Testaments of the xii patriarchs

i. TiTLi: AND Contexts. — This most valuable pseudepigraph has never received the attention it deserves, but the next few years will witness a full atonement for past neglect. This writing consists, £is the title indicates, of the dying com- mands of the twelve sons of Jacob to their children. The idea is in part derived from the Testament of Jacob in Gn 49. Each Testament treats of some virtue or vice which finds special illustration in the life of this or that patriarch.

In some cases the virtue or vice in question ap- pears in the title. Tliis holds true of the Greek MS C throughout. But in this rc-'pect C is late ; for in 0 * and R all mention of the virtues and vices is omitted, and where they appear in P (as they do in a few cases) they differ in all but two iiist:inies from C.

In the Armenian Version tlie titles of Simeon, Benjamin, Issachar, and Zebulun contain no reference to ethical characteristics, and those of Le^^ and Gad differ from their forms in CP. It is probable, therefore, that tlie name of each Testament was originally merely AiaO^mj in the Greek Version, followed by the name of the particular patriarch to wliom it was ascribed, and nKiis in the original with a similar sequence.

(Conijiare the Hebrew title of the Testament of Naphtali "SnDi nKiis, published by Gaster, and ob- i-erve that "ns is used technically of a man's bust will and testament, 2 S 17^, 2 K 20', Is 38'). According to K, it is true that the title of each Testament is merely tlie name of the patriarch. The title of the entire work was probalily ' The Twelve Patriarchs' ; for it is mentioned simply as UnTpidpxai in the Stichometry of Nicephorus, the Synopsis Athanasii, and other lists.

In the next place it is to be observed that in each of the Testaments three elements can be dis- tinguished. (1) The patriarch gives a brief history of his life, in whi<h he emphasizes liis imnicular virtue or vice. This history is generally a mid- rashic expansion of certain biblical statements, but in some ca-ses it contains materials that are in direct conflict with them.

(2) Tlie patriarch next proceeds to 'improve' on the incidents just set forth in his own career, and exhorts his children to imitate the virtues or to shun the vices that were conspicuous in it. (3) Finally, tlie patriarch • COPK denote Greek MSS. See below, i v. (a). VOL. IV.

— 46 deals prophetically with the destinies of his descendants, emphasizes the premier rank and authority of Levi and Judah, and foretells the evils of overthrow and captivity that they will bring upon themselves should they fall into sin and disown the hegemony of Lcnt and Judah. These predictions are for the most part of purely Jewish authorship, but not a fejv are distinctively Chris- tian. ii. Criticism.

— To account for the conflicting Jewish and Christian elements which appear side liy side in the work, Grabe (Spicileg. Patnim'-, 1714, i. 129-144, 335-374) suggested that the book was written by a Jew and subsequently interpolated by a Christian. This hypothesis, however, failed till recently to gain the suffrages of scholars, mainly owing to the opposition of Corrodi (lirit. Gesch. des Vfiilutsmus, ii. 101-110). For nearly two centuries after Grabe little progress was made. Nitzsch {de Tent.

XII Patriarch, libra VT pseud., Wittenberg, 1810) described the autlior as a Jewish Christian of Alexandria, who had imbibed many Essene doctrines ; whereas Ritschl (Entstchung der altkathol. Kirrhe\ 32211.) assigned the book to a Gentile Christian, mainly on the ground of Benja- min 11, a chapter which, we now know, is a Chris- tian interpol.ition ; but in the second edition of the work abandoned this view and advocated a Naza- rene authorship.

It is needless here to enter on a discussion of the views of Kayser (Die Tfst. der Zwutf Patr., in Reuss and Cunitz's Bei- traf/e zii dtrn llit'nbuj. iVUseiuicha^ften, ISfil, pp. 107-140), who, Lulling lja<-k on Urabe's theory of interpolation, traced the book to Lbiotiitic circles; or on those of Vorstman {Diaquiifitio de Test.

Xll FatriarcJtarum orifjine et ^etio, 1S57), who sub- mitted Kayser's theory to a severe criticism, and concluded that the Teatamenta showed no trace of Ebionism, but were the pru'iurt of Gentile Christianity. This conclusic.i, which up- huMs Uit^rhl's first view, was subsequently upheld bvHilgenfeld (XWT. 1S58, pp. 39ifi.\ 1871, 30211.), while the view rl Nitzsch was adopted by Langen (Dot Judenthum^ 18C6, pp. 140-167 and Sinker (Teet. Xll Patr. 1869, pp.

