religious admonitions are not wanting. The last book was printed for the first time in 1817 by Angelo Mai, and the last four collectively by the same editor in 1828;1 so that before this time only eight books came under investigation. In the time of Lardner and earlier, although transpositions and interpolations were suspected, these eight books were treated as substantially one work, and were therefore declared without hesitation to be a Christian forgery of the second century, the evidence appearing amply sufficient for this conclusion in regard to certain portions.2 But the searching investigations of Bleek into the indications of time and of authorship presented by the first eight books completely established their composite character; and it is now an accepted result of criticism that the date and origin of the various parts can be determined only by the contents of those parts themselves, and that the several oracles in their present form have proceeded partly from Jewish, partly from Christian authors, while here and there earlier materials of heathen origin have most probably been worked into the later monotheistic texture. A more thorough examination, following the track indicated by Bleek, seems to require some modification of his particular conclusions. As the great majority of the Books have no bearing on our present subject, it is unnecessary to bring them under discussion; but it may be useful to subjoin a summary of the results arrived at by Professor

1 In his Scriptorum Veterum Nova Collectio, vol. iii. part 3, p. 202 8q. Rome, 1828. These four books were published from manuscripts in the Vatican.

2 See Lardner's collected works, 1838, ii. 333 sq.

3 Ueber die Entstehung und Zusammensetzung der uns in acht Büchern erhaltenen Sammlung sibyllinischer Orakel,' in the Theologische Zeitschrift of Schleiermacher, De Wette, and Lücke, Heft 1, 1819, S. 120–246, Heft 2, 1820; S. 172-239. I have failed to obtain these articles, and am therefore ob'iged to refer to them at second hand. The above title is taken from Hilgenfeld's Jüd. Apok. S. 55, Anm. 5.

Friedlieb, who in 1852 published a very careful and complete edition of the Greek text, preceded by a critical introduction, and accompanied by a metrical German translation. In his view the Books of Jewish origin are the following: III., in the main by an Egyptian Jew, about 160 B.C.; IV., 79 or 80 A.D.; V. by an Egyptian Jew, in the earlier part of the reign of Hadrian (ascribed by Bleek to a Christian, on account of the appearance of Nero as Antichrist, and the favourable view of Hadrian ; but the opinion that Nero was Beliar might have been held by a Jew, and at the time when the book was composed Hadrian may not have begun to display his hostility towards the Jews); IX., by an Egyptian Jew, between 115 and 118 A.D.; XII., probably by an Egyptian Jew of the third century. The remaining books proceed, in Friedlieb's opinion, from Christian writers of the second and third centuries, though Bleek, chiefly on account of the silence of the Fathers, would place I. and II. as late as the middle of the fifth century.2

From the above summary it is evident that the third Book is the one which, on account of its date and authorship, most nearly concerns us; and it fortunately contains a long description of what, though it is not mentioned under that name, we may call the Messianic period. From this book, however, we must detach lines 1-45, which, though they may contain an altered extract from the original prooemium, have probably come from the author of the first two Books. Lines 46-96, though of Jewish and pre-Christian origin, also belong to a later date than that which we have assigned to the rest of the Book, for

1 Oracula Sibyllina, ad fidem codd. mscr. quotquot extant recensuit, prætextis prolegominis illustravit, versione Germanica instruxit, annotationes criticas et rerum indicem adjecit Josephus Henricus Friedlieb; Lipsia, MDCCCLII. There is also a German title.

2 See Friedlieb's edition, Einleitung.

there is a clear allusion to the triumvirs, Antonius, Octavius, and Lepidus, and also to Cleopatra.1 As in their time, according to the Pseudo-Sibyl, God was to come to judge the world, we may assign this section to the period immediately preceding the battle of Actium, 31 B.C. Friedlieb apparently sees no difficulty in line 63, 'Ek dè Σeβαστηνῶν ἥξει Βελίαρ μετόπισθεν, but is content to refer the expression eßaσrηv@v to the Roman rulers generally, and thinks the author may have regarded Antonius himself as the future Beliar. But it is difficult to understand how such a title could have been used to describe Roman rulers at that time; and surely those critics must be right who see here a later interpolation, and an allusion to the derivation of Antichrist from the line of the Roman emperors in the person of Nero. It is probable also that lines 818-828 are from a later hand, as they contain an account of the origin of the Sibyl at variance with that which has immediately preceded, and the Book naturally closes with line 817. On the other hand, there is sufficient evidence to show that two fragments (comprising together 84 lines), preserved by Theophilus of Antioch, and now prefixed to the whole collection, formed parts of the prooemium of this Book. It thus appears that we possess by far the larger part of the verses (amounting according to Lactantius to about a thousand) of the old Hebrew or Erythræan Sibyl."

