psalter Salomos, Augsburg, 1871, p. 137), that Baruch v has the same viewpoint as the Psalter of Solomon xi. The thoughts are in part derived from Isaiah. A literary relationship between Pseudo-Solomon and PseudoBaruch can hardly be denied. Considering the psalmlike character of Baruch, it seems more appropriate to grant priority to the psalms than to Baruch. This would lead at least into the time of Pompey, in which the psalms originated (cf. Schdrer, Geschichte, iii, 150 sqq.). Besides, the first as well as the third part of the book presupposes the destruction of Jerusalem and of the
Temple, the devastation and ruin of the country, and the removal of the inhabitants into captivity (i, 2; ii, 23, 26; iv, 10-16). To be sure, according to the author's plan, the action is placed in the time of the Chaldeans; but the whole work, with all its exhortations and consolations, suits a similar situation, and is not sufficiently motived, unless the contemporaries of the author lived under the pressure of like conditions (cf. Fritzsche, Exegetisches Handbuch, i, 172 sqq.). Circumstances similar to those of the time of the Chaldeans existed again in consequence of the great war of 66-70 A.D. Such a destruction of city and Temple took place neither in the time of the Maambeans nor in the time of Pompey (to which Graetz assigns the book). Finally, some striking peculiarities suggest the war from 66 to 70. The author considers the misfortune of Israel a punishment for its rebellion against the king of Babylon, and exhorts the people to offer sacrifice and prayer to Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar (ii, 21 sqq., i, 10 sqq.). In like manner Josephus (War, II, xvii, 2-4) saw the real cause of the war in the abolition of the sacrifice for the Roman emperor. The entire unhistorical juxtaposition of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar suggests Vespasian and Titus. That parents might eat the flesh of their children during a famine (ii, 3) was already threatened (Lev. xxvi, 29; Deut. xxviii, 53; Jer. xix, 9; Ezek. v, 10), and is stated as a fact (II Kings vi, 28 sqq.; Lam. ii, 20, iv, 10). It may be recalled that the very same thing is also narrated of the war under Vespasian (Josephus, War, VI, iii, 4). In view of these facts the inference is allowable that the Book of Baruch originated in the time of Vespasian. It is first quoted by Athenagoras (" Plea for the Christians," ix, where Baruch iii, 35 is quoted as the utterance of a prophet), and is also quoted by Irenaeus (Hcer., IV, xx, 4; V, xxxv, 1), and Clement of Alexandria (Peedngogus, I, x, 91-92; II, iii, 36).
The question of the unity of authorship can be treated only in connection with the question of the original language. In the latter respect Jerome says (Prolegomena in Jer.), " It is neither found nor read among the Hebrews." Over against this in the Hexaplar-Syriac there occurs three times (in i, 17 and ii, 3) the remark " This does not exist in the Hebrew" (cf. Ceriani's notes to his edition in the Monumentasacraet profana, i, 1, Milan, 18611871). According to this, it maybe assumed that a Hebrew Baruch, corresponding to the Greek which has been preserved, was known to antiquity; and the linguistic character, at least of the first part, confirms this assumption. But the diction from iii, 9 is perceptibly different. Accordingly the view of Fritzsche has much in its favor; viz., that the first part is a translation from the Hebrew; the rest, however, is from a Greek original (Exegetiachea Handbuch, i, 171 sqq.). With this it is also decided that there were two authors; the translator of the first part added the rest from his own resources, but both are to be dated in the time of Vespasian. Finally it is worthy of remark that the use of Theodotion's version of Daniel can be shown (cf. L. E. T. ADM, Lea Apocryphes de 1'Ancien Testament, Paris, 1904, pp. 251 aqq.;
|
220 |
TLZ,1904,p.255). Fromthisit must be inferredthat this version is much older than is generally supposed.
e. The Epistle of Teremiah: As an addition to the Book of Baruch there is often found the socalled Epistle of Jeremiah (occurring as chap. vi in the Vulgate, in Luther's Bible, and in the English). Originally it had nothing to do with the Book of Baruch, and in older manuscripts is separated from it. But without any valid reason the two were united at a very early period. The letter is addressed to the exiles designated by Nebuchadnezzar to be led to Babylon. In contents it is a somewhat diffusive dnd rhetorical exhortation, though in good Greek, against the Babylonian deities, together with an ironical description of their nothingness. Its genuineness is out of the question; for the epistle was certainly originally written in Greek. Besides, the duration of the exile (verse 3) is given as lasting seven generations in opposition to Jer. xxix, 10. Many find in II Macc. ii, 1 sqq. direct reference to this epistle. But what is said there has nothing to do with it. Still less can it be regarded as a reference to the epistle, when the fact is taken into account that in one Targum to Jer. x, 11, this Aramaic verse is designated a " copy " from an epistle of Jeremiah (cf. Nestle, Margi nalien and Materialien, 1893, pp. 42 aqq.).
7. Tobit: The name of this book and of its hero is read in the Vulgate Tobias ; but in the Greek text Tobit (or Tobith), in the English translation "Tobit," where "Tobias" is only the name of the son of Tobit. According to the Greek text, in the first part of the book Tobit himself tells his story, speaking in the first person; from iii, 7, the narrator speaks in the third person. Tobit, a son of Tobiel of the tribe of Naphtali belonged to the exiles who were led away to Nineveh into captivity by the Assyrian king Shalmaneser. He lived there also under the kings Sennacherib and Esarhaddon and always distinguished himself by an exemplary piety. Since in spite of this piety he still experienced misfortune, he was derided and ridiculed (i, 1iii, 6). A similar experience was. that of a pious woman named Sara, the daughter of Raguel in Ecbatana (iii, 7-15). Because both prayed to God in their distress, the angel Raphael was sent to deliver both from the sufferings which befell them in their innocence, and to unite Sara and Tobias, the son of Tobit, in marriage (iii, 16-xii, 22). Tobit sang a psalm of praise in honor of God, and lived to be a hundred and forty-eight, and Tobias lived to be a hundred and twenty-seven (xiii, xiv). This is the course of the narrative, which is adorned with many details, exhibits a good talent for composition, and also displays the spirit of the strictly Pharisaic legality. Older theology down to the nineteenth century regarded the story as history; but the narrative is no doubt pure fiction. Its object is obvious; it is to prove that God never forsakes the pious and righteous; on the contrary, he always takes care of them, though they seem to be forsaken; finally that he richly rewards their piety. On this account those who, like Tobit, dwell among the Gentiles should not suffer themselves by the hardships of their external circumstances to become faithless to God.
The contents being so general, it is impossible to fix the time of composition. But with some probability it may be said that the book originated during the last two centuries B.c. There is no reason to go down to the post-Vespasian time, as Hitzig does (ZWT, 1860, pp. 250 sqq.); for here the case is essentially different from that of Baruch. While it is true that from the standpoint of the Assyrian times the destruction of Jerusalem and, conformably to it, its rebuilding also are prophesied (xiv, 4-5; xiii, 9-10, 16 sqq.), the entire book is by no means intended to comfort the readers for the destruction of Jerusalem. It is true that Hitzig infers, from the fact that the author depicts the rebuilding of city and Temple with more extravagant colors than would apply to the historical building, that he did not live while this historical building stood. But a careful consideration of the principal passage sets us right. Chap. xiv, 5 reads: "And they shall build the house but not like to the former, until the times of that age be fulfilled; and afterward they shall return from the places of their captivity, and build up Jerusalem gloriously, and the house of God shall be built in it forever with a glorious building, even as the prophets spake concerning it." Here two things are plainly distinguished: (a) the historical building of Zerubbabel, which is insignificant (" not like to the former "); and (b) the beautiful building of eternity, which is to follow this at the end of this age, which is still in the future even for the author. The very fact that the writer knew nothing of a repeated catastrophe between the two would indicate that he lived in pre-Vespasian or even in pre-Herodian times. Clear signs of a use of the book are lacking till the second century of the Christian era. Reference is made in xiv,10 to the legend of Achikar or Achiachar, which is extant in different late recensions (cf. Conybeare, Harris, and Lewis, The Story of Ahikar from the Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Greek, and Slavonic Versions, London, 1898). No Hebrew (or Aramaic) copy of the book was known to Origen and his Jewish advisers (Epist. ad Africanum, xiii: "The Jews neither use Tobit nor Judith, nor do they have them in Hebrew "). It is therefore probable that the extant Semitic texts are late. An Aramaic text was edited by A. Neubauer (The Book of Tobit, a Chaldee Text from a Unique MS. in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, 1878; cf. G. Bicknell, in ZKT,1878, pp. 216-222; T. Nbldeke, in Monatsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1879, pp. 45-69; and G. H. Dolman, Grammatik des JQiscl-paldstinischen Aramdisch, Leipsic, 1894, pp. 27-29). There exist also two Hebrew compositions generally acknowl-
edged to be of late date (cf. C. D. Ilgen, Die Geschichte Tobi's, Jena, 1800, exxxviii aqq., ecxvii aqq.; Fritzsche, Exegetischm Handbuch, ii, 5, 9 sqq.,
xiv; T. N61deke, Die AkWtamentliche Litteratur, Leipsic, 1868, pp. 108 sqq.). The Aramaic text has this in common with the Latin revision of
Jerome (and with this only), that the story of Tobit is narrated from the beginning in the third person, whereas in all other texts, in i, 1-iii, 6, Tobit speaks in the first person. The Aramaic text is thus perhaps identical with, or at any rate nearly related to, that used by Jerome. Dalman for linguistic
|
221 |
reasons declares it to be later. But a decision is difficult, since Jerome actually leans more upon the Old Latin. Since the uniform adoption of the third person is evidently secondary, the originality of the Aramaic as against the Greek is out of the question. It is probable that in the Aramaic text also the first person in chap. i, 1-iii, 6 was originally preserved; for it is still used in the so-called Hebraus Munsteri, which, according to other indications, was made from the Aramaic. But even with this supposition there is no reason to assume an Aramaic text as the original of the Greek (so Fuller in Wace's Apocrypha, i, 152-155, 164-171). The style of the Greek text makes its originality rather probable. Of the Greek text there are three recensions: (a) the common text contained also in the Vatican and Alexandrian manuscripts and followed by the Syriac version to vii, 9; (b) that preserved in the Sinaitic codex upon which the Old Latin leans for the most part; (c) the text of codices 44, 106, 107, which are the basis of the Syriac from vii, 10. The manuscripts named represent in the beginning the common recension, so that this text is preserved only for vi, 9-xiii, 8. In his edition of the Apocrypha, Fritzsche gives all three texts. Swete gives the text of the Vatican and Sinaitic.
e. Judith: The contents of this book are briefly as follows: Nebuchadnezzar, king of Assyria (sic), overcomes Arphaxad, king of Media, and sends his general, Holofernes, against the Western nations which did not take the field with him against Arphaxad. They are subdued, and their places of worship destroyed (i-iii). Holofernes now attacks the Jewish people, who had recently returned from the captivity and rededicated their temple. In the face of the imminent danger of having their sanctuary profaned, the whole people are bent upon resistance to the utmost, and the high priest Joiakim makes the necessary arrangements. Holofernes directs his main attack upon the fortress Bethulia, which he hopes to conquer by famine (iv-vii). The distress having become very great, a beautiful widow, Judith by name, offers to become the savior of her people. Having been admitted to the hostile camp, she contrives to gain the confidence of Holofernes. While Holofernes lies in a drunken stupor, Judith kills him and then hastens back into the city. The Jews make a sally, put the enemy to flight, and all Israel is saved (viii-xiv). Judith is praised as the savior of the people, and at her death at the advanced age of 105 years is greatly lamented by all the nation (xv-xvi).