16-34 ; Appendix with collation of B and P, 1879 ; art. ' Test XII Patr.' in Smith's Dictionary of Christian Biography, iv. 866-S74X It must be confessed that, so far, few results of permanent value were arrived at, but in 1884 a great advance was made throu'di Schnapp (Die Test, der XII Patr. untersucht,\ia.\\Q, 1884), who revived in an imjiroved form Grabe's hj'pothesis of Christian interpolation of an originally Jewish work. Sclin.

-ipp's theory is that in its original form the book consistecl of biographical details respecting each of the patriarchs, and of appro- priate exhortations founded on these details, flius the work embraced only two of the three elements mentioned above. At a later date this book was worked over by a Jewish writer, who enriched all the Testaments with sections dealing with the coming destiniesof tlie various tribes and with other details of an apocalj'ptic character.

Finally, the book was re-edited by a Christian, who in some cases made large additions, and in others merely modified the text in order to adapt its predictions to Christianity. Subsequent research has notably confirmed part of the above theory. Thus Conybeare's collation of the Armenian Version in the i/Cyj [1893], 375- 398 ; [1890], 260-208, 471-485, proved that very many of the ]i.is,siiges marked by Schnapp as Christian iiiteinolations were absent from that version.

Since Schnapp's work the Testaments have been rehandled from various sides, by Kohler (JQR, 1893, pp. 400-406), Gaster (PSBA, 1893, 1894), Marshall (PSBA, 1894), Charles (Enryclitpaidia Biblica, 1899, i. 237-241), and Bousset (ZNTW, 1900, 142-175, 187-209). Bousset's articles are of great value, and will call for frequent reference.

Since many of the aljove articles were published before Kautzsch's Avokryphen und Pseuilepitjrapiien des Atten Te$ta- met^tt, 1900, It mu^t be oonfeaited that it is with diifappoinCmeut 722 TESTS. OF XII PATRIARCHS TESTS. OF XII PATRIARCHS that scholars have turned to Schnapp's introduction to and translation ot the Testaments in that volume. Both are quite inadequate from the standpoint ol our present knowledge. 1. Christian Interpolations.

— These were, as we have seen, rejected by Schnapp merely on internal grounds in 18S4, though be could occasionally have justified his conclusions from R. But even in his translation * of 1900 he has repeatedly failed to call attention to the fact that his conjecture is confirmed by MS evidence, and in many passages he has attributed too much to the interpolator, where a study of his textual authorities would have enabled him to make much smaller and neater excisions.

But not only can the student summon rich textual materials to his aid, he can also in not a few cases detect the interpolator's liand in certain poetical passages where the foreign element destroys the rhythm and paral- lelism. Thus Levi 18, Judah 25, Simeon 6, Dan 5 are either wholly or in part Hebrew poetry. Only the lirst of these has been recognized by Schnapp as being such. We quote a few lines as an illus- tration— Kaj tk; XaiO! eLfro>.n-zett.

Tort 2^tt (»2e5af ('ntf'ITaj, 'On Kipt^ 0 Sto; uiycti reu l^par,X, ^attfCfUvtt •«< yrS iii BLidporTot xaci ru^Aiv i» etirai Tov 'Aoat. TOTI iollr,<FO\7JLI T«»Tflt 756 TUV^AaTflt TXi VkK^V^i l(V Xa.-rObVOL'ntf^t It will be seen that v.« destroys the parallelism. We must reject as interpolations u.iya.; tov 'lirpec.?. and irtu^iuv it kItu to '.Khuu from a comparison of the two Amienian recensions (see Bousset, ZSTW [1900], 147). The it i,OparTK is against the parallelism.

The verse probably read — "On KCpioi i ©M« fit»y,<rtTxt iri y^s. By means of textual authorities the Christian interpolations can be removed from Reuben, Issachar, Judah, and Zebulun. Those in Simeon can be reduced to one or two phrases in 6. 7, and likewise those in chapter 8. Dan 5. 6. 7 cannot be wholly purged by means of textual authorities, nor yet Naplitali 4. 8.

— In Joseph 19 the Greek is defective and the Armenian corrupt ; but Schnapp is wrong in branding the bulk of it as a Christian interpolation, it is probably a fragment of an early Maccabsan Apocalypse. — As regards Benjamin, though the distinctively Christian phrases are omitted by the Armenian at the close of 3, yet the promise of redemption through Josejih is sus- picious. Though a^w/ios virip dviiJ.uv TrapaSodriaerai could be said of him, yet the next phrase drnfidp- TTjTos inrip a.

ixt^Qi' dTroflavctTai cannot be justly re- ferred to him. In 9 the Christian interpolations in the Gr. are wanting in the Arm., save tlie words ir/JpiffS^fffToi (cf. Lk IS^'-') and i^oveevad-fictrcu (Lk 23"), which appear Christian. In Levi 2. 3 the text of COP is very corrupt, but by means of recension o of the .\rmenian and U it is possible to recover the primitive Jewish text.

