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—