The above is a fairly full Christology to be worked into a Jewish book. We have now to draw attention to conflicting statements on the doctrine of the Incarnation.
In accordance with the account just given, it Is said in Benj. IQi-f- that ' the King of heaven will appear on earth in the fonn of a man ' (i. u^pff ktHpi^ov). On the other hand, the doctrine is probably Docetic in Zeb. 919 'ye will see God in the fashion of a man' (t» rxr/wf, aiilpi/^ey). and undoubtedly so in Asher 1* 'God in the semblance ot man' (fiii.- ilt i>V» itoKp^tofwot). Again, there is a third view represented, the Patnpassian, in Sim. 61I"-, where we read of 'the Lord, the great God of Israel, appearing on earth as man. In Asher 7W- the language betrays the same standpoint: 'The Highest (i 't'^irros) will visit the earth— as man, eating and drinking with men ' ; and m Le>T 4» 'the sufferings of the Hi''hest' The contrast is brought into fuller relief by such a declaration as that in Levi 4ii Till the Lord visit all the nations through the mercy of his Son.' Again there is a want ot uniformity as regards the descent of Christ Thus He is said to be from Judah only, Napht 83, from Judah and Levi, Gad 81-3, Dan 628, (rom Levi and Judah, Sim. 7*, Lev.
218. 19.
Together with the above phenomena, we should observe that the Christian additions are very dili'erently attested by the Gr. MSS CO PR. R has the fewest of these, and in many cases attests single-handed the non-interpolated text against COi' and the two Arm. recensions ; OP attest it in a few ca-ses, and C in at least one (Levi 18"). Of the two Annenian recensions, o agrees mosl with R, and |3 with COP. Finally, each Gr. MS has Christian additions peculiar to itself, and
• Bousset (op. rit PL 173) makes the list slightly shorter.
t In oildition to the above, observe the important passage (Benj 11) regarding St Paul, which mentions his writings and achievements ; also the e.-cpansion of the account of the three heavens into one of the seven heavens In l«vi L t ; but this expansion may be due to a Jewish hand.
TESTS. OF Xn PATRIARCHS
TESTS. OF XII PATRIARCHS 723
gimilarly tlie Armenian Version (cf. Sim. ?"■) and apparently each of its recensions.
From tlie above facts, tlierefore, we conclude tliat tlie Christian additions are due to several hands, and were made at dill'erent periods, probablj' from the middle of the 2nd cent, onwards.
3. Integrity of original Jewish Testaments. — We have seen how thoroughly critical research has confirmed Schnapp's theory tliat the Christian references in the te.xt are tlie result of interpola- tion. We have now to consider his second hypo- thesis, that the apocalyptic sections do not belong to the original work, which confined itself to bio- graphical details and practical exhortations founded on these. Thus two dill'erent sources are postulated. But Schnapp has not succeeded in establishing this hypothesis as he did the former. He has tried to show, indeed, that in the Testament of Joseph we have two partially conflicting accounts of Joseph's history, derived from ditlerent authors — i.e. I-IO" and 10''-18. But, even if we agreed with him that these sections sprang from two distinct sources, this concession would not support his hypothe.sis. On the other hand, his analysis of this Testament may be quite wrong. \\ e may have here merely a transposition of the text such as is found in the Ethiopic Enoch, chs. 91-94. Nearly every difficulty disappears if we read it in the following order— 1. 10-IC. 2-9. 17-20. In the Testament of Levi the section ch. 2, us Si iwoiiiaho- luv . . . 6, ^i" Tj Kap5i(f IJ.OV, certainly conflicts with its present context. This vision does not refer to the events before and after, except in 5°"*, but has a general fitness, in tliat its object is the glorifica- tion of Levi. The writer of the Testament may have embodied this section from already existing materials, or it may have been added subsequently by an interpolator. But, neglecting further con- sideration or Sclinapp's hypothesis of two Jewish sources, we may observe that the evidence points rather to a groundwork, written, as we sliall presently see, in the 2nd cent. is.C, in praise of the earlier Maccabteans, and enlarged with certain interpolations of a conflicting cliaracter in the Ist cent. B.C. Tliese interpolated sections, which constitute an attack on the later Maccaba>ans, are Levi 10. 14-16, Judali 21-2,3, Dan 5 (certain para- graphs), Zebulun 9, Sim. 7''.* With these sections we shall deal presently when establishing the dates of their origin and that of the groundwork.
iii. Date. — The earliest reference to our book by name is not earlier than Origen {Hum. in Josunm, I.'j'ted. Lonimatzscli, xi. 14:5]: ' In aliquo
3uodam libello qui appellatur testamentum duo- ecim patriarcharum, quanivis non habeatur in canone, talem tamen quendara sensum invenimus quod per singulos peccantes singuli satante in- telligi debeant '). An earlier reference may exist in fragment 17, Irenaius (ed. Stirren, i. 836, 837). External evidence, therefore, is of slight service for our present purjiose. The intemai evidence, however, is happflj' clear and decisive.
The (froundwork of the Teetamenta constituted an apology on behalf of the Moccabioan high priests. Thus in Rcub. O'"'** the words aTe(/a»i*Taj it wtXifjutt iptcTv7t xai ett^xvatl can only be Interpreted of a hi(;h priest who is also a warrior, t Such a description would suit John Uyrcaiius. Earlier in the same chapter this double function is referred to more dearly, iiat.