This latter text described the three heavens, but this account was inten<led by the interpolator to be an account of the seven heavens. To this question we shall return presently. In Levi 4 and 10 and in 14' t Christian interpolations are present alike in Gr. and Arm., and one or two phrases at the close of 16. The famous passage in Levi 8, which claims for the descendant of Levi the triple honours of prophet, priest, and king, becomes intelligible through the aid of R and the Arm.

, and is of Jewish origin. It refers to John Hyrcauus. To this section we shall return later. The Christian interpolations, therefore, which • Schnapp has printed In his translation all the pasaages he considers Christian interpolations, in spaced type. This is a very convenient arrangement. We shall touch upon most of these in the sequel. ^ .... t Where a form such u 14» Is used In referenc* to toe Testaments, it means cb. 14, line 6, in Sinker's edition.

cannot be eliminated by textual authorities, do not extend beyond certain phrases or sentences in Sim. 6. 7, Levi 4. 10. 14. 17, Dan 5. 6. 7, Napht. 4. 8, Asher 7, Joseph 19, Benj. 3 (?) 9.* Thus by means of recent research about three-fourths of the Christian interpolations have been removed from the text. 2. The Source and Character of the ChrUtii:n Interpolal ions.— Schnapi^ was of opinion that all the Christian passages were inserted in the text by a single Christian interpolator.

The present writer in 1899 (Encyc. Biblica, i. 239) contended that the evidence pointed rather to a succession of inter- polators. Bousset, however (ZNTW [1900], 174), has since maintained Schnapp's view, on the ground of the unusual affinities subsisting between the interpolated passages. Assuming, then, that all the interpolations were from one hand, Bousset has not much difficulty in determining the prob- able period of the interpolator to be between A.D. 150 and 200.

But his assumption cannot be main- tained, as we hope to show presently. In the meantime, excluding the conflicting statements, we have the following theological doctrines in the Christian additions : — Thus 'the Lamb of God," Ben]. 818, 'the Only -begotten,' Benj. 93, should be born of a virgin ot Judah, Jos. 19^', a man, indeed, Napht 4n, a man from the seed ot Judah, Jud. 24^, yet at once God and man, Sim. 1*. ' God ' should ' take a body,' Sim. 615, and appear as 'God in the flesh,' Benj.

IQisr., and dwell with men on earth, Napht 83ff-. He should be ' sinless,' Jud. 24->, Benj. S", 'the Light of the world,' havmg come ' to lighten every man,' Levi 149, • the Branch of the Most High and Fount of life for aU flesh,' Jud. 248. He should be a High Priest, Reub. 6iSf-, and 'the Saviour of Israel,' Napht &>, 'the Saviour of the Gentiles,' Dan 616, the Saviour of the world, Levi 411 175, Benj. 318, »nd ' save Israel and all the Gentdes, Asher 78 (Benj. 3^0).

yea, all mankind, Levi 219 (Sim. e"'- i^X On earth He should be baptized, Levi IS", and acknowledged bv the voice of the Father from heaven, Levi 18>2, should after- w-ards be seized bv the high priests, Levi 145- 6, ' insulted, set at nought and lifted up on a tree,' Benj. »>'■, crucified, Levi 4" ' die for the godless,' Benj. 3>9. The veil of the temple should be rent, Benj. 910, Hades robbed through His suffenngs, Levi 4' : He should redeem His sons from BeUar, Zeb.

9i«n-, Uke the captives from Beliar, even the souls of the saints. Dan 5»S ascend from Hades, Benj. Qilf-, rise from the dead, Levi 16' 175f., ascend into heaven, Levi 186, Benj. 9". t The above is a fairly full Christology to be worked into a Jewish book. We have now to draw attention to conflicting statements on the doctrine of the Incarnation. In accordance with the account just given, it Is said in Benj. IQi-f- that ' the King of heaven will appear on earth in the fonn of a man ' (i.

u^pff ktHpi^ov). On the other hand, the doctrine is probably Docetic in Zeb. 919 'ye will see God in the fashion of a man' (t» rxr/wf, aiilpi/^ey). and undoubtedly so in Asher 1* 'God in the semblance ot man' (fiii.- ilt i>V» itoKp^tofwot). Again, there is a third view represented, the Patnpassian, in Sim. 61I"-, where we read of 'the Lord, the great God of Israel, appearing on earth as man.