As is the case in the Book of Tobit, so here there can be no doubt that the contents is not history but a didactic narrative. The historical details are so incredibly confused, and the parenetic object is so manifest, that only by wilfully closing the eyes can one fail to see that the book is fiction. What the parenetic object is, is plain enough: The Jewish people was to be encouraged to fight with the sword boldly and resolutely, for the continuance of its faith and worship, even against a superior enemy. This points clearly to Maccabean times. It may be admitted that the presupposed historical
background would fit well the time of Artaxerxes Ochus, for this king in one of his campaigns against Phenicia and Egypt (c. 350 B.C.) made prisoners among the Jews; and Holofernes of Cappadocia and the eunuch Bagoes were the most prominent generals in these campaigns. Since, in the history of Judith, both Holofernes and the eunuch Bagoes play parts (xii, 11 sqq., xiii,1 sqq., xiv, 14), it seems easy to locate the Judith story in the time of Ochus.
But the author mentions also Nebuchadnezzar. All that can be said is that in his literary license the author took a part of his material from events in the time of Ochus (T. Ntildeke, Die a1ttestamenlliche Litteratur, Leipsie, 1868, p. 96; and Aufsdtze zur ptersischen Geschichte, Leipsie, 1887, p. 78). But he certainly wrote later. And, since the story deals with a time of religious oppression, Maccar bean times are indicated as the date of composition (cf. Fritzsche, Ewald, Hilgenfeld, and N6ldeke). Volkmar, Hitzig, and Graetz date it in the time of Trajan. Volkmar especially has vainly expended much learning and fancy to prove that the history of the campaigns of Nebuchadnezzar and Holofernes is merely a disguised representation of the campaigns of Trajan and his generals against the Parthians and the Jews. The fact that Clement of Rome (lv) mentions Judith forbids this late dating. It is generally agreed that the Greek text is a translation of a Hebrew original, as is evident from the entire coloring of the language and from mistakes in the translation (i, 8; ii, 2; iii, 1, 9, 10; cf. Fritzsche, Ezegetisches Handbuch, ii, 115 sqq.). The Aramaic recension which Jerome perused is not to be regarded as the original, since neither Origen nor his Jewish advisers knew of a Hebrew (or Aramaic) text (Epist. ad Africanum, xiii, quoted above). It appears that the original was lost before Origen's time, and that the Aramaic translation used by Jerome originated after that time. The extant paraphrastic Hebrew recensions are still later products (cf. Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Yortrdge der Juden, Berlin, 1832, pp. 124 aqq.; Lipsius, in ZWT, 1867, pp. 337366; Ball, in Wace's Apocrypha, i, 252-257; Gaster, in PSBA, xvi, 1894, pp. 156-163). Of the Greek text three recensions are extant: (a) the common and original one; (b) that of the codices 19,108; (c) that of 58, which was followed by the Syriac and the Old Latin.
9. I Maocabees: The name Maccabeus was originally only the surname of Judas, the son of Mattathias (I Mace. ii, 4: " Judas who was called Maccabeus "). By it Judas was at all events to be characterized as a valiant hero. The assured meaning of the name is yet to be found. From Judas the name was afterward applied to the whole family, even to the whole party of which Judas became leader. So, generally, the Maccabeans were the believing Israelites, who, in defense of the faith of their fathers, undertook the struggle against the Syrian overlordb. I Maeeabee8 tells the story of these struggles and the history of the independent Jewish community which was the fruit of these struggles up to the time of the death of the high priest Simon (135 B.C.). It commences with the beginning of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (175 B.C.), narrates how his efforts at a forcible
|
222 |
suppression of the Jewish religion became the cause of the open revolt against Syrian overlordship, describes the changing results of this revolt under the leadership of Judas Maccabeus until his death (161 B.C.); then the further course of the Maccabean efforts under the guidance of Jonathan, brother of Judas, who, by adroitly taking advantage of circumstances, was able to obtain from the Syrian kings reeognition of his status as prince and high priest of the Jews (161-143 B.C.); finally the history of the high priest Simon, a third brother (143-135 B.C.). The narrative is rich in detail and by its unadorned simplicity wins a confidence which, so far as Jewish history is concerned, is not shaken by the fact that the author shows himself badly informed on matters concerning foreign nations, such as the Romans. The exaggerated numbers even do not detract from its credibility in other things. That a narrative which enters so into detail must be based upon other sources is a matter of course, though nothing more definite can be stated concerning the character of the sources. A reference to these seems to be indicated in ix, 22 (cf. Grimm, in Fritzsehe, Exegetischea Handbuch, iii, 22 sqq.). The book compares to good advantage with other historical books in that it fixes all important events according to an established chronology, the Seleucidan era, which begins in the autumn of 312 B.C. But I Maccabees apparently makes the era begin in the spring of that year. The time of composition can be fixed with great probability within very narrow limits. On the one hand the author knew a chronicle of the acts of John Hyrcanua (135--105 B.C.; cf. xvi, 24). From this can be inferred that he wrote after John's reign. On the other hand, he certainly wrote before the expedition of Pompey, since the Romans were for him friends and protectors of the Jewish people. The composition belongs therefore to an early decade of the first pre-Christian century. That the book was originally written in Hebrew is evident from its linguistic character, a conclusion confirmed by the testimony of Origen and Jerome; the former (in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VI, xxv, 3) gives the Hebrew title of the book, the meaning of which, on account of the uncertainty of the text-tradition, is difficult to ascertain. Jerome says in the Prologua galeatus; " I Maccabees I found in Hebrew; II Maccabees is Greek, as can be proved from the very language." The Greek translation was used by Josephus (cf. Grimm, in Fritzsche, Exegetischm Handbuch, p. 28; H. Bloch, Die Quellen des Flavius Joaephus, Leipsic, 1879, pp. 80-90). It is strange that Josephus knows hardly anything of chaps. xivxvi. J. von Destinon (Die Quellen des Flaviua Joaephua, Kiel, 1882, pp. 60-91) supposed therefore that the book originally did not have these chapters and that the first copy differed also in other respects from the present. But the very free use made by Josephus offers no sufficient support for this theory. A Hebrew recension which A. Schweizer (Uratersuchungen caber die Reste einea hebrdischen Textes nom ersten Makkabderbuch, Berlin, 1901) considers original was made in the Middle Ages from the Latin (cf. TLZ, 1901, p. W5; REJ, XU, 1901, pp.215-221).
10. II Maooabees: This book is parallel with I Maccabees except that it begins a little earlier; viz., with the last year of Seleucus IV, Philopator, brother and predecessor of Antiochus Epiphanes, and closes much earlier; viz., with the victory of Judas Maccabeus over Nicanor (161 B.C.). It therefore covers a much shorter period than the first. In its literary, historical, and religious character it differs much from I Maccabees. It is more rhetorical, and its language and style prove that it was originally produced in Greek. In credibility it stands far below I Maccabees. It narrates in part the same events, in part different event,, and in a different order. On the whole, in cases of conflict between the two, it is better to follow I Maccabees, though it may be admitted that in some details the second may here and there follow a better tradition. The means by which to decide with certainty in every case no longer exist; and the second book deserves a less degree of confidence, because its purpose is by no means exclusively historical. The author's interest was evidently more narrowly religious than that of the first. His immediate object was not to narrate the deeds of a glorious past, but to influence the present religiously.
Of the sources, the author himself says (ii, 19 sqq.) that his book is only an epitome of the large work of Jason of Cyrene, which in five books narrated the history of the Maccabean struggles in the times of Antiochus Epiphanes and his son Antiochus Eupator. Unfortunately, this Jason of Cyrene is otherwise wholly unknown. This much can be said of the time 0f the epitomist with some certainty, that he wrote before the destruction of Jerusalem, as may be inferred from the purpose of the book and also from xv, 37. Josephus seems to have read neither the work of Jason nor that of the epitomist. It is possible that the description of the tyrants who persecuted the pious and virtuous, given in.Philo, Quod omnis probes fiber, xiii, depends upon II Maccabees (so P. E. Lucius, Der Essenismu8, Strasburg, 1881, pp. '36-39). Heb. A, 35 sqq. seems to refer to II Mace. vi and vii. The first express quotation is found in Clement of Alexandria (Strom., V, xiv, ANF, ii, 467): " Aristobulus, who is mentioned by the composer of the epitome of the books of the Maccabees " (cf. II Mace. i, 10).
11. n'I Xsooabeee: If II Maccabees falls short of credibility when compared with the first,.the third can lay still less claim to the character of a historical document. It has the name " Book of the Maccabees " very improperly and only because it treats also of the oppression and deliverance of believing Israelites. It has nothing to do with the time of the Maccabees. The contents are as follows: Ptolemy IV, Philopator (222-205 B.C., visits the temple at Jerusalem after his victory over Antiochus the Great at Raphia (217 B.C.). Being seized with a desire to penetrate into the Holy of Holies, and not heeding the entreaties of the people to forego his outrageous purpose, the king is punished when about to carry out his design by falling paralyzed to the ground. Enraged at this, on his arrival in Egypt, he wreaks his vengeance on the Alexandrian Jews. But all his
|
223 |
decrees are frustrated 'by God's miraculous intervention. The king now becomes a friend and benefactor of the Jews, whom he permits to kill the apostates, a privilege of which they make much use.