1 v. 51 sq. and 75 sq.

4

2 The connection may be restored by omitting from 'Aràp in line 61 to 7 in 63, both words inclusive, and then supplying κarà yêν to complete the metre. The lines will then read thus:

:

Ήξει γάρ, ὁπ ́ταν θείου διαβήσεται ὀδμὴ

Πᾶσιν ἐν ἀνθρώποις κατὰ γῆν, Βελίαρ μετόπισθεν.

Bleek is followed in this supposition by Gfrörer (Philo und die alexandrinische Theosophie, 1831, ii. S. 134) and Lücke (Einl. in die Offenb. i. S. 79-80). 4 Divin. Instit. lib. i. c. 6.

3 Ad Autol. lib. ii. c. 36.

Friedlieb says we have 905. My arithmetic produces only 808. The

With the exclusion of the passages just pointed out, the date of the third Book is shown by express statements to fall within the reign of Ptolemy VII. Physkon, of Egypt; for immediately after the miseries of that time. the glorious future of the sons of the great God,' was expected to come in. There are three distinct references to the seventh king of Egypt, who is twice said to be of Grecian lineage.2 In the first of the passages where these references occur, the nation of the great God' is promised renewed strength and leadership at this time; and in the second it is said that the miseries of Egypt should then cease. The most important passage, however, is the last. In this the invasion of Egypt by Antiochus Epiphanes, 'a great king from Asia,' immediately after the accession of Physkon, is indicated with sufficient clearness. If, therefore, the author represents the Messianic period as following closely upon this event, we must agree with Bleek and Friedlieb in assigning to the work a date not long after 170 B.C., the year in which the invasion occurred. Hilgenfeld, however, thinks, with good reason, that this long and troubled reign allows us a greater latitude of choice; and he fixes the date between 142 and 137 B.c.3 The chief indication of a later period in the passage before us he finds in the predicted desolation of all Greece' by a 'barbarous empire,' which, in his opinion, must refer

fragments of Theophilus comprise 84 verses; but Friedlieb adds to the first fragment three verses found in Lactantius (Div. Inst. ii. 11), bringing the nnmber up to 87. The case accordingly stands thus: 828-(96+11) + 87 808.

1 v. 702.

2

=

v. 192-3, 318, 608 sq. In 318 the Greek descent is not specified. These notices, occurring in different parts of the poem, and all pointing to the same date, help to prove the identity of authorship of the successive sections.

3 Jüd. Apok. S. 75.

4 Βάρβαρος αρχή, ν. 638-40.

to the conquest of Greece by the Romans in 146 B.C. The decisive evidence he detects in an earlier passage,1 in which the fortunes of the Seleucids are enigmatically described. By carefully comparing with historical events the allusions which here occur, he arrives at the reign of the usurper Tryphon, who seized the throne in 142 B.C. Tryphon was overthrown by Antiochus Sidetes, who succeeded him in 137 B.C.; and thus are determined the limits within which the work must have been written.2 Other indications are found in the prophecy of the desolation of Libya by barbarous-minded enemies, which it is most natural to refer to the destruction of Carthage by the Romans in 146 B.C., and in the predicted ruin of Greece by a very barbarous nation,' which, though generally referred to the conquest of Perseus of Macedonia in 168 B.C., seems to suit best the overthrow of Achæa in 146 B.C., as it is expressly said that a servile yoke shall be upon all Greece.'"

6

4

There appears, therefore, to be satisfactory evidence for placing the third Book of the Sibylline Oracles in the second century before Christ. Volkmar, however, while admitting that it is in the main pre-Christian, places it as late as 63 B.C. He does so on the alleged ground that the entrance of Pompeius into Jerusalem is clearly indicated. He appeals to the passage where the Sibyl, having spoken of the prosperity of Judæa, declares that kings will begin to be angry with one another, and that again kings of the nations will come and threaten the Temple. The first allusion he refers to the disputes between Hyrcanus and Aristobulus for the sovereignty of Judæa, and the second to the interference of Aretas, an