In Asher 7W- the language betrays the same standpoint: 'The Highest (i 't'^irros) will visit the earth— as man, eating and drinking with men ' ; and m Le>T 4» 'the sufferings of the Hi''hest' The contrast is brought into fuller relief by such a declaration as that in Levi 4ii Till the Lord visit all the nations through the mercy of his Son.'

Again there is a want ot uniformity as regards the descent of Christ Thus He is said to be from Judah only, Napht 83, from Judah and Levi, Gad 81-3, Dan 628, (rom Levi and Judah, Sim. 7*, Lev. 218. 19. Together with the above phenomena, we should observe that the Christian additions are very dili'erently attested by the Gr. MSS CO PR. R has the fewest of these, and in many cases attests single-handed the non-interpolated text against COi' and the two Arm.

recensions ; OP attest it in a few ca-ses, and C in at least one (Levi 18"). Of the two Annenian recensions, o agrees mosl with R, and |3 with COP. Finally, each Gr. MS has Christian additions peculiar to itself, and • Bousset (op. rit PL 173) makes the list slightly shorter. t In oildition to the above, observe the important passage (Benj 11) regarding St Paul, which mentions his writings and achievements ; also the e.

-cpansion of the account of the three heavens into one of the seven heavens In l«vi L t ; but this expansion may be due to a Jewish hand. TESTS. OF Xn PATRIARCHS TESTS. OF XII PATRIARCHS 723 gimilarly tlie Armenian Version (cf. Sim. "■) and apparently each of its recensions. From tlie above facts, tlierefore, we conclude tliat tlie Christian additions are due to several hands, and were made at dill'erent periods, probablj' from the middle of the 2nd cent, onwards. 3.

Integrity of original Jewish Testaments. — We have seen how thoroughly critical research has confirmed Schnapp's theory tliat the Christian references in the te.xt are tlie result of interpola- tion. We have now to consider his second hypo- thesis, that the apocalyptic sections do not belong to the original work, which confined itself to bio- graphical details and practical exhortations founded on these. Thus two dill'erent sources are postulated.

But Schnapp has not succeeded in establishing this hypothesis as he did the former. He has tried to show, indeed, that in the Testament of Joseph we have two partially conflicting accounts of Joseph's history, derived from ditlerent authors — i.e. I-IO" and 10''-18. But, even if we agreed with him that these sections sprang from two distinct sources, this concession would not support his hypothe.sis. On the other hand, his analysis of this Testament may be quite wrong.

\\ e may have here merely a transposition of the text such as is found in the Ethiopic Enoch, chs. 91-94. Nearly every difficulty disappears if we read it in the following order— 1. 10-IC. 2-9. 17-20. In the Testament of Levi the section ch. 2, us Si iwoiiiaho- luv . . 6, ^i" Tj Kap5i(f IJ.OV, certainly conflicts with its present context. This vision does not refer to the events before and after, except in 5°"*, but has a general fitness, in tliat its object is the glorifica- tion of Levi.

The writer of the Testament may have embodied this section from already existing materials, or it may have been added subsequently by an interpolator. But, neglecting further con- sideration or Sclinapp's hypothesis of two Jewish sources, we may observe that the evidence points rather to a groundwork, written, as we sliall presently see, in the 2nd cent. is.C, in praise of the earlier Maccabteans, and enlarged with certain interpolations of a conflicting cliaracter in the Ist cent. B.C.

Tliese interpolated sections, which constitute an attack on the later Maccaba>ans, are Levi 10. 14-16, Judali 21-2,3, Dan 5 (certain para- graphs), Zebulun 9, Sim. 7''.* With these sections we shall deal presently when establishing the dates of their origin and that of the groundwork. iii. Date. — The earliest reference to our book by name is not earlier than Origen {Hum. in Josunm, I.'j'ted. Lonimatzscli, xi.

14:5]: ' In aliquo 3uodam libello qui appellatur testamentum duo- ecim patriarcharum, quanivis non habeatur in canone, talem tamen quendara sensum invenimus quod per singulos peccantes singuli satante in- telligi debeant '). An earlier reference may exist in fragment 17, Irenaius (ed. Stirren, i. 836, 837). External evidence, therefore, is of slight service for our present purjiose. The intemai evidence, however, is happflj' clear and decisive.

The (froundwork of the Teetamenta constituted an apology on behalf of the Moccabioan high priests. Thus in Rcub. O'"'* the words aTe(/a»iTaj it wtXifjutt iptcTv7t xai ett^xvatl can only be Interpreted of a hi(;h priest who is also a warrior, t Such a description would suit John Uyrcaiius. Earlier in the same chapter this double function is referred to more dearly, iiat. m>.u Ct mplrit HoLt tivrimt ir'ip T«rr*< 'Iffoeir.k. And a few lines later, ivXpynrirxj rir 'iffpxr,\ .