The style in which this narrative is written corresponds closely to the insipidity of the contents. The book is more bombastic and unnatural than II Maccabees. Since the narrative evinces its unhistorical character, it is necessary only to inquire what facts possibly form the basis of or induced its composition. To begin with, it is to be remembered here that Josephus transfers the story of the confinement of Jews in the Hippodrome to be trodden down by elephants to the reign of Ptolemy VII, Physcon (Apion ii, 5); like III Maccabees (vi, 36), he remarks that in remembrance of the deliverance experienced, the Alexandrian Jews annually celebrated a festival. According to this the narrative seems to have some historical foundation; and as concerns the chronology, Josephus is to be followed rather than III Maccabees. At all events this work is a late production. The author knows the Apocryphal additions to Daniel (of. vi, 6). The book is mentioned by Eusebius (Chron., ed. Sch6ne, ii, 122 sqq.) in the Canones Apostolorum (Ixxxv), by Theodoret, and others (Grimm, in Fritzache, Exegetisches Handbuch, p. 21). The abrupt beginning shows the book has not come down complete.
12. Jesus Slraoh (Eoolesiasticus): The Book of Proverbs by Jesus the son of Sirach is the extra, canonical double of the canonical Book of Proverbs. Like that, it gives the results of practical wisdom in poetical form. It comprises the whole range of human life in all directions and relations, and aims at giving the correct point of view for all human enterprises so they may be correct as concerns conduct. The highest as well as the lowest, the greatest as well as the smallest, are brought within the sphere of the author's reflections and counsels. He speaks of the fear of God and of divine wisdom, of friendship and mercy, of self-control and moderation, and of other virtues; he speaks also of the contrary vices. He speaks of the special tasks which differences in age, sex, calling, and in civic and social position make obligatory upon the individual. He speaks of the mutual relations between parents and children, masters and servants, high and low, rich and poor. He gives maxims of prudence for social intercourse and political behavior. The form in which he clothes his thoughts is throughout that of Hebrew poetry. No plan for the book is discernible. The writer arranges his ideas in groups, but these groups are not arranged with reference to any scheme. The morality which runs through the whole is indeed somewhat homely, sometimes purely utilitarian. But on the whole there is a solid, seriously moral disposition expressed in the book, combined with a rational and practical contemplation. of the world. What the author offers is the ripe fruit of a many-sided education and of a long experience.
The extant Greek text is, as may be seen from the preface, only a translation. Jerome asserts that he had seen a Hebrew exemplar (of . the Preface to his translation of the Solomonic books, ed.
Vallarsi, ix, 1293 sqq.): " There is a right praiseworthy book of Jesus the son of Sirach and a pseudepigraphical one which is called the Wisdom of Solomon. The first I found in the Hebrew called ' Proverbs,' and not ` Ecclesiasticus,' as among the Latins, to which are added Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs; so that they agreed with the books of Solomon not only in number, but also in the kind of matter."
Prior to 1896, only a few sayings of the Hebrew original, which are quoted in Rabbinic literature, were known (collected by Schechter in JQR, iii, 1891, pp. 682-706; still more completely by Cowley and Neubauer, The Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus, London, 1897, pp. xix-xxviii). Since 1896 large portions of the Hebrew text have been discovered. They all come from the genizah (" lumber-room ") of the ancient synagogue at Cairo. The fragments are remains of four different manuscripts, and supplement each other in such a way that, on the whole, two-thirds of the Hebrew text has been recovered. Of the flood of literature which these finds have induced the principal text-publications are mentioned below (especially important are The Book of Eccksiasticus in Hebrew, London, 1901, a facsimile of all the leaves; the condensed work of N. Peters, Der yiingst wiederaufgefundene hebrdische Text des Buches Ecclesiasticus, Freiburg, 1902; and R. Smend, Die Weisheit des Jesus Sirach erk1drt, 1906,-and Die Weisheit des Jesus Siraeh hebrdisch and deutsch herausgegeben, 1906). The denial of the originality of the Hebrew text by Margoliouth, Bickell, and formerly also by Levi, must be called an aberration. Almost all competent scholars regard this as beyond doubt. Besides the Greek versions and the Hebrew fragments, there is still another witness, the Syriac translation. This was not made from the Greek, like the other Syriac texts of the Apocrypha, but directly from the Hebrew. From the passage quoted above from Jerome, it is seen that the book was called " Proverbs " in the Hebrew. In Greek manuscripts the standing title is " The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach." In the Latin Church the title Ecclesiasticus has become customary since the time of Cyprian.
The author calls himself "Jesus the Son of Sirach the Jerusalemite " (I, 27). The preface of his grandson, the translator, gives his date. He says of himself that he came into Egypt " in the thirty-eighth year of King Euergetes."- This can not mean the translator's thirty-eighth year of life, but the thirty-eighth year of the reign of Euergetes. Of the two Ptolemies who had the name " Euergetes" the first ruled only twenty-five years. Consequently, only the second, whose full name was Ptolema?us VII, Physcon Euergetes II, can be meant. He ruled conjointly with his brother from 170 B.C. and was sole king from 145 B.C. But his regnal years were reckoned from the former date. According to this, the thirty-eighth year in which the grandson of Jesus sirach came into Egypt was 132 B.C. The grandfather, the author of the book, may have lived and written about 190-170 B.C. It is singular that in the Latin Church
|
224 |
the book has usually been regarded as a work of Solomon, on which account some Western canonical lists reckon five Solomonic writings (T. Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, ii, 151, 245, 251, 272, 1007 sqq.).
13. The Wisdom of Solomon: In some books of the Old Testament, wisdom, that is, the wisdom resting in God and coming from him, is praised as the highest good, as the source of all perfection and the giver of all happiness and blessing (cf. Prov. viii-ix and Job xxviii, 12 aqq.). In later literature this was a favorite thought, and was further developed. It is met with again in Jesus Sirach and in the Wisdom of Solomon. The author of this book, who assumes the name of Solomon, reproaches his royal colleagues, the Gentile rulers (i, 1; vi, 1), with the folly of impiety and especially of idolatry. Only the pious and. righteous is truly happy; the impious falls under divine judgment. Idolatry is the height of folly. In opposition to it the author recommends true wisdom, using the idea in its fullest possible content. For he under stands by the word " ° wisdom "subjective as well as objective, human as well as divine. Both have one meaning, and are identical in essence. Human wisdom adjusts true knowledge to all spheres of life. It instructs man in the ways of God and teaches him God's holy will. On this account it is the source of all happiness and all true joy to him who gives himself to it. It imparts not only honor and glory but also eternal life and everlasting salvation. And this it can do only because human wisdom is but an emanation from the' divine wis dom, or, rather, is identical with it. Originally it was joint possessor with God of his throne (ix, 4); it was present when God created the world (ix, 9); it is most intimately connected with God and initiated into God's knowledge (viii, 3-4); it is a breathing of the power of God, an effulgence from the glory of the Almighty (vii, 25-26); its action is identical with God's; it works all things (viii, 5), orders all things (viii, 1), and renews all things (vii, 27). From these fundamental thoughts the standpoint of the author is evident; he was a Jewish philosopher. On the one hand, he occu pied throughout the standpoint of Old Testament revelation; on the other hand, he had acquired also a peculiar philosophical culture. He had learned not only from the sages of his people, but also from the Hellenes, from Plato and the Stoics. He thus belongs to that school, the classical rep resentative of which is Philo, which can be desig nated as a marriage of Jewish faith with Greek philosophical culture. With this everything is said that can be said of the author of the book. The book stands between Jesus Sirach and Philo, and is the bridge from the one to the other. As to its date, it can be put with some probability be tween the two, 150-50 B.C. (cf. Grimm, in Fritz sche, Exegetisches Handbuch, vi, 32-34), though the inference from priority in thought to priority in time is not cogent. It is certainly wrong to think, like Weisse and others, of a Christian author. Clear traces of an acquaintance with the book are found in the New Testament (cf. W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, Comnwntary on Rorwm, 1895,pp. 51-52, 267-269). It is first quoted in the time of Irenaeus (Eusebius, Hist eccl., v, 26). That the book was originally written in Greek is a. matter of course, considering its lofty rhetoric, which is somewhat artificial and overdone. Jerome says, " The very style betrays Greek eloquence."
E. SCHURER.BIBLIOGRAPHY: Texts, Greek, along with the Septuagint: Codex A, by Grabe, 4 vols., Oxford, 1707-20; by H. H. Baber, 3 vols., London, 1812-26; facsimile ed., by E. M. Thompson, ib. 1881. Vatican Codex and Codex PridericoAuyustanua, by Tischendorf, Leipsic, 1846, and 4 vols., Rome, 1862. Codex B, by Mai, 5 vols., Rome, 1857; by C. Vereellone and J. Cozza, 6 vols., ib. 1868-81 (a corrected ed. of Mai); photographic reproduction, 6 vols., ib. 1889-90. Critical and comparative text: H. B. Swete, Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint, 3 vols., Svc, Cambridge, 1895-99 (a 4to ed. is in preparation).
Separate editions of the Apocrypha: A. Fabricius, Co dex pseudepigrapkus veteris testamenti, 2 vols., Hamburg, 1722-23; by Augusti, Leipsic 1804; and by Apel, ib. 1804; O. F. Fritzsche Libri Apocryphi, ib 1871 (apart from Swete's, the best edition). Latin: by Stephens, Geneva, 1556-57; the Sixtine ed., 3 vols., Rome, 1590 (corrected, 1592, from which all Roman Catholic editions are copied). P. Sabatier, Bibliorum aacrorum . . . vetus italica, Reims, 1739-49 (Old Latin text). Syriac: P. de Lagarde, Libri v eteria teatamenti apocryphi Syriace, Leipsic, 1861; by Ceriani, Codex Ambrosianua B ,21, photolithographie ed., 2 vols.,. Milan, 1876-83, and Codex Ambrosianus C 313, photolithographic ed., Milan, 1874, also Baruch and Letter of Jeremiah, Milan, 1861; by C. Bugati, in Syriac the additions to the Book of Daniel, Milan, 1788. German: E. Kautzsch, with the help of numerous scholars, DieApocrypken and Pseudepipraphen des Alien Testaments, 2 vols., Tfbingen, 1900 (contains introduction, notes, and brief bibliographies). English: The older Bibles usually contained the Apocrypha; besides these, the Variorum ed. by C. J. Ball, London, 1892 (contains full notes); the Bagster ed., London, n.d. (authorized text; the Revised Version was issued at Cambridge, 1895); consult also: W. R. Churton, Uncanonical and Apocryphal Scriptures, London, 1884. Lexicon: Wahl, Clavia . . . apocrypkorum, Leipsic, 1853.
