Greek and Hebrew Sources and their Dates.

Our author has used sources. Nearly one-fifth of his text appears to be based on sources, i.e. 71-8 111-13 12-13 (155-8 ?) 17-18. These sources he has adapted to his own purposes, and in the course of such adaptation has, except in certain details, transformed their meaning. (a) Sources he found in Hebrew or Greek. (b) Sources he found in Greek. (c) Sources in Hebrew.

(a) Chap. 71-8 (before 70 A.D.) That there are two sources here is shown in vol. i. 191 sqq. Whether our author found these sources already existing in Greek and recast them in his own diction or translated them directly from the Hebrew is uncertain.

Chap. 71-3. Here "the four winds" (so designated though not previously mentioned) are not to be let loose till the faithful are sealed. A pause is enjoined in the course of judgment for this purpose as in 1 En 661-2, 67, and in 2 Bar 64 sqq.. The four winds appear in earlier tradition. See vol. i. 192-193.

Chap 74-8. From a Jewish or Jewish-Christian source. See vol. i. 193-194. The "sealing" in our text is also derived from tradition, but the meaning is wholly transformed from what it bears in the O.T. and Pss. Sol 156-10. 13, which later work appears to have been before our author.

(b) Greek Sources, i.e. sources already existing in Greek, 111-3 12.* 17-18.

Chap. 111-13 (before 70 A.D.). This section had originally a different meaning and was borrowed by our author from a source written before 70 A.D. 111-13 consists of two earlier fragments, both of which presuppose Jerusalem to be still standing (111. 8). The diction, idiom, and order of words differ perceptibly from that of our author, and they contain certain phrases which bear a different meaning from that which they bear in our author. In 113-13 our author's hand is discernible in the additions 118bc-9a and the entire recasting of 117, so that what stood there originally cannot be known. In our text the temple in 111 must be interpreted not as the actual temple which no longer existed, but as the spiritual temple, of which all the faithful are constituent members -- a figure which our author has already used in 312, and the words "the measuring of his temple, the altar and those that worshipped therein," mean in their new context the securing of {lxiii.} the faithful against the spiritual influences of the demonic and Satanic powers. But all the ideas in the text do not lend themselves to such reinterpretation, and the presence of such inexplicable details is prima facie evidence that the sections in which they occur are not original creations of our author but are derived from traditional material. See vol. i. 269-292.

Chap. 12 (before 70 A.D.). In vol. i. 298-299 the meaning of this chapter in its Christian setting is given. But that this was not its original meaning, and that it could not have been written originally by a Christian, is shown in vol. i. 299-300. A full discussion of the two sources which  udnerlie this chapter and were translated from Semitic originals but not by our author, is given in vol. i. 305-314. Our author most probably found these sources already in a Greek form, and the conclusion recorded in i. 303 is here withdrawn. These two sources, so far as they survive in our text, consist of 121-5. 13-17 and 127-10. 12. These were adapted by our author to their new Christian context by the addition of 126. 11 and by certain additions in 123(?), 125 (o]j me,llei poimai,nein pa,nta ta. e;qnh evn r`a,bdw| sidhra/|), 129 (o` o;foj o` avrcai/oj( o` kalou,menoj Dia,boloj) ) ) ) evblh,qh), 1210 (kai. h` evxousi,a tou/ Cristou/ auvtou/ and tw/n avdelfw/n h`mw/n dislodging a Jewish phrase), 1213 (o[te ei=den and o[ti evblh,qh eivj th.n gh/n), 1217 (tw/n throu,ntwn ta.j evntola.j tou/ qeou/ kai. evco,ntwn th.n marturi,an VIhsou/). The expectation expressed in 1214-16 is a survival of an earlier time, being found by our author in his source. It referred to or prophesied the escape of Jewish Christians before 70 A.D. But the idea of such an escape during the entire sway of the Antichrist (1214 kairo.n kai. kairou.j kai. h[misu kairou/) is impossible in our text, where our author's expectation is that of a martyrdom of the entire Christian Church. No part of the Church escapes.

Chaps. 17-18 (71-79 A.D.). These chapters, though recast by our author to serve his own main purpose, preserve incongruous elements and traces of an earlier date. Thus 1710-11 cannot be reasonably interpreted of a later time than Vespasian. And yet our author's additions in 178. 11, which refers to the demonic Nero coming up from the abyss, can only be explained by a Domitianic date. The sense is confused, but the date is clear. To leave this passage unaltered was an oversight on the part of our author. Similarly, 184 (see vol. ii. 96 sq.) postulates a Vespasianic date.