, in I KuTv f£iAif«r0 KCpiae fi^xriXUuf wtLi,rn rcZ kaiu (K). But the reference becomes still clearer in Levi g^^-^l i t/m'to; iwiMX^r,firnt mCru ittUM. ut'vor, arj fi^rtXtui ir TM (Arm. Qr. MSS give \m T«i; wrongly) '\»C^ mtxrr^- nrmif mmi wttfiru Ufixrtiui liar, k«ts rit nm rSt ilfvwr, lit w»frm •So also Bouaset on the whole (op. ciL 189 (f.)

In lOOa The present writer had dmwn attention to this fact In his Eichato- logy, llehrrw, Jrwith, and ChrUlian, 1S90, and to the early •lenienU In the Testaments in Eikijc DiUica, L 237-241. t Another reference to the warrior priests occurs In 81m. 6>t ■«' i Anfi ikiiKi,ffovi$ j» ^cfx^mi^ (tA> v di/>»Tau v^M All//, trt W»i.ttI4f Kv>>.M/ voAi^tirii. vk Wtij. These clauses point clearly to the civil and priestly functions of the Maccabees subsequent to B.

G 163, and a few lines further on the attribution of prophetic powers to this family (n 3i mpour.et aii-Tou etystirr^-rf,, u; Tpo^v,rr.t u-^irrcu (OJ) ctKibles us to identify the verj- member of this dynasty to whom our author alludes. This was John Hyrcanus.t'who. accoiding to Josephus (BJ I, iL 4 ; Ajit. xiiL x. 7), combined in his own person the threefold offices of prophet, priest, and king fv«« ytZi T« Kfix7irrtCt»T» f^otot Cx** ^.

> ti ipx^'' ^^'^ tH6Lit x^xi rr «^x"^''rvwj» ««» T/>ecrT<v»»). This limits the date of the work to RC l:J5-105. To the above period belongs the eschatology of the Messianic hymn in Dan 6'-^^-, according to the best textual authorities, \vith the exception of such an expression as "ret; ^iixxt T«» iy.v9 KctXi^.i us ixuTov (so Arm.) in Dan &28, and of one or two phrases. I Tlie same is true of the Messianic hjTnn in Jud- 24 and the account of the resurrection in Ju<L 25.

Unhappily, the second Apocalypse in Jos. 19 is too hopelessly corrupt, even in the Annenian,} to arrive at any definite chrono- log>'. Finally, in Napht 5^-^^ the successive nations are men- tioned that brought Israel into bondage ; the last of these is the Sj^rians : 'Arrupii, Mr.ioi, Tl-prant 'EijfjLeutt. riAa;^zr«f, XceAdalOi, ^uppi, Ky^poiifjLY.rourio Iv dei;)^/McAAir''a Tot iitaix» rxiiir-rpu TflS ' Iftacrk. Thus the passage was written prior to the domina- tion of Rome, Ce.

before aa 63. Tlie book, therefore, so far as we have considered it, was written between B.C. 135 and 63. Since, however, no reason has appeared for bringing the terminus ad quern later than B.C. 103, the work may safely be assigned to the years B.C. 135-103.|| It would thus form a sequel to Eth. Enoch 83-flO, whieli was written before B.C. 161. It reproduces some of its pliraseology in Jos. 19. But certain passages, to which we have already referred, belong, like Eth.

Enoch 91-104, and the Psalms of Solomon, to a later date. In these the filaccab.-e.in king-priests are the object of the fiercest invective, Tliese attacks are made in Levi lOi*- 1^, where, as in Ps-Sol 2. 4. 8, the priests are charged with destroy, ing the Law and teaching false doctrine (ct Eth, En. 942), with seducing Israel (cf. Eth. En 945 10410), with profaning the temple, with coniniitting fornication, and marrjing the daughters of the Gentiles. Again, in Jud.