Introductions: L. E. T. Andrd, Les Apotryphea de 1'Ancien Testament; Florence, 1903; B. Welts, Die deutero kanonischen Biieher, in J. G. Herbst, dinleitung, II, iii, Freiburg, 1844; W. M. L. de Wette, Einleitung in die kanonischen and apokryphischen B iicher, 8th ed. by Sehrader, Berlin, 1869; S. J. Comely, Introductio in veteria testamenti libros . . . ii, 1-2, Paris, 18&7; F. Buhl, Khnon and Text des Alien Testaments, Leipsic, 1891 (Eng. tranel., London, 1892); F. E. KSnig, Einleitunp in das Alte Testament, mit Biuechluaa der Apokryphen, Bonn, 1893; Schdrer, Geschichte, iii, 1898 (Eng. transl., II, iii, 1891; contains general and special introduction and notes of literature); K. Budde, Geschichte der althebrdischen Litteratur: Apocryphen, van A Bertholet, Leipsic, 1906; S. N. Sedgwiek, The Story of the Apocrypha, London, 1906.
Exegetical literature on the entire Apocrypha: O. 25ekler, [in Kurzpefasater Kommentar, Die Apokryphen, Munich, 1891; O. F. Fritzsche and C. L. W. Grimm, Kurzgefasstes exepetisches Handbuch z u den Apokryphen, Leipsie, 1851-60; H. J. van Holtzmann, Die apokry phiwAen BUcher, i b.1869; E. Reuss, La Bible, Ancien Tes tament, vi, vii, Paris, 1878-79; E. C. Bissell, Apocrypha o/ the Old Testament, New York, 1880, addition to the Fag. transl. of Lange's commentary; The Old Testament, Authorized Version, with Brief Commentary, Apocryphal Books, London, S.P.C.K., 1881; H. Waee, Holy Bible, urith
Commentary, Apocrypha, 2 vols., London, 1888, in the Speaker's Commentary.
On the individual books: The Apocryphal Ezra; the text and notes by Bensly and James in TS, iii, 2, Cam-
bridge, 1895; R. L. Bensly, Missing Fragment op asFourth Book of Ezra, London, 1875 DB, e. v. Esdras, i (1898), 758-766; R. Basset Apocryphes ahiopiens traduiten franfais Paris, 1i4;% H. Gunkel, Der Prophet
Ezra, Tabingen, 1900; EB, s. v. Ears, the Greek, ii,1488-94; JE, s. v. Esdras v, 219-222.
Apocryphal Esther: A. Seholtz, Kommentar fiber das Buch Bether m zt . . . Zuadtzen andaber Susanna, Wtirz-|
225 |
burg, 1892, also Die Namen in Ruche Esther, in TQ, 1890, pp. 209-264; Jacob, Das Bach Esther bei den LXX, in ZATW, x (1890), 241-298; JE, v, 237-241.
Apocryphal additions to Daniel: O. Bardenhewer, Bibhsche Studien, ii, 2-3, pp. 155204, Freiburg, 1897; vi, 3-4, ib. 1901; W iederholt, in TQ, 1869, 287 sqq., 377 sqq., 1871, 373 sqq., 1872, 554 sqq.; Brill, in Jahrbacher fair jadieche Geschichte and Litteratur, iii (1877),1-69,viii (1887), 22 sqq.; A. Scholz, see above under Esther; EB, i, 10131015; DB, i, 267-268, iv, 630-632, 754-756; W. H. Daubney, The Three Additions to Daniel; A Study, Cambridge, 1906.
Prayer of Manasseh: E. Nestle, Septuapintastudien, iii, 4, p. 6 sqq., and iv, Stuttgart, 1899.
Baruch: J. J. Kneucker, Das Bach Baruch, Leipsic, 1879 (the best book on the subject); H. A. C. Havernick, De libro Baruchi . . commentarius critieus, KSnigsberg, 1843; F. H. Reusch, Erkldttunp des Ruches Baruch, Freiburg, 1853; Gritz, in Monateachrilt far Geachichte and Wissensehaft des Judentuma, 1887, pp. 385-401; DB, i, 251-254; EB, i, 492-494; JE, ii, 556-557.
Epistle of Jeremiah: DB, ii, 578-579; EB, ii, 2395.Tobit: Semitic Studies in Memory of A. Kohut, ed. by G. A. Kohut, 264-338, Berlin, 1897; F. H. Reusch, Das Buch Tobias, Freiburg, 1867; A. Neubauer, Tobit, a Chaldee Text, Oxford, 1878; A. Scholz, Commentar zum Buche Tobias, Wilrzburg, 1889; M. Rosenmann, Studien zum Ruche Tobit, Berlin, 1894; F. C. Conybeare, J. R. Harris, and L. Lewis, Story of Ahikar from the Syriac, Arabic . . . Versions, London 1898; E. Cosquin, Le Livre de Tobie et Miatoire du Ahikar, in Revue Biblique, Jan., 1899; DB, iv, 785789; JE, xii, 171-172.
Judith: A. Scholz, Dae Buch Judith, sine Prophetie, Wurzburg, 1885; idem, Commentar sun Ruche Judith, ib. 1887; Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de la Bible, iii, 1822-33; JE, vii, 388-390.
The Books of Maccabees: K. F. Kell, Commentar, Leipsie, 1875 (still the best); C. Berthesu, Ds secundo libro Maccabworum, G6ttingen, 1829 (quite useful); H. Ewald, Geschichte, iv, 602 sqq., GSttingen, 1864; H. Graetz, Gesehichte der Juden, iii, 613-615, 671-684, Leipsie, 1884; A. Schlatten, Jason von Cyrene, Munich, 1891; G. A. Deissmann, Bibelatudien, pp. 258 sqq., Marburg, 1895, Eng. transl., pp. 341-345, Edinburgh, 1901; H. Willrich, Juden and Griechen vor der makkabaischen Erhebunp, pp. 64-65, GSttingen, 1895; W. Fairweather and J. S. Black, in Cambridge Bible for Schools, Cambridge, 1897; Abrahams , in JQR, 1896, pp 39-58, 1897, pp. 39 sqq.; A Biichler, Die Tobiaden and die Oniaden im II Makkabderbuche, Vienna, 1899; B. Niese, Kritik der beiden Makkab4erbacker, Berlin, 1900; DB, iii, 187-196; EB, iii, 2857-81; Stuys, De Maccabdorum libria, Amsterdam, 1904; JE, viii, 239 sqq.
Ecclesiasticus: C. Seligmann, Das Buch der Weiaheit des Jesus Sirach, Breslau, 1883; A. Astier, Introduction au live de 1'Eccl&iastique, Strasburg, 1861; T. K. Cheyne, Job and Solomon or the Wisdom of the Old Testament, London, 1887; E. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, pp. 246282, ib. 1889 (text-critical); H. Bois, Essai sur les origines de la philosophic Judeo-Ahxandrine, pp. 160--210, 313-372,Paris, 1890; D. S. Margoliouth, The Place of Eccleaiaaticm in Hebrew Literature, Oxford, 1890; E. Nestle, Marpinalien and Materialien, PP 48-59, TGbingen, 1893; 1. Levi, L'EeclUsiastique, ou la Sapesse de Jlsus, fas de Sira, Paris, 1898; H. Herkenne, De veterls Latinm ecclesiastics capitibus, i-xliii, Leipsie, 1899 (important for the text); also in Bardenhewer's Biblieche Studien, vi, 1, 2, pp. 129-14, 1901; N. Peters, ib. iii, 3, 1895; EB, i, 11641179, iv, 4640-51; DB, iv, 539-551; JE, xi, 388-397. On the recently discovered Hebrew text consult: Facsimiles of the Fragments recovered of the Book of Ecclua. in Hebrew Oxford, 1901 (a complete edition); A. E. Cowley and A. Neubauer, Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiaeticua, Oxford, 1897 (text and discussion); A. Sehlatter, Das neugefuudene hebr4ieche Stuck des Sirach, Guteraloh, 1897; R. Smend, Das hebraische Fragment .
des Jesus Sirach Berlin 1897; F. E. KSnig, Die Originalitat des neulich entdeckten Sirach Texts#, Freiburg, 1899; D. S. Margoliouth Origin of the " Original Hebrew " of Ecclus., London, 1899 (combats originality of the Hebrew text); S. Schechter and C. Taylor, The Wisdom of Ben Sira . . from Heb. MSS. in the Cairo Genizah Collection, Cambridge, 1899 (chiefly textual); H. L. Strack, Die Sprache Jesus des Sohnea Sirach Leipsie, 1903; 1. Levi, The Hebrew Text of the Book of Xcclesiasticus, with Notes 1-15
and Glossary, Leyden, 1904; most of the literature on the new text appeared in periodicals of the year ,1900; cf. Theolopiacher Jahresbericht for 1900 (gives 51 titles). Wisdom of Solomon: W. J. Deane, Book of Wisdom,
London, 1881; E. Pfleiderer, Die Philosophic des Heraklit von Ephesus, Berlin, 1886; J. Drummond, Philo Judaus, i, 177-229, London, 1888; P. Menzel, Der priechische EinRuss auf . . . Weiahevt Salomos, Halle, 1889; H. Bois, Eaaai ear In orlgines de la philosophic Judeo-Alexandrine, pp. 201-307, 373-412, Paris, 1890; DB, iv, 928-931; EB, iv, 5336-19; JE, xii, 538-540.
B. New Testament Apocrypha: The relation between the canonical and the apocryphal writings of the New Testament is quite different from that between the same classes of books of the Old Testament. The Old Testament Apocrypha aim simply at a continuation of sacred history and strive to accomplish their purpose in a legitimate manner though without divine authority. The apocryphal writings connected with the New Testament, on the contrary, aim to introduce spurious sources among the genuine. They are writings which by name and contents pretend to be canonical, though the Church, because of their dubious origin and contents, has not given them a place in the canon. Like the canonical books of the New Testament, they may be divided into four 'classes: I. Gospels; lI. Acts of the Apostles; III. Epistles of the Apostles; IV. Apocalypses.
These writings are of very unequal value. The apocryphal Acts seem to have had the most influence in the Church; for they, more than the Gospels, were looked upon as " the source and mother of all heresy." Of course, not all of these writings were composed directly for heretical purposes. Many of them, no doubt, had more innocent motives, such as mere "pious fraud." But from their first appearance -a suspicion of heresy clung to them all and contributed much to put the whole literature under ban.
When the canon of the New Testament was fixed and the apocryphal books thereby became outlawed, they ceased to be read; and in the Middle Ages, even their names were forgotten. Nevertheless, although the books themselves were delivered over to contempt and oblivion, it was not so with their contents. From their fables sprang sacred legends, which were kept alive in the Church during the Middle Ages as "ecclesiastical tradition," which was often utilized in the development of its dogma. Indeed, numerous dogmas, usages, and traditions hark back to these apocryphal writings; and it was consequently of as much moment to the Protestant Church to subject this whole literature to a thorough investigation as it was to the Roman Church to keep the whole matter in convenient obscurity. The careful study of these writings in modern times has proved of great value, revealing a wealth of material usable for the elucidation of archeological and dogmatic problems. Study of them has become a distinct department of the theological curriculum.