These chapters, the greater part of which our author found in a Greek form, were derived from two Hebrew sources, which for convenience' sake we designate A and B. A consisted originally of 171c-2. 3b-6. 7. 18. 8-10 (greater part) 182-23. See vol. ii. 88-89, 94-95. B consisted of 1711 (greater part). 12-13. 17. 16. See vol. ii. 59-60. 

Our author has adapted these sources to his own purposes {lxiv.} by inserting the following clauses: 171 (kai. h=lqen ) ) ) dei,xw soi), 3a (kai. avph,negke,n me ) ) ) pneu,mati), 3c (kai. ke,rata de,ka), 6b (kai. evk t) ai[matoj ) ) ) VIhsou/), 8 (h=n kai. ouvk ) ) ) u`pa,gei), and (o[ti h=n ) ) ) pa,restai), 9 (w-de o` nou/j o` e;cwn sofi,an), 11 (o] h=n kai. ouvk e;stin), and (kai. eivj avpw,leian u`pa,gei), 14. But the text of 1711-17 is in disorder. 1715 is a gloss (see vol. ii. 72), 1717 should precede 1716, and 1714 (our author's addition) should follow immediately on 1716. Hence the right order of the text (see vol. ii. 61) is 1711-13. 17. 16. 14. After 1714 our author transferred 1718, which originally belonged to A (see above), to the close of the chapter in order to introduce chap. 18.

Chap. 182-23a-e. This chapter, as we have already seen, belongs to the source A. Our author apparently found it in some disorder in a Greek form. He has made a few changes in it. He has introduced it by prefixing 181, by inserting 1820, and closing it by 1823f. 24. Since 1820 is an appeal to the heavenly hosts -- an appeal that is immediately answered in 191-7, our author would naturally have placed it at the close of 18 and not where it stands in the traditional text. 1820. 23f. 24 would thus form the close of this chapter coming from our author's hand and serving to introduce the theme of 191-4 165bc-7 195-7.

Since, therefore, 1820 does not apparently stand where our author inserted it, it is reasonable to conclude that some of the great disorder that exists in 1814-23 arose subsequently to our author's composition of the work as a whole.

(c) Hebrew Sources. One chapter, i.e. 13, is mainly composed of translations from three Hebrew sources by our author (see vol. i. 334-338). To the first source, written by a Pharisaic Quietist before 70 A.D., is to be traced 131abd. 2. 4-7a. 10. See vol. i. 340-342. To the second source, 133c. 8, of which we find a second Greek translation from another hand in 178. See vol. i. 337. To the third, 1311. 12ab. 13-14ab. 16ad.-17a. See vol. i. 342-344. The date is probably prior to 70 A.D.

The original meaning of these sources is transformed by their incorporation into our author's text. He has adapted them to his own purpose by the insertion of the following clauses: 131c (kai. evpi. tw/n ) ) ) diadh,mata), 3ab (kai. mi,an ) ) ) evqerapeu,qh), 6c (tou.j ) ) ) skhnou/ntaj), 7b (kai. evdo,qh ) ) ) e;qnoj), 8b-9 (tou/ avrni,ou ) ) ) avkousa,tw), 10c (w-de ) ) ) a`gi,wn), 12bc (to. qhri,on to. prw,ton ou- evqerapeu,qh ) ) ) auvtou/), 14b-15 (evnw,pion ) ) ) avpoktanqw/sin), 16 (t) mikrou.j ) ) ) dou,louj), 17-18 (to. o;noma ) ) ) e[x).

Possibly 155-8 is translated from a Hebrew source by our author. The grounds for this hypothesis are to be found in the two possible phrases in 155. 6. It is remarkable that both these phrases can be explained by retranslation into Hebrew. See vol. ii. 37-38. On this hypothesis we should expect the whole {lxv.} narrative of the Bowls to be likewise a translation from the Hebrew. But if it is, it is so thoroughly recast that no evidence for this hypothesis survives.

If we reject this hypothesis, we might assume that li,non is a primitive error for linou/n in 156, and that th/j skhnh/j tou/ marturi,ou was originally a marginal gloss which was derived from Ex. 4029, on which our text is based, and was subsequently incorporated in the text against both the sense and the grammar. The editor, however, was capable of the grossest misconceptions, as we have been elsewhere: see pp. l-lv.

* In vol. i. 300-305 I took chapter 12 to be a translation by our author from a Hebrew source, but subsequent study has obliged me to abandon this view. See Introd. p. clviii n.


Scanned and edited by Brad Johnson