23, Judah is charged with every kind of abomination and idolatry (cf. Eth- En 997-'X But the notes of time are still more manifest in Jud. 221-, which speaks of internal divisions and civil wars and the overthrow of the Maccabayin dynasty by aliens (itcc^u ii tK.Cvo7t Ittctpirtit x»r' iAAi^Aarv xai iriXifiM fvnxt7e la-etreti if'lffpa.r,X, fMi i* a.kXo^Ckete rv¥Tt>.iffQr.rt'riu ^ fiecfftXtm a:i>ra»f (Arm, Gr.

tMu\\ The aliens may be taken to be the Romans or the Herodian dynasty (which was of Idnmajan origin) In Zeb. 94- 7f. the civil strife between Aristobulus 11. and Ilyrcanus 11. is clearly depicte<I : M^ rx'^i^'^'n tit Ju# mfaXaf ... 'Ef i^araif nt^tpcttt . . iixtplOririfftlt it 'Itr^atiA, ««i iito iSowtXiti^it i{xx«Ao(/0rriTL Since the writer in the last Eassage says that this civil war will be f» iff^urxif Ku.ipxt{ (cf.

evi 10, i-rJ ffv»-iXii'» rim aiuyur ; also Levi 14), It follows that the composition of Levi 10. 14-16, Jud. 22. 23, Dan 515-23, Zcb. 9, cannot be of a much later date, and may be reasonably assigned to the years B.G 60-40. It is more diillcult to detenuine the date of Jud. 2L This chapter stands by itself in atta(^king the monarchy and in upliolding the priesthood. Bousset (op. eit. 192) assigns it to the time of ilyrcanus IL iv. Language.

— The time of composition in itself determines this question in the main. The various writers of tlie work belonged in all cases to the ranks of the IIASID.EANS, who maintained tlie doctrines afterwards upheld by the I'harisocs. The original, we therefore presume, was written in Semitic, and, in all probability, in Hebrew. The present writer ha.s elsewhere pointed out {Enei/c. BiWira, i. 2.

39-241) that (1) Hebrew constructions and expressions are frequent, (2) that parono- masia which are lost in the Greek can frequently This kingly high priest is the theme also ot Levi 18^^ — T6TI lylpti Kb^itfC iipim xctd»Of, Q »aTW tiXoyot Kupiov itiroxct>.vsOKtrt*rou. KatJ <xuT«r rtirrli mpiffm a.\Y,tiLeLt tvi vya y^t it wXr.Bu ii/MtSt, KotJ afartkit mrrpci aiiraZ it tupayai ait /Sstf-iAlAif (P Ann. ), f So alread,v Kohler, JQM v. 402 ; and subsequently Bousset.

{ The Messianic hope here appears as in Eth. En. 83-90. The Messiah is said to proceed from 'Judah and Levi." This is certainly wrong for ' Judah ' or ' Levi ' or Levi and Ju<lah ; cf. Dan 6«. Reub. 6, Sim. 6. 7, Levi 2. Isa. 6. The onler ' Judah and Levi ' is found in Christian interjiolations, as Housset has already recognized ; cf. Gotl 8, Jos. 19. Acconiiiig to Jud. 24, the Messiah is to ho descended from Judah. This no doubt is what is meant In Eth. En.

9057- ss ; for the Messiah is there distinguished from Judos Moccabious, who is representeil as fighting till the advent of the Messianic kingilom. Bousset assigns both these hymns to the latter half of the 1st cent. b.a ; but the cliarmct«r ot the Mchatology is whollv against this assumption. I See Preuschen's translation in ZSTit' 11900), ISa V This date holds good of the narrative portion* also. See Bousset, op. eit. 197-205. 724 TESTS. OF XII PATRIARCHS TESTS.

OF XII PATRIARCHS be restored by retranslation into Hebrew, and (3) that certain passages which are obscure or unintelligible in the Greek become clear on re- translation into Hebrew. We shall content our- selves with one or two examples of the above statements. Thus in Reub. S ir «Jt« ijixtj«« = 13 "ins; Levi 81' iritXrSi- eTxt ctiry ii»UM tuctio» = Vin CV ^'7 Kip". Napht. l*i» iratcupy^a iirt'ytrl'Petxx^ . . itcc nurt iMXxBr,^ SlfBet^t^Lc= . , . 7m n^n33 ■'^n^j 'nunpj pS.

Finally, in Napht. &"■ :ith rxcla ipx"' • • ■ fur^it Tetpixvt is£T« r«t/Tj» awti xu^tpvr.reu, the phrase [Mrr'ew Txfiixi"t which = nVp k'?D, has arisen from a corrupt dittography of n^p kS3 = ;t« tavrSf. This last fact was pointed out by Gaster (P^BA, Dec. 1893, Feb. 1894) in his edition of the Hebrew text of a Testament of Xaphtali, and may be regarded as con- clusive ; for the above phrase is found in this Hebrew Testa, ment— nSo n'^a . . nD?in .T'JK nm. V.

Versions (Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, Armenian, Slavonic, Latin). — The earliest versions were the Greek, the Armenian, and probably the Syriac. (a) Of the Greek Version ■six ^LSS are known. Of these, the Cambridge MS (C) of the 10th and the Oxford MS (O) of the 14th cent, have already been made known through Sinker's edition of the Greek text {The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 186'J) ; the Vatican MS (R) of the 13th and the Patmos MS (P) of the IGth cent.