I. Apocryphal Gospels: Of the many apocryphal Gospels (J. A. Fabricius, in his Codex apo rryphus Novi Testaments, 2 vols., Hamburg, 1703, reckons over fifty), some have come down entire, others only in fragments; and of a few only the names are known. The method employed in these
|
226 |
compositions is always the same, whether the author intended simply to collect and arrange what was floating in the general tradition or intended to produce a definite dogmatic effect. He rarely relied on his own invention; but generally elaborated what was hinted at in the canonical Gospels, transformed words of Jesus into deeds, described the fulfilment of an Old Testament prophecy in a slavishly literal manner, or represented Jesus as working marvels closely resembling but surpassing Old Testament miracles. The work done, the author took care to conceal his own name, and inscribed his book with the name of some apostle or disciple, in order to give it authority. In the following list those Gospels are first mentioned the texts of which have been preserved.
1. The Protevangelium of James: This was ascribed to James, the brother of the Lord; in the index of Gelasius and Hormisdas it is called the " Gospel of James the Less [Younger]." It has twenty-five chapters, and covers the period from the announcement of the birth of Mary to the murder of the innocents. It is very old, perhaps of the second century, was widely circulated, and shows traces of Ebionitic origin. The text is given by Tischendorf (Evangelia Apocrypha, 2d ed., Leipsic, 1876; Eng. transl. by A. Walker, ANF, viii, 361-367), also by Conybeare from an Armenian manuscript (AJT, i, 1897, pp. 424 sqq.).
8. The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, or Book of the Origin of the Blessed Mary and the Infancy of the Savior: This begins with the announcement of the birth of Mary, and closes with the youth of Jesus, and is contained in forty-two chapters. It seems to be of Latin origin, and to have been drawn from the Protevangelium of James and the Gospel of Thomas (Eng. transl., ANF, viii, 368383).
8. The Gospel of the Nativity of Xary: This contains in ten chapters the history of Mary before the birth of Jesus. It covers therefore nearly the same ground as the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, but is a .little later in date (Eng. tranal., ANF, viii, 384-387).
4. The History of Joseph the Carpenter: This contains in thirty-two chapters a biography of Joseph, and gives an elaborate description of his death. It was evidently written in glorification of Joseph, and was intended for recital on the day of his festival. It probably belongs to the fourth century; and, as Joseph was a favorite of the Monophysite Copts, Coptic (and not Arabic) was most likely the language of the original (Eng. transl., . ANF,viii, 388-394).
6. The Gospel of Thomas: This, next to the Protevangelium of James, was the oldest and most popular of the Apocryphal Gospels. It was in use as early as the middle of the second century, among the Gnostics with whom it originated, especially among those who held Docetic views of the person of Christ. It is extant in two Greek recensions, in a Latin and in a Syriac version; all of which have somewhat expanded titles. The two Greek recensions and the Latin version are given by Tischendorf (pp. 140-180); English translation of the three by Walker (ANF, viii, 395-404).
8. The Arabic Gospel of the Infancy: This comprises in fifty-five chapters the period from the birth of Jesus to his twelfth year, and consists mostly of stories dealing with the residence in Egypt. The first nine chapters follow very closely the Pretevangelium of James; the last twenty chapters follow the Gospel of Thomas; the part between seems to rest on some national tradition, which explains the favor it found among the Arabs, as well as the circumstance that several of its details were incorporated into the Koran. The whole work has an Oriental character, and shows contact with magic and demonology and with Zoroastrian ideas. No more definite date for its composition can be fixed than that it antedated the Koran. The Arabic text is probably a translation from the Syriac; and no manuscript is earlier than the thirteenth century. Tischendorf published a revised Latin translation; English version by Walker (ANF, viii, 405-415).
7. The Gospel of Nioodemus: This consists of two separate works, the Deeds [or Acts] o f Pilate and The Descent of Christ to the Underworld, which were united at an early date, and the whole did not receive the title " Gospel of Nicodemus " until after the time of Charlemagne. The former of these two works is of some importance for the explanation and further elucidation of the canonical Gospels (cf. Lipsius, Die Pilatusakten, 2 ed., Kiel, 1886), while the latter is of very little interest. The former contains a detailed account of the trial of Jesus before Pilate, and of the action of the Sanhedrin subsequent to his death, which was intended to furnish proof of the resurrection and ascension. The latter contains an account by two men, Carinus and Leucius, who had been raised from the dead. The text of the Gospel of Nico demus is given by J. C. Thilo (Codex aPocryphua Novi Teatamenti, Leipsic, 1832), who furnishes a list of translations into English, French, Italian, and German, and by Tischendorf; English trans lation by Walker (ANF, viii, 416-458). In moat of the manuscripts containing these two works and in close connection with them occur other writings; namely: (a) An Epistle of Pilafs to the emperor, containing a report on the resurrection of Christ. (b) An Epistle of Pontius Pilafs, another letter, in which he excuses the in justice of his decision by the impossibility of resist ing the prevailing excitement. It was widely diffused in early times. (c) The Report of Pilafs on the trial, execution, death, and resurrection of Jesus. (d) The Judgment of Pilafs, a report of the examination of Pilate before the emperor, his condemnation and execution. Others which deserve nothing more than mention of their titles are: (e) The Death of Pilafs; (f) The Narrative of Joseph of Arimathea; (g) The Avenging of the Savior; (h) The Reply o f Tiberius to Pilafs (Eng. transla., ANF, viii, 459-476).8-87. Apocryphal Gospels Preserved only is Fragments or Known only by Name: Besides the Gospels mentioned above there were others, of which there remain only a few fragments or only the names: (8) The Gospel according to the Egyptians: Quoted by Clement of Rome and
|
227 |
Clement of Alexandria, and mentioned by Origen, Epiphanius, and Jerome. It was used by the Encratites and Sabefians [and composed either at Antioch (Zahn) or in Egypt (Harnack) in the middle of the second century]. (9) The Eternal Gospel: The work of a Minorite of the thirteenth century, based upon Rev. xiv, 6. It was condemned by Pope Alexander IV. It is mentioned here solely because of its name and is not properly reckoned among the apocryphal Gospels (see JOACHIM OF FIORE). (l0) The Gospel of Andrew: Perhaps the same as the Acts of Andrew (see below II, 6). (11) The Gospel of Apelles: Possibly a mutilated version of a canonical Gospel like that of Marcion (cf. A. Harnack, De Apellis gnosi nwnarchia, Leipsie, 1874, p. 75). (12) The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles: Jerome identified this with what he calls the Gospel among the Hebrews. (18) The Gospel of Barnabas. (14) The Gospel ofBartholomew: On the tradition that Bartholomew brought the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew to India, where it was found by Panteenus, cf. Fabricius, i, 341. (16) The Gospel of Rasilides. (18) The Gospel of Cerinthus: Mentioned by Epiphanius (Hcer., li, 7); perhaps a mutilated version of the Gospel according to Matthew, similar to that used by the Carpocratians. (17) The Gospel of the Ebionites: Epiphanius (Hcer., xxx, 13, 16, 21) has preserved fragments of this Gospel which he says was a mutilated Gospel of Matthew called by the Ebionites The Hebrew Gospel. It is not identical with the Gospel of the Nazarenes. (18) The Gospel of Eve: Mentioned by Epiphanius as in use among certain Gnostics (Her., xxvi, 2,3, and 5). [Preuschen prints the extracts quoted by Epiphanius as a fragment of an Ophite Gospel (Antilegomerta, Giessen, 1901, p. 80). Jesus is represented as saying in a voice of thunder: " I am thou, and thou art I, and wherever thou art there am I, and in all things I am sown. And from whencesoever thou gatherest me, in gathering me thou gatherest thyself." Cf. J. H. Ropes, Die Sprache Jesu, Leipsie, 1896, p. 56.] (19) The Gospel swording to the Hebrews: According to the testimony of Jerome, this book was identical with the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles and the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and was written in Aramaic in Hebrew characters, used among the Nazarenes, and translated by himself into Greek and Latin. (2D) The Gospel of James the Elder: Said to have been discovered in 1595 in Spain, where, according to tradition, James labored. (21) John's Account of the Departure of Mary: It exists in Greek, in two Latin versions (all three translated into English by Walker, ANF, viii, 587-598), also in Syriac, Sahidic, and Arabic versions. (22) The Gospel of Judas Isosriot: According to Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and Theodoret, used among the Cainites, a Gnostic sect. (28) The Gospel of Leuolus. (24) The Gospel of Lucian and Hesyehius: Mentioned as forgeries by the Decrctum Geldsii (VI, xiv, 15). Jerome (" Prologue to the Gospels ") believes that they were only the first regions of the Gospel text, though he also charges the two men with unauthorized tampering with the text. Lucian was a presbyter at Antioch;
Hesychius was a bishop in Egypt toward the end of the thud century. (25) The Gospels of the Xan ioheaas: These were four in number (d) The Gos pel of Thomas, a disciple of Manes (this Gospel must be distinguished from the other Gospel of Thomas, see 5 above); (b) The Living Gospel; (c) The Gospel of Philip; (d) The Gospel of Abdas. (28) The Gospel of Xsrcion: Marcion (q.v.), the founder of the famous anti-Jewish sect known as Marcionites, admitted only Pauline writings into his canon. He lived in the first half of the send century. The passages in which Paul speaks of his Gospel (Ram. ii, 16; Gal. i, 8; II Tim. ii, 9) obviously suggested the attribution to him of a special Gospel. Marcion regarded the Gospel of Luke as Paul's, but he ob tained this Gospel only by eliminating from Luke all Jewish elements, as is attested by Iremeus, Origen, and Tertullian. The latter two quote the corrupted passages. (27) The Questions, Greater and Lesser, of Mary: Two works of obscene con tents, used by some Gnostics, according to Epipha nius (Hor., xxvi, 8). (28) The Apocryphal Gospel of Matthew. (29) The Narrative of the Legal Priesthood of Christ. (80) The Gospel of Perfec. tion: Used by the Basilidians and other Gnostics, not the same as the Gospel o f Philip or the Gospel of Eve (cf. Fabricius, i, 373; ii, 550). (81) The Gospel of Peter: Mentioned by Origen, Eusebius, and Je rome, and used by the congregation at Rhossus in Cilicia toward the end of the second century. Serapion, bishop of Antioch, found it there (c. 191 A.D.) and after examination condemned it (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., vi, 12). An important frag ment of the Gospel of Peter was discovered in 1886 in a grave, supposed to be that of a monk, in an ancient cewetery at Akhmim, the ancient Panopolis in Upper Egypt. It was pub lished in 1892 (Memoirs of the French Archeo logical Mission at Cairo, IX, i). The Gospel of Peter was edited by Harnack (2d ed., 1893), Zahn (1893), Von Schubert (1893), and Von Gebhardt (1893). [For English translation cf. ANF, ix, 7-8: It has been the subject of numer ous able articles in the theological journals since its publication in 1892.] (82) The Gospel of Philip: Mentioned and quoted by Epiphanius (Her., xxvi, 13)-as being ih use among the Gnostics. Possibly it is the same as was in use among the Manicheans (see above25,c). (88) The Gospel of the Simonites, or, as it was also called by themselves, The Book of the Four Corners and Hinges of the World: Men tioned in the Arabic Preface to the Council of Nicaa. (84) The Gospel according tothe Syrians: Possi bly identical with the Gospel according to the He brew. (85) The Gospel of Tatian: Mentioned by Epiphanius (Hier., XLVI, i, 47, 4) as being used by the Encrati tea and by Catholic Christians in Syria. Being a compilation from the four Gospels, it was called also " The Diatessaron "; see HAR_ MONY ON THE GOSPELS; TATIAN. (88) The Gospel of ThaAdesus: Mentioned in the Gelasian Decree. The name may have been intended for that of the apostle Judas Thaddaeus, or for that of one of the Seventy who, according to tradition, was sent to King Abgar of Edessa (see ABOAR; and cf. Euse bius, Hilt. occl., i, iii). (87) The Gdepel of Vslea_|
228 |
tinus: Usually identified with the Gospel of Truth on the authority of Iremeus, who says that the Gospel of Truth. was used by the Valentinians, and that it was very dissonant from the canonical Gospels.
II. Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles: This class of writings originated through the operation of the same causes that produced the apocryphal Gospels, though the heretical tendency in the Acts is generally more prominent. For this reason they were as much feared in the early Church as the apocryphal Gospels; and it appears from references in Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Augustine that they had great influence. Since they were often worked over for dogmatic purposes, criticism has to inquire into the antiquity and originality of the existing codices. Among those who manufactured apocryphal Acts one Lucius (or Leucius) Charinus, a Manichean, is especially mentioned. His collection is said to have comprised the Acts of Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas, and Paul. Of these a few fragments only are preserved in the original form, which were afterward revised to accord with catholic dogma; in an enlarged form the collection became known as the Acts of the Twelve Apostles, which, according to Photius, was used by the Manichean Agapios. It must not be overlooked that some of these revised Acts are of a very high antiquity; thus the Acts of Peter were in use in the second century and the Journeys of Thomas in the third century A collection entitled the Acts of the Holy Apostles is mentioned by Greek chroniclers from the sixth century. Toward the end of the sixth century a Latin collection became known, ascribed to Abdias (q.v.), the supposed bishop of Babylon. In its original form the collection comprised the " passions" of all the twelve apostles (including Paul instead of Matthias), in its revised form the " virtues " or " miracles " of Peter, Paul, John, Andrew, and Thomas, and the " passions " of Matthew, Bartholomew, Philip, the two Jameses, both Simons, and Jude, of the older collection. A third collection was in use in the Coptic Church, and is extant in the Ethiopic language as the Contest of the Apostles [best edition by E. A.W. Budge, The Contendings of the Apostles, 2 vols., London, 1899-1901]. There are also numerous Syriac recensions.
The most notable of these apocryphal Acts are (1) Acts of Peter and Paul, the oldest testimony for which is Eusebius, with possibly Clement of Alexandria; (2) Acts of Paul and Theola, known to Tertullian, ascribed to a presbyter in Asia, and belonging to the first half of the second century; (3) Acts of Barnabas, Told by John Hark, whichhas another title in some Greek manuscripts, Journeys and Martyrdom of the Holy Barnabas the Apostle; (4) Acts of Philip, possessing high antiquity and having been much used in the literature of both branches of the early Church; (5) Acts of Philip in Greece, later than the last-mentioned; (e) Acts of Andrew, a very early composition; (7) Acts of Andrew and Xatthew in the City of the Anthropophae, much used by the Gnostics and Manicheans; (8) Acts and Xartyrdom of Xatthew, to be connected with the last-named as its continuation; (9) Acts
of Thomas, also a work of high antiquity; (10) Consummation of Thomas, the completion of the story begun in the foregoing Acts of Thomas; (11) Martyrdom of Bartholomew; (12) Acts of Thaddeus (the Syriac reads "of Addas "), built upon the very old tradition of the exchange of letters between Abgar (q.v.) of Edessa and Christ; (18) Acts of john, likewise very old, and esteemed highly by Gnostics and Manicheans; the "Hietoryof Prochor"mentions the Acts of John, but (14) a History of John (in Syriac), and (15) Passion of John have no connection with Prochor; while (18) On the Life of John adds nothing to the last three. Besides the foregoing, there are manj· fragments of Acts, which do not call for mention. English translations of these apocryphal Acts will be found in ANF, viii, 477-564.
III. Apocryphal Epistles: Besides the fictitious correspondence between Christ and Abgar (see ABGAH), other alleged writings of Christ are known which belong to the realm of mythology (collected by Fabricius, i, 303-321; iii, 439, 511-512). There are letters from the Virgin Mary to Ignatius, and letters to Mary which are of a very late date (given in Fabricius, i, 834, 844, 851). Two letters of Peter to James are also known. From Col. iv, 16 it is learned that Paul wrote a letter to the Laodiceans which is lost; it is not to be wondered at that this lost letter 'soon found an apocryphal substitute, which was in circulation in Jerome's time (De vir. ill., v), and was published in many languages (cf. Zahn, Kanon, ii, 566 sqq., 584-585; Zahn treats also [ii, 612 sqqj of the spurious correspondence between Paul and Seneca,). Since in I Cor. v, 9, Paul speaks of an earlier letter to the Church of Corinth (which has been lost), care was taken to substitute another letter to the Corinthians in place of the lost one. A Latin text recently, discovered was published and discussed by Carri6re and Berger (La Correspondance apocryphe de St. Paul et des Corinthiens, Paris, 1891); cf. A. Harnack (TLZ,1892, 2 aqq.), T. Zahn (TLB, 1892, 185 sqq., 193 sqq.), Bratke (TLZ, 1892, 585 sqq.).
IV. Apocryphal Apocalypses: Although the names of a considerable number of apocryphal apocalyj3ees are known, the texts or fragments of texts of only a few are extant (collected by Tischendorf, Apocalkpsm Apocrypha., Leipsic, 1866), viz.: (1) Apocalypse of John: Differed from the canonical book of the same name. (2) Apocalypse of Peter: Mentioned in the Muratorian Canon and by Clement of Alexandria, Methodius, Eusebius, and others. A fragment of this apocalypse was recently discovered together with the Gospel of Peter (see I [31] above), and published at Paris in 1892 (cf. ANF, ix, 141 sqq.). (8) Ascension of Paul: Is based on II Cor. xii, 2-4, where Paul tells of being caught up into heaven.. (4) Apocalypse of Paul: Spoken of by Augustine and Sozomen (cf. ANF, viii, 149 sqq.). (5) Apocalypse of Bartholomew: Extant only in fragments in a Coptic manuscript in the Paris library. (e) Apocalypse of Hary: Exists only in fragments of late manuscripts. (7) Apocalypse of Thomas: Mentioned in the Decretum Gelasii. (8) Apocalypse of stephen:
|
229 |
Based on Acts vii, bb: said to have been in use among the Manicheans. For English translations, consult ANF, viii, 575-b88; ia,141-174.
(Runolir HoirmeNN.)BIBLIOGRAPHY: Collections of Apocrypha: J. A. Fabricius. Codez Apoeryphw Novi Testamenti, 2 vole., Hamburg, 1703, vol. iii, 1743; J. C. Thilo, Codex Apocryphw Novi Teatatnenti, Leipsie, 1832; W. Giles, Codex ApocrvPhw Novi Teatamenti, 2 vole., London, 1852; W. Wright, Con tributions to the Apocryphal Literature of the New Testament . . . from Syrian MSS., ib. 1885; M. Bonnet, SupylernenCum codicde apocryphi, 2 vole., Paris, 1883-9b (of great value); M. R. James, Apocrypha Anccdofa . . . Thirteen Apocryphal Books and Fragments, in TS, ii, 3, and v, 1, Cambridge, 1893-97; E. Nestle, Novi Teetamenti (Irmei Suppdementum, Berlin, 1898; ANF, viii-ix; Apocryphal New Testament, London, Boston, and New York, n. d. (out of print); E. Aenneeke, NeuteatamenUicha Apokryphen . . in deutaeher Uebereeteung and mit Eindaitunpen. Tabingen, 1904.
Collections of Gospels: C. Tisehendorf, EvataQelia Apocrypha, Leipsic, 1878; G. Brunet, Lea Pvangilea apocryphca, Paris, 1883; B. H. Cowper, Apocryphal Gospels and Documents Relating to Christ, London, 1870; Joe. Variot, Des tvanpilea apocryylus, Paris, 1878; A. Reach, Awserkanoniacha Parolleltexte zu don Evanpelian, 3 vole., Leipsic, 1892-97; E. Preuaehen, Antilepomana. Die Reate der awserkanonieehen Evanpdien, Giessen, 1901.
Collections of Apocryphal Acts: C. TiachendorF, Acts Apoatolorum Apocrypha, revised ed. by Lipeius and Bonnet, 3 vols., Leipsic, 1891, 1898, 1903 (essential for teats); R. A. Lipsiue, Die Apomyphen Apoatelgaachichten and ApoatedTependsu, 4 vols., Brunswick, 1883-H0 (exceedingly important): w. Wright, Apocryphal Aria of the Apostles from Syriac MSS., London, 1871; A· 8. Lewis, Mythological Acts of the' Apostles from an Arabic MS.. ib. 1904.
Apocalypses: C. Tiachendorf, Apocalypses apocrypha, Leipsic, 1888.
