* Vergil, of course, had already begun to set the Cumsan Sibyl in motion. She is more to him than a seer who is con- sulted. She conducts ^neaa to the world of the dead, just as she does in Ovid.
t Ad Sationen, ii. 12: ' Ante enim Sibylla quam omnis littera- tura exstitit. Ilia scilicet Sibylla, ueri uera uates, et cuius uocabula dsemoniorum uatibus induistis. Ea senario uersu in hunc sensum de Saturni prosapia et rebus eius exponit.' The description recurs in the pa.ssage inserted by Codex Fnldensis in Apot, 19, but the authenticity of the addition is doubtful (cf. R. Heinze's Tertullians AptAogeticuvi, Leipzig, 1910, p. 3SBf.).
J Origen's answer to Celsus is weak, and he never uses the Sibyl in his proofs of revelation. But he does not pronouncre against the Siliytlina. Lactantius {Div. Innt. iv. 15. 26) takes much the same line of defence as Curistanline.
§ In bk. i. 2S3i. the Sibyl distinctly says she belonged to the sixth generation after Adam I VOL. II. — 31
He then appeals to the evidence of Cicero in tlie i/i: DiiHii. ii. .")4 — a shignlarly maladroit appeal, for Cicero did not translate this acrostic* into Latin, and in fact used the acrostic form of the Sibylline verses to disprove the as.sertion (hat the Sibyl spoke in ecstatic frenzy ; acrostics, as he observed, are not the product of a frenzied intellect,
pouring out impr ptu iiisiiiration. Eusebius, or
whoever wrote this speech for the Fmperor, felt, however, that the Sioyllina allbrded too telling a proof of Christianitv to be surrendered. The un- critical spirit jirevailed over the doubts of more intelligent Christians and the ridicule jionred by jiiigans on this manufiictureil jmiduct. i'he Sibyl- linn were read, and they continued to be written.
From what has been said, it will be galliered that no Sibylline oracles of Christian origin are contemiiorary with the Ajiostolic Age. We do not possess any delinite evidence as to the period when such compositions began to appear in Chris- tian circles, ajiart from the insertion of lines here and there in extant .lewish oracles, whicdi preceded independent Sibylline composition. 15ut it can hardly have been much, if at all, earlier than the end of the 2nd cent, that the Church's interest in the Sibyl bec.'ime creative. All the sections which are speeilically Christian, in the [iresent collection, are quite post-apostolic ; some may be earlier than the 3rd cent., but none has a sure claim to be reckoned as belonging to the '2nil century. The result is that we are left with the parado.x that those SibjUine oracles which, strictly speaking, are relevant to this Dictionary are all of .Jewish <irigin, i.e. the familiar oracles emhedded in books iii.-v. especially, illustrating the apocalyptic and eschato- logical traditions t which operated in .some circles of contem|iorary piety. These Jewish oracles the jiresent writer does not propose to discuss. They are accessible, and for tlie most jiart intelligible, tli.anks to the research which for over a century has been devoted to this branch of (mr subject.^ It is tlie rest of the Sibyllines which are uiifainiliar to the ordinarj' student, even of Church history ; they are not easily accessible, and they are by no means clear, but they represent so curious and baffling a phase of early Christian literature and popular feeling, on its romantic side, that it will be of some service even to call attention to the problems which they still contain, and to the phenomena of their origin. In surveying these Sibijllinn we enter a by-way of early Christian literature, but it is a by-way which, like that of the uncanonical gospels, though never to the same extent, was once thronged and iiopular.
In Gettcken's standard edition of the text (see Literature), apart from a prose jirologue and some brief, scattered fragments, the extant collection contains fourteen books. Nothing from the ninth and tenth has been preserved, but the oilier twelve amount to 4146 lines (400, 347, 8-J9, 19'.', 531, '28, 162, 500, 3'24, '21)0, 173, .361), and there are some (d)vious lacunae in the te.xt. The present form of the collection probably goes back in the main to the anonymous Byzantine Greek who wrote the
* The Sibylline oracle he mentions advised the Uoinans ' eum quem re vera regem habeliamus, appellandum quotjue esse rcgem, si salui esse vellemus.' The I'arlliians could be concjuered only by a 'king.' Therefore, as this adroit partisan of Caisar put it in his oracle, let that title be given to Ciesar.
t E.(l. the belief in Sero rfitivinta or at any rate rtdnx. which eclioes through bks. iv., v., and viii., and which sounds behind the ApocaI.\ pse of John.
J Besides the translations mentioned in the Literature (below), the English reader will find critical discussions in S. Krauss's article (J/;.' xi. :il9~32;i), \V. J. \)e&ni''ti Pseudfpirjrapha, London, isyi, pp. 276-:i44, Bousset's article in the Eng. tr. of Her/og (vol. X. pp. 396-100), J. II. Lupton's art. in Smith's DCB iv. 644-649, apa(ierbyS. A. Hirsch in the./e/i ii. [1890| 400-4'29, and —for the religious ideas— James Druinniond'a Philo Jud4Xu.i, 2 vols,, London, 1888, 1. 107 9., and U. H. Charles, in EBi i. 245- 2fiO.
482
SIBYLLINE OKACLES
SIBYLLINE ORACLES
prologue some time in the course of the 6th century. Tliis prolofjjue is a rou;:h piece of work. It rejieats some current legemis iihout theSihji anti Sibylline oracles, but it.s structure is loose. This nuiy be due to later interpolations, or the text ma}' have sull'ered at the hands of scribes. Even so, however, it sliows more goodwill than critical ability in the writer. He is a siini)le. credulous Christian, who undertakes the literary task of collecting and arranging the Sib>/lliua V>ecause he desires to aid Christian piety. 'iMie contents of the prologue are as follows :