, through the Appendix he published in 1879. The two remain- ing M.SS are still unpublished, but are being used by Sinker in forming a new Greek text. It is to be presumed that in the new text II will be mainly followed and not C as in the old edition. (b) The Aramaic Version. — This version was not brought to light till quite recently. Only one complete leaf and a half of tlie entire MS have been preserved.

The MS was brought by Schechter from the Cairo Genizah in 1S96, and its contents recognized in 1900 by H. L. Pass, who, togetlier with J. Arendzen, publislied the text in the JQR [1900], 651-661. The fragmentary folio contains a passage somewhat similar to Jud. 5. The complete folio has portions of Levi 11-13. Altliougn at times the Greek and Aramaic agree word for word, they more often diverge both as to contents and to order. The Aramaic is much fuller.

It is note- worthj- that it agrees in this respect with the Syriac fragment against the Greek. To this point we shall return in dealing with that version. (c) The Syriac Version. — Of this version only a fragment remains, preserved in a Syr. MS [Brit. Mus., ..Vdd. 17,193 — C'a<. ii. 997], dated A.D. 874. This MS consists of a series of 125 extracts from ditlerent sources. No. 80 of which is derived from Levi 12.

This extract contains three sentences which are unattested by the Greek, and it was probably on this ground that Preuschen (ZNTW [1900], 108) declared that its evidence was valueless as regards the existence of a Syriac Version. Now, it is worthy of remark that these additional three sentences are present word for word in the newly discovered Aramaic ; and yet, so far as all three versions have a common text, the Syriac and Greek agree against the Aramaic. Thus, Gr. and Syr.

give iKTib whore Aram. = (Sk-ruKalSeKo, and where the former give iin-uiKalieKa the latter = iwca- KaioeKa. {(l) The Armenian Version. — It is to F. C. Conybeare that we owe our first knowledge of the value of the Armenian Version, through his collation of the Armenian with Sinker's Greek text of the Testaments of Reulien, Simeon, Judah, Dan, Joseph, Benjamin (JQR [1895], 375- 3ri8; [1896], 260-268, 471-485).

In 1896 the tirst Armenian edition of the text was published bv tlie Mechitarist Fathers at Venice in a small volume, including many other non-canonical writ- tugs of the OT. This edition is based on five MSS.

* Subsequently Preuschen wrote a learned article (ZA'^'IF [1900], 106-140), in which he shows, in dependence on the Venice edition, that thera ■were two recensions of the Armenian text o and /3, of which the former is much the briefer and earlier, and contains likewise fewer Christian interpolations. In this article he ^pves a German translation of the Testament of Levi. F jr further details see op. cit. 130-140. (c) The Slavonic Version.

— This version exists in two recensions, which are published by Tichon- rawow in his Monunvnts of Old Russian Apoc- rijphal Literature [1863], i. 96-145 and 146-232. A\ itii the help of Bonwetsch, Bousset tested this version and found it worthless for textual purposes. It is most nearly related to the Greek text of O (P). (/) No earlier Latin Version is known than that of Robert Grosseteste. This was made from C, and is valueless, therefore, from a critical stand- point. vi.

Value of the Testaments. — This work has been simply a sealed book till the present, owing to the difficulty of discriminating the various elements in the text. Now that we have achieved this task in its main outlines, we discover that we have in the groundwork of the Testa- ments a unique work of the 2nd cent. B.C. ; for, with the excei'tion of Jubilees, it constitutes the only Apology in Jewish literature for the religious and civil hegemony of the Maccabees from the Pharisaic standpoint.

To the few Jewish inter- polations which belong to the ne.\t cent. * large interest attaches ; for these, like Eth. Enoch 91- 104 and the Psalms of Solomon, constitute an unmeasured attack on every office — prophetic, priestly, or kingly — administered by the Alacca- bees. But, turning aside from the historical to the religious bearings of the book, we may notice shortly its eschatologj', its teaching on the various heavens, and its peculiar view as to the twelve tribes of Israel.

(a) The Eschatology. — We shall confine our atten- tion to three Messianic passages, hevi 18, Jud. 24. 25, and Dan 5^-. Accordmg to Levi 18, the Messiah is to spring from Levi and be the eternal High Priest and civil ruler of the nation, Levi 18". During his rule sin should gradually cease, Levi 18" ; Beliar be bound, Levi 18'* " ; the gates of Paradise be opened and the saints eat of the tree of life, Levi 18"'^. We have here an eternal Messianic kingdom on earth as in Eth. Enoch 83-90.