Treatises covering the subject: A. Hernack, (ieac>siehk der aEtchristlichsn Litteratur, Leipsic, 1893 (exhaustive); J. Pons, Rechas·ches cur lee apocryphea du nouveau Testament, Montauban, 1880; R. Hofmann, Daa Leben Jeeu torch den Apokryhsn, ib. 1851; M. Nicolas, -0tudes ow lee Evanpiles apocrypha#, Paris, 1888; $. Baring-Gould, Lost and Hostile Ooapela, London, 1874; B. F. Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, ib. 1888; T. Zahn, Ga. schichle rice nsuteatamentLichsu Kanona, 2 vole., Leipsic, 1888-'92 (from the conservative standpoint); W. E. Barnes, Cananicalntud Uncanonical Gospels, ib. 1893 (clear and useful); G. KrOger, (leeehichte der altchriatliehen L'sh teratur in don ereten drei Jahrhundsrtan, Freiburg, 1895, Eng. transl.. New York, 1897.
On individual Gospels: W. Wright, Evargedium Thoma!, London, 1875; R. Reinaeh, Die Pseudo-Evangelien von Jeeu and Marie's Kindheit in der rmnaniachen and permanischsn Litteratur, Halls, 1879: R· A. Lipaius, Die edeassniechs AbQar-Sage, Brunswick, 1880; P`. Robinson, Coptic Apocryphal Gospels, in TS, iv, 2, Cambridge, 1898; F. C. Conybeare, Protevanpelium of Tamer, in AJT, i (1897), 424 aqq; Ragg, Italian Version of the Lost Apooryphol Gospel of Barnabaa, Oxford, 1905, On the Gospel of the Hebrews: E. B· Nicholson, Gospel According to the Hebrews- London, 1897; R. Handmsnn, Das HebrtkrEroanpeliutn, Leipeic, 1888; G. Salmon, Historical ItUroducdou to the Study of the Now Testament, pp. 161-170, London, 1894. On the Logic Jean: B. P. Grenfell and A. 8. Hunt LopFa Jeeu, Sayings o/ our Lord, London, 1897: A. Harnaek, Usber die ittnpat antdeckten S prilche Jau, Freiburg, 1897; W. Look and W. BandaY. Two Leo. tures on as Sayings of Jesus, London, 1897; C. Bruaton, Lea Parold de Jtsw r4Cemment dIOOUrosrtsa . . . et remargues our Is texts . . . de 11vanpi;e de Pierre, Paris, 1898; A. Jacoby, Ein neues Eroanpstienfrapmsnt, $traoburg. 1900: J. H. Ropes, Die $prVche Jeeu, Leipsic, 1898.
The Peter Fragments were issued, translated, or discussed by J. R. Harris, London 192· J. A. Robinson and M. R. James, ib. 1892; O. Von Gebhardt, Leipsic, 1893; A. Harnack, ib. 1893; A. Lode, in three works, Paris, 1892, 1893, 1895: A. $abafder, ib. 1893; $. von Schubert. two works, Berlin, 1893. Eng. franc,. of one, Edinburgh 1893; D. V51ter, TObingen, 1893; T. Zahn' Laipeic, 1893; and C. Bruaton, see above ands,. Logic Jesu.
Apocryphal Acts: $. C. Malan, The Conflicts o; the Holy Apostles, London, 1871; R. A. Lipeius. Du Quelten der Petrweage, Kiel, 1872; C. $ehlau, Die Aden rice Paulus and der Thecla. Leipsic, 1877; T. Zahn, Acta Johaunia, Erlangen, 1880: M. Bonnet. Acts Thomas. Leipsic, 1883: A. E. Medlyeott, India arid the Apostle Thomas. Critiead Analysis of Acta Thomcr, London. 1905. On the Acts of Pilate: R. A. Lipeius. Pilatwakten. Kiel, 1888: C. Tiechendorf, Pilau circa Chriatum iudicio quid Lucia in Actia Pilau, Leipeic. 1855: Geo. $luter, Acta Pilau. 8helbY_ ville. Ind., 1879; w. O. Clough, Geata Pilati. Indianapolis, 1880; J. R. Harris, Homeric Centonee and the Aerie of Pilafs, London, 1889.
Other works: W. F. Muck, Dae Sendachreiben der Korinfher an rice Apoatel Paulus, Heidelberg, 1823 (argues for genuineness), answered by C. Ullmann, Ueberdendrih kn Brief Pauli an die Korinther, ib. 1823; E. Dulanrier, Fragment dos REvElations apoayphea de St. Barthe<ihsy, Paris. 1835; A. Harnaek. Do Apellie Onoai Monarehia, Leipsic, 1874.
APOLLINARIS, a-pe("li-Wris (APOLLIftARI US), CLAUDIUS: Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia. He was a contemporary of Melito, and flourished in the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-180), occu pying a prominent position as an apologist and an opponent of Montaniam, which took its rise in the ecclesiastical province to which he belonged. He was a prolific writer, but of his numerous works, still much read in the time of Eusebius, only a few, and of these little more than the titles, are known. Eusebius (Hilt. eccl., iv, 27) mentions an apology addressed to the emperor; since the story of the "thundering legion" (q.v.) seems to have been told in this, it can not have been written before 171, though Eusebius, in his Chronicon, assigns it to 170. The same historian mentions an apology against the Greeks in five books, two books " Concerning Truth," and a letter against the Montanists, which is also referred to by Serapion, bishop of Antioch, in his letter to Caricus and Pontius. This, according to Eusebius, was written later than the apologetic works mentioned above, and contained a report of the proceedings of a synod held against the Montanists, with a list of signa tures of the members of the synod. Photius also names a treatise "On Piety." The Chronicon Paachale (ed. Dindorf, i, 13) preserves two frag ments of a work on the Passover, all that has been preserved of the work of Apollinaris; these have been questioned, but without good reason. Two books against the Jews and one against the Seve rians have been erroneously attributed to him. In the catenm numerous fragments are found with the name of Apollinaris attached to them, which have never been carefully examined; but it is probable that most, if not all, belong to the younger Apol 11Bar18 Of L&Od1Cea. (A. HARNAC$.)BIBLIOGRAPHY: Fabricius-Harles, Bibliotheca. Grcroa, vii (1801), 180-162; ANF, viii, 772-773; Harnack, Litterotur, i, 243-248: idem, TU, i (1882), 232-239.
APOLLINARIS OF LAODICEA: The name of two men, father and eon, known to Church history. Apollinaris the Elder was an Alexandrian, taught grammar at Berytus, and then at Laodicea in Syria, and was made a presbyter at the latter place. What Socrates (Hiat. cod., ii, 46) says of his literary activity belongs probably to the eon (cf. Sozomen, Hilt. eccd., v, IS). Apo)Iinwjg the Younger was born presumably about 310, and was likewise a teacher of rhetoric. About 346 he became acquainted with Athanasius; and
|
230 |
they remained warm friends, notwithstanding theological differences. Athanasius calls him a bishop
in 362; and, as he was at first an en- Life. ergetic representative of Homoousian ism in Syria, he was presumably the Homoousian antibishop of Pelagius of Laod icea, who belonged to the right wing of the middle party. When he proclaimed his peculiar views openly can not be stated with certainty. The synod at Alexandria in 362 seems to declare against them, and he was considered a heretic at the begin ning of the seventies. Roman synods in 377 and 382 and one at Antioch in 378 testified against his doctrine. The second ecumenical council (Con stantinople, 381) condemned the Apollinarians as the last heretics who issued from the Trinitarian controversy, and the emperor Theodosius set the great seal upon this condemnation in 388. Apol linaris was dead when Jerome wrote his Viri Wustrea in 392.Great as is the confusion concerning the life of the man, it is still greater as regards his literary activity, which is the more to be regretted, as Apollinaris was evidently one of the most prominent ecclesiastical writers of the fourth century. This may be seen from the high esteem in which he was held during his lifetime by friend and foe and from the expressions of later writers. According to Philostorgius (Hilt. eccl., viii. 11; cf. xii. 15), Athanasius as a theologian was a child when compared with Apollinaris; and as concerns " experience " (e.g., knowledge of Hebrew) he would give the preference to the Laodicean above Gregory
and Basil. Apollinarie was famous Writings. not only as a theological author butalso as a poet. As a new Homer he treated the Old Testament history from the Ovation to Saul in twenty-four books, wrote comedies after the pattern of Menander, tragedies in the style of Euripides, and odes after Pindaric models. There is extant only a " Paraphrase upon the Psalter," which fails to exhibit the poetic genius ascribed to the author. Of his exegetical efforts there have been preserved only fragments on Proverbs, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the Epistle to the Romans; the exegesis is sober, sensible, and avoids allegory. As Christian apologist Apollinarie is said to have surpassed his predecessors in his thirty books against Porphyry (Philostorgius, viii. 4; Jerome, De vir. ill., civ.; idem, Epist., xlviii. 13, lxx. 3; Vincent of Lerins, Commonaorium, xi.); he wrote a work, "On Truth," against Julian and the philosophy of the time, and opposed the Arians in a work against Eunomius of Gyzicus; he wrote also against Marcellus of Ancyra. All these writings seem to have been lost. It is also impossible to form a correct estimate of his dogmatic writings. All that has been directly transmitted are seven larger and some short fragments from an "Exposition of the Divine Incarnation in the Likeness of Man " (in the rejoinder of Gregory of Nyasa to Apollinaris). But it is known that the Apollinarians and Monophysites circulated some of the .productions of Apollmarie under the names of Gregory Thaumaturgus, Athanasius, and Julius of Rome to deceive innocent readers as to their true origin and nature,
and Caspari has proved that the " Sectional Confession of Faith," ascribed to Thaumaturgus, belongs to Apollinaris. The same may be said of the treatise " On the Incarnation of the Word of God," ascribed to Athanasius, and of the alleged epistles of Felix of Alexandria and Julius of Rome to Dionysius of Alexandria. Attempts (especially of DrAseke) to ascribe other works to Apollinaris have been unsuccessful.
The tendency of the Athanasian doctrine of redemption to the deification of humanity, little as Athanasius himself doubted that the Logos had assumed the perfect humanity, was not fitted for reviving interest in the human personality of the Redeemer. Thus it is not strange that so zealous a champion of the homoousios as Apollinaris, with his logical and dialectic training, started with doubts upon this point. Perfect God and perfect man is, according to his opinion, a monstrosity, contradicting all laws of reason.
In this way would originate a " man-His Chris- god," a " horse-deer," a " goat-stag," tology. -fabulous beings like the Minotaur.
