Page images

In the seventh verse, should it be,

*Η χρυσοτεύκτους η ελεφαντίνους τύπους.

ni 'Qartívous ? These verses are to be found in Cleniens Alexandrinus and in other fathers, and with some variety of readings. See Eusebius P. Ev, xüï. 13. p. 680. and the notes of Vigerus. "Though this be such,' says Cudworth, as might well become a Christian, and be no where now to be found in those extant tragedies of this poet, many whereof have been lost, yet the sincerity thereof cannot reasonably be at all suspected by us, it having been cited by so many of the antient fathers, in their writings against the Pagans, as particularly Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Clemens Alexandrinus, Eusebius, Cyril, and Theodoret, of which number Clemens tells us, that it was attested likewise by that antient Pagan historiographer Hecatæus. Intell. Syst. p. 363.

Hecatæus, whom Josephus commends, Contr. Apion. i. 22. is said to have lived in the time of Alexander the Great, and to have conversed much with the Jews, and he might have been a kind of proselyte, or half-Jew. Le Clerc suspects that this book of Hecatæus might have been forged by the Jews. Bibl. Chois. viii. 392. Athenagoras only cites the two first verses of this fragment : it is strange that he should not have produced the rest, if he ever saw it, which made so much for his purpose. Some may think it improbable that Sophocles should venture to attack the gods and the religious ceremonies of his own country in so open a manner : but these verses are not, like those of the Sibyl, in the style of the Scriptures, and it is certain that in the Greek comedies and tragedies there are many bold strokes against the fabulous and popular religions; and Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. v. p. 691, produces passages out of Euripides, Plato, and Zeno, which are very remote from the vul. gar notions concerning the gods. The fathers have taken great pains to collect such testimonies, for which we are much obliged to them.

Justin, Cohort. 38. cites an oracle, which seems to be a Jewish or a Christian trifle, in which it is said that God

πρώτον πλάσας μερόπων, 'Αδάμ δε καλέσσας. Qui primum mortalem effinxit, Adamque vocavit.'

Justin, in the book de Monarchia, if it be his, produces a passage from Philemon, which others ascribe to Menander, wherein are these lines :

Δεί γαρ τον άνδρα χρήσιμον καθεστάναι,
Μη παρθένους φθείροντα, και μοιχώμενον,
Κλέπτοντα, και σφάζοντα χρημάτων χάριν,
[Τ' αλλότρια βλέποντα, καπιθυμούντα
"Ητοι γυναικός, πολυτελούς ή δώματος,
*Η κτήσεως, παιδός τε, παιδίσκης θ' απλώς,
Ιππων, βοών το σύνολον, ή κτηνών. τί δή

Μηδε βελόνης εν άμμεπιθυμής, Πάμφιλε.
Probum esse namque oportet omnino virum,
Non inferentem stupra nuptæ aut virgini,
Lucrive causa furta vel cædes ; neque
[Aliena spectantem ac deinde conjugis
Male appetentem, aut superbarum ædium
Aut prædiorum, vel puellæ, aut vernulæ,
Pecorisve taurůmve aut equûm. Quo hæc pertinent ?]

Acum vel unam haud concupiscas, Pamphile.' The verses which I have inclosed in brackets are not in Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. v. 720. nor in Eusebius Præp. Evang. xiii. 13. nor in the collections of Grotius, or of Le Clerc. They are, I think, the handy-work of some Jew or Christian, and a sorry imitation of the tenth commandment; and, it may be, an interpolation in Justin : Ουκ επιθυμήσεις την γυναίκα του πλησίον σου" ουκ επιθυμήσεις την οικίαν του πλησίον σου, ουδε τον αγρον αυτού, ουδε τον παιδα αυτού, ουδε την παιδίσκην αυτού, ούτε του βοος αυτού, ούτε του υποζυγίου αυτού, ούτε παντος κτήνους αυτού, ούτε όσα τω πλησίον σου εστί: Εxod. Xx. 17.

Τ' αλλότρια βλέποντα, καπιθυμούντα is not a verse, nor worth the mending. One might read,

Τ' αλλότρια βλέποντ', η επιθυμούμενον-
He also cites some verses from Æschylus ;

Χώριζε θνητών τον Θεόν, και μη δόκει
Ομοιον σαυτό σάρκινoν καθεστάναι.–&c.
Πάντα δύναται γάρ δόξα δ' υψίστου Θεού.


« Deum amoveto longius mortalibus,

Nec tibi parem esse, carne amictum, finxeris.-

Namque omnia potest : laus Dei est altissimi.' This

passage is also to be found with some various read. ings in Clemens Strom. v. 727.

The last line has an air of forgery ; it is unharmonious, and prosaic, and seems to be taken from the Scriptures. In the second line, instead of "OmClov Gautõ it should perhaps be "Oj4014 CAUT — for the second foot will not regularly admit a spondee.

Eusebius, unless my memory deceive me, has made no direct use of the Sibyl; whence it may be conjectured that he had no great esteem for her. Dr. Middleton has charged him with approving and justifying a very silly acrostich of the Erythræan Sibyl. · Eusebius has preserved an acrostich.--He tells us, however, that many rejected it, but the truth, adds he, is manifest--for it is agreed by all that Cicero had read this poem. Now the sole ground of this confident assertion is,' &c. Inquiry, p. 36.

The Father of Ecclesiastical History deserves not this censure, and the Doctor has inadvertently ascribed to Eusebius sentiments contained in an oration, published indeed by Eusebius, but composed by the Emperor Constantine. As to the emperor's judgment, Defend it who will, for I will not: but why should Eusebius be responsible for the mistakes of Constantine? See Constantini Orat. apud Eusebium, p. 700. cdit. Cant. and Valesius there, and Euseb. Vit. Const. iv. 32.