In Jud. 24. 25 and Dan ga-ss t^i,g forecast is on the whole the same, save that the Messiah is to spring not from Levi but from Judah (Jud. 24", Dan o^t), as no doubt also in Eth. Enoch 90''- **. These hymns would be earlier, if we are right, than that in Levi 18, and would thus be written before enthusiasm for John Hjrcanus had reached its height. According to these hymns, the resurrection (of the righteous?) is to take place during the Messiah's reign (Jud.

25), the evil spirits are to be cast into eternal fire (Jud. 25">), the saints to live in Eden (Dn 5^), and all the nations to rejoice (Jud. 25'"), and God to abide with men (Dan 5^'). Here also we have an eternal Messianic kingdom on earth, in which the Gentiles paiticipate. • There are seven other MSS known to ncholara Two of these have been collated by Conybeare, belonging respectively to the London Bible Society and to Lord Zouche ; see ZXTn [IIKIUJ, 108-110.

t In Dan the text says 'Judah and Levi' Since this is the order of these names in the Christian interpolations, we must emend the phrase into 'Levi and Judah,* or simply 'Levi' or 'Judah.' But, since the Messiah is nowhere else in the Testa, ments said to be sprung from 'Levi and Judah' (though it is declared that by means of LeW and Judah God will deliver Israel), we must'fall back simply on 'Levi' or 'Judah' as ths original text. We take it that 'and Levi' is an intrusion ber& See p.

723>> note {. TESTIMONY TETKAECH 725 (4) The three heavens and the seven heavens. — From R and the Armenian Version of Levi 2. 3 It is now clear that these chapters contained origin- ally a description of only three heavens. R* alone preserves the true text here ; for the two recensions of the Arm. a and § are both confused and corrupt, the former mentionini; only two heavens, and tlie latter four. It was Lueken (Michael [1S9S], 92) who first recognizeJ this fact.

Its furtlier eluci- dation we owe to Buusset (ZNTW 159-163). Thus it appears that a belief in the three heavens pre- vailed early in the 'Jnd cent. B.C. It has thus an older attestation in .J udaism tlian that of the seven heavens, but which is in re.ality the earlier we cannot at present say. (c) The Twelve Tribes. — The Twelve Tribes are Bupi>osed to be in existence at the date of the composition of this work, and in Palestine. Thus in iSapht. 5" the Syrians are said to hold sway over them.

In Keub. 6'^ the high priestly ruler (i.e. John Hyrcanus) is ' to judge and oiler sacritice for all Israel till the consummation of the times ' ; and ' to bless Israel and Judah ' (Reub. 6"). The very fact that the book is addressed to the Twelve Tribes, although it speaks of the ultimate dispersion or destruction of Reuben (6"), Dan, Gad, and Asher (Asher 7"), points in the same direction.

Bousset calls attention to the fact that the Letter of Aris- teas states that Eleazar the high priest sent six men of each of the Twelve Tribes to Ptolemy. This naturally presupposes the presence of the Twelve in Palestine or its neighbourhood. The idea that the Jewish kingdom embraced once again the entire nation, could easily arise when the Maccabees ex- tended their sway northwards over Samaria and Galilee and eastwards beyond the Jordan.

This displaced the older belief that nine tribes were eiiil in captivity (see Eth. Enoch 89'^, written 20 to 30 years before the Testaments). But with the growin" degradation of the later Maccabees the older idea revives. According to the Psalms of Solomon (17^- **■"), the dispersed tribes are to be brought back. This thought reappears frequently in the 1st cent. A.D., and then in new forms. The nine or ten tribes were in the far East enjoying great prosperity (Philo, Leg. nd Gaium, 31 ; Jos.

Ant. XI. v. 2 ; Sib. Or. ii. 170-173), or, according to a later view, they were lost, and their place of abode was unknown to men, but God was keeping them safely till the Messianic times (4 Ezr 13^"'"). This form of the idea, which is now the current one, is not attested till after the fall of Jerusalem, A.D. 70. LlTERATTRB. — The principal authorities have been cited In the bo<iy of the above article. See, f»irther, .Srliijrer, QJl's iii, C(>'J IIJ./P II. iiL 124J.

Since the above article was written, an En^']i»h translation of the Armenian Version haa been publiblicd {Ctu-ananiciU Writings <>/ the OT found in the Armenian M.^S of .St. tazarus, Issaverdens, Venice, 11M>1, pp. 8S1-478). Afl the translator has made no attempt to distinpuisli between the two recensions, thia translation is worthlciui from a critical stand- point. R. U. CUARLES.