This proves true not only logically; but also on comparing the notion of the perfect man with the demands to be made upon the Redeemer in the interest of redemption. Supposing him to be perfect man, how could Christ be without sin? If, as the apostle knew, man consists of spirit (mind), soul, and body, the human mind can not be adjudicated to Christ, for this is changeable; but the Redeemer has an unchanging mind. Since he can not be composed of four parts, he has indeed assumed a human body and a human soul, but not a human spirit. The logos homoousios rather takes its place. Thus originated the pta fi~ais ro'v $eov Uyovoeaapwpivry(not aE0apWFtvov), in which the flesh is deified and which as a whole becomes an object of adoration. The consequence is obvious, that all passive conditions [the susceptibility to suffering] of the historical Jesus are referred to the Logos and consequently to the Deity itself, though Apollinaris and some of his adherents recoiled from it. The Apollinarian Christology, which made great advances to the consciousness of the believers, which in the first line is always directed to the divine in Christ, and which seemed to lead away farthest from the generally detested thought of the " mere man " (Paul of Samosata), has exercised great influence on the further development of the Christological doctrine in the Eastern Church. With a certain right, one can even say with Harnack (Dogmengeschichte, p. 314) that the view of Apollinaris, when compared with the presuppositions and aims of the Greek conception of Christianity as religion, is perfect; but one can only do so by regarding the extremest consequences as the correct expression of what is intended. On the further development of Apollinarianism see the articles treating of the Christological controversies of the fifth and sixth centuries.
G. KattanR.That Apollinarie, side by side with Paul of Samosata and Arius, should have come to be regarded as an archheretic, nay as in a certain sense the archheretie, is thoroughly intelligible. All
|
231 |
BIBLIOGRAPHY: The best collection of the writings of Apollinaris and his pupils is that by H. Lietzmann, ApoL linarie von Laodacea and seine Schule,T U, i., TUbingen, 1904. Of. also 1. Flemming and H. Lietzmann, Apollinarische Schriften (syrise), in the Abhandlungen der kdniplichen Geaellackaft der Wchaften eu Gbaingen,vol. vii ., Berlin, 1904. Apollinsris' paraphrase of the Psalms is in MPG, xxxiii.; the remains of his dogmatic works are in TU, vii. 3, 4, Leipsic,1892; of his exegetical writings, in A. Mai, Nova patrum bI$liotheca, vii. 2, pp. 76-80, 8291, 128-130; in A. Ludwich, Probe einer kritiachen Ausgabe, Konigsberg, 188281; The Sectional Confession of Faith is in ANF, vi. 40-47; of. C. P. Caspari, Alts and neue Quellea, Chrjatiania, 1879.
On the name: T. Zahn, Forschungen z ur Geechirhfe des Kanons, v . 99-109, Leipsic, 1893. For life: J. Drbseke, Apollinarm von Laodicsa, ann Leben and seine Schriften, in TU, vii. 3, 4, ib. 1892. On his writings: A. Ludwich, in Hermes, xiii. (1878) 335-350, and in ZWT, xxxi. (1888) 477-487, xxxii. (1889) 108-120. On his theology: A. Dorner, Die Lehre von der Person Christi, i. 975-1038, Stuttgart, 1846; A. Harnack, Lehrbuch der DopmenpewAichte, ii. 308-321, Freiburg, 1895; J. Schwane, Dogmengeachichte der pad*tischen Zeit, Pp. 277-283, ib. 1895; G. Voisin, L'Apollinarieme, Paris, 1901. On literary and theological problems: C. W. F. walch, Entuurf Liner rooll stdndigen Historic der Ketsereien, iii. 119-229, Leipsic, 1766.
APOLLONIA, a"gel-16'nf-a, SAINT: A martyr of Alexandria, according to a letter from Dio nysius, bishop of Alexandria, to Fabian of Antioch, preserved by Eusebius (Hilt. MI., vi. 41), and giving an account of a persecution of the Alexandrian Christians in the winter of 248-249. This perse cution was the work of the populace, stirred up by the celebration of the one-thousandth anni versary of the foundingof Rome, but was connived at by the authorities. As victims of this outburst Dionysius names Metras, Quinta, Sarapion, and Apollonia, whom he calls in Greek parthenon pres butin, probably signifying a deaconess. Because in her martyrdom all her teeth were knocked out, she is popularly regarded in Roman Catholic countries as a patroness against toothache. Her festival falls on Feb. 9. A. HAUCK.BIBLIOGRAPHY: K. J. Neumann, Der r6mische Stoat, i. 331, Leipsic, 1890.
APOLLONIUS, W'01-18'ni-vs: 1. A Roman martyr under Commodus. Eusebius (Hilt. ,l., v. 21) states that he was renowned for his learning and wisdom; he was accused by an " instrument of the devil " at a time when the government did not favor religious persecution, and consequently the accuser suffered the death penalty; the judge, Perennis, wished to save Apollonius, allowed him to make an eloquent defense before the senate, but was ultimately compelled by the law to condemn the Christian to death by beheading. Jerome expands these notices (De vin. ill., xhi.,
liii.; Egn'st. lxx., ad Magnum). As the downfall of Perennis took place in 185, the martyrdom must be dated between 181 and that year, probably in 184. N. BoNwETsca. BIBLIOGRAPHY: (1) Apology and Acis of APolloniua, ed. andtranel. from the Armenian by F. C. Conybeare, London, 1894 (of. The Guardian, June 21, 1893); Greek tranel. of the same in Analecta Bollandiana, x iv. (1895) 284294, and cf. xxiii. (1899) 50, and E. T. Klette, Der Process and die Acta S. Apollonii, in TU, xv. 2, Leipsic, 1897; O. von Gebhardt, Ads martprum selecta, pp. 44 sqq., Berlin, 1902. Also A. Harnack, in Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1893, pp. 721-746, and in TLZ, xx. (1895) 590 sqq.; Seeberg, NKZ, iv. (1893) 838 eqq.; E. G. Hardy, Christianity and the Roman Empire, London, 1894; Max, Prinz von Sachsen, Der heilige Martyrer Apollonius von Ram, Mainz, 1903; O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der allkirchlichen Li#eratur, vol. ii., Freiburg, 1903.
2. Author of a work against the Montanists, of which Eusebius gives a fragment (Hilt. eccl.,v.18). It was written forty years after the appearance of Montanus and shows that the deliverances of the new prophets were false and that the conduct of the Montanist authorities was opposed to the manner of true prophets. According to Jerome (De vin. ill., 1., Iiii.), Tertullian added to his six books De ecatasi, a seventh against the charges of Apollonius; but he is mistaken (De vin. ill., xl.) in ascribing to Apollonius what is related by Eusebius in Hist. eccl., v. 16. The designation of Apollonius as " leader of the Ephesians," in Prcedestinatus, xxvi. is a fiction. N. BONwETBCm BIBLIOGRAPHY: N. Bonwetsch, Geschichte des Montanismua,pp. 30, 49, Erlangen 1881; G. Voigt Eine antimontanistische Urkunde, Leipsie, 1891; T. Zahn, Forschungen sun Geschichte des neulsatamentlichen Kanons, pp. 21 eqq., Leipsic, 1893.
APOLLONIUS OF TYANA: Neo-Pythagorean philosopher, elevated by non-Christians to a place by the side of Christ; b. at Tyana in Cappadocia, the modern Kiz-Hissar (80 m. n.w. of Tarsus); d. at Ephesus, probably, 98 A.D. He was educated at Ephesus and at Tarsus, but, disgusted by the immorality of the latter city, he went to 1Egwae (the modern Ayas, on the Gulf of Iskanderun, 50 m. s.e. of Adana). In its temple oftEsculapius he studied medicine and philosophy, and became an ardent and lifelong adherent of Pythagoras. He observed the five years of absolute silence enjoined by the Pythagoreans, and then started on his memorable and extensive travels, which took him into all parts of the known world, made him acquainted with many prominent persons, and gave him a great reputation for wisdom. He seems to have exerted a virtuous example and to have been a religious reformer. Falling under the suspicion of Domitian, he went to Rome for his trial and was acquitted after he had endured a brief imprisonment (94 A.D.). The last ten years Of his life were passed in Greece, where he had many disciples.
The importance of Apollonius as a religious reformer was more and more magnified, and shortly after his death statues and even temples were erected in his honor by emperors, and he was worshiped as a god. Among his prominent admirers was the talented and learned Julia Domna, wife of the emperor Severna, who requested one of her literary men, Flavin, philostratus, to write
|
232 |
The earliest person named who made this use of Philostratus's novel is Hierocles, governor of Bithynia during the Diocletian persecution (303), who wrote a work against the Christians in which he instituted a comparison between Apollonius and Christ. This stirred up the church historian Eusebius, to write a refutation, in which he shows how unreliable as a source the romance of Philostratus is. The deist Charles Blount (see DEISM) and Voltaire revived this use of Philostratus in the interest of their paganism, while in the nineteenth century Ferdinand Christian Baur called attention afresh to Philostratus's work and elaborated the thesis that Philostratus had purposely modeled his narrative on that of the Gospels. Edward Zeller followed him in this advocacy, the Frenchman Albert Reville also. But there is no evidence that Philostratus had any knowledge of the Gospels and the Acts, and the life of the Apostle Paul is a much closer parallel to Apollonius than that of Christ, who was no peripatetic philosopher.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: Sources: C. L. Kayser's ed. of Fl. Philostrati Opera 2 vols., Leipsic, 1871, contains also Apollonii Epistolae and Eusebius adv. Hieroclem; the latter is also in MPG, iv.; Eng. transl. of first two books of Philostratus, by C. Blount, London, 1680, and of all by E. Berwick, 1809; French transl. by J. F. Salvemini de Castillon, Paris, 1774, and by A. Chassang, 1862, with transl. of the letters of Apollonius; Germ. transl. by E. Baltzer. Consult also: E. Muller, War Apollonius . . . ein Weiser, . . . Betruger, . . . Schwarmer und Fanatiker, Breslau, 1861; A. Reville, Apollonius of Tyana, London, 1866; J. H. Newman, in Historical Sketches, ii., London, 1872 (noteworthy); O. de B. Priaulx, Indian Travels of Apollonius, ib. 1873; F. C. Baur, Apollonius von Tyana und Christus, in Drei Abhandlungen, Leipsic,1876; C. Monekeberg, Apollonius von Tyana, Hamburg, 1877; C. H. Pettersch, Apollonius von Tyana, Reichenberg, 1879; C. L. Nielsen, Apollonius fra Tyana, Copenhagen, 1879; J. Jessen, Apollonius . . . und sein Biograph, Hamburg, 1885; D. M. Tredwell, Sketch of the Life of Apollonius of Tyana, New York, 1886; K. S. Guthrie, The Gospel of Apollonius of Tyana, Medford, 1900; G. R. S. Mead, Apollonius of Tyana, London, 1901; T. Whittaker, in The Monist, xiii. (1903) 161-217.
| Calvin College. Last modified on 10/03/03. Contact the CCEL. |  |