[See page image]

Page 398

possibility of the inclusion of earlier pieces, the correct apprehension of which makes possible another dating, dependent upon a different interpretation of certain intruded parts. But at any rate, this part must have arisen in the Maccabean period, for the condition described is that of the independent Jewish state while the preaching is directed against the Romans who have subjected Hellenism. Yet a late part of the Maccabean time is indicated, since 470 sqq. points to Sulla and his Asian campaign, and 350 sqq. deals with the war against Mithridates c. 88 B.c., quoting an oracle on the affair. Since the author uses these documents, he must have written after 88 B.c., probably in the time of Queen Alexandra. He worked, as did the apocalyptical writers, only in part with his own material, for the most part taking over existing matter. Probably his own composition is to be found in iii. 211-294, which describes the Jewish people, of which 271-272 especially fits the Jewish diaspora of Alexandra's period. This part is, however, closely related to the passage 520-795, which accordingly also may be regarded as the Jewish writer's own. Whether the sermon to the Greeks belongs here is doubtful, as it fits equally well with the times of Sulla and of the Mithridatic war, the one indication of a later date being its advanced eschatology. Probably to the same author are to be ascribed lines 162-166, 194210, 295-336, 489-519-all of them introductions to longer sections, - and with some probability the entire conclusion; also in general 156-166, 196-294, 489-795 except 608-615.

Older that the Erythrean (Delphian) sibyl Material. foretold the fall of Ilium and charged Homer with lies and plagiarism of her verses (cf. iii. 414-432 of the present collection); the preceding oracle concerning Phrygia makes the impression of being derived from a heathen source, as does 381-387, there being testimony that the Persian (Chaldean) sibyl spoke concerning Alexander; similarly the oracle against Rome (350 sqq.) is not in the style of the present writer, but is heathen and of great political interest; so the early sibylline characteristics shine out of lines 337-349, 433-438. In these passages oracles of various heathen sources seem to have been collected and arranged in artistic fashion. Such a borrowing appears in the early part of this book-105-154 is unmistakably gentile; in Lactantius (Institutes, I., xiv. 2) there is a parallel to the Euhemeristic turn of thought in the conflict between the Kronides and Titans. But this passage is in close connection with that concerning the tower of Babel, and the speaker as sibyl identifies herself with the older sibyl (iii. 809 sqq.); it would be expected almost that this speaker would use earlier prophecies; and Alexander Polyhistor (Eusebius, Chronicon, I., xxiii.), Josephus (Ant., I., iv. 3), and Abydenus (Eusebius, Chronicon, I., xrociii_xxxiv.) cite an

oracle in heathen form on this subject. The original sibyl may have derived the story from Hebrew tradition or from folklore. This book then seems to come from the time of Queen Alexandra, and uses older fragments of Jewish origin, and of heathen origin from the Erythrean and other Greek oracles. The lines 211-294 and 520-795 are valuable for the religious situation at the end of the, Maccabean period.

In iii. 1-95 two hands are apparent, 46-62 and 63-92 showing distinct differences. The first belongs in the period of the first triumvirate, according to the usual dating; but in 46-50 a Christian seems to speak. With 46-fit may possible be placed 1-45,

a Christian editing of c. 70 A.D. The 6. Intro- passage 63-92 is more difficult to date,

But it might refer to Simon Magus, and so be as late as the second half of the first century. The mention of the widow has been especially puzzling, since it can no longer be taken to mean Cleopatra. The first and second books must be taken into account in fixing the date; they were the first to assume a unity and then to form two books; this appears in the manuscripts of -[~, which call books i. and ii. "the first logos," of which book iii. was " the second." Books i.-ii. are outlined in i. 1-323, and were to set forth the fortune of the world in ten families, of which only seven appear, the last three being removed in the working over. This part, generally recognized as of Jewish origin, was separated into two parts by an editor of expressly Christian character. But the dates of these separate editings are not easy to determine; estimates vary from the beginning of the Christian era till the third Christian century, the later dating being based upon the doubtful datum of the existence of the masculine ciesura. Other indications adduced are equally elusive. The ruin predicted in the third book at the beginning agrees with the origin of the basal writing of books i.-ii. Book i. handles the theme which in all probability was treated in the part broken off when iii. was added-viz., creation and the flood; in i. there are echoes of the Babylonian version of the flood (lines 230-260), showing that the report of the flood from book i. was once at least in book iii., and, like iii. 96454, depended upon the Babylonian Sambethe. The manuscripts indicate 1,034 lines for book iii., of which only 829 (895) are extant, an indication which shows the extent of the piece broken off from the beginning of book iii.

It is probable that iii. 46-62 and 63-92 were introduced subsequent to the compilation of the rest of the book; if then 46-92 belongs to the period c. 70 A.D., the destruction of the beginning of book iii. and the rise of the basis of books i.-ii. are prior to

that date. The section ii. 167-176 is a 7. Books part of the Christian redaction, in