Lusabius cites the Sibyl, Præp. Evang. xiii. 13. but in the words of Clemens Alexandrinus, whom he transcribes.

IX. 15. He produces a passage from her concerning the tower of Babel; but he took it, as he informs us, from Josephus Ant. i. 4. who says, Il epi SI TOŨ TÚZYou toutou nad this αλλοφωνίας των ανθρώπων, μέμνηται και Σίβυλλα λέγουσα ούτως, Πάντων ομοφώνων όντων των ανθρώπων, πύργον ώκοδόμησάν τινές υψηλότατον, ως επί τον ουρανον αναβησόμενοι δι' αυτού· οι δε θεοί ανέμους επιπέμψαντες ανέτρεψαν τον πύργον, και ιδίαν εκάστω φωνήν έδωκαν, και δια τούτο Βαβυλώνα συνέβη ZLARSTVUe trv zóne. De turri autem hac, deque linguis hominum mutatis meminit etiam Sibylla, ad hunc modum dicens : Cum universi homines uno eloquio uterentur, turrim

[ocr errors]

ædificarunt quidam excelsissimam, quasi ad cælum per eam ascensuri. Dii vero procellis emissis turrim everterunt, et suam cuique linguam dederunt. Quæ causa fuit, ut urbs ea Babylonis nomen acciperet.'

The verses relating to this subject are preserved by Them ophilus ad Autolycum, ii. 31.

'Αλλ' οπόταν μεγάλοιο θεού τελέωνται απειλοι,
*Ας ποτ' επηπείλησε βροτοίς, ότε πύργον έτευξαν
Χώρη εν 'Ασσυρίη. Ομόφωνοι δ' ήσαν άπαντες,
Και βούλοντ’ αναδην' εις ουρανον αστερόεντα"
Αυτίκα δ'αθάνατος μεγάλης επέθηκεν ανάγκης
Πνεύμασιν αυταρ έπειτ' άνεμοι μέγαν υψώθι πύργον
Ρίψαν, και θνητοίσιν επ' αλλήλοις έρις ώρσαν.
Αυταρ έπει πύργος τ' έπεσεν, γλωσσαι τ' ανθρώπων
Είς πολλας θνητων έμερίσθησαν διαλέκτους,
Γαία βροτών πληρούτο μεριζομένων βασιλήων.
Sed quando magni Dei perficiuntur minæ,
Quas aliquando comminatus est mortalibus, quando turrim

In terra Assyria. Erant autem omnes unius linguæ,
Et voluerunt scandere cælum stelligerum.
Statim autem Immortalis magnam imposuit necessitatem
Ventis. Venti autem magnam et altam turrim
Ubi dejecerunt, etiam inter mortales discordiam excitarunt.
Rursus ubi turris cecidit, ac linguæ hominum
Mortalium in multas divisæ sunt dialectos,
Terra mortalibus impleta fuit sub variis regibus.

In the last line perhaps for βασιλήων it should be βασιλειών. The earth was replenished with men, and divided into various kingdoms. Hence it

may be concluded, that a Sibylline oracle concerning the tower of Babel was extant in the days of Josephus, and hence Beveridge makes some inferences in favour of the Sibylline verses cited by the antient fathers, which are by no means conclusive and satisfactory. Cod. Can. Illustr. i. 14.

Was the oracle mentioned by Josephus in prose or in verse? We cannot certainly tell, but it is most probable that it was in verse, and that Josephus gave us the sense and substance of it in prose. Had Josephus those verses before him which are preserved by Theophilus ? Beveridge VOL. I.




says he had, and so thinks Isaac Vossius; and it


be But then the verses seem to have undergone some alteration afterwards, for the Sibyl in Josephus says,

that from the confusion of languages the place was called Babylon ; the Sibyl in Theophilus says it not: the Sibyl in Josephus says that ci :ci, the gods, overthrew the edifice; but in the verses it is 'A Sáuctos, God, which may seem better to agree with peryonero Szcū that went before.

One might conjecture that at first it was thus :
Λυτίκα δ' ΑΘΑΝΑΤΟΙ μεγάλης ΕΠΕΘΗΚΑΝ ανάγκης
Πνεύμασιν, αυταρ έπειτ' άνεμοι μέγαν υψώθι πύργον
Ρίψαν, και θνητοίσιν επ' αλλήλοις έριν αρσαν.

By this change, ’AEdvatou may be the nominative case to poar, instcad of ovepoi, and it seems more reasonable that the gods than the winds should set the men at vari

, It is in a Pagan style, and yet a Jewish forger might write it, and take the bold liberty to say 'A 9c-vato1, meaning God and his angels, or the angels. Angels are sometimes called gods, and in Genesis xi. 7. whence this account is taken, the Lord said, Let us go down, and there confound their language, in which words, according to many of the rabbins, God speaks to his angels. Josephus himself now and then uses expressions bordering upon

Pa. ganism.

Ic is not safe to trust one's memory in things of this kind; but I think that profane authors, though they sometimes say ’ASóvato1, for the gods, and make it a substantive, yet never say ’ASÓvatos, simply, for God, or the supreme God. The Sibylline oracles more than once use this word in this manner, and show by it that they are not the work of a Pagan.

The supposition which some have made, that Justin Martyr was guilty of forging the Sibylline oracles, is groundless and perverse. Justin has written his own character in every page of his works, and shows himself pious, warm, sprightly, fearless, open, hasty, honest, inquisitive, sincere, and as void of dissimulation and hypocrisy as a child. Add to this, that he writes like a man who had no turn for such things, and was not only no poet, but not a verse-maker. But though he was incapable of forgery, he was deluded

« PreviousContinue »